AEON is a private, secure, untraceable currency. You are your bank, you control your funds, and nobody can trace your transfers.
I’m not sure about you, but for the past few years, I’ve been hearing people go on and on about PCs "superiority" to the console market. People cite various reasons why they believe gaming on a PC is “objectively” better than console gaming
, often for reasons related to power, costs, ease-of-use, and freedom.
…Only problem: much of what they say is wrong
There are many misconceptions being thrown about PC gaming vs Console gaming, that I believe need to be addressed. This isn’t
about “PC gamers being wrong,” or “consoles being the best,” absolutely not. I just want to cut through some of the stuff people use to put down console gaming, and show that console gaming is incredibly similar to PC gaming. I mean, yes, this is someone who mainly games on console, but I also am getting a new PC that I will game on as well, not to mention the 30 PC games I already own and play. I’m not particularly partial to one over the other.
Now I will mainly be focusing on the PlayStation side of the consoles, because I know it best, but much of what I say will apply to Xbox as well. Just because I don’t point out many specific Xbox examples, doesn’t mean that they aren’t out there.
“PCs can use TVs and monitors.” This one isn’t so much of a misconception as it is the implication of one, and overall just… confusing. This is in some articles and the pcmasterrace “why choose a PC” section, where they’re practically implying that consoles can’t do this. I mean, yes, as long as the ports of your PC match up with your screen(s) inputs, you could plug a PC into either… but you could do the same with a console, again, as long as the ports match up.
I’m guessing the idea here is that gaming monitors often use Displayport, as do most dedicated GPUs, and consoles are generally restricted to HDMI… But even so, monitors often have HDMI ports. In fact, PC Magazine has just released their list of the best gaming monitors of 2017, and every single one of them has an HDMI port. A PS4 can be plugged into these just as easily as a GTX 1080.
I mean, even if the monitoTV doesn’t have HDMI or AV to connect with your console, just use an adaptor. If you have a PC with ports that doesn’t match your monitoTV… use an adapter. I don’t know what the point of this argument is, but it’s made a worrying amount of times.
“On PC, you have a wide range of controller options, but on console you’re stuck with the standard controller." Are you on PlayStation and wish you could use a specific type of controller that suits your favorite kind of gameplay? Despite what some may believe, you have just as many options as PC.
Want to play fighting games with a classic arcade-style board, featuring the buttons and joystick? Here you go!
Want to get serious about racing and get something more accurate and immersive than a controller? Got you covered.
Absolutely crazy about flying games and, like the racers, want something better than a controller? Enjoy!
Want Wii-style motion controls? Been around since the PS3. If you prefer the form factor of the Xbox One controller but you own a PS4, Hori’s got you covered. And of course, if keyboard and mouse it what keeps you on PC, there’s a PlayStation compatible solution for that. Want to use the keyboard and mouse that you already own? Where there’s a will, there’s a way.
Of course, these aren’t isolated examples, there are plenty of options for each of these kind of controllers. You don’t have to be on PC to enjoy alternate controllers.
“On PC you could use Steam Link to play anywhere in your house and share games with others.” PS4 Remote play app on PC/Mac, PSTV, and PS Vita.
PS Family Sharing.
Using the same PSN account on multiple PS4s/Xbox Ones and PS3s/360s, or using multiple accounts on the same console.
In fact, if multiple users are on the same PS4, only one has to buy the game for both users to play it on that one PS4. On top of that, only one of them has to have PS Plus for both to play online (if the one with PS Plus registers the PS4 as their main system).
PS4 Share Play; if two people on separate PS4s want to play a game together that only one of them owns, they can join a Party and the owner of the game can have their friend play with them in the game.
Need I say more?
“Gaming is more expensive on console.” Part one, the Software
This is one that I find… genuinely surprising. There’s been a few times I’ve mentioned that part of the reason I chose a PS4 is for budget gaming, only to told that “games are cheaper on Steam.” To be fair, there are a few games on PSN/XBL that are more expensive than they are on Steam, so I can see how someone could believe this… but apparently they forgot about disks.
Dirt Rally, a hardcore racing sim game that’s… still $60 on all 3 platforms digitally… even though its successor is out.
So does this mean you have to pay full retail for this racing experience? Nope, because disk prices.
Just Cause 3, an insane open-world experience that could essentially be summed up as “break stuff, screw physics.” And it’s a good example of where the Steam price is lower than PSN and XBL:
Not by much, but still cheaper on Steam, so cheaper on PC… Until you look at the disk prices.
See my point? Often times the game is cheaper on console because of the disk alternative that’s available for practically every console-available game. Even when the game is brand new.
Dirt 4 - Remember that Dirt Rally successor I mentioned?
Yes, you could either buy this relatively new game digitally for $60, or just pick up the disk for a discounted price. And again, this is for a game that came out 2 months ago, and even it’s predecessor’s digital cost is locked at $60. Of course, I’m not going to ignore the fact that Dirt 4 is currently (as of writing this) discounted on Steam, but on PSN it also happens to be discounted for about the same amount.
Part 2: the Subscription
Now… let’s not ignore the elephant in the room: PS Plus and Xbox Gold. Now these would be ignorable, if they weren’t required for online play (on the PlayStation side, it’s only required for PS4, but still). So yes, it’s still something that will be included in the cost of your PS4 or Xbox One/360, assuming you play online. Bummer, right?
