I also liked it back when people weren't so concerned with multiplatforms. These days every game is available on every system, and it's entirely identical on them all, apart from a bit of graphics maybe. Back in the day, each console and PC had their entirely own sets of games, and even if you had many versions of a game on multiple consoles (or computers. Anyone here remember when PC had others to compete with?), they tended to be pretty distinctly different.
It actually doesn't even matter what you own anymore: they all run the same shit anyway, and probably with largely similar performance. But I suppose we're better off these days, instead of having to own a SNES, a Genesis, and an Amiga - I just think it used to be a lot more colourful and interesting back in the day.
Damn kids. No, nurse, I don't need my meds, take them away from me.
@Kitteh_On_A_Cloud it is true what you say about PCs generally being more backwards compatible than consoles ever were. In some case the PCs being able to PLAY console games through Emulators (I believe all, if not most Nintendo consoles were successfully emulated on the PC already) But in some cases that's also not true. Let's take for instance our mostly "beloved" Windows 8. There, point done. Nothing to discuss any more
(Keep also in mind that 64bit OS cannot and simply will never be able to run 16 bit programmed games. I bought such a game on GoG with promises of having it to work on Windows 7. Only that I got Win7 64 bit so *wrong answer buzzer* It didn't work)
I feel that this technical argument is somewhat less important than the fact that some gamers prefer PCs and others consoles, and everyone budgets to their own needs and limitations.
Obviously you can argue about economy and technical superiority. But we won't get a reasonable discussion by mixing personal preference into the equation.
A current generation console can play maybe a few hundred games. A modern-day PC can play tens, perhaps even hundreds of thousands: it doesn't need to worry about such things as backwards compatibility, but rather has the entire history of gaming available for it, only really barring the current-gen consoles.
Err, so why did I hear so many people talking about how they had trouble running BG on their modern computers? I realize that is a software issue, not a hardware one, but it's still a problem.
So they logically are still better investments than consoles, which will be replaced by another model in the course of four or five years. It's just a fact
It's a problem, although not insurmountable on a PC, usually.
But I don't think it's condescending to say that for some people, PC's can be intimidating. Even when it comes to just purchasing a PC, there are so many different brands, builds, processors, graphics cards, etc, that for people who don't either work in IT or regularly read magazines or websites, it can be hard to know what the best thing to buy is that actually meets their needs. Whereas a PS3 game, for example, will work the same on every PS3.
Err, so why did I hear so many people talking about how they had trouble running BG on their modern computers? I realize that is a software issue, not a hardware one, but it's still a problem.
There is a problem with some games, yes. But it's more than possible to get them to work in the end anyway, and most of the games work just fine without too much messing around.
Now, compare that with something like trying to make your XBox 360 run NES games.
As was mentioned earlier, an 'old' game can still be run on a PC, even though it still requires some work-arounds and messing around. A console with no backwards compatability is basically stuck running the games specifically made for it. I'm not a console gamer, so my knowledge on the subject is limited, though. Also, PCs also require upgrading, but the period of time usually is a lot longer, and you don't need to replace your PC like you have to do with a console. I often wonder what dedicated console gamers do with their old consoles. Sell them? Put them on top of each other to save space? I only own an old Nintendo64 (still in perfect condition up to today) and a PS3, which I rarely play on (usually it's my sister playing The Sims 3 on it). PCs on the other hand don't need such 'drastic' changes most of the time. A high-end PC can last for a long time, whereas a console is heavily dependent on its successors.
If you mean hard by running an HMDI/DVI cable and a USB extender (so you can hook up a wireless receptor to tape to the top of the TV to eliminate controller interference) under the floor to your living room tv, then yes....hooking up a computer to your living room tv, while it's still in your computer room is hard work. (Mine is currently set up like that and works fine, even got the utility so I can use my PS3 controllers to navigate my computer without having to bring a mouse or keyboard. Handy for playing roms mostly, since very few outright computer games offer couch co-op features, for obvious reasons, and playing roms on a monitor makes my head hurt.
(I have WAY too many game systems to have them all hooked up at once, so being able to have all my different games on one system is quite nice....I managed to knock it down to just my PC and PS3 hooked up).
No harder then setting up a console, just connecting wires, putting in the disc and doing what it says and playing. Lots of easy guides online as well. Most of my stuff is self taught anyway or something that I wanted to do and decided to search for some guidance in. Even for consoles there's little tips and tricks here and there to help with performance or to increase the enjoyment factor. It's all a matter of what you want to do with it.
With how accessible information is nowadays, all the way down to full video tutorials, if you can turn on a computer and access google or whatever your favorite search engine is...you have no excuse to complain about something being too complicated. It's not even hard or time consuming.
