[General Discussion] True Cost to Own

Has there ever been an analysis done between the various gaming rigs (PC included) that takes into account a "true cost to own" factor? (For example, in relation to cars see this article: True Cost to Own (TCO) )

For example, with Xbox 360 if you have to send it back a couple of times for repair/replacement and you're without your console for a month per year, how does this factor into the cost of owning the console? One oft-cited "hidden cost" of the 360 for example is WiFi. You can buy a $350 Xbox 360 vs. a $399 PS3, but then you have to purchase an adapter for $99 for the Xbox to get the same WiFi the $399 PS3 has. Then, take into account that the Wii does not require a HDTV (some would argue the 360 does not either, but SDTV makes several games' text unreadable so I don't buy that argument) and suddenly there is a huge cost to factor in. Also, I would suppose there is power consumption (when running consoles or PCs for 1,000-2,000 hours per year this adds up) as well as the cost of accessories such as controllers or memory cards. With portables, I guess you could factor in the speed at which Nintendo release various GB/DS iterations vs. Sony's PSP updates. One factor I have seen mentioned on these forums is the price of PC games vs. console games. Then there is also resale value. I could sell my Wii for almost what I paid for it. Used PC games go for almost nothing, so if you're willing to buy used games PC could be cheap over the long haul.

What are your thoughts on this?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

The first thing that comes to mind before anything else is how bullshit some of the arguments for tacking costs on are.

You don't need wifi. In fact, I prefer wired and run that to both my 360 and PS3. You don't need an HDTV either, although it's certainly optimal. You know what else is optimal? Buying a new stereo for your car. Optimal, but not REQUIRED. Was that factored into the CTO? Doubtful. With all the bullshit extra costs tacked on in the above argument, one could say that buying a PS3 implies the cost of upgrading one's DVD collection to Blu-ray, just because you now have the option to. Especially talking about depreciation. Games aren't a market where you own one or two and that's it, then selling what you've got and move on. It's a totally different sort of thing here.

Cost to own is how much you invest in the thing, not how much you theoretically could or should. Especially when you're talking an entertainment device instead of a mode of transportation, considering how one's...y'know...important, and the other's for wasting time with.

Most amazing jew boots

Quote:

Games aren't a market where you own one or two and that's it, then selling what you've got and move on. It's a totally different sort of thing here.

I actually know a number of people that only keep a few games on hand at a time, as they don't see a reason to hang onto games they'll probably never play again. Thankfully a lot of people like to sell of their games, or my collection would be considerably smaller.

I think a sort of cost analysis isn't that bad, as just think about Nintendo's accessory bullshit they're doing. I mean, yeah, the Wii is the cheapest, but it's a multiplayer system at heart, so that means shelling out for extra controllers, nunchucks, that new one to one thing they did at E3, and any other junk they decide to release at a later date that becomes required to play their latest gimmick.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I don't have an SDTV, so if I were to buy a Wii, I would have to spend a lot of time trying to find some shitty SDTV to buy so that I can play those games in their native resolution right. I mean really, on an HDTV, shit will look terrible due to upscaling. Yeah, it would be cheaper to just get a PS3 or 360 and continue using my HDTV, instead of paying $250 for a Wii and then a shitload of time, and $100+ on a tv.

But then again, if I buy a PS3 instead of a 360, I would have to spend less money on games, since lol where are they. SOUNDS LIKE THE THING TO DO THERE.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

I actually know a number of people that only keep a few games on hand at a time, as they don't see a reason to hang onto games they'll probably never play again. Thankfully a lot of people like to sell of their games, or my collection would be considerably smaller.

Uh, yeah, lots of people do that. But do you know people who have a handful of cars, sell them when they don't think they'll be driving them anymore out of boredom, and then get new ones and keep having a turnover like this every couple months?

Thanks for proving my point that it's an entirely different thing though, and that applying the exact same thought process to it is ridiculous. I appreciate not having to do it myself.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

I think a sort of cost analysis isn't that bad, as just think about Nintendo's accessory bullshit they're doing. I mean, yeah, the Wii is the cheapest, but it's a multiplayer system at heart, so that means shelling out for extra controllers, nunchucks, that new one to one thing they did at E3, and any other junk they decide to release at a later date that becomes required to play their latest gimmick.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Cost to own for a car would include maintenance, gas, insurance, and things like that. You certainly don't need to buy all of those things, but it's highly recommended. Just because you're some gamefag that can't get rid of any of his games doesn't mean there's not plenty of people out there that like to take advantage of the TRADE 5 TO GET $5 OFF YOUR NEXT PURCHASE deals at EB.

