PC gaming has existed far longer than console gaming, and it's always had the same advantages

Even if gaming PCs are much more accessible now, and it's easier than ever to download and install games, it still has an added layer of complexity in navigating some kind of complex operating system. The newest consoles may also have OSs, but they are extremely simple to use. The act of executing games on consoles is simpler. Additionally, consoles are usually significantly cheaper than a 1st gen hardware gaming PC. And consoles games are simpler for plebs to buy. None of this is anything amazing. But when you combine it all, it puts consoles in a good position to appeal to plebs.

It is also wrong to assume that everyone knows how to use a PC now. Even kids and young adults only know the most basic stuff.

There's also the factor of consoles being so well known at this point. Among plebs, they have a much bigger reputation for gaming, compared to PCs.

I actually think there's an argument that consoles are easier than PC gaming even at this point, and here's why.

Add a single demand/requirement: portability.
It's the one thing the PC doesn't do very well compared to a smartphone or dedicated game console.
Well, why not just use your smartphone?
Well, it doesn't come with a controller, and just any old bluetooth controller won't do, you want one that will attach to the phone itself.
Which means you need a specific controller that will attach to a specific phone.
And even then, you're running Android, which uses Java, which is fucking cancer. (And isn't really even open-source when you're stuck on vendor firmware.)
And what software are you going to play?
The mobile gaming market isn't exactly where all the best games are.
No wonder people just buy a Nintendo Switch and call it a day.
And don't tell me portability is only for filthy casuals, you know you want to do some comfy gaming while lying in bed.

In my experience it's worse now than it was in the 2000s. Today's young adults so used to the foolproof "babby's first" walled garden design of smartphones and tablets that they have no idea how to use a PC. When I was a teenager even dumb girls knew how to touchtype, install/pirate programs, perform simple maintenance tasks, etc. These days even self-proclaimed """""tech-savvy""""" generation Z's have no idea what they're doing. They think the internet consists of Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and YouTube. They can type faster with their thumbs on a touchscreen than with a keyboard. It's really sad.

historical revisionism. Every generation until the 8th generation the PC had a period of catch up.

better games, more accessible, cheaper level of entry.

the fat jew.

You can thank the DirectXbox (XBox) for pushing console hardware to be more like modern PCs - leading to a downfall in console gaming. Now everything can easily become multiplatform - unlike the chore it was to port a game to 2 dramatically different system architectures.
With PC's having an absolute advantage over consoles, this lead to higher adoption of PC as another platform. On top of that, 3D graphical APIs were really fragmented until until DirectX became the universal standard for graphical APIs in PC gaming. Before then, certain APIs only worked with certain cards like 3DFX, Glide, etc.
Today, it looks like popular games no longer need bleeding-edge 3D graphics for mass appeal. See: Minecraft, Undertale, etc. This allows mass appeal on cheap hardware. There's no need for an 8 core processor if you're playing a 2D hack'n slash.

My guess is the legacy of consoles for normalfags. But PC gaming has risen very fast over the past few years - so I wouldn't be suprised if console gaming becomes less relevant than it already is today.

The embeded video provides a good example on how fragmented graphical APIs were for video cards back in 1996

The barrier of entry was much higher both in price and technical knowledge required, then

Nah, PC had to catch up in every gen until 7th gen.

For a lot of us growing up we had to deal with the ignorance of our parents. Every adult I knew growing up would always blame those "fucking games" for any computer problem they had. My father for example would visit porn sites and actually had that virtual stripper shit on the computer. BUT…the real reason the computer had a virus was because I installed C&C: Red Alert, which was a virus. All games were viruses.

So in the end, many of us ended up with consoles because our parents were retards who blamed every single problem in the world of "fucking games".

I was playing PC games in "high definition" many years before consoles barely reached 720p at 30fps. PC gaming tech has been ahead of consoles for at least 20 years, minimum.

HAHAHAHAHA NIGGER WHAT
You're telling me that Quake is technically inferior to Mario 64 which launched in the same year? That it could not outperform Mario at every technical level? That PCs that could run Doom were technically inferior to the SNES when it launched?
Please, give an example of a console game that was far and away beyond the capabilities of a then-current PC. I'm dying to see what you come up with.

That's just plain wrong actually

The first game console, the Magnavox Odyssey, was released in 1972. Yes, video games existed before this on large mainframes, but these early computers were far from a fully realized consumer industry. Computers evolved in several phrases "full-sized" minaframes, followed by "minicomputers" like the PDP11, and finally the "Microcomputers". The first consumer-level microcomputers did not come around until the mid-late 1970s. The IBM 5150, the computer that created the de-facto industry standard for desktop computers, didn't come out until 1981. The first computers marketed to gamers specifically, the Commodore 64, did not come around until 1982. The game console industry is a tad older than the PC game industry

Marketing

PC stands for "Personal Computer" you are cherrypicking if you consider the large vacuum-tube based computer than ran Tennis for Two and Spacewar to be in the same league and scope as the Personal Computer industry. Using your logic you could say all game consoles are technically computers thus are also PCs, which is just plain wrong.

IBM took over the PC market, but they didn't invent it. You can't use them as your starting point for PCs.

Regardless, the "microcomputers" still did not come around until the mid to late 1970s where we saw the Apple I and the Commodore PET. Game consoles predate PCs, this is a fact. Ignoring the fact that the term "Personal Computer" was originally a trademark by IBM to refer to their machines specifically before becoming genericized in the same sense as scotch tape or q-tips

...

When something is going well, don't bring attention to how it could go wrong.

They're cheap, plug and play and have weebshit. What's not to love?

...

No, you're just wrong on all levels. Microcomputers did not exist in 1972 when the Odyssey was released. I don't really see what's so hard to understand the concept that microcomputers =/= mainframes or minicomputers.

I don't see what's so hard to understand the concept that "PC gaming" was used as shorthand for computer gaming in general rather than a specific physical format of computers, but here we are.

and they killed that last gen for the most part, thus making them literal gimped pcs. nintendo using carts with the switch to make it plug and play is probably the smartest idea of the switch, too bad they screwed up most other thing.

That's just cherrypicking though, if we use the same logic then we could say all game consoles are computers thus are part of the PC industry, which again, is just plain fucking wrong. You dug this hole yourself because the argument originally implies an industry of limited scope "game consoles". Now stop using mental gymnastics and admit you're wrong, seriously this is embarrassing.

If you base the OP on a lie, nothing good can come from it.

No, that's retarded. Game consoles are purpose-built to run games. Computers aren't.

I don't think you know what cherrypicking is, either. It's picking out a few rare examples to try to demonstrate something that the wider reality doesn't support. The wider reality, in this case, is that video games have been made and ran on computers for longer than purpose-built video game machines have existed. Cherrypicking would be picking out a definition of the things involved to allow you to deny this.

They were able to market them as toys, whereas gaming on PCs was not the main focus of marketing. When PCs on average were costing thousands of dollars it was hard to market them as game machines.

Thats a big bunch of bullshit, its even more fucking clunky and user unfriendly that using a keyboard and a mouse, so much so that I know of adult men that own modern consoles and still can't handle it even if handling a computer easily.
Normalfags are just lazy and retarded conditioned sheep who will fall for stigmas, marketing and tribalistic groupthink, why they pay 5 dollars a week to go watch a shitty movie at the cinema with a bunch of bums instead of saving up for a system and inviting some friends over for Pizza.

/thread/

All these buzzwords…

Does this look like a fucking personal computer to you?

First line and you're wrong.

Are you pretending like marketing and social pressure don't drive most people to behave irrationally and make poor choices?

Works for me. Maybe you're just jealous that your rig isn't that beefy.

...

Thats nice. Consoles are deisnged for 15khz displays while pcs were targeting 31khz+ since the early 90s. If you don't know what this means you are already unfit to discuss what you are proposing.

Where are you getting this shit from?

I wish computers were still big enough to live inside of. Can you imagine how many user squatters people would run across and have to shoo out?

At this point, if you can't use a PC, you are quite literally mentally deficient.

Because slapping in a cartridge and pushing the power button is simpler than juggling multiple floppies through a command prompt install, and then still have to manually configure your hardware. Especially if you were using off-brand hardware that the developers didn't account for.

You sound like a faggot who's never had to manually configure their IRQ settings to get a sound card or modem to work before. And I don't mean global settings here, one and done… I'm talking DOS nigger, it had to be configured on a per-game basis.

