One Platform to Rule Them All

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Now doesn't this article directly contradict this...

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/10630-Steam-Machines

Steam is the bargain bin of the video game industry. Nobody (except indies) makes a game intending for it to be in the bargain bin, that's just where they end up after any major profit has been made. In it's own way Steam is bad for the industry because the triple-A publishers are willing to risk less if there's a chance that people won't buy their product at full price and instead pay another company to add DRM to their product. Taking risks can be good for everybody, just look at Xcom (the good one).

Shamus Young:
Keeping all this in mind, I ran into an interesting figure cited at the Steam Dev days, showing that there were 75 million active Steam users as of the end of 2013

What a waist of statistics. You wasted time and effort looking up "active" Steam Users. You should have just pulled up the stats for the last 48 hours. Guess what, Steam has between 3.5M, and 7.5M active users. The 75 million number is like counting all the dead xbox 360's, and duplicate family accounts. My Brother, His Wife, and His Daughter all have "Active" steam accounts and you're effectively triple counting him by using the 75 million number. Do you count each household member who plays a console?

A better way would be to compare the steam concurrent user number to the number of users concurrently connected to XBox Live, and PSN. I'm not sure if Nintendo is setup for concurrent connections in the Wii Era so there probably isn't any data to compare there. From what little I can tell from the Live and PSN data I'd say the consoles would rofl stomp the steam numbers, and then you'd knowingly be under counting consoles because of a majority of offline users.

This better have just been a poorly thought out April Fools article. I'd hate for someone to actually believe that the stats were proper.

BrotherRool:
But those 75 million people don't end up becoming more sales. The console titles still sell consistently more than the PC versions. The PC market is huge and spread out and has a wide range of people valuing things differently. Those 75 million active users include the guy who bought Rome Total War in a humble bundle and plays that every month or so, but nothing else. It includes people who only play indies, who only play MOBAs, who only play RTS... the market is a lot more fractured than the console market.

You could say literally the exact same thing about the console market. You have people that just buy the newest iteration of FIFA or Madden games every year, you have people that just buy the latest iteration of COD and Battlefield every year, you have people that buy the console to mainly use as an media center, you have people that only play singleplayer games, the list goes on. There is just as much spread in the console market as on PC.

medv4380:

Shamus Young:
Keeping all this in mind, I ran into an interesting figure cited at the Steam Dev days, showing that there were 75 million active Steam users as of the end of 2013

What a waste of statistics. You wasted time and effort looking up "active" Steam Users. You should have just pulled up the stats for the last 48 hours. Guess what, Steam has between 3.5M, and 7.5M active users. The 75 million number is like counting all the dead xbox 360's, and duplicate family accounts. My Brother, His Wife, and His Daughter all have "Active" steam accounts and you're effectively triple counting him by using the 75 million number. Do you count each household member who plays a console?

A better way would be to compare the steam concurrent user number to the number of users concurrently connected to XBox Live, and PSN. I'm not sure if Nintendo is setup for concurrent connections in the Wii Era so there probably isn't any data to compare there. From what little I can tell from the Live and PSN data I'd say the consoles would rofl stomp the steam numbers, and then you'd knowingly be under counting consoles because of a majority of offline users.

This better have just been a poorly thought out April Fools article. I'd hate for someone to actually believe that the stats were proper.

Good point. I'm an "active" Steam user, but I haven't spent more than $20 total on Steam in the past five or ten years. If all Steam users were like that it's no wonder companies put such a big emphasis on consoles.

You do realize that there are often multiple people using the same console, right? Comparing active Steam accounts to active PSN or XBL accounts would make more sense, but even then not everyone who games on consoles has an online account whereas everyone who plays on Steam has to have an account.

Good article Shamus, shame this is another topic that's doomed to degrade into another PC vs console thread with the PCDF in full swing since the previous page, especially with the "stop teh PC hate!", as if that's ever going to happen, especially for the console side.

As for the Steambox's I don't see them ever being much use for me, maybe for the few people that can't decide between buying/building a PC or buying a console but even then they are just micro PC's with a Linux variant slapped on in order to try strengthening the whole "Linux is the future of gaming" sentiment.

medv4380:

Shamus Young:
Keeping all this in mind, I ran into an interesting figure cited at the Steam Dev days, showing that there were 75 million active Steam users as of the end of 2013

What a waist of statistics. You wasted time and effort looking up "active" Steam Users. You should have just pulled up the stats for the last 48 hours. Guess what, Steam has between 3.5M, and 7.5M active users. The 75 million number is like counting all the dead xbox 360's, and duplicate family accounts. My Brother, His Wife, and His Daughter all have "Active" steam accounts and you're effectively triple counting him by using the 75 million number. Do you count each household member who plays a console?

A better way would be to compare the steam concurrent user number to the number of users concurrently connected to XBox Live, and PSN. I'm not sure if Nintendo is setup for concurrent connections in the Wii Era so there probably isn't any data to compare there. From what little I can tell from the Live and PSN data I'd say the consoles would rofl stomp the steam numbers, and then you'd knowingly be under counting consoles because of a majority of offline users.

