The future of PC Gaming vs. Consoles, etc.
Crelox
peoples opinions.
For a very long time, I have used my computer for both work and gaming.
For almost as long a time, I would have never given a thought to console
versions of games if there were a PC equivalent, lending to greater
processing power, speed, quality of graphics, and some interface issues
that could not be equaled from a console game controller perspective.
But I just read a post regarding "a year in review 2003" or something
like that and it made me think. It was a fairly negative take of PC
releases this year, and generally I agree.
There seems to be a growing opinion that game developers are
"abandoning" PC platforms for the console market. At the least, they
are considering cross-platform titles as a way to make more money or
provide software to a larger market (and thus increase profits). I
think, with a couple of exceptions, that 2003 was a very up/down year
for PC titles. Maybe it's just a pause in the cycle waiting for really
spectacular games to appear every couple of years or so, but I wonder if
there isn't some truth to game houses shifting their focus to the
console market.
Meanwhile, as I mentioned, I use my computer (a wintel machine) for work
also. I have delved into Linux, and have a old powerbook I use a a
laptop. For work reasons, these (linux and OSX) are a great platform
for me to work on, allow me to be even more productive, and are very
stable intriguing platforms. Yet I keep my x86 platform for other
reasons, not the least of which is gaming. But where is the future
going? I am now considering a near total conversion for daily tasks to
Linux or Mac, a decision I have fought against simply on the basis of
gaming potential. I have no doubt that excellent games will be produced
for the PC market in the coming year, with no true equivalent on any
other platform, including consoles. So it begs the following questions:
1. How will PC gaming stack up to the console market and/or the PC
market of 2003 in the coming year? Are you truly optimistic for certain
releases, or do you feel there is some truth to the cries of the decline
of PC gaming?
2. If your thoughts on question #1 are negative, how many of you have
reassessed the use of your Intel/AMD machines knowing that gaming is
important to you and would you consider shifting platforms based on this
trend?
3. Do you plan to buy more console games or PC based games in the next
year?
4. How important is your PC to you for gaming as opposed to 1-2 years
ago? 5 years ago?
Just curious to hear some opinions on the topic. Perhaps it is a shift
of my own priorities that makes me think these questions, but with a
glut of posts regarding a fading opinion of the PC gaming market, I
can't be the only one asking them.
Crelox
JWB
news:MPG.1a49aa264...@news.wideopenwest.com...
> Note that I am not trying to start a controversy here, but would like
> peoples opinions.
>
> For a very long time, I have used my computer for both work and gaming.
> For almost as long a time, I would have never given a thought to console
> versions of games if there were a PC equivalent, lending to greater
> processing power, speed, quality of graphics, and some interface issues
> that could not be equaled from a console game controller perspective.
> But I just read a post regarding "a year in review 2003" or something
> like that and it made me think. It was a fairly negative take of PC
> releases this year, and generally I agree.
I do too. Apart from Call of Duty, there was nothing released for the PC
that made me take notice. Well, Halo, but...
*snip*
> 1. How will PC gaming stack up to the console market and/or the PC
> market of 2003 in the coming year? Are you truly optimistic for certain
> releases, or do you feel there is some truth to the cries of the decline
> of PC gaming?
It's been slowly happening for a few years now. PC games are definitely
dying. Only the most jaded fanboy can claim otherwise.
>
> 2. If your thoughts on question #1 are negative, how many of you have
> reassessed the use of your Intel/AMD machines knowing that gaming is
> important to you and would you consider shifting platforms based on this
> trend?
Gaming is important to me. I have a really nice rig, but I have a nagging
feeling this might be my last "gaming" computer.
>
> 3. Do you plan to buy more console games or PC based games in the next
> year?
A year ago, it would have been a no-brainer answer for the PC. Now... I
don't know. After the disappointment of Deus Ex IW, the shitty Lionheart,
the bug-ridden TOEE, I'm very leery of PC games now - Call of Duty was the
only *great* game (in my opinion) this year. And it had a kickass demo.
Right now, the game that has my attention is Baldur's Gate, Dark Alliance,
for the X-Box. Lots of fun, and is proving to me that the X-Box can indeed
be a decent gaming platform beyond sports games (which is all I used it for
up until now).
I was going to buy KOTOR for the PC, until I heard you cannot remap the
movement keys to the arrows (dumb move). So, I'll be grabbing that for the
X-Box next. My X-Box is slowly creeping into territory that was exclusively
the PC's two years ago.
I have high hopes for Doom 3, Half Life 2, and Thief 3. But I heard whispers
of Thief being a 3rd person game. Scratch that from the list if it's so (not
that i mind third person, but not for the thief series). But I had high
hopes for DEIW - no *way* could that be screwed up. Well, it was.
>
> 4. How important is your PC to you for gaming as opposed to 1-2 years
> ago? 5 years ago?
see above.
>
> Just curious to hear some opinions on the topic. Perhaps it is a shift
> of my own priorities that makes me think these questions, but with a
> glut of posts regarding a fading opinion of the PC gaming market, I
> can't be the only one asking them.
You're not. This was a good post. But be prepared to be flamed by people who
will rush to defend the PC at all costs, though.
I do feel certain games will always be around - strategy games, both turn
based and real time, work very well on a PC. They aren't going anywhere.
There will always be small developers churning out "smaller" games. And
there will also probably be "Call of Duty" style blockbusters, at least for
awhile. But the days of well-made niche titles that were quality games
despite not being blockbuster sellers are almost gone (games like Myth,
Dungeon Keeper, Fallout, Thief). Companies can no longer afford to gamble on
"something cool"
The other factor is the price of projection TV's. Yea, a monitor has better
resolution, but my 43" widescreen TV looks pretty sweet, too.
And let's not forget the ease of use factor. I've been gaming for a long
time - I remember giant floppies, text-based adventures on an Apple 2c (or
was it e?), DOS boot disks, expanded memory issues... one nice thing about
my x-box - it works. Just put the disk in, and it friggen' works.
JWB
Dan Stephenson
several games on it. But it's clear that I'm missing out too much on
gaming from the PC world so I plan to get a $900 PC gaming appliance
next year after Xmas. This is because I just cannot become accustomed
to those damn thumb controllers for first person games. Which are the
ones I want to play the most. I don't see how it works to play Halo on
the XBox. Those XBox people must have pretty low standards to have
their controller input be no better than the early DOOM days when you
might have controlled everything from the keyboard, i.e., you move or
turn, but never at the same time. That, and your hands will cramp
incredibly quickly - this is based on a true-heart test I made at the
CompUSA the other day. So in the end I figured while $900 was a lot
more than a console, the games I like the most are mostly on the PC and
look better there too.
--
Dan Stephenson
Photos and movies from my 3-month European vacation and Wales 2003 at
http://homepage.mac.com/stepheda
James Garvin
>
> I for one switched to Mac for non-gaming reasons, but have played
> several games on it. But it's clear that I'm missing out too much on
> gaming from the PC world so I plan to get a $900 PC gaming appliance
> next year after Xmas. This is because I just cannot become accustomed
> to those damn thumb controllers for first person games. Which are the
> ones I want to play the most. I don't see how it works to play Halo on
> the XBox. Those XBox people must have pretty low standards to have
> their controller input be no better than the early DOOM days when you
> might have controlled everything from the keyboard, i.e., you move or
> turn, but never at the same time. That, and your hands will cramp
> incredibly quickly - this is based on a true-heart test I made at the
> CompUSA the other day. So in the end I figured while $900 was a lot
> more than a console, the games I like the most are mostly on the PC and
> look better there too.
Hell you can pick up a decent PC for less then $500 (no including
monitor)...and if you have the parts a new PC will cost you a mo-bo,
CPU, and video card.
Martin Thelen
>But I just read a post regarding "a year in review 2003" or something
>like that and it made me think. It was a fairly negative take of PC
>releases this year, and generally I agree.
You could write the exact same thing about all of the current console
gaming systems. It is kust a matter of how you interpret the signs: a
conole game portet to PC is suppostly a sign if impending doom. But a PC
Game ported to console also is a sign of PC gamings demise. Go figure
why pc gaming always seems to die...
Znegva
Nostromo
>Console gaming has matured hardly at all over the years. If PC gaming
>dies (which it still hasn't for me), I will probably just stop gaming,
>period. Why should I play games I don't like (=most console games)?
Start a petition - I'll sign it! >8^D
--
To reply via e-mail *when solicited* and given *express permission*
to do so, please replace 'spamfree' with 'htnirybal'-backwards...
Nitz Walsh
"Crelox" <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a49aa264...@news.wideopenwest.com...
> There seems to be a growing opinion that game developers are
> "abandoning" PC platforms for the console market. At the least, they
> are considering cross-platform titles as a way to make more money or
> provide software to a larger market (and thus increase profits). I
> think, with a couple of exceptions, that 2003 was a very up/down year
> for PC titles. Maybe it's just a pause in the cycle waiting for really
> spectacular games to appear every couple of years or so, but I wonder if
> there isn't some truth to game houses shifting their focus to the
> console market.
I think it's plainly obvious that consoles are a significant factor in
gaming and are indeed attracting more developer attention than ever before,
especially with releases that with the last generation of consoles, were
extremely rare to ever show up due to hardware limitations. Now it's a rare
game that's PC-only, or at least doesn't have a version that's tailored to
the consoles.
That doesn't mean there weren't many titles in 2003 that were great on the
PC though.
> Meanwhile, as I mentioned, I use my computer (a wintel machine) for work
> also. I have delved into Linux, and have a old powerbook I use a a
> laptop. For work reasons, these (linux and OSX) are a great platform
> for me to work on, allow me to be even more productive, and are very
> stable intriguing platforms. Yet I keep my x86 platform for other
> reasons, not the least of which is gaming. But where is the future
> going?
In addition to Windows machines, my main job function is to support the 100+
Macs spread across various sites for our company, and in doing so I've grown
to greatly appreciate (and hate, in some cases) OSX. There are many
qualities about it which I like, but then again I can say the same for XP -
both OS's for me have been remarkably stable and functional. Sometimes I
think of "switching", and for the most part, games are a large reason for
avoiding the switch, but it's also cost. If I don't game and remove that
functionality aspect of my PC, then why would I spend _more_ on an
equivalent Mac when I could spend far less on a PC that's good enough for
word processing/internet/administration work? I would basically be paying a
large premium for a pretty GUI, and while I certainly don't discount that as
trivial, it's also something that's coming to the PC in "relatively" short
order with Longhorn. XP is "good enough" in the meantime, to warrant the
significant expenditure in switching to a closed hardware platform, that
platform has to offer me something truly revolutionary. OSX is nice, but it
doesn't do that for my needs. Of course I have an iBook from my company so
I don't really need to 'switch' at the moment regardless. J
As for Linux, the desktop scene simply hasn't matured enough for me yet to
consider it as my main workstation, and frankly I don't know when it will -
it seems to be in perpetual catch-up mode with regards to modern GUI's and
applications. It certainly has the cost advantage, but I remain pessimistic
that it will ever catch up to Mac/Win in interface maturity with its
designed-by-geek-committee approach; development for it is just too
fragmented IMO. I appreciate its existence and can certainly see its worth
as a server platform, but it's still quite a ways away from being equivalent
on the desktop.
> 1. How will PC gaming stack up to the console market and/or the PC
> market of 2003 in the coming year? Are you truly optimistic for certain
> releases, or do you feel there is some truth to the cries of the decline
> of PC gaming?
PC gaming as the major platform for innovative, unique releases that can't
be done on any other platform is indeed declining, however I've also
purchased several games this year that were multiplatform but just had the
best versions on the PC, along with being the cheapest. I understand that
these kinds of discussions have been largely spurred by the disappointment
of Deus Ex2, but it's a large market out there folks.
One thing to keep in mind is that there were two titles that were expected
to be out late this year which were heralded as the "saviors of PC gaming"
that didn't make it - Doom3 and Half-Life2. Those, along with Far Cry, look
to be extremely impressive, and just won't be the same experience on a
console (considering the Xbox is also the only one likely to see a port, it'
s not as if I'll have the option on my Gamecube anyway). 2003 was supposed
to be the "year of the PC" with these releases - that, along with Dues EXbox
will understandably dampen the spirits of hardcore PC gameplayers.
