Re: Are all PC games going to be console ports?

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 12:16:19 -0500, "Zackman"
<zackman@SPAMISEVILearthling.net> wrote:

>..............snip....................
>
>But this is a stupid argument. Everyone is still foaming like rabid raccoons
>over one particular console to PC port (actually it wasn't really a port,
>but still) that was crippled by its console limitations: DX:IW. What about
>all the other recent cross-platform releases that are just fine if not
>considerably better on the PC, eg. Prince of Persia, Max Payne 2, EA's
>sports games, Knights of the Old Republic (a console port!!! gasp!!!), etc
>etc etc. People need to get over their DX:IW disappointment and their Thief
>III FUD and move on.
>
>-Z-
>

Add Beyond Good and Evil and Armed&Dangerous to the list of superb
so-called "console-ports" to the PC. Yes, a few more level-transitions
than a PC-game would have, but modern disks load extremely fast.

I do not care about a PC games origin, as long as the end-result makes
full use of the graphics and sound capabilities of a modern PC and the

game-continuity is not destroyed by obvious intrusion of
game-mechanics limitations. Both of the above-mentioned titles satisfy
my criteria.

John Lewis


>

Eep² wrote:
> This spec may be fine NOW (for perhaps a year or so), but, as with
> previous console generations, they QUICKLY become obsolete (most even
> before they're released) compared to PCs. 512MB-1GB RAM will probably
> not be standard in a couple years and games will most likely be able
> to take care of 3GB and more, if need be. However, screen resolution
> will probably be fine (I still use 1024x768 on my 17" monitor, but
> 1280x1024 is better for 19" monitors).
>
> Until consoles BECOME actual, upgradable computers, they will ALWAYS
> be lagging behind PCs. I don't see consoles lasting for very much
> longer...especially since they are practically BECOMING PCs anyway.
> Consolers will just have to face facts and learn to deal with PCs if
> they want to play games. Console developers will eventually get the
> clue and move to a single platform (PCs, of course), thus reducing
> wasting development resources on multiple platforms. "It will only
> get worse before it gets better", in terms of PCs becoming THE gaming
> platform. The crest of the "worstness" is approaching...

Do you even know anything about programming? You thing PC is a single
platform. Do you have any idea how many different video cards, mother
boards, CPUs, and OSs programmers have to write for on the PC just to
make sure everything works?

"John Lewis" <john.dsl@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:401308f5.21402058@news.verizon.net...
> I have an Amiga (with spare parts and service manual) for those
> classics. BTW, the Amiga 1200, circa 1992 was $300, smaller than any
> console except the Gamecube, booted within 20 seconds and functioned
> as full multi-tasking PC, integrated keyboard, mouse, color graphics,
> stereo sound as well as being the top home gaming-machine of its day.
>
> John Lewis

Same here, still have my Amiga 1200 & monitor, & still running great.....
sold the A2000 that my BBS was running on [AmiOZ]




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 3/01/2004

People (consumers) will simply have to evolve and learn how to use tech better. Hell, even kids can do more with electronics than their parents, so it's not like humans aren't CAPABLE of learning how to use tech; the current ignorant "baby boomer" generation will just need to die off. Computers are getting easier to use with every generation, so it's only a matter of time before a mindless "switch on and play" function is available for those users who want to play games.

Walter Mitty wrote:
>
> Eep² <no@spam.com> brightened my day with his incisive wit when in
> news:4012248B.DB4235F3@spam.com he conjectured that:
>
> > Until consoles BECOME actual, upgradable computers, they will ALWAYS
> > be lagging behind PCs. I don't see consoles lasting for very much
> > longer...especially since they are practically BECOMING PCs anyway.
>
> I'd have to agree with this : but consoles/PCs for home sitting room gamers
> will still need a simple "switch on and play" mode for the majority. A good
> parallel is the development of mobile phones : about 90% of people I see
> with the newest mobiles have virtually no idea how to use any of the
> features it supports.

So what? So developers have to do a little more work and actually TEST the slop they create. So fucking what? Developers take too many shortcuts as it is.

But you're missing the point: console appeal doesn't last BECAUSE they QUICKLY become obsolete BECAUSE they are UNUPGRADEABLE.

Stephen Williams wrote:
>
> Eep² wrote:
>
> > Until consoles BECOME actual, upgradable computers, they will ALWAYS be lagging
> > behind PCs. I don't see consoles lasting for very much longer...especially
> > since they are practically BECOMING PCs anyway. Consolers will just have to
> > face facts and learn to deal with PCs if they want to play games. Console
> > developers will eventually get the clue and move to a single platform (PCs, of
> > course), thus reducing wasting development resources on multiple platforms. "It
> > will only get worse before it gets better", in terms of PCs becoming THE gaming
> > platform. The crest of the "worstness" is approaching...
>
> The inability to upgrade is also an advantage for game developers.
> Since they know exactly what hardware is in the console, they can make
> games that are optimized for performance on that gear. In PCs, by
> comparison, games have to be developed to deal with a wide variety of
> hardware specs. This doesn't mean the games are inferior is terms of
> graphics or such, in fact I agree with you that PCs are generally more
> advanced in that department, but it does open the door to more bugs and
> system glitches.

