I can't believe you're modded insightful with a score of 4.
Your parent post is right. You are so wrong. I hope you're not in the tech industry. I'd fire you on the spot.
A *10-freakin-year-old* OS in the computer world. That's like 50 in anything else. And I don't see you mentioning that it won't support Mac OS 10.5.whatever, which is what, only like 3-4 years ago? Double if not TRIPLE the amount LESS than windows.
And you're 100% retarded if you won't spend $100 on a OEM version of Win 7 premium, considering that you'd only have to spend that after *4-5 years* after Vista came out. $20 PER YEAR is peanuts to have genuinely new, modern, and useful features AND a zillion security design improvements. This isn't a 2003 RAZR dumbphone, this is a massively complex OS.
You're doing anybody reading this thread a true disservice, with quite possibly the world's worst advice.
I gotta give you that you have a point--in theory.
But when it's the *norm* for companies to provide updates and features*, and an "oh-so-evil" company like MS *just* decided to cut off new features and support after *10 years* (XP), it doesn't fly.
* Take MS and Sony consoles: still new features 6 years in
It drives me nuts when people talk or comment about Windows as if it's so bad, and they're using XP. It's 10 freakin' years old! In computer years, that's like 50 years in anything else. Diablo 2 was too graphically intensive for some machines 10 years ago! Flash drives weren't even out yet! (or maybe the first one, IBM DiskOnKey with a whopping 8mb storage was and that's it!)!
People need to STFU, install Win 7, use it for a year, THEN they can talk.
I got a good laugh when I saw the title of this story, because the first thing that popped in to my head almost immediately:
(below spoken by an Apple fanboy)
One day before iCould announcement: "But you don't need Win7, there's no new compelling features, it's just lipstick on a pig."
Same person, one day *after* announcement: "Apple's decision isn't silly and artbitary! It's preferred because it's forcing people to be more secure and use a newer, better, more robust OS!"
It was an interesting and informative post. Though I do have to respond:
Yes. I don't really hang with people that make game rip offs...usually pretty serious apps. Me? My background is in music and psychology (did both professionally for years), and I have two apps I've been working on that won't really be useful for the masses, but would be for specific individuals (i.e., management / roster tool as well as translating a few psychological instruments to iOS...which ironically, one of mine I sold YEARS ago on Hypercard and it sold VERY well...and I am still legally the sole licensee of this test in electronic form).
The one friend I knew did medical instrumentation, and he wrote his in a flash translator...I thought it was strange the desktop version was in flash, but its what he knew. I think he used AIR to make it into a desktopable app...and a year ago, his app was pulled because of the flash background. He had the code and logic down, and rewriting in another language meant hiring someone, but if you have a working app...its far easier to rewrite because you now have a working prototype. Made his money back pretty quickly.
That was my point to begin with. You said it yourself and addressed my point with the Hypercard test. You sold a specific product that addressed a particular need that was an actual business revolving not around an app, but another product/service. You didn't make another fart app or even another crappy (but falling in the useful category) RSS app. Like I already said, you're in the 50 per every 10,000 people actually doing something. And very important: may I ask, with your apps, can you make a comfortable full time living with it, selling and supporting it? That's also part of my point. Most business consume 50-80+ hours per week. If you're only making $20k/year, that's NOT a successful app OR business.
As for switching carriers...why does your carried mean anything? Get an ipad...or an itouch...you can STILL run those same apps without the phone./quote?
Why would I spend *more* money on another, *separate* device to retain what I *already* purchased? That's the whole point. They lock you in to that app store, so when you want to move, most people don't because they don't want to lose their purchases. And they're smartphones: no one is going to carry around a smartphone AND a iTouch. It negates the whole point of having one device to do it all. Plus, I have no use for an iPad.
Either way, I commend you for being intelligent, running a good business, and contributing something useful to the iOS ecosystem. I hope your two apps sell well and are profitable. Best of luck to you. And Hypercard--wow, that brings back memories. Loved that sucker.
Are they really making money off it? And even if they are--are they really making FAR more money off of it because of that? You might have companies making money if they provide a service, for example, say that Square company. Because the app is just a gateway to the true service, fee collection from payment processing. But for Apps just to buy? Doubt it nowadays. I would argue that of all the 500,000 apps, very few are truly making much money--it's probably even pretty rare now for them to break even. For every angry birds, there are 5000 others that make squat. And 30% cut? Read that article about that company who's margins wouldn't accept that? Look at Walmart. They make billions per year. Yet each retail store only has an average 3% margin (markup). If prices were to rise above that, the store would have to close.
