Cost of gaming on a PC vs Buying a Next Generation console
- Thread starter pjbliverpool
- Start date
- Status
I spend very little effort maintaining my PC. I'm just careful not to install rubbish that I don't need. Yet I'm still using a 1TB HDD that must be a good 4 years old now with no issues and no slow down.
Your assertion that PC's require an SSD to match console performance is patently incorrect. A well maintained PC will load games just as fast as the HDD based consoles from a regular HDD. In fact I find the mere suggestion to be nothing more than a moving of the goal posts on the old "you need a £2000 PC to match consoles" argument. Now that the high end CPU's and GPU's have been proven to not be required we move on to SSD's and small/quiet form factors.
PC used market is a great place to acquire hardware. 2nd hand consoles offer great value too.
Comparing second hand to new, or a mixture of existing and new/2nd hand to new really makes comparisons pointless though.
PC second hand games market is in a state thanks to DRM. Still, the PC needed something to push back against rampant piracy ...
Hence straight comparisons of anything other than specific hardware to play specific games is pretty pointless.
Well if you're comparing generic console prices you have to. If Joe Nerd can reuse part of his old PC that's nice, but it makes for a pointless and tedious comparison to new console prices.Situation specific stuff is situation specific and not general, so comparing it to a standard rrp of an entire platform isn't going to get you anywhere.
Comparing Steam sale prices to new, retail rrp console games is as silly as comparing a free lend of all of your many chumses games collection to buying all PC games new at full price.
And what if you can get an Xbone in exchange for a quick bum in the public toilets? That's like, practically free! How do we compare that to the shifting comparisons of "console X vs upgrading PC y using second hand parts z"?
That's never been the case. You have, sir, pulled out a "straw-man" and I demand that you send it into the public toilets to try and earn a free Xbone!
Actually, an Xbox 360 from 2005 can still play all the latest games (heh, sort of ...), but that 2004 Windows licence key gets you XP which is dead as of March and doesn't have DX10 and started missing out on games years ago.
You can throw "existing Windows licence" into the list of situation specific particularities next to re-using Gran's ram, getting a console for free as a present, and straw-man-toilet-sex.
P.S. I'm currently hoping to salvage a core 2 Duo PC from a shed (seriously, a flippin' shed), slap in a HDD and spare Windows 7 lisence, and make someone a casual gaming PC for free + GPU (hopefully second hand). So I'm all in favour of PC salvage and refitting. It just doesn't belong in a "new platform comparison".
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok I wasn't expecting that
To simplify, these threads only make sense if one compares like to like, otherwise they aren't accurate and don't represent the real world. Examples:1) If you want to play online, and presumably at least some gamers do, then that's extra cost on consoles. That has to be counted if one wants to do a cost comparison.
2) If you want to play popular games like Bioshock Infinite, Far Cry 3, etc, then you have to buy both old and new consoles. So assuming a gamer wants to, oh I dunno, play games then they need to buy both and Xbox 360 and an XB1 to play them. That's extra cost that is not needed on pc. How many people here still have their old gen console along side their new console? I bet you many do because you have to, as the only way to play the popular games is to own and maintain both. That needs to be factored into the real world costs.
3) Going with #2 means to play multi player you need two controllers on each console, which is extra cost. On a pc you just need two controllers and they work for games old and new, whereas on console you need your set of XB1 controllers and your set of 360 controllers, again which is extra cost.
4) If you want to include used pricing on console then you have to include it on pc. This still ends up being extra cost on console because used pc parts are dirt cheap, and steam sales are still cheaper than used console games.
...etc, etc. Just compare like for like and make it a fair comparison. Otherwise what's the point?
2nd hand can't be fairly used to compare costs for two reasons. 1) The price cannot be guaranteed, so you can't get a price for comparison other than specific examples. eg. You may have sold a full for $240, but that doesn't mean everyone wanting a PC can get the same spec for the same price, especially if they don't want to wait until a barg comes up, and of course there can be regional pricing in play. 2) It's not applicable on a grand scale. The low price 2nd hand market only works because only a few people are using it. If 100 million console owners decided to pop onto eBay to get cheap PC components instead of buying a next-gen console, the value of those components would skyrocket. Similarly we can't use the used-console price as a reference for the cost to be a console gamer, because not everyone who wants a console can buy a second-hand console as there aren't enough consoles to satisfy the market.
