Feature Article

Can We Build a Gaming PC on a Console Budget?

Put your money where your mouth is.

There's no debating that a souped-up gaming PC will outperform an Xbox One or PlayStation 4 any day of the week, but it'll also cost you a lot more at checkout. However, what about a gaming PC that isn't top of the line, say, one that was built for $550?

This is the question we put to the test: could we build a gaming PC from scratch that could provide a gameplay and visual experience on par with a next-gen console, for around the same price as a next-gen console? While the PlayStation 4 is substantially cheaper, we wanted to make this exercise as competitive as possible, and that meant allowing ourselves the luxury of a slightly higher budget. Our own Mark Walton and Peter Brown each built one machine; one based on Intel and Nvidia chipsets, and the other on AMD hardware. Then, we put them to the test to see if Mark and Peter used their budgets wisely or if they would have been better off buying a console for great graphics on a fixed budget. The text on this page covers the basics of our test, but be sure to check out the videos below for a more in-depth look at Mark's and Peter's process and results.

Rules and Goals

We aimed to stay within a budget of $550--roughly the most you can pay for an Xbox One in North America. In addition to acquiring the bare essentials for a PC--CPU, GPU, RAM, motherboard, power supply, computer case, and hard drive--each editor had to include the cost of a mouse, a keyboard, and a Windows license. No piracy or preexisting parts allowed!

The other goal was to build a machine that performs as well as or better than an Xbox One or PlayStation 4 in cross-platform games. The list of benchmark candidates included Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag, Battlefield 4, Thief, and Titanfall.

Mark Walton - AMD Gaming PC

Mark Walton's AMD PC

Gaming PCs live and die by the GPU and CPU. AMD's budget offerings are a far better value for the money than either Intel's or Nvidia's. For less than the price of the cheapest Ivy Bridge-based Core processor from Intel, you can pick up six-core chips from AMD that happily outperform it. The same goes for AMD's GPUs, which offer excellent performance for less than the Nvidia equivalent.

My plan was simple: stick as much money into the CPU and GPU as possible, and work with what's left--and if I could make the computer look half decent too, all the better.

ComponentTypePriceStore
CPUAMD FX-6300 Vishera 3.5GHz$109.00Amazon
MotherboardASUS M5A78L-M/USB3 AM3+ AMD 760G$48.49Newegg
CaseFractal Core 1000$39.99Newegg
PSUEVGA 100-W1-500-KR 500W$44.99Newegg
GPUPowerColor AX7850 2GBD5-DH Radeon HD 7850 (open box item)$107.00Newegg
RAMHyperX XMP Blu Series 4GB DDR3 1600$40.00Newegg
StorageSeagate Barracuda ST500DM002 500GB 7200 RPM 16MB$50.95Amazon
OSWindows 8$70.00eBay
Key/MouseV7 Standard PS/2 Keyboard and Mouse Combo$10.19Amazon
Subtotal$520.61
Sales Tax$45.55
Total$566.16

GameSettingsAverage Frame Rate
Assassin's Creed IV1080p, Ultra, AA42
Battlefield 41080p, High, AA72
Battlefield 41080p, Ultra, MSAA42
Thief1080p, Ultra, AA87
Titanfall1080p, Very High, AA60

Note: Click the links under "settings" to view the complete list of settings used during testing.

I was pleasantly surprised at just how well this system worked. All the games I tried hit frame rates 60fps, and--with the exception of Battlefield 4--did so at the highest settings. Rendering games 1080p60 is an achievable goal on a budget, then, as long as you're realistic about which games you'll be able to do it with, and at what settings. If you're after a bit more oomph and some peace of mind for future releases, though, spending a few extra bucks here and there will give you a big boost in performance.

