Now, yes, this is a debate I had with a facebook friend about a week ago. No, I am not posting it to seek approval of my opinion. I simply thought the debate thing to talk about. Obviously, I got rid of names, but I was the person arguing in favor of PC gaming, but also stating that I have absolutely nothing against console games.
My name is Damien, so I'll leave it at that, but let's call the other two Jim and Don.
Jim will be arguing completely in favor of consoles over PC.
Don will be jumping back and forth a bit, and eventually leave the argument.
Jim: All I know is I can play games on my console ten times better than my current computer and I am o.k. with that. It would be nice to see more ports to console, as long as they don't Skyrim it though.
Don: If I had a better computer I probably would use a PC for gaming (sometimes). But I enjoy owning a console. If I do become a PC gamer, I'm not going to be a little ***** like the rest of PC gamers though. Yes, using a console means you don't have super awesome graphics. Yes, you don't get super cool mods and all that shit. But I personally feel like that makes them better than PC in a way. I don't need the best graphics and cool mods to enjoy the game. I can enjoy the game for what it is. I personally feel like PC gamers just want the best of everything and either ***** about a game or talk shit on it if it doesn't suit their expectations. Sure, console gamers ***** about shit too. But I feel like there is a higher amount of whiny bitches in the PC gaming community.
Damien: "Better", or "Easier"? There's nothing wrong with consoles. I love consoles. One set of hardware, hardly any fuss, I'm not saying one is better than the other. I'm saying that the PC market is a bit abused. Steam is only accepted because it's the least thorned to get ass fucked by. PC ports are only terrible to run because of awkward, alien architectures when ported from consoles. Despite what developers think, PC ports can be a massive profit. There's hardly any costs to make CDs and manuals since it can go full digital easily, and they don't need to pay off console makers to get the OK for online support and to get it on their system. PCs are an open source (mostly...unless you're Apple)
Jim: Let me put it to you this way. My computer can't handle Fall out 3. My console however, has my back like a bro. I can also play other games I own for the PC on the console with better graphics.
Damien: That's a choice towards lacking hardware. Which again, I see why consoles can be favored, it's because they are simple. People just want to play games and skip the bullshit. I GET THAT. But that doesn't make consoles "better". That makes them "easier". If you're talking about gaming on a laptop, no shit. Laptops aren't made to game at all, they are made for basic, portable, work and entertainment like movies and internet. Laptops with decent hardware are much more expensive than an equivalent desktop, or a more powerful desktop. You don't need to spend $700+ to be better than a console. I built a system for $500 that outpowered the PS3 easily, and the PS3 launched for more than that.
Don: Yea, im not trying to say console or PC is better, they both have ups and downs. All I'm trying to say is from what I've experienced, a lot of the PC gaming community bitches and does not have the ability to enjoy the vanilla version of a game.. They always want more. They always find something to ***** about. So if I were Rockstar, I would put my game on console just to piss em off
Jim: Ok. you spent 500 dollars.... I spent 300. 300 dollars to game really really well with games that were all designed with my systems limitations in mind. I chalk that up as a win in the console book.
Damien: "Bitching" is different than asking for change. Since PC is an open platform, it's easier for gamers to gain the attention of devs to change something broken, wrong, or stupid with a game. Patches are made at no cost to them, where as on PS3 or 360, they need to ask permissions. Yeah, you spent $300 when? And used or new? And what console? PC hardware prices drop FAST, a lot faster than console prices. And I wouldn't call 25 FPS "Well", I'd call that "playable"
Don: I agree with Jim, I have a refurbished xbox that ive had for a few years now. I don't even have a hard drive, i just use a usb as storage. It works as well as i need it to. "And I wouldn't call 25 FPS "Well", I'd call that "playable""
playable is all you need. thats an example of PC gamers wanting more than they need
Damien: Exactly, "refurbished", and you are using less hardware on it than it came with. Obviously you'll get it for less than a PC.
Don: But my point is it was cheap and does everything i need it to. PC gamers want more. Always want more. More. More. More. Never happy with vanilla product. Must have chocolate syrup and sprinkles
Jim: "patches made at no cost" Except all the man hours to make said patch. Remember they still need to employ people to do this shit.
Last Christmas, a PS3, new.
If you have to count FPS then you're missing the point of gaming. "BUT IT'S .03214% PRETTIER ON MY SCREEN!" That's nice, dear.