On an individual case, yes, 2nd hand can be used and compared, but for discussing the industry-wide cost of different platforms, it can't logically be used as such. Otherwise we get extremes like, "I bought a PC off eBay for $100 that's better than a PS4. The guy had gone bankrupt and needed money quick," countered with, "well a friend got a PS4 for Christmas and decided to give it to me, so it's possible to be a console gamer for free." The new prices give us a static comparison point, from which the 2nd hand market is implied.
This thread was spawned from me saying you can't use a generalisation. That goes both ways. You can't generalise that every console owner needs to spend £1000 on a new PC from scratch, nor can you use a generalisation that all console owners can just upgrade their PC for cheap. However, few engaging in the discussion want to deal with a range of values, and instead want to pick a specific singular price (typically that puts their platform of preference in the best light). It's also illogical to contend the EU price hiking aspect when it's actually valid for plenty of people engaged in the discussion, unless one wants to exclude all market other then US from the discussion, which would be unfair on an international discussion forum.
That's cool so just stick to new, and assume starting with nothing. At least that's fair and gives a reasonable baseline for both. So then you have:
1) Old gen console + new gen console + online fees + extra controllers for both + cost of games.
vs
2) Pc built from new parts + Windows + controllers + cost of games.
The above assumes a gamer wants to play popular games, play them online and play multi player locally. Next is to determine what performance the gamer wants on the pc side. If they want console equivalent performance then of course that's much cheaper, but if they want to go visually beyond that then it costs more. Now you can have a real world comparison.
1) Old gen console + new gen console + online fees + extra controllers for both + cost of games.
vs
2) Pc built from new parts + Windows + controllers + cost of games.
The above assumes a gamer wants to play popular games, play them online and play multi player locally. Next is to determine what performance the gamer wants on the pc side. If they want console equivalent performance then of course that's much cheaper, but if they want to go visually beyond that then it costs more. Now you can have a real world comparison.
Very selective examples that don't present numbers and are used to present PC as best rather than to present a fair comparison. eg. PS+ can offer remarkable value. No-one yet has actually looked at the value of PS+ versus PC games. We just hear generalisations "Steam is the best" and "PSPlus is best." And the lowest possible price is also probably extremely bad for the industry! If everyone refused to buy until Steam sales, the industry would collapse. So cost as new is important too.Ok I wasn't expecting that
How's about you present some of the alternative use cases like sharing a disk with a friend for free? Or even game sharing on consoles which AFAIK isn't support on PC? What if you want to play Diablo 3 with 4 players in the same room? Consoles manage that on the one machine, whereas you'd need four PCs as the PC doesn't support same-machine local coop.
A lot of cost and value comes down to per-user specifics. A lot of parameters come into play. Has a user got an upgradeable PC? If not, are there 2nd hand options? What is their interest in games? Are those served by a particular platform? Trying to distil this down into a single price is pretty moronic IMO. The price factor is only of interest from an economics POV, looking at relative hardware value compared to other devices. For that we use retail pricing.
Of a select case that assumes the gamer doesn't already own a last-gen console. So for everyone who wants to play those games who doesn't have a current gen console, you're right. For everyone who already has a last-gen console, your example doesn't work. And what about those who have friends who already own the games they want to play and those games can be borrowed for free?
If you want to go with specific use cases one by one, that's fine as long as the use cases are sufficiently broad and don't favour a particular class of user. If enough situations are considered, a matrix could be constructed of value. But IMO it's a waste of time, and I doubt anyone really wants to do that. Some people will find PC cheaper. Some will find console cheaper (buy a £150 console and borrow games or play everything off PS+ for £30). That's a no brainer that shouldn't really need debating.
Then there's no way to do a comparison really because there's simply too many variables. To play next gen games for me on console would cost me $500+ to get setup, In comparison on pc it cost me 0$ because my old pc outguns the new consoles so I didn't have to spend a dime. That's my situation but you can make lots of such cases in any direction favoring one or the other depending on your criteria.
