Will Gaming Requirements Soon Slow?
Alejandro Cabrera
Recently, there's been a lot of hoopla in the media about the growth of
the sub $1,000 computer market. I was wondering what effect people think
this will have on the gaming industry?
Personally, I think gaming companies are going to begin reigning in
hardware requirements. While in the past, the gaming industry has felt
comfortable pushing the envelope on games, confident that the players
would follow by upgrading their machines, changes in the market I think
will make this gamble a thing of the past.
To begin with, computers are rapidly becoming household appliances (they
aren't yet -- but they soon will be). As the market for them expands, it
also diversifies. In the past, gaming companies could safely bet that the
"computer geek" (pardon the phrase) would upgrade his or her machine every
2 years or so.
But now these companies have to contend with a much larger audience. These
"newcomers" aren't computer geeks. They're families. And the word upgrade
scares the hell out of them. As a result, I think the market will soon
slow down hardware-wise. Why would sierra or bullfrog or lucasarts or
activision design a game that only a handful of people can play? These
companies are going to go where the money is: and that's not the top of
the market anymore.
my two cents. I would appreciate yours.
-Jano, lord of the Thunder Bunnies
--
Lord of the ThunderBunnies
Scott Steubing
On 29 Nov 1997 21:43:52 GMT, alejandr...@mail.house.gov
(Alejandro Cabrera) wrote:
>
>
>Recently, there's been a lot of hoopla in the media about the growth of
>the sub $1,000 computer market. I was wondering what effect people think
>this will have on the gaming industry?
Another alternative to the gaming companies reigning in the
requirements for their games is for them to rerelease their older
games that don't have such steep requirements. Both Sierra and
LucasArts seem to be pretty good at releasing collections of their
older games.
<*> Scott Steubing
<*> ScottS...@worldnet.att.net
<*> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/2355 - The Unofficial Whizzy Home Page
E-mail address intentionally messed up to prevent spam. Add ".net" to the end.
There is a special circle in Hell reserved for those who send out unsolicited commercial email.
Graveltrap
I too was one of those upgrade-every-two-years geeks. No more. It simply
became too expensive. My present computer is over 3 years old. It is
obsolete, but as of this moment, it still works.
But my problem is this: my favorite games -- Steel Panthers, Steel Panthers 2,
and Age of Rifles -- all run fine on my present system (a 486DX4/100, 8 megs
RAM, plain 'ol 1 meg video card, DOS 6.2). I have no idea whether I could get
them to run of one of the new MMX Win95 screamers.
Mark Asher
alejandr...@mail.house.gov (Alejandro Cabrera) wrote:
>
>Recently, there's been a lot of hoopla in the media about the growth of
>the sub $1,000 computer market. I was wondering what effect people think
>this will have on the gaming industry?
>
>hardware requirements. While in the past, the gaming industry has felt
>comfortable pushing the envelope on games, confident that the players
>would follow by upgrading their machines, changes in the market I think
>will make this gamble a thing of the past.
>
>To begin with, computers are rapidly becoming household appliances (they
>aren't yet -- but they soon will be). As the market for them expands, it
>also diversifies. In the past, gaming companies could safely bet that the
>"computer geek" (pardon the phrase) would upgrade his or her machine every
>2 years or so.
>
>But now these companies have to contend with a much larger audience. These
>"newcomers" aren't computer geeks. They're families. And the word upgrade
>scares the hell out of them. As a result, I think the market will soon
>slow down hardware-wise. Why would sierra or bullfrog or lucasarts or
>activision design a game that only a handful of people can play? These
>companies are going to go where the money is: and that's not the top of
>the market anymore.
The problem is that the hardcore game market wants leading edge stuff,
and turn their noses up at stuff that doesn't require the latest and
greatest. What action game is going to sell now without 3D card
support when it's competing against other action games that support 3D
cards? Look at the C&C style games -- obviously from now on they will
have to support 3D maps, which means faster processors. Even Diablo 2
is rumored to be polygon-based.
There will be a big influx of new computer users this year, but they
will all have at least a P-166 MMX, which is pretty much the bottom
line system being mass-marketed these days. This will probably support
the next generation of games that are under development now. Next Xmas
you will probably see P2s being sold as the entry level system, and
those people will be able to play the latest games then.
I think the demographics for games show that the people most likely to
buy a game are people who have a new system. Most of this year's new
computer owners won't be buying games next Xmas anyway -- unless they
turn into gamers, in which case they will upgrade their hardware.
Mark Asher
Junkman >
rrevved wrote:
>
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim , alejandr...@mail.house.gov (Alejandro Cabrera) said:
>
> >Personally, I think gaming companies are going to begin reigning in
> >hardware requirements.
>
>
> --
> * rrevved at mindspring dot com / unit.26 s.p.u.t.u.m.
> * "Bob"'s Ululating Hyena Battallion,Yggdrasil Element
> * http://www.sputum.com - http://sunsite.unc.edu/subgenius
Solution for Those Concerned About the Cost of Bleeding Edge Hardware:
Don't buy Bleeding Edge games. There are plenty of older games in the
bargain bins with modest hardware requirements, some of them quite good.
If you wanna to play the latest stuff, you've gotta pay the price of
admission. It's called Free Enterprise, and it ain't gonna change, so
get used to it.
Fusion
alejandr...@mail.house.gov (Alejandro Cabrera) wrote:
[snip...]
>Personally, I think gaming companies are going to begin reigning in
>hardware requirements. While in the past, the gaming industry has felt
>comfortable pushing the envelope on games, confident that the players
>would follow by upgrading their machines, changes in the market I think
>will make this gamble a thing of the past.
Maybe. I don't think I'd mind too much either. I'm a pretty avid
gamer, but it always seems I'm one step behind on the upgrade curve.
I thought 3D cards were going to put an end to this, but it seems like
quite a few newer titles are using 3D for a crutch instead of an
enhancement.
At the very least, I'd like to see more toggles on newer games.
The original NASCAR Racing let you toggle practically every object in
the game, and then gave you another toggle on top of that to toggle
their textures on and off.
The end result was a game that you could tweak to run pretty fast on
a DX2/66, but you could still push mid-level Pentiums to their limit.
It gave the game great staying power, and it migrated to every
computer I've owned since it came out.
--
Tim - fus...@fast.net
Albert Ball
Nice post. I think you're totally wrong, though. There's a host of
hardware changes coming up in the next 3 - 12 months that are going to be
incredible. 100mh bus, voodoo 2, AGP video....the ante will be upped
DRAMATICALLY this year.
And history shows....software and hardware grow together.....
Alejandro Cabrera <alejandr...@mail.house.gov> wrote in article
<alejandro.cabrera...@143.231.126.79>...
>
>
> Recently, there's been a lot of hoopla in the media about the growth of
> the sub $1,000 computer market. I was wondering what effect people think
> this will have on the gaming industry?
>
> Personally, I think gaming companies are going to begin reigning in
> hardware requirements. While in the past, the gaming industry has felt
> comfortable pushing the envelope on games, confident that the players
> would follow by upgrading their machines, changes in the market I think
> will make this gamble a thing of the past.
>
> To begin with, computers are rapidly becoming household appliances (they
> aren't yet -- but they soon will be). As the market for them expands, it
> also diversifies. In the past, gaming companies could safely bet that the
> "computer geek" (pardon the phrase) would upgrade his or her machine
every
> 2 years or so.
>
> But now these companies have to contend with a much larger audience.
These
> "newcomers" aren't computer geeks. They're families. And the word upgrade
> scares the hell out of them. As a result, I think the market will soon
> slow down hardware-wise. Why would sierra or bullfrog or lucasarts or
> activision design a game that only a handful of people can play? These
> companies are going to go where the money is: and that's not the top of
> the market anymore.
>
Mark Asher
grave...@aol.com (Graveltrap) wrote:
>I too was one of those upgrade-every-two-years geeks. No more. It simply
>became too expensive. My present computer is over 3 years old. It is
>obsolete, but as of this moment, it still works.
I buy behind the curve. I didn't go from a 486 to a Pentium until
early this year. I spent $200 on a used motherboard and P-120 and PCI
video card, which I have now overclocked to a P-133. I'll probably go
to a P-200 MMX after the next round of Intel price cuts early next
year, or go with a K6.
Fortunately, I'm not a Quake fan, so I don't need bleeding edge stuff
to run the strategy-action games I like.
Mark Asher
NeilMCarr
>Nice post. I think you're totally wrong, though. There's a host of
>hardware changes coming up in the next 3 - 12 months that are going to be
>incredible. 100mh bus, voodoo 2, AGP video....the ante will be upped
>DRAMATICALLY this year.
I'd have to agree. A friend of mine works at Intel and he was telling me that
a huge a dramatic change in focus has undergone at the company. Huge swaths of
R&D are going towards pushing out hardware specifically aimed at gameplay.
Entertainment is begining to eclipse the buisness market in terms of where the
money is at, and so in the next couple of years we are going to see a massive
influx of whole new systems of architecture specifically for gameplay.
Incidentally, I also asked him what to expect in terms of raw processing power
in the next couple of years according to the Intel production timeline. He
said that by 2004 we should have 700 MHz chips as standard fare for computer
buyers.
Neil Carr
neil...@aol.com
Check out my PBEM pages!
http://members.aol.com/neilmcarr/pbem/pbem.htm
http://members.aol.com/cheekylads/pbem/1984.htm
DMielech
>>Nice post. I think you're totally wrong, though. There's a host of
>>hardware changes coming up in the next 3 - 12 months that are going to be
>>incredible. 100mh bus, voodoo 2, AGP video....the ante will be upped
>>DRAMATICALLY this year.
>
>I'd have to agree. A friend of mine works at Intel and he was telling me
>that
>a huge a dramatic change in focus has undergone at the company. Huge swaths
>of
>R&D are going towards pushing out hardware specifically aimed at gameplay.
>Entertainment is begining to eclipse the buisness market in terms of where
>the
>money is at, and so in the next couple of years we are going to see a massive
>influx of whole new systems of architecture specifically for gameplay.
>
>Incidentally, I also asked him what to expect in terms of raw processing
>power
>in the next couple of years according to the Intel production timeline. He
>said that by 2004 we should have 700 MHz chips as standard fare for computer
>buyer
Playstation does now.
enzo
Disclaimer: I'm about to make a whole bunch a really broad
generalizations. These are not designed to resemble anyone
living or fictional, but to try to explain certain tendencies in
the industry. Don't take it personally.
This is a topic which I'm sure generates its fair share of debate,
but let me add this bit of knowledge. In my experience, people or
families who have brand new or virtually new computers spend
FAR more money on software than those who do not - including
games.
The reasons seem to be thus:
1 - Buying software to go with the new computer is a justifiable
expense. After all, you've gotta do SOMETHING with the new
machine.
2 - People whose computers are relatively new tend to think about
computer related topics, visit software stores, etc... more
often than those who do not.
3 - People who stick with older computers usually are hesitant to
spend any money on software. They just want to use the
packages they're familiar with and stop "hemorraging"
money.
Every so often an owner of an old computer will make a
return to the local software shop and consider making a purchase
after not having done anything new with the computer for years.
They usually get upset that their computer can't run the
latest and greatest, although over the years, people seem to have
wised up to this somewhat.
The complaints about the game not looking nearly as
good on the box (running on a recent machine) vs how it runs on
the older home model still ring loudly. The result is that companies
such as Microprose are now lowering the bar. M1 Tank Platoon 2
and European Air War, for example - are being specifically
designed to run on P90s. I'm that sounds positively quaint
compared to what we're used to thinking about in this NG.
This may be a good thing in the short run, but I personally
think it will be a mistake in the long run. On one hand, things got
rather ridiculous with a number of well-known games supporting
insanely high resolutions (eg 1024x768) with nothing but software
rendering. The PC that can do that in software rendering still does
not exist for many of these games (A-10 Cuba excepted). Now
technology for 3d games is advancing so fast that it is very likely
that the games won't be able to keep up - and thus underutilize the
power available. Can you see the irony of running M1 Tank Platoon 2
on a Voodoo2 system? What's the point? It can certainly put a
damper on your expectations, that's for sure. "Lowest Common
Denominator" comes to mind again.
Another problem that is going to be clear is the difference
between the haves and have nots. A "gamer" is soon going to have
access to hardware MANY times more powerful in the graphics
department than those who have to justify every computer expense
with the significant other. We're probably going to see more games
like Hornet Korea and Su27 2.0 where the game you play may look
like a version from three or four years ago if you don't have the
right hardware. Customers won't like that at all. 100% Guaranteed
returns.
The final note is that graphics sells games, and good
framerates help prevent returns. You've gotta have incredible graphics
in a game - because that's the quickest way to make someone
consider actually buying a game without using a single word. But you
also have to have some kind of good framerate to keep the game
meeting expectations.
If this sounds like a schizophrenic post, you're absolutely
right. You need to manage a customer's expectations relastically
if they're using limited hardware, but that's utterly contradictory
to what Marketing's job is when its time to choose screenshots
on the box - and if you limit the available options for graphic detail,
then you run the risk of losing a sale to a competitor's product.
There is no right answer, only compromise answers.
Neil
Rob Merritt
alejandr...@mail.house.gov (Alejandro Cabrera) wrote:
>
>Recently, there's been a lot of hoopla in the media about the growth of
>the sub $1,000 computer market. I was wondering what effect people think
>this will have on the gaming industry?