Damien: So...it's wrong...to want the quality that the developers made the game at? Unless it's an exclusive game like The Last of Us, the devs have to tone down all the work they did to make it run on consoles. How is asking for the full quality asking for "more"?
Jim: The quality you are asking for in neigh imperceptible. I literally can't see the difference. Just saying.
Don: I can see the difference in graphics if I have the two side by side. But for the most part, I feel like it's such a small difference that it really does not matter. Best games of my life were fuckin zelda, and super smash brothers for N64. Didn't care that everything was polygons. So what that rock isn't as detailed as it would be on PC? The game is still the same
Damien: If you're not looking for it, sure. But they still do need to tone it down. I can see it. Just because you can't doesn't mean it's wrong to ask for it to still be there. I'm not sure where this debate it going anymore though. The more I read it the more confused I get at both our arguments. It reads like you're saying "Consoles are serviceable, and I like that. You however don't, and that makes you a bad gamer." and what mine reads like is "I like the quality...annnddd....that's all I got." All I was originally asking for was that they make GTAV on my platform so I can enjoy it too like everyone else. I didn't mention graphics, since screenshots of the PS3 version already look fantastic. I just wish they wouldn't port it DIRECTLY from PS3 so I HAVE to upgrade my hardware to make up for the alien architecture
Jim: I'm more of the opinion that quality is a good thing...Quality you can't perceive however is not. Just because Apple can make a screen so super HI-DEF that you can't tell that it's better than the last HI-DEF thing doesn't mean it's a good thing. There is a physical limet to some people and what they can perceive. We're nearing that limit and still asking for more.... It's stupidly decadent in my opinion....Now PROCESSING POWER, the ability to render worlds with more detail instead of better detail is always welcome. As per usual though, I'll gladly take the mid range and replace it later than shuck 500 for something that will only last me just so much longer.
Don: My point was just that the PC gaming community bitches a lot. And that I hope Rockstar keeps its game for console jst to spite the whiny bitches. We got off topic because we started talking about the things PC gamers ***** about.
Jim: Where as I would like more ports both ways, as I am not a spiteful person. Freedom of information, man
Damien: Well, if you're looking at a PC JUST for gaming, I always understand why putting a lot of money towards something would seem silly. However, you need to look at it from value as well. PCs are capable FAR MORE than gaming. Video editing, internet (fully compatible internet I should mention), tons of different ways to connect with friends, voice chat, and play games. You can use more than just one type of control input, you can customize your visual and audio setup in just about any way imaginable, my point is a PC isn't the #1 choice for gaming for a reason...it's not just for games. Personally, I find it a smarter investment to buy one system that can both game AND do computer stuff, rather than buy a console AND a basic computer. You're spending about just as much if not more the second way
Jim: That's all well and good, however my point does still remain. Your 500 dollar computer will only last you just so much longer than my 300 dollar computer. By that time I'll be buying the equivalent of your computer for 300 dollars and you'll be shucking out another 500 a year later. That's if I choose to buy a new console every generation I only just got my PS3 remember?
Don: I feel ya. And honestly I don't care if the game goes for PC or not. In this day and age, games should be made for consoles and PC and not one or the other. But I prefer having a console for gaming and a PC for other shit. I don't need to surf the web with my xbox so i dont care for that feature, just wanna play games. I play games on my computer, but I don't feel the need to play games that come out for a console on my computer. Id rather just play it on my console.
Damien: Another $500? HOW?! If I plan on buying a fucking GTX Titan every year SURE, but I don't do that. I buy exactly what I need to play the games they way they were made originally and that's it. Again, PC hardware is more powerful AND prices fall fast. By the time I need to upgrade, a GTX 780 will have fallen well below $500 and I can buy that and still be way ahead of consoles
Jim: Wow, lively discourse that doesn't make me want to kill anyone..... ARE YOU A WIZARD?! Follow me for a second... You buy your pieces of computer and assemble at 500. I buy my computer for 300. let's say we both run for 4 years because that's the average. How much have you put into your computer since then?
Damien: I don't follow what you're asking. You're telling me that I spent $200 more than you, meaning I could have better parts therefore last longer if I wanted.
Jim: ...To keep up with the games you want to play you're going to have to replace old parts right?
