PC vs Console Gaming: Which Is Actually More Expensive?
“PC gamers” often snicker about how “console gamers” pay for things that they get for free. They also tout that PC games usually sell for less than console games. After hearing these claims a few million times, I decided to dive into the numbers and see who is really paying more over the life-cycle of their gaming system of choice. Warning: there is actually some real financial analysis going on here. I’m just trying to get the facts straight. FYI, if you only care about the results, skip to the verdict.
The Scenarios
I decided to look at three different gaming configurations, an Xbox 360, a “typical” gaming PC, and the gaming PC setup as a home theater PC (HTPC). The main difference between the gaming PC and the HTPC is the display and sound. The gaming PC has a 22″ widescreen monitor with computer surround sound speakers. The HTPC has a 46″ 1080P LCD display, and a component 5.1 home theater speaker setup. The Xbox 360 setup has the same 46″ LCD display and speakers as the HTPC.
The Assumptions
- The gaming PC must be replaced every three years (just the PC not the display or sound)
- The gaming PC gets $250 of misc. upgrades by year two
- The gaming PC is being purchased instead of a basic computer that would have been purchased anyway
- The console PC requires a larger/better television than what would have been purchased anyway
- The console life cycle is six years
- For all scenarios four full-priced games, and one discount game (50%) were purchased each year
- The console gamer purchases three additional controllers
- The console gamer goes through four dozen batteries per year
- The console gamer pays for an Xbox Live Gold membership
- 23% (mean of Dell’s consumer financing rates 15-30%) discount rate used to calculate the NPV
The Method
I am using a finance technique known as net present value (NPV). It is a method for accounting for the time value of money. Basically a dollar today is worth more than a dollar three years from now (or any other later date). It should be noted that using NPV favors the PC rig because it discounts the future costs of upgrading/replacing the system which you don’t have to do with the Xbox 360.
The Verdict
In the scenarios I have laid out, the basic PC gaming setup is more expensive. It is somewhat close though; only 12% higher. Think about that though, a 46″ 1080P LCD TV, full home-theater setup, an Xbox 360, 6 years of Xbox Live, four controllers, and the two included games costs less than a good (but not amazing) gaming PC on a relatively paltry 22″ display.
If you compare the 360 to the HTPC it gets bad real quick: 38% more. If you assume that you already have the TV/monitor and sound that you’ll be using for your gaming, the PC solutions are a whopping 71% more. Here’s the breakdown in dollar figures:
Total NPV
Xbox 360: $3,152
Gaming PC: $3,523
HTPC: $4,349
NPV without display and sound
Xbox 360: $1,837
Gaming PC: $3,149
HTPC: $3,149
The Point?
The only point of this is to show the PC gaming is in fact more expensive. If you enjoy PC gaming, so be it. Just know that it costs more. For the record, I was actually surprised how well PC gaming did in this comparison. For my dollar, I’ll take the integrated approach of the Xbox 360 and Xbox Live though, not to mention that I don’t have to install my games and troubleshoot them to make them work (if you can make them work).
*If you would like to check out my spreadsheet for this, here’s the link. It has all of the specs for the PC, and links to every product and component used.
*Update* Bob has a response to my analysis. Check it out.
Comments
102 Responses to “PC vs Console Gaming: Which Is Actually More Expensive?”
Leave a Reply
-
Top Amazon Price Drops
-
Was: $187.59
Now: $125.45
-33.13%: Altec Lansing FX5051 Powered Audio System
-
Was: $249.95
Now: $199.95-20%: Polk Audio RM6750 5.1 Channel Home Theater Speaker...
-
Was: $23.00
Now: $18.49-19.61%: COBY MP-CD521 Personal MP3/CD Player with 120...
-
Was: $36.93
Now: $29.99-18.79%: Delphi SA10224 SKYFi 3 Portable XM Radio Receiver...
-
Was: $13.48
Now: $10.99-18.47%: Case Logic Compact Portable Hard Drive Case (Black)
-
Was: $84.99
Now: $69.99-17.65%: Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock Bundle
- More Price Drops... (what's this?)
-
Top Tech News Mashup-
Please upgrade your browser
Old habits die hard… I can’t give up the precision of my keyboard and mouse for FPSs. And have you ever played an RTS game on a console? Those are my two favorite genres, and I have a hard time with them on anything but my overpriced computer.
A friend was telling me that out of the box Crysis won’t run without a crack (he legally bought it) on a computer he built specifically for crysis.
As well, Unreal Tournament 3 for PS3 lets you use a Keyboard and Mouse if you like.
I CAN DOWNLOAD AND INSTALL TONS OF GAMES FOR THE PC FOR FREE.
DUH?
Legally? If so, probably not very good ones. BTW, Microsoft just announced Xbox Live Community Games (all free).
About RTS games, there is a game, I can’t remember which one (I think it was a Lord of the Rings game), that supposedly works really well with the controller. But they really spent some time on making a new control scheme for a controller and not just trying to make the control do what the keyboard and mouse do.
You cannot do porn on the XBox (or at least with the same zeal).
The graphical quality and control on the gaming PC is much greater though. Say you bought a gaming PC with a nVidia geForce 8800 GT (quite powerful). 3 years later, it is going to be a bit outdated, and no longer top-of-the-line, but it is still going to be able to play all the latest games. Upgrading your PC is a luxury, not a necessity so it shouldn’t be counted in the cost.
The PC probably still is considerably more expensive (as the Xbox360 is a helluva deal), but considering all the extras it brings to the table (keyboard+mouse control, user-mods, free online, etc…) I’ll still take it over the 360.
Ronald, while some of us could care less about that. Keep in mind that my example assumes that you would have purchased a basic $500 computer anyway. You would still have all the functionality of a basic computer. That part is what they call a “sunk cost”.
Tim, I hate to break it to you, but an 8800GT really isn’t that good right now, much less 3 years from now. Sure it can play the games, but not at the graphic level of the 360. The 7-series video card I have in my PC cost about $250 when I bought my 360. It can’t play anything with anywhere near the visuals of my Xbox, even at a below 720p resolution.
Bob actually built a computer over the summer just to play Crysis only to find out that basically no computer can play it well 6 months later.
I would like to point out a horrible flaw with the analysis. You do not need to spend $250 every two years nor do you need to replace it every three.
Let’s see what that $250 gets you -
Dramatic improvement in visuals to match new games. Consoles don’t do this.
Dramatic improvement in old games. Consoles don’t do this.
Paul Ellis may be right when it comes to the 8800GTX in current terms, but the argument in question is not close to whether the current PC built can outperform the current console, but whether or not console gaming is really cheaper than PC gaming.
A gaming PC ages just as well as a console. Over the assumed 6 years, the console does not show any dramatic improvements. Just compare Halo to Halo 2. Yes, Halo 2 looks better, but not by the same degree a PC game over the same timeframe does. Not even remotely close. Doom 3, the same year Halo 2 dropped, looks lightyears better than Halo 2 and loads better than Max Payne, which was released the same year as Halo 1. The degree of improvement is astonishing.
Compare this to a PC built in 2001 playing Doom 3. It will still run at the same performance level but only be slightly better than Max Payne in visual fidelity, exactly what a console does.
Adding the $250 at year 2 and full upgrade at year 3 unfairly loads the deck against the PC. Those upgrades are entirely frivolous and aren’t comparable to a console since a console cannot upgrade itself on a similar basis. Timed right, a PC gaming system will always look better than the equivalent console on the market and be considerably cheaper.
Another major flaw is the argument that a 22″ screen is paltry. Console gaming is played at a much further distance than a gaming PC is. A foot maximum for a gaming PC while your console is designed to sit on the couch, 10 feet away. At a foot, 22″ is hardly paltry. A 50″ screen is required at the 10 foot console distance.
Overall, the PC system is not more expensive, but decisively cheaper. The savings only improve when you buy more games, considering PC games are typically $10 cheaper and drop in value faster than the console cousin, so buying used copies off eBay benefit the PC more than the console since the PC game will be much cheaper.
Take this rebuttal as you will.
Just as a little evidence backup; behold, Doom 3 running on a Voodoo 2 -
http://www.firingsquad.com/media/gallery_index.asp/244
Behold, Max Payne -
http://www.3drealms.com/max/max_payne_0601_shot_01.html
Amazing, Doom 3, perfectly playable on a Voodoo 2 and a 500MHz Pentium 3, looks better than Max Payne. A console does the exact same thing.
The point of the comparison is to show what people actually do with each console. Most (and I consulted with some people before I made this assumption) put at least $250 in upgrades into their gaming rig within around two years of buying/building it.
When it comes to upgrades, I like that the console can’t be upgraded. It forces developers to optimize the system more to get better presentation. Just look at what developers coaxed out of a PS2 for God of War 2.
About the screen size, 46″ makes 22″ look paltry. Not to mention that the 46″ 1080p screen will be higher resolution (tham the one used in the figures). Also I like sitting in my easy chair playing instead of hunched over my keyboard to be close enough to the screen to see.
