What's your Patient Gamer's Unpopular Opinion?
Share your unfiltered, unpopular gaming opinions and let's dive into some real discussions. If you come across a view you disagree with, feel free to (respectfully) defend your perspective. I don't want to see anyone say stuff like "we're all entitled to our own opinions." Let's pretend like gaming is a science and we are all award winning scientists.
My Unpopular Opinion:
I believe the criticism against battle royales is often unwarranted. Most complaints revolve around constant content updates, microtransactions, and toxic player communities
Many criticize the frequent content updates, often cosmetic, as overwhelming. However, it's optional, and no other industry receives flak for releasing more. I've never seen anyone complain about too many Lays or coke flavors.
Pay-to-win concerns are mostly outdated; microtransactions are often for cosmetics. If you don't have the self control to not buy a purple glittery gun, then I'm glad you don't play the games anymore, but I don't think it makes the game bad.
The annoying player bases is the one I understand the most. I don't really have a point against this except that it's better to play with friends.
Overall I think battle royale games are pretty fun and rewarding. Some of my favorite gaming memories were playing stuff like apex legends late at night with friends or even playing minecraft hunger games with my cousins like 10 years ago. A long time ago I heard in a news segment that toy companies found out that people are willing to invest a lot of time and energy into winning ,if they know there will be a big reward at the end, and battle royales tap into that side of my brain.
This is just my opinion
I couldn't care less about owning games physically. I'm way more likely to lose/damage them then lose access to their download.
I held on to physical media for a long time, and the legal ownership implications are scary for digital media, BUT the argument of avoiding creating plastic waste at one point outweighed this for me, and I've been all digital ever since, but to each their own. Definitely pros and cons either way.
Most people that complain about digital media aren't fanatics for physical items. The problems usually come down to who actually owns the media in question.
I get people wanting to own games physically, but that becomes entirely irelivant with the recently more common practice of having the disk be basically just a glorified download key
That and I play on PC mostly anyway, and physical games died out over a decade ago there
While I don't disagree, when I eventually get a PS5 I plan to get the disk version, simply because I can often get disk games second hand for a fraction of the price that they are on the playstation store
Physical games make much more sense for consoles for this exact reason.
Physical games for PC are pretty much entirely pointless because 99% of the time you're going to use the steam code from the box then either throw it away or throw it on a shelf.
Yeah, I don't know if I've used a PC game disk since I was playing Myst or the Spider-Man 2 (OG) demo
There are several reasons that people may prefer physical games, but I want people to stop propagating the false relationship of "physical copy = keep forever, digital copy = can be taken away by a publisher's whim". Most modern physical copies of games are glorified digital download keys. Sometimes, the games can't even run without downloading and installing suspiciously large day 0 "patches". When (not if) those services are shut down, you will no longer be able to play your "physical" game.
Meanwhile GOG, itch, even Steam (to an extent), and other services have shown that you can offer a successful, fully digital download experience without locking the customer into DRM.
I keep local copies of my DRM-free game purchases, just in case something happens to the cloud. As long as they don't get damaged, those copies will continue to install and run on any compatible computer until the heat death of the universe, Internet connection or no, just like an old PS1 game disc. So it is possible to have the convenience of digital downloads paired with the permanence that physical copies used to provide. It's not an either-or choice at all, and I'm sick of hearing people saying that it is.
I agree whenever it comes to PC games, but I won't buy digital media for consoles.
Knowing that the platform will stop being supported, even if it's a decade+ later, makes me not want to buy from it. Especially since if I want to play it again I will have to pay resell prices for the game. I bought so many cool games on the Wii that I won't have access to anymore.
Also, I like buying second hand at local swap meets and garage sales. It's a small hobby for me lol
My only consoles are Nintendo and that's because they're all hacked. Digital preservation is possible that way.
I like lending games to friends. If that was supported with digital games, I wouldn't ever care for physical games.
For example, after I beat BotW, I gave it to a friend to play. They likely wouldn't have bought it, and I no longer have any interest in playing it, so it worked out. I rarely play games twice.
I also like the idea of selling games, but I never actually do it.
Battle royale gameplay sucks though. I like competitive games but spending 15 minutes in empty buildings looting, then 4 minutes running from shots that I can’t tell where they’re from, then 30 seconds in a firefight only to die and have to wait for the rest of my teammates to die before I can play again… that’s objectively boring af.
When I get time to spend playing video games, I want to actually play, not spend the whole time just picking up items and guns I never get to use.
I was really being snobbish at battle royal type game. I'm an older gamer. Been playing TDM for years. I didn't get the concept.
But I got into Apex when it released. I think it's the best game I've ever played. The gameplay and movement is phenomenal, I can't play any other FPS.
And being in the last 3-5 team alive on the last few ring is so much adrenalin! I love it.
If you like the movement, try Titanfall 2 if you haven't already. The Finals also has some fantastic fast paced gameplay and movement. Open Beta is currently running and I haven't had so much fun in an FPS for a very long time now.
I've played the campaign of titanfall, it was really amazing. I tried the multiplayer, but people skills were already so much advanced.
Only PUBG (pre bots) has ever got my heart rate above 180; my first win. No other game has done that.
Shame it sucks ass, now.
Well that's a subjective opinion, but I will agree that it is not for everyone. I love battle royale games because of how intense they are.
It's one of the only game modes that make me feel like I have something to lose if I do not perform my best. There are actually consequences to my actions, and that's why it's so intense.
Sure, technically I can start another game, but I will not get back my previous investments.
Also, the last couple fights before I win a game are more intense than any other game I've ever played
Well that’s a subjective opinion.
The gameplay loop being 10-15 minutes of running around empty buildings and 30-45s of firefights is objectively boring, though.
I’m glad you like it 👍
Not sure what games you're playing that you don't get straight into the action. Whenever I play, I get into a gunfight within the first couple minutes all the time.
Also, since the rise of battle royale games the maps have gotten better and there is more action more often. Not only that, but the games are generally more balanced nowadays. That's one of the benefits of the constant funding: there will continue to be constant updates and the game will continue to be tweaked and improved as long as people play it.
Just like every other game genre, they have improved. The first platformers didn't come out of the gate being like Mario Wonder or Celeste. There has and will continue to be more progress in the genre.
Also basically no replayability because there's zero progression. Since every round starts exactly the same as every other, there's nothing to unlock other than skins, and you have to pay for the battle pass to even unlock those. Meanwhile games like Battlefield or Battlebit or COD have tons of things to unlock that you can use when you want.
Isn’t most competitive multiplayer games like that? That’s like thinking chess has zero replay value because there are no unlockables.
No one’s told you about the Super Knight? It’s $8.99/turn but it can move in any upper-case letter path. It also discounts the Victorian Hat Pack for the queen.
It depends on their format. A lot of competitive games have abilities and different loadout options that allow you to try different playstyles on purpose and practice getting better with them, while the battle royale's format forces you to deal with what you find, preventing practice with specific setups.
For example MOBAs allow you to pick heroes who play very very differently and allow you to become proficient in a number of different playstyles purposefully on your own time, so you feel the progression more directly and if you dead end with one character you can try more.
I find that having no in-game progression of any kind is part of the appeal of these kinds of games. The progression comes from improving your own skills at the game.
Highly agree. Whenever I got good enough and I realized I was close to maybe winning my first game, it made me really proud.
I feel like battle royales are the more social versions of souls likes
You could make the same case for rogue-likes
I don't really like rogue-likes either, for pretty much the same reason. Rogue-lites are a thousand times better just for that one small change.
I simply mean that some people enjoy the task of knowing the map and being able to just be better. Learning the game. It’s not my cup of tea except for maybe Risk of Rain, but there’s a base for it
If you mean true roguelikes then I agree, if you include rogue lites like Dead Cells or Hades then there is true progression and unlocking of new mechanics and weapons that allow you to learn and practice new techniques using them
I don't like 3D platforming. I haven't liked it since it really kicked off in 1996. Even all these years later with Super Mario Odyssey, I feel like I'm constantly fiddling with the camera, and something in my brain struggles with judging distances in 3D space at times. I used to love platforming. Yoshi's Island is one of my all-time favorite games.
