Rosa writes: "If you're wanting to get the low down on whether you can play Starfield on a Steam Deck, then we've got you covered right here."
Shaz from GL writes: "AMD could spur the beginning of a new era in handheld gaming with their upcoming APUs"
To me the most important hardware is the battery. Doesn’t matter how powerful the chips are.
Eh…. It’s a combination of multiple things.
The battery is hugely important as it allows you to have ideally 4 - 5 hour gaming sessions.
The more powerful the processor the more games developers can share to the handheld, nd of course the better said games perform.
From there display, software, and ergonomics matter, as a good display/software will allow games to be more vivid, run at variable fps 30/40/60 ideally, and good ergonomics means it’s comfortable to play for said 4 - 5 hours. Everything else is gravy at that point.
Of course it matters how powerful the chips are for it to be future proof. Don't you want to be able to play new games?
the Switch proves that you don't need the most cutting edge power out there to be successful.
@Neonrdr that doesn't prove anything because only Nintendo could get away with that. Their games aren't the most complex/graphically ambitious and Nintendo fans don't care.
@Neonridr
If anything, the Switch proves the exact point "redrum06" was making. Yes, it might be successful, but it's definitely not future-proof. Just look at how many games and franchises completely skip the platform.
There’s no way you’re getting that 40CU 16-core APU in a handheld. That’s too hot and power hungry for that. The highest end APU they’re suggesting is going to end up in gaming laptops that can cool a 100W chip.
I think these articles get things a little out of perspective, Steam Deck has sold around 3 million and Switch has sold 140 million. But if you are browsing certain parts internet you'd think the Steam Deck had sold over 100 million. If articles are going to continue to circulate like this and continue to put the Steam Deck in the same arena then I'm comfortable calling the device a flop.
Steam Deck, while considerably more popular due to it's lower barrier of entry, is still a niche device with the likes of the ROG Ally and others.
I own one and it's really nice to be able to play some games on the go or in bed, but it'll never fully compete with a system like the Switch.
Well regarded insider, NateTheHate, has said that more Xbox games could be coming to PS5 'this holiday season' followed by Starfield in 2025.
That would be a great game to go multiplat. I would definitely pick that one up on PS5.
That would be an absolutely fantastic score for PSVR2 if they have any VR support plans! MS Flight Simulator (2020) is one of my favorite VR experiences over on PC. Not so much a game, but one hell of a VR experience!
Even if the rumor was true and if that did happen. I still wouldn't play or own a game that is classified as open world just to run into invisible force fields.
Then what is your solution to open worlds that obviously have to have a point where they must end?
Wow you're such a tough and smart guy taking that stance! You're really changing the world Barlos.
Every open world games have invisible walls. So i guess you never play any open world games. If you don't believe me then you've either never played any Open World game or you never explored every corner of an open world game because there is no such thing as a true open world go anywhere game.
Gotta love a troll, just be honest you're a Microsoft hater. It's ok I dislike Microsoft also but at least be honest why you commented.
If it came to ps+ ill try it, but im certainly not spending my money on it. I wanted this game to be awesome and it just seems so incomplete
Exactly. It's fine to rent it on Xbox so why should they expect people to actually buy it on PlayStation? They don't deserve your money.
kinda like No Man's Sky when it first released.. amazing how updates can change a game, huh? Zero reason why this game couldn't be more fleshed out with updates and add-ons.
send phil, some more dev kits
we need all xbox exclusives games ported before phil shuts them down
We were often ridiculed by Xbox enthusiasts, but it’s essential to understand that Microsoft's $100 billion investment was aimed at generating profit, not merely pleasing fans with Day 1 Game Pass releases.
Microsoft should consider releasing all its games, including flagship titles like Halo and Gears of War, on PlayStation. This strategy would maximize revenue while still releasing games day one on GP, money which could then be reinvested into the future of Xbox. While a few loyal fans might be upset, this approach makes the most business sense in the long run. Even put forza on PS5 get the sales. On Xbox gamers get these games day on GP while other platforms pay full price. Win win
Huh? "We were often ridiculed by Xbox enthusiasts" Its the other way around, their ship is sinking, and they have known this for some time.
Once these acquisitions were announced, many Xbox fans felt that the primary aim was to take games away from PlayStation. Any suggestion that Microsoft wanted to maximize its return on their $100 billion investment was often dismissed with claims that Microsoft doesn’t need PlayStation or Nintendo to profit from these acquisitions.
Historically, Xbox operated independently within Microsoft, for better or worse. However, with such a significant financial commitment, Microsoft's goal is clearly to maximize revenue. They can still release these games on Game Pass at launch and also sell them at full price on other platforms. While some Xbox fans might react negatively if Xbox games appear on PlayStation, from a business perspective, it makes sense to leverage a platform with a much larger install base.
Phil Spencer and his team are under pressure to grow revenue and profit. It is becoming increasingly clear that achieving this growth solely within the Xbox ecosystem is challenging. Many Xbox gamers now expect Microsoft to cover the costs of games through Game Pass, rather than purchasing them outright. Considering that Xbox, now in its fourth generation, accounts for only 15-20% of overall software sales while its competitors are setting sales records, it is crucial for Microsoft to explore broader strategies to ensure profitability.
You clowns were never ridiculed by Xbox enthusiasts. They are the underdogs and a massive minority and that statement is made up nonsense.
You guys need to quit playing victim in the fake war of console wars. The loudest fans are PlayStation fans and it's not even close.
Digital Foundry : Bethesda's Starfield was generally a well-regarded RPG, but the game's 30fps target on consoles was the subject of some controversy. The game's massive scope arguably justified that 30fps refresh rate, with only high-end PCs capable of hitting 60fps and higher, but now Bethesda has changed course and opened the floodgates on Xbox Series X consoles following significant optimisation work. Players can now independently select performance and visuals modes at arbitrary frame-rates. How exactly do these new combinations fare, and is 60fps really a possibility after it was explicitly ruled out before?
900p in performance mode for SX.... I'd assume a 5pro would at least hit 1080p if not more.
It’s a point, click and load game. Stop with all the massive scale bullshit. Only thing massive is the number of junk items they decided to throw in the game.
Its not BS. This games running more systems than virtually any AAA game. Why else do you think it has loading screens? Besides, the clutter has been apart of their DNA for decades at this point. There are other games out there for people that dont care about that kind of stuff.
Probably because it's been created on a very outdated engine that isn't designed to fully utilise current gen abilities.
You've only got to look at what rockstar games achieve with their releases.
@Mr_Cheese People keep saying the engine is outdated, even though other engines have built upon past iterations. I think it would be more accurate to say that the engine does not do what you expect to see from a “current gen” game. Red Dead 2 was cool, but its not packing as many systems and permutations as Starfield. People make flimsy comparisons too often: “Look what this open world game can do with its visuals and presentation. Whats Bethesdas excuse?”
Yes, look at what this open world game can do that has no skills or attributes, no building potential and minimal crafting potential, coupled with all of the other variables packed in a Bethesda game. Not mentioning all of the other systems in place, you already have an unbelievable amount of potential variables to calculate. No wonder starfield has loading screens.lol
Heck, I would say that even Fallout 4 in 2015 had more systemic depth than Red Dead 2. It amazes me how much people underestimate Bethesda. Keep sleeping on them.
RDR2 is a living, breathing world with dynamic weather, full interiors, changing landscape with unscripted encounters, multiple onscreen npcs, wildlife, all with their own functions, animations, skins.
I wouldn't disregard one for the other.
Bethesda is notorious for operating on an outdated engine.
We could even use cyberpunk as an example of a fully open world game with multiple levels of variants.
Edit
Played the majority of Bethesda titles, not sleeping on them, just noticing a pattern
@Mr Cheese
Rant inbound. Dont blame you for not reading.
I honestly think their notoriety with the engine is here-say sprinkled with a bit of confirmation bias over the years. For example from a typical naysayer: “Bethesda games have lousy performance and their gameplay is outdated, therefore their engine must be outdated.”
There was one journalist/Youtuber that mentioned something interesting. He was breaking down the negativity behind Bethesda, and mentioned that if there is an issue, its not Bethesda’s engine….its Bethesda.
If there is an issue, it is that Bethesda are very ambitious and seek to prioritize testing themselves to see how much stuff they can put into a game and still have it function without crashing. This ambition can cause them to forget their core audience, and pay attention specifically to what they want. I think thats one of the key reasons why BG3 is so beloved by people, its because the game was in a form of early access for years, and is literally built on the feedback of those that were able to access it. People who play Bethesda games are looking mostly for “meaningful” exploration, cool loot, and environmental storytelling, but Bethesda has honestly been shifting gears recently. It seems they want to focus on terraforming the open world rpg further via building and crafting.
I think Starfield is an example of a solid game, alienating the expectations of the core audience. Bethesda wanted to make this game for years, and they sought out to achieve their ambitions, rather than service their audience. The “problem “ with Starfield is that it is a clash of design philosophy, ery similar to Fallout 76. You just dont try to fit a Bethesda game with all of its variables into a multi world, multi landing zone game space. But they tried it anyway, hence the loading screens and othe supposed issues. I admire their ambition, and I love Starfield, ut I can understand where people that dont like the game are coming from. I just wish naysayers understood the true nature of this game.
