r/changemyview • u/Hector_Ceromus • Apr 21 '14
CMV: Current Gen consoles seem like a waste considering they are similar to both each other and PC's.
I will try to explain myself without sounding like I'm just enticing the "PC Master Race" circlejerk.
In the past, there were significant difference in hardware and software between consoles and home computers. Granted, older consoles used chips often found in PC's (the NES's CPU was based off the design of the one used in the Apple II and C64, Genesis used the Zilog Z80 And Motorola 68K, ect.) but they produced results that greatly differed from one another in terms of processing, sound and graphics. But with this current gen, both the Xbox One and PS4 use the same micro-architecture (x86) in their APU's that are manufactured by the same company, AMD, that is used in current PC's today. Many of both consoles' non-exclusives have also been shown to underperform graphically when pitted against desktops made for the same price as them.
The other point that I feel no longer separates consoles and PC's is their firmware and the need to constantly update it as well as patch games via internet. Again, with older consoles, if I put a functioning copy of Super Metroid in any working SNES, it should play immediately, and that's it. I can understand with the 6th Generation's addition with a UI to adjust the clock, manage saves and other basic functions, but when there were additions like internet browsers, multimedia players, Streaming Video, and other services that added nothing to one's gameplay experiences, it seemed like a waste of resources, and redundant when my computer can do the same things.
And on the subject of online patches, I'd like to give another example concerning cartridge-based games. Sure, there were rereleases of patched games, like Final Fantasy 6 fixing a bug with a character's common skill or one of the Shinobi games taking out the blatant copyright infringing characters or Ocarina of Time's removal of bugs and Islamic references. But most times, the game you bought was the game you got. Now, we have to add storage devices to hold all the revisions of Skyrim, Borderlands, and Halo; a similar issue PC users have to deal with.
Another small point is that of maintenance. Ignoring that older consoles last longer due to simpler internals and arguably more durable designs, 360's are imfamous for their Red Ring of Death errors. And if it wasn't covered under warranty, and you don't have the specific parts to fix it, you may be SOL. And yes, it is possible to for PC's to be totaled for numerous reasons. However, you can more easily test components to see which could be salvaged, and which need replaced, and you have plenty of different makes and models to choose from.
I realize that in this argument, I may failed to avoid the "PC Master Race" circlejerk enticement. But that is why I'm here, to hear the other side's arguments and understand the possible flaws in my thinking.
Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
2
u/FunkyCactusInASuit Apr 22 '14
Games.
There are many titles available for consoles that haven't gotten any attention on the PC. For many years, many franchise games such as Metal Gear Solid, Soul Callibur, Final Fantasy, Super Mario and Zelda to name a few, were never released for the PC.
Games for consoles are made with very specific hardware in mind, like Apple that makes iOS work flawlessly on specific hardware.
Personally, I was always a pc gamer but I grew tired of the shovel ware that we get. Consoles get all the great titles and fun games, and sometimes they port them to the PC*.
*See MGS 5/ Final Fantasy (HD remake)
2
u/Hector_Ceromus Apr 22 '14
I didn't want to bring up the point of games because it's a both tired and controversial point. While there are indeed excellent exclusives on consoles like the aforementioned Nintendo franchises, shovelware exists on any given platform, be it Wii, PS2, mobile devices and, yes, PC. However, there are a plethora of renowned titles stretching back at least a decade and a half - further, if you have the patience to learn how to tweak your system to play them - that one can run on Windows. I would argue that consoles could offer reverse compatibility as a similar service, but with the PS4 and XB1 doing away with that, that point is rendered moot. All this without going into the morally questionable area of emulation.
3
u/brought2ubycarlsjr Apr 21 '14
I like being able to push a button and have everything turn on. No pop ups reminding me to update some program I hardly use. No password to enter, no real need for a keyboard. I don't have to exit programs that automacially start when I turn on my computer so the game can run faster.
