- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:1000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 2231 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
50 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 22298
I know I'm a bit late to the party but I'm considering getting either a PS4 or an Xbox One. I'm assuming these days there's little difference between the two other than having the odd exclusive title. I've seen a few Xbox One bundles in the region of £150 - £200 so I'll probably go for one of them as they're cheaper than what I've seen for the PS4.
Have I left it too late, as in are the next generation of consoles expected any day now? Also, which games do you lads recommend? I'm a bit out of the loop with gaming.
|>>|| No. 22450
It works like a track pad if you tell your computer it's a Xbox controller too. It's actually a very nice gamepad, even if the triggers are a bit small and lacking travel.
|>>|| No. 22482
Also I really appreciate the trigger buttons or whatever they're called. Makes some GTA V missions easier where you need to maintain a certain speed.
|>>|| No. 22534
Black Friday looks like slim pickings. Tesco have an XBox S 1TB dual controller bundle for £159, but it doesn't look like there's any PS4 deals whatsoever.
|>>|| No. 22536
Apparently Tesco are doing the PS4 with RDR2 for £220. Nowhere near as good a deal as the Xbox One S offer, but it's better than nothing.
|>>|| No. 22804
The PS4 is too huge to die overnight, so the question is do you want a console now or would you rather save a few quid and get it later.
|>>|| No. 22806
You should be able to pick up a really cheap second-hand PS4 fairly soon, along with a big library of perfectly good games. If you're not a hardcore gamer, it makes a great deal of sense to deliberately stay behind the curve - you get to play exactly the same games, you just save loads of money if you don't mind waiting a bit.
|>>|| No. 22808
That's fine, it seems pretty clear that by space year 2030 no one will actually own anything, stuff will just be licensed through a handful of giant conglomerates.
I look forward to submitting my Facebook account to Amazon Prime to see if I've built up enough social credit to lease a couch. That's assuming Disney haven't had me blacklisted for what I said about the new Dumbo.
|>>|| No. 22809
>it seems pretty clear that by space year 2030 no one will actually own anything, stuff will just be licensed through a handful of giant conglomerates.
I doubt any of us have ever owned any piece of software in a very long time. It's all licensed.
|>>|| No. 22811
The argument for this is rather than actually buying digital games, you'll subscribe to the Game Pass service, which to be fair is pretty fucking good.
|>>|| No. 22812
Speak for yourselves, I've been pirating everything since I was 14. I do exactly what I please with my copy of Photoshop. It'snot exactly a long shot to say that's what's really behind the drive to make all games into some sort of shitty multiplayer "live service" ala Fortnite.
I wonder how exactly they'll squeeze any more blood out of the stone after that- How long before we see full on pay as you go games? I bet western publishers have had a jealous eye on the Korean market for a while now.
|>>|| No. 22815
As someone who has played it a fair bit, my main issue with it is that the aiming accuracy is absolute wank.
|>>|| No. 22816
I hate to be the kind of reprehensible scum who links to a long YT video and says "watch this", but this is quite worth watching. What are you going to do instead? Spend too hours having a wank?
I don't want to be completely down on Fortnite, as it has reached a level of pop-culture relavence not seen in gaming since Halo 3, but fundementally the way it makes money out of its (very young) players is deeply troubling. Also I don't trust the Chinese.
|>>|| No. 22817
>fundementally the way it makes money out of its (very young) players is deeply troubling.
Disclosure: I haven't watched the video.
What's deeply troubling about it? If you pay £3.99 for the Battle Pass then you don't need to play it that much to be able to earn enough V-Bucks during the season to purchase a Battle Pass for the following season, which in turn would enable you to earn enough to purchase a Battle Pass for the season after that and so on. They even gave everyone the chance for a free Battle Pass at the end of last season because they were shitting the bed over Apex Legends. It's not that much of an outlay for the amount of game time people will get out of it.
|>>|| No. 22818
The battle pass is just the start. The business is built on cosmetics which cost a lot more and their actual in game store is basically a lucky dip in that you don’t know what’s going to be in it until you log in, so players are forced to make buying decisions then and there or fear missing out being able to get them later.
|>>|| No. 22819
Tere's a lot of cynically deployed and deeply, intentionally manipulative mechanics going on with it. On the one hand you can look at it as "well it's not that expensive monthly" but you can also look at it as an insidious entry fee after which they try their level best to milk what they can out of you.
