all the games on it are console games some (most) of which have PC versions coming out too.While I certainly hope that those games will release ports for the PC, I have my doubts about many of them especially the ones which are debuting on the consoles first or which are not sequels to existing PC games. If the console version doesn't sell well, a PC port probably won't happen.
With Microsoft's endorsement of the Unreal Engine 3 for the XBOX 360, it's the consoles that are driving adoption of that engine not PC's.Which is precisely what that list shows (albeit with a few apparent errors) - all the games on it are console games some (most) of which have PC versions coming out too. In case it's not clear - I agree that its compatibility and development ease on the new generations of consoles is the main reason for the UE3's success.
they're pretty much all cross-platformThat list is NOT an accurate list of PC titles. I know for a fact that the Turok game from BVG is not for the PC from the press releases it has sent me. I suspect many more are for the consoles only or will be by the time of release especially since some are Playstation 3 launch titles.
That's funny, because UE3 licences are huge. They have many times more licensees than any other AAA game engine out there.Console licenses are driving that not PC licenses. Let's see how many PC games based upon Unreal Engine 3 are developed especially those from developers other than Epic. The ones I can think of offhand are all for consoles only. That's why Intel is killing the PC game business in Marc's eyes.
Actually Mark's real beef is that none of those Intel integrated graphics PC's will run Unreal Engine 3, and that deters publishers and developers from licensing it.
When the Doom 3 expansion pack was released, everyone screamed bloody murder that it was "just the same as Doom3."
That's not Mark's argument. His argument is ...publishers push developers to design to those low requirements (by and large, of course the Quake/Crysis/etc. are exceptions) which in turn stifles creativity into a downward spiral and THAT is what is killing PC gaming.Actually Mark's real beef is that none of those Intel integrated graphics PC's will run Unreal Engine 3, and that deters publishers and developers from licensing it.
I'd remind you that when Ep1 was released, there were a LOT of comments that it's pretty much exactly the same as HL2 is. It's just a few new levels put together. Same art, same weapons, same puzzles.
I'm not really sure that integrated graphics are killing gaming. PC gaming is an expensive hobby to begin with, and the integrated graphics really don't add THAT much of an expense to a mobo, probably 20-30 bucks at the most. On a 500-1500 dollar PC, that's not really worth getting your knickers in a twist over.
Sequels to PC games generally won't run on the same PC as the predecessor especially if two or more years has lapsed between releases whereas on video game consoles, the sequels do runYeah, but the price consoles pay for that is being behind the technology curve. I absolutely agree that properly designed console sequels manage to make better use of the same technology (see Gran Turismo 3/4, GTA 3/VC/SA, EA sports). And that is one of the advantages of console gaming. But PC gaming has a constantly evolving top spec and allows games which always, even near the start of the console's life, look better than their console equivalent.
Even if developers did this, the game still would not run on an integrated intel chip.It depends on which Intel integrated graphics design you are talking about. I have run Quake 3 engine games and even Lithtech Jupiter games like NOLF 2 and Tron 2.0 at playable framerates at 800x600 or at least 640x480 on socket 478 Celeron PC's with Intel 845G integrated graphics. That platform represents an entry level PC from a little over three years ago whereas the games it is running are not much older than that in some cases. In addition, the games certainly didn't look any worse than a typical Playstation 2 game.
What you are arguing against is the UT 2k7 and Doom III's of the world. First off, this is hardly the main bulk of PC game sales.Actually in the first and 3rd person action genres it is. Sure there are plenty of small casual PC games which don't require highend 3D graphics, but even newer editions of casino games like Hoyle's are starting to push the 3D envelope with hardware shader support requirements.
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 cycleAnd it would IF developers would simply develop for that hardware specification instead of always something much higher.
( around five years from what I've read based on the fact that you have zero quams with new consoles arriving ).I am certainly not the only one with that opinion about console games. Have all or even most Playstation 2 owners stopped buying games because the Playstation 3 is around the corner? Did all or most XBOX owners upgrade to XBOX360? The answer is no on both counts.
Integrated intel chips are about 5 years behind the technology curve...The damn chip is negative 10 years according to your own life cycle.First not all of Intel's integrated graphics are that dated, and certainly they were not that dated when released. Second, it's negative ten years only in YOUR own misguided head. Intel has improved its integrated graphics solutions with each successive chipset introduction. Its 950 series supports DirectX 9 shader model 2.0, and has for a little over one year. Its forthcoming iterations designed for Windows Vista will not only expand on such support, but supposedly run much faster. The problem is not Intel's graphics solutions. The problem is that PC game developers always want more than what Intel offers even though perfectly good games could be made using that hardware.
he...picks out the latest and greatest graphically intensive game. The platform doesn't matter.You missed the point. The point is that no matter how graphically intensive the console video game is it will still run on every single one of those consoles made and it will still run on one made years later. Console game developers squeeze as much capability as they can from a console's hardware when creating games. PC game developers on the other hand typically don't and just cop out by telling the customer to buy a new video card. 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.