About Doom 3 on a Voodoo 2…wow you proved my point. That game looks terrible. Doom 3 on an Xbox 1 looks better, and that came out about 3.5 years after the Xbox 1 came out. Or compare Halo 1 to a game like Splinter Cell: Chaos theory.
Let me emphasize again, the point of the post is that it is a FINANCIAL ANALYSIS of the costs of PC vs Console gaming. It does not account for personal preferences. If anything this analysis was overly fair to PC gaming. You could build a much nicer gaming PC (more RAM, double or triple SLI, higher end keyboard/mouse, higher end monitor, etc).
You also forgot the part where I haven’t paid for a single non-online PC game in over 5 years. Subtract the cost of software out of the equation and how are we doing?
First of all, what kind of stipulation is “non-online PC game”? Do you pirate all your games, or do you just play lame flash games? Either one is questionable. That insinuates that you are paying for online games BTW, and I don’t buy any non-online games. I (once in a blue moon) rent games without a significant online component. Can you rent on a PC? Didn’t think so. :)
I ran the numbers real quick anyway, and without software just comparing everything except display and sound the PC is still 21% more. Get that, an Xbox 360 with 5 games per year is cheaper than a gaming PC with no games to play….
I meant piracy, and its closer to 2 games a month than 5 a year
in 5 years there will be at least 2 new consoles. So if u want that it will cost you. And my computer is probably 4-5 years old…maybe 3(lol) and all ive done is bought more RAM and a new video card. I can run crysis, ut3, cod4, and probably any other game even though the system requirements tell me that i cant(and my settings arent set to low either ;) ). So buying a new computer every 3 years isnt real, and if you’re building yourself a decent gaming computer(if u bought all the parts seperately) then you can make it for just over $1000(i know ive done it recently). Which is $2000 less than xbox ;)
Well, if you are willing to steal your games what can I say? You are exactly the reason why PC games are getting fewer and fewer, and why they have such onerous copy-protection schemes. The copy-protection software is a MAJOR reason for why I don’t like doing gaming on my PC.
And if you actually paid for 24 games a year instead of 5 (how do you actually have time to play them?) the PC still costs 7% more than the console.
Dan, a major favor I threw to the PC was that I assumed that I built it myself. If you download the spreadsheet you’ll see. It has links to every component used; very detailed. The computer cost $1600 and can’t play Crysis at the native resolution of the monitor in the example (1680×1050) at the high (not very high) settings.
The 360 will probably have a 6-year life. The Wii? Probably not, but it isn’t next-gen if you ask me. Keep in mind that the PS2 came out 8 years ago, and it is still one of the top selling systems each month (I don’t know why though…).
“Amazing, Doom 3, perfectly playable on a Voodoo 2 and a 500MHz Pentium 3, looks better than Max Payne.”
LOL
Oh wow.
For starters, Doom 3 and Max Payne have different engines and are DIFFERENT games.
Compare Doom 3 on a Voodoo toDoom 3 on a Xbox.
Here we go:
Yours:
http://www.firingsquad.com/media/gallery_index.asp/244
Xbox version:
http://screenshots.teamxbox.com/gallery/226/Doom-3/p1/
Seriously, to be honest, Doom 3 on a voodoo looks crappy compared to Max Payne as well.
http://screenshots.teamxbox.com/screen/2827/Max-Payne/
Yep, thanks for posting that stuff, I needed a good laugh.
Analysis is flawed … and you are an idiot. Cost of Debt ^= Discount Rate unless you have no equity (which would negate the analysis completely since you cannot have credit without some form of risk-adjusted return potential).
And who in their right mind would spend 25% of the original to update only to replace the entire unit in the following year. Where are the added gains from the additional usage a PC gives that a console cannot? If the PC is solely for gaming, then why spend money on Anti-Virus?
Please leave your articles for the tech and not the cash flows until you take a basic course on DCF …
I note that many console owners have more than one current generation console. I also note that copying software (however legally) is an economic decision and a perfectly valid one to factor in.
I also don’t know who buys $500 computers in this equation. The people gaming on their computers are power users, not basic users.
My $1100 laptop, bought 1.5 years ago, is plenty fast enough to play everything I play. The drive for me to purchase a new laptop comes from video decoding (H.264), not gaming, but I’m saving a lot of money over buying a console - I don’t even have a TV!
Anon,
Please no ad hominem attacks. You lost all credibility after your first sentence. And your take on discounted cash flows is confusing, at best.
This is a stupid article. The reality is that you need a PC anyway so putting in a better graphics card is about all you need for gaming
Anon, first of all it is actually about 15.7% of the original price for the update. I talked to some PC gamers who agreed that it was reasonable that BY year two that someone would spend an additional $250 or so on upgrades. I gave it the benefit of the doubt by having the cash flow AT year two. Also if you want to know who would do that look at “Dan Cardin” above because he did.
The anti-virus cost, even if you take it out doesn’t really change anything.
About the discount rate used, that is up for discussion. I made the assumption that many people have consumer debt (I don’t but I know a lot of people who do) that would be at a comparable rate to the Dell financing. So for every dollar they spend on a gaming setup will be a dollar that won’t be paying off that debt. Keep in mind that no discount rate between 0% and 65% makes the PC cheaper in any scenario though.
BTW, I believe the proper notation is != not ^= .
dave a,
The article takes into account the fact that people need a PC anyway. Read it, and you’ll find your concern is already taken care of.
Ben, the $500 computer is the basic (web, word, etc) computer you would have even if you didn’t game. In this example it is like a $500 discount (sunk cost) taken off the cost of the gaming PC. You know the basic $500 Dell computer you can get at Walmart. The gaming PC components cost are _marginal_ costs.
As for copying games, it is an ethical question too. My ethics are worth at least $60 to me. Accounting for piracy gets out of the scope of my analysis too. You could steal the computer, or mod the 360 and steal those games. You could even play solitaire with real cards for $2 too.
You’re “comparison” isn’t even close to fair. For instance sometimes consoles are “upgradeable” PS2 Network adapter, 360 HD DVD drive, N64 expansion pack, and you cannot even watch DVDs on an Xbox with out first buying the remote. How about the Genesis, Sega CD ring a bell? Or 32X. Some PS3 and 360 game do need to be installed (Maybe not “need” but installing can be to improve loading times). If you think the GPU in the 360 compares at all with the 8800 series then you clearly haven’t done your research. Also the Voodoo 2 was released in early 98′ the Xbox in 2001, there is a reason that Doom 3 is graphically superior on an Xbox. You’re also berate others for personal preferences then tout your own. It sounds to me that you trying to convince yourself that console gaming is cheaper as you were obviously frustrated and biased to begin with. I searched for said “real financial analysis” but couldn’t find it in your article.
Including the TV is rather absurd. How many people do you know that go out and buy a TV FOR their game consoles? Almost nobody. Seriously, the number is really close to zero. The television is too ubiquitous, it’s too ingrained in our lives, in our culture. We already have one, and if the average household is going to update their TV to a new, high definition flat panel, they’re going to do that with or without the Xbox 360.
Including the TV as a part of the cost of console gaming is like including the price of a car when looking at the cost of baby car seats.
Alf, just because you can upgrade doesn’t mean that most people do. How many people bought the Sega CD, the PS2 network adapter, or the 32X? Not many, trust me, we had a 32X.
Also, you can’t install any 360 game yet. I wish you _could_ if it would help. It is funny, some PS3 games require installing, and then the same game on 360 won’t allow installing. How about making it optional on both?
There is more to getting good graphics than raw horsepower. The type of optimization you can do when you have a closed platform like a console is much higher. Tell me what kind of Pentium III 700 Mhz with a Geforce 3 GPU (this is what the Xbox 1 has) could put out graphics like Halo 2 or Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory. The operating system on a PC adds a lot of overhead, and you have to do a lot of abstracting for the various hardware.
About the Voodoo2 bit, I didn’t bring it up in the first place. I thought it was ridiculous.
You must not have searched hard for the financial analysis because there is a link to my Excel file at the end of the post. :)
Jake, I agree, but I wanted it to be as fair as possible; people buy new displays for their gaming PC. I do show the numbers without sound and display though, and I do think those are the most salient numbers. The console is decidedly cheaper in those figures.
If you seriously think pc is more expensive you are stupid.
I can build a full system, including OS, monitor, sound, everything that can run CRYSIS for under 500.
PCS CAN RUN ON EVERY DISPLAY THAT CONSOLES CAN + MANY MANY MORE. PROJECTOR,HD, ANYTHING. OH YES WE CAN ALSO USE PADDLES. BUT WHAT PC GAMER USES PADDLES WHEN AIMING AND PRECISION OF KEYBOARD+MOUSE IS IN FACT BETTER.
COMPUTERS HAVE VERY MANY USES. CONSOLES ARE VERY LIMITED.
THE VALUE OF A COMPUTER OVER A CONSOLE IS VERY VERY HIGH.
