A question for PC Gamers. Why all the hostility towards console gamers/gaming?

prpshrt

New member
Jun 18, 2012
260
0
0
I don't have a lot of hostility towards consoles and console gamers. It's just that the one time I actually consider buying one, MS and Sony's online policies kinda put me off... I don't like paying to play online. Especially when its not a MMO. It annoys me that if valve can pull it off, I'm pretty sure Sony and MS can too but they don't.
 

Joccaren

New member
Mar 29, 2011
2,600
0
0
Charcharo said:
Meh, good thing I dont know such people. Probably wont get along...
Conserving the medium for the future is probably more important then that BS. For the sake of the argument I count this as one of the PC's strengths.
Subjective advantage? Sure.
Objective? No. Different opinions and priorities can remove it as an advantage, hence its not an objective advantage - the point of my argument. It is an objective capability, but whether that is an advantage depends on the person.
 

DoomyMcDoom

New member
Jul 4, 2008
1,411
0
0
Joccaren said:
It does not have a lot of JRPGs. Worse in one way.
Largely solvable by emulation? Illegal, and not everyone wants to be a criminal.
They are more expensive than consoles if you want all the advantages [Otherwise count your multiple control schemes, your incredible power, your convenient load times, and most other features moot]. Worse in another way.
They take up more space than consoles unless you get a relatively low-power rig in a reasonably expensive ATX chasis.
You can build small relatively powerful PCs cheap, you just have to look.

There are ways that, for certain people, a console is 'better'.
My argument is not that the PC does not do a vast majority of things better than consoles, but that there is no objective measure of "Better" and hence you cannot say a PC is objectively better than a console. Period.
Actually in a purely objective sense, the more something brings to the table, more efficiently, it is better, I can say objectively more powerful, I can say objectively more versatile, and I can say objectively more affordable, and I would think that that would get my point across, you seem to be floundering in technicalities trying to make yourself look smart, and that makes me sad.
And, for the sake of this point, why is having more options better?
Why is less overall cost better?
What if someone's goal was to be restricted, or to spend an unnecessarily large amount of money for relatively little gain?
And here you start throwing it into the territory of purely subjective argument again. *sigh*
Whilst they are not perceivable goals to you, they are potential goals that must be considered for an objective analysis. You can't say "Nobody would think like that [Subjective opinion on subjective opinions]" and remain objective. You must consider these infinite possibilities of what an infinite number of hypothetical people would consider 'better' to be, and arrive at an infinite number of contradicting answers. This is why you can not say "PC is better than console". It is better when judged via certain criteria. Rather than creating strawmen and dodging the argument, why is your set of criteria the only "Objective" set of criteria, and nobody elses? Why are you right, and everybody else is wrong?
That is, essentially, what you are saying when you say something is objectively better. Anyone else's opinions of what constitutes better are irrelevant, yours is objective and therefore you are right. Incorrect. Your criteria are not objective. There are no objective criteria for "Better" or "Worse". You can state facts about how much faster the hardware is, but that does not make it "Better".
What I see here is "Whine whine whine, subjectivity, whine whine whine." numbers are numbers they are hard and cold and uncaring, and aren't there to take into account for personal issues.
When you look at things from a purely technical perspective, which is the only perspective YOU CAN look at things in a truly objective way, you see numbers, those numbers represent overall efficiency, power, storage, and other such variables, variables that define a computer, and a console it's self is a computer.
Higher numbers, and better overall efficiency, means better device.
Dear god, its like talking to a brick wall sometimes the number of times I've had to re-iterate this point only to have it ignored. Please, no strawmen, false dichotomies or red herrings. Look at the argument being made, and respond to that if you choose to.
I'm sorry that to you, I seem to be rather brick wall like, but I would consider most of your argument to be over inflated ramblings about how you feel insulted that I hold a different opinion, I mean no offense.

I'll give you a better response later, as I am getting extremely tired, and haven't slept well in months.
 

