That's the main rebuttal to people claiming consoles to be a cost-effective gaming platform. They really aren't.
First the comparison is often dishonest because they compare the cost of a console vs the cost of a PC. What you should be comparing is the cost of a PC vs the cost of a console + the cost of the non-gaming PC you are almost certainly going to get anyway. Second the "console graphics" are typically 30FPS because promotional screenshots sell games, not 144Hz LEGO Call of Duty. It's a compromise I wouldn't make, but console players are willing to make it, so let's use that as a starting point.
I work in a computer shop and people who don't use their computer as a gaming platform are still fine spending like 500 dollars for it. I think that's way too much (my own backup computer is a fucking $90 Chuwi Hi10) so let's shave off 150 dollars. That's 500 + 350 if you want to compare with the Xbox One X.
850 dollars? That's largely enough to build a computer that will output Xbox One X-tier graphics at 30FPS, except you have the freedom to go for 60FPS if you so wish (a 850-dollar computer might not even need to compromise visuals all that much for that), and that's before we get into other cost factors: games are much more expensive on consoles, when you upgrade your console you cannot keep your old games and accessories, online services require an additional monthly cost, etc.
Gaming on a console is really fucking expensive, and the argument that a PC needs to be prohibitively expensive to output similar visuals is false. The console market is built on convenience (declining but still arguably true) and brand loyalty.