And for someone with such a low UID, no offense, but you should know better. For the record, I do think app stores are great. But here's a perfect example: I'm switching carriers (to get better service and which happens 10,000's/day) and to an Android phone. So $100 worth of App Store purchases for my 3GS are up in smoke. Worthless. I don't mind too much because I'm fortunate enough for it to not to be a financial burden, but it's still an annoyance for me both in monetary amount and by principle.
I think what most people don't realize is that this is just the usual BS repeating itself. All the rage was the tech bubble. Yea some companies made some money. Most went under. Then look at the whole blogging thing. Make millions from working at home! Now most can barely afford Ramen noodles. Now it's the app thing. Angry Birds! Now unless you have a massive marketing budget no one knows your app exists and you make enough to support yourself if you're lucky. Don't believe the hype. They're pushing it because no one wants to do the real effort of actually making a well run, profitable business. They perpetuate it to the get rich crowd. Make an app and make millions! *Bleck.*
I have firsthand experience with friends who have it and truly make an effort.
Plus, it's the view presented by psychologists and psychiatrists the world over. Go read some psychology trade magazines sometime.
So in short: you're dead wrong.
Optimism is great. But you must have optimism tempered with reality. Being optimistic and attempting to cure your addictive personality will result in some sort of an improvement, depending on how much effort you give. But there is no cure, and certainly nothing no more than a 40-50% improvement.
If you have an addictive personality, you can't break the cycle of addiction and be a complete person. You only replace one vice for something else, eliminate multiple ones and eventually it concentrates on one or two, or at certain points it gets less severe for a while (but returns) due to unconscious actions--like getting so fed up, going cold turkey, and of course coming back to it, but maybe less severe.
Perfect examples. You bit your nails. You say you want to stop. So you stop. Then instead you find when you want to bite your nails or get stressed, you develop and find that you're rubbing your hair a lot or tapping your feet incessantly.
I second this. Don't listen to all these BS/.'ers saying this and that. I bet you 90% haven't even used it. I never listen to armchair quarterbacks. Seriously people, you don't even have to buy any games. Make an account, play 30 min of gameplay for any of their games for free, see for yourself people.*
Anyway, I personally used it. I thought the whole latency problem would be big too. Honestly, at the end of the day, it works pretty damn good. For 90% of gamers, as long as you're not playing twitch FPS MP (like say Homefront MP) it's totally acceptable.
There are a few downsides though, just keep it mind:
a) Don't even bother to play it on a Wi-Fi connection. Or I found even through a wired connection on a router. Just can't handle it. Straight CAT5 directly connected to your cable modem, or don't bother.
b) FPS's do get a little annoying for even SP. But that's only with a sensitive gaming mouse. Break out the controller and it's totally acceptable.
c) If you're used to breathtaking graphics and turning all your settings up on high for the PC--and if this truly does matter to you--don't bother. It plays everything at med or low at 720p resolution. It will never compare to playing BF:BC2 MP at max settings, 1920x1080 resolution, with 8X MSAA. Think of it this way. If you're not satisfied with console graphics, you won't like this.
* Yes I know I should like a paid schill--but look at my UID and my previous posts over the years.
Thought that too. That's why I was thrilled when Homefront was released on it. Imagine! Cheating just isn't possible!
Except it is.
Homefront has a kill-cam that even shows the path where the bullet that killed you comes from and zooms out and shows the path. I was on the largest map and it shows an individual kill me from across the *entire* map, through walls and through picket fences, with a *SMG*. This simply isn't possible.
1) There is no way to see me 2) SMG's just don't have that range 3) You can't even see me from that distance 4) It can't go even through all that material to kill me
Hence cheating, even on this supposed un-cheatable system.
I gave up on Homefront MP on OnLive because they don't police cheaters or even have the option at all to report anything. I don't blame them though--why would they--it just doesn't even seem possible.
This just demonstrates that no matter what, people will find a way to cheat, and the ONLY solution is active and constant cheat monitoring and cheat prevention (like security) as a process and lifelong policy, rather than a supposed one-off solution.
That an interesting way to look at it. Could be true. Got me thinking. I've noticed the only games I play at all now really for anything more than 5-15 minutes (yes really) are MMOs, online co-op games (say Borderlands, RE5, L4D, etc.), or the online portion of FPS's (e.g. BF:BC2/CoD/etc.).
On weekends I play BC2 for 5 hours straight at times. Or co-op Borderlands for 4-6 hours at a clip. Can't remember last time I did that for a SP game, well, since I was like 12.
Hello--we just exchanged responses before!:) So you know I've been gaming since as far back as ET and Pitfall. Played games on every generation (except for the PS2--never bought one--just lost interest for a bit and took a hiatus from 2001-2005).