Joccaren

New member
Mar 29, 2011
2,600
0
0
DoomyMcDoom said:
You can build small relatively powerful PCs cheap, you just have to look.
Yes and no.
Mid tower? Sure, but its objectively still larger than a console, hence less convenient for some people.
ITX Chasis cost [Realise I put ATX in previous post, meant ITX, the ones that are actually small]; $100
From there, the remaining $400 you have to spend to reach even the more expensive Xbone will get you an 'Entry' level rig according to Falcon Guide. That is the 4th lowest level. That is not relatively powerful.
Even then, that's ignoring heat management, which with the small sized ITX cases could become an issue like the X360 had. It'd be recommendable to include some form of decent cooling, but that costs more money too.
To be relative to a next gen console it would need to reach the 'superb' level of Falcon guide. That's 5 levels higher, and closer to $1000.
Granted this is just taking off the Falcon guide, but its a fairly good guide. You could build better cheaper, but that's a lot of extra work, which counts as another pro for the consoles.


Actually in a purely objective sense, the more something brings to the table, more efficiently, it is better, I can say objectively more powerful, I can say objectively more versatile, and I can say objectively more affordable, and I would think that that would get my point across, you seem to be floundering in technicalities trying to make yourself look smart, and that makes me sad.
It gets your point across, but you're arguing technicalities here [Remember, you quoted my original post where I went into the technicalities of "Objective" and stated the reasons why you cannot say something is objectively "Better". Were we simply arguing over whether PC or console was, in our opinions, better then this discussion would never have even occurred as I'm pretty sure we'd both have said PC easily, console for some specific people's circumstances.].
You can correctly say objectively more versatile, objectively cheaper, objectively more powerful. You can not correctly say objectively better. Better is an inherently subjective judgement.
Hence, in a purely objective sense, the more something brings to the table, more efficiently, the more efficiently it brings that to the table. It is up to a person to make a subjective judgement as to whether that is "Better" or not. Many things that said thing brings to the table may be irrelevant to that person, and many it doesn't may be relevant. Hence, in comparison to another object that brings what the other fails to, and fails to bring what the other does, the second object could be considered 'Better'. Point being, the criteria for "Better" are constantly shifting based off subjective viewpoint. "Better" is subjective.

And, for the sake of this point, why is having more options better?
Why is less overall cost better?
What if someone's goal was to be restricted, or to spend an unnecessarily large amount of money for relatively little gain?
And here you start throwing it into the territory of purely subjective argument again. *sigh*
That is because it is a purely subjective argument. "Better" Is a subjective judgement. There are no objective criteria for "Better". That changes based off circumstances, and each person will have different circumstances and hence a different subjective 'better'.

What I see here is "Whine whine whine, subjectivity, whine whine whine." numbers are numbers they are hard and cold and uncaring, and aren't there to take into account for personal issues.
When you look at things from a purely technical perspective, which is the only perspective YOU CAN look at things in a truly objective way, you see numbers, those numbers represent overall efficiency, power, storage, and other such variables, variables that define a computer, and a console it's self is a computer.
This is precisely my point. When you look at things objectively, you get numbers. Cold, uncaring numbers with no subjective viewpoint. They are unable to judge which is "Better" and which is "Worse". They just judge the measurement of a specific quality or quantity. You can see these numbers that represent overall efficiency, power, storage and other such things, but its up to you to make the judgement of whether higher is better.

Higher numbers, and better overall efficiency, means better device.
Going to put this simply now; This is your subjective judgement. Higher /= better. # of glitches in a game. Does higher = better? So more glitches are better?

I'm sorry that to you, I seem to be rather brick wall like, but I would consider most of your argument to be over inflated ramblings about how you feel insulted that I hold a different opinion, I mean no offense.

I'll give you a better response later, as I am getting extremely tired, and haven't slept well in months.
Honestly, I'm pretty sure we hold the same opinion in what you're trying to argue; PCs are better. Where we differ is in acknowledging the definition of objective. Objective will give you numbers and facts. Subjective will give a judgement of those numbers and facts. 'Better' is a judgement. 'Better' is subjective. That is all that I have been arguing this whole time.
And its not just you this points been reiterated to, so don't worry. Its simply the number of times I've had to reiterate it, whilst people decide to argue a point that they perceive me to be opposing, rather than on the definition and usage of the word 'objective' that gets to me.
 

Chemical123

New member
May 2, 2013
36
0
0
I havent read the entire thread but my biggest beef with consoles and console gamers in particular is the following phrase: "PC gaming is dying". I have been hearing it for over a decade and that's why i have so much glee when something console related fails. As far as I am concerned every time people say that PC gaming is doomed/dying they want that to happen, which makes me want it to happen to them as well. Back off from PC is dying talk and you will see much less PC fanboyism.
 

