PS4 vs $750 PC

Just what it sounds like.

Re: PS4 vs $750 PC

Postby Silverware » Mon Mar 06, 2017 12:40 pm

Scytale wrote:So this discussion could provide some insight.

The impression I get is that consoles are maybe a bit like Apple products: excellent at what they're designed to do, but the tech savvy will tend to find a better way. One difference is that consoles can be more cost-effective relative to the alternatives than Apple, but there's no quantification to back it up.

Also, for the non-tech savvy, consoles can be more cost-effective than PC (for pure gaming purposes) economically speaking, if not financially.


To get a Mac to do the same thing you spend 2 grand NZD, a PC, 1200, a console 500.
At least for pure gaming, the rest of the features of the PC would be unused, and let's face it, macs dont exactly have a use case now that they use intel chipsets and thus are reduced to overpriced ugly pc's.
Image
Image
User avatar
Silverware
Vice Admiral
 
Posts: 2945
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2014 3:23 pm
Location: Goattown-Three, Sigma Six, Goat Space

Re: PS4 vs $750 PC

Postby Cornflakes_91 » Mon Mar 06, 2017 12:41 pm

analogy isnt to be taken literally :V
User avatar
Cornflakes_91
Admiral
 
Posts: 9161
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:53 am
Location: Austria

Re: PS4 vs $750 PC

Postby Talvieno » Mon Mar 06, 2017 12:43 pm

So I suppose a good question would be: Why does anyone still use a Mac? (apart from the obvious "It's what I'm used to")
Image
Have a question? Send me a PM!
User avatar
Talvieno
Community Manager
 
Posts: 8169
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2014 6:50 pm
Location: North GA, USA

Re: PS4 vs $750 PC

Postby Scytale » Mon Mar 06, 2017 1:30 pm

Talvieno wrote:So I suppose a good question would be: Why does anyone still use a Mac? (apart from the obvious "It's what I'm used to")


cf was right - I didn't mean what I said this way, but regardless:

Macs are good at what they do. What do they do? They're stylish, easy to get running, simple to use and fit the criteria for casual and some light business use. Of course you can set up an alternative to do the same, but the alternatives aren't marketed in this way. Macs aren't marketed for power, they're not designed for power, and they don't feature it. But not all users want power. (I agree with Silver they're ugly, but it's a style some find attractive)

The first three criteria are common to consoles, although the demographic is very different.

I'm no Mac user, but it's clear it has a target demographic that it captures very well
User avatar
Scytale
Vice Admiral
 
Posts: 2826
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 4:40 pm

Re: PS4 vs $750 PC

Postby Silverware » Mon Mar 06, 2017 1:56 pm

Scytale wrote:
Talvieno wrote:So I suppose a good question would be: Why does anyone still use a Mac? (apart from the obvious "It's what I'm used to")


cf was right - I didn't mean what I said this way, but regardless:

Macs are good at what they do. What do they do? They're stylish, easy to get running, simple to use and fit the criteria for casual and some light business use. Of course you can set up an alternative to do the same, but the alternatives aren't marketed in this way. Macs aren't marketed for power, they're not designed for power, and they don't feature it. But not all users want power. (I agree with Silver they're ugly, but it's a style some find attractive)

The first three criteria are common to consoles, although the demographic is very different.

I'm no Mac user, but it's clear it has a target demographic that it captures very well


The price point is also very different, Apple gouges their target demographic. Consoles are targeted at getting into every household, so the price point is much lower.
Image
Image
User avatar
Silverware
Vice Admiral
 
Posts: 2945
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2014 3:23 pm
Location: Goattown-Three, Sigma Six, Goat Space

Re: PS4 vs $750 PC

Postby Scytale » Mon Mar 06, 2017 2:02 pm

Silverware wrote:
Scytale wrote:
Talvieno wrote:So I suppose a good question would be: Why does anyone still use a Mac? (apart from the obvious "It's what I'm used to")


cf was right - I didn't mean what I said this way, but regardless:

Macs are good at what they do. What do they do? They're stylish, easy to get running, simple to use and fit the criteria for casual and some light business use. Of course you can set up an alternative to do the same, but the alternatives aren't marketed in this way. Macs aren't marketed for power, they're not designed for power, and they don't feature it. But not all users want power. (I agree with Silver they're ugly, but it's a style some find attractive)

The first three criteria are common to consoles, although the demographic is very different.

I'm no Mac user, but it's clear it has a target demographic that it captures very well


The price point is also very different, Apple gouges their target demographic. Consoles are targeted at getting into every household, so the price point is much lower.


This is true. I remember reading that console makers made a loss on consoles in order to make it up on games, which I think is a really good idea. Don't know how up to date that info is though. Apple at least doesn't have that luxury.
User avatar
Scytale
Vice Admiral
 
Posts: 2826
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 4:40 pm

Re: PS4 vs $750 PC

Postby Silverware » Mon Mar 06, 2017 2:53 pm

Scytale wrote:This is true. I remember reading that console makers made a loss on consoles in order to make it up on games, which I think is a really good idea. Don't know how up to date that info is though. Apple at least doesn't have that luxury.


