Seriously, you guys don't need worry about to reading the rest of it.
OoooOOOoooh
I was speaking from experience there. I spent how much? on an 8800GTX that about 10 months later had its ass thoroughly kicked by a game called Crysis... I could point out the logical fallacy you commit with your post there, but would be more interested in seeing a point-by-point response first so we could have some intelligent discussion.
Sakeido, the way you post sucks horribly. You don't really seem to understand how offensive your comments are and how stupid you come across as being. I love how casually you attack the core tenets of PC gaming and how foolishly you proselytize something that can never and will never happen.
I'd probably be really insulted right now if it wasn't so funny.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
Sakeido, the way you post sucks horribly. You don't really seem to understand how offensive your comments are and how stupid you come across as being. I love how casually you attack the core tenets of PC gaming and how foolishly you proselytize something that can never and will never happen.
I'd probably be really insulted right now if it wasn't so funny.
Let's see a point by point rebuttal, because right now what you are doing is called the straw man fallacy by people who know how to argue. Either that, or just a complete and outright dodging of any real discussion. I'll also take this time to remind you that being stupid is relative; you think I'm stupid because of my post, but I think you are stupid because you did absolutely nothing to support anything and, as a result, totally conformed to the stereotype of braindead internet denizen. So basically, calling anyone stupd won't get anyone anywhere. If you want to debate this, then say something.
You don't even seem to understand what a straw man argument is, because what I said was not an argument at all, straw man or otherwise; I'm not interested in wasting my time arguing with your points, because anyone with two lobes and half a dollop of knowledge about computer hardware can see why they're faulty.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
0
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
No you are wrong and making all kinds of generalizations about gamers. PC gamers in particular. Massively inaccurate generalizations.
Funny you say that.
Gamers will play games. I think the criteria for what a gamer wants is pretty simple:
A) The game runs The game offers the experience I want
C) The game is fun
Currently, PCs generally fail miserably at A
You think so? I'm trying to remember the last time a game crashed on my system. Oh yeah, it was WoW, a few months ago. About the same time Viva Pinata locked up my 360.
comparatively small monitor, but certainly includes a keyboard and mouse.
For someone who's agreeing with the idea that PC gaming is dying due to it's exclusive nature, you sure think a lot of people are playing on HDTVs.
Here's a hint: the first Geforce 9000 card is not a GTX. It is not what the hardcore gamers want. It is something targeted towards the everyman... the people who will buy in volume.
This is a marketing gimmick that doesn't actually show the state of the industry. The new GeForce isn't a GF9. It's still an 8000 series. Same chip as the 8600. However, NVidia sees enough people out there who want to stop using integrated and buy a dedicated graphics solution. Says to me that the PC gaming market is doing just fine.
You can keep your full control over your system if you want. Why do you want full control? To keep the system running well. Why do you want your system running at 100%? To increase productivity or keep your games running smoothly. What causes a PC to slow down? Connecting it to the internet, running lots of files, BitTorrent, movies, MP3s, iTunes and other junk programs, etc. Basically everything. If you completely separated one half of your computer's utility (the aforementioned tasks) from the other (gaming) and then offloaded the gaming portion to a console built ENTIRELY for that purpose, you would then be left with fairly light requirements for what you need from your computer to handle productivity and surfing and that.
Or have a multi-core solution (X2, Core duo, LOL) with plenty of RAM (2GB for <$100 these days) and not have to have multiple draws on power operating for no good reason.
Interestingly enough, the XBox 360 AND PS3 are loaded up with HTPC type stuff. Raise your hands if your XBox or PS3 is your main source of movie and music playback. I certainly don't know ANYONE that uses their console for all these extras that are already in there. And you want to add more, saying, if you build it, they will come? A console cannot replace a PC anymore than a sports car can replace a half-ton truck.
I guess what I'm trying to say is who drops a bunch of cash on anything without asking a question or two? It would be like buying new tires for your car, they might not be the right size, but they are tires so it should all work out. If anyone ever did this they should have their money taken from them. Regardless, my main gripe here is with Epic not some clueless PC buyer.
Not all games need to be photo-realistic, I have a pretty decent computer and I still play games like fallout and jagged alliance etc. because they were fun, UT eXtreme XX!! just isn't fun anymore. Rehashing the same gamer over and over again finally caught up with them and people didn't buy it. Yet games that had similar game-play but had some tweaks that were cool and fun did sell, so clearly the industry is at fault and not Epic for putting fresh paint on a rundown house and calling it a brand new mansion.
Your personal animosity against Epic has nothing to do with the fact that barely anyone who owns a pc owns a pc that can run games that look like anything a current-gen or even previous-gen system can handle.
The fact that you think the dude at Best Buy or wherever is warning people that they won't be able to play games on their new expensive desktop pretty much proves you're totally divorced from reality.
They aren't just not warning them. Bestbuy and friends are the ones telling your average Joe Consumer that their machine is going to handle those games. From this week's BestBuy ad:
HP® AMD LIVE! Smarter Digital Entertainment AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual-Core Processor 6000+
with
nVIDIA® GeForce™ 6150 SE graphics with DirectX® 10
for
$880
Out of 7 advertised desktops, exactly one has a current-gen GPU, a Radeon 2400XT 256MB on a $1200 machine.
From Circuit City:
"High-end video: This desktop features advanced NVIDIA GeForce 6150 SE graphics with TurboCache, 128MB of dedicated memory (an addition to the main system memory), and up to 1343MB of total available video memory. You'll be ready for more demanding games or video editing."
The first listing for PC Computers -> Desktops -> Purpose -> Gaming at Fry's website shows an $850 machine with:
"Video Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce 6150 SE Graphics with TurboCache with 128MB dedicated graphics memory. "
I can't see anything in Sweeney's replies that even edges on UT3. He has some quite useful things to say, it's nice to hear someone higher up saying something we all know; it gives me hope that PC gaming might change (for the better)
Let's see a point by point rebuttal, because right now what you are doing is called the straw man fallacy by people who know how to argue. Either that, or just a complete and outright dodging of any real discussion. I'll also take this time to remind you that being stupid is relative; you think I'm stupid because of my post, but I think you are stupid because you did absolutely nothing to support anything and, as a result, totally conformed to the stereotype of braindead internet denizen. So basically, calling anyone stupd won't get anyone anywhere. If you want to debate this, then say something.
A point by point rebuttal, on the internet, on this forum. You sir are mad, mad I tell you.
These threads usually boil down to attacks against one's brain power rather than a debate about the issues. Most of the time you will run into the individual who will not admit that there is anything wrong with the PC gaming market, and if you say that there is something wrong you have not only insulted the entire PC market, but also the individual in question, his dog, and his mum.
So yeah, good luck to ya on that point by point rebuttal thing.
No you are wrong and making all kinds of generalizations about gamers. PC gamers in particular. Massively inaccurate generalizations.
Funny you say that.
Gamers will play games. I think the criteria for what a gamer wants is pretty simple:
A) The game runs The game offers the experience I want
C) The game is fun
Currently, PCs generally fail miserably at A
You think so? I'm trying to remember the last time a game crashed on my system. Oh yeah, it was WoW, a few months ago. About the same time Viva Pinata locked up my 360.
Does the game run in the first place? That is more the question I am asking. Stability has improved recently, sure.
comparatively small monitor, but certainly includes a keyboard and mouse.
For someone who's agreeing with the idea that PC gaming is dying due to it's exclusive nature, you sure think a lot of people are playing on HDTVs.
A computer monitor has higher resolution than a TV screen, okay. If you don't attempt to read any more into what I ACTUALLY wrote, than you would have to admit that a computer monitor is still smaller than most TVs, HD or not.
Here's a hint: the first Geforce 9000 card is not a GTX. It is not what the hardcore gamers want. It is something targeted towards the everyman... the people who will buy in volume.
This is a marketing gimmick that doesn't actually show the state of the industry. The new GeForce isn't a GF9. It's still an 8000 series. Same chip as the 8600. However, NVidia sees enough people out there who want to stop using integrated and buy a dedicated graphics solution. Says to me that the PC gaming market is doing just fine.
This is the first product Nvidia has announced since the formation of their PC gaming alliance, that aims to revitalize PC gaming. Why would competitors form an alliance? To save the platform most of their business is tied up in. That says to me that PC gaming is not doing fine.
You can keep your full control over your system if you want. Why do you want full control? To keep the system running well. Why do you want your system running at 100%? To increase productivity or keep your games running smoothly. What causes a PC to slow down? Connecting it to the internet, running lots of files, BitTorrent, movies, MP3s, iTunes and other junk programs, etc. Basically everything. If you completely separated one half of your computer's utility (the aforementioned tasks) from the other (gaming) and then offloaded the gaming portion to a console built ENTIRELY for that purpose, you would then be left with fairly light requirements for what you need from your computer to handle productivity and surfing and that.
