Epic: Intel ruins PC gaming

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Intel is after the most profitable market they can sell product to.
Thats the average family who go to walmart, bestbuy , and buy a pc because they want email, internet, office, myspace and youtube.
Those type of families do not even care about pc gaming, they buy consoles for that.

The average family does not want to know what a driver is.
They don't want to have to understand the difference between a 8800GS and 8800GT.
All they want is to be able to buy the game and play it.


They look at the box of a pc game in the store and maybe buy it.
They come home install it and find it runs like crap.
They quit pc gaming.

That scenario happens every day.


If pc gaming is to thrive they need to develop a system like the console.
Where you come home , put in the disc and play.
No disabling anti-virus, updating drivers, installing updates, configuring bios.


Want companies like intel to make chips for gaming ? Or more developers to make more pc exclusive titles ?
Show them how they will recoup their investment + profit
If you can't do that your just pissing in the wind .

How about they show me game worth playing and plunking down my hard earned cash to play first? Sorry but they are the ones selling the product not the consumer. If they want our money then they better put out games that don't suck or are not just mindless rehashes with improved graphics. EPIC is just a whining cry baby. They need to face the fact that they have run out of ideas and their Unreal series is just plain stale.

As for gaming and it's hardware needs goes nothing has really changed that much. In fact the only real big change is that now crappy games are being released with better graphics in hopes of hooking idiots who think that graphics = King over actual enthralling and deep game play. Sorry but that only works on the shallow and dumb people in the gaming community. If a developer wants to price themselves out of a PC gamers reach then they are going to screw themselves over if their game has mediocre or horrid game play elements. Don't get me wrong I like fancy graphics but not if you force me to play a game in a slide show mode with horrible game play elements. Do all of us gamers a favor and why don't YOU EPIC and supporters buy (upgrade to) a clue!

 

[BlueAcolyte]

The new 780G chipset from AMD doesn't suck... Effectively a 2400PRO smashed onto the north bridge. Anyone seen these in pre-built systems yet?
Nvidia also has a GeForce 8200 coming out...

Perhaps these will light a fire under Intel's ass?

I do agree that this is a problem... Most consumers probably don't know Nvidia and ATi exist. But the smart dev would have adapted to it instead... Better scalability.

 

[Inspector Jihad]

wont source games play on most integrated graphic cards? i think like BlueAcolyte said, scalability lets developers target all parts of the market.

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad
wont source games play on most integrated graphic cards? i think like BlueAcolyte said, scalability lets developers target all parts of the market.

Source games also look dated. The people here can't make up their minds what the hell they want. Just go over to the SCII thread and look at all the whiney bitching about how the game doesn't look good enough. So when it comes to console bashing or a new PC game, suddenly graphics become a key bullet point. But when Epic says that IGP sucks, suddenly graphics aren't so important and devs simply need to make scalable engines.

 

[IL2SturmovikPilot]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad
wont source games play on most integrated graphic cards? i think like BlueAcolyte said, scalability lets developers target all parts of the market.

Source games also look dated. The people here can't make up their minds what the hell they want. Just go over to the SCII thread and look at all the whiney bitching about how the game doesn't look good enough. So when it comes to console bashing or a new PC game, suddenly graphics become a key bullet point. But when Epic says that IGP sucks, suddenly graphics aren't so important and devs simply need to make scalable engines.

Contradiction owns the world

And yes,Source engine games will run on modern intergrated graphics,not looking good,but should be playable.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: Thraxen The people here can't make up their minds what the hell they want. Just go over to the SCII thread and look at all the whiney bitching about how the game doesn't look good enough. So when it comes to console bashing or a new PC game, suddenly graphics become a key bullet point. But when Epic says that IGP sucks, suddenly graphics aren't so important and devs simply need to make scalable engines.

There are many people active in the PC Gaming subforum, I would imagine with such a sizable number of people here that one could find varying viewpoints about any particular aspect of PC Gaming. Finding individual posters backing conflicting view points in separate threads would be better grounds for hypocrisy.

 

[skace]

Personally, I've always felt the Intel IG solutions have been deceptive at best. Intel really doesn't belong in that arena anymore, maybe back in the days when they only had to supply 2D and nothing else. They should have left when they realized the game had changed. This really isn't a new argument by any stretch of the imagination though.

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: skace
Personally, I've always felt the Intel IG solutions have been deceptive at best. Intel really doesn't belong in that arena anymore, maybe back in the days when they only had to supply 2D and nothing else. They should have left when they realized the game had changed. This really isn't a new argument by any stretch of the imagination though.

Doesn't Intel have a new IGP in the pipeline to compete with the NF8200 and the 780G?

