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

[Sinful]

Being a long time PC gamer I can honestly say... I don't care about console gamers one bit. And with that I mean, it's their busniss to play on a console.

I chose to be a PC gamer because of the modability of games and the ability to troubleshoot stuff wich you cannot do on consoles. The drawback of PC gaming is however the requirement to update your hardware, and never really knowing if something is going to run flawlessly on your system.

I can understand the people that choose to be console exclusive gamers as you don't have those compatibility issues. Most console gamers have a PC as well though, and most PC gamers have a console nowadays. I see no reason to be hostile to one another. Do you attack someone on the street for wearing a red shirt, because you don't like red shirts? I don't think so.

 

[Griffolion]

Not all PC gamers are hostile towards consoles.

Many were disappointed in the lack of a PC release because the level of power the GTA games typically require due to their massive open ended nature makes them a prime target for the PC, which has orders of magnitude higher levels of power available to it than the 8 year old hardware GTA V is now out on.

Many still are poorly socialised and thus cannot express disappointment in a constructive manner, and when combined with the [a href="http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/3/19/"]Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory[/a], you get hostility.

I see no need to be hostile towards consoles for two main reasons:

1 - I like consoles, they fill a function, and are generally great.

2 - PC gaming has never been as amazingly brilliant as it is right now. It's been getting stronger year on year for a very long time now, and shows no signs of slowing down. Consoles are not a threat, there is no need for hostility against them, the PC gamer's situation is amazing enough.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Sucking? Seriously you are just gonna go right there and say it? That's one thing I wish PC people would just stop saying about consoles. It doesn't make the two any friendlier toward each other and that is unacceptable. Anyway the hardware put into the consoles these days is powerful and probably on par with modern PCs. Here is the problem. Developing a game that utilizes those specs right out of the gate is uber expensive and a huge risk if not an outright dumb move. Until devs can figure out how to make it cost effective or get a bigger budget or something along those lines its hard to push consoles to the brink at the beginning of their life.

You are coming off as if you absolutely hate consoles and truly do think PCs are the best and only way to game. Not sure if you mean to come off like that but you are.

Go back and read my post. I HAVE A CONSOLE AS WELL AS A PC. I can talk as much shit about my own platform as I want. It's stupid and grey, and I hate its little lights, and all the whirring sounds it makes. =P

Really though, of course they suck. My PC is a couple years old now. It sucks too. But not as bad as my eight year old console sucks. It's just a big old bag of suck.

Still fun though.

 

[DoomyMcDoom]

I don't hate console games/gamers, I hate the inherently closed nature of consoles, the corporations behind them and the general ignorance that comes from people regarding technology in general.

PC gaming is objectively better due to it's vast options of peripherals, large library, game longevity, visuals and performance. But the moment you start to mention just how old and outdated some fanboys precious corporate game box is, they flip their shit and call you an elitist, because they don't actually know what that word means.

Basically Joccaren has the best answer.

I'm sorry but saying "PC gaming is objectively better" is just not true. In my case "vast options of peripherals" that i don't care about, "large library" that doesn't have any games that i'm interested in. So in the end i have pretty decent pc and still majority of games i buy i play on PS3, because PC doesn't have those games. For me PS3 is subjectively better platform for games. PC gaming would be objectively better if it had every console exclusive and was better hardware with mods and stuff, but as it stands now there is no objectively better platform for games.

What you just stated there, is that the PC is not objectively better, because you find the PS3 subjectively better.
Objectivity, doesn't take into account personal opinion on certain very specific things, take the fact that you like some PS3 exlusive titles, and the PC doesn't support a port of those titles, this does not mean that the PC suddenly loses the insanely huge game library it has, which dwarfs the PS3s entire lineup in an entirely objective comparison, or the fact that the hardware IS better, or the fact that it has a multitude of controller options the scope and scale of which puts all of the consoles on the market combined to shame.

I see your point, you prefer the PS3 because it has the games you like on it, and that's perfectly fine, but that is personal opinion, and preference, and is of a purely subjective nature.

In short, pc gaming IS objectively better, maybe not subjectively, but in that case the whole point shouldn't matter to you, play what you like on what you want, nobody is stopping you.

 

[AuronFtw]

Oh god, why did a Objective/Subjective argument pop up -.-

Lets settle this here. When you say 'Good', 'Bad', 'Better', 'Worse' you are no longer talking objectively.

