If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
“PC gamers” often snicker about how “console gamers” pay for things that they get for free. They also tout that PC games usually sell for less than console games. After hearing these claims a few million times, I decided to dive into the numbers and see who is really paying more over the life-cycle of their gaming system of choice. Warning: there is actually some real financial analysis going on here. I’m just trying to get the facts straight. FYI, if you only care about the results, skip to the verdict.
The Scenarios
I decided to look at three different gaming configurations, an Xbox 360, a “typical” gaming PC, and the gaming PC setup as a home theater PC (HTPC). The main difference between the gaming PC and the HTPC is the display and sound. The gaming PC has a 22″ widescreen monitor with computer surround sound speakers. The HTPC has a 46″ 1080P LCD display, and a component 5.1 home theater speaker setup. The Xbox 360 setup has the same 46″ LCD display and speakers as the HTPC.
The Assumptions
- The gaming PC must be replaced every three years (just the PC not the display or sound)
- The gaming PC gets $250 of misc. upgrades by year two
- The gaming PC is being purchased instead of a basic computer that would have been purchased anyway
- The console PC requires a larger/better television than what would have been purchased anyway
- The console life cycle is six years
- For all scenarios four full-priced games, and one discount game (50%) were purchased each year
- The console gamer purchases three additional controllers
- The console gamer goes through four dozen batteries per year
- The console gamer pays for an Xbox Live Gold membership
- 23% (mean of Dell’s consumer financing rates 15-30%) discount rate used to calculate the NPV
The Method
I am using a finance technique known as net present value (NPV). It is a method for accounting for the time value of money. Basically a dollar today is worth more than a dollar three years from now (or any other later date). It should be noted that using NPV favors the PC rig because it discounts the future costs of upgrading/replacing the system which you don’t have to do with the Xbox 360.
The Verdict
In the scenarios I have laid out, the basic PC gaming setup is more expensive. It is somewhat close though; only 12% higher. Think about that though, a 46″ 1080P LCD TV, full home-theater setup, an Xbox 360, 6 years of Xbox Live, four controllers, and the two included games costs less than a good (but not amazing) gaming PC on a relatively paltry 22″ display.
If you compare the 360 to the HTPC it gets bad real quick: 38% more. If you assume that you already have the TV/monitor and sound that you’ll be using for your gaming, the PC solutions are a whopping 71% more. Here’s the breakdown in dollar figures:
Total NPV
Xbox 360: $3,152
Gaming PC: $3,523
HTPC: $4,349
NPV without display and sound
Xbox 360: $1,837
Gaming PC: $3,149
HTPC: $3,149
The Point?
The only point of this is to show the PC gaming is in fact more expensive. If you enjoy PC gaming, so be it. Just know that it costs more. For the record, I was actually surprised how well PC gaming did in this comparison. For my dollar, I’ll take the integrated approach of the Xbox 360 and Xbox Live though, not to mention that I don’t have to install my games and troubleshoot them to make them work (if you can make them work).
*If you would like to check out my spreadsheet for this, here’s the link. It has all of the specs for the PC, and links to every product and component used.
*Update* Bob has a response to my analysis. Check it out.
Note: This article is cross-posted at PseudoSavant.
Related Links: Console Games PC Games
Friday, 22. February 2008
Old habits die hard… I can’t give up the precision of my keyboard and mouse for FPSs. And have you ever played an RTS game on a console? Those are my two favorite genres, and I have a hard time with them on anything but my overpriced computer.
Friday, 22. February 2008
A friend was telling me that out of the box Crysis won’t run without a crack (he legally bought it) on a computer he built specifically for crysis.
As well, Unreal Tournament 3 for PS3 lets you use a Keyboard and Mouse if you like.
Friday, 22. February 2008
I CAN DOWNLOAD AND INSTALL TONS OF GAMES FOR THE PC FOR FREE.
DUH?
Friday, 22. February 2008
Legally? If so, probably not very good ones. BTW, Microsoft just announced Xbox Live Community Games (all free).
About RTS games, there is a game, I can’t remember which one (I think it was a Lord of the Rings game), that supposedly works really well with the controller. But they really spent some time on making a new control scheme for a controller and not just trying to make the control do what the keyboard and mouse do.
Friday, 22. February 2008
You cannot do porn on the XBox (or at least with the same zeal).
Friday, 22. February 2008
The graphical quality and control on the gaming PC is much greater though. Say you bought a gaming PC with a nVidia geForce 8800 GT (quite powerful). 3 years later, it is going to be a bit outdated, and no longer top-of-the-line, but it is still going to be able to play all the latest games. Upgrading your PC is a luxury, not a necessity so it shouldn’t be counted in the cost.
The PC probably still is considerably more expensive (as the Xbox360 is a helluva deal), but considering all the extras it brings to the table (keyboard+mouse control, user-mods, free online, etc…) I’ll still take it over the 360.
Friday, 22. February 2008
Ronald, while some of us could care less about that. Keep in mind that my example assumes that you would have purchased a basic $500 computer anyway. You would still have all the functionality of a basic computer. That part is what they call a “sunk cost”.
Tim, I hate to break it to you, but an 8800GT really isn’t that good right now, much less 3 years from now. Sure it can play the games, but not at the graphic level of the 360. The 7-series video card I have in my PC cost about $250 when I bought my 360. It can’t play anything with anywhere near the visuals of my Xbox, even at a below 720p resolution.
Bob actually built a computer over the summer just to play Crysis only to find out that basically no computer can play it well 6 months later.
Friday, 22. February 2008
I would like to point out a horrible flaw with the analysis. You do not need to spend $250 every two years nor do you need to replace it every three.
Let’s see what that $250 gets you -
Dramatic improvement in visuals to match new games. Consoles don’t do this.
Dramatic improvement in old games. Consoles don’t do this.
Paul Ellis may be right when it comes to the 8800GTX in current terms, but the argument in question is not close to whether the current PC built can outperform the current console, but whether or not console gaming is really cheaper than PC gaming.
