Piracy is OVER in Y2K.
andy
Charles Doane wrote:
> i am a gay homosexual lookin for men to make love every day
> You heard me.
> i am gay
> It's done for, the last successfully pirateable system is the
> Sony PlayStation, and no future systems can possibly be pirated
> economically.
>
> The Sega Dreamcast is refreshing, because it's got a successful
> anti-pirate scheme. I love it. No piracy on the Dreamcast, and
> after a year of hacking by opportunistic scumbag pirates, the
> DC remains largely unbroken. Too bad for the pirates, great for
> the videogame industry.
>
> Sega doesn't get all of the credit, however. The N64 led the
> way, in staying with carts and making it so that the piracy
> costs more than the average thief is willing to pay.
> The Z64 and other ROM copiers were an abject failure, for the
> simple reason that they were too expensive. Thieves want their
> stuff CHEAP (preferably free), and a $200 cart copier won't
> sell well at all.
>
> It's Sony's turn now, with the PS2. They've already stepped
> up with DVD, which is hard to crack economically in and of
> itself. Sony can easily make a custom DVD standard, as it
> was Sony who co-authored the DVD standard in the first place.
>
> It looks like pirates are going to be playing last years'
> games for several years to come. Of course, with the piracy
> being totally history on the consoles, the PC is going to
> get swamped with thieves wanting freebies, but I don't much
> care for the PC gang anyway.
>
> I'm gonna be the first one to tell the pirates, BYE BYE!!
> Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out!!
>
> --
> Eppur si muove... "and yet it does move"... Galileo,
> after recanting his assertion of the Earth's motion.
--
Posted via CNET Help.com
http://www.help.com/
Pyrrhus
I have to say one thing... As a Software Pirate... Bullshit.
DVD's encryption has already been cracked. Give it two years. When DVD-R's
are as expensive as CD-R's are now, the PS2 will be the target of us all
over again. Hey, If I can get a game for $5 (Rental Cost) instead of $50,
then I think going with the cheaper route makes me intelligent, not Evil. As
for the door.. I can't go anywhere, cuz I'm still busy playing all my
BOOTLEG PSX games, which will also work on the PS2 as soon as they develop a
Chip for it. Give it 6 months. And DC Copying is just over the horizon. Wait
and See.
Py.
andy <aindrea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:scfgs7...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Charles Doane wrote:
neo_zo...@hotmail.com
"Pyrrhus" <Pyr...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> Hey, If I can get a game for $5 (Rental Cost) instead of $50, then I
> think going with the cheaper route makes me intelligent, not Evil.
It makes you a theif. It's one thing to get "illegal" copies of games
that are no longer sold or were never available in this country in the
first place, but you can't really defend bootleg PSX games. Are you
really that poor?
-ZFP
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Chad Faber
"Pyrrhus" <Pyr...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:8a8r1r$2bsm$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com...
>
> Chip for it. Give it 6 months. And DC Copying is just over the horizon.
Wait
> and See.
> Py.
>
economical feasible. I just don't see it happening with this console. Maybe
the PS2.
-Chad
fringe
come brand new dreamcast games still cost so much?
food for thought huh?
piracy WILL ALWAYS exsist and it is just a mater of time for any format.
Don't ride a high horse, it might be a donkey
nuff said
Charles Doane
>
> I have to say one thing... As a Software Pirate... Bullshit.
You're a fairly good representative of software pirates, you're obviously
both greedy and none too bright.
> DVD's encryption has already been cracked. Give it two years.
That DVD encryption had NOTHING to do making bootleg DVD's, but rather
bootleg DVD PLAYERS. DeCSS was written to enable Linux to read DVD's
in order to PLAY them. Copying a DVD with DeCSS would be fairly dumb,
since the result would just have to have the encryption stuck back on
the DVD in order fro it to play on a regular DVD anyway. It's possible
to copy DVD's, encryption and all, and that's really the way a DVD pirate
would WANT to do it.
> When DVD-R's are as expensive as CD-R's are now, the PS2 will be the
target of us all over again.
DVD-r blank media is about $30 a disc, making the DVD-r a very costly and
inefficient means of piracy. Besides, the PS2 *can* use DVD's, it doesn't
have to and most of the games likely won't be on DVD format at all.
If stupid pirates waste their time trying to crack the DVD format, Sony
has a whole different format in the PS2 CD's.
> Hey, If I can get a game for $5 (Rental Cost) instead of $50,
> then I think going with the cheaper route makes me intelligent, not Evil.
What it makes you is a thief. Most thieves think they're intelligent, but
they truly aren't. You go right ahead and buy a $1500 DVD-r, a $30 blank,
and convince yourself you're saving big bucks *snicker*.
> As for the door.. I can't go anywhere, cuz I'm still busy playing all my
> BOOTLEG PSX games, which will also work on the PS2 as soon as they develop a
> Chip for it. Give it 6 months. And DC Copying is just over the horizon. Wait
> and See.
*They* develop a chip? What moron is going to develop a chip to play piracy
PSX games in a PS2 when one's available on PSX? PSX game development is
shutting down, the stupid pirate that does it won't have a market for his
pirated PSX games. Pirates don't steal old discontinued softs and make any
profit.
DC copying isn't gonna happen. It's been tried for over a year to no avail,
the DC's oddball GD-ROM format makes it uprofitable. That's all software
protection needs to do, make copying unprofitable. Do that, and the copying
won't happen, just as there's no widespread piracy of N64. If pirates can't
fence their stolen property for dimes on the dollar, there won't be any
piracy happening.
Piracy is over, so play your bootleg PSX games, they're all you're ever
going to have from now on.
Charlie
current PSx Game, don't go blabbing it. Yeah so what if people still copy
PSx games and play them, if they get caught trying to sell a copy of a game
that has been pirated I feel they should do time, however, if you are going
to pirate software or games!! DO NOT Sell them or blab that you do that!!!
I feel the article that one pirate wrote was lame because he said that he
will pirate PSx games and play them on a ps2 with a chip. What an idiot.
Hell I have a mod-chip in my PSx and soon to have one in my Dreamcast for
the simple fact that I like to play Japanese Role Playing Games. I don't
like to pirate games because it steals from the company that idiot software
theifs like to steal from. Also with pirating only means Higher prices to
people who buy Legitimate software. Yeah I admit I have some copies of PSx
Games that a Friend of mine bought for me in Thailand but hell, I wont sell
them. I feel if ya do make back ups of games for whatever system, that is
fine as long as you dont try to make a profit off of someone else's
game!!!!!
Charles Doane <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote in message
news:38C85B5F...@primenet.com...
Joe
> so ummm,one quick question. If piracy makes games more
> expensive how come brand new dreamcast games still cost
> so much?
> food for thought huh?
Doesn't anybody take Econ 101 anymore? The DC's market
is still a lot more limited than other disc based formats
(e.g. PC or Playstation) and there are enough consumers
willing to pay the price. When demand subsides, you get
places like EB selling Showtime NBA on the DC for $30.
George
Hell, I'm just glad that games don't cost $60+ dollars like they did
in the 16-bit days. I remember paying $70 for Strider without blinking
and eye because it was the first "8 Megabit" game ever. I don't mind
paying $50 for the first 1 Gigabyte games.
neo_zo...@hotmail.com
gdo...@primenet.com wrote:
>
> DVD-r blank media is about $30 a disc, making the DVD-r a very costly
> and inefficient means of piracy.
That price will drop, and drop quickly.
> If stupid pirates waste their time trying to crack the DVD format,
> Sony has a whole different format in the PS2 CD's.
Which will no doubt be cracked as well.
> DC copying isn't gonna happen. It's been tried for over a year to no
> avail, the DC's oddball GD-ROM format makes it uprofitable. That's
> all software protection needs to do, make copying unprofitable.
Only a fool like you would believe that something that is unprofitable
will always be unprofitable.
> Piracy is over, so play your bootleg PSX games, they're all you're
> ever going to have from now on.
It will be fun to see your response when you're proven wrong, just like
you were about emulators, and nearly everything else you have strong
fellings about...
Craig Kelley
> You're a fairly good representative of software pirates, you're obviously
> both greedy and none too bright.
>
> > DVD's encryption has already been cracked. Give it two years.
>
> That DVD encryption had NOTHING to do making bootleg DVD's, but
> rather bootleg DVD PLAYERS. DeCSS was written to enable Linux to
> read DVD's in order to PLAY them. Copying a DVD with DeCSS would be
> fairly dumb, since the result would just have to have the encryption
> stuck back on the DVD in order fro it to play on a regular DVD
> anyway. It's possible to copy DVD's, encryption and all, and that's
> really the way a DVD pirate would WANT to do it.
Oh, so NOW you flop on this issue. What a joke. Two months ago, you
were claiming that DeCSS was a bootleg tool.
> > When DVD-R's are as expensive as CD-R's are now, the PS2 will be the
> target of us all over again.
>
> DVD-r blank media is about $30 a disc, making the DVD-r a very
> costly and inefficient means of piracy. Besides, the PS2 *can* use
> DVD's, it doesn't have to and most of the games likely won't be on
> DVD format at all. If stupid pirates waste their time trying to
> crack the DVD format, Sony has a whole different format in the PS2
> CD's.
I see you're using the same arguments we used against you in the decss
thread.
> > Hey, If I can get a game for $5 (Rental Cost) instead of $50,
> > then I think going with the cheaper route makes me intelligent, not Evil.
>
> What it makes you is a thief. Most thieves think they're
> intelligent, but they truly aren't. You go right ahead and buy a
> $1500 DVD-r, a $30 blank, and convince yourself you're saving big
> bucks *snicker*.
:)
[snip]
> DC copying isn't gonna happen. It's been tried for over a year to
> no avail, the DC's oddball GD-ROM format makes it uprofitable.
> That's all software protection needs to do, make copying
> unprofitable. Do that, and the copying won't happen, just as
> there's no widespread piracy of N64. If pirates can't fence their
> stolen property for dimes on the dollar, there won't be any piracy
> happening. Piracy is over, so play your bootleg PSX games, they're
> all you're ever going to have from now on.
One *could* make the argument that the reason the PSX was so popular
is because of piracy. By denying pirates the ability to pilfer
software, it decreases a system's mindshare and results in a downward
spiral: fewer systems => fewer games => fewer developers => (loop)
I believe this is very true in a competitive marketplace. If one
system is seen as the easily pirated one, it will become the
predominant machine and have the most games available. We've never
been able to test this hypothesis because we've never had a market in
which it was impossible to pirate on *any* current-generation system.
Not that I condone piracy, far from it -- I never pirate anything (I
even bought a copy of Zelda:OT to play under ultraHLE; I don't own a
Nintendo 64), but these draconian anti-piracy measures may well be
their own failing. One of the smartest things Nintendo could do with
the Dolphin would be to make it easy enough[1] to pirate games.
If Microsoft's X-Box uses standard Win32 games, then all these
consoles can kiss themselves goodbye (along with all their anti-piracy
protection). It will be easy to pirate for those who cannot afford to
buy games, and yet will have a nice entry-level price ($30-$40US) for
those who do not want to bother with burning.
Just some thoughts, and a potential warning to IP control freaks.
--
[1] "easy enough" Well, you don't want to GIVE your games away for
free, there has to be a significant effort involved to pirate
something, otherwise you may very well see game sales go down the
tube. If you make it difficult enough such that buying a game is less
of a hassle for those who can buy them, but easy enough to pirate for
those that wouldn't buy the game anyway -- you have a winning
combination. The PSX is a prime example of excellent execution in
this risky game.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- kell...@isu.edu
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger i...@inconnu.isu.edu for PGP block
Jimmie & Helen Hayes
and the n64. For the general console owner, it's far easier to copy saturn
games. It's exactly like the psx. And yet, it failed miserably in the US. I
don't think piracy helps the companies any more than it hurts them. I do think
that the more popular a system is, the more likely that it will be the subject of
piracy attempts. I think that sony has reached such a critical mass in customer
base that the ps2 would have to ship welded in a titanium box with no ports to
keep pirates at bay. I don't condone piracy but I don't condemn it either.
The one thing I'm a little unclear about is the difference between copying games
and reselling them used. Seems to me that's there's little difference between
selling a copy of Tomb Raider XXXIV for with Eidos recieves money only on the
single intial purchase of the game and the act of selling a game, buying it back,
reselling for additional profit, buying it back, wash, rinse, repeat... Can
anyone understand the logic that allows this system to exist?
Before anyone gets crazy on me, I do buy a lot of used playstation games and can
appreciate the fact that it's hard to part with $40-50 for a new game. I'm also
not trying to justify piracy. Just wondering what other people think of this.
Craig Kelley wrote:
note: this was clipped slightly out of context. The original message should be
viewed in its entirety. The person who wrote this is not justifing piracy just
tossing out an idea.
Craig Kelley
> I agreed with nearly all you've said except this point. Consider
> the sega saturn and the n64. For the general console owner, it's
> far easier to copy saturn games. It's exactly like the psx. And
> yet, it failed miserably in the US.
I can think of 2 reasons for this:
1) Nintendo had a HUGE mindshare from the 16-bit days. I know
several people who avoided the Saturn and PSX because they
were waiting for the N64.
2) UltraHLE
> I don't think piracy helps the companies any more than it hurts
> them. I do think that the more popular a system is, the more likely
> that it will be the subject of piracy attempts. I think that sony
> has reached such a critical mass in customer base that the ps2 would
> have to ship welded in a titanium box with no ports to keep pirates
> at bay. I don't condone piracy but I don't condemn it either.
It will be *very* difficult to pirate PSX-2 games without some sort of
hardware support. If Sony is smart about it, they'll let information
leak and see mod chips spring up within the first year.
Tempora
news:38cdc89d...@megsnews.megsinet.net...
There are PSX and DC games that have well passed the 1 gigabyte mark.
Charles Doane
>
> In article <38C85B5F...@primenet.com>,
> gdo...@primenet.com wrote:
> >
> > and inefficient means of piracy.
>
No, it won't, because the media doesn't have the sales appeal that CD-r
did. CD-r dropped because a large (relatively) audience wanted to put
music on CD's. DVD-r enjoys no such advantage, because while CD players
are cheap and actually useful in a portable package, DVD players aren't.
> > If stupid pirates waste their time trying to crack the DVD format,
> > Sony has a whole different format in the PS2 CD's.
>
> Which will no doubt be cracked as well.
Not by you, and not until/unless it becomes profitable, and it's just
not going to happen. Pirates, being thieves, tend to be the stupid
sort, and like you, expect "someone else" to crack it. That's fine,
as long as pirates expect someone else to do the cracking, then the
cracking will never happen.
> > DC copying isn't gonna happen. It's been tried for over a year to no
> > avail, the DC's oddball GD-ROM format makes it uprofitable. That's
> > all software protection needs to do, make copying unprofitable.
>
> Only a fool like you would believe that something that is unprofitable
> will always be unprofitable.
It doesn't have to always be unprofitable, it just has to be unprofitable
for the 4-5 year lifespan of the console and then it'll be unprofitable
forever as crooks don't go selling old games for discontinued systems.
> > Piracy is over, so play your bootleg PSX games, they're all you're
> > ever going to have from now on.
>
> It will be fun to see your response when you're proven wrong, just like
> you were about emulators, and nearly everything else you have strong
> fellings about...
I'm right about emulators, they are a distinct form of piracy.
Charles Doane
>
> Charles Doane <gdo...@primenet.com> writes:
>
> > You're a fairly good representative of software pirates, you're obviously
> > both greedy and none too bright.
> >
> > > DVD's encryption has already been cracked. Give it two years.
> >
> > That DVD encryption had NOTHING to do making bootleg DVD's, but
> > rather bootleg DVD PLAYERS. DeCSS was written to enable Linux to
> > read DVD's in order to PLAY them. Copying a DVD with DeCSS would be
> > fairly dumb, since the result would just have to have the encryption
> > stuck back on the DVD in order fro it to play on a regular DVD
> > anyway. It's possible to copy DVD's, encryption and all, and that's
> > really the way a DVD pirate would WANT to do it.
>
> Oh, so NOW you flop on this issue. What a joke. Two months ago, you
> were claiming that DeCSS was a bootleg tool.
It is a bootleg tool, it enables DVD movies to be uploaded and downloaded
from the internet. That's a very common forum for piracy. When common
household bandwidth becomes about 4 gigabits per second, DeCSS will start
to cause serious damage to the motion picture industry as entire feature
length movie downloads are under 2 minutes.
> > > When DVD-R's are as expensive as CD-R's are now, the PS2 will be the
> > target of us all over again.
> >
> > DVD-r blank media is about $30 a disc, making the DVD-r a very
> > costly and inefficient means of piracy. Besides, the PS2 *can* use
> > DVD's, it doesn't have to and most of the games likely won't be on
> > DVD format at all. If stupid pirates waste their time trying to
> > crack the DVD format, Sony has a whole different format in the PS2
> > CD's.
>
> I see you're using the same arguments we used against you in the decss
> thread.
Nobody used CD's in the DeCSS thread, not even VCD's.
<snip>
> > Piracy is over, so play your bootleg PSX games, they're
> > all you're ever going to have from now on.
>
> One *could* make the argument that the reason the PSX was so popular
> is because of piracy. By denying pirates the ability to pilfer
> software, it decreases a system's mindshare and results in a downward
> spiral: fewer systems => fewer games => fewer developers => (loop)
Except for the fact that systems are almost never profitable in and of
themselves, which means that piracy is a near-total loss on both the
loss of the system (Sony's reportedly losing $180 per PS2 sold, as an
example) and then on the loss of the software sales that are supposed
to make up for the loss. Pirates buying PlayStations are actually
ripping off Sony twice over.
Developers look at SKU's sold through, not how many systems there are.
Otherwise, there would still be games made for the very popular Genesis
and SNES consoles, but those games don't sell very well so they aren't
developed anymore.
> I believe this is very true in a competitive marketplace. If one
> system is seen as the easily pirated one, it will become the
> predominant machine and have the most games available. We've never
> been able to test this hypothesis because we've never had a market in
> which it was impossible to pirate on *any* current-generation system.
Intellivision vs. Atari 2600 was almost completely without software
piracy. Atari did quite well, it was the most popular machine of
the late 70's and very early 80's, without piracy. Pirates don't
contribute anything at all, and no company will be missing them.
> Not that I condone piracy, far from it -- I never pirate anything (I
> even bought a copy of Zelda:OT to play under ultraHLE; I don't own a
> Nintendo 64), but these draconian anti-piracy measures may well be
> their own failing. One of the smartest things Nintendo could do with
> the Dolphin would be to make it easy enough[1] to pirate games.
Easily pirated games early on in the life of a console could well end
development on that console. It's not as if publishers don't have
elsewhere to go, after all. Nintendo had a hard enough time getting
developers on the N64 as it was, because of the higher cart prices
and lower profit margins. That's all publishers look at and care
about, the bottom line, and that's where pirates steal from.
> If Microsoft's X-Box uses standard Win32 games, then all these
> consoles can kiss themselves goodbye (along with all their anti-piracy
> protection). It will be easy to pirate for those who cannot afford to
> buy games, and yet will have a nice entry-level price ($30-$40US) for
> those who do not want to bother with burning.
Microsoft's X-box doesn't stand a snowball's chance in a microwave
oven if it relies on standard Win32 games, and here's why.
The PC games market and the console games market are totally different
with very little common ground. Of the cross-over games between PC
and console, it's almost exclusively FPS/RTS (Descent, Mechwarrior2,
Rainbow Six), and racers (Need for Speed, Daytona USA).
Popular console games include platformers, console-style RPG's, and
fighters. Win32 games are very weak in the genres of games that a
console is expected to perform well in. With little/no support
from Japanese developers, overly complicated Win32 titles that are
unsuitable for console play, and PC gamers already having machines
that blow X-box out of the water, the X-box is already destined
to utterly fail. It's a STUPID idea and proof of how far Microsoft
is out of touch with the marketplace.
Phlexor
right all the time, you dont have to be you know, it's okay, you can relax.
I think you need a really big hug.
Jesus loves you.
Charles Doane <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote in message
news:38CA2DD1...@primenet.com...
Ford Prefect
<SNIP>
>
>It is a bootleg tool, it enables DVD movies to be uploaded and downloaded
>from the internet. That's a very common forum for piracy. When common
>household bandwidth becomes about 4 gigabits per second, DeCSS will start
>to cause serious damage to the motion picture industry as entire feature
>length movie downloads are under 2 minutes.
Bullshit. We won't see 4 gigabit per second household network connections for
a LONG LONG time, if ever. My estimate is 10 years at least. By then DVD will
be an obsolete format. And if it damages the motion picture industry I'll enjoy
it. Only an idiot would waste time downloading a 17gig dvd movie to pirate it.
I never ever heard of anyone even attempting to do it, even on a cable connection,
let alone with a modem. People can use a vhs tape to copy a dvd movie but
that would defeat the purpose of DVD. What would be the point? So, in short, DVDs
won't be pirated any time soon, if ever.
Dr Yassam
> ><snip>...
> Microsoft's X-box doesn't stand a snowball's chance in a microwave
> oven if it relies on standard Win32 games, and here's why.
Perhaps you would like to read the following link;
http://www.dailyradar.com/features/game_feature_page_473_1.html
Take special note of the list of developers, including those from Japan!
Oh and the following Q&A link is quite interesting also;
http://pc.ign.com/news/16384.html
Dr Yassam
Figment
people that would love to be able to record to a DVD. With computers
capable of editing digital video dropping in price every day, and
digital camcorders with 1394 becoming ever more common, I think that
DVD-R (or whatever they end up calling the technology) will become very
popular with amateur video editors. (and don't tell me that amateurs
won't pay the $1500 for a burner and $30 for a disc. I have a friend who
paid more than that for a digital camcorder and tapes when they first
came out.)
-----
figment
"Charles Doane" <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote in message
Craig Kelley
> Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> > > Piracy is over, so play your bootleg PSX games, they're
> > > all you're ever going to have from now on.
> >
> > One *could* make the argument that the reason the PSX was so popular
> > is because of piracy. By denying pirates the ability to pilfer
> > software, it decreases a system's mindshare and results in a downward
> > spiral: fewer systems => fewer games => fewer developers => (loop)
>
> Except for the fact that systems are almost never profitable in and of
> themselves, which means that piracy is a near-total loss on both the
> loss of the system (Sony's reportedly losing $180 per PS2 sold, as an
> example) and then on the loss of the software sales that are supposed
> to make up for the loss. Pirates buying PlayStations are actually
> ripping off Sony twice over.
I've never seen/known anyone who owned a PSX without at least a few
commercial games purchased. Besides, I have played other people's
CD-R games and then went out to purchase them because they were so
good. There is nothing "factual" about any of this, the SPA-types
don't do any real studies; it's all anecdotal.
> Developers look at SKU's sold through, not how many systems there are.
> Otherwise, there would still be games made for the very popular Genesis
> and SNES consoles, but those games don't sell very well so they aren't
> developed anymore.
Ahh, but the piracy-generated MINDshare does increase those sales;
that's my hypothesis.
> > I believe this is very true in a competitive marketplace. If one
> > system is seen as the easily pirated one, it will become the
> > predominant machine and have the most games available. We've never
> > been able to test this hypothesis because we've never had a market in
> > which it was impossible to pirate on *any* current-generation system.
>
> Intellivision vs. Atari 2600 was almost completely without software
> piracy. Atari did quite well, it was the most popular machine of
> the late 70's and very early 80's, without piracy. Pirates don't
> contribute anything at all, and no company will be missing them.
LOL. You've never seen a 2600 drop-in-chip cart?
Half the people I knew had them.
> > Not that I condone piracy, far from it -- I never pirate anything (I
> > even bought a copy of Zelda:OT to play under ultraHLE; I don't own a
> > Nintendo 64), but these draconian anti-piracy measures may well be
> > their own failing. One of the smartest things Nintendo could do with
> > the Dolphin would be to make it easy enough[1] to pirate games.
>
> Easily pirated games early on in the life of a console could well end
> development on that console. It's not as if publishers don't have
> elsewhere to go, after all. Nintendo had a hard enough time getting
> developers on the N64 as it was, because of the higher cart prices
> and lower profit margins. That's all publishers look at and care
> about, the bottom line, and that's where pirates steal from.
I believe this is true, which is why it pays to have some very good,
but not perfect, anti-piracy protection. You want it to be a big pain
to copy games.
> > If Microsoft's X-Box uses standard Win32 games, then all these
> > consoles can kiss themselves goodbye (along with all their anti-piracy
> > protection). It will be easy to pirate for those who cannot afford to
> > buy games, and yet will have a nice entry-level price ($30-$40US) for
> > those who do not want to bother with burning.
>
> Microsoft's X-box doesn't stand a snowball's chance in a microwave
> oven if it relies on standard Win32 games, and here's why.
> The PC games market and the console games market are totally different
> with very little common ground. Of the cross-over games between PC
> and console, it's almost exclusively FPS/RTS (Descent, Mechwarrior2,
> Rainbow Six), and racers (Need for Speed, Daytona USA).
And RPG (FF7 did *quite* well on the PC). There's no reason
EverQuest, et. all won't be on the X-Box. In fact, this past
generation of console games have seen many cross-over titles;
especiall on the 3-D front.
> Popular console games include platformers, console-style RPG's, and
> fighters. Win32 games are very weak in the genres of games that a
> console is expected to perform well in. With little/no support
> from Japanese developers, overly complicated Win32 titles that are
> unsuitable for console play, and PC gamers already having machines
> that blow X-box out of the water, the X-box is already destined
> to utterly fail. It's a STUPID idea and proof of how far Microsoft
> is out of touch with the marketplace.
Perhaps.
They will either win very big, or lose very big.
I never underestimate Microsoft. :)
Charles Doane
>
> > ><snip>...
> > Microsoft's X-box doesn't stand a snowball's chance in a microwave
> > oven if it relies on standard Win32 games, and here's why.
>
> http://www.dailyradar.com/features/game_feature_page_473_1.html
>
> Take special note of the list of developers, including those from Japan!
>
> Oh and the following Q&A link is quite interesting also;
> http://pc.ign.com/news/16384.html
*snicker*
Oh, come on, those were PRE-RENDERED movies based on what a machine
with the X-BOX specs *might* be able to do. Did they take a page
out of Nintendo's playbook or what? A little bit of name-dropping
from companies that already do PC development like EA and Midway
is hardly impressive, it's actually pretty silly.
The whole press conference didn't show so much as one SECOND's
worth of actual game footage. It's totally worthless, they have
no titles, no games, no support, and the machine is just a crippled
PC wannabe.
