Why do PC gamers hate consoles?

I always wondered that I play PC, PS3, and Xbox 360. Everytime I get on PC they hate on consoles because they say it takes no skill (autoaim) and the graphics suck, but what are the other reasons?

I always wondered that I play PC, PS3, and Xbox 360. Everytime I get on PC they hate on consoles because they say it takes no skill and the graphics suck, but what are the other reasons?

kunal1092000

Console are the devil that is way /thread.

Mostly they don't.

Because we don't.

Because so many great games have been ruined when developed for multiplatform.

I don't hate it but I don't really see anything good about them either (edit : good for me obviously)

What?

I'd say the majority of PC gamers actually own one or more of the current-generation consoles. Just because you prefer one platform doesn't mean you have to hate everything else.

Because they don't understand why PC gaming has been going downhill, and are resentful for it. If PC game developers would just find ways to make their games more accessible(aka. not require that you have a 2,000$ dollar computer/build your own for a lot cheaper but requires tech savvy), then PC gaming would be a much more serious contender sales wise with consoles. If PC developers were more like Blizzard, making games that can play on lesser systems properly, then a lot more people would be playing PC games.

That said, I play PC and consoles, and I don't find that much difference between PC games and console games. It's all good, IMO.

its less about 'losing' games most of us are perfectly happy to see pc exclusives on the consoles. i for one was excited when crysis 2 was announced multiplat.

however the issue is when pc exclusives go to the consoles and then return home they return as a bastardization of the former game. this also applies to multiplat games with a pc focus turning into a console focus.

examples would be dues ex and dues ex 2. the first game was great one of the best FPSs ever. it was a pc focused title but still multiplatform. however the second was designed around the console audience. the RPG elements were toned down. it was a watered down version of the first game simply to gain more sales on the console audience.

its similar to bands selling out. theres plenty of bands making great music that continue to that catches mainstream success not because they write the music for the mainstream but because theyre just a great band (related to video games and this topic that would be games like HL2 and Doom 3 both multiplatform titles with a pc focus that are epic). then theres the bands that stop writing the music that gained them a following and write musics soley to appease the mainstream or to gain a larger audience (ex FEAR 2, dues ex 2 and looks like 3).

thats why we 'hate' consoles.

even though its a ridiculous statement since most pc gamers have a console or two anyways.

i guess the other way to explain it is this. the consoles once existed as a separate relm as the pc, there were console games and there were pc games. even multiplat ones you knew where they belonged. even last gen there was simply no excuse not to have a console if you were a pc gamer. they had great games. issue is this gen especially the consoles are trying to be the pc. and developers are trying to meld that line between them into something unholy.

Because they have nothing better to do than act as if they are superior to everyone else because they have mods and sharper textures. Also this isn't pc gamers. It's pc fanboys.

issue is this gen especially the consoles are trying to be the pc. and developers are trying to meld that line between them into something unholy.

washd123

I see no problem with this at all, as long as they scale down/scale up the graphical power to fit the systems capabilities and avoid glitches. It is possible for a computer game to translate to a console or vice versa very effectivly. Look at Sacred 2, which was better on the console in many ways then the PC version.

Because they don't understand why PC gaming has been going downhill, and are resentful for it. If PC game developers would just find ways to make their games more accessible(aka. not require that you have a 2,000$ dollar computer/build your own for a lot cheaper but requires tech savvy), then PC gaming would be a much more serious contender sales wise with consoles. If PC developers were more like Blizzard, making games that can play on lesser systems properly, then a lot more people would be playing PC games.

That said, I play PC and consoles, and I don't find that much difference between PC games and console games. It's all good, IMO.

heysharpshooter

In the past 10 years, consoles have been the ultimate threat to PC gaming. Back in the 90s you could tell the difference between a PC game and a console game easily. Now only a few minor graphical differences separate console and PC gaming.

[QUOTE="heysharpshooter"]

Because they don't understand why PC gaming has been going downhill, and are resentful for it. If PC game developers would just find ways to make their games more accessible(aka. not require that you have a 2,000$ dollar computer/build your own for a lot cheaper but requires tech savvy), then PC gaming would be a much more serious contender sales wise with consoles. If PC developers were more like Blizzard, making games that can play on lesser systems properly, then a lot more people would be playing PC games.

That said, I play PC and consoles, and I don't find that much difference between PC games and console games. It's all good, IMO.

naval

I don't agree with most of what he said, but many pc fanboys refuse to agree that pc gaming definitely has changed from what it used to be in the late 90's and early 2000's. Also most pc games released are by very small companies and most aren't even worth talking about imo.

