Why are MOST PC gamers full of so much hatred towards Consoles?

[Sonic Doctor]

i just dont like it when people state how "superior" PC gaming is, and no matter how hard i try to get into it, the PC gaming just hates me to death.

I get Pentium 4 processor? "HAHAHAHA! NOOBZ! IT'S ALL ABOUT DUAL CORE!"
Fine, i get a dual core (not but a year or so later)? "HAHAHAHAHA! NOOBZ! IT'S ALL ABOUT THE QUAD CORE!"

so i say "fuck it!" because PC gaming changes too much for me to afford on a regular basis, while with a console the worst that ever happens is a disc gets scratched because someone was irresponsible with it.

besides that PC gaming has all sorts of non-hardware related issues that make it impossible to deal with. such as installing mods and learning how to use them and how to get your games to run on maximum performance (without lagging) and how to deal with all the ridiculous "DRM".

seriously? i hate when people try to claim that PC gaming is empirically superior when the community is so damn unfriendly to newcomers like that, it's like they think it is SO superior that they don't want any "noobs" mussing up their divine space. >:/ and thats where the arguments start for me, anyways, when people try to convince me to admit to something is superior and then have it kick me in the balls whenever i try to embrace it.

It's not as hard as you think. You buy a game, install it, and play. Any PC you buy in a store for $500 will do the job with nearly every game ever made. You don't even need to know the specs, the game will match it up for you.

Plus a PC is the easiest tool to use the internet with.

You must have a store that sells PCs at a great loss to them if the PCs they sell have all the graphics cards, state of the art processors, and memory needed to run today's games. Gamers don't buy a new setup to play the games of yesteryear, they buy them to play the games of today and hopefully next year.

Last year my dad bought me a new PC(current for that year) for 500 dollars, and that is without a monitor, because I already had one. The new PC wasn't able to play current games at the time, very well or on full specs for that matter, it definitely won't play any new games from today.

If I had wanted to play current and newer games on it at the time and now, I would have had to pay an extra 700 dollars at least to get a proper graphics card, processor, and memory.

PC gaming is a cash bottomless pit. It is coming to the point that a person has to buy a new setup or hardware every year to be able to play games as the makers intended.

While I like PC gaming, console gaming these days is easier on the wallet. When you buy a console, you are looking at at least 4 years or more before a new console or a console upgrade(Example: the time between the old Xbox 360s and the new Xbox 360s) But still even so, I still don't have to go running out and buy a new Xbox 360, because my Elite 360 will still play new games that have come out and will come out.

I've actually tallied up what it would cost me to stay current with PC gaming(if I want top specs for playing games the way the makers intended.) As of from the time I bought my Elite 360 and now, adding in having to get new PC hardware or a new PC plus equivalent number of games compared to what I bought for my 360, here is the cost between them:

If I had gone the PC route over a 2 year period: Over 2500 dollars.

What I have spent on my 360: A little over 1000 dollars.

The reason I know this because my brother and I took opposite directions with gaming. I stayed mainly with consoles and he went straight PC everything.

 

[nuba km]

snip

good point but the controller has been tested and improved for it's function while beer was tested and was found not to work and instead used as a in-toxin which it worked great as but I will say that RTS games are the only genre that suffer from console controllers. Shooters on the other hand have less accurate aiming it has smoother movement aiming combo so it really comes down to preference which for me it is console's. Plat-formers are much better on consoles as the analog stick means you can more precisely control the speed of your movement as to wasd but some flash games to do a good job with wasd controls. I don't play enough beat em'ups so I can't really say whether the controls are improved or not. fighting games are help by the fact that your fingers are more naturally fitted around the controller and more natural reflexes also they are helped by the fact it's a hell of a lot easier to play with a friend in the same house, in fact all console games have an advantage when it comes to local multiplayer. though to counter this pc games have modding which is great. tough when it comes to consoles your are more likely to find other people with mics playing the multiplayer games. Though to counter this pc has some of the greatest exclusive games ever (e.g. WoW and starcraft). Consoles have a friend system for all games not just the ones on steam. consoles also have more natural controls which mean less time between thought and action. that's all the points I can think of any others you which to raise but I find that even though I prefer console games, pc and console are pretty much equal even if I sometimes I say that consoles are better but I hate it when people mistake simplify with dump down because the controls are simplified so that they will be less of a barrier between you and the game experience.

