I think that current-gen console gamers are becoming increasingly aware of the reason why consoles can still be competitive: quantity, optimization, and upscaling. It becomes very apparent when every AAA game ships with two graphics modes, performance and quality, which are usually just changes in internal resolution/upscaling, LoD, texture budget, and lighting/RT.
Purely in the perspective of gaming performance per dollar, the current-gen consoles just barely beat out mid to upper-mid range PCs, but factoring in all the other uses of a PC pushes the comparison in PC’s favor.
Do they? Last time i checked decent pc was at least twice as expensive.
Granted pc does have advantage in versatility but if you dont need it then consoles win.
Also price to performance is flawed metrics. Ultimately the only thing that matters is that game works fine.
And since they are targeted for consoles first usualy they do work on them good enough.
Sure on pc they technicaly can have higher resolution or a bit more detail but it really doesnt matter that much in a grand scheme of things.
A decent GPU alone will run as much as an entire PS5. You get other computer perks when building a PC, but the simple fact is that a lot of gamers are priced out of it.
I think this is completely misguided. An equivalent GPU as in the ps5 is reportedly an RTX 5700 XT ~$200.
The RTX 4060 Ti ~$400 or RTX 3080 ~$450 is comparable if you want 4k gaming, but since most people don’t have TV hardware suitable for 4k gaming it’s a dumb comparison unless you include the $2000 TV in addition to the cost of the console. The TV alone compares the cost of a competent 4k PC rig before you consider the $500 console, multiplayer subscription cost and higher price of games so unless you’re part of the niche that has a very high quality TV already, the claim that console gaming being cheaper seems mistaken.
4K TVs are not $2000, they’re incredibly cheap these days. You can get a 70-inch 4K TV at Costco or similar retailers for less than $500. And even less than that for more reasonable TV sizes.
I normally don’t like factoring in the cost of other hardware anyways because the computer will also need a monitor, mouse, keyboard, speakers, etc. which are things you don’t necessarily want to skimp on either.
Sure you can get a cheap 4k TV way less, but without a good refresh rate and response time it’s not suitable for gaming. $2k may be high, I’ve not been in the market super recently but it’s certainly wrong to say an entry level 4k Samsung from Costco is suitable for gaming, the response time isn’t close to give the right experience. Same logic as setting graphics to 4k and playing at like 15 fps on a computer on a dog of a GPU.
A computer does need a monitor, and honestly a decent one does cost often upwards of $300, but smaller size without any of the bundled processors etc make it way cheaper than a TV that can do the same.
I think that current-gen console gamers are becoming increasingly aware of the reason why consoles can still be competitive: quantity, optimization, and upscaling. It becomes very apparent when every AAA game ships with two graphics modes, performance and quality, which are usually just changes in internal resolution/upscaling, LoD, texture budget, and lighting/RT.
Purely in the perspective of gaming performance per dollar, the current-gen consoles just barely beat out mid to upper-mid range PCs, but factoring in all the other uses of a PC pushes the comparison in PC’s favor.
Do they? Last time i checked decent pc was at least twice as expensive. Granted pc does have advantage in versatility but if you dont need it then consoles win. Also price to performance is flawed metrics. Ultimately the only thing that matters is that game works fine. And since they are targeted for consoles first usualy they do work on them good enough. Sure on pc they technicaly can have higher resolution or a bit more detail but it really doesnt matter that much in a grand scheme of things.
A decent GPU alone will run as much as an entire PS5. You get other computer perks when building a PC, but the simple fact is that a lot of gamers are priced out of it.
I think this is completely misguided. An equivalent GPU as in the ps5 is reportedly an RTX 5700 XT ~$200.
The RTX 4060 Ti ~$400 or RTX 3080 ~$450 is comparable if you want 4k gaming, but since most people don’t have TV hardware suitable for 4k gaming it’s a dumb comparison unless you include the $2000 TV in addition to the cost of the console. The TV alone compares the cost of a competent 4k PC rig before you consider the $500 console, multiplayer subscription cost and higher price of games so unless you’re part of the niche that has a very high quality TV already, the claim that console gaming being cheaper seems mistaken.
4K TVs are not $2000, they’re incredibly cheap these days. You can get a 70-inch 4K TV at Costco or similar retailers for less than $500. And even less than that for more reasonable TV sizes.
I normally don’t like factoring in the cost of other hardware anyways because the computer will also need a monitor, mouse, keyboard, speakers, etc. which are things you don’t necessarily want to skimp on either.
Sure you can get a cheap 4k TV way less, but without a good refresh rate and response time it’s not suitable for gaming. $2k may be high, I’ve not been in the market super recently but it’s certainly wrong to say an entry level 4k Samsung from Costco is suitable for gaming, the response time isn’t close to give the right experience. Same logic as setting graphics to 4k and playing at like 15 fps on a computer on a dog of a GPU.
A computer does need a monitor, and honestly a decent one does cost often upwards of $300, but smaller size without any of the bundled processors etc make it way cheaper than a TV that can do the same.