steve I didnt have a $1600 difference in my numbers..you did...my difference in hardware was $1600 (pc) vs ($1050) console (not inlcuding all the accessories from either side even though we know console accessories are way more then pc)...so how long would it take me to close that little $550 hardware gap saving $10-20 per game...maybe a few short years....then the rest of those years your console is still overcharging you for the same games...BAM truth hit you in the face again...did you feel that? Come on Steve, I want to read you type it, hrmm maybe pc gaming isnt as more expensive compared to console gaming as I thought...gee I was mistaken saying one pc component costs as much as a PS4. Oh you have that im too proud to admit im wrong syndrome...muh bad.
The point is, how many $10 games do you need to buy to make up the $1,600 difference in cost of the HARDWARE over the course of 8 years? You know, the part that is NECESSARY to play the games?
Well,it depends. That amount ($1600) is not the same for everyone. Myself, for example, spent about $1,000 for a PC that I needed anyway for my graphic and video-editing work, so I would've bought the PC anyway. Meaning that the only cost I should really take into consideration is the cost of what I needed to add to my PC to actually play games on it, which is, my graphic card, which cost me about $200 two years ago.
And talking about freebies, PS+ games aren'T really "freebies" since I'm paying $50 a year for my subscription. Which could probably compare to all those games I bought for $2 through Steam and even less through Humble Bundle. So I would say it's quite nonsense to actually nitpick about that aspect.
And about Steam, you don't need to be connected to the net. You may have experienced a bug, as I never did. Or maybe I did once, about 8 years ago on a old netbook I used to play older games. I play both online and offline and never had any issue at all. Most people don't, actually. It's just sad it didn't worked out well for you.
It is all about when and where you buy the games. I certainly don't wait for 2-4 year old games to go on sale for 10 for $10, because nobody is buying them anymore. I generally like to play my games while they are... relevant. Unless I'm in the mood for the nostalgia of an older game. That I probably already own, anyway.
That is again something I wrote previously. It all depends on the type of gamer you are. If you never wait to play all the latest releases, then yeah, the savings a PC would get you would be pretty minimal, and thus, probably not worth the cost. But if you don't care about playing games a little while after their release (to me, good gameplay doesn't really degrade over time), or if you need to replace your current home PC anyway, the investment would probably makes more sense. But then again, other factors are to be taken into account. It's not JUST about the money either. Otherwise, I wouldn't have two PCs, a PS3, a PS4 and a Vita...
Personnaly, I just go where it makes more sense to me. And this might differ with what others think makes more sense for them.
dont forget an upcoming steambox Re4lnoize ) gotta have one of those...why I dont know...disposable income I guess. (sarcasm, steambox seems pointless to me)
I find it funny that Steam is moving into the console realm with the steambox, while Sony is moving more into the digital/pc realm with PS Now.
There really is no compeition between PC and Sony (or Microsoft and Sony | 10 million is still much > than 5 million). They co-exist just fine. If anything more PC titles are being ported to consoles as they are becoming more powerful and the oppurtunity to make more money is there.
Some of the biggest multiplatform releases have always sold more on consoles with the bulk of the sales on Playstation consoles. MMO games took the market by storm and helped fuel PC gaming these past few years. That and "The Sims", bargin basement digital stores like steam and the PS3/XB360 lasting longer then they both should have last generation also contributed to the rise in PC gaming. Games looked better on PC's compared to those consoles.
Keep in mind that most PC gamers DO NOT have high end rigs and a PS4/XB1 would be a graphical upgrade for them. Which is why sales are up across the board for console gaming. It's been stated that PC ports don't cost a lot and it makes sense for developers to release a game on that platform and try to make a few bucks while making everyone happy. Games should aways be playable for every platform when possible.
While we're on the subject of how much PCs cost, can anyone recommend a good gaming PC? the cheaper the better of course but I don't want a piece of junk either. I really need a new computer because I have an old beat up mac (got it for school) and I am ready to use thing for target practice.
@blockhead ya well PC's a little late to the console scene...if they would of launched it 6-8 years ago it would be a threeway split between consumers or maybe even more steambox users because you can just open it up and throw in a new video card when you want. They're trying to get in the console race at the wrong time imo...people that game on pcs probably have their needed hardware for a while, and people that prefer the less INITIAL cost of the hardware have already gotten an X1/PS4...I see the steambox as a failure for the first few years its out...I may pick one up when my gtx780 goes obsolete..but hey that shouldnt be for atleast 4 years or so...even then it will probably play those games just fine in non-ultra settings.
@stealth I like AMD, there are alot of Intel fans but Amd to me is more consumer friendly for cost vs. performance and newer games are utilizing more cores so multi-core processing with an 8 core amd will be better in some games then a 4-6 core intel processor. That being said, head to newegg.com and look at their intel/amd gaming rigs and make a decision...or if your tech savvy you could always build your own rig and save even more. Video card wise i would go with something with nvidia, they're the leader in graphics for a reason. If you can afford atleast a $200 graphics card you'll be alot happier then having to constantly dumb down all your graphics settings for each game so that it doesnt perform all "choppy".
Not really Im a PC gamer and I came to console because of the games it has. The all in one stop for achievements yeah trophies saved across all your games. I not a trophie hunter most games i get 20-40% put love i can keep track of them all they are NOT LOST when i go to the next game.
Being able to upgrade your console is very bad having to have games work with max and min specs takes time away from work on the core game. Every system with the same specs and focus on getting the max out of them is much better. Why would I buy a PS4 if it was nothing more than a PC sub par to the one I have!
Exclusives are dumb!! The console should sell itself and not need exclusives for sales Just as the PS4 is doing today! More power and running games better then the competition. If the PS4 had less power I would be forced to buy a sub par console for the games i want. At this point Sony could sell first party games to its competition and still be ahead, PS4 console is ahead on its own merits.
Sony could have went $900-$1500 console and passed the PC but you take the PS4 out of the hands of many that can't afford that price point. Maybe the PS5 will match or pass the PC. But even that will be short lived because of the speed tech advances. PC games are the same or very close to the price console games at release Sony has been haveing more sales to of older games like PC.
Star Citizen is the only game im now looking foward to on PC and that is some time away. Maybe Cyberpunk 2077 but that may come to console. Enjoy console gaming as it is for a while we have 7-8 years for the next one.