Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Consoles Are Not Cheap

syntax42syntax42 Member UncommonPosts: 1,378

A site surveyed people on which consoles they owned and how much they spent on the console, games, and accessories (including a TV/couch if purchased to go with the console).  The results show that console gaming can be just as expensive as PC gaming.  Sure, the hardware barrier to start PC gaming is more expensive, but consoles get you with their short-lived game design (think MMO vs Call of Duty), and a-la-carte accessory pricing.

Article:

http://kotaku.com/how-much-money-you-ve-spent-on-the-xbox-one-vs-ps4-vs-w-1644814648/+barrett

 

This is not to say that console or PC gaming is or isn't cheaper than the other.  It simply shows that people's spending habits heavily influence the cost of their entertainment instead of the other way around.

«1

Comments

  • DauntisDauntis Member UncommonPosts: 600

    If you are going to include the couch and TV, you probably need some kind of TV stand or mounting,  I think you would have to include the electric bill, rent or mortgage (no one likes getting rained on while playing), the car, gasoline and insurance required to purchase the unit and games, food because well there is no game playing without sustenance, throw in health insurance just incase you develop gamer thumb or other gamer related injuries, any and all federal , state and local taxes as you would not have any of this long if you didn't pay your taxes.

     

    ...damn I guess you are right OP it does add up.

    Help support an artist and gamer who has lost his tools to create and play: http://www.gofundme.com/u63nzcgk

  • RaquisRaquis Member RarePosts: 1,018

    my intertainment is gaming and its worth it buying a ps4 for one game like bloodborne cause ill play hundreds of hours playing it.

    so it works out the same as buying 10 console or pc games,buy I loves my pc.

    cause I will be buying a ps4 ill also buy FFXV and uncharted,i go where the souls games go the mmos are too disappointing these days.

  • syntax42syntax42 Member UncommonPosts: 1,378
    Originally posted by Dauntis

    If you are going to include the couch and TV...

    They specifically mentioned it was only included if the couch and/or TV were purchased with the console for the intent of using it with the console.  People who already owned televisions or couches did not include them in the survey.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Member CommonPosts: 10,910

    I don't think gaming has ever really been about saving money.  Sure, it's great that Steam has sales, and it certainly drives up the number of titles available, but it's always been about the experience that a person wants to have.  If they want a console, they get a console.  If they want a PC, they get a PC, simple as that.

     

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • RusqueRusque Member RarePosts: 2,785

    The other thing conveniently left out in the console vs PC debate is that console gamers ALSO tend to have some type of computer for school/work use. Yet that cost doesn't factor in?

    My gaming rig is my gaming machine AND it's my computing device (and entertainment system). It seems like buying console + computer is generally more expensive than just a computer.

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,130
    Originally posted by lizardbones

    I don't think gaming has ever really been about saving money.  Sure, it's great that Steam has sales, and it certainly drives up the number of titles available, but it's always been about the experience that a person wants to have.  If they want a console, they get a console.  If they want a PC, they get a PC, simple as that.

     

    Twenty or thirty years ago, console gaming was very much about saving money.   A PC cost thousands of dollars, while a console could be had for $200.  That's a huge difference.  Today, you can get a functional gaming PC for $600 including peripherals and an OS license, but that's a recent development.  Around the turn of the millennium, it was big news that you could finally get a piece of junk PC for under $1000 if you excluded peripherals.

  • WillowFuxxyWillowFuxxy Member Posts: 406
    Originally posted by Rusque

    The other thing conveniently left out in the console vs PC debate is that console gamers ALSO tend to have some type of computer for school/work use. Yet that cost doesn't factor in?

    My gaming rig is my gaming machine AND it's my computing device (and entertainment system). It seems like buying console + computer is generally more expensive than just a computer.

    Exactly.

    PLUS given the trend toward 'platform parity' each year that goes by there is less and less of a reason to buy a high end graphics card. Leaving the standard work PC able to run most current games without any upgrade.

    oh and by the way, I use my PC as my TV/movie device as well. its the center piece to my living room.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Member CommonPosts: 10,910
    Originally posted by Quizzical
    Originally posted by lizardbones

    I don't think gaming has ever really been about saving money.  Sure, it's great that Steam has sales, and it certainly drives up the number of titles available, but it's always been about the experience that a person wants to have.  If they want a console, they get a console.  If they want a PC, they get a PC, simple as that.

