The salesman tells the buyer this super fast computer is a 3Ghz celeron with 512MB RAM blah blah. Normal Joe's don't know that the game they buy off a shelf won't work on their PC and that is the real problem

How is that Intel's fault?

If Intel would provide better onboard graphics, then games would actually work for the majority of store bought computers.

No. Intel offers exactly what most consumers need.
You can't blame them here.
Blame the guy selling Intel's non-gaming PCs as a gaming PC.
I mean, if I go to a used car dealer and tell him I need a truck to tow a boat and he sells me a Honda Civic, telling me it has plenty of power, do I blame Honda when the Civic doesn't fit my needs?

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

Mark is right on onboard intel graphics causing issues for people. Games today require 64MB - 128MB graphics with the ability to push some decent effects with shader 2.0 soon becoming a standard if it isn't already.

I'm suprise how gamers have horseblinders on and don't realize that MOST people still buy PC's off the shelf from OEM manufacturers with onboard video to keep the costs down. The salesman tells the buyer this super fast computer is a 3Ghz celeron with 512MB RAM blah blah. Normal Joe's don't know that the game they buy off a shelf won't work on their PC and that is the real problem. Retailers get huge complaints from people trying to return games because they can't run on their store bought machines (publishers have those figures). Those same people who would like to be able to play games, but can't run the game at all because it doesn't have shader 2.0 or enough VRAM, have no idea how to add a pci express vid card or even how to buy one, so they give up trying to buy games because it's too much hassle for them. If you just had a better vid card in the box the rest of the specs would be fine most of the time, albeit they couldn't run at high res but atleast it would actually run the game instead of immediately CTD because a user doesn't know what pixel shader their vid card supports or if it has 128MB VRAM.

If Intel would provide better onboard graphics, then games would actually work for the majority of store bought computers. Developers don't make games to target hard core gamers, if they did that would be good for us but they target on average 3 year manufactured pc's for off the shelf purchases by joe businessman or some little kid playing on moms PC. Requiring a decent graphics card on manufactured PC's is the point that is lacking.

This comment was edited on Jul 13, 09:21.

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/

True...but have a look at adoption rates...they're quite staggering. The next five years are going to change the situation quite dramatically in Africa, India and the far east; as I said, the uptake by government and business forces the issue...and that's not pie in the sky thinking, that's what's happening right now.

As for MS screwing up; Vista (with it's DRM and high cost) is looking more and more like winME2.0...how's that for a screwup?

Have you been following the news at all? Quite a few countries/governments have adopted linux, as have many businesses in those areas

I follow marketshare, and Linux just doesn't have it even in those countries. I'm no fan of Windows or Microsoft, but it is and will remain a Windows world unless Microsoft does something really stupid to screw it up, and even then it would still take many years for any significant transition to an alternative like Linux to occur.

Those games may or may not be of any quality when released;

I'm sorry, but that seems like such a non-argument to me; it something you can say of any and all games, comnsole, pc or board.

As for Spore being developed by EA...it's the developers, as Balmer would say; can they code, as that'll decide if the game is craptastic or not. Coming from the demoscene, you can bet your ass that the guys Wright has collected around him can code.

but there are only a handful of PC titles released each year that really catch my interest anymore.

You know, that's interesting. I visited an aqcuaintence a few months back. He had a modded xbox1 with a huge harddrive. On it he had all these games....and only about 5 to ten good ones.

That's five to ten cool games over the lifespan of the thing. That's what he paid his $500-$1000 bucks for (sure, the thing costs $100 or so now...not then though). That just struck me as an awefully low ROI. Sure, it's xbox and not ps2....and I have some odd tastes...but I know there have been many more cool pc games out in that same timespan. And I'm not a total pc fanboy....snes, megadrive, gameboy and I am so getting a Revolution. It just strikes me that in hindsight consoles have few really great games when looked over the lifetime of a system.

This comment was edited on Jul 13, 08:28.

Yeah, 1998. Welcome to 2006. We have jet cars now!

