So I watched ReviewTechUSA's video on "physical media is dying" and this is the comment I left.
I still buy physical and I will as long as I can, because I love seeing
the game on my wall. I don't care "how easy to use" and "installs" and
all that, I like looking over at my DVD rack and seeing my Wii U, PS3,
and XBOX 360 games along my wall. I love looking at my (3)DS game cases
lined up on my (3)DS game shelf. I love flipping through my 3DS game
case to get to my game. I play mostly single player games so 15 years
from now my games will still be mostly functional.
Now for my "burned" story with digital, a story I plan on turning into
skit video. I have a bunch of demos on my PS3 and 360 that I downloaded
when I didn't really have money back in high school. When I finally got a
job to buy games, I tried getting the full games from PSN and XBL. Oh,
those games are no longer on the servers, and this was before PS4 and
XBOX ONE. Then around the same time, I wanted to buy some launch DS
games that I didn't have (Feel the Magic and Sprung to be specific).
What did I do? I went on amazon and bought used copies. Now lets look at
a more recent example. PT? Yeah, that digital Konami game that was only
available for like 9 months and now it's impossible to get if you don't
already have it. Now if only it was released physically.
Even if there's game breaking bugs and the patches are no longer
available, well it's still playable up to a point.
I will ALWAYS prefer
physical.
Saturday, March 12, 2016
Thursday, March 3, 2016
Here's Why the Wii is so "Underrated"
So I saw this post on 9gag and I felt compelled explain why. This is the comment I left.
Lets see; not HD, no REAL 3rd party support, more than half of the games are shovelware, the motion controls ruin most games, no standard gamepad option (VC and gamecube controllers were exceptions, not norms), stupid name, it's hardware and architecture was almost identical to the PS2 (a console from the previous generation), it's the reason Microsoft pushed the kinect so much, Nintendo didn't care about "the gamer" at all with how they marketed it, online was terrible, the only decent games on it were nintendo first party and guitar hero (and that's being generous), Netflix was like the ONLY media app available, no DVD or Blu-Ray playback (my PS3 is my primary movie watching device), the controls were unresponsive and laggy in many situations, and was the most OVERRATED console of the generation. And that is why "the Wii is so 'underrated.'"
Lets see; not HD, no REAL 3rd party support, more than half of the games are shovelware, the motion controls ruin most games, no standard gamepad option (VC and gamecube controllers were exceptions, not norms), stupid name, it's hardware and architecture was almost identical to the PS2 (a console from the previous generation), it's the reason Microsoft pushed the kinect so much, Nintendo didn't care about "the gamer" at all with how they marketed it, online was terrible, the only decent games on it were nintendo first party and guitar hero (and that's being generous), Netflix was like the ONLY media app available, no DVD or Blu-Ray playback (my PS3 is my primary movie watching device), the controls were unresponsive and laggy in many situations, and was the most OVERRATED console of the generation. And that is why "the Wii is so 'underrated.'"
Friday, October 2, 2015
Why Physical Games are Hear to Stay (for the forseeable future)
"Physical media is dying, eventually everything will be digital; it happened with music, it's happening with movies, and it'll happen to games."
As a game collector, how many times have you heard that? Happy Gamer here and I hear that all the time. Personally, I think physical games are here to stay, and the arguments for movies and music are apples and oranges when compared to games.
Before I start with why physical is here to stay, let me explain why it's important to me. I am a collector. I have SHELVES of games from pretty much every generation. I have 2nd gen, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and some 8th. I display my collection proudly. Given the choice between physical and digital, I will almost always chose physical because a full hard drive is nothing to look at, but a wall full of games is. I love physical.
OK, so why is physical media for games here to stay when music went digital years ago and I guess movies are currently too? I mean physical collectors will always be there but the vast majority of people just want the best experience for their dollar. And that's the reason right there, people want the best experience for their dollar. In general, you get more value from owning a physical disc than downloading a file, at least with gaming.
Here's the deal; before the digital revolution in music distribution, you had to buy an entire $20 15 track album if you wanted 1 song. It didn't matter if you wanted all 15 tracks or even cared about them, you had to pay $20. You might get lucky and they would release a single, but it would still set you back $3, and it would probably come with a remixed version or some "side b" you didn't care about. With the digital revolution of music distribution, you could buy individual songs for $1. It didn't matter if it was released as a single or an entire album, you could get that 1 song on it's own and not have to worry about unwanted songs. That is why digital distribution became the de facto way to buy music.
