I still wonder why console players allowed their online services to require subscriptions in the first place.
Because back in the days of original Xbox and 360, it was a better service than what you got for free elsewhere.
That, and it was slightly more justifiable when these companies were first setting up and operating networks for the services and matchmaking. Economies of scale should have nullified that by now, though.
The other big one I don't see people mentioning, but that I remember clearly, was that if you wanted to use Netflix on 360, you had to pay for Live. I think that, above anything else in my friend group, was the move that normalized paying for online services on a console.
i miss when you could watch netflix with your avatar and invite friends to watch with you. only got to do it one time ever
Idk about with your avatar, but I still have movie nights with friends that I stream things to over Discord and Emby (like plex)
I literally just finished a "movie classic" night with a friend in New York where we watched ALIENS together and chatted about how awesome Sigourney Weaver's performance is. đ đż
It might be interesting to do it with little Wii characters, but we had fun regardless.
yeah xbox used to have a feature where you watch netflix with a friend, and it even had theater seats and your avatar at the bottom of the screen and you could do emotes and stuff
I think some apps have that, minus the avatars. I want to say Disney+ lets you sync with your friend so you watch it simultaneously.
I don't think it was a choice. Xbox did it first and that's why I bought a ps3. Then sony introduced it. Then nintendo. It's still less expensive than a PC hobby. Consumers don't have much say in what these companies do or how they operate.
Itâs still less expensive than a PC hobby
Only if you plan on either never paying for an online sub for the console or paying for an online sub for less than 5 years on the console, and also take into consideration that a PC can both game and be a computer you can use for other things.
A gaming PC has a higher upfront cost, but itâs a better long-term value. Letâs say you buy a PS5 for $500, and then pay for 5 years of PS+ for the old price, $60. Thatâs $800 for a friggin console already, but letâs also consider that most people either have a laptop or a tablet for doing computer-related tasks. Reasonable people would pay probably somewhere in the $400-$600 range, but letâs give the console a chance and say we got a $400 laptop. Thatâs $1200 now.
Using that $1200 as a budget, you can get a computer with a 4060ti, a 12th gen i5, a 1TB NVME SSD, and 16GB RAM for around $1100. Note that, say, 5 years down the line from buying this PC, you can just swap in and out parts as you want and be able to sell old parts for some money back, so staying up-to-date to play whatever current games can be cheaper too depending on the part prices.
Also anecdotally parts seem to be lasting much longer than they used to. Maybe I'm just playing fewer games, maybe I care about graphics less, or maybe there actually is a technical reason but in the early 00s when I first started building computers I was essentially forced to upgrade about every 2 or 3 years but now I'm still running on my 7 year old desktop with a 1070 -- I was going to upgrade the graphics card but the crypto mining boom priced me out and lo and behold I'm still able to play whatever I want with nary a difficulty. Even Baldur's Gate 3 runs just fine, with a little chugging.
The percentage of the industry that can afford to push modern graphics to their limit has only shrunk over time as the development time required to make games that taxing has increased. That's why most of what you play isn't particularly high-spec.
Need to add a good quality mouse and keyboard to your numbers at minimum. Consoles come with controllers.
Should also add a $99 Windows license too.
Ok. Logitech G203 for $20 and a Redragon K552 for $45 - a tiny bit cheaper than a PS5 controller which retails at $70 before tax.
Windows you can literally get for free from Microsoft directly. Youâre basically paying a license to get rid of the âActivate Windowsâ bit and to be able to change wallpapers, but functionally you can play games and do computer things with an unactivated Windows license. You can also opt to play on Linux instead since Steam offers Proton with their Linux version, and you can also use WINE for games that wonât run on Proton. Linux is also free.
Those are not in the same quality tier at all, at least include a wireless rechargeable mouse.
Consoles donât have licensing issues with their OS. You canât run every PC game issue free on steam OS or Linux.
You know, you see thus argument every so often online. I've had an excellent and subscription free Linux gaming experience over the last three years. If you enjoy console gaming and getting nickel and dimed for increasingly shitty online services then power to you
If you want a mouse with a good sensor for competitive games and a linear switch mechanical keyboard with NKRO, those are generally the two best entry-level options. Rechargeable wireless mice can be a bit pricey, which is why Iâm assuming you used a vague descriptor of âqualityâ and specifically mentioned it just for the sake of being arbitrarily on par with what a PS5 offers. But if you want a good budget option for a wireless gaming mouse, you can with a Logitch G305 for around $50.
As for the OS stuff, thatâs a good point, and itâs true - if youâre talking about 5 or so years ago. Once Steam said âhey, weâre integrating Proton into our Linux version of Steamâ, itâs been leaps and bounds in improvements for Linux gaming. By the way, fun fact: the PS4 used FreeBSD for the systemâs OS which is based off Unix - and surprise, Linux is also based off Unix. Wouldnât be surprised if the PS5 OS is also based on FreeBSD.
How is that a bad faith argument? The PS5 Controller is not entry level quality. It's not my problem equivalent PC peripherals are expensive. My Razer Viper Wireless cost $150 and the build quality is just slightly worse than a Dual Sense. It's built to be lighter weight so that's understandable. But it's twice the cost, and that doesn't include a keyboard. I tried the G305 and didn't care for the build quality personally. Equivalent wireless keyboards with the quality control of Sony are $80-$100 too. I'd probably cheap out on the keyboard before the mouse, but every keyboard I've used under $85 had Quality control issues from switches stop functioning to buggy software (Anne Pro II), and Wireless was terrible on all of them.
I've heard issues dealing with multiplayer and anti-cheat as recently as this summer, so it's nice to see it's better, but until games are officially supported with no third party patches or workarounds, I don't count it.
PS5 is FreeBSD based, so yes it's Unix-like. But that doesn't mean anything. MacOS is also Unix-Like and it's terrible for gaming. It all comes down to support. At the end of the day I don't want to have to deal with drivers, or configurations to play a game. I want to press a button, and start gaming. For me personally Consoles are going to win that war 95% of the time. But I'm dumb. I spent almost 3 times the cost of a PS5 on a Graphics card last year for some reason.
Last time Iâll engage with you on this topic.
The PS5 Controller is not entry level quality. Itâs not my problem equivalent PC peripherals are expensive.
