Rangaman said:Console gaming, it's far more expensive in the long term. Also, $60 new releases forever.
How is PC gaming cheaper in the long run? If you do a bit of future proofing when buying/building your PC, you're going to be at least at a price of $500. I know you can build a "potato masher" PC for around $350 or so but that won't be very future proofed at all. You can easily wait for consoles to be at the $250 price point as there's rarely good reasons to buy one in their 1st year or two, so you can spend $500 ($250 + $250) for 2 whole gens of gaming at probably at least 12 years of gaming. Is that $500+ PC going to last over 12 years? Where is this long-term savings at?B-Cell said:The reason why im not a console gamer because
5. Cheaper games
PC games being cheaper is just plain wrong because you can't sell them. I can buy a game whenever I want to play it whether it's release day or later (I don't need to wait for sales) and the most I'll ever spend on it is probably like $20 at max (after it's all said and done). Hell, I bought Dishonored Death of an Outsider at Best Buy for $15 on Black Friday and traded it in at Best Buy for $10 when I bought Monster Hunter. Also, if you do the Best Buy or Amazon thing, new games are 20% off so I never pay $60 for a game.
Who actually watches streaming services on PC anyways? I wouldn't be surprised if most Youtube watching is also done on devices that aren't PCs. I watch most of my Youtube content on my phone in Firefox instead of the app because it blocks the ads. Sure, you have an ever-so-slightly faster search function on PC because of the keyboard, but outside of that, how is Netflix or Youtube better on a PC than any other device? Plus, you can, you know, not use Netflix or Youtube on a console. I don't even have those apps installed on my PS4. It's nice to have them available vs not available like I occasionally use the PS4 browser if my phone is out of reach to look up some game thing super quick.votemarvel said:When I look at the daily tasks I do on my PC, I realise there are in fact very few things that I couldn't also do on my Xbox One S. I can browse the web on my console, do word processing through OneDrive's online version of Office. Watch YouTube, Amazon, Netflix etc. Of course also play games.
I genuinely think that the other console makers need to look to Nintendo and start taking back the advantages they used to have with plug & play and/or near instant loading from cartridges. They need to stop chasing the PC dragon and get back to being games consoles again.
PS4 is really just a game console. When it launched, the PS4 couldn't even play MP3s. Adding some optional apps doesn't make it less of a game console nor is it trying to be a PC, the optional apps just allow it do what every other device can do, TVs have apps now.
I could see having the preference visually for 60+fps but just gameplay-wise, it doesn't make playing games any better. I played The Last of Us on PS4 at 60fps and then for a few hours just lowered it to 30fps and the difference is visually noticeable but it didn't alter the gameplay whatsoever.BabyfartsMcgeezaks said:Of course it's personal preference, try to play 95% of your games at 60fps or even 144fps (If you have a 144hz monitor like me) and then jump into a game running at 25-30fps. It's very jarring to me.hanselthecaretaker said:Unless you?re talking about twitch shooters or the like, that sounds like more of a personal preference thing than an objective impossibility.
Haha, there was a poster here that legitimately blamed consoles for ruining the art-form that is video games.Xsjadoblayde said:Though to be honest I only ever remember these people exist when I go online and see them complaining, and then the thought returns; "oh yeah, I'm ruining an entire art form somehow again, aren't i? Awesome!" as it's never brought up in the rest of day-to-day life. Just doing me part for the community, sir!
I have the base 500GB original model PS4 and I have 26 games on the system right now with 7 of them being "AAA" games and the rest being PSN games like Telltale's Batman season 2 that is taking up 26GBs with still one episode to be released. Most of those PSN games do take up around 2GBs each like Journey, Abzu, Sexy Brutale, Edith Finch, but the sizes do vary. Monster Hunter World is only taking up 15GBs and The Last Guardian is only 13GBs whereas Battleborn is at 39GBs (currently eating up the most space of any game I have installed) so AAA games vary greatly as well. And, with those 26 games installed, I'm only using up 264GBs of the available 406GBs on the hard drive so even 500GB PS4s can store far more than FIVE games. You can replace the PS4 HD if you want, Sony makes it pretty simple to swap them (compared Microsoft and Xbox), and I believe you can use an external HD even if you want with PS4.CritialGaming said:The difference is the storage capability and the data transfer/download rate. Yes games are big now, which also goes to ask the question why so much has to be installed on the console instead of reading from the disc, I would rather have longer loading times, then only being able to have five games on my playstation at any given time. If they wanted to install a portion of the game into the HDD to reduce load times but not clog the HDD with 86GB of space, then fine. Whatever they need to do, I feel a trade-off is in order.
The speed and the ease of using a console should come at the console of load times or whatever. I dunno what playstation you have but I have never been able to play a game within moments of popping the disc in. I think the fastest game install was Persona 5 and that took 20 minutes. Additionally playing without updates has many times ruined my save file because of the version change, so I do not play until all updates are installed (at least initial updates).
Again it comes down to speed on PC. Sure I have to download an entire 30-80GB file from steam. But my internet connection will take care of that in little more than an hour. Which might be ironic because I don't want to wait for PS4 to install from a disc. The difference here is that, there is no physical media option on PC anymore. A disc should be faster, a disc should be easier, and physical games shouldn't eat up 20% of my HDD space. Not to mention that my PC can easily have several HDD's swapped in and out of it for storage of as many games as I want without the need of uninstall/install replacement time.
Look I love my PLaystation for the exclusives on that console. However it is only an exclusive machine because the PC is better than it in every single way. Consoles are trying too hard to be "everything" machines, and need to go back to just being great game machines. Frankly as much as I do not like Nintendo the Switch is by far the best Game Machine on the market. No installs, no fuss, no muss, just plug in your cartridge and you are playing in seconds.
I remember Watch Dogs having a really quick initial install and you could play in literally only a couple of minutes. I just deleted and reinstalled Monster Hunter World, which didn't have the ability to play while installing most of the game, but it literally took 8 minutes to install the game while even downloading all the updates again during the 8 minute install time. Anyway you cut it, the disc is still faster because installing off a disc is faster than downloading the entire game. Numerous people do have data caps to think about too (I personally don't).
The PS4 was literally marketed as only a game machine, it couldn't even play MP3s at launch. And, PS4 fixed all the downfalls of the PS3. Remember, the PS3 couldn't download updates in the background, that was so very annoying. What's the harm in adding apps to any device? It's the user's option to use the PS4 to stream video if they want (if they don't have a smart TV, Fire Stick, Roku, or any other device that allows streaming). I'd rather have the option vs not having the option. How is the Switch the best console when you need to buy a SD card to play some games because the game cartridges and internal storage both aren't big enough?
Edit:
Oh, I forgot about the game save thing. I recall the only issue you should have with saves is when you try to play with a lower version of the game. Like if you played v1.10 last time you saved, deleted the game for some reason, and then went to continue playing, you will need to update the game to at least v1.10 to use the save. You should never get an issue playing v1.00 and then updating to v1.10 as the devs have to expect players to have saves at lower versions obviously. At worst the game should say your save is incompatible vs corrupting the save itself (which I've had happen when going back to games without them being up-to-date). But random bugs and whatnot do happen. I even remember there was a PS2 demo disc where the Viewtiful Joe 2 demo would completely wipe your memory card.