|
ImpAtom posted:I love how you can't even just go for the more honest (and still extremely good) "X-Box One game: $60, Steam game: $50, often with a 25% discount from GMG." You have to pick the highest end X-Box and the lowest end Steam cost just to make it look better. No, I think the wide availability of really cheap/free games is a genuine advantage of the PC. You're right, the equation changes if you generally play full-price new releases, but that doesn't fit the profile of how I play games at all. There's nothing remotely comparable to all the indie bundles or dota or TF2 on consoles, that isn't imagined.
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 20:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 00:05 |
|
|
Jeffrey posted:No, I think the wide availability of really cheap/free games is a genuine advantage of the PC. You're right, the equation changes if you generally play full-price new releases, but that doesn't fit the profile of how I play games at all. There's nothing remotely comparable to all the indie bundles or dota or TF2 on consoles, that isn't imagined. But you're still being dishonest then because X-Box and PS both have a wide range of widely available cheap games. There are a number of excellent games, including indie and full titles, available on all three systems for between $5 and $15, sometimes less on sale. Both Sony and Microsoft have a 'free games' service that goes along with their monthly subscription free and Nintendo was giving away old VC games for 30 cents a pop not too long ago. Steam and the Humble Bundles and all that are great deals, don't get me wrong, but it isn't "It's $60 vs $2.99!" and trying to boil it down to that is exaggerating to the extreme. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Nov 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 21:00
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:But you're still being dishonest then because X-Box and PS both have a wide range of widely available cheap games. There are a number of excellent games, including indie and full titles, available on all three systems for between $5 and $15, sometimes less on sale. Both Sony and Microsoft have a 'free games' service that goes along with their monthly subscription free and Nintendo was giving away old VC games for 30 cents a pop not too long ago. I don't think the xbone will have many of those for awhile but we'll see. The prevalence of such things is still way out of whack. I'm sure you could take like, the price average of games on steam vs for xbox and I'd be right but eh, you're right that it wasn't entirely ingenuous and I can drop it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 21:02
|
|
|
Attention PC gamers: no one cares This happens every time edit: as far as "games coming out" goes, there's some launch titles coming up for the new systems but a lot of people are also buying the systems on the promise of lots of future games. Same goes for the Wii-U actually, except Nintendo has had a year to make good on that promise and they haven't. If the next gen is anything like the current gen, or the previous gen, my shelf tells me exactly which console is going to deliver the games I want to play. My PS2 and PS3 games outnumber my Gamecube and Wii games 2:1. Spiffo fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Nov 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 21:03
|
|
|
Paper Jam Dipper posted:Also, gaming is a loving expensive hobby. People don't want the best of the best. They want the best bang for their buck. That isn't just in cost of console but in range and quality of games with cost of games and cost of hardware. It all goes together. This kinda is why the Wii U is floundering. It doesn't provide the best bang per buck even compared to other current gen systems, and from specs alone, it doesn't come close to doing that even against the Xbone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 21:04
|
|
|
Alteisen posted:He might be talking about the goons that say you can make a super top of the line PC for like 400 dollars. Yeah, but then I need to get a PC, ewww.... no thanks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 21:11
|
|
|
So how long until Nintendo finally realizes it needs to make a new console that's on par with the xbone/ps4? Are they seriously going to ride it out as their console for the generation? I just can't see it going well for them in the next couple years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 21:43
|
|
|
You may be underestimating how expensive console development is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 21:49
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:You may be underestimating how expensive console development is. But posters in this thread are constantly saying about how Nintendo has infinite reserves of money?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 21:58
|
|
|
bef posted:So how long until Nintendo finally realizes it needs to make a new console that's on par with the xbone/ps4? Are they seriously going to ride it out as their console for the generation? I just can't see it going well for them in the next couple years. They probably already know this now. The problem is they can't just immediately address it. It's a small number of folks, but it'd not look good to the millions of Wii U owners to dump the system now or even next year. Dumping the GamePad can't happen, the entire system basically revolves around it. A lot of the issues they face, in terms of hardware, are purely from a lack of foresight, and a lack of actually paying attention to their competitors on every level. The other problem is that Nintendo is still unable to patch up relations with third parties, either from Japan or everywhere else. Their biggest victory on that front is having Capcom run to them with Monster Hunter on the 3DS, which was more of Capcom being desperate for money (and also being angry at Sony). That only affects the 3DS though, Capcom's console development has been a poo poo-show as of late, which makes me actually wary even of good looking stuff like Deep Down. Nobody who isn't Nintendo is doing anything particularly exciting for the Wii U that we're aware of. Some folks want to believe Retro is doing something special outside of more Donkey Kong, but considering how much that company has changed over the years, I'm taking a wait and see approach. It'd be a grievous waste of money to make a new console until Nintendo can get its poo poo in order, internally and externally, and they can't afford to alienate the diehards who already own this system despite all of the issues it faces.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 22:00