A gaming PC ages just as well as a console. Over the assumed 6 years, the console does not show any dramatic improvements. Just compare Halo to Halo 2. Yes, Halo 2 looks better, but not by the same degree a PC game over the same timeframe does. Not even remotely close. Doom 3, the same year Halo 2 dropped, looks lightyears better than Halo 2 and loads better than Max Payne, which was released the same year as Halo 1. The degree of improvement is astonishing.
Compare this to a PC built in 2001 playing Doom 3. It will still run at the same performance level but only be slightly better than Max Payne in visual fidelity, exactly what a console does.
Adding the $250 at year 2 and full upgrade at year 3 unfairly loads the deck against the PC. Those upgrades are entirely frivolous and aren’t comparable to a console since a console cannot upgrade itself on a similar basis. Timed right, a PC gaming system will always look better than the equivalent console on the market and be considerably cheaper.
Another major flaw is the argument that a 22″ screen is paltry. Console gaming is played at a much further distance than a gaming PC is. A foot maximum for a gaming PC while your console is designed to sit on the couch, 10 feet away. At a foot, 22″ is hardly paltry. A 50″ screen is required at the 10 foot console distance.
Overall, the PC system is not more expensive, but decisively cheaper. The savings only improve when you buy more games, considering PC games are typically $10 cheaper and drop in value faster than the console cousin, so buying used copies off eBay benefit the PC more than the console since the PC game will be much cheaper.
Take this rebuttal as you will.
Friday, 22. February 2008
Just as a little evidence backup; behold, Doom 3 running on a Voodoo 2 -
http://www.firingsquad.com/media/gallery_index.asp/244
Behold, Max Payne -
http://www.3drealms.com/max/max_payne_0601_shot_01.html
Amazing, Doom 3, perfectly playable on a Voodoo 2 and a 500MHz Pentium 3, looks better than Max Payne. A console does the exact same thing.
Friday, 22. February 2008
The point of the comparison is to show what people actually do with each console. Most (and I consulted with some people before I made this assumption) put at least $250 in upgrades into their gaming rig within around two years of buying/building it.
When it comes to upgrades, I like that the console can’t be upgraded. It forces developers to optimize the system more to get better presentation. Just look at what developers coaxed out of a PS2 for God of War 2.
About the screen size, 46″ makes 22″ look paltry. Not to mention that the 46″ 1080p screen will be higher resolution (tham the one used in the figures). Also I like sitting in my easy chair playing instead of hunched over my keyboard to be close enough to the screen to see.
About Doom 3 on a Voodoo 2…wow you proved my point. That game looks terrible. Doom 3 on an Xbox 1 looks better, and that came out about 3.5 years after the Xbox 1 came out. Or compare Halo 1 to a game like Splinter Cell: Chaos theory.
Let me emphasize again, the point of the post is that it is a FINANCIAL ANALYSIS of the costs of PC vs Console gaming. It does not account for personal preferences. If anything this analysis was overly fair to PC gaming. You could build a much nicer gaming PC (more RAM, double or triple SLI, higher end keyboard/mouse, higher end monitor, etc).
Friday, 22. February 2008
You also forgot the part where I haven’t paid for a single non-online PC game in over 5 years. Subtract the cost of software out of the equation and how are we doing?
Friday, 22. February 2008
First of all, what kind of stipulation is “non-online PC game”? Do you pirate all your games, or do you just play lame flash games? Either one is questionable. That insinuates that you are paying for online games BTW, and I don’t buy any non-online games. I (once in a blue moon) rent games without a significant online component. Can you rent on a PC? Didn’t think so.
I ran the numbers real quick anyway, and without software just comparing everything except display and sound the PC is still 21% more. Get that, an Xbox 360 with 5 games per year is cheaper than a gaming PC with no games to play….
Friday, 22. February 2008
I meant piracy, and its closer to 2 games a month than 5 a year
Friday, 22. February 2008
in 5 years there will be at least 2 new consoles. So if u want that it will cost you. And my computer is probably 4-5 years old…maybe 3(lol) and all ive done is bought more RAM and a new video card. I can run crysis, ut3, cod4, and probably any other game even though the system requirements tell me that i cant(and my settings arent set to low either
). So buying a new computer every 3 years isnt real, and if you’re building yourself a decent gaming computer(if u bought all the parts seperately) then you can make it for just over $1000(i know ive done it recently). Which is $2000 less than xbox 
Friday, 22. February 2008
Well, if you are willing to steal your games what can I say? You are exactly the reason why PC games are getting fewer and fewer, and why they have such onerous copy-protection schemes. The copy-protection software is a MAJOR reason for why I don’t like doing gaming on my PC.
And if you actually paid for 24 games a year instead of 5 (how do you actually have time to play them?) the PC still costs 7% more than the console.
Friday, 22. February 2008
Dan, a major favor I threw to the PC was that I assumed that I built it myself. If you download the spreadsheet you’ll see. It has links to every component used; very detailed. The computer cost $1600 and can’t play Crysis at the native resolution of the monitor in the example (1680×1050) at the high (not very high) settings.
The 360 will probably have a 6-year life. The Wii? Probably not, but it isn’t next-gen if you ask me. Keep in mind that the PS2 came out 8 years ago, and it is still one of the top selling systems each month (I don’t know why though…).
Friday, 22. February 2008
“Amazing, Doom 3, perfectly playable on a Voodoo 2 and a 500MHz Pentium 3, looks better than Max Payne.”
LOL
Oh wow.
For starters, Doom 3 and Max Payne have different engines and are DIFFERENT games.
Compare Doom 3 on a Voodoo toDoom 3 on a Xbox.
Here we go:
Yours:
http://www.firingsquad.com/media/gallery_index.asp/244
Xbox version:
http://screenshots.teamxbox.com/gallery/226/Doom-3/p1/
Seriously, to be honest, Doom 3 on a voodoo looks crappy compared to Max Payne as well.
http://screenshots.teamxbox.com/screen/2827/Max-Payne/
Yep, thanks for posting that stuff, I needed a good laugh.
