Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Microsoft ruined gaming

Lyric Suite

Converting to Islam
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Messages
56,175
Star Citizen is made for a special kind of autists that got bored off EVE and want something like EVE but decent.

Star Citizien is a pew pew space game. It has almost nothing in common with Eve.

On top of it we don't know if it'll bankrupt him until he releases it in a state he considers to be finished. The more buggy and underdeveloped it'll be, the more it's bankrupting him.

That's besides the point. We are talking about the commercial viability of a game capable of crippling any system but the most powerful. Chris Roberts fucking his own project up doesn't change that fact his game turned out to be the single most profitable crowd funded venture out there. Why? Graphics. I mean, right?

Want another exhibit? How about Skyrim, and the millions of graphical mods made for that game?
 

Jarpie

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Oct 30, 2009
Messages
6,603
Codex 2012 MCA
Didn't Origin sell themselves to EA because it started to get way too expensive to press the disks by themselves and they couldn't get good enough deals for distribution, and cd-rom hadn't hit off yet?
 

IHaveHugeNick

Arcane
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
1,870,124
Yeah, except the reality and the facts do not bear that narrative at all. PC gaming "bounced" back (if you can call it that) when companies started making PC games again.

Lmao, no shit Sherlock. PC market is alive again because people are making games again. That's a deep and thoughtful insight you got there.

The question is, WHY are they making games again. And the reasons are as I've already listed. The problems that scared people away from PC market - fucked up APIs and hardware reqs - no longer exist, thanks to consoles, while Steam killed used game market increasing the profit margins in the process.

Codex elitards being butthurt about 3D (b-b-but muh pixel 2D art) because they still live in the 90s when that shit was actually relevant are anachronistic as fuck if we are talking about the massively uniform decline that hit PC gaming during the 2000s, when the 3D issue was a done deal and when making 3D games was probably in no way such a huge expense. And i mean, it's not like graphic whoring didn't exist before 3D graphics were introduced. One of the reasons adventure games were so popular was because they sported some of the best visuals computer hardware could produce at the time, or have we forgotten about that shit?

People having retarded opinions about 3D, doesn't change the - fact - that initial move to 3D art was financially painful. Stick to the facts mate, nobody gives a shit about your feelings.
 

Lyric Suite

Converting to Islam
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Messages
56,175
Lmao, no shit Sherlock. PC market is alive again because people are making games again. That's a deep and thoughtful insight you got there.

The question is, WHY are they making games again. And the reasons are as I've already listed. The problems that scared people away from PC market - fucked up APIs and hardware reqs - no longer exist, thanks to consoles, while Steam killed used game market increasing the profit margins in the process.

Sometimes i wonder why i bother engaging retards. We are not talking about the PC "market". We are talking about games specifically made for the PC and not diluted for console consumption. This was possible only because developers side stepped big publishers thanks to new emerging financing options that weren't available before. This has nothing to do with consoles making PC games "profitable" again, and you mentioning Steam at the last second shows how even yourself do not really believe in that argument.

But here. Show me how much more modern "incline" games are selling compared to the old classics who were "struggling with bad APIs or hardware requirements". Let's see if your argument bears out in reality, shall we?

People having retarded opinions about 3D, doesn't change the - fact - that initial move to 3D art was financially painful. Stick to the facts mate, nobody gives a shit about your feelings.

Is it a fact though? Show me the numbers.
 
Unwanted

Irenaeus II

Unwanted
Dumbfuck Repressed Homosexual The Real Fanboy
Joined
Jun 9, 2015
Messages
3,251
Location
Rio de Janeiro, Cidade Desespero
On the 3D revolution as cause for gaming ruin:

