Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 61 to 77 of 77
  1. #61
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus rockman29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,132
    For some people, $200-$400 is a lot of money. Some of those people already need a PC and could spend $200-$400 upgrading that PC to be pretty damn good at playing games. For those who don't already need a PC, a cheap tablet and a cheap console might be their best option. But then there's the cost of games and availability of games.
    OK, well you responded to yourself I guess then here.

    Any one item, or group of items, might be their best option. There you go. Achievement is you! :)
    Sure, most people who can afford to play games at all can afford a console especially if they can afford a gaming PC. But for my money, I'd rather get $200-$400 more of games on PC or a $200 to $400 better PC than a console on top of my PC. And I've saved so much on games (even just counting what I've actually PLAYED) that I don't think console gaming is a clear bargain over PC gaming. Nor PC over consoles for that matter.
    @red bolded: eye of the beholder, and I'm happy you have what you want, honestly. I hope no one is threatened by me saying "get what you want", that is very odd.

    @black bolded: so what are you trying to say again that was so contrary to my post? I don't know either.

    And you are asking me what I mean after you post this???
    Er ... that doesn't make any sense. Surely those are the same thing unless you think there's some kind of space-age-fancy-pants objective measure of how good the economy of it is. What you're willing to pay for + what things actually cost = how good the economy of it is. Right?
    Hahaha... oh my.

    Where did I suggest... there was an objective measure? And where did I single out any user here to say "a console is good for you, you must buy one..." Lol. The comment about the "economy of it" was simply... if you really want something, most people will overlook some of the cost burden, or it will be looked at much differently. Because... they want to get that item. And in relation to the value in a console, I was speaking to it for myself.... as evidenced by talking about what the cost has been to me.....

    Look at it this way.... try to explain to someone who doesn't play games at all... that it is a "good use of money" to buy a $800 PC games machine. But to a gamer, it's not looked at as such a cost burden... because well, we want it. We overlook some of the expense. Just like someone who loves fishing or travelling or hiking or boating considers that an expense well made.

    I'm just going to go back to my little statement... if you want it, you'll probably find a way to buy it, and that's probably best for anyone. If you can be upset about that, that's really up to you :)
    Last edited by rockman29; 23-07-2014 at 07:41 PM.

  2. #62
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus somini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NEuro Troika Franchulate #3
    Posts
    4,005
    Quote Originally Posted by Berzee View Post
    I like best to play games on my laptop, wearing headphones, sitting in a comfy recliner, huddled away in a corner with my back to the wall where nobody can sneak up on me, preferably after dark while everyone else is sleeping, with the lights off, and a forgotten mug of herbal tea cooling by my elbow. I'm so attached to this setup that I usually don't play games on my desktop anymore unless they won't run on my laptop (sometimes opting to play games at 800x600 resolution rather than switching to a desk chair and a centrally-facing monitor).

    I'm not really sure why I treat my games-time like Gollum treats The One Ring, but I don't think a console would be compatible with this style of play unless I also find a little television I can rest in my lap. :P
    Ugh, I don't like to use my gaming laptop outside a real table, with a comfy chair.
    *impotent rage at people who have desktops*
    Steam(shots), Imgur, Flickr, Bak'laag, why do you forsake me?

  3. #63
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    137
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman29 View Post
    @red bolded: eye of the beholder, and I'm happy you have what you want, honestly. I hope no one is threatened by me saying "get what you want", that is very odd.

    @black bolded: so what are you trying to say again that was so contrary to my post? I don't know either.
    I'm confused as to why you're confused, rockman.

    The tone of your post, and your replies to gwathdring, has been one of someone assuming that everyone making precisely the point that gwathdring makes here, and has been making in every one of his posts you respond to is attacking console owners.

    All gwathdring was saying was that it makes little sense to say "It's a matter of what you're willing to pay for, not whether the economy of it is good" because you're just saying the same thing twice in the sentence. Your entire defence of people buying consoles simply reads as "I think I got good value out of buying a console, so if you don't want to buy a console and just have a PC, you didn't really want to have a console".

    The problem is: none of us were attacking buying consoles.

