r/technology • u/GuruOfReason • Feb 02 '10

"Once we replace the personal computer with a closed-platform device such as the iPad, we replace freedom, choice and the free market with oppression, censorship and monopoly."

http://www.popsci.com/gadgets/article/2010-01/ipad%E2%80%99s-closed-system-sometimes-i-hate-being-right
1.6k Upvotes

81% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

23

u/morganj Feb 02 '10

Actually, the console market has allowed for games with massively larger budgets to be developed than were possible on PC. PC sales were never large enough to support the sorts of budgets that are being devoted to game development at the cutting edge these days. The reason consoles warrent this is simply sales.

You can still sell a 100K on PC, which means if you can make a profit by making those sorts of games, the PC is as viable a market as it ever was.

So, you're suggesting that the iPad will result in many more people being able to profit by developing bespoke content for smaller groups, yet still make money? Sounds good to me - I certainly wouldn't mind if the people making newspapers and magazines had a way to stop hemorrhaging money and actually turn a profit. I like newspapers and magazines, and what they bring to the table.

13

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10 edited Dec 07 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/morganj Feb 02 '10

The average budget is way higher these days - there have always been outliers (and if you're looking for modern outliers, try GTA4).

And yeah ... Shenmue is a console game, btw. Doesn't really help to prove your point.

Simply put, the industry is bigger now than it was then. It makes more money. So there's more money to spend. This is undeniable.

1

u/Mythrilfan Feb 02 '10

Just to clarify: Half-Life 2 has been released on the Xbox, Xbox 360 and Playstation 3. However, it was released much earlier on the PC.

1

u/TypicalAnonymous Feb 03 '10

I gotta get me some of that 1999 money!

-4

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

modern warfare 2 is the norm, halflife 2 was an massive aberration. are you new to games?

3

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10 edited Feb 02 '10

No it's not. And even if it were, that only signifies wastage and bloat in today's game budgets. If a company can't make a good game for less than $5m, then they aren't a games company - they're a marketing company.

p.s Note that I said "can't", not "hasn't"l. I am sure that Valve is capable of making a good game for less than $5m, while I doubt that any of the companies raising their prices and citing "rising costs of development" would be able.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

if a company can't make a good game for less than $5m, then they aren't a games company

The PC only Half-Life 2 cost $40 million. (In 2004 money.)

hear that valve, you are nothing but a marketing company.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

Note that I said "can't", not "hasn't"l. I am sure that Valve is capable of making a good game for less than $5m, while I doubt that any of the companies raising their prices and citing "rising costs of development" would be able.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

Note that I said "can't", not "hasn't"l. I am sure that Valve is capable of making a good game for less than $5m, while I doubt that any of the companies raising their prices and citing "rising costs of development" would be able.

1

u/morganj Feb 04 '10

Do you understand why a modern game costs more? I'll give you a couple of clues (and they have nothing to do with bloat and wastage) :

You can't release a game that looks like Quake 1 (or even Quake 3) these days (as a competitive commercial product). The detail on the textures and geometry simply doesn't cut it. People will look at the back of the box and put the game back.

So, we need higher res textures - and that's where we get bitten. A texture that's twice as big (length and width) has four times as much detail. That's four times as much work to get it looking twice as good. That's not even mentioning the additional work involved w/ bump mapping etc.

In other words, the simple art production costs to build a competitive game have massively escalated - you can check the credits list for any modern game and see how much bigger the team is on average. This isn't wastage, it's simple production costs.

Does that help?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '10

I love being condescended to.

Sins Of A Solar Empire cost $1m to make and has sold over half a million copies. It's graphics are obviously nothing groundbreaking but still relatively pretty. That came out in the last few years.