 

[Mouldy Oldy]

If I had gone the PC route over a 2 year period: Over 2500 dollars.

What I have spent on my 360: A little over 1000 dollars.

The reason I know this because my brother and I took opposite directions with gaming. I stayed mainly with consoles and he went straight PC everything.

http://www.tech-forums.net/pc/f76/gaming-pc-700-a-229704/


You really should do more research before buying PCs. $700 can get you a system that is future proof 2-3 years (especially if you're not buying a monitor / OS), if you don't expect to be running at full resolution after those 2-3 years. And yes, if you google "PC for $700" you can find posts made in 2008, and find that the suggested systems at 2008 prices will still run PC games today.

Looks like you didn't do your research, and got ripped off.

 

[samonix]

I get Pentium 4 processor? "HAHAHAHA! NOOBZ! IT'S ALL ABOUT DUAL CORE!"
Fine, i get a dual core (not but a year or so later)? "HAHAHAHAHA! NOOBZ! IT'S ALL ABOUT THE QUAD CORE!"

I assume most of this is speculation as the number of cores you have will do almost nothing to improve gaming. Nearly all PC games run on a single core, as do console games. Whoever said that to you is either also a 'NOOBZ' or your imagination.

 

[ElNeroDiablo]

I get Pentium 4 processor? "HAHAHAHA! NOOBZ! IT'S ALL ABOUT DUAL CORE!"
Fine, i get a dual core (not but a year or so later)? "HAHAHAHAHA! NOOBZ! IT'S ALL ABOUT THE QUAD CORE!"

I assume most of this is speculation as the number of cores you have will do almost nothing to improve gaming. Nearly all PC games run on a single core, as do console games. Whoever said that to you is either also a 'NOOBZ' or your imagination.

Single Core Vs. Multi Core comes down to how the program is coded to utilise the power and capabilities provided by the CPU (and GPU in games). Yes, there are a lot of games coded for single core usage, but others are coded to use whatever they are provided with.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

PC gaming HD since the 90's. Console gaming, still not HD.

I play on a PC and console. I can tell you right now consoles are in HD now. With most games, if you don't have an HDTV, the games will look like crap, because they are HD and meant for HDTVs.

really?

so tell me what Alan Wake's resolution was? or how bout all the Call of Duty games?

please enlighten me.

Don't have those games. Example, before I had an HDTV, I played Dead Rising on my tube tv. I couldn't play it because I couldn't read the text because it was too small, because it is meant for HD. I got an HDTV, I could read it just fine.

You don't have to know or look at resolutions to know the games are HD. Heck, if you actually had Xbox live to see it, practically everything that you buy off the market has an HD tag on it.

If the games weren't HD and meant for HD, the 360 wouldn't have an HD DVD disc drive.

Come back when you have actually have had the experiences, played the games, and done the research, before questioning me.

I'm right, end of story. It doesn't even matter what quality of HD, resolutions don't matter. You said that console games aren't in HD period.

Now while writing this I thought why not look at the back of a game box. I grabbed Fable 3. On the back just after what it lists as the needed memory to save a game on the 360, it has HDTV 720p/1080i/1080p. This means if you want the game to look as it was made for you need such a TV.

So as I said, end of story.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

If I had gone the PC route over a 2 year period: Over 2500 dollars.

What I have spent on my 360: A little over 1000 dollars.

The reason I know this because my brother and I took opposite directions with gaming. I stayed mainly with consoles and he went straight PC everything.

http://www.tech-forums.net/pc/f76/gaming-pc-700-a-229704/


You really should do more research before buying PCs. $700 can get you a system that is future proof 2-3 years (especially if you're not buying a monitor / OS), if you don't expect to be running at full resolution after those 2-3 years. And yes, if you google "PC for $700" you can find posts made in 2008, and find that the suggested systems at 2008 prices will still run PC games today.

