The reporting I'm seeing puts it at 40 if you buy the console bundle. Which... I mean, why wouldn't you?
I'm not sure what the deal is with the physical version, I have to assume it's some collector's edition deal with an Amiibo or something. Can't imagine they straight up double the price if you want to buy the card in a box instead of bundled with the console. Waiting on official prices for all of it, in any case.
Just did a GOG survey that focused on the idea of a paid membership option on GOG. Seems they’re determining what people would be willing to pay extra for. Some of the options were...
It's on par with Steam, I think. You get like 200 megs per product. I know because my Witcher 3 install is above that and it's annoying. That wouldn't be a dealbreaker as a subscription benefit, I don't think.
With the rest I do agree.
I can tell they're struggling and have been for a while. It isn't easy to compete with Steam, and the thing that would have done it (having DRM'd new games in the service) was voted down in a similar survey some time ago.
I would not be against some Patreon-like crowdsourced solution for behind the scenes stuff and prioritization rights. GOG, or something like it MUST exist. Steam is bad enough with their current dominant position, it can't be the sole remaining option in this market.
I would much prefer to be able to give them more money in exchange for more games, though. I am constantly frustrated by how often some indie game is only available on Steam, and I've started buying things full price on GOG but waiting for sales on Steam as a matter of policy.
Is that where it is now? I haven't looked at the documentation in an age. I think most stay lower because ultimately cloud storage is a cross-platform concern and different first parties have different requirements. Plus you want to keep it under control anyway. At any rate it's not a huge concern and other services like PSN or Nintendo Online already charge for it, so... not a dealbreaker as long as the base implementation stays free.
This seems to be a set of non-binding guidelines for HOW to provide virtual currencies in games as per consumer protection agencies within the EU. Specifically that when something can be bought with purchasable currency it needs to show the money price next to the in-game-currency price and that currency packs should not be deliberately mismatched to in-game item prices to leave frustrating leftovers to encourage more purchases.
This article is just incorrect. Please seek better sources, like the direct link to the text someone more competent than this reporter provided.
When in-game digital content or services are offered in exchange
for in-game virtual currency that can be bought (directly or indirectly via another
in-game virtual currency), their price should also be indicated in real-world money.
The price should be indicated based on what the consumer would have to pay in full,
directly or indirectly via another in-game virtual currency, the required amount of in-
game virtual currency, without applying quantity discounts or other promotional offers
u Although consumers may acquire in-game virtual currency in different ways and
quantities, for example through gameplay or due to promotional offers, this does
not change the price of the in-game digital content or services itself. The price must
constitute an objective reference for what the real-world monetary cost is, regardless
of how the consumer acquires the means to purchase it.
I would argue this is a remarkable loophole, though. It effectively means they are ordering devs to display a higher price in real money than in virtual currency. Effectively a prompt that goes "this is normally ten bucks, but if you buy it this way you can get it for seven in virtual currency" would be following this recommendation to the letter.
Turns out regulating things this granularly is actually kinda hard. Go figure.
They're not even introducing regualtions. These are non-binding guidelines, as far as I can tell. Basically a declaration of how the relevant EU protection services will interpret existing EU regulations. They explicitly don't force courts or individual member states to do anything. You could follow these rules and get sued in your country... or you could ignore them and win in court.
Looks good, seems fun and it's obviously ripping off the SNES demakes of the X-Men CotA and MSH Capcom made, which is 100%, absolutely the right choice.
Right now you can absolutely share digital games. You do need to have your account logged in on both machines and only the one where your "main" account sits can play the games offline.
This seems both easier and harder? There are now arbitrary time limits and per-game activations, which seems like a massive mess. Before the only limit was that a game couldn't be played in two places at once and that secondary consoles needed to stay online.
But conversely, the "main account" thing was annoying for a portable, so if you shared with someone that carried their console around outside the house it kinda required giving THEM the main account with all the games and keeping the secondary for yourself. This is a very parent-like situation to be in. So... that's better?
The worry here is that this sure seems like setting the groundwork to give up on physical media altogether without messing with the way people use Nintendo portables, and that is a bad thing overall. Given Nintendo's dumb, litigious approach towards these things they're getting no benefit of the doubt from me in this area.
As per the article, they're refunding all purchases at launch.