Or have a multi-core solution (X2, Core duo, LOL) with plenty of RAM (2GB for <$100 these days) and not have to have multiple draws on power operating for no good reason.
What?
Interestingly enough, the XBox 360 AND PS3 are loaded up with HTPC type stuff. Raise your hands if your XBox or PS3 is your main source of movie and music playback. I certainly don't know ANYONE that uses their console for all these extras that are already in there. And you want to add more, saying, if you build it, they will come? A console cannot replace a PC anymore than a sports car can replace a half-ton truck.
My 360 is my main source of movie playback because its the only device I have that'll play HD-DVDs, is an upscaling DVD player, and also can watch DivX movies via streaming from my network. I didn't suggest you replace your PC with a console. I suggested people just quit gaming on PCs, hook up their PC pheripherals to a dedicated gaming machine (console), and buy a cheaper PC for productivity, web surfing, etc. Just the money you save on not buying a medium or high end graphics card for your PC can get you a console that may offer a superior, more trouble free gaming experience.
LOL! People should not make games for the PC anymore! The PC is the suck!
It's OK Epic. If you stop making games for the PC, I am sure someone is going to be there to fill that void just fine. Amazingly a great game doesn't require SLIed GPUs, several gigs of RAM and quad-core processors. A great game does require, ummmm great game play.
Isn't this just ours (gamers) version of the boy racer/custom car guys? We spend stupid amounts of money that we probably spent ages earning (and should probably spend on actually useful stuff) on marginal hardware improvements (life is like a korean MMO) to trick out a gaming rig that is no doubt already good enough to do everything we want it to do. Plus to make it even better a lot of us (me) probably can't really explain why X bit of gear is actually worth that 100% premium if someone bothered to challenge me.
Piracy is certinally a concern (It fucked up the Dreamcast pretty bad)
I always thought it was the PS2 that fucked up Dreamcast. Everyone was waiting to buy one of those and didn't give ol' DC the chance it deserved.
I don't particularly believe that to be the case either. At least not in the US.
The Dreamcast was alive during the transition from dialup to high speed internet. CD burners weren't common stock in PCs, and the knowledge wasn't "easily" available.
Not that I advocate piracy or anything, but I don't think it's a big factor in what happened with the Dreamcast. The blame can firmly be placed on Sega.
Additionally, the PS2 was the cheapest DVD player you could buy at the time. People were buying PS2s just to watch movies.
$ony tried to do this again IMO to the XB360, but the XB360's Marketplace and Live has taken care of that easily enough.
My 360 is my main source of movie playback because its the only device I have that'll play HD-DVDs, is an upscaling DVD player, and also can watch DivX movies via streaming from my network. I didn't suggest you replace your PC with a console. I suggested people just quit gaming on PCs, hook up their PC pheripherals to a dedicated gaming machine (console), and buy a cheaper PC for productivity, web surfing, etc. Just the money you save on not buying a medium or high end graphics card for your PC can get you a console that may offer a superior, more trouble free gaming experience.
You do not get to decide what is superior for everyone else. You can have your preference, but you cannot tell anyone else what is better when both sides have merit.
And good luck getting Microsoft to let you use a mouse and keyboard on the 360. Even Sony allows this for UT3.
I know how to solve this problem. Let people use USB keyboards and mice to game on a console. Put out a lightweight version of Windows that runs on the 360 with no fuss, add a 500gb internal hard drive, and BAM! You have a very good gaming PC for basically no money. Maybe something for the next gen.
Accomplishes two things: 1) kills off the high end PC hardware market so they can allocate their energy towards making crazier consoles and 2) makes it cheap and affordable.
Honestly they wouldn't even need to do that. Just removing the requirement for games to be controllable by the 360 gamepad would be enough. You could clearly label a game as needing keyboard & mouse and then off you go. It would take less time and adjustment than completely rethinking the PC business.
No, you are wrong and don't understand PC/Console games industries.
PC gamers want PCs. They want customisable hardware, mods, indie games, niche games that probably couldn't be made with the license fees ascociated with consoles, massive forewards and backwards compatibilty, custom input, custom hardware, full control over the contents of their hard drive.
Console gamers want consoles. They want ease of use, no installs, no compatibilty issues, standardisation.
Nothing is wrong with these, and there is massive overlap of the two groups, but to say that the biggest (or main, or even only) difference between console and PC games is the input method would be very, very, wrong.
No you are wrong and making all kinds of generalizations about gamers. PC gamers in particular. Massively inaccurate generalizations.
Gamers will play games. I think the criteria for what a gamer wants is pretty simple:
A) The game runs The game offers the experience I want
C) The game is fun
Currently, PCs generally fail miserably at A but offer the unique experience that fulfills B. This unique experience may include sitting upright at a desk looking at a comparatively small monitor, but certainly includes a keyboard and mouse. The vast majority probably don't care about their hardware and only want a system that will adequately play the games they want to play. The elite gamer geeks who have more money than sense are the only ones looking for your "custom" this and that,
OK, whoa, you can stop right there for a start. You want to know why I spent money on my gaming PC? I needed a new PC, and for me it was a choice between either spending a bit more and getting a decent gaming PC, or spending a lot more and getting an HDTV and console. And I'm not interested in an HDTV. But no, you're right, it's just that I've got more money than sense.
As for 'failing miserably at A', it first depends on whether you're talking about the standard store-bough home PC or one that somebody actually bought or put together with PC-gaming in mind. The former I would tend to agree with, the latter, I have an issue with. Now you're right in saying that the vast majority just want a machine that will play games (assuming that was their idea behind getting the PC in the first place, if not, then it's a moot point) and couldn't care less about their hardware specs. In this regard I agree with what Tim Sweeney was saying in the article, PC gaming's entered a weird area here, with the lack of ability to scale between the two sets of hardware being a core issue for developers.
It's something that both the software industry and the hardware industry need to address, because for the past few years they've just been digging themselves into a greater pit. Companies like Ironclad games noted this trend (amongst many others) and decided to deliberately go against it, and it's been largely to their success as a result. Blizzard is following a similar track with Starcraft II, where instead of going for graphical intensity they're trying to reach a greater audience. I think developers are starting to grasp this factor more and more, so it's more becoming the case that the hardware companies need to get their acts together as well.
and I don't think there is too many of these people, because I have yet to encounter one outside the internet.
Meanwhile I've got loads of RL friends who do. Of course, anecdotal evidence doesn't really mean much one way or the other.
Therefore, I would suggest that there are not enough of these people to sustain the PC games market.
As it exists at the moment? I would actually tend to agree with that. The hardware industry has largely runaway with the system specs and the main suppliers aren't exactly keen on making gaming one of the core features of a PC any time soon, in the same way that multimedia functionality became a core capability of the PC a decade ago. I really do agree with Tim Sweeney on a lot of what he said.
As far as forwards compatability goes - LOLROFLLMAO JESUS - you can't be serious. That is a real laugh. You are speaking from some idealized gaming pulpit so far above the clouds, you can't see through them to what the normal people want. I would go so far as to say you have absolutely zero business sense.
Here's a hint: the first Geforce 9000 card is not a GTX. It is not what the hardcore gamers want. It is something targeted towards the everyman... the people who will buy in volume.
No offence, but there's no way that even the first GeForce 9000 is going to be targeted at the everyman, judging by the pricepoints that 'first release' cards of a generation have been put out on. Even the current 8000 generation aren't really priced with casual consumers in mind, except for the ultra-low end models that aren't worth the money that's being asked anyway (this links back to my earlier complaints about the graphics card industry).
As far as niche or cultish games or whatever, newsflash. XNA Creator's Club. Put out whatever you want for the 360 for some nominal fee per year. Peer reviewed. Released for download. Out it goes. All the niche and cult games you could ever want. Best part is, they are cross platform between the PC and 360.
I'm going to have to say this is a massive simplification if you're saying that they're cross platform between PC and 360. Leaving that aside, I'm looking at the self-published game Tower of Goo right now, and they didn't need to buy an XNA licence in order to publish on PC. They are publishing later on the Wii though admittedly.
One other thing that you seem to miss is that just because indie game publishing is available on the 360, doesn't make it any less feasible or the games less desirable to run in and of themselves on the PC.
Of course, you're free to ignore the fact that ultimately some games just wouldn't work on a console (such as the aforementioned Sins), but hey, if you're not into those genres, that's fine. I am however, so I'm happy to stick with this lot for the time being.
