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

It is still not fair to include Kinect and Move in the price of the consoles as nobody is going to buy them. Also, the XBox 360 Elite comes with an HDMI cable, so that shouldn't factor into it. My PS3 didn't, but I bought one for $10. For some people such as myself, XBox Live Gold isn't a factor, but I suppose it's fair to include that since I would assume that most people here with 360's are paying Microsoft for something that should be free.

As for dropping $250 to replace a 360, I thought you could just send it off to Microsoft to have it fixed at no charge. Sure, you'll be without it for a few weeks and it'll just break again a week after you get it back, but it's free, isn't it? Or have they simply stopped fixing the damn things?

Also of note: You can still buy a PS2 for $99.99, if you really wanted to save some cheddar. Talk about a cheap library of great games too.

MechaSlinky wrote:

...Or have they simply stopped fixing the damn things?

They just fixed mine, for the second time (RROD). I bought the original a year after launch.

Nevin73 wrote:

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.

You are lucky. You see, I love playing PC games and actually don't mind browsing forums and finding out what could be causing mouse lag on Arma 2. However, I hate doing it for my friends machines. They are more casual PC gamers and have completely no desire to do troubleshooting on their own.

Whats not a big deal for us, is a complete deal-breaker for allot of others.

Where do I pay my PC curmudgeon party membership?

I don't think the $ is the major factor here (though it's certainly an issue). The perception is that the effort and knowledge required to maintain a PC is quite high, while consoles "just work". That's why the Mac getting Steam was an interesting wrinkle...an upgradeable, keyboard/mouse/monitor type platform that might develop into a gaming platform, but with a lower hassle factor.

But also, the industry is so lethargic to adopt, in an other than nickel and dime fashion, digital distribution. You know, that ugly stepchild that miraculously coincided with the advent of internet piracy.

There is no argument more laser pointed than the problem with the gaming industry is the bloated and gargantuan middle man. Suddenly the landscape changes when you can charge $20 for a quality game and the developer triples the revenue because of it.

Some games need to be made this way. The overgrown pimple sore on the nose of the industry is that all games need to legitimize themselves through this process.

Oh and you can get an absolutely stellar mid range computer for ~$600, monitor included. And for those that say the PC lacks a motion controller, well, the consoles lack a mouse and keyboard.

And for those that say that the Move and Kinect aren't required and won't get a lot of buy in, well what about $200 for Rockband or $100 for Wii Fit? The buy in on those is certainly enough to entertain the possibility of required purchases for their respective platforms.

I can see the divide in opinion on Kinect & Move during the comparison.

Personally, I think Kinect and Move are not barriers to entry any more than owning a Physx card would've been for the PC.

As accessories they remain completely irrelevant for me as there is no must-own application that's been shown yet. Not only do they have to bring something unique to the table, besides motion with HD, at a fair price point, but they must compete with the fact that there is a Wii in the household already and we've done all our investments in extra controllers / nunchuks for a motion 'experience'.

For a consumer who wants to experience motion control, there has been and will continue to be the Wii. Lower cost, bundled motion controller, cheaper software. it really comes down to the invidividual gaming consumer and what they want / don't want as they run their pro's and cons.

Despite all the Sony / Microsoft PR, the Wii is a gaming console.

There are many more factors to the pc versus console, or HTPC versus console discussion and I appreciate that this article is focused on the pricing angle. I am looking to upgrade or buy a new pc finally and there are good deals to be had. I'm honestly amazed at what my little 299 Asus Netbook can do with its 280N processor and pathetic integrated graphics chipset.

I agree there are definitely good deals to be had on the pc software side of the house, with lower launch costs and seemingly quick downward pricing pressure. Still, for having my sons and I huddle around a TV for some on-screen gaming fun, it just not as seamless an experience.

fangblackbone wrote:

And for those that say that the Move and Kinect aren't required and won't get a lot of buy in, well what about $200 for Rockband or $100 for Wii Fit? The buy in on those is certainly enough to entertain the possibility of required purchases for their respective platforms.

Not really. Rockband isn't a required purchase to play Gears of War, for instance, and you don't need a balance board to play the vast majority of games on the Wii. They're a required purchase if you want to play music games and some exercise games, but that's about it.

I guess I understand what your getting at, like others have said I remember when my family forked over nearly $3000 for a new PC and now you can get in under $600, it's fantastic. The difference to consoles is minimal(to me). But I just don't see Kinect/Move being a barrier to entry into the consoles. I don't think we'll see main stream AAA titles requiring Kinect/Move, they might be capable of supporting them. I could see being able to turn my head to see around corners with kinect in Forza3 but I still want my hands on a controller or my steering wheel at the same time.