The problem, the actual problem, is that videogames literally make more money than any other form of entertainment media (that's just a concrete fact by now, it's the single most profitable entertainment business right now), and yet it's somehow still not enough. They have to try and wring even more profit out of their business model year on year.
Remember when people thought horse armour DLC was getting cheeky? Remember when online DRM was seen as intrusive? We've just let all those things slide now, and the AAA market is saturated with games people would have recognised as F2P app-store garbage ten years ago. If you don't already think it's getting bad yet, how much further are you prepared to let them push it?
|>>|| No. 22820
>The problem, the actual problem, is that videogames literally make more money than any other form of entertainment media (that's just a concrete fact by now, it's the single most profitable entertainment business right now), and yet it's somehow still not enough.
Randy Pitchford has to pay for his jailbait porn somehow.
|>>|| No. 22828
>how much further are you prepared to let them push it?
What the fuck are you implying here? Some kind of video game armed revolution?
|>>|| No. 22829
>Speak for yourselves, I've been pirating everything since I was 14.
So you don't own any of your software either, do you? That doesn't change my point.
Even if you paid for a game or Windows or Photoshop, you don't own it. You hold a license to use it. This has been the case for as long as I've been using computers, and the lack of a physical disk changes nothing about the way software ownership (or lack thereof) works.
As someone who has a steam library with thousands of pounds worth of games I've barely touched or never actually installed, I actually see the appeal in pay as you go games. It doesn't really feel like a heinous corporate control measure, as I'm fully aware that already exists and has done for decades.
For the record Xbox Game Pass seems like the future to me. I regrettably don't have the time to play games all that often, and I did get a bit sick of staring at games I'd paid fifty quid for just gathering dust. Now I can jump in whenever I want at a much lower price point, I don't think a year of Game Pass costs much more than a single new release title.
|>>|| No. 22830
Most of the people that do the development groundwork could probably push for that. They really don't get paid much compared to the money the companies are raking in.
|>>|| No. 22831
You seem angry that video games are becoming more affordable and accessible. Did you really think the £60 AAA disc release was the optimal, fairest solution to gaming?
I'm not a fan of micro-transactions and will pretty much avoid any game that has made them integral to the experience - I will never play Shadow of War, even though they've 'fixed' that now, but you know what, that's okay, because I also now get to pay six quid a month to access an increasingly impressive digital game library.
I will be annoyed if the prices of digital releases don't drop in the next few years, mind. I'd much rather every single game in the world had a cosmetic loot crate system in it if it actually subsidised the sticker price of the game, but as it stands it's still slightly more expensive to download a game than it is to get the disc, which is all sorts of daft. I do have hope the shift towards disc free consoles will herald a more 'steam sale' approach to the digital console marketplaces. Time will tell.
|>>|| No. 22832
They're still adding microtransactions to £60 AAA titles. They're selling £100 premium versions of those games, because loads of content has been carved off as day-one DLC and £60 doesn't get you the full game. The whole industry has gone fucking mental.
|>>|| No. 22833
No lad. Just pirate it instead of paying. Were fortunate enough to live in an age where you can have your cake and eat it- You can vote with your wallet and still have the game. If you pretend that that's somehow morally wrong then you're either sheltered, naive, or both.
Videogames make silly money. If we want them to improve the only way to do it is to stop incentivising the greed by buying into it. You're not going to be putting some poor starving Dev out of a job- There's a separate discussion to be had there about unionisation for developers and rebalancing the role of publishers and executives etc.
Indie games gave us a brief hope but they're really just AAA lite by this point. Support small devs. Think of it like you would the music industry- You support the bands you like by buying their shit and going to gigs, but they make fuck all off your Spotify subscription so you literally might as well pirate it. The only benefit you get from that is the moral high ground.
|>>|| No. 22834
I mean on this theme
>Did you really think the £60 AAA disc release was the optimal, fairest solution to gaming?
I'd have to answer yes. If your disposable income is near zero, £10 is as inaccessible as £60. If the whole game is on one disk, you get a pretty equitable breakdown where people who could afford to pay usually did, and people who couldn't would pirate. It's something I've always appreciated about games as a hobby in a way - other than the hardware costs there was a sort of equality about it all that you don't find in a lot of other hobbies.
There's perhaps an argument that it's not sustainable but I'm increasingly coming to the view that most of the best games have already been made.
|>>|| No. 22835
There was always preowned, too. The live service/digital distribution model conveniently kills that dead.