Youâre right - itâs the only entry in at that price point. If you just want a wireless PS5 controller, you either pay Sony $70⌠or you pay an approved 3rd-party retailer $150+ at minimum for a non-Sony controller. So itâs comes out the same as the Viper Wireless you mentioned.
My Razer Viper Wireless cost $150 and the build quality is just slightly worse than a Dual Sense. Itâs built to be lighter weight so thatâs understandable. But itâs twice the cost, and that doesnât include a keyboard. I tried the G305 and didnât care for the build quality personally.
How the fuck can you compare build qualities between a controller and a mouse?? Like, how do you actually do that? Youâre comparing apples to oranges here at best, and at worst youâre doing a strawman argument by cherry-picking things that support your point. You also prove that enjoying build quality is subjective - I personally loved the G305 mouse and how it felt in my hand, and I have used stuff like the Viper Wireless and Glorious Model O. But you what the best mouse I have used to date is? The CoolerMaster MM720, which is a $30 wired mouse. The consumer have choices at different price points when it comes to gaming peripherals, and you are right that they can be crazy expensive at the top end - but donât pretend $180 controllers donât exist, either, and donât try to conflate high-price point items as being good, because you can easily get a good quality mouse with bells and whistles in the $60-$80 space.
Equivalent wireless keyboards with the quality control of Sony are $80-$100 too. Iâd probably cheap out on the keyboard before the mouse, but every keyboard Iâve used under $85 had Quality control issues from switches stop functioning to buggy software (Anne Pro II), and Wireless was terrible on all of them.
That I will give you, but youâre also deliberately shopping in the $40 range for stuff like the Anne Pro II Keyboard you mentioned. I can say every PS5 controller I used under $70 was awful, but that doesnât mean much once I mention I was buying $20 controllers.
Iâve heard issues dealing with multiplayer and anti-cheat as recently as this summer, so itâs nice to see itâs better, but until games are officially supported with no third party patches or workarounds, I donât count it.
Anti-cheat has also been on consoles for decades now - not as bad as PC to your point, but once again donât act like consoles donât experience the issue either, especially when stuff like Xim exists.
PS5 is FreeBSD based, so yes itâs Unix-like. But that doesnât mean anything. MacOS is also Unix-Like and itâs terrible for gaming. It all comes down to support.
Good point, forgot Macs exist tbh lol. It is also only one OS that doesnât have good gaming support, but honestly itâs a toss-up. Linux has gotten some really good support though.
At the end of the day I donât want to have to deal with drivers, or configurations to play a game. I want to press a button, and start gaming. For me personally Consoles are going to win that war 95% of the time.
Which is a completely valid point - but thatâs not the point you were making initially. Since you said right off that bat:
Need to add a good quality mouse and keyboard to your numbers at minimum. Consoles come with controllers. Should also add a $99 Windows license too.
You made it a point to talk about the price of the computer versus a console, not the ease of use of it.
I spent almost 3 times the cost of a PS5 on a Graphics card last year for some reason.
Because you deliberately chose to spend that much on a GPU that outperforms a PS5 in graphical power? I bought a $400 GPU that slightly beats the PS5 out a couple of years back, so thatâs moot.
How is that a bad faith argument?
Because Iâm dumb and I just learned what âbad faithâ actually means lol. My apologies on that, it was the wrong usage - âcherry-pickingâ is literally the word I should have used.
So itâs comes out the same as the Viper Wireless you mentioned.
No, it comes with the console. So to be fair, just subtract $70 from the cost of the PS5 = $330 for the Digital Version
How the fuck can you compare build qualities between a controller and a mouse
Easy, the Plastic and Switches on the Razer feel cheaper / more brittle. There is more flex to it when squeezed. The charging dock connectors are less reliable. To be fair, the mouse did come with a dock with my model, I think it may be a bit cheaper without it.
you can easily get a good quality mouse with bells and whistles in the $60-$80 space.
You absolutely can, but you didn't include anything originally and that's why I made a point of bringing it up.
youâre also deliberately shopping in the $40 range for stuff like the Anne Pro II Keyboard
I paid $90 for in in late 2019. Assuming that's not a counterfeit listing (Official site lists it for $90 with $10 off but OOO). The macros and software customization is incredible... when it works. Bluetooth was worthless, I had repeated key presses from time to time, and the config kept getting erased randomly when I would unplug it.
Anti-cheat has also been on consoles for decades now
I meant anti-cheat preventing the game from working. I stopped playing competitive a long time ago.
Linux has gotten some really good support though.
Subjective I guess. ProtonDB still lists a lot of games with issues. Not a lot are natively supported by the devs.
You made it a point to talk about the price of the computer versus a console, not the ease of use of it.
Yea I did, and the Ease of use is tied to the cost through the Windows license or lack there of. In all of these comparisons the PC side neglects to include the cost of Keyboards, Mice, and Windows.
Because you deliberately chose to spend that much on a GPU that outperforms a PS5 in graphical power? I bought a $400 GPU that slightly beats the PS5 out a couple of years back, so thatâs moot.
That's the entire cost of a PS5, and a few years back an equivalent SSD was $200.
cherry picking
That's basically my original point. You can't leave out a mouse and keyboard.
You also can't run every PC game on a console... Because they're not available there. What even is that argument?
I wouldnât claim pc games run on consoles. Itâs *nix users trying to claim all PC games thatâs the problem.
Who needs a wireless mouse when you're sitting right in front of the computer it's plugged into?
Not everyone plays at a desk. It's crazy easy to play PC games in your living on your giant TV.
With a console controller? Being barely able to aim isn't my idea of easy. Mouse and keyboard, please.
I used an Xbox controller for years yes. Now I use an 8bitdo with gyros.
I don't play fps games. But yes I do have a wireless m+kb for games that are better with them.
If love to know who these people are that pay for windows. I think 95 was the last time that I know of anyone doing it. Maybe XP.
I can steal a PlayStation 5 too if theft is part of the discussion. Games too.
Considering piracy equivalent to hardware theft is just intellectually dishonest. In a lot of ways, but relevant to this discussion is that piracy is way less risky, so more people do it. If you try to steal a PS5 from a store I'd go as far to say you'd probably get caught and jailed. With piracy you almost definitely won't get caught.