Microsoft is about to have their asses handed to them, if they're
stupid enough to pursue the X-box.
NonDeskript
> The whole press conference didn't show so much as one SECOND's
> worth of actual game footage. It's totally worthless, they have
> no titles, no games, no support, and the machine is just a crippled
> PC wannabe.
Except that most of the big developers are interested in supporting the
X-Box, its a year away so there naturally isn't any game footage or
titles, and it doesn't run PC games so its not a PC wannabe.
In fact the stats on the X-Box are more powerful than the PS2, so if its
a crippled PC wannabe, then the PS2 must really be shit.
--
-David
Charles Doane
>
> I don't know what type of people you hang out with, but I know a lot of
> people that would love to be able to record to a DVD. With computers
> capable of editing digital video dropping in price every day, and
> digital camcorders with 1394 becoming ever more common, I think that
> DVD-R (or whatever they end up calling the technology) will become very
> popular with amateur video editors. (and don't tell me that amateurs
> won't pay the $1500 for a burner and $30 for a disc. I have a friend who
> paid more than that for a digital camcorder and tapes when they first
> came out.)
> -----
> figment
>
Why not tell you that? PROFESSIONALS don't even use DVD-r, they use
SONY Betamax professionally. Heck, with PC hard drives down to almost
$100 per 5 GB of storage, hd's are getting nearly as cheap of a
digital storage media as DVD is. That's what the Tivo system uses,
you know.
http://www.tivo.com/
It would be a foolish amateur to use a limited DVD-r instead of a
hard drive for editing digital video.
Charles Doane
First of all, power doesn't mean a whole lot.
Case in point, every portable game system released since 1989 has been
more powerful than the Gameboy is, but guess which one survived as all
the rest fell by the wayside?
Secondly, games are everything.
Microsoft has none, at all. The system is being set up to be fully
dependent on 3rd party softs, and that's no more of a recipe for
success than Nintendo's reliance on 1st party softs.
Microsoft, if they're serious (they aren't) needs to do at LEAST as
much as Sony did and get themselves some in-house game talent, or
else they'll find themselves with half-hearted efforts and ports of
games that came from other systems.
The demos they showed had Midway's "Afro Thunder" from "Ready 2 Rumble"
in it, for pity's sake! Who's going to buy an X-box to play R2R when
the game is out and OLD on Dreamcast? While I like retro-gaming, it's
not going to be selling machines based on any power.
Charles Doane
> >
<snip>
> > Pirates buying PlayStations are actually
> > ripping off Sony twice over.
>
> I've never seen/known anyone who owned a PSX without at least a few
> commercial games purchased. Besides, I have played other people's
> CD-R games and then went out to purchase them because they were so
> good. There is nothing "factual" about any of this, the SPA-types
> don't do any real studies; it's all anecdotal.
There are better, more legit ways to try out games than hanging around
with lousy pirates. Rentals, for example, as well as demos and in-store
kiosks. Piracy games are not a good trial, because the copies are often
of inferior beta versions of the game.
Besides, someone buying a game after playing a piracy copy in no way
legitimizes the theft of the piracy copy.
> > Developers look at SKU's sold through, not how many systems there are.
> > Otherwise, there would still be games made for the very popular Genesis
> > and SNES consoles, but those games don't sell very well so they aren't
> > developed anymore.
>
> Ahh, but the piracy-generated MINDshare does increase those sales;
> that's my hypothesis.
Mindshare among pirates is an absolutely worthless thing. There is no
profit to be made by impressing thieves enough to steal a product.
That's why Sony made the mod-chip detection cause modded PlayStations
to refuse to run a game. Sony isn't interested in the thieves guild
as a source of "customers".
A userbase that doesn't pay for what they take is completely worthless.
<snip>
> > Intellivision vs. Atari 2600 was almost completely without software
> > piracy. Atari did quite well, it was the most popular machine of
> > the late 70's and very early 80's, without piracy. Pirates don't
> > contribute anything at all, and no company will be missing them.
>
> LOL. You've never seen a 2600 drop-in-chip cart?
>
> Half the people I knew had them.
Nope, I never saw one, you must be hanging around with a rougher crowd
than I'd care to.
<snip>
> > Easily pirated games early on in the life of a console could well end
> > development on that console. It's not as if publishers don't have
> > elsewhere to go, after all. Nintendo had a hard enough time getting
> > developers on the N64 as it was, because of the higher cart prices
> > and lower profit margins. That's all publishers look at and care
> > about, the bottom line, and that's where pirates steal from.
>
> I believe this is true, which is why it pays to have some very good,
> but not perfect, anti-piracy protection. You want it to be a big pain
> to copy games.
Ideally, it would be impossible to copy games, but failing that, it's
just as good to make it so that piracy costs as much as legit games
do. Pirates are total cheapskates, many on this newsgroup have said
flatly that if they had to buy games legitimately, they wouldn't. Of
course, this is the "they aren't REALLY losing sales when I pirate"
argument, but it works the other way around. If they won't buy games
anyway, then pirates are completely worthless to the hobby.
<snip>
> > Microsoft's X-box doesn't stand a snowball's chance in a microwave
> > oven if it relies on standard Win32 games, and here's why.
> > The PC games market and the console games market are totally different
> > with very little common ground. Of the cross-over games between PC
> > and console, it's almost exclusively FPS/RTS (Descent, Mechwarrior2,
> > Rainbow Six), and racers (Need for Speed, Daytona USA).
>
> And RPG (FF7 did *quite* well on the PC). There's no reason
> EverQuest, et. all won't be on the X-Box. In fact, this past
> generation of console games have seen many cross-over titles;
> especiall on the 3-D front.
The X-box getting PC games like Everquest won't help it any, not if
it's trying to tap into the simpler, more enjoyable gameplay of the
console type of games. Anybody who wants to play PC games and has
enough cash for an X-box is already playing PC games on a PC.
Microsoft is trying to tap into a market that doesn't exist.
> > Popular console games include platformers, console-style RPG's, and
> > fighters. Win32 games are very weak in the genres of games that a
> > console is expected to perform well in. With little/no support
> > from Japanese developers, overly complicated Win32 titles that are
> > unsuitable for console play, and PC gamers already having machines
> > that blow X-box out of the water, the X-box is already destined
> > to utterly fail. It's a STUPID idea and proof of how far Microsoft
> > is out of touch with the marketplace.
>
> Perhaps.
>
> They will either win very big, or lose very big.
>
> I never underestimate Microsoft. :)
>
It's hardly the first time that a PC format has been turned into
a console. Whatever happened to the old Amiga 32 anyway?
Charles Doane
>
> Charles Doane wrote:
> > NonDeskript wrote:
> > >
> > > Charles Doane wrote:
> > > In fact the stats on the X-Box are more powerful than the PS2, so if its
> > > a crippled PC wannabe, then the PS2 must really be shit.
> > >
> > > --
> > > -David
> >
> >
> > First of all, power doesn't mean a whole lot.
> > Case in point, every portable game system released since 1989 has been
> > more powerful than the Gameboy is, but guess which one survived as all
> > the rest fell by the wayside?
>
> Gameboy is a freak. No other system has ever had the staying power of the
> GB. And many people would argue that it didn't even have the best games,
> just the cheapest price and widest brand name recognition.
SNK's Neo Geo has been around almost as long, and it's still getting games.
It hardly has either the cheapest price (by a long shot) or the widest
brand name recognition.
The point is, power doesn't mean much. The N64 shows the ability to rip
apart the PSX in sheer horsepower, but that horsepower didn't help it
very much in real competition.
> > Secondly, games are everything.
> > Microsoft has none, at all. The system is being set up to be fully
> > dependent on 3rd party softs, and that's no more of a recipe for
> > success than Nintendo's reliance on 1st party softs.
> > Microsoft, if they're serious (they aren't) needs to do at LEAST as
> > much as Sony did and get themselves some in-house game talent, or
> > else they'll find themselves with half-hearted efforts and ports of
> > games that came from other systems.
>
> Doane: You have no idea of what you speak. Go to M$'s website and
> actually LOOK at their product line. There are quite a few games there.
> And most of them are very good. They have more experience in video games
> than Sony did when they started. Learn before you speak, Doane.
Sony had Sony Imagesoft (989 Studios these days) and bought Psygnosis.
Sony also had a bit of help from Namco, which helped them mightily
with the Arcade titles a console needs to survive.
Microsoft isn't a major player in videogames. They make no arcade
machines, have no arcade division, and don't even publish for consoles.
At least Sony did some games on Genesis (Mickey Mania) before jumping
into the console fray.
PC videogames aren't really videogames at all, they don't count.
> > The demos they showed had Midway's "Afro Thunder" from "Ready 2 Rumble"
> > in it, for pity's sake! Who's going to buy an X-box to play R2R when
> > the game is out and OLD on Dreamcast? While I like retro-gaming, it's
> > not going to be selling machines based on any power.
>
> Oh jesus. The system is a year away. You can't judge it by the demo's
> they put out right now. Get a grip.
Get a grip? The *reason* that Microsoft put out those demos was for the
expressed purpose of judging their system. The heck of it is, the demos
weren't even ON an X-box. It's really similar to the same stunt Nintendo
pulled running demos on an SGI machine and saying "Here's the Ultra 64".
Figment
finished work is what I'm talking about. Sure the $30 media price is a
little expensive for a wedding video, but as the world moves away from
VHS and wants DVD instead, the price will either drop or DVD as a whole
will never be as popular as VHS.
----
figment
"Charles Doane" <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote in message
news:38CADC0D...@primenet.com...
> It would be a foolish amateur to use a limited DVD-r instead of a
> hard drive for editing digital video.
>
Justinian
<gdo...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
>Secondly, games are everything.
>Microsoft has none, at all. The system is being set up to be fully
>dependent on 3rd party softs, and that's no more of a recipe for
>success than Nintendo's reliance on 1st party softs.
>Microsoft, if they're serious (they aren't) needs to do at LEAST as
>much as Sony did and get themselves some in-house game talent, or
>else they'll find themselves with half-hearted efforts and ports of
>games that came from other systems.
>
Oh please. Microsoft has plenty of experience getting outside
developers to make games. What makes you think they don't recognize
the importance of software support? Microsoft is a foremost software
company. I don't think anyone needs to tell them that.
------
Jimmy, it's Angel. Don't pay no attention to my other
message. You're out of it. You're clean, no trouble at
all. Just ignore the first message.
From Gearjammers Part Two/Rockford Files, 1974-1980
Springo Ingo
far from it -- I never pirate anything (I
> > even bought a copy of Zelda:OT to play under ultraHLE; I don't own a
> > Nintendo 64), but these draconian anti-piracy measures may well be
> > their own failing. "
bought the actual cart. If you think about it, you can consider UltraHLE
your N64, the Roms your cartridges, and your computer your TV. Now, I'm glad
you bought the actually game, but if you don't have an N64 and you're using
UltraHLE, you're basically pirating a N64 in a way. Think about it.
Craig Kelley <i...@inconnu.isu.edu> wrote in message
news:m17lf9z...@inconnu.isu.edu...
> Charles Doane <gdo...@primenet.com> writes:
>
> > Craig Kelley wrote:
> >
> > > > Piracy is over, so play your bootleg PSX games, they're
> > > > all you're ever going to have from now on.
> > >
> > > One *could* make the argument that the reason the PSX was so popular
> > > is because of piracy. By denying pirates the ability to pilfer
> > > software, it decreases a system's mindshare and results in a downward
> > > spiral: fewer systems => fewer games => fewer developers => (loop)
> >
> > Except for the fact that systems are almost never profitable in and of
> > themselves, which means that piracy is a near-total loss on both the
> > loss of the system (Sony's reportedly losing $180 per PS2 sold, as an
> > example) and then on the loss of the software sales that are supposed
> > to make up for the loss. Pirates buying PlayStations are actually
> > ripping off Sony twice over.
>
> I've never seen/known anyone who owned a PSX without at least a few
> commercial games purchased. Besides, I have played other people's
> CD-R games and then went out to purchase them because they were so
> good. There is nothing "factual" about any of this, the SPA-types
> don't do any real studies; it's all anecdotal.
>
> > Developers look at SKU's sold through, not how many systems there are.
> > Otherwise, there would still be games made for the very popular Genesis
> > and SNES consoles, but those games don't sell very well so they aren't
> > developed anymore.
>
> Ahh, but the piracy-generated MINDshare does increase those sales;
> that's my hypothesis.
>
> > > I believe this is very true in a competitive marketplace. If one
> > > system is seen as the easily pirated one, it will become the
> > > predominant machine and have the most games available. We've never
> > > been able to test this hypothesis because we've never had a market in
> > > which it was impossible to pirate on *any* current-generation system.
> >
> > Intellivision vs. Atari 2600 was almost completely without software
> > piracy. Atari did quite well, it was the most popular machine of
> > the late 70's and very early 80's, without piracy. Pirates don't
> > contribute anything at all, and no company will be missing them.
>
> LOL. You've never seen a 2600 drop-in-chip cart?
>
> Half the people I knew had them.
>
> > > Not that I condone piracy, far from it -- I never pirate anything (I
> > > even bought a copy of Zelda:OT to play under ultraHLE; I don't own a
> > > Nintendo 64), but these draconian anti-piracy measures may well be
> > > their own failing. One of the smartest things Nintendo could do with
> > > the Dolphin would be to make it easy enough[1] to pirate games.
> >
> > Easily pirated games early on in the life of a console could well end
> > development on that console. It's not as if publishers don't have
> > elsewhere to go, after all. Nintendo had a hard enough time getting
> > developers on the N64 as it was, because of the higher cart prices
> > and lower profit margins. That's all publishers look at and care
> > about, the bottom line, and that's where pirates steal from.
>
> I believe this is true, which is why it pays to have some very good,
> but not perfect, anti-piracy protection. You want it to be a big pain
> to copy games.
>
> > > If Microsoft's X-Box uses standard Win32 games, then all these
> > > consoles can kiss themselves goodbye (along with all their anti-piracy
> > > protection). It will be easy to pirate for those who cannot afford to
> > > buy games, and yet will have a nice entry-level price ($30-$40US) for
> > > those who do not want to bother with burning.
> >
> > Microsoft's X-box doesn't stand a snowball's chance in a microwave
> > oven if it relies on standard Win32 games, and here's why.
> > The PC games market and the console games market are totally different
> > with very little common ground. Of the cross-over games between PC
> > and console, it's almost exclusively FPS/RTS (Descent, Mechwarrior2,
> > Rainbow Six), and racers (Need for Speed, Daytona USA).
>
> And RPG (FF7 did *quite* well on the PC). There's no reason
> EverQuest, et. all won't be on the X-Box. In fact, this past
> generation of console games have seen many cross-over titles;
> especiall on the 3-D front.
>
> > Popular console games include platformers, console-style RPG's, and
> > fighters. Win32 games are very weak in the genres of games that a
> > console is expected to perform well in. With little/no support
> > from Japanese developers, overly complicated Win32 titles that are
> > unsuitable for console play, and PC gamers already having machines
> > that blow X-box out of the water, the X-box is already destined
> > to utterly fail. It's a STUPID idea and proof of how far Microsoft
> > is out of touch with the marketplace.
>
> Perhaps.
>
> They will either win very big, or lose very big.
>
> I never underestimate Microsoft. :)
>
NonDeskript
> NonDeskript wrote:
> >
> > Charles Doane wrote:
> > > worth of actual game footage. It's totally worthless, they have
> > > no titles, no games, no support, and the machine is just a crippled
> > > PC wannabe.
> >
> > Except that most of the big developers are interested in supporting the
> > X-Box, its a year away so there naturally isn't any game footage or
> > titles, and it doesn't run PC games so its not a PC wannabe.
> >
> > a crippled PC wannabe, then the PS2 must really be shit.
> >
> > --
> > -David
>
>
> First of all, power doesn't mean a whole lot.
> Case in point, every portable game system released since 1989 has been
> more powerful than the Gameboy is, but guess which one survived as all
> the rest fell by the wayside?
Gameboy is a freak. No other system has ever had the staying power of the
GB. And many people would argue that it didn't even have the best games,
just the cheapest price and widest brand name recognition.
> Secondly, games are everything.
> Microsoft has none, at all. The system is being set up to be fully
> dependent on 3rd party softs, and that's no more of a recipe for
> success than Nintendo's reliance on 1st party softs.
> Microsoft, if they're serious (they aren't) needs to do at LEAST as
> much as Sony did and get themselves some in-house game talent, or
> else they'll find themselves with half-hearted efforts and ports of
> games that came from other systems.
Doane: You have no idea of what you speak. Go to M$'s website and
actually LOOK at their product line. There are quite a few games there.
And most of them are very good. They have more experience in video games
than Sony did when they started. Learn before you speak, Doane.
> The demos they showed had Midway's "Afro Thunder" from "Ready 2 Rumble"
> in it, for pity's sake! Who's going to buy an X-box to play R2R when
> the game is out and OLD on Dreamcast? While I like retro-gaming, it's
> not going to be selling machines based on any power.
Oh jesus. The system is a year away. You can't judge it by the demo's
they put out right now. Get a grip.
--
-David
NonDeskript
> NonDeskript wrote:
>
> >
> > Gameboy is a freak. No other system has ever had the staying power of the
> > GB. And many people would argue that it didn't even have the best games,
> > just the cheapest price and widest brand name recognition.
>
> It hardly has either the cheapest price (by a long shot) or the widest
> brand name recognition.
> The point is, power doesn't mean much. The N64 shows the ability to rip
> apart the PSX in sheer horsepower, but that horsepower didn't help it
> very much in real competition.
SNK's Neo Geo is also a freak. It was supported primarily by SNK. Not
what one would consider a succesful system.
And the N64? It may have had higher specs, but it has severe limitations
that cramp it. Poor storage medium was the biggest, as well as high price
of games.
> > Doane: You have no idea of what you speak. Go to M$'s website and
> > actually LOOK at their product line. There are quite a few games there.
> > And most of them are very good. They have more experience in video games
> > than Sony did when they started. Learn before you speak, Doane.
>
> Sony had Sony Imagesoft (989 Studios these days) and bought Psygnosis.
> Sony also had a bit of help from Namco, which helped them mightily
> with the Arcade titles a console needs to survive.
Sony had almost no experience in gaming before the PSX, and had made
almost no quality games. M$, OTOH, has been cranking out quality games
for many many years. And if it comes down to buying out developers to
make games for your system, well, M$ has a lot more money for that than
$ony.
And Namco is already interested in the X-Box.
> Microsoft isn't a major player in videogames. They make no arcade
> machines, have no arcade division, and don't even publish for consoles.
> At least Sony did some games on Genesis (Mickey Mania) before jumping
> into the console fray.
Actually, M$ is a pretty major player in videogames. They make a lot of
top selling games in the US market, if you actually looked at games sales
you'd see that.
BTW, Sony has no arcade machines and no arcade division, and before the
PSX had almost no quality titles at all.
> PC videogames aren't really videogames at all, they don't count.
Yes, they are. Your bias don't have any affect on reality
> > Oh jesus. The system is a year away. You can't judge it by the demo's
> > they put out right now. Get a grip.
>
> Get a grip? The *reason* that Microsoft put out those demos was for the
> expressed purpose of judging their system. The heck of it is, the demos
> weren't even ON an X-box. It's really similar to the same stunt Nintendo
> pulled running demos on an SGI machine and saying "Here's the Ultra 64".
So, you are saying that because M$ is trying to hype their system that it
won't have any gaes and will be a failure? LOL Are you stupid enough to
believe the crap you say?
--
-David
Keith Fulkerson
Charles Doane <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote in message
> PC videogames aren't really videogames at all, they don't count.
>
Troll-la-lalala
> Eppur si muove... "and yet it does move"... Galileo,
> after recanting his assertion of Doane's flappin' lips
>
Charles Doane
>
> Who said anything about editing using the DVD-R? Making copies of the
> finished work is what I'm talking about. Sure the $30 media price is a
> little expensive for a wedding video, but as the world moves away from
> VHS and wants DVD instead, the price will either drop or DVD as a whole
> will never be as popular as VHS.
> ----
> figment
>
I misunderstood, amateurs don't usually worry about copies of the
finished work and distributing them. Even if they were, VHS is
still the best choice by far, simply because everyone can play a
VHS tape. Even if a wedding video is put on a DVD-r, it's still
going to get copied on VHS to play over at Grandma's house (unless
Grandma is really hip and up with the latest gadgets).
DVD is a nerd box, that's why it was such a great fit with the
Sony PS2, but it's not something the average consumer is ready
for or even wants. DVD will never approach the VHS in popularity.
--
Eppur si muove... "and yet it does move"... Galileo,
after recanting his assertion of the Earth's motion.
Charles Doane
>
> Charles Doane wrote:
> > NonDeskript wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Gameboy is a freak. No other system has ever had the staying power of the
> > > GB. And many people would argue that it didn't even have the best games,
> > > just the cheapest price and widest brand name recognition.
> >
> > SNK's Neo Geo has been around almost as long, and it's still getting games.
> > It hardly has either the cheapest price (by a long shot) or the widest
> > brand name recognition.
> > The point is, power doesn't mean much. The N64 shows the ability to rip
> > apart the PSX in sheer horsepower, but that horsepower didn't help it
> > very much in real competition.
>
> SNK's Neo Geo is also a freak. It was supported primarily by SNK. Not
> what one would consider a succesful system.
> And the N64? It may have had higher specs, but it has severe limitations
> that cramp it. Poor storage medium was the biggest, as well as high price
> of games.
The Neo Geo is considered a gamer's machine, the thing is really the same
hardware as the arcade has (one reason it's expensive), and it uses carts.
So does the N64. Carts do have advantages as a storage system, after all.
Both systems had state-of-the-art power, but power didn't help them make
any progress against less powerful systems. Power simply isn't everything,
there are lots of other factors besides just that.
> > > Doane: You have no idea of what you speak. Go to M$'s website and
> > > actually LOOK at their product line. There are quite a few games there.
> > > And most of them are very good. They have more experience in video games
> > > than Sony did when they started. Learn before you speak, Doane.
> >
> > Sony had Sony Imagesoft (989 Studios these days) and bought Psygnosis.
> > Sony also had a bit of help from Namco, which helped them mightily
> > with the Arcade titles a console needs to survive.
>
> Sony had almost no experience in gaming before the PSX, and had made
> almost no quality games. M$, OTOH, has been cranking out quality games
> for many many years. And if it comes down to buying out developers to
> make games for your system, well, M$ has a lot more money for that than
> $ony.
Sony learned fast, with lessons from Namco and internal games by Psygnosis
and Singletrac.
Microsoft, on the other hand, can't make quality games. Out of the 41
games listed at http://www.microsoft.com/games/products.asp?filter=list
20 of them have patches. That says loud and clear that Microsoft messes
up half of everything they do.
> And Namco is already interested in the X-Box.
Namco's interested in the DC as well, and they've made games for the N64.
Namco being interested in a console is not that significant. Namco's
interested in every console lately.
> > Microsoft isn't a major player in videogames. They make no arcade
> > machines, have no arcade division, and don't even publish for consoles.
> > At least Sony did some games on Genesis (Mickey Mania) before jumping
> > into the console fray.
>
> Actually, M$ is a pretty major player in videogames. They make a lot of
> top selling games in the US market, if you actually looked at games sales
> you'd see that.
Out of the 106 PC games set for release through Q4 2000, Microsoft is only
good for 5 of them. That's less than 5%, hardly what I'd call a major
player.
Look at sales, you say? Okay.
http://www.gamedaily.com/npd_trst/march_00/feb27_mar4/tp30pub.shtml
Where's Microsoft at? In the top 10? Nope, they're at #16, Mattel
did better than Microsoft did.
> BTW, Sony has no arcade machines and no arcade division, and before the
> PSX had almost no quality titles at all.
>
> > PC videogames aren't really videogames at all, they don't count.
>
> Yes, they are. Your bias don't have any affect on reality
They aren't the same as console games are, not by any stretch of the
imagination. Golf games, case in point. When a PC golf game is made,
it's a sim, everything is acccurately detailed down to using REAL courses
and endorsements by REAL golfers. It's a sim, more than a game. No fun,
imho.
Contrast that to Hot Shots Golf on the PlayStation, or Mario Golf on
the N64, simplified controls, not too serious, and lighter on the sim
in order to boost the fun factor.
> > > Oh jesus. The system is a year away. You can't judge it by the demo's
> > > they put out right now. Get a grip.
> >
> > Get a grip? The *reason* that Microsoft put out those demos was for the
> > expressed purpose of judging their system. The heck of it is, the demos
> > weren't even ON an X-box. It's really similar to the same stunt Nintendo
> > pulled running demos on an SGI machine and saying "Here's the Ultra 64".
>
> So, you are saying that because M$ is trying to hype their system that it
> won't have any gaes and will be a failure? LOL Are you stupid enough to
> believe the crap you say?
Right now Microsoft hasn't even gotten as far as Apple did with their
little game console called "Pippin".
This has been tried before, it's failed before. Commodore tried it with
the Amiga 32CD, and it fell through as well. PC's don't make good consoles.
The X-box will be loaded up with PC games (not console ones) and the few
console games they do get are just going to be ports from REAL consoles.
The thing is going to be looked at as a "PC Lite", and people who want
to play PC games are already doing so. The X-box hasn't got a market
to sell to.
It can't be a successful console and be based on a PC architecture, it's
been tried at least twice that I can think of (off the top of my head) and
it's never, ever worked.
Charles Doane
>
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2000 17:01:07 -0700, Charles Doane
> <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Microsoft has none, at all. The system is being set up to be fully
> >dependent on 3rd party softs, and that's no more of a recipe for
> >success than Nintendo's reliance on 1st party softs.
> >Microsoft, if they're serious (they aren't) needs to do at LEAST as
> >much as Sony did and get themselves some in-house game talent, or
> >else they'll find themselves with half-hearted efforts and ports of
> >games that came from other systems.
> >
>
> developers to make games. What makes you think they don't recognize
> the importance of software support? Microsoft is a foremost software
> company. I don't think anyone needs to tell them that.
Microsoft only does PC games, that's all they've ever done. There's
a huge difference between PC games and console games, and they aren't
compatible. The target audiences are totally different, as are the
styles of gameplay. Microsoft is trying to take a PC, paint "X-box"
on it, and call it a console. It won't fly.
Microsoft isn't selling anything that isn't being sold now.
Want an X-box? Print out the specs and go to anyplace Wintel
machines are sold. That's what will kill the machine, it's
not exclusive, and anyone who wants to play X-box is already
doing so on their PC's. The thing is too weak to sell to
PC gamers, and too PC-like to sell to console gamers.