|
|
|
bef posted:So how long until Nintendo finally realizes it needs to make a new console that's on par with the xbone/ps4? Are they seriously going to ride it out as their console for the generation? I just can't see it going well for them in the next couple years. I don't think they do. They need to find a way to cut the price of the console. The Gamecube was proof that Nintendo does not have the resources to go one on one against Sony and Microsoft. The Wii was all about sidestepping. The Wii U is doing neither.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 22:02
|
|
|
Moreover, the cost of console development compared to assets a company has. Sony and Microsoft are large enough that they were not only able to buoy the costs of developing their respective game systems, but have said systems make losses for several years, because the rest of the companies simply make that much money. Nintendo, particularly given its usual pride, wouldn't be wanting to have to start again from scratch and try to rush something out that might compete performance wise against the XBOne and PS4, when they still have stock to clear and development costs to make back on one console already. And as they and many others are hoping for, they still believe Christmas 2013 gives them a potential shot of turning this around, thanks to a backlog of games and a cheaper price point. Discounting any talk of what the fabled 'warchest' could do for them, Nintendo would be wanting to see how things pan out, even right up to the last second, before working on something new.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
Paper Jam Dipper posted:I don't think they do. They need to find a way to cut the price of the console. The Gamecube was proof that Nintendo does not have the resources to go one on one against Sony and Microsoft. The Wii was all about sidestepping. The Wii U is doing neither. The GameCube was proof that they COULD make comparable hardware to the competition (it was a fantastic little box that I was aboard for day one, seriously it had some amazing looking games). More importantly, it was also proof that the greater part of the gaming market didn't care about Nintendo as much as they cared about Sony, at the time. The Wii wasn't just them sidestepping the competition in terms hardware, it was aiming for a completely different market. There were millions of gamers who were already invested in the sorts of experiences the PS2 (and even the GameCube and Xbox) had to offer. The Xbox 360 and the PS3 split that market (pretty evenly, as it turns out). The Wii went elsewhere entirely, from marketing, to actual software produced on the platform. That market has gone elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 22:11
|
|
|
Across the past two pages there have been a lot of posts about the bad decisions that have gone into the Wii U from its specs to its 2013 holiday strategy being to target casual buyers and gift givers first and worrying about the core gamers later. The thing that is hurting Nintendo the most though is its price. With the previous generation we had Wii launched at $249.99, 360 at $399.99/299.99, and PS3 at $599.99. Think of the expectations Nintendo set by launching at $349.99/299.99. I really do think both Nintendo and Microsoft were completely blindsided by this E3. Neither seemed prepared for the PS4 to be BOTH $399.99 AND actually be here two weeks before black Friday 2013 AND have such a small form factor (something Nintendo consistently tries for). Now unless it suddenly gets an SNES level of constant great first party stuff it's no longer cheap enough or good enough to be a second console. I mean 2K isn't even putting its sports games on it anymore, that's crazy. I know they have some great games in the pipe like Bayonetta 2 and such but I really do think they gotta pull a 3DS and cut the price even more to get people to buy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 22:15
|
|
|
Paper Jam Dipper posted:I don't think they do. They need to find a way to cut the price of the console. The Gamecube was proof that Nintendo does not have the resources to go one on one against Sony and Microsoft. The Wii was all about sidestepping. The Wii U is doing neither. Subsidizing the price relies on people buying software for the system to make up for the loss. Getting more units out there at a loss isn't going to help if people only buy the system to play one or two titles per year.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 22:16
|
|
|
Aren't the vast, vast, vast majority of games designed for and around consoles to the point where, resolution and maybe extra filtering/aliasing aside, there's little added benefit when compared to a console version on a good HDTV? I know Crytek usually goes the extra mile, who else? I used to build and maintain my own machine for gaming, but it got to be too much. Now I'm a Mac and consoles guy. The software prices and sales sometime seduce me into the idea of going back, but it's a hell of an upfront investment, and I don't have the time to tweak and deal with crashes anymore.  On Nintendo related issues, I've accepted that the Wii U is going to be a supplement for the PS4/Xbox One. I'll play Super Mario 3D and Wonderful 101 to death, and then wait for Bayonetta and Donkey Kong, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