More RAM is the obvious choice. It doesn't cost much to bump it up to 8GB, and the less time the PC has to spend thrashing the hard drive for a swap file the better. An extra $70 toward an R270 GPU would be a wise decision too. It's good value and overclocks extremely well, putting it firmly in the high-end GPU segment for just a fraction of the cost. There's also the option of an SSD for a more responsive feel, an aftermarket cooler for CPU overclocking, and a nicer-looking case, but they're not essential.

Peter Brown - Intel/Nvidia Gaming PC

Peter Brown's Intel/Nvidia PC

A budget of $550 is unusually small for a gaming PC, especially when the cost of an operating system is factored in. My strategy for this build was centered around a few key tactics.

First, I planned to keep the system's power draw as low as possible to save money on the cost of the power supply. I wanted to build small because smaller form factor cases and motherboards are usually cheaper overall unless they're particularly fancy. I also decided to use an unusually modest CPU. Intel makes excellent processors, but this quality isn't limited to the Core line. As long as I wasn't going to risk bottlenecking the GPU's performance, I looked for the simplest and cheapest option available. That way, I could focus on the linchpin of a gaming PC: the GPU. In this instance, I was aiming for Nvidia's Geforce GTX 750 Ti due to its great price/performance ratio.

ComponentTypePriceStore
CPUIntel Pentium G2130 3.2 GHz$74.99Newegg
MotherboardBiostar H61MGV3$36.99Newegg
CaseTopower TP-1687BB-300$34.99Newegg
PSU300W SFX Power Supply (included w/case)n/aNewegg
GPUEVGA GeForce GTX 750 Ti 2 GB$154.99Newegg
RAMTeam Elite 4GB (2x2GB) DDR3 1333$39.99Newegg
StorageWestern Digital Blue 500 GB 7200 RPM 16MB$54.99Newegg
OSWindows 8.1 64-Bit$99.99Newegg
Key/MouseRosewill PS/2 Wired$12.98Newegg
Subtotal$509.91
Sales Tax$38.24
Total$548.15

GameSettingsAverage Frame Rate
Assassin's Creed IV1080p, High, FXAA40
Battlefield 41080p, High, 2x MSAA50
Thief1080p, High, FXAA55
Titanfall1080p, High, No AA50

Note: Click the links under "settings" to view the complete list of settings used during testing.

Like Mark, I was surprised how well my rig performed. I had faith that the GTX 750 Ti would hold up under light pressure, but given its partner in crime, the Pentium CPU, I presumed that I would have to dial down the in-game settings a bit more. In practice, all it took for most games to play near 60 frames per second at 1080p was to disable a few flourishes like ambient occlusion and aggressive anti-aliasing. With my $550 PC, I was able to handily outperform the Xbox One in every case, and the PlayStation 4 in most cases, which says a lot about the value of the PlayStation 4 given its lower $400 price point.

If I had had a larger budget, I would have sprung for a better CPU and a bit more RAM. My inexpensive Pentium CPU held up quite well considering that it cost only $80, but it was typically running at full speed with little to no remaining overhead. Unfortunately, given my skimpy power supply, there's little hope for tossing a better Nvidia GPU into this build down the road without other additional upgrades. In the end, with our meager budget, Mark's AMD focus gave him a slight advantage in terms of performance and upgradability.

Closing Thoughts

As it turns out, you can build a gaming PC for around the cost of an Xbox One that will outperform both next-gen consoles given the current stock of cross-platform games. You'll also enjoy a massive library that neither the PlayStation 4 nor the Xbox One will ever be able to match from a pure numbers standpoint. Plus, your PC is upgradable, and its functionality in non-gaming areas only adds to its value. AMD has an advantage when it comes to the balance of price and performance on the low end, but there's nothing stopping you from mixing and matching components from different manufacturers, which very well might be the best plan if you've got a larger budget to work with.

Keep in mind, too, that current cross-platform games on consoles perform best on a PlayStation 4, which currently sells for $100 less than an Xbox One. If you were to try to build a gaming PC for $400 to $450, our experience has taught us that you would end up with a machine that can't compete with either next-gen console. Though we both succeeded in our goal, $550 was proved quite limiting when it came to picking components.

