Do you have any evidence supporting your theory that the games are in fact not 3D and do not allow you to move along all three axis?
What a fucking strawman. (You do know what I'm referring to when I say "strawman", right?)
Where have I said this? Ever? Point to one place where I say you can't move in three axes. (Granted, you probably can't in Wolf3D, and only barely in Doom, but use Duke3D as an example.)
No, I said that the games themselves are 2.5D -- referring to the fact that while they are partly 3D (the levels are rendered in a 3D space), they are generated from a 2D map, severely limiting what can be built.
Duke Nukem was actually competing against Doom...if you actually knew anything about first person shooters, id Software or PC gaming in general you would know this.
Strawman #2: I know Duke3D was competing against wrong.
With a side of factually wrong -- Duke Nukem was a sidescrolling 2D game, in every sense of the word. You're talking about Duke Nukem 3D.
Wolf3D wasn't called that because of some marketing gimmick.
Citation needed.
2.5D is a term used to describe how the levels themselves are constructed...
Correct. Are we done yet?
Just like a heightmap is used to generate the terrain in Far Cry...you gonna call Far Cry a 2.5D game as well?
Given that Far Cry also allows 3D structures (including interiors), no. But then, Duke3D really doesn't allow for such things, except in recent source ports, which can hardly be called the same game.
It also uses sprites for its vegetation...
And flat 2D textures for its triangles, I am aware. But it supports and uses actual 3D models -- things which can actually have a top and a bottom, and sides, and exist somewhere in 3D space.
And by the way -- that's another word that doesn't mean what you think it means. "Sprites" aren't necessarily 2D. A two-dimensional texture standing in for a three-dimensional object is pretty much the definition of 2D.
I see no reason as to why I should continue wasting my precious time
Obviously not precious at all. Look up at how much you've written already. Hell, you pounced on this one less than 20 minutes after I posted it -- you must be obsessed!
You've provided no evidence to support your ridiculous theory that Wolf3D is in fact not a 3D game.
I provided a Wikipedia quote which you have yet to counter. I've provided arguments of my own, that the term 2.5D doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means. All you've done is take the same point you made in your very first response and say it again, worded differently, as if maybe this time, I'll concede the point.
Two plus two is five. When you take the number two, and sum it with itself, you get five. 2+2=5. Two, incremented twice, results in five.
But you know what? It's not five, it's four. No matter how many different ways you express the same thing, doesn't make it any more right.
Re:An advantage of 64-bit Linux?
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 1
perhaps giving end users an easy hint/way to reload flash plugin instead of hoping they will figure out you have to reload page would be good.
Maybe so, but "reload the page" is standard user procedure, these days, for trying to solve a problem with a page. Image didn't load? Reload the page, see if it loads now. Weird bug in some script? Reload the page, the script has to start over from the beginning.
I'm not saying it's a bad idea, only that I doubt many web users won't try reloading, and that they have to know to do that anyway.
And the insanity continues! Not a single counterargument, just the same one again. Plus the repetition of your sad argument from authority:
I'm gonna side with Carmack on this one...
Yeah, and when, exactly, did Carmack explicitly comment on 2.5D vs 3D? When Wolf3D came out, and certainly by the time Duke3D was out, "3D" was a hot marketing term, kind of like "cloud computing" is today. Gets abused all the times by marketing types.
So where's your evidence that Carmack actually named the product? And not that he was simply toeing the company line when someone else did?
And supposing he did say that, doesn't solve the fact that it's an argument from authority, and thus a logical fallacy.
See, I've worked at a company which often sold their "retail" product, then would offer enrollment into a "beta" plan if the retail package was giving them trouble.
That sounds like what's being described here. I don't see them marketing or selling beta software, only disclaiming themselves from having to refund people for problems with beta software.
I think to understand why PC gaming is going downhill, you have to understand why people actually leave the PC for a console. It's not for innovative games -- why do people leave Counter-Strike for Halo?
The graphics were never the draw of their games, the gameplay was.
The same is true of Portal, but it will scale (somewhat) with the hardware.
They all scale as much as they need to: Not at all.
To be fair, Introversion scales more than Starcraft.
But you also have to take other things into consideration, such as the size of the media. It was not acceptable to have 4GB of graphics and video back then any more than it would be acceptable to have 40GB now. Having to install 10 DVDs to play a game is just not an option.
Procedural generation solves much of that problem -- if it's actually a problem.
Because there are games now that take 40 gigs.
In addition, new 'stuff like HDR' is being invented all the time. Scaling for the future is almost impossible...
Not really.
Granted, HDR would've been very difficult to do, if you hadn't known about it ahead of time -- you wouldn't know that you needed to get a special camera, or design the textures a certain way, so as to preserve all of the information beyond the visible spectrum.
However, what you can do is, always keep full-resolution original copies of everything, including models. Model things with insanely more detail than you need -- I would even say, use curves for everything, don't touch triangles -- then let a machine scale it back to match current hardware. (That is: Don't have someone paint your box art. Make it an actual in-game render, just one that won't be possible to do in real time for ten years or so.)
