Telengard
Arcane
In answer to the OP, people blame consoles because in general they like to name an enemy and then foist the blame for everything on them. It's kind of humanity's thing. It keeps the hate simple. Markets are far too complex entities to be represented by that model - one single actor very rarely has such an identifiably solo influence on everything, but like people care about details.
Howsoever, it is true that console limitations are one factor that influences game development. One factor among many, but definitively still a factor. Now, the people who blame console limitations broadly speaking fall into two camps: 1) those who blame consoles for the limitations they place on UI and on gameplay (the good people), and 2) those who blame consoles for the limitations they place on graphical advancement (the horrible people).
For the former group, consoles place limitations on UI for the reasons already discussed, but then there is the limitation on gameplay. But it is not direct limitations on gameplay, as so many like to claim. Instead, those limitation are a byproduct. A byproduct of the horrible people mentioned above. In service to the graphical Decliners, console devs play fast and loose with the graphical capabilities of consoles. To put it in basic terms, console machines are a fixed tech, so resources are a fixed limitation. They are a computer that is the same and will be the same for a long time. And if all of those fixed resources are devoted to processing shiny graphics in order to please the Decliners, then there isn't a lot left over to run anything else. To take but one example, strategy grognards are quite happy with units represented by colored squares with symbols in the center, whereas rpg players want every strand of hair in theirdolly avatar rendered in exquisite detail. So, grognards get to have simplistic-looking but quite complex games wherever they play their games, while rpg fans are stuck with shit, though it's shit with very pretty hair.
However, the trick for the good gameplay-centered folks is: there are a lot of limitations that come into play once graphics becomes a priority, not just the console-y nature of the game. After all, people's pocketbooks are not endless; they will only buy the latest toys so many times, and that's even when they're not feeling the pinch of a recession. And when a dev wants to sell 20 million copies of his game, he's got to look at what's the below average specs of all the PCs currently connected to Steam. Because after all, only the horrible Decliners are going to upgrade their computers just to see the latest level of detail on the hair follicles of the dolly in the latest dumb powerhouse blockbuster. And while there are a lot of nerds who of that ilk, they're aren't 20 million of them.
Which plays into the other side of the console limitation - the graphics. For the Decliners, PC tech is always progressing, while consoles are static. And thus, they insist, graphics would constantly progress along with PC tech if there wasn't the anchor of the fixed unit that is the console around devs' necks. That, if the consoles weren't there, PC games would be free to race ahead like they once did in the 90s, making you, the players, buy a cutting edge computer every 2 or 3 years. Of course, that 90s tech quest ended the lives of a number of different companies who spent a whole bunch of money scooping up all the latest tech advancements to introduce into their game, and so spending money hand over fist to acquire and develop the materials to have the game's characters' individual strands of hair wave around in 3d, and then their game turned out not to be a mega blockbuster in sales. being on the cutting edge costs a lot of money, so not being a sales blockbuster means you just gutted the company's finances.
Not to mention, as more and more money gets dumped into graphical tech, the budgets of games begin ballooning, quickly sending the costs spiraling out of the range of personal financing. Which means, instead of companies founded and fully invested by the owner, dev companies are forced to begin looking towards investment money to pay for development. And investors are horrible people - avoid them whenever you can. The greater the percentage of money a dev takes from their ilk, the more the investors are going to have a say in how that money gets spent. And how they want it spent is in safe bets, so that they can guarantee a return on their investment. Or in other words - games like the latest 20 million-selling mega blockbuster with all the latest hair details. Not to mention, that also mean you need a game with broad appeal, not niche, since the only way to get to 20 million and thus pay for all those pretty hair options is to reach the masses.
And so, the Decliners like to claim we could have even shinier and prettier hair than we do right now, if only those consoles with their fixed hardware would just get out of the way and so allow the PC market to get into another tech race (which inevitably ends with most of the good companies dead, since a tech race favors companies able to make the prettiest hair, not the prettiest gameplay - so, ginormous companies like EA). So they blame consoles for eliminating their chance to play with even prettier dollies than they have right now.
Howsoever, it is true that console limitations are one factor that influences game development. One factor among many, but definitively still a factor. Now, the people who blame console limitations broadly speaking fall into two camps: 1) those who blame consoles for the limitations they place on UI and on gameplay (the good people), and 2) those who blame consoles for the limitations they place on graphical advancement (the horrible people).
For the former group, consoles place limitations on UI for the reasons already discussed, but then there is the limitation on gameplay. But it is not direct limitations on gameplay, as so many like to claim. Instead, those limitation are a byproduct. A byproduct of the horrible people mentioned above. In service to the graphical Decliners, console devs play fast and loose with the graphical capabilities of consoles. To put it in basic terms, console machines are a fixed tech, so resources are a fixed limitation. They are a computer that is the same and will be the same for a long time. And if all of those fixed resources are devoted to processing shiny graphics in order to please the Decliners, then there isn't a lot left over to run anything else. To take but one example, strategy grognards are quite happy with units represented by colored squares with symbols in the center, whereas rpg players want every strand of hair in their
However, the trick for the good gameplay-centered folks is: there are a lot of limitations that come into play once graphics becomes a priority, not just the console-y nature of the game. After all, people's pocketbooks are not endless; they will only buy the latest toys so many times, and that's even when they're not feeling the pinch of a recession. And when a dev wants to sell 20 million copies of his game, he's got to look at what's the below average specs of all the PCs currently connected to Steam. Because after all, only the horrible Decliners are going to upgrade their computers just to see the latest level of detail on the hair follicles of the dolly in the latest dumb powerhouse blockbuster. And while there are a lot of nerds who of that ilk, they're aren't 20 million of them.
Which plays into the other side of the console limitation - the graphics. For the Decliners, PC tech is always progressing, while consoles are static. And thus, they insist, graphics would constantly progress along with PC tech if there wasn't the anchor of the fixed unit that is the console around devs' necks. That, if the consoles weren't there, PC games would be free to race ahead like they once did in the 90s, making you, the players, buy a cutting edge computer every 2 or 3 years. Of course, that 90s tech quest ended the lives of a number of different companies who spent a whole bunch of money scooping up all the latest tech advancements to introduce into their game, and so spending money hand over fist to acquire and develop the materials to have the game's characters' individual strands of hair wave around in 3d, and then their game turned out not to be a mega blockbuster in sales. being on the cutting edge costs a lot of money, so not being a sales blockbuster means you just gutted the company's finances.
Not to mention, as more and more money gets dumped into graphical tech, the budgets of games begin ballooning, quickly sending the costs spiraling out of the range of personal financing. Which means, instead of companies founded and fully invested by the owner, dev companies are forced to begin looking towards investment money to pay for development. And investors are horrible people - avoid them whenever you can. The greater the percentage of money a dev takes from their ilk, the more the investors are going to have a say in how that money gets spent. And how they want it spent is in safe bets, so that they can guarantee a return on their investment. Or in other words - games like the latest 20 million-selling mega blockbuster with all the latest hair details. Not to mention, that also mean you need a game with broad appeal, not niche, since the only way to get to 20 million and thus pay for all those pretty hair options is to reach the masses.
And so, the Decliners like to claim we could have even shinier and prettier hair than we do right now, if only those consoles with their fixed hardware would just get out of the way and so allow the PC market to get into another tech race (which inevitably ends with most of the good companies dead, since a tech race favors companies able to make the prettiest hair, not the prettiest gameplay - so, ginormous companies like EA). So they blame consoles for eliminating their chance to play with even prettier dollies than they have right now.