Playing games on consoles back then was substantially easier. You can't even get modern gamers to change a fucking disk once every 2 hours or more to avoid getting raped by their corporate masters. Can you imagine any of them being willing to learn how to use and then navigate a command prompt to start their games or manage their drives?

When PCs finally because user friendly enough to allow any retard to operate them, they still hadn't figured out how to make them stable. You still had to tweak, fix, and manually configure a ton of games and peripherals just to get them to work without blue-screening your shit because Microsoft broke again. XP SP2 and Windows 7 were the first OSs since DOS 6.22 that were worth a shit and actually ran properly while also being more or less compatible with everything right out of the box.

Windows XP was released in 2001… so take a wild guess why PC gaming also started to grow in popularity post-millenium.

Also, computers were fucking expensive back in the day. A decent low to mid-range system could easily run you between $1,000~3,000. Consoles have pretty much always had the same $299~$399 price point. It wasn't until much more recently that you could get a good mid-range for around the same price-point as a console.

My family got our first real PC back just a year before 386's went off the market. Got a pre-built from Gateway back when they were still operating out of a literal barn in Iowa. Ended up spending about $4,000 on it. Didn't even have an audio card. PC Speaker only, and by the next year we already had to invest in a math co-processor to boost it's performance.

Eh… fucked that up. 386's weren't going off the market. 486's were coming in.

Consoles are accessible to the average consumer.
They're cheaper and easier to lug around for multiplayer events.
Accounts and multimedia are tied to one service on one machine unlike PCs that have multiple forms of OS and DRM.
Selling the average joe consumer on a product with a high initial cost and assembly with risk of hardware fault is too much.
Asking the average video game player who is not interested in IT/Stem and doesn't require a desktop in their daily communal lives is also too much.
Consoles are great introductory for video game newcomers and people who don't see video games passionately like the typical vidya autist.
PC gaming is objectively better, but a semi-decent PC build to outclass a console is an enthusiast luxury and not a common luxury.
You can also enjoy the perks of PC emulation through laptops/tablets/phones, which more people with consoles are likely have these days than a typical desktop.
Consoles maintain the multi-billion dollar industry we have today, though it's a mixed bag whether that's good or not.
Unless something revolutionizes traditional PCs to make them accessible to the mainstream again while maintaining a cheaper cost, consoles will always be in favor for the popular majority. Steambox attempted to be just that but Valve are garbage and the product flopped gracefully.

They're dead easy to build at this point, considering you can just buy a bundle of parts you know will fit together. About the only oddness maybe is if you try to build something compact.

When PCs started out, yeah, they were advertised as work machines. Usually it was something you bought so that you could take your work home with you and put in that unpaid overtime. Even today, part of the reason why MS still has such a dominance over the PC market is because it is the defacto business machine OS - it saves a fuck-ton of training and orientation for companies to have their office drones already familiar with the productivity suites and OSs because they use the same setup at home.

Remember when PC games used to have a Boss Key that you'd press and it either quick-exited the program, or it's put up some kind of fake spreadsheet looking screen so you could look busy when the boss came around?

How is a PS4 not plug and play? Took me 30 minutes to set it up.

Getting the thing out of the box is the hardest part.

I had a hugo game that had that feature.

Casuals.

You hit me with some nostalgia right there. The first couple computers my dad got for home use were Gateways (back when they were called Gateway 2000, because future), one DOS and one Win95. My parents were weird, they had a dislike of gaming consoles but were fine with PC gaming (in moderation). Thus, I never owned a console until I left for college, except that I got my friend's old GBC and GBA when he upgraded to a GBA and DS, respectively. And I had to keep those a secret as well.

Still, I have vague but fond memories of gaming on those computers. We still own them but I have no idea if they even work anymore. Maybe someday I'll learn how to repair old computers and see if I can't get them to boot up again. I was only 5 when we got the 95 so I know I missed out on the heyday of DOS gaming, and it would be interesting to try some of those games out on original hardware.

The devil is right.

Phones are the biggest gaming market.

He doesn't know and hasn't actually touched a console in 10 years because his parents won't buy him one. So he settles with a console tier pc to fill that void because it is a necessity and merely pontificates on these things with no real experience

Because it's easier and more secure knowing that buying games to the console will work.

But with PC you just don't know if your computer is out-dated or not.

Consoles expanded first because they were so much simpler.
With PC gaming you had to mess with installation shit, while with a console you just dropped the disk/cartridge in and played.
This changed during the transition from 6th gen to 7th gen, but by that point pure inertia more or less carried that sector.
Also, the PC as a common American home fixture didn't become a thing until some time in the mid-80s, when the GUI caught on, and even then computers were primarily a business instrument, so consoles were the American gaming public for quite some time.

k budy

You'd be surprised how many people don't really know how to use them beyond checking Facebook.

Women aren't real people.

Unreliable hardware?
I had 6 friends I always played with on PC from 2012-2016
I only have 2 of those friends left because thier PC's broke down, now they only play stuff on Nextgens.

I was actually thinking of my mom when I wrote that. But I think most men (and women) above 50 also don't know how to use them at all.

The extent of women with computers is data entry and basic calculations. There bay be a few genetic outliers but it means nothing. It certainly shouldn't be coloring the face of every video game coming out in Modern Year +0.

...

Because you touch yourself at night

speaking of PC gaming I have to update my graphics card soon. I have an AMD right now but my friend tells me to get a nvidia. I would make a thread about it but I fear it'll be a flame thread. Are there any pros and cons of each card? I always though nvidia's were known for overheating but my buddy tells me AMDs do that. So I dunno.

:O

Typical (1) and done projection.

There really needs to be a QTDDTOT thread here about shit like this.

The music and smooth scrolling on the NES were distinct advantages over the horrible PC speaker sound and eye-raping movement common to PC games back in the day. Better visual scrolling and even sound on consoles was true as late as the 16-bit era. Consoles used to have the advantage of often looking/sounding better due to standardizing things that were a mess on PC at the time due to tech being new. As a child in the 80s, it was much easier to find console games that looked/sounded/played well for the time than PC games.

Eventually PC's finally got good gamepads and there were no more big innovations important to most games to create common compatibility messes for consoles to sort out and look/play better with inferior hardware. Consoles now are merely prisons for games that ought to be on PC.

Have you time traveled from 1985? Movie theater tickets are almost $20 these days.

I am an actual professional expert on the topic, but I am headed to the doctor, presumably I'll have to wait for hours once I get there so while I'm there I'll write up an exhaustive post in this thread explaining the truth about AMD GPUs vs. NV GPUs in Q3 2017

if you don't want to wait or if I don't have time to write the short version is that they're performance-equivalent in the same price range. AMD GPUs will use more power to get there, but usually have a little more VRAM and better driver support late in life (i.e. R9 290X thoroughly wipes the floor with GTX 780 now where when they launched it was more even)

Yeah the drinks are now $5.

People always cite the same reasons:
1. Ease of access, because it's easier to just flip a switch and turn on a console than it is to look at all the various components of a system and build one, or understand those that used to build that prebuilt you're considering. Some people also want to be able to "plug and play", they want to put their disc in and just play. They don't want to fiddle with .ini files or use workarounds for incompatibility.
2. Price, because PCs are generally more expensive than consoles.
3. Portability, because some people can't into HTPCs or ATX cases and think their console is more portable than any given PC.
4. Couch play, because some people believe that it's impossible to play "couch co-op" on a PC with others while in the living room.
5. Games, because some people genuinely believe that the games released by console manufacturer's in-house studios are better than anything you'll find on the PC.

I'm not saying these reasons are valid, just that people like to throw them around.

they are all valid reasons.

I disagree.

on PC you pick and choose from those options. Games is a tricky one because frankly the historical PC classics are accessible on probably everyone's PC they have right now, and their quality is highly subjective to a specific set of tastes that not many people have. On consoles you have all of these options and are most likely to have your tastes catered to and not be stuck playing very old games that you can likely play already on your 5 year old walmart PC.

Quality post.

No it didn't, fuck off poseur kid. As an old Eurofag I remember the pain of old school PC gaming. I would rarely see consoles back in the day and I thought "sheeit, that's more convenient and even looks better".
It took PC gaming a while to be hugely advantageous.

reported
Emulation is comfy but Planned obsolescence of the PC market is Fucking Jewish.

just a reminder that keen ran at 17 fps max while mario 3 is a 60fps game

I'm drunk and this is the only reason I'm gonna give you serious answer.
BECAUSE
In order to enjoy those advantages you need to invest.
You money, your time, your effort, your brain cells, sometimes even your physical strength, because some of those processor cooler straps are pretty damn tight.

