Zero Punctuation: The Legend of Zelda: A Link Between Worlds

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

CriticKitten:

Thanatos2k:
BARELY more powerful

*sigh*

It was estimated to be twice as powerful as the 360. Estimated 1.5 times more powerful than the PS3. And twice as efficient (power-wise) as both.

Wow. Those are some extremely dubious sources. Two of them are pre-release rumors from "analysts" - and the one post-release examination contradicts the claims of the other two, saying that the Wii U uses less power than the PS3 or Xbox 360, but doesn't have any significant advantage in processing power.

You are conflating two very different things here. Unverified, non-technical claims that the Wii U is 1.5x to 2.5x times as powerful - with another story (which does have some technical credibility) that it draws fewer Watts, but is not meaningfully more powerful.

Your claim that it both has significantly more processing power, while drawing fewer Watts is highly unlikely, and unsubstantiated. Maybe if you could link to some actual technical analysis of the actual Wii U, rather than rumour and scuttlebutt, it would be more credible.

Aardvaarkman:

The_Kodu:

Aardvaarkman:

Firstly, you said that if they used SSDs they would "be at that level by now." Now you're saying they aren't near it?

If they had stuck with them and or cartridges were presently used.

You're not making a lot of sense. Are you saying that somehow if Nintendo continued using cartridges, SSDs would somehow be magically a lot cheaper? That's not how technology development works. Nintendo is nowhere near a big enough player to have a significant effect on that.

There are things like the physical costs and science behind these technologies that makes them cost more or less. If solid state store could suddenly be made that cheap, then things like server storage for massive data farms would be the ones influencing it. And believe me - if "big data" storage had cheap solid state storage available, they would be replacing hard drives in servers everywhere.

Except the fact as there is demand companies will supply it and over time work at becoming more efficient to make said products.

It's the expertise and techniques that change. Take for example the fact even selling at their most expensive point, most console sell the initial 2-3 version of the console at losses. However later down the line they are selling those console cheaper and from profit. The raw material costs don't change that dramatically over the lifespan.

I'm not talking about someone clicking their fingers and the price dropping. I'm talking about a gradual evolution. Material costs aren't the biggest cost not by far.

It depends on the benefit to the servers as it's cost vs time. Would the extra time saved for data retrieval be worth the cost ?

However when a game takes 1 minute to load people go nuts. So for gaming that data retrieval speed has greater value. The fact some companies still use magnetic tape backups of their systems hints at this as the likelihood of losing their entire system is Rare so not worth investing in something very expensive to do it when they still have magnetic tapes.

Aardvaarkman:

Unless of course companies wanted to use more than a disc allows them or to not have to compress things.
One of the main challenges facing 4K is storage space and while Blue ray allows the use of a finer laser but stepping up from HD to 4K will require vast amounts of extra storage space. While you could in theory make even finer lasers it would cause the problem that even a very fine scratch could break the game entirely. Heck a speck of dust could make the game unplayable. ...

At present Optical media is either going to have to evolve again with not everyone having switched to blue ray yet or its going to have to give way to something else.

Yes. Optical media is giving way to something else - the internet.

Which as yet isn't beating out physical media even shockingly on PC titles that get a physical and digital release the same day.

Also will all the issues such and DRM etc. some people like to have a physical copy just incase.

Aardvaarkman:

The_Kodu:

You pointed out there would be extra costs. At least then a company could say they're covering costs not simply after even more money.

OK - so who does that benefit? So, the company says, "oh that costs more because we're using a stupid costly medium to distribute our games, and Nintendo is taking a cut on top of that."

I think the customer would say fine - I'll just buy it online or on a disc, instead of using your stupid cartridges.

And still have to deal with Season passes, cut content and DLC stuff anyway.

Aardvaarkman:

The_Kodu:

Aardvaarkman:

What imaginative things could be done? I dunno, how about getting rid of physical media, and using this thing called "the internet" to distribute games instead? Discs are already on the way out. The idea of physical media making some kind of resurgence just seems ridiculous at this point.

Until we're all on 100GB/s systems then that's not happening.

Um, it is happening. Have you not heard of these things called "Steam," "PSN" and "Xbox Live"? They're kind of a pretty big deal in gaming at the moment.

Except the largest game I know of on Steam I think is The Secret World. Which clocks in at a hefty 35GB.

People aren't downloading lots of 50GB games yet, simply because there aren't may out there yet.

With 4K the size could be even more than that.

Heck I've recently spend 6 months in another area of the country.
On the fastest non business line in that area a 10GB install was taking 2 hours to download.
You can say all you want that people will go with it but even now on sub 50GB file sizes there are people struggling simply because they can't get internet fast enough and affordable enough.

At present in those areas the Broadband is just passable for the needs. This isn't even accounting for those not on the best connections.

The internet isn't going to be taking over anytime soon. Just look at the fact big companies can't even hold their servers together and that's without everyone also downloading the game from them at the same time.

Aardvaarkman:

The_Kodu:
There is still demand for physical copies so it's not going to vanish unless part of the market goes with it.

But it's a shrinking part of the market - and can easily be served with optical discs. There's no need to put extra effort and money in expensive solid state storage for a vanishing market. Especially as that market is probably the least attractive end of the market for publishers.

Except the market isn't going to vanish. Internet connections are just starting to get into a state where downloading a DVD storage level game is possible. The step to games filling blue ray disks (when we finally fully transition generations in 2 years time) will still hit hard.

The physical part of the market will always exist for one simple reason.
Kids don't have credit cards.

Aardvaarkman:

The_Kodu:

Really because you can pretty easily remove data and put it back onto an SSD or hard drive. Heck do you leave every picture you ever took on a camera SD card ?

But nobody is just using standard SD cards. Nintendo uses a proprietary case and connectors - so again, licensing and manufacturing costs. And they aren;t about to just let you use them as a general-purpose storage medium - they are going to lock them down.

they will lock them down but my point being it's not impossible for them to create a system to allow them to install and change data on them.

Also the deal with a previous buzz word of publishers. it cuts down on Piracy to have a cartridge system.

Aardvaarkman:

The_Kodu:

Aardvaarkman:

Also, the systems that use cartridges tend to be extremely limited on storage space. Those with optical discs tend to have roomy hard drive space for updates.

Because they need that space. It's as simple as that.

Uh, yeah, because they run more complex games with more graphical assets than a hand-held unit. And because they are physically larger, it's easier to fit in an optical drive and a hard drive. Meanwhile, you don't get those features with cartridge-based systems.

So an optical drive using discs makes it easier to put in a hard drive eh ?
Explain the PSP needing an extra memory card then ?

If you're having the cartridge plug in and reading the data directly that way, you only need the space for the cartridge. You seem to think the space of a disc is all that's needed to read the disc. You don't seem to realise you need things like the laser and a motor to spin the disc. Not the mention the drive itself now with motors to open and close it / take and eject the disk.

Running off a hard drive or SSD is far easier and would take less space hence it would be possible to do just the same.

Aardvaarkman:

The_Kodu:

You dropbox whole games across ?
Or other larger files ?

Yep. I Dropbox huge video files to my clients, and between office and home. It works great.

20GB + files.

Really ?

Also I should point out your office will have business line installed internet wise so chances are it will be quicker.

I happen to know a production company in the UK that used to ship a physical hard drive around between its members because of the volume and size of files. They now are actually set up in the same location but realistically the internet isn't good enough not for sending hours worth of HD content across constantly in bulk volume.

Aardvaarkman:

The_Kodu:

Aardvaarkman:

I use a NAS RAID.

Not the most portable of things are they ? Also kind of reliant on the internet to retrieve files when you're elsewhere.

It's a lot better than direct-attached storage that you have to plug in to your device. And it's not really a problem getting stuff over the internet. I imagine within a couple of years, I won't even need the NAS, and cloud storage will be large and fast enough that I can just keep it all on an online storage service, and only have files I'm actively working with stored locally.

Except those kind of devices are quite compatible with plenty of things due to how commonly available they are.

Aardvaarkman:

The_Kodu:
Solid state storage isn't obsolete and solid state storage is the modern version of the cartridge.

No, it isn't. Solid state storage is the modern version of the hard drive. It has nothing to do with cartridges.

So a cartridge with a chip isn't a solid state way to store information similar to solid state storage methods. Ok the cartridge does seem old but it was the old method.

