Why Console gaming is dying and why PC or Steam gaming is the future

[Reose 4]

2 hours ago, Celestial Panzerhund said:

I feel like Reose is between Troll and PC fanboys just by the way he's writing...

Just felt like posting here to show some gif and to see whos on what side.

All i can say is Pinkie Pie is the most cutest troll i've ever seen.

Edit: Aside from that i am not anti console. But i am if its 1: You dont know friends or family to share it or be around with.

PCs tends to be everywhere. Thats just me though, i think its very fun only if you know people around who wants to play with you. If not then consoles to me is depressing.

Edited July 8, 2017 by Reose

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 41,294]

The moment you used the term 'console peasants' is the moment your own argument destroyed itself. From that point on I knew your post wasn't coming from a standpoint of positive discussion or observation, but from a point of elitism.

I prefer console gaming, always will. If you don't, I don't care. It is as simple as that.

[Scrubbed user 3,416]

I remember a time when consoles were actually plug-and-play. You actually take the game, put it in, turn the system on, and you were playing. These days, consoles are gimped, closed down, and child-proof PCs that have weak hardware, restricted hardware support, paywalls for online services, (I already pay for internet, why would I have to pay to use something I can get for free?) and lack games (there are entire genres that just won't work on consoles).

Not to mention people are just huge fans of companies that don't care about their customers. Remember the Xbox One's E3 conference? Microsoft was not going to allow used games, (which hurts the industry as a whole) and require a stupid camera that no one asked for. Sony meanwhile actually raised the price of PS+ from $50 to $60. And Sony wouldn't allow for EA Access to be used since they said "it wasn't a good value for Playstation users". Now Nintendo is going to charger for online services too. Granted, their service will be less than half the price of the others, but it's still $20 too expensive. And they're also going to force a smartphone app on users just to use voice chat. What's the fucking point of that Nintendo? People who defend this type of behavior are referred to as "peasants", what I think the term should be, "corporate slave".

While there is BS on PC as well, it usually is simple to deal with. For instance, if a game is released and it runs like crap on a system like mine, I just won't buy it. If a new piece of hardware is released, and the company went Full-Retard *cough* Intel *cough*, I could buy from a different company. (sadly, there is only one other option) If there is a problem with a game, I can usually find a fix for it.

Let me know where there is full hardware freedom on consoles. Like if I can use my direct drive wheel, replica formula rim, shifter, handbrake, high-end pedals, button boxes, and have my mouse, keyboard, Sennheiser headphones, and a Modmic still connected and used.

[Celli 4,337]

14 minutes ago, Vulon Bii said:

I remember a time when consoles were actually plug-and-play. You actually take the game, put it in, turn the system on, and you were playing. These days, consoles are gimped, closed down, and child-proof PCs that have weak hardware, restricted hardware support, paywalls for online services, (I already pay for internet, why would I have to pay to use something I can get for free?) and lack games (there are entire genres that just won't work on consoles).

Not to mention people are just huge fans of companies that don't care about their customers. Remember the Xbox One's E3 conference? Microsoft was not going to allow used games, (which hurts the industry as a whole) and require a stupid camera that no one asked for. Sony meanwhile actually raised the price of PS+ from $50 to $60. And Sony wouldn't allow for EA Access to be used since they said "it wasn't a good value for Playstation users". Now Nintendo is going to charger for online services too. Granted, their service will be less than half the price of the others, but it's still $20 too expensive. And they're also going to force a smartphone app on users just to use voice chat. What's the fucking point of that Nintendo? People who defend this type of behavior are referred to as "peasants", what I think the term should be, "corporate slave".

While there is BS on PC as well, it usually is simple to deal with. For instance, if a game is released and it runs like crap on a system like mine, I just won't buy it. If a new piece of hardware is released, and the company went Full-Retard *cough* Intel *cough*, I could buy from a different company. (sadly, there is only one other option) If there is a problem with a game, I can usually find a fix for it.

Let me know where there is full hardware freedom on consoles. Like if I can use my direct drive wheel, replica formula rim, shifter, handbrake, high-end pedals, button boxes, and have my mouse, keyboard, Sennheiser headphones, and a Modmic still connected and used.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[ZethaPonderer 2,199]

I used to think consoles were pretty cool to have. You just buy the game, the console and just play it after setting it all up right at the get go. Alas, those were the 80s and late 2000s.