InfernalGrape

New member
Jun 3, 2012
63
0
0
Sorry, didn't read the whole thread, so i'll just say what i think:


Maybe, because now game industry focuses on consoles, so there are no big pc exclusives.
While in 1997-2005 pc as platform was in center of attention
 

Kenmoo

New member
Jul 12, 2013
13
0
0
ParsonOSX said:
Hello again Escapist

Now I must say I am finding out more about the gaming community each day and a lot of things has gotten me curious. I have seen several comments around how PC is the "Greatest gaming device" and how several PC gamers consider themselves to be "elites", or those on console calling them "elitist". Even with the recent launch of GTA V, a lot of PC gamers are pissed off, maybe rightly so, about the game not being on that platform. Some in the very small minority even say GTA V is "shit" just because it's not on PC. So with all of that collectively, what is there even any hostility towards Console gamers from PC gamers? It's like me hating Halo because I have a PS3 only.

Why is there this big separation and how in the heck did this all start and even the whole "Glorious PC gaming master race" attitude (I know the quote is from Zero Punctuation but I am talking about the attitude not the phrase).
I did not read the entire thread. Just this.

I myself don't hate consoles. There was a gaming store I frequented and I just had fun riling up the console gamers about how bad their graphics were compared to my uber system... This had them going for hours. it was quite funny.

I do however dislike publishers who bring a game to the pc and did a really shitty thing at porting it. And i guess this is where the "hatred" comes from.
 

Segadroid

Apparently a Premium Member now
Mar 20, 2009
1,306
0
0
ParsonOSX said:
Hello again Escapist

Now I must say I am finding out more about the gaming community each day and a lot of things has gotten me curious. I have seen several comments around how PC is the "Greatest gaming device" and how several PC gamers consider themselves to be "elites", or those on console calling them "elitist". Even with the recent launch of GTA V, a lot of PC gamers are pissed off, maybe rightly so, about the game not being on that platform. Some in the very small minority even say GTA V is "shit" just because it's not on PC. So with all of that collectively, what is there even any hostility towards Console gamers from PC gamers? It's like me hating Halo because I have a PS3 only.

Why is there this big separation and how in the heck did this all start and even the whole "Glorious PC gaming master race" attitude (I know the quote is from Zero Punctuation but I am talking about the attitude not the phrase).
Speaking as a person who has about 60 games on Steam alone but also plenty of good ol' PS2 games, both have their perks. One is pick up and play(for most of them anyway), the other can do more than just play games but is more complex to operate.

It's the whole 'who's got the best thing/who made the best choice' debate that's been going on for generations; People like to brag about how much fun they're having on the machine they've put so much attention, time and money in. If others then say 'I'm having just as much fun on this other machine' some will instead hear 'my machine is more fun/better than yours'. Cue discussion, mudflinging and turning a blind eye to anything else. It happened before with the Sega/Nintendo dispute, it's happening now -only on a larger scale- and it will happen in the future.
 

freedash22

New member
Jun 7, 2013
84
0
0
First off, I don't think this this is a really big issue and as earlier posts have said, the ire really comes from a vocal minority of PC gamers. Now that's out of the way, let's continue.

This issue goes way back to the time when publishers started marketing game "exclusives". The way I see it, the real problems began when console "exclusives" were created by the industry to sell more console platforms based on customer alignment to franchises and fandom creating an unfair advantage over other consoles and PCs. Although most PC gamers didn't mind, a small amount saw this as a form of discrimination especially when the publishers just went along with their business without caring to explain why some games, which were for obvious reasons easily run on PCs were made for consoles only.

I am not an expert on this but I guess it has has something to do with gaining the advantage for profit on consoles. You see, PC games don't necessarily have the platform licensing costs of consoles. This is one of the reasons why there are far more indie games for PCs. Anybody can just make a game for let's say a Windows 7 computer and self-publish it online (just on a website and not necessarily through Steam). Whereas in consoles, they can't just do that and they would have to go through Sony or Microsoft XBOX first to get their consent (through licensing fees) to publish their game. This means that publishing on consoles became more expensive that it is for PCs (see recent example of Mighty No. 9 having a more expensive stretch goal for console versions). This is changing but as it is, publishing on PC still has way less red tape and costs.

This is also probably one of the reasons why AAA games cost $60 across the board (all platforms). I mean seriously, do you really think that game development for PCs and consoles is equal? Of course not.
Although the PC versions generally cost less to publish since they have little or no licensing fees for the PC platform (and should have a cheaper price tag), they are sold as $60 dollars anyway so as not to discourage console gamers and to subsidize the cost of the more expensive licensing fees for consoles. This presuming no expensive new shiny engines were used for the PC versions.