Much like how you don't have to buy additional accessories to play with friends, but, seriously, who the hell only owns a Wii to do it single player? Or, you know, I could buy Orange Box for my PC for $50 and play online for free with a bunch of content-adding updates. Or, I could get it for a 360 and need my Live subscription for it and then having to wait like I'm living in a PAL region for the updates in addition to having to pay for them.

I mean, I'd love to own a Wii to play smash brothers, but for someone that's on a fairly limited entertainment budget it seems silly to shell out all the money for a Wii when I can go bowling with my friends for $5 each instead. How do you guys think Ace Combat would have fared if you were required to buy that $150 flight stick along with the game? Perhaps as well as Steel Battalion?

Most amazing jew boots

Insurance is mandatory, as is gas if you want the thing to, y'know, run. Gas is more easily compared to electricity if you're going for a console here, not the game library.

Are you being intentially obtuse for the sake of lulz or what?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

I was thinking about it earlier, and I think games are a lot more like putting gas into your console. On some consoles you'll get a lot more time played for your money than others. Since without games it tends to just sit there and look pretty, just like a car without gas.

I'm not actually sure why you seemed to be comparing each individual game to a car and then comparing HDTVs/wifi to a stereo, but maybe that's why I'm so confused as to how your argument's supposed to make sense.

(And, as a note, you aren't required to have insurance in order to drive in New Hampshire!)

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by speculative

With portables, I guess you could factor in the speed at which Nintendo release various GB/DS iterations vs. Sony's PSP updates.

Why would these things be a consideration in the cost to own? Just because there's a new PSP model doesn't mean I'm going to go out and buy it. Sure it'd be nice to have the newer version rather than the older one sometimes, but there's no reason why you'd just chuck the old model for the new because it's there. It's an idiotic argument to make.

As for the whole car analogy you've got going on here guys, sure you can compare a console to a car and the games to petrol, but one game can last you as long you like. You can replay it over and over, especially in the case of titles like Tetris, Animal Crossing, Warhawk and pretty much anything with a decent online multiplayer mode. So games are more like roads. Owning a game gives you a bit of road to go back and forwards on for as long as you wish to travel that route. Some roads are longer than others, and some are more interesting drives, but you can use them as long you have access to them.

So yes, games are mandatory in as much as you need roads to be able to go anywhere in your shiny car, but you only need one bit of road (if that, you could just sit in the car making brum brum noises and listen to the stereo).

Also, don't get needs and wants mixed up. You can argue that accessories are needed, but most of the time they're not, they're something you want. You need a 360 to play 360 games, sure, but you don't need to play a game with two players, so you don't need a second pad. You may want to play with a mate so you will want a second controller for that purpose, but that's not a need.

At the end of the day, trying to work out a true cost of owning is the pursuit of fools, as it's always going to be down to the individual and what sort of requirements and gaming habits you have, and what sort of disposable income you have access to.

How ya doing, buddy?

Yeah, it sucks if you're the entertainer. I recall getting the Wii around launch and the subsequent controller shortage. On launch day I found a place that had plenty and decided only to get one additional pair of Wii remote/nunchuck instead of three extra pairs. Kicked myself later when I was asked to go back and grab some more for the upcoming family gathering at Thanksgiving and discovered that of course the Wii accessory shelves were a ghost town nation-wide.

But thankfully all anyone really wanted to do was play Wii Sports which for the most part is a pass the controller game or for the most part just needs two Wii controllers. Where I get all at Nintendo is boxing and tennis which clearly lose a lot of their potential for not having a second set of controllers in the box. I, a gamer, was at least smart enough to get one pair at the store earlier.

I miss the SNES/NES days of having two full controllers coming with the system. I just think that new casual users that you'd think Nintendo would try to do even more to coddle wouldn't immediately grasp the concept that multiplayer requires you to buy additional controllers. I can only imagine all the clueless parents after coming home from the launch or on Christmas morning that discovered that they'd have to go back to the stores in order to enjoy half the potential of the included game and finding that their trip was a waste of gas for the racks were empty and the employees merely shrugged when asked the question of when more much wanted goods would arrive. Really, one extra set honestly would not have killed Nintendo and would have given them bonus points to defining the system's focus and saving many a headache for their customers.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.