Steam hits 8.5 million concurrent online users

[Rozalia1]

Making a game exclusive to a closed platform, is essentially holding it hostage. And it why so many people are eager to develop video game console emulators.

The rest is a vast amount of writing that is full of inaccuracies, misconceptions, and the like but this one is always the one that sticks out the most in such posts.
Nope that isn't work like that. Nintendo are holding their own games hostage... from who? Their customers? Clearly not... people who aren't their customers? I guess if someone can't play X game because they don't have a PC or next gen than that game is being held hostage by multiple parties huh? Odd how PC/Valve never holds games hostage in these situations... very odd indeed... if we didn't all know why.

Additionally the misconception that all exclusives are shady deals or something, that the platform holder either waved cash or is threatening them is simply absurd.

Not so much Microsoft because you know... American, but Nintendo and Sony both receive exclusives from third parties with no strings. Yet those games are also being held hostage? How? What hold does Nintendo and Sony have on them? Some contract dictating it stay exclusive? Nope. Threatening words demanding it? Considering the good relationships such companies have with their chosen platform holder clearly not. So how does that work exactly? It doesn't simply put.
Hostage taking is a point thrown around by warriors in places such as youtube/reddit, and has no place in honest conversation on what is supposed to be a respectable forum.

 

[Tayh]

Developers choosing to only release their game on Steam is different from Steam actively discouraging games from being released on other platforms.

The steam workshop seems to fill that purpose. Take control over the modding scene and prevent non-steam versions of the game(if that existed, hah) access to mods in one fell swoop.
As I don't use steam, I don't know what other measures they have in place to retain their customers, and prevent competition.

Until I start seeing exclusivity agreements on third-party titles, I don't really mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_using_Steam_authentication
^That's practically what that list is, if you exclude the few games made by valve themselves.

 

[PetitDemon]

Nope that isn't work like that. Nintendo are holding their own games hostage... from who? Their customers? Clearly not... people who aren't their customers?

I guess it's a matter oh how you see words. Like censorship, people have different ideas of what censorship is.

It's a bit hyperbole. But I feel that withholding games from customers unless they buy a closed platform is a bit like "hostage taking". Though that is a bit hyperbole. I feel that video games should be on open platforms.

I guess if someone can't play X game because they don't have a PC or next gen than that game is being held hostage by multiple parties huh?

No, because that's about having powerful enough hardware. It's still an open platform.
Anything that can be played by custom hardware and an open operating system, I don't consider it "held hostage" in any way.

 

[LaochEire]

I don't understand how console gaming is dying when it's currently setting sales records. 18m PS4's sold in just over a year, those are near PS2 numbers.

XB1 sales faster than 360

Nobody wants the Wii U because it's a bad console. Yes, I love it's games and has the best exclusive library, but it's an awful console.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

The "superior experience" is often used by the most biased of folk who when a light is shone on them try to appear reasonable as they can at least see the weaknesses in their statements.

In many cases gaming on a PC vs a console is an objectively superior experience. High resolutions, better frame rates, more flexible hardware, etc, etc. The main selling point of consoles was traditionally the "sofa experience", but that can be replicated on a PC. I imagine it's possible to find someone for whom lesser resolutions, muddier textures, poorer performance, etc would constitute a superior experience, but you'd likely have to search high and wide to find them.

Your primary argument in favor of consoles seems to be that the exclusives, and one's commitment to them, should be the sole driving factor in one's platform loyalty. I can appreciate that, but not everyone will share that view.

Simply put if someone has an obvious heavy bias (you're not going to deny this I hope) than from the get go their words are made less credible.

That's not remotely true. The presence of bias might be notable in terms of explaining why someone is holding a position, but it does not automatically weaken or diminish said position. Someone can be biased, and also be completely in the right.

"Handful". You aware how many PS3, Wii/U, Vita, 3/DS exclusives I and many others own? The handful comment is very common, but its pretty darn weak. It implies that those who have such devices have the tastes of those who are attacking their choices... not so friend. You may see a handful, others see much more. Open your horizons and perhaps you'll see them too.

Did a quick count, might be off. It had 18 PS4 exclusives, 23 XBONE exclusives, and 44 WiiU exclusives (Go WiiU!).

Someone compiled a list of PC exclusives going back through 1977. That might seem exhaustive until you remember that all PCs are backwards compatible, as the PC remains an open platform. It's here.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oak-3zZAQdud79EA_x_Ewp9elUFdPb8RSFbsY-uw5sM/edit?pli=1

I didn't bother doing a count. It's a lot. I believe it's somewhere around 104 pages long.

A more modern comparable:

Spoiler

Now, as you say, a system could have a billion games on it, but if it didn't have the one you wanted to play, it wouldn't be of much use. But I'm sure you can appreciate a PC gamer making the argument that console exclusives are, comparatively, a "handful".