Fast forward today, with this in mind, some PC gamers couldn't accept why some great games, which they know could easily be published on a PC at less cost, were made console exclusives only (such as the new MGS being made now for BOTH PS and XBOX but not for PCs). In addition, most, if not all console games are made using PCs anyway. So if a game is made using a PC, it doesn't make sense why it cannot be made into a PC game. And when the gaming folks started to compare their platforms, the unfair exclusivity was just too much for some to just let go. Add in all the publishers forcing exclusivity with their shady backroom deals with developers and platform companies and we have this issue.

A recent issue that also caused debate was on this year's XBOX One show on E3. PC gaming rigs were used to show off the exclusive games and titles because the XBOX One wasn't ready. I for one saw this as a form of dishonesty to the customer since Sony played their games using their prototype consoles.

http://hexus.net/gaming/news/industry/56841-microsofts-e3-xbox-one-demos-ran-nvidia-powered-pcs/

So if you ask me, the problem was really started by the industry behaving that way. And did not necessarily began with PC gamers just being envious or spiteful to console gamers.
 

Shadow-Phoenix

New member
Mar 22, 2010
2,289
0
0
freedash22 said:
So basically what you summed up is that PC users want all that console users have and by that it reduces the console owners to having absolutely nothing unique.

Imagine the discrimination the console owners would feel in knowing they wanted a console for their share of exclusives but in the end they made that apparent "bad choice" ( as many PC users say and would say if consoles had no exclusives) and get screwed out of having anything special.

I know the majority if not all games these days are made on PC's but the world we live in, the capitalist system does not allow everyone to have their cake and eat it, trying to have it your own way by blaming others isn't the way to go about things.

I play on both PC and consoles myself and if there's a game not coming to PC then I'd simply buy it on console (or if I don't have that console I'd simply save like any normal being would do) and vise versa, I would never want consoles to be devalued to nothing simply because a small minority want to screw over my buying decisions.

Not trying to be nasty or anything but I do not want PC only people to devalue what I buy simply because they want it their way which in turn would fuck me over.
 

Skeleon

New member
Nov 2, 2007
5,410
0
0
I thought most of the hostility came towards PC gamers. Huh.
Anyway, off the top of my hat I can think of two main reasons to dislike consoles as a PC gamer: Exclusives and development. Exclusives should be obvious: They artificially limit the options and are blatant attempts to force people into buying hardware they don't need when they already have a good enough PC.
But I think the second is worse and more important: With so many games being produced for the console market, even games that are released on PC often suffer for it, be that in terms of controls, graphics, FOV, gameplay-features, fps etc.. Shoddy ports/versions based on accomodations to weaker console hardware can annoy a lot of people.
 

Tilted_Logic

New member
Apr 2, 2010
525
0
0
I think a lot of it presently might have something to do with the PCs' constantly upgrading abilities. The current games look amazing on consoles, but a lot of times if something is a console to PC port, the graphics quality can really show (I'm looking at you, Rage). Computers 'can' have more processing power, and better graphics, which in many minds means the games on PC are just of a higher quality.

Also, as a PC gamer, personally I have no ill will towards any consoles (aside from maybe the Xbox... 3 red rings in a year is unacceptable), but I could understand why some people would say playing on a PC takes more skill. Take a look at a game like Mass Effect 3: on consoles there is an aim-assist which cannot be turned off. I definitely won't say that makes it easier, as I've heard second hand it makes sniping horrendously difficult, but games on consoles having aim assist in general vs. on PC where it's absent tend to give computer players a sense of superiority. "Oh, you need the console to help you aim? Well look at those 3 consecutive head shots I just got on PC, all by myself." Etc.

People are weird. Personally I can't wait to see what the new consoles can do, and heck, if I could pay one flat price and have a system that works for years without upgrades, I'd be happy to. Well... if I was any good at aiming with analog sticks, that is.
 

Seydaman

New member
Nov 21, 2008
2,494
0
0
Because console users are grubby peasants who don't deserve the dirt off my boots. /sarcasm

But seriously, because more complex things make people believe that they are better than people using less complex things.
 

