Platforms: What do they mean?

[Tracy Poff]

There's been some discussion about how to best model platforms. Go chime in! I'm not talking about that.

In the Oregami data model, platforms get attached to release groups, so as to indicate what platform a game was released for. Obviously. But what do we mean when we say that a game was released for a certain platform? An example that will probably be familiar: a game's box claims that it is for Windows 3.1, but the game runs on DOS and has (at most) an installer that makes icons in the program manager. Is it a Windows game or a DOS game?

Should we be concerned with what platforms a game actually runs on, or should we simply document the platforms that the publisher claims the game runs on? These two aren't mutually exclusive options, of course.

[Rola]

I recall your question from that thread.
My vote would be to list only actual platforms used, not what is advertised on the box (often falsely, to jump on the "works in Windows, yay!" bandwagon).

Even MobyGames had "includes Windows launcher" - what stops us from adding a tag like this one?

I'd also add "runs through DOSBOX" tag for all those "so-called Windows" GOG.com releases etc.

[MZ per X]

Should we be concerned with what platforms a game actually runs on, or should we simply document the platforms that the publisher claims the game runs on? These two aren't mutually exclusive options, of course.

I'm with Rola on this one. First and foremost, I think we should document the platforms a game can be played on. Is there an example where a publisher released a game for a platform it didn't run on?

Your example of a DOS game with Win 3.1 launcher is a good example of why we should create a (software) platform called "Microsoft Desktop OS". I've not fully explained the platform model in that other thread, yet, but we will have sub-platforms for different purposes, which we can then link to a release group for documenting compatibility.

I'd also add "runs through DOSBOX" tag for all those "so-called Windows" GOG.com releases etc.

Such emulator releases get their own release group for both the new platform, and the old one using a special tag. This way, Windows users can see that the game was released for their platform. But the nostalgic looking to play the old DOS version also knows where to buy.

[Indra]

We've already solved this issue at MG. Just document what the publisher says, it's part of the intended package. That is what it was officially tested for. That is thus far the best logical explanation we've had.

Though if you want to document additional information on what platforms the game would also work on, that's an entirely different issue. Hell, Alley Cat works on any PC/OS no matter how fast your PC is.

Is there an example where a publisher released a game for a platform it didn't run on?

Kinda reminds me of those Xbox One games at E3 running on Windows 7.

[Independent]

Another game is Duke Nukem 3d. This game installed under win9x but played in dos-mode and wing commander IV if I'm not mistaken too. apart from this that it is and remains a dos game. I think a Software platform (OS) is the best way.

Run Civilization (Amiga part) on windows 7 with winuae or turrican 1 on win 7 with ccs64?

It does not matter where and how do I install the game because at least I need the original os for which it was written to play the game. And later perhaps is OREGAMI a perfect Hardware documentation.....

Sorry for my english

[Ultyzarus]

Hi, independent, nice to see you in theses parts Wilkommen!

[MZ per X]

Indy!

Run Civilization (Amiga part) on windows 7 with winuae or turrican 1 on win 7 with ccs64?

We will be able to document emulator compatibility with our sub-platform concept.

And later perhaps is OREGAMI a perfect Hardware documentation.....

This may happen, yes. It would strengthen our standing with German financial authorities, as they rather like to see "material" things getting documented before "immaterial" ones.

Sorry for my english

Your English is good. Keep posting!

[Tracy Poff]

I had intended to actually give my opinion on this a little sooner, but I've been otherwise occupied, lately. Well, better late than never...

I think that we really ought to document both pieces of information: what platforms the software is compatible with, as well as what platforms the publisher claims it is intended for.

My vote would be to list only actual platforms used, not what is advertised on the box (often falsely, to jump on the "works in Windows, yay!" bandwagon).

In my opinion, that a publisher said a game 'works in Windows, yay!' is also worthwhile information. If you're interested in how popular a particular platform is, that kind of thing (a publisher specifically taking notice of it) could also be valuable. For a more contemporary example, consider that games are still released that are specifically advertised as supporting Windows XP. Even though XP was released over twelve years ago, it's still a force in gaming, and publishers stating that their games run on XP is evidence of that.

Is there an example where a publisher released a game for a platform it didn't run on?

I can't think of any specific examples offhand, but I have no doubt that some game has been released that supposedly supports Vista but which is unplayable on it. For that matter, there have certainly been games released for a single platform which were buggy and therefore unplayable. Along those lines, I'm pretty sure I've seen corrections for type-in games that were broken when first 'released', so they couldn't be played at all. What platform does a broken game have?

[Independent]

The Game Halo 2 runs only on vista or above. This comes with direct 10.x for vista because winxp has only directx 9.x. The jump from msdos to win9x there are many games "only for win95" like Tomb Raider with directx.

[idrougge]

Another game is Duke Nukem 3d. This game installed under win9x but played in dos-mode and wing commander IV if I'm not mistaken too. apart from this that it is and remains a dos game. I think a Software platform (OS) is the best way.

In fact, that is a major argument for having a hybrid platform model, because that is what we're dealing with.

Duke Nukem 3D doesn't run on Windows and it doesn't run on MS-DOS and it doesn't run on a 486 CPU. It runs on an MS-DOS derivative on an IBM PC compatible PC. Duke Nukem could be put on the market in that state because there was no confusion about which platform it ran on: the "PC".

It's either a PC game or a Mac game, everything else is tech specs.

[Tracy Poff]

It's either a PC game or a Mac game, everything else is tech specs.

But a PC game from 25 years ago and a PC game from today won't both run on the same computer. The differences in both hardware and software are substantial. Just because we continue to call the game a PC game doesn't mean that the platform we record should be the same.

For comparison, I've heard Super Mario Bros., Super Mario World, Super Mario 64, and Super Mario Galaxy all referred to as 'Nintendo games'. Not because of the publisher, but because they ran on the NES, SNES, N64, or Wii. Should we then just have a single 'Nintendo' platform, and tech specs to explain which particular configuration of hardware was necessary?

In every case, we're making decisions about exactly how finely we separate platforms. The MESS project separates them at the level of individual models of computer, since they're making a hardware emulator. That makes sense for them. A project focused on reviewing PC games might just talk about 'the console version', regardless of how many there are and what platforms they were for. That might make sense for such a site, too. For Oregami, I think we need a balance. It's not practical, especially for modern PCs, to list every individual platform, but we do require a certain degree of granularity.