Well, according to an update on 1-UP, it turns out that this Xfire deal was only for one game, Untold Legends: Dark Kingdom, and it is NOT meant to be the be-all end-all online solution for all PS3 games. Furthermore, the deal is between Sony Online Entertainment, and not Sony Computer Entertainment, which is the actual group that is handling the PS3. Now, things could change, and SCE could change their minds, but still... this is all very bizarre.
When I first heard of this news, I thought it was a good move by Sony. Their strengths are in hardware, not so much with software. Yes, SOE is handling EQ and Star Wars: Galaxies, but those are arguably not to be proud about (at least of late). So partnering with Xfire seems like a great idea. Maybe the start of some good news (finally) for Sony?
But upon hearing that this partnership really is limited to just one game? Huge steps backwards, once again. Does this mean we can expect every game to utilize a different network model? Will I have different friends lists and achievements with EA and Square-Enix, with some games not utilizing anything? It's also really late in development, so does that mean all of the network features Sony is claiming to be working on, are really really behind?
I was under the impression, as was many others probably, that there was going to be one network, and the reason why we weren't hearing anything about it, was because the devs were hard at work on it. (Compared to the 360, where MS spent a large amount of time showing off Live functionality at the E3 prior to launch) But news like this makes it seem like Sony doesn't really know what it's doing after all.:P
If Wikipedia is right and by the end of 2006 only ten percent of American's TVs are expected to be HDTVs, wouldn't it be wiser to switch those numbers around and have 20% high end, 80% "low" end? Is Japan's HDTV adaption rate really that much more than the US'? Am I missing something about what the $600 version offers that makes it much more interesting than the $500 besides the HDMI port?
The premium version also boasts a larger hard-drive.
The 80/20 convention is still probably the right idea, since it's the early adopters that are most willing to buy a console at launch. They're probably much more likely to own an HDTV, over the general public. Furthermore, even if they don't have an HDTV, the mindset of an early adopter is to "future-proof" themselves and get the console with the most features, even if they may not use them all yet. It may be costly to upgrade later. And finally, there's the general fanboy opinion that the core version of any console is the "sucky one" and anyone who got suckered into buying is a "n00b". So there's that to consider as well.
In fact, one of the complaints with the 360 launch is that there were too many Core systems created, instead of Premium ones. People were very much willing to fork over the extra $100 for the Premium one (especially since it had an HD and the Core did not), but were forced to get the Core. It's never a good thing when you force your customers to spend less than they want to.
Sony (along with Microsoft) is one of the most trusted brands in the world. The incessant cackling and yapping from informed or opinionated sources on the Internet is like a toy whistle blowing during a rocket launch. The general public knows very little, unfortunately. Just because $site_you_read talks about Sony (or Microsoft or anything) derisively, doesn't mean the general populace shares that opinion, even if your site has stories bashing these companies every day.
That's a good point. However, I'd have to say that a PS3 delay/shortage *IS* in the area of affecting the general populace's opinion.
When little Johnny's dad gets a lot of heat because his X-mas present ended up not being available until January or February, that's a sign of the general public's opinion of the brand starting to drop. Of course, it will probably take more than one negative item to really damage brand trust. After all, their PS2 shipped to a huge shortage as well, and there was a lot of damaging press and opinion at the time.
This delay/shortage is definately going to be more damaging than the rootkit fiasco (which was relatively unknown to most non-techie folks). But if the PS3 goes on to have a solid life (as the PS2 did, after its rocky start), then the public will be quick to forget.
8-bit to 16-bit (NES to SNES): remarkable graphics upgrade, changes the experience 16-bit to 3D (SNES to PS1): remarkable graphics upgrade, changes the experience 3D to FMV (PS1 to PS2): reasonable graphics upgrade, minor experience change FMV to HD FMV (PS2 to PS3): marginal graphics upgrade, no experience change
To be fair, you are missing some of the other improvements that came with the leap from PS1 to PS2-era consoles, and PS2 to PS3. With the PS2/Xbox/GC, yes you got some decent graphical updates, but with the faster processors also came things like much better physics modelling and the beginnings of multiplayer over the Internet (Xbox Live and Sony Online). Also, some may argue that there just wasn't the processing power to do a sandbox game like GTA, on the hardware of a PS1. I'm not talking about graphical updates, but improvements to gameplay.
With the PS3/360/Wii generation, I think what's big is going to be the network support. All of the console makers are making huge inroads into this. You've got all the Xbox Live Marketplace, Live Arcade stuff that Microsoft is doing now. Sony and Nintendo have both talked about their online networks. You also have Nintendo's Virtual Console. Those are all definate experience changes. This is in addition to the controller improvements that Nintendo alone is bringing in (and no, I do not count Sony's motion controller as being particularly innovative).
True, they may be things you don't care for (some folks don't want to interact with other people at all, or could give a rat's ass over downloadable features/games), but there's definately a market for it. So when comparing console generations, I don't think that's something anyone should ignore either.
In the end HD and all its accoutrements won't be rapidly adopted because they don't offer any increase in convenience. If people cared about quality, we'd still have big movie theatres playing 75mm films, but people preferred more choices and more show times.
I have to grudgingly agree with you. When I got the new HDTV and programming, I was stoked. For a long time, all I would watch were shows in HDTV, because of the amazing clarity. I bragged about it to all my co-workers and friends, and it was always the guys that were in envy.
Of course, my wife barely even notices the difference between HD and SD. It basically looks the same to her. And that's quite amazing, because SDTV on an HDTV looks even crappier than normal. Our old SDTV upstairs still gets a lot of use, because it's more than good enough for her.
Now, try getting her to notice the difference between regular DVD and a high-def DVD (Blu-ray or HD-DVD)? Might as well give up now. Or she may notice a small difference and just not care.
However, what she DOES love is the DVR functionality we got a few years ago. That's definately a sign that convenience > quality for many folks.
Good god people. As much as it's fun to bash Sony or make fun of Nintendo's Wii, can we stop with all these endless predictions? Lists of potential games, rumors of developers coming and going, theories on how the Wii-mote will handle (both positive and negative)...
Just wait a few months until the consoles actually ship, and people have an actual chance to check out the games. Till then, everyone go back to WoW or their 360 or PS2 or GC and play some games.
It's easy. Just stay logged in.
on
More Wiki Than Ever
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I don't see how this breaks it at all. All it requires is one change on your part: stay logged into Wikipedia. Now, I don't know how hard or feasible this is to you, but it seems to make sense for me.
I, as well as most other folks, just use Wikipedia as "read-only", to look things up. I don't really envision myself being the helpful type, as you are. So there's really no reason for us to be logged in.
But for those like you who want to help Wikipedia, just stay logged in! I don't know if they have a "keep me logged in" feature, but I imagine they do... or should now. Otherwise, you're right... it'd be a pain in the butt for helpers to have to log in every time they visit the site.
In any case, it saddens me that WoW is most people's experience with an MMO -- the leveling is good in WoW, but the end-game is quite possibly the most horrid implimentation I have ever witnessed. From the raiding situation, to the WORST PvP ranking/rewards system you could make, to the horrible mudflation that's already ruined what used to be decent PvP -- it's now to the point where if you keep losing, all you need to do is PvE, and then your gear will be so much better you literally CAN'T lose.
I don't think it's really sad that WoW is a lot of people's "first MMO" (it was for my wife, while I dabbled in both UO and EQ). It's definately a great introduction to that whole genre. WoW does a phenomenal job with the level 1-59 phase, although I completely agree that game at level 60 is very different, and puts off a lot of people. That said, I think some of the changes upcoming in the Burning Crusade expansion will be very welcome (raids toned down dramatically and the honor system revamped). Blizzard's done a great job with the marketing of BC too, dropping little hints here and there, and basically keeping a lot of people still interested in WoW, because they think "BC is right around the corner!".
