HDTV Spells The End to Computer Gaming

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

I’m a computer game player first and formost. But after playing Halo2
on Xbox I couldn’t help but thinking that the already dwindling
computer gaming scene will shrink even further. The cinematic
experience of playing games on a 50 inche screen with full blasting
5.1 audio simply cannot be matched by computer. Make no mistake, HDTV
is here to stay and HD DVD is coming before the end of 2005. In 2 or
3 years time, you probably can but a 50 inche HDTV for close to a
thousand buck and pick up a $99 5.1 package on your way out of
Walmart.



Why play games on computers anymore? Sports and action games are
already better to be played on HDTV. The adventure genre has been
dead like water for close to a decade. That leaves only the strategy
and simulation genres which computer has an edge on.



The next generation consoles could easily handle the 1080i HDTV
graphic requirements which essentially requires the processing power
of 540p. Why would anyone spend $500 to buy the latest Nvidia card
just to play Doom 3 in front of a 19” screen when they can buy a $150
Xbox and play the same game on a 50” screen?



I know I might sound cliché but I truly see computer gaming, my
beloved past time for the last ten years, die within the next 5 years
or so.
38 answers Last reply
More about hdtv spells computer gaming
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
    news:rkigv0t4066vvjvdsr4kj6lc3d35jaed21@4ax.com...
    > I’m a computer game player first and formost.
    <snip>
    > Why play games on computers anymore? Sports and action games are
    > already better to be played on HDTV. The adventure genre has been
    > dead like water for close to a decade. That leaves only the strategy
    > and simulation genres which computer has an edge on.

    You'll be happy to learn that it's quite easy to hook up computers to
    HDTV's, and has been for a number of years.

    www.ati.com

    Pagan
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    *yawn* ... another "PC gaming is dead" thread to kill... and after
    2004, the biggest year in PC gaming ever. Some people just don't "get
    it" that a market doesn't have to grow as fast as console gaming in
    order to survive, even prosper. They also don't get it that when their
    is a predominant paradigm, people will pay big bugs to transcend it,
    and businesses want those bucks.

    And why should I limit my resolution to HDTV? I already game at higher
    resolutions. Anyway I payed way less than $500 for my last video card
    that plays Doom 3 full-out. PC gaming is actually more affordable and
    more enjoyable then ever.

    Next troll, please.
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    2004 being biggest year in PC gaming? This reminds me of all those fans
    who used to claims OS2 is superior to Windows, or Mac is better than PC
    in everyway. Die-hard fans never realize the facts as I have observed.
    I would call 2004 is one of the most disappointing year for PC gaming
    instead, unless one plays only MMORPG and FPS, there is hardly any
    interesting titles in 2004 compared to the past.
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    HDTV's aren't cheap enough... yet. When the price for a 50 inch display
    gets down to 500 dollars or so, maybe then they will be adopted by the
    masses. Are you aware only about 55 percent of the country's population has
    home access to the internet? Not everybody is wired in.
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    nospam@nospam.com wrote in news:rkigv0t4066vvjvdsr4kj6lc3d35jaed21@4ax.com:

    > Why play games on computers anymore? Sports and action games are
    > already better to be played on HDTV.

    Are you suggesting to play sports/action games on 50" HDTV?? To get a
    decent picture you'll have to sit meters away from it. This will introduce
    horrible lag required for the light waves to travel from the screen to your
    eyes and then for your input to the console. Or if you put your console
    near yourself, things will be even worse, because you'll be seeing the
    picture that has been hopelessly outdated because of the time it will take
    it to reach HDTV.

    No competitive gamer would do such a thing ;)
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 02:03:20 GMT, nospam@nospam.com wrote:

    >I’m a computer game player first and formost. But after playing Halo2
    >on Xbox I couldn’t help but thinking that the already dwindling
    >computer gaming scene will shrink even further. The cinematic
    >experience of playing games on a 50 inche screen with full blasting
    >5.1 audio simply cannot be matched by computer. Make no mistake, HDTV
    >is here to stay and HD DVD is coming before the end of 2005. In 2 or
    >3 years time, you probably can but a 50 inche HDTV for close to a
    >thousand buck and pick up a $99 5.1 package on your way out of
    >Walmart.
    >
    >
    >
    >Why play games on computers anymore?

