Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Microprose, MPRS -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sleeperz who wrote (303)	3/7/1998 3:12:00 AM
From: Charles Hughes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 633

>>>Isn't the brilliant fun kid going to use the $19 Borland Command Line compiler to develop games for the PC?? Probably not, times have changed. Today its GUIs and IDEs.<<< This is what I mean about not knowing because you weren't there. The Borland $19 compiler had the first IDE. Far as I know, they invented the IDE (or rather, the European development team they bought the tool from originally.) The CPM and DOS and Apple and and Atari 400-800 and C64 boxes most people used then for development and deployment cost $1000-$4000, with most around 1 to 2 grand, and the C64 maxed out at a thousand with all the goodies. (IBMs were more of course, at first, but nobody much was doing games for them then.) A lot less than a console emulation kit and other required tools (40 thousand when they come out originally in some cases.) The Sinclair was $99! The Ti99-4a was in the low hundreds too. We used to reprogram them to use as smart terminals. The TRS-80 was very popular for around a thousand, and the Amiga started out under $2000 and went down to $500 by the end, and was very capable. Etc Etc - the great thing then was there were actually hundreds of companies making computers that were often quite different. And ten's of thousands of software developers operating on development budgets under a hundred bucks. About Bricklin et al - the title Professor has a particular meaning at a university. Just because a graduate student or TA is doing some teaching doesn't mean he is a Professor. In fact most full time teachers are not Professors in title. At what University at what time are you claiming they were Professors? I don't know for sure on this one, and I'm listening - so give me details. And does this have anything at all to do with the cost of the tools they used (probably free or nearly so)? At the university most folks have free tools. So maybe you are making my point for me, while trying to change the subject. Cheaper tools result in more creative, eclectic development. >>>Actually most kids have their parents buy them their first PCs and SW. Then they start making big bucks programming for the corporate development houses. Make lots of money and then can buy lots of toys.<<< I guess you don't have a problem with opportunities being limited to the children of the already-well-off? Maybe in your family $895 wasn't a big expense, but in a lot of families that's the months income. In some families that's way more than that. >>>Maybe they all look the same because they are all using the same latest 3D techniques?<<< No, they all look the same because the game development houses are allergic to new ideas. They feel like they need to stick to doing battle games for the putative 14 year old boy target audience. Like the TV executives who never watch TV because as they say it would make them feel like morons, the game execs also seldom play the games because they don't want to be confused with "pimply boys". They don't really like the games in any case. But they have to show expertise, that they 'know' what a successful game looks like. And that means, it had better look like the past. >>>Would Bill Gates be Bill Gates of MSFT fame if his parents instead of being lawyers were just blue collar workers. Probably not.<<< Well, he's not one of my heros, so I can only wish it had happened that way. But what's your point? BTW, I deny having flip-flopped on console games. I say I couldn't have developed any console game lately on my money (though I could 18 years ago, and did, if you count Commodore and Atari) - they cost too much to do, and it's hard to get permission to do them. I am doing a playstation title - with somebody else's money, and their ideas and company goals, mostly. That is exactly as I said. With a PC title, I can take the stuff I already have and for little extra cost try writing some software doing it my own way, and market it any way I can think up or talk my way into. Not so with the consoles. And that is part of why, to answer again your lament that seems to have started this debate, there is less console development. There can be thousands of garage operations trying to come up with the next Doom, because the PC (and Mac) tools costs and variety allow that, though less than they used to. But only big development houses can afford to develop for consoles, which is exactly how the console makers have wanted it in the past. But those same big developers are doing less console stuff because of the smaller market share. Or they do it later, as ports - like Riven on consoles is a port, presumably. ------ All argument aside, I would be glad to hear about better IDE C++ compilers than the GNU one in the dev kit for Playstation. So far I'm open to suggestions, and would like to get your opinion on that. Where is the best one available, and what else would I need besides the compiler? Cheers, Chaz