So what about games. Right now (and probably forever), you have to buy the full game regardless of physical or digital. You can't say "I only want this level, so I will only buy this level" when buying games, you have to buy "the full album." Additionally, it's the same price physical or digital. I know steam and GOG have sales where the games are significantly cheaper digital than with physical, but any game on PSN, XBLA, or eShop are all the same price. In fact, I frequently see games CHEAPER physical than digital in terms of consoles. At the time of writing this, I'm in the market for Smash 4 on Wii U. If I buy the game physically through BestBuy.com, it will cost me $50. If I buy the game digitally, it will cost me $60. That's not the only example. I see games on sale all the time physically but their digital counterpart is still full retail price all the time. It's typically around $5, but the fact that the version with all the production, transportation, and overhead cost is the same price or LESS THAN the version that is just a copy-paste of digital bits from a server is the primary reason that physical games are here to stay.
OK, lets say that the reverse is true. It rarely is, but lets say that the digital version is a couple bucks cheaper. I mean, when you buy a digital album it's typically a little cheaper than a physical album. Well...there's the second hand and sharing market. As I said, I am a collector. Even if I'm done with a game, I will not sell it, but many people do sell their games when they're done. I also hang out with my friends IRL and we play videogames and I bring the disc with me or they bring it with them, and so do many other people. It's currently impossible to sell stand alone digital games second hand without selling the entire console (the only time I know of that happening is with Silent Hill PT where people sold their PS4's with PT on it for like $1000). Similarly, it's very impractical to bring digital games with you to a friend's house, having to either bring your console with you or signing in and downloading it to their console. It was a little easy with the 360's removable hard drive, but that isn't true for the ps3, ps4, XBOXONE, Wii, or Wii U. However, with physical media you can sell your games once you're done and it's really easy to bring them with you to a friend's house or let your friend borrow it. With music you generally didn't sell your vinyl, cassettes, or CDs, so the second hand market wasn't really a thing. As for bringing it with you, it became much easier to transport digital because 1000 songs could be loaded onto and played off of a pocket MP3 player whereas 1000 songs on CD or cassette would take up like like 4 shoe boxes, even more if you're talking vinyl. With sharing, well legality comes into question, but lets just say it's very easy to "share" digital songs, and it's much more difficult to "share" digital games that way.
One aspect that can be cited with handhelds are portability, and that might be why digital is a little more attractive on 3DS and Vita, but not by much. Yeah, I remember the GameBoy days and having the carrying case with all my cartridges in it, and I still kind of do that with my 3DS on occasions, but most of the time I have the game I'm working on at the moment and I leave the rest at home. I don't really need to have all my games at my finger tips because I'm just playing short bursts. Most people I talk to are the same way; they have the 1 game in their game slot and that's all they're interested in playing at the moment. They might have some download only titles like Pokemon Shuffle, but most of the time it's physical. (This argument falls flat with consoles because they aren't supposed to be portable. If you're in your living room, chances are you have the space for physical games and space is not a concern).
Another possible argument is "it's more convenient to download a game than drive to the store to buy it." OK, lets be honest here. Unless you have google fiber, it's going to take an hour or more to download a full 20 gig game. It's going to take you less time to drive to the store, buy it, and drive back home. I live about 10 minutes from a gamestop. Round trip it'll take me about half an hour to get a game. Compare that to 1 and a half hours to download a game, and it's more convenient to get physical. I know that not everyone lives so close to a gamestore, but chances are the further you live from somewhere that sells videogames, the slower your internet speed is, so it typically will be more convenient to buy physical than digital (plus you get all the other benefits of physical listed above sooooo......)
So there you have it, physical media is here to stay with videogames. Maybe if all game manufacturers adopted the Steam and GOG mentality of "there's no overhead cost to digital, so lets pass that savings onto the consumer and sell even more games," digital would take off. I'm not saying digital is bad; it really opened the door to indi developers. However, I just don't see it going away any time soon, or in the near future. Will games go 100% digital, maybe 1 day, but I sure can't see it. Well this has been Happy Gamer, signing off, and physical ain't going anywhere.
PS: because it's always cited as an example of digital taking over, I want to address the whole "movies are going digital as well" argument. Personally I don't see that at all. People are still buying Blu-Ray movies, and I don't know anyone who actively chooses to buy movies digitally. This is mainly because digital movies are distributed through heavy DRM. Amazon Instant Video, Vudu, UltraViolet, flixter, etc. all "you must have this distribution app and it's locked to your account and out can only stream it or whatever." However, with a Blu-Ray or DVD you just put the disc in your player, whatever player it is, and play it. Maybe they're referring to rental. That's true, digital has replaced physical with rental since it's more convenient to say "Netflix I want to watch this with my $8/month subscription" than to drive to the video store, pay $1 for a movie, drive home, watch it, drive back, return it, and drive home. Sometimes I might find someone who has a season pass on iTunes for a TV series where they get the TV show a day after it airs, but that's more the exception than the norm. I'd say physical is still very relevant in terms of movies as well as games.