There is tons of variety nowadays. Steam and XBLA have brought us some amazing stuff:
Castlevania: Harmony of Dissonanace Shadow Complex Section 8: Prejudice Brink (IMHO it stinks but it's definitely a different kind of FPS MP) Portal 2 Dead Space 1 & 2 That 2.5D Strider-like game that just came out--Strider with co-op! Star Trek MMO (a non fantasy based MMORPG, and with Star Trek no less--totally unique!) Transformers: WFC (a good movie-based game--the first ever IIRC!) Alan Wake Lara Croft: GOL (seriously? 2.5D co-op tomb raider goodness--amazing!) Madballs in BABO (if this isn't different for people, making a game out of those obscure toy balls as kid, I don't know what is) Castlevania Lords of Shadow Marvel VS. Capcom (yea the've done it before, but this one is different enough to warrant the list--using the SFIV engine instead of old-school 2D sprites)
And that's off the top of my head and only in the past year or two. All alternatives to "sequelized" AAA franchises. And there are so much more!
I know. And SSFIV/Ubisoft always-on-DRM or checking each time you boot up a game (DA:O) will be on the next consoles. They always thought they'd escape, but I'd bet money that they'll be in the same boat as PC users very soon.:(
Very true. But Steam has already proven that people will deal with it. So in theory it sounds bad, but reality has proven it's OK.
But are games really that big? Unless it was a big MMO like AoC or GTA IV, I've never seen a game over 8-9 GB. Though you're right, game size will change with the next console generation. Who knows, we may see console makers stagger it and download the game in chunks as you play to avoid long downloads, hitting data caps and to "prevent piracy." That's not my problem though. That's theirs and what they're paid to figure out.
All I know is I never want to go back to discs again.;) And a solution for your own problem you mentioned, I recommend downloading a game overnight or set it before you go out to work so it's finished when you come home. It's delivered in a day. Faster than any other method I know, short of going to a store. And if you're going to a retail store to buy a game, shame on you!;)
Very true. It's a good point. But as we've noticed, time and time again, the platform that is easy to develop and port to/from is the one that wins. And currently all the decent-sized and big publishers release a game on all consoles and the PC. They make it cross platform. This is the reality now. And the reality is they're just not going to optimize it for one particular architecture. Witness all the inferior ports to the PS3 unfortunately.
And I can't say that I disagree with them. Computing moves on. It gets better, regardless of architecture/design. Witness today. Back in the day, PowerPC was supposed to be the king. It was a highly specific, new architecture. Now, we have "generic x86" Sandy Bridge processors that deliver unthinkable performance. The i2500K eeks out a former insanely fast i7 990x extreme, which was $1000. The i2500k is only $230 IIRC. Back in 2006 with the PS3 it was regarded as delivering amazing graphics. Look at just 2 iterations later with the ATI 4870 or even today with a 6950 or a NV GTX 580. The PS3 can barely drive 960x480 resolution at low details. It blows up the image for a 1080p TV. Now a pair of dirt cheap (relatively) 6950's can drive a 5000x2500 resolution image at max details and 4-8X MSAA. Amazing.
Yup, that too. Well, it's good for them anyhow. Though that is the unfortunate downside for us consumers. It drives me bonkers--I love not having to deal with discs anymore--but seeing on both the consoles and the PC digital stores games that retail are selling for $5-15, are selling for $20-40. And they all do it. I think the current model is to keep the price higher, and then run sales and sell it below retail cost.
Anyway, at least on the PC with all the stores (Steam, D2D, etc.) it keeps them honest because of all the competition. I'm worried about the consoles. Although if they ever did this, console retailers might differentiate themselves by selling the serials at a lower cost at times and you can get them cheaper. But again, this is all speculation.
What I'm about to say is all speculation. Unlike other/. armchair quarterbacks, I fully admit that what I will predict is 100% speculation.
But honestly, I think MS may just skip the disc route. They'll probably sell everything through the Xbox store, and because retail is so important to consoles, they'll sell a box with packaging, just with a code inside like they do now for DLC to download the game. No more discs. They must continue to support and drive retail because that is the bulk of sales, and this is how they'll do it.
Plus, advantages to them is, why bother with a disc format when they can skip it all together, it's now widely accepted (see DLC and Steam being insanely popular), and they get first sale from all copies.
Though if they do this, suddenly OnLive becomes a contender in the console war. To the average clueless gamer with a good net connection, the ability to not have to buy a new console, not have to wait for a download, and the ability to play his/her game with the save game ready to go at a friend's house is big.
You're right in that it's all about 3rd party support and making a system desirable to develop for. Microsoft hit the nail on the head with "developers, developers, developers." There's a reason the 360 gets more games and gets games on it first (well 50% anyway, IIRC they pay for a lot of timed exclusives).
