The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Consoles have a solid heritage, as long as that of the personal computer (Woznaks Apple in 1977), already an established piece of hardware by the time IBM got around to releasing their PC business machine. Since Atari launched the first console in the seventies, technology has advanced and advanced, and advanced...
But consoles have never really changed... For example, the N64, which though released in the mid-nineties, looks remarkably similar to Atari's 2600...? Sure the sound has improved, the graphics are superior, and CPU’s have been used which run ever faster... But you still just turn the machine on, stick the game in the slot, and control everything through the joystick/pad...
Now, you may say, that’s all well and good, but what about the Hard Drives, the Internet connectivity, the superior joy pad design, game complexity,
Sure, Id say, but all its really doing is delaying the inevitable, SONY and Microsoft and Nintendo just trying, and succeeding in selling you yesterdays technology with a few bells and whistles stick on, a few tricks nicked from PC's and a choice of coloured case...
And to honest, Id rather have none of it... I don’t want to have to justify buying my console to those who have bought others... sitting through Complaints that Microsoft ripped me off, and don’t care about my purchase, that my Nintendo is a kiddies toy, that Sony is a casual gamers machine whose titles sequels and tired used up ideas...
I don’t want to have to decide what machine to buy depending on whether Capcom think they can make more money creating games solely for the X-Box ... Or because Nintendo have bought a controlling stake in the company who make my favourite titles... whilst the next game in my favourite gaming series is about to be released on the PS2...
I want to play Halo in the Morning, Luigis Mansion in the afternoon and Final Fantasy in the evening...
Why should I be forced to make a choice based on selecting the machine with the least limitations...?
Why should I spend three hundred quid on the latest console today, only to discover that next year the next version is going to be released earlier to keep it in competition with the other consoles...?
It would seem, I want the games, but I don’t want the machines...
Instead, Id much rather pay Nintendo/Microsoft/SONY ISP a tenner a month for access to their titles, or, if I don’t play that much, I'll pay per minute, get free evening and weekend access?...
Not enough incentive for you to develop new titles... okay, how about this... you provide the access portal, I'll pay a small subscription fee, and then a software developer can develop a title which we then pay a separate subscription fee for. Given that most games can be completed within a couple of weeks... say 2.50 a week? 5.00?
All I'd need to own is a basic generic box; it wouldn’t need be updated with the latest technology, since all the hardware will be held at Nintendo/Microsoft/Sony HQ...
Pretending BT didn’t royally screw up their Broadband rollout, why do we need to have consoles at all? Isn’t it time to move on? ... Leave Consoles to the dust of times past, a memory of the seventies enduring toy, I'm a 21st century boy... It’s not my responsibility to fit into the needs and requirements of Nintendo/Sony or Microsoft... I'm the customer; they should be dancing to my tune...
But consoles have never really changed... For example, the N64, which though released in the mid-nineties, looks remarkably similar to Atari's 2600...? Sure the sound has improved, the graphics are superior, and CPU’s have been used which run ever faster... But you still just turn the machine on, stick the game in the slot, and control everything through the joystick/pad...
Now, you may say, that’s all well and good, but what about the Hard Drives, the Internet connectivity, the superior joy pad design, game complexity,
Sure, Id say, but all its really doing is delaying the inevitable, SONY and Microsoft and Nintendo just trying, and succeeding in selling you yesterdays technology with a few bells and whistles stick on, a few tricks nicked from PC's and a choice of coloured case...
And to honest, Id rather have none of it... I don’t want to have to justify buying my console to those who have bought others... sitting through Complaints that Microsoft ripped me off, and don’t care about my purchase, that my Nintendo is a kiddies toy, that Sony is a casual gamers machine whose titles sequels and tired used up ideas...
I don’t want to have to decide what machine to buy depending on whether Capcom think they can make more money creating games solely for the X-Box ... Or because Nintendo have bought a controlling stake in the company who make my favourite titles... whilst the next game in my favourite gaming series is about to be released on the PS2...
I want to play Halo in the Morning, Luigis Mansion in the afternoon and Final Fantasy in the evening...
Why should I be forced to make a choice based on selecting the machine with the least limitations...?
Why should I spend three hundred quid on the latest console today, only to discover that next year the next version is going to be released earlier to keep it in competition with the other consoles...?
It would seem, I want the games, but I don’t want the machines...
Instead, Id much rather pay Nintendo/Microsoft/SONY ISP a tenner a month for access to their titles, or, if I don’t play that much, I'll pay per minute, get free evening and weekend access?...
Not enough incentive for you to develop new titles... okay, how about this... you provide the access portal, I'll pay a small subscription fee, and then a software developer can develop a title which we then pay a separate subscription fee for. Given that most games can be completed within a couple of weeks... say 2.50 a week? 5.00?
