The reasons Playstation is a superior gaming platform to dedicated gaming PCs.
I think I can already hear the arseholes of angry fanboys clenching at the title alone, and OK, I'll admit it... that was me being intentionally provocative. The word superior carries a lot of connotations and really I need to justify that before I can move on. I'll do my best but people won't like it and PC gamers are going to have to accept some bitter truths about the world that they simply won't accept. There are things that PC gamers parrot that are legitimately about as stupid as the shit I hear from console fanboys claiming the human eye can't see past 30 frames a second and that games look more "cinematic" at lower framerates. No they fucking don't!
So first things first, I'm a multi-platform gamer. Always have been. I have my gaming PC, but when I say gaming PC what I really mean is browser, web-editor, sound system... I don't really use it for gaming all that often. It has an i7-4790 CPU running at 3.6GHz, so we're talking £300 worth of processor there. It's a beefy processor that's for sure. An NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 which is easily my PC's limiting factor (though only if I'm gaming which I don't often do with it), it's an old 2GB card which isn't on the market any more. I'm looking to upgrade probably to the 6GB GTX 1060. That'd be about £200 today so it's an upgrade I've not managed to put the money to yet. My current card is around £100 on Amazon from third party sellers and anywhere from £30 to £200 on eBay; but that's eBay so depends how much you trust it. It's an old card like I say and old cards are hard to value. I've got 8GB of RAM (2x 4GB HyperX FURY DDR4) and a 480GB SanDisk SSD as my hard drive, looking at £100 for the RAM and SSD. It's got a 24x DVD writer drive (£20), didn't bother with the Blu-Ray as they've got software restrictions on them anyway. And finally a Creative Sound Blaster Z Sound Card, which isn't essential but I like it to have good sound capabilities. That's about £60. It's got a Corsair Hydro Series liquid cooling, which is about £120, and you can add an extra £100 for the case, keyboard, mouse, microphone, and webcam. I was planning to do YouTube so I got a decent mic as audio is important, admittedly it's not necessary in a PC build. But just for context. All in all, my PC right now would probably cost around £800 to build and that's not including the cost of software. When I first got it a good few years ago now, it was a custom pre-build and I payed £1400 for it, which included Windows (which was £95) and about £150 worth of editing software. This is a good PC, it can outperform any console I own. It's not running games on high, at 1080p, and maintaining 60 frames per second. That's a bit much to ask of the 760, but it can manage medium settings on most games, which means it's matching or exceeding the textures and matching or exceeding the framerate. The problem is diminishing returns. I could upgrade, I've considered whacking a 1080 in it but I wouldn't get enough use out of it to justify it, and apparently I'd be looking at £400 on the cheep side (we're talking fucking eBay here), or £550-600 in other online stores, and fuck that. (Any PC gamer who tells me they can build a cheap gaming PC, go and choke on a dick you lying cunt). This brings me on to my first issue.
Building a gaming PC is expensive as all hell, and no before you e-mail me your page from PCPartPicker, PCPartPicker is NOT a PC, it's a website, show me a PC, not a website with some claims on it. ACTUALLY build the fucking PC for that price, don't just find a website that can theoretically quote you that price, actually build the damn PC for that price. You're no better than those storage container auction shows where someone will buy a container, go through it and claim a value for everything as if they're an expert, then declare that they've got X amount of profit and suddenly the show will agree and act like they made a profit. No you fucker, you actually need to sell the shit to make a profit, what you have is a storage container filled with junk. You've made fuck all, you've spent 3 grand on junk and all you done is walk around it pointing going, "that's 300 dollars", "that's 500 dollars". No, it's not, it's a fucking chair and a cabinet you dickhead! I know the shows are all fake anyway, but at least in the early seasons they'd fake trying to sell off the shit they got in the storage containers too in order to make the effort. This is basically what PCPartPicker is. It's the latter seasons of "Storage Wars", only for gaming. ACTUALLY order the PC, build the PC, show me it working, and show me it running a game better than my console. Until you do that, you don't have a PC that can outperform my PS4, you have a notepad file with a shopping list on it. Well fucking done there mate. Oh, and when you tell me the cost, don't forget to tell me how much time it took you to research the parts and build, get the parts, actually build the PC, install the OS, and general troubleshooting; because your time isn't free. I can order a PS4, next day delivery from reputable shops (ie, not fucking eBay), with only few mouse clicks and I can set it up from new in under 15 minutes.