Hostage taking is a point thrown around by warriors in places such as youtube/reddit, and has no place in honest conversation on what is supposed to be a respectable forum.

Yeah about that...you really do need to calm down a bit. You seem rather excessively agitated on this subject. If you like your console, just like your console. There's no need to be defensive about it.

I've always disliked the notion of console exclusives, because I've spent my entire life playing games on an open platform. My PC plays the games my friend's PC plays. People who bought Dell don't play different games than people who bought Alienware. I don't buy a movie and get it home and discover I can't play it in my Sony DVD player, I need to buy one from Panasonic instead. It's a bit weird, you know? I understand the mentality behind it (you can't play DESIRABLE TITLE unless you buy OUR BRAND HARDWARE first!) but I'm not sure why any consumer would celebrate it. Be used to it? Not find it overly punitive? Sure. But applaud it? Bit confused there.

 

[NPC009]

In many cases gaming on a PC vs a console is an objectively superior experience. High resolutions, better frame rates, more flexible hardware, etc, etc. The main selling point of consoles was traditionally the "sofa experience", but that can be replicated on a PC. I imagine it's possible to find someone for whom lesser resolutions, muddier textures, poorer performance, etc would constitute a superior experience, but you'd likely have to search high and wide to find them.

But aren't we reaching a point where it's not really about specs anymore? What the PC has going for it now are not so much exclusives that demand you upgrade your hardware, but games from smaller developers who focus on game design, storytelling and aesthetics instead of graphics and other things that need a lot of raw power?

The PC's strength isn't so much power as it is user friendlyness. It is slowly becoming what consoles used to be, while consoles (well, Microsoft's and Sony's anyway) are moving closer to becoming PCs. Personally I wouldn't be surprised if the dividing line faded even further. Maybe we'll see the PC as just one of many systems that can play games.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

But aren't we reaching a point where it's not really about specs anymore? What the PC has going for it now are not so much exclusives that demand you upgrade your hardware, but games from smaller developers who focus on game design, storytelling and aesthetics instead of graphics and other things that need a lot of raw power?

Well, it has both, right? It has Papers Please, but it also has Star Citizen. As a PC gamer, I enjoying having access to both spectrums.

The PC's strength isn't so much power as it is user friendlyness. It is slowly becoming what consoles used to be, while consoles (well, Microsoft's and Sony's anyway) are moving closer to becoming PCs. Personally I wouldn't be surprised if the dividing line faded even further. Maybe we'll see the PC as just one of many systems that can play games.

Consoles are slowly losing their niche, and I would not be surprised if we're at or closing in on the last classic console generation. If living room friendly PCs become more commonplace, and the act of upgrading components becomes more modular and idiot proof, I can't see consoles in their current incarnation surviving that.

Would be nice to have a single open source platform that you could play everything from Mario to WoW on, wouldn't it?

 

[RandV80]

Eh, I'll consider Valve a monopoly when it starts actively suppressing other platforms. Until then it's just the best platform getting the most consumer support; capitalism at it's finest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_using_Steam_authentication
Please tell me where I can buy those games without using steam.
They are the sole distributers of those games, not to mention about ~95% of every other PC game coming out today.
That's a monopoly on games. Unless you include torrent sites.
And no, I don't count steam key re-sellers(GMG, GG, etc) as a counter to steam.

But yeah. Capitalism. They couldn't have done it, if it wasn't for the horde of people who cried, "no steam, no buy!"
People wanted a monopoly, and they got it. Hope it turns out well for ya.

Developers choosing to only release their game on Steam is different from Steam actively discouraging games from being released on other platforms.

That's like a salesman only selling in the largest store because the other stores won't take his products. It's certainly not the store's fault.

Until I start seeing exclusivity agreements on third-party titles, I don't really mind.

Yeah I don't mean to step on anyone's toes but I always find these lone holdouts against Steam annoying. For me there are three key factors going on here.

1. The current thriving PC market exists largely because Valve/Steam built it back up. In the PC 'dying' period alot of that was retailers significantly cutting back on PC games new and especially used shelving space in favour of console

2. While competition is great in certain cases in the computing world uniformity is also good as well. I believe what Steam critics probably want is something like a web browser, where if you don't like say Chrome you can switch to Firefox and get the exact same content. The way publishers work though I don't think we'll ever see that, more 'competition' in this case will likely mean half a dozen or more separate platforms you need to install on your system to play specific games. Like Origin for EA titles. That's simply a nuisance.

3. The #1 key factor for my support of Valve, they remain a privately held company that allows Gabe Newell to do whatever he feels best. Now he can't live forever so someday this may change, but the point is while Steam still basically prints money it's not a platform being utilized for the maximization of shareholder profits. To me this makes all the difference in the world, if I'm going to trust anyone with this sort of power its going to be a guy who's proven to care about gamers and game makers and isn't beholden to a board of directors, a bunch of suits who's only care are the profits.

