New Console Always-Online Requirements and You 435
An anonymous reader writes "The new Xbox is almost here and the details appear to strongly suggest 'always on' is the way forward. We all know that this is an artificial requirement and certainly there are plenty of people on all sides of the table. To paraphrase the user 'tuffy' who commented on this issue at Ars Technica recently; if you're trying to sell 'always online' as a feature of the future, there needs to be some benefit for me the customer. There is not one. Or, rather, there is no sign yet of any actual clearly compelling reason why any end user would support this limitation to their purchase. So, what's the best way to express this? Spend your money on an Ouya? Contact the Xbox team? These are all valid options but they also lack visibility. What we need is a way that could help actually quantify the levels of discontent in the gamer community. Maybe E3 attendees could turn their backs in protest like some did during Thatcher's funeral procession. Or gamers could sign some useless petition. What do Slashdotters think? Is the upcoming Steam box a reasonable plan? As a gamer, I'm of two minds about the whole thing. I really don't like it but I may roll over eventually and join the herd because I could get used to it. Then again part of me is rankled by this slow erosion of access to me and my data."
The only winning move.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The only winning move is not to play.
Re:The only winning move.... (Score:5, Funny)
The only winning move is not to pay.
Re: (Score:2)
That's actually the better way to phrase it, given the record of such "always on, requires internet to let you play" schemes where you pay for a game and then you can't play for at least 2 weeks.
Re:The only winning move.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The only winning move.... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no pressing need for MS to require "always on". What they will want for sure, though, is that you have to go online the first time you play the game to lock your game to your console, to kill the second hand market and circumvent first sales doctrine (i.e. you can sell it, but nobody's gonna buy it 'cause he can't use it).
Only when I hear that there is NO need to EVER go online with this console, we can start talking.
Re:The only winning move.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Sony already do this. Many games now come with a code that you redeem from he Playstation Store. You get very basic features such as arcade mode or you can only play to certain levels unless you download the unlock file. Now you can buy an used game and purchase a new code, but you may as well purchase a new version as it may work out cheaper that way.
Re:The only winning move.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Thanks for your time, keep your console, no sale.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Part of the reason I don't own any recent Sony consoles, either. At this point, the only way I'd consider an always-on console in my house would be if it's on a separate filewalled subnet. And I'd NEVER use it for anything but gaming, and likely give false information when initializing it. Let the companies collect that data.
Another thought: like everything else Microsoft creates, it will eventually get hacked, and we could each sue Microsoft for forcing us into a situation in which our data was stolen.
Re: (Score:3)
Why wouldn't it be? Does it scan your passport or something?
Re:The only winning move.... (Score:4, Funny)
At the Holy See, we're all about the Millipede.
Re: (Score:2)
Prepare for history to repeat itself.
Re:The only winning move.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Look up the 23rd word on page 9 of the user manual.
(I had a copied version of one game - I'm forgetting the name - but you could often get the game going by guessing common words like "the" or "and". You have loads of time, but very little money when you are 12 years old.)
Re: (Score:3)
Which game is that exactly? I own three shelves full of PS3 games and the only games with codes are for extras for pre-order or online play passes (which obviously already requires you to be online).
Re:The only winning move.... (Score:5, Interesting)
It shows how bad at economic these companies are. It all depends on the total cost. The cost to play a game is what you pay minus what you can sell it for. If a game coss $70 new but you can sell it for $40 in a month the cost to you is $30. That is what you are willing to pay. If they kill the second hand market then the real cost will be $70. You will now sell a lot fewer games because if the higher price. If they kill the second hand market but drop the price to $30 they will sell about the same as before. Now the trick is to figure out which gives you the highest total revenue. I don't think DRM is going to help.
Re:The only winning move.... (Score:4, Insightful)
You're assuming everyone, or even most people, sell their games. You're also ignoring the lost sales of new games as some people opt to buy used copies.
The only ones I've honestly known that sell their games are kids. Kids who only can get mom and dad to buy them two or three games a year. There's much more money in the 20s, 30s adults with their own disposable income...a group that's far less likely to care about the hassle of selling their games and/or enjoy keeping a collection. At the very least they're going to hang on to a game far longer then a month which drastically reduces its resale value.
