LordKronos
06-21-2003, 01:47 PM
Posted by Luggage at 05-30-2003 07:32 PM
First of all a big hello to you all.
What kind of target machine do you aim for? I understand that the lower the machine it runs on the more potential sales you have. Which is common sense and holds true in the full-price market.
The majority of shareware I've seen is 2d and I was wondering is it worth writing a game in 3d?
Or what about if I wanted lots of nice hardware alpha effects?
If I had a game that was of a very high quality in 3d will that make up for the fact it needs a hardware accelerator?
Thoughts on this would be good.
Scott
Posted by harauchai at 05-30-2003 07:48 PM
One clarification I'd like to make: you don't need 3d hardware to do 2d alpha blending. It can be done in software as long as you have at least 16 bit color mode.
As to the whole 2d vs 3d issue, I don't think that really matters in the long run. Sure, your potential market is larger with 2d, but whether a game is 2d or 3d cannot be the major factor in achieving success.
Common sense dictates that the major factors are: 1> quality gameplay, quality graphics.. 2> quality market, and website 3> all the other intangibles.
Of course I have yet to make a shareware game and I don't even have a website. I'm just basically a wannabe right now so take my opinions as just that.
__________________
Remember the C64 and how much fun it was? It's still about the gameplay!
Posted by papillon at 05-30-2003 08:15 PM
from a game-player perspective, one thing that seriously puts me off a game is "lazy 3d" graphics. Regardless of how much effort it actually took, if it *looks* like you just took the most basic possible shapes from a 3d tool, it's very disheartening. (You know the look I mean? Lots of spheres. Little attention to the overall visual effect, just a bunch of thrown-together bits.)
The impression it gives is that the programmer knew s/he wasn't very good at art, but rather than practice or get someone who *did* know how to do it, they'd rather just throw something together as fast as possible with the tools they had to hand.
This does not make me feel like I should reward the programmer with my purchase money. Even uninspired 2d graphics give a better impression of effort than 'lazy 3d - look what I can do in ten minutes after downloading milkshape!'
As for things that actually change the hardware requirements, my question would be - is it worth it? Does the game concept *need* to be in 3d? does the gameplay benefit from 3d features? Or is it just so you can make some object look prettier, some effect look sparklier?
I have had games fail to work because the designers implemened 3d rotation on *one thing* that had *no practical effect* on the gameplay and was clearly just done so the designers could say "Look! 3d!" ... bleh. (No practical effect meaning - there was no reason the player would actually want to rotate that object, the object just spun in place to show off that it was 3d.)
Posted by princec at 05-30-2003 08:35 PM
I'll let you know in a couple of months, coz our game's 3D card only.
Cas
__________________
Puppy Games - CV - A nice place to go on holiday
Posted by Luggage at 05-30-2003 10:00 PM
Hello
Thanks the replies people. Don't suppose anyone has got a record of the average spec people have who buy shareware?
I guess it would be pretty difficult. I was thinking even if we were to develop a 2d game would we still have enough processor power for Ogg and anything complicated? ie. the average spec would be a Pentium 90 or something would it?
Thanks again
scott
Posted by Fenix Down at 05-30-2003 11:17 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Luggage
Hello
Thanks the replies people. Don't suppose anyone has got a record of the average spec people have who buy shareware?
I guess it would be pretty difficult. I was thinking even if we were to develop a 2d game would we still have enough processor power for Ogg and anything complicated? ie. the average spec would be a Pentium 90 or something would it?
Thanks again
scott
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't have any hard statistical data, but from what I understand people generally keep computers for 4-5 years before upgrading. Thus if you want to target low end computers, I'd say those would be 300-350 mhz with ~64 megs of RAM on average and 4-8 meg video card which is probably not going to have 3D acceleration. This is just my opinion though, so don't take it as fact. Nonetheless I think it's fairly accurate overall.