This better have just been a poorly thought out April Fools article. I'd hate for someone to actually believe that the stats were proper.

Or even better, have Microsoft tell us the numbers.

Xbox Live: 48 million people and growing.

http://www.xbox.com/en-GB/live

Raziel:

Phrozenflame500:
I don't understand this at all. Steam does sales because they make more money not because they're trying to attract people to their store although that is a happy side-effect. Unless you're arguing that Steam's pricing will force Sony and M$ to start pricing their games as competitively, in which case that's a good thing for everyone.

Steam is so popular because of the prices. Thats why everyone goes there originally. Steam sales might make little indie titles more money because it gives them more exposure. I highly doubt it has the same boost for GTAV or AAA games. My point is if steambox somehow captures a third of the console market you will NOT find the console games on it for a cheaper price. The reason pc ports are cheaper is sony and M$ dismiss that market as insignificant.

You're not familiar with the concept of "price discrimination", are you? Games aren't price at $60 because that's how much they need to be to cover costs. They are priced that way, especially on consoles, because that's the price that people are willing to pay. The console market is skewed because of used games. The publishers stick to the higher price in order to get as much as possible from those willing to pay for a new copy.

Steam doesn't really have this problem. Games launch at full price. The publishers then start introducing lower and lower prices to grab more sales. Keeping the price high will lose them money because there is a large audience that is not willing to pay $60.

How would MS or Sony not dismissing the PC have any effect on that? A small number of ports would stay at the $60 price? Not really a problem when there are hundreds of other games to play. Nothing Sony or MS does is going to stop Steam (and other PC download sites) from selling cheap games.

Nimzabaat:
Now doesn't this article directly contradict this...

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/10630-Steam-Machines

Steam is the bargain bin of the video game industry. Nobody (except indies) makes a game intending for it to be in the bargain bin, that's just where they end up after any major profit has been made. In it's own way Steam is bad for the industry because the triple-A publishers are willing to risk less if there's a chance that people won't buy their product at full price and instead pay another company to add DRM to their product. Taking risks can be good for everybody, just look at Xcom (the good one).

You can keep on believing that, and I'll keep enjoying and supporting devs through Steam, Humble Bundle, etc. The idea that Steam is somehow bad for the industry is just nonsense. That's like saying competition is bad. Oh, no, I can't sell my AAA quality linear shooter for $60 because all these annoying smaller companies are making awesome games and selling them for $10! Steam is destroying the industry! That only make sense if the "industry" is nothing but a small handful of titles that sell well on consoles.

In reality, Steam has made it possible for a huge range of companies (from tiny one-man developers to AAA quality companies like CD Projekt) to thrive.

The maker of niche-RPGs like Avernum once thought he didn't want to be in the "bargain bin". His blog shows how his decision to "de-value" his product increased his sales many fold.

AAA game companies are simply risk averse no matter what. Yeah, I guess we'd have more diverse AAA games if we could somehow guarantee large numbers of sales at $60, but that's not reality. To somehow claim that Steam is stopping that dream world from existing is silly.

Clovus:
You can keep on believing that, and I'll keep enjoying and supporting devs through Steam, Humble Bundle, etc. The idea that Steam is somehow bad for the industry is just nonsense. That's like saying competition is bad. Oh, no, I can't sell my AAA quality linear shooter for $60 because all these annoying smaller companies are making awesome games and selling them for $10! Steam is destroying the industry! That only make sense if the "industry" is nothing but a small handful of titles that sell well on consoles.

In reality, Steam has made it possible for a huge range of companies (from tiny one-man developers to AAA quality companies like CD Projekt) to thrive.

The maker of niche-RPGs like Avernum once thought he didn't want to be in the "bargain bin". His blog shows how his decision to "de-value" his product increased his sales many fold.

AAA game companies are simply risk averse no matter what. Yeah, I guess we'd have more diverse AAA games if we could somehow guarantee large numbers of sales at $60, but that's not reality. To somehow claim that Steam is stopping that dream world from existing is silly.

You probably should have followed the link before commenting but i'll sum it up for you: Consoles won the PC vs Console war a long time ago. Why? Because Steam sank their own ship. That's why I find it funny that Shamus is saying almost the exact opposite of what he said before. You are correct though in that Steam is only bad for the PC market (when was the last time someone paid store prices for a PC title?) and not video games as a whole.

You're also right in that people should support whatever they like. I just happen to believe that there are companies that deserve your full support. I really like CD Projekt so when they released the Witcher 2 I bought two copies of it new because I love what they do, want them to keep doing it, and I can afford to support them. Buying the same game for $2 on a Steam sale sends them a very different message.