None at all. Game companies are constantly going after the ever
decressing group of 'hardcore" gamers. The average computer gaming
company now thinks that computer gamers buy a new $2000+ computer
every 12 months and buys almost all their games between September 1st
and December 25th. Its true that 1997 has seen a growth in computer
gaming profit but I don't know how.
>Personally, I think gaming companies are going to begin reigning in
>hardware requirements. While in the past, the gaming industry has felt
>comfortable pushing the envelope on games, confident that the players
>would follow by upgrading their machines, changes in the market I think
>will make this gamble a thing of the past.
Nope. The funny part is, when the market does crash, the companies
will just say that no one wanted to play computer games when nothing
would be farther from the truth.
>To begin with, computers are rapidly becoming household appliances (they
>aren't yet -- but they soon will be). As the market for them expands, it
>also diversifies. In the past, gaming companies could safely bet that the
>"computer geek" (pardon the phrase) would upgrade his or her machine every
>2 years or so.
No. NOW they are saying that most if not all games are being bought
buy people who bought a new computer in the past year. Ofcourse when
they make games that only run on computers bought six months ago, it
kind of taints the data.
>But now these companies have to contend with a much larger audience. These
>"newcomers" aren't computer geeks. They're families. And the word upgrade
>scares the hell out of them. As a result, I think the market will soon
>slow down hardware-wise. Why would sierra or bullfrog or lucasarts or
>activision design a game that only a handful of people can play? These
>companies are going to go where the money is: and that's not the top of
>the market anymore.
They'll just make console games. We're going to lose no matter what.
>my two cents. I would appreciate yours.
I would but I just used them to buy a 3DFX card that will need to be
replaced in four months by TWO voodoo2 cards. *sigh*
Rob Merritt
My Might and Magic page:http://www.jagunet.com/~robertm/homm.html
My Toy page starring Micronauts and LegoBlocks:http://www.jagunet.com/~robertm/micro.html
Rob Merritt
ma...@cdmnet.com (Mark Asher) wrote:
>The problem is that the hardcore game market wants leading edge stuff,
>and turn their noses up at stuff that doesn't require the latest and
>greatest. What action game is going to sell now without 3D card
>support when it's competing against other action games that support 3D
>cards?
They aren't making action games that don't require one, supported or
not. Most now action games assume we either have a 3DFX card or a
Pentium II.
> Look at the C&C style games -- obviously from now on they will
>have to support 3D maps, which means faster processors. Even Diablo 2
>is rumored to be polygon-based.
>There will be a big influx of new computer users this year, but they
>will all have at least a P-166 MMX, which is pretty much the bottom
>line system being mass-marketed these days.
I don't think they sell these anymore.
>This will probably support
>the next generation of games that are under development now. Next Xmas
>you will probably see P2s being sold as the entry level system, and
>those people will be able to play the latest games then.
P2 systems are selling around $1600. (233s anyways) If they aren't
entry level, they are very close.
>I think the demographics for games show that the people most likely to
>buy a game are people who have a new system.
But thats a catch 22. You can't buy them unless you have new computer.
>Most of this year's new
>computer owners won't be buying games next Xmas anyway -- unless they
>turn into gamers, in which case they will upgrade their hardware.
If consoles had real adventure & rpg games, more strategy games, and
the ability to save anywhere at any time, I would drop this hobby like
a hot potato.
Rob Merritt
ma...@cdmnet.com (Mark Asher) wrote:
>I buy behind the curve. I didn't go from a 486 to a Pentium until
>early this year. I spent $200 on a used motherboard and P-120 and PCI
>video card, which I have now overclocked to a P-133. I'll probably go
>to a P-200 MMX after the next round of Intel price cuts early next
>year, or go with a K6.
>Fortunately, I'm not a Quake fan, so I don't need bleeding edge stuff
>to run the strategy-action games I like.
I have a 166mmx with a 3DFX card and I'm finding games that are too
slow for my system that aren't Quake. *sigh*
Amaury
It won't affect the PC gaming industry because those that buy cheap
computers will not buy lots of PC games. The real PC gamers have fast
computers with 3Dfx cards and that's the demographic that the PC
industry is after.
Alejandro Cabrera wrote:
>
>
>
> Recently, there's been a lot of hoopla in the media about the growth of
> the sub $1,000 computer market. I was wondering what effect people think
> this will have on the gaming industry?
>
> Personally, I think gaming companies are going to begin reigning in
> hardware requirements. While in the past, the gaming industry has felt
> comfortable pushing the envelope on games, confident that the players
> would follow by upgrading their machines, changes in the market I think
> will make this gamble a thing of the past.
>
> To begin with, computers are rapidly becoming household appliances (they
> aren't yet -- but they soon will be). As the market for them expands, it
> also diversifies. In the past, gaming companies could safely bet that the
> "computer geek" (pardon the phrase) would upgrade his or her machine every
> 2 years or so.
>
> But now these companies have to contend with a much larger audience. These
> "newcomers" aren't computer geeks. They're families. And the word upgrade
> scares the hell out of them. As a result, I think the market will soon
> slow down hardware-wise. Why would sierra or bullfrog or lucasarts or
> activision design a game that only a handful of people can play? These
> companies are going to go where the money is: and that's not the top of
> the market anymore.
>
> my two cents. I would appreciate yours.
>
Michael Lewchuk
"Albert Ball" <ber...@accessone.com> writes:
>Nice post. I think you're totally wrong, though. There's a host of
>hardware changes coming up in the next 3 - 12 months that are going to be
>incredible. 100mh bus, voodoo 2, AGP video....the ante will be upped
>DRAMATICALLY this year.
A few comments:
- The 100MHz bus will probably be the most significant development.
- New RAM and hard drive technologies have been invented. We'll have to see
when they appear in the marketplace. Currently, though, SDRAM and Ultra
hard drives will make a difference.
- AGP is already here. The question is: when will we need it? There are a lot
of video cards out there, both in PCI and AGP versions. Apparently graphics
card companies feel they can still use the PCI bus reasonably well and that
AGP is not needed - yet.
- Next year is (MicroSoft Windows) '98.
- Within the next couple of years DVD-CD will probably emerge as a viable
storage medium. Nowadays it's just an expensive toy.
- I wonder if USB ports will become popular. They're sitting on the new P2
motherboards waiting to be used.
>And history shows....software and hardware grow together.....
I would have said "bloat", but ... :)
>> Recently, there's been a lot of hoopla in the media about the growth of
>> the sub $1,000 computer market. I was wondering what effect people think
>> this will have on the gaming industry?
The Sub-$1000 market is probably for people who just want a basic box. I
can't see people getting a resonable system for under $1000, and I can't see
them shelling out hundreds of $ a year for games, so I think many of the game
companies will just ignore them, or release old "favourites" CDs.
>> "newcomers" aren't computer geeks. They're families. And the word upgrade
>> scares the hell out of them. As a result, I think the market will soon
>> slow down hardware-wise.
Home purchases are not the main driving force of the market. The "geeks"
and businesses are - they demand high performance, low price, and an assortment
of features. And their demand is not gonna slow down, or slow down the rate
at which new technology will develop. The home users will reap the benefits,
and the drawbacks, of this rapidly changing industry, as usual.
>> Why would sierra or bullfrog or lucasarts or
>> activision design a game that only a handful of people can play? These
>> companies are going to go where the money is: and that's not the top of
>> the market anymore.
I see an inherent contradiction in claiming that there are people who will buy
cheap systems, not upgrade over a long period of time, and still want games
for their system. If they have the $, why don't they upgrade, in the easiest
manner - the purchase of a new system?
>> my two cents. I would appreciate yours.
>> -Jano, lord of the Thunder Bunnies
>> Lord of the ThunderBunnies
Michael Lewchuk
lew...@cs.UAlberta.CA
Mark Stevens
On Sat, 29 Nov 1997 23:07:23 GMT, ScottS...@worldnet.att (Scott
Steubing) wrote:
>Another alternative to the gaming companies reigning in the
>requirements for their games is for them to rerelease their older
>games that don't have such steep requirements. Both Sierra and
>LucasArts seem to be pretty good at releasing collections of their
>older games.
This is particularly true in the UK, where the budget market is very
strong. With the likes of Virgin's White Label, Interplay's Replay,
EA's Classic labels, we're getting loads of A-grade product for around
£10-15. Whereas budget labels used to be a publisher's dumping ground
for crap, unsellable stuff, they're now a formidable alternative to
the full-price market. Look at some of the games already available on
budget -- Fade to Black, practically all of LucasArts' back catalogue,
System Shock, Terra Nova, Command & Conquer, Quake, Theme Park,
Syndicate, Civilisation, Doom, Heretic, Hexen, etc.
This has got to have a knock-on effect on the full-price market, as
far as perceived product value's concerned. I mean, your average
punter will walk into a store, see a shelf full of nondescript new
software at full-price, whilst next to it is a shelf full of
recognised classics at a fraction of the price.
There's already been some knock-on effect in the UK. Whereas many new
release PC games used to be £45 a few years ago, these days £30 (Tomb
Raider II) or £35 (Grand Theft Auto) is the norm. That suits me fine.
I won't hesitate to buy a decent new release at £30-35, but at £45 my
immediate reaction is, "Wait until it's cheaper/on budget."
Mark Stevens
On Sun, 30 Nov 1997 01:00:26 -0500, Amaury <aaco...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>It won't affect the PC gaming industry because those that buy cheap
>computers will not buy lots of PC games. The real PC gamers have fast
>computers with 3Dfx cards and that's the demographic that the PC
>industry is after.
The only problem is, the hardcore elite that most developers aim their
products at are an ever-decreasing number. Something's going to give
way sooner or later.
T.
On Sun, 30 Nov 1997, rrevved wrote:
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim , alejandr...@mail.house.gov (Alejandro Cabrera) said:
>
>
> >Personally, I think gaming companies are going to begin reigning in
> >hardware requirements.
>
> I think you are dead wrong.
Exactamundo. Us Simmers and game programmers ain't gonna be happy
until the day when we have photorealistic flight sims with 60 frames per
second supporting true-SVGA-resolution/refresh-rate head-tracking virtual
reality helmets and G-projectors. (GRIN)
So figure about 100 more years before software companies decide to
reign in the hardware requirements, heh heh...
T.
Nick McIsaac
Mark Asher <ma...@cdmnet.com> wrote in article
<3480ac65...@news.primary.net>...
> grave...@aol.com (Graveltrap) wrote:
>
> >I too was one of those upgrade-every-two-years geeks. No more. It
simply
> >became too expensive. My present computer is over 3 years old. It is
> >obsolete, but as of this moment, it still works.
This is the first computer that I will use for more than a year,I would
like to get an et6000 based video card ($65 or so u.s.),and Ideally a
bigger faster HD, am also thinking of a 3dfx card. I'll have this system
for another year at least,then I'll give it (without the 17" monitor) to my
little sister just in time for college.
I always try to buy a couple of steps down from the cutting-edge, and
usually run the system with a higher bus speed if possible (75 or 83mhz).
Critical Bill
>>It won't affect the PC gaming industry because those that buy cheap
>>computers will not buy lots of PC games. The real PC gamers have fast
>>computers with 3Dfx cards and that's the demographic that the PC
>>industry is after.
>
>The only problem is, the hardcore elite that most developers aim their
>products at are an ever-decreasing number. Something's going to give
>way sooner or later.
I agree, money is tighter and hardware advances are coming at an
exponentially higher rate. Think about the time frame between XT to
286 to 386 to 486 to 586 (Pentium). Do the same for video cards,
harddrives, etc.
The "window" of opportunity for a new computer purchase to stay
high-end is probably a few months. Absolutely insane.
-
Exclusive Nippolena Interview!! http://www.pathcom.com/~kenl/interview.htm
Chris
I believe you are right on the mark.
It seems that game companies project what the medium system standard
will be when there game is due out. By doing this, they leave people with
older systems out in the cold. They assume that people go and buy a computer
knowing that it will be obsolete in 2 years. This however is wrong. Most
people are perplexed or completely turned off after they find out that there
2000 dollar system is now slow and worthless. If they had bought a 2000 TV,
they would still be able to watch new shows.
The push for better graphics, sound and AI eats CPU's up.
By constantly changing motherboards for ISA to VLB to PCI to AGI really is
starting to even annoy me, a real gamer. I mean I had a 386 16 in 90, a 486/33
in 92, a 486/66 in 93. a pentium 90 in 94 and my present dated non MMX 166
bought in 96. Just look at hard drive space today. Look at blade runner min
specs or redneck rampage(200+ megs on the HD!!!!) Come on game companies
wakeup.
I bought a 3dfx graphics board this spring for 350 canadian and was
pleased with performance. Friends on mine elected to invest in new CPU's
instead of voodoo boards, thinking that 3dfx is a faze, and I got the better
performance. They now all have 3dfx. But now voodoo2 is coming and I must say
I am not upgrading again.
That's it game makers I will not upgrade every year. I will pass on games
that are just too Hardware intensive for my system. Sorry but I would rather
keep my 1000 doallrs and not upgrade and pay my rent in time than get 2 or 3
frames faster out of Quake 2.
Here is where I know I will draw flames from a host of rich gamers. I
said to myself, I just paid 350 for a 3DFX card. All it does is speed up and
sharpen graphics and nothing more. I turn to other desk and look at my N64
and PSX and they cost 350 together. I mean sure my computer games are deeper
and they have better graphics but man I paid 10x for it. Tomb raider on the
PSX is about equal to a NON 3dfx PC version of it. I have played both. At
least the PSX version has music. Sure the 3dfx version is amazing but at a
price.
