When Jedi Training 101 Clearly Wasn’t Covered
I'd be far from the first person to point out that the shot the planet killer beam right past a couple of operators with no guardrails or anything. It isn't even clear how they got up there in the first place, frankly. You can even see them flinch when the beam goes past them.
Clearly the Star Wars universe has never been big on health and safety.
Oh, they love controversial content. If they can put ads on it. Engagement and hatewatching are great for an ad business.
It just can't be formatted in a way advertisers want to avoid or regulators want to regulate. The result leads to very weird, very toxic patterns of content and nobody wants to fix it (or has any particularly effective ideas about how).
Well, I'd say "you get a warning and need to click past it once" is probably the right set of guardrails there, which is to say "as robust as a little bit of tape".
The real disincentives on Google services are downstream, where that impacts your placement to receive ads and monetize. I don't know how much The Onion cares about that, I'm guessing Youtube ads aren't a massive slice of their revenue pie, but for everybody else it's a significant carrot and stick thing to keep access to that sweet, sweet midroll ad money.
I never disputed this, but you are arguing that PC games are all shit for some reason or another unless they're ported either from or to PS5.
Wait, that's what you think you're arguing against?
No wonder this conversation is so loopy, then.
The fact that consoles are a huge asset for PC gaming doesn't mean, and is nowhere near the same as, saying that "PC games are shit unless ported directly from the PS5". Your straw man is not just subtly misrepresenting my point, it's having some entirely unrelated conversation in a different room with a different person.
Consoles get to be a massive asset for PC games without... well, whatever that statement is supposed to imply. PC games benefit a LOT from having a set target for mainstream hardware be a fixed point for five to ten years. They benefitted strongly from access to a large volume of affordable, standardized, compatible controllers (these days things have been that way long enough that the standards aren't going anywhere, but it was a massive deal in 2005, which is the period we're talking about, despite your surprise that we're talking about it). And yes, the target for PC-only gaming today would be both different and significantly less pleasant without those things. The shift to a more PC-centric market already made it so that ten-year-old games dominate the landscape.
It's not just CounterStrike. It's Fortnite, Overwatch, GTA 5, Minecraft, Roblox. PC gaming's characteristics encourage those types of forever games targeting widely accessible hardware. Consoles existing in parallel open the door to additional viability for AAA releases targeting higher end specs. Not that you wouldn't get any of those without consoles, but for the past 20 years consoles have been a big reason that's a whole genre instead a one-in-a-generation thing you'd get when an engine company wanted to flex its tech muscle for potential engine licensors and accidentally made a game in the process.
Well, there's a very meaningful set of differences there. For one thing, by the time Dune first got adapted there weren't that many derivatives. Some of the imagery landed in Star Wars, but that was about it, by the time Lynch had his shot.
The issue with Neuromancer is that it's been adapted dozens, hundreds of times in all but name. Every iconic piece of that story has a hundred spins and spins of those spins elsewhere.
So when you do Paul Atreides you maaay have to contend with the fact that you're doing Luke Skywalker on LSD. When you do Molly you have to choose which pieces of Trinity, the like five iterations of Motoko Kusanagi, Ellen Ripley, Flynne Fisher and a dozen others, including at least one other version of Molly herself you're embracing or ignoring. You have to choose where you go with Blade Runner, The Matrix, Ghost in the Shell, Pantheon, Deus Ex, The Peripheral, Cyberpunk 2077, Westworld, Robocop, Shadowrun, Escape from NY, Aeon Flux, System Shock, Minority Report or a bunch of others. There are like four different Keanu Reeves characters you may choose to embrace or dismiss in this process. Just the fact that you're going to have to work around a bunch of talk about The Matrix and Zion is an issue.
I'm not saying that is or will be the problem with this version specifically. We'll see what they have when they're ready to show their homework. I'm saying that would definitely be one of my main anxieties if I had to find the way to do this accurately in 2025.
Yeah, well, I don't know much about this thing. I will say that you never judge the look of a thing from set stills.
I will also say I don't know how you do Neuromancer without devolving into self-parody at this point. I'm just going to go back to my corner and go back to not knowing anything about this until it's out.
Maybe, although I get the feeling that we may not agree on why.
I mean, I wouldn't have done the lenses at all. You just nod at them with some subtle contacts or something and go on with your day.
Or you could go the Deus Ex way with it, which I suppose is why I was inserting the whole retractable sunglasses thing into the conversation. Either way I don't know that it's worth attempting, even if they look better in the final version through some VFX enhancement or whatever.