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: chizow
He's right though, 60% of new PCs can't run the games that are supposed to be a reason to buy a new PC if you're interested in gaming. I'm pretty sure I saw a nearly identical quote about "games always working in the past" from a much more credible source (Carmack). Sure there's examples of games being incredibly successful without having top-notch graphics, but those aren't the games you'd be buying a new PC for in the first place. Look at the top 2 selling PC games over the last few years (WOW and Sims 2) and you'll see they're far from demanding or cuttting edge in graphics, but the fact they cater to a larger user-base is certainly an integral part of their success.

so is this 60% of all PCs made or where is this number coming from? I know lots of people who want or buy new PCs that have no interest in gaming.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: chizow
He's right though, 60% of new PCs can't run the games that are supposed to be a reason to buy a new PC if you're interested in gaming. I'm pretty sure I saw a nearly identical quote about "games always working in the past" from a much more credible source (Carmack). Sure there's examples of games being incredibly successful without having top-notch graphics, but those aren't the games you'd be buying a new PC for in the first place. Look at the top 2 selling PC games over the last few years (WOW and Sims 2) and you'll see they're far from demanding or cuttting edge in graphics, but the fact they cater to a larger user-base is certainly an integral part of their success.

so is this 60% of all PCs made or where is this number coming from? I know lots of people who want or buy new PCs that have no interest in gaming.

This was sort of brought up in the other thread. I think the game example used was bioshock. It was decided that it was heavily pirated on the PC because their were X amount of PCs out there and the game only sold to 10% or them or something. Which is retarded. Tons of PCs aren't ever used for games, so they were never part of the target market. Tons of other ones were to old and shitty to play a game like bioshock, which requires a modern and beefy graphics card. And yes, there were some pirates mixed in there.

I think part of the developers problem is they thing the entire install base of PCs is their demographic. But they forget if they want that entire install base they'll have to build to the lowest common denominator to get them all. Or they'll have to build a scalable engine to get most. Or they'll have to let a lot of them go if they want to be bleeding edge.

I think we see some of these companies complaining a lot because it costs a lot to do bleeding edge stuff, and they have pie in the sky expectations about who can even use the end product. This is what they've always done, but the market has changed on them.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: PhatoseAlpha
Well, like it or not, he does actually have a point. These are graphics 'adapters' that are so god-awful that they can't even run the new windows GUI, and Intel basically cajoled Microsoft into changing it's regulations. They're utter and complete garbage. and most of the time they flat out don't work. I have trouble believing any internet active PC gamer hasn't had plenty of encounters with poor schmucks trying to get some game to run on one of those decelerators.

A guy buys a game, and it runs, but not well, he might see a reason to upgrade. A guy buys a game and it does not run at all, he's frustrated - and given that he's already out $50 given the draconian return policy on PC software that is standard today, he certainly ain't looking to spend more money. And then he looks at the XBox in the corner, where the game just works.....and we know what happens. It's happening all around us.

I agree, he does have a point, but the reality is that he's bitching just to bitch.

There are smash hits in PC gaming all the time. It seems that if a developer makes a game and it flops, they immediately start bitching and lamenting the downfall of PC gaming (usually referring to piracy as this huge force that killed their sales, but now Sweeney is complaining about Intel not supplying good on-board graphics).

I'm sorry that you made a shitty game and that it didn't sell well. They can't all be winners. Pick your ass back up and try again. Quit your bitching.

Has anyone heard of these people who supposedly by a PC with on-board graphics and a 250W power supply and then purchase COD4 thinking it'll run great? Where are these morons? The minimum system requirements are printed right on the box.

I think it's pretty difficult to assume that consumers are buying budget PCs with the intent of playing games. Every PC retailer I've encountered has made it abundantly clear that you should buy the biggest and best PC possible if you want to play games (even if you don't necessarily need a quad-core processor, they may try to push it on you). Salesman = commission pay = more money in his pocket if you sells you a better PC as opposed to a budget PC. No salesman in his right mind will sell you a budget PC if you even have the slightest inclination for gaming.

This whole article is a load of bull. Yeah, Intel sucks for putting crappy integrated graphics on their motherboards. It's true. However, that's not the reason that your game flopped.

I agree completely. Even though it is no mystery that the average user doesn't know dick about building a gaming rig, one thing is for certain. They do know how to go to Dell's website and buy a computer. On that site, Dell makes it abundantly clear which systems are setup for gaming using their default preselected hardware configs. Granted, those rigs may not play Crysis at max but that is ok. The customers who demand such performance will most likely know what they need to do to get it.

From a business stand point, Sweeney needs to suck it up and face the challenge which PC game developers have faced for so many years now. They need to properly create a game which allows the user to lower the graphics settings considerably while still allowing the game to look pretty enough and output good enough performance even when using Intel integrated graphics hardware.

