Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

PC vs. Console conversation (keep it civil)

119 replies to this topic
E.A.B.
  • E.A.B.

    Group: Leone Mafia Family

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005

#61

Posted 08 October 2013 - 05:53 AM

Why is this still being debated?

 

PC's are obviously superior in every conceivable way. They're all computers, but PC gamers get to upgrade and aren't limited by the constraints imposed by console manufacturers. The only downside being that you can't pop in and immediately play, and that the cost MIGHT be higher on PC.

 

Otherwise, this idea that you can't ''sit back and game comfortably'' is a total lie. It's like people don't realize their TV's can be used as monitors and their controllers plugged into their USB ports to do the same.


Ash_735
  • Ash_735

    1 627 826 3789

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 15 Nov 2005
  • None
  • Most Knowledgeable [GTA] 2013
    Best Map 2013 "ViceCityStories PC Edition"

#62

Posted 08 October 2013 - 06:15 AM

The only thing I dont like about pc gaming, is the pc gamers, never before have I seen such a nazi like band of gamers who view themselves as the superior beings and thus deserve everything on pc and if a developer does not put a game on pc, then they are scum who dont deserve a pc gamers money and deserve to have future titles pirated to teach them a lesson. It is like arrogance and self entitlement rolled into one. Apart from that I love pc gaming, I'm actually due an upgrade, might be switching over to amd.

Just to clarify, there is similar stuff on the console side but those tend to be, as the op said, obvious to spot as idiots, where as the pc gamer ones are smart yet still carry this snobbish attitude, this thread is just another example of that.

I'm a gamer, end of, ill play on consoles or pc, there are genres I prefer on consoles where as I prefer others on pc, it all works out quite nice really, I'd find it tough to pick a side and say one is better or some crap as I have enjoyed many things on each!
  • Boxman108 likes this

El_Diablo
  • El_Diablo

    "The_Devil"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#63

Posted 08 October 2013 - 03:25 PM

never before have I seen such a nazi like band of gamers who view themselves as the superior beings and thus deserve everything

 

it's funny because I could say the exact same thing about a lot of console owners I know... :pp

  • F4L? likes this

KeepCalm and CarryGun
  • KeepCalm and CarryGun

    Falling Outside The Normal Moral Constraints

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Oct 2013

#64

Posted 12 October 2013 - 10:16 PM

In terms of technology, PC gaming will always be way ahead of consoles, (and top end PCs by leaps and bounds, no argument).

 

This will continue to be true, even with next gen consoles, both of which are effectively affordable mid-range gaming PCs, in standardised living-room friendly formats.

 

That said, the standardisation and ease of use of consoles seems to count for a lot of us, and certainly help developers optimise games for the majority of players, as with console gaming there are only 2 major platforms with set limitations, as opposed to the scalable nature of PCs, and the many levels of quality on different systems.

 

Quite how TLOU looks as good as it does on a PS3, with only a total of 512mb split memory (and a Cell processor) goes a long way towards proving how developer expertise counts. 

 

Cost and ease of use are also factors, the first 3 PCs I've owned, were ones I built. They rocked, and though its not rocket science, it takes some time & effort. Downside is you'll end up with a beast that will need to be upgraded in 2 years if you want to make the most of the latest games, and will cost you for the upgrades (and cost you more if you have to upgrade more to accept the upgrades :)) The Console life-cycle negates this. You pays yer price and plays yer games (for at least 5+ years).

 

If you want the best possible cutting edge looking games, can afford it and put the work in, get a PC.

 

If you don't want a box that sounds like an Apache gunship taking off when you turn it on, costs you £900, needs constant adjustment and eventual upgrades, stick to consoles.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Flynny
  • Flynny

    Where is Jessica Hyde?

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2012
  • Chad

#65

Posted 13 October 2013 - 07:53 PM Edited by NateShaw92, 13 October 2013 - 07:59 PM.

I'm a gamer, end of, ill play on consoles or pc, there are genres I prefer on consoles where as I prefer others on pc, it all works out quite nice really, I'd find it tough to pick a side and say one is better or some crap as I have enjoyed many things on each!

