I demoed Oculus rift at the sea tac airport for about 30 minutes while waiting for my friends to come pick me up. I had a crowd of hundreds gathered wanting to try it out before security made us disburse. This thing will have insane mass market viability.
Interest in a thing doesn't necassarily translate into sales for a thing. Take the 3DS. People lost their shit over that thing at E3, but it was released at too expensive a price and even when it finally started taking off, the 3D aspect atrophied to almost the point of non-existence. So much so that there's a 3D-less version available.
Now, obviously the rift will probably be better supported, and VR isn't the same thing as 3D, but my point is how many of those 100 people do you think are going to actually buy a rift. It's anecdotal, but I've more often than not heard, from people demoing to friends and family, that while people were super enthralled with the device, none of them were interested in actually buying it.
People do have issues with wearing goggles for 3d and those same people will likely feel the same with VR. But, OC isn't going to be a mainstream device. That's completely fine, at least the option exists and I'll probably buy into it when it's complete.
Now that I think about it, does Steam itself do anything for multiplayer parties or matchmaking or anything? If not, it seems like the missing piece to make it console-like. We know they're trying to get apps like Netflix and whatnot (at least, I believe that's what they said when they announced everything). Get some voice chat built in, and it'll be golden.
PSN/XBL/Nintendo/Origin/Steam: Nightslyr 3DS: 1607-1682-2948 Switch: SW-3515-0057-3813 FF XIV: Q'vehn Tia
Now that I think about it, does Steam itself do anything for multiplayer parties or matchmaking or anything? If not, it seems like the missing piece to make it console-like. We know they're trying to get apps like Netflix and whatnot (at least, I believe that's what they said when they announced everything). Get some voice chat built in, and it'll be golden.
There's some things that Steam does with regard to parties that I don't like as much as I did on Xbox 360, but it's very capable and has most of the features you could hope for.
Now that I think about it, does Steam itself do anything for multiplayer parties or matchmaking or anything? If not, it seems like the missing piece to make it console-like. We know they're trying to get apps like Netflix and whatnot (at least, I believe that's what they said when they announced everything). Get some voice chat built in, and it'll be golden.
There's some things that Steam does with regard to parties that I don't like as much as I did on Xbox 360, but it's very capable and has most of the features you could hope for.
When games are Steam party enabled, it becomes incredibly easy to do invites. L4D and Portal 2 were a matter of bring up Steam friends list, click invite, done.
Now that I think about it, does Steam itself do anything for multiplayer parties or matchmaking or anything? If not, it seems like the missing piece to make it console-like. We know they're trying to get apps like Netflix and whatnot (at least, I believe that's what they said when they announced everything). Get some voice chat built in, and it'll be golden.
There's some things that Steam does with regard to parties that I don't like as much as I did on Xbox 360, but it's very capable and has most of the features you could hope for.
When games are Steam party enabled, it becomes incredibly easy to do invites. L4D and Portal 2 were a matter of bring up Steam friends list, click invite, done.
Steam Party enabled games are my most absolute favorite ones to play. So much better support than any other platform, imo.
All of steams matchmaking, voice chat, and clan options are part of the free steam api. There are other features which most don't take advantage of yet that are also a part of the steam api, like cross-game trading. So like an item you gain in l4d2 can be traded for an item in dota 2. Utilizing this leverages the player base and makes value *sky rocket*. Valves in game economy depends heavily on user base, hence why giving away games is sometimes more profitable to them. When they gave away l4d2, they did so to boost dota 2s economy because those games cross trade.
The api also has support for mod markets, workshops, dlc shops, etc. Their api is very full featured.
There was an entire session at sdd about how to integrate the steam api matchmaking into your games.
All kinds of miss quotes in this one. Click the >> to see what cloud said.
@cloudeagle Watch your quotes please. You did it again in your above post (click the >> to see it). You miss quoted me. Please, if you can't handle spliting the quotes, just leave them be. I'm not even sure what you added to the quote, and I can't read what is your text and what is others.
No, Skyrim on PS3 is an outlier, because it runs crappily. Most console games run well. Yes, they may not run with as many shinies as PC equivalents, but you know what? Console gamers don't care. They're happy to run the games at 720p. That's the nature of the console market. They don't lust after 60FPS. Now, by your admission, PC gamers have more of a boner for specs -- which is yet another reason Steam Machines aren't inherently attractive to the console market.
Ok, so you are running steam os right? Steam os evaluates which steam machine you have, and auto downgrades the settings. This is all seamless, and a "dumb" end user will not know the differance. I fail to see how this is different than how the consoles are doing it. Steam machines are in the steam universe, it isn't like a PC in that sense.
