Another point - what is the opposite of Steam?
Electronic Arts.
With Steam, Valve have only to please themselves (and obviously, the consumers) with their products - not a bunch of businessmen. (no offense, businessmen!)
Valve simply want to control their own publishing
on
Half-Life 2 - Aftermath
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I can understand why people hate Steam. But I have rarely had any problems at all with it, and furthermore, I am delighted to be able to give the entire price I paid for HL2 to Valve, and not a penny of it to a publisher.
Well, I play Counterstrike. I have my fps in game set to 100, I have my monitor running at 100hz and I have v-synched enabled (windows xp, refresh fix).
As I understand (and experience) it, everything is in synch. I have an extremely smooth gaming experience with no screen-tearing (thanks to the v-synch).
You CAN easily tell the difference in an fps game when you play with lower frame rates. It's that simple, you easily can. Carmack did state a few years ago that a semi-serious gamer would want 60fps and that's true, but it's really the minimum you want for competitive gaming. Any less and things just aren't smooth enough.
However, for a single player experience we can deal with a lower fps - I seem to recall that when Quake 2 was released people were reasonably happy getting 30+ fps for the single player experience.
Slashdot Mirror
Another point - what is the opposite of Steam? Electronic Arts. With Steam, Valve have only to please themselves (and obviously, the consumers) with their products - not a bunch of businessmen. (no offense, businessmen!)
I can understand why people hate Steam. But I have rarely had any problems at all with it, and furthermore, I am delighted to be able to give the entire price I paid for HL2 to Valve, and not a penny of it to a publisher.
Well, I play Counterstrike. I have my fps in game set to 100, I have my monitor running at 100hz and I have v-synched enabled (windows xp, refresh fix). As I understand (and experience) it, everything is in synch. I have an extremely smooth gaming experience with no screen-tearing (thanks to the v-synch). You CAN easily tell the difference in an fps game when you play with lower frame rates. It's that simple, you easily can. Carmack did state a few years ago that a semi-serious gamer would want 60fps and that's true, but it's really the minimum you want for competitive gaming. Any less and things just aren't smooth enough. However, for a single player experience we can deal with a lower fps - I seem to recall that when Quake 2 was released people were reasonably happy getting 30+ fps for the single player experience.