IamLEAM1983

Neloth's got swag.
Aug 22, 2011
2,581
0
0
ParsonOSX said:
You're generalizing, Parson. The whole "Glorious PC Master Race" rigmarole is mostly an in-joke based on the few material advantages of a rig, compared to a console. We can mod our games easier, but we also have to put up with the fact that our platform of choice is a pirate's haven and typically requires a bit more long-term investment than consoles. The only instance where I'll shake my head at console gamers is when I see them clamouring for titles or genres expressly designed for the PC. Things like isometric hack-and-slashers, simulation games and the like. As for shooters, I'm simply more comfortable with a mouse and keyboard. If you're one of those that can manage sniper-worthy marksmanship with thumbsticks, good for you.

If anything, I'd have to say the console rivalry puzzles PC-centric gamers. You don't see us fight over chipsets or GPUs, so why is it that console culture feels so cultish, on occasion. I'll turn your question around and ask you - why is it so important for some gamers to identify as "XBOX people" or "Playstation people" at the detriment of the other cultural groups in the scene?
 

freedash22

New member
Jun 7, 2013
84
0
0
Shadow-Phoenix said:
freedash22 said:
snip
Don't worry, no negativity or nastiness taken. :)

PC gamers are not entitled to have all console games and vice versa. What I wished to say is that the gaming industry, through its use of exclusives and maybe even timed exclusives (GTA V, Skyrim Dawnguard), created a rift between PC and console gamers.

The reason why this is an issue is quite simply because not everybody can buy a PC and a console to play all the good games that come out of these platforms. You said it yourself, you play games on consoles and PCs. Then that is good. You help the industry and more power to you. But you have to understand that there are a lot of PC gamers who cannot afford to buy a console (vice versa) or don't have access to one.

Consoles have added value because of their exclusives. It's a business strategy of creating value. Create games that people like and limit them to one platform to increase people's likelihood to buy that platform and be loyal to that platform. Loyalty=more money. PC-only games on the other hand 'get' their exclusivity mostly through hardware performance and controls versatility; not through exclusivity agreements. Hence, simulation games (like Total Air War), Lots of RTS games (COH), and military simulators like ARMA are PC-only. Because PC hardware make it easier to play these games. Consoles win on fighting games and arcade games. Here they are a star. They both have advantages when it comes to interface and play style. Unfortunately, some people, unlike you and me, won't like this.

Let's face it, one of the reasons why most games (especially indie games) get developed on PCs is because it is easier and financially more feasible to develop for PCs (little to no platform licensing fees). Not because of exclusivity agreements.

I am not assigning blame to anybody. I am simply stating the facts from my point of view. I have accepted that this is the reality of our situation. But a part of me does wish that things were a bit different.

I like consoles. I play PS3 from a friend's house. When I played Shadow of the Colossus and Red Dead Redemption, I really wished for these games to come out to PC. Not because I want to devalue consoles or equalize everything (devaluing consoles in the process) but because they were really great games that I wanted to return to 15 years from now. Maybe show them to future generations someday. Consoles don't have backwards compatibility. PCs do. By then, not everybody can get classic consoles as easily and few existing period-consoles will still work by then. Is it too much to ask that we save these games for future generations by adding them to PC libraries? I think this wish is fair and reasonable.
 

sth1729

New member
Jul 6, 2013
26
0
0
I think it has a lot to do with how consoles are pretty under-powered to even fairly cheap computers, so a lot of games end up being crippled because they are being developed for systems that are currently extremely outmatched by even very cheap computers.
There is also the issue of longer development times for games that release on multiple platforms because of optimization for consoles, which would probably be annoying to people who have a pc as that time spent optimizing is basically a waste of time to them.
Also there are certain companies that purposely cripple the pc release so it is the same quality graphically as the console release, which is stupid and only serves to reinforce the rage of pc against console.
Also for people who have switched from console to pc recently the change can highlight the worst problems of consoles, leading to a kind of hatred for consoles for those problems.
Lastly it might just be because for some people it's illogical to have a console for gaming as in a lot of places where gaming is popular a home computer is a necessity for their modern day life which for some should point to spending extra improving the home computer instead of getting a console

I don't see a lot of the hate backing off for next-gen either, as consoles don't seem to be moving towards giving a better user experience but towards including more social functions, which will probably end up falling flat as the social features the consoles provide will probably be better implemented on a device the user already has elsewhere.
 

