Unlike you I'm smarter than to cherry-pick one month and say anything one way or the other. Look at the long term trends.
Generally speaking, the 360 has outsold the PS3 month by month. The long term trends are going to be irrelevant if you look at it from a generation point of view, which almost everyone does. Now if you want to combine PS2 and PS3 sales, then yes, Sony is beating Microsoft, but look at that, they need the power of two consoles, one a whole generation behind, to try and stay relevant. The PS2 just isn't relevant. You rarely hear anything about PS2 games still being made (some studios still do it...). This is actually how it's been for Sony for at least a year, if not longer. It's just not cherry-picking one month, the trend is there. The Wii continues to outsell the 360, the 360 continues to outsell the PS3, and the PS3 barely manages to outsell the PS2.
Newer PS3's don't officially support backwards compatibility, which in of itself is going to be cumbersome for developers. Do I develop for the PS2? For the PS3? For both? Do I ignore Sony all together? How many people bought their PS3 just for blu-ray?
And what's even more sad about the PS3 is that it's selling less units in a sales heavy month than it did the previous year, while the other two competitors have sold more. This is just in North America alone. Sony needs to address why the sales of their current generation console are barely outselling their last generation console. People might think that the long term sales is a good thing, but I'm not entirely sure it is in this scenario. Sony has a bad name for themselves for everyone else but Sony lovers, and the number of those people are dwindling, if NPD numbers are any indication here.
I honestly can't figure out why anyone would complain about piracy when there's isn't a visible demo for this game. The honest people are being forced to pirate this game so they can make an informed purchasing decision. This alone will skew any erroneous figures that they will ultimately make... When will these companies learn?
And where exactly was the theft here? Theft involves physical transfer of goods. Downloading involves making a copy. Until replicators are common place, comparing the two is comparing apples and oranges.
Besides, with a car, you can test drive it before you decide to buy. It's become increasingly difficult to do that with games. What's our only recourse of actions then? To blindly get ripped off? I don't call that being a smart consumer.
You have pretty much hit the nail on the head. People love exploiting in games. A more fluid control would just make that easier to do so. Balancing a game for two different methods of input is probably really tough in of itself.
It's an advantage yes, but hardly an unfair one.. Everyone else is free to use a keyboard and mouse if they so desire. You can buy joypads with rapid fire and macro support too, are these devices also unfair?
In most cases, I'd say yes they are. People abuse this in COD4 all the time to make their semi-auto, super accurate weapons be full auto and keep a very good accuracy. It is unfair. I'd call this cheating as the game wasn't intended to be played that way as well (but that's a different topic entirely).
You don't force people to use them, you just provide the option for those who want it. Other people can simply ignore the option and use the existing pads.
The problem comes in where the mouse and keyboard aren't bundled with the console or game. So making it an option suddenly becomes unfair for those that do not have the money to buy extra peripherals to gain an edge in the game. The other input devices you mentioned are non-standard and give you an advantage that you shouldn't have in the first place.
I do think it's ridiculous that it's not fully implemented in console games, but that's just how it is. If you don't like it, write a letter.
There are a few games out there using the unreal engine? that do fully support mouse and keyboard on the console, but it really is just a handful of games. I think developers are just afraid of putting forth the effort for full implementation in their games because a.) it's not bundled with the console and b.) the unfair advantage in the online component of their games.
Sigh, there's more games than FPS's, and some people actually play games....offline, non-competitively.
So? It's the driving force for the longevity of a lot of games. A lot of people complain if game xyz doesn't have it, even if it doesn't necessarily fit with the game.
So the competitive thing isn't an issue,
No, the competitive thing is an issue specifically because of the online component. While it's not the biggest hindrance to why mouse+keyboard isn't generally implemented in console games, it is a big factor. They could allow program the game to not allow the use of those two peripherals in the online component, but then you'd have to deal with more bitching anyway.
Not everyone will use their keyboard and mouse on their PC with their console due to varying reasons, especially if it's the only PC in the house.
Look, keyboards are so useful outside of games on the PS3 that I bet a lot of people keep one attached, the GameOS web browser alone is such a use, let alone the messaging functions, or media functions. You can control GameOS entirely with mouse and keyboard if you want. I'm telling you, people who play online games on their PS2's/PS3's have keyboards, it's as simple as that.