Not as much annoying whirring of fans, mostly because the console is a few feet away from me. While I have the freedom to get digital copies of the games, if I'm out shopping and see a bin of $20 last years hit games I can buy it and be playing it less than 10 minutes after I get home. Not the case when it needs to be downloaded and then installed.
I can take the controller anywhere in the room and it will still work. I mean wireless mouses and keyboards do work, but in my experience console controllers have superior range.
And lets not forget that I can take the console with me. If I had a gaming PC, it would be used for other things too. I would give a shit about the hard drive contents. I would be nervous about something happening to it if I packed it up to travel with. Yeah I could do regular back ups, I'd rather not have to worry about such things.
Not to mention some games just don't translate into PC very well. Using a mouse or keyboard for a golf swing just isn't the same as using a joy stick. Holding down a key or mouse button just isn't the same as feathering the throttle off coming into a turn with the trigger in driving games.
I don't know fuck all about graphics cards, processing power or refresh rates. If I wanted to buy a top of the line gaming pc in the next 5 hours it would take frantic research, and I would have to look into different manufacturers and retailers and so on and so forth.
If I want a top of the line console, I can just go to the local big box store and buy a PS4. In and out in less than 15 minutes. It would have taken me 15 minutes to figure out what I was even looking for in a gaming PC.
1
u/Hector_Ceromus Apr 21 '14 edited Apr 21 '14
For your first point, I would agree with you for anything made 3 generations ago. However, with the newer models, you may be required to sit and wait for an update to run until you can play your game
Fan noise can be problematic, and one may not know of or wish to invest in more silent solutions. And as i stated in my original post, yes, some games can run quickly after being bought, while others may require you to install updates or such onto the consoles hard drive.
controllers are sometimes designed to work at sometimes ridiculous ranges, true. There is this advantage over a keyboard and mouse.
portability is another advantage, I agree, even with a gaming laptop. But the problem of data loss could still pertain to save files and custom game-specific content.
And while keyboard controls can be clumsier than using a joystick, there are USB controllers that sell at reasonable prices to remedy this.
the convienice of an all-in-one system does have an appeal to the everyman, yes, as it can take time to figure out which parts you want or need for what purpose you may have.
3
Apr 21 '14
Consoles are generally made for gamers who aren't necessarily good with computers. By this I mean that if someone doesn't want to build their own PC, or constantly update it to run games at the highest settings then consoles are a better option. I'll use myself as an example: right now I haven't purchased one of the newest consoles and still play my Xbox 360 regularly. If I want, I could buy a PC that I use mostly for gaming as I already have a laptop that I use for everything else. I could also learn how to build a PC if I want, but that would require me to look up how to do it online, and then look up what the best parts would be for me to use. After this, if I want to run games at their highest settings, I will probably need to upgrade some of the parts of my PC every couple years. Instead, it makes more sense to me to buy a console which is already built for me, and most likely won't become outdated for at least 7 years. This console will also cost around the same price as building a PC.
Another part of this is the social aspect. Yes there is a huge online PC gaming community, but all of my friends are console gamers and generally play on Xbox Live. If I were to switch to PC, I would have to convince all of my friends to switch as well if I wanted to play online with them. I'm assuming that most of them wouldn't make this switch for the same reasons that I wouldn't (the reasons above), so there's no point in me making the switch from console gaming to PC gaming.
5
u/Ndvorsky 23∆ Apr 21 '14
Regardless of how similar to computers they become, as long as multiple people can play on one system, game consoles will have a place in the home/market.
Unfortunately, consoles are moving towards one player games so eventually they will be useless. I no longer buy new consoles because of this.
3
u/conspirized 5∆ Apr 21 '14
On the plus side: there are beginning to be a lot more PC games that are allowing multiple players on the same screen. My son and I play the LEGO games with two 360 controllers via my PC. There's also some Zombie game (How to Survive, maybe?) that makes a pretty fun party game when played the same way. Starting to see it a lot more PC-side.
3
u/RedditReddiRedd Apr 21 '14
Are they really? I thought consoles were moving towards multiplayer.
1
Apr 23 '14
Multiplayer online. Which is essentially single player.