Nimzabaat:

Clovus:
You can keep on believing that, and I'll keep enjoying and supporting devs through Steam, Humble Bundle, etc. The idea that Steam is somehow bad for the industry is just nonsense. That's like saying competition is bad. Oh, no, I can't sell my AAA quality linear shooter for $60 because all these annoying smaller companies are making awesome games and selling them for $10! Steam is destroying the industry! That only make sense if the "industry" is nothing but a small handful of titles that sell well on consoles.

In reality, Steam has made it possible for a huge range of companies (from tiny one-man developers to AAA quality companies like CD Projekt) to thrive.

The maker of niche-RPGs like Avernum once thought he didn't want to be in the "bargain bin". His blog shows how his decision to "de-value" his product increased his sales many fold.

AAA game companies are simply risk averse no matter what. Yeah, I guess we'd have more diverse AAA games if we could somehow guarantee large numbers of sales at $60, but that's not reality. To somehow claim that Steam is stopping that dream world from existing is silly.

You probably should have followed the link before commenting but i'll sum it up for you: Consoles won the PC vs Console war a long time ago. Why? Because Steam sank their own ship. That's why I find it funny that Shamus is saying almost the exact opposite of what he said before. You are correct though in that Steam is only bad for the PC market (when was the last time someone paid store prices for a PC title?) and not video games as a whole.

You're also right in that people should support whatever they like. I just happen to believe that there are companies that deserve your full support. I really like CD Projekt so when they released the Witcher 2 I bought two copies of it new because I love what they do, want them to keep doing it, and I can afford to support them. Buying the same game for $2 on a Steam sale sends them a very different message.

No, I was already familiar with the link; I didn't agree with him.

Paying the price that a developer is asking for is "fully" supporting that developer. I don't think you were fully supporting them; why not buy 10 copies? Piracy is obviously not supporting and, while buying used isn't morally wrong or anything, it doesn't help.

Steam "sank their own ship"? Which is why their profits continue to grow and grow? What are you talking about? I've been in the "PC Market" for almost 30 years. Steam (or rather digital distribution) has brought about a new golden age of PC gaming. I have more access now to better games at a lower price than any other time in the past. And those companies making the games are gowing in number and profitting. How is that sinking a ship?

I've owned many consoles, but only bought a small number of games on them. I'd drop a ton of money and have to grind every drop out of the game. And if the game sucked? Too bad. I have no interest in going back to that.

It's cool that you've convinced yourself that you're saving the industry by overpaying for games, but you have no evidence or logical explanation how Steam's pricing is bad.

Ya, when millions of people spend $10 or $15 on the Witcher it did send CD Projekt a message: cheap digital sales are fantastic. So, what did CD Projekt do? They started their own digital download platform to sell cheap games: GOG. And, yeah, they sell their own titles on there for cheap. Do you really think CD Projekt is unhappy that I'm planning on giving them my money? Sure, they'll gladly take whatever you will give them, but that has almost zero effect on their ability to keep making games and keep making money. The cost of development is easily covered when you have a wide (and as explained in this article, getting wider) market. You don't have to keep prices high when you can have massive numbers of sales. That's not a bad thing.

I can just imagine CD Projekt rolling around in their money pit wishing they could go back to a closed system where they can only hope to make money by forcing their customer's to pay $60. Just ludicrous. Do you also think CD Projekt loves giving a huge chunk of their money to MS and Sony just for the right to even have their game on those consoles? I bet they just hate keeping all that cash for themselves on GOG or paying a smaller percentage to Steam.

Fourteen years later, Valve is making it work. Russia isn't just a healthy market, it's the fastest-growing one and account for 5% of all game sales. I don't know if the credit for this goes to Valve or to the Russian economy, but it's worth noting when a company finally plants its flag on a hill that nobody else has been able to hold.

Both, really. As a Russian with 200+ games on Steam, I say both. I have more disposable income and regional pricing and sales help a lot.

Clovus:

Steam "sank their own ship"? Which is why their profits continue to grow and grow? What are you talking about? I've been in the "PC Market" for almost 30 years. Steam (or rather digital distribution) has brought about a new golden age of PC gaming. I have more access now to better games at a lower price than any other time in the past. And those companies making the games are gowing in number and profitting. How is that sinking a ship?

See, this is the problem with answering out of emotion. You've gone and joined my side now. You're exactly right that Valve has made a ton of money by adding DRM and sponging off of the work of other developers. That was my (and Shamus's in the other article) point and now here we are both looking at it from the same side. It's the developers making the games that are losing out from this. It's the reason there are so few AAA titles for PC only any more. It's the reason why games are being ported to the PC from consoles and not the other way around. How is that the "golden age"?

Clovus:

It's cool that you've convinced yourself that you're saving the industry by overpaying for games, but you have no evidence or logical explanation how Steam's pricing is bad.

I never said I was "saving the industry". I'm just intelligent enought to realize that paying for the humble bundle is for the benefit of whichever charity is involved and doesn't help the companies that made those games at all.

