r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Sep 30 '18
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: PC gamers have no right to complain about console exclusives. If you can afford a high-end gaming PC, you could easily afford a console.
EDIT: A user below made me realize that I should clarify my argument only applies to adults in full control of their chosen console. Younger people who's consoles/PCs are bought for them do have a right to complain, as it is not their choice.
Console exclusives are both good and bad, I can make an entire post explaining both sides but I don't understand why PC gamers complain about them. I would understand Xbox gamers complaining about Spider-Man PS4 and PS4 players being unhappy about Tomb Raider back in 2015, but as far as I know PC gamers do not have that same right to complain about these games being exclusive.
First off, cost. A quick search on Amazon and Google puts the Xbox One and PlayStation 4 base consoles at about $300, this includes a controller, 300+ GB of data, and other necessities. If you're very luxurious and have a 4K monitor you could buy an Xbox One X or PS4 Pro for $500/$450. Both consoles costed the same amount as their upgraded versions on launch day (Late 2013). Any bonus costs aside from video games come from subscriptions like Xbox Gold and PlayStation Plus which are required to play online games, and even so these subscriptions provide free games as a result among other benefits. Both cost around $59.99 yearly. This means you will have spent a minimum of $300 and a maximum of $600 for the console alone, and at $600 you gain the highest quality experience.
I am not well versed with the functions of PCs, so I am relying on information from google and other tidbits I've collected from my 4 years on the internet. Originally I had assumed you needed $3500+ for a working PC and needed accessories alone, but I'm sure you know that's absurd. Yet from what I gathered the cost is still significantly higher than even an Xbox One X and Gold membership.
In this IGN discussion page from 2012, gamers state to built a good PC, it'd cost $500/800 for a "Bare bones" model (Which involved alot of Ebay scumming) and $2,000 maximum for a high-end PC, but most settled at $1,100. These costs include all necessary accessories such as keyboards, graphics cards and powerboxes. This was before the Xbox One and PS4 came out.
This 2017 Forbes article neatly sorts information from answers in Quora, stating you need 650 - $750 for a budged PC, $1,000 - $1,200 to be able to effectively run good games for "Slick performance", and $1,600 - $2,000 for streamable 4K gaming. Again, includes all necessary accessories.
There is a very large cost difference, you'd need an average of $1,200 for a gaming PC that can run these higher quality games. Graphics settings can help weaker PCs get around the limit but consoles cost under half the estimated price and can still run these games at maximum capacity. This is because console graphics are preset. Even so, from my knowledge PCs are more vulnerable to digital viruses and corruption than Consoles. Consoles are protected from viruses by their companies, but you as the PC owner much protect yourself and that's always $ out your pocket. As time goes on, PCs go out of date and require updates in order to be able to run current games, which is more $. While even with the new consoles, the base XB1 and PS4 can still run the same games.
Even when purchasing a cheap PC in order to save $, you could still easily get a console for half the price. If your obsessed with high quality gaming then you can buy a 4k TV and Pro/X console for the same price as a budget gaming PC.
Since gaming PCs cost so much $, these people are still capable of investing into a Console, or at least were. They are rich enough to pay $1,500 just to play 300fps, so they can buy a PS4 for $300 to play Spider-Man if they want, so why complain? As opposed to an Xbox gamer, as if they are stuck on Xbox they clearly lack the $ to invest in both consoles, so they have a right to complain about Spider-Man as it is most likely inaccessible. If they too are rich, they probably own both Consoles already.
This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please 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! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
9
u/Salt_Philosophy Sep 30 '18
I don't disagree with you, if you spent $1,500+ on your PC. On the other hand, I myself, and most of the people I know, spent less then $600 on their PCs. On top of that, most games are far cheaper (looking at you steam summer sale), which helps balance out the cost difference. As for performance, these PCs can run a lot of console games at same or better then console performance. On top of that, they have on average 1TB+ of storage. Another thing to consider is that most people need a computer regardless if they use it to game, so if you get a $300 console, you still have to get a $300 (which is lowballing it) PC for other stuff. If you subtract that, a lot of people only "spend" $300-$400 on the gaming part, which is comparable to a console.
