Dear Future Gamer,

Matthew (Matthew Colbourn, "PC is best games machine", FG32), how wrong can you be? You are comparing widely different machines. Compare your top-of-the-range, no-expense-spared PC, which will have cost in the region of £2000, to an N64 for £70. Quite a substantial difference.

I do agree with you in principal. The PC has the potential to be the ultimate games machine, but there is no such thing as a standard PC. It's a mish-mash of different components with incompatibility problems. Installing a new game can bring a minefield of problems. You buy a brand new PC and in a year or so the new games run like treacle.

This is where consoles have the advantage - you buy a game, stick it in and switch it on. If you have a few grand spare and a lot of free time to set it all up, go ahead - get a top-of-the-range PC and update the components every year. Or, if like most gamers, you want something that's simple to use, with excellent games, buy a console.

Thanks for the brilliant mag, keep up the good work.

Danny Graham

FG: Ah, yes. The blessed PC 'upgrade' problem. There's no doubt that a substantial percentage - the 'casual' gamer - prefers the simplicity of using consoles. And the price makes a hell of a difference. But can you fly wing-to-wing with a bloke from Israel on an N64? Can you shoot that chap from California on your PlayStation?