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

[Waaghpowa]

That shear amount of freedom and options it allows is subjective, gaming platform all about what games it can play everything else is irrelevant. Fact is PC doesn't have games some people want to play, theretofore being inferior platform for these people.

And what games people want to play is subjective, so the argument that "X platform doesn't have X game, therefore Platform Y is better" is a subjective argument.

Having the options and freedom to essentially do what you want with games, free or restriction makes it objectively better. Game preference has no argument when it comes to objectivity because what games people like is purely SUBJECTIVE.

To continue to hammer it into your brain. When debating superiority in an objective debate what AN INDIVIDUAL PREFERS IS SUBJECTIVE. Strip away the games, and look purely at hardware capabilities of all platforms as a potential platform for games, PC gaming wins. No question.

 

[Arina Love]

That shear amount of freedom and options it allows is subjective, gaming platform all about what games it can play everything else is irrelevant. Fact is PC doesn't have games some people want to play, theretofore being inferior platform for these people.

And what games people want to play is subjective, so the argument that "X platform doesn't have X game, therefore Platform Y is better" is a subjective argument.

Having the options and freedom to essentially do what you want with games, free or restriction makes it objectively better. Game preference has no argument when it comes to objectivity because what games people like is purely SUBJECTIVE.

To continue to hammer it into your brain. When debating superiority in an objective debate what AN INDIVIDUAL PREFERS IS SUBJECTIVE. Strip away the games, and look purely at hardware capabilities of all platforms as a potential platform for games, PC gaming wins. No question.

You can't strip away games from argument, hardware capabilities means nothing for gaming platform without games. Just as i said before there are no platforms objectively better because 1 platform cannot play all games. Hardware is irrelevant.

 

[AuronFtw]

If more PC players just said "that's cool, I prefer PC" and moved on, the world would be a better place.

That's hardly ever the issue though. Yeah, it's "cool" if someone doesn't want to put effort into building and maintaining a PC (or simply buying a new one every 5 years if they have lots of disposable income). It's "cool" if they prefer the feel of console games (whatever that means). But it's a problem that the console market they're supporting is dragging down the entire games industry with its bad, consumer-disrespecting profit-centric nonsense. When someone tries to do that to the PC crowd, the PC crowd tells them to fuck off and finds another service/sales center/etc. When Microsoft does it to Xbox users, they have no choice but to continue eating shit - they can't use their xbox to "go to a different site" to buy games from. They're locked in, they're rigidly controlled. They pay the price for their freedom, and while I could care less that they're eating shit, them willfully continuing to eat shit is actually spilling over and promoting that shit-serving mentality to publishers everywhere, and it's hurting all of us who enjoy playing video games.

I had no qualms with any consoles back in the 90s and early 00s; prices were high, but you had very little bullshit to deal with. The games "Just Worked," you didn't have to fuck with them to upgrade pieces and parts, you never had to look up game specs to see if your console could run it, they had great multiplayer focus without going out of their way to gouge every cent out of you. But times changed; when consoles lost that entire aspect, they lost their point. Companies got overly greedy and saw that console owners were trapped by the console itself. At that point, the console became a leash instead of a gaming machine. Buying a console now, especially the next-gen ones with all these anti-user features built in (even if not activated - yet), is literally handing a leash around your neck to the companies who want nothing but your money. Buying a PC, while more "work" to keep it going, gives you the option to stick your middle finger in their eye whenever they try to bring the leash out. And that is where the future of gaming will lie; not in this publisher-driven series of cages.

 

[AuronFtw]

You can't strip away games from argument, hardware capabilities means nothing for gaming platform without games. Just as i said before there are no platforms objectively better because 1 platform cannot play all games. Hardware is irrelevant.

Looking just at games, PC wins, objectively. It's got every game ever released since the mid 80s still available, even the ancient DOS games run via dosbox and many are legally available (for really, really cheap) on sites like gog.com. PC is the "console" with the largest game library by far. Seriously, nothing even comes close. Add on to that the fact that you can emulate games (with minimal effort, and without 'modding'/voiding warranty) from the majority of existing consoles, and you have a clear, 'objective' winner, even if all you're looking at is game library.

