Wrong! But I agree with pretty much everything else...Originally Posted by Yeargdribble
Wrong! But I agree with pretty much everything else...
What gives you the idea that the move to digital distribution isn't inevitable Bolivar? Companies like it because with systems like Steam it provides less obtrusive DRM to cut down on piracy, they cut out the retail middle man, and for now at least, eliminate used sales. Customers tend to prefer it since they can simply download a title whenever they want from wherever they are without having to track down discs, or find some way of using completely outdated formats, and you avoid the physical degredation which is unavoidable with physical media.
Sure, older gamers of our generation may cling to physical media a while longer, and until broadband connections are available in the majority of the world with reasonable badwidth caps (or my preference, no bandwidth caps), there will still be some need and demand for physical copies. But younger gamers are growing up with this stuff. In a few years, we'll probably have an entire generation of gamers who don't remember digital games not being available, and they probably aren't going to mind switching over completely.
Frankly, I'll be surprised if physical media sales haven't been completely over taken by digital sales within ten years.
I think I would love Steam if I didn't pirate so much. And I think I wouldn't pirate so much if I had a PC that was better suited for gaming. Unfortunately not all developers release demos for all of their games! (Not that it justifies it or anything, that's just how I roll.)
In my mind it justifies pirating it to try it out and before you buy it if they aren't going to offer a demo.
And I'm with Vivi22. I don't see how you can deny the inevitability of it all. When's the last time you bought a physical CD for music? If you can say recently you are in the absolute minority. Almost everyone downloads (legally or not) their music these days. It's super convenient to carry around 1000s of songs with needing the CDs, the player, and the storage space for all of those discs. That's one medium where the general populous has already figured it out and made the move.
It is absolutely starting to happen with games. Look at PC games? Have you seen a decent PC gaming section at any stores lately? They are usually pathetic, but sales are great online with stuff like Steam.
Once upon a time you bought an expansion pack for a game. Now you get DLC... digitally. You very rarely find a stand alone expansion for any game that isn't from Rockstar or Blizzard but almost every game has tons of DLC and much of it substantive enough to otherwise warrant a disc.
Handheld gaming hasn't quite gotten there, but they are trying. PSP had a lot of downloadable games as did the DS. Quality was hit or miss, but now everyone plays games on their phones. Games like Infinity Blade are pretty solid and show a direction gaming could go in.
A lot of people are getting the feeling that dedicated gaming handhelds are becoming a thing of the past. I personally don't expect to see another generation of them beyond 3DS and Vita (and their multiple iterations). If there is another generation it will almost certainly be digital only, but I think the phone market will kill gaming handhelds.
How many of you wear a watch any more? Or carry a pocket calendar book? The modern day phone has made them virtually obsolete and it's doing the same for handheld gaming. Even listening to people who work in games journalism, many of them are talking about how they don't bother carrying their handhelds + games.... they just play on their iPhones... and can often get a game for 1-3 dollars that would cost them 20-30 on DS.
Aside from all of these obvious trends, just think about it from a business standpoint. Manufacturing and shipping costs go way down. You don't have to give retailers a cut to carry the product any more. At worst you lose visibility, but as time move forward, gaming culture is more omnipresent. Even companies like Zynga are bringing people in and making them aware. The average gamer is in their 30s and likely has kids. You don't need a storefront full of millions of dollars of cardboard cutouts and posters. People advertise amongst themselves through word of mouth, the internet and most people just know their sources.
I can't remember the last time that I was first made aware of a game because I saw an add in public or in a magazine.
Crap... we're way off topic and I've been ranting for too long... uhh... Steam is awesome. Hope Skyrim is on sale during the holiday sale this year.