As a game collector, how many times have you heard that? Happy Gamer here and I hear that all the time. Personally, I think physical games are here to stay, and the arguments for movies and music are apples and oranges when compared to games.
Before I start with why physical is here to stay, let me explain why it's important to me. I am a collector. I have SHELVES of games from pretty much every generation. I have 2nd gen, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and some 8th. I display my collection proudly. Given the choice between physical and digital, I will almost always chose physical because a full hard drive is nothing to look at, but a wall full of games is. I love physical.
OK, so why is physical media for games here to stay when music went digital years ago and I guess movies are currently too? I mean physical collectors will always be there but the vast majority of people just want the best experience for their dollar. And that's the reason right there, people want the best experience for their dollar. In general, you get more value from owning a physical disc than downloading a file, at least with gaming.
Here's the deal; before the digital revolution in music distribution, you had to buy an entire $20 15 track album if you wanted 1 song. It didn't matter if you wanted all 15 tracks or even cared about them, you had to pay $20. You might get lucky and they would release a single, but it would still set you back $3, and it would probably come with a remixed version or some "side b" you didn't care about. With the digital revolution of music distribution, you could buy individual songs for $1. It didn't matter if it was released as a single or an entire album, you could get that 1 song on it's own and not have to worry about unwanted songs. That is why digital distribution became the de facto way to buy music.
So what about games. Right now (and probably forever), you have to buy the full game regardless of physical or digital. You can't say "I only want this level, so I will only buy this level" when buying games, you have to buy "the full album." Additionally, it's the same price physical or digital. I know steam and GOG have sales where the games are significantly cheaper digital than with physical, but any game on PSN, XBLA, or eShop are all the same price. In fact, I frequently see games CHEAPER physical than digital in terms of consoles. At the time of writing this, I'm in the market for Smash 4 on Wii U. If I buy the game physically through BestBuy.com, it will cost me $50. If I buy the game digitally, it will cost me $60. That's not the only example. I see games on sale all the time physically but their digital counterpart is still full retail price all the time. It's typically around $5, but the fact that the version with all the production, transportation, and overhead cost is the same price or LESS THAN the version that is just a copy-paste of digital bits from a server is the primary reason that physical games are here to stay.
OK, lets say that the reverse is true. It rarely is, but lets say that the digital version is a couple bucks cheaper. I mean, when you buy a digital album it's typically a little cheaper than a physical album. Well...there's the second hand and sharing market. As I said, I am a collector. Even if I'm done with a game, I will not sell it, but many people do sell their games when they're done. I also hang out with my friends IRL and we play videogames and I bring the disc with me or they bring it with them, and so do many other people. It's currently impossible to sell stand alone digital games second hand without selling the entire console (the only time I know of that happening is with Silent Hill PT where people sold their PS4's with PT on it for like $1000). Similarly, it's very impractical to bring digital games with you to a friend's house, having to either bring your console with you or signing in and downloading it to their console. It was a little easy with the 360's removable hard drive, but that isn't true for the ps3, ps4, XBOXONE, Wii, or Wii U. However, with physical media you can sell your games once you're done and it's really easy to bring them with you to a friend's house or let your friend borrow it. With music you generally didn't sell your vinyl, cassettes, or CDs, so the second hand market wasn't really a thing. As for bringing it with you, it became much easier to transport digital because 1000 songs could be loaded onto and played off of a pocket MP3 player whereas 1000 songs on CD or cassette would take up like like 4 shoe boxes, even more if you're talking vinyl. With sharing, well legality comes into question, but lets just say it's very easy to "share" digital songs, and it's much more difficult to "share" digital games that way.
One aspect that can be cited with handhelds are portability, and that might be why digital is a little more attractive on 3DS and Vita, but not by much. Yeah, I remember the GameBoy days and having the carrying case with all my cartridges in it, and I still kind of do that with my 3DS on occasions, but most of the time I have the game I'm working on at the moment and I leave the rest at home. I don't really need to have all my games at my finger tips because I'm just playing short bursts. Most people I talk to are the same way; they have the 1 game in their game slot and that's all they're interested in playing at the moment. They might have some download only titles like Pokemon Shuffle, but most of the time it's physical. (This argument falls flat with consoles because they aren't supposed to be portable. If you're in your living room, chances are you have the space for physical games and space is not a concern).