Anyway, back to the "my first MMO" idea... I think what WoW has done is open up a lot of doors for other developers now. You've got this massive playerbase who now gets the general idea of what an MMO is and how to play one. My wife, who never would have considered playing MMOs before, since they were usually too complicated, is much better suited to something like a Warhammer or D&D Online game. The danger though is that yous till can't go too complex, otherwise those gamers will just flock back to WoW, or whatever the next casual-friendly MMO comes out.
Since then, I've bought a bunch of titles, and have been playing videogames more than I have in *years*. And why? Because they're *fun*, damnit! They're focused on gameplay, rather than flashy visuals and gratuitous violence and low-polygon boobs in skimpy clothing. And they let me play in short bursts, rather than requiring hundreds of hours of steady attention (the 30 or so hours I've put into S2 is an oddity for me).
So, for me, the Wii looks like a dream come true! Finally, here we might have a console focused on enjoyable gameplay targeting individuals like myself, with a nice, simplified control scheme (I hate hate HATE modern console controllers), and to top it off, access to all those old titles I played as a kid (and continue to enjoy on emulators).
I think there's definately a growing trend to address the "casual" gamer. I say that in quotes, because a lot of casual gamers probably play games as much as a typical hardcore gamer, but the types of games being played (and the time span, short bursts vs long hours) is quite different.
Nintendo's done a fabulous job addressing this need with the DS, and hopefully with the upcoming Wii and the Virtual Console. MS is doing very well with the Xbox Live Arcade (although I am biased on this). I have to imagine that Sony is cooking up something similar for the PS3. So it's good to see that all the companies are realizing that they can't just cater soley to the 18-35 male who loves to shoot things and perform carjackings. That said, the reason why there are still a lot of those gratuitous violence and sex games is because they still sell well (take a look at GTA, for example). I'm fine with developers focusing on where the money is, after all they're only around to make money. But there should still be focus on other types of games, and it's good to see that this is starting to happen a lot more now.
Yup. No amount of management or QA is going to save a product which has incompetent programmers working on it. Most likely, it's those same programmers that are going to fix the bugs that QA finds. If they do a crappy job of coding the product, their bug fix is likely going to be crappy. Unfortunately, it's only a matter of time before a badly written bug fix gets through QA (everyone is human), but still impacts real-world customers.
The whole team has to be confident. Your programmers have to work well with QA, and also with the program managers, and all vice versa. And the management has to understand that good software/games take time. But the entire team also has to realize the business side of things as well. There *are* times that known bugs, unfortunately, are released.
The reason why very large, complex programs often do not have serious problems, is because everyone knows how serious it is, and it isn't shipped until it passes a very thorough, very strict, QA process. At the end of the day, games are just games, so (for better or worse), the QA process involved is not as strict as it probably ought to be.
Yeah, that's a very interesting "what if" scenario. I wonder, if there was really one console at the time owned by both Sony and Nintendo ("GameStation" perhaps?), would Microsoft decided to jump in? Perhaps not. Also, if Sega flamed out the same way it did, then that'd mean we'd effectively be left with one console to rule them all.
I wonder if that situation, how long Nintendo and Sony would have remained partners, or whether or not it's just inevitable for them to split. Would successive consoles have improved much over the older ones? Would we have gotten more innovation and better games, with developers better able to focus on just one platform, or less (because competition can drive innovation too).
I know it took a helluva long time for Nintendo to upgrade its portable platform. How many iterations of the original GameBoy did we have to go through, before we finally got the GBA SP? When Sony announced they were jumping into the business with the PSP, we started seeing a more cool innovations come out, like the DS. (Although it's hard to tell how early Nintendo had been working on the DS, before news of the PSP hit)
And I'll throw one more zany "what if" scenario. What if instead of Microsoft, it was Apple who decided to jump into the gaming business?
Are you a Nintendo fanboy? I ask because your reply really makes it like you are.:P
Disclaimer: I am biased (see my profile), but I'm a gamer first and foremost. I love my DS (and for a long time, I was a Nintendo fanboy, during the SNES/N64 era), play a ton of PS2 games (mostly due to my love of RPGs), and there are a number of 360 games that I enjoy (most recent is Dead Rising), so I consider myself pretty platform agnostic. Now that said, here's my response.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, these devices were poor because the technology sucked and they brought nothing to the games. The wiimote, OTOH, looks to be a genuinely interesting innovation in 3D control (in the console arena, anyway), facilitated by significantly improved motion sensing technology.
Have you played with the Wii controller yet? Have you had it at home, and played it for hours on end? Over the course of at least a several weeks? I'm guessing the answer is no. I can give you the "genuinely interesting innovation", but I don't think anyone can say that its motion technology is "significantly improved" yet. Well, okay, the tech behind it might be better, but no one yet can say that it's actually good enough for practical use yet. So can fanboys stop quoting it as if it's true?
I certainly *hope* that it's vastly improved over previous motion sensors, but I'm not going to give Nintendo (or anybody) benefit of the doubt. In fact, I think what the fanboys are doing is awful for Nintendo. They're building all this tremendous hype for a control scheme that is relatively unproven yet. Please don't set Nintendo up for failure. Let the Wii stand out on its own.
I think the fanboy hype is one of the reasons why the PSP isn't doing so well. There was all this coverage on how sexy the screen was, how it could do so much, how Nintendo was finally going to lose the portable business. Yet when it finally shipped, the system itself (and its games) didn't live up to the hype.
I completely agree. But I really don't think the wiimote, or Nintendo's 'non-gamer' strategy are reasons to be skeptical. It all comes down to one thing: the software. The real question is, will fun, quality games come out for the Wii that will be able to leverage it's capabilities, while appealing to Nintendo's target market. If, like the DS, the answer ends up being 'yes', I think Nintendo has a real shot and revitalizing a (IMHO) stagnating market. Otherwise, it's unclear to me what could happen to this next generation, as, even in the absence of a successful Nintendo, I think we'll see a decline in Sony's market share, while MS's 360 is languishing in mediocrity.
BTW, that last line is what really makes me think you're a Nintendo fanboy.:)
Although we both agree that Nintendo/Wii fanboys can be over-zealous at times, I think you've actually got your reasoning backwards as to the reasons to be skeptical. If anything, I'm confident that the software, the games by Nintendo will be good. They're always good. It seems like no matter what year it is, no matter the platform, Nintendo knows how to make fun, quality games. That's almost a given nowadays.
I still think the skeptical part is the platform itself, as it's always been with Nintendo. There are just too many open questions with it. First and foremost in my mind is external developer support. We know Nintendo can make good games, but can the 3rd parties do it? Back when I was a kid, I was always defending the N64 as the superior platform to the PlayStation (boy was I stubborn!). I didn't think much of the difficulties developers were having with the media format (cartridge vs CD), or the licensing battles fought with Nintendo. But it definately did matter, and the battle was probably won the second Square announced they were now exclusive to Sony, and not Nintendo.
This time around, it's Nintendo and Microsoft that the 3rd parties are now eyeing instead, rather than being tie
Yeah, no kidding! It's like that other gimmicky thing they came up with that was supposed to appeal to non-gamers... the, whatsitcalled, the... DS! Yeah, that's it! Man, where's that ridiculous thing, now, I wonder...