You're splitting hairs. A game in a box marked "PS3" will work in a PS3. A game marked for "PC" gives you zero indication of whether it will work in your box. It's really that simple.
I think your not thinking about something. For steam games, on steam boxes, you buy in the steam store. Native to the Steam OS. So, not saying they do this, but it wouldn't be hard for them to scan your hardware, and never show you games that can't run on your machine. Just saying, It is Steam in steam, on steam for steam. It isn't a PC.
The XBox One is on PC teach now, but is it a PC? Don't think of a Steam box as a PC, it is a Steam box, for Steam. If you want to hack it, you are not the "dumb" user anyway.
2cp.
Funny thing, nvidia pretty much forces you to install the nvidia experience now, and in it is the ability for it to detect your games and not automatically set correct settings for your system, but when new drivers come out, re-evaluate those settings and automatically adjust them when you should be getting better performance. So PC in general is getting more automatic as time goes on in that regard.
No, Skyrim on PS3 is an outlier, because it runs crappily. Most console games run well. Yes, they may not run with as many shinies as PC equivalents, but you know what? Console gamers don't care. They're happy to run the games at 720p. That's the nature of the console market. They don't lust after 60FPS. Now, by your admission, PC gamers have more of a boner for specs -- which is yet another reason Steam Machines aren't inherently attractive to the console market.
Ok, so you are running steam os right? Steam os evaluates which steam machine you have, and auto downgrades the settings. This is all seamless, and a "dumb" end user will not know the differance. I fail to see how this is different than how the consoles are doing it. Steam machines are in the steam universe, it isn't like a PC in that sense.
You're splitting hairs. A game in a box marked "PS3" will work in a PS3. A game marked for "PC" gives you zero indication of whether it will work in your box. It's really that simple.
I think your not thinking about something. For steam games, on steam boxes, you buy in the steam store. Native to the Steam OS. So, not saying they do this, but it wouldn't be hard for them to scan your hardware, and never show you games that can't run on your machine. Just saying, It is Steam in steam, on steam for steam. It isn't a PC.
The XBox One is on PC teach now, but is it a PC? Don't think of a Steam box as a PC, it is a Steam box, for Steam. If you want to hack it, you are not the "dumb" user anyway.
2cp.
Funny thing, nvidia pretty much forces you to install the nvidia experience now, and in it is the ability for it to detect your games and not automatically set correct settings for your system, but when new drivers come out, re-evaluate those settings and automatically adjust them when you should be getting better performance. So PC in general is getting more automatic as time goes on in that regard.
AMD has a similar technology you can optionally download, too.
However, Steam's solution will be baked directly into the steam runtime, and on SteamOS it'll actually be a part of the operating system.
I have a question about the controller. Do the buttons have labels? Like, there is a reasonable identification for different buttons like A/B/X/Y? A big part of the reason I switched from 360 to Steam a few years back was because most games support the 360 gamepad like it was a standard. (Because it is? Sorta? I dunno.)
I don't want to go back to seeing "Press Tab!" when I'm really pushing the right bumper or whatever.
I have a question about the controller. Do the buttons have labels? Like, there is a reasonable identification for different buttons like A/B/X/Y? A big part of the reason I switched from 360 to Steam a few years back was because most games support the 360 gamepad like it was a standard. (Because it is? Sorta? I dunno.)
I don't want to go back to seeing "Press Tab!" when I'm really pushing the right bumper or whatever.
Yeah, they have buttons. There is LT, LB, and LP - left trigger, left bumper, and left paddle, as they're called in steam. Conversely, there is RT, RB, and RP. There is Left and Right press, which are the pads themselves, and the secondary action buttons (which are being arranged in a diamond) are ABXY. The buttons that represented the face buttons (that are also going in a diamond) are 1, 2, 3, and 4.
For mapping older games, I usually actually map the buttons to keys that make on-screen prompts match. So I match the A button to the A key. I use [ and ] for LP and RP, L and R for LB and RB, and left click and right click for LT and RT. This forces me to use up, down, left, and right instead of WASD, but since it's all on a controller it doesn't matter too much.
So like, yesterday, I was playing binary domain. I mapped the controller to a configuration so that each key was labeled in a way that the button prompts would list the actual key, then went back in-game and remapped the controls using the newly mapped controller. While playing, prompts saying stuff like "Press A to activate" or "Press [ to focus" would pop up, making it easier to keep track of what to press.
This is all for legacy mode which makes the controller act like a keyboard and mouse. In native mode, native button prompts can be displayed and functions of the controller can be coded directly into the game.
