Share your unfiltered, unpopular gaming opinions and let’s dive into some real discussions. If you come across a view you disagree with, feel free to (respectfully) defend your perspective. I don’t want to see anyone say stuff like “we’re all entitled to our own opinions.” Let’s pretend like gaming is a science and we are all award winning scientists.
My Unpopular Opinion:
I believe the criticism against battle royales is often unwarranted. Most complaints revolve around constant content updates, microtransactions, and toxic player communities
Many criticize the frequent content updates, often cosmetic, as overwhelming. However, it’s optional, and no other industry receives flak for releasing more. I’ve never seen anyone complain about too many Lays or coke flavors.
Pay-to-win concerns are mostly outdated; microtransactions are often for cosmetics. If you don’t have the self control to not buy a purple glittery gun, then I’m glad you don’t play the games anymore, but I don’t think it makes the game bad.
The annoying player bases is the one I understand the most. I don’t really have a point against this except that it’s better to play with friends.
Overall I think battle royale games are pretty fun and rewarding. Some of my favorite gaming memories were playing stuff like apex legends late at night with friends or even playing minecraft hunger games with my cousins like 10 years ago. A long time ago I heard in a news segment that toy companies found out that people are willing to invest a lot of time and energy into winning ,if they know there will be a big reward at the end, and battle royales tap into that side of my brain.
This is just my opinion
I couldn’t care less about owning games physically. I’m way more likely to lose/damage them then lose access to their download.
I held on to physical media for a long time, and the legal ownership implications are scary for digital media, BUT the argument of avoiding creating plastic waste at one point outweighed this for me, and I’ve been all digital ever since, but to each their own. Definitely pros and cons either way.
While I don’t disagree, when I eventually get a PS5 I plan to get the disk version, simply because I can often get disk games second hand for a fraction of the price that they are on the playstation store
Physical games make much more sense for consoles for this exact reason.
Physical games for PC are pretty much entirely pointless because 99% of the time you’re going to use the steam code from the box then either throw it away or throw it on a shelf.
There are several reasons that people may prefer physical games, but I want people to stop propagating the false relationship of “physical copy = keep forever, digital copy = can be taken away by a publisher’s whim”. Most modern physical copies of games are glorified digital download keys. Sometimes, the games can’t even run without downloading and installing suspiciously large day 0 “patches”. When (not if) those services are shut down, you will no longer be able to play your “physical” game.
Meanwhile GOG, itch, even Steam (to an extent), and other services have shown that you can offer a successful, fully digital download experience without locking the customer into DRM.
I keep local copies of my DRM-free game purchases, just in case something happens to the cloud. As long as they don’t get damaged, those copies will continue to install and run on any compatible computer until the heat death of the universe, Internet connection or no, just like an old PS1 game disc. So it is possible to have the convenience of digital downloads paired with the permanence that physical copies used to provide. It’s not an either-or choice at all, and I’m sick of hearing people saying that it is.
I agree whenever it comes to PC games, but I won’t buy digital media for consoles.
Knowing that the platform will stop being supported, even if it’s a decade+ later, makes me not want to buy from it. Especially since if I want to play it again I will have to pay resell prices for the game. I bought so many cool games on the Wii that I won’t have access to anymore.
Also, I like buying second hand at local swap meets and garage sales. It’s a small hobby for me lol
I like lending games to friends. If that was supported with digital games, I wouldn’t ever care for physical games.
For example, after I beat BotW, I gave it to a friend to play. They likely wouldn’t have bought it, and I no longer have any interest in playing it, so it worked out. I rarely play games twice.
I also like the idea of selling games, but I never actually do it.
Battle royale gameplay sucks though. I like competitive games but spending 15 minutes in empty buildings looting, then 4 minutes running from shots that I can’t tell where they’re from, then 30 seconds in a firefight only to die and have to wait for the rest of my teammates to die before I can play again… that’s objectively boring af.
When I get time to spend playing video games, I want to actually play, not spend the whole time just picking up items and guns I never get to use.
I was really being snobbish at battle royal type game. I’m an older gamer. Been playing TDM for years. I didn’t get the concept.
But I got into Apex when it released. I think it’s the best game I’ve ever played. The gameplay and movement is phenomenal, I can’t play any other FPS.