What?

I'd say the majority of PC gamers actually own one or more of the current-generation consoles. Just because you prefer one platform doesn't mean you have to hate everything else.

Velocitas8

I don't agree with most of what he said, but many pc fanboys refuse to agree that pc gaming definitely has changed from what it used to be in the late 90's and early 2000's. Also most pc games released are by very small companies and most aren't even worth talking about imo.

bigblunt537

its deffently changed but that doesnt mean its bad in any regards. and the small companies are what keep the industry alive.

[QUOTE="naval"][QUOTE="heysharpshooter"]

Because they don't understand why PC gaming has been going downhill, and are resentful for it. If PC game developers would just find ways to make their games more accessible(aka. not require that you have a 2,000$ dollar computer/build your own for a lot cheaper but requires tech savvy), then PC gaming would be a much more serious contender sales wise with consoles. If PC developers were more like Blizzard, making games that can play on lesser systems properly, then a lot more people would be playing PC games.

That said, I play PC and consoles, and I don't find that much difference between PC games and console games. It's all good, IMO.

bigblunt537

I don't agree with most of what he said, but many pc fanboys refuse to agree that pc gaming definitely has changed from what it used to be in the late 90's and early 2000's. Also most pc games released are by very small companies and most aren't even worth talking about imo.

In the past 10 years, consoles have been the ultimate threat to PC gaming. Back in the 90s you could tell the difference between a PC game and a console game easily. Now Only a few minor graphical differences separate console and PC gaming. clubsammich91

Huh? The difference is as big as ever with console games running with pathetic sub-720p resolutions and low-sample anti-aliasing.

Even if what you are claiming were true, I can't see why it would make PC gamers "hate" consoles. At very least, I know that I'm not primarily a PC gamer simply because the platform offers better visuals.....

[QUOTE="bigblunt537"]

[QUOTE="naval"] yup, I am resentful about getting the most amount of exclusives on PC :roll:naval

I don't agree with most of what he said, but many pc fanboys refuse to agree that pc gaming definitely has changed from what it used to be in the late 90's and early 2000's. Also most pc games released are by very small companies and most aren't even worth talking about imo.

How did you get that from my post I have no idea. Quality > Quantity. Many exclusives on the pc are definitely not high quality. If I got together with 8 people and released a **** game in 5 months and sold it online would you consider that an exclusive too and brag about it? I know many small companies are great, but pc fanboys(not pc gamers I'm a pc gamer myself) brag about the number as if it's some amazing thing liek they are all AAAE's.

[QUOTE="bigblunt537"]

I don't agree with most of what he said, but many pc fanboys refuse to agree that pc gaming definitely has changed from what it used to be in the late 90's and early 2000's. Also most pc games released are by very small companies and most aren't even worth talking about imo.

washd123

its deffently changed but that doesnt mean its bad in any regards. and the small companies are what keep the industry alive.

I'm a bit of a graphics whore lol so I agree with you, but I wish there were more companies pushing pc's tot heir limits. Imagine a GT5/Forza type racing sim on the pc. It would probably look like real life and there would be no reason for sequels other than new cars.

How did you get that from my post I have no idea. Quality > Quantity. Many exclusives on the pc are definitely not high quality. If I got together with 8 people and released a **** game in 5 months and sold it online would you consider that an exclusive too and brag about it? I know many small companies are great, but pc fanboys(not pc gamers I'm a pc gamer myself) brag about the number as if it's some amazing thing liek they are all AAAE's.

bigblunt537

STALKER (GSC games) the Witcher(cdprojeckt) and Far cry(crytek) want a word with you.

all pc exclusives from small teams all AAA (the STALKERs 'low' scores from reviewers are based on the fact that it was buggy on release the game is stable now)

bioware was started by a few doctors

valve is still a small company.

all these minor companies are what drive innovation and keep the industry going

[QUOTE="naval"][QUOTE="bigblunt537"]

I don't agree with most of what he said, but many pc fanboys refuse to agree that pc gaming definitely has changed from what it used to be in the late 90's and early 2000's. Also most pc games released are by very small companies and most aren't even worth talking about imo.

bigblunt537

How did you get that from my post I have no idea. Quality > Quantity. Many exclusives on the pc are definitely not high quality. If I got together with 8 people and released a **** game in 5 months and sold it online would you consider that an exclusive too and brag about it? I know many small companies are great, but pc fanboys(not pc gamers I'm a pc gamer myself) brag about the number as if it's some amazing thing liek they are all AAAE's.