Prove it. I know a lot of people who have a PS2/PS3 and never use a keyboard on it, and they have multiple PC's in the house. While the advantages are there, they're apparently not big enough for a lot of people to keep them attached all the time or use them.
If people are willing to buy special purpose controllers for rhythm games, then don't you think that they'd be willing to buy a keyboard/mouse that makes using the web browser easier.
Often times those special peripherals come bundled with the game. So while you're pay a heftier price upfront, you don't have to worry about going home, popping in the disc, and then finding out that you can't play the game properly, or at all.
I already covered this with you before. Why do you insist on putting your fingers in your ears and going "lalalala I can't hear you!".
-Limited keyboard support is not the same is fully functioning support, which is very well implied.
-Not everyone will use their keyboard and mouse on their PC with their console due to varying reasons, especially if it's the only PC in the house.
-Even if you do find a nice and cheap USB keyboard and mouse, not everyone goes out of their way to buy peripherals that will give them greater control. Not every PC gamer has a gaming mouse, and some of them are actually not that bad of a price. So your price example from an earlier discussion with you is moot.
-Developers necessarily won't waste their time implementing that type of support when they have no idea how many people will try to get that edge. They also won't like the idea of their users bitching about how it's not fair in the online component.
Actually, it is a major obstacle because it's not a standard device on consoles. Even the cheapness of it doesn't matter. Developers have no idea how many people would go out and buy a mouse and keyboard to play their game to gain that edge.
Furthermore, as has been pointed out numerous times all over this topic, it would create an unfair advantage in the online environment.
Lastly, we'd have to deal with people complaining that playing with a mouse and keyboard in their living room, on a console, is somehow uncomfortable. One of the advantages of a console is plug in, play, and go. With the mouse and keyboard you'd actually have to think about how you'd set that up. Forcing people to think is just not going to happen.
The game is designed to flow a certain way, and with certain things being changed, game balance is broken. The console is already a locked down environment, and one of the advantages of that is that every can play the game as it should be played as far as this is concerned.
Trust me, it sucks to be playing Versus mode when some asshat decides to force the infected to spawn far away from the survivors. It's easy mode for the survivors (they already have the advantage with the health) and hell for the infected. The game just isn't meant to be played that way and it isn't any fun.
And yet you've only named a handful of titles for the last gen console, which while is still selling nearly as much as the PS3, is largely irrelevant on a topic about what is perceived current generation.
And no one in their right mind would consider limited support fully functioning support, which is what is implied throughout this topic.
As far as most people having mouse and keyboard, who knows how many are USB or not. Furthermore, we don't know how many PC's a person has in their home, and to what extent they're being used while someone is using their console. This makes your point rather moot.
You keep assuming the problem is with the format, not the porting of the game. The game is ported horribly. It's an unoptimized POS. There are plenty of games which do more and look better that can run on older hardware. The platform is not at fault here. The developers are at fault for not doing a proper job.
Then your brother specced his PC wrong. You don't need to spend that amount of money to build a gaming PC. Some people do because they like bleeding edge. Bleeding edge isn't necessary...
What the hell are you talking about? There's only a handful of games on consoles that support both mouse and keyboard. Giving a few examples doesn't suddenly mean a multitude of games already have the support.
There's reasons why the support isn't there. Biggest being the advantage in online play. Second biggest being that they aren't standard input devices with the consoles. It's just a waste of money to implement support for those devices in your games if only a handful of people have said input devices.
You would probably be fooling yourself to think it's common practice. One of the biggest reasons to not have it implemented is for the online play in FPS's. People who would use the mouse and keyboard support would find themselves doing leagues better than the people using the controller.
It can obviously be done, it just won't be standard practice any time soon. Once consoles start coming with mouse and keyboard as a standard input device, then we'll probably see it happen a lot more often.
It's actually quite useful to see certain things that you normally can't see. A lot of times you can't see your choke, ping, FPS, movement speed, etc... Just the diagnostic information alone is nice. If I'm lagging really bad, I'd like to try and figure out why, not blame just outright blame it on the server.
The 7 out of 10 score is fine for games that are good. But there are also plenty of games which are getting scores higher than they merit because of marketing pressure or hype. Just because a game has "Mario" or "Halo" in its title doesn't necessarily mean it's a 9.8 - 10 on a scale of 10. Maybe those games are actually deserving of a score like 9, instead, maybe even an 8!