And being in the last 3-5 team alive on the last few ring is so much adrenalin! I love it.
If you like the movement, try Titanfall 2 if you haven’t already. The Finals also has some fantastic fast paced gameplay and movement. Open Beta is currently running and I haven’t had so much fun in an FPS for a very long time now.
Also basically no replayability because there’s zero progression. Since every round starts exactly the same as every other, there’s nothing to unlock other than skins, and you have to pay for the battle pass to even unlock those. Meanwhile games like Battlefield or Battlebit or COD have tons of things to unlock that you can use when you want.
Isn’t most competitive multiplayer games like that? That’s like thinking chess has zero replay value because there are no unlockables.
It depends on their format. A lot of competitive games have abilities and different loadout options that allow you to try different playstyles on purpose and practice getting better with them, while the battle royale’s format forces you to deal with what you find, preventing practice with specific setups.
For example MOBAs allow you to pick heroes who play very very differently and allow you to become proficient in a number of different playstyles purposefully on your own time, so you feel the progression more directly and if you dead end with one character you can try more.
I find that having no in-game progression of any kind is part of the appeal of these kinds of games. The progression comes from improving your own skills at the game.
I don’t really like rogue-likes either, for pretty much the same reason. Rogue-lites are a thousand times better just for that one small change.
Well that’s a subjective opinion, but I will agree that it is not for everyone. I love battle royale games because of how intense they are.
It’s one of the only game modes that make me feel like I have something to lose if I do not perform my best. There are actually consequences to my actions, and that’s why it’s so intense.
Sure, technically I can start another game, but I will not get back my previous investments.
Also, the last couple fights before I win a game are more intense than any other game I’ve ever played
Well that’s a subjective opinion.
The gameplay loop being 10-15 minutes of running around empty buildings and 30-45s of firefights is objectively boring, though.
I’m glad you like it 👍
Not sure what games you’re playing that you don’t get straight into the action. Whenever I play, I get into a gunfight within the first couple minutes all the time.
Also, since the rise of battle royale games the maps have gotten better and there is more action more often. Not only that, but the games are generally more balanced nowadays. That’s one of the benefits of the constant funding: there will continue to be constant updates and the game will continue to be tweaked and improved as long as people play it.
Just like every other game genre, they have improved. The first platformers didn’t come out of the gate being like Mario Wonder or Celeste. There has and will continue to be more progress in the genre.
I don’t like 3D platforming. I haven’t liked it since it really kicked off in 1996. Even all these years later with Super Mario Odyssey, I feel like I’m constantly fiddling with the camera, and something in my brain struggles with judging distances in 3D space at times. I used to love platforming. Yoshi’s Island is one of my all-time favorite games.
If I were in a bubble, I’d say the camera and the floaty controls that are in a lot of these games need an overhaul, but Mario’s as popular as ever. Between that and Mario games still being at the top of metascores, it’s probably only me and five other people grumpy about it.
Yeah, I completely agree. It’s even worse when the platforming is forced in a game that’s not about platforming.
2D platforming is way better. Far less frustration, and there’s a lot games can do with it.
Some of them felt like they were set up to force weird camera angles and be luck of the draw. That’s not adding challenge. That’s just being a dick.
Did you ever try A Hat in Time? Out of all 3D platformers I played I still think it has the tightest controls and also a lot of camera settings.
But I agree, 3D platformers never really reached the fluidity and tightness of 2D platformers. I still love both but for different reasons.
I have no issue with battle royales.
I have a huge issue with literally all microtransactions in every context. Cosmetics are not a justification. The only valid way to unlock cosmetics is to earn them with gameplay.
If you have microtransactions in any format in your game, you are a bad human being. There is no scenario where it is forgivable. If you have lootboxes, you should go to prison for the blatant unregulated gambling operation you are running.
On TOP of this, the companies know that their market demographic is the under 18 segment, who isn’t mature and lacks the self-control of a fully fledged adult. They bank on this immaturity and use it to further entrench gambling addiction in young adults. The people who excuse this as “oh if you don’t like it then just don’t buy it!” have the absolute most trash opinions of all.
