Why do console gamers settle for so little?

Recommended Videos

Pingieking

New member
Sep 19, 2009
1,362
0
0
Today we are going to apply Pingieking's Equation in conjunction with Relativity to the video games disparity problem.

Consoles vs PC is the same question as console gamers vs PC gamers, and can therefore be answered using the same theory. Consoles are specilized PCs that can provide approximately 80% of the gaming capabilities that regular PCs can (that number changes depending on the game). It is then trivial to derive that console gamers are people who want 80% of the features that PC gamers want (again, this changes with the game).

A very simple derivation. Yet, like Thermodynamics, is an extremely powerful theory. It answers multitude of questions and provides great reasoning for several senarios, such as;

1)
MetaKnight19 said:
Another question could be why do PC gamers expect so much? *flameshield up*
Because they're not console gamers, and they want their machines to perform up to its potential.
2)
SantoUno said:
Why do you PC gamers have to be constant trolls all the time and consider console players inferior and are easily pleased? Even if console gamers do get the short end of the stick, if they are content and satisfied with what they are playing there is no problem. Lots of people love to play XBL and feel that they are getting their money's worth, so what is the problem?
The first question is obvious using the theory. Become from the PC gamer frame of reference, the console is inferior. The second question is basically a refined version of the first, and therefore is answered in the same way.

We can now see that both of these example questions are actually the same question asked from a differing reference frame. From the PC reference, a machine that can do 80% of what a PC can do is simply an inferior machine. Extending that logic, a gamer content with 80% of what PC gamers get is easily pleased. From the other frame of reference, a console gamer will deem a PC gamer to be elitist and entitled because a PC gamer asks for 125% of what a console gamer wants. Neither side is right or wrong, they're simply interpreting their measured values in their own frame. Since there is no absolute reference frame, the frame can be chosen at convenience. I generally suggest students to choose a frame that they can most easily relate to.
Thus what some may see as an extremely difficult question is actually very simple to solve; simply apply Galilian Relativity and the results are easily calculated. Remember that Einstein's Special Relativity is unnecessary in this case, since the electrons in the current are not flowing as a speed comparable to c, and the application of special relativity would only further complicate the calculations. Since this is an intro class, we would like to keep the number of Greek letter variables to a minimum.
 

Chaos Marine

New member
Feb 6, 2008
571
0
0
Paragon Fury said:
Because unlike PC gamers, we're not greedy twats who want everything our way, all the time?


/stereotypical (but not completely untrue) response

1: Lag is not that bad on P2P, no matter how much antecdotal evidence is presented. As a matter of fact, lag is generally the same across both systems - its just that servers can handle it slightly better. Consoles however, use P2P more often for several reasons:

-It helps control modding, cheating and pirating
-It is easier to use on consoles
-It costs WAAAAAAAAAAAY less than servers do. Even the richest companies would be utterly crushed under the burden of trying to provide servers for games for consoles, which almost always have an expotenially higher user base than PC games do, which means an expotenially higher cost.


2: The maximum is not 9v9. There any many games that go far above this limit, like Frontlines and Section 8, not to mention the Battlefield games. However, 8v8/9v9 is generally the accepted good preformance limit of both the P2P, and what most developers design their game for. Games like CoD44, MW2, Halo 3, Gears etc. are simply not designed for that many players, both gameplay-wise and map-wise.

Also, 32v32 isn't standard on PC, save for Battlefield games. Many games you have to mod or tinker with get above 12v12 or 16v16.

3: Our services are not poor. For our $50 a year, XBL users get consistant and accurate stats-tracking across all games, large community events, reliable (fairly) customer service, maintance and anti-cheating protection, and pretty decent game content as well (much of it at a reduced price as compared to if it were a normal digital download or in-store purchase), and unlimited online gameplay for any game, with few exceptions (Phantasy Star Universe). All this for less than the price of one new game per year? Not even WoW can claim that. Pc gamers can't, because most of it is self-regulated - you might get it, but it relies on players to make it happen.