Posted by princec at 05-31-2003 09:11 AM
Balance these two things in your business model:
1) The difficultly of producing the game you want to produce using old technology. The decision on difficulty of using an old 2D API versus a nice new 3D API is very similar to the one facing a developer deciding on the tool to use - C, C++, Java, or some 4GL thing. If it'll take you only 2 months to write your game using a 3D API which takes care of all the crap like volatile memory, using hardware acceleration where possible, antialiasing, blending, (and of course, even 3D) yet it will take you 4 months to do a game with a similar level of special effects in a 2D API, your development costs are halved*, which means you can probably take a 50% cut in sales to cover for it.
2) The rate at which computers are upgraded. In approximately 1-2 years' time, it will be the case that the majority of desktops will have a card capable of basic 3D. The lifetime of your game will be 3-4 years. Your sales will therefore build and build. Have you got the patience to wait for the minimum spec to be the majority? Or more importantly, the finances?
Cas
* based on a one-man team. The more time you spend on the other assets, like art, the less relevant this becomes.
__________________
Puppy Games - CV - A nice place to go on holiday
Posted by cliffski at 05-31-2003 10:24 AM
there is a poll on my webiste here:
http://www.positech.co.uk/indiegames which gioves you rough average specs.
__________________
Positech games
Posted by Mark Fassett at 05-31-2003 12:10 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by princec
If it'll take you only 2 months to write your game using a 3D API which takes care of all the crap like volatile memory, using hardware acceleration where possible, antialiasing, blending, (and of course, even 3D) yet it will take you 4 months to do a game with a similar level of special effects in a 2D API, your development costs are halved*, which means you can probably take a 50% cut in sales to cover for it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The idea that you can take a 50% cut in sales because your development costs are halved is a fallacy. The goal is to maximize profits, not just cover development costs. If building the 4 month 2d game would bring noticably more sales, at some point, it will cover the costs of the extra development as well as provide a larger profit over the long term.
Of course, that's assuming the 2D game would take longer. From what I've seen, 3D games generally have higher development costs and take at least the same amount of time, if not longer, to develop.
__________________
Mark Fassett
Laughing Dragon Entertainment
http://www.laughing-dragon.com
Posted by Mike Boeh at 05-31-2003 01:48 PM
Besides Retro64 games, I can only name 2 3D games that I know sell: Wonderland and Airstrike 3D. But I can probably name 20 2D games that have excellent sales.
There are a lot of non-3D capable machines out there, and they can't run the commercial games in stores, so they can only turn to indie games. My recommendation would definitely be to go 2D.
__________________
--
Mike Boeh
Retro64, Inc.
Downloadable Games
Posted by princec at 06-01-2003 06:29 AM
I don't think it's a fallacy at all. Otherwise I'd still be programming in C instead of Java, or I'd still be using the commandline tools instead of an IDE. If I can cut development time in half I can write twice as many games - and seeing as that's only 2 a year anyway, there's not much fear of them competing with each other (not least because they'll be radically different).
Mike recommends 2D over 3D because he only knows a few 3D games that sell. But obviously the fact that some 3D-required games do sell rather knocks it on the head for the "market-is-too-small" argument. Could it be that the vast majority of 3D indie games available are in fact a pile of crap?
Cas
__________________
Puppy Games - CV - A nice place to go on holiday
Posted by Lerc at 06-01-2003 10:08 AM
Well when I last looked at this most referances said that the majority of housholds replace their computers at least every 4 years.
Consider when you are planning to finish your game and target a system for a spec that was entry level 4 years before that.
I think I should start keeping old price catalogs. I think 4 years ago from about now gets you machines around the 400-600Mhz mark with basic 3d.
Another year forward would get you roughly TNT-2 level 3d. Which is plenty for a lot of things.
Of course the economic situation may have had an impact on how many people have upgraded.
__________________
That which does not kill us, has made its last mistake.
Posted by princec at 06-01-2003 10:47 AM
Again, that means 75% of the market have a TNT2 or better, 50% have a Geforce or better, and 25% have a Geforce2 or better. Can you stand having a market that's only 3/4 of the size it could be?
