Great Action-packed games

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

@thislsmadness : That's why it's good to cut out extra middlemen who charge licensing fees. Paying something to a distributor is OK, since distributor helps reaching more users. But MS and Sony try to inject themselves too much in between developers and users. All this "exclusivity" approach simply stinks and reduces choice in the end.

So that market needs some serious stirring up, and Valve can at least help in decoupling this hardware + distributor lock-in. Valve aren't perfect either, they suffer from their own lock-in problems (such as Steamworks), but at least in this case their system won't be all locked up to the brink, so nothing will stop Steam Machines' users from installing games from GOG for instance or any other Steam competing distributor which sells Linux games.

 

[thislsmadness]

Steam box doesnt cut out the middle man, Valve is the middleman in that equation. Sony and MS are more involved but theres also benefits that come with that, especially right now when they are throwing around a lot of money to diversify their console lineups. The two of them are out right funding various projects and marketing deals that help developers reach a wider user base.

And to clarify, Im not saying that the market wouldn't benefit from steam boxes. More competition is always a good thing for the consumer, so I hope that they are successful. As of right now, I just have no confidence they will be.

 

[Nenous]

4, 10, 20... It doesn't matter. Steambox is a total unknown at this point and could easily be a failure. Consoles are different because its a market that appears to have seen its peak and is now contracting. By comparison, the mobile market is a fast growing one and, despite that, anyone who isn't Apple is fighting to remain profitable. http://www.cnet.com/news/android-share-of-smartphone-profit-plummets-to-just-11-percent/

I don't know were your seeing Sony contracting, as of this day Sony sold more PS4s in a year plus than they did with the PS3. Doubt the consoles strength, when Witcher 3 comes out the dominant sales will be on the PS4 and will be hardcopy.
Now" I like PC gaming but what holds pc gaming back from ever dominanting is complexity, to much work, and with 4k and 8k tvs around Sony's eventually just going to release another console that will appeal to casual gamers, and that's the market, casual gamers don't wanna sit at a desk, thy wanna recline and play there games on there lcd or 4k tv's without having to worry if there gpu's drivers are up to date ect.
As for digital distribution being the only way to play video games, it's never going to happen, it's considered a monopoly, also you have to keep in mind bandwith caps, most Ip's are around 250 gigs here and that looks to be the standard for sometime to come.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

Steam box doesnt cut out the middle man, Valve is the middleman in that equation.

Not an enforced one as I said above - you can even wipe out SteamOS installation and put any other Linux distro on the Steam Machine. Or simply install games not from Steam. Which is not possible on Xbox and PlayStation.

Sony and MS are more involved but theres also benefits that come with that, especially right now when they are throwing around a lot of money to diversify their console lineups. The two of them are out right funding various projects and marketing deals that help developers reach a wider user base.

One can't reach a wider user base when Sony or MS require developers to make exclusive releases. MS and Sony can do that only because market is not competitive enough at present (i.e. close to unhealthy monopoly). So more competition will reduce such kind of attitude.

to clarify, Im not saying that the market wouldn't benefit from steam boxes. More competition is always a good thing for the consumer, so I hope that they are successful. As of right now, I just have no confidence they will be.

That's exactly my point. They will be successful, because in the process they also untie the lock-in of proprietary APIs. I.e. the upcoming glnext (Vulkan?) API will reduce influence of APIs which make games unportable.

---------- Updated at 05:16 PM ----------

As for digital distribution being the only way to play video games, it's never going to happen, it's considered a monopoly, also you have to keep in mind bandwith caps, most Ip's are around 250 gigs here and that looks to be the standard for sometime to come.

Wait and see. It's already happening. And it has nothing to do with monopoly because there are multiple digital distributors out there. Though I wish there would be more purely DRM-free ones. So far there is only GOG for that.

 

[Nenous]

Not an enforced one as I said above - you can even wipe out SteamOS installation and put any other Linux distro on the Steam Machine. Or simply install games not from Steam. Which is not possible on Xbox and PlayStation.




One can't reach a wider user base when Sony or MS require developers to make exclusive releases. MS and Sony can do that only because market is not competitive enough at present (i.e. close to unhealthy monopoly). So more competition with reduce such kind of attitude.




That's exactly my point. They will be successful, because in the process they also untie the lock-in of proprietary APIs. I.e. the upcoming glnext (Vulkan?) API will reduce influence of APIs which make games unportable.

---------- Updated at 05:16 PM ----------



Wait and see. It's already happening. And it has nothing to do with monopoly because there are multiple digital distributors out there. Though I wish there would be more purely DRM-free ones. So far there is only GOG for that.

