The Unspoken Price Drop

In the politics of gaming, I am a PC partisan. Though I may occasionally dabble with console gaming like a repressed ultra-conservative dabbling in a gender identity crisis, in the glaring light of day I fall firmly in that grand old PC curmudgeon party. Were the forces of console gaming to crumble tomorrow and the greedy eye of the gaming industry to once again turn its electric gaze on our platform of ill repute, I would champion it as a victory for good taste and basic human liberty.

So, I was encouraged this week by an e-mail that turned up in our inbox. It was penned for discussion on the podcast, and hopefully that will still take place, but I am unilaterally co-opting the comment for my own nefarious and opinionated purposes here.

The idea is a simple one — that the once vast cost margin between console and PC gaming has all but closed. At the end of my discussion today I want to leave you with two thoughts, and rather than making you wait I’ll offer them here for you to consider now.

The first is that this analysis is spot on.

The second is that it does not matter a whit.

Here is an excerpt of that e-mail:

If I was to get a ps3 slim today and all the peripherals for the playstation move, my total comes up to $450 ($300 ps3 $80 for move and nun chuck controller and $40 for the eye). Same thing with the new xbox and Natal... sorry Kinnect priced at $150. Hasn't the computer become a the cheaper gaming alternative? I walked in to my local computer store the other day and saw a rig running MW2 on 3 screens. They had the thing advertised for $750 Canadian dollars. Most people out there would do fine just by upgrading to a $200 video card.

Okay, first I grant you that the e-mailer (who added no name to his comment, but who hails from the ever reputable hotmail.com) is playing fast and loose with some pretty basic math. Even a numerically intolerant old English major like me can still register the fundamental inequality of $750>$500, so while his premise intrigues me I abandon full support well before the line of arguing that PC gaming is actually cheaper. It’s not, but it is _getting_ cheaper.

Let’s talk Xbox 360 for a minute, though. Just to keep our casual analysis nice and fair, we’ll just pretend like I’m not on my third machine since 2005, or that my total hardware investment is actually around $700 alone. Were you to fire over to Amazon.com today and purchase even the cheaper 120GB Xbox Elite, you will cough up 250 bones, but let’s be realistic about that purchase. If you are me, you’re going to need another controller. You’re going to need HDMI cables. You’re going to need Xbox LIVE, maybe even for the whole family. And, this winter, you’re going to need Kinnect.

That supposed $250 barrier to entry, if you are me, is really closer to $600 — roughly the same price as a relatively decent low end Dell laptop.

The industry likes to make a big deal about price drops, but somehow they have really done relatively little to actually keep consumer total costs in line as these systems enter middle-age. On the other side, the past half decade has seen a precipitous and real world drop in price for desktops and laptops.

I won’t go so far as to say that PC gaming has become trivially cheap — though if you are adventurous, comfortable with handling a little bit of tech and savvy you can shave away hundreds of dollars — but it certainly has come in line with console gaming. So the what is, I think, the underlying premise posed by our e-mail is a valid one: why haven’t game companies and consumers started backing the PC horse?

The short answer that most companies give is piracy.

The more complex answer is that companies make their games where the money is, and gamers go where the games are. At some point a number of years ago, the PC market became so toxic that game makers abandoned it even though there was still a large and healthy population of buyers. These were the days of driver issues, compatibility frustrations, skyrocketing processor costs and the evolution of internet piracy. Making a game exclusive to the PC was like buying speculation property on a variable rate interest only home loan in Las Vegas — a completely losing proposition. For publishers, money is just easier to make on the consoles, and so the game companies left and the gamers went with them.

Here's the thing though. Let's say that the problem of piracy were entirely resolved to the satisfaction of both game makers and gamers tomorrow. There would be no mass exodus back home to PC gaming. The basic landscape of a post-piracy gaming world would probably look a lot like today's. Business operates best from inertia, and for all its flaws the console market is a stable and rich one. This is the world we lost PC gamers will continue to live in, one of sloppy console ports, open animosity from once mighty developers suffering from some kind of corporate-wide PTSD and a gaming industry drifting inevitably toward total media integration and innovation through gadgetry.

