Just wanted to post an observation and get other opinions (No this is not meant to be a console vs pc gaming flame war) First off, I have become far more of a PC gamer as Ive gotten older, I probably will in the near future get a next gen console, because there are console exclusives I enjoy (Im a street fighter nut looking forward to sf4).  I notice A trend in consoles witht he exception of the wii (which from my perspective is more of"just a console) whereas xbox and PS are becoming basically PC's you hook up to your tv(whose primary intent is gaming.  On average since I built my first pc in 1999, about every 2-3 years I will drop 4-500 bucks on upgrades.  Most recently 850, due to the technology change my aging p4 ht, just couldnt be upgraded.  With increasing price tags, again aside fromt he wii, and increasing variation of models and upgradeabilty of the console systems, in my opinion its just a matter of time for Console gaming to become as expensive as PC gaming.  just look at the launch price of the ps3, I could have built a budget gaming machine for that price, especially now for PS3's original price tag.  In my opinion its only a matter of time until Consoles start allowing easy access for hardware changes and you will see system requirements on the back of console games only coming out with new consoles when there is a major technology shift.  IMO decent gaming computers are getting cheaper and cheaper to build whereas consoles are going up in price. i.e the first computer I built cost me 1700 dollars ( I think I was rockin a voodoo 3 600mhz athlon), and was hardly top of the line, If I spent that much this go round I would be running dual 8800GT's or a 8800 Ultra right now instead of one 8800gt(which is serving me quite well so far!).
 
What does anyone else think?

Well imagine the grinding teeth of all PS3-owners in a year or two when all games look better on the PC...
 
But the consoles sell anyway and I guess it's because the social dimension.
The PC is a single-player machine. The console is more a family/friends toy.
 
So the cost vs. performance does'nt really apply i guess
 
/Percy -a pc-only user

i think it is more along the line of... its all put togther for you in a console .
Pc Users who put a rig togther get more out of it then a person who just buys them selves a ps3 or xbox...and then just plug it in.
And the idea of it being a social demension is far from correct. now a days you can play with just about anyone in the world on a pc....
 
there is also the life span .. with a pc you are more likely to spend more money on it... ... as you say .. upgrades here and there....cost money...
But you will find more use from a pc then a console...
 
Yes the price of the Console will go up .. but it will only go up so far...
then they are going to start letting people...upgrade the console as you would on a pc..

I don't think prices of consoles with rise much at all over time, when inflation is factored in. Sony proved this with slow initial PS3 sales until the price drop. The Wii appears cheap, but once you get the second controllers, the battery chargers, the adapter needed to play it in 480p instead of 480i, it cost me roughly what my PS3 did.  
 
With the advent of 1080p HD, and consoles now with the power to take advantage of it, this will hurt PC gaming. PC games will always be better for pure simulation games and online stuff, but there is an attraction to being able to simply turn on a console and play. No system crashes, driver issues and such. It was such a pain in the butt to put the kids to bed, have a few beers, and be itching to play some BF2 only to be kicked for a punkbuster issue...then...update...then restart...etc.
 
I still love playing fps and GTR 2 on my rig, but my PS3 gets a fair amount of use (I originally bought it for Blu-ray), but overall, with friends over and beer flowing, the Wii trumps all of them.

I think some time down the road consoles will have more of a HTPC feel to them, but wont be as customizable and you won't be able to upgrade like a PC. It would be completely counter productive for Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo to allow users to replace/upgrade hardware in a console system. Eventually they'll probably just be nothing more then proprietory computer systems designed for gaming (actually thats pretty much what they are). PC gaming will be somewhat forced to conform to a more console gaming model. Most new games on PC are more console ports and play very similair to console games. Also the ease of use for PC gaming is already becoming a priority, this is one of Microsoft's goals for Vista. Also the price of "gaming" hardware for PCs will decrease has it becomes more of the standard. Even a mid-range brand PC today has a decent dual core CPU, 2GB of RAM and at least the capability for adding a good graphics card. However I still maintain that a little bit of brains can easily make high performance PC gaming cheaper then consoles. I've spent a net of $1000 on my PC(system only) over the past 3 years including the Q6600, 4GB OCZ, brand new motherboard and 8800GTS G92 I've bought in the last month. Had I been console gaming only I would have spent more then that in 3 years (XBox 360 + PS3 + seperate hardware for each).

I think cost comparison between both PC's and consoles is very similar. With a console you may have to upgrade to the next-best in, let's say for argument's sake, 2 years. You can't just keep what you've got and play the newer games at lower quality. You must have the new console in order for them to work.
 
With a PC, games are released w/ a variety of different hardware requirements, so someone with a 4 year old PC may still be able to play a brand new game w/ a loss in quality.  
 
In the end it comes down to each individual and their willingness to spend money to always have the "latest and greatest" hardware. The above statements are just the way I view things.  
 