So while there will be some that are accustom to the buy(day one)/play(through quick)/sell(fast) model and will be impacted by your math, most of those losses will be made up by once-used game purchasers now buying games new.
Re:The only winning move.... (Score:4, Insightful)
A collection of what? Cartridges? CD-ROMs? DVDs?
There's not much to "collect" with a downloaded game.
Re: (Score:3)
The new games market is about 22 billion vs a 2.5 billion used game market. While Gamestop may make most of its money on used games, but the used game market is pretty trivial. Very, very, very few people make their game purchases based on how much they will be able to sell them for.
Yet the game publishers seem to be unreasonably concerned about used game sales.
I think the much bigger threat is the mobile phone game market. Your hard core gamers are still going to shell out $70 for a title to run on a console, but that isn't a big enough of an audience to sustain the game industry. The casual gamers are going to shell out $1.99 (or put up with adds and pay nothing) to play games on their mobile phone or tablet.
Re: (Score:3)
You are missing the point. The resale value is factored into the price people are willing to pay. Same goes for cars, watches, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Have they? Any article I've read thus far merely points out they won't comment on it.
Re:The only winning move.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a question: What would make you believe anything Microsoft (or Sony, or Apple, etc) would say about anything? Do you really believe that "honest with the public" is part of their corporate charter? Do you understand what corporations are for, why they exist? Is there any part of that to indicate "honest with the public" or even "do what our customers want"?
It's as singular a purpose as you can imagine: profit. If that meant "lying our ass off to the public" then there would be no hesitation. And yes, corporations have shown that it's possible to lie, over and over, and still make a great profit. Microsoft is not an exception.
Re: (Score:3)
That said, it's academic for the moment because the poster you replied to is wrong; Microsoft hasn't d
Re:The only winning move.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people have an internet connection available and might complain, but they'll go along with it. And game makers will get their live-DRM.
It is going to happen and it won't be stopped. --- But this doesn't mean the end of the world, you personally don't have to go along with this and there will always be games on PCs, etc.
But consoles?
Yes .. their device, their rules ... and they have big marketing budgets.
might as well enjoy it?? (Score:5, Insightful)
People hate 'always on' DRM. No one likes it. Some hate it with a fiery passion.
It's 'people' like you who assume the following:
That gives M$ the notion that doing this would work. Seriously, only because people like you exist, the "if you're getting raped you might as well enjoy it" logic people...fsk you and your notions of consumer choice.
Platforms can die when the alienate their users and/or make bad business decisions, ex: Sega, Neo/Geo
Or a PC these days (Score:5, Informative)
Seriously. Want to still play games, but the consoles don't do what you want? Use a computer. They are first-flight gaming platforms these days. Currently more powerful than any console, even with lower range hardware. You can also get games with whatever your DRM tolerance is. Being open platforms, developers can really do wahtever they like so you find it runs the gamut. There are some games with always-on DRM, Ubisoft is pretty (in)famous for that. There are games with DRM that requires you to go online to activate once, but then not again. There are games with DRM that kinda fades in to the background and is just part of the setup (like Steam). Finally there are games with no DRM at all.
So you can play whatever games meet your requirements in terms of level of DRM. There's nothing being forced by a larger entity, and indeed because of the varied market it is easy to vote with your dollars and developers can see the result of that.
So you don't have to wait for some alternative, there is already one here, and you probably already have the basics of what you need. A Windows PC (there just aren't many games for Linux at this point) with a reasonably modern processor is a good foundation, then knock a $100ish graphics card in and you are good to go.
Yes you can hook it to your TV and use a controller, if that is what you desire.
Re: (Score:3)
Video and audio cable management for TV display can range from annoying to impossible.
Controller configuration per game can be annoying.
Navigation of a mouse oriented interface with a controller is painful.
Bugs, security, and game requirements all need to be managed.
Can not just pop in a dvd and have the software run.
A $100 graphics card will not make all current gen games run smoothly, let alone next years games. Hard
Re: (Score:3)
"People"? There are also people who will not. And the people who will not represent money that can be made by a company that will treat customers with respect.
Eternal success, or even existence, is not guaranteed to Microsoft and Sony.