Shell User
On Sun, 12 Mar 2000, NonDeskript wrote:
> Charles Doane wrote:
> Actually, M$ is a pretty major player in videogames. They make a lot of
> top selling games in the US market, if you actually looked at games sales
> you'd see that.
I think what Charle's is pointing out, and I agree with it, is that
console and PC are two different markets with very little overlap save for
racers. When you check the top 20 bestselling console games, you don't
see the Quake, Roller Coaster Tycoon, Civilization franchises on the list.
Keyboard-based PC hits don't translate into console hits.
> > PC videogames aren't really videogames at all, they don't count.
>
> Yes, they are. Your bias don't have any affect on reality
Let's not get bogged down in semantics. People don't buy consoles to
place Age of Empires and MS Flight Simulator, fine games though they may
be for the PC. System sellers for the console are in totally different
genres.
>
> So, you are saying that because M$ is trying to hype their system that it
> won't have any gaes and will be a failure? LOL Are you stupid enough to
> believe the crap you say?
I find it hard to believe they'll have much in the way of big-name
exclusives given Square, Konami, and Namco's undying loyalty to the PS2
plaftorm. If Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid and Tekken have already hit
the PS2 months before the X-box launch, what exactly is the impetus for
buying a X-box? To play upgraded ports of said games? To play new titles
from these companies with no brand recognition?
NonDeskript
> NonDeskript wrote:
>
> > SNK's Neo Geo is also a freak. It was supported primarily by SNK. Not
> > what one would consider a succesful system.
> > And the N64? It may have had higher specs, but it has severe limitations
> > that cramp it. Poor storage medium was the biggest, as well as high price
> > of games.
>
> The Neo Geo is considered a gamer's machine, the thing is really the same
> hardware as the arcade has (one reason it's expensive), and it uses carts.
> So does the N64. Carts do have advantages as a storage system, after all.
SNK is an arcade machine for your home. At its price point it cannot be
considered alongside typical systems. The only reason that it is still
alive is because SNK uses the MVS for all its arcade games. Its not the
same thing at all. Anyone who knows anything would know that. And the
only advantages carts have are: no load times and higher durability. But
these are more than offset by the extreme limit in storage space. It's
why FF7 COULDN'T be done on an N64, even though the N64 has higher specs.
> Both systems had state-of-the-art power, but power didn't help them make
> any progress against less powerful systems. Power simply isn't everything,
> there are lots of other factors besides just that.
SNK: Super high price. Miniscule 3rd party support. N64: Miniscule 3rd
party support due to errors by Nintendo.
Yes there are other factors. The factors that caused these systems to do
so poorly can't be said to affect the X-Box yet.
> > Sony had almost no experience in gaming before the PSX, and had made
> > almost no quality games. M$, OTOH, has been cranking out quality games
> > for many many years. And if it comes down to buying out developers to
> > make games for your system, well, M$ has a lot more money for that than
> > $ony.
>
> Sony learned fast, with lessons from Namco and internal games by Psygnosis
> and Singletrac.
>
> Microsoft, on the other hand, can't make quality games. Out of the 41
> games listed at http://www.microsoft.com/games/products.asp?filter=list
> 20 of them have patches. That says loud and clear that Microsoft messes
> up half of everything they do.
Um, these are PC games. Its almost unheard of for a major PC game not to
have a patch, due to different hardware configurations that can't be
tested. This doesn't affect console gaming though. Do you know anything
of what you speak? Have you ever actually played an M$ game? Have you
read reviews of M$ games?
> > And Namco is already interested in the X-Box.
>
> Namco's interested in the DC as well, and they've made games for the N64.
> Namco being interested in a console is not that significant. Namco's
> interested in every console lately.
Well, then Namco is not a Sony ace-in-the-hole as you implied is it?
Capcom and Konami are also interested. And Square has been said to be
eyeing it. Oh and don't forget EA. And Acclaim. And Activision. Looks
like a LOT of console 3rd party developers are interested in the X-Box.
> > Actually, M$ is a pretty major player in videogames. They make a lot of
> > top selling games in the US market, if you actually looked at games sales
> > you'd see that.
>
> Out of the 106 PC games set for release through Q4 2000, Microsoft is only
> good for 5 of them. That's less than 5%, hardly what I'd call a major
> player.
> Look at sales, you say? Okay.
> http://www.gamedaily.com/npd_trst/march_00/feb27_mar4/tp30pub.shtml
> Where's Microsoft at? In the top 10? Nope, they're at #16, Mattel
> did better than Microsoft did.
Ugh, go to a PC game group and ask about M$'s games. You just don't know
of what you speak. And they are STILL doing much better than Sony was
prior to their release of the PSX.
And on the top ten selling PC titles for the week of Feb 20-26, M$ has #5
with AOE2.
> > Yes, they are. Your bias don't have any affect on reality
>
> They aren't the same as console games are, not by any stretch of the
> imagination. Golf games, case in point. When a PC golf game is made,
> it's a sim, everything is acccurately detailed down to using REAL courses
> and endorsements by REAL golfers. It's a sim, more than a game. No fun,
> imho.
Lots of people enjoy sims. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean
they aren't video games, you arrogant prick.
> Contrast that to Hot Shots Golf on the PlayStation, or Mario Golf on
> the N64, simplified controls, not too serious, and lighter on the sim
> in order to boost the fun factor.
Some people wouldn't enjoy them because they are so unrealistic. Just
like an EA boxing game vs R2R. Some people prefer the more complex. They
are both video games
> > So, you are saying that because M$ is trying to hype their system that it
> > won't have any gaes and will be a failure? LOL Are you stupid enough to
> > believe the crap you say?
>
> Right now Microsoft hasn't even gotten as far as Apple did with their
> little game console called "Pippin".
Except for the fact that M$ isn't Apple, and nobody remembers the Pippin.
M$ has finalized stats and a release goal. M$ has many 3rd parties
interested. At this same point, Sony had virtually nothing more done on
the PS2.
> This has been tried before, it's failed before. Commodore tried it with
> the Amiga 32CD, and it fell through as well. PC's don't make good consoles.
But what you fail to understand is that it NOT a console. You know that
the PS2 has USB, Firewire, PCMCIA, and a hard drive coming out, don't
you? Is it a PC? No. Neither is the X-Box.
> The X-box will be loaded up with PC games (not console ones) and the few
> console games they do get are just going to be ports from REAL consoles.
> The thing is going to be looked at as a "PC Lite", and people who want
> to play PC games are already doing so. The X-box hasn't got a market
> to sell to.
Where do you get this from? You have anything to support this? Because
there are a lot of companies interested in the X-Box that don't make PC
games. Seems like it will have support from console developers.
> It can't be a successful console and be based on a PC architecture, it's
> been tried at least twice that I can think of (off the top of my head) and
> it's never, ever worked.
What does the architecture matter? I thought it was about the games...
Can you get your ridiculous reasoning straight, Doane?
--
-David
NonDeskript
> Microsoft isn't selling anything that isn't being sold now.
> Want an X-box? Print out the specs and go to anyplace Wintel
> machines are sold. That's what will kill the machine, it's
> not exclusive, and anyone who wants to play X-box is already
> doing so on their PC's. The thing is too weak to sell to
> PC gamers, and too PC-like to sell to console gamers.
Except that the X-Box isn't a PC. It just uses the same processor. And
its not going to be compatible with PCs. And its not going to have the
same games. But I guess if you ignore all that you're right.
--
-David
Figment
before DVD can integrate itself into the mass market and unfortunately
DVD doesn't have the storage capacity for HDTV content.
---
figment
"Charles Doane" <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote in message
news:38CB5229...@primenet.com...
Charles Doane
>
> Charles Doane wrote:
> > NonDeskript wrote:
> >
> > > SNK's Neo Geo is also a freak. It was supported primarily by SNK. Not
> > > what one would consider a succesful system.
> > > And the N64? It may have had higher specs, but it has severe limitations
> > > that cramp it. Poor storage medium was the biggest, as well as high price
> > > of games.
> >
> > The Neo Geo is considered a gamer's machine, the thing is really the same
> > hardware as the arcade has (one reason it's expensive), and it uses carts.
> > So does the N64. Carts do have advantages as a storage system, after all.
>
> SNK is an arcade machine for your home. At its price point it cannot be
> considered alongside typical systems. The only reason that it is still
> alive is because SNK uses the MVS for all its arcade games. Its not the
> same thing at all. Anyone who knows anything would know that. And the
> only advantages carts have are: no load times and higher durability. But
> these are more than offset by the extreme limit in storage space. It's
> why FF7 COULDN'T be done on an N64, even though the N64 has higher specs.
Then you're agreeing with the point I was making when I said that power
isn't all that important in the success of a console. SNK had more power
than its contemporaries, as did the N64. The power didn't help either one
a whole heck of a lot. It's therefore not a valid point to say that the
X-box will have any significant advantage due to power.
> > Both systems had state-of-the-art power, but power didn't help them make
> > any progress against less powerful systems. Power simply isn't everything,
> > there are lots of other factors besides just that.
>
> SNK: Super high price. Miniscule 3rd party support. N64: Miniscule 3rd
> party support due to errors by Nintendo.
Actually, Acclaim cleaned house on the N64, Turok was one of the hottest
properties for the N64 platform. Of course, that wasn't the point, the
point (which you haven't disputed) is that power isn't the only, and
not even the MAIN factor in a console's success or failure.
> Yes there are other factors. The factors that caused these systems to do
> so poorly can't be said to affect the X-Box yet.
Since the X-box is so vaporous that it didn't even show up at it's own
press announcement, there's not much that can affect it. It may very
well still be scrapped, quite painlessly, by Microsoft or even any of
the "interested" developers.
<snip>
> > Microsoft, on the other hand, can't make quality games. Out of the 41
> > games listed at http://www.microsoft.com/games/products.asp?filter=list
> > 20 of them have patches. That says loud and clear that Microsoft messes
> > up half of everything they do.
>
> Um, these are PC games. Its almost unheard of for a major PC game not to
> have a patch, due to different hardware configurations that can't be
> tested. This doesn't affect console gaming though. Do you know anything
> of what you speak? Have you ever actually played an M$ game? Have you
> read reviews of M$ games?
Of course I've played a Microsoft game. I'm pretty good at Minesweeper,
after all. PC's can do some decent puzzle games as long as they're
simple ones.
If you're serious, try a head-to-head comparison of Pacman in Microsoft's
"Return of Arcade" series and then try the SAME GAME on Namco Museum
Volume One on for the PSX. The PSX version blows the Microsoft version
so totally out of the water it's laughable.
I can't honestly say that I'm looking forward to a system from a company
that even managed to botch Pacman just a few years ago on Windows '95.
> > > And Namco is already interested in the X-Box.
> >
> > Namco's interested in the DC as well, and they've made games for the N64.
> > Namco being interested in a console is not that significant. Namco's
> > interested in every console lately.
>
> Well, then Namco is not a Sony ace-in-the-hole as you implied is it?
> Capcom and Konami are also interested. And Square has been said to be
> eyeing it. Oh and don't forget EA. And Acclaim. And Activision. Looks
> like a LOT of console 3rd party developers are interested in the X-Box.
Namco has been licensing out their titles, you don't actually think it's
Namco that made Ridge Racer 64, do you? It's not Namco in anything but
the name, that game is NST's. http://www.nintendo.com/n64/ridgeracer/
Interest doesn't mean a whole lot, used car salesmen see a lot more
"interest" than they do sales, and the game industry is no different.
In an industry where cancelled games are common, speculation is an art
form, and hype is so thick you could cut it with a knife, interest is
meaningless on a practical level.
<snip>
> > Look at sales, you say? Okay.
> > http://www.gamedaily.com/npd_trst/march_00/feb27_mar4/tp30pub.shtml
> > Where's Microsoft at? In the top 10? Nope, they're at #16, Mattel
> > did better than Microsoft did.
>
> Ugh, go to a PC game group and ask about M$'s games. You just don't know
> of what you speak. And they are STILL doing much better than Sony was
> prior to their release of the PSX.
I'm not wasting time on a PC game group, I'm not a PC gamer. I missed my
appointment for the lobotomy that might have turned me into one.
Microsoft is NOT doing better than Sony was in the console games. Sony
at least had Mickey Mania and a few other console titles they'd done,
but Microsoft hasn't ever released a console title, not even once.
That means Microsoft has LESS experience in consoles than Sony did.
> And on the top ten selling PC titles for the week of Feb 20-26, M$ has #5
> with AOE2.
Wonderful, I'm happy for them, but that doesn't mean anything in the
console side of things. Do you honestly think Warcraft or AoE or any of
those PC-style games are going to hit #4 (that's where AoE2 peaked at)
in console game sales? Not even close, because they aren't the same kinds
of games. You want to see the difference? Here, I'll enlighten you.
Top 5, okay?
PC Console
1. The Sims (EA) Mario Party 2 (Nintendo)
2. Who wants to be a Millionaire (Disney) Crazy Taxi (Sega)
3. Roller Coaster Tycoon (Hasbro) ECW:Hardcore(PSX)(Acclaim)
4. NOX (EA) NHL2K (Sega)
5. Roller Coaster Tycoon: Cork (Hasbro) ECW:Hardcore(N64)(Acclaim)
(Source, Game WEEK March 13, 2000 pages 27-28)
Can't you see the pattern here? PC games and Console games aren't the
same! They don't sell to the same audiences, and PC games won't cut it
in the console world any more than console games attract PC gamers.
> > > Yes, they are. Your bias don't have any affect on reality
> >
> > They aren't the same as console games are, not by any stretch of the
> > imagination. Golf games, case in point. When a PC golf game is made,
> > it's a sim, everything is acccurately detailed down to using REAL courses
> > and endorsements by REAL golfers. It's a sim, more than a game. No fun,
> > imho.
>
> Lots of people enjoy sims. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean
> they aren't video games, you arrogant prick.
Sims are sims, not video games. I didn't say I don't like them. Flight
sims are about the only thing PC's are better at than consoles are, and
I did say "imho". Anyone wanting sims will be a lot better off with a
PC than with a console, sims are not that common on consoles at all.
Why? Because it's PC users that like those things, not console gamers.
> > Contrast that to Hot Shots Golf on the PlayStation, or Mario Golf on
> > the N64, simplified controls, not too serious, and lighter on the sim
> > in order to boost the fun factor.
>
> Some people wouldn't enjoy them because they are so unrealistic. Just
> like an EA boxing game vs R2R. Some people prefer the more complex. They
> are both video games
No, I have Foes of Ali. It's no Ready 2 Rumble at all, in fact it too is
a very good example of why PC-style sims just won't cut it on a console.
> > > So, you are saying that because M$ is trying to hype their system that it
> > > won't have any gaes and will be a failure? LOL Are you stupid enough to
> > > believe the crap you say?
> >
> > Right now Microsoft hasn't even gotten as far as Apple did with their
> > little game console called "Pippin".
>
> Except for the fact that M$ isn't Apple, and nobody remembers the Pippin.
> M$ has finalized stats and a release goal. M$ has many 3rd parties
> interested. At this same point, Sony had virtually nothing more done on
> the PS2.
Well, I remember Pippin, and the Coleco Adam, and the Amiga 32CD. PC to
console crossovers (or vice-versa, in the case of the Adam) isn't a very
good idea, it's all "been there, done that". Microsoft's idea is neither
new nor has it ever been successful.
> > This has been tried before, it's failed before. Commodore tried it with
> > the Amiga 32CD, and it fell through as well. PC's don't make good consoles.
>
> But what you fail to understand is that it NOT a console. You know that
> the PS2 has USB, Firewire, PCMCIA, and a hard drive coming out, don't
> you? Is it a PC? No. Neither is the X-Box.
I've owned enough consoles to know half the peripherals announced never
come out anyway. Saturn was going to get a hard drive 5 years ago, the
SNES is still waiting on that CD-rom, the N64's DD64 bulky-drive is so
much vapor, and the PSX's parallel port has vanished, never used by
Sony.
The X-box is a PC-lite, it's a PC-wannabe designed by folks that don't
do anything but PC's and the innards are straight from Intel. That
says Wintel box all over it.
> > The X-box will be loaded up with PC games (not console ones) and the few
> > console games they do get are just going to be ports from REAL consoles.
> > The thing is going to be looked at as a "PC Lite", and people who want
> > to play PC games are already doing so. The X-box hasn't got a market
> > to sell to.
>
> Where do you get this from? You have anything to support this? Because
> there are a lot of companies interested in the X-Box that don't make PC
> games. Seems like it will have support from console developers.
When the press release includes gushing about Direct-X, it's a safe bet
they're not talking about anything but PC games. No one else is dumb
enough to use that piece of junk.
> > It can't be a successful console and be based on a PC architecture, it's
> > been tried at least twice that I can think of (off the top of my head) and
> > it's never, ever worked.
>
> What does the architecture matter? I thought it was about the games...
> Can you get your ridiculous reasoning straight, Doane?
It is about the games. PC games aren't console games, and you can't sell
PC games to console gamers by saying "see, it's a console now" as Microsoft
points to a poorly disguised PC.
It just won't fly.
All IMAO (in my arrogant opinion).
Justinian
<gdo...@primenet.com> wrote:
>Justinian wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2000 17:01:07 -0700, Charles Doane
>> <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Secondly, games are everything.
>> >Microsoft has none, at all. The system is being set up to be fully
>> >dependent on 3rd party softs, and that's no more of a recipe for
>> >success than Nintendo's reliance on 1st party softs.
>> >Microsoft, if they're serious (they aren't) needs to do at LEAST as
>> >much as Sony did and get themselves some in-house game talent, or
>> >else they'll find themselves with half-hearted efforts and ports of
>> >games that came from other systems.
>> >
>>
>> Oh please. Microsoft has plenty of experience getting outside
>> developers to make games. What makes you think they don't recognize
>> the importance of software support? Microsoft is a foremost software
>> company. I don't think anyone needs to tell them that.
>
>Microsoft only does PC games, that's all they've ever done. There's
>a huge difference between PC games and console games, and they aren't
>compatible. The target audiences are totally different, as are the
>styles of gameplay. Microsoft is trying to take a PC, paint "X-box"
>on it, and call it a console. It won't fly.
>
Well time will tell if they understand the differences in these
markets. If you're going to compete with the established three, then
surely they do. I don't know why you think only PC style games will
appear on the X-Box. Yeah there will be PC ports like FPS's,
non-JRPG's, RTS's, and Sims. Doesn't mean that there won't be games
that are typically found on consoles. If Microsoft is smart they will
make a lot of exclusives X-Box titles. Games you cannot find on
competing brands or on the PC itself.
>Microsoft isn't selling anything that isn't being sold now.
>Want an X-box? Print out the specs and go to anyplace Wintel
>machines are sold. That's what will kill the machine, it's
>not exclusive, and anyone who wants to play X-box is already
>doing so on their PC's. The thing is too weak to sell to
>PC gamers, and too PC-like to sell to console gamers.
It's early to say this X-box will be too PC-like. Besides this is
where the exclusive software comes into play.
FearNo1
many for around $39. Besides, when a system first comes out, the games
always cost a lil higher..and over time it will lower. This is true
for most technology. Furthermore, compared to other forms of
entertainment, ie movies, clubs (parties), etc) the price videogames
have stayed relatively consistent for over 20 years. That is pretty
unique for any kind of good or service, not just entertainment.
fringe wrote:
>
> so ummm,one quick question. If piracy makes games more expensive how
> come brand new dreamcast games still cost so much?
> food for thought huh?
> piracy WILL ALWAYS exsist and it is just a mater of time for any format.
> Don't ride a high horse, it might be a donkey
> nuff said
>
Jimmie & Helen Hayes
boost into video gaming from nintendo. The psx was originally supposed to be an
upgraded snes. So, while they had no practical experience in video gaming, they
had the best teacher at the time. Will MS apprentice for a console
manufacturer? I think not. Their egos are a bit too big for that. They
believe they can succeed at anything. This is the very reason they are likely
to fail. There's no room for ego in console manufacturing. Even the mightiest
have been humbled. Atari, Nintendo, and Sega all thought they could do no wrong
with their next console release. These were companies with years of experience
in the field.
NonDeskript wrote:
> Charles Doane wrote:
> > NonDeskript wrote:
> > >
> > > Charles Doane wrote:
> > > > The whole press conference didn't show so much as one SECOND's
> > > > worth of actual game footage. It's totally worthless, they have
> > > > no titles, no games, no support, and the machine is just a crippled
> > > > PC wannabe.
> > >
> > > Except that most of the big developers are interested in supporting the
> > > X-Box, its a year away so there naturally isn't any game footage or
> > > titles, and it doesn't run PC games so its not a PC wannabe.
> > >
> > > In fact the stats on the X-Box are more powerful than the PS2, so if its
> > > a crippled PC wannabe, then the PS2 must really be shit.
> > >
> > > --
> > > -David
> >
> >
> > First of all, power doesn't mean a whole lot.
> > Case in point, every portable game system released since 1989 has been
> > more powerful than the Gameboy is, but guess which one survived as all
> > the rest fell by the wayside?
>
> Gameboy is a freak. No other system has ever had the staying power of the
> GB. And many people would argue that it didn't even have the best games,
> just the cheapest price and widest brand name recognition.
>
> > Secondly, games are everything.
> > Microsoft has none, at all. The system is being set up to be fully
> > dependent on 3rd party softs, and that's no more of a recipe for
> > success than Nintendo's reliance on 1st party softs.
> > Microsoft, if they're serious (they aren't) needs to do at LEAST as
> > much as Sony did and get themselves some in-house game talent, or
> > else they'll find themselves with half-hearted efforts and ports of
> > games that came from other systems.
>
> Doane: You have no idea of what you speak. Go to M$'s website and
> actually LOOK at their product line. There are quite a few games there.
> And most of them are very good. They have more experience in video games
> than Sony did when they started. Learn before you speak, Doane.
>
> > The demos they showed had Midway's "Afro Thunder" from "Ready 2 Rumble"
> > in it, for pity's sake! Who's going to buy an X-box to play R2R when
> > the game is out and OLD on Dreamcast? While I like retro-gaming, it's
> > not going to be selling machines based on any power.
>
> Oh jesus. The system is a year away. You can't judge it by the demo's
> they put out right now. Get a grip.
>
> --
> -David
Craig Kelley
> Sorta off topic, but to the guy that said "> > Not that I condone piracy,
> far from it -- I never pirate anything (I
> > > even bought a copy of Zelda:OT to play under ultraHLE; I don't own a
> > > Nintendo 64), but these draconian anti-piracy measures may well be
> > > their own failing. "
> I have one thing to tell you. You're still pirating software, even if you
> bought the actual cart. If you think about it, you can consider UltraHLE
> your N64, the Roms your cartridges, and your computer your TV. Now, I'm glad
> you bought the actually game, but if you don't have an N64 and you're using
> UltraHLE, you're basically pirating a N64 in a way. Think about it.
Considering that Nintendo looses money with each unit sold, I actually
*saved* them money by doing this. ;)
Craig Kelley
> Craig Kelley wrote:
> >
> > Charles Doane <gdo...@primenet.com> writes:
> >
> > > Pirates buying PlayStations are actually
> > > ripping off Sony twice over.
> >
> > I've never seen/known anyone who owned a PSX without at least a few
> > commercial games purchased. Besides, I have played other people's
> > CD-R games and then went out to purchase them because they were so
> > good. There is nothing "factual" about any of this, the SPA-types
> > don't do any real studies; it's all anecdotal.
>
> There are better, more legit ways to try out games than hanging around
> with lousy pirates. Rentals, for example, as well as demos and in-store
> kiosks. Piracy games are not a good trial, because the copies are often
> of inferior beta versions of the game.
> Besides, someone buying a game after playing a piracy copy in no way
> legitimizes the theft of the piracy copy.
Agreed, but you're jumping tracks.
I was attempting to debunk your theory that pirates cost Sony more
than they help them.
And, it wasn't long ago when the software people were threatening to
sue people who rented their games (they still do in the PC market
right now!).
> > > Developers look at SKU's sold through, not how many systems there are.
> > > Otherwise, there would still be games made for the very popular Genesis
> > > and SNES consoles, but those games don't sell very well so they aren't
> > > developed anymore.
> >
> > Ahh, but the piracy-generated MINDshare does increase those sales;
> > that's my hypothesis.
>
> Mindshare among pirates is an absolutely worthless thing. There is no
> profit to be made by impressing thieves enough to steal a product.
> That's why Sony made the mod-chip detection cause modded PlayStations
> to refuse to run a game. Sony isn't interested in the thieves guild
> as a source of "customers".
> A userbase that doesn't pay for what they take is completely worthless.
Oh really? Joe Evil pirates a game and then jumps on usenet and
gives incredible reviews of it; causing several dozen others to go out
and buy it. Sony wins. It happens all the time, whether you want to
admit it or not. Whether it hurts more than it helps in the long run
is up for debate. I believe that it *helps* more than it hurts; but
then again, I never pirate anything so perhaps I am out of the loop on
this.
> > > Intellivision vs. Atari 2600 was almost completely without software
> > > piracy. Atari did quite well, it was the most popular machine of
> > > the late 70's and very early 80's, without piracy. Pirates don't
> > > contribute anything at all, and no company will be missing them.
> >
> > LOL. You've never seen a 2600 drop-in-chip cart?
> >
> > Half the people I knew had them.
>
> Nope, I never saw one, you must be hanging around with a rougher crowd
> than I'd care to.
Could you please refrain from making personal insults in every post.
It is tiresome.
> > > Easily pirated games early on in the life of a console could well end
> > > development on that console. It's not as if publishers don't have
> > > elsewhere to go, after all. Nintendo had a hard enough time getting
> > > developers on the N64 as it was, because of the higher cart prices
> > > and lower profit margins. That's all publishers look at and care
> > > about, the bottom line, and that's where pirates steal from.
> >
> > I believe this is true, which is why it pays to have some very good,
> > but not perfect, anti-piracy protection. You want it to be a big pain
> > to copy games.
>
> Ideally, it would be impossible to copy games, but failing that, it's
> just as good to make it so that piracy costs as much as legit games
> do. Pirates are total cheapskates, many on this newsgroup have said
> flatly that if they had to buy games legitimately, they wouldn't. Of
> course, this is the "they aren't REALLY losing sales when I pirate"
> argument, but it works the other way around. If they won't buy games
> anyway, then pirates are completely worthless to the hobby.
I disagree. People are social beings. If someone pirates a game, or
borrows it from a friend, or buys a used copy (illegal in some
countries), or rents it (illegal for many countries and genres) and
then spreads the word that the game is excellent, sales are
*increased*. A friend of mine had a CD-R of Half-Life, and a group of
us were playing it at his place. I loved the game so much that I went
out and bought it the next day.