4: All I see are some butt-hurt PC gamers due to the fact that IW tried to level the playing field for all their customers. I didn't say it worked, but I can't blame them for trying either. Because when you strip away all the fluff and chest-thumping and yelling, PC doesn't really stand out well...in anything. and treating them like they're special is a poor business choice, especially since you stopped being profitable a long time ago.
I would just like to point out your three points are bullshit. Dedicated servers are necessary for online gaming properly. They've been around since Doom. Most dedicated servers are paid for by fans, guild leaders and so on. Not the companies though I'm not saying that the companies don't host servers themselves. P2P being less hackable? Look at CoD4MW2. That game just pisses all over your three points and then takes a shit on it.

People get consistent and accurate stats, anti-cheating protection from Steam. It's also free. Also all games are free online play with the exception of MMOs.

Downloadable games also comes down to the companies who publish them wanting them to cost that much.

PC gamers are different to console gamers. That's not bad. Games developed for the various platforms and playing to the strength of the platform it's produced for. That's so easy to understand I honestly cant grasp how people don't see it.
 

Canadamus Prime

Robot in Disguise
Jun 17, 2009
14,334
0
0
Doug said:
I mean, YOU are the ones who get to determine how good the service is you're paying for. PC gamers can't manage it anymore because we've been marginalized. So why aren't you demanding a better service? Especially on XBox Live where Microsoft don't have an excuse for not having them - i.e. you are paying a subscription charge for online play, so why don't they let some of that cash fund servers so you don't have to rely on laggy p2p networks?
Of course if PC and Console gamers banded together we could retake the whole industry from those (greedy, exploitative, fuckbag) corporations. ...oops there I go flogging that dead horse again.
 

TitaniumBlue

New member
Mar 29, 2009
28
0
0
Doug said:
Hell, why aren't 32 vs 32 games an option on XBox? Thats standard on PC.
- I play PC exclusively and I have to say that limiting people on the server to 18 is perfectly fine solution. Have you considered alternatives? Either the maps would have to be enlarged, resulting in much strain on hardware and excluding gamers with older machines. Another alternative would be to not enlarge maps and then we would have crowded slugfest. Have you played Counter-Strike on 32-man server? There's very little tactical depth as large enough force can break through any spot and grenade/flashbang effects get multiplied.
 

SantoUno

New member
Aug 13, 2009
2,583
0
0
Pingieking said:
The first question is obvious using the theory. Become from the PC gamer frame of reference, the console is inferior. The second question is basically a refined version of the first, and therefore is answered in the same way.

We can now see that both of these example questions are actually the same question asked from a differing reference frame. From the PC reference, a machine that can do 80% of what a PC can do is simply an inferior machine. Extending that logic, a gamer content with 80% of what PC gamers get is easily pleased. From the other frame of reference, a console gamer will deem a PC gamer to be elitist and entitled because a PC gamer asks for 125% of what a console gamer wants. Neither side is right or wrong, they're simply interpreting their measured values in their own frame. Since there is no absolute reference frame, the frame can be chosen at convenience. I generally suggest students to choose a frame that they can most easily relate to.
Thus what some may see as an extremely difficult question is actually very simple to solve; simply apply Galilian Relativity and the results are easily calculated. Remember that Einstein's Special Relativity is unnecessary in this case, since the electrons in the current are not flowing as a speed comparable to c, and the application of special relativity would only further complicate the calculations. Since this is an intro class, we would like to keep the number of Greek letter variables to a minimum.
Uhmm math has nothing to do with this, honestly.

Also:

Main Entry: in·fe·ri·or
Pronunciation: \in-ˈfir-ç-ər\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin, comparative of inferus lower ? more at under
Date: 15th century
1 : situated lower down : lower
2 a : of low or lower degree or rank b : of poor quality : mediocre
3 : of little or less importance, value, or merit
4 a : situated below another and especially another similar superior part of an upright body b : situated in a relatively low posterior or ventral position in a quadrupedal body c (1) : situated below another plant part or organ (2) : abaxial
5 : relating to or being a subscript

Consoles are NOT inferior to PC's, just because the PC is capable of doing more things doesn't mean consoles are inferior, inferior doesn't apply to capability, that is jsut your opinion. And where the hell did you get consoles do 80% of PCs?

