It doesn't change the fact that the first year of a console's life is shit.
For game releases I would agree, mostly, but early model hardware hasn't been affected by any cost-reduction measures, a la removal of the link and expansion ports in the PSone, the lack of a hard drive bay in the PS2 slim, and the various things that Slim and Super-slim PS3's don't have that the Deluxe Fat PS3's do, in the name of getting the cost down.
For most of Steam's existence, it's been the antithesis of all three of these things.
Oh I agree on that.
The reason lots of people are supporting Steam here, as I see it (and quite a lot are, despite the DRM), is that locking down hardware is bad for the consumer, always.
Well I think the "argument" comes down to either:
1. Getting open hardware with more visible (and annoying) DRM, aka the PC
2. Getting locked down hardware with transparent to the user DRM, that you don't even notice. AKA a console.
I prefer 2 to 1, especially since I don't like Windows. Yes, that means my computer runs Linux but I game on the PS3/PS4.
Yes, there's Valve's future offerings...but that IMHO is going nowhere because:
1. It requires a Windows machine for some games, especially if you supposedly get the low end version.
2. Stupid controller, Any PS2/PS3 user worth their dual shock knows that "hybrid" dual-shock + mouse (or Move Navigation controller + Mouse) control works VERY well for those games that need more accurate pointing and is a proven solution that is known to work.
3. Lack of games... you think Windows devs are just going to jump on the Linux bandwagon? What will probably happen is that SteamOS will get some native indies, a few valve provided games and you'll be expected to stream everything else from a Windows machine.
4. I already have a 'nix based console, two actually. If developers want to develop for a 'nix based/derived console, they can already do so and have been doing so since 2006. I'm talking about the PS3 and PS4.
Paying full price for the games is not the issue.
Considering the comments PC gamers make about $60 games here...especially the Euro-gamers...I think in some cases it IS about price.
I'm wrong...in regards to YOU, that doesn't mean that there aren't Filthy PC Gamer Bourgeoisie that fulfill the stereotypes I mentioned.
You may buy games at full price, but many of the Filthy Gabe Newell Worshipping PC Gamer Bourgeoisie here on Slashdot brag of paying no more than $5 per game... and then wonder why the PC version of cross-platform games is an afterthought.
They solved that quite some time ago with the PS3...at least if you have PSN+. With the PS4 it's all backgrounded.
I turn my console on about once a month. Every time... "we want to update this if you want to play your games *at all*"
Use it more often.
Oh look my PC will update itself and still let me play.
Your PC might, but the games that need updating won't...you'll have to wait till the update finishes....just like you do on consoles. So you'll be reading Slashdot while Pando-whatever updates your MMO client.
No, it's obviously consoles. PC gamers don't actually play games, they just play benchmarks for bragging points on their e-peens. Besides, after spending so much on their hardware they don't have money for games, that's why PC gamers in Europe and Asia are such pirates, and why PC GAmers in America are the "Only buy $5.00 games at steam sales" sorts of guys.
And if they do play a game it's just "one" game that they play over and over and over to the exclusion of everything else. Whether it be Starcraft, League of Legends or just one map in Counter Strike... they're not "gamers" they're the electronic gamer equivalent of the guys who play touch football/basketball while insulting the other players with homophobic comments every weekend.
I'm a PS4 owner, so I can't tell you how the Xbox works.
Does either platform make it possible to completely disable/ignore the sharing features? (e.g. what happens if I accidentally press a sharing button?)
Nothing! You actually have to choose how you want to share, and if you don't give the PS4 any Twitch/Ustream/Facebook/Twitter info it can't do any sharing.
Can you completely disable/ignore content shared by other users if you're playing against them online?
Yes, nothing shows up during actual gameplay.
Can you run either platform totally offline?
Yes, but you'll miss out on system and game updates that way.
