Click to view our Accessibility Statement or contact us with accessibility-related questions
Showing 1 of 92 conversations about:
XipherZer
26
Jan 14, 2019
bookmark_border
For me this really boils down to basic economics. Consoles have a low upfront (Captial) cost compared to PC, but with high reoccurring, incidental and software costs. This is the single biggest factor for most people when it comes to figuring out which system to buy for gaming. As a example, a console can be obtained with a capital investment between $300 - $600 dollars depending on system and accessories. A comparable PC will have a capital investment between $600 - $1100. After the initial purchase cost of a system the cost of ownership will also include paid online services (XBox Live, PSN etc) and software costs. These reoccurring costs are where consoles are at a distinct disadvantage. PC vs Console System Cost -- $600 - $1100 / $300 - $600 Online Service -- $0 / $60 per year New Release SW -- $40ea (33% Discount) / $60ea (Titles purchased within 3 months of release) Older Release SW -- $20ea (50% Discount) / $40ea (Titles purchases after 3 months of release) Assuming that 6 titles are purchased a year (1 title every 2 months), there is a SW and services cost delta of ~$180 between owning a console vs PC including the yearly online services fees. While this can be mitigated somewhat, by second hand SW purchases (Used games at GameStop), this is more the norm than the exception. In this case PCs end up matching console cost within 2-2.5 years and every year thereafter saves money. Obviously, any additional SW purchases only improves total cost of ownership for PC as the software cost delta is fairly consistent between PC/Console titles, especially if you are careful where and when SW is purchased. It is reasonable to expect to replace a console or PC every 5 years (Average console generational cycle and average PC upgrade cycle). If this is the case, total cost of ownership between the platforms are as follows: PC vs Console 5 Year TCO System Cost -- $600 - $1100 / $300 - $600 (Dependent on capital purchase choices) Online Services -- $0 / $300 Averaged SW Cost -- $900 / $1500 (Assuming 3 new release titles and 3 older titles a year) TCO -- $1500 - $2000 / $2000 - $2400 When calculating the total cost of ownership over a 5 year period, comparable system purchases will result in an averaged $80-$100 a year cost savings for PC meaning that a PC purchase will beat console cost by $400-$500 over that entire term when the system is in service. This is in addition to all the advantages that the relatively open platform on PC provides. This includes the ability to use ANY controllers or alternate input devices, shop multiple SW market places, stream games, emulate other systems and use the system for tasks other than just gaming. At the end of the day simple economics makes PC ownership a much easier pill to swallow than consoles. The only disadvantage to using a PC is the higher capital cost and inablilty to run console exclusive titles. That being said, these titles are few and far between and is mitigated somewhat by the substantially larger software library available on PC.
(Edited)
Jan 14, 2019
PromNightFetus
150
Jan 19, 2019
bookmark_border
XipherZerShould probably also include how much power is being used. If you’re paying electricity and you’ve got an overclocked beast of a RTX Titan in your system running 10hrs a day? That can be a pretty penny or two. Not to mention that Xbox is the only one with a fairly expensive monthly. PSN was $5 a month if I remember correctly and Switch being even cheaper. Also have to add that there are some subscription models out there for PC games that are still popular.
Jan 19, 2019
XipherZer
26
Jan 30, 2019
bookmark_border
PromNightFetusThis is a fair point. Assuming a average power consumption delta of ~200 watts between a 250 watt console and a 450 watt PC under full load (Which is an extremely generous delta for the consoles), the power cost difference works out to around $0.016 an hour if power costs $0.13 per kWh. https://www.inchcalculator.com/electricity-cost-calculator/ This would mean that the PC would cost an additional $6.24 per month if used 8 hours a day every day compared to consoles. This assumes normal PC hardware at stock configurations and both the console or a PC always running at max power draw. The reality is that neither consoles nor PCs actually run at max power draw very much making the difference much less than that $6.24 per month estimate. Now if someone is doing extreme CPU/GPU and memory overclocking it is possible that the system can draw in excess of 600 watts which would have a more severe cost penalty compared to consoles and would factor more heavily into the value proposition. Of course if this is the case it is unlikely that the high performance parts needed to draw that much power would fit within a $1100 PC budget ;) The monthly subscription fees for each console are as follows: Service - Monthly - Quarterly - Yearly PSN: $9.99 / $24.99 / $59.99 XBox Live: $9.99 / $24.99 / $59.99 Nintendo Online: $3.99 / $7.99 / $19.99 The original value proposition assumed yearly payments which are the cheapest subscription fees available and did not take the Nintendo Switch into account as it is not really a comparable platform to either the other 2 consoles or PC. If you don't buy the yearly subscription the cost is even higher making the capital cost delta between PCs and consoles close even more quickly. For example, if you pay for PSN or XBox Live monthly at $9.99 a month your yearly subscription cost is $119.88 which lowers the time to cost parity to just over a year instead of ~2 years.