My sentiments exactly

 

Especially the first part. We are all gamers, that is more important than what we use for gaming.

 

 

 

If you don't want a box that sounds like an Apache gunship taking off when you turn it on, costs you £900, needs constant adjustment and eventual upgrades, stick to consoles.

 
You are either providing misinformation or you got swindled
my ps3 is quieter than my computer as well

Bat1
  • Bat1

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2013

#66

Posted 13 October 2013 - 09:01 PM

I'm a console gamer, and the "either or" foolishness annoys me.  I have no ill will against PC use, I think it's fantastic.  I think gaming on a PC is analogous to driving a sports car,  If you want to, then do it, and be prepared to spend.  The fact that I don't want to drive a sports car doesn't mean that I'm a bad driver.  I can still drive a Honda Civic and enjoy it and have it be a meaningful part of a well adjusted lifestyle.  Console gamers really make fools of themselves in even validating the whole "PC IS TEH ONLEY WAYZ" argument.  

  • RedDagger likes this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Look at his little spots!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#67

Posted 14 October 2013 - 07:18 AM

I'm a PC gamer and I bear no ill will against console gamers. I just prefer PCs, always have and always will. I do however resent the attitude of certain companies towards PC gamers, especially in light of all the "we-aren't-going-to-bother-too-much-with-PC-ports-because-they-just-get-pirated" bunk we've had from of the of the vendors. Firstly, I don't think piracy damages their revenues that badly. We all accept it exists on PC to a greater extent than on consoles but none of the vendors have ever been able to reasonably and justifiably explain what proportion of copies owned by PC games are pirated, and by extension how much this costs them. Secondly, the PC gaming market offers a level of stability you just don't see in the console market. There's been a huge fluctuation in console sales due to the advent of mobile and tablet gaming, with casual gamers shying away to dual-use systems like many did with online games not so long ago, but the same isn't true of the core PC gaming market, though admittedly smaller. 

 

And anyone who claims there's no money in the PC gaming market (was it the chairman of Ubisoft who said this?) needs their head examined. Just look at Valve.


Vercetti42
  • Vercetti42

    I have moved to a new account.

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 May 2013
  • India
  • Best Contributor [Gaming] 2012

#68

Posted 14 October 2013 - 08:07 AM

^ In the last sentence if you are talking about PC gaming sales, Well the problem is that gamers judge PC gaming sales by looking at the statistics on wikipedia. Remember, that those statistics show only retail sales and not the millions of steam downloads. For example: GTA IV sold 3.5 million retail copies, if Steam downloads were taken into account, it would be at least 5 million and anything around 5-10 million is considered good.


friendly luggage
  • friendly luggage

    Catch a ride!

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 May 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#69

Posted 14 October 2013 - 01:16 PM Edited by illegal_luggage, 14 October 2013 - 01:19 PM.

Luckily I can experience of the best of both worlds. I've only started to properly game on PC since late 2011 so I'm quite new to it. However I used to play games such as Age of Empires, Serious Sam, Flight Sims and Runescape (don't judge) way before building my own system.

 

Console Pros

  • Ease of use. No faffing with drivers, just plug and play. I actually can't update my Nvidia drivers from 314.22 because doing so causes Firefox to crash, display driver crash and my 560 Ti will also throttle itself for no reason in certain games. Tried many times with different settings and ensured drivers were wiped properly. Still no luck.
  • No need to worry about upgrading to play future games. Unless you have a 4GB Xbox Slim...
  • Lots of split screen and local MP support in games. Diablo 3 is superior on the consoles due to local 4 player CO OP, and there's no auction house or strict DRM

PC pros

  • Games are usually cheaper
  • Lots of dedicated servers and more player slots for MP games
  • Contains a wider range of simulators and RTS games
  • Updates for games often come out quicker on the PC platform. Certification can take weeks on the Xbox and Playstation

MrPeteyMax
  • MrPeteyMax

    DON'T TOUCH ME YOU FILTHY CASUAL

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Sep 2013
  • None

#70

Posted 14 October 2013 - 01:39 PM

Why do we even allow these threads? It will always end up in arguments. Some people can't handle debate.

