3 ms·
> Sorry, I think we somehow ended up talking passed each other. I think so, yes. > "if we go back 10-12 years and games had dedicated server software" Assert
by a1369209993 7y ago
> Sorry, I think we somehow ended up talking passed each other.
I think so, yes.
> "if we go back 10-12 years and games had dedicated server software"
Assertion was specifically PC games, and I read it to mean games that people (PC users) 10-12 years ago were playing (regardless of whether console ports existed, or when they came out), which I think was the intended interpretation.
From what you've said, it sounds like the addition of network functionality to consoles was contemporaneous with PC games losing working peer/private-server functionality, which seems in line with cwhiz's position, if not their timeline.
> I think it's inferred but when I say "cross platform" I mean Windows and whatever the presiding consoles are.
I vehemently disagree with this, but I think it's mostly a difference of terminology, so I'm disinclined to argue it versus just ad-hocing around the problem[0].
0: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/GKfPL6LQFgB49FEnv/replace-the-symbol-with-the-substance https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/GKfPL6LQFgB49FEnv/replace-th...
- dijit 7y agoI'm a huge linux enthusiast, so I share your dislike of "cross-platform" meaning consoles and Windows. I couldn't think of a better terminology though.
- a1369209993 7y agoLinux (plus other unix and unix-like) exclusive here; I actually don't mind "cross-platform" for "console A or console B", but describing a mouse-and-keyboard game as "cross-platform" implies it works on other mouse-and-keyboard platforms, which in practice amounts to either OSX (which... sucks, basically) or unix (linux/bsd/etc tend to be compatible enough that you can get anything from one working on another with enough hammering). > I couldn't think of a better terminology though. Well "games that run on both PC and console" works, but it's a bit unwieldy.