Unless HL2 and Doom3 turn out to suck, I can't forsee 2004 being anything
but significantly better for the PC as compared to 2003. Of course, come
late 2004 the next generation of consoles will begin the hype, an area where
the PC just can't compete. The exposure modern consoles get just eclipses
PC's - heck, the main subway station in downtown Toronto here has been
basically transformed into Xbox-Central due to a promotional deal with the
city and MS. Capabilities asides, that's a major problem for the PC - the
fact that each console has a large, singular marketing force behind it. It'
s a wonder the PC gaming market is viable at all considering the huge
marketing push of consoles.
> 2. If your thoughts on question #1 are negative, how many of you have
> reassessed the use of your Intel/AMD machines knowing that gaming is
> important to you and would you consider shifting platforms based on this
> trend?
Answered already.
> 3. Do you plan to buy more console games or PC based games in the next
> year?
Likely PC. If it's a multiplatform release, then unless the PC version is
the worst out of the gate, it's going to be the PC version usually for its
graphical and control qualities, and the fact these can only improve with
future hardware (well, graphically at least). I know that if/when I upgrade
my PC, all my previous games will continue to work, but run even smoother
and look better, along with the possibility of mods released for it.
If I get a console version of these games, I'm stuck with their aesthetics
and performance, along with usually paying a $15-$20 premium for the title
over the PC version. I largely stick with console exclusives for my
Gamecube (Viewtiful Joe, Eternal Darkness, etc), even though my PC is
low-mid range (XP 1800, 64 meg GF4 4200), I find the PC versions can be (not
always) superior to the same game on a console. When I upgrade my PC early
next year, this will likely become even more evident.
> 4. How important is your PC to you for gaming as opposed to 1-2 years
> ago? 5 years ago?
I'd say more important now actually compared to 1-2 years ago, but less
important than 5 years ago. That was right smack in the tail-end of the
previous console generation; we're talking PSX and Saturn compared to
high-end PC's in a very competitive 3D card market - it was no contest, and
I don't think the PC will see an advantage like that in terms of hardware
capability again where certain types of games were just impossible on
anything but the PC.
> Just curious to hear some opinions on the topic. Perhaps it is a shift
> of my own priorities that makes me think these questions, but with a
> glut of posts regarding a fading opinion of the PC gaming market, I
> can't be the only one asking them.
Well to be blunt, as similar threads seem to occur in this newsgroup on a
bi-weekly basis, no - you're not the only one asking them. :)
Andrew
wrote:
>As for Linux, the desktop scene simply hasn't matured enough for me yet to
>consider it as my main workstation, and frankly I don't know when it will -
>it seems to be in perpetual catch-up mode with regards to modern GUI's and
>applications.
With regards to GUI's, Windows has been playing catch-up with Linux
for a couple of years.
--
Andrew. To email unscramble n...@gurjevgrzrboivbhf.pbz & remove spamtrap.
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text.
Check groups.google.com before asking a question.
Rich Cooper
almost twice the time trying to make the game/software work for all types of
hardware combinations unlike console developers who dont face that issue
cause of standard hardware of consoles. Time is money.
Pretty soon, I believe consoles will come with a keyboard & mouse and other
input devices making it a more attractive platform for game developers. Why
mess with various video chipsets, sound chips, etc on PC, when they have a
standard console hardware.
--
RC
Michael Vondung
>With regards to GUI's, Windows has been playing catch-up with Linux
>for a couple of years.
Gnome, KDE, WMs? I like KDE, but it is KDE trying to imitate the
Windows GUI, not Windows trying to mimic KDE. Linux itself doesn't
have a GUI.
M.
HockeyTownUSA
household in America. Not sure what it is in Europe or Canada but for that
matter, but most affluent countries have a very large percentage of people
with a PC in their household. The XBOX has proven that "older" technology PC
hardware can effectively perform or outperform any of the other consoles out
there.
That being the case, it shows that in many instances, PC programming is just
sloppy. Granted with consoles you are writing code for a single piece of
video and chipset hardware so don't have to worry so much about
compatability, but DirectX helps out with that immensely. Not to mention
that fact that if a person has a game on their PC they are mad because they
can't run it in 1600x1200 with 60fps. Whereas consoles run at the lowest
possible PC resoltion of 640x480 more or less (or 600 scan lines). Try
running any PC game at that resolution with 4xAA and 16xAniso on, and it
will FLY! Not to mention look good. Of course this is true for mainly action
games.
"Nitz Walsh" <sdd...@dsad.com> wrote in message
news:OVTDb.70130$NNW1....@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Michael Vondung
>I am now considering a near total conversion for daily tasks to
>Linux or Mac, a decision I have fought against simply on the basis of
>gaming potential.
I can relate to this problem. :) I'd already be working exclusively in
a FreeBSD environment (I could settle for Linux, too), if it wasn't
for the games I enjoy playing. It's a little pathetic, but there is a
number of games that greatly contribute to my recreation time, but
that simply won't run sufficiently (or at all) under either *BSD or
Linux.
>1. How will PC gaming stack up to the console market and/or the PC
>market of 2003 in the coming year? Are you truly optimistic for certain
>releases, or do you feel there is some truth to the cries of the decline
>of PC gaming?
I'm not actually looking forward to any particular release. I keep an
eye on reviews of newly released games and the discussions here, and
if something sounds interesting, I might buy the game. I used to be
very excited about announced, but not yet released titles, but ever
since I quit playing Ultima Online, I haven't really felt that way
about any game. Well, perhaps the Diablo 2 1.10 patch, and if Blizzard
announced a Diablo 3, I'd feel that way about a title, but right now
there's nothing even remotely like this on the horizon.
>3. Do you plan to buy more console games or PC based games in the next
>year?
The only two consoles I own are an original Playstation and an Atari
2600. :) I haven't played on either of them since about 1995-6, and
well, the Atari (and Pitfall) I only keep for nostalgic reasons
anyway. So, I don't buy console games, at all.
>4. How important is your PC to you for gaming as opposed to 1-2 years
>ago? 5 years ago?
My interest in games is not "static". A lot depends on whether there's
a title that I am "addicted" to, or if there are other hobbies that I
find more attractive. There are times when I play games every day for
several hours, and other times when I don't load any game for weeks.
Five years ago I lived in Ultima Online, and spend much more time
playing than today. But in general, my PC's importance for gaming
hasn't increased or decreased much in the past ten years.
>Just curious to hear some opinions on the topic. Perhaps it is a shift
>of my own priorities that makes me think these questions, but with a
>glut of posts regarding a fading opinion of the PC gaming market, I
>can't be the only one asking them.
Well, see, there are no console-only titles that attract me. I also
don't watch a lot of TV, so for a console I'd also have to buy a large
TV set, which I would have no need for otherwise (I'm content with a
small set for my limited TV needs). There are more PC games out there
than I have time for, so, I don't see the lack of PC titles that
people talk about. Even if all publishers stopped releasing games for
PC games, there'd still be a large number of already released titles
that I haven't had time for so far.
M.
THE_FLYING_MULLET
> market of 2003 in the coming year? Are you truly optimistic for certain
> releases, or do you feel there is some truth to the cries of the decline
> of PC gaming?
Console games have a bigger market share, so clearly consoles will continue
to have more big budget action games. In terms of big budget action games
for PC, I can see them only appearing alongside console versions. Publishers
aren't going to fund big budget PC-only action games. However, I can't see
consoles making much headway into any non-action genres, such as strategy or
flight sim, so for the moment the PC does offer something that consoles
cannot.
> 2. If your thoughts on question #1 are negative, how many of you have
> reassessed the use of your Intel/AMD machines knowing that gaming is
> important to you and would you consider shifting platforms based on this
> trend?
> 3. Do you plan to buy more console games or PC based games in the next
> year?
I imagine continuing my buying habits over the last 1-2 years. Xbox or PS2
for big action games like Halo, GTA3, Rally games, Pro Evolution Soccer, and
so on. But PC for strategy games, slower paced or modable FPS games, and so
on.
Highlandish
HockeyTownUSA <ma...@removetokillspam.comcast.net> Quoth The Raven:
> The thing I am amazed about is that there is pretty much a PC in every
> household in America. Not sure what it is in Europe or Canada but for
> that matter, but most affluent countries have a very large percentage
> of people with a PC in their household. The XBOX has proven that
> "older" technology PC hardware can effectively perform or outperform
> any of the other consoles out there.
>
> That being the case, it shows that in many instances, PC programming
> is just sloppy. Granted with consoles you are writing code for a
> single piece of video and chipset hardware so don't have to worry so
> much about compatability, but DirectX helps out with that immensely.
> Not to mention that fact that if a person has a game on their PC they
> are mad because they can't run it in 1600x1200 with 60fps. Whereas
> consoles run at the lowest possible PC resoltion of 640x480 more or
> less (or 600 scan lines). Try running any PC game at that resolution
> with 4xAA and 16xAniso on, and it will FLY! Not to mention look good.
> Of course this is true for mainly action games.
>
the price of a game graphics card versus the price of a console unit, that
is what gamers look at today. it is easier for the casual gamer to get a
console and mod it for copied games, no configuration, drivers or trouble
shooting required. they know the game will work and wont have bugs. a pc
gamer has to do all of the above and pay twice as much for a GPU than what
it costs for a console. I am a hobbyist pc gamers, I like to spend the money
on having my "hotrod" pc, but for my sister I just bought an x-box for her,
it cost me AU$500 to get one with the works and mod it. then $100 for 15
games there after. and then I don't have to see her at all till next year,
her pc needs constant repairs though.
and snip FFS and dont top post.
--
how straight is a straight line if the world, nay if the universe is
curved in an ever expanding circle?
Take out the CUSSIN to reply to me
magnulus
> 1. How will PC gaming stack up to the console market and/or the PC
> market of 2003 in the coming year? Are you truly optimistic for certain
> releases, or do you feel there is some truth to the cries of the decline
> of PC gaming?
It's definitely true. I said a couple months ago that the glory days of
PC gaming are over. Is PC gaming dead? Hardly. But it could be alot
better.
>
> 2. If your thoughts on question #1 are negative, how many of you have
> reassessed the use of your Intel/AMD machines knowing that gaming is
> important to you and would you consider shifting platforms based on this
> trend?
Considering that I have worked a bit with Linux, I want to stay as far
away from Linux as possible because frankly the multimedia options for it
sucks, and my experience with Red Hat was it was far from user-friendly. I
use my PC for far more than just gaming. Mac isn't an option, because
everything there is proprietary and costs about twice as much as a PC.
>
> 3. Do you plan to buy more console games or PC based games in the next
> year?
Probably more PC games. I have a console, but it's very easy to get all
you want out of it, when you can narrow your playing down to just fighting
games, boxing games, and maybe an action game or RPG once in a while.
>
> 4. How important is your PC to you for gaming as opposed to 1-2 years
> ago? 5 years ago?
Slightly less important.
>
> Just curious to hear some opinions on the topic. Perhaps it is a shift
> of my own priorities that makes me think these questions, but with a
> glut of posts regarding a fading opinion of the PC gaming market, I
> can't be the only one asking them.
I really think the problem is with publishers doing stupid moves. I don't
hate consoles for what they are, but who in their right mind at Ion Storm
decided that the XBox was the ideal platform to develope Deus Ex for? It's
so LIMITED. They should have designed the PC version first, then the XBox
version a year later. You cannot do justice to the PC by making a console
port simultaneously.
Bryan J. Maloney
It's only been the kinds of games that I hate to "play" that have
"abandoned" the PC. If I want to do nothing more than hand-eye-
coordination/fast-twitch, I can cross foils with a real person. The
effect on my ass is far better, too.
CCF
> 1. How will PC gaming stack up to the console market and/or the PC
> market of 2003 in the coming year? Are you truly optimistic for certain
> releases, or do you feel there is some truth to the cries of the decline
> of PC gaming?
The PC offers an advantage over the consule in terms of horsepower but
that is almost 100% negated by buggy releases that have to be patched 5
times to be playable and continuing hardware incompatibilities and/or
hardware obsolescence, no one wants to buy a new rig for $700+ every two
years to keep up. Those forces frustrate the average gamer. Those
factors alone will drive folks off the PC since, while some, console
game might not look as sweet as a PC game at least you know they'll run.
Plus, the market is very simple, console games can reach more and more
customers while PC games reach fewer and are much easier to pirate (yes
you can pirate consoles but most folks won't solder a new chip onto
their XBOX to do so).