It's a free to play game, there is absolutely nothing newsworthy about this. Path of Exile 2 just launched on early access with a bunch of microtransactions AND a paywall and people were absolutely delighted with it.
I have to say, I was pretty neutral on this coming in, but reading all the people posturing anger while clearly not having any awareness of what the game is supposed to be or even reading the article is getting kind of annoying.
I guess it depends a lot on your background. I thought it felt simple compared to the old X-Wing series but not necessarily dumbed down, they did a decent job streamlining it for a modern take.
I guess that means some people can find it too slow and intricate and others too arcadey. I imagine the Skate guys are having to make a lot of those same decisions for a lot of those same reasons.
Man, that's a fair point. If you want to be mad at something be mad at the five year dev cycle into an early access launch. I'm not even saying it's the devs or EA's fault. Making games is hard. And expensive. But definitely hard.
The implicit perception of value in this comment is making my head spin. We all realize that in-game cosmetics aren't real, right?
Also, yes, they are doing the free to play version of preordering. It's called Early Access and it's supposed to happen later this year. See also Path of Exile 2 and Baldur's Gate 3.
People are working overtime to get their knee-jerk reaction to be retroactively justified here. The thing is, I would get being mad at this being a F2P game in the first place. I would get being mad at it being funded through microtransactions. Those are meaningful changes from the previous trilogy that I don't particularly care for.
It's the being mad on the spot at a haf-misunderstood headline depicting something entirely unremarkable that rubs me the wrong way.
You just made all that up. None of that is even tangentially related to the thing that actually happened.
I mean, now we're arguing that this weird ploy to extract more money for cosmetics is probably going to harm gameplay (even though it's unrelated to gameplay) because a different game from a different company also had MTX which were also not related to the bad gameplay changes they made.
I don't know what to argue there. It's entirely irrational.
To be clear, it's not irrational that F2P games often push monetization in intrusive ways that are annoying. It's not irrational that Multiversus had a very weird history and a poor relaunch. But the way you're connecting those pieces along with a healthy dose of entirely disconnected preconceptions based on branding is completely off the rails.
This is why this is so frustrating to me. People just want to be mad at things because some other things that are unrelated made them mad once and they want to just smear the anger a bit. It's pure mob mentality and I fully admit that it pisses me off in games as a proxy for how much of it informs modern society and politics in general. Which I guess I'm doing, too, a little bit. But still.
But it IS a crazy conspiracy... theory. "Skate testing its MTX during an alpha means that they will be a scam at launch and/or impact gameplay because Multiversus also had MTX and that had a bad relaunch" is a complete non-sequitur. This is cavemen sacrificing goats to make it rain levels of random event association.
So I have to conclude the emotional layer is what matters here. Being mad loudly online at a frequent punching bag with a bad reputation is sheer mob-induced dopamine and that's why that headline exists and why this conversation happens. And why social media exists and is killing liberal democracy, but that's probably beyond the scope of this thread.
I did! And if this conversation was even remotely related to any of them I'd give it more consideration.
But people read "microtransactions in Alpha", which was clickbaity on purpose, did not read the game was free to play, which was hidden at the bottom of the article on purpose, and got mad anyway.
So proxy for the disintegration of public discourse it is.
What combination? The game was announced as F2P a while ago, it's been running tests for a while and was always assumed to have MTX. The only thing that changed is they will make the MTX live during a test run and then refund them, which is not particularly rare.
If you must know, it normally has as much to do with seeing how popular your ideas for cosmetics are as it does with testing that your commerce system works properly.
But none of that is what's sparking the fake outrage.
No, I am seeing what people say and how it relates to reality, then deriving conclusions from that.
For instance, my conclusions just got significantly reinforced by the fact that you're framing my stance as "defending" the subject of built-in outrage because of what or who they are, as opposed to what they did.
That's a meaningful part of that statement. Unintended, for sure... but meaningful.
Really? Cause I don't know, I can play Shadow of the Colossus, Resident Evil 4, Metal Gear Solid 3, Ninja Gaiden Black, God of War, Burnout Revenge and GTA San Andreas just fine.
And yes, those are all 20 years ago. You are now dead and I made it happen.
As a side note, man, 2005 was a YEAR in gaming. That list gives 1998 a run for its money.
