PC vs. Console

Post Reply New Topic

PC gamers annoy me sometimes. They always put you down for having a console such as a PS4. They go on about how they have better graphics. Yes you do but you paid 5 times as much to do it and in 3 years you will have to spend 5 times as much again. I know 100% of my Ps4 game will work out of the box. You have to fight with settings for hours because each PC is different. The few PC games I played were a pain for this reason.

And I have not seen anything on PC that is special. It's all indie games (many of which are also on PS4) and ports of PS4/ Xbox games that are 3 years old. Like Xbox has Halo. That is a cool game you can only play on Xbox so you need Xbox. Playstayon has the Last of Us. I don't know of any special PC games since the early 2000's when I was in high school. Maybe I am missing them since I don't game on PC.

Game developers don't even like PC from what I am told. The reason being the customers have VERY high expectations and they often pirate the games. That is easy on PC not so easy on a console.

I don't think there's a massive difference, I always used to play console because I never thought I'd get used to PC controls, but then a game I really wanted to play was put out on early release on PC so I was forced over to PC, I play PC mostly because of the amount of money I had to plough in to play the games I like, I'm used to the controls now and the main game I play tends to get earlier access to DLC and allot more options in the way of mods on PC.

I think it all comes down to what games you play, if you're just playing first person shooters then console is the obvious way to go, if you play games that play better with mods and DLC, or require allot of in-game menu and controller options I'd opt for PC.

There's two sides to this, actually. On one hand: The PC gamers you're speaking of are right. On the other hand: They are, at the same time, wrong. I'll explain a bit. I apologize, this is going to be long. There's alot of things to say about it, it's my special interest, AND I'm not very good at communication. So, sorry about that. If you dont want to read it all, I understand. But I'm going to explain anyway:


Whether there's anything special on PC? Er... I'll just put it this way: 99% of PC games never hit consoles. The difference in selection is MONSTROUS. I have about 450 games just on Steam alone. MAYBE 10 of them are also on consoles. With inferior, buggy versions (the port thing again, porting is notorious for causing bugs).

Honestly, the one and only thing the consoles tend to do is graphics. That's what the AAA devs focus on... and the PCs even do THAT better.

The thing about the consoles is, it's a bloody pointless fight. It's ALWAYS been a pointless fight. Those things, it's not about the quality or the selection: It is, and ALWAYS has been, about giant corporations trying to instill brand loyalty in you to get you to throw more money at them. You're paying, what, $60 for each game? And they're often short. Those guys know they can get away with this.

PCs though, the list of games is damn near endless. ALL of my favorites in the last 10 years (except Mario Maker, and fighting games) have been on the PC.

The reason you dont hear about them so much is because of how they are marketed. On console, with the AAA guys? The games come to YOU. They advertise the funky hell out of them, screaming and jumping up and down in order to get you to buy them. For, again, $60.

On PC? It doesnt work that way. You're expected to browse. Again, the selection is MONSTROUS. Even just the selection from ONE YEAR completely eclipses the selection of an entire console's lifetime... think about that. Think of JUST HOW MANY games that is. So, yeah, you're expected to do the research yourself (which, frankly, isnt all that hard, you just gotta be careful about it).

The benefits: 1, deeper games. 2. MUCH LONGER games. Alot of AAA games will get you anywhere from 4, to 60 hours, of what is often shallow gameplay, and which lately has also often been filled with microtransactions. I'm used to games that can get you 400 hours. Or more. 3. WAY more content, because there's no greedy publishers involved. 4. MORE GENRES. This is the one you never hear about, as console publishers DO NOT like to admit this one. There are entire genres that are completely missing on consoles. Strategy games, for instance. I love strategy games. Both turn-based, or real-time. There are LOTS of them... strategy games for any type of player. Maybe it's a war game, maybe it's a city builder with a focus on resource management. But.... NONE of these ever hit the consoles. None. Why? Bloody hell if I know. There are some freaking amazing games in this genre. But they just dont hit consoles. This is the case with a variety of other genres, too.