     

    Twenty or thirty years ago, console gaming was very much about saving money.   A PC cost thousands of dollars, while a console could be had for $200.  That's a huge difference.  Today, you can get a functional gaming PC for $600 including peripherals and an OS license, but that's a recent development.  Around the turn of the millennium, it was big news that you could finally get a piece of junk PC for under $1000 if you excluded peripherals.

     

    I'm basing this on personal experience, but the people I know who bought consoles never even considered the PC.  Things like Zelda just didn't exist on the PC.  The same could be said about the Mario games.  Sure, you could get something like that, but it wasn't Zelda.  People weren't buying consoles because they were cheap, they were buying consoles because they had the games they wanted to play.  Ditto for the PC games.  PCs were more expensive, but they had a different selection of games too.  Some would say better games, but let's not go there.  :-)  If someone wanted to play PC style games, they bought a PC.  If someone wanted to play console style games, they bought a console.  A lot of people bought both.  That may actually be the biggest market right there, people who bought both.

     

    Which is how normal consumers work.  Step one is finding out where the product (experience) they want exists.  If it's only on a console, they buy a console.  If it's only on a PC, they buy a PC.  It's only when the experience they want exists on a variety of platforms that the cost becomes a factor in making the decision.

     

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • WillowFuxxyWillowFuxxy Member Posts: 406
    Originally posted by lizardbones
    Originally posted by Quizzical
    Originally posted by lizardbones

    I don't think gaming has ever really been about saving money.  Sure, it's great that Steam has sales, and it certainly drives up the number of titles available, but it's always been about the experience that a person wants to have.  If they want a console, they get a console.  If they want a PC, they get a PC, simple as that.

     

    Twenty or thirty years ago, console gaming was very much about saving money.   A PC cost thousands of dollars, while a console could be had for $200.  That's a huge difference.  Today, you can get a functional gaming PC for $600 including peripherals and an OS license, but that's a recent development.  Around the turn of the millennium, it was big news that you could finally get a piece of junk PC for under $1000 if you excluded peripherals.

     

    I'm basing this on personal experience, but the people I know who bought consoles never even considered the PC.  Things like Zelda just didn't exist on the PC.  The same could be said about the Mario games.  Sure, you could get something like that, but it wasn't Zelda.  People weren't buying consoles because they were cheap, they were buying consoles because they had the games they wanted to play.  Ditto for the PC games.  PCs were more expensive, but they had a different selection of games too.  Some would say better games, but let's not go there.  :-)  If someone wanted to play PC style games, they bought a PC.  If someone wanted to play console style games, they bought a console.  A lot of people bought both.  That may actually be the biggest market right there, people who bought both.

     

    Which is how normal consumers work.  Step one is finding out where the product (experience) they want exists.  If it's only on a console, they buy a console.  If it's only on a PC, they buy a PC.  It's only when the experience they want exists on a variety of platforms that the cost becomes a factor in making the decision.

     

    This is true for the price points we are all talking about.

    However, having seen many 'console wars' with PCs the general trend of arguements this year have been 1. resolution doesnt matter 2. 30fps is fine and 3. consoles are better because the are cheaper.

     

    all crazy I know but it is the meme of the day. Who would ever want to argue their items is the cheapest I dont know but they do

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Member CommonPosts: 10,910
    Originally posted by WillowFuxxy
    Originally posted by lizardbones
    Originally posted by Quizzical
    Originally posted by lizardbones

    I don't think gaming has ever really been about saving money.  Sure, it's great that Steam has sales, and it certainly drives up the number of titles available, but it's always been about the experience that a person wants to have.  If they want a console, they get a console.  If they want a PC, they get a PC, simple as that.

     

    Twenty or thirty years ago, console gaming was very much about saving money.   A PC cost thousands of dollars, while a console could be had for $200.  That's a huge difference.  Today, you can get a functional gaming PC for $600 including peripherals and an OS license, but that's a recent development.  Around the turn of the millennium, it was big news that you could finally get a piece of junk PC for under $1000 if you excluded peripherals.