CONOLES CANNOT UPGRADE. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN NEW TECHNOLOGY COMES OUT ON PC? I CAN GET IT RIGHT AWAY. FOR CONSOLE AN ENTIRE NEW SYSTEM IS NEEDED, SYSTEMS ARE ALSO NOT MADE EVERY YEAR SO…
CONSOLES ARE OUT OF DATE WITHIN THE 1st MONTH OF THERE RELEASE,
THIS IS A FACT. TECHNOLOGY IS CONSTANTLY IMPROVING AND CONSOLES CANT GET WITH IT LIKE PC.
myspace.com/ermacdesign
OH YEAH 8800 ARE BETTER THAN XBOX360 VIDEO CARDS
ARE YOU MORONS THAT STUPID?
XBOX360 USES A BETA/OUTDATED VIDECARD MADE BY ATI (YES A COMPUTER GRAPHICS CARD COMPANY) THEY HAVE MADE MANY ADVANCES SINCE THE WEAK 360 CARD WHICH CAN LICK MY BALLS
Ignoring the fact that a $500 computer probably could’t play Crysis at 800×600, the best part about what you said Eric? That it would still cost more than an 360 ($500 > $350)…Priceless.
console life cycles are not 6 yrs. You should start with the 360’s initial price $400. You don’t need anti-virus, AVG is free. Your PC upgrade chart is ridiculous. You don’t need to overhaul every 3 yrs, thats a luxury. Try 4 if not 5 yrs, and add in a CPU upgrade. You don’t need raid, luxury. You don’t need a $110 case. You don’t need surround sound, get headphones, they’re better. You put a crappy Dell monitor on there, WTF? You’re not going to get a better price, but you’ll get much better quality with something else. If you buy the best vid card out there, you’re stupid. Get a $200 card. You didn’t include DLC which is free on PC, plus all the free flash games out there. If you’re going to take out the TV, you need to take out much of the monitor as well since you can use it for more than 6 yrs. I’m still using the same monitor I bought in 2001.
Your PC pricing just reeks of not knowing. I’ve spent roughly 2.5k over the past 7 yrs on my PC gaming, with one major upgrade. I’ve played the newest games throughout. I should be good for the next 4 with buying a $200 vid card sometime in 2009.
Spiza, I agree that it should probably have $400 for the 360, and maybe I could sub in AVG-free (although many people pay for anti-virus), but both of those are small differences.
With how often sockets/chipsets change now-a-days you can’t count on upgrading a CPU after 3 years. And a $110 case? That isn’t an expensive case when you consider that it has a good power-supply. You can pay nearly that much for the PSU. If you buy a $30 case, you’ll end up needing at least a $60 PSU to drive the system.
I happen to like Dell monitors. (Only thing Dell I’ll buy, no joke.) Their higher tier though. They are usually the same panels as used in the high Apple displays.
If you only buy a $200 card it won’t play any games well after a year or so. That is why I went with a higher end one. Spending the additional $100-$200 extends the life of a >$1000 computer significantly.
The type of DLC you talk about on PCs is not equivalent to console DLC (think Guitar Hero). And the equivalent stuff (HL2 EP1 and EP2) cost $$$.
FYI, there are numbers without the sound and display. They are the second set.
And that last paragraph…? Complete bull. $2700 for 11 years of PC gaming? Not gonna happen, at least higher than 800×600. Your $200 video card upgrade in 2009 won’t even get you another 3 years. Mark my words, recommended (maybe minimum) memory on a graphics card in 2012 will be over 4GB.
Doesn’t matter who bought them or who didn’t it’s the fact that they exist. I’m also sure they sold more then a few PS2 network adapters. You have a point about the closed platform but what does that have to do with cost? Also the PS2 was notoriously hard to write for in the beginning, nothing was optimized then. Which also raised the cost all around.
Running what I need to, idle on my desktop, I’m using sub 175 megabytes of ram and 1 or 2 percent of my cpu. I don’t call that “a lot” of over head. But NONE of that is really valid at all in so far as your original argument. You’re analysis is flawed… I think if there is one thing most of those commenting can agree on it’s that this isn’t conclusive or fair. (Reed the Excel before first post still couldn’t find any analyzing going on).
I think it boils down to this. Some people started playing their favorite games on consoles, that’s the control they are used to for their fps\rts whatever. That is what they work most fluidly with. When they switch to a pc its like a bad train wreck, the kind you actually have to look away from and so they stick with the platform they are comfortable with. That being said I think pc fps players destroy console fps players. Preference is all fine and good but nothing beats a mouse and keyboard. As to the cost, I can do more with my pc then you can with your puny little console (although thats starting to change) so sure I will totally shell out more $$$
The optimization has to do with the feasible lifespan of the product. PC game development can always fallback on making the user upgrade whereas console game development can’t. True a network adapter is technically an upgrade, but it doesn’t affect performance, it affects the feature set.
While it is true that the PS2 (and the PS3 even more so) is hard to develop for, those costs are incurred by the developer. The costs I’m focusing on are the consumer costs.
As for overhead, it isn’t just RAM and CPU usage at idle. It takes more resources to execute a certain command when it is abstracted through the various layers of a desktop OS. The distance between the application/game and the hardware is much larger on Windows than in the stripped down “operating systems” that the Xbox 360 or PS3 run.
A typical example could be how a graphics call gets sent from the game to DirectX to the video card driver to the PCIe bus driver then to the hardware (three intermediate steps). On the 360 it can be sent from the game to DirectX (basically) to the hardware (one intermediate step). Each step has a performance (memory, cpu, latency, etc) price. And with the console the developers can be certain how the graphics chip will perform so they don’t have to do workarounds to make sure it gets sent out of the DirectX layer in a way that works for every support ATI and nVidia part.
As for the analysis, it isn’t verbage in the excel file. It is the formulas and the assumptions, the discount rate, what constitutes a sunk cost, what costs are actually salient to the marginal value of a gaming setup, etc.
Db, I am not trying to make a qualitative argument for/against PC/console gaming. If you like PCs fine, or consoles, fine. Personally I enjoy consoles more, but that is just me. I am the last person to tell anyone that how they are having fun is stupid and they really aren’t having fun.
And maybe I should add this to the post in bold the numbers account for the fact that you can do other things with a computer. Pretty much anything you would do outside of gaming could be done by a $500 computer, so that is taken as a sunk cost.
I won’t be patronized any longer. You’re obviously not interested in any constructive criticism, or recognizing that your methodology is severely lacking. If I were you I’d disable comments so you’re not up all night arguing about things that have nothing to do with your articles.
Alf, how am I patronizing? Seriously, if you feel that way I’d like to know. I really feel like my response to your argument was legitimate.
Wow, I had some respect for PC gamers. After reading the ignorant comments left by people in favor of PC gaming, I’m astonished. The author of this article gives the PC gamer too much credit to begin with. The cost of TV and surround sound should not be included. Family’s already have home theaters set up for the Super Bowl, Movies, and Cable TV. I believe Jake summed it up nicely, “Including the TV as a part of the cost of console gaming is like including the price of a car when looking at the cost of baby car seats.” It’s rediculous to think that PC gaming is not more expensive. To make a PC equivalent to an Xbox360 in power and performance, you will pay over $800. You have to buy the housing, graphics card, processor, monitor, hard drive, disc drive, usb ports, cooling fans, mother board, ram…. the list goes on. Before I go on lets look at the pros and cons of both options.
Xbox360
Pros $350, Xbox Live($50), Many Games most online capable (controlled by a standard of qaulity implemented by Microsoft), Ergonomic Controller (Both comfortable and responsive), Stylish, Simplicity and Convenience.
Cons Overheating, Not a PC
PC
Pros Advanced Graphics and Gameplay, User Mods and user created content, Multi-functional as a PC and a game system, and Freedom.
Cons Complicated, Expensive, Non-Centralized online capability (You must pay for online service from each game manufacturer) aka >$50.
The fact that the Xbox360 is developed for one purpose (Plays games), and is backed by a multi-billion dollar coorporation (Microsoft) gives it a distinct advantage. THe Xbox360 has been finetuned to the point of nearperfection. All of the hardware has been specifically chosen and tweaked to work at MAXIMUM efficiency with the software. So Microsoft provides funding for research which figures out how to reach maximum efficiency with there console. Another fact about console gaming is that subject to our free market. You see one characteristic of a Free Market Economy is the consumers buy things, which creates demand. The higher the demand (# of consoles sold) impacts the price of the product, causing it to drop significantly. Video game consoles are popular, there IS a high demand for Xbox360s. This is why Microsoft is able to sell the console at a lowered price.
The main feature of the Xbox360, and the reason it became so popular, is its centralized online gaming community (XboxLive).
A person pays $50 dollars for a year’s subscription, a PC gamer probably pays less, BUT they must pay for online with each game developer. There is no “centralized” Live Community. This is another example of the Xbox360s simplicity and conveniance.
