|
Home > Archive > Xbox forum > March 2005 > the truth about gaming cost
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 |
the truth about gaming cost
|
|
| sayNO2consoles 2005-02-22, 7:16 am |
| a decent PC with monitor only costs around $500 from Dell etc. most
people already have a pc for internet, office-type activities,
multimedia activities. it can be upgraded to good gaming standard with
a $75 video card. that's less than the $150 for a console. then they
save money on the games because they're cheaper than console games and
depreciate in value faster so most year old games are only $10.
as i've noted above i don't see why people feel the need to buy an
extra machine when they *already* have a very capable gaming machine
in the house.
--
Art Weingardner Mon, 21 Feb 2005
these wise words Art wrote are undeniable!
pc games are the most less costly gaming platform!
--
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
| |
| Paul Heslop 2005-02-22, 6:32 pm |
| sayNO2consoles wrote:
quote:
>
> a decent PC with monitor only costs around $500 from Dell etc. most
> people already have a pc for internet, office-type activities,
> multimedia activities. it can be upgraded to good gaming standard with
> a $75 video card. that's less than the $150 for a console. then they
> save money on the games because they're cheaper than console games and
> depreciate in value faster so most year old games are only $10.
>
> as i've noted above i don't see why people feel the need to buy an
> extra machine when they *already* have a very capable gaming machine
> in the house.
>
Because they're easier, they're game specific they take up less space,
I could go on but what's the point? If you don't like consoles then
what the hell are you doing writing in console groups?
Get a life
--
Paul (everybody hurts sometimes)
------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
| |
|
| "sayNO2consoles" wrote
quote:
>a decent PC with monitor only costs around $500 from Dell etc. most
> people already have a pc for internet
Tell DoFool that.
He's been arguing that most people don't.
| |
|
| "sayNO2consoles" <sayNO2steam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u4vl115rfh4dtfnkuj4332224l6d5vd83b@4ax.com...
quote:
>a decent PC with monitor only costs around $500 from Dell etc. most
> people already have a pc for internet, office-type activities,
> multimedia activities. it can be upgraded to good gaming standard with
> a $75 video card. that's less than the $150 for a console. then they
> save money on the games because they're cheaper than console games and
> depreciate in value faster so most year old games are only $10.
>
> as i've noted above i don't see why people feel the need to buy an
> extra machine when they *already* have a very capable gaming machine
> in the house.
I just bought a high-mid range system (AMD 64 3500, 1gig memory, GeForce
6800, 160gb HD, and some extra cooling and power, upgraded case, etc.) and
it's running me about $1500, and that's a hell of a deal. I'm excited as
hell that it arrives today and can't wait to fire up Doom 3 and FarCry in
highest settings.
But that being said, probably the most engaging gaming experience I've had
in the last few months has been Resident Evil 4 on my Gamecube. The
gameplay and ambience in that game are outstanding and the graphics that
that little $99 sucker pumps out for this game rival anything on the PC. I
don't see why you can't enjoy both. I prefer my PC for most gaming, but
there are occassional gems on the consoles. Not to mention, I can't get
NCAA Football games on my PC. Stop being such a gaming bigot and just enjoy
what you want.
turk
--
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken,
Baltimore Evening Sun on 26 July 1920
| |
| Gandalf Parker 2005-02-22, 6:32 pm |
| sayNO2consoles <sayNO2steam@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:u4vl115rfh4dtfnkuj4332224l6d5vd83b@4ax.com:
quote:
> a decent PC with monitor only costs around $500 from Dell etc. most
> people already have a pc for internet, office-type activities,
> multimedia activities. it can be upgraded to good gaming standard with
> a $75 video card. that's less than the $150 for a console. then they
> save money on the games because they're cheaper than console games and
> depreciate in value faster so most year old games are only $10.
The market of games in that categorry is dwindling Im afraid. Not because
there are fewer of them but because retail chains and publishers are
growing farther and farther apart in their marketing models. Less PC
games will support any return policy of the stores which causes less
sores to be willing to buy a game in bulk (which creates the $10 bin).
quote:
> as i've noted above i don't see why people feel the need to buy an
> extra machine when they *already* have a very capable gaming machine
> in the house.
Hmmm crossposting this between the PC gaming groups and the console
gaming groups doesnt do much to combat your image as a troll. But in case
you are really interested, I have all of what you included as target
groups. I prefer action games (what used to be called joystick games) to
be on the consoles in front of my couch because it does that best. I
prefer deep strategy games with lots of room and tons of randoms and
unlimited saves to be on the PC because it does that best.
Of course the programmers on both sides are closing that gap really well
but IMHO I think those pros and cons still hold.
Gandalf Parker
| |
|
| "Gandalf Parker" <gandalf@most.of.my.favorite.sites> wrote in message
news:Xns96053C952D75Agandalfparker@208.201.224.154...
quote:
> sayNO2consoles <sayNO2steam@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:u4vl115rfh4dtfnkuj4332224l6d5vd83b@4ax.com:
>
>
> The market of games in that categorry is dwindling Im afraid. Not because
> there are fewer of them but because retail chains and publishers are
> growing farther and farther apart in their marketing models. Less PC
> games will support any return policy of the stores which causes less
> sores to be willing to buy a game in bulk (which creates the $10 bin).
>
>
> Hmmm crossposting this between the PC gaming groups and the console
> gaming groups doesnt do much to combat your image as a troll. But in case
> you are really interested, I have all of what you included as target
> groups. I prefer action games (what used to be called joystick games) to
> be on the consoles in front of my couch because it does that best. I
> prefer deep strategy games with lots of room and tons of randoms and
> unlimited saves to be on the PC because it does that best.
>
> Of course the programmers on both sides are closing that gap really well
> but IMHO I think those pros and cons still hold.
Unless the consoles come out with a mouse/keyboard control scheme and really
supports it, the PC will still rule the FPS world. I've played some Halo 2
extensively on a friends X-Box and it could never stack up to a good PC FPS.
The aiming is either assisted or just not precise.
I'd also say that the PC is better for sports games, not so much in variety
of games to buy, but because of roster additions and downloadable tweaks. I
know that consoles are somewhat closing the gap with internet connectivity,
but there is no where near the variety of rosters as on the PC. As for text
based sports games, the PC rules hands down, but I doubt that's a very big
market.
Again, all that said, the consoles can put out some excellent stuff. I was
just blown away by how immersive and nerve wracking that Resident Evil 4
was...I hadn't bothered with that Gamecube since the last Zelda and RE4 just
sucked away my time, and almost cured me of my Counterstrike addiction (and
no console will have Source crap...I hope).
turk
--
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken,
Baltimore Evening Sun on 26 July 1920
| |
| Jordan 2005-02-22, 6:32 pm |
| sayNO2consoles wrote:
quote:
> a decent PC with monitor only costs around $500 from Dell etc. most
> people already have a pc for internet, office-type activities,
> multimedia activities.
Yeah, good luck playing games on that.
quote:
> it can be upgraded to good gaming standard with
> a $75 video card. that's less than the $150 for a console.
You'll also need to double the RAM and put in a decent sized hard
drive. Possibly even quadruple the RAM. Games like Doom 3 or Half Life
2 will balk unless you have a gig.
quote:
> then they save money on the games because they're cheaper than
console games > and depreciate in value faster so most year old games
are only $10.
They're cheaper because, as a rule, they're garbage. Of all the PC
games in the past few years there are exactly 4 that I want to play.
Half Life 2, Doom 3, Dungeon Seige and Freedom Force. FF unfortunately,
won't run under Service Pack 2 so I'm dead in the water right now until
the developer releases a patch and they're too busy working on the new
FF game to get it out the door. Gee, there's a problem I don't have on
any of my consoles.
quote:
> as i've noted above i don't see why people feel the need to buy an
> extra machine when they *already* have a very capable gaming machine
> in the house.
Most people have a PC, calling it a capable gaming machine is
completely different. I just built a new PC, it replaces my Cyrix 266
and my rev. B 233 mhz iMac. I built it for around $700, but you know
what? Doing this is beyond the average computer owner. Here are the
stats on the system:
CodeGen E6097-CA case
http://www.codegengroup.com/admin/p...n02/s02_237.jpg
ECS 755-A2 Motherboard
AMD Athlon 64 3200+ CPU (2 Ghz.)
1 GB Kingston RAM
ATI Radeon 9550 se video card
4 port Firewire card
Toshiba dual layer DVD burner
32X CD-ROM (had prior to build)
250 GB HD (had prior to build)
Windows XP Pro, SP 2.
The weak link is the video card, but I didn't want to spend more than
$100 on video when I know I'm just going to have to replace it next
year anyway.
- Jordan
| |
| Pluvious 2005-02-22, 6:32 pm |
| On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 12:07:52 GMT, "Vince"
<vmelia@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
quote:
>"sayNO2consoles" wrote
>
>
>Tell DoFool that.