The only real flub I don't like about PC gaming is the tearing. New monitors coming out this year along with nvidia's new tech are going to mitigate it but that will require a new purchase. I know I'm in the minority when it comes to that, though.
The only real flub I don't like about PC gaming is the tearing. New monitors coming out this year along with nvidia's new tech are going to mitigate it but that will require a new purchase. I know I'm in the minority when it comes to that, though.
there is always v-sync. I play my PC games on a large HDTV and I always enable V-sync, so tearing isn't a thing for me.
The only real flub I don't like about PC gaming is the tearing. New monitors coming out this year along with nvidia's new tech are going to mitigate it but that will require a new purchase. I know I'm in the minority when it comes to that, though.
I don't remember the last time I experienced screen tearing in a PC game. It's certainly not very often. And if there is tearing, that's what v-sync is for.
Right but sometimes v-sync still doesn't quite get it right, so I have to create profiles for games separately. Dead Space was one of those games where it was better to make a profile than enable v-sync in game since it caused a couple of issues with the cursor and the opening sequence. But .. I guess this has little to do with SteamOS, so I'll stop.
Right but sometimes v-sync still doesn't quite get it right, so I have to create profiles for games separately. Dead Space was one of those games where it was better to make a profile than enable v-sync in game since it caused a couple of issues with the cursor and the opening sequence. But .. I guess this has little to do with SteamOS, so I'll stop.
I'm curious if your monitor actually runs at 59 hz instead of 60 hz. I had a monitor that did this and v-sync wouldn't work because it was attempting to sync at 60 hz. I'd get rolling tears in everything, regardless of v-sync. Going into the windows video manager and selecting "display all modes" and manually checking the [email protected] hz option fixed all that. Keep in mind that reported resolution and refresh rates aren't always correct. Most "720p" screens are actually 1360x768 instead of 1280x720 because they're actually repurposed computer monitors running at 16:10 instead of 16:9, and adding additional pixels to the edges are easier than building a new screen from scratch. Similar stuff happens with 1080p screens as well, although it's less frequent if you buy from a respected manufacturer.
My SteamOS install actually doesn't even have any options for resolution, I've found (although, admittedly, I haven't really looked). It just found my TV, and set the optimal resolution and frequency at install. No touch, no fuss.
+3
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Even on my 360, when it still worked, the amount of screen tearing I got during pre-rendered cinematics was hugely distracting.
Bioshock infinite runs at an average of 30 fps, with framerate dips, at 1152x720. The Core 2 Duo 8800GT video I posted earlier says it's averaging 45 fps, with the lowest benchmarked framerate coming in at 30 fps, at 1440x900.[/quote]
Fair enough, you got me on that one. Still doesn't change the fact that console platforms are much less varied, more reliable, and easier to pick from in a market when console owners don't really care about bleeding-edge performance.
...yeah, that's not saying anything close to what you're saying. That's saying that Samsung takes 95% of the profits from android sales, because they're the largest android manufacturer. Which is radically different than saying nobody else makes a profit. The very article you site claims, for example, that HTC posts a net profit (as in, after operating income, aka pure profit) of $100,000,000 from their android line. Making $100 million in net profits is not "not making any profit."[/quote]
Samsung is increasingly becoming synonymous with Android. It's to the point there's some rumblings that Google is nervous about Samsung's increasing power in the area, and that's part of the reason they're becoming more aggressive about releasing their own hardware.
At any rate, Samsung is now the "default" choice for Android buyers, because there's such a dizzying array of choices out there. It's easier to just go with Samsung than to try to figure out which one of the dozens of Android smartphones is better, which is why genuinely great phones like the HTC One get ignored.
Similarly, having dozens of Steam Machines is a hindrance rather than an advantage. It forces people to do a massive comparison of the hardware, which they'd rather not do. They'd rather have a feeling of security and convenience, and get on with playing games already. That's why the same games still sold much less on PCs last year than they did on consoles, even though the hardware has a six-year advantage. And come to think of it, that's also after several years of truly awesome Steam sales that the console makers only recently started matching.
hands up in the air, you're just too much. Console makers match steam sales? 13 is dozens? Samsung being the lead manufacturer means everyone else loses money? Choice is restrictive?
hands up in the air, you're just too much. Console makers match steam sales? 13 is dozens? Samsung being the lead manufacturer means everyone else loses money? Choice is restrictive?
Not entertaining this anymore.
Okay... can you prove that console sales aren't as good as Steam sales with actual data?
And yes, Samsung and Apple are the only smartphone makers to make a profit on the devices. This is well-known by anyone paying attention.
