. I can't imagine playing a PC RTS on a console controller,
That implies you have never played a console RTS, if so what do you base the following on?
and you notice a distinct and complete gimping of console RTS's compared to PC RTS's because of the fact that a controller sucks giant donkey dick as an input device when it comes to any advanced RTS's.
Basically the Beta is limited to those who basically play only PC games, since as of now Steam is PC only. But this thing is intended to be "console-y" so perhaps they should test it, not on PC gamers, but on actual console gamers. That is, if they want to sell this thing to console gamers at all...by their statements about upgradeable hardware....I think not.
That's what I've been saying over the past Valve stories that it's 3D0 all over again, but Slashdot is PC gamer centric and a good portion (especially the Europeans) don't know jack about consoles. PC Gamers also love steam because they're "cheap bastards" who spent so much money on hardware they don't have money for games, so they play LoL, or TF2, or de_dust only games in CS to the exclusion of anything else.
And suppose they pull it off, then some shiny obsessed PC gamer is going to whine when the SteamOS games are developed to support the base models rather than his $2500 upgraded steambox and that the cheap models are "holding gaming back" just like they complain about the PS3 and 360 today.
And they'll whine when the games are optimized for a dual analog gamepad for Big screen mode, because they have their Steambox connected to a 27" monitor on a desk instead of a TV in the living room.
I prefer to upgrade specific components of my PC when necessary (instead of all at once), and not throw out all of my existing games when I replace something.
And how much have you spent on hardware over the past 7 years?
And while backwards compatibility is nice, it's one of those "feel-good features" that people say they want, but then it turns out the vast majority don't really use it. It turns out that most people prefer cheaper hardware so you're better off removing the feature, even if some internet nerds whine about it.
Besides, it's not like your older console stops working. They're small, and you can leave the other one hooked up.
That said, I have a CECHE01 MGS4 model PS3. First model bundled with the DualShock 3, last "Fat" model with any PS2 compatibility. While I have used that feature, I've used that compatibility less than I thought I would.
They are coming up with an OS that will work on most PC hardware.
That's the sticking point, PC hardware. Which means it's going to cost more than either the Xbox One or PS4.
The recommended system requirements for some Steam games would pretty much mean that a cheap steambox would end up at what...$900? Sure you could get it down to 500, but then you'd have to dial things down anyway, might as well get that PS4 for $399. and spend more money on games.
And I seriously doubt Valve will ever create their own hardware, they've got what...400 people, tops? Sure, PC Gamers may love them, but Sony and Microsoft will eat them for breakfast because Valve has no reputation amongst console gamers. Other than the negative reputation Gabe got dissing consoles in general every chance he could get and then farming out the PS3 version of the Orange box rather than do it properly.
But it's still PC style hardware which means that it is more expensive than console style hardware, especially if you want a SFF. The recommended system requirements for some steam games would pretty much mean that a cheap steambox would endup at what...$900?
Yes you do. In fact you simply cannot buy machines that match every specification of consoles of the same time period.
Could you buy a PC build in 2000 that had the memory bandwidth and speed a PS2 did at the same price? No, you couldn't. Likewise you couldn't buy a machine with the same specs as the PS3 for the same price.
And can you buy an 8-core CPU, 8GB of GDD5 Main RAM AND the fast busses a PS4 has in a PC...for $399? No, you cannot.
Or take a look at the system requirements of Diablo 3.
Intel Pentium® D 2.8 GHz or AMD Athlonâ 64 X2 4400+
NVIDIA® GeForce® 7800 GT or ATI Radeonâ X1950 Pro or better
That Diablo 3 runs quite well on PS3's and 360's with less RAM
So go ahead and say how much your PC glows away a console, when the console is simply much more effiencient and gives you a better value for the gaming dollar.
Say you have $1300, you can buy the baseline "budget" rigs magazines like Maximum PC and PC gamer recommend, or you could buy a PS3/PS4 and have $1000/$900 left for actual games and not be forced to play TF2 or de_dust on CS over and over and over because you blew all your gaming cash on hardware.
Instead of just looking at sales, look at which games are being played:
Dota 2 Team Fortress 2 Counter-Strike: Global Offensive Football Manager 2013 Total War: ROME II Sid Meier's Civilization V The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim Garry's Mod Counter-Strike Counter-Strike: Source
If they offer mouse/keyboard input so console gamers can play all those PC games that are desirable but don't translate well to a traditional console gamepad they could have a lot of buyers.
That's been done already. Didn't help get certain PC partisan developers to do versions of their games for the PS2 and PS3.
I'm thinking their best bet is to make it an open specification for which they develop a standard software stack, kind of like Android did for smart phones. That way, they can get hardware vendors (Samsung et al.) to make the heavy lifting.