Jan 30, 2019
PromNightFetus
150
Jan 31, 2019
bookmark_border
XipherZerHuh I thought PSN was a lot cheaper. Or was it that XLive was more expensive before? I do remember them being different, PSN being the cheaper of the two. Either way, this is probably good to assume is being paid for with every console as online gaming is not possible without it. Maybe 10 years ago we would see larger numbers of those that are alright without paying but currently the demand for multiplayer (and mainly competitive) games are so high that it safe to assume everyone uses it. One more thing to add (since I figure we might as well rule everything out) is the fact that for a PC upgrade, you typically only really need to look into an upgrade of the GPU. Now, at mid to high you're looking at the price of a console BUT I personally would argue that you're getting more price to performance with GPU's than with a console, at least in it's current state. Now if this is worth noting is up to the reader. Price to performance isn't something you factor in for consoles as for the most part the games that release are optimized to run stable for the console while PC it often fluctuates as the possible combinations of internal components each user has can be so varied, thus the addition of a robust settings menu as well as a bigger need for optimizations. My personal opinion? I value the PC upgrade more. The MAIN reason being that, I get a wide selection when I decide to upgrade. I can choose which maker to go for as well as which variation of the card. With consoles I get maybe 2 choices (at launch).
Jan 31, 2019
Rob.N
0
Feb 8, 2019
bookmark_border
XipherZerSo much depends on details when you're talking PC gaming. Are you someone who spends $500 every year or two on the latest video card? That throws all these numbers out the window - but when people talk about super-high refresh rates at super-high resolutions, that's often the kind of spending they're talking about. Console gaming (and PC gaming, for that matter) can be a lot cheaper than your numbers show, particularly since you rarely have to pay full price for those subscription services that pad the numbers - there are discounts on XBox Live and Playstation Plus several times a year, now. In my case, I rarely buy games in the first three months, and usually pay a lot less than just a 30% discount when I do buy them - I got Monster Hunter World on a black Friday sale for $20 (lower than it's EVER been on Steam by $13), almost a year after release, and I'm playing exclusive PS4 content that's a blast. You're also ignoring that those console subscriptions include free games that might occupy your time and help you save money buying something else. Then you start considering Spider-Man, God of War, and Horizon: Zero Dawn, and the exclusives I'd have missed without a PS4 are just painful - I can't imagine not having a console in the mix. Use an older PC for longer, and you can get those costs down too - though that means you won't be playing at dramatically higher resolutions and refresh rates than the consoles any more. So many of the benefits that are touted require large up-front investments and more frequent recurring investments - I'm just much happier with a console and an older generation gaming laptop (for which I mostly play older generation games). That all changes if you buy into the hype and have to play the latest and greatest game as soon as it releases. If you've got the budget to afford it, and the time to deal with it, then you go PC (though I still argue you should get a PS4 and maybe a Switch for exclusive content on those platforms - again, if you've got the budget). If you want simple and affordable, then I don't think your lifetime cost numbers need to be as high as you've put them - and even if they are, the up-front cost is hard to get past.
