Consumer brawn over logic.

[xXShuyaXx]

In context to console games(?)

''Time to leave consoles for good. Will come back when there are no exclusives. MS and Sony can kiss my ass. Not that I cannot afford 2 consoles, but I don't need two dust catchers lying around polluting the looks of my nice dining room, furthermore, nothing beats PC gaming to this day.''

''Your gaming centre is in your dining room....?''

''You seriously aren't going to buy a second 4K curved TV just to put it in a dedicated gamer room unless you play PC games on a 4K tv monitor? Console gaming is to relax on a couch man, if you have it anywhere else but the dining room, then you have to get out a bit more and catch some fresh air.''

I... uh... wha... huh... uh... I don't even... ... uh... ehh... *facepalm*

 

[Nova]

 

[Storm]

omg lmaoooo

 

[DrBretto]

The one that gets me most is when someone gives up at the first sign of struggle then whines about it on the internet instead of trying to see what it is they were missing. You try to help these people and instead of saying "oh, ok, yeah I see it now" they activate their inferiority complex and call you an apologist. I just can't stand the "blame the controller/game" mentality. Where I come from, you don't blame the controller. You get better. This extends beyond the world of videogames.

I wouldn't categorize these people as consumers, as we're all consumers. I classify them as overgrown kids with internet connections. And they're a problem everywhere.

 

[Nova]

"The open world is empty with nothing to do in it"

>What are Chocobo races
>Dungeons
>Hunts
>Fishing
>Tours
>Colliseum monster betting
>Type F
>Future updates
>etc

"The awards/polls are fraud, it only won because XYZ excuses, Sakaguchi and Shuhei were paid to call FFXV their GOTY"

Basically another way of saying "on behalf of my ass-blasted sentiment, people who like/love the game more than i do are objectively wrong/shilling."

Sakaguchi and Shuhei had no obligation bring up XV the way they did if they weren't genuinely fond of it. And last i checked, no one died and made you the childish judge of what the majority can or can't like without consent.

Get the fuck over it.

 

[Lulcielid]

I wouldn't go that far, obnoxious on the other hand is fitting.

 

[Hey Everyone]

Well objectively PC's are better, but PC Gamers aren't better people because of it, we just have better toys.

 

[llazy77]

"The open world is empty with nothing to do in it"

>What are Chocobo races
>Dungeons
>Hunts
>Fishing
>Tours
>Colliseum monster betting
>Type F
>Future updates
>etc

"The awards/polls are fraud, it only won because XYZ excuses, Sakaguchi and Shuhei were paid to call FFXV their GOTY"

Basically another way of saying "on behalf of my ass-blasted sentiment, people who like/love the game more than i do are objectively wrong/shilling."

Sakaguchi and Shuhei had no obligation bring up XV the way they did if they weren't genuinely fond of it. And last i checked, no one died and made you the childish judge of what the majority can or can't like without consent.

Get the fuck over it.

I still think its fraudulent, but Im not getting into this again.

 

[Ikkin]

Well objectively PC's are better, but PC Gamers aren't better people because of it, we just have better toys.

No. PCs have objective advantages, but the cost-benefit analysis will always need to be made on a case-by-case basis.

If I want a $400 box which receives unit-specific optimization and can be effectively treated as a disc player for the next six years, a PC won't give me that.

If I want to pay thousands of dollars (or wait half a decade) to run games at 4K resolution/144 FPS with 4xMSAA and Ultra settings, then a PC is the obvious choice. (I'm kind of expecting to get a cheap Steam key for FFXV once there are laptops available that'll run the game at ultra settings. =P )

And, honestly, I think there are a lot more people out there who prefer the first option over the second. =P

 

[AnGer-dono]

If I want a $400 box which receives unit-specific optimization and can be effectively treated as a disc player for the next six years, a PC won't give me that.

If I want to pay thousands of dollars (or wait half a decade) to run games at 4K resolution/144 FPS with 4xMSAA and Ultra settings, then a PC is the obvious choice. (I'm kind of expecting to get a cheap Steam key for FFXV once there are laptops available that'll run the game at ultra settings. =P )

And if I want to play fun games, I get either a console or a PC that isn't high end - or both - and be happy about it.

(Platform wars are stupid, for the record.)

 

[Ikkin]

And if I want to play fun games, I get either a console or a PC that isn't high end - or both - and be happy about it.