Looks like you didn't do your research, and got ripped off.

I've already done research thank you. It isn't future proof, as I stated it has to last by running new games each year at full peek performance in every aspect for those 2-3 years. Besides to beat console longevity, it has to do it for at least 4 years, most likely more, comparing to the life of a 360 that my friend has.

 

[00slash00]

Big deal, you paid nearly 1 grand, maybe more just so you can game with a mouse and a keyboard. Paying more for your gaming situation gives you no excuse to talk down on people who pay less for their gaming set ups (I.e console gamers).

if you were honestly trying to avoid a flame war, this was not the best was to do it. i dont consider pc gaming to be that much more expensive though. it takes a large initial investment but after that, you can generally spend between a few hundred dollars every several years and still play all the most technically demanding games. you have to do the same with consoles, except instead of upgrading you buy entirely new consoles, consoles that have already started becoming more than a few hundred dollars. i would not be surprised if the ps4 ended up being 8 or 900 dollars.

i am a pc and console gamer but prefer pc gaming. the main reason i play console games is simply because most stores sell a hell of a lot more console games than pc games. i think this is a big part of the problem. if there was equal representation of console and pc games, pc gamers wouldnt make such a big deal about it, but there are about 6 stores that sell games in my area. of all six stores, gamestop has the largest pc game section, and even that is only 3 small shelves, most of which are mmos. however, the simplicity is also a part of it. i never really thought of console gaming as that simplified until the witcher came out. i found that game to be very self explanatory and easy to figure out, and was shocked to discover that console gamers found it to be confusing

 

[Deleted]

You just don't like console shooters, doesn't mean it is flawed. A controller couldn't beat a keyboard at a FPS game but in what universe would people even want to do that anyways?

The car you have sucks because it its not a formula 1 race car, it is inherently flawed. Its much slower, you can't even drift on the roads you drive on.

It's more like comparing an automated handicap-wheelchair to an actual car.

It is flawed, and you seem to agree with the reasons, just not the conclusion. I don't understand why. It works worse, why can't it be considered flawed if it has really clear and fairly big limitations?

It matters because there are console players - constantly - who say there's no difference, or, in fact, that controllers are a better control scheme. Well, that's blatantly false. There is a difference, and the scales of quality scale heavily in the favour of PCs when it comes to the genres mentioned.

Just because it is worse at FPS doesn't mean its worse overall. Controllers are better for fighting games (lol 360 motions on keyboard), and controllers are better for racing games since you can control the turn. Believe it or not there are more genres than FPS.

Does this make the keyboard flawed because by your logic if it can do something keyboards can't, controllers are better? Of course you'll say no.

And for the gamers saying controllers are better, they are not better or worse. They're just different.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

Consoles are great ... however, console shooters are not.
Aim assistance is the greatest disgrace to have ever been made popular, and I'm counting all the weird stuff from Japan.

Pretty much that. And the majority of 360 players I come across are complete douche bags. Like one guy was arguing with me saying I wasn't up for the challenge of using analog sticks that fail in accuracy compared to a mouse. Plus, because of consoles, a lot of PC games get down-graded or shafted. I do still enjoy consoles, though. Been playing my PS3 a lot lately.

So it's not just the console, it's the generic games and the community that make it bad?

I'd say it is probably the developer most. They focus more on consoles then completely shaft the PC version. Singularity is the last one I'm mad about that with. With the controls, they didn't try to expand the controls for PC beyond the limits they have with a controller. Reload and use are the same key, which gets annoying, sprint and slow down time when sniping are the same, which would be easier to deal with if the option for scope was toggle-able, but it isn't. It's pretty hard to hold down ctrl and shift at the same time without completely readjusting my hand... And yeah, the generic games suck too, and the 360's community really isn't helping it much...