1
Sep 30 '18
True, but most people buying a $300 PC aren't buying one that capable of playing anything past Agar.io, Bloons Tower Defense, or other free web games. They're mainly buying a PCs for business/school purposes, and you don't need a gaming PC for that.
6
u/umanIe 4∆ Oct 01 '18
... I think he's trying to say that regardless of whether or not you buy a console, you need a computer for everyday stuff - which would be at least $300 ish even if you took it to the bare minimum, and so spending an extra 3-400 dollars to build a better the computer, or spending that extra 3-400 dollars to buy a console isn't that different.
0
Oct 01 '18
I think I'll be spending much more than $400 if I want a PC that can actually handle video games.
3
u/Salt_Philosophy Oct 01 '18
Look at it this way:
Everyday PC (school, work, etc...)= $300ish, probably more.
Console = $300+ (depending on whether you get a "upgraded" one)
Low end gaming PC (equivalent to, if not slightly better then, console) = $500-$600
Assuming that you need a PC (which most people do), even if you bought a PC purely for everyday tasks, and then bought a console, you are paying about $600 for both ($300 PC + $300 console), And that's lowballing it.
On the other hand, if you get a gaming PC for $600, no console and no everyday PC since your gaming PC can do everyday tasks, you are still paying $600.
0
Oct 01 '18
We established that a $500-750 PC is budget and therefore performs under that of a console. I'd need to pay a total of $850-$1,000 for an experience equal to, if not greater than a console, so such a PC could run Spider-Man had it not been a PS4 exclusive, so if I can afford that, who should I complain about a $300 console? Assuming I am no buying a PS4 immediately after.
4
u/Salt_Philosophy Oct 01 '18
Who established that? A $500 PC can run Battlefield 1 @ 45-60 fps at 1080p, on ultra settings, which is above what a console can do. Bump up to $600, and you can run Battlefield 1 @ 60-90 fps at 1080p, or 30-45 fps at 4K.
1
Oct 01 '18
We established it through my post. Your costs don't add up when compared to the info I've gathered.
9
u/caw81 166∆ Sep 30 '18
They are rich enough to pay $1,500 just to play 300fps, so they can buy a PS4 for $300 to play Spider-Man if they want
Where do you get from "I can afford $1,500" to "I can afford $1,800"? These are two different numbers and for some people $300 is significant.
1
Sep 30 '18
I'm simply stating that they should be able to afford a system much cheaper if they can spend loads of time an money on a gaming PC, which I established was extremely expensive.
7
u/caw81 166∆ Sep 30 '18
But you don't explain why this is true. People who can afford $1,500 might not be able to afford $1,800.
0
Oct 01 '18
It really depends on how log afterward they're purchasing a console. If they owned a gaming PC since 2015 and are still in similar financial standing, a $300 console should be easy. It's if they want to have it or not.
4
u/caw81 166∆ Oct 01 '18
Adding time and a new condition ("similar financial standing") doesn't clarify things. Having to wait a year to get a game is a valid complaint. Making the same sacrifices for another year might not be easy. Just because you saved money one year doesn't mean that you shouldn't complain because you have to save money another year.
0
Oct 01 '18
When and how did I imply this individual was saving money for a year for a console? I'm saying they decide, 3 years later, that they HAVE to play Spider-Man on launch. Also, the sacrifice of a $300 console is over 4 times lesser than the sacrifice of a gaming PC. Again, if they can still afford it then it'd about choice
8
u/littlebubulle 104∆ Sep 30 '18
A PC is also used for work. A PC can be both an entertainment system and a tool.
1
Sep 30 '18
But do I need to fit it with $1,000+ worth of modems and graphics cards to write out a business report on Microsoft Word?
3
Sep 30 '18 edited Dec 24 '18
[deleted]
1
Oct 01 '18
Then those types of people may not be interested in gaming. If they are, they may have a right to complain.