There are plenty of other "gimmicky" things that Nintendo has released that quickly went no where. Anyone else remember the Virtual Boy? Or the Power Glove? You could also mention the Power Pad, which got popular for a while, but unfortunately nothing ever came of it. (You could say that it eventually morphed into dance pads, but Nintendo's not the one responsible for the popularity of games like Dance Dance Revolution)
It's still way too early for either critics or fanboys of the Wii to declare any sort of victory. It is a bit tiring to hear fanboy after fanboy laud over how Nintendo can do no wrong, and how the Wii will conquer all. As interesting as I think the Wii is (and I will probably buy one at launch), I think it's silly for anyone to be convinced of its success, especially with all the risk involved. Some of the naysayers aren't really even critics, they're just being skeptical (which I think is quite acceptable), yet the Nintendo fanboy reaction and response is often quite overwhelming.
A year from now, one of two groups (the naysayers or the fanboys) is going to look like geniuses. The other... not so much.
I totally agree. Nintendo definately did a lot of bullying themselves, when they were the King of Console Gaming. I remember when Sony started this little thing called the PlayStation, nobody believed in it. But developers flocked to it, one reason was due to the licensing and censorship issues they faced in Nintendo at the time. (Anyone else remember the Mortal Kombat fiasco?) That was also the time of $60-80 video games, and this is NOT at today's prices.
That said, I think (maybe more along the lines of "hope") that the Nintendo of today is far different than the bully of years past. But to all the fanboys who think that Nintendo can do no wrong, they need to remember that these are still corporations we're talking about. Not people. They all will do what it takes to make money. Part of it, though, does mean treating customers with respect, and doing the right things for gamers, so that they'll come back to you time and time again. I think that's what Sony has lost (and arguably, that's what toppled Nintendo back then too).
Animal Crossing for the DS does this when texting with others.
I wonder how "smart" this filter is though. There are just too many ways to say "fuck". Try alternate spellings ("phuck", "fvck") or symbols ("f\/ck", "fu_ck"). Then you've got issues with words like "ass", where you want to block that word, but not others like "bass" or "glass" or "assassin"... while keeping out "assmonkey".
Personally, I think the right approach is to have different "zones". It's up the owner of the hardware (DS or console) to make sure it's setup appropriate for their family. A console/portable set to "kid zone" will only have canned chat, where the user can only use pre-selected phrases. Then you have other zones which can be use a profanity filter (although you know how weak it ultimately is), and then one where all-bets-are-off ("underground" or "adult" setting).
Even though the speed at which software development happens nowadays means that games are pretty quickly obsolete, everything builds on what came before it, so you're at least involved in a creative and continuing process. But I don't think video game journalism adds much to the equation. I'm sure some people who are involved in it would beg to differ, but I just don't see them having much impact on the industry which they owe their existance to. They're just sort of there.
I definately think they're having an impact, although it's debatable whether its overall a good or bad one.:)
To me (and I'm a total outsider when it comes to anything journalistic, so take my comments with a grain of salt), it seems like there are two areas of journalism. There are those who cover large topics that people ought to know about (world news, social issues, important scientific discoveries, etc.), and then those who cover the not-so-important stuff, such as sports, off-beat things, TV/movies, and games. (And obviously there's a lot of gray area in between as well; there is definately not a fine line here)
I agree with your sentiment. If ESPN, IGN, or E! or ceased to exist, the topics they covered would still be there. There would be sports, there would be games, and there would be TV shows. So having that type of journalism isn't necessary. Having people there to cover them, though, definately does provide exposure and increases popularity, which has its benefits and disadvantages. And it's gotten to the point that people are entertained by the articles and reporters themselves. So it's become it's own mini-entertainment industry. (Just wait until you have journalists that cover what other journalists do!)
I think the blogging scene is going through a similar issue. How important is a blogger? Is it journalism? If no one reads your blog, even if it's the most poignant and informative thing on the Net, does it matter? Or rather, what if no one links to it?
Not all hobbies are created equal. One of my hobbies when I was younger was drawing buildings. And now I'm an architect, and for the most part, I'm quite happy. Like you, there are plenty of days in which I'm tempted to just stay home, but when I'm working on an interesting building, the thought of it one day existing as steel and concrete and being inhabited by dozens/hundreds/thousands of people is pretty damn motivating to me. At the end of the week, I can look back, and see something coming into existance that I feel has a lot of value. Not only to myself, but to humanity as a whole. That's a bit idealistic and vague, but it's basically how I feel.
Writing about video games can be fun and interesting. I do it reasonably often on slashdot infact. But I just don't think it would be very fulfilling to do for a living. It just seems like the sort of job where, if everyone paid to do it stopped doing it tomorrow, the world would go on just fine without them. If IGN, Gamespy, and all the rest disappeared this instant, I'd still be able to find plenty of unpaid people writing about video games just for the heck of it, and I'm more inclined to find their opinions believable because the "real" video game media is so heavily influenced by publishers and developers.
You could say this about the video game industry in general. I've definately heard the argument that a lot of good talent is "wasted" on video games, when it could be better off on something "meaningful" like new research to cure X, or working on technology to make people's lives better, etc. (FYI, I happen to work in the games industry, and I'm pretty sure some of my old CS professors think of me in this way)
To me, my job is to make people happy. Games are just one form of entertainment that everyone seeks out in some way or another. True, it may not be as important as building a house, but I still think it's important nonetheless. Besides, building a house may affect a family or two, whereas the work I'm doing literally affects millions. (Scary if you think about it, heh)
On the flip-side, I used to work as a government contractor (and I have many friends who currently are one), and some of the projects you're given are sooooo useless, and sometimes you just want to kill yourself for wasting so much taxpayer money on the most useless projects. Or you work on military projects where your job is essentially to help people kill other people faster, better, and more efficiently, which is really quite morbid.
So comparitively speaking, working in games is pretty fulfilling.:)
I think grinding is typically described as doing the same thing over and over again, almost literally. Fighting the same monsters over and over again in an RPG, whether it be Dragon Warrior or WoW, is considered grinding. Now a lot of people don't mind the grind, because the reward of being power-levelled is often greater than the work put into it. There are some games that I personally have not minded grinding at all, because I just liked the game that much. That part is subjective.
I wouldn't consider the game mechanic of saving survivors in Dead Rising to be grinding. The types of survivors, the situations they're in, and even the story surrounding them, can all be quite different. Couple that with whatever time limitations you have, regarding the main storyline and the case files, and you've definately got a very challenging game experience, that's different every time. A lot of people don't like it because it can be very hard (thus prone to failing and lots of reloading). I felt the same way, but only at first. Once I leveled up and restarted a few times (with my stats carried over to each new game), I found it a LOT easier to save survivors, and a lot more fun as well.
I think true grinding in Dead Rising would be to go after the "Zombie Genocide" achievement, which requires something like 50,000+ zombies to be killed. The "easiest" way to do this is to get into a vehicle and go driving around the maintenance tunnels repeatedly. Unfortunately, it'll still take a few hours to get this achievement. For me, that's definately grinding, and I'm not enjoying it too much anymore (and to be honest, I'll probably stop the grind... I'm only at 10k anyway). But some people don't mind it at all, and the rewards at the end are pretty sweet: a 360 achievement, and a very cool weapon unattainable any other way.
Games nowadays are just providing more options to gamers. There are many folks who do have the time, patience, and competitive attitude necessary to want to grind. The popularity of MMORPGs (which some would call one very long grind) is a testament to that. These gamers want to find every little hidden package, purple star, extra ending, etc. Then there are more "casual gamers" who just want to see the main story and beat the game. I'm fine games providing more options, as long as it doesn't impact overall quality too much. After all, if you don't like a certain game mechanic (like the button mashing "killing enemies grind" in games like Dynasty Warriors or Ninety-Nine Nights), then just don't buy the game!