What are you talking about?
You said no one pays for Windows. Windows cost $99. ErgoâŚ
Plenty of key resellers sell licences for like 10 bucks
Ok. I've never paid for it like that so thumbs up I guess.
Who's Ergo? Is that the person telling you what to type?
I think this debate can get lost in the numbers when it's more about the user. For some people that upfront cost is going to make sense, for others it won't. The math isn't the hard part. Specifically though, a PC hobby isn't exactly a cheap hobby.
Then don't make it a hobby? You can just buy the PC and you don't necessarily have to pour much money into it after.
Just buying a PC is a high price of entry. It doesn't have to be a hobby that you're putting money into frequently.
I don't deny that there is a high upfront cost, but in the long run it is cheaper.
Gaming in general isn't a cheap hobby. You can get a 320$ steam deck, dock it and plug it into an old monitor add a cheap KB and mouse and you are PC gaming. Or you can spend 3,200$ on a top of the line rig. Its whatever you want to make of it. I wouldnt say its more expensive than console gaming, but you can make it one and you will get a better experience for it. Either way personally I would consider PC the best option by a fairly large margin.
Well, I'm still using my $200 laptop from 7 years ago for my basic computer needs. And that doesn't seem like it's going to change soon. Also, someone who buys a gaming PC is likely going to have a cheap laptop to do their basic computer stuff still.
Also, I get my subscription for $40 on sale, mostly for the games and discounts. So it really just pays for itself in the games I get from it.
just with the sales and free online/cloudsaves PCs are cheaper in the long run
And mods are an added value, we can even include fanmade patches that fix what developers don't into that added value
Consumers donât have much say in what these companies do or how they operate.
Yes, they do. Microsoft tried to incorporate Xbox live onto PC and it was a failure because PC consumers didn't bought it
The same goes with paid mods, Valve and Bethesda tried to make people buy mods and it was rejected by the consumer so the have to backtrack.
Consumers have all the power in their wallet they decide what course the companies take. If a company does something that goes against your interests as consumer is as easy as stop giving them money, if you hurt them economically, they'll have to go back to the business model that gave them profits (this works only if the average consumer is intelligent enough to protect their own interest/rights)
Used or loaned games (provided you have libraries offering them in your area) are still a huge benefit for (most, ie physical media "enabled") consoles.
The subscription model is broken by default, regardless of Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo, and is only good and cheap until it isn't anymore.
Agreed that consumers have a say, to some extent, however some are too far "into the ecosystem" to either care or be willing to boycott or make a change that would inconvenience them, so they'd rather give in.
100% agree with that, but even then the sharing of physical media seems like itâs being slowly replaced with sharing digital libraries. PS4 allows a hokey way of sharing libraries between two people, and Steam does offer a similar janky way of sharing libraries between multiple people. With GOG, you should be able to download a standalone installer on a USB and then give that to a friend (which now I think about it, is the PC equivalent of lending your friend the disc lol).
Wondering how long it will be until people go âremember when we used to share discs with each other?â
Oh absolutely, I know I'm already part of a minority when I favour physical over digital media.
We're likely seeing the last (or, more realistically, second to last?) generation of consoles with physical media as an option and that's a bummer...
GOG is great on the PC side of things, but as someone with a Steam Deck as their only PC, it isn't always the best option (some games have been giving me a headache or end up straight up not working - eg I've had to rebuy Gris because the GOG version would show a white screen with any version of Proton I tried, while the Steam version was perfectly fine).
just with the sales and free online/cloudsaves PCs are cheaper in the long run
This may be true, but then i think this is just annother example of how it is more expensive to be poor. Even if PCs are cheaper in the long run, it's hard to scrounge up the $1000+ upfront to buy a worthwhile PC if you're living paycheck-to-paycheck. Over 60% of Americans live paycheck-to-paycheck. If you are living that way, it's much easier to come up with the $300-500 for a console (in the US, that's an average tax refund amount), and then the $15 a month for gamepass/PS plus. And don't tell me you can buy a lowend PC for that price - any PC you buy for $500 is gonna play games worse than the comparable console.
In cases where our only power is in our wallet, people with bigger wallets will be the only ones with actual power.
I'd say it's more expensive to lack common sense
yes of course, we all know Best Buy accepts common sense as payment when you don't have enough money for that 4060 đ
No, if you are poor you learn to value every cent and not being wasteful, if you have common sense, of course
It's not common sense, that's a common false judgement applied to people with less means - it's a value judgement and diminishes their struggle. This is a reminder to be nice on our instance.
I'm not rich, I know what I'm talking about. When I'm going to spend money I have to look the best way to spend it, which is the best "invest". Being wasteful is an luxury I personally can't afford.
Fantastic, I'm great you have that going for you. I'm letting you know that making value judgements on other poor people for being poor is not okay. Don't do that on Beehaw.
making value judgements on other poor people for being poor is not okay
luckyly for me, I'm not doing that
I told you that you need to change your behavior and all you've done is attempt to argue with me rather than understand why your behavior was not acceptable. You're getting a 7 day ban so you can have time to think this over.
If you use your PC for anything other than gaming then it's not more expensive.
Laptop + Console costs about the same as a Desktop PC. The MacBook + Console combo I see a lot is even more expensive than a PC.
I think you're vastly underestimating how cheap most computers are; consumer laptops are around $300-500 median, that's what most people use. And those laptops don't game. The enthusiast computer market, while larger than its ever been, is still a ridiculously small percentage of computers sold.
You might pay for a subscription-based future, but I will stay on PC where this sort of nonsense is not tolerated.
I'll never understand how console peeps can justify paying for online access as a necessary thing.
If they're young enough, they've never known any different.
I've never known any different but it still always felt like paying twice to the Internet to me. My first console with online connection was an Xbox which required Live. Before that they just didn't have any network connectivity at all.
PS2 and GameCube had network adapter for MMOs.
My parents never would have got me something like that just for one or two games.
I know, I got the GC adapter hoping to have multiplayer Mario or Metroid games. So imagine my surprise when those never came.(I was more PC gamer back then and multiplayer is already plenty.)
True, I paid for it on the 360 back in the day to play Gears and Rainbow 6 Vegas. Haven't since I've had a PC.