But there's also a benefit for developers: They can make whatever THEY want to. This is one of the biggest problems right now. Have you ever wondered WHY there are so many shooters on consoles? Or why so many of those games seem... kinda same-y? Like the same bloody thing recycled over and over? Or why there's, well, a lack of creativity? That's because of the publishers. In order to put out a game on console, you NEED a publisher in most cases. Very, VERY rarely there's an exception. But it's so rare that it's irrelevant. Being locked down to a publisher means that THEY make the decisions. If you have a game idea, and they dont think it's going to make them into instant millionaires? Guess what: You dont get to make the game. You'll make what THEY think works, and if you dont, it's breach of contract.

The reason why indie games have been so huge lately is because NONE of those restrictions are there. None. If you want to make a game about exploding chickens from Mars? You can bloody well go and do so. You can make it, whatever genre you want, sell it on Steam or various other vendors, and nobody is going to tell you that you cant. Even I have had the chance to help make a game (and an expansion to it, and an expansion to a seperate one). It turned out well, actually. We were able to make it into the game that WE wanted it to be. Hell, the head developer gave me alot of authority over the project. That wouldnt happen with a giant publisher breathing down our necks.

There are ALOT of extremely talented devs out there. I mean, BIG talent and skill. They make some truly memorable, amazing things, in any genre you can think of. But they do it because they have the freedom to.

Oh, and I'll point out one other thing here, before someone says something about this. Graphics. "Amazing" graphics are NOT restricted to AAA games anymore. Dont let anyone tell you that.

Let me show you something:

https://imgur.com/a/w4xcP

Click on that, there's just a few screenshots there. The space game is Everspace. The one with all of the grass is Planet Nomads, the one with the fiery dude is City of Brass, and the 2D one is Dead Cells.

All of these games are GORGEOUS. Particularly Everspace. And yes, those are ALL in-game screenshots. The reason some of the Everspace ones have the game's logo on it is because I used the in-game "cinematic screenshot" mode to take them (it lets you freeze the action, and then move the camera around so you can get a good shot).

These are all indie games. These are all made by small teams. Particularly on powerful computers, all of them other than Dead Cells have AAA-level graphics. Even Dead Cells itself is, honestly, bloody gorgeous... you should see it in action. The animation is incredible (there's evidence that it actually IS in 3D, but is using a graphical filter to create a "pixel art" look... nobody is entirely sure).

Also, all four of these games have A: a ton of depth, and B: a TON of content. Hell, Planet Nomads isnt even freaking finished yet, but many players are still getting hundreds of hours out of it. Same with Dead Cells (which is like a 2D Dark Souls mixed with Castlevania). All four of these games are very creative and unique, COMPLETELY ignoring all of the major trends you've probably seen a billion times over. Oh, and Everspace? You can DIG through all of those asteroids if you want. There's labyrinths to fly through, giant freighters to attack. Planet Nomads has *everything*, including the ground, destructible. Things like that are common here.

Obviously, not all games look like these, but... the thing is, it's up to the developers. I, personally, really like 2D games, and I even moreso love retro games. So I buy alot of games that have that sort of look to them. Scanlines and screenglare and everything. Because the devs can do what THEY want, the visuals are more about artstyle and their own preferences than anything else. Whatever your preference is, there is something for you here.


And here we come to the other part: The bit where the PC elitists you've clearly run into are wrong. It's NOT about power. That's seriously not what this is about. Machine specs, power, all of that? BLOODY IRRELEVANT. It has been for years now. Oh yes, they want you to think otherwise, those jerks. But really, that stuff DOESNT MATTER.

If someone has a more powerful PC than you? If their damn computer is stronger than your console? Believe me, it doesnt matter at all. ALL of these machines... even the "weak" ones... have gotten ridiculous these days. Go look at the Wii U, possibly the weakest of all of the consoles right now. But it still has some GORGEOUS games on it, as does the Switch, which is also very weak. You DO NOT NEED crazy power to see amazing stuff anymore. This applies to PCs, too. So, ignore all of that stupid drivel.

