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 : : :
68.
 
Re: Huh?
Jul 15, 2006, 00:24
68.
Re: Huh? Jul 15, 2006, 00:24
Jul 15, 2006, 00:24
 
" What would be better for the consumer and in turn better for the health of the PC game industry is for PC game developers to design games for a defined PC specification for a longer period and maximize the capabilities of that hardware instead of always raising the bar and expecting the customer to buy new hardware to keep up."

This is where you are missing the point. Even if developers did this, the game still would not run on an integrated intel chip. Integrated intel chips are about 5 years behind the technology curve. In order for your analogy to hold up, that integrated chip bought today would not only have to play every game out when it was purchased, but play every game to come out for your accepted life cycle, ( around five years from what I've read based on the fact that you have zero quams with new consoles arriving ). The damn chip is negative 10 years according to your own life cycle. I can't reiterate this enough... This is NOT about games having a broader target hardware range. This is about a chipmaker intentionally misleading consumers and causing the industry as a whole to suffer for it.

This comment was edited on Jul 15, 00:32.
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