Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Hero_Swe on March 16, 2011, 05:06:29 am
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdWnNgTLbKw&feature=feedf
There's not much I can add here except that he's both right and wrong, but I want to hear your opinion on his video and the situation as a whole
-
*Yawn*
Nothing new there, move along. Just some pointless nerd rage that is missing the point completely.
Yes, modding, and the fact that PC games devalue faster than their console equivalents, and that PC hardware can be more powerful than a console are points in the PC's favour.
What he misses is the fact that Consoles, just by virtue of being more locked down, and not being as powerful, are also more convenient for the end user. For example, I payed the full retail price for the PS2 on its launch day. I could have gotten me a moderately powerful PC for the same money. It still works. I got 10+ years of service out of it, which is just staggering.
I highly doubt the same would have been true of the PC.
The reason why Consoles are around, and why they will continue to stay around, is because they're just easier to set up, maintain, and handle than any PC ever created. For that convenience, you lose a bit of freedom. That's just the way it works.
Can't we all just be gamers and enjoy gaming, instead of tying ourselves down in holy wars about what platform we use for gaming?
-
*Yawn*
Nothing new there, move along. Just some pointless nerd rage that is missing the point completely.
Yes, modding, and the fact that PC games devalue faster than their console equivalents, and that PC hardware can be more powerful than a console are points in the PC's favour.
What he misses is the fact that Consoles, just by virtue of being more locked down, and not being as powerful, are also more convenient for the end user. For example, I payed the full retail price for the PS2 on its launch day. I could have gotten me a moderately powerful PC for the same money. It still works. I got 10+ years of service out of it, which is just staggering.
I highly doubt the same would have been true of the PC.
Can't we all just be gamers and enjoy gaming, instead of tying ourselves down in holy wars about what platform we use for gaming?
:yes:
as a former PC only guy i have to agree with this, the venom in PC vs console arguments is pointless rage. There is nothing like kicking ass in split screen MW2, but at same time if it wernt for the flexibility of the PC we wouldn't even have the HLP
-
im tending to lean to open source consoles as a happy medium. there are certain advantages to gaming oriented architectures. speed, simplicity, less bloat, cheaper, potential for portability, etc. an open source console would have all the advantages of a pc, would be moddable, games (and the system itself) would be left open source for further improvement by users. there are currently open sourced game hardware on the market (though in limited circulation, due to the cost of small scale production runs). last thing that i saw was on par with your typical 16 bit era gaming system (i made a thread in gaming discussion that everyone seemed to ignore). closed source gaming is closed source gaming regardless of platform.
-
Can't we all just be gamers and enjoy gaming, instead of tying ourselves down in holy wars about what platform we use for gaming?
:yes:
-
Can't we all just be gamers and enjoy gaming, instead of tying ourselves down in holy wars about what platform we use for gaming?
And another :yes:
-
Can't we all just be gamers and enjoy gaming, instead of tying ourselves down in holy wars about what platform we use for gaming?
And another :yes:
And yet another :yes:. I shall be sure to quote this next time somebody makes a stupid comment about Windows 98. :p
-
Why did it jump from Windows 98 to 2000?
-
I dunno, if you still use Windows 98 for gaming, you're waaaaaaaaaaay ****ing behind--unless the game itself requires a pure Win 9x environment.
:trollface.jpg:
-
Can't we all just be gamers and enjoy gaming, instead of tying ourselves down in holy wars about what platform we use for gaming?
And another :yes:
Indeed. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go start Metroid Prime 3 on the Wii, and I'll probably follow that up with some Braid on Steam.
-
windows 98 was the ****
how you interpret that statement is entirely up to you
-
im tending to lean to open source consoles as a happy medium. there are certain advantages to gaming oriented architectures. speed, simplicity, less bloat, cheaper, potential for portability, etc. an open source console would have all the advantages of a pc, would be moddable, games (and the system itself) would be left open source for further improvement by users. there are currently open sourced game hardware on the market (though in limited circulation, due to the cost of small scale production runs). last thing that i saw was on par with your typical 16 bit era gaming system (i made a thread in gaming discussion that everyone seemed to ignore). closed source gaming is closed source gaming regardless of platform.
