PLEASE STOP COMPARING $500 CONSOLES TO $500 PCs

[King in the North]

11 hours ago, emosun said:

Honestly I just got done typing a freaken novel about this....

but essentially , when you apply the 500$ into a computer in the right ways , it's never a contest.

the problem is doing it the worst way , buying all parts brand new. buying everything brand new with only 500$ is just dumb. You end up with a cheap 2018 Cheverolet Spark of a pc. As opposed to used where you could get a nitrous boosted 1950's gasser

we all know they made us look bad , nothing we can do about it.

You just sound butthurt as hell. Most people presumably would not be buying a used Xbox One X either. 

[hconverse02]

21 hours ago, Sauron said:

What stops you from using a tv with a pc? And peripherals are dirt cheap. But I do think it's fair to compare them, if nothing else to know how they stack up.

@TaylarRoids what if you have a laptop?

 

21 hours ago, Sauron said:

What stops you from using a tv with a pc? And peripherals are dirt cheap. But I do think it's fair to compare them, if nothing else to know how they stack up.

@TaylarRoids what if you have a laptop?

 

21 hours ago, spat55 said:

Just buy a cheap £20 keyboard mouse combo with it and use the TV as a monitor, I think it's fair to compare them considering how much better you can get a PC for console money, although with the PS4 having price drops you now need to go second hand i5 and motherboard.

 

21 hours ago, TaylarRoids said:

These assumptions (already having a PC) also assumes you already have peripherals. Another fun fact, you can use a TV as a monitor, you don't need to buy one.

But you still have to pay for a tv when you buy it right? Looking at the average consumer buying a console, they already own a tv, but that doesn't mean they never paid for it.  Sure you can use a monitor with a console or a pc and the same goes for a tv, but you still have to buy the actual item, reinforcing what I am trying to claim, that both pc and console have peripheral add-ons and a $500 console or pc is not the end of your shopping list when it comes to buying either.

[Sauron]

20 minutes ago, hconverse02 said:

But you still have to pay for a tv when you buy it right? Looking at the average consumer buying a console, they already own a tv, but that doesn't mean they never paid for it.  Sure you can use a monitor with a console or a pc and the same goes for a tv, but you still have to buy the actual item, reinforcing what I am trying to claim, that both pc and console have peripheral add-ons and a $500 console or pc is not the end of your shopping list when it comes to buying either.

But... you'll need a screen regardless of which you pick. The expense related to that is the same for both, so I don't get why it matters. Other expenses are relatively minor compared to what a screen and the machine itself would cost. If you want to argue price over time the biggest factor is by far the higher cost of games and the internet fee that you get on consoles.

[Bouzoo]

People seem to forget that a very small number of PC owners actually own a gaming capable PC. I reckon that's the main reason people buy consoles. And they just for from the start with (almost) no hassle. Well less than a gaming PC that's for sure. 

[michaelocarroll007]

23 hours ago, TaylarRoids said:

Hear me out.

  When you buy a console it's an ADDITIONAL expense. I'd bet almost anything that you already have a PC or something close. So for example: you already spend 2-600 dollars on whatever PC you already have so if in ADDITION to that you spent $500 (the price of an Xbox One X) you'd be spending ~700-1100 dollars on a PC you'd have a pretty baller PC, one that's significantly better than a $500 PC that LTT just compared to the One X in today's YouTube video. 

  It's not fair to compare a $500 console to a $500 PC. Realistically if you pooled your "Gaming spending money" you'd actually be getting a ~$800 PC, which could easily compete with modern consoles. 

PLUS there's a bunch of free content on PCs that easily add 100's of dollars in value vs. $60 AAA games.

/rant

 

in 2007 id argue this point is valid everyone and there grandma had desktops. Now days so many people just use phones and tablets and at the most laptops. Desktops overall are pretty rare for people just getting into computer gaming. and for this reason every part of the PC should be compared. comparing a $500 PC to a $500 xbox is as apples and apples as it can get hardware wise to keep it fair.  Building a $800 PC is still $300 more and i personally do recommend  doing so a swell  as it will get you a much better pc. not everyone has that extra $300 and many people build gaming computer for under $800 so when considering the price point if someone has say 4-600 to spend its very fair to look at the xbox one X as a option. 

 

 

to keep the comparisons fair id personally ignore the Free stuff your saying you get on PC as you have to buy windows and most dont include this in the cost when comparing . and id ignore Xbox live aswell since were ignoring the cost of windows. Keep it at hardware only.  Keyboard and mouse costs are arguable as the console does come with a controller.

 

 

as someone with a Gaming PC, Xbox one (OG) PS4 & Switch. i see a lot of value in the $190 xbox one S with controller included right now & 4k blu ray. and the $500 one X both are REALLY competetive and Pcs at similar price points cant walk over them. But I prefer the PC even with the higher cost. Its imo the best option. but that doesnt mean the consoles dont have there own place and price points that make sense.

[ahmedhara]

On 11/27/2017 at 2:53 AM, Godlygamer23 said:

If I'm deciding on investing in a platform, in this case an Xbox One X or a PC. Let's assume that I have everything required to use either, excluding the OS for the PC...If the Xbox One X gives me increased value over the PC of equivalent cost, and straight up better performance...The Xbox One X might just be the better buy. 

