I really liked 2. The story is very strong and they definitely don’t sit on their laurels. There’s one sequence in particular I wish I could talk about that just blew me away like 2/3rd of the way in
Netflix getting in on the streamed video games wasn’t all that crazy. I flirted with it initially, as they had a few good Steam titles on there that I was effectively getting handed for free.
But the marketing approach of jamming “Play this clickbait garbage game, you stupid idiot!” install button into my face every time I visited the site ultimately lead me to cancel my subscription. Like so much else in modern streaming, the website’s admins do not want you to have any control over your front page. The end result is utterly alienating.
the website’s admins do not want you to have any control over your front page. The end result is utterly alienating.
This is one of the biggest things. Back when I would netflix often, I would constantly be annoyed when the ‘continue watching’ dialog was not the first one. Stop moving it around! Now I just watch everything locally. It’s so much nicer.
There is no reason streaming should be such a pain in the ass, and it amazes me the industry has made basic, paid access to shows a chore. And they wonder why viewership is not great*.
*Also the writing generally sucks ass and assumes I’m not paying attention. No, seriously, they assume you aren’t paying attention and write shows as such now. It makes so many things unwatchable.
*Also the writing generally sucks ass and assumes I’m not paying attention.
I’ve seen the articles dealing with the phenomenon of “Standard Netflix Show” and how it has become so painfully formulaic that it can only be described as background noise.
Really not a great sign when your premium service is treated like elevator music. But hey, they’ve got a near-trillion dollar valuation, so clearly I’m dumb and their C-levels have earned every penny.
I can’t understand what fucking market research “geniuses” came up with the idea that making streaming less accessible/more annoying was a good idea and would net more profits.
But then again, the mass general population is fucking dumb
But then again, the mass general population is fucking dumb
That’s a lazy explanation. It neglects that Netflix did have a lot of accumulated goodwill from ease of access and quality content.
But now its in the enshittification era. All the streaming services are behaving like this. There’s no alternative that doesn’t suck with a comparable library.
Not a bad idea on paper. The games are not actually on Netflix. You just download an alternate version of the app (with no DLC or iAP), and login to your Netflix account to access the game. Some solid indie games on there.
That said, I would never in my life pay for Netflix, but my family has it, so ya know, free mobile games when I’m bored.
Good idea waiting on Firebreak. I’ve dabbled thanks to it being included in the PS+ Extra tier and have some thoughts. It’s clearly a Double-A or even Single-A if that exists game that feels like a fun side project while Control 2 is in the works. There is fun to be had in it especially if you can get friends involved but it isn’t a game with staying power. I feel like I’ll keep it installed for a while and play a few rounds every now and again, checking on the patches, and just using it for a fun romp with no commitment. It is certainly light on content and buggy though so a few patches wouldn’t go amiss.
I keep playing it just because it’s something to do, but I feel it really misses the mark of what the Control franchise should be about. The world is interesting. It told interesting stories within the confines of a single player game. Firebreak doesn’t seem to have a story at all, and the action is pretty average with the same mininal enemy variety as Control. It also does not feel like a game from a company like Remedy; it’s half-cooked and janky. It works but it’s not quite polished.
The second time my save games got messed up after doing the first mission for the janitor. Seemed my old cloud save games fucked it up. It became a mess.
The third time I deleted every cloud save, and it worked. Then, after ten hours the game crashed. And I lost three missions. And a lot of progress. None of the auto saves fixed it.
Dear Remedy, I have a PC. With a hard drive. I have room for thousands of save games. Let me fucking save my game myself!!
I had good memories of Control, but now my memories consist only of frustration. Why don’t Devs put in a reasonable save system in their games?
I had the same complaint about Deathloop. If I’m playing the single-player only version, then why do I have to restart the loop if I suddenly have to quit? And why does the game warn me that I will lose all unsaved progress? You literally can’t save!
God, I hate shit like that! When it makes you wonder if you can quit the game because it’s late for example. Does it save? When did it save last? That’s just asshole design.