Consoles merely do their own functions that are similiar to PCs.
 

PedroSteckecilo

Mexican Fugitive
Feb 7, 2008
6,732
0
0
I don't see myself as "settling for so little" but then again, I hate multiplayer and hence don't bother with xboxes "pay" service. I can see where you're coming from though.

Personally I usually just prefer console games, because of the multiplayer thing. Consoles are only JUST starting to pick up where Online Multiplayer is concerned.
 

Pingieking

New member
Sep 19, 2009
1,362
0
0
SantoUno said:
Perhaps "inferior" was a poor choice of wording. However, the rest of the theorem is still valid.

Consoles are simply specialized and standardized gaming PCs, and are capable of performing most, but not all, of the functions of a gaming PC. The 80% was arbitrarily defined for use as an example, but it is well known that the actual number is less than 100%. As for the features that are present in both PC and console, on average, and more frequently as the console ages and PC components increase in power, the PC will outperform consoles.

If you like, you may measure the actual percentage value in your free time. You may also want to notice that no math was actually done, aside from converting an example measurement made in the PC gamer frame to the console gamer frame.

Again, the answer to this question is simply an application of Relativity. Both the PC and console gamers are correct in their statements, but only if we define an absolute reference frame. Since it is impossible to do so, this renders the arguments of both sides to be invalid. The final result shows that both population groups are happy with their results, and that neither population knows how to apply Relativity.
 

Chrono180

New member
Dec 8, 2007
545
0
0
I don't play many PC games because they tend to be buggy. I have not played a single PC game in the past 3 years that has not had bugs that render it almost unplayable(including Oblivion, Fallout 3, NWN1, NWN2, and others.)
 
Jun 11, 2008
5,331
0
0
Paragon Fury said:
Because unlike PC gamers, we're not greedy twats who want everything our way, all the time?


/stereotypical (but not completely untrue) response

1: Lag is not that bad on P2P, no matter how much antecdotal evidence is presented. As a matter of fact, lag is generally the same across both systems - its just that servers can handle it slightly better. Consoles however, use P2P more often for several reasons:

-It helps control modding, cheating and pirating
-It is easier to use on consoles
-It costs WAAAAAAAAAAAY less than servers do. Even the richest companies would be utterly crushed under the burden of trying to provide servers for games for consoles, which almost always have an expotenially higher user base than PC games do, which means an expotenially higher cost.


2: The maximum is not 9v9. There any many games that go far above this limit, like Frontlines and Section 8, not to mention the Battlefield games. However, 8v8/9v9 is generally the accepted good preformance limit of both the P2P, and what most developers design their game for. Games like CoD44, MW2, Halo 3, Gears etc. are simply not designed for that many players, both gameplay-wise and map-wise.

Also, 32v32 isn't standard on PC, save for Battlefield games. Many games you have to mod or tinker with get above 12v12 or 16v16.

3: Our services are not poor. For our $50 a year, XBL users get consistant and accurate stats-tracking across all games, large community events, reliable (fairly) customer service, maintance and anti-cheating protection, and pretty decent game content as well (much of it at a reduced price as compared to if it were a normal digital download or in-store purchase), and unlimited online gameplay for any game, with few exceptions (Phantasy Star Universe). All this for less than the price of one new game per year? Not even WoW can claim that. Pc gamers can't, because most of it is self-regulated - you might get it, but it relies on players to make it happen.



4: All I see are some butt-hurt PC gamers due to the fact that IW tried to level the playing field for all their customers. I didn't say it worked, but I can't blame them for trying either. Because when you strip away all the fluff and chest-thumping and yelling, PC doesn't really stand out well...in anything. and treating them like they're special is a poor business choice, especially since you stopped being profitable a long time ago.
Ok you first point is absolute bollox.