Aardvaarkman:

The_Kodu:
Except it is the modern face of the gaming cartridge. The chips were just another means to store the data really.

But that's the opposite of what you said. Just because modern "cartridges" used solid state technology, does not make solid state technology an evolution of the gaming cartridge.

So the 3DS cartridges are not the modern face of cartridges in video games because they don't use old style chips ?
I guess the things we call PCs aren't computers then as they don't use Valves ?

Aardvaarkman:

It's the other way around. Solid state store evolved for other purposes, and was adapted for gaming use by a company too blinded by nostalgia, that wanted to recreate a old technology with modern tools.

So you're saying the PSP UMDs which are prone to cracking in the centre are better ?

Heck you can now choose to make something read only or not.

Oh and before you say ROM is read only. NOR flash memory can emulate ROM at a code level.

Basically what we have now is the evolution of the cartridge.

NuclearKangaroo:

dont jim sterling me, you know what i mean, innovation that lead us SOMEWHERE, that is GOOD innovation

physics and destructible environment started appearing in the PS2 era, not last gen

i only think gaming is truthly moving fowards on PC, pardon me if i sound fanboy-ish, but when both sony and microsft start throwing up 60 dollar games with tons of day 1 DLC and microtransactions (mostly microsoft) ive lost almost all hope for console gaming, hell the only one who gets how it should be is nintendo but they fucked up everywhere else

Im not against good innovation, just dont want peopel to force devs to "innovate" for innovations sale. Rather making innovations benefit us by having better games. Like, say, Minecraft innovated an enviroment that plenty of other games are copying now.
Its true that detructible enviroment started popping in 6th generation, but its 7th generation that realyl got it anywhere further than "can destroy prescripted elements".
Oh, im as far a PCMasterRace as it comes, so you dont sound fanboyish at all, and i completely agree that the good innovation seems to be coming out on PC nowadays, but its not like consoles are a lost cause there.... well... yes, yes they are..... the obsolete-at-launch hardware made them so.

The_Kodu:

Which as yet isn't beating out physical media even shockingly on PC titles that get a physical and digital release the same day.

Steam does not release sale numbers which heavily undeestimates figures on phyiscal favour. From what information is gathered by analysts, it is believed that steam alone holds 51% of PC gaming market share, so add other digital downloads there....

The step to games filling blue ray disks (when we finally fully transition generations in 2 years time) will still hit hard.

Wont happen. Because current consoles are already holding the gaming market down by not even supporting 1080p properly, so 4k will be a long way off for general usage. and by then we could ahve decent internet (im talking 100mbps here) for everyone if we actualyl bothered to try that (instead of allowing monopolies to steal from us).

I happen to know a production company in the UK that used to ship a physical hard drive around between its members because of the volume and size of files. They now are actually set up in the same location but realistically the internet isn't good enough not for sending hours worth of HD content across constantly in bulk volume.

You should also know that UK has probably the worst internet in Europe.

Aardvaarkman:

But they didn't end up doing that. So the argument is that Nintendo is the "good guy" against some hypothetical thing that didn't happen? And why is Sony completely ignored in this argument, as Sony never even proposed anything like that.

So, what is it that makes Nintendo so much better than the other companies? Especially when they use a proprietary cartridge format for their handhelds - that's worse than DRM any some ways. I really don't see why Nintendo deserves praise here, especially with they way they treat third-party developers.

Nintendo came out pretty publicly to say they wouldn't try to stop used game sales (they tried it before and know it's a bad move) but Sony kept quiet. So not quite good guy Nintendo, more lesser of the evils Nintendo.

Sony also use proprietary formats on their handhelds. MS uses a propitiatory set of encoding for the 360 game discs.

I'm still not seeing how using a cartridge is some great evil. Not any more than having a disc in to play a game.
You mean they way they treat third party developers like Sega ? I know right how dare Nintendo fund them to make Bayonetta 2 or the new. How Dare Nintendo also they have the only present Indie self publishing system. Yes Sony has a next gen one but it's very much them signing your game rather than free reign. Oh and MS are about to kill off their one from the Xbox and haven't revealed their latest plans yet. How dare Nintendo not let EA put origin on Wii U consoles and the digital shop. I mean what a way to treat third parties...........

the only real downside of Nintendo's self publishing system is it really does let indies go it alone which means they have to stump up the SDK costs (which also cover Nintendo developer certification I believe) but it's a bit of an investment.

Strazdas:

NuclearKangaroo:

dont jim sterling me, you know what i mean, innovation that lead us SOMEWHERE, that is GOOD innovation

physics and destructible environment started appearing in the PS2 era, not last gen

i only think gaming is truthly moving fowards on PC, pardon me if i sound fanboy-ish, but when both sony and microsft start throwing up 60 dollar games with tons of day 1 DLC and microtransactions (mostly microsoft) ive lost almost all hope for console gaming, hell the only one who gets how it should be is nintendo but they fucked up everywhere else

Im not against good innovation, just dont want peopel to force devs to "innovate" for innovations sale. Rather making innovations benefit us by having better games. Like, say, Minecraft innovated an enviroment that plenty of other games are copying now.
Its true that detructible enviroment started popping in 6th generation, but its 7th generation that realyl got it anywhere further than "can destroy prescripted elements".
Oh, im as far a PCMasterRace as it comes, so you dont sound fanboyish at all, and i completely agree that the good innovation seems to be coming out on PC nowadays, but its not like consoles are a lost cause there.... well... yes, yes they are..... the obsolete-at-launch hardware made them so.

even then how many games truthly made good use of destructible environments? i can only think of the battlefield series and red faction this gen (and it was in fact red faction the one who brought it up during the 6th gen), i wouldnt really call it innovative if it didnt set a trend in the industry

hell destructible terrain has been around for atleast 20 years if you count X-COM: UFO Defense, which also to be honest has the best use of that mechanic ive ever seen, yes even beating the new XCOM

i do agree innovation for the sake of innovation is pointless and even detrimental, but the sort of innovation that does not start trends in the industry and exists just because, has a name, its called a gimmick

NuclearKangaroo:

even then how many games truthly made good use of destructible environments?

1.
It was called Red Faction: Guerilla.

i wouldnt really call it innovative if it didnt set a trend in the industry

Innovation does not have to set a trend. the need for innovation is that it needs to be different, whether its good, bad, popuar ect does nto make it innovative or not-innovative.

hell destructible terrain has been around for atleast 20 years if you count X-COM: UFO Defense, which also to be honest has the best use of that mechanic ive ever seen, yes even beating the new XCOM

Sadly, i havent played that one.

i do agree innovation for the sake of innovation is pointless and even detrimental, but the sort of innovation that does not start trends in the industry and exists just because, has a name, its called a gimmick

No, a gimmick is a pointless innovation. A good innovation such as destructible enviroments even if it doesnt catch on does not become a gimmick.

Strazdas:

NuclearKangaroo:

even then how many games truthly made good use of destructible environments?

1.
It was called Red Faction: Guerilla.

yeah i mentioned that one and regardless the previous red factions also featured destructible terrain

Strazdas:

i wouldnt really call it innovative if it didnt set a trend in the industry

Innovation does not have to set a trend. the need for innovation is that it needs to be different, whether its good, bad, popuar ect does nto make it innovative or not-innovative.

we have different definitions of innovation then

Strazdas:

hell destructible terrain has been around for atleast 20 years if you count X-COM: UFO Defense, which also to be honest has the best use of that mechanic ive ever seen, yes even beating the new XCOM

Sadly, i havent played that one.

dude you totally should, atleast if you have any passing interest on strategy games

personally i think the new XCOM is better, but the old X-COM did a few things better than the new guy, one of them is like i said, destructible terrain

the combat in the old X-COM is largely based around line of sight (as opposed to the cover based combat of the new one) therefore making a line of sight between you and the enemy by destroying everything in between is a highly important and perfectly valid strategy, not only that, but destroying the terrain can help you open up new routes which again is highly important in the variety of maps the game provides, from jungles and forests to cities and farms, even alien bases! each with different kinds and amounts of obstacles and buildings, the fact you can freely aim your shots unlike in the new game makes the process of opening up lines of sight and routes a fairly easy affair

another way in which the old X-COM makes intelligent use of destructible environment is by making different kinds of elements have different levels of resistance to damage, jungle plants can be brought down by almost anything, building walls require laser weapons and above in order to be destroyed, finally alien materials are almost impregnable, as far as i know only a blaster launcher can destroy the walls of an alien ship, this again in contrast with the new game in which all elements in the environment have the same level of resistance to damage from what i understand, alien ships seem to be made out of paper, even grenades can open up holes in the hull

also theres stuff like fires and smoke which really affect the way you play (for better or worse)

like i said, worth a look, the collection of old xcom games should be cheap on steam, and you can keep an eye out for the indie reimagining of the old X-COM, Xenonauts (its on early access at the moment), the devs are aiming to capture the spirit of the old game, while giving the formula some necessary updates

...