    Because I don't like shooting games.
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    alexti wrote:

    This will introduce
    > horrible lag required for the light waves to travel from the screen to your
    > eyes and then for your input to the console.

    Lol. Remind me never to play you at online - speed of light not quick
    enough for you eh? :-)


    --
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
    conscientious stupidity."

    Martin Luther King, Jr.
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) writes:
    >On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 02:03:20 GMT, nospam@nospam.com wrote:
    >>I'm a computer game player first and formost. But after playing Halo2
    >>on Xbox I couldn't help but thinking that the already dwindling
    >>computer gaming scene will shrink even further. The cinematic
    >>experience of playing games on a 50 inche screen with full blasting
    >>5.1 audio simply cannot be matched by computer. Make no mistake, HDTV
    >>is here to stay and HD DVD is coming before the end of 2005. In 2 or
    >>3 years time, you probably can but a 50 inche HDTV for close to a
    >>thousand buck and pick up a $99 5.1 package on your way out of
    >>Walmart.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>Why play games on computers anymore?

    >Because I don't like shooting games.

    Even if you do, I haven't seen any console game, Halo included, that is
    as good as Halflife 2....

    --
    Chas Blackwell <Black Isis> CITES Systems Management Group
    <cblkwell@uiuc.edu>
    I don't even know what CITES stands
    for, so I don't speak for them.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "As we were forged we shall return, perhaps some day. | VNV Nation,
    I will remember you and wonder who we were." | "Further"
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    "David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
    news:41f842dc.1340254981@news.telusplanet.net...
    > On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 02:03:20 GMT, nospam@nospam.com wrote:
    >
    >>Why play games on computers anymore?
    >
    > Because I don't like shooting games.

    Besides which, despite Halo and Halo 2, most shooting games are better on
    PC, using mouse control (and Halo would be too if it weren't such a poor
    conversion).
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:22:34 GMT, The Grand Wombat
    <wombatgrand@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >And there's so little for a turn-based strategy gamer like me there, I
    >don't even know why I bother looking anymore.


    Imagine how the text based adventure guys feel.
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    On 26 Jan 2005 18:44:27 -0800, "HangFire" <hangfirew8@netscape.net>
    wrote:

    >*yawn* ... another "PC gaming is dead" thread to kill... and after
    >2004, the biggest year in PC gaming ever.

    Huh? I don't appreciate the trolls any more than you do, but PC game
    sales dropped 12% last year:

    http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/stocks/troywolverton/10204379.html?cm_ven=YAHOO&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    > In 2 or 3 years time, you probably can but a 50 inche HDTV for close
    > to a thousand buck and pick up a $99 5.1 package on your way out of
    > Walmart.

    In Wal-mart the other day and they had a 47" Plasma for ~$2200 and 5.1
    speaker package for $89.
    --
    Mac Cool
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    no@nowhere.com wrote:
    > Just walk into any software store and look at the dwindling shelf
    > space for PC games. The PC sections today remind me of the Mac
    section
    > that have disappeared. ;(

    Who in their right mind buys PC games in a software store? We're not
    gullible teenage console gamers with no credit card willing to pay over
    the odds for the latest console game from the local store: we can buy
    online and save money.

    Even if the store has the game on release day and online stores don't,
    there's little benefit these days when most games are full of bugs (in
    some cases to the extent of being literally unplayable, or at least
    impossible to complete) until the first patch.

    Mark
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    nospam@nospam.com wrote:
    > The cinematic
    > experience of playing games on a 50 inche screen with full blasting
    > 5.1 audio simply cannot be matched by computer.

    Yeah, why would I want to play games at 75fps on a progressive display
    with 7.1 sound when I could be playing at 25fps on an interlaced
    display with 5.1?