My point to this rant is I would rather have some cash in my pocket,
play games on my console(which I can RENT!!!!!) than play cutting edge games
on my PC.
Alejandro Cabrera wrote:
>
>
> Recently, there's been a lot of hoopla in the media about the growth of
> the sub $1,000 computer market. I was wondering what effect people think
> this will have on the gaming industry?
>
> Personally, I think gaming companies are going to begin reigning in
> hardware requirements. While in the past, the gaming industry has felt
> comfortable pushing the envelope on games, confident that the players
> would follow by upgrading their machines, changes in the market I think
> will make this gamble a thing of the past.
>
> To begin with, computers are rapidly becoming household appliances (they
> aren't yet -- but they soon will be). As the market for them expands, it
> also diversifies. In the past, gaming companies could safely bet that the
> "computer geek" (pardon the phrase) would upgrade his or her machine every
> 2 years or so.
>
> But now these companies have to contend with a much larger audience. These
> "newcomers" aren't computer geeks. They're families. And the word upgrade
> scares the hell out of them. As a result, I think the market will soon
> slow down hardware-wise. Why would sierra or bullfrog or lucasarts or
> activision design a game that only a handful of people can play? These
> companies are going to go where the money is: and that's not the top of
> the market anymore.
>
> my two cents. I would appreciate yours.
>
> -Jano, lord of the Thunder Bunnies
>
Jay Prychidny
Critical Bill wrote:
> The "window" of opportunity for a new computer purchase to stay
> high-end is probably a few months. Absolutely insane.
But it wasn't always like this. When I bought my Pentium 90 w/ 16MB
(Which i still use BTW) the state of the art game was about a 486/33,
8MB of ram. That's a fairly large window to stay high-end. But now, a
state of the art computer is a Pentium II 233 (I think) and a state of
the art game is a Pentium 166.
Does anyone else see anything horribly wrong with these numbers? I
think something is going to give. Something is going to have to change,
or else (if this trend continues) who is ever going to be able to buy a
new computer game. They'll have to start offering free upgrades with
every computer game purchase :)
Jay Prychidny
JPry...@Netcom.CA
---------------------------------------------
Please remove nospam from my address to reply
Brad Wardell
Gaming requirements do grow and as a game developer let me shed some light
on some of the reasons.
Currently, you pretty much are forced to buy a state of the art computer
every 18 months if you want to have even a playable experience on the newest
game. BTW, our company's newest game -- Entrepreneur, will run great even
on a low end Pentium (P75).
The thing that makes or breaks games, for the most part, are reviews.
Whether the review is done by people on the newsgroups or by the big game
magazines (CGW, CGS+, PC Gamer), or some of the bigger web magazines.
People who are into games enough to do reviews typically have state of the
art hardware and so the game is primarily judged by how it plays to those
people. I've spent many nights playing Quake II beta and know that I
couldn't get into it if I didn't have a 3dfx card. The screen shots and
impressions you get of games like that will probably come from the point of
view of someone who has such a card.
Most people probably only have P90's or so (based on our surveys) but
there's no incentive for game companies to cater to them because the word of
mouth and reviews come from people who have much greater systems and the
more powerful the system, the more goodies (graphics, sound, animation,
effects, features, etc.) a game designed for those systems can have.
I don't really have much of a solution to this problem and it is a problem.
Stardock used to have weekly game nights where all our machines would play
Duke3D, Warcraft, C&C, etc. on the machines every week. But now, half the
machines can't play the new games because they are merely P100's, only the
engineer machines can play the state of the art games so it is a real
problem. And ironically, business software requirements have not jumped at
the same pace in recent years -- there's no need to upgrade our office
people's machines from P100's because Office 97 or Smart Suite for OS/2 run
fine on those systems (worst case, spend $50 and upgrade their RAM).
On the other hand, should high end gamers be penalized? How cool would TA
be if it had to run on a P75 at full power? There'd be a 50 unit limit and
no 3D terrain and simple line of sight, etc. you get the idea.
Just my 2 cents.
Brad Wardell
Stardock Systems, Inc.
http://www.stardock.com
Entrepreneur - the ruthless strategy game that runs great on a P75 on NT
4.0, OS/2, and Win95. :-)
Bryan Silverthorn
DMielech wrote in message <19971130041...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>>>Nice post. I think you're totally wrong, though. There's a host of
>>>hardware changes coming up in the next 3 - 12 months that are going to be
>>>incredible. 100mh bus, voodoo 2, AGP video....the ante will be upped
>>>DRAMATICALLY this year.
>>
>>I'd have to agree. A friend of mine works at Intel and he was telling me
>>that
>>a huge a dramatic change in focus has undergone at the company. Huge
swaths
>>of
>>R&D are going towards pushing out hardware specifically aimed at gameplay.
>>Entertainment is begining to eclipse the buisness market in terms of where
>>the
>>money is at, and so in the next couple of years we are going to see a
massive
>>influx of whole new systems of architecture specifically for gameplay.
>>
>>Incidentally, I also asked him what to expect in terms of raw processing
>>power
>>in the next couple of years according to the Intel production timeline.
He
>>said that by 2004 we should have 700 MHz chips as standard fare for
computer
>>buyer
>Great. By then the newest computers will probably have graphics as good as
my
>Playstation does now.
I don't know of any console game that graphics significantly better than any
computer game, and IMHO the depth of the average computer game is miles
beyond the average console game. Console games just don't appeal to me on a
whole; they seem very limited. No customization, conversions, internet
play, etc... There are a few ones that are fun for a while, but they still
leave me wanting to go back to playing on my PC.
-Bryan(Fate)
slink
On Sun, 30 Nov 1997 13:12:29 -0500, "Brad Wardell"
<bwar...@spammenot.stardock.com> wrote:
<snipped>
>
>Most people probably only have P90's or so (based on our surveys)
Pretty accurate for us. I went from P100 to P233 in September, and my
huband went from P90 to P233 last month.
<snipped>
>And ironically, business software requirements have not jumped at
>the same pace in recent years -- there's no need to upgrade our office
>people's machines from P100's because Office 97 or Smart Suite for OS/2 run
>fine on those systems (worst case, spend $50 and upgrade their RAM).
<grin> The last business PC installation I made was in 1993 and they
were 486-33. Most of those people (a company with about 2 dozen
active users) still use their 486-33 with no problems. Only the heavy
database and graphics users (about 6 to date) have had to get
upgraded.
<snipped>
>
>Brad Wardell
>Stardock Systems, Inc.
>http://www.stardock.com
>Entrepreneur - the ruthless strategy game that runs great on a P75 on NT
>4.0, OS/2, and Win95. :-)
Sandra -> http://www.netins.net/showcase/slink/
GEEK CODE Version 3.12: GS>AT !d(++)@ s:+ a+ C+++($) !U(C/H$) P(+)@
L E? W++ N++ o? K? w(++)@ O !M V(+) PS+() PE(++)@ Y+ PGP? t++@ 5? X?
R+ tv-- b++(++++)@ DI+++>++++ D G e++++ h+(++)($) r+++ x+++
|fREoN|
Hey its your fault! And his fault, her fault and my fault!
We scream to game developers:
"GIVE ME THIS, GIVE ME 3D, GIVE ME BETTER AI, GIVE ME SMOOTHER
GRAPHICS, GIVE ME NET PLAY, GIVE, GIVE, GIVE!"
Well guess what folks their givin it, and we arent in 486 land anymore
TOTO! You think this stuff can just run on anything? If you want state
of the art games your gonna need a state of the art computer, thats
that! A few years ago games were weak, they werent demanding at all.
Thats why when the pentium came out there were still games being
released with requirements of a 386's and 486 33's and 4 megs of ram
But we all had 486DX 66 with 8 or 16 megs of ram. And back then RAM
was $220+ for 4 megs, an intel 486DX2 66 was $250. I bought both of
those items to upgrade my 486SX50 w/4 megs of ram piece of junk. $500
upgrade back then is a $200 upgrade today. (comperable upgrade, like
P120 to a P166, 8 megs ram to 16) Now a days you just cant get by with
the bottom of the line computer unless you enjoy playing bottom of the
line games. When is it all going to stop? When we stop! When we "the
gamers" say WOW! This is it! Cant get any better! I mean when the guy
jumped out of the screen and beat the heck out of my brother, it was
so AMAZING! :)
Jarrod Smith
Brad Wardell wrote:
[snipped]
> Most people probably only have P90's or so (based on our surveys) but
> there's no incentive for game companies to cater to them because the word of
> mouth and reviews come from people who have much greater systems and the
> more powerful the system, the more goodies (graphics, sound, animation,
> effects, features, etc.) a game designed for those systems can have.
I have noticed this trend, too. Most of my friends and family are still
using their 486/100s and Pentium 90/100 machines. Last year I upgraded
my system to a PPro 200/3dfx box. Unfortunately, I won't be able to
play many if any of the new games with them. Most of the game reviews
I've read seem to be based on a PII machine experience, and as you've
said, the developers have to cater to that. It's all about
one-upmanship and turning a reviewer's head with your product. There
are too many other older products out there to risk not taking advantage
of the latest hardware capabilities to help distinguish yourself from
the crowd. It's a vicious cycle and fortunately for me I don't have a
problem upgrading every couple of years to keep myself in the fray of
things. Most people (particularly those whose heads are turned by the
sub-$1000 machines that you can pick up at CompUSA) probably don't feel
that way. I have the feeling that if alot of these machines are
installed this holiday season, we will see alot of really unhappy people
next holiday season when they realize that all the new raved-about
software products aren't going to run on their "only 1 year old"
machine.
--
Jarrod Smith <jsm...@scripps.edu>
The Scripps Research Institute
http://www.scripps.edu/~jsmith
Jarrod Smith
Mark Stevens wrote:
[snipped]
> This has got to have a knock-on effect on the full-price market, as
> far as perceived product value's concerned. I mean, your average
> punter will walk into a store, see a shelf full of nondescript new
> software at full-price, whilst next to it is a shelf full of
> recognised classics at a fraction of the price.
>
> There's already been some knock-on effect in the UK. Whereas many new
> release PC games used to be £45 a few years ago, these days £30 (Tomb
> Raider II) or £35 (Grand Theft Auto) is the norm. That suits me fine.
> I won't hesitate to buy a decent new release at £30-35, but at £45 my
> immediate reaction is, "Wait until it's cheaper/on budget."
Same thing seems to be happening here in the US. I just bought Longbow2
for US $35 two days after it hit the shelves. A couple weeks ago, I
picked up Age of Empires for US $35 only a week or two after it hit the
shelves. I just saw Longbow2 bundled with the strategy guide for US $43
yesterday. These prices are unheard of for new state of the art gaming
products. A year ago, you would have been lucky to find a new release
for even $45. It could either be the "knock-on" effect that you talked
about above, or that the ever-increasing installed base of computers and
therefore market for these products is causing an "economy of scale"
type of price reduction. Either way, I'll be pretty happy if this trend
continues for any reason. The funny thing is, I don't end up spending
less money overall, I just end up with more games. This must be good
news for any developers that are reading this :-)
Joe
rob...@jagunet.com (Rob Merritt) wrote:
>None at all. Game companies are constantly going after the ever
>decressing group of 'hardcore" gamers. The average computer gaming
>company now thinks that computer gamers buy a new $2000+ computer
>every 12 months and buys almost all their games between September 1st
>and December 25th. Its true that 1997 has seen a growth in computer
>gaming profit but I don't know how.
I'll tell you how - your claim that hard-core gamers are decreasing in
numbers is nothing but a myth. With the advancement of 3d hardware
they are increasing, fast. And hardcore gamers are the number one
software purchasers - which game companies know. That's why game
comanies cater to these users, and that's why profits are up.
>Nope. The funny part is, when the market does crash, the companies
>will just say that no one wanted to play computer games when nothing
>would be farther from the truth.
This is a fantasy that ain't gonna happen - there is also a *reason*
the numbers of hardcore gamers are increasing: the increased
availability of 3D [hardware] processing power that has made really
advanced games possible
Joe McGinn
===================================================
Author of Inside LotusScript
http://www.manning.com/McGinn/459.html
===================================================
Joe
"enzo" <en...@nospam.com> wrote:
>This is a topic which I'm sure generates its fair share of debate,
>but let me add this bit of knowledge. In my experience, people or
>families who have brand new or virtually new computers spend
>FAR more money on software than those who do not - including
>games.
Not at all. By fr the biggest purchasers of software are hard-core
gamers. A new computer might cause 5-10 software purchases. A
hard-core game, OTH, will by 20-30 titles a year, every year. There's
a *reason* game companies write software that caters to them you know.
Joe
rob...@jagunet.com (Rob Merritt) wrote:
>They'll just make console games. We're going to lose no matter what.
>>my two cents. I would appreciate yours.
>I would but I just used them to buy a 3DFX card that will need to be
>replaced in four months by TWO voodoo2 cards. *sigh*
GMAFB. You pooooor baby, you're just getting SO ripped off ... what,
did some street thug put gun to your head and say "Buy this 3dfx card
or else, Pal!"? Did you give him your address so he can come round and
break your legs if you don't buy a Voodoo2?
Your attitute is just SO pathetic ... 3dfx cards are finally allowing
us to break out of the hardware-upgrad treadmill and let us keep a
CPU/system for way, way longer than would otherwise be possible. And
to you this means you are being ripped off, or taken advantage of.
Man, the paranoia and confusion of some of you people knows absolutely
no bounds!