Absolutely they went for realism. That was the absolute peak of graphics tech in 2004, are you kidding me? I gawked at the fur in Shadow of the Colossus, GTA was insane for detail and size for an open world at the time. Resi 4 was one of the best looking games that gen and when the 360 came out later that year it absolutely was the "last gen still looked good" game people pointed at.
I only went for that year because I wanted the round number, but before that Silent Hill 2 came out in 2001 and that was such a ridiculous step up in lighting tech I didn't believe it was real time when the first screenshots came out. It still looks great, it still plays... well, like Silent Hill, and it's still a fantastic game I can get back into, even with the modern remake in place.
This isn't a zero sum game. You don't trade gameplay or artistry for rendering features or photorealism. Those happen in parallel.
Nothing was going harder for visuals, so by default that's what was happening. They were pushing visuals as hard as they would go with the tech that they had.
The big change isn't that they balanced visuals and gameplay. If anything the big change is that visuals were capped by performance rather than budget (well, short of offline CG cutscenes and VO, I suppose).
If anything they were pushing visuals harder than now. There is no way you'd see a pixel art deck building game on GOTY lists in 2005, it was all AAA as far as the eye could see. We pay less attention to technological escalation now, by some margin.
But hey, I'll split the difference. Instead of SMB 1, which was a launch game and literally wasn't running on the same hardware (because mappers), we can do Mario 3 instead.
Or, hear me out, let's not do a remaster at all for current gen leaps. Here's a PS4 vs PS5 sequel one.
It doesn't work as well, though, since taking the absolutely ridiculous shift from 2D to 3D, which has happened once and only once in all of gaming history, is a bit of a cheat anyway.
Oh, and for the record, and I can't believe I'm saying this only now, LttP looks a LOT better than OoT. Not even close.
Well, yeah, but again, that's not new, and it's something every game has to do, better or worse.
I'm aging myself here, but if you must know, the time that stands out most to me in the "graphics over gameplay" debate is actually... 8 bit micros, weirdly.
There was a time where people mostly just looked at how much of a screen a character filled, or whether the backgrounds scrolled and just bought that, while a subset of the userbase and press was pleading to them to pay at least some consideration to whether the game... you know, could be played at all.
I agree that it's a meme comparison anyway. I just found it pertinent to call out that remasters have been around for a long time.
I don't know that I agree on the rest. I don't think I'm aware of a lazy game developer. That's a pretty rare breed. TAA isn't a bad thing (how quickly we forget the era when FXAA vaseline smearing was considered valid antialiasing for 720p games) and sue me, but I do like good visuals.
I do believe we are in a very weird quagmire of a transitional period, where we're using what is effectively now a VFX suite to make games that aren't meant to run in real time on most of the hardware being used to run them and that are simultaneously too expensive and large and aiming at waaay too many hardware configs. It's a mess out there and it'll continue to be a mess, because the days of a 1080Ti being a "set to Ultra and forget it" deal were officially over the moment we decided we were going to sell people 4K monitors running at 240Hz and also games made for real time raytracing.
It's not the only time we've been in a weird interaction of GPUs and software (hey, remember when every GPU had its own incompatible graphics API? I do), but it's up there.
Hell, no. 120 fps wasn't even a thing. That flash in the pan moment was when 1080p60 was the PC standard and 720p30 the console standard and the way the hardware worked you could hit max specs on a decent PC every time. It lasted like three or four years and it was wonderful.
By the point we started going above the NTSC spec on displays the race was lost. The 20 series came out, people started getting uppity about framerate while playing some 20 year old game and it all went to crap on the PC front.
As for AA, I don't think you remember FXAA well, or at least in relation to what we have. ML upscaling is so much sharper than any tech we had a couple of gens ago, short of MSAA (and frankly even MSAA). The problems that have become familiar in many UE5 games are not intrinsic to the tech, they have a lot to do with what the engine does out of the box and just how out of spec some of the feature work is.
I feel like people have gotten stuck with some memes (no motion blur! DLSS bad! TAA bad!) that are mostly nostalgic of how sharp 1080p used to look compared to garbage-tier sub 720p, sub 30 fps console games. It's getting to the point where I have so many major gripes with a lot of modern games but I feel it becomes one of those conversations you can't have in public because it gets derailed immediately.
