PS3s are stupid; throw rocks at them

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Sn00py
I still don't get whats so great about consoles over PC's.

If we never had PC's, and only consoles to play games, and someone came up with the idea of a PC that can play games and give reasons why that would be a good thing, then I would instantly agree and swap over to the PC.

The console is a joke, an invention to make extra money, and all you console users blindly support that. Consoles restrict freedom, you are cornering yourselves (AND ME IN THE PROCESS!). The PC gives power to the people, that's where it SHOULD be. Sell your console, throw it away, burn it, fart on it. Hug your PC.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Sn00py
I know of those 3 points, and there are more points. But when you compare them to PC's benefits, I can't help but laugh at the stupidity of it all.

The sooner you figure out that one does not replace the other, you'll be good to go.

[El_Cid]

Originally posted by Asher


1) Consoles are cheaper and easier to develop for.

.......

Ummm i dont think so(in fact i could say i know so....but that's a secret!).

It's entirely possible for Billy+his mate(s) to make a game on his pc with no money. You cant even get close to that on a console.

Going back to Snoopy's point it's about freedom(of the platform). When developing for console you have to pay a large sum(in developers tools) just to be able to produce on which ever console platform it is you want.

Then you have the whole 'ownership' issues - Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo are much more demanding to produce for than a regular PC producer(and this is a good thing imho).

But maybe you didnt mean this exactly - maybe you were meaning if you were already a AAA production house, that already had all the tools+permissions........then it becomes easier, more economical to produce for a standard(console) platform rather than try to hit all the various PC standards that might exist?

In that case you do have a point. But out and out - due to the open and 'free' nature of the PC, it's much cheaper(and easier i'd say) to make a game on PC, unless you are an existing AAA developer with all the gear.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher
If you don't get it, you're not bright enough to see why.

1) Consoles are cheaper and easier to develop for.

Yeah, but Vista and DX10 (or whatever) are gonna change all that, right? Or is MS lying?

[Asher]

Originally posted by El_Cid
Ummm i dont think so(in fact i could say i know so....but that's a secret!).

It's entirely possible for Billy+his mate(s) to make a game on his pc with no money. You cant even get close to that on a console.

Yes you can. Look at XNA Express for the 360.

And you're being obtuse. It's a nightmare to develop for and test across millions of PC hardware permutations. This is why PC development is more difficult and more expensive, and the games generally buggier.

In that case you do have a point. But out and out - due to the open and 'free' nature of the PC, it's much cheaper(and easier i'd say) to make a game on PC, unless you are an existing AAA developer with all the gear.

You are massively overstating the cost of game licenses and massively understating the cost and complexity of dealing with the variations in PC hardware. You are also ignoring the cost differential between PC and console hardware.

Yeah, but Vista and DX10 (or whatever) are gonna change all that, right? Or is MS lying?

It'll make life easier, but no matter what MS does you can't make everybody have 100% identical hardware with 100% identical capabilities...

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Yeah, but Vista and DX10 (or whatever) are gonna change all that, right? Or is MS lying?

/me approves of this attempt.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher
It'll make life easier, but no matter what MS does you can't make everybody have 100% identical hardware with 100% identical capabilities...

But in say, 2008, I go out and buy a PC that is "DX10 Compatible" In theory any DX10 game should run on it, right? Maybe a machine with a goldplated videocard will run it prettier than my budget machine with bare minimum for DX10 specs, but its till guaranteed to run. I dont have to check the specs anymore. Then they release DX11 which is even greater. Now i just check to see if I have the specs for DX11. If I dont, I can upgrade to DX11 specs (assuming i havent bought such a cheap system that its not upgradeable) and once again Im good to go. It becomes just like buying a new gen console, right(except for the "it runs prettier" part)? Isnt that what MS is saying?


and, on the other side, the developer just rights for DX10 specs, and is guaranteed it will run on every DX10 compatible machine. Right?

[Asher]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
But in say, 2008, I go out and buy a PC that is "DX10 Compatible" In theory any DX10 game should run on it, right? Maybe a machine with a goldplated videocard will run it prettier than my budget machine with bare minimum for DX10 specs, but its till guaranteed to run. I dont have to check the specs anymore. Then they release DX11 which is even greater. Now i just check to see if I have the specs for DX11. If I dont, I can upgrade to DX11 specs (assuming i havent bought such a cheap system that its not upgradeable) and once again Im good to go. It becomes just like buying a new gen console, right(except for the "it runs prettier" part)? Isnt that what MS is saying?

Not at all.

MS is saying this is true from a video card featureset perspective only.

It will not be true based on a billion other cases:
1) The speed of your video card...
2) The quantity of RAM on your video card...
3) The speed of your CPU
4) The number of CPUs
5) The speed of your RAM
6) The amount of RAM
7) The audio card you have and its capabilities

and, on the other side, the developer just rights for DX10 specs, and is guaranteed it will run on every DX10 compatible machine. Right?