Exclusives will never make me want to buy a console, because I don't like companies keeping games hostage to their platform. I've always thought that this practice is stupid.

That is why I will always remain a PC gamer. Too bad that the gaming industry of this era is focused too much on consoles and forget that the PC platform is actually a place where you can sell your games as well.

The "Can't we all just get along" may work, but as long as we keep getting shit ports then this will never happen. Standards must be kept for every platform.

I spend more money on my PC so I can play my games however I want (in all cases it's about the graphical fidelity where the PC is unmatched)and have the freedom of choosing what peripherals I use and change the settings and tweak the video options to my liking.

That is why the PC is my gaming choice and will always be, because it isn't restricted.

Nimzabaat:

Clovus:

Steam "sank their own ship"? Which is why their profits continue to grow and grow? What are you talking about? I've been in the "PC Market" for almost 30 years. Steam (or rather digital distribution) has brought about a new golden age of PC gaming. I have more access now to better games at a lower price than any other time in the past. And those companies making the games are gowing in number and profitting. How is that sinking a ship?

See, this is the problem with answering out of emotion. You've gone and joined my side now. You're exactly right that Valve has made a ton of money by adding DRM and sponging off of the work of other developers. That was my (and Shamus's in the other article) point and now here we are both looking at it from the same side. It's the developers making the games that are losing out from this. It's the reason there are so few AAA titles for PC only any more. It's the reason why games are being ported to the PC from consoles and not the other way around. How is that the "golden age"?

I still have no idea what you are talking about. How am I being "emotional"? Yes, Valve is making plenty of money, but pretty much every single developer I've heard about is also making plenty of money. I'm not on your side at all.

What non-exclusive AAA games are PC gamer's missing out on? The only holdout is GTAV, which will probably get announced pretty soon. The next-gen consoles are looking even better. A lot of the Xbox One "exclusives" are coming to PC. AAA games used to skip PC releases much more often. That's because the PC audience was much smaller. Steam, and other digital distributors, have changed that, as Shamus is saying in this new, updated article.

So, yeah, for me, personally, this is great. I allow a type of DRM that has never cause me a single problem, and now I have easy access to a wider range of games at cheaper prices than I used to. No more worrying about disks. No need to back anything up.

You didn't live through (or experience) the real "PC gaming is dead" years. Lots of games weren't on PC, the prices wouldn't drop much, and then they'd just disappear. All that's gone. I can buy almost any PC title ever made (thanks GOG!) and it actually works. How's that for backwards compatability? How is that not a golden age? When was PC gaming better?

The number of ports "from" console to PC is also slowing. Most games are now developed on PC, even if they debut on the consoles. I'm not arguing that the PC gaming market is bigger than the console market. The PC market is growing, but the ease of use of consoles will stay ahead, especially for COD-style AAA shooters. But that's just an aspect of the market. Some AAA games sell better on PC.

I never said I was "saving the industry". I'm just intelligent enough to realize that paying for the humble bundle is for the benefit of whichever charity is involved and doesn't help the companies that made those games at all.

So, you don't know how the Humble Bundle works either, right? You don't have to give anything to the charities. You can give all your money to the developers. You can give any amount you want. Feel free to give them $100s!

Everything you are saying just sounds like you are trying to rationalize your personal decision to game on a console and play games when they first come out (at full price). Consoles are great and playing new games is great. There's no problem with what you are doing. But that doesn't mean that gamers like me are somehow hurting the industry. Every single fact indicates the exact opposite.

I can feel the love in the room here.

To the Steam Machine comments; my only guess is that its aimed more towards the sort of person who pays extra to have a gaming PC built. never understood that, it isnt that hard, and its so much fun. but there are those type of people out there.

In turn this could make Steam OS a little more popular, and maybe give some sort of standardised teirs of PC ability.
EG, Minimum requirements; tier 2 machines. who knows. what do you guys think?

Something I can't understand is MS not doing it all them years ago. Its origninal Xbox xould have had a GFWL/Xbox OS of some sort, the company could have made PC/Xbox exclusives, and they could have had a good footing in both platforms.
When 360 came out, newer games require a Xbox (or Xbox teir PC) to play minimum setting, a 360 (or 360 teir PC) to play recommended. and so on.

Either way I dont think different companies making Steam Machines will "confuse" any potential customers. it doesnt effect the majority who buy a smart phone, a pc, a tablet, a laptop, a blu ray player etc that they can all be different brands.

I really like my PC, and don't see myself going back to consoles as a main gaming machine (I have a Wii U for a bit of fun, and a PS3 for a bluray player), Valve seem to have done a lot and to be doing a lot for the PC as a platrorm, I like using Steam. Still, I hate monopolys.

Mr Ink 5000:
To the Steam Machine comments; my only guess is that its aimed more towards the sort of person who pays extra to have a gaming PC built. never understood that, it isnt that hard, and its so much fun. but there are those type of people out there.