It's also the only option if you want to play online with friends and don't have an expensive PC.
Cloud gaming is where it's at. $10/month gets you access to an enterprise class rig with a 3080 card.
$10
I'm assuming you're talking about GeForce Now? If so, don't they have the problem of being able to play only limited number of games?
Not every game is available, but lots are, including game pass if you have that.
I just checked this page and none of the games that I'm playing currently are on it (Diablo 4, Elden Ring, God of War, Jedi Survivor etc). It's not like the games I'm playing are obscure or brand new either. Not to mention some of the console exclusives that I'm also playing, like TotK on the Switch and Horizon FW on the PS5, but of course, I understand that the cloud provider can do nothing about that.
Don't get me wrong, I'm quite enthusiastic about cloud gaming as well and looked seriously into it a while ago, because I wanted to upgrade my PC but the upgrade costs were looking pretty high (this was during the peak of the supply chain issues during COVID), also I wanted to break out of the constant and expensive upgrade cycles.
But everything I looked at had some or the other limitation, either they didn't have the games that I was playing, or the service wasn't available in my country (eg Shadow PC), or it didn't allow you to bring your own games (Stadia), or it was working out to be too expensive (Azure VM), or had other limitations such as not supporting ultra-wide resolutions at 60+ FPS. I think for me, being able to play my own games is a big fan requirement for it to work, and the pricing of things like Shadow could work out for me, but those sort of services have limited availability, and rolling your own VM on a public cloud can turn very expensive if you're a heavy gamer, as I've experienced first-hand in Azure.
Therefore, IMO, cloud gaming, while is the future, just isn't there yet.
PC is cheaper in the long term though. Or tryna Steam Deck at least.
Right, but as so many other threads have acknowledged, not everyone is capable of paying a large upfront cost to save them in the long-term. That's one example of why it's more expensive to be broke. That's why I'm responding to these comments - it's not all ignorance or stupidity; people are broke out here.
That's very true. Being poor is expensive.
Coming from someone whos never had to play for online play, i understand it cause the main driving force for someone to get x console over p console is what their friends have. The amount of ppl who only own a playstation to play COD with their friends is staggering, and moving all their friends to pc is a big task.
They'll try again. Be wary.
Iâll stay on NES where once you get a game thatâs the game, bugs and all. No DLC, expansion, nothing. Thatâs the game.
... Humble monthly? Game pass? EA play? Even PS Plus has subscriptions for streaming to a PC. People buy these things a lot. You can try to excuse Humble monthly but there are far more game pass players than Humble monthly ones. Either way, you can pretend that PC doesn't tolerate this nonsense but many people are playing Starfield on Game Pass this month. PC players already tolerate this and in some cases, welcome it.
Those aren't the same or similar. Those are options in addition to buying that allow access to a large library of games (except humble, which is just buying games). They aren't "pay this subscription or you can't play the game you bought".
Ps plus is not that either.
Yes, it is exactly that.
If you buy a multiplayer game and stop paying for plus, you cannot play any more.
Only on the console. This goes for Xbox as well. It's not really subscription games but instead subscription drm you are upset at.
Until hardware manufacturers like Nvidia and Intel start getting thirsty and lock features behind a subscription :/ Only $10.99 a month to use those RTX cores, $7.99 for DLSS.
just get a shitty computer tbh, worse graphics is fine actually.
I realized the only game I play online is FFXIV, which doesn't require PS+. I almost never play the "free" games they add to the service, and spend a non-zero amount of time browsing said free games in an effort to find something to play rather than something in my backlog. So I just canceled.
My membership is up in December and I doubt I'll even notice when it's gone.
Same here, I set to cancel renew every time I top up and since late ps4 time I don't even add free games that are remotely interesting so I keep a cleaner library. And then when they announced the hike, I did the review and filter by games acquired via plus, same feeling, I almost never play those games, even though they look somewhat interesting and added them but probably never gonna play them since my primary interest and good backlog will last me long enough for next main games to release. So they will have the same treatment like my humble bundle games. And I also decide to not top up any more.
What's the point of PS Plus anyway? What multiplayer games on PS5 cannot be played on PC?
The point is to get the GamePass like tier.
For the price of 2 games (or 1 and a half if it goes on sale, and it always did before), you can game all year. I've had mine for a year now, and not bought a game for it yet (apart from GoW Ragnarok which came bundled with it, and likely BG3 next week).
The top tier is kind of a bust. I picked it up because I thought I might play those PS1/2 games but I haven't used that at all. There's plenty of PS4 and 5 games still to play, and you can emulate up to PS3 on PC quite easily if you want to play old stuff. There's scant few PS1 games anyway. It's far from comprehensive. They should have done so much better here.
This. And if you have kids that just want a large catalogue of random games, itâs perfect.
Doesnât seem many people commenting here like the idea. But for me personally, and my family situation, saves me heaps of money.
Yeah my kids don't have gaming PCs (yet?) but have fun playing through a bunch of the plus stuff when they are not on Minecraft or (shudder) Roblox on their tablets.
I don't have kids but I still find the random assortment of games a value add as I got a lot of games I would have considered anyway, so this was a much cheaper way of playing those games, best is all the random local multiplayer games that I can install for when I have friends over
Depending on the tier you also get a library of free games which is honestly kinda nice, but that's pretty much it.
I was going to consider Assassin's Creed Mirage on PC instead of PS5. Then they announced it wouldn't be available on Steam. Now I won't consider it on PC and likely won't get it at all in any format.
There are reasons PC gaming is still stupid, and it's mostly various companies fault.
Yeah thatâs on Ubisoft. Third party launchers are always stupid. I bought Splinter Cell Blacklist a while ago and couldnât get it to act right with their stupid Ubisoft connect or Uplay or whatever so I just returned it.
But the worst is how I bought splinter cell conviction years ago via steam, and canât even play it anymore because of how they shittily implemented their DRM/launcher. Not buying any more games from them. Used to be my favorite dev back in the day.