Nowadays, Downloadable Content and Microtransactions have plagued the Video Game Industry making Consoles relatively obsolete IMO due to companies abusing/misusing the everlasting crap out of them. I hate Downloadable Content and Microtransactions because now companies can get away making cheap and lazy attempts to be relevant in the market which would be much difficult in the late 80s after the Video Game Crash of 1983. No effort, no energy, NO PASSION thanks to the abuse/misuse of these two things. Don't even get me started on Mobile Phone Gaming when Microtransactions is placed in the game making it nearly impossible to play it completely.

I'll just stick to my PC as I always did even though I didn't really have a choice back then.

[Envy 6,129]

8 minutes ago, ZethaPonderer said:

I used to think consoles were pretty cool to have. You just buy the game, the console and just play it after setting it all up right at the get go. Alas, those were the 80s and late 2000s.

Nowadays, Downloadable Content and Microtransactions have plagued the Video Game Industry making Consoles relatively obsolete IMO due to companies abusing/misusing the everlasting crap out of them. I hate Downloadable Content and Microtransactions because now companies can get away making cheap and lazy attempts to be relevant in the market which would be much difficult in the late 80s after the Video Game Crash of 1983. No effort, no energy, NO PASSION thanks to the abuse/misuse of these two things. Don't even get me started on Mobile Phone Gaming when Microtransactions is placed in the game making it nearly impossible to play it completely.

I'll just stick to my PC as I always did even though I didn't really have a choice back then.

What on earth does this have to do with consoles? Pretty sure this all started on PCs and has been abused horribly on PC. I would know, I've been a The Sims player since The Sims 1. "DLC" was a part of The Sims long before I ever heard of the concept on a console, and The Sims 3 was the worst I've seen of it until the F2P mobile format started. Still, this has nothing to do with consoles, as gaming companies have all around become bad about this, on PC, on consoles, on mobile.

 

39 minutes ago, Vulon Bii said:

I remember a time when consoles were actually plug-and-play. You actually take the game, put it in, turn the system on, and you were playing. These days, consoles are gimped, closed down, and child-proof PCs that have weak hardware, restricted hardware support, paywalls for online services, (I already pay for internet, why would I have to pay to use something I can get for free?) and lack games (there are entire genres that just won't work on consoles).

Not to mention people are just huge fans of companies that don't care about their customers. Remember the Xbox One's E3 conference? Microsoft was not going to allow used games, (which hurts the industry as a whole) and require a stupid camera that no one asked for. Sony meanwhile actually raised the price of PS+ from $50 to $60. And Sony wouldn't allow for EA Access to be used since they said "it wasn't a good value for Playstation users". Now Nintendo is going to charger for online services too. Granted, their service will be less than half the price of the others, but it's still $20 too expensive. And they're also going to force a smartphone app on users just to use voice chat. What's the fucking point of that Nintendo? People who defend this type of behavior are referred to as "peasants", what I think the term should be, "corporate slave".

While there is BS on PC as well, it usually is simple to deal with. For instance, if a game is released and it runs like crap on a system like mine, I just won't buy it. If a new piece of hardware is released, and the company went Full-Retard *cough* Intel *cough*, I could buy from a different company. (sadly, there is only one other option) If there is a problem with a game, I can usually find a fix for it.

Console gaming is still so much simpler. You buy a console, you know exactly what games are going to work for it. You don't have to worry about your system being too weak.

Paid online systems are crappy. I was saddened to see Nintendo fall to them. Especially when their online services have always been so poor. The Switch is just such a disappointing system. I can't understand why it's so selling so well apparently.

So... If there's a game you want to play really bad on the PC but you know your system won't be able to handle it, you just don't play it... When I buy a system, I want to be able to play the games made for that system. That's the 'luxury' I've been afforded as a console player for like two decades of my life. If a PC game doesn't run properly for me I start flipping out and wanting parts that will make it run properly. This is why I can't be a PC gamer. It's just too expensive to do that.

[Celli 4,337]

3 minutes ago, Envy said:

I can't understand why it's so selling so well apparently.

Parly because of Zelda, and partly because of it's main focus. And a couple of the ports and games like ARMS.

[Envy 6,129]

2 minutes ago, Celli said:

Parly because of Zelda, and partly because of it's main focus. And a couple of the ports and games like ARMS.

Zelda's really good... But I have it on the Wii U.

[Celli 4,337]

Just now, Envy said:

Zelda's really good... But I have it on the Wii U.

