postal postie Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by charliemfc: The future of PC gaming is in game advert driven games. There's already a free version of FIFA available in South Korea that rakes in over $1m per month through ad revenue. Now EA are going to try it in the UK with a version of Battlefield. It'll take off over here within two years. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> i personally wouldn't mind having adverts in my games if it meant they were cheaper. only problem is when you play a game like. lord of the rings or a total war game. what are the adverts going to be like? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LFC Lloydy Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by postal postie: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by charliemfc: The future of PC gaming is in game advert driven games. There's already a free version of FIFA available in South Korea that rakes in over $1m per month through ad revenue. Now EA are going to try it in the UK with a version of Battlefield. It'll take off over here within two years. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> i personally wouldn't mind having adverts in my games if it meant they were cheaper. only problem is when you play a game like. lord of the rings or a total war game. what are the adverts going to be like? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't have a problem with adverts in games eiher as long as, like you say, it doesn't distract from the game. I'd be a bit peed off if I was playing Lord of The Rings and they stopped of at McDonalds for a bite to eat. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charliemfc Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">problem is when you play a game like. lord of the rings or a total war game. what are the adverts going to be like? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Online games are subscription based, so they get their money that way, like FM Live. Then for 'offline' games, there will be ads on loading screens and maybe a little ad in the corner of the screen during gameplay. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neji Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by charliemfc: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">problem is when you play a game like. lord of the rings or a total war game. what are the adverts going to be like? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Online games are subscription based, so they get their money that way, like FM Live. Then for 'offline' games, there will be ads on loading screens and maybe a little ad in the corner of the screen during gameplay. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually it will become more common in these online games. They can be updated all the time, so they can get more money. Ads are not a problem as long as they fit into the game world. Such as Fifa or Pro Evo having adverts for console games around the sponsor boards etc, thats fine but it when it become unrealistic that it becomes a problem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skunner Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 I've always been a console person when it comes to video games. I hear about so many people buying upgraded PC's, shelling out thousands of dollars just to play new games, and I think to myself "Do these people have a life?" I couldn't imagine myself getting completely upgraded just to play games on a PC, but then again, the only game I do play on PC is FM. I use my PS2 to play anything else. I prefer playing Fifa 08 on my PS2. But I certainly ain't going to shell out $800 - $1000 on a next gen console either. I think anyone who pays that much money for a console are being raped in the ass by the companies who make these consoles. And therefor anyone who buys consoles at that price doesn't deserve to have that kind of money to spend anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seagulls Forever Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 The PC games market is in a right old state. A few AAA titles at the end of the year doesn't disguise a pretty poor year, while the consoles had a decent stream of releases. On the PC piracy is a problem because frankly it's bloody easy. Sorry but securom etc don't make a blind bit of difference. However console games aren't any different in that regard, you can still buy any console game from the pirate shops here. The difference I feel is that PC owners have the equipment to download and burn their pirated software, wheras a console just plays games and has a limited feature set defined by the manufacturer. A PC is a tool where a console is an entertainment device. Add to that a culture of freebies on the PC and you have a tendency to pirate on the PC. Personally I don't get it. Games cost about £25-30 in the latter Atari ST days (early 90s). And now? They're still £25-30 or less mail-order. So prices have gone down relative to inflation. However people ARE getting turned off PC gaming. I think this is for a number of reasons. One is "Will the game run on my rig?". Casual gamers don't want the hassle. Two is that games are all a bit hardcore on the PC. Crysis and COD4 aren't very 'noob'-friendly. FM is also VERY guilty of this one. Third, bugs and patches. On consoles the tendency of MS and sony to be right bastards about letting you patch your games means that games need to be right on release day, or at least reasonable. There is no such imperative on the PC. This leads to shoddy product (see FM08 8.0.0) and ****ed-off gamers. Will the PC go the way of the Amiga? Probably not, but it won't be quite the games machine we've loved so long in the future. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SI Staff Marc Vaughan Posted January 23, 2008 SI Staff Share Posted January 23, 2008 I think its worth mentioning that the article in question is american based - over here PC titles get next to no floor space or promotion and that is imho one of the reasons why they sell poorly. The largest PC game section I know of in my area in Florida is sadly in Walmart and thats full of 'junk' casual games (Big Game Hunter anyone?) rather than anything interesting. If you go to 'Game Stop' (equivalent of 'Game' in the UK) then you'll find a very small PC section with around 30 titles in it, also generally the staff know nothing about PC's so they're never pushed at all. (I do however also agree with the people saying that the high specs required by a lot of PC games puts people off purchasing them ... one of the reasons FM does fairly well is that people generally are confident it'll work ok on their setups) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick.Bateman Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 My girlfriend bought a new notebook in November 2007, an average one. She never buys or plays games, but I convinced her to try it once. So last week she bought The Da Vinci code. It doesn’t run on her computer because it is not matching the minimum specifications. Her reaction: “I will never buy a game again†And she is right. Why can’t a game (which is not the newest and clearly not demanding the heaviest resources around) run on a pretty new average PC? Also I'm in IT business. I can make it happen that almost any game runs on any computer (except due hardware restrictions). But when my friends, who are not in the IT business, buy a new game, they often have to call me because their game doesn't want to install. When they buy a common movie DVD they never expect to 'fix' settings and stuff to watch their movie. Maybe these above things are partly the reasons why the PC gaming business is declining? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yugular Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 I dont own console and this laptop I own is like 4-5 years old. FM is the only game I have bought in years. Because of the minimun requirements, constant need of patches (FM Too), constant need to update drivers (I hardly know what this means, I dont know how its done). I haven't tried lots of consoles but the games that I have played - Wow! I really have enjoyed Final Fantasy VII&VIII on PS and PES series in PS2. So I think I will someday buy some kind of console... But right now all I need is a laptop that can run some programs like Firefox, Word etc. and Football Manager of course! btw. Football Manager 2008 runs more smoothly than 06or07 thanks for that to SI! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidbowie Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 An "average laptop" is hardly the stuff games are made for. It probably had intergrated graphics on the motherboard, and shared it with the ram. PC Gaming goes in cycles. Right now, all the new consoles have been released, and the companies making games for them are going hardcore into it. Wait another 4 years and compare the 360 and ps3 with the current PC Gaming tech. Crysis, the latest and greatest pc, is probably never going to come out on PS3 or 360, and if it does it will be graphically cut down. Just think of what's going to happen as the life cycle of current gen consoles elongates. