Financial analysis looks at PC vs. console costs

Even the most diehard PC gamer has to admit that their console gaming brethren get the better end of the deal as far as costs are concerned. But exactly 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 great.

When all is said and done, the full Xbox 360 gaming setup (including TV, accessories and Xbox Live subscription) costs $3,152 over six years, about $350 less than a basic gaming PC for the same period. Of course that cost includes a 42" 1080p TV, while the comparable PC uses a relatively paltry 22 inch display. When a comparable screen is used on the PC, the savings on the console side balloon to near $1,200.

The real killer for the PC, of course, is the upgrades (estimated in this study at $250 every other year) and recommended full-on replacements (every three years) that come much more frequently than the console equivalents (one replacement every six years). So, PC gamers, is it worth the extra money?

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/02/22/fi...console-costs/

i was just wondering about this topic the otherday i thought it would be best not to get a top end pc/laptop and instead just get 1 for web browsing and to get a console for gaming. but then again i only use my psp and am a big fan of emulators and old school gaming. there isnt many great games released anymore with replayability.

hell yes it is. I doubt new consoles are released
every six years.....I'd go with four maybe five. After a few years all the games are no one near what a new pc can do. Hell, crysis is already above consoles. Not to mention all the extra stuff your compy can do and the ridiculously huge library of games. And 22" from a couple feet away is bigger than a 42" from 15 feet away. I have a lot more such as the mouse and keyboard being the best controller ever....but I'll let someone try and argue for consoles first.

Yes, its worth the money. PC > Consoles, imo.

It used to be worth it, but now you have to jump through so many hoops just to get a game running on a pc. It used to be all you had to worry about was if your hardware met the minimum requirements. Now, you have to contend with DRM and activations which is the stupidest concept ever conceived. Meh, the cost and time lost is now more than the entertainment I get out of the games.

Considering I use Newegg (or perhaps eBay) for all my PC hardware, it's definitely worth the money. The PC is far more flexible to do other tasks as well as downloading free games and software such as open source. It's also far more flexible for hardware, it could take any type of controller including console controllers and it could easily be hooked up to a TV such as the mentioned 42" 1080p TV.
I think the main reason people prefer consoles over PC is because they don't want to deal with learning how to properly use a PC for gaming and it's super simple to play console games. With flexibility comes complexity.

I agree with jamotto that copy protection is going too far, but for most games it doesn't bother me too much since for the most part it only involves inserting the CD when you want to play it.

Personally I think a PC and a homebrew-capable DS is one of the best combinations. I like my Wii but I hardly ever play it because 95% of the time I'm either on my PC, away from home, or sleeping.

I must say in kinda more towards the console side, yet i do agree with the PC gamers perspective about DRM. Main reason is the upgrading of the PC itself. I don't wanna browse thro a load a games in a store checking wether they would run or not on my particular machine.

I just wanna go into a game store pick up a game and know that no matter what game i choose, i know it'll work. Which is what console gamers can do.

On the flip side i do have a PC, not very powerful @ Duo core AMD 1.46GHz with built in shared graphics however i really only play games like Red Alert 2, Defcon and the like. Games like Crysis look good, but i wouldn't go out and spend loads of money just so that i could play it. Then there's the thought of playin' an FPS's with a Keyboard and Mouse *Shudders*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sketchy

Then there's the thought of playin' an FPS's without a Keyboard and Mouse *Shudders*

---

Fix'd. :)

i think it's too expensive to buy all new computer parts, so i bought a wii because i thought it looked very fun to play :D.

the FPS games are very easy to play on the wii, like metroid prime corruption it's just as easy (if not easier) to play on wii like playing FPS games on PC compared to the xbox (i just hate the xbox stick to play FPS games compared to the wiimote) imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eatnooM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sketchy

Then there's the thought of playin' an FPS's without a Keyboard and Mouse *Shudders*

---

Fix'd. :)

---

Ditto... Well, sorta. For me it's about the control type rather than the controls themselves. I like aiming like I do a mouse, moving my hand at relative speed and direction to where I want to aim. An analog stick is far less capable of balancing out both accuracy and speed (thus the addition of auto-aim for most console FPS games, correct me if I'm wrong on that).
I like the aiming controls of the DS in Metroid and Quake2DS and such and I have yet to play an FPS on the Wii but I expect it's a great experience.
I played Halo for a bit on the Xbox when I visited friends, and I adapted quickly as I do with most games, but I still found it very difficult to adjust the sensitivity so I could manage any kind of twitch-aiming without shooting everywhere except my target.

Bah... I wonder if the next-gen of consoles will be "upgradeable" to an extent?

After spending $4,000 or so on my recent PC build, I think I'm set for another 5 years or so. There is nothing that I play that will max 2 8800gtx's anyway. And Crysis = a beautiful turd; pretty graphics, shit gameplay/story. Marines. Aliens. I believe we have seen this enough already.