If geeks love it, we’re on it
If geeks love it, we’re on it
You found the friendliest gaming & tech geeks around. Say hello!
Icrontic — Home of the Big Beef Burrito since 8-8-2000, fool. A Short-Media community © 2003–2013. Powered with <3 from Vanilla & WordPress.
Articles RSS
Comments
Xbox (the original) when it came out was ~$300 while a gaming PC was ~$1200-$1500. This margin of cost required for gaming is steadily equalizing over time... getting close and closer. Now the perception of "a console is cheap compared to a gaming comp" is not quite the case. Its not to say shwaip is wrong about it being cheaper and more practical in some senses... its just a comparison of times and how they have changed.
Now-a-days looking at the BASE requirements, it averages out to be approximately equal.
(Cliff's estimate + some controllers)
Console = ~$500
Gaming PC = ~$700
each having added features / costs and various benefits. That is the point... no need to argue about the little details of what each entails in terms of price.
1) Bluray drive. So, you're going to huddle everyone around your gaming pc so they can watch a bluray movie? I was looking for a standalone player that I could hook up to my TV.
2) But I have that in my $300 crappy computer that you insist I buy. Or my < $200 netbook. Or the $0 machine that I was thinking about upgrading from.
3) It doesn't skew it if you have the tv already. I think it makes a huge difference in your calculations. I'd guess that most people who are thinking about this choice (and reading your article) already have an older computer for surfing / email / whatever it is you old people do. And they're probably come home, have a bowl of total, and put on the 6pm news on their TV that they've bought within a few years. Maybe it's not 1080p, but it'll do. They're trying to choose between building/upgrading (i'm willing to bet they already have a machine) a desktop and buying a ps3/xbox/nextgenwhatever and plugging it in to their tv.
I'm am going to pull some stats out of my ass, but there is almost 3 categories to analyze. What if you found the average hours a console gamer uses the console (not just for games) vs a hours a pc gamers uses the pc vs those with both the time spent on both pc and console.
Me, for an example, I don't have a console in the house (lie I have a PS1 somewhere), but I phyisically sit and use my PC at home for 5 hours a day (not including folding, downloading, installing, encoding, etc when pc is on but not being used) for a year I'd get 1825 hours of usage. I'll just say for everything the cost of pc gaming for a year is $1000 which includes everything, games, hardware. My cost per hour ratio is: $0.55 an hour to use my PC.
Theoretically, if I had a console, it would be a PS3, I'd probably spend $800 at Costco for their current bundle & other games & accessories. I'd probably average 800 hours a year on it since my TV is shared by my wife and assuming I'd watch BR movies on it. So my cost per usage ratio is $1.00 an hour for the PS3.
This would be my budgeted case if I would see the true value of one over the other, assuming I had 1 and not both, since thats more budgeting and calculations. PS3 is purely theoretical, while PC is more real-world in my case, and does show better value.
My view slightly changed when I got my first PC in 2002, an Intel P4 2.4 Ghz, 512 mb RDRAM, and like a ATI 9250 or something. I loved it until I tried to play the first Far Cry, which pretty much looked like stop-motion animation on my rig. Lesson learned. From now on, if you want the lastest game to look great on your PC, you need an expensive rig. Not an issue on my PS2 which is still hooked up in my bedroom.
So from my experience, if you get a console somewhat early in it's life cycle, you seem to get more longevity and more bang for your buck. Having to not upgrade anything (except controllers that meet an untimely ending) is a BIG plus in my book. Again, this is just from my point of view.
Its 59.99 for the 360 and PS3 at Gamestop. Chalk up another victory for PC in the value comparison.
Street Fighter IV was $20 for consoles at Gamestop the other day - and still going for $40 on PC. WEIRD, you can find deals everywhere!
Lets look at some of those other comparisons though for interest sake.
PC's have Steam and other Digital Deliver Services.
Consoles (all 3 currently) also have digital sales and Xbox 360 just introduced digital distribution for new games as well. Pricing in all those markets is comparable.
Used PC game sales are now almost non-existent, however the used console game sales market is still increasing.
PC's have freeware games or LimitedFree games, which is pretty much exclusive to the PC. You can get some demo's for consoles but they are much more limiting.
Almost every PC game now requires some kind of license agreement or security software. Which singular purpose is preclude you from selling that game, installing it to many times or in other ways crippling what you can do with that game when your are done with it. This is the main death of the used PC sales. But it also hampers your ability to trade games with friends. Which is utter @!#@!@#. No other media - let me repeat - NO OTHER MEDIA. Has this restriction when you physically purchase something. In this respect Console gaming PWN's PC gaming. Grab a game bring it to your friends place and your good to go. Trade games with friends etc.... this gives significantly more value to the purchase of a Console game beyond it's initial cost.
