As someone who has played SF4 for about 25 hours on PC, haven't seen a single cheater yet but I think there is potential for some on SF5's launch.

As for quality of players, I think PC might be the better one here. Rocket League also has PC/PS4 crossplay and in general I have found PC players tend to outclass PS4 players. I have also found:
- PS4 players ragequit WAAAY more than PC players. Ranked in that game is usually one by whoever gets 2 points in a row and get one of the PS4 guys to ragequit
- PS4 players generally don't talk much or try to communicate, even with the quick chat system in place for PS4 players

Of course, we are talking two very different games here, the quality of players in SF on PS4 might actually be very good, but I guess we will find out soon enough.

PC piracy is a non issue. People who pirate won't necessarily buy the game if piracy didn't exist. It is commonly said these days, but piracy =/= lost sale.

How big of an issue is piracy anyway? Indie devs seem to do fine releasing the game solely for PC only, and if it does well (if the game is good it almost always will) then it will get ported over to consoles after the devs make a good chunk of money. If piracy really were a big problem, devs would not release on PC first in fear of outright losing money.

AAA companies likely don't care about piracy because almost anything they make for PC will make profit, especially if it is a PC exclusive. Console exclusives are created purely because these AAA companies were paid to keep exclusivity. PC still has exclusives and the devs don't have to get paid to convince them to make a game PC exclusive. Sounds to me like PC is a bigger deal as long as a company is not paid to keep something exclusive.

- Overrated because people like Mario... isn't that a contradiction? If people like Mario doesn't that mean he should be rated high? Yeah, the galaxy games are extremely solid in terms of gameplay, and also its full orchestral soundtrack, and crisp graphics and probably its design as well. Everything in that game is good, as constantly proclaimed by critics and players alike. Regardless, aren't the core gamers the one crying "Its all about the gameplay!" and then when a game with "extremely solid gameplay" comes along we just say its average?

Nintendo can get away with making a solid 3D Mario game and make money, but I think that is partially a testament to how wide reaching these games are. The average audience simply does not care about metacritic scores, or game design elements, or anything else really for that matter. They just see Mario on the box and that is all they need to know. The game could probably be a steaming turd in terms of gameplay and stuff and it would sell, but Nintendo usually put in a bit more effort than that; I am pretty sure every single game in that graph is highly rated and regarded as a good/great/excellent game.

- Mario 64 is linear. It has the illusion of being open ended, but it really isn't. You can't access a lot of the stuff in the game without a certain amount of stars, and even then you have to do the levels in each painting in order, 1 by 1. The advantage is that you can choose which painting you want to do first, and if you get bored or stuck, you can go to one of the other 1 or 2 paintings current available to you. Galaxy takes this approach as well - requiring stars to advance, and usually giving you two galaxies at all times to choose from. It is a bit more linear than SM64, but SM64 was never open ended to being with.

- Because you are the one complaining about everything feeling the same? What, so you want the game to take place in the same location for every game but you want each game to be different and new? There is more to Mario and its locations than just "Mushroom Kingdom".

- Again, never played 3D world, so don't know if you are actually right on that one, but is this all you can come up with? The world building in a Mario game wasn't basically spot on? Well I guess that explains why the game lost 1 point on some review sites. I disagree with the minigame levels though, because fundametnally the game isn't a bunch of minigames since they all share the same key mechanics. The game is still a platformer throughout, Mario still has the same moves throughout (and his various powerups that can alter these in some way) and the objective is still always the same every level - get to the flag at the end of the level. The minigame feel comes from the variety of enemies and obstacles throughout, and the interactions they can have with the powerups - and having lots of variety is not a bad thing

