Lol XD, VAIO 850 $ is not enough to play games is over price, i preffer Asus over Vaio any day.

AC4 look very good on PS4 and on XBO, but especially in this game I wouldn't want to abstain from the Nvidia enhancements anymore, especially TXAA.

And it looks gorgeous in stereoscopic 3D (like all other Assassin's Creed, Tomb Raider and Batman Arkham games), unfortunately most PS4 games don't have a stereoscopic option anymore.

1. Hope you aren't one of those types that will just find something to argue about even when there is none. but I don't know what to say about this. If what you are saying is true, then how come is it that this is the first time that consoles are using hardware that is practically identical to a CPU. Should we assume that things like the Cell processor didn't need the PC? All tech feeds off eachother. 
   
   
2. These are the exactkinda semantics that PC gamers bring into every argument. The cost of games is irrelevant. In the very same way some can choose to go and watch a movie at the theatre and some can choose to pirate it for free. The cost of services are also irrelevant. And the reason for all this is cause you are assuming that majority of the people out there would even bother taking these things into consideration. I parent doesn't buy a PS4 for their kid thinking about how it could be cheaper buying games on the PC. Those things are just not anywhere near as important as you make them out to be. This is about the cost of entry. How much does it cost to buy the hardware that you plug into your TV. When a PC gamer is comparing a screenshot of a game running on PC to one running on consoles, the price of the game is irrelevant at that point. 
   
   So in all fairness, if you are going to comapre how much it cost to buy a console to a PC, you should simply only be talking about the cost of the hardware itself. If you have to start talking about things that only someone that the avergae joe couldn't care less about, then you have already started going off point. And this is the inherent problem with PC gamers. They seem to think everyone thinks like them or is them. I can get a white fruit of the loom t shirt for as little as $2. That doesn't mean I still won't buy a similar one that may even be less quality for $10 from ralph lauren.
   
   All this stuff about paywalls and Pc games being cheaper over this or that amount of time is simply irrelevant. If gamers can't afford to buy 10 console games/year but have a console then they would buy 3. If they can't afford to pay for online play then they wouldn't. its that simple. In the very same way that if they can't afford to spend $1000 on a PC then they wouldn't. Its all about choices and options. And cause you or some does one thing doesn't mean thats what everyone else should do.
   
   
3. And you have actually just helped prove the point I am trying to make. You get what you pay for. Thats what this is all about. No "breakdown" of costs are neceasry. Cause someone that goes to buy a console isn't think about how much the cpu, gpu, ram..etc costs. They are thinking "ok, so I want to play COD. Gonna get me a Ps4/XB1". End of story.
   
   Of course someone that buys a $1000 GPU won't be running games at console levels. Thats the whole point I am making.  It doesn't stop such people from still comparing what they have to $400 consoles that probably have a $150 GPU does it?
   
   What is required to make an unbiased fair comparison isn't complicated at all. But a lot of PC gamers have this way of complicating everything. I think its in their nature. Its really simple. To make a fair comaprison. Take a $350/$400 console. With everything thats in it. Then take a $350/$400 PC. With at least similar components. An OS, HDD, input interface (controller, be it KB&M or controller), blu-ray drive..etc. Basically everything that you would get in that $350-$400 console box. Then you can compare the games running on those platforms together. Its really that simple. And I don't understand why it has to be any more complicated than that. Next year, when consoles cost $250-$300, if you are going to compare a MP game to the console, then again, you take a PC that costs $250-$300. Its really really simple logic if you ask me.
   
   
4. You are exagerating. Even if you do not have an internet connection on a console, and you buy a game. You can still just put it into your console and play it. Have you thought about something, do you know its not even possible to get games for a PC anymore without an internet connection of some sort?
   
   Consoles may be becoming more complex, but these complexities are ALL handled for you by the console.I put a game in and it installs it in the background. I don't have to do anything. An update for the game is realeased and I don't have to do anything. All thee tings are handled in the background for me. 
   
   In all honesty you seem to be reaching. The consoles GUIs are limited? I don't know about you but the PS4 GUI does exactly what I need it to do and in record time. Try it. Put off your PC. Then start it ack up when I start up my console, then load up a brand new game for the first time. Lets see who starts playing that game first. Eve if you have got a $10000 PC, Time to game is always faster on consoles. Its kinda just the nature of things.
   
   
5. The only thing I will ay about this point of yours... is that the PS4/XB1 costs the exact same amount of money. Those kinda comparisons are ineveitable. I don't see PS4/XB1 gamers comparing gams and performance to the wiiU. Cause well, we know teher is no point. I am not saying PC gamers should not try and compare stuff. But if you can honestly sit there and say there is no difference comparing two $400 consoles together to a $400 console and a $2000 gaming rig... then you definately are part of the problem.
   
