I understand the arguments in favor of PC, but why does /v/ seem to have such a seething hatred for consoles? Did your parents refuse to get you one when you were a kid? Did you buy some overpriced Alienware build and get jealous when people play the same thing and enjoy it on something a third of the price?
-online fees
-shit graphics
-shit framerate
-worse controls
-less options
-tiny game library
-shitty or no backwards compatibility
-no mods
-no user content
>>334996069
Consoles had a lot of advantages against PC in earlier generations. Now they don't.
After exclusives started going the way of the dodo, the last one was "same hardware, same software, always works as designed", and now we see that's into the trash too.
Consoles are becoming a literal why unless you want one of the handful of jap games that are still staying exclusive, or you're dedicated to nintendo.
>Did your parents refuse to get you one when you were a kid?
Nice meme!
Pretty sure most of us played consoles as kids and then grew up.
I'm betting you're still a kid, OP.
>>334996069
Most console users are casuals
>>334996069
Because modern consoles are just underpowered PCs with 3 or 4 exclusives at much, back then consoles and PC's were a different world in their own, now both are mix of the same shit but with PC's holding most advantages.
Because console players are the people who make fun of them irl.
>>334996069
Online fee
Sub 20 fps
Lack of draw distance and forced motion blur and ca
Really the only reasons I won't get one
They just need to release tiers and cut the online fee
Thing is devs don't even bother with a solid 30 fps
I'm letting the slow patches and no mods for beth games slide though it still a minus
Because they need a scapegoat as to why the industry is hot sick in a can to justify their investments (both emotionally and financially).
I always see "b-but no exclusives" thrown around even though the PC versions of these games are always plagued with problems
Anyone want to explain why choosing the objectively broken version of a game is better
Cheap standardized computer tech serving pretty much as a DRM machine.
>>334998197.
The entire point of a console is that devs only have to build their game for a specific set of hardware, if you introduce tiers (hello PS4.5) you throw that out the window, people might as well get a PC.
>>334997732
That's because they're using pc tech and architectures
Consoles are no more that marketed walled up pcs with propietary os with paid online these days
At least before they made unique hardware
>>334998359
Pretty much this. Consoles used to be interesting when they used unique hardware and pushed that to its limits. Nowadays they're just gimped computers with locked-down software and devs that can't code for shit.
I don't hate consoles. I hate console fanboys. Make any valid points like >>334998802 and they start mocking the "master race" strawman.like it validates their purchase of a Bloodborne machine. Then the dumb wojack mobileposters start false-flagging like it's still funny.
>>334996069
>Did your parents refuse to get you one when you were a kid?
Nah, my parents usually got me whicever latest console I wanted most within a year or two that it came out. I was a consolefag up until the clusterfuck that was last gen
>ps3 was $600
>wii sold out everywhere
>xbox has always costed money to play online
I ended up getting a 360 since it appeared to be the cheapest, but quickly found out that paying to play online was adding up. For all that money it took to play online, I could have upgraded my PC and used it to play more than just RTSs and MMOs on, so that's what I wound up doing. I had more than enough vidya to be satisfied without having to go out and buy a PS3 once it got cheaper or a Wii once it was back in stock.
Even today, once you factor in all the costs, PC is cheaper than a PS4 or Xbone, and I don't want to spend an extra $1000+ on all the consoles out there just so I have access to a few more games.
>>334998329
>if you introduce tiers (hello PS4.5) you throw that out the window
Not really. It's just one more console to build their game around, Compare that to the infinite combination of parts a PC might have and it's still fucking nothing
>>334998240
>needing a scapegoat to justify my machine that not only handles my work but also plays vidya at higher fps and frame rate at the same time
???
>>334997186
You can dress up a shit game as nice as much as you want, it's still a shit game.
>>334998282
"I'm an idiot and can't troubleshoot to make games work" used to be a slightly not shit excuse for using a console, but nowadays:
1). Console versions of games are now just as likely to launch with problems as the PC versions.
2). It's now just a fuckload harder to not get a PC game working fine. You can do third-party workarounds and mods on PC to fix broken shit, and on console you're essentially hoping the dev takes pity on and fixes their fuck ups. Example: Fallout 4. Fallout 4 had a fuckton of issues day 1 that modders managed to fix hours-days after release. Console users had to wait weeks for the first patch.
3). Performance on consoles has now lagged so far behind PCs that it's laughable. When the 360 first launched there wasn't really any PC that could match it for a while. Even for a couple years after that, you'd have to pay out the ass for console quality performance on your PC. Now? The PS4/xbone barely run modern games at high settings at 720p 30 FPS. I'm using a 4 year old CPU, a GPU from 4 and half years ago, and I can still run pretty much every modern game maxed out in 1080p at 45-60 FPS.
So, yeah. Console games are broken as often as PC ones now, you can't fix the problems on console like you can on PC, and when both versions are working, the console version is laughably shittier than the PC one. The only remaining argument is exclusives, and unless you're talking a Wii U, it's a real shit argument.
>>335001538
>1). Console versions of games are now just as likely to launch with problems as the PC versions.
PCfag here, I could name you a few examples of a game being unplayable for a lot of people on launch, but haven't heard anything like that for consoles
>>334996069
Old consoles had a purpose, after the xbox/ps2 era PCs became far more cheap and viable for gaming that goes beyond consoles power easily. Consoles began to be something that was made simply to fuck your wallet as hard as possible, monthly fees and such. ps3/360 wasn't too awful so it was reasonable to still be a console fag, plus many console fags probably didn't even know there were PC versions of most of the games they played at the time. xbone and ps4 have really made things worse and the next xbone/ps4.5 may be the tipping point, paying so much in a short period of times now makes it obvious consoles cost more than just having a good computer to last you 6~ years on top of being upgradable.
They also ensure gaming won't evolve. We need to get past the hardware bullshit and just make operating systems and prebuilts developers have to optimize towards. It would keep the console feel with their beloved restrictions intact while allowing them to upgrade and dual boot other operating systems as much as they'd like. Every single one of us knows it would be better this way.
>>335001675
Plenty of console game's multiplayer components like with MCC were unplayable at launch. MCC remained uplayable for months, in fact I'm not even certain if it's working now. If that game were on PC, I guarantee a way to workaround the matchmaking system would have been found by modders. And while most games now require day one patches on consoles before you can even play the game, some games like Wolfenstein TNO and Evil Within let you launch them without first patching and neither were playable. Which, essentially means if you don't have your console connected to the internet damn near every game is unplayable.
>>334996069
Because consoles these days are shit and usually do underhanded deals to keep things "exclusive" so you have to shell out for shitty underpowered hardware if you want to play anything.