ANYWAYS, yes the old X-COM made good use of destructible environments

The most honest review of Link Between Worlds I've seen so far.

"It's more of the same, except shit. It's seriously not even worth talking about it's so bad."

Why the fuck is everyone pretending this game is good? Is it because they're older than 25 and blinded by nostalgia? Yes.

There seems to be a lot of hate for the WiiU but to me it's the only system worth getting simply because it's trying to do things other then be a crappy living room computer and the only one with local multi player focus.

randomthefox:
The most honest review of Link Between Worlds I've seen so far.

"It's more of the same, except shit. It's seriously not even worth talking about it's so bad."

Why the fuck is everyone pretending this game is good? Is it because they're older than 25 and blinded by nostalgia? Yes.

I dunno maybe they just like things that you don't. I understand that it might be a hard concept to grasp but it's a possibility.

lord.jeff:
There seems to be a lot of hate for the WiiU but to me it's the only system worth getting simply because it's trying to do things other then be a crappy living room computer and the only one with local multi player focus.

Doing things different is only a virtue if someone does them well. And that'sa where a lot of the "hate" comes from.

randomthefox:
The most honest review of Link Between Worlds I've seen so far.

"It's more of the same, except shit. It's seriously not even worth talking about it's so bad."

Why the fuck is everyone pretending this game is good? Is it because they're older than 25 and blinded by nostalgia? Yes.

Have you even played the game?If not then stfu about things you don't know.ABLW is not a bad game at all.

Aardvaarkman:
Wow. Those are some extremely dubious sources.

I'd love to see your own? Or can I presume from this post that you don't actually have any, and we're just meant to dismiss my sources because you say they're dubious?

I just got through explaining to the other guy that we're not in middle school any more. You can't dismiss sources with your word, you need other sources that run contrary to it or at least shed doubt upon it. So I'd like to see which sources you have available that disprove mine.

Meanwhile, there's the other bits and pieces around the internet, things like the console running more of its games on native 1080p with a high frame rate without sacrificing graphical quality (as Bayonetta 2 shows). Or a few technical assessments of the console which confirm at least the efficiency portions of my argument and show that the Wii U also consumes less power than its next-gen rivals. And I can always find more developers who have actually worked on the Wii U who confirm that it's more powerful than the 360 or PS3. Though I will admit that its processing speed is suggested to be slower than both, most of the internet data compiled suggests that it makes up for this with far greater efficiency.

I eagerly await your evidence showing me otherwise. It would genuinely be nice if someone in this thread was willing to deal in actual citations instead of their own spoken "authoritative word" on the subject.

From the intro I can assume he finally gave Dark Souls another chance because Dark Souls II coming. Fuck yes, well done Yathzee and if you get stuck seek help, were here to give you a hand.

I'll try to carry you though hard boss fights, I'm a Sunbro.

Strazdas:

The_Kodu:

Which as yet isn't beating out physical media even shockingly on PC titles that get a physical and digital release the same day.

Steam does not release sale numbers which heavily undeestimates figures on phyiscal favour. From what information is gathered by analysts, it is believed that steam alone holds 51% of PC gaming market share, so add other digital downloads there....

True but again the market for physical is still there and with only estimations from analysts so far we can only go with companies figures.

Strazdas:

The step to games filling blue ray disks (when we finally fully transition generations in 2 years time) will still hit hard.

Wont happen. Because current consoles are already holding the gaming market down by not even supporting 1080p properly, so 4k will be a long way off for general usage. and by then we could ahve decent internet (im talking 100mbps here) for everyone if we actualyl bothered to try that (instead of allowing monopolies to steal from us).

Again true, though I thought the new console were mostly 1080p just about with only a few 720p upscaled games ?
by the time 4K comes out if services have improved we might be at the level of downloading blue ray games (if now is any indication of progress)

Strazdas:

I happen to know a production company in the UK that used to ship a physical hard drive around between its members because of the volume and size of files. They now are actually set up in the same location but realistically the internet isn't good enough not for sending hours worth of HD content across constantly in bulk volume.

You should also know that UK has probably the worst internet in Europe.

Yes but there are people even worse internet wise.

The_Kodu:

Except the fact as there is demand companies will supply it and over time work at becoming more efficient to make said products.

Except there already is massive demand for solid-state storage. The camera and video market alone would dwarf any demand by the video game market.

Demand doesn't just magically make things cheap. There are real manufacturing issues at play. The fact is, it's a lot cheaper to manufacture a polycarbonate disc with a thin layer of aluminium than it is to manufacture silicon chips and do all the necessary quality control.

There would be heaps of demand for a Ferrari that costs $100, but that isn't going to make it happen. There are reasons that things cost what they do. Adopting them for video game distribution wouldn't have any appreciable impact on prices.

The_Kodu:
It depends on the benefit to the servers as it's cost vs time. Would the extra time saved for data retrieval be worth the cost ?

Absolutely, if they were as cheap as you are claiming they could be. There would also be power, heat, and space savings. Believe me, solid state storage on servers is going to happen. Just not quite yet. Some servers already use it for caching and high-demand tasks.

The_Kodu:
However when a game takes 1 minute to load people go nuts.

This points to another reason your idea doesn't make too much sense. If game companies are going to supply you with games on solid-state media, do you think they are going to supply you with the premium quality, fastest components? Of course not - they're going to get the lowest-rated, bargain-bin chips they can find. Think about when you buy an SD card at an office supply store - they are cheap, but they are super slow and often unreliable. Compare to a premium SD card you buy from a camera store or good electronics supplier - they are rated for much higher speeds and reliability. The experience is like night and day when you need to transfer lots of data fast.

It does not make sense for game publishers to be supplying us with our storage media. This is one thing the PS3 got right. You can easily replace the built-in hard drive with a standard 2.5" hard drive or SSD. When the PS3 came out, the starting model was 40GB, and 80 or 100GB 2.5" drives were still fairly pricey. But over the years, costs have come down, so you can upgrade your PS3 to a 500GB or even 1TB hard drive fairly economically today. Or do as I did, and install 256GB SSD. It's great - really fast, silent, runs cool.

In contrast, with the "cartridge" model - your storage is stuck with the speed it was made at. The most sensible model is to allow the user to upgrade their own storage to the speed and capacity they want - and distribute the games via internet, or on whatever the cheapest physical medium is. It doesn't matter if the physical medium is slow - because it will be copied to the user's storage which will be much faster.

I don't want game publishers in the business of choosing hardware requirements and component cost/quality.

The_Kodu:
Also will all the issues such and DRM etc. some people like to have a physical copy just incase.

So, why can't you just make a backup? Physical media has big disadvantages. People lose discs or they get scratched. With online distribution, I never have to worry about finding the disc - I can always just re-download the game.

Aardvaarkman:

And still have to deal with Season passes, cut content and DLC stuff anyway.

And, how exactly does the game being on disc remove those issues? Those are completely unrelated to distribution medium.

Aardvaarkman:

People aren't downloading lots of 50GB games yet, simply because there aren't may out there yet.

Yeah, but they are downloading plenty in the 15-20GB ballpark. 50GB wouldn't be that much of a difference, if 50GB was seen as necessary for a game.
With 4K the size could be even more than that.

The_Kodu:
Heck I've recently spend 6 months in another area of the country.
On the fastest non business line in that area a 10GB install was taking 2 hours to download.
You can say all you want that people will go with it but even now on sub 50GB file sizes there are people struggling simply because they can't get internet fast enough and affordable enough.

Right. But how is any of that an argument for cartridges over optical discs? those people can simply buy the discs. What is a "cartridge" bringing to the table?

The_Kodu:
The internet isn't going to be taking over anytime soon.

But it already has! I'm not sure what world you are living in. The majority of gamers are getting their games from places like the Apple App store, which don't even have physical media equivalents.