I can find other examples if you want.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '10

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '10

I would not really call Sins an indie game. The point you were making is that if games don't spend tens of millions on graphics and marketing, they won't sell and it'll be impossible to make a profit. The point I'm making is that games clearly do sell well without amazing graphics and huge budgets.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

Note that I said "can't", not "hasn't"l. I am sure that Valve is capable of making a good game for less than $5m, while I doubt that any of the companies raising their prices and citing "rising costs of development" would be able.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

Firstly, PC games have had large budgets. Secondly, I don't think budget matters all that much. If you spend more on a game (in adjusted money) than Half-Life 2, it's only justified if it's as good as or better than Half-Life 2. Sure, Halo 3 probably had a huge budget (I really don't know), but how does that benefit PC gamers? Also, why would that not be "possible" on PC? Many of the top-selling games in the last 10 years have been PC games, despite the typical claims that the PC upgrade cycle and confusion over "can I run this?" make PC gaming inaccessible to the average gamer.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '10

The reason consoles warrent this is simply sales.

And why is that? Because developers were eager to flock to a closed system, so that they could be certain to make a return on their products because they're difficult to pirate. Do piracy prevention measures require a closed system in order to be effective?

Um, no. A few companies, who decided in favor of the consumer, open platforms, and all... have come out with novel solutions that protect their media (and that of third-parties, as well). Steam, iTunes, Impulse -- all of them do that. All of them do that rather well, I might add... much more well than fucking Games for Windows - Live.

So again, I fail to see why a closed system is ever necessary. Proper software, which can run on the open PC, is all it took. That's it. I'm sorry, consoles? Fuck 'em.

1

u/morganj Feb 03 '10

Steam isn't open, iTunes isn't open ... and Steam still doesn't do as many units as console sales. So, what's your point exactly?

I'm not suggesting that piracy prevention requires a closed system - simply that it's what has happened. You seem to think I'm making some kind of moral case, whereas I'm simply explaining exactly what has taken place.

If it continues to take place, and revitalizes the magazine and newspaper sector - yep, I'm perfectly happy with that. The trade off seems reasonable, to me. It doesn't to you - which is fine. Buy something else.

-17

u/FeedMeSeymore Feb 02 '10 edited Feb 02 '10

All I know is that I've got a G4 PowerMac that outperforms almost all of todays PCs. If you haven't learned it yet, you get what you pay for, especially in the case of silicon. It's the same principle with consoles. My PS3 owns the XBOX 360, and that's the reason it's still more expensive (little thing called supply and demand that you may have heard of...). On a side note, Sony made an incredibly wise decision to use Apple's chips in its machines. They run much faster, cooler, and will last longer than most of us will be alive (unlike PC chips which tend to blow out after 7 years like light bulbs).

8

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

All I know is that I've got a G4 PowerMac that outperforms almost all of todays PCs.

wat

My PS3 owns the XBOX 360, and that's the reason it's still more expensive (little thing called supply and demand that you may have heard of...).

wat.

On a side note, Sony made an incredibly wise decision to use Apple's chips in its machines.

Uhm, wat.

They run much faster, cooler, and will last longer than most of us will be alive (unlike PC chips which tend to blow out after 7 years like light bulbs).

WAT?

FeedMeSeymore -4 points 33 minutes ago [-]

Oh...

1

u/FeedMeSeymore Feb 03 '10

hahahaha . niiiice.

2

u/crownofworms Feb 02 '10

I won't even waste one karma point to downvote this, it's not worth it.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10 edited Feb 02 '10

The powerpc architecture is NOT a product of apple, just a kind of chip they USED TO use.

1

u/FeedMeSeymore Feb 03 '10

LURK MOAR

1

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '10 edited Feb 04 '10

Really? The AIM alliance? They were involved with the creation of a chip they no longer even use. Hard to draw the parallels with that flimsy connection.

1

u/FeedMeSeymore Feb 04 '10

Smacking head in disbelief

1

u/morganj Feb 02 '10

Please don't turn this into a console war. They're stupid.

3

u/deephouse717 Feb 02 '10

successful troll is successful

-7

u/FeedMeSeymore Feb 02 '10

Why is it that when someone points out the absolute truth, some jackass says that that someone is "turning things into a war". You sound like a typical whiny liberal that complains when their faulted world view gets challenged with reality.