Why do console gamers settle for so little?

[Awexsome]

Well my labtop is the only computer I have and it's only good for some RTS's I play at low graphic quality and now that I'm in college I don't have anywhere near the kind of money to get a grade 'A' PC.

In comparison with the PC there isn't quite as much to do. I mean look at Halo 3. I think forge is totally kick ass while PC players have been doing stuff like that to an even greater degree for years.

But the consoles give us everything we really need to have fun. Sure the options are much greater on a high-end PC but a console is just more practical. We still get great games and we still have fun playing them.

 

[MetaKnight19]

Another question could be why do PC gamers expect so much? *flameshield up*

 

[SantoUno]

Why do you PC gamers have to be constant trolls all the time and consider console players inferior and are easily pleased?

Even if console gamers do get the short end of the stick, if they are content and satisfied with what they are playing there is no problem. Lots of people love to play XBL and feel that they are getting their money's worth, so what is the problem?

 

[Ciarang]

Another question could be why do PC gamers expect so much? *flameshield up*

Because we're used to high standards?

OT: I never really liked my xbox when I played on it, mainly because everyone mumbles down the mic and I can't hear anything.

Also, I always wanted a gaming PC, and now I have one

 

[Rusty Bucket]

Myself, I'm not really bothered. I play on a 360, and all i ask is that I get to play great games that work online, and I do. I don't need more than 9v9, if the maps have been properly designed it doesn't matter.

 

[BaldursBananaSoap]

You speak the truth, but PSN is free and has dedicated servers on nearly all of the PS3 exclusives such as Killzone 2 with 32 players, MAG with 256 players, Resistance 2 with 64 players and just about everything else. I really laugh when people try to justify paying for Xbox live when PC gamers get an amazing experience for free and PS3 owners get a great experience for free, and they pay for laggy P2P servers, games full of kids, ads and a cluttered interface.

 

[Jazzyluv2]

people are just plain wrong on the p2p shit, p2p will NEVER be as reliable as server hosts in America. Maybe in South Korea, and places with very very close knit network where pings hit about 20 or less. But in America, with our distance, and lack of fiber optics P2P will always have horrible hit reg. 150 ping across the country= shitty hit reg.

 

[Sparrow]

Because I like my console. And I don't like my computer.

And no, I don't know why. Console gaming just feels natural to me nowadys, but when I play a game on the computer I feel a little out of my comfort zone.

Another question could be why do PC gamers expect so much? *flameshield up*

And, this. It's like a millionaire asking a beggar, "Why do you settle for such pathetic clothes?"

"Because I can't afford better ones, you poncy prick. Now gimmie some money."

 

[Over_Krill]

Because unlike PC gamers, we're not greedy twats who want everything our way, all the time?


/stereotypical (but not completely untrue) response

1: Lag is not that bad on P2P, no matter how much antecdotal evidence is presented. As a matter of fact, lag is generally the same across both systems - its just that servers can handle it slightly better. Consoles however, use P2P more often for several reasons:

-It helps control modding, cheating and pirating
-It is easier to use on consoles
-It costs WAAAAAAAAAAAY less than servers do. Even the richest companies would be utterly crushed under the burden of trying to provide servers for games for consoles, which almost always have an expotenially higher user base than PC games do, which means an expotenially higher cost.


2: The maximum is not 9v9. There any many games that go far above this limit, like Frontlines and Section 8, not to mention the Battlefield games. However, 8v8/9v9 is generally the accepted good preformance limit of both the P2P, and what most developers design their game for. Games like CoD44, MW2, Halo 3, Gears etc. are simply not designed for that many players, both gameplay-wise and map-wise.

Also, 32v32 isn't standard on PC, save for Battlefield games. Many games you have to mod or tinker with get above 12v12 or 16v16.

3: Our services are not poor. For our $50 a year, XBL users get consistant and accurate stats-tracking across all games, large community events, reliable (fairly) customer service, maintance and anti-cheating protection, and pretty decent game content as well (much of it at a reduced price as compared to if it were a normal digital download or in-store purchase), and unlimited online gameplay for any game, with few exceptions (Phantasy Star Universe). All this for less than the price of one new game per year? Not even WoW can claim that. Pc gamers can't, because most of it is self-regulated - you might get it, but it relies on players to make it happen.



