Why do game developers drop supporting old consoles? I understand

Simple answer, market.

>>3105029
It's this. If you had a company, would you really want to compete with yourself? Why spend resources developing for your older things when everyone has "the latest and greatest" current thing.

Supporting older consoles would just be a money pit.

It's not just developers, but the console producer itself would still have to be behind it. Like if Nintendo were to start up making Super NES games again, they would have to reproduce dev kits, get the factories to start making SNES motherboards and all the chips & bits for them too, not to mention make new moldings for the plastic cases. and so on. Even though it's an old system, the costs of starting up such a project would essentially be like making a whole new system. With that in mind, just work on an actual new system.

>>3105050
From a purely business stand point.

to be honest, SNES and megadrive have aged badly. i can't stand their color palettes anymore. mega cd, saturn or neo geo games still have pleasant sprites and backgrounds but that's not the case for 16 bits if you take off the nostalgia goggles

>>3105149
(you)

>>3105149
I know. MD really suffers from its gritty dark late 80s colour palette.

>>3105186
This game might suit you sensibilities better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VqNQchfUtE

File: 41078-california-games-commodore-64-screenshot-the-results-for-surfing.gif (10KB, 320x200px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 320x200px

Or like the Commodore 64's bright 80s pastels.

File: IBM_5100_-_MfK_Bern.jpg (1MB, 3306x2421px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3306x2421px

Why do companies drop supporting ancient technology?
I understand if there are features really resource demanding, but sometimes I just don't understand. I always felt like original laptop and cellphone are the pinnacles of old technology (the original IBM laptop is something incredible), and further platforms don't make the processes any better - it can't be much better than IBM and AT&T were.

Just because the new technology can do the same thing the old ones did, but better, and in more variety, doesn't mean shit. Please respond to my thread.

>>3105274
>Why do companies drop supporting ancient technology?

I wish. Do you know that Windows 7/8/10 still has lines and lines of code in it to support things like 5.25" floppy drives and printers from 1985?

>>3105052
>they would have to reproduce dev kits
emulators are good enough

>start making SNES motherboards and all the chips & bits for them too
the SNES can be done as a SoC or using off-the-shelf components for very little money. That is, if you want to make a new system for whatever weird reason, instead of just letting devs work for the existing systems.

>starting up such a project would essentially be like making a whole new system
Are we talking about developing to the existing hardware or something new? Why something new?

>>3105279
fun fact: go anywhere in your explorer, and create a new folder, rename it aux.
It won't let you, because it's a reserved word, from the very early DOS days

>>3105004

You have to obsolete things and make new ones to sustain business. You can't really rely on supporting old systems until the end of time unless you had the resources of a government and are willing to pay big money to cover the costs of maintaining your system.

GPU power is so in demand right now that the 8th generation consoles might have an early end or a ".5" iteration where the PS4 and Xbone are making new versions of themselves with more power to be "VR and 4k compliant".

It's really up to the developers. I just think having more powerful consoles mid-cycle is just a waste of money and would alienate consumers.

>>3105686
>You have to obsolete things and make new ones to sustain business
bullshit. That's an openly customer-hostile stance.

>big money to cover the costs of maintaining your system
What costs?

>It's really up to the developers
You just tried to explain how it's up to the hardware manufacturers, and now it's not?

>>3105279
And yet we still need DOSBOX.

>>3105702
the majority of DOSBox is concerned with providing virtual equivalents of peripherals, and a consistent way to throttle the CPU. A pure DOS application has a pretty good chance of running in Windows itself

>>3105706
>A pure DOS application has a pretty good chance of running in Windows itself

No it doesn't. You can't even run 16-bit code on current Windows versions.

Because everything that can be done on a SNES can be done a lot more easily on a much newer console... including quite accurately emulating SNES. It was extremely hard to make SNES games, and who even knows assembler at a top professional level anymore - when they were fixing y2k bugs they were bringing assembly experts out of retirement because they couldn't figure out the code. If they wanted to do something like it, they would set limits on things, such as you have to make the game in 2D, it can't be in HD and things like that.

It's not the difficult assembler process people miss, it's the quality games... and the fact that you can load them in under a second helps.

I've wondered though for some good games/consoles that go for thousands of dollars, if the publishers have ever been tempted to start producing the official stuff again. Old consoles could be sold for a fraction of their costs.

>>3105701
I think the average consumer likes moving on to new technology, just like companies like to put their resources into keeping their products current and up-to-date with new tech.

There is, of course, a span of time when it is profitable to continue supporting old systems in order to sell games to people who haven't moved to the newer hardware as well as a system with an established userbase for which to develop quicker/cheaper games. As time goes on, those benefits erode. Companies that linger too long in the past run the risk of becoming irrelevant or unable to catch up when they need to. Companies don't have endless money nor do they have an infinite team of skilled developers, so they are more likely to support ventures that have a high chance of success and pushing the company forward in the market.

Maybe with whatever current fad is apparently going on with old games it can be hard for some to understand this, but if you had tried to mass-market an SNES cart in 2004 you'd have just been pissing your money away. Yes, of course there was a market for it, and GBA was a platform filled with 2D games, but fat chance getting BestBuy and WalMart to carry your new SNES game. This isn't even considering the cost saving benefits of switching from carts to CDs.

>>3105725
works fine on 32bit versions. You're right though, there's a bit of a hardware issue when dropping from 64bit mode to 16bit mode. That's not up to Windows

>>3105701
If this guy had his way, we'd all still be using a TRS-80 with 64k of memory and then we couldn't even be on 4chan having this conversation.

>>3105726
>can be done a lot more easily on a much newer console
Which one? None of them have tile modes anymore, so you got to manually do it using polygons.

>>3105730
Who on earth still uses 32-bit OSes.

>>3105701

>bullshit. That's an openly customer-hostile stance.

It's only as hostile as it is practical. The replacement cycle exists for the sole reason that nothing will last forever, which is where warranties and support periods come from.

>>3105701

>What costs?

Like if an light went out on your console, they would need a way to have a repair person who knows the system to repair the console, and have the whole supply chain for the bulb/LED for the light running to have parts available to repair.