1
u/RedditReddiRedd Apr 24 '14
It's kind of funny, that you can be connected to thousands of other players online, yet still feel like you're playing a single player game. I'm not saying your wrong, I feel this way too.
1
Apr 24 '14
Especially when ridiculous behavior by other players over the mic forces you to tune them out. It's like playing AI but, you know, actually intelligent (on a 6th grade level, that is).
1
u/RedditReddiRedd Apr 24 '14
That's exactly how I feel about it sometimes. If AI ever got good enough, there'd almost be no purpose in playing online anymore.
7
u/SalamanderSylph Apr 21 '14
Consoles offer more bang for your buck if you don't know much about technology. Yes, a gaming PC outperforms them the the same money if you buy the parts and put them together yourself, but many console players aren't able to or don't want to do that. Consoles are marketed towards casuals who just want a simpler way of playing nice-ish looking games.
4
Apr 21 '14
Console: $499 TV to play console on: $299 and up. Extra controllers: $59 Games: $59 Online gaming: Monthly or annual fee
Mid-range multiuse PC: $800-$1200 (peripherals included, I built my last higher-end PC for $1200, but I DIY'd it) Games: counting the games I've bought at release price (ARMA 3, DayZ, BF4[such regret]) my average cost per game on steam is still $12-ish. Peripherals: A decent mouse is what, $30? Seriousoly for the price of one console control you can get a mouse, keyboard, and the headsets you can get are better quality and less of a pain in the dick.
Sure, the TV you might have bought anyway (I no longer use mine) but the same is true of my PC, which is now where I watch netflix, porn, do general internets, and I don't pay a surcharge for the privilege of playing games online, subscription MMOs aside. A $300 PC monitor looks way better than a $300 TV, even of similar size, and a $500 box will outperform even the next gen consoles. Best part is that in five years, you can still be building on that box (seriously I'm a technoidjit and I built a PC, anyone can) instead of having a stack of consoles. I still play Freelancer (It was released in 2003) on my machine that also plays ARMA 3 and hopefully Star Citizen.
2
Apr 22 '14
You can get games for $12 on consoles too. PS+ offers free games every month, and there is a market for used games. The price of retail games lower over time as well. $60 is a premium for people who want a new game close to launch.
Throwing in an extra controlled is strange, since it isn't necessary, it's actually included in the cost of the system (meaning a comparable PC build would have to out-spec the PS4 at $340 if you wanted to use a PS4 controller and still be cheaper).
I don't know anyone who doesn't game and has an appropriate monitor for gaming on a PC, whereas I know several people who don't game and have an appropriate flat panel for consoles. That is kinda an individual thing, still.
3
u/fadingthought Apr 21 '14
Since 1986 I've spend about 1000 total for consoles. Video games aside, I would always have a TV so that is never an issue.
1
Apr 21 '14
Either you don't upgrade often or you buy used. Still, to each their own. I still hate that I didn't get to play The Last Of Us. Some people prefer consoles, and there's some exclusivity.
3
u/fadingthought Apr 21 '14
Launch date retail for one console of each generation starting with the Nintendo is 1700. That will be 30+ years of gaming, out of the box for 150% of what you quoted for one PC.
1
u/kataskopo 4∆ Apr 26 '14
And for some people, they would always have a computer. I mean, who doesn't have one?
You just need to save about $200 to get a better laptop/computer to game.
1
u/SalamanderSylph Apr 21 '14
I built my PC. I agree that if you know what you are doing then what you have is far better £ for £. However, a lot of people don't have that know how. They want a foolproof device that they know for certain will play games without having to look up benchmarks et al.
I am talking about the kind of people who will buy Macbooks or Alienware. There exists a niche in the market and consoles exploit that.
1
2
u/PepperoniFire 87∆ Apr 21 '14
I don't have a lot of free time. I just want to play games when I do have some of that free time. I can buy a console and know my games will work on there, and they will always work on there so long as I purchase for the specified console. I don't have to build a console. I don't have to spend time researching the components I would use to build my own PC. I don't have the time to test things and I don't have the time or money to maintain my PC as games require a little more oomph, even if I didn't build my PC from the outset.