Here’s the thing, although that’s the case, although you have to factor in this $60 cost with your console, you can make it balance out, at worst, and make it work out for you as a budget gamer, at best. As nice as it would be to not have to deal with the price if you don’t want to, it’s not like it’s a problem if you use it correctly.
Imagine going to a new restaurant. This restaurant has some meals that you can’t get anywhere else, and fair prices compared to competitors. Only problem: you have to pay a membership fee to have the sides. Now you can have the main course, sit down and enjoy your steak or pasta, but if you want to have a side to have a full meal, you have to pay an annual fee.
Sounds shitty, right? But here’s the thing: not only does this membership allow you to have sides with your meal, but it also allows you to eat two meals for free every month, and also gives you exclusive discounts for other meals, drinks, and desserts.
Let’s look at PS Plus for a minute: for $60 per year, you get:
So yes, you’re paying extra because of that membership, but what you get with that deal pays for it and then some. In fact, let’s ignore the discounts for a minute: you get 24 free PS4 games, 24 free PS3 games, and 12 Vita only + 12 Vita compatible games, up to 72 free games every year. Even if you only one of these consoles, that’s still 24 free games a year. Sure, maybe you get games for the month that you don’t like, then just wait until next month.
- 2 free PS4 games, every month
- 2 free PS3 games, every month
- 1 PS4/PS3 and Vita compatible game, and 1 Vita-only game, every month
- Exclusive/Extended discounts, especially during the weekly/seasonal sales (though you don’t need PS Plus to get sales, PS Plus members get to enjoy the best sales)
- access to online multiplayer
In fact, let’s look at Just Cause 3 again. It was free for PS Plus members in August, which is a pretty big deal. Why is this significant? Because it’s, again, a $60 digital game. That means with this one download, you’ve balanced out your $60 annual fee. Meaning? Every free game after that is money saved, every discount after that is money saved. And this is a trend: every year, PS Plus will release a game that balances out the entire service cost, then another 23 more that will only add icing to that budget cake. Though, you could just count games as paying off PS Plus until you hit $60 in savings, but still.
All in all, PS Plus, and Xbox Gold which offers similar options, saves you money. On top of that, again, you don't need to have these to get discounts, but with these memberships, you get more discounts.
Now, I’ve seen a few Steam games go up for free for a week, but what about being free for an entire month? Not to mention that; even if you want to talk about Steam Summer Sales, what about the PSN summer sale, or again, disc sale discounts? Now a lot of research and math would be needed to see if every console gamer would save money compared to every Steam gamer for the same games, but at the very least? The costs will balance out, at worst.
Part 3, the Systems
Rounded up a few dollars, that’s $1,000 - $1,300 in day-one consoles, just to keep up with the games! Crazy right? So called budget systems, such a rip-off.
- Xbox and PS2: $299
- Xbox 360 and PS3: $299 and $499, respectively
- Xbox One and PS4: $499 and $399, respectively.
Well, keep in mind that the generations here aren’t short.
The 6th generation, from the launch of the PS2 to the launch of the next generation consoles, lasted 5 years, 6 years based on the launch of the PS3 (though you could say it was 9 or 14, since the Xbox wasn’t discontinued until 2009, and the PS2 was supported all the way to 2014, a year after the PS4 was released). The 7th gen lasted 7 - 8 years, again depending on whether you count the launch of the Xbox 360 to PS3. The 8th gen so far has lasted 4 years. That’s 17 years that the console money is spread over. If you had a Netflix subscription for it’s original $8 monthly plan for that amount of time, that would be over $1,600 total.
And let’s be fair here, just like you could upgrade your PC hardware whenever you wanted, you didn’t have to get a console from launch. Let’s look at PlayStation again for example: In 2002, only two years after its release, the PS2 retail price was cut from $300 to $200. The PS3 Slim, released 3 years after the original, was $300, $100-$200 lower than the retail cost. The PS4? You could’ve either gotten the Uncharted bundle for $350, or one of the PS4 Slim bundles for $250. This all brings it down to $750 - $850, which again, is spread over a decade and a half. This isn’t even counting used consoles, sales, or the further price cuts that I didn’t mention.
Even if that still sounds like a lot of money to you, even if you’re laughing at the thought of buying new systems every several years, because your PC “is never obsolete,” tell me: how many parts have you changed out in your PC over the years? How many GPUs have you been through? CPUs? Motherboards? RAM sticks, monitors, keyboards, mice, CPU coolers, hard drives— that adds up. You don’t need to replace your entire system to spend a lot of money on hardware.
Even if you weren’t upgrading for the sake of upgrading, I’d be amazed if the hardware you’ve been pushing by gaming would last for about 1/3 of that 17 year period. Computer parts aren’t designed to last forever, and really won’t when you’re pushing them with intensive gaming for hours upon hours. Generally speaking, your components might last you 6-8 years, if you’ve got the high-end stuff. But let’s assume you bought a system 17 years ago that was a beast for it’s time, something so powerful, that even if it’s parts have degraded over time, it’s still going strong. Problem is: you will have to upgrade something eventually.
