I game almost entirely on console, with a couple of exceptions like strategy games, and Elite: Dangerous for awhile. I play on console because, put simply, I find the experience more streamlined, more enjoyable, and am therefore willing to accept the downsides that come with it. Maybe one day I will get into PC gaming more fully, save up money, have my friend build me a beefy rig, etc, but for now the PC I use for the aforementioned titles + web surfing gives me enough headaches as is. xP That and if I do get into PC gaming, I want to do it whole hog, and will therefore wait til I can sink at least a grand into buying all the hardware.
But when it comes to this 'why are console gamers treated like second-class citizens etc' talk, which also happens whenever the 'why Don't PC Gamers Have To Pay For Online Multiplayer?' I do feel it necessary to point out that we ARE on a closed platform. Now, I do sort of think that having a platform holder driven as much by increasing its install base as pure profit on the games it develops has advantages. We're getting an Insomniac-developed Spider-Man game, and there's nooooo way that would have happened under Activision's watch, because they lack Sony's entirely self-serving motivation to fund a Spider-Man game so super awesome, it will DRIVE new customers to the platform. While Sony and Microsoft's constant struggle to drive people on their platform will lead to some unpleasant results- i.e. games that already WERE going to exist just existing on less platforms- it has also driven both companies to fund technical showcases, titles big and beautiful designed to entice you and everybody else to not only get the GAME, but also the three-to-four hundred dollar hunk of plastic said game is tethered to.
But it also has disadvantages, quite a heaping handful. Less competition within the platform to drive lower prices, (this one being partially mitigated by the existence of used games,) less of an overall library due to the aforementioned curation, and few to no options when it comes to pursuing improvements to a title we've bought, outside sanctioned patches and DLC. On average, we have less games to choose from, will pay more, and will have less potential functionality from the software we buy.
So, ultimately, when the question comes up 'Why aren't PC gamers getting charged, but we are?' the answer is 'Because they won't buy it, and we will.' Just like the answer to 'Why do we have to pay to play x console game on multiplayer, and PC gamers don't?' is that, again, we will pay for online multiplayer, PC gamers won't.
And unfortunately, the reason we will is because we don't have any alternative to getting a graphically shinier title, OR access to multiplayer. PC gamers do. Absolutely, people who want to boycott this will refrain from buying it, but ultimately it'll be outweighed by lots and lots of console gamers who WANT this shiny Skyrim, and have literally NO other option to get it, short of (ironically) buying a gaming PC and buying the Complete Edition of Skyrim while it's still thirty bucks. =P
And ultimately, from a pure price standpoint, spending sixty bucks on a game is still gonna be cheaper than spending hundreds of dollars on PC hardware, THEN thirty bucks on the old version just to get the new version for 'Free.' =P
Zanten, Doer Of The Things
Unless He Forgets In Which Case Zanten, Forgetter Of The Things
Or He Procrascinates, In Which Case Zanten, Doer Of The Things Later
Or It Involves Moving Furniture, in Which Case Zanten, F*** You.
