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

Am I the only one who honestly likes a little hassle in his gaming? I build my own machines, I know every piece of hardware in my current PC and most of it has been used in several configurations. I know the limits of my machine, I know it's strengths and weaknesses. I know why it has these strengths and weakness, and I know the upgrades to make it better.

If I have a sound problem with a game I know it's likely a driver issue, or some other obscure setting in a menu somewhere. Finding that issue, fixing it and running the game flawlessly, for me, is a reward all its own. Tweaking a .ini file so that a brand new game, one I shouldn't be able to run on highest settings, looks just as good as and still runs at a good framerate is fun to me.

If a game is set up right, by people who understand PC games and PC gamers, I have so much more flexiblity with the options. I can choose to add some anti-aliasing knowing full well it will cost me a few FPS, if the game is pretty enough I'm just fine with that. Take that same game and put it on a console and while they may be locked at a steady 30-60 FPS they have to run their little man around a jaggy hellscape with muddy textures.

I'm not a tech support guy or anything, but I become obsessed when I have an issue running a game. I like fiddling with sliders, updating drivers, changing hardware and finding solutions.

With console gaming it either works or you get a red ring. You can't fix anything yourself. You just pony up the money to send your console back, or if you're really stupid you buy the "slim" version of the same bad hardware.

Mean Red Worms wrote:

Am I the only one who honestly likes a little hassle in his gaming? I build my own machines, I know every piece of hardware in my current PC and most of it has been used in several configurations. I know the limits of my machine, I know it's strengths and weaknesses. I know why it has these strengths and weakness, and I know the upgrades to make it better.

If it tickles your pickle, then by all means enjoy. I am not a tech guy but I will at least build my own pc's. Although computer issues are but a google search away, I can't say that it's the highlight my pc gaming. To be hones though I can't remember last time a game didn't work perfectly for me. Metro 2033 gave me a physX Problem after install that was fixed by a reboot. Do people really still struggle with game issues?

It depends on what you're playing but a lot of older or obscure games can be tough to get working just right. And there's always the Russians to provide great games with lots of jank to work out.

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.

I have already been accused of both these sins as well, today. We are now comrades in arms.

Nevin73 wrote:

You could just about have a kick-ass gaming rig for that, which will have better control and graphics than your consoles.

Yeah, because I'd really want to play Super Mario Galaxy 2 with a mouse and keyboard. You know, if it was on PC... You know what I mean. Mouse and keyboard doesn't automatically mean better controls. Depends on the game.

And at this point, the graphical differences between the console and PC versions are so minimal as to be barely worth mentioning, although I'll admit that's probably due to the console version being the primary focus and the PC version being a cheap and dirty rush-job port with nothing added short of a limited number of installs and a requirement to be online at all times, you filthy, dirty pirate. Unless you're actually a filthy, dirty pirate. Then it's smooth sailing.

ccesarano wrote:

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.

Yes, because Nintendo has always been so forward-thinking with their online services.

Mean Red Worms wrote:

Take that same game and put it on a console and while they may be locked at a steady 30-60 FPS they have to run their little man around a jaggy hellscape with muddy textures.

You haven't seen a console game since the PS2, have you?

Mean Red Worms wrote:

Am I the only one who honestly likes a little hassle in his gaming?

I prefer a little Hasselhoff in my this joke is terrible I refuse to finish it.

I don't really mind if there's a minor issue or two in getting a game to run on PC since I can usually find the answer pretty quickly with a Google search, and adjusting the resolution and graphical dealies until finding that balance of performance and fidelity can be kind of fun, but mostly I prefer to actually play my games.

What I hate is stuff like when I bought Knights of the Old Republic for $2.50 during a Steam sale and couldn't get the game to run in full-screen at all on Vista. All I found were a bunch of crazy snake-charmer work-arounds, none of which actually worked. Frustrated the hell out of me so much that I considered eventually dropping 1200 XBLA points (approx. $17.14 Canadian) to get the game on the 360 where I knew it would work fine. Otherwise, I was doomed to playing in a window, which drives me nuts.

It worked out in the end, though. The new computer has Windows 7, and KotOR just magically works perfectly, almost as if my computer was a console. In fact, other than Bioshock, all of my games just magically work perfectly. If I really wanted to lie down on the couch while playing KotOR, I could throw the screen onto the TV, plug in a 360 controller and get the same experience as I would have on the 360, but the game alone was way cheaper this way.

