Crono1973 said:
Yes, Steam is great. Can we now talk about PS+ and Xbox Live Gold?
I despair that the choice is "Ignore this wonderful steak house, let's decide which of these overpriced microwave meals is least-worse"
redknightalex said:
I don't excuse "faint hostility" as it creates a discussion more focused upon personal emotions and less on reasonable arguments, so I'd rather just say a few things and be done with it. You can be assertive without being hostile.
I don't need your excuse. I have made reasonable arguments. You cannot apply that tone is mutually exclusive with reasonableness of argument.
In fact when was I hostile? It can take euphemistic use of the term hostile, but you are so insistent it is more than assertive that constitutes threats and personal attacks of which I did not make.
First of all, I'm a PC gamer before I'm anything else. I was brought up on PCs, I build them, I fix them, I'm studying Networking, and I LOVE them. I love what they offer as a whole. All of it. For the record, I have 155 Steam games, two Origin games, and a couple dozen other, non-Steam games installed on my computer on a 500GB HD (with some files stored on my third, 1TB HD). My PlayStation total doesn't come anywhere near that.
I do love my consoles and have from when I got a GameBoy for my birthday when I was twelve or so. I play different games on my PC than I do on my console. I like my strategy games and shooter-based ones to be on the PC. I also like moddable games, like the Elder Scrolls series, to be on my PC. Adventure based games or console-exclusives I prefer to play on the console of my choice. Perhaps it's not rational, it's a hobby with obviously high emotions, so being irrational about playing this game on what seems fair to me. Furthermore, how I want to play a game, whether it be on console or on a PC, is hardly any of your concern. But the disparity between PC game sales and those of the console does suggest that there are two audiences here. I mean, people like to make a point about what type of gamer they are! Are you PC or Xbox/PlayStation? I like to say I'm both, along with many, and still I hear others say the only run PS3/360/Wii/PC. Publishers are making a distinction, we're making the distinction, so why are we trying to say we're all the same when the differences are obvious? PCs take a lot of work to keep going when consoles require very little, thus different audiences.
I also know that I can very well plug in a controller and use my PC for such games, except there are days I'd rather play a grand adventure game from my couch using my console. Also, some console ports are just bad and not worth the effort of trying to make it function on a PC. That's not my fault but the fault of the developers. So your implication that I'm a console gamer is not based on anything that I've said but rather an assumption on your own views of who people are.
That being said, I am not trying to limit the discussion to Sony and Microsoft while leaving Steam out of it. I continually brought up Steam in my posts and made an observation based on the two consoles brought to the forefront at the beginning of the thread. Also, we're leaving out the WiiU, the first of the next generation consoles, yet you seem to forget that as well.
As for what Steam could learn from Plus is easy: why not try a subscription like Plus? Steam could easily do the same thing, albeit with some DRM in place, where you could play games for free while your subscription is still active. Steam does not do this at the moment; it's main allure are its sales. I'm hard-pressed to see how it's exploiting the user base when, not only do people like a service like Plus, but also is a demand by the user base (in Plus' case). If Steam implemented something like this, with perhaps some other perk (or two), I'd be right on board with it.
Anyway, I'll say it again: Steam is great and innovative. PS Plus is great and innovative for different reasons. I love both and use both.
I want to say, It is preciely because I was raised on console that I have such sour words for how Sony and Microsoft handle Playstation and Xbox.
Consoles used to be a no-bs-zone,
Now things have changed, it's one step forward and a giant leap backwards for consoles.
I have love for what consoles were, I don't live them for what they are supposed to be, especially when they aren't.
Furthermore, how I want to play a game, whether it be on console or on a PC, is hardly any of your concern.
Then what are you doing in a discussion forum? You want to have it both ways, don't you.
But the disparity between PC game sales and those of the console does suggest that there are two audiences here.
A self fulfilling prophecy. People ignore PC so it has low sale so people ignore PC so it has lower sales.
Did you stop to consider how Sony and Microsoft have massive marketing budgets (frittering away money that could be spent on development) to make your chose their console over the other, and how there is no equivalent for the whole of PC gaming, nothing on the scale of Microsoft and Sony's marketing budget.
Publishers are making a distinction
How? By almost every game that can go multiplatform also goes to PC. What games of last year (that weren't locked to one platform by being published by Microsoft or Sony) didn't get a PC release?
Many PC games aren't released on PS3/360 because the model they offer is "economically non-viable" that is, not shilling enough for the current console climate, doesn't allow the necessary peripherals. You cannot deny the fact that console CAN use mouse and keyboard support but they roadblock it while PC games use gamepad as and when it is suitable (rarely).
PCs take a lot of work to keep going when consoles require very little, thus different audiences.
The endless patches, updates and mandatory installations defy that.
Trying to get a non-terrible ping in console games is far harder with their obtuse player-hosted matchmaking system than the simple server browser on PC.
I also know that I can very well plug in a controller and use my PC for such games, except there are days I'd rather play a grand adventure game from my couch using my console.
Why?
I'm quite sure buggy whip manufacturers would talk about how they'd "rather" have horse drawn carriages than these new fangled auto-mobiles, and they don't want to get into any sort of discussion on which is better, they like horse drawn buggies and that's that.
Why do you need to hog a huge HDTV, they haven't gotten that big to suit your ego, they were made that big so that enough people can comfortably fit within a suitable viewing angle. If the screen is bigger, people can sit further from the screen hence more room within the same viewing angle.
Also, we're leaving out the WiiU
What the hell is there to say about it?
No one here is saying you can't talk about the WiiU. It's been overlooked, not rejected.
the first of the next generation consoles,
No. That's like saying Wii is as powerful as Xbox 360.
A next generation that isn't more powerful... even if semantically the next generation (because herp a derp, it was the next console they released), that is why it's been left out.
As for what Steam could learn from Plus is easy: why not try a subscription like Plus?
I've told you.
Because it fucks over the consumers, They are getting less and have to pay more. HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY ACT LIKE THAT IS NOT THE SITUATION!?!?!
where you could play games for free while your subscription is still active.
Steam already lets you play games for free... WITHOUT ANY SUBSCRIPTION!
http://store.steampowered.com/genre/Free%20to%20Play
You just want to remove features and put them behind a subscription wall.... WHOSE SIDE ARE YOU EVEN ON! All you suggest just makes it WORSE for consumers and BETTER for corporations. No qui pro quo. Just get less, pay more.
I am insulted.
PS Plus is great and innovative for different reasons.
Yes, it exploits the consumers to serve the stockholders. Literally get less, pay more.
Pro tip: sell your PS3+games and buy Sony stocks. THEN Sony will really care about you.
