I work in the game industry and it seems like there are a few terms that go poorly defined or understood by gamers, the games media, and even developers. Mainly it has to do with categorizing games and trying to talk about types of games with broad generalizations. I figure I'd throw a few definitions I'd been thinking about into the ring and see what people thought. I'd like to point out that this is just my take on this stuff and isn't meant to be any kind of authority. It's just a talking point in a larger discussion.
AAA or Triple A: This term is meant to define a game that's in the "big leagues" of gaming. Generally it is an indication of a game's budget. In the sixth console generation this budget was somewhere between one and ten million dollars. It was a rare game that cost ten million dollars to develop. In the seventh console generation, AAA probably starts somewhere around twenty million and can go up to two hundred million dollars.
So what does all this money buy you? Generally it ends up creating a higher fidelity experience with some degree of higher production values. More money can be spent on art for larger and possibly more intricate locales, more iterations can be paid for in level design, more money can be spent on voice talent and sound recording. Frequently more money is spent on marketing and the game gets more exposure. This all means the game is expected to sell way more copies in order to turn a profit. This also means that these games tend to be somewhat risk-averse and frequently are meant to be built into multi game franchises to ensure multiple years of high revenue.
Towards the end of the seventh generation, and beyond, Triple A games almost always contain some form of long tail, usually in the form of a multiplayer component. And nearly always in the form of downloadable content used to generate more revenue to try to eke even more profit out of these expensive behemoths.
Indie: This refers to a small scale developer or a small production team's game. Similar to film, it can be somewhat tough to define. Few would consider Bungie to be an indie developer, though the company isn't owned by a larger company. Generally this term is used to describe games that live more on their ideas than their production quality. Some particular part of the game is meant to be taken to a superlative level, or there is some innovation that isn't generally seen in AAA games. Mainly indie games can tend to take more risks because they have much smaller budgets. Usually the teams are smaller and self funded. That's not to say that there aren't a ton of experienced developers in indie games, it's just that there is generally lower or no salary so they don't attract the same kind of talent. Not to say they have less talented developers, but they definitely have a different style of developer overall, I've found that independent games tent to be more quirky and rely more heavily on mechanics than production value. I have also found that more is forgiven from indie games due to their lack of a huge budget.
Core Games: This is where I'm going to get really controversial. For me, a core game is a high fidelity immersive narrative experience. This immediately discounts games such as Madden and FIFA, and to some degree Call of Duty. I wouldn't necessarily rule those games out as not being core games, I just think they're sort of exceptions to the rule, and generally fit into some (possibly very large) niche. Generally core games are trying to present some large narrative experience, some big story. Usually they try to use immersion to tell said story.
Core games aren't necessarily AAA, I've found most indie games are honestly trying to target core gamers. These are the games for people that over the past 20 years or so would identify as "gamers" or more specifically "video game players". Generally video games are one of the main interests of people who fit into this group, either as a hobby or an overall form of entertainment. I won't go into made-up demographic information, but developers expect this group to spend significant amounts of time with games in their lives.
Casual Games: These games tend to focus on small repeatable puzzles or mechanics that can be played for short periods of time. Frequently they have some sort of progression hook to create a sense of investment. The cost of entry for casual games is generally very low or free. They rely on progression hooks or low barrier to entry for revenue. Rarely is there a notion of an immersive story, and a minimum satisfying play session is generally only a few minutes. Contrast that with a core game where it is difficult to get a satisfying game session that lasts less than an hour. Casual games generally reside in places with the absolute lowest barrier to entry, so either in an app store on a mobile device, or on a web page or linked through Facebook. Generally they want to avoid an installer for PC, and rarely do they really take off on consoles because the barrier to even starting to use a console has traditionally been so high (having to go into the living room, turn on the TV, switch it to console mode, etc etc...). These games rely on absolutely huge numbers of players, but they tend to make very little money from each player.
These definitions are broad guidelines with which to try to sort games, they're not any sort of hard and fast rule. Don't think of the categories as buckets but more like a spectrum, some games are between AAA and indie, and some games are between core and casual, a good example of that is something like Plants vs. Zombies, which requires a fair time investment to play, but has still managed to reach a huge audience through easy accessibility. Anyway, I'd love to hear what anyone thinks about this stuff, I think it's a really interesting discussion.
