Jump to content

partious

Members
  • Content Count

    1,846
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

4,918 profile views
  1. partious

    Antstream - It's Netflix for Games!

    The like:dislike ratio on that video At least the "youtube influencers" seem impressed. Maybe there`s a market for this out there among people who had a c64 once but haven`t kept up with gaming or technology. I feel like retro game fans online aren`t going to be able to get over the streaming aspect though. My main issues: It`s yet another subscription service to stream something that you have no ownership over. You sign up thinking "oh hey I can play CJ in the USA and other classics for only 5 pounds a month(or whatever the price is). When you stop paying after a few years, you`ve paid a few hundred quid to play c64 games and you`re left with access to nothing. Great deal, you could have bought the real thing for less. Don`t most people have enough of these paid services at this stage? Netflix, Amazon Prime, Spotify, Psplus, Nintendo Online, Disney, etc etc etc etc. A bunch of companies all offering or planning game streaming services(Nvidia, Sony, Google and Apple off the top of my head). I don`t know about other people, but I feel like I`ve reached my limit on how many paid subscriptions for internet services I want to be paying every month, and would rather just pay a once off fee to own something, instead of commiting to yet another 5-10 pound a month payment indefinitely. Pretending that lag isn`t an issue when the laws of physics suggest otherwise. Streaming games results in lag. I`m sorry you couldn`t "get all parties on board otherwise" but streaming games still results in input lag. It`s an objectively inferior gameplay experience compared to the way people played them in the 1980s. Games aren`t songs or videos. I think there`s a reason business people seem more excited about the game streaming future than gamers do.
  2. partious

    Antstream - It's Netflix for Games!

    I'm curious about whether this is using open source emulators as the reddit thread posted a few days ago seems to suggest. Which ones? Does the company contribute anything back to the open source emulator development scene?
  3. partious

    Project iGame

    Assuming the mac still worked before you gutted it, and this being the retro folder and all, I must say it seems a shame to destroy a nice piece of retro hardware, unless you have actual skills you`re confident in and a lot of time etc to invest, in which case I still think it`s a bit of a shame to gut that computer to turn it into a raspberry pi emulation box with an lcd screen. The way I think about these things is if you kept it as is(was, too late I guess), in 10 years you still have an old mac, which is of interest/value to some people, even if you don`t personally have any interest. Turn it into a raspberry pi with a cheap lcd screen and in a few years you have a piece of junk that nobody wants. Well anyway,that said, good luck
  4. partious

    The first one is by far the worst one

    Like you said, games are sort of the opposite of movies in this regard. "The first one was the best" would be very much the norm in terms of movies and "first one was the worst" is pretty much the norm in games. Anyway, The Witcher. The Witcher 1 is considered borderline unplayable at this stage, whereas The Witcher 3 is The Witcher 3.
  5. partious

    Antstream - It's Netflix for Games!

    If it was a case of game images being sent to a client side emulator I`d imagine it would have some sort of drm that would check that you were still subscribed etc in order to let you play the games, similar to how PSPlus games or books downloaded on the Kindle Unlimited subscription service work.
  6. partious

    Antstream - It's Netflix for Games!

    Even with HDTVs that don’t scale old consoles properly etc you get people hooking up a snes or whatever over composite and saying “wow old games sure are shit”. Others end up buying expensive scalers or keep crt TVs in their house in 2019 to minimise lag. I can see relatively non tech savvy people (the type who wish to avoid “fiddly emulators”) using this, experiencing the input lag etc from streaming and concluding “wow, old games are too hard to control”. A lot of these games are pretty unforgiving even without the lag from streaming. Also, using open source emulators, hiding them on the backend and making a big part of your sales pitch “no fiddly emulators” is pretty disrespectful to the people who made them.
  7. It seems to me that they are creating competition, just not the type that a lot of gamers care about (the type where they can either just ignore the steam alternative because all their other games are on steam and they cost the same anyway, unless someone sufficiently undercuts steam, in which case they'll get it wherever's cheaper). Epic are offering favourable conditions to the people who actually make the games we want to play. That's legitimate competition in the world of online storefronts who sit in the middle of a transaction between people who make a game and people who want to play it. But apparently it isn't "real" competition unless it's a race to the bottom in terms of the price a consumer pays. If something goes on steam as well as epic, most people will just get it on steam out of inertia. If it isn't on steam some of those people will buy it on the epic store, where the dev gets a better cut. Epic lacking features that you like about steam can be an issue for you, it can be a sufficiently large issue that you boycott games you want to play because they aren't on steam (although personally I'd think your priorities are skewed if you care more about the launcher than the game), but this narrative about how they aren't competing fairly and implying that anyone who makes a game is morally obliged to accept valve's terms and put their game on Steam because you like steam is total nonsense. Until now Steam have gotten almost everything by virtue of being the only real option for most devs (apart from the mega corporations like EA who can have their own stores) now they finally have to compete. Not just on the price they sell the game to you for,they have to compete to get the games, because they didn’t make them, they just sell other people’s creative output. I welcome any competition that can give more money to those who create the games we play and less to middlemen. I fully expect the goalposts in the steam vs epic discussion to move if/when epic builds up the features on their store, maybe not the people in this thread but out there in the wider world of internet crusaders. I don't really care about the epic store in particular, my main issue is a gut level dislike of the idea of a company who did basically nothing taking 30 percent on the sale of someone else's work. I don’t think it’s a good thing for a company that insists on that sort of split to have the sort of relatively unchallenged dominant position in the market that Steam has had until now.
  8. partious

    Antstream - It's Netflix for Games!

