Actually it is. Have you played it? Probably not--thought so.
Flamebait. Yes I own it. Would you talk to your parents like that? If not, then don't talk in a tone like that. Also don't be PC and say but I don't have parents! It's a hypothetical question, i.e, what if.
Uh what? That was completely unintelligble and made no sense.
Amnesia, while an amazing game, is simply a point-and-click game.
Oversimplifying the game. Also off-topic.
No, not off-topic. Completely on-topic. Your response: "Amnesia is a casual game." My reponse: "It is a casual game." Yes, very off-topic. And yes, it really is. It has no other mechanic than looking through rooms, opening doors, experiencing a story, etc. Adventure games: identical. There is no other game mechanic found in other games like RPGs (massive amount of items, leveling,combat), strategy games (building of units, strategy, currency and resource management), shooters (different weapons, different ammo, sometimes level building, and multiplayer). You're 110% wrong here.
And again, my point exactly. Strawman arguments. You dwell on one word, the "casual" one, when my entire argument was about Linux not having a realistic business market.
You proved my point 1000%. Did you even read what you wrote? It's the same 6-7 games Linux zealots mention *every* single time *every* single year, oh for the past how many years now?
And nethack? Are you serious? A game that's how many years old? 25
Are you listening to yourself? Because you're just proving my point so easily it's like you're just walking into it.
My point is that there ARE games that sell well, and also run on Linux, but as lots of people point out, nobody really does ports because it's not "established." A Valve establishment would be a great boon for Linux gaming.
And as your post has shown, that is 100% wrong.
Yea, totally worth the X millions devoted to development, marketing, production, art direction, distribution, etc., for Linux
Take your false cynicism and bitterness and educate yourself. The only extra cost is development: artwork, models, particles, etc. don't change. There wouldn't be a chicken and egg problem if more people did double ports to Mac and Linux instead.
Only cost? yes artwork doesn't change. Only just about *everything* else. So again, there are millions of extra dollars needed, work, resources, and man-power. But that doesn't count, right!
Actually it is. Have you played it? Probably not--thought so. Amnesia, while an amazing game, is simply a point-and-click game. You do realize that right? It's the simple casual "adventure" genre, albeit suspense/horror one.
And again, my point exactly. Strawman arguments. You dwell on one word, the "casual" one, when my entire argument was about Linux not having a realistic business market.
So add that 1 game to the 6 other ones. Yea, totally worth the X millions devoted to development, marketing, production, art direction, distribution, etc., for Linux
Go with your instincts on this one. I'll let u on a secret that I had to learn the hard way. Word of mouth is probably the worst way to find out about a product. Because our minds are trained to think it's actually automatically good. I can't tell you how many things I looked into and bought because of Slashdot (game opinions are the worst--almost every game ppl said they liked on/, were AWFUL). Don't listen to the OP.
Watchmen is probably the worst movie I have ever seen. And it was only rented! And I didn't even pay for the rental! I actually was pissed that I spent the 2 some hours on the movie. It was so bad. That's why, not because of some R rating. I mean, where do I start with how bad this thing was:
1) It had awful pacing. There would be 30 min of dullness followed by 5 min of something interesting. Then another 45 min of dullness. 2) The story made no sense. Even if/. beloved comic was good, this movie was not. It was told poorly 3) Insanely lame characters with lame things that they did throughout the movie 4) Too much talking. Yes talking and back story and dialog are good. Not good is when it goes 30 mins with ramblings on and no discernible direction 5) That lame constant voiceover by that Rorschach guy.
There are so many more reasons, but now I'm just getting pissed on how bad that movie is and how everyone here loves it. Just don't do it man, don't even watch it on channel 11 when you're bored on a sunday afternoon. That's when you know it's bad: when it's not even worth that!
5 casual games on Linux does not a market make. It would be *irresponsible* for any company who actually wants to make money to serve the Linux market for games.
You're entirely correct. I can't believe no one has realized that it's a console competitor.
But I have to disagree with you on graphics and ease of use. You buy or rent it, it just plays. Yes consoles are ridiculously easy. But this is even easier. Buy it, it plays. No shipping, waiting, popping in a disc, or even two button pressed to do a game patch update. And it's playable on any PC you own, across multiple ones.
And the graphics. I recently got back into console gaming from the PC (I have a 360 and a PS3). The graphics are atrocious. I mean muddy, utter crap. Played BF:BC2 and MoH reboot. It seriously hurt my eyes. It looks like I'm playing a N64. RE4 for the Gamecube looks better than pretty much every title out for the consoles. Playing MoH, I kept wondering what was that white icy stuff on the ground everywhere. Played the PC--oh, I can actually see that it's mud!
I downloaded the Crysis 2 demo. Every "gaming mag" said the graphics were the best the 360 had to offer. Really? Call of Duty 4 at its *lowest* game settings looked better. Halo:Reach? Played it. I swear that Quake 2 looked better. Quake 2!
I can't imagine OnLive having any worse graphics than the consoles.
I'm with you. In my next house I will *wire* the whole thing, and make conduits just in case I need to easily upgrade past whatever comes out after cat 6. I've used wireless for a few years now (whenever N just came out). I will never do it again.
The setup was a nightmare (half my computers would not work for unknown reasons), the range is awful (I needed to get repeaters--people forget this if you live in anything larger than a 2 bedroom), latency is atrocious (think 300ms vs. 50). And that's with N, not g/b. Wired, in comparison: the setup is painless and brainless--just plug it in. And you don't share that measly bandwidth. Every plug gets full 1000 mbs (locally anyway).
Basically, if all you do is surf facebook, you're fine. But if you do *anything* more, like Skype/VoIP, on-line gaming, video streaming, large downloads--all which pretty much people do in this day and age--you need wired.
I so regret ever setting up my home for wireless internet. Next time, not even buying a router with wireless built-in!
Do you sit on your computer just waiting to throw in your lame argument about how consoles are superior because, even though other commenters have given a ton of reasons why PCs are superior, it doesn't matter "because you can do co-op with a console in the living room?"
You do realize you made like 3 strawman arguments in another thread involving this one benefit among *many* negatives, and every time your response was "but-but-but-shared screen co-op!"
Forgot to mention. Graphics don't matter. Using the examples I gave in my other post, a console has the equivalent of running the PC version at it's *lowest*, not even medium settings. And it's even worse because a PC at its lowest settings still looks better because it's running at true 1600x1050 or 1920x1080, not upscaled 1100x900 resolution I ran back when *Quake 2* was king
I've posted this elsewhere on this story, but I think it would be of benefit. Also, keep in mind consoles are not immune to DRM. Consoles themselves are DRM, and look at the recent release of Bionic Commando. You can online play it online. In a few short years your point will no longer be valid. But anyway:
I wholeheartedly disagree. And I'll tell you why. 2 reasons. But first, a background. Recently I've gotten into online shooters. But cheating is rampant, so I've been giving the console versions a chance instead of the PC version. But anyway. Needless to say, I've had the chance to compare the two (have both BF:BC2 and the new MoH) and played both versions.