Monday, January 6, 2014
Thursday, November 7, 2013
Console launches
So I feel like most gamers have noticed the overall lackluster nature of console launches of late. The WiiU, Vita, 3ds, and even the Xbox One and PS4 seem to have fairly anemic launch lineups. I was considering why this has to be this way, and ultimately I think it comes down to install base. Launching your world-beating genre defining AAAAAAAA title that costs a hundred million dollars when the hardware it runs on is supply constrained just doesn't make financial sense. From Sony and Nintendo's perspective, they really can't afford a loss like that, and for Microsoft, it's a matter of keeping the division profitable, Microsoft isn't trying to break into the console market anymore so they're less inclined to put a huge expensive game out at launch when they could just wait for more console to be sold.
In previous generations it wasn't as risky because games were less expensive to produce. Something like Halo probably broke even or made money at 500 thousand units sold. Something like Grand Theft Auto V probably had to sell 4 million to break even. maybe more. If the console sells like gangbusters, there might be 5 million out at launch. If yields are good. Also remember companies are disinclined to produce game consoles in large numbers at launch to try to maximize profit as processes are evolved to build the consoles more cheaply. This is how Sony makes money of ps2 and ps3 despite losing money at launch. So if you need to sell 4 million to break even and only 5 million consoles are out there, you're screwed, because I can't think of a single non pack-in game that had an 80% attach rate.
Obviously you could have a situation like the original Halo: Combat Evolved, where the game continues to sell well for 3 years, but that phenomenon is incredibly rare, and large companies aren't willing to bet on that. The industry has gotten considerably more risk-averse as the budgets for these games have gone up to their current astronomical heights. Of course launch can be a great time for a more niche title to come out that is unlikely to sell crazy high numbers anyway because the lack of overall content provides more attention to the few titles that do come out. This has worked in favor of games like Power Stone and SSX.
Anyway this may all seem obvious, but for my friends who aren't quite as connected to the video game industry as I am, it might not be. Hopefully this explains the more lackluster launches of the past few years.
In previous generations it wasn't as risky because games were less expensive to produce. Something like Halo probably broke even or made money at 500 thousand units sold. Something like Grand Theft Auto V probably had to sell 4 million to break even. maybe more. If the console sells like gangbusters, there might be 5 million out at launch. If yields are good. Also remember companies are disinclined to produce game consoles in large numbers at launch to try to maximize profit as processes are evolved to build the consoles more cheaply. This is how Sony makes money of ps2 and ps3 despite losing money at launch. So if you need to sell 4 million to break even and only 5 million consoles are out there, you're screwed, because I can't think of a single non pack-in game that had an 80% attach rate.
Obviously you could have a situation like the original Halo: Combat Evolved, where the game continues to sell well for 3 years, but that phenomenon is incredibly rare, and large companies aren't willing to bet on that. The industry has gotten considerably more risk-averse as the budgets for these games have gone up to their current astronomical heights. Of course launch can be a great time for a more niche title to come out that is unlikely to sell crazy high numbers anyway because the lack of overall content provides more attention to the few titles that do come out. This has worked in favor of games like Power Stone and SSX.
Anyway this may all seem obvious, but for my friends who aren't quite as connected to the video game industry as I am, it might not be. Hopefully this explains the more lackluster launches of the past few years.
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Rocksmith 2014
So I've been super excited for Rocksmith 2014 since it was first announced, and more so once they started holding DLC in favor of the new game. The promises made at E3 were many: improved UI, removing loading times, a solid track list. So how did it fare?
Overall it's a fantastic product, and a huge improvement from Rocksmith, it's more polished, better looking, the UI is considerably better (but not perfect), the track list is solid, possibly the original Rocksmith track list was slightly stronger, but since you can import it for $10, it's not a big deal. There are new features, such as tone changes mid-song, and many, many more tunings which is a blessing and a curse.