Just look at the fact big companies can't even hold their servers together and that's without everyone also downloading the game from them at the same time.

Aardvaarkman:

Except the market isn't going to vanish. Internet connections are just starting to get into a state where downloading a DVD storage level game is possible. The step to games filling blue ray disks (when we finally fully transition generations in 2 years time) will still hit hard.

Why couldn't they just ship a double-disc Blu-Ray set? That would still be a lot cheaper than the equivalent solid-state storage. Assuming that Blu-Rays are still in widespread use at that point. It's much more likely to come online.

The_Kodu:
The physical part of the market will always exist for one simple reason.
Kids don't have credit cards.

That doesn't make any sense. You can just buy gift cards for the online stores if you don't have a credit card. Your statement is also not completely true. There are quite a few kids with credit cards, or debit cards that at like credit cards. This is a non-issue. "Kids" aren't the main purchasers of games, anyway.

The_Kodu:
You seem to think the space of a disc is all that's needed to read the disc. You don't seem to realise you need things like the laser and a motor to spin the disc. Not the mention the drive itself now with motors to open and close it / take and eject the disk.

Of course I realise those things. I'm not stupid. I'm just saying a console is not a portable device, so it's easy to accommodate an optical drive. A handheld should get its content vis the internet - and the 50GB+ games you are discussing won't be an issue with hand-gelds, as the games are a lot smaller and simpler.

I mean, it works fine for the hundreds of millions of people who do their hand-held gaming on phones and tablets, and such.

The_Kodu:
Running off a hard drive or SSD is far easier and would take less space hence it would be possible to do just the same.

Absolutely. Of course you have an SSD in the game device. What I'm saying is that SSD should not be supplied with each game. It just doesn't make sense. You'ds be buying one crappy, sub-par SSD for each game, rather than one large, high-performance one for all your games.

The_Kodu:

Aardvaarkman:

Yep. I Dropbox huge video files to my clients, and between office and home. It works great.

20GB + files.

Really ?

Yes, really.

The_Kodu:
I happen to know a production company in the UK that used to ship a physical hard drive around between its members because of the volume and size of files. They now are actually set up in the same location but realistically the internet isn't good enough not for sending hours worth of HD content across constantly in bulk volume.

Things are changing rapidly. We used to do that, too. We still would if it were hundreds of Gigabytes needing to be shipped, but that doesn't come up very often.

The_Kodu:

Aardvaarkman:

But that's the opposite of what you said. Just because modern "cartridges" used solid state technology, does not make solid state technology an evolution of the gaming cartridge.

So the 3DS cartridges are not the modern face of cartridges in video games because they don't use old style chips ?
I guess the things we call PCs aren't computers then as they don't use Valves ?

Again, you are changing your argument. You did not originally argue that "he 3DS cartridges are not the modern face of cartridges " - you argued that "the SSD is the modern version of the cartridge".

That's a completely different argument. Your first argument claimed that the SSD is an evolution of the gaming cartridge. I corrected you, and since then you've been changing your argument.

The_Kodu:

Aardvaarkman:

It's the other way around. Solid state store evolved for other purposes, and was adapted for gaming use by a company too blinded by nostalgia, that wanted to recreate a old technology with modern tools.

So you're saying the PSP UMDs which are prone to cracking in the centre are better ?

No, I'm not. I don't know how you would even infer that from my argument. What I'm saying is the model of games being played directly off the medium they are shipped on (whether that be disc or cartridge) is obsolete. I never said UMD was any good. In fact, it's a good example as to why cartridges are a similarly bad idea.

The distribution medium should not be a critical component of playing the game.

The_Kodu:

Basically what we have now is the evolution of the cartridge.

And it's completely pointless.

The_Kodu:

I'm still not seeing how using a cartridge is some great evil. Not any more than having a disc in to play a game.

I never said it was a great evil. You certainly have a penchant for putting words in people's mouths.

I'm just saying it doesn't make sense, economically or technically in the modern age. I also agree that running a game from a disc doesn't make sense. But it does make economic sense as a cheap way to store and transport data until it is installed on the user's local system. A "cartridge" system lacks the economic benefit, while still suffering from many of the same technical issues as a disc.

CriticKitten:

Aardvaarkman:
Wow. Those are some extremely dubious sources.

I'd love to see your own? Or can I presume from this post that you don't actually have any, and we're just meant to dismiss my sources because you say they're dubious?

I just got through explaining to the other guy that we're not in middle school any more. You can't dismiss sources with your word, you need other sources that run contrary to it or at least shed doubt upon it. So I'd like to see which sources you have available that disprove mine.

Yes, we are adults, and adults should know how to recognise quality sources. And those sources had absolutely zero technical information that would support the "1.5x to 2x as powerful" claim. They were simply speculation. How can you not see that? To make such a claim, one would have to run technical benchmarks.

I'm not interested in "disproving" anything. I don't have a dog in this race. I was simply saying that your sources don't support your claim. Seeing as you are the one making the claim, then you are the one who needs to put up the evidence. I don;t care if the Wii U is proven to be 10x faster than the other consoles. I'd just like to see it from proper technical sources, doing proper tests, not rumours.

And yes, the Wii U has been shown to consume less power than the others. But I'm not seeing any actual data anywhere that shows the processing power is significantly higher than the 360 or PS3. A quick search found this, which has power consumption figures and some web browsing stats, but not gaming performance benchmarks:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6465/nintendo-wii-u-teardown

CriticKitten:
Though I will admit that its processing speed is suggested to be slower than both, most of the internet data compiled suggests that it makes up for this with far greater efficiency.

Doesn't that kind of contradict your original claim?

CriticKitten:
I eagerly await your evidence showing me otherwise. It would genuinely be nice if someone in this thread was willing to deal in actual citations instead of their own spoken "authoritative word" on the subject.

Wait, what? My "authoritative word"?

Could you please point out where I made any claims about the Wii U's performance in any of my posts?

Aardvaarkman:
Seeing as you are the one making the claim, then you are the one who needs to put up the evidence.

And I did put up evidence.

All you've put up by comparison is your own opinion that the source can't be trusted.

So of the two of us, I'm further along. Still waiting on your "proof" that my sources aren't valid, by the way.

Doesn't that kind of contradict your original claim?

No. The processing power is presumed lower, but processing power is not the only component in what makes a console more "powerful". For example, RAM plays a part (as do other components), and the Wii U's RAM is known to be over double that of the PS3 and 360. Similarly, devs have been quoted as saying that the console allows for a great deal of compression in terms of its game usage requirements, allowing them to do more with less (thus, efficiency leading to higher power).

Wait, what? My "authoritative word"?

Could you please point out where I made any claims about the Wii U's performance in any of my posts?

You authoritatively stated that my sources were invalid, yet have offered no proof that they are.

So all we have to go on to disprove my sources....is your word. And nothing else.

Please do explain how this is not taking an authoritative tone, claiming that you know better than the sources I've provided. I'm genuinely curious how you expect us to take your word that the sources are invalid whilst still claiming that you're not attempting to hoist an authoritative stance on the subject.

EDIT:

I can see how you might be confused, so let me try and explain clearly: You're basically saying that these unnamed devs may not be devs at all (which is fair, thus why I asked for your proof), but then continuing to say that their information is wrong, while not actually backing it up with anything of your own. So it's essentially akin to saying "they're wrong, trust me". Do you really not see a dilemma with that logic?

I'm not saying that I can't possibly be wrong, I've been wrong before. I'm saying that if you can't back up your claims with your own evidence, then under what authority can you claim mine to be false?

CriticKitten:

Aardvaarkman:
Seeing as you are the one making the claim, then you are the one who needs to put up the evidence.

And I did put up evidence.

No, you didn't. You gave no evidence for the 1.5x to 2.5x claim. You gave a link to speculation from non-technical sources.

CriticKitten:
All you've put up by comparison is your own opinion that the source can't be trusted.

What makes the opinion of your sources trustable? After all, there are no benchmarks or figures provided.

CriticKitten:
So of the two of us, I'm further along. Still waiting on your "proof" that my sources aren't valid, by the way.

No, you're further behind, by claiming that your links amount to evidence. They don't. The fact that you would try to pass it off as evidence damages your credibility.

As for proof that your sources are invalid - it's right there in the sources themselves. There is no supporting data for the statements. So they prove themselves to be invalid.