1) Consoles graphics are absolutely atrocious. I disagree with your assertion. Playing BC2, it looks like I was playing on the N64. The whole time I was playing the single player campaign, I kept thinking, I can't wait for the next console generation. Same thing with MoH. It looks atrocious on the 360.
Now, I fire it up on my PC. On a 4 year old C2D E6400 with a 8800 GTS 512. Max settings at *true*, not upscaled 1920x1080. Runs great. Anyway, you can see the beautiful textures in multiplayer on walls, guns. The ADS reticle is crisp. I can see a nice wide screen and a full beaitful panoramic view, not only 5 feet ahead of me because of low resolution. The first thing you go is "aaah, that's better." I can't even play the console version. It looks SO bad comparatively, it hurts my eyes. Literally. It's fuzzy and blocky--hence the eyestrain.
2) Online play. Now, after playing COD:BO and seeing 1 million people play online, I thought that consoles were the way to go. Dead wrong. Yes there is PC cheating. But at least there is people online. Currently even at peak times there is only a measly 2000-8000 people playing MoH online (besides BO, the most recent shooter; only 2-3 mo. old). And no one is even on period until peak times with BC2. And even Halo:Reach, the other biggest one, only has 30,000 users on. This is the 360's flagship online shooter! Counter-Strike, a 7 year old PC game, has 50,000 at all times. Yea, BO has 600,000-800,000 people playing now. That's because that is the only online shooter anyone on the 360 plays! Only GOW2 has people playing online, and it's nothing to write home about.
In short, I'm happy you like playing your console. But when your AAA title released only 7 months ago looks worse than RE4 on the Gamecube, I *like* the option to be able to game on the PC and get better graphics. The key is option. If I want to go out and buy a $150 card every 4 years to have amazing graphics, why am I not allowed to?
I wholeheartedly disagree. And I'll tell you why. 2 reasons. But first, a background. Recently I've gotten into online shooters. But cheating is rampant, so I've been giving the console versions a chance instead of the PC version. But anyway. Needless to say, I've had the chance to compare the two (have both BF:BC2 and the new MoH) and played both versions.
1) Consoles graphics are absolutely atrocious. I disagree with your assertion. Playing BC2, it looks like I was playing on the N64. The whole time I was playing the single player campaign, I kept thinking, I can't wait for the next console generation. Same thing with MoH. It looks atrocious on the 360.
Now, I fire it up on my PC. On a 4 year old C2D E6400 with a 8800 GTS 512. Max settings at *true*, not upscaled 1920x1080. Runs great. Anyway, you can see the beautiful textures in multiplayer on walls, guns. The ADS reticle is crisp. I can see a nice wide screen and a full beaitful panoramic view, not only 5 feet ahead of me because of low resolution. The first thing you go is "aaah, that's better." I can't even play the console version. It looks SO bad comparatively, it hurts my eyes. Literally. It's fuzzy and blocky--hence the eyestrain.
2) Online play. Now, after playing COD:BO and seeing 1 million people play online, I thought that consoles were the way to go. Dead wrong. Yes there is PC cheating. But at least there is people online. Currently even at peak times there is only a measly 2000-8000 people playing MoH online (besides BO, the most recent shooter; only 2-3 mo. old). And no one is even on period until peak times with BC2. And even Halo:Reach, the other biggest one, only has 30,000 users on. This is the 360's flagship online shooter! Counter-Strike, a 7 year old PC game, has 50,000 at all times. Yea, BO has 600,000-800,000 people playing now. That's because that is the only online shooter anyone on the 360 plays! Only GOW2 has people playing online, and it's nothing to write home about.
In short, I'm happy you like playing your console. But when your AAA title released only 7 months ago looks worse than RE4 on the Gamecube, I *like* the option to be able to game on the PC and get better graphics. The key is option. If I want to go out and buy a $150 card every 4 years to have amazing graphics, why am I not allowed to?
It's funny you say that. There at most times is about 400k people online during weekdays and at night and weekends about 800k online. Yet with their matchmaking service, one in 10-15 times I can't find a game. It's humorous that I hear, and please correct me, there is only 50k for the PC version. However, if I had the PC version I could simply always choose a server of my choice and never have to wait. And yes you'll always be able to play it.
Not sure about tired of standing. I just work with the true realities of things. Unless it's COD/CS/L4D/TF2, a 1-2 years after shooter is released it's pretty much empty on the PC anyway. So unless you have IRL friends to play with AND who have the game, you have no one. So does it matter if you can play 10 years later? And also, I'm not talking about EA sports games here which close down the previous year. They don't count. They're garbage. But yes, I do love that some games can be played online with IRL friends 5 years later. That's true. But then again, on the flipside, consoles have significantly less amounts of cheating. If 50-75% of all PC servers have cheaters, why bother even playing.
I just don't know. What I do know is that game hacks/cheating hurts everyone. And it makes online gaming completely not even worth it
On second thought, as I've said on another post in this thread, maybe the best way is what MS did. Diligent monitoring and banning of cheaters. But who knows. Maybe just the threat of knowing that "ooh Sony is monitoring you and can brick your console" is enough to curtail the apparent deluge of cheaters.
Very true. There always will be. But for example MW2 has 50% cheaters, that's pretty bad*. I really don't know the best solution for this. My take is the route MS took. Diligent monitoring and banning of cheaters. And yes they can re-sign up. However, make it verifiable. Make it a token $1 you have to pay with CC so that when they re-sign up, they can't.
The problem with just not playing with a cheater is that console users don't have that choice. They can't choose a server. They just get "find match" and the matchmaking code links up players.
The piracy problem. Yes I agree that it provides better value and the chance to find out if a game actually is garbage. But "piracy" is just like Nielson ratings. It doesn't actually have to be show people watch. The console makers have to sell to the devs that their IP is protected or they won't get console exclusives and hence less console sales and a cut of each game. It's all just for show.
* Granted I bet you that BO has it too, but if they were to admit that, sales would take a nose-dive. That's why "apparently" BO isn't affected on the PS3.
Isn't it a shame though? They do it to win. Probably because they stink. But the thing is, so do i! And I'd rather play with someone who stinks because it's more fun. At least each person gets enjoyment out of it because it goes tit-for-tat and each person feels like they have a chance to win if they both stink hah.
I don't know anymore. We know why they are doing this. To stop developers from thinking that the platform is dead to develop for because there will be rampant piracy.
And to stop cheaters. I'll tell you, I've just recently gotten into online shooters lately (MoH and COD:BO), and I'll tell you, I swear to god the amount of hacks and cheaters* just makes me not want to even bother.