For once I can hardly believe I am saying this but I actually kinda actually agree with Yearg in most of his points, I will point out that there are still huge markets for CD and DVD for movies and music though I must concede that the market is in a decline over the past 5 years. The biggest shame is the average iTunes distributed MP3 is only at 128kbps which is less than CD quality and getting a legal copy of a song in higher ratio is pretty much impossible and generally will rely on someone who has brought the CD to rip it and upload illegally. There is however one paragraph I wanted to quote here because:
Now, this is for the most part true. I just really wanted to point out that: Rockstar very rarely release stand-alone expansions. In fact they don't if you take Ballad of Gay Tony and Lost & Damned from GTA IV or Undead Nightmare from Red Dead Redemption. These were released as DLC Ballad of Gay Tony and Lost & Damned only became a standalone pack based on their huge success as a DLC and was not released on stand alone format for several months after TBOGT got a dlc release. Undead Nightmare was a bit different in that the disc and the dlc came out at the same time but that was based on their success with the GTA IV expansions, Undead Nightmare also included smaller DLC packs such as the Liars and Cheats pack. Blizzard on the other hand are even worse. Their stand-alone expansions for WoW are nothing of the sort, each requires the previous expansion to be playable thus not being stand alone in any way, expansion pack? Definitely but not stand alone. Stand alone expansion packs would mean an expansion pack for a game which can be played without the installation of the previous iteration of the game. There's only 2 games I can think of off the top of my head in such a position Relic's Dawn of War 1 and 2 both come with stand alone expansions, Dawn of War Dark Crusade is an expansion and for multiplayer purposes would require previous expansions and the original Dawn of War to gain access to all races but the campaign and the multiplayer could both be played with the expansion alone. The other game is Guild Wars where each pack with exception of Eye of The North is stand alone and does not require the previous iterations to play.
edit: Guys, why is the word position when immediately followed with a colon filtered to Bou's?
I agree with most of Yearg's points, too, although when it comes to handheld gaming I don't think it's inevitable that it will be combined with phones. There are things that you can't fit into both zones when it comes to phones and gaming. For starters, screen size. I love having a PSP-size screen for gaming. Would I want to hold a PS3 to the side of the my head when making calls? No, it's too big. There are certain physical things about handheld gaming consoles that just don't work well at all for phones, and vice versa. Some games/features do work on phones, some simply will not, at least not any time soon.
Bow before the mighty Javoo!
I'm trying to find somewhere where it's spelt STEAM
there was a picture here
@Iceglow
Perhaps the word stand alone was a misnomer. When I think about the term expansion, in my mind, it indicates reliance on the full version of the previous product. Otherwise most people would just call it a sequel. I'm just saying that Rockstar and Blizz are about the only two out there that still put what would otherwise be DLC into a form you can pick up off of a shelf.
As for audio bitrate and iTunes... they are slowly making songs available in higher quality, lossless, etc. If they don't, competitors will trump them by stealing all of the audiophiles. They've also moved into the cloud business to keep competitive with Amazon. As our world gets more connected and more wireless, the cloud stuff is going to be even more prevalent and eventually people are going to probably laugh at the concept of using hard drive space to keep their media. Sure, we'll probably have thumb sized 4 TB SSDs by then and it might not matter, but I have the feeling the wireless trend will beat the media storage increase and people will probably want access to their huge libraries of BR quality movies on the go. Why keep 25+Gb file when you can just stream it?
It's not that unlikely that people will have access to personal libraries of hundreds of movies through a cloud (hell, Amazon basically has this going on now and so does Netflix, though without ownership).
@BoB
Most of me wants to agree with you entirely. I still want gaming hardware that is made to do what it does well. I want all the things the Vita has. However, I'm not sure it's going to continue to be a viable thing. The DS had unprecedented popularity partly because it offered casual games on the go before phones got in on the business. Some adults got one from Nintendogs or Brain Age... or they got one to pacify their kids. I still see a lot of kids walking around stores with a DS in tow.
I think a big part of why the PSP didn't do as well (apart from the library) is that we, the myopic gamers, think that gaming is all about us. But a device aimed at only us, the "hardcore," isn't going to sell enough.
We can blame the flop of the 3DS to its launch line-up, but now there are some decent games out and even though it sold amazingly well on BF with Mario, it's still not doing gangbusters like the DS before it.
The hardware is too expensive for the casuals and they all have phones now. Hell, the hardware is borderline too expensive for the gamer and the games are certainly too pricey. I think this might spell doom for the Vita as well. It's great and impressive and I want one, but is it going to sell enough to make a decent profit?
As many kids as I see with DSs now... I also see many kids with a phone. Their parents have Angry Birds or something similar that they got for a buck and they hand it to their kids in the store. It makes it hard to justify spending hundreds of dollars on a gaming device and then 20-30 bucks on the games when you can spend 1 dollar on a device you already own to keep your kids happy.
By the time the kids are in their teens they will care more about having their own phone than having a gaming device and the games will come along for the ride.
As much as you and I love dedicated gaming hardware, kids growing up now probably just aren't going to care enough. I think as less people get interested in having a gaming handheld in lieu of just using a phone, the companies just aren't going to waste the money.