I think the answer is probably a resouding yes if it makes your life easier. Look at Mike Boeh's games - they're damned good and they require a 3D card but he's doing very well out of them. It can't be because he's cut off half his customers, can it? It's because his games aren't shit! And in the end, I think that's probably more significant than the target market. Consider the other extreme: Doom3 will only run nicely on an absolutely top-spec system. But you can be fairly sure that anyone who has upgraded their system to this level is going to buy Doom3. It's got a tiny market - maybe < 1% of all the PCs out there - but its conversion rate is going to incredible - maybe over 90%. There are people who will upgrade solely to play Doom3!
Cas
__________________
Puppy Games - CV - A nice place to go on holiday
Posted by Mike Boeh at 06-01-2003 11:15 AM
I think there are more factors going on here. Even two years ago, budget machines did not have any kind of 3D. Also, what happens to that old PC when the family finally upgrades? The kids get it, a school gets it, or maybe even Grandma!
Every day, I receive emails from people who can't run Best Friends because they don't have 3D. It's also been the source of many negative user reviews on sites like download.com.
Most importantly is the "willingness to buy" factor. People with computers that lack 3D aren't able to go to the store and buy most games- their computers just aren't fast enough. That makes downloadable games the only real alternative.
This is, of course, all speculation on my part- which is very dangerous when it comes to marketing. I am looking for good, hard data on this, but so far have come up with nothing good.
__________________
--
Mike Boeh
Retro64, Inc.
Downloadable Games
Posted by Mike Boeh at 06-01-2003 11:17 AM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by princec
It can't be because he's cut off half his customers, can it? It's because his games aren't shit! And in the end, I think that's probably more significant than the target market.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, the quality of the games is most important, but the target market is a close second! Making the right game is almost as important as making a great game. Heck, it may even be more important. I have seen crappy games sell- just because there is literally no competition in that market niche.
__________________
--
Mike Boeh
Retro64, Inc.
Downloadable Games
Posted by princec at 06-01-2003 11:37 AM
It's interesting you get negative reviews because your games require a 3D card. I'd find it hard to review something if my computer didn't reach the minimum specs to play it, after all. Saying "It didn't work on my computer because I haven't got a 3D card" is a bit like saying "I downloaded it anyway because I'm not very bright, but read my review anyway because I'm still credible anyway." That's the trouble with unedited reviews.
There seems to be a perception that because it's downloadable and only 5Mb big it should work on any old pile of crap, and this perception is really quite false. But even that will go away pretty soon when nearly everyone's got a 3D card, just as it happened to the 486 when the Pentium came along.
Cas
__________________
Puppy Games - CV - A nice place to go on holiday
Posted by Kai-Peter at 06-01-2003 02:52 PM
Even if the user has a 3D card there are still a ton of compatibility issues around. If you use anything more fancy than basic textures (and even then) you might have various problems on old cards you never knew about. As Mike, I get requests from people who like the game and would like to play it on their laptop for example. Or then they have an old 3D card that the manufacturer stopped supporting.
What I plan to do in Space Station Manager is to add support for software rendering. Combined with a sensible level of detail this gives you a very decent fallback to support almost all hardware from the last 4-5 years.
__________________
Kai-Peter Bäckman
Mistaril
Space Station Manager
Posted by princec at 06-01-2003 05:45 PM
)I'd rather spend the time writing another game that appealed to my existing 3D card customers. YMMV o' course
Cas
__________________
Puppy Games - CV - A nice place to go on holiday
Posted by Mike Boeh at 06-01-2003 05:50 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Kai-Peter
Even if the user has a 3D card there are still a ton of compatibility issues around. If you use anything more fancy than basic textures (and even then) you might have various problems on old cards you never knew about. As Mike, I get requests from people who like the game and would like to play it on their laptop for example. Or then they have an old 3D card that the manufacturer stopped supporting.