At some point, these costs are just not worth it unless you pay.

It happens in software as well. It costed $400 in 2014 to maintain a Windows XP PC on top of a $10k enterprise license for security code updates.

>You just tried to explain how it's up to the hardware manufacturers, and now it's not?

Read carefully. That was in context about a mid-cycle console refresh.

>>3105726
>It was extremely hard to make SNES games

Ironic considering there's a very active homebrew scene for the _much_ more limited Atari 2600.

>>3105727
>I think the average consumer likes moving on to new technology
That's why so many people on this very board are suffering the used goods market to get ahold of all the old hardware nobody wants any longer

>linger too long in the past
>unable to catch up
>pushing the company forward
Yeah, we should get over this whole wheel thing. Your statements imply that old things are automatically bad things, which is bullshit.

>fat chance getting BestBuy and WalMart to carry your new SNES game
That "example" relies on nobody else supporting the SNES

>>3105736
So what, use flat polygons. Develop some kind of system where you would get the feeling and easy of designing on an old system without the drawbacks.

>>3105731
>we'd all still be using a TRS-80 with 64k of memory
If that's all you need, for a specific usecase, yes. It's why people still use calculators, it's why banks still use mainframes, and so on. When hardware is good enough for the task, there's no need to go "newer" for the sake of being newer

>>3105743
Dude, the VCS has 4k of ROM not 512k to several megabytes. The VCS is laughably simple provided you know how to count clock cycles.

>>3105743
hmm? That's not ironic, a much more limited system has less you can do with it, ie. is simpler and easier to get into. Also when I said "extremely hard", I meant relative to making a 2D with today's tools, not to other consoles at the time which I didn't make any claims about.

>>3105752
But what can he do with that TRS-80 that he cannot also do on a PC of today?

>>3105743
While I know nothing about programming for Atari 2600, the overall games are far simpler in terms of graphical presentation and sound.

>>3105741
>The replacement cycle exists for the sole reason that nothing will last forever
Look into planned obsolescence. A lot of things nowadays "don't last forever" by design, not because of some inherent property.

>Like if an light went out on your console, they would need a way to have a repair person who knows the system to repair the console, and have the whole supply chain for the bulb/LED for the light running to have parts available to repair.
I don't think that's the job of the original manufacturer

>>3105743
I'm fairly sure that Yar's Revenge is a bit simpler game than Chrono Cross.

>>3105750
so you have an upfront cost before you can do anything with it. How's that helpful again?

>>3105761
Does it matter? The old device works for their use case, and unlike the PC, is in their possession. Why change for the sake of change?

It's kind of like an article I remember about the space program where some guy asks why we cannot build a Saturn V today. The answer was simple - the thing depended on parts and manufacturing processes that no longer exist. You would have to recreate the US aerospace industry as it existed in 1965 to be able to build a complete Saturn V and Apllo CSM.

>>3105771
The newer machine does all that its predecessor does and vastly more on top of that.

>>3105778
But they have no use for that "vastly more", so why insist on them replacing something that works perfectly for their use case?

>>3105778
The argument he was making was that if some autist refused to upgrade his 1997 PC with Windows 95, that manufacturers should be required to support his old shitty 20 year old hardware.

>>3105781
Well, Microsoft couldn't force people to replace their XP installations, but they sure don't have to provide them any support for it.

>>3105787
your point being?

>>3105792
You were acting as if companies were forcing you against your will to upgrade.

>>3105747
>That's why so many people on this very board are suffering the used goods market to get ahold of all the old hardware nobody wants any longer

We are a fraction of the market. Also, you realize that the across the board price boom is a relatively recent thing, right? There was, in fact, a period of time when NES/SNES games were garage sale fodder and GameStop regularly had bins full of them for sale. Mario/Duck Hunt was, for a time, literally worth pennies.

>That "example" relies on nobody else supporting the SNES

Yes, again, the trend in technology is to move forward and follow new developments. Even if some companies did continue to support old consoles, it would not have been all of them nor would it have even been many of them. If you sold it as a budget title or an NFL/NHL/NBA game, then you might have a chance. But, again, why make a budget basketball game for the SNES in 2004 when you could make it for the PlayStation, with its cheap CDs and more current market?

I think you might be considering this from too current of a viewpoint, when old games seem to be all the rage on YouTube and whatnot and ebay prices skyrocketing. Continued SNES support through the 2000s would have been almost exclusively selling to a niche within the nerd market.

>>3105793
I was acting like random anons on the internet are calling new stuff necessarily better, and insisting on riding the constant update wave.
And I was acting like companies intentionally abandoning products to increase sales.

>>3105795
>price boom
Why bring up the price boom? I mentioned the used goods market, because if I had the choice between something new in good condition, or something used, I'd prefer the former. The used goods market is a fallback, because the primary option is not available any longer.

>the trend in technology is to move forward and follow new developments
and it's consumer-hostile

I actually remember this very discussion from an archived 1997 Usenet thread. In that case, it was a butthurt codefag who complained that newer PC video cards didn't support some hax 320x240 DOS mode. He was whining that they forced you to use Windows now and it's unfair that he can't still use video modes generated by hardware bugs on some off-brand VGA card from 1991.

So they told him what an idiot he was, that we'd still be using 286 PCs with his attitude, and there was no excuse to do what he was asking and why the fuck did he not want to use 640x480 mode like all current games at that time used.

>>3105801
>I was acting like random anons on the internet are calling new stuff necessarily better, and insisting on riding the constant update wave.
Well, I'm pretty sure a Windows 8 box is more capable than an Apple II.

>>3105807
It's consumer hostile to want to upgrade to better, faster, more efficient hardware with more features?

>>3105809
I'm pretty confident an Apple II is about as good as a Windows 8 box at typing up plain text documents, or bookkeeping. If that's all you're doing, then why force anybody into "upgrading" something that works and covers their usecase perfectly?

>>3105763

>Look into planned obsolescence. A lot of things nowadays "don't last forever" by design, not because of some inherent property.