I am not, Spyro controls better, has a better camera, has better music, better graphics, and plays better than Mario 64. Mario 64 has some of those Miyamoto quirks that may sound good at first glance, but don't work well in practice. And it has the usual discoverability issues Miyamoto games have. It's a good game, but it's no Spyro.
And unlike Mario 64 there were two more PSone Spyro's with additional gameplay features and improvements.
Course the PS2 Spyro games aren't as good, but there's Insomniac's Ratchet & Clank games for that.
However, being online does net you certain rewards. There's a stock market that fluctuates based on other players' actions ingame (crash certain brand of car a lot and the stock drops etc.), there are various real-life websites where you can get small bonuses in game, early access to certain guns and so on, there's an iPhone/Android app where you can customize your cars and teach your dog new tricks and of course there are online leaderboards for missions, tennis, golf and everything else in game. Not mandatory at all, but fun.
October 1st, GTA Online launches, which is the full-on multiplayer, cop-dodging, bank-heisting, guns-blazing online GTA semi-persistent experience. Online (and a Rockstar Games Social Club account) is mandatory for obvious reasons.
Oh great, now you're making me want to try the game out and I never finished any of the other GTA games I have. I found them interesting and enjoyable, but not really my sort of game.
Or you can get the game day-1 digital on PSN (and I assume the 360's Marketplace as well), though I have no plans on doing so...I'm focused on Diablo 3 now.
Does everything really have to be "us vs. them"? I swing all kinds of way, there are way too many great games to limit yourself to just one particular subset.
I'm primarily a console gamer, but I have played a PC game now and then...at least until a console port is available. So yeah, I'm with you in not being fond of the PC partisan mindset.
RE: Dwarf Fortress, I simply cannot see how that game is any fun. Sure, the end results are funny and I enjoy reading playthroughs of it, but playing it feels like hard work and endless grinding.
Yep. I agree.
I play games to have fun, not to endlessly slave over the needlessly-hypercomplicated creation creamt up by some crazy autistic borderline-insane aspergers-afflicted programmer. I get enough of that with our applications at work.
Tepples is an aspergers-afflicted programmer, that's why he keeps grinding his edge case axes.
8 -10 hours, I don't know what console games you're playing or thinking of, but most are closer to 80 - 100. Even the character platformers are huge now.
Now if you're thinking of the singleplayer modes in "Call of the Medal of the Gears of The Battlefield of War Sergeant Shooty Master Chief Extreme Edition"... well no one buys those games for the single-player.... they spend hundreds of hours in the multiplayer and ignore the single-player.
Tepples wants the PC to be a game console and support same screen multiplayer because he wants to make console games, but there are barriers to entry to keep "amateurs" from doing so. He also is unwilling or unable to do what he needs to do to become a professional game developer/programmer doing console games.
It don't help that he's "you know what" and used to babysit and play samescreen multiplayer on older consoles on SDTV's with kids so he's a bit obsessed with those types of games and use cases. Remember how he used to go on and on about SDTV?
Modding shop? Let me guess, eastern europe? Brazil? Russia?
You people have a very skewed idea on how prevalent piracy is on consoles...in the US/Canada/UK/Japan it's pretty much nonexistent. But it's the Euro-pirates/BRIC folks going on about flip-top's and HDLoaders and whatnot.
And Europa Universalis IV is a niche game on PC, just like all the other turn-based strategy games from anti-console European development houses to poor or to partisan to do a console game now and then.
complex games are rarer on console because consoles cater to people who are of lower average intelligence and are tech illiterate
Let me guess, you're European or a second worlder, you live in a nation where everyone hates consoles because it's easier to pirate PC games and because of that, everyone thinks consoles are for kids.
GTA plays far better on a PC with a mouse and keyboard than with a controller and I'm quite certain that lots of PC owners would appreciate the mindless entertainment of playing it.
Keyboards are not analog, how can you stand keyboard movement in games, it's horrible and it's been horrible since it was invented for PC gamers in the DOS days without joysticks!
GTA isn't the sort of game where headshots at long range are the prime thing so the mouse isn't as big an advantage as it would be in other games.
Slashdot Mirror
. I can't imagine playing a PC RTS on a console controller,
That implies you have never played a console RTS, if so what do you base the following on?
and you notice a distinct and complete gimping of console RTS's compared to PC RTS's because of the fact that a controller sucks giant donkey dick as an input device when it comes to any advanced RTS's.
#define advanced RTS.
Basically the Beta is limited to those who basically play only PC games, since as of now Steam is PC only. But this thing is intended to be "console-y" so perhaps they should test it, not on PC gamers, but on actual console gamers. That is, if they want to sell this thing to console gamers at all...by their statements about upgradeable hardware....I think not.