(My dad is HORRIBLY computer illiterate and couldn't even figure out how to turn one on for YEARS without a step by step written guide for how to do basic stuff....so...I do know my share of dealing with people like that)
I don't think it's a question of complaining about the challenge; it's a question of whether or not people want to go through all of that just to play some games. I know that I don't like the idea of ripping up the carpet just to run some cable (my apartment complex might not like it, for one thing), and setting up a Play Station or an Ex-Box or a Nine-Ten-Do (the art of nine and ten, I guess) is comparatively much more convenient. All I need to do is buy the box, put the box in front of my viewport, plug in the one HDMI cable that goes into the back of the console and run it the three feet to the slot on the side of the TV. There's no video tutorials needed, no step-by-step guides, no additional accessories. It's all in one box, which is what draws most people to it.
As soon as your alternative takes more than three steps (or those steps are more complex than "Plug A into B"), what you're proposing stops being a "better solution" and starts being a "project". True, the result may be superior, but that doesn't make it market-worthy. The majority of consumers want something that they can plug in and play immediately. That's why Apple does so well: they recognized a while ago that for most people, setting up the computer's hardware is the least fun part about owning a computer. So everything they sell works out-of-the-box.
I do think we're approaching a revolution that may make consoles obsolete (or at least force them to drastically change how they're designed), but it's still going to require a peripheral to make that transition friendly to the average consumer. You can play Angry Birds with a Roku, but that's still a console. It's just a much, much smaller one.
It's similar to the way I used to take cars and bikes apart with my friends way back, that's just on a larger scale.
I'm joking, just in case there was any doubt (not about the fact that I find it quite relaxing or exciting, I genuinely do). I know it's not feasible for everyone; either due to knowledge or finance.
Called it. Nearly all Xbone exclusives effectively require always online (And good internet) due to heavy reliance on Cloud processing to make up for wasting processor/ram on 3 OS and several other background features not related to gaming. They're split roughly between half won't run at all without access to the cloud, and the other half suffer severe stuttering and other performance issues. The 2nd half can technically be played, but it's no where near at a quality for the price they're gonna be charging.
Cross-platform titles are being purposely gimp'd down to sub-360 levels of processing so they can slip by, but people on PC or PS4 are gonna be suffering from lost potential.
That...was the final nail, imo. X-box doesn't really have any games announced I'm the slightest bit interested in, and this was just reinforcing my decision not to buy it at all. I mean hell, I only bought a 360 for Blue Dragon.
@ZanathKariashi: That...sounds shitty indeed... I kinda feel bad for how badly Microsoft is screwing themselves right now. I mean, it's just getting embarrassing at this point...
thanks for the information @zanathkariashi I had worried something like this would happen and now my new pc that I got an excellent processor for won't feel the full potential with that. at least graphics could get a little better on pc
There are three things the consoles do not offer but the PC does: * Dedicated servers. For consoles? Nope.avi * DRM-Free games (Thanks to GOG and others) * Free online gaming (Costs monthly on PS4 and XBO, even if you have to host with your own console)
As someone who cannot currently connect a console to the internet, (ISP doesn't provide service in my area, I log on here when I'm bored at work playing the "hurry up and wait game") Microsoft made a boycott of their new console from be pretty easy to justify. I think microsoft entered their little dreamworld where everyone has rainbow-powered high speed internet. Newsflash:
30% of us still can't even access it for one reason or another. (I happen to be in the 2% of people who aren't even allowed access because ISP's won't make profit running a line down my street)
I'd say that report is pretty skewed.....70% have broadband....but only about 30% of THAT 70% have GOOD broadband. The other other 70% have $%#^ internet like mine that is not only overpriced, it's so unstable you really can't do anything but browse. I have to use download resumers or torrents for all my downloading because they keep getting interrupted. And forget streaming or online gaming. I have good latency, but when you're DCing every 3-5 minutes, you can't enjoy anything like that. Or having your movies constantly pause because it can't load fast enough and they won't let you just start the video loading and come watch it later...nope...you can only load 30 seconds at a time when it's not actively playing.
Man, I hate it when I fail to read the report all the way through and find out I incorrectly stated data. I hate it even more when I find out I understated my own claim with meager data. But basically the same thing still stands - The required internet on the Xbox One was pretty much a slap in the face to everyone who still can't get reliable internet.
(ISP doesn't provide service in my area, I log on here when I'm bored at work playing the "hurry up and wait game")
For only the basic things you could try internet access via sattelite. It sucks for gaming, yes, and for very small sites, but it still provides access to all the basic things. 15 to 20 GB a month would suffice for browsing and updates. 30 or more if you do 360P Youtube regularly.
Internet via sattelite has a $%&# latency, yes, but is still good for all the basic things and should be available virtually everywhere.
Comments
It actually doesn't even matter what you own anymore: they all run the same shit anyway, and probably with largely similar performance. But I suppose we're better off these days, instead of having to own a SNES, a Genesis, and an Amiga - I just think it used to be a lot more colourful and interesting back in the day.