Even without that, I'm arguing that it's an inherent property of how matter works, nothing lasts forever. People who make things sure are putting in planned obsolescence more and more, but even without that, at some point, it doesn't make sense to support the console.

>I don't think that's the job of the original manufacturer

It is, because without that maintenance of the supply chain and repair people, they would not be supporting their product. That is just a fact.

Maybe you get lucky and you can still get that part and find someone to repair it for you. But that would be outside the realm of having the proper people supporting the platform.

>>3105813
it's consumer hostile to force them to upgrade, even though the "new" widget offers that particular user no advantages

>>3105818
>because without that maintenance of the supply chain and repair people, they would not be supporting their product
disclose or publish the schematics, and you don't need to train repair workers.
use off-the-shelf components, and you don't need to maintain a supply chain.

>>3105816
>I'm pretty confident an Apple II is about as good as a Windows 8 box at typing up plain text documents, or bookkeeping.
While doing that, I can have music playing on Youtube, download porn, be conversing with total cement-heads on 4chan, or checking the weather in Brazil. None of which was possible on an Apple II. All I could have up is the text editor and it's single tasking so I can't switch away from it and even if I could do that, the computer isn't able to do any of the other things I mentioned.

Being that people today expect more out of their PC than they did in 1985.

>>3105807
>Why bring up the price boom?

My entire point was that SNES/NES/whatever weren't hotly popular in the mid 2000s. Outside of collectors, the average buyer wasn't likely to buy a new SNES game for full retail price.

>>3105813
spoiler:Hardware is plateauing.

Things are being repackaged with underpowered hardware now a days so gradual upgrades seem like progress again. If you don't believe me, look at how things have devolved to the tablet, pathetic wusses of a machine, even by lower-power-consuption hardware standards.

Btw, your post reminded me of the Onion's Bates 5000 short:
https://vimeo.com/3653208

>>3105825
>disclose or publish the schematics, and you don't need to train repair workers

Do you have a factory in your backyard to manufacture 30 year old ICs? I'm fairly sure you don't.

>>3105828
>While doing that, I can have
Do whatever you want, don't force others into following you

>>3105816
Not him but who's forcing anything? They go where the consumer is. If the consumer wants it, that's what they do. Did they literally come out to your house and say: "get off that fucking amiga, you should be using windows 8". As pointed out earlier, some of the parts aren't manufactured anymore, they don't exist. You would have to start up production of all them again, which might cost millions. That's why you see old consoles for stupid prices, do you think that would happen if people could just manufacture them?

>>3105819
I hate to break it to you, but in the wide market OMG REAL 3D was definitely considered a user advantage when it was new.

>>3105836
ICs are one of these things that tend to not go down, especially the old large scale ones. It's usually just capacitors and stuff, components.

>>3105835
>look at how things have devolved to the tablet, pathetic wusses of a machine
On that note, it's virtually impossible nowadays to get a modern x86 netbook or tablet + keyboard equivalent. They're all larger or more expensive

>>3105773
They had to retire the Space Shuttle because certain parts were not produced anymore and it was becoming difficult for NASA to maintain them.

>>3105825

As said, you are not supporting the product once you are not maintaining the proper supply chain and the people with the knowledge to repair the thing.

Yes, they can do all of the above and I wish they did that more frequently but sadly, most companies don't do that nowadays.

>>3105839
>They go where the consumer is. If the consumer wants it, that's what they do
Got to love naivity. Marketing's driving consumers, not the other way round

>Did they literally come out to your house and say: "get off that fucking amiga, you should be using windows 8"
bunch of anons in this thread are doing exactly that

>do you think that would happen if people could just manufacture them?
You can't produce what you have to reverse-engineer, because the products, while not supported, are not abandoned either, but instead fiercly protected in terms of IP and "trade secrets"

>>3105847
>>3105836
Nowadays you can get Compact Flash adapters to replace floppies and hard disks on many retro computer platforms, however this is more a case of adapting today's tech to the things in acknowledgment of the fact that you cannot go into a Best Buy anymore and purchase a 20MB hard disk.

>>3105854
>As said
Repetition does not strengthen your point

>>3105859
>You can't produce what you have to reverse-engineer, because the products, while not supported, are not abandoned either, but instead fiercly protected in terms of IP and "trade secrets"
I'm fairly sure that all 20-30 year old hardware has been reverse engineered and documented a long time ago.

>>3105847
>ICs are one of these things that tend to not go down, especially the old large scale ones. It's usually just capacitors and stuff, components.

That is a ludicrous statement. ICs are exactly one of these things that tends to go down in price.

>>3105838
You saying today's consumers don't expect their PC to be able to play music and look at Russian dashcam vids? As I said, I'm sure that the average consumer expects more than he did in the 80s.

>>3105873
>to go down in price
I used "go down" in the sense of "breaks", as in, needs to be replaced.

>>3105875
>You saying today's consumers don't expect their PC to be able to play music and look at Russian dashcam vids?
I'm saying if you don't have use cases for that stuff, it makes little sense to upgrade

>>3105883
>nobody today uses their PC to listen to music

>>3105883
>I'm saying if you don't have use cases for that stuff, it makes little sense to upgrade

You would sure want to upgrade if your aging hardware breaks or it cannot run modern software/use modern hardware/be able to surf today's websites.

For example, I used to use a Dell PC from 1996. I would not be able to use PCIe cards, SATA hard disks, USB devices, or a wireless network card with it. I would not be able to browse today's websites with it. I cannot run software made in the past 15 years on it.

>>3105902
>You would sure want to upgrade if your aging hardware breaks
And I'd be pissed if it was designed to break easily

>or it cannot run modern software
Why would I run modern software, if the old stuff works fine for my usecase? Look, you guys are trying really hard to argue that newer is better, unconditionally, for everyone. I love the new shit, and I upgrade my stuff, no problem. But I see no reason why someone that has no use for the new stuff, be forced to use it.

