This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Are the people who say "PC Master Race" being serious?

#71TehPwnzererPosted 9/10/2013 4:31:05 PM
Snuckie7 posted...
And now we're back to the whole luxury > no luxury debate.

For instance, higher framerates will never be worse than lower framerates whether you care about it or not.


Incase you haven't figured it out yet, this debate doesn't have a set right or wrong answer. You get what you pay for. If you want to stop arguing no one's stopping you.
#72Snuckie7Posted 9/10/2013 4:34:12 PM
TehPwnzerer posted...
Snuckie7 posted...
And now we're back to the whole luxury > no luxury debate.

For instance, higher framerates will never be worse than lower framerates whether you care about it or not.


Incase you haven't figured it out yet, this debate doesn't have a set right or wrong answer. You get what you pay for. If you want to stop arguing no one's stopping you.


Unfortunately, "you get what you pay for" only applies to PC.
---
Intel Core i7 3820 | EVGA X79 SLI K2 | MSI 7950 Twin Frozr III | Samsung / 840 120GB / 8GB RAM | 1TB WD Caviar Blue | Corsair / 550D / H70 | Silencer MKIII 600W
#73TehPwnzererPosted 9/10/2013 4:35:11 PM
KillerTruffle posted...
TehPwnzerer posted...
Snuckie7 posted...
Except everything I just listed is indisputably objective. Whether that matters to you or not is a different argument, but either outcome does not refute the original point.

For instance, higher framerates will never be worse than lower framerates whether you care about it or not.


But as I just said, the lower price of the console for a guaranteed 7 years of gaming without having to upgrade, and having all games that come out on it optimized for that console, mitigates the technical advantages of PC gaming. It's objective that PC gaming is superior in performance. It's objective that console gaming is superior in price. But it's subjective that either one make the other better. You're not going to convince console gamers that PC gaming is better just because of the way it performs. To them, gaming is something you do on consoles. It's a toy. It's not something you do on a computer designed for web-browsing, facebooking and productivity. We're talking about two completely different demographics here.


Console - say $300. Moderate gaming PC - $800.

7 years of games: console - maybe $40/piece on average, between new games, sales, used. PC - maybe $15/piece on average between new, sales (MUCH deeper and more frequent), and indie.

Figure a conservative average of 1 game a month... for 7 years, that's $3360 for console games, $1260 for PC games. Difference of $2100.

Factor back in the original entry costs - $3360 + $300 = $3660 for console. $1260 + $800 = $2060 for PC. Difference of $1600.

Now figure upgrade GPU on the PC every 2 years, keeping WELL ahead of the consoles in terms of detail... say $250 every 2 years for a great gaming card. In those 7 years, you'll buy 3 replacement cards (most people don't do this, but just for the sake of overkill argument). That's an extra $750 onto the cost of PC.

And let's throw in a CPU upgrade - another couple hundred.

End result:

7-year cost of console: $3660
7-year cost of PC: $3010

Even with GPU upgrades bordering on obsessive, PC turns out to be $650 cheaper over that 7-year period, and it STILL plays games at higher resolution, lots of AA, much higher detail settings, more control options, and more flexibility overall. And it has a larger library of exclusives than all consoles put together, better backward compatibility so great games are not lost, and more. And thanks to game prices and sales console gamers can only dream of, in the long term, PC gaming IS cheaper.

So yes, from an objective standpoint, PC gaming is better.

The one argument console gamers have going for them is purely subjective - if a console has exclusives they want to play, then it makes sense to get that console for those exclusives. But that applies exactly in reverse. Just because YOU don't care about the hundreds of PC exclusives doesn't mean no one does. Just because YOU don't like RTS doesn't mean others don't (RTS has actually been found to improve brain function, by the way, so RTS gamers might be getting smarter - something people who hate RTS are missing out on).

Having exclusives that the gamer wants to play is really the *only* valid argument console gamers have any more.


