Why are consolites upset to know PCs a better experience?

Gaming pcs are objectively better in several aspects like higher performance, better frame rates, more responsive gameplay, mouse accuracy, more control options, more control over game settings and backwards compatibility. The only objective things that are better on game consoles that I can think of is ease of use and a more problem free gaming experience.
There are also some subjective reasons why anyone would prefer either though.

Its true, the majority of PC gamers will have a console, as the entry cost for a console is lower, and very low towards the end of a generation. Entry price for a PC is higher so a console gamer is less likely to have a PC capable of playing latest games

That has nothing to do with what I said dude.....FYI you don't have to spend enormous money constantly on your PC to game either. So get off the high horse....

Crysis and Stalker got ruined because not enough pc gamers bought those games.

I recall Crytek making more cash off Crysis1 than the mediocre sequels. And Ryse, ...lmao.. I don't even want to know how much less cash they made on that than Crysis1.

@Cranler: how so?

A few more

PC objectively has a larger high scoring library each year. PC objectively has a better version of most (not all) multiplatform games.

Console objectively is superior at split screen gaming.

Crysis sold 87k in it's first month.

Maybe Crysis would have remained pc exclusive if Crysis had done better.

Stalker is over with due to lackluster sales.

@Cranler: but how were they ruined? I guess you could say crysis was ruined because it moved to console. But it was actually successful on PC. And it seems since crytek went multiplat they've been doing worse

Because they think their preference makes the PC's objective advantages invalid.

I think the biggest thing is that many of the advantages of consoles have deteriorated, or straight up vanished over the last decade.

Consoles used to be a cheap way to game in comparison to PC; now they aren't.

Consoles used to be plug and play; now they aren't

Consoles used to have dramatically different game libraries than PC; now they don't (though the reverse is true because PC gets most every game the consoles do, plus hundreds of its own experiences)

And many negatives keep cropping up on consoles too. Paying for online access, paying out the nose for DLC, losing access to downloadable/online games at the publisher's whim, etc.

I think there are many console gamers who are trying very hard to ignore these facts, and ignore what the PC offers as they try to hold onto nostalgic memories of the past, and how consoles used to be. One of the ways they distance themselves from the PC is by hating on it, and the gamers that play there, but not all console gamers are like that. Just a vocal few.

It's capable of playing current games. I'm playing Planetside 2 and GW2 on it. So yes, I've experienced PC gaming. Give it a rest kid. My reasonings are sound and you honestly have no real rebuttal for it. I've been playing PC games since the Apple II, Commadore 64, TRS-80 and Atari 800. I've played games on ALL those systems. I know exactly what PC gaming experience is about. I own a Xbox 360, PS3, Xbox One & PS4. i don't care what games you will wait for. I'll still be playing most multiplats on game consoles and a few exclusives on the PC, like I've always done.

The PC would be the better experience if it had the games I want. Unfortunatelly it doesnt... :(

It would be the better experience if game consoles didn't exist. Unfortunately for PC, they do. I don't see them going anywhere anytime soon. There are literally a few thousand games that are console only and not on the PC. The only way some of these games can be played on the PC is illegally with emulators and ROM files. Even then that games don't always play perfectly or like the console version, so why even bother.

Crytek specifically said they broke even. Not exactly a failure but not exactly a success either. Crysis 2 made them actual profits and largely thanks to console sales. Stalker was plagued with bugs but what is forgotten is the fact that developers have to make profits in the first 30 days. After that it's too late. In fact many high selling games had a developer that went under specifically because the revenue didn't come in fast enough.

It's akin to you not making house payments fast enough and the bank takes it from you even if you make a ton of money within that same year, you gotsta have the return at due, not 6 months later. Correction, banks have leniency time, it's more akin to not paying rent that month and the landlord kicks you out but you would have a whole years worth of rent 6 months later...You get what I'm trying to say but typically the sales figures for the first 30 days are the only real importance to investors/publishers.

I'm not upset to "know" that PC is a "better" experience... but it is annoying that PC gamers keep trying to tell us.

80,000 sales in the first month is a success?

Publishers don't want to wait years and years for a return on their investment.

