1. Please, refrain from puttin words in my mouth or completely twisting the facts. THAT WAS NEVER THE ENTIRE POINT. Or even a part of it. And if you actually read the OP well you would have understood this. And if everything you are saying is based on that, then you really have wasted your time typing all the stuff you did.
   
   The point was never to say "console gaming" is cheaper than "PC gaming". It was to say that there are different types of PC hardware. And there are types of PC hardware thatis similarly specced to what you have in consoles. And that if comparisons of a game running on both PC and consoles are made, then the PC version in question should be running on hardware that is at least similarly specced to the console. That way they are n the same category. The point is that it makes no sense when people compare games running on PC hardware to consoles if the hardware in question is vastly different. That was the whole point of thsis thread.
   
   I have not changed the OP in anyway, please show or tell me one single way that what I said in the OP made this ALL about console gaming being cheaper than PC gaming. Please.
   
   
2. Thank you. Thank you very much for this point. That is all I am saying. I am not saying that you don't have choice as a PC gamer or what not. Just that there is PC hardwrae out there that is similarly specced to the PS4/XB1. So if a PC gamer wants to post a pic of how much better that game is running on PC, then that PC gamer should use the hardwrae you just cited. Which at best will run the game at 1080p. And not post up pics of the game running at 4k on hardware that is 4 times more expensive than the hardware in a PS4. 
   
   And this is what I don't get. If some of the posters here, yourself included, just relaxed a bit and didnt take this thread to be some sort of attack on them or however you take it, you would find that if you guys gave it any thought and tried to see what exactly I was saying.. you would arrive or come at the exact same conclusions that I and others in this thread has come to.
   
   Again, for the 1000th time, this thread is about creating a level playing feild for games to be compared. A $1000+ gaming rig is simply not remotely in the same weight class as a $400 console. And that flexibility you mentioned, the PC guys should put that to use. They should stop ignoring the hardware that is out there that is similarly specced to a PS4/XB1 like they don't exist. If you listen to PC gamers, you would think that there is only super high end hardware on the market... until they actually tell you what they are running in thei rigs.
   
   
3. Nope. I completely disagree. Read the OP again. And this time don't read it like someone is attacking PCs and read it like someone is making a suggestion as to how games between PCs and consoles should be compared. Isn't it funny that only certain PC diehards "didn't get it"?

I don't need too. Anyone can read between the lines and see what you were insinuating, doesn't take a brain surgeon!
As for "costs specifically" all through the Op you were throwing around the console costs, so of course people are going to take those numbers and run with it.

And this is the point that you don't seem to be capable of understanding.
There will *never* be a fair breakdown on hardware vs capability without an actually, you know... A proper cost analysis breakdown of the platforms in question.
It's not difficult to ascertain why either.

Over the long term a PC can not only be faster, more capable than a Playstation 4, but can be cheaper aswell, if you look at the entirety of the picture.

Another example is when you buy a car, you look and think about the size of tires, how many cylinders, fuel economy, registration etc'. - Because that can make a cheaper car more expensive than a more expensive car over a long term.
In-fact that's one of the big arguments about Electric Vehicles and the same applies here.

Again, you're missing the point.
A Radeon 7850 can run games at 4k, the Playstation 4 cannot, sure the game will have to be old, but it can still be done and look better than the console release at the time.

You're under the assumption I am not relaxed? It's actually stupidly difficult to understand someone's tone of voice, mood, how they feel just via pure text, if you are interpreting my mood as "unrelaxed" then... Not my problem.
However, do stay focused and look at the issues at hand rather than my mental well being. (Which to be honest, is none of your business anyway.)

I prefer consoles because I don't wanna deal with building my own PC

Consoles are cheap and you get more out of them for their price, like if you make a $400 PC its not gonna be anyway near as powerful as the PS4

I like owning physical copies of my games.

The PC exclusives that I want to play I can on my crapp laptop (Lol and Hearthstone), I don't need to make a PC and the other exclusives that catch my eye end up on console anyway (Diablo 3, Minecraft) so there's really no PC exclusive games that make me want to make my own PC, where as all three console makers are coming out with exclusives that I want.

For me it's all about the games.

I started out as a console owner (Famicom). When I was introduced to PC gaming (Doom, Age of Empires) I didn't "switch over". Instead I played PC AND console games, whichever game I fancy at any given time. I had a PC, Famicom, PSX, and PS2. When money was an issue I skipped PS3 and chose to upgrade my PC for reasons outside gaming.

Now I have a 360 and PS3 though so I can finally play the exclusives.

You're being awfully condescending for the person who is having everything said flying right over your head.  

The point of what Intrinsic is saying is that when you make comparisons, it only makes sense to make them if you put them in similar contexts.  Why compare what an expensive PC set up can do to a console that obviously uses cheaper hardware?  No one is even contesting that PCs can do better.  It serves no purpose and makes no point.  

However, it makes more sense if you were to compare similar parts (or similar costing) from a PC to those of the relevant console counterpart and showing the PC running it at higher res, FPS, or whatever else.  That's the point.  it's about criterea, not about the actual comparing and contrasting itself.