I also got into the industry right out of college. I was actually a summer intern, passed the full-time interviews at the end, and then spent the last year of my CS Master's program knowing I had a nice job waiting for me by May.:)
I agree there is a ton of BS to deal with, mostly dealing with business and marketing. I don't think gamers realize how hard it is to balance quality with all of the money and time aspects of the business. I'm the believer that almost anything can be solved with technology, ingenuity, and time. Unfortunately, you don't a lot of that last item, which can cause a lot of people to burnout really quickly.
True, almost every industry has that "not enough time" problem, but I definately think games has it pretty bad. It's so competitive, and there's just so much that can be done at any given moment: more time on game quality, or maybe improvements to the platform, or better coverage in testing, or just fixing bugs... not to mention adding more features, etc.
I often wish gamers knew how much blood, sweat, and tears went into any given product. For example, reading a lot of the comments in the WoW forums is just crazy, how many assumptions are made. "Oh Blizz can just do X and fix everything, its soooo easy!"
I guess I can't complain too much. Before I got into the business, I was much the same way.:)
First of all, regarding online functionality, it's hard for me to go back to other consoles, which don't have the same level of features as Xbox Live. If it weren't for the free demos, I never would have realized how kick ass Dead Rising is. I'm also a big fan of the Xbox Live Arcade games and the whole achievement system. Granted, a lot of these ideas come from the PC-side of things, but to finally have them in the console space is very exciting.
That said, this announcement only said that 3rd party online support will be missing. I'm assuming that this only means multiplayer, and that you'll still get a lot of the "awareness" features and marketplace stuff that Nintendo is (hopefully) working on. To be honest, I don't actually play multiplayer games that much (listening to whiny kids curse while they kick my butt? No thank you!), so I don't think I'll miss that too much from the Wii.
And despite your claim to the contrary, Linux does have advantages here. Depending on the game, some games have been shown to actually run faster on Linux (native Linux Quake3 > Quake3 under Wine > quake3 under Win2k), but this is extremely old news, and it's probably different today.
Well, that was sort of my point. IF you have a game developed natively for Linux, sure the performance can certainly be a lot better. But I can probably count on one hand (maybe two), the number of high-profile games that have native Linux support. And all of them are also available on Windows or some other platform.
I'm just being practical. To me, it seemed like you were wondering why hardcore gamers aren't flocking to Linux, and why the Mac (of all platforms) is getting more developer love than Linux. It's just a numbers problem. Gamers want good games. But you'd be hard-pressed to get developers to support an OS with less than 1% market share. Hardcore gamers also want games with good performance, and again, you'll find it difficult to get developers to tweak their games to run on Linux natively. Those that do it don't do it for business reasons, but probably for the love of the OS. I'm not trying to bash any platform here, but just trying tell it as it is. (Plus, I did take offense at some of the comments you made earlier, such as "Mac is a toy" and "hardcore gamers want customization")
The real advantage is, Windows can get malware, and Linux is currently less likely to -- and Linux is also more tunable/tweakable than OS X, if not for performance, then for personal preference. If a gamer is willing to spend half an hour setting up an optimal control scheme, then surely there are things they'd like to do to their OS that are easier under Linux.
The whole issue of malware is very interesting (and one that I deal with regularly where I work, particularly customers that don't do a good job managing their computers). I do run WinXP primarily, yet I have no problems since I'm smart about what I do and don't do. Windows, being a more "consumer" OS than Linux, allows users to do all sorts of things they really shouldn't (run as admin all the time, install ActiveX controls on a whim, etc.). Personally, I'm hopeful that Vista solves some of these problems, but I know it won't be perfect. And even if it does, there will still be a large percentage of the userbase that: 1) Doesn't upgrade, or 2) Gets around whatever security controls Vista provides, and they'll be in the same old boat again.
Anyway, that's going off topic from games.:)
So, maybe the solution is to develop a reasonably good, cross-platform game, and then, when I have the money, develop another game that is primarily Linux and a real pain to make work on Windows, and totally unsupported on Windows. Collect statistics on that and see if I need to be an ass and release a game that will not run on Windows or Mac.
The problem with that last statement is that it doesn't really jive with the idea of "openness", that the whole open source movement is about. It's particularly vicious to purposely make your product not work on another platform (and arguably that's the reason why lots of folks are always mad at MS).
Now, that's different than making a game for one platform, and just saying that anything else is unsupported, because it's not developed or tested under it. I'm sure that's all you really need to do. Sure, there may be someone who tries hard to port it over to Windows or Mac, but even if they're successful, I doubt you'd get the right performance out of it, as well as a slew of other issues (don't get the latest patches, content updates, etc.).
I'm thinking of the PC gamer steriotype -- the person who's perpetually upgrading, tweaking, and overclocking a system just to squeeze a few more FPS out of, say, Counter-Strike, or to score a few more 3DMarks.
You know the type. Watercooling, RAIDed 10k RPM drives, case has a window and UV lights inside...
If Linux was 5-10 fps better than Windows for some games, and can easily be tweaked to use less RAM and practically no CPU to get out of the way of your games, then it makes perfect sense for gamers to switch -- except the games aren't there yet.
True, there is definately a subculture of hardcore gamers that's big into the hardware. And those folks *MAY* be interested in Linux, if it did magically give better performance for games that a Windows or Mac machine. But by the same notion, if Windows/Mac gave the better performance (which it currently does, if only because the games are developed specifically for those platforms), then that's the platform/OS they'll choose.
As I mentioned before, gamers tend to be platform agnostic. We follow where the games are. A lot of folks (myself included) jumped from Nintendo to Sony, in order to get our fix of Square games. Sure, there are definately fanboys that will stick to only one console, but personally I think that's pretty silly. If all you're seeking is entertainment, then it shouldn't really matter what platform it's on.
I get the feeling that you're really a Linux fan first (obvious since that's the platform you keep trying to push), and a gamer a distant second. If you really want to get gamers to adopt Linux, I think your best bet is to get an awesome game developed that can only be run on that platform. Well, one game won't do it, so probably an entire franchise or two. Hey, it certainly worked for Microsoft. If it weren't for Halo, then next-gen may have been limited to only Nintendo and Sony.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics. I'd also imagine that the gamer demographic would be a bit more biased towards Linux than Mac. After all, the Mac is still seen as a toy, without many games, but Linux is seen as hardcore and customizable, and hardcore gamers like to customize.
That's a silly stereotype. Just because Linux is "hardcore and customizables", that's what hardcore gamers want? Puh-lease.
Hardcore gamers just want good games. What platform is on doesn't matter a bit, which is why you have hardcore gamers on all sorts of platforms: dozens of consoles and handhelds over the years (many of which were NOT very customizable), and on the PC under a variety of OSes, (although predominantly Windows since that's where the market share simply is).
And I don't get how you can call Mac "a toy" these days. Maybe a few years ago, when the iMac was king... but there's certainly a lot of powerful Mac hardware that's targeted towards the geek crowd as well. Give credit where it's due please.
So why are macs getting more games than Linux? Are there really more Mac users than Linux users?
Yes. I did a quick Google search,and came up with this source. Mac is around 4% and Linux, still under 1%.
