bairds@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Shawn L. Baird) (04/05/91)
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: >Yep, that's right campers, the (now seven) threads following up Mike >Farren's comp.sys.amiga.games postings have now passed three quarters of >a megabyte in over 200 followup articles in comp.sys.amiga.programmer, >and I haven't even caught up with today's dreck. Of that perhaps >20 Kbytes is information useful to programmers; the rest is sheerest >chest puffing and macho marching. >Get it the hell out of here. >This is _exactly_ the kind of garbage .advocacy was designed to >sidetrack. .programmer is now the biggest c.s.a group, and this kind of >mindless drivel is not improving matters a bit. Bullsh_t (what tact). .advocacy is for pieces of brain damaged flamage with no point to it. Now, I'll agree that some flames, including this one, probably belong there. I also admit that the discussion has seemed to loop over itself a few times. However, the issue at hand is relevant. You ask programmers to develop for higher end machines to convince people to purchase better hardware. How many of these people can actually afford better hardware in the first place? Secondly, what's to convince them to upgrade when your competitor has a product that works on their machine as it stands. You don't blow the machine up, but his has twice the sound data and faster floppy loading times (just playing around with the fact that he has almost the entire 512k of chip ram to himself, while you've probably got 400k of fast ram and another 300k of chip ram, or somesuch, so you have to buffer your data out in fast ram and bring it into chip ram as neccesary). >And before the newbies flame back "who died and willed you the godhead", >ask around. I've got it by rights. Who died and willed you the godhead? ;) >And on another note (see and respect the damned followups line!!!!) >farren@well.sf.ca.us (Mike Farren) writes: >> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes: >>> Most Amiga owners are *NOT* programmers, nor do they want to be. The >>> Amiga is popular MOSTLY among game players, followed by desktop video >>> users. >> Yes, that is true. But if you offer them products which FORCE them to >> remain only game players, then game players is all that they will ever >> be. Nintendo owners will never make good programmers. >I'd like to emphasize this point. Releasing "take over the system" games >_hurts_ the Amiga hardware and software market; if the game you bought >won't multitask, what's the use of buying more memory so that you can >have room to multitask more things? If your life, like mine, is a series >of BBS downloads and file reading, what use a game that won't interact >well with a download? You mean I can have games like on the Mac or I can have _Shadow of the Beast_? There isn't any comparison. I'd rather have the hassle of booting off of floppy, rather than watch some pathetic piece of software that resembles some public domain product. Now, some styles of games should be able to multi-task, or at least on expanded machines. Or, (this is what I'd like to see in such games) offer a button to turn multi-tasking on and off, or during pause. Now what is the chance of a _typical_ A500 owners attitude mirroring your own? Sure, a large number of Usenet people will, or people on BBSs. There are people you don't know, who don't have a modem and therefor no means of communicating with you, that do not have any desire to download and play a game. Who have no desire to download period. Who have no desire other than to use their A500 like a Nintendo (hey, cartridges may be faster, but with my Amiga I can copy the disks, Dude!), and have a mentality to match. Alright, admittedly, many of these people legitimately purchase software, otherwise there wouldn't be a market for 512k A500s, which there is. >If you're a games-only person, why buy a harddisk or extended memory if >the games you buy can't make use of them? Most games-only people probably wouldn't buy a harddisk or extended memory even if some of the games utilized it. As long as software continued to run on their unexpanded machine they wouldn't make such a large investment. >The sword of nuking the system cuts both ways; nuke the system because >the machines in the market have too little memory, and you guarantee >that they stay that way, because you have given them no reason to >upgrade. You're right, it does cut both ways. It's unfortunate. Even provided enough memory, however, some games just can't be made multi-tasking. Is it multi-tasking you want, or just harddisk installability? >Somebody has to blink; to make sure it is the game writers, users need >to stop buying the games that don't "fit" the Amiga -- hardware and OS, >we bought it for both; they can damn well support both if they're such >hotshot programmers. <blink> Since users won't do this, your point is basically fluff, unless you have some sort of hypnotic wave gun to convert the hordes. About the only method I can think of to increase the number of 1-meg Amigas out there, is for Commodore to start a deal where they bundle A501s with the CPU (C'mon Commodore, what a promotion! Just what every developer wants, too, expanded machines to write programs for!) >Pathetic that the game writers are themselves the biggest cause of the >underpowered, unexpanded systems they howl about so loudly. Tell you what, if you can convince every game manufacturer in the country to produce a single 1-meg game, and you give enough money to every A500 owner who can't even afford an A501 expansion, it's a deal. > /// It's Amiga > /// for me: why >Kent, the man from xanth. \\\/// settle for ><xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us> \XX/ anything less? >-- >Convener, COMPLETED comp.sys.amiga grand reorganization. --- Shawn L. Baird, bairds@eecs.ee.pdx.edu, Wraith on DikuMUD The above message is not licensed by AT&T, or at least, not yet.
gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) (04/05/91)
From article <2229@pdxgate.UUCP>, by bairds@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Shawn L. Baird): > means of communicating with you, that do not have any desire to download > and play a game. Who have no desire to download period. Who have no > desire other than to use their A500 like a Nintendo (hey, cartridges may > be faster, but with my Amiga I can copy the disks, Dude!), and have a > mentality to match. Alright, admittedly, many of these people > legitimately purchase software, otherwise there wouldn't be a market for > 512k A500s, which there is. Well, that's because they're all going to the NeXT now... Following in the dying Condor's path, I suppose. -- - gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu - | IBM's brain is on overload, and Apple Gregory Block | needs to be potty-trained. C= may not Toaster+Amiga=The One True DTV | be marketing geniuses, but theyre the ________________________________| best engineers I've seen... -Wubba
rblewitt@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (Richard Blewitt) (04/05/91)
In article <2229@pdxgate.UUCP> bairds@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Shawn L. Baird) writes: >You're right, it does cut both ways. It's unfortunate. Even provided >enough memory, however, some games just can't be made multi-tasking. >Is it multi-tasking you want, or just harddisk installability? Yes! I want it all dammit! Thats why I bought an Amiga. :) Rick
rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (04/05/91)
Ahh... Since I'm in .advocacy now, I can let loose. In article <2229@pdxgate.UUCP> bairds@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Shawn L. Baird) writes: >xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: > >>Yep, that's right campers, the (now seven) threads following up Mike >>Farren's comp.sys.amiga.games postings have now passed three quarters of >>a megabyte in over 200 followup articles in comp.sys.amiga.programmer, >>and I haven't even caught up with today's dreck. Of that perhaps >>20 Kbytes is information useful to programmers; the rest is sheerest >>chest puffing and macho marching. > >>Get it the hell out of here. > >>This is _exactly_ the kind of garbage .advocacy was designed to >>sidetrack. .programmer is now the biggest c.s.a group, and this kind of >>mindless drivel is not improving matters a bit. > >Bullsh_t (what tact). .advocacy is for pieces of brain damaged flamage >with no point to it. Now, I'll agree that some flames, including this >one, probably belong there. I also admit that the discussion has seemed >to loop over itself a few times. However, the issue at hand is relevant. >You ask programmers to develop for higher end machines to convince people >to purchase better hardware. How many of these people can actually >afford better hardware in the first place? Secondly, what's to convince >them to upgrade when your competitor has a product that works on their >machine as it stands. You don't blow the machine up, but his has twice >the sound data and faster floppy loading times (just playing around with >the fact that he has almost the entire 512k of chip ram to himself, while >you've probably got 400k of fast ram and another 300k of chip ram, or >somesuch, so you have to buffer your data out in fast ram and bring it >into chip ram as neccesary). Aww...Poor lame lazygame programmer, can't even manage machine resources. Any FAST ram is an advantage because you can run calculations in parallel with blitter in nasty mode, and lots of screen bandwidth without ANY slowdown. Buffering data in fast ram is a PLUS because its faster. Ok so you only have 400k chip free when the OS is running, so what? PUT THE EXECUTABLE IN FAST MEMORY. It's a waste to put it in chipmemory. If you'd use the damn OS, your code would be relocatable. >>And before the newbies flame back "who died and willed you the godhead", >>ask around. I've got it by rights. > >Who died and willed you the godhead? ;) > >>And on another note (see and respect the damned followups line!!!!) > >>farren@well.sf.ca.us (Mike Farren) writes: >>> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes: > >>>> Most Amiga owners are *NOT* programmers, nor do they want to be. The >>>> Amiga is popular MOSTLY among game players, followed by desktop video >>>> users. > >>> Yes, that is true. But if you offer them products which FORCE them to >>> remain only game players, then game players is all that they will ever >>> be. Nintendo owners will never make good programmers. > >>I'd like to emphasize this point. Releasing "take over the system" games >>_hurts_ the Amiga hardware and software market; if the game you bought >>won't multitask, what's