At this point, a preowned Steam Deck is so much cheaper than any next gen console might ever be. So the barrier to entry for PC gaming is even lower and from a customer perspective, we know what platform players should go for
Except you definitely make up for it and probably pay more (depending on what hardware cost your comparing to of course) on the consoles. All three consoles have subscription-based services that are more or less required. Some of the controllers for the consoles are as much or more than a keyboard or mouse. You rarely see a price decline of any of the games (especially Nintendo), and certainly nothing as near as what you’ll find on PC.
So consoles are a cheap upfront cost that’s recouped overtime. I’m not saying that consoles are definitely more expensive, but the true cost of ownership is somewhat muddled.
I don’t really agree with that, at least outside of niche situations. The upfront cost on a PC today puts the cost for playing on consoles much cheaper up front such that it would take years to make up the difference, even if you were paying for Game Pass.
My point isn’t some pedantry over PC vs Console and cost nit-picking. Its that consoles aren’t a bad deal. It’s OK for people to own and play games on a console, and they work well for a lot of people.
I’ve been putting together PCs for a while now and the idea that they’re more affordable for playing games than on consoles is becoming more and more of a misnomer. You can thank the major part duopolies for that. I don’t think console companies aren’t greedy or somehow noble, but consoles are still fill a gap and enable people to play games.
After the Helldivers 2 release Sony started talking about getting more aggressive with PC releases, so I think we’re going to see a lot less console only releases.
Game pass is too good for me to resist consoles tbh, the PC app is ass. I can’t be bothered at this point to buy an expensive PC to be able to play AAA games.
I play on both! I like pc for cheaper prices and some different games. I like my xbox to just “plug and play”, it is simple and I don’t have to keep verifying if it will run smoothly. My pc is kinda strong, but not super strong, so AAA titles a no go there
It’s such a tragedy that Xbox controllers are the only major controller not to have any gyro. We could’ve had cross-platform shooters that allow for gyro ironsight aiming, or even allow it on PC (it’s currently a common option on Steam Deck, with some tinkering)
Allow me to recommend the Flydigi Vader 3 Pro. It has Hall-effect sticks, gyro, back buttons, six face buttons, Xbox style trigger rumble and every button is mechanical. It also works on the Switch and Android
The current limitation I’m finding with third party controllers is that I can’t bind the back paddles to what I want in Steam. I can only bind them to buttons that are available on the controller through their software.
I like to use the back paddles as modifier’s like Ctrl or Alt or to apply an action layer to temporarily modify my other buttons.
I feel like we hear this every single time though. "Largest tech leap in a hardware generation" very much means "we'll bump the graphics a little, we're still targeting 30fps though"
I’d argue this generation actually did deliver performance-wise, most games release with a performance mode that targets 60fps whereas the PS3/PS4 generation felt mostly stuck to 30FPS.
Honestly, that's fair. Maybe I was being a little too harsh, plus this gen did come with more customizable settings (IE, setting to "performance mode" or "fidelity" mode)
30/60fps is always a developer choice. Not related to hardware capability.
That being said, every generation console makers will make the most powerful hardware they can for the price point they are gonna charge. It’s not exactly like Microsoft have any secret sauce here. It’s the same amd/nvidia hardware choices for the price point they think they can sell at that anyone can make a machine with.
I don’t know why you were being downvoted. It’s true. FPS is the developers decision. If a game had like 9 pixels on screen, they could make that game do ultra high framerate.
Developers usually prefer better graphics over framerate however. I just hope that more games allow the choice between graphics, framerate, and a balance between the two… like with Hogwarts Legacy.
So you hate that PCs are more capable and can display better graphics at higher framerates and have rationalized it to yourself that worse graphics and framerates on a console are “how the developers intended”.
I can understand not wanting to tinker with settings and just load a game up and know what to expect in terms of graphics and framerate, but I just cannot disagree more with what you are saying here. Building games to console limitations and not even giving the option for fidelity or framerate just seems like a step backward.
I’m a big fan of the first 3 Suikodens and am looking forward to Eiyuden as well as the I & II remaster. II was revolutionary in being a JRPG sequel that was set in the same world with some of the same characters as the previous game rather than being an entirely new universe or 1000 years later or something. Thanks for the good times, Murayama-san.
My friend is a big fan of the series so I messaged him about it…but I foolishly assumed Suikoden would be in my phone dictionary and I accidently sent “The creator of suicide just died”
A terrible loss for the industry, especially after getting a new startup off the ground. Beloved by the Suikoden community. His new game was only a couple months away.
As someone who actually didn’t really enjoy the combat in FF7R, they have done at least one thing in this demo to make it feel a lot better to me: Cloud is faster.
In the first game, Cloud to me felt slow, and it felt like every other moment he was being hit and knocked to the ground. And he took five hundred years to stand back up.
