http://www.firingsquad.com/features/epic_games_rein_interview/
Interesting article from Firingsquad.
Interesting article from Firingsquad.
Low cost computers killing PC gaming
- Thread starter rwolf
- Start date
Deathlike2
Regular
Just blame Intel on crappy integrated graphics solutions.. that's pretty much where the blame actually lies.
The vast majority of PC users don't need good graphics chips as they don't play games. It's that simple. The PC wasn't designed as a games machine and, in the vast majority of cases, isn't used as one. I bet the vast majority of PCs sit in offices and no corporation in their right mind is going to spend an extra $500 per machine just to have amazing 3D graphics that are never used. Even home users, on the whole, probably never use their PC for anything more than web, email and Office.
Serious gamers, the people who buy stuff like UT 2007, know perfectly well not to buy a PC with integrated graphics. If PC sales are falling it's more to do with the cost and (lack of) ease compared to consoles.
Serious gamers, the people who buy stuff like UT 2007, know perfectly well not to buy a PC with integrated graphics. If PC sales are falling it's more to do with the cost and (lack of) ease compared to consoles.
I agree with a lot of that, while noting that he isn't asking for $500 graphics either.
His point re not even having an upgrade slot on the mobo is probably the best.
Tho there is an entry point to gaming too, y'know; no one is born to be one. And if the basic machine can't at least play games well enuf to catch the fancy of that proto-gamer, you may lose them forever.
His point re not even having an upgrade slot on the mobo is probably the best.
Tho there is an entry point to gaming too, y'know; no one is born to be one. And if the basic machine can't at least play games well enuf to catch the fancy of that proto-gamer, you may lose them forever.
Tahir2 said:
Quickly thinking yes.
Will that materialize without big price upgrades on computer prices is another thing. (and I mean that hefty, which would make the potetial buyer think again buying Vista capable computer, instead of continuing working with same PC as he has now and buying XBox360/Revolution/PS3 as a gaming machine...)
IMO, it will help, but it won't happen in a one day, and the time how long that shift takes, will tell us if PC gaming lifts it's left foot from the grave or sunks totally to the grave.
Another thing that I don't like in PC gaming hardware is the huuuuuge variety between extreme high end and low end. as developper, you should make your games scale from bottom all way up. But if you look at the solutions available now, you see that in low end there's integrated 2-4 pixels per clock at 250-300MHz. Again in very High End, you have 48 (soon 96 if quad SLI really shows up) pixels per clock at 500-600MHz. While frequencies are just doubled, the amount of pixels per clock is more than 10 times. on geometry side situation ain't much better. low end can still be software VS2.0 while high end can have 12 VS 3 units.
On Consoles?
- you have one system. and that's it. Now, when all next gens are going HD, even the difference between NTSC and PAL is vanishing.
- while PC has 10 pirated/peer2peer copies per sold game, Consoles have 2 pirated/Peer2Peer copies per 10 sold games.
... no wonder they don't like having PC as primary development target.
I dont think I agree.
I think what's killing PC gaming is constant expensive upgrade cycles..
I think he has a point..too a point though.
But I dont know how much you can expect from IGP. I always look at IGP as the basics..will run your desktop in hi res real pretty, accelerate some basic graphics but that's all. Not for gaming.
I mean I think a "basic" game chip now would have to be probably along the lines of 8 pipes..I dont assume that's a nominal expense.
The real problem is, the graphically intensive games like what Mark Rein makes, and the dizzying pace of GPU upgrades. That 8 pipe card for basic gaming is screwed in two years. When we'll have 64 pipe cards and probably much more considering R580 is already 48.
Also he talks about your most basic user who tries a game and assumes gaming has passed his new PC by..well, if you're dealing with that much of a neopohyte..he's never going to upgrade, and is probably not interested in gaming at all. I dont believe such a person much exists.
I just guess, it is the market's job to sort this out, not Intel's..
I think what's killing PC gaming is constant expensive upgrade cycles..
I think he has a point..too a point though.