You just can't trust reviewers anymore because they're at the mercy on both ends, and really, it just stinks. Their bosses, and they themselves may say they're not, but who do they think they're kidding here?
You're missing the point. While this stuff might already be in the game, you have to work for it in some fashion. There's some sort of reward / penalty risk you actively have to seek out. They've bastardized that with, "give us money and you have it without working for it".
Part of the fun in any game is accomplishment. Once you take out incentives to accomplish something, the game has taken a turn for the worse. It loses a lot of value with individual players and in a sense, the entire community.
Exactly what I was thinking. If these games were so "great" as they assume, people would want to keep them for longer periods of time due to their replay value.
These "great games" that they speak so highly of, are usually nothing but sequels to games, where the ideas were already done. They're not really that original and maybe just add one or two new features. The annual sports games come to mind. Most people won't keep those forever. A lot of people trade them in pretty fast when they've realized it's just like last years game.
Instead of rehashing the same ideas so quickly, come out with new IP's. Part of the problem isn't even the gameplay or even bad plot where applicable, it's just saturation in the market. Make less shovelware and concentrate on making better games.
Also, stop paying reviewers for high scores. It's such fucking bullshit when a reviewer calls a game "mediocre" and gives it a 7 out of 10. I would think a mediocre game would get a 5, as a 5 would indicate the halfway point. People have to rely on these reviews for the console side to try and make an informed purchasing decision. And guess what? With these skewed reviews, it's often hard to make the informed decision. If I was heavy into consoles like I was when I was younger, I'd probably be trading in games all the time too because of this bullshit.
Gamestop only helps the industry by having a one stop shop for a console gamer needs, so to speak. Biting the hand that helps feed you, a lot, isn't a wise move. It's not hard to dream of ways that would net you a little slice of their uses sales pie while benefiting Gamestop in other ways.
Slashdot Mirror
Unlike you I'm smarter than to cherry-pick one month and say anything one way or the other. Look at the long term trends.
Generally speaking, the 360 has outsold the PS3 month by month. The long term trends are going to be irrelevant if you look at it from a generation point of view, which almost everyone does. Now if you want to combine PS2 and PS3 sales, then yes, Sony is beating Microsoft, but look at that, they need the power of two consoles, one a whole generation behind, to try and stay relevant. The PS2 just isn't relevant. You rarely hear anything about PS2 games still being made (some studios still do it...). This is actually how it's been for Sony for at least a year, if not longer. It's just not cherry-picking one month, the trend is there. The Wii continues to outsell the 360, the 360 continues to outsell the PS3, and the PS3 barely manages to outsell the PS2.
Newer PS3's don't officially support backwards compatibility, which in of itself is going to be cumbersome for developers. Do I develop for the PS2? For the PS3? For both? Do I ignore Sony all together? How many people bought their PS3 just for blu-ray?
And what's even more sad about the PS3 is that it's selling less units in a sales heavy month than it did the previous year, while the other two competitors have sold more. This is just in North America alone. Sony needs to address why the sales of their current generation console are barely outselling their last generation console. People might think that the long term sales is a good thing, but I'm not entirely sure it is in this scenario. Sony has a bad name for themselves for everyone else but Sony lovers, and the number of those people are dwindling, if NPD numbers are any indication here.
http://blog.wired.com/games/2008/12/november-game-s.html
No, you're right. I was just being stupid. I'm going to use the excuse that everyone else uses here... but I just woke up!
I honestly can't figure out why anyone would complain about piracy when there's isn't a visible demo for this game. The honest people are being forced to pirate this game so they can make an informed purchasing decision. This alone will skew any erroneous figures that they will ultimately make... When will these companies learn?
And where exactly was the theft here? Theft involves physical transfer of goods. Downloading involves making a copy. Until replicators are common place, comparing the two is comparing apples and oranges.
Besides, with a car, you can test drive it before you decide to buy. It's become increasingly difficult to do that with games. What's our only recourse of actions then? To blindly get ripped off? I don't call that being a smart consumer.
You have pretty much hit the nail on the head. People love exploiting in games. A more fluid control would just make that easier to do so. Balancing a game for two different methods of input is probably really tough in of itself.