So did another buddy of mine that was there.
Again, anecdotal evidence, but lacking other forms, it says a lot.
> > > Microsoft's X-box doesn't stand a snowball's chance in a microwave
> > > oven if it relies on standard Win32 games, and here's why.
> > > The PC games market and the console games market are totally different
> > > with very little common ground. Of the cross-over games between PC
> > > and console, it's almost exclusively FPS/RTS (Descent, Mechwarrior2,
> > > Rainbow Six), and racers (Need for Speed, Daytona USA).
> >
> > And RPG (FF7 did *quite* well on the PC). There's no reason
> > EverQuest, et. all won't be on the X-Box. In fact, this past
> > generation of console games have seen many cross-over titles;
> > especiall on the 3-D front.
>
> The X-box getting PC games like Everquest won't help it any, not if
> it's trying to tap into the simpler, more enjoyable gameplay of the
> console type of games. Anybody who wants to play PC games and has
> enough cash for an X-box is already playing PC games on a PC.
> Microsoft is trying to tap into a market that doesn't exist.
A PC for a console price?
Hardly a non-existent market.
> > > Popular console games include platformers, console-style RPG's, and
> > > fighters. Win32 games are very weak in the genres of games that a
> > > console is expected to perform well in. With little/no support
> > > from Japanese developers, overly complicated Win32 titles that are
> > > unsuitable for console play, and PC gamers already having machines
> > > that blow X-box out of the water, the X-box is already destined
> > > to utterly fail. It's a STUPID idea and proof of how far Microsoft
> > > is out of touch with the marketplace.
> >
> > Perhaps.
> >
> > They will either win very big, or lose very big.
> >
> > I never underestimate Microsoft. :)
> >
>
> It's hardly the first time that a PC format has been turned into
> a console. Whatever happened to the old Amiga 32 anyway?
The CD-32? Well, Amiga had it's own set of problems...
It was, however, very popular in Europe.
Charles Doane
>
> On Sun, 12 Mar 2000 02:40:36 -0700, Charles Doane
> <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> >Justinian wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 11 Mar 2000 17:01:07 -0700, Charles Doane
> >> <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote:
<snip>
> >Microsoft only does PC games, that's all they've ever done. There's
> >a huge difference between PC games and console games, and they aren't
> >compatible. The target audiences are totally different, as are the
> >styles of gameplay. Microsoft is trying to take a PC, paint "X-box"
> >on it, and call it a console. It won't fly.
> >
>
> Well time will tell if they understand the differences in these
> markets. If you're going to compete with the established three, then
> surely they do. I don't know why you think only PC style games will
> appear on the X-Box. Yeah there will be PC ports like FPS's,
> non-JRPG's, RTS's, and Sims. Doesn't mean that there won't be games
> that are typically found on consoles. If Microsoft is smart they will
> make a lot of exclusives X-Box titles. Games you cannot find on
> competing brands or on the PC itself.
I think Microsoft has forgotten how to compete, they haven't done
any of that in a few years. If they expect to launch a console and
have it sell because it says "Microsoft" on it, they're mistaken.
Nintendo's tried that before, with the Virtual Boy. The Nintendo
name didn't do a thing for it.
Microsoft is so far out of touch with reality it's not even funny.
They shouldn't have EVER said that the system is going to use
Direct X and other Microsoft API's, that's what makes people think
(rightly) that the thing is a PC-Lite. Tapping INTEL to make the
main CPU for it didn't help either. Consoles are better off with
RISC processors, not kludgy general-purpose junk like Intel makes.
Microsoft went shopping for a Sports car and wound up buying an SUV.
Honestly, hobbling the thing with an x86 processor, what the heck
are they thinking of? Are they trying to make a next-gen system
backwardly compatable to the mid-80's or what?
> >Microsoft isn't selling anything that isn't being sold now.
> >Want an X-box? Print out the specs and go to anyplace Wintel
> >machines are sold. That's what will kill the machine, it's
> >not exclusive, and anyone who wants to play X-box is already
> >doing so on their PC's. The thing is too weak to sell to
> >PC gamers, and too PC-like to sell to console gamers.
>
> It's early to say this X-box will be too PC-like. Besides this is
> where the exclusive software comes into play.
You gotta admit, the circumstantial evidence (Microsoft, Intel,
Direct-X) is more than a little suspicious.
I don't think there will be any exclusives at all, the places that
exclusives come from are arcade titles (which Microsoft isn't in
possession of) or first and second-party (which Microsoft also
isn't in possession of). Microsoft isn't even taking it seriously,
just look at their web page at http://www.xbox.com/intro.htm
It looks like a group of high school kids put it together and
botched the job. It must be because I'm looking at it with
Netscape and not IE, right?
CAROLINE MANNING
<snip>
> This has been tried before, it's failed before. Commodore tried it with
> the Amiga 32CD, and it fell through as well. PC's don't make good
consoles.
>
Funny thing is the Amiga was originally designed as a console, and had other
stuff added to it to make it a home computer. Plus the Amiga CD32, 32bit CD
based console, way before PSX, cept maybe it could have done with some 3D
hardware. Also on the topic of Amiga, what about the Amiga CDTV, multi
function and all, looked liek a CD player (like the PS2 is), plus the CD32
could also play MPEG1 movies with the mpeg card add-on, pitty they both
failed, way ahead of their time, maybe they paved the way for the PSX and
PS2. Food for thought.
Justinian
<gdo...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
>I think Microsoft has forgotten how to compete, they haven't done
>any of that in a few years. If they expect to launch a console and
>have it sell because it says "Microsoft" on it, they're mistaken.
>Nintendo's tried that before, with the Virtual Boy. The Nintendo
>name didn't do a thing for it.
>
If they've forgotten how to compete, then why do they keep growing? If
they treat the X-Box like a console and get the games at the right
prices, people will come. A few stubborn die-hards that swear by
Japanese consoles isn't going to stop them from growing and competing.
At least not here in the US.
>Microsoft is so far out of touch with reality it's not even funny.
>They shouldn't have EVER said that the system is going to use
>Direct X and other Microsoft API's, that's what makes people think
>(rightly) that the thing is a PC-Lite. Tapping INTEL to make the
>main CPU for it didn't help either. Consoles are better off with
>RISC processors, not kludgy general-purpose junk like Intel makes.
>Microsoft went shopping for a Sports car and wound up buying an SUV.
>
Another reason why I wanted AMD to get the business. I figured it
wouldn't take long for people to right off the bat start calling it a
Wintel box. Who cares that the CPU is Intel and the hardware resembles
a PC. Hope you're not telling me they can't make a gaming platform
succeed out of an existing hardware and CPU set. If the X-Box's main
focus is games, that's all that matters.
>Honestly, hobbling the thing with an x86 processor, what the heck
>are they thinking of? Are they trying to make a next-gen system
>backwardly compatable to the mid-80's or what?
>
No, what they're probably thinking of is an easy way for PC games to
get ported over. PC developers will appreciate this. Not only that,
why should Junior (or Pappa rather) pay thousands of dollars to play
the next installments of Quake or Half-Life when it can be played on a
$350 console with adequate power.
>> >Microsoft isn't selling anything that isn't being sold now.
>> >Want an X-box? Print out the specs and go to anyplace Wintel
>> >machines are sold. That's what will kill the machine, it's
>> >not exclusive, and anyone who wants to play X-box is already
>> >doing so on their PC's. The thing is too weak to sell to
>> >PC gamers, and too PC-like to sell to console gamers.
>>
>> It's early to say this X-box will be too PC-like. Besides this is
>> where the exclusive software comes into play.
>
>You gotta admit, the circumstantial evidence (Microsoft, Intel,
>Direct-X) is more than a little suspicious.
>
>I don't think there will be any exclusives at all, the places that
>exclusives come from are arcade titles (which Microsoft isn't in
>possession of) or first and second-party (which Microsoft also
>isn't in possession of). Microsoft isn't even taking it seriously,
>just look at their web page at http://www.xbox.com/intro.htm
>It looks like a group of high school kids put it together and
>botched the job. It must be because I'm looking at it with
>Netscape and not IE, right?
Using DirectX will help PC game developers make the transition to
programming for the X-Box:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2000/03-10xbox.asp
"Because the platform will be familiar to developers who have used PC
architecture in the past, working with technology such as Direct X,
X-Box reduces the learning curve normally associated with developing
for a new console, and enables better first-generation games," Coyner
said.
---
Also at the above link you can find:
Microsoft is dedicating significant resources in technology, developer
support and marketing to make X-Box successful. As an example of this
commitment, Microsoft Games was recently reorganized into a separate,
dedicated division. Its staff comprises the former PC games team,
experienced game developers, software engineers and designers, and
others with experience in game consoles.
---
So then Microsoft is starting their own game division. In the process
don't be surprised if they swallow up some developers through
aquistions. There's plenty of time for stuff like that.
tortoise
Justinian <justi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> working with technology such as Direct X,
>X-Box reduces the learning curve
so is that where the name comes from, Direct-X in a box?
--
--
--
--
--
-
Matt
mgreer[at]artic.edu
"She sits alone, in the worry she's created."
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Charles Doane
>
> On Sun, 12 Mar 2000 15:07:44 -0700, Charles Doane
> <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >I think Microsoft has forgotten how to compete, they haven't done
> >any of that in a few years. If they expect to launch a console and
> >have it sell because it says "Microsoft" on it, they're mistaken.
> >Nintendo's tried that before, with the Virtual Boy. The Nintendo
> >name didn't do a thing for it.
> >
>
> If they've forgotten how to compete, then why do they keep growing? If
> they treat the X-Box like a console and get the games at the right
> prices, people will come. A few stubborn die-hards that swear by
> Japanese consoles isn't going to stop them from growing and competing.
> At least not here in the US.
Why do they keep growing? SERIOUSLY?
Okay, here's why...
Microsoft is a monopoly. They can charge what they want and get away
with it, no problem. Go price Windows 2000 (for heaven's sake, don't
BUY it!), and you'll see it's roughly $290. The reason for that is
Microsoft is the only game in town, they can charge what they like
and no competition is making them lower the price.
What else are you going to buy?
Microsoft has been ruled to be a monopoly, they might actually go
into a court-ordered divestiture and that would leave the X-box
in total limbo.
<snip>
> Another reason why I wanted AMD to get the business. I figured it
> wouldn't take long for people to right off the bat start calling it a
> Wintel box. Who cares that the CPU is Intel and the hardware resembles
> a PC. Hope you're not telling me they can't make a gaming platform
> succeed out of an existing hardware and CPU set. If the X-Box's main
> focus is games, that's all that matters.
The kind of games matters quite a bit, if they're PC games then they
aren't selling anything new. People who want PC games are already
playing PC games.
It's difficult to make a console succeed from existing hardware and
chipsets. Consoles, since the 16-bit era, have been designed from
the ground up to do one thing, do it well, and that's games.
Going to CompUSA with a shopping list is no way to make a console.
> >Honestly, hobbling the thing with an x86 processor, what the heck
> >are they thinking of? Are they trying to make a next-gen system
> >backwardly compatable to the mid-80's or what?
> >
>
> No, what they're probably thinking of is an easy way for PC games to
> get ported over. PC developers will appreciate this. Not only that,
> why should Junior (or Pappa rather) pay thousands of dollars to play
> the next installments of Quake or Half-Life when it can be played on a
> $350 console with adequate power.
PC games aren't going to be attractive to console gamers, the markets
are very much different. PC games getting easily ported over isn't a
good thing. It takes more than that to tweak a game (localize it, if
you will) for the console market. Look at a console controller, and
count the buttons (there are 10 on a stock PSX pad). Now look at the
PC keyboard with 10 times as many buttons. See the difference?
Besides, if "Junior" has enough machine to play the previous
installment of Quake, he's very likely to be within the price range
to upgrade his PC to take on the next one for cheaper than a $200
console. You're not likely to sell a lot of X-box units as long
as that's true.
<snip>
> >I don't think there will be any exclusives at all, the places that
> >exclusives come from are arcade titles (which Microsoft isn't in
> >possession of) or first and second-party (which Microsoft also
> >isn't in possession of). Microsoft isn't even taking it seriously,
> >just look at their web page at http://www.xbox.com/intro.htm
> >It looks like a group of high school kids put it together and
> >botched the job. It must be because I'm looking at it with
> >Netscape and not IE, right?
>
> Using DirectX will help PC game developers make the transition to
> programming for the X-Box:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2000/03-10xbox.asp
>
> "Because the platform will be familiar to developers who have used PC
> architecture in the past, working with technology such as Direct X,
> X-Box reduces the learning curve normally associated with developing
> for a new console, and enables better first-generation games," Coyner
> said.
> ---
I didn't see a whole heck of a lot wrong with Soul Calibur on the
Dreamcast, and that didn't use any Direct X crutches to make it
easy on Namco. Heck, DC even HAS a Direct X API now, and no one is
using it. It sure doesn't seem very advantageous to me.
> Also at the above link you can find:
>
> Microsoft is dedicating significant resources in technology, developer
> support and marketing to make X-Box successful. As an example of this
> commitment, Microsoft Games was recently reorganized into a separate,
> dedicated division. Its staff comprises the former PC games team,
> experienced game developers, software engineers and designers, and
> others with experience in game consoles.
> ---
Get rid of the PC games team, PRONTO. The PC relation is as good as
a death knell for the X-box, it's never going to be taken seriously
as long as it looks like a Wintel PC-Lite.
> So then Microsoft is starting their own game division. In the process
> don't be surprised if they swallow up some developers through
> aquistions. There's plenty of time for stuff like that.
Don't be surprised if Microsoft is ordered to divest just like AT&T
was by Judge Greene when AT&T was found to be a monopoly. That
sword is still hanging over Microsoft's heads, you know.
Microsoft might well be ordered to be an acquisition themselves,
rather than taking over any developers.
Shell User
On Sun, 12 Mar 2000, Justinian wrote:
> If they treat the X-Box like a console
"If"
and get the games at the right
"If"
> prices, people will come.
A few stubborn die-hards that swear by
> Japanese consoles isn't going to stop them from growing and competing.
You mean the 40 million+ owners of PSX, N64, and DC in the U.S. who are
quite content playing Crash Bandicoot, Mario, and Sonic? We're not just
talking about a few diehards here, we're talking about gaming franchises
that have sold in the mult-millions.
> If the X-Box's main
> focus is games, that's all that matters.
Amendment: If the X-box's main focus is on games that can displace Mario,
Zelda, Donkey Kong, Crash, Tekken, Sonic, etc. from the public
consciousness, that's all the matters. Another big "if".
> why should Junior (or Pappa rather) pay thousands of dollars to play
> the next installments of Quake or Half-Life when it can be played on a
> $350 console with adequate power.
Because PC gamers have a reputation for being power users for whom money
is no object? For them, there is no such thing as "adequate power."
> >> It's early to say this X-box will be too PC-like. Besides this is
> >> where the exclusive software comes into play.
If there is exclusive console-type software. Another "if".
> So then Microsoft is starting their own game division. In the process
> don't be surprised if they swallow up some developers through
> aquistions. There's plenty of time for stuff like that.
>
Good luck finding the next Tekken or Donkey Kong by "swallowing up some
developers". They're not that easy to find.
Keith Fulkerson
Charles Doane <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote in message
>
> I'm not wasting time on a PC game group, I'm not a PC gamer. I missed my
> appointment for the lobotomy that might have turned me into one.
>
So you -did- have an appointment? Too busy getting faced were ya?
> Can't you see the pattern here? PC games and Console games aren't the
> same! They don't sell to the same audiences, and PC games won't cut it
> in the console world any more than console games attract PC gamers.
>
So says Nostradumbass.
> Sims are sims, not video games.
Great... So what exactly is a video game, then? After all, EVERY game is
based on reality, remember? Ya never did explain how Pac Man is based on
reality.
I didn't say I don't like them. Flight
> sims are about the only thing PC's are better at than consoles are, and
> I did say "imho".
Drunk starts with a 'd', not an 'h'.
> All IMAO (in my arrogant opinion).
>
Assinine.
> --
> Eppur si muove... "and yet it does move"... Galileo,
> after recanting his assertion of the food that Gene ate earlier.
Mark R.
> > Sims are sims, not video games.
>
> Great... So what exactly is a video game, then? After all, EVERY game is
> based on reality, remember? Ya never did explain how Pac Man is based on
> reality.
>
Doane and Pac-Man have the same eating habits.
Later
--
Mark R.
SPAM IS BAD, remove it from my E-Mail to reply!
Some/most/all may be IMO, you figure it out and
you may spell check it at your leasure.
We are X-Box of Microsoft, resistance is futile,
your market will be assimilated.
Dr Yassam
> > <snip>...In fact the stats on the X-Box are more powerful than the
> > PS2, so if its a crippled PC wannabe, then the PS2 must really be
> > shit.
> >
> > --
> > -David
>
> First of all, power doesn't mean a whole lot.
> Case in point, every portable game system released since 1989 has been
> more powerful than the Gameboy is, but guess which one survived as all
> the rest fell by the wayside?
And almost every portable games system released since 1989 has been more
powerful than PCs available at the time, but guess which one survived as
all the rest fell by the wayside!!!
> Secondly, games are everything.
> Microsoft has none, at all. The system is being set up to be fully
> dependent on 3rd party softs, and that's no more of a recipe for
> success than Nintendo's reliance on 1st party softs.
> Microsoft, if they're serious (they aren't) needs to do at LEAST as
> much as Sony did and get themselves some in-house game talent, or
> else they'll find themselves with half-hearted efforts and ports of
> games that came from other systems.
So I guess comfirmations that Japanese developers such as Namco, Konomi,
Capcom and (probably) Square will be developing games for the X-Box as
well as all the major Western PC/console game developers, and
of course Microsoft itself, means nothing then!!!
> The demos they showed had Midway's "Afro Thunder" from "Ready 2
> Rumble" in it, for pity's sake! Who's going to buy an X-box to play
> R2R when the game is out and OLD on Dreamcast? While I like
> retro-gaming, it's not going to be selling machines based on any
> power.
See above.
Dr Yassam
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jere Hakala
Dr Yassam wrote:
> And almost every portable games system released since 1989 has been more
> powerful than PCs available at the time, but guess which one survived as
> all the rest fell by the wayside!!!
>
Oh man you are full of it...So you really think that portable game systems
in 1989 were more
powerful than PC 386 25Mhz?? Have you ever read the specs of intel 80386
processor?
Its way more powerful than in Atari Lynx, gameboys etc.
Charles Doane
>
> > > <snip>...In fact the stats on the X-Box are more powerful than the
> > > PS2, so if its a crippled PC wannabe, then the PS2 must really be
> > > shit.
> > >
> > > --
> > > -David
> >
> > First of all, power doesn't mean a whole lot.
> > more powerful than the Gameboy is, but guess which one survived as all
> > the rest fell by the wayside?
>
> And almost every portable games system released since 1989 has been more
> powerful than PCs available at the time, but guess which one survived as
> all the rest fell by the wayside!!!
What? The Gameboy is about the same as a Z80 microprocessor, which was
pretty weak by the time Gameboy was released in the late 80's.
Portables haven't been more powerful than any contemporary PC's.
> > Secondly, games are everything.
> > Microsoft has none, at all. The system is being set up to be fully
> > dependent on 3rd party softs, and that's no more of a recipe for
> > success than Nintendo's reliance on 1st party softs.
> > Microsoft, if they're serious (they aren't) needs to do at LEAST as
> > much as Sony did and get themselves some in-house game talent, or
> > else they'll find themselves with half-hearted efforts and ports of
> > games that came from other systems.
>
> So I guess comfirmations that Japanese developers such as Namco, Konomi,
> Capcom and (probably) Square will be developing games for the X-Box as
> well as all the major Western PC/console game developers, and
> of course Microsoft itself, means nothing then!!!
That's exactly what it means, nothing.
It's all hot air, vaporous announcements. If anything, the Japanese
companies' so-called "interest" is in how much moola they can take away
from Microsoft through licensing old titles.
Namco's already nailed Microsoft once with "Return of Arcade", making
Microsoft pay for the game concepts and names, but nothing else.
Japanese companies RARELY make games for American consoles, look at
the last two American consoles for example. 3DO and Jaguar, neither
one got support from Japanese companies.
<snip>
--
Eppur si muove... "and yet it does move"... Galileo,
after recanting his assertion of the Earth's motion.
NonDeskript
> NonDeskript wrote:
>
> > SNK is an arcade machine for your home. At its price point it cannot be
> > considered alongside typical systems. The only reason that it is still
> > alive is because SNK uses the MVS for all its arcade games. Its not the
> > same thing at all. Anyone who knows anything would know that. And the
> > only advantages carts have are: no load times and higher durability. But
> > these are more than offset by the extreme limit in storage space. It's
> > why FF7 COULDN'T be done on an N64, even though the N64 has higher specs.
>
> Then you're agreeing with the point I was making when I said that power
> isn't all that important in the success of a console. SNK had more power
> than its contemporaries, as did the N64. The power didn't help either one
> a whole heck of a lot. It's therefore not a valid point to say that the
> X-box will have any significant advantage due to power.
Considering the fact that the Neo-Geo is not competing for the same
market as the X-Box and considering the fact that the N64 had a number of
other hardware limitations that caused 3rd parties to be wary, I can say
wholeheartedly that you know about as much about the console market as
Neo, and that ain't much.
> > Yes there are other factors. The factors that caused these systems to do
> > so poorly can't be said to affect the X-Box yet.
>
> Since the X-box is so vaporous that it didn't even show up at it's own
> press announcement, there's not much that can affect it. It may very
> well still be scrapped, quite painlessly, by Microsoft or even any of
> the "interested" developers.
Its a year or more away Doane. Get a grip. Was the PS2 there at its first
announcement? Was the DC there the first time Sega mentioned it? What
games were announced when the PS2 was announced?
> > Um, these are PC games. Its almost unheard of for a major PC game not to
> > have a patch, due to different hardware configurations that can't be
> > tested. This doesn't affect console gaming though. Do you know anything
> > of what you speak? Have you ever actually played an M$ game? Have you
> > read reviews of M$ games?
>
> Of course I've played a Microsoft game. I'm pretty good at Minesweeper,
> after all. PC's can do some decent puzzle games as long as they're
> simple ones.
>
> If you're serious, try a head-to-head comparison of Pacman in Microsoft's
> "Return of Arcade" series and then try the SAME GAME on Namco Museum
> Volume One on for the PSX. The PSX version blows the Microsoft version
> so totally out of the water it's laughable.
What makes the Namco Museum version so much better? Explain.
> > Well, then Namco is not a Sony ace-in-the-hole as you implied is it?
> > Capcom and Konami are also interested. And Square has been said to be
> > eyeing it. Oh and don't forget EA. And Acclaim. And Activision. Looks
> > like a LOT of console 3rd party developers are interested in the X-Box.
>
> Namco has been licensing out their titles, you don't actually think it's
> Namco that made Ridge Racer 64, do you? It's not Namco in anything but
> the name, that game is NST's. http://www.nintendo.com/n64/ridgeracer/
But they didn't say that Namco was interested in liscensing out titles.
Namco is interested in DEVELOPING.
> Interest doesn't mean a whole lot, used car salesmen see a lot more
> "interest" than they do sales, and the game industry is no different.
> In an industry where cancelled games are common, speculation is an art
> form, and hype is so thick you could cut it with a knife, interest is
> meaningless on a practical level.
Its a year or more away, Doane. What are you expecting? Games to already
be finished and just waiting for the system to be released?
> > Ugh, go to a PC game group and ask about M$'s games. You just don't know
> > of what you speak. And they are STILL doing much better than Sony was
> > prior to their release of the PSX.
>
> I'm not wasting time on a PC game group, I'm not a PC gamer. I missed my
> appointment for the lobotomy that might have turned me into one.
Ah, ok, so you don't know what you're talking about. Thanks for
clarifying that. Come back when you actually DO know what you're arguing
about.
> Microsoft is NOT doing better than Sony was in the console games. Sony
> at least had Mickey Mania and a few other console titles they'd done,
> but Microsoft hasn't ever released a console title, not even once.
> That means Microsoft has LESS experience in consoles than Sony did.
Yeah, Sony did have a few other games. Sony released the Last Action Here
game, one of the absolute worst games ever released. These are the people
that I was expecting to see a top-selling console from.
> Can't you see the pattern here? PC games and Console games aren't the
> same! They don't sell to the same audiences, and PC games won't cut it
> in the console world any more than console games attract PC gamers.
And M$ realizes this. There is a lot of interest from console developers,
though you seem to keep ignoring that.
> > Lots of people enjoy sims. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean
> > they aren't video games, you arrogant prick.
>
> Sims are sims, not video games. I didn't say I don't like them. Flight
> sims are about the only thing PC's are better at than consoles are, and
> I did say "imho". Anyone wanting sims will be a lot better off with a
> PC than with a console, sims are not that common on consoles at all.
> Why? Because it's PC users that like those things, not console gamers.
Sims aren't video games? LOL Doane, get a life. And I never said the PC
and console markets were the same.
> > Some people wouldn't enjoy them because they are so unrealistic. Just
> > like an EA boxing game vs R2R. Some people prefer the more complex. They
> > are both video games
>
> No, I have Foes of Ali. It's no Ready 2 Rumble at all, in fact it too is
> a very good example of why PC-style sims just won't cut it on a console.
Huh? I've never played Foes of Ali, so would you care to explain?
> > Except for the fact that M$ isn't Apple, and nobody remembers the Pippin.
> > M$ has finalized stats and a release goal. M$ has many 3rd parties
> > interested. At this same point, Sony had virtually nothing more done on
> > the PS2.
>
> Well, I remember Pippin, and the Coleco Adam, and the Amiga 32CD. PC to
> console crossovers (or vice-versa, in the case of the Adam) isn't a very
> good idea, it's all "been there, done that". Microsoft's idea is neither
> new nor has it ever been successful.
But what you fail to understand is that the X-Box is a console, not a PC,
not a PC-Console hybrid.
> > But what you fail to understand is that it NOT a console. You know that
> > the PS2 has USB, Firewire, PCMCIA, and a hard drive coming out, don't
> > you? Is it a PC? No. Neither is the X-Box.
>
> I've owned enough consoles to know half the peripherals announced never
> come out anyway. Saturn was going to get a hard drive 5 years ago, the
> SNES is still waiting on that CD-rom, the N64's DD64 bulky-drive is so
> much vapor, and the PSX's parallel port has vanished, never used by
> Sony.
