4 ms·

I think you read more into my initial point than I was trying to say -- there are two things: - PCs were always used for games (softening that: at least by th

by wheels 2y ago

I think you read more into my initial point than I was trying to say -- there are two things: - PCs were always used for games (softening that: at least by the 286 era that was already true) - By 1993 PCs were also designed with games in mind But it doesn't follow that PCs were always designed with gaming in mind. They weren't, but since they were always used for that, even if they weren't designed for them, after a decade of such usage, it became a design concern.

paulryanrogers 2y ago
The turning point I recall being the "multimedia" era. Sounds cards, video cards, and CD drives took things to another level and leap frogged many consoles.
- Foobar8568 2y ago
  I would estimate my parents to have bought a 486dx back in 91/92 in Europe, I remember we had https://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/44379/Sound-Blaster-Pro-Value-Edition/ https://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/44379/Sound-Blaster-... with Indianapolis 500 and lemmings. And I remember to have played wolf3d at a neighbor before we had that computer. Atari/Amiga were better but I'd say it was indeed the turning point. So yeah your comment is spot on.
- pezezin 2y ago
  I think it is difficult to pinpoint the turning point, but I would say it was the launch of the 3dfx Voodoo in late 1996, and the release of GLQuake the following year. Up until that point you could argue that consoles were more powerful or adequate for gaming, but after that point there was no discussion.
  - layer8 2y ago
    It was already with games like Comanche (voxel graphics) and Wolfenstein 3D in 1992, which weren’t possible on the home computers of the time. Basically, it was with the advent of relatively affordable 486 PCs with VGA cards. Next came the CD-ROM based games like Rebel Assault in 1993. At that point it was literally “game over” for home computers.
    - pezezin 2y ago
      I was thinking more about consoles. I remember reading some articles about the PSX and the N64 and how they would kill PC gaming, and then the Voodoo happened... But if we are talking about home computers like the Amiga, Ataris and such, then I fully agree with you. My first computer was a 486 with the big Creative Discovery CD 16 kit, so many good memories...
nottorp 2y ago
> PCs were always used for games (softening that: at least by the 286 era that was already true) You had graphical games available on a PC XT with Hercules monochrome, people. Mind, not all of them but you had them. I finished Prince of Persia on that. Of course, games exploded when the VGA and Sound Blaster were out. But not having 256 colours or sound didn't stop people.
Maxatar 2y ago
I suppose I assumed you were objecting to the article saying that PCs were not designed to run games. No one is disputing that games did run on PCs, but PCs did not have the kind of hardware nor the kind of architecture that computers at that time had which were designed for games. If your argument is simply that PCs had games, then sure, and the article isn't disputing that. The article is explicitly saying that games were on PCs, and the way you got them to run on PCs was by making use of careful software techniques to compensate for the lack of hardware support. If you still object to this, then by all means let us know what features did PCs have that supported gaming. I can tell you numerous features that other home computer systems had to explicitly support video games, but I can't name any that the PC had prior to around the mid 90s. Maybe the Sound Blaster?

by wheels 2y ago

paulryanrogers 2y ago

The turning point I recall being the "multimedia" era. Sounds cards, video cards, and CD drives took things to another level and leap frogged many consoles.

Foobar8568 2y ago
I would estimate my parents to have bought a 486dx back in 91/92 in Europe, I remember we had https://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/44379/Sound-Blaster-Pro-Value-Edition/ https://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/44379/Sound-Blaster-... with Indianapolis 500 and lemmings. And I remember to have played wolf3d at a neighbor before we had that computer. Atari/Amiga were better but I'd say it was indeed the turning point. So yeah your comment is spot on.
pezezin 2y ago
I think it is difficult to pinpoint the turning point, but I would say it was the launch of the 3dfx Voodoo in late 1996, and the release of GLQuake the following year. Up until that point you could argue that consoles were more powerful or adequate for gaming, but after that point there was no discussion.
- layer8 2y ago
  It was already with games like Comanche (voxel graphics) and Wolfenstein 3D in 1992, which weren’t possible on the home computers of the time. Basically, it was with the advent of relatively affordable 486 PCs with VGA cards. Next came the CD-ROM based games like Rebel Assault in 1993. At that point it was literally “game over” for home computers.
  - pezezin 2y ago
    I was thinking more about consoles. I remember reading some articles about the PSX and the N64 and how they would kill PC gaming, and then the Voodoo happened... But if we are talking about home computers like the Amiga, Ataris and such, then I fully agree with you. My first computer was a 486 with the big Creative Discovery CD 16 kit, so many good memories...

nottorp 2y ago

> PCs were always used for games (softening that: at least by the 286 era that was already true) You had graphical games available on a PC XT with Hercules monochrome, people. Mind, not all of them but you had them. I finished Prince of Persia on that. Of course, games exploded when the VGA and Sound Blaster were out. But not having 256 colours or sound didn't stop people.

Maxatar 2y ago

I suppose I assumed you were objecting to the article saying that PCs were not designed to run games. No one is disputing that games did run on PCs, but PCs did not have the kind of hardware nor the kind of architecture that computers at that time had which were designed for games. If your argument is simply that PCs had games, then sure, and the article isn't disputing that. The article is explicitly saying that games were on PCs, and the way you got them to run on PCs was by making use of careful software techniques to compensate for the lack of hardware support. If you still object to this, then by all means let us know what features did PCs have that supported gaming. I can tell you numerous features that other home computer systems had to explicitly support video games, but I can't name any that the PC had prior to around the mid 90s. Maybe the Sound Blaster?