If I were in a bubble, I'd say the camera and the floaty controls that are in a lot of these games need an overhaul, but Mario's as popular as ever. Between that and Mario games still being at the top of metascores, it's probably only me and five other people grumpy about it.
Yeah, I completely agree. It's even worse when the platforming is forced in a game that's not about platforming.
2D platforming is way better. Far less frustration, and there's a lot games can do with it.
Refunded doom eternal ovrr this after loving 2016
Some of them felt like they were set up to force weird camera angles and be luck of the draw. That's not adding challenge. That's just being a dick.
Nah, Nintendo is the king of manufactured and artificial difficulty, right next to the masters Capcom (specifically the R.E. team)
Did you ever try A Hat in Time? Out of all 3D platformers I played I still think it has the tightest controls and also a lot of camera settings.
But I agree, 3D platformers never really reached the fluidity and tightness of 2D platformers. I still love both but for different reasons.
I've played a lot of good 3D platformers, but I've never played one where I thought 3D added something that 2D couldn't do better. In almost all cases, locking me to a 2D view for platforming sequences is better.
Yeah I love 2D platformers, but can't get into 3D. I did enjoy Super Mario 64 when it came out, but on replay I find it's often finicky and hard to control, simply because of the 3D format.
Give me some Celeste any day though
I have no issue with battle royales.
I have a huge issue with literally all microtransactions in every context. Cosmetics are not a justification. The only valid way to unlock cosmetics is to earn them with gameplay.
If you have microtransactions in any format in your game, you are a bad human being. There is no scenario where it is forgivable. If you have lootboxes, you should go to prison for the blatant unregulated gambling operation you are running.
If not microtransactions for cosmetics, then what would be a better business model in your opinion?
Step 1: You buy a game. There is no step 2.
Actual meaningful additional content (which never under any circumstances removes old content) as an expansion is fine. Paid cosmetics cannot be. Microtransactions in any format cannot be.
Would that actually be sustainable for a game that's constantly changing? The ones I'm familiar with are League of Legends and TFT, so I'll use those as examples. These games rely on having a large playerbase, or else matchmaking will be all over the place and it wouldn't be any fun for anyone. Having to pay for the game would shrink that playerbase considerably. Having to pay for updates makes this essentially a subscription model, since it's makes no sense to maintain old versions of the game and further fracturing the playerbase that is already small to begin with, and subscriptions will also deter a lot of people from playing the game.
If it's one of those single player story-based games that you play once and never touch again, then yeah, the model makes sense. Though I don't see the harm in having the option to buy cosmetics. It's not something I'm personally interested in so I just don't touch that stuff, but I like that we're valuing the work of artists more.
I didn't like MTX like OP until someone told me MOBAs only really work that way because people have to play similar content constantly and the only way to keep that novel for a wide playerbase is consistently added content, and that only works if the company can continue a revenue stream, and for a free to play model to allow a constant influx of new players to sustain the playerbase.
And to say that MOBAs don't deserve to exist would be insane, Heroes of the Storm is one of my favorite games of all time now since I can play VS AI with no toxicity, and even though it's frozen on maintenance mode now I can only enjoy it so thoroughly from the sheer amount of characters and content allowed by the free to play MTX model that brought it all there.
If it's not sustainable, your game doesn't deserve to exist.
Microtransactions are unconditionally a purely evil business model with no redeeming qualities under any circumstances. There is no circumstance where they can theoretically be forgivable.
What about microtransactions makes them evil? Is your gripe just about loot boxes? Or paying for art? Or is it the middleman? I don't understand how charging for art in the context of a video game can be inherently evil.
Everything. Parting out core elements of a proper game into separate purchases is a fundamentally abusive business model, designed for the sole purpose of manipulating dopamine to rob whales blind.
Cosmetics aren't any different than anything else. The only possible valid way for them to exist is to have them be earned in game. You're the exact same piece of shit if you charge money for a shotgun as you are if you charge for a shotgun skin. "Premium" classes of players based on spending are not, and cannot theoretically, be OK.
"My game needs an unforgivable business model to exist" (ignoring that that has never once had any basis in reality) is not a justification for being a piece of shit.
It sounds like we just disagree on what constitutes a core element of a game. I'm very happy to not have to pay for things I don't care about, but I can understand that it sucks when you do care about it and there aren't as many people to split the costs with.
Everything is core.
There is only one thing that is permissible to charge for in any context: actual playable content. That's not a multiplayer character, it's not any cosmetic, it's not anything but new maps, new stories, or new game modes.
Na, I don't agree here. I have played a lot of Free to Play games that rely on microtransactions for cosmetics and spent so many hours in these games and never, ever spent a dollar. Probably wouldn't have bought them if they were not F2P either. Only game I've ever bought a cosmetics pack was a Support pack for Deep Rock Galactic, because that game is so fucking good (yeah I know, not F2P).
If your game is Free to Play and you get money by microtransactions for cosmetics, I have no issues with that. Because I am someone who usually loses interest in games pretty fast or like to play many different games with my friends, so I personally am spending way, way less money this way.
Oh, well, I understand this sentiment but I’d ask everyone here to reevaluate why you hate them and then listen to these points to consider.
Cosmetic items are created mostly by artists. Artists are only needed during certain time of development. So this is a way to keep them on a project consistently or to salary them.
Most cosmetics are optional and add nothing to the game. In a single player game, just don’t pay for it. Evaluate each games value on the inclusions or exclusion of micro transactions. It’s not necessary to say “if it has them, it’s a worse game” because I’ve been ignoring them for awhile and my games are fine. Just evaluate the game as if they didn’t exist or as if they’re part of the price.
Micro transactions support ongoing development. These offers keep projects going. I like playing games like Deep Rock Galactic and Hell Let Loose which are both smaller games by smaller studios. They keep their community alive with OPTIONAL content while producing free updates. It’s a great deal.
And lastly 4. People who buy plenty of these cosmetics and other transactions, often called whales, are subsidizing games for you. It’s cheap money for a development team for someone who wants to buy boosts or cosmetics or whatever. So why wouldn’t they do it?
If there are different classes of people based on being stupid enough to waste money, it's by definition evil and exploitive. This model is designed for the sole purpose of breaking people's brains to spend more than they should.
There is no valid way to distribute any cosmetic that isn't earning it in game. The exact same game, with literally nothing changed but the addition of a purchase of a cosmetic, is worse for the mere existence of purchase bait. It's the same thing as taking a TV show I bought and injecting ads.
"Free" content supported by these extremely invasive ads is worse than not having those updates.
They're not subsidizing games for me. They're taking games away by making them unconditionally unplayable. Charge a fair price. You're worth it or you're not. "We need to be disgusting shitbags for our game to exist" is evidence that your game shouldn't exist, not that it's possible for your behavior to be acceptable.
Loot boxes break people’s brains. Micro transactions aren’t inherently exploitative. They’re just cheat products. It’s like saying movie theater drink prices are exploitative. They are a bit. But then you also don’t have to buy them.
And the second part, yes and no. A lot of games that use those systems are free to play. It’s more like ads in a YouTube video. But say you did pay, cool, consider if it’s worth it or not. In some games with ongoing development like the ones I mentioned, I gladly pay the cosmetics price because I know that’s how I can support the devs while also getting a cool costume. If that’s not worth it to you, cool, doesn’t hurt you at all and you often still get free content. You just don’t get a cool hat. Guess the game is ruined.
It’s just such a simplistic way to look at it. It’s like gamers who whine incessantly about DLC in games. Like cool, if the game isn’t worth it don’t buy it?
Your arguments make sense for almost every kind of game except long lived competitive multiplayer and MMOs that simply can't survive without MTX or free to play based models, and if you don't think they deserve to exist for that, well... Be grateful you're not the kind of player who likes those genres.
I disagree. I don't think that micro transactions make the developers bad people. I also don't think they're bad at all
The thing about these games is that they aren't meant to be played once then put down. It's kinda like going out with friends. My friends and I have a bar we go to for food and drinks, and because of the new drinks, food, or activities they add every once in a while, it makes it more interesting for us. I know that a drink that costs me $5 doesn't cost them $5 to make, but I know the extra money is going towards those new activities, drinks, food, employees, rent, and their profit.