You can keep your full control over your system if you want. Why do you want full control? To keep the system running well. Why do you want your system running at 100%? To increase productivity or keep your games running smoothly.
Both actually. Plus I prefer a clean PC in general.
What causes a PC to slow down? Connecting it to the internet, running lots of files, BitTorrent, movies, MP3s, iTunes and other junk programs, etc. Basically everything. If you completely separated one half of your computer's utility (the aforementioned tasks) from the other (gaming) and then offloaded the gaming portion to a console built ENTIRELY for that purpose, you would then be left with fairly light requirements for what you need from your computer to handle productivity and surfing and that.
Largely agree, but I feel a lot of this ties back to what Tim Sweeney was saying in the article.
If you were playing Dwarf Fortress on your 360 with a keyboard, I doubt you would care your 360 is powering the experience. The "edge" the PC used to maintain over consoles by virtue of its rapidly advancing hardware is gone. The graphical differences are minimal even for power users, multiplayer experiences are now better on the consoles, the depth of the games is improving (hampered only by controller restrictions)... there is no reason for the PC to continue at a gaming platform.
Except, you know, that it's still available as a gaming platform. As long as PC's exist, games for them will exist. Gaming has never been the central tenet of the home PC, but it's always been one of its functionalities. As such, saying that there's no reason for the PC to continue as a gaming platform, well, you could just as easily say there's no reason for it to continue as a movie platform or a music platform, it certainly can't do either of those better than purely dedicated hardware. And yet, people wouldn't want that functionality removed from the PC. The PC is functionality.
Let's see a point by point rebuttal, because right now what you are doing is called the straw man fallacy by people who know how to argue. Either that, or just a complete and outright dodging of any real discussion. I'll also take this time to remind you that being stupid is relative; you think I'm stupid because of my post, but I think you are stupid because you did absolutely nothing to support anything and, as a result, totally conformed to the stereotype of braindead internet denizen. So basically, calling anyone stupd won't get anyone anywhere. If you want to debate this, then say something.
A point by point rebuttal, on the internet, on this forum. You sir are mad, mad I tell you.
These threads usually boil down to attacks against one's brain power rather than a debate about the issues. Most of the time you will run into the individual who will not admit that there is anything wrong with the PC gaming market, and if you say that there is something wrong you have not only insulted the entire PC market, but also the individual in question, his dog, and his mum.
So yeah, good luck to ya on that point by point rebuttal thing.
Meanwhile whenever I try and say that the PC gaming industry isn't going to suddenly croak there are nothing but comments about how nobody can possibly succeed because all PC users are pirates and the hardware fails as soon as you sneeze at it as there isn't any possible genre that you'd want a keyboard and mouse for instead of a joypad.
Aren't crass, generalised enough so that it doesn't appear as if I'm making direct ad-hominem ad-hominems attempting to discredit any future debate as merely fanboyish rantings... fun?
This is quite a difficult subject with many viewpoints that can be taken. But here's my thoughts...
I agree with Sakeido, In a perfect world PC's would be similar to consoles where everyone has the same spec and runs every game in the same way. BUT that would make PC's into consoles... PC's didn't start life as gaming rigs, that evolved as people realised what could be achieved with the hardware. Consoles DID start life as gaming machines...
But I think consoles (current gen) are heading towards a future that makes them similar to PCs. There are SO many more things you can do with current gen consoles compared to the old ones. They all have internet, some kind of chat, friend systems... It's (in my mind) a dumbed down version of a PC gaming community (Chat is like mIRC, All the old server browers are built into the games (Old school Gamespy, how I miss ye!) And things like XBLA give you the little niche games that PC gamers are used to)
I can also see what LewieP is saying that PC users want the customisation and flexibility, as this is PART of the PC gaming world. But this is an expensive route, you can buy a 360 for less than the price of the highest spec GPU's. There's gotta be something wrong there?! I think THIS is the problem with PC gaming (if you agree there IS a problem) - The high end is there, but out of reach for so many people, meaning that PC game developers are making games for a very small amount of people at the end of the day. I also think the high end rigs are part of a gaming cult where spec means everything.
A middle ground needs to be struck and I think in the future we will see this with the console market. Surely (VERY losely) an external GPU is kinda like using your PS3 or XBox as a graphics card for your PC's hard drive? I think that's a great thing, then we can all put whatever we want onto our harddrives, and simply use external cards (that everyone can use) to power our games. I think Im saying we need some kind of generic graphics output that is affordable and simple for everyone. But keeping the customisation but in other forms. (I can't quite think of how to keep the customisation, its on the tip of my fingers though!!)
Wouldn't this help game development? Focus on a current gen of GPU for longer, rather than trying to squeeze every little bit of power on GPU's to create graphics in games that are sub-par in terms of gameplay? There's a reason people love things like XBLA, WoW, Maplestory, because it's all about gameplay, not graphics. Some games are ALL about the graphics; that's part of creating an immersive world. I believe a balance needs to be struck. What's limiting on consoles at the moment is the amount of content, with a PC-Console hybrid this may not be such a problem.
You don't even seem to understand what a straw man argument is, because what I said was not an argument at all, straw man or otherwise; I'm not interested in wasting my time arguing with your points, because anyone with two lobes and half a dollop of knowledge about computer hardware can see why they're faulty.
I propose to introduce the Straw Man Insult. It is a kind of fallacy where, when one and one's views are endangered, one chooses or resorts to insulting others in the hopes of mitigating the original argument and sowing confusion. Also known as Insult Smoke. Note: This does not apply to the illiterate.
Please also note that I do not wish to take any side in this silly debacle, as we are currently spiralling into the oblivion of countercounters. Do stop.
It is late and I do not know whether something akin to Straw Man Insult exists, or even if I am remembering it incorrectly and the Straw Man fallacy does indeed include the above written item. If so, excuse my dulled mind.
Strifer on
0
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Does the game run in the first place? That is more the question I am asking. Stability has improved recently, sure.
What? If it didn't run, then it couldn't crash, I guess, but that's a pretty retarded interpretation. I game primarily on my PC. If the games didn't run, then I couldn't be gaming on it, now could I?
A computer monitor has higher resolution than a TV screen, okay. If you don't attempt to read any more into what I ACTUALLY wrote, than you would have to admit that a computer monitor is still smaller than most TVs, HD or not.
Sure, but how many people have a larger screen than about 32 or 37 inch? How many of those are HD? Very few, even today. So most consoles are running on a 480i television that you sit across the room to view. For $100 or so you can get 20"+ high quality LCDs. So yeah, they're smaller, but not to the degree you're making it out to be.
This is the first product Nvidia has announced since the formation of their PC gaming alliance, that aims to revitalize PC gaming. Why would competitors form an alliance? To save the platform most of their business is tied up in. That says to me that PC gaming is not doing fine.
Tell that to the companies making $texas right now who are solely in the PC Market. Valve, Blizzard, etc. Hell, even EA refuses to abandon the PC market (How many consoles is Spore coming to? The DS? Hm.)
Or have a multi-core solution (X2, Core duo, LOL) with plenty of RAM (2GB for <$100 these days) and not have to have multiple draws on power operating for no good reason.
What?
All those things you said slow down a computer no longer do so on multi-core machines. In other words, your point is no longer relevant.
My 360 is my main source of movie playback because its the only device I have that'll play HD-DVDs, is an upscaling DVD player, and also can watch DivX movies via streaming from my network. I didn't suggest you replace your PC with a console. I suggested people just quit gaming on PCs, hook up their PC pheripherals to a dedicated gaming machine (console), and buy a cheaper PC for productivity, web surfing, etc. Just the money you save on not buying a medium or high end graphics card for your PC can get you a console that may offer a superior, more trouble free gaming experience.
A) It's great you are, but again, how many are? The adoption of technophiles is no indicator of actual market feasibility.
XBox 360 level graphics are achievable on graphics cards that are less than half the cost of an XBox premium.
"The elite gamer geeks who have more money than sense are the only ones looking for your "custom" this and that, and I don't think there is too many of these people, because I have yet to encounter one outside the internet."
wat.
More money than sense? It's bloody well cheaper to buy parts than an off the shelf rig of similar quality, there's a reason places like Memory Express exist. The folks who go in for parts aren't liable to shop at Best Buy for all their wallet raping needs.
This is quite a difficult subject with many viewpoints that can be taken. But here's my thoughts...
I agree with Sakeido, In a perfect world PC's would be similar to consoles where everyone has the same spec and runs every game in the same way. BUT that would make PC's into consoles... PC's didn't start life as gaming rigs, that evolved as people realised what could be achieved with the hardware. Consoles DID start life as gaming machines...