 

[Arina Love]

You can't strip away games from argument, hardware capabilities means nothing for gaming platform without games. Just as i said before there are no platforms objectively better because 1 platform cannot play all games. Hardware is irrelevant.

Looking just at games, PC wins, objectively. It's got every game ever released since the mid 80s still available, even the ancient DOS games run via dosbox and many are legally available (for really, really cheap) on sites like gog.com. PC is the "console" with the largest game library by far. Seriously, nothing even comes close. Add on to that the fact that you can emulate games (with minimal effort, and without 'modding'/voiding warranty) from the majority of existing consoles, and you have a clear, 'objective' winner, even if all you're looking at is game library.

Not from mine point of view, PC doesn't have even handful of games i like to play. Yet my PS3 library is huge. Like i said before no platform ever can be objectively better. Different niches make it impossible.

 

[Arina Love]

You can't strip away games from argument, hardware capabilities means nothing for gaming platform without games. Just as i said before there are no platforms objectively better because 1 platform cannot play all games.

You clearly still don't understand what objective means, so I will stop trying to argue with you. I see why people just tend to ignore you.

You need to learn that games are, in their nature, subjective. As such they can't necessarily be judge objectively.

As a closing note, to continue to illustrate objective vs subjective:

the PS3 is an outdated piece of hardware with ass backwards archaic architecture that makes it hell for devs to develop for, which Sony have stated that they deliberately made it difficult to prevent "just anyone" from developing for it. On top of that, Sony later removed several features, including backwards compatibility and Linux installation because "reasons".

- it's out of date, which is objective unless you want to start arguing that our accepted standard calendar is up for debate, thus making time irrelevant.
- They deliberately removed features, thereby severely limiting a persons freedom.

And Japanese games are almost always pretentious long winded dribble with too many cut scenes and next to no actual "game" featuring whiney, androgynous protagonists who brood too much.

- This is subjective, since it's my opinion and does not hold true for everyone.

By the way, you're ignored now. I've had enough dumb for one day.

Typical, can't handle different opinion thus resorting to insults. IMO Hardware is irrelevant only relevant thing is games, which are subjective therefore no platform can ever be objectively better.
I just going to take high road and not resort to insults.

 

[Arina Love]

You can't strip away games from argument, hardware capabilities means nothing for gaming platform without games. Just as i said before there are no platforms objectively better because 1 platform cannot play all games. Hardware is irrelevant.

Looking just at games, PC wins, objectively. It's got every game ever released since the mid 80s still available, even the ancient DOS games run via dosbox and many are legally available (for really, really cheap) on sites like gog.com. PC is the "console" with the largest game library by far. Seriously, nothing even comes close. Add on to that the fact that you can emulate games (with minimal effort, and without 'modding'/voiding warranty) from the majority of existing consoles, and you have a clear, 'objective' winner, even if all you're looking at is game library.

Forget it. It's like arguing with a brick wall or an Apply fanboy.

at least i'm not aggro that insults people when they don't agree with his point of view.

 

[seule]

I use my PC for some games, I use my PS for others, some games work better on one rather than the other, eg Deus Ex : HR looks better on my PC, finished it on my PS3 cause it just "felt" better. Before anyone jumps in with the gamepad argument, I have one, just preferred sprawlin on my couch to play instead of sitting at the computer. Neither is better than the other, a good game is a good game, regardless of platform. Any of the XXX is better than XXX is in my opinion just someone feelin a little insecure who needs to make themselves feel better, and that's just human nature.

 

[Vigormortis]

As a PC gamer, I hold absolutely no hatred for consoles or their players. I just personally prefer PC to consoles.

I DO, however, hold a special little tumor of seething contempt in my heart for console gamers who go on and on about how PC gamers are arrogant, or about how PC gaming is dying.

I hate to use the standard forum vernacular, but...

This. SOOOO much this.

I'm generally indifferent to console gamers. In fact, indifferent toward most gamers. I game primarily PC, sure, but I also play on consoles. Have since I was a kid.

What someone games on is not my concern. I don't worry about it nor does it bother me if someone plays on something I don't.

Only an asshole makes a big deal about other platforms of play.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

You know, the irony (or hypocrisy, if you prefer) of this "why do PC gamers hate console players?" question is this:

There are far more console players complaining about PC "elitists" than there are actual PC "elitists". And, as a result, it's often the console players "hating on" the PC players.