Pirates get a better experience than paying customers with old Ubisoft games
Pirates get a better experience than paying customers with old Ubisoft games
Because they don't have to use Uplay
Can alway sail the high seas once its cracked
We're not really headed to a subscription-based future. People like Game Pass, but it has no exclusive content. Nintendo's the only one trying to make a catalog of games exclusive to their service, but they're all retro games, and Nintendo can get bent, because we can all pirate and emulate those games better than Nintendo can rent them to us. They could get be getting some revenue from actually selling those old games to customers in the places they want to play those games, but Nintendo isn't interested in that. If this particular situation gets worse, then I might be worried. There's just too much diversity in the game industry for this to be a threat. There's no central cartel or representative group for games the way there is in movies and music to dictate those markets away from what the customer actually wants. In video games, you can switch to Xbox or, more likely, PC when Sony raises prices. PCs have gotten easier, and they've always been more open, and I think the gaming market has demonstrated that they value the openness.
Nope. I did not subscribe to PS+ and probably never will unless I really want to play an online game there, which I find unnecessary at this point.
Well, not from me. When money's tight, shit like this is the first to go. I have no issues skipping multiplayer on my PS system.
If you're not paying for it, you're the product.
Wait no... it seems like capitalists will charge for whatever they can get away with. Those bastards!
I still wonder why console players allowed their online services to require subscriptions in the first place.
Because back in the days of original Xbox and 360, it was a better service than what you got for free elsewhere.
That, and it was slightly more justifiable when these companies were first setting up and operating networks for the services and matchmaking. Economies of scale should have nullified that by now, though.
The other big one I don't see people mentioning, but that I remember clearly, was that if you wanted to use Netflix on 360, you had to pay for Live. I think that, above anything else in my friend group, was the move that normalized paying for online services on a console.
i miss when you could watch netflix with your avatar and invite friends to watch with you. only got to do it one time ever
Idk about with your avatar, but I still have movie nights with friends that I stream things to over Discord and Emby (like plex)
I literally just finished a "movie classic" night with a friend in New York where we watched ALIENS together and chatted about how awesome Sigourney Weaver's performance is. đ đż
It might be interesting to do it with little Wii characters, but we had fun regardless.
yeah xbox used to have a feature where you watch netflix with a friend, and it even had theater seats and your avatar at the bottom of the screen and you could do emotes and stuff
I think some apps have that, minus the avatars. I want to say Disney+ lets you sync with your friend so you watch it simultaneously.
I don't think it was a choice. Xbox did it first and that's why I bought a ps3. Then sony introduced it. Then nintendo. It's still less expensive than a PC hobby. Consumers don't have much say in what these companies do or how they operate.
Only if you plan on either never paying for an online sub for the console or paying for an online sub for less than 5 years on the console, and also take into consideration that a PC can both game and be a computer you can use for other things.
A gaming PC has a higher upfront cost, but itâs a better long-term value. Letâs say you buy a PS5 for $500, and then pay for 5 years of PS+ for the old price, $60. Thatâs $800 for a friggin console already, but letâs also consider that most people either have a laptop or a tablet for doing computer-related tasks. Reasonable people would pay probably somewhere in the $400-$600 range, but letâs give the console a chance and say we got a $400 laptop. Thatâs $1200 now.
Using that $1200 as a budget, you can get a computer with a 4060ti, a 12th gen i5, a 1TB NVME SSD, and 16GB RAM for around $1100. Note that, say, 5 years down the line from buying this PC, you can just swap in and out parts as you want and be able to sell old parts for some money back, so staying up-to-date to play whatever current games can be cheaper too depending on the part prices.
Also anecdotally parts seem to be lasting much longer than they used to. Maybe I'm just playing fewer games, maybe I care about graphics less, or maybe there actually is a technical reason but in the early 00s when I first started building computers I was essentially forced to upgrade about every 2 or 3 years but now I'm still running on my 7 year old desktop with a 1070 -- I was going to upgrade the graphics card but the crypto mining boom priced me out and lo and behold I'm still able to play whatever I want with nary a difficulty. Even Baldur's Gate 3 runs just fine, with a little chugging.
The percentage of the industry that can afford to push modern graphics to their limit has only shrunk over time as the development time required to make games that taxing has increased. That's why most of what you play isn't particularly high-spec.
Need to add a good quality mouse and keyboard to your numbers at minimum. Consoles come with controllers.
Should also add a $99 Windows license too.
Ok. Logitech G203 for $20 and a Redragon K552 for $45 - a tiny bit cheaper than a PS5 controller which retails at $70 before tax.
Windows you can literally get for free from Microsoft directly. Youâre basically paying a license to get rid of the âActivate Windowsâ bit and to be able to change wallpapers, but functionally you can play games and do computer things with an unactivated Windows license. You can also opt to play on Linux instead since Steam offers Proton with their Linux version, and you can also use WINE for games that wonât run on Proton. Linux is also free.
Those are not in the same quality tier at all, at least include a wireless rechargeable mouse.
Consoles donât have licensing issues with their OS. You canât run every PC game issue free on steam OS or Linux.
You know, you see thus argument every so often online. I've had an excellent and subscription free Linux gaming experience over the last three years. If you enjoy console gaming and getting nickel and dimed for increasingly shitty online services then power to you
Do you have a better source than https://www.protondb.com/
I wouldnât consider that excellent.
Now youâre just arguing in bad faith lol.
If you want a mouse with a good sensor for competitive games and a linear switch mechanical keyboard with NKRO, those are generally the two best entry-level options. Rechargeable wireless mice can be a bit pricey, which is why Iâm assuming you used a vague descriptor of âqualityâ and specifically mentioned it just for the sake of being arbitrarily on par with what a PS5 offers. But if you want a good budget option for a wireless gaming mouse, you can with a Logitch G305 for around $50.
As for the OS stuff, thatâs a good point, and itâs true - if youâre talking about 5 or so years ago. Once Steam said âhey, weâre integrating Proton into our Linux version of Steamâ, itâs been leaps and bounds in improvements for Linux gaming. By the way, fun fact: the PS4 used FreeBSD for the systemâs OS which is based off Unix - and surprise, Linux is also based off Unix. Wouldnât be surprised if the PS5 OS is also based on FreeBSD.