Have you seen the press release that states that it costs nearly $400 for Sony just to manufacture the PS3? (I believe it was the 60 or 40GB variety) They can't be making too much off them, at least not until the manufacturing cost of the blu-ray diodes go down a bit.  
 
Anyways, I guess it really depends on the technology that goes into the console that will ultimately affect the ending price.  
 

They are PC's already, just pre-configured and they lack the ability for just swap out internal hardware. I'm sure everyone has noticed that they are offering some types of upgrades for consoles already... the HD-DVD player for XBOX360 anyone? Like you said, it's just a matter of time before they become more "PC-like" than they already are.
 
 

 
It actually costs more. Microsoft and Sony lose money on every 360/PS3 they sell. They make all the money on games. If you make a game for either, a cut goes to them.
 
While I agree with being able to play games on an older computer, why would you want to? I certainly wouldn't want to attempt to play Crysis on a 6800GT.
 

 
Not true. You can replace the chip in a Wii to allow it to play...er......um...hacked downloaded games, and I have an XBox with a bigger hard drive and Windows Media Center installed with hundreds of original arcade games on it. The PS3 also allows you to install an operating system on it if you choose. It actually has that option in it's own menu, no hack needed.

If it's a hacked / modded chip, then they don't just give you the ability to swap out the hardware. It voids your warranty and probably any EULA's you agreed to in the process.
 
I'll give you the swappable HDD's, but you can't really just swap the proc, GPU's, RAM, etc for some quick performance gains. (Granted, this is possible, but again, it voids your warranty and requires some knowledge with electronics)
 

An OS isn't hardware though.

I wasn't trying to argue that the latest consoles are anywhere near PC's in terms of being upgradeable. In fact, that's their best selling point. But you can have a little fun with them.

My point is that the 360/PS3 have gotten good enough, graphic-wise anyways, that deciding between a $400 video card and a $400 PS3 is tougher than it used to be. Especially when that card can't max out the latest games in most cases, never mind a year from it's purchase. The consoles have closed the gap. There will always be one, but it's not as big as even 3 years ago.

My last console before my PS3 and my girls Wii was the Sega. It'd been awhile to say the least. I was hard-core PC only, but getting the PS3, for Blu-ray, then playing a few games on it, opened my eyes a bit. I still prefer PC, but no longer "look down" on console only gamers.

 
You must not have a Wii.  I do (not to mention a 360 Elite and multiple PCs).  The cheapest PS3 (with a single controller) is what...$399us?   So, going on that.  Wii: $249.00 (inc. Wiimote/Nunchuck).  4 pack of rechargeable batteries with charger: $10 just about anywhere.  Component Video cable (for 720x480p): $10 shipped from Monoprice. (usually about $15 locally).
 
Lets total those figures.  PS3: 399.00  Wii: $274.00    Hmmm, me thinks someone is trying to confuse people.
 
For the difference of the "base" costs ($125), the Wii own can get TWO extra Wiimote/Nunchuck: $60/each.  Another $10 will net 8 more rechargeable batteries.
 
Even the low capacity 700mah batteries last about 25 hours playtime in the wiimote.  
 

 
I think the main issue most people have with PC gaming is that they have been raised on console gaming.  I don't really have any more PC gaming issues than I do with the 360.  Once the game is installed.  I sit down, log in, double-click the game, it loads quicker than the 360, click a few times and I'm on a server playing.  BF2 is horrible for stability though.  I pretty much gave up on it (good thing I just got it and only paid $10us).  Downside to PC gaming used to be the bratty whiny kids.  But they're mostly going over to the consoles nowadays.  They're growing up and mommy/daddy doesn't want to spend the money on a PC just so junior can play games, so they spend a bit less for a console and more for the games themselves (a part they don't usually realize).  The worse part of this transition is that now those brats are pre-teens/teens and not only are still whiny, but they have a FU attitude too.  Shame these punks were never taught proper manners/respect.
 
 
PC's have long had 1080p (and better) graphics, and no one doesn't have to have the latest greatest hardware either.  You might be a few months behind on the game releases, but true PC games have always been there, so it's not like it's a big deal.  When a new game has just come out, we're still focusing on the one three releases ago "as if it's new".  We'll get to the new on in due course.  Although, there are those diehard, money-pockets who don't mind dropping a few grand every year, just so they can tout their rigs.  I don't mind playing Crysis at 1280x720/VH instead of 1920x1200/VH.  One CAN nitpick the differences, but there's not enough to make me upset.  I have long been able to play most current (of the time) games at at least 1600x1200x32bitx60FPS and usually upwards of 120FPS.
 

I have to agree with this.  I have Summers off (I teach nowadays) and spent a lot of nights in the backyard with the neighbors playing Wii bowling and Tiger Woods 07.  The $100 I spent making a folding projection screen was made up within the first week.