Seriously, the persecution complex, especially around here, is getting downright repugnant.

 

[DarkhoIlow]

I will tell you why from my point of view of a PC gamer:

- I feel that for the past few years that our platform has been treated like a third world country or "neutral" when it terms of the developers/publishers deciding to throw us a bone or leftovers when it comes to porting their games to the PC.

- We had to wait 8 years for this generation when the technology and resources of the PC crowd have had specs that have surpassed next gen for at least 5 years. This has stagnated the innovation and creation of new games and pressured publishers to release their games annually instead of taking risks on new IP (there are some exceptions sure), but I am simply tired of the same old CoD, Assassins's Creed over and over.

- Console gamers can say what they want regarding their exclusives and their reasons of playing on a console, but it is proven that they would have a much better experience on a PC because of all the extra goodies that it has in terms of performance. You don't want to sit at a computer chair in your room? Link up Big Picture and play the PC games on your couch with a controller if you really are looking for that "convenience".

When it's all said and done, this "Console" vs "PC master race" fight will continue to go on until consoles cease to exist.

I will never choose a few exclusives and an inferior graphical&gameplay experience (30 fps, washed textures etc) against what a PC can offer me(60+, Tesselation and everything else that others have wrote in their comments regarding visual boosting options).

These are but a few of my cents and it saddens me how less some companies care about this platform that they don't even care about everyone getting to play the game they've created or invested their money in.

 

[Kanova]

I don't know about the hate, but I know about the superiority. Mods, internet browsing, half screening things, free movies and games EVEN if you don't do it, you can still get free games and movies/music. Also, PC games generally have more customization and freedom. You always see console ports lose a lot of features. Look at Minecraft.

PCmasterrace.

 

[Evil Smurf]

1. We get awful ports, ie: GTA, Brutal Legend, Saints Row 2, etc.
2. We use a more useful system: mods, upgradability, more game vendors, and it can do work stuff.
3. Console makers treat their consumers like shit, Xbox live has Adverts? Why!?
4. We are not all arrogant dick holes you know.
5. The PC is better because it is more versatile and consumer friendly.

 

[zumbledum]

consoles are better at somethings like fighting games for instance and pc's are better at others like strategy and sims.

actually Pc's are much better at fighting games, running at a steady 120 fps allows for very precise animation / frame timing . perhaps you meant its better on a controller than keyboard which i would grant as a fair point though slightly moot as controllers plug into a PC just as easily as console and fight sticks are by far the best method.

Myself i resent the consoles on a number of points.

they brought the mainstream into my hobby, which means i have to put up with dip shits who play cod and madden who now think they are gamers.

it also means the floodgates on bad value for money DLC has opened like a biblical tide destroying expansions and good value content.

they have caused the dumbing down of a lot of game franchises and a massive stagnation in creativity as the trip A market developed attempting to feed the lowest common denominator.

and of course this ridiculous 8 year old hardware has became a massive ball and chain holding games back as the years ticked by.


but i dont look down on gamers on consoles i play mostly on PC because i have the money to run a top end gaming rig that costs more than some cars. when i was a teenager i had consoles, ill probably buy a ps4 to and i would of owned an xbox and bought a bone if it wasnt made by Microsoft, but thats a different rant entirely.

doesnt mean i wont antagonise or poke the lower echelons but its purely for fun1

 

[asinann]

Hardware is irrelevant.

Then explain why the specs of the PS4 hardware were even released and stated by console developers to be superior when in truth they are inferior to the PC sitting on my desk right now. Remember, they said that the PS4 was superior to anything build now and would be superior to any PC for YEARS to come.

 

[Xzavion]

Ok, first of all to note, I have nothing against consoles, and absolutely nothing against console gamers.

The thing that bothers me about consoles is caused by the developers only.
Developers/Publishers think it is a good idea to port a game to as many platforms as possible (which probably is a good thing from a monetary point of view).
Now comes the problem, they don't go and make a game for the infrastructure of a PC, but for any of the consoles. That leads to almost no game for PC coming with any more than Directx9 support at the moment, neither with x64 support (especially not multi platform stuff).
With the age of the current console generation (not talking about PS4/XboxOne) being really weak hardware wise compared to current PCs, the mere presence of the consoles is at the moment slowing down the whole process of evolution for gaming. Developers could be doing so much more stuff on PCs at the moment, but as consoles aren't able to do it too, they just have to stick with what the consoles can do.