But they just mean that they are going to take off-the-shelf hardware and make a system. It just makes life easier. They're not making an inferior powered one.
There are a ton of quality games. I can't even keep up anymore. There are just too many. If you can't find any, turn in your gamer card. It's like the golden age of gaming right now. I have about 50 games that I still have to get to--about 15 on the PS3.
But no, they do not run games fine. Play BF BC2 on the PS3 and then on the PC at max settings with 8X MSAA (or even 4X) on your monitor's *native* resolution. It's quite breathtaking actually. You'll go back to your PS3 and think the games all look like mud afterwards.
We need new consoles. I'm tired of running games at 960x480 resolution, blown up 2 or 3 times to reach my 1080p HDTV's resolution. We also need more physics and destructible environments (see BF BC2 PC with max physics effects) and more open environments (no corridor after corridor like recent consolized games) and less loading between those corridors.
I think you're just in the camp that I'm in now. I find a small few series good and like to play the occasional totally different type of game, but other than that, we're kinda bored with video games. We loved them at one time, were addicted to them, but now we're kinda done. We just haven't realized it yet.
I knew it was done when I played Mass Effect for the first time, was blown away, then played actual combat following cutscenes a second time for 15 minutes and said "Eh, I'm bored."
Thank you! I felt like I was the only one with all these comments who didn't see the obvious. They're just going to use basic off-the-shelf stuff. Nothing custom like the cell or anything crazy.
Though no one here has noticed the huge implications. For the past few years, it was apparent that consoles are taking over along with the "consolization" of games. But this is huge. This just nailed in the route that console makers are moving to just a normal PC, albeit locked down. I never saw this coming. Whoa, just blew my mind. The PC won.
It's funny you brought this up. It's the market. I had no idea. I figured I'd take a break reading crap drivel by online gaming sites, crap comments, or even/. crap comments. I went and checked out the annual reports and all the other financial reports. I read capcom (a Japanese company with the pulse of the Japanese market), EA, and Activision. A highly reccomended, interesting read. Very easy to read too--you should check it out.
Basically, the general consensus is that it doesn't matter about the duds. The area of demand and revenue is in DLC, MMO's (F2P or subs), micro transactions, and mobile games. I can't believe how much growth and money was derived from this in 2009 and 2010 and what it's predicated to be in 2011 and 2012. It's astounding. For example, you figured that the bulk of EA's revenue was from traditional console/PC games. Nope. IIRC like 60 or 70% is all from micro transaction/mobile/DLC/PC. Insane!
Though one odd thing I can't understand is why PC is treated like garbage when not only is this the re-emerging market, but it represents a pretty significant revenue area for most publishers/developers. The PC actually generates revenues on par (or more than) the Wii, PSP, or even the DS's. So why the poor ports and missing DLC/features (which should be in considering this is where the $$$ is at). Any ideas?
Oh don't get my wrong. BF:BC2 IMHO is the best FPS MP game out right now. It's an amazing game. I agree wholeheartedly about BC2.
I'm just saying is that it's blatantly obvious that EA and DICE know exactly what to say to turn on the internet PR, and are just saying stuff and making crap up. It's been done by many companies before--it's just this time it's so obvious and people are actually falling for it.
Though all this said, I think after the next few shooters, I'm not buying anymore MP FPS's for the consoles. I'm tired of the graphics on the consoles. You can't play them on PC (massive cheaters), but seeing, BC2 for example, on the PC at 1920x1080 at 8x MSAA with full particle effects, then going back to either BO or BC2 just ruins it. BO looks like I'm playing a fisher price game in comparison.
Interesting point. But it's inaccurate--because I've been doing FPS MP since you were. Dwango on Doom1. Rockin the 2400 baud modem. Then Quake 1 and 2 LAN parties. Great stuff btw.:) I just took a long hiatus. But the point stands. I'm not new to MP or even FPS MP, and the game is still plain fun as hell.
Also, Treyarch just released mod tools for COD BO. So you can't count knock that either in your argument btw.
And I did not know that the recent COD used the Quake 3 engine? Are you sure? Because I can run Q3 fine but I can't run MW1 on my PC at max settings.
Check it out. Now's a good time actually. It's at $50 now. At least you don't totally feel ripped off like MW1 when it was a year later and it still was $60.
Also too, now there are 2 map packs out. So you won't get bored and put the game away after 3 months immediately. Now you can play, then when you get bored, extend the life once and then again.
Although, for what they charge for 2 packs you could get a whole game. But then again the MP is pretty darn amazing. You could do Homefront or Crysis 2--but Homefront MP is atrocious. Decisions, decisions.:)
Slashdot Mirror
I can't believe you're modded insightful with a score of 4.