>
>He's been arguing that most people don't.
>
FYI: sayNO2concoles IS difool.
Guess I should have made that killfile global. sigh.
Pluvious
| |
|
|
"sayNO2consoles" <sayNO2steam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u4vl115rfh4dtfnkuj4332224l6d5vd83b@4ax.com...
quote:
> a decent PC with monitor only costs around $500 from Dell etc. most
> people already have a pc for internet, office-type activities,
> multimedia activities. it can be upgraded to good gaming standard with
> a $75 video card. that's less than the $150 for a console. then they
> save money on the games because they're cheaper than console games and
> depreciate in value faster so most year old games are only $10.
>
> as i've noted above i don't see why people feel the need to buy an
> extra machine when they *already* have a very capable gaming machine
> in the house.
>
> --
> Art Weingardner Mon, 21 Feb 2005
>
> these wise words Art wrote are undeniable!
> pc games are the most less costly gaming platform!
>
> --
> 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
I enjoy PC gaming as much as anyone, but how easily (with a PC) can you play
a game while:
Sitting on the couch with a wireless controller, emerged in Dolby Digital
5.1, while enjoying the game in 16:9 High Definition?
Such is a possible with a PC, I admit, but I don't want a tower sitting in
my living room.
I'm skeptical about a $575 PC ($500 PC + $75 video card "upgrade") being a
decent gaming machine.
As for Steam/Valve, I'm with you on that one. I won't be playing
"Half-Life 2".
| |
|
| "Pluvious" wrote
quote:
>"Vince" wrote:
quote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> FYI: sayNO2concoles IS difool.
Get away!
| |
| Doug Jacobs 2005-02-22, 6:32 pm |
| In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 sayNO2consoles <sayNO2steam@yahoo.com> wrote:
quote:
> a decent PC with monitor only costs around $500 from Dell etc. most
> people already have a pc for internet, office-type activities,
> multimedia activities. it can be upgraded to good gaming standard with
> a $75 video card. that's less than the $150 for a console. then they
> save money on the games because they're cheaper than console games and
> depreciate in value faster so most year old games are only $10.
You're apparentally unaware that most of Dell's (or anyone's) $300-500 PCs
come with an integrated graphics solution that cannot be upgraded because
there is no AGP slot. Furthermore, many of these integrated graphics
solutions have no dedicated video memory - they use your machine's RAM.
This makes them a poor choice for many PC games - even those from a few
years ago.
Granted, you can *build* a capable gaming machine for very little money
nowadays, but you're looking at about $700, not $500. Even then, if you're
looking for something that works "out of the box", then prepare to pay more
as Dell, Compaq, HP, Gateway, etc. are all overpriced when you compare them
to a vanilla DIY box.
Also, consider that right now, the latest and greatest consoles only cost
$99-150 - way cheaper than any modern PC on the market today...
quote:
> as i've noted above i don't see why people feel the need to buy an
> extra machine when they *already* have a very capable gaming machine
> in the house.
Many reasons:
1: Just because your machine is capable of checking email and surfing the
web doesn't mean it's going to be able to handle, say, HalfLife1, much
less HL2 or Doom3. Many low end PCs come with way too little memory, a
small HD, an integrated video system hard-wired into the AGP bus (no AGP
slot available) utilized shared video memory, and use a slower FSB. Sure,
they're perfectly capable of using the internet, helping the kids type up
a report, balance the household budget and maybe even do some light
retouching of photos. Sure, they'll play some games, but try anything
with 3d and you're going to get a pretty poor performance out of them.
Sure, you could buy more memory, a larger HD, and a new video card...but
then again, the idea is to keep it cheap - AND simple(!) for the people,
right? After all, how many non-technical people do you know are
comfortable enough to open a PC and install more memory or an additional
HD?
2: Say what you will about PCs, consoles are easier to operate. You pop
in the game, you turn it on, and you start playing. There's no worries
about installing the game, patching the game (a must with PC games),
updating your drivers (not neccessary, but some say it is) much less
worrying about viruses and spyware that can sap your computer of its
performance.
3: From a gamer's perspective, no single platform will ever play every
sort of game. While this generation of platforms hosts an unprecedented
number of cross-platform games between consoles and the PC, show me a PC
that can play GT3 (or 4), Jak & Daxter, Ratchet & Clank, Final Fantasy X
or X2, Xenosaga, Dead Or Alive, or *any* current Mario title. Now show me
a current console that can play Half Life2, Sims2 (or Sim-anything for
that matter),, Roller Coaster Tycoon, Civ, Warcraft3, WoW, CoH... Many
gamers have multiple consoles AND a PC. As they say, the right tool for
the right job.
| |
| James Garvin 2005-02-22, 6:32 pm |
| Doug Jacobs wrote:
quote:
> Granted, you can *build* a capable gaming machine for very little money
> nowadays, but you're looking at about $700, not $500. Even then, if you're
> looking for something that works "out of the box", then prepare to pay more
> as Dell, Compaq, HP, Gateway, etc. are all overpriced when you compare them
> to a vanilla DIY box.
White box seems to be the way to go more and more...it is sad to see the
big guys go BACK to proprietary crap. I liked it better when they
actually put parts in the computer.
However, I would like to say that Shuttle PC is pretty decent:
http://sys.us.shuttle.com/Home.aspx
quote:
> Also, consider that right now, the latest and greatest consoles only cost
> $99-150 - way cheaper than any modern PC on the market today...
It sounds like the next gen is going to be pretty expensive...what
happens when consoles cost as much as a low end pc?
quote:
> 2: Say what you will about PCs, consoles are easier to operate. You pop
> in the game, you turn it on, and you start playing. There's no worries
> about installing the game, patching the game (a must with PC games),
> updating your drivers (not neccessary, but some say it is) much less
> worrying about viruses and spyware that can sap your computer of its
> performance.
It seems like more and more console games could use a patch or two as
well. The console quality is slipping (in the bug department) and
shovelware is becoming the bane of consoles (much like PCs in the mid 90's).
I would say it is only time before somebody sends a virus out via X-Box
Live ;-)
quote:
> 3: From a gamer's perspective, no single platform will ever play every
> sort of game. While this generation of platforms hosts an unprecedented
> number of cross-platform games between consoles and the PC, show me a PC
> that can play GT3 (or 4), Jak & Daxter, Ratchet & Clank, Final Fantasy X
> or X2, Xenosaga, Dead Or Alive, or *any* current Mario title. Now show me
> a current console that can play Half Life2, Sims2 (or Sim-anything for
> that matter),, Roller Coaster Tycoon, Civ, Warcraft3, WoW, CoH... Many
> gamers have multiple consoles AND a PC. As they say, the right tool for
> the right job.
Agreed here! I hate the console vs PC. Each has its strengths and
weaknesses. However, I see both markets converging into a PC/Consle
hybrid. Pretty soon you won't be able to tell a gaming rig from a
console (if the X-Box and X-Box 2 are any indication)
| |
| Doug Jacobs 2005-02-22, 6:32 pm |
| In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 James Garvin <jgarvin2004@comcast.net> wrote:
quote:
> White box seems to be the way to go more and more...it is sad to see the
> big guys go BACK to proprietary crap. I liked it better when they
> actually put parts in the computer.
What I hate is that all the PC makers give you restore CDs - NOT original
installation media. This means that if you want to repartition your HD,
and install Windows....you can't. Also means that if your copy of Office
decides to corrupt itself (which mine did) you can't just install Office
without blowing away the whole HD. Basically drove me off Office for
good, which I'll admit is a good thing, but still it's bad that I don't
have real installation CDs.
quote:
> However, I would like to say that Shuttle PC is pretty decent:
> http://sys.us.shuttle.com/Home.aspx
Yeah, I like the form factor 
quote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> It sounds like the next gen is going to be pretty expensive...what
> happens when consoles cost as much as a low end pc?
Well, pricing hasn't been set yet. There are rumors about the next XBox
being $400, but nothing's been set in concrete yet. Even at $300, most
people buy an additional controller ($35-40), and maybe another accessory,
so the total cost was still over $350 before any games were bought.
Even when Xbox came out, with it's PC-like components, it would still
would have cost you more to put together a PC with the same components -
about $500, if I remember correctly. You have to remember that console
makers start out selling their consoles at a loss in order to draw in
people to buy the games. The console makers make their money from the
licensing fees on the games, not from their hardware.
Of course, within months of release, PC hardware started to zoom past the
Xbox, but that always happens with PC vs. console.
quote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> It seems like more and more console games could use a patch or two as
> well. The console quality is slipping (in the bug department) and
> shovelware is becoming the bane of consoles (much like PCs in the mid 90's).