Yes, which is why "objectively superior hardware, objectively bigger library of games, objectively more competitive market driving prices down for consumers, and objectively more hardware/software available" is the argument. None of them are a matter of opinion. One number is greater than another number. One list is bigger than another list. Lower prices are lower than higher prices. This isn't rocket science.

People can "prefer" to game on a console, but even that's something "done better" by PC: by plugging a controller in (360 wired controllers are available for cheap and are pretty sturdy) you can play the PC versions of games "as designed" for a controller, on a system with better hardware, access to game mods, etc, all of which is "objectively superior" to a console. Unless your preference is literally seeing the PS3 logo come up when you start the game (for... whatever reason) the experience can be matched and beaten on a PC.

The "objective" argument has merit. All you have to do is compare numbers, lists, and prices. One is objectively better than the other. Personal preference matters for a lot, which is why the majority of PC gamers even in this thread have said "we're cool with people playing consoles," but if you're trying to come up with a list of reasons why consoles are better, you are going to fail, because they are not.

Objectively.

Addendum: A big part of the console crowd literally doesn't know better; they don't know that the services they pay for, the games they play, etc are all available, typically for less money, on PC. Another part of the console crowd is tied to their library; if you have 30 games for PS3, it's kind of a ***** "giving it up" and trying to swap to a PC (although right now would be a great time to do it, since PCs are going to be objectively more powerful than the next gen consoles and they haven't even come out yet). Some console gamers are in in a gamer circle of friends that all play on a specific console, making it harder/not feasible for them to "swap" to PCs. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to play a console. But please, PLEASE don't try to say that consoles are "better" for any of these reasons; they're merely circumstance. Side by side, one gaming machine is "superior" to the other. It's not even a competition, given how far ahead PCs are at this point.

There used to be two big reasons in favor of consoles; painless plug-and-play and exclusive titles. Now that consoles update about as frequently as PC programs, and given that you have to pay for online services (in addition to... paying for the internet in your house), and given how far PCs have come in terms of automatic driver installation and auto-detecting USB controllers/equipment, that plug and play reason is totally demolished. That leaves publishers holding their game hostage on a console as the only reason "in favor" of consoles. They want someone to shell out $360 for a game they want instead of $60; but if you consider hostage titles "in favor" of consoles instead of "highlighting one of the reasons the console market is hurting the entire games industry," you might want to think about it a little harder.

 

[loc978]

I have seen several comments around how PC is the "Greatest gaming device" and how several PC gamers consider themselves to be "elites"

Most of those are tongue in cheek but the PC does offer quite a few advantages for not a huge difference in price. There's a difference between saying that the device is better and that the person using the device is better, for one thing everyone with a console could go out and buy a PC if they really wanted to. Most of the actual hostility is due to...

or those on console calling them "elitist".

This. I've seen about twenty times more PC gamers being called elitist than I have PC gamers being elitist. Naturally when the PC gamers are being blamed for an attitude they by and large don't have, being intentionally teased about their choice of money sink and are having petitions like

https://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/rockstar-games-dont-make-a-pc-version-of-gta-v#share

and you can start to see why maybe some people get a bit prickly.

Wait wait wait!! Are you telling me someone actually did a petition about stopping GTA V being on PC? What kind of low life pathetic person would do such a thing. I know the internet is filled with trolls with nothing else to do but WHAT THE FUCK!?!? Why can't gamers get along and mostly why don't the trolls just go back under the bridge they came from. I see why PC gamers are pissed.

That feeling right there... remember it. That would be how most PC gamers feel when some asshole insults console gamers "for all of us" over a preference.

...as for me, I just dislike thumbsticks for a vast majority of game genres. I feel they're slow and imprecise for anything other than specifying a direction (which is why they're awesome for the Batman Arkham games). If I could plug a keyboard and mouse into my PS3 to play Red Dead Redemption, I wouldn't call Rockstar a bunch of pricks for being so dismissive... but so far the only games I've encountered with that option are Dust 514 and Unreal Tournament.

 

[DoomyMcDoom]

Oh god, why did a Objective/Subjective argument pop up -.-

Lets settle this here. When you say 'Good', 'Bad', 'Better', 'Worse' you are no longer talking objectively. Full stop.
"The PC has better hardware" is not an objective statement. You have not qualified 'Better'. The PC has more advanced hardware? Sure. Stronger hardware? Sure. Hardware with greater technical capabilities? Sure. 'Better' hardware? Define better.