(Platform wars are stupid, for the record.)

Well, yeah, I was just going for obvious reasons why someone might choose one over the other. XD

 

[Hey Everyone]

No. PCs have objective advantages, but the cost-benefit analysis will always need to be made on a case-by-case basis.

If I want a $400 box which receives unit-specific optimization and can be effectively treated as a disc player for the next six years, a PC won't give me that.

If I want to pay thousands of dollars (or wait half a decade) to run games at 4K resolution/144 FPS with 4xMSAA and Ultra settings, then a PC is the obvious choice. (I'm kind of expecting to get a cheap Steam key for FFXV once there are laptops available that'll run the game at ultra settings. =P )

And, honestly, I think there are a lot more people out there who prefer the first option over the second. =P

A 400 dollar PC will outperform a 400 dollar console, especially since it's overclockable, optimization also happens on PC, it's not a console exclusive feature especially with DX12, and Vulkan. With the PC you can buy a disc drive as well, and with the consoles you have to pay to play online which is another added cost which means the console ultimately will be more expensive than the PC in the long run, especially when you look at game prices, as well as the PC having a wider selection of games as well as backwards compatibility. The PC has more objective advantages over the consoles which was what I was trying to get to, obviously in some cases you would get a console like you lack internet access, you want some exclusive titles, or you want more physical copies.

 

[DrBretto]

A 400 dollar PC will outperform a 400 dollar console, especially since it's overclockable, optimization also happens on PC, it's not a console exclusive feature especially with DX12, and Vulkan. With the PC you can buy a disc drive as well, and with the consoles you have to pay to play online which is another added cost which means the console ultimately will be more expensive than the PC in the long run, especially when you look at game prices, as well as the PC having a wider selection of games as well as backwards compatibility. The PC has more objective advantages over the consoles which was what I was trying to get to, obviously in some cases you would get a console like you lack internet access, you want some exclusive titles, or you want more physical copies.

I feel like you missed the underlying point of that cartoon...

I have a powerful PC and a console. I use them interchangeably. There's nothing wrong with owning a console. There are plenty of reasons why someone might prefer a console over a PC. I'm happy you like your PC, but you're literally doing the exact thing that inspires comics like the one posted in this thread.

 

[Ikkin]

A 400 dollar PC will outperform a 400 dollar console, especially since it's overclockable, optimization also happens on PC, it's not a console exclusive feature especially with DX12, and Vulkan. With the PC you can buy a disc drive as well, and with the consoles you have to pay to play online which is another added cost which means the console ultimately will be more expensive than the PC in the long run, especially when you look at game prices, as well as the PC having a wider selection of games as well as backwards compatibility. The PC has more objective advantages over the consoles which was what I was trying to get to, obviously in some cases you would get a console like you lack internet access, you want some exclusive titles, or you want more physical copies.

Apart from missing the point of the comic, you also seem to have missed the points I was trying to make. It's obviously absurd to compare a $400 computer in 2017 to a $400 console from 2013 (which can now be had for $250), or to compare generic PC optimization (which is never done on a per-hardware basis for anything other than tech demos) to the hardware-specific optimization provided for console games. As for the other pros and cons, they boil down to the cost-benefit analysis I mentioned above. The actual cost of a gaming PC can vary wildly depending on one's willingness to put the parts together oneself. Paid online doesn't matter if you're like me and don't play multiplayer games. Game selection doesn't matter if you prefer console exclusives to PC exclusives (which isn't exactly unlikely, given the much larger budget given to the average console exclusive/timed-exclusive). And the bad habit publishers have of making physical copies of PC games that amount to a Steam code on a disc can render PC as a completely worthless option for some players.

There's no such thing as "more objective advantages." There's just a case-by-case decision that each player has to make when deciding which platform(s) to choose.

 

[llazy77]

No. PCs have objective advantages, but the cost-benefit analysis will always need to be made on a case-by-case basis.

If I want a $400 box which receives unit-specific optimization and can be effectively treated as a disc player for the next six years, a PC won't give me that.