Anecdotally, that makes sense to me. Basically everyone I know (even techie friends) still run mostly on Windows. I know a few people that are on Macs. I only know one guy who actually runs Linux as his main OS. I'm sure that's very different than the Slashdot demographics.:)
Anyway, if you develop a game for a PC, you're already most of the way towards developing for any console. Renderware is a great example -- just pick some middleware, even something as simple as SDL, and you've got most of your porting done for you. It amazes me that people still choose DirectX for PC games.
You bring up a good point. I saw an article recently about Capcom changing how their develop their games. Typically, they start off on a PC, and then eventually port it over to the console they're focusing on (360, PS3, or Wii in this case). Since Dead Rising for the 360 did so well, they're going to spend more time in the PC-phase, so that it's easier to branch off to 360 or Wii if needed, whereas in the past, they went very quickly to the Sony platform.
With more and more game companies making multi-platform games, it makes sense for them to continue as much development as possible on the PC, and then port it over to the console as late as they can. True, you don't get as much performance gain focusing on just one platform, but it does make a lot of sense process-wise.
You've got some good comments, but there are a few things I disagree with...
Yeah, I have that option. Console gamers don't. Your games stay at around the same quality over the years, and the developers get to make that choice for you -- "Are we OK with dropping the framerate to 10fps here to get the effects we want?" By the end of a console's life cycle, your games don't look that much better than they did at the beginning.
Actually, that's quite the opposite with console gaming. The first generation of titles generally don't look that much better than the previous one, because the developers haven't had much experience with the hardware. Compare some early PS2 titles with late PS1, or early 360 titles with later Xbox games. Certainly you'll see the same thing with the first PS3 games, compared to some of the final PS2 games coming out this year (like FFXII perhaps).
Console gamers get that improvement in visual quality essentially for free, no need to buy new expensive hardware or anything. But obviously it takes time. That's probably one of the downsides to being a console gamer. Being an early adopter doesn't make sense since you're buying into a system that's at its most expensive, yet the games are at their lowest potential. The only gain you get is being "the only kid on the block with system X".
The trick is to not quite buy top of the line, since that $500 card isn't really $300 better than my $200 one, and in another 2 or 3 years, $200 will buy me more than that $500 could buy me now.
That trick is the same with console gaming. Don't buy the console when it first comes out for $400, or in the PS3 case, $600. Wait a year for the price to come down, or at the very least, an attractive bundle comes out. By then, the 2nd generation of games will be out, and many of them will be better than the few launch titles you would have been stuck with as an early adopter. And if there was a launch game that was genuinely great, chances are it'll be heavily discounted, or even better, available as a combo pack with the console. Why do you think PS2s are still outselling every other console there is?
You know what else I can do? I can play free games. Everything about consoles is driven by money -- even the Xbox Live Arcade (or whatever) is going to cost you at least $5 for a game. You spend $60 on a game that I pay $50 for, at most, and you get just the one game. I get another 20 or 30 free mods to go with it, and I can still go with the Xbox Live Arcade model (via Steam), but with 100 gigs of space (just my Windows partition) instead of 15 or 20 to put downloaded games on -- which means that downloaded games, free or not, can meet or exceed the quality of games I buy on a disc.
The mod potential is a great point. Oblivion on the PC is far better than on the 360 for that point. That said, I think you put too much emphasis on money and consoles. EVERYTHING is driven by money, PC or console. You seem to gloss over the fact that many downloadable games on the PC (at least the decent ones) cost money as well. The only exceptions are mods, which I agree with are often fantastic and don't cost a dime. (Although sometimes the popular ones, like Counter-Strike, often tend to be bought up and made commercial... sucks to be those who actually bought it versus playing it for free)
One thing I do like about the console space is that it's finally starting to adopt some of the things that worked so well for PCs. The concept of try-before-you-buy? The only reason I bought Dead Rising for the 360 because I randomly decided to try out the free demo, and got hooked on it. Gee whiz, who woulda thought the whole "shareware" model still works! *sarcasm* And it's not limited to the 360, as I imagine Sony and Nintendo are now working on similar abilities for their respective platforms (PlayStation Network and Virtual Console)
Anyway, I still do a lot of gaming on both consoles and PCs. There are definately pros and cons to each, and I don't think they're mutually exclusive. So no need to bash one totally in favor of the other.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, according to an update on 1-UP, it turns out that this Xfire deal was only for one game, Untold Legends: Dark Kingdom, and it is NOT meant to be the be-all end-all online solution for all PS3 games. Furthermore, the deal is between Sony Online Entertainment, and not Sony Computer Entertainment, which is the actual group that is handling the PS3. Now, things could change, and SCE could change their minds, but still ... this is all very bizarre.
:P
When I first heard of this news, I thought it was a good move by Sony. Their strengths are in hardware, not so much with software. Yes, SOE is handling EQ and Star Wars: Galaxies, but those are arguably not to be proud about (at least of late). So partnering with Xfire seems like a great idea. Maybe the start of some good news (finally) for Sony?
But upon hearing that this partnership really is limited to just one game? Huge steps backwards, once again. Does this mean we can expect every game to utilize a different network model? Will I have different friends lists and achievements with EA and Square-Enix, with some games not utilizing anything? It's also really late in development, so does that mean all of the network features Sony is claiming to be working on, are really really behind?
I was under the impression, as was many others probably, that there was going to be one network, and the reason why we weren't hearing anything about it, was because the devs were hard at work on it. (Compared to the 360, where MS spent a large amount of time showing off Live functionality at the E3 prior to launch) But news like this makes it seem like Sony doesn't really know what it's doing after all.
The premium version also boasts a larger hard-drive.
The 80/20 convention is still probably the right idea, since it's the early adopters that are most willing to buy a console at launch. They're probably much more likely to own an HDTV, over the general public. Furthermore, even if they don't have an HDTV, the mindset of an early adopter is to "future-proof" themselves and get the console with the most features, even if they may not use them all yet. It may be costly to upgrade later. And finally, there's the general fanboy opinion that the core version of any console is the "sucky one" and anyone who got suckered into buying is a "n00b". So there's that to consider as well.
In fact, one of the complaints with the 360 launch is that there were too many Core systems created, instead of Premium ones. People were very much willing to fork over the extra $100 for the Premium one (especially since it had an HD and the Core did not), but were forced to get the Core. It's never a good thing when you force your customers to spend less than they want to.
That's a good point. However, I'd have to say that a PS3 delay/shortage *IS* in the area of affecting the general populace's opinion.
When little Johnny's dad gets a lot of heat because his X-mas present ended up not being available until January or February, that's a sign of the general public's opinion of the brand starting to drop. Of course, it will probably take more than one negative item to really damage brand trust. After all, their PS2 shipped to a huge shortage as well, and there was a lot of damaging press and opinion at the time.
This delay/shortage is definately going to be more damaging than the rootkit fiasco (which was relatively unknown to most non-techie folks). But if the PS3 goes on to have a solid life (as the PS2 did, after its rocky start), then the public will be quick to forget.
To be fair, you are missing some of the other improvements that came with the leap from PS1 to PS2-era consoles, and PS2 to PS3. With the PS2/Xbox/GC, yes you got some decent graphical updates, but with the faster processors also came things like much better physics modelling and the beginnings of multiplayer over the Internet (Xbox Live and Sony Online). Also, some may argue that there just wasn't the processing power to do a sandbox game like GTA, on the hardware of a PS1. I'm not talking about graphical updates, but improvements to gameplay.
With the PS3/360/Wii generation, I think what's big is going to be the network support. All of the console makers are making huge inroads into this. You've got all the Xbox Live Marketplace, Live Arcade stuff that Microsoft is doing now. Sony and Nintendo have both talked about their online networks. You also have Nintendo's Virtual Console. Those are all definate experience changes. This is in addition to the controller improvements that Nintendo alone is bringing in (and no, I do not count Sony's motion controller as being particularly innovative).
