[gknoy]

The secret power of consoles is that the hardware doesn't change over the course of the console's life in a significant way. If I buy an XBox 360 on ebay, I know that ANY xbox-360 game will run on it. In contrast, PC gaming is a mess of compatibility questions.

If I want to play the new Wolfenstein, or Watch Dogs, or any "new" game, chances are my 2 year old PC will not be able to run it well (unless I spent $$$$ on it, rather than $$). If I want to play a new game with all the dials turned up to 9 (or 11), I basically expect to spend $1200-$1500 on a new PC every two to four years.

If I look at OLDER games, it's even worse: Will this game even install? I have a giant library of games which I would love to play, but I can't figure out how to get them to run on a current version of Windows. (Sea Dogs, Starfleet Command 3, etc.) These games are ten years old, and I can't even get the installers to run correctly -- or if I do, the game crashes for other "win 8 >> Win XP" reasons. I would pay money _again_ to be able to play some of these games in a reliable way (and have re-bought things for Steam), but most of the time they're not supported anymore.

My Wii will still play Windwaker (11 years old), and I can buy an XBox and any copy of Halo and be pretty confident that it'll run, even if ten years old (assuming the hardware hasn't failed).

[xyzzyz]

I can guarantee that if you spend $1000 on new PC today, you'll be able to run all games at console quality for at least next 3-4 years, almost all in the next five years, and then still most of the games beyond that range. You'll also be able to run any of the thousands of games that have already been released on PC, a feat no console is able to do.

I bought my PC 3 years ago for around that much (in country with higher import cost and higher sales tax, so it would cost 700-800 dollars in the US), and I encountered only a single game that refuses to run smoothly at all times (Mirrors Edge).

[xienze]

> I can guarantee that if you spend $1000 on new PC today, you'll be able to run all games at console quality for at least next 3-4 years, almost all in the next five years

Or I could spend $400 on a console and play every single available game at "console quality" for the life of the console, which is a good deal longer than 5 years. That, coupled with the fact that console games in general look pretty good, is the reason PC gaming is in something of a decline.

[xyzzyz]

Here's the thing: all the games you buy for that console will also be playable on that PC, as long as they're not console-exclusive, so if you buy PC today, and 7 years from now a new game will be released on both XBox One and PC, you'll be able to play in it on your PC. The 3-4 year mark is for the PC-exclusive games.

Funnily enough, on PC, you'll also be able to play in previous generation console games (provided they've also been released on PC), and even in some next generation games that will be released on XBox Two or PlayStation 5. You will also have better video quality on PC for some games, you'll get a solid workstation useful for more activities than just gaming, and any additional cost you'll bear buying the PC will be recovered on the games prices.

[redacted]

You're missing the point: if you buy a PC that is capable of playing games with console-quality graphics today, you will be able to play games with console quality graphics until consoles become more powerful. The fact that consoles are a fixed target means that multi-platform games almost necessarily include that fixed target as a lower bound.

I game (infrequently) on a 2010 MacBook Pro. It has a 512MB GPU, not enough to play new PC-exclusive games by a long shot, but if the game has a Xbox360 or PS3 port then I'm good. Turn everything as low as needed (as close to console quality to be frank) and off I go. Hook up a PS3 controller and my TV and I couldn't tell you the difference - I played Skyrim that way.

[xienze]

> if you buy a PC that is capable of playing games with console-quality graphics today, you will be able to play games with console quality graphics until consoles become more powerful.

OK, but it's not economical by any stretch of the imagination. Given the $1000 example above, you can by 2 entire generations of a single console and get halfway to the third for the same amount of money. That'll keep you playing the "latest games" for what, 16 years if you go by the Xbox360's 8 year lifespan per generation? The numbers really don't add up for PCs anymore.

[icushman]

Mirror's Edge has a poor implementation of Nvidia's PhysX, so many people need to disable that in settings in order to run the game properly on AMD's Radeon graphics cards. This could be the case for your rig.

This is an example of a conversation console gamers don't need to have.

[vacri]

If I want to play the new Wolfenstein, or Watch Dogs, or any "new" game, chances are my 2 year old PC

My 5-year-old PC, which was nice at the time, hasn't hit a problem yet, with the exception of some games from the 90s. How many console games from the 90s does the XBox 360 take?

If I want to play a new game with all the dials turned up to 9 (or 11)

That's an unfair comparison, because the XBox most certainly, most definitely, and most absolutely does not have 'all the dials turned up to 9', let alone 11. The simpler, coarser graphics on the xbox are a common meme that's made fun of.

[chc]

That is true, and it's one of the reasons I like consoles. There is just no thinking required, which is really nice.

On the other hand, I think the rate at which PCs obsolesce compared to consoles is often exaggerated. For example, I played Bioshock Infinite at max settings on my circa-2010 MacBook Pro, which was 3 years old when the game came out and was never exactly a gaming machine. And people with fairly mediocre PC setups are able to play Watch Dogs with better graphics than I get on my Xbox One.