Another possible argument is "it's more convenient to download a game than drive to the store to buy it." OK, lets be honest here. Unless you have google fiber, it's going to take an hour or more to download a full 20 gig game. It's going to take you less time to drive to the store, buy it, and drive back home. I live about 10 minutes from a gamestop. Round trip it'll take me about half an hour to get a game. Compare that to 1 and a half hours to download a game, and it's more convenient to get physical. I know that not everyone lives so close to a gamestore, but chances are the further you live from somewhere that sells videogames, the slower your internet speed is, so it typically will be more convenient to buy physical than digital (plus you get all the other benefits of physical listed above sooooo......)
So there you have it, physical media is here to stay with videogames. Maybe if all game manufacturers adopted the Steam and GOG mentality of "there's no overhead cost to digital, so lets pass that savings onto the consumer and sell even more games," digital would take off. I'm not saying digital is bad; it really opened the door to indi developers. However, I just don't see it going away any time soon, or in the near future. Will games go 100% digital, maybe 1 day, but I sure can't see it. Well this has been Happy Gamer, signing off, and physical ain't going anywhere.
PS: because it's always cited as an example of digital taking over, I want to address the whole "movies are going digital as well" argument. Personally I don't see that at all. People are still buying Blu-Ray movies, and I don't know anyone who actively chooses to buy movies digitally. This is mainly because digital movies are distributed through heavy DRM. Amazon Instant Video, Vudu, UltraViolet, flixter, etc. all "you must have this distribution app and it's locked to your account and out can only stream it or whatever." However, with a Blu-Ray or DVD you just put the disc in your player, whatever player it is, and play it. Maybe they're referring to rental. That's true, digital has replaced physical with rental since it's more convenient to say "Netflix I want to watch this with my $8/month subscription" than to drive to the video store, pay $1 for a movie, drive home, watch it, drive back, return it, and drive home. Sometimes I might find someone who has a season pass on iTunes for a TV series where they get the TV show a day after it airs, but that's more the exception than the norm. I'd say physical is still very relevant in terms of movies as well as games.
Sunday, August 23, 2015
I Doubt Most People Prefer Buying Games Digitally
Statistics can lie, and I believe I found another example of that.
Hey everyone, Happy Gamer here. I read an article recently about Nintendo possibly releasing the NX without a disc drive as shown by some preliminary patents. You can read it here. First off, I hate the idea of a console without physical media since I love having my games on my shelf. Second, I think it just wasn't put in the preliminary patent because every console has like 20 patents alone (but it is fun to hear people speculate about how Nintendo is going back to cartridges or going the way of SD cards).
But here's the big kicker. The article says "most gamers now prefer to buy the game digitally." That I find hard to believe. From my experience, most console gamers still prefer physical. People are still buying physical games. I know I still prefer physical. Pretty much all my friends prefer physical. I still see loads of physical games being sold at retailers. I still always see people at gamestop and in the game section of stores. Physical is still very alive and relevant.
However, I believe that the statistic "a majority of games are bought digitally" is TECHNICALLY correct, and here's why. There are 3 types of games that are predominantly bought digitally, steam sale games (and PC games in general), indie games, and PSN free/discount games.
Steam has all but eliminated physical games on PC. They made it very convenient to just download the games, and made physical PC games very INconvenient. Then you have steam sales where people buy loads of games for ultra cheap, but only available digitally. If someone want's super cheap steam games, they need to buy digitally. If they want a PC game in general, they typically need to buy digitally.
Then you have indie games. Indie games are really taking off. For those of you who don't know, an indie game is a game developed by a small development team or individual, or otherwise not made by a big studio. They typically don't have the resources to release the game physically, so to get it on PC, PS3, PS4, XBOX360, XBOX ONE, and Wii U, they are released digitally. Aside from the indiebox subscription box, I don't really know of indie games being sold physically, so the only way to enjoy them is digitally.
Lastly, you have the free and discounted games available through PS+. This is probably accounting for the digital console games. With PS+, you get steam sale level discounts and even more games for free. While some of these games are released physically, the only way to get them for free or heavily discounted is to get them digitally.
