ZyroXZ2 said:
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
Narrative implies fiction rather than fact, a game on multiple platforms reduces the need for the platforms that can play this game. The only way this isn't true is if you have significantly different versions and all that does is skew things even further rather than balance them. Even if you didn't have a PC or an XB1, its a fact that the game being on both platforms, saves you a choice from making either.
I think you overexaggerate the importance of graphical fidelity/performance on PC gaming, and I don't blame you the graphics/performance enthusiasts are a vocal minority. Especially when we consider this from a budgetary perspective, if you've got a medium spec PC, wouldn't it be cheaper to get a 60$ game Vs. 60$ game + 299$ console? It doesn't need to exceed graphical fidelity/performance, unless that's something the consumer cares about.
The reason consoles are still a thing is because they hit that ever shrinking sweet spot of graphics/performance, price, and ease of use, and PC/Mobile is closing it in from all sides.
Yeah there is a hate bandwagon, but that doesn't mean legitmate concerns should be ignored, and hell all that does is inflate the bandwagon.
|
The thing is: the PS4 stands as a sales example that people this generation DO care about gaming graphics/performance and in a large enough quantity to NOT be a vocal minority. Otherwise, they'd have bought a lot more Xbox One's for its $50 cheaper price tag (up until the PS4's recent price drop of sorts), and vast majority of identical 3rd party games. At this point in time, the PS4's exclusive library is still not the best and definitely not stronger than the Xbox One's right now, as many of its "exclusive" titles are either also on PS3, Vita, and/or PC. That PS4 is selling off good marketing, and that marketing is that it's the "best place to play", and anyone looking at what this represents in the gaming space is those dazzling graphics, not a library of games people can't get anywhere else.
At the same time, the vast majority of PC gamers are, indeed, using mid-range hardware. But PC gamers who care about graphics are not a vocal minority: we may be a minority in comparison to how many PC gamers have PCs that can pump out higher graphical settings, but if you've spent enough time in the PC gaming community, you'd know how important being able to "run" a game on "decent" settings is. In fact, I haven't even seen any PC gamers ever say, "I just want to be able to play it smoothly on the lowest settings".  Graphics matter to PC gamers more than console gamers since we have the power to change what we get out of them, but the number of us who can crank them up are, indeed, a minority.
|
You misunderstand. Not only that but PS4 has been cheaper or equal to the XB1 for most of the generation. My post doesn't really concern PS4 vs XB1, but rather console vs PC, and why its a fact that sharing games between the two does in fact harm the value of the console with regard to its exclusive library extending to its sales. Microsoft is throwing the XB1 under the bus, bolstering the Windows Store, W10, and the game sales over the sales of the XB1. That's undenaible, and if you were a fan of the Original Xbox. this is obvious. After all, we went through this already.
People who buy consoles do it for a variety of reasons:
Considering the standpoint of gfx/performance, the people who buy consoles exist in the middle. They still care about money but have care enough about gfx/performance to buy a console for it, not to mention brand, popularity, ease of use and other figures.
PC constitutes both ends, those who care about gfx/performance so much so that it exceeds their concern for money on one end of the spectrum, and those who care more about deals and money and less about gfx/performance on the other. Its not that if you can't afford a console, you can't afford to game period. Something like Undertale could run on the PS2.