     

    I'm basing this on personal experience, but the people I know who bought consoles never even considered the PC.  Things like Zelda just didn't exist on the PC.  The same could be said about the Mario games.  Sure, you could get something like that, but it wasn't Zelda.  People weren't buying consoles because they were cheap, they were buying consoles because they had the games they wanted to play.  Ditto for the PC games.  PCs were more expensive, but they had a different selection of games too.  Some would say better games, but let's not go there.  :-)  If someone wanted to play PC style games, they bought a PC.  If someone wanted to play console style games, they bought a console.  A lot of people bought both.  That may actually be the biggest market right there, people who bought both.

     

    Which is how normal consumers work.  Step one is finding out where the product (experience) they want exists.  If it's only on a console, they buy a console.  If it's only on a PC, they buy a PC.  It's only when the experience they want exists on a variety of platforms that the cost becomes a factor in making the decision.

     

    This is true for the price points we are all talking about.

    However, having seen many 'console wars' with PCs the general trend of arguements this year have been 1. resolution doesnt matter 2. 30fps is fine and 3. consoles are better because the are cheaper.

     

    all crazy I know but it is the meme of the day. Who would ever want to argue their items is the cheapest I dont know but they do

     

    I think it probably has a lot to do with people who would normally have a gaming PC, and a console to game on at the same time having to now choose where to best spend their money.  I don't know anyone who doesn't have a PC, and I don't know any gamers who don't have both a PC and a console right now.  I do know a lot of people who's money isn't going nearly as far this year as it did two years ago.  They are having to choose whether or not to upgrade their PC or buy a new console.  That doesn't mean they won't eventually do both, but they aren't going to do both right now, and they may not do both by the time Christmas gets here.

     

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,061

    It really wasn't until the last generation of consoles this was even a consideration (PS3/360).

    Before then - console games were console games, PC games were PC games, and very very rarely did they intersect. Consoles had extremely limited (if any) online capabilities, and almost no capability to do anything outside of gaming. Most consoles wouldn't do anything without a game disc or cartridge. PCs had limited gaming capability (at least up until the rise of the 3D graphics accelerator in the mid 1990s).

    If you wanted to play Zelda, you got a Nintendo. If you wanted to play Crazy Taxi, you got a Dreamcast. If you wanted to play Halo, you got an XBox. If you wanted to play Leisuresuit Larry, you got a PC.

    Then with the 360/PS3, things turned around a bit. We saw a lot of cross-platform titles, much more so than before. Consoles can talk online, they have local storage, they can play games without needing a disc or cartridge, they have digital marketplaces, they are media consoles and TV viewers and stream photographs. They can accept a number of general use peripherals with USB and Bluetooth.

    And that's when it become a bigger question than "What game do you want to play?" Then the concept of value came into play - if you can play reasonably Madden on any of them - which one is the better value? Maybe value to you means the least expensive - maybe it means the best graphics option, maybe it means fees and services on top of the purchase price (Damn you XBL subscription costs), maybe it means all the services you can perform with the console apart from play games (PS3 BluRay was a big driver, up until Netflix/Hulu/Prime streaming at least).

  • WillowFuxxyWillowFuxxy Member Posts: 406
    Originally posted by Ridelynn

    It really wasn't until the last generation of consoles this was even a consideration (PS3/360).

    Before then - console games were console games, PC games were PC games, and very very rarely did they intersect. Consoles had extremely limited (if any) online capabilities, and almost no capability to do anything outside of gaming. Most consoles wouldn't do anything without a game disc or cartridge. PCs had limited gaming capability (at least up until the rise of the 3D graphics accelerator in the mid 1990s).

    If you wanted to play Zelda, you got a Nintendo. If you wanted to play Crazy Taxi, you got a Dreamcast. If you wanted to play Halo, you got an XBox. If you wanted to play Leisuresuit Larry, you got a PC.

    Then with the 360/PS3, things turned around a bit. We saw a lot of cross-platform titles, much more so than before. Consoles can talk online, they have local storage, they can play games without needing a disc or cartridge, they have digital marketplaces, they are media consoles and TV viewers and stream photographs. They can accept a number of general use peripherals with USB and Bluetooth.