   

PC will always be my main platform of choice for gaming.
I need a high end PC for work/studies anyway so the extra investment that PCs require over a console doesn't really exist for me.

I can totally understand the ease of buying a PS4/Xbone and playing it right out of the box but I far prefer the flexibility to customise to my needs and have far more functionality. Its worth the price.

Yes the game was breathtaking on pc, I only played the game on the PS4 because I wait for at least two updates for any ubi game before I buy it.And I agree TXAA is my second favorite form of AA after SGSSAA.

This is the a true statement.

But price is not a consideration for everyone. And if you are talking about cost then you must also consider cost for software as well.

PC gaming has the benefit of cheaper software (£30 games vs £55 games on consoles) and massive sales on Steam and other platforms.

Also, buying a game on Steam doesnt limit it to that one "generation". The game you purchased on steam 6 years ago will still be playable 6 years from now, barring a few compatibility issues that come with Windows but this has gotten better in recent times.

All in all, i think PC is a far wiser choice in the long term.

I initially sunk £600 in to my PC 6 years ago and since then have only upgraded the RAM, GPU and HDD, which cost me around £350 altogether. I can overclock my CPU to enable me to keep up at a reasonable rate. In total i have spent around £950 on hardware for my PC.

Lets compare this to say Xbox 360 and XboxOne prices in UK - 360 launched at £280 i think, and XboxOne at £430. which comes out at £710 ish.

So although just looking at that it would seem console is the smarter choice financially, with an initial saving of £200-250 you then have to factor in the cost of games.

What im trying to say is that its far more than just a price war for initial hardware. You have to look at the entire ecosystem for each system to fully be able to compare.

You keep missing the point. The world doesn't end when someone says PCs are faster than consoles.

sigh...

I will put it this way. And hopefully you understand. The PS4/XB1 costs teh exact same amount of money and for the most part run the exact same games. Its inevitable having comparisons between them. If you bring a PC that costs $1000 and say it runs better than the PS4? That is just stupid. Of course it should run better than the PS4. It costs more.But wats even funny, is that I could then bring a PC that costs $5000 that will run circles around your $1000 PC.

All I am saying, is that unless a PC costs the exact same price as the console it is being compared to... then such a comparison is stupid and unnecesary. You won't see PC gamers comparing a Titan Z to a 680. They aren't even in the smae price bracket. The cost of the hardware always sets the stage for how comaprisons should be made. 

I will rest my case here, take all my responses to you however you feel you should. I do not want to be pulled into the kinda debate that I know this will most likely turn into. 

The biggest flaw in the OP's argument is that he doesn't consider the cost of owning the entire platform, including the cost of games and cost of the monitor/TV. In other words, the cost of gaming is NOT just the cost of console/PC rig hardware unless you pirate games and TVs/monitors are given to you by your parents. Once taking into account a gamer who purchases 10-20 games a year over the course of the console's life, the money left over is MORE than enough to upgrade your PC 2-3x over the useful life of the console.

Secondly, it is not required to upgrade your PC that often as it was in the past. For example, a Core i5 2500K/2600K is still a very fast gaming CPU 4 years since it launched. What this tell us is that you only needed to upgrade your graphics card in the last 4 years but the CPU is still plenty fast. There is no need to get more than 8GB of memory for games either, while a solid monitor and PSU will last 7-10 years. PC gamers upgrade their monitor to higher resolution not because they have to but because they want to experience higher graphical details/fidelity.

Thirdly, touching on point #2, I have not lived with my parents since 18. When I moved out to university, I didn't own a TV but I needed a computer for school. I much preferred taking notes in university by hand since science has proven that when you take notes down by hand-writing them, you retain much more information in your lectures. Thus, contrary to the decision made by most students going to college today, I not only saved money by getting a desktop for university work, but I maximized my learning through note taking and listening in class instead of typing on a laptop and missing 95% of the information during the lecture. This point is important because a carefully built desktop PC can be turned into a gaming PC with just a graphics card upgrade. In essence, I now only upgrade my CPU platform with motherboard/memory every 5 years and GPUs more frequently. This lets me minimize my upgrade costs. I resell my old hardware and buy NEW hardware. Even with that, the cost of ownership of new computer parts is rather low because of how well Intel i5/i7 CPUs keep their value. Therefore, for me to game on a console, I'd have to go out and spend $1000-2000 on a good 50-70 inch LCD/Plasma. This adds a tremendous amount of cost to console gaming. I guess if you are < 18 and still live with your parents and you love watching TV, then you already have a TV so you do not consider a TV into the cost of gaming.