You see it's not actually as simple as people make it out to be in the PC gaming space. They claim "you can make a budget PC that's more powerful than a console and for cheaper" but it's all lies. It's bold faced fucking lies. I've just been looking online to see how much an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 would cost for this article. This is hardly an obscure piece of hardware, in fact it's one of the most popular graphics cards ever. Almost everywhere I looked though, was selling a used card, Amazon doesn't have any except third party sellers selling used, and eBay is the most reliable source which is terrible. If you have to go to the digital equivalent of a fucking car boot sale to get your high end gaming hardware, there's a goddamn problem here! And don't tell me the 1080 is outdated, because it's not and you know it's not. You can get the 1060 and the 1070 on Amazon fine, but the 1080, nope. Oh, and are you getting a discount for buying used? Are you bollocks. You can reliably get a used PS4 now for around £150-180, now while the new PS4 Pro is £350, the base PS4 is only £225 new, and fact is, you're not building any PC for that.
You could get some cheap parts, you could scrimp and be thrifty but it's still not going to work. You could get a GTX 670 off eBay for about £50, an Intel Pentium G4560 CPU for £60 would do the job, can't think of a cheaper CPU that would, 4GB of cheap RAM for £20, 500GB SATA Hard Drive about £20, and scrounging around you could get a cheap case for under £20. Your PSU is going to be at least £30 for the cheapest on the market. You'll need a basic motherboard, not sure about compatibility but the Gigabyte GA-H110-D3A is only £40, it's the cheapest I can find. I've seen used Asus H81M-D motherboard which I know would be compatible for around £60, but that's a bit pricy. Keyboard and mouse, add on another £10, £10 for cables. There's a problem here... we're already at £250. We've gone complete "stig of the dump" here. We're going so budget we're basically at the rummaging around in the bin level of budget. YOU COULD HAVE A BRAND NEW PS4 FOR THIS PRICE!!!
The thing is, PC gamers will always move the goalposts, they'll say I didn't look at the right shops, I didn't do my research, I could have got the parts cheaper if I knew where to look. Yeah, maybe, but that requires expertise unreasonable to expect from the average person. I know how to fucking google. If I can't find it, the average consumer can't bloody find it. Do you know how you get a PS4? You type "PS4" into Amazon, it's the first, second, third, forth, fifth, and seventh result depending on what colour or pack-in game you want (including an option for none, result four, for £225). Results six and eight are the PS4 pro, and result nine is PSVR. They ALL come with next day delivery and are brand new. It would take a special level of absolute idiot to fuck up buying a PS4 at this point. PC gamers will then claim that the PC may be more expensive but the games are cheaper and "you have to pay for online". Well, no you don't have to pay for online, unless you play online games. I know multiple people without PS+ who are single player only gamers. But sure, that's an added expense of £4 per month... cheaper than the price of Big Mac Meal, Oh No! And you get free games from it. As for the cheaper games, it's simply not true. Steam sales aren't significantly cheaper than PSN sales now, and while they're somewhat more frequent, used games make consoles incredibly cheap. You can not only buy games used, you can trade games in or sell the on eBay. If you buy a game at £50, finish it in 3 weeks and because it's still fairly new sell it on eBay for £35, you've effectively got a game for £15. You will NOT get a game on a Steam Sale 70% off in the first month. Then there's older games. If you're playing older games on console, you can pick them up for often as little as £10 each.
The crux of all of this really comes down to one simple fact. PC Gamers: PC isn't cheaper, stop saying it is. You just sound fucking stupid when you do. If you really want to be a dick about it and jump through hoops to make a ridiculous budget build, I'll counter with this. Build me a PC that can run GTA V. It doesn't need to run it well, low settings, 30 frames per second, 720p is fine. So long as it runs... Your budget is £75.
I can get a PS3 from MusicMagpie for £65, or even better from CEX for £60. I can get GTA V on eBay "Buy It Now" for £4.99. Hell, I've got enough left over to also get 'The Last Of Us' and 'Deus Ex' on PS3 as well. Can you do that with a PC? No, I fucking thought not. Console is cheaper, this is a fact. But let's leave the arguement of cost alone and consider the other arguments after all, you get what you pay for right.