Sorry for the sarcasm and possible yet unintended nastiness, it's just that this is such a silly debate that always seems to bring out the most ridiculous hyperbole in people. I love me some hyperbole, but some of this stuff is just bordering on outright lies. Consoles are awesome, PCs are awesome, handhelds are awesome, board games are awesome, good games are good games no matter what color they are.

It all depends on what you consider a minimum setup, and which games you want to play. If you insist on playing the latest, whizziest games in maximum detail, well then that's an expensive PC upgrade. If the console is the only thing that might induce you go get a new HD TV, well, that's a big cost there.

Elysium hasn't done this, but it's easy to compare the cost of playing Rock Band over XBL in HD on a console when you've only got a 14" portable CRT with playing Dwarf Fortress on a PC you already own. But I think he has compared the premium XBox setup with a modest PC option.

Since I stopped playing PC games, I didn't have to upgrade anything in my computer for 4 years (until the motherboard went). Without playing games on it, I haven't had to tit around with drivers, I haven't had to upgrade my RAM or graphics card. Yes, I can still play old games, but it would be an expensive upgrade for me to play Crysis 2 in full detail on my PC at this point since I'm starting from such a low point.

It might be true that the casual experience on each platform in converging. The more gadgety console setups like Kinect and Move are tailored towards the casual, party experience. What do we consider casual games on a PC? Plants vs Zombies. Well, they both have the casual label, but the fomer is a lot more expensive than the latter.

While it's interesting to debate which is cheaper, I would point out that with all the ports that are flying around, the destinies of these platforms is not independent. PC gaming may owe the consoles the credit for its own falling cost. The growth of PC tech has hardly stopped. If you want, you can still spend thousands of dollars getting yourself the latest bleeding edge CPU & GPU. (GPUs plural, to really run up the cost!) What's changed the most, I think, is how close to that bleeding edge you have to be to run new games. Aside from Metro 2033, what game is actually going to need the latest parts? The increase of system requirements over the past few years has been slow or non-existant for a lot of new PC releases. There are a number of things you could point to, like the difficulty of making use of expanding processing power when a lot of that now has to come from threading the program through more cores. I think the major reason is that we're seeing a lot of console ports/dual releases, and it doesn't make sense to pump resources into the minority consumer group. When the PC was the dominant platform, you might have had to worry about having the latest graphics card so a new game would have the horsepower or compatibility it needed, because marketing wanted to really compete on the PC and the latest whizbangs were a good way to do that. But nowadays, the DirectX 10 & 11 capabilities of the last few generations of graphics cards tend to sit around rotting while they're used to play DirectX 9 360 ports.

I built a cheap desktop last year with an aging CPU and middling GPU. While I don't play a lot of the newest games, Mass Effect 2 tested it recently, and I found it will run smoothly even with everything turned up. For that, I thank the XBox 360, and its majority share of Mass Effect players, for holding steady what kind of processing power games should be built for. I may be something of a PC gaming nut, but I, for one, welcome our new console overlords. Ironically enough for a console generation that began (at least for the 360 and PS3) with a huge jump in computing potential, and developers scrambling madly to cope, it seems like the predicted long life span of those two may now help to buffer gaming from the march of PC tech, and stave off another rise in production values and gaming PC costs.

As for the console vs. PC price comparison, it is indeed a bit ridiculous to claim that there is any one truth to the console vs. PC price comparison. Personal habits, desires, and devices already owned will end up deciding which way the calculation swings. But others have covered this. Edit: And to be clear, I realize that isn't the main point of the piece; the issue is whether anything will really change even if PC cost falls even more. I agree it probably won't, and I agree that that may actually be a good thing for the remaining PC gamers.

Mean Red Worms wrote:

Am I the only one who honestly likes a little hassle in his gaming?

No, but I think we who perk up at the mention of .inis are a rare, OCD-tinged breed.

Mean Red Worms wrote:

With console gaming it either works or you get a red ring. You can't fix anything yourself.

I too find the PC preferable because of this. A PC may lead you up a creek more often than a console, but at least it comes with a paddle.

Again, have to chime in on the usability front. While the PC is still kind of unwieldy compared to a do-it-all-automatically set-top box, the PC has gained stability and streamlining over the last few years, while the PS3 and the 360 have gained in complexity. Most of the time, you can optimize your PC by installing better drivers and such, but they aren't strictly necessary with the new OSs these days, which usually contain most industry drivers by default.