    The other problem is: mostly, we were concerned with the way the industry tries to make it so you have to buy every console, or more than one console or other gaming platform, to experience most of the content produced. A defence of the cost of buying just one console doesn't actually address that.

    The third problem is: your reaction to responses was to act as if we were attacking people who own consoles, even though gwathdring's actual reply itself included a rationale for buying a console as your sole gaming platform.

    (The fourth problem is that your initial assertion is false anyway: if I state that I really want to buy a house, but I also need to eat so I haven't bought one yet, the assertion "oh, well you mustn't really want a house then, otherwise you'd stop eating" would be regarded as nonsensical. Similarly, having a desire to own a console which is not your highest desire doesn't mean that you don't really want to own a console. It just means you don't want to own one as much as the things prioritised higher than it.)

  4. #64
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus rockman29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,132
    If you look back at the original post I made, which was first responded to... there is none of that sentiment tbh.

    The tone was directed more at the tone in a select, very few, posts. Such as "console games have bad framerates, small fov" and along the lines of that.

    But if there was an issue with the tone of my original post on that, which was basically... you'll have the equipment you're willing to pay for, I'd agree with you.

    But it wasn't started out like that. I was simply saying in my post, it hasn't been too expensive for me. I explained that simply, and then stated... people should get the stuff they want. And most people, if they want it, they'll grab those items in spite of the added costs.

    My original post was not so deserving of a rather sarcastic response by gwathring, so if you would like to comment on the tone of my posts, at least do not make it so one-sided and please note the tone of the other post.

    I didn't start that discussion, and I couldn't have by merely stating how console gaming has been not-so-expensive, but still an added expense mind you.

    (The fourth problem is that your initial assertion is false anyway: if I state that I really want to buy a house, but I also need to eat so I haven't bought one yet, the assertion "oh, well you mustn't really want a house then, otherwise you'd stop eating"
    Is a house on the equivalent scale of cost of a console, or a PC? How can you suggest my statement was so otherworldly, if you make an argument like that?

    If you are really interested in the product, which is not the cost of a house or a car, you'll probably end up with it at some point. I really don't see how that is so controversial to say? That probably applies to most persons.

    I mean I'd be quite interested if people posted their gaming budgets now, to debate against that point.

    These are the two original posts btw, if there was something so controversial about the tone of what I said, I think I disagree with that. All I got was a sarcastic retort in response, but I guess we'll just not mention that?
    Well the economy of it ain't too bad, at least not as bad as it seems to be said here.

    I bought a PS3 at like $299, has lasted me 4.5 years now. That's about.... $75 a year or less. Bought a PS4 at launch for $399... not expecting it to crap out, but assuming the generation lasts at least 5 years it's not a bad investment at all.

    I mean spending isn't even really the issue for me. I want to play the games, and having a PS4 and a PC is simply the best way to get the ones I want. Every PC game, every PlayStation game, and every multiplatform game on any platform is available. For me that's the spectrum of access I'm willing to pay for. My PC + $400, not a bad bet honestly.

    Gaming can be an expensive hobby on PC or consoles, but if you want it enough, you will buy it. It's not really a matter of "this extra $200 is just so unreasonable. Because it's not, if you want it.

    It's a matter of what you're willing to pay for, not whether the economy of it is good. The economy of it is all just varying degrees of slightly better to not so good.

    If you only have a PC it's probably because you just don't want a console. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't make the economy of buying a console a poor standard.
    Er ... that doesn't make any sense. Surely those are the same thing unless you think there's some kind of space-age-fancy-pants objective measure of how good the economy of it is. What you're willing to pay for + what things actually cost = how good the economy of it is. Right?
    I made a rather benign post, and I don't think it's alright to single me out when I get a sarcastic retort like that, and then complain about my tone alone. That's a little unfair.
    Last edited by rockman29; 23-07-2014 at 08:49 PM.

  5. #65
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    137
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman29 View Post
    Is a house on the equivalent scale of cost of a console, or a PC? How can you suggest my statement was so otherworldly, if you make an argument like that?