They only disabled streaming for PlayRoom, which is what was used to do that video. For those who don't know, PlayRoom is an Augmented Reality thingy that shows off the features of the PS4 Camera and DS4. It does so in a sort of EyePet style fashion, so you can see the room behind the little robots or whatever.
There was one couple who used the Playroom to create a sort of Talk Show that became a bit popular.
Even on Slashdot, where people claim they game on $600 dollar machines, there's a few who say that if you do that you might as well not game on PC at all because that $600 machine is not a "real" gaming machine.
So you might want to talk to the elitist jerks of the PC enthusiast community. Really, those "PC Master Race" guys are doing you guys no favors. While I like a PC game now and then, I dislike PC gamers as a community. For example the PC Diablo community is full of overly entitled whiners who can barely write standard english who decry "Sequelitis" on consoles while wanting Diablo 3 to have been EXACTLY like Diablo 2 but with better graphics. They argue over stupid shit and claim the game is dying even though it has lots of people playing it. There's also some Euro-gamers who want to turn Diablo into a free MMO-lite or LoL clone with guilds, 6vs6 PVP, etc etc. The Diablo 3 console gamers are actually more focused on simply playing and enjoying the game.
Most of the PC enthusiast/gaming magazines have what they call their "baseline" or "minimal" machines at around the $1300 level.
So yes, while there are guys who claim they game on a $600 machine, they're probably not playing at the high settings that most PC gamers claim are the reason to play on the PC in the first place.
Besides, for $1300 you can buy a PS3 and $1000 worth of games. I've often made the joke that PC gamers play their LoL and de_dust over and over because they spent so much on their hardware that they have no money for games.
It lasted quite a long time in the UK- albeit having to share the market with the massive selling ZX Spectrum.
Oh, I know, the Amiga lasted longer over there too...basically because of the anti-console bias that Uncle Clive encouraged with his advertising and the UK government encouraged with their duties and tariffs on US/Japanese machines to protect Uncle Clive from the likes of Commodore and Nintendo.
Over here, the NES wasn't particularly successful (at least not compared to the US.)
The NES on the low end, and the IBM PC on the high end, destroyed the 8-bit inexpensive home computer market in the US.
but I'll bet the difference was quickly made up by the cost of the games!
Maybe.
Mind you, here in the UK, we had "budget games"- mainly sold on tape- which were £1.99 to £2.99
Tape? TAPE? Why weren't floppy drives popular? Over here the good games were on floppy! I didn't own a C64 (or any other of the home machines) back then but everyone I knew who had one, had the 1541 as well. It was considered essential.
Console Games back then, were $29 to $39, with a few titles at $19, clearance and specials for less.
Home computer games were at the $40, $50 and $55 price points.
and even our "full price" games weren't as expensive as those in the US, which seemed to be quite expensive- so maybe you guys were already used to paying big money for your games!
Yep. And again, while you were playing Dizzy, Americans were playing Ultima, Wizardry and Earl Weaver.
Well if they're doing Javascript programming, even a minimal web browser would be good enough. All they need is an edit box on a web page.
Some "community action" style agencies are doing "information access" projects where they refurb machines and get them to low-income people. Those efforsts are chronically underfunded.
If they can get a computer internet access isn't as much of a problem, the local cable company has a 9.95 "launch" Broadband plan. 3Mbps down/512kbps up. 150GB cap. Yes, it's what they offered at $50 a month 10 years ago, but it's something. Standard package now is the 15Mbps/1Mbps 250GB cap plan.
Worked for early PS3's too, except it ups the cost. And what is one of the big complaints of the masses about the PS3? The cost of the launch models with backwards compatibility.
PCSX2 is NOT flawless, though emulator fanboys claim it is. It is nowhere near as good at playing PS2 games as an actual PS2 (or PS3 for that matter) is. Sure, it's better than it was...at one time the only game that ran well on it was Final Fantasy X.
To be fair. even Sony's own PS2 emulator (the one used in 80 gig PS3s) can't handle Ratchet and Clank.
