that’s always been nintendo’s MO though. with the exception of the N64 and GameCube, their consoles have all been very modest spec-wise. but the games they put out are made specifically for that hardware, so it’s usually fine.
and actually, the switch is underclocked in its stock configuration. if you have adequate cooling for it you can basically double its clock speed with a softmod, which at least for totk removed basically all stuttering for me!
Still the only handheld PC that doesn’t come with a dogshit OS and an abysmal battery life. The deck doesn’t do well despite its low specs and alternative OS, it does well because of them.
The fact that the OS is replaceable sealed the deal for me. Then the marketing page is claiming they will make parts available for DIY repairs? Incredible.
If I am being honest, I prefer the Switch form factor with the dumb little controllers. I like it so much that I could maybe accept its lesser performance. But it is locked down, centralized store, some subscription bullshit…
I’ve found a Steam Deck fits really comfortably in the hands. I can settle for having an additional wireless controller to play it from afar.
Yeah, but idk if phones can use joycons in the double joycon mode. My understanding is that it requires either root or a physical adapter of some kind.
The fact that the OS is replaceable sealed the deal for me.
And the default OS isn’t locked down and doesn’t try to prevent you from doing other stuff with it. What you want to do isn’t in the Steam interface? Switch over to desktop mode and you have full access to the underlying OS.
My only complaint with the Steamdeck is that I find using the touchpad on the right side for long gaming sessions hurts my hands. I 3d printed some grips which help; but, I think my hands just don’t like the orientation. Still love my deck though.
I don’t own a Steam Deck. I am a Linux gamer, and I appreciate that it exists.
Internally it’s basically a laptop using its AMD integrated graphics, yeah? No discrete GPU? Which makes it actually pretty impressive at what it does.
OMG two games don’t work! How many others do? O yea that’s right, thousands…the library for the deck is magnitudes larger than pretty much every console out there…hell I’ll say it, every console released has smaller libraries than the deck.
Oh, go figure. I thought a Steam Deck was a handheld device running off of a battery. Yeah, if you’ve got a desktop computer with a high-wattage GPU you’d expect better performance on the latest AAA graphics, huh? Weird. Cannot possibly be worthwhile to own, I guess.
Lol this is an article about how shit optimization has been for the last several AAA game releases. Even quite capable desktops often have performance issues with the mentioned games, because the PC ports weren’t optimized enough and/or tested on a wide enough range of hardware. It’s a real shame, many of them don’t even look significantly better than the last generation or two. It’s just graphical bloat as devs get lazier and lazier the beefier the GPUs get.
I agree, however I think the main cause is studios/publishers just deciding where to allocate the time. Devs are just the ones implementing these shitty decisions.
I mostly use the Deck for indie games and emulation so a CPU/GPU upgrade isn’t something of interest for me. A larger, 16:9 screen or better ergonomics on the other hand…
In 2027 the current iteration won’t be legally able to be sold in the EU, since the EU will require portable devices to have easily replaceable batteries. (Which the Steam does not qualify for due to needing a heat gun). So an upgrade is almost certainly planned by then.
Both mentioned games are notorious for the scale of the issues at launch, and the resulting backlash. NMS for the lack of content and Cyberpunk for the huge amount of bugs.
Personally, I just don’t have time or energy to play big AAA games for the most part. I very much prefer smaller indie games nowadays, and Steam Deck has those in spades. I would wager a lot of older gamers are in the same boat.
I don’t even find the price too bad, i haven’t owned a console in over a decade, so i don’t really know. But paying to use their online service, and the lack of games is really off putting to me. And that aside, as far as i understand it, it was such a pain in the ass to get a ps5, that i don’t really understand why so many people bothered in the first place.
I will admit it’s not only the price that is a deterrent, even if that’s now competing with a perfectly capable gaming PC that can do significantly more, doesn’t have an additional charge to play online, doesn’t have to deal with increasingly standardised subpar controller longevity, commonly have cheaper games, better sales, and will have a longer shelf life. I already thought the PS5 was a bit pricy at launch, at a time when I was still considering buying one. That time has been and gone, I’ve spent the money on upgrading my already decent computer into an absolute beast because I figured “why not?” and I still have yet to see a reason to buy the PS5. It’s no secret that consoles are commonly loss leaders for the manufacturers while the exclusives are the money-makers. It’s a way of doing business, that’s fine, but to this day, I can only claim to have seen them release maybe 4 exclusives that I’d deem worth playing. That’s already a bad deal. No-one in their right mind can justify paying full price for a console to play 4 games. On top of that, 1 already got ported to PC, one’s got a release date, one’s already had public response from the developer to be working on the port, and the last has really strong odds of getting ported too. 4 is my number, and I don’t doubt other players would swap my own picks for something more their taste, or maybe even bolster the numbers, but I don’t think anyone could make it as high as 10 without naming a game that was also released for the PS4 and/or got ported. So unless Sony gets their shit together, the PS5 tells us that the PS6 will be a bad deal.
forbes.com
Najstarsze