I can only see it as entitlement on the part of the publishers. They were already making plenty of money but they see it as their right to make even more money, year after year, forever. Not just in games, to be fair, but other digital software. We've lost the inherently democratic nature of a product being something you buy and subsequently own, and can do as you see fit with. It baffles me really that people are just fine with it.
In our hellish dystopia of a future, you're going to have to pay a subscription for the DRM on your Google Mind, and every time they release a patch you'll go blind until they reboot the servers. This is how it starts.
|>>|| No. 22876
I've seen bundles for the digital only XBox One for £160 (Sea of Thieves, Minecraft and Forza) so it mustn't be selling well. I think the PlayStation Classic has now dipped below £25.
|>>|| No. 22877
New Xbox confirmed for end of 2020. Hyped up to be many times more powerful than One X, big focus on backwards compatibility too. Wonder how much it's going to cost, reckon it's not going to be cheap.
|>>|| No. 22878
I thin MS are trying to make a big pivot towards the PC end of the market. Their console is essentially going to be a midrange PC and all their games are cross platform with PC.
Makes a lot of sense really. God knows why they've been competing with themselves all these years. That leaves Sony free to cater to the more "core" console gamers, and Nintendo free to cater to the sort of people who buy iPhones because they don't understand Android.
|>>|| No. 22879
I was going to say something similar, but more along the lines of why I think it won't work - if the next Xbox is just a premium priced midrange PC, then won't people just go and buy a better, actual PC for the same money? You can build (and people do sell) small form factor gaming PCs for about £400, so the new Xbox would have to either be making a loss, or not as powerful as they'd like. I know they've got AMD onside and they're about to pull ahead in the CPU power game, but still.
|>>|| No. 22880
Probably doesn't really matter. The hardware is never the main profit driver, as I understand it. Sony have nearly always sold consoles at a loss- They're an electronics giant with a gaming wing. Microsoft's bread and butter is software and licensing, the 360 was an anomaly compared to their usual success with hardware. The more they integrate it, the less likely they are to have another failed console on their hands to explain to shareholders, it's just another moderately successful product ticking along alongside their Surface computers.
I reckon we'll see them blur the line more and more as time goes on. Like Epic, they appear to have woken up and realised that, despite years of neglect from the big publishers and all that "hurr piracy" rhetoric, Steam has been sat quietly printing a big fuck off pile of money this whole time. They want in on that.
|>>|| No. 22881
The quality of the experience matters. The most compelling reason not to own a PS4 was "if you don't play very often, you'll spend half your time waiting for system updates to download". PC gaming is far worse in that respect - there are all sorts of annoyances and booby-traps that nerds don't really notice but are a complete dealbreaker for normal human beings.
MS could do quite well with a new Xbox that offers a PC-level gaming experience with a minimum of fuss.
|>>|| No. 22882
I'm not sure this has been true for a while now. I'm certainly a nerd, but I'm one with limited time on his hands, and still notice the annoyances of PC gaming when they come up, but they come up increasingly rarely, especially when we're thinking of it in terms of pure Microsoft services. Hardware compatibility issues are incredibly rare, especially for midrange components and gaming accessories - I haven't had to install a driver for about eight years for a PC component or controller etc.
A gaming PC you buy from Argos with Windows 10 on it is definintely as plug and play as an xbox, particularly if you've owned an xbox before - you can literally type 'games' into your search bar on your desktop, log in to your Xbox live account and start playing something via the microsoft store. And with the newly launched Game Pass for PC, it's all just there.
Yes, there's updates and so on, but they're all as automatic (and as frequent) as the xbone. Perhaps I'm still not capable of imagining someone young enough to be into gaming but old enough to not know how to use Windows 10, and it seems like MS know these people exist too by the sounds of it.
I'd not be entirely against a £500 Xbox (or whatever) to replace my aging PC - despite being fully technically and financially capable of building a high end rig, or even probably a better one for the same price, those days are probably behind me. My PC cost a couple of grand to build in 2015 or whatever and is still more than decent, but with an i7 4790k in there and only ddr3, I can imagine a Project Scarlett with more power or at least better performance to replace it for a Reasonable Amount of Money, and I'd probably buy it.
|>>|| No. 22883
Middle-aged men are now the key market for the gaming industry. They grew up with games, they have plenty of disposable income, but they don't necessarily have the time or the inclination to do even the smallest amount of pissing about. They might only have a couple of hours a week when they've got the big telly to themselves and they're perfectly happy to pay for convenience.