So I'm thinking yes, moving my head would be an additional feature I could have if I had Kinect but its not a barrier to playing the game.

Kinda hoping FPS games will get a head turning feature, or grenade throwing with Kinect. But I still want my hands on a controller. Still though, extra features not complete game play.

To me this is the future of these devices for hardcore gamers, as a feature, not full control.

Just my opinion.

I think the PC serves too many masters to ever be as cheap and simple an option as a console. Consoles are made for gaming, first and foremost, and that will always give them an edge over the PC in terms of price and the simplicity of the user experience. The only compelling reason I see in choosing a PC over a console is that you prefer it. If it feels right for you, it is worth the extra cash. If money is the only big concern, however, you should just check "Gaming PC" off your wishlist from the get go.

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?

To qualify that, every revision of past consoles has implemented ways to lock out mod chips and such and current console firmware updates typically brick a hacked console such as the Wii Twilight Hack. Sometimes firmware updates brick completely legitamate PS3's. I still want a PS3. From where I sit, driver issues are less of a problem on PC now, and more of a problem on consoles than they were even a few years ago. It makes me cringe every time I hear of a problem due to 'firmware updates' that somehow we lived without for generations of console gaming but now we must have every month or 3.

sithload wrote:

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.

I wouldn't really say that about the console, when you've got DVD, Bluray, Netflix, ESPN (coming) on those consoles.

The real point is, in 2000, it still wasn't unheard of to spend almost $2000 on a gaming PC (I spent $2300, with monitor, speakers, printer, mouse and keyboard) , and in that same year, it would have cost over $400 for a PS2 with an extra controller memory card and one game.

This year, I spent $800 and have a great gaming / multi-tasking PC, and 4 years after the launch of a PS3, just to get the baseline (for me) experience I need to spend $400 to play a 2-player full retail price game.

I think the thing that makes PC gaming most attractive to me at this point has nothing to do with cost of entry (even though, I still don't like the idea of paying $300 for a console) but the cost of the games themselves. Steam is leading the way here with other sources joing in, too. I've paid $5 for Bioshock, Mirror's Edge, Plants vs Zombies, World in Conflict & Torchlight, and even less for some. Some of which are older, but all of which would be cheaper than if I bought a console counter-part. I just looked, I paid 178.50 for 20 games since 2008 on PC. Granted, 3 of them I have no intention of loading, but they came with 2 others I will go back to for years to come.

I can't imagine going without either PC games or consoles.

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.

I would love to know about all these "must have peripherals" everyone seems to keep bringing up related to consoles. I've had a console since October, '09, and the only thing I've needed was an extra remote and a headset. And you need a headset for online stuff for PC, so it's a wash. And why include HDMI cables in your comparison, mine was $6 bucks for crying out loud.

When you make the basis for your article a comparison for barrier to entry by listing a bare-minimum spec PC compared to a console with a $100 - $150 peripheral you deem as "must-have" before it's even been released, it tends to take credibility away from the entire article. You must have known you were embellishing the costs related to consoles, so why even open yourself up to that sort of criticism in this sort of discussion?

PCs are getting cheaper, and hassles have indeed increased in the current generation of consoles. But for people who just want to play games, especially single player games, the console is the obvious choice these days.

MechaSlinky wrote:

It is still not fair to include Kinect and Move in the price of the consoles as nobody is going to buy them.

Well, not nobody. But certainly not everybody.

I've read so many times, on this forum and elsewhere in the "gamer" community, that Kinect and Move are not for "us" (whoever "us" really is). These products will not be integral to the experience of "console gaming"; even in a best case scenario, they carve out some slice of the entire console gaming pie.

Kinect enables playing a small number of games in a very peculiar manner. That's it. Thinking of it as a required component of the system is misguided, and would be akin to assuming every PC gamer needed a high end flight sim stick or a G19 keyboard.

OzymandiasAV wrote:
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.

I appreciate it because it made me think about Ely trying to pick up anonymous sex with an Xbox.

cool thing about being a PC gamer, you can get the soundtrack from it on certain games if your are lucky enough or skilled enough to find it.

I have thought this through, and realized we are missing the point. (Including my previous post which came close but fell short.)

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?

"Game companies" want to own the box delivering content to your television. A PC is a fairly open platform where you have to compete with everyone on the internet who wants to sell you movies, games, music, etc. But if Sony or Microsoft own the box you first turn to when you want to watch a movie (or play a game or listen to music) then that is a pretty nice revenue stream for them.

Which is probably why they regularly tolerate mediocre profits, or outright losses, to get you psychologically adapted to using their boxes. Various companies will probably do whatever it takes to be your dealer (parallels drawn by that language are intentional) including continuing to aggressively cut costs as much as they think they can bear.

