"well one, if I remember right that was off mainly PC users not console users."
- yes, I'm aware, and that was intentional since 1) PC gamers are the largest gaming demographic in the world and 2) PC's are capable of being vastly more powerful than any console. So even with those 2 factors, people still aren't putting much worth into 4k gaming, it's safe to say that 4k gaming is not a standard or even becoming a standard. Consoles just recently were even able to run games in 4k, let alone 4k/60, so even still, not a standard.
Also, the price of gaming-level PC's are justified by the fact that a PC is a tool, not simply a dedicated entertainment device, as consoles are. PC's and consoles are also vastly different in their purpose/goals.
I was going to go into more detail to explain my position, but I found someone else in a different article already stated pretty much what I was going to say, so I'll just post their response. Just remember this: This is not an attempt to justify how PC's are "beeter." It is to show how each are different.
"Any console you build will need a second device to supplement gaming with general use things, like using Office or supporting .mkv files or listening to .flac audio or running PhotoShop or doing anything off the Win32 platform. There's not a price you can put on the console to do these things. However, a PC for $800 can surpass the raw power of an XB1X and meet your home computing needs to boot. It'll boot faster, open application (including games) faster, and multitask in a way a console cannot. However, you have to do more than just match a console in raw power because it's well-optimized for its narrow task scope. That $800 PC probably won't run things quite as well as the XB1X because it has to fight a lot more variety in game APIs and such that the Xbox doesn't have to worry about (Nvidia's not as great with DX12 and Vulkan, for example). Plus, most peopel who build PCs can keep them for longer than a console, and the PC upgrades are usually cheaper than a new console."
"To add to your comment, 4K gaming monitors are ridiculously overpriced as well."
1.) They're not that expensive. Only when you want to get all the bells and whistles, like a 4k IPS panel with HDR capable of running at 240hz, do they get pricey.You can get a 4k 120hz IPS panel with G-sync for like $700
Acer Predator XB273K
That being said, monitors and TV's are way different. Monitors pretty much always have higher fidelity and clarity over any comparable TV equivalent:
"You can get a 4K TV that’s twice the size and still save money."
1) due to how close users sit in front of a monitor, the screen doesn't need to be that big. Because of this, a 27" monitor is just as effective (if not more) than a 55" TV.
And sure, you "can" save money - same goes for monitors - or you can spend just as much or more, like this LG OLED, that cost's nearly $1300...for the 55". If you want 65", you're looking at at nearly $1900, and a 77" cost's almost $4000.
2) due to the close proximity users will have with monitors compared to TV's, small details and fidelity (or lack of) can be picked up much easier on a monitor vs a TV, so TV's can be "lazier" in this regard.
3) professionals such as graphic designers and photographers use monitors for their work, so color accuracy needs to be tip-top. Of course, there are certain monitors catered towards this type of usage, and they tend to be more expensive, but the point is that these people are not using TV's.
TV's also tend to have slower response times, slower refresh rates and high input lag, compared to monitors - 3 key factors for gaming. I use a monitor for all my gaming and I will NEVER use a TV for gaming again. That is how much of a difference I see between the 2, both in performance and visual quality.
It's becoming standard to WATCH 4k TV. 4k GAMING is a different story, and it is not the standard. Steam stats lists less than 2% of it's users game in 4k.
"If you're a PC gamer, then your statement about playing 95% of all games on your console was made facetiously"
-But I never actually said that... What I said was:
"multiplat games make up around 95% or more of all the games people play."
which, overall, is true - the vast majority of games most people will play, are muliplat. The statement was drawing attention to what types of games people play, not what platform they decide to play them on, so even speaking for myself, yes, 95% of all the games I play, are multiplatform. There is nothing facetious.
As for your other assertion:
"you already know that the Xbox systems are a waste of money without any exclusives."
Why would I already know this? I just explained how I have little to no interest in console exclusives as a whole, so they have little to no bearing on why I choose to buy xbox over PS. If I or anyone else finds value or worth in a system outside of it's exclusive library, then the exclusives are an extra, whether they want them or not, and not a necessity.