The crux of the issue is that 3D certainly didn't help to bring better games as a whole, despite a few exceptions. Most of what I consider the better games in strategy/simulation genres of the early to late 90s games had 2D graphics and their 3D sequels are "eh" at best compared (Age of Empires, Civilization, Sim City, Dune 2/C&C) since with 3D modelling and physics making complex game mechanics in top of that sounds like a nightmare for a hobbyist like me. Could I be wrong here? I just think of how the evolution of series like The Sims who got their mechanics dumbed down even as they added bells and whistles, because higher production values meant needing the larger lower IQ markets (women, faggots and ignorant little children without fathers or guidance). I think the only 3D games that really benefited from the technology were targeting games, such as vehicle simulations, racing games, ship battles or FPS/TPS, the latter which is the defining unthinking men's game. Speaking of FPS here, I'll make a digression to state that in my opinion, Doom 2 and Tomb Raider are still more fun than any following FPS/TPS, like the recent offerings Ass Creed or Bioshock, save for a few inspired exceptions like the first Tomb Raider. But that might just be nostalgia, since Doom 2 and Tomb Raider are also just stupid fun and not that complex games.

Turning to the 3D discussion for RPGs, I think 2D is fine even for first person view, like Dungeon Master, Lands of Lore and Ultima Underworld, since combat and exploration are more abstracted. Some games like Deux Ex, Gothic and VtmB may have benefited from 3D engines, but apparently those game bankrupted their companies, because production values escalated to only what big money can reach. Much more than demand for good games, at least. Are there any other good examples? From recent successes, Bethesda or Bioware games, are exactly what I have in mind when I think how it is impossible to combine high production values 3D modelling and physics to make complex game mechanics. The solution is using "free" low end engines like Unity or Unreal to make less expensive PC games, but that has problems of its own.

The complex technology constraint of 3D engines added to the catering to the low IQ console masses, since the late 90s with the PS1 and XBOX, have both contributed for ruining computer gaming, but I blame the scaling of costs and search for largest markets more than expensive technology per se. As a naive hopeful addendum, some small venues of good cRPG production still subsists, for while microscopic, niche demand for good games is here until we die (as long as we keep women, faggots and ignorant little children away from our favourite industry).
 
Unwanted

a Goat

Unwanted
Dumbfuck Edgy Vatnik
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Messages
6,941
Location
Albania
I just think of how the evolution of series like The Sims who got their mechanics dumbed down even as they added bells and whistles, because higher production values meant needing the larger lower IQ markets (women, faggots and ignorant little children without fathers or guidance).

The Sims died because after 2 was released, Will Wright left to make Spore(and fail at it). Then it was all under some EA guidance, which got extremely visible in 4.

Funny thing about The Sims is that if they'd spin it correctly, they would get very interesting game but instead they've pursued the virtual dollhouse idea.
 

pippin

Guest
In other news Microsoft also ruined Windows.

The good news is that new pcs are not being bundled anymore. I was browsing through the catalog of a local retailer and at least 60% of the computers they had (mostly their mid-to-high tier products) don't have any OS installed. The bad news is that they also sell Windows, and that's still quite expensive.
 
Unwanted

Irenaeus II

Unwanted
Dumbfuck Repressed Homosexual The Real Fanboy
Joined
Jun 9, 2015
Messages
3,251
Location
Rio de Janeiro, Cidade Desespero
Funny thing about The Sims is that if they'd spin it correctly, they would get very interesting game but instead they've pursued the virtual dollhouse idea.

Yes, I'm still waiting for a hardcore "The Sims" PC game done by high IQ white men for high IQ white adults, dealing with the harsh realities of life. Maybe in 2D.
 

IHaveHugeNick

Arcane
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
1,870,124
Sometimes i wonder why i bother engaging retards. We are not talking about the PC "market".

Maybe you aren't, because I certainly was. Healthy gaming market cant just survive off indies. Just like movie industry needs Hollywood, gaming industry needs the EA's and the Ubisofts to create demand and drive technology forward with big budgets. Market demand for mature games would never take off if people weren't even aware that gaming is a thing. Nobody starts gaming as niche-indie-hipster gamer, we all start with the mainstream.

If console dillluted games aren't on PC market, then there's no PC market at all.

Show me how much more modern "incline" games are selling compared to the old classics who were "struggling with bad APIs or hardware requirements".

I gladly will, as soon as you explain to me what the fuck does that even have to do with Xbox supposedly ruining PC gaming. Oh right, fucking nothing.