Consider sometimes, that you're not the center of the universe, and your set of skills is not universal. I'm a PC player since 1998 when I started high-school; computer class. Year later I dropped that, as the only real thing I learned there was "neither software or hardware is for me, I just don't get it". Since that time I had 4 different rigs, and only one built by myself from my wealthier friend outdated spare parts. But when it came to buying one back in November I had to pay extra to the trusted vendor who happens to be my neighbor which I know since childhood. Otherwise I'd most likely end up not with a rig I wanted, but with a sum of parts that some anonymous computer store clerk wanted to sell, earning bonus from the shop in the process.

In the end I paid about 1350$ (yeah, computer parts aren't exactly cheap here, ask Ross Scott) and when I compared and summed up all the parts it turned out I "overpaid" about 100-160$ (depending if you count some changes I did in the initial plan), which would be cool to avoid, but again without the skill and knowledge I'm on clerk/vendor's mercy/goodwill, and I have no illusions about it's existence because I myself worked as clerk. Thus I'm fine with paying more than you (for example) as long as I'll get machine that's built just as well as yours.

Nevertheless - being that kind of customer, you've pointed as a target for Valve's new en devour, I must say I'm not interested in Steam Boxes at all.

Ed130 The Vanguard:

medv4380:

Shamus Young:
Keeping all this in mind, I ran into an interesting figure cited at the Steam Dev days, showing that there were 75 million active Steam users as of the end of 2013

What a waist of statistics. You wasted time and effort looking up "active" Steam Users. You should have just pulled up the stats for the last 48 hours. Guess what, Steam has between 3.5M, and 7.5M active users. The 75 million number is like counting all the dead xbox 360's, and duplicate family accounts. My Brother, His Wife, and His Daughter all have "Active" steam accounts and you're effectively triple counting him by using the 75 million number. Do you count each household member who plays a console?

A better way would be to compare the steam concurrent user number to the number of users concurrently connected to XBox Live, and PSN. I'm not sure if Nintendo is setup for concurrent connections in the Wii Era so there probably isn't any data to compare there. From what little I can tell from the Live and PSN data I'd say the consoles would rofl stomp the steam numbers, and then you'd knowingly be under counting consoles because of a majority of offline users.

This better have just been a poorly thought out April Fools article. I'd hate for someone to actually believe that the stats were proper.

Or even better, have Microsoft tell us the numbers.

Xbox Live: 48 million people and growing.

http://www.xbox.com/en-GB/live

Would still be a fallacy and fall pry to the original arguments against the XBox numbers being inflated due to a high failure rate. Only equivalent values can be compared, and that would be concurrent users.

Clovus:

I still have no idea what you are talking about.

I get the feeling you say that a lot ;)

Clovus:

The next-gen consoles are looking even better. A lot of the Xbox One "exclusives" are coming to PC.

It used to be the other way around. Games would be made on the superior system and then simplified for consoles.

Clovus:

AAA games used to skip PC releases much more often. That's because the PC audience was much smaller. Steam, and other digital distributors, have changed that, as Shamus is saying in this new, updated article.

How narrow is this timeline you're talking about? I remember when games were only on PC.

Clovus:

The number of ports "from" console to PC is also slowing. Most games are now developed on PC, even if they debut on the consoles. I'm not arguing that the PC gaming market is bigger than the console market. The PC market is growing, but the ease of use of consoles will stay ahead, especially for COD-style AAA shooters. But that's just an aspect of the market. Some AAA games sell better on PC.

By slowing you mean that AAA developers have stopped porting games to PC for the most part. This is true, just not in the way you're trying to say it.

Clovus:

So, you don't know how the Humble Bundle works either, right? You don't have to give anything to the charities. You can give all your money to the developers. You can give any amount you want. Feel free to give them $100s!

So you buy humble bundles just to give a big "fuck you" to the charities involved when you could just buy the game when it comes out? THat's not cool. Consistent? Yes. Cool? No.

Clovus:

Everything you are saying just sounds like you are trying to rationalize your personal decision to game on a console and play games when they first come out (at full price). Consoles are great and playing new games is great. There's no problem with what you are doing. But that doesn't mean that gamers like me are somehow hurting the industry. Every single fact indicates the exact opposite.

Actually, I was saying that while I do use Steam, I also understand exactly what it is and the inherent problems within. I play games on PC and console and recognize the strengths of both. I just found it interesting that Shamus would do an article declaring the opposite position of another article he did not so long ago. Though, obviously, feel free to interpret that however you like.

Nomen Nescio:

Mr Ink 5000:
To the Steam Machine comments; my only guess is that its aimed more towards the sort of person who pays extra to have a gaming PC built. never understood that, it isnt that hard, and its so much fun. but there are those type of people out there.

Consider sometimes, that you're not the center of the universe, and your set of skills is not universal.

I far from consider myself centre of the universe thank you.

I Googled how to build a PC. it comes down to budget and a handful of parts that can only ever fit the slot they were intended for. the cables are the same.
insert windowns disc, next, next, next, select language, select time zone,next, next.
insert disc that came with GPU, next next done.