But I dont know how much you can expect from IGP. I always look at IGP as the basics..will run your desktop in hi res real pretty, accelerate some basic graphics but that's all. Not for gaming.
I mean I think a "basic" game chip now would have to be probably along the lines of 8 pipes..I dont assume that's a nominal expense.
The real problem is, the graphically intensive games like what Mark Rein makes, and the dizzying pace of GPU upgrades. That 8 pipe card for basic gaming is screwed in two years. When we'll have 64 pipe cards and probably much more considering R580 is already 48.
Also he talks about your most basic user who tries a game and assumes gaming has passed his new PC by..well, if you're dealing with that much of a neopohyte..he's never going to upgrade, and is probably not interested in gaming at all. I dont believe such a person much exists.
I just guess, it is the market's job to sort this out, not Intel's..
Also, there is a real dearth of $100 cards now.
I remember you used to be able to get decent cards for $100, now we are literally needing 299 often to get just a "decent" card.
It's ridiculous when guys with 7800GTX's talk about being barely able to run Oblivion..but that's exactly the case on forums today. Like what, the 7800GTX is a budget crap card now? Cost $500 not long ago? It's ridiculous.
I think this ruthless upgrade cycle is what's killing PC gaming, but it could be piracy or MMORPG's as well.
I remember you used to be able to get decent cards for $100, now we are literally needing 299 often to get just a "decent" card.
It's ridiculous when guys with 7800GTX's talk about being barely able to run Oblivion..but that's exactly the case on forums today. Like what, the 7800GTX is a budget crap card now? Cost $500 not long ago? It's ridiculous.
I think this ruthless upgrade cycle is what's killing PC gaming, but it could be piracy or MMORPG's as well.
Freak'n Big Panda
Regular
I don't know it's getting *really really* expensive to keep your PC up to date. I remember back in 2002 I got a 9500pro for $300 CND and I was able to run all current games with maxed out settings @ 1024x768 with 4xAA and get over 40fps is the vast majority of situations. The mid range card of choice right now is what the 6800GS/X800GTO? Would it be able to do the same? Although back in 2002 most people were running 1024x768 I think most gamers have at least 1280x1024 panels atm so that's probably the target res and I really doubt the 6800GS would be able to run all the latest games 1280x1024 @ 4xAA with >40fps. And of course consoles have a few key advantages to PC games: One they're far far cheaper for the same level of technology and piracy is a serious problem in the PC space, plus ease of use. Consoles are completely plug and play, PCs arn't even close.
EDIT: And yeah computers with shitty integrated graphics and seriosuly fast CPUs have always been around, and have always been a big problem. This will only change when the general consumer decides to educate themselves before buying something.
EDIT: And yeah computers with shitty integrated graphics and seriosuly fast CPUs have always been around, and have always been a big problem. This will only change when the general consumer decides to educate themselves before buying something.
My $198 X800GTO2 @ 520/625 runs Oblivion at 1680x1050 4X AA Hell I've even had it at 1920x1200 4X AA, but man that was murdering it in some spots. The game's various environments have varying demands. 5fps here, 30fps there.
But, yea, you gotta know how to find the best deal and love to overclock, or you're going to spend big time.
Hell I've even had it at 1920x1200 4X AA, but man that was murdering it in some spots. The game's various environments have varying demands. 5fps here, 30fps there.But, yea, you gotta know how to find the best deal and love to overclock, or you're going to spend big time.
Diplo has the right of it above - the vast majority of PCs sold aren't used as game machines, and just don't need much in the way of 3D-graphics. What is surprising isn't that there is no heavy hitting gfx-chip in them, but that they have CPUs that are more powerful than what 90+% of their users need. This is where Intel has been successful, and helped enormously by consumer inertia and retails wish to keep ASPs (average selling prices) up.
In fact, various manufacturers in the PC infrastructure has became increasingly vocal in their critisism of Microsoft for not putting out an OS that helps drive sales - Microsoft has been seen as not doing their part for the industry. When critisism like that reaches the public eye, it has gone pretty far. Now though, it seems they will be doing their job with Vista, and those voices are quieting.