And you can make your engine modular enough that when something new like that does come along, you can add it. Half-Life 2 is pretty much continued development from Half-Life, which includes code from Quake (or was it QuakeWorld or something?), yet it has modern things like HDR. Over ten years of development, and they don't have to do a complete rewrite to add it.
(Educated guess -- it's possible they ditched the entire thing and started over, five years in, but I doubt it. I suspect it was done incrementally -- over time, individual pieces may have been rewritten so that little of the original Quake code remains, but if so, that only proves my point.)
As I said, if I don't like my laptop (or if I have significant problems with it), there's still a limit of a few months to a year during which I can send it back.
I would imagine toasters are similar -- I can't wait ten years, then return it to Wal-Mart once it's well and truly broken, claiming I don't like it.
Also, toasters don't offer "trial versions" -- I can't necessarily take my favorite bagel to the store to toast it in their toaster, and make sure it toasts properly. And I can't take half a toaster home, with a promise I'll get the other half when I pay. Trial versions are intended to mitigate the "I didn't like it" factor, when legitimate.
Now, that's a bit confusing to me, as I never had problems with WGA. I did, however, have plenty of problems getting torrented ISOs to update properly.
I suppose the main reason I'm so tolerant is that I don't use XP for much. I boot it a few times a month to play games that won't play well on Linux yet (or ever). Because of this, I almost never get hit by transient Windows Update problems, or by malware.
Ok, I don't mean it was exactly the same. I mean that it's roughly the same mechanism.
That is, once XP determines that you're "genuine", it won't check again until you have some "serious" hardware upgrade, on the order of new hard drive, or new motherboard. Same with this.
Only difference is, XP is a lot more trigger-happy about when they make you make that phone call -- Greenhouse hasn't actually done more than gather statistics, so far.
Saying Starcraft is a counter example is silly. People *still* play it in droves,
Yes. People also play Doom, Pong, and Solitaire, in droves. What's your point?
and it still looks good.
Respectfully, no it doesn't. It looks no better than it did at the time.
the game may not get better looking with newer hardware, but if it looks good to start with, who cares?
Well, you're right -- it looks exactly as good as it did to start with.
I cite it as a counterexample, because you know what? No game can look worse now than when it started. But because Starcraft looks exactly the same, it also means that other games look better.
As for cross platform, Linux is still going to be last on the list for reasonable reasons.
Fair enough -- yet for most games which would bother to make a Mac port, I don't see Linux as a major hurdle. They already had to make it OpenGL to make it play well on the Mac -- that's most of the work right there. Unless they somehow made it stupidly dependent on Cocoa, Linux would barely be a recompile from that.
DirectX stomps OpenGL in current day form, and that buys you 90% of the cross-platform that is PC and XBox
It doesn't buy you the 360, not entirely. If it does, I count the PS3 and the Wii for OpenGL.
And you're not comparing apples to apples. I don't think Direct3D is any better than OpenGL. DirectX is better, because it does more than just graphics -- so the fair comparison would be DirectX vs SDL.
And given how well UT2004 does, I think a good game engine should be able to switch between the two, without too much trouble.
Visual Studio and DirectX arn't quite the utter pieces of shit that the OS is,
True enough. But having used both Visual Studio and Eclipse, I'm not sure I would want Visual Studio back.
I don't see Windows being threatened anytime soon in the gaming market.
True. But it doesn't make a Linux/BSD port any less cool. (That's most of the reason I impulse-bought the Penny Arcade game.)
And remember Doom 3? Pushed GL ahead by at least a year from where it was, I imagine. Most developers insist on DirectX, true, but it only takes one big game to make the manufacturers start to get their shit together.
Lastly:
if you wanna program a generation into the future, OpenGL is trailing developer expectations while MS has been much more consistent with regards to their announcements of whats coming up.
If you wanna program a generation into the future, it doesn't matter -- you need both, and more. You need your engine to be so rock solid and agile that if Intel suddenly makes a cheap 500-core card that speaks x86, you'll be able to render on it before GL or DirectX.
Granted, that's a bit aggressive, but I know how poorly game engines have done, traditionally -- game development in particular tends to lag years behind the rest of the world, mostly because of performance hacks to squeeze out another couple frames per second.
I'm not entirely sure if the modern GL ports of Doom even use less CPU than the purely-software renderer Doom came with. But that kind of shows the endgame of an overly-optimized engine -- how many modern features could we actually add to the original Doom? Ramps, even? We have enough CPU now to run probably hundreds of instances of Doom on a single machine, so the optimizations no longer matter, but the lack of features and portability does -- I imagine much of the "porting" is taking old assembly routines and rewriting them in C.
Blech. I'm rambling, and it's 4 AM. Sorry to be so abrupt... Let me know what you think.
