I'm prepared to wait for the initial response to SC2 because SC1 was so good, but I'm not holding out much hope if I'm honest.
I really haven't been enthused with RTS games since they went from sprites to 3D, I think changeable camera views & zooming in & out just adds unnecessary useless features to that type of game.
DirectX isn't a moving target, once released it does not change which is why games made for DX6/7 still run on DX11 video cards. Each new version of DirectX is essentially "everything that was in the previous versions plus this extra stuff".
Yes, I accept & understand that part but that isn't the whole story is it? I don't claim to be either a game or graphics programmer by any stretch of the imagination (I'm more a shell & PERL monkey) but an older game's functionality is not just dependent on DirectX, it is also dependent on the graphics driver and card being able to continue to support features that may be in older graphics cards but not in new ones.
My case in point are games like Aliens vs Predator (from around 1998 IIRC) which will run (of a fashion) in Windows XP but suffer major graphical problems because the graphics driver no longer supports some of the features that the game wants - from what I remember, some people manage to play it by using really old NVIDIA driver versions.
Windows 7 has better DirectX performance then previous versions. As annoying as it was when MS blew up the WDM driver system and created the new fangled one that broke compatibility with XP drivers when Vista first came out, it seems to have payed off. Vista/7 video drivers are faster and more reliable then the XP ones - at least, nVidia's are. The minimum requirements to run Win7 are pretty much DX9 compatibility so if the system runs Win7 you can be reasonably sure that most of DX9's optional features will be implemented even if it is a crappy Intel chipset.
That's not just limited to Windows, you know - I myself swapped out an ATI 4850 card for an NVIDIA GTS250 (very little difference in benchmark between the two cards) but got over 4x framerate improvement in games on Linux, simply because the NVIDIA drivers are better than the ATI ones - and that has nothing to do with DirectX, for obvious reasons.:-)
As far as DX10/11 exclusives that didn't include a DX9 fallback, I'm pretty sure most of those were from Microsoft's own studios or partners. Microsoft were being colossal dicks during Vista's heyday and were not above attempting to 'extort' gamers onto Vista with that sort of bullshit. MS' behavior during that time did more harm then anything else (when they were really hyping the 360 -- coincidence? I think not. Don't get me started on Games For Windows either, basically XboX Live for PCs with crappy UI and a truckload of poorly implemented unnecessary garbage emulating the 360 environment)
The only game I own that uses Games For Windows is Fallout 3 - I registered on it a while ago, bought a couple of DLCs from it but other than that I've never bothered with it. I'll just have to take your word on that one.:-)
Please can I purchase a license to use your neural Internet interface that clearly allows you to enter comments on Slashdot without the aid of a computing device.
Congratulations on making me laugh with the verbal equivalent of smashing a zombie around the head with its own severed arm. I would also like to bear your children.
Yes, I am talking about GAME and you are correct - most of their stuff is overpriced.
But I do pop into them or HMV if I am passing - it's very rare I buy anything from either but occasionally there is a bargain to be had.
Most of the time, I just end up seeing that something new & interesting has been released, then just pull out my smartphone and order it for 2/3 of the price online.
Old games can still be played on today's pc's (starcraft comes to mind).
It does vary from title to title. Starcraft is obviously well written but it does beg the question as to whether or not it would be worth Blizzard updating the engine a little so it can support higher screen resolutions - although I already own the game and the expansion, I would certainly pay, say. £5-£10 for an updated version that did this.
And if we're talking about classic RTS games, don't fail to mention Total Annihilation. I've not upgraded beyond Windows XP but TA runs well on XP and seems to still support higher resolutions well.
I still buy pc games that I don't have time to play today in the expectation that I will be able to play them in the future when I have more time. That said, I am buying almost exclusively stand-alone games that don't need to connect to a server with thousands of other play.
I tried WoW after continual badgering from my friends to give it a try but couldn't see the appeal of it personally and gave up after a month. Good luck to those that do enjoy it but I thought it was a lot less sociable then logging into an Internet server for a quick Quake deathmatch or, even better, a LAN party with a few friends.
I did use to "hoard games for later use" but these days I realise it's just a waste of money - if you really feel like playing an old game, you can always find a legal copy somewhere on Amazon or eBay. And hopefully sites like GOG.com mean that older titles will be always available for download if you want them at a later date.
This is actually a fairly major point for me; yes, I really am that lazy.
This isn't just about laziness, it's more about expecting some common sense from gaming companies.
