Neuromancer
Member
Another successful alexandros anti-console derail. Good work.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
IDG Estimates 34 million PS4 & XB1 sold through worldwide through April
- Thread starter ZhugeEX
- Start date
And Steam Machines is a monopoly.... led by Steam.
And I can't see a subsidized hardware price by Seam/NVDIA/ASUS/MSI/....
So I don't understand why Alexandros, and others, are so eager to see console dying. It's better the way it is now (except for Nintendo sadly).
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
(SIGH)
A steam machine is a specific type of PC running SteamOS.
SteamOS is linux running Steam big picture mode as its front end.
Anyone on the planet is capable of building a PC and putting SteamOs on it, therefore the manufacture of a Steam Machine is - by definition - not a a monopoly.
Linux is open source software and as such anyone on the planet can modify it in any way they wish and is therefore - by definition - not a monopoly.
A completely unmodified SteamOS is still - by default - capable of running any software made by anybody on the planet that is compiled to run on Linux, and is also therefore - by definition - not a monopoly.
Please.
Yes, because PC and SteamOS/Linux are completely relevant to a discussion about PS4/XB1 hardware estimate.
OT: If PS4's install base is approaching 2:1 with Xbox One, it might be hinted at @ E3. At this point it's not a question of if, but when (if it's not already). But I think it's going to happen in Q3 of CY2015.
Also Epic has the infamous ShadowRun VR demo up and running on Morpheus on PS4 @ 120hz ahead of E3.
http://vrfocus.com/archives/15335/e...tup-on-project-morpheus-reprojected-at-120hz/
OT: If PS4's install base is approaching 2:1 with Xbox One, it might be hinted at @ E3. At this point it's not a question of if, but when (if it's not already). But I think it's going to happen in Q3 of CY2015.
Also Epic has the infamous ShadowRun VR demo up and running on Morpheus on PS4 @ 120hz ahead of E3.
http://vrfocus.com/archives/15335/e...tup-on-project-morpheus-reprojected-at-120hz/
alexandros
Banned
Agreed. The good thing about open platforms like Linux is that noone, absolutely noone can lock them down. I firmly believe that an open console platform would be fantastic news for the consumer.
A windows based gaming environment, despite the Microsoft OS, is still a customizable open platform with all of the relevant game subplatforms available, multiple and numerous locations to buy games (so, competition - not walled garden) and free online and customizability beyond just looks. Anyone (sony, ms, yourself, valve, yadda yadda) can build a machine to certain spec and sell it like a steam machine or alpha if you will.
I mean this is what the xbone is, basically. But that's a walled garden with a customized, locked up version of Windows running through a hyper visor. The sony console is pretty much a standard PC as well, running a customized locked down FreeBSD as a walled garden. It almost seems outdated in concept at this point. A monopoly in a walled garden isn't a solution to the issue either.
I would say that's not really a derail when we consider that these forecasts are showing a pretty sizable decline in the market. What can engage a bigger market? Likely not "more of the same", because along with the decline in hardware there is a decline in software output. With that decline comes the removal of software that appeals to a wider market beyond the young male, of which nobody seems to be serving well enough in the console space. Those who are trying or did try (ms with k2, Nintendo) have been rejected through poor execution. The open markets have software that appeals far more to the wider market that's vacated the retail console space. It's an idea... not one that would necessarily work to ignite the mass market but it's an idea.
It's certainly better for us gamers at the very least, than to have 2 PCs that are closed off because reasons. Reasons being "I want a cut".
When we fully transition to the games as a service model at some point in the future, who knows what the market is going to look like and who will be involved in it.
Boombloxer
Member
And here we go again.
I understand where you're coming from, but this is typically why/how people object to certain platforms.
People didn't object to the Wii's success, for instance, just because they hated Nintendo and wanted them to die. Maybe some of the most childish did, but not most of the objectors. Instead, most objected to what the Wii represented philosophically; the approach to gaming it espoused and the types of games it pushed to the forefront.
