The shocking truth about the price of consoles

Software sells hardware; I go where the games are. Literally nothing else matters.

PC is without a doubt the better gaming platform, but the majority of games that interest me are console exclusives.

Yeah. People with some hardware knowledge knows that PCs gives better value for your money. I often shake my head when consolites mention that console gaming is cheaper. In reality, it isn't.

I paid £297 for my GTX 670 and it's an absolute beast. Almost max Far Cry 3 out with 1080p. Now, compare that with console version of Far Cry 3...

I do agree though, that consoles should be under £100 to be realistic. They're not worth the price tags above that.

GamerwillzPS

Console hardware isn't profitable unless it's underpowered.

Even the WiiU is not profitable by hardware alone.

Usually, console makers sell the hardware for a loss and get the profit from the sales of the games and peripherals. (also online features)

You should not compare PC hardware with console hardware for a variety of reasons.

Consoles will always be behind the PC in hardware terms simply because the PC is an ever-evolving platform. (upgradable hardware)

nameless12345

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Console hardware isn't profitable unless it's underpowered.

Even the WiiU is not profitable by hardware alone.

Usually, console makers sell the hardware for a loss and get the profit from the sales of the games and peripherals. (also online features)

You should not compare PC hardware with console hardware for a variety of reasons.

Consoles will always be behind the PC in hardware terms simply because the PC is an ever-evolving platform. (upgradable hardware)

tormentos

It can take a few years before the hardware is profitable.

I think the PS3 became profitable two years ago. (i.e. they had a loss on the hardware for four years)

Wii, on the other hand, was profitable right out of the gate. (repacked GameCube with a motion controller, basically)

[QUOTE="GamerwillzPS"]

Yeah. People with some hardware knowledge knows that PCs gives better value for your money. I often shake my head when consolites mention that console gaming is cheaper. In reality, it isn't.

I paid £297 for my GTX 670 and it's an absolute beast. Almost max Far Cry 3 out with 1080p. Now, compare that with console version of Far Cry 3...

I do agree though, that consoles should be under £100 to be realistic. They're not worth the price tags above that.

tormentos

I believe the point of the thread is to show console games that pc is more cost effective. if you read the OP you will see a pc that perform 10 times better in games but it is only 3 times more expensive. Therefore consoles are overpriced for the performance they offer in games compared to pc's

again if you need a cheap option you can get a pc with $400 that beats consoles link

Therefore consoles are overpriced for the performance they offer in games compared to pc'sMK-Professor

This is a known fact. If it isn't so, that means the manufacturer is selling at big losses.

But it means nothing. What matters is the software. I'd play Wii Sports Tennis over BF3 maxed out on PC any day of the week.

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]Therefore consoles are overpriced for the performance they offer in games compared to pc'sSuperFlakeman

This is a known fact. If it isn't so, that means the manufacturer is selling at big losses.

But it means nothing. What matters is the software. I'd play Wii Sports Tennis over BF3 maxed out on PC any day of the week.

andI'd play BF3 on PC over Wii Sports Tennis any day of the week.

you see, my opinion against yours.

but here we are talking about facts.

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

cant be bothered with the hassle of building and the few other issues with PC.

who cares, dunno why PC gamers like yourself seem to have this need to keep boasting and saying we all need to follow the beat of their drum even though it doesnt suit us all.

SamiRDuran

Last I checked, $750 is still a lot more money than $250. Especially for playing games. If you were making the case that a PC is much more useful than you would have a point however most people already have PCs in their home now and probably don't game much on them (hardcore anyway) or don't care about PC gaming or don't want to bother.

[QUOTE="SuperFlakeman"]

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]Therefore consoles are overpriced for the performance they offer in games compared to pc'sMK-Professor

This is a known fact. If it isn't so, that means the manufacturer is selling at big losses.

But it means nothing. What matters is the software. I'd play Wii Sports Tennis over BF3 maxed out on PC any day of the week.

andI'd play BF3 on PC over Wii Sports Tennis any day of the week.

you see, my opinion against yours.

but here we are talking about facts.