If you had a budget of $550, which platform--PlayStation 4, Xbox One, or PC--would you choose? How would you build a gaming PC on a console-size budget? Let us know in the comments below.

Got a news tip or want to contact us directly? Email news@gamespot.com

Did you enjoy this article?

Sign In to Upvote

5066 comments
terranrich
terranrich

Am I missing something? Why would I spend $550 on a gaming PC when I have my $350 PS4 that does the same thing?

deadpen
deadpen

I want to see these year old pc's play witcher 3 better than the x1 or ps4. PC gamers brag that they spend less than console gamers.

Here is the time to prove it, if these rigs do not hold up and it would take $xxx.xx amount to bring it up to speed then you can not build a $500 pc to compete with consoles unless you expect to spend $500 every year to keep up with consoles that you only buy once.

cryofax
cryofax

@deadpen Search YouTube and you'll see plenty of PCs with similar or even worse specs playing The Witcher 3 smoothly. I have PCs of my own from 2008-2009 (i7 940, i7 860) that play the game smoothly with only a graphics card update (GTX 660 and GTX 750 respectively). That's a $100 upgrade for the 2009 system over the course of 6 years and plays better than a PS4 or Xbox One.

Your logic is flawed based on heresay from people who don't own PCs. A PC with better specs at the beginning of a console life cycle STILL has better specs at the end of the console life cycle. It will still play the games better than the console. There is no need to upgrade it unless you always want to play the latest games on ultra every single year. But just to be able to play them better than a console does not require such upgrading. There is no "keeping up" with a static device (console) that is already behind the PC the day it's released.

deadpen
deadpen

not sure why this was put in pending I'll try again and when it comes out of pending it will be more detailed.

123madskillz
123madskillz

Why did you guys buy windows? You could have pirated it or used the Win10 snapshot. Or you could have ditched windows and just run linux or hackintosh.

northshire
northshire

People interested in PC gaming should seriously splurge a bit more. Budget builds lead to all kinds of regrets. Sure, it might perform similarly to the PS4/Xbox One, but that's not saying a lot.

deadpen
deadpen

@northshire Yea, though this was just an article to see if it could be done on a budget similar to consoles.

What I want to see now is them play witcher 3 at x1/ps4 quality. Being that these are a year old it would bring your point to light and how money has to be spent every year to keep your pc up to date with consoles or not.

ajmrowland1
ajmrowland1

How would I build a gaming PC for $550? A quad core processor, at minimum. Not sure about GPU brand, I'd do my research. Reuse my current liquid cooling system and external sound card. Mobo would have to be compatible with components.

But after spendjngnall summer upgrading my.PC from what it was before, I'll stick with my PS4 for now, with the exception of PC exclusives and mod-able old games. After all, it's the games that matter most.

beermonger7
beermonger7

Theres nothing here about the cost of the mouse and keyboard, or the super high quality monitor. You would probably want to spend a lot on a desk chair too, because the $100-$200 ones usually fall apart in 6 months to a year.  

ajmrowland1
ajmrowland1

Well, keyboards and mice are inexpensive, and you can always connect to a tv if they are in the same room.

cryofax
cryofax

@beermonger7 Keyboard & Mouse sure. $10 each (Logitech M100 & Generic  KB). As for the Monitor/Chair? Why stop there? Why not include the desk, power strip, and maybe even the house it's in? And by your logic the cost of a console should include the TV and couch. So add $1,000 to the PC budget. I can get a REALLY nice chair and monitor for that much.

deadpen
deadpen

@cryofax @beermonger7 Okay I was put into pending for saying b.low their budget.


Yea they spent $10 or so on combos, as for the monitor they couldn't factor that in or it would b.low their budget and their reasoning was because you don't buy a new tv every time you get a new console.

