Mark Rein Knocks Intel, Episodes

Epic's Mark Rein Intel is killing PC Gaming on Joystiq reflects the opinion the Epic VP expressed to the Develop Conference in Brighton that moves by Intel, in particular the promotion of integrated graphics on the motherboard, are hurting PC gaming. Epic VP: Intel is killing PC gaming! Ars Not really is an article offering an alternate opinion, which is probably not the last editorial that will be written on this topic. During his keynote address Rein also had an episode about episodic gaming, calling it "a broken business." According to the report, Rein's remarks met with some heckling from the audience, accusing him of being a "dinosaur" and "self-serving."
View : : :
12.
 
Re: Huh?
Jul 12, 2006, 22:59
12.
Re: Huh? Jul 12, 2006, 22:59
Jul 12, 2006, 22:59
 
Seasonal and episodic are just two different ways to describe the same thing. What's the difference to a game that is shorter and sells for a lower price with episodes coming out every 6 months and a full game that has 12 hours of content with a sequel coming out that features new levels with the same characters a year later?

In the end, Rein bitches about episodic failing because of "lack of marketing". Ok.

Here's an example: It's to the point now that in the newer online FPSes, only official maps get played. Each new revision has the old maps plus a few new ones and a new game mode. You play one until the next one then you switch over. How is that not episodic? It's a product that has been developed and uses similar concepts in it's next iteration in order to save time and money. That's exactly what the new "episodic content" format is trying to do. Whether you think it is worth it, don't like it, or don't like the amount you get for it doesn't change the fact that it's pretty much the same fucking thing. Mark Rein even admitted that.


Whatever though. We can argue semantics all day. And no, it's not "exactly" the same (although UT2k4 was not the leap that UT2k3 was over UT, and was probably as close to episodic as it's going to get).