That always amazed me. It's a top-name first-party franchise, and the software-emulation PS3s couldn't handle it.
Probably uses some tricks that break the TRC's. Some PSone games don't work (X-Files, I'm looking at you) in PS2's or PS3's and those PS2's have PSone hardware in them.
You might also want to compare the sound of the PSN download version of FF7 to the disc version on a PS3 sometime. Only the PSN version sounds like it did on an actual PSone or PS2.
(*) Ironically, the Japanese took over the US market another way, by launching the NES and everyone buying them for gaming instead of home computers.
The C64's good years are quite noticeable, 84 to 87. From the crash of 84, when people who still wanted to do electronic gaming almost had to jump to more expensive than a game console 8-bit computers, till the ascendancy of the NES. Twas Zelda that put the nail in the coffin. It didn't hurt that the NES was cheaper than a C64 system, without the load times, and with mostly better graphics.
But also, many of those who had C64's during that period only used them for games and only knew enough Commodore BASIC to:
load "*"
or
load "*",8,1
Thus turning their C64 into a console. Not taking into account that the C64 was actually designed to be console-like, which became more computer-ish later in it's design history. That's why it has the Ultimax mode.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't change the fact that the first year of a console's life is shit.
For game releases I would agree, mostly, but early model hardware hasn't been affected by any cost-reduction measures, a la removal of the link and expansion ports in the PSone, the lack of a hard drive bay in the PS2 slim, and the various things that Slim and Super-slim PS3's don't have that the Deluxe Fat PS3's do, in the name of getting the cost down.
For most of Steam's existence, it's been the antithesis of all three of these things.
Oh I agree on that.
The reason lots of people are supporting Steam here, as I see it (and quite a lot are, despite the DRM), is that locking down hardware is bad for the consumer, always.
Well I think the "argument" comes down to either:
1. Getting open hardware with more visible (and annoying) DRM, aka the PC
2. Getting locked down hardware with transparent to the user DRM, that you don't even notice. AKA a console.
I prefer 2 to 1, especially since I don't like Windows. Yes, that means my computer runs Linux but I game on the PS3/PS4.
Yes, there's Valve's future offerings...but that IMHO is going nowhere because:
1. It requires a Windows machine for some games, especially if you supposedly get the low end version.
2. Stupid controller, Any PS2/PS3 user worth their dual shock knows that "hybrid" dual-shock + mouse (or Move Navigation controller + Mouse) control works VERY well for those games that need more accurate pointing and is a proven solution that is known to work.
3. Lack of games... you think Windows devs are just going to jump on the Linux bandwagon? What will probably happen is that SteamOS will get some native indies, a few valve provided games and you'll be expected to stream everything else from a Windows machine.
4. I already have a 'nix based console, two actually. If developers want to develop for a 'nix based/derived console, they can already do so and have been doing so since 2006. I'm talking about the PS3 and PS4.
Paying full price for the games is not the issue.
Considering the comments PC gamers make about $60 games here...especially the Euro-gamers...I think in some cases it IS about price.
You're wrong, on every one of your comments.
I'm wrong...in regards to YOU, that doesn't mean that there aren't Filthy PC Gamer Bourgeoisie that fulfill the stereotypes I mentioned.
You may buy games at full price, but many of the Filthy Gabe Newell Worshipping PC Gamer Bourgeoisie here on Slashdot brag of paying no more than $5 per game... and then wonder why the PC version of cross-platform games is an afterthought.
Also did they solve that annoying update thing.
They solved that quite some time ago with the PS3...at least if you have PSN+. With the PS4 it's all backgrounded.
I turn my console on about once a month. Every time... "we want to update this if you want to play your games *at all*"
Use it more often.
Oh look my PC will update itself and still let me play.
Your PC might, but the games that need updating won't...you'll have to wait till the update finishes....just like you do on consoles. So you'll be reading Slashdot while Pando-whatever updates your MMO client.