Well, the Switch version has sold nearly as many copies as Switches have been sold. And it's the superior version. 

[ZethaPonderer 2,199]

19 minutes ago, Envy said:

What on earth does this have to do with consoles? Pretty sure this all started on PCs and has been abused horribly on PC. I would know, I've been a The Sims player since The Sims 1. "DLC" was a part of The Sims long before I ever heard of the concept on a console, and The Sims 3 was the worst I've seen of it until the F2P mobile format started. Still, this has nothing to do with consoles, as gaming companies have all around become bad about this, on PC, on consoles, on mobile.

 

Console gaming is still so much simpler. You buy a console, you know exactly what games are going to work for it. You don't have to worry about your system being too weak.

Paid online systems are crappy. I was saddened to see Nintendo fall to them. Especially when their online services have always been so poor. The Switch is just such a disappointing system. I can't understand why it's so selling so well apparently.

So... If there's a game you want to play really bad on the PC but you know your system won't be able to handle it, you just don't play it... When I buy a system, I want to be able to play the games made for that system. That's the 'luxury' I've been afforded as a console player for like two decades of my life. If a PC game doesn't run properly for me I start flipping out and wanting parts that will make it run properly. This is why I can't be a PC gamer. It's just too expensive to do that.

Well I'm just talking about how Consoles are being affected negatively on the video game market nowadays thanks to Downloadable Content and Microtransactions. If you want to see where I'm getting my information from it's from this video.

 

Granted you have a point there that I shouldn't point out consoles since this is also a PC and Mobile Gaming Issue as well Envy, but with what I expect out of a Console Game is that I do NOT have to pay real money for locked content within the Game when getting the Game, the Console, and the Controllers is satisfactory. Is that not enough money being thrown at the developers and manufacturers? That's just mind-boggling to me.

 

I thought this was a PC and Mobile Game issue, but with Consoles it drastically decreases the appeal to play any game right at the get go and makes it become a poor-man's PC. I remember the days when Consoles had an appeal to uphold to compete with PC. Believe me, I'm not trying to say that consoles are getting awful, but try watching the video and try to enlighten me further if there are consoles that are worth the money and investment. I see Portable Games like 3DS and PSP having potential.

Edited July 9, 2017 by ZethaPonderer

[Scrubbed user 3,416]

14 minutes ago, Envy said:

Console gaming is still so much simpler. You buy a console, you know exactly what games are going to work for it. You don't have to worry about your system being too weak.

Paid online systems are crappy. I was saddened to see Nintendo fall to them. Especially when their online services have always been so poor. The Switch is just such a disappointing system. I can't understand why it's so selling so well apparently.

So... If there's a game you want to play really bad on the PC but you know your system won't be able to handle it, you just don't play it... When I buy a system, I want to be able to play the games made for that system. That's the 'luxury' I've been afforded as a console player for like two decades of my life. If a PC game doesn't run properly for me I start flipping out and wanting parts that will make it run properly. This is why I can't be a PC gamer. It's just too expensive to do that.

Consoles are not simple anymore. I had a PS4. I turn it on, I'm greeted by a dashboard that has a whole bunch of crap on it. I can't just put it in and play it. I have to install it, and then wait for the obligatory patches. But that happens slowly since no matter how fast your internet speed is, the PS4 will bottleneck it. And far as how weak consoles are, you can't even achieve 1080p 60 FPS. On a PC, the desktop can look as clean or cluttered a you want. You don't get that choice on consoles.

Also, having to pay for wallpapers is stupid.

Pretty much any game that has come out that would probably run like shit on a system like mine is fault of the developers since my PC is fairly high-end. (1600X + GTX 1080) Most new components you can get these days are competent enough to run anything at what I would consider to be acceptable.

"When I buy a system, I want to be able to play the games made for that system." As if games are released that are multi-platform aren't "made" for that platform.

"If a PC game doesn't run properly for me I start flipping out and wanting parts that will make it run properly." 9/10 times that would be a software problem, like i.e. the developers are lazy-asses who didn't bother to optimize the game.

PC's are also as cheap or expensive as you want one to be. It mostly depends on the use case. For me at least, I like my 1440p ultrawide, so the PC required is nothing to sneeze at.

But...