If people struggle with what is esscentially a simple jigsaw then a few clicks of a mouse, then I dont understand it. doesnt make me think I'm centre of the universe, I just dont understand it.
We're talking people who are pc literate enough to post on a website, install a game on to their HDD, but wont install windows which is all just "next"

-snip-

Nevertheless - being that kind of customer, you've pointed as a target for Valve's new en devour, I must say I'm not interested in Steam Boxes at all.

how come, isnt the steam Machine similar similar circumstances as people going to a trusted vendor?

Nimzabaat:
By slowing you mean that AAA developers have stopped porting games to PC for the most part. This is true, just not in the way you're trying to say it.

No, I meant exactly what I said: more games are being developed on PC first and then ported to the console. Where is your evidence that "AAA developers have stopped porting games to PC for the most part"? Sure, I don't expect to be playing The Last of Us on PC anytime soon, but I also don't expect to be playing it on the Xbox. Outside of single-console exclusives, what am I missing out on? There were holdouts like Dark Souls, but even From Soft is now doing a PC version from the start. The only exceptions are games that are directly tied to that consoles audience, like JRPGs. There are very, very few games that I want to play that aren't out on PC now. There used to be a lot. At one ponit, the PC actually didn't get a Call of Duty game. We never got Red Dead Redemption. Besides the Blu-Ray player, that's the main reason I own a PS3. I have no plans to get a next-gen console. I don't see how I'll be missing out on anything. Seriously, what AAA developers are you talking about?

So you buy humble bundles just to give a big "fuck you" to the charities involved when you could just buy the game when it comes out? THat's not cool. Consistent? Yes. Cool? No.

You said that all the money goes to charities, and I explained that you are completely wrong. I usually go with the standard split. I usually pay over the average - the Humble Bundle is specifically designed to allow the consumer to determine how much they want to pay. If a developer sells a game at a specific price, I'll buy it at that price. If they ask me to decide, I'll pay the amount I probably would have bought it on sale. So, no, I buy Humble Bundles to support charities and a wide range of game developers, musicians, and authors.

Mr Ink 5000:

Nomen Nescio:

Mr Ink 5000:
To the Steam Machine comments; my only guess is that its aimed more towards the sort of person who pays extra to have a gaming PC built. never understood that, it isnt that hard, and its so much fun. but there are those type of people out there.

Consider sometimes, that you're not the center of the universe, and your set of skills is not universal.

I far from consider myself centre of the universe thank you.

I Googled how to build a PC. it comes down to budget and a handful of parts that can only ever fit the slot they were intended for. the cables are the same.
insert windowns disc, next, next, next, select language, select time zone,next, next.
insert disc that came with GPU, next next done.

If people struggle with what is esscentially a simple jigsaw then a few clicks of a mouse, then I dont understand it. doesnt make me think I'm centre of the universe, I just dont understand it.
We're talking people who are pc literate enough to post on a website, install a game on to their HDD, but wont install windows which is all just "next"

I've built all my gaming PCs. It's definitely not super difficult, but it is also not as easy as a jigsaw puzzle. The physical act of pushing the parts together is easy, but picking those parts can be a bit tricky sometimes. Although I enjoy it, it is a little stressful, especially with the CPU. You're holding a part that's maybe worth a couple hundred dollars. If you screw up, that money's gone. It's clear how to socket it, but I've always been disturbed by how much force it takes, and the creaking sound you sometimes get, when actually shutting the cover.

I've also seen someone else mention that the hardest part is the front panel. Again, nothing super hard here, but that involves a bundle of little connectors and you have to carefully compare the diagram to get it right. After finally getting it all together, it can be really stressful to hit the power button and get nothing. Other cables are not obvious either: there are often multiple types of SATA slots on the motherboard. There are lots of connections that you don't end up using, but some are required (like the main power). Again, you can follow instructions to figure this all out, but it's not simple.

And then there are compatability issues. I did a GPU upgrade and simply can't get my soundcard to work with it. I went back to on-board sound. There are sometimes motherboard/RAM problems too.

And then there's the warranty. It's cool that I can replace a part if it fails, and I might get the covered by a warranty. But I have to figure out which part and keep track of a bunch of different warranties. Also, doing the troubleshooting isn't always super easy, especially if you don't have lots of temporary parts laying around so that you can swap stuff in and out.

If someone asks me how to get into PC gaming I pretty much tell them to buy the best pre-built system they can for a good price without a GPU. Then just buy a GPU and stick it in. I'll definitely recommend building yourself, but only if the person wants to deal with that. I would never build a computer for someone else though.

Also, installing Windows is not hard, but it takes bloody forever. It's definitely not "fun". I can totally see someone not wanting to mess with the installation issues and time issue for Windows. That time is worth something to some people, so buying a complete product makes sense for them.

