|
Home > Archive > Xbox Live > March 2005 > uh-oh! Xbox 2|Next not looking so hot according to one supposed programmer-developer dud
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
uh-oh! Xbox 2|Next not looking so hot according to one supposed programmer-developer dud
|
|
| NEXT BOX 2005-03-01, 3:42 am |
| I found this supposed developer opinion on Xbox 2 | Next posted on several
message boards:
http://www.psinext.com/forums/viewt...der=asc&start=0
http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthrea...light=Cpiasminc
http://ga-forum.com/showthread.php?t=37493
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20824
[some supposed programmer or developer] QUOTE:
____________________________________________________________________________
__________
"I think the key difference here in terms of hardware for Xbox2 is the fact
that Microsoft wanted to play a bigger part in deciding on the hardware. In
fact, this time around, they're in full control, whereas the last time,
basically nVidia did the entire system. Microsoft definitely makes great
developer tools and documentation, and it would be silly to think that XNA
will not amount to much. But the thing is that they are clearly without any
sense at all when it comes to hardware. The fact that they choose to
centralize their FSB or share a single L2 cache among 3 processors shows
some real lack of insight. The biggest flub would have to be that 10 MB
eDRAM on the GPU -- which I'm told is really MS's idea (both MS and ATI told
me that much) -- that just says they didn't even think about resolution.
Hardware-wise Xbox2 is getting disappointing the more I look at it... and I
know I shouldn't really be saying that since I'm actually developing on it.
But by disappointment, I should say -- it won't suck or anything remotely
near sucking... it just won't be anything monstrously groundbreaking --
let's just say it's Moore's Law looking perfectly normal and healthy. The
GPU will have some serious power all right, as will the CPU. But if you
think of the difference between PS1 and PS2, you should see about the same
growth from Xbox to Xbox2, but at the same time, taking into account the
difference in resolution, content, shader complexity and everything else put
together.
All in all, Xbox2's total system architecture is still very PC-like. Or
Mac-like in this case. In that sense, it will probably be easier to develop
for. The thing is that SIMD is very important to getting any major
performance out of PPC processors these days. Without it, they're basically
Celerons. So avoiding pipeline stalls and concerning yourself with
*instruction latency* is going to be huge on all 3 consoles with this
upcoming generation. In some ways, that actually means we've gone back to
the '60s in terms of programming. It's just that it's the 60s with 3 million
line codebases.
BTW, I should also note that based on what I'm hearing from every studio
I've been to, I'd have to say that, at least for the first generation of
games on next-gen consoles, you will not see anything running at 60 fps.
There is not one studio I've talked to who hasn't said they're shooting only
for 30 fps. Some have even said that for next-gen, they won't shoot higher
than 30 fps ever again.
As for PS3... well, it looks as though PS3 will be the hardware king this
time around. Just as Xbox had the powerful hardware in current-gen. The
question of whether it will be that easy to develop on is still up in the
air. Developing a cross-platform engine for Xbox2, PS3, PC, NRev will likely
be damn-near impossible. I'd expect a codebase with more #ifdefs than code,
the way things look. I don't expect graphical power to be that massively
different between PS3 and XBox2, though. They're essentially very similar
GPU pipes... PS3's will probably have some features that Xbox2's doesn't and
vice versa. Where the difference will lie is going to be in CPU power. How
that will manifest itself is still very uncertain. If the graphical power is
smaller, that may also mean there is more value for studios to do multi-SKU
titles, and we may see a bigger glut of games that are available for all 3
or at least 2 of the 3 consoles.
Then of course, comes the business hand of Microsoft... in this Sony is
definitely second, but I wouldn't count it as a gaping hole. I mean, Sony is
an 11-figure yearly revenue company, too. If nothing else, PS3 can drive
home the point of CELL as an architecture. And in that sense, Sony is
playing for the longer term than MS. OTOH, MS is the sort of company that
can afford to play out a generation at a time."
____________________________________________________________________________
_____________
Now if you read through the threads that I linked to above, you will
actually see some differing thoughts on this guys post about Xbox2, and, at
least one reply from the guy himself, explaining his original post. I'll go
ahead and paste that guys explaination below, so if by remote chance you are
even interested in this, you can read it now without searching through the
threads I linked to:
[some supposed programmer or developer's explaination for his original post]
QUOTE:
____________________________________________________________________________
____________
" Oh, geez... I was hoping this wouldn't really blow up out of proportion.
