|
|
Post by SoonDragon67 on Jan 1, 2014 16:30:25 GMT -5
*Looks at the 360 community* *Blinks* ... and while you're at it, consider the number of times you've nodded your head sagely while some dumbass has droned on about how the Sony is a "gaming console" and the XBox is "an entertainment console" despite the fact that they offer virtually identical experiences for both gaming and entertainment. Haven't I been the one saying over and over that the Xbox One and the PS4 are almost the same thing? I've been saying that ever since the Xbox One changed its policies. I've always been rather annoyed by the people you stated in your last paragraph (It even drove me out of a gaming community that I had been apart of for over 6 months). |
|
|
|
Post by miketheratguy on Jan 1, 2014 18:06:29 GMT -5
Mm, I've seen a HELL of a lot of 360 and Nintendo fanboys over the last five years or so as well. I would argue that this last generation of consoles has, in general, been full of fanboys. I do have to acknowledge though that the PS3 fanboyism has seemed more rampant and pervasive to me, some of those people feverishly defend their system with an ignorant loyalty not seen since the 16 bit wars. I would say that PC and PS3 owners, as a whole, strike me as the most obnoxious. Which is a shame because I own both. Exactly. Fanboys are an inevitability, so the fact that I'm still shocked by the absolutely vitriol of PC gamers (and to a lesser extent, PS3 people) suggests that there's something special in the kool-aid. Yeah I absolutely adore PC gaming but I find the general attitude of most PC gamers to be absolutely disgusting. So you can spend two thousand dollars on a rig that plays a crisper version of a console game. Yays to you. |
|
|
|
Post by Straight Edge Steve on Jan 1, 2014 18:12:53 GMT -5
Exactly. Fanboys are an inevitability, so the fact that I'm still shocked by the absolutely vitriol of PC gamers (and to a lesser extent, PS3 people) suggests that there's something special in the kool-aid. Yeah I absolutely adore PC gaming but I find the general attitude of most PC gamers to be absolutely disgusting. So you can spend two thousand dollars on a rig that plays a crisper version of a console game. Yays to you. PC gaming is honestly the best. You are very unlimited in terms of what you can do with a PC. Unfortunately PC games nowadays have these weird systems where you have to go online to play an offline game.
Also, why the hell do consoles have fanboys? They are FUCKIN' MACHINES.
|
|
|
|
Post by miketheratguy on Jan 1, 2014 18:29:37 GMT -5
So are PCs, but that doesn't stop people from acting like better people for owning them.
I like PC games for the ability to mod and otherwise customize them, there are usually more options and possibilities with a PC game. Some of my favorite things about games like Skyrim don't even exist on the console, and some games (such as Mount and Blade: Warband) that I really love are PC exclusive time sinks.
I do hate all the online bullshit, it's leaking onto the console seen but has already existed for years on the PC. As I've said a million times before I go out of my way to disable that crap.
|
|
|
|
Post by WSS? on Jan 1, 2014 18:32:19 GMT -5
I don't get the problem with always-online. Oh, and by the way, you can go offline on Steam. :flex:
|
|
|
|
Post by SoonDragon67 on Jan 1, 2014 18:34:44 GMT -5
You know what annoys me more than anything else about the PC?
I have a bunch of old games (And newly bought o;d games) that I can't play because my PC is too advanced for them. That annoys the hell out of me...