So I am really really happy as a PC gamer, that there is the new console generation coming, so we might get some new fancy stuff the next 2-3 years. Then things will probably slow down again, until the next generation consoles are available.


10 years ago that problem wasn't as dire as now, as most games weren't developed for multiple platforms. Also new consoles were appearing more frequently, with any of Playstation/Xbox/Nintendo appearing at least every 2 years. For this year, all of the present consoles are minimum 7 years old (PS3/Wii the newest since 2006). Though I might want to separate Wii from Playstation and Xbox, as there are rarely titles ported for PC + PS/Xbox and Wii altogether.

So yeah over the last 2-3 years I got annoyed by the presence of the current consoles because they were slowing down everything. But that has nothing to with the gaming itself or the gamers.

While the first Crysis indeed did look great, that's only half of what it was renowned for. The other part it was renowned for was the fact that pretty much no PC at the time could run it at a consistent FPS at maximum settings. Crysis was put up on a pedastal, because it could be considered (too use a phrase by Yahtzee) 'a ritualistic trial by fire for their processor' (or rather, computers overall). It was the game pretty much everyone used to benchmark their gaming PC's, hence the 'Can it play crysis' joke.

However, the reason for this isn't that Crysis was a graphical marvel that many mistakingly think it is. Yes it looked great and had a lot of impressive effects (lens flares, sunshafts), but the truth of the matter was that the engine was in fact horribly optimized. Pretty much all of the features in their engine was put in on the premise that 'If you have the PC to run this, it will be cool', with little thought being given to any actual performance budget.

And this is where Crysis 2 - running on the CryEngine 3 - actually came in with improvement. You said something very incorrect in your post which was the Crysis 2 looked inferior to Crysis 1. While it did have some shortcomings compared to the original such as lower texture resolutions (which was later retified) and an initial lack of DX11 features, it still looked better. Anyone who says otherwise needs to go back, play both games and notice the differences. The LOD handling in CryEngine 3 is miles better than in CryEngine 2 (especially in regards to objects who completely fade out once you get some distance from them), and the same goes for the weather effects and color grading (which was far more vibrant on CryEngine 3). Most importantly, however, the engine was way better optimized than its predecessor, and ran well even on midrange PC's while still looking good. Try churning the settings for the original Crysis to the lowest, and see how it looks (hint: it basically looks like crap).

For this I have to say... when I was younger... and there was a new game with cool graphics out... I'd just go and buy some new parts to get the most of it. And even then alot of games I remember only ran really well with the hardware of maybe a year later.

Same goes for Crysis. It was the first game for a felt eternity that was really demanding of your hardware. And I was really really happy about that. There is absolutely nothing wrong with making a game that will only run smooth on full settings maybe a year later than it's airing date.
Also even Crysis was already pretty well adjustable to lower hardware, even if Crysis2 did improve on that even further (though that also may have been caused by the fact that highend PCs from Crysis were midrange for Crysis2, and the hardware demand didn't rise very much really). And Crysis2 with Cryengine3 was far off from being as much of a milestone in terms of graphics than Crysis was (which might have something to do with consoles? ^^).

 

[Thoric485]

If not for PC "elitists", shit like this turns into common knowledge:


It's entirely in the interest of the console manufacturers, even Microsoft, to spread the perception that PC gaming is dead, everybody games on consoles, a console has better graphics than a $2000 PC, consoles have the best exclusives and so on. Journalists hardly mind passing it on.

This is where the vocal PC elitists come in as a counterpoint, calling them on their shit. Neither side is clean - many would condemn consoles even if there wasn't a campaign against PC, all I'm saying is it's a two-sided thing. PC gaming has no big corporate backbone representing it at Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo's level (nor should there be), so its supporters have to fend for themselves and that's where the extra sharp tone comes from.

 

[Arina Love]

Hardware is irrelevant.