    And that's when it become a bigger question than "What game do you want to play?" Then the concept of value came into play - if you can play reasonably Madden on any of them - which one is the better value? Maybe value to you means the least expensive - maybe it means the best graphics option, maybe it means fees and services on top of the purchase price (Damn you XBL subscription costs), maybe it means all the services you can perform with the console apart from play games (PS3 BluRay was a big driver, up until Netflix/Hulu/Prime streaming at least).

    a few things, ok actually just one now that I think of it.

    often the debate revolves around the question of which is better from an implied standpoint of gear head pure steam power balls hurting uberness. Which in those types of implied debates saying that your Honda Civic is the uber car because its a cheaper choice to my Porche is one might want to clarify unequivocally to the point of bargin shopping. Not very many people go around saying 'oh yeah Bro! I got the most uber walmart deal! rock on!'

     

    Oh I recall now.

    2. last time I checked a computer can do Netflix/hulu/amazon prime at least it did last night.

     

     

  • Dagon13Dagon13 Member UncommonPosts: 566
    Originally posted by syntax42
    Originally posted by Dauntis

    If you are going to include the couch and TV...

    They specifically mentioned it was only included if the couch and/or TV were purchased with the console for the intent of using it with the console.  People who already owned televisions or couches did not include them in the survey.

    Sounds reasonable but you have to apply the same logic to the computer.  Did you purchase a computer desk, chair, sound system, monitor?  

     

  • WillowFuxxyWillowFuxxy Member Posts: 406
    Originally posted by Dagon13
    Originally posted by syntax42
    Originally posted by Dauntis

    If you are going to include the couch and TV...

    They specifically mentioned it was only included if the couch and/or TV were purchased with the console for the intent of using it with the console.  People who already owned televisions or couches did not include them in the survey.

    Sounds reasonable but you have to apply the same logic to the computer.  Did you purchase a computer desk, chair, sound system, monitor?  

     

    The thing is, I bet every single person who qualifed for the console survey had a desk, a chair, a monitor and a computer.

     

    wager?

  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,061


    Originally posted by WillowFuxxy
    a few things, ok actually just one now that I think of it.often the debate revolves around the question of which is better from an implied standpoint of gear head pure steam power balls hurting uberness. Which in those types of implied debates saying that your Honda Civic is the uber car because its a cheaper choice to my Porche is one might want to clarify unequivocally to the point of bargin shopping. Not very many people go around saying 'oh yeah Bro! I got the most uber walmart deal! rock on!' Oh I recall now.2. last time I checked a computer can do Netflix/hulu/amazon prime at least it did last night.  

    This is why I didn't define value in any one context - it means different things to different people. Some people, getting the lowest price is a big deal (Quizzical, for example, will look for every penny of savings he can when he's pricing out a computer). Other people the resolution is all that matters, or the FPS, or the layout of the controller, or what have you. For some people, Folding at Home was a big driver for the PS3, or running Linux on it (up until they took away both of those things), or Kinect for the XBox - other people dodn't even know those things exist, and it doesn't matter to them at all. Different people value different things, and once you get beyond console-exclusive games, those other values are what drive people to make decisions. It's not always cost, or speed, or any other single factor.

    As far as Netflix goes - just an example of how one console had differentiated itself (PS3, with BluRay), and that mattered for a long time. But the console was around so long, a disrupting technology had come along and made that distinction inmaterial. PS3 was the only console that did BluRay (at least natively) back during the transition from DVD, and that mattered 5 years ago, and a lot of people who were going to buy a BluRay player went ahead and just got a PS3 - but it doesn't matter so much today.

  • WillowFuxxyWillowFuxxy Member Posts: 406
    Originally posted by Ridelynn

     


    Originally posted by WillowFuxxy
    a few things, ok actually just one now that I think of it.

     

    often the debate revolves around the question of which is better from an implied standpoint of gear head pure steam power balls hurting uberness. Which in those types of implied debates saying that your Honda Civic is the uber car because its a cheaper choice to my Porche is one might want to clarify unequivocally to the point of bargin shopping. Not very many people go around saying 'oh yeah Bro! I got the most uber walmart deal! rock on!'

     

    Oh I recall now.

    2. last time I checked a computer can do Netflix/hulu/amazon prime at least it did last night.