Alternatively you buy ONE console, ONE game and bam you're ready to go. Bugs? Shit performance? Something doesn't work?
It wasn't an issue up to like PS2. Games were actually quality controlled.
Since PS360? Well it's not like you can do anything about it, gonna wait for devs fixing shit for you and game autopatching when it's ready.

For the longest time I thought that console wars is cancer, and it doesn't matter what platform do you play on as long as the game in question is good.
But PS3/Xbox360 generation flipped that opinion on its head.
Consoles were no longer plug and play 99% bug free games.
They were literally worse PCs where you're forced to have internet, forced to download updates, forced to fucking play at 30 fps.
Like what the shit?
Nes games run at 60 fps.
Genesis/SNES games run at 60 fps.
PS1 games run at 60 fps.
PS2 games mostly run at 60 fps.
PS3 games run at 30 lol. Get fucked lol.
What? Why?
And then fucking Metal Gear Rising runs at 60.
WHAT.
THE.
FUCK.

This is unacceptable.
And then fucking PS3 continues this caner.
Bloodborne runs at 30 fps.
Dark Souls 3 runs at 30 fps. And PC version, while looking better on vanilla PS4 equivalent of video card like GTX780 runs at fucking 60 fps.
Why?
How?

Oh and PC "gaming"? With Windows 7 all that bullshitry with dlls, drivers, fucking random ass files just went away.
I'm not "pro-user" or whatever, but I had to fuck around a lot when I was using windows 98-2000-XP to play games in the best possible way.
With Windows 7? Not any fucking more.
Shit just werks.

Now I dunno how the situation is on Win8 and Win10.
I ignored Win8 because I thought it looks ugly and it didn't offer any benefits concerning games compared to win7 so why fucking bother.
Then Win10 not only looked even worse than Win8, but also instantly, right out of the game this whole privacy scandal shitstorm happened.
I mean I aint pedo and I don't do terrorism, so I'm not all that concerned about muh privacy, but when even normalfags are autistically screeching about windows blatantly monitoring their shit, hoo boy am I not touching this turd with 10ft pole.
And then it turns out Windows store is shit and you can't play online games with Win7-8 users. Lol.
What a trainwreck.

So yeah what was I saying?
Right.
The last console worth owning was PS2, and maybe original Xbox.
Everything since then is just trash and not worth even fucking stealing/pirating, because you will experience sub-par gameplay held down by I dunno even what, since PCs of similar hardware will still perform better.

Fucking DMC3 was also released on PC, and only mid-range and higher PCs could even run it.
Dark Souls 3? Low-range PCs can run it better than PS4.
Fuck.
That.

I hate to be the one to break it to you OP, but most gamers are casuals who can barely put the disc/cartridge in the proper hole in their console much less get a game working on PC.

...

The cake golem. It is allowing Holla Forums to turn far too toward a Weimar cliff that the outsiders welcome as their doormat.

It will be an awful pc likely wil a 2c4t cpu and a low profile card. Or you can spend $175 on a used ps4.

Oh right this shit.
This post sums it up better than my blabbering.

You're clearly underage and can't remember when PCs prior to the hardware acceleration boom of the late 90s had problems with scolling, fast moving sprites, and other graphical effects from the arcade that were beginning to be replicated by consoles. Reminder prior to Doom, Id Software's claim to fame was making an unofficial PC port of SMB3 that had proper scrolling, and tried to sell it to Nintendo who turned them down.

As someone who started on PC I can safely say no it didn't, while yes we had the advantage of using our systems to do more then just gaming performance and power wise for quite some time consoles were better.
That's no longer the case and due to the fact consoles are completely closed while PC are fully customisable PCs will continue to dominate.

No shit man, up until PS2 era computers were generally weaker than concurrent consoles.
Only by 2007 consoles stared to lag behind.
But boy they lagged behind hard.
And they never caught up.

tbh I would almost agree with you but I just hit the "my cheep and inexpensive custom built PC" GPU and CPU is starting to getting old and often doesn't meet modern games minimum requirements. When I start thinking about the labor and money I need to invest in getting it up to modern standards, I then say fuck it an buy a PS4 copy of the game instead. (Ni No Kuni 2 & Nier Automata for example wont run properly on my toaster now). Yet I still love my PC because I can emulate sixth-generation console's and have a huge library of games that make my PS3 and PS4 library look like a joke in comparison. But when I Look at GPU prices and need to speculate on how long it will last before it becomes obsolete or realize that my MB limits what kind of CPU I can use, all of a sudden spending money to update my PC doesn't seem so sexy. I can hold off on upgrading my toaster for a few more years and appreciate the console as a buffer. Plus I get to play Nioh, Persona 5, Disgaea 5, Gravity Rush and Bloodborn.

polite sage because cancerous thread

You mean the PS1 era, where starting with Win95 hardware acceleration and graphics cards exploded in popularity, and began an arms race in companies developing better PC video cards month after month, not to mention the war between DirectX and 3DFX. By 1998, you had PC games that in no way could run on consoles without getting castrated ports.

The screen didn't tear or drop frames because it was a CRT which drew scanlines at a continuous rate regardless of input, but that in no way suggests the games themselves did not slow down. It was literally referred to as "slowdown" in game reviews of the time. If you want a simple example off the top of my head, the explosion when you kill a boss in Guerrilla War (NES), which flickers the entire screen while you retain control of your character, so you can easily perceive the loss of fluidity. The old console games were always 60 FPS meme is propagated by youngfags who've rarely seen a CRT, let alone spent a couple decades playing games on one.

I mean maybe?
But before UT2k4 and Q3 I don't think PC games were visually competitive with AAA games of console market.
I mean console games also were always more simplistic and pattern-based, while PC games relied on mental capabilities and pure reflex, but as far as graphics go, as I said up to 2007 PC didn't really get ahead of consoles.

I remember being honestly uninterested in both NES & SNES when good emulators came out.

You'll always be able to emulate consoles in PC, but most of the time to be able to emulate with 100% perfection any modern console you'll need to spend so much cash in your computer than buying the original hardware gets cheaper.

Best option is to get the original hardware and just pirate the software.

You are moving goalposts mate.
Yeah slow down. At 60 fps cap.
I played a lot of Alien Soldier and boy did that game slow down on big explosions or with shitloads enemies on screen.

Now PS3 games had slowdowns with 30 fps cap. That was my point. Counter that, not consoles not being able to always handle their shit.

There is no technical barrier to games running at 60 FPS on the PS3, so I'm not sure what you mean by a "30 FPS cap."

Hardcoded cap preventing games to reach framerates above 30 even if hardware can do it.
Demon's Souls and Nier didn't have hardcoded framerate caps for example, but shit like Dark Souls or 99% of all PS3 games did.

You're being retarded, stop it. Plus Morrowind is a far larger game than Shenmue, if it attempted at using that game's fidelity it would run like pure ass.
Please show me those perfect PC accurate ports of Half-Life, Quake 2, Mechwarrior 3, and Unreal 1 that came out on PS1 and N64.
Fixed.

Actually there was Quake port on PS1 I think, the only problem it had were the controls.

I dunno. Look at EGA dos action games compared to NES. Not how they look but how they play.

Yeah, and it needed to be completely redone in a new engine and still ran at 30 fps, was missing levels, and packed with load times.

Please research before posting.

not many PS1 games other then fighting games ran at 60fps.

It was around 1998- 2000 when OpenGL started become more standard on PC when it started to jump leaps and bounds past consuls. I remember the first time I saw Half Life and Quake modded to run with OpenGL that my mind was blown. Nintendo 64 and PSX couldn't compete.

Because consoles are more popular in America and Japan, the two richest economic zones back then.

But now PC is the best, and it's eating up the market.

Before the Modern Day, PCs were still a nightmare to predict if a game would run at all on a given hardware configuration. Even just a few years ago, Jews at nVidia and Intel would pay developers to use their proprietary tech while giving lip service to more standard hardware requirements. This led to PC ports being entirely unplayable on many systems because why test, right?

quake 1 targeted 20fps at launch. john carmack himself wrote this in the game's readme file. high end PCs were expected to hit 20fps.

PC is incredibly small in comparison to consoles except in three genres. facebook/casual, mmo, and some esports type games like dota/cs go

And I was talking about Quake 2, not 1. Please learn to read.

