Well, the evolution of a machine that plays games to a multi-media device is quite an obvious one. Its simply the evolution of a device with limited use to one with a less limited one (Phone-> smartphone). Here is the thing though, such a device already exists, has similar power for the same price and is quite good at being a multi-media system, and even more. Its called a PC.
Well yeah. That's how it's been since the dawn of computers and consoles. The difference is that not everyone has a computer or laptop built for gaming anyway. PC's are a jack of all trades sort of deal. Most PC's on the market are going to focus on processing power of multiple programs. With a decent video card that can handle movies. Gaming is usually the last thing preset models focus on when on display. Unless of course you specifically ask for one.
On the sales thing, I got me Far Cry 2 special edition retail for PC from my local store for 1.50 euro back in early 2009. I got Chaos theory, L4D2, L4D 1 and CoH for 1 euro each. We dont have GameStop here, but retailers, especially ones ine europe have some great deals.
aaaaah, I'm in the US, so excuse me for my ignorance on European currency. Although one euro hardly sounds as much so it probably is a great deal. All I have around here is Gamestop. EB games...doesn't really count seeing as how they merged with Gamestop anyway.
So it goes both ways
. Also, remember, GoG and its sales and The Humble Bundle.
I already have Steam...and the number of accounts on my computer is starting to get a bit out of control. So I'm going to pass on GoG. I don't know about Humble Bundles...they just never really interested me.
The Exclusive thing is simple: These games were made ON a PC. Their expensive ass engine can do most of their work in porting for them. Most modders can create an options menu and even some light optimization in their free time. Besides, us PC players are not part of the "console war".
But again- with PC's one has to take into account that not everyone can run the game at max graphics, or even mid graphics. A lot of PC users have only the most basic things to make the machine run for a good few years and that's it. You cannot assume that slap on the highest graphics and be done with it. There is much more consideration for PC than you think. You have space to take into consideration. Computers range from a lot of space, to pack rat space. You have to consider the software model for the computer (Windows 7, Vista, Linux, Mac?) You have to take hardware into consideration, and even the components that make things up. That can be a lot of money to burn....unless your the type of person to say fuck you to all who don't meet a specific standard. People praise Crytek for the level of graphic fidelity on PC's. However I know for a fact that I'm not going to experience 20% of that on my current laptop. (providing it doesn't crash and burn the moment I boot it up anyway.)
Why get shafted when MS or Sony out-dick eachother.
I'm with Nintendo so I never get shafted....unless region-lock affects you (and if you go with Nintendo don't complain about only being Nintendo games. You knew this.) I tend to watch from the sidelines with a bag of popcorn. Of course Sony and Microsoft fans sure love to attempt to drag Nintendo into their nonsense.(That is not to say that Nintendo is devoid of flaws, but compared to M$ and Sony they are simply splinters.)
And last but not least, why LIMIT your game so badly.
I can hardly call my games limited. They are fully fleshed out and were designed within the parameters that devs deemed was not only reasonable in content to cost, but also budget wise. Unless of course your a piece of shit dev that takes stuff out of the game to charge for dlc. Then again that's no so much limiting but omitting certain parts of the games unless someone ponies up.
Very few PS3s will be left in 20 years. I dont think Sony will allow PS5 to do backwards-compatibility
Sony and Microsoft have been crying about doing BC since the dawn of the PS3 and Xbox360 era. It was only a matter of time before they could use the excuse of better hardware to justify not doing it anymore. Best part is that some people actually believed that shit.
Again, not a problem when you are with Nintendo since they do quite a good job with re releasing retro titles on the eshop and they always make sure to make their newest consoles BC for at least one generation. It kind of baffles and amuse me that Nintendo has always done backwards compatibility as a must-have feature for all of their systems since the Gameboy Color and not once did the fans have to resort to begging for such a feature. Yet for the other two they have to fight fans of this every step of the way.
,
so you must trust PC users will make emulators if you want to experience The Last of Us then. This, along with backwards compatibility and the close nature of the software... a baffling, profits first, gaming, art, longevity and care for the medium second...
