Like idk, when overwatch came out, it was an absolute blast. I wasn't looking forward to it at all, i didn't care for it a bit until i played it. It just got run into the ground slowly. Also they made team fortress 2 way WAY before, and yeah that's what they excites them.
Valve’s game development division feels more like a weird cult than a proper game company. I don’t think they get “excited” for the things that most people get excited for. (Remember when they were excited for a virtual card game where you have to pay for every card?) The Valve of the 2000s is long gone IMO
But they see a place for broken games that are sold by lying to their customers and maybe fixed two years later. Fuck off, CDPR. Are you sure you are the right people to do the moral?
Crunch is only necessary if something has already gone pretty seriously wrong, either it was feature creep or the time scales were unrealistic, or you pull a Bethesda and try to build a game that’s way outside the scope of your own ancient game engine.
I still love that company. The witcher 3 was amazing, easily one of my favourite games of all time. Cyberpunk had some issues sure, I got it a year or so after release and had fun with it. I really like gog and how everything has no drm and I spend a lot of money there. Compare that to almost every other major competitor and these people are saints.
“Some issues” is a very kind way of putting it. The game was unplayable and had frequent crashes and game breaking bugs. Even now, it’s never really been fixed for old gen (the gen it was marketed for and sold in a console bundle with), they just turned it into a ghost town, reducing NPC spawn rate and turning off environmental lights to reduce the stress on the system.
And worse of all, they knew all of that, and still sold a broken product, and to ensure that people would buy it, they didn’t allow journalists to record their play sessions, only allowing them to use CDPR’s marketing videos in their reviews. I could still forgive them for releasing a broken product on the market and fixing it at a later date, if they were at least sincere with their fanbase, but they chose to lie through their teeth because money was more important than integrity.
The fact that they eventually fixed the game on another generation is not enough for me.
They’re still exploiting their customers who’ve been developing products based on a completely different fiscal agreement; you can’t just change engines after years of work.
The worst isn’t even people currently developing things - it’s developers who already have released products. Imagine if you released something like, over the summer, for example. You’ve been paying the current revenue share, and will continue to do so until Jan. 1, then you’ll start paying the per-install fee. So you’re paying twice for the same customers’ purchases.
I really feel like they're going to lose a lawsuit on that.
Unilateral contracts don't have unlimited power and "we can blanket change what we want to charge you on games already made" doesn't seem like it's going to be enforceable.
“One of the randomly generated points of interest, the abandoned research tower, usually has a computer at the top where you can download the planetary survey data for the planet your [sic] on,” they wrote. “Just a tip!”
You still need to scan individual plants resources or animals to get the Surveying perk upgrades, which gives you better zoom on the scanner, which can be useful sometimes.
It’s a game with exploration elements, so the idea is that an areas you’ve visited may only have estimates of what resources are available. In some cases you could be the first person exploring it or noting its qualities.
The in game reason is the survey data you get is asked of you by one of the constellation members, as their space base “The Eye” has scanned all it can. We use the scan data for finding more artifacts (though I’m assuming it doesn’t outright give more missions). You can get the survey data before this activity and sell it for about half, which is why I assume it doesn’t really affect much.
There are also missions that ask for experienced surveyors to look for hospitable planets for their colony.
It’s a decent way to make money, but not really worth the effort of hunting down all the different flora and fauna. One time I had a planet where I had to land near the ocean and scan fish, that one was a total nightmare.
You can make decent money off it, but first and foremost it should be something you enjoy. Personally I think that’s a very chill way of breaking the monotony, after having spent too much time flying around or walking through cities to complete quests. Exploring planets has got the nice plus of not having to deal with loading screens, unless you want to get back to your ship and move to a different biome.
Yes. We’ve had so many examples of rushed games with great potential that never hit it. It’s actually refreshing to see a delay. It suggests that the dev team is still getting a say and that the game itself and its quality are still primary concerns.
Microsoft and Google really aren’t too dissimilar, in a lot of ways. The only reason why Xbox still exists isn’t because they’re so incredibly passionate about it. There was a niche for them to make money, and they’ve created a product in it, that has the minimum viable qualities to complete. Issue is that just as Google does, they stopped caring about it entirely, after the initial pitch
Haha I’m the same way. So many of the vocal players say “it’s a PVP game, there’s not supposed to be anywhere safe!” But yeah, I just really like the sailing mechanics, the exploration of diving to sunken ships, sailing in storms and hunting megaladons. Getting stomped by some hardcore players while in the middle of an adventure was never fun to me.
It wouldn’t be such a problem if PVP weren’t so insanely janky. It feels like there’s no feedback and most of the skill in combat is rushing the other crew before they know what’s going on and getting used to how laggy the blunderbuss is.
They’re good at that. I remember trying Skyrim when it was new and we all didn’t know there would be like 15 rereleases and it felt weirdly dated. I couldn’t really put my finger on why, it just felt old.