My problem is that my favorite genres of games are largely absent on consoles. I would like to see consoles close the game gap.

MechaSlinky wrote:

Yes, because Nintendo has always been so forward-thinking with their online services.

Forward thinking or not is irrelevant. It's their ability to create and market a product that is different from everyone else. Whether Nintendo will wind up providing online services that meet the demands of the veteran gamer is up in the air. However, when it comes time to compete with OnLive, I'd expect Nintendo to be the company that does something different that allows them to remain relevant.

Plus, their online services are understandable considering they tried online gaming in the 90's and it failed miserably. Yes, Nintendo is incredibly stubborn when it comes to past experiences (see: not porting Mother 3 because EarthBound sold like sh*t in America, even though they've ignored how it's become one of the biggest cult hits in the industry and a sequel is a guaranteed money-maker). However, when the GameCube was at the absolute bottom of the barrel they still made a profit, and they still figured out how to become relevant in the face of competition. They don't need failure, either, as they could have just made a GameBoy with 3D capability and people would've bought it. Instead they made the DS, and BAM! the only thing that killed the GameBoy was another Nintendo device.

For that reason I imagine, when OnLive makes physical media irrelevant in the coming years (though that could be as long as five or fifty), Nintendo will be the company to adapt.

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.

This is the truth in a nutshell. I used to be a console/pc guy but for the past five years I've been pc only. One of the reasons is because pc only saves me money. When I was a console guy I would purchase around three titles a month. Now I buy around three titles a year and I'm actually happier for it. The pc games have more depth than their console bretheren and have mouse support. Why go console?

This conversation is meaningless; you can play Transformers: War For Cybertron on any modern platform.

ccesarano wrote:
MechaSlinky wrote:

Yes, because Nintendo has always been so forward-thinking with their online services.

A bunch of stuff.

Oh, I see what you mean now. Yeah, Nintendo is adaptable.

I'm sorry, I did not read the entire thread. I only want to add a little something against the Wizard Elysium's argument. My apologies if this point has already been advocated.

The reason PC gaming is becoming cheaper in comparison to something like an Xbox 360 or a PS3 is simple: PC gaming is competing against tech that is pushing on 5 years old. In retrospect, how many banana's would of it of cost a person to play Perfect Dark Zero on a PC, for example, 5 years ago?

Also, you will likely never play Transformice on the PS3 or xbox. PRAISE TO THE ANVIL GOD!

As long as there are confusing for the average consumer options for PC gaming, console gaming will be cheaper and easier overall. I would wager most people that frequent this site can quite easily build a cheap PC or pick a laptop that would play games rather well. Consoles are a closed platform. You buy the game, shove the disc in, maybe it downloads one update if you're even connected to the internet, done. You have gamepad in hand and playing after plugging your console into the wall, plugging your console into your TV, turning it on.

For PC, it's.. what video card do i need? What CPU? What games am I going to play? Do I need to tinker with the graphics settings? Where do I get drivers?

Steam has lowered the bar tremendously, I will admit. It basically turns the PC into a closed system console. As long as you've got the hardware and the drivers are reasonably up to date, it takes care of everything for you.. game updates, you can easily get a browser to look up hints without leaving the game, community features, the list goes on. Not only has it made it easier, there are GREAT sales. Sometimes these sales, yes, are not as good as Amazon.com, but you don't have to go anywhere and you can be playing in hours.

Still.. for all that Steam has done, console gaming is still easier, more family friendly, and in the end cheaper.

You can talk about move, natal, rockband, dj hero, etc.. all you want. None of that is possible on PC right now. You also don't NEED those things to play. You need the console and ONE controller to equal with the PC is capable of. The PC has games that don't exist on the consoles as well. Usually those games are more complicated than their console counterparts. Which speaks for itself.

What the hell was this about? Oh yeah.. the cost of PC gaming.. Yes.. it has gone down.. Is it cheaper than console gaming? Depends who you ask and what games they are gaming.

hfm:

It's not so simple for consoles, either. At the outset, you have three consoles to choose from and you need to review the libraries of each console to find out which one is right for you. You'll want to figure out how many controllers you need for your purposes, and whether or not the games will play on your TV (some games don't play on SD TVs) and whether region-locking affects your purchase options.

