@brendan: OK, this is pretty much OP but this has been on my mind for some time and I can't resist posting it. So here it goes: I used to think the way you do, but I just executed a major PC upgrade and after running the numbers came to the conclusion that whether or not a gaming PC is actually more expensive than a console greatly depends.
First there is the matter of whether you need a PC anyway. If you're living alone, the answer to that is most likely yes. If so, you can pretty much subtract the cost of a bare-bones surfing and word processing PC from the cost of the gaming PC. The need to have a PC at all was the main reason I upgraded anyway, by the way. My old desktop was pushing 7-8 years on core components and one hard drive had outright failed. I had the option of spending the equivalent (I'm a Swede, these prices are therefore higher than the US prices) some $350 just saving what could be saved (it is possible to go even lower, but that means getting only the most basic crap components possible, and the decision to actually downgrade my PC to save it didn't sit right with me). In the end I decided on an upgrade equivalent in cost to $850 to get me a high-end gaming PC. The price was kept down thanks to me already owning things like an OS, monitor, chassis and peripherals. As a price comparison: the PS3 was launched at a price equivalent to $600 in Sweden.
We can use this as a thought experiment: if the new consoles are released at a similar price point (which they probably won't, the PS3 was pushing it) going the route I did would save me about $50 compared to a bare-bones upgrade combined with a new PS3 at launch. If the new consoles are released at $550, which is still high, I break even. Any lower, which is extremely likely, and I would be paying more in the short run - but there are other factors.
There is the matter of how many games you buy: if you buy one new game every month that will save you $120 over a full year compared to consoles. If you buy your games primarily through Steam sales or other campaigns - which in my experience are far more common and accessible on the PC, by the way - that number will be higher. If you buy as many as two new games every month you will be saving $240 a year.
So where will that get us? My current graphics card is capable of running anything at max settings with good FPS in 1080p (the most taxing game I have found so far would be Crysis 3, which runs at max settings at 30 FPS+, most games, like Bioshock Infinite, runs at max settings at 60 FPS +) Based on observations of how my brother's PC has fared, which he bought in conjunction with the BF3 launch in the fall of 2011 and has a graphics card of a model exactly one generation older than mine, my graphics card will be able to run anything at high settings in a year and everything on at least medium settings in 2 years, at which point I would likely want to upgrade. The card I bought cost me some $300. So if I buy a game a month, the cost will be almost completely covered in 2 years leaving a mere $60 added cost - about the cost of one new console game. If I buy two new games a month, I'm running a surplus of a cool $180. Then there is the processor which would likely have to be upgraded later, at least in 3 years, 4 being more likely. RAM should probably be upgraded in that time but cost would be inconsequential. I should not need a new motherboard for another 5 years at least unless there are some major architectural developments in the meantime.
Then there are other things as well. If you buy an Xbox, there is the added charge of Live Gold which currently costs the equivalent of about $70 a year over hear (I know you can get it cheaper, but I'm lazy and have just upgraded the license automatically through Microsoft every year so I count it at this price point) and there are usually extended costs for peripherals, but personally I estimate that those costs will be comparable on PC.
Now, before posting this I should make something clear: it is very likely I will buy a next gen console anyway.The main reason I chose to the gaming-PC route was because my personal economy finally improved back to the point where I can buy both again during the weeks I looked at my upgrade options. But I'm a number cruncher by nature, so I ran the numbers anyway. That said, for me personally, the cost of doing just one or the other would, if I had gone that route, most likely have evened out.
Log in to comment