That's pretty much all I have to say on the subject, all hail Steam our gaming overlords!

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Eh, I'll consider Valve a monopoly when it starts actively suppressing other platforms. Until then it's just the best platform getting the most consumer support; capitalism at it's finest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_using_Steam_authentication
Please tell me where I can buy those games without using steam.
They are the sole distributers of those games, not to mention about ~95% of every other PC game coming out today.
That's a monopoly on games. Unless you include torrent sites.
And no, I don't count steam key re-sellers(GMG, GG, etc) as a counter to steam.

But yeah. Capitalism. They couldn't have done it, if it wasn't for the horde of people who cried, "no steam, no buy!"
People wanted a monopoly, and they got it. Hope it turns out well for ya.

Developers choosing to only release their game on Steam is different from Steam actively discouraging games from being released on other platforms.

That's like a salesman only selling in the largest store because the other stores won't take his products. It's certainly not the store's fault.

Until I start seeing exclusivity agreements on third-party titles, I don't really mind.

Yeah I don't mean to step on anyone's toes but I always find these lone holdouts against Steam annoying. For me there are three key factors going on here.

1. The current thriving PC market exists largely because Valve/Steam built it back up. In the PC 'dying' period alot of that was retailers significantly cutting back on PC games new and especially used shelving space in favour of console

2. While competition is great in certain cases in the computing world uniformity is also good as well. I believe what Steam critics probably want is something like a web browser, where if you don't like say Chrome you can switch to Firefox and get the exact same content. The way publishers work though I don't think we'll ever see that, more 'competition' in this case will likely mean half a dozen or more separate platforms you need to install on your system to play specific games. Like Origin for EA titles. That's simply a nuisance.

3. The #1 key factor for my support of Valve, they remain a privately held company that allows Gabe Newell to do whatever he feels best. Now he can't live forever so someday this may change, but the point is while Steam still basically prints money it's not a platform being utilized for the maximization of shareholder profits. To me this makes all the difference in the world, if I'm going to trust anyone with this sort of power its going to be a guy who's proven to care about gamers and game makers and isn't beholden to a board of directors, a bunch of suits who's only care are the profits.

That's pretty much all I have to say on the subject, all hail Steam our gaming overlords!

while I also believe this more or less, monopolies also have an effect on "barrier for entry", to which I have to laugh at because steam is doing anything BUT making it harder for indies/up and coming developers to join the pc gaming community, hell look at minecraft, didn't touch steam and it sold like fucking hotcakes all on its own through word of mouth.


does steam have a huge impact on marketing/advertising of products? absolutely, it is the easiest and fastest way to appeal to the pc gaming community. however that hasn't stopped many developers from branching out on their own or hosting others games (EA with origin, ubisoft with uplay, cd projekt with GoG, etc...)

Steam has such a huge "monopoly" because of it's pioneering into digital sales and relatively user friendly type of drm, for 3 weeks I didn't have internet but was still able to access all my games I had installed as I saw fit, that's relatively unheard of compared to many other forms of drm.

 

[NPC009]

Consoles are slowly losing their niche, and I would not be surprised if we're at or closing in on the last classic console generation. If living room friendly PCs become more commonplace, and the act of upgrading components becomes more modular and idiot proof, I can't see consoles in their current incarnation surviving that.

Would be nice to have a single open source platform that you could play everything from Mario to WoW on, wouldn't it?

Absolutely, but I doubt it will ever be fully open. If consoles disappear, I imagine Nintendo, Sony and so on creating their own virtual platforms, their own Steams and Origins. And I wouldn't be suprised if they designed their games in such a way you'd need extra bits of hardware, such as controllers and who knows what else they'll come up with.

And... that's most likely a good thing. I wouldn't want just one company running the show.

Oh, and hey, if streaming really becomes a big thing, we could get to the point were systems only rarely if ever need an update. That'd really be the death of the dedicated console.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Absolutely, but I doubt it will ever be fully open. If consoles disappear, I imagine Nintendo, Sony and so on creating their own virtual platforms, their own Steams and Origins. And I wouldn't be suprised if they designed their games in such a way you'd need extra bits of hardware, such as controllers and who knows what else they'll come up with.

Their own Steams and Origins? Absolutely. I don't doubt it.

Their own hardware? That sounds improbably plonky, and rather transparently grasping. "Play the new Zelda, but ONLY with Nintendo Brand Video Cards!".

 

[NPC009]

Absolutely, but I doubt it will ever be fully open. If consoles disappear, I imagine Nintendo, Sony and so on creating their own virtual platforms, their own Steams and Origins. And I wouldn't be suprised if they designed their games in such a way you'd need extra bits of hardware, such as controllers and who knows what else they'll come up with.