So lets say that 60% of games are bought digitally now. Well, I'm going to estimate that half of those digital sales are PC games where digital is easier and almost always cheaper than physical. Then I'm going to estimate that 20% of those digital sales are for indie games that are not available physically. I'm also going to estimate that another 20% of the digital games are PSN deals that you can only get from digital. The remaining 10% are games that have a physical release and the digital price is the same as physical and people just preferred to buy them digitally. If my made up numbers are correct, that means that of all the games sold, only 6% are people just preferring digital over physical with all other aspects being equal, whereas 40% of people are buying physical over digital all other things equal. I don't have anything but trends of what I see in people saying their preferences are, but I'm guessing that these are rather accurate, otherwise people wouldn't have cared about XBOX ONE DRM.
Well, this has been Happy Gamer, signing off, and you need to think about where the statistics are coming from.
Hey everyone, Happy Gamer here. I read an article recently about Nintendo possibly releasing the NX without a disc drive as shown by some preliminary patents. You can read it here. First off, I hate the idea of a console without physical media since I love having my games on my shelf. Second, I think it just wasn't put in the preliminary patent because every console has like 20 patents alone (but it is fun to hear people speculate about how Nintendo is going back to cartridges or going the way of SD cards).
But here's the big kicker. The article says "most gamers now prefer to buy the game digitally." That I find hard to believe. From my experience, most console gamers still prefer physical. People are still buying physical games. I know I still prefer physical. Pretty much all my friends prefer physical. I still see loads of physical games being sold at retailers. I still always see people at gamestop and in the game section of stores. Physical is still very alive and relevant.
However, I believe that the statistic "a majority of games are bought digitally" is TECHNICALLY correct, and here's why. There are 3 types of games that are predominantly bought digitally, steam sale games (and PC games in general), indie games, and PSN free/discount games.
Steam has all but eliminated physical games on PC. They made it very convenient to just download the games, and made physical PC games very INconvenient. Then you have steam sales where people buy loads of games for ultra cheap, but only available digitally. If someone want's super cheap steam games, they need to buy digitally. If they want a PC game in general, they typically need to buy digitally.
Then you have indie games. Indie games are really taking off. For those of you who don't know, an indie game is a game developed by a small development team or individual, or otherwise not made by a big studio. They typically don't have the resources to release the game physically, so to get it on PC, PS3, PS4, XBOX360, XBOX ONE, and Wii U, they are released digitally. Aside from the indiebox subscription box, I don't really know of indie games being sold physically, so the only way to enjoy them is digitally.
Lastly, you have the free and discounted games available through PS+. This is probably accounting for the digital console games. With PS+, you get steam sale level discounts and even more games for free. While some of these games are released physically, the only way to get them for free or heavily discounted is to get them digitally.
So lets say that 60% of games are bought digitally now. Well, I'm going to estimate that half of those digital sales are PC games where digital is easier and almost always cheaper than physical. Then I'm going to estimate that 20% of those digital sales are for indie games that are not available physically. I'm also going to estimate that another 20% of the digital games are PSN deals that you can only get from digital. The remaining 10% are games that have a physical release and the digital price is the same as physical and people just preferred to buy them digitally. If my made up numbers are correct, that means that of all the games sold, only 6% are people just preferring digital over physical with all other aspects being equal, whereas 40% of people are buying physical over digital all other things equal. I don't have anything but trends of what I see in people saying their preferences are, but I'm guessing that these are rather accurate, otherwise people wouldn't have cared about XBOX ONE DRM.
Well, this has been Happy Gamer, signing off, and you need to think about where the statistics are coming from.
Wednesday, July 29, 2015
PC games on XBOX ONE is not what you think
Steam will never come to consoles. Never, ever.
So I was watching AlphaOmegaSin's video about PC games being able to be streamed to XBOX ONE soon, and he says some bold statements about PC streaming on consoles. Here's the original video.
The big thing he said was "will Sony release a Steam app to compete with XBOX?" The short answer, no. The short reason, competition. Now for the rambling.
A steam app to play steam games will NEVER come to dedicated hardware, plain and simple. Sorry, it just will never happen, because steam is the competition. Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, and maybe OUYA/Nvidia all sell games through their online marketplaces. If you have the option to buy a game through steam or the XBOX Live market place, and you get more bang for your buck from Steam and Microsoft gets nothing from the deal, then they're losing a sale and it's not in their best interest to offer that service. Console manufacturers make all their money in game licensing and typically sell the hardware at a loss of close to cost (I think now they're sold with like a 1% mark up, but that's not enough to keep a division alive). We once had consoles where the manufacturers made their profit off hardware, it was the 3DO, and it failed miserably because the consoles were $700 or more alone. It would be the same as Sony adding the XBOX LIVE marketplace to the PS4, or Pepsi delivering Coke in their trucks, or EA selling their games through Steam.