I think it's hilarious that you're suggesting that it's insane to try and explain things to you.
Except, you haven't. You've said the same thing, over and over, expecting a different result -- expecting me to suddenly see the light.
Has it occurred to you that I might be right? Or, more likely, that it's a stupid question of personal semantics, and that we're both stupid for spending as much time on it, no matter who "wins"?
you probably shouldn't follow it up with 3rd rate deflections which are the epitome of fluff.
At least I actually deflect -- and, y'know, have a counterargument.
All you have are more attacks.
You could have actually told me why the Wikipedia quote I've got is wrong, or how I've misinterpreted it, if I have. You could have pointed out what the "real" definition is, and how this one differs -- and why the "real" definition is right, and this one is wrong.
Instead, you've opened with "I think it's hilarious that you... You might want to think... about... why you're so reluctant to admit you were wrong..." Not one bit of substance, just more trollish attacks.
And no, "better to be informed than ignorant" wasn't the insult. Blithely assuming that:
- You're right, and I'm wrong
- I know it, and just can't admit it That's what's insulting.
Notice: I'm not doing the same thing. I actually have some substance -- I may have just taught you something about how to make a logical argument (point, counterpoint, etc), if you were paying attention. You haven't said anything of substance, other than repeating the point you made 9 posts back, and throwing in a nice big wad of Ad Hominim.
as I suspected your attack against me was completely baseless.
And as usual, you provide no evidence that it's baseless, or even that I attacked you.
I'm sure your response to this will consist solely of you crying about being insulted...that's about the only angle you can play since it's absurdity is a good distraction from the actual conversation at hand.
Well, you did surprise me -- what is this, "I'm rubber, you're glue"? Am I missing something obvious, or am I the one who linked to Wikipedia? And "waste of my time" coming the very post after I said "counterproductive and pointless"...
Let's ignore the simple fact that industry geniuses such as John Carmack or Tim Sweeney use the one that is found in Wikipedia or any site dedicated to games and descriptions of their game engines.
Yeah... the one that I quoted? The one that specifically mentioned Doom as 2.5D?
If the "fingerprint" is a cryptographic checksum, you should be fine -- though you're still trusting McAfee's servers not to just start randomly quarantine-ing your good files with the bad ones.
Or you could, y'know, disable autorun. It's not particularly difficult. (Not particularly easy, either -- at one point, I could only figure out how to do it via the Registry. But not difficult.)
Now, it might be worth it to have a piece of software (a script, really) that ran around a Windows install and tightened up security across the board -- turned the firewalls on, set passwords, disable autorun, install Firefox, grab updates, etc.
While it's at it, it could tune you up -- enabling Hibernate is about the first thing I do.
I'm sure such a thing exists. But I suspect that all antivirus software, or anything that would call itself antivirus software, is also going to include the after-the-fact scanning, and is going to advertise that well before the actual securing of the system.
And it's worth mentioning -- no other OS comes so thoroughly pwnable out of the box, especially via things like Autorun. I suspect that's even fixed in Vista.
Unlikely, the most likely way to do that would be to develop a set of cross platform libraries and then just use those to develop the games in.
Which promotes proper abstraction in the game engine, and still has a chance to expose assumptions you've made (unknowingly) about the way a certain compiler, OS, or CPU architecture operates -- assumptions that might change.
And those are just the obvious ones. Sometimes, there's a real bug which simply occurs more often on another platform.
It would probably end up being something like either the JavaVM or possibly Winelib.
Already exists, somewhat, in the form of OpenGL and SDL -- and that's a hell of a lot better than Winelib, at least.
Of course, the JVM would be a more thorough approach...
PC gaming is individuals sitting at individual computers, looking at tiny monitors (not your 60" TV)
The smallest monitor I have anymore is a 17" laptop monitor. Mostly, I use a 20" desktop monitor -- or both, at work.
Given that it's a diagonal measurement, that's a third the size of that 60" TV. (Not that it would stop me from using that TV anyway -- I have a DVI->HDMI adapter, and my laptop has DVI out.) But it's difficult to split it into thirds -- mostly, it's split into halves or fourths.
Not all games use split-screen, and for those that don't, the console makes sense. But for those that do, suddenly, you've got a 15" chunk of a monitor that's quite a bit farther away, and everyone can see everyone else's screen. With a PC game, I get a larger chunk of real estate, only a couple feet away, with a reasonable assurance that no one else can see my screen.
Why not have two keyboards/mice?
Depends on the game.
I know that with StepMania, even on Linux, I can, in fact, plug in a real CobaltFlux pad. If I remember, I could actually plug two in, and have them correspond to different players -- or have one person use the keyboard, if I wanted to make it completely unfair.
Most games don't support that, though, and while there have been some experiments, most desktop apps really aren't equipped to deal with two cursors.
If you want to, you can configure one computer to power two complete terminals -- two monitors, two keyboards, two mice. It's not going to be easy, and I don't know if Windows can do it (I know how I'd do it on Linux), but it can be done.