- You say this like it is a bad thing. Good games are good games, and the best games often come from good games. A game does not need to push the boundaries to be the best game - I mean in what way did GTAV advance the open world genre? Orcarina of Time is just another Zelda game, yet it is considered a timeless classic. Super Mario Galaxy is really just another 3D Mario game, but all these games have one thing in common - they are fun. Many game of the year winners are often carefully constructed pieces of entertainment - one could analyze SMG1/2 or even SM3DW in terms of various game elements like game design, soundtrack, graphics, fun factor or anything else like that, and you would probably find a lot more good than bad, regardless of how much of that goodness may have originated from something else. Originality is only one element to consider here, and even then the overall worth of a game is not just the sum of its parts. This is why I think your argument is flawed - you say the games are overrated because they lack originality, but then you disregard almost every other element of the game. So I now I will ask, in what ways are the following elements in the games you have mentioned overrated?:

* Sound design and Soundtrack

* Graphics and aesthetics

* Gameplay, game design and overall fun factor (this often encompasses smaller categories like pacing, variety and mechanics)

* Overall Quality

Nice troll I guess... but I figured I would just crush whatever tiny argument you had. Im gonna address each paragraph:

- Haven't played 3D world, can't comment

- Im not even going to touch this paragraph

- SMG1/2 have a different design to them. They both are effectively the same - get enough stars and you unlock the next little area. The difference is SMG1/2 cuts the crap and gets you straight into the actual levels of the game. SM64 had two advantages - secret stars, and the creative ways to make the levels different depending on how you enter the paintings. Both these advantages are offset due to the sheer amount of levels in the SMG games (there were 15 in SM64, 42 in SMG1, 49 in SMG2)

- Except the 3D mario games have been proven to just sell less than the 2D ones, which is why the 2D games are so formulaic and the 3D ones often step outside the comfort zone a bit. Take a look at this graph, created by gamespot:

Take note of where the top sales are. Super Mario Bros, New Super Mario Bros, New Super Mario Bros Wii, Super Mario World, Super Mario land, Super Mario Bros 3... wait, there is a pattern here! THEY ARE ALL 2D MARIO GAMES! And even though a 3D mario game (SM64) is next, look at the big gap in sales - 18 million for SMB3 against 11.89 million for SM64. If Nintendo REALLY wanted to play it safe, why make a 3D game? The 2D games are the ones that sell.

- The very first level takes place IN THE FREAKIN MUSHROOM KINGDOM. So that is where that is. And we are in space because Bowser decided to take Peach into space to show her his brand new galaxy, and unless Mario had a plan to just twiddle his thumbs and pray Bowser would come back to the same damn planet, let alone the same damn galaxy, going into space was kinda his only option.

- Still can't comment on 3D world, but if the last paragraph is any indication, its got more holes than a slice of Swiss cheese.

- Tell me these games are average when every critic ever stops awarding a perfect/close to perfect score for SMG1/2 and SM3DW. 100% positive critic reviews and 90.7% positive user reviews (SMG1) is not "average"

I played MM for the first time on the 3DS about a week ago. It has its odd design quirks, but it is unique enough that it has become one of my favorite games on the system, and even up there with some of my favorite games of all time.
It stands tall and proud among a modern library of other 3DS games that could be considered classics, that alone is enough to make me think this game has aged well.

@skelly34 said:

Here are the actual games people get a high-end PC to play.

Despite all the blatant shitposting, cows actually have some valid points here.

-Not everyone owns a god-tier PC, the average PC probably has the power of PS4 and Xbox1.

-A high end PC is pointless if all you're going to play is vanilla multiplats and DOTA 2.

- The skyrim one has 8fps. What kind of PC do you require to play this at a reasonable framerate?
- Elite Dangerous is no longer going to be a PC exclusive as it is now confirmed for Xbone as well

Alrighty:

- Better Graphics/Performance at a price: You can build a PC that matches next gen at a cheaper price. You might pay SLIGHTLY more upfront but you very quickly make that money back through sales. I have saved so much money by buying on sale I could have bought 3 next gen consoles with the saved money (no I did not make this up I will provide proof if anyone asks for it, and that stat is old so I have probably saved even more than this)

- Have to constantly update drivers: Don't you have to constantly update consoles? Either way, driver updates are automatic if you set them up that way (at least for graphics drivers) and the other drivers usually don't need any updating (especially sound ones)

- Not making use of the powerful hardware: Except they do. They run better for sure, and many of them have high/ultra settings that are only seen on PC.