Hell, I love my DS and PSP, but I've gotten to the point where I don't bother carrying them with me because my iPod Touch is easier to game on on the go unless I'm going to be sitting still for 3+ hours on a plane or something. I end up playing my handhelds and home in bed and laughing at myself for the absurdity of it.
If handhelds are going to hold out, they are going to have to change significantly. They are going to have to be something that ties into the console experience allowing you to take your console game with you to some degree. The Vita is leaning in that direction, but I'm not sure it will fully get there. I think we'll have to see our handhelds as an extra piece of hardware that connects to our console (like a Kinect or Move) and works with it to give us something new rather than a standalone console of its own that costs over 200 bucks with 40-60 dollar games.
Okay... I believe that was the least concise thing I've ever typed...
tl;drThe 3DS hasn't sold well because it's crap, to put it lightly. The same reason that 3D televisions haven't sold well. It's a gimmick, not a must-have. Games are still being made for the DS and the 3DS has had more problems over the DS than it has selling points over the DS. To use the 3DS as a case study for handheld consoles in general is like using the SEGA Saturn as a case study for TV-connecting consoles in general. It's picking a bad launch and making a bold statement based on it.
The DS is the second highest selling console of any kind and the PSP has out-sold the NES, Xbox 360 and PS3. So going by sales alone, if anything, handheld consoles are selling better and therefore in a healthier position to continue as such. And you're also going on the assumption that Nintendo will be happy to put Mario onto a hardware device that isn't created by Nintendo. When was the last time that happened?
Again, look at the DS and the PSP. They sold extremely well, better than the PS3/360 and in the DS's case better than the Wii. Handheld systems have sold more over time, larger consoles have sold less over time. It may sooner be that handheld consoles replace larger consoles by connecting to TVs.The hardware is too expensive for the casuals and they all have phones now. Hell, the hardware is borderline too expensive for the gamer and the games are certainly too pricey. I think this might spell doom for the Vita as well. It's great and impressive and I want one, but is it going to sell enough to make a decent profit?
I don't know about where you live, but not everyone and their uncle has the latest phone where I am. It's a market, yes, but how powerful are the games, how much of the functionality do they have? Sony have already ported some games to the phone market, but would Nintendo do something similar when none of their games (to my knowledge) have ever been ported to another system - ever? Nintendo hasn't released a Pokémon MMO on the PC despite it being a guaranteed cashcow, possibly capable of bettering World of Warcraft (and it's the only thing I can think of capable of doing so) but they haven't. The only reason I can think of is that Nintendo don't want to develop games for anything but their own consoles.As many kids as I see with DSs now... I also see many kids with a phone. Their parents have Angry Birds or something similar that they got for a buck and they hand it to their kids in the store. It makes it hard to justify spending hundreds of dollars on a gaming device and then 20-30 bucks on the games when you can spend 1 dollar on a device you already own to keep your kids happy.
Will consumers be happy to get a poorer product? Personally, I would rather pay ~£250 for a good handheld console and ~£80 for a phone that doesn't run games at all than pay £200 for a phone that plays games. Because it's not the same - and so long as there are enough people who are of similar opinion then I don't think the 3DS/Vita will be the last we see of handheld consoles. I think they have at least a couple more generations in them yet.
Yes, they will care more about having their own phone. But unless their parents are loaded to begin with (in which case they'd buy both console + phone seperately anyway), the parents will probably not be coughing up £200 for a phone capable of running the latest games. They'll just buy them a £80 phone at best, and the kids will have to use their own cash to buy something better than that.By the time the kids are in their teens they will care more about having their own phone than having a gaming device and the games will come along for the ride.
Yeah, but how good are the iPod Touch games? Could the likes of Angry Birds really compete with Uncharted's supposedly PS3-quality graphics on the Vita, or the gameplay of Mario / Zelda / Pokémon games? Also, consider how many different systems that people would need to develop for. While the iPhone certainly has sold well, it still only has (after a quick check) around 4% of the cell phone market. That's the biggest share, to my understanding, for a smartphone out there. 4% is around 73million, which is about on par with the PSP. It includes all generations of the iPhone, and it is worth noting that many of the iPhone sales have gone to the same people after they bought each new generation, so it's unlikely there are 73million iPhone end users. So I'd still say the PSP has outsold the iPhone. And that's just a group (and a very differing group considering the changes made over generations) of operating system and hardware that a developer would need to design for. After that, there is Android, which has bugger all major selling games to my knowledge and the number of different phones it works on means a huge amount of varying hardware. And then of course some Android operating systems will work on some phones while others will work on others, depending on the phone's age. And then there is Blackberry and so on. Basically the only real market out there is the iPhone at the moment, and whether a £20 (let alone £30/40) game would sell well on the iPhone is something that is yet to be realised.Hell, I love my DS and PSP, but I've gotten to the point where I don't bother carrying them with me because my iPod Touch is easier to game on on the go unless I'm going to be sitting still for 3+ hours on a plane or something.