How is that a bad faith argument? The PS5 Controller is not entry level quality. It's not my problem equivalent PC peripherals are expensive. My Razer Viper Wireless cost $150 and the build quality is just slightly worse than a Dual Sense. It's built to be lighter weight so that's understandable. But it's twice the cost, and that doesn't include a keyboard. I tried the G305 and didn't care for the build quality personally. Equivalent wireless keyboards with the quality control of Sony are $80-$100 too. I'd probably cheap out on the keyboard before the mouse, but every keyboard I've used under $85 had Quality control issues from switches stop functioning to buggy software (Anne Pro II), and Wireless was terrible on all of them.
I've heard issues dealing with multiplayer and anti-cheat as recently as this summer, so it's nice to see it's better, but until games are officially supported with no third party patches or workarounds, I don't count it.
PS5 is FreeBSD based, so yes it's Unix-like. But that doesn't mean anything. MacOS is also Unix-Like and it's terrible for gaming. It all comes down to support. At the end of the day I don't want to have to deal with drivers, or configurations to play a game. I want to press a button, and start gaming. For me personally Consoles are going to win that war 95% of the time. But I'm dumb. I spent almost 3 times the cost of a PS5 on a Graphics card last year for some reason.
Last time Iâll engage with you on this topic.
Youâre right - itâs the only entry in at that price point. If you just want a wireless PS5 controller, you either pay Sony $70⌠or you pay an approved 3rd-party retailer $150+ at minimum for a non-Sony controller. So itâs comes out the same as the Viper Wireless you mentioned.
How the fuck can you compare build qualities between a controller and a mouse?? Like, how do you actually do that? Youâre comparing apples to oranges here at best, and at worst youâre doing a strawman argument by cherry-picking things that support your point. You also prove that enjoying build quality is subjective - I personally loved the G305 mouse and how it felt in my hand, and I have used stuff like the Viper Wireless and Glorious Model O. But you what the best mouse I have used to date is? The CoolerMaster MM720, which is a $30 wired mouse. The consumer have choices at different price points when it comes to gaming peripherals, and you are right that they can be crazy expensive at the top end - but donât pretend $180 controllers donât exist, either, and donât try to conflate high-price point items as being good, because you can easily get a good quality mouse with bells and whistles in the $60-$80 space.
That I will give you, but youâre also deliberately shopping in the $40 range for stuff like the Anne Pro II Keyboard you mentioned. I can say every PS5 controller I used under $70 was awful, but that doesnât mean much once I mention I was buying $20 controllers.
Anti-cheat has also been on consoles for decades now - not as bad as PC to your point, but once again donât act like consoles donât experience the issue either, especially when stuff like Xim exists.
Good point, forgot Macs exist tbh lol. It is also only one OS that doesnât have good gaming support, but honestly itâs a toss-up. Linux has gotten some really good support though.
Which is a completely valid point - but thatâs not the point you were making initially. Since you said right off that bat:
You made it a point to talk about the price of the computer versus a console, not the ease of use of it.
Because you deliberately chose to spend that much on a GPU that outperforms a PS5 in graphical power? I bought a $400 GPU that slightly beats the PS5 out a couple of years back, so thatâs moot.
Because Iâm dumb and I just learned what âbad faithâ actually means lol. My apologies on that, it was the wrong usage - âcherry-pickingâ is literally the word I should have used.
No, it comes with the console. So to be fair, just subtract $70 from the cost of the PS5 = $330 for the Digital Version
Easy, the Plastic and Switches on the Razer feel cheaper / more brittle. There is more flex to it when squeezed. The charging dock connectors are less reliable. To be fair, the mouse did come with a dock with my model, I think it may be a bit cheaper without it.
You absolutely can, but you didn't include anything originally and that's why I made a point of bringing it up.
I paid $90 for in in late 2019. Assuming that's not a counterfeit listing (Official site lists it for $90 with $10 off but OOO). The macros and software customization is incredible... when it works. Bluetooth was worthless, I had repeated key presses from time to time, and the config kept getting erased randomly when I would unplug it.
I meant anti-cheat preventing the game from working. I stopped playing competitive a long time ago.
Subjective I guess. ProtonDB still lists a lot of games with issues. Not a lot are natively supported by the devs.
Yea I did, and the Ease of use is tied to the cost through the Windows license or lack there of. In all of these comparisons the PC side neglects to include the cost of Keyboards, Mice, and Windows.
That's the entire cost of a PS5, and a few years back an equivalent SSD was $200.
That's basically my original point. You can't leave out a mouse and keyboard.
You also can't run every PC game on a console... Because they're not available there. What even is that argument?
I wouldnât claim pc games run on consoles. Itâs *nix users trying to claim all PC games thatâs the problem.
Who needs a wireless mouse when you're sitting right in front of the computer it's plugged into?
Not everyone plays at a desk. It's crazy easy to play PC games in your living on your giant TV.
With a console controller? Being barely able to aim isn't my idea of easy. Mouse and keyboard, please.
I used an Xbox controller for years yes. Now I use an 8bitdo with gyros. I don't play fps games. But yes I do have a wireless m+kb for games that are better with them.
If love to know who these people are that pay for windows. I think 95 was the last time that I know of anyone doing it. Maybe XP.
I can steal a PlayStation 5 too if theft is part of the discussion. Games too.
Considering piracy equivalent to hardware theft is just intellectually dishonest. In a lot of ways, but relevant to this discussion is that piracy is way less risky, so more people do it. If you try to steal a PS5 from a store I'd go as far to say you'd probably get caught and jailed. With piracy you almost definitely won't get caught.
What are you talking about?
You said no one pays for Windows. Windows cost $99. ErgoâŚ
Plenty of key resellers sell licences for like 10 bucks
Ok. I've never paid for it like that so thumbs up I guess.
Who's Ergo? Is that the person telling you what to type?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ergo
Lol you must have been the smartest kid in home school
Those are grey market keys. It'll work, but you're paying someone for a key that's not legal for you to use.
Well I google words I don't know when I come across them.
I think this debate can get lost in the numbers when it's more about the user. For some people that upfront cost is going to make sense, for others it won't. The math isn't the hard part. Specifically though, a PC hobby isn't exactly a cheap hobby.
Then don't make it a hobby? You can just buy the PC and you don't necessarily have to pour much money into it after.
Just buying a PC is a high price of entry. It doesn't have to be a hobby that you're putting money into frequently.
I don't deny that there is a high upfront cost, but in the long run it is cheaper.