>I would not be able to use PCIe cards, SATA hard disks, USB devices, or a wireless network card with it. I would not be able to browse today's websites with it. I cannot run software made in the past 15 years on it.
So upgrade. I'm not argueing for EVERYONE to stay on old hardware, while you desperately argue that EVERYONE update. That is my problem.

>>3105906
>Why would I run modern software, if the old stuff works fine for my usecase?

Are you arguing that Windows 3.1 is capable of today's computing needs when it predates USB by years and limits applications to 16MB max of memory?

I think someone (or some people) here is mistaking a realization that old computer/gaming technology is not as cost effective/widely popular/marketable/generally usable to function in the modern world with a dislike for or a condemnation of that old technology.

>>3105909
>capable of today's computing needs
If today's computer needs, for a particular user, include the ability to write documents, do bookkeeping, and print to their trusty dot matrix printer, then yes, I argue that Win 3.1 is perfectly capable

>>3105906
No one is forcing anyone to upgrade anything. If a 486 suits your needs, by all means continue to use it. Treat it well, replace any failing parts, and you're good to go.

>>3105828
>While doing that, I can have music playing on Youtube, download porn, be conversing with total cement-heads on 4chan, or checking the weather in Brazil

>implying that's a good thing
>implying the world wasn't a better place before the horror of Jewbook/Twitter/Reddit/Youtube comments

>>3105912
>If today's computer needs, for a particular user, include the ability to write documents, do bookkeeping, and print to their trusty dot matrix printer, then yes, I argue that Win 3.1 is perfectly capable

Except that nobody today buys a PC with the idea of using WordStar on a green screen monochrome monitor and printing to an Epson FX-80. The computer user you're speaking of doesn't exist. He hasn't existed in 25 or more years.

>>3105919
I'm kinda curious what the belief is about this being forced to upgrade. Unless the company is doing something to brick your device, they aren't really forcing you to upgrade. They can encourage you to do so, but they can't force you. Companies generally want to release new products without the burden of having to support decades old hardware. When Microsoft releases Word 20XX, they don't want to debug it to make sure it'll run with Windows 3.1 nor do web designers want to make sure that their website will load for a Netscape Navigator user accessing the internet via a 2800 baud modem.

>>3105725
And even if you could, it would run too fast or have incompatibilities with today's hardware.

>>3105926
See >>3105279 and >>3105662

Windows is already a bloated piece of junk because it has tons of useless legacy code that's never been removed.

>>3105910
Anons are openly telling me that people must not use existing, functional and, for their use case, sufficient pieces of technology, if this technology is "too old". The only exception is using that technology ironically in a retro-computing context. I call bullshit on that stance.

>>3105919
nobody but you is talking about buyers

>>3105930
>Anons are openly telling me that people must not use existing, functional and, for their use case, sufficient pieces of technology

Please name the person who finds a TRS-80 adequate for their computing needs in 2016. There isn't any such person anywhere.

>>3105930
People can by all means use whatever hardware they want and whatever suits their needs, you can't really argue otherwise. That being said, they can't expect other people or companies to cater to their technology situation.

>>3105929
That isn't the same as confirming software compatibility for pieces of old hardware.

>>3105946
>That being said, they can't expect other people or companies to cater to their technology situation.
Still a bit of a shitty move when a company drops any responsibility for what they made, to chase the next fad and make people throw away technology, instead of putting them in the position that it can see continued use.

The NES was supported in NA from 1985 to 1994. SNES in NA from 1991 to 1999. These consoles were supported from developers well into the successive generation.

>>3105946
>That being said, they can't expect other people or companies to cater to their technology situation

Except they are de-facto forcing you to upgrade because of refusing to support your hardware.

>>3105950
>Still a bit of a shitty move when a company drops any responsibility for what they made

Do you think it would be fair to bring a 1951 Ford with a flathead V8 into your local dealership in 2016 and expect them to have parts on the shelf or the mechanic be able to fix it? Maybe he can ask his grandpa for help. lyl.

>>3105950
>Still a bit of a shitty move when a company drops any responsibility for what they made
I've never heard Apple disown the Apple II or the Mac 128. They haven't offered any parts or service for them since GHW Bush was president, but they haven't disowned them or pretended they never made the things.

>>3105954
>Do you think it would be fair to bring a 1951 Ford with a flathead V8 into your local dealership in 2016 and expect them to have parts on the shelf (...)?
No, but I expect them to be able to order the parts, either from Ford, or from a supplier that Ford handed their maintenance over to.


Do you think it would be fair to bring a 1951 Ford with a flathead V8 into your local dealership in 2016 and expect (...) the mechanic be able to fix it?
Yes, at least within a reasonable time; as they are a skilled mechanic, and the maintenance manuals should be available (from Ford or otherwise)

>>3105149
underage detected

SNES and Genesis are quite limited in 2D. Even Neo Geo.

Saturn was the pinnacle of 2D as the last console containing some 2D tile mapping hardware. But it would still be very expensive to produce.

>>3105958
>disown
I said "drop responsibility". I do not expect any company to claim "we did not make that". The thing is, can you go to Apple for replacement manuals, floppies, or get them to point out where to obtain spare parts? That's what I mean by "responsibility"

>>3105960
>No, but I expect them to be able to order the parts, either from Ford

...that haven't been manufactured since about 1957. Yeah, that'll work real well.

>>3105965
>the last console containing some 2D tile mapping hardware
You used console, so you're technically correct. But for the sake of readers, the GBA and the DS have very capable tile mapping hardware

>>3105953
But if it suits your needs, then it really wouldn't matter. If your Apple ][ can't connect to 4chan or produce the vector graphics you need to make for your job, it isn't suiting your needs. Would it be nice if Apple would repair your old machine? Sure, but there comes a point when it just isn't cost effective to do so.

>>3105969
>that haven't been manufactured since about 1957
It's Ford's responsibility to manufacture them, disclose the schematics, or set outsource the production. Note that the second option is the easiest, as it effectively means you give the customer the ability to take the schematic to a metal shop, and get the part made. Expensive as fuck, but Ford did what's necessary to allow for anyone to obtain the spares

File: 1300044776986.jpg (23KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 250x250px

>>3105975
>It's Ford's responsibility to manufacture and disclose the schematics for cars made long before most of the people working there today were alive

>>3105737
People who want maximum compatibility with old windows games.