Astro Nut posted:Moreover, the cost of console development compared to assets a company has. Sony and Microsoft are large enough that they were not only able to buoy the costs of developing their respective game systems, but have said systems make losses for several years, because the rest of the companies simply make that much money. Nintendo, particularly given its usual pride, wouldn't be wanting to have to start again from scratch and try to rush something out that might compete performance wise against the XBOne and PS4, when they still have stock to clear and development costs to make back on one console already. And as they and many others are hoping for, they still believe Christmas 2013 gives them a potential shot of turning this around, thanks to a backlog of games and a cheaper price point. This is very true... Also, people seem to think that most systems sold = success, and everything else is a failure in console gaming. I am sure Nintendo is looking at it from the perspective of how to make the Wii U profitable and turn things around in that regards. While being the number one console would be nice like they did with the Wii, they are not anywhere near ready to take a risk and dump millions into R&D on a new console, dig themselves into another hole, and release something that might be more successful than the Wii U. It's like when companies factor in what costs more, recalling a defective product or being sued. They'll do whatever is most likely to make them the most profit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 22:28
|
|
|
fivegears4reverse posted:The GameCube was proof that they COULD make comparable hardware to the competition (it was a fantastic little box that I was aboard for day one, seriously it had some amazing looking games). More importantly, it was also proof that the greater part of the gaming market didn't care about Nintendo as much as they cared about Sony, at the time. The Gamecube had amazing games and had to be $99 to start selling competitively. That's what I meant on the Wii. Blue ocean succeeded. What people seem to forget is the Wii360/PSWii owners who purchased a Wii with their PS3/360 to still get their Mario fix. That was due to the low cost of the console. New Super Mario Bros. and Mario Kart Wii were games made for the traditional gamer market, not the blue ocean market. They also sold like crazy. It wasn't the middle aged mother buying a Wii for Wii Fit and Wii Sports buying Mario Kart. It was the people who were either Nintendo loyal in the first place or people who already owned a 360 or PS3. The Wii U isn't priced low enough for people to buy it with a PS4/XB1 so it ends up being a lot like the Gamecube. Only the market is much different and Nintendo isn't selling as much as they did with the Gamecube (plus they didn't have a launch window included Smash Bros. with the Wii U). Also, the Gamecube was at least on par with PS2 and 360. Wii U is weaker than the XB1/PS4. So it doesn't have the price and innovation advantage of the Wii nor does it have the graphical power or price point of the Gamecube.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 22:30
|
|
|
OLIVIAS WILDE RIDER posted:But posters in this thread are constantly saying about how Nintendo has infinite reserves of money? People say they have a sizable amount of cash, which I believe is true. That being said, spending it right now, when investor confidence is already low, would likely be a rather significant mistake.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 22:35
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:Neither seemed prepared for the PS4 to be BOTH $399.99 AND actually be here two weeks before black Friday 2013 AND have such a small form factor (something Nintendo consistently tries for). Isn't the PS4 twice the size of the WiiU? Lessee... PS4: 275x53x305mm, 2.8 kg. WiiU 172x45x267mm, 1.6 kg. So the WiiU is half the size and 3/5 the weight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 22:35
|
|
|
Bruceski posted:Isn't the PS4 twice the size of the WiiU? Twice the size of the Wii U is still fairly small for a system with way more than twice the performance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
Bruceski posted:Isn't the PS4 twice the size of the WiiU? Which, funny enough, doesnt help with its image issue. My sister first thought it was an upgraded Wii in the same sense as an Xbox 360 Elite.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 22:38
|
|
|
Considering that Nintendo is much smaller than it's competitors, doesn't like losing money on it's consoles, and loves innovation and trying new things, and also making money by republishing old things, and has consistently great handheld offerings, I wonder if the next step for them is a Vita/Vita TV type setup. They'd have to go back to a single screen tho.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 22:38
|
|
|
bloodysabbath posted:Aren't the vast, vast, vast majority of games designed for and around consoles to the point where, resolution and maybe extra filtering/aliasing aside, there's little added benefit when compared to a console version on a good HDTV? I know Crytek usually goes the extra mile, who else? Developing across generations isn't as easy as you make it out to be. You can't just take a PS4/Xbox One game and remove all the particle effects and have it run on the Wii U. Once the cross-generational games like Watch Dogs and Metal Gear Solid V stop coming out, and start focusing on the new hardware only, they'll be fully utilising the 8GB of RAM each console has (minus what's reserved for the OS), and the games simply won't be playable on old hardware. Last generation, we got games like Dead Rising: Off the Record, and the Call of Duty 4 port to the Wii, which were essentially built from the ground up to work on the old hardware. You didn't need an HDTV to tell that the shopping mall in Dead Rising wasn't exactly bursting with zombies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 22:42
|
|
|