Steam alone is worth billions, console sales cannot compete, and nowadays PC has EVERY games.

oh yeah, a game which targeted 3d acceleration from 1997 needing a redesign for a machine designed in 1995. Then again the dreamcast hit the market a year later and it took the PC quite a while to catch up with that. Not to mention it was a $200 machine running circles around $1000 PCs.

thats nice and everything, but many games still sell millions more units which is far more useful information for developers than what steam is worth. I mean, Nier Automata was only released on steam, psn and retail. The PSN sales alone blew the fuck out of steam's sales. Most customers don't even give a fuck about DRM, so don't bother factoring that in.

Nearly all the games ever worth playing were console exclusive. But keep convincing yourself that you didn't have a shit childhood growing up with a commodore 64 or some shit instead of an NES. Mega Man is just as much fun on DOS as it is on NES, right? And who needs Super Mario Bros or Sonic the Hedgehog? You have Commander Keen and Jazz Jackrabbit! They are in no way sad, shitty versions of actual good games.

You can count the number of good PC franchises before 2007 on your fingers. Half the shit you fags say is good is actually shit, and you just try to push it to convince yourself that your sad, probably eastern european upbringing brought you games as good as the civilized world was getting. And the only reason the situation's changed since 2007 is because The Orange Box and its memegames got more casuals into Steam (TM), so you started to get more and more ports of console games now. So good for you. But let's not act like that's how things always were. It is very much something that only happened last gen.

How are you making this post user? What are you using to make it?

are you actually using the "you used a computer to post this!" argument you fucking idiot, no one is saying consoles replace them, they are just an alternative for video games. remember, this is Holla Forums, you fuck.

Steam/PC will win the long game, first months sales favor consoles, but lifetime sales favor Steam.

Who actually believes this shit?

PC got actual strategy games, while consoles just get platformers.

developers don't care about selling 40,000 copies 4 years after release for 2.50 a pop. they use that money for a catered lunch day. look at the actual numbers, steam sales are a tip jar. there's a reason why the entire industry is built around launch period sales, and you in your arm chair position don't have some revelatory hidden secret about success.

Dunno about console devs, but PC devs do care about lifetime sales.

Well honestly what is the point in playing video games really? There is no utterly perfect game out there that no one can call shit. At this point a computer is a necessity, and a console is a waste of money as all video games are.

because pc exclusive devs outside of very few genres don't make much money period.

/thread

It's because PC doesn't have forced obsolescence schemes enacted every 8 years - and they have an army of autists volunteering to be their own community support service. Incompatibility with a software driver? Don't worry, some random rusky edited a .dll and it work now. Don't want to pay for servers anymore? Don't worry, some sperg in Idaho will create a private server for all 35 people still playing. Got shit that relies on OS features which have been gutted from modern system for the last 15 years? Don't worry - some collective of Aspies from Belgium wrote a sand-box container to emulate the old operating environment.

Which means that pretty much everything they ever made just gets thrown into this huge gestalt pile of "Legacy Software" which continually generates revenue at little to zero cost to the developer/owner.

Consoles, on the other hand, actually require companies to actively support and invest in their legacy software - since the only ones capable of doing so are them and the console manufacturer. Meanwhile, because console manufacturers act as the gatekeepers to what software is and isn't on their systems (which they charge 10% curation/royalties fee for) - they also get their shit pushed in by indie devs and smaller studios for having too much competition. Who the fuck is going to buy Jimbo Bumfuqes new 8bit retro game for $10 when they can get Contra: Hard Corps or Tomb Raider 1 for under $5. Well, a lot of people, apparently - because novelty sells better than nostalgia, but that's still a risk and competition they don't want to deal with.

...

Hardware, yes. Not on software.

When was the last time you updated your GPU and it noped your entire fucking game library the way upgrading from a PS3 to a PS4 does.

There's marketing and advertisement for console hardware. Not so much for PC's (even when the PCs were advertised they weren't for gaming). Even when they were for gaming, it was overpriced Alienware shit.

The whole self-built gaming PC ordeal is largely a successful word of mouth thing on internet communities.

I agree, but the market for PCs has definitely changed.

No one uses desktops for work anymore, so desktop PC hardware almost exclusively supports the gaming market now. I think it's one reason that PC gaming is becoming more popular and more successful.

There is controlled obsolescence with software too. Try playing a Windows 95 game without an emulator. And more and more software starts to demand you upgrade to Windows 10. Especially video games. But you are correct in regards to PC being much more user friendly in general terms of maintaining your software library of old games.
Who honestly does this? You don't get rid of your PS3 silly. People who trade in their old systems are stupid. Your NES form 1983 will likely still run perfectly as long as its in good condition and you have the right component cables.

Naw, you're bullshitting. You put the disc in and you select it. It probably auto-highlights the disc, too, so all you have to do is press a single button to launch it. Sometimes it will need to install or update first, which is annoying because it takes a while, but the user doesn't need to do anything. All of this is the same as on Windows, except some Windows games take a good amount of configuration first, which console games never do. You never have to go online to try to look up instructions on how to get a console game to work, only to get some faggot saying "works on my machine!"

Now, you can say that it's still easy enough for Windows games, but to say it's easier than even modern consoles is objectively a lie.

You act as if this isn't largely true. Computer games have historically had shit multiplayer unless you're doing LAN or online, in which case you need two machines. And frankly, online multiplayer is straight garbage compared to local multiplayer. If you're not in the same room as me you're not a real person. Consoles do this now too and it's been the death of multiplayer and a significant factor in games becoming shittier overall.

Any laptop, which every casual already has, can run any emulator up to like PS1/N64. But you can't run modern games on them unless it's indieshit. Unless you're talking about emulating much more recent shit, it doesn't really factor into the equation, especially since those emulators typically run like shit, and there are plenty of older consoles that still can't be emulated to any playable degree (I'm still waiting for a good Saturn emulator). Playing Mario in an emulator is great and all, but it's not the same conversation as only playing modern games if they come out for Windows, which is basically what OP and other PCucks advocate.

I still remember going to my friend's house in the PS2 era, and his parents didn't love him enough to buy him a real video game system, so he played "computer games."
But it wasn't Spider-Man 2. It was some gimped shit. It's like when your grandma says she got you a video game for your birthday and it's one of those Tiger LCD games. It's just barely a game. But my friend didn't know any better. He was so sheltered he didn't know what real video games were. So I didn't have the heart to tell him. I just tried to play along, then went home and hugged my parents for loving me enough to buy me the real Spider-Man 2.

My computer is for shitposting, my video game systems are for video games. Too bad I can count the number of good games released in the last ten years on one hand. And really too bad for PCucks, because it's only in the last ten years that they've started to get anything close to decent versions of modern games, and modern games turned to shit right at that time. So they never got any good modern games.

Platformers are and have always been the best. I can sympathise with you being into niche genres since that's what 3D platformers are now, and I miss them but that doesn't change my point that most of the best games ever were for Nintendo, Sega, and PlayStation.

You act as if I can't pop in Super Mario Bros./Duck Hunt right now and play it on my NES, which works like a charm after over 30 years.

Oh and I forgot, Modern HHD and SSD Hard Drives have a life expectancy of anyware between 3 to 5 years. If you fail to back up your library you can lose it all. This is controlled obsolescence.

Not a personal computer, but the first computer video game came out in 1952. Pic related: Sandy Douglas' OXO / Noughts and Crosses, for the EDSAC.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OXO

It's not much of a game when there is an absolute optimal strategy.

Just because a game has been solved doesn't mean it's not a game. Haven't people effectively solved Pac-Man by this point? And they must be getting close with Donkey Kong. Hell, Pannen is 0.5x A Presses away from solving Super Mario 64.

because PC gaming could only be played by a few people with the massive technical know-how to get the damn machines and games running.

while consoles appealed to the plebeians, the lower caste. there was a minimum IQ requirement in the past to be able to play videogames, there isn't anymore.

Ok, fam.

In other words, thank you for proving me right about PS1 era games looking better than PC games from that time.
By the time the Dreamcast came out PC games could already be rendered in 1024x768 and had similar polygon counts and could pull of better texture filtering. By the time the PS2 came out in 2000, PC games could be played at HD resolutions with trilinear texture filtering and better color depth. Just look the PC ports of Giants Citizen Kabuto or Deus Ex.

And going back to Morrowind, if think a Dreamcast could run a game that huge, you're a genuine underage retard.

See above. For $200 in 1998-2000 you got machines limited in video output, controls and texture resolution.

Please stop posting and pick up your school supplies for next week.

I've been running consumer grade drives in my desktop 24/7 for twenty years. Not a single disk has failed while in service. I end up replacing them for more capacity before that. The oldest drive I'm still running right now has over 86000 power on hours, but it's only 250GB, so it'll probably be gone next time I need more space.