Quite right. You do indeed get what you pay for and if you're prepared to pay a four figure amount you can have a truly impressive experience on PC. Even a moderate amount, around £700-900 will get you a decent gaming PC that can do most things pretty well. If your budget is under £500 it's simply not worth bothering though, the difference in performance isn't going to be significant. Aaaah, but what about the additional features? You can use a PC to browse the internet, write documents, edit videos, make spreadsheets, watch streaming media, etc. etc. I could keep going but honestly these things get more and more niche as we go. The fact is the average person doesn't need or use a PC. Most people use a smartphone or tablet to access social media and do basic web searches, so much so that I've watched people sitting at a computer, get their phone out to google something. It's second nature to them now. Then there's streaming content. YouTube, Netflix, Amazon, NowTV, Crackle, TwitchTV and CrunchyRoll are all streamable on consoles. There's no reason you need a PC for this. My dad is an avid user of Netflix and NowTV and he uses them both through a PS3. Now, if you're editing video or creating documents, if you're a student, a video producer, a web designer, or even a writer; then sure I can see the utility, but for the average person a PC isn't necessary. Before I got this PC, I was without a computer for almost a year and I did perfectly fine with, of all things, a Wii U as my primary online device. It is true that a PC has more utility, but it's more utility that the average consumer doesn't need.
So. What I'm trying to say here is that, if you're buying a computer because you want all the utility a computer gives you, great, that's a perfectly reasonable reason. If you're buying it to watch Netflix, browse Facebook, and play video games... honestly, assuming you already have a smartphone for Facebook, you might be happier with a console.
The first big benefit I see is a console is closed off from the outside world for the most part. When you're on a PC, you're one or two clicks away from anything. On a console it's a little more hassle. They have browsers, but with the exception of the Wii U's touchpad they're admittedly not easily navigated. Additionally a PC user who's more of the habitual user, will likely have messenger apps, Skype, Discord, and other such things in the background. It's extremely easy to be distracted when the option is there. Watching a Netflix show and thinking "who's that", and the urge to Google rises, before you know where you are you've stopped watching the show and you've fallen down the wikipedia hole again. Or you're trying to play a game and people keep messaging you, interrupting your game. Now sure, this can happen on consoles too but I feel it's a much easier trap to fall into on PC. When I sit down at the PS4 it gets my full attention and because of that I enjoy my gaming sessions more. I also incidentally find I follow films better, and I enjoy and can better follow TV shows. The current trend, or maybe even obsession with multitasking usually means the thing you're doing is done badly or not at all.
The convenience argument is one that people scoff at and PC gamers like to pretend doesn't exist. They like to act like building a PC is as easy as putting LEGO together. It's not. And that everyone knows this stuff it's common knowledge. It isn't. The average person is not a computer enthusiast. The average person who works with computers every day isn't even a computer enthusiast. If you push your knowledge of computers as if it's nothing you're as bad as those arsehole mechanics who expect every driver to know how to dismantle and reassemble an engine. The average person doesn't care, they want to sit on the sofa with a controller in their hand, press a button, and be starting. And yes, you could connect a PC to your TV and you could use a controller with it from the sofa, but you don't do you. You can but you don't, and you know why you don't? Convenience. I see it all the time. Hell, I've seen it at it's absolute worse where my dad will watch a standard definition version of a film with adverts when he owns the fucking blu-ray in the next room, but the adverts give him time to go for a piss and he can't be arsed getting up. I know, I've tried to instill into him the wonders of what a fucking pause button is, but he just doesn't seem to get it. People don't do things if they take even a few extra steps. It's like if you have a second games console but it's in the cupboard because there's not space on the shelf. That NEVER get's played. Why? Because it'll take an extra 10 minutes to set it up and we "can't be arsed". It's "too much faffing about". It's perhaps one of the most stupid things we do as a species but we are extremely fickle people and convenience does make a difference. Consoles are frankly an order of magnitude more convenient than PC, and yes this matters. The "plug and play mentality" matters, but all of this isn't the reason I claim Playstation is better than PC.
