Poll: 60fps vs 30fps? opinions?

[Odbarc]

My monitor allows for 144hz so I definitely prefer higher frame rates. Graphics are generally overrated.

 

[Patathatapon]

Our eyes stop seeing the difference at 24-30

[citation needed]

Because our eyes do see the difference even beyond that. As a proof: otherwise we wouldn't have this thread. Among other things.

This is what you call, someone trying to differentiate the difference between the two. I just meant it seems smooth at around that range films and games have run at 24/30 fps for a long time now. Apparently 16 was the minimum back in the day, here I'll even show the dumb article I found.

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-movies-look-smooth-at-24-fps-but-video-games-look-terrible-at-24-fps-Is-it-because-of-motion-blur

Is it credible? Hell if I know. You asked for a link, that's what I'm giving you.

A processor can only handle so much, and rendering two different screens at once at 60FPS simultaneously sounds like a lot of work, wouldn't you say?

It depends on how they would go about it.

So how would they go about it? That is the biggest cop out answer I've seen. As I said, for something like Mortal Kombat or smash brothers (both are console games that can run at 60FPS) it isn't too hard because it's all just one screen, and for that matter, isn't THAT complex. Meanwhile in a game like Halo 5, running two COMPLETELY different screens in First person perspective is quite a bit already. This isn't to mention high graphics, AI, or anything else either. Which is also a bit of a strain. Adding 60 Fps for each different screen is hard. The developers can't change the hardware on the Xbox One. If they made it so both players had to share a screen, sure they could do that, but that would be stupid for a First person shooter.

I invite you to prove me wrong then.

I invite you to first prove that it is literally impossible even if the developers actually try to do it. It's that thing called burden of proof.[/quote]

Well I'm not a developer so I can't prove it to you. All I have is what I hear. You just proved you can't prove me wrong, and it's impossible for me to prove myself right. So until I can be proven wrong, we're at a stalemate in this area, aren't we? Doesn't mean you win by default.


My last words on this since I'm not posting again after this: Just to piss everyone off I might as well mention that both me, and my older brother can't tell the big difference between 30fps and 60fps. Side by side maybe we could figure it out. But not just from the sight of one. Anyway, I'm not coming back, if you take that as a victory, then fine. Enjoy.

 

[DoPo]

So how would they go about it?

By reducing the amount of computing power to get 60 FPS. There are various ways to do that - various ways that are employed already. Lowering video quality is the obvious one, but there are tricks that can be done in relation to the screen space - since you're showing two, you can show less and/or hide some details that would not be strictly needed. There are should also be some lower level optimisations that would just improve how the game performs.

And then, the implementation could mandate running at 30FPS when in split screen. There isn't a technical reason why that cannot be done. Well, some people would complain but not you.

Adding 60 Fps for each different screen is hard. The developers can't change the hardware on the Xbox One.

They can change what computations throw at said hardware, though.

Well I'm not a developer so I can't prove it to you. All I have is what I hear.

You believe what you hear from one person. I am also one person, yet you don't seem to listen.

You just proved you can't prove me wrong

No, what I just proved is that you don't know what you're talking about but you are adamant in your lack of understanding.

and it's impossible for me to prove myself right. So until I can be proven wrong, we're at a stalemate in this area, aren't we?

Means that you began your argument from a position of ignorance and somehow believe that your claims have any weight to them despite that.

Doesn't mean you win by default.

It took me literally two minutes to find out that Borderlands: The Handsome Collection both works on 60 FPS on Xbox One and has local split screen co-op. I don't know if the co-op works at 60 FPS but that's sufficient proof that your claim was wrong - you can both have a game that runs in 60 FPS and that game can have local co-op.

Anyway, I'm not coming back, if you take that as a victory, then fine. Enjoy.

Cya. Feel free to go and put blindly faith somebody else, then form completely baseless beliefs around them, and come and share your misguidedness with us again.

 

[Bad Jim]

No, DOOM had no frequency cap, though when it released most machines could not run it at 60 fps well.