...but you still make use of them, and that sums up why they will continue to sell.I end up playing my handhelds and home in bed and laughing at myself for the absurdity of it.Maybe not to the extent of the DS did, but they will still sell in the tens of millions and that's enough for developers to consider it worthwhile.
Handheld gaming will evolve, and possibly merge with regular larger consoles. They'll find a way because there is a market for them and companies will always want to tap into that. Finally, they will find a way because it allows for stability and control, something the cell phone market can not really provide developers at the moment.If handhelds are going to hold out, they are going to have to change significantly. They are going to have to be something that ties into the console experience allowing you to take your console game with you to some degree. The Vita is leaning in that direction, but I'm not sure it will fully get there. I think we'll have to see our handhelds as an extra piece of hardware that connects to our console (like a Kinect or Move) and works with it to give us something new rather than a standalone console of its own that costs over 200 bucks with 40-60 dollar games.
Okay... I believe that was the least concise thing I've ever typed...
Sony have been trying to find a way to tap into the cellphone market for years and they have come up with a bunch of flops. That will also encourage their gaming console development for years to come.
In short, I disagree, with various reasons! xD
Bow before the mighty Javoo!
<3
(SPOILER)Not really. It's looking at the most recently released handheld launch and trying to discern if maybe handheld gaming is going to start declining. Yeah, the 3DS had a terrible launch and there were a lot of reasons for that: 3D not being a necessity, being priced far too high for what it does, and likely the fact that the average consumer buying one for their kid probably doesn't realize it's a completely new system from the DS.
But if you take 3D out of the picture it's not that bad in terms of hardware. And now the price is far more reasonable but it's still not doing a whole lot better than before the price drop. Unfortunately, until the Vita hits it's really the only thing out there right now that we can look at to see if there may be a trend starting with handheld sales. And a far more apt analogy than your Saturn one would be that it's like looking at the sales for the first 8 months or so after the launch of the Xbox 360, or PS3 and Wii way back in 2005/2006 to see if there's any indication of a weakening in the market. Again, we'll see how things hold up when the Vita hits, and then how the sales continue on for the next few years, but the 3DS if nothing else indicates we may not see either console do as well as the last generation of handhelds did. And that alone would be very significant given that until now, handhelds have been huge business, and historically dominated by Nintendo. If that's not the case anymore, especially long term, then you have to look at what's changed and the most obvious factor is the increasing prevalence of smart phones and tablets.
Historically speaking, no they aren't actually. Look at the total sales for all consoles this generation. It's actually almost equal with last generation, but a much more even split between the three companies. Sure, no single console went on to ship 150 million units like the PS2, but the PS2, and even the PSX before it were anomalies. No other console has ever dominated the market like those have, except, arguably the DS in the handheld market. But given Nintendo's long held monopoly over that market, I'm not sure even that's fair to say given the sales of the PSP.
Point being, console sales haven't declined considering this generation isn't even over yet, so your point about handhelds supplanting consoles based on sales doesn't hold up. Console sales are as healthy as ever (healthier if you compare to more than just the last generation).
Speaking in terms of power is a bit silly considering phones are becoming vastly more powerful every year. The rate of development greatly outstrips that of handheld hardware development, and while they may never be as powerful as a dedicated handheld like the Vita at launch, it would be somewhat foolish to think they couldn't be comparable, or even surpass them within a few short years.It's a market, yes, but how powerful are the games, how much of the functionality do they have?
You assume that Nintendo can remain relevant in an age where they have to compete with things like smart phones. They've spent the last 5+ years building and tapping into the casual gaming market, but now there's been a dramatic shift in that market away from consoles like the Wii, or even handhelds, and to the phones many casual gamers are already buying, and the tablets which caught their attention as being the next cool thing. If the majority of the handheld market does transition into using these devices instead of dedicated handhelds then it won't matter what Nintendo is doing. Only the hardcore Nintendo faithful would remain interested in what platform they're developing for, and that is not the market that Nintendo was attracting with the Wii to begin with.Sony have already ported some games to the phone market, but would Nintendo do something similar when none of their games (to my knowledge) have ever been ported to another system - ever?