Duh, no shit? But different PERIPHERALS doesn't negate the fact they all work on the same PLATFORM. Do you even know anything about computing? <buh-link>

Hank Hank Revolution wrote:
>
> Eep² wrote:
> > This spec may be fine NOW (for perhaps a year or so), but, as with
> > previous console generations, they QUICKLY become obsolete (most even
> > before they're released) compared to PCs. 512MB-1GB RAM will probably
> > not be standard in a couple years and games will most likely be able
> > to take care of 3GB and more, if need be. However, screen resolution
> > will probably be fine (I still use 1024x768 on my 17" monitor, but
> > 1280x1024 is better for 19" monitors).
> >
> > Until consoles BECOME actual, upgradable computers, they will ALWAYS
> > be lagging behind PCs. I don't see consoles lasting for very much
> > longer...especially since they are practically BECOMING PCs anyway.
> > Consolers will just have to face facts and learn to deal with PCs if
> > they want to play games. Console developers will eventually get the
> > clue and move to a single platform (PCs, of course), thus reducing
> > wasting development resources on multiple platforms. "It will only
> > get worse before it gets better", in terms of PCs becoming THE gaming
> > platform. The crest of the "worstness" is approaching...
>
> Do you even know anything about programming? You thing PC is a single
> platform. Do you have any idea how many different video cards, mother
> boards, CPUs, and OSs programmers have to write for on the PC just to
> make sure everything works?

Eep² wrote:

> Hell, even kids can do more with electronics than their
> parents, so it's not like humans aren't CAPABLE of learning how to
> use tech; the current ignorant "baby boomer" generation will just
> need to die off.

Yeah, that's a good idea. Don't put the onus on the companies that make
technology to make it easy and hassle-free to use, but instead force the
consumer to learn how to deal with unstable technology, counter-intuitive
interfaces and expensive upgrades. Every time you open your mouth, you sound
like a bigger idiot.

BTW, the very techno-savvy kids and young adults you speak of are the ones
who are driving the popualrity of consoles over PC games. It's not the
techno-illiterate baby boomers buying PS2s and Xboxes. Oops, there goes that
theory.

-Z-

Eep² wrote:

> But you're missing the point: console appeal doesn't last BECAUSE
> they QUICKLY become obsolete BECAUSE they are UNUPGRADEABLE.

Console appeal doesn't last? For better or for worse, console games outsell
PC games by a margin of more than three to one. PC games are losing shelf
space to console games in stores the same way VHS movies have lost shelf
space to DVDs at rental outlets. And a game console lasts five years, which
is FAR greater than the lifespan of the average PC component. Show me
someone who hasn't upgraded their PC in five years and I'll show you someone
who hasn't played a FPS since Half-Life.

Your arguments are so full of holes I could drain pasta in them.

-Z-

John Lewis wrote:

> I have a large collection of "legacy" classic PC games, going back to
> circa 1993. that I like to revisit with modern hardware and powerful
> CPUs. The frame-rate jump on the FPS ones, such as Heretic 2,
> System Shock1 etc makes the game-play a brand-new experience.

That's nice and all, but that puts you in a very small minorirty of gamers,
and the work required to make these legacy games even run properly on modern
machines is more than most people are willing to put in. It's the same
reason backwards compatbility on consoles is a non-feature. It looks good on
paper - your new PlayStation 5 will play all 18,900 PlayStation 1 through 4
games! - but even a simple straw poll will tell you the actual number of
people who play PS1 games on their PS2 is very small. And hey, guess what...
you can always just keep the old console to play the games. Keen, huh?

> Anyway, the day of the PC game is not over.

Of course it's not. But consoles have a bigger share of the gaming market
than ever before, and for better or for worse many developers realize
consoles are where the money is made. As the console takes over more and
more functions that a PC can perform (eg. media center functionality, online
gaming, etc.), that gap will only continue to widen. Despite what Eep may
think, the future of gaming is not PCs that act more like consoles, it's
consoles that act more like PCs, or at the very least a convergence of the
two machines into a device that lives in the living room, connects to your
(high def) TV and does not have upgradable components. A lot of people don't
want to have to tinker with their game machine to make it work right, the
same way they don't want to tinker with their DVD player to watch a movie or
tinker with their toaster to make breakfast. Hobbyist PC gamers like the
majority of us here do not represent the majority of the gaming public.

> Your
> view is the myopic view of the few wealthy countries who
> can afford such luxuries as throw-away consoles (and software)

What countries are these whose citizens have gaming-capable PCs but not
consoles? The only examples I can think of are some Asian countries where
piracy is so rampant that software is essentially free for the taking.

-Z-

Eep² wrote:
> People (consumers) will simply have to evolve and learn how to use
> tech better. Hell, even kids can do more with electronics than their
> parents, so it's not like humans aren't CAPABLE of learning how to
> use tech; the current ignorant "baby boomer" generation will just
> need to die off. Computers are getting easier to use with every
> generation, so it's only a matter of time before a mindless "switch
> on and play" function is available for those users who want to play
> games.

Yet it's these same kids that are buying all the consoles. No matter how
hard you try to convince yourself consoles are dieing doesn't mean they
are. Get over yourself fanboy.