And 13 is still confusing compared to two, and I'm guessing we'll see more models announced soon.
Yes TSR, I know that we're going round and round and not convincing each other, but it's much classier to say "let's just agree to disagree" than to imply I'm nuts with things that sound crazy to you but took me less than five minutes to Google to prove wrong.
Okay... can you prove that console sales aren't as good as Steam sales with actual data?
Good for who? If you mean good for consumers, then there's pretty much no comparison.
And yes, having too many choices can paralyze consumers.
This is true to a point, but the more similar the choices are, the less it matters. There's a ton of android phones, but they're all still android, and mostly the same, and they still sell a bunch. There's also a ton of choices for things like tv's, cameras, other appliances, etc., but they still sell. I wouldn't be surprised to see one large frontrunner for steamboxes, who sell a fairly cheap, standardized box, but with other companies selling more higher end, more modular ones. I mean, your whole point is that it'd be like the android market, but android doesn't seem to have suffered because of it.
You seem to be taking a lot of things as rules just because that's the way things are now, like how right now there's very little choice or modularity in consoles, and so the market can't support them. That's pretty shortsighted, and ignores all the other things affecting the market, and the other reasons why that'd be the case, or other reasons why pc's and pc versions of games might not sell as well.
Okay... can you prove that console sales aren't as good as Steam sales with actual data?
Good for who? If you mean good for consumers, then there's pretty much no comparison.
And yes, having too many choices can paralyze consumers.
This is true to a point, but the more similar the choices are, the less it matters. There's a ton of android phones, but they're all still android, and mostly the same, and they still sell a bunch. There's also a ton of choices for things like tv's, cameras, other appliances, etc., but they still sell. I wouldn't be surprised to see one large frontrunner for steamboxes, who sell a fairly cheap, standardized box, but with other companies selling more higher end, more modular ones. I mean, your whole point is that it'd be like the android market, but android doesn't seem to have suffered because of it.
You seem to be taking a lot of things as rules just because that's the way things are now, like how right now there's very little choice or modularity in consoles, and so the market can't support them. That's pretty shortsighted, and ignores all the other things affecting the market, and the other reasons why that'd be the case, or other reasons why pc's and pc versions of games might not sell as well.
Which may be true, but I am trying to take into account everything affecting the market, and I'm seeing nothing in Steam Machines that will change the formula.
Okay... can you prove that console sales aren't as good as Steam sales with actual data?
Good for who? If you mean good for consumers, then there's pretty much no comparison.
And yes, having too many choices can paralyze consumers.
This is true to a point, but the more similar the choices are, the less it matters. There's a ton of android phones, but they're all still android, and mostly the same, and they still sell a bunch. There's also a ton of choices for things like tv's, cameras, other appliances, etc., but they still sell. I wouldn't be surprised to see one large frontrunner for steamboxes, who sell a fairly cheap, standardized box, but with other companies selling more higher end, more modular ones. I mean, your whole point is that it'd be like the android market, but android doesn't seem to have suffered because of it.
You seem to be taking a lot of things as rules just because that's the way things are now, like how right now there's very little choice or modularity in consoles, and so the market can't support them. That's pretty shortsighted, and ignores all the other things affecting the market, and the other reasons why that'd be the case, or other reasons why pc's and pc versions of games might not sell as well.
Which may be true, but I am trying to take into account everything affecting the market, and I'm seeing nothing in Steam Machines that will change the formula.
Ok, how about:
1. Tying games to accounts and not machines, so your games are playable on any steam machine, into perpetuity.
2. Backwards compatibility is never an issue ever again. You don't have to worry about missing out on great games, they'll be there.
3. More stability in terms of architecture, the chipset doesn't change every 5 years. This means that games can be better optimized to the system and run faster (this is why later games on systems run better than launch titles, and why there are so many issues with games running better on one system or another)
4. OS design built around gaming, so probably more performance focus
5. Better segmentation of the market. What you see as paralysis of choice, could be just the right amount, so people can get exactly the console that fits them. Remember, we're already seeing this somewhat in consoles already, with basic/pro models. If you want to spend 500, there's one for you, you want to spend 1000 there's one for you.
6. Being able to do all of the living room media that consoles are so desperate to do, without requiring you to sign up for Live in order to watch netflix
There's no single silver bullet, I'll admit, or at least not an obvious one like the original wii controller or something. But it brings together the pc and console sides, and eliminates a lot of flaws from both of them. You get the openness and freedom of the pc side, along with the huge game library (albeit not all of them), along with the living room ease and convenience. It might not make a huge splash at first, but I think it might outlast the competition, especially when this next console generation ends, if people find that they have to dump all their old games again.