Similarly, many people object to mobile games on similar grounds. Not because they just hate Google and want them to die, but because they don't like the design philosophy behind Android (or iOS or Facebook etc. etc.) games.
I'm not saying that this can't be a discussion in itself, but it's important to point out that your position is not unique. Many times what we casually refer to as "platform wars" are really more like "philosophy wars," where people squabble over what they hope will be the future of game design. People hate social games or hate cinematic games or hate AAA gaming in general, and dislike platforms that espouse these types of games.
So you're suggesting it's great news for consoles to lose relevance in a console sales thread and don't see the problem with it? Everyone who knows your post history will know that you have said you will never buy consoles. That's good for you, but there is currently still a market for console gamers and no matter how much you want it to happen, Steam Machines are never going to be the next big thing. So keep dreaming.
Yep, Steam Machines will most likely be ridiculously overpriced. No idea why some people want to see consoles dying just for Steam Machines to take over. Reeks of favoritism to me.
alexandros
Banned
Ah, I get it, thanks! So in the context of this particular thread, was my original post indeed platform wars-y? I didn't think so, it seemed relevant to the general discussion but please let me know. In any case I greatly appreciate the explanation.
I'm not sure I agree with that; Steam machines are different. If your issue with the Playstation and Wii U isn't that they are made by Sony or Nintendo but they are closed ecosystems, then the Steam Machine solves that problem. You can install entirely different ecosystems on it if you choose, and even remove Steam entirely, if you choose. Some people are philosophically opposed to closed ecosystems.
However, 1) it's possible to not find a particular design philosophy appealing to you and still be okay with it existing, and 2) this really is not different than people who hate on mobile, as an example. I don't think most people hate mobile because Google and Apple are evil and must be destroyed (although I'm sure it happens sometimes), it's typically because people object philosophically to the idea of social and casual games, and want to see them go away so that the market focus more exclusively on game design (and hardware design) they happen to personally like.
I think the easiest way to solve the problem would be to couch your position as personal preference rather than universally accepted benefit.
It's totally fine to prefer open platforms, just as it's totally fine to prefer social/mobile gaming. It gets complicated if you say something like "clearly social games are better, so hopefully all other platforms and design philosophies fail so that all games in the future are mobile/social." I don't personally like closed platforms that much, either, but they offer different benefits and some people prefer those, and that's fine.
alexandros
Banned
Easily done, thanks again.
Yeah, I can see that. Very well written post by the way. I myself don't really like mobile games because they just seem like a cheap knock off of "real games", although I do play games on my phone in my spare time. But it's not like I want mobile gaming to die because it is not "true gaming" or anything. A platform shouldn't have to die so another can take its place. That's my point.
I agree. I think the extreme example of the behavior we're trying to avoid can be exemplified by a former games journalist, Ryan O'Donnel, host of the 1up show. He really, really did not like the Wii, and clearly objected to it on fundamental, philosophical grounds. Presumably he feels the same way about mobile, but mobile hadn't risen to prominence when 1up died. In one of the 1up show episodes, he said this, as a direct quote:
"I'm a hardcore gamer. I don't care about the non-hardcore gamers. I used to think I did, I used to think I wanted to expand the market, but Nintendo has proved to me that that's not what I want. I want game companies to be making games for me in the genres that I like."
The idea here is something I think we all have experienced at some point, or at least I have -- obviously it would be great on a selfish level if everything was focused entirely on me and my tastes. I'm primarily a strategy genre gamer, so it would be great for me personally if all that money spent making stupid dumb lame games for jerks like GTA and Elder Scrolls were instead spent on deep, satisfying strategy games I had more interest in. What I'm asking everyone to do (not just me and you and Alex) is to curb this impulse, and recognize that different people have different tastes and that the world doesn't revolve around our needs.
Exactly this. There should be something for everyone in the market. We may not like it, but wishing that it will die so the platform we love can take it over is ridiculous.
Melchiah
Member
Tha goes for game genres as well. Just because some people hate, say, cinematic games, and wish them to fail, doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.