>>3105741
>It happens in software as well. It costed $400 in 2014 to maintain a Windows XP PC on top of a $10k enterprise license for security code updates.

It is free actually. Just make this small change to your windows XP registry and get cumulative security updates until April 9, 2019.

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\WPA\PosReady]
"Installed"=dword:00000001

>>3105972
>Sure, but there comes a point when it just isn't cost effective to do so

And even then, how would they? The parts needed to repair the computer haven't been produced in 25 years.

>>3105980
Assuming they even still have the schematics laying around, which they almost certainly don't.

Do you think how much resources a company would waste supporting ancient hardware that could instead be used to produce new hardware?

File: apple_store2.jpg (99KB, 1800x1198px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1800x1198px

>>3105968
Alright, I tell you what you do. You go into one of these tomorrow and ask them for OS disks for your Mac SE. Assuming the kid at the counter who was born in 1993 has ever even seen a Mac SE.

>>3106007
I do not expect for them to have the lying around. I do not expect for them to have floppies lying around. I do expect for them to be able to either hand me a disk image right there, or point me to a download link obtaining a disk image

>>3105950
>and make people throw away technology, instead of putting them in the position that it can see continued use
Why would you force people to limit themselves to outdated/inefficient technology?

>>3106014
That's a dishonest false dichotomy. If you want to shitpost, go to /v/

>>3106010
>I do expect for them to be able to either hand me a disk image right there, or point me to a download link obtaining a disk image

>I can't find Mac SE disk images with 5 seconds of Google searching

http://earlymacintosh.org/disk_images.html

That was hard.

File: snap10.jpg (63KB, 1000x656px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 1000x656px

Suppose I had one of these and its hard disk was broken (quite reasonable expectation for something that's almost 30 years old). Do you expect Apple to be able to get me a new 30MB SCSI drive which probably hasn't been manufactured since 1990? That would be completely silly.

>>3106019
>That was hard.
That wasn't by Apple, or endorsed by Apple

>>3106027
>Do you expect Apple to be able to get me a new 30MB SCSI drive
If it's a standardized component, that is, if a third party drive would work or would have worked, no. If it was a proprietary component, I'd expect for Apple to provide the drive, provide a manufacturer for the drive, or provide all necessary schematics to produce a compatible drive

>>3106031
>If it was a proprietary component, I'd expect for Apple to provide the drive, provide a manufacturer for the drive
Very well, find any company in 2016 that manufactures 30MB SCSI hard disks. I should like to know about it.

>>3106034
>find any company in 2016 that manufactures 30MB SCSI hard disks
I'm not looking for SCSI drives at the moment.

>I should like to know about it
good luck

>>3106031
>or provide all necessary schematics to produce a compatible drive

I'm pretty sure somebody has an adapter to use CF cards as a substitute for the original hard disk. They have them for most major retro platforms. Example:

http://dreher.net/?s=projects/CFforAppleII&c=projects/CFforAppleII/main.php

>>3106039
your point?

>>3106040
You said somebody should use the schematics to produce a compatible drive/drive substitute and evidently it's been done. There you go.

>>3106045
>somebody should
I did not.

I said the original manufacturer should make schematics available, if they have no intention to continue producing the components.
I did not claim that any company is, or isn't doing that.

>>3106048
>I said the original manufacturer should make schematics available

I'm sure you can find the tech specs for all your favorite 80s computers online somewhere.

>>3106052
Are they originally provided by the original manufacturers or reverse engineered? Are they still provided by the original manufacturers?
And why make this about 80s computers? Because someone whipped out the TRS-80 straw man?

>>3105727
>There is, of course, a span of time when it is profitable to continue supporting old systems in order to sell games to people who haven't moved to the newer hardware as well as a system with an established userbase for which to develop
See, he's arguing that there's some legion of 10 million people out there in 2016 who use an Apple II for their daily driver and are fucked because that mean ol' Apple won't provide them with parts and service.

Except there isn't, so why would any company waste their resources on supporting a userbase that doesn't exist.

>>3106053
>Are they originally provided by the original manufacturers or reverse engineered? Are they still provided by the original manufacturers?
Why would they have to be provided by the original manufacturer when you can find all the stuff online already. It's akin to reinventing the wheel.

>>3106056
>Why would they have to be provided by the original manufacturer
Because their badge is on the item.

>you can find all the stuff online already
reverse engineered? What undocumented functions or aspects are they missing? How do you know?

>It's akin to reinventing the wheel
reverse engineering is. The original manufacturer has these documents already

>>3106054
>there's some legion of 10 million people
one is plenty

>parts and service
or schematics to reproduce the parts, or a contact to a third party doing maintenance

>waste their resources
That PDF on their server and the link in their support section are totally wasting their resources

>>3106060
>reverse engineered? What undocumented functions or aspects are they missing? How do you know?
When it comes to something like a Commodore 64, all possible hardware features/quirks/bugs are very thoroughly and meticulously documented and can be found out by asking anyone on a site like Lemon 64. This is true for all retro systems that were reasonably popular and sold well. There could be some obscure stuff that's less well-documented but it's probably obscure for a reason.

>>3106063
How would one lone person make it profitable enough to support so-and-so-hardware. You seem to have not even the vaguest clue how running a business works.

>>3106060
>The original manufacturer has these documents already

Somehow I'm not convinced that IBM still has docs for this thing >>3105274 laying around anymore.

>>3106065
>profitable
I don't give a shit. I'm not a company. They sold the device, they made it proprietary, they take the responsibility.

>support
read or shut up

>how running a business works
I'm a consumer, not a business. If their business model is bad, I'll call them out on it

>>3106068
That's their problem, or it should be. The reality is sadly a billion and one anons arguing that I should just take that corporate dick and ask for more

>>3106069
>proving my point that you have no idea how business works

I give you Average Bernie Sanders Supporter.

>>3106070
If you don't like their product or their warranty agreement, then by all means don't buy their product.