 

Facepalm_227785.jpg

  • BlackScout likes this

Mockage
  • Mockage

    This Will Destroy You

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 27 Jul 2011
  • NATO

#71

Posted 14 October 2013 - 02:19 PM

Why do we even allow these threads? It will always end up in arguments. Some people can't handle debate.

 

-snip-

 

Why are you being so pessimistic? So far this thread has been fine. Get out.

 

To stay on topic, I'm a console gamer but I have no qualms against PC gamer's. Matter of fact, I can respect the PC gaming community. I really do find a good amount of stability within it, and I really can't see it being degraded in the next few years. It's stood strong and proud for several years, despite some of you choosing to go elitist and rub your fancy hardware in others people faces. Not the point, though.

 

Both consoles and PC's have it's pros and cons. Consoles are more casual, hence why they're seen by PC gamer's a necessity for the plug n' play type. PC gaming is more suited towards a more picky kind, the way I see it. You all prefer running video games on strong hardware as opposed to a console simply because you can mod and do all sorts of sh*t with a game on your computer. You also play with a keyboard and mouse but, you can have the option to play with a controller as well. Go figure.

 

The only complication I can think of at the moment is money. Let's face it, you need some real f*cking moolah' if you wanna get into PC gaming. Your generic XPS isn't gonna cut it. And with the lack of money some of us face, our next resort is to console gaming.


Doublepulse
  • Doublepulse

    I will turn your life upside down!

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 07 Feb 2010
  • None

#72

Posted 15 October 2013 - 08:37 PM

I play on consoles, handhelds and PC. I am a gamer. The only confusing part is getting into argument about which hardware is better for gaming. To me, as long as the game performs well with a steady framerate and few to no bugs. Then it really should not matter as long as you are happy. We obviously know PC has the upper hand with hardware..It is a multi purpose computer..

 

I had a mature debate with a friend about prices of games when buying on a PC vs consoles.

 

We came to the conclusion, that you do get more games for your money on PC than you do on a console.

 

However when you take on the perspective on money, you will eventually spend just as much money on both, because with the steam deals that go on, we are fooled into spending more money because they are cheaper.


MrPeteyMax
  • MrPeteyMax

    DON'T TOUCH ME YOU FILTHY CASUAL

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Sep 2013
  • None

#73

Posted 16 October 2013 - 02:05 PM

 

Why do we even allow these threads? It will always end up in arguments. Some people can't handle debate.

 

-snip-

 

Why are you being so pessimistic? So far this thread has been fine. Get out.

 

 

Yeah people saying PC gamers are fat is great discussion. Your thread standards are lower than Fritzl's Dungeon.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Look at his little spots!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#74

Posted 16 October 2013 - 06:56 PM

 

 

Why do we even allow these threads? It will always end up in arguments. Some people can't handle debate.

 

-snip-

 

Why are you being so pessimistic? So far this thread has been fine. Get out.

 

 

Yeah people saying PC gamers are fat is great discussion. Your thread standards are lower than Fritzl's Dungeon.

 

 

In case you were completely unaware, which I can only assume you were because you totally ignored the bulk of the thread, it's stayed pretty civil.

 

Right up until you lowered the tone with gratuitous use of meme images and an opinion no-one cares for even if it were relevant, which it isn't.

  • Otter likes this

Kristian.
  • Kristian.

    5KΣΓ

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • None

#75

Posted 16 October 2013 - 07:26 PM

And anyone who claims there's no money in the PC gaming market (was it the chairman of Ubisoft who said this?) needs their head examined. Just look at Valve.

Yeah. I wish Rockstar would release GTA games for all the platforms simultaneously, like other publishers do. A franchise like GTA would generate a lot of profit anyway. It just makes R* look greedy.

