Here's my gigantic, rambley comment I wrote on youtube:
As an open minded individual, I gotta say, the whole idea of this conversation is just...dumb. Neither is better than the other. In the end it all comes down to personal preference.
For example when you say you love everything to be as simple and convenient as possible. I, as a PC gamer, say I love how complex and...well...personal everything is. I love fiddling with and tweaking config files and the like to get a game to be just the way I like it. Although it can be frustrating at times I even love trouble shooting when a game is having issues, just the fact that I can fix a game myself, is really satisfying.
I never understood the bickering and complaining about updates. To me it just seems like your saying "I hate the idea of games becoming better after they're released". You could say "well, a developer should complete a game before releasing it.". Now, yes, they need to get the game to a playable state as it is when released, that's true. And unfortunately that seems to be happening less and less these days. But, it's impossible for a game to be perfect on release, there's always going to be something to fix. Even games released nearly a decade ago, like Half Life 2, are still getting updates today, fixing various things.
As for dlc, yeah it's really easy for a company to abuse. But, when used correctly it is a really great thing. Payday 2 is one of my favorite games these days, and I personally think that is a great example of dlc done right. With each dlc pack essentially acting as a small expansion pack. A non-required expansion pack. Specifically in that game even people that don't own the paid dlc's with the heists in them can still play those heists by joining a player that does own them. And the other stuff in the dlc's, including the guns, are nice, but not necessary for enjoying the game. As for the price and such, well, something I think a lot of people forget is that this is their job, they can't exactly just give everything they develop out for free or they would suffer financially.
As for wither I enjoy retro gaming or not, well I am mostly a "modern" gamer by your definition, but I definitely love PlayStation/N64 era games. Even their graphics, most people seems to hate the polygonal graphics style, saying stupid crap like "they don't hold up", or whatever, but I love it. I can't say exactly why. When I see them something in my brain just goes "Yeah! Video games! Awesome!", you know?
Even tough first person shooters, or just first person games in general are I'd say probably my favorite genre and the majority of what I play usually, some of my favorite games are from that era, specially all the PlayStation exclusive 3D action platformers like Spyro, Crash Bandicoot, and the PS2 era ones Ratchet and Clank, Jak & Daxter, and Sly Cooper.
As for "really" retro games, well I'll admit anything past Super Nintendo era-ish is really hard for me to get into. Even Super Nintendo games usually just don't interest my very usually. Of course there are exceptions, like I do love the Metroid series, I think Metroid is the single great franchise of games Nintendo has ever made. I even played all the way through the first Metroid and Super Metroid. And I'll also admit "pixely" type graphics don't usually interest me that much, not nearly as much as 90's era polygonal style graphics do like I mentioned.
So...yeah. Damn. Video games are my life's passion (next to computer tech ;) ) so I definitely have an opinion or two. Hopefully that wasn't too boring to read. I tend to write very sloppily.
Also, it seems kinda dumb to group games into one big category like "retro" or "modern", or say modern gaming is Call of Duty and Halo. That just doesn't seem fair at all to me. All generations of games have so much more to offer than can be generalized by a couple of games. Same as it would be dumb to say "retro gaming is Super Mario Brothers", obviously it's so much more complex than that.