Yes, it's cheaper and more user friendly, yes it's more intimate and less prone to the distractions of a PC, but really there are two major reasons that I really prefer my PS4 and even my PS3 over gaming on PC. The first is I want physical media. The age of the day one patch makes physical media less and less viable, but remasters and game of the year editions, re-releases and even timed exclusives have managed to keep it so that most physical games on PS4 have an offline playable version on the disc that's almost on par with what you'd play fully patched. As a collector, someone who likes to have their games on their shelf as an expression of who they are and what they enjoy, I want to be able to express what I love in gaming with a games library. I want to be able to take a game off the shelf and show it to someone, take it to someone elses house, let them borrow it maybe. Something I have done before in the past and something we take for granted with the likes of film. People say "PC is an open platform", but it's not, not really. PC is Steam. Or now, PC is Steam and Epic. There's a few people who use DRM stores like GOG but they have limited libraries. Steam is the big dog. Physical releases on PC are fucking GONE! You cannot buy a physical PC game. You can buy a disc that tells the Steam client to download the game for you, which frankly could have just been sent as a goddamn download code. The disc does nothing, so it's not a physical game is it? Physical media matters to me and to a lot of people, and while PC remains digital only, and heavy on the DRM, I will not support that market place. I want to own my games completely. I want to know I can play my game in 20 years time, long after the company that made it, published it, or distributed it, have long since died off. What if Steam goes under? Goodbye to all your games! That's what. Now, this is an idealistic reason, and doesn't make the playstation platforms better so much as more capable of facilitating a collection and preservationist mindset. The next point is however pure quality, which is why I saved it until last.
The PS4 currently has the single best library of games of any system that has ever come out. In the previous generation, by the 3rd year of it's lifespan the PS3 had the single best library of games of any system that had ever come out up until that point, and still has an incredible library of games. In the generation before that, by the 3rd year of it's lifespan, the PS2 had the single best library of any system that had ever come out up until that point, and even now, still has a decent library of hidden gems yet to be ported to current systems. And unsurprisingly original Playstation, as much as it pains me to say it as a Sega Saturn fan, had the single best library of games of any system that had ever come out after 2-3 years on the market. I suspect the same will be true of the PS5 possibly within 2 years of it's release, definitely within 3, and even before that if it does have backwards compatibility with the PS4 it will be effectively a better performing, more effecient PS4, so it's basically won before it starts.
Yes I know that's quite a statement. I agree that the other systems have incredible games. I loved the 8-bit and 16-bit systems, but once the PSOne had games like the Resident Evil, Final Fantasy, Tony Hawk, Crash Bandicoot, Metal Gear Solid etc. it was unstoppable. It's library was already far beyond what the N64 could muster and the poor Sega Saturn while it had it's charm just couldn't keep up. For a hot second in 1999 the Sega Dreamcast was incredible and knocked the socks off the PSOne, with superior versions of some of it's key games like Tony Hawks Pro Skater 2 and Spider-Man but once the PS2 came out it was curtains. Yes, the Xbox and the GameCube where great systems, hell even the Dreamcast could outperform the PS2 when it came to 2D fighting games. The PS2 was one of the weakest systems on the market and yet it was the best system; the PC was having one of it's golden moments too. This was when isometric RPGs like Baldur's Gate 2 and Diablo 2 became massively popular. And some genres like strategy games and simulation games because PC staples. You couldn't play games like the Age Of Empires, Settlers, or Rollercoaster Tycoon games on consoles... this could be argued to be a matter of taste then, maybe PC is just different? But no. I'll explain.
As we continue PS3 was the stumble point for Playstation and it wasn't the best place to game any more. Xbox 360 took over for a few years and PC started to really pull ahead on performance. There was legitimately a point in time when gaming wasn't best on playstation. 2007-2012, that's when it was anybodies race but Sony picked up right at the end of the last generation. They learned their humility and they pushed back so much that the PS3 matched and may even have exceeded the sales figues of the Xbox 360 which is frankly an unheard of recovery in the video game world. The realised what they did better on the PSOne and PS2. THE GAMES! They started to really push their exclusives, games like 'The Last Of Us' and 'Uncharted' really paved the way. Games like 'God Of War 3' proved the scope they could go for. But it was with PS4 they managed to really show this in action.
PS4 went all out when it came to it's games. It has every kind of game imaginable, and Sony has close ties with as many third party publishers and independent developers as it can get it's hands on. It's why if anything, Microsoft buying up developers currently should leave them legitimately twitching. The only major games with any real mainstream household draw that don't appear on PS4 are Nintendo games. There's Mario, Zelda, Donkey Kong, Metroid, etc. without them they would have no competition. Xbox exclusives? What fucking exclusives? There's Halo... that's about it. No one really considers anything else Microsoft put out as an exclusive in the last 5 years to be a system seller do they? No. Almost every major AAA games you hear being talked about is on PS4...