No, but plugging them in when you want to play is certainly easy enough. Getting rid of old consoles is retarded. Especially since they just keep increasing in value if you take care of them properly.

Of course they can but they're pretty sturdy if you aren't treating them like shit.

Xbox could.

nice strawman nigger. Don't dump coffee on your Nintendo kid.

That's a big chip.

...

PC master race went out of the window a long time ago. Spend an hour on Steam and you will see.

I wish it was still 1998 but it isn't.

Gentlemen, allow me to remind you that the Commodore VIC-20 was perhaps the first computer advertised as a worthy and affordable gaming computer that could rival or even outperform dedicated consoles.

It was… the original potato masher.

Barely. The framerate was choppy as shit and it had long ass load times.

Remember, school starts on Monday.

It's August 10th. Where do you live that has school starting in the middle of August? This is only reinforcing the idea that people who say PC games were always better are just people from weird countries that didn't have real video games.

i had nes, snes, genesis, sega cd, n64, playstation1 and 2, colecovision, atari 2600, turbografx, gameboy, gameboy color, and tiger game.com as a kid.

with the exception of the sega CD, they all work fine or require a minimal amount of modifications.
i had to replace the cmos batteries in some games that had a save function like super metroid.

the nes modifications are just so i dont have to fiddle with any games. they all boot flawlessly on the 1st try unless dirty. i had to remove the anti-pirate part, and bend the pins with a screwdriver to make better contacts.

...

nigger I just googled "NES still working" and I was suggesting you don't throw out your old system just to buy the "New" one. Hardware breaking down is true of even PC's but modern hard drives dying after 3-5 years is by design.

That's clearly a typewriter.

Because console gaming was always much easier, especially back then. DOS was really quite daunting and a NES just needed to be plugged in at you were good to go. And while setting up a PC isn't nearly as hard as it was back then, it's still not as super easy as setting up a console. Also many people just don't care about higher framerates and all the niche titles and simulators PC has.

if a multiplat has a pc version, the pc version was always better. but back in the day consoles had the better games with the exception of a few great pc games.

yep. steam killed pc gaming imo. id say that the "master race" claim ceased to exist at the launch of hl2. the average "pc gamer" now is just a massive casual. no better than any console. console has its cod and fifa people, and the pc equivelent is the massive amounts of lol autists and minecraft kids.

unless youre a pc gamer that has no steam installed and exclusively plays stuff with local installations and emulators… but honestly this is a tiny minority

I like sitting in a recliner in front of a big screen without nigger rigging a fucking table uncomfortably onto/above my lap only to have to deal with wireless input and juggling.
Just glance at your setup and it's obvious computers weren't made for games. Every attempt to do so just ends up as a console.

The only reason PC retards jump through so many mental hoops to preach about "mastard rice" is (very ironically) the ability to pirate games easier. Modding is fun though.

Except for the times the PC version was just a whole different game marketed under the same name to trick poor idiots. The same as what happened with multiplats that had versions on Wii.

Your first half might have something to it but you had to fuck that part up by adding in wireless input

Early on, Microcomputers were the only gaming machines.
Then Atari came along with the 2600, which was better than most micros at the time
Then Microcomputers got better, but still were a bastard to use, requiring lots of command memorization and using shitty keyboards and cassette media.
Then the NES shit all over them with smooth scrolling.
Then the Amiga and IBM PC came our, but both cost a fucking mint, and still weren't very user friendly.

Noticing a pattern, user? PCs didnt get easy to use until well into the 2000s, and at that time Playstation was a market juggernaut. PC didmt reclaim market dominance until the 2010s

PC still doesn't and never has had market dominance. Just check the numbers.

yea, but can we really consider them the same game? or a multiplat at this point?
kinda like saying aladin on snes was the same game as aladdin on genesis.
the only time i remember this being a thing was farcry on wii. but i cant really recall any pc games that were vastly different (unless much better) like doom and its abortion console version.

How so? The fucking things are fickle. Plus, you're dealing with a whole fucking keyboard and a mouse/contact surface for it. I'm not going to move my entire living room or den to accommodate a shota mod. pleb
I stand by my point.

And you've reinforced you're an underage faggot who only played games from the mid-PS2 era onwards.

You should do more research before shiting out anecdotal evidence as a general overarching fact.

When your potato masher is beat by a Famicon, user, you fucked up.

Im not defending wireless input, you just presented it as being mandatory which it luckily isnt.

(fucking checked)

Spotted the elitist faggot. Consider the following fagboy, you can have steam installed, play multiplayer games with friends from time to time and you can still enjoy niche games and older titles.

you responded to the wrong person, but i'll be civil anyway newfriend.
yes, but the same argument can be made for people playing ps4 and xb1. so at best those people are no more "master race" than console gamers.

are you having a bad day?

nice

nicer

...

(very nice)
Just checking.

Wasn't my intent, but I will say that it's the vast majority of setups with a big screen. Have you ever seen someone with a pc next to their recliner and an HDMI strung across the coffee table? The only ones I've seen you're headbutting the screen.

As a matter of fact I do, thanks for asking. Even though this time I responded to the right person.

I think the term of "master race" in general is fucking retarded. It's just the best of both worlds, you can play things with friends and still have the benefit of emulators and older niche titles.

I fucked up

Online multiplayer is for fags.

Well yeah, they're not the same game, but that's the type of thing that happened to PC games for years, because devs knew full well that the consumers did not have hardware good enough to run anything as good as the console versions. And people here claim that good enough hardware existed, but they're ignoring the cost and the fact that even among people playing on their computers, very few actually had that hardware.

There are tons of examples for Wii. Pretty much every multiplat game that was on Wii. And the same for practically any game that wasn't originally DOS or Windows exclusive before 2007.

No, because that's the era where things began to actually get better for PCucks. The further you go back, the worse things get for them. But keep pretending Reader Rabbit or whatever was a real game, and you weren't missing out compared to your friends who had SNES or Genesis.

Other examples have been cited. The only times the PC version was better, until very recently, was when the game was originally made as that, and then ported to other platforms, which was relatively rare, since consoles have always been the far bigger market, and anyone who had any ambition aimed for that market to begin with.

PC revenues are higher than all of console games combined user.

gamesindustry.biz/articles/2016-10-24-welcome-to-the-new-era-games-as-media

im just pointing out that PC-exclusivness isnt synonymous with being any kind of non-casual. which was the original master race belief.
pretty sure a guy playing good games on a ps4 is truer "gamer" or whatever you want to call it than someone who exclusively plays wow and hearthstone on their pc.

can you give some examples? i was mostly a console gamer as a kid. didnt even own a pc until like AOL4.0.

This hasnt been true for the last five years kek

i think theyre talking about real gaming. not farmville and candy crush.

...

Mega Man and Mega Man 3 on DOS have already been referenced in this thread, as has Id's claim to fame being able to make a Super Mario Bros. port to PC that actually had scrolling, which was a technological marvel at the time, despite Super Mario Bros. being like six years old by this time.

you're jogging back some memories for me user. i completely forgot about that shit.

it was completely different and the sound was shit. it had no music. but still pictures were better, like the backgrounds. id made that piece of shit?

Nice job redirecting back to an era I said consoles were better than PCs when I was talking about the PS1 and PS2 eras. Looks like you didn't read the thread.

A handful. Even then, by the late 90s PCs were objectively more powerful than consoles. Some shitty port by an outsourced developer doesn't disprove that.

PC was still the powerful hardware. Deal with it kid.

Can confirm, every old limey's favorite pc struggled to handle even ghosts and fucking goblins.

my pc was way more powerful than my psx, but my pc couldnt play any 3D games because it didnt have a "3d accelerator" on the video card. power doesnt mean much.

When even the fucking NES shit on your PC…

I didn't check IDs, no, because IDs are for fags. Still, the trend continued just fine until much more recently than PS1.

Nobody had those more powerful PCs, and even those who did were left with games that didn't utilize them because devs had to at least try to make games that would run on the average consumer's hardware. So have fun having more powerful hardware that has no games.

a giant bulldozer is a vastly more powerful than a camaro.

user, a basic ass 386 with a VGA card shit on the consoles. And when my broke ass had a Pentium CPU when Quake came out, I gotta wonder if you were raised by an unmarried whore.

this is still a problem today. devs dont make games for "gaming pcs"

And yet there were very few games that utilized this to any extent that made them look comparable to contemporary console games. You have to keep going back to Quake because it was the best of the best, one of the only games to stand out and not be absolute shit compared to what people were playing on PS1 and N64 at the time. Most other shit was still mediocre point and click adventure garbage.

what game of that era were you playing at 120fps?