The real question is can these pc's keep up with consoles by playing witcher 3 better than consoles over a year after they were built?

bronzeleaguepro
bronzeleaguepro

The cost of building the system should be seen in comparison with the cost of buying games. If PC games are $10 cheaper, then it stands to reason that you could spend slightly more on the box itself, does it not?

cryofax
cryofax

@bronzeleaguepro That's fair, but console prices have dropped into the $400 range so $550 for this PC is already giving it a little boost.

Legend002
Legend002

Can We Build a Gaming PC on a Console Budget? Of course you can. You probably have to. The real question is about the size of the budget.

I don't like the title of this article.

TiberiusJones
TiberiusJones

I put together a budget gaming rig this past summer with this AMD motherboard and have been very happy with it for the most part. I paired it with the better FX-8350 CPU and a much nicer MSI R9-280X Twin Frozr Edition (essentially a super-cooled rebranded 3GB 7970). Add a New 700 Watt PSU and a Fractal Design case for under $40. I had roughly 4 TB of hard drives from a previous system.  The whole thing is highly upgrade-able and came in under $600. It far outperforms either new console and will be future proof for the next couple years at least. 


The beauty of PC gaming beyond cost/performance ratio is the satisfaction of building your own system and knowing what it contains, what makes it tick, and why it's better than Joe's down the street, or the crappy Dell the guy at Best Buy is trying to sell to your buddy on Black Friday.


Darthlod missed the entire point - this is about BUDGET GAMING RIGS:


And no, you don't need 850 Watts of power unless you're planning to run SLI or crossfire. Multiple Hard-drives don't draw that kind of power. A nice 600 watt PSU and you're good if all you're talking is one GPU and HDD. Windows 8 is great for gaming. And yes, buy a decent CPU cooler (the Corsair H55 is an entry level water-cooled CPU cooler available for $59.99 at most retailers - easy to install and well worth the money) and get at least one extra fan for decent ventilation! 


Now, if you have unlimited resources - then yes, absolutely - for AMD, get a Sabertooth 990FX Motherboard - they are beastly and my motherboard choice for best in class!!    

DarthLod
DarthLod

Not bad, but these budget builds have crappy wattage for Power Supply. 850w and above is the only way to go if you want to add more hard-drives, etc. 500 and 300w PS are just WAY too low. Furthermore, Windows 8? NO, not for gaming. You want Win 7. Honestly, Save up $200-300 more and get a better PS and MB as well as a Tower that has more ventilation fans. 

Zipper761882
Zipper761882

@DarthLod I'm running an i7-4770k oced to 4.5, an MSI Twin Frozr 780 ti, 16 gb 1866 Gskill Ares ram, 2x2tb hdd, 1 256gb sdd, various usb devices(Razer Naga, Saitek Eclipse II kb, webcam, Corsair Vengeance 1500 headset, couple external drives) all on a 750 watt NZXT Hale-82 psu.  You are WAY over your estimate if you think a single card is gonna pull anywhere near 850 watts.

cryofax
cryofax

@DarthLod 300 might be cutting it close if you expect to expand, but 500 is fine. CPUs/GPUs can use LESS power than previous generations. My i7 3770k is 77watts, and beats my old i7 940 (130 watts), while my GTX660 at 140watts is significantly less power hungry than my old GTX280 and is 4x faster. 500 would offer plenty of power for a couple hard drives too. I'll concede though that if prices aren't too much different 650 is a good bet to have a ton of overhead room on such a system.

deadpen
deadpen

@DarthLod But your power supply should be enough since everyone talks about your do not need to put more into your pc after you build it.

