Wow you only forgot to mention that you'll need at least a 600W PSU if you want to have a mid gaming PC nowadays, and even that you'll have to upgrade in the next year or two. Oh you also forgot that you'll want a PC Case, oh and a Motherboard, sound card, wireless card and an OS, that's at least $300+ worth of stuff that isn't even going to play everything at high at 1080.
Tell me, the gamers who can't afford $500-1,000 rigs, how in god's name are they supposed to keep playing without consoles?
You act like you can't provide a PC Case, a motherboard, a sound and wireless card, and an OS if you've ever owned a computer before, that's a nitpicked issue. I have a very cheap gaming fan (about 30 dollars), and I can play almost any new game at mid-to high range settings.
You don't have to pay over 700$ for a top range gaming PC if you know what you're doing, and insisting that the required cost of a good gaming PC is over 1000$ is very ignorant.
Ultimately the cost of modern hardware is and has been getting cheaper and more accessible to the average consumer since the early 2000's, and it will continue to do so.
Unlimited Detail, the cloud and other such technologies will ultimately break down the big boy admissions gate for developers of all sides of the gaming spectrum, as well as for consumers.
The only thing that could hurt this process is the exclusivity that comes with consoles.
the PS4 is future proof, it will last you a good 10 years, in that time you'll have to completely replace your PC at least once, quite possibly twice.
The PS3 didn't even last 6 years before being being replaced by the PS4, and the same thing goes for the PS2, and the PS1, and consoles in general. All the new games in about a year will be in development for the PS4 and the backwards compatibility still won't be there.
I really don't get why people insist this point is true, the average life span of a gaming PC is around the average life span of a console.
Uh, no. In a capitalistic system, competition is always necessary.
You're right, in a capitalistic system competition is always necessary, just not in the places .
Yes, game consoles nowadays are far more "standardized" than they were in the past. So what?
So that means there's no "competition" to be had anymore, we already have the ultimate standardized system available to us everyday 24/7. The Xbox and PS3 are just trying to ape that with all this social crap based off internet connectivity but what are they really trying to be? Devices where you can play games, share and chat with your friends, and do other activities like watch movies with? That's called a PC.
I watched the PS4 reveal show and heard all this hollow talk about "opening up to the average consumer", "making gaming easier for the average joe", when they don't realize all the "average joe's" are flocking away from consoles downloading universally digitally distributed apps like Angry Birds for their Iphone, Android, and Samsung devices.
A centralized place or system where we can simply keep games, download games, mod games, archive games (very important), and just enjoy games without having to buy anything other than a working computer to play all of them is a place where gaming will benefit, in a lot of the same ways home-video and DVD's benefited. Services like Onlive are already promising this, and services like Steam are already providing this.
There will still be hardware competition in the background where we need it; just benefiting computers in general, not sponged up in gaming itself.
Unless they had none at all, were down to about 10 KB/s, or just didn't have enough hard drive space.
The chances you'd be able to afford a console and games on it already and not have an internet connection are pretty slim.
Plus, with all the devices with built in internet I see this fast becoming a non-issue later in this decade.
I'm also not saying that all consoles should be burned and destroyed, they should simply become irrelevant to gaming's future. They should not have any power of exclusivity in this medium.