Actually no. Crysis was profitable. Come Crysis 3, the series as a whole would only break even if they met forecasts

"CEO and President of game developer Crytek said Crysiscost 15 million Euros (22 million USD) to develop during a panel about the future of gaming graphics at the Games Convention Developers Conference in Leipzig, Germany. Yet despite the cost, Yerli maintained the game was profitable, adding, "if it wasn't profitable I wouldn't be able to stand here." (http://www.ign.com/articles/2008/08/19/gc-2008-crysis-cost-22-million-to-make)

"“I'm not talking about being greedy and we want more sales. But effectively Crysis 1 and 2 and 3 are just about breaking even. If we meet the forecasts - and I can't reveal the forecasts - then we are going to break even,” Crytek boss Cevat Yerli told Eurogamer." http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/crysis-struggles-to-break-even-as-dev-ponders-free-to-play-switch/0106285

So crysis on PC was profitable, but by their second game on multiplat they were hoping to break even

Less than a year after release they said it had been profitable for them

Profitable after how long?

Most likely scenario is that EA refused to fund game unless it was multiplat because they don't want to wait 3 years for a game to break even.

Destiny broke even in 1 day.

less than a year. It's all linked

lol, Crytek says lots of things. Yerli also said they broke even on the PC release of Crysis, he bashed the PS3/360 platform, said Crysis cannot run on them and then later they do...lol. We really shouldn't believe in any of it to be honest.

I want to see an official EA statement on sales numbers.

If the game was so profitable then why does the only cutting edge pc game in years have to resort to crowdfunding? From 1993-2007 there was a new "Crysis" every year.

If Crysis was so profitable why did they go multiplatform? Why hasn't anyone else been able to get publisher funding for another pc exclusive Crysis?

Because a statement from the CEO of crytek isn't good enough?

So now that you've been proven wrong, crytek is not okay? Because before you were okay using Crytek said as evidence, even though you didn't provide an actual source

Crytek has no credibility.

I didn't use Crytek as evidence. I posted a statement they made and reading yours it becomes painfully obvious that they said many things. I don't need to look up the source, if you ever kept up with Crytek, you would either remember or can look it up yourself.

Neither of our posts was wrong btw, Yerli says lots of things apparently. In other words, we shouldn't take Crytek at their word.

Well we know how that turned out. Crysis on the consoles has smaller levels, less geometry and overall the graphics are much worse.

Translation:

"I got proven wrong again, so I'm going to ignore your information and come up with no counter evidence."

You guys want to edit your quote chains? This is getting ridiculous. Thanks much....

@Krelian-co said:

@RoboCopISJesus said:

@Cranler said:

@lostrib said:

less than a year. It's all linked

I want to see an official EA statement on sales numbers.

Translation:

"I got proven wrong again, so I'm going to ignore your information and come up with no counter evidence."

Yerli's credibility has already been destroyed in this thread.

If it was so profitable then why did Crysis go multiplatform? Why hasn't there been a "Doom 3" or a "Crysis" on the pc in years?

Well objectively the PC have more advantages, so objectively it is better. Does not mean that it is your preferred platform.

Anyone claiming that it is not, but claiming the PS4 is objectively better tehn the X1 should just go jump off a bridge since it is the same exact thing, the potential for more power, to run games more fluid, more effectively and in theory bigger games.

I state in theory because all multiplats tends to aim at the lowest hardware setting.

Aside from that the PC, is backwards compatible, for many generations, this is then follwoed by Nintendo that atleast don't try to sell you the same game Again.

The PC can have the control input of a console, and Works on a tv via HDMI, or streaming.

They are more flexible then consoles by design and Thus able to be customized to each person. Meaning that it is not a one size fits all, which is good, since a size that fits all doess'nt exist.

Does that mean that it Means that the PC is subjectively better for each person? heck no.

Oh and to whoever have the sales debates? I appriciate that there was atleast one person trying to post links, or comments, and who ever the idiots were that pulled numbers out thier asses (Again) Learn to atleast try to give a link or atleast copy a statement, and NPD is not WW sales for the love of god. And if the discussion were about games selling badly, remember that the last gen killed off an ungldly amount of devs and publishers, so aperrently consoles can not give the moneyflow either. Most of these are third party but a fair bit of devs that worked on Console specific games broke them.