Sorry, as much as I admire your heroic defense of high framerates, the Doom engine is indeed capped at 35fps. http://doomwiki.org/wiki/Uncapped_framerate

Try running it in DOSBox with output=OpenGL and you can see the framerate with Fraps.

Perhaps you have been fooled by source ports like ZDoom that remove this cap?

 

[Strazdas]

Yeah, no [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Internet_connection_speeds].

according to this list, 80% of United States has internet connection capable of downloading games. Note that that remaining 20% includes people that dont know or care about internet as well, so the real amount of people that has to relie on retail is miniscule.

So, where are these people rioting? Are they a big enough group to matter?

Big enough for sony to get sued [http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-08-07-sony-is-being-sued-for-killzone-failing-to-deliver-native-1080p] as well as EA [http://www.pcgamer.com/investors-sue-ea-over-quality-of-battlefield-4/]. Those people riot mostly on the internet. and yes, they are big enough group given that they are the majority of customers.

Wait, I think I get it, the reason flat CRTs never come up with the people I speak with is because they're kinda ignored. Most people I know just grab nice TVs from the 80s and 90s (because those are cheapest) and those are generally curved. Hm, now that I think about it, my boyfriend did have a very nice flat 100hz CRT. That one didn't cause any distortions. Wouldn't quality play a big role? There's shitty TVs in all shapes and sizes.

quality is msot definatelly a factor both back then and now. though i cannot magically say whether the TV you had as a kid was good quality or not so i avoided that factor. Thing is with most games from that time is that they were designed in a way that would abuse the low quality systems most homes have to their benefit and quality was much more important for things like image editing than games in comparison to nowadays where image quality for gaming is more important. That being said due to Flat CRTs late arrival on the TV scene the curved ones do tend to be higher quality in general.

I'm not sure the i3 is the right way to go with a gaming PC. Sure, the hyper-treading somewhat makes up for it being a dual core and it's a good price, but wouldn't a i5 be a little more future proof? And isn't 7200RPM considered slow for a harddrive? It seems to me that this system is about getting as much for young as possible, but doesn't exactly provide the most comfortable experience.

And yep, I know the dark days of Vista have passed, but OSes do take up a relatively big amount of resourches. (Though I have to admit some modern consoles are a bit weird. IIRC the Wii U sets aside 1GB of its RAM for system use online.)

The vast majority of games nowadays are GPU-bound and for a budget build i3 will do just fine. while it is just a dualcore, you have to realize that Intels cores have much higher IPC (instructions-per-cycle) count that makes up for it. in fact thats the reason Intels are so popular with gaming because most games dont do multithreading well and having fewer but stronger cores are beneficial. No, you likely wont max out games on i3, but it will play games fine. Yes, if i was building for myself id pick i5 (and i did) but that build was specifically designed to fit within 500 dollars. Also no, 7200rpm is standard, most popular (think - 99% of desktops) harddrive. there is a slower 5400 variant that is mostly used in laptops. however above 7200 rpm (9600rpm, 10600rpm, ect) are all server-grade hardware, not designed for regular users (but can be used if you can afford it).

No, modern windows take a miniscule amount. if you are runnign a fullscreen app it even unloads the desktop manager so you dont even have that one taking memory. the usage you see are mostly third party programs most people have (such as antivirus). Also did you knew that Out of 8 processor cores for Xbox only 6 are available for games because the other 2 are reserved for OS? thats way more resource use than even Vista did. Im not sure about PS4, but i heard it also has system reserved resources that are strangely big.

I think you only need to add the cost when you don't have a suitable screen. I don't have a monitor, so that's something I would have to buy if I decided to get a PC. If you're happy with your monitor, you don't need a TV, meaning a console is relatively cheap for you.

but your TV is a suitable screen for your PC! its just your wishes to have a monitor that makes it not a choice for you. same as in my case not having a TV. Especially since modern TVs and monitors are pretty much identical in design other than input choices. Well and most monitors dont have internal speakers.