>>3106080
>warranty agreement
Where does that come from? You read what level of support I expect?

File: Screenshot_2016-02-16-16-52-37.jpg (279KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 1080x1920px

ITT: Donald Trump

>>3106089
>You read what level of support I expect?

And I am completely within reason as to what level of support I expect. For example, I have an HP Pavilion g7. You can bet I'd expect HP to be able to provide tech support for a laptop made in this decade. I would certainly _not_ expect them to provide tech support for a Vectra 286 made in 1988.

>>3106103
I take that as a "no, I haven't read"

>>3106103
First he said companies should provide replacement parts on demand for 30 year old hardware. And then I said well how would companies provide replacement parts when they haven't been produced in years and years. And then he shifted the goalposts and said "Oh well I didn't actually say that I said companies should provide tech documents so third parties can produce replacement parts".

And then I said Well you can find a lot of those docs online plenty of neckbeards have them uploaded to a website. Yet he still found a way to be butthurt about that.

Finally came the ultimate kicker when in >>3106069 he flat-out admitted he has no clue how running a business or keeping it profitable works.

>>3105004
The market wants games for newer systems.
Agreements with console manufacturers.
Cost of producing obsolete media for older consoles.
Dozens of reasons.

LOL that reminds me of when my dad worked at a Radio Shack in around 2000-ish. He said there were actually people who came in there with TRS-80s and got butthurt when they were told they couldn't get parts for them anymore. "Dude wait wut. This thing was made in 1982."

>>3106029
For the love of fuck where do people like you come from?
>That wasn't by Apple, or endorsed by Apple

No fucking shit it isn't. Did you need to make a post just to say that? And if so, why say it like that? Did you need to clarify endorsed? Are you insecure?

>>3106126
He's also apparently unable to explain where this userbase is that still relies on 30 year old hardware. He says it exists and companies are Jewing them good, but he can't provide proof that it does exist.

>>3105004
NES had games coming out regularly for a decade and had it's final game 11 years after the Japanese launch.

SNES had regular releases for up to 8 years and a handful for a couple years after that.

PS2 was supported for 9 or 10 years easily.

They really SHOULD supporting consoles for at least 2 generations. 5 years of games and then NOTHING EVER AGAIN is bullshit.

>>3106170
Atari 2600 had games made for it all the way up to 1990, thirteen years after it came out.

>>3106151

I think we're being had. As nice as it would be for a company to continue support for their old products until the end of time, there is really no benefit for them to do so nor would most people who still use a 20 year old computer expect them to. And, as much as I enjoy older technology and do agree that companies should support their products beyond the first few years of life, the majority of people who need a computer for business and communication would not find a 20+ year old desktop to be the most useful option. I mean, sometimes technology does in fact improve and it isn't just some corporate conspiracy to make you throw out your old electronics.

File: 1450431167864.jpg (40KB, 680x848px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 680x848px

>>3105004
>and further platforms don't make 2D any better

>>3105737
A gazillion Windows tablets with 2GB of RAM

>>3106115
>First he said companies should provide replacement parts on demand for 30 year old hardware
quote it

>And then I said Well you can find a lot of those docs online plenty of neckbeards have them uploaded to a website
Which the companies that made these parts did not make. I added that requirement for a reason

>or keeping it profitable
If "keeping it profitable" means fucking over customers, I can't wait for such a business to die a quick and fiery death

>>3106126
>No fucking shit it isn't
tough. That was a requirement

>And if so, why say it like that?
Like what? by apple and endorsed by apple are two different things, the latter weaker than the former. I was providing options

>>3106270
>there is really no benefit for them to do so
irrelevant. Responsibility is rarely beneficial to the responsible party, but it's necessary

>>3106862
>If "keeping it profitable" means fucking over customers

Well, when's the last time HP got any tech support calls from people needing stuff for their Vectra 286? I'm fairly certain that this has never happened since Clinton was president.

>>3106941
>calls
why call? Also, why does it matter how often it happens?

>>3106945
Why provide something there's no demand whatsoever for?

>>3105954
Actually there's repro parts available for most antique cars you can think of. At least if it's something common like a Ford or Chevy (might be hard to find parts for a 1931 Studebaker).

>>3106948
the demand is non-zero, providing it is virtually free, and shows goodwill towards consumers

>>3106952
>the demand is non-zero
Then where's this army of 10 million people in 2016 who are still using 286 PCs?
>providing it is virtually free
>manufacturing ancient parts, keeping them in stock, and training tech support people is virtually free
Not sure if trolling or...

>>3106951
That's a little bit of an arm pull because that '31 Studebaker was made by a company that hasn't existed since the 1960s.

>>3106969
>manufacturing ancient parts, keeping them in stock, and training tech support people is virtually free
None of these things are necessary to provide support for old hardware, and while I did suggest these things, I suggested them all optionally, depending on how cool the company wants to be. The bottom end was disclosing schematic and design documents, so people interested can make these parts, or customers interested in them, can get them custom-made.

>>3106973
>The bottom end was disclosing schematic and design documents, so people interested can make these parts, or customers interested in them, can get them custom-made.
That was already covered. Any vintage computer platforms that were reasonably popular/relevant have all been fully documented and you can find any info you like for them online. In regards to making parts, of course you can now get CF card floppy/hard disk emulators for most major vintage computer platforms.

In effect you're asking for something that's already been done a long time ago.

>>3106970
Federal-Mogul likely holds the IP for Studebaker

>>3106983
>That was already covered
Only that third parties provided this material, likely through reverse engineering. No first party documentation

>>3106983
Link me to the NES support at Nintendo, or the Atari 2600 support at Atari, or the Apple II support at Apple, or ...

>>3106951
It's actually pretty hard to find service manuals/info for a lot of cars of that vintage even if they're made by the Big Three. Stuff like the flathead Fords is easy but even a Buick from the 30s you'd have a hard time obtaining service info because those cars were never popular with collectors/vintage carfags.

I'd actually been on antique car forums and seen threads with people saying how it's difficult to find any service/repair dox for a 1932 Oldsmobile and things like that.