The micro transactions are going towards the artists, developers, servers, etc. Not even mentioning that because of the long lifespan of these games, things like compatibility, hacks, and bugs, are found more often and they do have to be fixed to keep the player base happy. If they don't adapt then they won't keep their players. That's why we don't see games that were released at the same time as fortnite with as many players. They already went through most of the content the games have to offer.
I've stopped advocating for PC gaming after about 15 years of being a PC enthusiast. It's just too expensive these days. I think the Steam Deck is a good entry point, but not everyone wants a handheld console. I can 100% respect anyone who looks at the price of a gaming PC and just picks up a Playstation/Xbox for $500 instead.
What do you mean too expensive? While the higher-end GPUs are still ridiculous, you can find something like the 6650XT for ~$200 and that is more than enough for 1080p gaming. Meanwhile SSDs and RAM are at an all-time low price because of how cheap NAND flash is. Throw in a previous gen Ryzen 5 or i5 for ~$100 and you could easily build a competent gaming PC for $500. Plus you don't have to pay the $60/year tax for online and get access to Steam sales and mods. And torrents if you're into that.
I'm talking about something which can achieve parity with the 4k graphics that console gamers expect nowadays. That's not remotely affordable on PC, but it is for consoles.
The Series X and the PS5 are both roughly around the performance of a 6700XT, possibly lower depending on where you look. Any "4K" that is happening is upscaling. Most games run on the equivalent of low or medium settings, use dynamic resolution, checkerboard rendering, or for big games like Starfield or Elden Ring will run at 30fps.
Look, you're welcome to nitpick graphical fidelity, but I think current gen console games running on a 4k tv look excellent. They're also a fraction of the price compared to PC hardware. That's a better proposition compared to PC gaming these days for anyone looking to get into gaming. I get that that's not a popular viewpoint among the PC crowd, but that's why I posted it.
The point isn't how good they look, the point is that it's not actually 4K. You can run your PC games at 1080p on a 4K screen and get the same experience. That's what DLSS and FSR are already doing. And if both are $500 it's not a fraction of the price it's the same price. Actually over time PC is cheaper because you're not paying $60/year for online.
After 5 years your $500 console actually cost $800. That's $300 you could have spent on more games or on a stronger GPU that can maybe actually run higher resolutions or higher framerates. At the end of the day consoles are the illusion of a good value. It is smoke and mirrors.
I looked it up, and a 6700XT costs the same price as a PS5/Xbox in my country. Add onto that all of the extra components you'll need to build a PC and it's way in excess of what a console costs. Sorry, but the cost of entry for PC just doesn't compare to consoles.
I'm going to assume you're in the Netherlands because of feddit.nl. The 6650XT that I mentioned earlier is €247 on amazon.nl while the Series X is €539. And the 6700XT is €349. That's €200 less for the 6700XT and €300 less for the 6650XT. And that's just Amazon-- I'm sure there are used options on sites I'm not going to know about. And again assuming you are using the console for 5 years the real cost is €539 + €300 = €839. You can definitely build a better PC for that much.
EDIT: Here you go. A decent gaming PC with performance that should roughly be on-par with consoles for €593 which is less than the price of the Series X + 1 year of Xbox Live (€599). And this is with all new parts. I usually recommend going used for everything but storage, but I wouldn't know if ebay is good or what the alternative is for you.
I mean it’s not really an apples to apples comparison. The hardware is generally more expensive for an equivalent gaming computer for sure… but I’m not convinced it’s more expensive overall. A computer can be used for more things, and games are often available cheaper (though consoles have a better used market and stuff), plus there’s a huge back catalog of older games that you can keep throughout the generations. If you want a console that’s totally fair, and there’s definitely advantages… But I need a desktop anyway, so buying a graphics card is a better investment for me, and I like not being in quite as much of a walled garden.
"In my country." Look dude, if you live in a shit country that gets like nine GPUs per year and they're all stupidly expensive then say that in your post so you don't waste people's fucking time.
"""upscaled""" 4K, righto.
I dunno why people expect extreme levels of graphics anyways. Alan Wake 2 will not be a better game just because the pores in the wood are rendered at all times.
A $600 PC runs everything if you learn to ignore this one, meaningless attribute.
This, i loved the original Alan Wake for it's story, i wouldn't care at all if the second game had the exact same graphics. The industry wants to push for graphics because it is very simple for them to improve that, just put more time/money on the assets, hire actors to do mocap and not think about anything else, that's as souless as the movie industry.
Eh, I don't want 4k on my PC, 1440p is already overkill. The only reason I care about 4k on my TV is because it's so big. But even then, my Switch looks fine, and it definitely doesn't render in 4k.
For me, PC gaming is way less expensive than consoles. I spend about $500 every 3-5 years for upgrades, and I spend way less for games because of sales.
So your complaint with the PC's affordability is that it's expensive to produce ultra high end graphics?
Yeah, people who have to care about money don't care about 4k.
Well from my perspective, 4k monitors came out about ten years ago, so it's not ultra-high end. It's actually quite old. I've been holding off on getting into 4k for so long, but the prices keep going up. The expectation was that prices are supposed to go down over time. Hence, I no longer feel like PC has the edge it used to.
It really depends on your expectations. Once you clarified that you meant parity with current consoles, I understood why you wrote what you did.
I'm almost the exact opposite of the PC princesses who can say with a straight face that running a new AAA release at anything less than high settings at 4K/120fps is "unplayable". I stopped watching/reading a lot of PC gaming content online because it kept making me feel bad about my system even though I'm very happy with its performance.
Like a lot of patient gamers, I'm also an older gamer, and I grew up with NES, C64, and ancient DOS games. I'm satisfied with medium settings at 1080/60fps, and anything more is gravy to me. I don't even own a 4K display. I'm happy to play on low settings at 720/30fps if the actual game is good. The parts in my system range from 13 to 5 years old, much of it bought secondhand.
The advantage of this compared to a console is that I can still try to run any PC game on my system, and I might be satisfied with the result; no-one can play a PS5 game on a PS3.
Starfield is the first game to be released that (looking at online performance videos) I consider probably not being worth trying to play on my setup. It'll run, but the performance will be miserable. If I was really keen to play it I might try to put up with it, but fortunately I'm not.
You could build a similar system to mine from secondhand parts for dirt cheap (under US$300, possibly even under US$200) although these days the price/performance sweet spot would be a few years newer.
Yeah precisely. I bought a PS4 to play Spiderman. Then they asked me to buy a PS5 to play Spiderman 2. Fuck. That. My PC is older than my PS4, and I'll be playing Spiderman 2 on the PC when it gets ported. This is what made me mostly give up on consoles after Halo 5, and Spiderman has convinced me to abandon them entirely. Except for my Switch, which is still going strong and playing new releases after 6 years. Nintendo knows what's up. Sony and Microsoft don't.
You can't do the math on the price per performance of a PC at one point in time. You have to do the long term math.
I aim for mid tier, so something like $800-1200 if I built everything new. But I rarely tax my system. Here are my specs:
I can play most games at reasonable framerates (40+ FPS, most >60) at 1440p. My system is about as good as a console, at least in overall experience (my screen is a foot from my face, so it looks better than 4k at 10x the distance).
I recently upgraded for ~$500, and before that was rocking a Ryzen 1700 (got for programming, not gaming) and GTX 960. I didn't upgrade because a specific game ran poorly, I upgraded because I wanted better non-gaming perf (compiling code, Wayland on my Linux system, etc).
My kids are just fine on my laptop with an AMD APU (3500U), and most of my most played games would work pretty well on that hardware.
Lol your unpopular opinion was so unpopular you got into a nice little chin wag with someone over if consoles can provide better graphical fidelity than a pc you can build for the same price.
I'm on your side though. I think the console has better specs to cost for just hardware. Steam sales (and humble bundles) will get my dollar significantly further than it ever will on a console. I bet dollars to donuts Dave The Diver will never be cheaper on Switch than Steam.
It's always been said that consoles are a loss leader, as in the hardware is cheap because they make the money back on the game, right? Judging the overall cost on just the initial hardware expense is mad, because as you say getting PC games (through Steam sales, Humble Bundles, free game giveaways etc) is so much cheaper.
