I enjoy getting a console and knowing everything will work on it. I've gotten PC games and tinkered with the settings and it isn't very hard but I haven't gotten any in awhile (Half-Life 2 and Rome Total War were the last before a brief stint with Diablo 3). I also like having a collection and not worrying about porting everything over to the next PC I buy. I have my PS3 with all my digital and physical PS1 games to play on it, HD collections of all my favorite PS2 games, and of course all those great PS3 games, the majority of which are exclusives. I will never have to move them or update or anything (it also helps I'm not into online MP).

Getting 1080p on Ps4 is good enough for today on graphics (for most titles anyway) so graphics aren't a problem and I couldn't afford to spend more than I do now (or rather I wouldn't be able to save as much as I wanted after spending the money) if I had to update every couple of years. Consoles give you the most for what they have because of optimization. WiiU and PS4 are great fun and most games I keep are exclusive or free from PS+ (which I subbed to loooooong before it was required anyway).

No offense but the console fanboyism is getting kind of sad and pathetic. I spent about $700 on my PC about a year ago and its performance is in step with the PS4 and XBOne. I buy my AAA games for $5 (or less) and that includes titles like Elder Scrolls, Portal, Bioshock, The Witcher, etc... Additionally, I don't have to spend a dime to play online. I may spend more on PC hardware but as a whole the experience is actually cheaper and frankly it's better too. I buy consoles for exclusive games because I can see no reason why I would buy multiplatform games for them (with a few exceptions of course). Consoles are neither cheaper nor significantly more convenient and if it weren't for exclusive content I wouldn't even bother with them anymore.

These things got a lot easier and more convenient the last years, thanks to Steam (you don't have to worry about transfering your savegames, you don't have to type in your activation codes anymore, you don't have to worry about limited activations and revokes anymore, the re-installation of a game is a breeze) and Nvidia Experience (you can let the program choose the most sensible game settings and it works pretty good) and automated driver updates.

You can tinker, if you want... but you don't have to anymore.

I'm mostly a PC gamer these days, and will probably stay that way, but i always buy at least 1 console (normally two). I feel sorry for the minority of 'elitist' PC gamers. They choose to loose out on a lot of great exclusive over the years, just so they can stroke each others ego. If anyone is the master race, it's the glorious multi-platform owners :p

I had to laugh about this chart a few days ago:

Play Shadow of Mordor with one GTX970 and you get solid 60 fps (62 minimum), add a second one and you are at 32 fps minimum. ;)

I actually am not exacgerating the costs. I know you can get just as good performance with cheaper hardwrae but I am trying to make an example. Cause there are  $1000 GPUs and theer are $3000 GPUs. And half the time thee PC guys will bring a screens hot of a game running at 4k and saying they are playing at over 60fps but just conveniently fail to mention that that kinda performance was only made possible with way more costly hardware.

And you see, now I can debate with you cause we are finally at least on the same page.

I am also aware that you can't build a PC at the cost of a console. Thats pretty much what makes them consoles. But even at that, then there should also be a base acceptable margin for just how much more should be spent on hardware and still be within console comparison class in relation to the ever reducing costs of the console. I honestly just don't see the sense in comapring more powerful hardware to less powerful hardware and pointing out performance gains. Especially when the hardwrae price differences is as vast as what these comparisons are made of. 

If the argument was which platform is overall better, then continuing costs would make sense... but thats not whatthis was ever about. This is about a sort of benchmarking. Comparing the hardwrae in consoles only to PC hardwrae that is similarly speced in relation to the cost of the hardware. We all know that spnding more will net you more performance, but this is about making a fair comparison.

I just don't see how it makes any sense taking a screenshot on a $400 console and comparing that to one taken on a $1000/$1500/$2000/$2500....etc PC. In a situation like that, what point exactly is one trying to prove? That if you spend more money on hardware you get better loking games?

Hmmm... so you read my OP. And this thread. And the conclusion you have come to is that this about console fanboyism? 

Ok.

Everything els eyou said also leads me to believe that like everyone here that somehow felt the need to defend the PC, you have no idea what I am talking about. No one is attacking PCs here. And all that talk about buying your games for $5 and not having to pay for online....again has nothing to do with this thread. 

You did say something though that ties into what I am saying. You said you spent around $700 on your PC a year ago. But I will live it at that cause I have explained the point of this thread too many times. Its funny that its primarily the PC centric gamers that just seem to not get the point of the thread. I will give credit to some though, they have somehow managed to remain objective while simply stating their preferences.

Can't really have an open discussion if you're going to exclude the biggest expense for console.  If you're going to limit the cost of the PC, you should limit the cost of the TV/Monitor.

Biased framework aside, it's about choice, and what you enjoy.  I enjoy putting computers together, I enjoy tinkering around with them, and I prefer using mouse/keyboard over controller for most games.  Doesn't mean I won't play a console exclusive with a controller, but it does mean if the game is multi plat (and meets my standards), I'll get it on PC.  Your finances are irrelevant to me.  When I purchase things, it's about my finances and it's about my capacity to put money away to achieve my goals.

PS. Most GPU's come with a free game, as do many gaming motherboards. (I got far cry 3 free, at one point, NBA something something, in another).

I'm not sure, maybe the drivers just got better lol.That 780ti at 1300 tri SLI paired with a i7-4790k at 4.8 runs great at 4k.Only found problems at 5760x2160 with x2 R295x2, but got an i7-5960X and its running great now.You should give tri SLI a try, maybe this time it'll work for you.

Hmmm... so you read my OP. And this thread. And the conclusion you have come to is that this about console fanboyism? 

Ok.

Everything els eyou said also leads me to believe that like everyone here that somehow felt the need to defend the PC, you have no idea what I am talking about. No one is attacking PCs here. And all that talk about buying your games for $5 and not having to pay for online....again has nothing to do with this thread. 

You did say something though that ties into what I am saying. You said you spent around $700 on your PC a year ago. But I will live it at that cause I have explained the point of this thread too many times. Its funny that its primarily the PC centric gamers that just seem to not get the point of the thread. I will give credit to some though, they have somehow managed to remain objective while simply stating their preferences.