I personally enjoy gambling. Since it’s been legalized here, I have a budget I place at the start of the NFL season and treat it as entertainment. I know I’ll win some and lose some, and I know it’s unlikely I’m ever going to end up up a lot, because almost no one ever is.
I would have no issue with a game actually openly calling itself gambling and being regulated appropriately and restricted to adults. But there’s a very good reason they’re strictly regulated, and poorly developed frontal lobes (even though 21 isn’t fully developed either) in teenagers/younger are a big part of that. Building those addictive patterns (whether a casino or a hard drug) at a young age is extremely hard to overcome.
If not microtransactions for cosmetics, then what would be a better business model in your opinion?
Step 1: You buy a game. There is no step 2.
Actual meaningful additional content (which never under any circumstances removes old content) as an expansion is fine. Paid cosmetics cannot be. Microtransactions in any format cannot be.
Would that actually be sustainable for a game that’s constantly changing? The ones I’m familiar with are League of Legends and TFT, so I’ll use those as examples. These games rely on having a large playerbase, or else matchmaking will be all over the place and it wouldn’t be any fun for anyone. Having to pay for the game would shrink that playerbase considerably. Having to pay for updates makes this essentially a subscription model, since it’s makes no sense to maintain old versions of the game and further fracturing the playerbase that is already small to begin with, and subscriptions will also deter a lot of people from playing the game.
If it’s one of those single player story-based games that you play once and never touch again, then yeah, the model makes sense. Though I don’t see the harm in having the option to buy cosmetics. It’s not something I’m personally interested in so I just don’t touch that stuff, but I like that we’re valuing the work of artists more.
Na, I don’t agree here. I have played a lot of Free to Play games that rely on microtransactions for cosmetics and spent so many hours in these games and never, ever spent a dollar. Probably wouldn’t have bought them if they were not F2P either. Only game I’ve ever bought a cosmetics pack was a Support pack for Deep Rock Galactic, because that game is so fucking good (yeah I know, not F2P).
If your game is Free to Play and you get money by microtransactions for cosmetics, I have no issues with that. Because I am someone who usually loses interest in games pretty fast or like to play many different games with my friends, so I personally am spending way, way less money this way.
Oh, well, I understand this sentiment but I’d ask everyone here to reevaluate why you hate them and then listen to these points to consider.
-
Cosmetic items are created mostly by artists. Artists are only needed during certain time of development. So this is a way to keep them on a project consistently or to salary them.
-
Most cosmetics are optional and add nothing to the game. In a single player game, just don’t pay for it. Evaluate each games value on the inclusions or exclusion of micro transactions. It’s not necessary to say “if it has them, it’s a worse game” because I’ve been ignoring them for awhile and my games are fine. Just evaluate the game as if they didn’t exist or as if they’re part of the price.
-
Micro transactions support ongoing development. These offers keep projects going. I like playing games like Deep Rock Galactic and Hell Let Loose which are both smaller games by smaller studios. They keep their community alive with OPTIONAL content while producing free updates. It’s a great deal.
And lastly 4. People who buy plenty of these cosmetics and other transactions, often called whales, are subsidizing games for you. It’s cheap money for a development team for someone who wants to buy boosts or cosmetics or whatever. So why wouldn’t they do it?
If there are different classes of people based on being stupid enough to waste money, it’s by definition evil and exploitive. This model is designed for the sole purpose of breaking people’s brains to spend more than they should.
There is no valid way to distribute any cosmetic that isn’t earning it in game. The exact same game, with literally nothing changed but the addition of a purchase of a cosmetic, is worse for the mere existence of purchase bait. It’s the same thing as taking a TV show I bought and injecting ads.
“Free” content supported by these extremely invasive ads is worse than not having those updates.
They’re not subsidizing games for me. They’re taking games away by making them unconditionally unplayable. Charge a fair price. You’re worth it or you’re not. “We need to be disgusting shitbags for our game to exist” is evidence that your game shouldn’t exist, not that it’s possible for your behavior to be acceptable.
Loot boxes break people’s brains. Micro transactions aren’t inherently exploitative. They’re just cheat products. It’s like saying movie theater drink prices are exploitative. They are a bit. But then you also don’t have to buy them.