>
> 2. If your thoughts on question #1 are negative, how many of you have
> reassessed the use of your Intel/AMD machines knowing that gaming is
> important to you and would you consider shifting platforms based on this
> trend?
No, XP mitigates most of the former 9x crash and reload issues for me
and I can still get it at a fraction of the cost of a MAC. Linux is
still too much of a hassle and lacks enough quality apps.
>
> 3. Do you plan to buy more console games or PC based games in the next
> year?
Definately console games.
>
> 4. How important is your PC to you for gaming as opposed to 1-2 years
> ago? 5 years ago?
PC is an afterthought now, it is rare that I look for new PC games. Most
of my PC game work is based off trying to get more milage oout of older
games like BG2 and JA2 with user made add ons.
J Hoppe
Well, the way that everyone here is telling me that my PC is going the way
of the dodo, methinks we are about to lose a console system due to "over
competition."
Oddly, consolers need us more than we need them.
Art Weingardner
wrote:
>I think its all cause of the various hardware combinations. Developers spend
>almost twice the time trying to make the game/software work for all types of
>hardware combinations unlike console developers who dont face that issue
>cause of standard hardware of consoles. Time is money.
it would be interesting to hear from Brad Wardell, or any other
developers that still use usenet, on this subject.
Art Weingardner
<magn...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> I really think the problem is with publishers doing stupid moves. I don't
>hate consoles for what they are, but who in their right mind at Ion Storm
>decided that the XBox was the ideal platform to develope Deus Ex for? It's
the guy who took the payoff from Microsoft to develop it for the Xbox.
that's one of the techniques the console companies use to promote
their game machines over their competitors.
>so LIMITED. They should have designed the PC version first, then the XBox
>version a year later. You cannot do justice to the PC by making a console
>port simultaneously.
that is the worst thing about consoles is that when a company decides
to develop for the console market in addition to the PC it drags down
the quality and capabilty of the PC games.
tomi heteaho
"J Hoppe" <jhoppe...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:CjZDb.13073$J77.421@fed1read07...
I think the real problem lies in the fact that games are now developed with
consoles in mind. In other words, the quality of pc games is dragged down to
the level of consoles. This is the real reason why people don't bother to
buy games on PC. It has lost the only edge it ever had (cutting edge
innovation), because companies can't seem to separate their development for
PC and consoles.
Tomi
Zyan
> 3. Do you plan to buy more console games or PC based games in the next
> year?
>
PC.
> 4. How important is your PC to you for gaming as opposed to 1-2 years
> ago? 5 years ago?
>
Very important still. Why? Because I am using the PC for a variety of
reasons besides gaming. Work, emails, surfing, investment (share market
monitoring), watching movies (especially movies that requires a computer to
decode), using it as a ftp server for sharing files, using it as a server
for movies-on-demand within the home, downloading entertainment (iPOD
anyone?), download stuff for my mobile phone, download software for my palm,
read electronic novels (yes, some novels exist only in electronic forms,
especially in China) and playing MMORPGs (well, at least used to... stopped
for quite some time) etc. I believed consoles can do some of the stuff
above but in a limited sense.
I would want to play games on a platform that also allow me to a variety of
other things. If the computer manufacturers can be successful in marketing
computers as a lifestyle "must-have" in every home just like, hmm, TV, then
computer games will have a bright future.
Zyan
Andrew
wrote:
>Gnome, KDE, WMs? I like KDE, but it is KDE trying to imitate the
>Windows GUI, not Windows trying to mimic KDE. Linux itself doesn't
>have a GUI.
>
I know about Linux not having a native GUI, I was trying to keep the
discussion simple. I still think you get far more features in Gnome or
KDE than you do in Windows.
Michael Vondung
>I still think you get far more features in Gnome or
>KDE than you do in Windows.
I'm not impressed with Gnome, but I do agree that the KDE desktop
environment feels "more complete" than Windows, though that is largely
because of the much greater number of utilities/applications that come
with the standard package (all the stuff that Microsoft charges you
extra for). XP is a real let-down in that regard. Still, KDE isn't the
original, it is heavily inspired by Windows' design philosophies.
M.
Nitz Walsh
"Rich Cooper" <rco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:UPUDb.42152$wM4....@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
> Pretty soon, I believe consoles will come with a keyboard & mouse and
other
> input devices making it a more attractive platform for game developers.
Why
> mess with various video chipsets, sound chips, etc on PC, when they have a
> standard console hardware.
Standard from who? The problem with consoles in particular is that it's not
as simple as PC vs. Console - it's PC vs PS2/Xbox/Gamecube. If you only
purchase one of the consoles, chances are at least a few games you like will
be exclusive to one of the other two.
That's the most frustrating part about PC gaming being overtaken by
consoles, there's not one single platform you can choose to "cover your
bases", due to all this exclusivity and lock-in bullshit agreements. The
degree of control each console manufacturer has on their own system, and
through exclusives has on others by denying them ports, makes the PC/Console
decision not as simple as it may appear to be, even if you accept the
console's limitations up front.
Bateau
." ". Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:53:08 GMT
| . ` ` | in
\( )/ comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
\)__. _._(/ Rich Cooper
// >..< \\ spoke
|__.' vv '.__/ 14
l'''"''l lines
\_ _/ to
_ )--( _ the
| '--.__)--(_.--' | great
\ |`----''----'| / undead
|| `-' '--' || skeleton
|| `--' '--' || god
|l `--'--'--' |l of
|__|`--' `--'|__| giant
| | )-( | | ascii
|| )-( \|| who
|| __ )_( __ \\ replied...
||' `- -' \ \\
||\_ `-' _/ |_\
/_\ _)J-._.-L( /`-\
|`- I_)O /\ O( `--l\\\|
||||( `-' `-') .-' |||
\\\ \ / / ///
\ \ / /
\ \ / /
/ \ / \
|_()I()._|
\ /\ /
| / \ |
| | \ \
| | \ \
| | \ \
| |-nabis\ \_
| | /-._\
|.-.\ //.-._)
\\\\ ///
\\\\-'''
``''
And we will have to upgrade THE WHOLE THING every 6 months. Yay.
--
.-'`-.
/ | | \
/ | | \
|___|_|__ |
||<o>| <o>`|
|| J_ )|
`|`-'__`-'|/
| `--' |
.-| |_
.-' \ / | |`-.
.-' `. /| | \
/ ````' | | \
|_____ | | L
.-' ___ `-. F F | | ||`-.___
.'.-' | `-. `. J J / | || _.>
/ /| | |`. \ | | |/ | ||_.-'
/ / | | | `. `. F F | |==============================
J / | | | \ L J J | | `:::::::. `:::::::.
FJ | | | |L J/ / | \ :::::::. :::::::\
J |() | () | () | () | J L/ | | ::::::: :::::::L
| F | .-'_ \ | | LJ | / L :::::::: :::::::J
| L | / \\ | | | L | | :::::::: ::::::::L
| L || ):|| | | | /| L :::::::: ::::::::|
J | ||:._.'::|| | | |----' | | :::::::: ::::::::| .---.
J | |J:::::::|| | | | _/\ | :::::::: ::::::::| /(@ o`.
LJ | \:::::/ | | | |---'\ | | :::::::: ::::::::| | /^^^
J L | `-:-' | | | F | \ | J :::::::: ::::::::| \ . \vvv
LJ()| () | () | () | F F | \ \--._L :::::::: ::::::::| \ `--'
J \ | | | | J J \ | | :::::::: ::::::::| \ `.
\ \| | | | / / | | | :::::::: ::::::::| L \
\ \ | | |/ /| | | .-'| :::::::: ::::::::| | \
`.`. | | .'.' | | |/ /`L :::::::: ::::::::| | L
| `.`-.____|.-'.-' | | | <`. \ :::::::: ::::::::| | |
| | `-.______.-' | \| |_`::\ `. :::::::: ::::::::| F |
| J\ | | | | /: \::. \:::::::: ::::::::F / |
| L\|--| | _.--|:: `::\ `.:::::: .:::::::J / F
J J |\\|-.____ |__.-' |: \::. \:::: ::::::::F .' J
L \| >|| `--' J |' .`::\ `.:' .::::::::/ .' F
J |//JJ | L |---. .--\::. \---. .---. <---< J
L |< |J |\=/| ( _ \=/ _ `::\ `. \=/ _ \=/ _ \ /
J |\\|J | | / )_) | (_) \::. \ | (_) | (_) | /
\ |--|J |//\\ / //\ //`::\ `./\ //\ / .'
\| |L ` )/ )` `' '|`---// `---// `\::. \ `---// `---' .'
VK________| L_\ ' /___/ ' | |___//______//_____`::\ |___//_________.'_________
F F J`` -'| | | | | \:_|
`-' | "" | J ` |
| | L | |\ |\ /| /| |\ /|
| | \ | | \ | \ // // | \ || |\
J | `. | ||\\ ||\\ // // ||\\ || ||
L F )`---\ || >> || \\ / | << || \\ || ||
| J / `. ||// || || //|| \\ || || || ||
J J ( `-. |// | \ || |/ || \\ | \ || || ||
`-.__/ `---. `. |<< ||\\|| || >> ||\\|| || ||
| J `. ) ||\\ || \ | || // || \ | || ||
/ | `-----' || >> || || || // || || \\ ||
/ F ||// || || || << || || \\||
J J | / |/ || |/ \\ |/ || \ |
J | |/ \| \| \| \|
`-.-' K I N G O F T H E M O N S T E R S
Michael Vondung
>Unless you mean KDE Ofiice which I agree is nice
>to see bundled with the GUI.
(This is getting slightly OT here, and I just realised how many groups
this thread was posted to.)
Yes, I mean mostly KOffice, which is something that MS charges some
$400 for. KOrganizer in combination with KMail is every bit as good as
Outlook (not OE), and there's no free alternative to Outlook for the
Windows platform.
Anyway, I don't think that any modern operating system or GUI is
objectively "better" than another. To me, operating systems and GUIs
are merely tools, and people have different expectations and needs. I
could easily still work with TOS/GEM and would be perfectly happy,
provided there'd be all applications I need. One of the chief reasons
why I'd like to able to drop the Windows platform is the politics and
"visions" for the future (which I consider limiting and controlling)
of Microsoft. I'm fine with the actual software products.
M.
Jarg
mouse/keyboard for a FPS. Also the other console peripherals seem pretty
shoddy. I've used one f the racing wheels on the X-Box and it is vastly
inferior to my Logitech gear for PC.
And the graphics, even on HDTV console games, are inferior.
On the other hand, the coop play is a big plus, which is why I was very
disappointed when Halo for PC omited it.
Jarg
"Dan Stephenson" <stephed...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:161220032333162892%stephed...@mac.com...
Knight37
stephed...@mac.com:
> I don't see how it works to play Halo on
> the XBox. Those XBox people must have pretty low standards to have
> their controller input be no better than the early DOOM days when you
> might have controlled everything from the keyboard, i.e., you move or
> turn, but never at the same time. That, and your hands will cramp
> incredibly quickly - this is based on a true-heart test I made at the
> CompUSA the other day.
You can move and turn at the same time in Xbox Halo. That's why you have
dual analog sticks. The game controls pretty well with the Xbox
controller, in my opinion. Those who just don't get it just haven't put
enough time in to learn the controls. Hell, mouse and keyboard took time
to learn too way back when it was first introduced.
--
Knight37
Knight37
@news.wideopenwest.com:
> 1. How will PC gaming stack up to the console market and/or the PC
> market of 2003 in the coming year? Are you truly optimistic for
> certain releases, or do you feel there is some truth to the cries of
> the decline of PC gaming?
I think we'll see fewer games in 2004 than we have in years past, but
quite a few good games will be released. Hopefully we'll see fewer yet
higher quality games, that would be ideal.
> 2. If your thoughts on question #1 are negative, how many of you have
> reassessed the use of your Intel/AMD machines knowing that gaming is
> important to you and would you consider shifting platforms based on
> this trend?
Definitely not switching platforms for non-gaming if that's what you
mean. I've always been multi-platform for gaming, owning most of the
major console systems out there.
> 3. Do you plan to buy more console games or PC based games in the next
> year?
I'll buy more console games probably, but I'll be buying for three
platforms (XBox, GC, PS2). Probably my PC games purchased will be greater
than any single console platform.
> 4. How important is your PC to you for gaming as opposed to 1-2 years
> ago? 5 years ago?