By the time 30 years comes around playing the Last of Us on a PC then, will be the equivalent of playing Super Mario Bros. today.
However that is a lot of years between now and then. Who knows if the gaming industry is even still alive at that time. (and with the rate they are going now it doesn't look so pretty.)
As for price of hardware and its power. I agree, you cant beat a console on its launch in the Price/Performance category. In order to beat a PS4, I will have to fork out around 650 dollers. Maybe more, id need a sale on some components. BUT, here are some factors you need to take into account:
1. You NEED a PC. Its almost an essential thing. For work/school/multimedia/games/more stuff...
Everyone needs a PC. However as I've stated earlier for most people gaming on a PC is usually at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to priorities. Because again, the average consumer will simply buy a console for their gaming experience.
2. Next year, 2014, we PC users get DDR 4 Ram and GDDR6 GPU memory.
All PC users? Or just the PC gaming enthusiasts? Also, how many people who own a PC right now will even bother getting a new computer anyway. Especially if they just got one last year or two years ago. I'm only thinking of getting a new laptop with a back up harddrive because mines' right now is currently 7 years old and while it's working fine- I really don't want to risk the machine pooting out on me when I really need it.(college and all that.)
3. No developer/publisher can pull the plug on your game's old multiplayer mode. You can have unoficial servers for as long as you have players.
The truly multiplayer games I have right now are all on the computer anyway. So that is hardly a downside. Besides for console games I am more for the brink of extinction local multiplayer aspect. You know, a game that me and my friends can all play together in the same room.
Online multiplayer was never a big interest to me nor was it ever necessary in half the games it's shoehorned in.
4. Some mods are better than the vast majority of AAA games (Research And Development, M.I.S.E.R.Y., Minerva Metastasis etc). They arent just some small modification or a new clothes/nudity mode (though those too exist). They are new GAMES. That is a lot of value and it keeps a
5. Stronger community. See the STALKER community, the Skyrim one, the Half Life one. These are real communities even for Single player games that keep themselvs afloat on user created content (and of coarse, the base game being excellent).
I agree with you on the mods part. However me personally, I don't really use them. The only modes I kind of want to get right now (but have been too lazy to actually do it) are the female models of the TF2 characters. Only other mods I got was for Skyrim and it was the Moons to Elsewyr pack. Other than that...yeah. I don't really indulge all that much in mods. I guess I like vanilla games a lot. If the game is lacking in content, then I simply won't buy it anyway. If the mod community is good I will choose to get it on a PC like I did with the Elder Scrolls.
As for your remarks on graphics and their cost. Please, explain to me then, how the hell does Metro Last Light look so good? The only game that might be its graphical competitor right now is Crysis 3. Thats it. And they did it, with a small budget and the actual game was DAMN good as well ( best I played this year). Why does STALKER, a game from 2007 have better lightning and atmospheric effects than games today? Why is its AI and scale so much more impressive then what we see now?
Costs are due to marketing, voice actors and sometimes due to cutting and optimizing for weak hardware.
That is a result of developers who take their time to get to know the hardware they are working on and find shortcuts and secrets to get the most out of it.
I did a little research on the whole Metro game and it came onto the Xbox 360 as well. So I'm assuming that it looked as good as Crysis on there? Or are you talking about the PC version? I guess I'm just going to go with the console version.
Any dev worth their salt will always find a way to make the best out of a game within the parameters or limitations. the phrase "limitation breeds creativity" comes to mind.
Most devs now however are only content with looking at the numbers, throwing their kits down and saying "we can't work wit this" have they tried to work with it? You'd be surprised how you can get so much out of something supposedly inferior.
Super Mario Galaxy 1 and 2 were games simply packed with content and it is a pretty decent length game. All done on a system that is labelled as woefully inferior to it's other competitors.
The WiiU is stronger then both 360 and PS4 and already most of the devs, without even ACTUALLY doing anything for it have already written it off.
Yet after recently seeing the trailer for X that is coming out on the WiiU it shows just how much people can do with the system, and the game is supposedly
open world.
captcha: sunday funday- you are two days too late for that.