    If you are really interested in the product, which is not the cost of a house or a car, you'll probably end up with it at some point. I really don't see how that is so controversial to say? That probably applies to most persons.
    Firstly: it's an argument by reduction to extremes, which is a common rhetorical technique designed to point out a flaw in an argument by using the same logic but with more extreme comparisons to highlight the perceived issue. Obviously, I'm not really saying that you'd use the argument against someone who wanted to buy a house - I am saying that your argument would look like that in that extreme circumstance, so maybe it also needs examination in the less extreme circumstances.

    Secondly: you'll probably end up with it eventually. The length of eventually can be very long indeed (I do really want to play some of the last gen console exclusives, but I don't own either an Xbox360 or a PS3 yet - for me, eventually will be probably at least another 6 months away).

    I mean I'd be quite interested if people posted their gaming budgets now, to debate against that point.
    Sure: almost all the games I've bought in the last year have been in indie bundles, other than Analogue/Hate Plus, which I bought a month or so ago after bumping into one of the articles about Christine Love on RPS.
    I suspect I've spent less than £100 a year for the last two years.


    These are the two original posts btw, if there was something so controversial about the tone of what I said, I think I disagree with that. All I got was a sarcastic retort in response, but I guess we'll just not mention that?

    I made a rather benign post, and I don't think it's alright to single me out when I get a sarcastic retort like that, and then complain about my tone alone. That's a little unfair.
    gwathdring's response wasn't that sarcastic: I think you were overreacting to it. You made a muddled point, he used the phrase "space-age fancy-pants objective measure", which I think it is what you're interpreting as biting sarcasm with you in response, you got upset enough that you didn't notice that he was actually agreeing with you in the second half of his post, and the whole thing went off the rails. I don't read his reply like that, and I don't think his tone comes across as attacking or mocking you - he's being a little light-hearted with his phrasing, but given that the post as a whole makes a point that you end up agreeing with, I don't think it can be taken as as negative.

  6. #66
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus rockman29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,132
    Well that's an awfully interesting way to take my post in it's most negative interpretation, and yet give the benefit of doubt to all others. Can hardly be called fairness, but how can I expect that on the internet.
    Firstly: it's an argument by reduction to extremes, which is a common rhetorical technique designed to point out a flaw in an argument by using the same logic but with more extreme comparisons to highlight the perceived issue.
    It's also a certain type of fallacy, is it not? For good reason, perhaps. And I used eventually in open ended terms, for that very reason... open to interpretation. Quite a bit of stretching to find the controversy in my original post, but if that's what you want.
    Last edited by rockman29; 23-07-2014 at 10:33 PM.

  7. #67
    Activated Node Samsonite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    50
    For me, the quality and performance of consoles just is not good enough. It (a console) is usually reasonable spec within the first few months of release but you are stuck to a common denominator for the next few years. Things like frame-rate, fov, etc. have been mentioned. Resolution was always another big one - you could do PC gaming in higher than 1080p for a long time. In terms of 4k gaming - the next gen consoles cannot do it (they can do the resolution but not at an acceptable speed for gaming - only video playback). Then there is the ability to improve games if you have beastly PCs via graphics mods. Add in the cheap storage options, SSD. The majority of my games come from Steam and they all run off SSDs - many games take less than a second to load - like to see that on a console!

    I started off on consoles and an Atari STE (which lasted 10 years), but as soon as I got Doom running on a second-hand PC then upgraded the graphics card for under $100 to get "blistering" frame rates, I was hooked. Not to mention that my favorite game of the Atari was Dungeon Master and the PC version ran from HDD instead of floppy :)

  8. #68
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    137
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman29 View Post
    Well that's an awfully interesting way to take my post in it's most negative interpretation, and yet give the benefit of doubt to all others. Can hardly be called fairness, but how can I expect that on the internet.
    Did you read the bit where he was agreeing with you for most of the post? It seems unreasonable to assume someone is picking on you when they're actually agreeing with your point!

    It's also a certain type of fallacy, is it not? For good reason, perhaps. And I used eventually in open ended terms, for that very reason... open to interpretation. Quite a bit of stretching to find the controversy in my original post, but if that's what you want.
    It's a fallacy when used by itself. You'll note that I use it to lead into the reason why I think your phrasing was poor using precisely your example, not the fallacious one.