That is what I always hear at least, that it would stand to reason a pc can last 20 years without a hardware upgrade.

daious
daious

Why bother with an open box 7850 when a 7870 ghz is 99 dollars if you buy from the manufacturer

bewitness
bewitness

I'm sure you can create a PC that out performs an Xbox One or PS4 but when has masses ever cared about overall specs? The iPhone is the most popular phone and it's just getting features that many Android phones had for years now, this didn't make (most) Apple customers go to other devices because their phones didn't have certain features. Just like with Apple, Samsung, Nike or whoever, their customers stay because they like the overall experience they have with that product. As a console gamer myself I have no urge to PC game, the closest I may get to that is possibly trying out a Steam machine. Mind you this is not to knock PC gamers, because I am sure their are PC gamers who wouldn't want to game on a console because they are so satisfied with what they experience on a PC.

thekoenig
thekoenig

"Plus, your PC is upgradable" - this is not, in fact, a plus. It is a minus. Consoles don't need to be upgraded at any time in their lifecycle (apart from, if you wish to do so, a bigger hdd). See, consoles start with a comparably high price for same or lower performance as a PC. Over the course of 5 - 7 years, like the last generation, you will see how much the quality of visuals of the games on these consoles improve. And you will not need to buy any upgrade at any time. If you want to play games on your PC on the best settings over the same period of time, I'm _very_ sure you will have to buy upgrades for it - and not only once.

It still is a very good choice for many reasons to own and use a PC. Every person may make that choice based on her own preferences. But the argument of upgradability probably isn't the plus for the PC, at least not from a money spent for performance perspective.

chibi-acer
chibi-acer

@thekoenig If you want to always play games at max settings, then yes, you will almost certainly need to upgrade over the life of a 5-7 year old PC.  This option will cost you more, but will result in better looking games once current gen console hardware starts to age.


If you just want to keep pace with current gen consoles, you can turn down the graphic settings for new titles released after 3+ years and they will still play as good as the console version.

BraollusBeBack
BraollusBeBack

@chibi-acer @thekoenig Yeah, but your PC will realistically last for only 5-7 years, IF at the time of purchase you get a high-end PC, which is much more expensive than a console. If you get a low-end or mid-end, it will not last you 7 years. 5? Maybe, with settings on low after 4 years. And that's not considering how obsessed people are with pushing graphical limits(sadly, not gameplay limits), that the specs for PC's gonna go up and up, with half-arsed ports. If you look at it this way, FC2 minimum requirements are less than FC3's, both games on the same generation of consoles, PS3 and Xbox360 had the same hardware for last 7-8 years, so why I need to suddenly upgrade my already more powerful PC(than a x360 or ps3) that I bought 4 years go, and paid for it more than a ps3 or x360, to run the same games, at pretty much the same graphics? It's ridiculous, I mean we all know the reason, more money innit? Why make a good port, when we can just raise the requirements. I mean to run AC unity, I need a GTX 680, it's almost half the price of a ps4(I also doubt that PS4 has anything more powerful than that) and that is why my interest in PC gaming has declined, I still play stuff, but I ain't upgrading my PC anytime soon(too much to upgrade), so I'll just buy a ps4 and play easy for 6 years or so(it's not the best gaming experience, it's not 420 fps or 12KsuperULTRA-(x)HD(x)(hd)  Ultra-max**TXAA160-000** anti-aliasing or 10km draw distance mods for flies, but at least I will not have to configure .inis, download low-specs  patches, deal with a whole heap of bullshit from Windows OS, viruses, hardware upgrades(which turn into more hardware upgrades, which turn into more hardware upgrades)). I mean if you like getting into technical know-how and get the most out of everything, get a PC, save up, you'll love every minute of it, but I'm getting sick of it, for now..

deadpen
deadpen

@thekoenig Lets fight for gamespot to bring these pc's back and play witcher 3 better than consoles. If it has to be upgraded to come close to being as good as either than pc building is pointless unless you spend thousands. 

deadpen
deadpen

@chibi-acer 5-7 years, These are 1 year old, lets get a protest on this article (I wrote one a min ago) to bring these pc's out of hiding and play witcher 3. Can they stand up to consoles after just a year?