 

[Mouldy Oldy]

I've already done research thank you. It isn't future proof, as I stated it has to last by running new games each year at full peek performance in every aspect for those 2-3 years. Besides to beat console longevity, it has to do it for at least 4 years, most likely more, comparing to the life of a 360 that my friend has.

I'm not going to spend my first day here trolling, however, you've a serious case of "category error" here.

Consoles, by their very definition, only manage to "run new games each year at full peek [peak] performance in every aspect" because they are limited by their onboard hardware and as such, code cannot take advantage of anything but this hardware.

I'll unpack that for you: a XBOX 360 only satisfies your criteria because all the games use the same requirements, and are forced to by necessity. If PC hardware stayed static for four years [as, historically, it once did in regards to VGA cards] then the same would go for PCs.

And no, you did not do your research - you claim a PC bought for $500 last year [without a monitor, which places us nicely in the $700 bracket] cannot run modern titles. This is either a case of a parental unit buying a over-priced shop model without decent GPU / memory (the most likely case - the old "but, wait it says it has Intel Onboard graphics and my system reports that it is using 500+ megabites!! Surely my game should run!!! *sigh*) or you're playing semantics and cannot run Dx11/10 games in full detail @ insane resolutions - which is hardly the same as not being able to play games on it.

Case in point - I'm currently on a laptop that is three & half years old. Bought for around $780. A laptop. I can still run modern games, albeitly not in full glory; although, yes, the duel core 2.0 Ghz / GPU is just starting to fail to run modern PC games.

Any modern DX 11/10 title run at even medium settings at anything over 1440x900 is still much, much, much better graphically than a XBOX 360.


However, I'm not here to correct your obvious errors.



Oh, and @ the person claiming that Fable III on the Xbox requires HD - incorrect. http://features.teamxbox.com/xbox/1245/Xbox-360-FAQs/p2 -- No Xbox title has HD as a requirement, Microsoft prevents development teams from coding it. Just like Microsoft enforces (via contract) that no XBOX game will show ping by numerical value ingame.


Yes, Microsoft don't like players knowing their ping times. Yes, I've had to explain to PC customers why when developing for cross platform that we're contractually obliged not to add this into MP code.


If you need 3rd party confirmation of this, here's a comment from an Indy dev on Steam:

I agree that seeing the ping on the multiplayer screen would be nice, it's something I wanted for a long time. Unfortunately at one point during the HUD's development it looked like we were going to be out on Xbox before PC. Microsoft clearly forbids you from having ping displayed as a numerical value so we didn't implement it. I'll add the request to our request tracker, maybe its an easy thing to do.

http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1552827



Just so that you don't think I'm pulling any of this out of thin air!

 

[RootBrewski]

Honestly, it's not so much hatred as it is bitterness, and it's not the consoles or console user's fault, it's the developers. It's like when a family has another kid and the older child gets mad because the baby gets all the attention.

More and more developers seem to be focusing more on consoles every year. Look at most big intellectual properties. They are either console exclusive or multi-platform. This should be fine, I'm not even big on exclusivity (I never understood the mentality of enjoying a game more because people with a different system can't play it), but the problem is that these games tend to be developed for the consoles with the PC version an afterthought. It makes people who prefer the PC frustrated.

Now the reason consoles may feel this "hatred" is that, as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, people act obnoxious on the internet, and the embittered PC crowd, shifts the blame from the developers to the consoles, and lashes out.

 

[Mouldy Oldy]

Honestly, it's not so much hatred as it is bitterness, and it's not the consoles or console user's fault, it's the developers. It's like when a family has another kid and the older child gets mad because the baby gets all the attention.

More and more developers seem to be focusing more on consoles every year. Look at most big intellectual properties. They are either console exclusive or multi-platform. This should be fine, I'm not even big on exclusivity (I never understood the mentality of enjoying a game more because people with a different system can't play it), but the problem is that these games tend to be developed for the consoles with the PC version an afterthought. It makes people who prefer the PC frustrated.

Now the reason consoles may feel this "hatred" is that, as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, people act obnoxious on the internet, and the embittered PC crowd, shifts the blame from the developers to the consoles, and lashes out.