This isnt about the machines themselves. This is about the GAMES, and nothing else. These games I've mentioned here? If it were the other way around, if those four games were on console ONLY and not on PC? Well, guess what, that's where I'd be playing them. I dont CARE where they are. I only care that they are good. It's just that, right now, the PC has the biggest selection, and the most variety... THAT, to me, is what this really is all about, and that's the only thing that matters.

Oh, and not just that though: The cost is MUCH lower. $60 for a game? I.... honestly dont remember the last time I payed that much. Some of my all-time favorite games have cost me less than $7. The four games shown in the screenshots are about $20 each. And that's when they're NOT on sale. Ever heard of the infamous "Steam Sales"? Well... you know how, at Gamestop, they'll make this big deal out of offering you like 10% off, as if it's this incredibly generous thing? Yeah, no. The sorts of sales I'm used to are anywhere from 40% to a ridiculous 80%. "Steam Sales" basically means "ridiculous percentage taken off" and they are FREQUENT. Everspace there? I think it cost about $7, not 20, during the Winter Sale that lasted through December. And so on.


So, to me, this is ENTIRELY about two things: 1, much, MUCH better selection, and 2, much better prices.

Oh, and you dont need to like using a mouse and keyboard, either. I grew up with consoles. I still HAVE consoles. I like my PS4 controller, and I'm bloody well going to use it for EVERYTHING. So I do. I have hundreds of games on this PC of mine. I use the controller for nearly all of them. Even ones that dont support controllers, like the PC version of Minecraft (I use software to basically force it to support them anyway, bwahaha....)


And I'll be honest with you here: Despite everything I say here, I'm going to agree with you... PC gamers, the "elite" sort you're probably thinking of, ARE bloody annoying. I actually refuse to deal with them MOST of the time. When I talk gaming with people? I just want to discuss the bloody games. I dont want to hear about specs or which device is better or why some guy is a "noob" for not owning a VR unit or blah blah blah. So many of them are jerks. There, I said it.

Just ignore them. But I do think that PC gaming... of any sort... is worth looking into. I'm going to take a wild guess and say you have a PC of some sort (Windows or Linux, it doesnt matter). You're probably using one to type your post there. If you have a PC, whether it's powerful or kinda cheap? It can handle PC games. Period. Chances are, whatever game you have an interest in, you can probably run it on your machine. There was a time, many years ago, when you REALLY needed to pay attention to your machine specs when buying PC games (holy hell I hated doing that). Those days are over. I dont even check them anymore. I dont know anyone else that does, either.

So what I'm saying here is... dont let yourself be fenced in by the usual rhetoric. Look at what cool stuff might be out there, and consider giving it a try. Whether it's a type of game you're familiar with, or something completely new and unique. Whatever type of game you're looking for, it's out there. Probably alot of it.


Oh, and last thing: Yeah, I do have consoles myself. Nobody says I cant enjoy both, yeah? I like my Wii U alot in particular (Mario Maker in particular, and I loved Splatoon as well). And I freaking ADORE retro consoles. The NES was a masterpiece. And I love my Atari 2600. I dont know why some players think they can ONLY have either console, or PC, never both. What a damned silly notion.

That hasn't been true for a while, now. Technology doesn't advance much anymore, and most AAA PC titles are console ports, so they're designed to run on older hardware anyway.

Besides, even if you do need an upgrade, under most circumstances you'll only need to buy a new video card.


I don't know, I think FPS are a bit more enjoyable with mouse + keyboard, and maybe mods =)

I also feel like shooting distant objects is easier on PC, because the monitor is a lot closer to your face than a TV would be.

But I do enjoy the split-screen multiplayer that console FPS (used to?) provide. PC has never been a fantastic platform for couch multiplayer.

