The previous console generation started in 2005, please show me a 1000 USD build from 2005 that can still run even a fraction of PC games released in the last 2 years. There's no bloody way, at minimum you need a graphics card update, at 150 bucks that'll be pretty close to the current price of an entire console.
Seriously, show me a build. And it's 2005, not 2006.

I'll give you a hint, you're talking Barton 5600 days here, and that's if you sunk 250 USD into the CPU alone, otherwise you're older than that.

There's no word, afaik, on next gen console prices. I don't see them shooting for a 4 figure price tag, the market simply won't bear it.
I'll say it again: I compared the two primary ways to acquire games on each platform. The latest market surveys show that DD has absolutely annihilated digital on PC. Disc based is simply the way most console games are still acquired. It's the most apples to apples comparison there is precisely because the primary market pressures of each market are on those mediums.

Since the basic premise is to show that PC gaming isn't necessarily cheaper than console gaming (which is an oft bandied belief) and that it can see-saw back and forth, how you get your games shouldn't make much of a difference. The price is X dollars to play the game on console and Y dollars to play on PC.
Dual analog stick is fine, just not vs. mouse and keyboard. Why would it "make you laugh"? I bet those guys would do better against you on the mouse and keyboard version than you would against them on the dual analog stick version. Are you so very sure you have more skill?:)

For the build, lemme put it this way: It's a waste of time. It would take me hours to track down the current generation and prices of that time frame, and then someone would come along and go "no way that could play X", and we really can't argue that unless someone comes along and says "I have that rig, and it does/doesn't". My experience is that PCs outlast consoles as far as playability, you can disagree if you want- but it's both based just off of our perceptions.

I build PCs somewhere around once every console generation, usually in the middle of it though, because.. well, I like to. For me, the cost aspect is not why I am a PC gamer. I'm a PC gamer because I can custom build my rig to do what I want, and have a lot more use out of it than JUST gaming. Once I've built a rig, then I really can't afford to ALSO buy a console.

As for the FPS:
I fucking suck at FPS, controller or keyboard and mouse. I don't play them because, frankly, I hate most of them, and I really hate the breed of people that get attracted to them, especially the online multiplayer.
I know, however, that if you take two equally skilled players, one on a dual analogue controller, one on keyboard and mouse, in most cases the keyboard/mouse player will out perform.
It makes me laugh, because so many of them think that the highly inferior control scheme is actually better.

No one, no one, and no one at all says that. They say dual analog stick for shooters is just fine because everyone is using them on the console shooters. Which is true, they are absolutely fine when everyone is using them.

I'm sure everyone would be just as happy to use keyboard on and mouse on console except it's a right pain in the ass from the couch or the bed.

Finally, you can say all you want that PCs last 7 years (actually this console gen will be 8) but apparently I'm not the only one calling BS, you have PC gamers also telling you it's bull.

I built PCs, frequently, and I know what kind of clunky as hardware you'd have if it was 7-8 years old right now. Good luck running most recent games with that if you haven't simply had hardware failure by then.

Depends on what you see as "cheaper"

If you mean short term cost then yes consoles are a lot cheaper.

But long term cost and quality then PC's are 10x better.

The only other ones telling me it's bull are calling such because it can't run the games at "high settings".

My old rig is.. .. I really don't know how old, at least 7 years. Mid-grade specs (I think I spent $800ish on it, including OS). I might just have to fire it back up (it still runs fine, I used to use it for dual boxing on City of Heroes), and see if I can make it run Borderlands 2 (newest game I own. Yes, I know I just said I don't like FPS, Borderlands is the exception to that, because it isn't the typical dreck).

Biggest thing that would hold it back is probably the video card, which wasn't great when I built the rig.

My current rig, I built.. I think almost 3 years ago (about a grand), and I want to make a couple minor upgrades to it (more RAM and better video cards), but.. I don't expect to /need to/ to keep gaming for several more years. The video cards are showing their age a tiny bit, when I built it I went for 2 mid-low end cards in SLI, I probably should have gone 1 card for the same price, and later bought a 2nd identical. *shrug* Live and learn, eh. As for RAM? That's just me being a nerd and wanting more. :)

Well it's also about the high settings. I've had my fair share of low and medium settings on PC that look even worse than a console's graphics, so I've gotten to the point of not wanting to play at low anymore. If you're a serious PC gamer, it's doubtful you can enjoy games at low settings and 20 fps and still be happy, upgrades will be necessary.

I built my first desktop PC in 2003 for 930E, lasted until the summer of 2006 with a GPU and RAM upgrade in 2004, and it still managed to play Company of Heroes vanilla in 2006 at piss poor settings, with the soldiers faces in the FMVs looking like Slenderman (I'm not kidding).

