Why are people so passionate about the platform they use for gaming?

[LITE992]

Why do people even think an inanimate object needs defending from insults across the Internet?

 

[Yopaz]

Well, I have a few ideas about this. My main one is:
PC gamers know their platform is better (thinking performance, choices and the different things you can manage to do on a PC, even rabid console gamers should agree this is true). PC gamers want the graphics to improve to match what their hardware is capable of, but since most games are made for consoles they are limited to a level only somewhat over what a console can do. PC gamers then get mad at console gamers because developers seem to favour them. That's why PC gamers are so passionate about PCs.
Console gamers are passionate for much the same reason. No, this isn't because consoles are best and all that stuff. It's because PCs are better and PC gamers can't shut up about it. Whenever there's a discussion such as getting Skyrim for PC or Xbox the PC eltist crowd shows up to mention all the reasons a PC is better.
Console gamers have to suffer through a whole lot of the following: "Get a PC you get better graphics and more fps", "PCs gives you more modding freedom", "You can use controllers on PC too, and mouse + keyboard is better for shooters and strategy games" and so on. The PC gamers wont listen to excuses such as "It's expensive to get a new gaming computer", "I already got an Xbox and I don't experience frame drops or care that much about graphics" or "I prefer the simplicity in consoles".
Except for the part about a new gaming PC being too expensive I mean all the things I said in this post. I love consoles for the reasons stated and PCs for the reasons stated. I must admit that I am using my PC more than my Xbox 360 or Wii. Now get ready for the lamest reason for my choice of gaming platform ever. I often forget where I put the remote so when I can't find it I play on my PC rather than spending an eternity looking for what turns out to be on top of my stack of Xbox and Wii games.

Also another reason why there's so much pride in platform is that Nintendo and Sega used to be on each side of a what could have been the Berlin wall. Nintendo had pride in its game series, Sega had its series. There were no crossovers and it was a war to conquer the market. When Sony joined in there was also a pretty heated war between the sides. The mood between the consoles have rubbed off on us and we have a feeling that we, just like the game companies, must be superior and we'll defend the fact that we are better even if we know we're not deep inside.

Because people fail to realize that all that makes their platform of choice unique is a few GB, or even MB, of OS.

There's nothing special whatsoever about any of the platforms. They're all exactly the same on a technical level. The only real difference is the user interface and amount of interaction with underlying systems.

It's like arguing about whether Orange Juice tastes better when drinking it from a wine-glass, ceramic cup or baby bottle.

Well, no, that's the whole point.

PCs allow you to customize your games.
PCs allow you to mod your games.
PCs allow you to mod your game on the machine you use to play it.
PCs encourage creativity and learning (when was the last time you learned a new programming language on your console?)
PCs aren't limited by the maker of the console (why isn't there steam on 360?)
PCs can be upgraded
PCs are multifunctional
PCs demand either more money or more technical knowledge

Here's one that fits into my idea #1 who wont let a console gamer live in a happy delusion that all platforms are equal when you add things together. He's totally correct in everything he says in his post however.

Because this is the internet. People will argue about anything.

More seriously, I think it's just that people grow attached to things that make up their life and build up pointless loyalties to inanimate objects and the heartless corporations that make them. So they argue about them on the internet. As you do.

Also what this guy said before he brushed that off as a joke. On the internet everyone's an expert, everyone knows everything unless someone brings flawless proof that what he says is incorrect. Sadly Wikipedia is also enough in many cases. Go to a forum where they're discussing politics. Capitalism is the best thing ever the kid says. The reason is that his parents are republicans, talk a lot about how stupid liberals are and watch Fox News. Hoe doesn't know what he's talking about and manages to call someone a communist and a Nazi at the same time not knowing that those are ideologies pretty far away from each other in every way. You can make good arguments for your case and even state that no ideology is perfect, and that capitalism has its flaws and that there should be free health care. He might even realize you make several good points, but he'll never admit so when he's on the internet.

 

[Dyme]

Because consoles limit games' possibilities.

Once consoles start using Windows and mouse+keyboard they will be as good as PCs. Till then they are worse. Till then they are constrained PCs.

The upside that consoles have are that they are easier to use.

 

[esperandote]

1 - resolution, view distance, testure resolution, anti-aliasing, DX version....
2 - game content, like different UI
3 - you can make changes that aren't in the game menu but are accessible via INI/CFG files

It is nice that you can do all those things, I guess console gamers don even think of those. I know little of what you mentioned are those things really necessary or make a lot of difference? Also isn't one of the reason to do some of them is to run the games better for machines that aren't capable of running certain game on full config? In consoles you can be sure that games will run without twitching configs.

6 - no, PCs don't need to be upgraded. A 1999 machine will still run a lot of current-gen indie or non-resource-intensive games. Two-way compatibility also, it's not like you can run a PS3 game on a PS2. Or a PS2 game on a PS3.

7 - should be versatile.

It's true but there are older games that aren't compatible with newer OS (in consoles case, older games that dont run on newer hardware) and installing a second OS or a virtual machine is too much of a hassel to play a game. And also newer games that wont run on older OS that aren't that resource intensive but have DX issues for example.

We used to have backwards compatibility but this console gen messed that up. On a PS2 you can run PS2 games still being released and PS games that date from 1994 without any twitching, installing or moding. Again you can have a PS3 and a PS2 and it wouldn't be that much more expensive.

You can't leave out resource intensive games when talking about compatibility. You can't realistically say that to this day theres a hardcore PC gamer that can do all of his gaming on a 1999 pc.