     

     


     

    This is why I didn't define value in any one context - it means different things to different people. Some people, getting the lowest price is a big deal (Quizzical, for example, will look for every penny of savings he can when he's pricing out a computer). Other people the resolution is all that matters, or the FPS, or the layout of the controller, or what have you. For some people, Folding at Home was a big driver for the PS3, or running Linux on it (up until they took away both of those things), or Kinect for the XBox - other people dodn't even know those things exist, and it doesn't matter to them at all. Different people value different things, and once you get beyond console-exclusive games, those other values are what drive people to make decisions. It's not always cost, or speed, or any other single factor.

    As far as Netflix goes - just an example of how one console had differentiated itself (PS3, with BluRay), and that mattered for a long time. But the console was around so long, a disrupting technology had come along and made that distinction inmaterial. PS3 was the only console that did BluRay (at least natively) back during the transition from DVD, and that mattered 5 years ago, and a lot of people who were going to buy a BluRay player went ahead and just got a PS3 - but it doesn't matter so much today.

    1.My point is that when consolers debate about how uber they are over PCs they would be much better served if they are explict that they mean a better deal much like a honda civic is a better deal over a Porche or how furniture at walmart is cheaper

    2. when talking about PCs vs Consoles bringing up Netflix as a differntiated feature is hysterical. we are not talking about console vs console here, we are talking about PCs which have all those apps already

     

  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,061


    Originally posted by WillowFuxxy
    Originally posted by Ridelynn   Originally posted by WillowFuxxy a few things, ok actually just one now that I think of it.   often the debate revolves around the question of which is better from an implied standpoint of gear head pure steam power balls hurting uberness. Which in those types of implied debates saying that your Honda Civic is the uber car because its a cheaper choice to my Porche is one might want to clarify unequivocally to the point of bargin shopping. Not very many people go around saying 'oh yeah Bro! I got the most uber walmart deal! rock on!'   Oh I recall now. 2. last time I checked a computer can do Netflix/hulu/amazon prime at least it did last night.    
      This is why I didn't define value in any one context - it means different things to different people. Some people, getting the lowest price is a big deal (Quizzical, for example, will look for every penny of savings he can when he's pricing out a computer). Other people the resolution is all that matters, or the FPS, or the layout of the controller, or what have you. For some people, Folding at Home was a big driver for the PS3, or running Linux on it (up until they took away both of those things), or Kinect for the XBox - other people dodn't even know those things exist, and it doesn't matter to them at all. Different people value different things, and once you get beyond console-exclusive games, those other values are what drive people to make decisions. It's not always cost, or speed, or any other single factor. As far as Netflix goes - just an example of how one console had differentiated itself (PS3, with BluRay), and that mattered for a long time. But the console was around so long, a disrupting technology had come along and made that distinction inmaterial. PS3 was the only console that did BluRay (at least natively) back during the transition from DVD, and that mattered 5 years ago, and a lot of people who were going to buy a BluRay player went ahead and just got a PS3 - but it doesn't matter so much today.
    1.My point is that when consolers debate about how uber they are over PCs they would be much better served if they are explict that they mean a better deal much like a honda civic is a better deal over a Porche or how furniture at walmart is cheaper

    2. when talking about PCs vs Consoles bringing up Netflix as a differntiated feature is hysterical. we are not talking about console vs console here, we are talking about PCs which have all those apps already

     


    So all consoles are the same in their battle versus the PC?

    I am talking about console, vs other consoles, vs PC.

    You can talk about whatever you wish, I suppose.

  • WillowFuxxyWillowFuxxy Member Posts: 406
    Originally posted by Ridelynn

     


