I wonder how Microsoft eventually dealt with this: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/intel...
Intel seemed to indicate at the time that it was really interested in any licensing around the x86 ISA.
Intel seemed to indicate at the time that it was really interested in any licensing around the x86 ISA.
http://www.techradar.com/news/a-closer-look-at-windows-10-s-...
In fact weren’t the IBM compatible PCs in the 80s doing exactly that?
Still sounds like emulation to me. It's a pretty fine line.
Obviously, they wouldn't say that - the way to market that is to release 'Windows Gamers edition', which costs way more and 'unlocks' the power in the latest CPU's. When in fact, non 'game edition' windows versions simply leave some cores disabled or sleep some of the time when they detect a 'too fast' CPU and a fullscreen game running...
Then I remember people pay tons of cash for their rigs that are obsolete within two years anyway.
Seems like a lucrative practice for Microsoft and one they should embrace, extend and extinguish.
Expensive gaming rigs - a bit less so than PC, but for equivalent hardware, about $400 cheaper at introduction, about equal once 1-2 years pass.
Obsolete in 2 years - check
Expensive software - much more so for consoles.
So right now the situation is that if you go for PC gaming instead of console, you'll have about the same expense, but 100 games for PC (and a powerful general purpose computer), and maybe 5-10 on console.
I wish I could. The games I like aren't released anywhere else.
> Then I remember people pay tons of cash for their rigs that are obsolete within two years anyway.
This is false. A moderate gaming PC can last longer than a console. I used my previous rig for 4 years and now my wife is using it perfectly fine. It still has better visual fidelity than a console.
It actually works quite well.