Currently Online 
that calculation is wrong?
let's say you want to play games on ultra or high settings with a new pc and want to buy a new one if new games only run between low and mid settings, you could easily do that with a pc for 1k every 4 years or something. it obviously depends which res you want to play but since we talk about pc vs. console we shouldn't talk about 1600p or something.
my pc did cost around 1k 2 years ago and i play battlefield 3 on ultra and the witcher 2 with everything on highest settings except ubersampling and also metro on high settings. if i am ok to get down to only mid setting with my pc (which will be still better as the same games on console) it will be enough for the next 1-2 years (ok with next gen console and maybe a big jump also for pc this will last maybe less as it would if i would have bought a pc one year earlier)
so even if it would work out bad i would pay maybe 3k in 9 years but probably less.
and since i would buy a pc even without gaming i can take those costs i would have away from the full costs for my pcs.
so my calculation would say i pay maybe 1.5k more as i would do without gaming for my pcs in 10 years.
since we get a new console every 7 years or something i only have to calculate my gaming pc costs as 7/10 which makes it 1050 bucks
now there is a lot of other stuff to consider, how many gamepads do i need over the years, do i have to pay for xbox live, costs of the games and whatever else but i'm sure for me, pc and console gaming (only speaking about one console per gen) is almost the same for me financially.
that was only fast out of my ass but i'm sure it wouldn't be more expensive for me. if i wouldn't buy a pc without gaming it would maybe look different but i do.
and sure, if you always want to have the highest possible settings in let's say 1080p running with 60fps it would be different but that wouldn't be fair to use as comparison because that would be much much better as console graphics then and not only better.