4: All I see are some butt-hurt PC gamers due to the fact that IW tried to level the playing field for all their customers. I didn't say it worked, but I can't blame them for trying either. Because when you strip away all the fluff and chest-thumping and yelling, PC doesn't really stand out well...in anything. and treating them like they're special is a poor business choice, especially since you stopped being profitable a long time ago.

Nice start off with an insult.

1:You do not live in a country bad internet do you i cant play a P2P game online with out getting lag console or PC and i almost never get lag on severs unlike P2P.

-It helps control modding (why would you want to do that), cheating and pirating. (no it does not do you research and how does it control pirating hint it does not any more than severs)
-It is easier to use on consoles. (But not on PC)
-It costs WAAAAAAAAAAAY less than servers do. Even the richest companies would be utterly crushed under the burden of trying to provide servers for games for consoles, which almost always have an expotenially higher user base than PC games do, which means an expotenially higher cost.(XBox live customers pay for online so Microsoft should pay for the severs not the companies)

2:You do know Section 8 has severs on the Xbox right.

3:Steam has all that and it free, free to play online, free stats-tracking across all games, free large community events, free (fairly) reliable customer service, maintance and anti-cheating protection.
(And pretty decent game content as well same much of it at a reduced price as compared to if it were a normal digital download or in-store purchase) wait what normal digital download for the Xbox or PS3 you can only get Xbox stuff from Xbox live and PS3 from playstation online so what reduced price are you talking about for normal digital downloads

4:What level playing playing field for all their customers buy giving the host 0 ping.
I can blame them for trying this is not the first time some company has tried this it did not work for them why would it work for IW.
(Treating them like they're special is a poor business choice, especially since you stopped being profitable a long time ago) Realy why do companies port there game to PC then and why are valve still around do you remember 2008 all these games came out for the 360 and PS3 and not PC and then 6 to 12 months most of them got PC ports like magic what about Battlefield: Bad Company no PC port for the first one but now the second Battlefield: Bad Company 2 is comeing out on the PC i think they did not get as much money as they hoped for the first one on the 360 and PS3 there is money on the PC because NORTH AMERICAN RETAIL (note that is were get the stats that PC is dying and fail to add digital downloads to the total or you know the rest of the world) is not were most PC gamers get there games

 

[GonzoGamer]

As someone who games on a PC and ps3, I have to agree with the OP's overall sentiment but his details are a little sketchy.

When I was shopping for a console, the only choices we had were between a really expensive console with really expensive hardware that I would've thought superfluous if I didn't have an hdtv, or another really expensive console that had a better selection of games but bricked half the time and would end up being just as expensive if I wanted to take it online. Great choices right? If I didn't have an hdtv, I probably wouldn't have gotten either but we did kind of want a br player so we went with the more expensive one.

However a good gaming PC would cost more than both those consoles combined. So when you consider that, I can't really blame someone for sticking with a console. But I do agree that console gamers put up with way more than they should: crappy hardware and big IPs going unsupported leaves a lot of them saying wtf.

Then again we're talking about the same group of consumer that made Gamestop rich so, what do you expect.

 

[Shynobee]

I've got a PS3, so I take what I get for free. For me, as long as the game is fun, I'm not gonna complain. That's the bottom line. And no amount of complaining on anyone's part is going to change that.

 

[Sulu]

Have you seen the size of call of duty maps? 32 vs 32 would be way to many people!

Consoles suit smaller game sizes.

 

[azncutthroat]

Considering that I buy a console (360) for $450 (the Elite version),$50 year-long subscription, and $60 games, a console is relatively cheap ($560) compared to a PC that would allow me to play the same games ($600-800). So, yeah, I'm content with the service provided on consoles because I'm getting what I pay for. Hopefully, I can get a job and get back into PC gaming.

 

[Kuchinawa212]

I like my good ol' Xbox and I don't need to buy any thing other then the game to play it at it's maximum. Works for me!

