Why are games so far behind 3d technology?

[Dio]

Yes, the PC market state IS depressing, which is why the consoles still sell.

To put it this way. Let's say there's now about 3 million X-boxes out there, probably a similar number of Gamecubes, PS2 is up in the 10 million range. I don't know the exact numbers but it's ballpark. So how many PC's are there even comparable to an X-box? That implies at very least a GF3, and probably a GF4? Probably, about the same number as the installed base on the X-box. Certainly fewer than PS2. It might even be fewer than the latter two consoles. That's a big problem.

Worse is the demographics of the PC market, in general the percentages of owners of the system interested in your game are smaller, except in a few restricted cases. In general that high-end PC demographic is only superior in one area and that's FPS'.

RTS, (MMO)RPG and Sim are the other huge genres on the PC, but they correlate poorly with the bleeding-edge market (in fact, in the Sim case there is a bit of a negative correlation AFAIK).

So fundamentally it's everyones fault; gamers aren't prepared to spend to keep up with newer hardware; video card companies are delaying technology upgrades to keep profits up; and game companies aren't prepared to stick their neck out and release some top quality high-end-only PC product unless they have guaranteed sales (e.g. Doom3). All down to money, really.

Frankly I have a good deal of sympathy with all three groups.


Oh, BTW, there's NO point in trying to bribe John Carmack. He doesn't need the money, neither does ID, and values his reputation and his integrity. Don't you think someone would have done it by now if he was greedy?

 

[SteveG]

I'm sorry, but you people who think this are just living in lala land. I guess it's easy to make stupid suggestions when you're not the one standing to lose a lot of money on it. [/b]

Ok, instead of a knee-jerk reaction, try to think real hard for a minute about what you're saying. I'm not suggesting that id require gamers to buy the latest $300 Nvidia or ATI card. I'm talking about DX8 Geforce3-class equipment. Doom3 won't be out until 1+ year. What will a DX8 GeForce3-class card cost then? The XP4 T3 is coming out NOW at under $100 and it's basically a GeForce 3 class card.

So you are telling me that in 14 months the gaming public that will rush out and pay $60 for a game like Doom3, will simply *refuse* to pay maybe $80 for a video card to run the game, and make ALL of their games run better? I think you are vastly underestimating the average gamer. People don't upgrade because they don't have a *reason* to upgrade, not because they are too cheap or too lazy or too dumb. id could and should give them a reason.

And in the long run id would not lose a lot of money on the deal. Sales would be slower at the start, but not overall. Gamers are still buying Q3 and UT because they are just now getting PCs that can run those games. Doom3 would sell for many years as more and more people upgraded to DX8-class machines. And the game would single-handedly accelerate that upgrade process.

Not to mention, think of how much better the game would be if it targeted NV20 as a minumum rather than NV 10. More polys, more textures, more effects, more detail. Sounds like a selling point to me.

 

[Dio]

Certainly for the UK the games are a lot cheaper than that nowadays, and I suspect the average gamer IS more cheap, lazy and dumb than you think

There aren't many games on the shelf at £40 any more; the vast majority are £35, £30 or £25, even the A-grade titles (Warcraft III was one I bought recently for £32.99, I think).

In contrast, the cheapest DX8 card I could see at Scan was £87 for a Radeon 9000. Sure, there will be cheaper DX8 cards soon, but if Doom3 is set for an early 2003 release there won't be a big change in the minimum bar to entry.

The game won't be allowed to sit on the shelves for months at full price if it isn't selling - the retail games market is all about a 2-3 month hard sell followed by steady price decreases. Once it drops out of the top ten sellers, it moves from primo position to the packed shelves.

And that's Scan, and I know how to change a video card. In PC World it would probably be £120, and Joe Sixpack isn't going to change his own card... maybe he even bought his PC from a manufacturer who has a 'Do not open this box on pain of death' sticker on it.

And even then, how well will his Trident XP4 work with his Celeron 400 on BX motherboard?

 

[antlers]

I also think that Microsoft, nVidia, a lot of the big game publishers, and of course Sony and Nintendo are trying to push "serious" gamers to consoles. They're easier to develop for, the support costs are lower, piracy is harder, the barriers to entry for competitors are higher. If all the must-have games are published on consoles, it's easier for the big players to get all the profits.