Is it a fact though? Show me the numbers.

If you cant't comprehend how creating a model with 16 colors and 5 pixels is cheaper than creating a model with 1 million polygons, I don't know what to tell you.
 

Telengard

Arcane
Joined
Nov 27, 2011
Messages
1,621
Location
The end of every place
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

...let's do this.

Sierra: Heading into the 90s, Ken Williams was getting nervous at the rising costs of staying on top of technologies, as well as rising company debts, plus he had some choice words to say about the Nintendo generation. And - after having a talk with Bill Gates - decided on an aggressive expansion of the company in order to diversify the portfolio, as well as move starkly away from adventure games to business software and a few annual gaming titles (ie sports). They also pursued the new gamers with 3d and cartoon art, but failed to capture a new audience. And finally, the company was also taken pubic in order to fund all this. Allegedly, all this put Sierra back on track to making a profit. But it also ultimately led to the takeover by CUC, a takeover in which management had no say, since the offer on the table was 90% over the market price, and the investors grabbed it with both hands. CUC flushed a lot of people, and eventually merged with HFS Incorporated to form Cendant. But there was major fraud going on a HFS, and the stock of Cendant tanked, leading them to sell their entire games division to Havas. A major corporate merger including Havas led to the formation of Vivendi Universal. Which led to even more Sierra layoffs, and eventually its closure.

Dynamix: Was on the verge of bankruptcy when it was acquired in '90 by Sierra during that company's acquisitions spree.

Microprose: As it approached the 90s, Micrprose attempted to diversify its portfolio to hedge against rising costs, expanding into action games and arcade games with a heavy dose of 3d tech investment. A plan which failed, leading to Micropose going public in order to help cover the debt. As a part of helping them avoid bank acquisition, Mircoprose merged with Spectrum Holobyte in '93. As part of the merger a lot of UK staff were cut (and Sony opened up a branch of newly acquired Psygnosis nearby specifically to attract ex-Micropose employees). But Spectrum Holobyte wasn't doing that well either. In a few years, more cuts and other management decisions led to the last core members of Micropose leaving in '96. Eventually ending in a sale to Hasbro in '98. Then in '01, when Infogrames took over Hasbro, Micropose ceased to exist.

Psygnosis: No financial issue, but for those who believe Sony doesn't mess with Western developers. Pysgnosis was a PC developer who was acquired by Sony in '93 because of its 3d work, specifically because Sony wanted them to make games for its new Playstation console. And the rest, as they say, is history.

SSI: In the 80s, SSI had a long and successful run with the D&D franchise. But by '90, everyone was calling their games "dated" and sales were waning. SSI attempted to innovate and thus recapture its audience with such things as blobbers and "space"ship action, but ultimately failed to succeed and lost the exclusive license. With their strategy games also flagging, SSI was forced to sell, handing themselves over to Mindscape in '93. Mindscape in turn sold itself to Pearson PLC in '94, then on to Mattel in '98 for a stupid amount of money, leading to a quick sale to Gore Technologies. And eventually on to Ubisoft, who would retire the SSI name.

Interplay: Hope I don't have to detail them.
 

IHaveHugeNick

Arcane
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
1,870,124
For those who believe Sony doesn't mess with Western developers.

People actually think that? Lmao.

I loved the whole wannabe-controversy when Microsoft locked down timed-exclusivity for the new Tomb-Raider game, making it come late on Playstation 4. As if Sony didn't do the exact fucking thing, with the same fucking franchise, back in the 90s.
 

TedNugent

Arcane
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
6,334
I like how OP recognizes that Microsoft originated gaming cancer and fails to mention Xbox Live.
 

Lyric Suite

Converting to Islam
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Messages
56,175
If you cant't comprehend how creating a model with 16 colors and 5 pixels is cheaper than creating a model with 1 million polygons, I don't know what to tell you.