A PC need not be that much more complicated. You can simply order a "gamer-spec" PC, leave it to your retailer to furnish the details and install the OS, and then just plug and play. Granted, that option is much more expensive, but it is possible.

wordsmythe wrote:

This conversation is meaningless; you can play Transformers: War For Cybertron on any modern platform.

Quoted for the Mother f*ckin' TRUTH!

LarryC wrote:

hfm:

It's not so simple for consoles, either. At the outset, you have three consoles to choose from and you need to review the libraries of each console to find out which one is right for you. You'll want to figure out how many controllers you need for your purposes, and whether or not the games will play on your TV (some games don't play on SD TVs) and whether region-locking affects your purchase options.

A PC need not be that much more complicated. You can simply order a "gamer-spec" PC, leave it to your retailer to furnish the details and install the OS, and then just plug and play. Granted, that option is much more expensive, but it is possible.

I'm reading this as a joke because if not that is really streeeettttttchinnng it. Its not like deciding if you want an extra controller is a mind numbing decision. Only people that read these boards are concerned with region locking and imports.

There seems to be one aspect that I think people are missing in this debate.

I bought a 360 in May of '06 for $400. I bought a 'state of the art' gaming laptop in January of 08' for $2400. I'm not exactly sure what the cost of the equivalent performance on a pre-built desktop would have been, but I'll throw out $800 as an estimate...

Recently I wanted to play Borderlands and had to decide which platform to get it on. I chose PC. To get 30 FPS at all times, I have to turn practically every graphical setting off or to medium/low. To be honest, I don't know what the console version graphics are like in comparison, but I'm guessing they're at least around the equivalent of what it looks like on my PC. This is roughly equal graphics on a ~$800 PC bought in January '08 vs a $400 console bought in May of '06.

Point being, while console popularity has led to the graphical horsepower needed in a gaming PC to not constantly evolve...it's also led to games that are just optimized for and run better on consoles. Borderlands isn't the ONLY example of this either. I'm guessing L4D2, which I run on medium, looks almost as good on a console. I won't even bother with the PC version of BC2 because of how low I'll have to set the graphics... Not to mention the advantages people with insane rigs would have because of higher FPS...which I don't have to worry about on consoles.

I still spend at least 50% of my gaming time on a PC, but as someone who is far from wealthy and spends a huge chunk of his salary on gaming, consoles are still the much cheaper option. The gap may be getting closer, but it's still a long ways from what some seem to make it out to be in this thread.

bouxdag wrote:

There seems to be one aspect that I think people are missing in this debate.

I bought a 360 in May of '06 for $400. I bought a 'state of the art' gaming laptop in January of 08' for $2400. I'm not exactly sure what the cost of the equivalent performance on a pre-built desktop would have been, but I'll throw out $800 as an estimate...

Recently I wanted to play Borderlands and had to decide which platform to get it on. I chose PC. To get 30 FPS at all times, I have to turn practically every graphical setting off or to medium/low. To be honest, I don't know what the console version graphics are like in comparison, but I'm guessing they're at least around the equivalent of what it looks like on my PC. This is roughly equal graphics on a ~$800 PC bought in January '08 vs a $400 console bought in May of '06.

Point being, while console popularity has led to the graphical horsepower needed in a gaming PC to not constantly evolve...it's also led to games that are just optimized for and run better on consoles. Borderlands isn't the ONLY example of this either. I'm guessing L4D2, which I run on medium, looks almost as good on a console. I won't even bother with the PC version of BC2 because of how low I'll have to set the graphics... Not to mention the advantages people with insane rigs would have because of higher FPS...which I don't have to worry about on consoles.

I still spend at least 50% of my gaming time on a PC, but as someone who is far from wealthy and spends a huge chunk of his salary on gaming, consoles are still the much cheaper option. The gap may be getting closer, but it's still a long ways from what some seem to make it out to be in this thread.

Buying a laptop for gaming just doesn't make sense, made even less sense back in 08. So, what did we learn?

bouxdag:

No need to speculate. I played Borderlands on a 5600+ Athlon PC with 9800 GT Green video card with Textures and Detail on High at 1280x720. No framerate hitches. About 30-50 on FRAPs Looks much better than what I played on PS3. Mass Effect, same. ME2, same.