> The X-box is a PC-lite, it's a PC-wannabe designed by folks that don't
> do anything but PC's and the innards are straight from Intel. That
> says Wintel box all over it.
LOL because the processor is from Intel its a PC-wannabe? The DC uses a
PowerVR so it must be a PC wannabe too. And the PS2 uses the PSX I/O
chip, so it must be a PSX wannabe. LOL Geez Doane.
> > Where do you get this from? You have anything to support this? Because
> > there are a lot of companies interested in the X-Box that don't make PC
> > games. Seems like it will have support from console developers.
>
> When the press release includes gushing about Direct-X, it's a safe bet
> they're not talking about anything but PC games. No one else is dumb
> enough to use that piece of junk.
Except for the occasional DC developer...
> > What does the architecture matter? I thought it was about the games...
> > Can you get your ridiculous reasoning straight, Doane?
>
> It is about the games. PC games aren't console games, and you can't sell
> PC games to console gamers by saying "see, it's a console now" as Microsoft
> points to a poorly disguised PC.
And you know what games are going to be developed based on what? Nothing
at all? Thanks for the info.
> It just won't fly.
> All IMAO (in my arrogant opinion).
I think you misspelled ignorant...
--
-David
Dr Yassam
> > And almost every portable games system released since 1989 has been
> > more powerful than PCs available at the time, but guess which one
> > survived as all the rest fell by the wayside!!!
> >
>
> systems in 1989 were more powerful than PC 386 25Mhz?? Have you ever
> read the specs of intel 80386 processor?
> Its way more powerful than in Atari Lynx, gameboys etc.
Yeh yeh, ok, I slipped up there, didn't write what I was thinking, which
was...almost every CONSOLE released since 1989 were more powerful than
PC's for gaming blah blah blah...
My fault...duh! :)
Dr Yassam
> > <snip>...
> > And almost every portable games system released since 1989 has been
> > more powerful than PCs available at the time, but guess which one
> > survived as all the rest fell by the wayside!!!
>
> was pretty weak by the time Gameboy was released in the late 80's.
> Portables haven't been more powerful than any contemporary PC's.
Doh! Yep, my fault, wasn't concentrating! :) (See reply to Jere)
> > <snip>...
> > So I guess comfirmations that Japanese developers such as Namco,
> > Konomi, Capcom and (probably) Square will be developing games for
> > the X-Box as well as all the major Western PC/console game
> > developers, and of course Microsoft itself, means nothing then!!!
>
> That's exactly what it means, nothing.
> It's all hot air, vaporous announcements. If anything, the Japanese
> companies' so-called "interest" is in how much moola they can take
> away from Microsoft through licensing old titles. Namco's already
> nailed Microsoft once with "Return of Arcade", making Microsoft pay
> for the game concepts and names, but nothing else. Japanese companies
> RARELY make games for American consoles, look at the last two American
> consoles for example. 3DO and Jaguar, neither one got support from
> Japanese companies.
3DO and Atari are NOT Microsoft, and look those companies are today! :)
The fact is, yes it's true, neither of these two consoles got support
from Japanese companies, but that's not supprising since NO Japanese
companies ever pledged ANY kind of support for the 3DO or the Jaguar.
In contrast, the Japanese companies supporting the X-BOX has been
confirmed from the companies themselves, and the list is growing. This
has NEVER happened before for a Western games console.
Whether you like them or hate them, Microsoft have a habit of taking on
a market and winning. IMO you should never underestimate MS (something
Sony, Nintendo and Sega are obviously aware of).
neo_zo...@hotmail.com
gdo...@primenet.com wrote:
>
> > That price will drop, and drop quickly.
>
> No, it won't, because the media doesn't have the sales appeal that
> CD-r did.
DVD has plenty of sales appeal.
> > Which will no doubt be cracked as well.
>
> Not by you, and not until/unless it becomes profitable, and it's just
> not going to happen. Pirates, being thieves, tend to be the stupid
> sort, and like you, expect "someone else" to crack it.
That's a pretty absurd comment. There are plenty of hackers out there
who will crack something simply for the sake of cracking it.
> > Only a fool like you would believe that something that is
> > unprofitable will always be unprofitable.
>
> It doesn't have to always be unprofitable, it just has to be
> unprofitable for the 4-5 year lifespan of the console and then it'll
> be unprofitable forever as crooks don't go selling old games for
> discontinued systems.
No, they can just start working on cracking the next systems...
> > It will be fun to see your response when you're proven wrong, just
> > like you were about emulators, and nearly everything else you have
> > strong fellings about...
>
> I'm right about emulators, they are a distinct form of piracy.
No, actually, they aren't, and I now have the ruling of a judge to back
that up, in addition to all of the other evidence like Java, AMD's
chips, etc.
-ZFP
Justinian
wrote:
>
>
>On Sun, 12 Mar 2000, Justinian wrote:
>
>> If they treat the X-Box like a console
>
>"If"
>
> and get the games at the right
>
>"If"
>
I'm not sure why you needed to highlight "if" twice. Unless you're
arguing like this because you don't like the X-Box. At any rate I'm
sure there were a lot of "If's" when Sony first annouced they were
entering the console market.
>> prices, people will come.
>
>A few stubborn die-hards that swear by
>> Japanese consoles isn't going to stop them from growing and competing.
>
>You mean the 40 million+ owners of PSX, N64, and DC in the U.S. who are
>quite content playing Crash Bandicoot, Mario, and Sonic? We're not just
>talking about a few diehards here, we're talking about gaming franchises
>that have sold in the mult-millions.
>
No I mean the few people who already write the X-Box off because:
a) It's from Microsoft
b) Because it is of American origin and not Japanese.
c) Resembles PC hardware though it will be standardized and
customized.
>> If the X-Box's main
>> focus is games, that's all that matters.
>
>Amendment: If the X-box's main focus is on games that can displace Mario,
>Zelda, Donkey Kong, Crash, Tekken, Sonic, etc. from the public
>consciousness, that's all the matters. Another big "if".
>
No need to displace those titles. I believe there is a market for all
four companies in the US. If there is a market for WebTV boxes after
all this time, there's got to be a market for the X-Box. The X-Box
probably won't be first on the totem pole. Who cares as long as it
makes gamers happy and is profitable for MS. Competition is a good
thing for gamers. I intend to buy them all.
>> why should Junior (or Pappa rather) pay thousands of dollars to play
>> the next installments of Quake or Half-Life when it can be played on a
>> $350 console with adequate power.
>
>Because PC gamers have a reputation for being power users for whom money
>is no object? For them, there is no such thing as "adequate power."
>
Well I am a PC gamer and sure I like to keep my hardware updated. Yet
I'm still interested in the X-Box. Besides I'm not talking about the
hardcore PC gamer. To cite one example again, I'm talking about people
who won't pay thousands for a PC to just play games.
>
>> >> It's early to say this X-box will be too PC-like. Besides this is
>> >> where the exclusive software comes into play.
>
>If there is exclusive console-type software. Another "if".
>
Yeah okay. Third time you've reference "if." You've made your point.
They do intend to spend the kind of money on marketing as they did for
Windows 95. I can't imagine them spending that kind of money to market
titles that are also available for the PC. Somehow I doubt with all
that money on the line they're going to make the X-box soley for
porting PC type games into your living room.
>> So then Microsoft is starting their own game division. In the process
>> don't be surprised if they swallow up some developers through
>> aquistions. There's plenty of time for stuff like that.
>>
>
>Good luck finding the next Tekken or Donkey Kong by "swallowing up some
>developers". They're not that easy to find.
Oh really? I bet there is a few developers out there for the taking.
All it takes is one good game for a big company to come crawling.
Didn't take long for Electronics Arts to buy DreamWorks Interactive's
gaming division after they made Medal of Honor.
Btw Tekken is from Namco. They're not exactly new on the block. Donkey
Kong is Nintendo and they've been around forever. So those are bad
examples. They are not going to sell out, even to Microsoft. They may
have interest in making games for the X-box, but I doubt they have
interest in being owned by them. Furthermore the potential for
popularity of new properties is always there. Crash and Banjo are
relatively new and have made names for themselves.
Justinian
<gdo...@primenet.com> wrote:
>Justinian wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 12 Mar 2000 15:07:44 -0700, Charles Doane
>> <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >I think Microsoft has forgotten how to compete, they haven't done
>> >any of that in a few years. If they expect to launch a console and
>> >have it sell because it says "Microsoft" on it, they're mistaken.
>> >Nintendo's tried that before, with the Virtual Boy. The Nintendo
>> >name didn't do a thing for it.
>> >
>>
>> If they've forgotten how to compete, then why do they keep growing? If
>> they treat the X-Box like a console and get the games at the right
>> prices, people will come. A few stubborn die-hards that swear by
>> Japanese consoles isn't going to stop them from growing and competing.
>> At least not here in the US.
>
>Why do they keep growing? SERIOUSLY?
>Okay, here's why...
>Microsoft is a monopoly. They can charge what they want and get away
>with it, no problem. Go price Windows 2000 (for heaven's sake, don't
>BUY it!), and you'll see it's roughly $290. The reason for that is
>Microsoft is the only game in town, they can charge what they like
>and no competition is making them lower the price.
>What else are you going to buy?
I really don't want to get into this. I do not disagree entirely nor
know all the truths. To answer your question there is the Mac and OS/2
which have been around for years. You can still buy OS/2. Linux is
gaining popularity. I'm not sure if they are a monopoly or not in all
cases. I have heard stories about the PC OEM OS issue.
>Microsoft has been ruled to be a monopoly, they might actually go
>into a court-ordered divestiture and that would leave the X-box
>in total limbo.
>
It would be awfully foolish for the courts to stop Microsoft from
bringing more competition to the console market.
><snip>
>
>> Another reason why I wanted AMD to get the business. I figured it
>> wouldn't take long for people to right off the bat start calling it a
>> Wintel box. Who cares that the CPU is Intel and the hardware resembles
>> a PC. Hope you're not telling me they can't make a gaming platform
>> succeed out of an existing hardware and CPU set. If the X-Box's main
>> focus is games, that's all that matters.
>
>The kind of games matters quite a bit, if they're PC games then they
>aren't selling anything new. People who want PC games are already
>playing PC games.
>
>It's difficult to make a console succeed from existing hardware and
>chipsets. Consoles, since the 16-bit era, have been designed from
>the ground up to do one thing, do it well, and that's games.
>Going to CompUSA with a shopping list is no way to make a console.
>
The hardware from what I've been reading is specialized for the X-box.
Yeah, eventually you'll be able to get that kind of graphics power on
a PC. Will you be able to get the same games? If they're smart I would
hope not.
>> >Honestly, hobbling the thing with an x86 processor, what the heck
>> >are they thinking of? Are they trying to make a next-gen system
>> >backwardly compatable to the mid-80's or what?
>> >
>>
>> No, what they're probably thinking of is an easy way for PC games to
>> get ported over. PC developers will appreciate this. Not only that,
>> why should Junior (or Pappa rather) pay thousands of dollars to play
>> the next installments of Quake or Half-Life when it can be played on a
>> $350 console with adequate power.
>
>PC games aren't going to be attractive to console gamers, the markets
>are very much different. PC games getting easily ported over isn't a
>good thing. It takes more than that to tweak a game (localize it, if
>you will) for the console market. Look at a console controller, and
>count the buttons (there are 10 on a stock PSX pad). Now look at the
>PC keyboard with 10 times as many buttons. See the difference?
>
Yes, I understand. Why can't the X-Box have both? At least good PC
games. There must be console gamers who want to play popular PC games.
Otherwise I doubt you would see announcements of a ported version
Half-Life for the Dreamcast.
>Besides, if "Junior" has enough machine to play the previous
>installment of Quake, he's very likely to be within the price range
>to upgrade his PC to take on the next one for cheaper than a $200
>console. You're not likely to sell a lot of X-box units as long
>as that's true.
>
Let's say Junior doesn't own the PC. If Pops has no interest in
upgrading, then I guess Junior is SOL. Unless he saves every penny of
his allowance for a loooooooooooooong time.
<snip>
>>
>> "Because the platform will be familiar to developers who have used PC
>> architecture in the past, working with technology such as Direct X,
>> X-Box reduces the learning curve normally associated with developing
>> for a new console, and enables better first-generation games," Coyner
>> said.
>> ---
>
>I didn't see a whole heck of a lot wrong with Soul Calibur on the
>Dreamcast, and that didn't use any Direct X crutches to make it
>easy on Namco. Heck, DC even HAS a Direct X API now, and no one is
>using it. It sure doesn't seem very advantageous to me.
>
What does Namco have to do with developers experience with Direct X?
If Namco wants to program for the X-Box's capabilities then I guess
they'll learn like they did for the PS2. Anyway, if DirectX works fine
on the PC (which has many hardware configs) then it'll work fine on
the X-Box (which will have standardized hardware).
>> Also at the above link you can find:
>>
>> Microsoft is dedicating significant resources in technology, developer
>> support and marketing to make X-Box successful. As an example of this
>> commitment, Microsoft Games was recently reorganized into a separate,
>> dedicated division. Its staff comprises the former PC games team,
>> experienced game developers, software engineers and designers, and
>> others with experience in game consoles.
>> ---
>
>Get rid of the PC games team, PRONTO. The PC relation is as good as
>a death knell for the X-box, it's never going to be taken seriously
>as long as it looks like a Wintel PC-Lite.
>
Note _former_ PC games team.
<snip>
Charles Doane
>
> In article <38CA1FFE...@primenet.com>,
> gdo...@primenet.com wrote:
> >
> > > That price will drop, and drop quickly.
> >
> > No, it won't, because the media doesn't have the sales appeal that
> > CD-r did.
>
> DVD has plenty of sales appeal.
DVD only appeals to early adopters, and it's about out of those. The
things are cheaper than some VCR's, but VCR's are still being made and
sold.
> > > Which will no doubt be cracked as well.
> >
> > Not by you, and not until/unless it becomes profitable, and it's just
> > not going to happen. Pirates, being thieves, tend to be the stupid
> > sort, and like you, expect "someone else" to crack it.
>
> That's a pretty absurd comment. There are plenty of hackers out there
> who will crack something simply for the sake of cracking it.
You think someone out there is doing something because you wish for it?
That's not the way the world works. Still waiting on that DC piracy
mod? You'll be waiting a while, you'll be waiting FOREVER.
PS2 will be the exact same story. Yet another day has gone by, and
neither the DC or PS2 have been hacked by pirates. You may as well
get used to this, there are going to be thousands more days like
today, free of pirates.
> > > Only a fool like you would believe that something that is
> > > unprofitable will always be unprofitable.
> >
> > It doesn't have to always be unprofitable, it just has to be
> > unprofitable for the 4-5 year lifespan of the console and then it'll
> > be unprofitable forever as crooks don't go selling old games for
> > discontinued systems.
>
> No, they can just start working on cracking the next systems...
There won't be any more crackable systems, those days are long past.
The crooks will move on to easier prey, maybe selling MP3's?
> > > It will be fun to see your response when you're proven wrong, just
> > > like you were about emulators, and nearly everything else you have
> > > strong fellings about...
> >
> > I'm right about emulators, they are a distinct form of piracy.
>
> No, actually, they aren't, and I now have the ruling of a judge to back
> that up, in addition to all of the other evidence like Java, AMD's
> chips, etc.
There's no ruling of a judge, merely a remandment of an injuction and
nothing more. Jave emulates nothing, it's original, not a copy of
anything else. AMD's chips are also original, they aren't emulators,
plus they're hardware and not software.
You're completely wrong.
Figment
emulating anything? They are compatable with programs written for chips
with the x86 architecure, but they don't have the x86 architecure
themselves.
----
figment
"Charles Doane" <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote in message
news:38CD845A...@primenet.com...
Charles Doane
>
> Would you please explain how AMD's K-5, K-6 and Athlon processors aren't
> emulating anything? They are compatable with programs written for chips
> with the x86 architecure, but they don't have the x86 architecure
> themselves.
> ----
> figment
They aren't compatible with any programs, they're just compatible with
other chips. That's not emulation, any more than replacing a GE light
bulb with a Sylvania light bulb involves emulation. It's just hardware.
One comes out of the socket, the other goes into the socket.
It's no big deal, and it's certainly not emulation.
Charles Doane
>
> On Sun, 12 Mar 2000 12:58:50 -0700, Charles Doane wrote:
>
> > NonDeskript wrote:
> >
> > > SNK is an arcade machine for your home. At its price point it cannot be
> > > considered alongside typical systems. The only reason that it is still
> > > alive is because SNK uses the MVS for all its arcade games. Its not the
> > > same thing at all. Anyone who knows anything would know that. And the
> > > only advantages carts have are: no load times and higher durability. But
> > > these are more than offset by the extreme limit in storage space. It's
> > > why FF7 COULDN'T be done on an N64, even though the N64 has higher specs.
> >
> > Then you're agreeing with the point I was making when I said that power
> > isn't all that important in the success of a console. SNK had more power
> > than its contemporaries, as did the N64. The power didn't help either one
> > a whole heck of a lot. It's therefore not a valid point to say that the
> > X-box will have any significant advantage due to power.
>
> Considering the fact that the Neo-Geo is not competing for the same
> market as the X-Box and considering the fact that the N64 had a number of
> other hardware limitations that caused 3rd parties to be wary, I can say
> wholeheartedly that you know about as much about the console market as
> Neo, and that ain't much.
It wasn't about the console market, it was about the fact that power is not
the determining factor, and likely not even a major determining factor.
N64 and Neo-Geo happen to be good examples (as is the CD-i, the 3DO, the
Jaguar, and others).
Maybe MIPS and MHZ and MFLOPS impress the rubes, but in the end, these don't
mean a whole lot to the success of a console.
> > > Yes there are other factors. The factors that caused these systems to do
> > > so poorly can't be said to affect the X-Box yet.
> >
> > Since the X-box is so vaporous that it didn't even show up at it's own
> > press announcement, there's not much that can affect it. It may very
> > well still be scrapped, quite painlessly, by Microsoft or even any of
> > the "interested" developers.
>
> Its a year or more away Doane. Get a grip. Was the PS2 there at its first
> announcement? Was the DC there the first time Sega mentioned it? What
> games were announced when the PS2 was announced?
Actually, Saturn was *in stores* when Sega announced the USA launch at E3.
PS2's GT2000 has been a given since day one, Sony had a demo up and running
at TGS last year.
Sony and Sega did have something to show, unlike Microsoft.
<snip>
> > Of course I've played a Microsoft game. I'm pretty good at Minesweeper,
> > after all. PC's can do some decent puzzle games as long as they're
> > simple ones.
> >
> > If you're serious, try a head-to-head comparison of Pacman in Microsoft's
> > "Return of Arcade" series and then try the SAME GAME on Namco Museum
> > Volume One on for the PSX. The PSX version blows the Microsoft version
> > so totally out of the water it's laughable.
>
> What makes the Namco Museum version so much better? Explain.
Full-screen, no slowdown (yup, unbelievable, ain't it? 4 lousy ghosts and
one dot-eating yellow circle has slowdown), and a good game history.
The PC version's sound is horrid compared to the PSX's, which is, of
course, arcade perfect. The PSX version has extras like being able to
play the sound effects and music at will, game artwork, pictures of the
circuit board the game was made on and a polygon "virtual" Pacman machine
to walk up to and play.
The PSX version is pure class, Namco put a coat of polish on that baby
like they meant it to be cherished for all time.
The PC version? Dinky little window, no options, nothing. Yeesh!
> > > Well, then Namco is not a Sony ace-in-the-hole as you implied is it?
> > > Capcom and Konami are also interested. And Square has been said to be
> > > eyeing it. Oh and don't forget EA. And Acclaim. And Activision. Looks
> > > like a LOT of console 3rd party developers are interested in the X-Box.
> >
> > Namco has been licensing out their titles, you don't actually think it's
> > Namco that made Ridge Racer 64, do you? It's not Namco in anything but
> > the name, that game is NST's. http://www.nintendo.com/n64/ridgeracer/
>
> But they didn't say that Namco was interested in liscensing out titles.
> Namco is interested in DEVELOPING.
Okay, name ONE console made in the USA Namco has ever developed for. The
company is 20+ years old, after all, there have been a few USA consoles
in that amount of time.
Namco is not interested in developing for American consoles.
They've licensed titles, but that's all they've ever done.
Did you read what Namco really said?
"We are pleased with Microsoft's entry into the console games business.
We believe the success of X-Box will further expand the interactive
entertainment market."
-- Yasuhiko Asada, managing director, Namco Limited
http://www.xbox.com/quotes.htm
If you read that as "Namco is busy making X-box games", you must REALLY
get excited when you see those checks signed by Ed Mcmahon in the mail.
> > Interest doesn't mean a whole lot, used car salesmen see a lot more
> > "interest" than they do sales, and the game industry is no different.
> > In an industry where cancelled games are common, speculation is an art
> > form, and hype is so thick you could cut it with a knife, interest is
> > meaningless on a practical level.
>
> Its a year or more away, Doane. What are you expecting? Games to already
> be finished and just waiting for the system to be released?
There is no system. This is a page straight out of Nintendo's playbook,
making an announcement to steal a competitor's thunder even though nothing
exists or is even in the final stages of planning.
At least Nintendo is worth listening to, unlike Microsoft.
> > > Ugh, go to a PC game group and ask about M$'s games. You just don't know
> > > of what you speak. And they are STILL doing much better than Sony was
> > > prior to their release of the PSX.
> >
> > I'm not wasting time on a PC game group, I'm not a PC gamer. I missed my
> > appointment for the lobotomy that might have turned me into one.
>
> Ah, ok, so you don't know what you're talking about. Thanks for
> clarifying that. Come back when you actually DO know what you're arguing
> about.
I know exactly what I'm talking about. My decision to *fire* my PC for
games was an informed one, I've seen PC gaming and it's not something I
like. I'm a console sort of gamer.
> > Microsoft is NOT doing better than Sony was in the console games. Sony
> > at least had Mickey Mania and a few other console titles they'd done,
> > but Microsoft hasn't ever released a console title, not even once.
> > That means Microsoft has LESS experience in consoles than Sony did.
>
> Yeah, Sony did have a few other games. Sony released the Last Action Here
> game, one of the absolute worst games ever released. These are the people
> that I was expecting to see a top-selling console from.
At least it was a console game, which puts them a step ahead of Microsoft.
Sony had made console games before, and Microsoft hasn't, Microsoft does
not even know what a console game *is*.
> > Can't you see the pattern here? PC games and Console games aren't the
> > same! They don't sell to the same audiences, and PC games won't cut it
> > in the console world any more than console games attract PC gamers.
>
> And M$ realizes this. There is a lot of interest from console developers,
> though you seem to keep ignoring that.
Read the quotes, they're all nothing but non-committal sunshine-blowing
quotes from management suits.
I posted the URL above.
> > > Lots of people enjoy sims. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean
> > > they aren't video games, you arrogant prick.
> >
> > Sims are sims, not video games. I didn't say I don't like them. Flight
> > sims are about the only thing PC's are better at than consoles are, and
> > I did say "imho". Anyone wanting sims will be a lot better off with a
> > PC than with a console, sims are not that common on consoles at all.
> > Why? Because it's PC users that like those things, not console gamers.
>
> Sims aren't video games? LOL Doane, get a life. And I never said the PC
> and console markets were the same.
Of course sims aren't video games, that would be why they're called sims.
You're not even calling them video games, you're calling them sims too.
> > > Some people wouldn't enjoy them because they are so unrealistic. Just
> > > like an EA boxing game vs R2R. Some people prefer the more complex. They
> > > are both video games
> >
> > No, I have Foes of Ali. It's no Ready 2 Rumble at all, in fact it too is
> > a very good example of why PC-style sims just won't cut it on a console.
>
> Huh? I've never played Foes of Ali, so would you care to explain?
I already did, it's a sim, not a game. Foes of Ali is totally what you'd
see if you got into the ring with a heavyweight boxer, down to the blurring
of the vision as blows are taken to the head.
R2R, on the other hand, is a game.
> > > Except for the fact that M$ isn't Apple, and nobody remembers the Pippin.
> > > M$ has finalized stats and a release goal. M$ has many 3rd parties
> > > interested. At this same point, Sony had virtually nothing more done on
> > > the PS2.
> >
> > Well, I remember Pippin, and the Coleco Adam, and the Amiga 32CD. PC to
> > console crossovers (or vice-versa, in the case of the Adam) isn't a very
> > good idea, it's all "been there, done that". Microsoft's idea is neither
> > new nor has it ever been successful.
>
> But what you fail to understand is that the X-Box is a console, not a PC,
> not a PC-Console hybrid.
Puhleaze, the controller buttons for X-box are going to be labelled
<CTRL>, <ALT>, <TAB> and <DELETE>.
It's a PC-lite, that's all it is.
<snip>
> > The X-box is a PC-lite, it's a PC-wannabe designed by folks that don't
> > do anything but PC's and the innards are straight from Intel. That
> > says Wintel box all over it.
>
> LOL because the processor is from Intel its a PC-wannabe? The DC uses a
> PowerVR so it must be a PC wannabe too. And the PS2 uses the PSX I/O
> chip, so it must be a PSX wannabe. LOL Geez Doane.
The DC uses a custom PowerVR2DC, not a regular PC Power VR chip. You could
not take the PowerVR2DC and plop it into a PC and get anywhere.
The I/O chip on the PS2 is a console chip, so the PS2 is a console as well.
<snip>
> > When the press release includes gushing about Direct-X, it's a safe bet
> > they're not talking about anything but PC games. No one else is dumb
> > enough to use that piece of junk.
>
> Except for the occasional DC developer...
So incredibly "occasional" that they're non-existent. Name one DC developer
with a currently released DC game that used Direct X to develop with.
I'll save you the time... there aren't any.
> > > What does the architecture matter? I thought it was about the games...
> > > Can you get your ridiculous reasoning straight, Doane?
> >
> > It is about the games. PC games aren't console games, and you can't sell
> > PC games to console gamers by saying "see, it's a console now" as Microsoft
> > points to a poorly disguised PC.
>
> And you know what games are going to be developed based on what? Nothing
> at all? Thanks for the info.
Titus is one of the big names Microsoft points to on their web site. Do
you know who they are?
http://www.titusgames.com/
Xena: Warrior Princess, and Superman on consoles (both suck and sales did too),
and then Carmageddon on the PC. Hoo boy, if Microsoft is planning on this
team to bring home the winners, they're hurting badly.