The last thing I wanted was for all that to really make a big fuss on a
dozen other forums.
When I say "disappointing", I mean that in respect to everything that was
promised. If you're expecting realtime CG, I have my doubts. That is, unless
displaced subdivision surface support in hardware is actually going to be
there, which is still very much up in the air, and even then, the problem
becomes not the polygon count, but the ability to apply complex shaders on
the darn things. Even otherwise, early games won't be close to the limits of
its power on any of the consoles. We won't see what final hardware looks
like until very very short notice prior to the console's release. Nowhere
near enough time to try adjust and optimize and try to push the limits of
the console. That's why everybody says at least for their first next-gen
games, they're not going to shoot higher than 30 fps. As for those few that
said 30 fps for good, I really don't know. They're probably just being
pessimistic. But then, the only studio I visited that was optimistic about
Xbox2 happened to conveniently be located in Seattle.
Also, for that 10 MB of eDRAM -- consider 1920x1080, which is about 2
megapixels... 2 mpix * (4 (32-bit frame buffer) + 4 (32-bit Z-buffer) + 1
(8-bit Stencil)) = ~17.79 MB. Yes it is supposed to hold frame buffer,
Z-buffer, and stencil, from what I'm told. You could hold it all at 720p, at
least. MS did say that they want developers to at least support 720p
(meaning we don't necessarily have to support 1080i, but 720p is apparently
a requirement).
The other meaning I have as far as disappointment goes is the fact that up
until this time, all my expectations on Xbox2, PS3, and NRev have all been
on a sort of underestimation in hopes that the real thing will be far above
what I say. At least that way, my being wrong would be a good thing. In
Xbox2's case, though, compared to the other two, we're hearing more things
now. Although they keep changing from day to day, nothing I've heard has
really exceeded my presumably underestimated expectations. The only things I
haven't heard about are system bandwidth and the GPU's specs. I don't expect
anything incredible, though. Even 4-5x the system bandwidth of a PC is
really not good enough -- and I mean that in the sense that the system
bandwidth on a PC is god-awful. "
____________________________________________________________________________
____________
| |
| Dr Gordon Crowbar 2005-03-01, 5:45 pm |
| There's a lot of things going on in the battle of Sony vs Microsoft. It's a
billion dollar business, so there's going to be industrial espionage, false
rumours, and the raising of expectations from both sides.
As usual, there will be people who buy the new product on day 1, and who
will refuse to accept that the other product is better, and then eventually
sell, or continue to delude themselves.
Whatever, it really doesn't matter which is best, because we'll all know
when the best games are out.
If you've nothing better to do than speculate, and then waste money on a
first day purchase, then more fool you.
| |
| HockeyTownUSA 2005-03-01, 9:43 pm |
|
"Dr Gordon Crowbar" <Justin@c.com> wrote in message
news:NNudnQnnOLhQU7nfRVnyrg@pipex.net...
quote:
> There's a lot of things going on in the battle of Sony vs Microsoft. It's
> a billion dollar business, so there's going to be industrial espionage,
> false rumours, and the raising of expectations from both sides.
>
> As usual, there will be people who buy the new product on day 1, and who
> will refuse to accept that the other product is better, and then
> eventually sell, or continue to delude themselves.
>
> Whatever, it really doesn't matter which is best, because we'll all know
> when the best games are out.
>
> If you've nothing better to do than speculate, and then waste money on a
> first day purchase, then more fool you.
>
Yeah, I never understood the fanboi following between XBOX and PS2 either. I
mean they are both great systems. I preferred the XBOX for its hard drive,
5.1 surround, Live!, and its S-controller. And XBOX had a year later release
so had better have had better graphics, which it does. But you can't beat
the PS2's vast library of games, it's graphics are pretty good, and has
Dolby Digital surround. PS2 has quite a few unique titles too, but XBOX has
several that satisfy my tastes.
| |
| Knight37 2005-03-02, 3:44 am |
| "Dr Gordon Crowbar" <Justin@c.com> once tried to test me with:
quote:
> If you've nothing better to do than speculate, and then waste money on a
> first day purchase, then more fool you.
I'll be buying Xbox 2 on day 1 as long as at least 2 launch-games seem
interesting to me.