The note highway now has much better marking for which note to play when, and much improved finger positioning notation. Overall it's a big improvement. I have a slight bit of trouble distinguishing yellow from orange on it, but overall it's great. Very nice to get tips on when to position your fingers as a chord instead of an individual note (for songs like House of the Rising Sun), This existed in Rocksmith, but it seems enhanced now. Outside of the slight problem I have distinguishing color, I think one could say the interface is completely improved.
The only possible flaw with Rocksmith 2014 that I've found is that it's not really much of a game anymore. Songs no longer are about score and score multipliers, and while there is a score attack mode, it isn't the core mode of the game.
There also isn't a larger career, which is something I found satisfying as a player. Overall I feel like they removed one of the big features of the game, which was an excellent progression system. I no longer feel like I'm progressing in a fictional "rock star" career, this was a major hook which kept bringing me back to the original Rocksmith, and hopefully the frictionless UI in 2014 can accomplish the same result. I do find it to be a bit of a loss though.
Otherwise the game is fantastic, and I still highly recommend it for anyone interested in learning guitar or bass, so far the DLC has been fantastic, also.
Overall it's a fantastic product, and a huge improvement from Rocksmith, it's more polished, better looking, the UI is considerably better (but not perfect), the track list is solid, possibly the original Rocksmith track list was slightly stronger, but since you can import it for $10, it's not a big deal. There are new features, such as tone changes mid-song, and many, many more tunings which is a blessing and a curse.
The note highway now has much better marking for which note to play when, and much improved finger positioning notation. Overall it's a big improvement. I have a slight bit of trouble distinguishing yellow from orange on it, but overall it's great. Very nice to get tips on when to position your fingers as a chord instead of an individual note (for songs like House of the Rising Sun), This existed in Rocksmith, but it seems enhanced now. Outside of the slight problem I have distinguishing color, I think one could say the interface is completely improved.
The only possible flaw with Rocksmith 2014 that I've found is that it's not really much of a game anymore. Songs no longer are about score and score multipliers, and while there is a score attack mode, it isn't the core mode of the game.
There also isn't a larger career, which is something I found satisfying as a player. Overall I feel like they removed one of the big features of the game, which was an excellent progression system. I no longer feel like I'm progressing in a fictional "rock star" career, this was a major hook which kept bringing me back to the original Rocksmith, and hopefully the frictionless UI in 2014 can accomplish the same result. I do find it to be a bit of a loss though.
Otherwise the game is fantastic, and I still highly recommend it for anyone interested in learning guitar or bass, so far the DLC has been fantastic, also.
Monday, June 17, 2013
Surface Pro review
So earlier this year, I did a Surface RT review, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of Microsoft's tablet offering, in my biased opinion. I do work for Microsoft and am thus predisposed to liking Microsoft products so take my reviews with whatever amount of salt you deem appropriate.
The Surface Pro is the best device I've ever owned. The form factor and usability surpasses basically anything I've ever bought, in my opinion, it's that good. I wanted a note-taking/sketching tablet that had an active digitizer. I got that, plus a decent, if not fantastic laptop. The tech blogs I read criticized the device for not fitting into any category. It's noticeably heavier than an iPad, to the point of being slightly uncomfortable to use in certain situations where the iPad isn't uncomfortable, though I would argue those situations are few and far between. Generally I find the iPad is too heavy for most long-term tablet holding tasks anyway. The Surface Pro also has a smaller screen than any laptop I've ever used, and unlike the iPad criticism, it's hard to argue that the Surface Pro's screen isn't too small to be effective as a laptop. But it has an active digitizer and runs metro apps!
This means I don't really need to use it as a laptop. I turn it sideways and use the dreaded portrait mode to take notes during meetings and doodle off to the side in One Note. I can use it to paint or draw as needed with several fantastic apps available for Windows 8, including Art Rage, Sketchbook Pro, and the free Fresh Paint which is actually an app that runs in Windows RT.
The other really nice thing about the Surface Pro is that you're not limited to Windows RT apps and all your legacy windows 7 apps not only run, but run pretty well. And if the Surface Pro is a heavy iPad, it's an amazingly thin and light laptop, even with the type cover.