Please note that most Stardock programs have demo versions available for preview prior to buying... full refunds will not be issued for functional software that doesnâ(TM)t live up to your expectations.
Makes sense, doesn't it? And it fits that bill of rights -- that's specifically about games that don't work with your computer.
We do not give refunds on beta software.
Kind of a "duh" moment there.
We do not give full or partial refunds for any subscription renewals.
Might help if they allowed it for a single renewal, but consider the asshat who subscribes for a year, then it stops working, or he wants to stop playing -- so he tries to get his entire year's subscription payments back.
If you are not willing to work with technical support on any problems you are having, or request a refund even if you are not having problems using the software, we will issue a partial refund only.
Also makes sense, given that the refund is for actual problems, not just because you didn't like it. You'll find similar conditions with just about any warranty.
And consider that there really aren't any other publishers offering any kind of return policy. You'd think Steam could afford that -- just disable the game on that account, then you know they're actually no longer playing it.
Note also that there's no limit on it. I've bought laptops with no more than a few months to a year warranty -- that's on a multi-thousand-dollar purchase. So if I can swallow a purchase of thousands of dollars that I might not be able to return, I think I can manage the same for a purchase of, oh, $50 that I might not be able to return.
But in either case, it helps to know that if it's completely DOA, I can return it.
Yes, please. Double-win for the gamer -- I can play it on Linux, and more platforms means more ways for it to break, so it should have fewer bugs even on its main platform by release. With the state of the industry now, just about any reduction in bugs is a win.
if you want a CD serial key thats fine as they are easily cracked later in its lifetime, but don't activate it online
I can live with activation online, as long as it's not constant. I'm going to be online when I install, since I need patches then, and since I'm probably downloading it anyway. I'm not going to be online every time I play.
Develop for a generation before,
No, no, a thousand times no. In fact, if you want your game to last, develop for a generation from now. But to do that with any measure of sanity, it needs to be scalable -- and if you've done a half-decent job of that, it should scale back to a generation ago.
See:
- Half-Life 2 (plays on ludicrously cheap hardware, but Valve keeps patching it with new stuff like HDR)
- Doom 3 (required damned good hardware for the time to even play, but you could tweak it to run on a Voodoo3 -- and came with modes which crawled, due to sheer lack of video RAM, even on the biggest card at the time.)
Counterexample:
- Crysis (need I say more? Barely ran on top-of-the-line hardware at the time. Didn't scale down well at all.)
- Introversion games (ok, Darwinia does look cool, so I'm not saying they shouldn't do that -- worth mentioning that it won't ever look better than it does now, though.)
- Starcraft (deliberately low-res for the time, and with almost entirely raster graphics, no way for it to look better until Starcraft II)
Get some investors who have balls, then. Or find a better publisher.
The publisher ultimately doesn't pay the bills. They put money down initially, which they expect to make back when the gamers pay the bills.
Which means, ultimately, the least replaceable part of their job is essentially either a loan or an investment.
I don't think the games themselves really need much help, once they're made. In fact, if a game was made using this system -- a full-on, triple-A production (or whatever you call it) -- but without all the traditional advertising channels... Don't you think Slashdot would pick it up right away?
I'd feel a lot better if that patch existed, somewhere in escrow, in case that happened.
But honestly, it's a compromise I can live with. Steam doesn't force me to keep track of a CD, doesn't fuck up my computer, and does let me re-download the game as often as I like, on as many computers as I like.
The percentage of people who would buy a game, copy it, and then return it for a refund or an exchange is probably so high that they are afraid to do these things.
RTFA. Bascially: Stardock measured an increase in sales when they added refunds, and not that many people bothered to return it.
I suppose there would have to be a point at which you start dealing with abuse, but keep in mind -- most people who want to pirate the game know about BitTorrent. The people who actually bought the game are, mostly, legitimate customers.
I'm thinking a compromise would be in order...
Well, I believe it does allow for the scheme Greenhouse (Penny Arcade) uses -- interestingly, also the scheme Windows XP uses, which was so controversial at the time -- where it phones home once at install, and once on significant hardware changes.
It doesn't do anything with that, yet -- no retarded limits like 3 reinstalls -- I assume it's to serve more as a watermark. If you're sharing it with a thousand of your closest friends via BitTorrent, they'll notice.
That does still bother some people, but honestly, I'm fine with it -- I wouldn't dare reinstall anything without access to the Internet these days. Of course, I'd feel significantly better if there was a crack in escrow somewhere, so that if Greenhouse fails, I can still reinstall.
Slashdot Mirror
Blech. Should have been:
Strawman #2: I know Duke3D was competing against Doom.
It was a Doom Clone after all.
Do you have any evidence supporting your theory that the games are in fact not 3D and do not allow you to move along all three axis?
What a fucking strawman. (You do know what I'm referring to when I say "strawman", right?)