Initially I agreed with your statement but patient gamer and PC gaming go well together. I do think the idea of spending 1k or 2k plus is ridiculous and the high end stuff offers zero value for money though.
This. The price of graphics cards means my hobby is about to become super expensive for me; I bought a OneXFly, but that's because the Steam Deck won't play some of the games I play most often, and I had two RoG Ally systems fry themselves from some sort of quality control issues. I also have to buy a portable bluetooth keyboard and mouse combo since I'll be playing mostly games like OpenTTD and Stellaris.
People said consoles were dead. That innovative high-end phones are dead. That PC Gaming is dead.
I think they're going to survive, but by merging. PCs have a role that will keep them viable, but XR goggles are quickly making phone screens obsolete and I think (at least until/unless the economy recovers and/or capitalism finally dies) we're going to be relying a lot more on portable gaming PC phone hybrids in the future.
IDK, mid tier GPUs like the 6650XT/7600 are pretty affordable at $200-300. That's about the same as they've always been. There was a crazy increase during COVID, but prices are now quite reasonable.
You can make PC gaming expensive, but it doesn't have to be. I spend about $200-300 on GPU, $100-200 on CPU, and upgrade the rest as infrequently as I can get away with. So something like $500-800 every 5-ish years, or $100-200/year. I probably save that much or more just on the cost of games.
The last gen of GPUs was real bad on price, but it's gotten better. I'm still paying a little more for my PC parts than I would a current gen console, but I always more than make up for it with lower prices on games and accessories, no online access fees, etc.
My concern with PC gaming right now is that it's starting to look like a midrange PC won't get you 60fps anymore, and sub-60 is generally a dealbreaker for me. Maybe it would have been easier if I'd grown up during the fifth console gen when 15fps was common, but 60 was the standard for my consoles for years.
This year it was like every other big PC release was Crysis, and now I gotta wait until my PC is a gen ahead to run them how I want. At least that keeps me on the patient gamer path?
A midrange PC still gets you 60 fps on all the old games and most of the indie games.
Surprising how this is actually mildly unpopular, but I agree with you! You just get a more convenient and better experience (relative to the investment, I mean) from consoles nowadays, and you can resell the games if you bought a physical copy. I don‘t think PC gaming is dead, but consoles have the edge for now. Personally, I have a PC and a Switch, haven‘t had a „big“ console since the PS2 but I agree.
PC gaming is way cheaper for me. It has a higher upfront cost (like $1k to get started), but if you buy last gen hardware (e.g. I just bought a 6650XT for a little over $200) and stay around the middle, you can get fantastic value long term.
Since you're sitting close to a screen, you don't need 4k and 1440p will probably provide a better overall experience than couch gaming @ 4k anyway. So you don't need to match consoles in GPU performance, you just need to match them in overall experience. Upgrade every 5 years or so for $500, and you'll always have a pretty decent, mid tier setup that'll rival consoles in performance.
So yeah, $500-800 every five years keeps you at or a little above consoles in terms of performance. And games are cheaper (assuming you're a patient gamer) and don't lose compatibility when you upgrade, so PC should be cheaper long term.
Ah Yes $500 plus $70 a year plus a library that won't work on the new one in a couple years plus more expensive periferals is definitely much cheaper than a used PC
you're comparing the
most premiumpriciest possible console experience with the cheapest way to play pc games, they can get used consoles as well, and just like pc they get discounts on old games, not to mention that secondhand games are a thing on console,Online play is premium? I know this generation does have backwards compatibility but what about the next one? Your used games won't work when you do decide to upgrade.
My bad, premium as in pricy
That one talks so much around the compatibility of gaming and regular parts, how laptops and smartphones are so much more popular now for non gamers, and fetishism about how expensive everything is.
Gaming on PC used to be just buying a graphics card and putting on your regular computer, maybe upgrading the PSU, now although a low end graphics card on a regular desktop can give you pretty good results, most people don't have desktops, and notebooks are getting less and less modular.
I also blame how the community seems proud of spending a lot and getting diminishing results. The market sees how people are spending irresponsibily and know they can raise the price as much as they want.
At the end of the day, gaming on a PC ends up cheaper because you own everything, and a good computer makes your life so much easier outside of ganing. When on console, you are kind of forced to play by the company's rule, at least if you don't buy everything on the diminishing returns region instead of the cxb region.
Agreed. I am pretty frugal and PC gaming ends up way cheaper than console gaming. I have a Switch and a PC, and just getting the console and 10 games or so is the same price as building a PC. You can get a lot of bang for <$1k. Here's a rough price list:
This gets you a high quality setup on a modern, upgradable platform for $1000-1300. You could drop this down to $800 or so and still play most modern games at 1080/60.
I recently upgraded my PC and only needed the first two (Ryzen 1700 + GTX 960 to Ryzen 5600x + RX 6650XT) and spent $400-500. I had the PC unchanged for 5 years (spent ~$800 in 2017 for CPU, mobo, GPU, and case; reused the rest), then spent about the price of a new console to bring it mostly up to date.
Games are much cheaper on PC. Since I'm a patient gamer, I can get most AAAs for $10-20 on a typical sale about 2 years after launch, or $5 if it's in a bundle. On console, I'd probably spend $20-40 used. I also don't lose my games or peripherals when I upgrade my hardware, and I can use my PC for tons of other stuff.
So PC is still way cheaper for me. Then again, I buy lots of older games, not a handful of newer games, and I'm in it for the long term (I'm married with kids, so I have plenty of space and don't plan to move).
No game project should be AAA. It's anti-creative, as developers must turn their game into something that appeals to the broadest audience, and it's unstable, as companies bet their entire next 3 years of revenue on a single title. I'd much rather everything become B or C-tier developments. The great games that come from this development style simply are not worth it for the damage they do to the medium.
I kind of wish all forms of popular media could just, like, agree to defund a bit. Just step things down a few notches. There's just too much money involved for anything truly unexpected to happen in these industries.
Agreed. I want creative games that take risks, yet the AAA gaming industry is all about eye candy and mass market appeal.
So I play a lot of indie and AA games instead.
I don't care if the AAAs survive. They make games that are sometimes worth having in a sale but I won't miss them much.
I think there is still place for AAA games since a lot of them cannot be made by smaller teams.
I don't think games like Zelda BOTW or even Elden Ring could have been made by smaller studios. At least not to the same scale.
I agree that such games couldn't have been made by smaller teams. I love BOTW/TOTK, don't get me wrong. They're among my favorite games of all time.
Is it worth it though? Is the prospect of games like these worth the necessary instability, the restriction to creativity that they bring? I don't believe so. Even if we lived in a world where crunch was illegal, that was enforceable, and it was perfectly enforced on a systemic level, I don't think that our economic system is one where such games can be good for the artistic medium that is video games.
The price of modern games is often justified. I don't buy many at release, but the ones I do buy have been more than worth the money.
its one of the few things that never increased with inflation nor quality
SNES games were 60 dollars and could be beaten within a weekend
games today can take weeks to beat, if you rush it
Games actually decreased heavily in price.
$60 dollars back in 1992 would be $131 today. Still over a hundred for most of the N64 and PlayStation as well.
I like to use Red Alert 2 as an example, since it's the very first game I bought in Euro's in 2001. It cost me 45 euros, which was a fuckload of money for teenage me. And that's 77 euro's today. Warhammer 3 is selling for in 2022 (and 2023 for 17 euros LESS.
The massive amount of work that goes into a modern AAA title is truly mind blowing. It's gross that so little money goes to the people who actually make the games but certainly the effort is astounding even in titles that fall short of expectations.
Have three unpopular opinions:
Bethesda games are insanely overrated and absolutely carried by the modding community. Do I enjoy Skyrim? Hell yeah! …With 500 mods.
Everything below 50-60 FPS is stuttery, unsmoooth, and unenjoyable no matter the genre.
There‘s a place and time for „Ubisoft formula“ games (aka. tick off 500 icons on a map), cause sometimes I don‘t wanna think, I just wanna mindlessly walk around with semi-purpose and do stuff.