I would recommend continuing to read, then. Or re-reading. None of the detail you provided contradicts what I said at any point.
In fact, the ultimate takeaway is exactly the same. Feel free to substitute all that detail at the point where you "stopped reading" and keep going from there. It's as good a response as you're going to get from me.
Although, since you're going to be anal about the historical detail, it's incorrect that Nintendo "didn't cater at all" the Chinese market, they had a presence there through the iQue brand all the way up to the 3DS and these days they ship the Switch there directly through Tencent. I wasn't in the room to know what the deal with Nvidia was. I have to assume the Shield ports were both low hanging fruit and some part of it, but I seriously doubt it was a fundamental part of the deal to not compete with them there, considering that it took them like two years after the Switch launch and just one after they stopped running their own operation to partner up with Tencent. You'd think "handing the Chinese market on a silver platter" would include some noncompete clause to prevent that scenario.
In any event, we seem to agree that Nvidia was the most affordable partner that could meet the spec without making the hardware themselves. So... yeah, like I said, feel free to get to the actual point if you want to carry on from there.
I swear, every time into one of these the Dunning-Kruger gets me.
I know it's coming, but it gets me anyway.
You are all over the place here. I'm not doing quotes, either, it's an obnoxious way to argue online.
In no particular order: No, it's not just developing countries on older hardware (although there ARE significant markets where high end hardware is less popular, and they matter). Microsoft doesn't own Windows, Valve owns Windows, at least on gaming, as evidenced by the long string of failed attempts from Microsoft to establish their own store on Windows PCs. The standard controller was part of that, but it wasn't all of it. And yes, most of the 14000 titles on PC are tiny indies that sold next to zero (or actually zero) copies.
Valve runs steam as a gig economy app, there are very few guardrails and instead very strong algorithmic discoverability management tools. Steam has shovelware for the same reason Google Play has shovelware, Steam is just WAY better at surfacing things specifically to gamers.
Incidentally, most of these new games support controllers because the newly standardized Xinput just works. Valve has a whole extra controller translation layer because everything else kinda doesn't and they wanted full compatibility, not just Xbox compatibility because the blood feud between Gaben and Microsoft will never end, I suppose. None of that changes that it was the advent of XInput and Xbox 360 controller compatibility that unlocked direct ports, along with consoles gradually becoming standardized PCs.
They took the Tegra because it was sitting in some Nvidia warehouse and they could get it for cheap, or at least get it manufactured for cheap. At least that's what the grapevine says about how that came together. It does fit Nintendo's MO of repurposing older, affordable parts in new ways.
I always get a kick of being called a Nintendo fanboy. For one thing, I don't fanboy. Kids fanboy, and I haven't been one of those in ages. I don't root for operating systems or hardware. I don't even root for sports teams.
For another, back when I was a kid I was a Sega kid. My first Nintendo console was a Gamecube. I was an adult at that point. As a teenager I had a Saturn. I stand by that choice to this day. Better game library than the Dreamcast. Fight me.
But that doesn't change what happened. The Wii U bombed extremely hard, but there was certainly something to the idea of flipping screens. The Switch is ultimately a tweaked Nvidia Shield and little else. The R&D around it clearly went into seamlessly switching the output from handheld to TV and the controllers from attached to detached. And you know what? They killed it on that front. People don't give enough thought to how insane it is that the Switch not only seamlessly changes outputs when docked, but it also overclocks its GPU in real time and switches video modes to flip resolution, typically in less time than it takes the display to detect the new input and show it onscreen.
It's extremely well tuned, too. If you hear devs talk about it, in most cases it takes very little tuning to match docked and handheld performance because the automatic overclock is designed to match the resolution scale.
The Switch didn't succeed (and the Wii U didn't fail) at random. Similar as some of the concepts at play are, the devil is in the detail. Nintendo sucks at many things, but they got this right. Competitors stepping into this hybrid handheld space ignore those details at their peril, and that includes the Switch 2.
Skillful counterargument. Not sure how I'm coming back from that one.
A lot of PCs can't do a lot of games. That is precisely the point.
If you look at the Steam hardware survey at any given point in time, mass market GPUs are typically mid-range parts two to three generations old. And even then, those are still the most popular small fractions of a very fragmented market.
The average PC is an old-ass laptop used by a broke-ass student. Presumably that still is a factor on why CounterStrike, of all things, is Steam's biggest game. It sure was a factor on why WoW or The Sims were persistent PC hits despite looking way below the expectations of contemporary PC hardware.