Where have I said this? Ever? Point to one place where I say you can't move in three axes. (Granted, you probably can't in Wolf3D, and only barely in Doom, but use Duke3D as an example.)
No, I said that the games themselves are 2.5D -- referring to the fact that while they are partly 3D (the levels are rendered in a 3D space), they are generated from a 2D map, severely limiting what can be built.
Duke Nukem was actually competing against Doom...if you actually knew anything about first person shooters, id Software or PC gaming in general you would know this.
Strawman #2: I know Duke3D was competing against wrong.
With a side of factually wrong -- Duke Nukem was a sidescrolling 2D game, in every sense of the word. You're talking about Duke Nukem 3D.
Wolf3D wasn't called that because of some marketing gimmick.
Citation needed.
2.5D is a term used to describe how the levels themselves are constructed...
Correct. Are we done yet?
Just like a heightmap is used to generate the terrain in Far Cry...you gonna call Far Cry a 2.5D game as well?
Given that Far Cry also allows 3D structures (including interiors), no. But then, Duke3D really doesn't allow for such things, except in recent source ports, which can hardly be called the same game.
It also uses sprites for its vegetation...
And flat 2D textures for its triangles, I am aware. But it supports and uses actual 3D models -- things which can actually have a top and a bottom, and sides, and exist somewhere in 3D space.
And by the way -- that's another word that doesn't mean what you think it means. "Sprites" aren't necessarily 2D. A two-dimensional texture standing in for a three-dimensional object is pretty much the definition of 2D.
I see no reason as to why I should continue wasting my precious time
Obviously not precious at all. Look up at how much you've written already. Hell, you pounced on this one less than 20 minutes after I posted it -- you must be obsessed!
You've provided no evidence to support your ridiculous theory that Wolf3D is in fact not a 3D game.
I provided a Wikipedia quote which you have yet to counter. I've provided arguments of my own, that the term 2.5D doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means. All you've done is take the same point you made in your very first response and say it again, worded differently, as if maybe this time, I'll concede the point.
Two plus two is five. When you take the number two, and sum it with itself, you get five. 2+2=5. Two, incremented twice, results in five.
But you know what? It's not five, it's four. No matter how many different ways you express the same thing, doesn't make it any more right.
perhaps giving end users an easy hint/way to reload flash plugin instead of hoping they will figure out you have to reload page would be good.
Maybe so, but "reload the page" is standard user procedure, these days, for trying to solve a problem with a page. Image didn't load? Reload the page, see if it loads now. Weird bug in some script? Reload the page, the script has to start over from the beginning.
I'm not saying it's a bad idea, only that I doubt many web users won't try reloading, and that they have to know to do that anyway.
And the insanity continues! Not a single counterargument, just the same one again. Plus the repetition of your sad argument from authority:
I'm gonna side with Carmack on this one...
Yeah, and when, exactly, did Carmack explicitly comment on 2.5D vs 3D? When Wolf3D came out, and certainly by the time Duke3D was out, "3D" was a hot marketing term, kind of like "cloud computing" is today. Gets abused all the times by marketing types.
So where's your evidence that Carmack actually named the product? And not that he was simply toeing the company line when someone else did?
And supposing he did say that, doesn't solve the fact that it's an argument from authority, and thus a logical fallacy.
See, I've worked at a company which often sold their "retail" product, then would offer enrollment into a "beta" plan if the retail package was giving them trouble.
That sounds like what's being described here. I don't see them marketing or selling beta software, only disclaiming themselves from having to refund people for problems with beta software.
I doubt it.
I think to understand why PC gaming is going downhill, you have to understand why people actually leave the PC for a console. It's not for innovative games -- why do people leave Counter-Strike for Halo?
Fair enough -- and there's always the "wargames" scenario, where the computer in question actually controlled real weapons.
But none of the hacks listed qualify, and the vast majority don't.
The graphics were never the draw of their games, the gameplay was.
The same is true of Portal, but it will scale (somewhat) with the hardware.
They all scale as much as they need to: Not at all.
To be fair, Introversion scales more than Starcraft.
But you also have to take other things into consideration, such as the size of the media. It was not acceptable to have 4GB of graphics and video back then any more than it would be acceptable to have 40GB now. Having to install 10 DVDs to play a game is just not an option.
Procedural generation solves much of that problem -- if it's actually a problem.
Because there are games now that take 40 gigs.
In addition, new 'stuff like HDR' is being invented all the time. Scaling for the future is almost impossible...
Not really.
Granted, HDR would've been very difficult to do, if you hadn't known about it ahead of time -- you wouldn't know that you needed to get a special camera, or design the textures a certain way, so as to preserve all of the information beyond the visible spectrum.
However, what you can do is, always keep full-resolution original copies of everything, including models. Model things with insanely more detail than you need -- I would even say, use curves for everything, don't touch triangles -- then let a machine scale it back to match current hardware. (That is: Don't have someone paint your box art. Make it an actual in-game render, just one that won't be possible to do in real time for ten years or so.)