Here, I will teach you a bit of common knowlage and courtesy:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=459131

A list of them, with links to most with what game(s) they worked on, and when they closed.

Oh and STALKER SoC was pleagued by bad management and was released around 3 years later then anticipated. It still sold 2 Mill. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.T.A.L.K.E.R.:_Shadow_of_Chernobyl#Sales

You said my original post was bullshit, so my follow up post had everything to do with what you said, see my original post below.

The First Part I'm responding to another member about there PC, pointing out its unlikely a PC capable of playing latest games if the GPU does not support HDMI.

The Second part was my main point about the higher entry price for PC, means a PC gamer is more likely to own a console down the road than a console gamer owning a good gaming PC down the road.

Then my last point, I was mentioning some console titles I have interest in and thats its highly likely I''ll buy a Ps4 or X1 in this generation. A lot of PC gamers will do the same at some point in the generation, console players are less likely.

Oh look. It's time for the weekly hermit insecurity thread.

Well fair enough its hassle for you to play Multiplats and other games on your PC because of were it is and the fact your not the only user.

I do get that it could be a hassle for some people to have there PC set up in living room or were ever they would normally play console games. However for a other its simply a case of plugging in two cables and your away.

I'm sure you'd view multi plats on PC different if a gaming PC was already set up for you with a controller and you play the latest multiplats at 60fps and 1080p.

Why can't elitist simply understand that consoles happen to appeal to its consumer on some level that justifies their purchase? For me it's exclusives, simple as that. I want to get the master cheif collection, I want to get Mario, Zelda etc and I want to get Kingdom Hearts 3 when it comes out. None of these are on PC. Whenever I do want to play a PC exclusive, I find that my cheap laptop with an integrated graphics card can run them quite well.

Edit: Yes I know Halo 1 and Halo 2 are on PC, but not the remastered versions with completely revamped multi player.

pc is the master race

its get everything for cheaper

it adapts it doesn't die it just keep surviving

kids with a 360 or ps3 those will die

a PC lives on its always the strongest gen you kno? its ognna live on forever

Yes, there are more for advantages for both of them, I just posted the first ones that came to mind.

TC..isnt "better" subjective? ALSO PC is ok if you want to worry with "work arounds" ..I get tired of trying to get some games to work and I get tired of trying to hit the correct key on my keyboard. SORRY its not for everyone. JUST like everything else in the world its a thing called "preference"..

lmao..

You never posted the actual statement, or source for such a statement. But you did attempt to use Crytek as evidence:

Although none of this you sourced

I love how after being proved wrong with a statement from the CEO these trolls just come out with more excuses.

Of course they can put out of their ass that C1 wasn't profitable with absolutely no source, but when the CEO of the company makes a statement then "he's full of shit".

Is a pretty well known fact that PC is a better machine, but i still like consoles more, because **** it i like consoles, granted i won't be getting a PS4 nor an X1 since i already have a so so gaming Laptop for my multiplat needs, but i couldn't live without Nintendo, so of course i already have my WiiU.

Again, if Crysis did so well then why did the sequel go multiplatform?

Why did the age of getting one graphical behemoth after another end with Crysis?

@Cranler: eh no, crysis sold very well it was Cevat being an idiot saying bs like "if this game was on consoles it would have sold 10 times as much" when in fact it basicly sold around the same with crysis 3 failing.

Stalker was very profitable on pc, if i remember correctly stalker 2 didnt happen because something happened with the rights of the game and the publisher couldnt close on the console version deal or something.

@parkurtommo: So this entire forum is idiotic?

Ok then, if only anyone STFU about pros and cons, but here is the thing, FEATURES... are making a platform better, so its not idiotic to talk about features.

Lol , Really .? Is he serious .?

@elessarGObonzo:

How is PC a better experience? How can you say this as a fact? The fact is is that experience is personal and you can't decide which one may be a better or worse experience for anyone.