By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC Discussion - PC Gamers are delusional (controversial opinion)

areason on 30 November 2013
Barozi said:
areason said:
Barozi said:
areason said:


About a year ago league of legends had 32 million + monthly players, since then that number has increased but riot did not publish any official numbers. 

Yeah well pretty sure mobile gaming is beating that easily.


Does angry birds rack in more then 1 billion hours per month, to put that into perspective the whole halo franchise has around 2 billion hours. Do mobile games have esports event at the staples center? Do mobile games have official gaming leagues, do mobile games have players who win more then 600k per year and tens of others within 6 digits.

 

They don't. 

Now you're just changing the criteria for the meaning of "biggest" game.

First it was most active players, which Angry Birds is easily going to win with 1 billion total owners.
Then you compare a free to play game to retail games ? If CoD was free to play it would absolutely rape LoL. On the other hand if LoL costed $60 or even $40 it wouldn't even be near CoD or GTA or Mario Kart and probably several smaller ones (Halo, Gran Turismo, Elder Scrolls, Smash Bros. etc.).
Profit-wise it's definitely not the "biggest".

I was using one point of data, also you are telling me that angry birds has 1 billion people playing it monthly? 

A free to play cod would beat lol in terms of but at the same time the decrease in features due to the free to play model could decrease its hours played. And would it have more then 32 million players per month 4 years after release? 

If their was a sequel to LOL right now that cost 60 dollars it wount maintain a big part of it's player base, people have spent more then a thousand dollars on it, and even people who play it on a monthly basis spend a couple of dollars for some skins. 

The ther is the esport sector where cod would never dominate due to LOL's grip of korea, the game is played so much their that the government had to put restrictions on it. 

When it comes to profit the game has way less of a budget then any console game, and even though it is free it has the potential for a user to spend more then the initial 60 dollars, and far more beyond that. Also unlike COD which requires an AAA budget every year as well as millions in advertising it doesn't yet at the same time throughout the year it gets more features and imporvements then a COD sequel would. 



Around the Network
Talal on 30 November 2013

Lately I've been playing PC a lot more than consoles because I can multitask much better on PC. I can play a game then switch to browsing the internet. I can also have study breaks every once in a while. That to me is the biggest advantage of PC's.



Panicnausia on 30 November 2013

I love PC and console (Steam is way better then live or PSn) is that aloud? PC is not as far ahead as some like to say, BF4 looks slightly better then the PC version sharper for sure, but it's hardly a reason to ditch console strictly for PC.



Brutalyst on 30 November 2013
pokoko said:
Brutalyst said:
pokoko said:
You're being just as elitist with your stereotypes as the people you're railing against. The things you're accusing "PC gamers" of don't even apply to the majority of PC gamers.

Also, I think your return key is broken.

You might be right (except for the return key part, I blame the website! :P).

 

But I have seen so many post and forums, which all came down to one thing...

 

"my PC does better than your new 'next gen' console"

 

and though right, as I was playing my 'next gen' console is that this is way better than what I had before. Which is what we strive for at a fundamental value.

We strive to improve on what we had, at a console level, yes, it may not be at a level your PC is, but for a fraction of the price it still does the same thing your PC does, improve what I had before to a very noticable level. For a far less price and for more years than what the new item in your PC will. Granted the void will get bigger with time, but over a 8 year period a console will cost me a lot less than a PC.

What do you mean?  My PC is a few years old and is not even close to being on par with the PS4.  Personally, I don't even care that much about "graphics"--and, according to statistics, I'm pretty typical.

My PC cost $900 new.  Does that sound like a lot?  Regardless of being a gamer, I would have bought a PC that cost at least $400 in order to do other tasks, so the "gaming" part was really just an additional $500 at the most.  Does that really sound out-of-line with console gaming costs?  Especially when PC games are much cheaper?

When you say "PC gamers", it seems to me that you're only talking about a few PC gamers.  You're making assumptions that don't even apply across the board.

Personally, I split my gaming time between PC and consoles somewhat equally.  Some genres, like fighting games or hack n' slash titles, and a lot of action-adventure games, I prefer on consoles.  On the other hand, I wouldn't even think of playing a Bethesda or Dragon Age game on anything but a PC, not to mention extremely complex games like World of Warcraft.