And you can make your engine modular enough that when something new like that does come along, you can add it. Half-Life 2 is pretty much continued development from Half-Life, which includes code from Quake (or was it QuakeWorld or something?), yet it has modern things like HDR. Over ten years of development, and they don't have to do a complete rewrite to add it.
(Educated guess -- it's possible they ditched the entire thing and started over, five years in, but I doubt it. I suspect it was done incrementally -- over time, individual pieces may have been rewritten so that little of the original Quake code remains, but if so, that only proves my point.)
Even there, there's a limit.
As I said, if I don't like my laptop (or if I have significant problems with it), there's still a limit of a few months to a year during which I can send it back.
I would imagine toasters are similar -- I can't wait ten years, then return it to Wal-Mart once it's well and truly broken, claiming I don't like it.
Also, toasters don't offer "trial versions" -- I can't necessarily take my favorite bagel to the store to toast it in their toaster, and make sure it toasts properly. And I can't take half a toaster home, with a promise I'll get the other half when I pay. Trial versions are intended to mitigate the "I didn't like it" factor, when legitimate.
Now, that's a bit confusing to me, as I never had problems with WGA. I did, however, have plenty of problems getting torrented ISOs to update properly.
I suppose the main reason I'm so tolerant is that I don't use XP for much. I boot it a few times a month to play games that won't play well on Linux yet (or ever). Because of this, I almost never get hit by transient Windows Update problems, or by malware.
Ok, I don't mean it was exactly the same. I mean that it's roughly the same mechanism.
That is, once XP determines that you're "genuine", it won't check again until you have some "serious" hardware upgrade, on the order of new hard drive, or new motherboard. Same with this.
Only difference is, XP is a lot more trigger-happy about when they make you make that phone call -- Greenhouse hasn't actually done more than gather statistics, so far.
Saying Starcraft is a counter example is silly. People *still* play it in droves,
Yes. People also play Doom, Pong, and Solitaire, in droves. What's your point?
and it still looks good.
Respectfully, no it doesn't. It looks no better than it did at the time.
the game may not get better looking with newer hardware, but if it looks good to start with, who cares?
Well, you're right -- it looks exactly as good as it did to start with.
I cite it as a counterexample, because you know what? No game can look worse now than when it started. But because Starcraft looks exactly the same, it also means that other games look better.
As for cross platform, Linux is still going to be last on the list for reasonable reasons.
Fair enough -- yet for most games which would bother to make a Mac port, I don't see Linux as a major hurdle. They already had to make it OpenGL to make it play well on the Mac -- that's most of the work right there. Unless they somehow made it stupidly dependent on Cocoa, Linux would barely be a recompile from that.
DirectX stomps OpenGL in current day form, and that buys you 90% of the cross-platform that is PC and XBox
It doesn't buy you the 360, not entirely. If it does, I count the PS3 and the Wii for OpenGL.
And you're not comparing apples to apples. I don't think Direct3D is any better than OpenGL. DirectX is better, because it does more than just graphics -- so the fair comparison would be DirectX vs SDL.
And given how well UT2004 does, I think a good game engine should be able to switch between the two, without too much trouble.
Visual Studio and DirectX arn't quite the utter pieces of shit that the OS is,
True enough. But having used both Visual Studio and Eclipse, I'm not sure I would want Visual Studio back.
I don't see Windows being threatened anytime soon in the gaming market.
True. But it doesn't make a Linux/BSD port any less cool. (That's most of the reason I impulse-bought the Penny Arcade game.)
And remember Doom 3? Pushed GL ahead by at least a year from where it was, I imagine. Most developers insist on DirectX, true, but it only takes one big game to make the manufacturers start to get their shit together.
Lastly:
if you wanna program a generation into the future, OpenGL is trailing developer expectations while MS has been much more consistent with regards to their announcements of whats coming up.
If you wanna program a generation into the future, it doesn't matter -- you need both, and more. You need your engine to be so rock solid and agile that if Intel suddenly makes a cheap 500-core card that speaks x86, you'll be able to render on it before GL or DirectX.
Granted, that's a bit aggressive, but I know how poorly game engines have done, traditionally -- game development in particular tends to lag years behind the rest of the world, mostly because of performance hacks to squeeze out another couple frames per second.
I'm not entirely sure if the modern GL ports of Doom even use less CPU than the purely-software renderer Doom came with. But that kind of shows the endgame of an overly-optimized engine -- how many modern features could we actually add to the original Doom? Ramps, even? We have enough CPU now to run probably hundreds of instances of Doom on a single machine, so the optimizations no longer matter, but the lack of features and portability does -- I imagine much of the "porting" is taking old assembly routines and rewriting them in C.
Blech. I'm rambling, and it's 4 AM. Sorry to be so abrupt... Let me know what you think.
I think it's hilarious that you're suggesting that it's insane to try and explain things to you.