No, it's obviously consoles. PC gamers don't actually play games, they just play benchmarks for bragging points on their e-peens. Besides, after spending so much on their hardware they don't have money for games, that's why PC gamers in Europe and Asia are such pirates, and why PC GAmers in America are the "Only buy $5.00 games at steam sales" sorts of guys.
And if they do play a game it's just "one" game that they play over and over and over to the exclusion of everything else. Whether it be Starcraft, League of Legends or just one map in Counter Strike... they're not "gamers" they're the electronic gamer equivalent of the guys who play touch football/basketball while insulting the other players with homophobic comments every weekend.
I'm a PS4 owner, so I can't tell you how the Xbox works.
Does either platform make it possible to completely disable/ignore the sharing features? (e.g. what happens if I accidentally press a sharing button?)
Nothing! You actually have to choose how you want to share, and if you don't give the PS4 any Twitch/Ustream/Facebook/Twitter info it can't do any sharing.
Can you completely disable/ignore content shared by other users if you're playing against them online?
Yes, nothing shows up during actual gameplay.
Can you run either platform totally offline?
Yes, but you'll miss out on system and game updates that way.
UStream as well.
They only disabled streaming for PlayRoom, which is what was used to do that video. For those who don't know, PlayRoom is an Augmented Reality thingy that shows off the features of the PS4 Camera and DS4. It does so in a sort of EyePet style fashion, so you can see the room behind the little robots or whatever.
There was one couple who used the Playroom to create a sort of Talk Show that became a bit popular.
Even on Slashdot, where people claim they game on $600 dollar machines, there's a few who say that if you do that you might as well not game on PC at all because that $600 machine is not a "real" gaming machine.
So you might want to talk to the elitist jerks of the PC enthusiast community. Really, those "PC Master Race" guys are doing you guys no favors. While I like a PC game now and then, I dislike PC gamers as a community. For example the PC Diablo community is full of overly entitled whiners who can barely write standard english who decry "Sequelitis" on consoles while wanting Diablo 3 to have been EXACTLY like Diablo 2 but with better graphics. They argue over stupid shit and claim the game is dying even though it has lots of people playing it. There's also some Euro-gamers who want to turn Diablo into a free MMO-lite or LoL clone with guilds, 6vs6 PVP, etc etc. The Diablo 3 console gamers are actually more focused on simply playing and enjoying the game.
http://www.maximumpc.com/build_pc_recommended_builds_october_2013
That's what "They" call a Baseline machine.
http://www.maximumpc.com/build_pc_recommended_builds_october_2013
The GPU and CPU alone on the "Baseline" machine costs more than a PS4.
Hey, I'm a console gamer, it's what "THEY" say is a baseline machine, not me.
http://www.maximumpc.com/build_pc_recommended_builds_october_2013
Try about half of that
half that is $650, still more than a PS4 or Xbox One.
and will still be more powerful.
Not on memory bandwidth, and most $650 dollar machines are dual or quad-core.
Most of the PC enthusiast/gaming magazines have what they call their "baseline" or "minimal" machines at around the $1300 level.
So yes, while there are guys who claim they game on a $600 machine, they're probably not playing at the high settings that most PC gamers claim are the reason to play on the PC in the first place.
Besides, for $1300 you can buy a PS3 and $1000 worth of games. I've often made the joke that PC gamers play their LoL and de_dust over and over because they spent so much on their hardware that they have no money for games.
It was very human sounding, and decades later Steven Hawkins still sounded like a 1930s radio drama robot.
From what I've read, Hawking is using 20 year old technology because he has grown attached to the voice.
Considering that the 1991 SNES had a 256 color mode...they chose that mode for DOOM so that it wouldn't require a very high end machine.