Simply put, casual gamers don't care who develops the games, they just care that they're readily accessible on platforms they already own anyway.
Sure, smart phones don't offer the same level of gameplay experience as a dedicated handheld right now. The lack of physical controls alone hurts them in that respect. But who's to say that won't change as the market continues to develop. Keep in mind that the market for mobile games is still incredibly young, and the quality is dramatically better already than it was even 2-3 years ago.Will consumers be happy to get a poorer product? Personally, I would rather pay ~£250 for a good handheld console and ~£80 for a phone that doesn't run games at all than pay £200 for a phone that plays games. Because it's not the same - and so long as there are enough people who are of similar opinion then I don't think the 3DS/Vita will be the last we see of handheld consoles. I think they have at least a couple more generations in them yet.
Given the number of downloads Angry Birds has had since release this question is moot. It may not compete directly with those games since it is far cheaper and on a completely different platform, but the market has spoken and it is a huge success. It's already competing with them and making Rovio as much money as any of those series bring in in a single release.Yeah, but how good are the iPod Touch games? Could the likes of Angry Birds really compete with Uncharted's supposedly PS3-quality graphics on the Vita, or the gameplay of Mario / Zelda / Pokémon games?
This is almost a non-issue given a number of factors. First, you aren't going to develop for anything other than a smart phone with a thriving market. Second, there are really only 3-4 viable options in that market space. And finally, development is so cheap at that level and tools such as the Unity engine so readily available that there is little standing in the way of even small development teams making a game and porting it to multiple platforms with relative ease. There would certainly be some added difficulty in testing your game on multiple hardware configurations, but by and large, most manufacturers are using a very small number of chipsets, and you can readily target your game at certain hardware levels.Also, consider how many different systems that people would need to develop for.
Frankly, as the mobile market continues to develop I find it more likely that we'll see a blending of your standard smart phones and traditional handheld consoles than seeing handhelds continue as separate devices. We'll see how it plays out in time, but as smart phones become more powerful and add more functionality handhelds are becoming more and more redundant if you ask me....but you still make use of them, and that sums up why they will continue to sell.
Alright... I really didn't want to get into another long response, but it's been eating at me since I read your last response, BoB. I'm gonna try to keep it short and only address some of the points, especially since Vivi covered much of it.
First I'll say, I think I pretty much fully agree. I'd thought of handhelds evolving to work better with consoles, but I think your idea of them essentially replacing consoles seems even more reasonable.Again, look at the DS and the PSP. They sold extremely well, better than the PS3/360 and in the DS's case better than the Wii. Handheld systems have sold more over time, larger consoles have sold less over time. It may sooner be that handheld consoles replace larger consoles by connecting to TVs.
You and me are of the same mind, but I don't know that most consumers are. The other big deal is that a phone that plays games also does dozens of other things. People aren't buying a phone that plays games. They are buying a phone with internet access, GPS, app capability and ultra-multi-functionality. The fact that it plays games is ancillary, but ultimately has the large effect of making other handhelds look less attractive.Will consumers be happy to get a poorer product? Personally, I would rather pay ~£250 for a good handheld console and ~£80 for a phone that doesn't run games at all than pay £200 for a phone that plays games. Because it's not the same - and so long as there are enough people who are of similar opinion then I don't think the 3DS/Vita will be the last we see of handheld consoles. I think they have at least a couple more generations in them yet.
I'm seeing fairly poor kids with phones that can play at least rudimentary games. You may also be underestimating most kids' gaming needs. When I was in HS, I liked "real" games, but even kids who bring their DS to school have the most abysmal game libraries full of the casual tripe. If that's all they are interested in, a phone is going to sate them more than you might expect. It's counterintuitive to me too, but most kids really don't have the interest in deep gaming that you and I probably do. We're n the Zynga/Rovio generation where people can be eternally satisfied playing simple games. It's much like how you probably know older people who can play solitaire or Bejeweled every day of their life and be endlessly satisfied.Yes, they will care more about having their own phone. But unless their parents are loaded to begin with (in which case they'd buy both console + phone seperately anyway), the parents will probably not be coughing up £200 for a phone capable of running the latest games. They'll just buy them a £80 phone at best, and the kids will have to use their own cash to buy something better than that.