If I buy a laptop then common sense says I'm doing so because I will probably be moving around a lot with the computer & maybe even using it while I am travelling... in which case, why the f*** do I need to carry around the game disk as well? Especially as the whole purpose of a hard disk is to deliver the capability of storing everything that might be on the game disk!
If Microsoft insisted that you inserted the MS Office CD/DVD everytime you fired up Excel, there would be a public outcry & people would be telling MS to shove their Office disks where the sun doesn't shine. So why we gamers have allowed ourselves to be treated this way is beyond my comprehension - and as someone who has bought many games over the years, I'm equally to blame.
__2. The XP Ghetto. I quite disagree. While I still run XP, Windows 7 has done good things for gaming. Since the first DOS machines in the early eighties, there's been a split between general computing machines and PCs that can do games. At some points, the gap between an office computer and a gaming PC has been wider than others: in 1992, for example, there was little difference between a 486x33 with a fancy VGA card and Gravis Ultrasound and a 486x25 with a normal VGA card and a Soundblaster compatible; in 1998, on the other hand, a 500-MHz PII (or even a legendary 300->450 OC'd Celery) with a TNT 3D card and 16-bit audio would blow the doors off of a stock processor and a VGA card. Now, with Windows 7, there's finally the requirement that cards actually be capable of doing 3D operations. And that means that a bunch of Windows-7-ready machines can play some games, even if their owners put XP on them.
I think you're talking about a "chicken and egg" situation.
I don't use Windows 7 so cannot claim to be an expert on it but as I understand it you do need some degree of graphics acceleration on it because the UI has effects built on those requirements. But most desktop and laptop PCs have had some degree of graphics acceleration for years now & whilst I don't credit Microsoft with much, I'm sure the last thing they'd want to do is stop people upgrading to Windows 7 if the hardware requirements were so high that it locked most of them out from doing so.
So what I'm really saying is that Windows 7 needs graphics acceleration because most PC owners probably already had it anyway.
And has Windows 7 *REALLY* done much for gaming? The list of games that support DirectX 11 is very small and I'm sure most of those games also run on Windows XP and DirectX 9. I can remember one PC game in about the past 3 or 4 years that was DirectX 10 only and that was "Shadowrun" although I accept there could be a couple of others - however, judging by how quickly I saw copies of Shadowrun appear in game store bargain bins, I'm not sure it did that well.
4. PCs: the configuration nightmare vs. Consoles. Well, yes and know. Yes, PCs with all their flexibility, are a challenge for developers. On the other hand, developers don't have to resolve every single difficulty in releasing a title. Development for Consoles require an expensive and time-consuming process of validation and verification by the console maker. Spending the time and money to go through these products makes a far superior product, but for PCs, it's an option, not an obligation.
Agreed, but going on from what I said previously, do you not think it's equally as difficult for a games company to make PC games that currently have to be able to potentially support up to three versions of DirectX (9-11), based on the fact there are large numbers of gamers running XP, Vista and Windows 7? At least with consoles they are developing for systems that have fixed specification.
sony and co (all the large game corps) have all got together and are simply trying to destroy the second hand market which is why they are trying to force us to only accept digital distribution laden with DRM like steam where all your purchases are not allowed to be resold.
I accept that Steam is a form of DRM control but it's the best of a bad bunch. The stuff you've bought already is always available to you to download onto any PC you own plus it's very easy to backup your Steam folder to an external hard disk - this means that if you rebuild your OS or upgrade your PC, you just have to copy the Steam folder back rather than having to reinstall and re-update each game one-by-one.
As for re-selling old games, have you checked prices on eBay recently? Unless the used games being sold are highly collectible or only a few months old, the prices of used PC games are peanuts. I have a stack of old PC games from about 3-5 years ago that I no longer play but are just not worth listing on eBay & will go to the local charity shop instead. I'm afraid that this idea that you can re-sell oldish games for anything near their original value is a myth.
but now they are not happy with the consoles and are trying to block second hand games being traded on them.
I'm not defending this behaviour by any means but if, as a gamer, it's important to you to be able to re-sell a game once you've finished with it, then maybe the only option is to factor it into your original purchasing decisions. The fact is that a lot of people appear to be mindless enough to queue at midnight with their kids to be the first to have a computer game suggests that most of them don't care about reselling them. Besides which, have you seen what happens to the condition of optical disks after a few weeks of kids putting them in consoles?:-)
i hate scum bag anti consumer corporations.
I agree - but the best way to hurt them is in their wallets. If you don't agree with the expected terms & conditions around something you plan on buying then just don't buy it. Corporations have got so powerful because too many mindless consumers have been sucked in by too many marketing lies - if you stop handing money over to them, they wither and die overnight.