    Originally posted by WillowFuxxy

    Originally posted by Ridelynn  

    Originally posted by WillowFuxxy a few things, ok actually just one now that I think of it.   often the debate revolves around the question of which is better from an implied standpoint of gear head pure steam power balls hurting uberness. Which in those types of implied debates saying that your Honda Civic is the uber car because its a cheaper choice to my Porche is one might want to clarify unequivocally to the point of bargin shopping. Not very many people go around saying 'oh yeah Bro! I got the most uber walmart deal! rock on!'   Oh I recall now. 2. last time I checked a computer can do Netflix/hulu/amazon prime at least it did last night.    
      This is why I didn't define value in any one context - it means different things to different people. Some people, getting the lowest price is a big deal (Quizzical, for example, will look for every penny of savings he can when he's pricing out a computer). Other people the resolution is all that matters, or the FPS, or the layout of the controller, or what have you. For some people, Folding at Home was a big driver for the PS3, or running Linux on it (up until they took away both of those things), or Kinect for the XBox - other people dodn't even know those things exist, and it doesn't matter to them at all. Different people value different things, and once you get beyond console-exclusive games, those other values are what drive people to make decisions. It's not always cost, or speed, or any other single factor. As far as Netflix goes - just an example of how one console had differentiated itself (PS3, with BluRay), and that mattered for a long time. But the console was around so long, a disrupting technology had come along and made that distinction inmaterial. PS3 was the only console that did BluRay (at least natively) back during the transition from DVD, and that mattered 5 years ago, and a lot of people who were going to buy a BluRay player went ahead and just got a PS3 - but it doesn't matter so much today.
    1.My point is that when consolers debate about how uber they are over PCs they would be much better served if they are explict that they mean a better deal much like a honda civic is a better deal over a Porche or how furniture at walmart is cheaper

     

    2. when talking about PCs vs Consoles bringing up Netflix as a differntiated feature is hysterical. we are not talking about console vs console here, we are talking about PCs which have all those apps already

     


     

    So all consoles are the same in their battle versus the PC?

    I am talking about console, vs other consoles, vs PC.

    You can talk about whatever you wish, I suppose.

    Yeah I am pretty sure you are off topic then. No worries I have done that too in the past but for your reference this string is about the price of consoles compared to the prices of PCs not consoles vs consoles

  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,061

    So if the OP is about how the cost of a PC versus the cost of a console makes a difference in which you buy, the fact that different consoles cost different amounts isn't relevant to that discussion, and that one console may perform better or worse compared to other consoles, and the PC, with regard to sales?

    I think it's on topic. The link that is in the OP compares console versus console and doesn't even mention PC costs (which is more or less why Syntax posted it, it's an interesting article, and he brought up that exact point wondering how PCs would fare in there).

    If your taking an article, that pits the 3 major consoles together, and then want to toss PCs into the mix, I think it's very valid to keep the original console vs console topic into the mix.

    Anyway - I will conceed - the entire discussion about what is on topic, is very off topic.

    Back to on topic:

    I spend a lot on stuff... I'm an American Consumer (tm). When I buy a console, I don't just buy the console, I buy the charger for the remotes so I don't have to keep reaching in and plugging them in under the TV every time. I usually will buy one or two additional controllers (so I can play with the Kid). If there is something like a memory expansion or memory cards or something I'll probably get that too. Not to mention a few games to get it started. It's not just the console, it's the entire ecosystem. I think when the WiiU came out, I spent around $400-$500 that Christmas on the console + related peripherals + games (including a small chair for the kid to sit in so my Wife would stop complaining about him hogging up the couch).

    I didn't spend nearly that on my PS3 - that was just console, plus FFXIII and maybe a couple of other odds and ends. I pretty much just bought that console for that game. (yay for it being $14 on Steam right now). I still use it very rarely. I did buy an XBox 360 as well. I can't for the life of me remember why I did that though, I never used it. It ended up getting a Kinect attached to it, we bought maybe $50 in used Kinect games for the kid and that was pretty much Christmas the year before the WiiU came out.

    Nintendo 64 - just for Zelda Ocarina of Time - I had the memory expansion card for it (no idea why).
    PS2 - just for FFX/FFXII, and one racing game I can't remember what. I very nearly bought FFXI for it, but I was in the service at the time and couldn't play online very well. It played A LOT of NCAA Football on deployment. I had a portable LCD screen for it, and I think I had the modem attachment, and the DVD remote control, but never did use any of it.
    PS1 - just for FFVII/VII/IX pretty much.
    Wii (original) - MarioCart Wii, pretty much the only reason I had that one. Kid had quite a few games for it though, along with controllers and chargers and such.