Re:The only winning move.... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's evolution - either it survives or it doesn't, users will cave or they won't. MS will bring back the start menu or they won't - this can be applied to pretty much everything. So yeah, vote with your wallet, that's *all* MS cares about, like any other corporation. If there's some seriously flawed security issues in the implementation, make it public so users enjoying the service can be informed. But a "hell no we won't go... ONLINE!" flashmob? Please. Let the natural order decide and if it grinds your gears all that much best to buy an apple orchard and keep the local kids out of it - better use of your time.
I use steam all the time, a PS3 less so, I get some value from being connected, but it's nice to know if I wanted to I have offline mode with steam. MS will likely give me less choice so I probably won't invest.
Re: (Score:3)
The only winning move is not to play.
I like it. We're currently in the middle of a resurgence of PC gaming as a result of Steam distribution and the homogenisation (therefore dissatisfaction) of console titles. Mobile gaming is on the up too, again due to easier distribution. Anything that will push people back to these open platforms makes gaming stronger.
It might be a "640k is enough for anyone" comment, but I wonder if we've turned a corner in hardware performance. Consoles used to have a big advantage over PCs in performance-per-dollar, bu
Re:The only winning move.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly.
[...] I may roll over eventually and join the herd because I could get used to it.
This is the problem. Microsoft is a game publishing company, and the amount of control gamers have over their own games is essentially another price point. Publishers will put that price point exactly where the market will bare it, which means things will get worse until people stop buying games. So if you don't want things to get worse, don't roll over.
Don't buy this console, tell your non-tech-savvy friends not to buy this console, tell your tech-savvy friends not to buy this console, and tell your tech-savvy friends to tell their non-tech-savvy friends not to buy this console.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah yeah I know, feed the troll.
Even when you do - the available information is out of date or just plain wrong. For example - the day I made an offer on a place I knew the current resident had a stable ADSL2 connection, and that the RIM at the end of the street had spare ports. The day the contracts were exchanged there were no ports and a waiting list for Internet access.
Fact is the telcos have an active disincentive to invest in Australian broadband (with the NBN coming, or not, or maybe, or halfway, or
Steambox (Score:2, Interesting)
Steam basically requires an internet connection. Offline mode exists, but you need to switch it over while you have a connection, so its useless if you go offline suddenly.
I have no reason to believe that the steambox will be any different.
Re:Steambox (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Err, no. Steam will "forget" you password after a day or two (in my case it was one day) and you will be left without being able to play untill you connect Steam to the Internet again so it can cache your password again. My internet was down for two months, I was able to play my thousands of dollars worh of games for a whole evening! :-)
(I thing the biggest probl;em with the "always on"/Steam schemes is that the game will only be usable by one person. I have tons and tons of games, when one of my kids come
Re:Steambox (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Steambox (Score:5, Informative)
When did you have this problem? Last year around October there was a major Steam client update. Since then I can go offline without an internet connection too.
Re: (Score:2)
I have had Steam longer than that, and I have used offline mode extensively, across multiple reboots. I have never had it magically forget my password. In fact, once I enabled offline mode and forgot to turn it back on for a few months. I found the experience more positive than online mode really, since internet connections in New Zealand are largely pretty crap.
Re: (Score:2)
Err, no. This is not needed anymore. Test it: disable your connection, you can then switch to offline mode.
Did they also fix the problem where Steam goes into online mode when it crashes, so that it has to connect the next time you launch it? That bug persisted for many years, and it is one of the big reasons I removed Steam from my computer.
Re: (Score:2)
This has not been true for a long, long time.
Re:Steambox (Score:5, Insightful)
I also like how gamers will yell until they are blue in the face about second hand game sales and how important they are.
And then they will turn around and talk about how "Steam gets it right", conveniently forgetting it was the first place that forbid second-hand game sales.
Re:Steambox (Score:4, Insightful)
Steam also tends to sell games for dirt cheap, or at least below retail value. Being unable to re-sell off of Steam is bad, don't get me wrong, but the punch hurts a little less if I can't sell the $5 Command and Conquer: Red Alert 3, as opposed to the $60 copy of HALO 4.