I'm a fan of Stardock's Galactic Civilizations II and the expansions, all of which I own on CD.
Not long after the original game was released about 5 years ago, Stardock changed the license key format (I think due to piracy issues) so that the key printed on the instruction manual no longer worked. However, they informed everyone about this & getting a new key issued was straightforward & quick.
I hadn't played the game for about two years & had rebuilt my PC since I'd last played it but decided to dig it out again recently. When I installed the game & connected to Stardock via their Impulse application (think of it as a simpler version of Steam), I remembered the old key didn't work, had the lost the new key & realised that the registered email address Stardock had for me was an ISP-based one from an ISP I no longer use or have access to.
I emailed Stardock, asking them to either send the key to my new email address or to update my records to that I could send myself the key from Impulse. This was on a Friday evening and I had been looking forward to playing GC II over the weekend.
To give Stardock credit, they were very helpful and by the following Tuesday they had sorted it all out - but I did need to send out about three emails to them and they appeared to have nobody on duty over the weekend, which is when I had really fancied having the gaming session.
So, yes, this is one specific reason why too much reliance on the game creator servers can be a problem for legitimate purchasers.
I get confrontational about it because I really would like people to be honest & open about why they do things.
If you read and contribute on Slashdot as much as I do, you'll find Apple users harping on about how wonderful OS X is because it's based on a BSD UNIX core - yet most of them wouldn't know a shell prompt or how to edit in vi if it hit them in the face.
Many of them also seem to have this belief that stepping away from mainstream PCs to Apple makes them some kind of technical authority on computers - yet some of the sweeping generalisations they make on here about everyone else are utterly laughable. Personally, if I walk into a room and lots of people are talking about a topic I know little about, I keep my mouth shut, listen & learn, & then not make a fool of myself.
Finally, I don't consider myself as having any kind of brand loyalty & totally fail to understand the concept of it. A computer is a superb productivity & entertainment tool but it is *JUST* a tool, not a fashion accessory. In my view, having to hide oneself behind a brand label indicates a fear of being left outside of "the crowd" and I respect people who are individualists, not sheep.
I don't necessarily agree with the comment about digital distribution always being cheaper than stores - for example, because I don't usually hurry to buy new games, I picked up Fallout 3 about 6 months after release for £12.50 new (=$18.00) & then the Game Of The Year Edition (with all 5 DLCs) for £19.99 new (=$30.00). That was from my local Game game store here in the UK, a national chain, and they constantly have similar pricing offers on.
However, especially as I've noticed how the PC games shelf space has shrunk in Game stores over the past couple of years (in favour of console games), this is where digital distribution comes into its own - namely for the range of stuff that's available on-line but not in stores.
I don't buy that many new games but I've bought from Steam & GOG.com - in both cases it's good to have the ability to get hold of a few older classics again.
I don't think PC gaming is dying as such but I do think the whole PC market with respect to games is changing dramatically for the following reasons:
1. PC and graphics hardware development is slowing down for desktop gaming PCs & focus moving to lower-powered netbooks & portable devices. Presumably people still want to play games on those devices which means smaller & less complicated games - one reason for the success of selling older titles online.
2. Most Windows users still seem happy enough with Windows XP even though I have no reason to doubt Windows 7 may be a better OS. This brings into question as to just how many people have the capability to run (or even care about running) DirectX 11 and therefore how much development games companies are prepared to do on it - when all said and done, this list of DirectX 11 games is very small.
3. I don't personally care about "mass migrations to Linux", I use it because it's there and because it does what I need an OS to do. But whilst Windows 7 may have fared better than Vista, it's still not the raging success for Microsoft that XP was & Linux has matured greatly since XP was released to the point where there's a far greater chance of running older Windows games in WINE on Linux than on Windows 7 or XP. Again, this fact alone must influence older game sales & the forums on GOG.com have lots of threads discussing whether or not certain GOG-released titles will run under WINE. (I don't go on the Steam forums much but the fact that there's soon to be a Steam client for Linux says a lot to me).
4. Modern games are huge development projects with huge up-front costs. Developing games for a fixed console platform *MUST* be much easier than developing for PCs with their plethora of different hardware. Plus games companies make their money from making sequels of established titles, it's the younger, less cynical gamers that rush to buy (or get their parents to buy) those titles & the youngsters like their consoles. All of this leads to the conclusion that there will be a continued slowdown in new PC game releases.
5. MMORPGs & online gaming - if people are spending more money on monthly subscription games then they're spending less on boxed games, especially during an economic slowdown.
