Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Always on = !on (Score 1) 592

Agreed. My actual point was that Steam's (and Apple's) restrictions are the same as Sony and MS are proposing. The price is actually irrelevant. I don't usually read AC posts (as they're often posters trying to reinforce their own arguments) so have no idea what they said, but the other stuff posted would be irrelevant, even if it weren't illogical. Attacking me for posting actual prices from the Steam store with some ridiculous argument that the prices would go down some day, so it's impossible that they sell for that. Or "I buy games for $10, so all games are $10". Just... wow...

But hey, this is Slashdot - been here enough years to know how it works by now :)

Comment Re:Always on = !on (Score 2) 592

Heh, that Borderlands 2 price has honestly changed since I posted that comment! I wouldn't have posted that price if it wasn't correct at the time - weird. Anyway, anyone can see the current prices of CURRENT games on the store. You know you can also buy discounted games on the console stores right, or buy them for next to nothing when they're past their prime?

It's totally irrelevant anyway. Whether you're having a £15 game locked to your account, a £30 game, or a £1 game, it's the same restriction. What my point was, before the excuses came raining down, was that Steam are using the same type of restrictions for their customers, and have been doing so for some time now - this is a fact, not an opinion. People who have been purchasing games from Steam, with full knowledge of this have no right to rage about Sony and MS doing the exact same thing. If anything, the people paying Steam, and supporting its sales model have encouraged other companies to do the same, as they can see it's been successful.

Comment Re:Always on = !on (Score 1) 592

Forgot to add, Apple have also been doing this since their store opened. Have you ever tried to give away an Apple store game/app? Or sell an old Apple PC with OSX on it that you upgraded from the store? You can't, as it's locked to your account. It's almost worse with OSX, because you're likely selling the old Mac for a new one which will have the same OSX version on it anyway, making your old purchase totally useless, unlike a game which you could at least continue to play.

Comment Re:Always on = !on (Score 4, Informative) 592

You didn't add the caveat "old games are sub $10", you just stated that steam games are sub $10. This is demonstrably incorrect. You might as well say "Ford cars are better than BMWs because they cost under $100", and not mention the fact you're talking about some 20 year old junker (mandatory car analogy completed!)

I tend to buy current titles, and I'd bet that's where the vast majority of game companies (and Steam's) revenues come from. Whether you do or not is totally irrelevant - the fact is, Steam sell the latest games for £30 or more, and prevent resale, or gifting after the game is used. Yes, I could only buy old stuff from 2011 to play on PC, but then I could also buy old "bargain bucket" games for the console too. The fact is that what Sony and MS are proposing to do is almost EXACTLY the same as what Steam have been doing for ages. I'm sure that eventually someone will find a way around the copy protection with the consoles, as they have with every prior generation.

With all this said, I'm a PC gamer, not a console gamer (though I've owned most consoles) but I don't kid myself that Steam are any better than any other company out there. They exist to make money; they're not your friend, or anyone elses. Everything a big company does, it does to increase its profits. There's no moral compass involved.

Comment Re:Always on = !on (Score 1) 592

I can't understand why anyone would buy a console at the moment (prior to the next generation units becoming available). Even the bargain basement PCs will offer a better gaming experience than an old PS3 or XBox. When you consider how old those systems are, and the fact their tech wasn't exactly cutting edge even when they were launched, they're an incredibly bad buy.

Some people somehow think that consoles are a cheaper option than buying a gaming PC, that they have to upgrade. The fact is that console owners will (in general) pay more for their games, which more than offsets the initial saving. Added to that, a gaming PC will offer superior graphics, gameplay and sound, and probably won't need upgrading for almost the entire lifespan of a console. Of course, people DO upgrade PCs though; not through necessity, but because they have the option to. A console owner doesn't have that option - they're stuck with what they bought. It's as crazy as if a computer manufacturer started soldering their units shut so they couldn't ever be upgraded. None of them would ever do that though... heh.

Comment Re:Always on = !on (Score 5, Informative) 592

"No, because the steam games are sub $10."

I'm on the UK Steam store right now, and unless the US version has a totally different pricing structure, all current titles are way over "$10".

Borderlands 2 = £29.99 ($47.11)
Call of Duty Black Ops 2 = £34.99 ($54.97)
Devil May Cry = £29.99 ($47.11)

So basically you're lying, and I'm surprised your comment has been flagged insightful. Not only that, but trying to justify Steam's system because you can get around it by criminal means (in the eyes of the games companies) is ridiculous.

Comment Re:Game Controls (Score 1) 368

I'm not saying external peripherals cannot be used with mobile devices (a lot of my work involves building custom hardware to interface with Android devices), I was remarking on the ridiculousness of his argument. I.e. he's been playing for "years" yet seems unaware of the controller options, thus assumes that tilting a tablet is the best way to control a driving game...

Comment Re:Game Controls (Score 1) 368

I find it hilarious reading through the comments of people proclaiming that tablet gaming could never be as good because of some control issue, when it is clear these people have never actually played many good tablet games. I've been an avid gamer for decades and played numerous racing games, and a few of the tablet racing games have the best controls I've ever used. Buttons and tiny joysticks are just REALLY hard to use to steer a (simulated) car, whereas full screen tilt is awesome once you get a little practice. The good racing games even keep the horizon level while you turn the tablet.

You know what's even more intuitive for steering a car in a driving game? A steering wheel. If only someone sold such things to plug into consoles and PCs...

Comment Re:When a user has too many choices (Score 1) 368

Arguing that PC games give players too many configuration options (even if they choose to use them) is ridiculous.

The problem is that players have to use them. In general, PC game controllers present their face buttons in an unpredictable order. So unless your controller happens to bean Xbox 360 game controller and the game you are playing happens to use "XInput" (specific support for Xbox 360 controllers under Windows), you have to go through at least some sort of configuration form before the computer knows which button to use for jump, attack, switch weapon, and pause.

Press the following buttons
in order:
[Up], Down, Left, Right,
Jump, Attack, Change Tool,

??? What commercial game have you played from the last 10 years that required that kind of configuration? The standard keybindings are very well known now. WASD+mouse to move about, [space] (usually) to jump, numeric keys to change weapons, etc. There will always be defaults. Just like most games now will automatically choose the graphic settings during the first launch. Of course these can all be overridden if desired, just like consoles allow the player to change the key bindings (as I recall). Of course there's little point in allow graphics options on a console - it's pretty much doing what it can.

Since when is choice a bad thing?

Since researchers discovered that people freeze up when they see too many choices. From this page:

Preferences can confuse many users. Take the famous too many clocks example. A significant number of test subjects were so surprised to have 5 choices of clock they couldn't figure out how to add a clock to their panel. This cost of preferences is invariably underestimated by us technical types.

This is a completely different use case. This is someone's first exposure to an unfamiliar UI. I don't "freeze up" every time I launch a game because there are graphic options somewhere under a settings menu. The same way I don't "freeze up" when I open my wardrobe and choose a shirt and tie. your type of thinking lead Apple to the 1-button mouse.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The fundamental principle of science, the definition almost, is this: the sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment." -- Richard P. Feynman