...think about the discussions concerning AAA games of the last 5 years. 'The Last Of Us: Remastered', 'InFamous: Second Son', 'Bloodborne', 'Until Dawn', 'Uncharted 4', 'The Last Guardian', 'Horizon: Zero Dawn', 'Marvel's Spider-Man', 'God Of War', 'Days Gone' or just games than never made it to PC like 'Red Dead Redemption 2'. There's incredibly big upcoming PS4 exclusives like 'Death Stranding', 'The Last Of Us 2', 'Final Fantasy VII Remake', and 'Ghost Of Tsushima' all still to come. The AAA discussion if laser focused on PS4. Sure there are other AAA games, big name franchises that are everywhere like 'Assassin's Creed', 'Grand Theft Auto', 'The Witcher 3', 'The Division', 'Anthem', 'Fallout', and the big shooter giants like 'Call Of Duty', 'Battlefield', and 'Fortnite'. Sure there's loads out there, and there's plenty of other games people get excited for. 2017 was very much the year of the Switch with 'Super Mario Odyssey' 'Breath Of The Wild', and 'Mario Kart 8 Deluxe' all being huge that year. I don't want to imply that ONLY playstation gets these games; but it seems to be getting a disproportionate amount of them. It gets so many of the biggest AAA games that I'm not even surprised when something is PS4 exclusive any more, I've come to expect it. I've not included some of the more niche exclusives above; the likes of 'Persona 5', the 'Ratchet & Clank' remake, 'Shadow Of The Colossus', the Vita revivals on PS4 like 'Gravity Rush 2' and 'Tearaway Unfolded', or even the mocked games like 'Knack 2' and 'The Order: 1886' neither of which are actually deserving of that much hate. PS4 right now is so bursting with exclusive games, but not just exclusives, but the BIGGEST name games in gaming that I can't imagine gaming without one.
Three years in a row, Game Of The Year has been hotly contested in almost every gaming publication that matters by PS4 exclusives. 2018 it was 'God Of War', 2017 it was 'Horizon: Zero Dawn', 2016 it was 'Uncharted 4'. So if you're playing AAA games, PS4 has you covered, and honestly even if you're getting better performance on PC, you're missing half the games... so who cares any more? But maybe you're that "different taste" we where talking about. In that care PS4 has you covered too. 'The Sims 4', 'Tropico 5' and 'Tropico 6', 'Cities Skylines', 'Jurassic World Evolution', 'Grand Ages: Medieval', and 'Aven Colony'. It's got some simulation games I wouldn't have expected too, like 'Elite Dangerous' and 'Kerbal Space Program'. True there are still a few franchises that haven't made the leap. PS4 doesn't have the 'Total War', 'Europa Universalis' or 'Civilization' series so far; so there's still some things missing granted. I'm not claiming it's perfect, just that it has a lot of different types of games to offer, speaking of which.
Playstation VR. Let's face it, it's basically the only guy in town when it comes to VR gaming. Oculus and HTC Vive may be pushing the technology further but PSVR is actually SELLING the technology and making good games with it, and that's what matters. Again it's the games that matter here. PS4 has this whole other angle to approach, this whole other game type it can offer. I know it sounds extreme but VR really is incredible, far more so than I ever expected it to be and it makes the PS4 into something that elevates gaming like nothing else. Sure, you can claim there's VR gaming on PC but literally every decent VR game is playable on PSVR; but the best VR experiences so far have been 'Polybius', 'Moss', 'Resident Evil 7 VR' 'Blood & Truth', 'Tetris Effect' and of course 'Astro Bot: Rescue Mission'. And these are ALL PSVR Exclusive games. You realise that means that PSVR has a better calibre of exclusive than the Xbox One! That's just sad Microsoft.
Really though. It has always been about the games. If you call yourself a gamer you want to play the best games possible right. Does performance really matter that much? Do you need to have the better textures? Do you need to play in 4K? Sure it's nice, and it'll be worth it if you can get it but we where all pretty much in awe of the jump to HD when the PS3 and 360 first launched and we said they looked incredible. Do you remember that? Do you now see how much we've spoiled that for ourselves. Now because we've pushed for more and more photo-realism we find less complex textures and more simplistic art to be a disappointment and I think that's a shame honestly. We shouldn't be in a rush towards progress for the sake of progress. So while you can play 'The Witcher 3' on the highest settings at 4K at 120 frames per second is your experience really that much better than the person playing it at the medium equivalent textures on PS4, at 1080p with a steady 30 frames per second? It is better, I don't deny that. It is definitely better. I've played both the PS3 and PS4 version of 'DmC: Devil May Cry' and the remaster is much smoother running at 60, but the original having a lower framerate didn't make it unplayable. 'Spider-Man' on PS4 has a framerate of only 30 frames per second and everyone seemed to enjoy that, and you know, I had to look it up to see if it was 30 or 60 because I wasn't sure. That's the point... it's not anywhere near as big of a difference as we make it out to be. I've played 'GTA V' at 120 frames per second on a 4K TV and I've played 'Red Dead Redemption' on PS3 running at 720p at 30 frames per second and the difference isn't that big. It just isn't...