I'm almost siding with Sony on this one. It's almost to the point that you have to buy as soon as it comes out and then you have a window of enjoyment of a month. Then it's worthless. To me, what's the point?
Is your rebuttal a joke? Seriously? Let's go sentence by sentence:
First, the Wii doesn't count because it's online multiplayer is well plain awful.
This is subjective, my wii has received more online game time than my xbox360 has by about a factor of ten.
Dude, the Wii, with it's magical friend codes, is pretty much generally regarded by *everyone* as worthless. Your subjective experience of *one* doesn't count. Fail. Next.
Most of those games are from circa 2005-2007... of course a top of the line rig made in 2007 will be able to play them just fine. Some of those games will absolutely chug on a machine from even 2004/5 though.
Wrong. Fail.
Bioshock 2 - 2010 Mass effect 2 - 10 Medal of Honor (new one) - 10 Borderlands 2009 Fallout new vegas 10 CoD WaW - 08 C&C RA3 - 08 L4D2 09 Resident Evil 5 09 L4D 08 Dead Space 08 Resident Evil 4 07 Age of Conan 08 Assassins Creed 1 08 Dark Sector 09 FEAR 2 09 Fallout 3 08 Far Cry 2 08 S.T.A.L.K.E.R 07 Bioshock 07 Mass effect 08 CoD 4 - 07
The rest I'm just getting tired of looking up. I've proved my point.
Yea they're all sooo 2005 games. Wow, you're statement was *serious* made up information. Try again.
When I talk about pc games I'm meaning current shit, if your argument is you don't need a pc for 8 years then that means trying to run crysis and dragon age origins on a geforce 5 series card.
Dragon age won't even start on a geforce 5, a 6 is required minimum and you'll get slideshow framerates... sure it might run, but 5-8fps is not what most gamers would consider acceptable.
Make a list with some cutting edge new games that aren't four years old and aren't primarily made for consoles with crappy ports to pc, and run on a p4 with geforce 5 series card, and your original point will stand.
I don't even even know what you're saying here. Your weak argument is incoherent unintelligible dribble. Fact: moderate specs in 2007 were a C2D and a 8800 GT. NOT what you list. Again, you're just making stuff up, troll.
As a side note, I also love how you only point out 2 games, and one of them being Crysis. Nevermind that on my specs I can still run the game on average at 30 fps at 1600x1050 at HIGH settings still, but let's play along with your lies. You choose the one game that only until *now* top-of-the-line systems couldn't even play. Yet every other game with good, modern specs can play ANY other game at max settings at least at 30-40 fps, most of the time more (average around 60-70).
Actually, I'd like a solid 60fps graphics be damned, if the frame rate ever severely stutters, something is wrong.
You do know that your console doesn't even run most games in the past 3 years at 30 fps? More like the 20's. And the only reason why it appears more fluid is because you're not using a mouse and using slow controller, so you don't see how painful it really is.
Seriously your reply is the weakest and most un-informed I've ever seen.
Were you old enough to play 4-player Goldeneye? It was awful.
We thought it was awesome at the time. Besides, not all video games are first-person shooters. For example, I don't see a benefit in providing a separate screen for each player in a fighting game.
1) Fighting games don't split up the screen into 2 or 4 tiny boxes 2) Fighting games actually are playable on the same screen for the PC. See SF IV. 3) Lol c'mon man. Yes, Goldeneye 4 player split screen was awesome--in 1997. 14 years ago. In the past 5 years, not so much.
Also, I'm an adult. Adults don't have the time or in the situation usually to invite friends over for video game sessions all the time.
Some adults babysit kids. I for one babysit my aunt's kids every other weekend while their parents go out and do things.
Again, c'mon lol. Please read what you just wrote again. I'm not even going to entertain this particular strawman rebuttal. And not every adult is unfortunate enough to get stuck watching some else's kids on the weekend.
It also requires the purchase of a gaming PC to put next to the TV [...] unless you plan to surf the web on your TV all the time.
Or you could just move your existing PC and connect it to a HDTV.
But once you have "move[d] your existing PC and connect[ed] it to a HDTV", you'll have "to surf the web on your TV all the time." What am I missing?
What's wrong with that? Or see *what I just wrote* about if you don't want to move your existing PC.
you can buy a new "gaming" PC for about $700
A lot of people would rather buy a PLAYSTATION 3 console for half that.
$60 x 8 = 8 years XBox live to play multiplayer
Kids and their babysitters don't need Live for multiplayer. Or one could buy a PS3 instead.
Since when does babysitters represent the entire gaming population? Fact: if someone is playing modern consoles, they're most likely playing multiplayer at some point. Which requires XBL and hence $60/year.
But yes, a PS3, the ONLY other option, is one.
Lest we forget that PC gives you free multiplayer forever.
Very few PC games allow spawn installations in the style of the original StarCraft, and $40 each for two copies is more expensive than $60 for one copy.
What does this have to do with PC gaming having free multiplayer forever?
Yea I know I never realized it either until GTA IV came out, and I thought to myself, "why doesn't this game look awful?" Although I'm not so sure about all the games being 720p. I'd be curious to know which ones are that of a resolution.
so wait... you are taking 8 years of xbox live account subscription into this (never mind that it's the only console out there that charges for regular multiplayer for most games) and yet not accounting that within 8 years you WILL need new pc hardware?
1) You make it seem like there are tons of consoles. News flash. There are only 2 consoles that do multiplayer. The Wii doesn't count because it's online multiplayer is well plain awful.
2) You won't need new hardware unless you want to play SOME new games at MAX settings. Many are still playable at MAX settings and all are playable at HIGH or worst case MEDIUM. And how is this different from a console? When the PS4 comes out with better graphics, you can't play PS4 games on a PS3. I'm not seeing the sense here.
In 2003 we were using 2ghz p4's with 512mb-1gb ram tops, do you seriously think a modern game can play on that machine by your 8 year lifecycle of pc's idea?
360 came out the end of 2005 IIRC. At that time, the 7950 GTX was out. And 2 GB was normal then. Your specs were ancient when the 360 was released.
Either cut back the xbox live subscription years in your equation (and hard disk since you wouldn't be talking about an ancient model) or add in the cost of significantly upgrading the pc over said time.
I'll cut back on XBL, because yes PS3 is an option, the ONLY other option (although I would argue against this because a lot of gamers might want 360 exclusives). However, in the past 2 years you *must* have a bigger HD. So If you bought a 360 in the average time, around 06-07, the big HD was 20 GB. Nowadays, you download XBL titles or 1 downloaded AAA game from the store, you're SOL. So no, u must factor in the $130 upgrade. My PC on the other hand in '07 was 250 GB.
