Sweeney: PCs Good for Anything... But Games

Unreal creator: Tim Sweeney PCs are good for anything, just not games” on TG Daily is a Q&A with the Epic CEO which, as the title of the article suggests, features some negative comments about the PC as a gaming platform. This is actually just the age-old complaint about PCs with integrated graphics, as he says that mainstream PCs are not suited to gaming:
Retail stores like Best Buy are selling PC games and PCs with integrated graphics at the same time and they are not talking about the difference [to more capable gaming PCs]. Those machines are good for e-mail, web browsing, watching video. But as far as games go, those machines are just not adequate. It is no surprise that retail PC sales suffer from that. Online is different, because people who go and buy games online already have PCs that can play games. The biggest problem in this space right now is that you cannot go and design a game for a high end PC and downscale it to mainstream PCs. The performance difference between high-end and low-end PC is something like 100x.
View : : :
58.
 
Re: Read the article
Mar 12, 2008, 21:19
58.
Re: Read the article Mar 12, 2008, 21:19
Mar 12, 2008, 21:19
 
But somehow it's now Intel's fault? What benefit is it to Intel if they make an onboard integrated graphics controller that the equivalent of, say, a Geforce 7900? Great, their motherboards now cost a hundred bucks extra. Which gets them how many extra customers?

Intel joined the PC Gaming Alliance, what does fault have to do with it? They just want to pretend to get involved, that is fine with me, but either way I have no idea what you are trying to say with that. Obviously they think at least pretending to be involved benefits them, or they wouldn't have done so.

Stating that weak graphic solutions exist in a large number of systems owned by those unlikely to upgrade isn't saying "GO BUY A 360 AND GEARS2 K?". It is just the way it is. A lot of people with PCs don't want to game. Some game, but are happy with pogo.com or whatever, but it can only help sales to increase the number of systems capable of running games. Like it or not, game companies are businesses, so they want to see the potential market increase.

Also an integrated graphics solution doesn't have to be included on every board, nor does it need to be on par with a 7900. He was talking about things more like old school software rendering in HL and Unreal, though that was wretched imo and I don't think if they create similar solutions it will end up being worth the effort. I think they should do it right or not at all.


Or let's say that Intel decides to offer high end integrated video in addition to keeping the low end. How many gamers are going to buy integrated video, even if it's supposedly on par with Nvidia/ATI's latest offerings? Would you?

We are talking better here... not high end. I don't think anyone was suggesting near top of the line video on a mobo. What WAS being discussed was providing higher quality i.video so that Joe Consumer's Best Buy PC might run a few more games than it can now, not be the official computer of the CPL or whatever...

As I mentioned, Intel joined the silly thing not me, I don't understand why you insist on telling me what they want. I would imagine they know better than either of us. The newer laptop video chipset they put out is a modest improvement so I think they are putting at least some effort into this, though I can't say for sure if we will see more of that or not.

Attempting to improve the PC gaming market is fine with me. Just because something can be made better doesn't mean that every developer is running up a console flag and ditching the platform and calling it dead, as much as the whining around the community would imply at any rate.

edit: SPELIN WRIGHTE 1S GUD!
This comment was edited on Mar 12, 21:34.
”Not many people know I owned the first radio in Springfield. Weren’t much on the air then. Just Edison reciting the alphabet over and over. “A,” he’d say. Then “B.” “C” would usually follow."
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Mar 10, 2008Mar 10 2008
2.
Mar 10, 2008Mar 10 2008
3.
Mar 10, 2008Mar 10 2008
7.
Mar 10, 2008Mar 10 2008
8.
Mar 10, 2008Mar 10 2008
4.
Mar 10, 2008Mar 10 2008
5.
Mar 10, 2008Mar 10 2008
6.
Mar 10, 2008Mar 10 2008
26.
Mar 11, 2008Mar 11 2008
33.
Mar 11, 2008Mar 11 2008
34.
Mar 11, 2008Mar 11 2008
35.
Mar 11, 2008Mar 11 2008
67.
Mar 16, 2008Mar 16 2008
9.
Mar 10, 2008Mar 10 2008
10.
Mar 10, 2008Mar 10 2008
12.
Mar 10, 2008Mar 10 2008
11.
Mar 10, 2008Mar 10 2008
13.
Mar 10, 2008Mar 10 2008
16.
Mar 10, 2008Mar 10 2008
17.
Mar 10, 2008Mar 10 2008
18.
Mar 10, 2008Mar 10 2008
19.
Mar 10, 2008Mar 10 2008
20.
Mar 10, 2008Mar 10 2008
22.
Mar 10, 2008Mar 10 2008
23.
Mar 11, 2008Mar 11 2008
14.
Mar 10, 2008Mar 10 2008
15.
Mar 10, 2008Mar 10 2008
21.
Mar 10, 2008Mar 10 2008
57.
Mar 12, 2008Mar 12 2008
24.
Mar 11, 2008Mar 11 2008
25.
Mar 11, 2008Mar 11 2008
27.
Mar 11, 2008Mar 11 2008
28.
Mar 11, 2008Mar 11 2008
31.
Mar 11, 2008Mar 11 2008
29.
Mar 11, 2008Mar 11 2008
30.
Mar 11, 2008Mar 11 2008
32.
Mar 11, 2008Mar 11 2008
36.
Mar 11, 2008Mar 11 2008
37.
Mar 11, 2008Mar 11 2008
44.
Mar 11, 2008Mar 11 2008
48.
Mar 11, 2008Mar 11 2008
49.
Mar 11, 2008Mar 11 2008
55.
Mar 12, 2008Mar 12 2008
38.
Mar 11, 2008Mar 11 2008
39.
Mar 11, 2008Mar 11 2008
40.
Mar 11, 2008Mar 11 2008
56.
Mar 12, 2008Mar 12 2008
 58.
Mar 12, 2008Mar 12 2008
  Re: Read the article
59.
Mar 13, 2008Mar 13 2008
60.
Mar 14, 2008Mar 14 2008
41.
Mar 11, 2008Mar 11 2008
42.
Mar 11, 2008Mar 11 2008
43.
Mar 11, 2008Mar 11 2008
45.
Mar 11, 2008Mar 11 2008
46.
Mar 11, 2008Mar 11 2008
47.
Mar 11, 2008Mar 11 2008
50.
Mar 12, 2008Mar 12 2008
51.
Mar 12, 2008Mar 12 2008
52.
Mar 12, 2008Mar 12 2008
53.
Mar 12, 2008Mar 12 2008
54.
Mar 12, 2008Mar 12 2008
61.
Mar 14, 2008Mar 14 2008
62.
Mar 14, 2008Mar 14 2008
63.
Mar 15, 2008Mar 15 2008
64.
Mar 15, 2008Mar 15 2008
65.
Mar 15, 2008Mar 15 2008
66.
Mar 16, 2008Mar 16 2008
     Re: No subject