Their own Steams and Origins? Absolutely. I don't doubt it.

Their own hardware? That sounds improbably plonky, and rather transparently grasping. "Play the new Zelda, but ONLY with Nintendo Brand Video Cards!".

Nah, they'd force you to use a GamePad-like controller or something. Of course there'd be third party alternatives, but Nintendo does know a thing or two about making quality controllers... (even if some of them are super weird).

 

[Tayh]

1. The current thriving PC market exists largely because Valve/Steam built it back up. In the PC 'dying' period alot of that was retailers significantly cutting back on PC games new and especially used shelving space in favour of console

Yah. Keep telling yourself that. Correlation does not imply causation.

2. While competition is great in certain cases in the computing world uniformity is also good as well. I believe what Steam critics probably want is something like a web browser, where if you don't like say Chrome you can switch to Firefox and get the exact same content.

Well, at least you tried.
What me, and people like me, want is drm-free alternatives.
To use your example, that would be if steam took control over a lot of non-affiliated websites, which could hencefort only be accessed by users of steam, and then there is the rest of the internet which is freely available to anyone with a browser.

3. The #1 key factor for my support of Valve, they remain a privately held company that allows Gabe Newell to do whatever he feels best.

You mean, whatever earns him the most money with the least effort, right? Must be a cruise to watch the money flowing in from people having to pay you to access your exclusive content that you in no way or shape helped create or fund.
Here's a wakeup call: gabe doesn't care about you. There's never been any indication that he did.
If their recent behavior is any indication, valve and gabe mostly seems concerned with expanding steam and retaining their customers through various passive and active non-monetary incentives.

 

[Rozalia1]

I guess it's a matter oh how you see words. Like censorship, people have different ideas of what censorship is.

It's a bit hyperbole. But I feel that withholding games from customers unless they buy a closed platform is a bit like "hostage taking". Though that is a bit hyperbole. I feel that video games should be on open platforms.

No, because that's about having powerful enough hardware. It's still an open platform.
Anything that can be played by custom hardware and an open operating system, I don't consider it "held hostage" in any way.

You want their product... you become a customer. Unless you state Valve/EA/get the picture... so basically PC itself ultimately is holding games hostage... you have nothing. What is the difference? Say I don't want to have to install Steam to play X game that is only available through steam... that hostage taking? I suppose you'd retort its a "free platform" and that ultimately I suppose I could pirate it to not have steam... but that wouldn't be credible as an excuse for your exclusion of the PC in all this hostage taking business.

In many cases gaming on a PC vs a console is an objectively superior experience. High resolutions, better frame rates, more flexible hardware, etc, etc. The main selling point of consoles was traditionally the "sofa experience", but that can be replicated on a PC. I imagine it's possible to find someone for whom lesser resolutions, muddier textures, poorer performance, etc would constitute a superior experience, but you'd likely have to search high and wide to find them.

Not sure where you're going with that. What I said was basically that what the person I responded to was doing was making a statement to attempt to appear reasonable... however they've rigged it in such a way to the point where saying PC would be the only correct option. Its common, full of holes, and worst of all dishonest.

That's not remotely true. The presence of bias might be notable in terms of explaining why someone is holding a position, but it does not automatically weaken or diminish said position. Someone can be biased, and also be completely in the right.

This is gaming. No one who holds such viewpoints is free from the common weaknesses their cohorts hold.
Were they multiplatform gamers than I could see it... but than such a person wouldn't lower themselves to such trifle as you know... it'd make little sense.

Did a quick count, might be off. It had 18 PS4 exclusives, 23 XBONE exclusives, and 44 WiiU exclusives (Go WiiU!).

Someone compiled a list of PC exclusives going back through 1977. That might seem exhaustive until you remember that all PCs are backwards compatible, as the PC remains an open platform. It's here.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oak-3zZAQdud79EA_x_Ewp9elUFdPb8RSFbsY-uw5sM/edit?pli=1

I didn't bother doing a count. It's a lot. I believe it's somewhere around 104 pages long.

A more modern comparable:

Spoiler: Amazing how often this gets usage

24/12/2014 dated. List could have errors, its possible I'm not a machine... a game being on just PS4/3/Vita being below is not not error however.

