Phil Spencer: "You’re not a real gamer if you root for other side to fail."
93 replies, posted
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;49971743]Way to miss the whole point...[/QUOTE]
way to miss the joke
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;49971639]Great you're not a real gamer
[B]GNU/Linux has native support to DirectX apis now [/B]and competition drives innovation[/QUOTE]
what
[QUOTE=rndgenerator;49971728]He says it as if being a "real gamer" is something to be proud of. What does it even mean to be a real gamer as opposed to what, a fake gamer? Platform elitism is stupid but so is this whole gamer nonsense. First gamers are dead, then there are real gamers, please stop.[/QUOTE]
The whole real gamer thing became more of a joke than it already was when Anita claimed to be one.
Unfortunately console gamers seem to believe that having a walled system is better than an open system.
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;49971639]Great you're not a real gamer
GNU/Linux has native support to DirectX apis now and competition drives innovation[/QUOTE]
Wait, does this mean that any DX9/10/11 game works on Linux now? Forgive my ignorance if I sound dumb
[QUOTE=Tetsmega;49971621]But the PS3 had free online and Wii did too. It really doesn't make sense to complain about any game not being exclusive unless it's complaining about bad ports.[/QUOTE]
Someone doesn't remember using the PS3 or Wii online.
Wii U's gotten better, but it's still not great.
[QUOTE=doommarine23;49971748]There is nothing to be ashamed of, to call yourself a gamer. We don't scoff at movie buffs, foodies, sports freaks, or bookworms. People who have a major or primary interest in gaming should not be lowered or elevated above other hobbists.
[/QUOTE]
What defines you as a gamer? That you play games or that you have a passion for playing games? By that logic is a person who sometimes plays games a gamer? I sometimes watch movies, I don't consider myself movie buff, I also like food but not enough to go into food culture, am I a foodie or casual feeder? There's nothing to be ashamed of but there's no real definition or reason to call yourself a gamer, it's just redundant. Everyone's a gamer this day and age to a degree.
[QUOTE=doommarine23;49971748]
Also by "real gamer" he means "You're really not into video-gaming as a community and sub-culture if all you care about is shitting on other people for enjoying other games that you don't like on other systems you don't like".[/QUOTE]That's arguable, having elitism for a platform does not mean you're not passionate about games and gaming community. Believe it or not, you can hate a part of gaming while still being a "true gamer". Calling someone not a real gamer is same as when religious people call each other not real christians for doing things differently. Too subjective and meaningless.
[QUOTE=Tetsmega;49971621]But the PS3 had free online and Wii did too. It really doesn't make sense to complain about any game not being exclusive unless it's complaining about bad ports.[/QUOTE]
"It's bad that Xbox users have to pay for Xbox Live for basic online functionality"
"But PS3 and Wii has free online!"
...So?
[editline]20th March 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Fox Powers;49971768]Wait, does this mean that any DX9/10/11 game works on Linux now? Forgive my ignorance if I sound dumb[/QUOTE]
I'm 99% sure he's full of shit unless something happened overnight that literally changed everything about gaming on Linux and nobody knows it exists.
idk why people find it necessary to call themselves "true gamers" in the first place
like you can be passionate about games without referring to yourself as a true gamer
[QUOTE=Pascall;49971781]idk why people find it necessary to call themselves "true gamers" in the first place
like you can be passionate about games without referring to yourself as a true gamer[/QUOTE]
It's essentially no true Scotsman bullshit.
[QUOTE=rndgenerator;49971772]What defines you as a gamer? That you play games or that you have a passion for playing games? By that logic is a person who sometimes plays games a gamer? I sometimes watch movies, I don't consider myself movie buff, I also like food but not enough to go into food culture, am I a foodie or casual feeder? There's nothing to be ashamed of but there's no real definition or reason to call yourself a gamer, it's just redundant. Everyone's a gamer this day and age to a degree.
That's arguable, having elitism for a platform does not mean you're not passionate about games and gaming community. Believe it or not, you can hate a part of gaming while still being a "true gamer". Calling someone not a real gamer is same as when religious people call each other not real christians for doing things differently. Too subjective and meaningless.[/QUOTE]
Titles for hobbyists are just kind of a cute little way we identify ourselves and others to form cliques and groups, quite frankly that is reason enough. Its nothing to spend this much focus on, honestly. If someone wants to call themselves a gamer, even if all they do is play casual little games then that is their right.
If others want to disagree that is their right too, but its something I honestly don't care that much about. But if I had to be forced to say anything, I don't know if I'd consider a mother playing candy crush a gamer, the same way I'd consider a guy who plays Halo for a few hours every day. But as I said, I couldn't really care less. Its a hobby title.
