I get better graphics and performance out of my PS5 than I could have gotten from building a PC with a budget TWICE the cost of the PS5 when I got it.
This is literally false information.
On first glance it might seem like you're getting good performance for cheap, but the reality is that your PS5 hides a lot of it's lack of power behind rendering tricks and low framerates. You're not getting anywhere near the same experience as you are on a PC - even a PC around a comparable price point.
The PS5's SSD (and ensuing loading times) may have been somewhat impressive on launch, but the standard right now for console games is unstable 30FPS, moderate to short view distances, bad loading times, cripplingly small FOV to reduce rendering, and absolutely no AA or any other image-quality post-processing of any kind (except Motion Blur, which looks terrible and usually can't be turned off on most console games, which is reason enough to never buy one). Performance has gotten so bad games have had to start adding "performance modes" just to be playable.
I'm not going to be unfair and compare the PS5 to some hyper-expensive gaming PC that runs the newest titles at 8K at 250 FPS. But you can compare Starfield right now between the PS5 and a moderately priced PC from a few years ago and the difference is night and day. Doubly so when you increase the FOV and install a few QoL mods, which completely changes the entire experience. I won't even mention the opportunity costs that come with a console - paying for online, insanely overpriced controllers, etc. Even when you compare just the console with just a moderately priced PC from a few years ago, the argument quickly falls apart.
Starfield runs at 25 FPS minimum on Ultra settings at 1080p on a Radeon RX Vega 56, a graphics card from 2017, when paired with an Intel Core i5 2500 processor from 2011. 25 FPS doesn't sound that impressive, but remember that the console versions hit a maximum of 30FPS (quite often lower), and aren't running on Ultra settings.
Play Jedi Survivor on PS5 and tell me with a straight face that it's a pleasant experience.
BUT even if you were right. I doubt you'd still be right 2 years from now. While your PS5 continues to age and games start running worse and worse on the platform, I will still be getting good performance and can upgrade if necessary, even a $100 nvme or $200 RAM upgrade will make a world of difference in speed. As a bonus, all my older games will also run significantly better because backwards compatibility isn't a total crapshoot on PC like it is with consoles.
Modern consoles have gained a lot of their perceived value through a supposed longevity - that is, not needing to be upgraded every 4-5 years. But it's a farce. Consoles that really should be retired are kept and players just get worse and worse experiences over time. This happened so badly with the PS4 and XBO era that games started flat out requiring the Pro editions to be playable (Cyberpunk and Elden Ring come to mind, both of which are an unplayable mess on the base PS4). The PS5 and XBS era is going the same way, with most games already struggling to run at a reliable 30FPS consistently despite the current console generation being less than 3 years old. It's only going to get worse.
There is one caveat where consoles perform significantly better, which is when running games that have been specifically optimised for them. The Horizon games are a good example of this - Horizon Forbidden West runs extremely well on the PS5 considering it's hardware, and matching similar on a PC for Horizon Zero Dawn requires a relatively recent setup. This would make for a good argument 10 years ago when consoles were all about good exclusives, which would naturally lend themselves to good optimisation. But this isn't the case anymore. We are firmly in a multiplatform era (which makes sense, it's both better for consumers and better for businesses as they can reach a larger audience), and as a result a lot of this optimisation is lost. This is still a major advantage the Switch has, which is why despite having ancient hardware that's worse than a $99 Android tablet performance wise, it still runs games significantly better than any cheap or even midrange phone. But you're not going to get this with any other console, and even Nintendo is starting to lose their edge here, as more and more multiplatform games are being ported to Switch for it to remain relevant, and performance is....uhhh.
If you're willing to accept the performance compromises to game on a (marginally) cheaper platform, that is your choice. I respect informed buyers who weigh options and buy appropriately for their needs. But if your goal is to repeat talking points that are provably false upon the most casual examination, then I suspect that perhaps you haven't really approached this whole situation with an open mind.
Even if you could show that the PS5 is comparable (or better) than a similarly priced PC, you're still missing out on so much, and it's only a small part of the argument. Going back to Starfield, there are already countless mods which fix the games most glaring issues (like
the inventory). When I play it on the couch my housemate is so jealous he wants to sell his XBSX and buy a gaming PC. Surely the freedom to have a significantly better experience is worth paying a little more for?
Here's a link to a PC build that can run Starfield on Ultra (with some settings at High) at 1080p (native, no upscaling, although that will give even better performance) at ~60 FPS on average and ~50 FPS in dense areas. I have not tested these parts together so don't actually buy this PC:
Part List - Intel Core i5-10600K, GeForce RTX 4060, Antec VSK 3000 Elite MicroATX Mini Tower
au.pcpartpicker.com
At ~150% the cost of the PS5 (which is $799 at EB Games) you're getting a SIGNIFICANTLY better experience and a lot more storage to boot. Throw in a few months of online and a second controller and suddenly the PS5 starts to cost more.
This is quickly becoming the "PC vs console" thread. If we want to have that discussion, I'd be happy to make a thread for it. There is probably already one.
POILER]