An example. Murder is not, objectively, a bad thing. It is a thing. That is all that you can objectively say about it; Murder is the act of taking another person's life. It is not objectively bad. Welcome to nihilism. Now, we all understand murder as bad as that is our subjective moral code, and judged by our moral code we can say murder is bad, however that is not an objective statement. The only objective statement that can be made along those lines is 'Murder is considered an evil act by the moral code in question'.

Continuing from this, we can therefore not call either the PC or console objectively better. We can state facts about that, and how a majority might perceive those facts, but there is no objective measure here. A PC has more options for peripherals, a far larger library of games, often cheaper games, more powerful hardware and several exclusive genres, however that does not make it 'Better' objectively. It means, objectively, it has those qualities. Subjectively you can perceive those qualities to be important or unimportant dependant on who is judging. This is, conveniently enough, why you cannot make an objective statement about these sorts of things; because people's opinions of what constitutes 'better' differ, and hence so does what is 'better'.

Now, back to you forum, and the rest of this... debate...

Actually, when conducting an objective comparison, you CAN determine, from a purely objective standpoint which of a group of things is better, especially if they have so much in common as consoles and PCs, this isn't an apples and oranges debate, this is about hardware with definable and numerically quantifiable statistics, and specifications.

Number of available games, average game prices, and available control options, are just SOME of the ways that "Objectively" PC gaming is the superior option.
Whether a person wants to learn to use a system or not, is purely subjective, whether something is "convenient" to someone is subjective, and "What kind of games are available" and "what do you like playing" are subjective, they don't count.

So when you look at purely numbers, what's more powerful, how many games are available for purchase and what they cost, these are what matter in a purely objective comparison, as such, you won't find a platform, with more, or cheaper games, than the PC.

Not saying someone is wrong in any way to prefer a console, or what have you, as that is purely subjective, and trying to argue this subjectively is a purely infantile shouting match.

I say like what you like, play what you want to play.

However, if you intend to argue a point, at least do some research before you step up to the podium.
When comparing two limited constructs, with very specific variables, to say that the one with less options is somehow superior, is the standpoint of the uninformed, or of someone who doesn't understand the meaning of objectivity, and subjectivity.

To again clarify my point, nobody is wrong for choosing to game on a console instead of a PC, but you are choosing the option that is subjectively better, for YOU, and there is NOTHING wrong with that.

 

[Zeles]

I'm a PC gamer, and I have to say... I really don't CARE if you play on console or PC. I just care if you've played certain games so that we can talk about them.

 

[AuronFtw]

Because of that, I think a lot of PC gamers blame consoles for great IPs such as 'Syndicate' being turned from a strategy game into a FPS, and the same thing happening with "X-Com: The Bureau" (some hardcore enthusiasts were also turned off by a lot of the simplifying that took place in "X-Com: Enemy Unknown"). I know some were also mad at them turning "Dragon Age 2" into a much more action-oriented game than the original Dragon Age (which was supposed to be something of a revitalization of the 'Baldur's Gate' type of RPG). Whether justified or not, I think a lot of PC Gamers blame console gamers for these sorts of things happening.

Ehhh... kind of? Honestly, that's going to happen anyway. A lot of those games were overly complex (Baldur's Gate, for example) because they tried to create a ready-to-play D&D campaign for PC, and didn't trim any of D&D's unnecessary mechanics. I love BG to death, and I still herald it as one of the (if not the single) best RPGs for PC, but there's no doubt it suffered because of its complexity, especially today. Gamers these days are used to hand-holding and spoon-feeding, so when they're forced to not only read dialog for quest clues, but also read sometimes wall-of-texty entries in their journal, a lot of them lose interest fast. I'm not a huge fan of the hand-holding, but regardless of it existing, that's the "norm" for games these days, so players trying to pick up that old classic are often turned off by the lack of it.