Still, I'm really not sure how well the Steam machines will do. I do hope that regardless of how well they do, that Linux catches on with more developers. I'd love to skip the MS tax in the future.

Clovus:

Mr Ink 5000:

Nomen Nescio:
Consider sometimes, that you're not the center of the universe, and your set of skills is not universal.

I far from consider myself centre of the universe thank you.

I Googled how to build a PC. it comes down to budget and a handful of parts that can only ever fit the slot they were intended for. the cables are the same.
insert windowns disc, next, next, next, select language, select time zone,next, next.
insert disc that came with GPU, next next done.

If people struggle with what is esscentially a simple jigsaw then a few clicks of a mouse, then I dont understand it. doesnt make me think I'm centre of the universe, I just dont understand it.
We're talking people who are pc literate enough to post on a website, install a game on to their HDD, but wont install windows which is all just "next"

I've built all my gaming PCs. It's definitely not super difficult, but it is also not as easy as a jigsaw puzzle. The physical act of pushing the parts together is easy, but picking those parts can be a bit tricky sometimes. Although I enjoy it, it is a little stressful, especially with the CPU. You're holding a part that's maybe worth a couple hundred dollars. If you screw up, that money's gone. It's clear how to socket it, but I've always been disturbed by how much force it takes, and the creaking sound you sometimes get, when actually shutting the cover.

I've also seen someone else mention that the hardest part is the front panel. Again, nothing super hard here, but that involves a bundle of little connectors and you have to carefully compare the diagram to get it right. After finally getting it all together, it can be really stressful to hit the power button and get nothing. Other cables are not obvious either: there are often multiple types of SATA slots on the motherboard. There are lots of connections that you don't end up using, but some are required (like the main power). Again, you can follow instructions to figure this all out, but it's not simple.

And then there are compatability issues. I did a GPU upgrade and simply can't get my soundcard to work with it. I went back to on-board sound. There are sometimes motherboard/RAM problems too.

And then there's the warranty. It's cool that I can replace a part if it fails, and I might get the covered by a warranty. But I have to figure out which part and keep track of a bunch of different warranties. Also, doing the troubleshooting isn't always super easy, especially if you don't have lots of temporary parts laying around so that you can swap stuff in and out.

If someone asks me how to get into PC gaming I pretty much tell them to buy the best pre-built system they can for a good price without a GPU. Then just buy a GPU and stick it in. I'll definitely recommend building yourself, but only if the person wants to deal with that. I would never build a computer for someone else though.

Also, installing Windows is not hard, but it takes bloody forever. It's definitely not "fun". I can totally see someone not wanting to mess with the installation issues and time issue for Windows. That time is worth something to some people, so buying a complete product makes sense for them.

Still, I'm really not sure how well the Steam machines will do. I do hope that regardless of how well they do, that Linux catches on with more developers. I'd love to skip the MS tax in the future.

Where everything goes though, is in a 10 min YT vid. I dont even know what most of them issues are that you mentioned, the graphics card goes in the only slot it'll fit in, its all standardised now. although the names sounded familiar to me, I dont know what half the things in that box are called, and dont need to. things like a sata 2 cable being used on a sata 3 mobo slot will hinder performance true, but thats more a wrinkle than a problem surely?

as for compatibility, there are so many sites with drop downs to tell you if your potential rig will have problems with those diff parts, power required etc.

I'll admit the windows part is time consuming, but it wasn't what i had in mind when I said i find it enjoyable putting rigs together.
I can't defend my stance on the CPU either, first time i did watch a few extra vids to make sure I got it right, thermal paste etc.

Mr Ink 5000:
I Googled how to build a PC. it comes down to budget and a handful of parts that can only ever fit the slot they were intended for. the cables are the same.
insert windowns disc, next, next, next, select language, select time zone,next, next.
insert disc that came with GPU, next next done.

If people struggle with what is esscentially a simple jigsaw then a few clicks of a mouse, then I dont understand it. doesnt make me think I'm centre of the universe, I just dont understand it.
We're talking people who are pc literate enough to post on a website, install a game on to their HDD, but wont install windows which is all just "next"

Typing some random bs (I'm talking about myself, don't get angry) on a forum or clicking "next" while installing random software is nothing (and is irrelevant) to understanding compatibility issues, choosing suitable power supply unit, seeing and understanding differences between different graphic cards, or why they perform better or worse with this or that CPU, RAM or whatever's the case here (those are things I heard about, but still don't get).
I'm afraid your knowledge and technical know-how spoiled you, or maybe I'm wrong and it's a natural gift rather than hard earned skill. Whatever the case, if you think that some of us simply "don't get it" because we're lazy, then let it be your way. I'm not willing to argue about - it will end up with headache and frustration (just like reading video cards comparison tests).

I'm taking a wild guess here, but I suppose it's similar to my drawing skills. I never learned that, just grabbed a pen and started drawing. For a time I couldn't understood why people don't do the same and are amazed by those poor sketches I did (I really dislike what I draw in 95% cases).