It's an advantage yes, but hardly an unfair one.. Everyone else is free to use a keyboard and mouse if they so desire. You can buy joypads with rapid fire and macro support too, are these devices also unfair?
In most cases, I'd say yes they are. People abuse this in COD4 all the time to make their semi-auto, super accurate weapons be full auto and keep a very good accuracy. It is unfair. I'd call this cheating as the game wasn't intended to be played that way as well (but that's a different topic entirely).
You don't force people to use them, you just provide the option for those who want it. Other people can simply ignore the option and use the existing pads.
The problem comes in where the mouse and keyboard aren't bundled with the console or game. So making it an option suddenly becomes unfair for those that do not have the money to buy extra peripherals to gain an edge in the game. The other input devices you mentioned are non-standard and give you an advantage that you shouldn't have in the first place.
I do think it's ridiculous that it's not fully implemented in console games, but that's just how it is. If you don't like it, write a letter.
There are a few games out there using the unreal engine? that do fully support mouse and keyboard on the console, but it really is just a handful of games. I think developers are just afraid of putting forth the effort for full implementation in their games because a.) it's not bundled with the console and b.) the unfair advantage in the online component of their games.
Sigh, there's more games than FPS's, and some people actually play games....offline, non-competitively.
So? It's the driving force for the longevity of a lot of games. A lot of people complain if game xyz doesn't have it, even if it doesn't necessarily fit with the game.
So the competitive thing isn't an issue,
No, the competitive thing is an issue specifically because of the online component. While it's not the biggest hindrance to why mouse+keyboard isn't generally implemented in console games, it is a big factor. They could allow program the game to not allow the use of those two peripherals in the online component, but then you'd have to deal with more bitching anyway.
Not everyone will use their keyboard and mouse on their PC with their console due to varying reasons, especially if it's the only PC in the house.
Prove it. I know a lot of people who have a PS2/PS3 and never use a keyboard on it, and they have multiple PC's in the house. While the advantages are there, they're apparently not big enough for a lot of people to keep them attached all the time or use them.
If people are willing to buy special purpose controllers for rhythm games, then don't you think that they'd be willing to buy a keyboard/mouse that makes using the web browser easier.
Often times those special peripherals come bundled with the game. So while you're pay a heftier price upfront, you don't have to worry about going home, popping in the disc, and then finding out that you can't play the game properly, or at all.
Just because the console can support it doesn't mean the games support it in a fully functioning format. So yes, really.
I already covered this with you before. Why do you insist on putting your fingers in your ears and going "lalalala I can't hear you!".
-Limited keyboard support is not the same is fully functioning support, which is very well implied.
-Not everyone will use their keyboard and mouse on their PC with their console due to varying reasons, especially if it's the only PC in the house.
-Even if you do find a nice and cheap USB keyboard and mouse, not everyone goes out of their way to buy peripherals that will give them greater control. Not every PC gamer has a gaming mouse, and some of them are actually not that bad of a price. So your price example from an earlier discussion with you is moot.
-Developers necessarily won't waste their time implementing that type of support when they have no idea how many people will try to get that edge. They also won't like the idea of their users bitching about how it's not fair in the online component.
Are we done beating the dead horse here?
Actually, it is a major obstacle because it's not a standard device on consoles. Even the cheapness of it doesn't matter. Developers have no idea how many people would go out and buy a mouse and keyboard to play their game to gain that edge.
Furthermore, as has been pointed out numerous times all over this topic, it would create an unfair advantage in the online environment.
Lastly, we'd have to deal with people complaining that playing with a mouse and keyboard in their living room, on a console, is somehow uncomfortable. One of the advantages of a console is plug in, play, and go. With the mouse and keyboard you'd actually have to think about how you'd set that up. Forcing people to think is just not going to happen.
Today, that is still the case with consoles.
That is not true. Console games are having these issues now too. Fable II, Fallout 3, GTAIV, and the list goes on.
The game is designed to flow a certain way, and with certain things being changed, game balance is broken. The console is already a locked down environment, and one of the advantages of that is that every can play the game as it should be played as far as this is concerned.
Trust me, it sucks to be playing Versus mode when some asshat decides to force the infected to spawn far away from the survivors. It's easy mode for the survivors (they already have the advantage with the health) and hell for the infected. The game just isn't meant to be played that way and it isn't any fun.