They're happy to have the PC as a platform for the casual gamer. But it's a better business model for them if the gamer who spends hundreds of dollars a year on gaming spends that money on a console and console titles. So they have brought about a graphics and software market where, if a person wants to play games with DX8 level graphics, it's much easier just to get a console.

Of course, there are other factors that have made the market look this way. But Microsoft and nVidia played a big role; when they were committed to gaming on the PC, it was easier to find cutting edge games on the PC.

 

[sumdumyunguy]

I'm sorry, but you people who think this are just living in lala land. I guess it's easy to make stupid suggestions when you're not the one standing to lose a lot of money on it. [/b]

Ok, instead of a knee-jerk reaction, try to think real hard for a minute about what you're saying. I'm not suggesting that id require gamers to buy the latest $300 Nvidia or ATI card. I'm talking about DX8 Geforce3-class equipment. Doom3 won't be out until 1+ year. What will a DX8 GeForce3-class card cost then? The XP4 T3 is coming out NOW at under $100 and it's basically a GeForce 3 class card.

So you are telling me that in 14 months the gaming public that will rush out and pay $60 for a game like Doom3, will simply *refuse* to pay maybe $80 for a video card to run the game, and make ALL of their games run better? I think you are vastly underestimating the average gamer. People don't upgrade because they don't have a *reason* to upgrade, not because they are too cheap or too lazy or too dumb. id could and should give them a reason.

And in the long run id would not lose a lot of money on the deal. Sales would be slower at the start, but not overall. Gamers are still buying Q3 and UT because they are just now getting PCs that can run those games. Doom3 would sell for many years as more and more people upgraded to DX8-class machines. And the game would single-handedly accelerate that upgrade process.

Not to mention, think of how much better the game would be if it targeted NV20 as a minumum rather than NV 10. More polys, more textures, more effects, more detail. Sounds like a selling point to me.

Actually SteveG I think you will find that Joe Sixpack is dumber than you think. What was that stupid game at Wal-Mart? It became the #1 best seller & all those Virge 'decelarators' ran it just fine. Or what about those Bass fishing games. I think you are blinded by your own eliticism just a bit. Q3, Unreal , & yes even DOOMIII just don't mean that much to the general public.

I know a guy here are work, playing Morrowind on a GeoForce 2. I've been trying to convince him of going to a Geoforce 4 (not MX) or 8500 for months. He just can't see spending "hundreds of dollars for just a video card". I would wager that that is the view of the typical pc consumer.

I like my 8500 as much as any fanATIc, but I am realistic. You say more polys, textures (& this obesession with AA ...man people let that go) is a selling point, but first you have to assume that the consumer even knows what that that stuff even exists!
OT Does anybody kow aobut when the official demo for UT3k will be released?

 

[VFX_Veteran]

Why have PC/Hardware sales been stagnating lately? Why is the whole industry hurting? It's the lack of a new "killer app" that requires users to move up to the next stage. If we keep catering to Joe Average with his Celeron 700 and TNT2, dumbing-down our latest and greatest games so that we don't dissapoint him, the whole industry is headed nowhere.

I'm afraid I must agree with this statement. It seems the gaming industry (specifically the PC market) is caught in an infinite catch-22 loop!

I really believe that there must be a reason to upgrade to a new video card. I played right into the 3d hype by buying a new card everytime one came out. Now, I've had this GF3 board longer than I've ever had a video card in my life. I realized that *ALL* the games out now aren't taking advantage of the newest hardware, so why bother buying another video board. I will be buying another video board when DOOM3 comes out however.

Why does it seem like iD software is the only gaming company with money? EA makes way more and yet they are busy still making 2d games like 'The Sims'. I don't get it.

Also we must remember that iD software is a closed group. They don't have many employees and therefore will be more prone to not making a good story-compelling game. The more feedback the better the game in my opinion. Anyway, I think iD should just go into making 3d engines <period>. Skip the gaming scene and make the engines for the gaming companies to buy and use for their games.

I can almost guarantee that DOOM3 will not be a glorified Resident Evil: Code Veronica (which certainly was the best horror game to date).

-M

 

[VFX_Veteran]

Another thing.

Don't RPG games sell more than games like DOOM3? I mean, Neverwinter Nights and Warcraft 3 (strategy) are shipping millions of copies! In all fairness, iD is a small piece of the pie in the overall sales for the PC. I'd tend to believe that RPGs, Online RPGs, and Strategy games is what's keeping the market alive....Comments?

-M

 

[alexsok]

Does anybody kow aobut when the official demo for UT3k will be released?