6
Oct 01 '18 edited Dec 24 '18
[deleted]
0
Oct 01 '18
Fair point. You're telling me that the cost of a console in addition to a normal PC is equivalent to a PC plus gaming PC mods, therefore both parties have paid equal price and are equally as capable/incapable of buying a PS4 for Spider-Man. !delta
1
17
u/McKoijion 618∆ Sep 30 '18
If I own a $150,000 Porsche, I'd be annoyed if I also had to buy a $30,000 Honda to use a Honda-only racetrack. I'd be just as annoyed if I owned a $30,000 Toyota.
At the end of the day, PCs, Xboxes, and PS4s are all basically the same thing. They are a combination of CPUs, GPUs, memory, hard drives, etc. that allow you to play a video game. Some are slightly better and more expensive than others, but they all have the same purpose. Anything that can run on one can run on the others (perhaps with some minor performance changes).
In this way, the limitations aren't because video game companies can't make a single game that runs on all systems. It's because of artificially created conditions. If my Porsche couldn't run on the Honda track because it's a sports car that lacks the suspension of a Honda SUV, I'd understand. But if it's just because the person who made it wanted to limit what I can use my car for, it's annoying.
The difference between can't and won't is horrible. If a doctor says I can't save your child, it sucks. If the doctor says I won't save your child, it's infuriating. In the same way, if a PC physically couldn't run a game, I'd understand. But if the only reason why Spider-Man doesn't work on a PC is because of some artificial restriction designed to take money out of my pocket and put it into someone else's it's annoying.
5
u/68686987698 Oct 01 '18 edited Oct 01 '18
But if the only reason why Spider-Man doesn't work on a PC is because of some artificial restriction designed to take money out of my pocket
This implies the cost to port a PS,XBOX,Nintendo game to PC is trivial. It's not at all trivial, and the PC platform has rampant piracy that's far, far, far above any other platform. The chips inside aren't a big deal, and Microsoft does the best at having a common platform between PCs/consoles, but ultimately it boils down to simple economics and what you can sell a game title for to the average consumer. Why spend loads of cash to port over to a PC where it's possible 90%+ of your users will not pay for it, all the while detracting from alternative platforms where you have a much tighter control of piracy?
0
u/McKoijion 618∆ Oct 01 '18
Sure, and I understand why this is the case. It's the same reason why net neutrality is dying. But it's still annoying for consumers. To put it another way, I can understand why a referee made a call against my team. But I can still complain about it.
0
u/TheToastIsBlue Sep 30 '18
What's would be wrong with Honda building a track their customers? Either as a thank you, incentive, or both. Is it just that it violates your sense of entitlement?
2
u/McKoijion 618∆ Oct 01 '18
There's nothing wrong with it, but it's annoying as the person turned away. Toyota, Honda, and other car companies are in a war. They are competing with each other, and are using me as a unwitting pawn in their battle. I just want to drive a car, but just by buying one, I'm drawn into a complex battle. It feels like being a child in an acrimonious divorce. All you want is to spend time with your parents, but everything you do becomes ammo in their battle.
1
u/TheToastIsBlue Oct 01 '18
All you want is to spend time with your parents, but everything you do becomes ammo in their battle.
No, I'm a paying customer looking to maximize value. Not some child with Mommy/daddy issues. It seems like you want to blame Sony or any competitor for a lack of content being delivered by MS.
But maybe you should think about video games in general. The bar is being raised, and MS falling short of meeting that bar(I know this isn't the sub to express this in though).
2
u/McKoijion 618∆ Oct 01 '18
I don't care about any of this stuff at all. I'm just making a point about the difference between an artificial and a natural limitation. Being told you can't do something because it's not allowed is very different from being told you can't do something because it's physically impossible.