Yep, for example, I'm not a big fan of Fifa games, but I'm not gonna wish that they die in a fire or anything.
Absolutely agree. I see divides between multiplayer/single player, story driven / not story driven, AAA games or indie games, and so forth -- you get people with very strong positions who want one or the other to die with some frequency.
And it's typically driven by selfishness: for instance, let's say I love low budget multiplayer/social games, so I hope single player story driven AAA games go away so that more companies cater to me. That's the idea, at least.
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
If you understand that open source standards are literally the exact opposite of a monopoly, why on earth would you even make a comparison to a monopoly in the first place?
Its like saying, sure deserts are too dry, but you know whats really dry? An ocean.
The easier (and less sarcastic) way to explain what MrNyarlathotep is talking about would be this:
Let's say you buy a PS4 and find that you don't like PSN. You don't like having to pay for multiplayer, for instance. Or you think their sales are not sufficient. Or you hate the aesthetic design. For whatever reason, you don't like it. So, what are your options? The option is to buy a whole new device, basically. You don't get to choose another ecosystem to work in; if you own a Playstation 4, you must do business with PSN if you are going to do any business at all.
By contrast, consider Steam machines. Let's say you buy a Steam machine and find you don't like Steam. You don't like their sales, or the aesthetic, or whatever. What are your options then? Well, there are quite a few. You can install a separate store and use both if you'd like. Or you can uninstall SteamOS entirely. You can only do business with Origin, if you'd prefer. Or Good Old Games. Those options are available to you, should Steam prove unsatisfactory for your personal needs.
This is a big difference, and it is why Playstation (or Wii U or Xbox) are closed and monopolistic while Steam is not. This doesn't mean you can't like Playstation or Wii U or Xbox; you can. Maybe you find the benefits of a closed/monopoly ecosystem (most obviously convenience and simplicity) outweigh the drawbacks for your personal needs. That's fine, but saying "I prefer a closed ecosystem for my personal needs" is different than saying "there is no difference between Steam and PSN." There is an inarguable difference, but that doesn't mean you have to prefer the strengths of Steam to the strengths of PSN.
Let's say you buy a PS4 and find that you don't like PSN. You don't like having to pay for multiplayer, for instance. Or you think their sales are not sufficient. Or you hate the aesthetic design. For whatever reason, you don't like it. So, what are your options? The option is to buy a whole new device, basically. You don't get to choose another ecosystem to work in; if you own a Playstation 4, you must do business with PSN if you are going to do any business at all.
By contrast, consider Steam machines. Let's say you buy a Steam machine and find you don't like Steam. You don't like their sales, or the aesthetic, or whatever. What are your options then? Well, there are quite a few. You can install a separate store and use both if you'd like. Or you can uninstall SteamOS entirely. You can only do business with Origin, if you'd prefer. Or Good Old Games. Those options are available to you, should Steam prove unsatisfactory for your personal needs.
This is a big difference, and it is why Playstation (or Wii U or Xbox) are closed and monopolistic while Steam is not. This doesn't mean you can't like Playstation or Wii U or Xbox; you can. Maybe you find the benefits of a closed/monopoly ecosystem (most obviously convenience and simplicity) outweigh the drawbacks for your personal needs. That's fine, but saying "I prefer a closed ecosystem for my personal needs" is different than saying "there is no difference between Steam and PSN." There is an inarguable difference, but that doesn't mean you have to prefer the strengths of Steam to the strengths of PSN.
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
Just to be clear, I'm not saying one is inherently better than the other; open versus closed have entire laundry lists of pros and cons on either side.
Common cons with open in a gaming context are piracy, cheating, and malware.
Common cons with open in a gaming context are piracy, cheating, and malware.
Melchiah
Member
Same here. I don't generally like platformers, sports or 2D retro games, but I don't think they shouldn't be made for those who enjoy them.