Actually UT2004 supports software rendering through its Pixomatic renderer. Give it a try and behold the wonder of software rendering on a modern PC. Seriously, it's good for software rendering and basically matches something from 1998, but it's certainly no substitute for a hardware 3D accelerator.

As for the comments regarding the limitations of integrated video, some integrated video is better than others. You can achieve a playable framerate and visuals on some of Intel's integrated video on many older games. Intel even has versions like the 950 and newer which support shader model 2.0. I wouldn't mind seeing more games which will run on integrated video including a version of UT2007 which is at least network compatible with the standard one for cutting edge PC's, e.g. UT2007 with the UT200X engine.

Have you been following the news at all? Quite a few countries/governments have adopted linux, as have many businesses in those areas. People tend to use at home what they use in the office. They aren't gonna dual boot...they're just gonna use linux.

So get used to gaming in Hindi or Korean for your linux gaming

That's not going to happen unless Microsoft gets so draconian with its copy-protection that it actually works. The masses in "developing countries" will never use Linux unless they can't get Windows for free or close to it.

Most hardware-knowledgeable folks have realized there is no need for separate graphics capabilities from what a modern cpu should be able to render.

You are a crazyfool, even Half-life 1 quality graphics are ridiculously difficult to render in software. Without a graphics card you'll end up with little better than PS 1 graphics capability, worse yet you'll waste weeks of man hours programming and testing that shit...

A smart business man would try to make his software fit as many hardware platforms as possible including people with fast new computers but with limited video options.

You're totally right, they totally should have spent more time working on the software renderer for Doom 3, Half-life 2, WoW, and [insert successful 3d computer game here]. Those games all totally bombed, and their requirement of a $50 graphics card was the reason!

As fast as modern processors are, they simply aren't designed for realtime 3d rendering (shaders and all) like GPU's are, the processing structure is totally different. I can't emphasize this enough.

Furthmore, the idea of creating a modern 3d engine in any reasonable amount of time without using direct 3D or openGL (and all the hardware that goes into support those API's) would be.. unreasonable...

Most hardware-knowledgeable folks have realized there is no need for separate graphics capabilities from what a modern cpu should be able to render.

Hardware knowledgeable guy... no need for graphics cards?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxymoron

The same can be said for soundcards... completely unnecessary to have cutting edge sound processors instead of the basic just to make a friggin game run

Yes, because as we all know the very first SB16 could produce 5.1 positional audio. I fondly remember hearing Tie-fighters zoom around my back and sides while playing X-wing V.S. Tie on MSN's gaming zone in 1997.

A smart business man would try to make his software fit as many hardware platforms as possible including people with fast new computers but with limited video options. It's basic Marketing 101... you limit your sales to 2% of the population and you are crippling your sales, duh.

Here is some basic marketing for you to consider, he who (Obviously) has a PHD in business.

Making a game to be backwards compatible with dated technology and actually work with modern technology is bad enough. However, if you want the game to have all the "bells and whistles" of a typical modern game (Like ES4 or DOOM 3) yet still be compatible with your 1997 packard bell (And look like Quake 1) then you are going to need MASSIVE amounts of money and Q&A time to do so.

It costs enough to produce and market a game in this environment as it is...we don't need things to get even more expensive just because the deep fry operator at the local Mickey D's wants to play Unreal Tournament 2007 on his 7 year old PC.

Hey Mark Rein, remember when your games used to have software rendering as an option?

Yeah, 1998. Welcome to 2006. We have jet cars now!

PC GAMING IS NOT DEAD OR DYING. Games like Spore, ET:QW et al prove it

But Spore is not PC exclusive, it is being developed for console as well.

Hey Mark Rein, remember when your games used to have software rendering as an option?

Just because you have a popular game franchise and holdings in videocard companies, i.e. Nvidia, doesn't mean you get to dictate hardware requirements from this point forward. Most hardware-knowledgeable folks have realized there is no need for separate graphics capabilities from what a modern cpu should be able to render.