Gaming in general isn't a cheap hobby. You can get a 320$ steam deck, dock it and plug it into an old monitor add a cheap KB and mouse and you are PC gaming. Or you can spend 3,200$ on a top of the line rig. Its whatever you want to make of it. I wouldnt say its more expensive than console gaming, but you can make it one and you will get a better experience for it. Either way personally I would consider PC the best option by a fairly large margin.
Well, I'm still using my $200 laptop from 7 years ago for my basic computer needs. And that doesn't seem like it's going to change soon. Also, someone who buys a gaming PC is likely going to have a cheap laptop to do their basic computer stuff still.
Also, I get my subscription for $40 on sale, mostly for the games and discounts. So it really just pays for itself in the games I get from it.
just with the sales and free online/cloudsaves PCs are cheaper in the long run
And mods are an added value, we can even include fanmade patches that fix what developers don't into that added value
Yes, they do. Microsoft tried to incorporate Xbox live onto PC and it was a failure because PC consumers didn't bought it
The same goes with paid mods, Valve and Bethesda tried to make people buy mods and it was rejected by the consumer so the have to backtrack.
Consumers have all the power in their wallet they decide what course the companies take. If a company does something that goes against your interests as consumer is as easy as stop giving them money, if you hurt them economically, they'll have to go back to the business model that gave them profits (this works only if the average consumer is intelligent enough to protect their own interest/rights)
Used or loaned games (provided you have libraries offering them in your area) are still a huge benefit for (most, ie physical media "enabled") consoles.
The subscription model is broken by default, regardless of Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo, and is only good and cheap until it isn't anymore.
Agreed that consumers have a say, to some extent, however some are too far "into the ecosystem" to either care or be willing to boycott or make a change that would inconvenience them, so they'd rather give in.
100% agree with that, but even then the sharing of physical media seems like itâs being slowly replaced with sharing digital libraries. PS4 allows a hokey way of sharing libraries between two people, and Steam does offer a similar janky way of sharing libraries between multiple people. With GOG, you should be able to download a standalone installer on a USB and then give that to a friend (which now I think about it, is the PC equivalent of lending your friend the disc lol).
Wondering how long it will be until people go âremember when we used to share discs with each other?â
Oh absolutely, I know I'm already part of a minority when I favour physical over digital media.
We're likely seeing the last (or, more realistically, second to last?) generation of consoles with physical media as an option and that's a bummer...
GOG is great on the PC side of things, but as someone with a Steam Deck as their only PC, it isn't always the best option (some games have been giving me a headache or end up straight up not working - eg I've had to rebuy Gris because the GOG version would show a white screen with any version of Proton I tried, while the Steam version was perfectly fine).
This may be true, but then i think this is just annother example of how it is more expensive to be poor. Even if PCs are cheaper in the long run, it's hard to scrounge up the $1000+ upfront to buy a worthwhile PC if you're living paycheck-to-paycheck. Over 60% of Americans live paycheck-to-paycheck. If you are living that way, it's much easier to come up with the $300-500 for a console (in the US, that's an average tax refund amount), and then the $15 a month for gamepass/PS plus. And don't tell me you can buy a lowend PC for that price - any PC you buy for $500 is gonna play games worse than the comparable console.
In cases where our only power is in our wallet, people with bigger wallets will be the only ones with actual power.
I'd say it's more expensive to lack common sense
yes of course, we all know Best Buy accepts common sense as payment when you don't have enough money for that 4060 đ
No, if you are poor you learn to value every cent and not being wasteful, if you have common sense, of course
It's not common sense, that's a common false judgement applied to people with less means - it's a value judgement and diminishes their struggle. This is a reminder to be nice on our instance.
I'm not rich, I know what I'm talking about. When I'm going to spend money I have to look the best way to spend it, which is the best "invest". Being wasteful is an luxury I personally can't afford.
Fantastic, I'm great you have that going for you. I'm letting you know that making value judgements on other poor people for being poor is not okay. Don't do that on Beehaw.
luckyly for me, I'm not doing that
I told you that you need to change your behavior and all you've done is attempt to argue with me rather than understand why your behavior was not acceptable. You're getting a 7 day ban so you can have time to think this over.
If you use your PC for anything other than gaming then it's not more expensive.
Laptop + Console costs about the same as a Desktop PC. The MacBook + Console combo I see a lot is even more expensive than a PC.
I think you're vastly underestimating how cheap most computers are; consumer laptops are around $300-500 median, that's what most people use. And those laptops don't game. The enthusiast computer market, while larger than its ever been, is still a ridiculously small percentage of computers sold.
You might pay for a subscription-based future, but I will stay on PC where this sort of nonsense is not tolerated.
I'll never understand how console peeps can justify paying for online access as a necessary thing.
If they're young enough, they've never known any different.
I've never known any different but it still always felt like paying twice to the Internet to me. My first console with online connection was an Xbox which required Live. Before that they just didn't have any network connectivity at all.
PS2 and GameCube had network adapter for MMOs.
My parents never would have got me something like that just for one or two games.
I know, I got the GC adapter hoping to have multiplayer Mario or Metroid games. So imagine my surprise when those never came.(I was more PC gamer back then and multiplayer is already plenty.)
True, I paid for it on the 360 back in the day to play Gears and Rainbow 6 Vegas. Haven't since I've had a PC.
It's also the only option if you want to play online with friends and don't have an expensive PC.
Cloud gaming is where it's at. $10/month gets you access to an enterprise class rig with a 3080 card.
I'm assuming you're talking about GeForce Now? If so, don't they have the problem of being able to play only limited number of games?
Not every game is available, but lots are, including game pass if you have that.
I just checked this page and none of the games that I'm playing currently are on it (Diablo 4, Elden Ring, God of War, Jedi Survivor etc). It's not like the games I'm playing are obscure or brand new either. Not to mention some of the console exclusives that I'm also playing, like TotK on the Switch and Horizon FW on the PS5, but of course, I understand that the cloud provider can do nothing about that.
Don't get me wrong, I'm quite enthusiastic about cloud gaming as well and looked seriously into it a while ago, because I wanted to upgrade my PC but the upgrade costs were looking pretty high (this was during the peak of the supply chain issues during COVID), also I wanted to break out of the constant and expensive upgrade cycles.