This problem is not new at all. He should know that. Of course, that is assuming that this "problem" actually has much to do with why his games did not sell as well as he hoped.


Intel, and other hardware companies for that matter, are not going to stop selling this lower end hardware because it is cheaper and not every PC is purchased with the intent of playing games. If anyone wished to try and attack this issue for the sake of the gaming industry, then the only true solution would be to make the fact that this hardware does not play games well a kind of common knowledge. If the public understands that it won't play games well then they will not buy it for games. Now, how one makes it more common knowledge, I have no idea.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: chizow
He's right though, 60% of new PCs can't run the games that are supposed to be a reason to buy a new PC if you're interested in gaming. I'm pretty sure I saw a nearly identical quote about "games always working in the past" from a much more credible source (Carmack). Sure there's examples of games being incredibly successful without having top-notch graphics, but those aren't the games you'd be buying a new PC for in the first place. Look at the top 2 selling PC games over the last few years (WOW and Sims 2) and you'll see they're far from demanding or cuttting edge in graphics, but the fact they cater to a larger user-base is certainly an integral part of their success.

so is this 60% of all PCs made or where is this number coming from? I know lots of people who want or buy new PCs that have no interest in gaming.

I pulled it from the OP quote, but I'd guess its derived from some type of market research like Intel's + AMD/NV's integrated solutions. Intel's GPU market share is something like 40%, so say a 10% contribution from NV and AMD (33% and 50% of their total GPU share, respectively) for integrated GPUs that don't meet some arbitrary gaming requirements, say DX9 and SM3.0 etc.

On a sidenote, MS is getting hit with a class action law suit over this exact issue applied to a different application, Vista itself. Vista was sold with many new PCs with the "Designed for Windows Vista" sticker and certification when many of the PCs couldn't even run key features like Aero Glass. Internal memos and e-mails from MS execs admitted to caving in to Intel by changing their certification requirements in an effort to help Intel meet their quarterly projections. Considering many new PCs can't even run the 3D visuals in Microsoft's latest OS, its no surprise they're not suited for gaming either.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
[Doesn't Intel have a new IGP in the pipeline to compete with the NF8200 and the 780G?

Beats me, but I hope not, it would probably end up another paper launch.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: RandomFool
I think the point is that PC games either have to code for the lowest common denominator or ignore a large portion of thier userbase. I pretty much stopped playing PC games because I didn't have money to upgrade and my PC couldn't run the newer stuff very well. Consoles don't have that problem. I'd love to see Intel release a competent IGP.

that argument has never made any sense. if youre going to own a $400-$500 computer anyway then why not spend $100 on a graphics card. pc games are cheaper and go on sale a lot more often than console games. in the end its actually cheaper to play pc games if you do it right.

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: toyota
that argument has never made any sense. if youre going to own a $400-$500 computer anyway then why not spend $100 on a graphics card. pc games are cheaper and go on sale a lot more often than console games. in the end its actually cheaper to play pc games if you do it right.

Depends... I've personally never bought any $100 PC video cards because I've never seen any worth a damn for current games. And, of course, PC gamers always seem to overlook the fact that console games can be rented. That basically destroys the PC-games-are-cheaper argument. Then there are other factors like whether or not you have PCIe slots and such. It can quickly become more expensive than simply buying a new card.

 

[toyota]

double post?

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: toyota
that argument has never made any sense. if youre going to own a $400-$500 computer anyway then why not spend $100 on a graphics card. pc games are cheaper and go on sale a lot more often than console games. in the end its actually cheaper to play pc games if you do it right.

Depends... I've personally never bought any $100 PC video cards because I've never seen any worth a damn for current games. And, of course, PC gamers always seem to overlook the fact that console games can be rented. That basically destroys the PC-games-are-cheaper argument. Then there are other factors like whether or not you have PCIe slots and such. It can quickly become more expensive than simply buying a new card.

yeah, and how much does it cost to rent a game? last time i checked, it was like $8-9 at Blockbuster.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: toyota
that argument has never made any sense. if youre going to own a $400-$500 computer anyway then why not spend $100 on a graphics card. pc games are cheaper and go on sale a lot more often than console games. in the end its actually cheaper to play pc games if you do it right.

Depends... I've personally never bought any $100 PC video cards because I've never seen any worth a damn for current games. And, of course, PC gamers always seem to overlook the fact that console games can be rented. That basically destroys the PC-games-are-cheaper argument. Then there are other factors like whether or not you have PCIe slots and such. It can quickly become more expensive than simply buying a new card.

I have never bought a cheap pc that didnt have an agp or pci-e slot. if someone isnt educated enough to buy a comp that has more than a pci slot then they need to stick to consoles. also an 8600gt no matter what you think of it will play every modern game at 1024x768 or 1280x1024. Crysis and COJ DX10 are the only games that I cant run on maximum settings.