Depressing, right? Well, actually I’d say no. After all, as a primarily PC gamer, the market drift is kind of working for my pocketbook. The pressure to keep costs low on my platform of choice is creating some pretty good deals, not the least of which is that new releases are traditionally cheaper, and while I can’t get every game I may want, I pay a lot less than I did five years ago to sustain my still healthy habit. Digital distribution is an advanced lifeform on PCs, and the rich independent market augments the not as prominent but still considerable major publisher releases.

I don’t imagine that I am a typical example, but I am definitely feeling the drain on my wallet coming from those scheming little boxes entrenched around my television. Like the once mighty PC marker, the constant push to upgrade and enhance is becoming a cost burden, and based on this year’s E3 there is no sign on the horizon that the trend will change. One might almost describe it as bubble-esque.

Do I think that should that bubble burst, suddenly people will rush back to the PC as the platform of choice? Not really. That ship has sailed into the west, but I have come to terms with the new face of PC gaming and have made peace. I’m just glad that it’s going to cost a lot less.

Comments

Pages

As a PC player, I have to say it seems odd to include the Kinect/Move prices in this equation, as the PC doesn't have anything quite like that.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

As a PC player, I have to say it seems odd to include the Kinect/Move prices in this equation, as the PC doesn't have anything quite like that.

But if the games require it, let's say kids games, isn't that totally fair? The question is whether or not you're going to buy one if you're an XBox 360 gamer, as opposed to a PC gamer. If it's your only gaming platform and you have children, will you buy it?

It's obviously an open question, but I don't think it's entirely unfair to add it in.

It's unreasonable to compare the cost of a 360 plus Kinect to the cost of a new gaming PC. Kinect is a peripheral that brings motion control to the platform (something entirely unavailable on the PC) and is a completely optional and arbitrary accessory. You might as well tack on Track IR to your PC cost for the sake of fairness, or say that all PC gamers should factor the cost of a force feedback steering wheel into their start-up costs.

Apples to apples, it's still considerably less expensive to play, for example, Mass Effect 2 on the 360 than on a PC.

It's unreasonable to compare the cost of a 360 plus Kinect to the cost of a new gaming PC. Kinect is a peripheral that brings motion control to the platform (something entirely unavailable on the PC) and is a completely optional and arbitrary accessory.

I completely disagree. I'm not trying to compare the experience of playing a console to playing a PC. I am trying to compare the barriers of entry. The jury is still out on how integral Kinect will be to the Xbox experience, but the clear emphasis by console manufacturers of late is to add-on components that either are required or have the sense of being required.

Also, the basic thrust of the argument is not that the gap has closed, but that it is closing. While it may still be cheaper to play ME2 on the 360, it's not as much cheaper as it used to be. Real world, I can play ME2 on a PC from the ground up for about $600 (possibly less). Barring any kind of extras, I can play it on the 360, standard def no extra controller, for a bottom minimum of about $300. That's not the difference in price we used to see.

The article wrote:

In the politics of gaming, I am a PC partisan. Though I may occasionally dabble with console gaming like a repressed ultra-conservative dabbling in a gender identity crisis, in the glaring light of day I fall firmly in that grand old PC curmudgeon party. Were the forces of console gaming to crumble tomorrow and the greedy eye of the gaming industry to once again turn its electric gaze on our platform of ill repute, I would champion it as a victory for good taste and basic human liberty.

I really appreciate the honesty in this opening paragraph, because it expertly foreshadows your Fair And Balanced take on the appreciable pricing differences between console and PC gaming, which apparently include $100 console-only HDMI cables and entry-level personal computers that happen to be bundled with motion control technology.

Elysium wrote:
It's unreasonable to compare the cost of a 360 plus Kinect to the cost of a new gaming PC. Kinect is a peripheral that brings motion control to the platform (something entirely unavailable on the PC) and is a completely optional and arbitrary accessory.

I completely disagree. I'm not trying to compare the experience of playing a console to playing a PC. I am trying to compare the barriers of entry. The jury is still out on how integral Kinect will be to the Xbox experience, but the clear emphasis by console manufacturers of late is to add-on components that either are required or have the sense of being required.

I agree with ClockworkHorse. That may be the PR line by the console manufacturers, but it remains to be seen whether there is enough support from developers to make them worthwhile, and even if consumers will accept them or not. Whatever the spin from MS and Sony, these are still addons and totally optional. I don't think you should count those in the barrier to entry IMO.

