Char-Nobyl said:
Wolfram01 said:
Sure: http://www.videogamer.com/news/schafer_xbox_360_patches_cost_40k.html
Nothing against Tim Schafer, but are there any other sources? He casually mentions it, and then...nothing else.
Well, nothing official. Still, seems pretty outrageous. I guess it's the same/similar on all consoles, but at least on PC a dev can just throw a patch up on their website. Free minus the cost of the server space.
Wolfram01 said:
Those services are free in PS3, Wii, and PC... Xbox is the only one charging
Oh, yes, PS3. A living monument to the quality you get from a completely free service. The PC is already designed to connect to the internet, so that's a non-example, and the Wii...
Sorry, I couldn't stop laughing at the idea of playing online Wii games.
Honestly, I'm not sure what you mean about the PS3 jibe. Granted, I don't play a lot of PS3 games online, used to play a fair bit of CoD and Gran Turismo though as well as Demon's Souls, and didn't have any issues. I suppose the hacking thing was sucky but fortunately it didn't affect me.
Also, aren't all the consoles also designed to connect to the net? I mean they have ethernet ports just like a PC, and even include wireless which goes beyond most PCs. Basically, I don't see why exclude it from the list. Most PC game apps like Steam, Origin, Impulse, GFWL are totally free - although some of them suck some serious donkey you know what.
And well, the Wii... yeah... but, at least you can get Netflix on the Wii without a subscription to "Wii Live" lol.
Wolfram01 said:
Actually that's complete crap. I've used some huge overhaul mods on many games, in particular though STALKER: CoP and Skyrim, and the vast majority of mods do not and can not break because of the update. The exceptions are things like Skyrim Script Extender and SkyBoost which vastly improve game performance and the script library (Papyrus)
So they
sometimes don't break with updates? And when they do, they're for stuff that are invaluable to game performance?
Great. How comforting.
Well... sort of. I suppose I put that very badly. Most mods are things like new textures and meshes, or simple edits of in game items - things that are not changed on a patch to patch basis. The likelyhood of a mod that adds a new armor or weapon or house breaking the game are extremely low.
The two examples I listed are literally the only two I know of right now. Neither of them will break the game if they aren't working and so far have been pretty quick to get updated after a patch.
Wolfram01 said:
...Ok. I disagree with the value assessments as well as the implication of huge instability, but we'll roll with it. Not like Xboxs ever break and need replacing. Oh... right.
I'd prefer a device that breaks over one that breaks and steals my personal data. At least I don't have any chance of fault in the former. Besides, when did a company ever extend a blanket warranty over a computer?
Well I guess the obvious thing to state is that nobody is stealing person data if a PC dies. I assume you mean you lose all your stored photos and other personal effects if a hard drive dies, and yes that is unfortunate. There are ways of mitigating that, though, from using cloud storage to backing up your own stuff on an external drive or just using RAID 1 (mirrors data between multiple drives).
Depends on the PC, a lot of them like Dells and HPs have limited warranties for a couple years. But, if you build your own, you generally get pretty good coverage. Most of my parts came with 2-3 year warranties, some are lifetime. It's really not that different from a console, though. Once the warranty is up you gotta pay to send it out and get it fixed.
Wolfram01 said:
Implying that open source is the perfect world is vastly different than implying consoles shouldn't exist, but I'm not going to put words in his mouth
Sorry, I saw "In a perfect world everyone would buy games only for the pc" and understandably assumed that this would require the nonexistence of consoles. My mistake.
No, I realize that's what he said. I agree with you that it is a bad sentiment overall. However, I think he may have meant something a little different than what he
actually said. That was just my interpretation, like I said, I'm not trying to put words into his mouth.
Wolfram01 said:
Sad, the way monopolies work. Want to play DirectX video games on PC? You need Windows. I personally await the day games are made on open source code like OpenGL and I can simply run Ubuntu or whatever free OS.
You act like games have an incentive to be produced like that. The most recent high-profile game release without any disc protection (a different issue, but a big one for PC gaming) ended up being one of the most pirated games in history. And then the producers of
The Witcher 2 had the gall to cry that the internet was being mean to them by not buying their easily-downloaded game.
The internet (and the people who inhabit it) so consistently screw developers across the entertainment industry that it's sheer luck that a few of them still cater to us from time to time.
Well first off, no I don't. I know there's little to no reason for games to be made on opensource code. The only big release in a long time to be made on OpenGL is RAGE. Pretty high profile game, but it's a rare one. All I'm saying is I'd like for that to happen. Or, hell, even for Linux to be able to run DirectX (though I'm sure Microsoft would never allow it). I don't hate Win 7, I mostly hate that there are good alternative operating systems that I can not game on.
DRM is a different issue for sure, not one I really see the need to get into here. Personally I'm mostly ok with it. Mostly. Not entirely.
You're right that it's surprising devs still cater to the PC crowd sometimes. From a pure business standpoint, for a big dev they would lose out on potentially huge sales by not going multiplatform, but it's not like PC gaming isn't profitable. Plus like I alluded to with the $400-500 PC, the minimum specs for gaming aren't really changing much so people who buy decent PCs now will still be able to game in several years. Sadly, people on old tech right now are out of luck, but basically as we move forward more and more people will have capable machines.
Wolfram01 said:
Anyway, my personal opinion is that consoles are good. They get more people into gaming, and as they mature games get better across the board (including PC ports). It's pretty simple to get away from consoles, really. You can get gaming on a PC for as little as $400-500 (plus a monitor, but same goes for a console). Sure, it will be outdated compared to the most modern tech in a year as new GPUs and CPUs get released, but compared to the software it will not be struggling any more than when it was new. Games just aren't really getting any more demanding on the minimum specs side of things.
But I commute really regularly. That plan would require me to buy a second computer that I can't use anytime except when I'm at home.
Well... yeah, that's unfortunate. I mean you could transport a small form factor PC around, but it's for sure more hassle than a console that fits into a backpack.
Wolfram01 said:
Sure, on PC you might need to troubleshoot an issue here and there (10 minutes on Google... less time than you spend reading this forum. Or Facebook) but otherwise, keep you PC in good condition and it'll last a long time. I think the slight inconveniences are vastly, vastly out striped by the benefits - but of course not everyone feels that way and I'm ok with it.
Now
that is how you end an argument. Kudos, man. Not a lot of people can say something as reasonable as that while on the internet.
Um... thanks. I swear I'm not trying to be super argumentative here, rather just clear up (what I feel are) a few misconceptions.