What I plan to do in Space Station Manager is to add support for software rendering. Combined with a sensible level of detail this gives you a very decent fallback to support almost all hardware from the last 4-5 years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is sooo true. Especially writing to textures. I stick with only the very very basic 3D stuff and I have 18 video cards that I test it on. Without fail, each release won't work on at least one card- and requires tweaking.
__________________
--
Mike Boeh
Retro64, Inc.
Downloadable Games
Posted by princec at 06-01-2003 06:33 PM
I admit we're having a major pain getting A.F. to work on all 3D cards and we're not even trying to do anything particularly clever. It works on most of them but some of the more common ones just fail in spectacular and bizarre ways. It's not our fault, for sure - but what do you tell the punter? "Sorry, wrong card dude, should have bought a GeForce"
Cas
__________________
Puppy Games - CV - A nice place to go on holiday
Posted by Kai-Peter at 06-03-2003 04:13 AM
Just out of interest, to fork the thread a little. Mike and Ron, what cards do you keep in your testing collection, and how do you do the testing? Swap cards in a single machine or keep a farm of 15+ machines? Do you test all supported OS/card combinations?
__________________
Kai-Peter Bäckman
Mistaril
Space Station Manager
Posted by damon at 06-03-2003 12:49 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mike Boeh
This is sooo true. Especially writing to textures. I stick with only the very very basic 3D stuff and I have 18 video cards that I test it on. Without fail, each release won't work on at least one card- and requires tweaking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just out of curiousity, how do you go about testing your game on 18 different cards? Do you have a bunch of test machines, or do you just have one that you swap out cards on? This sounds like a pretty tedious process.
Damon Du Bois
www.wizardslab.com
Posted by jaggu at 06-03-2003 01:40 PM
I am developing my game on P2 400 Celeron with 96 mb RAM. I would want my game to run at 60-100 FPS on this machine. The target machine would be any Pentium with MMX. My code is a mix of assembly and C++ and I am taking advantage of MMX instructions. All rendering is software so I'm not worried about graphics accelerators. The game is 2d (vector no sprites), DDraw and will run at 640x480x16 and 800x600x16.
Is my target spec allright?
First of all a big hello to you all.
What kind of target machine do you aim for? I understand that the lower the machine it runs on the more potential sales you have. Which is common sense and holds true in the full-price market.
The majority of shareware I've seen is 2d and I was wondering is it worth writing a game in 3d?
Or what about if I wanted lots of nice hardware alpha effects?
If I had a game that was of a very high quality in 3d will that make up for the fact it needs a hardware accelerator?
Thoughts on this would be good.
Scott
Posted by harauchai at 05-30-2003 07:48 PM
One clarification I'd like to make: you don't need 3d hardware to do 2d alpha blending. It can be done in software as long as you have at least 16 bit color mode.
As to the whole 2d vs 3d issue, I don't think that really matters in the long run. Sure, your potential market is larger with 2d, but whether a game is 2d or 3d cannot be the major factor in achieving success.
Common sense dictates that the major factors are: 1> quality gameplay, quality graphics.. 2> quality market, and website 3> all the other intangibles.
Of course I have yet to make a shareware game and I don't even have a website. I'm just basically a wannabe right now so take my opinions as just that.
__________________
Remember the C64 and how much fun it was? It's still about the gameplay!
Posted by papillon at 05-30-2003 08:15 PM
from a game-player perspective, one thing that seriously puts me off a game is "lazy 3d" graphics. Regardless of how much effort it actually took, if it *looks* like you just took the most basic possible shapes from a 3d tool, it's very disheartening. (You know the look I mean? Lots of spheres. Little attention to the overall visual effect, just a bunch of thrown-together bits.)
The impression it gives is that the programmer knew s/he wasn't very good at art, but rather than practice or get someone who *did* know how to do it, they'd rather just throw something together as fast as possible with the tools they had to hand.
This does not make me feel like I should reward the programmer with my purchase money. Even uninspired 2d graphics give a better impression of effort than 'lazy 3d - look what I can do in ten minutes after downloading milkshape!'