 

The comparisons are legitimate whether you agree or not. Think about it as someone who wants to invest in a gaming platform, and only use the system for gaming. The extra functionality of the PC may be irrelevant to the user.

 

And this is coming from someone who prefers PC. You can't argue facts...you must be objective when it comes to comparisons.

I agree, I love PCs but for the average consumer who just wants the simplicity of plugging in a cord, putting the disc in and playing, the consoles win not to mention the thing with the xbox one x being better than a 500$ PC without an OS

[Colb]

In just a short years time . The X box will start to look not such a good buy compared to a 500 pc .

 

At the moment they are probably selling at or near a loss using Microsoft's massive buying power . Pc just cannot compete with that .

 

But since tech moves on so quickly and by its non upgradable nature a console sits still where as a pc can keep on moving forward . It will be no time at all until the same price pc starts to look like the much better buy. 

 

Remember also the prices on pc are artificially inflated with mining and memory at the moment .  In better times that 500 pc could of probably had a 1070 with a pentium CPU which would of been ahead already. 

 

Anyway it is quite an amazing thing Microsoft has pulled off with the one X . Cudos to them  . It's a small win for the consoles let them have it .  And the vast majority on here will have a pc over 500 that already provides a better experience. Plus even if you got the same or similar gaming experience just think of all the other stuff a pc can do .    I am a tad jelly of of the 4k Blu-ray drive though for some reason . Even though I have no physical media or the wish to have to house a drive . It just seams kind of cool to have it 

 

[mr moose]

Yes it's fair.   You can't apply your personal preferences to everyone else's reasoning.  Everything has to be weighed up by the individual.   I.E  do you already have a tv and do you want to game on it? do you already have a monitor and want to game on that?  Is it power at all costs or is it getting acceptable gaming for the cheapest you can? Is cost, type and acquisition method of games important?  These are individual criteria that can only be considered by each person, Which leaves the only comparable component to be the actual box (which incidentally doesn't necessarily have to be cheaper to be better).  

[Skilly146]

On 11/26/2017 at 1:12 PM, TaylarRoids said:

 

 

On 11/26/2017 at 1:12 PM, TaylarRoids said:

When you buy a console it's an ADDITIONAL expense. I'd bet almost anything that you already have a PC or something close.

Yah but what if you don’t already have a PC

[samcool55]

Well more and more people are using notebooks to game these days and they are actually getting better and better at gaming. Mostly because gpu's are getting better and are closing the gap with their desktop equivalents.

 

You can easily take a notebook with you to a friend or something and be up and running very quickly, or just on the go. Portability and usability are basically unbeatable by consoles (switch is portable i know but that's in a different league).

 

It all depends what you want tbh...

Also i've seen consoles on sale for 177-250 euro's, it's today impossible to get anything decent for that price that can handle AAA titles from this year. I mean it's nice to compare a 500 dollar console to a 500 dollar pc but that's not the only comparison you can make. It's just 1 of many options.

[PETRGangKing]

I'm a PC guy myself, but I havent always been. I was a long time console gamer until I got into 4k television sets a few years ago, and started to see just how much better games can look in higher resolutions, that I realized how far behind console gaming was compared to PC gaming. Then I decided that I wanted the best I could get, and price wasnt a factor, as my PC has cost me many many times what a console would. But I chose to go that route, it most definitely can be cheaper in the long run, or for someone good at sourcing used parts, maybe up front as well. I think for a lot of console gamers who have never gamed on PC before, the thought of using a computer to game on can seem like a strange concept. To a lot of people, who dont realize that you can easily use a controller, hook it up to your tv, or even build one to look like a console, its about familiarity. They have always used a console, so even if PC gaming is comparable in cost or cheaper. they will go with the console because it is what gaming is to them.

[Gale]

On 11/26/2017 at 4:28 PM, black0utm1rage said:

A piece of consumer electronics that will be obsolete in 5 years tops with no ability to upgrade it... Consider that...

Shit, we should all stop buying smartphones.

[PETRGangKing]

2 minutes ago, Gale said:

Shit, we should all stop buying smartphones.

Right, a lot of people upgrade every year now. 

[Mooshi]

PC vs Console is a pretty boring drawn out thing, I'd have thought people would have been over this subject already.

 

It's like cycling. Do you ride trails or do you stay on paved roads? Consoles and PCs, while able to both game, are aimed at two target audiences. This is honestly a sad thing to still harp on about.

[Dylanc1500]

On November 26, 2017 at 4:34 PM, AshleyAshes said:

We've gone from saying that a PC can run 40 years of software to pointing out that it can't to me stressing that it's not just that 'Oh that's wrong' but it's a legit problem for preservation sake.  The crazy thing is is that consoles have much better preservation scenes.  Oh 100% there are people trying to preserve PC history but there's so much and so many bits and pieces were small runs and obscure could disappear forever.

I just wanted to point out after reading your guys' conversation, that you can actually dual boot MS-DOS onto mondern hardware and it run natively. You may already know this but a lot of the software issues through the 90s was because of transition to the NT kernel and not having direct access to the hardware which software from that time needed. I have seen more clients than you would expect that will still run legacy OSes (mainly MS-DOS) for legacy software compatibility. You may have pointed that out and I missed it, at which point I apologize.