Amir Kondori

New member
Apr 11, 2013
932
0
0
Shadow-Phoenix said:
I own both a PC and consoles and I see them both as equals, I don't see one as the weakest of shits and one as the superior master race (like how a certain country saw themselves), I see them as two entities, nothing more nothing less.
Woah, someone just Godwin'd in a PC versus consoles threat. I do believe he just compared PC gamers to the third Reich.
 

beez

New member
May 21, 2013
92
0
0
I recently bought a 360 and a PS3, but I'm a PC gamer, always will be, always has been.

Console users and PC users go on and on about each other, but the question of who started is like the question of the chicken and the egg. Irrelevant.

I would like to tell you why PC users are pissed tho:
The industry is moving towards consoles, because then they are easier to control and thus, subject to every last piece of thing publishers force down their necks, while neglecting the PC as a platform, because, if a PC user wants to, can avoid a lot of their bullshit, without piracy. Consoles are cheaper to develop for and maintain support, but they mostly hinder a lot of games to be truly great, because hardware becomes a very big limitation in just a couple of years. The new consoles are already worse than mid range PCs, for most stuff, except some tasks requiring high bandwidth physics processing and video capture, since the PS4 includes a chip that does real-time video encoding, but then again, they need that, because thay cannot sacrifice GPU performance for that, because it's already taxed with running a modern game. This new generation is another 720p console generation, unfortunately. Just look at the Unreal 4 PS4/PC demonstration video on youtube.

Publishers will do everything to make more money by spending less money, therefore blame PC gamers for piracy and screwing them over wherever they can. Rockstar releasing GTA IV almost a year later, okay. Whoever is a big fan already bought it in disappointment, maybe even bought a console. Most of the users who bought it on the PC, faced an incredibly crappy port, riddled with bugs, maybe refunded, maybe spread the word, so this way the fragmented market becomes even more fragmented. Okay, they made a bit more money 7 months later, but compromised on the product, by offering an initial inferior experience by only releasing it on consoles and by offering an inferior experience for anyone who doesn't own a console. So see, we bought our hardware, we kept buying out games faithfully and when it comes to us, we're less than 2nd rate citizens, we get shat on, because we are the ones that can be scrapped for profits. Also, misconceptions about PCs: they don't cost that much, if you consider how shitty the initial console rollout was, hardware-wise, buying a PC might have been cheaper on the long run, than buying 2-3+ 360s or 1-2 PS3s. A lot of indies exploited this fact and voila, they sold and made triple A money, while big publishers didn't. The controls: yea, the market is shaped for consoles, a lot of popular titles have become a rarity, like strategy games or RPGs (they have been replaced by ARPGs), or just are plain uncomfortable, compared to how games in the past been. Also, if you dislike the keyboard and mouse and want to play on TV, you need to do exactly two things: plug your PC in your TV and plug your controller in your PC (or the reciever or a bluetooth for the dualshock 3). That's it. I don't really get how that gets harder than using a console. If you cannot be arsed to use a mouse to doubleclick on your games, just use steam big picture, etc. I can download and play a 20 gb in game in 15-20 minutes, so that's also a superior thing.

So maybe a few people are butthurt for a reason. A lot of them aren't. A lot of them are just trying to justify their choice for themselves by arguing with both the other side and themselves.

PC users, talk to console users. Console users, talk to PC users. Don't argue with each other, don't be mad at the other side, enjoy the games. If you want a target to be mad at: publishers are the cause of most of our issues. Channel your anger and frustration at them, maybe? Maybe they really would consider the PC users' side if they heard your arguments instead of the console dude, who can't change anything in the industry.
 

MorganL4

Person
May 1, 2008
1,364
0
0
What it comes down to is this: At the beginning of last generation (Xbox 360, PS3, Wii) There was a huge influx in people claiming "PC gaming is dead.", or PC gaming is dying." Because console sales, and consequently console game sales were through the roof, and the only PC game selling exceptionally well was World of Warcraft (Also Steam was not yet a big thing). NOW about 7 years later the consoles are old, and don't have the same power as a proper gaming rig does. AS SUCH the PC gamers from 7 years ago who were told "Your medium is dying" are now in a position of gaming superiority (in regards to game quality possibilities) and as such are lashing out at the people who mocked them.... Its basically this the jocks picked on the geeks back in HS.... NOW the geeks have the high paying jobs, and the jocks are driving taxi cabs, so the geeks are gloating......... Its the oldest story in the book, its just the video game version. The cycle will continue when the next generation hits.