That's your fault for not having it, not the systems. Might as well bitch about the multiplayer in a Mario Party game being terrible because you didn't have the foresight to buy extra controllers.

Considering you have no more arguments to back that up, we'll concede you know fuck all.

You being poor doesn't negate what I posted earlier. And nice goal post switching from technological horse power to sales and adoption rates.

Yeah, no one bought graphically intensive games like Quakes 2 and 3, and Unreal sold like shit and the franchise never took off.

Oh wait, that didn't fucking happen.

I'm sorry I can't hear you over those jaggy stuttering PS1 polygons and smeared N64 games at 240p. Try lowering the historical revisionism a tad.

Why is it that every last pc mustard rice faggot likes to point out that the people enjoying console gaming are younger and fresher? Its like these pcucks enjoy pointing out how crusty and derelect they are, embittered that daddy didn't buy them an atari as a child.

More the the point, pc gaming has no life outside of farmville bullshit and soulless mmos as has been stated previously. The market is built for consoles, and pcs can only ever hope to be a shallow imitation of that.

You can stop with the historical revisionism and the fact you've never played a PC before 2006.

By the late 90s point and click games were dying and PC gamers were playing those hardware accelerated games you claim no one bought.

And start reading ids newfag, you post like a sperg screeching at everyone.

wut? My german NES Cartridge has written underneath the logo: "with Maps of unthinkable value and strategically important hints,." "Experience the challenge of an endless adventure" sounds way catchier.

Jew ruin fucking everything with their schemes to get you to buy extra needless peripherals.

The point is that raw power doesn't mean shit.

What do you want? A list of examples? Go on Gamefaqs, cross reference titles that are on both PC and N64 or PS1, and you'll quickly see that outside of a few that were originally PC exclusive and ported (when I say a few, I mean you can count them on one hand few), the PC versions are almost always severely gimped. To go a step further, just look at a list of PC games released during the PS1/N64 lifespan, and see how very few do anything close to what was being done on consoles at the time.

These get very slightly better for PS2 era, but not by much. Even then, it's largely because that's when shooters took over everything and video games in general took a massive nosedive.

I never argued horsepower, I argued the quality of games on the respective platforms.

They sold relatively little compared to console games at the time. But as I also said, you have to keep going back to the same tiny pool of examples because they were the exception, not the norm.

You have a few shooters that managed to do 3D and shit. Then you basically have a bunch of point and clicks and cereal box-tier shovelware. Things nearing your high end PC shit were the norm on the contemporary consoles.

In addition, you're not only cherrypicking, but being a cherrypicking graphicswhore. Acting like pure hardware would make your games more fun than many of the most beloved games of all time. But sure, having a couple of noteworthy shooters invalidates all the games the competition was putting out, the likes of Mario 64, Majora's Mask, Conker's Bad Fur Day, Crash Bandicoot, and Spyro the Dragon. Nobody likes those.

You're the one trying to argue about pure hardware, because it's a way to ignore the fact that most of the games you were getting were so far behind that hardware that they might as well have been an entire console generation behind, and even then they were not as well designed as games from the previous generation.

It's actually the opposite. They're largely younger, since PC gaming was absolute shit until last gen, when all games became shit anyway so it became a moot point.

The few older people are largely eastern europeans who didn't get real video games in their backwards shitholes, so they made do with "computer games," and they cling desperately to the few that actually were like real games. But press them and they'll all show nostalgia for their flash-game tier shovelware, which was the bulk of what they got.

I wouldn't play one after, either, since after 2006, not only were PC games shit, but practically all games became shit.

Of course people would eventually begin flocking to the tiny number of games that made their purchases worth it. But we're also talking about the end of the generation, here, and then the new consoles once again outpaced them.

If it's a feature introduced after 2007 I don't use it.

Wrong.
Also wrong
Price, and because there was no standardisation with controls and that's when console ports of super popular normalfag games became common.

Gee, how could they fail so badly?

...

All of the answers trace back to a combination of ease of use and pricing. Even with all of the simplifications and price reductions of PCs, they're still generally more expensive and difficult to use than consoles. I'd highly suggest watching a boomer or older try to use a computer some time. It's baffling how lacking their understanding is.

True, compared to other computers, the IBM PC was a vastly inferior platform. Even now we have to deal with its 1970s-style cruft.

My bad, 1983. But the point remains: when the VIC-20 came out, the competition was still the Atari 2600. A fairer comparison would be Famicom versus Commodore 64.

And the Famicom kicks the C64's ass any day of the week.

They're still the cheaper option for the rest of the world, even if you live on a economically-stable first/second world white western european paradise, good PC hardware may still be expensive as fuck in your country because of taxes unless you're a burger.

How much programming am i going to have to learn to use a rasberry pi for retro games?

Wing Commander
X-Wing/TIE
Syndicate
Mechwarrior 2
Motherfucking DOOM
Civ 1 and 2
Now ask me how I know you're too young to fucking post, nigger.

Famicom came out in 1983, user.

Normalfags and Kikes, its pretty simple newfriend.

I said very few, and you listed very few. Thank you.

I did not say "no games to advantage" because I'm not some ESL slavshit trying to pretend that it's okay my failed state didn't get most of the best games ever made.

Even the PC games that are considered classic now were niche back then. Because nobody wants to buy a a computer good enough to run that shit when there are only a few good titles that utilize the hardware, and you could just get a Nintendo 64 or PlayStation instead. Internet access was not nearly universal in the '90s, especially until the late '90s, so most people had no use for a computer, and if they were going to buy something to play video games on, they'd buy a video game console, since that's where the vast majority of games worth playing were. Hell, even when people did buy computers then, which grew increasingly common as the '90s went on, they were even more tech illiterate than now, and probably ended up using it as an MS Paint and Solitaire machine, which they only bought because it was the '90s and the TV told them everyone needed a computer, even though they had no actual interest in anything it did.

Don't be so sure. The C64 had many technically impressive games, such as Elite, Rescue on Fractalus, Stunt Car Racing, Driller, Mercenary, Flight Simulator II, Scarabaeus, Mayhem in Monsterland, It's Magic, Katakis, X-Out, Enforcer, Dan Dare 3, Iron Lord, Flimbo's Quest, Project Firestart, Pitstop 2, Grand Prix Circuit…

Besides, many Famicom games actually have extra chips in the cartridge (MMCs aka mappers) to do things the system is too weak to do on its own.

Past about 2004 pc gaming started about being about mass appeal as the previous giants that made good complicated well thoughout games started getting devoured by the conglomerates. Pc gaming is still alive well and unique but the titans have fallen and we have entered a new age where smaller developers are able to exist around the ruins of the previous titans. People still worshiping the decaying husks of those beings but they are dead as the creative minds that created those good games of the past no longer exist within them. The life force has been sucked away in a constant bid for more Sheckles. Lets hope the next generation of game developers learn the lesson of not selling out and watching the love of your life die a slow painful death as everything you have worked on is reduced to a mockery of its former self.

D3 is the perfect release example of how the greed of activision made a product shitty from day one and only barely recovered later to some minor degree POE is a substionally better game on all fronts. Diablo 3 even in its recent incarnation fails to deliver a good coherent exprience compared to d2 lod. The D2 mods are better gameplay then d3 is

By the the the Playstation came out the PC had 3D accelerators and ran at over 4x the resolution that the Playstation did, retard.

Also:
Descent / Freespace series
Frontier: Elite 2
SimCity series, especially 2000
Master of Magic
first Panzer General

Generally strategy and space simulator games. Consoles have been always lacking if it comes to them.

PC gaming is older than Consoles, people were playing computer games on college mainframes way before the first game console hit the market.

yeah but none of those games are good unlike famicom games

Compare NES games with what you can get on something like a Commodore 64. There are tons of homebrew games for C64, but none of them compare particularly well to the glorious sidescrolling Super Mario Bros.

Computers of that time were designed to be computers and not necessarily gaming devices. Most of the systems didn't have built-in support for tile graphics, and the scrolling capabilities were way more limited than those of something like the NES or the SMS.

The above is no longer true. Who knows what motivates the PS4 playing normalfags? They pay to use their own internet connections and brag about doing so. I hope that our leaders are one day able to reach a final solution on this normalfag question.