And the second part, yes and no. A lot of games that use those systems are free to play. It’s more like ads in a YouTube video. But say you did pay, cool, consider if it’s worth it or not. In some games with ongoing development like the ones I mentioned, I gladly pay the cosmetics price because I know that’s how I can support the devs while also getting a cool costume. If that’s not worth it to you, cool, doesn’t hurt you at all and you often still get free content. You just don’t get a cool hat. Guess the game is ruined.
It’s just such a simplistic way to look at it. It’s like gamers who whine incessantly about DLC in games. Like cool, if the game isn’t worth it don’t buy it?
Your arguments make sense for almost every kind of game except long lived competitive multiplayer and MMOs that simply can’t survive without MTX or free to play based models, and if you don’t think they deserve to exist for that, well… Be grateful you’re not the kind of player who likes those genres.
I disagree. I don’t think that micro transactions make the developers bad people. I also don’t think they’re bad at all
The thing about these games is that they aren’t meant to be played once then put down. It’s kinda like going out with friends. My friends and I have a bar we go to for food and drinks, and because of the new drinks, food, or activities they add every once in a while, it makes it more interesting for us. I know that a drink that costs me $5 doesn’t cost them $5 to make, but I know the extra money is going towards those new activities, drinks, food, employees, rent, and their profit.
The micro transactions are going towards the artists, developers, servers, etc. Not even mentioning that because of the long lifespan of these games, things like compatibility, hacks, and bugs, are found more often and they do have to be fixed to keep the player base happy. If they don’t adapt then they won’t keep their players. That’s why we don’t see games that were released at the same time as fortnite with as many players. They already went through most of the content the games have to offer.
I’ve stopped advocating for PC gaming after about 15 years of being a PC enthusiast. It’s just too expensive these days. I think the Steam Deck is a good entry point, but not everyone wants a handheld console. I can 100% respect anyone who looks at the price of a gaming PC and just picks up a Playstation/Xbox for $500 instead.
What do you mean too expensive? While the higher-end GPUs are still ridiculous, you can find something like the 6650XT for ~$200 and that is more than enough for 1080p gaming. Meanwhile SSDs and RAM are at an all-time low price because of how cheap NAND flash is. Throw in a previous gen Ryzen 5 or i5 for ~$100 and you could easily build a competent gaming PC for $500. Plus you don’t have to pay the $60/year tax for online and get access to Steam sales and mods. And torrents if you’re into that.
I’m talking about something which can achieve parity with the 4k graphics that console gamers expect nowadays. That’s not remotely affordable on PC, but it is for consoles.
The Series X and the PS5 are both roughly around the performance of a 6700XT, possibly lower depending on where you look. Any “4K” that is happening is upscaling. Most games run on the equivalent of low or medium settings, use dynamic resolution, checkerboard rendering, or for big games like Starfield or Elden Ring will run at 30fps.
“”“upscaled”“” 4K, righto.
I dunno why people expect extreme levels of graphics anyways. Alan Wake 2 will not be a better game just because the pores in the wood are rendered at all times.
A $600 PC runs everything if you learn to ignore this one, meaningless attribute.
Eh, I don’t want 4k on my PC, 1440p is already overkill. The only reason I care about 4k on my TV is because it’s so big. But even then, my Switch looks fine, and it definitely doesn’t render in 4k.
For me, PC gaming is way less expensive than consoles. I spend about $500 every 3-5 years for upgrades, and I spend way less for games because of sales.
So your complaint with the PC’s affordability is that it’s expensive to produce ultra high end graphics?
Yeah, people who have to care about money don’t care about 4k.
It really depends on your expectations. Once you clarified that you meant parity with current consoles, I understood why you wrote what you did.
I’m almost the exact opposite of the PC princesses who can say with a straight face that running a new AAA release at anything less than high settings at 4K/120fps is “unplayable”. I stopped watching/reading a lot of PC gaming content online because it kept making me feel bad about my system even though I’m very happy with its performance.
Like a lot of patient gamers, I’m also an older gamer, and I grew up with NES, C64, and ancient DOS games. I’m satisfied with medium settings at 1080/60fps, and anything more is gravy to me. I don’t even own a 4K display. I’m happy to play on low settings at 720/30fps if the actual game is good. The parts in my system range from 13 to 5 years old, much of it bought secondhand.