But I was probably going to buy it no matter what. I own all the major
consoles.
--
Knight37
The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
| |
| sayNO2steam 2005-03-02, 3:44 am |
| On 2 Mar 2005, Knight37 wrote:
<console fanatic bragging about buying everything console made>
that's why you defend steam!
i called you idiot, but what you are is a traitor!
a complete disgrace!
you have the nerve to post in OUR PC GAME group defending damaging
solutions to pc games when the truth is you are a traitor with no
interest at all in pc games!
in a time were pc games face decline over consoles cause of unfair
motives and publishers like valve trying to create monopolies you
admit supporting financially all the consoles and defending steam!
GO AWAY TRAITOR!
go away console fanatical!
leave the pc game group alone!
--
post made in a steam-free computer
i said "NO" to valve and steam
against steam campaign
http://nosteam.afterdarknet.at/
steamwatch - independent observatory about steam
http://www.steamwatch.org/
please sign petition "Say NO! to Steam!" available at:
http://www.petitiononline.com/nosteam/petition.html
| |
|
|
"HockeyTownUSA" <magma@killspam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:AdWdnYxQ98BDY7nfRVn-pA@comcast.com...
quote:
>
> "Dr Gordon Crowbar" <Justin@c.com> wrote in message
> news:NNudnQnnOLhQU7nfRVnyrg@pipex.net...
>
> Yeah, I never understood the fanboi following between XBOX and PS2 either.
> I mean they are both great systems. I preferred the XBOX for its hard
> drive, 5.1 surround, Live!, and its S-controller. And XBOX had a year
> later release so had better have had better graphics, which it does. But
> you can't beat the PS2's vast library of games, it's graphics are pretty
> good, and has Dolby Digital surround. PS2 has quite a few unique titles
> too, but XBOX has several that satisfy my tastes.
>
I didn't think the PS2 had Dolby Digital?
I thought it was just Pro Logic2, the same as the Gamecube.
Scott
| |
| Les Steel 2005-03-02, 5:46 pm |
|
"sayNO2steam" <sayNO2steam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jtka21db5abncj3e8oarq0g2kv03t1fnrg@4ax.com...
quote:
> On 2 Mar 2005, Knight37 wrote:
>
> <console fanatic bragging about buying everything console made>
>
> that's why you defend steam!
> i called you idiot, but what you are is a traitor!
> a complete disgrace!
> you have the nerve to post in OUR PC GAME group defending damaging
> solutions to pc games when the truth is you are a traitor with no
> interest at all in pc games!
>
> in a time were pc games face decline over consoles cause of unfair
> motives and publishers like valve trying to create monopolies you
> admit supporting financially all the consoles and defending steam!
> GO AWAY TRAITOR!
> go away console fanatical!
> leave the pc game group alone!
>
>
Some people are fans of GAMES. Do you understand the concept?
I enjoy playing GAMES, no matter the system. Been having a blast on
Mercenaries on my mates XBOX and have contemplated playing through Final
Fantasy Tactics on the PS1. This week I will hopefully be playing Republic
Commando on my PC, and possibly Hearts of Iron 2.
I notice you never answered my questions in another thread on
comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, regarding Farcry and its console appearance.
--
Les
AMD64 3200+
2x512 MB corsair platinum 3500
MIS K8N NEO PLATINUM
Leadtek A400 GT
SB Audigy
| |
| Ken Marsh 2005-03-02, 5:46 pm |
| Hi Les,
In article <38makmF5r25lrU1@individual.net>, Les Steel <a@aolnot.com> wrote:
#Some people are fans of GAMES. Do you understand the concept?
No. He doesn't get it. He's a troll. He continues the same strident
message no matter what the response. He's totally oblivious to reason.
So, I ask you, since you obviously think about things, unlike diFool,
to please stop feeding the troll.
Ken.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail: kmarsh at charm dot net | Just say "no" to liars SCO and Soyo
WWW: http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh | Return services to local CIS offices!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| Hank the Rapper 2005-03-02, 9:42 pm |
| Shawk wrote:
quote:
> The quicker everyone KF's him the sooner he ceases to exist in here.