The PC, no you wouldn't factor in the cost of upgrading. Did u even read what I wrote about still being able to play many games at max settings? I bought my PC in 07 with a 8800 GTS 512, 2 GB RAM, and a C2D 6400 2.13 ghz. That's ancient specs, yet I still play things fine.
Also, I am presently running an otherwise very modern quad core, 6gb ram etc with an ancient (circa 2006) geforce 7950, if you seriously think that it is sufficient for most 'modern' pc games, you are sorely mistaken.
I'd be happy to show you proof. List of games that I have that play at max settings on ACTUAL (not upscaled like consoles) 1920x1080 *on my HDTV* at 2x AA:
Bioshock Bioshock 2 Medal of Honor (new one) Borderlands CoD 4 CoD WaW C&C RA3 L4D L4D2 Dead Space Resident Evil 4 Resident Evil 5 Age of Conan Assassins Creed 1 Dark Sector FEAR 2 Fallout 3 Far Cry 2 S.T.A.L.K.E.R Mass effect Mass effect 2 Mirror's Edge Quantum of Solace Prototype Street Fighter IV All the new Tomb Raiders The Witcher Oblivion
Man, can't run anything with your specs huh?
You assume pc hardware requirements haven't went up because newer consoles haven't been released. In the pc only realm requirements have went up over time significantly.
See the list of games above. And again, from my post, what's to stop you from turning it down from MAX to HIGH? Poor baby. My point exactly. You'd rather just bow out of PC gaming that play your precious PC game at HIGH settings?
Not many PC games support this use case because very few people have connected a gaming PC to a TV. I know of Trine, the first edition of SF4 (PCs aren't getting the Super edition due to low sales), and what else?
What you are talking about has nothing to do with being able to use a PC on an HDTV. A PC can connect easily to a HDTV and using only a $5 cable, period. You're talking about co-op multiplayer games, which have nothing to do with being able to a connect a PC to a HDTV, *and* which btw consist of 5-10% of the console market. Totally different. And maybe some people don't want to bother with that. Were you old enough to play 4-player Goldeneye? It was awful. Also, I'm an adult. Adults don't have the time or in the situation usually to invite friends over for video game sessions all the time.
It also requires the purchase of a gaming PC to put next to the TV, such as your Core 2 Duo with 2GB RAM and a $120 video card, unless you plan to surf the web on your TV all the time.
Or you could just move your existing PC and connect it to a HDTV. Or did you miss the part where I said a C2D with 2GB RAM and a 4 year old video card can run most games at max settings (4 year old ridiculously SLOW hardware). Translation, if you really don't want to move the PC and connect it to a HDTV, you can buy a new "gaming" PC for about $700 that can run most games at max details at 1920x1080 resolution. Go ahead, add this up:
$60 = second wireless controller $60 x 8 = 8 years XBox live to play multiplayer, the life of the 360 console as it would seem to be $120 = new larger HD because that 20GB bought in 2005 doesn't cut it anymore $300 = XBox 360
$960 (console) vs. $700 PC. So if you really have to buy a second unit, the PC still wins. A console costs $260 more. That's 5-6 brand new PC games you could buy with that. Lest we forget that PC gives you free multiplayer forever.
Given what passes for high-speed Internet in some parts of the United States, one could take the bus to the mall, buy the game, take the bus back, and do the 30-minute PS3 install in the time it takes some games to download on Steam. That's part of why WiiWare games are no bigger than 43 MB.
Ok if you want to play strawman argument, I'll give you this one. Then again, one could make the argument, why waste the gas, take the bus, deal with parking, show up at the store only to find out they're sold out or don't have it, only have a used copy, or have a new copy selling for full price that really is used (i.e. GameStop). And why would you ever buy a game at a B&M store anyway? Online is usually about $10-20 cheaper within 2-3 weeks of release, and then when the game is $60 at your local best buy 4 months later, it's $10-20 online. So you're going online anyway, and 2-3 day shipping (unless you want to pay $20 for overnight) is waaaaay slower than a few hours spent downloading.
No. Consoles run usually around the resolution I stated and *upscale the image to match either 1080p or 720p. That's why consoles look awful. A 900x400 image stretched to 1920x1080 looks terrible
This is not a personal attack against u. But I hate this prevailing opinion.
1) Buy from Steam or some other downloaded service. No CD required. No crack required. AND games are automatically updated in the background without user intervention
2) You can hook up a gaming PC to a TV in your living room so easy it's not even funny. It requires the purchase of one $5 cable. That's so hard!
3) 20 minute install? Easy answer. PS3 30-minute installs. And if u buy a game on Steam, once it's downloaded, it's installed. Done.
4) Key codes. Yea I'll give u that one, again unless u buy on steam.
5) Registering on servers. False. Now even console games do it. Recently I had to register to play Medal of Honor online on the console.
6) And the biggest, a point u didn't say but I want to address. "U need a $1500-2000 gaming rig or upgraded ur computer with a $500 card every year." BS. I have a C2D Duo with 2GB RAM and a 8800 GTS 512. I still run most games on max settings. And gasp u can always try playing a game at High or medium settings instead of Highest/max. You still run a resolution 2x-3x the console version so it still looks nicer. What do u think consoles run it at? 900x400 at *lowest* quality graphics settings. And nowadays I can't get over how console graphics look totally like shit. I can't even play them anymore they look so bad.
I don't know about this one. Yes, for little mini games, indies, smartphone games, etc it will. And yes for the PC. But no for the console. It just has a different demographic. People who buy consoles typically want a plug and play experience. They WANT to go to a store that day and as soon as they get home, literally just pop it in and play it (not that Steam isn't as good, but they need the "going to the store experience").
Two, the sizes of the games. Here in the U.S., many times we're unfortunate to have caps. 250 GB mind u seems the norm, but that fills up quick with downloading 8 GB games, 4 GB movies, streaming 4 GB movies. It may work for a shitty little game on iOS that's only 50 MB, but not for a 10 GB AAA game.
Lastly, I hope that we always have physical disks because we need the used secondary market. Otherwise, no matter how I love the service, we'll have a rehash of Steam or XBL. Games that are 4 years old selling for $30, when they should be $5-10. And new games only out 2-3 months, which the retail box is only $30, will still be $60.
LOL. Maybe I came across as snarky. I was just too lazy to write my post again.
You're welcome to disagree. I've had friends who were running e-mail campaigns as marketing analysts, and that is what I've learned from them over the years and discovered as the heirarchy. I'm glad that u had such a wonderful, lean, non-typical hierarchy doing that. Good for you.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually it is. Have you played it? Probably not--thought so.
Flamebait. Yes I own it. Would you talk to your parents like that? If not, then don't talk in a tone like that. Also don't be PC and say but I don't have parents! It's a hypothetical question, i.e, what if.
Uh what? That was completely unintelligble and made no sense.
Amnesia, while an amazing game, is simply a point-and-click game.