Joe
rob...@jagunet.com (Rob Merritt) wrote:
>They aren't making action games that don't require one, supported or
>not. Most now action games assume we either have a 3DFX card or a
>Pentium II.
Good. That means I can run them on my year-old P200, and I don't have
to buy a new CPU/system every siz months. You wouldn't know a good
thing if it came up and bit you on the ass, would you?
Joe
ma...@sonance.demon.co.uk (Mark Stevens) wrote:
>The only problem is, the hardcore elite that most developers aim their
>products at are an ever-decreasing number. Something's going to give
>way sooner or later.
Complete nonsense - precisely the opposite is true. With advanced,
cheap 3D hardware like 3dfx hardcore gamers are increasing in numbers
like never before seen. That's *why* gaming profits are up
dramatically across the board this year.
Joe
"T." <Tr...@NOSPAM.COM> wrote:
> Exactamundo. Us Simmers and game programmers ain't gonna be happy
>until the day when we have photorealistic flight sims with 60 frames per
>second supporting true-SVGA-resolution/refresh-rate head-tracking virtual
>reality helmets and G-projectors. (GRIN)
> So figure about 100 more years before software companies decide to
>reign in the hardware requirements, heh heh...
Sounds about right ... when I can't tell the difference between my
computer games and a Star Trek holodeck, it will be time to "reign in
the hardware requirements". ;-)
The fatc is if these fools got there way and games had to be written
to P100 non-3dfx Pentiums, the game market WOULD die, because the
games would all stagnate at such a low, poor level of capability.
Lea Swift
T. wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Nov 1997, rrevved wrote:
>
> > In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim , alejandr...@mail.house.gov (Alejandro Cabrera) said:
> >
> >
> > >Personally, I think gaming companies are going to begin reigning in
> > >hardware requirements.
> >
> > I think you are dead wrong.
>
> Exactamundo. Us Simmers and game programmers ain't gonna be happy
> until the day when we have photorealistic flight sims with 60 frames per
> second supporting true-SVGA-resolution/refresh-rate head-tracking virtual
> reality helmets and G-projectors. (GRIN)
>
> So figure about 100 more years before software companies decide to
> reign in the hardware requirements, heh heh...
It will never stop. Any one who thinks game designers will ever quit designing games with
steeper and more demanding hardware requirements are wrong. It will never stop.
I was perfectly happy with my Pentium 90 with 16 megs of memory and my quaint 540 meg
*shudder* hard drive. I was happy with Windows 3.1 and DOS. I want to be clear on this point. I'm
not one of these people who has to have the fastest. What I had worked for me just fine, but I
couldn't play the coolest, hottest games on the market. That made me unhappy. So, I took a deep
breath and took the plunge. I bought this P200 that I'm typing on now. Actually its been pretty
cool. Netscape 4 is much better than Netscape 2.01 that I was using. WIN 95 hasn't been as evil as I
thought it would be. But the bottom line is ... and quote me on this: If you want to play with the
big boys, you gotta get the right hardware. That includes 3dfx boards, as much memory as your budget
will afford and the fastest machine you can lay your hands on without ending up in the poor house.
That's it. Because in two years, you know, I'm gonna be adding something to this puppy.
Swift out
>
>
> T.
jack
> will afford and the fastest machine you can lay your hands on without ending up in the poor house.
> That's it. Because in two years, you know, I'm gonna be adding something to this puppy.
>
> Swift out
>
> >
> >
> > T.
there are some games out there (especially multiplayer) that never seem
to get old. Adding the human element to the conventional AI element has
made even relatively not graphical games both enjoyable and competitive.
Theres just just no replacement for good playability (vase in point
Sabre ace has wonderful graphics and most people think it stinks, why?
because it no internet play support and views ar3 flaky.)
Some Favs of mine are Fighters Anthology (yes not a great graphics
engine or flight envelope) This game has the potential to remain popular
for years to come because it supports up to 8 players for free on
internet play and has enough quality to keep simmers intersted.
Others are AWII and Warbirds. (too bad u have to pay hourly to get a
decent game here)
ahh well
L.R.S.
On 30 Nov 1997 04:37:13 GMT, "enzo" <en...@nospam.com> wrote:
> The reasons seem to be thus:
>
>1 - Buying software to go with the new computer is a justifiable
> expense. After all, you've gotta do SOMETHING with the new
> machine.
>
>2 - People whose computers are relatively new tend to think about
> computer related topics, visit software stores, etc... more
> often than those who do not.
>
>3 - People who stick with older computers usually are hesitant to
> spend any money on software. They just want to use the
> packages they're familiar with and stop "hemorraging"
> money.
>
You are even more "off-base" than the original poster was "on-base."
1. Maybe you have the money to buy a new computer every other month
to "keep up with the Joneses," but I don't, and 90 percent of the
people I know on IRC, in newsgroups and IRL don't have the money.
They fly flight sims cause they enjoy being able to do something they
wouldn't be able to do if it wasn't for the computer.
2. This statement is so full of BS, it almost isn't worth replying
to, but I have to anyway. My computers are always, and I mean always
at least a year behind the power curve. I have to save for months
just to add 16 meg of RAM. I am ALWAYS thinking about upgrading my
machine, thinking about new software, and up until this garbage post
of yours, envious of people of could afford the latest and greatest.
In the area I live, there isn't a software store closer than a four
hour drive. Believe me, if there was one in the area, I would be
there at least twice a week, looking to see what they have thats new,
and wondering if it will run "nicely" on my machine.
3. See above for my answer to this piece of crap. And, by the way,
you try living on $700 a month, while enjoying two great, but
expensive hobbies -- computer simulations and stamp collecting. Take
your "I have more money than I would ever need so I buy anything I
want to buy without 'hemorraging' attitude and do something good with
it, rather than make youself look like an idiot with BS generalization
posts.
I don't take what you said personally, I just think your
generalizations are crap. Stop living in your dream world and get out
checkout the real world. Computer simmers aren't rich; they don't let
their computers become rust buckets unless they have to; they drool
over new equipment and new software more than "you people" do; and
most important of all, they try to do the best they can to get a good
running machine, get software to run good on their machine and have as
much fun as they possibly can doing what they enjoy most...play
simulations on their computers.
The original poster of this message said a lot that was very close to
the truth. Simmers are beginning to expect too much from programmers
and programmers are beginning to think they can do it all. Well,
maybe they can, what with the new upcoming next generation 3D cards
and all, but why do it when all the new "eye candy" does is slow the
sim down. If I want to fly a flight sim, I want to be able to do it
without "over-sticking" turns because the program is more concerned
with loading ridiculas eye-candy I ain't even paying attention to,
more than it is any of the action going on around me and in the air.
If I want to see "nice" scenery while flying, I will save for months,
and when I can afford it, hire a pilot to take me around God's Country
(where I live). That is where the real beauty of flying is...not some
programmers idea of what people want to see. Granted, there are
people out there that enjoy looking at computer generated terrains as
they fly by them. And I hope someday I can catch you admiring all the
"fabulous" scenery you are looking at and not paying attention to what
is going on around you...I might be able to find one of my few kills.
The fact that there are Pentium II 300 Mhz machines out there in
sim-land doesn't mean that the sims have to be programmed to work on
that machine and that machine only. In the days of the 386 and 486
machines as standard platforms, programmers were able to include
detail switches which really helped a slower machine run the sim.
These day, I find I on a few programs that there is very little
improvement on my system since I upgraded from an AMD 133 (pentium
wannaba) to a Pentium 166MMX. Granted, some programs were greatly
improved, but a few weren't. So what good is it for someone to
upgrade? Well, maybe programmers will take a close look at their
minimum requirements, stop making them so steep and stop hedging on
the fact, that "Yes, it will run on a P90, but at a much reduced frame
rate." What good is that? Frame rates in the 30 fps or so make the
sim flyable or drivable. Not the "eye-candy" being put in sims so
people who forgot what a real blue sky looks like can be reminded of
it.
Tell you what...next time you want to make general statements about
how you see the simulation/computer world, take some of that money you
don't "hemorrage" about and give it to some nation-wide polling
institute and have them do a survey regarding simulations, people,
computers and the like. Or, is it just too much money for you and
something you would be "hemorraging" about when it came time to pay
up?
L, Sobkoviak
Simmer, computer dreamer
L.R.S.
>The real PC gamers have fast computers with 3Dfx cards and that's the demographic that the PC
>industry is after.
>
>
Gee, then I must not be a "real PC" gamer because I have a low end
machine without a 3Dfx card. Humm...if I ain't a "real PC gamer" I
must be imaginary PC gamer. If I am imaginary, then this post isn't
real. Since this post isn't real, nothing is, cause if it wasn't
real, you wouldn't be reading it. And if nothing is real, then you
aren't either...hummm...you getting the idea yet?
Get a life...better yet, why don't you and Neil go 50/50 on the survey
costs and find out the real numbers. I don't need to do it, cause I
ain't real :)
ar...@ix.netcom.com
What gets me is that even with faster CD ROM drives we are being
forced to put more and more of the game on our HD.
The question is WHY?
Eric Jon Higgins-Freese
It wouldn't bother me that these new games required the best hardware
out if they were really great games, but there seems to be more trash
then ever. Even "good" games are mostly MOTS. Heavy Gear is another
MW2 clone, Quake 2 speaks for itself. Come on! It is time for an
inovation in what the games are rather then in what hardware they use.
EJHF
Brant Rusch
> The "window" of opportunity for a new computer purchase to stay
> high-end is probably a few months. Absolutely insane.
Yes, but for Gamers it is fast becoming clear that the upping in the
Processor arena doesn't count NEARLY as much anymore
as the power of your 3D Rendering hardware.......I'll take a $300 video
card upgravde once a year over a $2500 upgrade any day of the week.
Brant
I just wish it had happened sooner.. :)
Brant Rusch
> The fatc is if these fools got there way and games had to be written
> to P100 non-3dfx Pentiums, the game market WOULD die, because the
> games would all stagnate at such a low, poor level of capability.
I don't know....i'm one of those people who love the BUILD ENGINE
games....Shadow Warrior, Blood, Duke3d.
I thinkt hey ALL have a certain "realisim" that ALL of the 3D games
currently out now LACK.
Its hard to describe it...perhaps its that all the 3D games out so far are
so limited in their textures? Perhaps its that
Build Engine games have houses that look like houses, with furniture and
wallpaper and drawers and so on.....
And in most 3D game we get "A Cavernous Room that supposed to be a
house"....
Anyhow, my point is that the Build engine has already been "dismissed"
because its "not true 3D, man!".....but...so fucking what!?
The games are fun to play, they SELL, and their hardware requirements
aren't nearly as high as the current crop of 3D-Only games.
For example, if a company was out there making a few BUILD engine games
now, most of the gaming community would SCOFF
at the idea...while tens of thousands of others would be happy because,
hey, they haven't gone the 3D card route yet....
Brant
There is a VAST UNTAPPED MARKET out there just WAITING to be captured...its
the "Casual weekend gamer"...the guy who
doesn't want to drop $60 on the latest game only to have it run like a
slideshow.....people who play a game on the weekend
for a little while......
Andrew Williams
Seek times on CD's still suck big hairy monkey balls. I would rather
have crap be on my HD than on CD. Disk is cheap enough now that
it really doesn't matter. Of course if you are stuck using IDE
devices adding drives sucks. Why IDE is still in use boggles my
mind.
Dan Bongard
Alejandro Cabrera (alejandr...@mail.house.gov) wrote:
: Recently, there's been a lot of hoopla in the media about the growth of
: the sub $1,000 computer market. I was wondering what effect people think
: this will have on the gaming industry?
: Personally, I think gaming companies are going to begin reigning in
: hardware requirements. While in the past, the gaming industry has felt
: comfortable pushing the envelope on games, confident that the players
: would follow by upgrading their machines, changes in the market I think
: will make this gamble a thing of the past.
You're missing a few important facts, the most important of which is that
a $1000 computer is simply a computer that WA state-of-the-art two years
before. Ergo even if computer gaming companies DO start programming
for the slowbies instead of the fasties, all that will happen is
that gaming advancement will halt for 2 years and then pick up where it
left off.
-- Dan
Dan Bongard
Rob Merritt (rob...@jagunet.com) wrote:
: ma...@cdmnet.com (Mark Asher) wrote:
:> I think the demographics for games show that the people most likely to
:> buy a game are people who have a new system.
: But thats a catch 22. You can't buy them unless you have new computer.
It isn't a catch-22; it is merely a limit on the target market. A catch-22
would be if you had to have a new computer to buy the game, but couldn't
buy a new computer unless you already had the game.
If you sell most of your games to people with new computers, make games
for people with new computers -- that's simple business sense. Most
serious game buyers DO upgrade every two years or so, after all.
-- Dan
Dan Bongard
Junkman > ("spambegone.garwim"@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Solution for Those Concerned About the Cost of Bleeding Edge Hardware:
: Don't buy Bleeding Edge games. There are plenty of older games in the
: bargain bins with modest hardware requirements, some of them quite good.
There are plenty of new releases with modest hardware requirements as well.
I have a P-133, which doesn't cost much these days, and it runs "Fallout"
and "Total Annihilation" just fine.
-- Dan
Dan Bongard
Chris (christ...@videotron.ca) wrote:
: I believe you are right on the mark.
: It seems that game companies project what the medium system standard
: will be when there game is due out. By doing this, they leave people with
: older systems out in the cold. They assume that people go and buy a computer
: knowing that it will be obsolete in 2 years. This however is wrong. Most
: people are perplexed or completely turned off after they find out that there
: 2000 dollar system is now slow and worthless.