 

What if they released the game on Steam first, and only after a while on disc, would that prevent piracy to some extent? I'm assuming cracking Steam games isn't much of a challenge either, but I mean in the absence of a disc release, it might be harder to crack.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Look at his little spots!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#76

Posted 16 October 2013 - 07:59 PM

Digital content delivery is much easier to secure against piracy than physical content. 


Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#77

Posted 16 October 2013 - 08:23 PM

The overall experience, which is finally coming into its own with social tie ins, friends and achievement sharing, and all sorts of cool new community stuff they're working on, really make it more fun to play the game if you've bought it. Not to mention the increasing amount of day one patches required this day and age (conspiracy alert: by design?) networked modding communities and ease of use of DLC.

 

It's a really smart and worthwhile system they've built.


ButtonMaster
  • ButtonMaster

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2013

#78

Posted 16 October 2013 - 10:06 PM

 

You simply miss on too many games if you dont have a console

quality > quantity

 

So true, so true.


Osho
  • Osho

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2012
  • None

#79

Posted 20 October 2013 - 05:17 AM

No matter how many $ you invest on Consoles you won't get to try MODS that are offered for PC Games. Time has come where quite a few game engines ( and even developers release games for open development ) are offering open source kits to mappers and mods giving them a powerful tool to shape the game of superior quality. Skyrim, half life conversion, Dayz, Thief The dark mod and many more to add. Consoles are actually sold to curb the ever growing talented people in the name of sofa-couch exclusive entertainment. .. .. and there is no way console developers will allow that much freedom till eternity... No matter how many PS4-5-8-9's release they throw... yeah.. It's a challenge!

Mr. Sleepy
  • Mr. Sleepy

    Infamous

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2013
  • United-Kingdom

#80

Posted 21 October 2013 - 06:49 AM

Everyone keeps on adding "ease of use" as a pro to the console.

 

Aside from different tasks that the PC uses, let's take Steam into the matter.

 

On steam you just create your account, purchase the game and download it, it's not so hard is it? Want to play the game?! No disc to be inserted! Just open Steam, go to your library and press "play" voila!

 

Easier than consoles. IMO.


Secura
  • Secura

    Fallen and Reborn

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2010
  • United-Kingdom
  • Discussion Award [Gaming]
    Literary Prowess [General Chat]

#81

Posted 21 October 2013 - 01:50 PM

And anyone who claims there's no money in the PC gaming market (was it the chairman of Ubisoft who said this?) needs their head examined. Just look at Valve.

 

 

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

 

No.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Look at his little spots!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#82

Posted 21 October 2013 - 01:55 PM

What, so you're claiming Valve haven't made a vast amount of money catering almost solely for the PC market?

Secura
  • Secura

    Fallen and Reborn

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2010
  • United-Kingdom
  • Discussion Award [Gaming]
    Literary Prowess [General Chat]

#83

Posted 21 October 2013 - 03:15 PM Edited by Secura, 21 October 2013 - 03:16 PM.

What, so you're claiming Valve haven't made a vast amount of money catering almost solely for the PC market?

 

f*ck no, I don't know how anyone could ever come to conclusion. That's the whole point, they have far too much control over the PC gaming market in general, making the point that Valve have made that much from their games alone is stupid, yes I know that's not exactly the point your making but it does tie into to what I'm about to say. 

 

Valve as I have already stated, have way too much control over how the PC gaming market works, it wouldn't surprise me to see the other smaller online retailers go out of business, sites like Desura could blink out of existence in the next few years because of Steam's dominating presence in the online market and that is NOT a good thing.

 

The way Valve make most of their cash is by monopolising a gaming market, rendering the point that people looking to make some cash in the PC gaming market should look at Valve, the games they've made and the services that they provide as an example of what to do null and void. There's money in the PC gaming market of course, but the most of it is reserved for Valve.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Look at his little spots!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#84

Posted 21 October 2013 - 03:45 PM

Nothing about your comments states or implies that Valve have failed to make money from the PC gaming market. Note I very carefully chose my initial words in such a way that I wasn't specifically referring to games. So, I'll ask you again. Are you claiming that Valve have not made significant amounts of money from the PC gaming market? Because you appear to be disputing that statement, yet then go on to say about how Valve have a monopoly on the market, which is entirely contradictory.


