As long as I can't afford a 4K projector, ps4 will do just fine for 1080p gaming.
I won't buy a new pc until OR proves itself or I get a 4K projector. Until then, my laptop with Civilization beyond earth, Wasteland 2 and Dreamfall chapters is all I need from the PC side.

I have more money than free time nowadays to worry about games being a bit cheaper on PC or getting more juice out of a self build. I rather spend my time gaming than hunting for bargains, configuring games or looking for upgrades.

ok then let me put it that way: nintendo, sony and even microsoft all have their own gamedevelopmentstudios. what does for ex. nvidia have? sure you can play games with their hardware but where exactly is their softwaredevelopmentsupport? so with that in mind i also can say pc needs consoles than without them you'd probably see have of the games you know about.

OMG.... why are some PC gamers like this? Is what I am saying so hatrd to understand or are you guys just collectively choosing to be difficult.

I have tried so many times in this thread to explain this that I don't even know how else to say it anymore.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT WHICH PLATFORM COSTS MORE,  COST LESS, HAS MORE GAMES, LESS GAMES, HAS MORE GAMERS OR LESS GAMERS, HAS CHEAPER GAMES, MORE EXPENSIVE GAMES.....ETC

"This is about the sense, or lack of it there of, of comparing a multiplatform game across platforms and pitting a PC version of the game running on a RIG whose "hardware" costs 4-10 times more than whats inside a console."

How else can I say all that? Its not about the long term justifciation saving benefits of that more expensive rig. Its that you do not put a heavyweight boxer and a feather weight boxer in the same ring. Sheesh.

Its me saying that I think if anyone wants to compare a PC version of a multiplatform game with a CONSOLE version, then that person should use a version of the game running on PC hardware that you can buy at the exact same price that you can buy the console that the game is being compared to. Why is this soooooo hard to understand? And what does this in anyway have to do with the long term cost benefits of owning a PC?????????? How is it possible that some here can't at least see and understand what I am actually saying?

I am reading some people carrying this whole thread to a tangent that has nothing to do with it at all. Like once some PC gamers here price and PC in the same thread they start bringng out charts of how console gaming is more expensive in the long run. smh.

It's all about them exclusives for me (+ it's cheaper anyway, a decent gaming PC in Norway will cost north of 1000 dollars.) And I just prefer consoles, and so does my friends.

So this thread is about only showing one side of the medal (the initial costs of the hardware) and trying to taboo the continuing costs (online subscriptions, higher game prices, higher periphery prices) and the lack of options (free choice of resolution vs. fps, free choice of other graphic options, free choice of input device) and other advantages of PC gaming... like you always try.

Yeah, we get it. If you can't handle other opinions, don't start such a thread!

Exactly. They aren't even talking about the same things and I don't understand where in my original post I could have led them to believe that what they are talking about has anything to do with what I am saying in this thread.

Whats funny is that its not that they are wrong, they are just completely off tangent.

Another way to look at it is this, if they got a PC, that cost $350-$400... everything tehy are saying still applies. There games will still be cheaper. No one is taking that from them.

All I have been trying to say is that when comparing the PERFORMANCE of the same game across diffeent platforms. If you are going to add the PC to the mix, then it has to be a PC that you can get for the exact same amount that you would have used to buy the console its being compared to. If all that is in question her is comapring the performance of the game, how does games being cheaper on PC or consoles having an optional service charge factor into any of this?

I have just beein saying that a games performance on $400 hardware has no business being compared to the same games performce of $1000+ hardware. Or even $600 hardware. Its just not the same thing. But they won't say a peep about that but rather drag us into how PCs pay for themselves and are more useful down the road. Just doesn't make sense to me.

I doubt anyone that buys a console is buying it to run word or other productivity apps. They buy it primarily to play games. Its a game machine. So if anyone wants to compare a PC to it, then it should be a PC game machine that can at least do everything that the console can do and that costs no more than the console. Or else what is the point of the comparison???? To show how much more you can get if you are willing to spend more on your gaming hardware????

Are you kidding me?

I have no problem with others opinions, but these opinions are not related to the matter or discussion at hand. How is that so hard to understand.

I will put this as simply as possible.

Say you have a game. COD:AW. You have this game on the PS4 and have it on a PC. Say the GPU in your PC alone costs $1000. Between it and the PS4 which platform do you think will run the game better? I would assume the OBVIOUS answer is the PC with the $1000 GPU. What this thread is about, is how little sense there is in comparing the game running on that PC to the $400 console. What has the cost of the game got to do with that point?????

The point I am/have been trying to make in this thread, that if you are to take a game running on PC and compare it to consoles, then that PC should not cost any more than what it cost to buy the console. The hardwrae in the PC should be equivalent in price to the hardware in the console. Cause that evens the playing feild. 

I will put it this way. Take for instance that the CPU in the PS4 is identical to an core i3 (just an example) and the GPU is equla to a HD7970. Then if someone is comparing the "performace" (not the price, availability, options...etc) of that game on both consoles and PC, then the hardware on the PC side should also be at least something similar to a core i3 and hd7970. There is no sense in comaparing the console to an overclocked core i7 and 2 titan Zs in SLI!!!!! Thats no longer even a comparsion. They aren't even in the same leauge. Only thing they have in common is that they both run the game.

Why do you think in motorsport (or every sport for that matter) they all have classes.

have fun playing 4k/120fps flappy bird type games in the future because that's exactly where this attitude is leading towards.

You are overexagerrating again with the $1000 GPU example. You don't need such a monster to have the multiple performance of the APU of the PS4 or XBO.

A $300 GPU like the GTX970 already has 3 - 4 times the performance of the XBO when the PC port is bad (Dead Rising 3).

And you can't build a PC with the PS4 or XBO performance for $350 - $400? True. Because the manufacturers of the PC components (Intel, Asus, Nvidia, AMD) AND the PC system sellers (Dell, Lenovo...) AND the supplier of the OS (Microsoft) all have to make their cut in the initial sale. Neither of them is getting a dime royalties for a PC game sale, so they can't sell the hardware without profit in hopes of later royalties or subscriptions.

But that doesn't mean you can't compare PCs that are a bit more expensive ($500 - $800) to $400 consoles. It's not all black and white and taking continuing costs into account for all systems makes sense.

LOL yes, I hope no one is.

Recently I got a fourth gtx 780ti since I wanted to use more demanding AA,and got like 25% less performance in some games than with tri SLI.Apparently is one of the things in which AMD is better since my quad CF runs great.