greenmangaming.com

Go to this site. Compare for yourself. Come back and rage.

(Using £££, might be different with $$$ or €€€) PC/Xbox/PS3
Assassins Creed 3 on PC is the cheapest, £35/£45/£45
Mass Effect 3 is also cheapest on PC, £35/£45/£45
Borderlands 2, again £35/£45/£45
Need for Speed Most Wanted, £38/£43/£43

This doesn't prove that PC games are cheaper, it just proves that on digital distribution sites PC games will probably be cheaper.

Yes, I only buy DRM-free games for PC, mostly on GoG. So the only things that make me stick to PC gaming is DRM-free, modding(Mostly fan support years after the game has been abandoned), Multiplayer(I am able to find more friends that own a PC than those that own a PS3 and have the same game I want to play).

But to be honest, I prefer my PS3 for gaming, I like almost everything about it, from the plug & play aspect of it, to several on-line features(trophies, facebook integration etc...) and all of that in my living room. The only thing that I hate is that their TOS leave me powerless in some aspects and that is why I tend to avoid buying digital titles on the playstation network.

If we want to compare console digital to PC digital, I wonder why console digital sales aren't very good except for arcade and indie games. Plus I think map packs and other DLC (just think, Call of Duty) are included in the digital sales when the total $ for digital is compared to physical.

I'm curious what you mean by this.

Actually, Europe is more the exception. Mobile and satellite internet services notwithstanding (for obvious reasons, and I think this is the same the world over), Europe is one of the few places where bandwidth caps don't really have much of a market presence. I keep hearing about them in the US and Canada, in Australia, and in South Africa, but in Europe and much of East Asia, internet is unmetered.

Assuming the next Xbox and Playstation fully embrace digital for "big" games and have a Steam-like system their sales should be similar, one expects.

Also, pc games are.cheaper because the market will not.pay more.for.them

1.5 generations minimum. 2 if you didn't skimp on the build.
3.. possibly an exaggeration.

And a PC is out dated the second you build it, it's the nature of the beast. It's only a problem though if you're crybaby who can't run games on anything but "super shiny" graphics. You can tube graphics down on video games to be able to play them on very out dated machines.

The real difference between consoles and PC though.. Costs are pretty irrelevant, power is pretty irrelevant, game selection is pretty irrelevant.. and this is why Consoles and PCs will BOTH continue to thrive:
Consoles are perfect for the 'casual' players, the people who want to plug it in, put a disk in and play a game. No futzing with settings, no tweaking control schemes.. nothing, just plug and play.
PC however, are the platform for people who don't mind a little more 'effort' in to their gaming, and want to put a certain amount of customization in to their gaming experience. Fine-tuning their personal set up, fine tuning their controls, their graphics for optimum performance... and let's not forget modding.


To make an actual breakdown of which is 'better':
Cost wise:
PC wins long term, barely.
Game selection:
PC wins hands down, but by an ever decreasing margin.
Instant purchase of games:
PC wins, by an ever decreasing margin
Gifting games/physical shopping:
Console wins, by an ever increasing margin.
Second hand:
Console wins, but companies are trying to destroy that market.
Convenience:
Console wins, by an ever decreasing margin (more consoles are requiring 'installs', PCs are getting more idiot friendly)
Customization:
PC wins, hands down.
Versatility:
PC wins, by an ever decreasing margin.
Pirating games:
PC wins, by an ever decreasing margin.
Local multiplayer:
Console wins, hands down.. however the margin is decreasing. (PC games are starting to support local multiplayer with game pads, console games are starting to cease supporting splitscreen.
Internet multiplayer:
PC wins, barely. (In some PC games you can still do internet multiplayer other than through the game/console's service)
Cheating:
Last I checked it was easier to cheat on a PC than a console- make your own choices as to who that's a point for.
Patching:
As of last I checked, it was easier for a PC gamer to bypass patching a game if they didn't want to, than it was for a console gamer. Once again, your choice.
In-game cybersex:
Easier to find on PC. Good, bad, disgusting? I dunno.

In most categories, PC wins.. however, which is truly better is not based on all the 'points' there, just the points that matter to the gamer.

You're exaggerating.

A 1000$ PC today, will last you for about 4 years, 5 if you're lucky - after that, you'll have to upgrade something, the RAM or the GPU, no matter what you do if you're a gamer (well, unless you play shitty indie games or MMORPGs).