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

[QUOTE="SuperFlakeman"]

This is a known fact. If it isn't so, that means the manufacturer is selling at big losses.

But it means nothing. What matters is the software. I'd play Wii Sports Tennis over BF3 maxed out on PC any day of the week.

lowe0

andI'd play BF3 on PC over Wii Sports Tennis any day of the week.

you see, my opinion against yours.

but here we are talking about facts.

conclusion i am trying to draw from this post is that game preference in opinion and things like "pc is more cost effective" is fact.

and with your 3x1080p you get two gaps on the view which is horrible, so stop bragging about 3x1080p.

[QUOTE="lowe0"][QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

andI'd play BF3 on PC over Wii Sports Tennis any day of the week.

you see, my opinion against yours.

but here we are talking about facts.

MK-Professor

conclusion i am trying to draw from this post is that game preference in opinion and things like "pc is more cost effective" is fact.

and with your 3x1080p you get two gaps on the view which is horrible, so stop bragging about 3x1080p.

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

[QUOTE="lowe0"] The problem is that the facts don't support the conclusion you're trying to draw from them. Having higher specs doesn't automatically translate into more enjoyment. Otherwise, everyone would prefer a 3x1080p surround setup like mine over a single 1440p monitor, because mine has more pixels, more display surface area, a wider viewing angle, etc..lowe0

conclusion i am trying to draw from this post is that game preference in opinion and things like "pc is more cost effective" is fact.

and with your 3x1080p you get two gaps on the view which is horrible, so stop bragging about 3x1080p.

so now you know that you are going to lose this argument:
"2560x1440, 60fps, high settings, large fov, k/m(and controller), mods, etc"
vs
"720p or sub-hd, low settings, 25-30fps, small fov, no options for different control schemes, no mods, etc"

and now you try to argue game X is better than Y(which in the and it is an opinion, but the above argument is not)

[QUOTE="lowe0"][QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

conclusion i am trying to draw from this post is that game preference in opinion and things like "pc is more cost effective" is fact.

and with your 3x1080p you get two gaps on the view which is horrible, so stop bragging about 3x1080p.

MK-Professor

so now you know that you are going to lose this argument:
"2560x1440, 60fps, high settings, large fov, k/m(and controller), mods, etc"
vs
"720p or sub-hd, low settings, 25-30fps, small fov, no options for different control schemes, no mods, etc"

and now you try to argue game X is better than Y(which in the and it is an opinion, but the above argument is not)

They pay less for their hardware full stop. For the ease of use and lower quality (IQ) games, they have a lower price.

Quite simple.

lundy86_4

lower IQ games? lulz. don't pc and consoles share similar libraries? does RTS or MMO = high IQ? go figure....:lol:

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

They pay less for their hardware full stop. For the ease of use and lower quality (IQ) games, they have a lower price.

Quite simple.

lazerface216

lower IQ games? lulz. don't pc and consoles share similar libraries? does RTS or MMO = high IQ? go figure....:lol:

No. I'm arguing that game X being better than game Y (or vice versa; remember, not everyone's opinion is the same) has more impact on overall enjoyment for some people (again, not everyone's opinion is the same) than the factors you listed.lowe0

Same conversation every single time lowe0.

We agreed last time that console gamers have lower standards.

Consolites are fine with 30fps dipping into the low 20s when stuff happens.

Consolites are happy with have games that are not in true HD

Consolites are happy with auto-aim in fps games beecause then they dont have to aim.

Do you have to use the same tired arguments over and over again?

[QUOTE="lowe0"]

No. I'm arguing that game X being better than game Y (or vice versa; remember, not everyone's opinion is the same) has more impact on overall enjoyment for some people (again, not everyone's opinion is the same) than the factors you listed.tenaka2

Same conversation every single time lowe0.

We agreed last time that console gamers have lower standards.

Consolites are fine with 30fps dipping into the low 20s when stuff happens.

Consolites are happy with have games that are not in true HD

Consolites are happy with auto-aim in fps games beecause then they dont have to aim.