The traditional market of kids and young adults has no real room to grow and is now dominated by a handful of time-sink titles - Fortnite, Apex, Minecraft, Fifa etc. It has descended into a zero-sum game and everyone knows it - there's still plenty of money to be made, but everyone is fighting harder and harder over the same pool of money. The Wii meaningfully expanded the market for gaming, but it just didn't have any staying power.
The new Xbox might find itself uncomfortably squeezed between the PC and Google Stadia. The hardcore gamers are migrating towards PC, because it offers a fundamentally better experience if you spend a lot of time gaming. Stadia offers an incredibly compelling proposition to serious but time-poor gamers - plug a tiny dongle into your telly, pay a tenner a month and get instant on-demand gaming with absolutely zero faff. If Microsoft have big expectations for the new Xbox, it'll need to be vastly more convenient than a PC and offer a substantially better gaming experience than Stadia.
|>>|| No. 22884
The problem with Stadia is that it's a platform built for a city with fibre and a plan with no fair use policy. That combo represents less than 5% of the population of America, nevermind the rest of the world or our Victorian infrastructure.
|>>|| No. 22885
To be fair almost anywhere in the world has better internet infrastructure than the States with their state-wide monopolies and so on.
I see Google making the same old mistakes other young and disproportionately successful tech companies have made before them. All their ideas are factastic if you live and work entirely in a tech-savvy, forward thinking city like San Francisco, but they're less than useless and even an active hindrance when you live in buttfuck nowhere and cable TV is still seen as something of a luxury. They're going to get over-confident, push something unproven, and take a big dent for it.
But yeah, with regards to Microsoft I think they're simply taking the first steps in a direction people have predicted for a long while. The traditional consoles are going to increasingly overlap with PCs, while the new consoles for the casual gamer who wants literal "turn on, press start" simplicity will increasingly drift towards streaming/subscription.
We've already seen the performance arms race slow down a lot over the last couple of generations, thanks to parity across the consoles. We're already at a point where really, when you really boil it down, the only component that matters is your GPU. The consumer will benefit from better price/performance ratios, and need to upgrade less often. But we're very likely to see the customisation potential decrease. I wouldn't be surprised to see a PC gaming market in 10 years time where your graphics card is essentially a console you shove in a PCI-E slot and bingo, you're PC gaming.
|>>|| No. 22887
>they're less than useless and even an active hindrance when you live in buttfuck nowhere and cable TV is still seen as something of a luxury.
Those people are broke, so no-one cares what they think. They might as well be farmyard animals. By 2119, there'll be a thousand people in Patagonia gilets designing luxury space yachts for each other, while the rest of us forlornly nibble on Soylent crumbs and hide from the deathbots.
|>>|| No. 22889
What point are you trying to make? The problem is America's internet varies wildly from dial-up only across whole suburbs, to 1gig super fibre in your swanky city centre high rise, and in many places consumers have effectively zero choice over their package, and therefore no way to avoid peak time throttling etc.
Over here, you might not see average speeds as high, but there's a much better chance you at least get to choose between Virgin or BT, meaning the service you get at least has some incentive not to be completely shit.
Except they're not. I've been places in America where the people are disgustingly opulent. The plots their houses are built on will be bigger than most streets over here, but will you fuck get a mobile broadband signal. They'll drive cars that barely make 20MPG but they'll look at your smartphone like you're trying to impress somebody, because they haven't even quite caught on the the standard £40 a month payment plan idea yet.
TL;DR America is wierd.
|>>|| No. 22890
I'm aware America has had those problems and surely still does to one extent or another, but there's no way you can defend the statement "almost anywhere in the world has better internet infrastructure than the States" when they're posting top 10 average speeds.
And who cares if half of America can't buy it? That stills leaves a market much bigger than the entirety of other countries they've deemed worth entering. I also don't think Google is betting even 1% of their success on the likes of Stadia. Game streaming has been on the cards for years and with all their datacentres and fibre they may as well toss their hat in the ring.
|>>|| No. 22892
I can defend it, because my whole point was that average speeds have nothing to do with the average consumer experience. Most Yanks I know have shite internet and constantly moan about it.
With regards to Google I will admit I am just wishfully thinking that they will over-reach and collapse, before they get their slimy corporate hands on the blueprints for actual T-800s and start selling them to hipsters.
|>>|| No. 22893
Most yanks I know have gigabit connections and are constantly raving about it.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]