As for things that actually change the hardware requirements, my question would be - is it worth it? Does the game concept *need* to be in 3d? does the gameplay benefit from 3d features? Or is it just so you can make some object look prettier, some effect look sparklier?
I have had games fail to work because the designers implemened 3d rotation on *one thing* that had *no practical effect* on the gameplay and was clearly just done so the designers could say "Look! 3d!" ... bleh. (No practical effect meaning - there was no reason the player would actually want to rotate that object, the object just spun in place to show off that it was 3d.)
Posted by princec at 05-30-2003 08:35 PM
I'll let you know in a couple of months, coz our game's 3D card only.
Cas
__________________
Puppy Games - CV - A nice place to go on holiday
Posted by Luggage at 05-30-2003 10:00 PM
Hello
Thanks the replies people. Don't suppose anyone has got a record of the average spec people have who buy shareware?
I guess it would be pretty difficult. I was thinking even if we were to develop a 2d game would we still have enough processor power for Ogg and anything complicated? ie. the average spec would be a Pentium 90 or something would it?
Thanks again
scott
Posted by Fenix Down at 05-30-2003 11:17 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Luggage
Hello
Thanks the replies people. Don't suppose anyone has got a record of the average spec people have who buy shareware?
I guess it would be pretty difficult. I was thinking even if we were to develop a 2d game would we still have enough processor power for Ogg and anything complicated? ie. the average spec would be a Pentium 90 or something would it?
Thanks again
scott
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't have any hard statistical data, but from what I understand people generally keep computers for 4-5 years before upgrading. Thus if you want to target low end computers, I'd say those would be 300-350 mhz with ~64 megs of RAM on average and 4-8 meg video card which is probably not going to have 3D acceleration. This is just my opinion though, so don't take it as fact. Nonetheless I think it's fairly accurate overall.
Posted by princec at 05-31-2003 09:11 AM
Balance these two things in your business model:
1) The difficultly of producing the game you want to produce using old technology. The decision on difficulty of using an old 2D API versus a nice new 3D API is very similar to the one facing a developer deciding on the tool to use - C, C++, Java, or some 4GL thing. If it'll take you only 2 months to write your game using a 3D API which takes care of all the crap like volatile memory, using hardware acceleration where possible, antialiasing, blending, (and of course, even 3D) yet it will take you 4 months to do a game with a similar level of special effects in a 2D API, your development costs are halved*, which means you can probably take a 50% cut in sales to cover for it.
2) The rate at which computers are upgraded. In approximately 1-2 years' time, it will be the case that the majority of desktops will have a card capable of basic 3D. The lifetime of your game will be 3-4 years. Your sales will therefore build and build. Have you got the patience to wait for the minimum spec to be the majority? Or more importantly, the finances?
Cas
* based on a one-man team. The more time you spend on the other assets, like art, the less relevant this becomes.
__________________
Puppy Games - CV - A nice place to go on holiday
Posted by cliffski at 05-31-2003 10:24 AM
there is a poll on my webiste here:
http://www.positech.co.uk/indiegames which gioves you rough average specs.
__________________
Positech games
Posted by Mark Fassett at 05-31-2003 12:10 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by princec
If it'll take you only 2 months to write your game using a 3D API which takes care of all the crap like volatile memory, using hardware acceleration where possible, antialiasing, blending, (and of course, even 3D) yet it will take you 4 months to do a game with a similar level of special effects in a 2D API, your development costs are halved*, which means you can probably take a 50% cut in sales to cover for it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The idea that you can take a 50% cut in sales because your development costs are halved is a fallacy. The goal is to maximize profits, not just cover development costs. If building the 4 month 2d game would bring noticably more sales, at some point, it will cover the costs of the extra development as well as provide a larger profit over the long term.
Of course, that's assuming the 2D game would take longer. From what I've seen, 3D games generally have higher development costs and take at least the same amount of time, if not longer, to develop.