Mr Ink 5000:
how come, isnt the steam Machine similar similar circumstances as people going to a trusted vendor?

That's simple - I don't trust Steam.

Nomen Nescio:

Mr Ink 5000:
-snip-

Typing some random bs (I'm talking about myself, don't get angry) on a forum or clicking "next" while installing random software is nothing (and is irrelevant) to understanding compatibility issues, choosing suitable power supply unit, seeing and understanding differences between different graphic cards, or why the perform better or worse with this or that CPU, RAM or whatever's the case here (those are things I heard about, but still don't get).
I'm afraid your knowledge and technical know-how spoiled you, or maybe I'm wrong and it's a natural gift rather than hard earned skill. Whatever the case, if you think that some of us simply "don't get it" because we're lazy, then let it be your way. I'm not willing to argue about - it will end up with headache and frustration (just like reading video cards comparison tests).

sorry, i got defensive at the universe revolving comment. i guess i'm not naturally tech savvy, just like having a go at things

Mr Ink 5000:
how come, isnt the steam Machine similar similar circumstances as people going to a trusted vendor?

That's simple - I don't trust Steam.

haha, fair, i quite like them, don't think its healthy they have a monopoly
Would love to try their controller

Mr Ink 5000:
sorry, i got defensive at the universe revolving comment. i guess i'm not naturally tech savvy, just like having a go at things

No, it's my fault - I admit I got little "sour" while typing that "universe" thing. I could have said it in less accusatory way. Sorry about that and glad we're cool.

Mr Ink 5000:
haha, fair, i quite like them, don't think its healthy they have a monopoly
Would love to try their controller

Ha, that controller of theirs was probably the only thing that got me interested. That is, until they ditched the touchpad, which I considered for a moment a great move towards letting console users play mouse/keyboard/PC-only games like oldschool RPGs or RTS. I understand why the did it though. Maybe next time, when technology will get even more sophisticated?

Cheers :) (man, I love when my internet arguments end like that)

Overall, a good argument. However, I have a bone to pick with one bit.

The Xbox 360 sold 80 million units. However, its stunning 54% failure rate (!) means that there's less than 37 million of them still in service. Sony might have bungled The Playstation 3 design, but it also sold about 80 million units. The PS3 failure rate was better than the Xbox 360, but still pretty embarrassing at 10%. Which means there are about 72 million still in operation.

This assumes too much:

-That a self-reported unscientific poll in one magazine is accurate and reliable
-That these numbers remained the same throughout the console generation
-That people don't service or repair consoles.

2 even has sub problems. Not only did Microsoft release revisions that didn't crap out just for looking at them wrong, but as an electronics device ages, the failure rate rises. Even assuming the self-reported failure rate is accurate--hell, even if we assume those early revisions have a 100% failure rate--that tells us nothing about the numbers still in service. People got their units repaired, both officially and not. They got their units replaced in some instances. This could account for anything from a trivial fraction to 100% of the units still being on the market.

That's not to say they beat Steam, by the way, but there's an issue of raw numbers being rather....Useless. It's funny, because I bet some of the people who are going "PC Gaming Master Race!" right now wouldn't count a good chunk of the users on Steam as "real gamers" in other, less opportunistic scenarios. Like, for example, when the number of female gamers is being brought up and they suddenly don't like the notion of those girls being in their treehouse.

Nomen Nescio:

Mr Ink 5000:
sorry, i got defensive at the universe revolving comment. i guess i'm not naturally tech savvy, just like having a go at things

No, it's my fault - I admit I got little "sour" while typing that "universe" thing. I could have said it in less accusatory way. Sorry about that and glad we're cool.

Cmoe on! You guys are doing it wrong! Nobody says "It's all good" on the internet! There must be a blood feud between the two of you until one is declared objectively right!

....Sarcasm aside, I just wanted to note I did think it was cool yu guys didn't come to internet blows. Good on you.

So, once we get all the people with multiple play-stations and xBoxes out, of the way, then we get, well, even more steam games :O http://puu.sh/7X3DT.jpg

Counting as both a PS3 user and Steam user, the Steambox (and/or Steam OS) really interest me. I very rarely buy games when they come out (I'm too cheap to pay the ~$100AUD), but always end up with a vast back catalogue of sale bought games I never got round to playing (Seriously my PSX still works and there's at least half a dozen games I've never played on it).
The idea that my back catalogue never becomes useless because a specific piece of hardware dies, or that I can easily pull it up without having to find where I stored my old console is a good one.

For me personally there are also two other reasons why I might make the switch instead of getting a PS4:
1/. I am a Linux user for the last 6 years, SteamOS being based on Linux means the single fundamental weakness of the Linux will be slowly negated ( I am talking about the lack of AAA level games, or even AA).
2/. They at least have media streaming on the road map and PS4 don't. The amount that my wife and I use the PS3 as a media client at least equals the amount of games we play on it.

Of course on the other hand there is inFamous: Second Son.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.