🚀 go-pugleaf

khc...@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu (Oliver Chung) writes:

>bad...@phylo.life.uiuc.edu (Jonathan Badger) wrote:

>>2) Most major software developers are currently developing Win'95 only games.

>Your "Most major" games developers are less than 10 as far as I
>have seen.  Origin, Sierra, SH, and couple others are the only
>ones I have heard with actual products for Win95 in progress. 
>And of those, I usually hear about only 1 or 2 products are for
>Win95.

Well, you pretty much hit them all (well, Maxis should be in there
too). But aren't most decent games from these companies? And aren't
the products that are going to "Win95 only" the flagship products of
these companies? Wing Commander IV and Falcon 4 are pretty much "must
buy" products if you are fans of space or flight simulators. It would
be different if all they were doing were producing cheap crud like
Windows Entertainment Packs that could easily (and wisely) be ignored.

>If, and by the time, Win95 games become the norm, you will be
>told to upgrade to NT.

Yes. But so what? This argument is pretty pointless. It's like saying
there's no point in buying a Pentium because in two years you'll have
to buy a Sexium.  At least I know there *will be* an upgrade path from
Win 95. I'm not convinced that Warp won't be the last version of OS/2
produced.

>>the gaming front, there exists precisely one native OS/2 commercial game, 
>>with only two more planned. Clearly without Win'95 support, OS/2 is doomed 
>>as a gaming platform. 

>If you know nothing about commercial games for OS/2, say so.  The
>"one native, 2 planned" are from a _single_ game company (SDS)
>only.  

Yes, I'm aware that SDS is the company in question. But are there ANY
other companies producing commercial OS/2 games? No. So what's your point?
 
I'm no fan of Microsoft -- I'm a happy Linux user -- but this doesn't
change the fact that there just doesn't seem to be a future, at least for
gamers, in OS/2.