In addition, I think you also underestimate a major draw of consoles in simplicity. Plug it in, turn it on, you're good to go. PCs need to deal with driver updates and all that crazy stuff. While it has gotten a lot better than the past, it's still not as simple as a console. This may not affect the price of the barrier of entry, but it does affect the barrier in terms of time investment and complexity.

These type of articles pop up from time to time all over the net, it is an impossible comparison. When you look at price there are far too many variables:

-Do you assume the user needs console peripherals?
-Do you assume the user already has a TV to use the console on?
-Do you assume the user has a monitor, mouse, keyboard, and other PC things that don't need replaced?

Any of those three, depending on the choice made COMPLETELY change the cost of entry for either consoles or PC. And that is completely ignoring any strength and weakness (both objective and subjective) that are inherent with any system.

The thing is, most people need a computer of some kind anyway. When you look at the cost of computer (for every day stuff) + console (for gaming) vs. slightly more expensive computer (the difference between regular and gaming PCs is very small these days), it's a lot harder to dismiss the argument.

For me, the PC is even less expensive than Sean describes because I'm going to have a PC in my house anyway. My true cost for a gaming PC vs. a console is the amount of money between a non-gaming PC (let's describe non-gaming as integrated graphics, smaller monitor, no headphones, cheap speakers, inexpensive processor/RAM/smaller hard drive) and an upgraded gaming PC. That number is smaller than the $750 quoted.

I need a PC in the house. I don't need a console. And, every dime I put into a PC benefits every other activity I undertake on the PC. Every dime I put into the console only benefits the console.

The elephant in the room is the cost of a decent TV to go along with the console. My family doesn't watch very much TV, and we don't have an HD LCD or LED model.

There are plenty of valid reasons for people to choose consoles over PC's; I don't want to come off as an unabashed console hater. Consoles just don't have a place in my life at the moment, and it would feel expensive to me to invest in becoming a console gamer.

If you don't already have a PC or console, and you don't have need of a PC for anything else in your life, personal preference trumps price. There's a multitude of variables influencing personal preference (do you have any computer knowledge? What do your friends play? Need a TV, or have a TV? Prefer mouse/keyboard or controller? Couch, or chair?), but I agree that price is no longer the primary concern when purchasing your first entertainment device.

I love it when I have an idea germinating in my brain, and months later, when I still haven't managed to articulate it to myself or anyone else, Elysium just puts it out on the internet for me.

Thanks for saving me the time.

EDIT: And then pignoli and sithload come along with the final piece of the puzzle.

Elysium wrote:

Also, the basic thrust of the argument is not that the gap has closed, but that it is closing. While it may still be cheaper to play ME2 on the 360, it's not as much cheaper as it used to be. Real world, I can play ME2 on a PC from the ground up for about $600 (possibly less). Barring any kind of extras, I can play it on the 360, standard def no extra controller, for a bottom minimum of about $300. That's not the difference in price we used to see.

Here's a complicating factor maybe you guys can toss around in the podcast: spending money to make my PC capable of playing ME2 today doesn't have the same value as making my PC capable of playing something like WarCraft 3 back in 2002. When I upgraded my computer back then to play a new game I not only updated my gaming capabilities, I upgraded my e-mail/web browsing/media playing/word processor running/etc. capabilities. If I upgrade for CivV and SCII today, I don't really upgrade much other than my gaming capabilities.

In absolute terms, yeah--PC gaming is cheaper than ever! However, in relative terms, it might be more expensive than ever, too.

Elysium wrote:

I completely disagree. I'm not trying to compare the experience of playing a console to playing a PC. I am trying to compare the barriers of entry. The jury is still out on how integral Kinect will be to the Xbox experience, but the clear emphasis by console manufacturers of late is to add-on components that either are required or have the sense of being required.

Microsoft pushing the Kinect as a vital component of the 360 experience is no different from Nvidia pushing its latest and greatest video card as vital for PC gaming. You'll need a Kinect sensor to play Kinect games, and you'll get some added features in other games, but even Microsoft isn't claiming that it's required for the system from this point forward. Kinect's not even coming bundled in with all future systems (neither, for that matter, is Move).

pignoli wrote:

The thing is, most people need a computer of some kind anyway. When you look at the cost of computer (for every day stuff) + console (for gaming) vs. slightly more expensive computer (the difference between regular and gaming PCs is very small these days), it's a lot harder to dismiss the argument.