He'll just turn around and change his name.
| |
| Stephen Craft 2005-03-03, 5:52 pm |
| I gather from the following posts that I shouldn't be responding, and I'm
new here, so I'll feign ignorance and claim that I don't know better. But I
felt compelled to respond to this, and ask a question or two. Then I'll
shut up, I promise:
"publishers like valve trying to create monopolies"
A) You know that Valve is a developer, yes? And not a publisher?
B) Do you know the difference between a publisher and a developer? I'm not
trying to be a d*ck, I'm just asking.
C) You know the kind of cut that the publisher gets out of the retail price?
(It's a large one.)
D) In what way is Valve "trying to create a monopoly"?
I'm just curious, that's all. I happen to think very highly of Valve, even
though Steam admittedly sucked.
-Stephen
| |
| Andrew 2005-03-03, 5:52 pm |
| On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 11:26:40 -0800, "Stephen Craft"
<myemailaddress@myemaildomain.com> wrote:
quote:
>I gather from the following posts that I shouldn't be responding, and I'm
>new here, so I'll feign ignorance and claim that I don't know better. But I
>felt compelled to respond to this, and ask a question or two. Then I'll
>shut up, I promise:
sayNO2steam/DiFool is a completely insane troll. Any attempts to have
a rational discussion with him are a complete waste of time. Feel free
to try, but it is better to just killfile him now and save yourself
the stress of trying to understand what is going on in his head.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
| |
| Stephen Craft 2005-03-03, 5:52 pm |
| Fair enough... thanks for the heads-up.
 SC
"Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
news:haqe21980cnrtiqdes4hr35rd5nuomt9l4@4ax.com...
quote:
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 11:26:40 -0800, "Stephen Craft"
> <myemailaddress@myemaildomain.com> wrote:
>
But I[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> sayNO2steam/DiFool is a completely insane troll. Any attempts to have
> a rational discussion with him are a complete waste of time. Feel free
> to try, but it is better to just killfile him now and save yourself
> the stress of trying to understand what is going on in his head.
> --
> Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
> Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
> please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
> Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
| |
| Hank the Rapper 2005-03-03, 9:43 pm |
| Andrew wrote:
quote:
> Feel free
> to try, but it is better to just killfile him now and save yourself
> the stress of trying to understand what is going on in his head.
This is what goes through Difool's head.
http://bednorzmuller87.phys.cmu.edu...nes/demo531.mpg
| |
| Stephen Craft 2005-03-03, 9:43 pm |
| Holy S&*T. I wish I could put this in a bigger font, but:
L O L.
You cracked my s&*t up.
"Hank the Rapper" <xflopgoon@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:YNGdnXDRz894P7rfRVn-pg@giganews.com...
quote:
> Andrew wrote:
>
>
> This is what goes through Difool's head.
>
http://bednorzmuller87.phys.cmu.edu...mics/heatengine
s/demo531.mpg
quote:
>
>
| |
| sayNO2steam 2005-03-04, 6:43 am |
| On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, "Stephen Craft" wrote:
quote:
> new here, so I'll feign ignorance and claim that I don't know better. But I
> felt compelled to respond to this, and ask a question or two. Then I'll
first let me tell you the main reason i'm here is to exchange ideas
with others gamers like yourself, that's what i like and what i want
fell free to ask anything!
and btw, many in this group only have as mission discredit myself so
don't pay any attention to them
quote:
> "publishers like valve trying to create monopolies"
yes, they are by taking away all kind of choice in the pc game market
they want to monopolize the way you buy pc games
you will only be able to buy pc games in one way, in one place, only
from them and killing the very useful retail channel
they want to monopolize the way you play pc games
you will only be able to play pc games in one way, using steam and
having control over you and your gaming habits
they want to monopolize the way you patch pc games
you will only be able to patch pc games in one way, using steam and
only via the internet, again having total control over you
steam is pure monopoly
steam is monopoly at its best!
with steam you don't have any kind of choice, none!
quote:
> A) You know that Valve is a developer, yes? And not a publisher?
with steam its not relevant, valve are the developers and publisher
they are everything
quote:
> B) Do you know the difference between a publisher and a developer? I'm not
> trying to be a d*ck, I'm just asking.
like i told you its not relevant cause valve with steam is at the same
time, developers, publisher, distributor... so that's not the point
quote:
> C) You know the kind of cut that the publisher gets out of the retail price?