Rather than push your view point, you should explain the pros about digital distribution. Myself I'm not for digital distribution, it would require everyone to have an internet connection, and that's were digital distribution fails and why hardcopy distribution will always be around. You can argue the fact all you wish, but it's not just gamers like myself who don't want digital distribution, it's publishers and business that don't want it either.
But maybe and just maybe when Wifi is made available and free to everyone no matter were you are, then perhaps then, but don't get your hopes up to high.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

@Nenous: That's a fact - physical distribution is in decline, while digital is on the rise. Benefits were explained above. Of course the downsides are known as you described.

Physical distribution might not disappear altogether, since some might want to publish collector editions with physical items. But most developers will simply skip the overhead of wasting resources on the physical publishing. Those who are in the areas without Internet unfortunately will have harder time and will have to travel to the nearest place which has it. But it will affect way more aspects than games for sure.

There might be alternative services developing, which would serve such areas specifically. I.e. they can for example buy it digitally and ship it to you on a USB drive and so on (in such case it's important that goods should be DRM free, since DRMed services will hinder such idea - they hate any kind of flexibility). Not hard to imagine such service which can be useful for a area cut off from the Internet for some reason.

 

[thislsmadness]

Not an enforced one as I said above - you can even wipe out SteamOS installation and put any other Linux distro on the Steam Machine. Or simply install games not from Steam. Which is not possible on Xbox and PlayStation.

Thats neat, but I dont see how that changes anything. In fact, That defeats the point of a steam box. The whole point of these things is to bring the simplicity and convenience of console gaming to the PC market. If youre going to do all that then you may as well just build your own PC.

One can't reach a wider user base when Sony or MS require developers to make exclusive releases. MS and Sony can do that only because market is not competitive enough at present (i.e. close to unhealthy monopoly). So more competition with reduce such kind of attitude.

Exclusive releases are such a tiny percentage of total releases and 9 times out of ten the exclusivity only applies to consoles... So most of those games end up on PC anyway. Many of the exclusives we see these days would not have happened if one of them didnt step in. Street Fighter 5 and Bloodborne are only happening because Sony is fully or partially picking up the bill. No one was interested in making Bayonetta until Nintendo stepped in. Im also not sure how the current landscape is anything close to resembling a monopoly. Youve got 3 billion dollar corporations undercutting and doing everything they can to 1 up the competition.

That's exactly my point. They will be successful, because in the process they also untie the lock-in of proprietary APIs. I.e. the upcoming glnext (Vulkan?) API will reduce influence of APIs which make games unportable.

The chances that the console market will care about any of that is slim to none.

I don't know were your seeing Sony contracting, as of this day Sony sold more PS4s in a year plus than they did with the PS3. Doubt the consoles strength, when Witcher 3 comes out the dominant sales will be on the PS4 and will be hardcopy.

Thats because the launch of the PS3 was completely bungled and an embarrassment for Sony. Im not talking about how well these consoles are performing compared with their immediate predecessor anyway, Im looking at the projected health of the market as a whole. These consoles are doing ok, but no one is anywhere near the popularity the PS2 or Wii. All of them have had to resort to price drops and multigame bundles to keep sales brisk, thats generally unheard of in year one of a console cycle.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

Thats neat, but I dont see how that changes anything. In fact, That defeats the point of a steam box. The whole point of these things is to bring the simplicity and convenience of console gaming to the PC market. If youre going to do all that then you may as well just build your own PC.

I personally don't need it, I'm fine with Linux gaming on my regular PC. I was just explaining that Steam Machines can shake up console market, freeing it from the grip of MS and Sony who produce sickening controlled systems.

Street Fighter 5 and Bloodborne are only happening because Sony is fully or partially picking up the bill. No one was interested in making Bayonetta until Nintendo stepped in.

Those who can't find support from publishers and have potential interested users turn to crowdfunding. It allows them releasing cross platform games DRM-free. Turning to MS and Sony results in exclusives because MS and Sony don't want games reaching users of other systems, as well is it results in sick DRM. IMHO crowdfunding is way better for that purpose. Luckily it's on the rise, and more serious games come out that way now.

The chances that the console market will care about any of that is slim to none.

Not any less than desktop gaming market. I don't expect initially all the current lock-in proponents to support it. While it helps developers, it goes against their sick habit of using development tools to lock everyone into their platform. But with time, wider developer base will put pressure on them, and they either will start supporting it or will become obsolete. (same happened with Internet Explorer for example). Basically strong competition keeps lock-in abusers at bay. That time is still not very close though. We'll have to see how good glnext / Vulkan will turn out to be.

Im also not sure how the current landscape is anything close to resembling a monopoly. Youve got 3 billion dollar corporations undercutting and doing everything they can to 1 up the competition.