As a PC gamer, what I'm really looking forward to is a lot more resolution of petty licensing squabbles of older games so that more of them get released, maybe even with some commitment to allow those games to be updated to run on more modern Windows OSes or even natively on Linux. It make sense that if the games companies are no longer getting as much revenue from new PC games than they used to, then they should look at opening up the revenue streams from re-selling older games.
Like I said - great well-paid job, lots of disposable income with no need to spend any of it on little white boxes with pictures of fruit on them, great long-term relationship & about to spend this coming weekend at a classic rock festival in London seeing some of my all time favourite musicians play.
I'm in a great mood & immune from the goading of trolls - have a GREAT day yourself!
Not at all, and with respect you are diverting the argument & arguing semantics.
I made the statement that the reason why Apple computers do not bear "Intel Inside" stickers may simply be due to Intel not paying them enough money for the privelige - perhaps the penetration of Apple computers is so low, compared to PCs, Intel didn't consider it worth worrying about?
Also, Apple users are a captive audience anyway so why would it be necessary to them to advertise the CPU inside? For a computer manufacturer like HP, which uses both Intel and AMD CPUs in their machines, there's probably some reason why it's worth declaring what CPU is inside.
Apple's computers are *deliberately* set at a premium price to ensure that only a minority of people will buy them. This gives the purchasers automatic membership to an exclusive little club that appeals to their needs to be elitist.
And if it is *NOT* just about being able to display the Apple logo as a membership card in that elitist club, then I challenge any Apple to physically remove the Apple logo from their device as proof that it isn't.
But clever marketing people know damn well that placating your children who are demanding to see the latest "Finding Nemo" sequel is far more important to you than getting annoyed at not being able to skip past advertising trailers...
But why then do people buy Apple computers? I always thought it was because they were supposed to be totally usable by non-technical people - in which case the kind of solution you describe above would be beyond the technical ability of most of them.
...and having the "Me" card may allow me, as a wiley hacker, to work out if your account password is based on any information held in that card.
Or maybe it gives me your phone number so I can call you & do a bit of social engineering to make you install an application I want on your machine, or even get you to reveal your password to me...
Please do not underestimate the value of information to any hacker - even the "Me" card means someone can ending up knowing more about you then when they didn't have it.
As an example, most users would try Wine once (at most) and then never want to use it again because it isn't exactly the same as what they are used to.
What in God's name are you *BLABBERING* on about, man? Do you actually know what WINE *IS*???
The *WHOLE PURPOSE* of WINE is to make Linux *MORE COMFORTABLE* to people who like certain games & apps on Windows by letting them run them on Linux.
Where do you get this idea that "most users would try Wine once"? There's a perfectly good WINE Application Database that pretty much tells you the chances of getting your app or game running in the first place, and how to set it up.
Why do you fanbois *CONSTANTLY* make these sweeping statements that have no substance in fact & just glaringly indicate how little you actually *KNOW* about the subject in the first place?
Please... go and be happy with your easy-to-use Apple computers but don't then pretend that being an Apple user makes you some kind of all-knowing computer authority because it clearly does not.
Apologies but could you repeat your message as I missed it the first time?
I was out with friends spending lots of money on a social life & beer since I don't spend it on overpriced designer hardware that makes me feel part of an elitist little club with permission to sneer derisively at anyone outside that club.
I agree that video games are a very active form of entertainment, I would also extend that to board games also.
But sportsmen will also argue that sports are good for burning off adrenaline leading to them being calmer and clearer when they are not playing sports... you can apply any form of activity in this way.
As for your comments on WoW, if people enjoy playing it then good luck to them. I have a bunch of friends who play it regularly, about three months ago they finally convinced me to give it a go and I did, for a month.
Sorry, but despite having many experience with computer gaming, board games and "pen & paper" RPGs, I didn't find WoW particularly social even though I played in a supposedly role-playing realm. Most of the time, my friends were off on their own doing their own leveling missions, as was I, and whenever I came across anyone who seemed interesting enough to have a conversation with, they either ignored me or told me to go away. The only people who were communicating were either running around spouting racist abuse or just trying to deliberately annoy me.
At least I can say I tried it but on the whole I found it a lonely experience, I'm sorry to say.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm prepared to wait for the initial response to SC2 because SC1 was so good, but I'm not holding out much hope if I'm honest.
I really haven't been enthused with RTS games since they went from sprites to 3D, I think changeable camera views & zooming in & out just adds unnecessary useless features to that type of game.
DirectX isn't a moving target, once released it does not change which is why games made for DX6/7 still run on DX11 video cards. Each new version of DirectX is essentially "everything that was in the previous versions plus this extra stuff".