It's still as important as ever, but my rig is getting long in the tooth
so I may have to upgrade it soon to continue to be able to play newer
games on it. This is something that in the past I'd have no qualms about,
but the wife gets a say-so nowadays on any big purchases, so I'll try and
hold out as long as I can to get the best rig I can afford so it will
last longer.
Knight37
Eric
> peoples opinions.
>
> 1. How will PC gaming stack up to the console market and/or the PC
> market of 2003 in the coming year? Are you truly optimistic for certain
> releases, or do you feel there is some truth to the cries of the decline
> of PC gaming?
I feel the PC will see fewer releases over time but things will balance out.
Theres a lot of bad stuff published so the market can stand to shrink some
without going away entirely. I'm optimistic for MMORPGs which really need a
PC with a keyboard (World of Warcraft), the new Pirates! game from Firaxis
for starters.
>
> 2. If your thoughts on question #1 are negative, how many of you have
> reassessed the use of your Intel/AMD machines knowing that gaming is
> important to you and would you consider shifting platforms based on this
> trend?
>
I'm not shifting platforms any time soon. I find consoles games to be
generally dumbed down.
> 3. Do you plan to buy more console games or PC based games in the next
> year?
>
PC only...and probably only the big titles. I really don't need more than
one game a quarter so 4 great games a year meets my needs...and this should
happen on the PC.
> 4. How important is your PC to you for gaming as opposed to 1-2 years
> ago? 5 years ago?
>
It holds the same value as it did then. Plus I can manage my finances,
email, web browse, watch DVDs etc..
Eric
James Barker
> Note that I am not trying to start a controversy here, but would like
> peoples opinions.
>
> For a very long time, I have used my computer for both work and gaming.
> For almost as long a time, I would have never given a thought to console
> versions of games if there were a PC equivalent, lending to greater
> processing power, speed, quality of graphics, and some interface issues
> that could not be equaled from a console game controller perspective.
> But I just read a post regarding "a year in review 2003" or something
> like that and it made me think. It was a fairly negative take of PC
> releases this year, and generally I agree.
>
> There seems to be a growing opinion that game developers are
> "abandoning" PC platforms for the console market. At the least, they
> are considering cross-platform titles as a way to make more money or
> provide software to a larger market (and thus increase profits). I
> think, with a couple of exceptions, that 2003 was a very up/down year
> for PC titles. Maybe it's just a pause in the cycle waiting for really
> spectacular games to appear every couple of years or so, but I wonder if
> there isn't some truth to game houses shifting their focus to the
> console market.
>
> Meanwhile, as I mentioned, I use my computer (a wintel machine) for work
> also. I have delved into Linux, and have a old powerbook I use a a
> laptop. For work reasons, these (linux and OSX) are a great platform
> for me to work on, allow me to be even more productive, and are very
> stable intriguing platforms. Yet I keep my x86 platform for other
> reasons, not the least of which is gaming. But where is the future
> going? I am now considering a near total conversion for daily tasks to
> Linux or Mac, a decision I have fought against simply on the basis of
> gaming potential. I have no doubt that excellent games will be produced
> for the PC market in the coming year, with no true equivalent on any
> other platform, including consoles. So it begs the following questions:
>
> 1. How will PC gaming stack up to the console market and/or the PC
> market of 2003 in the coming year? Are you truly optimistic for certain
> releases, or do you feel there is some truth to the cries of the decline
> of PC gaming?
>
> 2. If your thoughts on question #1 are negative, how many of you have
> reassessed the use of your Intel/AMD machines knowing that gaming is
> important to you and would you consider shifting platforms based on this
> trend?
>
> 3. Do you plan to buy more console games or PC based games in the next
> year?
>
> 4. How important is your PC to you for gaming as opposed to 1-2 years
> ago? 5 years ago?
>
> Just curious to hear some opinions on the topic. Perhaps it is a shift
> of my own priorities that makes me think these questions, but with a
> glut of posts regarding a fading opinion of the PC gaming market, I
> can't be the only one asking them.
>
>
> Crelox
I recently bought a Gameboy Advance Sp, then a Gamecube to play the
Gameboy games on a larger screen. It turns out that my PC experience is
much more satisfying (I have a recent Falcon Northwest). The number of
games that I liked on the Gameboy/Gamecube is very limited (Advance Wars
was ok for example). This whole experience cost less than a good
videocard so not too painful.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Joe62
<scott_ha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>I agree about the console controllers. They are a poor substitute for
>mouse/keyboard for a FPS.
A few years ago Microsoft came out with this oddball, "twistable
handle" controllers for FPS games. It was kind of like a gamepad, with
one side attached to a trackball dor aiming.
Never caught on on the PC, as it was inferior to the mouse. Might be
worth something on consoles though, probably better than a gamepad for
aiming.
"There should be threads floating in the air, which would merely have to be taken hold of in order to talk. You would walk about the world like a spider in the middle of a web. In 100 years time, I daresay these psychical people will have made all this apparent, now seen only by the eye of genius."
- Virginia Woolf, 1906
Joe62
<ma...@removetokillspam.comcast.net> wrote:
>That being the case, it shows that in many instances, PC programming is just
>sloppy.
Good point. Prince of Persia won't run on the GF4mx graphics card (a
variant of the GF2, but the 4mx is still widely shipped with new
computers). No wonder it's not selling well. They've eliminated half
the market before even hitting the shelves.
FLY135
"Joe62" <jmcgin...@radicalREALLYNOSPAM.ca> wrote in message
news:1kh1uv0t18q89bcgk...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:10:30 GMT, "Jarg"
> <scott_ha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >I agree about the console controllers. They are a poor substitute for
> >mouse/keyboard for a FPS.
>
> A few years ago Microsoft came out with this oddball, "twistable
> handle" controllers for FPS games. It was kind of like a gamepad, with
> one side attached to a trackball dor aiming.
>
> Never caught on on the PC, as it was inferior to the mouse. Might be
> worth something on consoles though, probably better than a gamepad for
> aiming.
Sidewinder Dual Strike. It was funky but innovative.
Dweeb
Michael Cargill
news:161220032333162892%stephed...@mac.com...
> This is because I just cannot become accustomed
> to those damn thumb controllers for first person games. Which are the
> the XBox. Those XBox people must have pretty low standards to have
> their controller input be no better than the early DOOM days when you
> might have controlled everything from the keyboard, i.e., you move or
> turn, but never at the same time. That, and your hands will cramp
> incredibly quickly - this is based on a true-heart test I made at the
> CompUSA the other day.
Sorry, but you are talking out of your arse.
A controller is a perfectly good way to play an FPS provided that the
developers designed the game with it in mind. Halo is an excellent example
of this.
The only reason that you cannot use it is because you haven't got used to
it - it is just as hard for someone to go from using a controller in an FPS
to a mouse/keyboard combo. I am perfectly happy with either system, and can
go from playing three hours of Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory online to
playing Xbox Halo without batting an eyelid.
--
Craftily Guffed by Michael Cargill
----------------------------------
Eat My Cheese!
Go, Dog. Go!
Jarg
(for me) despite the modifications to the Xbox version (accuracy
assistance). I don't see how the gamepad could ever be that close.
Jarg
"Michael Cargill" <mikeme...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:brqimh$6bbev$1...@ID-108275.news.uni-berlin.de...
Art Weingardner
<tomi.h...@kkkkkolumbus.fi> wrote:
>"J Hoppe" <jhoppe...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:CjZDb.13073$J77.421@fed1read07...
>>
>> "Crelox" <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1a49aa264...@news.wideopenwest.com...
>>
>> Well, the way that everyone here is telling me that my PC is going the way
>> of the dodo, methinks we are about to lose a console system due to "over
>> competition."
>>
>> Oddly, consolers need us more than we need them.
>>
>>
>
>I think the real problem lies in the fact that games are now developed with
>consoles in mind. In other words, the quality of pc games is dragged down to
>the level of consoles. This is the real reason why people don't bother to
hey! that is an excellent observation!! :-)
Dick Justice
> I would want to play games on a platform that also allow me to a variety
of
> other things. If the computer manufacturers can be successful in
marketing
> computers as a lifestyle "must-have" in every home just like, hmm, TV,
then
> computer games will have a bright future.
Reminds me of the time back in the mid 90's Gateway was selling their
Destination system with the hope of turning the PC into one of those "must
have" appliances. It failed.
James
controls. In fact, I've played many FPS's on the consoles and hated
the controls on every one of them except for that Bond game on
nintendo 64, the precuser to Perfect Dark, which I never played.
I buy every console and then after a few months end up selling it
because it just gets boring after awhile. I owned 6 playstations, 2
Xbox's, Saturn, 2 PS2's, etc...
Of course, I'm more of a wargamer/RTS type of player..I just hate the
controller for FPS's.
Consoles are the best for Sports games, racing games but the
rest...no.
James Garvin
>
> Crelox <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >But I just read a post regarding "a year in review 2003" or something
> >like that and it made me think. It was a fairly negative take of PC
> >releases this year, and generally I agree.
>
> gaming systems. It is kust a matter of how you interpret the signs: a
> conole game portet to PC is suppostly a sign if impending doom. But a PC
> Game ported to console also is a sign of PC gamings demise. Go figure
> why pc gaming always seems to die...
Can you clarify? I have NO idea what you are trying to say here. Are
you saying that if consoles port to a PC, then a PC is dying?
James Garvin
>
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:51:10 GMT, "Nitz Walsh" <sdd...@dsad.com>
> wrote:
>
> >As for Linux, the desktop scene simply hasn't matured enough for me yet to
> >consider it as my main workstation, and frankly I don't know when it will -
> >it seems to be in perpetual catch-up mode with regards to modern GUI's and
> >applications.
>
> With regards to GUI's, Windows has been playing catch-up with Linux
> for a couple of years.
Huh? KDE and Gnome are just as clunky (if not more) then the current
windows interface. KDE (IMHO) has turned into a bloaty piece of crap
that has all the functionality and soul sucked right out of it. Gnome
isn't far behind...
FVWM FOREVER!
Dan Stephenson
wrote:
> Dan Stephenson wrote:
> >
> > I for one switched to Mac for non-gaming reasons, but have played
> > several games on it. But it's clear that I'm missing out too much on
> > gaming from the PC world so I plan to get a $900 PC gaming appliance
> > next year after Xmas. This is because I just cannot become accustomed
> > to those damn thumb controllers for first person games. Which are the
> > ones I want to play the most. I don't see how it works to play Halo on
> > the XBox. Those XBox people must have pretty low standards to have
> > their controller input be no better than the early DOOM days when you
> > might have controlled everything from the keyboard, i.e., you move or
> > turn, but never at the same time. That, and your hands will cramp
> > incredibly quickly - this is based on a true-heart test I made at the
> > CompUSA the other day. So in the end I figured while $900 was a lot
> > more than a console, the games I like the most are mostly on the PC and
> > look better there too.
>
> Hell you can pick up a decent PC for less then $500 (no including
> monitor)...and if you have the parts a new PC will cost you a mo-bo,
> CPU, and video card.
I was talking about a pre-built one from someplace I heard of. I am
considering self-building, but it's been so long since I was into such
things, I'd probably screw it up.
Dan Stephenson
<OVTDb.70130$NNW1....@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, Nitz
Walsh <sdd...@dsad.com> wrote:
> OSX is nice, but it
> doesn't do that for my needs. Of course I have an iBook from my company so
> I don't really need to 'switch' at the moment regardless. J
I for one switched to Mac because it was Unix, in addition to being Not
Windows. It is a compromise on games + Linux, but with all the iApps.
... but not enough for games, thus the $900 PC gaming appliance!
> As for Linux, the desktop scene simply hasn't matured enough for me yet to
> consider it as my main workstation [...]
Rather, it doesn't have Microsoft Office. GUIs like KDE have long been
more capable than Windows. Heck, OS/2's desktop had features I STILL
don't see anywhere else.
Al West
> peoples opinions.
>
> For a very long time, I have used my computer for both work and gaming.
> For almost as long a time, I would have never given a thought to console
> versions of games if there were a PC equivalent, lending to greater
> processing power, speed, quality of graphics, and some interface issues
> that could not be equaled from a console game controller perspective.
> like that and it made me think. It was a fairly negative take of PC
> releases this year, and generally I agree.
>
I'd buy a console tomorrow if you could play a realistic online team based
first person shooter using a mouse. Until then I'll be sticking with
counterstrike and IGI2 on the PC.