I love unpopular opinions.
Disagree with 2. You get used to it, especially when playing more older games. After a few hours of Ocarina of Time even the 20fps works eventually lol
You get used to 2 as long as the framerate is consistent. If you've got a smooth 30 then you can get used to it. If it's constantly jumping around from 30-50 or something you won't be able to stop noticing it
That's true. Lower but consitent fps is better than higher but unconsistent.
2&3 completely agree
On 1 though, I agree IF every other game embraced the modding community as much as Bathesda games do. GTA is the only other game I heavily mod, and in comparison it's such a pain in the ass, the game engine is not designed to support it so you get weird bugs, just overall a worst experience.
So I think it's fair to rate the base game highly for its support of mods. They've decided that providing a great experience for mods is a high priority for them. Maybe they can make the base game better if they don't have to make it compatible with whatever modders want to throw at it.
People overestimate what a healthy population for a game should be.
You don't need that 19 million people are playing the same mmo as you are when you are.
Depends on the kind of MMO. In vanilla WoW having an underpopulated server while trying to level means you'd really struggle trying to quest solo in areas around your level, depending on your class
Yes, that still doesn't mean a game with less than 10 million subscribers is dying. You need other 4 people your level, not a million.
Well you'll need many more than 4 to guarantee that at least that many would be on at any given time in any given zone on any given server ready to assist you, but yeah, you're probably right that the necessary amount is exaggerated.
I don't like open world games. Give me levels to explore or the illusion of an open world and I'm perfectly happy.
I really appreciate games like Dishonored, where you have massive levels to explore but they're still very tailored experiences, and each level gives you something brand new.
My one gripe with Dishonored is that the way runes, bone charms and money (the main upgrade materials) work encourages you to explore every nook and cranny of each level. While some may like that, I'd prefer to find a fun way to reach my target and then on future playthroughs I could find another dozen completely distinct routes, making every run feel fresh.
That whole second paragraph has nothing to do with your point, I just felt like mentioning it.
I don't even care about an illusion of an open world, I want a hand-crafted experience. I felt Zelda BotW was empty, and I much prefer Skyward Sword.
I have enjoyed a handful of open world games, but I generally avoid them because there are so many that waste my time.
I actually love the concept of open world games. Ive sunk tons of hours into skyrim, oblivion, fnv, far cry 4, witcher 3, gta v, etc.
But now so many games want to be open world when they dont need to be. I loved the shit out of old school halo and never once thought damn i wish this was open world
Agreed. I've only played a couple games that deserve to be open world that actually deserve to be a part of the genre.
And the thing is i dont mind a game trying it out. Witcher 3 and elden ring trying open world came out excellent but so many games just tack on a giant world that ends up being a collectathon or a bunch of fetch quests. Padding out games with a bunch of bullshit is just stupid
I played Dark Souls 1 for the first time about a year ago and it was a miserable experience. I legitimately cannot understand what people enjoy about it. It was slow, clunky, and frustrating. The game was designed to be irritating. The only enjoyable boss in the main game was Ornstein and Smough (although the DLC bosses were all fantastic, with a special shout out to Artorias). The rest were either garbage or Crapra Demon, which deserves it's own special level in hell.
Prior to that, I had beaten every other Souls game other than DS 2 (and platinumed Bloodborne, Elden Ring, and Sekiro), so I know it's not cause I don't like Souls games.
I think if I had played DS 1 as my first, it would have turned me off of the entire genre. I don't even think it's because I had played more recent games first, because I love Demon's Souls.
Funny, I kinda preferred ds1 over 2 and 3 because it felt a lot more methodical, almost like a turn based strategy game.
I had similar thoughts about DS1, except that's the only one I've played. Are the others better? I assumed everyone who likes them just likes pain.
From my understanding DS1 is a special kind of pain.
But I've not personally played it- I've only played DS3/Elden Ring.
Anything with i-frames is not for me.
Without i frames sonic would die instantly even with rings when hitting spikes.
While technically true, it's a pretty comparison. They're obviously not talking about "being invulnerable until the animation carries you away from the hazard you don't take another hit the very next tick". They talking "Press button X between 11 and 31 milliseconds before animation Y starts to take zero damage regardless of everything else"
A lot of people I talk to think that PC is the best platform. I agree that it is versatile and has the most options. I can't stand playing games on my PC at this point, though. I spend all day fixing computers at work. I don't even want to look at a computer after clocking out. To be able to play games for PC, but not use a computer, I've decided to get a Steamdeck.
Huh, I'm a software engineer, and when I get home, I'm excited to do stuff on my computer. I even like building software at home for fun.
I'm not big into tinkering with game settings though, I am much more excited about playing or making games than tuning them. So maybe that's what you don't like? I find the Steam Deck's defaults to be extremely reasonable and it feels just like a console.
I don't like using computers after work because it feels like work just turning it on. Idk why.
That's fair. I just don't have the same experience.
My hobbies are very similar to my day job (software engineer), but in a different tech stack (Python @ work, Rust @ home) and building different things (business logic @ work, distributed systems and games @ home).
Maybe it helps that I'm forced to use macOS at work (which I dislike), and I get to use Linux at home, so it really feels like separate things.
But then again, many of my coworkers don't have personal projects at home, so I'm probably just weird.
The OS differences probably help. I use Windows both at work and at home, so there's no difference. And it seems like every time I fire up my PC, something is wrong with it. I avoided fixing a problem for 6 months because I couldn't handle it emotionally after work lol. My hobbies are not tech-related other than gaming. I went into IT because the thing I have always been the least bad at is working with computers. I don't have any other skills I thought would help me make money when I was exploring options at college
Just curious how long you’ve been in your field?
I used to feel the same way but burnout slowly set in. I’m back to enjoying it again, but it did take a long break at home from the computer.
10-15 years. I'm now in a lead position, so I have management and planning responsibilities, but I still get 50-75% of my time to do dev work.
I have never experienced burnout, at least from SW dev, though I've certainly burned out on projects/companies. In fact, when I get burned out at work, I often relax by building SW at home (basically angry coding). For example, we had an overcomplicated bit of code at work, so over the weekend I built a POC that's a lot more elegant.
My main limitation here is that I have kids, so I don't get a ton of time after work (like 1-2hrs/day, on a good day). I also alternate with reading and playing video games because I also really enjoy those.
I guess I just really love my field. I'm hoping to retire early-ish so I can have more time to work on my projects.
I use my pc on my TV with a controller for this reason. It limits the games I can play since so many aren't optimized for controller but I generally like the games on PC better. I also use my pc for movies and TV as well so it serves as an overall entertainment center.
I have a ps5 for all of my media needs and PlayStation exclusives and all that. My gaming computer is also getting pretty old and doesn't run stuff as well as it should. A Steamdeck is straight up an upgrade at this point. I'll keep my PC around for older games I can't play on other platforms, but I am pretty much fully embracing consoles lol. I also don't have the funding to constantly upgrade a computer, and consoles seem to last a long time and have just the initial costs.
You can use a controller
Yup, this is it. One of the major benefits of the Steam Deck is how they’ve consolized the experience. I can’t wait until they fully support a regular gaming PC deployment of SteamOS. I’d drop Windows in a heartbeat. The reduction in flexibility is worth it to just be able to turn on the PC after a month and just play a goddamn game instead of troubleshooting & updating for 45 minutes first.
Ask around the Linux gaming communities, some of the distros are in a really good place for gaming. I'm thinking of making the leap myself now that I've been enjoying my steam deck for a while.
Consoles are for the rich and my mind can't be changed about that.
After all these years I found a ps3 getting thrown away so I picked it up and asked my cousin for a controller and it's really fun and convenient for gaming but damn back then I could never afford it. Now it's worse. You have to pay for online, games are more expensive, controllers are more expensive, and it's way more locked down. I remember my cousin and I were trying to watching a YouTube video and we couldn't because sony servers were down and you had to be logged in to watch a YouTube video.
You don't need to be rich in a western nation to get a console, but if you mean the value proposition of having the newest console sucks then yes, absolutely.
Most of my gaming friends who play on consoles are well off. There's an abundance of games that you can play for free/cheap on PC that don't need a lot of horsepower to play. Most people play on cheapo laptops or cheap PCs with less than 500 USD budget to build. My brother in law still plays on a Ryzen 1600 and RX 480 PC built in 2017 right when it was released and the only upgrade made to the system is getting 1660 Super or 1660 Ti 3 years ago. He mostly play Brawlhalla and Forza Horizon.
That was me, but with a 1700 (bought for compile speed, I'm a SWE) and a GTX 960. I upgraded last year when prices came down to a 6650XT and a 5600X, but still on the same mobo.
I never really had an issue playing games because I prefer to play older games. I can afford nicer, but I don't see a point. I hate paying more for games than I need to, and PC just has so many options that I'm interested in that I don't see the need to play recent games.
When I was a kid, I saved up for a console but I could only afford a handful of games. My PC wasn't good enough to play many games, so I just played the games I had. So I have a ton of games I missed growing up, so I'm content lagging a bit on modern games.
The only console I've bought since the PS3 has been the Switch and it hasn't been absurdly expensive. I've bought almost all of my games second hand.
It can take a while to find them at the right price, but I've had good luck finding people selling multiple games at once and bundling a couple together for a good price. I bought Mario Kart 8 and BOTW for $25/each
Also, the games don't lose much value if you ever want to resell them. I imagine I could still get ~$30 for each one if I really wanted to and in the future they'll probably go up to about $50-$60 once they stop manufacturing them
It really depends on what you are expecting. I got two consoles, a refurbished PS4 slim and an Xbox One S. The PS4 was 125 USD and the Xbox (an all-digital edition with no drive) was 90 USD. Yes, you have to look out for these deals but they're there. PS4 games cost me usually 10 USD max, I buy them during deals or used. Xbox had a lot of game pass tricks you could do so the games were mostly extremely cheap.
But I do understand if you mean playing the newest games. That can be expensive.
Plus the online if you'd want to do that. PS5 is crazy. My cousin is on his 5th $70 controller because they keep getting stick drift. I honestly don't know why he still plays console
Yeah that is just laziness. When I wqs a kid consoles were too expensive so everyone wqs gaming on their PC or handheld consoles. You either used a keyboard or a shitty knock-off controller. I couldn't imagine paying big bucks for a new gamepad. Even though I love games I still like to be thrifty with my gaming related purchases and treat myself only once in a while. Sometimes I wonder if the people who get the newest stuff would necessarily notice if they were playing a PS4 or PS5 game.
Lots of people complain when some product they like is no longer available in favor of a 'new and improved' product. Remember 'New Coke'? Patches and updates to games are the same thing, especially ones that significantly change the gameplay.
I, for example, liked Overwatch during certain time periods. That game is no longer available. There's certainly people who play League of Legends or DOTA that feel the same way, though I wouldn't know - the game they liked was at a certain point in its development, and since then changes have made it no longer the game they like. Same applies to a lot of MMOs - I liked Ultima Online, EverQuest, World of Warcraft, and others, but the games I like no longer exist even though the games technically exist.
The problem isn't easily solved either - no updates may make some people happy but others will not be happy. The resources probably don't exist to continue splitting the game and maintaining a stable version of an online game at each iteration, and even if they did, the player base would become too diffuse to be able to actually keep the game enjoyable with sufficient players. But it might be a fair criticism to say that updates come too fast for some of these games, and we need more time between them, or various other things. And there's nothing wrong with people just griping, even if it's something that can't reasonably be stopped.
As a book and video game enthusiast, my unpopular opinion is that the average video game is a much better entertainment value than the average book.
I've played a lot of games and read a lot of books. When measuring dollars for hours, I think video games win.
On the one hand, I've put massive numbers of hours into titles like Zelda, Metroid, Harvest Moon, and Pokemon.
On the other hand, I've only gotten two or three read-throughs out of even some of my very favorite books.
And then the video game classics really put up some big numbers: after decades, I'm still enjoying PacMan, Frogger, and Galaga and their kin.
And then there's the elephant in the room: Tetris.
If I had to pick - on a desert island - between an e-reader with every book ever printed, or one copy of Tetris on a Gameboy...it would be an agonizing choice.
This is the line of reasoning I used with my parents as a kid. Dollar per hour entertained.
But I think differently about it these days. I'm looking for maximum value per hour, with an eye towards minimal hours, and with a definite end point if applicable.
And value in this sense could be raw entertainment, but it could be something else, like exposure to new ideas and novel perspectives on life etc.
But I suppose that's what happens when you get older and you've got less and less free time to fill.
I enjoy both books and games, and it's really hard to compare them directly. Even if we stick to the same genre, games provide interactivity that books just can't, while books provide so much more depth in story and often much better pacing.
It's the same idea as reading vs watching movies, the book will feel so much more satisfying, but it'll take days instead of hours to get through. Sometimes that's worth it, shows it's not.
These days I just don't enjoy movies much anymore because I'm either looking for the depth of a book or interaction of a game. I just wish there were more video game adaptations of movies.
Video games retain their value much easier and longer as well.
I enjoy battle royales and have hundreds of hours in Apex, but what I really don't like about them is that they change all the time. Maybe it's just me, but it's kind of annoying to put a game down for a year and come back to a completely different experience. You don't even get the choice, in Apex especially I know they rotate through the maps that are available, so the one I prefer might be impossible to play on for 6 months straight. For this reason, Apex can never be as good of a game to me as Titanfall 2 still is to this day.
Plus, when the official servers are taken down a decade from now, there will be literally no way to revisit the experience. The only things left of the game will be recordings and memories. This is yet another thing that is better with more traditional games, where players can make their own custom servers (like Northstar for Titanfall 2).
I'd rather play Paper Mario than any of the newer 3D ones.
I mostly agree, but odyssey was a bit of a breath of fresh air for me
Probably very hot take for this community. The $1 for every hour of enjoyment is a stupid metric. People will spend upwards of $10 for a 2 hour movie or $5 for an hour-long album. Games have components of many pieces of media and many treat it's worth lower. I'm all for saving money but it's a different discussion regarding the value of the medium, especially when we just discuss it as the consumer-mindset of "hours of my life" vs. experience of enjoyment
I absolutely agree.
I do still use the metric, mostly to demonstrate that something that's expensive is still a good value. For example, I've spent hundreds on Paradox games, but I've gotten over a thousand hours from them, so I've gotten incredibly good value from it.
I'm patient because I hate buggy games, not strictly because of cost, though I'll buy something on a good sale if I notice it. If games released mostly bug free, I'd buy a lot more games closer to launch. I don't have a lot of friends who play games, so there's no pressure to buy things say 1, so I wait until the updates settle down.
I played fallout 3 a lot, was my favorite game for a long minute.
I could never get into fallout new vegas. I tried many times but it just never grabbed me. It just didnt feel right.
Where fallout 3 feels like a desolated wasteland, new vegas feels like a generic western with added monsters, it's got none of the charm of 3 despite every other aspects being better
I tried so hard to enjoy New Vegas but honestly I think it just had too many choices that all fucking sucked. Tons of factions, and I pretty much hated them all.
In hindsight I think I'll try to replay it and go full Mr. House.
Just wondering, did you play them on consoles? Because I played FO3 on PS3 back in 2011(?) And it worked fine but when I tried picking up NV a few years later, I had to drop it because of all the bugs.
Pc. I never even encountered any bugs. I just couldn't get into it
I don't know if this counts but Assassin's Creed Origins sucked and its story was cringe. It could be fun at times but generally wasn't great, I'd prefer the original two games.
Also, Final Fantasy 7 Remake should have not deviated from the story of the original FF7 and it's taken way too long to be developed/released. I bought Part 1 during presale and picked it up Day 1 and even bought my PS4 to play it but I don't know if I'll bother getting the others much less playing them. But I haven't even played Part 1 because I was waiting for all Parts to be released and play all at once, then I heard about the changes to the story and was disgusted. I don't even care to play it anymore. I think the original FF7 is the greatest game of all time.
what changes did they make to the story?
I can't remember them all off the top of my head, especially because I didn't play it but we can also only know a limited amount of changes because they have only released 1 of 3 parts.
