Mandrew wrote on 2023-01-05, 10:28:
You have to understand that when you buy strictly online games you don't really own it, you just rent it for full price until the servers and services are working.
Digital games work until you have your account but after that you are pretty much out of luck, not to mention that digital copies are worthless as collector's items. You can't put files on a shelf and show it to your friends. This will encourage more people to just pirate these games because there aren't even physical copies to hold onto.
I understand what you mean to say.
In simple words, I think, making games ~25 years ago was akin to writing a novel or writing a whole book.
Today, it's akin to making hamburgers in one of these franchise oriented "restaurants".
It's mass production, it has to meet the expectations of a dull audience.
Edit: And it has to make lots of money, of course. Maximum profits, if possible.
The game engines used are off the shelve parts, too.
That's why even for simple games insanely high hardware requirements exist.
Something that once ran on a 486 now needs a hexacore CPU, 32 GB RAM and 8 GB VRAM. 🙄
That's why I had stopped playing new video games for a few years.
It's neither fun nor affordable anymore. It just hurts.
Gmlb256 wrote on 2023-01-01, 04:46:
Robin4 wrote on 2023-01-01, 03:46:
Thats why a love the older games like XT and so one.. […]
Thats why a love the older games like XT and so one..
A game doesnt have to be look technically high-end to give you pleasure..
The older games are nicer because are a lot simpler.
Today only graphics seems to have a big role, if a game looks good..
Wolfenstein 3-D, DOOM and Quake (all of them from id Software, PC gaming was seen as a joke by many prior these three games) did look high-end back then when they were introduced to the consumers, making users to upgrade or replace their computers to get a decent experience.
Nothing new, just a perfect example of nostalgia filter.
Um, these games didn't look high-end to me. Back in the 90s, I mean.
Even back then, I found them to be pretty low-res, actually.
I was used to graphically simple games, but they ran in 640x480, at least. On a 286.
Edit: Correction. Some were EGA and ran in 640x350. EGATrek, CD-Man, some more Trek games and flight sims, graphic adventures..
I suppose that's because I was being used to both the Super Nintendo and Windows 3.1x.
The SNES was low-res, too, but it wasn't that noticeable over Composite, I guess.
And Windows games had a 640x400 or higher resolution.
Edit: I was impressed by the SVGA version of Descent, however.
Some other DOS games ran in up to 800x600, I think.
Edit: Hm. I guess I'm talking too much again. I'm sorry. 😅
Edit: Nevermind. I've always beeing kind of strange, always swimming against mainstream.
So my statements have no weight, whatsoever. I just was thinking out loud.
"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel
//My video channel//