In any case I think we can at least agree that it's been an awkward couple of generations of PC hardware and software for whatever reason and GPUs, engines and displays need to get realigned in a way where people can just fire up games and expect them to look and run as designed.
Look, don't take it personally, but I disagree as hard as humanly possible.
Claiming that realism "makes every game look the same" is a shocking statement, and I don't think you mean it like it sounds. That's like saying that every movie looks the same because they all use photographing people as a core technique.
If anything, I don't know what "realism" is supposed to mean. What is more realistic? Yakuza because it does these harsh, photo-based textures meant to highlight all the pores or, say, a Pixar movie where everything is built on this insanely accurate light transfer, path traced simulation?
At any rate, the idea that taking photorealism as a target means you give up on aesthetics or artistic intent is baffling. That's not even a little bit how it works.
On the other point, I think you're blending technical limitations with intent in ways that are a bit fallacious. SotC is stylized, for sure, in that... well, there are kaijus running around and you sometimes get teleported by black tendrils back to your sleeping beauty girlfirend.
But is it aiming at photorealism? Hell yeah. That approach to faking dynamic range, the deliberate crushing of exteriors from interiors, the way the sky gets treated, the outright visible air adding spacing and scale when you look at the colossi from a distance, the desaturated take on natural spaces... That game is meant to look like it was shot by a camera all the way. They worked SO hard to make a PS2 look like it has aperture and grain and a piece of celluloid capturing light. Harder than the newer remake, arguably.
Some of that applies to GoW, too, except they are trying to make things look like Jason and the Argonauts more than Saving Private Ryan. But still, the references are filmic.
I guess we're back to the problem of establishing what people mean by "realism" and how it makes no sense. In what world does Cyberpunk look similar to Indiana Jones or Wukong? It just has no real meaning as a statement.
I don't understand what you're saying. Or, I do, but if I do, then you don't.
I think you're mixing up technique with style, in fact. And really confusing a rendering technique with an aesthetic. But beyond that, you're ignoring so many games. So many. Just last year, how do you look at Balatro and Penny's Big Breakaway and Indiana Jones and go "ah, yes, games all look the same now". The list of GOTY nominees in the TGAs was Astro Bot, Balatro, Wukong, Metaphor, Elden Ring and Final Fantasy VII R. How do you look at that list of games and go "ah, yes, same old, same old".
Whenever I see takes like these I can't help but think that people who like to talk about games don't play enough games, or just think of a handful of high profile releases as all of gaming. Because man, there's so much stuff and it goes from grungy, chunky pixel art to lofi PS1-era jank to pitch-perfect anime cel shading to naturalistic light simulation. If you're out there thinking games look samey you have more of a need to switch genres than devs to switch approach, I think.
Well, then don't be hyperbolic, let's see where that takes us.
That video is still nonsensical, just eloquently nonsensical. Makes me think he hasn't been to Bilbao, for one thing, but talking about games, not architecture, he caveats the crap out of a tautology just to end up in a tautology: AAA games look like this because a AAA game is a game that looks like this, whatever "like this" means.
For one thing, man, do I wish Detroit had never existed. It's amazing that for a while there we had this little cottage industry of doomsters that used Detroit to show how bad anything ranging from David Cage's games to Sony to graphics, apparently turn out to be. To such a degree that I have very rarely seen a defense of Detroit, I've never played Detroit, the game seems to not have done that well and Cage has never published another game. It's a consensus entirely predicated on opposing a fanbase of defenders that seemingly never existed.
All the while this guy argues that AAA games have a look (then caveats that some don't) while showing clips from, if you're keeping track, a game about robot dinosaurs set in a lush jungle full of red plants (which is shocking imagery pulling inspiration from super nerdy, niche illustration work), a bleak but beautiful zombie apocalypse made out of grungy rural clothing, a superhero game and a gorgeousely unique take on norse mythology. None of those games look alike in any way that makes sense. Not more than Spider-Man 2, Transformers, A Quiet Place and The Northman look alike. Photographing people as a technique is not an aesthetic, and it certainly isn't an aesthetic limitation. That's like saying that only animation is creative while photography isn't. It's such a disservice to creativity.
