Damn, console gamers hate us

[Veliko]

If you buy a game at $60 then sell it for $15, it's yet another false comparison compared to if you the PC game at $40 or even $5 in a Steam sale.

Which is irrelevant because that isn't the comparison being made; we were talking about the options available to customers who want to reduce the up-front cost of a new system.

PC owners can re-use older hardware.

Console owners can trade-in older hardware and software.

The cost of future purchases is irrelevant.

I think it's now clear you see only what you want to see...

I see the discussion we were first having - that of the upfront cost of a system, rather than the potential of the total cost of ownership.

 

[BSim500]

Which is irrelevant because that isn't the comparison being made;

It isn't the comparison YOU are trying to make for obvious reasons. Back in the real world the TCO (PC/console + games) is exactly how the economics behind consoles work...

I see the discussion we were first having - that of the upfront cost of a system, rather than the potential of the total cost of ownership.

Which makes no sense unless you intend to buy a console - and then no games for it...

 

[Veliko]

It isn't the comparison YOU are trying to make for obvious reasons. Back in the real world the TCO (PC/console + games) is exactly how the economics behind consoles work...

Could you explain how the potential purchase of a hard drive at some unspecified point in the future has anything to do with the upfront, initial cost of ownership of a system?

You need to go back to the top of page three and re-read the part of the post you were responding to.

 

[BSim500]

Could you explain how the potential purchase of a hard drive at some unspecified point in the future has anything to do with the upfront, initial cost of ownership of a system?

Already did. Not going to fill up page after page getting sucked into a circular argument over this either. Your obsession with including only hardware (that's deliberately sold at a loss) and then excluding everything else related to the economics of *why* that hardware is sold at a loss is precisely where you are going wrong. In fact, it's as silly as declaring "I don't care about the price of ink, I just want to know what inkjet printer itself is cheapest, nothing else matters through the whole lifespan of the printer"... You can delude yourself with that when it comes to buying $30 ink cartridges instead of $15, but you're really holding an argument on your own.

 

[Veliko]

Your obsession with including only hardware

That was what that particular part of the discussion was about; wanting to stay on-topic is not obsessive behaviour.

 

[BSim500]

That was what that particular part of the discussion was about; wanting to stay on-topic is not obsessive behaviour.

Well the discussion changed to a more realistic one. OK enough going round in circles : Even if you wanted to stick to your rigid "base unit cost only", if you took a $110-120 i3-4130 / FX-6300, slapped it on a cheap $50 motherboard, threw in a $130 7850 card, $65 8GB RAM, $55 1TB HDD (all from Newegg which isn't the cheapest, eg, i3 4160 is only $99 at Microcenter), you'd still have near $100 left over (after shopping around) for a budget case + low wattage PSU & optical drive, yet have double the storage space 1TB vs 500GB HDD, (which if you upgraded the PS4 like for like, adds another $60 overhead). It can be done for $500 or near enough even with only buying brand new components without reusing anything. And that was your original point - that it couldn't be done unless you spent a large sum of money well in excess of $500, which is simply factually incorrect. (And that also still excludes the higher cost of the games themselves you seem so desperate to avoid including...)

 

[Veliko]

You attempted to change the discussion in an irrelevant direction...

(And that also still excludes the higher cost of the games themselves you seem so desperate to avoid including...)

...and still are attempting to do.

 

[BSim500]

You attempted to change the discussion in an irrelevant direction...

Re: "And that also still excludes the higher cost of the games themselves you seem so desperate to avoid including..."

...and still are attempting to do.

"The cost of games are irrelevant to games console vs PC economics" is now blatant trolling (especially after you ignored the bulk of the post which directly addressed & debunked your "original point" focusing purely on "base hardware"). :thumbsdown: Goodbye.

 

[Veliko]

It wasn't even me who made the 'original point'.

 

[lupi]

Pc games don't care about console gamers. Pc gamers hate developers that intentionally delay or gimp the pc versions because of the console versions. Fortunately the major review sites have started to more consistenly point this type of stuff out in the pc versions so hopefully the pressure will be on for them to stop these type of things.

 

[BrightCandle]

Pc games don't care about console gamers. Pc gamers hate developers that intentionally delay or gimp the pc versions because of the console versions. Fortunately the major review sites have started to more consistenly point this type of stuff out in the pc versions so hopefully the pressure will be on for them to stop these type of things.

