Unfortunately, I'm an extremely verbose individual. Tacking on all sorts of disclaimers onto every single little thing I say would already serve to further lengthen any commentary by yours truly into even more unwieldly proportions. Therefore, I try my best to avoid these things and simply be as concise as a writer as prolific as myself can be (i.e., not very). You have to take these things into consideration.
Now, when faced with the notion of having a 16-bit system available from one company and only an 8-bit from another, both of which were originally in direct competition with another with their 8-bit machines.. I tend to wait until the lagging company returns fire and make my choice appropriately. Besides, I've always been more into game play than pretty graphics (anyone else think the original Metroid was tough while Super Metroid was ridiculously easy?).
However, in direct answer to your question: my comment was made in the context of the time period when SNES and Genesis were competing with one another, not pre-SNES release date. And you know, there are exceptions to just about everything.
I'm not quite sure how Sony could be compared to Microsoft. I seem to remember a time when the only big game consoles around (with regards to sheer popularity at least) were the Super Nintendo and the Sega Genesis. The very notion that anybody would have bought a Genesis puts an interesting light on the idea that American consumers will buy just about any junky thing so long as it has a good advertising campaign (in Japan Sega wasn't even a contender.. Nintendo won hands down). Nintendo simply slipped.. it's their own fault, really. They had the lead, and then they lost it. That's what we call competition.
Sony is still a relative newcomer to the game console arena (well, in my rather skewed perception of time, that is), and Nintendo is not exactly dead. Neither, apparently, is Sega. This hardly qualifies as any kind of monopoly. Sony's in the lead, but it's still anybody's game. Microsoft, on the other hand, has no real competitors as far as the average end-user is concerned. Of course, the recent waves caused by Red Hat's splash into public view may change all that, but for now..
Also, I don't know about most people, but I'm still rather happy with PlayStation classic. It's a good system, and there a lots of good games (and hey, despite the usually horrible endings, who doesn't love the FF series?). I don't see any reason to drop more cash on a Dreamcast. I like using my money for desktop hardware, personally.
Besides, why bother wasting money on a system when it firsts comes out when a few months later the price will drop? I certainly didn't get a PSX when it first came out, and I rather doubt I'll get the sequel as soon as it hits stores. Back when we made the jump from Nintendo to Super Nintendo, that was a different story. We've gotten to a level now, however, where more eye-candy isn't as much of an attention grabber for me anymore.
As for closed consoles..? Well, why bother? If you want to make a real game, you might as well develop it for a real computer system. After all, why limit yourself to a certain hardware configuration? A lot more games are possible (not to mention more fun) with tons more RAM, faster processors, and all the other bells and whistles that are constantly being pushed past their current limits.
Of course, Loki would be less than worthless as a company if they open sourced their games (well, unless they used something similar to the NPL rather than the GPL.. and they wonder why its mainly Netscape that does the development work for Mozilla..?), although they are already a step ahead of id Software (even though I do so love Wolfenstein/Doom/Quake).
I've been thinking a lot about the pros and cons of commercial vs. free software.. and I believe that games (excepting rather simple ones) should probably remain the domain of commercial programming. Of course, I believe that games should remain reasonably low cost, but then again, I might be sort of biased since I'm designing the layout and other nifty things that will form the foundation for a 3D fully interactive RPG using anime-style graphics (am I nuts or what?).. Well, ones hopes, at least.
And, back to the point, perhaps? Since games of all sorts use stylized characters that the designers and/or companies would like to keep a hold of, GPLing such programs would not be the most productive thing in the world toward this end. Not to mention the fact that these things are strictly entertainment, not any kind of means to an end, besides killing boredom. Reusable tools (like the libraries Loki develops in the course of producting their games) and simple games should remain the focus of this arena.
Personally, I always thought the entire point of the free software movement set into motion by the GNU Project (of which GIMP is a part, unless a lack of sleep has starved my brain of oxygen) because of a desire for freedom. Is freedom of choice no longer a recognized part of those freedoms? I personally think that it's good that as many programs as possible get ported to as many platforms as possible.
Reflecting upon the breaks between the various UNIX systems prior to Microsoft's emergence as a giant with its domination of the OS market with Windoze, I don't believe that it would be such a good idea to limit our choice of platforms today as it was yesterday.
While I might prefer, say, Red Hat Linux, I don't think it's a good thing if software is only developed for Linux. It really frightens me when I see a lot of software developed solely for Linux using Intel-compatible chips. I certainly don't want to be tied down to Intel. Ugh. After all, maybe I'll want to go with Apple and their crazy (and it seems crazy fast) new and soon to be released products.