Dragon Age tried to bridge the gap, basically; take a story as epic and immersive as Baldur's Gate, strip down as much of the "needless" complexity as possible, and capture the attention of a new generation of RPG gamers. That idea had great merit... unfortunately, they stripped out pretty much all of the complexity, and also the story and world weren't quite as immersive. Bit of a letdown, even looking at it from a "baby's first baldur's gate" perspective. Oddly enough, I think Mass Effect succeeded where Dragon Age failed; the characters, story and setting were easily as immersive as Baldur's Gate (despite the vastly different setting), and the combat was "new" (>.>) and "refreshing" (<.<) to the RPG crowd, basically taking a moderately well-designed shooter and setting it in an RPG universe.

Games are going to evolve, and I think trying to keep it accessible to a new crowd is an important aspect of design. The truly legendary games will be easy to get into yet deep as an ocean, giving players plenty to learn and explore after the initial "woo this is neat" phase wears off. The old fogeys bitching about "ermagerd games are 2 ez" and ignoring the benefits of that design aren't really being realistic.

And, as you said, there are plenty of difficult and complex games being made even today. Hell, FTL is a good example; not the biggest game, and definitely not the prettiest, but wow that shit is hard. The library of PC games is just too massive to not find any "hard" games, really; anyone claiming games are too easy just aren't looking at all.

 

[Mooboo Magoo]

I'm way too lazy to read this whole thread, so I'm just going to say the reason why I prefer PC to consoles, that being that the PC is simply better.

And I know that sounds silly but its true. There is nothing a console can do that a PC can't, and a lot that a PC can that a console can't. A console is more or less just a crappy PC that can only play games. The PS4 and Xbone are roughly midrange PCs, but they will quickly become obsolete. On top of that, my library of available games isn't going to disappear because I upgraded because backwards compatibility isn't really an issue for PCs.

Now that being said, I do think that consoles are easier to use overall. You don't need to worry about whether or not your specs are good enough, you don't need to worry about upgrades, and you don't have to worry about compatibility issues.

The thing is, though, that although gaming is just a hobby for me, it is my primary hobby. Because of this I LIKE buying upgrades and working out compatibility issues. I remember getting Myst to work on Windows 7, and it felt awesome even if it took me the better part of a day to figure out (you basically have to install two different versions of Quicktime on top of each other).

So yes, consoles are easier to use and if that is your preference then whatever. PCs, however, are simply objectively better in every way.

As for the hostility toward consoles, that mostly comes from the fact that consoles hold PC games back. Because games are generally developed to be available on every platform possible which means making sure they work on consoles. Imagine if you had bought a PS4 three years ago, but you could only play PS3 games on it because everyone else keeps clinging to their inferior product. That is basically how PC owners feel about games, and given the PS4's specs that isn't going to change anytime soon.

 

[AuronFtw]

I'm way too lazy to read this whole thread, so I'm just going to say the reason why I prefer PC to consoles, that being that the PC is simply better....
As for the hostility toward consoles, that mostly comes from the fact that consoles hold PC games back.

You pretty much summed up the thread. Subjectivity and preference aside, one "console" is better than the others regardless of metric, and "the others" are also supporting some of the worst industry practices and failures, which hurts the entire gaming industry.

Being concise ftw

 

[EstrogenicMuscle]

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

Specifically, they get more fighting games, have a history of getting more fighting games(which is only starting to break down in recent year as more fighting games are starting to break into the industry). And consoles have had a history of local co-op support that the PC has not. Good local co-op has always been a must for fighting games.

Fighting games have always been a "very console genre" for that reason. I think among many reasons that such is changing in recent year, is that online co-op in fighting games is becoming more and more important. Though I'd argue, that even with the online gaming world, local co-op is just as important as ever for fighting games.

PC local co-op support has been picking up a lot in recent years. And even has some possible advantages like multi-monitor support. But sadly, it still isn't quite to the level of consoles yet. An advantage that consoles still hold.

 

[kaioshade]

Consoles do not hold PCs back. DEVELOPERS hold PC back. When a studio is developing their game, they can either do two things: Reuse the same engine on both PC or console, or build a better engine for just the PC version. Most developers take the easy way out and just have one engine. Other companies, fine tune their engine just for PC,a and the port is head and shoulders above the console versions.

 

[KazeAizen]

Sucking? Seriously you are just gonna go right there and say it? That's one thing I wish PC people would just stop saying about consoles. It doesn't make the two any friendlier toward each other and that is unacceptable. Anyway the hardware put into the consoles these days is powerful and probably on par with modern PCs. Here is the problem. Developing a game that utilizes those specs right out of the gate is uber expensive and a huge risk if not an outright dumb move. Until devs can figure out how to make it cost effective or get a bigger budget or something along those lines its hard to push consoles to the brink at the beginning of their life.