Please don't blame the developers - a large amount of the pressure comes from the Publishers, and as I've outlined, the actual console company owners.

You seriously wouldn't believe a lot of what goes into an AA console title, contractually - most of which we're precluded from sharing under NDAs. For the XBOX, for instance, Microsoft has been known to enforce that code is done for the XBOX primarily, and that any porting is deliberately done XBOX > PC and not vice versa. This helps their platform, and it is quite deliberate. If you want to launch on XBOX, you play by their rules.

And their rules doesn't include launching a PC title that has 100's of new features and much better gameplay / graphics / controls.

Publishers such as EA (as I quoted earlier) are happy to take the market share $$$ and enforce that the game you code is the same on the console as it is on the PC - EA in particular are good at side-swiping code / features that put the XBOX title in a good light with a poor PC port. I know this first hand.


Sad, but true - you have to have quite a lot of clout to release a game that is done the other way around (i.e. pared down to the XBOX tech specs) rather than the normal way. And yes - you, the consumer, is getting screwed by this because console companies want you to think that their box is "cutting edge", when clearly it isn't.


p.s.

You should really ask the question - "why / when did cross platform models become important to the industry" if you want to get to the heart of this. Your answer lies in what is in a XBOX - unlike the PS3, it isn't much different to a PC about 3 years ago. The trick is fooling everyone into thinking that it is a console, or that consoles are different somehow from PCs.

They're not. And as such, the whole "Console vrs PC" is a false dichotomy made to make people a shit ton of cash. And it isn't the developers getting it - its the console companies and publishers.

 

[Deleted]

snip

At no point did I make the assertion that they're better or even the same for fighters.

The keyboard is flawed when it comes to fighting, racing or platforming (3d platforming), mainly because of the limited nature of the directional keys. It's inferior to the controller when it comes to this genre. It's as simple as that.

Fact is, there are genres of games that consoles simply can't do nearly as well and people can't seem to grasp that concept or try to hide behind stupid non-points. You did, just now, with your car analogy, as I think I predicted anyone to argue me earlier in the thread.

Let's not try to be, I don't know how to call it... Soft, maybe, with everything we say. Consoles are better for some things, they're worse for others, that's all I'm trying to say, that's all you're refusing to grant me. The whole reason I'm even arguing here is because the games that work better on a PC are being dumbed down to work on a console, hell, some don't even see a PC release and I'm not even touching upon bad ports. Funny thing is, the opposite can't be said about console centric games coming to PC, because they don't even get here. I wonder what those reasons may be.

Hey now you're just changing your stance. You were talking about how consoles were flawed and can't measure up to keyboards. Then when I told you some things consoles can do and keyboards can't, you went to the middle ground.

Which is good, but still don't act like I was bashing PC. I am in the middle ground too.

I don't know why consoles games don't go to PC. Maybe because console-owning companies have child companies that want them to make games for them? I honestly don't know... Perhaps PCs are known for their FPS, RTS, WPRGs, and other things you don't find on a console. I mean, they're competing in a sense so they have different games for different gamers.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

I'd say it is probably the developer most. They focus more on consoles then completely shaft the PC version. Singularity is the last one I'm mad about that with. With the controls, they didn't try to expand the controls for PC beyond the limits they have with a controller. Reload and use are the same key, which gets annoying, sprint and slow down time when sniping are the same, which would be easier to deal with if the option for scope was toggle-able, but it isn't. It's pretty hard to hold down ctrl and shift at the same time without completely readjusting my hand... And yeah, the generic games suck too, and the 360's community really isn't helping it much...

Oh well that just adds insult to injury. Surely, of all things, mapping controls from a console to a PC isn't the hardest, they could have at least put a bit extra effort in. But the developers do have a major role to play in this. They're the ones creating the most anger out of it all: the bad ports, the generic games, lack of innovation, the targeting of only the mainstream market. I guess those last three can be lumped together but it adds more to the list this way.