Friday, 22. February 2008
Analysis is flawed … and you are an idiot. Cost of Debt ^= Discount Rate unless you have no equity (which would negate the analysis completely since you cannot have credit without some form of risk-adjusted return potential).
And who in their right mind would spend 25% of the original to update only to replace the entire unit in the following year. Where are the added gains from the additional usage a PC gives that a console cannot? If the PC is solely for gaming, then why spend money on Anti-Virus?
Please leave your articles for the tech and not the cash flows until you take a basic course on DCF …
Saturday, 23. February 2008
I note that many console owners have more than one current generation console. I also note that copying software (however legally) is an economic decision and a perfectly valid one to factor in.
I also don’t know who buys $500 computers in this equation. The people gaming on their computers are power users, not basic users.
My $1100 laptop, bought 1.5 years ago, is plenty fast enough to play everything I play. The drive for me to purchase a new laptop comes from video decoding (H.264), not gaming, but I’m saving a lot of money over buying a console - I don’t even have a TV!
Saturday, 23. February 2008
Anon,
Please no ad hominem attacks. You lost all credibility after your first sentence. And your take on discounted cash flows is confusing, at best.
Saturday, 23. February 2008
This is a stupid article. The reality is that you need a PC anyway so putting in a better graphics card is about all you need for gaming
Saturday, 23. February 2008
Anon, first of all it is actually about 15.7% of the original price for the update. I talked to some PC gamers who agreed that it was reasonable that BY year two that someone would spend an additional $250 or so on upgrades. I gave it the benefit of the doubt by having the cash flow AT year two. Also if you want to know who would do that look at “Dan Cardin” above because he did.
The anti-virus cost, even if you take it out doesn’t really change anything.
About the discount rate used, that is up for discussion. I made the assumption that many people have consumer debt (I don’t but I know a lot of people who do) that would be at a comparable rate to the Dell financing. So for every dollar they spend on a gaming setup will be a dollar that won’t be paying off that debt. Keep in mind that no discount rate between 0% and 65% makes the PC cheaper in any scenario though.
BTW, I believe the proper notation is != not ^= .
Saturday, 23. February 2008
dave a,
The article takes into account the fact that people need a PC anyway. Read it, and you’ll find your concern is already taken care of.
Saturday, 23. February 2008
Ben, the $500 computer is the basic (web, word, etc) computer you would have even if you didn’t game. In this example it is like a $500 discount (sunk cost) taken off the cost of the gaming PC. You know the basic $500 Dell computer you can get at Walmart. The gaming PC components cost are _marginal_ costs.
As for copying games, it is an ethical question too. My ethics are worth at least $60 to me. Accounting for piracy gets out of the scope of my analysis too. You could steal the computer, or mod the 360 and steal those games. You could even play solitaire with real cards for $2 too.
Saturday, 23. February 2008
You’re “comparison” isn’t even close to fair. For instance sometimes consoles are “upgradeable” PS2 Network adapter, 360 HD DVD drive, N64 expansion pack, and you cannot even watch DVDs on an Xbox with out first buying the remote. How about the Genesis, Sega CD ring a bell? Or 32X. Some PS3 and 360 game do need to be installed (Maybe not “need” but installing can be to improve loading times). If you think the GPU in the 360 compares at all with the 8800 series then you clearly haven’t done your research. Also the Voodoo 2 was released in early 98′ the Xbox in 2001, there is a reason that Doom 3 is graphically superior on an Xbox. You’re also berate others for personal preferences then tout your own. It sounds to me that you trying to convince yourself that console gaming is cheaper as you were obviously frustrated and biased to begin with. I searched for said “real financial analysis” but couldn’t find it in your article.
Saturday, 23. February 2008
Including the TV is rather absurd. How many people do you know that go out and buy a TV FOR their game consoles? Almost nobody. Seriously, the number is really close to zero. The television is too ubiquitous, it’s too ingrained in our lives, in our culture. We already have one, and if the average household is going to update their TV to a new, high definition flat panel, they’re going to do that with or without the Xbox 360.
Including the TV as a part of the cost of console gaming is like including the price of a car when looking at the cost of baby car seats.
Saturday, 23. February 2008
Alf, just because you can upgrade doesn’t mean that most people do. How many people bought the Sega CD, the PS2 network adapter, or the 32X? Not many, trust me, we had a 32X.
Also, you can’t install any 360 game yet. I wish you _could_ if it would help. It is funny, some PS3 games require installing, and then the same game on 360 won’t allow installing. How about making it optional on both?
There is more to getting good graphics than raw horsepower. The type of optimization you can do when you have a closed platform like a console is much higher. Tell me what kind of Pentium III 700 Mhz with a Geforce 3 GPU (this is what the Xbox 1 has) could put out graphics like Halo 2 or Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory. The operating system on a PC adds a lot of overhead, and you have to do a lot of abstracting for the various hardware.
About the Voodoo2 bit, I didn’t bring it up in the first place. I thought it was ridiculous.
You must not have searched hard for the financial analysis because there is a link to my Excel file at the end of the post.
Saturday, 23. February 2008
Jake, I agree, but I wanted it to be as fair as possible; people buy new displays for their gaming PC. I do show the numbers without sound and display though, and I do think those are the most salient numbers. The console is decidedly cheaper in those figures.
Saturday, 23. February 2008
If you seriously think pc is more expensive you are stupid.
I can build a full system, including OS, monitor, sound, everything that can run CRYSIS for under 500.
PCS CAN RUN ON EVERY DISPLAY THAT CONSOLES CAN + MANY MANY MORE. PROJECTOR,HD, ANYTHING. OH YES WE CAN ALSO USE PADDLES. BUT WHAT PC GAMER USES PADDLES WHEN AIMING AND PRECISION OF KEYBOARD+MOUSE IS IN FACT BETTER.