I've found the battery life to be basically perfect for my needs. I'll be out of juice by the end of the day, but I don't need to charge during the day with my workload. Bear in mind that most of the work I do is done on a full Desktop PC, so generally the Surface Pro is relegated to taking notes. I probably get about 5 hours out of it before a charge. I recently took it on a flight to Los Angeles, and used it to stream music over Wi Fi via X Box music, and paint some pictures, and I still had half a charge when I landed. That's about 90 minutes of heavy use, which I think is highly acceptable.
The device does get extremely hot for a tablet, but not uncomfortably so. I have yet to hear the fan, though I've felt it blowing air out, so it is very quiet. I'd rather not need a fan or have the device get hot, but it suits my needs pretty well.
Overall if the battery life were closer to 10 hours, I think this device would be even better, though I find it incredibly good right now. Highly recommended for anyone that sees the utility of the active digitizer.
It's kind of late so apologies for the quick/dirtiness of this, but I wanted to get it out there because I am super happy to have a Surface Pro and if a new one comes out with a Haswell chip, I think you'd have to be a fool not to consider it.
Monday, June 10, 2013
Next Gen Digital Rights
So anything I say here is utterly and completely personal opinion and has nothing whatsoever to do with the company I work for. I am obviously biased because I do work for one of the console manufacturers and I will admit that that bias plays into my overall thinking, but nothing I say here is in any way official or reflects any kind of official Microsoft statement.
So what I have to say is that I'm really surprised that gamers are so willing to embrace the notion of disc-switching in a digital era. This is something that gamers bitterly fought on PC for nearly a decade until Steam, with the least objectionable DRM in the industry, ended up ending disc switching on PC once and for all. Do people not remember how annoying it was to dig through discs and put each disc in the PC when they wanted to play another game?
I'm not going to try to argue that Microsoft has the best DRM situation possible, I haven't really analyzed it, but I will say it's not that objectionable to me, personally. I understand that I'm not every consumer and others have various problems with it, but overall, it meshes well with how I tend to play and buy games. I hope Microsoft can get its lending story sorted out soon, but otherwise I don't have a huge problem with any of it. I'm not saying that someone who does is in the wrong, everyone's situation is different.
What I will say is that people acting like Sony doesn't have any DRM are fooling themselves. Sony absolutely does a DRM check on your game, it just happens to check local media instead of the internet. And for me, that's considerably worse than a manufacturer asking to have my console online. I am many times more likely to play different games if I don't have to go hunting around for discs. This is a major reason I switched to PC. And being able to fast swap in and out of games looks absolutely amazing to me. On the PS4 there will either be some kind of check to ensure you have the rights to the game you're playing via the Internet, or via local media, or else, in the least likely case, there will be incredibly rampant piracy that will destroy the platform (this is basically impossible).
I know I have friends who work at Sony and I am not going to say the PS4 is terrible or even in any way bad, I'm actually pretty excited for it. That said, I plan on never buying a single retail disc for PS4. Since all games will be digitally available day and date and since games can play while they're downloading, I'll happily buy all my PS4 games digitally rather than have to constantly change discs. If I'm being honest I'll have to say the same for X Box One. I probably won't buy any retail discs for X Box One either (though I might get a few free from work here and there).
In a few years I doubt people will even be buying video game media in stores at all, but for now, if I'm buying media, I love the idea of installing it on my console and forgetting about it, just like PC games have done for the past 5 years.
So what I have to say is that I'm really surprised that gamers are so willing to embrace the notion of disc-switching in a digital era. This is something that gamers bitterly fought on PC for nearly a decade until Steam, with the least objectionable DRM in the industry, ended up ending disc switching on PC once and for all. Do people not remember how annoying it was to dig through discs and put each disc in the PC when they wanted to play another game?
I'm not going to try to argue that Microsoft has the best DRM situation possible, I haven't really analyzed it, but I will say it's not that objectionable to me, personally. I understand that I'm not every consumer and others have various problems with it, but overall, it meshes well with how I tend to play and buy games. I hope Microsoft can get its lending story sorted out soon, but otherwise I don't have a huge problem with any of it. I'm not saying that someone who does is in the wrong, everyone's situation is different.