It will "run" in so far as the hardware can run it, much like a Pentium 100 could likely run the engine of DOOM III. Whether it "runs" as in you can play games on it? No guarantee at all.

[DrSpike]

I remember Pentium 100s........don't think you could even put one in the same room as Doom3 without the machine imploding.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher

Not at all.

MS is saying this is true from a video card featureset perspective only.

It will not be true based on a billion other cases:
1) The speed of your video card...
2) The quantity of RAM on your video card...
3) The speed of your CPU
4) The number of CPUs
5) The speed of your RAM
6) The amount of RAM
7) The audio card you have and its capabilities


It will "run" in so far as the hardware can run it, much like a Pentium 100 could likely run the engine of DOOM III. Whether it "runs" as in you can play games on it? No guarantee at all.

Okie doke. So I get a standard everymans budget machine circa 2008 that has a videocard with features that match DX10, and a standard budget PC amount of Video Ram, total Ram, CPU speed, etc than all the games that are written for that standard machine, and are constrained (on average budget machines) by video card feature set should run fine. But say, when in 2009 Paradox launches "Crusader Kings 2: When Memory Fails" which is designed for your standard average 2008 budget video card, but for high end 2009 massive terrabytes of RAM, it might not work. Gotcha. And if somebody takes their old 2006 budget PC, but upgrades it to a videocard with features that match DX10, but with circa 2006 budget Ram, CPU, etc, it probably wont run the standard average 2008 games either. Gotcha.

[gwillybj]

PS3 Is Finally Useful... (Computer Games, March 2007, page 85)

[Maquiladora]

Runs pretty hot then?

[El_Cid]

Originally posted by Asher

1.Yes you can. Look at XNA Express for the 360.

2.And you're being obtuse. It's a nightmare to develop for and test across millions of PC hardware permutations. This is why PC development is more difficult and more expensive, and the games generally buggier.


3.You are massively overstating the cost of game licenses and massively understating the cost and complexity of dealing with the variations in PC hardware. You are also ignoring the cost differential between PC and console hardware.


4.It'll make life easier, but no matter what MS does you can't make everybody have 100% identical hardware with 100% identical capabilities...

1. Ok so tell me how much i'll need to be able to produce games for XNA express on 360?

2. Graphics - that's whats made PC dev more difficult over the years. You could produce a low graphic game, something that uses a native resolution and no fancy tricks, and it would be 90% compatable with most hardware out there. It's mostly when you push the graphics that you start to get the hardware issues.

3. I dont think i have overstated the costs of licenses, and the PC hardware issue is dealt with above.

4. True - consoles provide an across board standard to develope on.


The bottom line is this. I can make a game for nothing(other than my time) in my spare time on PC and sell it over the internet. The starting cost to do that due to the free tools available is about £0/$0.

You cant even get close to that on console. So thats why i disagreed with your statement.

[Asher]

Originally posted by El_Cid
1. Ok so tell me how much i'll need to be able to produce games for XNA express on 360?

$99 if you want to release games to the public (via Xbox Live Arcade, or disc), free if you want to toy with it yourself.

The bottom line is this. I can make a game for nothing(other than my time) in my spare time on PC and sell it over the internet. The starting cost to do that due to the free tools available is about £0/$0.

You cant even get close to that on console. So thats why i disagreed with your statement.

Yes, you can.

Anyone can develop games for their 360 for free. It's $99 if you want a kit that permits you to sell the game online, and that includes MS hosting it on their servers and providing bandwidth for its distribution.

As I've said, you have vastly downplayed the complexity and cost increases required by diverse architectures like the PC and vastly overstated how expensive it is to license a game for consoles.

You also seem to be under the impression that a significant portion of the games market comes from people who "make a game and then sell it online". The vast majority of games played come from big publishing houses.

[El_Cid]

Originally posted by Asher

1.$99 if you want to release games to the public (via Xbox Live Arcade, or disc), free if you want to toy with it yourself.

.............

2.You also seem to be under the impression that a significant portion of the games market comes from people who "make a game and then sell it online". The vast majority of games played come from big publishing houses.

1. That sounds very reasonable. here's a good link about it:

http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20061215/sheffield_01.shtml

Still a 10MB download limit on XNA is an issue from my point of view, and the view i'm trying to express to you.

$99 to make a version of Pacman(or something equally basic) compared to $0 to make the same(or something more ambitous) on PC?

2. Do I? i think i would prefer a world where that was true - it would enable me to start buying many more games again i'm sure. But no, i know exactly how the games market works - and why i'm mostly disalusioned by 90% of what it produces.