That's what I've been saying over the past Valve stories that it's 3D0 all over again, but Slashdot is PC gamer centric and a good portion (especially the Europeans) don't know jack about consoles. PC Gamers also love steam because they're "cheap bastards" who spent so much money on hardware they don't have money for games, so they play LoL, or TF2, or de_dust only games in CS to the exclusion of anything else.
And suppose they pull it off, then some shiny obsessed PC gamer is going to whine when the SteamOS games are developed to support the base models rather than his $2500 upgraded steambox and that the cheap models are "holding gaming back" just like they complain about the PS3 and 360 today.
And they'll whine when the games are optimized for a dual analog gamepad for Big screen mode, because they have their Steambox connected to a 27" monitor on a desk instead of a TV in the living room.
I prefer to upgrade specific components of my PC when necessary (instead of all at once), and not throw out all of my existing games when I replace something.
And how much have you spent on hardware over the past 7 years?
And while backwards compatibility is nice, it's one of those "feel-good features" that people say they want, but then it turns out the vast majority don't really use it. It turns out that most people prefer cheaper hardware so you're better off removing the feature, even if some internet nerds whine about it.
Besides, it's not like your older console stops working. They're small, and you can leave the other one hooked up.
That said, I have a CECHE01 MGS4 model PS3. First model bundled with the DualShock 3, last "Fat" model with any PS2 compatibility. While I have used that feature, I've used that compatibility less than I thought I would.
They are coming up with an OS that will work on most PC hardware.
That's the sticking point, PC hardware. Which means it's going to cost more than either the Xbox One or PS4.
The recommended system requirements for some Steam games would pretty much mean that a cheap steambox would end up at what...$900? Sure you could get it down to 500, but then you'd have to dial things down anyway, might as well get that PS4 for $399. and spend more money on games.
And I seriously doubt Valve will ever create their own hardware, they've got what...400 people, tops? Sure, PC Gamers may love them, but Sony and Microsoft will eat them for breakfast because Valve has no reputation amongst console gamers. Other than the negative reputation Gabe got dissing consoles in general every chance he could get and then farming out the PS3 version of the Orange box rather than do it properly.
But it's still PC style hardware which means that it is more expensive than console style hardware, especially if you want a SFF. The recommended system requirements for some steam games would pretty much mean that a cheap steambox would endup at what...$900?
Yes you do. In fact you simply cannot buy machines that match every specification of consoles of the same time period.
Could you buy a PC build in 2000 that had the memory bandwidth and speed a PS2 did at the same price? No, you couldn't. Likewise you couldn't buy a machine with the same specs as the PS3 for the same price.
And can you buy an 8-core CPU, 8GB of GDD5 Main RAM AND the fast busses a PS4 has in a PC...for $399? No, you cannot.
Or take a look at the system requirements of Diablo 3.
Intel Pentium® D 2.8 GHz or AMD Athlonâ 64 X2 4400+
NVIDIA® GeForce® 7800 GT or ATI Radeonâ X1950 Pro or better
1 GB RAM (XP), 1.5 GB (Windows Vista/Windows 7/Windows 8)
That Diablo 3 runs quite well on PS3's and 360's with less RAM
So go ahead and say how much your PC glows away a console, when the console is simply much more effiencient and gives you a better value for the gaming dollar.
Say you have $1300, you can buy the baseline "budget" rigs magazines like Maximum PC and PC gamer recommend, or you could buy a PS3/PS4 and have $1000/$900 left for actual games and not be forced to play TF2 or de_dust on CS over and over and over because you blew all your gaming cash on hardware.
what has happened before will happen again.
I know some PC Gamers don't know much about console gaming, but this tactic Valve is doing has "Been done before"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3DO_Interactive_Multiplayer
This whole "company comes up with a game console specification and lets others build it" didn't work very well.
Looks like someone never played Limbo, Macharium, Trine, or World of Goo.
Those little games aren't going to sell a steambox... for one they're already ON consoles in already in living rooms.
Instead of just looking at sales, look at which games are being played:
Dota 2
Team Fortress 2
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive
Football Manager 2013
Total War: ROME II
Sid Meier's Civilization V
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
Garry's Mod
Counter-Strike
Counter-Strike: Source
Consoles are geared towards kids who probably haven't had the experience of PC gaming.
What are you, European or something? You do know that in the US/Canada/UK/NZ/AU and Japan that the majority of console owners and players are adults.
If they offer mouse/keyboard input so console gamers can play all those PC games that are desirable but don't translate well to a traditional console gamepad they could have a lot of buyers.
That's been done already. Didn't help get certain PC partisan developers to do versions of their games for the PS2 and PS3.