Except, you haven't. You've said the same thing, over and over, expecting a different result -- expecting me to suddenly see the light.
Has it occurred to you that I might be right? Or, more likely, that it's a stupid question of personal semantics, and that we're both stupid for spending as much time on it, no matter who "wins"?
you probably shouldn't follow it up with 3rd rate deflections which are the epitome of fluff.
At least I actually deflect -- and, y'know, have a counterargument.
All you have are more attacks.
You could have actually told me why the Wikipedia quote I've got is wrong, or how I've misinterpreted it, if I have. You could have pointed out what the "real" definition is, and how this one differs -- and why the "real" definition is right, and this one is wrong.
Instead, you've opened with "I think it's hilarious that you... You might want to think... about... why you're so reluctant to admit you were wrong..." Not one bit of substance, just more trollish attacks.
And no, "better to be informed than ignorant" wasn't the insult. Blithely assuming that:
- You're right, and I'm wrong
- I know it, and just can't admit it
That's what's insulting.
Notice: I'm not doing the same thing. I actually have some substance -- I may have just taught you something about how to make a logical argument (point, counterpoint, etc), if you were paying attention. You haven't said anything of substance, other than repeating the point you made 9 posts back, and throwing in a nice big wad of Ad Hominim.
as I suspected your attack against me was completely baseless.
And as usual, you provide no evidence that it's baseless, or even that I attacked you.
I'm sure your response to this will consist solely of you crying about being insulted...that's about the only angle you can play since it's absurdity is a good distraction from the actual conversation at hand.
Well, you did surprise me -- what is this, "I'm rubber, you're glue"? Am I missing something obvious, or am I the one who linked to Wikipedia? And "waste of my time" coming the very post after I said "counterproductive and pointless"...
Let's ignore the simple fact that industry geniuses such as John Carmack or Tim Sweeney use the one that is found in Wikipedia or any site dedicated to games and descriptions of their game engines.
Yeah... the one that I quoted? The one that specifically mentioned Doom as 2.5D?
Don't respond. That would really surprise me.
If the "fingerprint" is a cryptographic checksum, you should be fine -- though you're still trusting McAfee's servers not to just start randomly quarantine-ing your good files with the bad ones.
Knowing McAfee, I wouldn't be surprised.
Or you could, y'know, disable autorun. It's not particularly difficult. (Not particularly easy, either -- at one point, I could only figure out how to do it via the Registry. But not difficult.)
Now, it might be worth it to have a piece of software (a script, really) that ran around a Windows install and tightened up security across the board -- turned the firewalls on, set passwords, disable autorun, install Firefox, grab updates, etc.
While it's at it, it could tune you up -- enabling Hibernate is about the first thing I do.
I'm sure such a thing exists. But I suspect that all antivirus software, or anything that would call itself antivirus software, is also going to include the after-the-fact scanning, and is going to advertise that well before the actual securing of the system.
And it's worth mentioning -- no other OS comes so thoroughly pwnable out of the box, especially via things like Autorun. I suspect that's even fixed in Vista.
I suppose any company stupid enough to attempt to build antivirus in the first place might be stupid enough to not know about encryption.
Except that I don't think they're actually stupid, just opportunistic. I seriously doubt they wouldn't at least sign them.
Unlikely, the most likely way to do that would be to develop a set of cross platform libraries and then just use those to develop the games in.
Which promotes proper abstraction in the game engine, and still has a chance to expose assumptions you've made (unknowingly) about the way a certain compiler, OS, or CPU architecture operates -- assumptions that might change.
And those are just the obvious ones. Sometimes, there's a real bug which simply occurs more often on another platform.
It would probably end up being something like either the JavaVM or possibly Winelib.
Already exists, somewhat, in the form of OpenGL and SDL -- and that's a hell of a lot better than Winelib, at least.
Of course, the JVM would be a more thorough approach...
PC gaming is individuals sitting at individual computers, looking at tiny monitors (not your 60" TV)
The smallest monitor I have anymore is a 17" laptop monitor. Mostly, I use a 20" desktop monitor -- or both, at work.
Given that it's a diagonal measurement, that's a third the size of that 60" TV. (Not that it would stop me from using that TV anyway -- I have a DVI->HDMI adapter, and my laptop has DVI out.) But it's difficult to split it into thirds -- mostly, it's split into halves or fourths.
Not all games use split-screen, and for those that don't, the console makes sense. But for those that do, suddenly, you've got a 15" chunk of a monitor that's quite a bit farther away, and everyone can see everyone else's screen. With a PC game, I get a larger chunk of real estate, only a couple feet away, with a reasonable assurance that no one else can see my screen.
Why not have two keyboards/mice?
Depends on the game.
I know that with StepMania, even on Linux, I can, in fact, plug in a real CobaltFlux pad. If I remember, I could actually plug two in, and have them correspond to different players -- or have one person use the keyboard, if I wanted to make it completely unfair.