Maybe this time it’ll ship with an Ethernet port and joycons that last more than 6mo!
Jokes aside, very curious what changes they’ll make. Incredibly unlikely they are going to target 4K but hopefully we will see a stable 1080p @60 across the board.
I just don’t see Nintendo making the jump tbh. They always lag behind resolution and FPS by a pretty large margin. Maybe we’ll see 1440p on TV’s and 1080p handhelds, but I’m also throwing darts at the board here lol
The games shouldn’t be designed with upscalers to be used to hit desired performance. We’re already seeing it with UE5 (Remnant 2) where performance without upscaling is abysmal.
If they go this route, the hardware will age incredibly quick. It’s not sustainable, especially since DLSS is tied to hardware. It would be better if FSR were implemented since it can run on anything, but the main point is that games should not require upscale tech to hit minimum performance. That leaves zero room for improvement over the life of the product and gives the user less reasons to adopt it.
My opinion though. I thought Nintendo handled the switch great for what it was. I have high hopes for the switch 2 regardless.
Does the NVIDIA Tegra line support DLSS? I guess it could be based on the “Orin” line of ARM CPUs, but I can’t find anything suggesting they can do DLSS.
I have to ask… why? The only device I’ve connected to hardwired Ethernet is a desktop PC in the same room as my router. I’ve not used ethernet for any portable device for eons. Why would you need it?
Latency on wireless controllers isn't a big deal (and a lot of Smash players are using wired Gamecube controllers anyway), but it's not a big deal on wi-fi either. The problem with wi-fi is packet loss and not being able to send and receive at the same time, which feels like latency in fits and starts, because it has to wait until the packet sends successfully. Ethernet helps with Smash, but it still sorely needs rollback netcode regardless. Even on a wire, you're still on delay-based netcode.
they do use bluetooth. However, it should be noted that not all BT devices are created equally. Check out this table from RTINGS.com of reviews of wireless bluetooth headsets. You can see that the very worst headsets have 300+ milliseconds of latency, while the very best have almost 0 ms of latency. I imagine that the Joycons hit a similarly low latency.
Because they’ve been standard for literally decades and Nintendo has released/probably will continue to release games that depend on streaming, such as Kingdom Hearts, which is unplayable over wifi.
Most people who have a switch do not have an OLED switch. I do hope they carry over the ethernet port for the next iteration. They’ve added and removed it before!
Gaming journalists sure want a Sony monopoly of gaming consoles, don’t they?
If Xbox didn’t exist, consumers could only choose PlayStation. Nintendo has shown they have no interest in making real console hardware to compete with Sony or Microsoft anymore, so consumers will get literally only one console choice. That’s bad. Especially since they could set prices at whatever they want and nobody could challenge it.
I get journalists hate Xbox, but Xbox needs to exist as a consumer option.
The Steam Deck is not a console, it is a handheld Linux PC with “console gaming” TV output as an afterthought, just like the Nintendo Switch is a handheld android tablet with console gaming as an afterthought.
K… This is just not true. Plenty of AAA games run well on the steam deck. Currently installed on mine, RDR2, cyberpunk 2077, horizon zero dawn, Forza horizon, uncharted legacy of thieves, the last of us, and for funsies I just started another fallout 4 playthrough. I’m sure others have lots of other AAA games they play on their deck.
If it’s the exclusives you’re missing, like Gran Turismo or something, I think that’s a different argument.
Being able to play AAA games is not a qualifier for a console. My PC can also play AAA games, but it is not a console.
The Steam Deck, and Switch, are both handhelds. It is a subcategory of game console, but it is not considered a game console just the same as a Game Boy is not considered a console, but it is a handheld. Both the Steam Deck and Switch have a screen and internal battery, along with a controller that is built onto the device, like a Game Boy.
A Steam Machine is a Linux PC, but is more similar to a console than the Steam Deck.
I mean, the nuance you describe is notable. But I sit on the couch, using controllers and play the same games you would on ps or Xbox. Both of which run variants of Linux/windows.
I think that's the point bro above is making tho... sure you an use it like one. But it does not compete directly with PS5 and Xbox. Different audience and primary use case is different.
If Xbox dies, steam deck is not a proper substitute for people who buy TV consoles. I guess steam could make steam console tho tbh
it aint ready for mainstream, it still has issues and translation layer aint perfect at all. my gaming rig is on linux. I guess this will be resolved at some point and valve will release a TV console version.
The hardware is not in the same class, in fact it literally under powered because it is a handheld. Guy who wants headshot noobs 4 loolz wants that 4k60 fps experience.
not “features” per se, but consoles have a better performance-to-price ratio compared to handhelds. In the bill of materials for a handheld you’re paying for a screen and battery that are unnecessary expenses if you just need a console. in a console, that money will go towards higher powered hardware to run games, and maybe some other ancillary things. Also in a console you can have a better cooling system since you’re not constrained to a mobile form factor. Also in a console you can use higher power since performance is not being balanced with batter life.