Even if you’ve managed to get this far into the gaming realm with the same 17 year old hardware, I’m betting you didn’t do it with a 17 year Operating System. How much did Windows 7 cost you? Or 8.1? Or 10? Oh, and don’t think you can skirt the cost by getting a pre-built system, the cost of Windows is embedded into the cost of the machine (why else would Microsoft allow their OS to go on so many machines).
Sure, Windows 10 was a free upgrade for a year, but that’s only half of it’s lifetime— You can’t get it for free now, and not for the past year. On top of that, the free period was an upgrade; you had to pay for 7 or 8 first anyway.
Point is, as much as one would like to say that they didn’t need to buy a new system every so often for the sake of gaming, that doesn’t mean they haven’t been paying for hardware, and even if they’ve only been PC gaming recently, you’ll be spending money on hardware soon enough.
“PC is leading the VR—“ Let me stop you right there.
If you add together the total number of Oculus Rifts and HTC Vives sold to this day, and threw in another 100,000 just for the sake of it, that number would still be under the number of PSVR headsets sold.
Why could this possibly be? Well, for a simple reason: affordability. The systems needed to run the PC headsets costs $800+, and the headsets are $500 - $600, when discounted. PSVR on the other hand costs $450 for the full bundle (headset, camera, and move controllers, with a demo disc thrown in), and can be played on either a $250 - $300 console, or a $400 console, the latter recommended. Even if you want to say that the Vive and Rift are more refined, a full PSVR set, system and all, could cost just over $100 more than a Vive headset alone.
If anything, PC isn’t leading the VR gaming market, the PS4 is. It’s the system bringing VR to the most consumers, showing them what the future of gaming could look like. Not to mention that as the PlayStation line grows more powerful (4.2 TFLOP PS4 Pro, 10 TFLOP “PS5…”), it won’t be long until the PlayStation line can use the same VR games as PC.
Either way, this shows that there is a console equivalent to the PC VR options. Sure, there are some games you'd only be able to play on PC, but there are also some games you'd only be able to play on PSVR.
…Though to be fair, if we’re talking about VR in general, these headsets don’t even hold a candle to, surprisingly, Gear VR.
“If it wasn’t for consoles holding devs back, then they would be able to make higher quality games.” This one is based on the idea that because of how “low spec” consoles are, that when a developer has to take them in mind, then they can’t design the game to be nearly as good as it would be otherwise. I mean, have you ever seen the minimum specs for games on Steam?
Just Cause 3
- CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz (4 CPUs) / AMD Phenom 9850 Quad-Core Processor (4 CPUs) @ 2.5GHz
- Memory: 4 GB RAM
- GPU: NVIDIA 9800 GT 1GB / AMD HD 4870 1GB (DX 10, 10.1, 11)
- CPU: Intel Core i5-2500k, 3.3GHz / AMD Phenom II X6 1075T 3GHz
- Memory: 8 GB RAM
- GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 (2GB) / AMD Radeon HD 7870 (2GB)
- CPU: Intel Core i5-2300 2.8 GHz/AMD Phenom II X4 945 3.0 GHz or equivalent
- Memory: 8 GB RAM
- GPU: NVIDIA GTX 550 Ti 2GB/AMD Radeon HD 7870 2GB or equivalent
- CPU: Intel Core i3 or AMD Phenom™ X3 8650
- Memory: 4 GB RAM
- GPU: NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 460, ATI Radeon™ HD 4850, or Intel® HD Graphics 4400
Actually, bump up all the memory requirements to 8 GBs, and those are some decent specs, relatively speaking. And keep in mind these are the minimum specs to even open the games. It’s almost as if the devs didn’t worry about console specs when making a PC version of the game, because this version of the game isn’t on console. Or maybe even that the consoles aren’t holding the games back that much because they’re not that weak. Just a hypothesis.
- Processor: Intel CPU Core i5-2500K 3.3GHz / AMD CPU Phenom II X4 940
- Memory: 6 GB RAM
- Graphics: Nvidia GPU GeForce GTX 660 / AMD GPU Radeon HD 7870
But I mean, the devs are still ooobviously having to take weak consoles into mind right? They could make their games sooo much more powerful if they were PC only, right? Right?
No. Not even close.
- CPU: Intel Core i3, i5, i7 or better or AMD Bulldozer or better
- Memory: 8 GB RAM
- GPU: NVidia GeForce 2xx series or better, 1GB+ dedicated video memory / AMD 5xxx series or better, 1GB+ dedicated video memory
These are PC only games. That’s right, no consoles to hold them back, they don’t have to worry about whether an Xbox One could handle it. Yet, they don’t require anything more than the Multiplatform games.
- CPU: Intel Core i3-4340 / AMD FX-6300
- Memory: 6 GB RAM
- GPU: nVidia GeForce GTX 660 2GB / AMD Radeon HD 7850 2GB
- CPU: Intel Haswell 2 cores / 4 threads @ 2.5Ghz or equivalent
- Memory: 4GB
- GPU: Intel HD 4600 or equivalent - This includes most GPUs scoring greater than 950pts in the 3DMark Fire Strike benchmark
So what’s the deal? Theoretically, if developers don’t have to worry about console specs, then why aren’t they going all-out and making games that no console could even dream of supporting?