> (It's a large one.)
i will not accept the margin excuse for steam
sorry i will not
i already discuss this will other gamers in this group and i will not
accept that excuse
steam is way too damaging! way too intrusive for you or valve or any
other excusing it with the margins a publisher takes in pc games
a developer has to know how to negotiate margins with the publisher
in everything in life you must know how to negotiate
and btw the publisher has an essential role in pc games! essential!
if valve wants more profits from their games, be their own publisher
in retail, which is the issue... in steam they are their own but in
retail they are not
quote:
> D) In what way is Valve "trying to create a monopoly"?
yes! like i told you before valve with steam is trying to create a
monopoly in the pc game market by:
killing the retail channel, which is the best one for pc games and
the one with the most competition and the best pricing for us
and making you be totally controlled to buy, install, play pc games
retail channel has flaws like everything but its still and will be
always be best for defending competition in the pc game market for
defending pc games as package box cd/dvd physical products and too
give pc gamers choice and freedom as consumers!
quote:
> I'm just curious, that's all. I happen to think very highly of Valve, even
> though Steam admittedly sucked.
please fell free to ask me anything!
i'm someone who cares for pc games, who cares for fellow pc gamers!
i also think steam sucks and must be stoped so our rights as consumers
are protected!
if we unit we can beat valve and steam!
look at me as a friend as a fellow pc gamer!
my agenda is only keep being a pc gamer and buying and play pc games!
that's the only thing i want... i swear!
my motivation is only and purely pc games!
--
post made in a steam-free computer
i said "NO" to valve and steam
against steam campaign
http://nosteam.afterdarknet.at/
steamwatch - independent observatory about steam
http://www.steamwatch.org/
please sign petition "Say NO! to Steam!" available at:
http://www.petitiononline.com/nosteam/petition.html
| |
| Stephen Craft 2005-03-04, 5:43 pm |
| Okay, but... um...
Steam is written by Valve, distributed by Valve, and only used by Valve.
Only Valve games are distributed on Steam. How are they going to take away
the distribution rights of other developers and publishers? KOTOR, for
example, was developed by BioWare and published by LucasArts. Halo was
developed by Bungie and published by Microsoft. How, exactly, could Valve
*force* LucasArts and Microsoft to distribute their cames through Steam as
opposed to through retail? When it's Valve vs. Microsoft in a court of law
(especially if Valve is trying to force Microsoft to do something, and not
the other way around), I don't see Valve coming out on top in that fight.
Without Valve being able to force other developers to publish games through
their medium, I fail to see how they're going to be able to establish any
kind of monopoly.
I find your argument a little puzzling, that's all. I was certainly less
than pleased when, after waiting for years for HL2, and buying it (on
release day) and installing it, that I had to wait an additional day for
Steam to work. I was not happy about that. On the other hand, I also
understand that Steam is the first foray into this kind of distrubution, and
that almost by definition, the first tries are going to have bugs and
hiccups. I do *not* agree that Steam should be used as an anti-piracy
system (forcing a single-user game to connect online doesn't seem to make
sense), but as a publishing and distribution system, to me it's a good idea.
Historically, many publishers have been responsible for weakening games by
releasing games before they're ready; editing content; and restricting
developers' freedom to develop games as they see fit. If a developer has
the guts and the capacity to distribute a game without a big-name publisher,
I say more power to 'em.
*That* is the purpose publishers play -- Valve on its own is a comparatively
small shop, and doesn't have the finances, muscle, or clout to buy space on
retail shelves around the country. If they're going to ship actual physical
boxes to stores, they need help to do it, and they have to pay for that
help. That (fairly sizeable) chunk of the money that goes to the publisher
does *not* (obviously) end up in the pockets of the developer, and therefore
does *not* go toward developing future, better games. As an aspiring
game-maker myself, I choose to side with the little guy.
The first paragraph is all I'm really curious about, all you need to respond
to: how is Valve going to force other developers and/or publishers to
distribute their games through Steam?
"sayNO2steam" <sayNO2steam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ps7g21p818omtdh3s3d6cbqf1f7mg0kcla@4ax.com...
quote:
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, "Stephen Craft" wrote:
>
But I[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> first let me tell you the main reason i'm here is to exchange ideas
> with others gamers like yourself, that's what i like and what i want
>
> fell free to ask anything!