It's duopoly, with both participants resembling each other's unhealthy practices. For user essentially it's a monopoly - there isn't any major difference between the two. A different approach can open things up. That would mean competition and real alternative.

 

[thislsmadness]

I personally don't need it, I'm fine with Linux gaming on my regular PC. I was just explaining that Steam Machines can shake up console market, freeing it from the grip of MS and Sony who produce sickening controlled systems.

The point is that there is absolutely nothing stopping people from "freeing" themselves from Sony and Ms right this moment. why don't they? Because the console market appeals to an audience that is not interested in tinkering and tweaking. So being able to do that with a steam box isnt much of a concern for them.

Those who can't find support from publishers and have potential interested users turn to crowdfunding. It allows them releasing cross platform games DRM-free. Turning to MS and Sony results in exclusives because MS and Sony don't want games reaching users of other systems, as well is it results in sick DRM. IMHO crowdfunding is way better for that purpose. Luckily it's on the rise, and more serious games come out that way now.

I think developers are happy to get their projects funded in whatever way they can. Its great that they have options.

Not any less than desktop gaming market. I don't expect initially all the current lock-in proponents to support it. While it helps developers, it goes against their sick habit of using development tools to lock everyone into their platform. But with time, wider developer base will put pressure on them, and they either will start supporting it or will become obsolete. (same happened with Internet Explorer for example). Basically strong competition keeps lock-in abusers at bay. That time is still not very close though. We'll have to see how good glnext / Vulkan will turn out to be.

Or consumers, developers, and retailers will stick with these "sick habits" and the steam box will join the Ouya as a "revolutionary" pipedream.

It's duopoly, with both participants resembling each other's unhealthy practices. For user essentially it's a monopoly - there isn't any major difference between the two. A different approach can open things up. That would mean competition and real alternative.

There are 3 hardware manufactures and you have the option of just getting 95% of these games on steam. Its nothing close to a monopoly or duopoly.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

The point is that there is absolutely nothing stopping people from "freeing" themselves from Sony and Ms right this moment.

Nothing? I doesn't look like it. Let's say, they want to install games outside MS control on Xbox. Tough luck, they don't allow it. Or let's say they want to do that on PS4. No dice. They even removed alternative OS support (starting from PS3 system). So of course nothing is stopping gamers from switching to PC and installing any OS / game they want to, but we are talking about certain use case (i.e. console - living room + controller oriented setup). Current consoles don't allow that at all, it's pretty clear.

I think developers are happy to get their projects funded in whatever way they can.

Sure, and developers care about wider reach. That's why I think exclusives approach will become less and less common. It's just stupid to artificially limit your audience.

Or consumers, developers, and retailers will stick with these "sick habits"

Developers who stick to habits become uncompetitive. The progress doesn't stay in one place. Things will move forward, and those who will not want to stay behind will move forward as well.

There are 3 hardware manufactures and you have the option of just getting 95% of these games on steam. Its nothing close to a monopoly or duopoly.

Again, we are talking about console user experience. There is not enough competition there as of now.

 

[TheDeathRun]

I don't think the rise of digital distribution will definitely lead to the demise of physical distribution. You just have to look at similar industries to know this might not be the case. Even after e-books were created, hard-copy physical books still sell because there are plenty of people who love the feel of a real book in their hands and the feel of physically turning a page. Music CDs still sell (admittedly in less quantity). And in my country where a hell of a lot of people watch movies online, I still see shops selling DVDs and Blu-Rays.

The same can be true for the games industry. I know there are people who buy physical CDs for all the extra memorabilia that comes with them like a map of the game-world, etc. Then there are collectors' editions, which obviously only come in the form of physical copies. And finally, there are plenty of people who have a shelf of games at home and love to fill them with games from their favorite franchises. If CDPR post-TW3 releases a combo pack or something that contains TW1, TW2, and TW3 with all DLC included and bla bla bla, I would go out to the nearest store and buy that just so I can have all three games sitting proudly on my shelf.

Point: physical distribution does not have to die off as a consequence of the rise of digital distribution. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

I'd differentiate books and other media. Reading requires special ergonomics. Nothing easily beats a physical book for many reasons. Digital e-readers, tablets and etc. can't fully replace it (yet). They try to approach it, and it often works as a decent substitute, but it's not on the same ergonomic level yet.

With audio and video it's completely the opposite. They are accessed through digital devices for a while already (since times audio and video tapes became obsolete). The fact that disks are sold is caused by retarded groups like MPAA and RIAA which simply hate any technological progress and view it as a threat rather than an opportunity. If not for them we'd have pure digital distribution (DRM-free) for video. For audio it's better, but far from perfect. You barely can get lossless audio digitally.

Games fall in the same category. They are accessed through computers, and as such are perfect candidates for pure digital distribution. Books are really an exception because of their nature and the fact that reading technology didn't catch up yet.

