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 : : :
59.
 
Re: Read the article
Mar 13, 2008, 19:05
59.
Re: Read the article Mar 13, 2008, 19:05
Mar 13, 2008, 19:05
 
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.

Uhm, that was a response to someone saying " Intel could have improved their graphics cards to keep up with games, but they didn't. "

Not sure who it was. That seems to imply that it's Intel's FAULT that integrated graphics suck. Which I find a dubious proposition. Hence "Why is it Intel's fault?"

Obviously they think at least pretending to be involved benefits them, or they wouldn't have done so.

It benefits them purely from a standpoint of name recognition, and possibly even from a standpoint of gamers going "Whoa, Intel's in the Gaming Alliance, I'm going to get one of their processors!"

In the end, it's going to amount to very little, and since membership in the Alliance is free, and since I seriously doubt Intel is going to change anything, they don't lose anything by being a member.

Once the rest of the "Alliance" basically says "Well, the whole point of our Alliance, Intel, is to force you to make better integrated graphics!" Intel will tell them to go fuck themselves, and that will be the end of it.

A lot of people with PCs don't want to game... 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.

GAME companies, sure. Ofcourse they want to see that market increase. Why would Intel? What does Intel care? And let's face it, that's basically what the whole Alliance is about. Let's Make Intel Make Better Integrated Graphics, since they completely dominate that market.

And from Intel's standpoint, what gain is there for them?

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.

Fair enough, but I think the time when software rendering could do what specialized GPUs can do is long gone. I doubt even a quad core could keep up.

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...

Okay, I don't consider a 7900 to be all that spectacular anymore, but even if they go to the level of a 6800 or even something before that. Say the equivalent of a Radeon 9800 Pro. That's a lot of extra cost for Intel to implement, and I really don't see the benefit of it for them.

And what does that have to do with Epic's games? What benefit is it to Tim Sweeney if tomorrow's Best Buy PCs with integrated graphics can now play, say, Half Life 2 at 30fps. They still won't have SM 3.0, so they still won't be able to play the latest Unreal Tournament. So I'm not really even sure what Tim Sweeney is saying. Unreal Tournament has always been the province of the... shall we say Advanced PC Gamer. The guys who play UT aren't going to get a Best Buy PC. So Epic isn't going to miraculously sell a million copies extra if Best Buy suddenly starts selling better gaming PCs.

And again, this is them just whining and moaning because their latest games sold badly on the PC. If they had sold 2 million copies each, you wouldn't have heard a peep out of them on how bad PC gaming is, and how it's dying and blablablablabla whine.

As I mentioned, Intel joined the silly thing not me, I don't understand why you insist on telling me what they want

Merely arguing. *shrug*

I would imagine they know better than either of us

Intel wants one thing : profit. I fail to see how they can get more of it by implementing better integrated graphics.

Attempting to improve the PC gaming market is fine with me

Oh, me too. I just don't think that a "Gaming Alliance" is going to help all that much. And neither does Epic whining their asses off.

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.

You mean the developer community, I hope?

Which was pretty much my point. All Tim Sweeney does is whine. There is nothing wrong with PC Gaming, and bitching about how Integrated Video is killing it is just bullshit. If we REALLY want to talk about what's "killing" PC gaming (or at least having a detrimental effect), I think the following list is probably more accurate.

1) Lazy developers. By which I mean they give a fuck about optimizing their code for lower end hardware. "Hey Bob, our game runs like shit!"
"Don't worry, we'll just make it minimum spec of a quad core processor, 2 Gigs of RAM and a Geforce 8800GT!"

And then they whine when nobody buys it.

2) Insistence on including absolutely worthless DRM that screws over legitimate customers.

3) Non-existant quality control.

4) Draconian return policies.

...

189) Intel Makes Teh Crappy Integrated Video!1!!


SPELIN WRIGHTE 1S GUD!

No it isn't!



Creston


Avatar 15604
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
 59.
Mar 13, 2008Mar 13 2008
   Re: Read the article
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