"Most people" don't buy enough games to be worth paying attention to. Anybody
who buys computer games even semi-regularly (as in "one every few months")
is WELL aware that computers rapidly become outdated. So is anybody who
reads computer magazines, sees computer ads on TV, etc. Expecting game
development to come to a halt simply because you're ignorant of the
realities of the computer industry is, well, silly.
On a side note, where are all these much-bitched-about "bleeding edge games"?
I have yet to find anything that won't run fine on my two-year-old computer.
-- Dan
Dan Bongard
Brad Wardell (bwar...@spammenot.stardock.com) wrote:
: Gaming requirements do grow and as a game developer let me shed some light
: on some of the reasons.
: Currently, you pretty much are forced to buy a state of the art computer
: every 18 months if you want to have even a playable experience on the newest
: game.
That is utterly wrong, unless your definition of "playable" is "as fast as
the game could possibly run".
-- Dan
Dan Bongard
|fREoN| (grnn...@mcn.net) wrote:
: On Sun, 30 Nov 1997 12:30:19 -0800, Jay Prychidny
: <nospamJ...@netcom.ca> wrote:
: >Critical Bill wrote:
: >> The "window" of opportunity for a new computer purchase to stay
: >> high-end is probably a few months. Absolutely insane.
: >
: >But it wasn't always like this. When I bought my Pentium 90 w/ 16MB
: >(Which i still use BTW) the state of the art game was about a 486/33,
: >8MB of ram. That's a fairly large window to stay high-end. But now, a
: >state of the art computer is a Pentium II 233 (I think) and a state of
: >the art game is a Pentium 166.
:>
:> Does anyone else see anything horribly wrong with these numbers?
No, because you forgot to mention that three years have passed between
"then" and "now". You also forgot to mention that "state of the art"
games are just that -- state of the art. Ie, you won't run them on
a dinosaur, so simply buy a game with lower requirements.
-- Dan
Alex Van Der Hengst
>I don't really have much of a solution to this problem and it is a problem.
>Stardock used to have weekly game nights where all our machines would play
>Duke3D, Warcraft, C&C, etc. on the machines every week. But now, half the
>machines can't play the new games because they are merely P100's, only the
>engineer machines can play the state of the art games so it is a real
>problem. And ironically, business software requirements have not jumped at
>the same pace in recent years -- there's no need to upgrade our office
>people's machines from P100's because Office 97 or Smart Suite for OS/2 run
>fine on those systems (worst case, spend $50 and upgrade their RAM).
>
That is an interesting observation. I wonder how large the "hardcore"
gamer market is? If you run Office 97, how fast of a computer do you
need? P75? Businesses today really have power to spare if all they
are running is office suites. And if you are not a flight sim gamer,
a P166MMX with a 3dfx runs everything plenty fast and what I have seen
from the benchmarks, Quake II should also run nicely on this system.
I would say Voodoo Graphics are not making Intel very happy.
Alex
Alejandro Cabrera
A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, I wrote:
"Personally, I think gaming companies are going to begin reigning in
hardware requirements."
To which a nimble wit responded:
> I think you are dead wrong.
Wishing to build upon that sentiment, a less taciturn soul elaborated with:
> > [We] ain't gonna be happy until the day when we have photorealistic
> > flight sims with 60 frames per second supporting true-SVGA-resolution
> > /refresh-rate head-tracking virtual reality helmets and G-projectors.
> > So figure about 100 more years before software companies decide to
> > reign in the hardware requirements, heh heh...
But the topper of all came with this little gem:
> It will never stop. Any one who thinks game designers will ever quit
> designing games with steeper and more demanding hardware requirements
> are wrong. It will never stop. the bottom line is ... and quote me on
> this: If you want to play with the big boys, you gotta get the right
> hardware.
From these, I gather that there's some confusion going on.
I did not claim that the gaming industry was going to stop evolving. Or
that hardware requirements were going to remain where they are today.
My point, which I repeat again, is that due to market changes the gaming
industry may choose to *slow* the pace of gaming requirements relative to
years past.
Look guys, the market is expanding. More people are buying computers.
But unlike years past, these new entries into the computer field aren't
buying top of the line stuff -- they're buying technology that's a year
old. If this trend continues (and I recognize that there are a *lot* of
variables that could change this), do you really think for a second that
the gaming industry is going to spend millions (and that is what we're
talking about here -- money) to satisfy the niche market of bleeding edge
gamers? Absolutely not.
If a technological chasm opens up, separating those on the cutting edge from
those who walk the middle of the road, you better believe that the industry
will cater to those who are numerically superior. For example, look at the
home movie industry. Prior to DVD, there were basically two main contenders:
lasic disc players and VCRs. Even though laserdiscs were technologically
superior (clearer sound and video quality with additional audio tracks) the
industry supported VCRs. Why? Because the people supported VCRs. They were
cheaper than laserdiscs and so they bought them.
-AGC, Lord of the ThunderBunnies
--
Lord of the ThunderBunnies
M. Norton
Alex Van Der Hengst (vander...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: That is an interesting observation. I wonder how large the "hardcore"
: gamer market is? If you run Office 97, how fast of a computer do you
: need? P75? Businesses today really have power to spare if all they
: are running is office suites. And if you are not a flight sim gamer,
Well you might be surprised. With using the more powerful abilities
of Office 95, I find a P120 slow (on NT 4.0, 32mb, etc) I've got
Office 97 at home and it runs fine on a PII 266 and a P200 so I suspect
the breakpoint is somewhere between, probably at P166.
Not to say this is a good thing. I'm half a mind to think that I was
more productive with a fast Wordperfect 5.1, except you can spend more
time formatting there.
: a P166MMX with a 3dfx runs everything plenty fast and what I have seen
: from the benchmarks, Quake II should also run nicely on this system.
: I would say Voodoo Graphics are not making Intel very happy.
More than likely. Intel is working on a 3D chipset of its own, however
I think it'll take a lot of hype to break into the market with 3Dfx
estabished and already working into the second generation with the
Voodoo 2
Regards
Mark Norton
--
===================+=========================================================
Mark D. Norton | This signature was printed on
mno...@netcom.com | 100% recycled electrons
=============================================================================
Joe
alejandr...@mail.house.gov (Alejandro Cabrera) wrote:
>From these, I gather that there's some confusion going on.
>I did not claim that the gaming industry was going to stop evolving. Or
>that hardware requirements were going to remain where they are today.
>My point, which I repeat again, is that due to market changes the gaming
>industry may choose to *slow* the pace of gaming requirements relative to
>years past.
But in actual fact, with the rapid advancement of 3D hardware it is
PRECISELY the oposite that is happening.
>If a technological chasm opens up, separating those on the cutting edge from
>those who walk the middle of the road, you better believe that the industry
>will cater to those who are numerically superior.
But, again, this just isn't what's happening. Your arguments would
have been far more valid a year or two ago, before the widespread
distributin (and cheap prices) of advanced 3d hardware. Today it makes
no sense whatsoever.
Steve Baylus
Alejandro Cabrera wrote:
> From these, I gather that there's some confusion going on.
> I did not claim that the gaming industry was going to stop evolving. Or
> that hardware requirements were going to remain where they are today.
> My point, which I repeat again, is that due to market changes the gaming
> industry may choose to *slow* the pace of gaming requirements relative to
> years past.
>
Don't forget Moores Law - loosely, computer performance will double every 18
months. Anything you buy these days is obsolete before you get it out the door.
Currently, game designers are making tradeoffs between frame rate, AI and other
functions. There's not enough computer horsepower to do everything well. This
will probably always be the case no matter the processor speed or memory
available.
> If a technological chasm opens up, separating those on the cutting edge from
> those who walk the middle of the road, you better believe that the industry
> will cater to those who are numerically superior. For example, look at the
> home movie industry. Prior to DVD, there were basically two main contenders:
> lasic disc players and VCRs. Even though laserdiscs were technologically
> superior (clearer sound and video quality with additional audio tracks) the
> industry supported VCRs. Why? Because the people supported VCRs. They were
> cheaper than laserdiscs and so they bought them.
No, people went with VCRs because you could record on them. Also, the software
(video) available on LDs was controlled (no Adult material).
>
>
> -AGC, Lord of the ThunderBunnies
>
> --
> Lord of the ThunderBunnies
--
Steve Baylus
Ericsson, Inc.
RTP, North Carolina
bay...@rtp.ericsson.se
Matthew Murray
On Sat, 29 Nov 1997, Scott Steubing wrote:
> On 29 Nov 1997 21:43:52 GMT, alejandr...@mail.house.gov
> (Alejandro Cabrera) wrote:
>
> >Recently, there's been a lot of hoopla in the media about the growth of
> >the sub $1,000 computer market. I was wondering what effect people think
> >this will have on the gaming industry?
>
> Another alternative to the gaming companies reigning in the
> requirements for their games is for them to rerelease their older
> games that don't have such steep requirements. Both Sierra and
> LucasArts seem to be pretty good at releasing collections of their
> older games.
But the problem with this is how many people are going to only
want to buy older games from companies? Yes, there are people like myself
who might prefer the older games for various reasons, but sooner or later,
you're just going to play through all of them, and not enough companies
release enough of their older games in an easily playable format to make
this a viable second market. Is that not a problem as well?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dedicated to all the people who predicted that the
Babylon Project would fail in its mission.
Faith manages.
-J. Michael Straczynski, "The Deconstruction of Falling Stars"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Babylon 5's Fifth Season Begins January 21, 1998
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew A. Murray - mmu...@cc.wwu.edu - http://www.wwu.edu/~mmurray
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MoJo
In Article<alejandro.cabrera...@143.231.126.79>,
<alejandr...@mail.house.gov> write:
>
> my two cents. I would appreciate yours.
>
I think you're dreaming. How do you think publishers can manage to
downgrade their hardware requirements at the same time as people
are whining 'We want fancy graphics! We want 3D! We want audiophile sound!
We want multiplayer!'
Mind you, as a fan of traditional RPGs, I don't really give a rat's behind
whether my games have whiz bang graphics and sound...and as far as I'm
concerned, the advent of multiplayer has done more damage to the quality
of gaming than just about any other fad in the past.
It always amazes me when people scream for more features in their games,
and then complain when the games are delayed and the hardware requirements
go through the roof.
MJ
ttammi
Chris <christ...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>My point to this rant is I would rather have some cash in my pocket,
>play games on my console(which I can RENT!!!!!) than play cutting edge
>games on my PC.
Then what is the problem? Rent those console games then already.
I don't see why some people keep bitching how upset they are about PC
gaming, when no one is forcing them to buy PC games.
It seems to me these people want to have it all: they want the
affordability of Playstation, but want the 3Dfx Voodoo 2 graphics and
P2-300 performance with it. I know that practically all Playstation and
Saturn games have looked damn ugly to me for a long time already, and
even N64 games don't look that impressive anymore (very low polygon
count, fuzzy low res textures and graphics etc.). But I guess that is
why they cost less.
Stop demanding the best graphics in the town, and maybe you don't have
to upgrade constantly. Take for example the new F/A-18 Korea flight
sim: looks gorgeous with a 3Dfx card, but you can play it well without
one, if you lose the textures etc.
Matthew Murray
This is the >real< issue at work. I don't think any of us would
mind steep hardware requirements if the games were good. Unfortunately
for all of us, with only basically a handful of exceptions, games in the
last seven years or so have been mostly crap. Companies feel that all
people want are graphics and sound, forgetting that it is truly things
like challenge, gameplay, and replayability that really make the majority
of us play the games in the first place. I have a feeling the problems
that we, as consumers, have been having with the game companies will stop
when (if!) they ever realize they should make >games<, not movies or slide
shows.
Joe Cheung
On Mon, 01 Dec 1997 13:51:24 GMT, ar...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>What gets me is that even with faster CD ROM drives we are being
>forced to put more and more of the game on our HD.
>The question is WHY?
Good point. A CD game dumping tons of files into HD is a very good
marketing strategy for the game company to get players obsessed about
that game or its sequels cuz the HD doesn't have much space left for
another game. Then gets 'em brainwashed that this kind of games rock.
For me, I just luv CD games that save only setting and score files on
HD. A good example is LucasArt's Rebel Assault II. Unfortunately, I
could tell that there'll be a 1GB-HD-space-needed CD game coming,
based on what we're seeing. Is it playability, productivity or even
technological advance?
On Mon, 01 Dec 1997 10:07:16 -0600, Eric Jon Higgins-Freese
<efr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>It wouldn't bother me that these new games required the best hardware
>out if they were really great games, but there seems to be more trash
>then ever. Even "good" games are mostly MOTS. Heavy Gear is another
>MW2 clone, Quake 2 speaks for itself. Come on! It is time for an
>inovation in what the games are rather then in what hardware they use.
Another good point, but fat chances if game designers are listening.
I'd suggest that PC games should be at least divided into 2
categories: Push PC Game; Non-Push PC Game. Put these stickers on all
cartons.
Obviously, in this debate are 2 kinds of people: speed freaks and
casual gamers. Push PC games requiring cutting/bleeding edge tech. are
for the first. Non-push PC games that run on low end machines are for
the latter.
Fair and square.
Critical Bill
On Sun, 30 Nov 1997 12:18:29 -0500, Chris <christ...@videotron.ca>
wrote:
>I believe you are right on the mark.
