If you have access to a local library with video games on offer, then you could very well play more popular physical releases for much cheaper on consoles.
Re emulation, Xbox Series consoles do wonders in dev mode (granted, that’s not official, but it works very well).
But then that’s undermined by access to piracy then. Romsets for emulated consoles are widespread, and repacks of cross-platform releases are similarly ubiquitous.
Purchasing a closed hardware/software ecosystem makes little rational sense from a monetary perspective. It only makes more sense from a “simplicity” or “integration” perspective.
I’m simply pointing out that your statement might not be absolutely true. Whether or not it makes sense financially speaking is not as cookie-cutter as it tends to be presented. If you aren’t interested in multiplayer, you have access to either libraries and/or a fair used market, consoles certainly can be financially better than PCs, even Steam Deck.
There are many other reasons why consoles don’t make sense - lacklustre modding scene, censorship, content delisting and “ownership” - but imo it’s hard to argue against how cheap they can be compared to a PC.
Piracy is certainly an option, but then why even bring up pricing in the first place, unless any and every game suddenly becomes free on PC?
In the end I guess it’s just centered around whatever this hypothetical gamer is looking for, but my current stance is predicated on Boots Theory, where purchasing an enticingly cheap console will absolutely screw you in the long run compared to an open platform such as the PC ecosystem. Open platforms are resistant from enshittification and software distribution monopolies, whereas the console market thrives on subsidized hardware that entraps their user into a locked in cage that seems impossible to leave the longer you spend.
I would even argue if I bought a cheap used office PC from some liquidated company for 50-60 USD and placed a modest GPU within it, even with lower specs compared to current console hardware, I have gotten better value for my money and have better future game and software prospects than the PS5/Switch2/Xbox Ecoystem owner.
I wouldn’t call current consoles “enticingly cheap”, but I see where you’re coming from and I agree with the stance that there’s essentially two (three if you want to include cloud and/or subscription-based) models with fairly different standards.
The PC ecosystem isn’t as resistant as we’d like to think imo, with its over-reliance on Steam vs other storefronts (but that’s kind of a moot point if you take into account piracy I guess).
Yep, if that hypothetical gamer doesn’t care about the “latest and greatest”, then they might be better served by a lower spec’d PC.
If you have access to a local library with video games on offer, then you could very well play more popular physical releases for much cheaper on consoles.
Re emulation, Xbox Series consoles do wonders in dev mode (granted, that’s not official, but it works very well).
But then that’s undermined by access to piracy then. Romsets for emulated consoles are widespread, and repacks of cross-platform releases are similarly ubiquitous.
Purchasing a closed hardware/software ecosystem makes little rational sense from a monetary perspective. It only makes more sense from a “simplicity” or “integration” perspective.
I’m simply pointing out that your statement might not be absolutely true. Whether or not it makes sense financially speaking is not as cookie-cutter as it tends to be presented. If you aren’t interested in multiplayer, you have access to either libraries and/or a fair used market, consoles certainly can be financially better than PCs, even Steam Deck.
There are many other reasons why consoles don’t make sense - lacklustre modding scene, censorship, content delisting and “ownership” - but imo it’s hard to argue against how cheap they can be compared to a PC.
Piracy is certainly an option, but then why even bring up pricing in the first place, unless any and every game suddenly becomes free on PC?
In the end I guess it’s just centered around whatever this hypothetical gamer is looking for, but my current stance is predicated on Boots Theory, where purchasing an enticingly cheap console will absolutely screw you in the long run compared to an open platform such as the PC ecosystem. Open platforms are resistant from enshittification and software distribution monopolies, whereas the console market thrives on subsidized hardware that entraps their user into a locked in cage that seems impossible to leave the longer you spend.
I would even argue if I bought a cheap used office PC from some liquidated company for 50-60 USD and placed a modest GPU within it, even with lower specs compared to current console hardware, I have gotten better value for my money and have better future game and software prospects than the PS5/Switch2/Xbox Ecoystem owner.
I wouldn’t call current consoles “enticingly cheap”, but I see where you’re coming from and I agree with the stance that there’s essentially two (three if you want to include cloud and/or subscription-based) models with fairly different standards.
The PC ecosystem isn’t as resistant as we’d like to think imo, with its over-reliance on Steam vs other storefronts (but that’s kind of a moot point if you take into account piracy I guess).
Yep, if that hypothetical gamer doesn’t care about the “latest and greatest”, then they might be better served by a lower spec’d PC.