That's why you need some sort of baseline otherwise there is no point to this thread. Hence why I went with the most common and typical expectation of gamers, that of being able to play games and being able to play them online. I think you would agree that those are relatively common requirements by gamers nowadays give that local coop is mostly dead and tends to be more for party games in this day and age, and given the importance of being able to play the games in top 10 sales lists. You have to narrow down the criteria somewhere to set a baseline otherwise we'll get no where.
That's why you need some sort of baseline otherwise there is no point to this thread. Hence why I went with the most common and typical expectation of gamers, that of being able to play games and being able to play them online. I think you would agree that those are relatively common requirements by gamers nowadays give that local coop is mostly dead and tends to be more for party games in this day and age, and given the importance of being able to play the games in top 10 sales lists. You have to narrow down the criteria somewhere to set a baseline otherwise we'll get no where.
There is no point to this thread. It was spawned out of another thread when the price of a GPU was raised regards console price in a DF article. The discussion was never about the cost of PC gaming per se, but that's one of Almighty's favourite subjects and he ran with it.
Nope. I think 50% of gamers don't go online. Don't really have figures on that but it was true that a large portion of consoles didn't have online accounts. Which is really the issue - no-one has figures and everyone's just plain guessing what the typical scenario is.
Where do you get this idea from? One of the most lauded features of D3 on console was local coop and it's still a significant feature for many (again, no numbers). Even PC versions of games like FIFA have added local coop.
Anyone can pick any logical criteria, but it won't be at all representative of the norm because the norm is too broad a demographic. There are a fair few baseline gamers who could be considered. Family users who are not online; hardcore gamer wanting online play of AAA titles; cheapskate gamer wanting a low-cost, high return hobby to share with his mates; sociable gamer wanting local multiplayer; and probably more besides. For some, PC will be the best investment. For others, consoles.
I don't really have issue with people taking one user case and determining the value of PC versus console if they want to continue the discussion, but I do take umbrage at people trying to use a single baseline standard, or an argument that's not fully researched, which goes for people arguing both sides of the PC vs Console value debate.
Most console gamers aren't educated enough of the in's and out's of gaming on PC to make this a worth while thread anyway.
PC will always be branded as an expensive alternative to consoles.
Agreed. Most are ignorant of PC gaming outside of games like The Sims. PC gaming is not user friendly but that is a reality where PC gaming caters to enthusiasts more than casuals.
A PC gamer is more akin to cycling enthusiast while console gaming is more akin to a sunday rider who buys a 10 speed from Walmart. Its cheaper and lacks most bells and whistles of higher end cycles but if all you going to do is quick rides around your neighborhood for some fresh air, there is no need for an aluminum frame, high-end disc brakes or $500 out your pocket.
If you want a cheap ass gaming PC, more than likely its more about PC software not trying to barely outdo a console, hardware wise.
If you want to PC game so you can get higher framerates, better resolution, more detailed textures and more robust AA, then a cheap PC rig is like trying to diet while having your favorite ice shop directly across the street from your home with a giant window in your living room that gives you a direct view of people eating in slow motion enthralled in ecstasy.
You are not going to even care about how much your PC visuals look better than a console but how much better that PC game looks when you check box the Ultra settings. Even though your PC runs the game in the single digit frame rates. All the while thinking about how to get that IQ at playable rates.
Last edited by a moderator:
First of all, it's not my war, i couldn't care less about what is better, the PC or the Console, i got'em all.
High end GPU's and CPU's haven't been required for a long time, unless i am missing something. Afaik the last PC identity "crisis" was GTA4. Which ran bad on consoles and shit on PC's. I would claim it's the other way around, now we are marveling that a game like GTA5 can run on a Console with 512MB ram when a PC needs that just to boot it's OS.
And it's always been about more, if i drag my HAF case into the living room i am not going to be very popular with the family. But i can have a WII, PS2, 360, PS4, PS3 without any issues..
If i tell my son how to run a game on the consoles he needs to see it once..If i tell him to run it on the PC it depends on what service it is.. Ohh origin, yeah you have to login.. Uplay.. you do this.. Steam.. you do this.. And everything has different updates services and user interfaces.. it's pure and utter crap compared to the consoles.
The consoles are teabagging PC's on convenience and game quality, maybe the Steam box can help, i hope so.. but there is a long way to go.
Do you play consoles? Are you PC only?
Which is true of the PC gamers arguing against consoles as you evidenced. Neither party is informed, nor cares to be.