Most games don't support that, though, and while there have been some experiments, most desktop apps really aren't equipped to deal with two cursors.
If you want to, you can configure one computer to power two complete terminals -- two monitors, two keyboards, two mice. It's not going to be easy, and I don't know if Windows can do it (I know how I'd do it on Linux), but it can be done.
The policy in question:
Please note that most Stardock programs have demo versions available for preview prior to buying... full refunds will not be issued for functional software that doesnâ(TM)t live up to your expectations.
Makes sense, doesn't it? And it fits that bill of rights -- that's specifically about games that don't work with your computer.
We do not give refunds on beta software.
Kind of a "duh" moment there.
We do not give full or partial refunds for any subscription renewals.
Might help if they allowed it for a single renewal, but consider the asshat who subscribes for a year, then it stops working, or he wants to stop playing -- so he tries to get his entire year's subscription payments back.
If you are not willing to work with technical support on any problems you are having, or request a refund even if you are not having problems using the software, we will issue a partial refund only.
Also makes sense, given that the refund is for actual problems, not just because you didn't like it. You'll find similar conditions with just about any warranty.
And consider that there really aren't any other publishers offering any kind of return policy. You'd think Steam could afford that -- just disable the game on that account, then you know they're actually no longer playing it.
Note also that there's no limit on it. I've bought laptops with no more than a few months to a year warranty -- that's on a multi-thousand-dollar purchase. So if I can swallow a purchase of thousands of dollars that I might not be able to return, I think I can manage the same for a purchase of, oh, $50 that I might not be able to return.
But in either case, it helps to know that if it's completely DOA, I can return it.
And this is different than consoles, how?
Cross-platform games
Yes, please. Double-win for the gamer -- I can play it on Linux, and more platforms means more ways for it to break, so it should have fewer bugs even on its main platform by release. With the state of the industry now, just about any reduction in bugs is a win.
if you want a CD serial key thats fine as they are easily cracked later in its lifetime, but don't activate it online
I can live with activation online, as long as it's not constant. I'm going to be online when I install, since I need patches then, and since I'm probably downloading it anyway. I'm not going to be online every time I play.
Develop for a generation before,
No, no, a thousand times no. In fact, if you want your game to last, develop for a generation from now. But to do that with any measure of sanity, it needs to be scalable -- and if you've done a half-decent job of that, it should scale back to a generation ago.
See:
- Half-Life 2 (plays on ludicrously cheap hardware, but Valve keeps patching it with new stuff like HDR)
- Doom 3 (required damned good hardware for the time to even play, but you could tweak it to run on a Voodoo3 -- and came with modes which crawled, due to sheer lack of video RAM, even on the biggest card at the time.)
Counterexample:
- Crysis (need I say more? Barely ran on top-of-the-line hardware at the time. Didn't scale down well at all.)
- Introversion games (ok, Darwinia does look cool, so I'm not saying they shouldn't do that -- worth mentioning that it won't ever look better than it does now, though.)
- Starcraft (deliberately low-res for the time, and with almost entirely raster graphics, no way for it to look better until Starcraft II)
Get some investors who have balls, then. Or find a better publisher.
The publisher ultimately doesn't pay the bills. They put money down initially, which they expect to make back when the gamers pay the bills.
Which means, ultimately, the least replaceable part of their job is essentially either a loan or an investment.
I don't think the games themselves really need much help, once they're made. In fact, if a game was made using this system -- a full-on, triple-A production (or whatever you call it) -- but without all the traditional advertising channels... Don't you think Slashdot would pick it up right away?
I'd feel a lot better if that patch existed, somewhere in escrow, in case that happened.
But honestly, it's a compromise I can live with. Steam doesn't force me to keep track of a CD, doesn't fuck up my computer, and does let me re-download the game as often as I like, on as many computers as I like.
The percentage of people who would buy a game, copy it, and then return it for a refund or an exchange is probably so high that they are afraid to do these things.
RTFA. Bascially: Stardock measured an increase in sales when they added refunds, and not that many people bothered to return it.
I suppose there would have to be a point at which you start dealing with abuse, but keep in mind -- most people who want to pirate the game know about BitTorrent. The people who actually bought the game are, mostly, legitimate customers.
I'm thinking a compromise would be in order...
Well, I believe it does allow for the scheme Greenhouse (Penny Arcade) uses -- interestingly, also the scheme Windows XP uses, which was so controversial at the time -- where it phones home once at install, and once on significant hardware changes.
It doesn't do anything with that, yet -- no retarded limits like 3 reinstalls -- I assume it's to serve more as a watermark. If you're sharing it with a thousand of your closest friends via BitTorrent, they'll notice.
That does still bother some people, but honestly, I'm fine with it -- I wouldn't dare reinstall anything without access to the Internet these days. Of course, I'd feel significantly better if there was a crack in escrow somewhere, so that if Greenhouse fails, I can still reinstall.