> It seems that game companies project what the medium system standard
>will be when there game is due out. By doing this, they leave people with
>older systems out in the cold. They assume that people go and buy a computer
>knowing that it will be obsolete in 2 years. This however is wrong. Most
>people are perplexed or completely turned off after they find out that there
>2000 dollar system is now slow and worthless.
I read an article about this phenomenon a little while ago and it's
absolutely true. People who bought a P75-100 two years ago are
absolutely amazed to hear that many of the newer games won't run on
it.
What game companies count on are the influx of new computer buyers
coming into the market every year. The problem is, that those "new
buyer" numbers are actually decreasing and it is getting increasingly
harder to get "new" buyers simply because of money and need.
I this continues, the hard-core gamers with thick wallets will be the
only ones left.
-
Exclusive Nippolena Interview!! http://www.pathcom.com/~kenl/interview.htm
K.Donlon
(Joe) wrote:
>Not at all. By fr the biggest purchasers of software are hard-core
>gamers. A new computer might cause 5-10 software purchases. A
>hard-core game, OTH, will by 20-30 titles a year, every year. There's
>a *reason* game companies write software that caters to them you know.
I have always thought of myself as a 'medium core gamer' who
was willing to upgrade early in order to stay ahead of the software
requirement curve. This was due solely to a desire to play specific
titles that incurred steep hardware requirements. Never have I
upgraded without a lot of grumbling about having to do this *again*.
The truth is that computergaming has never been an inexpensive hobby
and bleeding edge software has always made stiff calls on hardware.
However 20-30 titles a year.....no way. The better the capacity of my
system, the more selective I've become in buying titles, about 10-15.
Out of my friends, only the few hard core gamers are upgrading
consistantly. The remaining majority of friends who bought a
P-90/P-166 a year or two ago; replacing the family 386/486 are
astonished that the current run of titles that their children want ,
won't run well or at all. These people are unlikely to upgrade their
machines and more likely to downgrade their entertainment software
expenditures, since their business applications still work well on
their machines.
Kevin Donlon
the count
Matthew Murray wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Dec 1997, Eric Jon Higgins-Freese wrote:
> > It wouldn't bother me that these new games required the best
> > hardware out if they were really great games, but there seems to be
> > more trash then ever. Even "good" games are mostly MOTS. Heavy
> > Gear is another MW2 clone, Quake 2 speaks for itself. Come on! It
> > is time for an inovation in what the games are rather then in what
> > hardware they use.
> This is the >real< issue at work. I don't think any of us
> would mind steep hardware requirements if the games were good.
> Unfortunately for all of us, with only basically a handful of
> exceptions, games in the last seven years or so have been mostly crap.
> Companies feel that all people want are graphics and sound,
> forgetting that it is truly things like challenge, gameplay, and
> replayability that really make the majority of us play the games in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> the first place. I have a feeling the problems that we, as consumers,
> have been having with the game companies will stop when (if!) they
> ever realize they should make >games<, not movies or slide shows.
Of course, games with high replayability are like long-lasting
light bulbs. You only ever need very few of them ;P
By making bad games, the consumer is left drifting to find yet another
game. Therefore, the companies keep coming out with bad games, and
people buy them, are disappointed, and look for another game.
Keeps the money coming into the pockets of the game companies
indefinately. [this works cause a lot of people don't bother to
return games, just leave them hidden on a shelf somewhere collecting
dust...]
the count
MoJo wrote:
> In Article<alejandro.cabrera...@143.231.126.79>,
> <alejandr...@mail.house.gov> write:
> > my two cents. I would appreciate yours.
> I think you're dreaming. How do you think publishers can manage to
> downgrade their hardware requirements at the same time as people
> are whining 'We want fancy graphics! We want 3D! We want audiophile
> sound! We want multiplayer!'
I've only heard a small handful of people whine for such things.
Most of my friends don't mind good graphics and sound, but want
the game to be good first :P
So, what we are saying is that a very small minority is driving the
demands of the entire consumer market?
:O
I don't' read PC magazines very often - how common is it in the mags
that they demand better graphics/sound/netplay/etc.?
The last mag I read (coincidentally, just last week) was complaining
about how these things have taken precedence over game play and was
disappointed in the latest round of games.
> Mind you, as a fan of traditional RPGs, I don't really give a rat's
> behind whether my games have whiz bang graphics and sound...and as far
> as I'm concerned, the advent of multiplayer has done more damage to
> the quality of gaming than just about any other fad in the past.
Sword of Aragon and the Gold Box series are still great games :)
Mark Asher
> Critical Bill <gd...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<3483731a...@snews.zippo.com>...
Actually, the forecast is for many PCs to be sold to first-time buyers this
year. Prices have dropped so much now that families that never had a PC
before are buying them. The $1000 PC is becoming the dominant seller. And
this PC is typcially better than my current PC. :(
Buy one of these this Xmas and then next Xmas, if you are still interested
in games, get a 3D card and more ram and you can probably squeak by for
another 6 months.
Mark Asher
song thao
Well, let's look at this from the point of view that really runs this
stuff. Money. Right now the people that buy the most games are the
people that have the best of the best, and keep upgrading all the time.
I don't know about you, but I'm tapped out. I simply CAN'T afford to
keep upgrading monthly, and I think more and more people have hit that
point.
Ok, so we have less and less people that will be at that cutting edge of
gaming. This means that any company that writes for that edge will
either have to deal with less sales, or hope that when the majority of
people catch up in tech to their game, that they'll want to buy it. Of
course what will happen is that design houses will try to judge just
what will be the tech level of machines when their game comes out, and
shoot for that. *shrug*
I don't think that we'll see a tech slowdown in the next month or two,
but we may see it in the next year, especially with how many people are
getting into those under $1000 computers that are the big thing right
now. People shooting for that are NOT going to be interested in buying
a new $300 video card, or $500 motherboard and CPU upgrade every 3
months.
So, yeah, the requirements will slow, but not real soon.
Just my 2 cents.
Kurt Bilinski
For every person who has stopped keeping up with the latest, there will _always_ be
someone to take their place - it will never end.
Will Gaming Requirements Soon Slow? Yes, when hardware slows, and when people stop
buying the latest, which won't happen.
Considering that the "latest" stuff is a much better deal technologically then just
a few years ago, and most importantly, _cheaper_ for what you are getting, the
"latest and greatest" trend will continue as long as people like new shiny things
that no one else has.
Part of this is driven by vanity and I think we all know that isn't going way
anytime soon... The other part is simply a love of games. Face it, unless you buy
a computer to make you money, the thing is a huge time and money sink. A thread a
while back was that we pay $4000 to play games. Well maybe it's $2500 now, but I
think it's true, it's just that many won't/can't admit it.
As long as people has disposable income, it will never end.
Kurt
--
I'm tired of all the spam; to reply, change "gato" to "gat"
|fREoN|
On Mon, 01 Dec 1997 18:17:40 GMT, joec...@bigfoot.com (Joe Cheung)
wrote:
>On Mon, 01 Dec 1997 13:51:24 GMT, ar...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>>What gets me is that even with faster CD ROM drives we are being
>>forced to put more and more of the game on our HD.
>>The question is WHY?
>
>Good point. A CD game dumping tons of files into HD is a very good
>marketing strategy for the game company to get players obsessed about
>that game or its sequels cuz the HD doesn't have much space left for
>another game. Then gets 'em brainwashed that this kind of games rock.
>For me, I just luv CD games that save only setting and score files on
>HD. A good example is LucasArt's Rebel Assault II. Unfortunately, I
>could tell that there'll be a 1GB-HD-space-needed CD game coming,
>based on what we're seeing. Is it playability, productivity or even
>technological advance?
>
Are you guys freakin nuts or what? THE MORE ADVANCED THE GAME IS, THE
MORE SPACE ITS GOING TO NEED! Do you even know how fast your HD is
compared to your CD-ROM? Do you even know what a fast CD-ROM drive is
made for?
A. Your HD transfers 16 megs a second or more, your CD-ROM 1 meg
B. Fast CD-ROM drive = faster program install and faster video
playback. Except for install, CD-ROM drives are only really used by
games that have video files or CD music. The majority of CD-ROM games
dont even use the CD after install, its just a good storage medium.
C. Games arent getting bigger so your HD will be full! Sheeesh that is
the funniest thing I have ever heard! What, you think all that space
the game took up is just empty bytes? Just to fill up your HD?
>On Mon, 01 Dec 1997 10:07:16 -0600, Eric Jon Higgins-Freese
><efr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>It wouldn't bother me that these new games required the best hardware
>>out if they were really great games, but there seems to be more trash
>>then ever. Even "good" games are mostly MOTS. Heavy Gear is another
>>MW2 clone, Quake 2 speaks for itself. Come on! It is time for an
>>inovation in what the games are rather then in what hardware they use.
>
>Another good point, but fat chances if game designers are listening.
>I'd suggest that PC games should be at least divided into 2
>categories: Push PC Game; Non-Push PC Game. Put these stickers on all
>cartons.
>
>Obviously, in this debate are 2 kinds of people: speed freaks and
>casual gamers. Push PC games requiring cutting/bleeding edge tech. are
>for the first. Non-push PC games that run on low end machines are for
>the latter.
>
>Fair and square.
>
Push? Non-Push? Why those catagories? Look at the system requirements
and you have found your catagory. Who buys games for low end machines?
Even when I had a low end machine, I tweeked the hell out of it so I
could play the higher games. Low end games SUCK!
Face it, technology RULES, and will continue to drive this gaming
industry.
T.
On Tue, 2 Dec 1997, song thao wrote:
<SNIP>>
> Ok, so we have less and less people that will be at that cutting edge of
> gaming. This means that any company that writes for that edge will
> either have to deal with less sales, or hope that when the majority of
> people catch up in tech to their game, that they'll want to buy it. Of
> course what will happen is that design houses will try to judge just
> what will be the tech level of machines when their game comes out, and
> shoot for that. *shrug*
> I don't think that we'll see a tech slowdown in the next month or two,
> but we may see it in the next year, especially with how many people are
> getting into those under $1000 computers that are the big thing right
> now. People shooting for that are NOT going to be interested in buying
> a new $300 video card, or $500 motherboard and CPU upgrade every 3
> months.
> So, yeah, the requirements will slow, but not real soon.
There is only one thing you neglected in your argument: Computer
capabilities are ALWAYS getting cheaper. That $3000 P2-300 we see in
PowerMonger (tm) magazine today will drop to $1500 or less next year, and
so will 3D cards and memory. Thus, even if the P55-200MMX you bought for
$4000 last year can't run a new title, there will always be first-time
buyers who just picked up a $1500 P2-300 next year who CAN. Thus,
requirements will not slow anytime soon.
The trick is not to upgrade blindly whenever something new and hot
comes out at a time when it's most expensive. When you upgrade, you want
to get a machine that will last you a while. My P-90 lasted me 3 years
already, and I could run all the flight sims for the past three years,
granted, with details turned down for the latest and greatest titles, but
still acceptably. I plan to upgrade to a P2-350 next year when P2 and 3D
stuff becomes really affordable, which means I spent $3000 only every four
years or so. I definitely got my money's worth out of my P-90 that I
bought for $3000 in 1994, on which I haven't spent a single cent more
since. And I'm sure the computer I buy next year will last me another
four years as well. Moral of the story: you can keep up with the bleeding
edge, if you spend wisely.
T.
Nghia Diep
>HD. A good example is LucasArt's Rebel Assault II. Unfortunately, I
>could tell that there'll be a 1GB-HD-space-needed CD game coming,
>based on what we're seeing. Is it playability, productivity or even
>technological advance?
It's called Blade Runner. 177 megs min, 330 recommended, 1.5 gig for
most of it. It's on 4 CDs.
The background graphics are great. But there is a lot to be desire
for the character graphics. Characters would probably looked better
with sprites instead of voxel.
Dan Bongard
Joe Cheung (joec...@bigfoot.com) wrote:
: On Mon, 01 Dec 1997 13:51:24 GMT, ar...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
:> What gets me is that even with faster CD ROM drives we are being
:> forced to put more and more of the game on our HD.
:> The question is WHY?
: Good point. A CD game dumping tons of files into HD is a very good
: marketing strategy for the game company to get players obsessed about
: that game or its sequels cuz the HD doesn't have much space left for
: another game. Then gets 'em brainwashed that this kind of games rock.
Well, I give your post a gold star for "most bizarre conspiracy
theory of 12/2/97", but I'm going to have to take points off for
your lack of attention to technical details. Games put their
contents on your hard drive because your hard drive is much faster
than any CD-ROM. The only things that are worth leaving on a
CD-ROM -- if your CD-ROM drive is fast enough -- are video and
CD sound.
-- Dan
the count
Kurt Bilinski wrote:
> song thao <so...@seeds1.com> wrote:
>
> Will Gaming Requirements Soon Slow? Yes, when hardware slows, and
> when people stop buying the latest, which won't happen.
>
> Considering that the "latest" stuff is a much better deal
> technologically then just a few years ago, and most importantly,
> _cheaper_ for what you are getting, the "latest and greatest" trend
> will continue as long as people like new shiny things that no one else
> has.
What you are getting these days should be much cheaper, cause it
sucks compare to a lot of older stuff :P
Sure the graphics may be killer, and the sound really great, but
there is usually no plot, no characterization, nothing to make the
game fun to play. So the game is fun to look at. Big deal :P
Give me a game that is fun to play.
And today's games usually don't even give you anything with the
game - simple things like documentation, or convenient things like
maps, or even just toys like little metal ankhs =)
You get a CD, maybe in a jewel box, but just as likely in a stiff
cardboard sleeve, a registration card, possibly a catalog, and
that's it!