Okay... can you prove that console sales aren't as good as Steam sales with actual data?
Yes. If that's not enough to convince you, I'm not sure anything will.
It would help if we had corresponding console sales to compare the two.
They're pathetic in comparison. XBL Sales & Specials. I was unable to find the same on PSN store page, which says volumes.
There are something like 70 games with sale/special prices on Steam today, right now. And... 10 on XBL? It's a no-brainer.
And 13 is still confusing compared to two, and I'm guessing we'll see more models announced soon.
Where are you getting "two" from? There are five XB1 bundles and six PS4 bundles. That's at least as confusing as different Steam Machines.
Considering the bundles all have the same hardware and just different games/accessories, I'm going to go with no.[/quote]
Why? What is the imagined difference?
Okay... can you prove that console sales aren't as good as Steam sales with actual data?
Yes. If that's not enough to convince you, I'm not sure anything will.
It would help if we had corresponding console sales to compare the two.
They're pathetic in comparison. XBL Sales & Specials. I was unable to find the same on PSN store page, which says volumes.
There are something like 70 games with sale/special prices on Steam today, right now. And... 10 on XBL? It's a no-brainer.
Fair enough. Though it's still interesting that the massive sales still haven't caused a move from consoles to PCs.
And 13 is still confusing compared to two, and I'm guessing we'll see more models announced soon.
Where are you getting "two" from? There are five XB1 bundles and six PS4 bundles. That's at least as confusing as different Steam Machines.
Considering the bundles all have the same hardware and just different games/accessories, I'm going to go with no.
Why? What is the imagined difference?
Because deciding what kind of pack-in game appeals to you most is easier than figuring out which graphics card with a name like a cat on a keyboard you'll need to play your games at a specific level.
Okay... can you prove that console sales aren't as good as Steam sales with actual data?
Good for who? If you mean good for consumers, then there's pretty much no comparison.
And yes, having too many choices can paralyze consumers.
This is true to a point, but the more similar the choices are, the less it matters. There's a ton of android phones, but they're all still android, and mostly the same, and they still sell a bunch. There's also a ton of choices for things like tv's, cameras, other appliances, etc., but they still sell. I wouldn't be surprised to see one large frontrunner for steamboxes, who sell a fairly cheap, standardized box, but with other companies selling more higher end, more modular ones. I mean, your whole point is that it'd be like the android market, but android doesn't seem to have suffered because of it.
You seem to be taking a lot of things as rules just because that's the way things are now, like how right now there's very little choice or modularity in consoles, and so the market can't support them. That's pretty shortsighted, and ignores all the other things affecting the market, and the other reasons why that'd be the case, or other reasons why pc's and pc versions of games might not sell as well.
Which may be true, but I am trying to take into account everything affecting the market, and I'm seeing nothing in Steam Machines that will change the formula.
Ok, how about:
1. Tying games to accounts and not machines, so your games are playable on any steam machine, into perpetuity.
2. Backwards compatibility is never an issue ever again. You don't have to worry about missing out on great games, they'll be there.
3. More stability in terms of architecture, the chipset doesn't change every 5 years. This means that games can be better optimized to the system and run faster (this is why later games on systems run better than launch titles, and why there are so many issues with games running better on one system or another)
4. OS design built around gaming, so probably more performance focus
5. Better segmentation of the market. What you see as paralysis of choice, could be just the right amount, so people can get exactly the console that fits them. Remember, we're already seeing this somewhat in consoles already, with basic/pro models. If you want to spend 500, there's one for you, you want to spend 1000 there's one for you.
6. Being able to do all of the living room media that consoles are so desperate to do, without requiring you to sign up for Live in order to watch netflix
There's no single silver bullet, I'll admit, or at least not an obvious one like the original wii controller or something. But it brings together the pc and console sides, and eliminates a lot of flaws from both of them. You get the openness and freedom of the pc side, along with the huge game library (albeit not all of them), along with the living room ease and convenience. It might not make a huge splash at first, but I think it might outlast the competition, especially when this next console generation ends, if people find that they have to dump all their old games again.
But here's the thing: PCs already do all of those things, and have for years. (4 is debatable, but I'll let that slide.) And with number six, pretty much every consumer device already does those things. Steam Machines really need to bring something new to the table if they really want to appeal to the console crowd.
Okay... can you prove that console sales aren't as good as Steam sales with actual data?
Good for who? If you mean good for consumers, then there's pretty much no comparison.
And yes, having too many choices can paralyze consumers.