    Sarcasm aside, I can see some benefits: the only console game I've
    liked enough to play much was 'Point Blank', and shooters like that
    with gun controllers would probably benefit substantially from big
    displays without losing much from low frame rates. But otherwise... why
    would I sacrifice the quality of a PC monitor and sound card for an
    HDTV display?

    Mark
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    When Brad Wardell starts developing exclusively for consoles, then you
    know the world has come to an end. As of now, consoles do not get
    moddable games, or enough strategy titles. Massive Multiplayer is also
    lacking.

    PC gaming, at this stands now, is the entry point for people into the
    business. Doing mods also is a major subset of this.

    So, no PC gaming won't ever die. Become marginalized, yes, but not
    die.

    - Richard Hutnik
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    <the_professor@atbi.com> wrote

    > The Grand Wombat wrote:
    >>And there's so little for a turn-based strategy gamer like me there, I
    >>don't even know why I bother looking anymore.

    > Imagine how the text based adventure guys feel.

    Strangely enough, although there are few (if any) professional games being
    released, I bet there's loads of amateur ones.

    Whereas it takes several person-years to produce a top class 3D FPS, it's
    still possible for a single person to produce a decent text adventure in
    their spare time.
  17. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    Nats wrote:
    > I thought Microsoft was going to produce their next console with
    harddrive
    > etc? This would make is very similar to a PC. All PCs are are
    consoles with
    > a harddrive and non standard components. Once someone produces a
    decent
    > console with a harddrive and internet access that can play games
    equivalent
    > to a PC I for one will be glad to get rid of this rubbish machine -
    PCs are
    > just far too much trouble. Every game you get seems to be unstable in
    some
    > way because of your particular set up. And no matter how fast your
    machine
    > is theres always a new game that will play too slowly on it. And
    older games
    > play far too fast. Give me a decent stable gameplaying machine
    anyday. As
    > long as it can connect to a printer and be used as a wordprocessor
    etc I
    > wont be worried about leaving PCs behind.


    Do you care what kind of games do you play? I mean, does it not matter
    to you whether the title is a twitch candy game or a strategy title?

    This is the problem with consoles, there aren't enough strategy titles
    with them. For one thing, I am not getting
    http://www.zillionsofgames.com on them or http://www.brettspielwelt.de
    either.

    - Richard Hutnik
  18. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 02:03:20 GMT, nospam@nospam.com wrote:

    >Why play games on computers anymore?

    Because of the games. The games I have on PS2 are no match and nowhere
    near as interesting (for me) as the games I play on my PC.

    >The next generation consoles could easily handle the 1080i HDTV
    >graphic requirements which essentially requires the processing power
    >of 540p. Why would anyone spend $500 to buy the latest Nvidia card
    >just to play Doom 3 in front of a 19” screen when they can buy a $150
    >Xbox and play the same game on a 50” screen?

    1. Because it is not the same game on the console. Smaller levels due
    to memory restrictions? Having to use a gamepad for a FPS?

    2. Because Doom III is not the only type of game on PCs.

    >I know I might sound cliché but I truly see computer gaming, my
    >beloved past time for the last ten years, die within the next 5 years
    >or so.

    No it won't, for the simple reason that anyone is free to make PC
    games, while for making console games you need to get a license. But
    it may be true that you will get blockbuster games on PC less, and
    they will primarily appear on consoles.

    Well, if the console games are as boring as the PS2 and XBox games of
    today (just with better graphics), I may just as well give up gaming
    altogether at that point.
  19. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:22:34 GMT, The Grand Wombat
    <wombatgrand@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >You've hit the nail on the head, here. In the last year, I've seen shelf
    >space for PC games be cut in half in the local software stores. It does
    >remind me of the shrinking Mac sections of years past, but it reminds me a
    >lot more of the shrinking sections for records and cassettes in music
    >stores.
    >
    >If there's little shelf space, there's little sales. Even stores like

    Have you taken into account the online sales here? (I am not talking
    about Steam here)

    I assume PC gamers buy games online more often than console gamers,
    after all you use a PC to order your stuff online, not really
    achievably that well on consoles even if some of them may have some
    rudimentary online web browsing. ;-)

    >And there's so little for a turn-based strategy gamer like me there, I
    >don't even know why I bother looking anymore.

