Inflated software count

OK, last summer, I talked about Ports vs. Exclusivity, which was part of a disconnected series of posts about video games and the ways you could play others on platforms. Open console architecture and emulators were all discussed.

Now, putting all that aside, I have to say this in regards to my previous post. It's about this: computers, such as Mac or PC, always seem to get the best of both worlds. Unlike console games, which are limited by generation, computers always got the console ports. Whether it was "Atarisoft" games in the early 1980s (like Donkey Kong, one of the popular arcade ports at the time), the FMV Digital Pictures games (like Night Trap and other FMV games by the same company), or even Sega PC ports of old Genesis games in the late 1990s, computers always seemed to get everything. Granted, they didn't get Super Mario World (or other Nintendo exclusives), and the DOS/Windows and Macintosh had very different game sets (the Mac has a very respectable collection of shareware/freeware not found on Windows, and usually better graphics), but both got a lot, most of which was never seen by video games. Additionally, Macs and PCs got real software, like word processors, something practically never seen by video games.

But one of the most annoying things is that if a game can run on, I don't know, whether it says NES, Sega PC, or 3DO, it can run on that. Any NES game, any NES. I mean, assuming its licensed, you're on your own for unlicensed (and even those have good compatibility, gameplay on the other hand...). But for Mac and Windows, it's impossible. With Mac OS X 10.7 coming up, you can kiss another whole set of applications goodbye when Apple pointlessly removes Rosetta. And even long before Mac OS X, updates would often break titles (some games can't even run in System 6!). Even with DOS/Windows, which have substantially better compatibility with past versions, there are a number of Windows titles that are just not going to work without lots of setting-fiddling, patches, or in worst case, WINE.

What it seems to boil down to is backwards compatibility, but that's not necessarily the case. A Nintendo 64 should not be expected to run Super NES games (it doesn't, not without some shifty adaptor from Hong Kong). It's about whether a game can run for the system its advertised for. If the game requires Macintosh System 7.1 and up, or Windows 98 and up, then I SHOULD be able to run it on my Mac or PC, respectively. No questions asked. I shouldn't have to pay for an updated version to run on a new system (unless, of course it comes with new features and by definition is an entirely different program, or is an entirely different platform), I shouldn't have to lose the compatibility I have, and I shouldn't have to use a stand-alone emulator. Similarly, it is a developer's responsibility to patch games that are accidentally broken by system updates, and it is a manufacturer's responsibility to not break compatibility directly.

Some of you out there may believe I'm asking for too much. And you may be right, but in your heart, you know that this is the way things OUGHT to be.