Your parent post is right. You are so wrong. I hope you're not in the tech industry. I'd fire you on the spot.
A *10-freakin-year-old* OS in the computer world. That's like 50 in anything else. And I don't see you mentioning that it won't support Mac OS 10.5.whatever, which is what, only like 3-4 years ago? Double if not TRIPLE the amount LESS than windows.
And you're 100% retarded if you won't spend $100 on a OEM version of Win 7 premium, considering that you'd only have to spend that after *4-5 years* after Vista came out. $20 PER YEAR is peanuts to have genuinely new, modern, and useful features AND a zillion security design improvements. This isn't a 2003 RAZR dumbphone, this is a massively complex OS.
You're doing anybody reading this thread a true disservice, with quite possibly the world's worst advice.
Dumb.
I gotta give you that you have a point--in theory.
But when it's the *norm* for companies to provide updates and features*, and an "oh-so-evil" company like MS *just* decided to cut off new features and support after *10 years* (XP), it doesn't fly.
* Take MS and Sony consoles: still new features 6 years in
Amen.
It drives me nuts when people talk or comment about Windows as if it's so bad, and they're using XP. It's 10 freakin' years old! In computer years, that's like 50 years in anything else. Diablo 2 was too graphically intensive for some machines 10 years ago! Flash drives weren't even out yet! (or maybe the first one, IBM DiskOnKey with a whopping 8mb storage was and that's it!)!
People need to STFU, install Win 7, use it for a year, THEN they can talk.
I got a good laugh when I saw the title of this story, because the first thing that popped in to my head almost immediately:
(below spoken by an Apple fanboy)
One day before iCould announcement: "But you don't need Win7, there's no new compelling features, it's just lipstick on a pig."
Same person, one day *after* announcement: "Apple's decision isn't silly and artbitary! It's preferred because it's forcing people to be more secure and use a newer, better, more robust OS!"
Had to do it. Scary part is: it's true.
It was an interesting and informative post. Though I do have to respond:
Yes. I don't really hang with people that make game rip offs...usually pretty serious apps. Me? My background is in music and psychology (did both professionally for years), and I have two apps I've been working on that won't really be useful for the masses, but would be for specific individuals (i.e., management / roster tool as well as translating a few psychological instruments to iOS...which ironically, one of mine I sold YEARS ago on Hypercard and it sold VERY well...and I am still legally the sole licensee of this test in electronic form).
The one friend I knew did medical instrumentation, and he wrote his in a flash translator...I thought it was strange the desktop version was in flash, but its what he knew. I think he used AIR to make it into a desktopable app...and a year ago, his app was pulled because of the flash background. He had the code and logic down, and rewriting in another language meant hiring someone, but if you have a working app...its far easier to rewrite because you now have a working prototype. Made his money back pretty quickly.
That was my point to begin with. You said it yourself and addressed my point with the Hypercard test. You sold a specific product that addressed a particular need that was an actual business revolving not around an app, but another product/service. You didn't make another fart app or even another crappy (but falling in the useful category) RSS app. Like I already said, you're in the 50 per every 10,000 people actually doing something. And very important: may I ask, with your apps, can you make a comfortable full time living with it, selling and supporting it? That's also part of my point. Most business consume 50-80+ hours per week. If you're only making $20k/year, that's NOT a successful app OR business.
As for switching carriers...why does your carried mean anything? Get an ipad...or an itouch...you can STILL run those same apps without the phone./quote?
Why would I spend *more* money on another, *separate* device to retain what I *already* purchased? That's the whole point. They lock you in to that app store, so when you want to move, most people don't because they don't want to lose their purchases. And they're smartphones: no one is going to carry around a smartphone AND a iTouch. It negates the whole point of having one device to do it all. Plus, I have no use for an iPad.
Either way, I commend you for being intelligent, running a good business, and contributing something useful to the iOS ecosystem. I hope your two apps sell well and are profitable. Best of luck to you. And Hypercard--wow, that brings back memories. Loved that sucker.
Are they really making money off it? And even if they are--are they really making FAR more money off of it because of that? You might have companies making money if they provide a service, for example, say that Square company. Because the app is just a gateway to the true service, fee collection from payment processing. But for Apps just to buy? Doubt it nowadays. I would argue that of all the 500,000 apps, very few are truly making much money--it's probably even pretty rare now for them to break even. For every angry birds, there are 5000 others that make squat. And 30% cut? Read that article about that company who's margins wouldn't accept that? Look at Walmart. They make billions per year. Yet each retail store only has an average 3% margin (markup). If prices were to rise above that, the store would have to close.