That involves trusting random people on the internet, though. Not everyone is eager to do so. If you aren't very computer savvy, just finding trustworthy sources can be a challenge.

(I learnt my way around PCs with outdated systems and spare parts - I would have pissed my pants if I had to fiddle with anything less expendable! New parts are still a little scary. Last time I decided to plop in some more RAM - literally three minutes work - I had to take deep breath before I dared to even start. Which was kind of silly, because finding the right RAM was actually a greater challenge.)

Paranoid person will stay paranoid because he is too afraid to get it cured. Like i said, just go to a site like pcpartpicker.com and it will show you whether the build is going to work fine or not, most people will link you to that anyway, so you dont even have to do any work.

For compatibility reasons, Windows seems like the most obvious choice to me. I do kinda get the appeal of Linux, though. Lots of freedom to make it run the way that's best for your set-up.

I think that battery died simply because it was shitty and couldn't handle being recharged so often. Of course, the real culprit is the laptop (and the people who designed it) - the battery wouldn't have died so soon if the laptop hadn't constantly drawn power from it. My own laptop was nearly five your older at the time, and while the battery life had certainly degraded (in the end, I got 15 minutes out of it - at max), it hadn't been abused to death. We're talking early-mid 00s by the way - things were a little worse back then.

Yes, i agree with your point about windows.

Yeah, early 00s were times when laptop was still relatively obscure technology and a lot of corners were cut. i got the infamous DV9000 built in 2008. Its not really a laptop anymore, due to many things that happened to it over the years its basically used as an independent second monitor or youtube watcher now.

Looking at the recommended requirements and assuming you meet those, I'm assuming you're meeting the minimum system requirements for many triple A games. That's indeed not too bad.

im not aware of any game so far that i dont meet minimum requirements yet. Even the supposed very demanding Just Cause 3, im just a tad bit above minimum specs.

It's no secret the Wii U is the weakest of the bunch (though it's actually not as bad as some people assume), but Nintendo does a great job of making you forget you're playing an relatively low tech hardware. Their own games run incredibly well, and even something like Xenoblade X, in which a lot of sacrifices were made to create a huge, seamless world, draws you right in once you start playing. Hardware limitations are a lot more noticible in the PS4 games I play, because half of them I just kinda poorly put together.

yes, Nintendo sure knows how to polish their games and use the limited resources they have. its probably why they are so lowed, they dont have so many bad developers releasing games on their consoles. Personally its not my cup of tea, but from a technical perspective they are mostly well done.

I meant the problems seen in console gaming (and gaming in general, really) can't be solved by just releasing more powerful consoles. The extra power can cover up only so much of poor programming. The advantage PC gaming has here, is that users can improve their own hardware where needed, and the most savvy ones can even put out mods to make the game run better. Still, this is users trying to fix problems that shouldn't be there regardless of the hardware being developed for.

Kinda. Realistically simply having more power wont solve poor programming, but in some cases it can just power through it. for example take GTA 4 - a complete disaster of a PC port that no video card existing at launch could run it even half-decently. now 7 years later GPUs are so powerful they can just choke all the shitty programming done in there and still deliver decent experience. So yes, the problem shouldnt exist in the first place, but since it does, and there is a way i can fix it for myself, well then ill fix it rather than play shit (though in many cases i simply wont even buy that game).

Finding good games can be tricky, though. Unless you're willing to sacrifice a lot of time and/or money, there are obvious limitations to the number of great games you can discover on your own. Most people have to rely on critics and Youtube personalities to find new games to play. And how do these people find games? Publishers often approach these people themselves (fortunately, this rarely goes beyond 'here's a download code, enjoy'). If a developer does not promote their game, it's unlikely it will be discovered by people who can properly introduce it to the world.

the only youtube personality i follow is Jim Sterling and yet i have more games in my backlog than i can get through. I guess im not picky enough.... I actually discovered quite a few games reading this forum instead of some critics. i almost never read reviews, i actually prefer reading wiki entries over reviews because im very factual-based and reviews tend to be very opinion-based. There are many ways gamers learn about games. Heck, there was a time i was discovering new games and movies based on most pirated items on one site. Its quite a good measure of popularity.