|
|
|
|
Post by miketheratguy on Jan 1, 2014 18:40:44 GMT -5
I don't get the problem with always-online. Oh, and by the way, you can go offline on Steam. :flex: I don't want my activity being monitored, I don't want to have to "sign in" to play a game, I don't want to be forced to share my data or stats with other players, I don't want to depend on them for my game to be successful (SimCity), I don't want to install third-party programs on my PC, I don't want to have to have an internet subscription to play a single-player game, I don't want my gaming sessions to depend on the availability of the publisher's server, and I don't want to tether my game to an online account that bars me from trading or selling the game at a later time. Also, fuck Steam. |
|
|
|
Post by SoonDragon67 on Jan 1, 2014 18:42:25 GMT -5
I don't get the problem with always-online. Oh, and by the way, you can go offline on Steam. :flex: I don't want my activity being monitored, I don't want to have to "sign in" to play a game, I don't want to be forced to share my data or stats with other players, I don't want to depend on them for my game to be successful (SimCity), I don't want to install third-party programs on my PC, I don't want to have to have an internet subscription to play a single-player game, I don't want my gaming sessions to depend on the availability of the publisher's server, and I don't want to tether my game to an online account that bars me from trading or selling the game at a later time. Also, f*** Steam. I'm surprised you haven't mentioned that online servers cost lots of money and inevitably have to be shut down. That means if a game is tethered to Online too much, it'll become worthless after a few years/decades |
|
|
|
Post by Straight Edge Steve on Jan 1, 2014 18:48:03 GMT -5
So are PCs, but that doesn't stop people from acting like better people for owning them. I like PC games for the ability to mod and otherwise customize them, there are usually more options and possibilities with a PC game. Some of my favorite things about games like Skyrim don't even exist on the console, and some games (such as Mount and Blade: Warband) that I really love are PC exclusive time sinks. I do hate all the online bulls***, it's leaking onto the console seen but has already existed for years on the PC. As I've said a million times before I go out of my way to disable that crap. When I said consoles, I ment PCs too. I was going to go on a long rant about humans and too much free time, but I just had a long rant a few minutes ago, so I'll hold off  |
|
|
|
Post by WSS? on Jan 1, 2014 18:48:53 GMT -5
I don't get the problem with always-online. Oh, and by the way, you can go offline on Steam. :flex: I don't want my activity being monitored, I don't get this problem, really. I don't have anything to hide, I guess. Again, I don't see a problem, unless you're playing porn games or something. ...Why would you not have internet? That makes no sense in this day and age. Aren't you the guy who doesn't sell his games? Alright, guess I'll enjoy $2 for Just Cause 2 by myself. |
|
|
|
Post by Straight Edge Steve on Jan 1, 2014 18:49:20 GMT -5
I don't get the problem with always-online. Oh, and by the way, you can go offline on Steam. :flex: I don't want my activity being monitored, I don't want to have to "sign in" to play a game, I don't want to be forced to share my data or stats with other players, I don't want to depend on them for my game to be successful (SimCity), I don't want to install third-party programs on my PC, I don't want to have to have an internet subscription to play a single-player game, I don't want my gaming sessions to depend on the availability of the publisher's server, and I don't want to tether my game to an online account that bars me from trading or selling the game at a later time. Also, f*** Steam. Exactly my thoughts, except for the thing about Steam. I like steam, as it makes life easier for the less PC adept. |
|
|
|
Post by miketheratguy on Jan 1, 2014 18:49:39 GMT -5
That's part of the whole package, really. When a game (such as Diablo) requires you to register your copy of the game to an account it's basically doing three things, none of which really benefit you to the point that they outweigh the negatives (if at all): (A) It requires you to sign in to an external account, which means that you have to be online and logged in to play. (B) It locks the metadata of that specific copy of the game to that specific account meaning that you aren't going to be selling or trading it. (C) It ensures that when the company's servers inevitably black out or are taken down, you aren't playing your game ever again.
Gee, I'd be a fool NOT to want this.
|
|
|
|
Post by SoonDragon67 on Jan 1, 2014 18:51:37 GMT -5
I don't want my activity being monitored, I don't get this problem, really. I don't have anything to hide, I guess....Why would you not have internet? That makes no sense in this day and age. The first one, there is a reason people have problems with the NSA, had problems with the Kinect, and had problems with the Google Glasses. People don't want their entire lives out there for others to see. The "I don't have anything to hide" argument is bulls***, and you know that. Everyone has something to hide. The second one, I'm guessing you've never had your Internet go out ever? |
|
|
|
Post by Straight Edge Steve on Jan 1, 2014 18:54:18 GMT -5
I don't get this problem, really. I don't have anything to hide, I guess....Why would you not have internet? That makes no sense in this day and age. Everyone has something to hide. The second one, I'm guessing you've never had your Internet go out ever? 1. I second that. We all do odd things. 2. There are plenty of people without Internet. It can be very expensive. But I'm sure in the next 50 years it will become as common as television. In fact, it is already close to that point.
|
|
|
|
Post by SoonDragon67 on Jan 1, 2014 18:59:16 GMT -5
Everyone has something to hide. The second one, I'm guessing you've never had your Internet go out ever? 2. There are plenty of people without Internet. It can be very expensive. But I'm sure in the next 50 years it will become as common as television. In fact, it is already close to that point.