The reality is that the difference between generations is tiny now, performance leaps are little more than steps. This is what PC gamers don't want to admit. That yes, you will always have the better hardware. But when a PS3 is £75 with a few games as a budget option, and the PS4 can be had for £225 if you want access to the latest games, there's just no call for it. If you really care about performance there's the PS4 Pro which squeezes a bit more performance out of the games but now we're at £350. The thing is, we're at £350 and we've got a games console that can display at 4K now. It's not necessary for me as I don't have a 4K TV anyway, so I'll go for the smoother framerate options, at which point really what am I getting by playing on a PC now? If I want any significant difference on performance compared to the PS4 Pro I'm going to be basically doubling the price, and I'll need to invest in a 4K TV or monitor. Technically PC's of equivalent prices will be "better" but you'll need side-by-side comparisons to be able to tell. To actually see a difference immediately we're looking at the £800+ mark minimum, and even then that might not be enough. If you're absolutely mad, you can build yourself some crazy build with the latest i9 processor, 32 GB of RAM, and a Titan X just for giggles. That'll run pretty much anything. Will probably cost you the best part of 2 grand to build the damn thing, but sure if you want you can theoretically build something that'll run 4K gaming at extreme framerates with ultra settings, so long as it's not expected to run a game by Ubisoft. You can do that... but is it worth forgoing all those awesome experiences. Great narrative games like 'Uncharted' and 'God Of War', incredible open worlds like 'Spider-Man' and 'Horizon: Zero Dawn', unbelievable experiences with VR in games like 'Polybius' and 'Astro Bot'. Honestly, if you told me I had to give up PC gaming, or Playstation tomorrow. I'd give up PC gaming in a heartbeat.
There where a few games that would have made me pause and think. One genre that I adore that I'd be so sad to miss. The classic isometric ARPG. The thing is PS4 has had it announced that they're getting fully remastered ports of 'Baldur's Gate', 'Baldur's Gate 2', 'Icewind Dale', 'Neverwinter Nights', 'Pillars Of Eternity 2' (it already has the first), and the one and only 'Planescape: Torment' all coming in September, November and December 2019. I've already put dozens of hours into the PS4 version of 'Path Of Exile' and it's fantastic, in some ways I even prefer it. These games too?! I just can't wait. There's honestly nothing the PC can tempt me with now that's worth giving up all those Playstation exclusives, and really what better way is there of measuring which platform is better? Can you think of one? Which systems games would you be most reluctant to be without.
I look forward to all of the hatemail from the butthurt fanboys, I'll enjoy auto-deleting it.
Really if you're not convinced by these arguments that's fine. The price argument doesn't matter if money isn't an issue. The convenience arguement and lack of interruptions may seem minor if you feel you have the willpower to ignore social media, and enjoy the technicals of computing enough to want to build a PC and customise it yourself. The collection and physical media arguement is a none issue if you prefer digital media, perhaps you travel a lot or live in a small apartment, whatever the reason; there's plenty to prefer digital over physical I just wish PC gamers had a choice and weren't forced to go all digital. The one argument I don't think you can dismiss is the one about the games. I genuinely believe the PS4 has the strongest library, and now that it has some of the PC's best legacy games coming to it, I have even less reason to go back to PC. I hope people found this article interesting. I suspect there will be counterpoints made and I genuinely look forwards to reasonable comments, questions, and responses... oh...
And as this article has been needlessly kissing Sony's arse way too much, allow me to say. FUCK SONY! They're a greedy corporation who want to bleed you dry. They're at least partially responsible for the death of Michael Jackson, because it served their bottom line more, and they like all corporations have a track record of being sleezy little cunts. Don't for one minute think I like them. They may well be the best, but I trust them about as far as I could comfortably spit them.