The MP portion could become more of a problem, if a trend dictates that it should be there, even if it's not necessarily needed, and its development resources are taken from the SP portion. As far as I know, that's what happened with Resistance 2's lacking campaign, and alternatively, in the 3rd entry they concentrated on the SP campaign on the expense of the MP side. It's arguable which approach was better. I tend to incline towards the latter.
I personally dread, that something similar could happen with more games being turned towards open world, on the expense of the campaign's quality, because that approach generally seems to receive better scores in reviews. Just like some reviewers reduced points last gen, when a FPS/TPS didn't have a co-op and other online modes tacked on. Games shouldn't be made according to the same mold.
Herman Cain
Banned
Sorry no offense but this comes of as complete nonsense. Mario Kart Wii is not a core game, it's a casual game, it was made from the ground up with casuasl in mind, there is no lose definition, do you not know what a core game is? it's arguable Brawl is a core game, considering the shift in focus, but MKwii is not deniable.
Also there is no lose term for cinemeatic, the vast majority of PS moving hardware are not cinematic, it's not a major factor really until you look at the PS2./
Mario Kart as a franchise is quite literally older than Playstation as a brand. Nintendo didn't even know the concept of a "casual" user when they designed Mario Kart, let alone consciously target them.
It's a loose definition, which is fine, but you need to apply this method consistently. For instance, there very much are loose definitions of cinematic: games which focus on graphics, presentation and (sometimes) story.
CosmicQueso
Member
Well, the 50m number is actually quoted as "over 50m"... so add a few million to that 50m.
But yeah, like I said, IDG runs a conservative console forecast. Looks like they're saying 12-14m for the rest of the year. Last year over the May-Dec period it was more like 19m.
It's conservative, but feasible. I don't think it's a likely scenario, which means upside to those assumptions and higher potential SW sales.
U<10 LTD
serversurfer
Member
Just to get back on topic for a minute here, can anyone explain this to me?
Edit: D'oh! Reading reply now. lol
Edit2: Mostly, I'm asking when Wii U is and isn't being included. So it's not a part of the 34M, but it is a part of the 50M? =/
It's got me very confused. Do we have a ballpark on LTD for Wii U?
Edit: D'oh! Reading reply now. lol
Edit2: Mostly, I'm asking when Wii U is and isn't being included. So it's not a part of the 34M, but it is a part of the 50M? =/
Herman Cain
Banned
Ah yes they did, they just didn't call them that directly back then. That and kids were the primary targets for Nintendo, this is why they left a huge void the Genesis and later PS took up.
Also this is moving goal posts anyway, we are talking NOW, MArio Kart WII, which is a casual game, when it came out, and still is now.
As for cinmatic there are no lose definitions, especially back then and 2 gens ago, it was basically cinematic through a lot of story telling and Visual Animation, those types of games were not PS1 best sellers to a high impact. However, on the PS2, with GTA, FFX, KH, etc. yes those games had more of an impact.
Of course, I get what you're trying to say.
Mario Kart isn't considered casual by most. You're welcome to think so, but mostly because the definition of "casual" is broad to begin with. I think GTA is casual, for instance, but a lot of people seem to disagree with that.
Cthulhu_Steev
Member
Utter rubbish.
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
ITT I learnt Kingdom Hearts is a cinematic game
Herman Cain
Banned
No you are just revising history (Please remember Nintendo=/=Third parties on NES and SNES)
Why do you think that huge void was there for the Genesis to pick up? (Especially in NA?) a lot of the core games were on Genesis, or games without an easy acess rate, while TP are for or against this on both consoles, it's less so on Genesis, and Nintendo games pretty much sold their consoles. While TP did much more for console sales on genesis.
Yes it is. What revision are you doing here? Casual has never had anything to do with just broad alone it's also broad+accessibility, and that's exactly what mario kart is, designed to be easy accessible, heck, they pretty much have things in the game that break whatever skill curve the game has, so the casuals can enjoy the game better.
GTA depends. Yes I do agree GTA has become a very casual game, but only post-San Andreas, with GTA SA is not a game many casuals will be finishing (especially since youc an't even acess all of the map without going through a good portion of SP.)