Rumors suggest the end of this week!

 

[µße®LørÃ￾]

Does anybody kow aobut when the official demo for UT3k will be released?

Rumors suggest the end of this week!

Rumour said the same thing last month!

 

[alexsok]

Rumour said the same thing last month!

Well, that has got to tell u something about rumours!

But seriously now, it will be out the end of this week, i can feel it!

 

[Dio]

Don't RPG games sell more than games like DOOM3? I mean, Neverwinter Nights and Warcraft 3 (strategy) are shipping millions of copies! In all fairness, iD is a small piece of the pie in the overall sales for the PC. I'd tend to believe that RPGs, Online RPGs, and Strategy games is what's keeping the market alive....Comments?

Seems pretty true to me on the PC. That said, in the past Doom2 certainly made the yearly top ten when it came out. I think Half-Life did as well.

Also the FPS market is pretty crowded at the moment, which dilutes sales - in comparison Warcraft III is the only strategy game I can think of out in the last few months. The glut of strategy games has eased, and is being replace by gluts of FPS, RPG and MMORPG.

 

[Nagorak]

Ok, instead of a knee-jerk reaction, try to think real hard for a minute about what you're saying. I'm not suggesting that id require gamers to buy the latest $300 Nvidia or ATI card. I'm talking about DX8 Geforce3-class equipment. Doom3 won't be out until 1+ year. What will a DX8 GeForce3-class card cost then? The XP4 T3 is coming out NOW at under $100 and it's basically a GeForce 3 class card.

So you are telling me that in 14 months the gaming public that will rush out and pay $60 for a game like Doom3, will simply *refuse* to pay maybe $80 for a video card to run the game, and make ALL of their games run better? I think you are vastly underestimating the average gamer. People don't upgrade because they don't have a *reason* to upgrade, not because they are too cheap or too lazy or too dumb. id could and should give them a reason.

Yes, I'm saying they'll pay $60 (although I think $50 is more likely) but not $140! Furthermore, how are people going to know the game is worth upgrading for, if they can't play it to begin with? People are running with Pentium 4 computers that have TNT graphics cards (as an example of their stupidity). Many don't even know how to upgrade their computer. To them an upgrade is just buying a new machine. So let me revise that estimate: they'll pay $60 but not $1060 (they'll pay a premium for the crappy machine they get too).

And in the long run id would not lose a lot of money on the deal. Sales would be slower at the start, but not overall. Gamers are still buying Q3 and UT because they are just now getting PCs that can run those games. Doom3 would sell for many years as more and more people upgraded to DX8-class machines. And the game would single-handedly accelerate that upgrade process.

Not to mention, think of how much better the game would be if it targeted NV20 as a minumum rather than NV 10. More polys, more textures, more effects, more detail. Sounds like a selling point to me.

Yes, I bet Epic is making a killing on all those $10 Unreal and Unreal Tournament sales... Sounds like a good business model to me: Let's put out a game that sells poorly when it's priced at its premium and then sells well a year later at $20...

I'm sorry, but I just don't see it working. If you make a game though, you're welcome to try it, though. I won't deny that it would be cool to have a game with awesome graphics.

 

[Nagorak]

I also think that Microsoft, nVidia, a lot of the big game publishers, and of course Sony and Nintendo are trying to push "serious" gamers to consoles. They're easier to develop for, the support costs are lower, piracy is harder, the barriers to entry for competitors are higher. If all the must-have games are published on consoles, it's easier for the big players to get all the profits.

They're happy to have the PC as a platform for the casual gamer. But it's a better business model for them if the gamer who spends hundreds of dollars a year on gaming spends that money on a console and console titles. So they have brought about a graphics and software market where, if a person wants to play games with DX8 level graphics, it's much easier just to get a console.

Of course, there are other factors that have made the market look this way. But Microsoft and nVidia played a big role; when they were committed to gaming on the PC, it was easier to find cutting edge games on the PC.

I really don't see computer gamers seriously moving to consoles. Computer games are just a totally different genre. For online gaming the console world will never manage to edge out the PC gaming scene. Also keep in mind, that PC gaming has been increasing steadily for years, despite the fact that in the mid-late 90s consoles offered totally superior graphics to PCs. So I don't think PC gaming is in imminent danger of dying or anything.

 

[Nagorak]

Why does it seem like iD software is the only gaming company with money? EA makes way more and yet they are busy still making 2d games like 'The Sims'. I don't get it.