>
> and btw, many in this group only have as mission discredit myself so
> don't pay any attention to them
>
>
> yes, they are by taking away all kind of choice in the pc game market
> they want to monopolize the way you buy pc games
> you will only be able to buy pc games in one way, in one place, only
> from them and killing the very useful retail channel
> they want to monopolize the way you play pc games
> you will only be able to play pc games in one way, using steam and
> having control over you and your gaming habits
> they want to monopolize the way you patch pc games
> you will only be able to patch pc games in one way, using steam and
> only via the internet, again having total control over you
>
> steam is pure monopoly
> steam is monopoly at its best!
> with steam you don't have any kind of choice, none!
>
>
> with steam its not relevant, valve are the developers and publisher
> they are everything
>
not[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> like i told you its not relevant cause valve with steam is at the same
> time, developers, publisher, distributor... so that's not the point
>
price?[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> i will not accept the margin excuse for steam
> sorry i will not
> i already discuss this will other gamers in this group and i will not
> accept that excuse
> steam is way too damaging! way too intrusive for you or valve or any
> other excusing it with the margins a publisher takes in pc games
>
> a developer has to know how to negotiate margins with the publisher
> in everything in life you must know how to negotiate
> and btw the publisher has an essential role in pc games! essential!
>
> if valve wants more profits from their games, be their own publisher
> in retail, which is the issue... in steam they are their own but in
> retail they are not
>
>
> yes! like i told you before valve with steam is trying to create a
> monopoly in the pc game market by:
> killing the retail channel, which is the best one for pc games and
> the one with the most competition and the best pricing for us
> and making you be totally controlled to buy, install, play pc games
>
> retail channel has flaws like everything but its still and will be
> always be best for defending competition in the pc game market for
> defending pc games as package box cd/dvd physical products and too
> give pc gamers choice and freedom as consumers!
>
even[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> please fell free to ask me anything!
> i'm someone who cares for pc games, who cares for fellow pc gamers!
> i also think steam sucks and must be stoped so our rights as consumers
> are protected!
> if we unit we can beat valve and steam!
> look at me as a friend as a fellow pc gamer!
> my agenda is only keep being a pc gamer and buying and play pc games!
> that's the only thing i want... i swear!
> my motivation is only and purely pc games!
>
> --
> post made in a steam-free computer
> i said "NO" to valve and steam
>
> against steam campaign
> http://nosteam.afterdarknet.at/
>
> steamwatch - independent observatory about steam
> http://www.steamwatch.org/
>
> please sign petition "Say NO! to Steam!" available at:
> http://www.petitiononline.com/nosteam/petition.html
| |
| Stephen Craft 2005-03-04, 5:43 pm |
| LOL... sorry about that. Like I said before, I'm new in this NG, and
haven't been exposed to this fellow's particular brand of logic, so I guess
I'm just curious how it works. I promise I won't argue long.
Stephen
ps -- i have a MPFC day-by-day calendar on my desk, and the nudge-nudge
scene was last week. your sig made me laugh.
"Shawk" <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses> wrote
quote:
>
> I'm sorry but you are talking sense. That is not permissable in threads
> where Steam has become the subject. Yes, you do score points for being
> completely off the subject the OP started, and you do get bonus points
> for perpetuating difool/sayno2x's crap and bringing it back to the
> attention of the folk that have KF'd him but I am afraid that having a
> reasonable argument has really let you down. If you wish to continue to
> discuss Steam please talk crap.
>
> BTW - I do agree with you (except for waiting a day to play HL2 - guess
> I was one of the lucky ones) and for once I'd be interested in the
> replies (though I'll have to see someone quote them - I'm afraid I can't
> see them anymore).
>
> --
> I mean, you've been around a bit, you know, like, you've, uh... You've
> 'done it'...
> What do you mean?
> Well, I mean like,... you've SLEPT, with a lady...
> Yes...
> What's it like?
| |
| Doug Jacobs 2005-03-04, 9:42 pm |
| In alt.games.video.xbox Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote:
quote:
> sayNO2steam/DiFool is a completely insane troll. Any attempts to have
> a rational discussion with him are a complete waste of time. Feel free
> to try, but it is better to just killfile him now and save yourself
> the stress of trying to understand what is going on in his head.
He is fun to kick in the head a few times, then when you get bored, just
killfile him.
| |
| Stephen Craft 2005-03-04, 9:42 pm |
| I'm still waiting for the guy to respond to me. :/
"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
news:112hptvgd09oncd@corp.supernews.com...
quote:
> In alt.games.video.xbox Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote:
>
>
> He is fun to kick in the head a few times, then when you get bored, just
> killfile him.
| |
| sayNO2steam 2005-03-05, 6:42 am |
| On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, "Stephen Craft" wrote:
quote:
> Steam is written by Valve, distributed by Valve, and only used by Valve.
> Only Valve games are distributed on Steam. How are they going to take away
> the distribution rights of other developers and publishers? KOTOR, for
valve is "forcing" steam into pc gamers and at the same time is trying
to "seduce" other developers and publishers to use steam for their own
pc games
valve has made it public they are trying to convince other developers in
using steam
valve made it very clear, steam will not be only for valve games it will
be for all kinds of pc games!
in a way its ironic, they don't want a publishers and distributor like
sierra for their own pc games so they can have full profit but they want
others to use it cause obviously valve will get profits from other games
from other developers and publishers that use steam
valve want to take the place of every retail distributer in pc games...
and isn't this wanting to create a monopoly? for me yes!
valve are unbelievably cleaver... basically they want to become the only
and exclusive distributor of pc games, a little bit what happens in the
console world where the console manufacturer "eats" the profits of every
single game published
but i agree they are not "forcing" steam to other developers but only
cause they can't
valve can force steam into pc gamers cause they are stronger than us
valve can only seduce other developers and publishers into using steam
cause they are not strong enough to force it
but if microsoft buys valve which is possible, then microsoft has the
complete power to "force" steam into every single developer/publisher
making the pc like a console and creating a monopoly
the future is very worrisome
we must unit!
we must defend our consumer rights!
i know you are worried, its natural, we all are except those extremely
fanatics that trust valve blindly
quote:
> developers' freedom to develop games as they see fit. If a developer has
> the guts and the capacity to distribute a game without a big-name publisher,
> I say more power to 'em.
i already defending why not a group of developers joining together and
create an independent "indie" type pc game publisher?
developers together can make a difference!
but using the traditional retail channel!
the retail channel is the best for us pc gamers!
if the retail channel is very expensive for individual developers they
can join together and create their own pc game publishing label with
enough resources to distribute using the retail channel
quote:
> does *not* go toward developing future, better games. As an aspiring
> game-maker myself, I choose to side with the little guy.
even if the little guy is using procedures to favour themselves and
damage us pc gamers?
i want developers to have more and more profits from their games
i want developers to be able to produce better games
i want developers to earn more money and even become millionaires
but not sacrificing our own consumer rights
better for developers yes, but not if it means damaging us
don't they say... the ends can never justify the means
pc game developers are my personal heroes! but i can't agree with them
when they act in a selfish and greedy way which is what valve is doing
quote:
> The first paragraph is all I'm really curious about, all you need to respond
> to: how is Valve going to force other developers and/or publishers to
> distribute their games through Steam?
valve is bought by microsoft
microsoft includes steam in its own windows operating system
then all developers, publishers and distributors will be forced with
it and we the pc gamers will be completely DOOMED!
this is for me the pc games final apocalypse
the end
--
post made in a steam-free computer
i said "NO" to valve and steam
against steam campaign
http://nosteam.afterdarknet.at/
steamwatch - independent observatory about steam
http://www.steamwatch.org/
please sign petition "Say NO! to Steam!" available at:
http://www.petitiononline.com/nosteam/petition.html
| |
| Stephen Craft 2005-03-05, 5:43 pm |
| Wow. That's quite an... interesting... theory. It's also quite a bit of a
stretch, but whatever fills your twinkie, guy.
"sayNO2steam" wrote
quote:
>
> valve is bought by microsoft
> microsoft includes steam in its own windows operating system
> then all developers, publishers and distributors will be forced with
> it and we the pc gamers will be completely DOOMED!
> this is for me the pc games final apocalypse
> the end
>
| |
| Hank the Rapper 2005-03-05, 5:43 pm |
| Stephen Craft wrote:
quote:
> Wow. That's quite an... interesting... theory. It's also quite a
> bit of a stretch, but whatever fills your twinkie, guy.
That bird brain of his is really drinking now isn't it? No you know why it
is pointless to have a discussion with him.
|
| |
|
|