    So yeah - I will buy a console if there is an exclusive game for it I really want to play. Or at least I used to. Now most of the stuff is cross-console, or I just wait for the PC port. I will spend on peripherals if I like the system.

    PCs... I've thrown a lot of money at PCs though. I've thrown money at my hobby PC for stuff I know wasn't even a real upgrade. I've got 6 PCs in my house right now, probably parts to run at least 3-4 more, and I've given away half a dozen easily to close family and friends. Since my first "PC" (a 486SX25, not as old as some of the folks around here, but old enough), I did a lot of dumpster diving fixing up old computers before I could afford to actually buy new parts. I try really hard not to stupidly throw money at computer parts - my last computer is still running, and has nearly 6 years on it. But occasionally I get the itch and I just need to build a new rig.

    That includes furniture (office chairs, at least 3 or 4 of those - hardwood desk, home office, etc), that includes peripherals (how many "gaming" mice have I broke over the years), that includes monitors (I still have a 12 year old LCD around someplace that works, barely), that includes networking gear (I have no idea how many routers or miles of CAT5 I have laying around).

    It's shameful, I admit. I'm fortunate that I can afford to do it and not severely impact my families lifestyle.

    So yeah, I've invested orders of magnitude more on PCs in general than I have consoles. But on the flip side of that, I have PC games I have "years" - literally - of actual play time invested in. I have a Steam library that scrolls for at least 3-4 screens (and I know a lot of you have ~A LOT~ more than that even). I had boxes full of old game install DVDs, CDs, and even floppies (until my wife made me throw them out).

    I have a lot invested into PC gaming, across generations of PCs - there are 25ish years of PCs in there. And I enjoy every minute of it - except the times I get ganked.

    I play around with consoles as well, but I don't invest nearly as much into those - they feel more like a commodity device that just lets me play whatever exclusive game I want to play at the time. Then again, a PC is a continual evolution (at least when you are building your own). It isn't a one-time purchase and your done. It's the initial build, then the eventual upgrade, then the new hard drive, then the faster graphics card, then the better keyboard, then the second monitor, etc etc. Then eventually you rebuild a base unit, recycle peripherals, and it's just a endless cycle, since your software mostly keeps transferring up, rather than breaking with each new generation of PCs. It's not like a console, where you buy one, re-buy one when RROD kills it, then you buy the next generation when it comes out, and then all your old games just stop working. That is a big difference in spending habits right there.

    So - yeah. Maybe that was off topic too - too bad.

  • syntax42syntax42 Member UncommonPosts: 1,378
    Originally posted by Dagon13
    Originally posted by syntax42
    Originally posted by Dauntis

    If you are going to include the couch and TV...

    They specifically mentioned it was only included if the couch and/or TV were purchased with the console for the intent of using it with the console.  People who already owned televisions or couches did not include them in the survey.

    Sounds reasonable but you have to apply the same logic to the computer.  Did you purchase a computer desk, chair, sound system, monitor?  

    This wasn't intended to be a "which is cheaper" debate.

     

    My original point was that the argument of consoles being cheap doesn't hold much water.  Yes, consoles can be cheap if you budget right and take advantage of trade-in stores like Gamestop.  However, when people go out and buy a new 60" TV and couch for their basement so they can enjoy their Xbox 512 with six controllers, chargers, 10 new games, and a motion-tracking camera, the hobby becomes more about what you can afford rather than the base price of the system.

    As for the PC vs console debate, it isn't as relevant as it used to be.  Quizzical pointed out that a gaming PC can be had for the same price as as console system.  It becomes more about the content you're looking for, and how much you can spend (your budget) rather than the cost of the systems.  Furniture and peripherals are required in some form, and those costs should be factored into your budget if you have to buy new ones no matter which system you are buying.

    The bottom line:  Console buyers beware.  Don't buy a console just because of the old idea that it is "cheaper" than PC gaming.  Evaluate both options and your needs/wants in gaming, streaming, and work or school.

  • WillowFuxxyWillowFuxxy Member Posts: 406
    Originally posted by syntax42
    Originally posted by Dagon13
    Originally posted by syntax42
    Originally posted by Dauntis

    If you are going to include the couch and TV...

    They specifically mentioned it was only included if the couch and/or TV were purchased with the console for the intent of using it with the console.  People who already owned televisions or couches did not include them in the survey.

