Charcharo said:
*Sigh*
- The privilege of not knowing stuff exists only for rich Americans. Learning how to build a PC is easy. The time investment is small. The knowledge requires is tiny. And RICH people that play on consoles still cant even give THAT much time for it.
I'm not American, I'm Australian. If I WAS rich, I'd have the time and money to dedicate to getting a high-end PC. The reason I haven't, is that:
-The PC I have works fine for every other thing I use it for, and I don't want to risk mucking it up when it's vital for work-related matters
-I do have modern generation consoles to play games that can't be played on the PC due to hardware limitations
There's also the idea of cost-benefit analysis. I can put in $X amount to get a piece of hardware that's guaranteed to work, but is limited, or $Y amount in getting more powerful, but less reliable hardware. I value reliability over power, hence why I usually go for the console version of games. It doesn't help that hardware Y is more expensive as a net total than hardware X.
Charcharo said:
-The compatibility part is a joke an deserves no addressing. If I wanted such levels of technical knowledge, i'd visit WCCFTech
*No offense but it is really bad
Do you know how many console games I've played that aren't compatible with the console they were bought for? Zero.
PC compatability can be worked around, but it's a longer, more arduous process. PC's win for backwards compatability right now, but it's a finnicky process, even for games that were released in sync with up to date hardware. For instance, it took the better part of a day to install Diablo III, and then I had to shift through the game's txt files and alter a single digit just to get it to work.
Charcharo said:
-Crashing is solved by restarting the PC and happens very rarely. Even on my old poorly made by 13 year old me with English as his third language PC, i get no random crashes....
Lucky you. However, PCs are still nowhere near as reliable as other forms of hardware. I say this as someone who has to work with PCs for a living.
Charcharo said:
-PC has more split screen games than any single console...
I've played splitscreen games at someone's desk. It's not very condusive to social playing.
Charcharo said:
-A laptop is more mobile. Small Form Factor PCs exist...
Your average laptop isn't going to match the high-end, extremely expensive PC that's required to play cutting edge games. The average laptop that does, is even more expensive than a PC (as someone who checked this up recently, it comes to around $2000 AUD).
Charcharo said:
Werent AAA releases supposed to be "muh graphics" and performance? If so... how is their ugly Console version relevant? I mean the PC I sent you on PCPartpicker will win vs the PS4 Pro any day of the week and is 3 times the power of a normal PS4...
I don't really care about graphics or performance - AAA is more a designation for any 'major game', so to speak, said games requiring high-end hardware, and plenty of storage space. As I said earlier, I value reliability more than power.
Charcharo said:
You people overestimate requirements, underestimate hardware and overestimate AAA games it seems. That is the root cause of the problem. Hell my 2009 PC can play some new AAA games...
It is disingenuous for the extremely rich Americans to talk about console and PC price comparisons as well as undermine the long term value of the art form for everyone.
"You people." Huh. Also, you really hate Americans it seems. As established, I'm not American, and I'm not particuarly rich, but I can say that I'm not so insecure that I have to resort to slurs to people who use...different hardware. Christ, if only I'd known that everyone who doesn't use the devices I'd use was one of "those people."
Also, the idea of undermining the long term value of the art form. Yeah, okay, I'm not disputing games are an art form, what I am disputing is the idea that the means of playing them is relevant. It's like saying that the quality of any other art form is dependent on the devices used to convey it (music, film, visual art, etc.). If anything, the idea that interactive entertainment should only be confined to one piece of hardware comes off as being far more detrimental, because you're inherently limiting it to people with the know-how to use it. This would be particuarly limiting for children, considering that they have less know-how, less purchasing power, and less direct control over time use. If, in your ideal world, games were only released on PC, I'd have never been able to play anything bar the likes of 'The Magic Schoolbus Explores the Solar System', because when your family has only one computer, and that computer is primarily used for work-related matters, you're not going to be able to spend much time playing games.
I suppose I'm limiting literature by reading both physically and on Kindle...actually, which one is the "master book race" in this analogy? I dunno, there's no "reader" identity in the same way as "gamer," (thankfully, the entire concept of a "gamer" is bad enough), and people who read books don't tend to be as tribalistic.
B-Cell said:
playing FPS with controller is like eating soup with steel spoon instead of soup spoon.
Um, eating soup with a steel spoon is quite easy. Just saying...