I’m playing Prey at the moment, it has quick saves aside of regular manual saving. It’s so comfortable!
It’s been a while since I played deathloop but I seem to remember you can only save the game certain times, I think only when you’re in the tunnels and time has passed.
Yes, when you make it back into the tunnels, the game considers it a finished loop and advances to the next day segment, which is sort of like a save point but you can’t save your progress during a loop and come back to it. When you make it back to your “save point” at the tunnel and the day advances, if you hit escape and exit the game, the game is all “Are you sure you want to do this? All unsaved progress will be lost” - as if there were some further action you could take, but there isn’t. It’s like they had a save function in at one point but decided against it, then never fixed the exit verbiage.
Gog, it has cloud saves there. Also I should have written a script to copy the save files every twenty minutes or so in the background. Would have saved me after the crash I guess…
And yet, they still think they’re too good to put track pads on it.
I don’t think these companies are aware that what made the deck popular was it knew what it was and that it had a lot to prove, and so it featured a very focused design that differentiated it from PCs as a worthwhile form factor, but also provided methods for adding compatibility to just about any game, and thus allowed it to compensate for being in a form factor that is just sometimes inherently inconvenient for PC gaming. It wasn’t just a gaming pc with an Xbox controller taped to it, which this is.
I advice you to rethink this. You’re paying earlier, the money won’t dissapear if you wait until release. Also, real reviews would help deciding what to skip.
I genuinely don’t get the “don’t pre order just buy the day it releases” thing.
Nobody ever said the second part.
Don’t pre order, wait for reviews a couple weeks after release, buy if reviews are good and no major bullshit is discovered.
What do you think you’re winning?
Avoiding the major bullshit.
Also, even if you did just buy day one: If developers have a lot of pre orders they know they’ll sell anyway they have less of an incentive to deliver the highest possible quality day one. That’s why people are telling you to not pre order. I could not care less if a stranger struggles with day one bugs, but they are helping to lower the bar for everyone else.
Pre-ordering physical goods is fine, especially if you expect a price hike and supply limitations after launch. I wouldn’t, but I can see how it would make sense.
It’s the digital goods that make no goddamn sense to buy before they’re out. They’re not limited in supply, and their return window is too small.
Meh.
Yes, for already announced limited runs of physical items that you know the quality off (say merch from artists) it’s more fine than for mainly digital goods.
And, I have to agree, such a broad blanket statement is not really applicable to every type of purchase or life situation.
To be fully transparent: Even I participated in pre-orders. Off the top I can only remember some artist merch items like CDs I pre-heard some tracks and know what to expect from it and the Kickstarter for the uGreen NAS. But even for the uGreen NAS I knew the specs, price and if It’s compatible with what I want to do before committing.
For any other purchase I waited patiently.
As long as i can chargeback on my credit card I have no problems preordering (couple months out at most though, lol at people doing long term pre orders) I have no problem. Digital goods can fuck right on off. So many slimy tactics.
Wasn’t it a kickstarter product? I wouldn’t consider venture a pre-order, tbf.
Pre-orders are reservations with pre-payment.
Crowdfunding is, well, funding. You aren’t buying a product. You’re funding it, which comes with additional risks and benefits.
Of course, there’s always a possibility that a product is being funded using pre-orders, which is financially irresponsible (norm varies from industry to industry). But you must be a moron to pre-order a product from a startup you know nothing about and expect not to get scammed. Outright buying their product would be risky enough.
Take housing market. You’re pretty much always either pre-ordering or buying second-hand.
Do you even know why you’re saying that? Physical goods that need to be manufactured and delivered are literally exactly what you should be pre-ordering
Physical goods are no different in that when you pre-order something you really have no idea what you’re getting. You’re counting on the reputation of the company to deliver on their claims. Which is often a bad idea.
If i am honest i dont have any games that DONT run on. It can run cyberpunk, baldurs gate, a lot other AAA / Indie games.