In general (but not always), people tend to accept the lack of being able to resale as a trade-off for lower prices, digital download, etc. Maybe one day (pipe dream), Steam will set up an e-Used Game Market that Steam users could buy, sell, and trade games around with. I have no idea how legal it would be for them to do that (i.e. certain publishers might not like it, be able to stop it, etc.), but it would certainly alleviate a lot of concerns.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This has only been true for games that are online to actually play. The others only require on-line to originally download or register the games, to get updates, and to save your games. They also allow you to connect and download the game to any device you log in with, on any OS that the game will play on, and to save your games in their cloud. So you actually get something in return for being online.
Interrupting a game to go offline is usually seamless, but not always, if the game is being saved and doing
Re: (Score:2)
That's the theory. In practice, offline mode sucks ass and doesn't work reliably.
Failed on me yesterday, for instance.
Re: (Score:2)
Or you might just (Score:5, Interesting)
Use a PC for gaming and vote with your wallet (refuse to buy games that require internet connection).
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Until you realize that almost all of PC games are sold on Steam, which is always on-line incarnate (off-line mode never works).
Re: (Score:3)
Let's not forget that Blizzard ran afoul of a German consumer watchdog because they hadn't printed the always-on requirement prominently on the box of Diablo 3. If this is done consequently we are able to avoid inacceptable sales conditions and vote with our wallets.
If the
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? What games are you playing, I think none of the ones I own ever refused to run because no internet connection was available.
Re: (Score:2)
He's trolling and you bit. It's complete FUD that offline mode doesn't work.
Re: (Score:3)
Those complaints are no longer true, the steam client has been updated, and I have been in offline mode in steam for up to a month.
Re: (Score:2)
So from "almost all games" we're now down to "one game"?
That was quick!
Fact is, there are games on Steam that require always-on. Never, though, have I seen this requirement being added by Valve, it's something the maker of the game require. Valve can hardly do anything against that...
Re: (Score:2)
So you're upset that you have to be on the internet to download the game and updates? You may wish to reconsider your argument.
Re: (Score:2)
"refuse to buy games that require internet connection" So basically the options are No Games or pirating all your games?
Re:Or you might just (Score:5, Informative)
Solution is easy (Score:5, Insightful)
Just don't buy one.
Re: (Score:2)
Most sensible thing ever said in the whole discussion.
I don't see why people has this compulsion to play games even if they require absurd things like always-on internet (which is a fantasy, there are a lot of factors that will cause downtime even in the best ISP-provided connections money can pay).
I just wonder what's on everyone else's head.
Seriously people, you have no self-control? We went from full titles to beta-quality releases requiring patching and with lots of DLC instead of actual contents. And y
Re: (Score:3)
I wish I could mod this up to 50:Sensible.
Noone is forcing these people to buy the new xbox. Dont buy it. Simple concept, isnt it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's too much hysteria about this. I've not seen anything that suggests 'always on' is 'your console won't work if it isn't connected all the time'.
That's what "always on" means. It's not literal, because pretty much all devices are "always on" and merely sleeping now. It means your console needs to be on the internet to work. And this is very much the indication Microsoft has given with their public statements.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you see that kind of ignorance at that level then you do not find it hard to believe they really want to stick to the alwa
Re: (Score:3)
All hail hackers (Score:5, Funny)
A hacker will provide a fix to remove that always online requirement. Problem solved.
Re: (Score:2)
That would just make it worse...
Release day of any AAA title would be a repeat of D3 and SimCity.
So what are the exclusives... (Score:2)
That would make an xbox worth buying? I didn't notice one in the previous generation...
Always online is here to stay (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft knows and abuses their user base. For example, all Xbox Live game servers are hosted by players. These players pay a yearly fee to MS, so that MS will grant them the privilege of hosting these servers and playing against other players. MS is basically getting free money.
Rednecks who don't know better; Call of Duty dudebros; 13 year olds with gullible soccer moms - these are all people don't give a shit about always online and represent the core audience of the Xbox brand. They'll buy the next console without asking questions and they'll create the critical mass MS and publishers need in order to push always online.
People who hope the PS4 will save us from always online are naive. Always online has always been the publishers' wet dream. They've been pushing for this for years. At the very least, MS and Sony will implement mechanisms so that any publisher will be able to impose the always online requirement for their games. And remember, MS and Sony are also publishers, and they're quite big publishers. Where do you expect people to go once all games released by Activision, EA, Sony, MS, Ubisoft and others will all require always online? How will you fight a cartel in its own walled garden?
Blizzard games, Steam games, even the dreaded SimCity sell tens of millions of copies each year, despite the various types of (partially) always online requirements. Always online is here to stay and there's nothing you can do, because of the massive amount of people who will gobble this up without thinking twice.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know about that
http://kotaku.com/5985874/ps4-will-not-require-an-always+online-connection [kotaku.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Return to PC gaming, but only play indie games (Score:3)
Do you return to PC gaming, but only play indie games
Bingo. Indie games and GOG.
Use the Windows XP solution (Score:2)
Do what countless users and corporations have done over the last decade: if the latest and greatest is not so much better than the existing system, do not buy it, and continue using the older system and games built for the older system.
All threats from microsoft, as in the win XP case, will come to nought. not even Ballmer, who has proved his, ah, "determination", will try to stem the flow when content designers will say: "the installed base of 360 is X million consoles, and they continue
The reason why this will happen? (Score:4, Insightful)
And that's your problem right there. Why is everybody expecting that sticking to your principles doesn't need something in return?
Don't assume consumers will care. (Score:2)
...there needs to be some benefit for me the customer.
Does there? Or will people just buy it anyway and in some cases complain about it after their purchase?
Always on is the content industry's wet dream, whereby the purchase model turns to a leasing model. This has huge ramifications.
The time people will really start caring is in ten years time when the activiation servers are switched off and they can't play their games anymore.
Re:Don't assume consumers will care. (Score:5, Informative)
The time people will really start caring is in ten years time when the activiation servers are switched off and they can't play their games anymore.
Optimist. Microsoft "PlaysForSure" lasted for all of four years.
Im not planning on buying one, but... (Score:2)
Amazing markets (Score:2)
You know? With the android mobile gaming market showing signs of serious growth and market presence, how is it they think they can milk the addicted gaming market for more that so many can tolerate? They want their $50-60 every time the disk media changes hands? When fun little games exist on Android devices for a dollar?! Really?
I'm rather interested to see how badly the "big ticket" gaming market fails. Their greed will be the root cause.
I don't get it...punishing users with no internet? (Score:2)
It's bizarre, OK I suppose MS have done their homework, but why force this on consumers?
Sure, I suppose nearly all of their target market has a connection, but even so, I can think of many use cases where that might not be available, including intentionally.
For example, when my children were young, I was happy for them to be playing with consoles not connected to the internet, since I could control exactly what games they could use, (nice mix of fun & eductaion, all safe).
Also, at home my internet conne
Steam is the choice for you. (Score:4, Insightful)
Steam only has DRM the publishers chose. You're free to support the ones who do things DRM free. Steam does not require a connection to play in any way shape or form.
These are the facts.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Steam only has DRM the publishers chose. You're free to support the ones who do things DRM free. Steam does not require a connection to play in any way shape or form.
These are the facts.
Well, no, those are not the facts. Those should be the facts, but in reality the fact is that Steam often reverts to online mode, especially when it crashes, which it does a lot. There is no excuse whatsoever for this behavior. It wouldn't even happen if Valve were competent. Actually, that's a lie. Valve can clearly fix a bug that is this pathetic, if they try. It wouldn't even happen if Valve were not doing this deliberately to force logins.
Not quite (Score:3, Informative)
Steam forces their own DRM, Steamworks, on all games. Unlike some other DD servers (Impulse for example) there is no capability to release a game without the built-in DRM. Publishers can use additional DRM as well, but Steamworks is mandatory.
It's pretty low key DRM over all, most people are ok with it (I am) but it is DRM. You have to have Steam running and be logged in to your account to be able to play a game. You don't have to be online, you can cache your credentials and play offline, but you must have
The worst part about this (Score:5, Insightful)
What I hate so much about "always online" is that EVENTUALLY these companies are going to shut down their servers and people who want to play these games in the future will be screwed. I really do hope hacking solutions come out of this, otherwise you're going to have an entire generation of games that literally cannot be played in the future. Imagine if movies did that and you could no longer watch The Shawshank Redemption because its profitability expired a long time ago and it cost money to keep the movie servers running.