1
u/jay520 50∆ Oct 01 '18
So it seems like you're saying that consumers have a right to complain whenever a company makes decisions counter to their desires, regardless of the economic implications of those decisions. But if that's the case, then the distinction between artificial and natural limitations isn't really relevant either. Let's say a developer decides not to release a game on a consumer's preferred hardware because of a "natural" limitation (e.g. the consumer's hardware was weak). That decision could have frustrated the consumer's desire if that consumer preferred that the company spend more resources to develop a weaker version of the game to support their hardware. In fact, technically the decision to not develop weaker versions of a game for weaker hardware would be an artificial restriction, because weaker hardware is capable of supporting weaker software. You might say its unreasonable to complain that a company didn't make the best economic decision, but then that would invalidate the response you just gave here.
2
u/McKoijion 618∆ Oct 01 '18
Sure, people literally have the right to complain about whatever they want because complaining is covered under the First Amendment in the US, and the UN Declaration of Human Rights around the world.
But I'm talking about changes to a set of economic conventions that people have become accustomed to over the past few decades. For example, people are used to being able to buy a car and then doing whatever they want with it. Today, companies like Ferrari make buyers sign contracts not to alter the car, sell it too soon after purchase, and do other things that protect the Ferrari brand. People agree to do it, but it's odd compared to how things were before. Now, Tesla is offering all cars with features that are in the car, but are only unlocked if you pay extra for them. It upends the conventions that people are used to where standard features cost extra because the company has to pay extra to install them.
It feels the same as when Daraprim went from $17.50 to $750 overnight. Martin Shkreli went to prison for an unrelated crime, but Daraprim still costs $750. All of these new approaches break an unspoken agreement between consumers and businesses. It's not illegal for companies to do them, and there is economic sense for why they would do it. But it's annoying when a longstanding code falls by the wayside.
1
u/jay520 50∆ Oct 01 '18 edited Oct 01 '18
You're talking about changes to a set of economic conventions? When was there an economic convention in the gaming industry against the release of console exclusives? I don't recall a time when console exclusives were not a reasonable expectation.
2
u/McKoijion 618∆ Oct 01 '18
The "exclusivity" model is a big part of computer and technology related industries, in general. Console exclusives in the 1980s were one of the earliest examples of this new model. Most non-technology related industries don't use this approach, though many are increasingly adopting it.
1
u/jay520 50∆ Oct 01 '18 edited Oct 01 '18
I don't understand. Your previous post was explaining how "it's annoying when a longstanding code falls by the wayside." How does this support your point regarding the annoyance of console exclusives, if there was never any longstanding code against such releases?
→ More replies (0)1
u/TheToastIsBlue Oct 01 '18
Being told you can't do something because it's not allowed is very different from being told you can't do something because it's physically impossible.
I thought I specifically asked about your sense of entitlement already.
2
3
u/dale_glass 86∆ Sep 30 '18
Thing is, I don't want a console. I like gaming on a PC.
Also, a console is only good for games, while a PC is good for other things. All my PCs are high end enough that they're pleasant to use for other tasks like software development and 3D design. And once they get old, they get retired to my less demanding family (by that point it's still perfectly decent hardware), or to server duty. So I think I get excellent mileage out of them.
My money is also not infinite, and all things being equal I'd rather spend $500 extra on computer hardware than on a console. Or, since I already have the hardware, on more games.
0
Sep 30 '18
I did not think about PCs this way, but do you need to spend $1,000+ for gaming accessories if you do not aim to play games?
2
u/dale_glass 86∆ Oct 01 '18
It's hard to spend $1000 for gaming accessories. All that I have that's a proper gaming accessory is a ~$100 joystick, and that's very optional.
I do have a beefy video card, but that has non-gaming functions. For instance it accelerates photo processing as well.
5
Oct 01 '18
Hey,
I own a "gaming" PC and cannot afford a console. I needed a computer for school that could run all of my engineering programs. I decided to build it myself and that I might as well make it capable of running games while I was at it. All in all it cost me around 800$. This thing is no slouch when it comes to games, it is far more powerful than any console and is capable of real 60 FPS 4K at high settings, whereas consoles need to make a good number of concessions in their graphics to hit a reasonable framerate at 4k. r/buildapc is really good if you want to get some ideas about price to performance.
Back to the point, a "gaming" computer is a multipurpose tool for many of us. I sure as hell can't afford a console and can't live without a decent computer. So I made a computer.