If it doesnt run, the devs did something SPECIAL to f*ck steamdeck / linux users.
The suspend game feature is probably the biggest player, especially when its idle it doesnt use any power ( except of course the common battery drain ) in comparison to windows “sleep” it just blacks out the screen and maybe run a little less background tasks.
Same, though I hope the SD2 had some more power, I would like to play on a 1080p (or even 1440p) monitor with mouse and keyboard without sacrificing framerate.
These are completely different devices for different use cases for different audiences with wildly different tastes. Nintendo hasn’t been in the “core” gaming space since before the Wii.
Yeah people forget that Switch 1 sold like hotcakes when scalpers were selling it for $500. And it was probably parents who bought them so they could be sure to have a Switch under the Christmas tree.
So yeah of course Nintendo has raised the price, they want consumers to pay them $500 and not a scalper.
Their demographic used to include families with multiple systems due to the hardware being cheaper than the competition. They’ve never sold a basic console for nearly as much as the Switch 2, nor have they charged $70 and $80 per game as a standard. Maybe it will go well for them, we’ll see, but there’s no precedent for the way Nintendo’s pricing things now.
You can spend more on mobile game mtx than a full triple A experience including the console and in fact most people do which is why the “core” is an ever shrinking slice of the pie that to GenA probably doesn’t even make any sense.
The price doesn’t really matter, my point is that you’re not buying a Nintendo switch to play GTA 6 and you’re not buying a steam deck to play Warioware Inc.
(Well, I am, because I’ve never given them any money nor plan to and think Nintendo peaked way back in either the SNES or the GBA era and I neither had nor knew what a Nintendo even was as a kid).
A handheld PC isn’t cheaper to buy, and most console gamers aren’t buying a ton of games either (like PC gamers do), so the total cost of ownership for a switch 2 probably still stays under the total cost of ownership for a handheld PC.
Edit: To clarify my point, the average Switch user owns 9 titles according to official Nintendo sales figures. This includes cheap indie titles. (Source: www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/finance/…/index.html)
Outside of PC, it’s not normal that the average user has a backlog of hundreds of games.
PC is the number one piracy platform for starters, seeing as it requires no jailbreaks and the like.
Secondly, PC gamers tend to own a lot of games legitimately because our gaming library doesn’t expire with a console generation, and because our steam libraries consist of many many indie games that cost a few bucks each, not a few $50 AAA releases.
My steam library is about 435-ish games. But that’s since 2013.
The total value of the account per steamdb is like £1080, this is a vast over-estimate because I used to live in a country where the entire GTA series before 5 cost £0.20, but let’s go with £1080.
If I bought £1080 worth of standard £60 games, I’d only have 18 games. That’s actually less than I even had for the PS Vita, and most people would be surprised to know that platform even has that many games.
Between the online fees and subscriptions to PS Plus etc., lacking discounts compared to steam, and the inability to pirate even an extremely high end PC tends to be far, far cheaper in the long run than a console, especially since it also doubles as the TV, the music player, the work and hobby computer, etc etc.
Never heard of a steam backlog? PC is the number one piracy platform, but it’s also the only platform where people buy whole bundles of games in a sale or where you get at least one game for free every week.
Take for example the switch: 152 mio devices sold, vs 1391 mio units of software sold. That’s roughly 9 titles per device since 2017, or roughly one game per year.
Compare that to your 435 titles over 12 years, which equals roughly 36 titles per year.
You are a heavy buyer of games, in the order of 36x of what’s the average for a switch user. You just proved my point.
Btw, these 9 titles would have cost a switch user just €540, if all of them were AAA games at full price. That too doesn’t factor in that the figure from Nintendo includes massively popular cheap indie titles or the fact that even Nintendo games sometimes go on sale.
Btw, these 9 titles would have cost a switch user just €540, if all of them were AAA games at full price. That too doesn’t factor in that the figure from Nintendo includes massively popular cheap indie titles or the fact that even Nintendo games sometimes go on sale.