2009 was the first year in which laptop sales were greater than desktop sales, and all projections for the future only see this trend increasing. For many households, then, you essentially are asking them to pay much greater sums to have a gaming laptop, purchase an additional desktop PC just for gaming, or purchase a PC that isn't in their preferred form factor.

Interesting premise, for sure. I generally agree with what's been said up until now, but I think the argument only holds up if you only consider the single-player experience. If you only want to play single player games, then there are all kinds of options available on PC and on a console, and many of those games will run on a very light-weight PC/Mac. However, if you want to play a multiplayer shooter with someone in the room (i.e. "couch co-op"), we're moving into the territory of LAN parties.

Of course, that distinction is moot-ed (word? Sure...why not?) by the fact that couch co-op, or competition in generally, is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. Split-screen multiplayer just isn't included on very many games anymore. A buddy of mine was visiting awhile back and we went to find a game to rent or buy that we both could play on my PS3. We settled on "Borderlands," as it was one of the few that we both could play through at the same time in some kind of story mode. If we had the PC version of "Borderlands," we couldn't do that - we'd need two PCs, thus rapidly increasing the cost.

So yes, the "barrier of entry" in order to play most games is probably cheaper on a PC than it is on a console, but I think part of that is simply because the PC is so single-player centric. The price metric of multiple controllers for consoles, motion or otherwise, should only account for a single person if you will compare it to the PC.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

2009 was the first year in which laptop sales were greater than desktop sales, and all projections for the future only see this trend increasing. For many households, then, you essentially are asking them to pay much greater sums to have a gaming laptop, purchase an additional desktop PC just for gaming, or purchase a PC that isn't in their preferred form factor.

Fair enough. But do they NEED to be able to check their email on their couch?

I would never recommend my mother get a desktop over a laptop just on the off chance she'll want to play Left 4 Dead with me someday. But let's say the person in question is a GAMER. Let's assume this person is going to spend $600 on some form of PC no matter what. If they wanted to play PC games, they could easily make that a desktop, and for the an additional $200 get a decent video card, and bang: Mass Effect 2.

$200 is a 360 Arcade unit.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

Microsoft pushing the Kinect as a vital component of the 360 experience is no different from Nvidia pushing its latest and greatest video card as vital for PC gaming.

I totally agree with you - but I think that's the point of the article, to an extent. I don't want to get into price-specific comparisons, but I've heard from a lot of people getting frustrated with PC gaming due to it's constant upgrade cycle, and understandably so.
My impression of the console market at the moment is that it's engaging more and more in this very same kind of upgrade cycle - new "must have" peripherals, new platform iterations, new and bigger hard drives, etc etc. At the same time, I'd argue that the PC upgrade cycle is actually getting much better - more affordable components and and slower jumps in requirements have meant that necessary PC upgrade cycles are farther apart and cheaper.

This goes along with the thrust of the article, which I understood as saying that consoles are becoming more and more like PC's every day - for better and for worse.

pignoli wrote:

The thing is, most people need a computer of some kind anyway. When you look at the cost of computer (for every day stuff) + console (for gaming) vs. slightly more expensive computer (the difference between regular and gaming PCs is very small these days), it's a lot harder to dismiss the argument.

Yes, but who buys a desktop for basic home computing anymore? I rarely use my desktop for emailing or bills, those are done in front of the TV from the convenience of my laptop.

My gaming rig sits upstairs for more demanding tasks (specifically video editing and gaming).

Elysium wrote:
It's unreasonable to compare the cost of a 360 plus Kinect to the cost of a new gaming PC. Kinect is a peripheral that brings motion control to the platform (something entirely unavailable on the PC) and is a completely optional and arbitrary accessory.

I completely disagree. I'm not trying to compare the experience of playing a console to playing a PC. I am trying to compare the barriers of entry. The jury is still out on how integral Kinect will be to the Xbox experience, but the clear emphasis by console manufacturers of late is to add-on components that either are required or have the sense of being required.

Also, the basic thrust of the argument is not that the gap has closed, but that it is closing. While it may still be cheaper to play ME2 on the 360, it's not as much cheaper as it used to be. Real world, I can play ME2 on a PC from the ground up for about $600 (possibly less). Barring any kind of extras, I can play it on the 360, standard def no extra controller, for a bottom minimum of about $300. That's not the difference in price we used to see.

