Consoles

OK, so this is in large part a gaming forum, so obviously there is some console thread out there... but I can't find it. So I'm just going to post a new one.

The art of console warfare is about as old as the competition between consoles itself and in some opinions, especially on this forum, apparently, the PC reigns supreme and choosing others is illogical.

In my own opinion, it is a better platform, dispite all of its inherite drawbacks like the system requirements which are non-existent on dedicated gaming consoles like the Xbox 360 or PS3.

But there is a problem that I think that PC gaming has - and that is a matter of early on accessability. The theory goes something like this:
The gaming generation usually starts out with a dedicated console. They become used to it and heavily invest in it. At some point they come to the realization that the PC is usually better, but at that point, they have invested so deeply into the console that they may have literally spent thousands of dollars on game [as in the case of the 360, where $60 games add up quickly]. At that point transitioning to a new platform - the PC - becomes a critical decision and the easiest path is usually to stick with the console.
Another part of the early on problem is how the PC actually works. The PC is almost infinitely more complicated to get into early on, especially at a younger age, when you don't want to wait for the update, log onto Steam, or, more importantly, deal with the frustrating system requirements that pop up. Then there is the cost, which speaks for itself. Even though in the long run, people who play their cards right will save money using the PC to begin with - how many 8 year olds are thinking that far ahead?

1. Reread my post. I said that I support PC gaming.
2. You overestimate the patience of younger gamers. If there is a significant problem with their game - lag due to insuffficient system requirements, glitches, significant loading time, complectated computer management, etc. - they are perfectly liable to abandon the computer for the easier plug/insert disk-and-play dedicated consoles which are quite easily argued to be infinitely more simple in terms of management and proformance.
3. Under age gamers are the future of the market. The ability to instil nostalgia in the new genertation for certain games and platforms will dictate how they preform and survive. If the PC cannot draw in enough of the younger generation to creat a viable market and sell the idea to the game developers that there is potencial for profit, then the developers will pull out of the PC market.

The PC is superior in function, but only once the gamer develops the patience and understanding of its workings, which only come later in the gamers' lives, at which time it comes back to the investment question.

PCs have an incredibly high barrier to entry compared to consoles. As well, games are always 100% optimized on consoles and are designed to avoid technical problems. High-end PCs cost considerably more, even in the long run.

Even though PCs have more technical capabilities, they are far more difficult to deal with, cost more money, and aren't nearly as accessible.

Thanks for summing up my points a bit.

@ D3adtrap
Again, I already stated that I have PC leanings.

I don't think that anybody is saying that PC gaming is bad or any worse than dedicated console gaming. I think that people are just pointing out the flaws of the platform. And they ARE flaws of the platform. Capitalism.

Also, what exactly are you saying in this sentence at the end?

Flaws, drawbacks... semanctics. Though I would argue that inability or unwillingness to adapt to the consumer market to be a flaw, not a drawback.

I lean towards console, great PCs are expensive to have and maintain so hardcore PC gaming is expensive if you want to have the games (e.g. Skyrim) look perfect. Consoles have the advantage of longer life (PS3 was released back in 2006 and still keeps up) whilst my PC, whilst decent 3 years ago and could play the first Crysis really well and with really good graphics is now lagging far behind technology wise. I'm lucky Skyrim plays decently and looks fairly good on my PC, or I could never play the game at all because the PS3 version has a gamebreaking save file size problem.

No... the inability or unwillingness to shape to the demands of the market is fatal. The consumers get what they want because they pay the prices. If the PC market cannot make their product more user-friendly when the consumers demand it, then the PC market will lag behind.
That you learned when you were 10 is good and I applaud you [not patronizing - I was somewhat after that I think], but you are only a single member of the consumer market. The market has to assume that the consumer wants their products to be easy to use. That is why you see 'Easy to use!' on nearly everything, because it is a massive selling point. Even if it is already easy, the market increasingly demands that it become easier and easier to the point that simpletons consider it simple and easy. If one brand does and one brand does not, the one who does not inevitably will fail.

While your assertion that the consumer should be willing and able to input some effort into working the computer has merit in my opinion, in the current econmic model it is far simpler for the consumer to simply vow its buisness to whoever makes the simpler-to-use platform rather than put in that effort since the product makers would enevitably have to do what the consumer wants to survive.

@JJ12354
The longevity of a console as opposed to a PC is a reletive item. Consoles have to be renewed whenever the games move to the next generation platform. PCs can have the essencial parts replaced/updated to cope with the new requirements. One of my associates still works on a computer that is at least a decade to a decade and a half old. But he replaced a few parts and he can smoothly run SC2 on it.
And there is the game factor. Even though consoles continuously claim that the new generation platforms will be incorperating technology to play the older games that were on the platform, for the most part, that claim was unfufilled. PCs take a lot longer to have games go out of function unless there is a major shift in the processing system that is used on the computer and the newer generation programs cannot run the old games. And even when that happens, downloading the older processing systems is usually avalible or a person can download a patch to play the old game.

Consoles are obviously superior. If you disagree then fuck you.

I'd ask you to substanciate your claim... but I get the impression that you would be unable to do so. I wonder why...

Not really. Up to the Shaw's post, it has been a pretty formal and organized debate. He still stands alone in his isolated corner.

1: My pc sucks ass. It can't play every pc game. My Xbox can play every xbox game. I am not the only person with this problem.

2: None of my friends play pc games online. Xbox is much easier for friends to play together. However I'm sure the majority of pc gamers don't have a lot of actual "friends" so I can see why this wouldn't be a problem.

3: I like controllers. Therefore I am superior to you 'people' in every way, shape, and form.

4: it's much more convenient to actually play. I got it hooked into my tv so it fits perfectly in my mancave, I can just sit on my bed and play on the big screen. For a pc that would take too much work.

5: Pc's are hard and complicated. I'm no computer nerd.

6: I don't have to install xbox games.

7: I can play Split screen with my friends for some hard core competition. But again, pc gamers =/= friends.

Granted there are a lot of really awesome pc games not on the xbox, but if I had a choice between an xbox game and that same game for pc, I would no doubt choose my xbox.