- CPU: 2 ghz
- Memory: 8 GB RAM
- DirectX: Version 11 (they don’t even list a GPU)
What, did you think people only game on Steam if they spent at least $500 on gaming hardware? Not all PC gamers have gaming-PC specs, and if devs close their games out to players who don’t have the strongest of PCs, then they’d be losing out on a pretty sizable chunk of their potential buyers.
Saying “devs having to deal with consoles is holding gaming back” is like saying “racing teams having to deal with Ford is holding GT racing back.” A: racing teams don’t have to deal with Ford if they don’t want to, which is probably why many of them don’t, and B: even though Ford doesn’t make the fastest cars overall, they still manage to make cars that are awesome on their own, they don’t even need to be compared to anything else to know that they make good cars.
I want to go back to that previous point though, developers having to deal with low-end PCs, because it’s integral to the next point:
“PCs are more powerful, gaming on PC provides a better experience.” This one isn’t so much of a misconception as it is… misleading.
Did you know that according to the Steam Hardware & Software Survey (July 2017) , the percentage of Steam gamers who use a GPU that's less powerful than that of a PS4 Slim’s GPU is well over 50%? Things get dismal when compared to the PS4 Pro (Or Xbox One X). On top of that, the percentage of PC gamers who own a Nvidia 10 series card is about 20% (about 15% for the 1060, 1080 and 1070 owners).
Now to be fair, the large majority of gamers have CPUs with considerably high clock speeds, which is the main factor in CPU gaming performance. But, the number of Steam gamers with as much RAM or more than a PS4 or Xbox One is less than 50%, which can really bottleneck what those CPUs can handle.
These numbers are hardly better than they were in 2013, all things considered. Sure, a PS3/360 weeps in the face of even a $400 PC, but in this day in age, consoles have definitely caught up.
Sure, we could mention the fact that even 1% of Steam accounts represents over 1 million accounts, but that doesn’t really matter compared to the 10s of millions of 8th gen consoles sold; looking at it that way, sure the number of Nvidia 10 series owners is over 20 million, but that ignores the fact that there are over 5 times more 8th gen consoles sold than that.
Basically, even though PCs run on a spectrum, saying they're more powerful “on average” is actually wrong. Sure, they have the potential for being more powerful, but most of the time, people aren’t willing to pay the premium to reach those extra bits of performance.
Now why is this important? What matters are the people who spent the premium cost for premium parts, right? Because of the previous point: PCs don’t have some ubiquitous quality over the consoles, developers will always have to keep low-end PCs in mind, because not even half of all PC players can afford the good stuff, and you have to look at the top quarter of Steam players before you get to PS4-Pro-level specs. If every Steam player were to get a PS4 Pro, it would be an upgrade for over 60% of them, and 70% of them would be getting an upgrade with the Xbox One X.
Sure, you could still make the argument that when you pay more for PC parts, you get a better experience than you could with a console. We can argue all day about budget PCs, but a console can’t match up to a $1,000 PC build. It’s the same as paying more for car parts, in the end you get a better car. However, there is a certain problem with that…
“You pay a little more for a PC, you get much more quality.” The idea here is that the more you pay for PC parts, the performance increases at a faster rate than the price does. Problem: that’s not how technology works. Paying twice as much doesn’t get you twice the quality the majority of the time.
For example, let’s look at graphics cards, specifically the GeForce 10 series cards, starting with the GTX 1050.
This is our reference, our basis of comparison. Any percentages will be based on the 1050’s specs.
- 1.8 TFLOP
- 1.35 GHz base clock
- 2 GB VRAM
Now let’s look at the GTX 1050 Ti, the 1050’s older brother.
This is pretty good. You only increase the price by about 27%, and you get an 11% increase in floating point speed and a 100% increase (double) in VRAM. Sure you get a slightly lower base clock, but the rest definitely makes up for it. In fact, according to GPU boss, the Ti managed 66 fps, or a 22% increase in frame rate for Battlefield 4, and a 54% increase in mHash/second in bitcoin mining. The cost increase is worth it, for the most part.
- 2.1 TFLOP
- 1.29 GHz base clock
- 4 GB VRAM
- $140 retail
But let’s get to the real meat of it; what happens when we double our budget? Surely we should see a massive increase performance, I bet some of you are willing to bet that twice the cost means more than twice the performance.
The closest price comparison for double the cost is the GTX 1060 (3 GB), so let’s get a look at that.
Well… not substantial, I’d say. About a 50% increase in floating point speed, an 11% increase in base clock speed, and a 1GB decrease in VRAM. For [almost] doubling the price, you don’t get much.
- 3.0 TFLOP
- 1.5 GHz base clock
- 3 GB VRAM
- $200 retail
Well surely raw specs don’t tell the full story, right? Well, let’s look at some real wold comparisons. Once again, according to GPU Boss, there’s a 138% increase in hashes/second for bitcoin mining, and at 99 fps, an 83% frame rate increase in Battlefield 4. Well, then, raw specs does not tell the whole story!
Here’s another one, the 1060’s big brother… or, well, slightly-more-developed twin.