The articles themselves say that these are "estimates" - now that the console has been on the market for quite some time, there is no reason to use pre-release estimates, rather than actual tests of the device.

CriticKitten:

Doesn't that kind of contradict your original claim?

No. The processing power is presumed lower, but processing power is not the only component in what makes a console more "powerful". For example, RAM plays a part (as do other components), and the Wii U's RAM is known to be over double that of the PS3 and 360.

Actually, "processing power" would include things like RAM, graphics processing, and any other efficiencies in the system. Good benchmarks would test all of these factors.

CriticKitten:
Similarly, devs have been quoted as saying that the console allows for a great deal of compression in terms of its game usage requirements, allowing them to do more with less (thus, efficiency leading to higher power).

And yet you have no actual data to back this up...

CriticKitten:
You authoritatively stated that my sources were invalid, yet have offered no proof that they are.

But that's not a statement about the Wii U's power. Again, answer the question - where did I state any claim about the Wii U's performance?

CriticKitten:
So all we have to go on to disprove my sources....is your word. And nothing else.

No, the sources themselves show themselves to be invalid. They are "estimates" from some "sources" with nothing technical to back them up. They are mere opinions/speculation. They are worth nothing. You are really straining your credibility if you are going to continue to stand up for such shoddy articles as proof of anything.

CriticKitten:
You're basically saying that these unnamed devs may not be devs at all

I did not say that.

CriticKitten:
but then continuing to say that their information is wrong,

I did not say that.

CriticKitten:
So it's essentially akin to saying "they're wrong, trust me". Do you really not see a dilemma with that logic?

No I don't. Especially as a never claimed they were wrong. I'm just saying they have provided no data to show that they're right.

CriticKitten:
I'm not saying that I can't possibly be wrong, I've been wrong before. I'm saying that if you can't back up your claims with your own evidence, then under what authority can you claim mine to be false?

I never claimed them to be false. I said they were dubious, because of lack of supporting evidence.

Aardvaarkman:
-snip-

So, you have no evidence to dismiss my claims, then.

That's becoming increasingly obvious by the fact that you're not only not providing any links, but you're not even providing anything to dismiss the claims I made. You just literally said "they dismiss themselves" and that's it. Nothing else.

So I was mistaken to hope that perhaps you were here to actually have an academic discussion about this. That's a shame. But I'm glad we established this in advance, so I know not to bother with further replies.

CriticKitten:

Aardvaarkman:
-snip-

So, you have no evidence to dismiss my claims, then.

That's becoming increasingly obvious by the fact that you're not only not providing any links, but you're not even providing anything to dismiss the claims I made. You just literally said "they dismiss themselves" and that's it. Nothing else.

So I was mistaken to hope that perhaps you were here to actually have an academic discussion about this. That's a shame. But I'm glad we established this in advance, so I know not to bother with further replies.

My source puts the WiiU roughly on par with the 360 and PS3. They note that the WiiU has untapped potential as the game tested was a port, but there is no indication that it is 1.5 to 2 times as powerful as them. http://ca.ign.com/blogs/yodasboy/2013/03/07/wii-u-graphics-vs-the-hd-twins

Seriously though - this is not how an academic conversation works. If you sources are shit, then they're shit. No countersource is required to demonstrate that. One need only note the issues in the methodology or credibility. The issues brought forward are good ones; For goodness sake, in one of the articles in the first few lines the author admits the statement is a rumour and probably bunk.

If you seriously think that in academia you can cite dubious or unsubstantiated sources and not have that information questioned you are going to have a hard time post-secondary. You don't think a thesis could contain sources of questionable nature, and the student could simply answer the board with "well do you have a source that says otherwise?" when they bring up the issues do you?

EvilRoy:
My source puts the WiiU roughly on par with the 360 and PS3. They note that the WiiU has untapped potential as the game tested was a port, but there is no indication that it is 1.5 to 2 times as powerful as them. http://ca.ign.com/blogs/yodasboy/2013/03/07/wii-u-graphics-vs-the-hd-twins

If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. That's fine. Already said I'm fine with being proven wrong, provided there's, ya know, actual proof behind it.

Seriously though - this is not how an academic conversation works. If you sources are shit, then they're shit. No countersource is required to demonstrate that. One need only note the issues in the methodology or credibility.

Er, no. It's fair enough to state that you can disable an opposing argument by noting flaws in the research, but if you intend to claim something in opposition, then you need your own pool of evidence to draw from. Simply dismissing the other side's points is not enough.

If you seriously think that in academia you can cite dubious or unsubstantiated sources and not have that information questioned you are going to have a hard time post-secondary.

I've already graduated from post-secondary school. Twice. I may even be going back a third time in due course. And I teach for a living. Please don't try to lecture me on how academia works or how I'd struggle in that environment. It's not only off-topic, it's just plain rude. >_>

CriticKitten:

EvilRoy:
My source puts the WiiU roughly on par with the 360 and PS3. They note that the WiiU has untapped potential as the game tested was a port, but there is no indication that it is 1.5 to 2 times as powerful as them. http://ca.ign.com/blogs/yodasboy/2013/03/07/wii-u-graphics-vs-the-hd-twins

If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. That's fine. Already said I'm fine with being proven wrong, provided there's, ya know, actual proof behind it.

Seriously though - this is not how an academic conversation works. If you sources are shit, then they're shit. No countersource is required to demonstrate that. One need only note the issues in the methodology or credibility.

Er, no. It's fair enough to state that you can disable an opposing argument by noting flaws in the research, but if you intend to claim something in opposition, then you need your own pool of evidence to draw from. Simply dismissing the other side's points is not enough.

No, you kind of don't. Consider a more ridiculous example to make the issue more obvious - a news report citing two anonymous developers claiming that the WiiU contains a tiny man who creates the gameplay and visual by reading a script on the game disk and using his acting and props behind the TV screen. Do I really need a countersource to dispute the claims made in the article? Of course not.

In this case the issue is roughly the same. In the first few lines one article the author immediately admits the article is based on a rumour, has not been confirmed by Nintendo, and despite being quite old has not been updated with confirmation from Nintendo - implying that it was never received. Another report you cited includes speculation on specifications for the Wii U that have since been proven false - something that I noted without requiring a reference.

If you seriously think that in academia you can cite dubious or unsubstantiated sources and not have that information questioned you are going to have a hard time post-secondary.

I've already graduated from post-secondary school. Twice. I may even be going back a third time in due course. And I teach for a living. Please don't try to lecture me on how academia works or how I'd struggle in that environment. It's not only off-topic, it's just plain rude. >_>

[/quote]

I don't mean to be rude, and I've apparently gained one less post graduate degree than you, but this is something that I actually came across during the course of my thesis. My professor noted a technical paper included methodology that would be considered questionable by today's standard, although at the time it was more or less normal. His reaction? He threw the whole report in the garbage and called me an embarrassment to the university. So please understand my trepidation at accepting your claims that this is acceptable, although I realize that standards will be different between universities and professors.

EvilRoy:
No, you kind of don't. Consider a more ridiculous example to make the issue more obvious - a news report citing two anonymous developers claiming that the WiiU contains a tiny man who creates the gameplay and visual by reading a script on the game disk and using his acting and props behind the TV screen. Do I really need a countersource to dispute the claims made in the article? Of course not.

I'm glad you noted that it was a "more ridiculous example" so I wouldn't have to point you to the Wikipedia article about "reductio ad absurdum".

In this case the issue is roughly the same. In the first few lines one article the author immediately admits the article is based on a rumour, has not been confirmed by Nintendo, and despite being quite old has not been updated with confirmation from Nintendo - implying that it was never received. Another report you cited includes speculation on specifications for the Wii U that have since been proven false - something that I noted without requiring a reference.

Because at the time of those articles, the specifications of the console were not 100% hard-testable. And Nintendo is rarely forthcoming about its specs.

However, there are other articles with more technical information. For example, this one asserts that the GPU is clearly more powerful, though it notes (as I did) the fact that the processor is a problem. Given the data therein, yeah, it does seem like the console is underpowered for what it should be, primarily due to bottle-necking in the processing unit. Though it still suggests that the console is, in fact, technically more powerful....it's just not capable of delivering that power on any appreciably high level, sadly.