The advantage of this compared to a console is that I can still try to run any PC game on my system, and I might be satisfied with the result; no-one can play a PS5 game on a PS3.
Starfield is the first game to be released that (looking at online performance videos) I consider probably not being worth trying to play on my setup. It’ll run, but the performance will be miserable. If I was really keen to play it I might try to put up with it, but fortunately I’m not.
You could build a similar system to mine from secondhand parts for dirt cheap (under US$300, possibly even under US$200) although these days the price/performance sweet spot would be a few years newer.
Yeah precisely. I bought a PS4 to play Spiderman. Then they asked me to buy a PS5 to play Spiderman 2. Fuck. That. My PC is older than my PS4, and I’ll be playing Spiderman 2 on the PC when it gets ported. This is what made me mostly give up on consoles after Halo 5, and Spiderman has convinced me to abandon them entirely. Except for my Switch, which is still going strong and playing new releases after 6 years. Nintendo knows what’s up. Sony and Microsoft don’t.
You can’t do the math on the price per performance of a PC at one point in time. You have to do the long term math.
I aim for mid tier, so something like $800-1200 if I built everything new. But I rarely tax my system. Here are my specs:
- CPU: Ryzen 5600X - got on sale for <$150
- GPU: RX 6650XT - ~$200 on sale
- RAM: 16GB DDR4
- monitor: 1440p @ 95Hz - ~$300 a few years ago (same can be had for $200-250 today)
I can play most games at reasonable framerates (40+ FPS, most >60) at 1440p. My system is about as good as a console, at least in overall experience (my screen is a foot from my face, so it looks better than 4k at 10x the distance).
I recently upgraded for ~$500, and before that was rocking a Ryzen 1700 (got for programming, not gaming) and GTX 960. I didn’t upgrade because a specific game ran poorly, I upgraded because I wanted better non-gaming perf (compiling code, Wayland on my Linux system, etc).
My kids are just fine on my laptop with an AMD APU (3500U), and most of my most played games would work pretty well on that hardware.
Lol your unpopular opinion was so unpopular you got into a nice little chin wag with someone over if consoles can provide better graphical fidelity than a pc you can build for the same price.
I’m on your side though. I think the console has better specs to cost for just hardware. Steam sales (and humble bundles) will get my dollar significantly further than it ever will on a console. I bet dollars to donuts Dave The Diver will never be cheaper on Switch than Steam.
It’s always been said that consoles are a loss leader, as in the hardware is cheap because they make the money back on the game, right? Judging the overall cost on just the initial hardware expense is mad, because as you say getting PC games (through Steam sales, Humble Bundles, free game giveaways etc) is so much cheaper.
This. The price of graphics cards means my hobby is about to become super expensive for me; I bought a OneXFly, but that’s because the Steam Deck won’t play some of the games I play most often, and I had two RoG Ally systems fry themselves from some sort of quality control issues. I also have to buy a portable bluetooth keyboard and mouse combo since I’ll be playing mostly games like OpenTTD and Stellaris.
People said consoles were dead. That innovative high-end phones are dead. That PC Gaming is dead.
I think they’re going to survive, but by merging. PCs have a role that will keep them viable, but XR goggles are quickly making phone screens obsolete and I think (at least until/unless the economy recovers and/or capitalism finally dies) we’re going to be relying a lot more on portable gaming PC phone hybrids in the future.
IDK, mid tier GPUs like the 6650XT/7600 are pretty affordable at $200-300. That’s about the same as they’ve always been. There was a crazy increase during COVID, but prices are now quite reasonable.
You can make PC gaming expensive, but it doesn’t have to be. I spend about $200-300 on GPU, $100-200 on CPU, and upgrade the rest as infrequently as I can get away with. So something like $500-800 every 5-ish years, or $100-200/year. I probably save that much or more just on the cost of games.
The last gen of GPUs was real bad on price, but it’s gotten better. I’m still paying a little more for my PC parts than I would a current gen console, but I always more than make up for it with lower prices on games and accessories, no online access fees, etc.