Ha they have not that pointing this out. What was the last game review you saw that actually tested PC technology, ie it check eyefinity, SLI/xfire, 4k, key remapping, controller compatibility etc etc. They just don't do it. They don't mention the hugely consolised interface on any games at all. PCs are good because of the mouse at choosing out of a list. Making us use radial wheels or left and right selectors are much slower than they need to be on a console. Just no they aren't doing any of this at all to the PC gamer detriment. You are reading wholy different reviews and sites to the rest of us and I want to know where I can find these magic reviews that do test PC gamer concerns.

 

[Eric1987]

pc gamers don't have hate for console gamers. Its pity. Its the weak hardware, overpriced games, and anti-consumer tactics we hate.

qfmft!!!

 

[alkemyst]

It's par for the course today...groups don't care if they are right or wrong as long as they have a chance to take something away from the groups they don't belong too.

 

[lupi]

Sli doesn't work in all pc only games and I don't use a controller so never checked for it.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

Console gamers are just jelly of a superior platform and the owners ability to use it correctly.

 

[JUSTWACKIT]

Just came across this somehow....can't believe how many people signed it. Seriously, the hate is real.

http://www.change.org/p/rockstar-games-dont-make-a-pc-version-of-gta-v

kids shouldnt even be allowed to play those type of games

 

[JUSTWACKIT]

I have to agree with this. At the end of the day, a console is just a computer that is proprietary to a company. Console gamer's don't understand that what they are purchasing is a low-mid level computer, OS, and exclusive games. At the end of the day really, is exclusivity worth it? You may see at most 1 or 2 games a year that are exclusive to either console. Developers know that there is a huge market to capitalize on within the pc gaming community, they would never turn their back on it. Hence the reason all major releases are seen across all platforms. I don't hate "console gamers", I just find it sad that they don't really understand what they are paying for. They look at PC's as if you need to upgrade every single year in order to keep up with the consoles, it just doesn't make sense.

Also, look at the level of games being released on the pc. If there was ever a time to enter the pc gaming market, its now. We have a never ending supply of creative games that provide us with beautiful single player experiences or captivating multi-player ones. Not to mention the fact that the sales alone within the pc digital market make it worth while.

unfortunately pc is dying, where are the fifa games now? where are the wwe? where are the pga tour? all we got now is sodding wargames, and when was the last time you walked into a shop and saw a pc game section? it saddens me that there are graphic cards going beyond £3000 yet games are becoming extinct

 

[werepossum]

Yup, I feel embarassed for the overwhelming majority of the gaming community. Makes me ashamed to tell people that I like video games.

A very pretty lighting manufacturer's sales Veep came by couple weeks ago to show some product and take us to lunch. She asked us our hobbies and one I mentioned was video gaming. She looked at me like I had grown a second head (and not in a useful place.) She's heavily into fantasy football. Seems bizarre to me that fantasy football is considered acceptably adult and computer games are not - especially since my cousin's son knew literally everything about football by age ten whereas he could not even buy the games I play.

When Bungie, Epic, Rockstar and the like shift their focus to IOS and android in the near future I think we will gain a strange kind of understanding in the gaming world. Games designed around a touchscreen being sloppily ported to an xbox controller and so on and so on.

Maybe, although I don't see many hardcore games running on tablet hardware any time soon.

Go back 20 years. Probably don't have to go back that far, but to make the argument simple, there is absolutely no doubt that the original PlayStation was vastly superior in 3d graphics than any PC. At the time, PC 3d accelerators with affectionately know as 3d decelerators. It took 2 years for the PC to have anything competitive when the original Voodoo graphics boards were released.

As with almost everything, this swings both ways. The belief among PC gaming elitists (not ALL PC gamers) that a current gen console is not able to compete with a $500 "gaming" PC is totally bogus as well. Yes, PC's at the highend are now much more powerful than consoles, but you are going to be spending some cash to hang in the highend. The average PC in use for gaming today is not as powerful as a PS4. Over 10 million PS4's have been sold so far. It is extremely unlikely there a 10 million PC's in use for gaming today that are as powerful.

It isn't consoles that are holding back PC gaming. It's the lack of a large enough market at the PC highend. The number of gamers running viable 4k gaming setups is probably in the thousands. According to steam, .02% of users have a 4k display. Drop to 1440p, and the number increases to just .96%. If you are a game developer, why would you target such a small market? There's no money there. The most common resolution is 1920x1080 which 1/3 of users have. The 2nd most common is 1366x768 at 26%. Which certainly furthers proof that the average gaming PC in use is not comparable to current generation consoles.