the use of buying more memory so that you can >>have room to multitask more things? If your life, like mine, is a series >>of BBS downloads and file reading, what use a game that won't interact >>well with a download? > >You mean I can have games like on the Mac or I can have _Shadow of the >Beast_? There isn't any comparison. I'd rather have the hassle of >booting off of floppy, rather than watch some pathetic piece of software >that resembles some public domain product. Now, some styles of games >should be able to multi-task, or at least on expanded machines. Or, >(this is what I'd like to see in such games) offer a button to turn >multi-tasking on and off, or during pause. With all do respect. F*ck Shadow of the Beast. It's nothing more than a slide show of moving graphics with no design or playability. >Now what is the chance of a _typical_ A500 owners attitude mirroring >your own? Sure, a large number of Usenet people will, or people on BBSs. >There are people you don't know, who don't have a modem and therefor no >means of communicating with you, that do not have any desire to download >and play a game. Who have no desire to download period. Who have no >desire other than to use their A500 like a Nintendo (hey, cartridges may >be faster, but with my Amiga I can copy the disks, Dude!), and have a >mentality to match. Alright, admittedly, many of these people >legitimately purchase software, otherwise there wouldn't be a market for >512k A500s, which there is. $50 for a ram upgrade. $30 for a game. See a big difference? I bought a ram upgrade just so I could play 1meg games like It came from the desert, Indiana Jones(last crusade), Neuromancer, etc. If 1meg games are plentiful, more people will upgrade. If HD games come out, some people will buy HDs. If software written exclusively for Wb2.0 comes out, people will upgrade (when 2.0 is availible) otherwise lots of people will stick with 1.3, and developers will be forced to support it. Game developers are forcing the market to stagnate by treating all machines like 1 drive, 512k , 1.3 OS A500s. >>If you're a games-only person, why buy a harddisk or extended memory if >>the games you buy can't make use of them? > >Most games-only people probably wouldn't buy a harddisk or extended >memory even if some of the games utilized it. As long as software >continued to run on their unexpanded machine they wouldn't make such a >large investment. Bullshit. People may buy computers for games at first, but soon they discover they can do other things. I know a vast amount of people who bought C128s, 1581 Disk drives, etc for their Commie systems. Why upgrade from a C64 when nothing used the 128's enhanced abilities? Simple, people want better things. Why do people buy CD players and stereo systenms for their cars, when their main function is driving? >>The sword of nuking the system cuts both ways; nuke the system because >>the machines in the market have too little memory, and you guarantee >>that they stay that way, because you have given them no reason to >>upgrade. > >You're right, it does cut both ways. It's unfortunate. Even provided >enough memory, however, some games just can't be made multi-tasking. >Is it multi-tasking you want, or just harddisk installability? Both, but obviously harddisk installability is first priority. However, the OS needs to be intact for the harddrive to work, but somehow no one wants to spend a few precious extra bytes to check whether extra memory or an HD is present before shutting down the OS to reclaim ram for 512k only users. >>Somebody has to blink; to make sure it is the game writers, users need >>to stop buying the games that don't "fit" the Amiga -- hardware and OS, >>we bought it for both; they can damn well support both if they're such >>hotshot programmers. > ><blink> Since users won't do this, your point is basically fluff, unless >you have some sort of hypnotic wave gun to convert the hordes. About >the only method I can think of to increase the number of 1-meg Amigas >out there, is for Commodore to start a deal where they bundle A501s with >the CPU (C'mon Commodore, what a promotion! Just what every developer >wants, too, expanded machines to write programs for!) Simple. If games required 1megabyte, or provided enhanced features with extra memory (e.g. Falcon, Heart of the Dragon, Dragon's Lair II) people will buy a memory upgrade ($50). That won't solve the problem, howvever, because some lunatic 'hotshot' programmers will get the idea that 920k free system ram is not enough, and they still need to demolish the OS to claim the extra 80k the system uses. >>Pathetic that the game writers are themselves the biggest cause of the >>underpowered, unexpanded systems they howl about so loudly. > >Tell