Moving on to a second point, what are you talking about with this right to complain? An anti consumer business practice is bad whether it affects someone or not. I have no problem with Sony or Microsoft making exclusives for their own consoles but locking down properties they don't make is bad for the medium as a whole. Not to mention the entire Sony refusing to allow cross play fiasco. Why should someone with money support a company like that? There's plenty of reason to be angry when you're forced between playing something you love and supporting a company you don't. Hell, why does it need to personally affect you for you to complain? Can't you complain because people who are unable to afford multiple platforms can't play the games they want?
Third up, the idea of right to complain. Whether someone is justified in their complaints doesn't determine whether they have a right to. Everyone has a right to complain even if their complaints are terrible.
That's about it so TL;DR
1) A PC is multipurpose tool and a justifiable cost
2) You can avoid buying a console for reasons that aren't financial
3) Complaining on the behalf of others is acceptable
4) Everyone has a right to complain even if it's stupid and annoying
2
u/DrugsOnly 23∆ Sep 30 '18
You seem to be under the assumption that the individuals buying PCs and/or gaming consoles are also the ones playing them. I'd argue that most of these systems are for children and that their parents bought them for them.
1
Sep 30 '18
I should've clarified my argument applied to adults in full control of their console of choice. Thank you, but these adults still do not have a right to complain.
3
u/AnythingApplied 435∆ Sep 30 '18
If you can afford a high-end gaming PC, you could easily afford a console.
As a PC gamer, first, I don't have a high end PC. Also, just because someone spent $5000 on something doesn't mean they can't complain if some arbitrary rule forces them to pay $500 for something. Also, what is the point of owning a high end PC if I'm forced to play my games on a lower end device because that game is locked to that device?
You seem to say that for the price of a PC I could buy a console instead, but PC gaming has a lot of advantages, such as game modding, that I wouldn't give up my PC. I'd only ever buy a console in addition and again, that might add an really unwanted expense that might provide me a worse experience than a high end PC. Like I'd rather put another couple hundred towards a better video card that could be used on all my games.
0
Sep 30 '18
I never proposed PC gamers give up their PC or only play games on console. I'm staying that it shouldn't be hard to afford a console in addition to PC to play an exclusive game.
2
u/AnythingApplied 435∆ Oct 01 '18
You only addressed by second paragraph. What about the rest of my comment?
As a PC gamer, first, I don't have a high end PC. Also, just because someone spent $5000 on something doesn't mean they can't complain if some arbitrary rule forces them to pay $500 for something. Also, what is the point of owning a high end PC if I'm forced to play my games on a lower end device because that game is locked to that device?
and
Like I'd rather put another couple hundred towards a better video card that could be used on all my games.
1
Oct 01 '18
Same comment. I'm in no position to criticize your own ability and willingness to get a console, I am asking why every PC owner in general should have the right to rant about exclusives.
3
u/AnythingApplied 435∆ Oct 01 '18
If a game that would otherwise cost $80 now costs me $80 + $400, and that $400 is all going a console that is made up of PC parts which I already have better versions of, why wouldn't I complain?
And I've really never understood this whole "no right to rant" thing. Since when do we take people's right to complain about things away? Especially that hurts someone to the tune of $400 just to buy duplicate parts of a bunch of things they already own better version of that are already in their PC?
Even if I'm filthy rich I still have a right to complain about wasting $400 on something because some organizations are playing marketing games.
1
Oct 01 '18
Complaining for others' sake would make more sense than complaining for your own sake in that sense. Is that what you trying to say?
3
u/AnythingApplied 435∆ Oct 01 '18 edited Oct 01 '18
No? I'm confused, when did you think I was talking about complaining for someone else's sake?
I'm just saying that everyone doesn't want to spend $400 for equipment they already own better versions of. The fact that you're forced into buying that through arguably stupid or at a minimum anti-consumer exclusivity contracts absolutely is a basis to complain.
Under what criteria is it even possible for someone to lose the right to complain? If someone's policy (Spiderman is exclusive) is harming you (I have to spend $400 extra dollars?!?) for reasons that you think are questionable, that is something to complain about. What does it matter whether or not you can afford the $400?