Also, almost forgot to bring it up, but the reason why Intrinsic is only bringing up the entry cost has to do with how these comparisons look like to the eyes of the regular consumer.  How we make our decisions on what to buy are completely different than them, because they do not go through the same process we do.  Even some of us here don't completely do it (like going through the effort of actually building a PC, which is pretty much necessary to make a gaming PC on par or better than a console for a similar or cheaper price).  

Do you think every single consumer builds their own PC, or thinks about how much money they could save on buying games in the long run when they pick their platform?  Not really, usually they look at the entry barrier cost and then get what they can with the remaining money they can get.

Before you start throwing accusations about myself being "condescending"... (That's not what I am trying to achieve.)

Then why do people need to compare a PS4 and PS3? It's the exact same context we are talking about here.
The PS4 often costs twice as much too.
But if we were to grab that same train-of-thought that people use with the PS4 and PC and place that within the context of the PS4 and PS3, then the PS4 is automagically inferior to the PS3 due to it's higher initial costs.

That's the whole point, apparantly the goal posts need to shift when a platform that comparatively is more powerfull is brought into the same picture.
Lets not forget that the PC and Consoles  have completely different cost structures to begin with.

Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo subsidise the hardware.
PC Gamers pay full price for the hardware.

Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo then recoup such costs by placing a "Tax" on the software.
PC Gamers have no tax on the software.

Hence, there needs to be a cost analysis to create a fair comparison point, otherwise the entire cost argument is genuinely, invalid from any intelligent discussion and even to argue such a point reeks of bias in order to reaffirm ones own purchasing decision.

And that, is a legitimate reason for being a console gamer, rather than using the price argument, which often falls flat on it's face.
However, one thing to keep in mind is that the PC is going to have all console exclusives eventually, regardless if sony, you, me, the Queen of England, likes it or not.

The other legitimate reason is controls, sure you can use a console controller on a PC, but if you try and be competitive in a PC Multiplayer game and you use a console controller, you're going to have a bad day... A really bad day.

The language you use gives off the "condescending" tone (such as the brain surgeon part or saying someone isn't capable of understanding something).

And when people compare the PS3 and PS4, I imagine most of it is examining the jump made from the generation rather than actually trying to compare them (which would be ridiculous).  It's not at all the same context we're talking here, because comparing a console and PC, the only point for doing that is saying "look how much better my PC is than your console." 

Though before I would go further on this, I would need clarification on what you mean by "tax" on the software.  Do you mean that the big 3 make their money by selling their software?  Or that they increase hardware price due to their software (OS) being on the hardware?  

Eitherway, you don't need to make a comparison to consoles if you want to analyze a piece of PC hardware that clearly trumps a console one.  That's why you need to compare similar products to each other if you want it to be meaningful.  

Righto' and Playstation and Xbox Gamers have never done the same to Nintendo gamers or Playstation to Xbox gamers when graphics debates rage on, good to know that things are fair and dandy here. (This is sarcasm.)

Publishers/Developers are required to pay a fee to the platform holder in order to have their games released on those particular platforms, Microsoft at one point stated that it can be as much as 60% of the sale, which is determined at it's own discression. (I.E. When it becomes a "featured game".) - I'm not entirely sure if that amount has changed in the last few years, haven't checked and would be more than happy to be proven wrong on the percentage front.
Such costs are then passed onto the consumer via higher game and DLC prices.

Also, a large percentage of console sales are still physical, retailers also take their cut.

On the PC, that particular "Tax"can be removed entirely, heck, not only do I get cheaper games by default in the range of $10-$20 per title, but an additional 30% off per game at green man gaming, even more during a steam/origin/uplay/desura/gog.com and many more's sales.

Converesly, the console manufacturers do this to not only subsidise their hardware, but to bring in some hefty profits.

On the flip side, I recall Valve having a 30% take per sale, but unlike consoles you can shop elsewhere, most developers/publishers allow purchases directly from them.

Again, the cost burden of consoles is shifted from the hardware to the software in order for the platforms to be a viable business and look attractive to consumers, the PC is completely in reverse.

I agree to a point, but again, do read above on why it's not an accurate represenation of the entire picture, thus a cost analysis (With similar hardware, if that is what truly floats your boat, but I would like to see what kind of PC hardware+games you can get at various price points and have those data points compared to consoles.) is truly required for a complete understanding of the cost-issue in a fair and competent manner, otherwise it's like peeing into the wind, hardly ideal.

Yes, agree with u, but we cannot stop people from arguing something stupid and also start arguing more even stupid thing, like i said arguing sky is blue is stupid and WE DONT HAVE TO ADD FUEL BY ARGUING OCEAN IS MORE BLUE THEN SKY IN "SKY IS BLUE TOPIC "

Your first sentence doesn't even make sense. The grammar in it is dire.

Ironic you say I won't listen, yet most PC gamers here including myself are accusing you of exactly that - not listening. You belittle people and won't look at anyones argument besides yourself, even when it is spelt out to you. And yes, you don't know anything about this topic, hence why you have no idea about benchmarks etc and post very confusing and mixed posts.

I think what demostrates this best is when I made my clear reply to you and you just ignored the points and went into denial, begging the timeless question of; what would it take for you to change your mind? Obviously simply logic and maths won't suffice.