Let’s say you bought a PC today!!! It’s awesome, 3.2Ghz Processor, (2) 512MB NVidea Graphics Cards, an amazing Power Source along with a Liquid Cooling System… $MONEY$ You bought all of your parts seperately for $800. Now you have to assemble all of the parts. Boot up the OS, install all drives, install any games you (purchased). NOw you have a Great gaming PC, an Excellent Personal Computer, alot of PoRN and an awesome Monitor. (This PRICE is generous)
You CAn argue that the PC has free games, but again this is a moral choice, personally I am not willing to give up my soul for a $50 game. Yes PC games are made with more depth of quality concerning visuals and sounds. Technically they are capable of becoming superior to console games, but for that superiority you will pay much more $MONEY$.
Then there is the matter of the User-Created content. This I do find intrigueing, I mod maps on Halo 3 and have found it to be quite a ****** map editor, and they don’t provide me with enough ways to get my ideas into the hands of the public. I suppose they are working on that as it is becoming more popular. This is where the PC one-ups the 360.
The last and main reason PC gamers are PC gamers is because they enjoy the freedom they get with PC gaming. In PC gaming there are no rules or regulations, you can mod games all you like create new games, look up PoRN. I assume people can get their user-created content noticed through the use of forums, and fileshares.
Now, because the PC is a PC as well as a gaming machine, this is like comparing apples with chainsaws. So we are going to assume that the Xbox 360 costs $350 + $300. This covers the price of a well equipped PC that will be able to perform all of the standard functions of a PC.
The price of the Xbox360 with a Standard PC is now $650 (Includes Simplicity and Support). Which is still way below the price of a “gaming” PC at over $800 (Graphics and Freedom).
I’m a rebel, I love modding popular games, and creating my own games. I enjoy the sickest graphics and sounds imaginable, along with PoRN. I also want a PC that exceeds the needs of most PC going individuals. I enjoy finding bargains and assembly PC’s myself.
~PC Gamer
I love XboxLIve! I can chat with all of my friends no matter what game they are playing. I can play all of the latest games with sick graphics and PoRN. I want a HUGE selection of great games to choose from. I don’t care about user-created content, that **** always sucks anyway!!! I just wanna play the latest games with my friends on my HighDef TV. I already have a computer.
~Console Gamer
I’m both a PC and console gamer and can see flaws on boths sides of your analysis. Firstly on the PC side, 8800GTX at $410? Really, only $200 on a 3D card will still allow you to play games at a decent enough resolution (maybe not the equivalent of 1080p, but good enough) for a decent period of time. My girlfriend still has a 7600 and it still plays all the latest games fine. Seriously, Call of Duty 4 looks much better on my PC then on the X-box with my $200 8800GTS, and as good PC developers make PC games highly scalable (Valve with HL2 for instance) that 3D card should last near 3.5-4yrs.
Upgrading is more of a luxury, so if you do include the $410 card I would reduce the cost of upgrading to $72 for some extra RAM in 2 yrs (which should be cheaper by then as well) and keep the 3D card for 5yrs. The only reason to upgrade the graphics card would be if you’re a graphics ***** who wants all his/her games to look 10X better then the current gen consoles. Also, I’m not sure you need a top CPU as I’m still using my AMD 3800+X2 and I still run Crysis fine.
Also, I’d stick to Windows XP as currently most DirectX 10 effects can be done on DirectX 9 with a bit if tinkering and Vista takes ridiculous amounts of system resources (why did MS bother?). You can say its the latest version of Windows but masses of people are actually asking to be downgraded to XP when buying a new PC these days. Furthermore, anti-virus software is free if you know where to look.
Finally on the PC side, I’d say a full system change every 5yrs sounds more realistic to most unless you’re a complete graphics ***** with money to burn. I’m a student so I don’t but, if you’re clever about you’re components, you can have a lasting PC. A lot of people also use PC’s for work and other uses so maybe reduce the costs due to these extra benfits? Just a thought.
On the console side of things, X-box should be $400 as I think someone already mentioned and I really wouldn’t put the TV in there as most people have a TV anyway… thats a major draw to console gamming right?
Also $20 per annum on batteries? Doesn’t the X-box have rechargables? (I have a PS3, so I really don’t know). I would also incluse some of the extras for the X-box, e.g. HD-DVD drive… now soon to be Blu-Ray I guess, new HDD etc. I’m sure Microsoft will release new add-ons for the console (dependent on what the competition do) so an extra $40 every 2yrs over the full 6 yr life cycle would probably cover that.
Overall, I think you’ve overestimated PC costs as unless you’re a massive graphics ***** or insane (maybe they go hand in hand!) then the costs of PC gamming can be much lower. This is especially the case if you want the equivalent to console games as in the last 3 yrs of a consoles lifecycle, multipltform games are somewhat held back to accomodate the consoles aging hardware (e.g. Deus Ex: Invisible War, about 6 months after release an unofficial High Definition texture pack was released for the PC to ramp up the poor visuals)
Just noticed the reduction on PC of $500 for the cost of having a basic PC anyway. Ignore the last 2 sentences fo paragraph 4 of my last post! :P
On a side note, I agree, consoles are cheaper, I just think the difference is not quite as much as you make out (not including HDTV) if you’re clever about it.
[...] Paul’s latest comparison between PC and console gaming has created quite the firestorm. His financial analysis shows that console gaming is, in fact, [...]
Subhas, I have a 7600 and I can’t game with it. The graphics are way worse than my 360, and it cost about as much as a low end 360 when it came out. Sure you can get a $200 card now that will play well, but the life span is short. IMO you’d have to upgrade your $200 video card every 18-24 months. Also, I wouldn’t call a 3.0Ghz dual-core CPU the top of the line. It is fast, but there are definitely more powerful CPUs, especially quad-core.
On the Blu-ray/HD-DVD side of things, I would have had to add it to both the 360 and the PC to make it even, and it would have been a wash. It would have pushed up both sets of numbers by the same amount. Plus I don’t think it is a given that people buying gaming PCs or consoles for movies. They may use it that way (I just watched a movie over Xbox Live last night) it doesn’t factor into their purchase decision much.
What resolution are you playing at with the 7600? We have it at about equivalent 720p with playable frame rates. Yes, the graphics are worse then the 360 with a 7600, but still playable and the graphics with a 8800GTS are going to be the same or better then the 360 now and in the future. Furthermore I still believe if you do sepend $410 on a graphics card you’re system can last 5yrs for games before you need a new system. PC graphics tend to suffer as a console ages, then when a new console comes out the developers suddenly push the limits of hardware on the PC forcing everyone who wants to game on the PC to upgrade.
With the CPU, sorry, but I misread your spreadsheet and thought it was a quad core, but my point remains that you don’t need a brilliant CPU, an average and even budget CPU can usually do a decent enough job for games and last longer then Intel or AMD would have us believe (hence my **** 3800X2 somehow surviving to play games fine).
Lastly, I have to disagree to a certain extent about people buying consoles for movies, I think a lot of people buy the PS3 as a cheap Blu Ray player, hence why the attachment ratio in terms of games for the console hasn’t been huge. X-box, probably not as much, and Wii not at all since it doesn’t play DVDs!
I have it at the native resolution of my PC monitor 1280×1024. The graphics are lower quality and the frame rate is much lower (20fps or less). Serious CoD4 on the 360 has a smooth frame rate no matter what, it is amazing.
This is my point though “Yes, the graphics are worse then the 360 with a 7600, but still playable”. I’m not going to pay more for worse graphics that are “still playable”. That’s like saying someone’s girlfriend isn’t THAT ugly.
Agreed that people are buying the PS3 for Blu-ray, but they aren’t really gamers per se. Exactly why the attachment ratio (as you mentioned) is low. They are buying a movie player that plays games, not a game machine that plays movies.
Anyway, this is all getting into the qualitative side of things for which there is no clear answer. Different people have different wants/tastes/etc. That is why you are fine with a 7600, and I’m not; just different preferences. Attempting to do a public analysis of that would be just opening pandora’s box.
BTW, I have an X2 4200+ and I feel like it is a bit long in the tooth for gaming.
[...] how much does a console gamer save over the system’ss lifespan? A poster over at TechConsumer crunched the numbers and found that, when everything is added up, the savings aren’t necessarily that [...]
I can’t believe these thick-headed PC creamers can’t except that console gaming is a less expensive then PC gaming. It is obvious that for a PC to give you the same gaming experienced as a console. The price is going to be higher. It is not cheaper to use a Gaming PC. As I said before the reason console gaming is cheaper is because, it is backed by a multi-billion dollar corporation, it is “MASS-PRODUCED”, and it is in very high demand. Not to mention the competition between gaming consoles to deliver the best graphics at the lowest price.