If i am watching a games gameplay on youtube it becomes pretty easy for me to decide whether i want to buy the game or not. If i want to keep watching, i wont be buying it. If instead i want to stop watching and instead play it myself, then it has hooked me.

That's true. But the way PC gaming and PC tech is intertwined seems a bit strange to me, as console gaming is pretty much all about the games. I mostly just really like games.

the reason console gaming does not include tech is because not only it is a locked up tech but it is flat out illegal to mod it
http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/05/student-arrested-for-modding-xbox-consoles/
http://www.wired.com/2009/08/game-console-jailbreaking-arrest/

This is the same practice that is ENCOURAGED on mobile phones to get rid of shitty pre-loaded crap they tend to be full off. This is the same as reinstalling your own version of windows on PC. yet for consoles you will get arrested. no wonder it does not have a hardware scene, everyone in it would have to be in jail.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-movies-look-smooth-at-24-fps-but-video-games-look-terrible-at-24-fps-Is-it-because-of-motion-blur

Is it credible? Hell if I know. You asked for a link, that's what I'm giving you.

Emphasis mine. No, its not. Games have motion blur, some of them very good quality motion blur. it does not lower bad framerate problems because they are not caused by lack of blur.

Sorry, as much as I admire your heroic defense of high framerates, the Doom engine is indeed capped at 35fps. http://doomwiki.org/wiki/Uncapped_framerate

Try running it in DOSBox with output=OpenGL and you can see the framerate with Fraps.

Perhaps you have been fooled by source ports like ZDoom that remove this cap?

Yeah, sorry about that. I may have mixed Doom up with Quake.

 

[NPC009]

Yeah, no [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Internet_connection_speeds].

according to this list, 80% of United States has internet connection capable of downloading games. Note that that remaining 20% includes people that dont know or care about internet as well, so the real amount of people that has to relie on retail is miniscule.

I would not recommend downloading games using a connection that'll give you a download rate of less than 1MB a minute (note that the speeds are listed in Mb), as many modern games are several GBs, even the ones on handheld. It's easier to find stuff under 500MB on Steam and GoG, but even a small retro game might take over an hour to download with that kind of speed.

Big enough for sony to get sued [http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-08-07-sony-is-being-sued-for-killzone-failing-to-deliver-native-1080p] as well as EA [http://www.pcgamer.com/investors-sue-ea-over-quality-of-battlefield-4/]. Those people riot mostly on the internet. and yes, they are big enough group given that they are the majority of customers.

Battlefield 4: Seems to go way beyond not being able to reach 60fps. Frame rate isn't even mentioned.
Killzone: Always nice when a company gets a get in the butt for cheating at numbers, but it appears nothing came of this lawsuit. It also seems to be more about the resolution than the frame rate. (And I'm not surprised this went quiet, as the game did run at 1080p 60fps during multiplayer, but that 1080p simply wasn't fully native.)

BTW You don't need a majority to file a class action lawsuit.

The vast majority of games nowadays are GPU-bound and for a budget build i3 will do just fine. while it is just a dualcore, you have to realize that Intels cores have much higher IPC (instructions-per-cycle) count that makes up for it. in fact thats the reason Intels are so popular with gaming because most games dont do multithreading well and having fewer but stronger cores are beneficial. No, you likely wont max out games on i3, but it will play games fine. Yes, if i was building for myself id pick i5 (and i did) but that build was specifically designed to fit within 500 dollars. Also no, 7200rpm is standard, most popular (think - 99% of desktops) harddrive. there is a slower 5400 variant that is mostly used in laptops. however above 7200 rpm (9600rpm, 10600rpm, ect) are all server-grade hardware, not designed for regular users (but can be used if you can afford it).

I've heard of i5 and i7 being fairly popular because they offer a lot of bang for your buck, but this is the first time I've heard the i3s being well-liked as well. I have to wonder about how future proof it is, though, especially in combination with other lower-end components. One advantage of consoles is that the system has a life cycle of atleast five years (with more than a few systems reaching eight years or more), a PC becomes less cost effective if it needs multiple upgrades during the same timeframe to be able to keep up.