Also for your second point, I entirely get what you're getting at, but yet again it misses his point and takes it too literally. Its a symbolic statement, its saying you're not owing up to what you can be and what you should be. He is saying they're not being real, because they're more concerned with console or game loyalty instead of gaming and all that encompasses like making friends, enjoy games, enjoying the art form for what it is. I think we've all seen statements like this before like "You ain't being real" or "You ain't a real X unless you X". Its a symbolic statement, nothing more, nothing less.
The PS3 and Wii did have free online, yes, but they were both shit.
The Xbox had paid online, and it worked just fine.
I'm seeing a little correlation here.
To be honest, the ~console war~ is just an outdated concept now. Picking any given console just seems to mean so much less. Back in ye olden times of the 1990s, the console you picked meant so much more because it defined pretty much everything you were going to be doing because most things were exclusive, and most of us were babbies who couldn't afford more than one console. So that meant you had to pick a side. Plus, the tech was very clearly different or at least pitched as different. Genesis had a clear up on NES, but there were also stark differences between Genesis and SNES, and later the PS1 and all that shit. Mode 7, Blast Processing, and all that shit were the topic of so many debates even if we made perhaps a bigger deal even then than we should have. And PC was pretty much it's own world the entire time.
But the thing is, now that pretty much all means nothing. The average gamer is by now an adult who can own as many consoles as they deem themselves able to afford, the majority of games are going to be available on all systems, and the tech is pretty much the same. It's not as hard to design for two different systems, and devs don't have to commit to a console anymore and usually if someone's gone exclusive it's because they were paid a shit ton of money to do so.
Yeah, we do still have exclusives, but who really gives a shit about exclusives anymore? Is anyone really shitting their pants over not being able to play fuckin' Ryse?
The difference in technology is still minor and it only shows in graphics comparisons that look near identical. Instead of having console defining differences, we have minor sideshow gimmicks [I]nobody[/I] cares about, like Kinect and Move. I spend most of my time having forgotten Playstation Move even exists. There just isn't anything to fight over at the moment. The only exception to all of this is Nintendo, and we can see how great that's going for them.
It's pretty much up to preference what console you get. The console war should be dead at this point, and if anything, we should hope for the three consoles to thrive for the sake of not having one monopoly on console gaming.
Even if you're for some reason dedicated to XBOX, even if it's only because you had one as a child, you should still hope for Sony to succeed because as long as Sony isn't doing everything Microsoft is, Microsoft can't turn around and put back in all that bullshit they were going to pull with always on internet and always on kinect and you just have to put up with it because they're the only one in town.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;49971774]
[editline]20th March 2016[/editline]
I'm 99% sure he's full of shit unless something happened overnight that literally changed everything about gaming on Linux and nobody knows it exists.[/QUOTE]
I think he meant WINE
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;49971595]Not really. Servers cost quite a bit to maintain, especially with the number of people playing on consoles. Besides, 60 dollars ever 2 years really isn't that much. It's far less then something like PS+.[/QUOTE]
Nah, most console game multiplayers use peer to peer infrastructure, barring what are likely a few that actually need beefy servers to support large number of players, which is typically taken care of by the [i]game developers[/i] rather than the console manufacturers, which I presume don't see any of the money that console manufacturers charge for their online services.
For example, the Souls games use a torrent-like system where a pool of IP addresses is built up during play, which you then connect to with one player serving as a listen server host. Very little network overhead for the developers, still requires premium internet service from console manufacturers to use online play if you're not playing on PC.
It's another console tax that they extort from you because they can. The only thing it can conceivably go towards is their VOIP and community systems, which are handled by programs like skype and discord on PC for free anyways.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;49971774]"It's bad that Xbox users have to pay for Xbox Live for basic online functionality"
"But PS3 and Wii has free online!"
...So?
[editline]20th March 2016[/editline]
I'm 99% sure he's full of shit unless something happened overnight that literally changed everything about gaming on Linux and nobody knows it exists.[/QUOTE]
He's half-full of shit, there's the ongoing gallium-nine project, but it only does d3d9, and it's not perfect yet.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;49971595]Not really. Servers cost quite a bit to maintain, especially with the number of people playing on consoles. Besides, 60 dollars ever 2 years really isn't that much. It's far less then something like PS+.[/QUOTE]
the only reason its done on console is because it CAN be done. Not because it needs to be done, or that it makes sense to be done. They can do it because they control your console, and they won't give up a chance to make money, so they do.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;49972062]the only reason its done on console is because it CAN be done. Not because it needs to be done, or that it makes sense to be done. They can do it because they control your console, and they won't give up a chance to make money, so they do.[/QUOTE]
Imagine if Steam required you to buy a steam subscription to play games online. And if anything, Steam hosts more content so in theory it costs more to maintain and yet you don't pay for online features.