What I will say is that people acting like Sony doesn't have any DRM are fooling themselves. Sony absolutely does a DRM check on your game, it just happens to check local media instead of the internet. And for me, that's considerably worse than a manufacturer asking to have my console online. I am many times more likely to play different games if I don't have to go hunting around for discs. This is a major reason I switched to PC. And being able to fast swap in and out of games looks absolutely amazing to me. On the PS4 there will either be some kind of check to ensure you have the rights to the game you're playing via the Internet, or via local media, or else, in the least likely case, there will be incredibly rampant piracy that will destroy the platform (this is basically impossible).
I know I have friends who work at Sony and I am not going to say the PS4 is terrible or even in any way bad, I'm actually pretty excited for it. That said, I plan on never buying a single retail disc for PS4. Since all games will be digitally available day and date and since games can play while they're downloading, I'll happily buy all my PS4 games digitally rather than have to constantly change discs. If I'm being honest I'll have to say the same for X Box One. I probably won't buy any retail discs for X Box One either (though I might get a few free from work here and there).
In a few years I doubt people will even be buying video game media in stores at all, but for now, if I'm buying media, I love the idea of installing it on my console and forgetting about it, just like PC games have done for the past 5 years.
Saturday, February 9, 2013
Suggestions for Christopher Nolan's next film
Mori Memento.
Basically just play Memento forwards. Maybe recast the whole thing. or else continue the story back in time!
Ception, alternatively Outception.
What happens next in Inception? The world wants to know. Plus you get a chance to explain that confusing ending!
Dark Knights and Baney Days
Bring back Bane and have him team up with Batman to take on Gotham City's underworld. Also have Bane narrate the entire film.
Basically just play Memento forwards. Maybe recast the whole thing. or else continue the story back in time!
Ception, alternatively Outception.
What happens next in Inception? The world wants to know. Plus you get a chance to explain that confusing ending!
Dark Knights and Baney Days
Bring back Bane and have him team up with Batman to take on Gotham City's underworld. Also have Bane narrate the entire film.
Saturday, December 29, 2012
Microsoft Surface RT
Every Microsoft employee got a Surface RT right before the holidays this year. And my wife and I were no exceptions. We've been using them for a few weeks now, and I figured I'd post a few of my thoughts. Obviously I got the Surface RT for free and I am a Microsoft employee so my opinion is biased in some ways, though possibly not as much as one might think.
My wife and I were going to take our 2 year old son on a trip to Hawaii in October, but we greatly feared what would happen when we did. Our son's attention span rarely lasts very long with anything, and we were talking about a 5 hour flight. In order to alleviate the boredom, my wife got me an iPad 3 for Father's day, with an eye towards using it to occupy our son on the flight.
It was and is a beautiful device with a fantastic screen and a very responsive, usable, OS. There are of course a lot of apps and games for the iPad, but most of them weren't that useful, with the exception of a bunch of kids apps and some videos on iTunes. Virtually the only game I played on the iPad was Magic: The Gathering Duels of the Planeswalkers which felt really good with touch controls. It ended up working fairly well at distracting my son during the flight.
Unexpectedly I ended up continuing on to New York by myself for work and rather than drag a laptop all over the country, I decided to just bring my iPad. It was a reasonable device for my needs but I found it frustrating to use the keyboard for restaurant searches and the like. I also missed having a real IM with a keyboard. Overall it was workable, and I really enjoyed the iPad for a while.
All of this is to present the context of my Surface experience. I had used what was basically the best device in the tablet space and enjoyed it. The Surface had something to live up to for sure. I also happened to own an older Tablet PC that I installed windows 8 on, so it did have a touchscreen, but didn't support all the windows 8 multitasking functionality because the screen resolution was too low.
The week before I got my surface I was taking some time off from work and I was bumming around Seattle coffee shops with my tablet PC. The tablet PC was a full core 2 duo machine and it weighs about 3 or 4 lbs. Possibly more. It's not exactly huge but it lacks the svelte profile of a modern tablet. I had already found myself wishing for a surface. I brought my iPad along on these jaunts, but the kind of thing I was doing. Chatting on IM, posting on Facebook, replying to emails, and writing my Windows Phone 8 thoughts, were all better on my PC than the Surface.