As for the harddrive, the serious gamers around me swear solid state is the way to go, but I'll take your word when you say 7200 is perfectly acceptable. It sounds good enough for me, as well.

No, modern windows take a miniscule amount. if you are runnign a fullscreen app it even unloads the desktop manager so you dont even have that one taking memory. the usage you see are mostly third party programs most people have (such as antivirus). Also did you knew that Out of 8 processor cores for Xbox only 6 are available for games because the other 2 are reserved for OS? thats way more resource use than even Vista did. Im not sure about PS4, but i heard it also has system reserved resources that are strangely big.

Yeah, the PS4 sets aside 3.5GB RAM (out of 8GB DDR5 RAM) for system related activities (which are mostly tied the gaming experience, such as share and multiplayer functions - I guess you could compare it to the Steam client), but a part of that is flexible and can be used for the game if developers chose to do so.

Good point about the antivirus and other third-party programs (Steam, Skype, what else?). Those would be a bigger drain nowadays. Not sure if that's really in favour of PC Gaming, though.

but your TV is a suitable screen for your PC! its just your wishes to have a monitor that makes it not a choice for you. same as in my case not having a TV. Especially since modern TVs and monitors are pretty much identical in design other than input choices. Well and most monitors dont have internal speakers.

I disagree. It's fine to hook up a computer to a TV to watch some movies, show a presentation or play a game with a controller, but a lot of PC stuff kinda requires you to sit at a desk unless you enjoy ergonomic nightmares. So unless you have a monitor size HD television to begin with, you need a proper monitor.

Paranoid person will stay paranoid because he is too afraid to get it cured. Like i said, just go to a site like pcpartpicker.com and it will show you whether the build is going to work fine or not, most people will link you to that anyway, so you dont even have to do any work.

Again, lots of people just aren't comfortable working with hundreds of dollars worth of components. PCs are kinda like cars, while nearly everyone should be able to basic things themselves, many prefer to leave it to the professionals.

Looking at the recommended requirements and assuming you meet those, I'm assuming you're meeting the minimum system requirements for many triple A games. That's indeed not too bad.

im not aware of any game so far that i dont meet minimum requirements yet. Even the supposed very demanding Just Cause 3, im just a tad bit above minimum specs.[/quote]

That's one of the games I looked at, among others. It's a popular game and it's sure not to be the last if its kind, so I figure it's a decent foundation for a guideline.

Kinda. Realistically simply having more power wont solve poor programming, but in some cases it can just power through it. for example take GTA 4 - a complete disaster of a PC port that no video card existing at launch could run it even half-decently. now 7 years later GPUs are so powerful they can just choke all the shitty programming done in there and still deliver decent experience. So yes, the problem shouldnt exist in the first place, but since it does, and there is a way i can fix it for myself, well then ill fix it rather than play shit (though in many cases i simply wont even buy that game).

Even if you have to wait several years to get to the point it's fixable, haha? Well, okay, I'm not laughing too hard. it's a shame to see potential wasted, so better late than never, I say. The standards on consoles are higher, but if something does go wrong, users have very few options to fix it themselves.

the only youtube personality i follow is Jim Sterling and yet i have more games in my backlog than i can get through. I guess im not picky enough.... I actually discovered quite a few games reading this forum instead of some critics. i almost never read reviews, i actually prefer reading wiki entries over reviews because im very factual-based and reviews tend to be very opinion-based. There are many ways gamers learn about games. Heck, there was a time i was discovering new games and movies based on most pirated items on one site. Its quite a good measure of popularity.

If i am watching a games gameplay on youtube it becomes pretty easy for me to decide whether i want to buy the game or not. If i want to keep watching, i wont be buying it. If instead i want to stop watching and instead play it myself, then it has hooked me.

Forums work in the same way. People rarely discover games themselves. They hear about it elsehere.