True, they may be things you don't care for (some folks don't want to interact with other people at all, or could give a rat's ass over downloadable features/games), but there's definately a market for it. So when comparing console generations, I don't think that's something anyone should ignore either.
I have to grudgingly agree with you. When I got the new HDTV and programming, I was stoked. For a long time, all I would watch were shows in HDTV, because of the amazing clarity. I bragged about it to all my co-workers and friends, and it was always the guys that were in envy.
Of course, my wife barely even notices the difference between HD and SD. It basically looks the same to her. And that's quite amazing, because SDTV on an HDTV looks even crappier than normal. Our old SDTV upstairs still gets a lot of use, because it's more than good enough for her.
Now, try getting her to notice the difference between regular DVD and a high-def DVD (Blu-ray or HD-DVD)? Might as well give up now. Or she may notice a small difference and just not care.
However, what she DOES love is the DVR functionality we got a few years ago. That's definately a sign that convenience > quality for many folks.
Good god people. As much as it's fun to bash Sony or make fun of Nintendo's Wii, can we stop with all these endless predictions? Lists of potential games, rumors of developers coming and going, theories on how the Wii-mote will handle (both positive and negative) ...
Just wait a few months until the consoles actually ship, and people have an actual chance to check out the games. Till then, everyone go back to WoW or their 360 or PS2 or GC and play some games.
I don't see how this breaks it at all. All it requires is one change on your part: stay logged into Wikipedia. Now, I don't know how hard or feasible this is to you, but it seems to make sense for me.
... or should now. Otherwise, you're right ... it'd be a pain in the butt for helpers to have to log in every time they visit the site.
I, as well as most other folks, just use Wikipedia as "read-only", to look things up. I don't really envision myself being the helpful type, as you are. So there's really no reason for us to be logged in.
But for those like you who want to help Wikipedia, just stay logged in! I don't know if they have a "keep me logged in" feature, but I imagine they do
I don't think it's really sad that WoW is a lot of people's "first MMO" (it was for my wife, while I dabbled in both UO and EQ). It's definately a great introduction to that whole genre. WoW does a phenomenal job with the level 1-59 phase, although I completely agree that game at level 60 is very different, and puts off a lot of people. That said, I think some of the changes upcoming in the Burning Crusade expansion will be very welcome (raids toned down dramatically and the honor system revamped). Blizzard's done a great job with the marketing of BC too, dropping little hints here and there, and basically keeping a lot of people still interested in WoW, because they think "BC is right around the corner!".
Anyway, back to the "my first MMO" idea
I think there's definately a growing trend to address the "casual" gamer. I say that in quotes, because a lot of casual gamers probably play games as much as a typical hardcore gamer, but the types of games being played (and the time span, short bursts vs long hours) is quite different.
Nintendo's done a fabulous job addressing this need with the DS, and hopefully with the upcoming Wii and the Virtual Console. MS is doing very well with the Xbox Live Arcade (although I am biased on this). I have to imagine that Sony is cooking up something similar for the PS3. So it's good to see that all the companies are realizing that they can't just cater soley to the 18-35 male who loves to shoot things and perform carjackings. That said, the reason why there are still a lot of those gratuitous violence and sex games is because they still sell well (take a look at GTA, for example). I'm fine with developers focusing on where the money is, after all they're only around to make money. But there should still be focus on other types of games, and it's good to see that this is starting to happen a lot more now.
Yup. No amount of management or QA is going to save a product which has incompetent programmers working on it. Most likely, it's those same programmers that are going to fix the bugs that QA finds. If they do a crappy job of coding the product, their bug fix is likely going to be crappy. Unfortunately, it's only a matter of time before a badly written bug fix gets through QA (everyone is human), but still impacts real-world customers.
The whole team has to be confident. Your programmers have to work well with QA, and also with the program managers, and all vice versa. And the management has to understand that good software/games take time. But the entire team also has to realize the business side of things as well. There *are* times that known bugs, unfortunately, are released.
The reason why very large, complex programs often do not have serious problems, is because everyone knows how serious it is, and it isn't shipped until it passes a very thorough, very strict, QA process. At the end of the day, games are just games, so (for better or worse), the QA process involved is not as strict as it probably ought to be.
Yeah, that's a very interesting "what if" scenario. I wonder, if there was really one console at the time owned by both Sony and Nintendo ("GameStation" perhaps?), would Microsoft decided to jump in? Perhaps not. Also, if Sega flamed out the same way it did, then that'd mean we'd effectively be left with one console to rule them all.
I wonder if that situation, how long Nintendo and Sony would have remained partners, or whether or not it's just inevitable for them to split. Would successive consoles have improved much over the older ones? Would we have gotten more innovation and better games, with developers better able to focus on just one platform, or less (because competition can drive innovation too).
I know it took a helluva long time for Nintendo to upgrade its portable platform. How many iterations of the original GameBoy did we have to go through, before we finally got the GBA SP? When Sony announced they were jumping into the business with the PSP, we started seeing a more cool innovations come out, like the DS. (Although it's hard to tell how early Nintendo had been working on the DS, before news of the PSP hit)
And I'll throw one more zany "what if" scenario. What if instead of Microsoft, it was Apple who decided to jump into the gaming business?
Disclaimer: I am biased (see my profile), but I'm a gamer first and foremost. I love my DS (and for a long time, I was a Nintendo fanboy, during the SNES/N64 era), play a ton of PS2 games (mostly due to my love of RPGs), and there are a number of 360 games that I enjoy (most recent is Dead Rising), so I consider myself pretty platform agnostic. Now that said, here's my response.
Have you played with the Wii controller yet? Have you had it at home, and played it for hours on end? Over the course of at least a several weeks? I'm guessing the answer is no. I can give you the "genuinely interesting innovation", but I don't think anyone can say that its motion technology is "significantly improved" yet. Well, okay, the tech behind it might be better, but no one yet can say that it's actually good enough for practical use yet. So can fanboys stop quoting it as if it's true?
I certainly *hope* that it's vastly improved over previous motion sensors, but I'm not going to give Nintendo (or anybody) benefit of the doubt. In fact, I think what the fanboys are doing is awful for Nintendo. They're building all this tremendous hype for a control scheme that is relatively unproven yet. Please don't set Nintendo up for failure. Let the Wii stand out on its own.
I think the fanboy hype is one of the reasons why the PSP isn't doing so well. There was all this coverage on how sexy the screen was, how it could do so much, how Nintendo was finally going to lose the portable business. Yet when it finally shipped, the system itself (and its games) didn't live up to the hype.
BTW, that last line is what really makes me think you're a Nintendo fanboy. :)
Although we both agree that Nintendo/Wii fanboys can be over-zealous at times, I think you've actually got your reasoning backwards as to the reasons to be skeptical. If anything, I'm confident that the software, the games by Nintendo will be good. They're always good. It seems like no matter what year it is, no matter the platform, Nintendo knows how to make fun, quality games. That's almost a given nowadays.
I still think the skeptical part is the platform itself, as it's always been with Nintendo. There are just too many open questions with it. First and foremost in my mind is external developer support. We know Nintendo can make good games, but can the 3rd parties do it? Back when I was a kid, I was always defending the N64 as the superior platform to the PlayStation (boy was I stubborn!). I didn't think much of the difficulties developers were having with the media format (cartridge vs CD), or the licensing battles fought with Nintendo. But it definately did matter, and the battle was probably won the second Square announced they were now exclusive to Sony, and not Nintendo.
