| Pemalite said:
2. But it wouldn't be fair? 3. If a PC gamer is going to be spending $1,000 on a GPU, they aren't going to be running games at console level, but significantly higher. (Or using that power for something other than games.)
4. Ironically, the points you bring up about people wanting "ease of access" is actually going backwards with consoles, long gone are the days where you did not have to update your machines and update your games, install your games, heck even load your games... The consoles GUI's are limited, yet being cluttered with more and more "junk" that gets in the way of actually, you know... Playing games and you still claim ease-of-use? Seriously? Might have been true a generation or two ago, not so anymore. |
- Hope you aren't one of those types that will just find something to argue about even when there is none. but I don't know what to say about this. If what you are saying is true, then how come is it that this is the first time that consoles are using hardware that is practically identical to a CPU. Should we assume that things like the Cell processor didn't need the PC? All tech feeds off eachother.
- These are the exactkinda semantics that PC gamers bring into every argument. The cost of games is irrelevant. In the very same way some can choose to go and watch a movie at the theatre and some can choose to pirate it for free. The cost of services are also irrelevant. And the reason for all this is cause you are assuming that majority of the people out there would even bother taking these things into consideration. I parent doesn't buy a PS4 for their kid thinking about how it could be cheaper buying games on the PC. Those things are just not anywhere near as important as you make them out to be. This is about the cost of entry. How much does it cost to buy the hardware that you plug into your TV. When a PC gamer is comparing a screenshot of a game running on PC to one running on consoles, the price of the game is irrelevant at that point.
So in all fairness, if you are going to comapre how much it cost to buy a console to a PC, you should simply only be talking about the cost of the hardware itself. If you have to start talking about things that only someone that the avergae joe couldn't care less about, then you have already started going off point. And this is the inherent problem with PC gamers. They seem to think everyone thinks like them or is them. I can get a white fruit of the loom t shirt for as little as $2. That doesn't mean I still won't buy a similar one that may even be less quality for $10 from ralph lauren.
All this stuff about paywalls and Pc games being cheaper over this or that amount of time is simply irrelevant. If gamers can't afford to buy 10 console games/year but have a console then they would buy 3. If they can't afford to pay for online play then they wouldn't. its that simple. In the very same way that if they can't afford to spend $1000 on a PC then they wouldn't. Its all about choices and options. And cause you or some does one thing doesn't mean thats what everyone else should do. - And you have actually just helped prove the point I am trying to make. You get what you pay for. Thats what this is all about. No "breakdown" of costs are neceasry. Cause someone that goes to buy a console isn't think about how much the cpu, gpu, ram..etc costs. They are thinking "ok, so I want to play COD. Gonna get me a Ps4/XB1". End of story.
Of course someone that buys a $1000 GPU won't be running games at console levels. Thats the whole point I am making. It doesn't stop such people from still comparing what they have to $400 consoles that probably have a $150 GPU does it?
What is required to make an unbiased fair comparison isn't complicated at all. But a lot of PC gamers have this way of complicating everything. I think its in their nature. Its really simple. To make a fair comaprison. Take a $350/$400 console. With everything thats in it. Then take a $350/$400 PC. With at least similar components. An OS, HDD, input interface (controller, be it KB&M or controller), blu-ray drive..etc. Basically everything that you would get in that $350-$400 console box. Then you can compare the games running on those platforms together. Its really that simple. And I don't understand why it has to be any more complicated than that. Next year, when consoles cost $250-$300, if you are going to compare a MP game to the console, then again, you take a PC that costs $250-$300. Its really really simple logic if you ask me. - You are exagerating. Even if you do not have an internet connection on a console, and you buy a game. You can still just put it into your console and play it. Have you thought about something, do you know its not even possible to get games for a PC anymore without an internet connection of some sort?
Consoles may be becoming more complex, but these complexities are ALL handled for you by the console.I put a game in and it installs it in the background. I don't have to do anything. An update for the game is realeased and I don't have to do anything. All thee tings are handled in the background for me.
In all honesty you seem to be reaching. The consoles GUIs are limited? I don't know about you but the PS4 GUI does exactly what I need it to do and in record time. Try it. Put off your PC. Then start it ack up when I start up my console, then load up a brand new game for the first time. Lets see who starts playing that game first. Eve if you have got a $10000 PC, Time to game is always faster on consoles. Its kinda just the nature of things. - The only thing I will ay about this point of yours... is that the PS4/XB1 costs the exact same amount of money. Those kinda comparisons are ineveitable. I don't see PS4/XB1 gamers comparing gams and performance to the wiiU. Cause well, we know teher is no point. I am not saying PC gamers should not try and compare stuff. But if you can honestly sit there and say there is no difference comparing two $400 consoles together to a $400 console and a $2000 gaming rig... then you definately are part of the problem.