I can't speak for consumers because we are all different, and many of us behave in ways I consider bizarre. (I can give anecdotal stories of acquaintances dropping a pile of money on buying episodes of a TV show through iTunes because they didn't want to wait for Netflix to send the disc.) Any proclamations we give about consumer behavior are going to be biased by our own perception, and we have to remember that a world of people out there consume media very differently than we do. There is a reason companies spend a lot of money on focus groups, and even more on advertising. Sony and Microsoft have succeeded in making it easier and more pleasant for me to consume media via their consoles, rather than open standards like a PC, DVD player, etc.; this is no accident, and I didn't used to be this way, and I expect they will keep pushing that as they already have been quietly doing so for years. (Remember the "media center" focus of the original XBox?)

Can an open standard compete against a company pouring money into making their product more attractive? Cost might be the best way. Giving away the razor to sell the blades seems to be the console response.

PC player chiming in here.

While it's true that I have both a PS3 and a Wii, and I have lots more games for the Wii than I do for my PC, it's also true that PC gaming has cost me less comparatively speaking, without factoring in games. It's the reason why my PS3 library continues to be small.

My + cost in PC gaming is relatively small. I already have a desktop for multimedia and internet purposes. Other people might prefer a laptop, but a laptop will not do for viewing movies or listening to music properly. You want a nice, proper desktop for that. It has replaced my normal CD music player and much of my DVD library.

Such a rig cannot be too far behind, so much of the upfront cost on setting up the PC is taken up by that. Adding a $100 9800 GT is relatively cheap in comparison, and I save about $10 per game every time a I buy a game for the PC instead of for a PS3.

For families that don't have such integrated functions for a PC in their lives, a console might very well be cheaper, but it used to be that this was the case regardless of whatever else you wanted a PC to do for you.

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.

And this is why my next laptop will be a gaming laptop. I can't not have a computer, so pouring a good chunk more into it up front to make it good for entertainment too makes sense instead of buying a desktop.

I'd also like to ask this: With the audience here being "hardcore" gamers, how many of you have a 360, a PS3, and a Wii? Guess what, that's about $1000 or more (plus peripherals) of gear you have there, right? You could just about have a kick-ass gaming rig for that, which will have better control and graphics than your consoles. I agree, consoles have their place for some because it is easier. But I think what Elysium was getting was that with each generation of consoles, consumers will have to schill out more money for the games and systems they want to play. At the same time, computer systems are getting cheaper and cheaper, so the gap between the two is narrowing. The capability differences are also narrowing, which should make the next gen consoles interesting to see.

As everyone else has said by now, PC versus console is a false dichotomy. People don't say, "well, we're getting a PS3, so no computer for us." The question is whether you want to buy a higher-end PC versus a console -- but then again, thanks to places like Steam and GOG, it's even questionable whether you need a "higher-end" PC to have fun.

But then again, I've always gamed comfortable behind the curve because I'm slow and cheap, so who knows what your experience may be like. Now pardon me, I need to go spend too much money on the Steam sale.

Nevin73 wrote:

I'd also like to ask this: With the audience here being "hardcore" gamers, how many of you have a 360, a PS3, and a Wii? Guess what, that's about $1000 or more (plus peripherals) of gear you have there, right? You could just about have a kick-ass gaming rig for that, which will have better control and graphics than your consoles.

Most "hardcore" gamers who have a 360, PS3, and Wii (read: those with copious amounts of disposable income), like me, probably also have a kick-ass PC gaming rig.

I think Steam just pwned the entire argument.

20 games for $49

'course you could throw in the "Macs can be gaming platforms too!" argument if you like.

fangblackbone wrote:

We might want to consider including a TV v monitor debate in here as well.

$1000 for a reasonable HDTV vs. you can get a hell of a lot of higher rez LCD monitor for $250.

To be fair, you can get a 42" 720p plasma for $360ish these days. In fact, I just did.

Also, the display really shouldn't be included in the equation at all, since PCs can output to HDTVs, and consoles can output to computer monitors. While it's traditional to have smaller displays for PC gaming and larger displays for console gaming, there's absolutely nothing that requires you to do this, and finally (thanks to HDMI) you can mix and match this as you see fit.

Now pardon me, I need to go spend too much money on the Steam sale.

Hell yeah! Steam sales hypnotize me into buying tons of games that I haven't even played yet.

Maybe it's because of my other reasons for being a console gamer, but I'm surprised OnLive hasn't been brought up yet. It really makes a lot of this null since, well, as long as you have a video card that can do a decent job with streaming Internet video, you can play the PC games. Since Cloud Computing is the way of the future, it more means that Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony will need to adapt in their own way. I'd see Nintendo as being the most successful at it, since they've already proven they know they can adapt and do well.