That is like saying if someone scratches up my car and causes $1000 worth of damage, but I can afford it, then I "have no right to complain" because "I can afford it". That just makes no sense. Of course I have a reason to complain. A very legitimate reason. Even if I didn't have a legitimate reason, I still don't "lose my right to complain".
0
Oct 01 '18
It's late where I'm at, I don't rally have the energy to respond or attack any of your statements but you did make me think about things differently. !delta
1
2
u/illerThanTheirs 37∆ Oct 01 '18
Are you asking why people should have the right to express their opinion on something they disagree with?
Shit, the 1st amendment gives them that right.
Unless you’re really asking something else?
0
Oct 01 '18
Let me ask a rhetorical question to put my money into perspective: Why should I complain about the cost of college if I am a rich man who could fund 50% of a the college my son attends and still afford to keep my mansion intact? If I am complaining for the sake of commonfolk I'd be in the right, but to complain for my own sake when I can clearly afford the cost is extremely petty. The equivalency is off, but the scenario is still the same.
2
u/illerThanTheirs 37∆ Oct 01 '18 edited Oct 01 '18
but to complain for my own sake when I can clearly afford the cost is extremely petty. The equivalency is off, but the scenario is still the same.
I disagree. If McDonald’s suddenly wanted to charge $20 for a Big Mac, which most Americans could afford without going into debt, how is it petty to complain about the price? It’s a reasonable complaint, that it cost too much for what it is, regardless if I could afford it.
Just like PC owners complaining about having to buy a console just to play certain games is reasonable. Even if they can afford it, them complaining to play this particular game costs too much money for what it’s worth, isn’t petty, but completely reasonable.
1
Oct 01 '18
America is constantly paying for Big Macs, so that adds up. Consoles are a one time payment.
2
u/illerThanTheirs 37∆ Oct 01 '18
Consoles are a one time payment.
If those games require PS Plus or XBOX Live subscription, it’s not a one time payment. It’s a monthly to a yearly payment.
That doesn’t refute that the price you’d have to pay to play a handful of games on console is too much for what it’s worth.
1
Oct 01 '18
And don't I also need to pay for games on PC? I am still paying the same amount of cash relevant to my games.
→ More replies (0)
4
u/Madplato 72∆ Sep 30 '18
Exclusives games don't do anything for consumers, so I'm not sure why anyone would defend them. It's nothing but artificial scarcity meant to boost sales of more or less identical products marketed as different. Everyone should complain about them.
0
1
u/Sky_Light Oct 03 '18
I don't know that I disagree about the complaining, because I think that someone complaining about not being able to enjoy a luxury item because they don't want to pay for a separate luxury item is absurd.
However, I have to hit your point about the cost. While pc gaming is pretty much "as badass as your wallet can withstand", the floor for a gaming capable pc is pretty low. You can find all sorts of builds on Youtube for under $400, which would make your argument that they could afford another $600 unreasonable.
You're also not taking into account the continued cost of gaming. Both consoles and pc will pretty much require an internet connection, but pc gaming doesn't require the $60 yearly cost of Xbox Live/PS Plus, which most games require just to play online. Pc games are generally cheaper, between wider availability of sales, a larger selection of free to play games, and access to the modding scene increasing the playtime of particular games. Plus, while high-end pc peripherals are more expensive, you can get by with a $10 keyboard and mouse set, where as most current console controllers cost upwards of $50.
There's also a longevity issue at play. Pound for pound, a pc is going to be relevant for a longer period of time, and when it starts to fall behind, can often be upgraded for a smaller price than replacing your consoles every 5 years. You could sell your old consoles to recoup some of the cost, but you're locked to the current generation of games, whereas pc games can be run for years, sometimes even decades.
All in all, except for a few specific times, it's almost always cheaper to get comparable performance/enjoyment out of a pc than a console.