You are coming off as if you absolutely hate consoles and truly do think PCs are the best and only way to game. Not sure if you mean to come off like that but you are.

Go back and read my post. I HAVE A CONSOLE AS WELL AS A PC. I can talk as much shit about my own platform as I want. It's stupid and grey, and I hate its little lights, and all the whirring sounds it makes. =P

Really though, of course they suck. My PC is a couple years old now. It sucks too. But not as bad as my eight year old console sucks. It's just a big old bag of suck.

Still fun though.

A big old bag of suck that is still fun? Does not compute but see that's what we need to focus on. So long as its fun it does not suck. Fun > tech specs always.

 

[Lightknight]

Does a man not squash an ant once he realizes its biting him?

Joking aside, this question can be just as easily asked either way. As an owner of the consoles and a powerful pc, I see advantages and disadvantages in each. But I've also seen some pretty harsh people on either side and that's the reason for the rivalry. As in football and everything else, it's usually the people with the most similarities but on opposite sides of a fence that have the strongest rivalry.

 

[Korten12]

Honestly, I love PC gaming, but I really hate most PC gamers. Sure some are joking, but a lot of them I do feel have a superiority complex and it's just really annoying. Would love if they would shut up. Sure there is console fanboy's who hate on PC, but I feel there is more PC Elitist than there are console fans. Probably because I would guess 75% of PC gamers fall into the elitist category...

 

[Saelune]

Extremes are bad is the thing. There are also console elitists Im sure...but I guess PC elitists on the internet makes more sense. Though I like to think most real gamers appreciate gaming regardless of how you do it.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Because of that, I think a lot of PC gamers blame consoles for great IPs such as 'Syndicate' being turned from a strategy game into a FPS, and the same thing happening with "X-Com: The Bureau" (some hardcore enthusiasts were also turned off by a lot of the simplifying that took place in "X-Com: Enemy Unknown"). I know some were also mad at them turning "Dragon Age 2" into a much more action-oriented game than the original Dragon Age (which was supposed to be something of a revitalization of the 'Baldur's Gate' type of RPG). Whether justified or not, I think a lot of PC Gamers blame console gamers for these sorts of things happening.

Ehhh... kind of? Honestly, that's going to happen anyway. A lot of those games were overly complex (Baldur's Gate, for example) because they tried to create a ready-to-play D&D campaign for PC, and didn't trim any of D&D's unnecessary mechanics. I love BG to death, and I still herald it as one of the (if not the single) best RPGs for PC, but there's no doubt it suffered because of its complexity, especially today. Gamers these days are used to hand-holding and spoon-feeding, so when they're forced to not only read dialog for quest clues, but also read sometimes wall-of-texty entries in their journal, a lot of them lose interest fast. I'm not a huge fan of the hand-holding, but regardless of it existing, that's the "norm" for games these days, so players trying to pick up that old classic are often turned off by the lack of it.

Dragon Age tried to bridge the gap, basically; take a story as epic and immersive as Baldur's Gate, strip down as much of the "needless" complexity as possible, and capture the attention of a new generation of RPG gamers. That idea had great merit... unfortunately, they stripped out pretty much all of the complexity, and also the story and world weren't quite as immersive. Bit of a letdown, even looking at it from a "baby's first baldur's gate" perspective. Oddly enough, I think Mass Effect succeeded where Dragon Age failed; the characters, story and setting were easily as immersive as Baldur's Gate (despite the vastly different setting), and the combat was "new" (>.>) and "refreshing" (<.<) to the RPG crowd, basically taking a moderately well-designed shooter and setting it in an RPG universe.

Games are going to evolve, and I think trying to keep it accessible to a new crowd is an important aspect of design. The truly legendary games will be easy to get into yet deep as an ocean, giving players plenty to learn and explore after the initial "woo this is neat" phase wears off. The old fogeys bitching about "ermagerd games are 2 ez" and ignoring the benefits of that design aren't really being realistic.

And, as you said, there are plenty of difficult and complex games being made even today. Hell, FTL is a good example; not the biggest game, and definitely not the prettiest, but wow that shit is hard. The library of PC games is just too massive to not find any "hard" games, really; anyone claiming games are too easy just aren't looking at all.