PS4

Driveclub
Infamous First Light
Infamous Second Son
Killzone Shadow Fall
Killzone: Shadow Fall - Intercept
King Oddball
Knack
Resogun
Akiba's Trip: Undead & Undressed
CounterSpy (is on phones)
Dead Nation: Apocalypse Edition
Doki-Doki Universe
Entwined
Escape Plan
flOw
Flower
Guilty Gear Xrd
MLB 14: The Show
Pix the Cat
PixelJunk Shooter Ultimate
Samurai Warriors 4
Sound Shapes
The Last of Us Remastered
Natural Doctrine
Backgammon Blitz
Hohokum
Doki-Doki Universe
LittleBigPlanet 3
Super Mega Baseball

Xbox One

Crimson Dragon
D4: Dark Dreams Don't Die
Fantasia: Music Evolved
Fighter Within
Halo: The Master Chief Collection
Killer Instinct
Killer Instinct Classic
Killer Instinct Classic 2
Kinect Sports Rivals
Powerstar Golf
Shape Up
Sunset Overdrive
Xbox Fitness
Zoo Tycoon
Boom Ball for Kinect
Kalimba
Forza Horizon 2
Forza Motorsport 5

Wii U

99Seconds
Abyss
Alphadia Genesis (on phones too from looks of it)
Angry Bunnies: Colossal Carrot Crusade
Armillo
Arrow Time U
Art of Balance
Ava and Avior Save the Earth
Bayonetta 2
Blok Drop U
BrickBlast U!
Cake Ninja 3: The Legend Continues
Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker
Chasing Aurora
Coaster Crazy Deluxe
Cocoto Magic Circus 2
Color Zen (phone)
Color Zen Kids (phone)
Darts Up
Dolphin Up (phone)
Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze
Dr. Luigi
ESPN Sports Connection
Evofish (phone)
Family Party: 30 Great Games Obstacle Arcade
Fit Music
Flapp & Zegeta
Flowerworks HD: Follie's Adventure
Hello Kitty Kruisers
Hyrule Warriors
I've Got to Run!
Jett Tailfin
Lego City Undercover
Lucadian Chronicles
Luv me Buddies Wonderland
Mario & Sonic at the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games
Mario Kart 8
Meine Ersten Mitsing-Lieder
Midtown Crazy Race (phone)
Mighty Switch Force!: Hyper Drive Edition
Mighty Switch Force! 2
Monkey Pirates
Mon Premier Karaoké
Monster High: 13 Wishes
Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate
My Exotic Farm
My Farm
My First Songs
My Jurassic Farm
My Style Studio: Hair Salon
NES/Famicom Remix
NES/Famicom Remix 2
New Super Luigi U
New Super Mario Bros. U
Nintendo Land
Penguins of Madagascar
Percy's Predicament
Pikmin 3
Pixel Paint
Pokémon Rumble U
Poker Dice Solitaire Future
Psyscrolr
Pushmo World
Rush (couldn't find any info if it was on anything else)
Scram Kitty and His Buddy on Rails
Shut the Box
Sing Party
Snake Den
Sonic Boom: Rise of Lyric
Sonic Lost World
Soon Shine (phone)
Spikey Walls
Spin the Bottle: Bumpie's Party
Sportsball
Spot the Differences: Party!
Stealth Inc. 2
Super Mario 3D World
Super Smash Bros. for Wii U
Tank! Tank! Tank!
Tengami (phone)
The Croods: Prehistoric Party!
The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker HD
The Letter
The Wonderful 101
Transformers: Prime ? The Game
Turtle Tale
Twisted Fusion
Wii Fit U
Wii Party U
Wii Sports Club
Xavier
XType Plus
Your Shape: Fitness Evolved 2013
ZaciSa's Last Stand
ZombiU

I'm not playing children's games here, I have no need to prove X has more exclusives than Y.
The comment was "there is a handful", I said "there is more than that"... that does not translate to "consoles have more than PC" like it seems you've taken it as. The 1977 thing is something quite common and as its intention is obvious and has no place in our conversation it is dismissed, no point to it.

Now, as you say, a system could have a billion games on it, but if it didn't have the one you wanted to play, it wouldn't be of much use. But I'm sure you can appreciate a PC gamer making the argument that console exclusives are, comparatively, a "handful".

EDIT: Deleted. Not worth going into.
I disagree due to the usual situation with such people that repeat their dislike of something as a mantra to... convince themselves they dislike something.

Yeah about that...you really do need to calm down a bit. You seem rather excessively agitated on this subject. If you like your console, just like your console. There's no need to be defensive about it.

I've always disliked the notion of console exclusives, because I've spent my entire life playing games on an open platform. My PC plays the games my friend's PC plays. People who bought Dell don't play different games than people who bought Alienware. I don't buy a movie and get it home and discover I can't play it in my Sony DVD player, I need to buy one from Panasonic instead. It's a bit weird, you know? I understand the mentality behind it (you can't play DESIRABLE TITLE unless you buy OUR BRAND HARDWARE first!) but I'm not sure why any consumer would celebrate it. Be used to it? Not find it overly punitive? Sure. But applaud it? Bit confused there.

You aware how often I've heard of hostage taking? Behind illegal emulation its properly the thing that is most likely to get a comment out of me. How you're phrasing it all is obvious... but alas I'm multiplatform, "hostages" don't exist to me you see so that won't get you anywhere.
To be fair I am known to "hit" people with something similar... but I can do that from a strong position... you're doing it from a weak position on someone immune to it all... just doesn't work. If I were a warrior on reddit or something you'd have something, but no cigar.