And for someone with such a low UID, no offense, but you should know better. For the record, I do think app stores are great. But here's a perfect example: I'm switching carriers (to get better service and which happens 10,000's/day) and to an Android phone. So $100 worth of App Store purchases for my 3GS are up in smoke. Worthless. I don't mind too much because I'm fortunate enough for it to not to be a financial burden, but it's still an annoyance for me both in monetary amount and by principle.
I think what most people don't realize is that this is just the usual BS repeating itself. All the rage was the tech bubble. Yea some companies made some money. Most went under. Then look at the whole blogging thing. Make millions from working at home! Now most can barely afford Ramen noodles. Now it's the app thing. Angry Birds! Now unless you have a massive marketing budget no one knows your app exists and you make enough to support yourself if you're lucky. Don't believe the hype. They're pushing it because no one wants to do the real effort of actually making a well run, profitable business. They perpetuate it to the get rich crowd. Make an app and make millions! *Bleck.*
I have firsthand experience with friends who have it and truly make an effort.
Plus, it's the view presented by psychologists and psychiatrists the world over. Go read some psychology trade magazines sometime.
So in short: you're dead wrong.
Optimism is great. But you must have optimism tempered with reality. Being optimistic and attempting to cure your addictive personality will result in some sort of an improvement, depending on how much effort you give. But there is no cure, and certainly nothing no more than a 40-50% improvement.
If you have an addictive personality, you can't break the cycle of addiction and be a complete person. You only replace one vice for something else, eliminate multiple ones and eventually it concentrates on one or two, or at certain points it gets less severe for a while (but returns) due to unconscious actions--like getting so fed up, going cold turkey, and of course coming back to it, but maybe less severe.
Perfect examples. You bit your nails. You say you want to stop. So you stop. Then instead you find when you want to bite your nails or get stressed, you develop and find that you're rubbing your hair a lot or tapping your feet incessantly.
I second this. Don't listen to all these BS /.'ers saying this and that. I bet you 90% haven't even used it. I never listen to armchair quarterbacks. Seriously people, you don't even have to buy any games. Make an account, play 30 min of gameplay for any of their games for free, see for yourself people.*
Anyway, I personally used it. I thought the whole latency problem would be big too. Honestly, at the end of the day, it works pretty damn good. For 90% of gamers, as long as you're not playing twitch FPS MP (like say Homefront MP) it's totally acceptable.
There are a few downsides though, just keep it mind:
a) Don't even bother to play it on a Wi-Fi connection. Or I found even through a wired connection on a router. Just can't handle it. Straight CAT5 directly connected to your cable modem, or don't bother.
b) FPS's do get a little annoying for even SP. But that's only with a sensitive gaming mouse. Break out the controller and it's totally acceptable.
c) If you're used to breathtaking graphics and turning all your settings up on high for the PC--and if this truly does matter to you--don't bother. It plays everything at med or low at 720p resolution. It will never compare to playing BF:BC2 MP at max settings, 1920x1080 resolution, with 8X MSAA. Think of it this way. If you're not satisfied with console graphics, you won't like this.
* Yes I know I should like a paid schill--but look at my UID and my previous posts over the years.
Thought that too. That's why I was thrilled when Homefront was released on it. Imagine! Cheating just isn't possible!
Except it is.
Homefront has a kill-cam that even shows the path where the bullet that killed you comes from and zooms out and shows the path. I was on the largest map and it shows an individual kill me from across the *entire* map, through walls and through picket fences, with a *SMG*. This simply isn't possible.
1) There is no way to see me
2) SMG's just don't have that range
3) You can't even see me from that distance
4) It can't go even through all that material to kill me
Hence cheating, even on this supposed un-cheatable system.
I gave up on Homefront MP on OnLive because they don't police cheaters or even have the option at all to report anything. I don't blame them though--why would they--it just doesn't even seem possible.
This just demonstrates that no matter what, people will find a way to cheat, and the ONLY solution is active and constant cheat monitoring and cheat prevention (like security) as a process and lifelong policy, rather than a supposed one-off solution.
That an interesting way to look at it. Could be true. Got me thinking. I've noticed the only games I play at all now really for anything more than 5-15 minutes (yes really) are MMOs, online co-op games (say Borderlands, RE5, L4D, etc.), or the online portion of FPS's (e.g. BF:BC2/CoD/etc.).
On weekends I play BC2 for 5 hours straight at times. Or co-op Borderlands for 4-6 hours at a clip. Can't remember last time I did that for a SP game, well, since I was like 12.
Hello--we just exchanged responses before! :) So you know I've been gaming since as far back as ET and Pitfall. Played games on every generation (except for the PS2--never bought one--just lost interest for a bit and took a hiatus from 2001-2005).
