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 : : :
69.
 
Re: Huh?
Jul 15, 2006, 00:34
69.
Re: Huh? Jul 15, 2006, 00:34
Jul 15, 2006, 00:34
 
"It's important for all gamers except the average blues news reader. Do you have a little brother? A nephew maybe? Any male around the age of 16. Tell him to pick out a game. I'll put down a hundred bucks, that he doesn't pick the latest tile based strategy game, and instead picks out the latest and greatest graphically intensive game. The platform doesn't matter."

You just thwarted your own point.

The problem is that game companies are targetting a narrow market of 16 yo's, when there's a much larger market that has basic budget PCs.

Nobody is saying that games shouldn't push the envelope, graphically.... but they shouldn't shut-out the largest install base either.

Many of these games... if you hack the .ini files and turn off all the bells and whistles and other bullshit.... what do you have? Quake 3 level graphics that run fine on Intel integrated graphic machines.

Why the fuck don't these game companies support those lower end options out of the box?

Because then they have a larger potential for 'tech support' costs. But what they don't realize is that once these games hit Wal-Mart and Costco (or Bargain Bins)... they'll make more than enough money.

Just look at The Sims 1 (And expansions). As avid gamers we all fucking hate that game (Well, most of us do)... but the piece of shit is STILL in the Top 10 PC sales. Why? Because it fucking runs on low end machines with Integrated Graphics.

I dunno about you guys... but I'm fucking sick of seeing The Sims in the Top 10.

---------- EDIT ----------
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.

That's utter BS. The market draws the "curve"... not the "tech". (Which is the whole debate, I guess)

When you have people that are unwilling to spend tons of money on a gaming rig... that should tell you what your primary install base is.

...And if you are saying that they can't tone shit down in their engines low enough to work with lower end machines... then how the hell did they make the tech to work on more advanced machines in the first place? Oh yeah... they learned from that 5+ year old tech and added shit.

They can always make things less intensive... it's not that hard. Drop shaders... drop Physics (other than basic gravity)... Drop Surround sound... scale back textures to 1999 era (64x64), and scale back the polygons on most 3D models (Probably the only part that would take extra work, if they didn't plan ahead).
This comment was edited on Jul 15, 01:03.
Get your games from GOG DAMMIT!
Avatar 19499
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