If you skim the rest, at least read this. I think you're underestimating the quality. I certainly did before I had one. You realize there are ports of games like Secret of Mana and FFIII, right? There's a game called Mage Gauntlet that's iOS only and it's basically a SoM type game and it's great. Then there are games like Infinity Blade and its upcoming sequel (which looks like it adds a ton more depth).Yeah, but how good are the iPod Touch games? Could the likes of Angry Birds really compete with Uncharted's supposedly PS3-quality graphics on the Vita, or the gameplay of Mario / Zelda / Pokémon games?
Not only are there pretty decent and deep games, but games like Infinity Blade take advantage of the control scheme and uses it in an idiomatic way. The Dead Space game for iOS was also incredibly deep with amazing controls (really no functionality was lacking compared to DS2) and it added to the storyline.
Not all games are Angry Birds or Tiny Wings. There are lot of great games.
The other big thing to keep in mind is that you, and I, and the game journalists who used to s**t all over these types of games grew up using a controller and feel like that's the only way to go. We're less adaptable. You ever run into someone in your youth who was used to an Atari joystick and couldn't use a controller? Or someone who didn't game at all before Nintendo and couldn't make Mario run and jump at the same time? It was intuitive enough for us at the time, but people coming to it newly had a hell of a time. I think that might be where you are now. You're probably not yet willing to concede that touch controls, though not as awesome as physical controls, are more than adequate and can be pretty good.
I'll try to stop there...
The general population don't want a gaming specific hardware for portable gaming anymore. Their iPhones, Androids, Windows Phones, etc. can do all that and much more now. Do not underestimate the rapidly increasing advancements of the technology behind these smartphones. As Yearg points out, it's far from limited to Angry Birds and Tiny Wings - Oceanhorn is one I'm really looking forward to.
"... and so I close, realizing that perhaps the ending has not yet been written."
First off, we already have a thread about dedicated handhelds vs. smart phones. I'm not a mod, but you should all go there for further elaboration on why you're wrong
Second, on topic of what I was asked: no, I don't see digital as the inevitable future. Part of that is elitism, I love my physical copies with cases and I'm a sucker for great manuals. But I'm not totally against the idea; all my PSP games are digital and frankly I've had a fantastic experience with my first digital-only platform.
But as some of you acknowledged, broadband is not a reality in a lot of places, more than you would think. What's even scarier is that places without internet at all are not as rare as common sense would had you believe, either. Look up how many Xbox 360 users never sign up for Live and I think you'll start to see my reasoning.
But storage is an issue as well. My PSP collection is considerable, but not large by any means, and I'm already at the point where I have to decide what to keep on its hard drive. Very few titles in my PS3 library have large installs, but those 60 gigs came and went like it was nothing. If we were to live in an environment where ALL of those games would be stored digitally, I just don't know how it could be done, not to mention how much music and video I like to keep on my PS3 as well. I know storage is more abundant nowadays and streaming is a developing solution, but the latter gets back to the internet problem. If universal broadband is even further away than universal internet already is, then universal streaming of HD games and movies is a very distant pipe dream.
But the common flaw with all of your (except BoB!) arguments is that you seem to believe if one thing is selling well, none of its competitors can sell at all. Much like my argument in the handheld thread, if non-digital products have enough demand, companies will happily produce to meet it. You can talk about how many people like Angry Birds all you like, but that doesn't stop Call of Duty from selling 20 million, Battlefield from selling 10 million, and Skyrim and Uncharted each selling 5 million, all at $60 a pop, in a span of about two months, with all of them releasing in about a three-week window.
Steam is a huge pain in the arse. I'm only hanging onto it for a handful of Valve titles and a few cheap classics. For everything else, I'll stick to the plug-and-play functionality of conventional gaming.
Imagine if you've just bought a book from your local bookstore. Turns out it's a Steam bookstore, though, so all the pages are blank. Everytime you want to read the book, you have to phone the bookstore to activate it. If you get a bad line or they hang up on you, then tough luck - no book for you. You still get to have a big, blank tome taking up space on your bookshelf though.
Also, unless you buy the book the moment it comes out, you won't get to read a single line until it's spent several hours updating. Especially if you've had the misfortune of buying Team Fortress II: The Novel.
Finally, you'll occasionally run into an error that prevents you opening the cover of your book. To solve this, you'll have to delete several pages, then replace them. This happened to me the last two times I played Portal 2. Thanks to various Steam-exclusive dicking around, it took about 30-40 minutes from first clicking the game icon to actually earning the privilege of playing the game I'd paid for.
When it works well, Steam is fine - it's functional, social, and has a decent interface. But it's far too prone to errors, and far too picky about when you're allowed to play your own games.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
