[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.