 

[Jazzyluv2]

i made a "good" gaming PC for 250 bucks, the mobo, 50 bucks, i got myself i 30 doller 300 gig hard drive, i won my 8800 GT in an online tournament. I got a amd Phenom II X3 for 100 bucks and just used a computer case i won in a raffle at a Lan. a DVD drive for 20 bucks and just XP professional i had. and a 680 watt power supply for 30 bucks. almost everyone has a case laying around that they can use, and a good graphics card that can run most games will cost 75 bucks.

Hell, you don't even need that good of a processor. It's just that people go in inexperienced to buying a computer

runned like a dream... I have alot more money now, and a much nicer computer due to my new "job" But a computer is a very reasonable purchase for what you can do with it.

 

[Pingieking]

Today we are going to apply Pingieking's Equation in conjunction with Relativity to the video games disparity problem.

Consoles vs PC is the same question as console gamers vs PC gamers, and can therefore be answered using the same theory. Consoles are specilized PCs that can provide approximately 80% of the gaming capabilities that regular PCs can (that number changes depending on the game). It is then trivial to derive that console gamers are people who want 80% of the features that PC gamers want (again, this changes with the game).

A very simple derivation. Yet, like Thermodynamics, is an extremely powerful theory. It answers multitude of questions and provides great reasoning for several senarios, such as;

1)

Another question could be why do PC gamers expect so much? *flameshield up*

Because they're not console gamers, and they want their machines to perform up to its potential.
2)

Why do you PC gamers have to be constant trolls all the time and consider console players inferior and are easily pleased? Even if console gamers do get the short end of the stick, if they are content and satisfied with what they are playing there is no problem. Lots of people love to play XBL and feel that they are getting their money's worth, so what is the problem?

The first question is obvious using the theory. Become from the PC gamer frame of reference, the console is inferior. The second question is basically a refined version of the first, and therefore is answered in the same way.

We can now see that both of these example questions are actually the same question asked from a differing reference frame. From the PC reference, a machine that can do 80% of what a PC can do is simply an inferior machine. Extending that logic, a gamer content with 80% of what PC gamers get is easily pleased. From the other frame of reference, a console gamer will deem a PC gamer to be elitist and entitled because a PC gamer asks for 125% of what a console gamer wants. Neither side is right or wrong, they're simply interpreting their measured values in their own frame. Since there is no absolute reference frame, the frame can be chosen at convenience. I generally suggest students to choose a frame that they can most easily relate to.
Thus what some may see as an extremely difficult question is actually very simple to solve; simply apply Galilian Relativity and the results are easily calculated. Remember that Einstein's Special Relativity is unnecessary in this case, since the electrons in the current are not flowing as a speed comparable to c, and the application of special relativity would only further complicate the calculations. Since this is an intro class, we would like to keep the number of Greek letter variables to a minimum.

 

[Chaos Marine]

Because unlike PC gamers, we're not greedy twats who want everything our way, all the time?


/stereotypical (but not completely untrue) response

1: Lag is not that bad on P2P, no matter how much antecdotal evidence is presented. As a matter of fact, lag is generally the same across both systems - its just that servers can handle it slightly better. Consoles however, use P2P more often for several reasons:

-It helps control modding, cheating and pirating
-It is easier to use on consoles
-It costs WAAAAAAAAAAAY less than servers do. Even the richest companies would be utterly crushed under the burden of trying to provide servers for games for consoles, which almost always have an expotenially higher user base than PC games do, which means an expotenially higher cost.


2: The maximum is not 9v9. There any many games that go far above this limit, like Frontlines and Section 8, not to mention the Battlefield games. However, 8v8/9v9 is generally the accepted good preformance limit of both the P2P, and what most developers design their game for. Games like CoD44, MW2, Halo 3, Gears etc. are simply not designed for that many players, both gameplay-wise and map-wise.

Also, 32v32 isn't standard on PC, save for Battlefield games. Many games you have to mod or tinker with get above 12v12 or 16v16.

3: Our services are not poor. For our $50 a year, XBL users get consistant and accurate stats-tracking across all games, large community events, reliable (fairly) customer service, maintance and anti-cheating protection, and pretty decent game content as well (much of it at a reduced price as compared to if it were a normal digital download or in-store purchase), and unlimited online gameplay for any game, with few exceptions (Phantasy Star Universe). All this for less than the price of one new game per year? Not even WoW can claim that. Pc gamers can't, because most of it is self-regulated - you might get it, but it relies on players to make it happen.