Between their focus on backwards compatibility, features such as Game Pass and Bing Rewards, their faster, more reliable and more secure network infrastructure, their larger focus on co-op/MP gaming, a UI/dashbord that I prefer, a (in my opinion) vastly superior controller, and the fact that all my real-life gaming friends also play on xbox, I'm either choosing xbox every time or simply not buying a console.
On the topic of exclusives, I will leave you with this: I won't deny that Sony puts out phenomenal exclusives and that in comparison to xbox and that overall, I guess from a craftsmanship viewpoint, they tend to be superior. And although I find little interest in console exclusives, xbox at least produces exclusives in genres that I will actually play. The vast majority of all of Sony's exclusives are either action/adventure titles or jrpg's - 2 genres I never play, even multiplat.
As an analogy, Sony exclusives are like pieces of fine art, that despite the level of craftsmanship went into them, I would never display in my home because they are not my taste. Xbox exclusives are like movie posters. They're hokey, in comparison or on their own, but at least I would display them on my walls. The problem for me is that the "movies" they make posters for, aren't movies I'm really that into.
@npiet1: "yet no one says MS exclusives they say xbox, which isn't exclusive."
- because you are paying too much attention to the words themselves and not the context behind them. The reason people say "xbox exclusive," is because they are talking in terms of console gaming, since that is what xbox is and thus what is relevant and in that context, they are absolutely exclusive to xbox.
I think it's less about which console has "better games," as that argument is not only entirely subjective, but completely vague. "Better" how? What objective argument can you come up with that shows that one console offers "better" games over the other?
I feel the more relevant argument is which console's games offer more replayability? Since MS exclusives are clearly more focused around mp play, they tend to offer more replay value over Sony titles. Or in other words, their games tend to offer more bang for the buck, since, at least generally speaking, their games have a longer lifespan. Halo 5 released in 2015, and people still play it regularly and it still receives content updates.
I'm not saying Sony exclusives are bad or that xbox exclusives are better. I'm just trying to have a discussion that carries more substance over which games are "better," since that argument typically just devolves into either, "x console has better games, because that's the console I own" or "y console has better games, because I personally like them better" or "these games sold more, so they're better." All of those arguments solve nothing...
If I'm being honest, I prefer the genre of games that xbox puts out, but I don't particularly like either consoles exclusives.
@vknyvz: No, I think many understand it, they just don't put as much importance on it as you do. For instance, I only buy digital games and I don't watch movies on my console, nor do I own a single blu-ray to watch.
For me, the importance that a console have an optical drive, is like zero...
because it's not a right or wrong issue, it's a "this is the context the term is being recognized as and used as" vs "this is the context you are arguing." You are essentially setting up a strawman argument.
And yes, you can get tested and no you can't catch it. You can take the AQ Test to see if or where you rank on the autism spectrum.
0-11 low result – indicating no tendency at all towards autistic traits.
11-21 is the average result that people get (many women average around 15 and men around 17)
22-25 shows autistic tendencies slightly above the population average
26-31 gives a borderline indication of an autism spectrum disorder. It is also possible to have aspergers or mild autism within this range.
32-50 indicates a strong likelihood of Asperger syndrome or autism.
scores of 32 or above are one of strong indicators of having as ASD
I rank well within the spectrum with a 38, so there is a good chance I have Asperger's. It wasn't an attempt to insult you. I was asking a serious question.
@gatsbythepig: The phrase "Free Games With Gold" is self explanatory: You get free games with an XBL Gold subscription. You are being intentionally pedantic and obtuse by insisting they aren't free because you need the subscription to get them. When is anything absolutely, no strings attached, free?
Even if you didn't need a subscription, you would still need to pay your ISP a monthly bill for internet access to download the games. You would also still need to buy the console in order to download/play them, as well as pay the electric company so everything is powered up and working. I mean at what point do you acknowledge the context that the term "free" is being used, instead of being deliberately anal and taking it 100% literally? Do you have Asperger's? Are you locked into a rigid, literal frame of mind and unable to think freely?
H0RSE's comments