And yet you've only named a handful of titles for the last gen console, which while is still selling nearly as much as the PS3, is largely irrelevant on a topic about what is perceived current generation.
And no one in their right mind would consider limited support fully functioning support, which is what is implied throughout this topic.
As far as most people having mouse and keyboard, who knows how many are USB or not. Furthermore, we don't know how many PC's a person has in their home, and to what extent they're being used while someone is using their console. This makes your point rather moot.
You keep assuming the problem is with the format, not the porting of the game. The game is ported horribly. It's an unoptimized POS. There are plenty of games which do more and look better that can run on older hardware. The platform is not at fault here. The developers are at fault for not doing a proper job.
Then your brother specced his PC wrong. You don't need to spend that amount of money to build a gaming PC. Some people do because they like bleeding edge. Bleeding edge isn't necessary...
What the hell are you talking about? There's only a handful of games on consoles that support both mouse and keyboard. Giving a few examples doesn't suddenly mean a multitude of games already have the support.
There's reasons why the support isn't there. Biggest being the advantage in online play. Second biggest being that they aren't standard input devices with the consoles. It's just a waste of money to implement support for those devices in your games if only a handful of people have said input devices.
You would probably be fooling yourself to think it's common practice. One of the biggest reasons to not have it implemented is for the online play in FPS's. People who would use the mouse and keyboard support would find themselves doing leagues better than the people using the controller.
It can obviously be done, it just won't be standard practice any time soon. Once consoles start coming with mouse and keyboard as a standard input device, then we'll probably see it happen a lot more often.
Yes, really. I said "mouse and keyboard", not just a non-standard mouse designed to work for only a few games.
It's actually quite useful to see certain things that you normally can't see. A lot of times you can't see your choke, ping, FPS, movement speed, etc... Just the diagnostic information alone is nice. If I'm lagging really bad, I'd like to try and figure out why, not blame just outright blame it on the server.
Look at the PS3. You can turn it into a PC if you so choose. The choice is already there. I just think Stude has it wrong on how it will happen.
I'd be surprised if a console game had mouse and keyboard support.
The 7 out of 10 score is fine for games that are good. But there are also plenty of games which are getting scores higher than they merit because of marketing pressure or hype. Just because a game has "Mario" or "Halo" in its title doesn't necessarily mean it's a 9.8 - 10 on a scale of 10. Maybe those games are actually deserving of a score like 9, instead, maybe even an 8!
You just can't trust reviewers anymore because they're at the mercy on both ends, and really, it just stinks. Their bosses, and they themselves may say they're not, but who do they think they're kidding here?
You're missing the point. While this stuff might already be in the game, you have to work for it in some fashion. There's some sort of reward / penalty risk you actively have to seek out. They've bastardized that with, "give us money and you have it without working for it".
Part of the fun in any game is accomplishment. Once you take out incentives to accomplish something, the game has taken a turn for the worse. It loses a lot of value with individual players and in a sense, the entire community.
Exactly what I was thinking. If these games were so "great" as they assume, people would want to keep them for longer periods of time due to their replay value.
These "great games" that they speak so highly of, are usually nothing but sequels to games, where the ideas were already done. They're not really that original and maybe just add one or two new features. The annual sports games come to mind. Most people won't keep those forever. A lot of people trade them in pretty fast when they've realized it's just like last years game.
Instead of rehashing the same ideas so quickly, come out with new IP's. Part of the problem isn't even the gameplay or even bad plot where applicable, it's just saturation in the market. Make less shovelware and concentrate on making better games.
Also, stop paying reviewers for high scores. It's such fucking bullshit when a reviewer calls a game "mediocre" and gives it a 7 out of 10. I would think a mediocre game would get a 5, as a 5 would indicate the halfway point. People have to rely on these reviews for the console side to try and make an informed purchasing decision. And guess what? With these skewed reviews, it's often hard to make the informed decision. If I was heavy into consoles like I was when I was younger, I'd probably be trading in games all the time too because of this bullshit.
Gamestop only helps the industry by having a one stop shop for a console gamer needs, so to speak. Biting the hand that helps feed you, a lot, isn't a wise move. It's not hard to dream of ways that would net you a little slice of their uses sales pie while benefiting Gamestop in other ways.