My opinion on the subject has always been you do you, if you want really nice graphics, high frame rates, and have the money buy a PC but if you don't care a console is for you. I'm in the latter camp, I never had the money for a PC and when it comes down to it the games that always caught my attention more were on console anyway.

Nobody who matters really cares about console wars nonsense. I have a fairly powerful PC so that I can play the majority of multi-platform games in the ideal setting, and I have a PS4 and 3DS for games that are exclusive. Honestly, I think the PS4 Slim I own is an impressive piece of hardware with some great games and efficient power consumption/low noise, and the 3DS is uh, it's got good games even though it's massively outdated.

The main reason I like to play on PC is for 60 frames per second. It's far more beneficial than 4K or any other graphical improvement. But there's really nothing at all wrong with playing on console, it's the most cost-effective way to engage with gaming and there is assurance that things will work as they should. That's a good thing.

I will argue with the OP though; it doesn't cost that most to game on PC. The problem is that you either have to put it together yourself, or else face some awful price gouging. Also, it's inevitably less efficient to put together a computer than it is to buy a PS4, but this is because console manufacturers engage in loss-leading with their consoles and then charge a tax on games to make up for it. That's why games on PC are cheaper.

Those are the facts, but don't listen to anyone who actually tries to tell you that you're a dick for playing games on console. Those people are pathetic.

A few points of contention:

1. Piracy isn't as big an issue as it was say a decade ago, now most games are multiplayer friendly and as such you're going to need an account somewhere to do multiplayer. No way you can crack or physically mod (console) your way out of a service.

2. PC rigs don't cost 5x as much as consoles, in fact one could get by paying just as much or less than a console if they merely upgrade their GFX card (all other parts of a computer may be bottlenecks, but usually only slight bottlenecks), a mid-range GFX card (a little better than what goes in a console on average) costs between 200-300 USD depending on options. On top of that the computer offers many more options than just gaming, and many gamers will still watch video, browse the internet, use other software, etc. on their gaming machines.

3. Most games run on PC right out of the box just like a console. What you're talking about is customization, which is half the fun of doing it on a PC and not a console: you can tweak graphics, controls, etc to do exactly what you want, not the 'one size fits all' approach of console development.

Last edited by Aristophanes on 11 Jan 2018, 9:39 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Eh, you dont really need to build the things yourself. I've been doing PC gaming for years now, but I couldnt even insert a damn RAM stick if my life depended on it (have tried it a few times. The end results were violent). And I dont know the difference between different types of video cards or... any other part. But also I just dont actually care enough.

My machines are all built the same way: I go to the Fry's (enormous electronics store), tell them "I need to make a machine for gaming. I dont care enough to choose the parts, you guys do that, just make sure the bloody thing works, preferably without exploding. Here's money." and then they put the thing together for me over the next couple of days. Not a bad payment for the building, really (I get the impression it doesnt actually take them a whole lot of effort).

Frankly, I dont even know what this current one is made of. Dont CARE what it's made of. Well, no, I do care that it has an SSD for a hard drive, because I have no patience (SSD means no load times on ANYTHING, period) but other than that I just let them do whatever.

The thing works, it'll run anything at any level, it gets my stamp of approval. Even if I have no bloody clue what parts are in it.

I would do this the exact same way even if I was going for a low-level machine (like, say, $500). Is how friends of mine do it, too (well, the ones that live near me anyway) and they never pay much more for their PCs than they would for a console.

If you use your money right, it doesnt matter if you put the damn thing together by yourself or not: You're still going to spend WAY less gaming on PC than on console. Particularly considering how freakishly expensive console games are.

I prefer PC because it's frankly a superior platform. I don't mean in terms of having better specs. It's a better platform in terms of consumer choice and flexibility.

On console you have a fairly limited selection of titles, and when the next iteration of consoles comes out you're expected to buy them again if you ever want to play them again, usually with some carrot on a stick feature like running at a slightly higher resolution. PC games tend to remain playable across computer hardware over long periods of time. I generally don't need to wait for someone to release an updated version of a game from the 90s if I suddenly decide to play it on a whim, it should just work.