If you just wanted 1080p 60 FPS, it won't be an exorbitant cost. [url=https://pcpartpicker.com/list/vRvZyf]$700 PC for example.[/url]

[DixonTheAdversary 1,632]

I play both PC and Console so, I really am not going to stick around on this topic very long. I play what I want on whatever system I want and I really do not care what other people play on. I just like to play the games. The installing of games on consoles does not bother me much, because you also have to install games on PC.  Especially PC games that are on a disc. I see DLC and micro-transactions as just extra stuff that is OPTIONAL.

[Scrubbed user 3,416]

9 minutes ago, cpl_dixon said:

The installing of games on consoles does not bother me much, because you also have to install games on PC.

That would be a given if it was bought digitally. But if it's bought on a disc, why would I have to install the entire game on the hard drive? For example, GTA V took 4 and half hours to install on my PS4, game and patches.

Edited July 9, 2017 by Vulon Bii

[Envy 6,129]

2 hours ago, Celli said:

Well, the Switch version has sold nearly as many copies as Switches have been sold. And it's the superior version. 

That's...not what I have heard. I've heard they both run about the same.

2 hours ago, ZethaPonderer said:

Well I'm just talking about how Consoles are being affected negatively on the video game market nowadays thanks to Downloadable Content and Microtransactions. If you want to see where I'm getting my information from it's from this video.

 

Granted you have a point there that I shouldn't point out consoles since this is also a PC and Mobile Gaming Issue as well Envy, but with what I expect out of a Console Game is that I do NOT have to pay real money for locked content within the Game when getting the Game, the Console, and the Controllers is satisfactory. Is that not enough money being thrown at the developers and manufacturers? That's just mind-boggling to me.

 

I thought this was a PC and Mobile Game issue, but with Consoles it drastically decreases the appeal to play any game right at the get go and makes it become a poor-man's PC. I remember the days when Consoles had an appeal to uphold to compete with PC. Believe me, I'm not trying to say that consoles are getting awful, but try watching the video and try to enlighten me further if there are consoles that are worth the money and investment. I see Portable Games like 3DS and PSP having potential.

I just have trouble seeing how one can blame it on consoles when it was the PC's issue long before it was the console's issue. I don't see how it devalues a console anymore than it does a PC. A heck of a lot of money also has to be spent on a PC that actually properly run games. That's just the way things are.

2 hours ago, Vulon Bii said:

Consoles are not simple anymore. I had a PS4. I turn it on, I'm greeted by a dashboard that has a whole bunch of crap on it. I can't just put it in and play it. I have to install it, and then wait for the obligatory patches. But that happens slowly since no matter how fast your internet speed is, the PS4 will bottleneck it. And far as how weak consoles are, you can't even achieve 1080p 60 FPS. On a PC, the desktop can look as clean or cluttered a you want. You don't get that choice on consoles.

Also, having to pay for wallpapers is stupid.

Pretty much any game that has come out that would probably run like shit on a system like mine is fault of the developers since my PC is fairly high-end. (1600X + GTX 1080) Most new components you can get these days are competent enough to run anything at what I would consider to be acceptable.

"When I buy a system, I want to be able to play the games made for that system." As if games are released that are multi-platform aren't "made" for that platform.

"If a PC game doesn't run properly for me I start flipping out and wanting parts that will make it run properly." 9/10 times that would be a software problem, like i.e. the developers are lazy-asses who didn't bother to optimize the game.

PC's are also as cheap or expensive as you want one to be. It mostly depends on the use case. For me at least, I like my 1440p ultrawide, so the PC required is nothing to sneeze at.

But...

If you just wanted 1080p 60 FPS, it won't be an exorbitant cost. [url=https://pcpartpicker.com/list/vRvZyf]$700 PC for example.[/url]

I think we're thinking of two entirely different concepts of simplicity. My idea of simplicity is that when I buy a console there are specifically labeled games developed to run on specifically with that system's specs in mind. You don't have to worry about specs, you don't have to worry about building anything. The system is already there and will be compatible with every game released for it.

All of the interfaces and extra features of the system are just icing on the top of the cake. A video game console is primarily about video games for me, so the quality of the other features isn't even that big of a deal to me. They can charge for wallpapers all they want. All I want is my PS4 screen to be pink, and I've got that for free. I don't need anything more. For pretty much everything non-gaming I go to my PC. That's what the PC is for, for me.

