The age-old tradeoff has always been that consoles are restrictive and un-upgradable, but generally cheaper than building a PC due to fixed parts costs and loss-leader strategies.
PS3 era. $600 for the PS3 or ~$500 for a PC that performed similarly if you just wanted to play games and not also include an expensive ass Blu-ray drive.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
No Let’s Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates.
(Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources.
If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
When has that ever been the case?
The age-old tradeoff has always been that consoles are restrictive and un-upgradable, but generally cheaper than building a PC due to fixed parts costs and loss-leader strategies.
PS3 era. $600 for the PS3 or ~$500 for a PC that performed similarly if you just wanted to play games and not also include an expensive ass Blu-ray drive.
So what you’re saying is it was possible to undercut the ps3 in cost of you weren’t building a machine of equivalent capability.