 
Wii, $250. 2nd nunchuck $20, Wii play with second controller $50, recharging station $25, Component out $25.
As I said, AROUND the cost of my PS3. Granted I spent a little extra for the LED station and such, but it's still close.
 
Yes PC's have always had better graphics, and most likely always will, my point was consoles have gotten close enough to at least make them semi-comparable. And as I said, still prefer a PC over a console, it's just consoles have gotten good enough now that I enjoy them. Friends had the PS, PS2 and they never did anything for me was I wasn't the least bit impressed.
 
A projector rules for the Wii. MY Wii and PS3 are hooked up to my 110" screen. Love it.
 
 

One other point.  Most PC games aren't driven by the looks of the game.  Most are driven by the playability and replay-ability of the game.
 
Take Diablo2 for example, max 800x600 res, isometric view and SEVEN years old.  1000's still play it.  Heck, I still regularly play CS1.6 (and older versions on LAN).  I have a few hundred PC games on my shelf.  I tend to keep about 20 installed at all times.
 
Now think about console gamers.  Most buy a game, blow through it in a weekend and go sell it for 1/3 what they paid for it to buy another game.  Most don't keep games for very long.  Most console games don't last 20 hours.  !!!!! 20 hours !!!!!.  I spent 200 hours playing Sacred and about 120 hours playing Dungeon Siege the first time through.
 
Console games are designed for "wham, bam, thank you mam" game play.  Until recently (when PC game dev's were all absorbed by the console dev parent companies), PC games were more about long-term game play, enveloping the player.
 
Sadly, nowadays, PC games are being created by console players who think everyone wants to beat a game in 10-20 hours so they can feel good about themselves and brag about how they beat "this" game even though they don't have a life.  
 
The fact that almost no console game allows the player to save when they want is a good indication that the dev's don't want us to walk away and comeback when we want.  Really, if I'm going to devote time to a game, what does it matter to them if I play for 10 minutes, save and come back tomorrow to play some more?  I freaking hate when save points are 30-60 minutes apart!!!!  I like PC games since I can do that "play for 10 minutes" and come back later exactly where I was when i ran out of time to play.
 
Sorry, I'm off my horse now, I think it's dead anyways.

 
 
Not trying to argue here, but now you're confusing me.  Comparing base sets, the PS3 is at best $125 more than a Wii.
 
Your stuff above totals $390.  Adding the extra $70.00 (for wiiplay/nunchuck) greatly unbalances the comparison.  The PS3 doesn't come with TWO controllers and TWO games.
 
Here in Ohio prices must be a bit less, Wii Play is $40 inc. the Wiimote, charging station $20, cable's $15.  I prefer rechargable AA's vs. the station since I never have to worry about running out of charged batteries and they're cheaper.
 
Take the base PS3 and add a $50 controller and second game $60 and that takes a comparable PS3 up to $519.
 
So with everything equal, that's Wii: $390, PS3: $519.  That's a huge difference.
 
Reason I'm being picky is that I'm tired of people making vague posts and confusing everyone "not in the know".  I can't count how many people have seen my Wii setup and said "For what you must have spent, you should have just bought a <360/PS3>".  Then I explain to them the cost difference and they look at me with a dear-in-the-headlight look and go "Oh".

You are correct. With the second controller my PS3 was $450. All totaled, my Wii was $370, with as you mentioned 2 games, although to be fair Wii sports and Wii play are more like demo's. Demo's at this point I'm not tired of yet, but demo's I think none-the-less. If you scratch the Wii play and second controller and are happy playing at 480i, you are correct, prices do widen, by quite a bit.

For games on the PS3, if you're smart you can get around the $60 per game, just like on a PC. Madden '08 came out, so I grabbed Madden '07 for $15 at Best Buy. $60 a game, Sony's gotta make money somehow. Although as for saving your spot in a game, so far at least, the PS3 is pretty good about that, with the 40gb hard drive.

At the time, I bought the PS3 purely for its ability to play Blu-ray to go with my HD DVD player. $400 for a PS3, $400 for a Blu-ray player. It was a no brainer, although the PS3 is limited to 5.1 instead of 7.1 on a pure Blu-ray player.

On this, I'm 100% in agreement. I musta' played a BF42' capture the flag mod for 3 years. This was an absolute blast. Many a drunken Fri night was spent on that! Mod's...another area PC's trump a console.

http://www.gamebrink.com/blog/2007 [...] lone-1080p
 

 
Original thread
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthre [...] 30&page=19
 

 
Agree with you both, I don't really care about the graphics, it's the gameplay that matters, I want to see graphics, I watch a damn good movie, like LOTR.

I've actually come to doubt that; though it lacks DVD-playback capabilities, it can play audio CDs, and effectively has every other non-gaming feature that the Xbox 360 and PS3 have.  
 
Plus, as I've noticed, they SOMEHOW managed to succeed where Microsoft had failed years ago: get people to love WebTV, albeit without actually implying anything of the like. Nintendo's a slippery one, I tell you.