What Mark Rein is seeing is retail rejecting gaming as a powerful sales driver for systems in general. But his bias is showing when he tries to blame Intel for this - if retail could sell more expensive systems by using the gaming angle, they surely would. Many people just aren't interested, and in many families, gaming is (justifiably) seen as a problem, and they actively select systems that do not encourage their kids to play games on them.
I think the PC gaming industry needs to take a big step back and look at the overall landscape, and see their own part in the problems rather than blame outside factors. There are many ways to adapt, and if the current way of doing business isn't seen as working out well, change!
In fact, various manufacturers in the PC infrastructure has became increasingly vocal in their critisism of Microsoft for not putting out an OS that helps drive sales - Microsoft has been seen as not doing their part for the industry. When critisism like that reaches the public eye, it has gone pretty far. Now though, it seems they will be doing their job with Vista, and those voices are quieting.
What Mark Rein is seeing is retail rejecting gaming as a powerful sales driver for systems in general. But his bias is showing when he tries to blame Intel for this - if retail could sell more expensive systems by using the gaming angle, they surely would. Many people just aren't interested, and in many families, gaming is (justifiably) seen as a problem, and they actively select systems that do not encourage their kids to play games on them.
I think the PC gaming industry needs to take a big step back and look at the overall landscape, and see their own part in the problems rather than blame outside factors. There are many ways to adapt, and if the current way of doing business isn't seen as working out well, change!
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe more than just a cheap videocard..........but far less than any other upgrade. Guess I'm lucky - or just plain foolish - to have an XBox 360 and 2 high end gaming computers*!poopypoo said:
I still can't decide of wether to go PC or XBox 360 for this game...... *X1800XT and 7800GT Sli systems!
martrox said:Maybe more than just a cheap videocard..........but far less than any other upgrade. Guess I'm lucky - or just plain foolish - to have an XBox 360 and 2 high end gaming computers*!
*X1800XT and 7800GT Sli systems!
well, i'm not going to call you foolish, but you're certainly not normal...
for a normal gamer a single 7600 gt might suffice, and that's only half the cost of an x360.Deathlike2
Regular
Entropy said:
Vista does look slightly bad with the rediculous requirements..
Intel obviously isn't completely at fault, but there is a thing as "raising the bar". The consumers that care too much about gaming shouldn't have a totally crippling experience. The more disturbing trend is to see retailers (not the ones online) charge for really bad products (MX4000s and Radeon 7000s are still being sold to this day). Maybe I'm expecting too much from Intel, naming your intergrated video card "Extreme Graphics" is outright crap.
It might sound like an idea that Intel upgrades it's intergrated graphics in yearly/18month cycles (like architecture refreshs for NVidia/ATI), that should satisfy developers that have really taxing games...
binky said:
I beg to differ, even in the past GF4200 or GF2s were $200-$300. I think the first Voodoo i got was about $200. Personally i think if you want to game with some decent eye candy on a budget just under $200 will set you up nicely. Old X800Pro or something in that performance realm will run the majority of titles very well. You cant honostly expect to run games at 1600x1200 with full settings for a year+ though, thats just moronic. The GTX is about a year old now so i cant really say i feel bad for those complaining. When i was running FEAR on my X800XT i didnt go outlandish with the settings, i bumped my AF up (my favorite setting) and dropped everything until it was acceptable to play while keeping my res as native as possible (LCD). I dont see whats so difficult about that. I recognize the aging hardware when i have to drop AA to gain an acceptable framerate, which i had to do on the X800 from about mid spring 05 on, upgraded in fall and rebumped all my settings to max again, thats what you have to do if you want to keep maxing settings. Simple. In all honosty i could put my X800XT back in and be quite happy with what i play, right now being oblivion and Source games. Course i'd have to reduce settings but its not that bad, and that cards what, $450 card from almost 2 years ago? I'm even sure someone could push it a year more getting some nice performance/quality, thats not that bad of a pay off, nothing "ruthless" about 2-3 years out of a high end peice of hardware in this industry where things evolve literally every week.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