It is like comparing a Z06 Corvette to an Enzo Ferrari. The Corvette has very similar specs to the Ferrari in terms of horsepower and overall handleing. But, because the Corvette is so popular: there is so much demand. GM researches the most economic and efficient combination of parts and extensively tests its product to deliver max efficiency. As a result the Corvette is less expensive. They try to give the “majority” consumers the most bang for there buck which in turn gives the company a good name. The Enzo Ferrari will outperform the Corvette, but you will pay a much higher price for the minimal boost in performance.
Actually the Corvette ZR1 will beat an Enzo Ferrari, and cost literally hundreds of thousands less. Nevertheless I get your example.
Keep in mind that it is a very good example. Enzo Ferraris are fairly tempermental, and require a lot of maintenance relatively speaking. They also aren’t good “daily drivers” like the ‘Vette (I am actually more of a Porsche fan myself). That isn’t what people buy them for. But they do cost more, guaranteed, and at best only offer a marginal performance improvement.
I’m not saying that PC gaming is cheaper then the consoles, only that its not as expensive as its made out in this analysis. I agree that to a degree it is qualitative in that I will be happy with my PC hardware for a good number of years (I don’t change system until at least 5 years- currently 3800+X2, 2Gb RAM, 8800GTS 320Mb GDDR3).
Paul, if you upgraded your GPU from a 7600 to an 8800GT the improvement you get would far surpass any CPU upgrade. That was more the point I was trying to make, just not very clearly.
The fact is this type of analysis is always going to be influenced by what someone deems as an “essential” component (e.g. any of the 8800 GPUs is more powerful then the X-box 360 GPU… as long as its run with XP, not Vista… I sound like a bloody NVidia salesman!). I find I get better graphics with new games when compared to the console equivalent. Or maybe Crysis has just burnt my eyeballs out of there sockets! :D
Anyway, I actually agree with what your trying to say, just that the PC you have in the comparison I would say is a better gaming machine then the X-box 360 so it’s not a fair comparison. Furthermore, not everyone needs a “gaming RIG” and a lot of PC gamers are happy with “poweful” home PCs, but as you said thats more a matter of taste.
No doubt that a video card upgrade would do me a lot of good if I wanted to PC game (it isn’t the costs that turns me off). For what I expect though, I would be replacing it in 12 months, no joke (that’s my qualitative preference). I want to run at the native resolution with high settings, and Bob’s 8800GTS with 640MB can’t do that with Crysis, so really an 8800GT wouldn’t work for me right now even.
If I was going to pick up PC gaming, my rig would honestly probably cost more than the one in the example. Also remember, if you buy your rig from some company it will cost even more, my example is a DIY. I guess my point is, it can be done for more or less, and I tried to pick a middle ground. The example system I picked certainly isn’t extravagant. There is no SLI, the KB/Mouse combo is only $90, it has a middle of the road Dell monitor, only $110 for the case and 550W PSU, it only has 2GB of RAM, and no quad core CPU.
I feel like I should mention why I don’t PC game since I mentioned that it isn’t the cost (funny enough considering this post), and this is entirely my personal preference. There are a few reason. First, I don’t like play games at my desk. Honestly, it feels like work to me; not relaxing. Second, working on my computer just to game is work, not leisure. When there is an update for an Xbox game it takes literally 10 seconds to install. Third, I hate the online experience. Xbox Live is so seemless and integrated (friends list, voice chat/messaging, gamer profile, matchmaking, etc). For that matter I don’t like the online experience on PS3 or the Wii too. If the Xbox didn’t have Live I might not own one. If there was this kind of experience on a PC at it’s current price point, I would maybe switch. I will never game at a desk though…ever. My gaming rig would be on my TV. :)
Thats a pretty good idea actually, I do wonder what my PC games would look like on my High Def TV, lot of hassle with cables and shifting my PC around etc. Crysis does require a ridiculous PC, but even on medium/high it still looks better then anything at present! Putting it on Very high would just kill most people’s machines, thats just Crytek! But, I would suggest that if they ever port Crysis to X-box that you get it, its brilliant!
I can completely understand why people don’t like PC gaming and your reasons are pretty normal, but Steam has improved heavily since it was first released, its definately better then the PSN and Wii equivalent and is probably comparable to X-box live now. Valve really have done a good job with Steam. If you ever get into PC gaming, Steam is a must download!
Anyway, I’m off to play The Witcher… nice debating with you!
A $200 card will last years, unless you want top of the line. You just slowly start moving graphics down to low with newer games. I’ve had 3 graphics cards in 7 yrs with the last one being purchased last year. The first was $250, then $200, I got the last one an x1950pro for a whopping $135. It plays COD4 great. I never have a problem playing new games. Crysis is an exception to the rule, not the rule.
I agree with subhas, I know PC gaming is more expensive (hey, you’re paying for the better experience in my opinion), but its not that drastic. Its crazy, but I have a PS3, but I don’t play games on it. Makes a good blu-ray player though.
Subhas, good debate. I have Steam on my computer, and it is no Xbox Live. :) It is the closest thing however. Hopefully something actually comes out of the PC gaming alliance that was announced. I’m doubtful that a completely free service will ever live up to my expectations however.
Spiza, all I know is that Half Life 2 and CoD4 both look/play worse on my 7600 than on my Xbox 360.
“Most (and I consulted with some people before I made this assumption) put at least $250 in upgrades into their gaming rig within around two years of buying/building it.”
I think I can explain this relatively simply. In my opinion PC gamers spend more money because they have more money. I think these people upgraded not because they HAD to but because they WANTED to. I’m not putting down console gamers but when they grow up and can afford it they will naturally gravitate towards PC gaming because well…its better.
Oh and in response to Bob, my version and all my friends versions of crysis work perfectly.
This is the worst article written ever. Sorry guys, this is my last time here on this website. How can you analyze prices between different machine like this. Its like comparing apples and oranges. They both are fruits and grow on trees.
Of course the voodoo chip would make doom 3 look bad. Its way older than the xbox (four years older). But it demonstrates how you can have a decent video card (At one time) and then throughout the ages still have the same level of quality with new games (assuming the developers are accommodating) which is the equivalent of having an console. A console never gets better technically just like the old computer you bought 10 years ago will not get any better with age (like a fine wine). The only benefit to this is that developers are stuck with outdated hardware so they are forced to make the most of it. This means that you don’t have to worry about developers making something you can’t play because they didn’t take into account your (now) crappy hardware. The downside on the pc is that you get games like Crysis that are made to take advantage of the hardware of the future (or so it seems).
In terms of video cards, the geforce 8800 seems to be relatively the best (or currently that generation of chips, whether it be in the nvidia brand or ati). The technology in that chip is superior than the xbox 360’s chip so if you are having problems getting your games to not look as good then the problem must lay somewhere else.
To back up the fact that you can keep on playing new games on old hardware. My computer was built in 2001, and when halflife 2 came out it ran sluggish but playable. Yes I have since upgraded to a better video card for 150 dollars but my pc made out just fine playing new games for about five years. Now its definitely time for a new pc but unfortunately I don’t have much time left to game these days. Plus it plays WOW fine… have there been new games since then?
Also, why are you hunched over? If you normally sit 2 feet away from your monitor and you normally sit 10 feet away from your tv then your tv would have to be 110″ to have the same affect. So either you have bad eyesight, or just like that bad posture look you must be getting by now. Relax, lean back, and bask in the glory of your huge 22″ monitor.
An X-Box is of course actually a PC!
[...] and a Hassle, But I’m Lovin’ It February 24, 2008, 10:02 am Filed under: General A comparison between PC and console gaming has created quite the firestorm. Here’s another [...]
Comparing PCs to consoles is like comparing citrus trees to seedless oranges. The tree can grow, flower, create shade, produce varying and edible fruit, and house cute, fuzzy creatures. The seedless orange can feed you. They both perform their intended function very well but they don’t compare at all.
Ryan, you’re right about a console never getting better technically, but “technically” you’re wrong about games never looking better. As development shops get used to developing for the hardware on a console they actually can produce better-looking games over a period of time - this was noticeable probably for the first time on the ps2, and it’s happening again with the ps3. I don’t know that the xbox/360 necessarily has the problem to the same degree since it’s essentially a pc.
However, you’re also overlooking something. Current-gen console can output a 1080p signal at playable framerates, and the framerates will only get better as time goes on due to what I mentioned above. This means that on current-gen consoles video games will look the best that modern television hardware can display - where’s the motivation to upgrade? A PC gamer will want to be able to run at 1650×1050 because that’s his monitor’s native resolution - I suppose extreme gamers will go for higher rez and be able to notice the difference because you sit so close. But most of the time, the output of a console is going to look as good as / better than a gamer’s PC output.
I also think it is a little silly to factor in the cost of the television/monitor. I own a television for watching movies - I bought a PS3 later. Factoring the cost of a $400 console against the cost of a $2500 gaming PC was a no-brainer. Yes, games on the right PC can look prettier sometimes. $2100 prettier? I work on computers for a living, $2100 is a big investment even for a single guy with money to burn. No thanks, I’ll put it into my savings account.