Figment
> Figment wrote:
> >
> > Would you please explain how AMD's K-5, K-6 and Athlon processors
aren't
> > emulating anything? They are compatable with programs written for
chips
> > with the x86 architecure, but they don't have the x86 architecure
> > themselves.
> > ----
> > figment
>
> They aren't compatible with any programs, they're just compatible with
> other chips. That's not emulation, any more than replacing a GE light
> bulb with a Sylvania light bulb involves emulation. It's just
hardware.
> One comes out of the socket, the other goes into the socket.
> It's no big deal, and it's certainly not emulation.
>
> Eppur si muove... "and yet it does move"... Galileo,
> after recanting his assertion of the Earth's motion.
Computer chips are NOT lightbulbs. They are complex parts and the chip
designs are specific and patented. Programs have to be compiled to run
on a certain OS and a chip architecture. AFAIK a program written and
compiled for Linux and an x86 chip (PIII, Athlon or even a 386), won't
run on a computer running Linux on a PowerPC. If the program is
recompiled it will then run. AMD's chips emulate (in hardware, but
emlulation none the less) Intel's x86 architecture.
----
figment
Charles Doane
>
> On Sun, 12 Mar 2000 20:24:53 -0700, Charles Doane
> <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> >Justinian wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 12 Mar 2000 15:07:44 -0700, Charles Doane
> >> <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote:
> >Microsoft is a monopoly. They can charge what they want and get away
> >with it, no problem. Go price Windows 2000 (for heaven's sake, don't
> >BUY it!), and you'll see it's roughly $290. The reason for that is
> >Microsoft is the only game in town, they can charge what they like
> >and no competition is making them lower the price.
> >What else are you going to buy?
>
> I really don't want to get into this. I do not disagree entirely nor
> know all the truths. To answer your question there is the Mac and OS/2
> which have been around for years. You can still buy OS/2. Linux is
> gaining popularity. I'm not sure if they are a monopoly or not in all
> cases. I have heard stories about the PC OEM OS issue.
Then don't get into it. It's not an arguable point anyway, Microsoft
has been found to be a monopoly in a court of law.
> >Microsoft has been ruled to be a monopoly, they might actually go
> >into a court-ordered divestiture and that would leave the X-box
> >in total limbo.
> >
>
> It would be awfully foolish for the courts to stop Microsoft from
> bringing more competition to the console market.
It would actually be justice, since the courts have identified and
tried a predatory and monopolistic company. Once the company loses
(and Microsoft has), the courts are obligated to provide redress and
to prevent future occurrances.
<snip>
> >It's difficult to make a console succeed from existing hardware and
> >chipsets. Consoles, since the 16-bit era, have been designed from
> >the ground up to do one thing, do it well, and that's games.
> >Going to CompUSA with a shopping list is no way to make a console.
> >
>
> The hardware from what I've been reading is specialized for the X-box.
> Yeah, eventually you'll be able to get that kind of graphics power on
> a PC. Will you be able to get the same games? If they're smart I would
> hope not.
It'll take no time at all for an emulator to start stealing all of the
X-box games, since the PC is practically the very same thing.
The games will be coming from the PC library of titles anyway.
<snip>
> >Look at a console controller, and
> >count the buttons (there are 10 on a stock PSX pad). Now look at the
> >PC keyboard with 10 times as many buttons. See the difference?
> >
>
> Yes, I understand. Why can't the X-Box have both? At least good PC
> games. There must be console gamers who want to play popular PC games.
> Otherwise I doubt you would see announcements of a ported version
> Half-Life for the Dreamcast.
That's just it, the version will be ported, it won't be the same game.
It's going to be like Descent, MechWarrior 2, and other ported titles
The interface will be simplified, the emphasis on action and ease of
use and the fun factor pumped up.
> >Besides, if "Junior" has enough machine to play the previous
> >installment of Quake, he's very likely to be within the price range
> >to upgrade his PC to take on the next one for cheaper than a $200
> >console. You're not likely to sell a lot of X-box units as long
> >as that's true.
> >
>
> Let's say Junior doesn't own the PC. If Pops has no interest in
> upgrading, then I guess Junior is SOL. Unless he saves every penny of
> his allowance for a loooooooooooooong time.
Well, Junior will be just as SOL if Pops has no interest in buying him
an X-box too, in that case.
<snip>
>
> What does Namco have to do with developers experience with Direct X?
> If Namco wants to program for the X-Box's capabilities then I guess
> they'll learn like they did for the PS2. Anyway, if DirectX works fine
> on the PC (which has many hardware configs) then it'll work fine on
> the X-Box (which will have standardized hardware).
Direct X doesn't work fine on the PC, the API is so full of bugs it's
been through a half-dozen revisions. It's also a performance hit, an
unnecessary one for a console to deal with. The whole purpose of
Direct X is to make a standard, but a standard is what a console is
all about in the first place. Direct X on a console is just a ridiculous
duplication of effort.
<snip>
> >Get rid of the PC games team, PRONTO. The PC relation is as good as
> >a death knell for the X-box, it's never going to be taken seriously
> >as long as it looks like a Wintel PC-Lite.
> >
>
> Note _former_ PC games team.
Leopards can't change their spots.
Mark R.
>
<snip>
> Why do they keep growing? SERIOUSLY?
> Okay, here's why...
> Microsoft is a monopoly. They can charge what they want and get away
> with it, no problem. Go price Windows 2000 (for heaven's sake, don't
> BUY it!), and you'll see it's roughly $290. The reason for that is
> Microsoft is the only game in town, they can charge what they like
> and no competition is making them lower the price.
>
<snip>
Win2000 is NT5 for all intents and purposes, $290 is perfectly
reasonable (NT ain't cheap, never has been). Win Millennium will likely
follow the same price structure as Win'9X, I see no reason to think
otherwise.
Win2000 and Win Millennium are NOT the same thing.
--
Mark R.
SPAM IS BAD, remove it from my E-Mail to reply!
Some/most/all may be IMO, you figure it out and
you may spell check it at your leasure.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you
are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Justinian
<gdo...@primenet.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> The hardware from what I've been reading is specialized for the X-box.
>> Yeah, eventually you'll be able to get that kind of graphics power on
>> a PC. Will you be able to get the same games? If they're smart I would
>> hope not.
>
>It'll take no time at all for an emulator to start stealing all of the
>X-box games, since the PC is practically the very same thing.
>The games will be coming from the PC library of titles anyway.
>
Huh? Umm, wait a minute. If you say the X-box is going to get games
from the PC library there would be no need to make an emulator for the
PC. :)
><snip>
>> >Look at a console controller, and
>> >count the buttons (there are 10 on a stock PSX pad). Now look at the
>> >PC keyboard with 10 times as many buttons. See the difference?
>> >
>>
>> Yes, I understand. Why can't the X-Box have both? At least good PC
>> games. There must be console gamers who want to play popular PC games.
>> Otherwise I doubt you would see announcements of a ported version
>> Half-Life for the Dreamcast.
>
>That's just it, the version will be ported, it won't be the same game.
>It's going to be like Descent, MechWarrior 2, and other ported titles
>The interface will be simplified, the emphasis on action and ease of
>use and the fun factor pumped up.
>
You don't know for sure the interface will be simplified. Changes to
accommodate the console doesn't mean the ports will be any less fun.
There will likely be a keyboard and a mouse for the X-Box. The PS2 is
getting a keyboard. Dreamcast already has a keyboard. Will they get
used for games?
>> >Besides, if "Junior" has enough machine to play the previous
>> >installment of Quake, he's very likely to be within the price range
>> >to upgrade his PC to take on the next one for cheaper than a $200
>> >console. You're not likely to sell a lot of X-box units as long
>> >as that's true.
>> >
>>
>> Let's say Junior doesn't own the PC. If Pops has no interest in
>> upgrading, then I guess Junior is SOL. Unless he saves every penny of
>> his allowance for a loooooooooooooong time.
>
>Well, Junior will be just as SOL if Pops has no interest in buying him
>an X-box too, in that case.
>
Junior would have a much easier time saving up for an X-Box than a low
cost PC that may not last as long as a console.
><snip>
>
>>
>> What does Namco have to do with developers experience with Direct X?
>> If Namco wants to program for the X-Box's capabilities then I guess
>> they'll learn like they did for the PS2. Anyway, if DirectX works fine
>> on the PC (which has many hardware configs) then it'll work fine on
>> the X-Box (which will have standardized hardware).
>
>Direct X doesn't work fine on the PC, the API is so full of bugs it's
>been through a half-dozen revisions. It's also a performance hit, an
>unnecessary one for a console to deal with. The whole purpose of
>Direct X is to make a standard, but a standard is what a console is
>all about in the first place. Direct X on a console is just a ridiculous
>duplication of effort.
>
Well I don't know about the performance hit. How so?
Charles Doane
>
> "Charles Doane" <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote in message
> news:38CDA1CC...@primenet.com...
> > Figment wrote:
> > >
> > > Would you please explain how AMD's K-5, K-6 and Athlon processors
> aren't
> > > emulating anything? They are compatable with programs written for
> chips
> > > with the x86 architecure, but they don't have the x86 architecure
> > > themselves.
> > > ----
> > > figment
> >
> > They aren't compatible with any programs, they're just compatible with
> > other chips. That's not emulation, any more than replacing a GE light
> > bulb with a Sylvania light bulb involves emulation. It's just
> > hardware.
> > One comes out of the socket, the other goes into the socket.
> > It's no big deal, and it's certainly not emulation.
>
> Computer chips are NOT lightbulbs. They are complex parts and the chip
> designs are specific and patented. Programs have to be compiled to run
> on a certain OS and a chip architecture. AFAIK a program written and
> compiled for Linux and an x86 chip (PIII, Athlon or even a 386), won't
> run on a computer running Linux on a PowerPC. If the program is
> recompiled it will then run. AMD's chips emulate (in hardware, but
> emlulation none the less) Intel's x86 architecture.
NOPE, this is simply wrong. You might as well be telling me my Bronco II
is emulating an S10 Blazer.
Let's see what good old Webopedia has to say at
http://webopedia.internet.com/TERM/e/emulation.html
***************************************************
emulation
Last modified: May 15, 1998
Refers to the ability of a program or device to imitate another program or
device. Many printers, for example, are designed to emulate Hewlett-Packard
LaserJet printers because so much software is written for HP printers. By
emulating an HP printer, a printer can work with any software written for a real
HP printer. Emulation tricks the software into believing that a device is really
some other device.
Communications software packages often include terminal emulation drivers.
This enables your PC to emulate a particular type of terminal so that you can
log on to a mainframe.
It is also possible for a computer to emulate another type of computer. For
example, there are programs that enable an Apple Macintosh to emulate a PC.
****************************************************
While it's quite obvious that an AMD chip isn't a program, you might try
to say it's a device. Webopedia has that one covered too.
http://webopedia.internet.com/TERM/d/device.html
****************************************************
device
Last modified: May 14, 1998
Any machine or component that attaches to a computer. Examples of devices
include disk drives, printers, mice, and modems. These particular devices fall
into the category of peripheral devices because they are separate from the main
computer. Display monitors and keyboards are also devices, but because they
are integral parts of the computer, they are not considered peripheral.
Most devices, whether peripheral or not, require a program called a device
driver that acts as a translator, converting general commands from an
application into specific commands that the device understands.
*****************************************************
Chips working alike are no more emulation than light bulbs working alike,
vehicles working alike, or even calculators working alike. My Casio
calculator can keep up with my Texas Instruments one pretty well, but
one isn't emulating the other.
Can you see the difference now?
Charles Doane
>
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 23:02:06 -0700, Charles Doane
> <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> The hardware from what I've been reading is specialized for the X-box.
> >> Yeah, eventually you'll be able to get that kind of graphics power on
> >> a PC. Will you be able to get the same games? If they're smart I would
> >> hope not.
> >
> >X-box games, since the PC is practically the very same thing.
> >The games will be coming from the PC library of titles anyway.
> >
>
> Huh? Umm, wait a minute. If you say the X-box is going to get games
> from the PC library there would be no need to make an emulator for the
> PC. :)
Sure there is, the PC is overrun by pirates and pirates won't miss a
chance to steal the same thing twice over. Hacking the X-box will be
KEWL.
<snip>
> >> Otherwise I doubt you would see announcements of a ported version
> >> Half-Life for the Dreamcast.
> >
> >That's just it, the version will be ported, it won't be the same game.
> >It's going to be like Descent, MechWarrior 2, and other ported titles
> >The interface will be simplified, the emphasis on action and ease of
> >use and the fun factor pumped up.
> >
>
> You don't know for sure the interface will be simplified. Changes to
> accommodate the console doesn't mean the ports will be any less fun.
> There will likely be a keyboard and a mouse for the X-Box. The PS2 is
> getting a keyboard. Dreamcast already has a keyboard. Will they get
> used for games?
No, the keyboard will not be used for games. The DC is hardly the first
console to get a keyboard, that would actually be the Atari 2600. The
Saturn has one, never used in a game. The DC's can be used in Soul
Calibur, but that was just a joke by Namco. Keyboards are very poor
console game controllers.
<snip>
> >> Let's say Junior doesn't own the PC. If Pops has no interest in
> >> upgrading, then I guess Junior is SOL. Unless he saves every penny of
> >> his allowance for a loooooooooooooong time.
> >
> >Well, Junior will be just as SOL if Pops has no interest in buying him
> >an X-box too, in that case.
> >
>
> Junior would have a much easier time saving up for an X-Box than a low
> cost PC that may not last as long as a console.
The X-box *is* a low cost PC that may not last as long as a console.
Microsoft can't even keep the same OS going for more than a year, much
less any hardware.
<snip>
> >Direct X doesn't work fine on the PC, the API is so full of bugs it's
> >been through a half-dozen revisions. It's also a performance hit, an
> >unnecessary one for a console to deal with. The whole purpose of
> >Direct X is to make a standard, but a standard is what a console is
> >all about in the first place. Direct X on a console is just a ridiculous
> >duplication of effort.
> >
>
> Well I don't know about the performance hit. How so?
>
To put it simply, an API is an extra layer that takes strength directly
away from the machine. Think of it as adding a cart to a horse, the
horse can carry more things, but it'll never be as fast as it would be
without the cart.
In the case of Direct X, the cart is completely unnecessary, because
you don't need to carry that much.
Dr Yassam
> > <BIG snip>...
> The X-box *is* a low cost PC that may not last as long as a console.
> Microsoft can't even keep the same OS going for more than a year, much
> less any hardware.
X-BOX = PC Advantages + Console Advantages + More Power
The reaction to the X-BOX from developers on both sides of the Atlantic
has been great (including Capcom, Namco, Konami, etc). It seems to offer
everything they've been asking for and more.
So Charles, what do you _really_ think of the PS2 itself. Aren't you
just a little bit disappointed with Sony so far, especially in light of
the Toyko announcement last year? I was dissappointed even though I
NEVER believed any of the hype!
Also the following make's interesting reading;
http://www.psxnews.com/article.cfm?id=864
http://headline.gamespot.com/news/00_03/13_vg_utps2/index.html
(I've discussed my views on these links elsewhere)
snip>
Dr Yassam
Craig Kelley
> Justinian wrote:
[snip]
> > Huh? Umm, wait a minute. If you say the X-box is going to get games
> > from the PC library there would be no need to make an emulator for the
> > PC. :)
>
> Sure there is, the PC is overrun by pirates and pirates won't miss a
> chance to steal the same thing twice over. Hacking the X-box will be
> KEWL.
And likely make it very popular...
[snip]
> > You don't know for sure the interface will be simplified. Changes to
> > accommodate the console doesn't mean the ports will be any less fun.
> > There will likely be a keyboard and a mouse for the X-Box. The PS2 is
> > getting a keyboard. Dreamcast already has a keyboard. Will they get
> > used for games?
>
> No, the keyboard will not be used for games. The DC is hardly the first
> console to get a keyboard, that would actually be the Atari 2600. The
> Saturn has one, never used in a game. The DC's can be used in Soul
> Calibur, but that was just a joke by Namco. Keyboards are very poor
> console game controllers.
Keyboard + mouse is a very good combination; especially in a 3-D and
strategy games. It may not be the best for racers, 2-D platforms and
fighters, but then again Microsoft has their "sidewinder" which will
probably ship with the system.
[snip]
> > Well I don't know about the performance hit. How so?
> >
>
> To put it simply, an API is an extra layer that takes strength directly
> away from the machine. Think of it as adding a cart to a horse, the
> horse can carry more things, but it'll never be as fast as it would be
> without the cart.
> In the case of Direct X, the cart is completely unnecessary, because
> you don't need to carry that much.
Can you say PSX vs. Saturn?
Which one had the good API?
Which one gave developers the "raw speed"?
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- kell...@isu.edu
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger i...@inconnu.isu.edu for PGP block
neo_zo...@hotmail.com
gdo...@primenet.com wrote:
>
> Refers to the ability of a program or device to imitate another
> program or device.
AMD's emulate Intel chips.
> Many printers, for example, are designed to emulate Hewlett-Packard
> LaserJet printers because so much software is written for HP printers.
> By emulating an HP printer, a printer can work with any software
> written for a real HP printer.
Damn, it looks like HP is just a bunch of pirates!
> Communications software packages often include terminal emulation
> drivers. This enables your PC to emulate a particular type of terminal
> so that you can log on to a mainframe.
More filthy pirates!
> It is also possible for a computer to emulate another type of
> computer. For example, there are programs that enable an Apple
> Macintosh to emulate a PC.
Those evil Mac developers!
> While it's quite obvious that an AMD chip isn't a program, you might
> try to say it's a device.
Which, of course, it is.
> Chips working alike are no more emulation than light bulbs working
> alike, vehicles working alike, or even calculators working alike. My
> Casio calculator can keep up with my Texas Instruments one pretty
> well, but one isn't emulating the other.
No, but that doesn't change the fact that AMD chips DO emulate Intel
chips. And then there are all the examples of legal emulation you've
supplied above, like HP printers and terminal emulators...
> Can you see the difference now?
Yes. We're right and you're wrong.
-ZFP
neo_zo...@hotmail.com
gdo...@primenet.com wrote:
>
> > DVD has plenty of sales appeal.
>
> DVD only appeals to early adopters, and it's about out of those.
It appeals to anyone interested in a high-quality, durable video format.
> > That's a pretty absurd comment. There are plenty of hackers out
> > there who will crack something simply for the sake of cracking it.
>
> You think someone out there is doing something because you wish for
> it?
No, they're doing something because THEY wish to.
> That's not the way the world works. Still waiting on that DC piracy
> mod?
Nope. I won't pirate anything I can legally purchase.
> > No, they can just start working on cracking the next systems...
>
> There won't be any more crackable systems, those days are long past.
How naive...
> > No, actually, they aren't, and I now have the ruling of a judge to
> > back that up, in addition to all of the other evidence like Java,
> > AMD's chips, etc.
>
> There's no ruling of a judge, merely a remandment of an injuction and
> nothing more.
It declared the grounds on which the injunction was based to be
erroneous as well...
> Jave emulates nothing, it's original, not a copy of anything else.
Java functions in EXACTLY the same way as an emulator.
> AMD's chips are also original, they aren't emulators,
They emulate the Intel architecture.
> plus they're hardware and not software.
Which is meaningless.
> You're completely wrong.
Only if you ignore reality...
Figment
> Figment wrote:
> > Computer chips are NOT lightbulbs. They are complex parts and the
chip
> > designs are specific and patented. Programs have to be compiled to
run
> > on a certain OS and a chip architecture. AFAIK a program written and
> > compiled for Linux and an x86 chip (PIII, Athlon or even a 386),
won't
> > run on a computer running Linux on a PowerPC. If the program is
> > recompiled it will then run. AMD's chips emulate (in hardware, but
> > emlulation none the less) Intel's x86 architecture.
>
> NOPE, this is simply wrong. You might as well be telling me my Bronco
II
> is emulating an S10 Blazer.
Not the same thing at all. This isn't about end function, its about
communication and interface. The CPU of a computer would be a lot closer
to the engines in those cars rather than the cars themselves. If you
tried to take the engine out of the Bronco and put it straight into the
Blazer it probably wouldn't work. Because the engines are different (I'm
assuming this, I don't know enough about cars to know for certain, but
it's likely), their form factors are slightly different and the
connectors won't fit in the right places. Now accomodations might be
able to be made, with some conversion parts, a couple of replaced hoses
and whatnot. The battery might even have to be replaced with one of the
right voltage, but chances are you'd have to modify the vehicle to be
able to use the engine from one car in the other.
> Let's see what good old Webopedia has to say at
> http://webopedia.internet.com/TERM/e/emulation.html
> ***************************************************
> emulation
> Last modified: May 15, 1998
>
> Refers to the ability of a program or device to imitate another
program or
> device. Many printers, for example, are designed to emulate
Hewlett-Packard
> LaserJet printers because so much software is written for HP printers.
By
> emulating an HP printer, a printer can work with any software written
for a real
> HP printer. Emulation tricks the software into believing that a device
is really
> some other device.
>
> Communications software packages often include terminal emulation
drivers.
> This enables your PC to emulate a particular type of terminal so that
you can
> log on to a mainframe.
>
> It is also possible for a computer to emulate another type of
computer. For
> example, there are programs that enable an Apple Macintosh to emulate
a PC.
> ****************************************************
>
> While it's quite obvious that an AMD chip isn't a program, you might
try
> to say it's a device. Webopedia has that one covered too.
Hmm, you're right it isn't a program, but gosh darn it I thought you
said (in another post) that all emulation is illegal. Does that mean
that my sister is in trouble for using a terminal emulation program to
connect to a UNIX computer at college?
> http://webopedia.internet.com/TERM/d/device.html
> ****************************************************
> device
> Last modified: May 14, 1998
>
> Any machine or component that attaches to a computer.
Guess the CPU is a device. It's a component and it attaches to the MoBo.
> Examples of devices
> include disk drives, printers, mice, and modems. These particular
devices fall
> into the category of peripheral devices because they are separate from
the main
> computer. Display monitors and keyboards are also devices, but because
they
> are integral parts of the computer, they are not considered
peripheral.
>
> Most devices, whether peripheral or not, require a program called a
device
> driver that acts as a translator, converting general commands from an
> application into specific commands that the device understands.
> *****************************************************
> Chips working alike are no more emulation than light bulbs working
alike,
> vehicles working alike, or even calculators working alike. My Casio
> calculator can keep up with my Texas Instruments one pretty well, but
> one isn't emulating the other.
Notice how the calculators don't look the same, and don't have the
buttons in the same places? I bet many of the complex functions (I'm
assuming that these are graphing calculators) aren't entered in the same
way? If someone really familiar with the TI calculator, enough so that
he used it by touch, tried to use the Casio without looking he'd
probably make quite a few errors and wouldn't accomplish the task he was
trying. Same think for the computer, it sends out instructions for an
x86 chip, if theres another type of chip there the wrong result will
come back and the computer won't boot.
> Can you see the difference now?
I can see that you're an idiot. Cars and CPUs are very different things.
If they were you'd be able to put a PowerPC chip onto a BX motherboard
and run windows with it. The simple fact is that you can't; they aren't
compatable. Even if you could jerry-rig the pin connectors and the
voltage, the chip architecture is comepletely different and the computer
woundn't run. The chip would get signals it wouldn't understand and it
wouldn't actually do any work. It would sit there and the computer
wouldn't even boot, let alone run programs.
From the AMD technical brief http://www.amd.com/K6/21111/21111b.html
"Multiple sophisticated x86-to-RISC86 instruction decoders"
Dechipher the tech-speak and this means the K6 doesn't actually run the
x86 instruction set. For an intel chip the information the CPU is
supposed to process comes in in X86 compatable instrucions, it is then
processed by the chip as is because the Intel chip is x86 based. An AMD
chip is not x86 based, it has a RISC86 architecture, it uses the decoder
to change the x86 instructions that Win-32 computers use to RISC86
instructions that it can handle. This is emulation, the software the
computer is running sends instructions in x86 code and gets back the
results it would have gotten from an x86 chip. It never knows that the
AMD chip is RISC86 based.
----
figment
BRENRAD
>chips. And then there are all the examples of legal emulation you've
>supplied above, like HP printers and terminal emulators...
>
im not exactly sure what youre getting at, but AMD chips perform more
operations per second then intel chips
Charles Doane
Emulation is about end function. Emulate means "to strive to equal or
excel: IMITATE" (thanks, Webster!).
That means the entire device (in the case of a car) must be imitated,
not just a part of it in order for emulation to occur. While Bleem!
could just imitate the PlayStation's R3000A CPU, it wouldn't be called
an emulator if that's all it did.
It shouldn't be called an emulator anyway.
> > Let's see what good old Webopedia has to say at
> > http://webopedia.internet.com/TERM/e/emulation.html
<snip definition>
> > While it's quite obvious that an AMD chip isn't a program, you might
> > try
> > to say it's a device. Webopedia has that one covered too.
>
> Hmm, you're right it isn't a program, but gosh darn it I thought you
> said (in another post) that all emulation is illegal. Does that mean
> that my sister is in trouble for using a terminal emulation program to
> connect to a UNIX computer at college?
No, because the DEC VT-100 terminal is over 15 years old and all patents
on it are long expired. The intellectual property is in the public domain.
> > http://webopedia.internet.com/TERM/d/device.html
<snip>
> > Chips working alike are no more emulation than light bulbs working
> > alike,
> > vehicles working alike, or even calculators working alike. My Casio
> > calculator can keep up with my Texas Instruments one pretty well, but
> > one isn't emulating the other.
>
> Notice how the calculators don't look the same, and don't have the
> buttons in the same places? I bet many of the complex functions (I'm
> assuming that these are graphing calculators) aren't entered in the same
> way? If someone really familiar with the TI calculator, enough so that
> he used it by touch, tried to use the Casio without looking he'd
> probably make quite a few errors and wouldn't accomplish the task he was
> trying. Same think for the computer, it sends out instructions for an
> x86 chip, if theres another type of chip there the wrong result will
> come back and the computer won't boot.
I like the way the TI handles entries better, but both do about the same
things. It's not emulation, though, even though the same tasks are done.
> > Can you see the difference now?
>
> I can see that you're an idiot. Cars and CPUs are very different things.
No, they're pretty much the same. Both perform based on instructions
input by the user.
> If they were you'd be able to put a PowerPC chip onto a BX motherboard
> and run windows with it. The simple fact is that you can't; they aren't
> compatable. Even if you could jerry-rig the pin connectors and the
> voltage, the chip architecture is comepletely different and the computer
> woundn't run. The chip would get signals it wouldn't understand and it
> wouldn't actually do any work. It would sit there and the computer
> wouldn't even boot, let alone run programs.