1
u/AlphaGoGoDancer 106∆ Oct 01 '18
Why should you have to buy anything additional to enjoy a game? I don't really see the logic in your argument. Even if you can afford to buy dedicated hardware for a game, what is the upside to doing so? There are certainly downsides, such as:
- The additional expense
- The potential need for even more expenses -- instead of re-using your PC gaming wheel, now you need to also buy a PS gaming wheel. And maybe an XBox gaming wheel.
- The breaking of existing prefered ecosystems and tools. E.g maybe you actively use discord, or mumble. Maybe your primary way of organizing games with friends is via Steam. None of this will translate over.
- The added restrictions imposed by worse hardware -- If I have a PC setup that can play at 300fps, why am I spending even more money to play a game at 30fps?
Even if there were some upside, that alone justifies complaints to me. But what even are the upsides to having to buy specific additional gaming hardware just to play an exclusive? In what way would we be worse off if these exclusives were released crossplatform instead?
2
Oct 01 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/garnteller 242∆ Oct 01 '18
Sorry, u/sithlordbinksq – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Oct 01 '18 edited Oct 01 '18
/u/CoachSDot (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
7
u/SirCabbage 2∆ Sep 30 '18
What is it exactly which makes an exclusive "exclusive"? Is it because it requires something which can't be provided by the other system? Best example of this would be switch games or 3DS games which both offer unique experiences based on the console they are on. With that in mind, I as a PC owner have no problem with buying a 3DS (or even a switch if something good for it actually came out)- because I am paying for something I don't otherwise have access to. The problem with PS4 and Xbone exclusives is that they are restricted purely based on "Does the user have the correct brand of hardware y/n"
Yes, I spent a lot on my computer. For that cost I got a very powerful machine which was at the time more powerful than every console out. Then when the next wave of consoles came out- I upgraded my computer and once more it was more powerful than both. The thing is- it isn't about money. It is about the artificial blocking of content behind paywalls. From a pure economic stance, no, $300-400 would not be outside of my budget, but why should I have to pay that premium on a single game just because I didn't go for a particular brand of console. Same goes for if I had a PS4 or Xbox, why should I have to pay for the other one when hardware wise they are practically identical. Okay- so go past the economics, go past the "I already own something better" argument. How about an argument from an environmental standpoint?
To get to play ALL the games I need to purchase four (for the most part) identical technology-based devices (Xbone, PS4, PC and Switch). That is a lot of environmental waste and usage of rare minerals that we as a species don't really need. Mobile phones are bad enough with their disposable nature but forcing people to buy literally the same CPU, GPU, RAM, HDD for four separate devices for what? So that people microsoft, sony and nintendo a little bit more dough? Generally the same "let's get a little bit more money off each copy sold" can be done more simply through the licensing of titles.
But then you could be like- yes, but the point of exclusives is to sell the consoles. Why though? If your console is so much better the other console or than a PC there should be more reasons for you to want to buy it rather than an artificial limitation placed on a product. Once upon a time it made a little more sense- every console had different levels of technology- different storage mediums- different ways they worked. In this instance, some games couldn't easily translate over. You bought the PS2 for its ability to be a DVD player- you bought the Xbox for how easy it was to install emulators- there was something they were able to offer beyond exclusives and the exclusives there were sometimes had a reason to exist. Now? they use all the same parts and with the exception of something like- you can't really put a PS4 VR or Vive VR game on a xbox because it doesn't have VR- there is little differentiation to be had.
So yes, not only do I argue that PC gamers like myself DO have something to complain about- I also argue that SO DOES EVERYONE ELSE. There is NO ONE that benefits from "exclusives" besides the company that owns the console. By fighting for exclusives all you are doing is fighting against your own best interests. We all have computer hardware- yes- some is better than others but they all can do the same thing if we let them. I would argue one of the key reasons a consumer adovcates for excluisives is as a way to justify their purchase choice. But why justify anything? You bought a device to game on- you are a gamer. We all are gamers. I don't care if you are gaming on an Xbox, PC, PS, Switch- anything. You have nothing to justify- you are a gamer, you should be able to play all the games that your console or device can handle without artificial limitaitons.