Oversimplifying the game. Also off-topic.
No, not off-topic. Completely on-topic. Your response: "Amnesia is a casual game." My reponse: "It is a casual game." Yes, very off-topic. And yes, it really is. It has no other mechanic than looking through rooms, opening doors, experiencing a story, etc. Adventure games: identical. There is no other game mechanic found in other games like RPGs (massive amount of items, leveling,combat), strategy games (building of units, strategy, currency and resource management), shooters (different weapons, different ammo, sometimes level building, and multiplayer). You're 110% wrong here.
And again, my point exactly. Strawman arguments. You dwell on one word, the "casual" one, when my entire argument was about Linux not having a realistic business market.
Ah here we go. Finally some meat, but with something ad-hominem.
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/adventure/amnesiathedarkdescent/news.html?sid=6286090 -- buy once, play everywhere.
http://www.humblebundle.com/ check the Linux graph, it's significant. Again, buy once, play everywhere.
The Unreal Tournament series were also ported to Linux, until a few years ago.
The wikipedia article on Linux games (there are many, and games like Nethack are played daily [citation: http://alt.org/nethack/perday.html, able to play locally].)
You proved my point 1000%. Did you even read what you wrote? It's the same 6-7 games Linux zealots mention *every* single time *every* single year, oh for the past how many years now?
And nethack? Are you serious? A game that's how many years old? 25
Are you listening to yourself? Because you're just proving my point so easily it's like you're just walking into it.
My point is that there ARE games that sell well, and also run on Linux, but as lots of people point out, nobody really does ports because it's not "established." A Valve establishment would be a great boon for Linux gaming.
And as your post has shown, that is 100% wrong.
Yea, totally worth the X millions devoted to development, marketing, production, art direction, distribution, etc., for Linux
Take your false cynicism and bitterness and educate yourself. The only extra cost is development: artwork, models, particles, etc. don't change. There wouldn't be a chicken and egg problem if more people did double ports to Mac and Linux instead.
Only cost? yes artwork doesn't change. Only just about *everything* else. So again, there are millions of extra dollars needed, work, resources, and man-power. But that doesn't count, right!
Actually it is. Have you played it? Probably not--thought so. Amnesia, while an amazing game, is simply a point-and-click game. You do realize that right? It's the simple casual "adventure" genre, albeit suspense/horror one.
And again, my point exactly. Strawman arguments. You dwell on one word, the "casual" one, when my entire argument was about Linux not having a realistic business market.
So add that 1 game to the 6 other ones. Yea, totally worth the X millions devoted to development, marketing, production, art direction, distribution, etc., for Linux
Go with your instincts on this one. I'll let u on a secret that I had to learn the hard way. Word of mouth is probably the worst way to find out about a product. Because our minds are trained to think it's actually automatically good. I can't tell you how many things I looked into and bought because of Slashdot (game opinions are the worst--almost every game ppl said they liked on /, were AWFUL). Don't listen to the OP.
Watchmen is probably the worst movie I have ever seen. And it was only rented! And I didn't even pay for the rental! I actually was pissed that I spent the 2 some hours on the movie. It was so bad. That's why, not because of some R rating. I mean, where do I start with how bad this thing was:
1) It had awful pacing. There would be 30 min of dullness followed by 5 min of something interesting. Then another 45 min of dullness. /. beloved comic was good, this movie was not. It was told poorly
2) The story made no sense. Even if
3) Insanely lame characters with lame things that they did throughout the movie
4) Too much talking. Yes talking and back story and dialog are good. Not good is when it goes 30 mins with ramblings on and no discernible direction
5) That lame constant voiceover by that Rorschach guy.
There are so many more reasons, but now I'm just getting pissed on how bad that movie is and how everyone here loves it. Just don't do it man, don't even watch it on channel 11 when you're bored on a sunday afternoon. That's when you know it's bad: when it's not even worth that!
I always love when people throw out strawmen.
5 casual games on Linux does not a market make. It would be *irresponsible* for any company who actually wants to make money to serve the Linux market for games.
You're entirely correct. I can't believe no one has realized that it's a console competitor.
But I have to disagree with you on graphics and ease of use. You buy or rent it, it just plays. Yes consoles are ridiculously easy. But this is even easier. Buy it, it plays. No shipping, waiting, popping in a disc, or even two button pressed to do a game patch update. And it's playable on any PC you own, across multiple ones.
And the graphics. I recently got back into console gaming from the PC (I have a 360 and a PS3). The graphics are atrocious. I mean muddy, utter crap. Played BF:BC2 and MoH reboot. It seriously hurt my eyes. It looks like I'm playing a N64. RE4 for the Gamecube looks better than pretty much every title out for the consoles. Playing MoH, I kept wondering what was that white icy stuff on the ground everywhere. Played the PC--oh, I can actually see that it's mud!
I downloaded the Crysis 2 demo. Every "gaming mag" said the graphics were the best the 360 had to offer. Really? Call of Duty 4 at its *lowest* game settings looked better. Halo:Reach? Played it. I swear that Quake 2 looked better. Quake 2!
I can't imagine OnLive having any worse graphics than the consoles.
I'm with you. In my next house I will *wire* the whole thing, and make conduits just in case I need to easily upgrade past whatever comes out after cat 6. I've used wireless for a few years now (whenever N just came out). I will never do it again.
The setup was a nightmare (half my computers would not work for unknown reasons), the range is awful (I needed to get repeaters--people forget this if you live in anything larger than a 2 bedroom), latency is atrocious (think 300ms vs. 50). And that's with N, not g/b. Wired, in comparison: the setup is painless and brainless--just plug it in. And you don't share that measly bandwidth. Every plug gets full 1000 mbs (locally anyway).
Basically, if all you do is surf facebook, you're fine. But if you do *anything* more, like Skype/VoIP, on-line gaming, video streaming, large downloads--all which pretty much people do in this day and age--you need wired.
I so regret ever setting up my home for wireless internet. Next time, not even buying a router with wireless built-in!
Ah, you again.
Do you sit on your computer just waiting to throw in your lame argument about how consoles are superior because, even though other commenters have given a ton of reasons why PCs are superior, it doesn't matter "because you can do co-op with a console in the living room?"
You do realize you made like 3 strawman arguments in another thread involving this one benefit among *many* negatives, and every time your response was "but-but-but-shared screen co-op!"
Forgot to mention. Graphics don't matter. Using the examples I gave in my other post, a console has the equivalent of running the PC version at it's *lowest*, not even medium settings. And it's even worse because a PC at its lowest settings still looks better because it's running at true 1600x1050 or 1920x1080, not upscaled 1100x900 resolution I ran back when *Quake 2* was king
I've posted this elsewhere on this story, but I think it would be of benefit. Also, keep in mind consoles are not immune to DRM. Consoles themselves are DRM, and look at the recent release of Bionic Commando. You can online play it online. In a few short years your point will no longer be valid. But anyway:
I wholeheartedly disagree. And I'll tell you why. 2 reasons. But first, a background. Recently I've gotten into online shooters. But cheating is rampant, so I've been giving the console versions a chance instead of the PC version. But anyway. Needless to say, I've had the chance to compare the two (have both BF:BC2 and the new MoH) and played both versions.