__________________
Mark Fassett
Laughing Dragon Entertainment
http://www.laughing-dragon.com
Posted by Mike Boeh at 05-31-2003 01:48 PM
Besides Retro64 games, I can only name 2 3D games that I know sell: Wonderland and Airstrike 3D. But I can probably name 20 2D games that have excellent sales.
There are a lot of non-3D capable machines out there, and they can't run the commercial games in stores, so they can only turn to indie games. My recommendation would definitely be to go 2D.
__________________
--
Mike Boeh
Retro64, Inc.
Downloadable Games
Posted by princec at 06-01-2003 06:29 AM
I don't think it's a fallacy at all. Otherwise I'd still be programming in C instead of Java, or I'd still be using the commandline tools instead of an IDE. If I can cut development time in half I can write twice as many games - and seeing as that's only 2 a year anyway, there's not much fear of them competing with each other (not least because they'll be radically different).
Mike recommends 2D over 3D because he only knows a few 3D games that sell. But obviously the fact that some 3D-required games do sell rather knocks it on the head for the "market-is-too-small" argument. Could it be that the vast majority of 3D indie games available are in fact a pile of crap?
Cas
__________________
Puppy Games - CV - A nice place to go on holiday
Posted by Lerc at 06-01-2003 10:08 AM
Well when I last looked at this most referances said that the majority of housholds replace their computers at least every 4 years.
Consider when you are planning to finish your game and target a system for a spec that was entry level 4 years before that.
I think I should start keeping old price catalogs. I think 4 years ago from about now gets you machines around the 400-600Mhz mark with basic 3d.
Another year forward would get you roughly TNT-2 level 3d. Which is plenty for a lot of things.
Of course the economic situation may have had an impact on how many people have upgraded.
__________________
That which does not kill us, has made its last mistake.
Posted by princec at 06-01-2003 10:47 AM
Again, that means 75% of the market have a TNT2 or better, 50% have a Geforce or better, and 25% have a Geforce2 or better. Can you stand having a market that's only 3/4 of the size it could be?
I think the answer is probably a resouding yes if it makes your life easier. Look at Mike Boeh's games - they're damned good and they require a 3D card but he's doing very well out of them. It can't be because he's cut off half his customers, can it? It's because his games aren't shit! And in the end, I think that's probably more significant than the target market. Consider the other extreme: Doom3 will only run nicely on an absolutely top-spec system. But you can be fairly sure that anyone who has upgraded their system to this level is going to buy Doom3. It's got a tiny market - maybe < 1% of all the PCs out there - but its conversion rate is going to incredible - maybe over 90%. There are people who will upgrade solely to play Doom3!
Cas
__________________
Puppy Games - CV - A nice place to go on holiday
Posted by Mike Boeh at 06-01-2003 11:15 AM
I think there are more factors going on here. Even two years ago, budget machines did not have any kind of 3D. Also, what happens to that old PC when the family finally upgrades? The kids get it, a school gets it, or maybe even Grandma!
Every day, I receive emails from people who can't run Best Friends because they don't have 3D. It's also been the source of many negative user reviews on sites like download.com.
Most importantly is the "willingness to buy" factor. People with computers that lack 3D aren't able to go to the store and buy most games- their computers just aren't fast enough. That makes downloadable games the only real alternative.
This is, of course, all speculation on my part- which is very dangerous when it comes to marketing. I am looking for good, hard data on this, but so far have come up with nothing good.
__________________
--
Mike Boeh
Retro64, Inc.
Downloadable Games
Posted by Mike Boeh at 06-01-2003 11:17 AM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by princec
It can't be because he's cut off half his customers, can it? It's because his games aren't shit! And in the end, I think that's probably more significant than the target market.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, the quality of the games is most important, but the target market is a close second! Making the right game is almost as important as making a great game. Heck, it may even be more important. I have seen crappy games sell- just because there is literally no competition in that market niche.
__________________
--
Mike Boeh
Retro64, Inc.