This is true to a point, but the more similar the choices are, the less it matters. There's a ton of android phones, but they're all still android, and mostly the same, and they still sell a bunch. There's also a ton of choices for things like tv's, cameras, other appliances, etc., but they still sell. I wouldn't be surprised to see one large frontrunner for steamboxes, who sell a fairly cheap, standardized box, but with other companies selling more higher end, more modular ones. I mean, your whole point is that it'd be like the android market, but android doesn't seem to have suffered because of it.
You seem to be taking a lot of things as rules just because that's the way things are now, like how right now there's very little choice or modularity in consoles, and so the market can't support them. That's pretty shortsighted, and ignores all the other things affecting the market, and the other reasons why that'd be the case, or other reasons why pc's and pc versions of games might not sell as well.
Which may be true, but I am trying to take into account everything affecting the market, and I'm seeing nothing in Steam Machines that will change the formula.
Ok, how about:
1. Tying games to accounts and not machines, so your games are playable on any steam machine, into perpetuity.
2. Backwards compatibility is never an issue ever again. You don't have to worry about missing out on great games, they'll be there.
3. More stability in terms of architecture, the chipset doesn't change every 5 years. This means that games can be better optimized to the system and run faster (this is why later games on systems run better than launch titles, and why there are so many issues with games running better on one system or another)
4. OS design built around gaming, so probably more performance focus
5. Better segmentation of the market. What you see as paralysis of choice, could be just the right amount, so people can get exactly the console that fits them. Remember, we're already seeing this somewhat in consoles already, with basic/pro models. If you want to spend 500, there's one for you, you want to spend 1000 there's one for you.
6. Being able to do all of the living room media that consoles are so desperate to do, without requiring you to sign up for Live in order to watch netflix
There's no single silver bullet, I'll admit, or at least not an obvious one like the original wii controller or something. But it brings together the pc and console sides, and eliminates a lot of flaws from both of them. You get the openness and freedom of the pc side, along with the huge game library (albeit not all of them), along with the living room ease and convenience. It might not make a huge splash at first, but I think it might outlast the competition, especially when this next console generation ends, if people find that they have to dump all their old games again.
But here's the thing: PCs already do all of those things, and have for years. (4 is debatable, but I'll let that slide.) And with number six, pretty much every consumer device already does those things. Steam Machines really need to bring something new to the table if they really want to appeal to the console crowd.
Ok, see, this is why TSR is getting fed up with you - you're being purposely obtuse. You're right, none of the things I listed are new in the pc market, but that's a dumb thing to say, since we're talking about a new console, and it has all of the console advantages that pc's don't. You're purposely picking the worst possible way to look at things, even though it doesn't make any sense to do so. These are ways it's changing the console formula, which it definitely is.
Posts
Interest in a thing doesn't necassarily translate into sales for a thing. Take the 3DS. People lost their shit over that thing at E3, but it was released at too expensive a price and even when it finally started taking off, the 3D aspect atrophied to almost the point of non-existence. So much so that there's a 3D-less version available.
Now, obviously the rift will probably be better supported, and VR isn't the same thing as 3D, but my point is how many of those 100 people do you think are going to actually buy a rift. It's anecdotal, but I've more often than not heard, from people demoing to friends and family, that while people were super enthralled with the device, none of them were interested in actually buying it.
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
Switch: SW-3515-0057-3813 FF XIV: Q'vehn Tia
Can you use the Rift if you wear glasses? I haven't cared enough to think about it until now.
It does, and already has built-in voice chat.
There's some things that Steam does with regard to parties that I don't like as much as I did on Xbox 360, but it's very capable and has most of the features you could hope for.
Yes.
There are extra lenses, even in the devkit, that make it easier to wear glasses under the Rift.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
When games are Steam party enabled, it becomes incredibly easy to do invites. L4D and Portal 2 were a matter of bring up Steam friends list, click invite, done.
Steam Party enabled games are my most absolute favorite ones to play. So much better support than any other platform, imo.
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
And it probably will.
The api also has support for mod markets, workshops, dlc shops, etc. Their api is very full featured.
There was an entire session at sdd about how to integrate the steam api matchmaking into your games.
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
Rift support was one off the very first things announced. It's one of the rifts biggest upcoming games, along with eve valkyrie and project cars.
Funny thing, nvidia pretty much forces you to install the nvidia experience now, and in it is the ability for it to detect your games and not automatically set correct settings for your system, but when new drivers come out, re-evaluate those settings and automatically adjust them when you should be getting better performance. So PC in general is getting more automatic as time goes on in that regard.