16 colors and 5 pixels games that costed next to nothing to make:

wallpaper08_hd.jpg

screen12.jpg

2.-torment.jpg


vs 1 billion polygons games that bankrupted the PC industry:

1406884962697.png


vs cheapo 3D graphics that was possible only because consoles have standardized the industry to peasant levels:

pillars-of-eternity-screenshot.jpg


vs standardized peasant level in question:

805191.jpg

1371178394-each-village-in-skellige-varies-in-population-and-architecture-offering-a-new-experience.jpg

:nocountryforshitposters:
 
Last edited:

IHaveHugeNick

Arcane
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
1,870,124
You have a point to make, or are you just speed posting random screenshots in last ditch attempt not to look like a moron?

Because if its the latter, its not working.

jDYNuke.gif
 

Lyric Suite

Converting to Islam
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Messages
56,175
The point is that the argument is defeated by the actual reality. But hey, far from me to try to convert a retard. 3D graphics bankrupted PC gaming, but console peasantry saved it! Codex autism at it's finest, clinging to a pet grievance to the point of absurdity and against all evidence to the contrary.
 

Destroid

Arcane
Joined
May 9, 2007
Messages
16,628
Location
Australia
The rest of you unwashed neckbeards, have no fucking clue whatsoever on just how bad things had gotten in the late 90s on the PC market with amount of conflicting hardware. Back then everybody with a bit of sense was running to the console market to save their business, because it was no longer financially possible to technically support all the myriad PC configurations.

It took PS3 and 360 stabilizing the hardware requirements, or as clueless millennials like to call it, "neutering the progress", for developers to return to PC market knowing they can actually make profitable ports that most machines will run. And now PS4 and X1 are fulfilling that same function exactly.

In the late 90s there were two viable CPU makes and two viable GPU makes, plus consoles, just as it is today. In fact now there are three major GPU makers since many people use integrated Intels.
 

TedNugent

Arcane
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
6,334
Actually, it's a ridiculous concept, because only within this console generation have console developers started making standard X86 CPUs. The last three console generations, where this supposed incline to console development took place, used custom PowerPC designs that were mutually exclusive with PC development (a big reason why console-to-PC ports were steaming shit), and in some cases mutually exclusive with each other (see Xbox 360 and PS3, WII crossplatform development). Oh, and they were almost entirely in-order operation processors (the exception was the Wii). Then you have the nutty Cell processor which was designed by IBM exclusively for the Playstation 3 game console, which had one "SPU" (general purpose processing unit) and 7 "PPU's" (Parallel processing units), which required an intense amount of tweaking. Most developers in the first and second year ended up only using the one SPU and were unable to use even one PPU, or may have utilized one PPU and one SPU within the second year of development.

Games on PS3 that were multi platform with the Xbox 360 were notorious leading all the way up through the lifecycle for being a horrendous bear. Since I was a PS3 early adopter, I had the privilege of playing some of the steaming pile of shit Xbox 360 ports during the first 2 years of the console's release.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC-based_game_consoles

In fact, the best thing about this new gen (PS4) of console development is that both the XOne and the PS4 have baseline non-custom AMD X86 hardware with out-of-order processing that doesn't require specific repurposing just to get shit to run efficiently on those platforms. Now developers can create one similar set of code and easily port it from XOne and PS4 (which both have basically the same CPU and GPU and unified memory), to the PC and back again. This is the big reason why we will be seeing a crossplatform PC porting renaissance all through this cycle that was the envy of the last console cycle of ass-ports.
 

Archibald

Arcane
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
7,869
The point is that the argument is defeated by the actual reality. But hey, far from me to try to convert a retard. 3D graphics bankrupted PC gaming, but console peasantry saved it! Codex autism at it's finest, clinging to a pet grievance to the point of absurdity and against all evidence to the contrary.

We have yet to see any evidence from you.
 

