I'm not saying who/what's right or wrong here, but the maths based upon the previous two posts are as follows:
558Mbps (if stable/clean) = 70MB/s
I don't understand your post. For the record I agree with everything Belimawr has said, e.g. codecs/compression help here. On the maths, I wanted to point out to people that MBps is different to Mbps, i.e. 8b/s == 1B/s - 8 bits per Byte. That is why I did x3 for bytes rather than x24bits colour. So where have I gone wrong please, what does this "600MB = 75MB" mean?
that may be true of pure uncompressed video, but with the devices likely carrying video handling hardware it would likely be much lower, the same reason you can stream 4K video over about a 15meg line, then devices with not very complex processors can use that stream easily.
I have a now fairly old (few years at least) router, my phone connects to it at about 760meg with a latency of less than 2ms, so I would think it would be fairly easy to use as a transfer method when some newer routers are breaking the 1gig on wifi and actually starting to push it ahead of wired connections under good conditions, as the bandwidth is high and the latency is incredibly low.
it's also likely why Oculus is working with Samsung and can already use the Galaxy S6 as a replacement for all the gubbins inside the rift and with the mobile processors they can still do a hell of a lot.
so really bandwidth isn't an issue unless the device is running purely as a screen as then it would drop the need for processors and other such things.
but having used stuff like Nvidia streaming and PS4 streaming over my wifi network to tablets/phones I don't see why the bandwidth would be a problem unless the device lacks the power to use anything but raw video input.
I'm afraid it's "USB sized", but needs to be plugged into an HDMI slot on your TV.
It's actually bigger than is implied (fair enough) as you can see the size of the USB socket on its side.
Yeah, you are probably right, but it will be nice to have it for my flat-screen tv in the living room.
That's a fair bit aggressive of you, random internet person. I don't understand what made them reach the decision, and I believe either way it'll have a negative impact, but instead of ranting about it, I'll refrain from judging whether it'll be a minor inconvenience or something that really ruins it for new customers. The reason for this is that it's not exactly your standard mmo, so it's hard to tell exactly. Get it now?
That was my opinion on the subject, and opinions are just that. Opinions. But obviously developers should listen to their customer base in general. How do you think they came to the decision in the first place. They listened to the feedback from testers (and whining over losing their stuff) and reached a conclusion. That's fairly normal everyday business practice.
Honestly, I don't know why you decided this needed your fantastic white knighting abilities, but good job I suppose.
I would have written a more sarcastic comment about fanboys rushing to the aid of game developers in response to your snarky ass comment, but I'll let it rest.
Kickstarter backers actually could pay for the privilege of an early start.
I think it is fine to be honest. Somebody that joins the game in 6 months should not be aggrieved that lots of players are far more advanced, so why should joiners on the 16th care either, In all cases, there are still NPCs out there that are more advanced too.
It bugged me for the longest time why I also found this to be the case until I figured it out.
For me personally, Diablo was the first real take at an action based Rogue-like. Going down into the dungeons, you had no idea what could be around the next corner or room. A new spellbook, an enchanted staff that shoots lighting, heck even just a more powerful sword was a big deal. As was finding an enemy mob.
Unfortunately, what Diablo and all the ARPG's took from it since wasn't that sense of exploration, they focused almost instead entirely on the loot grind. It became a game of getting bigger and bigger numbers.
In Diablo I felt like I was exploring. In Diablo II I felt like I was grinding. For levels, for stats, for gold, for bigger bigger BIGGER numbers on my sword and pants. Levelling up was a special event, a cool item was a special event, a new monster was a special event.
Because it became all about the loot grind, the ARPG genre as a whole decided it'd be great to have literal _thousands_ of near identical items blurt forth onto the game board (because more is better), and a bland trudge up the number hill. The idea of character variety is that you level yourself up to certain "builds", which focus on literally a few skills out of dozens (or else you're spreading yourself too thin), and if you want to play your character differently you need to spend literal dozens to hundreds of hours to re-level again.
It often makes me wonder for the road less travelled, action games that take the idea that exploration leads to fun stories.
I'm not sure this is going to be such a game, really just a straight up action game. But even that I find preferable to most standard ARPG's today. They just become a treadmill. You level up, your weapons level up, your enemies level up, and in the end the net change is very little apart from skill points that come fewer and fewer with time. Effectively the game puts you in a loop where you're still stuck thwacking things at level 40 in almost exactly the same way that you were 10 hours earlier at level 30.
This turned into more of a rant than I expected. But in any case, I think that's largely why I loved D1 but for the longest time was trying and failing to connect with almost all the other games that came after it.
Yeah, you're right about Diablo vs its successors, thanks for solving that for me, but you've made me feel a bit sad/sorry that I may never get that exploration experience again.
There is little doubt in my mind that new Gauntlet will be an action based game. So, as long as they have not included any kind of questing/grinding and no skill/level progression then I will be happy with it.
I would use it as a bit of fun with friends where a bit of team work can pay off as far as moving through the game and returning some level of satisfaction. But also that it must be basic enough that there is an opportunity to chat/socialise with my playing friends, whom I know but only occasionally see in real life. Actually, that sounds a bit like how we used L4D2.
Yeah, I'm actually one of the few people actually interested in this one I think. It's probably just driven from nostalgia of my mis-spent university days - I recall the almost Pavlovian Dog response to that 'heart beat sound' kicking in, or "Player needs food badly", insert 10p now.
The game reminds me of the original Diablo but without a plot, and maybe slightly faster paced. I played that a lot and bought Diablo II and III, but barely touched them for some reason, at great expense.
I just want a 'pick up and play', especially if it can also be with friends online.
How much does a 'normal' AAA game make? I wonder if anybody will be left to actually buy it when it hits the stores?
I don't think the number of backers is actually particularly big, if you compared it with the typical sales of a AAA PC game. What's given them so much cash is that they've managed to raise a lot more cash per user than what you'd get from a standard sale.
I think they'll sell plenty, when it's available more generally.
Maybe PC will eventually get (and be powerful enough for) an XBox One emulator.
Or why not just have XBox One games run on PCs too - Microsoft could double their money.
½ the worlds population have thrown money at Star Citizen, but few did support this. I fear Star Citizen have bought their own grave, if you can say that. The Elite team, on the other hand, might be surprised when their title becomes a blockbuster, and realize that there is so much untapped market and potential new customers.
I backed them both, but also backed Limit Theory ... worth a look too I reckon.
I'm not sure what it says about me, but boy, that was funny.
As funny as this Francis character is, his last point is brilliant.
"Im not mad that its a shitty MMO, Im mad because its the worst Elder Scrolls game ever made. And for that, you are sons 'o' bitches....God damn it."
Thats why the hate, right there.