The same can be said for soundcards... completely unnecessary to have cutting edge sound processors instead of the basic just to make a friggin game run but how many games do you see that won't even run on an old SB card?

A smart business man would try to make his software fit as many hardware platforms as possible including people with fast new computers but with limited video options. It's basic Marketing 101... you limit your sales to 2% of the population and you are crippling your sales, duh.

The hardware companies should work for you and not vice versa. I hope you are able to pull your head out of your ass as I really like your companies software products.



http://forum.ramanon.com
This comment was edited on Jul 13, 05:16.

PC GAMING IS NOT DEAD OR DYING. Games like Spore, ET:QW et al prove it.

Eh, not really. Those games may or may not be of any quality when released; and with Spore, specifically, it's an interesting looking game, but it is a game developed under the EA umbrella, a company consistently bashed for it's lack of quality in its products. PC gaming has certainly been in at least a decline for a long time now. I mean, go to your brick and mortar stores and look at the available selection of PC games. It's nothing compared to the consoles. Personally, I also order less PC games online than I do console anymore. Tastes change, for sure, but there are only a handful of PC titles released each year that really catch my interest anymore.

Put like that....MS has no reason to kill PC gaming, does it now?

Or is that just my paranoid self talking?

Will console MMOs put the nail in the coffin of PC gaming?

No. PC gaming has been dead or dying for the past two decades....according to the industry critics/magazines. And that's a lie. Furthermore, it's a lie perpetuated only by the game critics, magazines and console only websites.

PC GAMING IS NOT DEAD OR DYING. Games like Spore, ET:QW et al prove it. And last cycle (xbox/ps2) it was other games. PC gaming will not die due to two reasons: MASSIVE install base (pretty much negating any configuration woes) and NO BARRIER TO ENTRY. Anyone can get three guys together (code, art and sound) and create something, essentially for free if they want.

So here's my big F*CK YOU to all idiotic websites, magazines and 'gamejournalists' who have been crying wolf for the past decade. The only thing that's happened is that there is this perception, created by those aforementioned idiots, that pc gaming might be less than it used to be...but the facts don't really bear that out. As soon as Diablo 3 or Starcraft 2 or whatever don't sell millions of copies, then you might begin to speculate on pc-gaming feeling a little green...but not before that.

Not to mention that with Vista, Microsoft is going to be doing a big marketing push to try to get people more used to the idea the PC as a gaming platform.

Besides the huge 360 venues, Microsoft also touted Windows Vista, or rather "Games that run on Windows Vista. Microsoft has stated repeatedly that they are fully committed to PC gaming. I'm glad Microsoft isn't selling out to themselves to umm themselves to push 360 sales.

-----
latest track: http://www.kxmode.com/media/music/kxmode_-_asylum_-_05-10-2006.mp3
more free music: http://music.download.com/kxmode

I don't necessarily like Intel, but I dislike Mark Rein even more.

Well... I disagree that Intel is killing PC Gaming... if anything... it's the idiot developers that don't support the largest install base (aka Intel integrated graphics). DX 7 or 8 graphics level is plenty of eye candy for folks with shitty rigs.

Obviously you aren't familiar with the intel hardware. We aren't talking about developers slowing down the pace of technology here. 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. I'm all for developing for a larger audience, but unless you like all your games in 2D, the the blame lies on Intel.

This comment was edited on Jul 13, 00:55.

I agree with your gaming categorisation, but I see the tv thing more like this:

full=4 hour tvmovie
seasonal=long christmas special
episodic=a tvshow (running a season or more)
sequel=tvmovie, part 2, return of tvmovie!
expansion=nothing like this exists in the tv world.

But I think this comparison is flawed anyway; tv/film!=games. And things like GW:Factions blur the line, as it's kinda expansion, but it's standalone so could be classed sequel, or even episodic cause they plan on releasing two each year. MMO's have episodic expansions too, and if they're released on a schedule you could even call them seasonal.