Console gamers are just casual gamers who degrades gaming society as a whole

[larch]

Simple - the non-gamer would have to go out and buy a console in order to play a console game, but the family PC would already be set up and waiting at home. Popping in a disk and installing a game really isn't rocket-science, and the average PC user no doubt possesses such knowledge.

They do hence the console hardware and software is outselling that of the PC platform 10 to 1. As proven by COD: Modern Warfare2

Souce: http://www.amazon.com/Call-of-Duty--...M1ZS14M65W68A7

What happened to 8 in 10 households? As I've stated before - none of your figures posted contain essential sub-markets of the PC gaming market, thus making them useless considering we're dealing with hundreds of millions of people here, not a few thousand.

Why must I prove your point. Is it not your job to go find the to counter my argument isntead of saying my friends do this so it must be true for everyone else?

Sigh...you really don't seem to be getting my point. How is a casual gamer purchasing a AAA title damaging the market? I'm arguing that based on console sales figures, the best-selling games are advantageous to gaming society, not detrimental.

No one has been arguing about the fact that the best-selling games are advantageous to gaming society, not detrimental. I am arguing the fact that you seem to be under the illusion that causal gamers only play on PC`s and wont give a console the light of day based of your "friends" theories".

No they don't. Your facts mean nothing as they're grossly biased towards the console market. I've played around 40 MMO's...at least half of those were free downloads with microtransactions. None of those account creations of mine are on your lists, making them worthless.

Grossly biased? Those are based on actual market research. If they are so biased prove them wrong and counter point me.

But when you have 70 million people playing Farmville hat makes money via micro-transactions.

We already debunked your little 70 million myth to be 11 million.

In conclusion

In conclusion I suggest you go do your research properly. What your friends do hardly counts for anything in a big market like the video games industry. And randomly thumb sucking stats and quoting them as the truth hardly makes your side of this discussion valid. Were I have at least gone to the effort done my research and quoted sources.

Good day dear sir this discussion is pretty much over from my side.

[larch]

Wrong, actually. There were loads of EyeToy games. Sure, it wasn't fully integrated into the console, but that's not a prerequisite here. Who introduced full motion control in mainstream consumer video games? Sony, with the EyeToy (although you could say the Nintendo Power Glove, lolol).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyetoy

Like I said yes the eyetoy was the first motion sensing piece of hardware. But it was not integrated and it was a optional extra. And it was not the primary means by which you control the PS2. Unlike the Wii.

LOL and yes power glove but it had a cord and no motion sensing whatsoever. It was a console controller on your arm lol. I still actually have one of those.

Not arguing the fact that it was the first, what I am saying is the Wii was the first ever motion controlled console.

[phoenix]

My quick summary of this thread: some cogent debate, but to me just another elitist bunfight.