John DiFool
>
>There seems to be a growing opinion that game developers are
>"abandoning" PC platforms for the console market. At the least, they
>are considering cross-platform titles as a way to make more money or
>provide software to a larger market (and thus increase profits). I
>think, with a couple of exceptions, that 2003 was a very up/down year
>for PC titles. Maybe it's just a pause in the cycle waiting for really
>spectacular games to appear every couple of years or so, but I wonder if
>there isn't some truth to game houses shifting their focus to the
>console market.
>
Moddability is the PC's greatest counterargument against the
consoles. It is possible of course for someone to design a
future console which incorporates modding...
And speaking of the past, would we even be having this
conversation if the Amiga had gained ascendancy vs. the
PC back in the early 90's? [Thus giving us a dedicated
gaming computer instead of IBM PC's laboring under ancient
OS code] Or was the Amiga a white elephant in the end run?
John DiFool
BRH
simmers, both hardware (controllers) and software (sims, not arcade) wise,
the PC still reigns supreme.
Art Weingardner
<ckreska...@dodo.com.au> wrote:
>In news:prSdndY9vKL...@comcast.com,
>HockeyTownUSA <ma...@removetokillspam.comcast.net> Quoth The Raven:
>> That being the case, it shows that in many instances, PC programming
>> single piece of video and chipset hardware so don't have to worry so
>> much about compatability, but DirectX helps out with that immensely.
>> Not to mention that fact that if a person has a game on their PC they
>> are mad because they can't run it in 1600x1200 with 60fps. Whereas
>> consoles run at the lowest possible PC resoltion of 640x480 more or
>> less (or 600 scan lines). Try running any PC game at that resolution
>> with 4xAA and 16xAniso on, and it will FLY! Not to mention look good.
>> Of course this is true for mainly action games.
>
>the price of a game graphics card versus the price of a console unit, that
>is what gamers look at today. it is easier for the casual gamer to get a
>console and mod it for copied games, no configuration, drivers or trouble
>shooting required. they know the game will work and wont have bugs. a pc
>gamer has to do all of the above and pay twice as much for a GPU than what
>it costs for a console. I am a hobbyist pc gamers, I like to spend the money
it's not fair to compare a $400 graphic card with a $200 console. the
latest graphic card is far superior to the latest consoles. if you run
at low resolution like the console does you can get a graphic card
that performs better than a console at 2/3's it's price.
-- based on price of a ti4200 at newegg
Slapshot
"Crelox" <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a49aa264...@news.wideopenwest.com...
> Note that I am not trying to start a controversy here, but would like
> peoples opinions.
>
Well, those that say PC gaming is dying, all I can reply with is the list of
games I have been playing as of late:
Rainbow Six 3 (Console version stinks in comparison), Combat Mission BB CMBO
& CMAK, IL-2 Sturmovik: Forgotten Battles, Galactic Civilizations, TOAWII,
Ghost Recon (Ditto from RS:3 Above), Cossacks, Alpha Centauri, Civ III etc.
etc. etc.
I equate it this way, consoles are for gamers that don't like to think too
much, while strategy and sim gaming will always have a foothold in the PC
market.
It's up to your genre of choice, the wife has the Xbox, I have the PC,
wouldn't trade it for the world.
James Garvin
>
> "Crelox" <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1a49aa264...@news.wideopenwest.com...
> > Note that I am not trying to start a controversy here, but would like
> > peoples opinions.
> >
> <SNIP>
>
> Well, those that say PC gaming is dying, all I can reply with is the list of
> games I have been playing as of late:
>
> Rainbow Six 3 (Console version stinks in comparison), Combat Mission BB CMBO
> & CMAK, IL-2 Sturmovik: Forgotten Battles, Galactic Civilizations, TOAWII,
> Ghost Recon (Ditto from RS:3 Above), Cossacks, Alpha Centauri, Civ III etc.
> etc. etc.
How is Rainbow Six 3? On that note, I have really fallen in love with
Civ III...in a bad Civ II kind of way...oh why must it taunt me and
force me to play it until all hours of the night (morning)!!!
Highlandish
Luxor <n...@here.invalid> Quoth The Raven:>> but for my sister I just bought an x-box for her,
>> it cost me AU$500 to get one with the works and mod it.
>
> $500.00?! I can get an Xbox for $230.00 CAD.
>
> 500.00 AUD = 492.863 CAD
>
well it was the "beast" package that included 2 games, 2 controllers and a
DVD remote, it cost $170 to mod it.
--
how straight is a straight line if the world, nay if the universe is
curved in an ever expanding circle?
Take out the CUSSIN to reply to me
Highlandish
James <bimbo...@yahoo.com> Quoth The Raven:
even if you detract from console makers, you are a console makers dream. to
buy the same console twice? even 3 times?
Highlandish
Art Weingardner <ar...@softhome.net> Quoth The Raven:
in Australia the price of a second generation or a budget topline card is
the same as a console box.
Liddle Feesh
> You can get all that in Windows with 3rd party stuff. But my point was
> that X is an emulation of Windows. XP is a true GUI OS.
Na, there's not much conceptual difference.
Have a look at Longhorn. Windows programmed in XML, with all graphical
elements exposed through the API, and everything drawn as vector objects.
--
Liddle Feesh
*fap fap fap fap*
<>< <>< <>< <>< ><>
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><
. ,
.:/
. ,,///;, ,;/
. o:::::::;;///
>::::::::;;\\\
''\\\\\'" ';\
';\
Lynley James
<jmcgin...@radicalREALLYNOSPAM.ca> wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:10:30 GMT, "Jarg"
><scott_ha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>I agree about the console controllers. They are a poor substitute for
>>mouse/keyboard for a FPS.
>
>A few years ago Microsoft came out with this oddball, "twistable
>handle" controllers for FPS games. It was kind of like a gamepad, with
>one side attached to a trackball dor aiming.
>
>Never caught on on the PC, as it was inferior to the mouse. Might be
>worth something on consoles though, probably better than a gamepad for
>aiming.
>
My friend's brother bought one and if you are willing to put in the
practice it can work very well. Much more difficult to learn than
keyboard and mouse, but some people liek a challenge.
Lynley
Lynley James
RS3 is lots of fun, I found the ability to open the doors a fraction
very interesting. Graphically it is leaps and bounds ahead of ROgue
Spear etc. The only downside is the stupid CD-Key authenticationm
which I know pissed off many RS fans.
Lynley
faster_framerates
all games with a joystick at that time, too.
Ironically and simply enough, the mouse and keyboard have no equal in FPS's.
- f_f
"FLY135" <fly_135(@ hot not not)notmail.com> wrote in message
news:xN3Eb.2097$wL6....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Michael Cargill
news:hF5Eb.41178$6s1....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
> I've played Halo on Xbox and on PC and the Mouse/keyboard is much better
> (for me) despite the modifications to the Xbox version (accuracy
> assistance). I don't see how the gamepad could ever be that close.
I never said that the accuracy was that close, I said that there is not a
problem with using a gamepad in an FPs if the game has been designed around
it.
James
play them, get rid of them, a year later feel I'd like to try it
again, etc... I'm an accountant, maybe i'd better start accounting
for my own money!
"Highlandish" <ckreska...@dodo.com.au> wrote in message news:<brs1gr$6f5ke$1...@ID-140307.news.uni-berlin.de>...
joebuck
"James Garvin" <bo...@nmt.edu> wrote in message
news:3FE0F2D8...@nmt.edu...
I think he means that no matter how you look at it some people are going to
say that it's a sign PC gaming is dying. People have been saying this for
years and the industry still seems to be going strong. I've got to admit
that my favorite game this year was probably Rise of Nations. Although I am
generally an action gamer, I thought RON breathed new life into what was a
stagnant genre. For the most part the shooters were the SOS. I've never been
much of an RPG gamer but I think I'm going to give that Star Wars KOTOR a
try just because people have been saying good things about it and there's
not much else out there now. I think I'm like most action gamers out there;
biding my time until HL2 and Doom3 come out. I just finished building a
monster rig just to play these two games on and I'm licking my chops.
joebuck
"Lynley James" <mag...@netactive.co.za> wrote in message
news:hra3uvgbjm1einhcl...@4ax.com...
I'll second that on RS3. I got it in the bargain bin and I've had a blasat
with it. It's just like Rogue Spear but with better graphics and
controlling. Think Unreal 2 engine. RS is still my favorite tactical series
and if you liked Rogue Spear you'll love RS3.
Paul J. Gans
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:31:04 +0200, juha <ju...@invalid.none.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>1. One is the ability to keep a smaller window always on top even if
>>you change focus to a bigger window. With Windows, the bigger window
>>always comes on top even if I don't wish so.
>>
>>2. The other is the different "workspaces", like having several
>>desktops at the same time, each having their separate set of windows
>>and applications open. WindowsXP basically has only one workspace with
>>all the windows.
>>
>>I don't know why Windows still doesn't have the latter, but I presume
>>that at least for the former is that including it would break
>>backwards compatibility with older Windows applications, or something.
>>TweakUI for Win95 used to have something _close_ to 1., but not quite.
>>Some MS programmer explained later that they can't do it like in Unix
>>because "that is not the way Windows was designed". It left me with
>>the impression that it would break backwards compatibility.
>
> You can get all that in Windows with 3rd party stuff. But my point was
> that X is an emulation of Windows. XP is a true GUI OS.
You are quite wrong. X was around long before Windows.
Windows was taken from Apple and Apple took their interface
from a Hewlet-Packard research project that never saw
commercial use.
X is so old that it has transcended obsolescence.
---- Paul J. Gans
Reece Hasson
less
money per game than consoles will so they will get you now or get you later.
You
can upgrade your PC software wise and hardware wise and eventually surpass
any consoles ability to keep up. The new processors arriving next year
together
with the newest video graphics cards will just have to wait for game
developers
to catch up. By the end of 2004 we should hopefully see a new killer game
application
announcement.
Nitz Walsh
"James" <bimbo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d9d906df.03121...@posting.google.com...
> I know. I love games period. I also buy PC games a few times as I
> play them, get rid of them, a year later feel I'd like to try it
> again, etc... I'm an accountant, maybe i'd better start accounting
> for my own money!
I've done the same thing actually - purchased a PS2 twice, and an Xbox -
sold them all, but albeit this was early in their lifespan when the library
was pretty weak. Finally have a Gamecube and have stuck with it, as it
offers game styles that I'd never see on the PC.
Bateau
." ". Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:55:42 -0000
| . ` ` | in
\( )/ comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
\)__. _._(/ Liddle Feesh
// >..< \\ spoke
|__.' vv '.__/ 26
l'''"''l lines
\_ _/ to
_ )--( _ the
| '--.__)--(_.--' | great
\ |`----''----'| / undead
|| `-' '--' || skeleton
|| `--' '--' || god
|l `--'--'--' |l of
|__|`--' `--'|__| giant
| | )-( | | ascii
|| )-( \|| who
|| __ )_( __ \\ replied...
||' `- -' \ \\
||\_ `-' _/ |_\
/_\ _)J-._.-L( /`-\
|`- I_)O /\ O( `--l\\\|
||||( `-' `-') .-' |||
\\\ \ / / ///
\ \ / /
\ \ / /
/ \ / \
|_()I()._|
\ /\ /
| / \ |
| | \ \
| | \ \
| | \ \
| |-nabis\ \_
| | /-._\
|.-.\ //.-._)
\\\\ ///
\\\\-'''
``''
>--
>
>Liddle Feesh
>*fap fap fap fap*
><>< <>< <>< <>< ><>
> <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><
> . ,
> .:/
> . ,,///;, ,;/
> . o:::::::;;///
> >::::::::;;\\\
> ''\\\\\'" ';\
> ';\
>
FAP FAP FAP is masturbation sound right?
--
.-'`-.
/ | | \
/ | | \
|___|_|__ |
||<o>| <o>`|
|| J_ )|
`|`-'__`-'|/
| `--' |
.-| |_
.-' \ / | |`-.
.-' `. /| | \
/ ````' | | \
|_____ | | L
.-' ___ `-. F F | | ||`-.___
.'.-' | `-. `. J J / | || _.>
/ /| | |`. \ | | |/ | ||_.-'
/ / | | | `. `. F F | |==============================
J / | | | \ L J J | | `:::::::. `:::::::.