There is tons of variety nowadays. Steam and XBLA have brought us some amazing stuff:
Castlevania: Harmony of Dissonanace
Shadow Complex
Section 8: Prejudice
Brink (IMHO it stinks but it's definitely a different kind of FPS MP)
Portal 2
Dead Space 1 & 2
That 2.5D Strider-like game that just came out--Strider with co-op!
Star Trek MMO (a non fantasy based MMORPG, and with Star Trek no less--totally unique!)
Transformers: WFC (a good movie-based game--the first ever IIRC!)
Alan Wake
Lara Croft: GOL (seriously? 2.5D co-op tomb raider goodness--amazing!)
Madballs in BABO (if this isn't different for people, making a game out of those obscure toy balls as kid, I don't know what is)
Castlevania Lords of Shadow
Marvel VS. Capcom (yea the've done it before, but this one is different enough to warrant the list--using the SFIV engine instead of old-school 2D sprites)
And that's off the top of my head and only in the past year or two. All alternatives to "sequelized" AAA franchises. And there are so much more!
I know. And SSFIV/Ubisoft always-on-DRM or checking each time you boot up a game (DA:O) will be on the next consoles. They always thought they'd escape, but I'd bet money that they'll be in the same boat as PC users very soon. :(
Very true. But Steam has already proven that people will deal with it. So in theory it sounds bad, but reality has proven it's OK.
But are games really that big? Unless it was a big MMO like AoC or GTA IV, I've never seen a game over 8-9 GB. Though you're right, game size will change with the next console generation. Who knows, we may see console makers stagger it and download the game in chunks as you play to avoid long downloads, hitting data caps and to "prevent piracy." That's not my problem though. That's theirs and what they're paid to figure out.
All I know is I never want to go back to discs again. ;) And a solution for your own problem you mentioned, I recommend downloading a game overnight or set it before you go out to work so it's finished when you come home. It's delivered in a day. Faster than any other method I know, short of going to a store. And if you're going to a retail store to buy a game, shame on you! ;)
Very true. It's a good point. But as we've noticed, time and time again, the platform that is easy to develop and port to/from is the one that wins. And currently all the decent-sized and big publishers release a game on all consoles and the PC. They make it cross platform. This is the reality now. And the reality is they're just not going to optimize it for one particular architecture. Witness all the inferior ports to the PS3 unfortunately.
And I can't say that I disagree with them. Computing moves on. It gets better, regardless of architecture/design. Witness today. Back in the day, PowerPC was supposed to be the king. It was a highly specific, new architecture. Now, we have "generic x86" Sandy Bridge processors that deliver unthinkable performance. The i2500K eeks out a former insanely fast i7 990x extreme, which was $1000. The i2500k is only $230 IIRC. Back in 2006 with the PS3 it was regarded as delivering amazing graphics. Look at just 2 iterations later with the ATI 4870 or even today with a 6950 or a NV GTX 580. The PS3 can barely drive 960x480 resolution at low details. It blows up the image for a 1080p TV. Now a pair of dirt cheap (relatively) 6950's can drive a 5000x2500 resolution image at max details and 4-8X MSAA. Amazing.
Yup, that too. Well, it's good for them anyhow. Though that is the unfortunate downside for us consumers. It drives me bonkers--I love not having to deal with discs anymore--but seeing on both the consoles and the PC digital stores games that retail are selling for $5-15, are selling for $20-40. And they all do it. I think the current model is to keep the price higher, and then run sales and sell it below retail cost.
Anyway, at least on the PC with all the stores (Steam, D2D, etc.) it keeps them honest because of all the competition. I'm worried about the consoles. Although if they ever did this, console retailers might differentiate themselves by selling the serials at a lower cost at times and you can get them cheaper. But again, this is all speculation.
What I'm about to say is all speculation. Unlike other /. armchair quarterbacks, I fully admit that what I will predict is 100% speculation.
But honestly, I think MS may just skip the disc route. They'll probably sell everything through the Xbox store, and because retail is so important to consoles, they'll sell a box with packaging, just with a code inside like they do now for DLC to download the game. No more discs. They must continue to support and drive retail because that is the bulk of sales, and this is how they'll do it.
Plus, advantages to them is, why bother with a disc format when they can skip it all together, it's now widely accepted (see DLC and Steam being insanely popular), and they get first sale from all copies.
Though if they do this, suddenly OnLive becomes a contender in the console war. To the average clueless gamer with a good net connection, the ability to not have to buy a new console, not have to wait for a download, and the ability to play his/her game with the save game ready to go at a friend's house is big.
Things are gonna get interesting...
You're right in that it's all about 3rd party support and making a system desirable to develop for. Microsoft hit the nail on the head with "developers, developers, developers." There's a reason the 360 gets more games and gets games on it first (well 50% anyway, IIRC they pay for a lot of timed exclusives).