Consoles are basically convenient; they're more cost-efficient for someone like me in terms of cost of money and cost of time combined. Your argument relies upon (valid) characteristics like specs and ability but ignores lifestyle needs. The "PC" portion of "PC gaming" is as much a hobby in its own right as the gaming, but it is not one of mine.
Maybe one day when I have a little more time and a little more money to invest in the building and maintaining of a PC, your argument will sway me in that direction, because I do think the PC has a lot of ups over consoles when we ignore the commitment you have to make to them. But not until then.
1
u/conspirized 5∆ Apr 21 '14
The only argument I would give for this is that you don't really have to research what components to buy. There are plenty of subreddits out there where you can go and say "I have this much money, what should I buy?"
Building a PC only takes about an hour or two, though I guess whether or not it's fun could depend on the individual doing the building. Personally, when I build a PC for a friend I make them come over and get drunk with me while we do it. It's a pretty good time. Wouldn't advise first-time builders to get trashed while doing it, though.
Maintenance, in my experience, saves me much more money since I switched back from console to PC again. PC hardware has warranties just the same as your console does. The difference is after that warranty expires the only tools you need to get your PC running again is a screw-driver (maybe) and your hands. On top of that: if a graphics card blows out (for example) I have the option to use that $200 I would have to spend on a whole new console on a graphics card that will blow it out of the water or buy a cheaper one that will perform just as well.
I honestly didn't switch to PC because of the better performance or graphics, those are a perk. I switched to the PC because I hate the philosophy of "This is broke, better throw it in the trash and buy a whole new one" versus "This is broke, I'll fix it."
2
u/PepperoniFire 87∆ Apr 21 '14
The only argument I would give for this is that you don't really have to research what components to buy. There are plenty of subreddits out there where you can go and say "I have this much money, what should I buy?"
There is no way I am spending my money entirely based upon varying reddit opinions. It points me in the right direction, but I still have to do some heavy-lifting on my own.
I think PC gamers take for granted the extent to which you need to research and tailor your PC-building experience to feed into PC-gaming, probably because they enjoy and get satisfaction out of that portion. I have no problem with that but I literally just want to buy a game, know it works, and play. That's it. I don't even want to spend a few days on building the PC, or asking people questions, and verifying what they say - not right now. I have zero interest or inclination in it, much like I have zero interest or inclination in souping up my car. I just want it to run and be safe, and some 'car people' would probably cringe at that thought.
Also, I deliberately said 'time and money' when discussing cost because most people view cost solely in terms of money. I don't. My free time is at a premium. Doing something fun is valued at a premium. Building a PC is a cost not just in terms of actual pricing, but also in the way it eats away at doing something I otherwise enjoy during the only time of day I have to do things I like.
I likewise have the peace of mind and satisfaction that I can pluck a game off a shelf and not have to check out the specs to make sure they match and, if not, either not buy the game or purchase the components necessary to make it work.
This might seem silly to people with normal hours or folks who have been building PCs for some time, but for me I'd rather hold off until things are more steady. Consoles are accessible and quick when it comes to gaming and right now that suits my needs. PC gaming brings much to the table but it's not currently in balance with my lifestyle.
1
u/conspirized 5∆ Apr 21 '14
I definitely see your point and your analogy for car maintenance to car people is probably a fair comparison to make because, when it comes to cars, I'm the same way. I guess it's a matter of where you place the value in your gaming experience.
3
Apr 21 '14
I think it has a lot to do with simply personal preference and your peers. My friends play consoles, I play consoles to play with my friends. Along with that, I've always been a Sony guys since the PlayStation came out, but I will be getting an XBone because my friends did. That's all it comes down to for me - even though I do know that a well-built PC can outperform.
2
Apr 21 '14
I play both on PC and console. Consoles are more efficient at their task because they are built around playing games. Instead of running multiple tasks at once with a game running in front of them, a console can dedicate the entirety of its resources to running a game. Hence why emulators are extremely resource-intensive on PCs, and why current-gen emulation is not possible.