Damien: No. If I buy parts already ahead of consoles, I won't have to buy new parts until that generation is over if I choose. I'll game just fine, and still better. Well, "Better quality" I should say, to be fair. the worst that will happen is that the games will get better graphics over time, and I'll have to settle for 30 FPS, but still at high quality
Jim: ...That isn't how PC games work. You and I both know that. You're going to need to replace parts to keep and your current level of performance. Unless you let you performance slide as the years go on there by negating the reason for assembling this beast in the first place. Let's assume the latter for a moment. That means if you want to get back to your old level of performance(the start of the 4 year period) You'd need to replace the equivalent of at least 300 dollars in your machine. You get to stay in the fast lane while I putt happily in the middle lane and just grab a NEW (yes it makes a difference) 300 PC.
Damien: Whoa whoa, don't tell me that's not how it works, because that's EXACTLY how it worked for me about two years ago. I had a decent system early on in the generation, and as time went on, devs found a way to squeeze more graphics out of the aging console hardware, and I had to settle for 30-40 FPS, but still being able to max out the graphical settings. No upgrades needed. Everyone needs to upgrade eventually as long as developers keep making better graphics and larger worlds. Consoles, PCs, smart phones, it's not exclusive to PC. the difference is, I need to buy one piece, while console players need to buy a brand new system entirely.
Jim: We will see then won't we? There is one thing you're not taking into consideration however, That's the inevitable slow down of a machine. That "built in obsolescence" if you will. The longer you go the more your hard drive fills and the more programs you put on there that sap your ram and you will slow down.
Damien: It's not inevitable...defragging your hard drive (automatically mind you. I defrag mine every night at 12:00 midnight while I sleep) and deleting things you don't need anymore is not hard. It's just lazy if you don't. RAM clears itself either every time you turn of the computer, or everytime the system sees that you're not doing something for an extended period of time (with the exception of OS things). I've never had a system slow down over time magically by itself unless you're too lazy to set up the auto-defrag. Consoles need defragging too. That's why the PS3 has a menu option for it (if you know how to get to it). I had to do it a year ago since Batman Arkham Asylum began slowing down on my console
After this point, the argument boiled down to "Pcs will slow down inevitably, making my console better."
Even after I brought up the point that consoles do that as well, he stuck with his point. Again, I'm not posting this to seek support for my arguement of vice versa, just to spark a debate is all.
My name is Damien, so I'll leave it at that, but let's call the other two Jim and Don.
Jim will be arguing completely in favor of consoles over PC.
Don will be jumping back and forth a bit, and eventually leave the argument.
Jim: All I know is I can play games on my console ten times better than my current computer and I am o.k. with that. It would be nice to see more ports to console, as long as they don't Skyrim it though.
Don: If I had a better computer I probably would use a PC for gaming (sometimes). But I enjoy owning a console. If I do become a PC gamer, I'm not going to be a little ***** like the rest of PC gamers though. Yes, using a console means you don't have super awesome graphics. Yes, you don't get super cool mods and all that shit. But I personally feel like that makes them better than PC in a way. I don't need the best graphics and cool mods to enjoy the game. I can enjoy the game for what it is. I personally feel like PC gamers just want the best of everything and either ***** about a game or talk shit on it if it doesn't suit their expectations. Sure, console gamers ***** about shit too. But I feel like there is a higher amount of whiny bitches in the PC gaming community.
Damien: "Better", or "Easier"? There's nothing wrong with consoles. I love consoles. One set of hardware, hardly any fuss, I'm not saying one is better than the other. I'm saying that the PC market is a bit abused. Steam is only accepted because it's the least thorned to get ass fucked by. PC ports are only terrible to run because of awkward, alien architectures when ported from consoles. Despite what developers think, PC ports can be a massive profit. There's hardly any costs to make CDs and manuals since it can go full digital easily, and they don't need to pay off console makers to get the OK for online support and to get it on their system. PCs are an open source (mostly...unless you're Apple)
Jim: Let me put it to you this way. My computer can't handle Fall out 3. My console however, has my back like a bro. I can also play other games I own for the PC on the console with better graphics.