I don't see any reason for elitism from either side.  Both have their fair share of positives and negatives.


Sorry, but your right, im only talking about a few PC gamers (harsh to generalise everyone into a minority), those few who seem to throw up the continual argument of 'why bother with the PS4/Xbox one, when my PC can (and has been) pissing all over them' which is all good and dandy to those PC users who wants to spend the money to achieve the same as us PS3 users who upraged to PS4 users have, pay out to improve upon what we have. Only console users have paid out to a far lesser extent.

 

We all strive to improve, whether we pay out to do so, or not. The end result is the same, we want an improvement upon what we have, and what we pay out reflects the improvement we get. Im sure Sony, or Microsoft could have (if they wanted too) bring out a console with a spec that blow away anything available to anyone else, PC gamer or otherwise. But they didnt, as it would be priced beyond most peoples means (and scare them away frankly) and most people (to an extent like PC users) are only looking forwards towards an noticable improvement to what they have, which those going from PS3/XBox 360 to PS4/XBox one will get for an affordable price.

 

And thats it, none of us expect the best for an XXX amount, we only want a noticable upgrade to what we have, which PS4 and XBox one do. Those both being accessible to the majorty of gamers. PC gamers saying the consoles are not worth buying because they dont keep up with there current rig is ridiculous, as there arent that many who can afford to keep up with the 'current rig' and on a regular basis.

 

Console gamers are happy to payout once every so many years for a console that will keep them occupied for the next several years at an afforabable price, and provide an uprage to what they had previously.

 

(apologies to PC gamers who dont argue the current and new gen of consoles are irrelevent due to them not competing with there, 1080p/4kp, 45/60/90 FPS PC rigs)



The best way to find out if you can trust somebody is to trust them.

Ernest Hemmingway

Brutalyst on 30 November 2013
CGI-Quality said:
Brutalyst said:
CGI-Quality said:
Brutalyst said:


 I can appreciate the multitasking argument, but how often do you use it?

 

I've had a high end PC and the answer for me is, hardly at all. 

I couldn't care less about this generalization you have here - I'm just curious to know your specs. 


OFF TOPIC: is that Cara Delevigne in your pic? im just curious to know

No.

ON-TOPIC: Gonna answer my question?

Sorry, I missed that part of your post.

 

I used to have a Intel I-7 with a NVIDIA GTX560 1 GB ram, 16 GB ram. It broke down and now im running a laptop (got fed up of how my PC's were lasting) I-3 with 4 gb ram and an NVIdia Geforce with Cuda (no idea what that means)

 

P.S. if its not Cara Delevigne, who is it? :P



The best way to find out if you can trust somebody is to trust them.

Ernest Hemmingway

Around the Network
Conina on 30 November 2013
Brutalyst said:
I remember my mate payinsg as much for a GPU as I did for PS4 in total, and he brought two of them!!! to run them dual.

For that price I would expect my PS4/XBone to be on the same level. But given the mount I paid, its a sigificant improvement from what I had and im happy with that.

So your mate improves the graphics by connecting the cards via SLI/Crossfire.

But can you run PS4/XBO dual to improve the graphics? ;)



Brutalyst on 30 November 2013
mornelithe said:

Not that I care who plays what, because what I do with my money is none of your concern, and vice versa...but here's a few points I'd like to make.

1) If graphics aren't everything, why have developers sacrificed map sizes, and other game functionality, in order to increase the graphical acuity on console? And why haven't gamer's rejected such tactics?

2) Why do console games with perceived poor graphics, perform poorly?

3) Looking through the posts here on VG, there aren't many 'We're the PC Master Race, tremble before our might" posts...but near the very top? A thread clearly designed to illicit a response from PC Gamers.

This is merely observation, of course. But, it occurs to me that folks who only game on console, or, prefer console as their platform of choice for gaming, have just as many folks who like flaming/baiting others who have a different choice, and then feign indignation when a person who enjoys another platform takes the bait.