Yes, I accept & understand that part but that isn't the whole story is it? I don't claim to be either a game or graphics programmer by any stretch of the imagination (I'm more a shell & PERL monkey) but an older game's functionality is not just dependent on DirectX, it is also dependent on the graphics driver and card being able to continue to support features that may be in older graphics cards but not in new ones.
My case in point are games like Aliens vs Predator (from around 1998 IIRC) which will run (of a fashion) in Windows XP but suffer major graphical problems because the graphics driver no longer supports some of the features that the game wants - from what I remember, some people manage to play it by using really old NVIDIA driver versions.
Windows 7 has better DirectX performance then previous versions. As annoying as it was when MS blew up the WDM driver system and created the new fangled one that broke compatibility with XP drivers when Vista first came out, it seems to have payed off. Vista/7 video drivers are faster and more reliable then the XP ones - at least, nVidia's are. The minimum requirements to run Win7 are pretty much DX9 compatibility so if the system runs Win7 you can be reasonably sure that most of DX9's optional features will be implemented even if it is a crappy Intel chipset.
That's not just limited to Windows, you know - I myself swapped out an ATI 4850 card for an NVIDIA GTS250 (very little difference in benchmark between the two cards) but got over 4x framerate improvement in games on Linux, simply because the NVIDIA drivers are better than the ATI ones - and that has nothing to do with DirectX, for obvious reasons. :-)
As far as DX10/11 exclusives that didn't include a DX9 fallback, I'm pretty sure most of those were from Microsoft's own studios or partners. Microsoft were being colossal dicks during Vista's heyday and were not above attempting to 'extort' gamers onto Vista with that sort of bullshit. MS' behavior during that time did more harm then anything else (when they were really hyping the 360 -- coincidence? I think not. Don't get me started on Games For Windows either, basically XboX Live for PCs with crappy UI and a truckload of poorly implemented unnecessary garbage emulating the 360 environment)
The only game I own that uses Games For Windows is Fallout 3 - I registered on it a while ago, bought a couple of DLCs from it but other than that I've never bothered with it. I'll just have to take your word on that one. :-)
Please can I purchase a license to use your neural Internet interface that clearly allows you to enter comments on Slashdot without the aid of a computing device.
Congratulations on making me laugh with the verbal equivalent of smashing a zombie around the head with its own severed arm. I would also like to bear your children.
Yes, I am talking about GAME and you are correct - most of their stuff is overpriced.
But I do pop into them or HMV if I am passing - it's very rare I buy anything from either but occasionally there is a bargain to be had.
Most of the time, I just end up seeing that something new & interesting has been released, then just pull out my smartphone and order it for 2/3 of the price online.
Old games can still be played on today's pc's (starcraft comes to mind).
It does vary from title to title. Starcraft is obviously well written but it does beg the question as to whether or not it would be worth Blizzard updating the engine a little so it can support higher screen resolutions - although I already own the game and the expansion, I would certainly pay, say. £5-£10 for an updated version that did this.
And if we're talking about classic RTS games, don't fail to mention Total Annihilation. I've not upgraded beyond Windows XP but TA runs well on XP and seems to still support higher resolutions well.
I still buy pc games that I don't have time to play today in the expectation that I will be able to play them in the future when I have more time. That said, I am buying almost exclusively stand-alone games that don't need to connect to a server with thousands of other play.
I tried WoW after continual badgering from my friends to give it a try but couldn't see the appeal of it personally and gave up after a month. Good luck to those that do enjoy it but I thought it was a lot less sociable then logging into an Internet server for a quick Quake deathmatch or, even better, a LAN party with a few friends.
I did use to "hoard games for later use" but these days I realise it's just a waste of money - if you really feel like playing an old game, you can always find a legal copy somewhere on Amazon or eBay. And hopefully sites like GOG.com mean that older titles will be always available for download if you want them at a later date.
This is actually a fairly major point for me; yes, I really am that lazy.
This isn't just about laziness, it's more about expecting some common sense from gaming companies.
If I buy a laptop then common sense says I'm doing so because I will probably be moving around a lot with the computer & maybe even using it while I am travelling... in which case, why the f*** do I need to carry around the game disk as well? Especially as the whole purpose of a hard disk is to deliver the capability of storing everything that might be on the game disk!
If Microsoft insisted that you inserted the MS Office CD/DVD everytime you fired up Excel, there would be a public outcry & people would be telling MS to shove their Office disks where the sun doesn't shine. So why we gamers have allowed ourselves to be treated this way is beyond my comprehension - and as someone who has bought many games over the years, I'm equally to blame.