>>3106989
and before anybody tries to play down my demand:
http://www.intel.com/Assets/PDF/DataSheet/4004_datasheet.pdf
some companies do manage to do it right

>>3106989
>Only that third parties provided this material, likely through reverse engineering. No first party documentation
I'm sure that all of the manuals/schematics for your Apple II have been scanned and uploaded somewhere.

>>3107006
>I'm sure that all of the manuals/schematics for your Apple II have been scanned and uploaded somewhere.
So it should be even cheaper and simpler for Apple to link to them, confirming that they're indeed the place to go to get info about that old hardware. Just a simple link from apple.com, right?

Merely providing manuals still does not translate into parts availability. Like the other guy said about SCSI hard disks. Even if you had all the official tech info for them...good luck going into Best Buy in 2016 and asking for a new one.

>>3107009
>So it should be even cheaper and simpler for Apple to link to them, confirming that they're indeed the place to go to get info about that old hardware.
Why do they need to do that when you can already find all that stuff on line. Again you're asking for something that is completely unnecessary.

>>3107010
>Merely providing manuals still does not translate into parts availability
I said design documents, not manuals. The reason being that even if the original manufacturer is unable or unwilling to provide these parts, the specs allow to re-implement them, if one is willing to go through the trouble.

>good luck going into Best Buy in 2016 and asking for a new one.
some other anon suggested there's a scsi interface available for other drives, in part because the specs are open and available. Imagine scsi was a losed proprietary system. It would take reverse engineering and guesswork to find out the specs, and the moment you try to implement them, the original owner brings down the IP hammer on you.

>>3107010
FWIW they do have CF/SSD card adapters that replace common IDE hard disks on vintage PCs. No idea about SCSI but it was one of the most common drive types in the 80s-90s so such a thing should be available.

>>3107016
>Why do they need to do that when you can already find all that stuff on line
Their badge is on the box, so they're the primary source for support of the machine. It's perfectly valid for them to then say "we don't provide parts anymore, but here are the specs if you want to make your own. We don't provide tech support anymore, but here are the manuals our tech support was trained with, if you want to do it yourself, or pay someone to do it for you" or in this one example "we don't host the specs on our own servers, but you can use the specs provided at xxx.tld/path, they are correct as far as we are aware."

>>3107021
Well how much proprietary stuff do you have to actually deal with? PCs are all made with completely off the shelf components. Macs had more proprietary stuff but as a major computer platform it's probably all well documented.

There might be some obscure dedicated CAD workstation or minicomputer with custom ICs you can't find any info on, but nobody collects those things anyway.

File: image.jpg (34KB, 500x279px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 500x279px

Holy shit, reading through this thread, there is a really dense individual in here that somehow expects companies to maintain upkeep for every product they've ever produced. Jesus Christ.

>>3107031
>Well how much proprietary stuff do you have to actually deal with?
Should make for a pretty brief support page then, listing the standards used, confirming that it's ok to work with standard-compliant parts. It's not unusual for companies to use seemingly standard physical connectors, but then have custom protocols. So looking at the hardware is not sufficient

>>3107031
You're correct but there's thousands of obscure PC peripherals/boards that it could be hard to find info on. For example if you dig through a box of ISA cards at the flea market and there's a weird network card with a row of jumpers on it and you have no idea what those things do.

>>3107040
Yeah but a lot of that is useless stuff that nobody needs anymore like ancient network cards or a controller board for a cash register or something.

The Usenet archives are sometimes a handy source for info though. Often you can dig up threads from like 1990 about X piece of hardware.

>>3107038
But again, anything that sold well and was widely used has already been thoroughly documented. For example, you can find everything there is to know about an Apple II with a few quick Google searches.

>>3107043
And oftentimes made by companies that are long out of business.

>>3107046
>For example, you can find everything there is to know about an Apple II with a few quick Google searches.
Can I find it through a site search on Apple.com? Why do you guys practically insist that a corporation must not support their old hardware? It's not even about them not wanting to, someone else did the work already, but you outright refuse that a company may take this hint of a responsibility, and, through a link on their homepage go "yup, that shit right there's the good stuff, we use it too when we're bored and tinkering with our old shit"

>>3107049
their IP is usually sold/bought

>>3107053
A lot of times though there can be so many business mergers/name changes that nobody even knows who owns an old IP anymore. Whoever does own it now may well not even know they do.

>>3107057
If the owners can't figure their shit out, they're all on the hook, simple as that.

Now the one guy brings up Apple...well, Apple since Jobs's return in 1997 has been a company that pretty much snubs any sort of legacy support. They drop support for their old hardware as soon as they reckon that all their customers have upgraded. Call it what you like, but that's just their business policy that they want to look as hip and forward thinking as possible.

>>3107064
>Now the one guy brings up Apple
I'm just following you guys along. You bring all kind of specific examples up, because you can't handle the concept. If you don't like Apple, pick another company, or none at all. It's the concept, not more, not less.

File: Nerd-46422.jpg (35KB, 480x364px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 480x364px

>>3105972
>If your Apple ][ can't connect to 4chan or produce the vector graphics you need to make for your job, it isn't suiting your needs.
You can write a tool for your Apple ][ to fulfill your needs.

Though I personally don't know any computer manufacturer that still supports 80s stuff. That would be silly. Besides, a very large amount of the hardware/software from back then was made by now defunct companies.

>>3107083
>That would be silly
Why?

>now defunct companies
their buyers aren't defunct

>>3107085
>wanting to waste finite resources on supporting archaic hardware/software that could be used to develop new products

File: vinyl..jpg (21KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 500x500px

>>3107102

>>3107114
Yes there's a couple of hipster outfits that produce vinyl for people who wear Tumblr glasses and flannel. Doesn't mean the mainstream today doesn't just use an MP3 player to listen to music.

>>3107126
>>3107114
That's a bit of an asspull though since vinyl does have certain technical advantages especially in that it cannot be brickwalled (the curse of recorded music in the late 90s-early 2000s). A TRS-80 does not offer any advantages over a quad core PC.