If I want to pay thousands of dollars (or wait half a decade) to run games at 4K resolution/144 FPS with 4xMSAA and Ultra settings, then a PC is the obvious choice. (I'm kind of expecting to get a cheap Steam key for FFXV once there are laptops available that'll run the game at ultra settings. =P )

And, honestly, I think there are a lot more people out there who prefer the first option over the second. =P

You dont need a expensive ass pc thats thousands of dollars or do you need something that can run 4k/144fps. You can get a that less is than 1000 dollars and be able to run xv at 1080p 60fps fine, which is already better than consoles, well when it comes out.

 

[Ikkin]

You dont need a expensive ass pc thats thousands of dollars or do you need something that can run 4k/144fps. You can get a that less is than 1000 dollars and be able to run xv at 1080p 60fps fine, which is already better than consoles, well when it comes out.

I didn't say you had to pay thousands of dollars, just used 4K/144 as an example of something that could make PC an obvious choice. =P

It's still hard to get a PC as of the release of a new console that offers 5+ years of equivalence for a similar price (especially if you're unwilling to build it yourself), and it'd be miserable to keep one for 5+ years regardless due to registry weirdness.

 

[xXShuyaXx]

Actually, in response to this cost-to-performance argument, consoles by far has the best ratio. And this is coming from a person who owns a $5000 self built pc and a PS4Pro.

Let's go over the specifics.

Technically speaking, you cannot build a brand new $300 PC (price considering the PS4) and expect to play games as it is. Custom built PC's obviously don't come with all the peripherals, however pre built pc's do but you won't find a $300 PC going there and you will be essentially paying more anyways than you would from a custom built pc. However, a console comes as is with everything it needs. Though one may argue that neither comes with the TV/monitor. But in this age, most people have TV's in their homes, but not monitors.
So in most cases, once you buy a console, that's pretty much it, all you have to do is plug and play. But PC's require the additional purchase of a mouse, keyboard, speakers and monitor on top of the actual hardware. A decent 1080p monitor will shill you back around $100, and you can try skimp out on the keyboard and mouse by buying some cheap Chinese knockoffs, which may or may not break after a week or two. A decent set suitable for gaming will set you back another $50 (and this is being lenient). Speaker, again another $50 or so. Then we have the mother of all PC related issues, the OS. This will either set you back over another $100 or it may rob you of your dignity. You may even purchase a console controller for them steam games later on.

Oh wait... it's $300 even before you buy the actual PC. Not to mention that you will have to throw at least $180 for a decent graphics card and another $100 or so for a decent SSD or HDD . Though one may try to get everything second hand, which could reduce costs to a fraction, but you lose all support if shit goes down the drain.

The argument that PC's are more powerful than consoles is no argument as it is painfully obvious. However the argument that PC gaming can be as cheap consoles is also no-win debate for PC's. Just enjoy one or the other, or both if you have the money.

 

[Guitar (pseudo)God]

I'm a musician. I use Macs.

 

[Hey Everyone]

Apart from missing the point of the comic, you also seem to have missed the points I was trying to make. It's obviously absurd to compare a $400 computer in 2017 to a $400 console from 2013 (which can now be had for $250), or to compare generic PC optimization (which is never done on a per-hardware basis for anything other than tech demos) to the hardware-specific optimization provided for console games. As for the other pros and cons, they boil down to the cost-benefit analysis I mentioned above. The actual cost of a gaming PC can vary wildly depending on one's willingness to put the parts together oneself. Paid online doesn't matter if you're like me and don't play multiplayer games. Game selection doesn't matter if you prefer console exclusives to PC exclusives (which isn't exactly unlikely, given the much larger budget given to the average console exclusive/timed-exclusive). And the bad habit publishers have of making physical copies of PC games that amount to a Steam code on a disc can render PC as a completely worthless option for some players.

There's no such thing as "more objective advantages." There's just a case-by-case decision that each player has to make when deciding which platform(s) to choose.

I was actually thinking about the PS4 Pro, which is why I said 400 dollars. Also objective in that is has more pros than cons, obviously doesn't mean for every person PC is better, but PC has more pros on an objectively level, when you take out personal preference.

 

[Hey Everyone]

I feel like you missed the underlying point of that cartoon...

I have a powerful PC and a console. I use them interchangeably. There's nothing wrong with owning a console. There are plenty of reasons why someone might prefer a console over a PC. I'm happy you like your PC, but you're literally doing the exact thing that inspires comics like the one posted in this thread.

I don't own a PS4 or Xbox One, I just can't stand there business practices ie, pay to play online, and it's nonsense.