But I think consoles (current gen) are heading towards a future that makes them similar to PCs. There are SO many more things you can do with current gen consoles compared to the old ones. They all have internet, some kind of chat, friend systems... It's (in my mind) a dumbed down version of a PC gaming community (Chat is like mIRC, All the old server browers are built into the games (Old school Gamespy, how I miss ye!) And things like XBLA give you the little niche games that PC gamers are used to)
I can also see what LewieP is saying that PC users want the customisation and flexibility, as this is PART of the PC gaming world. But this is an expensive route, you can buy a 360 for less than the price of the highest spec GPU's. There's gotta be something wrong there?! I think THIS is the problem with PC gaming (if you agree there IS a problem) - The high end is there, but out of reach for so many people, meaning that PC game developers are making games for a very small amount of people at the end of the day. I also think the high end rigs are part of a gaming cult where spec means everything.
A middle ground needs to be struck and I think in the future we will see this with the console market. Surely (VERY losely) an external GPU is kinda like using your PS3 or XBox as a graphics card for your PC's hard drive? I think that's a great thing, then we can all put whatever we want onto our harddrives, and simply use external cards (that everyone can use) to power our games. I think Im saying we need some kind of generic graphics output that is affordable and simple for everyone. But keeping the customisation but in other forms. (I can't quite think of how to keep the customisation, its on the tip of my fingers though!!)
Wouldn't this help game development? Focus on a current gen of GPU for longer, rather than trying to squeeze every frame out on games that are sub-par in terms of gameplay? There's a reason people love things like XBLA, WoW, Maplestory, because it's all about gameplay, not graphics.
Personally, I don't feel the solution is for external, plug in graphics solutions. That makes things easier in a way but only in the sense that you no longer need to take your PC case off, doesn't really help the cost either. You're right that there needs to be some form of in-built, generic graphical capability to the PC which at current isn't available.
When Soundcards firts came out they were largely an extravagance, only really sold to musicians (few) and the hardcore gamers. Eventually however sound functionality became a core feature of what the average user expected their PC to be capable of, to the extent that you could not feasibly sell a store-bought PC today without that core sound functionality. Try telling the customer that they're free to surf the net, write their e-mails, do their tax spreadsheets, but any sound they want has to come out of the PC speaker. Wouldn't work, right?
Similar happened again with multimedia functionality and the CD-ROM drive. If anything, it was an extravagant feature that the average user was never going to make use of. Now it's standard. Heck, now DVD-burners are standard.
If gaming is to become another accepted part of what a PC should functionally be capable of, then there needs to be more of an integrated solution that at the very least meets the core requirements of most modern games. The reason Tim Sweeney is complaining so much about Intel is because he knows that they're not really bothered about that route. When AMD bought ATI I was hopeful for some sort of integrated solution from them, but that hasn't surfaced so far. Factoring in everything else, it wouldn't actually cost too much more than what is currently being provided in terms of processors / motherboards, at a quick guesstimate I'd put the overall increase in cost at about £100 MAX. Heck, even if you take that as the worst case scenario (and £100 more is no laughing matter for anyone trying to sell a PC), it at the very least creates a delimiter between a games capable machine and one that isn't. It would be easy for a sales rep to say "this machine over here is more expensive but it can run most games on the market." All of a sudden, the customer knows what they're getting with their machine.
Not only would such a system make things easier for the companies selling the machines AND for the people buying them, it would also give games companies a set baseline to aim for in terms of hardware capability, whereas at the moment everybody's siomply trying to push the boundaries for no good reason most of the time. With a system like that, you can even still keep and maintain the 'hardcore' gaming market with the standalone graphics cards that'll chew up everything and spit out diamonds.
I mean, if someone wants a PC today, they don't have to worry about whether the sound capability on their motherboard only caters to mono or only stereo sound. Pretty much any PC you pick up today has at least 5.1 as standard now. When was the last time you looked at the back of a box for a PC game and checked whether supported your soundcard? Unless you've got some really specific hardware that most users don't know or care about, that was probably a long, long time ago. Any home user that picks up a PC knows whether it can play movies, and whether it can play music. It should be easy for them to discern whether they can play games too.
That's one solution I have in mind anyway. In general the PC gaming segment of the market right now is in a weird state, pretty much like Tim Sweeney said.
subedii on
0
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
edited March 2008
If gaming hardware is going to become part of an integrated solution then stores like Best Buy, et al, need to stop selling shit hardware.
It takes more than just a GPU to make a computer a reliable gaming system. Gaming is probably the most demanding use of retail PCs that is anywhere close to common. Which means OEM computers need to stop having shit PSUs, shit MBs, shit RAM. You don't need performance parts, but you do need reliable parts. Most of the stability issues that aren't completely in the realm of user stupidity can be traced to cheap components. Particularly the power supply.
So an identifiable standard has to be established when it comes to what manufacturers can be used in a PC that is 'Gaming Ready (tm)'. Otherwise, it'll never happen because people like me will never buy a computer that isn't self-built.
If gaming hardware is going to become part of an integrated solution then stores like Best Buy, et al, need to stop selling shit hardware.
It takes more than just a GPU to make a computer a reliable gaming system. Gaming is probably the most demanding use of retail PCs that is anywhere close to common. Which means OEM computers need to stop having shit PSUs, shit MBs, shit RAM. You don't need performance parts, but you do need reliable parts. Most of the stability issues that aren't completely in the realm of user stupidity can be traced to cheap components. Particularly the power supply.
So an identifiable standard has to be established when it comes to what manufacturers can be used in a PC that is 'Gaming Ready (tm)'. Otherwise, it'll never happen because people like me will never buy a computer that isn't self-built.
Unfortunate, but largely true at the moment. It's one of the reasons why when this whole PCGA business was announced I couldn't help but roll my eyes. I suspect they aren't even going to try to address the core issues, instead maybe running a few ad-campaigns aimed at announcing that they're "here to make a difference" or similar, and then promptly be forgotten about. Most I expect them to actually attempt is locking down the PC hardware with more DRM, and probably fail doing so.
EDIT: Anyway, enough about that.
So how do you guys think Mark Rein is going to try and spin this one?
All i need to know about U3 is that a hot indian woman I met on the bus said it was her favorite game and once I have a rig powerful enough, I will track her down through all the servers. Dammit, I should have gotten her number!
I agree with Sweeney. Mass-market companies like Intel ship neutered GPUs incapable of proper 3d gaming, and enthusiast companies like NVIDIA and AMD focus on the extreme high end, leading to a market that's as unbalanced as all hell.
At the end of the day the age-old KBAM vs. controller debate is besides the point - the current state of the installed base makes a pretty strong economic case against graphics-intensive titles on PC. We're stuck playing one, maybe two decent Crysis-esque intensive titles per eighteen-month cycle with horrible, horrible crap the rest of the time - which I guess is why a lot of us spend so much time playing the classics (or talking about playing the classics in Let's Play threads). With the way the demographics are, I don't see the mainstream graphics situation improving till the next Sims game hits.
Mark Rein is probably going nuts right now re: Epic and the PC Gaming Alliance. On the one hand, I think Epic needs to make sure their staff stay on message in light of their commitments; but on the other, I like hearing people in the industry speak their mind.
All i need to know about U3 is that a hot indian woman I met on the bus said it was her favorite game and once I have a rig powerful enough, I will track her down through all the servers. Dammit, I should have gotten her number!
On the topic of UT3, well, it didn't do as well as Epic wanted, but I can't really say that I feel it wasn't mainly their fault.
I mean think about it. We're on a hardcore gaming forum right now, it would be hard to say that this forum doesn't contain a large part of the demographic that Epic were hoping would play the game. We're no strangers to long threads discussing games that never made the mainstream, because we're more interested in whether or not the game is actually fun to play and keeps our interests.
And yet, the UT3 thread sank without trace a long time ago, with barely any participation (even from the PS3 buyers), and meanwhile a game like TF2 has it's thread on it's bajillionth incarnation and hosting a large number of photos featuring party hats. That pretty much says all I care to about UT3. I even bought the Limited Edition pack, but ultimately I can't really find anything in there that's really a step up from UT2004. And if UT3 is competing with the established userbase of 2004 without offering anything really new and requiring higher spec PC's when 2004 still looks good, it's probably going to lose. There's a tonne more I could write about UT3, but I don't want to stray too far off topic.
subedii on
0
RoshinMy backlog can be seen from spaceSwedenRegistered Userregular
edited March 2008
As for UT3, it just felt like the same thing I've bought and played before. I know the drill now and I'm bored with it. I always think "Why play this, when I could be playing TF2?".
I built every one of my PCs until the most recent one I purchased from Dell for much cheaper than I could build it.
Upgraded the video, memory, monitor etc
It plays the hell out of COD4, Orange Box, Company of Heroes etc.