Your entire post is founded on miraculously random numbers. We have no idea of assessing anything remotely related to what you have given me. I could just as easily say that console gamers could be getting their games for free and and at a frequency rate of two games a week.
#74TehPwnzererPosted 9/10/2013 4:36:28 PM
Snuckie7 posted...
TehPwnzerer posted...
Snuckie7 posted...
And now we're back to the whole luxury > no luxury debate.

For instance, higher framerates will never be worse than lower framerates whether you care about it or not.


Incase you haven't figured it out yet, this debate doesn't have a set right or wrong answer. You get what you pay for. If you want to stop arguing no one's stopping you.


Unfortunately, "you get what you pay for" only applies to PC.


Not when it comes to exclusives obviously.
#75KillerTrufflePosted 9/10/2013 4:38:41 PM
TehPwnzerer posted...
Snuckie7 posted...
And now we're back to the whole luxury > no luxury debate.

For instance, higher framerates will never be worse than lower framerates whether you care about it or not.


Incase you haven't figured it out yet, this debate doesn't have a set right or wrong answer. You get what you pay for. If you want to stop arguing no one's stopping you.


So... just to follow this statement through based on your previous statements, you claim PC is more expensive than console. If you get what you pay for, that means you're getting a lot more for that more expensive PC.

Further, you say console gamers "don't care" about any of that extra luxury stuff.

People who live in relative squalor, with few luxuries, are often referred to as peasants. People who live in luxury are not. Following that straight on through, would the term "console peasant" not be appropriate here? Just following your line of reasoning and all, you know... ;)
---
"How do I get rid of a Trojan Horse?" -Sailor_Kakashi
"Leave it outside the gates of Troy overnight." -Davel23
#76TehPwnzererPosted 9/10/2013 4:43:29 PM
Twinqe posted...
TehPwnzerer posted...
Twinqe posted...
TehPwnzerer posted...
It's objective that console gaming is superior in price..


I'd disagree. A console is more or less dedicated to gaming (perhaps Netflix aside), while a PC is extremely multi-functional. For me, considering the fact that it is possible to build a computer of almost exactly the same specifications as a next gen console for a similar price and also get a machine capable of doing far more than a console, the PC is the better value. I also gamed on a $450 low-end PC for most of the last console generation, playing many titles with similar framerates to consoles, so I think there is definitely room to say that consoles are not objectively superior in price/value.


The fact that consoles are dedicated to gaming is the exact reason WHY console gamers game on console. They don't need or want the multi-functionality of a PC because chances are, they already have one or can get by with a smartphone. And couple that with the fact that the PS3 offers some of the best exclusive games of any gaming device, makes the cheaper console with a guaranteed 7 year run, AND some of the best games they can play, that they can't find on a $1000 rig, makes the decision very easy.


I never said that I disagreed with any of that. You said that console gaming is objectively superior in price, and I provided two reasons why I disagreed with that:

1) The PC, while perhaps more expensive, could be seen as having a higher relative value because it does more than just gaming

2) It is possible to buy a PC for a price similar to that of a console and still play most games at a similar quality to consoles

You can't talk about objectivity and then assume things about the consumer - namely that they already have a PC, or a smartphone, or that their needs are met by just a phone. Furthermore, you stated many things which I flat out disagree with as a console gamer. I don't think it's a good idea to make umbrella statements about 'console gamers' because there are several reasons why you'd buy a console and it can't all be summed up by anyone. In my own experience, when buying a console, I never looked at it against buying myself a PC. None of the advantages you listed went into my decision. So, let's not simplify it.


1) Extra features that gamers don't necessarily want doesn't give the product an edge over the competition. There's plenty that Sony invested into the PS3 like Linux support, 4 USB IOs and a blu ray player, but that didn't mean the 360 fans wanted any of it, and evidently, they didn't.

2) Sure, except without the exclusive games that come out on consoles.