You can run Windows on a PowerPC chip all day long, with a REAL emulator.
That's what emulators do, they imitate the process.
The imitated end result is what the goal of emulation is.
> From the AMD technical brief http://www.amd.com/K6/21111/21111b.html
>
> "Multiple sophisticated x86-to-RISC86 instruction decoders"
>
> Dechipher the tech-speak and this means the K6 doesn't actually run the
> x86 instruction set. For an intel chip the information the CPU is
> supposed to process comes in in X86 compatable instrucions, it is then
> processed by the chip as is because the Intel chip is x86 based. An AMD
> chip is not x86 based, it has a RISC86 architecture, it uses the decoder
> to change the x86 instructions that Win-32 computers use to RISC86
> instructions that it can handle. This is emulation, the software the
> computer is running sends instructions in x86 code and gets back the
> results it would have gotten from an x86 chip. It never knows that the
> AMD chip is RISC86 based.
That would be translation, not emulation.
Charles Doane
>
> In article <38CD845A...@primenet.com>,
> gdo...@primenet.com wrote:
> >
> > > DVD has plenty of sales appeal.
> >
> > DVD only appeals to early adopters, and it's about out of those.
>
> It appeals to anyone interested in a high-quality, durable video format.
It's not very high quality, Most movies I've seen on one still have the
spots and hairs and junk from the projector on them. That's not very
good. It's not very durable media, either, the discs are prone to
every danger that a CD is, including scratches. You can hardly call a
DVD durable while they have to be handled as if they're made of glass.
> > > That's a pretty absurd comment. There are plenty of hackers out
> > > there who will crack something simply for the sake of cracking it.
> >
> > You think someone out there is doing something because you wish for
> > it?
>
> No, they're doing something because THEY wish to.
You claim to know the wishes of people you haven't met and can't name?
Hackers hack for money, and there's no money in it anymore.
> > That's not the way the world works. Still waiting on that DC piracy
> > mod?
>
> Nope. I won't pirate anything I can legally purchase.
Legally and easily purchase, you lazy emulation-abusing pirate.
<snip>
> > There's no ruling of a judge, merely a remandment of an injuction and
> > nothing more.
>
> It declared the grounds on which the injunction was based to be
> erroneous as well...
The declaration was meaningless, the trial still goes on.
> > Jave emulates nothing, it's original, not a copy of anything else.
>
> Java functions in EXACTLY the same way as an emulator.
Not at all, it's not emulating anything.
> > AMD's chips are also original, they aren't emulators,
>
> They emulate the Intel architecture.
Not even close, they can just translate x86 instructions on the fly,
that's not emulation, it's translation. It's no more emulation than
my listening to Morse Code and translating the dots and dashes to
letters and numbers in my head.
<snip ZFP one-liners>
Charles Doane
>
> > > <BIG snip>...
> > The X-box *is* a low cost PC that may not last as long as a console.
> > Microsoft can't even keep the same OS going for more than a year, much
> > less any hardware.
>
> X-BOX = PC Advantages + Console Advantages + More Power
PC advantages are a negative, so the real equation is more like:
X-box = Console wannabe - PC Disadvantages - old off-the-shelf technology.
> The reaction to the X-BOX from developers on both sides of the Atlantic
> has been great (including Capcom, Namco, Konami, etc). It seems to offer
> everything they've been asking for and more.
They're software companies, everything they're asking for can be summed up
in one word: money.
Microsoft has it, they see it. That's the only reason any company would
try to cozy up to Microsoft at all. It's all about money.
> So Charles, what do you _really_ think of the PS2 itself. Aren't you
> just a little bit disappointed with Sony so far, especially in light of
> the Toyko announcement last year? I was dissappointed even though I
> NEVER believed any of the hype!
PS2 only launched, in Japan, 10 days ago. It seems that it was rushed,
and mistakes were made, but so what? It's nothing new for consoles to
make mistakes at launch and then recover and go on to make good. The
PSX was a very botched USA launch, Sony had to buy game jewel cases
from Sega (I own some like that). The early PSX games were packed just
like the Saturn's games. Sony got a rep early on for their PSX
overheating and skipping, and early PSX games had very bad poly tearing
due to errors in the GPU's calculations. The PSX went on to do very
well in spite of all this. I see nothing catastrophic in the PS2's
launch at all.
<snip>
Ron Reyes
dedicated machine (which is a possibility in these days of cheap hardware),
why wouldn't someone download pirated movies?
Ron Reyes
Ford Prefect <fordp...@n2space.com> wrote in message
news:38ca6c53$0$40...@news.execpc.com...
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2000 04:28:17 -0700, Charles Doane <gdo...@primenet.com>
wrote:
>
>
> <SNIP>
> >
> >It is a bootleg tool, it enables DVD movies to be uploaded and downloaded
> >from the internet. That's a very common forum for piracy. When common
> >household bandwidth becomes about 4 gigabits per second, DeCSS will start
> >to cause serious damage to the motion picture industry as entire feature
> >length movie downloads are under 2 minutes.
>
> Bullshit. We won't see 4 gigabit per second household network connections
for
> a LONG LONG time, if ever. My estimate is 10 years at least. By then DVD
will
> be an obsolete format. And if it damages the motion picture industry I'll
enjoy
> it. Only an idiot would waste time downloading a 17gig dvd movie to
pirate it.
> I never ever heard of anyone even attempting to do it, even on a cable
connection,
> let alone with a modem. People can use a vhs tape to copy a dvd movie but
> that would defeat the purpose of DVD. What would be the point? So, in
short, DVDs
> won't be pirated any time soon, if ever.
>
>
>
>
Charles Doane
>
> Charles Doane <gdo...@primenet.com> writes:
>
> > Justinian wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > Huh? Umm, wait a minute. If you say the X-box is going to get games
> > > from the PC library there would be no need to make an emulator for the
> > > PC. :)
> >
> > Sure there is, the PC is overrun by pirates and pirates won't miss a
> > chance to steal the same thing twice over. Hacking the X-box will be
> > KEWL.
>
> And likely make it very popular...
Popularity among hackers and crackers isn't likely to make any money for
anyone. It's the same as if a car dealer tried to cater to carjackers,
it's both dangerous and counterproductive.
<snip>
> > No, the keyboard will not be used for games. The DC is hardly the first
> > console to get a keyboard, that would actually be the Atari 2600. The
> > Saturn has one, never used in a game. The DC's can be used in Soul
> > Calibur, but that was just a joke by Namco. Keyboards are very poor
> > console game controllers.
>
> Keyboard + mouse is a very good combination; especially in a 3-D and
> strategy games. It may not be the best for racers, 2-D platforms and
> fighters, but then again Microsoft has their "sidewinder" which will
> probably ship with the system.
>
Oh, wonderful. Plug in the Sidewinder and the X-box says "new hardware
detected - searching for drivers". Hard drive buzzes for a minute,
and then "please insert driver disk" goes up on the screen.
The keyboard is the worst controller ever designed, it was never made
for video games at all. What it was made for was to slow typing down
in the days of old mechanical typewriters to minimize the hammers
getting jammed together.
>
> > > Well I don't know about the performance hit. How so?
> > >
> >
> > To put it simply, an API is an extra layer that takes strength directly
> > away from the machine. Think of it as adding a cart to a horse, the
> > horse can carry more things, but it'll never be as fast as it would be
> > without the cart.
> > In the case of Direct X, the cart is completely unnecessary, because
> > you don't need to carry that much.
>
> Can you say PSX vs. Saturn?
Yup, Saturn won at 2D and PSX won at 3D. I won by owning both.
> Which one had the good API?
Initially, PSX had an edge in 3D, but later, not really by much.
Saturn did everything the PSX could do, and sometimes do it better.
Check out Powerslave on both systems, the Saturn did good.
Sega did fix the programming libraries, but perhaps too late.
> Which one gave developers the "raw speed"?
They're about equal. VF2 stands up well to any fighter before or
since on the PSX.
Figment
> neo_zo...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > They emulate the Intel architecture.
>
> Not even close, they can just translate x86 instructions on the fly,
> that's not emulation, it's translation.
AMD chips translate so that the rest of the hardware and the software of
the computer thinks they are an x86 chip. Thats emulation.
---
figment
Figment
Actually it would be an emulator, it would emulate the R3000A CPU. It
doesn't matter that the CPU it's emulating is usually a part of a larger
whole, or that it would be of little use just emulating that one part,
it's still emulation.
> > Hmm, you're right it isn't a program, but gosh darn it I thought you
> > said (in another post) that all emulation is illegal. Does that mean
> > that my sister is in trouble for using a terminal emulation program
to
> > connect to a UNIX computer at college?
>
> No, because the DEC VT-100 terminal is over 15 years old and all
patents
> on it are long expired. The intellectual property is in the public
domain.
So that emulation is legal. At least one type of emulation is legal,
hence it would be impossible for ALL emulation to be illegal.
> > > Chips working alike are no more emulation than light bulbs working
> > > alike,
> > > vehicles working alike, or even calculators working alike. My
Casio
> > > calculator can keep up with my Texas Instruments one pretty well,
but
> > > one isn't emulating the other.
> >
> > Notice how the calculators don't look the same, and don't have the
> > buttons in the same places? I bet many of the complex functions (I'm
> > assuming that these are graphing calculators) aren't entered in the
same
> > way? If someone really familiar with the TI calculator, enough so
that
> > he used it by touch, tried to use the Casio without looking he'd
> > probably make quite a few errors and wouldn't accomplish the task he
was
> > trying. Same think for the computer, it sends out instructions for
an
> > x86 chip, if theres another type of chip there the wrong result will
> > come back and the computer won't boot.
>
> I like the way the TI handles entries better, but both do about the
same
> things. It's not emulation, though, even though the same tasks are
done.
You don't get the concept of an analogy do you? I was usuing the
calculator analogy to illustrate a point. The calculators themselves
don't emulate each other, but the way that my hypothetical person
interacts without looking at the TI calculator is _similar_ to the way
the rest of a computer sends information to the processor. Weather it's
the BIOS doing a boot up sequence or a game doing lighting effects, the
rest of the computer thinks it's using an x86 chip and sends
instructions in an x86 format. If the CPU that's there can't run x86
instructions (a proprietary format used by Intel) the computer doesn't
work.
> > Cars and CPUs are very different things.
>
> No, they're pretty much the same. Both perform based on instructions
> input by the user.
No, my CPU doesn't perform based on my inputs. I input using a keyboard,
mouse or other peripheral, that input has to go trough several steps to
get to the CPU, and even then the CPU doesn't work alone. The car is a
complete unit, made of of wheels, an engine, a gastank, a steering
colum, seats, etc.
> > If they were you'd be able to put a PowerPC chip onto a BX
motherboard
> > and run windows with it. The simple fact is that you can't; they
aren't
> > compatable. Even if you could jerry-rig the pin connectors and the
> > voltage, the chip architecture is comepletely different and the
computer
> > woundn't run. The chip would get signals it wouldn't understand and
it
> > wouldn't actually do any work. It would sit there and the computer
> > wouldn't even boot, let alone run programs.
>
> You can run Windows on a PowerPC chip all day long, with a REAL
emulator.
> That's what emulators do, they imitate the process.
> The imitated end result is what the goal of emulation is.
I don't care that Windows will run on a emulator, If you took the time
to recomplile and debug you could get it running directly on the PowerPC
chip without an emulator. My point is that it won't run _as is_ on
anything other than an x86 chip or a chip that emulates an x86 chip like
the K6.
> > From the AMD technical brief http://www.amd.com/K6/21111/21111b.html
> >
> > "Multiple sophisticated x86-to-RISC86 instruction decoders"
> >
> > Dechipher the tech-speak and this means the K6 doesn't actually run
the
> > x86 instruction set. For an intel chip the information the CPU is
> > supposed to process comes in in X86 compatable instrucions, it is
then
> > processed by the chip as is because the Intel chip is x86 based. An
AMD
> > chip is not x86 based, it has a RISC86 architecture, it uses the
decoder
> > to change the x86 instructions that Win-32 computers use to RISC86
> > instructions that it can handle. This is emulation, the software the
> > computer is running sends instructions in x86 code and gets back the
> > results it would have gotten from an x86 chip. It never knows that
the
> > AMD chip is RISC86 based.
>
> That would be translation, not emulation.
<letting of steam>
WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK EMULATION IS, YOU STUPID MORON?
</letting off steam>
From the ZDWebopeida entry on emulation that _you_ quoted earlier:
"Refers to the ability of a program or device to imitate another program
or device". The K6 translates from x86 to its native architecture so
that it can imitate x86 chips without using the x86 architecture which
belongs to Intel. This is the way that, AFAIK, most emulation works. The
instructions meant for the device or program being emulated are
translated into instructions that the device doing the emulation (or
running the emulator) can understand.
----
figment
"Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did,
only she did it backwards and in high heels."
Justinian
<gdo...@primenet.com> wrote:
>Justinian wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 23:02:06 -0700, Charles Doane
>> <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> The hardware from what I've been reading is specialized for the X-box.
>> >> Yeah, eventually you'll be able to get that kind of graphics power on
>> >> a PC. Will you be able to get the same games? If they're smart I would
>> >> hope not.
>> >
>> >It'll take no time at all for an emulator to start stealing all of the
>> >X-box games, since the PC is practically the very same thing.
>> >The games will be coming from the PC library of titles anyway.
>> >
>>
>> Huh? Umm, wait a minute. If you say the X-box is going to get games
>> from the PC library there would be no need to make an emulator for the
>> PC. :)
>
>Sure there is, the PC is overrun by pirates and pirates won't miss a
>chance to steal the same thing twice over. Hacking the X-box will be
>KEWL.
>
Whatever.
><snip>
>
>> >> Otherwise I doubt you would see announcements of a ported version
>> >> Half-Life for the Dreamcast.
>> >
>> >That's just it, the version will be ported, it won't be the same game.
>> >It's going to be like Descent, MechWarrior 2, and other ported titles
>> >The interface will be simplified, the emphasis on action and ease of
>> >use and the fun factor pumped up.
>> >
>>
>> You don't know for sure the interface will be simplified. Changes to
>> accommodate the console doesn't mean the ports will be any less fun.
>> There will likely be a keyboard and a mouse for the X-Box. The PS2 is
>> getting a keyboard. Dreamcast already has a keyboard. Will they get
>> used for games?
>
>No, the keyboard will not be used for games. The DC is hardly the first
>console to get a keyboard, that would actually be the Atari 2600. The
>Saturn has one, never used in a game. The DC's can be used in Soul
>Calibur, but that was just a joke by Namco. Keyboards are very poor
>console game controllers.
>
Well how are people supposed to talk with future online console games
if voice support isn't there? I think it's inevitable that the
keyboard will be needed by some games. A mouse and keyboard works good
on First Person Perspective games.
><snip>
>
>> >> Let's say Junior doesn't own the PC. If Pops has no interest in
>> >> upgrading, then I guess Junior is SOL. Unless he saves every penny of
>> >> his allowance for a loooooooooooooong time.
>> >
>> >Well, Junior will be just as SOL if Pops has no interest in buying him
>> >an X-box too, in that case.
>> >
>>
>> Junior would have a much easier time saving up for an X-Box than a low
>> cost PC that may not last as long as a console.
>
>The X-box *is* a low cost PC that may not last as long as a console.
>Microsoft can't even keep the same OS going for more than a year, much
>less any hardware.
>
Think whatever you want. It'll last if it has the software support.
I've read the OS is small. Something like 500k.
><snip>
>
>> >Direct X doesn't work fine on the PC, the API is so full of bugs it's
>> >been through a half-dozen revisions. It's also a performance hit, an
>> >unnecessary one for a console to deal with. The whole purpose of
>> >Direct X is to make a standard, but a standard is what a console is
>> >all about in the first place. Direct X on a console is just a ridiculous
>> >duplication of effort.
>> >
>>
>> Well I don't know about the performance hit. How so?
>>
>
>To put it simply, an API is an extra layer that takes strength directly
>away from the machine. Think of it as adding a cart to a horse, the
>horse can carry more things, but it'll never be as fast as it would be
>without the cart.
>In the case of Direct X, the cart is completely unnecessary, because
>you don't need to carry that much.
Okay then. I'm out of this discussion for now. Don't really want to
continue. I'm going back to play DOA2.
Later.
Phlexor
> neo_zo...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <38CD845A...@primenet.com>,
> > gdo...@primenet.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > DVD has plenty of sales appeal.
> > >
> > > DVD only appeals to early adopters, and it's about out of those.
> >
> > It appeals to anyone interested in a high-quality, durable video format.
>
> It's not very high quality, Most movies I've seen on one still have the
> spots and hairs and junk from the projector on them. That's not very
> good. It's not very durable media, either, the discs are prone to
> every danger that a CD is, including scratches. You can hardly call a
> DVD durable while they have to be handled as if they're made of glass.
>
So, they are still more durable than a VHS tape, if you handled both like
glass, but still watched then say one a week, the DVD is going to out last
the VHS tape, because the only thing that touched the DVD is a laser, the
VHS tape is dragged along a spinning video head, guess which one is going to
wear out and which one isn't.
Although I wish DVD were in permanent caddies, that way they would pretty
much last forever.
Keith Fulkerson
Charles Doane <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote in message
news:38CEE0C2...@primenet.com...
> neo_zo...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > DVD only appeals to early adopters, and it's about out of those.
> >
> > It appeals to anyone interested in a high-quality, durable video format.
>
> It's not very high quality, Most movies I've seen on one still have the
> spots and hairs and junk from the projector on them. That's not very
> good.
You gotta get out of Walgreen's, man.
It's not very durable media, either, the discs are prone to
> every danger that a CD is, including scratches. You can hardly call a
> DVD durable while they have to be handled as if they're made of glass.
Ah, but Doane was crying that people don't need to make backups of their
CD's because they're so durable. Yet another flip flop.
> > No, they're doing something because THEY wish to.
>
> You claim to know the wishes of people you haven't met and can't name?
Kinda like Doane and DVD buyers.
> --
> Eppur si muove... "and yet it does move"... Galileo,
> after recanting his assertion of Doane.
Dr Yassam
> > <snip>...
> > X-BOX = PC Advantages + Console Advantages + More Power
>
> PC advantages are a negative, so the real equation is more like:
>
> X-box = Console wannabe - PC Disadvantages - old off-the-shelf
> technology.
i.e. = More power than the PS2!!! :P
> > The reaction to the X-BOX from developers on both sides of the
> > Atlantic has been great (including Capcom, Namco, Konami, etc). It
> > seems to offer everything they've been asking for and more.
>
> They're software companies, everything they're asking for can be
> summed up in one word: money. Microsoft has it, they see it. That's
> the only reason any company would try to cozy up to Microsoft at all.
> It's all about money.
Good point Charles, but isn't that what it's all about anyway?
Regardless of the reasons and whether those reasons are good or bad, the
end result for Microsoft is exactly the same. The X-Box has recieved the
same level of enthusiasm and support that greeted the PS2 last year.
Only time will tell whether the X-Box lives up to the hype (console's
never do), but as of now, things couldn't look any better for the future
of the X-Box (which has a positive effect on the PC games market also).
> > So Charles, what do you _really_ think of the PS2 itself. Aren't you
> > just a little bit disappointed with Sony so far, especially in light
> > of the Toyko announcement last year? I was dissappointed even though
> > I NEVER believed any of the hype!
>
> PS2 only launched, in Japan, 10 days ago. It seems that it was rushed,
> and mistakes were made, but so what? It's nothing new for consoles to
> make mistakes at launch and then recover and go on to make good. The
> PSX was a very botched USA launch, Sony had to buy game jewel cases
> from Sega (I own some like that). The early PSX games were packed just
> like the Saturn's games. Sony got a rep early on for their PSX
> overheating and skipping, and early PSX games had very bad poly
> tearing due to errors in the GPU's calculations. The PSX went on to do
> very well in spite of all this. I see nothing catastrophic in the
> PS2's launch at all.
Yep, there were problems, but atleast there were highlights. I remember
gamers being disappointment that Ridge Racer wasn't arcade perfect as
the hype suggested, but overall most were impressed by the conversion
and very happy with the console itself (even if it didn't achieve the
quoted 1 million pps!).
Upon launch the PSX had Ridge Racer, the Saturn had Virtua Fighter and
the N64 had Mario64. These are the sort of games which really make a
console. The problem for the PS2 is that it really needs a killer app
and it needs it soon! (None of the launch titles, including Tekken Tag,
have had great reviews).
As a PC gamer who happens to enjoy console games too, I'm interested in
buying a PS2 later this year (or even early 2001). By then we should
have seen a significant improvement in the games themselves as
developers become more familiar with the hardware (hopefully). However,
also by then, the X-Box and the Dolphin will not be far away, and I'm
more excited by those consoles than the PS2.
The PS2 is a great console and no doubt will be successful, but I think
this time around, Sony's hype went much too far! Time will tell.
Dr Yassam
Charles Doane
>
> "Charles Doane" <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote in message
> news:38CEDDFE...@primenet.com...
> > Figment wrote:
> > Emulation is about end function. Emulate means "to strive to equal or
> > excel: IMITATE" (thanks, Webster!).
> > That means the entire device (in the case of a car) must be imitated,
> > not just a part of it in order for emulation to occur. While Bleem!
> > could just imitate the PlayStation's R3000A CPU, it wouldn't be called
> > an emulator if that's all it did.
> > It shouldn't be called an emulator anyway.
>
> Actually it would be an emulator, it would emulate the R3000A CPU. It
> doesn't matter that the CPU it's emulating is usually a part of a larger
> whole, or that it would be of little use just emulating that one part,
> it's still emulation.
It couldn't emulate an R3000A CPU, because the R3000A CPU doesn't DO
anything by itself. Without support components (which would also need to
be in the emulation) the R3000A isn't even a very effective paperweight.
> > > Hmm, you're right it isn't a program, but gosh darn it I thought you
> > > said (in another post) that all emulation is illegal. Does that mean
> > > that my sister is in trouble for using a terminal emulation program
> to
> > > connect to a UNIX computer at college?
> >
> > No, because the DEC VT-100 terminal is over 15 years old and all
> > patents
> > on it are long expired. The intellectual property is in the public
> > domain.
>
> So that emulation is legal. At least one type of emulation is legal,
> hence it would be impossible for ALL emulation to be illegal.
All emulations of currently patented and copyrighted systems and processes
are illegal. Emulators are for the sole purpose of violating copyright
and are no more legitimate than burglar tools.
<snip>
> >
> > I like the way the TI handles entries better, but both do about the
> > same
> > things. It's not emulation, though, even though the same tasks are
> > done.
> You don't get the concept of an analogy do you? I was usuing the
> calculator analogy to illustrate a point. The calculators themselves
> don't emulate each other, but the way that my hypothetical person
> interacts without looking at the TI calculator is _similar_ to the way
> the rest of a computer sends information to the processor. Weather it's
> the BIOS doing a boot up sequence or a game doing lighting effects, the
> rest of the computer thinks it's using an x86 chip and sends
> instructions in an x86 format. If the CPU that's there can't run x86
> instructions (a proprietary format used by Intel) the computer doesn't
> work.
Sure it does. AMD's chips can't run x86 instructions, and they work
by translating the instructions. Here's a simplified example.
Let's say that I wanted to multiply 8 x 4, but all I had is an adding
machine. No problem, I just TRANSLATE the problem to 8+8+8+8, and I
get the same result without emulation. The adding machine didn't do
any emulation of multiplication, the problem was just translated.
That's all AMD chips do, is translate. There's no emulation there.
> > > Cars and CPUs are very different things.
> >
> > No, they're pretty much the same. Both perform based on instructions
> > input by the user.
>
> No, my CPU doesn't perform based on my inputs. I input using a keyboard,
> mouse or other peripheral, that input has to go trough several steps to
> get to the CPU, and even then the CPU doesn't work alone. The car is a
> complete unit, made of of wheels, an engine, a gastank, a steering
> colum, seats, etc.
It doesn't matter how many steps it takes to get to the CPU. Most of
the inputs in a modern car aren't direct either, they go through a CPU
as well. You can't even mash the brakes in some cars without a CPU
intercepting it and turning on the ABS system.
<snip>
> > You can run Windows on a PowerPC chip all day long, with a REAL
> > emulator.
> > That's what emulators do, they imitate the process.
> > The imitated end result is what the goal of emulation is.
>
> I don't care that Windows will run on a emulator, If you took the time
> to recomplile and debug you could get it running directly on the PowerPC
> chip without an emulator. My point is that it won't run _as is_ on
> anything other than an x86 chip or a chip that emulates an x86 chip like
> the K6.
The K6 translates, it doesn't emulate. It has it's own command set and
everything, it's a chip of it's own.
<snip>
> > > AMD chip is RISC86 based.
> >
> > That would be translation, not emulation.
>
> <letting of steam>
> WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK EMULATION IS, YOU STUPID MORON?
> </letting off steam>
It's not translation. I can listen to and understand Spanish, but I'm
not emulating a Mexican when I do so. Translation and emulation aren't
the same things at all.
> From the ZDWebopeida entry on emulation that _you_ quoted earlier:
> "Refers to the ability of a program or device to imitate another program
> or device". The K6 translates from x86 to its native architecture so
> that it can imitate x86 chips without using the x86 architecture which
> belongs to Intel. This is the way that, AFAIK, most emulation works. The
> instructions meant for the device or program being emulated are
> translated into instructions that the device doing the emulation (or
> running the emulator) can understand.
Translation isn't imitation. Emulation is imitation, but translation is
not. I play translated Japanese games all the time, quite often in fact,
but that doesn't mean I'm emulating a Japanese gamer.
Charles Doane
> > neo_zo...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <38CD845A...@primenet.com>,
> > > gdo...@primenet.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > DVD has plenty of sales appeal.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It appeals to anyone interested in a high-quality, durable video format.
> >
> > It's not very high quality, Most movies I've seen on one still have the
> > spots and hairs and junk from the projector on them. That's not very
> > every danger that a CD is, including scratches. You can hardly call a
> > DVD durable while they have to be handled as if they're made of glass.
> >
>
> glass, but still watched then say one a week, the DVD is going to out last
> the VHS tape, because the only thing that touched the DVD is a laser, the
> VHS tape is dragged along a spinning video head, guess which one is going to
> wear out and which one isn't.
Since the number of available plays on a videocassette are more than anyone
could reasonably stand to watch them, the point is a non-issue. VHS tapes
are durable enough to rent profitably, but several rental places (most,
actually) don't carry DVD mainly because DVD isn't a very hardy or popular
format.
> Although I wish DVD were in permanent caddies, that way they would pretty
> much last forever.
