This is my point. stop making up theoretical scenarios and use your own and you find out the gap isn't as small as you think up in your virtual scenarios
Use my own personal scenario? OK, bought a ps3 in 2010 for ~£260 with 1 game, plus extra controller for £40, so £300, over the subsequent 4 years bought a total of 18 games, some new, some preowned, but lets say an average of £20/game = ~£360, plus 2 years PS+ at £35/year, so a total of £300 + £360 + £70 = £730, I traded all my games in at the end, got about £80 in total for them, so, £650 for console gaming.
I got my current PC, a year and a half ago, second hand, for £150, add on £80 graphics card, £120 monitor, and £80 mouse and keyboard = £430.
I sold my old laptop, for... £60 I think it was.
Since then I've spent ~£100 on games, and have a steam library of about 80 games and about 20-30 physical discs.
So a total of £430 + £100 - £60 = £470 for pc gaming, and I have a better performing system with more games...
We can keep going on about how PC games costs less if you like or we can for the sake of argument, say they costs the same because we can all find examples how it costs less.
That's the whole point I was trying to make. People saying console gaming is always cheaper than PC gaming are wrong, it completely depends on the circumstances. Personally for me, PC gaming is both far cheaper, and far more enjoyable than console, when I got my PC, I was sorely tempted by a PS4 instead, but after working out the costs it was a no brainer really. Now I'm not by any means under the impression that is the case for everyone, but its a far bigger picture than just the initial hardware costs, and to try and disregard any other factors is disingenuous.