 

[Signa]

Why are MOST CONSOLE gamers full of so much ignorance towards PC gaming?
That's LESS of a flame inciting sentence than
Why are MOST PC gamers full of so much hatred towards consoles?

I think you inadvertently hit the nail on the head. It's because of their ignorance that I have an issue with gamers who use consoles exclusively.

Don't get me wrong here. I used to love all games, regardless of platform (I actually hope that puts some more weight behind my words), but I've become dominantly a PC gamer because of game selection and they crowd that playing console games puts me in with. Something about this current generation has put me off of console gaming so thoroughly that I can't take a gamepad seriously any more. I feel like if I try to point at any one reason though, I'm going to end up overstating my case and sounding like a pompous dick.

I guess what I can do is point out some dialogue that I've seen so-called console gamers say, and you can tell me if you think it's rage worthy or not.

"Halo is the best game ever made"

(mid-2005) "So I hear there is this new game coming out called Half Life"

(one-star review from Amazon)"This is ONE OF THE WORSE GAMES I have ever had the displeasure of buying and wasting money on. I personally will never buy another game from Bethesda again. After all of the hype about the game, me and my spouse bought it. After 10 minutes of play, we found that this game required too much camera angling, two hands to use a mouse and keyboard. The hot keys, even customized, required way too much time to even enjoy the game. This game, in my opinion, is for people who enjoy complex playing, and not medium to simple play. "

"Bring back quick-scoping"

"My console is better than your console"

"PC gaming is SOOOOOOO expensive"



Of course we have some tards in our camp too

"Fuck you! you AWP camping ******"

See, the thing is that a lot of us PC gamers got over playing CS years ago, and it seems like the crowd that CS drew in moved to playing on consoles. The games they put out now really caters to that mindset. A simple, run-and-gun-for-fun game that is only designed to kill other players in a multiplayer setting. There is no point in making a good platform game, or a RPG with a compelling story, because there is about 2x the number of people out there that want to find new ways to smash someone else in an online game. It's humiliating playing the same game over and over with nothing more than a new title and setting. It makes me wonder why I even bother keeping up with current games and hardware because everything that is getting churned out I played 10 years ago. Hell, I think NOLF2 in 2002 had more complex RPG options that we are only just STARTING to see again in console shooters. It's like growth was stunted for 10 years and now that things are getting stale again, they are looking for new ways to innovate the genre while failing to acknowledge that it was done before some of their players were out of diapers.

 

[RaikuFA]

i just dont like it when people state how "superior" PC gaming is, and no matter how hard i try to get into it, the PC gaming just hates me to death.

I get Pentium 4 processor? "HAHAHAHA! NOOBZ! IT'S ALL ABOUT DUAL CORE!"
Fine, i get a dual core (not but a year or so later)? "HAHAHAHAHA! NOOBZ! IT'S ALL ABOUT THE QUAD CORE!"

so i say "fuck it!" because PC gaming changes too much for me to afford on a regular basis, while with a console the worst that ever happens is a disc gets scratched because someone was irresponsible with it.

besides that PC gaming has all sorts of non-hardware related issues that make it impossible to deal with. such as installing mods and learning how to use them and how to get your games to run on maximum performance (without lagging) and how to deal with all the ridiculous "DRM".

seriously? i hate when people try to claim that PC gaming is empirically superior when the community is so damn unfriendly to newcomers like that, it's like they think it is SO superior that they don't want any "noobs" mussing up their divine space. >:/ and thats where the arguments start for me, anyways, when people try to convince me to admit to something is superior and then have it kick me in the balls whenever i try to embrace it.

THANK YOU!!! noone believes it when i say this happens and like i said, unless pc gamers change their attitude, people will keep on saying pc gaming is dead. i know i will

 

[captain underpants]

It always strikes me as funny that a lot of this 'console vs pc' bollocks comes down to the controller. I have a joystick, 2 gamepads and a steering wheel in addition to the keyboard and mouse. I can pretty much play any game with the controller best suited to it. I would have thought the same was possible for consoles, so I really fail to see the relevance of asserting any sort of superiority based solely on the controller.