If you're ok with not comparing PC gaming to console gaming, neither am I. The point I've made throughout this entire ordeal, is that console gaming has a lot of advantages over PC gaming, and it doesn't make console gamers "peasants". If PC gamers enjoy their 120fps and ubersampling, great. Who am I to take them away from that. Point is that console gamers obviously don't share the same values as they do and should be treated with proper respect.
#77DV8ingSourcesPosted 9/10/2013 4:48:57 PM(edited)
TehPwnzerer posted...
console gaming has a lot of advantages over PC gaming


You've named one. Initial cost.

Where's this "a lot"?

edit: I'll help you out

Particular exclusives - neither an advantage nor disadvantage... just preference

Ease of use - Only to those unwilling to take an hour to learn. Nearly everyone has used a windows system and knows the basics.

Community - Maybe all your friends are on a particular console. Might be easier for you to fold than to convert them.

---
2500k @ 4.4 | P8Z68-V Pro | H80 | 8GB | 670 | 256 ssd | 6Tb hdd | Win 8 64bit | ax1200w | BD burner | cm690II
Steam: DV8ing1
#78TehPwnzererPosted 9/10/2013 4:48:59 PM
KillerTruffle posted...
TehPwnzerer posted...
Snuckie7 posted...
And now we're back to the whole luxury > no luxury debate.

For instance, higher framerates will never be worse than lower framerates whether you care about it or not.


Incase you haven't figured it out yet, this debate doesn't have a set right or wrong answer. You get what you pay for. If you want to stop arguing no one's stopping you.


So... just to follow this statement through based on your previous statements, you claim PC is more expensive than console. If you get what you pay for, that means you're getting a lot more for that more expensive PC.

Further, you say console gamers "don't care" about any of that extra luxury stuff.

People who live in relative squalor, with few luxuries, are often referred to as peasants. People who live in luxury are not. Following that straight on through, would the term "console peasant" not be appropriate here? Just following your line of reasoning and all, you know... ;)


No, I would not. Because people who live in squalor cannot afford a ****ing videogame console. Sorry. That's a very privileged things to have.

Yes, if you invest the money in a gaming PC, you're going to get a lot more power for what you put into it.
#79Giblet_EnjoyerPosted 9/10/2013 4:50:10 PM
TehPwnzerer posted...
I'm sure if PC gamers had their way, they would be playing with their current specs at the same cost of a console as well. Do you see where I'm going with this?

PC gamers are PC gamers because they can be. Console gamers are not PC gamers because they can't be. Get it now? PC gaming is a premium thing, and offers premium quality. Console gaming is a low-budget thing and offers low-budget quality. Most people would go with PC gaming if the hardware were no more expensive because PC gaming is better.

Point is, console gamers DO care (very much so in my experience) about graphical fidelity, framerate (CoD, one of the very few 60 FPS console shooters is wildly successful--coincidence?), resolution, etc. They sure as s*** don't refer to them as such, but they do care. They just use simpler terms, which is perhaps why you never noticed.

Also, you screwed yourself earlier when you said that console gamers don't want PC exclusives but PC gamers want console exclusives and then went on to say:

"See these are things that PC gamers care about and they seem to think that console gamers are of a lesser breed of gamer because they don't, but the argument could actually be made that it's because they don't care about any of that that actually makes them a superior breed of gamer. To them, it's about the game."

So console gamers being picky proves that console gamers are superior but PC gamers being picky...also proves that console gamers are superior. Lol.
---
http://steamcommunity.com/id/katanaman444
Pccouchcoop.com http://www.co-optimus.com/system/4/pc.html
#80OmegaDL50Posted 9/10/2013 4:59:00 PM
If I were to add up the costs for JUST my PS3 and it's library alone, it most certainly does NOT cost less then what it cost to build my PC and it's library of a 150 or so games.

Hell not even factoring the costs for other consoles / handhelds either.

It's most definitely NOT objective that console gaming is superior in price.
---
A fan is confident in the game they prefer being able to stand on its own merits.
A fanatic attacks the opposing game showing insecurity in the game they like.