I also wanted to point out that it seems odd to argue that computers/consoles have other uses. Yes, they do, but they aren’t what the article is talking about. You can get a computer that does everything besides game for LESS than the price of a console. You only have to spend the extra money if you want to play 3d games. If you bring the blu-ray player argument into the picture, then you can say something goofy like, a standard blu-ray player costs $400, so the gaming aspect of a ps3 is like a free bonus feature.
I think the writer of the article was right to focus on the gaming aspect alone.
“An X-Box is of course actually a PC!” -sorCrer
And it’s less expensive to.
Nate I agree with you. I wasn’t saying that games wouldn’t look better… That’s what I meant about the developer’s making the most of it. But yeah, I didn’t say it very clearly. And I don’t think for a console there is a motivation to upgrade… you know until the industry forces us to (ie builds something better, so as gamers, we must have it).
Ryan,
Something I didn’t articulate very clearly is that it seems as if we have reached a nice plateau where the consoles can push the capabilities of the visual hardware. That is, perhaps the ps4 will be able to crank twice as many polygons or do some complicated raster whatever, but will I be able to tell the difference on my TV?
Eh, I don’t know. Maybe I’m making ridiculous justifications for getting a ps3 instead of buying a gaming rig. I know I’ll be pissed if my laptop doesn’t play Starcraft 2, and I’m very sad that it can’t play Bioshock at high rez.
One other thing I thought of is that a console has the visual advantage of playing on a superior screen. There’s no monitor that compares with my plasma in terms of the visual quality - deep blacks, vibrant colors, etc. So there’s some kind of a balance there between superior quality of resolution/textures/polygons, and actually looking at those things on a monitor that probably has a contrast ratio 1/10th of my TV’s.
Have you also taking the game prices into consideration? It’s one of the major differenties between consoles and pc’s when talking about price.
Yes, I did. PC games are calculated at their list price of $50 and console games at $60 (which only applies to the 360 and PS3 coincidentally). It is all in the attached spreadsheet.
Frustrated PC Gamers leave illegitimate comments to justify their illegitimate investments. Consoles are less expensive.
It is kind of funny to see when someone justifies spending $1000+ more on a machine so he can save $10 at a time on games. You’d have to buy 100 games for your PC just to see that “savings” pan out. Who owns 100 games? If you want to go there, I can save way more money by renting games for a console - never seen a PC game for rent.
Yeah, well you should read Zhokuai’s comments above. His rationalization for spending the $1000+ is that he can pirate all of the games.
This is the biggest load of BS I have read in a while.
First off you cannot build a console - but you can build a PC. And it is not proprietary. Spend a few hours on the Internet, then read the instructions with mobo. Easy as building a lego set. Save up to 50% by building it yourself.
Next, what the hell are these misc $250 upgrades? I have own, maintained, built and diagnosed computers for almost 16 years now - I haven’t a clue what you are upgrading. I usually upgrade my video card every 2-3 years - total costs is $100-$200 - every 5 to 6 years I rebuild my computer keeping only a few parts (mouse/keyboard/speakers/joysticks/gamepads/DVD etc.)
I just recently rebuilt my computer - total costs (including reused parts at current market value) was around $600 to $700 - including a new monitor. (2.5ghz dual core/ 2 gb ram/ 80gb hd) I can now play every game at high to max settings. (40-90fps) Over the next 5-6 years I will purchase one new video card for roughly $150 - total costs over 5-6 years (not including dsl) is less then $850. For an extra 50-$60 I could have picked up a 22″ monitor. For an extra $500 I could build a massive gaming rig with tons of FPS overkill.
PC owns console in loading speed, adaptability, graphics, sound, storage, price for upgrades, game selection, free games, online games, etc. There is absolutely no comparison.
I can plug my PC in to my big screen tv, I can add as many controllers as needed, I can even choose between PS3, Xbox, or PC style controllers. My cheap lil PC blows the **** outta every console on the market, and will continue to do so for the next 2-3 years.
All I can say is either the author hasn’t a clue, or works for MS.
I don’t work for Microsoft, and the numbers would have been basically the same had I used a PS3. There wouldn’t have been an Xbox Live subscription to pay for, and it would have Blu-ray capabilities though.
As for the other comments, I have already defended my point in previous comments.
“PC owns console in loading speed, adaptability, graphics, sound, storage, price for upgrades, game selection, free games, online games, etc. There is absolutely no comparison.”
I would argue this with you point by point, but as Paul says you’re really just rehashing. But I do have a question for you: in a free market, if all the things you say are true, why would anyone ever buy a console?
*Oh, said the console, and disappeared in a poof of logic*
Some of the things you say are true. But you as a guy who builds his own computers are naturally going to overlook the feature that will continue to make consoles sell in spite of some of PC’s advantages. This feature is a three step process. Let me outline it for you:
1. Buy console
2. Plug in console
3. Play games
It is a little amusing that in your post you ask what these “misc $250 upgrades” are and then proceed to rack up a huge tab of exactly what they could have been - better video or monitor, in your case. Or better speakers, a gaming keyboard/mouse, a faster/bigger hard drive. The urge is always there when you PC game to keep a cutting edge machine, or to get some new advantage over the competition. You’re being deliberately blind to say that the console “all in one” package doesn’t have advantages - it’s just that those advantages don’t apply to you.
“But I do have a question for you: in a free market, if all the things you say are true, why would anyone ever buy a console?”
Lots of reason -
1. All your friends have one
2. Have no idea that you are being ripped off
3. Convenience
4. Have no computer skills
5. “Duh” because it IS a free market
6. Compatibility
7. Laziness
8. You are an uneducated consumer
People buy IPODS, yet there are several websites that show you how to build one with about $40-$60 worth of toys. And you can get an better MP3 player that isn’t proprietary for less.
Since this is called TECHCONSUMER.COM - And it is on the internet we can automatically assume that the majority of people that come here have a at least a minimal knowledge of computers.
“You’re being deliberately blind to say that the console “all in one” package doesn’t have advantages - it’s just that those advantages don’t apply to you.”
I never said consoles have no advantages. These advantages do not apply to any TECHCONSUMER - not just me.
The items I mentioned were for a complete overhaul of my 5 year old computer - So what? I racked up $700 for a new computer that needs no upgrades for another 2 - 3 years. There is no urge to fix what is not broken for me. But yes that is another advantage for those that always need to be on the cutting edge. I prefer to be about 6 months behind and save 30-50% on costs. For under 1k my computer will play all games on high for the next 5-6 years. ALL UPGRADES INCLUDED - why would I want more then that. It is an option, but it is also overkill.
I never said that consoles didn’t have any advantages, just that their advantages vs. PC are hardly worth mentioning. The only things consoles exceed at are compatibility and convenience - They fail at all other tasks vs. PC.
Obviously if you haven’t been building PC’s as long as I have you should spend a few hours researching it, and prices, specs, benchmarks. There is a vast amount of information on the Internet for free, all you need is to spend a few hours learning and you can save yourself lots of money when building a PC.(along with lots of problems.)
Apparently these “techs” are shopping at Best Buy for their parts.
Here are some helpful tips when building/buying a computer-
http://www.Tomshardware.com -benchmarks, suggestions, very experienced and knowledgable author. Don’t ever spend $200 on a piece of junk video card again -
http://www.Newegg.com - Haven’t been able to find anyone to beat their prices or their service for years now..
But I am just restating the obvious for any “TECHCONSUMER”
Here is what Paul said earlier:
“If there was this kind of experience on a PC at it’s current price point, I would maybe switch.” There is and there always has been. In fact the experience on PC is better in almost all aspects -
I will grant you that in order to be a “PC Gamer” you do have to have some technical experience - though you can learn for free from a vast number of resources on the net. It takes very little time in comparison to the benefits reaped from learning.
and another,
“It takes more resources to execute a certain command when it is abstracted through the various layers of a desktop OS. The distance between the application/game and the hardware is much larger on Windows than in the stripped down “operating systems” that the Xbox 360 or PS3 run.”
All true, but we are talking nanoseconds, and when your PC has 2-10x the resources and power that the console has this becomes completely irrelevant. Take any game - Load times are always longer on console then PC -
I do not Overclock - I merely optimize my computer ( as all techs do)
Also Please convert your excel document to html format for those of us who do not have excel installed. Simply move the file to word and click convert to html.
Your initial assumptions are ludicrous, buying a 2nd PC for gaming is like buying a 2nd console for DVD’s - it is complete overkill. And no one replaces their computer every 2-3 years. But while your consoles are in fact computers, you are there fore limited to old technology with no option for upgrades for 5-6 years.
“Gaming PC: $3,149″ for 5-6 years? Take that number and half it, then you are closer to a reasonable assumption. I do it for less.
$3,149/2 = $1574.5 - PC Gaming
$400 - Console Gaming
Once again through an elaborate explanation of the superiority of PC Gaming, the point has been proven. Consoles provide a gaming experience equilalent to that of a PC for less money.
$1,174.5 cheaper.