[QUOTE="washd123"]

[QUOTE="bigblunt537"]

I don't agree with most of what he said, but many pc fanboys refuse to agree that pc gaming definitely has changed from what it used to be in the late 90's and early 2000's. Also most pc games released are by very small companies and most aren't even worth talking about imo.

bigblunt537

its deffently changed but that doesnt mean its bad in any regards. and the small companies are what keep the industry alive.

I'm a bit of a graphics whore lol so I agree with you, but I wish there were more companies pushing pc's tot heir limits. Imagine a GT5/Forza type racing sim on the pc. It would probably look like real life and there would be no reason for sequels other than new cars.

But most people can't build a computer/afford a pre-built one that could play that. They push it to the limit, spend tons of money and make very little in returun because only a handful of people could actually play the game, and half of them would pirate it.

This is the attitude that is killing PC gaming IMO.

I'm a bit of a graphics whore lol so I agree with you, but I wish there were more companies pushing pc's tot heir limits. Imagine a GT5/Forza type racing sim on the pc. It would probably look like real life and there would be no reason for sequels other than new cars.

bigblunt537

in a racing sim graphics are the last thing to worry about. fist should be the driving and physics which the pc hold the crown already, pretty much any kind of sim youll want on the pc.

and if yure a graphics whore theres no reason to get a console ever. if thats what truely drives you.

also thats not what i meant by changed. read my first post.

But most people can't build a computer/afford a pre-built one that could play that. They push it to the limit, spend tons of money and make very little in returun because only a handful of people could actually play the game, and half of them would pirate it.

This is the attitude that is killing PC gaming IMO.

heysharpshooter

fail harder.

crysis cost $40m to make. it sold at least 2m copies last word from crytek. the rumors are 3m. lets put it at 2.5 million. the game debuted at $50 and then went down to $40.

lets assume 1m people bought it at $50. thats $50m then the rest of the 1.5 bought it at $40 thats $60m for a total of $110m. now even if crytek gets half of that money its still a $20m profit for them. on a single system.

even though it was pirated.

even though people were under the perception you need a monster rig (you dont)

even though it had the stigma of 'all graphics no gameplay'

id say thats pretty good for a game with mostly negative hype.

[QUOTE="clubsammich91"]In the past 10 years, consoles have been the ultimate threat to PC gaming. Back in the 90s you could tell the difference between a PC game and a console game easily. Now Only a few minor graphical differences separate console and PC gaming. Velocitas8

Huh? The difference is as big as ever with console games running with pathetic sub-720p resolutions and low-sample anti-aliasing.

Even if what you are claiming were true, I can't see why it would make PC gamers "hate" consoles. At very least, I know that I'm not a PC gamer simply because the platform offers better visuals.....

Why do PC gamers hate consoles?

kunal1092000

Because they want upgrade/customize their PC all times

[QUOTE="bigblunt537"]

I'm a bit of a graphics whore lol so I agree with you, but I wish there were more companies pushing pc's tot heir limits. Imagine a GT5/Forza type racing sim on the pc. It would probably look like real life and there would be no reason for sequels other than new cars.

washd123

in a racing sim graphics are the last thing to worry about. fist should be the driving and physics which the pc hold the crown already, pretty much any kind of sim youll want on the pc.

and if yure a graphics whore theres no reason to get a console ever. if thats what truely drives you.

also thats not what i meant by changed. read my first post.

Well I love tons of eye candy and pc delivers on that. As much as I love eye candy I love a well played out story and many console titles deliver that for me compared to pc gaming although Crysis Warhead's ending was epic. Also depending ont he game i might prefer m/k or a controller. not all pc games support controllers although recently that has changed a bit, but still many don't offer support for it. Regarding pc exclusives I feel like there's maybe 1 huge title every 2-3 years while consoles get 1-2 a year. PC may get more 9's, but I feel it's mostly inflated with MMO's and strategy games which aren't my cup of tea. Also as I said this is IMO. If you disagree that's fine, but this is where my point of view stands. I lvoed pc gaming more than consoles in the late 90's - early 2000's. Now I think it's decent. Not bad, but passable.

[QUOTE="heysharpshooter"]

But most people can't build a computer/afford a pre-built one that could play that. They push it to the limit, spend tons of money and make very little in returun because only a handful of people could actually play the game, and half of them would pirate it.