[QUOTE=rndgenerator;49972277]Imagine if Steam required you to buy a steam subscription to play games online. And if anything, Steam hosts more content so in theory it costs more to maintain and yet you don't pay for online features.[/QUOTE]
Imagine if Valve had the overhead that Microsoft does, we would be paying then.
[QUOTE=discofex;49972294]Imagine if Valve had the overhead that Microsoft does, we would be paying then.[/QUOTE]
Haha no we would not. That's so dumb.
[QUOTE=SonicHitman;49971546]i'd rather people complain about exclusives more than anything.
having a great game only exclusive is fucking wack.[/QUOTE]
But... it isn't? I mean in the case of Halo and Uncharted, Microsoft and Sony help fund the games development.
Also, it allows them to specialize more with the hardware they're given, that's why Naughty Dog games always look so fantastic.
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;49972291]This means developers can target the Linux platform using DirectX APIs
[url]http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=mesa_gallium3d_d3d11&num=1[/url][/QUOTE]
It was nuked a few years down the line.
[QUOTE=Fox Powers;49971768]Wait, does this mean that any DX9/10/11 game works on Linux now? Forgive my ignorance if I sound dumb[/QUOTE]
he's full of it. WINE isn't native, and only provides a patchy implementation of DX10 and DX11. DX9 support is reasonably solid but you are going to run into stability issues/bugs in many titles. So yeah there is support for running DX9 games primarily through wine to a degree, but there aren't any guarantees of anything since it isn't a supported platform.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;49971537]Sorry to say that I still kinda want Microsoft to fail in the gaming space. The less people use DirectX and the more people use Vulkan, the better, and the easier it will become for gamers to switch over to Linux in the future.[/QUOTE]
Linux makes up less than 1% of PC gamers according to steam's hardware survey, and the numbers are also dropping. It's currently at 0.91% and dropped by 0.05% since the last survey.
PC gaming isn't going to move to linux. Even after years of Valve pushing and promoting linux compatible games and hardware there has been no growth.
as I grew older I realized that the PS and Xbox are pretty much the same platforms with only community and and attitude differences and nothing else
feature-list aside I still believe that the PS and the xbox are pretty much the same platform
this console VS console fanboyism is fucking funny.
So, what kind of gamer am I if I could give two shits about exclusives and the only ones I want to see fail are the ones that put out crap on my platform of choice, but blame everything except themselves for it being crap?
I only ask out of curiosity. I enjoy playing video games, and to me, that make me a gamer.
[QUOTE=DarklytheGreat;49971809]The PS3 and Wii did have free online, yes, but they were both shit.
The Xbox had paid online, and it worked just fine.
I'm seeing a little correlation here.[/QUOTE]
Speak for your own experience (except for the wii part)
I've seen a lot of retarded Windows users (not on FP) getting pissed about Windows games being ported to Linux, the reasons tend to be that Linux is shit because it's hard to use, and nobody uses it for games anyway >:(((
They've used a Linux distribution for like half an hour, and failed to figure out how to install the drivers, and then they give up and declare it's shit. Funnily enough they're the same people who will happily call console gamers retards for finding PC gaming too complex
[QUOTE=Rixxz2;49973487]I've seen a lot of retarded Windows users (not on FP) getting pissed about Windows games being ported to Linux, the reasons tend to be that Linux is shit because it's hard to use, and nobody uses it for games anyway >:(((
They've used a Linux distribution for like half an hour, and failed to figure out how to install the drivers, and then they give up and declare it's shit. Funnily enough they're the same people who will happily call console gamers retards for finding PC gaming too complex[/QUOTE]
I've never ever seen someone complain about a game being ported to linux...
[QUOTE=rndgenerator;49971728]He says it as if being a "real gamer" is something to be proud of. What does it even mean to be a real gamer as opposed to what, a fake gamer? Platform elitism is stupid but so is this whole gamer nonsense. First gamers are dead, then there are real gamers, please stop.[/QUOTE]
And Phil Spencer said gamers were dead when? You're taking what he said and trying to make a contradiction to something he didn't, so why even bring it up?
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;49972941]Linux makes up less than 1% of PC gamers according to steam's hardware survey, and the numbers are also dropping. It's currently at 0.91% and dropped by 0.05% since the last survey.
PC gaming isn't going to move to linux. Even after years of Valve pushing and promoting linux compatible games and hardware there has been no growth.[/QUOTE]
.05% is well within margin of error, and I didn't say it would be easy or happen overnight, just that if DirectX was no longer a thing it would be an easier proposition in the distant future. The main reason Linux isn't a recognized platform is because a huge library of games aren't available on Linux. If DirectX continues on, even with shoddy Wine or Gallium implementations, Windows will continue to have an advantage over Linux indefinitely. If platform-agnostic titles become more and more available and people become better able to make older games run better through various projects, Linux gaming could become a viable option in 10-20 years.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.