The instances have been rare, but yes, I can certainly think some cases
where the game could have used some extra fixes before shipping. The
worst offender I've heard about is the Matrix game that was released to
coincide with the release of the 3rd movie. Unfortunatly that seems to
have been more of a marketting decision vs. an engineering one.
Consoles haven't suffered as much from shovelware as the PCs did, namely
because you still have to go through the licensing program to release a
title on a console - even a total stinker. Yeah, you still see every
kiddie movie turned into a horrible piece of software, but then again,
that's always been the case since the days of the 2600.
quote:
> I would say it is only time before somebody sends a virus out via X-Box
> Live ;-)
That'd be pretty difficult, and pretty limited, too. Unlike the PC, the
Xbox doesn't have a whole lot of an OS underneath it. Just enough to run
the game, basically. And since you have to reset/reboot to play a new
game, any such virus would be wiped from active memory each time. It's
not like the virus could rewrite your game disc either... Yeah, there's
non-volatile storage on an XBox in the form of a HD, and you could - I
suppose - write a virus to infect the game data on the HD, but it'd still
be difficult to do, and extremely limited in what it could accomplish.
Now, there *was* a virus of sorts on Phantasy Star Online for the DC which
was pretty insidious... If an infected character walked into the same
room as you, your character's data would be overwritten with the virus'
character. You then would infect anyone you came into contact with on the
game by overwriting their characters' data, and so on... Very nasty, very
stupid (character data was stored on your memory card!).
| |
| HockeyTownUSA 2005-02-22, 10:14 pm |
| "sayNO2consoles" <sayNO2steam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u4vl115rfh4dtfnkuj4332224l6d5vd83b@4ax.com...
quote:
>a decent PC with monitor only costs around $500 from Dell etc. most
> people already have a pc for internet, office-type activities,
> multimedia activities. it can be upgraded to good gaming standard with
> a $75 video card. that's less than the $150 for a console. then they
> save money on the games because they're cheaper than console games and
> depreciate in value faster so most year old games are only $10.
>
> as i've noted above i don't see why people feel the need to buy an
> extra machine when they *already* have a very capable gaming machine
> in the house.
>
Ummm, I use my PC for gaming, and it is a high-end PC but still have an
XBOX. Why? Because the XBOX is great for multiplayer gaming and is also
quick and easy to setup. Not only that, but Live! is the best feature any
console could add. Yes you can do this on the PC, but adding voice
communication makes Live! so much better. And it is hard to find a good PC
game title that you can play on the same machine multiplayer with someone. I
do love my PC for real-time strategy games and combat flight simulators. No
console can touch that capability. But for action and sports games, a
console is the best!
| |
|
|
Doug Jacobs wrote:
snip
quote:
> 3: From a gamer's perspective, no single platform will ever play every
> sort of game.
Probably true, but time to nit pick...
While this generation of platforms hosts an unprecedented
quote:
> number of cross-platform games between consoles and the PC, show me a PC
> that can play GT3 (or 4), Jak & Daxter, Ratchet & Clank, Final Fantasy X
> or X2, Xenosaga, Dead Or Alive, or *any* current Mario title.
DOA will play on PSX emulators. The various GBA Mario titles will play
on GBA emus as well. And at least Superstar Saga should count as a
current Mario title.
Now show me
quote:
> a current console that can play Half Life2, Sims2 (or Sim-anything for
> that matter),,
Gamecube has the Sims and Sims Bustin Out. PSX had SimCity 2000 and Sim
Theme Park. Saturn had both, too. The SNES/SFC had SimCity, SimCity
2000, SimCity Jr, and Sim Earth.
quote:
> Roller Coaster Tycoon, Civ,
Civ and Civ 2 are on the PSX. SNES also had Civ. So did Saturn.
I bet I'm missing a bunch...
| |
| Doug Jacobs 2005-02-22, 10:14 pm |
| In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Ted <nospamforted@nospam.com> wrote:
quote:
> Probably true, but time to nit pick...
quote:
> DOA will play on PSX emulators. The various GBA Mario titles will play
> on GBA emus as well. And at least Superstar Saga should count as a
> current Mario title.
[snipitty]
I knew this was going to happen ;)
There are no PS2, XBox, or Gamecube emus for the PC yet that run any
significant number of games. I have my doubts about the PS1 emus as well,
since I got burned by the folks at Bleem! who were all talk, and delivered
a substandard product that didn't even work with 10% of the PS1's total
library.
And I should have been a bit more specific about games from those consoles
- such as DOA Hardcore, DOA3, DOA:VB, DOA:Ultimate, any Mario game from
the Game Cube, etc.
| |
| Knight37 2005-02-22, 10:14 pm |
| Gandalf Parker <gandalf@most.of.my.favorite.sites> once tried to test me
with:
quote:
> Hmmm crossposting this between the PC gaming groups and the console
> gaming groups doesnt do much to combat your image as a troll.
Ummm he is a troll. Always has been a troll.
--
Knight37
The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
| |
| Knight37 2005-02-22, 10:14 pm |
| sayNO2consoles <sayNO2steam@yahoo.com> once tried to test me with:
quote:
> as i've noted above i don't see why people feel the need to buy an
> extra machine when they *already* have a very capable gaming machine
> in the house.
Only a diFool sticks to one platform. True Gamers go wherever the good
games are.
--
Knight37
The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
| |
| Knight37 2005-02-22, 10:14 pm |
| Doug Jacobs <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> once tried to test me with:
quote:
> In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Ted <nospamforted@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> [snipitty]
>
> I knew this was going to happen ;)
>
> There are no PS2, XBox, or Gamecube emus for the PC yet that run any
> significant number of games. I have my doubts about the PS1 emus as
> well, since I got burned by the folks at Bleem! who were all talk, and
> delivered a substandard product that didn't even work with 10% of the
> PS1's total library.
Try EPSXE. It doesn't work on all PS1 games but it does work on a vast
majority of them and it runs very well on modern PC hardware.
--
Knight37
The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
| |
|
|
Doug Jacobs wrote:
snip
quote:
> And I should have been a bit more specific about games from those consoles
> - such as DOA Hardcore, DOA3, DOA:VB, DOA:Ultimate, any Mario game from
> the Game Cube, etc.
Super Mario Brothers is in Animal Crossing, and of course can be played
on NES emus on PCs...
(/nitpick)
| |
| Doug Jacobs 2005-02-22, 10:14 pm |
| In alt.games.video.xbox Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> wrote:
quote:
> Try EPSXE. It doesn't work on all PS1 games but it does work on a vast
> majority of them and it runs very well on modern PC hardware.
I'm sure that there are plenty PS1 emus now, but they're sort of pointless
if you ask me. PS1 is $50 + $10 memory card. Requires no special hardware,
and is 100% compatible with PS1 games. PS2 is $150 + $10 memory card,
compatible with almost every PS1 game, plus can play DVDs and PS2 games.
I'm sure we'll have PS2, Xbox, and Game Cube emus as well, though by that
time, the rest of us will be playing PS4, Xbox720, etc...
| |
|
|
Doug Jacobs wrote:
quote:
>
> In alt.games.video.xbox Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> wrote:
>
>
> I'm sure that there are plenty PS1 emus now, but they're sort of pointless
> if you ask me. PS1 is $50 + $10 memory card. Requires no special hardware,
> and is 100% compatible with PS1 games.
Within a region...
Importing is relatively easy (at least with my serial port PSX), except
for import gun games, which I have several of, and swapping out a gun
for a normal controller (needed to get through the import device menus)
is dangerous. Emulation won't help me too much with that tho (monitor
does not equal TV in size); I need an import PSX or PS2...
PS2 is $150 + $10 memory card,
quote:
> compatible with almost every PS1 game, plus can play DVDs and PS2 games.
> I'm sure we'll have PS2, Xbox, and Game Cube emus as well, though by that
> time, the rest of us will be playing PS4, Xbox720, etc...
What I found to be the value of emulation is using it on a laptop.
Obviously, that makes for a very expensive portable, but it's very
convenient to be using a laptop, need a break, and play 10 minutes of a
favorite game from 10 years previous. That'll get more complicated in
the future when non-digital control increasingly enters the picture...
| |
| Knight37 2005-02-22, 10:14 pm |
| Ted <nospamforted@nospam.com> once tried to test me with:
quote:
>
>
> Doug Jacobs wrote:
Missed your response, piggy backing on this one.
[vbcol=seagreen]
An emu offers some gameplay features that you don't get with a PS1. First
and foremost, you can play the game on you high-res, digital monitor, from
your comfy office chair, which is a big plus for me. Secondly, you can save
the game-state at any point, which is great for games that don't have
enough save points. Thirdly, umm... okay there is no thirdly.