I don't mean to be rude, and I've apparently gained one less post graduate degree than you, but this is something that I actually came across during the course of my thesis. My professor noted a technical paper included methodology that would be considered questionable by today's standard, although at the time it was more or less normal. His reaction? He threw the whole report in the garbage and called me an embarrassment to the university. So please understand my trepidation at accepting your claims that this is acceptable, although I realize that standards will be different between universities and professors.

Not sure I like the implication that the standards at the universities I graduated from are somehow "lower" than yours, but I'll overlook it because (as I said before) it's pointlessly off-topic. The fact that I even had to flash my credentials like a bloody amateur in order to establish my knowledge base on the subject is vexing enough, I have no desire to commit to a measuring contest.

The important thing, here, is that there are two elements to a proper academic debate:
1) Dismissal of your opponent's claims
2) Providing your own counter-claims
And both of these elements require some form of evidencing behind their logic, whether through links to credible sources or through deductive reasoning using the information previously gathered.

The person above did not do that. He stated that the claims seemed dubious to him, did not provide evidence as to why he thought them dubious (other than to claim "they dismiss themselves"), and refrained from providing any evidence to counter-claim. You've actually done more in that regard than he has in only one post, and it took me three posts to get as far with him as I did.

CriticKitten:

Aardvaarkman:
-snip-

So, you have no evidence to dismiss my claims, then.

No, but you have no evidence to support your claims, either.

Further, I am making no claim other than that your sources are dubious. I am not making a counter-claim. I am not claiming you are wrong. I am simply saying that you haven't supported your claim.

The reason your sources are dubious is that they contain no technical information to support them. They don't even contain any explanation as to why they should be believed. They are simply saying "The Wii U will be faster because we say so."

CriticKitten:
That's becoming increasingly obvious by the fact that you're not only not providing any links, but you're not even providing anything to dismiss the claims I made.

Why would I need to dismiss your claims? All I'm doing is asking for evidence of them, I'm not trying to dismiss them or disprove them. But some people "estimating" something does not count as evidence.

CriticKitten:
You just literally said "they dismiss themselves" and that's it. Nothing else.

Nothing else is needed. Your "evidence" amounts to somebody saying "I think Leonardo DiCaprio will win the Oscar this year." There is no substance in the links you provided.

CriticKitten:
So I was mistaken to hope that perhaps you were here to actually have an academic discussion about this. That's a shame. But I'm glad we established this in advance, so I know not to bother with further replies.

That's what I'm trying to do. Maybe not "academic," but "intelligent" at least. Your links don't hold up to passing scrutiny - let alone academic scrutiny. They would never be allowed in an academic paper.

If you want to have a serious discussion, then be serious. Pretending that those links prove anything is a joke. I'm not trying to attack you for it or prove your opinion wrong - that's just the fact of the matter. What you are saying is nothing more than opinion until you can provide some proper evidence. The way you are reacting to this doesn't exactly show that you're interested in serious discussion, because nobody without an agenda to push would take those sources seriously.

CriticKitten:

EvilRoy:
No, you kind of don't. Consider a more ridiculous example to make the issue more obvious - a news report citing two anonymous developers claiming that the WiiU contains a tiny man who creates the gameplay and visual by reading a script on the game disk and using his acting and props behind the TV screen. Do I really need a countersource to dispute the claims made in the article? Of course not.

I'm glad you noted that it was a "more ridiculous example" so I wouldn't have to point you to the Wikipedia article about "reductio ad absurdum".

In this case the issue is roughly the same. In the first few lines one article the author immediately admits the article is based on a rumour, has not been confirmed by Nintendo, and despite being quite old has not been updated with confirmation from Nintendo - implying that it was never received. Another report you cited includes speculation on specifications for the Wii U that have since been proven false - something that I noted without requiring a reference.

Because at the time of those articles, the specifications of the console were not 100% hard-testable. And Nintendo is rarely forthcoming about its specs.

However, there are other articles with more technical information. For example, this one asserts that the GPU is clearly more powerful, though it notes (as I did) the fact that the processor is a problem. Given the data therein, yeah, it does seem like the console is underpowered for what it should be, primarily due to bottle-necking in the processing unit.

Sure there are other articles, but those aren't the articles you posted. You made claims based on extremely poor sources, the fact that the articles are old excuse their contents, but it doesn't change the fact that they are the articles you chose to cite.

I don't mean to be rude, and I've apparently gained one less post graduate degree than you, but this is something that I actually came across during the course of my thesis. My professor noted a technical paper included methodology that would be considered questionable by today's standard, although at the time it was more or less normal. His reaction? He threw the whole report in the garbage and called me an embarrassment to the university. So please understand my trepidation at accepting your claims that this is acceptable, although I realize that standards will be different between universities and professors.

Not sure I like the implication that the standards at the universities I graduated from are somehow "lower" than yours, but I'll overlook it because (as I said before) it's pointlessly off-topic. The fact that I even had to flash my credentials like a bloody amateur in order to establish my knowledge base on the subject is vexing enough, I have no desire to commit to a measuring contest.

That wasn't my intent. Rather I meant to note my previous experience, with the disclaimer that not all systems are the same. Its entirely possible that my professor was just a hard-ass. I have no metric to judge that against because I never had to answer to a different professor. He certainly had it in him to be a prick for prick's sake in non-academic areas.

The important thing, here, is that there are two elements to a proper academic debate:
1) Dismissal of your opponent's claims
2) Providing your own counter-claims
And both of these elements require some form of evidencing behind their logic, whether through links to credible sources or through deductive reasoning using the information previously gathered.

The person above did not do that. He stated that the claims seemed dubious to him, did not provide evidence as to why he thought them dubious (other than to claim "they dismiss themselves"), and refrained from providing any evidence to counter-claim. You've actually done more in that regard than he has in only one post, and it took me three posts to get as far with him as I did.

I can accept that, and no he didn't do much to explain his dismissal, but I didn't see his statement to be the start of a debate - although that may be a misunderstanding on my part. I simply thought he was noting that there are issues in basing an argument on the sources you were providing, which is something that I agree with. In that instance I don't think that #2 is particularly necessary. Its enough to simply note that the sources provided are poor, and that your argument is more or less baseless because of it. Even if I agreed with your argument I would be compelled to note that, since it makes that whole side of the argument look less credible.

EvilRoy:
I can accept that, and no he didn't do much to explain his dismissal, but I didn't see his statement to be the start of a debate - although that may be a misunderstanding on my part. I simply thought he was noting that there are issues in basing an argument on the sources you were providing, which is something that I agree with. In that instance I don't think that #2 is particularly necessary. Its enough to simply note that the sources provided are poor, and that your argument is more or less baseless because of it. Even if I agreed with your argument I would be compelled to note that, since it makes that whole side of the argument look less credible.

Which is something I strongly disagree with. It is not possible to have a proper debate about something if only one side of the argument feels any particular need to provide any citations for their opinions.

My sources were not of sufficient quality to you, fine and fair enough. But debates require citations from both sides of the table. That is something he has shown no willingness to provide. So it is a waste of my time to humor him, or anyone else who chooses to behave in such a fashion, any further. Simple as that.

I'm tired to death of people thinking they can just say whatever they want and not even attempt to back it up, especially on the bloody internet, where sources are so readily available. Just because you have a right to an opinion doesn't mean it's always right and you never have to even try to back it up. The simple fact that I'm demonstrating a willingness to try and back my opinion should provoke a similar response in the opposition. If they can't do that....they're not worth the effort. Internet debates get old really, really fast when neither side even tries to have any evidence and they're both stuffing their fingers in their ears.

CriticKitten:

EvilRoy:
I can accept that, and no he didn't do much to explain his dismissal, but I didn't see his statement to be the start of a debate - although that may be a misunderstanding on my part. I simply thought he was noting that there are issues in basing an argument on the sources you were providing, which is something that I agree with. In that instance I don't think that #2 is particularly necessary. Its enough to simply note that the sources provided are poor, and that your argument is more or less baseless because of it. Even if I agreed with your argument I would be compelled to note that, since it makes that whole side of the argument look less credible.

Which is something I strongly disagree with. It is not possible to have a proper debate about something if only one side of the argument feels any particular need to provide any citations for their opinions.

But there isn't really a debate going on here. As I said, even if I agreed with the initial premise I would be compelled to note that the sources provided are extremely weak. In that case it makes no sense to provide counter-sources because it would mean arguing against my own side. Rather, one would hope that once the sources are pointed out as weak the original poster would simply produce superior sources. To my mind this is akin to nudging a friend and shaking your head after they make a weak argument. I don't want to debate my friend on his argument (in this hypothetical we're on the same side of the discussion), but I need him to know that what he just said weakened our entire side of the argument, and provided ammunition to the opposition.