Now as for the good/bad exclusives represent. The platform holders have due to you know... it being a business. A duty to bring software to their hardware to give it value. Hence the first party exclusives which if said platform holders didn't exist wouldn't have been made... I've argued this extensively before and I'd rather not do so again I hope you understand.
Now additionally said platform holders also do some other great things... for example Sony getting Yakuza 5 translated for one... for two them apparently according to the little info out there attempting to revive Wild Arms... there is good in the realm of exclusives... heck if I channel certain warriors a bit in my own words. "Star Citizen is exclusive but that is just dandy as only the PC possesses the necessary hardware to bring about the full immersive yadda yadda experience".

Even the most rabid of guys you'll find on reddit seemingly thinks exclusives are good... just certain exclusives... because you know...

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

there is good in the realm of exclusives... heck if I channel certain warriors a bit in my own words.

"channel certain warriors"..

..

..

is that more wrestling lingo that you deliberately use on a gaming website? Everyone has words they like to use in their own context, but man, public forum posts where no one else knows what you mean is not one of them. I end up scratching my head trying to figure out what you mean half the time when I have no idea what the context of the post is. otherwise I could simply say "bojangle tittie sprinkle monster pitch grass broom." and it wouldn't mean shit to you, but it'd mean I'm starving for a hamburger to me.

"Star Citizen is exclusive but that is just dandy as only the PC possesses the necessary hardware to bring about the full immersive yadda yadda experience".

Even the most rabid of guys you'll find on reddit seemingly thinks exclusives are good... just certain exclusives... because you know...

you're generalizing and changing the context a bit here, alot of games that go multiplatform end up suffering form the lowest common denominator (in many cases, the weakest console) to which developers tend to in turn hamper the pc version of it to either not have high capabilities, or if they do, it runs like absolute shit as a port. There have been plenty of games that wouldn't be possible in the same form if they had gone multiplatform, (try running mount and blade warband with 500+ soldiers running around on a console...I'll hold my breath until you get that working right.) and do you think publishers are going to let developers make two different versions of the same game for different platforms? *hah* that's a laugh, that'd cut into their bottom line. I would love it if they could scale/modify mount and blade warband for console players to enjoy though, but obviously just porting it wouldn't cut it when the physics gets taken to the extreme (like it does in most battles I participate in), and that is why the whole "exclusives are good" argument tends to be used by elitists, because they don't want their favorite games getting watered down just so the developers don't have to make two versions of the game.

I hate giving them praise for this, but blizzard did it right when they ported D3 to console, and to be honest, that game is the superior version IMO. They rebuilt the game from the basic idea to fit onto the consoles strengths and not just be a downscaled port that runs like crap.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

The 1977 thing is something quite common and as its intention is obvious and has no place in our conversation it is dismissed, no point to it.

Why does it have no place in the conversation? Is it because it's inconvenient to your position? Because you consider there to be a cut off time beyond which games no longer have worth? Substantiate your argument.

I disagree due to the usual situation with such people that repeat their dislike of something as a mantra to... convince themselves they dislike something.

I honestly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I skipped a couple of reply paragraphs above for the same reason. I don't know if there's a language barrier at play, if you're not expressing yourself well, or if I'm just not understanding what you're driving at, but a lot of this is straight up word salad to me.

You aware how often I've heard of hostage taking?

How could I possibly be aware of that? To my knowledge, this is the first time we have ever spoken.

How you're phrasing it all is obvious...

WHAT is obvious? What are you talking about.

but alas I'm multiplatform, "hostages" don't exist to me you see so that won't get you anywhere

Get me WHERE? Where is it you imagine I'm trying to go?

To be fair I am known to "hit" people with something similar... but I can do that from a strong position... you're doing it from a weak position on someone immune to it all... just doesn't work. If I were a warrior on reddit or something you'd have something, but no cigar.

I probably should've just read straight through to the end of your post before starting my reply. What. The hell. Is any of this. Supposed to mean. I can SORT of divine from your tone that you're being insulting/confrontational, but I have absolutely no idea what the insult is or what it is I'm meant to have done that I'm being confronted about.

Even the most rabid of guys you'll find on reddit seemingly thinks exclusives are good... just certain exclusives... because you know...

The benefit of a PC exclusive is it's not shackled to console hardware requirements. I should think that's fairly evident to anyone.

is that more wrestling lingo that you deliberately use on a gaming website? Everyone has words they like to use in their own context, but man, public forum posts where no one else knows what you mean is not one of them. I end up scratching my head trying to figure out what you mean half the time when I have no idea what the context of the post is.

Jesus fucking christ I'm glad it's not just me, I am SO CONFUSED.

