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

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...

shanec wrote:
>
> While I understand your rant and can sympatheize there is some good news
> on the horizon.
>
> The PS3 and the Xbox2 will have at least 512MB of main system memory and
> possibly a GB. That means that those games will have much higher model
> counts and will be 720p (1280x720) or 1080p (1920x1080) resolutions.
> And with the newer engine scaling technologies that means at least the
> ports will look good and be able to support native high PC resolutions.
>
> So Xbox2/PC games will have view distance aplenty and great looking
> models and wide open levels instead of this clausterphobic junk, and
> that's becuase current generation consoles only have 32-64MB of total
> system memory, which is the main reason holding game designers and
> textures to 480i tv resolutions (480i/480p=720x480), which means 640x480
> on a PC)..
>
> So now all we'll have to worry about is poor dev work on PC k/b+mouse
> routines,
>
> "Wblane" <wblane@aol.combotizer> wrote in message
> news:20040124005950.12942.00000734@mb-m02.aol.com...
> Is this going to be the future of PC gaming? We'll all be stuck w/the
> limitations of consoles as to graphics and controllers? Why don't they
> write
> games first for the PC then port them to consoles? I guess consoles are
> a much
> bigger market than PC's? Maybe I should just give up on the PITA
> upgrade/obsolescence cycle of PC's and just get a PS/2?

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.

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.

In article <4012248B.DB4235F3@spam.com>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= <no@spam.com> wrote:
> 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).

I'm looking forward to the days of WALL sized monitors, myself.
Probably about the same time we get flying cars :^)


>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...

On the flipside, the console price point of approx. $200-$300 allows
virtually anyone to get a new one every 3 years if they so desire.

Alan

In article <40129A33.EB986295@sympatico.ca>, Stephen Williams <steve1.williams@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> 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.

The C64 is a perfect example. People squeezed some effects out of that
box that the designers never foresaw.

Alan

"Eep²" <no@spam.com> wrote:

> I don't see consoles lasting for very much longer...

I agree. And this whole DVD/home video fad will be over soon too. In a year
or two, everyone will be seeing movies only in movie theatres again, the way
it ought to be.

What you fail to grasp, as usual, is consoles are popular BECAUSE they're
not PCs. If you had to install a movie to your DVD drive, then download the
latest DirectDVD drivers and DVD graphics drivers and movie patches, then
configure the buttons on your remote, then hope it runs at an acceptable
framerate and if not, upgrade your DVD player with newer hardware ... well,
then maybe DVD players really WOULD be just a fad.

> Console developers will eventually get the clue and move to a single
platform
> (PCs, of course), thus reducing wasting development resources on multiple
platforms

Yeah, there's just one problem though. They generally make more money
developing for those two or three platforms than for the PC, since console
games as a whole outsell PC games by a wide margin. And because of the
locked-in (ie. non-upgradable) hardware, it's far less labour intensive to
debug and optimize console games than games developed for the
always-shifting hardware configs of PCs. Buy a clue.

Aside from his usual uninformed and asinine diatribe against consoles, Peep
has a point -- the specs for the next gen of consoles look good now, but
they'll still be outdated not long after they come out. (BTW, there's no way
the next consoles will have a gig of RAM. Expect 256 MB or maybe 512 MB at
the most.) But that's the way it's worked since the original Playstation and
N64 started sharing the market with PCs equipped with 3-D graphics
accelerators. It's the circle of console gaming life, and it will always be
thus. Sure as hell doesn't seem to be hurting sales of consoles and their
games tho.

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-

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 16:55:10 GMT, amonroejj@yahoo.com (R. Alan Monroe)
wrote:

>In article <4012248B.DB4235F3@spam.com>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= <no@spam.com> wrote:
>> 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).
>
>I'm looking forward to the days of WALL sized monitors, myself.
>Probably about the same time we get flying cars :^)
>
>
>>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...
>
>On the flipside, the console price point of approx. $200-$300 allows
>virtually anyone to get a new one every 3 years if they so desire.
>

And recycle the software they paid >$1000 for ?? The next-gen
consoles are not planned to play old-gen software. The Xbox2 is
reputed to have a G5 processor and Ati GPU. If you think that it will
play Xbox1 games, especially those with custom hardware-optimized
code, such as many of the 3D shooters, I can find a bridge to
sell you, I am sure.