And for you PC elitists that say "nu uh, PC is not in the same league as console gaming," that may be true from a consumer stand point, but to a company that sells videogames through a digital marketplace, anyone who also sells games through a digital marketplace is competition. If you wanted a game and you had the option to either pay $2 for it through steam on sale or through PSN for $20, you're going to get it through steam, and Sony won't make any money off the deal since it's a completely different service. Even Sony and Valve worked out some kind of deal where Valve paid a 3% licensing fee to Sony for every game sold through steam through the PS4 steam app, Valve will just raise the price through Steam for PS4 by 3% to cover the costs. NO, lord Gabben is NOT being "super pro-consumer" because it's cheaper on PC, he's just being a smart business man because valve is making the same on every sale regardless of PC or PS4. You might get something like uplay for Wii U where you can get all your uplay achievements for ubisoft games you bought for Wii U, but you can't buy ubisoft games through the uplay app and all games you bought through uplay can't be played on the Wii U.
And if you're wondering "how are PC games streamed to XBOX ONE?" I'm pretty sure that the PC games that you can stream are the ones available through the Windows store, and only the ones through the windows store. They aren't steam, they aren't GOG, they aren't Amazon games, or any of those services. These are games you buy directly from Microsoft, so as far as Microsoft is concerned they're getting your money one way or another, and they don't care so long as they get it. I think this was mentioned at E3. You won't be able to play steam games, you won't be able to play GOG games, you won't be able to play amazon store games, you will just be able to play Microsoft store games.
Now the last argument you may have is the different video streaming services available on consoles even though you can buy movies and TV shows through XBL and PSN, well that's because the primary objective of XBOX and PlayStation is not to sell movies and TV shows, it's to sell games. Sony and Microsoft want you to buy their hardware so you will buy their software (games). Streaming services like netflix, hulu plus, Amazon Instant Video, and the like were originally added as incentives to get you to buy their hardware over the competition, and it's still the same today (I could get the games I want on either PS4 or XB1, and XB1 has more streaming services I am interested in, I think I'll get an XB1). Now you buy an XBOX 1, Microsoft makes a little money on that, and then you buy the games where they make all their money. If you could buy the games through Steam, then Microsoft only makes a few pennies on the sale of the hardware.
And if you pay close attention, only STREAMING is available on console. On PC you can download Amazon and Vudu videos to your hard drive in addition to streaming, but you can ONLY stream Amazon and Vudu on consoles. You can only download movies and TV shows if you buy them through XBL or PSN. But once again, the XBOX and PlayStation are gaming machines that can stream video. If they let the competition eat into their primary food source, then they're just going to be all the more hungry and eventually starve to death.
Well, this has been Happy Gamer, signing off, and 3rd party game marketplaces will never come to first party hardware.
So I was watching AlphaOmegaSin's video about PC games being able to be streamed to XBOX ONE soon, and he says some bold statements about PC streaming on consoles. Here's the original video.
The big thing he said was "will Sony release a Steam app to compete with XBOX?" The short answer, no. The short reason, competition. Now for the rambling.
A steam app to play steam games will NEVER come to dedicated hardware, plain and simple. Sorry, it just will never happen, because steam is the competition. Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, and maybe OUYA/Nvidia all sell games through their online marketplaces. If you have the option to buy a game through steam or the XBOX Live market place, and you get more bang for your buck from Steam and Microsoft gets nothing from the deal, then they're losing a sale and it's not in their best interest to offer that service. Console manufacturers make all their money in game licensing and typically sell the hardware at a loss of close to cost (I think now they're sold with like a 1% mark up, but that's not enough to keep a division alive). We once had consoles where the manufacturers made their profit off hardware, it was the 3DO, and it failed miserably because the consoles were $700 or more alone. It would be the same as Sony adding the XBOX LIVE marketplace to the PS4, or Pepsi delivering Coke in their trucks, or EA selling their games through Steam.
And for you PC elitists that say "nu uh, PC is not in the same league as console gaming," that may be true from a consumer stand point, but to a company that sells videogames through a digital marketplace, anyone who also sells games through a digital marketplace is competition. If you wanted a game and you had the option to either pay $2 for it through steam on sale or through PSN for $20, you're going to get it through steam, and Sony won't make any money off the deal since it's a completely different service. Even Sony and Valve worked out some kind of deal where Valve paid a 3% licensing fee to Sony for every game sold through steam through the PS4 steam app, Valve will just raise the price through Steam for PS4 by 3% to cover the costs. NO, lord Gabben is NOT being "super pro-consumer" because it's cheaper on PC, he's just being a smart business man because valve is making the same on every sale regardless of PC or PS4. You might get something like uplay for Wii U where you can get all your uplay achievements for ubisoft games you bought for Wii U, but you can't buy ubisoft games through the uplay app and all games you bought through uplay can't be played on the Wii U.
And if you're wondering "how are PC games streamed to XBOX ONE?" I'm pretty sure that the PC games that you can stream are the ones available through the Windows store, and only the ones through the windows store. They aren't steam, they aren't GOG, they aren't Amazon games, or any of those services. These are games you buy directly from Microsoft, so as far as Microsoft is concerned they're getting your money one way or another, and they don't care so long as they get it. I think this was mentioned at E3. You won't be able to play steam games, you won't be able to play GOG games, you won't be able to play amazon store games, you will just be able to play Microsoft store games.
Now the last argument you may have is the different video streaming services available on consoles even though you can buy movies and TV shows through XBL and PSN, well that's because the primary objective of XBOX and PlayStation is not to sell movies and TV shows, it's to sell games. Sony and Microsoft want you to buy their hardware so you will buy their software (games). Streaming services like netflix, hulu plus, Amazon Instant Video, and the like were originally added as incentives to get you to buy their hardware over the competition, and it's still the same today (I could get the games I want on either PS4 or XB1, and XB1 has more streaming services I am interested in, I think I'll get an XB1). Now you buy an XBOX 1, Microsoft makes a little money on that, and then you buy the games where they make all their money. If you could buy the games through Steam, then Microsoft only makes a few pennies on the sale of the hardware.
And if you pay close attention, only STREAMING is available on console. On PC you can download Amazon and Vudu videos to your hard drive in addition to streaming, but you can ONLY stream Amazon and Vudu on consoles. You can only download movies and TV shows if you buy them through XBL or PSN. But once again, the XBOX and PlayStation are gaming machines that can stream video. If they let the competition eat into their primary food source, then they're just going to be all the more hungry and eventually starve to death.
Well, this has been Happy Gamer, signing off, and 3rd party game marketplaces will never come to first party hardware.
Monday, May 11, 2015
Splatoon Impressions from the Global Testfire
Happy Gamer's Impressions of Splatoon Global Testfire by catholiccontriversy
Thank-you for watching. If you would like to watch pokematic's lets play, click here.
Sunday, May 3, 2015
I'm SICK of "Retro 8-bit" Indi Platformers, Happy Gamer Rambles
"People love nostalgia, and Shovel Knight did very well, so lets make a retro 8-bit indi platformer."
Hey everyone, this is what I imagine all the people that have been making retro platformers have said with the slew of "8-bit retro" indi platformers that have been coming out in the recent years, and I'm sick of it. Why am I sick of it, especially considering that I love retro games? There's many layers to it, but first I need to start with the game that started this craze (based on what I've noticed), Shovel Knight.
Now I should start off by saying that I love Shovel Knight. It is a fantastic game; great simple like story, tight controls, perfect difficulty, perfect punishment for failure and risk-reward, amazing controls, and it feels like it is strait out of 1988 in terms of style and gameplay. In fact, when you pull up the controls, it shows you a picture of a NES controller and says "these are what these buttons do" and you have to map the corresponding buttons to it. I bet that on the PC people have modded/repro with USB NES controllers that they use to play it, and it's glorious. It is what "kickstarted" kickstarter games.
However, this is kind of the problem. People saw how well Shovel Knight did, and they said "I can do that, so I'm going to make an 8-bit platformer." And that's where the trouble starts. See, the creator of Shovel Knight said "I want to make a NES game in 2014" and he stuck with it. Outside of a couple of extra colors and sound channels, and is MUCH much larger than a standard NES cartridge could hold, it could run on a NES. In fact, I bet there's some modders that are working on a physical NES flash cartridge ROM that makes slight modifications so that it actually runs on a NES. However, all these other guys just want the basic aesthetic of retro games, aka "blocky pixelated graphics and old sounding music." So many games are "yeah, these colors aren't possible on the NES, as well as the character model complexity with diagonal pixels, but it has blocky countable 'pixels' and that's what matters to make a retro 8-bit game." It's annoying because now what could have been a really nice looking game looks ugly.