    Consoles are your answer then? Turn-based strategy games are a true
    niche market, there must be around 10 people around the world still
    interested in them. Lack of them hardly says anything about the
    "demise of PC gaming", it just says there aren't enough people
    interested in that niche market.

    Are consoles in trouble because there are less and less 2D shooters on
    them? I mean, SNES and even Sega Saturn had more of them.
  20. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 04:30:52 GMT, Spalls Hurgenson <yoinks@ebalu.com>
    wrote:

    >Nonetheless, 2004 was a pretty poor year for PC games, with only a few
    >"must haves"; hopefully next year (erm, this year :) will be better.

    It is interesting though that 2004 is touted as a poor year for PC
    games, even though it had two of the most awaited action games
    released (Doom 3 and Half-life 2), and other high-profile games as
    well like FarCry, Rome: Total War and Forgotten Battles. I've seen far
    worse years PC gaming-wise.

    What would you call a "a good PC gaming year" then? Hopefully in this
    millenium.
  21. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    I'm personally surprised thats all they dropped. But the bulk of the buying
    must certainly be FPS and RTS games which are artificially keeping the genre
    going. Otherwise PC gaming is either dead or stagnating. Certainly theres no
    good strategy, space or flight sim games coming out. I cant remember the
    time I last saw a new fun playable imaginative game on the horizon, except
    Silent Hunter 2 (perhaps) and thats still a sequel.

    Developers are all money based these days, theres no fun factor in the
    industry now.

    --
    Regards
    Nats

    "It's life, Jim, but not as we know it."

    "Joe62" <jmcginnNOSPAM@radicalREALLYNOSPAM.ca> wrote in message
    news:05piv09q5p81rhg530de2u8f23cqsr3l28@4ax.com...
    > On 26 Jan 2005 18:44:27 -0800, "HangFire" <hangfirew8@netscape.net>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>*yawn* ... another "PC gaming is dead" thread to kill... and after
    >>2004, the biggest year in PC gaming ever.
    >
    > Huh? I don't appreciate the trolls any more than you do, but PC game
    > sales dropped 12% last year:
    >
    > http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/stocks/troywolverton/10204379.html?cm_ven=YAHOO&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA
  22. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    I thought Microsoft was going to produce their next console with harddrive
    etc? This would make is very similar to a PC. All PCs are are consoles with
    a harddrive and non standard components. Once someone produces a decent
    console with a harddrive and internet access that can play games equivalent
    to a PC I for one will be glad to get rid of this rubbish machine - PCs are
    just far too much trouble. Every game you get seems to be unstable in some
    way because of your particular set up. And no matter how fast your machine
    is theres always a new game that will play too slowly on it. And older games
    play far too fast. Give me a decent stable gameplaying machine anyday. As
    long as it can connect to a printer and be used as a wordprocessor etc I
    wont be worried about leaving PCs behind.

    --
    Regards
    Nats

    "It's life, Jim, but not as we know it."
    <richardhutnik@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1106922890.914948.157110@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    > When Brad Wardell starts developing exclusively for consoles, then you
    > know the world has come to an end. As of now, consoles do not get
    > moddable games, or enough strategy titles. Massive Multiplayer is also
    > lacking.
    >
    > PC gaming, at this stands now, is the entry point for people into the
    > business. Doing mods also is a major subset of this.
    >
    > So, no PC gaming won't ever die. Become marginalized, yes, but not
    > die.
    >
    > - Richard Hutnik
    >
  23. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    Hi,

    Nats <nstutt@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
    #And no matter how fast your machine
    #is theres always a new game that will play too slowly on it.

    I have D3 and HL2. Not only does it play fast on my "top" machine, they
    play fast on my 3.5 year old "second" machine, albeit turned down to
    1024x768 and medium detail. The older PC wasn't even top-flight when it
    was bought, either.