Telengard

Arcane
Joined
Nov 27, 2011
Messages
1,621
Location
The end of every place
Shall we do some more Sony PC acquisitions?
  • Former PC dev Psygnosis is dead, by the way, closed down by Sony several years ago. It had long since effectively ceased to exist anyway, was merely a shell called SCE Studio Liverpool. (That's Sony Computer Entertainment Studio Liverpool, in case you didn't know Sony corporate naming. You'll find a number of SCE's across America and Europe.)
  • American company Jam Software used to make PC and Apple II games. You may recognize them under their new name - Naughty Dog. Acquired by Sony in '00.
  • Zipper Interactive was an American PC dev best known for Mechwarrior 3 and Crimson Skies. Began working exclusively with Sony in '00 for SOCOM, and eventually was acquired. Later closed down.
  • Evolution Studios from the UK made a rally demo for PC, and was hired by Sony in '01 to make games exclusively for the PS2, later acquired, and now after subsequent layoffs, tasked with making their latest game into a service.
Yep, Sony would never ever mess with Western PC devs...
 

IHaveHugeNick

Arcane
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
1,870,124
The point is that the argument is defeated by the actual reality

Mate, if you want to make an argument from reality, you need to actually comprehend the reality first. Only a complete moron would even attempt to argue about price of development by comparing screenshots.

In the late 90s there were two viable CPU makes and two viable GPU makes, plus consoles, just as it is today.

Which you had to continuously upgrade because shit just wouldn't run, yeah.

When Morrowind came out, I've spend weeks modding it, customizing it, and endlessly editing the ini files, before I finally managed to make it run acceptable, on mid-range GPU that I bought a year earlier. Even after all that, I still had to reboot the PC every 60 minutes to keep things smooth.

Of course most people would just crawl to their momma and beg for a new GPU. Unfortunately I didn't have that option anymore as it was first PC I bought myself, picking up grapes during high school summer break.

See, shit like this just doesn't happen anymore. It just doesn't. Your machine doesn't go out of service after 2 years. Yeah, old PC won't run full on Ultra 120FPS in 4K resolution, but it will run games for many years. It takes one look on Steam hardware stats to see there are plenty people who have to play newest games on 720p. But they do play, which means they also buy. This keeps PC market big, healthy and alive, and its all because of consoles keeping the graphics down.

We will either have healthy PC market, or rapidly advancing graphics and tech. Its either or. You can't have it both ways.
 

Lyric Suite

Converting to Islam
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Messages
56,175
Mate, if you want to make an argument from reality, you need to actually comprehend the reality first. Only a complete moron would even attempt to argue about price of development by comparing screenshots.

I was responding to the "16 pixels vs 1 billion polygons" argument, which was quite obviously fallacious. You want to play the sophist while accusing others of making bad arguments.

When Morrowind came out, I've spend weeks modding it, customizing it, and endlessly editing the ini files, before I finally managed to make it run acceptable, on mid-range GPU that I bought a year earlier. Even after all that, I still had to reboot the PC every 60 minutes to keep things smooth.

This only happened because of 3D graphics. People didn't upgrade their computers to run new games. Nobody ever bought a Matrox card to run Duke Nukem at higher resolution. Nobody ever upgraded their 386 to run Doom. That shit just didn't happen.

See, shit like this just doesn't happen anymore. It just doesn't.

Riiiiight:



Your machine doesn't go out of service after 2 years. Yeah, old PC won't run full on Ultra 120FPS in 4K resolution, but it will run games for many years. It takes one look on Steam hardware stats to see there are plenty people who have to play newest games on 720p. But they do play, which means they also buy. This keeps PC market big, healthy and alive, and its all because of consoles keeping the graphics down

Except the PC market is neither healthy nor alive, because the vast majority of games are actually console games. True PC games aren't being made anymore (unless you use alternative financing channels, something which has nothing to do with console peasantry lowering system requirements. To wit: Star Citizen), and that is entirely the fault of multiplatform development. When the industry declared that PC gaming was unprofitable, it meant only console games were going to be made. That is what led to the decline.
 
Last edited:

Karellen

Arcane
Joined
Jan 3, 2012
Messages
327
Except the PC market is neither healthy nor alive, because the vast majority of games are actually console games. True PC games aren't being made anymore (unless you use alternative financing channels, something which has nothing to do with console peasantry lowering system requirements. To wit: Star Citizen), and that is entirely the fault of multiplatform development. When the industry declared that PC gaming was unprofitable, it meant only console games were going to be made. That is what led to the decline.