But I remember hearing they spend an inordinate amount of time building up Jesse and that Avalanche crew who quickly dies anyway and aren't a major part of the plot at all. They are just prolonging that stage of the game with fluff. And they made it so the relatively quick, plot-driven Midgar part of the early game is also extended with required but pointless cliché RPG quests like collecting some guy's chickens, delivering mail for some person, and so on. There are other changes but I'm too heartbroken and disappointed with that game to read up on them again.
Wedge, Biggs and Jesse don't die...
Well, maybe this is an unpopular opinion, but they should die.
I don't want to spoil it all for people given the community's tendency to play games really late but not many major characters die so the few that do die in the original make a huge impact. Even minor characters like Jessie dying, makes it feel meaningful. But not dying just makes it just like any other game.
It's a retelling in its own timeline. It's deviated quite a bit from the original.
I think it's fine personally and I'm interested to see where they take it.
I wouldn't mind the issues of live service games as much, the ones you describe anyway, if it didn't replace old content or have most of its content timed. Huge sense of FOMO that I just don't need to have, so I go nowhere near those games.
Controllers are better than keyboard and mouse.
I play almost exclusively on PC, but I really don't like playing most games on keyboard and mouse. Analog sticks are better for movement, triggers are better than mouse buttons, and wheel select is more fun than hotkeys. My main complaint is a lack of modifier keys (probably solved with buttons on the back), but overall the ergonomics is much better.
Its ok to be wrong buddy, you do you. 🙂
I'd agree that they're better in every way except for precision and control complexity. Add in gyro and you get pretty damn close, but even then, I think it's easier to be a better shot on a mouse in shooters.
That and it's very very difficult to play something with complex controls on a controller like Arma, or trying to play competitive StarCraft or something, the controller would just always, invariably be worse
Yes, certain games just don't make sense on controller, I still don't understand how people play Cities: Skylines on console, for example. So I absolutely use keyboard+mouse when it makes sense.
However, most games work well on controller, so most of my gaming time is with a controller. In fact, ever since I got my Steam Deck, I've played less on my desktop because the built-in controller is so nice, and it's more convenient since I keep it next to my bed.
I think it does boil down to different games work better or worse on different control types, so I don't think either one can truly be better or worse than the other, just better or worse in certain situations.
I think I would agree that a controller with rear buttons and gyro is better at a wider variety of games than M&KB
Sure, but among PC gaming enthusiasts, preferring controllers is an unpopular take. I want to see more innovative schemes like gyros so I don't need a kb+m nearly as often.
I agree, I was just disputing the absolute, unconditional wording of your original comment where you say they're better than M&KB, not that you prefer them, or that they're better for most or certain types of games.
I'm actually a huge lover of the Steam Controller, it's my daily driver, and unless I'm playing a shooter I use it for nearly everything. Definitely right there with you on innovative control schemes and the flexible power of a controller with custom mapping.
Fair. And I need to try the Steam Controller again. I like the triggers, but I had trouble with the touch pads, but maybe they'll grow on me.
I'd really like a Steam Controller 2 with two sticks. But maybe that's just me not "getting" the trackpads on the original.
I quit all other controllers cold turkey to force myself to get used to it, and it worked. That being said there are probably games where a second stick would work better, but I haven't found any where I had to change to my pro controller or something else because it was uncomfortable. The pro controller is around for the Switch or if somebody else wants to play on my PC.
However, the Steam Controller is essentially the "PC gaming of controllers", where getting it to work just how you want sometimes requires setup of the config depending on what works best for the game. For example, you may have disliked the touch pads because they were set to mouse joystick mode, where you must drag across them to create input, which can work better for aiming weapons. I usually set the pads to "joystick move" which means the entire pad is the full range of motion of the simulated joystick, and simply touching anywhere on the pad will pull the joystick to that point in its range, instead of touching, establishing a center point, and then dragging to dictate how far you're pulling the virtual joystick, like you might find in simulated joysticks on some mobile games. I find joystick move much more natural and comfortable for general camera control and things like radial menus.
Similarly, I despise gyro that's always on, but love gyro that can be activated at will by holding down a button, I'm a big fan of gyro only on ADS in shooters, for example. It's hard to explain that sort of stuff over text, hopefully my joystick description made enough sense. Essentially, the Steam Controller can work amazingly, but sometimes how well it feels depends on how much you tweak the controls to your preference, and of course, most of that setup only needs to be done once or twice, then you can just make a few templates and slap them on games where you know how you'd prefer it to work, and then make minor tweaks from there. Unless you do something stupid like map controls to play an MMO, like I did. That requires a ridiculous complex layout. I do adore that the rear buttons are not just mapped to another controller button, but are unique inputs on their own, it opens up a lot of options for control schemes.
If they could find a way to make another joystick fit on the controller then I'd be all for the options, the Steam Controller is already a chunky boy, though, but I find a bigger controller more comfortable anyway. I hope the success of the Steam Deck sparks a new Steam Controller revision, but time will tell.
Absolutely. I disable it in games like Mario Kart, but like it in Zelda for aiming the bow.
The Steam Deck is great here with the capacitive joysticks, which works really well imo (or map a button to toggle).
And that's the thing, I really don't like to tweak stuff. I don't like mods, I don't mess with in-game settings, and I almost never remap controls. I will if I absolutely have to, but I really prefer to just have a good out-of-box experience.
So I'm a really good candidate for console gaming, but it's more expensive than PC gaming for me, and I like games that really don't work well (or at all) on a console (e.g. Paradox strategy games). So I just use my PC like a console at my desk. Since I got my Steam Deck, I've played very few games at my desk because games just work so smoothly on the deck (usually have good settings already).
My game time is probably a 50/50 split with console and pc but I prefer using a controller whenever I can. It's just more comfortable to me as I can lean back and relax.
Yup. The main reason I play on PC is cost. I already have a PC, so buying a mid tier GPU every few years is much cheaper than buying a new console and paying console prices for games.
I have sticks, motion controllers, a wheel, and various regular controllers, as well as the classic kb+m, and I just find myself coming back to the kb+m for nearly everything. Virtually every time I preferred using something else was because of poor control design (GTA V flying vehicles), driving and simulation experiences (racing, truck/farm/flight sims, Elite Dangerous), and VR (you can't read the keyboard when it matters).
The extreme accuracy of a mouse and versatility of a keyboard make them extremely hard to beat. I even play Monster Hunter games with both because believe it or not, there are advantages on each side.
Yeah, I'll probably never give up my kb+m for everything, but when a controller makes sense, I'll absolutely prefer it. I'll even use it for most FPS games, with a gyro, it just feels good.
Gyro for fine tune aiming is a million times better than mouse in my opinion.
Also I would say even if it wasn't, the left stick makes up so much more for what you would get out of using a keyboard and the inneficiencies of having to swap fingers around the keyboard to both move and interact etc, than what a mouse gains over the right stick.
Also bumper jumper is always the best for fps
I paired my mouse with an Azeron. 99% of the time it's way better than the keyboard. The other 1% is split between keyboard and controller.
Between the two though I much prefer keyboard/mouse over controller, but there are some games I would rather use a controller for. But as far as ergonomics go, I agree with you.
I play on PC and for me if it’s first person it’s gotta be KBM to get immersed into it but if it’s 3rd person I use controller as it helps to feel like I’m controlling the person. I dunno how to explain it, it makes sense to me
I wonder if it's camera control? Twin stick movement isn't really similar to how people move, whereas a mouse (head) and keyboard (legs) is a bit closer.
For me though, I think I just like having my hands close together, and a controller gives me that, whereas kb+m just feels like an unnatural position to be in.
Different strokes I guess, but controller feels a lot more natural to me and I only use kb+m if the controller gets in the way (e.g. Total War, Cities: Skylines, etc).
Very specific but Assassins Creed: Revelations is the best game of the series (I've only played through Unity). It came just before the games' mythos got too convoluted and took itself too seriously. The combat and parkour is smooth and Constantinople is a beautiful world to explore.
Also, Homefront: The Revolution is a fun lite-stealth FPS that has held up very well for the amount of hate it got on release.