You misread that. Has your Internet ever went down? I know mine has, quite commonly in fact. If a storm comes rolling in best get to a single player game. |
|
|
|
Post by Straight Edge Steve on Jan 1, 2014 19:00:35 GMT -5
2. There are plenty of people without Internet. It can be very expensive. But I'm sure in the next 50 years it will become as common as television. In fact, it is already close to that point.
You misread that. Has your Internet ever went down? I know mine has, quite commonly in fact. If a storm comes rolling in best get to a single player game. My #2 was towards Brawn. And yours is correct too. Though I have wifi so that isn't an issue for me. |
|
|
|
Post by SoonDragon67 on Jan 1, 2014 19:01:47 GMT -5
You misread that. Has your Internet ever went down? I know mine has, quite commonly in fact. If a storm comes rolling in best get to a single player game. My #2 was towards Brawn. And yours is correct too. Though I have wifi so that isn't an issue for me. I have wifi too, doesn't mean my Internet doesn't go down. |
|
|
|
Post by Straight Edge Steve on Jan 1, 2014 19:03:16 GMT -5
My #2 was towards Brawn. And yours is correct too. Though I have wifi so that isn't an issue for me. I have wifi too, doesn't mean my Internet doesn't go down. Just because you're down, doesn't mean you're broken. |
|
|
|
Post by miketheratguy on Jan 1, 2014 19:04:05 GMT -5
I don't want my activity being monitored, I don't get this problem, really. I don't have anything to hide, I guess. Again, I don't see a problem, unless you're playing porn games or something. ...Why would you not have internet? That makes no sense in this day and age. Aren't you the guy who doesn't sell his games? Alright, guess I'll enjoy $2 for Just Cause 2 by myself. 1. Having something to hide is irrelevant. If you're happy to let game companies (or ad agencies, or other players, or facebook, or whatever else) view, share, and trade your personal information or activities on the basis that they should be allowed to simply because "you have nothing to hide" then you have no concept of individual liberty. 2. There are plenty of places that don't have internet access which is beside the point. A single-player gaming session shouldn't require the internet, period. The idea that everyone should just "have the internet in this day and age" in order to play games is a fallacy. You might as well argue that games should require an optical verification system because "who doesn't have eyes". 3. Whether I choose to sell my games is, again, irrelevant to the issue of whether the consumer should be allowed to. 4. Steam isn't required to get a good price on a three year old game, and I'd rather pay more to have a physical copy that isn't distributed by them in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by charliebucketsgranpa on Jan 1, 2014 19:13:30 GMT -5
I don't get this problem, really. I don't have anything to hide, I guess. Again, I don't see a problem, unless you're playing porn games or something. ...Why would you not have internet? That makes no sense in this day and age. Aren't you the guy who doesn't sell his games? Alright, guess I'll enjoy $2 for Just Cause 2 by myself. 1. Having something to hide is irrelevant. If you're happy to let game companies (or ad agencies, or other players, or facebook, or whatever else) view, share, and trade your personal information or activities on the basis that they should be allowed to simply because "you have nothing to hide" then you have no concept of individual liberty. 2. There are plenty of places that don't have internet access which is beside the point. A single-player gaming session shouldn't require the internet, period. The idea that everyone should just "have the internet in this day and age" in order to play games is a fallacy. You might as well argue that games should require an optical verification system because "who doesn't have eyes". 3. Whether I choose to sell my games is, again, irrelevant to the issue of whether the consumer should be allowed to. 4. Steam isn't required to get a good price on a three year old game, and I'd rather pay more to have a physical copy that isn't distributed by them in the first place. Wow, I agree with absolutely everything you said there man. Great stuff. |
|