Additionally games are frequently modded by the community and this leads to experiences that have no equivalent on consoles. This may range from experiences like playing Doom in virtual reality, playing MMOs based on Minecraft, or various experiences that have come recently to console but have existed on PC for many years prior, such as PUBG which has evolved from various mods for ARMA, to MOBAs which have existed since Warcraft 3.

Lastly, console games rarely have any sort of ability to tune them technically. It's not unusual to buy a game on console that runs horribly, even heavily promoted high budget productions like The Last Guardian. On PC this wouldn't be an issue, you could always turn down settings or even subsample. But on console you will always be stuck with terrible performance.

Maybe I should look into a PC. I did not know about a lot of the things you mentioned. I've been loyal to Sony since PS1. Probably falling for their marketing tactics.

Yep, that's exactly how they get ya. Part of their goal is to create that "loyalty", as well as create a rivalry against the others. Effectively, they get their own customer base to both accept and even defend a huge variety of nasty/shady/greedy practices this way. Not to mention accepting it as the "norm", because as a rule it IS the norm on consoles these days. It's outright insidious. And heck, some of these publishers are getting really, really nasty these days. Heard of that crap with EA recently? The whole Battlefront fiasco? That whole thing exploded, badly. It's a tornado of pure greed, and was exposed for exactly what it is. It has lawmakers now examining the whole lootbox thing to see if it counts as actual gambling (which would cause restrictions on it). MOST of the game's content is locked away in these damn lootboxes, and you get content naturally at such a slow pace that it's estimated that it'd take 2000 hours (that's not a typo, I really do mean 2000) to unlock everything... but it might take even longer, because lootboxes WILL give you duplicates. So the entire game is engineered around getting you to dish out constant money for a game you already paid $60 for.

And the truly devious part? They've conditioned alot of players for this. They actually have people, normal consumers who have been hit by this, who will sit there and DEFEND the company. "It's just cosmetic" or "costs of making a game are so high that they need to do this" are two lines I've heard about a billion times now. Despite that, well... part of the fiasco is that after enough outrage, EA turned off the lootboxes (temporarily). They then immediately followed this by telling investors that doing so "wouldnt harm the game's profit margin at all". In other words, they DONT need that extra cash to make a game of that level. They never did. But they've almost brainwashed a great many players into defending that anyway. Even more sad, many of the "outraged" players will still buy EA's damn games anyway. Same goes for Bungie with Destiny 2 right now (an equal level of greed, however they've managed to keep themselves out of the limelight for the time being). Same type of defensive players for them, too. It's pathetic. NEVER believe what the Big Guys tell you. Never.

Whereas the norm for me is dealing with developers that actually care, to the point where they will directly interact with people. Hell, for one of my favorite games (Unexplored, it's a real-time roguelike, I freaking love it) the developer invited me to help out with internal testing, as well as asking me to help come up with suggestions for content, and suggestions for solutions to problems that appeared. A dev like that actually cares. The Big Guys would never even consider that.

Ugh. I'll stop rambling about that for now though. As you can likely tell, the whole topic of corporate greed sets me off just a bit.


Anyway, if you decide to look into PC gaming, and would like some suggestions on games to look at in any genre, feel free to ask.

One big piece of advice though: Be CAREFUL on buying stuff. There's loads of great stuff, definitely. Steam in particular (the biggest vendor) is a great store overall (and the client program is also very useful). However, they are TERRIBLE at curation. Really, really bad at it. It's not just the Big Guys that can be shady and nasty... even some indie "developers" can be that way, creating games that are effectively scams. There's all sorts of info out there about dev groups that do this. Look up a developer by the name of Digital Homicide for an example of what I mean... there's a whole twisted saga behind them. They are practically a freaking legend at this point for all the shady crap they have done, and the warped series of events that they caused.