My problem with this explanation is that the decline isn't a PC gaming problem, it's a gaming problem. Console games have also declined tremendously since the 90s - just compare the original Tomb Raider to the newest one and you can actually feel your brain cells necrotising. Also, come to think of it, Tomb Raider itself was a multiplatform game that came out on both consoles and PC, as were many other good games from the 32-bit era like Abe's Oddysee, Soul Reaver, Resident Evil and, indeed, Final Fantasy VII. Multiplatform games already existed at that point, but that didn't render PC-exclusive genres unviable. So do you suppose something else might be the root cause for both the disappearance of the bulk of the PC-exclusive market and the decline of console games?
 

TedNugent

Arcane
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
6,334
I think the idea that development costs have forced publishers to tap into larger and larger pools of dumbasses, causing "lowest common denominator" game development is the squarest. Like this guy said about the 3D era:

On the 3D revolution as cause for gaming ruin:

The crux of the issue is that 3D certainly didn't help to bring better games as a whole, despite a few exceptions. Most of what I consider the better games in strategy/simulation genres of the early to late 90s games had 2D graphics and their 3D sequels are "eh" at best compared (Age of Empires, Civilization, Sim City, Dune 2/C&C) since with 3D modelling and physics making complex game mechanics in top of that sounds like a nightmare for a hobbyist like me. Could I be wrong here? I just think of how the evolution of series like The Sims who got their mechanics dumbed down even as they added bells and whistles, because higher production values meant needing the larger lower IQ markets (women, faggots and ignorant little children without fathers or guidance). I think the only 3D games that really benefited from the technology were targeting games, such as vehicle simulations, racing games, ship battles or FPS/TPS, the latter which is the defining unthinking men's game. Speaking of FPS here, I'll make a digression to state that in my opinion, Doom 2 and Tomb Raider are still more fun than any following FPS/TPS, like the recent offerings Ass Creed or Bioshock, save for a few inspired exceptions like the first Tomb Raider. But that might just be nostalgia, since Doom 2 and Tomb Raider are also just stupid fun and not that complex games.

Note that the 3D development wasn't the only big thing that drove up development costs. The increasing texture resolutions and continuous demand for newer and better graphics engines has required higher fidelity assets. The obsessive compulsion amongst video game review sites for voice acted content and motion captured animation, the latter of which requires the use of a dedicated studio beyond the reach of most budget game developers has also driven up costs of development exponentially.

The ironic thing is that PC can utilize brute force solutions such as higher polygon counts/resolution/draw distances, but console development has emphasized post processing and blending motion captured animation with studio level facial captures, which is a more "Hollywood" approach to increase fidelity in their games.

Great example in the New York Times this morning:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/07/b...ts-own-studio-to-showcase-its-games.html?_r=0

Jew York Times said:
LOS ANGELES — Activision Blizzard, a gaming company that this week disclosed plans to acquire King Digital Entertainment for $5.9 billion, said it already had a next step in mind: the creation of an internal film and television studio.

On Friday, Activision Blizzard said a newly formed studios unit would develop and produce movies and TV shows based on about 1,000 titles in its company library. Those include the Call of Duty and Skylanders games, as well as Candy Crush, which is among the titles acquired with King.

The new unit will be led by Nick van Dyk, who was previously a senior vice president of corporate strategy for the Walt Disney Company, Activision Blizzard said. The first production planned from the studio will be an animated “Skylanders Academy” television series.

$6 billion for Candy Crush, which is a low budget smartphone game, and then they're building an entire Hollywood studio for promotion for their shit-tier garbage like Cowadoody. :lol: Makes me wonder why they didn't just spend 1/100th that amount on making their own Candy Crush clone.
 
Last edited:

Archibald

Arcane
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
7,869
They didn't spend it because Candy Crush already exists. Mobile market is full of copy cat games, adding another to the mix doesn't really change anything. Better to buy most popular one. Thou price is absurd either way.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom