I hate to be the advocate of EA here but I’m convinced it’s because FIFA is not allowing them to use the trademark any longer and the mentioned loopholes are either permitted by FIFA or will be closed soon.
Nothing to do with previous titles. You could still purchase them. This is EA locking you into playing the current version of the game. Some people like the mechanics of the older games and don’t want to have to pay these games that are more store front than actual game.
There's a lot of rambling here but your points are centred around battery life so I'll hit that.
The Steam Deck's battery life isn't amazing.
The most I've seen is Stardew Valley running for 5 hours.
There's two sides to this; the Steam Deck's power consumption settings and how long you actually want to spend playing.
The Deck allows you to control how much power a game is allowed to consume. I'm playing Fallen Order atm and that game would probably run for 2-3 hours of continuous play. I'm playing on mostly medium settings with textures on high.
There are certain other games that will utterly drink battery life, like Baldur's Gate 3. I would personally argue that you shouldn't be attempting it as a regular mode of playbut I tried it myself and it doesn't look terrible. But you have to go in understanding that BG3 is a graphically intensive game and the Steam Deck isn't exactly built for it.
On the second point, I personally can't spend more than 2 hours of continuous play. After a while, I get tired of holding the device. I live in the UK so our travel times aren't long. I also don't travel very often either. My time on the Deck is usually just before going to sleep. The way the device is, I'm not sure that you could be playing one game for that long. Sure, you can play Titanfall 2 but that's a very fast-paced game and it's probably not going to translate well to the Deck. It's better if you plug in KBM but then you're having to carry those around as well. At that point, you may as well be on a laptop or PC.
There are certain games I've decided that I'll play on the Deck like Fallen Order or No Man's Sky. I've also got emulators loaded if I ever want to play those games. If you want a Steam Deck, you should be getting it because it allows you to play a huge breadth of games, not the latest ones at high graphical settings. If you want that, get a PC, you'll be happier with that than the sacrifices you'll have to make on the Deck just to get the game to run well.
Thanks for writing out how your experience is. It’s how I imagined it. I would need to have more battery life to make it worth it to me to buy it. For example, a long trip without any way to plug it in. I definitely wouldn’t expect it to run AAA titles.
It is possible to get a USB power station. The Deck can charge at up to 45W.
I wish that power stations acted more like "external batteries" (would automtically be flipped on by devices when their internal batteries get low, will be charged after their internal batteries are charged), but even as things are, they do let one extend battery life on portable devices dramatically.
I would upgrade for a slightly smaller, more battery efficient Steamdeck with an OLED screen. I know that's a lot to ask for, but definitely performance is the least of my concerns.
I’m holding off until a new version. Doesn’t necessarily need to be faster, but I’m sure they’ve learned a ton with this release. Interested to see their 2.0 release.
Only thing I would ever want more is battery, but I’ve never even drained it and I carry my power brick with me everywhere for my phone/ laptop anyway so. I’d just get this version on the next discount (if I did not have a similar device).
Probably for the best. The Deck certification process on games would probably be annoying if they had a whole bunch of revisions with only like 10% difference in performance.
Wait a few years and make the next one a meaningful jump.
Exactly. I’d like to see a few significant improvements for the next gen - namely in screen and performance to match, but my dream would be to see Valve license Framework’s module system (or build something similar of their own) and integrate one of those somewhere on the deck.
It’d be great for the obvious, like adding high-speed storage, but just imagine the possibilities for a handheld gaming console of attachments people could build with a module system that locks in place like that.
Obviously the module thing is a pipe dream and unlikely to happen, but I just feel like there’s a ton of additional potential for that form factor that’s unexplored, and I’d like to see longer generations not only for support, but also so that larger iterative work like designing a module system or whatever can be prioritized over rushing out regular performance upgrades.
The thing that made me reconsider buying one is the screen. Make an OLED version and I‘m gonna get one. I‘m not worried about the performance, I‘d get a deck for stuff like Dead Cells and Spelunky, not for stuff like Cyberpunk.
If they made an OLED version and offered replacement screens for burn-in cases in x years, that‘d be absolutely amazing.
Kinda wonder what kind of effect a more powerful nintendo device will have on the whole ecosystem. Nintendo devices are automatically probably going to run smoother watt for watt just because developers will likely prioritize optimisation for that device, so it’s all a bit of an uphill battle for the steam deck there
Nintendo never makes anyhow powerful devices, they juat rely wntirely on developer optimization and only certain dwvelopers are willing to put in the time well and money to publiah for their propriatary and expensive frameworks in the first place.
The WiiU wasn’t more powerful than the competition but the old ones where, they gave up on compeating in terms of specs with the Wii and the Swit h uses a mobile processor that was old and slow even when it came out and can easily be surpassed by most phones if it wasn’t for the insane optimisation. They continue to proof that games matter more than specs and that’s a very profitable and well working strategy so idk where you got those rumors from but I am 99% sure the next switch will have a relatively slow ARM processor again and there is nothing wromg with that if it’s enough fun, it just requires a lot of work from the game developers that not all of them are willing to put in. About the typos, no keyboard in the world can fix my drunken typing and I am fairly happy with mine but thanks for the suggestion I guess…
I can’t really comment on the earlier consoles, but those are some pretty biased comparisons.
The GameCube is more powerful than the PS2, but then the Xbox was more powerful than the GameCube. Then you have the Wii. But then WiiU being more powerful than a console coming out 6 years prior? What kind of argument is that?
The argument for the Switch doesn’t prove anything when there’s very little investment in the handheld console market when the Switch came out. And also, who cares if the Switch’s successor can beat a decade old console? I swear, my phone probably can run a PS4 game based purely on its processing power.
The switch 2 is rumored to be more powerful than the ps4 an old console at this point in time that also had relatively seeker hardware than it could or should of at the time (same with Xbox the and jaguar cores were not that good)
Fair enough, it seems like we’re starting to see smaller performance gains per generation especially in battery devices. Makes sense to not force an update until real iterative performance is available. Asus’s ROG Ally was 1.5-2 years after Steamdeck and seems mostly on par.
Hey wait a minute, this guy is trying to trick us into getting out of our chairs too! Get a steam deck in each hand and write mean things about him on both.
I have a genetic disorder that causes my tendons and ligaments to be weak, so I get sprains and dislocations easily. I’ve sprained a finger pushing an elevator button before, and dislocated a knee standing up and taking a step. My hands are so stupid weak I couldn’t even get a Switch, I had to get a Switch Lite. I can’t use Xbox controllers because the D-pad and left stick being switched caused me to accidentally dislocate my thumb once.
The Steam Deck is just slightly too heavy for me to hold for long, because you carry some of the weight on your middle fingers when you’re holding it. When I was trying it, a middle finger joint started to go out of place.
The ergonomics of the Steam Deck were great; so I was so upset when I felt my finger starting to give. I had only played for about 10, 15 minutes before I started having problems, and I had to tape my finger after I got home from trying it.
I’m a rare case, I know, but usually new versions of electronics tend to be slimmer and lighter, so I’m hopeful.
On the plus side, you can use any Bluetooth or USB compatible controller that you find comfortable and a cheap stand to make your experience more comfortable. Steam’s controller support is fantastic.
Yeah, but that’s not going to be very easy to do on the train, or laying down in bed, and having to carry around a controller kills a lot of the portability, which would be the whole point of a Stream Deck for me. And if I’m going to play at home, I’ve already got a gaming PC.
If there's one thing the Deck is good for is customisation. It's not ideal but I wonder if it's possible to design handles that don't put so much pressure on your middle fingers or grips that wrap around your palms.
As you can tell, I'm not someone who specialises in ergonomic design.
They don’t want to compromise battery in favor of performance and I agree. With smaller games like Hades or cult of the lamb my steam deck battery will last and last. On more demanding games like cyberpunk or Armored Core I get a little over an hour out of it best case scenario.
Beefier graphics hardware will only make that issue worse.
I so often use mine plugged in as I’m not walking or in a park, I’m on a bus or train which can often have a plug, so not much of an issue there, however I’m not playing high-end games, it’s so good for stuff like Hades and whatnot.