TrenchcoatFlash
TrenchcoatFlash

I'd like to see how well this budget PC handles modern games 9 years from now.  The big plus with consoles is that a game made for it will play on it just fine.  You don't have to go online to see if your old hardware can run it smoothly, or if your video card is not compatible, or if any of your motherboard or other components will work with the upgrade you need to run it.


The point that this article is trying to make fails miserably.  It's trying to say "look we built a PC that can compete or beat current gen consoles" so that way the price isn't a con for PC gaming.  Yet the author stupidly set a budget of $550.  Why?  Did he try building one at $400 and was unable to do so, then increase by $50 each try till he found one that technically could?  The point falls flat when it ends up reading "look we built a PC that can compete or beat current gen consoles, and all we did was spend 40% more than you would for a console!  See?  Look how cheap that is!"  And that's just initial cost, no including upgrades later down the road.


Then the gaming library point was tossed in like it was supposed to be icing on the cake.  When your cake is crappy nobody cares about the icing.  Should have ended with "yes, gaming on a PC is more expensive, but look at the library of games this budget PC can play flawlessly."  If your goal is to argue that one form of a thing is NOT more expensive, you probably shouldn't show an article that says exactly the opposite.  Of course I'm getting a console when the argument is "would you spend $550 to do the same thing on a PC that a ps4 can do for $400?"

BraollusBeBack
BraollusBeBack

@TrenchcoatFlash Yeah, true. But if you build a gaming PC, you will not only use for gaming, so, I suppose. Also, you might save up money from buying games, Steam and all that. 

PS4 is a gaming machine, good at that, it's cheap, it can do good graphics, and it is gaming centered, so no annoying OS problems or whatever. But essentially, it's all it is, if that's all you want, brilliant.

Also the back catalog of games is quite a big selling point, in my view.

bronzeleaguepro
bronzeleaguepro

@TrenchcoatFlash 

If you buy more than 15 games over the course of the PS4 lifecycle, then the price disparity on games makes the PS4 the more expensive option.

TrenchcoatFlash
TrenchcoatFlash

@bronzeleaguepro

Only if you buy new games.  PSN regularly does sales a few months after release.  Maybe not even needing that once you figure in future PC upgrade costs. 

TrenchcoatFlash
TrenchcoatFlash

@BraollusBeBack 

Right, which is what angle the author should have gone with, instead of trying to push the initial cost like it was trivial, which it isn't until you can make a few good points showing it isn't which this article glosses over.

deadpen
deadpen

@TrenchcoatFlash I'd like to see these two pc's handle witcher 3 right now. They were build a year ago so why not bring them out and make a point. PC gamers say they do not have to spend as much to play games with better graphics. Though these are only a year old and should handle a newer game, if they can not handle it then building a pc at console prices is impossible without spending half of what you spent to build it every year.

top_lel
top_lel

Now that  this article is back up again let me tell you that now in that same budget, you can build a PC that might as well be double the horsepower of that of the PS4..... all hail the price drops!!

JimmeyBurrows
JimmeyBurrows

@top_lel True, but $550 is a lot higher than the console price was back then, now it's even lower. This really shouldn't be listed as recent, lol.

lorider25
lorider25

didn't you guys already do this article already?

tonyleo01
tonyleo01

If I only have $550 budget for a PC, I'd probably save another $300-$500 and actually build a decent PC or, ya know, just buy the console. But that's just me.

deadpen
deadpen

@tonyleo01 Besides if they brought these budget pc's out right now would they keep up with consoles on witcher 3? If not then it was all in vain right?

xboticon
xboticon

Shut up GameSpot. Stop trying be PC salesman. PC is filled with many problems such as hackers, lack of quality control, fractured support from multiple companies, online DRM, and Microsoft's greedy monopolistic control over the OS. PC gaming needs to die or change a lot. It doesn't matter if you can upgrade it. There is no telling how PC will change for better or worse given the reliance on too many companies. More devs need to use Open GL and you shouldn't waste money on expensive graphics cards. There is no telling if games will even support it later. PC is nothing like a console. Without consoles, AMD, Nvidia, and Microsoft would r@pe your wallets. Never get caught up with PC's fractured nature. It scares me that sites like GameSpot don't understand how the consumer tech and computer industry works.