Crowbear posted:Speaking of which, after nearly a year of speculation and investigation one of the tech guys on gaf finally confirmed the specs of the Wii U's GPU tonight. The other half of this "confirmation" was saying that the Wii U's specs were downgraded before launch, and Shin'en have stepped in and said that it's bullshit. So, basically, not "confirmed" at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
deadwing posted:The other half of this "confirmation" was saying that the Wii U's specs were downgraded before launch, and Shin'en have stepped in and said that it's bullshit. The dude straight up said that the downgrade thing was speculation on his part but the updated specs weren't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 22:48
|
|
|
That loving Sned posted:Developing across generations isn't as easy as you make it out to be. You can't just take a PS4/Xbox One game and remove all the particle effects and have it run on the Wii U. Once the cross-generational games like Watch Dogs and Metal Gear Solid V stop coming out, and start focusing on the new hardware only, they'll be fully utilising the 8GB of RAM each console has (minus what's reserved for the OS), and the games simply won't be playable on old hardware. I don't think they're talking cross-generation development, but rather, the supposed benefit of playing on a PC compared to a console. Ie, a game like Skyrim (maybe a bad example, so apologies in advance) gets designed to look as good as possible at the bare minimum (so an Xbox 360 or PS3 compared to a high end PC), and thus won't look that much better on a PC, beyond minor aesthetic stuff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 22:50
|
|
|
Bruceski posted:Isn't the PS4 twice the size of the WiiU? To clarify I meant when compared to previous Sony systems on launch, though handling them both in person, PS4 is extremely sleek compared to the Wii U and pretty much any other system I've handled. I really do think this is important considering how people STILL go up to Wii U kiosks regularly and think that it's just the tablet itself or if they notice the system under the bracket that holds the tablet (why Nintendo) they just think it's a Wii. PS4's design makes it clear that it's different, remember the Wii U's E3 debut?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 22:52
|
|
|
Crowbear posted:The dude straight up said that the downgrade thing was speculation on his part but the updated specs weren't. So you're trusting information on NeoGAF from a second-hand source that is confirmed at least half-bullshit because the first half of their information seems right to you?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 22:54
|
|
|
deadwing posted:So you're trusting information on NeoGAF from a second-hand source that is confirmed at least half-bullshit because the first half of their information seems right to you? Yes? The guy's apparently been posting there a long time and the other tech people seem to trust him, and a mod looked over his info and didn't ban him (for all the other poo poo that's wrong with neogaf, the mods don't gently caress around when it comes to leaks and alleged sources). And anyway, the two possible sets of specs that were discussed before this were the one he confirmed and another one in the same ballpark so it doesn't really make that big of a difference at the end of the day. The exact specs don't make a difference, the gap between the Wii U and the other consoles is massive either way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 22:59
|
|
|
fivegears4reverse posted:Some PC warriors have asked "WHY DO CONSOLES EVEN EXISTS WHEN PC GAMING IS SO MUCH BETTER?!" The answer is that it's cheaper to get into, and the hardware is simpler to operate (it's on! It's off! Disc in! Game downloaded! I'm playing!) and maintain (most people don't maintain their consoles, and they still work). Everyone is more or less on the same playing field. BF4 on your PS4 will look as good as BF4 on someone else' PS4. It will run the same. The only factor that could be considered unfair will be if they have a better connection to the server than you/are made host in a Peer-to-Peer connection. These are probably the biggest reasons why I don't bother with PC games. 1) I don't have to spend ~$2,000 for a gaming quality PC. Even then, you have to be constantly up on the latest hardware, which I haven't had time for since middle school. 2) The differences have gotten a lot less pronounced since the days where you'd have 56K guys on the same server as guys with cable but there's still a huge difference person to person in PC games. Playing on PSN, my MW3 is pretty much the same as the other guy. I don't have to religiously check the ping or bring my graphics settings down to minimal just to keep competitive. I want to just throw a game in play for an hour and then go about my other tasks. I don't want to spend hours tweaking my settings just so I can get the extra 5 FPS to get that shot off a fraction of a second earlier.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 23:03
|
|
|
Crowbear posted:Yes? The fact of the matter is that it's still all speculation. I've always believed that the Wii U is basically a 360+ in terms of power, it's not like I think it's holding some secret power inside. Just because some guy on the internet says "hey, this is true" without providing any proof to the public really doesn't hold any weight. The specs are no more confirmed now then they were a week ago.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 23:05
|
|
|
JetsGuy posted:These are probably the biggest reasons why I don't bother with PC games. Its about $800 to buy all necessary components for a quality gaming PC. However, if all you want to do is play lovely COD and counterstrike clones, you'd save way more money just buying a ps3 or xbox 360. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3525843 literally tells you what to buy at any point in time. Sticking with the sweet spot setup is usually about $800-$900 unless you already have a case and power supply, and will run most games at max settings with 60fps at 1080p for the next three to five years. The only time you have to tinker around with things is when you want to squeeze every last drop of quality or framerate out of a game to suit your preference.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 23:13