Damn kids. No, nurse, I don't need my meds, take them away from me.
Expensive, requires lots of set up.
Console in your living room:
Cheap in comparison, piss-easy to set up.
-----
We're all damn geeks/nerds in this forum so of course we don't mind all the set up. But keep in mind the average person doesn't want to do that.
But in some cases that's also not true. Let's take for instance our mostly "beloved" Windows 8. There, point done. Nothing to discuss any more
(Keep also in mind that 64bit OS cannot and simply will never be able to run 16 bit programmed games. I bought such a game on GoG with promises of having it to work on Windows 7. Only that I got Win7 64 bit so *wrong answer buzzer* It didn't work)
Obviously you can argue about economy and technical superiority. But we won't get a reasonable discussion by mixing personal preference into the equation.
http://www.retron5.net/
But I don't think it's condescending to say that for some people, PC's can be intimidating. Even when it comes to just purchasing a PC, there are so many different brands, builds, processors, graphics cards, etc, that for people who don't either work in IT or regularly read magazines or websites, it can be hard to know what the best thing to buy is that actually meets their needs. Whereas a PS3 game, for example, will work the same on every PS3.
Now, compare that with something like trying to make your XBox 360 run NES games.
If you mean hard by running an HMDI/DVI cable and a USB extender (so you can hook up a wireless receptor to tape to the top of the TV to eliminate controller interference) under the floor to your living room tv, then yes....hooking up a computer to your living room tv, while it's still in your computer room is hard work. (Mine is currently set up like that and works fine, even got the utility so I can use my PS3 controllers to navigate my computer without having to bring a mouse or keyboard. Handy for playing roms mostly, since very few outright computer games offer couch co-op features, for obvious reasons, and playing roms on a monitor makes my head hurt.
(I have WAY too many game systems to have them all hooked up at once, so being able to have all my different games on one system is quite nice....I managed to knock it down to just my PC and PS3 hooked up).
...I'm gonna go ahead and repeat myself: These steps all seem basic, even overlook-able, to geeks like us. To many it is far from basic.
With how accessible information is nowadays, all the way down to full video tutorials, if you can turn on a computer and access google or whatever your favorite search engine is...you have no excuse to complain about something being too complicated. It's not even hard or time consuming.
(My dad is HORRIBLY computer illiterate and couldn't even figure out how to turn one on for YEARS without a step by step written guide for how to do basic stuff....so...I do know my share of dealing with people like that)
As soon as your alternative takes more than three steps (or those steps are more complex than "Plug A into B"), what you're proposing stops being a "better solution" and starts being a "project". True, the result may be superior, but that doesn't make it market-worthy. The majority of consumers want something that they can plug in and play immediately. That's why Apple does so well: they recognized a while ago that for most people, setting up the computer's hardware is the least fun part about owning a computer. So everything they sell works out-of-the-box.
I do think we're approaching a revolution that may make consoles obsolete (or at least force them to drastically change how they're designed), but it's still going to require a peripheral to make that transition friendly to the average consumer. You can play Angry Birds with a Roku, but that's still a console. It's just a much, much smaller one.
What could possibly be more exciting than getting the latest and greatest (now about five or six months old), getting a new case, putting it together on the work bench, and finally throwing out the old ones?
It's similar to the way I used to take cars and bikes apart with my friends way back, that's just on a larger scale.
That reminds me of this article about DIY projects.
Cross-platform titles are being purposely gimp'd down to sub-360 levels of processing so they can slip by, but people on PC or PS4 are gonna be suffering from lost potential.
That...was the final nail, imo. X-box doesn't really have any games announced I'm the slightest bit interested in, and this was just reinforcing my decision not to buy it at all. I mean hell, I only bought a 360 for Blue Dragon.
(specifically the bit about the exclusives needing cloud processing)
There is nothing on Xbone remotely interesting. And I am a 360 owner.
* Dedicated servers. For consoles? Nope.avi
* DRM-Free games (Thanks to GOG and others)
* Free online gaming (Costs monthly on PS4 and XBO, even if you have to host with your own console)
http://www.sci-tech-today.com/news/30--Still-Without-Broadband-Internet/story.xhtml?story_id=12200EWVKKBQ
30% of us still can't even access it for one reason or another.
(I happen to be in the 2% of people who aren't even allowed access because ISP's won't make profit running a line down my street)
Man, I hate it when I fail to read the report all the way through and find out I incorrectly stated data. I hate it even more when I find out I understated my own claim with meager data. But basically the same thing still stands - The required internet on the Xbox One was pretty much a slap in the face to everyone who still can't get reliable internet.
Internet via sattelite has a $%&# latency, yes, but is still good for all the basic things and should be available virtually everywhere.