But after that sure, I agree GTA is casual. And since IV I have rarely heard anybody say it isn't.
Of course we can agree to disagree, but MKwii is pretty much the definition of casual. Not seeing many deny that.
Hmmm.
1. Heavy cutscene usages
2. Heavy dialogue usage.
3. Attacks that are basically animations with no gameplay. Along with easy quick/limited execution
4. Camera angles.
5. Sequel further amplifies this and adds Qte's heavily.
Seems right to me.
That's your definition, and it's still vague. Call of Duty is easy to play and also has broad appeal; is that casual?
It's important that you realize that you are certain you know exactly what casual means (and that your definition is unquestionably the right one), when that isn't the case.
I think they all are, but I can imagine someone saying otherwise. And that's my point; these words are very vaguely defined.
Herman Cain
Banned
Yes it is and my definition is correct, it is literally combining Casual "consuemr wise" with gamer, it is correct definition. COD is a casual game, for several games now, they intentional made the game to be easy to access and to basically restrict the skill curve, they intentionally integrated features, for the benefit of a player who probably won't be playing a game like Team Fortress 2.
It's about accessibility and commitment (basically both terms under the same umbrella) you are vaguely reducing the actual meaning of accessibility by only saying "easy to play" which doesn't mean anything.
Again you can agree to disagree, but Mario Kart Wii is pretty much a casual game made for casuals, on a system that Nintendo made to grab casuals, and yes COD is casual, and again, like GTA post SA, I have not hear anyone say otherwise outside you on this board.
But again, some people view it differently.
They really aren't people just decide to change the defintions based on the views instead of the actual combination of the words presented. GTA SA is not a casual game, GTA SA is a game with tons of things to keep track of pretty big difficulty spikes, and quiet a bit of game punishes button mashing with guns, and you can't mindlessly roam around the map without playing through that same situation I just stated.
GTA 1, another game where this doesn't work.
No. Anyone who has played even an hour of kingdom hearts can tell you it is not a cinematic game. You could not be more wrong. It's a JRPG through and through. One that utilizes realtime combat mechanics but a JRPG nonetheless. Frankly I cannot believe anyone would actually dispute that outside of absolute ignorance. I guessing you've never played Kingdom Hearts. If so kindly stop making blanket statements about something you know absolutely nothing about.
Okay, can you show me that definition in the dictionary then? Just a link would be nice, thanks. I won't be picky; I'm willing to listen to Mirriam-Webster or Oxford or Dictionary.com or any other established source.
Herman Cain
Banned
You seem to have no idea what you're talking about. There's a different between Cinematic type of game game (FFVII, FFX, Indigo, Shemue, etc.)
and the modern just Cinematic game (Uncharted, Beyond, Walking dead etc.)
It seems more likely that you jumped into a conversation without reading everything so you read responses out of the context they were in.
Hah! So basically you are defining cinematic as something nobody else does and then telling everyone else they are wrong when they disagree. I know of nobody who would call FFVII or FFX cinematic games. Your redefining a term contrary to everyone else's understanding does not change the agreed upon definition of that term. Adjust your lexicon to reflect the rest of your peers and stop insisting everyone else adapts yours.
CosmicQueso
Member
*over* 50m.
And yes, that's the way the math looks to me. Without knowing the intricacies of their model, cannot say it's 100% confirmed to be the case, however.
I really wish you'd be more pleasant in your conversational manner given just how much you're posting.
Herman Cain
Banned
Latter one:
Casual gamer would be an individual who plays video games without really being committed, frequency of flowing games news etc. is probably not what they are going to do. They are not really usually the ones to go and get the Platnium trophy in BloodBorne., but they'll play COD with friends in laid back environment. It may also be possible that it's the only game they play.
So how do you make games catered to this audience? You look at them as casual. You make a game for example, like Mario Kart Wii, you take a look at the casual definition, the casual gamer, you make the game less pressuring to play, you remove definite win loss conditions with certain items removing tension, you use simple gameplay and control design lowering thought requirements. Etc.