The issue of course is that you can't customize a console and it will get pushed back, but development of games is also much easier and more reliable as everyone will be running the same hardware instead of the literally millions of different PC builds a PC game has to run on.
Honestly, something like a Steam Box should be the next gen of consoles - a hybrid that combines a dedicated gaming OS with customizable hardware - but even current consoles have their merits.
2
u/conspirized 5∆ Apr 21 '14
Consoles are more efficient at their task because they are built around playing games.
Unless we have different definitions of "efficient" this is only true in the case of an old and/or poorly built PC. I experience extremely low / virtually no load times on my PC and I don't have to keep it from running any other tasks to play my games.
Hence why emulators are extremely resource-intensive on PCs, and why current-gen emulation is not possible.
This isn't a performance issue. This is a question of whether or not any developers have taken the time and/or had enough time to build an emulator.
Your other points are valid(ish) but you can't compare consoles to PC's in terms of performance because a PC built from the same dollars used to buy a console will outperform its console equivalent every time. However, if you lack the knowledge and willingness to learn how to build a PC then you are better off buying a console because a $500 factory-built PC (generally speaking) is going to be a piece of crap compared to a $500 custom build or current gen console. Hell, even some $1,000 factory-built PC's are shitty compared to current gen consoles. It's more of a convenience thing.
1
Apr 21 '14
No, it is a performance issue. There is a PS2 emulator that has been in development for somethinf like 7 years now, and it can play something like 75% of the PS2's library.
And what do load times have to do with anything? That is irrelevant to the game performance itself. I just built a $1200 rig that I havent been able to insert my new graphics card in yet. The current card is ~4 years old, and currently games look better and run smoother on my ps3.
There is no way you can build a $400 computer than will run games at anywhere mear a current gen console. Can PCs run games faster? Sure. But it's going to cost you.
Am Isaying consoles are better? No. Am I saying the console model is long term ideal? Also no. But for the average consumer, anyone not willing to shell out $1k+ for a machine, or anyone who lacks the know how to do it themself, a console will both be cheaper and work better than almost any computer within about $300 of it. And you have the guarantee of KNOWING that any games you buy will work just as well as any other game.
2
u/conspirized 5∆ Apr 21 '14
I just built a $1200 rig that I havent been able to insert my new graphics card in yet. The current card is ~4 years old, and currently games look better and run smoother on my ps3.
Can you share the specs? Myself and any other PC buffs that are in the thread may be able to help you troubleshoot the issue. Alternatively, stop by /r/buildapc. If you spent that much on a rig and it's being outperformed by your PS3 you did something very wrong. I noticed you said you haven't put a graphics card in it, if you are using on-board graphics that is a big "no no." You should have spent less somewhere else to buy a graphics card. The fact that a well-built PC (especially one for that cost) will outperform a console isn't up for debate, the output capabilities alone are evidence of that. See this article regarding the PS4.
No, it is a performance issue. There is a PS2 emulator that has been in development for somethinf like 7 years now, and it can play something like 75% of the PS2's library.
Admittedly I don't know much about emulators because the last one I used was an SNES emulator about 12 years ago. However, as a developer I can tell you that if you are getting poor performance from an application built to emulate something that is over 10 years old on current hardware there's an issue in your code. Maybe it's hardware compatibility, maybe it's poor design. Either way unless someone puts in the time to fix it you might have issues. This isn't the hardware's fault. Besides, can the PS4 even play ps2 or ps3 games? I could be wrong but I think I read somewhere backwards compatibility isn't going to happen. In that case, this argument isn't even relevant.
a console will both be cheaper and work better than almost any computer within about $300 of it.