Seems reasonable, another $50 for a decent jump in power and double the memory! But, as we’ve learned, we shouldn’t look at the specs for the full story.
- 3.9 TFLOP
- 1.5 GHz base clock
- 6 GB VRAM
- $250 retail
I did do a GPU Boss comparison, but for the BF4 frame rate, I had to look at Tom’s Hardware (sorry miners, GPU boss didn’t cover the mHash/sec spec either). What’s the verdict? Well, pretty good, I’d say. With 97 FPS, a 79% increase over the 1050— wait. 97? That seems too low… I mean, the 3GB version got 99.
Well, let’s see what Tech Power Up has to say...
94.3 fps. 74% increase. Huh.
Alright alright, maybe that was just a dud. We can gloss over that I guess. Ok, one more, but let’s go for the big fish: the GTX 1080.
That jump in floating point speed definitely has to be something, and 4 times the VRAM? Sure it’s 5 times the price, but as we saw, raw power doesn’t always tell the full story. GPU Boss returns to give us the run down, how do these cards compare in the real world?
- 9.0 TFLOP
- 1.6 GHz base clock
- 8 GB VRAM
- $500 retail
Well… a 222% (over three-fold) increase in mHash speed, and a 218% increase in FPS for Battlefield 4. That’s right, for 5 times the cost, you get 3 times the performance. Truly, the raw specs don’t tell the full story.
You increase the cost by 27%, you increase frame rate in our example game by 22%. You increase the cost by 83%, you increase the frame rate by 83%. Sounds good, but if you increase the cost by 129%, and you get a 79% (-50% cost/power increase) increase in frame rate. You increase it by 358%, and you increase the frame rate by 218% (-140% cost/power increase). That’s not paying “more for much more power,” that’s a steep drop-off after the third cheapest option.
In fact, did you know that you have to get to the 1060 (6GB) before you could compare the GTX line to a PS4 Pro? Not to mention that at $250, the price of a 1060 (6GB) you could get an entire PS4 Slim bundle, or that you have to get to the 1070 before you beat the Xbox One X.
On another note, let’s look at a PS4 Slim…
…Versus a PS4 Pro.
- 1.84 TFLOP
- 800 MHz base clock
- 8 GB VRAM
- $300 retail
128% increase in floating point speed, 13% increase in clock speed, for a 25% difference in cost. Unfortunately there is no Battlefield 4 comparison to make, but in BF1, the frame rate is doubled (30 fps to 60) and the textures are taken to 11. For what that looks like, I’ll leave it up to this bloke. Not to even mention that you can even get the texture buffs in 4K. Just like how you get a decent increase in performance based on price for the lower-cost GPUs, the same applies here.
- 4.2 TFLOP
- 911 MHz base clock
- 8 GB VRAM
- $400 retail
It’s even worse when you look at the CPU for a gaming PC. The more money you spend, again, the less of a benefit you get per dollar. Hardware Unboxed covers this in a video comparing different levels of Intel CPUs. One thing to note is that the highest i7 option (6700K) in this video was almost always within 10 FPS (though for a few games, 15 FPS) of a certain CPU in that list for just about all of the games.
…That CPU was the lowest i3 (6100) option. The lowest i3 was $117 and the highest i7 was $339, a 189% price difference for what was, on average, a 30% or less difference in frame rate. Even the lowest Pentium option (G4400, $63) was often able to keep up with the i7.
The CPU and GPU are usually the most expensive and power-consuming parts of a build, which is why I focused on them (other than the fact that they’re the two most important parts of a gaming PC, outside of RAM). With both, this “pay more to get much more performance” idea is pretty much the inverse of the truth.
“The console giants are bad for game developers, Steam doesn't treat developers as bad as Microsoft or especially Sony.” Now one thing you might’ve heard is that the PS3 was incredibly difficult for developers to make games for, which for some, fueled the idea that console hardware is difficult too develop on compared to PC… but this ignores a very basic idea that we’ve already touched on: if the devs don’t want to make the game compatible with a system, they don’t have to. In fact, this is why Left 4 Dead and other Valve games aren’t on PS3, because they didn’t want to work with it’s hardware, calling it “too complex.” This didn’t stop the game from selling well over 10 million units worldwide. If anything, this was a problem for the PS3, not the dev team.
This also ignores that games like LittleBigPlanet, Grand Theft Auto IV, and Metal Gear Solid 4 all came out in the same year as Left 4 Dead (2008) on PS3. Apparently, plenty of other dev teams didn’t have much of a problem with the PS3’s hardware, or at the very least, they got used to it soon enough.
On top of that, when developing the 8th gen consoles, both Sony and Microsoft sought to use CPUs that were easier for developers, which included making decisions that considered apps for the consoles’ usage for more than gaming. On top of that, using their single-chip proprietary CPUs is cheaper and more energy efficient than buying pre-made CPUs and boards, which is far better of a reason for using them than some conspiracy about Sony and MS trying to make devs' lives harder.
Now, console exclusives are apparently a point of contention: it’s often said that exclusive can cause developers to go bankrupt. However, exclusivity doesn’t have to be a bad thing for the developer. For example, when Media Molecule had to pitch their game to a publisher (Sony, coincidentally), they didn’t end up being tied into something detrimental to them.
