Making PC gaming more idiot-proof to consume is not a bad thing. People who argue against this are retarded.
Printable View
Making PC gaming more idiot-proof to consume is not a bad thing. People who argue against this are retarded.
Hmm, what does "in decline" mean?
Are we talking nominal sales, market share sales (ie could be going down when nominal sales were going up -due to greater sales of other platforms), active installed user base, etc?
And are we including all x86/windows based laptop/all-in-one desktop/tablet/netbook/etc machines of fully-functional PC nature (ie running desktop OSs)? How about raw OEM parts sales (motherboards and such) vs completed consumer products? (ie are pre-built machines in decline, but not custom-built ones?)
People are buying comprehensive upgrades or replacements less often then they used to in any case, so sales doesn't say as much about actual active install base on its own. (and yes, the mobile -especially tablet- market is expanding, but that's a separate issue)
Video card sales being up proportionally to actual base system sales also says something about current trends of partial upgrades vs total upgrades. (particularly given some aspects of the current x86 CPU situation relative to both gaming and general desktop performance -both in terms of AMD's post-K10 problems, and to a lesser extent with Intel, actually -Sany Bridge was a pretty impressive jump ahead, but those who already upgraded to that haven't had that much incentive to go further, aside from users with low-end models being upgraded to higher end ones at used/sale prices -actual new prices haven't been dropping that much either . . . which is part of why the old 45 nm Athlons and Phenoms remained pretty decent deals for so long)
Yep. I totally agree . . . though if they cripple things for tweak-happy users it's kind of frustrating. And I don't mean hardware tweaks or expansion options or custom software patch/driver tweaks either, but more mundane things like comprehensive game configruation options and detail settings. (or at least decent detail options -something lacking on consoel games too, and something that applies to more than tweak-happy techies too -especially considering the number of people playing PS3 and 360 at SD resolutions early/mid gen, where native 480p rendering modes would have been pretty useful, among other things)
For old console games that DO have variable res/detail modes, I do find myself switching around as needed. (namely using high detail where acceptable, but dropping when it's not -some areas in Episode 1 Racer on N64 where high-detail is NOT playable)
I can see the benefits of this type of controller, one of which is rapid on the fly movements. The one thing I am not too crazy about is the lack of tactile sensation incorporated into the pad and the need to swipe to mimic the controls of a mouse. I'm waiting to see what consumers have to say when they actually get their hands on it.
I will freely confess to not having read all 19 pages of this thread so please forgive me if this was already discussed but.... Will the OS allow for non-steam gaming to take place (i.e. Linux-compatible GOG games, etc.)?
btw recently I read steam users were 7.5 million. their highest ever. what kind of pathetic number is that. this is supposed to become a force against console gaming?
I have no idea what limitations the Steam OS will have, but there's nothing stopping you from putting Windows or something on the HDD and using it for cat videos and hentai. It might as well be a "full-blown PC".
Now that they've finally unveiled these things, I don't see much of a point to this at all. How is this supposed to appeal to anyone besides existing PC gamers? I was really curious to see what would come from this, but Valve should've just built all the boxes themselves and limited the hardware to a small handful of different tiers and configurations. From the perspective of an average consumer, this will be just as expensive and inconvenient as a new PC.
Ehhhhhh, well, my assumption was that it would appeal to people who are fed up with consoles and aren't exactly well versed in building their own PCs. The budget models ($499) though should definitely catch the attention of some "weekend warrior dudebros", but I don't think the Steambox will ever snag a huge profit away from Sony, Microsoft, and to a lesser extent, Nintendo
There was some discussion about this on /v/ the other day and yeah, I definitely agree with it. If you're trying to appeal to a completely new audience (see "weekend warrior dudebro"), you need to make it at the very least "beginner friendly". Like "Model D will let you play Skyrim at 40 FPS on medium graphics settings"