 

[Smigglebops]

Jeez, second page and already it's a pissing contest. Im genuinely curious, why does anyone care if someone plays on a different platform then there own? Does it somehow make you enjoy your chosen platform less?

 

[Rozalia1]

"channel certain warriors"..

..

..

is that more wrestling lingo that you deliberately use on a gaming website? Everyone has words they like to use in their own context, but man, public forum posts where no one else knows what you mean is not one of them. I end up scratching my head trying to figure out what you mean half the time when I have no idea what the context of the post is. otherwise I could simply say "bojangle tittie sprinkle monster pitch grass broom." and it wouldn't mean shit to you, but it'd mean I'm starving for a hamburger to me.

Platform wars. Its actually gaming related so...

you're generalizing and changing the context a bit here, alot of games that go multiplatform end up suffering form the lowest common denominator (in many cases, the weakest console) to which developers tend to in turn hamper the pc version of it to either not have high capabilities, or if they do, it runs like absolute shit as a port. There have been plenty of games that wouldn't be possible in the same form if they had gone multiplatform, (try running mount and blade warband with 500+ soldiers running around on a console...I'll hold my breath until you get that working right.) and do you think publishers are going to let developers make two different versions of the same game for different platforms? *hah* that's a laugh, that'd cut into their bottom line. I would love it if they could scale/modify mount and blade warband for console players to enjoy though, but obviously just porting it wouldn't cut it when the physics gets taken to the extreme (like it does in most battles I participate in), and that is why the whole "exclusives are good" argument tends to be used by elitists, because they don't want their favorite games getting watered down just so the developers don't have to make two versions of the game.

I hate giving them praise for this, but blizzard did it right when they ported D3 to console, and to be honest, that game is the superior version IMO. They rebuilt the game from the basic idea to fit onto the consoles strengths and not just be a downscaled port that runs like crap.

The "laugh" is you just stated something plainly untrue. Handheld versions of games exist, different versions of games across generations exist, and even games that were completely from the ground built up to get on another platform exist.
You talk as its some sort of unbelievable incident... but history proves you wrong.

As for the rest. We're not talking watered down, we're talking non existence... bit different. I'll take an exclusive game over a non existent game thank you very much.

Why does it have no place in the conversation? Is it because it's inconvenient to your position? Because you consider there to be a cut off time beyond which games no longer have worth? Substantiate your argument.

Because it is simply irrelevant. I merely responded to someone which emboldened you to get all platform wars with me giving me lists and bringing up 1977 of all things... I'm not going to join in on that simply put as it'd be a mugs game if I did so. I win by virtue of staying out of it, I don't need to join in and pretend to own 1 console so you can hit me with all the common generic barbs you have in storage.

I honestly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I skipped a couple of reply paragraphs above for the same reason. I don't know if there's a language barrier at play, if you're not expressing yourself well, or if I'm just not understanding what you're driving at, but a lot of this is straight up word salad to me.

Forgive me, I repeat and talk on issues so often I start streamlining a lot of the time. However the reason I deleted what I initially wrote is because ultimately I can only provide something that is anecdotal, likewise yourself in any response.
But the gist is people often try to convince themselves that "they never wanted it anyway" which is why you get the oddity of someone saying they want a dozen X games so much... but would never buy a console for a "handful" of games.

How could I possibly be aware of that? To my knowledge, this is the first time we have ever spoken.

Lets rephrase that, you aware how often hostage taking comes up in these matters?

WHAT is obvious? What are you talking about.

"Yeah about that...you really do need to calm down a bit. You seem rather excessively agitated on this subject. If you like your console, just like your console. There's no need to be defensive about it".

I don't like spelling things out which is why I sometimes come off as cryptic. People have told me it rude to do so even when I try such a thing it can come off as "out there". I never want to maliciously insult someone.

I probably should've just read straight through to the end of your post before starting my reply. What. The hell. Is any of this. Supposed to mean. I can SORT of divine from your tone that you're being insulting/confrontational, but I have absolutely no idea what the insult is or what it is I'm meant to have done that I'm being confronted about.

Lets put it in the context of a game which should tell you I am not mad with you or anything like that. I often use the platform wars to my advantage as its extremely effective on the offence (critical hits against any that take part in them you see), and with my platform wars immune armour extremely safe to use. No malice of course, but I talk to a lot of people you see (not all arguments either) so it saves me a lot of time. Its a good tool, one that has made people shred themselves and their arguments many times in the past for me.

Now I felt things out here as you just have to feel these things out before you push the trigger full auto if you get my drift. The more you push the bigger the blowback is if it turns out their armour is in fact higher grade than expected. Either you saw no issue... or you didn't see the bullets... anyway you with the comment above, the "defensive" one attempted to hit me with a platform wars bullet... problem is my armour is fully immune to such things and thus it backfired.