 

[thislsmadness]

Nothing? I doesn't look like it. Let's say, they want to install games outside MS control on Xbox. Tough luck, they don't allow it. Or let's say they want to do that on PS4. No dice. They even removed alternative OS support (starting from PS3 system). So of course nothing is stopping gamers from switching to PC and installing any OS / game they want to, but we are talking about certain use case (i.e. console - living room + controller oriented setup). Current consoles don't allow that at all, it's pretty clear.

I play games on my living room TV from my PC with a controller all the time -- these days, it could not be easier to set up. Others don't because some people actually prefer a more curated and streamlined experience. So the fact that you can install another linux distro on a steam box isn't much of a selling point for the market.

Sure, and developers care about wider reach. That's why I think exclusives approach will become less and less common. It's just stupid to artificially limit your audience.

Exclusives have practically been dead for over a decade now... What we have these days is a mostly a bastardized version of "exclusivity" which is mostly aimed at keeping the game off of other consoles. MS bought Titanfall exclusivity but you are still free to play it on a PC. Street Fighter 5 will still have a PC version. The games that end up being true exclusives are 1st and 2nd party games.

Developers who stick to habits become uncompetitive. The progress doesn't stay in one place. Things will move forward, and those who will not want to stay behind will move forward as well.

Developers will go where there is an audience. If people don't buy steam boxes then developers won't develop for them and retailers wont stock them. The problem with your argument here is that you've already decided that steam box is some sort of hugely commercial success and that the audience demands it, when the reality is that it has not proven itself in anyway.

Again, we are talking about console user experience. There is not enough competition there as of now.

More competition is always a good thing for customers. Your original statement that it was a monopoly and then a duopoly, which are both just plain wrong.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

I play games on my living room TV from my PC with a controller all the time -- these days, it could not be easier to set up.

Sure, that's what Steam Machines will be anyway. But according to that argument people would buy consoles less (I personally don't own one like you). However some prefer to avoid wiring I guess. It's not about curated (=DRM + lock-in), it's about easy to use experience. The former doesn't equal the later.

Developers will go where there is an audience.

Audience doesn't care about what tools developers use (most of it). But developers do care, and a lot. So if it will be more beneficial for them to use stuff like glnext, they'll start demanding from MS and Sony to support it (and they'd be stupid to refuse, the last thing they want is to lose developers). But for that it should become competitive enough. I.e. excel over lock-in alternatives.

our original statement that it was a monopoly and then a duopoly, which are both just plain wrong.

In consoles only - yes. For the end user there isn't enough healthy choice. Yet. If you are measuring all at once (PC and consoles) then of course it's healthier and more competitive. Except skewed and overblown influence of Windows and Microsoft on PC.

 

[thislsmadness]

Sure, that's what Steam Machines will be anyway. But according to that argument people would buy consoles less (I personally don't own one like you). However some prefer to avoid wiring I guess. It's not about curated (=DRM + lock-in), it's about easy to use experience. The former doesn't equal the later.

Audience doesn't care about what tools developers use (most of it). But developers do care, and a lot. So if it will be more beneficial for them to use stuff like glnext, they'll start demanding from MS and Sony to support it (and they'd be stupid to refuse, the last thing they want is to lose developers). But for that it should become competitive enough. I.e. excel over lock-in alternatives.

In consoles only - yes. For the end user there isn't enough healthy choice. Yet. If you are measuring all at once (PC and consoles) then of course it's healthier and more competitive. Except skewed and overblown influence of Windows and Microsoft on PC.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. We've both said plenty on this and it feels like we're going in circles now.

 

[Blothulfur]

Great action packed games? Let's see just off top of me head.:

Severance: Blade of Darkness.
Warhammer 40k: Space Marine.
Torchlight 1 & 2.
Original Soldier of Fortune.
Streets of Rage/Bare Knuckle 1, 2 & 3.
Rune.
Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War series. They're strategy games, but one that demands you go out and smite the Xenos and heretic scum in their depraved lairs of villainy. So mucho arse kicking.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

Great action packed games? Let's see just off top of me head.:
Severance: Blade of Darkness.
Rune.

Yeah, those are great games. Rune is very atmospheric. And Blade of Darkness is insanely hard (at least when I played it with a knight).

 

[Ljesnjanin]

Severance: Blade of Darkness

I must replay this...
Fantastic combat it was, IIRC...

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

I must replay this...
Fantastic combat it was, IIRC...

I remember those huge orcs annoyed me to no end. They can slash you in half with a few blows. And one has to constantly evade them because blocking their blows isn't much of an option.

 

[Blothulfur]

Poison swords an all, probably most dangerous enemy at low levels, real good challenge.