You are definitely a PC partisan and using this thread to make a case for PC gaming at the expense of beating the "console vs PC" dead horse. The barrier of entry insinuates the cost to enter the gaming market, not have all the bells and whistles of that platform. If we use Mass Effect 2 as the cross platform example and look at the actual start up cost for each platform in order to play said game:

Xbox:
Arcade - 150.00
Mass Effect 2: 40
HDMI Cable: 20.00 (Amazon)

Play on widescreen 42" Hi Def. No charge for TV since Household probably has one.

PC:

A PC meeting the minimum recommended requirements to play Mass Effect 2:
PC (intel core 2 duo, 2GB Ram, Nvidia 8800 series): Average 600.00 without monitor
Monitor: 100-150.00 for low end monitor.
Mass Effect PC: 40.00
Total: 790.00 estimated.

PC 790.00 vs Xbox 360 210.00 = Difference 570.00

If we are talking about using these systems for gaming than its still a huge difference. Not to mention the ease of setup, NO DRM, and comfort of playing from my couch, Priceless:)

blackanchor wrote:

Not to mention the ease of setup, NO DRM, ...

I shouldn't even go here...

...damnit. You realize that consoles are big DRM boxes, right?

Good article Elysium. I feel like I'm in the same boat.

Gaming laptops aren't much more than non-gaming ones. I would consider a non-gaming laptop to be in the 399 category. I know I got an HP laptop with 1080p screen, Nvidia graphics, and a bluray drive for around $700 (as long as you bargin hunt!). Compared to a desktop where I also have to buy a monitor, keyboard and mouse, and the prices become comparable.

Ignore the dirty skimmer

blackanchor wrote:

If we are talking about using these systems for gaming than its still a huge difference. Not to mention the ease of setup, NO DRM, and comfort of playing from my couch, Priceless:)

It's called Steam and it is priceless.

I think Elysium is right. As he described, how many of you have bought multiple XBoxes because it died? When a component in my PC dies (which is rare), I replace that component (unless you're talking laptops, different animal). You get RROD and you're forking out another $250 or so.

I truly believe that console makers have seen the light and will continue to attempt to nickel and dime their customers with new gear that people "must" have. Look at Nintendo and the Motion Plus, Guitar Hero and Rock Band. The Move and Kinect and expanded HDs will continue the trend. The success of these new toys will depend on whether this trend continues.

PC games are also cheaper to buy than their console counterparts, so if you buy many games you can get better deals on PC most of the time. There are of course some games that are just more fun to play on console. I own all 4 methods, so I'm probably not the target market mainstream user.

Consoles offer a great gaming experience with *NO FUSS*. That's really the kicker. The PC requires not only a slightly higher monetary investment, it's also a higher barrier of technological prowess to enter that market. It does pay dividends for the people willing to put forth that medium to high, depending on what you are trying to achieve, effort. But you can't argue with the fact that it's just easier and more friendly to use a console in the typical home.

Consoles offer a great gaming experience with *NO FUSS*.

That's just not as true as it used to be.

DorkmasterFlek wrote:

In addition, I think you also underestimate a major draw of consoles in simplicity. Plug it in, turn it on, you're good to go. PCs need to deal with driver updates and all that crazy stuff. While it has gotten a lot better than the past, it's still not as simple as a console. This may not affect the price of the barrier of entry, but it does affect the barrier in terms of time investment and complexity.

This with tea and biscuits.

Don't underestimate this. I will happily pay a higher price to not have to f*** about in the guts of my machine for several hours just to get a game to run. I will happily pay a higher price just to avoid the possibility of having to mess around to get the game to run.

sithload wrote:

The elephant in the room is the cost of a decent TV to go along with the console. My family doesn't watch very much TV, and we don't have an HD LCD or LED model.

...There's a multitude of variables influencing personal preference (do you have any computer knowledge? What do your friends play? Need a TV, or have a TV? Prefer mouse/keyboard or controller? Couch, or chair?), but I agree that price is no longer the primary concern when purchasing your first entertainment device.

Funny you mention that. I already have a HDTV; getting into PC gaming would require a monitor and a computer desk (and a comfortable chair). So I have the opposite problem, and I suspect I'm more typical.

I predict that as it becomes more common for people to have PCs hooked up to their television, PC gaming will swing back.

Elysium wrote:
Consoles offer a great gaming experience with *NO FUSS*.

That's just not as true as it used to be.

It really isn't.