you what, if you can convince every game manufacturer in the country >to produce a single 1-meg game, and you give enough money to every A500 >owner who can't even afford an A501 expansion, it's a deal. If they can't afford it, oh well, they just won't be able to use the newerr games that take advantage of more memory. I think a vast majority of the 'legit' 500 users who can fford to buy 20-30 $30 games can afford a 1meg upgrade. You can't run the more sophisticated productivety software without an 030/3megs of ram and an HD. Are devlelops supposed to handhold the 500 users forever? >> /// It's Amiga >> /// for me: why >>Kent, the man from xanth. \\\/// settle for >><xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us> \XX/ anything less? >>-- >>Convener, COMPLETED comp.sys.amiga grand reorganization. >--- > Shawn L. Baird, bairds@eecs.ee.pdx.edu, Wraith on DikuMUD > The above message is not licensed by AT&T, or at least, not yet. -- /~\_______________________________________________________________________/~\ |n| rjc@albert.ai.mit.edu Amiga, the computer for the creative mind. |n| |~| .-. .-. |~| |_|________________________________| |_| |________________________________|_|
cpca@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Colin Adams) (04/05/91)
In article <1991Apr4.231416.9809@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > >Aww...Poor lame lazygame programmer, can't even manage machine resources. >Any FAST ram is an advantage because you can run calculations >in parallel with blitter in nasty mode, and lots of screen bandwidth >without ANY slowdown. Buffering data in fast ram is a PLUS because >its faster. Ok so you only have 400k chip free when the OS is running, >so what? PUT THE EXECUTABLE IN FAST MEMORY. It's a waste to put it in >chipmemory. If you'd use the damn OS, your code would be relocatable. > Who cares about the small market that actually has fast memory. Even an expanded 500 to 1 meg doesn't have any. Cater for the market... > With all do respect. F*ck Shadow of the Beast. It's nothing more than >a slide show of moving graphics with no design or playability. Sold a hell of a lot! That's all that matters for a game programmer. >-- >/~\_______________________________________________________________________/~\ >|n| rjc@albert.ai.mit.edu Amiga, the computer for the creative mind. |n| >|~| .-. .-. |~| >|_|________________________________| |_| |________________________________|_| -- Colin Adams Computer Science Department James Cook University Internet : cpca@marlin.jcu.edu.au North Queensland 'And on the eight day, God created Manchester'
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (04/05/91)
In article <1991Apr5.030730.28921@marlin.jcu.edu.au> cpca@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Colin Adams) writes: >In article <1991Apr4.231416.9809@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >> >>Aww...Poor lame lazygame programmer, can't even manage machine resources. >>Any FAST ram is an advantage because you can run calculations >>in parallel with blitter in nasty mode, and lots of screen bandwidth >>without ANY slowdown. Buffering data in fast ram is a PLUS because >>its faster. Ok so you only have 400k chip free when the OS is running, >>so what? PUT THE EXECUTABLE IN FAST MEMORY. It's a waste to put it in >>chipmemory. If you'd use the damn OS, your code would be relocatable. >> > >Who cares about the small market that actually has fast memory. >Even an expanded 500 to 1 meg doesn't have any. Cater for the >market... > I believe the point was that the upper 512K on an A500 should be used. As I remember things the A500 with 1MB of RAM has 512K chip and 512K that is non-chip and non-fast. >> With all do respect. F*ck Shadow of the Beast. It's nothing more than >>a slide show of moving graphics with no design or playability. > >Sold a hell of a lot! That's all that matters for a game programmer. > But that's Psygnosis. Psygnosis games are known simply for great graphics and their reputation is enough to sell just that. Most people can't. Games such as SimCity, Dungeon Master and Populous also sold amazingly well, and although the latter two do have good graphics none have any real animation. >>-- >>/~\_______________________________________________________________________/~\ >>|n| rjc@albert.ai.mit.edu Amiga, the computer for the creative mind. |n| >>|~| .-. .-. |~| >>|_|________________________________| |_| |________________________________|_| > > >-- >Colin Adams >Computer Science Department James Cook University >Internet : cpca@marlin.jcu.edu.au North Queensland >'And on the eight day, God created Manchester' -- Ethan Q: How many Comp Sci majors does it take to change a lightbulb A: None. It's a hardware problem.