- Most of the really popular games are MMOs, strategy games, and valve games (which ironically don't require a big rig): So? They are popular because such games do not exist on consoles, so those who like these genres will naturally go to PC to play them. The other genres have enough popularity that they still exist on PC and people still play them.

- Invented free to play, micro-transaction business model: Do you have a source for this? I have looked everywhere and cannot find anywhere that states this. Even if that is so, the popularity of LoL and DOTA2 proves that games like these can both be successful and well liked.

- Online play is free, but matchmaking can be very tedious: I live in Australia and only a small handful of very niche indie titles were difficult to find servers for. The reason there doesn't seem to be many players is because PC just has more games, so players are more split.

- Playing on a monitor with a keyboard and mouse: Its good. The option to sit in the living room and play on PC with a controller is always there to, so there are options. With Steam box and steam controller coming out, its gonna be even easier.

- Most games require you to install a DRM platform: http://www.gog.com/ -- Over 1k DRM free games exist here, many more exist that are not on this site. Also, steam is not a DRM platform unless the developer chooses to use steamworks, which means you can download the game through steam, uninstall steam and the game will still work. Steam is a distribution platform first, and a method of DRM only to those who want it to be.

- Games frequently go on sale, but that doesn't necessarily make it cheaper than console since you can't resell: It basically does, you save WAY more money through sales than selling a game. You can currently save $40 on the metro redux games, and unless you are gonna claim you can make that much from a trade in I think the winner is clear. Futhermore, sale quantity and quality increase over time as more games are made and as games get older, so sales get better over time, where trading in is only good if you do it within a short period after a game is released. Also, refunds are now a non issue on PC due to the new steam refund system (and every other distribution site on PC either already had a refund policy, or now consequently have one due to steam having one), so if it doesn't "just work", you can get all your money back.

So I buy 3 consoles to play all of these? I could buy a pretty buff PC with that kind of money. Then with an extra $60 or so would probably be able to buy about 6-12 AAA titles with the current steam sale or a metric fuckton of indies.

As others have said, some of these franchises can be emulated (I play some zelda/mario games on my iphone for christs sake). The rest most don't care about because PC offers better/different games in the genre.

@nyadc said:

@The_Last_Ride said:

@nyadc said:

@The_Last_Ride said:

@nyadc said:

Even if you went by his rules it would still be Valve > Sony.

There's roughly 250 million Steam accounts in existence, and as of three months ago 125 million of them were active.

Get your facts straight mate...

Link

Again, that is your opinion. Doesn't mean it's fact

I've been a Steam user since it was in beta for Counter-Strike 1.6, when I get home from work I will explain the account generation algorithm and the Unique ID / Steam ID creation to you.

There's roughly 250 million accounts in existence and as of three months ago 125 million are active.

I showed my evidence, unless you have some proof of this, i won't believe you and you have nothing to back it up with

Steam has Steam ID's and 32 bit unique ID's, your Steam ID is generated by the division of your unique ID. When a Steam account is created you're issued a unique ID which is your actual account creation position in relation to how many accounts were created before yours. For example my unique ID is U:1:15399 as my account was the 15,399th account generated on the platform, my corresponding Steam ID is STEAM_0:1:7699, as you can see below.

The 0:0 or 0:1 in a Steam ID is a direct result of your unique ID being divided by two, 15,399 / 2 = 7699.5, when your unique ID divides in half with a .5 remainder on the end you will be generated a 0:1 ID designation, if it divides evenly you will be parsed a 0:0 designation. Here is an example of that.