__2. The XP Ghetto. I quite disagree. While I still run XP, Windows 7 has done good things for gaming. Since the first DOS machines in the early eighties, there's been a split between general computing machines and PCs that can do games. At some points, the gap between an office computer and a gaming PC has been wider than others: in 1992, for example, there was little difference between a 486x33 with a fancy VGA card and Gravis Ultrasound and a 486x25 with a normal VGA card and a Soundblaster compatible; in 1998, on the other hand, a 500-MHz PII (or even a legendary 300->450 OC'd Celery) with a TNT 3D card and 16-bit audio would blow the doors off of a stock processor and a VGA card. Now, with Windows 7, there's finally the requirement that cards actually be capable of doing 3D operations. And that means that a bunch of Windows-7-ready machines can play some games, even if their owners put XP on them.
I think you're talking about a "chicken and egg" situation.
I don't use Windows 7 so cannot claim to be an expert on it but as I understand it you do need some degree of graphics acceleration on it because the UI has effects built on those requirements. But most desktop and laptop PCs have had some degree of graphics acceleration for years now & whilst I don't credit Microsoft with much, I'm sure the last thing they'd want to do is stop people upgrading to Windows 7 if the hardware requirements were so high that it locked most of them out from doing so.
So what I'm really saying is that Windows 7 needs graphics acceleration because most PC owners probably already had it anyway.
And has Windows 7 *REALLY* done much for gaming? The list of games that support DirectX 11 is very small and I'm sure most of those games also run on Windows XP and DirectX 9. I can remember one PC game in about the past 3 or 4 years that was DirectX 10 only and that was "Shadowrun" although I accept there could be a couple of others - however, judging by how quickly I saw copies of Shadowrun appear in game store bargain bins, I'm not sure it did that well.
4. PCs: the configuration nightmare vs. Consoles. Well, yes and know. Yes, PCs with all their flexibility, are a challenge for developers. On the other hand, developers don't have to resolve every single difficulty in releasing a title. Development for Consoles require an expensive and time-consuming process of validation and verification by the console maker. Spending the time and money to go through these products makes a far superior product, but for PCs, it's an option, not an obligation.
Agreed, but going on from what I said previously, do you not think it's equally as difficult for a games company to make PC games that currently have to be able to potentially support up to three versions of DirectX (9-11), based on the fact there are large numbers of gamers running XP, Vista and Windows 7? At least with consoles they are developing for systems that have fixed specification.
sony and co (all the large game corps) have all got together and are simply trying to destroy the second hand market which is why they are trying to force us to only accept digital distribution laden with DRM like steam where all your purchases are not allowed to be resold.
I accept that Steam is a form of DRM control but it's the best of a bad bunch. The stuff you've bought already is always available to you to download onto any PC you own plus it's very easy to backup your Steam folder to an external hard disk - this means that if you rebuild your OS or upgrade your PC, you just have to copy the Steam folder back rather than having to reinstall and re-update each game one-by-one.
As for re-selling old games, have you checked prices on eBay recently? Unless the used games being sold are highly collectible or only a few months old, the prices of used PC games are peanuts. I have a stack of old PC games from about 3-5 years ago that I no longer play but are just not worth listing on eBay & will go to the local charity shop instead. I'm afraid that this idea that you can re-sell oldish games for anything near their original value is a myth.
but now they are not happy with the consoles and are trying to block second hand games being traded on them.
I'm not defending this behaviour by any means but if, as a gamer, it's important to you to be able to re-sell a game once you've finished with it, then maybe the only option is to factor it into your original purchasing decisions. The fact is that a lot of people appear to be mindless enough to queue at midnight with their kids to be the first to have a computer game suggests that most of them don't care about reselling them. Besides which, have you seen what happens to the condition of optical disks after a few weeks of kids putting them in consoles? :-)
i hate scum bag anti consumer corporations.
I agree - but the best way to hurt them is in their wallets. If you don't agree with the expected terms & conditions around something you plan on buying then just don't buy it. Corporations have got so powerful because too many mindless consumers have been sucked in by too many marketing lies - if you stop handing money over to them, they wither and die overnight.
I'm a fan of Stardock's Galactic Civilizations II and the expansions, all of which I own on CD.
Not long after the original game was released about 5 years ago, Stardock changed the license key format (I think due to piracy issues) so that the key printed on the instruction manual no longer worked. However, they informed everyone about this & getting a new key issued was straightforward & quick.