Yes, I’m a heavy buyer of games, but those games cost £12 on average, not £60, nor anywhere near to that amount, even if it’s lower due to the few indie games that get console releases.
€540 for those 9 games is roughly more than half of what I spent in the last decade on 430-ish PC games. It’s literally why I even have more games in the first place.
So even though I have more games on paper, I don’t spend more paper, capische?
And I certainly don’t spend more per game than the switch user, which makes your claim misleading.
In fact the opposite is true and most PC gamers are notoriously stringent in spending on games.
Price of the middle version of the Steam Deck: €569
Price of the middle version of the Switch 1: €284
So we got a price difference of €285 here.
€50 for the bundled Mario Kart upgrade plus 3 other full price titles, leaves us €55 to spend on another 5 indie titles, and then you got the average total cost of ownership for a switch for just about the price of the Steam Deck with a whopping 0 games on it.
The difference becomes starker if you go for the top-spec version: €679 for the Steam Deck, vs €329 for the Switch, a whopping €350 difference. For that difference you can afford Mario Kart plus 4 full-price titles and have another €60 remaining for a few indie titles.
Lmao so you include all the deals for the switch with your “mario kart upgrade”, but not the steam deck?
Ironically enough a steam deck with zero games on it is still a way more compelling device if we’re describing a generic gaming device, because all games on PC are free if you want them to be, and that’s a library of hundreds of thousands of games. Then you consider it’s also your laptop/main PC too…
Plus, if you must buy games, you’re only a few quid away from one, not £60 + online fees etc etc.
We can go in circles forever though, but over the long term of course a PC or any Steam Deck will win in terms of ownership cost due to cheaper/free games. The issue is that we can’t really calculate an objective metric of value there.
That also isn’t the point I was even disputing, it’s precisely that the ownership is more expensive because PC gamers buy more games, but either way you’re wrong.
But if we keep going, we’ll run into problems because of course it’s apples to oranges to compare the value because these are largely mutually exclusive target audiences I’d imagine.
because all games on PC are free if you want them to be
If you include piracy, that’s available on the Switch too. Worst case you have to chip in €10 for a mod chip, but that’s it.
Lmao so you include all the deals for the switch with your “mario kart upgrade”, but not the steam deck?
Yeah, find me a deal to get Mario Kart for the steam deck legally.
Then you consider it’s also your laptop/main PC too…
You want to use a steam deck as a laptop? Do you really have no self respect?
That also isn’t the point I was even disputing, it’s precisely that the ownership is more expensive because PC gamers buy more games, but either way you’re wrong.
That was exactly my point. Steam Decks/PCs and consoles are used differently by different people, and in the end a Steam Deck is not cheaper than a console, even if you never pay a cent for a game (but then again, why are you buying a Steam Deck?)
But if we keep going
I get the feeling you don’t actually want to discuss or talk about the topic, you just want to win. So yeah, no point in continuing the discussion.
You would do that probably because you have a huge Steam library but many Switch users have a huge Switch library and want that performance upgrade. You and me are not their target audience but it remains to be seen if the Switch 2 will flop or exactly what Nintendo fans want right now. There‘s a huge difference between paying 600€ and 1000€ for hardware that‘s pretty much toe to toe anyway. If I wanted a Steamdeck I sure as hell wouldn‘t buy one right now but wait a little longer.
Toe to Toe? At least the steamdeck can run Crysis. Switch not, easy Steamdeck win.
Performance upgrade on a already locked on 60fps ( some 30 ) games? on default on a LCD display? That they didnt even considered default on OLED display is just … cash grabby.
And the switch 2 can run the new mario kart and the steam deck not.
Both of these games don’t run on the other platform because they are exclusives, not because the hardware can’t handle it. So what’s your point?
It’s just confirming what the guy you replied to was saying: if you have steam games and want to run steam games, get a steam deck. If you have switch games and want to run switch games, get a switch.
You know the PC vs. Console debate isn’t new. That one has been going on ever since PCs and consoles existed.