    # And older games play far too fast.

    Too fast? hahahaha

    So you've been out of PC gaming for how long, more than a decade? The
    last major game that played "too fast" that I know of was Falcon 3.0...
    it survived anyway because it was ground-breaking, but was heavily
    criticized for that feechur. The nature of the Intel/Microsoft megahertz
    escalation has required game makers to take different speeds into
    account since the days when 386's became affordable.

    The real game obsolecense came when XP came out, that would be a valid
    criticism. DOS box emulation fixes most of that.

    # Give me a decent stable gameplaying machine anyday.

    Sure, you can have it. There will always be least-common-denominator,
    closed-box hardware on the market for the Joe Average User. Have you
    seen the new MiniMac? Sounds just right for you.

    As
    #long as it can connect to a printer and be used as a wordprocessor etc I
    #wont be worried about leaving PCs behind.

    Huh? So you really want to use your game console as a PC as well? I
    think what you want has already been done, you want an Atari 800XL or a
    Coleco Adam or something like that.

    Ken.
    --
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mail: kmarsh at charm dot net | Close the VT SVC Ctr boondoggle and
    WWW: http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh | return services to local CIS offices!
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
  24. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    there are 8 million stories in the uncanny valley riku
    <riku@invalid.none.com> told one of them in
    news:hnekv0tlqnshv92pss2if03ljjq22agoek@4ax.com:

    > On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:22:34 GMT, The Grand Wombat
    > <wombatgrand@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >>You've hit the nail on the head, here. In the last year, I've seen
    >>shelf space for PC games be cut in half in the local software stores.
    >>It does remind me of the shrinking Mac sections of years past, but it
    >>reminds me a lot more of the shrinking sections for records and
    >>cassettes in music stores.
    >>
    >>If there's little shelf space, there's little sales. Even stores like
    >
    > Have you taken into account the online sales here? (I am not talking
    > about Steam here)

    I don't think they're significant to the point where shelves and shelves
    get turned over to console games. Or DVDs, which certainly aren't less
    likely to be ordered online.

    >
    > Consoles are your answer then? Turn-based strategy games are a true
    > niche market, there must be around 10 people around the world still
    > interested in them.

    Sales of Civ 3 say otherwise. The software companies would have more
    success with this genre, if they simply tried more often. But it's not
    flashy enough to make a huge splash, so we wind up with a few impressive
    products that sell well and a lot of mediocrity that looks good and plays
    awful.

    The demand's there, it just isn't being served.


    --
    The Grand Wombat - maker of the 100,000,000th post to Usenet!!
    mhm 20x10
    meow -- wombats r us
  25. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    In article <1106919231.314632.142000@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
    mmaker@my-deja.com says...
    > nospam@nospam.com wrote:
    > > The cinematic
    > > experience of playing games on a 50 inche screen with full blasting
    > > 5.1 audio simply cannot be matched by computer.
    >
    > Yeah, why would I want to play games at 75fps on a progressive display
    > with 7.1 sound when I could be playing at 25fps on an interlaced
    > display with 5.1?
    >
    > Sarcasm aside, I can see some benefits: the only console game I've
    > liked enough to play much was 'Point Blank', and shooters like that
    > with gun controllers would probably benefit substantially from big
    > displays without losing much from low frame rates. But otherwise... why
    > would I sacrifice the quality of a PC monitor and sound card for an
    > HDTV display?

    Which big displays do those guns actually work with?

    DLP? LCD? LCOS? RP-anything?

    Plasma?

    FP-anything?
  26. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    I was once an avid pc gamer finishing on average 1-2 games a month.
    But that was like 5, 10 years ago. Lately, other than CNC Generals
    and Battlefield, I haven’t played any games extensively. Maybe it’s
    because I just moved in to a house and there’s a lot of chores to do.
    Mostly, it’s because the lack of interesting titles to me. HL2, Doom3
    are interesting enough titles but my vintage 9700Pro can’t run them
    well at high enough resolution. If I dumb down the resolution, I
    might as well just play Doom3 on Xbox.