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick.Bateman Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davidbowie: An "average laptop" is hardly the stuff games are made for. It probably had intergrated graphics on the motherboard, and shared it with the ram. PC Gaming goes in cycles. Right now, all the new consoles have been released, and the companies making games for them are going hardcore into it. Wait another 4 years and compare the 360 and ps3 with the current PC Gaming tech. Crysis, the latest and greatest pc, is probably never going to come out on PS3 or 360, and if it does it will be graphically cut down. Just think of what's going to happen as the life cycle of current gen consoles elongates. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> That's your perception. For non-IT people there's no difference between a notebook and a desktop computer. For these people it are just computers. It took me (and I'm a kind of geek) 30 minutes to figure out why it will not install and why it will never install. I didn't found the information in the manual and the website of the creators was very silent as well. Non-IT people will almost never find this kind of information. And this is not a rare situation. It's rather common. My girlfriend and zillion people like her are not eating this. If they buy “The Da Vinci Code†DVD movie and insert it in their DVD player they expect to watch the movie. They do not want to see cryptic error messages. And if something goes wrong they want to find step-by-step solutions on the screen or in their manual. If that’s not available then the smarter people think they can find solutions and workarounds on the website of the creators or publishers. And if all these things fail, then they will never buy a DVD movie anymore. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neji Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> new average PC? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> a new notebook </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Two totally different things. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick.Bateman Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Neji: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> new average PC? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> a new notebook </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Two totally different things. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Yep, for you and me. But not for girlfriends Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick.Bateman Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Neji: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> new average PC? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> a new notebook </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Two totally different things. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Yep, for you and me. But not for girlfriends Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gonzo7 Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Not sure if this has been said or not but if I've already paid £40 for xbox live, I would not then pay monthly for FM live, but would be willing to pay a one off fee, just like buying the games in store. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neji Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Yep, for you and me. But not for girlfriends </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Agreed <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Not sure if this has been said or not but if I've already paid £40 for xbox live, I would not then pay monthly for FM live, but would be willing to pay a one off fee, just like buying the games in store. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Agreed also I hate the thought of buying a game, and then having to carry on paying to keep playing. Thats the reason I wont be buying FM Live. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick.Bateman Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 On the box nothing special was written. In the manual of The Da Vinci Code I found that "graphics card with hardware transform and lighting" was needed. The notebook of my girlfriend isn't supporting that setting... Why didn't they create the game in such a way that it can run on PC's that are not having that feature? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudester Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davidbowie: An "average laptop" is hardly the stuff games are made for. It probably had intergrated graphics on the motherboard, and shared it with the ram. PC Gaming goes in cycles. Right now, all the new consoles have been released, and the companies making games for them are going hardcore into it. Wait another 4 years and compare the 360 and ps3 with the current PC Gaming tech. Crysis, the latest and greatest pc, is probably never going to come out on PS3 or 360, and if it does it will be graphically cut down. Just think of what's going to happen as the life cycle of current gen consoles elongates. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree with what your saying but one thing is will the average user have upgraded their hardware enough in that time to play the latest and greatest games? Also crysis is rumoured at this point for ps3. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neji Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Why didn't they create the game in such a way that it can run on PC's that are not having that feature? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Probably they thought it would be better to do it so the graphics weren't too bad. Even thought they were rubbish The thing is with Pc games, they are written for PC's not for laptops. The thing with laptops are that they aren't made for gaming. The two things don't go well. Most GPUs in a PC would have that feature, so thats why they probably included it. Obviously, I'm speculating here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick.Bateman Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Neji: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Why didn't they create the game in such a way that it can run on PC's that are not having that feature? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Probably they thought it would be better to do it so the graphics weren't too bad. Even thought they were rubbish The thing is with Pc games, they are written for PC's not for laptops. The thing with laptops are that they aren't made for gaming. The two things don't go well. Most GPUs in a PC would have that feature, so thats why they probably included it. Obviously, I'm speculating here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> No, you're probably right. But go to the stores, what's sold the most present times? Desktop or notebook computers? Notebooks! And most people are not IT specialist, they are just common people. They really really are not aware that a notebook is not a desktop computer. Why is the gaming industry not taking note of this one? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neji Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 I know I sound like a broken record but it's simply because laptops are not powerful enough. Well, not for your average user. The average user will look to spend £400-500 on a laptop and that doesn't buy you a good enough laptop to play any sort of game really. The gaming industry are not going to totally dumb down graphics of a game just so that the average user can play it on a desktop. It wouldn't be worth it. They would probably lose alot of hardcore fans if they make games with bad graphics and gain a few casual gamers. I think what is needed is for game coders to develop for their target audience. Obviously, no one in their right mind is going to try to run Crysis on a £500 laptop. However, for The Da Vince Code, perhaps you are right that it should run on minimum specs because the fans for that game won't get too excited over the graphics. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick.Bateman Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Neji: I know I sound like a broken record but it's simply because laptops are not powerful enough. Well, not for your average user. The average user will look to spend £400-500 on a laptop and that doesn't buy you a good enough laptop to play any sort of game really. The gaming industry are not going to totally dumb down graphics of a game just so that the average user can play it on a desktop. It wouldn't be worth it. They would probably lose alot of hardcore fans if they make games with bad graphics and gain a few casual gamers. I think what is needed is for game coders to develop for their target audience. Obviously, no one in their right mind is going to try to run Crysis on a £500 laptop. However, for The Da Vince Code, perhaps you are right that it should run on minimum specs because the fans for that game won't get too excited over the graphics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> The Da Vince Code IS running on my notebook! My girlfriend is hating me now. Yes the software business should think about the average machine of their users. And they don't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJdeMarco Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Patrick.Bateman: No, you're probably right. But go to the stores, what's sold the most present times? Desktop or notebook computers? Notebooks! And most people are not IT specialist, they are just common people. They really really are not aware that a notebook is not a desktop computer. Why is the gaming industry not taking note of this one? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> If the gaming industry made games only for rubbish notebooks, there would be no need for high-end graphics cards and it would severely inhibit the growth of that industry as well as having knock-on effects in many other areas of the industry. I personally think that it isn't the gaming industry that needs to take note, it is the average person on the street/PC retailers. I sell PC's for a living and the first question I ask is what the computer is going to be used for. If the relevant party suggests that playing high-end games is the top priority, I won't sell them a laptop. I think other retailers should also do this instead of thinking solely about the pound notes. By the same token, the home user needs to have a reality check and stop thinking that a £300 laptop is a good thing. As with all industries, buying the cheapest piece of equipment available is not the best way of going about things. As for the gaming industry dumbing down the required specifications by making the games usuable on all PC's/Notebooks, I think it would be a very bad thing. Not only would it mean a backward step for the quality of gaming (gamers would be forced to go onto the console platform to get their fix), it would also impact heavily upon the PC retail market. Why would anyone want to buy a quality PC when they can buy any old piece of garbage that will run everything? To use a non-car analogy, it would be like suggesting that manufacturers of movies should only release them on reel-to-reel as someone who doesn't have Blu-ray equipment can't play the film on their old equipment. Whilst in theory it would be nice to have everything work on everything, in practice it is impossible in both a technical and economical sense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick.Bateman Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 My girl paid about 1200€ for her notebook. It's not a rubbish thing. In my opinion games should adapt themselves on the target computer (automatically). ‘Bad’ videocard? Ok, you can play, but don’t expect the nicest graphics… No surround? Ok, you’ll hear some beep-beep… Slow CPU? Ok, we’ll drop some consuming features, but you’ll be able to run the show. And sure, no one is expecting that a Da Vinci Code is running on a 486 pc with 4 Mb internal memory and a videocard of 64Kb Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJdeMarco Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Patrick.Bateman: My girl paid about 1200€ for her notebook. It's not a rubbish thing. Sorry, I was ranting in general as this is something I hear several times a week (the bit about buying a cheap laptop and expecting them to work like a desktop, not your girl's in particular). In my opinion games should adapt themselves on the target computer (automatically). ‘Bad’ videocard? Ok, you can play, but don’t expect the nicest graphics… No surround? Ok, you’ll hear some beep-beep… Slow CPU? Ok, we’ll drop some consuming features, but you’ll be able to run the show. And sure, no one is expecting that a Da Vinci Code is running on a 486 pc with 4 Mb internal memory and a videocard of 64Kb </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Whilst I agree to a point that they should think about it, how much time should they put into essentially retarding their work? About the 486 thing, you would be surprised. I recently had someone bring their PC to me complaining that they had just bought Lego Star Wars (for their Grandchild) from another shop and have been trying for several hours but couldn't get it to work. My task would have been to make this game run on a Pentium 100mhz CPU running Windows 98. Naturally I declined the challenge and advised the customer that, in future, he should check the minimum specifications before buying software as his PC was essentially thrown off the Ark because it was deemed archaic by Noah. I did this in the politest way possible of course. As the only other thing he uses his PC for is writing letters (and the fact that the parents of the child in question had a PC that the game would work with), I suggested that he still gives the game to the child and that it could be used at his parents' house. Question is, how far should the games industry think about this and what impact would it have on both cost of end product and length of time required in order to produce, test and release a game? In order for them to put this kind of versatility into the software, it would require massive re-writes to the graphical side of the game for each scenario/level of PC. This could triple the time needed for writing, testing and releasing the game for the different architectures. This would lead to massively inflated overheads due to the staff having to be paid for all of the extra production work which, in some cases, would financially cripple them meaning no game would be released at all. In my opinion, laptops were designed for office work on the go, for which they are very capable. They were never intended to be used as a gaming technology and therefore were never designed in that way. In future, I would expect to see higher-end graphics cards in laptops anyway as a natural progression. The problem is they will always be behind the desktop due to the complexities of fitting a large amount of heat-producing components into a very small box. Should the gaming industry be slowed down (or possibly ruined) because home users have suddenly decided that it is "cool" to have a laptop? I personally would say no. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick.Bateman Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DJdeMarco: ... I personally would say no. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> It depends, if those 'some' are becoming a significant share, I would say YES Soon notebooks will be the standard computers, I'm not sure, maybe they are already at that level. I bought my last Desktop 6 years ago, but I bought 3 notebooks in that period of time... My girlfriend really needs a notebook, she is in college and needs her pc in school. And so are all her fellow class mates... And all those people want to play games sometimes on their notebook, which are not computers for some game factories.... Try to explain to common people that a brand new notebook of 1200€ is not a 'real' computer And uhm good for SI, that FM runs on old bikes Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Graham Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Im with DJdeMarco- PC gaming is all about bleeding edge gaming. But saying that I cant see why people complain about this- after all most PC games are very scalable and will run at reduced settings on relatively modest specs, even Crysis is playable on 3 yr old specs. You dont see PS2 owners wondering why thy cant play PS3 games on their consoles so why should the same apply to a platform that is not only emmeniently scalable and backwards compatible, but allows you to upgrade piecemeal rather than buy an entire new system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Graham Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Patrick.Bateman: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DJdeMarco: ... I personally would say no. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> It depends, if those 'some' are becoming a significant share, I would say YES Soon notebooks will be the standard computers, I'm not sure, maybe they are already at that level. I bought my last Desktop 6 years ago, but I bought 3 notebooks in that period of time... My girlfriend really needs a notebook, she is in college and needs her pc in school. And so are all her fellow class mates... And all those people want to play games sometimes on their notebook, which are not computers for some game factories.... Try to explain to common people that a brand new notebook of 1200€ is not a 'real' computer And uhm good for SI, that FM runs on old bikes </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Then the common people should do some research before spending such a large amount of money. Im not a mechanic but Id know enough through research not to blindly buy an unsuitable car- if I didnt bother and bought a stinker then Id only have myself to blame and not the car manufacturer or the dealership. So why do the uninitiated feel they can blame game or hardware manufacturers because they didnt do their research? People take some responsibility for your own buying decisions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJdeMarco Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Patrick.Bateman: It depends, if those 'some' are becoming a significant share, I would say YES But economically it wouldn't work. The only way it would work financially is if they started writing games which only worked on older hardware thus reducing production and staff costs. This in turn would lead to the slowdown/demise of PC graphics technology and hardcore gamers would need to go to the console for their thrills. Basically, it would increase the speed at which the very concerns that started this thread would happen. Soon notebooks will be the standard computers, I'm not sure, maybe they are already at that level. You said it perfectly. They are standard computers, nothing special. You will never be able to buy only the cream and get a complete chocolate eclair. I bought my last Desktop 6 years ago, but I bought 3 notebooks in that period of time... My girlfriend really needs a notebook, she is in college and needs her pc in school. And so are all her fellow class mates... I have both a laptop (for mobile diagnostics) and a desktop (for Music production and gaming). Never the twain shall meet. The fact that you have bought 3 notebooks in 6 years says everything I need to know about them. You keep having to upgrade the entire computer in order to get to a slightly better level costing a fair whack each time and still not being able to use the latest software each time you do. I am using a PC case that is about 10 years old, I spend a small amount on the internal bits each year and get a far superior machine for it. My laptop is only about 6 months old and although the systems are relatively similar in spec (CPU and RAM-wise) my Desktop far outperforms my laptop in every way. My laptop cost around £900, I have spent about that amount in the last six years on my desktop. I am not a cutting-edge gamer (to be honest I rarely play modern games at all) but if I was, I wouldn't use a laptop. Your girlfriend has a very legitimate use for a laptop as she needs to use it for her college work. That is the very purpose of them. And all those people want to play games sometimes on their notebook, which are not computers for some game factories.... Try to explain to common people that a brand new notebook of 1200€ is not a 'real' computer I do, daily. I offer advice in a John Smiths-esque no-nonsense fashion. If the item isn't good enough for their use, they should have bought a better one. Simple. I am quite often thanked for giving it to people straight rather than pussyfooting around and wasting their time and mine. If a job comes in where the person is asking me to help them do something that their PC isn't capable of, I get straight to the point and explain why they can't get it to work and offer solutions. If what they are asking is completely impossible, I refuse the job on that basis and take no payment. And uhm good for SI, that FM runs on old bikes Abso-blooming-lutely. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pouncer Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 I'm no computer geek and I don't know much about even my own computer. For me, if I had the choice, I'd go console for nearly every game apart from FM, which of course wouldnt be the same at all on a console. When you look at all the PC Games on the shelf, such as Call Of Duty for PC, you don't just go and pick it up. You look at all the stuff on the back and for most people like me you just buy it and hope it'll work. And as for the argument that with PC's you can 'mod' your game, to be fair, most of my FM Playing friends don't have a clue about modding it, or patches, or facepacks or anything like that. You just play FM on PC because on PS3/Xbox it is not the same. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silverx Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mlp071: PC: - Highly customizable - High end graphic, constantly and easy upgarded - it's expensive, and not 'easy' to the average man - Almost unlimited Modding capabilities + free mods - for certain games - Multi usage (gaming , business, education, watching TV , creating CD/DVD) - ok, but not exactly relevant if we're talking exclusively about gaming. Also, I don't need to watch TV on a PC because I have a TV for that. - Better CPU and Graphics, more memory - Depends on your specs. - Improved gaming AI, you don't have to sacrifice AI for graphics (unlike with limited Consoles) - huh? Developers are perfectly capable of combining graphics and good AI on a console. - You can use PC and console games on it - eh? - Continuous performance improvement on almost week to week basis - how so? - Costumer buildable - still pain to move from one spot to another - Unlimited multiplayer capabilities Console: - Limited usage - It's a games console. I want it to play games. - Usually you need specific Console to play specific game - A lot of the big games are multi platform, with only a few exceptions (MGS, Halo, GT?) - Modding almost nonexistent , and if there is mod you pay for service to download one= no free mods - there are *some* free mods, limited though. Not sure, but think PS3 is better for modding than Xbox. - No Educational purpose whatsoever - It's a games console. It's entertainment, not education. - You buy one , you are stuck with one for couple of years, by that time performances are archaic - or looking at it another way, you're paying £300 or so for a console you use for 7 years. - Higher game prices - yep - Good only for action type games without any serious AI - what a load of rubbish - Graphics were already subpar in comparison to PC only after month from release - that assumes you have a top of the range PC, which most people don't have or can't afford - By the time you get all Consoles and upgrades that you want you are paying more then for good PC with same or better performances(eg. keyboard, bigger HD, improved gamepads, etc..) - improved gamepads? No real need to buy bigger HDs unless you're a hardcore gamer. The 360 can use a USB keyboard/mouse anyway. - For making Console mods you still need PC - and I have a PC. As does probably most households anyway. What's your point? - Easier movable. - Limited multiplayer and patching - Patching is possible, and multiplayer is great on consoles (on 360 at least, can't speak for PS3). - In order for Console to evolve in anything better they have to turn in low cost PC's - huh Needless to say ,consoles are overpriced under performing PC with extremely limited usage. If anyone is "losing" battle, it's consoles , not PC's .They already have keyboards , extra/better HD's , etc.PS3 already lost one. And all that for higher price then that you pay for same stuff with better performances on PC. Kids , seriously, Consoles are waste of your money. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Your argument seems to be PCs are more advanced, have more uses etc. But to have an advanced PC you need to spend money, and have the know-how. Not sure why I would care that a PC can burn a DVD when I have a PC anyway - certainly doesn't mean I don't want a console. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
postal postie Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Silverx: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mlp071: PC: - Highly customizable - High end graphic, constantly and easy upgarded - it's expensive, and not 'easy' to the average man - Almost unlimited Modding capabilities + free mods - for certain games - Multi usage (gaming , business, education, watching TV , creating CD/DVD) - ok, but not exactly relevant if we're talking exclusively about gaming. Also, I don't need to watch TV on a PC because I have a TV for that. - Better CPU and Graphics, more memory - Depends on your specs. - Improved gaming AI, you don't have to sacrifice AI for graphics (unlike with limited Consoles) - huh? Developers are perfectly capable of combining graphics and good AI on a console. - You can use PC and console games on it - eh? - Continuous performance improvement on almost week to week basis - how so? - Costumer buildable - still pain to move from one spot to another - Unlimited multiplayer capabilities Console: - Limited usage - It's a games console. I want it to play games. - Usually you need specific Console to play specific game - A lot of the big games are multi platform, with only a few exceptions (MGS, Halo, GT?) - Modding almost nonexistent , and if there is mod you pay for service to download one= no free mods - there are *some* free mods, limited though. Not sure, but think PS3 is better for modding than Xbox. - No Educational purpose whatsoever - It's a games console. It's entertainment, not education. - You buy one , you are stuck with one for couple of years, by that time performances are archaic - or looking at it another way, you're paying £300 or so for a console you use for 7 years. - Higher game prices - yep - Good only for action type games without any serious AI - what a load of rubbish - Graphics were already subpar in comparison to PC only after month from release - that assumes you have a top of the range PC, which most people don't have or can't afford - By the time you get all Consoles and upgrades that you want you are paying more then for good PC with same or better performances(eg. keyboard, bigger HD, improved gamepads, etc..) - improved gamepads? No real need to buy bigger HDs unless you're a hardcore gamer. The 360 can use a USB keyboard/mouse anyway. - For making Console mods you still need PC - and I have a PC. As does probably most households anyway. What's your point? - Easier movable. - Limited multiplayer and patching - Patching is possible, and multiplayer is great on consoles (on 360 at least, can't speak for PS3). - In order for Console to evolve in anything better they have to turn in low cost PC's - huh Needless to say ,consoles are overpriced under performing PC with extremely limited usage. If anyone is "losing" battle, it's consoles , not PC's .They already have keyboards , extra/better HD's , etc.PS3 already lost one. And all that for higher price then that you pay for same stuff with better performances on PC. Kids , seriously, Consoles are waste of your money. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Your argument seems to be PCs are more advanced, have more uses etc. But to have an advanced PC you need to spend money, and have the know-how. Not sure why I would care that a PC can burn a DVD when I have a PC anyway - certainly doesn't mean I don't want a console. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> if you dont want to spend money on an advanced pc then you dont have to. there are many cheaper less advanced pc's that will still play new games at a fair old rate which will no doubt still be better than the console equivalent game. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
treble_yell_:-) Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Cod4 has actually sold 3.7 million on 360 and 1.7 million on ps3, PC games simply cant compete with mainstream consoles. But it doesnt have to, rts games will always have a home on the pc, rpgs are usually better on pc, MMO's belong on a pc and games like fm belong on a pc. The fps may have moved home from the pc to the consoles, but some genres will always just be better on the PC. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
postal postie Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by treble_yell_:-): Cod4 has actually sold 3.7 million on 360 and 1.7 million on ps3, PC games simply cant compete with mainstream consoles. But it doesnt have to, rts games will always have a home on the pc, rpgs are usually better on pc, MMO's belong on a pc and games like fm belong on a pc. The fps may have moved home from the pc to the consoles, but some genres will always just be better on the PC. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> the other thing to remember is that the pc has more diverse products. so cod4 sold more. games on pc are just part of a larger product what with all the other software for sale. consoles only have games. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Graham Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by treble_yell_:-): Cod4 has actually sold 3.7 million on 360 and 1.7 million on ps3, PC games simply cant compete with mainstream consoles. But it doesnt have to, rts games will always have a home on the pc, rpgs are usually better on pc, MMO's belong on a pc and games like fm belong on a pc. The fps may have moved home from the pc to the consoles, but some genres will always just be better on the PC. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> The FPS is still better on PC, CoD4 is wonderful, but Crysis is just sublime- CoD4 is the epitomy of console FPS' but Crysis is on a totally different level both technically and in terms of gameplay- particularly in the first two thirds. Crysis may one day appear on consoles but not in the form that even only top end PCs can give you- much the same way Far Cry appeared on console but in a diluted form. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Graham Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by postal postie: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Silverx: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mlp071: PC: - Highly customizable - High end graphic, constantly and easy upgarded - it's expensive, and not 'easy' to the average man - Almost unlimited Modding capabilities + free mods - for certain games - Multi usage (gaming , business, education, watching TV , creating CD/DVD) - ok, but not exactly relevant if we're talking exclusively about gaming. Also, I don't need to watch TV on a PC because I have a TV for that. - Better CPU and Graphics, more memory - Depends on your specs. - Improved gaming AI, you don't have to sacrifice AI for graphics (unlike with limited Consoles) - huh? Developers are perfectly capable of combining graphics and good AI on a console. - You can use PC and console games on it - eh? - Continuous performance improvement on almost week to week basis - how so? - Costumer buildable - still pain to move from one spot to another - Unlimited multiplayer capabilities Console: - Limited usage - It's a games console. I want it to play games. - Usually you need specific Console to play specific game - A lot of the big games are multi platform, with only a few exceptions (MGS, Halo, GT?) - Modding almost nonexistent , and if there is mod you pay for service to download one= no free mods - there are *some* free mods, limited though. Not sure, but think PS3 is better for modding than Xbox. - No Educational purpose whatsoever - It's a games console. It's entertainment, not education. - You buy one , you are stuck with one for couple of years, by that time performances are archaic - or looking at it another way, you're paying £300 or so for a console you use for 7 years. - Higher game prices - yep - Good only for action type games without any serious AI - what a load of rubbish - Graphics were already subpar in comparison to PC only after month from release - that assumes you have a top of the range PC, which most people don't have or can't afford - By the time you get all Consoles and upgrades that you want you are paying more then for good PC with same or better performances(eg. keyboard, bigger HD, improved gamepads, etc..) - improved gamepads? No real need to buy bigger HDs unless you're a hardcore gamer. The 360 can use a USB keyboard/mouse anyway. - For making Console mods you still need PC - and I have a PC. As does probably most households anyway. What's your point? - Easier movable. - Limited multiplayer and patching - Patching is possible, and multiplayer is great on consoles (on 360 at least, can't speak for PS3). - In order for Console to evolve in anything better they have to turn in low cost PC's - huh Needless to say ,consoles are overpriced under performing PC with extremely limited usage. If anyone is "losing" battle, it's consoles , not PC's .They already have keyboards , extra/better HD's , etc.PS3 already lost one. And all that for higher price then that you pay for same stuff with better performances on PC. Kids , seriously, Consoles are waste of your money. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Your argument seems to be PCs are more advanced, have more uses etc. But to have an advanced PC you need to spend money, and have the know-how. Not sure why I would care that a PC can burn a DVD when I have a PC anyway - certainly doesn't mean I don't want a console. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> if you dont want to spend money on an advanced pc then you dont have to. there are many cheaper less advanced pc's that will still play new games at a fair old rate which will no doubt still be better than the console equivalent game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Agree- as I said earlier PC gaming is emeniently scalable. After all this wonderful "new thing the consoles have called "HD" has been used in PC games in better than 720p form for almost 5 years and 1080p form for the last 3 years. So even the lowliest PC gamer will be able to play games at resolutions that at least equal what the amazing new 360 and PS3 can produce. PC gaming can be whatever your budget chooses- which got me into it in the first place especially as software is cheaper, now I can afford bleeding edge but I would still be a PC gamer regardless of the hardware I could afford. For me its similar to my home cinema- I used to buy cheap from Richer Sounds, now I can afford THX gear, but its not about being able to afford the best its about being able to enter into it at a level that is affordable, and giving you the path to upgrade without necessarily throwing my old kit out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seagulls Forever Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DJdeMarco: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Patrick.Bateman: No, you're probably right. But go to the stores, what's sold the most present times? Desktop or notebook computers? Notebooks! And most people are not IT specialist, they are just common people. They really really are not aware that a notebook is not a desktop computer. Why is the gaming industry not taking note of this one? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> If the gaming industry made games only for rubbish notebooks, there would be no need for high-end graphics cards and it would severely inhibit the growth of that industry as well as having knock-on effects in many other areas of the industry. I personally think that it isn't the gaming industry that needs to take note, it is the average person on the street/PC retailers. I sell PC's for a living and the first question I ask is what the computer is going to be used for. If the relevant party suggests that playing high-end games is the top priority, I won't sell them a laptop. I think other retailers should also do this instead of thinking solely about the pound notes. By the same token, the home user needs to have a reality check and stop thinking that a £300 laptop is a good thing. As with all industries, buying the cheapest piece of equipment available is not the best way of going about things. As for the gaming industry dumbing down the required specifications by making the games usuable on all PC's/Notebooks, I think it would be a very bad thing. Not only would it mean a backward step for the quality of gaming (gamers would be forced to go onto the console platform to get their fix), it would also impact heavily upon the PC retail market. Why would anyone want to buy a quality PC when they can buy any old piece of garbage that will run everything? To use a non-car analogy, it would be like suggesting that manufacturers of movies should only release them on reel-to-reel as someone who doesn't have Blu-ray equipment can't play the film on their old equipment. Whilst in theory it would be nice to have everything work on everything, in practice it is impossible in both a technical and economical sense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> To be honest you sound like comic store guy from the simpsons. Sorry but the customer is the centre of the universe. A business lives and dies by its customers. If customers are leaving PC gaming in their droves (as suggested by poor sales figures leading to games not being made) then that means that the customer is ****ed off and the INDUSTRY needs to fix that, not the customer. Your attitude sums up most of what is wrong with the industry at the moment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seagulls Forever Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 I notice some arguments about it being economically unviable to produce games for lower specs. However, has anyone noticed EA starting to make 'laptop-friendly' games like Sims Life Stories and Sims Carnival Snapcity? I'm not saying these are great games but they have clearly decided there's a market in games that will work on lower-end machines, and are investing in output that will work on them. They're a business and not a charity so they must feel there's money there, and given the size of EA (love them or hate them) you have to suggest they probably know what they're doing. Quit the elitism guys, it's not pretty. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJdeMarco Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Seagulls Forever: To be honest you sound like comic store guy from the simpsons. Sorry but the customer is the centre of the universe. A business lives and dies by its customers. If customers are leaving PC gaming in their droves (as suggested by poor sales figures leading to games not being made) then that means that the customer is ****ed off and the INDUSTRY needs to fix that, not the customer. Your attitude sums up most of what is wrong with the industry at the moment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm a realist. The truth is by doing what has been suggested it would severely inhibit the future of the PC gaming industry, not improve it. A lot more customers would leave if the path suggested was followed. It's not rocket science. It's simple economics. As for the customer is the centre of the universe. Absolute tosh. If we take the two scenarios. One customer wants to play the latest and greatest games and are willing to pay for it - that makes both my business and the PC industry money to keep it going. The other customer wants to play them but doesn't want to spend any money and generally wants to spend a lot of time wittering about rubbish as they don't know what they are doing, essentially losing me money. Which should I, and the industry, invest time on? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJdeMarco Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Seagulls Forever: I notice some arguments about it being economically unviable to produce games for lower specs. However, has anyone noticed EA starting to make 'laptop-friendly' games like Sims Life Stories and Sims Carnival Snapcity? I'm not saying these are great games but they have clearly decided there's a market in games that will work on lower-end machines, and are investing in output that will work on them. They're a business and not a charity so they must feel there's money there, and given the size of EA (love them or hate them) you have to suggest they probably know what they're doing. Quit the elitism guys, it's not pretty. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree that there is a market for games that work on lower spec machines and there always will be. What I am suggesting is that the games that are made for higher spec machines shouldn't be dumbed down to please those who put no money into the industry, essentially costing developers a lot of extra time and money. It's not elitism on my part as I don't play the latest high end games, I am just pointing out the economic flaws in the argument that games made to work with the latest graphics hardware should be made to work on lower end machines also. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick.Bateman Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DJdeMarco: I'm a realist. The truth is by doing what has been suggested it would severely inhibit the future of the PC gaming industry, not improve it. A lot more customers would leave if the path suggested was followed. It's not rocket science. It's simple economics. As for the customer is the centre of the universe. Absolute tosh. If we take the two scenarios. One customer wants to play the latest and greatest games and are willing to pay for it - that makes both my business and the PC industry money to keep it going. The other customer wants to play them but doesn't want to spend any money and generally wants to spend a lot of time wittering about rubbish as they don't know what they are doing, essentially losing me money. Which should I, and the industry, invest time on? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> DjdeMarco, The common people do not really study what they want. They want to do some internet stuff, use Office, do their bank-accounting and play occasionally a game. These people think about comfort, using their notebook where they want. In my country most internet connections are wireless. So lots of people are using their notebook in their gardens. In schools you don’t need any physical network anymore, you don’t special designed computer rooms. The hardcore gamers are NOT common people, these people know what they want and few will buy a notebook. Common people really think that notebooks are equal to any other computer. That’s their perception. It really is. If they buy a game and it is not working then odds are high that they will never buy a game again. And here’s the industry failing. On the box of the Da Vinci Code even geeks couldn’t see that it would NOT run on my girl her notebook. I also accuse the software game industry for being lazy. Friends ‘hired’ me a couple of dozen times to install their games. They are not able to do that by their selves. And sometimes it’s even for me a difficult or time-consuming task. I’m a programmer on my own, so till a certain height I know what’s possible and what’s not. I’ll give an easy example… Assume that it was needed that the software should run on a screen resolution of minimum 1024x768. Now, in the game industry, a game that needs that minimum resolution, would fail to run and show a message like: “ERROR FOUND in DB8XAEEEEF – Fault register xxx732Aâ€. If you go to the website of the creators, you can be sure that you’ll not find a translation of this message, interpretable by humans. A few years ago, I had to write a piece of software that was also demanding a minimum resolution. When the software detected that the screen resolution didn’t match the minimum specifications a friendly window appeared informing the user what’s going on, including a solution where the user had the option to fix the screen resolution automatically for him. When the user left the software and when the screen resolution was changed when starting up, then it asked politely again if