Damien: That's a choice towards lacking hardware. Which again, I see why consoles can be favored, it's because they are simple. People just want to play games and skip the bullshit. I GET THAT. But that doesn't make consoles "better". That makes them "easier". If you're talking about gaming on a laptop, no shit. Laptops aren't made to game at all, they are made for basic, portable, work and entertainment like movies and internet. Laptops with decent hardware are much more expensive than an equivalent desktop, or a more powerful desktop. You don't need to spend $700+ to be better than a console. I built a system for $500 that outpowered the PS3 easily, and the PS3 launched for more than that.
Don: Yea, im not trying to say console or PC is better, they both have ups and downs. All I'm trying to say is from what I've experienced, a lot of the PC gaming community bitches and does not have the ability to enjoy the vanilla version of a game.. They always want more. They always find something to ***** about. So if I were Rockstar, I would put my game on console just to piss em off
Jim: Ok. you spent 500 dollars.... I spent 300. 300 dollars to game really really well with games that were all designed with my systems limitations in mind. I chalk that up as a win in the console book.
Damien: "Bitching" is different than asking for change. Since PC is an open platform, it's easier for gamers to gain the attention of devs to change something broken, wrong, or stupid with a game. Patches are made at no cost to them, where as on PS3 or 360, they need to ask permissions. Yeah, you spent $300 when? And used or new? And what console? PC hardware prices drop FAST, a lot faster than console prices. And I wouldn't call 25 FPS "Well", I'd call that "playable"
Don: I agree with Jim, I have a refurbished xbox that ive had for a few years now. I don't even have a hard drive, i just use a usb as storage. It works as well as i need it to. "And I wouldn't call 25 FPS "Well", I'd call that "playable""
playable is all you need. thats an example of PC gamers wanting more than they need
Damien: Exactly, "refurbished", and you are using less hardware on it than it came with. Obviously you'll get it for less than a PC.
Don: But my point is it was cheap and does everything i need it to. PC gamers want more. Always want more. More. More. More. Never happy with vanilla product. Must have chocolate syrup and sprinkles
Jim: "patches made at no cost" Except all the man hours to make said patch. Remember they still need to employ people to do this shit.
Last Christmas, a PS3, new.
If you have to count FPS then you're missing the point of gaming. "BUT IT'S .03214% PRETTIER ON MY SCREEN!" That's nice, dear.
Damien: So...it's wrong...to want the quality that the developers made the game at? Unless it's an exclusive game like The Last of Us, the devs have to tone down all the work they did to make it run on consoles. How is asking for the full quality asking for "more"?
Jim: The quality you are asking for in neigh imperceptible. I literally can't see the difference. Just saying.
Don: I can see the difference in graphics if I have the two side by side. But for the most part, I feel like it's such a small difference that it really does not matter. Best games of my life were fuckin zelda, and super smash brothers for N64. Didn't care that everything was polygons. So what that rock isn't as detailed as it would be on PC? The game is still the same
Damien: If you're not looking for it, sure. But they still do need to tone it down. I can see it. Just because you can't doesn't mean it's wrong to ask for it to still be there. I'm not sure where this debate it going anymore though. The more I read it the more confused I get at both our arguments. It reads like you're saying "Consoles are serviceable, and I like that. You however don't, and that makes you a bad gamer." and what mine reads like is "I like the quality...annnddd....that's all I got." All I was originally asking for was that they make GTAV on my platform so I can enjoy it too like everyone else. I didn't mention graphics, since screenshots of the PS3 version already look fantastic. I just wish they wouldn't port it DIRECTLY from PS3 so I HAVE to upgrade my hardware to make up for the alien architecture
Jim: I'm more of the opinion that quality is a good thing...Quality you can't perceive however is not. Just because Apple can make a screen so super HI-DEF that you can't tell that it's better than the last HI-DEF thing doesn't mean it's a good thing. There is a physical limet to some people and what they can perceive. We're nearing that limit and still asking for more.... It's stupidly decadent in my opinion....Now PROCESSING POWER, the ability to render worlds with more detail instead of better detail is always welcome. As per usual though, I'll gladly take the mid range and replace it later than shuck 500 for something that will only last me just so much longer.
Don: My point was just that the PC gaming community bitches a lot. And that I hope Rockstar keeps its game for console jst to spite the whiny bitches. We got off topic because we started talking about the things PC gamers ***** about.