It might not even be so bad if at least the new games were new, but
they are almost all clones - doom, warcraft, doom, warcraft, doom,
warcraft, doom, warcraft, doom, warcraft, doom, warcraft, doom,
warcraft, doom, warcraft, doom, syndicate wars, warcraft, doom,
warcraft, doom, warcraft, doom, warcraft, doom, warcraft, doom,
warcraft, doom...
grrr!
> Part of this is driven by vanity and I think we all know that isn't
> going way anytime soon... The other part is simply a love of games.
> Face it, unless you buy a computer to make you money, the thing is a
> huge time and money sink. A thread a while back was that we pay $4000
> to play games. Well maybe it's $2500 now, but I think it's true, it's
> just that many won't/can't admit it.
My C-64 cost me $200 and was worth thousands of hours over many years
of great games without a single upgrade :)
Ultima IV beats the pants off of a lot games being put out today,
and I could [and did] play it on my C-64!
> As long as people has disposable income, it will never end.
i.e., as long as their are colleges ;)
the count
|fREoN| wrote:
> Push? Non-Push? Why those catagories? Look at the system requirements
> and you have found your catagory. Who buys games for low end machines?
> Even when I had a low end machine, I tweeked the hell out of it so I
> could play the higher games. Low end games SUCK!
> Face it, technology RULES, and will continue to drive this gaming
> industry.
And then one day you will wake up and realize there should be more
to good games then just kewl graphics and soundz, d00d! =8)
:P
T.
On Tue, 2 Dec 1997, the count wrote:
> And then one day you will wake up and realize there should be more
> to good games then just kewl graphics and soundz, d00d! =8)
>
> :P
Aha, then there are also games which are good AND have kewl
graphics and soundz, like Longbow 2! =) =) Best of both worlds. (g)
T.
Joe
song thao <so...@seeds1.com> wrote:
>I don't know about you, but I'm tapped out. I simply CAN'T afford to
>keep upgrading monthly, and I think more and more people have hit that
>point.
That's an exageration. I bought my P200 a year ago, and six months ago
upgraded it with a 3dfx. That upgrade will last me a year of top-notch
gaming, then I'll buy a Voodoo2 six months from now (for a couple
hundred bucks) and that will probably last another year.
If not for the availability of cheap, powerful 3D hardware, you
*might* have a point - I'd need expensive CPU upgrades just to keep
up. But the fact is I don't, even though I'm a demanding, hard-core
gamer - the 3d technology will allow me to keep using the same core
system for 2-3 years.
In other words, with the availability of cheap 3dfx cards, there is
really NOTHING to complain about. Whining, yes, apparently lots of
that, but I've seen no valid *complaints* in this thread yet.
Joe
the count <eglam...@usa.net> wrote:
>And then one day you will wake up and realize there should be more
>to good games then just kewl graphics and soundz, d00d! =8)
You mean like Longbow2? The game that just happend to have great
[3dfx] high-end graphics, AND the best gameplay/dynamic campaigns ever
seen in a flight/war similator?
Someone needs to change the title of this thread, to "People who like
to whine about nothing at all." Jesus Christ himself could come down
in your darkest hour and cure your broken heart with a touch, and
you'd complain 'cause he didn't throw in a free Cadilac to boot.
Alejandro Cabrera
> > I don't think that we'll see a tech slowdown in the next month or two,
> > but we may see it in the next year, especially with how many people are
> > getting into those under $1000 computers that are the big thing right
> > now. People shooting for that are NOT going to be interested in buying
> > a new $300 video card, or $500 motherboard and CPU upgrade every 3
> > months.
> > So, yeah, the requirements will slow, but not real soon.
>
> There is only one thing you neglected in your argument: Computer
> capabilities are ALWAYS getting cheaper. That $3000 P2-300 we see in
> PowerMonger (tm) magazine today will drop to $1500 or less next year, and
> so will 3D cards and memory. Thus, even if the P55-200MMX you bought for
> $4000 last year can't run a new title, there will always be first-time
> buyers who just picked up a $1500 P2-300 next year who CAN. Thus,
> requirements will not slow anytime soon.
And here's something you neglected in your argument: you're assuming that
the number of new buyers next year are going to be equal to the number of
buyers this year. I got news for you friend -- as it currently stands,
most analyst believe that the computer market is reaching maximum
penetration (caveat for the slower ones out there: this assumes a static
state. If hardware prices are slashed [which may very well happen] this
could obviously change things).
Joe Ankenbauer
This is a legitimate concern to most people. Just because it doesn't
bother you doesn't make it invalid.
JMA
======================================================================
>>>>> Axlrose - ... <<<<<
On Tue, 02 Dec 1997 18:51:38 GMT, grnn...@mcn.net (|fREoN|) wrote:
>Push? Non-Push? Why those catagories? Look at the system requirements
>and you have found your catagory. Who buys games for low end machines?
>Even when I had a low end machine, I tweeked the hell out of it so I
>could play the higher games. Low end games SUCK!
>Face it, technology RULES, and will continue to drive this gaming
>industry.
I'm glad you have so much disposable money to toss around for the latest
and greatest computer hardware. Should my next system's bill be sent to
you for a cash or check payment?
To use your argument here - "Who buys games for low end machines?", if you
upgrade every so many months as it seems you do, then aren't the games you
purchased recently going to be "low end games" within a year due to the
SOTA [State Of The Art for all the non-Shadowrun types]...? So the more
popular games of today will ~SUCK~ because tomorrow they are low ended.
When you send your cash or check payment, make sure you throw in all the
current games you bought but now suck because "technology RULES" made them
low ended and suck...
Off topic here - where do people find the time to actually play computer
games to the final end? I have so many older games that I never completed
due to lack of time, and in many cases, a slight feeling of boredom and
repetition. I have seen past posts where people say "I finished [new game
here] within 24 hours of straight play and I feel cheated!" Must be nice
to have money and time dedicated to one form of entertainment.
Enough rambling,
>>>>>Axlrose - ...<<<<<
Eric van Bezooijen
In article <65s9fk$krh$1...@ha2.rdc1.az.home.com>,
Bryan Silverthorn <silve...@home.com> wrote:
>
>DMielech wrote in message <19971130041...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
[ lossy compression ]
>>Great. By then the newest computers will probably have graphics as good as
>my
>>Playstation does now.
>
Since all playstations use a television set to display graphics instead of
a high-resolution monitor, this statement is silly.
-Eric
--
Eric van Bezooijen er...@activesw.com http://www.activesw.com/~eric
"But the meaning of life is a mystery, that we don't understand so far.
And the music of life is a rhapsody if you're happy the way that you are"
-- "Freudiana"
Dan Bongard
>>>>> Axlrose - ... <<<<< (axl...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: On Tue, 02 Dec 1997 18:51:38 GMT, grnn...@mcn.net (|fREoN|) wrote:
:> Push? Non-Push? Why those catagories? Look at the system requirements
:> and you have found your catagory. Who buys games for low end machines?
:> Even when I had a low end machine, I tweeked the hell out of it so I
:> could play the higher games. Low end games SUCK!
:> Face it, technology RULES, and will continue to drive this gaming
:> industry.
: I'm glad you have so much disposable money to toss around for the latest
: and greatest computer hardware. Should my next system's bill be sent to
: you for a cash or check payment?
No. You should either pay the bill yourself or stop whining. Or,
optionally, point out the law of nature that says you have a
God-given right to have every single game run at peak efficiency
on your machine without any need for upgrades.
-- Dan
T.
On 2 Dec 1997, Alejandro Cabrera wrote:
> And here's something you neglected in your argument: you're assuming that
> the number of new buyers next year are going to be equal to the number of
> buyers this year. I got news for you friend -- as it currently stands,
> most analyst believe that the computer market is reaching maximum
> penetration (caveat for the slower ones out there: this assumes a static
> state. If hardware prices are slashed [which may very well happen] this
> could obviously change things).
En contraire: As it stands right now, there are about 40 million
PCs in the USA, a country of more than 220 million people. Because there
are still so many people out there without computers, it is not reasonable
to think that there will be less buyers next yer than this year,
especially since most people think they need a computer to participate in
the future.
Unless something goes HORRIBLY wrong with the economy (recession)
and disposable income disappears, computer sales isn't going to drop.
Otherwise, I'd sell all my technology stocks right now.
Hardware prices are ALWAYS being slashed, unless artificial
limiters are introduced into the economy (such as the artificially high
RAM prices a couple of years ago when the Japanese had a stranglehold on
the market). This pretty much fulfills the caveat you pointed out.
Ergo, since hardware is always getting cheaper and more people buy
computers, requirements will always go up.
T.
the count
Joe wrote:
> the count <eglam...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> >And then one day you will wake up and realize there should be more
> >to good games then just kewl graphics and soundz, d00d! =8)
>
> You mean like Longbow2? The game that just happend to have great
> [3dfx] high-end graphics, AND the best gameplay/dynamic campaigns ever
> seen in a flight/war similator?
Ok, so you've named *ONE* game with good graphics/sound AND good
game play/plot/etc. Name others.
An exception is just that - an exception.
And it is not even the beginning of a trend, since most games are
still Doom or Warcraft clones. *yawn*
I'd still rather play SSI's Gold Box series [from the 80's] or
Ultima I-IV (also 80's) over the vast majority of titles from the
past 6-12 months :P
the count
T. wrote:
> Hardware prices are ALWAYS being slashed, unless artificial
> limiters are introduced into the economy (such as the artificially
> high RAM prices a couple of years ago when the Japanese had a
> stranglehold on the market). This pretty much fulfills the caveat you
> pointed out.
Like as soon as companies like Netscape and Digital die off (happening
quite quickly now), M$ and Intel will be able to do what they want with
prices.
:(
the count
Dan Bongard wrote:
> >>>>> Axlrose - ... <<<<< (axl...@mindspring.com) wrote:
> : On Tue, 02 Dec 1997 18:51:38 GMT, grnn...@mcn.net (|fREoN|) wrote:
>
> :> Push? Non-Push? Why those catagories? Look at the system
> :> requirements and you have found your catagory. Who buys games for
> :> low end machines? Even when I had a low end machine, I tweeked the
> :> hell out of it so I could play the higher games. Low end games
> :> SUCK! Face it, technology RULES, and will continue to drive this
> :> gaming industry.
>
> : I'm glad you have so much disposable money to toss around for the
> : latest and greatest computer hardware. Should my next system's bill
> : be sent to you for a cash or check payment?
>
> No. You should either pay the bill yourself or stop whining. Or,
Many people simply cannot afford to constantly upgrade their machines,
especially if they have things like families ;P
Alternately, not everyone can have a $100+K a year job/rich parents/
fabulous inheritence/win the lottery/whatever.
If everyone did, all prices of everything would be correspondingly
higher anyway, and there would be no advantage gained therefrom.
> optionally, point out the law of nature that says you have a
> God-given right to have every single game run at peak efficiency
> on your machine without any need for upgrades.
My old C-64 had every single game made for run at peak efficiency
without having to upgrade, and a lot of the games for it are better
than a lot of games today for these STOA PC's today :P
If only my C-64 still worked, but 10 years in the closet in will do
that to a machine ;)
Alex Van Der Hengst
On Wed, 3 Dec 1997 00:58:34 -0500, "T." <Tr...@NOSPAM.COM> wrote:
>
> En contraire: As it stands right now, there are about 40 million
>PCs in the USA, a country of more than 220 million people. Because there
>are still so many people out there without computers, it is not reasonable
>to think that there will be less buyers next yer than this year,
>especially since most people think they need a computer to participate in
>the future.
>
Yes, but the majority of new buyers are buying cheap computers ($1000
range). They are not buying bleeding edge.
Alex
Kurt Bilinski
the count <eglam...@usa.net> wrote:
>And it is not even the beginning of a trend, since most games are
>still Doom or Warcraft clones. *yawn*
So stop complaining and start writing your own game! I get tired of people who
complain yet do nothing to be part of the solution.
Richard D Arnesen
o0$1...@brie.direct.ca> <3482f70f...@news.octonline.com> <661lim$8...@news.mcn.net> <34846...@usa.net> <661tna$lja$4...@brie.direct.ca> <348562...@usa.net> <663vd4$o...@rosebud.sdsc.edu>
Distribution:
Kurt Bilinski (Kurt.B...@gato.com) wrote:
: the count <eglam...@usa.net> wrote:
: >And it is not even the beginning of a trend, since most games are
: >still Doom or Warcraft clones. *yawn*
: So stop complaining and start writing your own game!
I get tired of people who
: complain yet do nothing to be part of the solution.
Oh now that is just ridiculous. The reason we buy these games is
because we do not have the resources to make them ourselves. And
to tell you the truth I agree with him for the most part. I mean
there are MANY people who got so darn tired of the 1rst person
shooter after about the 500th time they saw a game based on
the concept :). Now the same is true of RTS games.
To tell you the truth the new games have been boring me so much
I have been having so much fun playing classics like XCOm, Civ I/II,
MOO, MOM and the like.
Now THOSE were games with personality and originality.
Later
: Kurt
Darryl Stephen Roy
In article <alejandro.cabrera...@143.231.126.79>, alejandr...@mail.house.gov (Alejandro Cabrera) wrote:
>
>> > I don't think that we'll see a tech slowdown in the next month or two,
>> > but we may see it in the next year
>> There is only one thing you neglected in your argument: Computer
>> capabilities are ALWAYS getting cheaper.