(Edited)
Feb 8, 2019
XipherZer
26
Feb 11, 2019
bookmark_border
Rob.NPart of the reason I chose the numbers I did is to normalize the value equation. This drops out "Prosumers" who spend hundreds of $$$ every GPU product cycle and inter-generation console purchases. It also acts as a performance normalizer comparing a lower similar performing PC ($600) with older console HW (Original PS4 or XBox One) and a higher performing PC ($1100) with newer inter-generation console model (PS4 Pro, XBox One X). The proposition also assumes that only ONE console will be purchased in a gerational cycle and that other vendors consoles will not be purchased. This was done to give consoles the best chance at even being close to the value of a PC. If you must purchase many different systems during a cycle you already threw the economic benefit proposition out the window since TCO costs drastically increase each time an additional platform is added. Looking at the HW purchase as a upfront capital expense each generation instead of ongoing upgrade or iterative system replacement expenses is the only sane way to compare the two. For example, a prosumer who upgrades their GPU each release cycle will waste as much or more money than a console user who purchases each iteration of a console within a single console generation. This is why these types of buyers are not considered. This normalization can give us results that are absolutely valid as it will pertain to MOST consumers and drop out the ones that don't care how much they are spending on this hobby. You mention that gaming on either platform can be cheaper than I estimated. This is true and is estimated this way by design. I used standard pricing to give an averaged cost because steep discounts are only occasionally available. This is true for software (Games) as well as services and any reasonably discriminating buyer will know where and when to purchase to reduce costs for their platform of choice. You are making a case for the exception rather than for the rule. If you only purchase older games or only when games and services are on sale you are not the average consumer. I would also contend that discriminate purchasing can greatly lower costs regardless of platform and in the case of PC help to lower the upfront capital cost as well. On the issue of console exclusives I agree that there are some good titles only available on certain closed platforms. This is anti-consumer as it ties quality software to a specific vendors solution simply to Shepard people into buying their solution. While the ethics of this are up for debate, the fact of the matter is that there are far to many games on the market to care about a handful of exclusive titles. If only gaming on PC, you miss out on 2-4 quality exclusives a year while retaining access to the broadest possible range of games available including many that were only ever released on PC. You seem to take issue with the upfront and TCO numbers that were estimated based on a view that people can, under very specific circumstances, get things cheaper or choose to spend additional money during the life cycle of a product. Determining TCO based on average purchases is the only way to derive reasonable estimates for groups since most people don't spend much time digging up deals. This is an economic case which is entirely about PC vs Console value and quibbling about the occasional sale or buying habits of a minority of consumers does NOT change the fact that PC gaming tends to be cheaper over time for most people. Your other point of contention is that there are some good games that are only available on consoles. I find it hard to believe that most people would be willing to spend an additional $300-$500 TCO on a SINGLE platform to play 5-10 games in a generation. This is further exacerbated by the fact that there are at least 2 consoles (Playstation and Nintendo) that would need to be purchased to have access to all major exclusive titles making that cost balloon even further. This is especially egregious considering the incredible array of software available to PC gamers which including exclusives that are at a similar quality to the titles you used as your examples.
Feb 11, 2019
XipherZer
26
Feb 12, 2019
bookmark_border
Rob.NOne other thing to highlight. You mentioned that 'Free' games are provided to people who purchase a console network service subscription. This is not really accurate. PSN and XBL will provided a limited use license to some older software titles which is only usable on an active subscription account. If you stop paying for PSN or XBL your access to these titles is revoked until you pay the piper again. This is NOT 'Free' as you never gain an ownership stake in the SW and access can be revoked at any time. It is more akin to a rental or lease membership where the proprietor determines what low value assets you are allowed to use and when they can be taken away. On PC, the closest analog would be something like Humble Monthly (Which admittedly costs more per month than PSN or XBL) except when you sign up any game licenses provided through the program are actually owned by you and don't require you to continue paying Humble Bundle for access. If monthly or yearly subscriptions are not your thing, standalone bundles can be purchased which largely duplicates the provided monthly subscription titles while providing more choice. In addition, the quality and number of monthly allotted games is significantly higher than what is rented / leased by either PSN or XBL. I don't think that 'Free' games with subscription services are a good deal since:
  1. You don't actually have a ownership license to a title, instead only a rental or lease for the duration of the subscription.
  2. You are unable to choose titles, or choose not to participate in a subscription, but still gain access to discounted bundles of software.
For this reason PC still the better economic option as there are NO service or subscription fees required for network play and the available software subscriptions are of better value as they don't require perpetual payment to retain access to the software.
Feb 12, 2019
View Full Discussion
Related Posts
Trending Posts in More Community Picks