"I think that the great divide between the two markets, PC gaming and console gaming is not just defined by the hardware and software of each, but I think that they also show a divide in the typical types of personalities each system has that causes people with like-minded personalities to gravitate towards them, and I think this can be reflected in the marketing used for each system as well.
Typically PC gamers have always been more individualist (perhaps even radicalist) and more willing to put effort into maximising the experience that they seek from their gaming. This is reflected in the history of PC multiplayer gaming, which by no means was very easy in the days of dial-up connections in the days of Quake 1, and had to be optimised through the use of programming or modding.
As a result of this people who grew up using PC's as their platforms needed a comparatively large amount of technical knowledge in order to game enjoyable, and were paid in kind for the time they put into learning.
This inaccessibility meant that to those outside of the PC world labelled them "computer nerds" and such. This also meant that those within PC gaming felt elated to be in a select group, and this pride was used as a defence against those who weren't able to join their ranks. This has now translated into the modern day as the idea that PC gamers are "elitist"
The very concept of consoles was so that gaming would be accessible to those who did not have the patience, time or money to weave through the jungle that was the origin of PC gaming, and give them the opportunity to have their own fun.
Since the beginning consoles have come very far, and the original concept of console gaming is now fully supported by the market share of people who game. Cheap, fun and easy to use, but ultimately chained down by the limitations of producers of consoles that centralise the organisation of all the required technicalities of gaming.
To say it simply;
PCs are suited to those who like or don't mind the associated costs of such gaming and because they are able to they take great pride in being so, they are independent and often arrogant, resulting in their historic labelling of both "nerds" and "elitists"
Consoles are for those that simply want to be able to access games for the least amount of effort. A pretentious person might say "the mainstream masses" consists of this
In my opinion most arguments stem from this. Comparisons between the two (e.g. games, price, hardware, controls) are valid in the same way that weighing up the advantages and disadvantages of spoons over forks (or vice versa) is valid; which is say that are completely valid, but perpetual."
Home
Typically PC gamers have always been more individualist (perhaps even radicalist) and more willing to put effort into maximising the experience that they seek from their gaming. This is reflected in the history of PC multiplayer gaming, which by no means was very easy in the days of dial-up connections in the days of Quake 1, and had to be optimised through the use of programming or modding.
As a result of this people who grew up using PC's as their platforms needed a comparatively large amount of technical knowledge in order to game enjoyable, and were paid in kind for the time they put into learning.
This inaccessibility meant that to those outside of the PC world labelled them "computer nerds" and such. This also meant that those within PC gaming felt elated to be in a select group, and this pride was used as a defence against those who weren't able to join their ranks. This has now translated into the modern day as the idea that PC gamers are "elitist"
The very concept of consoles was so that gaming would be accessible to those who did not have the patience, time or money to weave through the jungle that was the origin of PC gaming, and give them the opportunity to have their own fun.
Since the beginning consoles have come very far, and the original concept of console gaming is now fully supported by the market share of people who game. Cheap, fun and easy to use, but ultimately chained down by the limitations of producers of consoles that centralise the organisation of all the required technicalities of gaming.
To say it simply;
PCs are suited to those who like or don't mind the associated costs of such gaming and because they are able to they take great pride in being so, they are independent and often arrogant, resulting in their historic labelling of both "nerds" and "elitists"
Consoles are for those that simply want to be able to access games for the least amount of effort. A pretentious person might say "the mainstream masses" consists of this
In my opinion most arguments stem from this. Comparisons between the two (e.g. games, price, hardware, controls) are valid in the same way that weighing up the advantages and disadvantages of spoons over forks (or vice versa) is valid; which is say that are completely valid, but perpetual."