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.

With my 2 computers, one with a FX5900 card and one with a
3dfx V5 5500 and booting to the appropriate OS/drivers, I can play
virtually any game in my collection.

Anyway, the day of the PC game is not over. Most of the world
has PCs, not consoles. They can't afford to have both, and
service-repair facilities for consoles is probably non-existent.
And they use their PCs for both work and entertainment. Your
view is the myopic view of the few wealthy countries who
can afford such luxuries as throw-away consoles (and software)

John Lewis

>Alan

In article <4012c9c1.5220084@news.verizon.net>,
John Lewis <john.dsl@verizon.net> wrote:
>>On the flipside, the console price point of approx. $200-$300 allows
>>virtually anyone to get a new one every 3 years if they so desire.

>And recycle the software they paid >$1000 for ??

Buying a new console doesn't magically make the old console or
games spontaneously combust. They still exist, and can still be played
just like they used to. You might have to put up with a little more
space used, cable-switching (or buy a $20 box to bounce inputs
around), but the old HW & SW *still works*. Heck, if you're poor, you
can pick up older or used HW & SW for dirt cheap, and the games are
just the same as when they first came out.

>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.

And a lot of 386 & 486 era PC games just don't work, period. Same
as with consoles-- if you really want 100% compatability for older
games, keep the older systems that originally ran them. That can use
up a whole lot more desk real estate than consoles, though.

Nathan Mates
--
<*> Nathan Mates - personal webpage http://www.visi.com/~nathan/
# Programmer at Pandemic Studios -- http://www.pandemicstudios.com/
# NOT speaking for Pandemic Studios. "Care not what the neighbors
# think. What are the facts, and to how many decimal places?" -R.A. Heinlein

In article <4012c9c1.5220084@news.verizon.net>, john.dsl@verizon.net (John Lewis) 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...
>>
>>On the flipside, the console price point of approx. $200-$300 allows
>>virtually anyone to get a new one every 3 years if they so desire.
>>
>
>And recycle the software they paid >$1000 for ?? The next-gen
>consoles are not planned to play old-gen software. The Xbox2 is
>reputed to have a G5 processor and Ati GPU. If you think that it will
>play Xbox1 games, especially those with custom hardware-optimized
>code, such as many of the 3D shooters, I can find a bridge to
>sell you, I am sure.

You have a point, but your old console doesn't magically vanish
either. Keep it and play it too.

Alan

On 24 Jan 2004 20:06:27 GMT, nathan@visi.com (Nathan Mates) wrote:

>In article <4012c9c1.5220084@news.verizon.net>,
>John Lewis <john.dsl@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>On the flipside, the console price point of approx. $200-$300 allows
>>>virtually anyone to get a new one every 3 years if they so desire.
>
>>And recycle the software they paid >$1000 for ??
>
> Buying a new console doesn't magically make the old console or
>games spontaneously combust. They still exist, and can still be played
>just like they used to.

Until they fail............ Scrabble around on Ebay for one that
really works......... ?

John Lewis

>You might have to put up with a little more
>space used, cable-switching (or buy a $20 box to bounce inputs
>around), but the old HW & SW *still works*. Heck, if you're poor, you
>can pick up older or used HW & SW for dirt cheap, and the games are
>just the same as when they first came out.
>
>>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.
>
> And a lot of 386 & 486 era PC games just don't work, period.

And a lot do work..... not that some of them you would ever want
to see again. Remember my words "classics". There were few PC
classics of any note before 1993, apart from the text-adventures and
simple arcade translations, like the Atari games. The classics were
on the Amiga ( 1985 - 1993 ) with full video and stereo sound, and the
Atari ST, not the 16-color PC pip-squeak.

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

>as with consoles-- if you really want 100% compatability for older
>games, keep the older systems that originally ran them. That can use
>up a whole lot more desk real estate than consoles, though.

Under-desk actually, with a keyboard/monitor switch.

John Lewis

>
>Nathan Mates
>--
><*> Nathan Mates - personal webpage http://www.visi.com/~nathan/
># Programmer at Pandemic Studios -- http://www.pandemicstudios.com/
># NOT speaking for Pandemic Studios. "Care not what the neighbors
># think. What are the facts, and to how many decimal places?" -R.A. Heinlein