But everything I looked at had some or the other limitation, either they didn't have the games that I was playing, or the service wasn't available in my country (eg Shadow PC), or it didn't allow you to bring your own games (Stadia), or it was working out to be too expensive (Azure VM), or had other limitations such as not supporting ultra-wide resolutions at 60+ FPS. I think for me, being able to play my own games is a big fan requirement for it to work, and the pricing of things like Shadow could work out for me, but those sort of services have limited availability, and rolling your own VM on a public cloud can turn very expensive if you're a heavy gamer, as I've experienced first-hand in Azure.
Therefore, IMO, cloud gaming, while is the future, just isn't there yet.
PC is cheaper in the long term though. Or tryna Steam Deck at least.
Right, but as so many other threads have acknowledged, not everyone is capable of paying a large upfront cost to save them in the long-term. That's one example of why it's more expensive to be broke. That's why I'm responding to these comments - it's not all ignorance or stupidity; people are broke out here.
That's very true. Being poor is expensive.
Coming from someone whos never had to play for online play, i understand it cause the main driving force for someone to get x console over p console is what their friends have. The amount of ppl who only own a playstation to play COD with their friends is staggering, and moving all their friends to pc is a big task.
They'll try again. Be wary.
Iâll stay on NES where once you get a game thatâs the game, bugs and all. No DLC, expansion, nothing. Thatâs the game.
... Humble monthly? Game pass? EA play? Even PS Plus has subscriptions for streaming to a PC. People buy these things a lot. You can try to excuse Humble monthly but there are far more game pass players than Humble monthly ones. Either way, you can pretend that PC doesn't tolerate this nonsense but many people are playing Starfield on Game Pass this month. PC players already tolerate this and in some cases, welcome it.
Those aren't the same or similar. Those are options in addition to buying that allow access to a large library of games (except humble, which is just buying games). They aren't "pay this subscription or you can't play the game you bought".
Ps plus is not that either.
Yes, it is exactly that.
If you buy a multiplayer game and stop paying for plus, you cannot play any more.
Only on the console. This goes for Xbox as well. It's not really subscription games but instead subscription drm you are upset at.
Until hardware manufacturers like Nvidia and Intel start getting thirsty and lock features behind a subscription :/ Only $10.99 a month to use those RTX cores, $7.99 for DLSS.
just get a shitty computer tbh, worse graphics is fine actually.
I realized the only game I play online is FFXIV, which doesn't require PS+. I almost never play the "free" games they add to the service, and spend a non-zero amount of time browsing said free games in an effort to find something to play rather than something in my backlog. So I just canceled.
My membership is up in December and I doubt I'll even notice when it's gone.
Same here, I set to cancel renew every time I top up and since late ps4 time I don't even add free games that are remotely interesting so I keep a cleaner library. And then when they announced the hike, I did the review and filter by games acquired via plus, same feeling, I almost never play those games, even though they look somewhat interesting and added them but probably never gonna play them since my primary interest and good backlog will last me long enough for next main games to release. So they will have the same treatment like my humble bundle games. And I also decide to not top up any more.
What's the point of PS Plus anyway? What multiplayer games on PS5 cannot be played on PC?
The point is to get the GamePass like tier.
For the price of 2 games (or 1 and a half if it goes on sale, and it always did before), you can game all year. I've had mine for a year now, and not bought a game for it yet (apart from GoW Ragnarok which came bundled with it, and likely BG3 next week).
The top tier is kind of a bust. I picked it up because I thought I might play those PS1/2 games but I haven't used that at all. There's plenty of PS4 and 5 games still to play, and you can emulate up to PS3 on PC quite easily if you want to play old stuff. There's scant few PS1 games anyway. It's far from comprehensive. They should have done so much better here.
This. And if you have kids that just want a large catalogue of random games, itâs perfect.
Doesnât seem many people commenting here like the idea. But for me personally, and my family situation, saves me heaps of money.
Yeah my kids don't have gaming PCs (yet?) but have fun playing through a bunch of the plus stuff when they are not on Minecraft or (shudder) Roblox on their tablets.
I don't have kids but I still find the random assortment of games a value add as I got a lot of games I would have considered anyway, so this was a much cheaper way of playing those games, best is all the random local multiplayer games that I can install for when I have friends over
Depending on the tier you also get a library of free games which is honestly kinda nice, but that's pretty much it.
I was going to consider Assassin's Creed Mirage on PC instead of PS5. Then they announced it wouldn't be available on Steam. Now I won't consider it on PC and likely won't get it at all in any format.
There are reasons PC gaming is still stupid, and it's mostly various companies fault.
Yeah thatâs on Ubisoft. Third party launchers are always stupid. I bought Splinter Cell Blacklist a while ago and couldnât get it to act right with their stupid Ubisoft connect or Uplay or whatever so I just returned it.
But the worst is how I bought splinter cell conviction years ago via steam, and canât even play it anymore because of how they shittily implemented their DRM/launcher. Not buying any more games from them. Used to be my favorite dev back in the day.
Pirates get a better experience than paying customers with old Ubisoft games
Because they don't have to use Uplay
Can alway sail the high seas once its cracked
We're not really headed to a subscription-based future. People like Game Pass, but it has no exclusive content. Nintendo's the only one trying to make a catalog of games exclusive to their service, but they're all retro games, and Nintendo can get bent, because we can all pirate and emulate those games better than Nintendo can rent them to us. They could get be getting some revenue from actually selling those old games to customers in the places they want to play those games, but Nintendo isn't interested in that. If this particular situation gets worse, then I might be worried. There's just too much diversity in the game industry for this to be a threat. There's no central cartel or representative group for games the way there is in movies and music to dictate those markets away from what the customer actually wants. In video games, you can switch to Xbox or, more likely, PC when Sony raises prices. PCs have gotten easier, and they've always been more open, and I think the gaming market has demonstrated that they value the openness.
Nope. I did not subscribe to PS+ and probably never will unless I really want to play an online game there, which I find unnecessary at this point.
Well, not from me. When money's tight, shit like this is the first to go. I have no issues skipping multiplayer on my PS system.
If you're not paying for it, you're the product.
Wait no... it seems like capitalists will charge for whatever they can get away with. Those bastards!