superchunk said:
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. 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. :/ |
I am finding it hard to believe that a med to high $800 PC from 2008 can't play BF3 at all. Obviously it will be on low, but it should run it.
Second, I did say that there are some games, but I also said I can count them on my fingers. Right off the bat, I can just think of BF3 and SC2. I'm sure there's more somewhere. But if you want to cherry pick, let's look at the new Deus Ex. Let's not go into what things you "could have missed" because if I start on the sheer number of things you CAN do on a PC (unlike a playstation, it really DOES do everything, even power a fridge if you want it to). Even if you jsut look at gaming, the PC just has far more options, thus features.
I also never resell any game, and rarely buy any game at full price myself, and I still have ended up saving enough money to buy a full console. As a simple example, I think I have 214 games on Steam right now. I started getting things for it in late 2007. I have not spent more than $1000 on that account. I think it averages out to a little bit under $5 a game (this does include big purchases as well). Yes, some of them are not supposed to be full priced, but I wonder if I can pull that off with just LIVE/PSN.
Finally, I do have to point out that making a PC in this day and age is like playing with legos and is NOTHING compared to what it used to be a decade and a half ago in '95.
Edit: Holy fuck, a decade ago was 2001 and not '95?
Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."
HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374
Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420
gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835