If you think this won't happen, see how Microsoft has pulled the plug on multiplayer Halo 1 / 2 or Mercenaries 2. At least the single player component wasn't affected, but for future games, it will be. Over enough time, without proper cracks, these games will be IMPOSSIBLE to play.
I hate this mentality of forcing everyone online with no recourse for when the plug eventually gets pulled. It's intentionally destroying culture in the name of profit, which I find immoral.
Re: (Score:2)
The Art of Distraction (Score:2)
OUYA?! WTF are you even thinking?! (Score:5, Insightful)
So, what's the best way to express this? Spend your money on an Ouya?
Are you fucking DAFT?! You have to connect the Ouya to the Internet AND give it your credit card information before you can even use it. It requires a mandatory firmware update out of the box. Then, EVERY game must be Free To Play in some capacity. As a game dev I want to like the OUYA, but it's shit. I can't even just put a full version of a game and demo version out and have you buy the game outright if you want -- Nope, instead I have to create an in-app-purchase and lock away features calling the locked neutered game a "demo", and then I have to check with the Ouya DRM servers before you start playing the full version of the game (better be connected to the Internet, always). Other games that are "free to play" and funded via in-app-purchased micro-transactions are roughly equivalent to "always online DRM", you doofus.
Ouya == Free To Play PITA == Always Online DRM. You want to escape this crap?! So do I. Game on your damn PCs. PLEASE!
Re: (Score:3)
Have you ever tried it? It sucks. My Android widgets that grok HDMI can't even scale to the screen size properly (yay black borders!), let alone output native-resolution 1080-anything. And the audio only seems to be capable of producing stereo PCM, which meh.
Fix all that, and maybe add a useable remote control and a user interface that works properly with it, and oh yeah - we're back to Ouya.
The new Wii U update yesterday... (Score:3)
I have however - paranoid as I am - blocked the camera on the console with black tape, there's hardly any games using that camera anyway.
If MS want to shoot themselves in the foot again.. (Score:3)
... let them do it. They fucked up with Win8 , lets just get the popcorn and watch them fuck up xbox too.
People - an xbox is just a toy. If we were talking PC operating systems requiring always on then fine, that would be Bad News. But an Xbox? Meh, who cares. Its hardly a crucial purchase and hardcore gamers will use PCs anyway.
There *is* a benefit to the consumer (Score:3)
There is a benefit to the consumer: playing video games on the new Xbox. The consumer doesn't pick, in isolation, whether they want always-on connectivity; they choose whether or not to buy the whole bundle of good and bad design decisions that make up the Xbox. There is presumably a group of people who will move from wanting an Xbox to not wanting one because of this feature, but my gut feeling is that they won't be that numerous, because I think that the games, not the technical requirements, are probably uppermost in peoples' minds when buying a console.
Whine. It worked for ME3's ending. Seriously. (Score:2)
I'll just leave this here: Why Boycotts Fail Where Whining Tantrums Win. [escapistmagazine.com]
I didn't buy last generation consoles (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Overkill? (Score:3)
See COD fanbois... (Score:3)
There's the core market that take whatever dross is shovelled to them under a certain brand. They get sucked in to buying all the DLC even if it's just cosmetic or even maps from the last revision (no, they don't qualify as versions anymore).
There's enough mindless COD sheep to keep the new consoles going for quite a while, meaning this will not go away this coming console generation or next.
Re: (Score:2)
Consoles are typically weaker. Except if the PC is old. Consoles are for people who can't afford 1-2 year old computers but want to play FPS games.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Consoles are better for developers as they have uniform specs and interface resulting in (theoretically) better performance. Unfortunately it seems that instead of better performance, they reduce the amount they spend on development and aim for similar performance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Don't worry about it, you're not the target audience after all. :)
Right. The target market is clearly people who prefer poor quality games and lots of bullshit. You?
Current gen graphics from Ivy Bridge IGP (Score:3, Informative)
your alternative is to maintain a ridiculous and expensive beast of a PC where the video card alone costs more than a console.
Video card? What video card? Skyrim is playable without one now [anandtech.com].