When I was a teenager, I, too, didn’t understand why anyone would buy a console over a PC because the PC can do so much more than a console.
Then I got kids, and I understood.
There are two main angles:
Parental controls
On a console, a kid can only play what I allow. I get the games, I can disable features (e.g. browser or social features) that I deem risky. It’s all easy, it just works. My 7yo won’t be playing Fortnite or Doom without my approval. Try locking down any kind of PC (Windows or Linux) to a child safe level so that the kid doesn’t have access to age-inappropriate content. It’s borderline impossible. My dad tried and failed, and if I tried, I’d most likely fail too.
Ease of use
Every second time, my wife and kids want to play something on the living room PC they call me to fix some issue. The controller isn’t pairing. The controller is pairing, but the game doesn’t recognise it. Steam link to the gaming PC doesn’t work. Or it does work, but the resolution is crap. Or all sorts of other issues. With consoles, you don’t have that. It all just works.
A PC is definitely the more capable system, and a power user will get more out of it than out of a console, no question about that.
But claiming there is no use case for a console is entirely wrong, too. A look at sales numbers for Switch (152mio sold) vs Steam Deck (3.7mio sold) should clear the question up whether there’s a use case for a switch.
I mean especially as a parent do i want to waste 80€ for a game? And i mean switch (1) is that what you describe the switch 2 is a cashgrab you cant tell me differently.
I mean, especially as a parent do I want to waste hours setting up the system, fixing misconfigurations and trying to keep my elementary school kid from watching porn or heavy violence on the system?
€80 is a lot, but not nearly as much as the time you spend on the device if you factor in your hourly rate.
And for most non-techy parents the choice doesn’t even exist. They don’t even know how they’d setup parental controls or fix issues on a PC.
Also: if you put €60 from 2017 into an inflation calculator and convert that to 2025 money, you get €82. Yes, it sucks that everything gets more expensive, but that’s just how inflation works.
My grandma also always complained that when she was young she could get a whole bar of chocolate for 0.50 Schilling (€~0.04).
If it’s too much for you, then don’t pay it. It’s not like there are no alternatives.
I usually just buy games years later for a fraction of the price. Or wait until a platform becomes abandonware and I can’t buy a game in retail any more (meaning the publisher doesn’t want to take my money), and then I pirate it.
There are a couple hundred of thousands of great games, I don’t need the flashiest, newest thing.
I’m just saying that the €80 pricing isn’t that crazy, it’s just inflation adjustment. In fact, the €60 price point for full-price games has been around since at least 2005. Adjusted for inflation, that’s around €100 in today’s money.
In fact, SNES games even cost up to €80 in 1993, which would be ~€180 in today’s money, and even the cheapest titles back then (akin to our current low-budget indie titles) started from €40 (~€90 today).
So, the price is really not that bad. And, as I said, you can just wait for the sale and get it cheaper anyway. Full price is only for people who need exactly this game exactly right now.
80€ is crazy nintendont games are just crazy priced and have fun getting one second hand games if nintendo allows it. 80€ for a AA game is much and a scam for a re released game because of a new poatform even tho old switch games should work.
And on Switch, it’s forbidden typically. Which is part of why people advocate for the Steam Deck instead. From Nintendo’s perspective, this very much is a vulnerability. It’s just not leading to custom firmware or ROM dumps from what I understand, so it’s not even close to the most significant vulnerability.
That is true, of course. But that’s a vulnerability from Nintendo’s perspective, not from a customer’s perspective. As in, if this exploit gets improved on, it might lead to people running unlicensed or pirated software on the switch, thus potentially hurting Nintendo.
It’s not something that might lead to people getting their Nintendo-accounts hacked or stolen or something like that.
On a Steam Deck, the former concept doesn’t even exist. There’s no Steam Deck vulnerability that might lead to people running non-steam software on the Steam Deck, because it’s allowed usage.
What I’m trying to say is that vulnerability is not negative for the user or indicative of bad platform security for the user.
theverge.com
Najnowsze