Counterpoint: Consolidation in such a fast paced industry with a low barrier to entry isn’t as bad as physical goods consolidation. If Microsoft acts in bad faith, people just won’t buy games from that studio anymore, developers will just leave the company and start a new studio, free lance, or work for another party. It’s not like ABK was lighting the market on fire either. Microsoft is buying a trash heap and hoping to turn the internal culture around to bring back neglected IPs
Counter-counterpoint: When Activision bought and consolidated Blizzard an Blizzard North, they made it worse and people still slave away for them, and enough people buy their objectively inferior products to keep them going on life support to be sold again.
They became a poster child of what’s wrong with the industry (Diablo Immortal) and nobody learned anything. Baulder’s Gate 3 did more to further a healthy ecosystem than any merger has.
And how many dozens of indie games came out that same week whose studios folded afterwards? Or how many devs didn’t even release their first games because they ran out of money during development? Or how many smaller studios who were making fun games got irresistible offers from big studios to buy them out? What about the engines that are becoming increasingly more hostile towards devs?
Let’s hope they can chew what they’ve attempted to eat. They can barely manage their first party studios, and now they’re going to attempt to manage one of the biggest publisher/studio.
I mean yeah, that’s how acquisitions and exclusivity works. It’s not like PlayStation bought Bungie to lose money or make exclusivity deals with third parties to bring games to Xbox. That’s just how this industry works.
By manage I mean, they’re gonna handle so many companies without a good track record of being able to do it. To make the money from King they will need to be able to retain talent and steward its properties properly.
they’re gonna handle so many companies without a good track record of being able to do it. To make the money from King they will need to be able to retain talent and steward its properties properly.
No they don't. As we've already seen, MS doesn't have to do anything in regards to development. Promotion, marketing will get a boost but they can be hands off most of the technical details and still make bank. Bethesda, King and Activision are all quite profitable on their own. Now they simply can't develop for Sony and they get distributed on Game Pass day 1.
Also, exclusionary buy-outs are bad for the market and should not have been allowed. MS buying up huge game competitors and then restricting their choice on which platforms to develop for is clearly anti-competitive behavior.
You’re right, they’ve been hands off and basically done bare minimum for marketing and promotion. And it hasn’t been working well for them at all, exhibit A: Halo Infinite, exhibit B: Redfall. Clearly they can’t sustain this anymore.
Starfield has been probably the first example where they actually got invested in the production, delayed a game by a year, got their entire QA team test it. Layoffs from top to bottom at 343 is probably another example of them intervening.
Regarding exclusionary buyouts, I don’t know if you aren’t aware of it. But it has been a thing in this industry for decades. This is how Sony got where it is today, by being highly competitive by making exclusionary deals and buying studios with whom they had exclusionary deals with for years. Sony entered this industry out of nowhere and bought their way into success, and everyone agrees that only made the market more competitive. Xbox had no games and was not bringing competition in market, and now that it has more games, it’s anti competitive?
The difference with MSFT is that they bring their games to PC (an open platform) via Steam, and to Xbox, along with a price accessible service of GamePass, so it doesn’t force a gamer into first buying a $400 console and then a $70 game to play on it.
We can agree to disagree, my original point is primarily around lack of confidence in MSFT’s ability to manage these studios and do justice to their legacy. Sure making workspaces less toxic and inclusive for everyone is a massive win, but will employees stick around under a new management that seems pretty incompetent to eff up their own flagship series (Halo).
What’s most disappointing about this aside from the negative impacts it has on consumers with no benefits is how it shows what a grip Microsoft has on uk entities. This has been a problem for decades. Microsoft is one of those companies that has its tendrils all throughout the uk, and they can get whatever they want. Even when what they want is in opposition to decisions made by authorities specifically designed to block this kind of thing.
It sounds like the issue the regulator had was something specific to cloud game streaming, and Microsoft addressed that.
The CMA had originally blocked the acquisition over cloud gaming concerns, but Microsoft recently restructured the deal to transfer cloud gaming rights for current and new Activision Blizzard games to Ubisoft.
yes that’s mechanism where you see microsoft get what they want. they do a platitude that doesn’t affect them, that they generally won’t even bother to enforce. because the regulatory body can’t just say “they made us do this by talking to someone higher up that said we had to do this”
the CMA never goes back on decisions like this, their decision is final and you can only fight it by going to the courts and the courts will only rule on if it was legal for the CMA to make the decision, not on the validity of the decision.
theverge.com
Gorące