He knows..

I'm not a console peasant nor am I among the PC master race. I'm completely out of the gamer loop. That said: I'm aware of the console vs. PC issue and I want to add my two cents. I know I'm entering the lion's den with this post, but as a complete outsider, it seems to me both sides are arguing in circles and are missing some key points.

Let's establish a few basic points: first, there is clearly no debate about the quality of game play. Graphics, resolution, frame rate, what-have-you: PC wins. Hands down. No contest. Anyone who debates otherwise and says something like it doesn't matter human eye can't perceive blah blah blah whatever is an utter moron.

Okay that's out of the way.

Second, cost: some try to argue that PC gaming is more expensive. That's demonstrably false given that (1) the cost of console games are much higher than PC and that cost adds up quickly over time and (2) people with consoles have to buy computers anyway to do everything other than gaming, so now they have two machines when one could've been sufficient.

Despite the above premises, consoles still exist. Why? Why are they still so popular? There has to be a reason, and the two arguments above aren't cutting it. And, no, it's not because gamers are poor, stupid peasants who would rather pay more for an inferior product.

It seems to me, again as an outsider (please to kill me), that consoles continue to survive and even thrive because console gamers want an automatic even playing field. With consoles, everyone pays roughly pays the same and has the same capabilities. Online gameplay is largely equal for everyone. No one has a distinct advantage because of hardware.

The different levels of hardware capabilities is not necessarily a financial issue, and indeed the monetary cost factor can be easily debunked. This is a cost of time, what with researching, maintaining, and updating a top of the line machine. There is also the cognitive cost of constantly learning and keeping up with the latest knowledge about, say, the best processors on the market, for example. That's hard work. That's like a full time job. And most people don't want to worry about that.

So, yeah, PC is superior in every way. Anyone who debates otherwise is either an ignoramus or is being disingenuous. But just because a Bugatti Veyron or Venom GT might be the fastest car on the market doesn't mean I need one to drive me to work and back. Or, for an even better analogy, just because I can build a faster car in my garage with less money in the end of it all, I'm satisfied (or, more precisely, satisficed) with my decision to buy a pre-packaged overpriced automatic Hyundai Sonata because it reliably does what I need it to do just as well as any other car without much effort. I don't have the time, energy, or interest to become an expert in the mechanics of automobiles in order to make it worthwhile to try to save money and get higher performance out of a custom build manual car. And I'm not trying to win any races anyway. And the competition is stiffer than I'd like if I did try to race.

So I think the most convincing argument for consoles is that they are perfect for the casual fans who just want a reliable plug-and-play experience with the least amount of thought and effort. I think you all can identify with that in some field or another, unless you're an someone who cooks most of your meals at home using food you grew or locally sourced as appropriate for every season, custom built your own vehicles for your preferred type of performance, made all the wood furniture in your house from your own workshop, and so on for every facet of life, all in addition to being a glorious member of the PC master race. If that's you, I bow before thee. I'm not worthy. But I don't believe you exist.

As Sweet Brown says, "ain't nobody got time for that."

/r/pcmasterrace Thread Link - imgur.com