It ran rubbish compared to what PC gamers expect, there's a difference. The graphics options scaled incredibly high in that game (well beyond what was available to the console versions - the developers even defined the console level settings in the PC version) but at normal levels the game ran fine. I completed it on a 2.4Ghz C2D and loved every minute.
Thats because said OS does a whole host more things than the console OS. There's no point in raising this as a point of comparison unless you take into account all the differences in functionality.
That's personal prefence. I'm sure just as many people would prefer a PC tower next the TV rather than 5(!) consoles. Plus there's no reason why the PC needs to be next to the TV. HDMI cables don't stop at 2 metres. I've got a 10m cable running right around my living room (yes completely hidden) with the PC on the opposite side of the room to the TV. Anyone who came into the room and saw me sitting on the couch playing a game on the TV with a wireless 360 control pad would have no way to know I wasn't gaming on a console - aside from the better graphics of course!
While consoles are even eaiser than PC's to start a game, you're grossely exagertaing the difficulty level of PC gaming. You make it sound as if it takes a genius to start a game on the PC where as in reality, the game installs an icon to your start menu, you click on the icon and yes 50% of the time you may be presented with a game launcher which requires you to click again to start the game but 1. there's usually a really obvious tile or "start game" button to click on and 2. as long as you save your login credentials you nly ever have to log into those game services once - which is no different to Xbox Live or PSN. Starting a game on the PC (well any game other than Battlefield) is a completely intuitive process, it's a pretty poor show if you'd have any difficulty doing it.
Despite the unneccesarily inflammatory way you put it, I'll give you that consoles beat PC's on convenience (in exchange for reduced flexibility). But game quality? How do you suppose that? Same game released on both platforms and runs and looks better on one yet is of "higher quality" on the other?
Yes, I started out on consoles (NES/SNES) and bought a 360 at launch in 2005. I've also got a (family) Wii and am still considering getting an X1 for the connect and TV/skype stuff. AAA gaming wise though none of the consoles offer anything I'm interetsed in right now.
Billy Idol
Legend
My PC costed 1500Euros back then (i7 930 + GTX480+ SSD) and I upgraded the GPU once, which means another 300 Euros in my case (GTX670). And I upgraded RAM from 8 to 12 gig (not sure what the cost where, probably 50Euros or so as I wanted to replace all RAM blocks due to me searching for a possible hardware bug that plagued my PC). So my gaming PC cost is roughly 1800 Euros!
I have now a mid range gaming PC, which I think/believe is often limited by the CPU. Upgrading to a good CPU will most likely cost another 100Euros. I also fear that my 2gig GPU RAM will not be enough in future to get high settings. At the moment, I typically choose high settings, but often with low AA. Nothing what Almighty is always talking about (ultra settings, SSAA, 3d and whatever).
Although I have ultimate fun with this gaming device (my PC is for gaming only, nothing else installed)...it is a super expensive device if you want a certain performance level and I wonder why we even argue about this?!?
I have now a mid range gaming PC, which I think/believe is often limited by the CPU. Upgrading to a good CPU will most likely cost another 100Euros. I also fear that my 2gig GPU RAM will not be enough in future to get high settings. At the moment, I typically choose high settings, but often with low AA. Nothing what Almighty is always talking about (ultra settings, SSAA, 3d and whatever).
Although I have ultimate fun with this gaming device (my PC is for gaming only, nothing else installed)...it is a super expensive device if you want a certain performance level and I wonder why we even argue about this?!?
One massive benefit of PC is BC. I never really cared for it though with my 360 I bough quite a few games (mostly second hand) and as I got it back it sort of bethers me that if I get another system it will be lost and some games are not "replacable" (nor that I'm that willing to buy then twice), especially games I like to play with my wife like the guitar heroes series, etc.
Consoles aren't meant to be flexible, thats why we have PC's. Consoles have all the games from the PC world plus the games from the Console world. That is why i think they are beating PC's.
If a friend of mine buys a Console he simply has more great games to play than if he bought a PC, and he wont have to mess around with the "flexible" pc and all those challenges. It's a pure win for gaming.
And all the cheap used games he can buy.. win win win
And he doesn't have to make room for a keyboard+mouse and monitor anywhere, just room for a small case of awesome entertainment and hook it up to his TV.
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Locked