I hadn't played the game for about two years & had rebuilt my PC since I'd last played it but decided to dig it out again recently. When I installed the game & connected to Stardock via their Impulse application (think of it as a simpler version of Steam), I remembered the old key didn't work, had the lost the new key & realised that the registered email address Stardock had for me was an ISP-based one from an ISP I no longer use or have access to.
I emailed Stardock, asking them to either send the key to my new email address or to update my records to that I could send myself the key from Impulse. This was on a Friday evening and I had been looking forward to playing GC II over the weekend.
To give Stardock credit, they were very helpful and by the following Tuesday they had sorted it all out - but I did need to send out about three emails to them and they appeared to have nobody on duty over the weekend, which is when I had really fancied having the gaming session.
So, yes, this is one specific reason why too much reliance on the game creator servers can be a problem for legitimate purchasers.
I get confrontational about it because I really would like people to be honest & open about why they do things.
If you read and contribute on Slashdot as much as I do, you'll find Apple users harping on about how wonderful OS X is because it's based on a BSD UNIX core - yet most of them wouldn't know a shell prompt or how to edit in vi if it hit them in the face.
Many of them also seem to have this belief that stepping away from mainstream PCs to Apple makes them some kind of technical authority on computers - yet some of the sweeping generalisations they make on here about everyone else are utterly laughable. Personally, if I walk into a room and lots of people are talking about a topic I know little about, I keep my mouth shut, listen & learn, & then not make a fool of myself.
Finally, I don't consider myself as having any kind of brand loyalty & totally fail to understand the concept of it. A computer is a superb productivity & entertainment tool but it is *JUST* a tool, not a fashion accessory. In my view, having to hide oneself behind a brand label indicates a fear of being left outside of "the crowd" and I respect people who are individualists, not sheep.
I don't necessarily agree with the comment about digital distribution always being cheaper than stores - for example, because I don't usually hurry to buy new games, I picked up Fallout 3 about 6 months after release for £12.50 new (=$18.00) & then the Game Of The Year Edition (with all 5 DLCs) for £19.99 new (=$30.00). That was from my local Game game store here in the UK, a national chain, and they constantly have similar pricing offers on.
However, especially as I've noticed how the PC games shelf space has shrunk in Game stores over the past couple of years (in favour of console games), this is where digital distribution comes into its own - namely for the range of stuff that's available on-line but not in stores.
I don't buy that many new games but I've bought from Steam & GOG.com - in both cases it's good to have the ability to get hold of a few older classics again.
I don't think PC gaming is dying as such but I do think the whole PC market with respect to games is changing dramatically for the following reasons:
1. PC and graphics hardware development is slowing down for desktop gaming PCs & focus moving to lower-powered netbooks & portable devices. Presumably people still want to play games on those devices which means smaller & less complicated games - one reason for the success of selling older titles online.
2. Most Windows users still seem happy enough with Windows XP even though I have no reason to doubt Windows 7 may be a better OS. This brings into question as to just how many people have the capability to run (or even care about running) DirectX 11 and therefore how much development games companies are prepared to do on it - when all said and done, this list of DirectX 11 games is very small.
3. I don't personally care about "mass migrations to Linux", I use it because it's there and because it does what I need an OS to do. But whilst Windows 7 may have fared better than Vista, it's still not the raging success for Microsoft that XP was & Linux has matured greatly since XP was released to the point where there's a far greater chance of running older Windows games in WINE on Linux than on Windows 7 or XP. Again, this fact alone must influence older game sales & the forums on GOG.com have lots of threads discussing whether or not certain GOG-released titles will run under WINE. (I don't go on the Steam forums much but the fact that there's soon to be a Steam client for Linux says a lot to me).
4. Modern games are huge development projects with huge up-front costs. Developing games for a fixed console platform *MUST* be much easier than developing for PCs with their plethora of different hardware. Plus games companies make their money from making sequels of established titles, it's the younger, less cynical gamers that rush to buy (or get their parents to buy) those titles & the youngsters like their consoles. All of this leads to the conclusion that there will be a continued slowdown in new PC game releases.
5. MMORPGs & online gaming - if people are spending more money on monthly subscription games then they're spending less on boxed games, especially during an economic slowdown.
As a PC gamer, what I'm really looking forward to is a lot more resolution of petty licensing squabbles of older games so that more of them get released, maybe even with some commitment to allow those games to be updated to run on more modern Windows OSes or even natively on Linux. It make sense that if the games companies are no longer getting as much revenue from new PC games than they used to, then they should look at opening up the revenue streams from re-selling older games.