But they just mean that they are going to take off-the-shelf hardware and make a system. It just makes life easier. They're not making an inferior powered one.
There are a ton of quality games. I can't even keep up anymore. There are just too many. If you can't find any, turn in your gamer card. It's like the golden age of gaming right now. I have about 50 games that I still have to get to--about 15 on the PS3.
But no, they do not run games fine. Play BF BC2 on the PS3 and then on the PC at max settings with 8X MSAA (or even 4X) on your monitor's *native* resolution. It's quite breathtaking actually. You'll go back to your PS3 and think the games all look like mud afterwards.
We need new consoles. I'm tired of running games at 960x480 resolution, blown up 2 or 3 times to reach my 1080p HDTV's resolution. We also need more physics and destructible environments (see BF BC2 PC with max physics effects) and more open environments (no corridor after corridor like recent consolized games) and less loading between those corridors.
I think you're just in the camp that I'm in now. I find a small few series good and like to play the occasional totally different type of game, but other than that, we're kinda bored with video games. We loved them at one time, were addicted to them, but now we're kinda done. We just haven't realized it yet.
I knew it was done when I played Mass Effect for the first time, was blown away, then played actual combat following cutscenes a second time for 15 minutes and said "Eh, I'm bored."
Thank you! I felt like I was the only one with all these comments who didn't see the obvious. They're just going to use basic off-the-shelf stuff. Nothing custom like the cell or anything crazy.
Though no one here has noticed the huge implications. For the past few years, it was apparent that consoles are taking over along with the "consolization" of games. But this is huge. This just nailed in the route that console makers are moving to just a normal PC, albeit locked down. I never saw this coming. Whoa, just blew my mind. The PC won.
Thoughts anyone? Opinions?
It's funny you brought this up. It's the market. I had no idea. I figured I'd take a break reading crap drivel by online gaming sites, crap comments, or even /. crap comments. I went and checked out the annual reports and all the other financial reports. I read capcom (a Japanese company with the pulse of the Japanese market), EA, and Activision. A highly reccomended, interesting read. Very easy to read too--you should check it out.
Basically, the general consensus is that it doesn't matter about the duds. The area of demand and revenue is in DLC, MMO's (F2P or subs), micro transactions, and mobile games. I can't believe how much growth and money was derived from this in 2009 and 2010 and what it's predicated to be in 2011 and 2012. It's astounding. For example, you figured that the bulk of EA's revenue was from traditional console/PC games. Nope. IIRC like 60 or 70% is all from micro transaction/mobile/DLC/PC. Insane!
Though one odd thing I can't understand is why PC is treated like garbage when not only is this the re-emerging market, but it represents a pretty significant revenue area for most publishers/developers. The PC actually generates revenues on par (or more than) the Wii, PSP, or even the DS's. So why the poor ports and missing DLC/features (which should be in considering this is where the $$$ is at). Any ideas?
Oh don't get my wrong. BF:BC2 IMHO is the best FPS MP game out right now. It's an amazing game. I agree wholeheartedly about BC2.
I'm just saying is that it's blatantly obvious that EA and DICE know exactly what to say to turn on the internet PR, and are just saying stuff and making crap up. It's been done by many companies before--it's just this time it's so obvious and people are actually falling for it.
Though all this said, I think after the next few shooters, I'm not buying anymore MP FPS's for the consoles. I'm tired of the graphics on the consoles. You can't play them on PC (massive cheaters), but seeing, BC2 for example, on the PC at 1920x1080 at 8x MSAA with full particle effects, then going back to either BO or BC2 just ruins it. BO looks like I'm playing a fisher price game in comparison.
Interesting point. But it's inaccurate--because I've been doing FPS MP since you were. Dwango on Doom1. Rockin the 2400 baud modem. Then Quake 1 and 2 LAN parties. Great stuff btw. :) I just took a long hiatus. But the point stands. I'm not new to MP or even FPS MP, and the game is still plain fun as hell.
Also, Treyarch just released mod tools for COD BO. So you can't count knock that either in your argument btw.
And I did not know that the recent COD used the Quake 3 engine? Are you sure? Because I can run Q3 fine but I can't run MW1 on my PC at max settings.
Check it out. Now's a good time actually. It's at $50 now. At least you don't totally feel ripped off like MW1 when it was a year later and it still was $60.
Also too, now there are 2 map packs out. So you won't get bored and put the game away after 3 months immediately. Now you can play, then when you get bored, extend the life once and then again.
Although, for what they charge for 2 packs you could get a whole game. But then again the MP is pretty darn amazing. You could do Homefront or Crysis 2--but Homefront MP is atrocious. Decisions, decisions. :)