Downloadable Games
Posted by princec at 06-01-2003 11:37 AM
It's interesting you get negative reviews because your games require a 3D card. I'd find it hard to review something if my computer didn't reach the minimum specs to play it, after all. Saying "It didn't work on my computer because I haven't got a 3D card" is a bit like saying "I downloaded it anyway because I'm not very bright, but read my review anyway because I'm still credible anyway." That's the trouble with unedited reviews.
There seems to be a perception that because it's downloadable and only 5Mb big it should work on any old pile of crap, and this perception is really quite false. But even that will go away pretty soon when nearly everyone's got a 3D card, just as it happened to the 486 when the Pentium came along.
Cas
__________________
Puppy Games - CV - A nice place to go on holiday
Posted by Kai-Peter at 06-01-2003 02:52 PM
Even if the user has a 3D card there are still a ton of compatibility issues around. If you use anything more fancy than basic textures (and even then) you might have various problems on old cards you never knew about. As Mike, I get requests from people who like the game and would like to play it on their laptop for example. Or then they have an old 3D card that the manufacturer stopped supporting.
What I plan to do in Space Station Manager is to add support for software rendering. Combined with a sensible level of detail this gives you a very decent fallback to support almost all hardware from the last 4-5 years.
__________________
Kai-Peter Bäckman
Mistaril
Space Station Manager
Posted by princec at 06-01-2003 05:45 PM
)I'd rather spend the time writing another game that appealed to my existing 3D card customers. YMMV o' course
Cas
__________________
Puppy Games - CV - A nice place to go on holiday
Posted by Mike Boeh at 06-01-2003 05:50 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Kai-Peter
Even if the user has a 3D card there are still a ton of compatibility issues around. If you use anything more fancy than basic textures (and even then) you might have various problems on old cards you never knew about. As Mike, I get requests from people who like the game and would like to play it on their laptop for example. Or then they have an old 3D card that the manufacturer stopped supporting.
What I plan to do in Space Station Manager is to add support for software rendering. Combined with a sensible level of detail this gives you a very decent fallback to support almost all hardware from the last 4-5 years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is sooo true. Especially writing to textures. I stick with only the very very basic 3D stuff and I have 18 video cards that I test it on. Without fail, each release won't work on at least one card- and requires tweaking.
__________________
--
Mike Boeh
Retro64, Inc.
Downloadable Games
Posted by princec at 06-01-2003 06:33 PM
I admit we're having a major pain getting A.F. to work on all 3D cards and we're not even trying to do anything particularly clever. It works on most of them but some of the more common ones just fail in spectacular and bizarre ways. It's not our fault, for sure - but what do you tell the punter? "Sorry, wrong card dude, should have bought a GeForce"
Cas
__________________
Puppy Games - CV - A nice place to go on holiday
Posted by Kai-Peter at 06-03-2003 04:13 AM
Just out of interest, to fork the thread a little. Mike and Ron, what cards do you keep in your testing collection, and how do you do the testing? Swap cards in a single machine or keep a farm of 15+ machines? Do you test all supported OS/card combinations?
__________________
Kai-Peter Bäckman
Mistaril
Space Station Manager
Posted by damon at 06-03-2003 12:49 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mike Boeh
This is sooo true. Especially writing to textures. I stick with only the very very basic 3D stuff and I have 18 video cards that I test it on. Without fail, each release won't work on at least one card- and requires tweaking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just out of curiousity, how do you go about testing your game on 18 different cards? Do you have a bunch of test machines, or do you just have one that you swap out cards on? This sounds like a pretty tedious process.
Damon Du Bois
www.wizardslab.com
Posted by jaggu at 06-03-2003 01:40 PM
I am developing my game on P2 400 Celeron with 96 mb RAM. I would want my game to run at 60-100 FPS on this machine. The target machine would be any Pentium with MMX. My code is a mix of assembly and C++ and I am taking advantage of MMX instructions. All rendering is software so I'm not worried about graphics accelerators. The game is 2d (vector no sprites), DDraw and will run at 640x480x16 and 800x600x16.
Is my target spec allright?