Enter the Surface. I finally got my Surface RT and I was able to take it around an do all the stuff I'd wanted to do with my iPad but ended up needing a laptop for.
At first, I was a little disappointed. There were a bunch of obvious bugs and very odd behavior. Then I was able to update the OS and apps and the experience improved considerably. I felt I had a real sense for what the developers of Surface and Windows RT were gong for.
Let me say that, unfortunately, everything feels very version 1.0. There are niggling little bugs, and missing features all over the place. Some of the touch controls are startlingly worse than similar controls on Windows Phone which is pretty disappointing. Let me say this, though, I think it feels a lot more like an Apple version 1.0 than a Microsoft version 1.0. Microsoft is generally quite a bit worse at version 1.0s than anyone else and the Surface still feels like a good product.
In fact, it has virtually replaced the iPad in our house, with a few exceptions. The only thing it really lacks at this point is apps. And there are a plethora of apps for kids for iPad, which is why my son is now the main user of the iPad in our house.
How has it replaced the iPad otherwise?
The web browser is fast, fluid, and fantastic. It loads pages with ease and even displays flash on some pages. I don't think Safari is is a bad browser by any means, but IE 10 on surface blows it away in my estimation. The browser is so good I can even use it for Facebook and some of the other "missing" apps.
But that's also because of the Touch cover. The Touch Cover is a huge upgrade in my eyes. I know there are Bluetooth keyboards for iPad, but The touch cover also has a track pad and this makes all the difference in the world to me. I can use it for desktop apps and having the cursor is vey helpful for some websites. Plus it takes up basically the same amount of space as my "smart cover" on my iPad and is considerably more functional. The typing is a bit weird, but you get used to it. I still type faster on a normal keyboard, but I'm typing up these thoughts on my surface with my Touch Cover and it's actually not going too badly, though using shift keys can make things sketchy. The spacebar has also taken a bit of getting used to. This basically completes the device and turns it into a functioning PC (for me) with a form factor basically the same as the iPad. I used it for Christmas shopping and reading and watching videos and it's great for all of that. One reason for that is the kickstand.
The kickstand is also, to me, a huge upgrade to the iPad design. I've used it when using the surface like a laptop, I've used it just while reading or watching videos. It even helps when using the camera for some things. The Smart Cover just doesn't work well enough at standing up the iPad, the kickstand is a huge improvement. Just having it in the kitchen with my One Note with my pancake recipe up was very nice when making Christmas breakfast.
For me the Surface RT is not quite a full PC replacement, but it's damn close. I need a compiler and a stylus for any device I'd want, and coding on a Touch Cover seems like an exercise in frustration. But if I just wanted to use Office, email, surf the web, and do social networking, the Surface would be a pretty complete solution in my opinion.
It is a touch slow at some things, and sometimes in surprising ways. I'd still like more apps, and more particularly games, but since this stuff runs on windows 8 also, I have a feeling that stuff is coming, particularly with 35,000 apps in only 3 months. It's also improved considerably in the short time I've owned it, which I find to be pretty hopeful. I realize it's a little pricey, but it feels like a high end device. Highly recommended to anyone who needs a device for light pc work.
My wife and I were going to take our 2 year old son on a trip to Hawaii in October, but we greatly feared what would happen when we did. Our son's attention span rarely lasts very long with anything, and we were talking about a 5 hour flight. In order to alleviate the boredom, my wife got me an iPad 3 for Father's day, with an eye towards using it to occupy our son on the flight.
It was and is a beautiful device with a fantastic screen and a very responsive, usable, OS. There are of course a lot of apps and games for the iPad, but most of them weren't that useful, with the exception of a bunch of kids apps and some videos on iTunes. Virtually the only game I played on the iPad was Magic: The Gathering Duels of the Planeswalkers which felt really good with touch controls. It ended up working fairly well at distracting my son during the flight.
Unexpectedly I ended up continuing on to New York by myself for work and rather than drag a laptop all over the country, I decided to just bring my iPad. It was a reasonable device for my needs but I found it frustrating to use the keyboard for restaurant searches and the like. I also missed having a real IM with a keyboard. Overall it was workable, and I really enjoyed the iPad for a while.