  9. #69
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus rockman29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,132
    I'm not reading it the same way honestly, but my point is.... buy what you want, what you're comfortable with, etc.

    The only part I was certain where we agree is in that last sentence, that each costs a fair deal of money regardless.

  10. #70
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus gwathdring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    3,953
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman29 View Post
    I made a rather benign post, and I don't think it's alright to single me out when I get a sarcastic retort like that, and then complain about my tone alone. That's a little unfair.
    My sarcasm was meant to illustrate my bafflement, and was not intended to be mean spirited or mocking. I apologize if you interpreted it thusly.

    I was confused as to why you seemed to think this made sense: "It's a matter of what you're willing to pay for, not whether the economy of it is good. The economy of it is all just varying degrees of slightly better to not so good."

    You're asserting that you think the economy is good. Fair enough. But you're arguing that there's a different between whether the economy of it is good and whether or not you're willing to pay for it. You explicitly draw contrast between the two. For me, that implies there must be some objective standard of how good the economy of it is so as to contrast with the subjective measure of what you're willing to pay for. Otherwise I see no reason for contrast. My elaborate (and intended as silly, more than sarcastic) language was just made to express my bafflement; I didn't understand what you were getting at because it didn't make sense to me as written.

    It wasn't just the one line, either. You also said "Gaming can be an expensive hobby on PC or consoles, but if you want it enough, you will buy it. It's not really a matter of "this extra $200 is just so unreasonable. Because it's not, if you want it."

    Which seems odd. There are lots of things I want that I can't afford or things I want that I don't think are worth the price. There are things I a) want, b) can afford, c) am willing to afford but won't buy because I think they're priced more than they're worth and that sense of valuation is stronger than my desire to own it. I would rather buy things I want less but value more closely to what I spend. There are also things that I a) want b) can afford and c) am willing to afford ... but not so willing that I'll pass up a chance to pay less for should it arise.

    In the specific case of consoles, you have to consider, too, that a lot of console games come out on PC either as ports or as properly multi-platform games. In that case, you have to also weigh the difference in cost between the various systems (especially in the case of considering multiple-system ownership) in terms of the difference in gaming libraries rather than just as an outright cost. And then there's opportunity cost, which can be pretty dang high with something as pricy as $300.

    Everyone has a slightly different way of making these kinds of assessments. But I think that's sort of obvious, isn't it? And it makes blanket statements like "This is worth it, if you want it enough [to think it's worth it" kind of ... weirdly meaningless. People have been talking about their opinions about the value and their rationalizations of that value. To me that's more interesting and useful than a blanket statement about whether PC gaming or Console gaming are "worth it" in the abstract if you want to participate in them enough. Your bit explaining your estimations of value and your breakdown of it were a lot more interesting and informative and I didn't get confused by them. It's the other statements that either confused me or seemed meaningless to me or both.

    Other than that, though, I haven't been meaning to argue with you. I don't have a counterpoint to a specific point you made. Which is whyyou couldn't figure out what I'm trying to say that's so counter to your post. I'm not trying to say anything that's so counter to your post.

    My expression of confusion, also, was genuine. I wasn't trying to make you explain anything as a rhetorical device. I didn't understand what that paragraph said. I couldn't parse the syntax. It didn't fit together. It's not that I don't understand the idea, it's that an idea did not emerge for the words; I was trying to ask nicely for you to rephrase but you certainly don't have to. You have no obligation to be clear to me. :)
    Last edited by gwathdring; 24-07-2014 at 03:47 AM.
    I think of [the Internet] as a grisly raw steak laid out on a porcelain benchtop in the sun, covered in chocolate hazelnut sauce. In the background plays Stardustís Music Sounds Better With You. Thereís lots of fog. --tomeoftom

    You ruined his point by putting it in context thatís cheating -bull0

  11. #71
    Lesser Hivemind Node frightlever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    617
    Quote Originally Posted by Berzee View Post
    I like best to play games on my laptop, wearing headphones, sitting in a comfy recliner, huddled away in a corner with my back to the wall where nobody can sneak up on me, preferably after dark while everyone else is sleeping, with the lights off, and a forgotten mug of herbal tea cooling by my elbow. I'm so attached to this setup that I usually don't play games on my desktop anymore unless they won't run on my laptop (sometimes opting to play games at 800x600 resolution rather than switching to a desk chair and a centrally-facing monitor).