People claiming that their 2007/08 PC still runs modern games at very high settings (and let me remind you that the current console generation started in 2005/06*, not in 2008), usually avoid saying how much they spent on their PC in the first place or if they've upgraded their GPUs in the mean time - obviously a 1500$ gaming rig in 2008 with a GPU upgrade in 2010 can still run modern games respectably, but the point remains, PCs need an upgrade 4 years after you buy them to stay in top shape (unless you buy a >2500$ beast of a machine, in which case you'll be able to brute-force your way out of the console generation, as you're suggesting). But if you do believe that a budget 500$ system you buy today, will keep you going until 2020 without a GPU, RAM and CPU upgrade, sorry, not gonna happen.

* = in 2005/06, the very high-end gaming rigs had a 2-core CPU @ 3.7 GHz, 4 GB of RAM and 1GB GPU; please don't tell me such a machine could run anything on high settings today.

you need to shop around different vendors like steam amazon gmg etc. to find good deals

I think people here forget one thing: gaming is very cheap on PC if you take the one year rule. That's the rule that says that you play anything at least a year old and older. Games after that are dirt cheap, you can buy very cheap hardware for upgrades too and in general, it's THE cheapest way to play games bar non. In other words, if you don't need the very latest games, there's nothing more economic because console games devalue a lot slower than PC games (especially when you take a look at digital sales).

Thers also the potential you have to spend money on other stuff both inside the pc and outside
stuff like keyboard, screen/monitor, mouse, headset, etc.

So a console is cheaper if you do this comparison yes.
If you buy a fully modern pc it will probably last you about 2 or 3 years before you have to upgrade if you want to keep up with the ever increasing advance in PC games.
Though the intial investment and the price over time is more expensive for pc
the convinence of being able to replace a part of it outweigths this issue a bit, but not completly.

Though if you arent a nitpicker and dont have to have the newest gadget/improvment for the pc, pc games are dirt cheap.
I have almost gotten pc games trhown after me for free in gameshops on some ocasions.

High settings? Who said shit about high settings?

The point I made was that you can tune the settings down, to run new games on older machines.

A '06ish machine built for around a grand can still run some modern games (not all I'll admit) if you are willing to turn the settings down, that's with NO UPGRADES.
Consoles release at.. what? Didn't the 360 launch at $500, and the PS3 at $600? What are the next gen xBox and PS coming out in the next year or so going to launch for? $700-$1000?

Lodium:
Console accessories exist too, need I mention the Kinect and 'Move' systems? Not to mention $50 controllers, head sets... Hey, at least you don't still have to buy memory cards! And hell, when you buy a new PC, you can transfer your devices over with you, can't do that with consoles! As for monitors? That has as much weight on PC gaming as a TV does on Console gaming.

I know for a fact that when the next generation of consoles comes out, for less the price of buying one, I can build a PC capable of running the games that launch on them. I spend the price of buying 2 of them, and I can build a rig capable of lasting through this console generation, and in to the next, with no further upgrades. I'll just have to.. OMG, turn the graphics settings down!

Long-term, if you HAVE TO stay at the top end graphics and always have things as soon as they release: PC is probably more expensive. If you can run lower end settings, and don't have to have the brand new game the day before it comes out: PC will end up being cheaper, by how much depends on how patient you are when it comes to games. (Example: Skyrim, I've yet to see it go on sale much for Consoles, but Steam has had it 50% off for PC several times this year)

Now, if you prefer consoles for gaming, that's fiine and fucking dandy. Enjoy them. You can think they're superior all you want.. but if you read the rest of my gorram post, you would see where I actually broke down many of the points people look for with gaming, and which wins. For a gamer on a budget, and who ACTS like they're on a budget, PC is better.

Depends on what your definition of "budget" is. They're aren't that many AAA PC players as there are casual players, hence why things like COD always sell better on XBox. I don't care since I'm not interested in AAA genres that much anyway

I just don't get the initial post here. The comparison doesn't make sense because physical copies are compared with digital copies. If these games were only available digitally, then it would have been different, but they aren't and if compare physical copies then the PC ones are cheaper.

It's a silly comparison and the only thing you can take away from it is that it still makes sense to buy your PC-games on DVD.