Then explain why the specs of the PS4 hardware were even released and stated by console developers to be superior when in truth they are inferior to the PC sitting on my desk right now. Remember, they said that the PS4 was superior to anything build now and would be superior to any PC for YEARS to come.

Viral marketing , hype brewing. i'm not a dev i don't care in a slightest what sort of hardware new gen have all i care is games that will be released on it. Yes shiny new graphics will attract people but in the end games will decide what people will buy and stay with. Remember original Xbox was more powerful than PS2 (i think PS2 was least powerful console of it's gen) and PS2 annihilated every console of that gen because of games.

 

[Parasondox]

snip

snip 2: the snippening

These are both excellent answers, OP. You should listen to them.

And as far as GTA goes, no one likes to be arbitrarily excluded. We know there's a PC port coming (in all likelihood it's already done), but we're expected to wait months (GTA IV was seven months!) because "reasons". It doesn't seem fair, does it?

Thats why I ask the questions and I did say you should rightly complain because no one should feel left out. I'm still learning and with all of the answers I am getting, I appreciate and respect them all. The PC/Console hostility goes both ways at time.

 

[RicoADF]

Is it elitism if its right? A solid 200 dollar gfx card is going to get more than double the pixels, 4-8-12 times the video ram, at twice the framerate with AA, SSAO, AF, dx11, tessalation, better shadows, lighting, massively more draw distance. Much less if you build a 1000 dollar beast computer. Mods, fixes,community balance patches, texture work etc. Outside of consoles exclusives PC is so far ahead of this gen its not even funny.

Its not that I hate consoles, or console gamers its just that i hate the backwards console experience, the so easily eclipsed tech, games designed like corridors so they can fit into 256 v ram, keeping the console gui in ports, ports that don't allow for basic PC features(dark souls, darksiders) and the graphic stagnation to where a 6-7 year old game still is held up as a graphical benchmark(crysis)

Imagine your ps3 but everything was still made for a ps2 would there not be some tension or frustration there, both with devs who are giving you a ps2 or 2.5 quality experience, and with the ps2 owners who say, "looks good to me, not everyone has the money for a ps3".

Yes it is elitism, and it makes some of us fellow PC owners embarrassed/ashamed. Graphics and technology do not make a game, creativity does. I've had as much if not more fun in older games as I do in GTAV. It's not that either is better or worse, it just comes down to what game fits the mood I'm in at the time. I have 2 medium-high end PC's, a all the current gen consoles (plus a few previous gens) including hand helds. Want to know which is my favoriate? None, because I play the system that the game I feel like is on. There's next to no difference and anyone who hates on another system is just being a jerk.

XBone being the one exception, though less because of the system and more because of the idiots that designed it. Though that's no longer an issue (if you trust they did remove the crap).

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Is it elitism if its right? A solid 200 dollar gfx card is going to get more than double the pixels, 4-8-12 times the video ram, at twice the framerate with AA, SSAO, AF, dx11, tessalation, better shadows, lighting, massively more draw distance. Much less if you build a 1000 dollar beast computer. Mods, fixes,community balance patches, texture work etc. Outside of consoles exclusives PC is so far ahead of this gen its not even funny.

Its not that I hate consoles, or console gamers its just that i hate the backwards console experience, the so easily eclipsed tech, games designed like corridors so they can fit into 256 v ram, keeping the console gui in ports, ports that don't allow for basic PC features(dark souls, darksiders) and the graphic stagnation to where a 6-7 year old game still is held up as a graphical benchmark(crysis)

Imagine your ps3 but everything was still made for a ps2 would there not be some tension or frustration there, both with devs who are giving you a ps2 or 2.5 quality experience, and with the ps2 owners who say, "looks good to me, not everyone has the money for a ps3".

Yes it is elitism, and it makes some of us fellow PC owners embarrassed/ashamed. Graphics and technology do not make a game, creativity does.

What if many of us find more creativity in the PC department as well? I can't get the games I want on consoles. I'm primarily an adventure and RPG game fan. I can't get Baldur's Gate or Edna & Harvey on a console, so I prefer PC.

And that applies generally. I think you will find more often that console games are more available on PC, than PC games being available on console so you're better off with a PC no matter what type of game you enjoy. Unless you absolutely adore JRPGS and they are the only thing you play.