Whenever buying something on PC, do the research a bit. Read *everything* on the store page, have a look at the videos, look at some of the player reviews (the longer ones, preferrably), and maybe check out some video footage on Youtube. As long as you do those things, you can avoid the bad stuff and stick to the good. It's not at all hard to do or even really time consuming, but it's baffling just how many people dont even bother to do this, which of course is what the shady jerks rely on.

I've heard many people say that Steam has bad curation, and I'm not sure what they're comparing to. I don't know of any other large distributor of software with better curation. Whenever I go on the Steam home page there is always a bunch of stuff on there similar to what I've been playing and potentially something I'd buy.

Trust me, it's bad.

Look up "asset flippers" for the very beginning in a loooooooong saga of scams and general screwups that tend to drown Steam's overall store. Or there's the games that are basically "achievement spam", which is almost a scam itself. Or there's the early access games that never get finished, or there's the whole Greenlight thing (what a mess THAT was) or now there's "Steam Direct", which replaced Greenlight and may actually be even worse, if that's possible. The list goes on and on. Oh, and cant forget the times when a developer asset-flips THEIR OWN GAMES into "new" games (Digital Homicide, again, is a great example). Or times when store pages outright lie about what a game contains (nobody that runs the store actually checks any of this), or.... you get the idea. It really is a long list. Valve does nothing to stop any of this.

And even the store page itself isnt good. Oh, it might seem so at first, but... no. It's... it's terrible. TERRIBLE. It's gotten so bloody awful that I stopped using it, and mostly go there just out of morbid curiosity to see if it's gotten any worse. Where do I find my games? ...The Activity Feed. No, seriously. That's where I get them. The Activity Feed *is* the store to me, because the actual store is damn near useless in terms of actually finding stuff.

Let me put it this way: in the past year, I've found a number of games that have become easily some of my all-time favorites, period. Things so good that they still are at the top of the list even even though I've been doing this for 30+ years and they had ALOT of other games they needed to jump over. If I had only used the store page itself? I would have missed every. Single. Freaking. One of them. Why? Because they never appeared on it. MOST games, and I mean "nearly all" never hit the storefront page. Before I quite realized this, I missed out on... tons of awesome stuff, which I didnt spot until someone more experienced than me pointed it out.

Heck, have you ever tried to check new releases? I dont mean "new and trending". I mean the ACTUAL list of new releases? Dont know how? Yeah, most users dont. Most dont even know it exists. You have to scroll all the way down the front store page, until you see the "new and trending" list. There's a tiny button there that says "See more: New releases". Click that, new screen. Scroll down till you reach nearly the same damn list you just left. Then you have to click the "New Releases" tab (yes, I know you just clicked a button that says that, but it did not ACTUALLY take you there). And then you have to scroll down AGAIN to "All New Releases". Click that. That, there, is the ACTUAL list. Think of just how much crap you have to click through just to get there... on any store page designed by someone still possessing sanity, this'd be a huge obvious button on the front and that's it. In fact, it used to be. But now? All sorts of awesome things get buried in there, and you'll never see them because Steam's algorithm plows right over them, and the storefront setup makes it nigh-impossible to browse. And even once you DO get to the actual list, it's a badly set up mess that sometimes doesnt even work right. AND, on top of that, it's STILL hard to find the awesome stuff because Steam allows all the crap to pile into the same list.

So in order to find games, I utilize the activity feed (watching the purchases of a loooong list of contacts) as well as Youtube and certain other sites. The actual store pages.... nope. Only during a sale, and even then, only barely.

Oh, I could try plowing through the actual new releases list myself, but.... yeah that's when the problems begin showing themselves.

Now, I DO use the Discovery Queue, but this only rarely leads to stuff I actually buy. If you're in that, and you actually look at the reasons why it's displaying a particular game, MOST of them say "this is being shown to you because it is popular". Not "because you might like it". Or sometimes, "just to see if you might be interested", the logic of which could be summed up as "???" as this never seems to have an effect on future choices that the thing makes. I mean, geez... how many times has the bloody thing tried to get me interested in things like CS:GO that I would (or already do) utterly loathe? Too many times.

