You Know What Bugs Me About PC Gaming Culture?

And this is coming from a PC Gamer
I hate how games become viewed as a bulk commodity
arguments about games tend to boil down to "You can get like 30 games for 5 bucks on Steam"
and apparently wanting a specific games, like Final Fantasy, or whatever isn't valid because you can get SO MANY GAMES on the PC
It bugs me the way that devalues games as a whole. Screw having games you LIKE, you can have a bunch of random games and they'll run at 1080p 60 FPS!

 

Wait, so, the amount of games you have to choose from is a bad thing?

 

No, the argument that having a huge library somehow trumps your desire to play a specific game
Like a person might say "Oh, I want a Wii U to play Mario" and get a response of "Why would you do that when you could get like 30 games on Steam for 5 bucks"
It bugs me when it's boiled down to just "hey look at all these games"
PC will always be a great place to go if you're looking for a very specific niche to be filled, but the generalizing of games into bulk content, which is probably a side effect of the Steam sales/Humble Bundles etc. really frustrates me
Why does it matter if you can get an indie puzzle platformer for 2.50 if you want to play a high budget action game or something

 

subscribing to one platform exclusively is so dumb, i will never understand it.

 

I think it's less of "You can get more games on PC for less money" and more like "Why get a WiiU for one or two games when you can get a PC and you'll probably find heaps more games that you'll like, and it'll cost less" Besides, most big games have a PC version or can be played through emulation and a $20 PC controller.

 

I think Wii U is an ideal example for this, because you're not going to find anything like what Nintendo offers on PC. Sure, you can emulate most Nintendo stuff, but that's still illegal. Everybody does it, but I don't think you should be able to use that as a selling point.
But anyways, sure you can find a dozen platformers on Steam for cheap, but you're not going to get the same polish, mechanics or aesthetic as a Mario game.
There's this overriding attitude (and I should specify at this point that I'm no longer referring to you) that quantity ALWAYS trumps quality, which is actually a pretty huge problem with Steam right now, with all the stuff that keeps flooding in. Yeah a lot of games, particularly ps4 and xb1 games get PC ports, but on top of often getting delays they're often BAD ports, and big games tend to not have anywhere near as crazy sales as anything else, so you're not really saving money until the game is old enough to be in the bargain bin anyways

 

Only thing I'm gonna pick about your whole post is this point. Everything else is solid except this, cause I'm fairly sure that emulation is alright as long as you have a physical copy of what you're emulating. It could be ripped to hell, but as long as you paid for a legit copy at one point or another, it's fine. Other than that, you make some good points.

 

Why would you emulate the Mario game when you already own it on the WiiU? I can understand emulating older games like Pokemon RBY and Link to the Past, those aren't sold anymore. Heck, you might still own the system and game, but one or the other might not work anymore. But if I emulate Mario when I can still buy a physical copy, that's illegal and pretty much a dick move too.


I totally understand where hatok is coming from too. My brother bought his PS2 pretty much because he wanted to play Kingdom Hearts. Sure, he bought a crap-load of other games besides, but the reason he got it in the first place is because of KH. Hey, I might buy a WiiU just so I can play Mario. I can also buy other games, but I'm buying it just for Mario. I'm not, however, going to buy Hello Kitty Kruisers or CoD or Angry Birds on it. It doesn't matter how good of a deal it is, if they threw the games at me for $0.30 apiece, I still wouldn't get them, because they don't interest me. Having a massive library is useless if you can't play them all. If I got Hello Kitty, I might spend time playing it that I could spend playing Mario. I don't even care about the HK game, I wanted to play Mario, but I bought it, so I might as well play it.

 

Legality varies by location. To my knowledge up here in Canada emulators are legal... but the files that let you emulate games are not. I know in some places law dictates you can emulate games you own as part of some sort of "digital back up" sort of law.
I'm fairly certain as long as a game is available somewhere else a company can charge you with loss of sale, though
Personally, my view is that the moment a game can't be physically owned emulation is perfectly okay. The game had its run, and won't be making notable money ever again, bar strange and specific circumstances
But anyways, if you only emulate games you own, that still limits your library. Obviously the intent of the argument in this case it is implicit that you will download anything you want

 

◀◀ ◀◀ thank u. bless​

 

Yeah, I have friends and acquaintances who preach that like all the time. It's quality over quantity, man.

I also get the feeling that it's due to that "screw big-name/mainstream games indie games all de way" mentality or something like that. But maybe I'm generalizing. D:

 

Because some people have to be conscious of the price of gaming. I totally agree that quality should trump quantity, but I know many people who'd rather be able to play 10 great games from Humble Bundles or GOG/GMG/Steam sales or what-have-you on a PC for the same price (or often less) than the price of just one great game on a console.

 

But at that point you're looking at games as a way to fill chunks of time, rather than an experience. There are plenty of free games that can fill hours of your time, you don't need to spend a little bit of money to get slightly fancier versions
And I mean, are you really so starved for ways to spend your time that you can't do something... else when you don't have a new game to play?
I dunno, I don't really see how you get more for your money by buying ten lower quality games that last longer over one or two high quality games. I mean, sometimes the two coincide, adn you get a bundle of like 15 AMAZING games for a dollar with a Humble Bundle, but those are the exception for than the rule

 

WAIT SO IT'S WRONG TO JUST WORSHIP MICROSOFT?

Man, what do I do with this shrine of Halo figs holding up the original Xbox?

 

Take the Xbox down.
That sounds dangerous, what if it falls?

 

Then no loss.

 

For one, I don't think that the two things (experience and time-filling) can't coincide. And your argument that there are free games to play instead of paying money for "fancier versions" almost sounds like the argument you're making about paying for one high quality game instead of paying the same price or lower for multiple high quality games.

Also, I feel uncomfortable that you put video games as a way to spend time that can easily be replaced by other means. For many of us, sure, it's easy to find something else to enjoy as much as video games, but there are people who don't get that same joy out of other media. What would you say to those people?

 

I hate that argument when someone spends a thousand on a extremely powerful rig, and claims that they save money on PC games prices compared to console costs.

Prices of games are horrendous sometimes, but if price equaled quality, all free games would be great.

 

You do save money though, provided you like the games available. Even when not on sale, PC games can be as much as half their console price at launch

 

Not true. If you want games on launch, you're still spending $50-$60. If not, Steam sales and used game sales aren't always too far apart for bigger titles... Unless you have evidence that says otherwise? And I mean both games had to come out on each platform at the same time