    There are so much more to do now than during the PC gaming heydays of
    a decade ago. DVD watching is taking away a lot of my free time and
    after work, chores, maintaining the yard, the car and a baby on the
    way, I simply don’t have much time left. The days when I can spend a
    whole weekend trying to get the 8 Bit SB card working with the Trident
    Video card is a luxury I don’t have anymore. Granted PC games are a
    lot easier to run on today’s almost standardised PC platforms. But
    people are a lot busier and have a lot to chose from for their
    entertainment hours.



    Here in Canada, people say the NHL doesn’t matter as much as they did
    in 1994 because people have a lot more to do now. And that’s true to
    PC gaming as well. 200 channel cable, ton of DVD movies, HDTV,
    sports, Hollywood, there’s a lot more that we can do comparing to 10
    years ago and who wants to spend their precious free time to try to
    get their PC games working.



    And after getting their PC games to run, you think today’s kids would
    want to spend 5 hours to learn how to play Civ 3?



    Things come and go, I used to be an avid music lover and remembered
    the days when Madonna and Michael Jackson romped the earth, when they
    were the biggest celebrities. Now can anymore name the best selling
    albumns and artists of the past couple of years? I can’t. PC gaming
    will go the same path and become the board game of the new millenium.



    Unless, Nvidia and ATI come to the resuce, Civ4 and Playboy Mansion
    cannot save the industry alone.
  27. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    "One Punch Mickey" <fantantiddlyspan@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >dealing with 'video games' as a whole. According to what I can see from the
    >latest Entertainment Software association figures, PC gaming dollar and unit
    >sales *fell* by a few percent in 2004...

    12% according to this source:

    http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/stocks/troywolverton/10204379.html?cm_ven=YAHOO&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA

    Joe
  28. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 01:23:48 GMT, nospam@nospam.com wrote:

    >And after getting their PC games to run, you think today’s kids would
    >want to spend 5 hours to learn how to play Civ 3?

    I don't think kids of today are really that different of kids of 80s
    or 70s. Were the kids of early 80s playing Civ 3? No, they were
    playing simple 2D space shooting games (Space Invaders, Galaga etc.),
    Pac Man, Dig Dug, platform jumping games etc. Think of Atari VCS or
    Mattel Intellivision, did they have games like Civ 3?

    Anyway, as those kids (who played those simplistic games on early
    consoles and home computers) grew up, they started demanding more from
    their games. That's when they started getting interested in more
    demanding and deeper games.

    I don't see why this should be any different for the kids of today.

    >Things come and go, I used to be an avid music lover and remembered
    >the days when Madonna and Michael Jackson romped the earth, when they
    >were the biggest celebrities. Now can anymore name the best selling
    >albumns and artists of the past couple of years? I can’t. PC gaming
    >will go the same path and become the board game of the new millenium.

    Probably not, unless there will be an open-source console which is
    open for all game developers, without licenses. Till then, PC will
    always be the platform for new game developers to try their wings.
  29. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:42:43 -0000, "Nats"
    <nstutt@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

    >I thought Microsoft was going to produce their next console with harddrive
    >etc?

    LOL! Apparently you didn't know XBox (the existing console) already
    has a harddrive, while XBox 2 apparently will not?

    >This would make is very similar to a PC.

    Is XBox with its hard drive "very similar" to a PC? No.

    You forget that there are much more differences between consoles and
    PC than mere harddrive (or keyboard/mouse for that matter). The
    biggest difference is that PCs are open platforms, and there are no
    licences or restrictions to the new developers on it.
  30. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    "riku" wrote

    > I don't think kids of today are really that different of kids of 80s
    > or 70s. Were the kids of early 80s playing Civ 3?

    Obviously not.

    > No, they were
    > playing simple 2D space shooting games (Space Invaders, Galaga etc.),
    > Pac Man, Dig Dug, platform jumping games etc. Think of Atari VCS or
    > Mattel Intellivision, did they have games like Civ 3?

    No.
  31. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 08:26:09 GMT, "Vince"
    <vmelia@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    >"riku" wrote
    >
    >> I don't think kids of today are really that different of kids of 80s
    >> or 70s. Were the kids of early 80s playing Civ 3?
    >
    >Obviously not.
    >
    >> No, they were
    >> playing simple 2D space shooting games (Space Invaders, Galaga etc.),
    >> Pac Man, Dig Dug, platform jumping games etc. Think of Atari VCS or
    >> Mattel Intellivision, did they have games like Civ 3?
    >
    >No.