Playing PSX on the TV is all fine and dandy, but playing with an emu also
has it's pluses. Peronally I do not recommend getting an emulator as an
alternative to buying a PS2 (which is what I'd get, not a PS1), I'd
recommend it as another fun way to enjoy your legally-purchased games.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> PS2 is $150 + $10 memory card,
I agree that PS2 is the way to go if you are interested in PSX or PS2
titles.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> What I found to be the value of emulation is using it on a laptop.
> Obviously, that makes for a very expensive portable, but it's very
> convenient to be using a laptop, need a break, and play 10 minutes of
> a favorite game from 10 years previous. That'll get more complicated
> in the future when non-digital control increasingly enters the
> picture...
Yah, laptops are great. I can't afford one though.
--
Knight37
The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
| |
| HawkMan 2005-02-23, 4:16 am |
|
"sayNO2consoles" <sayNO2steam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u4vl115rfh4dtfnkuj4332224l6d5vd83b@4ax.com...
quote:
>a decent PC with monitor only costs around $500 from Dell etc. most
> people already have a pc for internet, office-type activities,
> multimedia activities. it can be upgraded to good gaming standard with
> a $75 video card. that's less than the $150 for a console. then they
> save money on the games because they're cheaper than console games and
> depreciate in value faster so most year old games are only $10.
>
> as i've noted above i don't see why people feel the need to buy an
> extra machine when they *already* have a very capable gaming machine
> in the house.
>
> --
> Art Weingardner Mon, 21 Feb 2005
>
> these wise words Art wrote are undeniable!
> pc games are the most less costly gaming platform!
>
> --
> 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
When I pop the latest sports game in my Xbox, I know it's going to work. I
won't need to update a video or sound driver. I don't need to set the video
resolution, or shut down the 10 different background tasks I have running in
order to get a decent framerate.
Also, look what I said, sports game. If I stuck with the PC I'd be limited
to EA for my baseball, football, and basketball game fixes. There's a whole
spectrum of games on the consoles. Besides, Xbox Live is just easier to
connect to, and overall a better experience.
I'm not a newbie, I've been working with computers since the Sinclair ZX80,
(I'll wait while the youngsters go look that up...).
That said, I do enjoy gaming on the PC. Can't beat Doom 3, or a quick game
of Freedom Force.
I do enjoy sitting in my recliner with my Xbox hooked up to my big screen
HDTV, playing online with my wireless controller and headset, trash talking
with my latest gridiron opponent.
| |
| Galley 2005-02-23, 4:16 am |
| On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:34:24 +0000, sayNO2consoles <sayNO2steam@yahoo.com>
spewed forth these words of wisdom:
quote:
>a decent PC with monitor only costs around $500 from Dell etc. most
>people already have a pc for internet, office-type activities,
>multimedia activities. it can be upgraded to good gaming standard with
>a $75 video card. that's less than the $150 for a console. then they
>save money on the games because they're cheaper than console games and
>depreciate in value faster so most year old games are only $10.
>
>as i've noted above i don't see why people feel the need to buy an
>extra machine when they *already* have a very capable gaming machine
>in the house.
>
>--
>Art Weingardner Mon, 21 Feb 2005
>
>
PCs crash; consoles do not!
--
"I'm not a cool person in real life, but I play one on the Internet"
Galley
| |
| James Garvin 2005-02-23, 4:16 am |
| Galley wrote:
quote:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:34:24 +0000, sayNO2consoles <sayNO2steam@yahoo.com>
> spewed forth these words of wisdom:
>
>
>
>
> PCs crash; consoles do not!
Uh...They do. Just not very often and usually it causes a softboot. ;-)
| |
| Doug Jacobs 2005-02-23, 4:16 am |
| In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Galley <Galley@spam-jammer.galleytech.com> wrote:
quote:
> PCs crash; consoles do not!
I don't know about you, but I've crashed my PS1 a handful of times, my PS2
a few times, and I've read a lot of reports of the Gamecube crashing.
Granted, they don't crash very often when compared to a PC, but the idea
that consoles don't crash is a false one.
| |
| crymad 2005-02-23, 6:50 pm |
|
Doug Jacobs wrote:
quote:
> You're apparentally unaware that most of Dell's (or anyone's)
> $300-500 PCs come with an integrated graphics solution that
> cannot be upgraded because there is no AGP slot. Furthermore,
> many of these integrated graphics solutions have no dedicated
> video memory
Out of curiosity, are there still people who continue to use with
abandon the word "solution" like this? Why not just say, "come
with integrated graphics" and "many integrated graphics"?
--crymad
| |
| sayNO2steam 2005-02-23, 6:50 pm |
| On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 "Vince" wrote:
quote:
> He's been arguing that most people don't.
you really like to manipulate
but let me make this very clear... i could have the fastest ultra
high speed state of the art always on with no download limits net
access in my pc for games and i would still never ever accept steam!
steam is not about having or not internet connection, steam is about
freedom! about consumer rights! about choice!
it doesn't matter what internet connection you have, STEAM NEVER!
--
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
| |
| sayNO2steam 2005-02-23, 6:50 pm |
| On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, "turk" wrote:
quote:
> sucked away my time, and almost cured me of my Counterstrike addiction (and
> no console will have Source crap...I hope).
if you don't want steam for the consoles you must help us pc gamers
fighting it on the pc
if steam wins in the pc it will for sure also INFECT consoles
fighting steam is a GLOBAL FIGHT for any gamer regardless of platform!
so please join us in the fight against steam
--
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
| |
| sayNO2steam 2005-02-23, 6:50 pm |
| On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 Gandalf Parker wrote:
quote:
> The market of games in that categorry is dwindling Im afraid. Not because
> there are fewer of them but because retail chains and publishers are
> growing farther and farther apart in their marketing models. Less PC
> games will support any return policy of the stores which causes less
> sores to be willing to buy a game in bulk (which creates the $10 bin).
are you sure this is relevant and is this the main issue about pc games
being behind consoles?
are console games different?
in a retail store can you return a console game and not a pc game?
quote:
> groups. I prefer action games (what used to be called joystick games) to
> be on the consoles in front of my couch because it does that best. I
> prefer deep strategy games with lots of room and tons of randoms and
> unlimited saves to be on the PC because it does that best.
you disappointed me very much with the steam issue but this one is very
surprising cause you would know better than anyone that pc games can't
survive only with one type of games, you know it will not be strategic
games that will save pc games but all kind of type of games, so if you
support pc games you should support them regardless of type
the true support for pc games is making it the ONLY gaming platform of
choice to you and any pc gamer that really wants to protect it
--
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
| |
| sayNO2steam 2005-02-23, 6:50 pm |
| On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, "Eric" wrote:
quote:
> As for Steam/Valve, I'm with you on that one. I won't be playing
> "Half-Life 2".
very happy to know that!
fighting steam has to be done by all cause only together can we beat
them
--
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
| |
| Gandalf Parker 2005-02-23, 6:50 pm |
| sayNO2steam <sayNO2steam@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:c14p11d3ijiasio18b1co5e36id0grqsg8@4ax.com:
quote:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 Gandalf Parker wrote:
>
>
> are you sure this is relevant and is this the main issue about pc
> games being behind consoles?
> are console games different?
> in a retail store can you return a console game and not a pc game?
I know its one of the responses from the PC game industry. Also the
packaging size but the PC games made that change (which did help for
awhile)
quote:
>
> you disappointed me very much with the steam issue but this one is
> very surprising cause you would know better than anyone that pc games
> can't survive only with one type of games, you know it will not be
> strategic games that will save pc games but all kind of type of games,
> so if you support pc games you should support them regardless of type
>
> the true support for pc games is making it the ONLY gaming platform of
> choice to you and any pc gamer that really wants to protect it
I support games. I support developers of games. And I support non-mega
game publishers. My preferences are as a game player.
Games will always survive on the levels that I prefer. If the huge mega-
corps fail there is very little about it that I will miss.
Gandalf parker
| |
| Arcane Hayter 2005-02-23, 6:50 pm |
| I play many games across many platforms (including PC). The one thing
we have to remember is that the PC started out as a tool. That's how
its life began. It wasn't designed to play games. Consoles are designed
from the ground up to play games. How long can you play a PC game
compared to a console game without getting some kind of cramp in one
(if not both) of yours hands? You have to buy a controller for some
types of games because a keyboard does not make for good video game
controls. The mouse works like a dream though, doesn't it?
The demographic from PC games to Console games is a major shift also,
though that is starting to change. With videogames becoming more
mainstream everyday, people are beginning to see them as entertainment
for any age. You no longer have to sneak off to your PC to pretend
you're getting some work done while you frag it up online. You can plop
down on your couch and play a console because its not "kiddie" anymore.