With all due respect - what does that matter? :?:
People like you and me who buy machines with gaming in mind from the get-go aren't exactly common.
The way the market is these days, people buy machines for general computing and internet tasks and get into gaming through gateway drugs like Flash-based stuff on Newgrounds or Popcap stuff - and then the gateway drug metaphor breaks down as they can't play anything else without a graphics upgrade (or worse, an entire motherboard replacement because their machine doesn't have PCI Express x16 ports).
The problem Sweeney is talking about is the ripple effect from Intel, NVIDIA, AMD et al - how do you develop when people are running around with anaemic integrated GPUs?
As for UT3, it just felt like the same thing I've bought and played before. I know the drill now and I'm bored with it. I always think "Why play this, when I could be playing TF2?".
Respectfully, what's your point? I'm pretty sure this thread was supposed to be about talking about the points Sweeney raised, not about whether UT3 was any good or not.
Personally, I bought the game for the editor, not the game itself - UT3 is the best way to get your hands on Unreal Engine 3 for mod development.
As for UT3, it just felt like the same thing I've bought and played before. I know the drill now and I'm bored with it. I always think "Why play this, when I could be playing TF2?".
Reaper had his own singleplayer campaign, and yet any one of the crew from Team Fortress 2 has more character than he did. And more witty dialogue. And more varied facial expressions too. Well, except maybe the Pyro, but he can play his axe like a guitar, and you know that's gotta count for something.
But Reaper has an intense, pock-marked bump mapped face with detailed decals and specular bumpmapped highlights on his armour that required a tonne of effort to get looking just so, so that makes up for it right?
I guess what I'm trying to say is who drops a bunch of cash on anything without asking a question or two? It would be like buying new tires for your car, they might not be the right size, but they are tires so it should all work out. If anyone ever did this they should have their money taken from them. Regardless, my main gripe here is with Epic not some clueless PC buyer.
Not all games need to be photo-realistic, I have a pretty decent computer and I still play games like fallout and jagged alliance etc. because they were fun, UT eXtreme XX!! just isn't fun anymore. Rehashing the same gamer over and over again finally caught up with them and people didn't buy it. Yet games that had similar game-play but had some tweaks that were cool and fun did sell, so clearly the industry is at fault and not Epic for putting fresh paint on a rundown house and calling it a brand new mansion.
Your personal animosity against Epic has nothing to do with the fact that barely anyone who owns a pc owns a pc that can run games that look like anything a current-gen or even previous-gen system can handle.
The fact that you think the dude at Best Buy or wherever is warning people that they won't be able to play games on their new expensive desktop pretty much proves you're totally divorced from reality.
They aren't just not warning them. Bestbuy and friends are the ones telling your average Joe Consumer that their machine is going to handle those games. From this week's BestBuy ad:
HP® AMD LIVE! Smarter Digital Entertainment AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual-Core Processor 6000+
with
nVIDIA® GeForce™ 6150 SE graphics with DirectX® 10
for
$880
Out of 7 advertised desktops, exactly one has a current-gen GPU, a Radeon 2400XT 256MB on a $1200 machine.
From Circuit City:
"High-end video: This desktop features advanced NVIDIA GeForce 6150 SE graphics with TurboCache, 128MB of dedicated memory (an addition to the main system memory), and up to 1343MB of total available video memory. You'll be ready for more demanding games or video editing."
The first listing for PC Computers -> Desktops -> Purpose -> Gaming at Fry's website shows an $850 machine with:
"Video Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce 6150 SE Graphics with TurboCache with 128MB dedicated graphics memory. "
I was going to make this post, but BubbaT made it for me. The problem is that major electronics stores are selling computers that cost a good chunk of money and sticking them with integrated graphics cards or ancient dedicated cards and then pretending that these games can play games when they really can't play anything much more advanced than a Flash game. Heck, I went onto BestBuy's website and it seemed like half of their "gaming" PCs featured GeForce 8500s which I can't imagine any actual gamer wanting.
As for UT3, it just felt like the same thing I've bought and played before. I know the drill now and I'm bored with it. I always think "Why play this, when I could be playing TF2?".
Respectfully, what's your point? I'm pretty sure this thread was supposed to be about talking about the points Sweeney raised, not about whether UT3 was any good or not.
It just naturally came up as apart of the discussion. UT3 was Epic's latest game after all.
Personally, I bought the game for the editor, not the game itself - UT3 is the best way to get your hands on Unreal Engine 3 for mod development.
So did I, largely. If nothing else I can appreciate the 20 hours worth of tutorials they packed in, that was very impressive. But the game itself wasn't really all that, which is a real shame.
If gaming hardware is going to become part of an integrated solution then stores like Best Buy, et al, need to stop selling shit hardware.
It takes more than just a GPU to make a computer a reliable gaming system. Gaming is probably the most demanding use of retail PCs that is anywhere close to common. Which means OEM computers need to stop having shit PSUs, shit MBs, shit RAM. You don't need performance parts, but you do need reliable parts. Most of the stability issues that aren't completely in the realm of user stupidity can be traced to cheap components. Particularly the power supply.
So an identifiable standard has to be established when it comes to what manufacturers can be used in a PC that is 'Gaming Ready (tm)'. Otherwise, it'll never happen because people like me will never buy a computer that isn't self-built.
This is what MS has already tried to do. The Vista Experience Index is supposed to distill a PC's gaming powerinto a single number rating, allowing an at-a-glance answer to the oft-asked "Can my computer run this?"
Except no hardware companies use it. GPU makers have no idea what CPU you have, and vice versa, so they can't list that buying card X or chip Y will give you a certain VEI score.
And no software companies use it. Even at the official Microsoft Games for Windows site, VEIs aren't listed in the system requirements - including for Vista-required games Halo 2 and Shadowrun.
I built every one of my PCs until the most recent one I purchased from Dell for much cheaper than I could build it.
Upgraded the video, memory, monitor etc
It plays the hell out of COD4, Orange Box, Company of Heroes etc.
With all due respect - what does that matter? :?:
People like you and me who buy machines with gaming in mind from the get-go aren't exactly common.
The way the market is these days, people buy machines for general computing and internet tasks and get into gaming through gateway drugs like Flash-based stuff on Newgrounds or Popcap stuff - and then the gateway drug metaphor breaks down as they can't play anything else without a graphics upgrade (or worse, an entire motherboard replacement because their machine doesn't have PCI Express x16 ports).
The problem Sweeney is talking about is the ripple effect from Intel, NVIDIA, AMD et al - how do you develop when people are running around with anaemic integrated GPUs?
There's what... 1.3 million PCs surveyed and that list looks pretty good to me. You have to consider that it looks like 10k-12k or so of those are servers.
Maybe he's just sad that he doesn't work for Valve
As for UT3, it just felt like the same thing I've bought and played before. I know the drill now and I'm bored with it. I always think "Why play this, when I could be playing TF2?".
Respectfully, what's your point? I'm pretty sure this thread was supposed to be about talking about the points Sweeney raised, not about whether UT3 was any good or not.
It just naturally came up as apart of the discussion. UT3 was Epic's latest game after all.
Fair enough. It just kinda rankles when this kind of thing hits the headlines and instead of talking about the points we pretty much jump straight to a debate about their games (and further still to full-blown ad hominem in some cases).
Personally, I bought the game for the editor, not the game itself - UT3 is the best way to get your hands on Unreal Engine 3 for mod development.
So did I, largely. If nothing else I can appreciate the 20 hours worth of tutorials they packed in, that was very impressive. But the game itself wasn't really all that, which is a real shame.
I thought it was UT99 with a bastardised Quake III / UT2004 / Gears of War aesthetic taken to extremes.
Though strictly speaking, the darkness came in with UT2003 / 2004, with clowns snarling "LIFE IS PAIN, GET OVER IT!" It was as if with iD's temporary absence from competitive shooters, Epic felt the need to ape the dark feel of Quake III.
UT was more fun for me when it was about beautiful people in space killing each other set to decent electronica. ...hmm, I smell a mod idea. ;-)
ihd on
0
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
If gaming hardware is going to become part of an integrated solution then stores like Best Buy, et al, need to stop selling shit hardware.
It takes more than just a GPU to make a computer a reliable gaming system. Gaming is probably the most demanding use of retail PCs that is anywhere close to common. Which means OEM computers need to stop having shit PSUs, shit MBs, shit RAM. You don't need performance parts, but you do need reliable parts. Most of the stability issues that aren't completely in the realm of user stupidity can be traced to cheap components. Particularly the power supply.
So an identifiable standard has to be established when it comes to what manufacturers can be used in a PC that is 'Gaming Ready (tm)'. Otherwise, it'll never happen because people like me will never buy a computer that isn't self-built.