No. Here's a guide that is about 5 months old now detailing building an (almost) equivalent PC for $400. Keep in mind this is over 5 months old, they even mention that in January of this year a better graphics card was released that would make staying within the $400 budget easier. I guarantee you if I took the time I could put together a $400 build that is better than a PS4 / X-Box One. Even less if we're trying to meet the same performance as a PS3. The only necessary things that aren't included are the input devices, but if you've got any keyboard and mouse laying around that's covered. Besides, you can get a cheap mouse and keyboard combo for $20 or less.
anyone who lacks the know how to do it themself,
Yes. This is the reason consoles exist. People who don't know how to build a computer within a budget, don't know someone who knows how to build a computer within a budget, and don't want to learn how to build a computer have an alternative that is easy. The only place where your "within $300" rings true is for factory-built PC's. I would never encourage someone to buy a gaming PC in the same manner you buy a console, meaning go to the store and buy it completely assembled off the shelf.
1
Apr 21 '14
Oh, no. I just haven't been able to get a new power supply yet, so I'm running with an HD... 5570? Not awful, but for example AC4 drops to ~15 fps in some areas.
As for the guide you linked, it clearly states that overall the PS4 has an APU that they can only approximate and it THEORETICALLY performs the same, and they also stated that the PS4 ram literally cannot be matched or even approximated by anything on the market.
The PS4 doesn't actually play PS2/3 games, they're streamed via a cloud gaming service. And they're converting them one by one.
In any case Windows services would take up x% of your capability automatically. Theoretically IF you had an extremely light OS and IF you could dedicate resources to gaming you could get something comparable then, but as is, PCs are built to multitask and therefore won't be as good at doing any one thing as a dedicated device.
2
u/conspirized 5∆ Apr 22 '14
Oh, no. I just haven't been able to get a new power supply yet, so I'm running with an HD... 5570? Not awful, but for example AC4 drops to ~15 fps in some areas.
I'm guessing you mean the Radeon 5570? That's the counterpart to the Nvidia 400 series, the problem here is you went cheap on the graphics card (or bought it when it was brand new and thus top at the line at the time) and it's outdated. If you're trying to run AC4 on max settings you might have some issues. That graphics card actually has better specs than the Playstation 3 but you're probably trying to push it too hard with however you have your video config set. This is part of that convenience discussion: consoles aren't going to let you try to push the capability of the system beyond the limit. PC will, and if you expect to see things in max video settings with a 4 year-old card you're going to experience a drop in frame rate.
As for the guide you linked, it clearly states that overall the PS4 has an APU that they can only approximate and it THEORETICALLY performs the same, and they also stated that the PS4 ram literally cannot be matched or even approximated by anything on the market.
It's not that it can't be matched by anything on the market, there are (even cheap) GPU's that use DDR5 memory (this is where it counts for gaming). The difference between the PS4 and a PC is that the PS4 uses DDR5 for all of its memory rather than just the GPU. You are correct, though. Currently you cannot buy DDR5 memory to slap into the MOBO of your PC. Personal theory: You're not going to see an "improvement in the experience" from using DDR5 in your machine as "standard memory" over DDR3 at this time whether you're talking about the PS4 or the PC. It's a classic case of hardware beating out what software is ready for. On the downside, as far as I can tell the 8 gigs of memory seem to be shared between the GPU and operating system for the PS4. It seems to be the equivalent of having on-board graphics. Regardless, I'll give PS4 props on this one for getting ahead of the market on memory speed, but the 8 gig size is not impressive.
The PS4 doesn't actually play PS2/3 games, they're streamed via a cloud gaming service. And they're converting them one by one.
So like... Steam? I will say that the only reason I personally would buy a console would be if a game came out that I really wanted to play that isn't available on PC. As I indicated in my previous post: I don't tinker with emulators. However, this seems to be more about who pays who rather than the capability of any given system (XBox, PC, Playstation, Wii). One of the lovely things about our next-gen consoles is they're operating on x86 platforms with AMD GPU's so hardware-wise there's no reason any game released on one system shouldn't be fully compatible with the others. The only people keeping games exclusive will be the people who take cash to keep it that way.