This time around, it's Nintendo and Microsoft that the 3rd parties are now eyeing instead, rather than being tie
There are plenty of other "gimmicky" things that Nintendo has released that quickly went no where. Anyone else remember the Virtual Boy? Or the Power Glove? You could also mention the Power Pad, which got popular for a while, but unfortunately nothing ever came of it. (You could say that it eventually morphed into dance pads, but Nintendo's not the one responsible for the popularity of games like Dance Dance Revolution)
It's still way too early for either critics or fanboys of the Wii to declare any sort of victory. It is a bit tiring to hear fanboy after fanboy laud over how Nintendo can do no wrong, and how the Wii will conquer all. As interesting as I think the Wii is (and I will probably buy one at launch), I think it's silly for anyone to be convinced of its success, especially with all the risk involved. Some of the naysayers aren't really even critics, they're just being skeptical (which I think is quite acceptable), yet the Nintendo fanboy reaction and response is often quite overwhelming.
A year from now, one of two groups (the naysayers or the fanboys) is going to look like geniuses. The other
I totally agree. Nintendo definately did a lot of bullying themselves, when they were the King of Console Gaming. I remember when Sony started this little thing called the PlayStation, nobody believed in it. But developers flocked to it, one reason was due to the licensing and censorship issues they faced in Nintendo at the time. (Anyone else remember the Mortal Kombat fiasco?) That was also the time of $60-80 video games, and this is NOT at today's prices.
That said, I think (maybe more along the lines of "hope") that the Nintendo of today is far different than the bully of years past. But to all the fanboys who think that Nintendo can do no wrong, they need to remember that these are still corporations we're talking about. Not people. They all will do what it takes to make money. Part of it, though, does mean treating customers with respect, and doing the right things for gamers, so that they'll come back to you time and time again. I think that's what Sony has lost (and arguably, that's what toppled Nintendo back then too).
Animal Crossing for the DS does this when texting with others.
... while keeping out "assmonkey".
I wonder how "smart" this filter is though. There are just too many ways to say "fuck". Try alternate spellings ("phuck", "fvck") or symbols ("f\/ck", "fu_ck"). Then you've got issues with words like "ass", where you want to block that word, but not others like "bass" or "glass" or "assassin"
Personally, I think the right approach is to have different "zones". It's up the owner of the hardware (DS or console) to make sure it's setup appropriate for their family. A console/portable set to "kid zone" will only have canned chat, where the user can only use pre-selected phrases. Then you have other zones which can be use a profanity filter (although you know how weak it ultimately is), and then one where all-bets-are-off ("underground" or "adult" setting).
I definately think they're having an impact, although it's debatable whether its overall a good or bad one.
To me (and I'm a total outsider when it comes to anything journalistic, so take my comments with a grain of salt), it seems like there are two areas of journalism. There are those who cover large topics that people ought to know about (world news, social issues, important scientific discoveries, etc.), and then those who cover the not-so-important stuff, such as sports, off-beat things, TV/movies, and games. (And obviously there's a lot of gray area in between as well; there is definately not a fine line here)
I agree with your sentiment. If ESPN, IGN, or E! or ceased to exist, the topics they covered would still be there. There would be sports, there would be games, and there would be TV shows. So having that type of journalism isn't necessary. Having people there to cover them, though, definately does provide exposure and increases popularity, which has its benefits and disadvantages. And it's gotten to the point that people are entertained by the articles and reporters themselves. So it's become it's own mini-entertainment industry. (Just wait until you have journalists that cover what other journalists do!)
I think the blogging scene is going through a similar issue. How important is a blogger? Is it journalism? If no one reads your blog, even if it's the most poignant and informative thing on the Net, does it matter? Or rather, what if no one links to it?
You could say this about the video game industry in general. I've definately heard the argument that a lot of good talent is "wasted" on video games, when it could be better off on something "meaningful" like new research to cure X, or working on technology to make people's lives better, etc. (FYI, I happen to work in the games industry, and I'm pretty sure some of my old CS professors think of me in this way)
To me, my job is to make people happy. Games are just one form of entertainment that everyone seeks out in some way or another. True, it may not be as important as building a house, but I still think it's important nonetheless. Besides, building a house may affect a family or two, whereas the work I'm doing literally affects millions. (Scary if you think about it, heh)
On the flip-side, I used to work as a government contractor (and I have many friends who currently are one), and some of the projects you're given are sooooo useless, and sometimes you just want to kill yourself for wasting so much taxpayer money on the most useless projects. Or you work on military projects where your job is essentially to help people kill other people faster, better, and more efficiently, which is really quite morbid.
So comparitively speaking, working in games is pretty fulfilling.
I think grinding is typically described as doing the same thing over and over again, almost literally. Fighting the same monsters over and over again in an RPG, whether it be Dragon Warrior or WoW, is considered grinding. Now a lot of people don't mind the grind, because the reward of being power-levelled is often greater than the work put into it. There are some games that I personally have not minded grinding at all, because I just liked the game that much. That part is subjective.
... I'm only at 10k anyway). But some people don't mind it at all, and the rewards at the end are pretty sweet: a 360 achievement, and a very cool weapon unattainable any other way.
I wouldn't consider the game mechanic of saving survivors in Dead Rising to be grinding. The types of survivors, the situations they're in, and even the story surrounding them, can all be quite different. Couple that with whatever time limitations you have, regarding the main storyline and the case files, and you've definately got a very challenging game experience, that's different every time. A lot of people don't like it because it can be very hard (thus prone to failing and lots of reloading). I felt the same way, but only at first. Once I leveled up and restarted a few times (with my stats carried over to each new game), I found it a LOT easier to save survivors, and a lot more fun as well.
I think true grinding in Dead Rising would be to go after the "Zombie Genocide" achievement, which requires something like 50,000+ zombies to be killed. The "easiest" way to do this is to get into a vehicle and go driving around the maintenance tunnels repeatedly. Unfortunately, it'll still take a few hours to get this achievement. For me, that's definately grinding, and I'm not enjoying it too much anymore (and to be honest, I'll probably stop the grind
Games nowadays are just providing more options to gamers. There are many folks who do have the time, patience, and competitive attitude necessary to want to grind. The popularity of MMORPGs (which some would call one very long grind) is a testament to that. These gamers want to find every little hidden package, purple star, extra ending, etc. Then there are more "casual gamers" who just want to see the main story and beat the game. I'm fine games providing more options, as long as it doesn't impact overall quality too much. After all, if you don't like a certain game mechanic (like the button mashing "killing enemies grind" in games like Dynasty Warriors or Ninety-Nine Nights), then just don't buy the game!
I also got into the industry right out of college. I was actually a summer intern, passed the full-time interviews at the end, and then spent the last year of my CS Master's program knowing I had a nice job waiting for me by May. :)
... not to mention adding more features, etc.
:)
I agree there is a ton of BS to deal with, mostly dealing with business and marketing. I don't think gamers realize how hard it is to balance quality with all of the money and time aspects of the business. I'm the believer that almost anything can be solved with technology, ingenuity, and time. Unfortunately, you don't a lot of that last item, which can cause a lot of people to burnout really quickly.
True, almost every industry has that "not enough time" problem, but I definately think games has it pretty bad. It's so competitive, and there's just so much that can be done at any given moment: more time on game quality, or maybe improvements to the platform, or better coverage in testing, or just fixing bugs
I often wish gamers knew how much blood, sweat, and tears went into any given product. For example, reading a lot of the comments in the WoW forums is just crazy, how many assumptions are made. "Oh Blizz can just do X and fix everything, its soooo easy!"