This is what MS has already tried to do. The Vista Experience Index is supposed to distill a PC's gaming powerinto a single number rating, allowing an at-a-glance answer to the oft-asked "Can my computer run this?"
Except no hardware companies use it. GPU makers have no idea what CPU you have, and vice versa, so they can't list that buying card X or chip Y will give you a certain VEI score.
And no software companies use it. Even at the official Microsoft Games for Windows site, VEIs aren't listed in the system requirements - including for Vista-required games Halo 2 and Shadowrun.
Yeah, this is too end-system dependent. The PCGA is actually in place to do this - the only way an out-of-the-box computer gets their seal is if it is made up entirely of parts from an approved manufacturers list and also has a minimum performance capability (Perhaps established by the hardware further by making only certain models of hardware PCGA approved). Then the PCGA mark will mean that this computer will run all current games on the market.
I built every one of my PCs until the most recent one I purchased from Dell for much cheaper than I could build it.
Upgraded the video, memory, monitor etc
It plays the hell out of COD4, Orange Box, Company of Heroes etc.
With all due respect - what does that matter? :?:
People like you and me who buy machines with gaming in mind from the get-go aren't exactly common.
The way the market is these days, people buy machines for general computing and internet tasks and get into gaming through gateway drugs like Flash-based stuff on Newgrounds or Popcap stuff - and then the gateway drug metaphor breaks down as they can't play anything else without a graphics upgrade (or worse, an entire motherboard replacement because their machine doesn't have PCI Express x16 ports).
The problem Sweeney is talking about is the ripple effect from Intel, NVIDIA, AMD et al - how do you develop when people are running around with anaemic integrated GPUs?
There's what... 1.3 million PCs surveyed and that list looks pretty good to me. You have to consider that it looks like 10k-12k or so of those are servers.
Maybe he's just sad that he doesn't work for Valve
Sweeny's complaint is that the average PC isn't equipped to play games. That Valve survey is a survey of computers that are equipped to play games and how good or bad they are. It completely ignores the millions upon millions of PCs that can't play a single Valve game. In short, the Valve survey (though interesting in its own way) is irrelevant to this thread.
I built every one of my PCs until the most recent one I purchased from Dell for much cheaper than I could build it.
Upgraded the video, memory, monitor etc
It plays the hell out of COD4, Orange Box, Company of Heroes etc.
With all due respect - what does that matter? :?:
People like you and me who buy machines with gaming in mind from the get-go aren't exactly common.
The way the market is these days, people buy machines for general computing and internet tasks and get into gaming through gateway drugs like Flash-based stuff on Newgrounds or Popcap stuff - and then the gateway drug metaphor breaks down as they can't play anything else without a graphics upgrade (or worse, an entire motherboard replacement because their machine doesn't have PCI Express x16 ports).
The problem Sweeney is talking about is the ripple effect from Intel, NVIDIA, AMD et al - how do you develop when people are running around with anaemic integrated GPUs?
There's what... 1.3 million PCs surveyed and that list looks pretty good to me. You have to consider that it looks like 10k-12k or so of those are servers.
Maybe he's just sad that he doesn't work for Valve
That's not a balanced survey, though - that's a survey of machines out there that have Steam installed. Those numbers are going to be stacked towards enthusiasts, and significantly so.
edit: Damn, beaten.
If we're generous enough to assume we're talking 1.3 million PCs that are equivalent to or faster than contemporary consoles, we're still stuck with a numbers problem - the Xbox 360 alone has sold in excess of 18 million units worldwide. That's almost 14 to 1 - I still don't think there's a strong economic case here for widespread PC development.
The only ones left in the PC space are those who can cater to every machine out there with casual, 2d-based titles like Bejeweled, and those who have a strong history of PC development.
Posts
I just thought that LOLROFLLMAO JESUS was funny.
I'd probably be really insulted right now if it wasn't so funny.
Let's see a point by point rebuttal, because right now what you are doing is called the straw man fallacy by people who know how to argue. Either that, or just a complete and outright dodging of any real discussion. I'll also take this time to remind you that being stupid is relative; you think I'm stupid because of my post, but I think you are stupid because you did absolutely nothing to support anything and, as a result, totally conformed to the stereotype of braindead internet denizen. So basically, calling anyone stupd won't get anyone anywhere. If you want to debate this, then say something.
Funny you say that.
You think so? I'm trying to remember the last time a game crashed on my system. Oh yeah, it was WoW, a few months ago. About the same time Viva Pinata locked up my 360.
For someone who's agreeing with the idea that PC gaming is dying due to it's exclusive nature, you sure think a lot of people are playing on HDTVs.
This is a marketing gimmick that doesn't actually show the state of the industry. The new GeForce isn't a GF9. It's still an 8000 series. Same chip as the 8600. However, NVidia sees enough people out there who want to stop using integrated and buy a dedicated graphics solution. Says to me that the PC gaming market is doing just fine.
Or have a multi-core solution (X2, Core duo, LOL) with plenty of RAM (2GB for <$100 these days) and not have to have multiple draws on power operating for no good reason.
Interestingly enough, the XBox 360 AND PS3 are loaded up with HTPC type stuff. Raise your hands if your XBox or PS3 is your main source of movie and music playback. I certainly don't know ANYONE that uses their console for all these extras that are already in there. And you want to add more, saying, if you build it, they will come? A console cannot replace a PC anymore than a sports car can replace a half-ton truck.
They aren't just not warning them. Bestbuy and friends are the ones telling your average Joe Consumer that their machine is going to handle those games. From this week's BestBuy ad:
HP® AMD LIVE! Smarter Digital Entertainment AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual-Core Processor 6000+
with
nVIDIA® GeForce™ 6150 SE graphics with DirectX® 10
for
$880
Out of 7 advertised desktops, exactly one has a current-gen GPU, a Radeon 2400XT 256MB on a $1200 machine.
From Circuit City:
"High-end video: This desktop features advanced NVIDIA GeForce 6150 SE graphics with TurboCache, 128MB of dedicated memory (an addition to the main system memory), and up to 1343MB of total available video memory. You'll be ready for more demanding games or video editing."
The first listing for PC Computers -> Desktops -> Purpose -> Gaming at Fry's website shows an $850 machine with:
"Video Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce 6150 SE Graphics with TurboCache with 128MB dedicated graphics memory. "
I use XNA a lot, and no they don't. Some does, most doesn't.
Besides, compiling doesn't mean anything, really. It's all about the binary.
A point by point rebuttal, on the internet, on this forum. You sir are mad, mad I tell you.
These threads usually boil down to attacks against one's brain power rather than a debate about the issues. Most of the time you will run into the individual who will not admit that there is anything wrong with the PC gaming market, and if you say that there is something wrong you have not only insulted the entire PC market, but also the individual in question, his dog, and his mum.
So yeah, good luck to ya on that point by point rebuttal thing.
Does the game run in the first place? That is more the question I am asking. Stability has improved recently, sure.
A computer monitor has higher resolution than a TV screen, okay. If you don't attempt to read any more into what I ACTUALLY wrote, than you would have to admit that a computer monitor is still smaller than most TVs, HD or not.
This is the first product Nvidia has announced since the formation of their PC gaming alliance, that aims to revitalize PC gaming. Why would competitors form an alliance? To save the platform most of their business is tied up in. That says to me that PC gaming is not doing fine.
What?
My 360 is my main source of movie playback because its the only device I have that'll play HD-DVDs, is an upscaling DVD player, and also can watch DivX movies via streaming from my network. I didn't suggest you replace your PC with a console. I suggested people just quit gaming on PCs, hook up their PC pheripherals to a dedicated gaming machine (console), and buy a cheaper PC for productivity, web surfing, etc. Just the money you save on not buying a medium or high end graphics card for your PC can get you a console that may offer a superior, more trouble free gaming experience.
It's OK Epic. If you stop making games for the PC, I am sure someone is going to be there to fill that void just fine. Amazingly a great game doesn't require SLIed GPUs, several gigs of RAM and quad-core processors. A great game does require, ummmm great game play.
and I love it
Additionally, the PS2 was the cheapest DVD player you could buy at the time. People were buying PS2s just to watch movies.
$ony tried to do this again IMO to the XB360, but the XB360's Marketplace and Live has taken care of that easily enough.
You do not get to decide what is superior for everyone else. You can have your preference, but you cannot tell anyone else what is better when both sides have merit.
And good luck getting Microsoft to let you use a mouse and keyboard on the 360. Even Sony allows this for UT3.
OK, whoa, you can stop right there for a start. You want to know why I spent money on my gaming PC? I needed a new PC, and for me it was a choice between either spending a bit more and getting a decent gaming PC, or spending a lot more and getting an HDTV and console. And I'm not interested in an HDTV. But no, you're right, it's just that I've got more money than sense.
As for 'failing miserably at A', it first depends on whether you're talking about the standard store-bough home PC or one that somebody actually bought or put together with PC-gaming in mind. The former I would tend to agree with, the latter, I have an issue with. Now you're right in saying that the vast majority just want a machine that will play games (assuming that was their idea behind getting the PC in the first place, if not, then it's a moot point) and couldn't care less about their hardware specs. In this regard I agree with what Tim Sweeney was saying in the article, PC gaming's entered a weird area here, with the lack of ability to scale between the two sets of hardware being a core issue for developers.
It's something that both the software industry and the hardware industry need to address, because for the past few years they've just been digging themselves into a greater pit. Companies like Ironclad games noted this trend (amongst many others) and decided to deliberately go against it, and it's been largely to their success as a result. Blizzard is following a similar track with Starcraft II, where instead of going for graphical intensity they're trying to reach a greater audience. I think developers are starting to grasp this factor more and more, so it's more becoming the case that the hardware companies need to get their acts together as well.
Meanwhile I've got loads of RL friends who do. Of course, anecdotal evidence doesn't really mean much one way or the other.
As it exists at the moment? I would actually tend to agree with that. The hardware industry has largely runaway with the system specs and the main suppliers aren't exactly keen on making gaming one of the core features of a PC any time soon, in the same way that multimedia functionality became a core capability of the PC a decade ago. I really do agree with Tim Sweeney on a lot of what he said.
No offence, but there's no way that even the first GeForce 9000 is going to be targeted at the everyman, judging by the pricepoints that 'first release' cards of a generation have been put out on. Even the current 8000 generation aren't really priced with casual consumers in mind, except for the ultra-low end models that aren't worth the money that's being asked anyway (this links back to my earlier complaints about the graphics card industry).
I'm going to have to say this is a massive simplification if you're saying that they're cross platform between PC and 360. Leaving that aside, I'm looking at the self-published game Tower of Goo right now, and they didn't need to buy an XNA licence in order to publish on PC. They are publishing later on the Wii though admittedly.
One other thing that you seem to miss is that just because indie game publishing is available on the 360, doesn't make it any less feasible or the games less desirable to run in and of themselves on the PC.
Of course, you're free to ignore the fact that ultimately some games just wouldn't work on a console (such as the aforementioned Sins), but hey, if you're not into those genres, that's fine. I am however, so I'm happy to stick with this lot for the time being.
Both actually. Plus I prefer a clean PC in general.
Largely agree, but I feel a lot of this ties back to what Tim Sweeney was saying in the article.
Except, you know, that it's still available as a gaming platform. As long as PC's exist, games for them will exist. Gaming has never been the central tenet of the home PC, but it's always been one of its functionalities. As such, saying that there's no reason for the PC to continue as a gaming platform, well, you could just as easily say there's no reason for it to continue as a movie platform or a music platform, it certainly can't do either of those better than purely dedicated hardware. And yet, people wouldn't want that functionality removed from the PC. The PC is functionality.
Meanwhile whenever I try and say that the PC gaming industry isn't going to suddenly croak there are nothing but comments about how nobody can possibly succeed because all PC users are pirates and the hardware fails as soon as you sneeze at it as there isn't any possible genre that you'd want a keyboard and mouse for instead of a joypad.
Aren't crass, generalised enough so that it doesn't appear as if I'm making direct ad-hominem ad-hominems attempting to discredit any future debate as merely fanboyish rantings... fun?
I agree with Sakeido, In a perfect world PC's would be similar to consoles where everyone has the same spec and runs every game in the same way. BUT that would make PC's into consoles... PC's didn't start life as gaming rigs, that evolved as people realised what could be achieved with the hardware. Consoles DID start life as gaming machines...
But I think consoles (current gen) are heading towards a future that makes them similar to PCs. There are SO many more things you can do with current gen consoles compared to the old ones. They all have internet, some kind of chat, friend systems... It's (in my mind) a dumbed down version of a PC gaming community (Chat is like mIRC, All the old server browers are built into the games (Old school Gamespy, how I miss ye!) And things like XBLA give you the little niche games that PC gamers are used to)
I can also see what LewieP is saying that PC users want the customisation and flexibility, as this is PART of the PC gaming world. But this is an expensive route, you can buy a 360 for less than the price of the highest spec GPU's. There's gotta be something wrong there?! I think THIS is the problem with PC gaming (if you agree there IS a problem) - The high end is there, but out of reach for so many people, meaning that PC game developers are making games for a very small amount of people at the end of the day. I also think the high end rigs are part of a gaming cult where spec means everything.
A middle ground needs to be struck and I think in the future we will see this with the console market. Surely (VERY losely) an external GPU is kinda like using your PS3 or XBox as a graphics card for your PC's hard drive? I think that's a great thing, then we can all put whatever we want onto our harddrives, and simply use external cards (that everyone can use) to power our games. I think Im saying we need some kind of generic graphics output that is affordable and simple for everyone. But keeping the customisation but in other forms. (I can't quite think of how to keep the customisation, its on the tip of my fingers though!!)
Wouldn't this help game development? Focus on a current gen of GPU for longer, rather than trying to squeeze every little bit of power on GPU's to create graphics in games that are sub-par in terms of gameplay? There's a reason people love things like XBLA, WoW, Maplestory, because it's all about gameplay, not graphics. Some games are ALL about the graphics; that's part of creating an immersive world. I believe a balance needs to be struck. What's limiting on consoles at the moment is the amount of content, with a PC-Console hybrid this may not be such a problem.
I propose to introduce the Straw Man Insult. It is a kind of fallacy where, when one and one's views are endangered, one chooses or resorts to insulting others in the hopes of mitigating the original argument and sowing confusion. Also known as Insult Smoke. Note: This does not apply to the illiterate.
Please also note that I do not wish to take any side in this silly debacle, as we are currently spiralling into the oblivion of countercounters. Do stop.
What? If it didn't run, then it couldn't crash, I guess, but that's a pretty retarded interpretation. I game primarily on my PC. If the games didn't run, then I couldn't be gaming on it, now could I?
Sure, but how many people have a larger screen than about 32 or 37 inch? How many of those are HD? Very few, even today. So most consoles are running on a 480i television that you sit across the room to view. For $100 or so you can get 20"+ high quality LCDs. So yeah, they're smaller, but not to the degree you're making it out to be.
Tell that to the companies making $texas right now who are solely in the PC Market. Valve, Blizzard, etc. Hell, even EA refuses to abandon the PC market (How many consoles is Spore coming to? The DS? Hm.)
All those things you said slow down a computer no longer do so on multi-core machines. In other words, your point is no longer relevant.
A) It's great you are, but again, how many are? The adoption of technophiles is no indicator of actual market feasibility.
wat.
More money than sense? It's bloody well cheaper to buy parts than an off the shelf rig of similar quality, there's a reason places like Memory Express exist. The folks who go in for parts aren't liable to shop at Best Buy for all their wallet raping needs.
Personally, I don't feel the solution is for external, plug in graphics solutions. That makes things easier in a way but only in the sense that you no longer need to take your PC case off, doesn't really help the cost either. You're right that there needs to be some form of in-built, generic graphical capability to the PC which at current isn't available.
When Soundcards firts came out they were largely an extravagance, only really sold to musicians (few) and the hardcore gamers. Eventually however sound functionality became a core feature of what the average user expected their PC to be capable of, to the extent that you could not feasibly sell a store-bought PC today without that core sound functionality. Try telling the customer that they're free to surf the net, write their e-mails, do their tax spreadsheets, but any sound they want has to come out of the PC speaker. Wouldn't work, right?
Similar happened again with multimedia functionality and the CD-ROM drive. If anything, it was an extravagant feature that the average user was never going to make use of. Now it's standard. Heck, now DVD-burners are standard.
If gaming is to become another accepted part of what a PC should functionally be capable of, then there needs to be more of an integrated solution that at the very least meets the core requirements of most modern games. The reason Tim Sweeney is complaining so much about Intel is because he knows that they're not really bothered about that route. When AMD bought ATI I was hopeful for some sort of integrated solution from them, but that hasn't surfaced so far. Factoring in everything else, it wouldn't actually cost too much more than what is currently being provided in terms of processors / motherboards, at a quick guesstimate I'd put the overall increase in cost at about £100 MAX. Heck, even if you take that as the worst case scenario (and £100 more is no laughing matter for anyone trying to sell a PC), it at the very least creates a delimiter between a games capable machine and one that isn't. It would be easy for a sales rep to say "this machine over here is more expensive but it can run most games on the market." All of a sudden, the customer knows what they're getting with their machine.