The beginning of competent console ports in the Xbox 360 era revolutionized that. Suddenly there was a standard PC controller that had parity to mainstream consoles and a close-enough architecture running games on a reliably stable hardware. Suddenly you didn't need to target PC games solely to the minimum common denominator PC, the minimum common denominator was a console that was somewhat above average compared to low-end PCs.
In that scenario you can just let people with high-end hardware crank up resolution, framerate and easily scalable options while allowing for some downward scaling as well. And if that cuts off some integrated graphics on old laptops... well, consoles will more than make up the slack.
Sure, there are PC exclusives because they rely on PC-specific controls or are trying to do some tech-demoy stuff or because they're tiny indies with no money for ports or licensing fees, or because they're made in a region where consoles aren't popular or supported or commercially viable.
But the mainstream segment of gaming we're discussing here? Consoles made the PC as a competitive, platform-agnostic gaming machine.
What is "par" here?
Nobody was complaining about the Switch CPU. It was a pretty solid choice for the time. It outperformed the Xbox 360 somewhat, which is really all it needed to do to support last-gen ports. Like I said, the big annoyance that was specifically CPU-related from a dev perspective was the low thread count, which made cramming previous-gen multithreaded stuff into a fraction of the threads a bit of a mess.
The point of a console CPU is to run games, it's not raw compute. The Switch had what it needed for the scope of games it was running. On a handheld you also want it to be power efficient, which it was. In fact, the Switch didn't overclock the CPU on docked, just the GPU. Because it didn't need it. And we now know it did have some headroom to run faster, jailbroken Switches can be reliably clocked up a fair amount. Nintendo locked it that low because they found it was the right balance of power consumption and speed to support the rest of the components.
Memory bandwidth ended up being much more of a bottleneck on it. For a lot of the games you wanted to make on a Switch the CPU was not the limit you were bumping into. The memory and the GPU were more likely to be slowing you down before CPU cycles did.
Well, it runs like crap, for sure, but that's not the bar that you set here.
Now that I think about it, what are you saying? Your point seems a bit muddled.
It very much is a genre thing. Can you show me a game like Transport Fever 2 on the Switch? Cities: Skylines?
I mean...
https://www.nintendo.com/us/store/products/cities-skylines-nintendo-switch-edition-switch/
And theoretically you can install Windows on a Steam Deck. Not making something specifically unsupported doesn't mean you're not building your business model around the default use case.
For the record, Nintendo games can be legally run on an emulator, much as Nintendo may protest this. It's a pain in the ass to do so without technically breaking any regulation, but it sure isn't impossible, and the act of running the software elsewhere isn't illegal.
Best we can tell this is an embedded Ampere GPU with some ARM CPU. The Switch had a slightly weird but very functional CPU for its time. It was a quad core thing with one core reserved for the OS, which was a bit weird in a landscape where every other console could do eight threads, but the cores were clocked pretty fast by comparison.
It's kinda weird to visualize it as a genre thing, though. I mean, Civ VII not only has a Switch 2 port, it has a Switch 1 port, too. CPU usage in gaming is a... weird and complicated thing. Unless one is a systems engineer working on the specific hardware I wouldn't make too many assumptions about how these things go.
Nobody had "an awesome president". Who the hell has "awesome presidents"? That's like having an "awesome postman". Actually, scratch that, lots more incentive for being an awesome postman.
Point is, don't glorify administrative roles. That's some weird US exceptionalism nonsense.
Alright, so this is one of those things where I keep reminding people that Star Wars movie canon and Star Wars franchise canon barely overlap.
The reason Obi Wan gives Luke for lightsabers in the first place is just cool factor, too. Lightsabers just seem classy. Nobody says it's particularly powerful, just that they're old fashioned and "less random and clumsy" than blasters. Luke handles his like a toy, Obi Wan pretty much gives it to him as a memento, he says he "almost forgot" he had it stashed because Luke's dad wanted to hand it to him but his uncle didn't let him. Obi Wan uses one in plain view of people and nobody even goes "Hey, look, a Jedi, I thought they were gone". Hell, they sit down for a pint and a bit of bartering with Han immediately after that. The Empire officers, who at this point clearly don't particularly respect Vader, seem to think he looks like a goofball waving that thing around and making grandiose claims about the power of the Force when they're literally sitting inside a showstopper doomsday device.
All the justifications for how little sense lightsabers make and why only Jedi seem to carry them is after the fact retconning of the barely-coherent implications of the original movie.