I guess I can't complain too much. Before I got into the business, I was much the same way.
First of all, regarding online functionality, it's hard for me to go back to other consoles, which don't have the same level of features as Xbox Live. If it weren't for the free demos, I never would have realized how kick ass Dead Rising is. I'm also a big fan of the Xbox Live Arcade games and the whole achievement system. Granted, a lot of these ideas come from the PC-side of things, but to finally have them in the console space is very exciting.
That said, this announcement only said that 3rd party online support will be missing. I'm assuming that this only means multiplayer, and that you'll still get a lot of the "awareness" features and marketplace stuff that Nintendo is (hopefully) working on. To be honest, I don't actually play multiplayer games that much (listening to whiny kids curse while they kick my butt? No thank you!), so I don't think I'll miss that too much from the Wii.
Well, that was sort of my point. IF you have a game developed natively for Linux, sure the performance can certainly be a lot better. But I can probably count on one hand (maybe two), the number of high-profile games that have native Linux support. And all of them are also available on Windows or some other platform.
I'm just being practical. To me, it seemed like you were wondering why hardcore gamers aren't flocking to Linux, and why the Mac (of all platforms) is getting more developer love than Linux. It's just a numbers problem. Gamers want good games. But you'd be hard-pressed to get developers to support an OS with less than 1% market share. Hardcore gamers also want games with good performance, and again, you'll find it difficult to get developers to tweak their games to run on Linux natively. Those that do it don't do it for business reasons, but probably for the love of the OS. I'm not trying to bash any platform here, but just trying tell it as it is. (Plus, I did take offense at some of the comments you made earlier, such as "Mac is a toy" and "hardcore gamers want customization")
The whole issue of malware is very interesting (and one that I deal with regularly where I work, particularly customers that don't do a good job managing their computers). I do run WinXP primarily, yet I have no problems since I'm smart about what I do and don't do. Windows, being a more "consumer" OS than Linux, allows users to do all sorts of things they really shouldn't (run as admin all the time, install ActiveX controls on a whim, etc.). Personally, I'm hopeful that Vista solves some of these problems, but I know it won't be perfect. And even if it does, there will still be a large percentage of the userbase that: 1) Doesn't upgrade, or 2) Gets around whatever security controls Vista provides, and they'll be in the same old boat again.
Anyway, that's going off topic from games.
The problem with that last statement is that it doesn't really jive with the idea of "openness", that the whole open source movement is about. It's particularly vicious to purposely make your product not work on another platform (and arguably that's the reason why lots of folks are always mad at MS).
Now, that's different than making a game for one platform, and just saying that anything else is unsupported, because it's not developed or tested under it. I'm sure that's all you really need to do. Sure, there may be someone who tries hard to port it over to Windows or Mac, but even if they're successful, I doubt you'd get the right performance out of it, as well as a slew of other issues (don't get the latest patches, content updates, etc.).
True, there is definately a subculture of hardcore gamers that's big into the hardware. And those folks *MAY* be interested in Linux, if it did magically give better performance for games that a Windows or Mac machine. But by the same notion, if Windows/Mac gave the better performance (which it currently does, if only because the games are developed specifically for those platforms), then that's the platform/OS they'll choose.
As I mentioned before, gamers tend to be platform agnostic. We follow where the games are. A lot of folks (myself included) jumped from Nintendo to Sony, in order to get our fix of Square games. Sure, there are definately fanboys that will stick to only one console, but personally I think that's pretty silly. If all you're seeking is entertainment, then it shouldn't really matter what platform it's on.
I get the feeling that you're really a Linux fan first (obvious since that's the platform you keep trying to push), and a gamer a distant second. If you really want to get gamers to adopt Linux, I think your best bet is to get an awesome game developed that can only be run on that platform. Well, one game won't do it, so probably an entire franchise or two. Hey, it certainly worked for Microsoft. If it weren't for Halo, then next-gen may have been limited to only Nintendo and Sony.
That's a silly stereotype. Just because Linux is "hardcore and customizables", that's what hardcore gamers want? Puh-lease.
Hardcore gamers just want good games. What platform is on doesn't matter a bit, which is why you have hardcore gamers on all sorts of platforms: dozens of consoles and handhelds over the years (many of which were NOT very customizable), and on the PC under a variety of OSes, (although predominantly Windows since that's where the market share simply is).
And I don't get how you can call Mac "a toy" these days. Maybe a few years ago, when the iMac was king
Yes. I did a quick Google search,and came up with this source. Mac is around 4% and Linux, still under 1%.
Anecdotally, that makes sense to me. Basically everyone I know (even techie friends) still run mostly on Windows. I know a few people that are on Macs. I only know one guy who actually runs Linux as his main OS. I'm sure that's very different than the Slashdot demographics.
You bring up a good point. I saw an article recently about Capcom changing how their develop their games. Typically, they start off on a PC, and then eventually port it over to the console they're focusing on (360, PS3, or Wii in this case). Since Dead Rising for the 360 did so well, they're going to spend more time in the PC-phase, so that it's easier to branch off to 360 or Wii if needed, whereas in the past, they went very quickly to the Sony platform.
With more and more game companies making multi-platform games, it makes sense for them to continue as much development as possible on the PC, and then port it over to the console as late as they can. True, you don't get as much performance gain focusing on just one platform, but it does make a lot of sense process-wise.
Actually, that's quite the opposite with console gaming. The first generation of titles generally don't look that much better than the previous one, because the developers haven't had much experience with the hardware. Compare some early PS2 titles with late PS1, or early 360 titles with later Xbox games. Certainly you'll see the same thing with the first PS3 games, compared to some of the final PS2 games coming out this year (like FFXII perhaps).
Console gamers get that improvement in visual quality essentially for free, no need to buy new expensive hardware or anything. But obviously it takes time. That's probably one of the downsides to being a console gamer. Being an early adopter doesn't make sense since you're buying into a system that's at its most expensive, yet the games are at their lowest potential. The only gain you get is being "the only kid on the block with system X".
That trick is the same with console gaming. Don't buy the console when it first comes out for $400, or in the PS3 case, $600. Wait a year for the price to come down, or at the very least, an attractive bundle comes out. By then, the 2nd generation of games will be out, and many of them will be better than the few launch titles you would have been stuck with as an early adopter. And if there was a launch game that was genuinely great, chances are it'll be heavily discounted, or even better, available as a combo pack with the console. Why do you think PS2s are still outselling every other console there is?
The mod potential is a great point. Oblivion on the PC is far better than on the 360 for that point. That said, I think you put too much emphasis on money and consoles. EVERYTHING is driven by money, PC or console. You seem to gloss over the fact that many downloadable games on the PC (at least the decent ones) cost money as well. The only exceptions are mods, which I agree with are often fantastic and don't cost a dime. (Although sometimes the popular ones, like Counter-Strike, often tend to be bought up and made commercial
One thing I do like about the console space is that it's finally starting to adopt some of the things that worked so well for PCs. The concept of try-before-you-buy? The only reason I bought Dead Rising for the 360 because I randomly decided to try out the free demo, and got hooked on it. Gee whiz, who woulda thought the whole "shareware" model still works! *sarcasm* And it's not limited to the 360, as I imagine Sony and Nintendo are now working on similar abilities for their respective platforms (PlayStation Network and Virtual Console)
Anyway, I still do a lot of gaming on both consoles and PCs. There are definately pros and cons to each, and I don't think they're mutually exclusive. So no need to bash one totally in favor of the other.