|
|
|
JetsGuy posted:These are probably the biggest reasons why I don't bother with PC games. FYI this is not what pc gaming is like.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
Believe you me, if PC gaming required you to tinker with settings for even ten minutes, I wouldn't be the huge PC gamer I am. You buy the game from Steam, you install it, you double click on the title, and you start playing. Maybe you change the resolution. Maybe you change the overall graphics settings from High to Medium or something. I really don't understand what's so hard. I don't know what half the poo poo is in the graphics settings menu. I know about aliasing and texture sharpness and draw distance. That might be it. Point is you don't need to know any of it. And if you do run into a problem, you do the same thing you do when you encounter a glitch in a console game. Just Google it and see what people say. If you can play console games, you can play PC games.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 23:33
|
|
|
JetsGuy posted:These are probably the biggest reasons why I don't bother with PC games. I think you need to take a deep breath and calm down. You can put together a PC better than a PS4 for like $900. My computer that I built 4 years ago for $1000 can play BF3 fine on medium settings. If you want over 80fps you can turn it to low. You haven't had to 'religiously check ping' since 1999 when you were playing quake on dialup. Seriously the level of apeshit rage that the mere mention of PC gaming inspires in some people is hilarious. Besides, what games do you think people play on their PCs anyways? Nobody plays AAA console titles and CoD on their PCs because they're often mediocre games with bad value and even worse ports to the PC. If you want to play the latest call of duty then buy a console. PC gaming is a big mad max style wasteland filled with insular gaming communities almost unrelated to each other. Most PC gamers are not in fact  15 year olds who buy pro gaming apparel.
icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Nov 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 23:34
|
|
|
CountingWizard posted:Its about $800 to buy all necessary components for a quality gaming PC. However, if all you want to do is play lovely COD and counterstrike clones, you'd save way more money just buying a ps3 or xbox 360. *not including monitor/OS, actual performance of newer games over time will not be at maximum details/resolution quote:http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3525843 literally tells you what to buy at any point in time. Sticking with the sweet spot setup is usually about $800-$900 unless you already have a case and power supply, and will run most games at max settings with 60fps at 1080p for the next three to five years. The only time you have to tinker around with things is when you want to squeeze every last drop of quality or framerate out of a game to suit your preference. Or you could buy a console for anywhere from 200 to 500 dollars, not have to worry about assembly, know that everyone else who buys the console will be under the same constraints as you, and know that the game is going to run without worrying about whatever issues arise because you had the poor luck of some sort of drivers issues (like the red screen of death currently afflicting AMD users on BF4), or the game simply not being optimized for your particular set up. Or the fact that by next year, your system will be even further out of date than it already is by following that thread's guidelines, and newer games will eventually force you to upgrade. If the argument here is that you're saving money by not spending on top of the line PC equipment, and that the graphics and resolution will be "good enough" for the average user, that is literally the same argument people make when they say they prefer consoles for gaming and don't care that there's something out there that is better, but costs more. Even going cheap on PC gaming still means you are paying more than you are on consoles without going into all the bullshit goal-post moving arguments that have already been discounted in this thread alone. I'm saying this as someone who LOVES gaming on PC and LOVES spending stupid amounts of money for all the wrong reasons for their gaming PC.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 23:42
|
|
|
Consoles can be quite pricey. xboxone - $499 + $60/yr for LIVE + $60 games + $60 for another controller + cost of a TV ps4 - $399 + $50/yr for PS+ + $60 games + $60 for another controller + cost of a TV Definitely some variance in there but it can add up overtime. Not saying a gaming quality PC is cheaper but edit: yeah gaming in general is expensive. If you're poor, get an Ouya Joink fucked around with this message at 00:03 on Nov 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 23:48
|
|
|
Joink posted:Consoles can be quite pricey. Gaming in general is more expensive than most people percieve, the problem here is that some folks feel they need to pretend that those who don't agree with their particular preferences are "chimping out" at the mere mention of this, and these folks also feel the need to downplay the costs of their chosen preferences while highlighting the costs of others.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 23:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 00:05 |
|
|
fivegears4reverse posted:Gaming in general is more expensive than most people percieve, the problem here is that some folks feel they need to pretend that those who don't agree with their particular preferences are "chimping out"
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 23:52
|
|