COMPUTERS HAVE VERY MANY USES. CONSOLES ARE VERY LIMITED.
THE VALUE OF A COMPUTER OVER A CONSOLE IS VERY VERY HIGH.
CONOLES CANNOT UPGRADE. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN NEW TECHNOLOGY COMES OUT ON PC? I CAN GET IT RIGHT AWAY. FOR CONSOLE AN ENTIRE NEW SYSTEM IS NEEDED, SYSTEMS ARE ALSO NOT MADE EVERY YEAR SO…
CONSOLES ARE OUT OF DATE WITHIN THE 1st MONTH OF THERE RELEASE,
THIS IS A FACT. TECHNOLOGY IS CONSTANTLY IMPROVING AND CONSOLES CANT GET WITH IT LIKE PC.
myspace.com/ermacdesign
Saturday, 23. February 2008
OH YEAH 8800 ARE BETTER THAN XBOX360 VIDEO CARDS
ARE YOU MORONS THAT STUPID?
XBOX360 USES A BETA/OUTDATED VIDECARD MADE BY ATI (YES A COMPUTER GRAPHICS CARD COMPANY) THEY HAVE MADE MANY ADVANCES SINCE THE WEAK 360 CARD WHICH CAN LICK MY BALLS
Saturday, 23. February 2008
Ignoring the fact that a $500 computer probably could’t play Crysis at 800×600, the best part about what you said Eric? That it would still cost more than an 360 ($500 > $350)…Priceless.
Saturday, 23. February 2008
console life cycles are not 6 yrs. You should start with the 360’s initial price $400. You don’t need anti-virus, AVG is free. Your PC upgrade chart is ridiculous. You don’t need to overhaul every 3 yrs, thats a luxury. Try 4 if not 5 yrs, and add in a CPU upgrade. You don’t need raid, luxury. You don’t need a $110 case. You don’t need surround sound, get headphones, they’re better. You put a crappy Dell monitor on there, WTF? You’re not going to get a better price, but you’ll get much better quality with something else. If you buy the best vid card out there, you’re stupid. Get a $200 card. You didn’t include DLC which is free on PC, plus all the free flash games out there. If you’re going to take out the TV, you need to take out much of the monitor as well since you can use it for more than 6 yrs. I’m still using the same monitor I bought in 2001.
Your PC pricing just reeks of not knowing. I’ve spent roughly 2.5k over the past 7 yrs on my PC gaming, with one major upgrade. I’ve played the newest games throughout. I should be good for the next 4 with buying a $200 vid card sometime in 2009.
Saturday, 23. February 2008
Spiza, I agree that it should probably have $400 for the 360, and maybe I could sub in AVG-free (although many people pay for anti-virus), but both of those are small differences.
With how often sockets/chipsets change now-a-days you can’t count on upgrading a CPU after 3 years. And a $110 case? That isn’t an expensive case when you consider that it has a good power-supply. You can pay nearly that much for the PSU. If you buy a $30 case, you’ll end up needing at least a $60 PSU to drive the system.
I happen to like Dell monitors. (Only thing Dell I’ll buy, no joke.) Their higher tier though. They are usually the same panels as used in the high Apple displays.
If you only buy a $200 card it won’t play any games well after a year or so. That is why I went with a higher end one. Spending the additional $100-$200 extends the life of a >$1000 computer significantly.
The type of DLC you talk about on PCs is not equivalent to console DLC (think Guitar Hero). And the equivalent stuff (HL2 EP1 and EP2) cost $$$.
FYI, there are numbers without the sound and display. They are the second set.
And that last paragraph…? Complete bull. $2700 for 11 years of PC gaming? Not gonna happen, at least higher than 800×600. Your $200 video card upgrade in 2009 won’t even get you another 3 years. Mark my words, recommended (maybe minimum) memory on a graphics card in 2012 will be over 4GB.
Saturday, 23. February 2008
Doesn’t matter who bought them or who didn’t it’s the fact that they exist. I’m also sure they sold more then a few PS2 network adapters. You have a point about the closed platform but what does that have to do with cost? Also the PS2 was notoriously hard to write for in the beginning, nothing was optimized then. Which also raised the cost all around.
Running what I need to, idle on my desktop, I’m using sub 175 megabytes of ram and 1 or 2 percent of my cpu. I don’t call that “a lot” of over head. But NONE of that is really valid at all in so far as your original argument. You’re analysis is flawed… I think if there is one thing most of those commenting can agree on it’s that this isn’t conclusive or fair. (Reed the Excel before first post still couldn’t find any analyzing going on).
Saturday, 23. February 2008
I think it boils down to this. Some people started playing their favorite games on consoles, that’s the control they are used to for their fps\rts whatever. That is what they work most fluidly with. When they switch to a pc its like a bad train wreck, the kind you actually have to look away from and so they stick with the platform they are comfortable with. That being said I think pc fps players destroy console fps players. Preference is all fine and good but nothing beats a mouse and keyboard. As to the cost, I can do more with my pc then you can with your puny little console (although thats starting to change) so sure I will totally shell out more $$$
Saturday, 23. February 2008
The optimization has to do with the feasible lifespan of the product. PC game development can always fallback on making the user upgrade whereas console game development can’t. True a network adapter is technically an upgrade, but it doesn’t affect performance, it affects the feature set.
While it is true that the PS2 (and the PS3 even more so) is hard to develop for, those costs are incurred by the developer. The costs I’m focusing on are the consumer costs.
As for overhead, it isn’t just RAM and CPU usage at idle. It takes more resources to execute a certain command when it is abstracted through the various layers of a desktop OS. The distance between the application/game and the hardware is much larger on Windows than in the stripped down “operating systems” that the Xbox 360 or PS3 run.