Show me a game that runs only on a console and it would be considerably less playable, more frustrating or otherwise worse on a PC.

Because I can point you to Dwarf Fortress. Imagine playing that game without a browser with the game wiki/help files. Or without external utilities.

Or MMORPGs.

Yeah

Figthing games without game pads, using a gamepad is adding a console (or arcade) part to PC. It would me like me saying that you could play mmorpgs, rts, etc. on console if you connect a usb keyboard and mouse. And maybe soon, if it doesn't already, consoles will allow to navigate the internet when playing.

Edit: Consoles are specialized machines, that's their up and down side. Once they start doing everything then they will be PCs.

 

[tautologico]

While the argument for the fact that it is expensive or your mom only bought you one console does fall in line nicely with Cognitive Dissonance theory, I do not think it is just that. As I become 30 next weekend, I guess I fall in the range of retarded old gamers already. I play games for more than 20 years now on a daily basis. Yet I do not remember any such fanboyism in the early days, when the money argument was just as valid. Hell, one of the best things was when friends had different consoles and pcs so we could play the best games on each when visiting each other.

Actually there were rivalries in the old times, but they were of a different nature. These were the old times before the internet, so system rivalries were almost always friendly and fun, not bitter, resentful and out of control like in games forums nowadays.

At one time my friend had a SNES and I had a Sega Genesis (besides a computer, but few people had them). Every now and again we teased each other by stating ways in which our system was superior to the other, but it was just friendly banter. We did indeed love to go to each other's houses to play the games we couldn't play at home. I think we both knew neither system was THE BEST and both had great games.

Internet forums make everything more extreme.

 

[Blackpapa]

1 - resolution, view distance, testure resolution, anti-aliasing, DX version....
2 - game content, like different UI
3 - you can make changes that aren't in the game menu but are accessible via INI/CFG files

It is nice that you can do all those things, I guess console gamers don even think of those. I know little of what you mentioned are those things really necessary or make a lot of difference? Also isn't one of the reason to do some of them is to run the games better for machines that aren't capable of running certain game on full config? In consoles you can be sure that games will run without twitching configs.

The game industry doesn't expect console gamers think much in general. Thinking is just not contemporary. It's not the hottest thing on planet Earth anymore.

Changing config files doesn't have to be just to have a prettier game. That's just one use of this mechanic.

Here's a clip from Quake Live/3


Most players play like this. They customize their FOV, disable textures and force models to be high-contrast. And it's not because the competitive gamers out there have crappy machines - quite the opposite.

Now imagine customizing your MW2 like this.

6 - no, PCs don't need to be upgraded. A 1999 machine will still run a lot of current-gen indie or non-resource-intensive games. Two-way compatibility also, it's not like you can run a PS3 game on a PS2. Or a PS2 game on a PS3.

7 - should be versatile.

It's true but there are older games that aren't compatible with newer OS (in consoles case, older games that dont run on newer hardware) and installing a second OS or a virtual machine is too much of a hassel to play a game. And also newer games that wont run on older OS that aren't that resource intensive but have DX issues for example.

We used to have backwards compatibility but this console gen messed that up. On a PS2 you can run PS2 games still being released and PS games that date from 1994 without any twitching, installing or moding. Again you can have a PS3 and a PS2 and it wouldn't be that much more expensive.

You can't leave out resource intensive games when talking about compatibility. You can't realistically say that to this day theres a hardcore PC gamer that can do all of his gaming on a 1999 pc.

Sure, current-gen multiplatform titles have specific system requirements. But a PS2-era PC multiplatform release would still work on a PC that runs a PS3 multiplatform.

Assuming you buy both a xbox 360 and a PC with equal specs you'll pay more for the PC but you'll also get much, much more for that. It's an acceptable trade-off.

Show me a game that runs only on a console and it would be considerably less playable, more frustrating or otherwise worse on a PC.

Because I can point you to Dwarf Fortress. Imagine playing that game without a browser with the game wiki/help files. Or without external utilities.

Or MMORPGs.

Yeah

Figthing games without game pads, using a gamepad is adding a console (or arcade) part to PC. It would me like me saying that you could play mmorpgs, rts, etc. on console if you connect a usb keyboard and mouse. And maybe soon, if it doesn't already, consoles will allow to navigate the internet when playing.

Edit: Consoles are specialized machines, that's their up and down side. Once they start doing everything then they will be PCs.

Indeed. And the idea is to create a locked-down, dumbed-down PC for gaming.

But PCs have three decades worth of experience and engineering behind their multitasking capabilities. Even if tomorrow consoles add that feature then there's still that issue of 3 decades of development to factor in.

 

[DSK-]

I don't think it's so mich about being passionate. I assume you are talking about the likes of the 'PC gaming vs Consoles' argument and the like.

It's all about perspectives. Like one person mentioned already console owners enjoy the fact that they just need to buy their console of choice and don't have to change any hardware, tweak any .ini files and upgrade drivers to play games on it. For PC gamers like myself, it's a case of being able to do a lot more with the platform and having more power/capability to things/play things.

For me I would say PC gaming is far better than console gaming but then again I am biased and have had limited experience with consoles before getting my PS1, PS2, 360 and PS3. I think everyone is entitled to their opinion and if they think mine is a load of complete and utter rot then that's fine by me.

 

[Vonnis]

To justify the money they spent, and as a point of pride, though I think the latter only applies to people who built and tweaked (overclocked) their own pc's. Marketing may also be a factor, as campaigns often target the dumbest, most vocal target demographic. For an example, look up some old sega advertisements from when they were still in direct competition with nintendo in the console market.