In any case, to me, it becomes a matter of preference of control schemes and what platforms offer. I'm still going to console game since I'm used to it, and Kinect has features that will become standard in a lot of devices (Hell, if the next generation of Windows computers didn't have these features I'd be a bit miffed). Part of it is just the same old man stubborness. But honestly, OnLive is currently the biggest threat, and I'd expect Nintendo to be the one company that figures out how to make a product that remains relevant whereas Sony and Microsoft may either pull out of the market, fail or basically imitate OnLive at home.

We might want to consider including a TV v monitor debate in here as well.

$1000 for a reasonable HDTV vs. you can get a hell of a lot of higher rez LCD monitor for $250.

edit: Damn, it looks like if you want to cough up an extra $100, you can get a gigantic 27" LCD monitor!

edit2: OMG that steam deal is unbelievable! It'd be worth it just for the Dawn of War 2 Expansion and Metro 2033.

edit3: pulled the trigger... just too much good stuff to pass up =) (red faction complete, company of heroes complete, dow complete, dow2 complete, metro 2033, saint's row 2, frontlines, fsw complete, stalker, TQ complete)

Note: I'll be back to clean up typos tonight, typing this on the tiny pre keyboard and it doesn't scroll well enough to see the mistakes my thumbs type. Sorry in advance.

Typos and apparently double posts for great justice.

first a note: I own multiple PCs, an XBox 360, 2 XBox (American and Japanese), PS2, Gamecube, DS, GBA, Dreamcast and probably have a PsOne, N64 or some such floating around somewhere.

Personally I vastly prefer my PC, my several year old CRT moniter still has a higher resolution than even the most modern of TVs (which I do not own). Assuming that every home has a HDTV is the same as assuming (to me) that everyone has a PC already. If you are going to ignore the cost of the TV,you need to take into account the cost of a PC would have otherwise.

having said all that I must admit that I tend to play PC much more now as an adult who no longer has as his best friend the guy next door. Couch Co-op simply isn't a factor for me anymore, I can't even get together to role play face to face these days, online is the way for me (and I suspect quite a few of us 30+ gamers are the same). For that the PC is vastly superior if I were still 20, I'd probably be more for the console as I'd be more likely to be close to my fellow gaming buddies (as most of my friends would be people in my geographical location).

Note: I'll be back to clean up typos tonight, typing this on the tiny pre keyboard and it doesn't scroll well enough to see the mistakes my thumbs type. Sorry in advance.

Sorry for not having included my name Elysium. Here I thought, being logged onto the site that my name would somehow be magically linked to my email address. Silly me.

You have insulted my math good sir, and I will not stand for it. I am well aware that $750 is greater then $500, I am also aware that I was comparing apples to oranges. My argument is that the gap between pc gaming and consoles is closing. I didn't want to get into too much detail was regarding the quality of graphics and controls on the pc vs console. That most people already own a pc and simply need to upgrade certain components. That if you are smart with your pc purchase you can save alot on your next upgrade. For instance if I was to buy a nice pc case and a good power supply, that is about at the least $100 to $300 that I don't have to think about for my next upgrade.

Another major point I would like to make is that when you spend $700 on a pc you are getting a PC and not a just a gaming box. It only does everything... that should be our line.

I am mostly a pc gamer because I love the mouse and keyboard. I love my shooters, my diablos and my mmos too much to have them streamlined to console controllers. But I wrote my e-mail to address the issue that so many people make about the cost of pc gaming. And to those people I wish to introduce them to steam, especially today... I just bought Bioschock 2 for $15dollars. Almost everything is on sale.. it's crazy out there. They must be trying to clear out their inventory or something.

If you have a desktop (as you should for PC gaming), PC gaming is so much cheaper. I already need a computer; add $150 video card -- instant gaming computer. Now buy a million great <$10 games from Steam. Consoles are consumption devices only, which prevents me from rationalizing the cost. Video cards are now even more useful beyond gaming with OpenCL. You could potentially argue that the only gaming-only (besides the games themselves) is the cheap gamepad I got.

Some of that goes out the window when you're talking laptop gaming, though. I don't recommend it. Advantages between the two: portability or everything else -- I'll take everything else.

The real argument against PC gaming isn't cost, but hassle. This is getting easier with things like Windows 7 and other mature software.

While the prices and must-have peripherals used in the article aren't accurate, as has been pointed out, I fully agree with the overall message - that the gap is closing with each generation of consoles. And thanks to the awesome discounted prices of games via digital distribution (mostly Steam), I would argue that the difference in cost of barrier to entry is eventually nullified as long as you don't feel the need to play every game the day it's released.