But even from a 2020 video, things have moved in the direction he wants, if only because the games industry is unraveling, I suppose. If you peek at game awards in the interim, the games that got most attention in those five years include The Last of Us II, but also Hades, Elden Ring, Balatro, Astro Bot, Animal Crossing, It Takes Two, Baldur's Gate III, Alan Wake 2 and Tears of the Kingdom. In the recent batch of first party events there was a genuine splash of discourse about which rendition of fake stop motion looked better between the Louisiana fantasy Wizard of Oz reimagining and the creepy claymation... horror FPS thing? What are we talking about again?
Let me drop the pretense for a moment and make a case for what I think we're talking about: this narrative is part of the problem, if there is a problem. These contrarian takes are being tautological for the sake of affecting elevated taste and elitist insight others lack. The truth is games look all sorts of ways and explore wildly different art styles, scopes and concepts. But the discourse is antagonistic and narrow. People latch on to games not to praise them and explore them but to complain and wear them down, and so gaming gets reduced to whatever we don't like, with whatever we do like being passed as a secret hidden gem or an outlier even when it's wildly popular. It's why there's more discourse about Concord, which is a game that looked bad, wasn't great and nobody played, than about Marvel Rivals, which is a game that is just as expensive but looks bright and colorful and cartoony and is extremely popular. In the games industry people sometimes refer to that look as a "mainstream look", because so many popular games look like that. It's the look of Fortnite and The Sims and World of Warcraft and Team Fortress, and it's gradually going more anime as mainstream games pivot to Asia, becoming the look of Genshin Impact, and Zenless Zone Zero and Marvel Rivals.
This is a talking point people like to drop to feel fancy and elevated that implies that we're somehow still living in an industry circa 2008 when home console single player action adventure games dominated the sales charts and smaller games were a dying breed barely kept alive by a group of plucky indies. For better and worse, we haven't lived in that world for a while. If anything, I miss the mid 2000s AAA approach to gaming. Nobody is doing it outside of Sony and a couple weirdos like Sam Lake, and it was a comforting, creative, interesting approach that has unfortunately run out of runway while presumptuous commentators keep beating a dead horse because either they didn't get the memo or because it's perhaps too depressing to look at the real state of the industry.
Did I drop the Socratic pretense too hard? Got too real? We can go back to pretending we don't know what we're talking about if that makes everybody feel better.
Those quotes are all asides or insubstantial to the point being made. I have nothing to add beyond pointing you back to my previous post. Except perhaps that the points about Detroit and architecture are both directly responding to statements on the video you linked (he mentions Detroit defenders and gets super stuck on using the Bilbao Guggenheim as a proxy for samey architecture as a proxy for game visuals).
Oh, and that I'm not confusing setting and style, I'm saying that you can take the idea of leaning towards a photoreal treatment of light transfer to go along with leaning into performance capture and still have style around that choice. The statement that the retrofuturistic aesthetic of Horizon is somehow "almost identical" to the 80s movie homage of Indiana Jones is baffling. I will keep repeating this until it lands: nobody would argue that Raiders of the Lost Ark looks "almost identical" to... I don't even know anything that looks like Horizon... let's go Conan the Barbarian just because they both point cameras at people. Technique does not dictate style (or what in movies you'd call production design). That is a purely videogame-y hangup from the historical misunderstanding that technology is the main driver for aesthetics. If that ever made sense, it certainly stopped fifteen years ago.
I suppose that's at the core of the meme in the OP. Growing up in an era where going from beautiful pixel art to ugly lo-fi 3D was seen as the natural evolution of game aesthetics and never having figured out to distinguish the tech from the art as separate concepts.
Hah. You're overestimating the potential of 90s gaming devices. No game console, handheld or not, had sold a hundred million units. Hell, the Game Boy didn't crack into the hundreds until the Game Boy Color came around, and it was certainly the first.
Anyway, mild exaggeration aside, I get what you're aiming for, but I guess my question is why people read that positioning on Valve devices in the first place. There's no obvious indication that Valve is any less ambitious than any other first party, or any reason why they would be. They went to AMD and comissioned a custom APU at scale, just like Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft are doing. The only differentiating factor is they built the thing on top of a mostly usable pre-existing OS (which I suppose Microsoft also does, but hey). If anything their entire call to fame was to "consolize" Linux for SteamOS, which they'd been trying to do for a while anyway.
