astrosmash said:
Something I find sumpremely annoying whenever this debate comes up is that pcs gamers want to compare the absolute bare bones amount you could pay for a pc that runs new games to the most you could pay for a console. If you want to compare real numbers, you need to compare apples to apples. Every hardcore pc gamer I know plunks down an average of $1000 a year or more. Every hardcore console gamer plunks down about $500 every five years (once you factor in extra controllers and such). While the hardest of the hard on consoles might spend three times that (multiple consoles), the sky really is the limit on pc gaming (and I've known a pc gamer who was spending $500 a month on hardware). On the other end of things, the cheap end. Yes, you can start playing pc games for as little as $500, but that machine isn't going to last you long; probably in two years nothing new will run on your machine. On the other hand if you buy you consoles mid-way through generations you could easily be spending $200 or less every five years. If you want to go to the real extreme - new hardware that won't necessarily run new games (but might run old ones), the consoles win yet again. You can get PS2s for $99, good luck finding a new pc for that. |
$1,000 a year? You don't need to spend that much every year to enjoy PC gaming, unless you're going to want to run it at the best settings possible at the largeest resolutions.
Why spend money on another computer to play older games? I've gone back and played Oregon Trail on my current computer. However, I'm not going to refute OS incompatibilities in this factor.