This is the attitude that is killing PC gaming IMO.

washd123

fail harder.

crysis cost $40m to make. it sold at least 2m copies last word from crytek. the rumors are 3m. lets put it at 2.5 million. the game debuted at $50 and then went down to $40.

lets assume 1m people bought it at $50. thats $50m then the rest of the 1.5 bought it at $40 thats $60m for a total of $110m. now even if crytek gets half of that money its still a $20m profit for them. on a single system.

even though it was pirated.

even though people were under the perception you need a monster rig (you dont)

even though it had the stigma of 'all graphics no gameplay'

id say thats pretty good for a game with mostly negative hype.

Lets compare that with sales of your average console game. And lets compare the total sales for cosoles vs. computers in terms of games. Pointing out that one over hyped, glitchy computer killer sold well proves nothing. In general, consoles out sell PC games by wide margins.

But most people can't build a computer/afford a pre-built one that could play that. They push it to the limit, spend tons of money and make very little in returun because only a handful of people could actually play the game, and half of them would pirate it.

This is the attitude that is killing PC gaming IMO.heysharpshooter

Riiight. So, developers churning out graphically-demanding games is causing piracy? And piracy, despite how long it's been going on, is supposedly going to be the downfall of PC gaming?

Most people pirate just because they can, not because they spend too much on hardware. I assure you, people would NOT stop pirating if hardware prices came down, or if games suddenly became less-demanding...they'd just find some other way to justify their pirating.

What I'm saying is. The reason PC gaming is less popular today is because the consoles offer pretty much the same capabilities with a lot more user friendliness then the modern gaming rig would.clubsammich91

No..a gaming console has nowhere near the functionality of a high-end PC. The user-friendly aspect of gaming functionality I'll grant you, though.

Lets compare that with sales of your average console game. And lets compare the total sales for cosoles vs. computers in terms of games. Pointing out that one over hyped, glitchy computer killer sold well proves nothing. In general, consoles out sell PC games by wide margins.

heysharpshooter

proving that a pc exclusive known for falsly requiring a monster rig can still sell even after being pirated disproves your statement that games like that are killing gaming.

[QUOTE="heysharpshooter"]But most people can't build a computer/afford a pre-built one that could play that. They push it to the limit, spend tons of money and make very little in returun because only a handful of people could actually play the game, and half of them would pirate it.

This is the attitude that is killing PC gaming IMO.Velocitas8

Riiight. So, developers churning out graphically-demanding games is causing piracy? And piracy, despite how long it's been going on, is supposedly going to be the downfall of PC gaming?

Most people pirate just because they can, not because they spend too much on hardware. I assure you, people would NOT stop pirating if hardware prices came down, or if games suddenly became less-demanding...they'd just find some other way to justify their pirating.

Read the post... I didn't say that graphics cause pirating. I said that if you made a game with insanse requiremnts, your sales would drop significantly because only a few people could play it. And many that could would pirate it because pirating PC games is a problem. that is why PC games usually sell poorly in comparison to console games.

[QUOTE="heysharpshooter"]

But most people can't build a computer/afford a pre-built one that could play that. They push it to the limit, spend tons of money and make very little in returun because only a handful of people could actually play the game, and half of them would pirate it.

This is the attitude that is killing PC gaming IMO.

washd123

fail harder.

crysis cost $40m to make. it sold at least 2m copies last word from crytek. the rumors are 3m. lets put it at 2.5 million. the game debuted at $50 and then went down to $40.

lets assume 1m people bought it at $50. thats $50m then the rest of the 1.5 bought it at $40 thats $60m for a total of $110m. now even if crytek gets half of that money its still a $20m profit for them. on a single system.

even though it was pirated.

even though people were under the perception you need a monster rig (you dont)

even though it had the stigma of 'all graphics no gameplay'

id say thats pretty good for a game with mostly negative hype.

[QUOTE="washd123"]

[QUOTE="heysharpshooter"]

But most people can't build a computer/afford a pre-built one that could play that. They push it to the limit, spend tons of money and make very little in returun because only a handful of people could actually play the game, and half of them would pirate it.