    Sounds reasonable but you have to apply the same logic to the computer.  Did you purchase a computer desk, chair, sound system, monitor?  

    This wasn't intended to be a "which is cheaper" debate.

     ...

    The bottom line:  Console buyers beware.  Don't buy a console just because of the old idea that it is "cheaper" than PC gaming.  Evaluate both options and your needs/wants in gaming, streaming, and work or school.

    1. I have a computer desk and a computer chair, however I didnt buy those items just for gaming. In fact the ONLY thing I bought just for gaming is my video card. That is something people should consider (I know your not arguing this point I am just throwing it in)

    2. There was a time not long ago when arguing that ones system was a cheaper option would have gotten one laughed out of the debate. Things like technical quality, specs, resolution, and FPS used to matter. Only until this year has it seemingly become unimportant. I still think its important.

  • WillowFuxxyWillowFuxxy Member Posts: 406
    Originally posted by Ridelynn

    So if the OP is about how the cost of a PC versus the cost of a console makes a difference in which you buy, the fact that different consoles cost different amounts isn't relevant to that discussion, and that one console may perform better or worse compared to other consoles, and the PC, with regard to sales?

    I think it's on topic. The link that is in the OP compares console versus console and doesn't even mention PC costs (which is more or less why Syntax posted it, it's an interesting article, and he brought up that exact point wondering how PCs would fare in there).

    If your taking an article, that pits the 3 major consoles together, and then want to toss PCs into the mix, I think it's very valid to keep the original console vs console topic into the mix.

    Anyway - I will conceed - the entire discussion about what is on topic, is very off topic.

     

    I am talking about the first post in this string, the OPs post. if you take just the article and not what he is saying then you are taking it out of context. 

    BESIDES...mixing in console vs console as a reply to someone who is talking about console(s) vs PC can get a conversation extreemly confusing. Is it unreasonable to ask to when someone has a statement regarding consoles(s) vs PC (as I did) to not respond about fucking netflix?

  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,061


    Originally posted by WillowFuxxy
    BESIDES...mixing in console vs console as a reply to someone who is talking about console(s) vs PC can get a conversation extreemly confusing. Is it unreasonable to ask to when someone has a statement regarding consoles(s) vs PC (as I did) to not respond about fucking netflix?

    It matters. Do you think we would even be talking about Console vs PC if Netflix (as one good example of both a cross-compatible app, and a popular media/digital hub app that isn't a game) were not available on consoles?

    We didn't have this debate when it was Nintendo vs Sega.
    We didn't have this debate when it was PS2 vs Xbox.
    It wasn't until The PS3/360 opened the door past just game consoles and became "media hubs" and went online and started to connect that we really saw people consider, and debate, using just a console and not having a PC at all. Because before that time, it was pretty much if you wanted to play Game XXX or do Activity YYY, it was only on Machine ZZZ - and you had however many devices it took. Once we hit the PS3/360 generation, consoles started to do it all, and publishers brought the games and apps across to them all, and that became a possibility.

    And Netflix is a perfect example of that.

    I'm sorry it confuses you. And I'm sorry you can't see the console vs console angle, which I think it pertinent, especially when you are looking at it in a "Vs. PC" light - because the mentality has shifted towards just having one device (implying you pick a single console) - rather than getting however many devices are out there.

  • WillowFuxxyWillowFuxxy Member Posts: 406
    Originally posted by Ridelynn

     


    Originally posted by WillowFuxxy
    BESIDES...mixing in console vs console as a reply to someone who is talking about console(s) vs PC can get a conversation extreemly confusing. Is it unreasonable to ask to when someone has a statement regarding consoles(s) vs PC (as I did) to not respond about fucking netflix?

     

    It matters. Do you think we would even be talking about Console vs PC if Netflix (as one good example of both a cross-compatible app, and a popular media/digital hub app that isn't a game) were not available on consoles?

    this is silly you want me to say 'yes I can see how console might be more attractive than a PC because a console can stream netflix'

    sorry I am not going to agree with that statement and we are done.

  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,061


    Originally posted by WillowFuxxy
    sorry I am not going to agree with that statement and we are done.

    image

Sign In or Register to comment.