Do you have to use the same tired arguments over and over again?

I believe the point of the thread is to show console games that pc is more cost effective. if you read the OP you will see a pc that perform 10 times better in games but it is only 3 times more expensive. Therefore consoles are overpriced for the performance they offer in games compared to pc's

again if you need a cheap option you can get a pc with $400 that beats consoles link

MK-Professor

I didn't buy my PS3 for its graphics card. I bought it for all the exclusives I couldn't find anywhere else, along with multiplats not on PC.

whiskeystrike

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="lowe0"]

No. I'm arguing that game X being better than game Y (or vice versa; remember, not everyone's opinion is the same) has more impact on overall enjoyment for some people (again, not everyone's opinion is the same) than the factors you listed.lowe0

Same conversation every single time lowe0.

We agreed last time that console gamers have lower standards.

Consolites are fine with 30fps dipping into the low 20s when stuff happens.

Consolites are happy with have games that are not in true HD

Consolites are happy with auto-aim in fps games beecause then they dont have to aim.

Do you have to use the same tired arguments over and over again?

Nothing to prove, you already agreed that console gamers have lower standards, there is nothing more to discuss.

Not why I bought a console.

When a new console comes out, it has new hardware. To get the same hardware that are in the new consoles in a PC, I have to spend roughly double what I'm spending on the Console. So, thanks, but I'll stick with my Consoles. It has all the games I prefer anyway. ;)

[QUOTE="lowe0"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

Same conversation every single time lowe0.

We agreed last time that console gamers have lower standards.

Consolites are fine with 30fps dipping into the low 20s when stuff happens.

Consolites are happy with have games that are not in true HD

Consolites are happy with auto-aim in fps games beecause then they dont have to aim.

Do you have to use the same tired arguments over and over again?

tenaka2

Nothing to prove, you already agreed that console gamers have lower standards, there is nothing more to discuss.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="lowe0"] Perhaps you have a counterargument, then? Something to prove my argument wrong? If not, then it doesn't really matter how often it's posted.lowe0

Nothing to prove, you already agreed that console gamers have lower standards, there is nothing more to discuss.

Again, I don't see the argument here, take dogs for example, more then happy to chase their own tail or continually fetch a ball, are they happy? Most certainly, you can see the tail wag.

No one would argue that the dog wasn't happy lowe0.

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]I believe the point of the thread is to show console games that pc is more cost effective. if you read the OP you will see a pc that perform 10 times better in games but it is only 3 times more expensive. Therefore consoles are overpriced for the performance they offer in games compared to pc's

again if you need a cheap option you can get a pc with $400 that beats consoles link

tormentos

Why do you expect GPU's like these to perform 10 times better in games when consoles have GPU's with about the same power? GPU's like the prehistoric ATIx1950 perform just like consoles link and it didn't even cost half the cost of PS3, on the other hand the 8800GTX cost that much, but the 8800GTX completely destroy the ps3.(make sense superior hardware cost more)

how exactly pc are not cost effective in games? as the OP proves a pc that perform 10 times better in games it only cost 3 times more than consoles.

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

[QUOTE="lowe0"] I'm not bragging; I'm proving a point - that two different people may not perceive the same value in the same specs. To bring it back to the originally quoted poster, a 1440p60 setup doesn't really provide a lot of value if the game he wants to play isn't on it.lowe0

so now you know that you are going to lose this argument:
"2560x1440, 60fps, high settings, large fov, k/m(and controller), mods, etc"
vs
"720p or sub-hd, low settings, 25-30fps, small fov, no options for different control schemes, no mods, etc"

and now you try to argue game X is better than Y(which in the and it is an opinion, but the above argument is not)

no iam not going to argue that game X being better than game Y because it is opinion, on the other hand it is a fact that pc have the best version of multiplats, it is a fact that have more AAAE, AAE, and AE etc

[QUOTE="Silenthps"]it may be 7x stronger but in the end, the typical gamer would only get about a %1 higher enjoyment factor out of it. Sooo basically, no one cares except for graphics whores. by the way, you may want to look this up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returnsMK-Professor