FJ | | | |L J/ / | \ :::::::. :::::::\
J |() | () | () | () | J L/ | | ::::::: :::::::L
| F | .-'_ \ | | LJ | / L :::::::: :::::::J
| L | / \\ | | | L | | :::::::: ::::::::L
| L || ):|| | | | /| L :::::::: ::::::::|
J | ||:._.'::|| | | |----' | | :::::::: ::::::::| .---.
J | |J:::::::|| | | | _/\ | :::::::: ::::::::| /(@ o`.
LJ | \:::::/ | | | |---'\ | | :::::::: ::::::::| | /^^^
J L | `-:-' | | | F | \ | J :::::::: ::::::::| \ . \vvv
LJ()| () | () | () | F F | \ \--._L :::::::: ::::::::| \ `--'
J \ | | | | J J \ | | :::::::: ::::::::| \ `.
\ \| | | | / / | | | :::::::: ::::::::| L \
\ \ | | |/ /| | | .-'| :::::::: ::::::::| | \
`.`. | | .'.' | | |/ /`L :::::::: ::::::::| | L
| `.`-.____|.-'.-' | | | <`. \ :::::::: ::::::::| | |
| | `-.______.-' | \| |_`::\ `. :::::::: ::::::::| F |
| J\ | | | | /: \::. \:::::::: ::::::::F / |
| L\|--| | _.--|:: `::\ `.:::::: .:::::::J / F
J J |\\|-.____ |__.-' |: \::. \:::: ::::::::F .' J
L \| >|| `--' J |' .`::\ `.:' .::::::::/ .' F
J |//JJ | L |---. .--\::. \---. .---. <---< J
L |< |J |\=/| ( _ \=/ _ `::\ `. \=/ _ \=/ _ \ /
J |\\|J | | / )_) | (_) \::. \ | (_) | (_) | /
\ |--|J |//\\ / //\ //`::\ `./\ //\ / .'
\| |L ` )/ )` `' '|`---// `---// `\::. \ `---// `---' .'
VK________| L_\ ' /___/ ' | |___//______//_____`::\ |___//_________.'_________
F F J`` -'| | | | | \:_|
`-' | "" | J ` |
| | L | |\ |\ /| /| |\ /|
| | \ | | \ | \ // // | \ || |\
J | `. | ||\\ ||\\ // // ||\\ || ||
L F )`---\ || >> || \\ / | << || \\ || ||
| J / `. ||// || || //|| \\ || || || ||
J J ( `-. |// | \ || |/ || \\ | \ || || ||
`-.__/ `---. `. |<< ||\\|| || >> ||\\|| || ||
| J `. ) ||\\ || \ | || // || \ | || ||
/ | `-----' || >> || || || // || || \\ ||
/ F ||// || || || << || || \\||
J J | / |/ || |/ \\ |/ || \ |
J | |/ \| \| \| \|
`-.-' K I N G O F T H E M O N S T E R S
Darin Johnson
> Not Hewlett-Packard, I think it was Xerox actually?
Xerox PARC, who had some really cool stuff.
> But otherwise a
> good point, I don't know what people are thinking claiming X is
> copying Windows GUI.
And X was relatively late in the GUI game. It's primary goal was
portability, which earlier systems didn't have. Microsoft was
nearly the last player to get involved, and wasn't even the first
for the PC.
--
Darin Johnson
Luxury! In MY day, we had to make do with 5 bytes of swap...
Paul J. Gans
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 03:12:19 GMT, "Paul J. Gans"
> <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote:
>
>>You are quite wrong. X was around long before Windows.
>>Windows was taken from Apple and Apple took their interface
>>from a Hewlet-Packard research project that never saw
>>commercial use.
>
> good point, I don't know what people are thinking claiming X is
> copying Windows GUI.
Sorry. Brain glitch. You are quite right. It was Xerox.
As a result of being old X is fairly slow as things go today.
Many unix-derived systems now have frame-buffer software that
allows direct access (or almost direct access) to the video
card. That can speed things up marvelously.
---- Paul J. Gans
Jay Williams
called Air Combat or some-such. It's a gas to play, but those itty-bitty
thumb controllers make it a pain. I'm constantly over controlling. I'd
enjoy it much more with a joystick and rudder pedals.
For serious simming, I think it will always be a PC
"Dan Stephenson" <stephed...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:161220032333162892%stephed...@mac.com...
> I for one switched to Mac for non-gaming reasons, but have played
> several games on it. But it's clear that I'm missing out too much on
> gaming from the PC world so I plan to get a $900 PC gaming appliance
> next year after Xmas. This is because I just cannot become accustomed
> to those damn thumb controllers for first person games. Which are the
> ones I want to play the most. I don't see how it works to play Halo on
> the XBox. Those XBox people must have pretty low standards to have
> their controller input be no better than the early DOOM days when you
> might have controlled everything from the keyboard, i.e., you move or
> turn, but never at the same time. That, and your hands will cramp
> incredibly quickly - this is based on a true-heart test I made at the
> CompUSA the other day. So in the end I figured while $900 was a lot
> more than a console, the games I like the most are mostly on the PC and
> look better there too.
>
Michael Vondung
>I don't know what people are thinking claiming X is
>copying Windows GUI.
I didn't make that claim. I was talking about popular desktop
environments like Gnome and especially KDE. X itself offers extremely
little in the way of a GUI. In fact, without a Window Manager or a
desktop environment system it is barely usable. It "just" provides the
foundation for a "real" GUI. Even though I greatly enjoy KDE, it seems
fairly obvious that it tries to mimic Windows.
As for the age of X, Project Athena at MIT was founded in 1984 and X11
was released in, I believe, 1988. Already in 1985 the Atari ST series
shipped with GEM. Atari's version of GEM (not the crippled version
that was later available for IBM compatibles) was light years ahead of
Windows 3.x, and would even today be better than some of the WMs
available for X.
M.
Nitz Walsh
"Bateau" <Gam...@work.stomping.aza> wrote in message
news:v8h6uvcqvl1u4j98u...@4ax.com...
> FAP FAP FAP is masturbation sound right?
You of all people shouldn't have to ask.
James Garvin
>
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 03:12:19 GMT, "Paul J. Gans"
> <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote:
>
> >Windows was taken from Apple and Apple took their interface
> >from a Hewlet-Packard research project that never saw
> >commercial use.
>
> copying Windows GUI.
FVWM 95 copies windows ;-)
James Garvin
>
> t t <t...@invalid.invalid.com> writes:
>
> > Not Hewlett-Packard, I think it was Xerox actually?
>
> Xerox PARC, who had some really cool stuff.
>
> > But otherwise a
> > good point, I don't know what people are thinking claiming X is
> > copying Windows GUI.
>
> And X was relatively late in the GUI game. It's primary goal was
> portability, which earlier systems didn't have. Microsoft was
> nearly the last player to get involved, and wasn't even the first
> for the PC.
The Atari had a good GUI and well as the Tandy computers (Deskview or
something like that)
James Garvin
>
> I didn't make that claim. I was talking about popular desktop
> environments like Gnome and especially KDE. X itself offers extremely
> little in the way of a GUI. In fact, without a Window Manager or a
> desktop environment system it is barely usable. It "just" provides the
> foundation for a "real" GUI. Even though I greatly enjoy KDE, it seems
> fairly obvious that it tries to mimic Windows.
KDE is far too bloaty though...So is Gnome...
> As for the age of X, Project Athena at MIT was founded in 1984 and X11
> was released in, I believe, 1988. Already in 1985 the Atari ST series
> shipped with GEM. Atari's version of GEM (not the crippled version
> that was later available for IBM compatibles) was light years ahead of
> Windows 3.x, and would even today be better than some of the WMs
> available for X.
'tis true. X really needs to take some ideas from Apple and MS. The
biggest problem with X are the damn fonts...(*nix in general)
Darin Johnson
> As a result of being old X is fairly slow as things go today.
The slowness is not due to being old, but because of explicitly
wanting the capability of operating over a network link. Today though
there is more experience in knowing what needs to be fast (no need to
optimize drawing arcs) and there's a lot of hardware support.
--
Darin Johnson
I'm not a well adjusted person, but I play one on the net.
Ajay Tanwar
to threaten somebody was to light a stick of dynamite, then call the
guy and hold the burning fuse up to the phone and say:
> Yeah, I've got a great little PS2 game, not a sim mind you, but a
> game, called Air Combat or some-such. It's a gas to play, but
> those itty-bitty thumb controllers make it a pain. I'm constantly
> over controlling. I'd enjoy it much more with a joystick and
> rudder pedals. For serious simming, I think it will always be a PC
Well, Capcom did release a mech sim, Steel Battalion with a full on
HOTAS setup for $200 and it sold out. It's not inconceivable that
someone may release a hardcore flight sim that comes with a custom
HOTAS controller.
--
Ajay Tanwar | MCSE | ajta...@spam.yahoo.com
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people
in large groups." -Despair.com
Bateau
." ". Sat, 20 Dec 2003 05:07:21 GMT
| . ` ` | in
\( )/ comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
// >..< \\ spoke
|__.' vv '.__/ 19
>"Jay Williams" <Voodoo141@spamcrap_cox.net> thought that a good way
>to threaten somebody was to light a stick of dynamite, then call the
>guy and hold the burning fuse up to the phone and say:
>
>> Yeah, I've got a great little PS2 game, not a sim mind you, but a
>> game, called Air Combat or some-such. It's a gas to play, but
>> those itty-bitty thumb controllers make it a pain. I'm constantly
>> over controlling. I'd enjoy it much more with a joystick and
>> rudder pedals. For serious simming, I think it will always be a PC
>
>Well, Capcom did release a mech sim, Steel Battalion with a full on
>HOTAS setup for $200 and it sold out. It's not inconceivable that
>someone may release a hardcore flight sim that comes with a custom
>HOTAS controller.
Air Combat is significantly less realistic than Chuck Yeager's Air
Combat. It's more like Terminal Velocity.
Ajay Tanwar
threaten somebody was to light a stick of dynamite, then call the
guy and hold the burning fuse up to the phone and say:
>>Well, Capcom did release a mech sim, Steel Battalion with a full
>>on HOTAS setup for $200 and it sold out. It's not inconceivable
>>that someone may release a hardcore flight sim that comes with a
>>custom HOTAS controller.
>
> Air Combat is significantly less realistic than Chuck Yeager's Air
> Combat. It's more like Terminal Velocity.
True, from playing the arcade versions it's more restrictive than
that, but the possiblity of a Falcon 4 colibur game on the console
is not out of the question.
Gary Owens
"Bip" <b...@boo.net> wrote in message
news:qhu4uv85d07vf9cqq...@4ax.com...
> "joebuck" <joeb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >I think he means that no matter how you look at it some people are going
to
> >say that it's a sign PC gaming is dying. People have been saying this for
> >years and the industry still seems to be going strong. I've got to admit
>
over
> time. If you look at your speedometer and see 20 mph, then you may think
> that that's slow. But if it had increased from 0 to 20 in, say, 5
seconds,
> and that's pretty damn fast. And the upshot of the "porting" trend is
that
> there isn't any indication it will reverse itself, but will progressively
> tilt to favor the game-specific platforms (consoles).
>
> Peeps haven't been saying this for years. It's only with the coming of
the
> PS/2 and later the XBox that consoles have enough power to have games of
> such like as on the PC. I could include the Cube in here as well, but
> Nintendo is restricted by its philosophy of catering mainly to a younger
> audience (and thereby having its lunch et by the XBox). That would change
> by the next generation, as I'm sure the big N isn't planning to give up
the
> biz. So, OK, for the last couple of years, then.
>
> What we're facing now is a transitional phase, and the next major step
will
> be when the next gen of consoles are introduced. At this point, it looks
> like 2005 or at latest 2006.
>
> >that my favorite game this year was probably Rise of Nations. Although I
am
> >generally an action gamer, I thought RON breathed new life into what was
a
> >stagnant genre. For the most part the shooters were the SOS. I've never
been
>
go
> to where they can sell the most games. For a large part, the circle-jerk
> generates its own inertia, but there are external forces that help nudge
> this along. The increasing complexity and cost (and expectation) of games
> is certainly one. Every PC game coming out nowaday has required patches,
> which means added cost for the pubs and frustration for the end-user.
> Piracy will be less rampant with a console, where pubs have end-to-end
DRM.
