megadrive0088
Regular
I hope ATI sticks to a 6 month cycle, for at least one year. (re: this year)
with R350/RV350 refresh/value and then new highend R400.... With R500 coming in 2004...maybe there won't be an R450...what do you think guys?
ATI to hit six month cycle, then move away from it?
- Thread starter megadrive0088
- Start date
I hope ATI sticks to a 6 month cycle, for at least one year. (re: this year)
with R350/RV350 refresh/value and then new highend R400.... With R500 coming in 2004...maybe there won't be an R450...what do you think guys?
YeuEmMaiMai
Regular
that would make Nvidia be in a world of hurt...
I don't like the 6 month cycles, its to short. I would be happy with one update a year.
Its it just me or is the PC game market dying slowly, it seem the new generation of consoles are getting all the games. What is the point in new GFX cards every six months if the PC game market is shrinking.
Its it just me or is the PC game market dying slowly, it seem the new generation of consoles are getting all the games. What is the point in new GFX cards every six months if the PC game market is shrinking.
Doomtrooper
Veteran
Thelacky said:
I'd be happy with a 1.5 year update, that way I can work on the second mortgage I took out on the previous years upgrade...seriously the 6 month product cycle is a joke...the hardware is far ahead of the developers now..whats the point.
Humus said:
I agree that MS' pace is all over the place, but I do think the IHVs care, although perhaps Cg shows that atleast nVidia is getting a little sick of MS' carefree approach
Personally I wouldn't mind seeing a 12-18 month cycle, with one refresh part in between (i.e. one major part every 12-18 months; one 'minor' refresh at about the 6-9 month mark).
LW.
Well, it's not as if the technology is going to incorporate significantly new features any time soon. . . DirectX 9 is quite loaded with shader capabilities, so 10 shouldn't be around for quite a long time.
EDIT: Hardware support for more higher order surfaces like NURBS would be cool, though. 8)
EDIT: Hardware support for more higher order surfaces like NURBS would be cool, though. 8)
Crusher said:
you won't and neither do I, but others think otherwise:
http://www.zdnet.com.au/reviews/computers/components/story/0,2000023499,20271635,00.htm
actually... after reading that post further... it has some interesting points, if someone can point them valid ones...
and Derek Perez has something to say on bench results too:
Bigus Dickus
Regular
lwells said:
NVIDIA hasn't been too far off that pace for the past few years. Over that span, they have averaged around 11 months for a "minor" refresh (NV15 to NV20, NV20 to NV25) and around 22 months for the "major" (DX generation) ones (NV20 to NV30). I think they'll probably get their ass in gear and speed this up somewhat, and settle in on a 9 months "NVx5" refresh and 18 month new "NVx0" architecture.
also, i must disagree about this whole pc games dying stuff. this is going on for a quite few years now. just look at console market. all consoles combined give 68% of revenues, so almost one third goes to PC. ont the other side, it is true that if you go into store, you see a shitload of PS2 games, and not tat lot of PC ones. yet developers finally decided there is no point in supporting one platform exclusively. New games start simultaneously at least on two consoles and it isn't rare to see PC port not long after that. or other way around, pc games ported to consoles.
the problem lies elswhere, and mainly in gaming industry itself. what we see today, is selling a marketing hype mostly. but buyers decide otherwise. just look at the best selling games: sims, rollercoaster tycoon and similar stuff. big budget does not automatically mean good game, or a game people will like.
so, the main problem, as i can see, is that publisher's idea is not making a game, but making money. note i said publisher. note that there are not many developers, that can afford to MAKE A GAME and don't care about anything else, really. there are carmack (ok, he's into engine, not a game), meier, moulyneux, spector, Blizzard guys and not a lot more. but that's a whole new rant.
the problem lies elswhere, and mainly in gaming industry itself. what we see today, is selling a marketing hype mostly. but buyers decide otherwise. just look at the best selling games: sims, rollercoaster tycoon and similar stuff. big budget does not automatically mean good game, or a game people will like.
so, the main problem, as i can see, is that publisher's idea is not making a game, but making money. note i said publisher. note that there are not many developers, that can afford to MAKE A GAME and don't care about anything else, really. there are carmack (ok, he's into engine, not a game
), meier, moulyneux, spector, Blizzard guys and not a lot more. but that's a whole new rant.But a lot of the major selling PC titles are much cheaper than the "big name" 3D games, too...sometimes half the price. When a conumer sees a game for $49 on the shelf and another one close by for $19.95 it's much easier to justify the smaller amount if you are remotely interested in the game's content (or you think your children, spouse, pet dog, etc. would be interested.)