I like going through Steam during the sales and look at weird things I can get for less than 2 bucks, but most games do have atleast a handful of reviews and I do look at those before I buy it or not.

the reason console gaming does not include tech is because not only it is a locked up tech but it is flat out illegal to mod it
http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/05/student-arrested-for-modding-xbox-consoles/
http://www.wired.com/2009/08/game-console-jailbreaking-arrest/

This is the same practice that is ENCOURAGED on mobile phones to get rid of shitty pre-loaded crap they tend to be full off. This is the same as reinstalling your own version of windows on PC. yet for consoles you will get arrested. no wonder it does not have a hardware scene, everyone in it would have to be in jail.

It wasn't always illegal to fiddle around with the insides of consoles in certain ways, and even then is was never a big thing unless you count all those people who got their system modded just to play pirated games. Many modern systems do actually have a small homebrew culture attached to it, though it's more about doing new things with the existing hardware than changing it to be better. Someone got Windows 95 to boot on a 3DS recently, for instance. The PSP is a popular subject as well. And there's always someone trying to run Linux on a modern console. Oh, and you should see some of the fun ways they use Wii hardware at universities! I've seen everything from modified remotes to balance boards being used in stress tests in the psychology department. These people are usually left alone by console companies because they aren't breaking the law hard enough or simply aren't breaking it at all. Piracy however... Yeah, they don't take to kindly to that.

 

[Strazdas]

I would not recommend downloading games using a connection that'll give you a download rate of less than 1MB a minute (note that the speeds are listed in Mb), as many modern games are several GBs, even the ones on handheld. It's easier to find stuff under 500MB on Steam and GoG, but even a small retro game might take over an hour to download with that kind of speed.

Why not? I mean sure you will have to wait a few hours for the download to finish. but thats about it.

BTW You don't need a majority to file a class action lawsuit.

I never said you do, what i said is that the majority of customers are not happy when the game is poorly done.

I've heard of i5 and i7 being fairly popular because they offer a lot of bang for your buck, but this is the first time I've heard the i3s being well-liked as well. I have to wonder about how future proof it is, though, especially in combination with other lower-end components. One advantage of consoles is that the system has a life cycle of atleast five years (with more than a few systems reaching eight years or more), a PC becomes less cost effective if it needs multiple upgrades during the same timeframe to be able to keep up.

As for the harddrive, the serious gamers around me swear solid state is the way to go, but I'll take your word when you say 7200 is perfectly acceptable. It sounds good enough for me, as well.

i7 is overkill for gaming. you will find very few games where you will see any benefit over i5 because your GPU will be the one limiting your performance most of the time. GPU is more important than CPU nowadays if you are building a gaming PC as more and more calculations are offloaded to the GPU (which is good in a way since its easier to do the calculations there, but it obviuosly makes the GPU a bottleneck). More cores wont help you much because multithreading is rarely done in any efficient way in games (and dont expect it to get better any time soon, multithreading games is a nightmare for programmers. games cannot be easily predetermined calculations like, say, movie rendering).

Well, i do a major overhaul of my PC every 5-6 years, so its futureproof enough for me. As far as any pc being futureproof, can it run the same games consoles run now? if yes, then it will continue to run the same games at same performance. console hardware does not improve, the games will still be designed with that hardware limit in mind, so if your PC superceeds it now it will continue to do so. PC does not 'need' upgrades during the same timeframe. many pc players however do upgrade because they want to. there is a difference here, as their goal is to max out games which is way beyond console capabilities of rendering, but if you just want equivalent experience then you do not need to upgrade.

Well, i bought a SSD a few months ago and am very happy with it, but it is not a requirement for gaming. Vast majority of gamers still have HDDs (and like i said 7200 is standard), so games tend to be made in such a way that they will work for these people. Yes, SSD is great for loading times. we tend to joke that we got a new first world problem - the game loads so fast we cant read the loading tips. but outside of world loading the actual performance is unchanged because its the GPU thats capping it again. now granted it will be helpful in some extreme cases like the GTA 4 i mentioned where textures were not loading fast enough from a HDD, but that game is a complete mess and is not representative of gaming overall.