it should restore to the ‘old’ resolution. This is very user-friendly, even my dog can handle this one. It took me 4 hours to program & test everything. But the game industry which is containing much better programmers, analysts & engineers than me, is still ignoring how the user is intercepting a computer & software… Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Themistofelis Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 If you keep on supporting Devs that release decent games PC gaming will prevail. Torrenting games is not bad or anything , i always torrent games and play testing them , last one was The Witcher , got it , play it for a night and next morning went to store and bought a legal copy, why? because i want Witcher's Devs to release something as good as this in the future.Torrenting good games and not buying them is like shooting yourself in the foot. Bad games will get deleted after a couple of days so it is not really a theft , more like borrowing . Of course there are Devs that i always buy their games because i trust that they they will release a good piece of software and also make patches if anything is wrong (like Paradox , Egosoft etc) Console games are mostly crap , i only play Pro Evo . Consoles are cheap you can say , sure they are but buying smart to upgrade your PC can be even cheaper ...and i know of what i am talking about. On performance issues : "NPC appears on screen holding a gun" "NPC got a bullet between the eyes after 2''" "NPC is no more" Does the number of pixels in NPC's head matter? I think no. Gameplay make games great not anything else. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
postal postie Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Seagulls Forever: I notice some arguments about it being economically unviable to produce games for lower specs. However, has anyone noticed EA starting to make 'laptop-friendly' games like Sims Life Stories and Sims Carnival Snapcity? I'm not saying these are great games but they have clearly decided there's a market in games that will work on lower-end machines, and are investing in output that will work on them. They're a business and not a charity so they must feel there's money there, and given the size of EA (love them or hate them) you have to suggest they probably know what they're doing. Quit the elitism guys, it's not pretty. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> that's more about a franchise than them making 'laptop friendly' games. in my opinion anyway. they wouldn't make games 'laptop firnedly' if it wasn't a gaming franchise that is raking in millions already. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJdeMarco Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 Can I first of all say that it is wonderfully refreshing to be able to have a decent debate with someone such as your good self without any need for childish behaviour. This is the second intelligent conversation I've had on here in the last two weeks. Sort it out SI. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Patrick.Bateman: DjdeMarco, The common people do not really study what they want. They want to do some internet stuff, use Office, do their bank-accounting and play occasionally a game. These people think about comfort, using their notebook where they want. In my country most internet connections are wireless. So lots of people are using their notebook in their gardens. In schools you don’t need any physical network anymore, you don’t special designed computer rooms. The hardcore gamers are NOT common people, these people know what they want and few will buy a notebook. Common people really think that notebooks are equal to any other computer. That’s their perception. It really is. I agree entirely with your reasoning, what I disagree with is the manner in which you believe it should be solved. There is always going to be a market for high-end games (however uncommon) and these are always going to need superior hardware to run them. Your statement about home users perception of laptop technology is spot on. But surely, the games industry is not to blame for this, retailers are. In my opinion, it is the retailers who should be doing the research and relaying that to their customers, not the games industry having to slow down to cater for the laptop user. If more retailers were to explain the good/bad points and limitations of both types of system and empowered the customer with this knowledge, there would be a lot less problems like this. If they buy a game and it is not working then odds are high that they will never buy a game again. And here’s the industry failing. Again I would say it is a lack of education on behalf of the retailers to their customers. Rather than attempting to discover the needs of user, retailers tend to try and make as much money as quick as possible regardless of the future needs of their customer. On the box of the Da Vinci Code even geeks couldn’t see that it would NOT run on my girl her notebook. I also accuse the software game industry for being lazy. Friends ‘hired’ me a couple of dozen times to install their games. They are not able to do that by their selves. And sometimes it’s even for me a difficult or time-consuming task. I’m a programmer on my own, so till a certain height I know what’s possible and what’s not. I agree that installation of any software should be as simple as possible for the novice user. I would still like to see advanced options available for advanced users though. By qualification I am a Programmer and Systems Analyst. Originally educated in COBOL and C. I have since learned other languages for one-off jobs. I would say that installation and uninstallation routines should be the simplest part of any software and to make a mess of these and confuse the average user is beyond redemption. and should definitely be made foolproof. I’ll give an easy example… Assume that it was needed that the software should run on a screen resolution of minimum 1024x768. Now, in the game industry, a game that needs that minimum resolution, would fail to run and show a message like: “ERROR FOUND in DB8XAEEEEF – Fault register xxx732Aâ€. If you go to the website of the creators, you can be sure that you’ll not find a translation of this message, interpretable by humans. A few years ago, I had to write a piece of software that was also demanding a minimum resolution. When the software detected that the screen resolution didn’t match the minimum specifications a friendly window appeared informing the user what’s going on, including a solution where the user had the option to fix the screen resolution automatically for him. When the user left the software and when the screen resolution was changed when starting up, then it asked politely again if it should restore to the ‘old’ resolution. This is very user-friendly, even my dog can handle this one. It took me 4 hours to program & test everything. Again, I agree 100%. Any error messages should be simple to undestand and empower the user with the knowledge as to why the installation failed/software wouldn't run. This should be to a standard that any person (geek or not) can understand. But the game industry which is containing much better programmers, analysts & engineers than me, is still ignoring how the user is intercepting a computer & software… Problem is, it is not only the games industry that does this. The biggest culprit for major problems and lack of sense would be Windows (in particular the recent debacle with Vista). Whilst I agree that things should be made as simple as possible for the end user, I don't believe that the games industry is to blame for the problems at hand and I certainly don't believe that the games industry should be regressed in order to make up for issues that are widespread throughout software in general. To me, there will always be a divide between those that use PC's and those that create the software for them and the retailer is the middle-man who should be giving good advice, not thinking of their next holiday. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