I think you kind of hit the nail on the head when you said " Gamers these days are used to hand-holding and spoon-feeding," because I think some PC Gamers think that console gamers are the ones who need the spoon-feeding and hand-holding, and thus it's causing games as a whole to be "dumbed-down" for the lowest common denominator. It's really no different than people saying that TV is getting worse because of the success of trashy reality shows.

Again, I don't really agree with the idea, and it's not like there aren't tons of hyper complex PC Games out there for those who really want them, not to mention that (thanks to sites like GOG) all your old-school complex games are still available.

 

[clippen05]

Because of that, I think a lot of PC gamers blame consoles for great IPs such as 'Syndicate' being turned from a strategy game into a FPS, and the same thing happening with "X-Com: The Bureau" (some hardcore enthusiasts were also turned off by a lot of the simplifying that took place in "X-Com: Enemy Unknown"). I know some were also mad at them turning "Dragon Age 2" into a much more action-oriented game than the original Dragon Age (which was supposed to be something of a revitalization of the 'Baldur's Gate' type of RPG). Whether justified or not, I think a lot of PC Gamers blame console gamers for these sorts of things happening.

Ehhh... kind of? Honestly, that's going to happen anyway. A lot of those games were overly complex (Baldur's Gate, for example) because they tried to create a ready-to-play D&D campaign for PC, and didn't trim any of D&D's unnecessary mechanics. I love BG to death, and I still herald it as one of the (if not the single) best RPGs for PC, but there's no doubt it suffered because of its complexity, especially today. Gamers these days are used to hand-holding and spoon-feeding, so when they're forced to not only read dialog for quest clues, but also read sometimes wall-of-texty entries in their journal, a lot of them lose interest fast. I'm not a huge fan of the hand-holding, but regardless of it existing, that's the "norm" for games these days, so players trying to pick up that old classic are often turned off by the lack of it.

Dragon Age tried to bridge the gap, basically; take a story as epic and immersive as Baldur's Gate, strip down as much of the "needless" complexity as possible, and capture the attention of a new generation of RPG gamers. That idea had great merit... unfortunately, they stripped out pretty much all of the complexity, and also the story and world weren't quite as immersive. Bit of a letdown, even looking at it from a "baby's first baldur's gate" perspective. Oddly enough, I think Mass Effect succeeded where Dragon Age failed; the characters, story and setting were easily as immersive as Baldur's Gate (despite the vastly different setting), and the combat was "new" (>.>) and "refreshing" (<.<) to the RPG crowd, basically taking a moderately well-designed shooter and setting it in an RPG universe.

Games are going to evolve, and I think trying to keep it accessible to a new crowd is an important aspect of design. The truly legendary games will be easy to get into yet deep as an ocean, giving players plenty to learn and explore after the initial "woo this is neat" phase wears off. The old fogeys bitching about "ermagerd games are 2 ez" and ignoring the benefits of that design aren't really being realistic.

And, as you said, there are plenty of difficult and complex games being made even today. Hell, FTL is a good example; not the biggest game, and definitely not the prettiest, but wow that shit is hard. The library of PC games is just too massive to not find any "hard" games, really; anyone claiming games are too easy just aren't looking at all.

I think you kind of hit the nail on the head when you said " Gamers these days are used to hand-holding and spoon-feeding," because I think some PC Gamers think that console gamers are the ones who need the spoon-feeding and hand-holding, and thus it's causing games as a whole to be "dumbed-down" for the lowest common denominator. It's really no different than people saying that TV is getting worse because of the success of trashy reality shows.

Again, I don't really agree with the idea, and it's not like there aren't tons of hyper complex PC Games out there for those who really want them, not to mention that (thanks to sites like GOG) all your old-school complex games are still available.

I mostly agree with you in saying that you can't attribute the decline of more complex games with the success of less complex ones, however, just because all of the old games are readily available does not make the decline of more complex games ok. No one wants to be stuck with old material for the rest of their lives, even if that old material was top-notch... it gets old eventually. I disagree with your notion that there's still a lot of games of this nature out there. I don't have any exact figures, but the amount of strategy and simulation games coming out today is definitely a shrinking number. Sure, there are indie games that are filling the void, but the quality of some of those games is debatable.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I have no idea. I always thought it was because PC gamers considered consoles to be "holding back" the industry. Whatever that means.