Interesting. Now in the spirit of all things PC master race how do you get average consumers who like console games to like PC exclusives? This is where it gets interesting. Once Sony joined the industry console gaming numbers for the whole market expanded by leaps and bounds. How can PC gaming achieve this so console gaming loses popularity and consoles find a need compete with PC rather than just sharing some ports. We've all seen it...Gabe Newell is out to prove that PC can pull off the console experience. It probably can....but for some reason its just not catching on like its supposed to. Again...social issue. As I said...once a console gamer who goes to PC gets the bug...they will eventually start upgrading the hardware. They'll enjoy all that valve can offer and they'll start investing in their rig. The average PC replacement time is 3.5 years (you can actually look that up)....while a consoles is six to ten years....so on average...you're actually paying double (And sometimes even triple the cost )within a lifetime of a consoles lifespan in upgrades as well as replacing the whole system sometimes. I don't know one core PC gamer who isn't on top of their hardware like a car enthusiast is to his car.

As I said. PC maintence > Games. The major reason why the games are cheaper too compared to consoles is because 9/10 you cant buy physical. Brick and mortar mostly dont support it. Kudos to Best Buy for trying harder than Gamestop though. Gamestop gave up because they cant resell it.  They probably werent selling many non-WOW games for PC either. 

As for exclusives. A lot of PC gamers boast about PC exclusives, but they love games like Halo, Gears, Uncharted, Mario, and more and i've even heard many of them get frustrated because they wished exclusives were all on PC. Of course they would. Console gamers wont complain if they get PC exclusives, but they aren't demanding it like PC gamers demand console exclusives.

Oh, just a few

1. Will Sony come and knock on my door now that the ps3 has been in the market for over 6 years? Or have they already come? Why are developers still releasing games for ps3 in 2015 if it's life span is 6 years? Is someone allowed to play older games on a ps3/xb360? So, could someone keep playing video games for a decade if he manages to hide from people who want to take his console back?

2. I've had a ps3 and a vita for years and never paid for online. Strange. I've been a ps+ member since it came out for the games it offers. Does that mean that if I buy a ps4 I have to also pay a $50 fee for online and get no games? What if I find better deals? Will I still have to pay $300? What if I quit gaming in 3 years? Is that $300 a final number? Seems so.

3. I get most of my games either through ps+ or ps+ sales, which are pretty much as good or better than steam sales. Does that mean I'm still losing money? What if I buy used that Steam doesn't offer?

4. Based on your points, I saved 0 money, I paid extra for windows, antivirus, and a gamepad. I have -$150 for that $800 rig you're talking about.

Not interested in the extra stuff, since I have a laptop for that.

You read what was in your mind, not what I wrote...

The topic is building a PC that outperforms a PS4/X1, so all your PS3 comments... I rest my case.

About the price of the games, one can only compare prices of new games on launch, I've seen people arguing about 2nd hand market, wich is not a valid comparison, if I find an idiot that sells me his Steam account with 100 games for $10 what does it prove? Marcket prices of new games is the only way to go.

When you annalyse patterns you have to evaluate averages & the most common behaviour, not the minority & unpredictable cases. There is always the story of that guy or the other.

What I wrote remains valid, that 6 years life span rant of yours must have been some king of irony I presume... I still play my original GameBoy, SNES, N64, Dreamcast & on & on...

What you wrote most certainly does not remain valid. Your comments are extremely weak because in one case you talk about the average consumer, and then change to a specific cases.

Who says most people buy games at launch? Read some developers' reports on how much money they make through sales and how much they make first week. Comparing second hand market to "a steam account with 100 games" is all sorts of ...  flawed logic. Which represents the average gamer and which is the safer option? Are you talking about the average gamer or not? 

The 6 year life span is again a flawed argument. You make it sound as if you have to stop gaming on a console after 6 years, while you can keep going with a pc. Plus, how is that relevant to the ps4 (you're the one saying you can't bring ps3 into this)? For all we know there won't be a ps5 and you can keep playing games on ps4 forever. You can't bring ps3 into the discussion only it helps your point. 

The problem I have with your post is that there's no way to prove that the average consumer will pay for online, that he gets his games new intead of second hand or that he will game for 6 years. And you also assume that all of them together apply to the average consumer.

But if you feel like your points are valid, you can keep saying that. It doesn't make them any more by saying they are. Nor are mine more valid because I say so. Saying that someone else's points are valid, makes sense to me. But saying that about your own, is like saying "I agree with myself".

Consoles have higher game prices, online play cost extra money too (on PS4, XOne), even a mid range gaming PC has better graphics than current gen consoles and a PC is more flexible.

Of course you can get old games cheap for consoles but that is even more true for PC.

I took 5secs. & a half to read in diagonal what you wrote & I guess that's about 2secs. too much, sorry but my original post was clear enough, I don't have time to educate (schools exist for a reason) & even less time to be played!

Keep your opinion or whatever floats your boat is my conclusion, happy new year to you!

I hope you realize the irony of completely dismissing anything but brand new full priced games then immediately stating you must focus on the average consumer while the definition of the average consumer is flooding Steam as part of a record breaking sale. Sizeable discounts as well as the second hand market and pretty much everything else you dismiss are indeed factors worth one's consideration when comparing consoles to PCs. Personally, I got back into PC gaming after a prolonged absense caused by the PS2 / PSP and price was probably the biggest factor.

I havent made an argument on the article itself so i want to bring my take on it, gamestops test is stupid at so many levels

- xbox one costs now 350$ and 400$ cost the stronger console in the first place the ps4. They simple took the x1 as ground base for arguing about console and pc spec despite everyone knew that x1 was more expensive due to the kinect. They clearly favored the x1 here because it was more expensive and was weaker than the ps4 in order for the pc to look good. Its a dirty play

- they didnt include a blue ray drive. Its a necessity also for pc gaming as all the older games are only available as cd and dvd releases.

- just because the ps4 and x1 are locked at 30 frames doesnt mean they cant do more. In assassins creed 4 its obvious that the ps4 is equal to performance to the amd rig. The ps4 could equally hit 42 frames per second @1080p but the developers locked it 30 to reduce any huge frame rate drops and 30 and 60 frames are the most efficient rates. 40 isnt looking so good i have read somewhere.

-So basically you can say the amd pc is a bit stronger on more optimized games for dual cores but the ps4 still has 8 cores and 8gb gddr5 ram. In later games you will clearly see the advantages as more of these stuff is utilized.

- and while this pc has some better performance and frame rate there is till a difference between reality and on paper. Reality is on the pc you will sit in-front of the monitor and see every little complaints you will encounter. No or less anti aliasing will be more visible than on consoles, lower resolutions and frame rates as well. Of course you can plug a controllers to play it on the TV as gamespot suggested but it isnt always optimized. The hud system for example is a huge issue if you want to play it far away like in console gaming.

= so yeah in the end the pc costs you 200 bucks more just in order to get the same performance as on the strongest console , like i said they forgot to count a blue ray player which makes it 200.
And plus it isnt as well optimized and great of an experience as playing on the consoles as i mentioned.

the article is 8 months old...  and the people dont know anything about pc it seems... windows 8 for 99$ are they insane?

What a terrific attitude right there! I am humbled.

Happy New Year to you too and keep in mind that if someone disagrees with you, they're wrong, they need education, but they're clearly not worth your time. Make sure you make it clear to them you have not read or listened to their opinion because your arguements are valid and theirs are not, since you say so.

If that's not a fantastic attitude to have in life, I don't know what is.