U:1:16000 divides evenly to 8,000 and gives this user a Steam ID of 0:0:8000

This user also has a Steam ID which equals 8,000, however as you can see his unique ID is 16,001 which like I said earlier leaves a .5 remainder which nets him a 0:1 to create 0:1:8000

Every Steam ID has a mate, however a small percentage of accounts are created within another universe in the Steam network and do not have a public mate, for example my 0:1:7699 account does not have a 0:0:7699 mate, not public anyways. It was created in one of the 4 other universes which would make it 2:0:7699, 3:0:7699, 4:0:7699 or 5:0:7699, none of these are publicly accessible, they are created by developers or Valve employees. In the universes 1 is simply the new Steam ID format for games created post Left 4 Dead, your account will show up as 1:1 or 1:0, it' simply a newer network but your ID does not actually change in relation to its initial creation, it's still 0:0 or 0:1.

Here are the known universes, there are two others but they are not listed anywhere that is publicly viewable and their numerical identifiers are unknown.

So with that in mind let's get to the point of this entire post shall we, we have established that your unique ID is your actual position in line in terms of account generation, we have established that your Steam ID is the result of that ID being divided by two, we have gone over Steam ID mates, the different universe of accounts and so on an so forth, so where does that leave us?

Well I'll show you, I created a new Steam account 30 minutes ago and ran over the generation information and this is where we are left.

As of 30 minutes ago I was generated the unique ID of U:1:235982049, or in other words, 235,982,049, there are nearly 236 million Steam accounts in existence as of today.

236 MILLION STEAM ACCOUNTS

Can I help you with anything else?

I think you may have rekt him a little too hard.
But lets continue a little bit:
Based on this data, we know that there are approximately 236 million steam accounts, 125 million of which were confirmed active early this year.
125/236 = around 53% of steam accounts that have ever been made are still active.
In other words, over half of the accounts ever created in the last 11+ years are still being used today. Unfortunately, I can't prove any ratios for PSN because I can't find any data on how many active accounts there are, and the last time total accounts were counted was around a year ago.
I also wanted to see how many concurrent users were ever online for PSN, but whenever I search that I just get results for Steam. I wouldn't be surprised if the data wasn't released because it wasn't anything special compared to Steam...
I would love it if someone had more data for PSN or even XBL because I would like to see what the retention rate is for the consoles vs PC.

The power up system cannot be bought with money. You have to earn it with the IP system. Granted, its slow and I agree that it needs to be toned down in some way. With people getting much more proficient at the game, runes are making a bigger difference. But you can't pay to slow down this grind, unless you consider buying champions as a way to circumvent this, but by the time you hit level 30 you should have enough IP to just get the cheap champions and at least 2-3 champs that you personally want, which is probably all you will play in ranked anyway. This is on top of 2 full rune pages. Mastery system is irrelevant because it doesn't cost anything obviously.
The argument about champions costing money resulting in a paytonotgrind and therefore paytowin system is a result of the imperfection of balance in league, and probably wouldn't be a complaint if the game was theoretically 100 percent balanced, so every champion is as viable as the next. You are never forced (and if you are good at the game, never really given an incentive unless you really like the champ) to buy champions to stay competitive, you do not have to play the top meta pick to be good at league. If you wanna call league unbalanced, you may as well call DOTA broken because winrates across the games have consistently proved that the range of win rates, and the consistency of the ones around 50 percent are much more balanced in league than DOTA 2. DOTA 2 has heroes ranging from 59.5% winrate to 39.92% (http://www.dotabuff.com/heroes/winning). League winrates go from 55.01% to 39.76%, with the next lowest being 43.06% and the lowest one got reworked last patch (http://www.lolking.net/champions/).
In DOTA 2 there are 16 champs with a winrate between 49% and 51%
In League there are 46 champs with a winrate between 49% and 51%, a significant jump too large to ignore. Note that there are only 13 extra champions in league than DOTA 2. Even if DOTA 2 released 13 more champions and every single one was within that 49-51% winrate range, League would still be better in this regard.
I agree that RIOT needs to consider another project now, the one they have created will stand the test of time for some time longer, but I think RIOT has gained a lot of experience through league and would benefit from trying another game, probably in a different genre.
With that said, my point about the community and them not majorly fucking up (unless you count this) still stand.