This is the attitude that is killing PC gaming IMO.

dakan45

fail harder.

crysis cost $40m to make. it sold at least 2m copies last word from crytek. the rumors are 3m. lets put it at 2.5 million. the game debuted at $50 and then went down to $40.

lets assume 1m people bought it at $50. thats $50m then the rest of the 1.5 bought it at $40 thats $60m for a total of $110m. now even if crytek gets half of that money its still a $20m profit for them. on a single system.

even though it was pirated.

even though people were under the perception you need a monster rig (you dont)

even though it had the stigma of 'all graphics no gameplay'

id say thats pretty good for a game with mostly negative hype.

You see, that is what TC is talking about. How PC gamers(the ones here anyways) tend to have this certain view of consoles. The view being that a game on the PC is so amazing just because it is on the PC and consoles would never ever be able to pull it off.

Forget all that, when it comes to consoles its propably gonna sell like crazy, unless crytek did not dumb it down enough.dakan45

im sure it will sell. theres probably enough fanboys who will buy it out of spite.

id love to see it sell more than 2m copies per platform though.

they dont have to dumb it down. i mean other than delta being brutally difficult (not frustrating) the game is quite easy to get into theres no RPG elements to manage or anything like that.

the onyl problems arise when the console gamer goes in expecting the game to hold their hand and to always lay out the best path in front of them and to create epic moments for them, thats where i see people having issues.

at least the first one is still exclusive

You see, that is what TC is talking about. How PC gamers(the ones here anyways) tend to have this certain view of consoles. The view being that a game on the PC is so amazing just because it is on the PC and consoles would never ever be able to pull it off.

clubsammich91

except fact is they cant. its the audience.

take a game like STALKER for instance. thatd never work in its entirety on the consoles. same with the witcher. hell it barely worked with the pc audience its complicated.

look at the example i gave dues ex and the sequel. hell look at bioshockj and system shock 2. the evidence of it is all around you. theres simply no deneying it its a fact of life.

[QUOTE="clubsammich91"]You see, that is what TC is talking about. How PC gamers(the ones here anyways) tend to have this certain view of consoles. The view being that a game on the PC is so amazing just because it is on the PC and consoles would never ever be able to pull it off.

washd123

except fact is they cant. its the audience.

take a game like STALKER for instance. thatd never work in its entirety on the consoles. same with the witcher. hell it barely worked with the pc audience its complicated.

look at the example i gave dues ex and the sequel. hell look at bioshockj and system shock 2. the evidence of it is all around you. theres simply no deneying it its a fact of life.

IMO i think its because console gaming is using less technology, but has still become MUCH more popular.

Read the post... I didn't say that graphics cause pirating. I said that if you made a game with insanse requiremnts, your sales would drop significantly because only a few people could play it. And many that could would pirate it because pirating PC games is a problem. that is why PC games usually sell poorly in comparison to console games.

heysharpshooter

And yet the most graphically intensive title in gaming history sold >1 million at retail alone? The high-end PC gaming market might not be as large as consoles, but it's still very very big.

It's easy for you to suggest that PC developers "drop the requirements of their games", but it's not that easy. Reauthoring resources for lower-end hardware takes time, and time = money (money spent for questionable returns on sales.) Furthermore, allowing a game to run reasonably on lower-end machines usually also means that the developers won't be able to create the game as they want it to be.

Besides, people with low-end hardware naturally aren't serious PC gamers, so they won't buy the majority of this stuff regardless. They'd keep playing that casual PopCap stuff even if they could run something like Crysis on their system.

[QUOTE="heysharpshooter"]Read the post... I didn't say that graphics cause pirating. I said that if you made a game with insanse requiremnts, your sales would drop significantly because only a few people could play it. And many that could would pirate it because pirating PC games is a problem. that is why PC games usually sell poorly in comparison to console games.

Velocitas8

And yet the most graphically intensive title in gaming history sold >1 million at retail alone? The high-end PC gaming market might not be as large as consoles, but it's still very very big.

It's easy for you to suggest that PC developers "drop the requirements of their games", but it's not that easy. Reauthoring resources for lower-end hardware takes time, and time = money (money spent for questionable returns on sales.) Furthermore, allowing a game run reasonably on lower-end machines usually also means that the developers won't be able to create the game as they want it to be.

Besides, people with low-end hardware naturally aren't serious PC gamers, so they won't buy the majority of this stuff regardless. They'd keep playing that casual PopCap stuff even if they could run something like Crysis on their system.

I can't afford a high end computer and have a low end machine, but I don't even know what PopCap is. Way to show off your elitism. If I could play some of these games, I would, but my lowly 400$ comp would melt if I put Crysis in it. but if Crytek would allow the game to run on lower end machines, then I could. Imagine how many copies they would sell then.