All I'd need to own is a basic generic box; it wouldn’t need be updated with the latest technology, since all the hardware will be held at Nintendo/Microsoft/Sony HQ...
Pretending BT didn’t royally screw up their Broadband rollout, why do we need to have consoles at all? Isn’t it time to move on? ... Leave Consoles to the dust of times past, a memory of the seventies enduring toy, I'm a 21st century boy... It’s not my responsibility to fit into the needs and requirements of Nintendo/Sony or Microsoft... I'm the customer; they should be dancing to my tune...
Page:
pb wrote:
> hm. Many people still don't have anything better than a 56k connection ability,
> and may not have one for years to come. Given the wait you'd have to experience
> downloading a game on this system, you'd be asleep before it got half way.
> Useful for insomniacs, not for anyone else.
Like I say, there would be no downloading... although, I think I mentiotned, that you do have to pretend that BT has rolled out Broadband properly... to be honest, I dont really think broadband would be fast enough... probably the next step???
It's not so much that people
> are technophobes (although they are) but that technology costs money and the
> UK's grasp of keeping up with other countries is getting worse and worse. It
> used to be that most of the rest of Europe had the technology after us, they
> were especially bad at gaming, but now everything seems to be cheaper and faster
> in many other countries and the UK is losing out.
aye... although it doesnt have to be introduced into the UK first... Japan, US, anywhere
Many people like the idea
> of physically buying a game, there is less chance of losing it due to a power
> cut, or frm accidentally wiping the storage medium. Having a disc or cart means
> you can put the games away safely and SEE them. People in general are sceptical
> of things they can't see.
There is no downloading of software, the entire game is stored at the service provders... so you could never accidently wipe your game and lose it all before you managed to back it up...
Although, I do remeber readin a report around 1998, that stated that whilke Americans, Japanese, and many other world citizens had no problem buying games over the net, and downloading them to their PC, that it hadnt really caught on with the British public, who preferred if the item cost more, but had suitable packageing, and had soemting physical to hold... so possibly its just a British situation?
> hm. Many people still don't have anything better than a 56k connection ability,
> and may not have one for years to come. Given the wait you'd have to experience
> downloading a game on this system, you'd be asleep before it got half way.
> Useful for insomniacs, not for anyone else.
Like I say, there would be no downloading... although, I think I mentiotned, that you do have to pretend that BT has rolled out Broadband properly... to be honest, I dont really think broadband would be fast enough... probably the next step???
It's not so much that people
> are technophobes (although they are) but that technology costs money and the
> UK's grasp of keeping up with other countries is getting worse and worse. It
> used to be that most of the rest of Europe had the technology after us, they
> were especially bad at gaming, but now everything seems to be cheaper and faster
> in many other countries and the UK is losing out.
aye... although it doesnt have to be introduced into the UK first... Japan, US, anywhere
Many people like the idea
> of physically buying a game, there is less chance of losing it due to a power
> cut, or frm accidentally wiping the storage medium. Having a disc or cart means
> you can put the games away safely and SEE them. People in general are sceptical
> of things they can't see.
There is no downloading of software, the entire game is stored at the service provders... so you could never accidently wipe your game and lose it all before you managed to back it up...
Although, I do remeber readin a report around 1998, that stated that whilke Americans, Japanese, and many other world citizens had no problem buying games over the net, and downloading them to their PC, that it hadnt really caught on with the British public, who preferred if the item cost more, but had suitable packageing, and had soemting physical to hold... so possibly its just a British situation?
Strafex wrote:
> Isn't the whole point of having a console instead of playing arcades is that you
> buy the game and don't have to pay again.
no... I dont think so???
Although, as I think I said i a previous post (I may have forgotten to) it would work out much cheaper for a gamer this way than it is currently...
Also... why would you need to pay again???
There would be one
> problem.
Whichever company is running it would need to have a working computer
> for every player. Would a computer perform at its best while coping with
> different players?
No, not at all... for example take web pages, ISP's, even current online game providers (Origina, SONY, Microsoft, GameSpy)at the moment... they dont need to have seperate computers for each player...
> Isn't the whole point of having a console instead of playing arcades is that you
> buy the game and don't have to pay again.
no... I dont think so???
Although, as I think I said i a previous post (I may have forgotten to) it would work out much cheaper for a gamer this way than it is currently...
Also... why would you need to pay again???
There would be one
> problem.
Whichever company is running it would need to have a working computer
> for every player. Would a computer perform at its best while coping with
> different players?
No, not at all... for example take web pages, ISP's, even current online game providers (Origina, SONY, Microsoft, GameSpy)at the moment... they dont need to have seperate computers for each player...
Turbonutter wrote:
> Of course I would consider downloading games if it was cheaper and feasible, but
> I would just end up burning them to a CD/DVD.
A point to note is when you buy
> software to download you actually buy a lisence - you can download it any number
> of times as long as you have the lisence key, so if your HDD gets
> wiped/connection gets killed it doesn't matter (as long as you've written down
> the key of course).
You wouldnt actually be downloading any games... software would be held with the service provider...
Games should also be much cheaper, since, it would illiminate piracy and there would be no need to spend money on producing the CD, box, distribution, etc.. even advertising would be cheaper, since much of it could be done at the service providers homepage, which would be your first stop before playing the game...
Game payment could work out at either payment per month, payment per level, or one off payment for infinite play.. though given that most games seem to take a week to complete it would work out much cheaper for the gamesplayer.
> Of course I would consider downloading games if it was cheaper and feasible, but
> I would just end up burning them to a CD/DVD.
A point to note is when you buy
> software to download you actually buy a lisence - you can download it any number
> of times as long as you have the lisence key, so if your HDD gets
> wiped/connection gets killed it doesn't matter (as long as you've written down
> the key of course).
You wouldnt actually be downloading any games... software would be held with the service provider...
Games should also be much cheaper, since, it would illiminate piracy and there would be no need to spend money on producing the CD, box, distribution, etc.. even advertising would be cheaper, since much of it could be done at the service providers homepage, which would be your first stop before playing the game...
Game payment could work out at either payment per month, payment per level, or one off payment for infinite play.. though given that most games seem to take a week to complete it would work out much cheaper for the gamesplayer.
Isn't the whole point of having a console instead of playing arcades is that you buy the game and don't have to pay again.
Personally, I'd much rather have a console.
Nice idea, possibly for the distant future.
There would be one problem.
Whichever company is running it would need to have a working computer for every player. Would a computer perform at its best while coping with different players?
Personally, I'd much rather have a console.
Nice idea, possibly for the distant future.
There would be one problem.
Whichever company is running it would need to have a working computer for every player. Would a computer perform at its best while coping with different players?
Of course I would consider downloading games if it was cheaper and feasible, but I would just end up burning them to a CD/DVD.
A point to note is when you buy software to download you actually buy a lisence - you can download it any number of times as long as you have the lisence key, so if your HDD gets wiped/connection gets killed it doesn't matter (as long as you've written down the key of course).
A point to note is when you buy software to download you actually buy a lisence - you can download it any number of times as long as you have the lisence key, so if your HDD gets wiped/connection gets killed it doesn't matter (as long as you've written down the key of course).
hm. Many people still don't have anything better than a 56k connection ability, and may not have one for years to come. Given the wait you'd have to experience downloading a game on this system, you'd be asleep before it got half way. Useful for insomniacs, not for anyone else.
It's not so much that people are technophobes (although they are) but that technology costs money and the UK's grasp of keeping up with other countries is getting worse and worse. It used to be that most of the rest of Europe had the technology after us, they were especially bad at gaming, but now everything seems to be cheaper and faster in many other countries and the UK is losing out.
Many people like the idea of physically buying a game, there is less chance of losing it due to a power cut, or frm accidentally wiping the storage medium. Having a disc or cart means you can put the games away safely and SEE them. People in general are sceptical of things they can't see.
It's not so much that people are technophobes (although they are) but that technology costs money and the UK's grasp of keeping up with other countries is getting worse and worse. It used to be that most of the rest of Europe had the technology after us, they were especially bad at gaming, but now everything seems to be cheaper and faster in many other countries and the UK is losing out.
Many people like the idea of physically buying a game, there is less chance of losing it due to a power cut, or frm accidentally wiping the storage medium. Having a disc or cart means you can put the games away safely and SEE them. People in general are sceptical of things they can't see.
So are your policies.
your opinions are a bit dated
Armatige Shanks wrote:
> Sibs wrote:
> "Cos I'm a 21st Century Digital boy,
I don't know how to
> live, but I got a
> lot of toys,
My daddies a lazy middle classed
> intellectual,
My mommies on
> valium, so ineffectual,
And life's a
> mystery"
lol... After writing about the seventies, I couldnt resist
> (although I was hoping noone else wounld notice! grrr! :)
Does that mean you are a Bad Religion fan?
If you are then read the thing in Music forum called 'Bad Religion: Past,Present,Future' by me... it has no replies yet...
*boo-hoo*
> Sibs wrote:
> "Cos I'm a 21st Century Digital boy,
I don't know how to
> live, but I got a
> lot of toys,
My daddies a lazy middle classed
> intellectual,
My mommies on
> valium, so ineffectual,
And life's a
> mystery"
lol... After writing about the seventies, I couldnt resist
> (although I was hoping noone else wounld notice! grrr! :)
Does that mean you are a Bad Religion fan?
If you are then read the thing in Music forum called 'Bad Religion: Past,Present,Future' by me... it has no replies yet...
*boo-hoo*
i was happy with my Dc
‘I didn't lie, I just omitted certain truths....’©
‘I didn't lie, I just omitted certain truths....’©
Page: