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 : : :
20.
 
Re: Huh?
Jul 12, 2006, 23:50
20.
Re: Huh? Jul 12, 2006, 23:50
Jul 12, 2006, 23:50
 
Episodic games reuse all or most of the content from the previous release

Half-Life 2:ep2 looks to have a lot of different and new assets from the last, but I get where you are going. I would say that Episodic as a definition would be closer to "smaller chunks of a continous game made to allow earlier release for a lower price point with money from early episodes helping fund the game for a more immediate return of investment."

Seasonal and episodic as a view of games like EA sport's line are pretty close. I wouldn't really consider UT2k# to be episodic, although it recycles playmodes and map designs (although not the maps themselves which are remade for each iteration, except from 2k3->2k4).

He just mentions that marketing is a problem because the low wholesale price of episodic games doesn't entice retailers to market them.

He also says that most people won't want to wait 6 months between 6 hour episodes. I'll agree with him that it's a little long for episodes that are a little short. I don't agree with him that gamers are unwilling to wait for any amount of time between episodes and won't go back to play the next episodes, but that's difference of opinion I guess.

What the hell game are you talking about? Surely not UT2004 because not only is it not that similar to the original UT, it has substantially more content (including its official bonus packs) than UT2003. It is not just a few maps that were added, and onslaught and assault modes are major additions especially onslaught mode which adds driveable and flyable vehicles to the game.

Assault was in original UT. I wouldn't consider it new, although the maps are new, obviously. It's exclusion from ut2k3 is why i never got into 2k3.

Yes, UT2k4 has substantially more content than 2k3, and no, i don't include the bonus packs (although it's one thing Epic does right). It still is more of UT2k3 + extra game modes + extra maps with some graphics touchups. Unless I'm remembering wrong. I don't own 2k3. I do own 2k4.

NO! What Episodic content does is reuse the same god damn content NOT just reuse concepts. Hell most games from various developers in the same genre reuse concepts. That doesn't make the games "episodic content."

It reuses the engine and tries to come out with more smaller games than if they did full on sequels, which require substantial time and investment due to the fast-changing graphics in the genre.

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
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