A typical example could be how a graphics call gets sent from the game to DirectX to the video card driver to the PCIe bus driver then to the hardware (three intermediate steps). On the 360 it can be sent from the game to DirectX (basically) to the hardware (one intermediate step). Each step has a performance (memory, cpu, latency, etc) price. And with the console the developers can be certain how the graphics chip will perform so they don’t have to do workarounds to make sure it gets sent out of the DirectX layer in a way that works for every support ATI and nVidia part.
As for the analysis, it isn’t verbage in the excel file. It is the formulas and the assumptions, the discount rate, what constitutes a sunk cost, what costs are actually salient to the marginal value of a gaming setup, etc.
Saturday, 23. February 2008
Db, I am not trying to make a qualitative argument for/against PC/console gaming. If you like PCs fine, or consoles, fine. Personally I enjoy consoles more, but that is just me. I am the last person to tell anyone that how they are having fun is stupid and they really aren’t having fun.
And maybe I should add this to the post in bold the numbers account for the fact that you can do other things with a computer. Pretty much anything you would do outside of gaming could be done by a $500 computer, so that is taken as a sunk cost.
Saturday, 23. February 2008
I won’t be patronized any longer. You’re obviously not interested in any constructive criticism, or recognizing that your methodology is severely lacking. If I were you I’d disable comments so you’re not up all night arguing about things that have nothing to do with your articles.
Saturday, 23. February 2008
Alf, how am I patronizing? Seriously, if you feel that way I’d like to know. I really feel like my response to your argument was legitimate.
Saturday, 23. February 2008
Wow, I had some respect for PC gamers. After reading the ignorant comments left by people in favor of PC gaming, I’m astonished. The author of this article gives the PC gamer too much credit to begin with. The cost of TV and surround sound should not be included. Family’s already have home theaters set up for the Super Bowl, Movies, and Cable TV. I believe Jake summed it up nicely, “Including the TV as a part of the cost of console gaming is like including the price of a car when looking at the cost of baby car seats.” It’s rediculous to think that PC gaming is not more expensive. To make a PC equivalent to an Xbox360 in power and performance, you will pay over $800. You have to buy the housing, graphics card, processor, monitor, hard drive, disc drive, usb ports, cooling fans, mother board, ram…. the list goes on. Before I go on lets look at the pros and cons of both options.
Xbox360
Pros $350, Xbox Live($50), Many Games most online capable (controlled by a standard of qaulity implemented by Microsoft), Ergonomic Controller (Both comfortable and responsive), Stylish, Simplicity and Convenience.
Cons Overheating, Not a PC
PC
Pros Advanced Graphics and Gameplay, User Mods and user created content, Multi-functional as a PC and a game system, and Freedom.
Cons Complicated, Expensive, Non-Centralized online capability (You must pay for online service from each game manufacturer) aka >$50.
The fact that the Xbox360 is developed for one purpose (Plays games), and is backed by a multi-billion dollar coorporation (Microsoft) gives it a distinct advantage. THe Xbox360 has been finetuned to the point of nearperfection. All of the hardware has been specifically chosen and tweaked to work at MAXIMUM efficiency with the software. So Microsoft provides funding for research which figures out how to reach maximum efficiency with there console. Another fact about console gaming is that subject to our free market. You see one characteristic of a Free Market Economy is the consumers buy things, which creates demand. The higher the demand (# of consoles sold) impacts the price of the product, causing it to drop significantly. Video game consoles are popular, there IS a high demand for Xbox360s. This is why Microsoft is able to sell the console at a lowered price.
The main feature of the Xbox360, and the reason it became so popular, is its centralized online gaming community (XboxLive).
A person pays $50 dollars for a year’s subscription, a PC gamer probably pays less, BUT they must pay for online with each game developer. There is no “centralized” Live Community. This is another example of the Xbox360s simplicity and conveniance.
Let’s say you bought a PC today!!! It’s awesome, 3.2Ghz Processor, (2) 512MB NVidea Graphics Cards, an amazing Power Source along with a Liquid Cooling System… $MONEY$ You bought all of your parts seperately for $800. Now you have to assemble all of the parts. Boot up the OS, install all drives, install any games you (purchased). NOw you have a Great gaming PC, an Excellent Personal Computer, alot of PoRN and an awesome Monitor. (This PRICE is generous)
You CAn argue that the PC has free games, but again this is a moral choice, personally I am not willing to give up my soul for a $50 game. Yes PC games are made with more depth of quality concerning visuals and sounds. Technically they are capable of becoming superior to console games, but for that superiority you will pay much more $MONEY$.
Then there is the matter of the User-Created content. This I do find intrigueing, I mod maps on Halo 3 and have found it to be quite a shitty map editor, and they don’t provide me with enough ways to get my ideas into the hands of the public. I suppose they are working on that as it is becoming more popular. This is where the PC one-ups the 360.
The last and main reason PC gamers are PC gamers is because they enjoy the freedom they get with PC gaming. In PC gaming there are no rules or regulations, you can mod games all you like create new games, look up PoRN. I assume people can get their user-created content noticed through the use of forums, and fileshares.
Now, because the PC is a PC as well as a gaming machine, this is like comparing apples with chainsaws. So we are going to assume that the Xbox 360 costs $350 + $300. This covers the price of a well equipped PC that will be able to perform all of the standard functions of a PC.
The price of the Xbox360 with a Standard PC is now $650 (Includes Simplicity and Support). Which is still way below the price of a “gaming” PC at over $800 (Graphics and Freedom).
Saturday, 23. February 2008
I’m a rebel, I love modding popular games, and creating my own games. I enjoy the sickest graphics and sounds imaginable, along with PoRN. I also want a PC that exceeds the needs of most PC going individuals. I enjoy finding bargains and assembly PC’s myself.
~PC Gamer
I love XboxLIve! I can chat with all of my friends no matter what game they are playing. I can play all of the latest games with sick graphics and PoRN. I want a HUGE selection of great games to choose from. I don’t care about user-created content, that shit always sucks anyway!!! I just wanna play the latest games with my friends on my HighDef TV. I already have a computer.