If consoles were open source then it would not be possible to hide the fact that they are little else than DRM ridden crappy computers with outdated hardware anymore.
Point in case: If consoles were truly open source... you could emulate any given console that is out today on a midrange PC without even having it break a sweat. The only reason you can not, is proprietary operating systems and DRM.
If consoles were open source, then one moderately powerful computer would be enough to emulate any platform and play any game that is out... and companies couldn't try to force you to buy a piece of DRM ridden crap hardware at inflated prices anymore, to play the "exclusive games" of their bought-out developers. (Which is effectively what anyone who buys a console supports... more "exclusive games" for single platforms. That's how business works...)
Sadly... that's really all their is to it. That... and effective marketing.
-
So basically Macs should not exist? Good to know.
-
So basically Macs should not exist? Good to know.
Pretty much.
If anything Apple abuses their hold on the market even more than the Console Crowd - but that is a different topic for a different thread i'd say.
Don't take me wrong either... I'm not singing uncritical praise for Microsoft Windows here. Compared to excessive market power abuse and exploitation of Apple and most of the Console Crowd however, it is definitely the lesser evil right now.
-
If consoles were open source then it would not be possible to hide the fact that they are little else than DRM ridden crappy computers with outdated hardware anymore.
And here I present a case study of everything that is wrong with the mindset that brought us the marvellous video that started this thread. First, Mikes demonstrates a remarkable misunderstanding of the way current DRM works. To wit, DRM and open source are utterly incompatible (insofar as DRM mechanisms on consoles rely on having an unbroken chain of trust from the game manufacturer to the console hardware. Once you open source that, that trust doesn't exist anymore).
Now, another point raised is crappy hardware. More on that later, but let me ask you this. Would I be able to get a gaming PC as powerful and as hassle-free as a console for the same price? Not talking about games yet, just about the hardware. If you can point me to a PC that is commonly available, that is guaranteed to work out of the box, and that is easy and simple for people with little to know PC background to set up and operate, it would be appreciated. Remember, the one big advantage Consoles have is that they just work out of the box. You unpack them, hook them up to your TV (and internet connection), push the power button, make some initial adjustments, and you're done. Assuming you treat the hardware well, you can reasonably expect several years of operation without ever having to go into the nuts and bolts of things, as you inevitably would be forced to do with a PC.
Not to mention that you won't have to pay for new hardware for the console's entire lifetime (which usually is 6+ years), while still getting a constant stream of new games that are guaranteed to work on your chosen piece of kit.
Point in case: If consoles were truly open source... you could emulate any given console that is out today on a midrange PC without even having it break a sweat. The only reason you can not, is proprietary operating systems and DRM.
Again, wrong. While on paper the hardware seems less powerful than current PCs, I rather doubt that modern CPUs have the power to run a hardware emulation of (for example) the cell chip in the PS3. Emulating a completely different hardware layout is hard.
Also, custom hardware kinda dictates that you'll have to use a custom OS. Microsoft got around that for the original XBox (which, for all intents and purposes, was an industry-spec x86 PC with custom graphics hardware and a heavily cut down OS geared for maximum performance). In short, Console OS's are built to spec, to perform extremely well in a narrowly defined set of situations. getting the same kind of performance out of a general-purpose PC with a general purpose OS running an emulation of a console hardware and OS is impossible, unless you have a gap of several hardware generations. I'd imagine you could get a rather decent PS2 emulation going, though.
If consoles were open source, then one moderately powerful computer would be enough to emulate any platform and play any game that is out... and companies couldn't try to force you to buy a piece of DRM ridden crap hardware at inflated prices anymore, to play the "exclusive games" of their bought-out developers. (Which is effectively what anyone who buys a console supports... more "exclusive games" for single platforms. That's how business works...)
Umm.
You do know that exclusive titles that come out for only one console are incredibly rare nowadays? Only very few A-list titles in recent years has stayed exclusive for long, most game developers tend to target all platforms at once to get a greater chance of getting their investments back. Producing an A-list title is horrendously expensive, on the order of a minor hollywood blockbuster. Locking out a portion of the potential customerbase only makes sense if you expect said title to bring in second-order effects through increased hardware sales (case in point: Halo).
So Mikes has now demonstrated he doesn't know how the majority of the games business works.
Sadly... that's really all their is to it. That... and effective marketing.
No. Again, I come back to a point I raised earlier. Consoles are more convenient for the average end user to buy, set up, and operate. Consoles benefit from having locked-down hardware and operating systems because they remove ambiguity from the whole process of buying a game. If I go to a store and buy a PS game, I know I'll be able to play it at maximum details and just the way the developer intended. The same cannot be said of PC games.
Oh, and before you say "But PC games could be so much better looking!", let me again point out that content generation for current consoles (remember, the ones you think could be emulated by mid-range PCs) is really, really expensive and takes a long time. Doing stuff with even higher resolutions, even more detail, will not be cheaper.
If anything Apple abuses their hold on the market even more than the Console Crowd - but that is a different topic for a different thread i'd say.
The amount of ignorance for what Apple does is really astonishing. Apple does not sell PCs, or mp3 players or Laptops or phones. Apple sells an experience. Apple sells you the certainty that it will just work, right out of the box. They sell you Computers that do not require the kind of in-depth maintenance Windows PCs need from time to time. They give developers clear guidelines for how their applications should behave so that that experience is maintained, and the user kept happy. It's a tradeoff. For a bit of freedom you lose, you get a whole ****ton of convenience.
-
Not to mention that you won't have to pay for new hardware for the console's entire lifetime (which usually is 6+ years), while still getting a constant stream of new games that are guaranteed to work on your chosen piece of kit.
This point right here is really the crux of the argument for me. Just a few months ago, the PlayStation 2 celebrated its 10th anniversary as an active console. There are still new games being released for it, believe it or not. (Granted, we're pretty much down to ports of licensed multi-platform titles, as tends to happen at the end of any console's lifetime, but still.) And while the PS2's longevity has been a bit over the norm, by virtue of its massive install base, even less successful consoles tend to stick around a good 5 or 6 years, if not longer. Name me one PC-only release over the last few years that could be expected to perform anywhere near approaching acceptably on ten-year-old hardware. Go on, I'll wait.
Here's another way of looking at it. I bought my Dell Optiplex system when I was headed off to college in the summer of 2004. Despite my general ignorance of computing at the time, I managed to buy a machine that's proved to be fairly upgradeable in the grand scheme of things. In the time I've owned this system, the original hard drive died, so I replaced it with one twice the size. I upgraded the RAM from 512 MB to 3 GB, essentially as much as the system can handle, and swapped out the original Radeon X300 64 MB card for an HD 4670 1 GB. By doing so, I was finally able to run most of the games that have been released over the last five or so years. However, there are new titles coming out now that I won't be able to run, because I'm inherently limited by my single-core P4 processor. Now, over that entire span of time, plus a few years before I bought this PC, our old fat-model PS2 has been doing its job the same as always, able to play whatever PS2 games were fresh off the shelves. It's really something to think about.
Umm.
You do know that exclusive titles that come out for only one console are incredibly rare nowadays? Only very few A-list titles in recent years has stayed exclusive for long, most game developers tend to target all platforms at once to get a greater chance of getting their investments back. Producing an A-list title is horrendously expensive, on the order of a minor hollywood blockbuster. Locking out a portion of the potential customerbase only makes sense if you expect said title to bring in second-order effects through increased hardware sales (case in point: Halo).
So Mikes has now demonstrated he doesn't know how the majority of the games business works.
The one general ongoing exception to this rule are Nintendo's big first-party franchises (Mario, Zelda, Metroid, and the like), which will always be Nintendo-exclusive titles. But as you mentioned, that's the case because Nintendo knows that millions of gamers will buy Nintendo consoles specifically to play said franchises, so there's a built-in benefit to it.
(Also, while we're talking about how "easy" emulation is, let me point out that there is still not a functional emulator for the original XBox available, despite that console essentially being a special-built PC. This is much to my chagrin, as I'd love to get the chance to play the ridiculous Japan-only game Metal Wolf Chaos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Wolf_Chaos) someday. :()
-
You do know that exclusive titles that come out for only one console are incredibly rare nowadays? Only very few A-list titles in recent years has stayed exclusive for long, most game developers tend to target all platforms at once to get a greater chance of getting their investments back. Producing an A-list title is horrendously expensive, on the order of a minor hollywood blockbuster. Locking out a portion of the potential customerbase only makes sense if you expect said title to bring in second-order effects through increased hardware sales (case in point: Halo).
Actually, they are not that rare.
Many interesting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:PlayStation_3-only_games) games have (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wii-only_games) been exclusives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Xbox_360-only_games), unfortunately.
Even when their creators lie by announcing for other platforms first. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Wake) :(
-
But how many of those titles were made by third-party developers? What I am saying is this. If a 3rd-party title is exclusive (like, for example, Metal Gear Solid 4) and stays that way, that's usually a sign of the Console developer (Sony, in this case) making a huge investment in the title, either in terms of actual money, or technical support on par with what 1st-party developers get.
But again, how many of the recent big titles were NOT cross-platform? How many titles in EA's, THQ's, or Activision's lineup are made exclusive for one console or another?
-
I'm more annoyed by region-exclusive titles than console-exclusives, myself.
Though, admittedly, the fact that I own a wide variety of consoles might have something to do with this...
-
The amount of ignorance for what Apple does is really astonishing. Apple does not sell PCs, or mp3 players or Laptops or phones. Apple sells an experience. Apple sells you the certainty that it will just work, right out of the box. They sell you Computers that do not require the kind of in-depth maintenance Windows PCs need from time to time. They give developers clear guidelines for how their applications should behave so that that experience is maintained, and the user kept happy. It's a tradeoff. For a bit of freedom you lose, you get a whole ****ton of convenience.
.....
WHAT? :wtf:
-
Yeah, I'm sorry, but that really did read like Apple paid you to post that. I totally see your point of how heavy restrictions allows a more convenient end-user experience, but that was almost lost over the "Apple doesn't sell electronics. They sell an experience."
-
I will not deny that Apple's products are pretty user-friendly, and I can see the appeal this holds for many people.
However, I do think that they are overly restrictive in far too many things, which is why I personally dislike them and avoid their products whenever possible.
-
Apples products are generally pretty expensive too, especially their computer line (which is just overpriced, even Alienware is less overpriced).
-
Yeah, I'm sorry, but that really did read like Apple paid you to post that. I totally see your point of how heavy restrictions allows a more convenient end-user experience, but that was almost lost over the "Apple doesn't sell electronics. They sell an experience."
I don't think E meant that necessarily as a promotion but a marketing fact. Apple has built itself as an experience/culture, all their advertisements are meant to portray it as a young person's machine as opposed to the dowdy PC crowd. Even at the point of sale they've got the Apple store with their geeky/hipster staff and their Apple white style motif. All their hardware is meant to look cool, minimalist and hip. Its a culture item to have an iPlank or whatever the hell else they are selling at the moment. Even from a user interface point as has been pointed out you've sacrificed some freedom for ease of use.
As for the console issue, if you seriously derive some sense of smug superiority over your preferred platform then you really need some time spent in introspection on what is important in life. Because obviously you don't grasp that it is to crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.
-
The amount of ignorance for what Apple does is really astonishing. Apple does not sell PCs, or mp3 players or Laptops or phones. Apple sells an experience. Apple sells you the certainty that it will just work, right out of the box. They sell you Computers that do not require the kind of in-depth maintenance Windows PCs need from time to time. They give developers clear guidelines for how their applications should behave so that that experience is maintained, and the user kept happy. It's a tradeoff. For a bit of freedom you lose, you get a whole ****ton of convenience.
.....
WHAT? :wtf:
He's completely correct. I occasionally flip out at their pricing and then people near me point out it's generally worth it for them. Apple is so wildly successful because it's very good at selling what it does.
They're basically fascists about their guidelines and stuff, but that comes with certain advantages. (Wish they'd stick closer to their old human interface guidelines, though...)
-
Convenience is the biggest seller. It's why we're still buying stuff off the internet instead of just downloading for free.
-
i cant really find any reason to hate macs or apple products in general. i mean the two main things i dont like is the closed architecture(not so much these days), and cost. but its really not enough to seriously make me hate apple.
as for open source consoles they will always be in a league of their own. i dont think their nature will really turn them into a major competitor, since, being open source in terms of both hardware and software, will loose all the brownie points for convenience. people dont use linux for convenience. you'd be limited by whatever games users created or ported over from other architectures. open source consoles, like linux, will be something you use when you want full control over your experience.
-
The Chrome OS is going to run on Linux. Thoughts?
-
as far as open oses im really looking forward to the reactos beta. of course this thread really isnt about operating systems.
-
Man I love it when some kid in love with his own voice and zero life experience does an ego trip on youtube, almost like he's got his own tv show, then gets worked up over the silliest things. If I could be bothered I'd give him an assignment to assemble the following words in a sentence: f**k, up, grow, the.
Seriously, someone plays on consoles, others on PCs, some on both. I no more care or get worked up about that than I get worked up about what brand of soap do other people use (I do prefer they use some brand tho)
I bet he watched that video a million times thinking he sounds so cool in it :P
-
The amount of ignorance for what Apple does is really astonishing. Apple does not sell PCs, or mp3 players or Laptops or phones. Apple sells an experience. Apple sells you the certainty that it will just work, right out of the box. They sell you Computers that do not require the kind of in-depth maintenance Windows PCs need from time to time. They give developers clear guidelines for how their applications should behave so that that experience is maintained, and the user kept happy. It's a tradeoff. For a bit of freedom you lose, you get a whole ****ton of convenience.
.....
WHAT? :wtf:
He's saying a lot of people like riding the apple roller coaster.
-
I just remembered I have a friend who doesn't like Apple products because he doesn't like the 'imperfect' apple. :lol:
That was random I know... I maybe be a little drunk. :nervous:
-
He's saying a lot of people like riding the apple roller coaster.
I suggest remedial reading comprehension classes.
-
The E was amazed at everyones ignorance concerning apple. His point was that apple was more about selling an experience than a product. A great part of this experience being convenience and certainty. Apple likes to maintain these aspects of the experience for example by having laid out guidelines for developers who make applications for the macintosh platform. These developer guidelines dictate how that application will behave which is a big push by apple to maintain the user experience. The apple user loves this experience. Apple maintaining the user experience keeps apple users as apple users, and attracts new apple users. Apple keeps the users happy in a trade off of freedom for a lot of convenience.
People in this thread were puzzled by what he meant or claimed that he wrote up a promotion for apple because of the whole "apple doesn't sell electronics, they sell an experience" which does sound like a slogan, but was actually presented by The E as a marketing fact. The E was not hard to understand. Figured i'd simplify with a metaphor for everyone. That being "A lot of people do like riding the apple roller coaster".
What i wrote was a gross metaphorical simplification. Do you like my post report?
-
What you wrote was insulting to apple users and you're either backtracking to cover yourself now or you compressed it so incompetently as to eliminate all meanings you claimed it contained.
But yes, this is better.
-
The E was amazed at everyones ignorance concerning apple. His point was that apple was more about selling an experience than a product. A great part of this experience being convenience and certainty. Apple likes to maintain these aspects of the experience for example by having laid out guidelines for developers who make applications for the macintosh platform. These developer guidelines dictate how that application will behave which is a big push by apple to maintain the user experience. The apple user loves this experience. Apple maintaining the user experience keeps apple users as apple users, and attracts new apple users. Apple keeps the users happy in a trade off of freedom for a lot of convenience.
Considering that most people that use computers don't have an interest in tweaking everything for themselves, that's not a bad thing.
-
i definitely liked some of the older early-mid 90s macs. they really showed what a very minimalist os could do with a very limited set of resources. only real reason i dont partake in the epic wave of apple fanboism, is mainly because im set in my pc usin ways.
-
It's not a bad thing at all definitely. There's a big market for this. Consoles definitely reflect convenience compared to computer gaming. The one thing i find interesting with todays consoles is the increased life span they've had. A console can go on for about 5 or 6 years before a new console generation emerges. Instead today, we have consoles that have had extended life spans because current consoles are designed to support superior peripherals better than past consoles. Superior peripherals like the kinect for 360, the ps3 motion controller, and the wii motion plus. This compared to older peripherals which didn't really get any better than wireless controller with wireless controller adapter for gamecube and ps2, guitar hero peripherals for ps2, and the sony eye toy webcam for ps2.
Superior peripherals for consoles today means that another console generation coming along has been averted for a good long while. Superior peripherals means a lot of different types of games to take advantage of these peripherals and definite different game play. This financially speaking is great for console gamers compared to their computer gaming equivalents. Keep upgrading your pc/buy a new pc every few years, or purchase a console and after 5 years buy the upgrade for that console and not need to buy a new generation console. Not only cheaper, but like consoles, easier to integrate compared to computer peripherals and add-in cards for computer.
My back track was written just for ngtm-1r so he would know what i was all on about the whole roller coaster ride thing. The intent was not for insult of apple users (that of which can easily be construed as insulting based on me being short because i didn't want a wall of text). The intent was a response just for ngtm-1r.
-
Good read (http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2011/03/16/farewell-to-directx/1) concerning the graphics capabilities of consoles versus computers. Consoles do have a specific edge where as computer gaming should be much faster than it actually is considering the hardware in computers has been way faster for several years now.
-
some good points there. sometimes its easier to just talk to the registers instead of having a middleware api do it for you. on a console that works, but on a pc, it doesn't because your hardware wont be consistent. different instruction set extensions in your cpu and different gpu architectures pretty much make it very difficult to code direct to hardware. that is unless gpu manufacturers could all agree on a standard instruction set in their gpus. then theres the issue with future proofing. its not very often a pc game will run on a pc built several years after the game came out, even with an api (unless its opengl :D ). but if a standard instruction set was used on all gpus (possibly with manufacturer specific instruction extensions to cover proprietary features), then it would greately reduce the differences between nvidia, ati/amd, intel, etc, gpus, and greately reduce the dependency on an api and would allow direct to assembly code for gpu functions, which would be very fast. of course thats not likely to happen, gpu manufacturers just have to meet compatibility with specific apis, and so long as that is met they can design their chip however they want.
-
Im a pc gamer that likes wii.
-
some good points there. sometimes its easier to just talk to the registers instead of having a middleware api do it for you. on a console that works, but on a pc, it doesn't because your hardware wont be consistent. different instruction set extensions in your cpu and different gpu architectures pretty much make it very difficult to code direct to hardware. that is unless gpu manufacturers could all agree on a standard instruction set in their gpus. then theres the issue with future proofing. its not very often a pc game will run on a pc built several years after the game came out, even with an api (unless its opengl :D ). but if a standard instruction set was used on all gpus (possibly with manufacturer specific instruction extensions to cover proprietary features), then it would greately reduce the differences between nvidia, ati/amd, intel, etc, gpus, and greately reduce the dependency on an api and would allow direct to assembly code for gpu functions, which would be very fast. of course thats not likely to happen, gpu manufacturers just have to meet compatibility with specific apis, and so long as that is met they can design their chip however they want.
Funny I should read this right after reading a neat article on pretty much the same thing.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2011/03/16/farewell-to-directx/1
-
thats the same article i just read, why the hell did you think i said good points there, pay attention!
that post was my response mostly to the article in question.
Im a pc gamer that likes wii.
i like wii too.
-
Im a pc gamer that likes wii.
I own systems from all three major companies as well as a healthy PC game collection... and an arcade cabinet.
I do not identify as a fan of any particular platform. I'm simply a gamer.