EvilDead:

Not at all. Many so-called "hardcore" gamers got burned buying Wii because they did not buy wisely. They thought it was something when in fact it was something else entirely. PS3, in particular, is not a very strong recommendation for a guy with young children around the house. Few games for them, too many games with cursing and such.

And no, region-locking and imports are not the sole purview of gaming enthusiasts like us. Sometimes, games take a long time to come outside Japan or the US. Australians have it really bad. The whole world is not the US.

or if you're really stupid you buy the "slim" version of the same bad hardware

You called a great deal of people here stupid. Myself included.

My biggest beef with PC gaming (I consider myself primarily a PC Gamer) is the frustration that even after you spend top dollar you still suffer in some way as things just never are "perfect"

I have top of the line components yet still can't play the newest games at max resolution on my 30" LCD. And then there is the joy of dealing with "micro stutter" or other annoying little things (shadows for certain games for instance)

So while I enjoy to prospect of being able to game with the highest graphical fidelity. I find it rare that it actually ends up that way until the game is past it's prime.

Hands down though PC gaming provides the best breadth of gaming options but the concole provides a superior gaming experience.

I think that eventually 3D gaming puts the final "nail" in PC gaming.

I'm going to argue that the extended console cycle it actually a positive for PC gamers.

Unless you're dead set on running Crysis 2 on ultra high settings, there just isn't a need to upgrade as often. The downside is that we have to put up with lazy ports but it's probably better than spending $500 every year to keep your hardware current. Maybe?

I built my PC in December of 2008 for around $900 and have had nothing but a good experience. Aside from some bum memory from crucial and a hard drive failure he experience has been excellent.

Steam and the other digital distribution platforms make using a PC an awesome experience. Since 2008 I've purchased 92 games on steam on a few on the other platforms. Almost all a significant discount because of deal and specials that just don't exist when gaming on a console.

Another huge advantage of PC gaming is the community. The higher initial investment seems to help keep out the obnoxious and ignorant. This is an advantage that you just can put a price on and it's one of the reason I love PC gaming.

While I'm not completely up to speed with pc market these days, I know that I could comfortably start up a very workable gaming rig (will play any game on the market on medium) at something around $700. The lovely thing about computer is that once you get the base going, you could keep going for really cheap. I could spend $200 on my old computer, and I will be back on top of my games again. That's...the same as 360Arcade pack. Except..oh, I get a lot of free content patches, and most of my online games are free.

Let's admit it--the only people with insane gaming rig are also the ones who have EVERYTHING for a console. I'm talking 4 sets of controllers, a $2000 HDTV, and all that jazz. The cost is just broken down more on consoles. The real price, of course, is extremely close nowadays.

And mouse and keyboard control? Priceless ^^'

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.

I'm surprised you didn't mention the Xbox Live account barrier of entry.

Sure, you could make do with a free account, but how many people on these forums actually do that. If you want to play games online against other people, you need to pony up money every month in addition to the money you're already paying for the internet connection that gives you all the multiplayer you want on your PC for no additional charge.

I don't want to derail the thread into 360 V PS3, but I've always wondered about the people who say that the PS3 price point is too high compared to the Xbox 360. If you bought a PS3 at launch it cost you between 400 and 600 dollars depending on how much hard drive space you wanted. If you bought an Xbox 360 at launch (2005) it cost you a minimum of $300 for the core system plus $50 per year for a gold Live membership that affords comparable online functionality vis a vis online play, which translates to another $250 since 2005, or $550 total not including any peripherals. Even if you compare it to the most expensive launch Ps3, that's roughly a wash since $50 won't even buy you a new game on either system.

You could get a decent PC for $550 at Best Buy that would probably let you play Left 4 Dead, or any number of other online games, and you don't have to pay to access your online friends or get exclusive early access to demos.

For myself, I'm still a console partisan for a bunch of reasons, but the chief one is that PC gaming is locally antisocial. My wife and I have limited time to enjoy together what with the two little ones, and I can't justify making my primary system the one that requires me to sit hunched over at a desk when I could play the same games on the couch with my wife, who likes to watch games and offer help with the puzzler aspects of many games and let me know when my health bar is low because I tend to be too aggressive and not pay attention to the HUD, by my side.

Even if PC gaming were cheaper, which it can be if you know where to shop, I wouldn't do it as a primary platform.

EDIT: Clarified a point by adding an adjective.