EvilRoy:
To my mind this is akin to nudging a friend and shaking your head after they make a weak argument. I don't want to debate my friend on his argument (in this hypothetical we're on the same side of the discussion), but I need him to know that what he just said weakened our entire side of the argument, and provided ammunition to the opposition.

Different strokes for different folks.

I would swat my friend in the head, myself. But then, that's generally why I'm not considered to be very nice. :P

I think Yahtzee has been growing steadily more repulsive over the last few months. By which I mean he resorts to disgusting and offensive imagery in order to shock people or get a few cheap laughs - which has always been the case with ZP, obviously, but it used to be stomachable.
There's no reason he can't do what he does - "review" (garotte) games with amusing metaphors and quirky animations - without resorting to such frequent use of sexually explicit terms.
All that said, he presented some good points in this video (unoriginal, but still good) with Sony and Microsoft racing to achieve redundancy.
But I think he can do better than the increasingly bawdy videos he's made lately. His modus operandi seems to have become "make cringey, disgusting sexual jokes to depict the game or publisher" rather than "make a quirky video that shamelessly pulls apart every flaw in the game using outside-the-box metaphors and prosopopoeia."

CriticKitten:

My sources were not of sufficient quality to you, fine and fair enough. But debates require citations from both sides of the table. That is something he has shown no willingness to provide. So it is a waste of my time to humor him, or anyone else who chooses to behave in such a fashion, any further. Simple as that.

You seem to be missing the point here. I have said multiple times that I am not trying to prove anything for any side. I wasn't trying to start a debate.

I am not "on the other side of the table" from you. I am not on any side of the table. When I saw your claim of the Wii U being significantly more powerful than the 360 or PS3, that interested me, because I had not heard that before. So, I followed your links, and was disappointed to find that they were extremely lacking, and did not show what you claimed they did.

It would be great if you showed some evidence that backed your claim.

CriticKitten:
I'm tired to death of people thinking they can just say whatever they want and not even attempt to back it up, especially on the bloody internet, where sources are so readily available.

If you're so sick of it, then why did you do exactly that? The sources you provided weren't any better than no sources at all.

Also, I did provide a link, to the Ars Technica article about the Wii U, although there is insufficient data there to back any claims other than power consumption or web browsing performance. It seems that there is a conspicuous lack of actual data about the Wii U's performance, so anybody's claims that don't include test data, are suspect.

It would be like a scientist making claim about how Quantum particles work, without actually providing and experimental data and linking to an opinion column by somebody speculating how quantum particles might work.

There's nothing wrong with saying "I don't know" - and that's the stance I'm taking. I don't know how powerful a Wii U is relative to other consoles. But you don't either, until you can show the data.

Aardvaarkman:

The_Kodu:

Except the fact as there is demand companies will supply it and over time work at becoming more efficient to make said products.

Except there already is massive demand for solid-state storage. The camera and video market alone would dwarf any demand by the video game market.

would it really considering we have single game releases now earning the level of hollywood blockbusters ?
I'd say being the media it's on would be a pretty important thing.

Aardvaarkman:

Demand doesn't just magically make things cheap. There are real manufacturing issues at play. The fact is, it's a lot cheaper to manufacture a polycarbonate disc with a thin layer of aluminium than it is to manufacture silicon chips and do all the necessary quality control.

At present.
Yes inherently there will be higher materials costs due to more materials however it depends how you wish to look at it. Would the additional versatility provided by potential cartridge options actually reduce costs in other areas ?

It's been suggested in the future all games might need to be installed to hard drives on consoles to allow the data exchange rates required but it's been shown that Solid state systems are far quicker than off discs. So with the need for potentially huge hard drives in consoles an SSD / flash memory based solution might be extremely viable to alleviate this need.

Also at present the costs for parts is lower on optical systems. This is partly due to a huge drop in Aluminium prices over the past few years. There's nothing saying it won't soar up.

You could also consider the additional needs. due to their fragile nature discs have to have plastic cases for them. What's to stop SSDs being sold in cardboard packaging

Aardvaarkman:

There would be heaps of demand for a Ferrari that costs $100, but that isn't going to make it happen. There are reasons that things cost what they do. Adopting them for video game distribution wouldn't have any appreciable impact on prices.

But there are cars you can buy for $100 and Ferrari aren't aiming to sell to everyone.
Others even make up that gap and desire in the market by selling Toyota MR2 to Ferrari 360 kits and show how to do the conversions to give the appearance of driving one.

Also while you can't get a Ferrari for $100 you can get one for 10k (about $15k)

If SSD were from a single company I'd say you'd have something. As they're not and it's a market you're then comparing it to the supercar market which does have some companies selling to the lower end. Sure they're not a Ferrari but for 37K there's the lotus Elise S or for 38K the Ariel Atom. If you're after older super cars then there are the pre-06 Jaguar XKR models for 10k

Aardvaarkman:

The_Kodu:
It depends on the benefit to the servers as it's cost vs time. Would the extra time saved for data retrieval be worth the cost ?

Absolutely, if they were as cheap as you are claiming they could be. There would also be power, heat, and space savings. Believe me, solid state storage on servers is going to happen. Just not quite yet. Some servers already use it for caching and high-demand tasks.

As cheap as they are or as cheap as they could be with higher adoption rates ?

Aardvaarkman:

The_Kodu:
However when a game takes 1 minute to load people go nuts.

This points to another reason your idea doesn't make too much sense. If game companies are going to supply you with games on solid-state media, do you think they are going to supply you with the premium quality, fastest components? Of course not - they're going to get the lowest-rated, bargain-bin chips they can find. Think about when you buy an SD card at an office supply store - they are cheap, but they are super slow and often unreliable. Compare to a premium SD card you buy from a camera store or good electronics supplier - they are rated for much higher speeds and reliability. The experience is like night and day when you need to transfer lots of data fast.

Except obviously they'd have to release games on a quality to compete. If your game is forever loading and your competitor has pretty much an open world with no loading barriers the you'll note consumers going for the better product. That is unless you're prepared to pay significantly more for marketing etc to make up this consumer bias.

Aardvaarkman:

It does not make sense for game publishers to be supplying us with our storage media. This is one thing the PS3 got right. You can easily replace the built-in hard drive with a standard 2.5" hard drive or SSD. When the PS3 came out, the starting model was 40GB, and 80 or 100GB 2.5" drives were still fairly pricey. But over the years, costs have come down, so you can upgrade your PS3 to a 500GB or even 1TB hard drive fairly economically today. Or do as I did, and install 256GB SSD. It's great - really fast, silent, runs cool.

Fairly pricey but over the years the costs have come down.

So that won't happen to SSDs ?

We won't be seeing SSDs used ?

Aardvaarkman:

In contrast, with the "cartridge" model - your storage is stuck with the speed it was made at. The most sensible model is to allow the user to upgrade their own storage to the speed and capacity they want - and distribute the games via internet, or on whatever the cheapest physical medium is. It doesn't matter if the physical medium is slow - because it will be copied to the user's storage which will be much faster.

Ah I think I've found where you've stepped off the path here.

You're thinking of companies selling you one SSD.

I'm talking about using SSDs or a flash memory system to replace disc in a cartridge style method. You go in and buy a physical unit with said game etc on. Games by this point probably filling most of the space.

Aardvaarkman:

I don't want game publishers in the business of choosing hardware requirements and component cost/quality.

Except that's just what they do now making discs

Aardvaarkman:

The_Kodu:
Also will all the issues such and DRM etc. some people like to have a physical copy just incase.

So, why can't you just make a backup? Physical media has big disadvantages. People lose discs or they get scratched. With online distribution, I never have to worry about finding the disc - I can always just re-download the game.

As long as
1) you have internet
2) the company hosting / distributing it still exists
3) The company hosting it / distributing it still has the rights to it and hasn't sold that over to another company. *cough* NC Soft selling City of Heroes to a load of greedy scam artists *cough*

You seem to think the same issues will impact SSDs as DVDs and Blue Ray.
"oh I've scratched it, good job this is the protective case"

You say you're against DRM yet here you are saying how online is better when everything but GOG is a form a DRM on PC. Origin, Uplay and even Steam.