~Console Gamer
Saturday, 23. February 2008
I’m both a PC and console gamer and can see flaws on boths sides of your analysis. Firstly on the PC side, 8800GTX at $410? Really, only $200 on a 3D card will still allow you to play games at a decent enough resolution (maybe not the equivalent of 1080p, but good enough) for a decent period of time. My girlfriend still has a 7600 and it still plays all the latest games fine. Seriously, Call of Duty 4 looks much better on my PC then on the X-box with my $200 8800GTS, and as good PC developers make PC games highly scalable (Valve with HL2 for instance) that 3D card should last near 3.5-4yrs.
Upgrading is more of a luxury, so if you do include the $410 card I would reduce the cost of upgrading to $72 for some extra RAM in 2 yrs (which should be cheaper by then as well) and keep the 3D card for 5yrs. The only reason to upgrade the graphics card would be if you’re a graphics whore who wants all his/her games to look 10X better then the current gen consoles. Also, I’m not sure you need a top CPU as I’m still using my AMD 3800+X2 and I still run Crysis fine.
Also, I’d stick to Windows XP as currently most DirectX 10 effects can be done on DirectX 9 with a bit if tinkering and Vista takes ridiculous amounts of system resources (why did MS bother?). You can say its the latest version of Windows but masses of people are actually asking to be downgraded to XP when buying a new PC these days. Furthermore, anti-virus software is free if you know where to look.
Finally on the PC side, I’d say a full system change every 5yrs sounds more realistic to most unless you’re a complete graphics whore with money to burn. I’m a student so I don’t but, if you’re clever about you’re components, you can have a lasting PC. A lot of people also use PC’s for work and other uses so maybe reduce the costs due to these extra benfits? Just a thought.
On the console side of things, X-box should be $400 as I think someone already mentioned and I really wouldn’t put the TV in there as most people have a TV anyway… thats a major draw to console gamming right?
Also $20 per annum on batteries? Doesn’t the X-box have rechargables? (I have a PS3, so I really don’t know). I would also incluse some of the extras for the X-box, e.g. HD-DVD drive… now soon to be Blu-Ray I guess, new HDD etc. I’m sure Microsoft will release new add-ons for the console (dependent on what the competition do) so an extra $40 every 2yrs over the full 6 yr life cycle would probably cover that.
Overall, I think you’ve overestimated PC costs as unless you’re a massive graphics whore or insane (maybe they go hand in hand!) then the costs of PC gamming can be much lower. This is especially the case if you want the equivalent to console games as in the last 3 yrs of a consoles lifecycle, multipltform games are somewhat held back to accomodate the consoles aging hardware (e.g. Deus Ex: Invisible War, about 6 months after release an unofficial High Definition texture pack was released for the PC to ramp up the poor visuals)
Saturday, 23. February 2008
Just noticed the reduction on PC of $500 for the cost of having a basic PC anyway. Ignore the last 2 sentences fo paragraph 4 of my last post!
On a side note, I agree, consoles are cheaper, I just think the difference is not quite as much as you make out (not including HDTV) if you’re clever about it.
Saturday, 23. February 2008
Subhas, I have a 7600 and I can’t game with it. The graphics are way worse than my 360, and it cost about as much as a low end 360 when it came out. Sure you can get a $200 card now that will play well, but the life span is short. IMO you’d have to upgrade your $200 video card every 18-24 months. Also, I wouldn’t call a 3.0Ghz dual-core CPU the top of the line. It is fast, but there are definitely more powerful CPUs, especially quad-core.
On the Blu-ray/HD-DVD side of things, I would have had to add it to both the 360 and the PC to make it even, and it would have been a wash. It would have pushed up both sets of numbers by the same amount. Plus I don’t think it is a given that people buying gaming PCs or consoles for movies. They may use it that way (I just watched a movie over Xbox Live last night) it doesn’t factor into their purchase decision much.
Saturday, 23. February 2008
What resolution are you playing at with the 7600? We have it at about equivalent 720p with playable frame rates. Yes, the graphics are worse then the 360 with a 7600, but still playable and the graphics with a 8800GTS are going to be the same or better then the 360 now and in the future. Furthermore I still believe if you do sepend $410 on a graphics card you’re system can last 5yrs for games before you need a new system. PC graphics tend to suffer as a console ages, then when a new console comes out the developers suddenly push the limits of hardware on the PC forcing everyone who wants to game on the PC to upgrade.
With the CPU, sorry, but I misread your spreadsheet and thought it was a quad core, but my point remains that you don’t need a brilliant CPU, an average and even budget CPU can usually do a decent enough job for games and last longer then Intel or AMD would have us believe (hence my crap 3800X2 somehow surviving to play games fine).
Lastly, I have to disagree to a certain extent about people buying consoles for movies, I think a lot of people buy the PS3 as a cheap Blu Ray player, hence why the attachment ratio in terms of games for the console hasn’t been huge. X-box, probably not as much, and Wii not at all since it doesn’t play DVDs!
Saturday, 23. February 2008
I have it at the native resolution of my PC monitor 1280×1024. The graphics are lower quality and the frame rate is much lower (20fps or less). Serious CoD4 on the 360 has a smooth frame rate no matter what, it is amazing.
This is my point though “Yes, the graphics are worse then the 360 with a 7600, but still playable”. I’m not going to pay more for worse graphics that are “still playable”. That’s like saying someone’s girlfriend isn’t THAT ugly.
Agreed that people are buying the PS3 for Blu-ray, but they aren’t really gamers per se. Exactly why the attachment ratio (as you mentioned) is low. They are buying a movie player that plays games, not a game machine that plays movies.
Anyway, this is all getting into the qualitative side of things for which there is no clear answer. Different people have different wants/tastes/etc. That is why you are fine with a 7600, and I’m not; just different preferences. Attempting to do a public analysis of that would be just opening pandora’s box.
Saturday, 23. February 2008
BTW, I have an X2 4200+ and I feel like it is a bit long in the tooth for gaming.