Their initial funding lasted for 6 months. From then, Sony offered additional funding, in exchange for Console Exclusivity. This may sound concerning to some, but the game ended up going on to sell almost 6 million units worldwide and launched Media Molecule into the gaming limelight. Sony later bought the development studio, but 1: this was in 2010, two years after LittleBigPlanet’s release, and 2: Media Molecule seem pretty happy about it to this day. If anything, signing up with Sony was one of the best things they could’ve done, in their opinion.
Does this sound like a company that has it out for developers? There are plenty of examples that people will use to put Valve in a good light, but even Sony is comparatively good to developers.
“There are more PC gamers.” The total number of active PC gamers on Steam has surpassed 120 million, which is impressive, especially considering that this number is double that of 2013’s figure (65 million). But the number of monthly active users on Xbox Live and PSN? About 120 million (1, 2) total. EDIT: You could argue that this isn't an apples-to-apples comparison, sure, so if you want to, say, compare the monthly number of Steam users to console? Steam has about half of what consoles do, at 67 million.
Now, back to the 65 million total user figure for Steam, the best I could find for reference for PlayStation's number was an article giving the number of registered PSN accounts in 2013, 150 million. In a similar 4-year period (2009 - 2013), the number of registered PSN accounts didn’t double, it sextupled, or increased by 6 fold. Considering how the PS4 is already at 2/3 of the number of sales the PS3 had, even though it’s currently 3 years younger than its predecessor, I’m sure this trend is at least generally consistent.
For example, let’s look at DOOM 2016, an awesome faced-paced shooting title with graphics galore… Of course, on a single platform, it sold best on PC/Steam. 2.36 million Steam sales, 2.05 million PS4 sales, 1.01 million Xbox One sales.
But keep in mind… when you add the consoles sales together, you get over 3 million sales on the 8th gen systems. Meaning: this game was best sold on console. In fact, the Steam sales have only recently surpassed the PS4 sales. By the way VG charts only shows sales for physical copies of the games, so the number of PS4 and Xbox sales, when digital sales are included, are even higher than 3 million.
This isn’t uncommon, by the way.
Even with the games were the PC sales are higher than either of the consoles, there generally are more console sales total. But, to be fair, this isn’t anything new. The number of PC gamers hasn’t dominated the market, the percentages have always been about this much. PC can end up being the largest single platform for games, but consoles usually sell more copies total.
EDIT: There were other examples but... Reddit has a 40,000-character limit.
"Modding is only on PC." Xbox One is already working on it, and Bethesda is helping with that.
PS4 isn't far behind either. You could argue that these are what would be the beta stages of modding, but that just means modding on consoles will only grow.
What’s the Point? This isn’t to say that there’s anything wrong with PC gaming, and this isn’t to exalt consoles. I’m not here to be the hipster defending the little guy, nor to be the one to try to put down someone/thing out of spite. This is about showing that PCs and consoles are overall pretty similar because there isn’t much dividing them, and that there isn’t anything wrong with being a console gamer. There isn’t some chasm separating consoles and PCs, at the end of the day they’re both computers that are (generally) designed for gaming. This about unity as gamers, to try to show that there shouldn’t be a massive divide just because of the computer system you game on. I want gamers to be in an environment where specs don't separate us; whether you got a $250 PS4 Slim or just built a $2,500 gaming PC, we’re here to game and should be able to have healthy interactions regardless of your platform.
I’m well aware that this isn’t going to fix… much, but this needs to be said: there isn’t a huge divide between the PC and consoles, they’re far more similar than people think. There are upsides and downsides that one has that the other doesn’t on both sides. There’s so much more I could touch on, like how you could use SSDs or 3.5 inch hard drives with both, or that even though PC part prices go down over time, so do consoles, but I just wanted to touch on the main points people try to use to needlessly separate the two kinds of systems (looking at you PCMR) and correct them, to get the point across.
I thank anyone who takes the time to read all of this, and especially anyone who doesn’t take what I say out of context. I also want to note that, again, this isn’t “anti-PC gamer.” If it were up to me, everyone would be a hybrid gamer.
Happy new year!! (-:
I make new update to GreenAddress Bitcoin Cash recovery tool, many people have use before but ask for scan. Now can scan wallet BCASH for you and find all coin:
- No need nlocktimes.zip file
- Safe. Don't give mnemonics to web site
- You make mistake and send BCASH to GreenAddress not-segwit address after fork, now can get back (segwit address cannot get back)
- Free, not take % from your BCASH. If you happy you can donate to address at [link]1
- Use small miner fee for BCASH network, you get more BCASH (-:
You need Linux, Ubuntu most easy. If you are windows you can see [link]2
In Ubuntu run:
$ sudo apt-get update -qq
$ sudo apt-get install git python-pip python-dev build-essential python-virtualenv -yqq
$ git clone [link]1
$ cd garecovery
$ virtualenv venv
$ source venv/bin/activate
$ pip install --require-hashes -r tools/requirements.txt
$ pip install .
$ garecovery-cli 2of2scan -o garecovery.csv --destination-address XXXX
XXXX is BCASH address to send to.
After give mnemonic, garecovery scan and make all transaction hex into garecovery.csv. If twofactor garecovery ask for twofactor code for signing.