Hey, I'll have you know that in 1985 I was happily playing Rogue in sixteen glorious shades of amber whereas the consoles only had, um . . . Okay, I'll give you that one. But as Aikouka said, we don't have PCs only for gaming. Granted, consoles are also useful for other purposes, but not nearly so useful as a PC.

 

[MongGrel]

There's really no such thing as a "gaming PC" anymore. Now, I know some people will look at that cross-eyed, but I think people have the wrong idea. Gaming PCs were used a lot back in the late 90s and early 00s because of how bad processors were. Dual-core CPUs weren't prevalent until AMD brought out the Athlon 64 X2, which was rather expensive, and without one, all it took was a single background process firing off to bring your online game to a halt. I knew quite a few hardcore WoW players that had two PCs, and one was strictly for games as that's all it had on it.

I bring this up, because I think that people tend to ignore something about computers: they are general purpose machines. I don't purchase a computer just for gaming; I buy a decent machine so I can do everything else and gaming. I buy decent components so I can (hopefully) have a rock-solid experience in everything that I do (not just gaming).

The one thing that I do think people leave out of the pros of PC gaming is the better backwards compatibility. It isn't perfect by any means, but just try and fire up Max Payne on your latest console. The game was released on the first XBOX, but it still runs on the PC just fine... constipation face and all.



Generating assets for 1080p doesn't really hold back 2560x1440/1600, and honestly, it isn't for 4K either. Why? The monitors aren't any larger. People are already using SSAA (i.e. render at 4K, resize to 1080p) as a method of reducing jagged edges. Rendering at 4K and displaying on the same size screen isn't really much different. The only difficulty is ensuring that things such as HUD elements are displayed correctly.

I would argue that I think the 30 FPS lock-in is a bigger problem that we've seen lately. It isn't just a developer being lazy in their port job. In some cases, they did it because it's inherent to the game's design (i.e. Need for Speed Rivals).

Good points actually, I was backing up and reading more.

The main rig I haven't even gamed on a lot lately, but it does it well, do a lot of other things.

It's just general purpose and the other two in the house built that way also.

 

[Sulaco]

unfortunately pc is dying, where are the fifa games now? where are the wwe? where are the pga tour? all we got now is sodding wargames, and when was the last time you walked into a shop and saw a pc game section? it saddens me that there are graphic cards going beyond £3000 yet games are becoming extinct

No, they're not, and those are asinine arguments.

First off, most PC game sales are done through digital distribution. Using "shop real estate" to draw any conclusions is just misleading.

PC game sales revenue has surpassed that of console games, and are projected to only widen the gap.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonev...how-long-should-console-makers-keep-fighting/

And, those "sodding wargames" are just as big and prevalent on consoles. And while sports games certainly are a weakness on the PC, that's no more fair than criticizing consoles for their weak strategy and indie game selection. It's just a matter of where your tastes lie.

 

[alkemyst]

kids shouldnt even be allowed to play those type of games

QFT my fiancee's ex sent GTAV to her son for his 11th birthday last year.

We traded it in for something else.

 

[ThinClient]

kids shouldnt even be allowed to play those type of games

This is what we call "parenting."

 

[sweenish]

I bought Square-Enix's ENTIRE CATALOG for $80 bucks one year.

Both have their place. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. What little I read of this argument is utterly stupid.

 

[ThinClient]

Well the discussion changed to a more realistic one. OK enough going round in circles : Even if you wanted to stick to your rigid "base unit cost only", if you took a $110-120 i3-4130 / FX-6300, slapped it on a cheap $50 motherboard, threw in a $130 7850 card, $65 8GB RAM, $55 1TB HDD (all from Newegg which isn't the cheapest, eg, i3 4160 is only $99 at Microcenter), you'd still have near $100 left over (after shopping around) for a budget case + low wattage PSU & optical drive, yet have double the storage space 1TB vs 500GB HDD, (which if you upgraded the PS4 like for like, adds another $60 overhead). It can be done for $500 or near enough even with only buying brand new components without reusing anything. And that was your original point - that it couldn't be done unless you spent a large sum of money well in excess of $500, which is simply factually incorrect. (And that also still excludes the higher cost of the games themselves you seem so desperate to avoid including...)

Owned.

 

[JUSTWACKIT]

This is what we call "parenting."

::