*equivalent*
Alpha, first of all I built my first computer, an 8088 (as in the granddaddy of the 80×86 line of cpus) when I was ten. I don’t even have the slightest idea how many I have built since then. If you took the time to actually look at the spreadsheet attached to the post you’d see that it has all of the links for where I “bought” the parts. Mostly Newegg FYI.
As for this line “I never said that consoles didn’t have any advantages, just that their advantages vs. PC are hardly worth mentioning. The only things consoles exceed at are compatibility and convenience - They fail at all other tasks vs. PC.” Well apparently for you those advantages aren’t worth mentioning, but they are the EXACT reason use a console instead of PC for my gaming. The presentation is comparable these days, and I don’t have to mess with my console all the time like I do a PC. Be careful when you think that everyone values the same things as you do.
As for building an iPod…where do I even start? If your time is worth nothing (or you enjoy tinkering) you can build your own computer (I do), iPod (I suppose….), or whatever. But it doesn’t make it cheaper. Before I went back to grad school, I charged $125/hour for IT consulting. That means that it only took me three hours of tinkering on my PC to “cost” me as much as an Xbox 360. Now, again I build my own PC, I suppose because over the life of it I prefer the exactness of what I put together for my needs. But when it comes to gaming, I don’t want to have to spend time working on my computer to make my games work. And considering that the system is already considerably more expensive, if you add in the cost of my time, PC gaming is tremendously more expensive. If that is what you enjoy, then that is fine, but I guarantee that in every way you can think of (money, hassle, time, etc), it is more expensive. That doesn’t mean that you aren’t free to “pay” more for an experience you prefer however.
“Alpha, first of all I built my first computer, an 8088 (as in the granddaddy of the 80×86 line of cpus) when I was ten. I don’t even have the slightest idea how many I have built since then. If you took the time to actually look at the spreadsheet attached to the post you’d see that it has all of the links for where I “bought” the parts. Mostly Newegg FYI.”
As I explained - I do not have excel installed, nor am I going to install it - Simply convert the document to HTML for ALL TO SEE.
If your first computer was a an 8088 then I have about 10 years more experience then you dealing with computers. From Atari 2600, C64, Apple IIe, etc. My stepfather owned the first computer store in the area. I rebuilt/repaired my first computer at 13 - Apple IIe. Back then there was no DYI computers, so the first computer I built was in the same time frame as yours, iirc a cyrix 33mhz chip. I have been building/repairing/diagnosing computers for 25 years. But really this is completely irrelevant to the article. But we are not here to compare the size of our Epenises.
And yes everyone would agree that a console is a “Luxury Item” and not a neccessity. However I do not have these issues you have with games not working, system errors etc. I have had my fair sure of crashes and BSOD but 90% they were User error or hardware failure. Back in the day it was Plug and Pray - now it actually works. Its probably 100x easier to build a computer today then it was 15 years back.
Since about 2001, I have had virtually zero problems with games. With the new unified driver structure that MS has forced on the industry, compatibility issues will soon become a thing of the past.
So I would argue that while you find it a hassle and time consuming to play video games on a PC, I don’t have any of these hassles and it isn’t really all that time consuming either. For Cod4 I simply clicked on install game - for the 5 mins that the game was installing I downloaded all patches and installed them in about 2 mins - and presto I was done. MS auto updates my OS when needed, I spent about an hour + installing windows - flashing bios- and updating drivers when I initially built my rig a few weeks back - That was the biggest hassle - but except for the occasional video card driver update I am set for the next 6 months to a year. No hassle, very little time spent.
Obviously your experiences has differed from mine when dealing with PC games, but I would argue that is due to User error/incompatibility/ or Hardware failure - In my experience that accounts for 90% of the problems.
Since I plan on keeping this rig for another 5 years, and upgrading the video card and perhaps another HD over that time period - the amount of hassle and time consumption is negligible.
But I digress, what we are talking about here is “PC vs Console Gaming: Which Is Actually More Expensive?” I contend that you make incorrect assumptions regarding PC cost over the time period. Also as you probably know, MS sells their xboxes at a loss. This is because they know they will make their money back on Xbox live and a closed audience for games. Once you factor in these then the PC becomes much more cost effective - and will give you 100x more choices.
If you build your computer correctly, flash bios, update drivers, then you should be good for a year or two provided you occasionally clean the registry, defrag HD, and run virus scan - But guess what? You can do that while sleeping, not much more then a few seconds of clicking to upkeep the computer. But your article was not entitled ” Building and Maintaining PC Gaming rig is a hassle”
But yes if you can’t afford to hassle with building a computer and maintenance then a console is a luxury item that is convenient and compatible, but still the over all price will not justify buying one. Initially yes, after a few years no. According to your pricing for long term console - It is considerably worse then I had expected. I believe you are way off on several assumptions and pricing for computers, like I said I do it for much less and have been for many years.
Factoring in your costs for console over 6 years vs. my cost for PC over that time frame, the PC is actually less - and does so much more.
[quote]$3,149/2 = $1574.5 - PC Gaming
$400 - Console Gaming
Once again through an elaborate explanation of the superiority of PC Gaming, the point has been proven. Consoles provide a gaming experience equilalent to that of a PC for less money. [/quote](see if html works)
NPV without display and sound
Xbox 360: $1,837
MY PC over 6yr period :$1000-$1200
Plays all games better then xbox, email, graphics design, research, DVD’s, MP3’s, internet, and the list goes on and on.
Initially the console will cost you less, in the long run it will costs you more - and performance will degrade not improve as with a PC.
“Epenises” - alpha
Haha Colonel, never heard that one before?
“As I explained - I do not have excel installed, nor am I going to install it - Simply convert the document to HTML for ALL TO SEE.”
I’m sorry, but you can’t properly show what is going on in the formulas in from a spreadsheet if I just show it in HTML. IMO, if you don’t even have Excel installed, you really shouldn’t make comments on a financial analysis.
“I have been building/repairing/diagnosing computers for 25 years.”
That is about the same for me.
“I do not have these issues you have with games not working, system errors etc.” Oh really? But you say this IN THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE “I have had my fair sure of crashes and BSOD but 90% they were User error or hardware failure.” Who cares what the source of the errors is? As long as I have to fix them, it is a hassle to me.
“So I would argue that while you find it a hassle and time consuming to play video games on a PC, I don’t have any of these hassles and it isn’t really all that time consuming either. For Cod4 I simply clicked on install game - for the 5 mins that the game was installing I downloaded all patches and installed them in about 2 mins - and presto I was done. MS auto updates my OS when needed, I spent about an hour + installing windows - flashing bios- and updating drivers when I initially built my rig a few weeks back - That was the biggest hassle - but except for the occasional video card driver update I am set for the next 6 months to a year. No hassle, very little time spent.”
You list just over half a dozen hassles (some of which would be repeatedly happen) but then say “No hassle”. Apparently your definition of “hassle” changes towards then of your paragraph. The best part is that you admit it will only last 6-12 months, but when you say it, you act like 6-12 months is a long time.
“Obviously your experiences has differed from mine when dealing with PC games, but I would argue that is due to User error/incompatibility/ or Hardware failure - In my experience that accounts for 90% of the problems.”
Again, as long as I have to fix it, it is a hassle. I don’t care if it is somehow my fault. And how does saying that it is an incompatibility or hardware failure make it any better? That is exactly the problem, you just admitted it. You know everything in Iraq is going great. It is the war that is the problem….
“Also as you probably know, MS sells their xboxes at a loss.”
Actually, they don’t anymore, and haven’t for a while. The Xbox 1 was notoriously a loss leader, but not the 360.
“Once you factor in these then the PC becomes much more cost effective” the cost of the Xbox 360 does not affect the cost effectiveness of the PC. Their costs are independent of each other.
“(1) If you build your computer correctly, (2) flash bios, update (3) drivers, then you should be good for a year or two provided you (4) occasionally clean the registry, (5) defrag HD, and run (6) virus scan” just some more hassles.
“I’m sorry, but you can’t properly show what is going on in the formulas in from a spreadsheet if I just show it in HTML. IMO, if you don’t even have Excel installed, you really shouldn’t make comments on a financial analysis.”
You really shouldn’t be posting on the internet if you have no clue how to break up a spreadsheet and convert to html or just convert in all its big glory (makes no difference). And as far as a financial analysis, the verdict is still out on whether you should be commenting on it as well.
“I do not have these issues you have with games not working, system errors etc.” Oh really? But you say this IN THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE “I have had my fair sure of crashes and BSOD but 90% they were User error or hardware failure.” Who cares what the source of the errors is? As long as I have to fix them, it is a hassle to me
Yes I have had my fair share(spelling correction) of errors, back in the period between 95 and 2001. Recently I have had maybe 1 or 2 (in the past 7 years or so). And yes they were user error most all of them. But I didn’t let that stop me, learned how to prevent these problems and finally mastered the PC software side. I am sure anyone with a degree in this field would be able to do the same, or just 5 years experience or so. But again this article isn’t about hassles.
