Tom’s Soapbox: An Argument for Ending the PC Vs. Console Debate

[Barty1884]

For every "a PC can do more" or "you can upgrade a PC", there's counter-arguments of "optimization" or "price" or "exclusives".

All valid arguments. It's amazing what can be done on consoles today, given their (relatively) lower spec - but a limited hardware set to develop for makes optimization much easier.

There's room for both in the market, although personally I don't see any need to buy a console these days.
There's no exclusives that appeal to me, anything I want to play (admittedly, not a lot), it's on PC.
If there's ever an exclusive that catches my eye though....and I have the cash available, I'd buy a console to play it.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

I suppose a question for all of them the following questionbs:

1) is there an objectively superior platform or not?
2) If there is one, under what criteria will we determine the superior platform?
3) How do we know our criteria is correct criteria? Where does this correctness reside?
....

These are some really good questions. Is it good enough to say there should be or there exists an objective criteria except people are all busy fight over what that objective criteria is?

Additionally is even the definition of platform is unspecified. Is the platform just simply hardware. If that is the case the best PC hardware is clearly objectively leaps and bounds ahead of console hardware. This is was never in dispute in anyone's mind except the deliberately obstinate and obtuse.

And this has to be the case because of cost, especially now, in the current era, that the consoles are built on top of PC based hardware. No corporation, sony, microsoft, nintendo, etc. can afford to give away GTX1080ti or Titan Pascal performance for less than $400, basically subsidizing at the minimum $600 of hardware with each unit sold. They will go out business really fast this way.

The thing is platform is really more than just hardware, the software, games, exclusives, social media, streaming, controllers, accessories, modifiability, upgradeability, freedom, etc. etc That will really muddy the waters how you define the platform and the criteria. The arguments will be academic and esoteric, but to say because people will fail to understand or communicate properly, so there is can not exist an criteria, that would be a logical fallacy.

I totally agree that is is the not just the hardware but an entire, massive framework that consists of the platform. Not even all of the platform, as you stated, is merely about physical objects but about social institutions that exist among the people on the platforms.Before any argument, there needs to be agreement on definitions. Most arguments are arguments of semantics deep down, or the lack of consistent semantics causes misunderstanding on both parties.

Objectivity pertaining to discussions like this is such a complicated part of philosophy. It's something that, as a matter of fact, annoys me, because I want their to be some objectivity but cannot come to grasps with there ever being such a thing when it comes to a "superior platform". One could ask the question that even if there is no objectivity, we seem to want it, and will go so far as pretending it exists. Why do we go about doing this? Words like "superior" were invented by human beings, and we use these words and have notions of them but can never strictly classify things into categories based on the application of the words. How do we even go about using words like these when there is so much disagreement (I know we do go about using them and that they still have uses, but it's still interesting)?

If I do a math problem, there is a right and wrong answer. There is no need for disagreement. I can show that my answer is correct or incorrect. But with these debates it's differently. There is no formulaic process that seems to get to the right answer. Or is there even no such thing as a right answer?

All complicated stuff. Could probably read books upon books of them. But I just thought it'd be fun to sort of apply this to the PC vs console argumentation (not to ruin the fun or anything).

I have difficulty coming to grasps with objectivity in non-physical matters. Physics works fine. I can touch this keyboard. I can calculate the velocity of a moving ball. Gravity is real. But those concepts that kids in school learn that are "idea nouns" - such as "betterness", "worseness", "superiority", "suckiness", "greatness", etc. are hard to prove that there is any objectivity to this. Of course this then delves into the philosophy of linguistics heavily.

 

[purple_dragon]

I own a gaming PC, a PS4 and an xbox one and I enjoy them all. However, the main advantage of PC over the consoles is free online multiplayer. I don't have to pay for xbox live or PS Plus to play games on my pc. If console makers would allow me to choose between a basic free online and a paid premium package that would be the best. Like how PS3 had multiplayer with or without PS Plus.