It's been a long time since that was the case though. Now you have to update the console, update the controller firmware, install the game, and update the game.
Sure, but they're approaching a convergence. PCs have gotten easier and consoles have become less streamlined. With something like the Steam Deck, it's even more blurred.
Steam is legitimately easier and faster to get games going on than my PS4 these days IMO. Library is laid out alot better and there's no signing in whenever I turn on a controller. Its still easier to do local multiplayer on PS4, but not by much.
and there’s no signing in whenever I turn on a controller
Can you not sync your account to a specific controller on Playstation? Xbox has that for a while, though the whole software experience has generally been Xbox’s strong suit imho
While only the Steam Deck has achieved massive success, it shows there are ways to reduce the prep time for PC gaming, to almost as little as modern consoles (since you do, ultimately, have to install drivers on console.)
Don't forget RISC-V, it's really the future i think. Anyone who doesn't want to live under the yoke of proprietary architectures, this looks to be the only alternative to the status quo.
If I was seeing RISC-V get widespread adoption in consumer-grade hardware, I’d be thinking about it (granted, having X86-64 and ARM on the market could make room for a third competitor compared to the 15-year x86 hegemony.) But I don’t see a push for that, and there probably won’t be unless RISC-V delivers better results than ARM. Keep in mind that you and I probably care more about CPU architecture than the average gamer.
I’m okay with this on the condition that that platform is PC.
You want developers to choose a specific set of hardware requirements and only develop games to target and work on that specific set of hardware specifications?
The context appears to be mainly about how having to develop for different consoles/hardware configurations/etc makes development harder. So, choosing PC as the "platform" in this context would be the worst possible option to choose.
I was over the moon for a second because of the studio switch. But I goofed and was thinking Supergiant Studios, not Supermassive. Still, Supermassive has some decent hitters under the belt. Hopefully everything goes well.
It’s bad when the holding company can’t weather a streak of big budget flops. The Embracer Group has only a market cap of less then $4 billion yet they act like they are a Sony with their crazy buying spree of the last 5 years. They’ve over extended themselves.
Yall windows gamers be acting like the only computers people own are windows. It’s a huge pain to run a number of games on Linux. And don’t get me started on Mac support.
It’s a lot better than it used to be, from a Linux perspective. I switched to Mint a few months ago and it can be a bit fiddly, but I haven’t had any real issues with any of the games I’ve tried. Admittedly, that’s all through Steam, but still.
I think the only way that could possibly work is if all manufacturers followed the same specs. That way games can be developed for all platforms equally.
3DO tried this, and failed spectacularly. Any other way would stifle competition though, which is bad for everyone.
I’m confident there’s a way to make it work. 3D Printers operate with this model for the most part (thanks Jeff Prusa!)
Effectively, console manufacturers should agree on some kind of standard architecture, which, to be very realistic and blunt (apologies as this isn’t necessarily the tone of the post, but I like trying to make things work in some way), as long as Nintendo is in the console game, it’s gonna be a bit difficult (unless we just let them do whatever they want console-wise and have the others create some kind of standard home console arch). As someone who is dipping their toes into game development, that is something I would love to see.
Xbox One/Series S/SeriesX and PS4/5 are x86 PCs, Switch is an ARM phone.
So, in the lowest level they are pretty out of the shelf hardware. Electronics are getting way to complicated to invest in the development of custom hardware architectures for a single product.
You take a commonly used architecture, fork an Operating System that you have access to, bundle as many libraries as makes sense and call it a day. No one is going to use weird quirks of the hardware except if you make some deal with Unity or Unreal.
Certainly, I myself am on a Linux machine with a 1070Ti and a Xeon 1650 processor that’s never left it’s socket since it was placed in there in some factory. I would guess it’s somewhat rare to have a machine such as this because it was originally meant as a workstation (I can tell because the door has handles on the inside that make it an effective shield), and I would guess anyone who does have this set up will have Windows installed on it.
That being said, differences in software between Windows and Linux is slowly becoming irrelevant with the continued development of proton and the various FOSS alternatives (i.e. GIMP replacing Photoshop). For the most part, the only differences these days are certain games from certain studios that for whatever reason decided not to check a box that says “Yes, I want this to work on Linux.” This of course disregards any specialist software that was only ever developed for Windows, which I’ve read numerous examples of.
It’s a different model entirely, most copies of windows sold will never have a game installed on them bar the pack-ins. No one is buying a console to do spreadsheets.
I’m amazed everyone seems to have forgotten the open nature was an Achilles heel for the 3DO model, then it occured to me that the console is 30 years old and I’m even older lol.