What do I mean by ugly? Well there's a very good reason why games looked like they did 20 years ago, because that was the best they could do. If Nintendo had the capabilities we have today, they would make Super Mario Bros so much more detailed, probably just like the New Super Mario Bros games. Just look at Super Mario All Starts, that's Nintendo saying "these games are great, and this is what it would have looked like if they were first released on SNES." Now with these "retro platformers," game devs are instead thinking "I want to make this game, but since people want nostalgia we'll give it a blocky design and call it 'retro.' That'll sell copies." This is annoying, because we have such capabilities. We know what the Wii U, PS4, XBOX ONE, and yes PC, can do, and people instead want to make games that look like they were made for a NES. We could make games that look like Don Bluthes arcade Dragon's Lair, but devs instead choose to make games that look like Chip n Dale NES. It's wasted potential in my opinion.
I grew up with NES at my grandparents house. They had a NES and my brother, cousin, and I would play it all the time. I love NES games, but I also love SNES games, and N64 games, and GameCube games. In fact, I love platformers in general. I want to play platformers, but I also want a modern take on platformers. If I want to play retro games, I'll put a (S)NES cartridge in my (S)NES, not boot up a digital game on my Wii U. NES platformers pushed the limits of what the NES could do. SNES platformers pushed the limits of what the SNES could do. N64 platformers pushed the limits of what the 64 could do. So lets continue the tradition and get some Wii U platformers that push the limits of what the Wii U can do. But that's just me. Maybe you have different thoughts. Well, this has been Happy Gamer, signing off and lets let the retro stay legitimately retro and get some platformers that actually push the limits of what current hardware can do.
Hey everyone, this is what I imagine all the people that have been making retro platformers have said with the slew of "8-bit retro" indi platformers that have been coming out in the recent years, and I'm sick of it. Why am I sick of it, especially considering that I love retro games? There's many layers to it, but first I need to start with the game that started this craze (based on what I've noticed), Shovel Knight.
Now I should start off by saying that I love Shovel Knight. It is a fantastic game; great simple like story, tight controls, perfect difficulty, perfect punishment for failure and risk-reward, amazing controls, and it feels like it is strait out of 1988 in terms of style and gameplay. In fact, when you pull up the controls, it shows you a picture of a NES controller and says "these are what these buttons do" and you have to map the corresponding buttons to it. I bet that on the PC people have modded/repro with USB NES controllers that they use to play it, and it's glorious. It is what "kickstarted" kickstarter games.
However, this is kind of the problem. People saw how well Shovel Knight did, and they said "I can do that, so I'm going to make an 8-bit platformer." And that's where the trouble starts. See, the creator of Shovel Knight said "I want to make a NES game in 2014" and he stuck with it. Outside of a couple of extra colors and sound channels, and is MUCH much larger than a standard NES cartridge could hold, it could run on a NES. In fact, I bet there's some modders that are working on a physical NES flash cartridge ROM that makes slight modifications so that it actually runs on a NES. However, all these other guys just want the basic aesthetic of retro games, aka "blocky pixelated graphics and old sounding music." So many games are "yeah, these colors aren't possible on the NES, as well as the character model complexity with diagonal pixels, but it has blocky countable 'pixels' and that's what matters to make a retro 8-bit game." It's annoying because now what could have been a really nice looking game looks ugly.
What do I mean by ugly? Well there's a very good reason why games looked like they did 20 years ago, because that was the best they could do. If Nintendo had the capabilities we have today, they would make Super Mario Bros so much more detailed, probably just like the New Super Mario Bros games. Just look at Super Mario All Starts, that's Nintendo saying "these games are great, and this is what it would have looked like if they were first released on SNES." Now with these "retro platformers," game devs are instead thinking "I want to make this game, but since people want nostalgia we'll give it a blocky design and call it 'retro.' That'll sell copies." This is annoying, because we have such capabilities. We know what the Wii U, PS4, XBOX ONE, and yes PC, can do, and people instead want to make games that look like they were made for a NES. We could make games that look like Don Bluthes arcade Dragon's Lair, but devs instead choose to make games that look like Chip n Dale NES. It's wasted potential in my opinion.
I grew up with NES at my grandparents house. They had a NES and my brother, cousin, and I would play it all the time. I love NES games, but I also love SNES games, and N64 games, and GameCube games. In fact, I love platformers in general. I want to play platformers, but I also want a modern take on platformers. If I want to play retro games, I'll put a (S)NES cartridge in my (S)NES, not boot up a digital game on my Wii U. NES platformers pushed the limits of what the NES could do. SNES platformers pushed the limits of what the SNES could do. N64 platformers pushed the limits of what the 64 could do. So lets continue the tradition and get some Wii U platformers that push the limits of what the Wii U can do. But that's just me. Maybe you have different thoughts. Well, this has been Happy Gamer, signing off and lets let the retro stay legitimately retro and get some platformers that actually push the limits of what current hardware can do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)