    I'm another who thought this sounded nice enough because I was fairly ignorant about the licencing issues around 80s home computer games, it was before my time and I naively thought people like JPickford owned the rights to the games they made, even if someone else distributed them back in the day. Now that it's been cleared up, I think using this sort of language (the best thing) is quite misleading, you're clearly playing on people's desire for the games' actual creators to be fairly compensated. As a fan of retro games, I'd consider paying the people who actually created the games a very good thing. On the other hand I'd consider paying an unrelated company that bought the rights to some games when another company went bankrupt to be a very bad thing. I'd rather not give such companies any money for games they had nothing to do with the creation of, and I'm sure I'm not alone. It might be "the best thing" for antstream, as not paying the rights holders would be illegal. The idea of streaming c64 games doesn't appeal to me. Game streaming is rubbish in general but also c64 games are tiny! I assume the reason for streaming is that it's easier to make one emulator (it would be interesting to know if the emulators are made in house) and stream to everything than to port emulators to various systems and deliver the tiny roms to a client side emulator where the player can have a lag-free experience. Basically, the player gets an objectively worse gameplay experience so that the company can do less work/ongoing maintenance when new hardware comes out. That lack of need to port emulators probably also sounds good in the sales pitch when they're looking for a big company to buy them out.
  9. I don't pay much attention to him but do watch the odd video. If i recall corectly, he made a video saying that valve are bad for letting disgusting garbage onto the store/giving it exposure and that the competition is a good thing. It was the first time I've seen his viewers turn against him en masse in the comments section, "how could you jim, epic are buying exclusives and they don't have a shopping cart!", etc. I think he walked it back soon after by making a video saying "the epic store doesn't have a shopping cart and they're paying for exclusives". Edit: Look at those dislikes and the comments
  10. I dare say pumping is a gross overstatement there, when you're discussing what? Steam link, that controller and the HTC Vive as the fruits of a decade or so? For a company who have been making billions in profit every year by acting as a middleman, taking 30 percent of the money made by other people's games, I think it's fair to say they've given very little back, which is one reason I think the loyalty is quite misplaced.
  11. I find the thought process behind this fascinating/baffling. You’re happy to play on a different machine. But heaven forbid having to click on a different launcher on your pc.
  12. People don’t care. As we can see, what gamers care about is not having to have more than one launcher on their pc. Also access to such great steam services as those trading cards, apparently. That’s why epic are buying exclusives, so that people have to use their store. All those stores you mentioned and the fact that they haven’t caught on or managed to compete with steam in any real way basically justify epic’s business tactics, assuming their intention is to create a successful competitor to steam and not the next itch.io.
  13. What would you like? Anyone who makes a pc game should be forced to sell it on steam and give steam 30 percent of any sales, sales that could have taken place on a different store with a more reasonable split? This is a funny discussion. The rights of consumers not to have to use a different loader vs the rights of a person/company who spent years making a game not to give the middle man valve (who did essentially nothing) 30 percent of the money from the sales of that game. I know which right I support more.
  14. The epic store are offering a financial incentive for developers/publishers to put their game on the Epic store, both by paying for exclusivity and also by offering a far more reasonable share of the profits, considering what selling someone else's game on your windows storefront actually is. As I said, steam don't pump money into designing the hardware people play on, they don't put money into marketing it, they don't make first party games to build and maintain the consumer base in the way the console makers do, they don't make the tools/OS/devkits etc that devs use to make games. What do Steam do to justify taking the same cut that the console makers take? The people who make a PC game should be free to choose which online stores to offer or not offer it on. I don't see why people think steam has some sort of entitlement to have access to every PC game any company makes. If Steam were some sort of public owned storefront/charity/nonprofit organisation, I might understand the resistance people have to the idea that they don't have a god given right to a 30 percent cut of the money from any PC game someone makes.
  15. I don't care about epic nor do I care about using a different launcher. I've never gotten any use out of the steam "services" people mention. I just play the games. I don't think a dev has any obligation to offer their game on Steam. Steam taking a 30 percent cut is a joke. They don't make the hardware, the os, the engine,dev tools etc etc, so why should they be taking the same cut apple do on ios apps or the console holders do on games sold on consoles they designed/marketed/created tools for? If they have to substantially lower their cut as a result of having some competition, that will be great.
×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.