sschaem@starnet.uucp (Stephan Schaem) (04/05/91)
Well you join the list by writting more comment on the subject. And from what you say it seem like distributors force you to buy games? Also games programers are programers, and most of the time they work for people that are not programers. Get 2 amiga if you really want to play play games while waiting for your BBS transfere...
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (04/05/91)
In article <2229@pdxgate.UUCP> bairds@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Shawn L. Baird) writes: > Bullsh_t (what tact). .advocacy is for pieces of brain damaged flamage > with no point to it. It's also the place for all the "futures" discussion that didn't otherwise get a group in the great renaming. Why there isn't a separate group for that, if advocacy is supposed to be "only" for flamage, is a matter you'll have to take up with someone other than myself. As for games: if you want to sell Amiga 5000s into the Nintendo market, you need a slap-on-the-side cartridge port (basically, some isolation circuits and decoding, so you can make cheap cartridges to plug into it) so people can expect to be able to rent Amiga carts at the local Video store. Plus, you could stick all the game in the cart and have more RAM for the neato effects. I'd buy one in a second. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (04/06/91)
sschaem@starnet.uucp (Stephan Schaem) writes: > Well you join the list by writting more comment on the subject. Right; if I hadn't stacked up every single article in the discussion, because someone warned me Mike Farren's very nice writeup was being savaged in .programmer, I wouldn't have known the problem existed, even with some later help by me. Since I went to the trouble to fight for and create .advocacy just to keep such long and pointless discussions out of the more useful groups, it seemed more than timely to point out that the discussion was occurring in (and had occurred from the beginning in) the wrong group. This was entirely due to you and Mike Schwartz posting your original inflamatory responses in the incorrect group. > And from what you say it seem like distributors force you to buy > games? I said no such thing. Please, with your limited command of English, stick to answering sentences you understand clearly. The net will be a better place for your self control. > Also games programers are programers, and most of the time they work > for people that are not programers. This sentence is a tautology, and makes no visible useful point. > Get 2 amiga if you really want to play play games while waiting for > your BBS transfere... I already own two Amigas, thank you. I use the one in my office nearly exclusively, and so I use games that _are_ compatible with downloads, and I don't use the other games. For me a game that doesn't multitask, or doesn't play from the hard disk, however attractive otherwise, turns out to be a waste of money because, in the fact, I don't end up playing it. If you want my money, you write a game I expect to use; if you don't, write for your audience and quit wasting my time trying to change my habits by trying to convince me that someone who only accepts games that multitask and play from the hard drive is evil, nasty, and _wrong_. Because I'm not listening. Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>
sss10@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Napalm) (04/08/91)
In article <1991Apr5.080303.14617@starnet.uucp> sschaem@starnet.uucp (Stephan Schaem) writes: > > Well you join the list by writting more comment on the subject. > And from what you say it seem like distributors force you to buy games? > Also games programers are programers, and most of the time they work > for people that are not programers. > Get 2 amiga if you really want to play play games while waiting for > your BBS transfere... but this is totally unessesary and can become ridiculously expensive! If I have a 5 meg A2000 with a HD in it, why should I spend another $1000 on a 500 system so I can d/l and play a game at the same time when I should be able to do it with the system I presently have? *I* dont own a 2000, i have a 500P. I knew alot of games would not work unless you had 1 meg of ram <the good games usually anyway> and I knew i was going to need the extra ram for other programs. However, it pisses me off when a game like SOTB 2 or f19 stealth fighter doesnt recognize df1: or df2:!!! <stealth is hd mountable but doesnt recognize df1:. this is something I find odd> Psygnosis is improving somewhat- lemmings does utilize df1: and supposedly uses the extra ram. Unforutunately it doesnt multi task and isnt HD mountable. Im sure the IBM version of the game is. can someone care to explain why?