For me personally? There's far more to a game than how shiny it looks. Take Stalker, as an example. The graphics at the time were quite good, but what I found so enjoyable and amazing was the X-Ray (AI) engine coupled with the vast open world - which to be frank, is unparalleled - the attention to detail for the area surrounding Chernobyl, and that they made a very serious stab at a physics system (with regards to bullet behavior). To have a map that size, that is continuously interacting with itself, on it's own, whether you're there or not, is quite a feat to achieve. The AI so robust, that initially it had to be scaled back because the NPC's themselves would conquer the game before you could...is uncanny. Roving bands of mutated animals, wiping out outposts, even quest givers...you'd be out in the middle of nowhere trying to do something and all of a sudden 'Quest failed', you go back to the area where you got the quest, and everyone's dead, and the area populated with irradiated organisms.  The randomness in Stalker added a level of thrill that I haven't seen many games achieve (and personally, I hope it eventually ends up on console, because it's a fantastic series)

You're right, graphics aren't everything, but, gamer's haven't exactly been voting with their wallets against such tactics either. Games are still rated, and bought based in large part on how they look. I'm GLAD the new consoles have, if nothing else, a fairly robust amount of RAM. That's what was severely lacking in the PS3/360. It will give developers many new avenues to pursue without having to sacrifice in areas where we currently have a standard.

Either way, I hope everyone enjoys the new gen, and the gens to come...but maybe we could ALL stand to be a tad more civilized with each other and remember that every platform has it's less than stellar examples of human beings.

1) who said they have? can you provide evidence towards this?

 

2) Again, do they, can you provide evidence towards this?

 

3) Im not saying all PC gamers are this stereo-typical, but there are a few I have noticed on these forums who seem to fall back on the argument of 'why bother with this gen of console, my PC does it all better'



The best way to find out if you can trust somebody is to trust them.

Ernest Hemmingway

Brutalyst on 30 November 2013
Conina said:
Brutalyst said:
I remember my mate payinsg as much for a GPU as I did for PS4 in total, and he brought two of them!!! to run them dual.

For that price I would expect my PS4/XBone to be on the same level. But given the mount I paid, its a sigificant improvement from what I had and im happy with that.

So your mate improves the graphics by connecting the cards via SLI/Crossfire.

But can you run PS4/XBO dual to improve the graphics? ;)

Have to admit 1) I dont know what that means and 2) it all went over my head!

 

All I do know is he brought two NVidia cards (for a considerable amount) and ran them together (but they never really worked)

 

And erm no, you cant run them simutaeously 



The best way to find out if you can trust somebody is to trust them.

Ernest Hemmingway

crissindahouse on 30 November 2013
kowenicki said:
There is another aspect to this. Take a look at the steam survey hardware survey... you will see how right you are and its not remotely controversial.

I think a lot of PC gamers lie about their "rigs"

i think most tell the truth about their pc. but all of those who play some dungeon of dredmor or monaco on their 5 years old notebook simply don't talk about pc stuff as much because they don't seem to care about it. 

if only 10% of steam users have a decent rig, it's still enough people to have so many forums and threads about it. since they are already pc users the chance is also much higher that they participate in forums. many console users aren't even active in forums so that even with a much lower amount of pc gamers with decent rigs, you still see a good percentual amount of gamers in forums with good rigs. 

not to forget that many people aren't even steam users. there are a lot of gamers who play only pirated games and so on...



Sleepyprince on 30 November 2013

You know OP, I'll way you other thing to support your opinion :

- Pc gamers buy their machines for two/three times the PS4 only to play the same games with some graphics difference. For them the graphics difference is worth 800/1200$. To me, it's just a fraud and it make them look plain stupid when they try to convince people they are superior. Because in terms of economic and value, they're just fool. Paying 400 to 900$ more for adjusted graphics and fps makes no sens whatsoever.

- I already asked pc gamers who bitch about KZ shadowfall graphics to show me something similar running on a 800/900€ PC. They failed. I even said I will give them 150$ if they could. But they couldn't. They tried to show me some bland Crysis or other things like that. Of course, as a little game dev who own a studio, I know a bunch about pc gaming. So I know no one could have show me something similar. I know a PC that could run something similar to Shadowfall ( both techincal and artistical wise ) would cost a leg and a ball too. And it would overheat bad after some time.

- Yes console are ofter weaker than pc. BUT console games are way, way more optimised on console. Hence why 8years old machine could run something like GTA V, Forza 4 or The last of Us. Their is only one configuration available for a console. Their is infinite one on PC.