As my recent hunt for a new monitor can attest to, you actually pay less for curved than a regular screen of the same specs.
I don’t know if they made a bunch and now can’t sell them and thus they’re all discounted or if they’re cheaper because they’re only making those now aka economy of scale.
Either way I’m not here for it so I paid more for that regular monitor.
The servers are not really dead. One can not buy new games, but the Nintendo account is still active and checked for legitimacy, as you can download purchased games. And some other functionality are still working on eshop. My fear is, that a list of games and game IDs are uploaded when connecting.
I'm one of those patient gamers, where I'm just happy I finally have a machine that can play about 89% of the games I have to throw at it. Moreso happier that it can confidently run PS2 emulation, something I've been chasing for years to have a machine that can do, to own anyways.
I think you just need to sit down and contemplate to yourself what you want out of a machine. It's not a good healthy mindset to be fretting about upgrading all of the time. I mean, you made a huge leap already going from 15 years to what you have now.
Also consider that, there will still be games released that look graphically demanding and everything, but will require maybe a 1060 GPU, just as an example. Probably 8GB of RAM. It's only the AAA stuff that wants everything to be tip-top shape. Don't chase those.
The good news is that single-player games tend to age well. Down the line, the bugs are as fixed as they’re gonna be. Any expansions are done. Prices may be lower. Mods may have been created. Wikis may have been created. You have a pretty good picture of what the game looks like in its entirety. While there are rare cases that games are no longer available some reason or break on newer OSes with no way to make them run, that’s rare.
With (non-local) multiplayer games, one has a lot less flexibility, since once the crowd has moved on, it’s moved on.
I played +400 hours last year and most demanding game in my library has a GTX 1050 minimum requirement. There’s much more to gaming than yearly AAA releases.
From an colleague of mine, who bought an M1 Macbook Pro when they were new; he told me that there was a Wine fork (don’t know the name sadly) for Apple silicon which kinda worked with most (older) Steam games, not as nice as Proton on x86-64 Linux, but good enough for his game tastes. Don’t know if it’s still maintained or not…
and a lot of mac games that came out before apple silicon simply will not run. and ive had mostly poor results trying to run games with crossover and whisky.
your best bet is to stick with the limited selection of games that have native apple silicon releases. and with native releases on my m2 mac mini im still experiencing some pretty bad input lag.
some strategy games like rimworld and stellaris are good options.
Because Sony and Microsoft make most of their money from other sources. That isn't to says their game studios aren't big, just that they don't make 90% of revenue.
But they have gaming divisions which are technically their own companies. This chart js definitely cherry-picking. I didn’t even mention that “gaming” is highly subjective already. There’s more than just MS & Sony missing from this chart.
I figured the 2004 release as the PS2 slim turned the tables again, but that was still before the Wii came out in 2006. It’s possible that story only counted the original PS2 and this chart counts both, though.
I don’t think Sandy did much game design on Doom though. He was mainly a level designer who came in late in the project to finish the levels started by Tom Hall, who had left id software, and to grind out levels for the third episode. By the time Sandy joined id software, Doom (the engine and game mechanics) was already pretty much the game it was going to be.
I should also say that the maps he made for Doom and Doom 2 are by far my least favorite in the game.
Expected more people arguing about dark souls in here. There’s usually a contingent of people going at it over “I want to win on the first or maybe second try” vs “the game is about failing repeatedly until you persevere”
You can run Moonlight on your Steam Link and stream anything you want. I haven’t used it in awhile, but I remember it being less laggy than streaming through Steam.
I felt exactly the same way with (combat) flight sims.
Without VR, a lot of it was practicing maneuvers and attitudes as the target or the airfield would be out of my view most of the time. With VR, it just feels right, you can just keep the target in sight and move yourself into position. Your sense of distance and attitude is also 100% better. I can fly altitudes better, dogfight much better and so on.
You also get a much better sense of the whole plane, how big it is, how it moves around, and it also is tons more immersive. I can do 2 hour flights without getting bored easy in VR - not that you don’t get hella tired from that.
It’s a game changer with non-combat flight sims too. Camera-attached face tracking is a great secondary option, but that ability to move the camera with your head instead of using a controller input is so freeing.
Seriously, don’t reward this kind of anti-consumer bullshit.
The only acceptable justification I can see is if it’s an indie dev who has really, truly earned the trust of their players and proven that they will work tirelessly to deliver the product people want. And even then I’d be very, very unlikely to. I’m crazy excited for both of Owlcats upcoming games and I still haven’t pre-ordered them, for example.
Pre-orders encourage bad, buggy, incomplete or deceptively marketed releases by juicing day one numbers without any need for the dev / publisher to actually release a worthy product.
For the engagement. I could literally google this or ask any of the half dozen AI search agents I have access to and likely get an immediate answer. I don’t really care one way or the other.
But having said that…
Back in the day of the original Playstation, circa mid to late 1990s, there was a really intriguing robot battle game where you essentially implemented a visual program to run your battle robot then let it loose in a “3D” arena to run its course with the program you designed. You literally had no direct control over the real time action IIRC, the game was won or lost on how well you programmed your bot to fight.
The actual game was probably pretty shit by modern standards, but for the time it was unique and good enough to be intriguing. It was certainly not the kind of game that would have wide support, then or now. A bit nerdy, definitely complicated for the era.
My stupid fucked up brain remembers it as Armored Core, but that’s definitely not the name of the game or even the right genre. I’ll literally forget any correct response and likely end up asking this same question again in 10 years, so don’t feel compelled to answer. Not like I’m going to fire it up again any time soon. My PS was stolen more than 2 decades ago and I’m pretty sure it was a game I rented a half dozen times but never owned anyway.
Oh shit I remember playing this, it was more like a sim with tanks, right? I remember cheesing it by constantly driving in a circle and shooting enemies when the barrel aligned with them.
ChatGPT was really hit-and-miss for me in this regard, and really more miss. Idk about other LLMs.
Instead, in this case I’d rather find the category for such games on Wikipedia, which seems to be Programming games, then click through the games to see which of them are on PS1 (or use a script I have for pulling such data from a category), then look at YouTube clips of the gameplay.
bin.pol.social
Ważne