RSM-HQ
RSM-HQ

@xboticon "P.C. gaming needs to die"


What the. . . We get it, you prefer consoles; so do I but NO! P.C. gaming is amazing and has a place for gamers both young and old. RTS, FPS, MMO, FS, and P&C are better on P.C. no exceptions. Because they're built around Keyboard and mouse functionality. 


You don't need a P.C. with the 2K resolution or 120 frames-per second. That's more for bragging rights in the Elitist crowd. But being a console-fanboy isn't any better you'know!

JimmeyBurrows
JimmeyBurrows

@xboticon I'm not even a "real" PC gamer and I disagree with most of what you said. DRM, greed, hackers, little to no QA are all problems with console gaming. It's almost worse since they "assure" you they wont have these problems if you pay them monthly, lol.

At least with my laptop I can customize a game to run smoothly, sometimes even fix issues with a broken game... With my ps3 all I had to chose from was play it as is or don't play it at all.

In recent years consoles have lost a lot of what made them good.

kingfish1984
kingfish1984

I'm sorry but $550 is not a "console budget". Maybe when Sony and MS are riding high after success and they arrogantly launch around $550, but everyone knows those are rare exceptions that don't last long or lead to failure in sales. $400 would be fair ($350 more average), what kind of PC can you build with that?

macklin_
macklin_

@kingfish1984 This was published when both consoles were new and the Xbox One was $500. Even before you could buy one without a Kinect.

deadpen
deadpen

@macklin_ @kingfish1984 @JimmeyBurrows  @xboticon  @RSM-HQ  Lets argue to get gamespot to bring these pc's back out and play witcher 3 at x1/ps4 graphics.

Rules: no extra money allowed to be spent on the towers, must be plugged in and played as is (software/firmware/wareware updates allowed) no overclocking,  frame rate must be constantly 30 or above and make the article a vote article on which looks better.

terrariafan247
terrariafan247

I've never been a massive fan of PC gaming. I couldn't get on with keyboard/mouse as it gives me RSI and controller support is patchy and varies by game. Mods aren't much of an interest to me either. I also dislike Steam and digital gaming in general, although the sales are nice I'd MUCH prefer a physical copy that I can buy pre-owned and sell when I'm finished. The only games I play on my PC are older games I can't play on my PS3 and a few exclusive indie titles.


On the "PC VS Consoles" topic I'd say that it's a better of personal preference. After trying both I'd say that for me console gaming is superior. I prefer console gaming because it's easier to buy a physical copy of a game, controller support is guaranteed. The hardware is also much cheaper, PS4s are now selling at £300, try building a PC capable of running current gen games for that price. My final reason is that better graphics in games simply doesn't interest me, I play games for gameplay and sometimes story. If I want to be wowed by pretty computer effects and "realistic graphics" I'd watch a film.

RSM-HQ
RSM-HQ

@terrariafan247 I always found the argument 'console V P.C.' silly. It's all about preference. & Elitists always saying a "P.C. is more powerful" is a huge 'No SH*T!' When was any console more powerful? Console games are built on a P.C. for pete-sake.


One I always loving reading from P.C. fans is "Dark Souls is our game, it should have never been dumbed down for consoles". . . Demon's Souls anyone? & shock alert, FromSoftware is a console developer, they even say it's what they prefer developing on. 


The only reason Dark Souls came to P.C. is because fans hounded them for a port even though the idea scared the pants off them. 


Many games are built for consoles in mind, could be for interface reasons, the whole play-style of consoles. Regardless, just like many are designed for P.C. in mind. It's all gaming, & would be nice if buyers didn't blame the other because you think your (toy) is better. It's that superiority complex that turns gamers against each other.