1. Compared to dedicated lag on P2P is much much worse.
Modding is not a bd thing some games were actually started as mods, it doesn't stop cheating or pirating that is evident by Microsoft banning 1,000,000 consoles also it doesn't have a twat teamkiller filter which dedicated servers do ie.Admims
I will say it is easier for consoles to use that is true but if you tried to used it would be better as it isn't because of consoles it is people playing them having never used one.
It does not cost way less than dedicated servers and what you get for money is much better value for what you get with P2P and puts everyone on an even playing field.

2. The maximum for most games on consoles as you stated is 9v9 which CoD4 is not made for 9v9 it is made for 16v16 much more than 9v9 maps aren't that small on it.
Also for a lot of games on PC 32v32 is expected as I'd much rather have the option of it than to not have it open and between 30 and 40 man is the norm on PC.

3. Your services are pretty poor sure you get it for that a year but you also have to buy the games to play on it and WoW can claim better value as you are paying to playing the game online and nothing extra.
Also since most of it is self regulated it is by the players for the players so not only is it free it is better than any DLC shit I have seen on consoles.

4. This statement is also bullshit as it is stupid to take something away from PCs just because yous can't run it. Should Xboxs lose vibration because the Wii and PS don't have it as standard no I didn't think so. Please don't end a good arguement with a trollish statement as it ruins what you said which was fairly good but I have to disagree with you.

OT: It is more what is given to each it is just what each gets and what they get is different although it could be better improved in some aspects.
 

Svenparty

New member
Jan 13, 2009
1,346
0
0
The way I see it is that Developers can make half arsed games and fix it all up online later.

This simply isn't fair. DLC is nice yes but when it just "Fixes" half baked games etc it's a big Fuck you to people without online.

I do not have online(Prehaps making Me biast) and I feel over that over the last few years people care more about online deathmatches etc than actual gameplay.
 

MrTub

New member
Mar 12, 2009
1,742
0
0
Chrono180 said:
I don't play many PC games because they tend to be buggy. I have not played a single PC game in the past 3 years that has not had bugs that render it almost unplayable(including Oblivion, Fallout 3, NWN1, NWN2, and others.)
Well either that is complete bs or its something wrong with ur computer

And for people saying its harder to pirate on Xbox 360 is completely WRONG. You just need to download a mod and install it on the xbox and then buy dual layer disc and burn it and then u can play the game online/offline
 

TPiddy

New member
Aug 28, 2009
2,359
0
0
I am a former PC gamer, now console gamer... here's my viewpoint...

I couldn't give TWO SHITS about how gaming on a PC is better. My console meets my needs, is simpler and is more social. Here are the advantages I see from consoles:

1. I bought one console, in 2006, and it is capable of playing every game that has ever come out for it.
2. Local multi-player is WAY easier with consoles.
3. I can play console games on my giant TV and from my couch without having to buy extra cables, a monitor switch and a wireless keyboard, mouse and PC controller.
4. I don't need to worry about my console catching a virus from some hacker.
5. I don't need to worry about my console running out of disc space or memory to play my games. I have 120 GB HDD and have used all of 5 GB of it.

My computer is perfectly capable of playing up to date games, I just don't because playing console is simpler and just as fun.
 

MrTub

New member
Mar 12, 2009
1,742
0
0
TPiddy said:
I am a former PC gamer, now console gamer... here's my viewpoint...


3. I can play console games on my giant TV and from my couch without having to buy extra cables, a monitor switch and a wireless keyboard, mouse and PC controller.
4. I don't need to worry about my console catching a virus from some hacker.
3. May I ask why you need to buy a wireless keyboard & mouse and a pc controller and monitor switch??
just put the computer next to the couch and buy a 5/10/15m HDMI cable and a sound cable and your problem is solved

4. Why would you get a virus from playing computer games? Unless you're downloading them illegal you should be fine.
 

TPiddy

New member
Aug 28, 2009
2,359
0
0
Tubez said:
TPiddy said:
I am a former PC gamer, now console gamer... here's my viewpoint...