Unfortunately 2D games like 'The Sims' sell insanely well because they can run on a 400 MHz Celeron.

Also we must remember that iD software is a closed group. They don't have many employees and therefore will be more prone to not making a good story-compelling game. The more feedback the better the game in my opinion. Anyway, I think iD should just go into making 3d engines <period>. Skip the gaming scene and make the engines for the gaming companies to buy and use for their games.

I can almost guarantee that DOOM3 will not be a glorified Resident Evil: Code Veronica (which certainly was the best horror game to date).

-M

I kind of agree with this statement. id makes great engines, but they seem to be missing someone who can come up with a good plot. Maybe they'll prove me wrong though. Just think of Doom3 as a big tech demo.

Another thing.

Don't RPG games sell more than games like DOOM3? I mean, Neverwinter Nights and Warcraft 3 (strategy) are shipping millions of copies! In all fairness, iD is a small piece of the pie in the overall sales for the PC. I'd tend to believe that RPGs, Online RPGs, and Strategy games is what's keeping the market alive....Comments?

-M

Unfortunately...yes. Ugh...online "RPGs". They should just call them Online Gs.

On the bright side, eventually graphics technology will reach the point where it can't improve that much more, and the games will eventually catch up. So, the faster they pump out the hardware the better...eventually it trickles down.

 

[Teasy]

I think you're too optimistic : 30-40,000 polys per frame would be great for a PC game !
It's more like 5-10,000 polys per frame unfortunately.

I think the majority of new PC games are around 30,000 polys per frame peak, around 15-20,000 average, with a few games in the 50,000 range (peak) and some games like GTA3 going upto around 90,000 polys per frame (with full draw distance at peak) and Morrowind being the only current PC game at around 100,000+ polys per frame (peak).

Developer tend to greatly exagerate the number of polys/s

I get my numbers from looking at games with an app that counts polygons per frame/second, its called 3d-analyze.

No, there definitly are games with an average of around 30K polygons per frame, Aquanox and Comanche4 just for example. Though we're still not at the 100K mark advertised as possible with the first T&L cards

If you check out Morrowind with full draw distance it peaks at about 110,000+ polys per frame. But it is the highest poly PC game by far and still quite a long way behind the best looking current console games.

 

[Testiculus Giganticus]

But Morrowind is a little on the under/poor quality textures side, wouldn`t you say? They do indeed push a significant number of pollies, but they slap some brownish 256x256 textures on them, and to top it all, they render back to front(worse possible way to do it, it negates any occlusion culling techniques that an IMR has), keep the pixel shaded water on at all times to dent performance even more and they spice it up with some annoying CTDs. These things tend to push gamers away. Sims sells well because there are infinitely more Joe Sixpacks around the world than educated gamers, and when a game is slow on Joe Sixpack and it also crashes a lot, he does not run to the internet to get patches or advice, he goes back to his theme, sim or tycoon type of game.

 

[Dio]

ID have more money because they lead the technology and sell the engine. AFAIK they made 2-3x more money out of Q2 licences than they did out of Q2, the game.

In contrast... well, EA may produce the odd great game but there's a pile of junk in there too.

If you want to look at a company that is technically unambitious, releases a fair few games, and has piles of cash, Blizzard is the obvious option. They've never released _anything_ close to a turkey. Which is why I presume the company owners now own private jets and harems of supermodels. They pick their targets damn carefully though.

 

[Doomtrooper]

Look at the installed user base, and that is the answer

http://valve.speakeasy.net/

GeForce2 MX -- 172739 (29.6%)
NVidia TNT2 -- 114300 (19.6%)
GeForce2 GTS -- 42127 (7.2%)

Close to 300, 000 people or 60% of the user base using DX7 hardware

 

[Johnny Rotten]

Look at the installed user base, and that is the answer

http://valve.speakeasy.net/

GeForce2 MX -- 172739 (29.6%)
NVidia TNT2 -- 114300 (19.6%)
GeForce2 GTS -- 42127 (7.2%)

Close to 300, 000 people or 60% of the user base using DX7 hardware

Check your numbers again, The TNT2 isnt a DX7 card. Imo, DX7 as a minimum platform in all honesty isnt too bad. Its the other 40% that dont even meet the DX7 spec. That is a killer for a developer.

 

[Teasy]

Its allot more then 60%. Around 94% of the userbase is using below DX8 cards according to that survey.