Those poorly optimized games become a pretty huge deal when they are the games that you are interested in more than the rest. I have pretty much no interest in the majority of what's released on PC. Even with parts on sale for a custom built PC, I still paid a little over $1000 to get a PC that could properly run The Sims 3 and all of its Expansion Packs. And as I've said before in this topic, I apparently didn't do enough research even though I did a lot, because the video card I chose can not be read by the game. There is nothing simple about PC gaming. The only 'research' I have to do in regards to consoles is to see if they have/are going to have games that I want to play. Nothing more. It's incredible.

And honestly, I couldn't even possibly care less about 1080p 60 FPS. I do like the graphics (textures, etc.) to be at max settings, but don't really care about FPS. I do want minimal lag, but the lag that most people whine about is nothing to me largely because of my past experiences with trying to game on PCs where the lag is unbearable.

[Celli 4,337]

6 minutes ago, Envy said:

That's...not what I have heard. I've heard they both run about the same.

2 hours ago, ZethaPonderer said:

The Switch version runs at 900p and a more stable framerate, and there are better textures and draw distances, while the Wii U version runs at 720p and is very choppy.

[Envy 6,129]

7 minutes ago, Celli said:

The Switch version runs at 900p and a more stable framerate, and there are better textures and draw distances, while the Wii U version runs at 720p and is very choppy.

I see. I had heard all around that the Switch version was having all of the minor lag issues that the Wii U version was. At the end of the day, all of these distinctions are just splitting hairs for me. I watched a Lets Play of BoTW from someone who was playing it on the Switch and could not tell a difference at all.

[Scrubbed user 3,416]

23 minutes ago, Envy said:

I think we're thinking of two entirely different concepts of simplicity. My idea of simplicity is that when I buy a console there are specifically labeled games developed to run on specifically with that system's specs in mind. You don't have to worry about specs, you don't have to worry about building anything. The system is already there and will be compatible with every game released for it.

All of the interfaces and extra features of the system are just icing on the top of the cake. A video game console is primarily about video games for me, so the quality of the other features isn't even that big of a deal to me. They can charge for wallpapers all they want. All I want is my PS4 screen to be pink, and I've got that for free. I don't need anything more. For pretty much everything non-gaming I go to my PC. That's what the PC is for, for me.

Those poorly optimized games become a pretty huge deal when they are the games that you are interested in more than the rest. I have pretty much no interest in the majority of what's released on PC. Even with parts on sale for a custom built PC, I still paid a little over $1000 to get a PC that could properly run The Sims 3 and all of its Expansion Packs. And as I've said before in this topic, I apparently didn't do enough research even though I did a lot, because the video card I chose can not be read by the game. There is nothing simple about PC gaming. The only 'research' I have to do in regards to consoles is to see if they have/are going to have games that I want to play. Nothing more. It's incredible.

And honestly, I couldn't even possibly care less about 1080p 60 FPS. I do like the graphics (textures, etc.) to be at max settings, but don't really care about FPS. I do want minimal lag, but the lag that most people whine about is nothing to me largely because of my past experiences with trying to game on PCs where the lag is unbearable.

Further proving my point of consoles being gimped, closed down, and child-proof PC's.

If a consoles was truly about "the games", then why are they filled with a bunch of crap that you can't delete if you wanted to? Sounds like bloatware to me.

It doesn't take a whole lot research of PC components to see what is worth buying. You say you paid $1,000. but it's possible you got a part that might not have been functioning right.

What you refer to as "lag" in reality are fluctuations in FPS, mainly drops in it because the hardware can't handle what you're asking it to do. But when you're playing on a console that at best can do 30 FPS, which looks like a slideshow, it isn't quite as severe I guess.

Like I've said before, it seems you had a bad experience with trying to play 1 game out of the thousands that are available on PC, you didn't do something right, and instead of trying to fix the problem, you went back to console. 

Edited July 9, 2017 by Vulon Bii

[Celli 4,337]

7 minutes ago, Envy said:

I see. I had heard all around that the Switch version was having all of the minor lag issues that the Wii U version was. At the end of the day, all of these distinctions are just splitting hairs for me. I watched a Lets Play of BoTW from someone who was playing it on the Switch and could not tell a difference at all.

Well, you wouldn't notice them unless you played both games side by side yourself I think.

[Envy 6,129]

1 minute ago, Vulon Bii said:

Further proving my point of consoles gimped, closed down, and child-proof PC's.

If a consoles was truly about "the games", then why are they filled with a bunch of crap that you can't delete if you wanted to? Sounds like bloatware to me.