Patches, patches, patches. Entering DLC codes with a thumbstick controller. Connecting to proprietary servers for content (Cerberus Network in ME2).

But I certainly think it would be hard to argue that PC gaming is less fussy than console gaming.

Lex Cayman wrote:
blackanchor wrote:

Not to mention the ease of setup, NO DRM, ...

I shouldn't even go here...

...damnit. You realize that consoles are big DRM boxes, right?

I can see his point though. You buy a console game on disc and that game works until it's scratched to hell or there are no more consoles to play it on (or displays that work with the output of the console).

You buy a DRM game on PC whether via a disc or digital download and it's only good as long as the servers are in operation or contact.

- - - - - - - -

Interesting article, Elysium. I agree with the broad strokes but i fear there's a danger here. You mention the savings on your wallet from PC gaming these days - I am experiencing the same thing. It used to be that i preordered every game that took my interest.... i used to pay full price at launch for those games. DRM, lack of demos and poor console ports have reduced my confidence in the game marketplace.... and the DD platforms themselves have also made it easier for me to hold off and wait to see what reception a game and it's DRM will get along with waiting for the crazy deals offered on relatively new games every week. Certainly i'm spending less and buying less than i was years ago but that's money that the gaming industry has lost out on. I'm sure i'm not the only person who's in this boat and i don't view it as a positive for the consumer in the long run.
Sure, i get better deals and miss out on games but the industry is losing that revenue that they previously could count on and in the meantime developers go out of business and publishers turn away from the platform... only to start wanting to take the same steps and possibly making the same mistakes in the console space.

I suppose the alternative is to enter into indie gaming and support that side of things.... however, a lot of that type of product does not tend to appeal to my gaming sensibilities nor the polish/length.

Elysium wrote:

Also, the basic thrust of the argument is not that the gap has closed, but that it is closing. While it may still be cheaper to play ME2 on the 360, it's not as much cheaper as it used to be. Real world, I can play ME2 on a PC from the ground up for about $600 (possibly less). Barring any kind of extras, I can play it on the 360, standard def no extra controller, for a bottom minimum of about $300. That's not the difference in price we used to see.

You're absolutely right, there's a major difference here. Ten years ago, we wouldn't even be able to make an equivalent PC vs. console pricing comparison because the console ports from that time couldn't provide the same gameplay experiences available on the PC. One such example: Half-Life, one of the most revered PC games of all time, arrived on the Playstation 2 three years after the original PC release, without any of the support for popular mods like Counter-Strike, Team Fortress Classic or Day of Defeat, all of which had been out for PC for over a year.

Thanks to the price dip in hardware that's being celebrated in this article, we can actually make a reasonable comparison between PC and console for a game like Mass Effect 2, which had a simultaneous release across both platforms. And, of course, it would be preferable to include the correct pricing details in that comparison, right?

I'm a PC-boy, no question. I don't even own a console. But I can honestly say that I haven't had a problem with getting a game to work on a PC since the days when I had to switch from XMS to EMS memory (and vice versa). Unless I have been really lucky, I don't get when people say that getting games to work on PCs is difficult. If you're trying to run Crysis on a netbook, yeah, it isn't going to work, but otherwise, particularly with Win7, I haven't had a problem yet.

Gaming is an expensive hobby, plain and simple, no matter which platform you favor. However, it is far easier to save money with consoles. For example, if you wanted to jump into some hardcore gaming today, the most frugal route would be a console. You can grab an Xbox Arcade unit and a year of Xbox Live Gold for under $200 right now. That is pretty damn cheap. If you are casual about gaming, then a $150 Wii would serve you well. Even a PS3 slim at $299 would be significantly cheaper than building or buying a budget gaming machine. Not only that, but you can trade-in or sell the games you buy or just go the renting route. If you are of meager means, console gaming is the way to go.

I think PC still has a lot of catching up to do, in terms of price. I am starting to see budget computers with decent graphics cards in them for good prices, but nothing that can come close to the consoles.

For gamers like us who buy tons of games, build gaming rigs on our kitchen tables, and own multiple consoles, they do not seem like such a bargain. We spend quite a bit of money on our consoles. But, if you really break it down, consoles are still more cost effective route than a gaming PC.

Whichever platform you think is better is a personal preference. The PC may be the superior platform for a lot of people, but the cheapest? Not even close. Sorry.

Pages