From then on I've had no experience with desktops (planning to get a beast this time next year, fingers crossed), but I've had my gaming laptop for a little over a year and I've already started lowering settings. Even though I love PCs and respect them for their power and would have to problem to quit any console and portable gaming, I can not argue that PCs are the cheapest platform, simply because they are not. They require an excessive initial investment (2 to 3 times a console, maybe even 4 times near the end of console generations) which, unless you use it for work and need such power, is something that matters, and even though PC games cheapen a helluva lot faster (piracy and Steam are to blame here), console games cheapen fairly fast as well.

Not to mention that DRM is much more apparent and draconian on PC. Seriously, among the good things Steam has done, it has also managed to annihilate used sales on PC.

Depends where you live. In the US, there;s that outlay for the console, but after that, Gamefly is incredibly cheap, much cheaper than buying the same games for your PC.

Many times, when I just want to relax, I plug a controller into the pc and and play FPS within if it is possible, It is just better to lean back and let go. K+M may give you a little more precision, but for immersions and intuitive a pad is better for me. So it depends on what the aim of the game session is, I guess. They both have pros and cons, I would not say either is superior to the other.

Also, it depends on what the player is used to, you can get very precise gamers on a joypad if this is what they have been using from the beginning, but it is difficult to switch over from one to the other and remain on the same skill level. It is about what your hands and fingers are trained to do.

I got my desktop in '06 for £400. Since then I've spent about £200 on upgrades and it's managed to run everything I've thrown at it. I did get the computer and the upgrades for cheap though, mostly during after-Christmas sales or from budget warehouses. I managed a new graphics card and a new hard drive in addition to two RAM upgrades and a new operating system. Hopefully, this Boxing Day I can find a new processor for less than £50. By the time it's ten years old I will probably have spent it's original value in upgrades. So, it is simple to get 10 years of gaming out of an average machine but it does require some tinkering.

OK, I have some questions:

1. What type of games do you play?
2. What settings do you usually play on?
3. Remember your initial and your current setup? Remember your upgrades?
4. Do these upgrades include a monitor, have you bought a monitor, or are you still using your old monitor?
5. We're still in 2012. Your system will be 10 years old (albeit with a few upgrades) in 4 years from now. Do you plan on buying a new one meanwhile or will you keep it until then?

I am not trying to bash you, I am simply trying to understand more about you and your system. :-)

A couple of things to keep in mind when comparing console costs and PC costs:

1. The subsidies on the hardware by Sony and Microsoft.
2. The non-gaming uses of a PC, I bet most of you guys and gals don't write your posts on a console or do any work on a console. So you would really have to subtract the cost of a work/non-gaming PC before doing a comparison with consoles.

As far as the games are concerned that is something that will vary between countries. I know for me that DD wins hands down. I have several times as many DD games as retail games. On PC almost all of my games are on GoG, Steam or the Humble Bundle Store.

A new retail console game here costs 599.95 DKK that is the equivalent of 103.85 USD. Black Ops 2 for PC I can get for 499.95 DKK retail that is the equivalent of 86.54 USD. So bottomline for me is that DD beats retail hands down and PC beats console by a good margin.

Basically some of the most important factors with regards to game prices are console vs pc, AAA vs Indie, physical/retail vs digital download, new vs old. An old indie game bought from Steam or GoG will be about as cheap as it gets while new AAA console title bought from a retailer will be about as expensive as it gets.

All of this is written from a perspective of where I live and may not apply in all cases.

Erm yeah, first mistake there: you bought a friggin' laptop.

a) they're much more expensive
b) they're much weaker than desktops
c) they can't really be upgraded

Using laptops to support your argument just makes you shoot yourself in the foot to be honest. Gaming laptops are, at most, on par with a desktop PC costing a third of the price and even then, you're stuck with it.

My brother uses a 4 year old PC (which I built for him and it cost $800 back then), uses my old rejected graphics card from 4 years ago and can play any new game just fine with one or two exceptions (mostly due to these games being poorly optimised). For some games he has to dial back the settings a bit, but that's hardly a problem.

I have a Desktop PC as well.
But its pretty damn hard and costly to bring the desktop PC with me on competitions, travel, etc.
A desktop pc isnt wery portable friendly
But then again, Consoles arent wery portable friendly either.

If the basic premise is to show that there are situations where PC games _can_ be more expensive than console games if you buy them at the wrong places, then it's a pretty pointless premise because that's always been true and it's true of anything. We both know that PC games are generally cheaper to buy than console games, and there's no point in trying to pretend like that's not the case.

Also, you _are_ comparing apples and oranges, because physical goods and digital goods are governed by completely different market dynamics. That digital distribution is more popular on the PC, and by the way, there are no studies that I've seen that suggests physical distribution is in any way irrelevant for AAA PC games, does not really matter. Physical and digital distribution are two completely different things, period.