    I should have mentioned they were rhetorical questions, but I assumed
    everyone understood that.
  32. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    "riku" wrote
    > "Vince" wrote:
    >>"riku" wrote
    >>> I don't think kids of today are really that different of kids of 80s
    >>> or 70s. Were the kids of early 80s playing Civ 3?

    >>Obviously not.

    >>> No, they were
    >>> playing simple 2D space shooting games (Space Invaders, Galaga etc.),
    >>> Pac Man, Dig Dug, platform jumping games etc. Think of Atari VCS or
    >>> Mattel Intellivision, did they have games like Civ 3?

    >>No.

    > I should have mentioned they were rhetorical questions, but I assumed
    > everyone understood that.

    "Were the kids of early 80s playing Civ 3?" is not a rhetorical question;
    It's a stupid question.

    I think everyone understood that.
  33. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 16:26:19 GMT, "Vince"
    <vmelia@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    >>>> I don't think kids of today are really that different of kids of 80s
    >>>> or 70s. Were the kids of early 80s playing Civ 3?
    >
    >>>Obviously not.
    >
    >>>> No, they were
    ^^

    >>>> playing simple 2D space shooting games (Space Invaders, Galaga etc.),
    >>>> Pac Man, Dig Dug, platform jumping games etc. Think of Atari VCS or
    >>>> Mattel Intellivision, did they have games like Civ 3?
    >
    >>>No.
    >
    >> I should have mentioned they were rhetorical questions, but I assumed
    >> everyone understood that.
    >
    >"Were the kids of early 80s playing Civ 3?" is not a rhetorical question;
    >It's a stupid question.
    >
    >I think everyone understood that.

    Still wrong. Anyone, except the stupid ones, would know the answer is
    obvious. I even gave the answer right after that, the word starting
    with "N...". Heck, I even highlighted it for you, if you have
    comprehension problems.

    Did you have any point to make, or are you just being an ass? That's
    ok, I understand.
  34. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    > > Sarcasm aside, I can see some benefits: the only console game I've
    > > liked enough to play much was 'Point Blank', and shooters like that
    > > with gun controllers would probably benefit substantially from big
    > > displays without losing much from low frame rates. But otherwise... why
    > > would I sacrifice the quality of a PC monitor and sound card for an
    > > HDTV display?
    >
    > Which big displays do those guns actually work with?
    >
    > DLP? LCD? LCOS? RP-anything?
    >
    > Plasma?
    >
    > FP-anything?

    I just hooked up my old Dreamcast to see if House of the Dead 2
    would work with the gun on my new 52" DLP and (as I expected) it
    would not work :(

    That would be so SWEET to play that game on that big screen too!

    Hi ho...

    Kevin
  35. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    In article <jgeuv0trdc8qnagrgbdou0p2q1ifm19rgj@4ax.com>,
    riku@invalid.none.com says...
    > On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:42:43 -0000, "Nats"
    > <nstutt@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
    >
    > >I thought Microsoft was going to produce their next console with harddrive
    > >etc?
    >
    > LOL! Apparently you didn't know XBox (the existing console) already
    > has a harddrive, while XBox 2 apparently will not?
    >
    > >This would make is very similar to a PC.
    >
    > Is XBox with its hard drive "very similar" to a PC? No.

    Yes. Its pentium 3, with a geforce "2.5", a regular old ide hard drive,
    ram, and runs an OS that is essentially a stripped down windows.
    (windows 2000 iirc.)

    > You forget that there are much more differences between consoles and
    > PC than mere harddrive (or keyboard/mouse for that matter). The
    > biggest difference is that PCs are open platforms, and there are no
    > licences or restrictions to the new developers on it.

    That really doesn't differentiate the device from a technical
    standpoint, which is the relevant one here.

    Essentially Microsoft built a PC, told people they'd have to pay them to
    release software for it, and called it an xbox.