My concern with PC gaming right now is that it’s starting to look like a midrange PC won’t get you 60fps anymore, and sub-60 is generally a dealbreaker for me. Maybe it would have been easier if I’d grown up during the fifth console gen when 15fps was common, but 60 was the standard for my consoles for years.
This year it was like every other big PC release was Crysis, and now I gotta wait until my PC is a gen ahead to run them how I want. At least that keeps me on the patient gamer path?
Ah Yes $500 plus $70 a year plus a library that won’t work on the new one in a couple years plus more expensive periferals is definitely much cheaper than a used PC
you’re comparing the most premium priciest possible console experience with the cheapest way to play pc games, they can get used consoles as well, and just like pc they get discounts on old games, not to mention that secondhand games are a thing on console,
Online play is premium? I know this generation does have backwards compatibility but what about the next one? Your used games won’t work when you do decide to upgrade.
That one talks so much around the compatibility of gaming and regular parts, how laptops and smartphones are so much more popular now for non gamers, and fetishism about how expensive everything is.
Gaming on PC used to be just buying a graphics card and putting on your regular computer, maybe upgrading the PSU, now although a low end graphics card on a regular desktop can give you pretty good results, most people don’t have desktops, and notebooks are getting less and less modular.
I also blame how the community seems proud of spending a lot and getting diminishing results. The market sees how people are spending irresponsibily and know they can raise the price as much as they want.
At the end of the day, gaming on a PC ends up cheaper because you own everything, and a good computer makes your life so much easier outside of ganing. When on console, you are kind of forced to play by the company’s rule, at least if you don’t buy everything on the diminishing returns region instead of the cxb region.
Agreed. I am pretty frugal and PC gaming ends up way cheaper than console gaming. I have a Switch and a PC, and just getting the console and 10 games or so is the same price as building a PC. You can get a lot of bang for <$1k. Here’s a rough price list:
- CPU - $150-250 - 7600 or similar
- GPU - $200-300 - 6650 or 7600
- motherboard + RAM - $200 - DDR5 platform
- PSU - $100 - >600W Gold or better from decent brand
- case $50-100
- drive - $50-100 - 1TB NVMe
- keyboard+mouse - $100
- monitor - $200-300 - 1440p 27" or high refresh 24"
This gets you a high quality setup on a modern, upgradable platform for $1000-1300. You could drop this down to $800 or so and still play most modern games at 1080/60.
I recently upgraded my PC and only needed the first two (Ryzen 1700 + GTX 960 to Ryzen 5600x + RX 6650XT) and spent $400-500. I had the PC unchanged for 5 years (spent ~$800 in 2017 for CPU, mobo, GPU, and case; reused the rest), then spent about the price of a new console to bring it mostly up to date.
Games are much cheaper on PC. Since I’m a patient gamer, I can get most AAAs for $10-20 on a typical sale about 2 years after launch, or $5 if it’s in a bundle. On console, I’d probably spend $20-40 used. I also don’t lose my games or peripherals when I upgrade my hardware, and I can use my PC for tons of other stuff.
So PC is still way cheaper for me. Then again, I buy lots of older games, not a handful of newer games, and I’m in it for the long term (I’m married with kids, so I have plenty of space and don’t plan to move).
Surprising how this is actually mildly unpopular, but I agree with you! You just get a more convenient and better experience (relative to the investment, I mean) from consoles nowadays, and you can resell the games if you bought a physical copy. I don‘t think PC gaming is dead, but consoles have the edge for now. Personally, I have a PC and a Switch, haven‘t had a „big“ console since the PS2 but I agree.
PC gaming is way cheaper for me. It has a higher upfront cost (like $1k to get started), but if you buy last gen hardware (e.g. I just bought a 6650XT for a little over $200) and stay around the middle, you can get fantastic value long term.
Since you’re sitting close to a screen, you don’t need 4k and 1440p will probably provide a better overall experience than couch gaming @ 4k anyway. So you don’t need to match consoles in GPU performance, you just need to match them in overall experience. Upgrade every 5 years or so for $500, and you’ll always have a pretty decent, mid tier setup that’ll rival consoles in performance.
So yeah, $500-800 every five years keeps you at or a little above consoles in terms of performance. And games are cheaper (assuming you’re a patient gamer) and don’t lose compatibility when you upgrade, so PC should be cheaper long term.