3. I can play console games on my giant TV and from my couch without having to buy extra cables, a monitor switch and a wireless keyboard, mouse and PC controller.
4. I don't need to worry about my console catching a virus from some hacker.
3. May I ask why you need to buy a wireless keyboard & mouse and a pc controller and monitor switch??
just put the computer next to the couch and buy a 5/10/15m HDMI cable and a sound cable and your problem is solved

4. Why would you get a virus from playing computer games? Unless you're downloading them illegal you should be fine.
So what you're saying is... rather than just get wireless devices and a monitor switch I should move my WHOLE COMPUTER? How is that any easier? My PC is also used for work, and I have it on a desk, with dual monitors. That is why I would require a monitor switch, to go from 2nd monitor to TV and back. I could put the games in my PC, but if they require keyboard and mouse controls I would have get a wireless keyboard and mouse in order to use them from my couch, which was the whole point.

I'm not saying I can get a virus from playing computer games, I'm saying, if my computer gets a virus it doesn't prevent me from playing console games.
 

Danpascooch

Zombie Specialist
Apr 16, 2009
5,231
0
0
I don't know what keeps me going for the consoles, they just a have a certain charm I can't put my finger on that the PC games I have purchased lack.

Plus, PC games have yet to come up with a universal achievement system, and that system is PRICELESS
 

MiracleOfSound

Fight like a Krogan
Jan 3, 2009
17,776
0
0
manaman said:
miracleofsound said:
snip

Honestly, if I wanted to spend that much time and effort convincing people to follow a cause, I would not pick video game servers.
You would be surprised how little effort it takes to convince people to act on things when it is something they actually want.

But like I said, it will never bother me because I don't like multiplayer all that much.

We got off track anyway. I was just trying to tell you that you never want to settle with the idea that you can do nothing but accept the way things are going simply because you are one of millions.
I know, and your positive thinking is admirable. Nice to see not everyone on the web is cynical all the time.
 

MrTub

New member
Mar 12, 2009
1,742
0
0
TPiddy said:
Tubez said:
TPiddy said:
I am a former PC gamer, now console gamer... here's my viewpoint...


3. I can play console games on my giant TV and from my couch without having to buy extra cables, a monitor switch and a wireless keyboard, mouse and PC controller.
4. I don't need to worry about my console catching a virus from some hacker.
3. May I ask why you need to buy a wireless keyboard & mouse and a pc controller and monitor switch??
just put the computer next to the couch and buy a 5/10/15m HDMI cable and a sound cable and your problem is solved

4. Why would you get a virus from playing computer games? Unless you're downloading them illegal you should be fine.
So what you're saying is... rather than just get wireless devices and a monitor switch I should move my WHOLE COMPUTER? How is that any easier? My PC is also used for work, and I have it on a desk, with dual monitors. That is why I would require a monitor switch, to go from 2nd monitor to TV and back. I could put the games in my PC, but if they require keyboard and mouse controls I would have get a wireless keyboard and mouse in order to use them from my couch, which was the whole point.

I'm not saying I can get a virus from playing computer games, I'm saying, if my computer gets a virus it doesn't prevent me from playing console games.
Did I say it would be easier? I simply stated that you didn't need to buy a new mouse & keyboard & monitor switches and more.
 

SamuelT

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2009
3,324
0
41
Country
Nederland
Eh, I'm satisfied with what I have. I can't afford a PC-rig to handle modern games (My laptop almost bursts when dealing with freaking Morrowind) so I have to settle for the second best. Live isn't the best way online play can be handled, but I'm having fun with it. Now, when there'll be the 'massive improvements' of standard 36V36 matches and lagg-less play I'll have to pay a whole lot more for the service. And with a price of ?60,- a year I'm content with what I have.