4: All I see are some butt-hurt PC gamers due to the fact that IW tried to level the playing field for all their customers. I didn't say it worked, but I can't blame them for trying either. Because when you strip away all the fluff and chest-thumping and yelling, PC doesn't really stand out well...in anything. and treating them like they're special is a poor business choice, especially since you stopped being profitable a long time ago.

I would just like to point out your three points are bullshit. Dedicated servers are necessary for online gaming properly. They've been around since Doom. Most dedicated servers are paid for by fans, guild leaders and so on. Not the companies though I'm not saying that the companies don't host servers themselves. P2P being less hackable? Look at CoD4MW2. That game just pisses all over your three points and then takes a shit on it.

People get consistent and accurate stats, anti-cheating protection from Steam. It's also free. Also all games are free online play with the exception of MMOs.

Downloadable games also comes down to the companies who publish them wanting them to cost that much.

PC gamers are different to console gamers. That's not bad. Games developed for the various platforms and playing to the strength of the platform it's produced for. That's so easy to understand I honestly cant grasp how people don't see it.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I mean, YOU are the ones who get to determine how good the service is you're paying for. PC gamers can't manage it anymore because we've been marginalized. So why aren't you demanding a better service? Especially on XBox Live where Microsoft don't have an excuse for not having them - i.e. you are paying a subscription charge for online play, so why don't they let some of that cash fund servers so you don't have to rely on laggy p2p networks?

Of course if PC and Console gamers banded together we could retake the whole industry from those (greedy, exploitative, fuckbag) corporations. ...oops there I go flogging that dead horse again.

 

[TitaniumBlue]

Hell, why aren't 32 vs 32 games an option on XBox? Thats standard on PC.

- I play PC exclusively and I have to say that limiting people on the server to 18 is perfectly fine solution. Have you considered alternatives? Either the maps would have to be enlarged, resulting in much strain on hardware and excluding gamers with older machines. Another alternative would be to not enlarge maps and then we would have crowded slugfest. Have you played Counter-Strike on 32-man server? There's very little tactical depth as large enough force can break through any spot and grenade/flashbang effects get multiplied.

 

[SantoUno]

The first question is obvious using the theory. Become from the PC gamer frame of reference, the console is inferior. The second question is basically a refined version of the first, and therefore is answered in the same way.

We can now see that both of these example questions are actually the same question asked from a differing reference frame. From the PC reference, a machine that can do 80% of what a PC can do is simply an inferior machine. Extending that logic, a gamer content with 80% of what PC gamers get is easily pleased. From the other frame of reference, a console gamer will deem a PC gamer to be elitist and entitled because a PC gamer asks for 125% of what a console gamer wants. Neither side is right or wrong, they're simply interpreting their measured values in their own frame. Since there is no absolute reference frame, the frame can be chosen at convenience. I generally suggest students to choose a frame that they can most easily relate to.
Thus what some may see as an extremely difficult question is actually very simple to solve; simply apply Galilian Relativity and the results are easily calculated. Remember that Einstein's Special Relativity is unnecessary in this case, since the electrons in the current are not flowing as a speed comparable to c, and the application of special relativity would only further complicate the calculations. Since this is an intro class, we would like to keep the number of Greek letter variables to a minimum.

Uhmm math has nothing to do with this, honestly.

Also:

Main Entry: in·fe·ri·or
Pronunciation: \in-ˈfir-ç-ər\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin, comparative of inferus lower ? more at under
Date: 15th century
1 : situated lower down : lower
2 a : of low or lower degree or rank b : of poor quality : mediocre
3 : of little or less importance, value, or merit
4 a : situated below another and especially another similar superior part of an upright body b : situated in a relatively low posterior or ventral position in a quadrupedal body c (1) : situated below another plant part or organ (2) : abaxial
5 : relating to or being a subscript

Consoles are NOT inferior to PC's, just because the PC is capable of doing more things doesn't mean consoles are inferior, inferior doesn't apply to capability, that is jsut your opinion. And where the hell did you get consoles do 80% of PCs?

Consoles merely do their own functions that are similiar to PCs.