Dude, yes, it would be nice if companies offered infinite support for their full line of old products. All we are saying is that we understand why they don't. The whole idea of providing schematics just sounds like you've lowered the bar. If it costs them nothing to share said documents and if it doesn't compromise trade secrets or copyrights then yeah, it would be great if they did. Should you expect that? No, but if it bothers you that a company won't do that, then complain to them or stop giving them your business. You bought their product back then, enjoyed it throughout the period of the warranty and beyond, to the point that it is no longer a generally relevant machine. You wouldn't call a dog breeder and expect him to pay cremation costs for your now dead dog.

File: usb-floppy-ports-big.jpg (61KB, 980x408px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 980x408px

>>3107024

>>3107146
>Dude, yes, it would be nice if companies offered infinite support for their full line of old products. All we are saying is that we understand why they don't. The whole idea of providing schematics just sounds like you've lowered the bar.

I think he lowered the bar after we dismantled his earlier argument that it would be silly to still produce and sell 30 year old parts.

>>3107147
Neato. But does this thing support anything other than common 1.44MB disks? Can you actually stick it in an IBM XT and boot up an image of a single sided self booting game disk?

>>3107163
http://www.ipcas.com/products/usb-floppy-emulator-v3.html

According to the tech specs it seems like you can, but it also looks like you have to create a configuration file with all the low-level details for the drive like rotation speed and bit rate (it looks like there's pre-provided config files for common PC drive types)

>>3107169
They swear on a stack of Bibles that that thing can support almost any floppy format you can think of.

As an aside, what do you mean by "boot up an image of a single sided self booting game disk?"

>>3107184
I actually do have in my possession an original floppy of Sierra's Troll's Tale for the IBM PC. This is on a non-DOS single sided 180k disk. If I had a virtual image of this thing, would it work with that floppy emulator or does the thing only recognize ordinary 1.44MB images.

>>3107203
It seems as if it should support that.

>>3105808
Wow you are so cool.

>>3106170
I wonder how many games will still be made for PS3.

>>3105662
Same with CON, LPT1, LPT2, etc.

>>3107127
>brickwalled
You mean overcompressed/mastered?

>>3107482
Yes. Probably the most famous example being RHCP albums.

>>3107540
Yeah I read Perfecting Sound Forever and it had a section on it (Californication was the biggest offender). It even showed the waveforms - fuck me, it wasn't just touching the ceiling. It was actually clipping.

Why don't auto manufacturers continue supporting old cars? Profitability and install base. There is more wii u's out there being played than every single /vr/ nintendo combined. And that's a commercial failure. Not to mention how cheap retro gamers are.

"Bob Dylan was extremely vocal in his his dismay with compressed music in the early 2000s, saying 'You buy a CD now and it sounds terrible. You can't make out any of the instruments. It's all a big ball of static. When they first told me about people downloading free music on Napster, I said 'Let them steal it all they want. The stuff out now ain't worth anything.''".

"When presented with several different masters of Chinese Democracy, Axl Rose chose the one with the least amount of compression."

>>3107556
That's partially because of that faggot Rick Rubin. You can see how he mutilated Death Magnetic with his clipping obsession.

I notice especially any of those early 2000s nu metal anthems like Let The Bodies Hit The Floor are horrendous compressed.

What about the bands that use compression on purpose?

>>3107570
Everyone uses a little on mixing and mastering, but there's a limit (no pun).

>>3107559
I can understand why an old-timer like Dylan would hate clipping, however Iggy Pop who's not much younger than him jumped on the compression bandwagon almost immediately; when they remastered his classic 70s albums, he insisted on brickwalling them because "The original vinyl mixes were never able to properly replicate our live sound so I wanted to take advantage of the new technology to do what we couldn't back then."

>>3107572

I meant stuff like this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8BOBEZL9sk

>>3107579

That is not the right video, but I don't know how to delete posts here.

The song is an oddity because pretty much every instrument is compressed to an extreme degree, but the final mix has a bit of dynamics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZgfrDMQFas

>>3105004
Combination of backwards compatibility possibly causing a massive price increase they don't wanna risk and knowing idiots are willing to pay for five copies of a game they already own across multiple digital marketplaces.

>>3105730
It is up to Windows, though. I can run a 16 bit Windows program on a 64 bit computer if I use and run Linux (I was playing SimTower the other day like this).

>>3109465
SimTower is a Windows application. If you run it on Linux you're using wine or a similar compatibility or virtualisation layer. The equivalent on Windows is running it in a VM. In that case the VM runs in 32-bit mode, so it can run 16-bit stuff

>>3107558
> There is more wii u's out there being played than every single /vr/ nintendo combined.
I doubt or I don't get what are you saying.

>>3109486
Let's see...
SNES: Units sold Worldwide: 49.10 million
NES: Units sold Worldwide: 61.91 million
Wii U: A total of 69.05 million Wii U games have been sold worldwide as of September 30, 2015

You're right to doubt that anon. Kind of crushing, actually, that the NES sales figures are almost on par with the Wii U, despite being in a time when consoles were not even remotel as commonplace as they are now.

>>3109498
and I fucked up, the last number is games sold, not units.
Total systems sold by the end of 2015 are 12.60 million. That's pathetic

>>3107126
Who the fuck still uses an mp3 player? People use smartphones and streaming to listen to music. Soon it'll be pre-loaded into our brains and so on.

>>3109506
That's what happens when you don't market a system well and give it a name that makes it sound like an addon to a previously existing console.

>>3110019
>That's what happens when you don't market a system well
Oh they marketed it properly with the Wii. They shit on support and the system was awful. It was a total cash grab for super casual gamers and the like and it paid off short term it also alienated even casual gamers who play modern consoles it was so bad. They drove nearly the entire demographic that wasn't old people who wanted wii-fit away and Wii U sales are a result of that. They're a dead company who can't even support a large casual demographic anymore.

>>3105743
and you are a_huge_faggot

>>3105759
Sega Genesis was fairly simple to program for, but there's not much of a market for it now due to its sub-par colors and vomit sound.