1) Consoles graphics are absolutely atrocious. I disagree with your assertion. Playing BC2, it looks like I was playing on the N64. The whole time I was playing the single player campaign, I kept thinking, I can't wait for the next console generation. Same thing with MoH. It looks atrocious on the 360.
Now, I fire it up on my PC. On a 4 year old C2D E6400 with a 8800 GTS 512. Max settings at *true*, not upscaled 1920x1080. Runs great. Anyway, you can see the beautiful textures in multiplayer on walls, guns. The ADS reticle is crisp. I can see a nice wide screen and a full beaitful panoramic view, not only 5 feet ahead of me because of low resolution. The first thing you go is "aaah, that's better." I can't even play the console version. It looks SO bad comparatively, it hurts my eyes. Literally. It's fuzzy and blocky--hence the eyestrain.
2) Online play. Now, after playing COD:BO and seeing 1 million people play online, I thought that consoles were the way to go. Dead wrong. Yes there is PC cheating. But at least there is people online. Currently even at peak times there is only a measly 2000-8000 people playing MoH online (besides BO, the most recent shooter; only 2-3 mo. old). And no one is even on period until peak times with BC2. And even Halo:Reach, the other biggest one, only has 30,000 users on. This is the 360's flagship online shooter! Counter-Strike, a 7 year old PC game, has 50,000 at all times. Yea, BO has 600,000-800,000 people playing now. That's because that is the only online shooter anyone on the 360 plays! Only GOW2 has people playing online, and it's nothing to write home about.
In short, I'm happy you like playing your console. But when your AAA title released only 7 months ago looks worse than RE4 on the Gamecube, I *like* the option to be able to game on the PC and get better graphics. The key is option. If I want to go out and buy a $150 card every 4 years to have amazing graphics, why am I not allowed to?
I wholeheartedly disagree. And I'll tell you why. 2 reasons. But first, a background. Recently I've gotten into online shooters. But cheating is rampant, so I've been giving the console versions a chance instead of the PC version. But anyway. Needless to say, I've had the chance to compare the two (have both BF:BC2 and the new MoH) and played both versions.
1) Consoles graphics are absolutely atrocious. I disagree with your assertion. Playing BC2, it looks like I was playing on the N64. The whole time I was playing the single player campaign, I kept thinking, I can't wait for the next console generation. Same thing with MoH. It looks atrocious on the 360.
Now, I fire it up on my PC. On a 4 year old C2D E6400 with a 8800 GTS 512. Max settings at *true*, not upscaled 1920x1080. Runs great. Anyway, you can see the beautiful textures in multiplayer on walls, guns. The ADS reticle is crisp. I can see a nice wide screen and a full beaitful panoramic view, not only 5 feet ahead of me because of low resolution. The first thing you go is "aaah, that's better." I can't even play the console version. It looks SO bad comparatively, it hurts my eyes. Literally. It's fuzzy and blocky--hence the eyestrain.
2) Online play. Now, after playing COD:BO and seeing 1 million people play online, I thought that consoles were the way to go. Dead wrong. Yes there is PC cheating. But at least there is people online. Currently even at peak times there is only a measly 2000-8000 people playing MoH online (besides BO, the most recent shooter; only 2-3 mo. old). And no one is even on period until peak times with BC2. And even Halo:Reach, the other biggest one, only has 30,000 users on. This is the 360's flagship online shooter! Counter-Strike, a 7 year old PC game, has 50,000 at all times. Yea, BO has 600,000-800,000 people playing now. That's because that is the only online shooter anyone on the 360 plays! Only GOW2 has people playing online, and it's nothing to write home about.
In short, I'm happy you like playing your console. But when your AAA title released only 7 months ago looks worse than RE4 on the Gamecube, I *like* the option to be able to game on the PC and get better graphics. The key is option. If I want to go out and buy a $150 card every 4 years to have amazing graphics, why am I not allowed to?
It's funny you say that. There at most times is about 400k people online during weekdays and at night and weekends about 800k online. Yet with their matchmaking service, one in 10-15 times I can't find a game. It's humorous that I hear, and please correct me, there is only 50k for the PC version. However, if I had the PC version I could simply always choose a server of my choice and never have to wait. And yes you'll always be able to play it.
Not sure about tired of standing. I just work with the true realities of things. Unless it's COD/CS/L4D/TF2, a 1-2 years after shooter is released it's pretty much empty on the PC anyway. So unless you have IRL friends to play with AND who have the game, you have no one. So does it matter if you can play 10 years later? And also, I'm not talking about EA sports games here which close down the previous year. They don't count. They're garbage. But yes, I do love that some games can be played online with IRL friends 5 years later. That's true. But then again, on the flipside, consoles have significantly less amounts of cheating. If 50-75% of all PC servers have cheaters, why bother even playing.
I just don't know. What I do know is that game hacks/cheating hurts everyone. And it makes online gaming completely not even worth it
On second thought, as I've said on another post in this thread, maybe the best way is what MS did. Diligent monitoring and banning of cheaters. But who knows. Maybe just the threat of knowing that "ooh Sony is monitoring you and can brick your console" is enough to curtail the apparent deluge of cheaters.
Very true. There always will be. But for example MW2 has 50% cheaters, that's pretty bad*. I really don't know the best solution for this. My take is the route MS took. Diligent monitoring and banning of cheaters. And yes they can re-sign up. However, make it verifiable. Make it a token $1 you have to pay with CC so that when they re-sign up, they can't.
The problem with just not playing with a cheater is that console users don't have that choice. They can't choose a server. They just get "find match" and the matchmaking code links up players.
The piracy problem. Yes I agree that it provides better value and the chance to find out if a game actually is garbage. But "piracy" is just like Nielson ratings. It doesn't actually have to be show people watch. The console makers have to sell to the devs that their IP is protected or they won't get console exclusives and hence less console sales and a cut of each game. It's all just for show.
* Granted I bet you that BO has it too, but if they were to admit that, sales would take a nose-dive. That's why "apparently" BO isn't affected on the PS3.
Isn't it a shame though? They do it to win. Probably because they stink. But the thing is, so do i! And I'd rather play with someone who stinks because it's more fun. At least each person gets enjoyment out of it because it goes tit-for-tat and each person feels like they have a chance to win if they both stink hah.
I don't know anymore. We know why they are doing this. To stop developers from thinking that the platform is dead to develop for because there will be rampant piracy.