Secura
  • Secura

    Fallen and Reborn

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2010
  • United-Kingdom
  • Discussion Award [Gaming]
    Literary Prowess [General Chat]

#85

Posted 21 October 2013 - 06:23 PM Edited by Secura, 21 October 2013 - 06:29 PM.

 

What, so you're claiming Valve haven't made a vast amount of money catering almost solely for the PC market?

 

f*ck no, I don't know how anyone could ever come to conclusion.

 

 

So, I'll ask you again. Are you claiming that Valve have not made significant amounts of money from the PC gaming market? Because you appear to be disputing that statement, yet then go on to say about how Valve have a monopoly on the market, which is entirely contradictory.

 

Clearly you didn't bother to read anything I wrote down. The point I'm trying to make is that Valve are THE exception in the PC gaming market. Pointing to Valve doing well in the market would be like me pointing towards the PlayStation 2 and saying that there's (or rather was for the sake of the analogy) a lot of money to be made in the console market. 

 

There's money to be made, but only for the big boys, little independent developers have a hard enough time getting on Steam in the first place, let alone earn cash from it. Valve is not, and never will be a good example that PC gaming is thriving, the overall state of the market and the developers inside of it is.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Look at his little spots!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#86

Posted 21 October 2013 - 07:21 PM

There seems to be a lack of clarity here. Both these responses:
 

 

What, so you're claiming Valve haven't made a vast amount of money catering almost solely for the PC market?


f*ck no, I don't know how anyone could ever come to conclusion.

 


 

And anyone who claims there's no money in the PC gaming market (was it the chairman of Ubisoft who said this?) needs their head examined. Just look at Valve.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
 
No.

 


Read as you making the claim that there's no money in the PC market. Which you apparently aren't, though I'm not quite sure what point you are making. I've never said anything about independent developers or a gaming economy which isn't driven by the big boys- but that's hardly unique to the PC market, I'd argue that smaller producers fare much better in the PC gaming market than they do in the console market because there's no hardware monopolisation, but I digress- my point was merely that there is still a great deal of money in the PC market.

 

Are you disputing that point, or are you disputing my example of Valve because, even though they do make a great deal of money, you disagree with their effective monopoly in game distribution? Because reading your responses it comes across that you're arguing against points I'm not actually making, which makes the whole thing very, very hard to follow. Or understand.


Secura
  • Secura

    Fallen and Reborn

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2010
  • United-Kingdom
  • Discussion Award [Gaming]
    Literary Prowess [General Chat]

#87

Posted 21 October 2013 - 07:35 PM

Are you disputing that point, or are you disputing my example of Valve because, even though they do make a great deal of money, you disagree with their effective monopoly in game distribution? Because reading your responses it comes across that you're arguing against points I'm not actually making, which makes the whole thing very, very hard to follow. Or understand.

 

 

 Sort of, I'm sorry if I've made this overly difficult, I tried to be as direct as I could but I see that I clearly wasn't.

 

What I'm arguing is that Valve is a terrible example of the PC gaming market just well and "looking at them" as you put it isn't the best way to prove said point. In layman's terms, I believe you used the worst company you possibly could have to further reinforce your initial point. 

 

To clarify, I'm not arguing that there's no money in the PC gaming market just that Valve have far too much power and control over what sells and what does not.


Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#88

Posted 21 October 2013 - 07:39 PM

You're insane. Valve is one of the best things to happen to PC gaming since the invention of the laser mouse, and they roll around in hills of giant cash. I don't understand your position. How is Valve a "terrible" example of the PC gaming market?


AllenKS
  • AllenKS

    SoLoville

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Jan 2011

#89

Posted 21 October 2013 - 08:08 PM Edited by AllenKS, 21 October 2013 - 08:29 PM.