In the demo so far as I’ve played, that’s not the case any more. He does get hit and knocked about, but he recovers a lot faster. And switching modes seems faster. Even his slower mode of attack feels faster. I feel like in the first game I didn’t make him switch his attack modes as often as I probably should because he took so long to switch he’d be open to attack, and when he got attacked he’d just fall down all the time. It remains to be seen how the full game is, but in this demo all of that garbage feels better. And I’m happy about that.
FYI, fans of FF7 have been clamouring for a remake for over two decades now. So yes, people are really excited.
Except perhaps those who are disappointed that the remake isn’t how they have imagined it. And fair enough, but let’s be happy we got one at all, and that it isn’t just some shovel ware that a lot of properties are pushing out.
Yeah I got annoyed as hell that they split it into two just to gouge players. Also I was never a fan of ff7, but gave the reboot a try, still didn’t like it.
The characters and story. Just didn’t grab me. I liked FF 8 but not 7, Cantt explain why but I just liked the setting and characters better. I also liked that 8 had the more realistic graphics, with the melding cutscenes. and 7 had cartoony graphics with realistic cutscenes so it didn’t work for me.
It’s not like I hate 7, just wasn’t for me. I preferred other games in the series and wish they’d get some reboots and side games based on those. There are some great final Fantasy games that deserve a reboot and spin-offs but never got any, yet ff7 has like a dozen.
Point is, they are not stuck. It is far from the only thing they are making. They just have created an amazing world with FFVII with great lore, great characters, and an amazing story. Multiple games taking place in that world is not that crazy of an idea, nor is it uncommon in the RPG genre. Some of the games sucked, the remakes are awesome. It’s grown beyond a single game at this point, it’s a series. Making more games in a series, does not make a company stuck, especially when they are still release games in other series.
It’s a fan favourite, often by a large margin. It makes sense in every way to not only finance something that will sell, but will also bring more content to the fans and life to the game. If fans didn’t want it, they would reject it, and they’re not doing that.
The article is leading me to think we’re going to get another The Outer Worlds experience where your actions don’t really have an affect on the world until the very end.
I feel like Outer Worlds was their take on Fallout, and this is their take on The Elder Scrolls. From the video they put out the other day, I’m down to clown.
I don’t know. When I was helping factions it only felt noticeable when they showed up to help at the end.
I haven’t replayed it because it felt like there wouldn’t be a lot of deviation between paths I choose to take.
It’s kind of like Dishonored’s chaos level system that can result in additional enemies and a different ending. It makes it feel like more of an adventure game than an RPG.
This is all obviously subjective but when people were hyping it up to have Fallout New Vegas levels of choice I felt let down.
Same here. In fact the hype is the reason why it didn’t do well imo. It’s a fine game, nothing too wrong or bad about it, but they hype definitely killed. IGN kept advertising it as “Fallout in space” and “the Bethesda Killer,” and look where we ended up.
I really dislike the X is the Y killer angle. It’s such clickbait and immediately puts fans on the Y side on the defensive. It’s helping no one.
Unless it’s an indie dev I don’t even care what else a developer has produced previously. With such large teams there’s too many cooks in the kitchen and it only takes one of them to sour the game.
I don’t understand the hate for the outer worlds. It has great satire in it’s themes like the fallout games, the build diversity is there and gear is impactful, the story is pretty fun and interesting. It’s like people hate it because it’s not the massive open world of fallout new Vegas, but people tend to not realize or I guess forget, there was a stupid amount of just walking from point a to point b in that game only to get to a super linear quest line. The outer worlds does a great job of simplifying the world in a meaningful way. The terrible remaster of it doesn’t really help the game either though, it really should have been left alone.
I think it’s a matter of expectations. When people were referring to The Outer Worlds as “Fallout but in space” in the lead up to the games release I think that set the bar quiet high and don’t feel as if some of the themes you’d see in Fallout were there or at least weren’t presented in a similar way.
I don’t think many people hate the game. I spent over 50 hours playing it and beat the DLCs. I just don’t think it’s a game that I would go out of my way to recommend.
It’s like people hate it because it’s not the massive open world of fallout new Vegas, but people tend to not realize or I guess forget, there was a stupid amount of just walking from point a to point b in that game only to get to a super linear quest line. The outer worlds does a great job of simplifying the world in a meaningful way.
It’s been about three years since I played The Outer Worlds but I feel I feel like I recall the quests being broken up into regional chunks. There weren’t a ton of loading screens which was nice but I felt like it cut back on the amount of depth the world had.
People got so hyped up about “Fallout in space” that they just ignored what the developers were saying about the game. They straight up said that it wasn’t going to be a big open world like Fallout and it wasn’t going to provide as many hours of gameplay.
I’ve seen another video where the guy stops moving on it and you can immediately see the problem this and any other tech like this has: momentum. It just can’t stop/start fast enough.
Aww I didn’t even know there was a Rock Band 4, I would love to play that series again but I can’t find the band in a box anywhere, and based on the news, they’re sunsetting the game too. How lame.
ign.com
Najnowsze