Rental Games. Consoles have them - PC's don't. $5 and you've got a game for a week, rent it 4 times if you want. Seriously this ability is a huge benefit to console gaming that is not available to PC's. It's probably the counterpoint to Shareware gaming or LimitedFree play.
Last but not least Piracy. It's a wash. For consoles you have to mod your console, usually there is some nominal cost here in the $50-100 range. Once that's done though you download your game burn it to disk and your good to go. For PC's the process isn't much different. However the risk of getting viruses is increased. Also Pirated PC's games are far more finicky due to the various security counter measures employed. Pirated Console games are just more stable. Though with the Xbox360 you do have to be cautious about how they exist with your live account.
My personal experience for acquiring games leads favorably towards Console gaming. I find it easier to get games, I feel better about how much I'm spending on the games I buy and my purchase value feel like it stretches further. YMMV.
We shouldn't be arguing over a TV/Monitor issue. If I'm buying a console I need a TV if I'm buying a PC I'll need a monitor, in both cases I'm forking over extra money to play a game. Either way in an inch by inch comparison TVs are more expensive than monitors. To use Newegg as per Cliff's stipulation the cheapest 22" TV is 50USD more expensive than the cheapest 22" monitor and the TV had poor reviews while the monitor had excellent reviews.
You raise some very compelling arguments. We can slice and dice the argument a number of ways and it will never be a one size fits all scenario. Rentals for a week at $7.99 may be a good value for some, I don't find that it is personally because most of the multi-player content I like, I want to play with some repetition. Also, the used argument is compelling, not a bad thing to point out, still, I have never considered selling back my content at a fraction of the value I paid a good value for the consumer, especially when you were dealing with an inflated margin to begin with. Still, I won't begrudge you the argument. A compelling analysis can be made using those points. Once again, Rule #1, I'm not looking to pick a direct fight about what platform everyone should prefer. I don't consider myself anti-console. Hopefully this analysis at least breaks the paradigm that PC gaming rigs require a 2nd mortgage. I think it at least accomplishes that much, even if some disagree with the methodology of the analysis, its still pretty amazing how far the cost of high quality gaming grade PC components have fallen in the last few years, especially in 2009. So, even if you could shape the numbers a bit to get console on the winning side of the equation, I think I am at least displaying how close the platforms are. I still hold that the PC offers a better value proposition over a couple years total cost of ownership, but even if you don't agree because you found some value in the console that was lost on me, we may at least agree that the two are significantly closer than you may have thought they were.
Pointing back to the Don Clark WSJ piece. I am not very fond of the marketing developed to make people think that a real gaming rig starts at over two grand. Those days are long behind us, and people should know it so they can make the best informed decisions on how to spend their entertainment dollars.
I guess where the sticking point is for most of us is in the application of $ to the article, exclusions were made and comparisons were drawn without painting a full picture. You did cover one scenario. But there are others as well as other factors.
I think perhaps another common situation that is perhaps more valid to address is one in which the person has an aging computer and is debating between upgrading it to play games or purchasing a console.
I think very few people are at a place where they don't have a computer, don't have a console and are flipping flopping between which one to get.
But I must interject: moot point. SF4 has been out on console for over 6 months, it was released on PC one month ago.
Consider that SF4 was still retailing at $50 on consoles and the PC release was priced at $40.
Sure you can find deals anywhere, that's store dependant though, and can't be made for an arguing point for price effectiveness of a platform. If that is the argument, the PC version is still cheaper, and it's still the normal for PC games to be priced cheaper.
(i kid).
(I am sick, and on medication, thoughts are fuzzy, pay no attention to the tall guy with PC games)
With a console, you make a one time investment, (the earlier, the more expencive) you get a non-upgradable unit, which in 3 years TOPs will be outdated and they'll be trying to sell me another one that might not even play the games i already have. so i'll have to buy a whole new unit, probably at an inflated cost compaired to my privious one. I'm limited to the proprietary content that is released for the game system, can't play x-box games on a playstation.
anyway, the point of the article, was to show the decrease in the cost difference between PC and console in the last 6 years.
Being a computer gamer since i was little(go commodore, woot!) i may be a little bias, but i do enjoy alot of the titles that consoles have to offer. But i sold my 360 to build my game rig because i have so much more versatility with a PC. Period. a console's range of function is nothing compaired to a PC. Computers Win, hands down in my book.
This isn't an argument of which is more versatile, there's no argument there PC's win. The argument originally put out was the cost of gaming on a PC vs the cost of gaming on a console. Not which one is better for surfing the net.
While the cost for PC gaming is has significantly dropped, they aren't comparable despite what Cliff's intentions show.
The PS3 runs Yellow Dog Linux and accepts keyboard and mouse inputs. You CAN, in fact, compute on your console. :)
So can the X-bawx 360.