It doesn't take a whole lot research of PC components to see what is worth buying. You say you paid $1,000. but it's possible you got a part that might not have been functioning right.

What you refer to as "lag" in reality are fluctuations in FPS, mainly drops in it. But when you're playing on a console that at best can do 30 FPS, which looks like a slideshow, it isn't quite as severe I guess.

Like I've said before, it seems you had a bad experience with trying to play 1 game out of the thousands that are available on PC, you didn't do something right, and instead of trying to fix the problem, you went back to console. 

I don't think consoles are trying to compare to PCs, I just think it's the in thing right now to make all devices multi-functional. It's just like what happened with cell phones. I still remember the day I heard the concept of a cell phone having a camera on it and I was like "What? Why would they ever put a camera on a phone?!" Nowadays does a current cell phone out there even exist without a camera of some quality?

I don't criticize cell phones for having cameras nor do I critique the quality of the cameras on them too heavily. The camera on a phone can not even begin to compare to my Sony A7s, but that's fine. The camera on a phone finds itself useful in many cases where I don't have my camera.

Everything like that, I just consider a bonus feature on top of what the device is designed for. I prefer to use the device that is best at those functions, of course, but it doesn't mean that other devices can't find uses... Like my PS3, PS4, and Wii U being able to play Netflix on my TVs.

With that, I'm fairly certain that's the market console owners have tried to aim at, and it has nothing to do with competing with PCs. It's more competing with other devices that are multifunctional for the TV, like smart TVs.

It takes enough research, clearly. None of this research is necessary for a console, because a console plays every game that is released for it. This is the simplicity I seek.

I know that lagging is an FPS issue... But the fact that you refer to 30FPS as a "slideshow"... What on earth. Lol. The only time I've experienced a "slide show" effect is trying to play The Sims 2 and The Sims 3 on PCs that couldn't handle them. FPS is just something I don't understand being so concerned about unless you're dealing with the lag I've dealt with playing PC games... But to each their own. I just always find it funny that it is probably my horrible experiences with PC gaming that has made me immune to the minor lag you experience in console games. It just can't even compare.

I've been playing computer games for a very, very long time, and I didn't "go back" to console. I've always played consoles, as I have computer games.

[Scrubbed user 3,416]

1 minute ago, Envy said:

I don't think consoles are trying to compare to PCs, I just think it's the in thing right now to make all devices multi-functional. It's just like what happened with cell phones. I still remember the day I heard the concept of a cell phone having a camera on it and I was like "What? Why would they ever put a camera on a phone?!" Nowadays does a current cell phone out there even exist without a camera of some quality?

I don't criticize cell phones for having cameras nor do I critique the quality of the cameras on them too heavily. The camera on a phone can not even begin to compare to my Sony A7s, but that's fine. The camera on a phone finds itself useful in many cases where I don't have my camera.

Everything like that, I just consider a bonus feature on top of what the device is designed for. I prefer to use the device that is best at those functions, of course, but it doesn't mean that other devices can't find uses... Like my PS3, PS4, and Wii U being able to play Netflix on my TVs.

With that, I'm fairly certain that's the market console owners have tried to aim at, and it has nothing to do with competing with PCs. It's more competing with other devices that are multifunctional for the TV, like smart TVs.

It takes enough research, clearly. None of this research is necessary for a console, because a console plays every game that is released for it. This is the simplicity I seek.

I know that lagging is an FPS issue... But the fact that you refer to 30FPS as a "slideshow"... What on earth. Lol. The only time I've experienced a "slide show" effect is trying to play The Sims 2 and The Sims 3 on PCs that couldn't handle them. FPS is just something I don't understand being so concerned about unless you're dealing with the lag I've dealt with playing PC games... But to each their own. I just always find it funny that it is probably my horrible experiences with PC gaming that has made me immune to the minor lag you experience in console games. It just can't even compare.

I've been playing computer games for a very, very long time, and I didn't "go back" to console. I've always played consoles, as I have computer games.

Consoles for the longest time have only served one function, play games. Nowadays, they play games, have chat functions built in, (which questionable quality) web browsers that pale in comparison to one on a PC, video editing software that also pales in comparison to what you can get on a PC. Consoles are very much multi-function these days. PC's have been multi-function for much, much longer.

Yes, consoles are very much trying to compete with PC. (At least Sony and Microsoft are trying to) They are in the same market.

When you've played games at 60 FPS for long enough, and have even seen gameplay at even higher FPS, (like 120 for example) you would see 30 FPS as a slideshow.