I highly doubt that the typical gamer would only get about a %1 higher enjoyment factor for going from
"720p or sub-hd, low settings, 25-30fps, small fov, no options for different control schemes, no mods, etc"
to
"2560x1440, 60fps, high settings, large fov, k/m(and controller), mods, etc"

[QUOTE="lowe0"][QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

so now you know that you are going to lose this argument:
"2560x1440, 60fps, high settings, large fov, k/m(and controller), mods, etc"
vs
"720p or sub-hd, low settings, 25-30fps, small fov, no options for different control schemes, no mods, etc"

and now you try to argue game X is better than Y(which in the and it is an opinion, but the above argument is not)

MK-Professor

no iam not going to argue that game X being better than game Y because it is opinion, on the other hand it is a fact that pc have the best version of multiplats, it is a fact that have more AAAE, AAE, and AE etc

[QUOTE="tormentos"][QUOTE="MK-Professor"]I believe the point of the thread is to show console games that pc is more cost effective. if you read the OP you will see a pc that perform 10 times better in games but it is only 3 times more expensive. Therefore consoles are overpriced for the performance they offer in games compared to pc's

again if you need a cheap option you can get a pc with $400 that beats consoles link

MK-Professor

Why do you expect GPU's like these to perform 10 times better in games when consoles have GPU's with about the same power? GPU's like the prehistoric ATIx1950 perform just like consoles link and it didn't even cost half the cost of PS3, on the other hand the 8800GTX cost that much, but the 8800GTX completely destroy the ps3.(make sense superior hardware cost more)

how exactly pc are not cost effective in games? as the OP proves a pc that perform 10 times better in games it only cost 3 times more than consoles.

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

[QUOTE="Silenthps"]it may be 7x stronger but in the end, the typical gamer would only get about a %1 higher enjoyment factor out of it. Sooo basically, no one cares except for graphics whores. by the way, you may want to look this up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returnsSilenthps

I highly doubt that the typical gamer would only get about a %1 higher enjoyment factor for going from
"720p or sub-hd, low settings, 25-30fps, small fov, no options for different control schemes, no mods, etc"
to
"2560x1440, 60fps, high settings, large fov, k/m(and controller), mods, etc"

all these thing you said are pure opinions for one game. But the fact is that going from playing games like that
"720p or sub-hd, low settings, 25-30fps, small fov, no options for different control schemes, no mods, etc"
to
"2560x1440, 60fps, high settings, large fov, k/m(and controller), mods, etc"

is a massive difference in gameplay and graphics.

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

[QUOTE="tormentos"] Yeah but that is now compare X1900 card or 7800GTX and tell me they perform 10 times better in game,hell those cards back then cost as much as a PS3 did on launch.. PC will always be more cost effective but is not because of the games,is because of the multiple things you can't do with a console that you can with a PC. PC will always be more expensive and more effective..tormentos

Why do you expect GPU's like these to perform 10 times better in games when consoles have GPU's with about the same power? GPU's like the prehistoric ATIx1950 perform just like consoles link and it didn't even cost half the cost of PS3, on the other hand the 8800GTX cost that much, but the 8800GTX completely destroy the ps3.(make sense superior hardware cost more)

how exactly pc are not cost effective in games? as the OP proves a pc that perform 10 times better in games it only cost 3 times more than consoles.

back in 2006


gaming PC (qx6700, 8800GTX, 4GB ram, etc) for $1800
ps3 for $600 & low-end pc for $400 (Let's face it, everyone need a pc) = $1000

ps3 games cost on avenger 15$+ more than pc games so,
an average gamer buy 12 games per year that means, 15x12 = $180 per year more expensive, 180x6 = $1080 in 6 years.

conclusion:

the above gaming PC will cost you $1800

and the ps3 with cost you $600+$400+$1080 = $2080

even this pc from 2006 it came out cheaper and you still play games with better graphics and performance than consoles.

Why was this thread necroed again and again?