The fact is that the console market works how it does, advanced tach at reasonable prices, because the platform holders make money on an ongoing basis from each user. Getting rid of that model will mean consoles selling for the same price as equivilent specced PCs at launch.
What exactly is it that prevents a PlayStation from playing an Xbox game?
A dell PC can play the same games that an Acer can.
Why can’t we have some sort of standardized console operating system like android where different companies can design their own console systems all of which can play the same games?
Oh, is it simply because of capitalist proprietary bullshit? Okay that’s fine.
That model has been tried in the past and it didn’t work because no one was making any licensing costs from the games produced to pump into R&D to progress the platform. Remember the 3D0?
The reason a PS can’t play an Xbox game is because Sony don’t have access or the legal right to implement the hardware or software environment that MS have patented for the Xbox.
The Steam Deck is a PC at the end of the day though which has always been a different model. They still lock the main OS to their store despite it being more open if you want to dig deeper.
The latest Xbox and PS consoles are basically x86 PC’s with a AMD CPU and a locked down operating system. The Xbox uses a system based on Windows 10 (games are running in separate OS containers, basically Window VMs in HyperV) and the PS is using Sony’s Orbis OS, what based upon FreeBSD.
None of which changes the fact that the console market is driven by platform holders selling consoles for low profit or even a loss and making it up on the back end with their cut of all games, accessories, etc released for the format.
Would be nice if there were some kind of open source, cross-platform, low-level graphics API, maybe overseen by some kind of pan-industry group (or “consortium” if you’re feeling fancy). Just spitballing but you could call it “Cape” or “Hephaestos” or something.
Would be great too if there were one or two open-source, MIT- or dual-licensed game engines that target this API. Maybe even some runtimes so you could target PC and the big three console platforms.
In fact it would help game development as much as “similar” approach helps the web grow the way you don’t need to reinvent the wheel every time. Although you can.
Interesting to see this particular addition. Handy for the players with slower reflexes, utterly useless for speedrunners (unless it messes up with physics somehow)
I also wonder how will achievements be managed while the accessibility turned on. Plenty of people are out there, vocally complaining about “handing out the platinum” to people “that do less effort than I did to earn it”.
Some games have separate achievements for separate difficulty levels. I can see how any approach will leave some people annoyed, though. I don’t care much about achievements (in 40 years I don’t think I’ve 100% a single game) so I don’t really have a dog in the race.
I hope so. As someone who will use the accessibility features, I don’t mind separate badges at alll. I don’t need the same badge as a speed-runner. I just want to play the game.
I’m not an achievement/trophy hunter personally but I can see some people’s issue there. The whole point of them is to indicate you’ve done something particular in game. If it’s just reaching a point in a story or whatever no big deal, but if it’s something that requires some skill, having it available when you can turn off the need for all those skills does undermine the system a bit.
I used to be one of those people who thought that it was unfair that they were handing out the achievements for “less effort,” 'til somebody pointed out to me that it isn’t for less effort. Somebody who needs accommodations would be playing a harder game than somebody who doesn’t at default settings. Their difficulty curve is steeper. Accomodations are a way of bringing the difficulty curve more in line with what a non-disabled player would experience.
And besides - most people aren’t going to want to completely ruin the game for themselves by sucking out any semblance of difficulty. Most people are still gonna play the game in a way where they get challenged. And even if they do, who cares? That doesn’t devalue the work that you did, you know? You still put in that effort yourself, so you can still feel secure in it.
Not coming after you in particular, just talking on a couple of the general points you brought up.
A single console is one of those things that sounds great on paper, but considering how scummy the industry has been lately, would be used in the most anti-consumer way possible.
A single console on the market = Monopoly. Those are never good for consumers.
Game platforms… I probably shouldn’t say this, but I wish there was only one," Yoshida said, translated by IGN. "It would be better for both the developers and the players.
I think if he meant one standard like DVD and companies like Sony or Microsoft would make the dvd player. Other companies can join in. We would have choice and competition. And the one game would work the same on any device.
Not even, you still have to consider different components and operating systems, sometimes even what versions of the OS people are running since it’s not always cross compatible.
Then who gets the licensing costs for the Dev kits? Who gets the 30% cut of the digital store? Who gets the cut of accessories sold? Each game sold? Who’s responsible for updating the OS?
The console market works how it does because they sell the tech at a loss and make up money on the ongoing sales. The 3DO tried the open source model in the early 90s and ended up with ridiculously pricey consoles as all the manufacturers needed to make their profit upfront. Eventually, there will be no price difference between a console and a PC if equivilent specs.
What a fucking clown, every time this idiot opens his mouth I cringe, he always has the worst takes imaginable. Almost makes me glad that FF16 undersold (for SE standards).
ign.com
Aktywne