Because back in the day consoles had ease of access, sometimes getting shit to run on an old PC was a massive pain and it was hard to troubleshoot why, never mind all the buggy, unfinished we got, fuck I remember back in like 2002 or so, I had this collection of Half Life stuff, this was pre-orange box mind, I wanted to play HL1 again so I dug out the discs and for some reason it had massive FPS issues, between browsing and troubleshooting myself it took close to 7 hours to get the game to run properly, by that point I had stop giving a shit and didn't even play them, whereas with consoles I had it just put the cart in and play.

Honestly I can't stand the insufferable mustard faggots, you're also so fucking overbearing that its made me not bother with PC gaming in general

I think they're funny in the kind of way a balding beta male will cling on to a girl that keeps fucking everyone but them.

Technically, Mayhem in Monsterland bitchslaps Mario.

Youre just dumb

it has that classic PC gaming quality of "we don't know what the fuck we're doing with the level design, mechanical design, but here's what we got." You are comparing a 1993 game to a 1985 one, it's a novel technical demo but as an actual game it looks really boring.

That droning music is really exhausting by the way.

Jesus, just shut the fuck up. You're so full of shit and have no fucking clue what you're on about.

Perhaps, but I'm talking about the graphics. Look at that damn thing! Smooth scrolling, rich environments, detailed sprite animation, great use of color, parallax, faked transparencies. No one can look at that and say "the C64 couldn't handle a Mario game." If anything, I doubt the NES could handle this.

it's not a reasonable comparison both ways. The NES is a specialized piece of hardware designed to handle things like scrolling. The C64 requires odd tricks and hacks to pull something like that off. the NES had dedicated hardware. They had different strengths in different areas - this is how early home computers worked. Far more specialized.

Consoles are toys for kids.

so are video games

So I actually made an effort of skimming through your posts and all I can say is they reek of bitter saltiness. You squeal like a ran over rodent, desperately clinging onto your dying medium. All of that crap you spent time effort writing is basically the same thing repeated like a broken record.

All of it is based around your biased personal opinion and nostalgia and zero fact.

Computers are too complicated for the general public. That's why almost everyone uses smart phone and tablet garbage these days. Consoles are far less complicated and usually double as music and movie players as well. Everything a normal person with little interest in tech could want.

Old oldfag here. You don't realize how expensive PC gaming used to be. My 486/66 build was around $3500 in 1992-1994 dollars (forget exactly when I built it). Adjusted for inflation, that's $6100 today. And we were doing full upgrades every year or two to keep up with the amazing pace tech was moving at, and you either kept up or didn't play anything new.
The result of that was it kept the kiddies and riff-raff niggers on consoles, and is why online communities back then were incredibly high quality.

Computers are easier to use and more widely adopted than ever. It's just that back in the day, you never saw computer illiterates because - aside from the occasional retard who fell for the WebTV meme - they couldn't access the net.

Now they're fucking everywhere, though you can still avoid 90% of them by just avoiding CIAbook, Reddick, Titter, Jewtoob, and Holla Forums.

(Checked)

console = only single company can innovate on it
console = locked down garbage I'll never buy into

at least until free software dominates the world of gaming

PC is ironically non-PC. Spics and faggots would rather shit about in their designated cuck shed with absolutely no self awareness.

There exist people literally too stupid to run games on a PC. Remember that half of the population is stupider than the average person.

...

PC is the most marxist platform, actually. Steam is ran by it, blizzard, the indie devs are overwhelmingly kikey. Shit happens on all platforms but you're deluding yourself and failing to address and work on correcting the issues PC has with political correctness. I think that's the biggest problem I have with pc fanboys. They think their platform is perfect and can't address the issues for shit. They deflect constantly to issues consoles have instead of facing reality.

very short sighted analysis. total biscuit tier posturing

*more stupid
FTFY

If I were your boss, I'd
deathmatch ya in a minute!

Your entire diet was marxist given how underdeveloped your brain turned out.

pc gaming is too nerdy for most people. it is only slightly less nerdy than dungeons n dragons or magic the gathering. normalfags would feel embarrassed if their friends found out they are a nerd. girls tease boys with that kind of hobby

Anyway, with steam having a history of caving to pressure to remove things like hatred, blizzard outwardly broadcasting their anti-white beliefs, you must accept these are problems where these devs can directly project these things on to you due to a lack of a middleman are major issues for the pc. Killing your platform.

"Nerd culture" has been hip for the last decade thanks to Big Bang Theory Yes, it really has been that long.

On the vidya side of things: ASSFAGGOTS, CRAPCUNTS, CS:GO, streambait games, and walking simulators have brought the normalfag swarm to PC, and even shit like modding that once had a moderate barrier to entry in basic user competency has been completely casualized by Steam Workshop. It's not necessarily a bad thing, since we're seeing more and more good PC ports as of late (Dragon's Dogma, Bayonetta, Vanquish) as the market grows, but for AAA games we're obviously seeing a massive degradation in quality as they chase the normalfag audience.

...

...

Or

So scary. Must suck to be too tech illiterate to use devices that hand hold you through everything

didn't the xbone needed a day one patch to even function? didn't the wii u would just randomly brick itself if you didn't update?

PC gaming took off with the C64, Amiga, and Atari ST. In the 80s. Essentially open hardware, well documented. There were legions of people doing 1 and 2 man projects. Then along comes the PC. It's shit. It has poor graphics. It doesn't even have a standard vsync signal that you can count on for precision timing. But it's a business machine.
If not for Doom the 90s and 00s would have been a shitty wasteland of PC gaming.
The only reasons consoles have done well is 100% due to system-level DRM and promises from console manufacturers to provide DRM-enabled post-sale revenue channels and post-sale publisher control of "game licenses". In short, because of ignorant normalfags who are easily controlled and manipulated.

It's weird how I can read that statement in four completely different ways:

Care to clarify?

Are you implying that these are exclusive to consoles?

doom was probably the best pc game of the entire decade. lots of imitators and similar games that paled in comparison. It's one of the few games that actually has broad appeal and legitimately great design.

No you fucking retard, he is comparing how consoles used to be to what they are now.

it's far worse on PC. The worst that shit gets is a dialog bubble in the main menu or something. On PC you have it in your face in so many games at every corner. Entire games are built around it, and it's probably the sickest part of the entire industry.

"marxism is when black men fuck your wife, and the blacker the men and the more they fuck your wife, the marxier it is" - t. garl margs

Basically: Consoles were toys, simple, easy to get a grip of and do whatever. PCs were card/board games, you gotta know what you're doing to have fun.

And very few games that would utilize such features, because they were not even close to mainstream even among PC users, let alone people with interest in video games in general. Therefore, the typical PC game in the mid-late '90s was still way behind the typical console game of the time. They were doing a better job beginning to catch up during this period, but there were still only a few notable titles to stand out.

Yes, but also several that were actually pretty great and added their own twists to the genre: Duke Nukem 3D, Marathon, Dark Forces, Shadow Warrior, Blood, Outlaws, System Shock, Terminator Future Shock, Terra Nova…

Opinion discarded

Console gaming was much easier to get into. It was also cheaper and more convinient. The sole family computer wasn't being taken up and 56k and dsl often meant that calls weren't going through, which was often a major issue. Consoles also had more kid friendly games whereas pc had ultima, rs and shooters. There were puzzle games like Riven, but those ended up on consoles too.

Enjoy, console cuck.

Didn't SEGA do the exact same thing with arcade hardware though? Doesn't the Dreamcast basically have arcade hardware inside of it? Did the Dreamcast also dumb down arcade games by making those home-playable?

Not really, the Dreamcast was basically a Naomi 1 board with less RAM, and it didn't dumb them down at all. The arcade releases were usually 100% arcade perfect, plus had extra modes to improve replay value.

console games which require data to be installed install it off the disc shill.

That's how it used to work. Not anymore.

thats exactly how it works right now, shill

Mhm, yup, sure.
gamepur.com/news/14647-wolfenstein-new-order-unplayable-ps4-without-5gb-day-one-patch-launch-trail.html

This.

PCs don't market like consoles do because there is less of a brand. I've never seen an add campaign to sell a PC as a game machine like Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft do to sell their consoles.

I can play a game on PS4 completely offline. You're right about patches but that is not the fault of consoles.

Compare that to PC were you can't even buy games on disk anymore.

That's funny, because GTA5 is on five DVDs and The Division was on seven.

There are objectively more games you can play offline or outright at all on PC than on PS4.

It's the fault of the console audience for accepting it and letting it become the norm. But it doesn't matter whose fault it is. It exists and is now an objectively shitty thing about consoles.