Reading through the above comments it seems like goalposts keep moving on what counts as a console. Does the wii u not count as a console because the controller had a screen and the price to performance is poor?
I’m not sure any of you have a concrete definition for a console, and maybe there isn’t one. It might be more of a spectrum with open and configurable devices on one end and the more focused devices with walled garden software on the other.
Then you can say that ps5 is more like a console than steam deck is, and steam deck is more like a console than a pc.
Does the wii u not count as a console because the controller had a screen and the price to performance is poor?
The WiiU Gamepad did not function on its own, it had to be connected to the actual console in order to function. It was literally a controller with a screen. It did not have any functionality without the console.
The person I was responding to was citing costs accrued for screen and battery as a reasoning for why steam deck is not a console, so I was giving an example (wii u) that contradicts that reasoning.
I don’t actually care if you consider the steam deck or wii u or anything is a console or not. My point was that I don’t see a concrete definition anywhere in this thread and that maybe a more nuanced view would be appropriate.
I see. I will try to provide as detailed of a concrete definition as possible for you.
A video game console is an electronic device that is built with the specific purpose of playing video games. It can do other things as well, but its primary function that it is designed around is playing video games. A console does not have a built in screen or control device, but instead those devices are separate and connect to the console in order to give it inputs and for it to output its signal to the user. A video game console does not run a standard computer operating system that one might find on a workstation, but it can run a modified version of a standard operating system that is specifically optimized for the console hardware to play video games more efficiently The console device is to be placed in a permanent location while in operation, and must be plugged into an electrical socket or similar power supply, as it is not powered by an internal battery.
A handheld is a subcategory of video game console that differs by having a screen and controller built into the device. It is not in a permanent location while in operation, rather it is operated while held in the users hands. These have a battery to provide power to the unit.
Ah, that does clarify a lot. You’re wanting a term to refer to the Xbox and Playstation class devices since they’re in this closely competing realm, but people already have a preconceived notion of what a “console” is (I would consider handheld to be consoles, for example).
It does seem like it would be useful to have a term for those.
Well this is the traditional definition of a video game console, it includes all video game consoles before the current generation. For example, the SNES, SEGA Genesis, and PC Engine/TurboGrafx16 were all competing consoles, but the SEGA GameGear and Nintendo Gameboy were not competing with those consoles.
As I said, handhelds are a subcategory of console. Like how a laptop is a subcategory of personal computer.
If it’s a subcategory of console then it is a console. Otherwise it’s like saying a square is not a rectangle because it is a square, or a cat is not a mammal because it is a cat.
That’s why I say you are searching for a term for things like the Xbox and Playstation - because it would be useful to have a term for that. Simply “console” is not a good fit imo, but you may disagree.
A handheld is a kind of console. It is not in competition or in the same class as a regular console.
A square is a kind of rectangle, nobody that says “draw a rectangle” expects you to draw a square, they expect a box with two sides longer than the other two but equal in length to each other adjoined at 90° angles. A square is a subcategory of rectangle. Its definition includes some features of a rectangle, but it also has other features that define it as clearly different from a rectangle.
Likewise a laptop is a subcategory of personal computer. A tablet such as a Microsoft Surface could also be a subcategory of personal computer. But if someone talks about their PC, you don’t think of a laptop or Surface.
Its the same with consoles and handhelds. By technicality one could call a handheld a console in the same way a person could call a Surface a personal computer, but that would be the same as calling a hot dog a sandwich, or calling a submarine a boat.
Perhaps “home console” would be more descriptive, but since video game consoles were always understood to not be handheld devices, there is no need to subdivide the parent category. Just “consoles” and “handhelds” works fine.
i would say the wiiu is a special case console. they tried adding a screen to a typical console design and it didn’t really work. that’s why they pivoted to the switch which is much more like a portable than a console.
the vast, vast majority of consoles don’t have screens built into their controllers.
Most of Nintendo’s pre-Switch “consoles” arguably had poor performance-to-price ratios in terms of hardware.
Also, a PC doesn’t have the constraints of a mobile form factor and better cooling and can have better performance without the built in battery and screen. You just argued to me that a PC can be a console.
This all seems arbitrary to argue the differences.
While you can do that with a Steam Deck or Nintendo Switch, that was not their primary design. Its no different than plugging in a laptop to a TV with a wireless controller and gaming on that. That is not a console, it was not designed as such.
Additionally, the quality of gaming experience you get from a Switch is worse than on Steam Deck for intensive games, even for native Switch games sometimes. But the quality of games on the Steam Deck is worse than a purpose built game console like the Xbox Series X or PS5. Keep in mind the Steam Deck is 2 years newer than the Xbox Series X or PS5. While the experience may be comparable on some less intensive games, the console experience is objectively better.