Saturday, 23. February 2008
I can’t believe these thick-headed PC creamers can’t except that console gaming is a less expensive then PC gaming. It is obvious that for a PC to give you the same gaming experienced as a console. The price is going to be higher. It is not cheaper to use a Gaming PC. As I said before the reason console gaming is cheaper is because, it is backed by a multi-billion dollar corporation, it is “MASS-PRODUCED”, and it is in very high demand. Not to mention the competition between gaming consoles to deliver the best graphics at the lowest price.
Saturday, 23. February 2008
It is like comparing a Z06 Corvette to an Enzo Ferrari. The Corvette has very similar specs to the Ferrari in terms of horsepower and overall handleing. But, because the Corvette is so popular: there is so much demand. GM researches the most economic and efficient combination of parts and extensively tests its product to deliver max efficiency. As a result the Corvette is less expensive. They try to give the “majority” consumers the most bang for there buck which in turn gives the company a good name. The Enzo Ferrari will outperform the Corvette, but you will pay a much higher price for the minimal boost in performance.
Saturday, 23. February 2008
Actually the Corvette ZR1 will beat an Enzo Ferrari, and cost literally hundreds of thousands less. Nevertheless I get your example.
Keep in mind that it is a very good example. Enzo Ferraris are fairly tempermental, and require a lot of maintenance relatively speaking. They also aren’t good “daily drivers” like the ‘Vette (I am actually more of a Porsche fan myself). That isn’t what people buy them for. But they do cost more, guaranteed, and at best only offer a marginal performance improvement.
Saturday, 23. February 2008
I’m not saying that PC gaming is cheaper then the consoles, only that its not as expensive as its made out in this analysis. I agree that to a degree it is qualitative in that I will be happy with my PC hardware for a good number of years (I don’t change system until at least 5 years- currently 3800+X2, 2Gb RAM, 8800GTS 320Mb GDDR3).
Paul, if you upgraded your GPU from a 7600 to an 8800GT the improvement you get would far surpass any CPU upgrade. That was more the point I was trying to make, just not very clearly.
The fact is this type of analysis is always going to be influenced by what someone deems as an “essential” component (e.g. any of the 8800 GPUs is more powerful then the X-box 360 GPU… as long as its run with XP, not Vista… I sound like a bloody NVidia salesman!). I find I get better graphics with new games when compared to the console equivalent. Or maybe Crysis has just burnt my eyeballs out of there sockets!
Anyway, I actually agree with what your trying to say, just that the PC you have in the comparison I would say is a better gaming machine then the X-box 360 so it’s not a fair comparison. Furthermore, not everyone needs a “gaming RIG” and a lot of PC gamers are happy with “poweful” home PCs, but as you said thats more a matter of taste.
Saturday, 23. February 2008
No doubt that a video card upgrade would do me a lot of good if I wanted to PC game (it isn’t the costs that turns me off). For what I expect though, I would be replacing it in 12 months, no joke (that’s my qualitative preference). I want to run at the native resolution with high settings, and Bob’s 8800GTS with 640MB can’t do that with Crysis, so really an 8800GT wouldn’t work for me right now even.
If I was going to pick up PC gaming, my rig would honestly probably cost more than the one in the example. Also remember, if you buy your rig from some company it will cost even more, my example is a DIY. I guess my point is, it can be done for more or less, and I tried to pick a middle ground. The example system I picked certainly isn’t extravagant. There is no SLI, the KB/Mouse combo is only $90, it has a middle of the road Dell monitor, only $110 for the case and 550W PSU, it only has 2GB of RAM, and no quad core CPU.
I feel like I should mention why I don’t PC game since I mentioned that it isn’t the cost (funny enough considering this post), and this is entirely my personal preference. There are a few reason. First, I don’t like play games at my desk. Honestly, it feels like work to me; not relaxing. Second, working on my computer just to game is work, not leisure. When there is an update for an Xbox game it takes literally 10 seconds to install. Third, I hate the online experience. Xbox Live is so seemless and integrated (friends list, voice chat/messaging, gamer profile, matchmaking, etc). For that matter I don’t like the online experience on PS3 or the Wii too. If the Xbox didn’t have Live I might not own one. If there was this kind of experience on a PC at it’s current price point, I would maybe switch. I will never game at a desk though…ever. My gaming rig would be on my TV.
Saturday, 23. February 2008
Thats a pretty good idea actually, I do wonder what my PC games would look like on my High Def TV, lot of hassle with cables and shifting my PC around etc. Crysis does require a ridiculous PC, but even on medium/high it still looks better then anything at present! Putting it on Very high would just kill most people’s machines, thats just Crytek! But, I would suggest that if they ever port Crysis to X-box that you get it, its brilliant!
I can completely understand why people don’t like PC gaming and your reasons are pretty normal, but Steam has improved heavily since it was first released, its definately better then the PSN and Wii equivalent and is probably comparable to X-box live now. Valve really have done a good job with Steam. If you ever get into PC gaming, Steam is a must download!
Anyway, I’m off to play The Witcher… nice debating with you!
Saturday, 23. February 2008
A $200 card will last years, unless you want top of the line. You just slowly start moving graphics down to low with newer games. I’ve had 3 graphics cards in 7 yrs with the last one being purchased last year. The first was $250, then $200, I got the last one an x1950pro for a whopping $135. It plays COD4 great. I never have a problem playing new games. Crysis is an exception to the rule, not the rule.
Saturday, 23. February 2008
I agree with subhas, I know PC gaming is more expensive (hey, you’re paying for the better experience in my opinion), but its not that drastic. Its crazy, but I have a PS3, but I don’t play games on it. Makes a good blu-ray player though.
Saturday, 23. February 2008
Subhas, good debate. I have Steam on my computer, and it is no Xbox Live.
It is the closest thing however. Hopefully something actually comes out of the PC gaming alliance that was announced. I’m doubtful that a completely free service will ever live up to my expectations however.