Because discs were and still are the shittiest method to load something that is large and realtime. PC games have been installing to the internal drive from DVD since DVDs existed. Consoles struggled with long startup, loading & saving times forever and still seem to suffer from it despite moving up to Blu Ray.

They could switch to Blu Ray but the crossover of people is marginally small who will

Not worth it. And in the end the thing will just be installed to the internal drive like they always have because it loads and performs faster.

fuck off todd, no one cares about this forgettable game

it's funnier, becasuse mgs5 was a sticker with a key inside a cd case.

hmm yes the nt platform which has been around for 17 years compared to the ps4 which has been around for 4 years and will be getting replaced in a few years, how's this for an actual statement with some conviction:
the ps4 in its 4 years has had more games actually worth playing than the PC in those same 4 years.

wrong!
Homecomputers were consoles.

there is legit nuance to this argument, in all realistic terms it's been dos, 9x, win xp, vista nt+. all different platforms, and that's just from the late 80s and up.

It's weak.

The only exclusive titles the PS4 has gotten so far have been mediocre. We've got Souls which was dead after the 2nd title (DeS still being better and didn't require subscription fee to play online). Also very popular with game journos who literally can't explain anything without comparing it to 'souls-like' or some shit.
The rest, as far as I can tell are shitty 3rd person action movie-games with dad-daughter meme that sony fans can't get enough of shoved up their ass.

Not only have there been great games released on PC since PS4 launch, the 'HDs' or re-releases have actually been awesome like with Homefront & Swat 4. Not to mention that really old titles are
Meanwhile PS4 and consoles get 'HDs' that are barely any better than the original, sometimes even worse and are outright just a cash grab getting 8th console suckers to actually buy something from 7th gen again (which just had better games).

Well, there is some truth to this statement.
Japanese and european 8-bit and 16-bit computers were nothing more than glorified game consoles, both in specs and in how they were actually used.
Even in Europe and Asia back in the 1980s, if you actually needed a computer to get serious work done you'd buy a DOS PC or a Mac.

Yes, it requires you to go through that process even after several years of the console being out. It was a fucking pain setting up the Xbox One when I got it.

Wasn't the Famicom marketed as a home computer?

lol kys plebe

EXPLAIN YOURSELF

Old game (potentially abandoned) released today with improvements for functioning on modern systems, online servers and customer support.

PC's were fuck-off expensive and less reliable back then.

If you bought a $1000 dollar PC back in 2000 it would only be good until around 2004 or 2005 at which point it would be hopelessly outdated and you'd have to spend another large chunk of money for a new motherboard, processor, video card, RAM, hard drive, etc. Meanwhile the PS3 and 360 would probably outperform the shit out of that 5-year-old rig. Not the greatest long-term investment.

Meanwhile I happen to be rocking an 8-year-old system with a 5-year-old video card that was around 600 altogether and can still play most modern games at at-least medium settings with acceptable framerate. It was better than consoles then and still is now.

Not at first, but later they did try turning it into an 8-bit computer.

But you seem to imply that a SWAT 4 HD remaster exists and that's not true, sadly.
Closest we have is Ready or Not which is intended to be a spiritual successor to SWAT 4

It was even worse during the 1990s. For starters a brand new $1000 PC would be a toaster unsuitable for gaming. A gaming PC used to cost between $2500 to $5000, and it would be completely obsolete in 3 years max, that's if the machine cost around the top end of the spectrum. That's where the 2-year lifespan meme that consolefags parrot to this day came from.

All of this happens on Windows too, except you can't get a physical version of any games anymore, you can only lease them off steam, which has a near-monopoly at this point.

cancer

That's why you install them in modern systems. But you install from the disc, which you still actually own. Have fun paying for digital rentals, cuck. Unless you're advocating easier piracy, which is the one legitimate point you could have, but you haven't brought that up yet.

There have been practically no good games released on any platform since the PS4 came out, or since the PS3 came out, for that matter. But the best ones have all been console exclusives, as it has been since the NES.

Mainly talking about the gold edition. gog.com/game/swat_4_gold_edition

Which is a good thing. Im not buying pirated game discs

Not such a relevant meme anymore. PC hardware has gotten much cheaper and more long-lasting than ever before, but the unfortunate tradeoff is that hardware progression has kinda stagnated or plateaued depending on how you look at it.

So consoles once again only catching up to what PCs have been doing for decades.
You own a licesne to play it on your PlayStation®4. The disc just happens to be the license for that but it wouldn't hold up in court if you perhaps stole the game from a store. You'd need proof of purchase then, likely a receipt.
My GOG copy of Hitman is valid no matter where the fuck I go or if I burn it to a bazillion discs. As long as I only use it for myself. I have the license in a .txt file and proof of purchase to back it up. Eat shit.
I don't pirate anymore personally and I usually recommend others refrain too for the main reason that's it's not worth it. Any game not worth your time is not worth your money. Any game worth your time and you genuinely like it you should probably support unless they've done something you really don't like in which case piracy is more acceptable but you're still better off just paying for and playing other games from companies that are better. I haven't payed for or pirated Fallout 4 because it's garbage. When it's 4.99 maybe I'll pick it up for 100s of overhaul mods.
Definitely not as many, but there's still some. And I can guarantee they're not The Last of Us, Uncharted, Bloodborne, David Cage shit and all that other tripe Sony seems to love.
Also AAA full title release isn't the only thing to get excited for in terms of 'new' content. New mods, updates for current mods, revitalizing old games, getting stuck into obscure, old or niche genres & titles is something that is done best on PC. Just about the only significant server revitalising for console I've seen or am interested in is Biohazard Outbreak (thanks for not making a fucking HD of that 8th gen crapcom) and Metal Gear Online 2 (rip Konami).

Also genres you can expect on 8th gen consoles are very limited. Remember when even things like Supreme Commander released for Xbox360? It was an absolutely abysmal version… but there were RTS games being released on the console… that's significant. Good fucking luck with that on 8th gen. Enjoy your 3rd person cinematic action garbage with independent female protag who don't need no man. I can already see the 3rd person boxart shot of her overlooking some landscape with Good Graphics®.

meant for

It's a meme precisely because it hasn't been true for at least 10 years but consolefags still say it as if we were in 1997. Even though like you said we've reached a point were things are stagnant.

Console gaming is better for everything that isn't RTS and FPS, and those genres are shit tier.

I'll take that bait. Make your case, user. How, precisely, is console gaming better?

It wasn't an issue until very recently (last gen). Also around the time games went to shit in general, and PC games largely stopped even being sold in physical forms at all. PS2 era load times were almost never long enough to be an issue. And the newest major console uses carts again anyway.

Yes, if you steal and get caught, you typically do not get to keep the stolen merchandise. This has nothing to do with being a digital idiot that is happy to pay money for digital rentals that can be taken from you at any moment. If you're going digital, at least have the decency to pirate it.

Yes, Gog is a lot better than Steam. Too bad they're becoming increasingly irrelevant and Steam is gaining stronger and stronger footholds, becoming more and more of a monopoly.

Fair enough, but rather than giving the money to some middleman like Steam or even Gog, I'd rather just donate directly to the devs, since that's what you're essentially doing at that point, making a donation. If you're not giving me a physical product, and you're not even really giving me a digital product (you're only letting some third party let me rent it), I'm not gonna pay for that product. I may well want to support your efforts though, but that's much more of a donation than a purchase.

They also make Tearaway, Gravity Rush, and Ratchet & Clank (the latest was one of the worst in the series but still one of the best games in years, because games are shit now). With the Crash remasters I bet they'll start making new Crash and probably Spyro soon, and they'll probably be PS4 exclusive. Then I can pretend it's 1998 again and play good vidya again instead of going on Holla Forums and complaining about the lack of good vidya.

RTS and FPS are genres that stand out on PC. If you don't care about those, you're fucked. Then again, shooters have taken over console games in the last two and a half gens or so anyway, and killed off all my favorite genres. So either way you're fucked.

All the best platformers/racers/fighting games/whatever genre you can think of that isn't some rts/management sim or shooter is better on consoles than PC. Yes, some of them are best in arcades, but they're still better on consoles than PC because local multiplayer. Except newer consoles have been adopting cancerous PCuck mentalities in the last two gens and shifting to online in favor of local multiplayer. But all that's done is made sure all video games are becoming as bad as PC games have always been.

This seems to be the only real PC Gaming thread up here so I'll ask:

RX 580 or GTX 1060? I'll be putting it with a Ryzen 5 1600 CPU.

Yeah, a 2009 Radeon can still play games ok if you're stuck with one of those.