Steam Deck and Nintendo Switch are not competition to Xbox or PlayStation. Valve and Nintendo don’t view them as such, and neither do consumers.
I don’t think anybody wants a monopoly, because it means the leader can stagnate, and honestly that’s already happened. Sony are getting complacent, the big releases are few and far between. We’re all getting less for our money, no matter what team you’re on.
I often buy multiple consoles in a generation, but I didn’t get the Xbox One or Xbox Series consoles, because there’s no reason to, and it’s not because I’ve got an expensive PC either, still being on a 1060. Being late to the game is fine, PS3 did that and ended up selling pretty much as many as the Xbox 360 in the end, but where is that spark from MS? They’ve gambled it all on Game Pass and I’m not sure you can run an entire gaming division on that, same as Netflix couldn’t compete with Hollywood without the box office money. The cloud growth just hasn’t happened for them. It doesn’t feel as good as local play, and I suspect it never will. A PS5 has hit pricing that isn’t really that expensive for fairly casual gamers, although the most casual went mobile ages ago and I doubt they’re coming back.
Xbox hardware is fine, there just isn’t any reason to own it. If it ran Windows and I could install my Steam library on it, I’d have got it on day one, but how does that make MS money? There’s even been noises about the next Xbox allowing Steam, although I don’t know how true that it is. I would guess the only way that can happen is if MS get a chunk of Valve’s money every time somebody buys a game through Steam for Xbox. It’s the only real feature that would get me to buy one right now.
I get journalists hate Xbox, but Xbox needs to exist as a consumer option.
I don’t understand, is this a thing? “All journalists hate Xbox” I mean. I’ve never heard this before. Like there’s a mandate that journalists have to hate the Xbox?
EDIT: I’ll eat the downvotes, I just want to understand what the fuck they’re talking about
Nah, it’s an obviously false take, because as you say, why would all journalists agree on this?
XBOX has been underwhelming for a while and journalists will report on that, and they will focus on those bad parts and certainly also sometimes make it sound worse than it really is, because it brings in clicks.
That can make it look like journalists dislike XBOX, but causality is simply the other way around.
Yeah the comment felt like bizarre astroturfing – Why would ‘gaming journalists’ specifically not want Xbox to succeed, but want Playstation to? Like somehow a Sony monopoly is great for… journalists? A very strange take.
XBOX has been underwhelming for a while and journalists will report on that, and they will focus on those bad parts and certainly also sometimes make it sound worse than it really is, because it brings in clicks.
I worked at Microsoft and I can assure you, they deserve every bit of hate they get. And it really is that bad. There was a point with the Xbox One where Sony was beating ‘us’ in every single market we were actively tracking except specific parts of the US. Yet we had directive after directive for clearly nonsensical ideas like targeting Japan for console sales.
I also worked (third party) with Sony and they aren’t much better, but they at least understand how to get their consoles bought. Microsoft hasn’t known how to do that since the 360.
Nintendo has shown they have no interest in making real console hardware
Ah yes, the no true Scotsman argument.
Nintendo doesn’t make hardware to compete with Sony and Microsoft, despite having the best selling console hardware all-time, among the current generation, and among several previous generations.
You don’t have to be a graphical powerhouse to compete with PlayStation and Xbox…
Nintendo is not competing with Microsoft or Sony, and that’s why they can sell more.
People arent choosing between Xbox, PlayStation, or Switch. Theyre choosing between Xbox or PlayStation, and also buying a Switch. That is not competition.
Gaming journalists sure want a Sony monopoly of gaming consoles, don’t they?
Despite the inflammatory headline, I don’t think that’s really the point of the article. It’s much less “why even bother”, and more “do they even know what they’re doing over there”?
Any hatred the writer has for Xbox seems to be focused on how Microsoft are running things, not letting the studios take chances or even make a bit of a dud game.
As a platform, the point of Xbox is supposed to be to make things people enjoy. But MS seem hyper-focused on insane rates of growth, more users, more subscribers, bigger profits. Anything that doesn’t fit that gets cut, regardless of how well it was received by fans or critics.
I don’t get the impression the writer hates Xbox, but is just frustrated that they’ve been making the same mistake over and over again, which has allowed Sony to dominate the console space.
Thanks for posting this OP, it actually means a lot to see someone talking about this.
I’ve been very lucky in that my pain has responded really well to medication, but I’ll never forget how absolutely awful it felt to be physically unable to play the games I love. I hope we continue to push for accessible features in games more and more, this is a great hobby and when you’re trapped at home it can have an enormous impact on your quality of life. Even just the social aspect of gaming is a huge benefit.
eurogamer.net
Ważne