Herman Cain
Banned
Ok so what you basically just said is Opiate is wrong because he also labeled FFVII cinematic style games so I guess he's wrong as well? Again you jumped into a conversation without looking at the context.
Also:
Why is rexnovis allowed to use that tone but I'm not (it's actually worse)? I'll still take your advice of course, I'm not trying to sound mean.
Are you sure that Mario Kart gamers are all not "committed," or do not play frequently? Your definition doesn't seem to fit your paradigm; I would use that definition to support my argument, not yours. Further, lots of Farmville players (for instance) are deeply committed, and play (or played) the game for enormous quantities of time. Does that make Farmville not casual?
It's not just the tone; it's also your absolute conviction of your correctness. You really should not be so sure of your own correctness, particularly when you link to dictionary definitions which refute your argument.
Did you actually read my comment? Because at this point I'm assuming you didn't. There's simply no other explanation for you reading my comment as having ANYTHING to do with your definition of casual games. You called these games Cinematic. That has an understood definition in the context of gaming. A definition that in no way shape or form is indicative of the games you mentioned. So either you have no understanding of what the commonly accepted definition of "cinematic game" is or you are completely ignorant of the games in question and are thus not equipped with the knowledge necessary to attribute such a label to them.
Here you are telling everyone else what games are and are not cinematic or casual and then telling everyone else they are wrong or ignorant when they object when it is your definition/understanding of these terms that flies in the face of the generally accepted meaning. I suggest you humble yourself and stop with the holier than thou attitude.
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
Are you actually saying here that the SNES was popular based on first party casual titles alone, and third parties didn't really get a look in?
While you're accusing other people of revisionist history?
I'm not going to sit down and debate the likelihood of government-sanctioned nanobots sterilising the population through flouride in our drinking water with the guy wearing a tinfoil hat who lives under a bridge, but not entering into debate with a person whose views are pretty out there doesn't correspondingly make their views correct.
Herman Cain
Banned
I'm sure the majority of Mario kart Wii players that aren't hardcore probably weren't trying to master tracks, using stats to their advantage, participating on online tournaments on the net, etc. I'm sure they were also not trying to go up the skill curve tobe the super best Mario kart racer liek some people did when they wanted to get good at brawl.
I also am pretty sure that Mario Kart Wii Players were not frequently replaying/playing the game that often. Especially in the casual audience. Like I said, it doesn't seem like those type of gamers are going to be trying to master cars and tracks, and trying to use items strategically in some tournaments or something. They play it with friends, or by themselves occasionally, dabble with the online, and that's about it.
It's kind of like COD. They play it with friends, they probably won't be replaying it a few months later or when the new one comes out (it is yearly COD) if they do it usually probably won't be to get all the achievements, or to become super good at the metagame.
alexandros
Banned
You seriously misunderstood my point. I am all for having something for everyone in the market. Supporting open platforms isn't about killing consoles and forcing everyone to buy a gaming PC. There is nothing about the console experience that can't be replicated on a common base platform. That is what I want: an open, common base platform.
I would be very surprised if Mario Kart Wii did not have higher replay rates than something like God of War, for instance, which is generally considered "hardcore." The evidence for this would be legs; Mario Kart typically has very long legs, which is indicative that a game (and its community) is still active. That correlation is not absolute, but it's a good rule of thumb absent any other confirmatory evidence.
I think at this point being closed is an essential part of the definition of a "console." If "console" just means "thing under your tv," then in theory a phone that wirelessly connects to your TV (as many Android phones already do) can technically be considered a console, but it's not really what we're talking about here.
A system like a Steam machine which is open and for which the hardware is not standardized and which has a recommended controller but which is hardly necessary (and which some games may not support even when bought from Steam itself) is not really what people mean when they say "console." The only feature they clearly share in common with a Playstation at that point is that both play games and both can plug in to your television.