So...the switch 2 discussion kinda touched on something that really explains why I dislike consoles these days. It really struck me when someone asked "well if a handheld has the capabilities of a phone, what makes it so special?"
I mean, the answer is "the software." Because, again, console game exclusivity is what drove most sales in the past and still drives nintendo console sales today, but to give the more "PC master race" argument here....
That's kind of the reality of consoles. Consoles are just PCs. In the olden days, the ecosystems were different. You had boxes that just played games. They made sense in an era where most people didn't own a PC (ie, the 80s and 90s). They also made sense in an era where PCs were very expensive, and went obsolete quickly (like the 90s and 2000s). PCs often werent a good medium for gaming because requirements would be high, PCs would be expensive, and progress happened so mindblowingly fast that the PC you bought would be obsolete by the time you brought it home. Back then, having an affordable device that could run games for a good 5-7 years seemed like a comparatively good deal.
But starting in the 360/PS3 generation, the facade slipped. PCs became more affordable, and consoles became more expensive. Games that would be on PC would be on console and vice versa. Consoles started experimenting with online play, often charging money for it, while PC didn't. That's what drove me toward PCs most I think. And when I got into PC, I started learning that you could run console games at higher frame rates and resolutions as well.
After a while you kinda realize that consoles are just PCs. I wanna repeat that. CONSOLES ARE JUST PCs. They have CPUs, GPUs, RAM, storage, an operating system, etc. And if anything, they're just a walled garden. You got more limited capabilities, and as we shifted toward online, that pushed people toward paying to use that console's online ecosystem.
And....PCs got the whole "PC master race" thing going because after a while, PC gamers realized they WERE getting the superior experience, playing higher end versions of the same games while paying not much more than consoles with all of their online subscriptions cost.
And with steam, games were CHEAP.
And heck, with consoles, we kinda knew what the consoles were packing by this point and what's comparable hardware. For example, the Xbox 360 had like some triple core processor with 512 MB RAM and a Radeon x1950 GPU. The PS3 had a "cell" processor which was equivalent with similar RAM and a GTX 7800.
Given the 8800 GT came out right after this, people could put together a core 2 build (quad core or dual core) with 2-4 GB RAM and something like an 8600 GT or HD 3650 and get similar performance. if one invested in something like a HD 3850 or 8800 GT, they would get comparable performance until the end of the console generation. By the time you got to the end of that generation, people with core 2 quads, phenom II x4s, or newer i5/i7 CPUs with 4-8 GB RAM and something like a 460, 560, or 660 would be packing specs that could largely keep up with the next gen for the first half of the generation, while massively surpassing the 360/PS3.
The PS4 and Xbox one wielded basically an 8 core FX CPU at like 1.6 GHz, so it was like a quad core desktop equivalent, 8 GB RAM, and a HD 7850ish GPU (the XBox one was closer to a 7790).
The PS5 is like an underclocked 3700x (so like a 2700x) with 16 GB RAM and a RX 6700 GPU.
Again, consoles are just PCs.
Hell if we wanna be honest, the switch 1 was just a modded nvidia shield tablet with more RAM. It had raw specs similar to the PS3/360 generation hardware, maybe a little weaker on the GPU front. The switch 2 uses some custom Nvidia chip with like I think 12 GB RAM and the GPU is the equivalent of like a 1050 ti or something, except newer.
Again, it's all PCs. Everything is a PC. Hell, your phone is a PC. My razer edge handheld has a modified snapdragon 888+ in it (rebadged to G3X Gen 1, basically its an 888 with active cooling), with 6 GB RAM, and a Adreno 660. I estimate its power being comparable to a i7 2600k or i5 6600k, with a GTX 460 class GPU. So a bit weaker than the steam deck or a switch 2, but still substantial. I remember when that was a beefy computer, back in the early 2010s. It's not THAT great these days, on par with a budget laptop, but yeah.
The steam deck, also a PC. It's like an underclocked Ryzen 3 3100, with 16 GB RAM, and a RDNA2 GPU on par with like a GTX 760/1050, or a RX 560. Not great, but entry level, better than the above.
And that's the thing. The razer edge is able to do what it does efficiently, in a small form factor, and has a reasonable battery life, like 4-10 hours depending on use case. The steam deck goes dry after 1.5 hours, or 2 in the revision, when hammered. To be fair, the edge can go lower if I use the 144 hz refresh rate, but at 60 I save a lot on battery efficiency. but to me, that's what I find acceptable for a handheld. 3-4 hours minimum is a reasonable expectation. 1-2 is unacceptable. At that point, it's like why even bother make it portable? And again, thats why i rag the switch 2. Again, it's too powerful for a handheld, to the point that it's overpriced and unwieldy, but it's also an underpowered console, given the chip in consoles is 4x stronger.
So...yeah....is a switch 2 a PC? Always has been. For all the talk of consoles being special, they're not. They're just custom PCs with custom OSes that turn them into a walled garden, and then nintendo adds some gimmicks to them like detachable joycons and the handheld/PC hybrid thing. But it's ultimately...just a PC.
And that's why I once again, dislike nintendo's mentality. it's very much stuck in the past of needing a specialized PC to run their games...when they could just launch stuff...on PC...or android....and we could play their games there. But no, they wanna stick to the walled garden setup and it rubs me the wrong way.
Again, if you're a PC gamer, you'll understand that everything is a PC at the end of the day. Smartphones are just tiny pocketable PCs optimized for portability and battery efficiency. Tablets are big smartphones without the phone part, also optimized for portability. Laptops are just desktiop PCs made portable. For a while we had surface tablets which were laptop/tablet hybrids. And consoles are just specialized PCs for playing specific games.
Again, it's all PCs. And when I criticize nintendo, I'm criticizing the fact that 1) they have a walled garden and refuse to join the omni-ecosystem I mentioned earlier today. 2) they could have chosen any specs in a wide spectrum of specs. They could have focused on more portability, or more power. They could have focused more on a budget experience, or a more power user type one. They wanted a machine that does it all, and it technically does, but it does it all poorly. It's too weak to compete with traditional consoles. It's too bulky and overpriced to be a true handheld. It just sucks at everything in a way where I'm like "ew, I dont want that."
And yeah. To go back to the nintendo fanboy's point about "what separates it from a PC or a phone?" Nothing. it is a PC or phone. It's just a matter of form factor and price. And maybe I do want a PC or phone like experience? I mean, my "home console" is a gaming PC. My handheld is basically an android tablet with a controller attached. And in the future, if anything, I'd like to see a more unified ecosystem between the two. Currently, android is android and windows is windows, but i know some are experimenting with windows emulation on android and if valve decides to step into that market by making steam work on android....well....that would be great. Because phones are powerful enough these days to run most gen 7 and even early gen 8 games if the software is there for them. And I'd LOVE to play my older PC games on my edge. So gabe, plz consider. I'd love a steam phone or a steam tablet at an acceptable price point (as in, cheaper than steam deck, or around $200-300). Or alternatively, the ability to turn any old android device into a steam machine. Just saying.
No comments:
Post a Comment