“You list just over half a dozen hassles (some of which would be repeatedly happen) but then say “No hassle”. Apparently your definition of “hassle” changes towards then of your paragraph. The best part is that you admit it will only last 6-12 months, but when you say it, you act like 6-12 months is a long time.”
This is because I prefer to reformat and reinstall windows every 6 months to a year- this is my personal preference - but in total we are talking 3-4 hours per year maintenance - and install. If you consider that a hassle, then apparently any second of your precious time that is lost is considered a hassle. Clicking a few mouse buttons must be overwhelming … But again we are not talking about which is more of a hassle.
““(1) If you build your computer correctly, (2) flash bios, update (3) drivers, then you should be good for a year or two provided you (4) occasionally clean the registry, (5) defrag HD, and run (6) virus scan” just some more hassles.”
And again I will point you to the article we are actually talking about here..
“PC vs Console Gaming: Which Is Actually More Expensive?”
It is not called “which is more of a hassle?” So redirect and project if you want, but the original argument still stands. PC are more cost effective in the long run then consoles. Prove otherwise you cannot.
I already stated several times that consoles are more convenient then PC’s - But again, this has nothing to do with the article at hand.
“PC are more cost effective in the long run then consoles. Prove otherwise you cannot.” Actually I have, it is you that haven’t furnished any proof. You just won’t open my “proof” because you don’t have Excel installed.
BTW, for most/all people (you know people that actually have applications installed) it takes more than 3-4 hours to reinstall Windows and get all of your stuff setup again (applications, bookmarks, settings, etc).
“Prove otherwise you cannot.”
Yoda?!
Anyway alpha, you are engaging in willful ignorance. You are trying to snipe Paul’s points about PCs but most of the time you are actually just re-enforcing them. In the meantime you accept (unseen) his financial analysis of console gaming, which you should really reject, because you don’t agree with his methods or assumptions.
In toto, you’re coming across as kind of a fanatic, and you’re giving PC gamers a bad name. You should probably conduct your own analysis and post it somewhere that console fanatics can spam your comments with overzealous retorts.
Yeah, what he said.
Assuming consumers make rational decisions about their gaming platform, the argument is moot. Ironically, while this may be an economic discussion, you’re not considering choice. While the explicit cost is admittedly less for consoles, the opportunity cost varies, as does utility per person. Mods, RTS games, case-modding, hardware modding and MMOs may justify the cost of a PC for some consumers.
Personally, I enjoy playing various MMOs, The Sims, Rollercoaster Tycoon 3 and a plethora of other RTS titles. Not only do I get more utility out of these games than typical console games, I also find myself upgrading less. Going back to your sunk cost example, this actually raises the cost in terms of prospective updates. Right now I’m running a 8800GTX with 2 500gb HDDs on a RAID 0 with about 4 gbs of RAM and a 2.4ghz core 2duo CPU. This cost about $1600 when it was all said and done. I’m also running a 40″ Samsung HDTV that doubles as a well.. TV. However, I also develop on this machine for work and the TV is extremely helpful.
I do not see myself upgrading much anytime soon considering my needs. When all the costs are factored in, the implicit costs actually outweigh my explicit costs. So, in conclusion I say that cost is personal. To the original poster, I admire the objective analysis of the explicit costs of consoles and PCs. To some of the comments here, it’s ignorant to assume that everyone gets the same gaming experience on every console.
My example was supposed to be an average PC game rig (where average ~= mode). No doubt, different values for different experiences (both negative and positive) can dramatically alter things. But making personal judgment calls like that is outside the scope of my analysis, as it would vary a lot especially in the tails. Some people won’t game with less than an SLI 8800GTX rig. Others have posted that you don’t need to spend more than $600 to play PC games and that that would last 6 years. Others like me can’t stand to deal with any of the normal PC gaming stuff at all, at any price.
Speaking to the type of games people value, I think that a huge part of why WoW is so big is that it can be played on regular computers (even average laptops). I think the upgrade cycle is a bit much for the “average” consume to swallow.
Going back to the hardware, it is true that if you need a higher end PC for some other reason, the “cost” to PC game would be lower. You could also say that issues that could prevent the other usages would carry a higher cost as well. If I had a high end PC to do my work, what would I do if a new video card/ram/cpu/etc upgrade made it inoperable?
Anyway, all of this would be very situation dependent however.
You just won’t open my “proof” because you don’t have Excel installed.
Its too much of a hassle for me. Apparently it is too much of a hassle for you to convert it to html, so it seems we are stuck in a an Infinite Loop with no facts, just conjectures, assumptions, and personal experiences.
Goodbye
You can’t just convert a spreadsheet to HTML and have it make sense. I could show the results of the formulas, but tell me how I would really make it clear what the formulas are doing? What does =C9/(1+Overview!$B$25)^(C1-$B$1) mean to you without actually having the spreadsheet open?
[...] okos cikk jelent meg a témában, most épp a techconsumer.com angol nyelvű oldalon, ahol a két oldal költségvonzatát igyekeznek összehasonlítani. Mondjuk [...]
Paul Ellis,
I read this article and most following responses because I was on the fence about my own gaming choices, but after reading all this, I can say hands down my mind is made up. As a man with resources, and IT experience…
I have never seen so many self-proclaimed intelligently superior people (I am referring to some of the repliers who toot the PC route) who just missed the point of your article entirely and then proceed to berate so negatively. And because of this, just by personality default,
I’m going with the console, for not only is your analysis sound under the logical PREMISES you set at the very beginning of your article,
but I’m so sick of stupidity.
Excellent work on this and thanks for attempting to present some factual comparison. Granted, some items on your list do not apply to my situation, but i think I’m bright enough to adjust your comparison to my situation and figure out the result on my own. Thanks for doing the leg-work.
Elliot
as for ALPHA,
I think you have some great experience and knowledge. But your ability to grasp an argument is somewhat rudimentary. I suggest prepping for the LSAT or take some classes in pre-law, or just practice some understanding before trying to demonstrate credibility and intelligence.
I get that you’re a smart guy, and that you know your tech. you’ve made that very clear to everyone. But at the end of the day, you’ve made a whole mess out of nothing.
The author is writing from a mass consumer POV, not yours. Get that, and this argument becomes for you the frivolous mess it’s been for me and the rest of us.
Good luck in your quest to “get it”.
What good is a gaming PC if you cant play the console-only games, the high quality japanese products (MGS, GT, etc…) and the Sony, MS and Nintendo first party games?
THAT IS THE QUESTION.
There is too low amount of games on the PC, all the good games are on consols now.
Plus, you dont have to wait for GTA IV to come to PC.
I have a PC and will probably upgrade when GTA IV comes to it. Right now I play old consoel games through emulators, but I would love to have a PS3 or X360 I just havent gotten to it yet.
I just wish that the PC-only guys see through there eyes that the consoles are not “evil” or “stupid” etc…..
Ok but PC can do so much more than xbox 360. and you have to buy a new console everytime a new one comes out. My pc has lasted me 8 years and i updated it 1 time with new videocard and ram. And gaming is so boring on xbox 360 have fun enjoying only FPS. There are no good MMORPG no good RTS its all the same ****. I dunno about most of you but when im on my pc I love to watch **** on youtube or myspace and all those kind of things. People who game on console seriously often have really good computers. So they spent more cause they got both xbox and computer. I dont own an xbox so i never had to spend money on one. But most console gamers spend money on expencive computers just so there not a noob.
Here in Australia pc games are 50-60$AUD but console games are 90-120$ because of lameass price fixing also the Xbox here is 500$ instead of what US350$ because again of lameass price fixing even when 1 Aus dollar is 96 US cents
so in my country PC gaming is a lot cheaper
here in the UK,
New PC games sell for anywhere between £15 and £25
New Console Games sell for £40 - £45
if you buy 10 thats £250 for the PC games and £400 for the Console games.
A playstation 3 will cost you £300
A higher end 8800GT graphics card will cost you £150.
It will play all the current games including crysis, Call of duty 4 etc at full at a resoultion of 1680 X 1050. In three years it may not be so great but it would still be usable.
Im not sure why you say the 8800 GT isnt that good because its one of the best value for money cards you can get and has the performance of some of the even higher end cards. since the xbox 360 graphics card is a few years old, its more liekly that its graphical performace would actually be inferior to a 8800GT. but hey, thats just a guess lol.
2GB RAM of ram will cost you £30
Some of your items in your new PC are kind of uneccessary and its seems like your deliberately trying to spend money on the really high end parts and parts that you dont need.
aslo your assumptions are a bit extreme. you don’t need to replace the pc every three years. im not sure what the $250 worth of upgrades are.
and the PS2 is still one of the top selling systems because its so cheap and still has great games being realeased on it lol.
[...] This article is cross-posted at PseudoSavant. Subscribe to TechConsumer: RSS / Email Sphere It 101 Comments Published [...]