In short, porting is a good thing. People should do more of it. After all, if you give up just a single freedom, especially something so basic as the freedom of choice, other freedoms are sure to follow soon thereafter. Don't kid yourself, all of them are essential.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, I'm an extremely verbose individual. Tacking on all sorts of disclaimers onto every single little thing I say would already serve to further lengthen any commentary by yours truly into even more unwieldly proportions. Therefore, I try my best to avoid these things and simply be as concise as a writer as prolific as myself can be (i.e., not very). You have to take these things into consideration.
Now, when faced with the notion of having a 16-bit system available from one company and only an 8-bit from another, both of which were originally in direct competition with another with their 8-bit machines.. I tend to wait until the lagging company returns fire and make my choice appropriately. Besides, I've always been more into game play than pretty graphics (anyone else think the original Metroid was tough while Super Metroid was ridiculously easy?).
However, in direct answer to your question: my comment was made in the context of the time period when SNES and Genesis were competing with one another, not pre-SNES release date. And you know, there are exceptions to just about everything.
I'm not quite sure how Sony could be compared to Microsoft. I seem to remember a time when the only big game consoles around (with regards to sheer popularity at least) were the Super Nintendo and the Sega Genesis. The very notion that anybody would have bought a Genesis puts an interesting light on the idea that American consumers will buy just about any junky thing so long as it has a good advertising campaign (in Japan Sega wasn't even a contender.. Nintendo won hands down). Nintendo simply slipped.. it's their own fault, really. They had the lead, and then they lost it. That's what we call competition.
Sony is still a relative newcomer to the game console arena (well, in my rather skewed perception of time, that is), and Nintendo is not exactly dead. Neither, apparently, is Sega. This hardly qualifies as any kind of monopoly. Sony's in the lead, but it's still anybody's game. Microsoft, on the other hand, has no real competitors as far as the average end-user is concerned. Of course, the recent waves caused by Red Hat's splash into public view may change all that, but for now..
Also, I don't know about most people, but I'm still rather happy with PlayStation classic. It's a good system, and there a lots of good games (and hey, despite the usually horrible endings, who doesn't love the FF series?). I don't see any reason to drop more cash on a Dreamcast. I like using my money for desktop hardware, personally.
Besides, why bother wasting money on a system when it firsts comes out when a few months later the price will drop? I certainly didn't get a PSX when it first came out, and I rather doubt I'll get the sequel as soon as it hits stores. Back when we made the jump from Nintendo to Super Nintendo, that was a different story. We've gotten to a level now, however, where more eye-candy isn't as much of an attention grabber for me anymore.
As for closed consoles..? Well, why bother? If you want to make a real game, you might as well develop it for a real computer system. After all, why limit yourself to a certain hardware configuration? A lot more games are possible (not to mention more fun) with tons more RAM, faster processors, and all the other bells and whistles that are constantly being pushed past their current limits.
Of course, Loki would be less than worthless as a company if they open sourced their games (well, unless they used something similar to the NPL rather than the GPL.. and they wonder why its mainly Netscape that does the development work for Mozilla..?), although they are already a step ahead of id Software (even though I do so love Wolfenstein/Doom/Quake).
I've been thinking a lot about the pros and cons of commercial vs. free software.. and I believe that games (excepting rather simple ones) should probably remain the domain of commercial programming. Of course, I believe that games should remain reasonably low cost, but then again, I might be sort of biased since I'm designing the layout and other nifty things that will form the foundation for a 3D fully interactive RPG using anime-style graphics (am I nuts or what?).. Well, ones hopes, at least.
And, back to the point, perhaps? Since games of all sorts use stylized characters that the designers and/or companies would like to keep a hold of, GPLing such programs would not be the most productive thing in the world toward this end. Not to mention the fact that these things are strictly entertainment, not any kind of means to an end, besides killing boredom. Reusable tools (like the libraries Loki develops in the course of producting their games) and simple games should remain the focus of this arena.
Personally, I always thought the entire point of the free software movement set into motion by the GNU Project (of which GIMP is a part, unless a lack of sleep has starved my brain of oxygen) because of a desire for freedom. Is freedom of choice no longer a recognized part of those freedoms? I personally think that it's good that as many programs as possible get ported to as many platforms as possible.
Reflecting upon the breaks between the various UNIX systems prior to Microsoft's emergence as a giant with its domination of the OS market with Windoze, I don't believe that it would be such a good idea to limit our choice of platforms today as it was yesterday.
While I might prefer, say, Red Hat Linux, I don't think it's a good thing if software is only developed for Linux. It really frightens me when I see a lot of software developed solely for Linux using Intel-compatible chips. I certainly don't want to be tied down to Intel. Ugh. After all, maybe I'll want to go with Apple and their crazy (and it seems crazy fast) new and soon to be released products.
In short, porting is a good thing. People should do more of it. After all, if you give up just a single freedom, especially something so basic as the freedom of choice, other freedoms are sure to follow soon thereafter. Don't kid yourself, all of them are essential.