[Envy 6,129]

Just now, Vulon Bii said:

Consoles for the longest time have only served one function, play games. Nowadays, they play games, have chat functions built in, (which questionable quality) web browsers that pale in comparison to one on a PC, video editing software that also pales in comparison to what you can get on a PC. Consoles are very much multi-function these days. PC's have been multi-function for much, much longer.

Yes, consoles are very much trying to compete with PC. (At least Sony and Microsoft are trying to) They are in the same market.

When you've played games at 60 FPS for long enough, and have even seen gameplay at even higher FPS, (like 120 for example) you would see 30 FPS as a slideshow.

I just don't see the problem with them trying to add more to consoles. I'll generally go to the PC for non-gaming functions, but some people don't have that option and for them it's all very nice. I mean, I know there are some people really ticked off at the Switch right now for not having features like that.

I've seen all manners of FPS. Once you get up to 120 FPS I get motion sickness really fast. I can't do 120 FPS. The lower the FPS the better for me... Well, to a certain point. 30 FPS is well above that point.

[Scrubbed user 3,416]

1 hour ago, Envy said:

I just don't see the problem with them trying to add more to consoles. I'll generally go to the PC for non-gaming functions, but some people don't have that option and for them it's all very nice. I mean, I know there are some people really ticked off at the Switch right now for not having features like that.

I've seen all manners of FPS. Once you get up to 120 FPS I get motion sickness really fast. I can't do 120 FPS. The lower the FPS the better for me... Well, to a certain point. 30 FPS is well above that point.

If you add more functionality to a game console, is it really a console anymore? And if what they can do is inferior to something else, then why bother with it?

"The lower the FPS the better for me..."

I'm gonna call bullshit on that. I can understand not being able to easily distinguish differences in FPS when it get's above a certain point. I barely see any differences at 120 and 144 FPS, but can distinguish 90 from 120 FPS. Also, higher refresh rates on a monitor (therefore higher FPS can be achieved) does not cause motion sickness. For example, VR headsets like the Vive and Oculus Rift have to run at 90 Hz just to prevent motion sickness in users. If they go any lower, it would actually cause motion sickness.

Edited July 9, 2017 by Vulon Bii

[Celli 4,337]

27 minutes ago, Envy said:

I've seen all manners of FPS. Once you get up to 120 FPS I get motion sickness really fast. I can't do 120 FPS. The lower the FPS the better for me... Well, to a certain point. 30 FPS is well above that point.

I'm just gonna butt in real quick and say that all computer monitors run at 60 fps. There's no way you'd get motion sickness from high framerates, especially since the higher you go, the harder it gets to distinguish between.

30 and 60 are night and day, but 60 and 120 are somewhat harder to distinguish, you can distinguish it, but it isn't like 30 and 60.

[Kiri 7,288]

Hi there, @Reose! Since your thread is gaming-related, I scooted it next door to Media Discussion and gave it a relevant tag. Thanks!  

[Envy 6,129]

9 hours ago, Vulon Bii said:

If you add more functionality to a game console, is it really a console anymore? And if what they can do is inferior to something else, then why bother with it?

"The lower the FPS the better for me..."

I'm gonna call bullshit on that. I can understand not being able to easily distinguish differences in FPS when it get's above a certain point. I barely see any differences at 120 and 144 FPS, but can distinguish 90 from 120 FPS. Also, higher refresh rates on a monitor (therefore higher FPS can be achieved) does not cause motion sickness. For example, VR headsets like the Vive and Oculus Rift have to run at 90 Hz just to prevent motion sickness in users. If they go any lower, it would actually cause motion sickness.

If you add more functionality to a cell phone, is it really a cell phone anymore? The answer is obviously yes, except now it is a more versatile device. Sometimes the added features are not up to par with other devices that are specifically made for that function, but that doesn't erase their usefulness on the cell phone.

Now, as for the features related to gaming - chat, video capturing, etc., perhaps they should be done better on consoles than they are now. I wouldn't know, I've never used any of them, and have only heard of people complaining about these features in regards to Nintendo.

..But I'm really failing to see why you're trying to twist that the addition of these features is in any remote way diminishing their label as a console. Their main function is still by and large running video games and they make no secret of that.

For me, with my condition, higher FPS does really bother me. I learned this really quick when my friend had a TV with those higher settings. I can't handle it.

Edited July 9, 2017 by Envy