I'm thinking their best bet is to make it an open specification for which they develop a standard software stack, kind of like Android did for smart phones. That way, they can get hardware vendors (Samsung et al.) to make the heavy lifting.
Like the 3D0?
I am not, Spyro controls better, has a better camera, has better music, better graphics, and plays better than Mario 64. Mario 64 has some of those Miyamoto quirks that may sound good at first glance, but don't work well in practice. And it has the usual discoverability issues Miyamoto games have. It's a good game, but it's no Spyro.
And unlike Mario 64 there were two more PSone Spyro's with additional gameplay features and improvements.
Course the PS2 Spyro games aren't as good, but there's Insomniac's Ratchet & Clank games for that.
Wait, there was a PSone Discworld game? Well, I'll be....
My condolences on the save game bug.
However, being online does net you certain rewards. There's a stock market that fluctuates based on other players' actions ingame (crash certain brand of car a lot and the stock drops etc.), there are various real-life websites where you can get small bonuses in game, early access to certain guns and so on, there's an iPhone/Android app where you can customize your cars and teach your dog new tricks and of course there are online leaderboards for missions, tennis, golf and everything else in game. Not mandatory at all, but fun.
October 1st, GTA Online launches, which is the full-on multiplayer, cop-dodging, bank-heisting, guns-blazing online GTA semi-persistent experience. Online (and a Rockstar Games Social Club account) is mandatory for obvious reasons.
Oh great, now you're making me want to try the game out and I never finished any of the other GTA games I have. I found them interesting and enjoyable, but not really my sort of game.
Or you can get the game day-1 digital on PSN (and I assume the 360's Marketplace as well), though I have no plans on doing so...I'm focused on Diablo 3 now.
Does everything really have to be "us vs. them"? I swing all kinds of way, there are way too many great games to limit yourself to just one particular subset.
I'm primarily a console gamer, but I have played a PC game now and then...at least until a console port is available. So yeah, I'm with you in not being fond of the PC partisan mindset.
RE: Dwarf Fortress, I simply cannot see how that game is any fun. Sure, the end results are funny and I enjoy reading playthroughs of it, but playing it feels like hard work and endless grinding.
Yep. I agree.
I play games to have fun, not to endlessly slave over the needlessly-hypercomplicated creation creamt up by some crazy autistic borderline-insane aspergers-afflicted programmer. I get enough of that with our applications at work.
Tepples is an aspergers-afflicted programmer, that's why he keeps grinding his edge case axes.
Most of the good C64 games were disk games, no RPG's for you then?
8 -10 hours, I don't know what console games you're playing or thinking of, but most are closer to 80 - 100. Even the character platformers are huge now.
Now if you're thinking of the singleplayer modes in "Call of the Medal of the Gears of The Battlefield of War Sergeant Shooty Master Chief Extreme Edition"... well no one buys those games for the single-player.... they spend hundreds of hours in the multiplayer and ignore the single-player.
Tepples wants the PC to be a game console and support same screen multiplayer because he wants to make console games, but there are barriers to entry to keep "amateurs" from doing so. He also is unwilling or unable to do what he needs to do to become a professional game developer/programmer doing console games.
It don't help that he's "you know what" and used to babysit and play samescreen multiplayer on older consoles on SDTV's with kids so he's a bit obsessed with those types of games and use cases. Remember how he used to go on and on about SDTV?
GTA was originally a PC game and they have been treating PC as a second class citizen lately.
You did know that GTA 1 and 2 were cross platform, right? Rockstar was never a PC-centric development house.
Modding shop? Let me guess, eastern europe? Brazil? Russia?
You people have a very skewed idea on how prevalent piracy is on consoles...in the US/Canada/UK/Japan it's pretty much nonexistent. But it's the Euro-pirates/BRIC folks going on about flip-top's and HDLoaders and whatnot.
And Europa Universalis IV is a niche game on PC, just like all the other turn-based strategy games from anti-console European development houses to poor or to partisan to do a console game now and then.
complex games are rarer on console because consoles cater to people who are of lower average intelligence and are tech illiterate
Let me guess, you're European or a second worlder, you live in a nation where everyone hates consoles because it's easier to pirate PC games and because of that, everyone thinks consoles are for kids.
GTA plays far better on a PC with a mouse and keyboard than with a controller and I'm quite certain that lots of PC owners would appreciate the mindless entertainment of playing it.
Keyboards are not analog, how can you stand keyboard movement in games, it's horrible and it's been horrible since it was invented for PC gamers in the DOS days without joysticks!
GTA isn't the sort of game where headshots at long range are the prime thing so the mouse isn't as big an advantage as it would be in other games.