> And the biggie reason is that consoles are easier to use, which allows a
> much larger audience than the PC crowd.
>
> There are other benefits, too. One limitation that PC gamers all face is
> the inadequacy of input devices. The keyboard may allow for more
> complexity of input, but its layout is awkward for anything other than
> straight typing (and that only because we're used to it). There've been
> input devs that are more ergonomically efficient, but they never catch on,
> because they can't attain critical mass to gain software support. That's
> the advantage of a proprietary platform, as the controlling vendor can
> enforce the adoption of whatever device that best suits their needs. With
> a standardized dev, ISVs can then support such devices w/o fear of
> marginalizing some portion of their audience. Wouldn't you like to have a
> more optimal keyboard layout specifically designed for gaming? And have
> every game supporting it? Well, it won't happen on the PC, but the
> likelihood is good for a next-gen console.
>
> Peeps make other static arguments, such as that consoles have no strategy
> games, no "real" RPGs or FPS'es, no MMOGs, etc etc. The qualifier they
> fail to include is "for now." We're still in the early stages. My
> guesstimate, as above, is that wholesale transition won't start until the
> next gen of consoles. PC games will always be around in some capacity.
> Heck, there are still peeps playing board games and miniatures. But it's
> not rocket science to understand that the mainstream will go console.
>
> Another argument I've seen some make is that it's better to have an
> all-in-one device to handle every need. Since most everyone has a
> computer, then the logic is that it is the natural choice for everything.
> This argument fails, as all-in-ones are by nature jack of all trades and
> master of none, and are perforce mediocre for every use, as indicated by
> the hassles in using a PC for games.
>
> There are three main categories of uses for a computer-type device:
> information, communication, and entertainment. Each has its own subcats;
> for entertainment, we can break it down to two subcats: AV (music & video)
> and interactive (games). The PC at this juncture is still the preferred
> platform for the first two cats and the AV subcat of entertainment. The
> real console-vs-PC battle isn't over games, which is already decided for
> the consoles, but over the AV subcategory. PCs are still much too complex
> and are physically unsuitable in a living room setting, whereas a console
> is in the living room, but have little AV capability. The fight is
already
> shaping over this battleground, with Sony's intro of the PSX (a flop),
> Microsoft's intro of the Win XP Media Edition, and various incarnations of
> smaller form-factor PCs.
>
> >much of an RPG gamer but I think I'm going to give that Star Wars KOTOR a
> >try just because people have been saying good things about it and there's
> >not much else out there now. I think I'm like most action gamers out
there;
> >biding my time until HL2 and Doom3 come out. I just finished building a
> >monster rig just to play these two games on and I'm licking my chops.
>
count
> on a couple of shooters for the salvation of a platform. Doom3 will have
a
> console port. For every one of you playing Doom3 on your monster rig PC,
> there'll be 10 console gamers playing Doom3 on their $200 console. Which
> do you think pubs will pay more attention to, your $50 or the others'
$500?
You make a lot of great points but are missing something. Like you said, the
consoles are themselves slowly turning into a PC. Don't you think they will
start getting more complicated when they are a used as a tivo, to check
email, surf the internet, run your entertainment center, play games, etc.?
PC's are and will keep getting better as the lines are drawn as to the
standardization of parts so the parts will work with each other more so the
software companies won't have to put out patches for hardware issues near as
often. Don't you think PC hardware manufacturers see what's going on? I
think they definately won't go down(I dounbt it) without a hell of a fight
at least. As for software patches that aren't for hardware problems, they
are strictly the software companies being lazy or wanting to get the game
out as fast as possible so they can start making money on it. So that's not
just because of computer issues. It's more because the companies are greedy
and they know they can catch up with the problems later when the games out.
PC owners know this and expect it to some point. This will get much better
as consoles start infringing on the PC market as internet devises, etc.
There is also the fact that game do look and play MUCH better on a PC just
for the fact of a high frame rate there is no slow down what so ever. As for
the argument PCs are "complicated devises" is absurd. Maybe a 6 year old
would think so but almost everyone on the planet that can afford a PC at
least knows how to use it for the internet and games. Even when it comes to
downloading and patching games. I think most people in there mid 20's to
50's are fairly proficient with computers and most don't mind patching games
and such. Don't forget patches don't only fix a game they also add more
missions, campaingns, etc. to them. You can't do that on the console. You
can also download a demo of a game to see if you like it before you lay all
that money down on a junk game and are stuck with it. You can also remap
EVERY key or function in a PC game so you can make just about every game
have the same controls. That in itself makes a keyboard much easier to use
with a mouse for games. I still prefer a keyboard/mouse over any controller
on any console for most games I tend to play. I do have an Xbox, PS2 and a
Cube by the way so I'm not biased towards a PC because I don't own a
console. I play action games, fps, sports, flight sims, war sims and rts
games and for all except sports and some action games the PC is by FAR
better than the console for playing them.
>It's only with the coming of the PS/2 and later the XBox that consoles have
enough power to have games of such like as on the PC.
The NES was better at playing games than any mid 80's computer was back
then. It wasn't until the 90's that the PC out stripped the consoles at
games. With the latest consoles out now the computer is still ahead. It will
be ahead unless they start pumping up the consoles power more and they won't
do it as much as a computer until prices go down much more so they can keep
the console prices down. Consoles like the Xbox are pretty powerfull but
they are still played on a TV so they won't have better graphics until
everyone has a HDTV and that won't be for a very long time.
>Wouldn't you like to have a more optimal keyboard layout specifically
designed >for gaming? And have every game supporting it? Well, it won't
happen on the >PC, but the likelihood is good for a next-gen console.
I doubt very seriously it will ever happen on a console either. Mainly
because, as you said, consoles are going the way of the PC by being the main
family computer/gaming console(at least that's what the manufacturers are
aiming for) so they aren't going to make a specialized keyboard that no one
will be able to type on. See, it goes both ways here. Other than parts
standardization the consoles will end up being more like a PC as time goes
on. So they will eventually have to give and take on gaming performance
because it will also have to surf the internet and be a multimedia device,
etc. so they will have to keep the price down somehow so things will start
becoming mediocre like you say a PC is(NOT).
That's it. That's my .02. Besides, my fingers are tired :)
Gary
Gary Owens
"Paul J. Gans" <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:n0uEb.69$Nq.2...@typhoon.nyu.edu...
Windows was out before Apples Mac OS. It wasn't very popular back then but
it was out. Windows was out before Win3.0 you know. The Mac didn't come out
until the mid 80's. Back in the late 70's early 80's there where several
companies that were developing and selling windows like programs. I'm not
sure but I THINK microsoft was working with IBM on the OS/2 operating
system( which was windows like) and Microsoft got pissed or something and
split with IBM and came out with Windows 1.0 and played some hardball so
they ended up gaining more market share than IBM could with the OS/2(that's
why you probably haven't heard of it before) and kept upgrading it until
they had Win 3.1 which was a decent operating system but still just a Dos
shell. That was so untill after Win95.
I hope this helps people understand where Windows came from at least. I
don't know much about X so I will stay away from that can of worms :)
Gary
Jeffery S. Jones
wrote:
I have to correct your history -- the Mac was released in 1984, and
Apple's predecessor for that, the Lisa, in 1981. Windows was
absolutely derivative of those machines, which in turn garnered a lot
from the Xerox Palo Alto Research Project (PARC). Xerox itself did
make machines, but its wonderful graphical and mouse interface things
made no headway in the market.
OS/2 was way later, and it was designed to take Microsoft out of
the picture, doing something which MS's own OS's couldn't do.
http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa080499.htm
A lot of people don't remember history because they weren't there.
Apple's Lisa got a lot of buzz. A meg of ram, a hard drive, and a
totally graphical -- non-text -- display. Plus a mouse, something PCs
just did *not* have. People with loads of cash bought them like
hotcakes. They weren't quite ready for prime time -- not enough
software development yet, and Apple was trying to do it mostly in
house -- but it clearly showed that a lot of people would go after a
computer which looked cool.
The fact that it blew away the IBM PC in processing power was just a
bonus. Windows didn't really get very effective until version 3; all
prior versions were usually just task switchers, not true
multitaskers, due to a combined limitation of the underlying DOS and
memory constraints.
UNIX, OTOH, was out on PCs in some form since they started.
>I hope this helps people understand where Windows came from at least. I
>don't know much about X so I will stay away from that can of worms :)
Windows really just borrowed stuff, and it took a long while to get
it to a form which was actually effective (Win95). By effective, I
mean easy enough to use for the masses and having enough functional
multitasking to stand alone, without compromising CPU power.
--
*-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/>
*Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/>
Gary Owens
"Jeffery S. Jones" <jef...@execpc.com> wrote in message
news:q9rduv0a0g5u9ooo0...@4ax.com...
I'm sorry about that. It seems what I read about all this years ago was
mostly wrong and then I forgot some of it too : ) I'm glad you set me right
before someone acually got the idea I knew what I was talking about. I sure
did forget all about the Lisa. I'm sure I read that IBM and Microsoft were
working together on a Windows operating system until they split up on bad
terms. That was probably wrong too. I wish I knew where I read that crap
from. It wasn't on the net though since I got that in the late 90's. I in my
30's so I was around when most of this stuff was going on although I was in
my teens I was reading about and programming computers back in the early
80's on a Texas Instruments TI99/4A(Basic!) and reading Compute! and
Computing(I think) magazines. I've always been a huge book worm and have
been adicted to magazines since I was 7 when I started reading Hot Rod
magazine.
Anyway, sorry for being SO wrong and I am glad to be set right. There's
nothing worse than giving(or taking) the wrong advice or information.
Gary
Jeffery S. Jones
wrote:
>I'm sorry about that. It seems what I read about all this years ago was
>mostly wrong and then I forgot some of it too : ) I'm glad you set me right
>before someone acually got the idea I knew what I was talking about. I sure
>did forget all about the Lisa. I'm sure I read that IBM and Microsoft were
>working together on a Windows operating system until they split up on bad
>terms. That was probably wrong too. I wish I knew where I read that crap
>from. It wasn't on the net though since I got that in the late 90's. I in my
>30's so I was around when most of this stuff was going on although I was in
>my teens I was reading about and programming computers back in the early
>80's on a Texas Instruments TI99/4A(Basic!) and reading Compute! and
>Computing(I think) magazines. I've always been a huge book worm and have
>been adicted to magazines since I was 7 when I started reading Hot Rod
>magazine.
It is hard to remember it all -- even if you were there ;-)
IBM and Microsoft did cooperate, as did Digital Research (the
company which *really* deserves the credit for making MS-DOS, even
though Bill Gates ripped them off). It was a nice idea, get all the
best developers together and make a true next-generation OS for PCs.
But each company had its own idea of what was best, and IBM was
still deep into the idea of regaining control of the marketplace.
Remember the PS/2 product line? We've got some of them at work,
because IBM was good at selling packages.
It all comes down to politics and money -- who is going to be in
charge. Downside -- Windows didn't get to catch up well with what OS2
was doing, because it wasn't aimed as a true total replacement for DOS
until much later.
>Anyway, sorry for being SO wrong and I am glad to be set right. There's
>nothing worse than giving(or taking) the wrong advice or information.
No problem. Everyone can make mistakes.
One thing about the Mac -- the 1984 ad campaign -- related to
Orwell's book -- is a classic, makes it hard to forget when that
machine was introduced. All the IBM-using "slaves" were freed by the
new, bright, free-thinking Macintosh. Anyone who didn't love the IBM
DOS environment was instantly drawn in, and IBM and Microsoft *had* to
accelerate their plan (which they wouldn't quite do, and Windows
didn't take off, as I said, until they were a couple versions down the
road -- version 3 remained in use almost a decade).
Gary Owens
Yeah, I remember that commercial. Didn't it only run during the Super Bowl
that year? I know I only saw it once and man it was the coolest commercial I
ever saw. No way you could forget that one!
Jeffery S. Jones
wrote:
>Yeah, I remember that commercial. Didn't it only run during the Super Bowl
>that year? I know I only saw it once and man it was the coolest commercial I
>ever saw. No way you could forget that one!
I don't remember if they ran it much more than that, but putting a
big computer add in the Super Bowl was a new thing too. It was cool.
It did make the Mac market spring up fast, coupled with everything
else Apple did to ensure that there would be users of their new
platform.
Not that it affects gaming so much now, but then, it made a
difference.