Great, so the BARNEY videos will last until the kids go to college and the
parents can watch them to remember the good times...
Some things need to die of old age.
Charles Doane
>
> > > <snip>...
> > > X-BOX = PC Advantages + Console Advantages + More Power
> >
> > PC advantages are a negative, so the real equation is more like:
> >
> > X-box = Console wannabe - PC Disadvantages - old off-the-shelf
> > technology.
>
> i.e. = More power than the PS2!!! :P
Power doesn't mean much. I can't play power, and neither can you.
It's all about the games.
> > > The reaction to the X-BOX from developers on both sides of the
> > > Atlantic has been great (including Capcom, Namco, Konami, etc). It
> > > seems to offer everything they've been asking for and more.
> >
> > They're software companies, everything they're asking for can be
> > summed up in one word: money. Microsoft has it, they see it. That's
> > the only reason any company would try to cozy up to Microsoft at all.
> > It's all about money.
>
> Good point Charles, but isn't that what it's all about anyway?
That depends on whether you're looking at it from a biz viewpoint or from
a consumer viewpoint, doesn't it? The biz looks at it as something to
make money from, the consumer sees something to spend money on.
> Regardless of the reasons and whether those reasons are good or bad, the
> end result for Microsoft is exactly the same. The X-Box has recieved the
> same level of enthusiasm and support that greeted the PS2 last year.
I disagree, all Microsoft has gotten are a few non-committal "welcome"
messages from the industry players. It's politics as usual.
When PS2 was announced, it was a given that Polyphony (Gran Turismo)
and Psygnosis (WipeOut) was on-board. Microsoft has no such given.
> Only time will tell whether the X-Box lives up to the hype (console's
> never do), but as of now, things couldn't look any better for the future
> of the X-Box (which has a positive effect on the PC games market also).
The PC games market could shrivel up and die tonight and I wouldn't miss
it. Consoles and PC games are totally seperate markets with very little
in the way of middle ground. PC gamers and Console gamers can't even
agree about what an RPG is, after all.
<Snip>
> > The PSX went on to do
> > very well in spite of all this. I see nothing catastrophic in the
> > PS2's launch at all.
>
> Yep, there were problems, but atleast there were highlights. I remember
> gamers being disappointment that Ridge Racer wasn't arcade perfect as
> the hype suggested, but overall most were impressed by the conversion
> and very happy with the console itself (even if it didn't achieve the
> quoted 1 million pps!).
Considering that the best Poly-based racers I'd played were the original
Virtua Racing and Stunt Race FX (SNES) at the time I saw Ridge Racer,
Ridge Racer was flat awesome. Nothing could TOUCH it, not on a home
console. Sega had to dig out Sega Rally, and even that was just close.
> Upon launch the PSX had Ridge Racer, the Saturn had Virtua Fighter and
> the N64 had Mario64. These are the sort of games which really make a
> console. The problem for the PS2 is that it really needs a killer app
> and it needs it soon! (None of the launch titles, including Tekken Tag,
> have had great reviews).
Killer apps aren't that important outside of the USA. I'd argue that
there's no such thing as a "killer app", simply because there's no one
single genre of game with universal appeal. Liking Ridge Racer does not
mean that one will automatically like Mario 64.
> As a PC gamer who happens to enjoy console games too, I'm interested in
> buying a PS2 later this year (or even early 2001). By then we should
> have seen a significant improvement in the games themselves as
> developers become more familiar with the hardware (hopefully). However,
> also by then, the X-Box and the Dolphin will not be far away, and I'm
> more excited by those consoles than the PS2.
>
> The PS2 is a great console and no doubt will be successful, but I think
> this time around, Sony's hype went much too far! Time will tell.
Hype is hype, it's SUPPOSED to be taken too far.
Dr Yassam
> > i.e. = More power than the PS2!!! :P
>
> Power doesn't mean much. I can't play power, and neither can you.
> It's all about the games.
Correct, but isn't's what we always say to ourselves when we what to be
rational, and then forget about it when seeing a graphically awesome
game for the first time! :)
I expect this to happen with forthcoming PS2 games.
Power is important in as much as it provides the opportunity for
developers to create truely incredible games. As you've said, when you
first saw Ridge Racer on the PSX you thought it was awesome and that
nothing could touch it. That's what power can do in the right hands.
> > > <snip>...
> > > It's all about money.
> >
> > Good point Charles, but isn't that what it's all about anyway?
>
> That depends on whether you're looking at it from a biz viewpoint or
> from a consumer viewpoint, doesn't it? The biz looks at it as
> something to make money from, the consumer sees something to spend
> money on.
>
> > Regardless of the reasons and whether those reasons are good or bad,
> > the end result for Microsoft is exactly the same. The X-Box has
> > recieved the same level of enthusiasm and support that greeted the
> > PS2 last year.
>
> I disagree, all Microsoft has gotten are a few non-committal "welcome"
> messages from the industry players. It's politics as usual.
> When PS2 was announced, it was a given that Polyphony (Gran Turismo)
> and Psygnosis (WipeOut) was on-board. Microsoft has no such given.
Not supprising given their previous support for the Playstation.
Even if these are non-committal "welcome" messages, they are numerous
and also come from developers who have never made committments to
Western consoles before (i.e. those from Japan).
It is VERY likely that we will be seeing X-Box products from these
developers. Afterall, if the console turns out to be a massive success,
they will want to be in on the action.
> > Only time will tell whether the X-Box lives up to the hype
> > (console's never do), but as of now, things couldn't look any better
> > for the future of the X-Box (which has a positive effect on the PC
> > games market also).
>
> The PC games market could shrivel up and die tonight and I wouldn't
> miss it. Consoles and PC games are totally seperate markets with very
> little in the way of middle ground. PC gamers and Console gamers can't
> even agree about what an RPG is, after all.
Good, so atleast we can agree that the PC games market is not about to
die (despite your wishes :)), and that the two markets are totally
seperate.
The point I'm making regards those developing X-Box games.
Assuming the X-Box is a success, PC developers will be in a win-win
situation. The X-Box environment is so similar to the PC that they can
now write games designed for both the PC and (more profitable) console
market (with changes to reflect the strengths of each).
Also, most of the knowledge gained by programming on the X-Box also
applies to the PC itself, making it MUCH easier for console developers
(including the Japanese) to port/write games on the PC. Of course,
whether they're willing to cope with the problems associated with the PC
is questionable.
> <Snip>
> >... but overall most were impressed by the conversion and very happy
> > with the console itself (even if it didn't achieve the quoted 1
> > million pps!).
>
> Considering that the best Poly-based racers I'd played were the
> original Virtua Racing and Stunt Race FX (SNES) at the time I saw
> Ridge Racer, Ridge Racer was flat awesome. Nothing could TOUCH it, not
> on a home console. Sega had to dig out Sega Rally, and even that was
> just close.
Ridge Racer was very VERY impressive, just a shame about the lack of
tracks.
> > Upon launch the PSX had Ridge Racer, the Saturn had Virtua Fighter
> > and the N64 had Mario64. These are the sort of games which really
> > make a console. The problem for the PS2 is that it really needs a
> > killer app and it needs it soon! (None of the launch titles,
> > including Tekken Tag, have had great reviews).
>
> Killer apps aren't that important outside of the USA. I'd argue that
> there's no such thing as a "killer app", simply because there's no one
> single genre of game with universal appeal. Liking Ridge Racer does
> not mean that one will automatically like Mario 64.
But seeing Ridge Racer for the first time must of been a heavy
influence upon your views about the PSX console! Just as it was for many
other gamers (including those who don't like racing games).
I remember the excited reviews which greated Mario64. Typical comments
were "never before have I experienced an interactive 3D world so
wonderful with controls so intuitive...blah blah blah". This game set
the standard for other N64 games to follow and again influenced gamer's
impressions of the N64.
Both these games were greeted with comments like "it's worth buying the
console for this game alone!".
So perhap no game can really be a "killer app" as such, but a console
DOES need a game which grabs the attention of gamers in this way.
> > <snip>...
> > The PS2 is a great console and no doubt will be successful, but I
> > think this time around, Sony's hype went much too far! Time will
> > tell.
>
> Hype is hype, it's SUPPOSED to be taken too far.
Yes and no. Hype generates the interest and the expectation which is
vital for success, but IMO there is a point for which hype will backfire
instead. Recent events regarding the PS2 is a reflection of this.
With the success of the Playstation already and the support from gamers
and developers, Sony didn't need to go that far to gain support for the
PS2.
neo_zo...@hotmail.com
gdo...@primenet.com wrote:
>
> > It appeals to anyone interested in a high-quality, durable video
> > format.
>
> It's not very high quality, Most movies I've seen on one still have
> the spots and hairs and junk from the projector on them. That's not
> very good.
"Projector"? What are you talking about?
> It's not very durable media, either, the discs are prone to
> every danger that a CD is, including scratches. You can hardly call a
> DVD durable while they have to be handled as if they're made of glass.
Video tapes degrade, DVD's do not.
> > No, they're doing something because THEY wish to.
>
> You claim to know the wishes of people you haven't met and can't name?
> Hackers hack for money, and there's no money in it anymore.
Hackers do not hack for money. If they did, how do you explain the
wealth of free emulators and roms? They weren't selling DeCSS...
> > Nope. I won't pirate anything I can legally purchase.
>
> Legally and easily purchase, you lazy emulation-abusing pirate.
Not easily at all, obviously, or I would've purchased them.
> > It declared the grounds on which the injunction was based to be
> > erroneous as well...
>
> The declaration was meaningless, the trial still goes on.
The injunction has been lifted, and the grounds on which it was based
are no longer open for discussion.
> > Java functions in EXACTLY the same way as an emulator.
>
> Not at all, it's not emulating anything.
Java allows programs written for the Java "platform" to be run on any
hardware, which is the EXACT function of an emulator.
> > > AMD's chips are also original, they aren't emulators,
> >
> > They emulate the Intel architecture.
>
> Not even close, they can just translate x86 instructions on the fly,
> that's not emulation, it's translation.
LOL!
LOL!!!!
Do you REALLY want me to go dig up the DOZENS(hundreds?) of posts you've
made claiming emulation WAS translation!
So, Doane, were you wrong then, or are you wrong now? You can't have it
both ways...
> It's no more emulation than my listening to Morse Code and translating
> the dots and dashes to letters and numbers in my head.
>
> <snip ZFP one-liners>
Why did you reply to the one liners above? Hypocrite...
I guess you didn't want to deal with the fact that your definition of
emulation supplied legal examples of emulation, proving emulation is not
mere piracy.
-ZFP
neo_zo...@hotmail.com
gdo...@primenet.com wrote:
>
> It couldn't emulate an R3000A CPU, because the R3000A CPU doesn't DO
> anything by itself.
That doesn't mean it couldn't emulate it.
> > So that emulation is legal. At least one type of emulation is legal,
> > hence it would be impossible for ALL emulation to be illegal.
>
> All emulations of currently patented and copyrighted systems and
> processes are illegal.
Are you claiming that Intel's chips or the Windows OS are not patented
and/or copyrighted? What about HP printers?
> Emulators are for the sole purpose of violating copyright and are no
> more legitimate than burglar tools.
So crowbars are illegal? What about rocks? I could use a rock to break
a window to get into a house. Are rocks and crowbars now illegal too?
The definition of emulation YOU posted provided examples of legal,
legitimate emulation. I suggest you read your own sources more
carefully...
> Sure it does. AMD's chips can't run x86 instructions, and they work
> by translating the instructions.
That's pretty much emulation in a nutshell, yes.
> That's all AMD chips do, is translate. There's no emulation there.
I will once again remind you that you went on for MONTHS claiming that
emulation WAS translation, and that's why it violated the Berne
Convention...
Does this mean AMD chips also violate the Berne Convention?
> The K6 translates, it doesn't emulate. It has it's own command set and
> everything, it's a chip of it's own.
One which emulates Intel's x86 chips, ensuring compatability...
> It's not translation. I can listen to and understand Spanish, but I'm
> not emulating a Mexican when I do so. Translation and emulation aren't
> the same things at all.
...which is a COMPLETE reversal of your ealier stand.
Here, I'll prove it:
"Translation is made, a PSX game is running on a PC. That is
translation."
http://x45.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=563206455&search=thread&CONTEXT=9531425
61.1367932954&HIT_CONTEXT=953142561.1367932954&HIT_NUM=11&hitnum=75
I'm sure there are plenty more examples where that came from.
So, do you no longer consider Bleem an emulator? Was your earlier stand
wrong, or is your current stand wrong? I'm eager to see you try to
dance your way out of this one...
Figment
> Figment wrote:
> > Actually it would be an emulator, it would emulate the R3000A CPU.
It
> > doesn't matter that the CPU it's emulating is usually a part of a
larger
> > whole, or that it would be of little use just emulating that one
part,
> > it's still emulation.
>
> It couldn't emulate an R3000A CPU, because the R3000A CPU doesn't DO
> anything by itself. Without support components (which would also need
to
> be in the emulation) the R3000A isn't even a very effective
paperweight.
Actually the R3000A CPU does do something by itself. It does
calculations, and in a specific format. It takes instructions that were
written for it and gives a meaningful answer from the calculations based
on those instructions. Just because it takes the rest of the Playstation
for a visible result to be displayed on a screen doesn't mean it's not
doing anything.
> > So that emulation is legal. At least one type of emulation is legal,
> > hence it would be impossible for ALL emulation to be illegal.
>
> All emulations of currently patented and copyrighted systems and
processes
> are illegal. Emulators are for the sole purpose of violating
copyright
> and are no more legitimate than burglar tools.
So AMD chips are illegal? If the X-box were still going to ship with
Dreamcast emulation that would be illegal? My sound card can emulate a
Sound Blaster card if I want to play a DOS game, is that illegal?
<Snip another stupid denial based on Doane not understanding what
emulation is>
> > No, my CPU doesn't perform based on my inputs. I input using a
keyboard,
> > mouse or other peripheral, that input has to go trough several steps
to
> > get to the CPU, and even then the CPU doesn't work alone. The car is
a
> > complete unit, made of of wheels, an engine, a gastank, a steering
> > colum, seats, etc.
>
> It doesn't matter how many steps it takes to get to the CPU. Most of
> the inputs in a modern car aren't direct either, they go through a CPU
> as well. You can't even mash the brakes in some cars without a CPU
> intercepting it and turning on the ABS system.
So the steering wheel isn't part of my car? Or are you saying that my
keyboard is part of my CPU? My analogy is that a CPU is only part of a
working computer, but that a car is a complete machine made up of may
individual parts.
<Snip another stupid denial based on Doane not understanding what
emulation is>
> > <letting of steam>
> > WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK EMULATION IS, YOU STUPID MORON?
> > </letting off steam>
>
> It's not translation. I can listen to and understand Spanish, but I'm
> not emulating a Mexican when I do so. Translation and emulation
aren't
> the same things at all.
Working with the speaking Spanish analogy, if you used that knowledge of
Spanish to claim that you're a Mexican that would be analogous to
emulation. If you're not claiming to be Mexican it's not. AMD's chips
are pretending to x86 chips, the rest of the computer sends instructions
in x86 code and gets back the results it would expect from an x86 chip.
The rest of the computer continues to think that it's dealing with an
x86 chip, thus the AMD chip has succesfully emulated the x86 architectu
> > From the ZDWebopeida entry on emulation that _you_ quoted earlier:
> > "Refers to the ability of a program or device to imitate another
program
> > or device". The K6 translates from x86 to its native architecture so
> > that it can imitate x86 chips without using the x86 architecture
which
> > belongs to Intel. This is the way that, AFAIK, most emulation works.
The
> > instructions meant for the device or program being emulated are
> > translated into instructions that the device doing the emulation (or
> > running the emulator) can understand.
>
> Translation isn't imitation. Emulation is imitation, but translation
is
> not. I play translated Japanese games all the time, quite often in
fact,
> but that doesn't mean I'm emulating a Japanese gamer.
You still haven't answered what you think emulation actually is. From
the ZDWebopedia definition you supplied, AMD chips fit the description
perfectly. What's wrong? Can't admit when you're wrong Doane?
Translation alone isn't emulation, but it is usually used to acheive
that goal. Just as it is in the case of AMD chips. AMD chips function as
if they were x86 chips, the OS and programs both think they are x86
chips. How is that anything but emulation?
Charles Doane
>
> In article <38CF748E...@primenet.com>,
> gdo...@primenet.com wrote:
> >
> > anything by itself.
>
Emulating doing nothing? Okay, just hold your breath and sit still.
There, you've emulated an R3000A too.
> > > So that emulation is legal. At least one type of emulation is legal,
> > > hence it would be impossible for ALL emulation to be illegal.
> >
> > All emulations of currently patented and copyrighted systems and
> > processes are illegal.
>
> Are you claiming that Intel's chips or the Windows OS are not patented
> and/or copyrighted? What about HP printers?
Intel's x86 chips are well beyond the 15 years of a patent period, they
have expired. What about HP printers? They're HP printers, they aren't
copying or emulating anything.
> > Emulators are for the sole purpose of violating copyright and are no
> > more legitimate than burglar tools.
>
> So crowbars are illegal? What about rocks? I could use a rock to break
> a window to get into a house. Are rocks and crowbars now illegal too?
Getting caught with a crowbar in an alley is what most people (and
arresting officers) would call "probable cause". A consumer in
possession of an emulator only has it for one reason, and that's
to steal intellectual property.
> The definition of emulation YOU posted provided examples of legal,
> legitimate emulation. I suggest you read your own sources more
> carefully...
There are legitimate uses for emulation. The consumer enjoys NONE
of them. ALL consumers in possession of emulators are pirates
and crooks supporting the theft of intellectual properties.
> > Sure it does. AMD's chips can't run x86 instructions, and they work
> > by translating the instructions.
>
> That's pretty much emulation in a nutshell, yes.
No, that's translation, not emulation. If you were to read "Don Quixote"
in its English version, you would not be reading the emulated version.
> > That's all AMD chips do, is translate. There's no emulation there.
>
> I will once again remind you that you went on for MONTHS claiming that
> emulation WAS translation, and that's why it violated the Berne
> Convention...
That's because Bleem! isn't truly emulation, it's translation.
Translation is illegal in the Berne convention.
> Does this mean AMD chips also violate the Berne Convention?
Nope, because the Berne convention covers software, not hardware.
Keep up with the simple stuff, would you?
> > The K6 translates, it doesn't emulate. It has it's own command set and
> > everything, it's a chip of it's own.
>
> One which emulates Intel's x86 chips, ensuring compatability...
It translates, it doesn't emulate. The only reason that Intel doesn't
sue the asses off of AMD and others is because they got sick of fighting
the anti-trust suits against the gov't. It's easier to compete with
thieves than it is to pay gov't-imposed fines for not doing it.
> > It's not translation. I can listen to and understand Spanish, but I'm
> > not emulating a Mexican when I do so. Translation and emulation aren't
> > the same things at all.
>
> ...which is a COMPLETE reversal of your ealier stand.
>
> Here, I'll prove it:
>
> "Translation is made, a PSX game is running on a PC. That is
> translation."
>
> http://x45.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=563206455&search=thread&CONTEXT=9531425
> 61.1367932954&HIT_CONTEXT=953142561.1367932954&HIT_NUM=11&hitnum=75
>
> I'm sure there are plenty more examples where that came from.
>
> So, do you no longer consider Bleem an emulator? Was your earlier stand
> wrong, or is your current stand wrong? I'm eager to see you try to
> dance your way out of this one...
Idiot.
My claims against Bleem! were (and are) based on translation. Bleem! takes
copyrighted software and translates it for the PC platform. That happens
to be ILLEGAL under the Berne convention.
Charles Doane
>
> In article <38CEE0C2...@primenet.com>,
> gdo...@primenet.com wrote:
> >
> > > It appeals to anyone interested in a high-quality, durable video
> > > format.
> >
> > It's not very high quality, Most movies I've seen on one still have
> > the spots and hairs and junk from the projector on them. That's not
> > very good.
>
> "Projector"? What are you talking about?
Most DVD movies aren't made for DVD's, they're made for projectors, and
they suck. It's the same as the old CD audio tracks, the hissing and
the popping are just a whole lot more apparent because of the conversion.
> > It's not very durable media, either, the discs are prone to
> > every danger that a CD is, including scratches. You can hardly call a
> > DVD durable while they have to be handled as if they're made of glass.
>
> Video tapes degrade, DVD's do not.
*snicker*
First of all, I have VHS cassettes that are three times older than the
DVD format itself is, and they're still just fine.
Secondly, DVD's suffer from "disc rot", which happens when the aluminum
oxidizes in a reaction of exposure to ordinary air. The plastic is
supposed to be a seal against it, but what happens to aged plastic?
Don't think about it too hard.
> > > No, they're doing something because THEY wish to.
> >
> > You claim to know the wishes of people you haven't met and can't name?
> > Hackers hack for money, and there's no money in it anymore.
>
> Hackers do not hack for money. If they did, how do you explain the
> wealth of free emulators and roms? They weren't selling DeCSS...
They COULDN'T sell DeCSS, Johanssen was seeking fame. He got it.
His ass got arrested and the rest of his cronies are laying low.
Fame can bring money, you know. Monica Lewinsky is a good case in
point, she wouldn't be worth a who-izzat if not for the story.
> > > Nope. I won't pirate anything I can legally purchase.
> >
> > Legally and easily purchase, you lazy emulation-abusing pirate.
>
> Not easily at all, obviously, or I would've purchased them.
Yeah, you'll spend all kinds of time looking on line for freebies,
but you won't even look in the retro shops for the games.
Pirate.
> > > It declared the grounds on which the injunction was based to be
> > > erroneous as well...
> >
> > The declaration was meaningless, the trial still goes on.
>
> The injunction has been lifted, and the grounds on which it was based
> are no longer open for discussion.
Lifting the injunction was the only power enjoyed by the 9th Circuit
Court. The opinion the stupid court gave is not part of the case at
all, it was just a waste of ink by a stupid appellate Judge.
> > > Java functions in EXACTLY the same way as an emulator.
> >
> > Not at all, it's not emulating anything.
>
> Java allows programs written for the Java "platform" to be run on any
> hardware, which is the EXACT function of an emulator.
There is no platform so there is no imitation and no emulation.
<snip>
neo_zo...@hotmail.com
gdo...@primenet.com wrote:
>
> > That doesn't mean it couldn't emulate it.
>
> Emulating doing nothing? Okay, just hold your breath and sit still.
> There, you've emulated an R3000A too.
Simply because you can't observe it's processes doesn't mean it isn't
processing.
> > Are you claiming that Intel's chips or the Windows OS are not
> > patented and/or copyrighted? What about HP printers?
>
> Intel's x86 chips are well beyond the 15 years of a patent period,
> they have expired.
I imagine Intel would be surprised to know tha ttheir Pentium 3 isn't
elligible for a patent...
> What about HP printers? They're HP printers, they aren't copying or
> emulating anything.
They are emulated by other printers, as decribed in your definition of
"emulation".
> > So crowbars are illegal? What about rocks? I could use a rock to
> > break a window to get into a house. Are rocks and crowbars now
> > illegal too?
>
> Getting caught with a crowbar in an alley is what most people (and
> arresting officers) would call "probable cause". A consumer in
> possession of an emulator only has it for one reason, and that's
> to steal intellectual property.
And a person in possesion of a rock or a crowbar has it for only one
reason? So we should arrest anyone who owns a crowbar? You're
irrational as usual, Doane...
> > The definition of emulation YOU posted provided examples of legal,
> > legitimate emulation. I suggest you read your own sources more
> > carefully...
>
> There are legitimate uses for emulation. The consumer enjoys NONE
> of them. ALL consumers in possession of emulators are pirates
> and crooks supporting the theft of intellectual properties.
I'm sure the many people who posess AMD chips and Windows emulators for
the Mac would be very surprised to hear that.
> > That's pretty much emulation in a nutshell, yes.
>
> No, that's translation, not emulation. If you were to read "Don
> Quixote" in its English version, you would not be reading the
> emulated version.
Translation is a part of emulation, however. In a sense, Don Quixote
is "emulating" an english book.
> > I will once again remind you that you went on for MONTHS claiming
> > that emulation WAS translation, and that's why it violated the Berne
> > Convention...
>
> That's because Bleem! isn't truly emulation, it's translation.
> Translation is illegal in the Berne convention.
Actually, it's not. I can't believe you're REALLY stupid enough to
think so.
And yes, Bleem IS emulation. You've even said so on numerous threads.
> > Does this mean AMD chips also violate the Berne Convention?
>
> Nope, because the Berne convention covers software, not hardware.
> Keep up with the simple stuff, would you?
The Berne convention covers translations. Whether hardware or software
produces those translations is immaterial. Of course, Berne does not
apply to the sort of translations done by Bleem, AMD chips, Java,
Windows emulators, and similar products.
> > One which emulates Intel's x86 chips, ensuring compatability...
>
> It translates, it doesn't emulate. The only reason that Intel doesn't
> sue the asses off of AMD and others is because they got sick of
> fighting the anti-trust suits against the gov't. It's easier to
> compete with thieves than it is to pay gov't-imposed fines for not
> doing it.
They'd have no grounds for a suit. AMD emulates an x86 chip by
translating x86 instructions, which is perfectly legal.
> > ...which is a COMPLETE reversal of your ealier stand.
> >
> > Here, I'll prove it:
> >
> > "Translation is made, a PSX game is running on a PC. That is
> > translation."
> >
> >
http://x45.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=563206455&search=thread&CONTEXT=9531425
> > 61.1367932954&HIT_CONTEXT=953142561.1367932954&HIT_NUM=11&hitnum=75
> >
> > I'm sure there are plenty more examples where that came from.
> >
> > So, do you no longer consider Bleem an emulator? Was your earlier
> > stand wrong, or is your current stand wrong? I'm eager to see you
> > try to dance your way out of this one...
>
> Idiot.
> My claims against Bleem! were (and are) based on translation. Bleem!
> takes copyrighted software and translates it for the PC platform.
> That happens to be ILLEGAL under the Berne convention.
Then Windows emulators, which take copyrighted software and "translate"
it for the Mac are illegal. AMD chips, which take copyrighted software
and "translate" it for a non-x86 architecture are illegal. Java, which
takes copyrighted software and "translates" it for any platform is
illegal.
..and if Bleem isn't an emulator(or SNES9x, Genecyst, etc.), if it and
Java, AMD chips, and Windows emulators for the Mac are merely
"translators", what exactly IS an emulator?
You're wrong, Doane, as usual. The fact that you're slipping into
insults proves you've been backed into a corner and are getting
frustrated...