AMD has a similar technology you can optionally download, too.
However, Steam's solution will be baked directly into the steam runtime, and on SteamOS it'll actually be a part of the operating system.
I don't want to go back to seeing "Press Tab!" when I'm really pushing the right bumper or whatever.
Yeah, they have buttons. There is LT, LB, and LP - left trigger, left bumper, and left paddle, as they're called in steam. Conversely, there is RT, RB, and RP. There is Left and Right press, which are the pads themselves, and the secondary action buttons (which are being arranged in a diamond) are ABXY. The buttons that represented the face buttons (that are also going in a diamond) are 1, 2, 3, and 4.
For mapping older games, I usually actually map the buttons to keys that make on-screen prompts match. So I match the A button to the A key. I use [ and ] for LP and RP, L and R for LB and RB, and left click and right click for LT and RT. This forces me to use up, down, left, and right instead of WASD, but since it's all on a controller it doesn't matter too much.
So like, yesterday, I was playing binary domain. I mapped the controller to a configuration so that each key was labeled in a way that the button prompts would list the actual key, then went back in-game and remapped the controls using the newly mapped controller. While playing, prompts saying stuff like "Press A to activate" or "Press [ to focus" would pop up, making it easier to keep track of what to press.
This is all for legacy mode which makes the controller act like a keyboard and mouse. In native mode, native button prompts can be displayed and functions of the controller can be coded directly into the game.
there is always v-sync. I play my PC games on a large HDTV and I always enable V-sync, so tearing isn't a thing for me.
I don't remember the last time I experienced screen tearing in a PC game. It's certainly not very often. And if there is tearing, that's what v-sync is for.
I'm curious if your monitor actually runs at 59 hz instead of 60 hz. I had a monitor that did this and v-sync wouldn't work because it was attempting to sync at 60 hz. I'd get rolling tears in everything, regardless of v-sync. Going into the windows video manager and selecting "display all modes" and manually checking the [email protected] hz option fixed all that. Keep in mind that reported resolution and refresh rates aren't always correct. Most "720p" screens are actually 1360x768 instead of 1280x720 because they're actually repurposed computer monitors running at 16:10 instead of 16:9, and adding additional pixels to the edges are easier than building a new screen from scratch. Similar stuff happens with 1080p screens as well, although it's less frequent if you buy from a respected manufacturer.
My SteamOS install actually doesn't even have any options for resolution, I've found (although, admittedly, I haven't really looked). It just found my TV, and set the optimal resolution and frequency at install. No touch, no fuss.
So... you're not saying that console people are going to flock to Steam Machines because of better performance?
You're skeptical that the 360 version of bioshock infinite doesn't run at a resolution greater than 729p at a framerate higher than 30 fps?
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-bioshock-infinite-face-off
Bioshock infinite runs at an average of 30 fps, with framerate dips, at 1152x720. The Core 2 Duo 8800GT video I posted earlier says it's averaging 45 fps, with the lowest benchmarked framerate coming in at 30 fps, at 1440x900.[/quote]
Fair enough, you got me on that one. Still doesn't change the fact that console platforms are much less varied, more reliable, and easier to pick from in a market when console owners don't really care about bleeding-edge performance.
...yeah, that's not saying anything close to what you're saying. That's saying that Samsung takes 95% of the profits from android sales, because they're the largest android manufacturer. Which is radically different than saying nobody else makes a profit. The very article you site claims, for example, that HTC posts a net profit (as in, after operating income, aka pure profit) of $100,000,000 from their android line. Making $100 million in net profits is not "not making any profit."[/quote]
Okay, how about this from four days ago:
http://www.dazeinfo.com/2014/01/19/apple-inc-aapl-smartphones-market-us-q4-2013/
Samsung is increasingly becoming synonymous with Android. It's to the point there's some rumblings that Google is nervous about Samsung's increasing power in the area, and that's part of the reason they're becoming more aggressive about releasing their own hardware.
At any rate, Samsung is now the "default" choice for Android buyers, because there's such a dizzying array of choices out there. It's easier to just go with Samsung than to try to figure out which one of the dozens of Android smartphones is better, which is why genuinely great phones like the HTC One get ignored.
Similarly, having dozens of Steam Machines is a hindrance rather than an advantage. It forces people to do a massive comparison of the hardware, which they'd rather not do. They'd rather have a feeling of security and convenience, and get on with playing games already. That's why the same games still sold much less on PCs last year than they did on consoles, even though the hardware has a six-year advantage. And come to think of it, that's also after several years of truly awesome Steam sales that the console makers only recently started matching.
Not entertaining this anymore.