You can give transaction hex to [link]4
for check send and after give to [link]5
I ask BitFast
from GreenAddress to look at code and check is safe. Maybe wait for they say is safe before use.
''' Bitcoin Cash recovery tool for GreenAddress (Update) Go1dfish undelete link unreddit undelete link
2: www*wik*how.com/*nsta*l-Ubu**u-on-**rt*alB** 3: https://github.com/dumpyourbcash/garecovery.git
Unknown links are censored to prevent spreading illicit content.
Misleading Claim #1: ETH promoters aren't violating US securities laws
According to Ethereum promoters, in the 2014 event euphemistically referred to as the "Ethereum pre-sale", bitcoins were purportedly "donated" by apparent "philanthropists" who received a "product", called ETH
, in return.
This sales event was aggressively marketed to unaccredited American investors, and as a result over 30,000 BTC valued at over $18,000,000 USD was "donated
" to the Ethereum Foundation. At least, that's what the promoters of Ethereum would have us believe.
During this $18,000,000 "donation drive", which happened to be accompanied by a countdown timer and aggressive headlines pointing out to prospective investors that the price per ETH would be increasing as the pre-sale proceeded, the Ethereum founders claimed that anyone giving BTC to the founders of Ethereum in exchange for ETH were doing so not as an investment of money
, but as a way of obtaining a "product" in exchange for a donation.
But is this a legal fiction
As it turns out, in order for [ETH to be classified as a security]1
under US law, it must pass the four prongs of the Howie Test, which are as follows:
- An investment of money
- In a shared enterprise
- With a reasonable expectation of profit
- To be derived primarily from the efforts of others
In an article by [Decentralized Legal]2
produced following the "pre-sale", a knowledgeable securities lawyer convincingly
- Digital currency invested in the pre-sale constitutes an investment of money
- The Ethereum Foundation's development efforts, which were funded by the "donated" BTC, constitute a shared enterprise
- The pre-sale investors expected to profit from the appreciation of ETH against BTC
- The pre-sale investors depended on work performed by the Ethereum Foundation in order for ETH to turn a profit
Hence, ETH fits the legal definition of a security under US law. And since ETH was promoted to unaccredited US investors during the "pre-sale", it seems apparent that the Ethereum founders ran an illegal unregistered securities offering to bootstrap their network.
For this reason, Ethereum promoters have a professional obligation to cease encouraging further promotion of unregistered ICOs, as the ICO trend is sure to end in costly litigation, excessive fines and even jail time for ICO promoters.
Misleading Claim #2: Proof-of-Stake is Superior To Proof-of-Work
According to Ethereum promoters, Bitcoin's Proof of Work consensus system is "outdated" compared to Ethereum's Proof of Stake system. Let's examine their self-serving excuses for making these fallacious claims about PoW. Excuse Part A: PoW Wastes Energy
Central banking is likewise very wasteful of energy: millions of employees are forced to travel to and from physical bank branches 5 days a week. Let's ignore that. Physical bank branches require armored vehicles and dedicated security personnel. But let's disregard that too.
Even if we assume that PoW is wasteful
, it still begs the question: wasteful compared to what
? Pure Proof of Stake consensus systems like that proposed for Ethereum have never been proven to work
under adversarial conditions. How can PoS be a solution to PoW wastefulness if PoS isn't a viable consensus system? As of 2017, there is still no hard science showing how "weak subjectivity", aka phone-a-friend consensus, could deterministically choose the longest valid blockchain in a chain fork. Excuse Part B: PoS Has "Less Sell Pressure" than PoW
"What have PoW miners ever done for you?"
We see this talking point making the rounds in Ethereum-land, and it's only a matter of time before the astroturfing campaign there reaches a fever pitch.
In a nutshell, Ethereum promoters claim Proof of Stake minimizes sell pressure
on the market. However, nothing prevents either PoW or PoS miners from selling mined coins at their own discretion regardless of the bills they need to pay, hence this excuse is inherently speculative.
In addition, if utility companies were to EVER accept digital currency from Bitcoin miners in exchange for power, BTC needn't be sold for fiat currency. Just because we are PoW mining does not automatically entail sell pressure: in a closed loop economy, sell pressure would be completely eliminated
Misleading Claim #3: ASIC mining algorithims are inferior to GPU mining algorithms
Ethereum promoters proclaim, as Litecoin promoters once did, that "ASIC mining is centralized".
But there are already
more ASIC mining rig manufacturers than GPU mining rig manufacturers. Witness: it's only AMD/Nvidia for GPUs. That's just two manufacturers. Meanwhile, Bitfury, Bitmain and Canaan manufacture ASICs. That's three ASIC manufacturers to two
And since there's a strong financial incentive to keep ASIC mining rigs a secret, we can't rule out the existence of private
large scale ASIC miners which choose not to sell their custom rigs to the public.
While it is an interesting technology, Ethereum's promoters have referred to the mother of all ICOs, that of their own, as a large $18,000,000 "donation drive". Their blatant legal Cover Your Ass (CYA) tactics make a mockery of the rule of law
And though the Ethereum founders certainly act as if the law doesn't apply to Ethereum's ICO, they do
act [as if the law applies to Ethereum's trademark]3
. Jeffrey Wilcke of the Ethereum Foundation writes to the SEC:
There are major ethical concerns and conflicts of interest around Digital Currency Group (DCG), the parent company of the Bitcoin Investment Trust, and their media subsidiary Coindesk.