Mean Red Worms wrote:

Am I the only one who honestly likes a little hassle in his gaming? I build my own machines, I know every piece of hardware in my current PC and most of it has been used in several configurations. I know the limits of my machine, I know it's strengths and weaknesses. I know why it has these strengths and weakness, and I know the upgrades to make it better.

I remember when I thought like that. Of course, game developers are selling to a mass market, and that statement just drove another group of potential gamers to the console market. I certainly tired of the hassle years ago.

I can appreciate that the gaming PC might be a bit cheaper now, and the upgrade cycle may be less than it used to be. But I didn't just give up PC gaming when I tired of the hassle. I gave up Windows altogether and have been a Mac user for several years now.

I'm told how much better Windows 7 is now. But I just spent an hour downloading drivers and tweaking settings on my daughter's Windows 7 Laptop in order to get it to find our printer, and then actually print. Both of my Macs not only found it easily, but I never had to download a driver or tweak settings. It just worked.

When I bought my daughter a Wacom pad so she could dabble in Manga, it plugged into my Macbook and was working instantly. I then got the chore of trying to figure out why it wouldn't work on her laptop. Again, I had to use the CD to install it and then download drivers. I got it to work, but it was just another thing that wastes my time.

So when I finally switched to the Mac, my entire computing life got easier, and I once again became a console gamer. And this was after years of vehemently being anti-console. But with the age of the Dreamcast, console games really improved significantly, and I found that there were far more games to enjoy that I had time to play. And I didn't have to download drivers or tweak settings on any of them.

So for me, I was willing to pay more for what I found to be a significantly better computing experience. But I was not willing to pay less just to play games, because I found that running an Xbox and Gamecube was more fun than trying to figure out why some game didn't have a picture or I couldn't hear the sound.

And while trying to use the controller on a FPS was hard at first, and definitely lacking in the precision of a mouse and keyboard, I refused to believe that millions of gamers that not only played Halo and the like with a gamepad, but enjoyed the hell out of doing so, were somehow better adapted than me. Sure enough, once I decided to enjoy the game for what it was, I found shooters to be plenty of fun on the console. Better controls on a PC didn't mean squat, because it came with all of the other baggage.

This is not to say people are wrong for preferring the PC. But when trying to sell to the mass market, publishers have found console gamers easier to sell to than PC gamers. Developers have found games easier to create on the consoles. PC gaming is where it is today because while some may enjoy the hassle of gaming, the bigger market is in those that do not like more hassle in anything they do.

Look at the the joy Steam has brought to Mac gamers. While exciting at first, suddenly it has become a game of trying to figure out what will run, and why some games won't run well. Steam has brought the hassle of gaming to the Mac! In the end, gaming on the iPad is better than Steam.

LarryC wrote:

bouxdag:
EvilDead:

Not at all. Many so-called "hardcore"gamers got burned buying Wii because they did not buy wisely. They thought it was something when in fact it was something else entirely. PS3, in particular, is not a very strong recommendation for a guy with young children around the house. Few games for them, too many games with cursing and such.

And no, region-locking and imports are not the sole purview of gaming enthusiasts like us. Sometimes, games take a long time to come outside Japan or the US. Australians have it really bad. The whole world is not the US.

Thanks for the geography lesson. Yes you are correct that hardcore games got burned buying into the Wii, but thats b/c they are enthusiasts and they bought into the potential. However the rest of the world who bought the system b/c they wanted to play a particular game seems to be perfectly content with their decision.

I still fail to see how deciding if you want one or two controllers amounts to the complexity of how will this run on my PC or why is it stuttering. To add to that its not like you don't have to decide on what peripherals you want for a PC. And I'm not understanding how how a PC could be considered better for children. There are more games with nudity and cursing and lets not forget the whole internet thing.

Edit: I should add that I love PC gaming. I build a new comp every 3-4 years (Core i7 last year) and am currently in the market for a 14" mid-range gaming laptop ($900 - $1100). At the same time I can completely understand why 90% of my friends stick to consoles.

People still actually buy desktops? Weird.

I know I'll probably be called a skimmer for this, but I still think its fair to include the motion controls into the equation. Mainly because motion control is included with most computers, we just dont think of it as a motion control, the mouse.

Its a device with an optical sensor that judges movement of your hand dragging it across a surface to create movement on screen. I just thought I would throw that out there.