Home front The Revolution luckily does have a good level of cult respect on YouTube nowadays, so I don't think that's an unpopular opinion these days, it's just a cult one. I really enjoyed that game as well! Good to hear some more respect for it.
It does? First I've heard of it but I'm glad to see it. That game got torn apart on release but I played it a few months ago and it was actually a good time
From what I've seen, yes. I watch a long form analyst named Noah Caldwell-Gervais who did a video on both homefront games and shared a lot of the love I had for the second one. Check it out if you'd like! He's an excellent writer
I got that game cheap and enjoyed it for what it was. I think if I had paid full price my experience would have been quite different. It seemed well put together though, a tighter experience than some of the Farcry games and Ghost Recon Wildlands.
Wait wait is "Revelations is the best AC game" an unpopular opinion? I didn't realize that at all.
I've played all of them except Rogue and finished everything except the newest three that I really do not enjoy nearly as much.
Idk how much it's changed since 2016ish when i stopped following gaming news/discussion but at the time it was definitely the most hated of the mainline games
I’ve never had as much fun online gaming with my buddy than with AC: Revelations.
I don't really mind bad PC ports as I play them with an xbox controller anyway and they're usually cheaper and better than if you bought them on console
I mean "bad port" can mean a multitude of things. From bad controls, bad performance, DRM issues and crashes to the game refusing to work at all.
Sometimes all of them.
Yes, you're right. I was thinking of ports with very few changes from the original, bad kbm controls, no new graphics settings type of thing
NFT games and using cryptocurrency in games could - hypothetically - have their place, but "investing" in crypto as a way of making money (instead of as a way to take control of money back from central banks) is never going to let that happen. They are a dead end feature solely due to human greed, not due to a flaw in integrating games with a wider decentralized network.
Star Citizen is not and never was a scam. It took 10 years, but that video of the seamless transitions from space to atmosphere to landing zone to city and back is about an already available feature, only the better graphics and a couple map updates shown in the video are unimplemented.
The people who hate on Star Citizen should hate on games like Decentraland and Star Atlas, which take the early access model and abuse it. You should especially hate Star Atlas, which actually is everything bad you've heard about Star Citizen but with worthlessly unimplemented NFTs for the "pixel starships". Also note that Star Atlas ships appear to be weird amalgamations of Star Citizen ship designs, but the (stated) Star Atlas ship role counterparts cost 3x the original price of backing Star Citizen the moment the site for Star Atlas was up.
Regardless of all the above, its my money that I spent on Star Citizen. I'm getting really f-ing tired of being judged for that, especially because I am in a position where I can live in relative comfort but do NOT have the money, neurophysical ability, or social influence to actually improve reality. Building an escapist space fantasy and supporting a community that just wants to have fun is a far better reason to make a video game than taking preorders for games that are tied to draconian DRM software like EA and Ubisoft, or building a pyramid scheme based on a cabal of cryptobros like the "creators" of Star Atlas.
Being patient is fine once. I enjoyed watching Star Citizen grow. I think we need to admit that ALL triple-A now have a 10-year development schedule, and that we need to re-evaluate whether every game needs the player to make a commitment to enjoy the game without buying in-game content. I dedicate myself to LEGO Brawls, Crossout and OpenTTD, I have the time to play Star Citizen too but that's my limit. I can't dedicate all my time off to a game after that. Maybe games need to be shorter again?
If you're not designing the NFT game around the profit and trading aspect - then the NFT is pointless and you could just make a game with tradeable assets registered to a conventional relational database.
Aka: What MMO's, browser social platforms and Steam itself has been doing successfully for more than a decade before NFT's showed up.
It's a technological dead end (in gaming) even without the greed, because the use cas is already done cheaper, simpler and better.
The only thing I agree with you in any of these is that they are probably indeed unpopular opinions, so gj I guess.
On the topic of MMOs, I want to point out that I generally avoid them. I think they can be done well, I just think they've been captured by the "do dailies to progress" perspective where you miss out if you don't dedicate your life to it.
I want to make an MMO that respects the player's time. The best way I can think of it working is for it to be cyclical. As in, you play until some in-game event happens (my preference is a large guild battle over some resource), then the world resets and the winners get some boon and everyone carries something forward to the next round (new players pick a starting perk). Cycles should be relatively short (days, maybe weeks, and definitely not years), and each cycle should bring something new to the game. I would play that, but I'm definitely not playing a longer game like Star Citizen.
Bit late, but your last point reminded me about Foxhole, a top down war game, which have these mmo like bits, and also has a cyclic wars, but these don't give any advantage in the next war.
I don't play it, but the biggest downsides I heard are 1) losing ground on the battlefield (progress) while logged out, as you can't help your faction while offline, and 2) the players working in logistics (collecting ores to craft supplies for the frontline) find that gameplay loop repetitive/boring, while its crucial for the faction victory.
I guess it makes sense this is one of the biggest hurdles in pvp mmo, since in pve mmo the enemies wait for you, and it isn't possible to lose major progress, especially offline. (random thought: is Rust a pvp mmo? That's kinda cursed.)
The other problem with cyclic games is the non existent progression, since things reset. Most mmo players do the 10+ hour grinds on quests for the shiny thing or the prestige titles, like getting lv99 in Runescape. Even in Escape from Tarkov at the end of wipe most players stop playing, since they feel it would be a waste of effort.
The idea of boons or things that carries over is interesting, but of they stack through multiple wipes there could be a super guild who gets an unfair advantage.
So yeah, surprisingly, game design is hard (also I dont have any gamedev experience, just like thinking about it)
I'm thinking of allowing players to configure an AI to work while they're out. So they can leave their character harvesting resources on loop, doing simple fetch quests, and perhaps a set of actions to run if attacked. That way you can't just wait until a lot of them are offline to storm their area, but being offline would have a penalty.
I also want to make a mobile app so you can update the AI controlling your character at any point, as well as engage in trades while "offline."
I'm planning on some kind of "perma-death" as well, so if you die, you lose your character, but you get an XP gain boost until you're back at your old level. The idea is you have a "soul" that inhabits other bodies, and that soul helps the body gain new skills, though it doesn't need to be the same skills you had last time. So you could go from a mage to a tank and get the same boost.
The boon would merely jumpstart that process in the next game, like maybe you get a one-time XP gain boost, it's easier to find resources, etc, but those effects would either only last until your first death, or not be useful in the late game. So you get a temporary benefit, but your faction also has a target on its back.
I'm still working out the details, and I don't have time to work on it anyway, but I think it would be an interesting experiment. Maybe I'll try out a smaller version of it in 2D or something to play with the mechanics.
Unpopular opinion: I play Candy Crush and that makes me a gamer.
Office workers played Solitaire on their work PCs before smartphones even existed, would they have called themselves gamers? I think a certain minimum degree of investment in a hobby/culture is required before you can name yourself as a participant, and Candy Crush doesn't cut it imo.
I don't have a high opinion on the "game" but who's to say they don't have 10000+ hours in Candy Crush?
If you have 10000+ hours in Candy Crush and nothing else, is gaming your hobby or is Candy Crush your hobby?
Both options are true.
People can exclusively play what they like. iRacing, WoW or Candy Crush are all valid.
That's 2.3 hours a day, every day, since release in 2012, at minimum
I would
The particular games you choose isn't really relevant to this though. If you have 600 hours in Spider Solitaire, and you think it's important enough to you that you'll self identify as a "gamer", who am I to be a keeper of the gates?
Exactly my point
I think it absolutely counts. Play what you enjoy!
Now that's an unpopular opinion! With a game like that (which is specifically designed not to be fun but to extract money from users) I'd say you're not a gamer, you're an addict ;)
I don't mind them as a concept. I'm just jealous I'm not young enough to have the spare time and reflexes to get in on one at the ground floor and git good, follow the meta, keep up with the lore and memes...
I don't like Outer Wilds. I played it. I beat it. It was irritating almost all the way through.
That's certainly the unpopular opinion, I loved that game!
Oh yeah I'm totally aware it is an unpopular opinion. I feel the need to bite my tongue every time there is a thread recommending it because I know I'm in the minority, and the person receiving the recommendations will probably enjoy it :)
Lmao I was just thinking about buying it during this steam sale
You'll probably love it lol