The PC developers have had it far to easy in my opinion. Over the years
they have had to code for multiple setups, yes, but they can also write
code that won't work on current videocards (atleast not very fast or
good looking) and just wait for the vid card manufacturers to crank out
a new one. Where does that leave the gamers in the PC market? It leaves
our pocket books empty buying a new video card every year. The console
programmers have to deal with restrictions and also push the hardware,
and look where it gets us. The games at the end of a console's life
cycle are amazing compared to launch titltes. Sometimes for more
horsepower the answer is not dropping a bigger motor in and forking out
a fortune in the process, sometimes its tweaking and fine tuning -
saving money in the long run.
Either way we win.
Just sayin'
| |
| Green Shampoo 2005-02-23, 6:50 pm |
|
"sayNO2consoles" <sayNO2steam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u4vl115rfh4dtfnkuj4332224l6d5vd83b@4ax.com...
quote:
>a decent PC with monitor only costs around $500 from Dell etc. most
> people already have a pc for internet, office-type activities,
> multimedia activities. it can be upgraded to good gaming standard with
> a $75 video card. that's less than the $150 for a console. then they
> save money on the games because they're cheaper than console games and
> depreciate in value faster so most year old games are only $10.
>
> as i've noted above i don't see why people feel the need to buy an
> extra machine when they *already* have a very capable gaming machine
> in the house.
>
> --
First off, I think you forgot to crosspost to a troll newsgroup.
Secondly, four people playing a game on one PC? Forget it.
Third, pushing W to walk forward? Forget it.
Finally, I've never had to update a console, (other than new Xbox Live
features) wait for the game to install itself, or worry about getting 3
frames per second because I don't have a 256 MB graphics card that costs
more than a console.
| |
| Green Shampoo 2005-02-23, 6:50 pm |
|
"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
news:111n8g7irdkj77a@corp.supernews.com...
quote:
> In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 sayNO2consoles
> <sayNO2steam@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> You're apparentally unaware that most of Dell's (or anyone's) $300-500 PCs
> come with an integrated graphics solution that cannot be upgraded because
> there is no AGP slot. Furthermore, many of these integrated graphics
> solutions have no dedicated video memory - they use your machine's RAM.
> This makes them a poor choice for many PC games - even those from a few
> years ago.
>
Case in point: I just bought an HP Pavilion DV1010US with 512 MB RAM and an
integrated 64 MB video card. My machine runs Rise of Nations at about 12
frames per second.
| |
| Green Shampoo 2005-02-23, 6:50 pm |
|
"Ted" <nospamforted@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:421BC1EF.4CE9BB87@nospam.com...
quote:
>
>
> Doug Jacobs wrote:
> snip
>
> Probably true, but time to nit pick...
>
> While this generation of platforms hosts an unprecedented
>
> DOA will play on PSX emulators. The various GBA Mario titles will play
> on GBA emus as well. And at least Superstar Saga should count as a
> current Mario title.
>
> Now show me
>
> Gamecube has the Sims and Sims Bustin Out. PSX had SimCity 2000 and Sim
> Theme Park. Saturn had both, too. The SNES/SFC had SimCity, SimCity
> 2000, SimCity Jr, and Sim Earth.
>
>
> Civ and Civ 2 are on the PSX. SNES also had Civ. So did Saturn.
>
> I bet I'm missing a bunch...
RC Tycoon is on Xbox.
| |
| Walter Mitty 2005-02-23, 6:50 pm |
| Knight37 wrote:
quote:
> Gandalf Parker <gandalf@most.of.my.favorite.sites> once tried to test me
> with:
>
>
>
>
> Ummm he is a troll. Always has been a troll.
>
So is "Gandalf". He likes to say "Hmmm" a lot while stroking his beard
and putting us volatile youngsters back on the right track - even if he
doesn't actually know the subject to which he is contributing.
| |
| Green Shampoo 2005-02-23, 6:50 pm |
|
"Ted" <nospamforted@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:421BE289.EF25C89B@nospam.com...
quote:
> What I found to be the value of emulation is using it on a laptop.
> Obviously, that makes for a very expensive portable, but it's very
> convenient to be using a laptop, need a break, and play 10 minutes of a
> favorite game from 10 years previous. That'll get more complicated in
> the future when non-digital control increasingly enters the picture...
I'm guilty of this myself. I sometimes use my laptop to play Double Dragon,
Kung Fu, River City Ransom, and SNES games like Super Mario Kart and Killer
Instinct.
I hope emulators for current gen consoles are never available. I don't see a
problem with people pirating games that are past their life cycle and don't
make money. But pirating current gen games that are still helping the
industry is a big no-no, IMO.
| |
| Green Shampoo 2005-02-23, 6:50 pm |
|
"Knight37" <knight37m@email.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9605CBE423A6Bknight37m@130.133.1.4...
quote:
> Yah, laptops are great. I can't afford one though.
>
You can find great deals on more than capable brand new laptops if you can
afford to take a hit while waiting for a rebate. The laptop I just bought
came with a $250 rebate and a $300 voucher for Marriot Hotel stays.
| |
| Walter Mitty 2005-02-23, 6:50 pm |
| crymad wrote:
quote:
>
>
> Doug Jacobs wrote:
>
>
>
> Out of curiosity, are there still people who continue to use with
> abandon the word "solution" like this? Why not just say, "come
> with integrated graphics" and "many integrated graphics"?
>
LOL.
Similarly, try and read an advert where the product isn't a "solution to
your lifestyle".
Lifestyle my XXX.
| |
| Gandalf Parker 2005-02-23, 6:50 pm |
| Walter Mitty <mitticus@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
news:cvgtss$mfv$00$3@news.t-online.com:
quote:
> Knight37 wrote:
>
> So is "Gandalf". He likes to say "Hmmm" a lot while stroking his beard
> and putting us volatile youngsters back on the right track - even if
> he doesn't actually know the subject to which he is contributing.
Quite right.
Although in different wording it might be refered to as "discussing".
Gandalf Parker
| |
| Doug Jacobs 2005-02-23, 6:50 pm |
| In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Arcane Hayter <arcane.hayter@gmail.com> wrote:
quote:
> I play many games across many platforms (including PC). The one thing
> we have to remember is that the PC started out as a tool. That's how
> its life began. It wasn't designed to play games. Consoles are designed
> from the ground up to play games. How long can you play a PC game
> compared to a console game without getting some kind of cramp in one
> (if not both) of yours hands? You have to buy a controller for some
> types of games because a keyboard does not make for good video game
> controls. The mouse works like a dream though, doesn't it?
I've actually logged 12+ hour gaming sessions with both PC and console.
No cramps for me. I couldn't afford a flight stick while I was in
college, so for me, the keyboard was my controller. I didn't even have a
mouse until some time later (this was during the days of DOS and my first
PC couldn't handle Win3.x)
If anything, I avoided earlier consoles because their controllers gave me
blisters quite quickly (curse you, NES controller!) It wasn't until the
dual-shock came out that I was able to play console games on a regular
basis for longer than 20-30 minutes at a time...
quote:
> The demographic from PC games to Console games is a major shift also,
> though that is starting to change. With videogames becoming more
> mainstream everyday, people are beginning to see them as entertainment
> for any age. You no longer have to sneak off to your PC to pretend
> you're getting some work done while you frag it up online. You can plop
> down on your couch and play a console because its not "kiddie" anymore.
Since when have gamers worried about what others think of them? Having to
lie about what your hobby? Worried your hobby is too "kiddie"? That
doesn't sound healthy to me...
| |
| Doug Jacobs 2005-02-23, 6:50 pm |
| Xref: TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl microsoft.public.xbox:232434
In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Green Shampoo <Frog_tongue@webtv.net> wrote:
quote:
> RC Tycoon is on Xbox.
I did not know that.
| |
| Arcane Hayter 2005-02-23, 6:50 pm |
|
Doug Jacobs wrote:
quote:
> Since when have gamers worried about what others think of them?
Having to
quote:
> lie about what your hobby? Worried your hobby is too "kiddie"? That
quote:
> doesn't sound healthy to me...
When you're my age and live where I live you get funny looks when you
where a GTA San Andreas shirt to work or show up at Wal-Mart at 5:00 AM
to snag a PS2 the day that they drop. Not to mention and ex-wife and
many ex-girlfriends who thought videogames were just for their kid
brother. But hey, maybe (hopefully) its just me. I just know that there
have been times when I talk to someone my age about videogames and they
look at me like I'm crazy, then I find out later how much they love
Command and Conquer on thier PC at home but don't consider that
"playing videogames".
| |
| Doug Jacobs 2005-02-23, 6:50 pm |
| In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 crymad <crymadSPAMBLOCK@xprt.net> wrote:
quote:
> Doug Jacobs wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Out of curiosity, are there still people who continue to use with
> abandon the word "solution" like this? Why not just say, "come
> with integrated graphics" and "many integrated graphics"?
Bad habit from working in the tech industry I guess. "solution" refers to
the entire product and service, as opposed to just the chip, or board or
whatever.
| |
| Doug Jacobs 2005-02-23, 6:50 pm |
| In alt.games.video.xbox Arcane Hayter <arcane.hayter@gmail.com> wrote:
quote:
> When you're my age and live where I live you get funny looks when you
> where a GTA San Andreas shirt to work or show up at Wal-Mart at 5:00 AM
> to snag a PS2 the day that they drop. Not to mention and ex-wife and
> many ex-girlfriends who thought videogames were just for their kid
> brother. But hey, maybe (hopefully) its just me. I just know that there
> have been times when I talk to someone my age about videogames and they
> look at me like I'm crazy, then I find out later how much they love
> Command and Conquer on thier PC at home but don't consider that
> "playing videogames".
I dunno, what's your age? I'm over 30, still play video games, and watch
cartoons while eatting Cocoa Puffs ;)
A friend of mine did stand in line over 12 hours to get a PS2, midnight
launch day.
Most of my friends play games, at least casually, on either console, PC,
or both.
| |
|
| Those cheapie Dells don't have an AGP or PCI-E slot to upgrade the video and
the onboard Intel Extreme graphics can't play any game created in the last
year or so worth a damn. Don't believe me? Go to the video card forums and
read the posts from the suckers who are stuck with these systems.
DaveL
"sayNO2consoles" <sayNO2steam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u4vl115rfh4dtfnkuj4332224l6d5vd83b@4ax.com...
quote:
>a decent PC with monitor only costs around $500 from Dell etc. most
> people already have a pc for internet, office-type activities,
> multimedia activities. it can be upgraded to good gaming standard with
> a $75 video card. that's less than the $150 for a console. then they
> save money on the games because they're cheaper than console games and
> depreciate in value faster so most year old games are only $10.
>
> as i've noted above i don't see why people feel the need to buy an
> extra machine when they *already* have a very capable gaming machine
> in the house.
>
> --
> Art Weingardner Mon, 21 Feb 2005
>
> these wise words Art wrote are undeniable!
> pc games are the most less costly gaming platform!
>
> --
> 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
| |
| James Garvin 2005-02-23, 6:50 pm |
| sayNO2steam wrote:
quote:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 "Vince" wrote:
>
>
>
>
> you really like to manipulate
> but let me make this very clear... i could have the fastest ultra
> high speed state of the art always on with no download limits net
> access in my pc for games and i would still never ever accept steam!
>
> steam is not about having or not internet connection, steam is about
> freedom! about consumer rights! about choice!
> it doesn't matter what internet connection you have, STEAM NEVER!
You made the choice not to buy the game...now STFU
| |
| James Garvin 2005-02-23, 6:50 pm |
| Green Shampoo wrote:
quote:
> "Ted" <nospamforted@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:421BE289.EF25C89B@nospam.com...
>
>
>
> I'm guilty of this myself. I sometimes use my laptop to play Double Dragon,
> Kung Fu, River City Ransom, and SNES games like Super Mario Kart and Killer
> Instinct.
> I hope emulators for current gen consoles are never available. I don't see a
> problem with people pirating games that are past their life cycle and don't
> make money. But pirating current gen games that are still helping the
> industry is a big no-no, IMO.
My biggest problem is that if I COULD buy it I would. However, these
old NES, Sega, etc games are generally never sold or if they are they
aren't the "good" ones ;-)
| |
| Knight37 2005-02-23, 10:15 pm |
| Walter Mitty <mitticus@yahoo.co.uk> once tried to test me with:
quote:
> Knight37 wrote:
>
> So is "Gandalf". He likes to say "Hmmm" a lot while stroking his beard
> and putting us volatile youngsters back on the right track - even if
> he doesn't actually know the subject to which he is contributing.
Gandalf is quirky but not a troll. He responds to everything, but he
doesn't go out and crosspost to 60 friggin' threads in some insane attempt
to get attention like diFoolish One.
--
Knight37
The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
| |
| Large Farva 2005-02-24, 4:16 am |
|
"sayNO2consoles" <sayNO2steam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u4vl115rfh4dtfnkuj4332224l6d5vd83b@4ax.com...
quote:
>a decent PC with monitor only costs around $500 from Dell etc. most
> people already have a pc for internet, office-type activities,
> multimedia activities. it can be upgraded to good gaming standard with
> a $75 video card.
...expect for the fact that the low end crappy Dells do not have an AGP slot
so it's either built in video or PCI video. Have fun with your Dell.
For that same $500 you can build a high end Athlon XP based machine that
will run circles around a $500 Dell. In fact it would be pretty much equal
to a $3000 Dell XPS.
| |
|
| Large Farva wrote:
quote:
> "sayNO2consoles" <sayNO2steam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:u4vl115rfh4dtfnkuj4332224l6d5vd83b@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> ..expect for the fact that the low end crappy Dells do not have an AGP slot
> so it's either built in video or PCI video. Have fun with your Dell.
>
> For that same $500 you can build a high end Athlon XP based machine that
> will run circles around a $500 Dell. In fact it would be pretty much equal
> to a $3000 Dell XPS.
>
For that same $500 the average computer user could buy
$500 worth of components and end up with just that -
$500 worth of unassembled parts. The average computer
user has no idea how to put a computer together.
| |
| Courageous 2005-02-24, 4:16 am |
|
quote:
>For that same $500 the average computer user could buy
>$500 worth of components and end up with just that -
>$500 worth of unassembled parts. The average computer
>user has no idea how to put a computer together.
I put my own computers together.
Generally, if people ask me about that, I tell them not to.
It's a hobby thing. You'll put far more of your personal time
into it than it's worth, unless you're getting something out
of it for your time... per se.
OTOH, if something funky happens to your computer, you can
often fix it on the spot. And you should see the number of
computers that their users declared "broken" that were not...
C//
| |
| Knight37 2005-02-24, 4:16 am |
| Courageous <dontwant@spam.com> once tried to test me with:
quote:
>
>
> I put my own computers together.
>
> Generally, if people ask me about that, I tell them not to.
> It's a hobby thing. You'll put far more of your personal time
> into it than it's worth, unless you're getting something out
> of it for your time... per se.
>
> OTOH, if something funky happens to your computer, you can
> often fix it on the spot. And you should see the number of
> computers that their users declared "broken" that were not...
I used to put my own PCs together.
My first PC was a PCjr that I got as a gift, then I bought a 8088 XT clone
that was 10mhz and ended up putting a hard drive in it (20 mb, it was
stylin'). But I didn't start building my own PCs until I built a 386 using
an AMD 40mhz chip, and a motherboard I don't even remember the name of.
That machine was great, never gave me a bit of problems. My next project
was an 80mhz 486 (also AMD). I loved that one too but it was a bit flakey.
Then I got an AMD "586" that was like 150mhz or so. I think my next one was
a 350mhz AMD. Then I got an 850mhz Athlon and that was my favorite PC I
ever built. It had a GeForce 2 mx 64mb. It had a gig of ram (512mb when I
first got it but I upgraded it). It also had a 80gb hd that died on me so i
ugpraded to a 120gb. Oh yah and it also had a 40gb drive that was from the
350mhz one.
But this last computer I just got I decided it wasn't worth the hassles of
ordering parts and spending the time to put it all together and then making
sure it worked and of course having to do the research ahead of time to
make sure I got parts that were all compatible, etc. So I just went down to
a local vendor who builds the PCs for my wife's school district and they
gave me a sweet deal on an Intel P4 3.2ghz. First Intel chip I've bought in
a LONG time. It's pretty reliable so far. And blows away the 850 for
performance. I had them put a Radeon 9800 pro in it. And a gig of ram.
Just ordered me a DVD burner so I can back up all my pr0n^H^H^H^H er i mean
instructional videos.
--
Knight37
The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
| |
| ChoyKw 2005-02-24, 4:16 am |
| Knight37 wrote:
quote:
>
> I used to put my own PCs together.
>
> My first PC was a PCjr that I got as a gift, then I bought a 8088 XT clone
> that was 10mhz and ended up putting a hard drive in it (20 mb, it was
> stylin'). But I didn't start building my own PCs until I built a 386 using
> an AMD 40mhz chip, and a motherboard I don't even remember the name of.
Could it be James or Jane or Charlie? :-D
quote:
> That machine was great, never gave me a bit of problems. My next project
> was an 80mhz 486 (also AMD). I loved that one too but it was a bit flakey.
> Then I got an AMD "586" that was like 150mhz or so.
Erm IIRC, the 586 only goes up to 100MHz (while intel 486s only offer around
80MHz). I got a 586 myself, loved AMD ever since. (They market the 586 as "486
DX4 back than, I think...at least the shopkeeper told me so... untill I took
off the heatsink and said hello to Mr AMD)
quote:
> I think my next one was
> a 350mhz AMD.
The K6? I got this too, AMD K6 350, loved it.
quote:
> Then I got an 850mhz Athlon and that was my favorite PC I
> ever built.
Ah... is yours a Thunderbird? I'ge got an Athlon 850 too after the K6-350, but
I was stucked with a TNT2 M64 and 256MB RAM and....2GB harddisk....
quote:
> It had a GeForce 2 mx 64mb. It had a gig of ram (512mb when I
> first got it but I upgraded it). It also had a 80gb hd that died on me so i
> ugpraded to a 120gb. Oh yah and it also had a 40gb drive that was from the
> 350mhz one.
>
> But this last computer I just got I decided it wasn't worth the hassles of
> ordering parts and spending the time to put it all together and then making
> sure it worked and of course having to do the research ahead of time to
> make sure I got parts that were all compatible, etc. So I just went down to
> a local vendor who builds the PCs for my wife's school district and they
> gave me a sweet deal on an Intel P4 3.2ghz. First Intel chip I've bought in
> a LONG time. It's pretty reliable so far. And blows away the 850 for
> performance. I had them put a Radeon 9800 pro in it. And a gig of ram.
>
> Just ordered me a DVD burner so I can back up all my pr0n^H^H^H^H er i mean
> instructional videos.
My current system is *still* AMD -- Athlon XP 1600+, going to upgrade to Socket
A Sempron 3000+ maybe... that's the max my Mobo can support, I think. Oh, also,
I'm so lagging behind technology that, I'm still using _Instrctional_
_Pictures_ instead of _Instructional_ _Videos_ so a cd-writter is more than
enough for me... I never have been able to stuff the CDs full anyway. :-D
(ROFLMAO)
| |
| Bartow W. Riggs 2005-02-24, 4:16 am |
| CAKE.
"Knight37" <knight37m@email.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9606E7042C249knight37m@130.133.1.4...
quote:
> Courageous <dontwant@spam.com> once tried to test me with:
>
>
> I used to put my own PCs together.
>
> My first PC was a PCjr that I got as a gift, then I bought a 8088 XT clone
> that was 10mhz and ended up putting a hard drive in it (20 mb, it was
> stylin'). But I didn't start building my own PCs until I built a 386 using
> an AMD 40mhz chip, and a motherboard I don't even remember the name of.
> That machine was great, never gave me a bit of problems. My next project
> was an 80mhz 486 (also AMD). I loved that one too but it was a bit flakey.
> Then I got an AMD "586" that was like 150mhz or so. I think my next one
> was
> a 350mhz AMD. Then I got an 850mhz Athlon and that was my favorite PC I
> ever built. It had a GeForce 2 mx 64mb. It had a gig of ram (512mb when I
> first got it but I upgraded it). It also had a 80gb hd that died on me so
> i
> ugpraded to a 120gb. Oh yah and it also had a 40gb drive that was from the
> 350mhz one.
>
> But this last computer I just got I decided it wasn't worth the hassles of
> ordering parts and spending the time to put it all together and then
> making
> sure it worked and of course having to do the research ahead of time to
> make sure I got parts that were all compatible, etc. So I just went down
> to
> a local vendor who builds the PCs for my wife's school district and they
> gave me a sweet deal on an Intel P4 3.2ghz. First Intel chip I've bought
> in
> a LONG time. It's pretty reliable so far. And blows away the 850 for
> performance. I had them put a Radeon 9800 pro in it. And a gig of ram.
>
> Just ordered me a DVD burner so I can back up all my pr0n^H^H^H^H er i
> mean
> instructional videos.
>
> --
>
> Knight37
>
> The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
| |
| sayNO2steam 2005-02-24, 7:22 am |
| On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Gandalf Parker wrote:
quote:
> I know its one of the responses from the PC game industry. Also the
> packaging size but the PC games made that change (which did help for
> awhile)
you can't get any smaller than that!
its already at the size of a dvd movie or music video or any other
console game
don't change what is now the perfect packaging in pc games!
pc games have to say, enough is enough and we will not go any further!
quote:
> Games will always survive on the levels that I prefer. If the huge mega-
> corps fail there is very little about it that I will miss.
i wasn't talking about the "huge mega-corps", i was talking about game
platforms and the competition between them and the pc loosing ground for
all other platforms specially the consoles
but ok, i understand your point of view... you are first a gamer and the
platform in which you play is not relevant
you want to play games regardless of platform
i not like that, i'm a PC GAMER, i'm not a GAMER that uses the PC for
gaming, i'm a PC GAMER which means i don't like any other platform for
gaming
the PC is about freedom and choice and versatility, and no other has it
i could never play games in any other platform except the pc cause no
other has that FREEDOM
--
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
| |
| Gandalf Parker 2005-02-24, 6:30 pm |
| sayNO2steam <sayNO2steam@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:us0r119tni6bnitui01sc5b1tt6vup6cjm@4ax.com:
quote:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Gandalf Parker wrote:
>
>
> but ok, i understand your point of view... you are first a gamer and
> the platform in which you play is not relevant
> you want to play games regardless of platform
> i not like that, i'm a PC GAMER, i'm not a GAMER that uses the PC for
> gaming, i'm a PC GAMER which means i don't like any other platform for
> gaming
> the PC is about freedom and choice and versatility, and no other has
> it i could never play games in any other platform except the pc cause
> no other has that FREEDOM
I take it by that statement that what you really mean is that you are a
Windows PC Gamer. That would make it easier to hold that type of view.
On the other hand I have played on .. (counting in my head..) 8 different
PC platforms, and 4 different console platforms (neither of which include
version changes such as WinME to WinXP or Nintendo64 to Playstation). At
the moment, most of my gaming is either Windows or Linux. Consoles to me
are just another PC platform but one which is trimmed down to a more
specific purpose.
Gandalf Parker
| |
| Walter Mitty 2005-02-24, 6:30 pm |
| Gandalf Parker wrote:
quote:
> Games will always survive on the levels that I prefer. If the huge mega-
> corps fail there is very little about it that I will miss.
Well, there you have it folks. Bang goes market research : just give
good old Gandalf a call. His reasoning can not be faulted : he does,
after all, buy 5 copies of a game even if he doesn't like it
| |
| Walter Mitty 2005-02-24, 6:30 pm |
| Knight37 wrote:
quote:
> Walter Mitty <mitticus@yahoo.co.uk> once tried to test me with:
>
>
>
>
> Gandalf is quirky but not a troll. He responds to everything, but he
> doesn't go out and crosspost to 60 friggin' threads in some insane attempt
> to get attention like diFoolish One.
>
Dont get me wrong : I'm not onParker's case. But you will find a trend :
that of the sage, understanding one : invariably with little, or
nothing, to justify his stance (or lack of it). He is a fence sitter
who invariably reignites threads through such statements as "so what
does the box say" in the middle of a thread dedicated to just that. He
has also spoken openly of his love for *IX operating systems : this
makes him, without dispute, a beardhead...
--
Walter Mitty
-
Useless, waste of money research of the day : http://tinyurl.com/3tdeu
" Format wars could 'confuse users'"
http://www.tinyurl.com
| |
| Courageous 2005-02-24, 6:30 pm |
|
quote:
>But this last computer I just got I decided it wasn't worth the hassles of
>ordering parts and spending the time to put it all together and then making
>sure it worked and of course having to do the research ahead of time to
>make sure I got parts that were all compatible, etc.
I thought I made that decision once. I ordered an (at the time) very high
end dual 1.2 ghz opteron workstation from a special vendor.
It came without the case fan wire attached. In this era of AMD's chips,
they didn't have a thermal spreader. Over heating could destroy the chips.
I was pissed.
I attached the fan.
I still build my own computers.
C//
| |
| Gandalf Parker 2005-02-24, 6:30 pm |
| Walter Mitty <mitticus@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:cvjfj2$4ff$02$4@news.t-
online.com:
quote:
> Gandalf Parker wrote:
>
>
> Well, there you have it folks. Bang goes market research : just give
> good old Gandalf a call. His reasoning can not be faulted : he does,
> after all, buy 5 copies of a game even if he doesn't like it
Why do you keep saying things like that? Ive never said that.
I keep checking to see if you are a dizum or reece sock-puppet poster
because you come across so much as a stalker troll.
Gandalf Parker
| |
| Gandalf Parker 2005-02-24, 6:30 pm |
| Walter Mitty <mitticus@yahoo.co.uk> spewed in
news:cvjfgg$4ff$02$3@news.t-online.com:
quote:
> Knight37 wrote:
>
> Dont get me wrong : I'm not onParker's case. But you will find a trend
> : that of the sage, understanding one : invariably with little, or
> nothing, to justify his stance (or lack of it).
Translated as "dont bother coming to the conversation unless you are an
already convinced fanatic ready to fight.
quote:
> He is a fence sitter
> who invariably reignites threads through such statements as "so what
> does the box say"
> in the middle of a thread dedicated to just that.
Translated as "furthers conversations by asking on-topic questions"
quote:
> He
> has also spoken openly of his love for *IX operating systems : this
> makes him, without dispute, a beardhead...
Oooooo K
I have to admit that you stumped me there. Beard head? This is reference
to the long white beard in my picture? Something about my age?
Actually Im surprised you dont throw fence-sitter at me there. I only
love unix/linux as servers (which I have) but I prefer WinXP as desktop
(which I also have).
Gandalf Parker
| |
|
| Gandalf Parker wrote:
quote:
> At
> the moment, most of my gaming is either Windows or Linux. Consoles to me
> are just another PC platform but one which is trimmed down to a more
> specific purpose.
>
> Gandalf Parker
What games do you find to play on Linux?
Or do you use emulators for games on Linux?
| |
| Socialist 2005-02-24, 6:30 pm |
| mrlg wrote:
quote:
> Gandalf Parker wrote:
>
>
>
> What games do you find to play on Linux?
> Or do you use emulators for games on Linux?
Those who modded their consoles play on Linux :P
| |
| Gandalf Parker 2005-02-24, 6:30 pm |
| mrlg <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
news:t8oTd.10404$x53.8863@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
quote:
> Gandalf Parker wrote:
>
> What games do you find to play on Linux?
> Or do you use emulators for games on Linux?
At the moment I run a MUD (non-graphical mmorpg), and occassionally act as
server-host for Dominions 2 games (which I massively love as a strategy
game)
Im beginning to get back into UO as a graphical mmorpg but the open source
server software doesnt seem to support linux yet
Gandalf Parker
| |
| Knight37 2005-02-24, 10:15 pm |
| Walter Mitty <mitticus@yahoo.co.uk> once tried to test me with:
quote:
> Dont get me wrong : I'm not onParker's case. But you will find a trend :
> that of the sage, understanding one : invariably with little, or
> nothing, to justify his stance (or lack of it). He is a fence sitter
> who invariably reignites threads through such statements as "so what
> does the box say" in the middle of a thread dedicated to just that. He
> has also spoken openly of his love for *IX operating systems : this
> makes him, without dispute, a beardhead...
>
LOL I find this conversation amusing.
I like Unix. I use it at work a lot. But I would never run my home PC on
it, there aren't enough games for it.
--
Knight37
The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
| |
|
| On 23 Feb 2005 07:44:12 -0800, "Arcane Hayter"
<arcane.hayter@gmail.com> wrote:
quote:
>I play many games across many platforms (including PC). The one thing
>we have to remember is that the PC started out as a tool. That's how
>its life began. It wasn't designed to play games. Consoles are designed
>from the ground up to play games. How long can you play a PC game
>compared to a console game without getting some kind of cramp in one
>(if not both) of yours hands?
Why would you get a cramp for using PC keyboard and mouse? I don't.
They are designed to be ergonomic. Millions of people use keyboards
and mice daily at their work. Using them for gaming isn't that
different from using them for work, "cramp-wise".
If any gaming controller is giving me problems, it is console/PC
gamepads. They are a nightmare. You have to support them with your
palms keeping them in the air, you access most of the buttons only
with your thumbs while other fingers do absolutely nothing (minus the
shoulder buttons), the small analog "joysticks" are quite inaccurate
when operated with mere thumbs, etc.
quote:
>The PC developers have had it far to easy in my opinion. Over the years
>they have had to code for multiple setups, yes, but they can also write
>code that won't work on current videocards (atleast not very fast or
>good looking) and just wait for the vid card manufacturers to crank out
>a new one. Where does that leave the gamers in the PC market? It leaves
>our pocket books empty buying a new video card every year. The console
>programmers have to deal with restrictions and also push the hardware,
It is a common misconception that PC developers would not push the
hardware at all. This misconception arises from the fact that early
console games are always very piss-poor work, so of course there is
lots of room to "optimize" the code. Early PS2 games didn't utilize
many of the chips in PS2, that would be like making a 3D polygon game
for modern PCs without using the 3D accelerator at all.
| |
| sayNO2steam 2005-02-25, 7:20 am |
| On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Gandalf Parker wrote:
quote:
> I take it by that statement that what you really mean is that you are a
> Windows PC Gamer. That would make it easier to hold that type of view.
there are things i gave up discussing... its a waste of time
one is steam... steam is totally wrong and must go away at least from the
retail channel
the other is piracy... pay to play and everything else is irrelevant, so
if you want to play a game pay it, if you don't pay you don't play simple
and the third is about pc gaming operating system... its microsoft and
end of talk... if its wrong being only microsoft that's another issue but
the reality is pc games = microsoft
quote:
> On the other hand I have played on .. (counting in my head..) 8 different
> PC platforms, and 4 different console platforms (neither of which include
> version changes such as WinME to WinXP or Nintendo64 to Playstation). At
> the moment, most of my gaming is either Windows or Linux. Consoles to me
> are just another PC platform but one which is trimmed down to a more
> specific purpose.
probably its cause english is not my language but i didn't understand a
word you wrote... what are you saying... you only use pc hardware and all
the rest is software emulators so you can run a wide variety of gaming
platforms... but regardless if it is so, the point we are talking is
supporting pc games, and you only do that by BUYING PC GAMES
so if you buy console games and play it on pc hardware its irrelevant
cause what is important is not the hardware you run but for the platform
you buy games
to support pc games you buy games only for the pc
and btw, you talk about linux, i will not even try to reply... linux is
not a gaming platform period
--
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
| |
| Hong Ooi 2005-02-25, 7:20 am |
| On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 09:24:40 +0000, sayNO2steam <sayNO2steam@yahoo.com>
wrote:
quote:
>
>probably its cause english is not my language but i didn't understand a
>word you wrote... what are you saying...
He's saying that you are stupid.
Shut up, fool.
--
Hong Ooi | "COUNTERSRTIKE IS AN REAL-TIME
hong@zipworld.com.au | STRATEGY GAME!!!"
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ | -- RR
Sydney, Australia |
| |
| Lynley James 2005-02-25, 6:13 pm |
| On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 18:40:53 GMT, Gandalf Parker
<gandalf@most.of.my.favorite.sites> wrote:
quote:
>mrlg <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
>news:t8oTd.10404$x53.8863@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
>
>
>At the moment I run a MUD (non-graphical mmorpg), and occassionally act as
>server-host for Dominions 2 games (which I massively love as a strategy
>game)
>
Which MUD do you run? I used to have loads of fun in the Discworld
one many years ago.
Lynley
| |
| Gandalf Parker 2005-02-25, 6:13 pm |
| sayNO2steam <sayNO2steam@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:udpt119m8bct5q2vikobr02puiaa7da795@4ax.com:
quote:
> probably its cause english is not my language but i didn't understand
> a word you wrote... what are you saying... you only use pc hardware
> and all the rest is software emulators so you can run a wide variety
> of gaming platforms...
No I have a linux server, windows desktops, a playstation, an xbox, and
many more. I very rarely use an emulator.
And I agree that linux is not the game machine that windows is. I do not
use linux as a desktop. I use it as a server. That means that I do my
own ISP stuff. Webpages, email, ftp, irc, dns. Everything I do for
myself. My email and web addresses go to my machine in my kitchen. I
also use the linux server to host (be the internet server side) of many
games. For that, it is much better than windows IMHO.
But for games, yes. Windows is #1.
quote:
> but regardless if it is so, the point we are talking is
> supporting pc games, and you only do that by BUYING PC GAMES
> so if you buy console games and play it on pc hardware its irrelevant
> cause what is important is not the hardware you run but for the
> platform you buy games
Thats true. Buying console games, web based games, mobile phone games,
hand-held games, boxed games, none of those have much to do with
supporting the PC gaming industry.
I do however have a large interest in supporting the PC gaming industry
outside of the windows game industry. I support it on MAC because any
game written for both MAC and Windows is more stable. And I support it on
Linux because anything written for both Linux and Windows is better able
to be managed off of anyones internet machine without relying on the
companys servers.
Everything has its pros and cons.
Gandalf Parker
| |
| Gandalf Parker 2005-02-25, 6:13 pm |
| Lynley James <lynley.james@gmail.com> wrote in
news:sh8u111bcb5ajqdsso65d1unidta0fuvrh@4ax.com:
quote:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 18:40:53 GMT, Gandalf Parker
> <gandalf@most.of.my.favorite.sites> wrote:
>
> Which MUD do you run? I used to have loads of fun in the Discworld
> one many years ago.
Its called SDmud (Shadowdale MUD). Around since '93 and listed on the
DIKU hierarchy as its own code-base (DaleMud).
Its been in non-maintenance for over 5 years but it JUST W | | |