And to stop cheaters. I'll tell you, I've just recently gotten into online shooters lately (MoH and COD:BO), and I'll tell you, I swear to god the amount of hacks and cheaters* just makes me not want to even bother.
I'm almost siding with Sony on this one. It's almost to the point that you have to buy as soon as it comes out and then you have a window of enjoyment of a month. Then it's worthless. To me, what's the point?
Is your rebuttal a joke? Seriously? Let's go sentence by sentence:
First, the Wii doesn't count because it's online multiplayer is well plain awful.
This is subjective, my wii has received more online game time than my xbox360 has by about a factor of ten.
Dude, the Wii, with it's magical friend codes, is pretty much generally regarded by *everyone* as worthless. Your subjective experience of *one* doesn't count. Fail. Next.
Most of those games are from circa 2005-2007... of course a top of the line rig made in 2007 will be able to play them just fine. Some of those games will absolutely chug on a machine from even 2004/5 though.
Wrong. Fail.
Bioshock 2 - 2010
Mass effect 2 - 10
Medal of Honor (new one) - 10
Borderlands 2009
Fallout new vegas 10
CoD WaW - 08
C&C RA3 - 08
L4D2 09
Resident Evil 5 09
L4D 08
Dead Space 08
Resident Evil 4 07
Age of Conan 08
Assassins Creed 1 08
Dark Sector 09
FEAR 2 09
Fallout 3 08
Far Cry 2 08
S.T.A.L.K.E.R 07
Bioshock 07
Mass effect 08
CoD 4 - 07
The rest I'm just getting tired of looking up. I've proved my point.
Yea they're all sooo 2005 games. Wow, you're statement was *serious* made up information. Try again.
When I talk about pc games I'm meaning current shit, if your argument is you don't need a pc for 8 years then that means trying to run crysis and dragon age origins on a geforce 5 series card.
Dragon age won't even start on a geforce 5, a 6 is required minimum and you'll get slideshow framerates... sure it might run, but 5-8fps is not what most gamers would consider acceptable.
Make a list with some cutting edge new games that aren't four years old and aren't primarily made for consoles with crappy ports to pc, and run on a p4 with geforce 5 series card, and your original point will stand.
I don't even even know what you're saying here. Your weak argument is incoherent unintelligible dribble. Fact: moderate specs in 2007 were a C2D and a 8800 GT. NOT what you list. Again, you're just making stuff up, troll.
As a side note, I also love how you only point out 2 games, and one of them being Crysis. Nevermind that on my specs I can still run the game on average at 30 fps at 1600x1050 at HIGH settings still, but let's play along with your lies. You choose the one game that only until *now* top-of-the-line systems couldn't even play. Yet every other game with good, modern specs can play ANY other game at max settings at least at 30-40 fps, most of the time more (average around 60-70).
Actually, I'd like a solid 60fps graphics be damned, if the frame rate ever severely stutters, something is wrong.
You do know that your console doesn't even run most games in the past 3 years at 30 fps? More like the 20's. And the only reason why it appears more fluid is because you're not using a mouse and using slow controller, so you don't see how painful it really is.
Seriously your reply is the weakest and most un-informed I've ever seen.
Were you old enough to play 4-player Goldeneye? It was awful.
We thought it was awesome at the time. Besides, not all video games are first-person shooters. For example, I don't see a benefit in providing a separate screen for each player in a fighting game.
1) Fighting games don't split up the screen into 2 or 4 tiny boxes
2) Fighting games actually are playable on the same screen for the PC. See SF IV.
3) Lol c'mon man. Yes, Goldeneye 4 player split screen was awesome--in 1997. 14 years ago. In the past 5 years, not so much.
Also, I'm an adult. Adults don't have the time or in the situation usually to invite friends over for video game sessions all the time.
Some adults babysit kids. I for one babysit my aunt's kids every other weekend while their parents go out and do things.
Again, c'mon lol. Please read what you just wrote again. I'm not even going to entertain this particular strawman rebuttal. And not every adult is unfortunate enough to get stuck watching some else's kids on the weekend.
It also requires the purchase of a gaming PC to put next to the TV [...] unless you plan to surf the web on your TV all the time.
Or you could just move your existing PC and connect it to a HDTV.
But once you have "move[d] your existing PC and connect[ed] it to a HDTV", you'll have "to surf the web on your TV all the time." What am I missing?
What's wrong with that? Or see *what I just wrote* about if you don't want to move your existing PC.
you can buy a new "gaming" PC for about $700
A lot of people would rather buy a PLAYSTATION 3 console for half that.
$60 x 8 = 8 years XBox live to play multiplayer
Kids and their babysitters don't need Live for multiplayer. Or one could buy a PS3 instead.
Since when does babysitters represent the entire gaming population? Fact: if someone is playing modern consoles, they're most likely playing multiplayer at some point. Which requires XBL and hence $60/year.
But yes, a PS3, the ONLY other option, is one.
Lest we forget that PC gives you free multiplayer forever.
Very few PC games allow spawn installations in the style of the original StarCraft, and $40 each for two copies is more expensive than $60 for one copy.
What does this have to do with PC gaming having free multiplayer forever?
Yea I know I never realized it either until GTA IV came out, and I thought to myself, "why doesn't this game look awful?" Although I'm not so sure about all the games being 720p. I'd be curious to know which ones are that of a resolution.
so wait... you are taking 8 years of xbox live account subscription into this (never mind that it's the only console out there that charges for regular multiplayer for most games) and yet not accounting that within 8 years you WILL need new pc hardware?
1) You make it seem like there are tons of consoles. News flash. There are only 2 consoles that do multiplayer. The Wii doesn't count because it's online multiplayer is well plain awful.
2) You won't need new hardware unless you want to play SOME new games at MAX settings. Many are still playable at MAX settings and all are playable at HIGH or worst case MEDIUM. And how is this different from a console? When the PS4 comes out with better graphics, you can't play PS4 games on a PS3. I'm not seeing the sense here.
In 2003 we were using 2ghz p4's with 512mb-1gb ram tops, do you seriously think a modern game can play on that machine by your 8 year lifecycle of pc's idea?
360 came out the end of 2005 IIRC. At that time, the 7950 GTX was out. And 2 GB was normal then. Your specs were ancient when the 360 was released.
Either cut back the xbox live subscription years in your equation (and hard disk since you wouldn't be talking about an ancient model) or add in the cost of significantly upgrading the pc over said time.
I'll cut back on XBL, because yes PS3 is an option, the ONLY other option (although I would argue against this because a lot of gamers might want 360 exclusives). However, in the past 2 years you *must* have a bigger HD. So If you bought a 360 in the average time, around 06-07, the big HD was 20 GB. Nowadays, you download XBL titles or 1 downloaded AAA game from the store, you're SOL. So no, u must factor in the $130 upgrade. My PC on the other hand in '07 was 250 GB.