    I'm not really sure why I treat my games-time like Gollum treats The One Ring, but I don't think a console would be compatible with this style of play unless I also find a little television I can rest in my lap. :P
    In this example is "play games" a euphemism?

    The little television for your lap is either a tablet or a Vita, at a push. What you're describing is exactly how I used my iPad for gaming when I went through my iPad gaming phase last year.

  12. #72
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Wenz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Gorizia, Italy
    Posts
    1,656
    Kinda wish for some kind of console emulator thing (not old Dolph) and get over with it all .
    post in progress

  13. #73
    No I wouldn't. I can't afford console gaming. I'd need to buy a big screen TV, a couch and a house. Not to mention paying full price for all the games. PC gaming is dirt cheap, I already have a PC, and Steam sales makes games cheap.

  14. #74
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus DaftPunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    4,320
    Like not having keyboard and mouse on consoles is reason why i don't play them :x The big reason are games my people,games in which i don't have slight interest.

  15. #75
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus rockman29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,132
    My sarcasm was meant to illustrate my bafflement, and was not intended to be mean spirited or mocking. I apologize if you interpreted it thusly.

    I was confused as to why you seemed to think this made sense: "It's a matter of what you're willing to pay for, not whether the economy of it is good. The economy of it is all just varying degrees of slightly better to not so good."
    Fair enough.

    I mean it in the sense, if someone can afford something comfortably and are interested in what the product offers, that's all. It might still be pretty expensive. I really meant nothing super crazy about it.

    Buying games can be expensive as a hobby, that's all. But if it's worth it to us it's more worthwhile.

    In respect to what I was saying for myself, I really just meant to say how it has been for me.

    And a new comment... It started on PS2 and Steam, that I would be buying games many years after release, and now I try to make it a regular thing for consoles and PC games.

    I typically buy the $60 at release games for like $20 or $30 mostly now, I like to get new copies (except right now, trying to build the PS4 library a bit faster).
    Last edited by rockman29; 24-07-2014 at 03:45 PM.

  16. #76
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus gwathdring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    3,953
    Quote Originally Posted by BadManiac View Post
    No I wouldn't. I can't afford console gaming. I'd need to buy a big screen TV, a couch and a house. Not to mention paying full price for all the games. PC gaming is dirt cheap, I already have a PC, and Steam sales makes games cheap.
    Eh, if I had one, I'd totally play my console on a large monitor. Local multiplayer would be bit disappointing but I've played local multiplayer on disappointedly sized TVs for ages via PC, laptop, and crowding around an average-to-below-average TV. I'm so used to it that screens bigger than 32" feel big to me when I see them at people's houses and I can't stand the idea of a 20+" PC monitor for a desktop. I LIKE my 17" monitor!

    If I wasn't playing mostly local multiplayer, I'd be happy playing my console just like I play PC games. Up close with a smaller screen. For me, being able to kick-back on the couch and play isn't a) that desirable or b) something I can't do with a PC. Even mouse and keyboard is just a matter of yanking the pullout-tray from my desk, slapping it on my lap and rocking on. Or, in a pinch, keyboard on my lap, mouse on a stack of books next to me. Worked in the dorms, still works now. :)
    I think of [the Internet] as a grisly raw steak laid out on a porcelain benchtop in the sun, covered in chocolate hazelnut sauce. In the background plays Stardustís Music Sounds Better With You. Thereís lots of fog. --tomeoftom

    You ruined his point by putting it in context thatís cheating -bull0

  17. #77
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus rockman29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,132
    You can put a console on a desk for sure. I have a PS3 and PS4 on my desk (it's a pretty big desk lol, but not too big :P). Both are right next to the PC tower.

    Got two screens too, for dual screen on the PC, or single screen for a console and the other for the PC. Rather nice setup, best I've had for sure.

    I definitely prefer this to a home theater kind of thing, everything in one place.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •