Quake3World

There' s an article that may be of interest to read. Does anyone know how to make their page fit the screen?



http://www.justadventure.com/cgi-bin/ya ... 1125598028

I'm running 1360x1024 and it fits with room to spare.

Very good article so far.

KILL THE PUBLISHERS!

yes, kill them. so nothing gets made

Publisher != Developer

Retard.

AK AK, AK AK AK!!

*DEATH TO THE STRANGERS*

Just finished it and I must say I agree with him. I think this page really sums things up:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/8/12

DRuM wrote:There' s an article that may be of interest to read. Does anyone know how to make their page fit the screen?



http://www.justadventure.com/cgi-bin/ya ... 1125598028

Do you have a 14" monitor so you have to run 800x600?

No I have a 19" monitor. Heh, I forgot to change the res from 800x 600. It all fits now in 1024x768. But I couldn't read it at 1360 res that's way too small. You must have good eyes bitwise.

You have a 19" monitor and you was on 800x600?

You do know that even running at 1024x768 is retarded on such a beast right?

Fuck, I can't go below 1280x1024 or my eyes turn around in my head...

I find 800x600 a good size. I can read even up to that 1360 res but it's not comfy. I need a new prescription anyway, but regardless, I prefer slightly larger text.

ROFL DUmB is so old he needs to reduce the resolution to read stuff on the screen.

That's some pretty slick webdesign btw. Nice pictures.

Mr.Magnetichead wrote:Publisher != Developer

Retard.

what?

Good article, a bit whiny at times, but what he says is basically true. The industry is growing stale. There are solutions to that, although I believe the market isn't quite ready for that yet. Give it a couple of years to get started and accepted, then EA will definitely find itself in deep shit.

The PC games market is the most open software market I can imagine.

If that condition is true, then most of the arguments and 'facts' presented there are bullshit.

How is it so open? If anything, the PC gaming biz would be the first to die. PC games make a fraction of what typical 'good' console games make, and there are even less of these hit games on PC. It's typical for a Final Fantasy to sell close to 10 million copies, while the newest Unreal might be lucky to reach a bit over 1 million.

Lol are you kidding me dzjepp?

Open because if you wanted to create your own game, the setup costs are nil (you already own a computer right), the distribution costs are negligable (bittorrent?), and there are open-sources game engines and content for them just sitting there available for use.

Aye. PC games are shite compared to games released even 5 years ago on a console...

Why is it games are jsut nowhere near complex on a PC, yet on a console they can be really, really complex? Its got nothing to do with raw power. Look at hte PS2, how can THAT make games like Ratchet and Clank, games that ae more than just type X. Why cant a pc make something like that?

o'dium wrote:Aye. PC games are shite compared to games released even 5 years ago on a console...

Why is it games are jsut nowhere near complex on a PC, yet on a console they can be really, really complex? Its got nothing to do with raw power. Look at hte PS2, how can THAT make games like Ratchet and Clank, games that ae more than just type X. Why cant a pc make something like that?

To many variables
Coding for a set spec is soooo much easier than having 100+ different variants
Also, dev kits come in handy with consoles

o'dium wrote:Aye. PC games are shite compared to games released even 5 years ago on a console...

Why is it games are jsut nowhere near complex on a PC, yet on a console they can be really, really complex? Its got nothing to do with raw power. Look at hte PS2, how can THAT make games like Ratchet and Clank, games that ae more than just type X. Why cant a pc make something like that?

Sometimes i dont understand you o'dium... you switch sides way to often..
so a 5 year old console game beats a pc game by todays standard?
So pc games arent complex and not even near as complex as a console game?

hmmm...

Foo wrote:Lol are you kidding me dzjepp?

Open because if you wanted to create your own game, the setup costs are nil (you already own a computer right), the distribution costs are negligable (bittorrent?), and there are open-sources game engines and content for them just sitting there available for use.

That was what I was talking about. The market is just not yet redy for that though - not on a level where a developer can make a good living out of it. Give it a couple of years, then we're talking.

Foo wrote:Lol are you kidding me dzjepp?

Open because if you wanted to create your own game, the setup costs are nil (you already own a computer right), the distribution costs are negligable (bittorrent?), and there are open-sources game engines and content for them just sitting there available for use.

Sure the basic hardware is there for them to use, but don't PC games still cost in the same millions of dollars that console games do to develop? Although there are prolly small to nim that actually cost more than 5 million, you still need more than just the fastest dell and a copy of maya unlimited? At least currently, all open source engines are outdated in the gfx department. You need teh visuals! to sell. So what if you can license the Torque engine for 100$, unless you do some massively heavy modification to upgrade it into the current year, it's guaranteed it will spend most of it's shelf life in the bargain bin.

Distribution however seems to have a positive road, yeah bittorrent really seems like a feasible solution, and even solutions like Steam. They still need the capital to lay out the infrastructure, but at least they don't need to pitch to the publisher, 'Hey can we make this gayme? Look at the gfx!!!!!!! '.

what costs is wages, everything else is negligable

Advertising?

I was talking about development