All of this is to present the context of my Surface experience. I had used what was basically the best device in the tablet space and enjoyed it. The Surface had something to live up to for sure. I also happened to own an older Tablet PC that I installed windows 8 on, so it did have a touchscreen, but didn't support all the windows 8 multitasking functionality because the screen resolution was too low.
The week before I got my surface I was taking some time off from work and I was bumming around Seattle coffee shops with my tablet PC. The tablet PC was a full core 2 duo machine and it weighs about 3 or 4 lbs. Possibly more. It's not exactly huge but it lacks the svelte profile of a modern tablet. I had already found myself wishing for a surface. I brought my iPad along on these jaunts, but the kind of thing I was doing. Chatting on IM, posting on Facebook, replying to emails, and writing my Windows Phone 8 thoughts, were all better on my PC than the Surface.
Enter the Surface. I finally got my Surface RT and I was able to take it around an do all the stuff I'd wanted to do with my iPad but ended up needing a laptop for.
At first, I was a little disappointed. There were a bunch of obvious bugs and very odd behavior. Then I was able to update the OS and apps and the experience improved considerably. I felt I had a real sense for what the developers of Surface and Windows RT were gong for.
Let me say that, unfortunately, everything feels very version 1.0. There are niggling little bugs, and missing features all over the place. Some of the touch controls are startlingly worse than similar controls on Windows Phone which is pretty disappointing. Let me say this, though, I think it feels a lot more like an Apple version 1.0 than a Microsoft version 1.0. Microsoft is generally quite a bit worse at version 1.0s than anyone else and the Surface still feels like a good product.
In fact, it has virtually replaced the iPad in our house, with a few exceptions. The only thing it really lacks at this point is apps. And there are a plethora of apps for kids for iPad, which is why my son is now the main user of the iPad in our house.
How has it replaced the iPad otherwise?
The web browser is fast, fluid, and fantastic. It loads pages with ease and even displays flash on some pages. I don't think Safari is is a bad browser by any means, but IE 10 on surface blows it away in my estimation. The browser is so good I can even use it for Facebook and some of the other "missing" apps.
But that's also because of the Touch cover. The Touch Cover is a huge upgrade in my eyes. I know there are Bluetooth keyboards for iPad, but The touch cover also has a track pad and this makes all the difference in the world to me. I can use it for desktop apps and having the cursor is vey helpful for some websites. Plus it takes up basically the same amount of space as my "smart cover" on my iPad and is considerably more functional. The typing is a bit weird, but you get used to it. I still type faster on a normal keyboard, but I'm typing up these thoughts on my surface with my Touch Cover and it's actually not going too badly, though using shift keys can make things sketchy. The spacebar has also taken a bit of getting used to. This basically completes the device and turns it into a functioning PC (for me) with a form factor basically the same as the iPad. I used it for Christmas shopping and reading and watching videos and it's great for all of that. One reason for that is the kickstand.
The kickstand is also, to me, a huge upgrade to the iPad design. I've used it when using the surface like a laptop, I've used it just while reading or watching videos. It even helps when using the camera for some things. The Smart Cover just doesn't work well enough at standing up the iPad, the kickstand is a huge improvement. Just having it in the kitchen with my One Note with my pancake recipe up was very nice when making Christmas breakfast.
For me the Surface RT is not quite a full PC replacement, but it's damn close. I need a compiler and a stylus for any device I'd want, and coding on a Touch Cover seems like an exercise in frustration. But if I just wanted to use Office, email, surf the web, and do social networking, the Surface would be a pretty complete solution in my opinion.
It is a touch slow at some things, and sometimes in surprising ways. I'd still like more apps, and more particularly games, but since this stuff runs on windows 8 also, I have a feeling that stuff is coming, particularly with 35,000 apps in only 3 months. It's also improved considerably in the short time I've owned it, which I find to be pretty hopeful. I realize it's a little pricey, but it feels like a high end device. Highly recommended to anyone who needs a device for light pc work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