Now the warrior reddit thing was me telling you that if I were someone who exclusively owned a single console as you pushed the angle of in your post than your bullet would well pierce my armour. However my armour is made of much finer... not to mention far more expensive material so no dice.

That clear it all up? I'll try to be more direct than. Your attempts to paint me as a platform wars warrior do not work as I am multiplatform as many are surely aware by now (say it enough). You have consistently tried to turn this into a console vs PC thing when there was nothing invoking such a response.
I have no issue doing console vs PC if that is the subject at hand especially as with my "armour" I really can't "lose"... but I don't get all happy when someone jumps me with it either whatever advantage I have in such an argument.

If I am nice and I usually am than this is a misunderstanding not helped by my attempts to spice up conversation by using certain terms which while recognisable to some who have debated me in the past... will not necessarily be to others.
I apologise if the case.

The benefit of a PC exclusive is it's not shackled to console hardware requirements. I should think that's fairly evident to anyone.

... And that counts all those low requirement exclusives too huh... look that stance is utterly weak. You can take a stance against exclusives if you like. However PC only gamer... thinks consoles exclusives are bad... PC only exclusives good... c'mon do you not see how it looks?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Which is why you get the oddity of someone saying they want a dozen X games so much... but would never buy a console for a "handful" of games.

I don't find it odd at all. Each console generation has provided somewhere in the realm of <=5 games that I think "I wouldn't mind playing that". As in, "I wouldn't mind playing that at regular prices". Throw in a $200-400 console purchase, and the game is effectively priced outside of my interest. I imagine many other people are the same. I did end up playing The Last of Us when I got a PS3 for free, but I found it ultimately a bit on the disappointing side. Journey, while I was curious, I couldn't be assed to go and get, and that about summed it up for PS3 exclusives.

I *did* buy an XBOX 360 years back so I could play NHL Hockey, as EA does not see fit to provide a PC version of that franchise, a decision that was bolstered by a desire to try Guitar Hero and an affection for the Katamari Damacy series. Even then, it required a trade-in of an old PS2 console, my PSP, and a lot of old games to bring the price down to something I felt was reasonable for the investment.

Lets rephrase that, you aware how often hostage taking comes up in these matters?

Nope. I don't get involved in platform wars, save fallaciously. This discussion is about as deep into the issue as I've ever gotten. I do consider exclusives to be an antiquated and distasteful method of driving hardware sales, however.

Lets put it in the context of a game which should tell you I am not mad with you or anything like that. I often use the platform wars to my advantage as its extremely effective on the offence (critical hits against any that take part in them you see), and with my platform wars immune armour extremely safe to use.

You know what would be a more coherent way to say this? "I own multiple platforms, and do not feel a singular loyalty towards any one of them". All this babbling about warriors and armor seriously obfuscates your ability to make a cogent argument. I appreciate that you find the metaphor amusing, but it shouldn't take a sequence of long, rambling posts for someone to finally comprehend what it is you're trying to communicate.

anyway you with the comment above, the "defensive" one attempted to hit me with a platform wars bullet... problem is my armour is fully immune to such things and thus it backfired.

I hate to say it, but you still come off as EXTREMELY defensive. People who are NOT defensive do not usually write lengthy screeds about the quality of their armor and their immunity to insult. The fact that you apparently have nothing to even feel defensive about makes this behavior all the more confounding. You also seem singularly incensed by PC/Console comparisons, which makes me believe you're probably having these arguments all over the place and are lugging around a bit of a chip on your shoulder.

Your attempts to paint me as a platform wars warrior do not work as I am multiplatform as many are surely aware by now (say it enough). You have consistently tried to turn this into a console vs PC thing when there was nothing invoking such a response.

I didn't "attempt to paint you" as anything. You painted yourself as a "platform wars warrior" by wading into this thread swinging. You also do nothing to discourage interpretations of you as a "warrior" when you pen half a dozen loquacious paragraphs about the quality of your armor. If you don't want to fight about platforms, stop fighting about platforms.

... And that counts all those low requirement exclusives too huh... look that stance is utterly weak. You can take a stance against exclusives if you like. However PC only gamer... thinks consoles exclusives are bad... PC only exclusives good... c'mon do you not see how it looks?

A) Not a PC only gamer, just primarily a PC gamer. My first gaming platform was an Intellivision, followed by a Commodore 64. I've played on everything from Amigas to Nintendos to mobile devices.
B) Think exclusives in general are bad if the only reason for those exclusives is to drive hardware sales
C) Have no problem with "exclusives" if the reason for exclusion is that the platforms in question can't handle the software, IE Star Citizen
D) Would have absolutely no issue with lower requirement PC games getting ported to consoles...in fact I applaud it, because unnecessary exclusives are idiotic

Make sense? Yes? No? Need more clarification?