That's why when discussing PC gaming, I always tell people "You need to look around for yourself, to really see what's out there". Just letting the Steam Store throw things at you isnt much different than letting the Big Greedy Publishers do so (and sometimes, it IS the publishers doing it... "new and trending" sometimes just means "there was enough money involved").

Most people I know have been on Steam a long time, and like myself they mostly do indie games (whether they're big ones or small ones), having been completely disillusioned by AAA games. None of them use the store front any more than I do, as they've already learned this lesson. THAT is why you hear about bad curation so much. It's coming from those that have learned enough to know about it. Those that came here for the expanded selection, not just the stuff that gets violently tossed at them.

They have room for improvement, but as it stands I think Steam has by far the best curation of any software distribution platform. I feel what you're really not liking is that Steam has pretty much everything on it, including a lot of junk. But that has nothing to do with curation, unless that junk is being promoted to you over things you'd be interested in. Unless you're buying a lot of junk I don't see why Steam would ever show it to you. I have never seen any of the stuff that you're talking about, because Steam knows what I like to buy and shows me that instead.

It's not as I am just buying AAA games either, so I don't get the argument that Steam just promotes Big Publishers. Most of the games I play are indie and my store home page is typically just other indie games similar to what I've been playing.

All of the complaints I hear leveled against Steam are significantly bigger problems on other platforms. Windows Store especially is inundated with junk mobile games on its front page mixed among proper games, GOG has just the standard new, popular, high selling lists, and don't even get me started on mobile app stores. I'm pretty sure I could look at the top app lists on mobile stores in five years time and it'll be a lot of the same stuff that's on there now.

Oh, I absolutely wont disagree with you that other platforms are worse. The Windows Store is a bloody disaster, Humble Bundle is more messy by the day, and I dont even want to talk about Itch.Io and it's bloody client from the 7th circle of Hell. And GoG, just.... ugh. Did you know THAT one actually denies games sometimes because "we have too many things in that genre" or "well that other genre over there isnt very popular"? I just... ugh. I'll just say I witnessed an "incident" with them.

That doesnt stop Steam's problems, though. Curation doesnt mean "what it shows you", it means "what they allow onto the store at all". Obviously some of these vendors go WAY too far with curation (GoG has this problem, as does a few others, making it very hard for some devs to get their games onto them), but Steam doesnt do ANYTHING with it, is the issue.

Note that it's possible I'm actually using the wrong word here. "Curation" is the word I've always heard in this context. As in, them going through a process of what they'll allow on the store VS what they wont (what they'll SHOW you is entirely seperate). Valve doesnt even check the games, which is why you end up with the asset-flipper hordes.

Granted this does have alot of benefits to the developers. It sure as hell makes it easy to patch the damn things. And one way or another overall, Steam is still the best of the vendors, period, which is something I say often. Including beating out Gamestop (I hate Gamestop at this point) and physical vendors. But yeah, the curation problem is still there... usually I bring it up to people in an effort to encourage them to be careful of their purchases. I've seen, WAY too many times, where someone will buy something WITHOUT REALLY LOOKING AT IT and then later go "OMG how could they sell me this crap? Argh argh argh!! !" and then I look at the pages for it myself and see like a million problems, and wonder why they bought the thing in the first place.

And then that same person goes around telling others "Yeah dont buy such-and-such entire TYPE of game from here! THEY ARE ALL BAD because I had exactly this one terrible experience which was my own fault, and that is somehow evidence of them all being bad!"

I dont understand consumers sometimes, I really dont.

There is probably some middle ground that would make more people happy, but I am trepidatious at the idea of increased restrictions with a store that has such presence in the industry. I would much prefer to see everything, including all the junk on Steam, than to have someone making decisions what can go on there. It's a slippery slope, but not much further down that slope you have stores like Apple using that to engage in anti-competitiveness and occasionally to push their business, political and moral agenda.

When I have my own government making tons of decisions on what my little impressionable mind can handle, I don't need a business doing that too.