Which comes back to the point in the topic -- consoles have been
around as long as PCs, and people have often predicted that one would
kill the game market for the other. I just don't see that happening
-- PC users are legion, and will always want games for their machines.
Consoles are getting flashier -- net games on consoles are cool -- but
not everyone has one (and definitely not all three big ones), and some
games are simply easiest to implement on the PC rather than console.
One issue which will come up soon, though, is distribution methods.
Console games on DVD allow more media info -- sound and video mostly
-- without requiring a pile of CDs in order to deliver it. PCs will
catch up on that -- most machines now have DVD drives -- but it
definitely gives the consoles an edge when it is exploited. But not
all games really benefit much -- the game engine itself, usually 3D,
can't make that much use of it. It does make for great soundtracks
though.
Online distribution, OTOH, is kind of a toss-up, but PCs have bigger
hard drives and easier expansion, so far. I figure that both sorts
will get much more online gaming, as more people go broadband and the
community expands and improves.
--
*-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
bea...@dogs-like-spam.com
> Windows was out before Apples Mac OS.
This statement is misleading. Two words: Apple Lisa.
sam
console gaming fanatic second. They are going to merge. Thats what's going
to happen plain and simple. Anyone notice how much consoles are becoming
more like pc's? Hell the XBOX is basically a pc. You can buy a keyboard and
modem for the PS2 and theres a hard drive coming out this year. There's the
answer but until the games on consoles are as nice looking as a pc and the
games are as easily controlled I'll stick to my pc as my main gaming system.
For those of you who didn't see that many great games this year for the pc,
you are not true pc gamers. Just laying about my desk I see instruction
guides, cd's or boxes for... Empires:Dawn of the Modern World, Tron 2.0,
Call of Duty, Armed and Dangerous, Star Wars Knights of the Republic,
Battlefield Secret weapons, Age of Mtyhology Titans, Rise of Nations,
Morrowind and expansions, Spintercell. I have 2 huge binders chocked full
of pc games I'll probably never be able to finish in my life time but Im
going to do my best trying ;-).
"Crelox" <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a49aa264...@news.wideopenwest.com...
> Note that I am not trying to start a controversy here, but would like
> peoples opinions.
>
> For a very long time, I have used my computer for both work and gaming.
> For almost as long a time, I would have never given a thought to console
> versions of games if there were a PC equivalent, lending to greater
> processing power, speed, quality of graphics, and some interface issues
> that could not be equaled from a console game controller perspective.
> But I just read a post regarding "a year in review 2003" or something
> like that and it made me think. It was a fairly negative take of PC
> releases this year, and generally I agree.
>
> There seems to be a growing opinion that game developers are
> "abandoning" PC platforms for the console market. At the least, they
> are considering cross-platform titles as a way to make more money or
> provide software to a larger market (and thus increase profits). I
> think, with a couple of exceptions, that 2003 was a very up/down year
> for PC titles. Maybe it's just a pause in the cycle waiting for really
> spectacular games to appear every couple of years or so, but I wonder if
> there isn't some truth to game houses shifting their focus to the
> console market.
>
> Meanwhile, as I mentioned, I use my computer (a wintel machine) for work
> also. I have delved into Linux, and have a old powerbook I use a a
> laptop. For work reasons, these (linux and OSX) are a great platform
> for me to work on, allow me to be even more productive, and are very
> stable intriguing platforms. Yet I keep my x86 platform for other
> reasons, not the least of which is gaming. But where is the future
> going? I am now considering a near total conversion for daily tasks to
> Linux or Mac, a decision I have fought against simply on the basis of
> gaming potential. I have no doubt that excellent games will be produced
> for the PC market in the coming year, with no true equivalent on any
> other platform, including consoles. So it begs the following questions:
>
> 1. How will PC gaming stack up to the console market and/or the PC
> market of 2003 in the coming year? Are you truly optimistic for certain
> releases, or do you feel there is some truth to the cries of the decline
> of PC gaming?
>
> 2. If your thoughts on question #1 are negative, how many of you have
> reassessed the use of your Intel/AMD machines knowing that gaming is
> important to you and would you consider shifting platforms based on this
> trend?
>
> 3. Do you plan to buy more console games or PC based games in the next
> year?
>
> 4. How important is your PC to you for gaming as opposed to 1-2 years
> ago? 5 years ago?
>
> Just curious to hear some opinions on the topic. Perhaps it is a shift
> of my own priorities that makes me think these questions, but with a
> glut of posts regarding a fading opinion of the PC gaming market, I
> can't be the only one asking them.
>
>
> Crelox
Rob Pollard
converge. My biggest worry is that you have a certain Seattle based company
pushing their current console (and presumably the next version when it comes
out) whilst still owning the PC OS market. This will give them major
leverage to make the next OS more console friendly instead of PC friendly.
For example it might dumb down your current PC to console levels. There are
all ready rumours circulating that games designed for the new OS will
autoinstall themselves to a location of their choice with no feedback from
the user.It could be, that this company wants to eventually create a console
machine that will eventually be a PC, but uses propriety technology to
themselves, so that they will end up cornering both the hardware and
software markets....
Also I have had a number of release dates and PC titles being dumbed down
this year, thanks to a helping hand from you-know-who. These chaps have so
much spare cash, they can literally influence and in some cases buy off
entire 'independent' software houses.
--
Regards
Rob Pollard
My Astro CCD page is:
http://www.robapol.demon.co.uk
Lynley James
<roberta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I think there will always be consoles and PC's but I think they will
>converge. My biggest worry is that you have a certain Seattle based company
>pushing their current console (and presumably the next version when it comes
>out) whilst still owning the PC OS market. This will give them major
>leverage to make the next OS more console friendly instead of PC friendly.
>
>For example it might dumb down your current PC to console levels. There are
>all ready rumours circulating that games designed for the new OS will
>autoinstall themselves to a location of their choice with no feedback from
>the user.It could be, that this company wants to eventually create a console
>machine that will eventually be a PC, but uses propriety technology to
>themselves, so that they will end up cornering both the hardware and
>software markets....
>
The idea that MS want to have a standardised PC isn't all that new.
The XBox is that, given that the technology it is based upon is PC
technology and not custom made chips as per the other consoles. That
in itself is just MS repackaging their Net PC idea from about ten
years ago.
Lynley
Lynley James
wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 12:39:29 +0200, Lynley James
><mag...@netactive.co.za> wrote:
>
>>The idea that MS want to have a standardised PC isn't all that new.
>>The XBox is that, given that the technology it is based upon is PC
>>technology and not custom made chips as per the other consoles. That
>
>But
>
>a) MS didn't release a keyboard nor a mouse for XBox
>
>b) XBox 2 is rumored to have a non-x86 compatible CPU by IBM, not a
>"PC-CPU" by either Intel or AMD (or Cyrix for that matter)
>
>These two things suggest MS is not trying to make the XBox the
>standardized home PC, at least not for now.
Maybe not now, but in the past MS' startegy was to get into people's
homes via a standardised setup. The XBox was just a tweaked version
of that. Who knows why they may be moving away from that, it is
possible that the profits from the total XBox package are far greater
than a Net PC' one would be. They also possibly abandoned that
strategy because of increasing government and consumer pressure.
Lynley
Bryan J. Maloney
thusnews:5ljluvoifud7p7muj...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 12:39:29 +0200, Lynley James
> <mag...@netactive.co.za> wrote:
>
>>The idea that MS want to have a standardised PC isn't all that new.
>>The XBox is that, given that the technology it is based upon is PC
>>technology and not custom made chips as per the other consoles. That
>
> But
>
> a) MS didn't release a keyboard nor a mouse for XBox
>
> b) XBox 2 is rumored to have a non-x86 compatible CPU by IBM, not a
> "PC-CPU" by either Intel or AMD (or Cyrix for that matter)
>
> These two things suggest MS is not trying to make the XBox the
> standardized home PC, at least not for now.
>
Why not? From the point of view of the scheissmeistern, the best possible
thing they could do would be to screw over intel and make their
standardized PC utterly incompatible with all previous hardware and
software. Then, everybody has to come to them.
James Garvin
>
> a) MS didn't release a keyboard nor a mouse for XBox
Meh...The more then likely will for XBox 2
> b) XBox 2 is rumored to have a non-x86 compatible CPU by IBM, not a
> "PC-CPU" by either Intel or AMD (or Cyrix for that matter)
That seems strange and something that I would believe until I see it for
sure. The cost for manufacturing and developing for a non-x86 platform
must be insane!
> These two things suggest MS is not trying to make the XBox the
> standardized home PC, at least not for now.
I agree....
Andrew
>That seems strange and something that I would believe until I see it for
>sure. The cost for manufacturing and developing for a non-x86 platform
>must be insane!
>
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/33741.html
--
Andrew. To email unscramble n...@gurjevgrzrboivbhf.pbz & remove spamtrap.
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text.
Check groups.google.com before asking a question.
James Garvin
>
> On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 17:14:33 -0700, James Garvin <bo...@nmt.edu> wrote:
>
> >That seems strange and something that I would believe until I see it for
> >sure. The cost for manufacturing and developing for a non-x86 platform
> >must be insane!
> >
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/33741.html
I doubt MS would shoot themselves in the foot like this! Plus, they
would have to write an OS for XBox 2, all the drivers would have to be
hand made, AND the games wouldn't be portable to the PC very easily.
Andrew
>I doubt MS would shoot themselves in the foot like this! Plus, they
>would have to write an OS for XBox 2, all the drivers would have to be
>hand made, AND the games wouldn't be portable to the PC very easily.
OS'es and applications aren't written in machine code these days, you
can recompile to run on any platform, and only the low level drivers
need to be optimised for the achitecture.
Lynley James
As for games not being easy to port, AFAIK only Halo and KoTOR were
ported to the PC. Everything else has stayed on the consoles.
Lynley
James Garvin
>
> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 11:36:09 -0700, James Garvin <bo...@nmt.edu> wrote:
>
> >I doubt MS would shoot themselves in the foot like this! Plus, they
> >would have to write an OS for XBox 2, all the drivers would have to be
> >hand made, AND the games wouldn't be portable to the PC very easily.
>
> OS'es and applications aren't written in machine code these days, you
> can recompile to run on any platform, and only the low level drivers
> need to be optimised for the achitecture.
True, but you are wrong. The efficiency of the XBox will need better
then just recompiling to run on a different platform. Not to mention
that the drivers for this new OS that MS will HAVE to develop to make
the XBox efficient (memory management, threading, whatever) and thus
drivers will be platform dependent to work with the XBox 2 OS.
As for the drivers, if they are using a IBM proc made specifically FOR
the XBox 2, then they WILL have to write drivers to take advantage of
how it all works.
James Garvin
True, but it looks like MS wants to corner the game market as well (just
by entering into the console market)...
I just see this as a step backwards in console development...(although I
will praise the day x86 architecture finally dies)
Paul J. Gans
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:04:12 GMT, t t <t...@invalid.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>I don't know what people are thinking claiming X is
>>copying Windows GUI.
>
> I didn't make that claim. I was talking about popular desktop
> environments like Gnome and especially KDE. X itself offers extremely
> little in the way of a GUI. In fact, without a Window Manager or a
> desktop environment system it is barely usable. It "just" provides the
> foundation for a "real" GUI. Even though I greatly enjoy KDE, it seems
> fairly obvious that it tries to mimic Windows.
>
> was released in, I believe, 1988. Already in 1985 the Atari ST series
> shipped with GEM. Atari's version of GEM (not the crippled version
> that was later available for IBM compatibles) was light years ahead of
> Windows 3.x, and would even today be better than some of the WMs
> available for X.
>
I agree with you about X. Both Gnome and KDE seem to use
the same metaphor as Windows (and Macs). I'm guessing it
was done because it is easy to use for all those of us who
use Windows or MacOS.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J. Gans
> t t wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 03:12:19 GMT, "Paul J. Gans"
>> <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >You are quite wrong. X was around long before Windows.
>> >Windows was taken from Apple and Apple took their interface
>> >from a Hewlet-Packard research project that never saw
>> >commercial use.
>>
>> good point, I don't know what people are thinking claiming X is
>> copying Windows GUI.
>
> FVWM 95 copies windows ;-)
If that was the original fvwm (I think it was) it didn't
really. I spent my share of time setting up menus for
it. While you could iconize a window, most of it, IIRC,
was menu driven.
---- Paul J. Gans