Aardvaarkman:

And still have to deal with Season passes, cut content and DLC stuff anyway.

And, how exactly does the game being on disc remove those issues? Those are completely unrelated to distribution medium.
[/quote]
However it would be a reason for them to exist if companies were trying to justify pushing for every bit of money.

Aardvaarkman:

People aren't downloading lots of 50GB games yet, simply because there aren't may out there yet.

Yeah, but they are downloading plenty in the 15-20GB ballpark. 50GB wouldn't be that much of a difference, if 50GB was seen as necessary for a game.
With 4K the size could be even more than that.

Just look at the amount of people on about wait times to download any of the MMO games in the region of this figure. Plenty of people on about WOW, Conan Online and huge wait times they've had

Aardvaarkman:

The_Kodu:
Heck I've recently spend 6 months in another area of the country.
On the fastest non business line in that area a 10GB install was taking 2 hours to download.
You can say all you want that people will go with it but even now on sub 50GB file sizes there are people struggling simply because they can't get internet fast enough and affordable enough.

Right. But how is any of that an argument for cartridges over optical discs? those people can simply buy the discs. What is a "cartridge" bringing to the table?

bigger game sizes than Disc can deal with ?
Seemingly gone are the days when its acceptable to have 2+ disc games after all.

Aardvaarkman:

The_Kodu:
The internet isn't going to be taking over anytime soon.

But it already has! I'm not sure what world you are living in. The majority of gamers are getting their games from places like the Apple App store, which don't even have physical media equivalents.

That would be if you were to say the future of gaming was entirely along the mobile route. Also shockingly there are certain places you can buy apps on disc still and transfer the files.

Luckily due to the file size requirements most apps are smaller than most modern console games hence they can be downloaded like this.

The comparison is like saying "Oh people are watching so many more films these days. When people are watching the Cannes film festival short film entrants". Yes they are still classed as films but when people talk about the film industry they don't generally mean those producing 5 minute films using their mobile phones (yes that's an actual category in some film festival entry submissions)

Aardvaarkman:

Just look at the fact big companies can't even hold their servers together and that's without everyone also downloading the game from them at the same time.

Except the market isn't going to vanish. Internet connections are just starting to get into a state where downloading a DVD storage level game is possible. The step to games filling blue ray disks (when we finally fully transition generations in 2 years time) will still hit hard.

Why couldn't they just ship a double-disc Blu-Ray set? That would still be a lot cheaper than the equivalent solid-state storage. Assuming that Blu-Rays are still in widespread use at that point. It's much more likely to come online.
[/quote]
Because believe it or not there was a legitimate push to stop multi-disk games once it became possible to have larger discs.
This generation Microsoft have actually fined some developers who released games on multiple discs.

Aardvaarkman:

The_Kodu:
The physical part of the market will always exist for one simple reason.
Kids don't have credit cards.

That doesn't make any sense. You can just buy gift cards for the online stores if you don't have a credit card. Your statement is also not completely true. There are quite a few kids with credit cards, or debit cards that at like credit cards. This is a non-issue. "Kids" aren't the main purchasers of games, anyway.

you're mostly thinking of the app store again here which I refer you back up to the point I made about the size of apps.
It is true you can get gift cards and codes now. However that has come in because of the brick and mortar store model holding up and people liking the option to buy codes rather than have details put online.

Also I think you mean top up cards. I doubt any kid has an actual credit card and don't confuse debit cards with them as debit cards take the money directly from an account while credit cards require the bill to be paid. For a child to have a debit card they must get it from a bank where they have an account. Most banks here in the UK at least won't give debit cards out to anyone under 16.

Aardvaarkman:

The_Kodu:
You seem to think the space of a disc is all that's needed to read the disc. You don't seem to realise you need things like the laser and a motor to spin the disc. Not the mention the drive itself now with motors to open and close it / take and eject the disk.

Of course I realise those things. I'm not stupid. I'm just saying a console is not a portable device, so it's easy to accommodate an optical drive. A handheld should get its content vis the internet - and the 50GB+ games you are discussing won't be an issue with hand-gelds, as the games are a lot smaller and simpler.

Unless of course hand helds evolve too

Aardvaarkman:

I mean, it works fine for the hundreds of millions of people who do their hand-held gaming on phones and tablets, and such.

I think the largest app I have is 1.3GB and that's due to a large audio book component in it. Most apps tend to range from about 50 MB to 250MB. Compare that to console games.

Sure it might hold the handheld market over but that's all over the place now anyway. No-one is sure if it will even exist in a few years or if mobile will have taken over.

Aardvaarkman:

The_Kodu:
Running off a hard drive or SSD is far easier and would take less space hence it would be possible to do just the same.

Absolutely. Of course you have an SSD in the game device. What I'm saying is that SSD should not be supplied with each game. It just doesn't make sense. You'ds be buying one crappy, sub-par SSD for each game, rather than one large, high-performance one for all your games.

Unless of course the companies did have the games running fine using the SSD and slowly distributed the cost to the consumer rather than putting a higher investment ceiling in entering the next gen.

Aardvaarkman:

The_Kodu:
I happen to know a production company in the UK that used to ship a physical hard drive around between its members because of the volume and size of files. They now are actually set up in the same location but realistically the internet isn't good enough not for sending hours worth of HD content across constantly in bulk volume.

Things are changing rapidly. We used to do that, too. We still would if it were hundreds of Gigabytes needing to be shipped, but that doesn't come up very often.

things are changing SSDs too.

Aardvaarkman:

The_Kodu:

Aardvaarkman:

But that's the opposite of what you said. Just because modern "cartridges" used solid state technology, does not make solid state technology an evolution of the gaming cartridge.

So the 3DS cartridges are not the modern face of cartridges in video games because they don't use old style chips ?
I guess the things we call PCs aren't computers then as they don't use Valves ?

Again, you are changing your argument. You did not originally argue that "he 3DS cartridges are not the modern face of cartridges " - you argued that "the SSD is the modern version of the cartridge".

That's a completely different argument. Your first argument claimed that the SSD is an evolution of the gaming cartridge. I corrected you, and since then you've been changing your argument.

The arguments aren't mutually exclusive here, they are part of the whole cartridges for the future argument. The argument that cartridges are still around in one for or another and also that if cartridge technology had been kept on consoles at present its predicted the modern version of cartridges would far out strip modern optical media.

Aardvaarkman:

The_Kodu:

Aardvaarkman:

It's the other way around. Solid state store evolved for other purposes, and was adapted for gaming use by a company too blinded by nostalgia, that wanted to recreate a old technology with modern tools.

So you're saying the PSP UMDs which are prone to cracking in the centre are better ?

No, I'm not. I don't know how you would even infer that from my argument. What I'm saying is the model of games being played directly off the medium they are shipped on (whether that be disc or cartridge) is obsolete. I never said UMD was any good. In fact, it's a good example as to why cartridges are a similarly bad idea.

Well if as you were saying Optical media as a whole is better then UMDs which are optical media would be the better choice. However blinded by nostalgia Nintendo used cartridges and obviously blinded by that same thing Sony switched to cartridges from UMDs.

Also it's only due to optical media being too slow at transfers that hard drives and installs are having to be as feeds for the data.

Aardvaarkman:

The_Kodu:

Basically what we have now is the evolution of the cartridge.

And it's completely pointless.

Unless you happen to want to take your portable gaming system to a place without internet and haven't had the time to download and install all the games you want.

HAHA. Nice bait and switch.

Seriously though, nothing wrong with focusing on online multiplayer. You still play with your friends, except they/you don't need to come all the way to your/their house just to do so.

Throw in mics and cameras ...

the hidden eagle:

randomthefox:
The most honest review of Link Between Worlds I've seen so far.

"It's more of the same, except shit. It's seriously not even worth talking about it's so bad."

Why the fuck is everyone pretending this game is good? Is it because they're older than 25 and blinded by nostalgia? Yes.

Have you even played the game?If not then stfu about things you don't know.ABLW is not a bad game at all.

I love how the INSTANT knee jerk reaction from the blind fanboy is "you have a different opinion than me? YOU MUST NOT HAVE PLAYED IT THEN!"

If your only argument is "stop talking", the most anti-think sentimentality the echo-chamber-effect of the internet has produced thus far, instead of an actual reasoned, credible, or even personal and subjective based response you should probably reassess your position.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here