    A similiar example is Fedora Core vs Red Hat Linux. They are essentially
    the same operating system, differing only in terms of the support and
    licensing terms. That is pretty much the degree of difference between an
    xbox and a pc. Very nearly nil.
  36. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 22:34:33 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

    >In article <jgeuv0trdc8qnagrgbdou0p2q1ifm19rgj@4ax.com>,
    >riku@invalid.none.com says...
    >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:42:43 -0000, "Nats"
    >> <nstutt@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
    >>
    >> >I thought Microsoft was going to produce their next console with harddrive
    >> >etc?
    >>
    >> LOL! Apparently you didn't know XBox (the existing console) already
    >> has a harddrive, while XBox 2 apparently will not?
    >>
    >> >This would make is very similar to a PC.
    >>
    >> Is XBox with its hard drive "very similar" to a PC? No.
    >
    >Yes. Its pentium 3, with a geforce "2.5", a regular old ide hard drive,
    >ram, and runs an OS that is essentially a stripped down windows.
    >(windows 2000 iirc.)

    The technical specs are not relevant here, but how the system is and
    can be used. Just putting a PC CPU into a console does not make it a
    PC.

    Since XBox2 won't even have a "PC CPU" (Intel or AMD), does that mean
    it is less a PC than its predecessor?

    >> You forget that there are much more differences between consoles and
    >> PC than mere harddrive (or keyboard/mouse for that matter). The
    >> biggest difference is that PCs are open platforms, and there are no
    >> licences or restrictions to the new developers on it.
    >
    >That really doesn't differentiate the device from a technical
    >standpoint, which is the relevant one here.

    Quite wrong. The technical specs are irrelevant here. A console does
    not replace a PC just because it has a PC CPU and a hard drive, if the
    console still can't and won't do what a PC does.

    >Essentially Microsoft built a PC, told people they'd have to pay them to
    >release software for it, and called it an xbox.

    It can't replace the PC behemoth until it becomes an open platform
    where one can use any of a number of dev tools, there are no license
    fees to prevent new programmers entering it, etc.

    The thing that differentiates PCs from consoles is that the former are
    an open platform with various hardware manufacturers, standardized
    ports (backwards compatibility) and no license fees. The CPU or
    graphics chip inside the box is quite irrelevant.

    >A similiar example is Fedora Core vs Red Hat Linux. They are essentially
    >the same operating system, differing only in terms of the support and
    >licensing terms. That is pretty much the degree of difference between an
    >xbox and a pc. Very nearly nil.

    Hogwash. The technical differences are not really important.
  37. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    On the 1 Feb 2005, riku <riku@invalid.none.com> wrote:

    > On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 01:23:48 GMT, nospam@nospam.com wrote:
    >
    > >And after getting their PC games to run, you think today’s kids would
    > >want to spend 5 hours to learn how to play Civ 3?
    >
    > I don't think kids of today are really that different of kids of 80s
    > or 70s. Were the kids of early 80s playing Civ 3? No, they were
    > playing simple 2D space shooting games (Space Invaders, Galaga etc.)

    Well, I and a lot of my friends back then were playing a complex 3D
    space shooting and trading game - Elite.

    When I was a kid, I quite enjoyed more complex games. IIRC, my first
    strategy game was Yellow River Kingdom on the BBC B. Later, I went on
    to play Sim City, Sim City 2000 and various football management games.

    It wasn't until I went to Uni and got a PC that I could really go nuts
    buying strategy games, though.

    --
    Jades' First Encounters Site - http://www.jades.org/ffe.htm
    The best Frontier: First Encounters site on the Web.

    nospam@jades.org /is/ a real email address!
  38. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    How many times do we have to endure these over-reacting "the end of
    computer gaming" nonsense? They've been saying this ever since
    Nintendo consoles hit mainstream. Computer games are still around,
    although a lot of genres have died.

    The only way computer games will completely die is if home computer
    dies. That's when humans have finally discovered the secret of sorcery.
Ask a new question

Read More

PC gaming HDTV Computers Games IBM Video Games