PC games these days are largely restricted to the console architecture available at the time. The vast majority of them are simply ports of the console version, so while PC hardware might advance in leaps and bounds, the requirements for games will remain the same until the next generation of consoles. And while there are a number of PC only titles, they generally follow the requirements of the console ports in order to stay relevant to the general gamer user.


See above. The console architecture coming out soon is not very demanding. You can already get PC hardware that exceeds the requirements, and that gap will continue to grow until the next generation of consoles comes out. Both Microsoft and Sony aim for a 10 year product cycle, so you can build a system now that will be more than sufficient for the vast majority of games that will be released during that time. And once you have your basic setup, provided your using PC and not a Mac, it's not that difficult to upgrade individual components as you can afford them.

At 720p with 30fps, no AA and low-medium settings? Sure it will.

EDIT: Middle of the range card, probably not. But with hardware comparable to a PS3/360? Yes, they will.

Why would I spend more on a PC that is comparable to an Xbox 360 than on a new Xbox One or PS4? That makes no sense! I wouldn't buy a gaming PC to run games at 720P at 30 FPS. Even the Xbox One runs games at 1080P 30 FPS / 60 FPS (on certain games). I'd want to run them at 1080P at 60 FPS.

I didn't say that.

I said that a 7 year old gaming PC would run modern games about as well as a 7 year old console will. That is to say, not particularly well.

Could I buy a PC that offers a similar graphical fidelity within games to the PS4 and Xbox One for a similar price? This means 1080P at 60 FPS on most games and 30 FPS on the more demanding one, such as Crysis 4 when it inevitably comes out. So far, my research online has said no.

On release of the consoles, probably not. As I said before, Sony and Microsoft will profit not on individual units, but by reducing the price and thus moving more overall.

Also remember that the new consoles will not run Crysis 4 on max at 30fps. But again, the longer you wait the further past the consoles that money will take you. If you must buy now, you will probably have to spend a bit more to have comparable performance, and this is only due to Sony/Microsoft's sales strategy. But next year, when the new cards/CPUs come out, building a PC that is comparable to a next-gen console will cost less, and you will have the same or better performance.

Would I be better off buying a console this year and then in a year's time investing in a PC?

You don't really want to buy an Xbox or Playstation in the first year anyway as the selection of games available will no doubt be limited at first. After a year though that will change.


See above. Wait for a year before you decide, you'll have a lot more options then.

Perhaps, but obviously that would not be budget friendly. Owning both a PC and a console/both consoles is ideal, as that way you would have access to the best that all three have to offer. However, if you can only choose one, and you must spend no more than a PS4/Xbox One, I would wait until next year, and then take advantage of the price drops and buy a PC that is 1-2 generations old. This way, you will have a suitable console replacement for as much or less than you would have spent on the console.

Well, I want to get one new platform around Christmas. I usually buy a new platform every two or three years. Six years ago it was the Wii, two years later a DS, two years after that an Xbox 360.

I could afford a console and a PC. Get a console this year and a PC, as you say that is a little bit old, next year. When I said that I can't get both, I meant that I can't get both at the same time. There'd have to be a one or two year gap.

Oh, I see. Yes, you could do that, but honestly I do not see what the point would be. The PC you would buy next year would just be slightly more powerful than the consoles - assuming you spend the same amount on the PC as you would to buy one of them - with the added benefits that PC gaming brings. There would be little benefit to owning two systems that have the same specs, aside from exclusives. If you wait until next year and save the money you would spend on the console this year, putting it towards your PC, you could build a gaming PC that would be miles ahead of either next gen console.

Then get a PC now and the console a year from now. No one even knows yet whether they're going to work properly, there might be all sorts of flaws in the initial models that will need to be ironed out in subsequent batches. It's not always a good idea to get the so-called latest and greatest as soon as it comes out. Wait awhile and see if all the bugs have actually been worked out before you commit.

Or skip the console altogether and buy a better PC.

Or at least upgrade a few components.

What games are you looking to play?

I don't have a PC to upgrade.

There are games I enjoy on all platforms.

Fable, Forza, Dead Rising are all great.

Little Big Planet, although I never played it, looks cool, as does some other PS games.

The PC has some awesome indie games, The Sims, and mod support.

The Wii U has Sonic and Smash Bros.

How many games do you think you will pick up at launch?

Well, I won't be getting the console dead-on launch day, but more likely a week or two after. If were to go the Microsoft route, I'd get an Xbox One console, renew my Live subscription and buy Ryse, Forza 5 and Assassin's Creed 4. I'd buy more over the following weeks, months, and so on.

We were referring to if you bought a PC now and a console next year.

Sounds to me like you've already worked out what you wanna do...

Get an xbox this year to hold you over, and work on getting a PC built later on down the line.

PC.

Some had a few issues, but they got it going pretty quickly within the first year. The only major game maker I saw have issues with it, even to this day, is Bethesda. Also the issue with the PS3 was that it was using a non-standard architecture, which was good because it furthered the potential of the machine if the coding was done right, but as we saw quite a few devs had problems in that first year and it made porting games from PC or 360 a bigger issue (see Bethesda games). Though what you could do it with was pretty amazing if it was done right.

what is your take on http://news.cnet.com/sony-ps3-is-hard-to-develop-for-on-purpose/ ?