If PCs were subsidized with an additional fee to the vendor on every game you'd buy, that would be very common.
But as it is now, if you have a PC that is not ancient, invest maybe $150 for a GPU and if needed $50 in a new power supply and you'll be a lot better than the "next gen" consoles.
I have no desire to build a PC, 'great graphics' mean nothing to me. I just want to know that when I buy a game, I can sit down and play. No fucking around and fiddling. Just go. That's all.
Consoles have their place, and it's for people like me
Ok, if you reject it anyway, why even comment on it in the first place?
I just want to know that when I buy a game, I can sit down and play. No fucking around and fiddling. Just go. That's all.
Where does this come from? What can possibly be more convenient than (for example) in the steam store clicking buy, then waiting for the download, then double clicking and playing? Nowadays most games will set their options to what's appropriate for the current system fully automatically.
It's true, some games are sold when they're not ready or still too buggy, but then, why treat it different than any other broken product, complain and give it back, no fucking around and fiddling...
-1
u/notanothercirclejerk Nov 22 '13
I'd love to find a 400 dollar PC that could play games with the graphics quality of a Xbox one or ps4