Intrinsic said:
And no, these long list of tings you mention are subjective. And still has nothing to do with what this thread is actually about. I don't get why some PC gamers have to reach far and wide and include things that have no business being in this thread what so ever.Posts like yours and all that you are saying just screams you are someone that seems to have so much to say but alcks the patience to simply understand what is even being discussed.
Scroll up a little, look at any number of posts I have made explaining this very thing (and funny enough only to the PC die hard for some strange reason). Maybe thne you will see just how outta place what you are saying is. Whats really funny is that what this thread is about will also apply even if the only thing we are talking about here are PCs. But the second some see PC vs Consoles they jump to conclusions and start reading arbitrary meanings into comments made.
|
Maybe if your opening post was clearer. Please, give a thesis statement for this thread. What is its motivation? I still don't understand. You are making some type of analysis of the discourse found in the PC gaming vs. Console gaming argument, leave a lot of what makes PC gaming appealing out of the picture, and then expect PC gamers to not mention these things? You assume that these extra features are so insignificant they don't relate to real-world costs which make a 1:1 comparison obsolete, and then instead of arguing my point tell me I don't understand the purpose of this thread. So please clarify, what are you trying to do with this thread? You say you don't want to compare consoles and PC's, but yet you do in the opening post. Your intentions don't seem to align with your explication of your thoughts apparently, but maybe you can clarify.
As far as I am concerned I addressed all of your main points:
"shoudn't it only be fair to compare a PC that cost just as much and will give you the exact same things in the box?"
No, I explained why.
"Cause at the end of the day the real comparison is what you can get for your money. If you are comparing the performance of something that costs 4 times more than a console then doesn't that defeat the purpose?"
Let me just change your quote a little bit and tell me if you agree.
"Cause at the end of the day the real comparison is what you can get for your money. If you are comparing the performance of something (PS4) that costs 2 times more than a PS3 then doesn't that defeat the purpose?"
Yet people still compare the PS4 to the PS3 when deciding whether or not to upgrade yet. Why? To show how much more they get from the PS4 for its $350 than they do with the PS3 for its $180. How about the PS4/Xbone vs. Wii U? Same thing. But like I said, the arguments you see are contained in a much more encompassing argument and don't preclude themselves to a comparison of screenshots. There are many other reasons for buying a gaming PC and they are considered in the mind of the PC gamer arguing for why they personally believe it is better (sorry you can't make this argument objective, it is by its nature subjective.)
I addressed all of your main points except this one:
"so if a PC gamer is going to argue with a console gamer, shouldn't they at least consider that that console gamer is most likely not willing or interested in doing all the things that you may have to do to get a great PC rig at the afore mentioned $350-$400"
as I find the last one legitimate.