DCG operates funds that can have a market-moving impact on the digital currency industry while simultaneously operating one of the largest media organizations in the industry, which can be used to exploit investors.
For example, Grayscale, a subsidiary of DCG, operates an ethereum classic fund Ethereum Classic Investment Trust, a barely recognized alt-coin thats illegally infringing on a trademark of the Ethereum Foundation. Yet the currency has been written about more than 88 times on Coindesk.com, and DCG has become the most prominent and public supporter and investor in the token.
This represents a clear conflict of interest giving DCG the ability to "pump-and-dump" worthless assets by offering publicity and easy-access to unsophisticated investors. DCG should be required to divest its ownership and control of this market-manipulating subsidiary before making a DCG controlled investment vehicle available to the public.
When it comes to Ethereum's trademark, the law applies vigorously
. When it comes to the ICO, well, that was just a friendly donation drive for philanthropists! Does anyone else see a pattern here? It's like how cryptographic law
ALWAYS applies to Ethereum's blockchain, because "unstoppable applications" perk up ~investors~ philanthropists. But when key ~investors~ philanthropists lose $150,000,000 in aggregate due to their own stupidity, cryptographic law goes right out the window
Ethereum has no principles aside from greed
. They and their investors make a mockery of the rule of law, and they absolutely cannot
As a system, [Ethereum offers nothing that can't be done on top of Bitcoin]4
The Ethereum founders had no reason
to launch their coin with a $18,000,000 ICO, and as similar advanced scripting systems come online without the benefit of $18,000,000 in funding, history will show the Ethereum founders raised that round of financing primarily out of greed. Ethereum investors who participated in the unregistered securities sale now spend most of their time doing exactly what the founders of Ethereum did: shilling their project in order to get their hands on your BTC.
''' The Top 3 Misleading Claims Made By Ethereum Promoters Go1dfish undelete link unreddit undelete link
1: d***ntral*zedlegal.**m/e*her-is-a*se*ur*t*/ 2: *ecentral*zedleg*l.*om/*th*r-is-***e*urity* 3: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2017-06/nysearca201706-1571475-131737.htm
Unknown links are censored to prevent spreading illicit content.
Bitcoin Miner The FREE easy-to-use Bitcoin miner. Let your computer make you money with Bitcoin Miner! Earn bitcoins which can be exchanged for real-world currency. Works great at home, work, or on the go. Now available on the Windows Store! Download Now Bitcoin » Bitcoin mining » PhoenixMiner 5.1c: fastest Ethereum/Ethash miner with lowest devfee (Win/Linux) Advertise with us (we do not endorse any site advertised) « previous next » Print; Pages:  Go Down. Author Topic: PhoenixMiner 5.1c: fastest Ethereum/Ethash miner with lowest devfee (Win/Linux) (Read 148 times) 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Kriss1. Full Member ... From Bitcoin Wiki. Jump to: navigation, search. There are many different types of Bitcoin mining software available. These tables should help you find what will work best for your mining. information Info BFG BitMinter BTCMiner cgminer Diablo EasyMiner gMinor GroupFabric MPBM OSFPGABM Phoenix poclbm Ufasoft ScalaMiner language : C : Scala : Java : C : Java : Python : C++ : Python : Tcl ... Bitcoin is the currency of the Internet: a distributed, worldwide, decentralized digital money. Unlike traditional currencies such as dollars, bitcoins are issued and managed without any central authority whatsoever: there is no government, company, or bank in charge of Bitcoin. As such, it is more resistant to wild inflation and corrupt banks. With Bitcoin, you can Und die IP-Liste (Berücksichtigt verschiedene Miner, bekannte Miner-IP-Adressen) Mit diesen Listen ist es möglich, einen sehr großen Teil des Crypto-Jacking-Netzwerkverkehrs zu blockieren. Die Vorteile liegen dabei ganz klar auf der Hand: Der Ressourcendiebstahl kann nicht oder nur eingeschränkt stattfinden. Akkus von z.B. Smartphones werden nicht mehr leergesaugt. Smartphones überhitzen ...
Kostenloser Download Crypto Mining Software: Link 1: https://nippyshare.com/v/06723d Link 2: https://mega.nz/file/8B0mlSbK#epfI4yOPhTwF0xJd3LOinxJiJAs47FuA-_... BitcoinSOV Windows Solo Miner Setup Tutorial Air Drop. Loading... Unsubscribe from Air Drop? ... 🍓 Best Bitcoin Mining Software That Work in 2020 🍓 - Duration: 5:34. Step-By-Step Guide ... Shows an individual how to mine their first "bitcoin" using a piece of software created by a company called "groupFabric" A very simple video tutorial showing you how to get started mining Bitcoin using your regular Windows desktop or Laptop computer. In this guide I'll take you... This miner is tested by DevTech Plus+ and it actually pays. Mining with a windows software are always the best miners you can get and Silverlight Miner Pro v8.8 is one of them. https://goo.gl/FA8PVj.