Good, someone wrote this. It seems it is another uninformed gamer, that is mad at a friend for mocking him to be perfectly honest. I game pretty much on almost all platforms available, and I never seen such generationalization. 

Im not mad at anyone, at best im just annoyed at the (exceptionally few I accept) PC gamers who think us who buy the next gen console are soft and should expect the same level of performance they get from their PC.

Steam has over 65 million active users.  The percentage on forums talking about how they get better performance than on consoles will only be a small fraction of the total userbase.  By the same token, even if the percentage of people with a Titan or 780 or 7970, etc etc is small it can represent a significant number of people.  If you looked at any gaming forum right now, you'd think a significant chunk if not a majority have already purchased a next generation console.  However they only amount to a few percent of the total sales from last generation.

I'm also not sure how the steam hardware survey handles accounts using multiple PC's.  I use Steam with multiple PC's, one of them significantly more powerful than the others.  Is the survey including all of them?  Judging by the mobile GPU's listed and the high percentage using 1366x768 (a very common laptop resolution) they are certainly including a lot of laptops in their survey.  Now whether these are laptops used by people who also have desktops or if they are the primary machine is something we can't really know.  However I suspect somebody who just uses a laptop to play Football Manager or Civ V isn't coming onto VGC to lie about their rig.

1.) Call of Duty and to a lesser degree Battlefield 3, the best examples there are.  Call of Duty and BF3 had to sacrifice map size in order to increase how they looked.  Crysis 2 and 3 had things cut from the design phase specifically because they couldn't get them to work on console with the level of graphics they were requiring (Look up Cevat Yerli's interviews pre Crysis 2).  Some would argue that it was done to force people into tighter spaces to pick up the level of battle, however, others would argue that to scale back on the graphics a bit, would allow more players per server, thus increasing the pace of battle.  Of course, this entire debate could've been rendered moot had developers not decided to suck every penny they could from gamers by removing map making and server tools as an industry standard so that they could charge everyone for MP and bland maps, whereas, you used to be able to just band together with a group of friends, rent your own server (for a fraction of the cost we each pay for accessing XBL/PS+) and develop your own maps.  To say nothing of Mods.

2.) I would need to dig to provide numbers, but there are numerous times in the past 7 years I can recall, where gamer's chose not to get this game or that game because it didn't look good enough.  This isn't all console gamer's of course, but the argument was there.  I'll get back to you if you really want me to.

3.)  If that's their choice, that's their choice.  How does that statement differ in any way from what you've done here?  What does it matter to you if their PC can do it better?  If they decide to invest in the platform, that's up to them, just like it's up to you if you choose to invest in a console.  Nobody else is paying for it, so why should any of us care?  And how does their statement in any way interfere with the pleasure you glean from playing games on the platform of your choice?  

I think part of the problem is, people just don't know how to ignore things they don't agree with, based on preference.  It's the blatant false statements that always get me though heh.  I find it very difficult to ignore false information (not a statement about you, that's just one of my hang-ups).

I was playing BF3 on my PC which cost €900. It was running at 1080p60 at Ultra.

I'm pc/ps2/ps3/psp and although I never cared much about the (technical quality of) graphics I have to admit that graphics used to matter, up till the PS360. For example, look at Max Payne 2 on pc and then on ps2 - they are completely different game experiences and you know which one of them is the far superior one! But will you shut up about the ps4 already please - it has no gaemz! True gamers will only start caring about it in 2 years when the first worthy exclusives start arriving.

BF3 compared to shadowfall ? Ow please. Are you serious ? 

I'm just going by what I have seen so far of SF. Amazon messed up my PS4 order so it's gonna be a week late. 

EDIT: Also this was a year ago. So for the same price now you would get even better. A lot better if you go with AMD.

Here is a typical internet behavior. 

Speak the truth, if the forum guy who want to answer you have no argument, he'll speak about generationalization and other things like this. 

We all know all the pc gamers on forum behave like the op said. You can say whatever you want, we all know it. Words and arguments means shit in front of truth. 

1) first I've heard of it, and I wont argue with you on the subject. Though for Call of Duty, if the maps were smaller, its probably for the better, as playing that I couldnt help but find myself wandering and looking for someone for extended periods of time, and think to myself at the same time 'a few more players wouldnt hurt as 16 seems lacking for this level'.

2) Nope, I totally believe you, no need to prove this one, as im the same... to an extent, as in I expect the game im buying to be an improvement on the game I had previously, whether that be through graphics, gameplay, or content. As long as it surpasses the last it doesnt matter which on in most cases (as kind of my point) as the new consoles though they may not match up to the current PC generation graphically, they are certainly far superior to what we have had in the past. I'd certainly not disregard a game for poor graphics (curently playing Star Command which im loving!) but also is my point against the elitist PC gamers (granted not all are the same)  purely having better graphic and there rig being superiour isnt the end and be all, as long as what we get is an improvement on what we have.

3) my statement here doesnt differentiate, im just making the statement in defence of us who want to buy the next generation of console machines, and defend against those who say it isnt worth it because 'my PC can do better' yeah, no doubt it can. But they paid extra for it to do better, all they wanted was for it to do better, and us console gamers are no different in that respect. Its more about money to proportionate, and that 'my PC performs better' is a stupid argument, we all paid for the same end result, onl tose PC gamers who want to argue that paid more.