Spiza, all I know is that Half Life 2 and CoD4 both look/play worse on my 7600 than on my Xbox 360.
Saturday, 23. February 2008
“Most (and I consulted with some people before I made this assumption) put at least $250 in upgrades into their gaming rig within around two years of buying/building it.”
I think I can explain this relatively simply. In my opinion PC gamers spend more money because they have more money. I think these people upgraded not because they HAD to but because they WANTED to. I’m not putting down console gamers but when they grow up and can afford it they will naturally gravitate towards PC gaming because well…its better.
Oh and in response to Bob, my version and all my friends versions of crysis work perfectly.
Sunday, 24. February 2008
This is the worst article written ever. Sorry guys, this is my last time here on this website. How can you analyze prices between different machine like this. Its like comparing apples and oranges. They both are fruits and grow on trees.
Sunday, 24. February 2008
Of course the voodoo chip would make doom 3 look bad. Its way older than the xbox (four years older). But it demonstrates how you can have a decent video card (At one time) and then throughout the ages still have the same level of quality with new games (assuming the developers are accommodating) which is the equivalent of having an console. A console never gets better technically just like the old computer you bought 10 years ago will not get any better with age (like a fine wine). The only benefit to this is that developers are stuck with outdated hardware so they are forced to make the most of it. This means that you don’t have to worry about developers making something you can’t play because they didn’t take into account your (now) crappy hardware. The downside on the pc is that you get games like Crysis that are made to take advantage of the hardware of the future (or so it seems).
In terms of video cards, the geforce 8800 seems to be relatively the best (or currently that generation of chips, whether it be in the nvidia brand or ati). The technology in that chip is superior than the xbox 360’s chip so if you are having problems getting your games to not look as good then the problem must lay somewhere else.
To back up the fact that you can keep on playing new games on old hardware. My computer was built in 2001, and when halflife 2 came out it ran sluggish but playable. Yes I have since upgraded to a better video card for 150 dollars but my pc made out just fine playing new games for about five years. Now its definitely time for a new pc but unfortunately I don’t have much time left to game these days. Plus it plays WOW fine… have there been new games since then?
Also, why are you hunched over? If you normally sit 2 feet away from your monitor and you normally sit 10 feet away from your tv then your tv would have to be 110″ to have the same affect. So either you have bad eyesight, or just like that bad posture look you must be getting by now. Relax, lean back, and bask in the glory of your huge 22″ monitor.
Sunday, 24. February 2008
An X-Box is of course actually a PC!
Sunday, 24. February 2008
Comparing PCs to consoles is like comparing citrus trees to seedless oranges. The tree can grow, flower, create shade, produce varying and edible fruit, and house cute, fuzzy creatures. The seedless orange can feed you. They both perform their intended function very well but they don’t compare at all.
Sunday, 24. February 2008
Ryan, you’re right about a console never getting better technically, but “technically” you’re wrong about games never looking better. As development shops get used to developing for the hardware on a console they actually can produce better-looking games over a period of time - this was noticeable probably for the first time on the ps2, and it’s happening again with the ps3. I don’t know that the xbox/360 necessarily has the problem to the same degree since it’s essentially a pc.
However, you’re also overlooking something. Current-gen console can output a 1080p signal at playable framerates, and the framerates will only get better as time goes on due to what I mentioned above. This means that on current-gen consoles video games will look the best that modern television hardware can display - where’s the motivation to upgrade? A PC gamer will want to be able to run at 1650×1050 because that’s his monitor’s native resolution - I suppose extreme gamers will go for higher rez and be able to notice the difference because you sit so close. But most of the time, the output of a console is going to look as good as / better than a gamer’s PC output.
I also think it is a little silly to factor in the cost of the television/monitor. I own a television for watching movies - I bought a PS3 later. Factoring the cost of a $400 console against the cost of a $2500 gaming PC was a no-brainer. Yes, games on the right PC can look prettier sometimes. $2100 prettier? I work on computers for a living, $2100 is a big investment even for a single guy with money to burn. No thanks, I’ll put it into my savings account.
Sunday, 24. February 2008
I also wanted to point out that it seems odd to argue that computers/consoles have other uses. Yes, they do, but they aren’t what the article is talking about. You can get a computer that does everything besides game for LESS than the price of a console. You only have to spend the extra money if you want to play 3d games. If you bring the blu-ray player argument into the picture, then you can say something goofy like, a standard blu-ray player costs $400, so the gaming aspect of a ps3 is like a free bonus feature.
I think the writer of the article was right to focus on the gaming aspect alone.
Sunday, 24. February 2008
“An X-Box is of course actually a PC!” -sorCrer
And it’s less expensive to.
Sunday, 24. February 2008
Nate I agree with you. I wasn’t saying that games wouldn’t look better… That’s what I meant about the developer’s making the most of it. But yeah, I didn’t say it very clearly. And I don’t think for a console there is a motivation to upgrade… you know until the industry forces us to (ie builds something better, so as gamers, we must have it).
Sunday, 24. February 2008
Ryan,
Something I didn’t articulate very clearly is that it seems as if we have reached a nice plateau where the consoles can push the capabilities of the visual hardware. That is, perhaps the ps4 will be able to crank twice as many polygons or do some complicated raster whatever, but will I be able to tell the difference on my TV?
Eh, I don’t know. Maybe I’m making ridiculous justifications for getting a ps3 instead of buying a gaming rig. I know I’ll be pissed if my laptop doesn’t play Starcraft 2, and I’m very sad that it can’t play Bioshock at high rez.
One other thing I thought of is that a console has the visual advantage of playing on a superior screen. There’s no monitor that compares with my plasma in terms of the visual quality - deep blacks, vibrant colors, etc. So there’s some kind of a balance there between superior quality of resolution/textures/polygons, and actually looking at those things on a monitor that probably has a contrast ratio 1/10th of my TV’s.
Tuesday, 26. February 2008
Have you also taking the game prices into consideration? It’s one of the major differenties between consoles and pc’s when talking about price.