In terms of technology, PC gaming will always be way ahead of consoles, (and top end PCs by leaps and bounds, no argument).

 

This will continue to be true, even with next gen consoles, both of which are effectively affordable mid-range gaming PCs, in standardised living-room friendly formats.

 

That said, the standardisation and ease of use of consoles seems to count for a lot of us, and certainly help developers optimise games for the majority of players, as with console gaming there are only 2 major platforms with set limitations, as opposed to the scalable nature of PCs, and the many levels of quality on different systems.

 

Quite how TLOU looks as good as it does on a PS3, with only a total of 512mb split memory (and a Cell processor) goes a long way towards proving how developer expertise counts. 

 

Cost and ease of use are also factors, the first 3 PCs I've owned, were ones I built. They rocked, and though its not rocket science, it takes some time & effort. Downside is you'll end up with a beast that will need to be upgraded in 2 years if you want to make the most of the latest games, and will cost you for the upgrades (and cost you more if you have to upgrade more to accept the upgrades :)) The Console life-cycle negates this. You pays yer price and plays yer games (for at least 5+ years).

 

If you want the best possible cutting edge looking games, can afford it and put the work in, get a PC.

 

If you don't want a box that sounds like an Apache gunship taking off when you turn it on, costs you £900, needs constant adjustment and eventual upgrades, stick to consoles.

 

I wasn't going to post in this thread, because I try to avoid threads that look like a manure plant next to a windmill farm, but I just wanted to say that the bold part is wrong. Not to say anything against you and all that, just making an observation on why this incorrect sentiment gets spread all over the place, even by other PC gamers..

 

I don't understand why people think this. It's like, you pay $500 with a console and are "done with it", but if you pay $900 for a PC that's considered high-end or upper middle, that it'll explode from the games that come out next year, or even the year after that?

 

You don't have to upgrade a PC every year to keep playing the latest games. That's not a real thing. Consoles don't have that as an advantage over PCs, because the truth is you can play the games the entire console generation long, if you just turn down settings. That's what the sliders are there for. They don't exist on console versions, but that doesn't mean that the console versions are then running on "Ultra" settings with Shadows on and SSAO and AA and 4k textures. The console versions are running on probably the medium settings, with shadows/antialiasing turned "off", and lowered resolutions @ about 30FPS as a best case scenario. Your $900, 5 year old computer would be able to do that as well, maybe even a little more.

 

It's just that people think that if you have a PC, and the "Ultra" slider is there, you HAVE to use it. Or that if you're on PC, and your screen size is 1920x1080, you HAVE to use that resolution. Then, people go, "for that reason I'm gonna get a box that's locked to Medium Settings, with Shadows and AA off, and 720p or less resolution"... Why not just restrict your games to that resolution on your PC, until you can upgrade during the 5 years consoles take to catch up?

 

It's exactly like buying the next console iteration, except with a PC, you never lose backwards compatibility with your games, there are tons of mods and edits people make to games to make them more enjoyable, there's no extra fee for online service and no company can ever implement one (in a way that you'd be forced to use it), you never get forced into buying a product you don't want (Kinect 2.0 status), and you have the ability for structured and gradual upgrades, that can be the difference between $600 across 5 years, or $600 all at once.

 

There's no such thing as "having to upgrade every 3 months or the games stop working". PCs are more cost effective than consoles in the long run. Especially when ignoring everything I said, you just factor in that the games get cheaper faster on the PC, that there's no fee requirement for any extra services to play your PC games, and your entire library remains backwards compatible, forever, so no buying new versions, or paying for a service that gives your own games back to you over time.

 

The only thing consoles have over PC is a better PR team, so they can trick people into thinking things like yearly upgrades are a necessity. Also, just to be petty, my PS3 is way louder than my PC... Talk about a gunship.


marmoo
  • marmoo

    Thug

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2010

#90

Posted 21 October 2013 - 08:10 PM Edited by marmoo, 21 October 2013 - 08:12 PM.

I would be interested to hear how Valve have been a detriment to the market also.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users