By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
superchunk on 29 August 2011
Edit Thread
vlad321 said:
superchunk said:
vlad321 said:


People spent $600 for a console 5 years ago (for that money you can make a PC that shits over both consoles)..... Furthermore $10 is not "insignificant" considereing that for every 5 games you can buy a new free one as compared to the consoles. Considering since over the last 5 years I have bought around.... 30? games, I have saved myself around $300 than if I was shelling out $60 for them. There is no way you can argue it's more expensive (I do hope you decide to add in a monitor to the cost, because I'd love to slap those expensive TVs to the cost of a console and comfortably say that consoles are expensive as compared to PCs).

Currently consoles are 1/2 of a base computer. So price is always at best equal.... when a console first launches... then PCs are always more expensive. Are they more powerful, sure but they have different primary purposes too.

$10 reflective initial price is not always. Not all games are cheaper on PC out the gate. Some are equal. Then there's the used market which is very hard to do with PCs as their stuff has far more content protection than console games. Additionally, I have yet to pay more than $40 for any game and I always resale them as their resalability is always retained as there is no one use code for consoles.

As for the TV argument... well that's just stupid. Many PC gamers use the same TVs as monitors.

As for lifespans... you're crazy if you're going to tell me you've not upgraded your GPU in 3 years time. See that's the biggest difference. PC gaming almost requires to to spend a couple hundred every few years and then during a normal new gen cycle a whole new machine for at least a couple hundred over the cost of a new console.

Whatever you may save on full game cost (if you only buy new on launch), you easily eat up and then some on hardware costs.

Only real benefit is that its an actual computer and has a ton more capabilities and any home will usually own one anyways. But look at purely gaming use... consoles are simply cheaper and easier for the mass consumer.


Very true indeed. But nonetheless, about 2 years after a new console generation comes out, you can get more bang for you buck from a PC.

Also the $10 is very much true. I can count the number of games that cost $60 on my fingers.As I already said, I have saved myself $300 or more just by buying PC games and not console ones. I can literally buy myself a new console with the money I have saved on games. Then we can get into new controllers and stuff and the picture gets grimmer for consoles. However if you want to go into deals, then I play my Steam Sales card and tell you right off the bat I get around 20 games for $50 (most of them good too), and automatically win. Ultimately, you save more than you waste on a PC if you make a cheaper one.

As for upgrades, I have not upgraded my GPU in over 3 years (well, I got a new one last summer but before that I had a 4 year old GPU), so there, I disproved your entire point. You really just need 1 machine per console cycle, build one about 2-3 years after it starts and then you can point and laugh at people still using the underpowered hardware of consoles. Also, if you are trying to insinuiate hardware failure rate in there as well, I suggest you look at the laughable hardware failures of this gen, and how much worse they are than just regular PCs.

So let's put some real numbers here.

Every 6 or so years I build a new PC for about $800 (in 2008, not including monitor/tv). That PC is usually med-high end for a mainstream computer.

Every 6 or so years I buy a new console. That's always $400 for a console, game, and 2nd controller. (Wii (2007) and PS3(2010) each were way under $400 when I bought them)

3 years into my 2008 build PC, I am forced to upgrade the GPU to play the latest game(s), BF3, OR I can play it on my PS3 for just the game's cost.

http://www.amazon.com/Battlefield-3-Limited-Xbox-360/dp/B003O6G5TW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1314666492&sr=8-1

Also, if you notice its the same price on any platform... $59... and I've seen many others where the cost is the same as PS360.

I've only bought one game for more than $40... Zelda Twilight Princess. Everything else was on sale or from Ebay. More than half of all my games I've resold on Ebay for at least 60% of what I originally paid for it (net differences).

Had I done the same on PC I would have spent $1000 on hardware alone vs about $800 and probably more on games as many of them could not of been resold. Additionally, I would have missed all of the Nintendo IPs and no local multiplayer options. However, I would of had arguably better graphics and in some games better online multiplayer options. Plus, a few games like Civ5 that are not on consoles.

Now, staggering my PC purchase like you suggest still would of had me spending at least equal to the TWO consoles in hardware costs and the same comparable difference in games.

What's being neglected is the fact that we CAN build our own computers and feel comfortable doing so. The mass consumer is not us. My wife took multiple explanations on how to just start a damn movie on the PS3 let alone figuring out how to maximise her value by building a PC and then installing the best software for similar features.

All in all... I think that if you run the numbers for the most common case... console ownership will always be cheaper and simplier than PCs if strictly looking at gaming. Of course once you add in all the other functionality of a PC, then you are really making up the additional cost. Plus, simple note to the above is regardless of the agreement or disagreement to my argument... I still bought all that (consoles and PC) anyways. :/