Not only would such a system make things easier for the companies selling the machines AND for the people buying them, it would also give games companies a set baseline to aim for in terms of hardware capability, whereas at the moment everybody's siomply trying to push the boundaries for no good reason most of the time. With a system like that, you can even still keep and maintain the 'hardcore' gaming market with the standalone graphics cards that'll chew up everything and spit out diamonds.
I mean, if someone wants a PC today, they don't have to worry about whether the sound capability on their motherboard only caters to mono or only stereo sound. Pretty much any PC you pick up today has at least 5.1 as standard now. When was the last time you looked at the back of a box for a PC game and checked whether supported your soundcard? Unless you've got some really specific hardware that most users don't know or care about, that was probably a long, long time ago. Any home user that picks up a PC knows whether it can play movies, and whether it can play music. It should be easy for them to discern whether they can play games too.
That's one solution I have in mind anyway. In general the PC gaming segment of the market right now is in a weird state, pretty much like Tim Sweeney said.
It takes more than just a GPU to make a computer a reliable gaming system. Gaming is probably the most demanding use of retail PCs that is anywhere close to common. Which means OEM computers need to stop having shit PSUs, shit MBs, shit RAM. You don't need performance parts, but you do need reliable parts. Most of the stability issues that aren't completely in the realm of user stupidity can be traced to cheap components. Particularly the power supply.
So an identifiable standard has to be established when it comes to what manufacturers can be used in a PC that is 'Gaming Ready (tm)'. Otherwise, it'll never happen because people like me will never buy a computer that isn't self-built.
Unfortunate, but largely true at the moment. It's one of the reasons why when this whole PCGA business was announced I couldn't help but roll my eyes. I suspect they aren't even going to try to address the core issues, instead maybe running a few ad-campaigns aimed at announcing that they're "here to make a difference" or similar, and then promptly be forgotten about. Most I expect them to actually attempt is locking down the PC hardware with more DRM, and probably fail doing so.
EDIT: Anyway, enough about that.
So how do you guys think Mark Rein is going to try and spin this one?
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
At the end of the day the age-old KBAM vs. controller debate is besides the point - the current state of the installed base makes a pretty strong economic case against graphics-intensive titles on PC. We're stuck playing one, maybe two decent Crysis-esque intensive titles per eighteen-month cycle with horrible, horrible crap the rest of the time - which I guess is why a lot of us spend so much time playing the classics (or talking about playing the classics in Let's Play threads). With the way the demographics are, I don't see the mainstream graphics situation improving till the next Sims game hits.
Mark Rein is probably going nuts right now re: Epic and the PC Gaming Alliance. On the one hand, I think Epic needs to make sure their staff stay on message in light of their commitments; but on the other, I like hearing people in the industry speak their mind.
Upgraded the video, memory, monitor etc
It plays the hell out of COD4, Orange Box, Company of Heroes etc.
On the topic of UT3, well, it didn't do as well as Epic wanted, but I can't really say that I feel it wasn't mainly their fault.
I mean think about it. We're on a hardcore gaming forum right now, it would be hard to say that this forum doesn't contain a large part of the demographic that Epic were hoping would play the game. We're no strangers to long threads discussing games that never made the mainstream, because we're more interested in whether or not the game is actually fun to play and keeps our interests.
And yet, the UT3 thread sank without trace a long time ago, with barely any participation (even from the PS3 buyers), and meanwhile a game like TF2 has it's thread on it's bajillionth incarnation and hosting a large number of photos featuring party hats. That pretty much says all I care to about UT3. I even bought the Limited Edition pack, but ultimately I can't really find anything in there that's really a step up from UT2004. And if UT3 is competing with the established userbase of 2004 without offering anything really new and requiring higher spec PC's when 2004 still looks good, it's probably going to lose. There's a tonne more I could write about UT3, but I don't want to stray too far off topic.
With all due respect - what does that matter? :?:
People like you and me who buy machines with gaming in mind from the get-go aren't exactly common.
The way the market is these days, people buy machines for general computing and internet tasks and get into gaming through gateway drugs like Flash-based stuff on Newgrounds or Popcap stuff - and then the gateway drug metaphor breaks down as they can't play anything else without a graphics upgrade (or worse, an entire motherboard replacement because their machine doesn't have PCI Express x16 ports).
The problem Sweeney is talking about is the ripple effect from Intel, NVIDIA, AMD et al - how do you develop when people are running around with anaemic integrated GPUs?
Respectfully, what's your point? I'm pretty sure this thread was supposed to be about talking about the points Sweeney raised, not about whether UT3 was any good or not.
Personally, I bought the game for the editor, not the game itself - UT3 is the best way to get your hands on Unreal Engine 3 for mod development.
Reaper had his own singleplayer campaign, and yet any one of the crew from Team Fortress 2 has more character than he did. And more witty dialogue. And more varied facial expressions too. Well, except maybe the Pyro, but he can play his axe like a guitar, and you know that's gotta count for something.
But Reaper has an intense, pock-marked bump mapped face with detailed decals and specular bumpmapped highlights on his armour that required a tonne of effort to get looking just so, so that makes up for it right?
Right?
I was going to make this post, but BubbaT made it for me. The problem is that major electronics stores are selling computers that cost a good chunk of money and sticking them with integrated graphics cards or ancient dedicated cards and then pretending that these games can play games when they really can't play anything much more advanced than a Flash game. Heck, I went onto BestBuy's website and it seemed like half of their "gaming" PCs featured GeForce 8500s which I can't imagine any actual gamer wanting.
Zeboyd Games Development Blog
Steam ID : rwb36, Twitter : Werezompire, Facebook : Zeboyd Games
It just naturally came up as apart of the discussion. UT3 was Epic's latest game after all.
So did I, largely. If nothing else I can appreciate the 20 hours worth of tutorials they packed in, that was very impressive. But the game itself wasn't really all that, which is a real shame.
This is what MS has already tried to do. The Vista Experience Index is supposed to distill a PC's gaming powerinto a single number rating, allowing an at-a-glance answer to the oft-asked "Can my computer run this?"
Except no hardware companies use it. GPU makers have no idea what CPU you have, and vice versa, so they can't list that buying card X or chip Y will give you a certain VEI score.
And no software companies use it. Even at the official Microsoft Games for Windows site, VEIs aren't listed in the system requirements - including for Vista-required games Halo 2 and Shadowrun.
I think the dude is a bit... well... crazy
There's what... 1.3 million PCs surveyed and that list looks pretty good to me. You have to consider that it looks like 10k-12k or so of those are servers.
Maybe he's just sad that he doesn't work for Valve
Fair enough. It just kinda rankles when this kind of thing hits the headlines and instead of talking about the points we pretty much jump straight to a debate about their games (and further still to full-blown ad hominem in some cases).
I thought it was UT99 with a bastardised Quake III / UT2004 / Gears of War aesthetic taken to extremes.
Though strictly speaking, the darkness came in with UT2003 / 2004, with clowns snarling "LIFE IS PAIN, GET OVER IT!" It was as if with iD's temporary absence from competitive shooters, Epic felt the need to ape the dark feel of Quake III.
UT was more fun for me when it was about beautiful people in space killing each other set to decent electronica. ...hmm, I smell a mod idea. ;-)
Yeah, this is too end-system dependent. The PCGA is actually in place to do this - the only way an out-of-the-box computer gets their seal is if it is made up entirely of parts from an approved manufacturers list and also has a minimum performance capability (Perhaps established by the hardware further by making only certain models of hardware PCGA approved). Then the PCGA mark will mean that this computer will run all current games on the market.
Sweeny's complaint is that the average PC isn't equipped to play games. That Valve survey is a survey of computers that are equipped to play games and how good or bad they are. It completely ignores the millions upon millions of PCs that can't play a single Valve game. In short, the Valve survey (though interesting in its own way) is irrelevant to this thread.
Zeboyd Games Development Blog
Steam ID : rwb36, Twitter : Werezompire, Facebook : Zeboyd Games
That's not a balanced survey, though - that's a survey of machines out there that have Steam installed. Those numbers are going to be stacked towards enthusiasts, and significantly so.
edit: Damn, beaten.
If we're generous enough to assume we're talking 1.3 million PCs that are equivalent to or faster than contemporary consoles, we're still stuck with a numbers problem - the Xbox 360 alone has sold in excess of 18 million units worldwide. That's almost 14 to 1 - I still don't think there's a strong economic case here for widespread PC development.
The only ones left in the PC space are those who can cater to every machine out there with casual, 2d-based titles like Bejeweled, and those who have a strong history of PC development.