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 : : :
44.
 
Re: Huh?
Jul 13, 2006, 09:09
44.
Re: Huh? Jul 13, 2006, 09:09
Jul 13, 2006, 09:09
 
We are talking about a hardware manufacturer creating brand new hardware that is obsolete and unuseable out of the box. Hardware T&L has been a standard in game development for 5 years, and these morons still don't support it. It's the idiots at Intel that are selling a brand new "Gaming Compatible" machine that can barely run a DX7 game that are to blame.

Wrong wrong wrong.

Most PC users never touch 3D software.
So why should they pay for complicated 3D chips?
THEY SHOULDN'T!

Intel's integrated video solution costs $7 to make. This means it fits very nicely in $300 desktops and $500 laptops. If you own a business this is what you want on the desks. If you just listen to music and browse the internet this is what you want on your desk.

And guess what? That's the bulk of PCs sold!


Now, some idiots buy these cheap, bottom-line PCs and hope to run games on them. A large part of this is idiot consumers, but fortunately many of these computers have expansion slots so the idiot consumer can upgrade the video card. Not that it matters, the majority of computers shipping with integrated video ship with too little RAM and too slow a processor to run anything Epic is working on.
Sometimes these things are sold as gaming machines, though. Is Intel to blame? Nope, blame the company that sold it. Dell already announced that they're changing this.

Intel's really done nothing wrong. There's a huge demand for cheap 2D video. They satisfy the demand. There's no damn reason for them to support hardware T&L when they're just making a 2D solution. And there's no reason for most computers to have 3D graphics.

Vista will change this.



Some companies might start catering to these non-gaming machines, and some might be successful, although they're non-gaming machines for a reason. Mark knows Epic can't do this. Epic is a technology company first, a gaming company second. Their products sell for having the best graphics, not being the best games (in a genre where graphics are typically the most important feature) and they make more money licensing technology. So of course Mark gets pissed about it.

But who cares?
It's like complaining that people that bought Palms can't play DS and PSP games.

-------------
Doomriders: the first new band worth a signature - http://www.deathwishinc.com/
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