I agree that their goal is to set up an ecosystem that works for them, but I find it surprising that people assume they're disinterested in hardware sales. If I had to guess I'd say it's because they refuse to market too hard outside their own ecosystem, so their branding feels different than the more in-your-face releases of Sony, MS or Nintendo products and people assume that's because they're intrinsically or intentionally smaller, which I don't think is true. I do think that image is projected on purpose, though.
I mean, "MANY" in relation to, say, how many people would show up to someone's birthday party. Not "MANY" as in "the size of a videogame audience". We kinda know that for a fact. For reference, Steam does show the most played games on Deck. The first game with no official controller support shows up at 79. It's The Sims 4. For what it's worth, the two most used Steam Input configs do use the trackpads, but they just map the right one as a mouse and have the left one mapped to four directional functions. If your argument for the dual trackpads was simplicity, let me tell you, both of these configs are complete spaghetti, so I don't think that holds much water.
Rimworld is in there, suprisingly, in the 80s. Made me count all the way there, they should really put numbers on that list. Those seem to be the sole two mouse-driven entries. There are no RTS games, tycoon games or city builders that I can see.
In any case, you're right that we agree on whether playing strategy games on a touchpad is fun. It really is not.
By the way, you do realize your counter to the radial menu thing was a screenshot of a radial menu, right? The fact that it's using squares doesn't change how that works (except for how a grid layout actually fits fewer things than a radial menu, but that's neither here nor there).
Granblue Relink is just about closing that top 100 and has about 650 players right now. That's not on Deck, that's across all of Steam.
That's a big birthday party, but not an all-timer.
I know what a radial menu is. The menu you sent is a nine square grid, which is a neutral spot surrounded by eight directional inputs. So a radial menu.
You can make other menus, but you just happened to send me a radial menu, specifically. Which I suspect was chosen there because, like I said, the small touchpad at best suits a radial menu or a directional menu.
And the point isn't that controller-first games are more popular, it's that mouse-first games are quite unpopular. Several big mouse-first games are in the overall most played list but not on the Deck list. Others appear lower. DOTA 2, for one, which is at the top of the overall and nowhere to be seen on the Deck top 100.
And yeah, when somebody argues something iffy in an online discussion I'm the kind of person to go and check. I don't mind being wrong that much, but I do want to know.
Nintendo has done backwards compatibility before, pretty extensively. The Switch 2 isn't a departure. They put a GBA cartridge slot in the first few Nintendo DSs (they lost it in the DSi), and the 3DS was backwards compatible with the DS. They also did GC to Wii and Wii to Wii U (but not GC to WiiU). They even put physical plugs for GC controllers and memory cards on the Wii.
And they've done weirder stuff, like the ability to use a GBA as a controller on the GameCube and some cross-save bonuses between games in some platforms.
The Game Gear is a weird example for that, specifically, since it was basically a repackaged Master System, so there was a lot of game crossover. Sega also had a widely advertised adapter that allowed the Mega Drive to play Master System games.
Anyway, nerdy retro gaming stuff aside, there is definitely a gradient across Valve, that is mostly driving a software platform across a ton of third party hardware, the 4K twins, which are relatively focused on service providing and Nintendo, which is somewhat more focused on a single platform, at least so far. It's very much not black and white and very much not a new thing, though.
And in any case, the smooth gradient does mean that ultimately it should be fair to at least compare Deck sales to console sales.
It's a different measure because Valve does not disclose full install counts at all, let alone per hardware type, but it does provide concurrent users. I work with what I have. In any case, the top of the list is in the hundreds of thousands of concurrent users, so that does show that the top 100 on Deck does run the gamut until fairly low in usage. That's not a surprise, gaming is very winner-takes-all right now, particularly on PC. Steam user counts drop VERY quickly, so your argument that the top 500 is all huge is not accurate.
As for Civ VII, I was going off the last top 100 list, which is yearly and thus covering a period before the Civ VII launch, but Civ VI was actually there and I missed it. It shows up at 37. That's now 3% of the list that is mouse driven. I stand corrected. You're still wrong.
By the way, speaking of using different metrics, "trending" games aren't built on absolute numbers, so top played and trending don't line up at all. I'm assuming Civ VII will make the cut on Deck whenever it does get counted on absolute usage, though.
Not most users, not even as Valve intended (on the Deck, at least).
They literally reserved the green "Verified" badge for games with full controller support and are the only ones eligible for the "Great on Deck" tab. Mouse and Keyboard games get the yellow "Playable" tag instead and a warning on boot.