>I got news for you friend -- as it currently stands,
>most analyst believe that the computer market is reaching maximum
>penetration (caveat for the slower ones out there: this assumes a static
>state.
I think more concrete than any of these omissions is the idea that
Moore's law, that price equivalent processing power doubles every 18
months, will soon no longer apply. Microelectronic manufacture is
approaching constraints set by physics. You can only make a circuit so
small (even with x-ray photolithography) before you start getting
unpredictabable responses from quantum effects...
A second consideration, is that, while games may be the center of your
world, the vast majority of consumers don't justify a $2000 purchase for
gaming, but rather the more prosaic tasks of word processing and
internet browsing. Word processors won't be designed to write my term
papers for me in the near term, and internet bandwidth is limited by the
analog phonelines in the last mile, which may take over a decade to be
upgraded. For these tasks, my little 133 will be servicable for perhaps
a decade.
Darryl Roy
ers...@hal-pc.org
Syed Noman Ahmad
In article <6648ip$49t$1...@news.hal-pc.org>,
Darryl Stephen Roy <ers...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
> [ chomp chomp]
> and internet bandwidth is limited by the
>analog phonelines in the last mile, which may take over a decade to be
>upgraded. For these tasks, my little 133 will be servicable for perhaps
>a decade.
>
OK going completely off-topic here..
How does a 1 meg/sec bandwidth sounds to you? No special
lines, no use of two or three modems, no splitters or any
other installation at your home, no tricks :-)
And if things go as planned, you may see this technology in use
next year.
BTW, this 1 meg/sec is down stream, and the telephone company
has to make some installations at a central site.
--
Noman
Dan Bongard
the count (eglam...@usa.net) wrote:
: T. wrote:
Whereupon new competition will arise. Remember, at one time IBM had
a stranglehold on the market. They got complacent and ignored customer
needs, and they lost their position. That was only 10 years ago.
-- Dan
Dan Bongard
the count (eglam...@usa.net) wrote:
: Dan Bongard wrote:
: > >>>>> Axlrose - ... <<<<< (axl...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: > : On Tue, 02 Dec 1997 18:51:38 GMT, grnn...@mcn.net (|fREoN|) wrote:
: >
: > :> Push? Non-Push? Why those catagories? Look at the system
: > :> requirements and you have found your catagory. Who buys games for
: > :> low end machines? Even when I had a low end machine, I tweeked the
: > :> hell out of it so I could play the higher games. Low end games
: > :> SUCK! Face it, technology RULES, and will continue to drive this
: > :> gaming industry.
: >
: > : I'm glad you have so much disposable money to toss around for the
: > : latest and greatest computer hardware. Should my next system's bill
: > : be sent to you for a cash or check payment?
: >
: > No. You should either pay the bill yourself or stop whining. Or,
: Many people simply cannot afford to constantly upgrade their machines,
: especially if they have things like families ;P
I'm very sad about that, but so what? I can't afford a Porche. That
doesn't mean I think Porches should be made slower and with cheaper
parts so that I _can_ afford them, nor do I think the high-end
car market is going to wither on the vine. High-end computer
games (which, contrary to the ubiquitous whining, are not the
majority of computer games) are a niche market, always have been,
and always will be.
I have a computer I bought 26 months ago -- a P-133. The only upgrade
I have made is buying another 32 megs of RAM for $90. I have yet
to encounter a game that won't run satisfactorily on this machine,
though I see the end in sight. So i'll be shelling out another
$150 for a 3dfx card. That will give me another year or more of
play time on the high-end games. Even after that, I will still have
a year of playtime left on most of the released games. Then I
will have a choice: stick to playing the literally thousands of
available games that will run on my machine, OR upgrade so I
can play the new games -- the best of the best.
: Alternately, not everyone can have a $100+K a year job/rich parents/
: fabulous inheritence/win the lottery/whatever.
Feh. I make an ordinary middle-class salary. Setting aside $500
a year will let you keep pace with the gaming industry, hardware-wise.
It is a matter of priorities. You and the kinds want to be able
to play Quake 2 on the home machine? Fine, shave a day off that
vacation at Disneyland. Maintaining a reasonably up-to-date
computer will not break the bank if you have a half-decent job.
:> optionally, point out the law of nature that says you have a
:> God-given right to have every single game run at peak efficiency
:> on your machine without any need for upgrades.
: My old C-64 had every single game made for run at peak efficiency
: without having to upgrade, and a lot of the games for it are better
: than a lot of games today for these STOA PC's today :P
If you think that, then what's the problem? Play the games on
your C-64. I, on the other hand, will be playing Fallout,
Quake, and Total Annihilation, all of which are miles ahead of
anything every to appear on the C-64, both in gameplay and in
performance.
-- Dan
Dan Bongard
Alex Van Der Hengst (vander...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: Yes, but the majority of new buyers are buying cheap computers ($1000
: range). They are not buying bleeding edge.
But a $1000 computer will _play_ "bleeding edge" games. It just
won't play them as well as a $3000 computer would. And the $1000
computer will run games from one or two years ago just fine. Also
remember that most of that $1000 is the monitor, so upgrading
the rest of the platform later will be cheap.
Here's what will happen: the $1000 computer buyers who end up
really getting into computer gaming (ie, the people who didn't
know what they were missing) will play games on their $1000
computer. Then they will begin to feel that their computer isn't
good enough, and they will upgrade. And those $1000 computer
buyers who _don't_ get into computer gaming don't matter to the
gaming market.
-- Dan
Kurt Bilinski
rdar...@core.greenapple.com (Richard D Arnesen) wrote:
>Kurt Bilinski (Kurt.B...@gato.com) wrote:
>: So stop complaining and start writing your own game!
>I get tired of people who
>: complain yet do nothing to be part of the solution.
>
>
>Oh now that is just ridiculous. The reason we buy these games is
>because we do not have the resources to make them ourselves. And
>to tell you the truth I agree with him for the most part. I mean
>there are MANY people who got so darn tired of the 1rst person
>shooter after about the 500th time they saw a game based on
>the concept :). Now the same is true of RTS games.
And my point is, solve the problem. If you can't code the game, then write a
complete script for one. If your's is really good, you can sell it to a game
company and probably make some good money. As for games being boring and similar,
don't buy it. Problem solved.
This sort of posting always takes me back to my car analogy. A guy buys a Ferrari,
then posts to the car ng that tires/insurance/gas cost him a fortune. The point?
The person looks a little silly complaining about something that he himself has
caused. Don't buy something you don't like.
Dan Bongard
::> And it is not even the beginning of a trend, since most games are
::> still Doom or Warcraft clones. *yawn*
:: So stop complaining and start writing your own game!
: Oh now that is just ridiculous. The reason we buy these games is
: because we do not have the resources to make them ourselves.
If you have the resources to play a game, you have the resources
to write a game. Download a free compiler from the net and
get to work.
: I mean there are MANY people who got so darn tired of the 1rst
: person shooter after about the 500th time they saw a game based on
: the concept :)
Do you have a suggested perspective OTHER than first person that
you feel would make a better action game?
: To tell you the truth the new games have been boring me so much
: I have been having so much fun playing classics like XCOm, Civ I/II,
: MOO, MOM and the like.
'Classics'? These are games from 2-4 years ago.
: Now THOSE were games with personality and originality.
Yes, because they were written by people who stopped whining about
the lack of original games and sat down to write their own. Yet
despite all that none of the games you mentioned originated a
genre; they were just better versions of games from long-established
genres. Just like Quake, Total Annihilation, Fallout, etc.
-- Dan
Dan Bongard
Darryl Stephen Roy (ers...@hal-pc.org) wrote:
: I think more concrete than any of these omissions is the idea that
: Moore's law, that price equivalent processing power doubles every 18
: months, will soon no longer apply. Microelectronic manufacture is
: approaching constraints set by physics. You can only make a circuit so
: small (even with x-ray photolithography) before you start getting
: unpredictabable responses from quantum effects...
There are numerous ways in which chips can be made MUCH faster,
Darryl. Among these are the use of better-conducting chip material
(aluminum, eventually superconductors of some kind) and the
use of optical circuitry. Then, of course, you have the use
of multiple processors in parallel, which allows for almost
unlimited speed increase. NT 4.0 already supports multiple
processors; you can look for future standardized MS OSs to
do the same thing.
Ie, the Pentium II isn't even remotely close to being the
fastest PC you'll see in your lifetime -- not by several
orders of magnitude.
: A second consideration, is that, while games may be the center of your
: world, the vast majority of consumers don't justify a $2000 purchase for
: gaming, but rather the more prosaic tasks of word processing and
: internet browsing.
They rationalize it that way, sure. In reality, however, home
computers tend to be used more for gaming than for other purposes.
When I bought my P-133 I didn't tell myself "I'm spending $3000
to play computer games", but that's mostly what I do. Bill Gates
understands this, which is why Microsoft took pains to ensure
that gaming companies had plenty of Win95-compatable games
as soon as humanly possible.
-- Dan
Joe
the count <eglam...@usa.net> wrote:
>Ok, so you've named *ONE* game with good graphics/sound AND good
>game play/plot/etc. Name others.
Moto Racer. Jedi Knight. Powerplay98. FIFA 98. Jet Fighter 3. Flying
Corps.
>An exception is just that - an exception.
I've named over half a dozen - and that's just in the first year of 3D
cards. The trend will only accelerate.
>And it is not even the beginning of a trend, since most games are
>still Doom or Warcraft clones. *yawn*
Of all the ones I've mentioned, only one (Jedi Knight) is arguably a
"doom clone", and even that one has done more to innovate and improve
first-person shooters than anything in recent memory.
>I'd still rather play SSI's Gold Box series [from the 80's] or
>Ultima I-IV (also 80's) over the vast majority of titles from the
>past 6-12 months :P
Sounds to me like you are just dying to whine about something, about
anything.
Joe
the count <eglam...@usa.net> wrote:
>Many people simply cannot afford to constantly upgrade their machines,
>especially if they have things like families ;P
Of course you again ignore the FACT that cheap 3d hardware has broken
this trend. One $200 3d card - the price of 3-4 games every year or so
and you can have a top-notch, arcade-hardware-quality gaming platform
for several years, on the same PC. But then, denying facts seems to be
a prerequisite for all youtr whining.
>Alternately, not everyone can have a $100+K a year job/rich parents/
>fabulous inheritence/win the lottery/whatever.
>If everyone did, all prices of everything would be correspondingly
>higher anyway, and there would be no advantage gained therefrom.
Ooooh, life just SUCKS, everything SUCKS, and NONE of it is my fault,
it has nothing to do with drive or ambition or dedication or work, I'm
just UNLUCKY, some other SOB who as all the LUCK get's to buy a $200
3d card EVERY SINGLE YEAR. IT'S NOT FAIR!!!!! Feel better now?
Joe
dbon...@netcom.com (Dan Bongard) wrote:
>use of optical circuitry. Then, of course, you have the use
>of multiple processors in parallel, which allows for almost
>unlimited speed increase. NT 4.0 already supports multiple
>processors; you can look for future standardized MS OSs to
>do the same thing.
Exactly. In fact that's what the 3dfx card is to - a second processor
dedicated to a specific task. And for that application (gaming)
computers have more like quadrupled in performance in the last 18
months.
Tom Pancoast
I could have sworn the count <eglam...@usa.net> wrote:
>Joe wrote:
>>
>> You mean like Longbow2? The game that just happend to have great
>> [3dfx] high-end graphics, AND the best gameplay/dynamic campaigns ever
>> seen in a flight/war similator?
>
>Ok, so you've named *ONE* game with good graphics/sound AND good
>game play/plot/etc. Name others.
>An exception is just that - an exception.
>And it is not even the beginning of a trend, since most games are
>still Doom or Warcraft clones. *yawn*
>
>I'd still rather play SSI's Gold Box series [from the 80's] or
>Ultima I-IV (also 80's) over the vast majority of titles from the
>past 6-12 months :P
You are comparing the best titles of a 1 year period with the best titles
from a 10 year period. If your point is the ratio of good games to
released games used to be higher, than I can't argue. If you are trying to
say that fewer good games are being released, then I'm sorry you only like
RPGs.
I like nearly all types of games (except team sport games and most
doom-clones), and I have been playing computer games for more than 15 years
now. I have more good games to choose from now than I ever had before, and
quite a number of truly great ones.
Your tastes obviously are different, but consider the possibility that your
lack of good games has more to do with your limited personal preferences
than with the quality of computer gaming.
As to the topic of the thread. I believe system requirements have been
slowed briefly by 3D accelerators, and future increases in requirements
will be less and less CPU based and become more and more 3D card and bus
speed based. It is already clear that each successive new processor is a
little less of an improvement over the old model. We are seeing ever
increasing Mhz ratings, but the real world speed increases are stagnating.
Intel knows this and is going to force continued upgrades with additional
new processor commands and with their domination of the chipset market by
slowly offering new improvements in the AGP spec, faster bus speeds, and
higher iterations of the Slot 1 structure. The net result will not appear
to be any different from the continual upgrading required by computers now,
and it may actually get worse.
My prediction is that Intel is feverishly working towards a 3D processor
that integrates into their CPU or at least into their slot 'n' that no one
else can duplicate without paying them licensing fees. AGP is just a
stalling tactic to continue to force upgrades until they are ready.
P.S. Did that sound paranoid?
---------------------------------------
tpancoast(at)pobox.com (Tom Pancoast)
Remove "KaKa" from the address to reply
"An object at rest cannot be stopped!"