The PC, no you wouldn't factor in the cost of upgrading. Did u even read what I wrote about still being able to play many games at max settings? I bought my PC in 07 with a 8800 GTS 512, 2 GB RAM, and a C2D 6400 2.13 ghz. That's ancient specs, yet I still play things fine.
Also, I am presently running an otherwise very modern quad core, 6gb ram etc with an ancient (circa 2006) geforce 7950, if you seriously think that it is sufficient for most 'modern' pc games, you are sorely mistaken.
I'd be happy to show you proof. List of games that I have that play at max settings on ACTUAL (not upscaled like consoles) 1920x1080 *on my HDTV* at 2x AA:
Bioshock
Bioshock 2
Medal of Honor (new one)
Borderlands
CoD 4
CoD WaW
C&C RA3
L4D
L4D2
Dead Space
Resident Evil 4
Resident Evil 5
Age of Conan
Assassins Creed 1
Dark Sector
FEAR 2
Fallout 3
Far Cry 2
S.T.A.L.K.E.R
Mass effect
Mass effect 2
Mirror's Edge
Quantum of Solace
Prototype
Street Fighter IV
All the new Tomb Raiders
The Witcher
Oblivion
Man, can't run anything with your specs huh?
You assume pc hardware requirements haven't went up because newer consoles haven't been released. In the pc only realm requirements have went up over time significantly.
See the list of games above. And again, from my post, what's to stop you from turning it down from MAX to HIGH? Poor baby. My point exactly. You'd rather just bow out of PC gaming that play your precious PC game at HIGH settings?
Again, quitters.
*Shakes head*
Did you read my post?
Not many PC games support this use case because very few people have connected a gaming PC to a TV. I know of Trine, the first edition of SF4 (PCs aren't getting the Super edition due to low sales), and what else?
What you are talking about has nothing to do with being able to use a PC on an HDTV. A PC can connect easily to a HDTV and using only a $5 cable, period. You're talking about co-op multiplayer games, which have nothing to do with being able to a connect a PC to a HDTV, *and* which btw consist of 5-10% of the console market. Totally different. And maybe some people don't want to bother with that. Were you old enough to play 4-player Goldeneye? It was awful. Also, I'm an adult. Adults don't have the time or in the situation usually to invite friends over for video game sessions all the time.
It also requires the purchase of a gaming PC to put next to the TV, such as your Core 2 Duo with 2GB RAM and a $120 video card, unless you plan to surf the web on your TV all the time.
Or you could just move your existing PC and connect it to a HDTV. Or did you miss the part where I said a C2D with 2GB RAM and a 4 year old video card can run most games at max settings (4 year old ridiculously SLOW hardware). Translation, if you really don't want to move the PC and connect it to a HDTV, you can buy a new "gaming" PC for about $700 that can run most games at max details at 1920x1080 resolution. Go ahead, add this up:
$60 = second wireless controller
$60 x 8 = 8 years XBox live to play multiplayer, the life of the 360 console as it would seem to be
$120 = new larger HD because that 20GB bought in 2005 doesn't cut it anymore
$300 = XBox 360
$960 (console) vs. $700 PC. So if you really have to buy a second unit, the PC still wins. A console costs $260 more. That's 5-6 brand new PC games you could buy with that. Lest we forget that PC gives you free multiplayer forever.
Given what passes for high-speed Internet in some parts of the United States, one could take the bus to the mall, buy the game, take the bus back, and do the 30-minute PS3 install in the time it takes some games to download on Steam. That's part of why WiiWare games are no bigger than 43 MB.
Ok if you want to play strawman argument, I'll give you this one. Then again, one could make the argument, why waste the gas, take the bus, deal with parking, show up at the store only to find out they're sold out or don't have it, only have a used copy, or have a new copy selling for full price that really is used (i.e. GameStop). And why would you ever buy a game at a B&M store anyway? Online is usually about $10-20 cheaper within 2-3 weeks of release, and then when the game is $60 at your local best buy 4 months later, it's $10-20 online. So you're going online anyway, and 2-3 day shipping (unless you want to pay $20 for overnight) is waaaaay slower than a few hours spent downloading.
No. Consoles run usually around the resolution I stated and *upscale the image to match either 1080p or 720p. That's why consoles look awful. A 900x400 image stretched to 1920x1080 looks terrible
Quitter.
This is not a personal attack against u. But I hate this prevailing opinion.
1) Buy from Steam or some other downloaded service. No CD required. No crack required. AND games are automatically updated in the background without user intervention
2) You can hook up a gaming PC to a TV in your living room so easy it's not even funny. It requires the purchase of one $5 cable. That's so hard!
3) 20 minute install? Easy answer. PS3 30-minute installs. And if u buy a game on Steam, once it's downloaded, it's installed. Done.
4) Key codes. Yea I'll give u that one, again unless u buy on steam.
5) Registering on servers. False. Now even console games do it. Recently I had to register to play Medal of Honor online on the console.
6) And the biggest, a point u didn't say but I want to address. "U need a $1500-2000 gaming rig or upgraded ur computer with a $500 card every year." BS. I have a C2D Duo with 2GB RAM and a 8800 GTS 512. I still run most games on max settings. And gasp u can always try playing a game at High or medium settings instead of Highest/max. You still run a resolution 2x-3x the console version so it still looks nicer. What do u think consoles run it at? 900x400 at *lowest* quality graphics settings. And nowadays I can't get over how console graphics look totally like shit. I can't even play them anymore they look so bad.
I don't know about this one. Yes, for little mini games, indies, smartphone games, etc it will. And yes for the PC. But no for the console. It just has a different demographic. People who buy consoles typically want a plug and play experience. They WANT to go to a store that day and as soon as they get home, literally just pop it in and play it (not that Steam isn't as good, but they need the "going to the store experience").
Two, the sizes of the games. Here in the U.S., many times we're unfortunate to have caps. 250 GB mind u seems the norm, but that fills up quick with downloading 8 GB games, 4 GB movies, streaming 4 GB movies. It may work for a shitty little game on iOS that's only 50 MB, but not for a 10 GB AAA game.
Lastly, I hope that we always have physical disks because we need the used secondary market. Otherwise, no matter how I love the service, we'll have a rehash of Steam or XBL. Games that are 4 years old selling for $30, when they should be $5-10. And new games only out 2-3 months, which the retail box is only $30, will still be $60.
LOL. Maybe I came across as snarky. I was just too lazy to write my post again.
You're welcome to disagree. I've had friends who were running e-mail campaigns as marketing analysts, and that is what I've learned from them over the years and discovered as the heirarchy. I'm glad that u had such a wonderful, lean, non-typical hierarchy doing that. Good for you.
See my other post in this thread about running even simple e-mail campaigns.