Jim: Where as I would like more ports both ways, as I am not a spiteful person. Freedom of information, man
Damien: Well, if you're looking at a PC JUST for gaming, I always understand why putting a lot of money towards something would seem silly. However, you need to look at it from value as well. PCs are capable FAR MORE than gaming. Video editing, internet (fully compatible internet I should mention), tons of different ways to connect with friends, voice chat, and play games. You can use more than just one type of control input, you can customize your visual and audio setup in just about any way imaginable, my point is a PC isn't the #1 choice for gaming for a reason...it's not just for games. Personally, I find it a smarter investment to buy one system that can both game AND do computer stuff, rather than buy a console AND a basic computer. You're spending about just as much if not more the second way
Jim: That's all well and good, however my point does still remain. Your 500 dollar computer will only last you just so much longer than my 300 dollar computer. By that time I'll be buying the equivalent of your computer for 300 dollars and you'll be shucking out another 500 a year later. That's if I choose to buy a new console every generation I only just got my PS3 remember?
Don: I feel ya. And honestly I don't care if the game goes for PC or not. In this day and age, games should be made for consoles and PC and not one or the other. But I prefer having a console for gaming and a PC for other shit. I don't need to surf the web with my xbox so i dont care for that feature, just wanna play games. I play games on my computer, but I don't feel the need to play games that come out for a console on my computer. Id rather just play it on my console.
Damien: Another $500? HOW?! If I plan on buying a fucking GTX Titan every year SURE, but I don't do that. I buy exactly what I need to play the games they way they were made originally and that's it. Again, PC hardware is more powerful AND prices fall fast. By the time I need to upgrade, a GTX 780 will have fallen well below $500 and I can buy that and still be way ahead of consoles
Jim: Wow, lively discourse that doesn't make me want to kill anyone..... ARE YOU A WIZARD?! Follow me for a second... You buy your pieces of computer and assemble at 500. I buy my computer for 300. let's say we both run for 4 years because that's the average. How much have you put into your computer since then?
Damien: I don't follow what you're asking. You're telling me that I spent $200 more than you, meaning I could have better parts therefore last longer if I wanted.
Jim: ...To keep up with the games you want to play you're going to have to replace old parts right?
Damien: No. If I buy parts already ahead of consoles, I won't have to buy new parts until that generation is over if I choose. I'll game just fine, and still better. Well, "Better quality" I should say, to be fair. the worst that will happen is that the games will get better graphics over time, and I'll have to settle for 30 FPS, but still at high quality
Jim: ...That isn't how PC games work. You and I both know that. You're going to need to replace parts to keep and your current level of performance. Unless you let you performance slide as the years go on there by negating the reason for assembling this beast in the first place. Let's assume the latter for a moment. That means if you want to get back to your old level of performance(the start of the 4 year period) You'd need to replace the equivalent of at least 300 dollars in your machine. You get to stay in the fast lane while I putt happily in the middle lane and just grab a NEW (yes it makes a difference) 300 PC.
Damien: Whoa whoa, don't tell me that's not how it works, because that's EXACTLY how it worked for me about two years ago. I had a decent system early on in the generation, and as time went on, devs found a way to squeeze more graphics out of the aging console hardware, and I had to settle for 30-40 FPS, but still being able to max out the graphical settings. No upgrades needed. Everyone needs to upgrade eventually as long as developers keep making better graphics and larger worlds. Consoles, PCs, smart phones, it's not exclusive to PC. the difference is, I need to buy one piece, while console players need to buy a brand new system entirely.
Jim: We will see then won't we? There is one thing you're not taking into consideration however, That's the inevitable slow down of a machine. That "built in obsolescence" if you will. The longer you go the more your hard drive fills and the more programs you put on there that sap your ram and you will slow down.
Damien: It's not inevitable...defragging your hard drive (automatically mind you. I defrag mine every night at 12:00 midnight while I sleep) and deleting things you don't need anymore is not hard. It's just lazy if you don't. RAM clears itself either every time you turn of the computer, or everytime the system sees that you're not doing something for an extended period of time (with the exception of OS things). I've never had a system slow down over time magically by itself unless you're too lazy to set up the auto-defrag. Consoles need defragging too. That's why the PS3 has a menu option for it (if you know how to get to it). I had to do it a year ago since Batman Arkham Asylum began slowing down on my console
After this point, the argument boiled down to "Pcs will slow down inevitably, making my console better."
Even after I brought up the point that consoles do that as well, he stuck with his point. Again, I'm not posting this to seek support for my arguement of vice versa, just to spark a debate is all.