Fourthly, the cost of games vs. the PC is staggering. Console games in Canada are now $70, which after tax is nearly $80 CDN. Even if you wait for the game to go on sale, it will NEVER even come close to (1) how quickly games drop in value on the PC and (2) how much of a discount you get on the PC over time. You simply cannot buy new AAA games on PS4/XB1 for $5-15 12-15 months after launch but on the PC this is common. Tomb Raider, Borderlands 2, Darksiders 2, Metro 2033, Batman Arkham games, Witcher 2, BF4, Mirror's Edge, etc. all have already been $5 on the PC.

Furthermore, the argument that console's have a major advantage in terms of exclusives doesn't take into account that PCs also have amazing exclusives specifically in the strategy and MMO genres, as well as the ability to mod games such as Skyrim or STALKER Complete Mod. It's not fair to give bonus points for consoles for their exclusives but ignore customization of games and exclusives on the PC.

The advantage of ease of use and plug and play also is exaggerated. Nothing stops a person from buying a DS4 or XB360/XB1 controller and using Steam Picture on their large TV in the living room. One can also build a small form factor PC with cases not much larger than XB1.

http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/804/images/Image_03S.jpg

I am strongly of the view that for someone who truly enjoys gaming, you should own a PC and a console(s). Simply owning one or the other precludes you from enjoying the best controls/fast movement that PC offers in FPS games, while missing out on consoles prevents you from enjoying some games with your friends as well as console exclusives.

However, strictly from a cost of ownership perspective, ignoring the MASSIVE price disparity of games on the PC is what makes the argument that one should compare a $350-400 console vs. a $350-400 PC worthless. This only works if a person never took finance/accounting and doesn't understand the concept of total ownership cost. If you are comparing the cost of some hobby, you have to take into account the entire cost of gaming. This is where a $1000 PC + $500-1000 in upgrades over 8 years actually doesn't end up costing much more (if at all) vs. a $400 console and $60-70 games. It also doesn't take into account that some PC users wait 1-2 years to pick up a new game much cheaper which also means GPU power has caught up/prices have dropped which allows very cheap upgrades. For instance, in February 2013, NV sold the Titan GPU for $1000. Today you can purchase that level of performance in a $230-250 Radeon R9 290. No one forces anyone to buy cutting edge graphics all the time. There is a smart way to manage your PC upgrades.

Finally, the argument fails to take into account that the graphics and performance of PC games (60 fps+) is just superior in many cases to console gaming when it comes to cross-platform games. As a result it's basically pointless to purchase games like AC Unity or Tomb Raider or Shadow of Mordor on consoles since the PC will provide superior controls, performance and graphics, at a lower cost to purchase the game. Most console gamers just haven't thought about the total cost of owning a console perhaps because they don't get the concept or since they live with their parents where the TV is basically a $0 cost to them.

The business model of consoles is the same one as Gillette razor blades or printers. The hardware doesn't cost a lot upfront but over time, the manufacturer/seller makes $ off what's required to use the original product - razor blades, printer ink cartridges, console games/accessories. And believe me theses costs add up very very fast. With just 10 games at $10 on the PC vs. $30 on consoles, you are looking at $200 saved. That's essentially a brand new Radeon R9 290 that will last 2-3 years. 

Right now my Steam library alone has 101 games, and it shows that I spent $205 CDN on all of them.  I have many major games from STALKER to Assassin's Creed to Metro to BF, Crysis, Trine,  etc. It's because there are so many promotions for free PC games or free PC games with new GPUs. If you buy 7-10 games on consoles you'll easily hit $200. There is no comparison.

Believe it or not but PC's have a greater failure rate and are more expensive to replace than consoles. The Rrod being an anomaly of course.

Games are more likely to crash on PCs as well.

So the point here is it makes more sense to play games you otherwise can't play on consoles like strategy games and MOBAS.

For all other games, including console exclusives and FPS, stick to consoles for a more user friendly and inexpensive option.

Yes, but only if you are talking here on forums to people in the know. But if you are talking about the average consumer, a person that just wanst to walk into a store and buy something to plug into their tv at home, or buy something for their kid at home. they will not be think about how much cheaper games will be on steam. These are just simple facts.

All that matters is that cost of entry. The cost of entry is what sets everything apart. Not everyone has to buy as many games as you can buy on PCs. If I have only $300 to speand on games per year, then i will just buy 5 games on my console and that will be that. If i find that i would rather play 30 games a year, then investing in a PC will become the smartest thing I can do. 

But thats not what this is about. This is about comparing hardware/game performance. Its not about me buying my copy of COD for $10 more than you did.  Its that if I put up an image of COD and say "hey, this runs at 1080p@60fps on my PS4" Then you put up an image and go "meh... thats why I don't game on PS4, look at this, same game running at 4k@120fps" then that person should also kindaly mention that his PC probably costs hime $4000.