Like I said - great well-paid job, lots of disposable income with no need to spend any of it on little white boxes with pictures of fruit on them, great long-term relationship & about to spend this coming weekend at a classic rock festival in London seeing some of my all time favourite musicians play.
I'm in a great mood & immune from the goading of trolls - have a GREAT day yourself!
Not at all, and with respect you are diverting the argument & arguing semantics.
I made the statement that the reason why Apple computers do not bear "Intel Inside" stickers may simply be due to Intel not paying them enough money for the privelige - perhaps the penetration of Apple computers is so low, compared to PCs, Intel didn't consider it worth worrying about?
Also, Apple users are a captive audience anyway so why would it be necessary to them to advertise the CPU inside? For a computer manufacturer like HP, which uses both Intel and AMD CPUs in their machines, there's probably some reason why it's worth declaring what CPU is inside.
The argument goes deeper than that, I'm afraid.
Apple's computers are *deliberately* set at a premium price to ensure that only a minority of people will buy them. This gives the purchasers automatic membership to an exclusive little club that appeals to their needs to be elitist.
And if it is *NOT* just about being able to display the Apple logo as a membership card in that elitist club, then I challenge any Apple to physically remove the Apple logo from their device as proof that it isn't.
But clever marketing people know damn well that placating your children who are demanding to see the latest "Finding Nemo" sequel is far more important to you than getting annoyed at not being able to skip past advertising trailers...
But why then do people buy Apple computers? I always thought it was because they were supposed to be totally usable by non-technical people - in which case the kind of solution you describe above would be beyond the technical ability of most of them.
...and having the "Me" card may allow me, as a wiley hacker, to work out if your account password is based on any information held in that card.
Or maybe it gives me your phone number so I can call you & do a bit of social engineering to make you install an application I want on your machine, or even get you to reveal your password to me...
Please do not underestimate the value of information to any hacker - even the "Me" card means someone can ending up knowing more about you then when they didn't have it.
As an example, most users would try Wine once (at most) and then never want to use it again because it isn't exactly the same as what they are used to.
What in God's name are you *BLABBERING* on about, man? Do you actually know what WINE *IS*???
The *WHOLE PURPOSE* of WINE is to make Linux *MORE COMFORTABLE* to people who like certain games & apps on Windows by letting them run them on Linux.
Where do you get this idea that "most users would try Wine once"? There's a perfectly good WINE Application Database that pretty much tells you the chances of getting your app or game running in the first place, and how to set it up.
Why do you fanbois *CONSTANTLY* make these sweeping statements that have no substance in fact & just glaringly indicate how little you actually *KNOW* about the subject in the first place?
Please... go and be happy with your easy-to-use Apple computers but don't then pretend that being an Apple user makes you some kind of all-knowing computer authority because it clearly does not.
Because Intel wouldn't pay as much "millions of co-marketing dollars" to Apple as other advertisers would?
Because without Intel, Apple would have no computers to sell but would still have pathological hatred & envy of Google?
Because fanbois are so attached to Apple that they will always find positive justifications for whatever Apple does to them?
On Apple: Penis Enlargement.
On Microsoft: Zoloft.
On World Of Warcraft: Ritalin.
On I Love Justin Bieber: Brain Transplants.
Ahem!
1) "I am not an Apple fanboi" != "I am an AOL user".
2) Who are AOL anyway?
Apologies but could you repeat your message as I missed it the first time?
I was out with friends spending lots of money on a social life & beer since I don't spend it on overpriced designer hardware that makes me feel part of an elitist little club with permission to sneer derisively at anyone outside that club.
I agree that video games are a very active form of entertainment, I would also extend that to board games also.
But sportsmen will also argue that sports are good for burning off adrenaline leading to them being calmer and clearer when they are not playing sports... you can apply any form of activity in this way.
As for your comments on WoW, if people enjoy playing it then good luck to them. I have a bunch of friends who play it regularly, about three months ago they finally convinced me to give it a go and I did, for a month.
Sorry, but despite having many experience with computer gaming, board games and "pen & paper" RPGs, I didn't find WoW particularly social even though I played in a supposedly role-playing realm. Most of the time, my friends were off on their own doing their own leveling missions, as was I, and whenever I came across anyone who seemed interesting enough to have a conversation with, they either ignored me or told me to go away. The only people who were communicating were either running around spouting racist abuse or just trying to deliberately annoy me.
At least I can say I tried it but on the whole I found it a lonely experience, I'm sorry to say.
You answered your own question - if they were here in the early 2000's, by implication they are not here now.
And if they are not here now, then it can only be because they didn't work.