This is where I think the big game producers have stumbled badly over the years. First of all, they're spending entirely too much money producing some of these games--Carmack's got a very efficient model for doing it. The antithesis is the old "Ion Storm" recipe for disaster. Most game companies obviously fall somewhere in the middle in terms of efficiency. Second, $40-$50 a game is way too high. It not only provides a basis which makes software piracy a profitable enterprise, it causes them to lose a lot of sales they'd otherwise make. I've often thought the major 3D publishing houses would do better to cut the current pricing scheme in half--they might just *triple* their unit numbers and come out in profits as much as 25% ahead of where they'd be at the current $40-$50 pricing tiers. The machines are out there, the customers are out there--but the prices are not in line with the volume of the market. A really good 3D game should have no trouble selling one million plus copies. If they don't adjust their pricing schemes, though, many of them never will.
This is where I think the big game producers have stumbled badly over the years. First of all, they're spending entirely too much money producing some of these games--Carmack's got a very efficient model for doing it. The antithesis is the old "Ion Storm" recipe for disaster. Most game companies obviously fall somewhere in the middle in terms of efficiency. Second, $40-$50 a game is way too high. It not only provides a basis which makes software piracy a profitable enterprise, it causes them to lose a lot of sales they'd otherwise make. I've often thought the major 3D publishing houses would do better to cut the current pricing scheme in half--they might just *triple* their unit numbers and come out in profits as much as 25% ahead of where they'd be at the current $40-$50 pricing tiers. The machines are out there, the customers are out there--but the prices are not in line with the volume of the market. A really good 3D game should have no trouble selling one million plus copies. If they don't adjust their pricing schemes, though, many of them never will.
PC Games aren't going to die out. There will always be things you can do on the PC that you can't do on a Console. I think the idea that Consoles are somehow getting closer to PC level is laughable. I mean, slap on a modem and a hard drive and it's a PC...whatever...
Anyway, gaming isn't a popularity contest. Any Joe SixPack can go pop a CD into his PS2, but so what? That doesn't mean I have to dumb myself down to his level. There will always be a niche market for 3D shooters on the PC. The Sims, et al, may make more money, but efficiency isn't everything. If there's money to be had, there's always someone willing to take it.
I agree about the pricing issues, though. Games are way overpriced. I mean, I went into CompUSA recently and saw that Mafia-- a game that must have been out 6 months now?-- was still selling for the full retail price of $50. WTF is up with that? I ended up just picking up a legit copy on Ebay for $20. When faced with a ridiculous price like that, though, I see only four options: 1) borrow it from a friend, 2) download it, 3) pick it up somewhere else for cheaper (Ebay, etc), 4) just not play it.
I probably only buy half the games I play, and not because I'm some Warez monkey, but rather because I just trade most of them off with friends. But I only pay full retail on 10% of less of those that I do buy. If the price was $20 for a game, I'd probably buy almost 100% of the games since it would be no hassle and that's a fair price.
Anyway, gaming isn't a popularity contest. Any Joe SixPack can go pop a CD into his PS2, but so what? That doesn't mean I have to dumb myself down to his level. There will always be a niche market for 3D shooters on the PC. The Sims, et al, may make more money, but efficiency isn't everything. If there's money to be had, there's always someone willing to take it.
I agree about the pricing issues, though. Games are way overpriced. I mean, I went into CompUSA recently and saw that Mafia-- a game that must have been out 6 months now?-- was still selling for the full retail price of $50. WTF is up with that? I ended up just picking up a legit copy on Ebay for $20. When faced with a ridiculous price like that, though, I see only four options: 1) borrow it from a friend, 2) download it, 3) pick it up somewhere else for cheaper (Ebay, etc), 4) just not play it.
I probably only buy half the games I play, and not because I'm some Warez monkey, but rather because I just trade most of them off with friends. But I only pay full retail on 10% of less of those that I do buy. If the price was $20 for a game, I'd probably buy almost 100% of the games since it would be no hassle and that's a fair price.
Similar threads
- Locked