Good point about the antivirus and other third-party programs (Steam, Skype, what else?). Those would be a bigger drain nowadays. Not sure if that's really in favour of PC Gaming, though.

If its any consolation, i found that the DRM clients - Steam, Origin, Uplay are very light nowadays and once they are done checking the legality at launch they mostly stay inactive. The rest - Skype, ect. are optional. With antivirus though its worth noting that some are far worse offenders than others. For example Norton will significantly decrease your performance, meanwhile say Avast! (the one i use) has very small impact. I am currently running: Samsung Magician, GameCompanion 2.4, Fraps, Origin, Raptr, Steam, Skype, WhatPulse, Avast! and am seeding a few mods in torrent (perfectly legal, helping the owner host them since i got good internet connection). All of this has not created any noticable impact to my gaming performance. And yes, i did try turning it all off, the difference was very much within margin of error (1-2 fps or so). So at least in my setup, there is no impact from the third party apps that would be worrysome. Oh and i also forgot to mention, i also use Shadowplay that ALWAYS records my gaming footage with ability to save last 5 minutes (much like the share in PS4, but 1080p@[email protected] so much higher quality. Since this feature is built in into my GPU, there is no performance impact (it does freeze the game for a second when saving though because it has to dump multiple GB of data into the hard drive at once and HDD isnt that fast. could be avoided if i recorded in lower quality but meh, thats acceptable tradeoff for quality for me).

I disagree. It's fine to hook up a computer to a TV to watch some movies, show a presentation or play a game with a controller, but a lot of PC stuff kinda requires you to sit at a desk unless you enjoy ergonomic nightmares. So unless you have a monitor size HD television to begin with, you need a proper monitor.

or you could come up with multiple other ways of doing it not the least of which is hoop controller to control your mouse or simply have a wooden board that you can put on your lap and turn it into a mini-table for mosue and keyboard.

Again, lots of people just aren't comfortable working with hundreds of dollars worth of components. PCs are kinda like cars, while nearly everyone should be able to basic things themselves, many prefer to leave it to the professionals.

Funny thing here, theres actually been a massive problem where i live where young people do not evne know how to check air pressure in their cars and drive to the service to do this. even though everyone can do this for free at almost every gas station in 5 minutes.

Also you are aware that basic car maintenance is taught in driving courses and is required to know to pass the drivers exam to get a license? it is literally illegal to drive without knowing how to do those basic things. While there are no laws against it for computers, obviuosly, the comparison is really not in your favor here.

Even if you have to wait several years to get to the point it's fixable, haha? Well, okay, I'm not laughing too hard. it's a shame to see potential wasted, so better late than never, I say. The standards on consoles are higher, but if something does go wrong, users have very few options to fix it themselves.

GTA4 is an extreme case that i used for illustration. however there are more realistic cases, for example Assassins Creed: Unity, where they designed it poorly (mostly runaway drawcalls as it turns out, proving that DX12 is sorely needed, but we didnt knew this at launch). People with top of the line 800dollar GPUs could power through the problem and still play consistently, though. Now i will likely never be one of those people, but i dont begrudge them for wanting to do so.

I like going through Steam during the sales and look at weird things I can get for less than 2 bucks, but most games do have atleast a handful of reviews and I do look at those before I buy it or not.

Steam reviews can be useful. I usually go straight to the negative ones, read the negative sides of the game and sometimes it ends up "wait, that would be a positive for me actually". It actually saved me from buying a game once when the reviews (pretty much consistently all of them) said that the servers were shut down and the game became abandonware that doesnt work.

And there's always someone trying to run Linux on a modern console.

You could very easily install linux on a PS3. It was advertised as one of the features of the console at launch. however a few years after one of the patches removed this capability. Sony claimed it was because this feature allowed piracy to be easier. all the people using PS3s for linux calculations just got fucked. The almighty pirates, taking our abilities one feature at a time, ech?