See, that's the sad part about actually looking things up. It takes time, people get to nitpick it to death and then some guys will just... you know, say stuff.
Hm. That is an interesting read, I don't know if I see it. For fast iGPUs it's been all AMD for a while. Nvidia has been threatening to build a faster one, but it seems they may be targeting integrated, fully branded devices for AI instead of gaming or general use.
Intel has started competing there, but so far it's not been a popular pick with handheld manufacturers.
My understanding is this generation there are more powerful parts but they're expensive to implement and they many not be as good at low wattages, but I guess we'll have to wait a while to know for sure. Either way I don't see a reason why there would be downward pressure on prices. Less upwards pressure than Nvidia just throwing a number at the 5080 and 5090 presumably selected from a bingo card, for sure, but still not necessarily down in price to performance.
It means official full controller support with the default config. There are few games that provide official controller support over Steam Input in the first place, even fewer that have any touchpad custom inputs by default and I'm not even sure if there are any that are Steam Verified. At a glance it's... what, just Rimworld again? Maybe some first party stuff left over from the Steam Machines fiasco? Sims is only Playable. Civ VII, which you called out earlier, I suspect incorrectly, has official all-stick support, what with having launched on consoles day and date. I haven't checked it because I haven't bought it yet, so if I'm wrong let me know. Civ VI doesn't have default controller support, but it's only Playable as well. In fact, if you have a list of verified games with touchpad default support I'd love to see it. I'm genuinely curious.
Look, you get to live in this very specific alternate reality where the only difference is people love dual touchpads as a main input system. That's fine, you're not hurting anybody. I get hung up on it because blatant misrepresentations on social media are fairly upsetting these days and because I'm still not over having had to use the dumb touchpads on the Vive for a couple of years back there.
But man, is it exhausting to watch it act as a proxy of some much more important crap in real time.
Hah. Man, you were fuming about that one for a while, huh?
I said at the very tippy top of this thread that
I know some people swear by them, I just don't think they're worth the space they take up as a pointer device
and later
People who like these do tend to be loud and proud about it, so they stand out more
It's no surprise that there are people swearing by them loudly and proudly. In fact, there are more people doing that than the opposite, because most people just... you know, ignore the whole thing altogether and haven't through about the Steam Controller in a decade.
The reason I was pulling quotes for you is that you denied the touchpad reception in the OG Controller was mixed and that Valve was presenting them as a stick substitute, which was demonstrably incorrect.
Not everybody around me. Nobody around me has ever mentioned a touchpad outside of threads about the touchpad. It's not a thing.
Everybody on Steam seems to be playing controller games on sticks, though. At least from the data Steam shares. Which matches reviews at the time (and later, when people had to pay attention to them on the Deck), the way games on Deck are put together by devs, the low sales of the Controller, the changes to the Vive controller, the lack of other hardware manufacturers doing dual touchpads and pretty much every other piece of info at scale we have beyond anecdote.
Man, online chatter sucks and does bad things to people. I think I'm done with this. Have fun with the dual pads Valve bestowed upon you. I don't need you to change your mind about their popularity, but man, there's going to be a Smithers moment for you at some point on something else and it sure would be good if you thought back to this.
Nintendo Switch 2 Launches on June 5th Worldwide; 1080p Screen With 120 FPS and HDR Support, Docked Mode 4K Resolution Support Confirmed (wccftech.com) angielski
GOG seems to be considering paid membership option angielski
Just did a GOG survey that focused on the idea of a paid membership option on GOG. Seems they’re determining what people would be willing to pay extra for. Some of the options were...
deleted_by_moderator
Marvel Cosmic Invasion official announcement trailer, beat 'em up game from the makers of TMNT: Shredder's Revenge (www.youtube.com) angielski
Nintendo Announce Virtual Game Cards (Digital Game Sharing) (www.youtube.com) angielski
This was way more confusing than it had to be....
EA's Skate Gets Microtransactions Before Its Release Date (www.ign.com) angielski
Of course it does. We all saw it coming.
Small, incremental improvements don't make shockwaves like the old massive tech leaps used to. (lemmy.world) angielski
Three years later, the Steam Deck has dominated handheld PC gaming (www.theverge.com) angielski