Okay... can you prove that console sales aren't as good as Steam sales with actual data?
And yes, Samsung and Apple are the only smartphone makers to make a profit on the devices. This is well-known by anyone paying attention.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CDcQFjAC&url=http://news.investors.com/technology-click/111413-679204-apple-edges-samsung-in-smartphone-profit-in-q3.htm&ei=cLbhUqqMHIKmqQHY1ICoCw&usg=AFQjCNFw0uhT9frYTIXe1yT8KsFHtDDO1g&sig2=m1ltaYCu8tdl3A8QRuj-bw&bvm=bv.59930103,d.aWM
And yes, having too many choices can paralyze consumers. That's another pretty famous study.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/27/your-money/27shortcuts.html?_r=0
And 13 is still confusing compared to two, and I'm guessing we'll see more models announced soon.
Yes TSR, I know that we're going round and round and not convincing each other, but it's much classier to say "let's just agree to disagree" than to imply I'm nuts with things that sound crazy to you but took me less than five minutes to Google to prove wrong.
Where are you getting "two" from? There are five XB1 bundles and six PS4 bundles. That's at least as confusing as different Steam Machines.
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
It would help if we had corresponding console sales to compare the two.
Considering the bundles all have the same hardware and just different games/accessories, I'm going to go with no.
Good for who? If you mean good for consumers, then there's pretty much no comparison.
This is true to a point, but the more similar the choices are, the less it matters. There's a ton of android phones, but they're all still android, and mostly the same, and they still sell a bunch. There's also a ton of choices for things like tv's, cameras, other appliances, etc., but they still sell. I wouldn't be surprised to see one large frontrunner for steamboxes, who sell a fairly cheap, standardized box, but with other companies selling more higher end, more modular ones. I mean, your whole point is that it'd be like the android market, but android doesn't seem to have suffered because of it.
You seem to be taking a lot of things as rules just because that's the way things are now, like how right now there's very little choice or modularity in consoles, and so the market can't support them. That's pretty shortsighted, and ignores all the other things affecting the market, and the other reasons why that'd be the case, or other reasons why pc's and pc versions of games might not sell as well.
Which may be true, but I am trying to take into account everything affecting the market, and I'm seeing nothing in Steam Machines that will change the formula.
Ok, how about:
1. Tying games to accounts and not machines, so your games are playable on any steam machine, into perpetuity.
2. Backwards compatibility is never an issue ever again. You don't have to worry about missing out on great games, they'll be there.
3. More stability in terms of architecture, the chipset doesn't change every 5 years. This means that games can be better optimized to the system and run faster (this is why later games on systems run better than launch titles, and why there are so many issues with games running better on one system or another)
4. OS design built around gaming, so probably more performance focus
5. Better segmentation of the market. What you see as paralysis of choice, could be just the right amount, so people can get exactly the console that fits them. Remember, we're already seeing this somewhat in consoles already, with basic/pro models. If you want to spend 500, there's one for you, you want to spend 1000 there's one for you.
6. Being able to do all of the living room media that consoles are so desperate to do, without requiring you to sign up for Live in order to watch netflix
There's no single silver bullet, I'll admit, or at least not an obvious one like the original wii controller or something. But it brings together the pc and console sides, and eliminates a lot of flaws from both of them. You get the openness and freedom of the pc side, along with the huge game library (albeit not all of them), along with the living room ease and convenience. It might not make a huge splash at first, but I think it might outlast the competition, especially when this next console generation ends, if people find that they have to dump all their old games again.
There are something like 70 games with sale/special prices on Steam today, right now. And... 10 on XBL? It's a no-brainer.
Considering the bundles all have the same hardware and just different games/accessories, I'm going to go with no.[/quote]
Why? What is the imagined difference?
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
Fair enough. Though it's still interesting that the massive sales still haven't caused a move from consoles to PCs.
Because deciding what kind of pack-in game appeals to you most is easier than figuring out which graphics card with a name like a cat on a keyboard you'll need to play your games at a specific level.
But here's the thing: PCs already do all of those things, and have for years. (4 is debatable, but I'll let that slide.) And with number six, pretty much every consumer device already does those things. Steam Machines really need to bring something new to the table if they really want to appeal to the console crowd.
Ok, see, this is why TSR is getting fed up with you - you're being purposely obtuse. You're right, none of the things I listed are new in the pc market, but that's a dumb thing to say, since we're talking about a new console, and it has all of the console advantages that pc's don't. You're purposely picking the worst possible way to look at things, even though it doesn't make any sense to do so. These are ways it's changing the console formula, which it definitely is.