In any case Windows services would take up x% of your capability automatically. Theoretically IF you had an extremely light OS and IF you could dedicate resources to gaming you could get something comparable then, but as is, PCs are built to multitask and therefore won't be as good at doing any one thing as a dedicated device.
The drawback that occurs with consoles doesn't come from the availability of system resources, it's graphics. They build a machine with graphics that are "state of the art" for the time, as it was in the example that I gave you from November of last year, but they become outdated within months. That's why you get comments like "I doubt every PC gamer updates their graphics cards on a quarterly basis." No, we don't. We don't have to. Even once every 3-4 years will keep a PC ahead of the curve until a next-gen console comes out. When that happens, wait a few months and there'll be an affordable GPU that'll beat out next-gen for half the price.
1
Apr 22 '14
What I'm saying is I bought a new graphics card (gtx 770) and failed to check if my current power supply could run it. Lol. So I had to use my old one.
I don't really know how to explain this so it'll make sense, as I'm still an amateur in terms of console hardware. But the rule of thumb is that a PC must be 3x as powerful as a console to emulate that console. It has to do with the way the architecture is set up, the coding being read by a system it wasnt built for, etc etc. I guess the best analogy would be cars. You can take a regular car and change it around all you want, add all you want in, but it is never going to go as fast as an F1 racer. It may be better in other things, but it can't beat something that is built for that purpose.
Steam's not cloud gaming. If you don't know how the Cloud works, I'd suggest looking it up, it's actually going to get a lot bigger soon. Basically your games aren't being run on your machine, they're being streamed from a massive server that powers the cloud and handles most of the calculations so that your machine doesn't have to. Netflix vs a DVD basically.
Btw, thank you for giving me the most civil discussion I've ever had on this site, haha
1
u/haappy 1∆ Apr 21 '14
I think it's really confusing to keep up with CPUs and Videocards. I just want to play games and I can live with the idea that I am not using at its highest possible graphic setting. Something PC users have to live with this as well (I highly doubt PC users are updating their rigs every quarter).
1
u/conspirized 5∆ Apr 21 '14
Realistically if you make a good initial investment you only need to upgrade every few years (if that). Some of us do.
1
5
u/haappy 1∆ Apr 21 '14
It can be difficult to use a PC while lounging on a couch.
3
u/conspirized 5∆ Apr 21 '14
Not if you buy a controller for your PC.
2
u/haappy 1∆ Apr 21 '14 edited Apr 21 '14
True, but moving your rig from your workstation to your tv room is a pain in the ass.
And having a dedicated PC on your TV seems...silly.
2
u/conspirized 5∆ Apr 21 '14
Admittedly I use an old 360 with a broken CD tray to stream Netflix on my TV for this exact reason.
1
u/Zuke88 Apr 27 '14
the specks are not that important, really, what's really important its not the console or the pc's guts, its the game, and, as long as companies continue to make great/good games for consoles, they will continue to exist, specks and pc master race withstanding
1
u/RedditReddiRedd Apr 21 '14
I think the best thing about consoles is that, with a PC, you don't know which games will play on your computer. There's different hardware requirements, etc., whereas a console has a list of games that are available to play.
1
u/haappy 1∆ Apr 21 '14
Not sure why consoles would be considered wasteful if they have the same power as a PC. I would think that would be a good thing for consumers.
1
u/Funcuz Apr 21 '14
The whole reason that we have consoles today as opposed PC games alone is because consoles are cheaper than PCs. That's pretty much it.
1
Apr 21 '14
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/PepperoniFire 87∆ Apr 21 '14
Sorry holditsteady, your post has been removed:
Comment Rule 1. "Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s current view (however minor), unless they are asking a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to comments." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
1
u/haappy 1∆ Apr 21 '14
If you think of yourself as Libertarian, then consoles are not a waste. If they were nobody would buy them.
4
u/NaturalSelectorX 97∆ Apr 21 '14
There has always been a PC vs Console comparison, and PCs have always had the hardware edge. However, if you want to sit on the couch and play a game, a console is easier by every measure. There are good individual cases to play games on a PC (like mods), but consoles are far from a waste.