This comment was edited on Jul 12, 23:05.
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Jul 12, 2006Jul 12 2006
2.
Jul 12, 2006Jul 12 2006
4.
Jul 12, 2006Jul 12 2006
7.
Jul 12, 2006Jul 12 2006
8.
Jul 12, 2006Jul 12 2006
   Re: Huh?
5.
Jul 12, 2006Jul 12 2006
9.
Jul 12, 2006Jul 12 2006
10.
Jul 12, 2006Jul 12 2006
11.
Jul 12, 2006Jul 12 2006
   Re: Huh?
14.
Jul 12, 2006Jul 12 2006
    Re: Huh?
15.
Jul 12, 2006Jul 12 2006
     Re: Huh?
16.
Jul 12, 2006Jul 12 2006
     Re: Huh?
21.
Jul 12, 2006Jul 12 2006
      Re: Huh?
22.
Jul 13, 2006Jul 13 2006
       Re: Huh?
25.
Jul 13, 2006Jul 13 2006
        Re: Huh?
38.
Jul 13, 2006Jul 13 2006
         Re: Huh?
39.
Jul 13, 2006Jul 13 2006
          Re: Huh?
42.
Jul 13, 2006Jul 13 2006
           Re: Huh?
43.
Jul 13, 2006Jul 13 2006
            Re: Huh?
45.
Jul 13, 2006Jul 13 2006
             Mark is right
46.
Jul 13, 2006Jul 13 2006
              Re: Mark is right
30.
Jul 13, 2006Jul 13 2006
        Re: Huh?
32.
Jul 13, 2006Jul 13 2006
         Re: Huh?
28.
Jul 13, 2006Jul 13 2006
      Re: Huh?
29.
Jul 13, 2006Jul 13 2006
       Re: Huh?
44.
Jul 13, 2006Jul 13 2006
       Re: Huh?
47.
Jul 13, 2006Jul 13 2006
        Re: Huh?
49.
Jul 13, 2006Jul 13 2006
         Re: Huh?
50.
Jul 13, 2006Jul 13 2006
          Re: Huh?
51.
Jul 13, 2006Jul 13 2006
           Re: Huh?
52.
Jul 14, 2006Jul 14 2006
            Re: Huh?
54.
Jul 14, 2006Jul 14 2006
             Re: Huh?
55.
Jul 14, 2006Jul 14 2006
           Re: Huh?
56.
Jul 14, 2006Jul 14 2006
            Re: Huh?
57.
Jul 14, 2006Jul 14 2006
             Re: Huh?
58.
Jul 14, 2006Jul 14 2006
              Re: Huh?
61.
Jul 14, 2006Jul 14 2006
               Re: Huh?
59.
Jul 14, 2006Jul 14 2006
              Re: Huh?
62.
Jul 14, 2006Jul 14 2006
               Re: Huh?
64.
Jul 14, 2006Jul 14 2006
                Re: Huh?
65.
Jul 14, 2006Jul 14 2006
                 Re: Huh?
66.
Jul 14, 2006Jul 14 2006
                  Re: Huh?
67.
Jul 15, 2006Jul 15 2006
                   Re: Huh?
68.
Jul 15, 2006Jul 15 2006
                    Re: Huh?
70.
Jul 15, 2006Jul 15 2006
                     Re: Huh?
69.
Jul 15, 2006Jul 15 2006
                   Re: Huh?
60.
Jul 14, 2006Jul 14 2006
            Re: Huh?
63.
Jul 14, 2006Jul 14 2006
             Re: Huh?
71.
Jul 15, 2006Jul 15 2006
              Re: Huh?
13.
Jul 12, 2006Jul 12 2006
   Re: Huh?
 12.
Jul 12, 2006Jul 12 2006
  Re: Huh?
18.
Jul 12, 2006Jul 12 2006
   Re: Huh?
19.
Jul 12, 2006Jul 12 2006
    Re: Huh?
20.
Jul 12, 2006Jul 12 2006
    Re: Huh?
23.
Jul 13, 2006Jul 13 2006
     Re: Huh?
24.
Jul 13, 2006Jul 13 2006
      Re: Huh?
26.
Jul 13, 2006Jul 13 2006
      Re: Huh?
53.
Jul 14, 2006Jul 14 2006
      Re: Huh?
3.
Jul 12, 2006Jul 12 2006
6.
Jul 12, 2006Jul 12 2006
17.
Jul 12, 2006Jul 12 2006
27.
Jul 13, 2006Jul 13 2006
31.
Jul 13, 2006Jul 13 2006
33.
Jul 13, 2006Jul 13 2006
41.
Jul 13, 2006Jul 13 2006
35.
Jul 13, 2006Jul 13 2006
34.
Jul 13, 2006Jul 13 2006
36.
Jul 13, 2006Jul 13 2006
40.
Jul 13, 2006Jul 13 2006
37.
Jul 13, 2006Jul 13 2006
48.
Jul 13, 2006Jul 13 2006
72.
Jul 15, 2006Jul 15 2006
73.
Jul 15, 2006Jul 15 2006
77.
Jul 15, 2006Jul 15 2006
78.
Jul 15, 2006Jul 15 2006
80.
Jul 16, 2006Jul 16 2006
   Re: Hmmm
81.
Jul 17, 2006Jul 17 2006
   Re: Hmmm
82.
Jul 17, 2006Jul 17 2006
    Re: Hmmm
83.
Jul 17, 2006Jul 17 2006
     Re: Hmmm
84.
Jul 17, 2006Jul 17 2006
      Re: Hmmm
85.
Jul 17, 2006Jul 17 2006
       Re: Hmmm
86.
Jul 17, 2006Jul 17 2006
        Re: Hmmm
74.
Jul 15, 2006Jul 15 2006
75.
Jul 15, 2006Jul 15 2006
76.
Jul 15, 2006Jul 15 2006
79.
Jul 16, 2006Jul 16 2006
   Re: Hmmm