djwilko6 Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kees04: I have no problem with a console version, provided a mouse & keyboard are created for the console. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Totally agree, I cant play FPS games with a controller, but I'm pretty good with a mouse and keyboard. I own a Xbox360 btw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick.Bateman Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DJdeMarco: Can I first of all say that it is wonderfully refreshing to be able to have a decent debate with someone such as your good self without any need for childish behaviour. This is the second intelligent conversation I've had on here in the last two weeks. Sort it out SI. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I don’t shout at people because they do not share my opinion, partly or in its whole. I understand that some games can’t run on a notebook. But a title likes ‘The Da Vinci Code†isn’t that fancy at all. Btw, it’s working on my notebook, not on hers From such games even I expect that it should work on a fresh, new, average notebook of 1200€ I was a retailer in a former life but after 10 years I didn’t like the 14-hours shifts, the 6,5 days a week with almost no holidays rhythm In those times I was a guy who gave always good advice. I have sold software and games as well and every title was installed by me before it received a location on the shelves. I tracked problems and workarounds in a database. Don’t forget internet wasn’t used at those times. Some software titles (games & other applications) were real problem children. I refused to sell them, even if they were popular. I preferred to lose a few gold pieces in the short term, to gain happy customers and a treasure in the long term. Sure that way I could avoid problems, but still I think the industry (and software business in general, not only game manufactories) should make the transition that the users of games and software are changed. In the past, only nerds played with computers. Now it are common people which are not having the technical mindset of a geek. And such the interaction between software and people should change as well. While it is improving, there’s room for more, even with the current state of technology and knowledge. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJdeMarco Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Patrick.Bateman: I don’t shout at people because they do not share my opinion, partly or in its whole. I understand that some games can’t run on a notebook. But a title likes ‘The Da Vinci Code†isn’t that fancy at all. Btw, it’s working on my notebook, not on hers From such games even I expect that it should work on a fresh, new, average notebook of 1200€ I was a retailer in a former life but after 10 years I didn’t like the 14-hours shifts, the 6,5 days a week with almost no holidays rhythm In those times I was a guy who gave always good advice. I have sold software and games as well and every title was installed by me before it received a location on the shelves. I tracked problems and workarounds in a database. Don’t forget internet wasn’t used at those times. Some software titles (games & other applications) were real problem children. I refused to sell them, even if they were popular. I preferred to lose a few gold pieces in the short term, to gain happy customers and a treasure in the long term. Sure that way I could avoid problems, but still I think the industry (and software business in general, not only game manufactories) should make the transition that the users of games and software are changed. In the past, only nerds played with computers. Now it are common people which are not having the technical mindset of a geek. And such the interaction between software and people should change as well. While it is improving, there’s room for more, even with the current state of technology and knowledge. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't know the Da Vinci Code game myself but if it isn't that fancy then I would certainly agree that it should work. About the retail thing, you are right that it is damn hard work. Been at it ten years myself and the longest I have taken off in that time is 10 days (we decided to shut over christmas this year \o/ ). Other than that it has been the odd day or two here and there when we haven't been busy, which thankfully/unfortunately (delete as applicable) is very rare. I think we both have a similar way of working (despite the gap in our respective tenures). I won't sell software that I haven't tested first. The main problem software for me (I won't mention names as it could get me into trouble ) are certain "Internet Security Suites". They are usually pre-installed on the lowest-end laptops running Celeron processors (usually 256mb RAM with 32mb used for Graphics) and make the laptop run from new as though it was already infected with malware. Even when they are on a machine with enough grunt to run them (which should never be the case with security software in my eyes) the slightest issue on the PC tends to cause more issues than any malware attack I've witnessed due to the fact that they have embedded themselves into Windows in, what I feel, is an unacceptablely deep manner. Needless to say, not only will I not sell them, on low end machines I suggest that when there subscription is up that they install a lighter, more reliable product that does a better job at protecting them without making their PC's run like Bella Emberg (if anyone remembers her) carrying a car under each arm. I even give them the website should they choose to do it themselves. To paraphrase you, "lose a few sheckles short term, gain higher respect long term". I agree that all parties should be partly responsible for education (or keeping customers better informed) when it comes to things that will or won't work. I suppose the part that the gaming industry could play in that would be to make minimum specifications easier to understand rather than a lot of techno-babble or, as part of any new OS (or even an upgrade to current OS's (hint for any MS people reading this)), have a small utility that will print out the important specifications of the PC (CPU, RAM, GPU capabilities etc) that the user can take with them to a retailer. This kind of utility could also print simple guidance to the end user as to why the specifications are important and that by taking a copy of them to their retailer, they can avoid any issues such as we have been discussing. It would take a little while to implement as the average home user would need to be made aware of its' existence but would reduce dramatically the number of occasions where this would happen. I am not sure on the law exactly, but I'm sure that if you were to use this tactic and a retailer sold you an item that wasn't compatible, you would be due a full refund for their incompetence therefore adding another level of consumer protection. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt ex SEGA Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 Few comments just for information: I'd guess (and it is a guess) that EA haven't made any money at all on Crysis - very expensive development that hasn't seen a return as yet and probably hasn't performed as they'd hope. And just so as I don't appear to be bashing EA, I'd agree with the later comments from Seagulls forever about making games on PC for lower spec machines - good call on their behalf and a nice idea - they know that most Sims fans are probably not "bleeding edge" gamers with ninja PC's. I don't think that COD4 is the second most played PC game in the world. I'd be surprised if it was close. It's a console game tbh. N^G - PC is the most profitable format to develop on because you don't pay any first party royalties. Console games are expensive for publishers... In-game advertising was much hyped as "the future" for games but as yet it's not quite working out. It can be difficult to guarantee an accurate return (in terms of the number of views of adverts) to advertisers so they're not flooding in in the way that was initially predicted. Neji - I wonder how many of the 9 million WoW players thought the same thing until they decided that actually, a monthly payment was good value and acceptable. The only reason for rejecting monthly payments at this point is an assumption of benefits versus costs - never say never... And lastly - Unreal is class... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick.Bateman Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 I don’t know. I remember that Ultima Online had about 250000 paid and active users. (I heard that UO is again attracting users?) I do not know the user population for the current internet games, but I can imagine it’s a lot more. I will not say that a internet based football manager can attract more people (or at least have the same amounts) due its niche nature. If you don’t like football then odds are low that you’ll start with any football management game. I can’t speak for other countries, but here, just a few people have no (fast) internet connection. These people aren’t game customers either (old people, homeless ones, …) Internet games have so many advantages for the publisher and customers: • Distribution is much cheaper and thus the need for a real distributor is declining. • Instant updates • Better communication with ALL customers (on this board, most of us are hardcore) • Monthly stable revenue for the publisher • Less suffering from piracy • … DVD rental stores are having a hard time here, since all kind of companies offer real video on demand via the TV screen. You don’t have to leave your house, you’re not locked to office hours and the potential offer on DVD tittles is bigger (currently it is still not). On the long term a DVD rental never can’t compete with the video on demand online companies. The same will happen with games. I don’t think that in 2018 we’ll buy and play games like we do current times. IMHO, it will happen online or it will not happen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.