Would not surprise me, they would make a killing on the licencing for the SDK stuff too.
Gouging your developers instead of your user base is a good move in my book. :D
Image
Image
User avatar
Silverware
Vice Admiral
 
Posts: 2945
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2014 3:23 pm
Location: Goattown-Three, Sigma Six, Goat Space

Re: PS4 vs $750 PC

Postby Quethas » Mon Mar 06, 2017 3:03 pm

Scytale wrote:This is true. I remember reading that console makers made a loss on consoles in order to make it up on games, which I think is a really good idea. Don't know how up to date that info is though. Apple at least doesn't have that luxury.


Generally for the first year or so console makers will sell the machines at a loss to encourage growth of the install base. It's hard to convince EA, Ubisoft, Activistion, etc, to invest millions upon millions of dollars in creating a a game that will run on new hardware, that very few people are likely to have. So they cut the price, to encourage people to buy the system, so that developers are encouraged to provide games, so that more people want to buy the new system, so that there are more people to buy the games... and the cycle continues. Generally, when the "slim" consoles, or even before that when the second set of SCU's come out (the bigger hard drive models or the bundles with the second batch of exclusive games), the manufacturing costs are much lower, economies of scale continue to kick in as manufacturing ramps up to meet increasing demand, and consoles are able to be sold for a profit. But typically, even when the consoles aren't being sold for a loss, most of Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft's profit comes from peripherals, software, and (the true goldmine of the most recent batch of consoles) premium network services.

now, re: the rest of the thread...
All that said, I love both console gaming, and PC gaming, for VERY different reasons. For one, as a life long console gamer, there is something about sitting with friends on the couch and playing games. I also like not having to fidget with the system. It just works for the most part. I don't need to worry about the graphics card not being good enough to run the newest and best games out there. If the game is on the system, it will run. But I do love RTS and turn-based strategy games which are really only available on PC, and the general flexibility that a PC offers. My PC has fallen by the wayside over the past couple years, but when I get a cash influx, building a new rig will be at the top of my to-do list. In the meantime, console gaming is a low-cost way to stay in gaming that offers very good quality for a very low price compared to the minimum entry fee for PC gaming.

I think the take-away from this whole thread is that it's a moot point trying to compare a PS4 and a relatively cheap PC. The actual argument in the thread wasn't "you actually CAN get a cheap PC that will compete with a PS4" but rather "I'd rather have a PC than a PS4" which is really neither here nor there. If you want a PC, get a PC. Console gaming is it's own thing.
Quethas
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 2:28 pm

Re: PS4 vs $750 PC

Postby Scytale » Mon Mar 06, 2017 3:07 pm

Quethas wrote:
Scytale wrote:This is true. I remember reading that console makers made a loss on consoles in order to make it up on games, which I think is a really good idea. Don't know how up to date that info is though. Apple at least doesn't have that luxury.


Generally for the first year or so console makers will sell the machines at a loss to encourage growth of the install base. It's hard to convince EA, Ubisoft, Activistion, etc, to invest millions upon millions of dollars in creating a a game that will run on new hardware, that very few people are likely to have. So they cut the price, to encourage people to buy the system, so that developers are encouraged to provide games, so that more people want to buy the new system, so that there are more people to buy the games... and the cycle continues. Generally, when the "slim" consoles, or even before that when the second set of SCU's come out (the bigger hard drive models or the bundles with the second batch of exclusive games), the manufacturing costs are much lower, economies of scale continue to kick in as manufacturing ramps up to meet increasing demand, and consoles are able to be sold for a profit. But typically, even when the consoles aren't being sold for a loss, most of Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft's profit comes from peripherals, software, and (the true goldmine of the most recent batch of consoles) premium network services.


Thanks for clearing that up!

now, re: the rest of the thread...
All that said, I love both console gaming, and PC gaming, for VERY different reasons. For one, as a life long console gamer, there is something about sitting with friends on the couch and playing games. I also like not having to fidget with the system. It just works for the most part. I don't need to worry about the graphics card not being good enough to run the newest and best games out there. If the game is on the system, it will run. But I do love RTS and turn-based strategy games which are really only available on PC, and the general flexibility that a PC offers. My PC has fallen by the wayside over the past couple years, but when I get a cash influx, building a new rig will be at the top of my to-do list. In the meantime, console gaming is a low-cost way to stay in gaming that offers very good quality for a very low price compared to the minimum entry fee for PC gaming.

I think the take-away from this whole thread is that it's a moot point trying to compare a PS4 and a relatively cheap PC. The actual argument in the thread wasn't "you actually CAN get a cheap PC that will compete with a PS4" but rather "I'd rather have a PC than a PS4" which is really neither here nor there. If you want a PC, get a PC. Console gaming is it's own thing.


That's a really good way to put the differences between the two. Rather puts it in perspective
User avatar
Scytale
Vice Admiral
 
Posts: 2826
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 4:40 pm

Previous

Return to Everything & Anything



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron