I don't think using an ARM CPU makes porting games too difficult.
Unless one of the binary-only middleware libraries you're using is available only for x86 and x86-64 architectures.
Remember "Cairo"? [...] WinFS probably takes the cake
I agree that Microsoft has talked a good vapor game. But each component of the Cairo project appears to have seen eventual release in some form.
Was Apple any worse with its "Pink" and "Copland" projects?
I tend toward PC in principle, but sometimes I argue the other side to help keep both sides honest and help bring out both sides' strongest arguments.
Most families still need or want a computer at home for reasons besides gaming (e.g. internet, word processing, tracking finances, online banking, digital storage, remote connections to workplaces).
First, these non-gaming applications can be done with a cheap eight-year-old PC with a Core 2 Duo and Intel integrated graphics. I'm told just dropping a video card into a PC with a CPU that old isn't enough to run AAA games from the present generation (2014 and later), which would quickly become CPU-bound. Second, these can be done with a laptop, and I've seen no evidence that people routinely upgrade a laptop with a separately purchased MXM video card. Third, a console can be used while someone else is using the family PC.
The price of games should be factored into the cost of a game system and games are cheaper on PC through digital distributors like Steam, Origin, etc., which over time off-sets the initial cost of the PC.
First, though Steam has sales. PlayStation Store also has sales. Second, console games have historically been more likely than PC games to support same-screen multiplayer with two to four gamepads, and if you have more than one gamer in the house, one copy of a $60 game that supports multiple gamepads is cheaper than three copies of a $30 game that requires a separate copy per player. Third, if everybody were to wait for the sale instead of buying in release month at full price, publishers would have no money to continue to fund development of high-production-value games.
If you want to play games online (which many people do) you have to add the life-time cost of an online subscription to a console.
PlayStation Plus and Xbox Live Gold cost $60 per year. But in addition to online matchmaking, this includes rental of a rotating selection of games (PlayStation Plus Free Games and Games with Gold respectively). What's the analogous way to try PC games?
You don't need an expensive PC to play games. A $500 PC (which is comparable to a new PS4+accessories) will play ~98% of the PC games.
Or you could go for a pre-owned PlayStation 4 console with a 500 GB HDD, which costs $280 (source). Which accessories were you including in the price?
I'm a developer. I bought an Xbox One because I can write software for it without a $uper $pecial Dev Kit.
True, Microsoft has been generous with ID@Xbox. But if you can make more money by selling copies to PlayStation 4 owners than by selling copies to the smaller Xbox One audience, that might make up for the cost of such a devkit.
I'm developing a UWP app for a specialty niche that would allow a "cheap" Xbox One to run it instead of requiring a PC.
What keeps you from also releasing ports of the app to X11/Linux, Win32 desktop, and possibly macOS? Then you can make it available to people who already have a PC.
A PC with the same multimedia and processing capabilities that my app needs would be quite a bit more expensive than the Xbox One.
In before Hairyfeet mentions that many owners of what's now considered an entry-level desktop PC can drop in a $150 video card and get performance more than on par with Xbox One.
If the patch is to the game publisher's bespoke server application rather than to the platform it runs on, then creating and testing the patch costs programmer wages. How does that "scale up or down with demand"?
Glad I prefer lying in bed all day
"Of course I didn't sleep with anyone else."
Stop bitching and create something.
the "productivity" that is measured these days is seeing how many jobs you can make a single employee do before they reach the breaking point and quit.
I think that might have been GLMDesigns' point. By dismissing these measurable benefits, your boss is constructively dismissing you. Take this as an opportunity to stop complaining about your boss and instead be your own boss, working as a contractor instead of an employee.
I think it means biological age as opposed to strict chronological age. If you're biologically eight years older, your cells show damage comparable to the median person chronologically eight years older than you.
You got me. But the top two consoles of that generation both have limited-geometry, partial-screen, texture-mapped, software-rendered first-person shooters. For every Zero Tolerance, there's a Jurassic Park and a Wolfenstein 3D.
Apple products include H.264 functionality despite the risk of submarine patents covering H.264. Thus Apple can't use the risk of submarine patents as an excuse against VP8 and VP9.
If the throughput were unlimited, the iPad would be sending an uncompressed stream. The H.264 is used because the throughput is limited.
For one thing, back in 2013, Google bought a one-time license from MPEG LA to sublicense MPEG LA-administered patents essential to VP8 and VP9.
For another, exactly how are you sure that there's not some submarine patent waiting to surprise everyone on H.265? I'm aware of already more than one patent pool for that codec: MPEG LA administers some patents and HEVC Advance administers others.
Windows 10 "Anniversary Update" includes Edge 14, which supports VP9. That leaves Apple as the holdout supporting only codecs that require payment of a royalty to a patent pool.
And the iPad Pro has a display 2732x2048 pixels in size. It's not quite 3840x2160 (home 4K-class res), but it's still bigger than 1920x1080.
The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is that surrounds universes.