Course in a few years 3D hardware would enable running 24 bit color games on relatively low end hardware (like the PSone)
So when I play it in DosBox or whichever emulator, the sound is just too good! It is not the same as when I played it before!
What I want is for the DOOM Collection Complete for PS3 to sound like SNES DOOM, which was My First DOOM
It lasted quite a long time in the UK- albeit having to share the market with the massive selling ZX Spectrum.
Oh, I know, the Amiga lasted longer over there too...basically because of the anti-console bias that Uncle Clive encouraged with his advertising and the UK government encouraged with their duties and tariffs on US/Japanese machines to protect Uncle Clive from the likes of Commodore and Nintendo.
Over here, the NES wasn't particularly successful (at least not compared to the US.)
The NES on the low end, and the IBM PC on the high end, destroyed the 8-bit inexpensive home computer market in the US.
but I'll bet the difference was quickly made up by the cost of the games!
Maybe.
Mind you, here in the UK, we had "budget games"- mainly sold on tape- which were £1.99 to £2.99
Tape? TAPE? Why weren't floppy drives popular? Over here the good games were on floppy! I didn't own a C64 (or any other of the home machines) back then but everyone I knew who had one, had the 1541 as well. It was considered essential.
Console Games back then, were $29 to $39, with a few titles at $19, clearance and specials for less.
Home computer games were at the $40, $50 and $55 price points.
and even our "full price" games weren't as expensive as those in the US, which seemed to be quite expensive- so maybe you guys were already used to paying big money for your games!
Yep. And again, while you were playing Dizzy, Americans were playing Ultima, Wizardry and Earl Weaver.
Well if they're doing Javascript programming, even a minimal web browser would be good enough. All they need is an edit box on a web page.
Some "community action" style agencies are doing "information access" projects where they refurb machines and get them to low-income people. Those efforsts are chronically underfunded.
If they can get a computer internet access isn't as much of a problem, the local cable company has a 9.95 "launch" Broadband plan. 3Mbps down/512kbps up. 150GB cap. Yes, it's what they offered at $50 a month 10 years ago, but it's something. Standard package now is the 15Mbps/1Mbps 250GB cap plan.
Worked for early PS3's too, except it ups the cost. And what is one of the big complaints of the masses about the PS3? The cost of the launch models with backwards compatibility.
likewise Indie doesn't automatically mean good either. There's good and bad from both.
I do believe that impression is correct, DX9 only.
PCSX2 is NOT flawless, though emulator fanboys claim it is. It is nowhere near as good at playing PS2 games as an actual PS2 (or PS3 for that matter) is. Sure, it's better than it was...at one time the only game that ran well on it was Final Fantasy X.
To be fair. even Sony's own PS2 emulator (the one used in 80 gig PS3s) can't handle Ratchet and Clank.
That always amazed me. It's a top-name first-party franchise, and the software-emulation PS3s couldn't handle it.
Probably uses some tricks that break the TRC's. Some PSone games don't work (X-Files, I'm looking at you) in PS2's or PS3's and those PS2's have PSone hardware in them.
You might also want to compare the sound of the PSN download version of FF7 to the disc version on a PS3 sometime. Only the PSN version sounds like it did on an actual PSone or PS2.
(*) Ironically, the Japanese took over the US market another way, by launching the NES and everyone buying them for gaming instead of home computers.
The C64's good years are quite noticeable, 84 to 87. From the crash of 84, when people who still wanted to do electronic gaming almost had to jump to more expensive than a game console 8-bit computers, till the ascendancy of the NES. Twas Zelda that put the nail in the coffin. It didn't hurt that the NES was cheaper than a C64 system, without the load times, and with mostly better graphics.
But also, many of those who had C64's during that period only used them for games and only knew enough Commodore BASIC to:
load "*"
or
load "*",8,1
Thus turning their C64 into a console. Not taking into account that the C64 was actually designed to be console-like, which became more computer-ish later in it's design history. That's why it has the Ultimax mode.