Ok so for a good 1080P PC gaming machine capable of achieving 60 fps and being able to use moderate to high settings, which is future proofed for at least 2-3 years, you need to spend:
- £200-300 for a GPU
- £200-300 for a good CPU, mobo and RAM setup
Then you need to add on the
- PSU (£50-100)
- case (£30-100)
- KB + M (£50-150)
- hard drive/SSD (£30-100)
- speakers/headphones (£20-100)
Could use a TV or if you want a monitor then that is another £100-1000
vs
£350 PS 4 pro (I presume most people would have a TV already, if not then you can get one anywhere from £300-3000)
Doesn't seem like great value to me for barely any better graphics nor much better performance.
Go google some of those games especially;
- battlefield 3 and more so 4, the game was riddled with bugs/issues for the first 6 months, it was so bad that you even had battlefield youtubers such as anderzel stop playing the game completely despite originally loving the beta/alpha and closed events they attended, I'm sure consoles were affected too but iirc, PC had the worst of the problems, games are great now, just a shame it took them 6 months to get it to that state...
- batman - it had more graphical options overall but it was missing ambient occlusion, rain particles and something else, which I can't recall of atm thus the game actually looked worse than consoles since the game heavily relied upon those effects (video on youtube comparing this), either way, it didn't matter as the vast majority of people couldn't even play the game on the PC at all due to the constant crashes + awful performance
- fallout 4 - yes, not even having a basic option that has worked in pretty much every single game is an absolute joke and this was just one minor bug in comparison to other serious game breaking bugs
- rise of the tomb raider, majority seemed to have it working well but there were a lot of people having issues with performance and crashes even after the first 2-3 patches, I posted links to those threads in the ROTTR threads on here, just one of my posts with some links, I have at least another 3-4 posts somewhere on here with 5 different links in each post showing the same issues I had:
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=29171543&postcount=1008
- COD - until advanced warfare came... no idea about the ones after that as they haven't appealed at all and advanced warfare released in the way it was more or less put the final nail in the coffin for those games
- the witcher 3 wasn't as bad as all the others but still bad enough where I and others had to go manually tweaking files/settings to stop crashes and get proper performance:
http://www.pcgamer.com/the-witcher-3-performance-tips-and-crash-advice/
As well as switching to borderless windowed mode, I had to lock FPS to 59
- deux ex... that is not what I have seen being reported by youtubers and people on here, regardless of settings, people still mention fps drops regardless of settings
Also, for what it is worth, I don't put much stock into what people with free/g sync screens say when it comes to performance as that tech just hides/minimises any performance issues, something which was never needed before and still isn't if the developer takes the time to optimise the game properly i.e. doom, mad max, alien isolation.
As for crossfire, go tell that to the many disgruntled crossfire users in the AMD driver thread...
Of course 30 fps isn't ideal but "smoothness" has a lot more to do with frame latency than average/max FPS (of course, both are somewhat tied together but you can achieve a good frame latency thus smoothness via other means as has been shown with dx 12, vulkan and mantle) and yes for some titles, the consoles, more so the xbox drop below the 30/60 fps lock but it is no worse than PC games where the FPS fluctuates a lot more often and with bigger dips of which are a lot more noticeable if you haven't got a g/free sync screen.
As therealdeal has posted, you can see for yourself, consoles are nowhere near low settings.