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: pontifex
yeah, and how much does it cost to rent a game? last time i checked, it was like $8-9 at Blockbuster.

Are you kidding? No way. The best bet is to use a service like Gamefly. The price of a single $20 budget PC game can nearly pay for the 2-out-at-once monthly fee for Gamefly. You can could go reasonably go through 6-8 games in a month for the same price. Depends on how many games you play and what type. I've personally found the service to be pretty good since I tend to play a lot of games. If you intend to spend a lot of time playing MP you are still likely better off buying, but many games are a once through type of deal. Besides, there are lot more places to rent than just Blockbuster anyway. Also, people tend to forget there is an enourmous market for used console games. I really don't think the game prices for PC vs Console are big deal unless you are the type of person that must own every game on release day. If you are willing to rent or wait for games to hit the used market, you can easily get out just as cheap or cheaper than you can with PC games.

Originally posted by: toyota
I have never bought a cheap pc that didnt have an agp or pci-e slot. if someone isnt educated enough to buy a comp that has more than a pci slot then they need to stick to consoles. also an 8600gt no matter what you think of it will play every modern game at 1024x768 or 1280x1024. Crysis and COJ DX10 are the only games that I cant run on maximum settings.

Well, AGP cards are on their way out now and most decent cards are now PCIe. You are also talking from the stand point of having just bought a new PC. That doesn't apply to people with aging PCs that are now finding they can't run newer games. At some point you do reach the point where playing newer games means a new mobo... which in turn may require other new hardware and possibly a complete OS reinstall. But I guess that's getting into other debates beyond simple hardware pricing. BTW, I actually have an 8600 that I used as a stand-in when I had to RMA my new 8800GT. I was able to fire up UT3 and play it, but it looked like crap

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

I know we all tend to be geeks/nerds here but, after one bad experience buying a game, doesn't everyone read the box/website to find out what the minimum hardware requirements are? I mean seriously, how many people can afford to keep dishing out $50 to $60 without checking?

 

[Azeroth101]

Originally posted by: Soviet
Blah blah epic sucks.

Sins of a solar empire runs fine on crap pc's so does half life 2. What the heck is this guy on!

http://pc.ign.com/articles/858/858653p1.html
For future refrence.....

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

Originally posted by: Eeezee
I agree, he does have a point, but the reality is that he's bitching just to bitch.

There are smash hits in PC gaming all the time. It seems that if a developer makes a game and it flops, they immediately start bitching and lamenting the downfall of PC gaming (usually referring to piracy as this huge force that killed their sales, but now Sweeney is complaining about Intel not supplying good on-board graphics).

I'm sorry that you made a shitty game and that it didn't sell well. They can't all be winners. Pick your ass back up and try again. Quit your bitching.

Has anyone heard of these people who supposedly by a PC with on-board graphics and a 250W power supply and then purchase COD4 thinking it'll run great? Where are these morons? The minimum system requirements are printed right on the box.

I think it's pretty difficult to assume that consumers are buying budget PCs with the intent of playing games. Every PC retailer I've encountered has made it abundantly clear that you should buy the biggest and best PC possible if you want to play games (even if you don't necessarily need a quad-core processor, they may try to push it on you). Salesman = commission pay = more money in his pocket if you sells you a better PC as opposed to a budget PC. No salesman in his right mind will sell you a budget PC if you even have the slightest inclination for gaming.

This whole article is a load of bull. Yeah, Intel sucks for putting crappy integrated graphics on their motherboards. It's true. However, that's not the reason that your game flopped.

You ever been to the gamefaqs forums? That's where those morons are. In vast herds, like buffalo in the west in the 1700s.

 

[IL2SturmovikPilot]

Originally posted by: PhatoseAlpha

Originally posted by: Eeezee
I agree, he does have a point, but the reality is that he's bitching just to bitch.

There are smash hits in PC gaming all the time. It seems that if a developer makes a game and it flops, they immediately start bitching and lamenting the downfall of PC gaming (usually referring to piracy as this huge force that killed their sales, but now Sweeney is complaining about Intel not supplying good on-board graphics).

I'm sorry that you made a shitty game and that it didn't sell well. They can't all be winners. Pick your ass back up and try again. Quit your bitching.

Has anyone heard of these people who supposedly by a PC with on-board graphics and a 250W power supply and then purchase COD4 thinking it'll run great? Where are these morons? The minimum system requirements are printed right on the box.

I think it's pretty difficult to assume that consumers are buying budget PCs with the intent of playing games. Every PC retailer I've encountered has made it abundantly clear that you should buy the biggest and best PC possible if you want to play games (even if you don't necessarily need a quad-core processor, they may try to push it on you). Salesman = commission pay = more money in his pocket if you sells you a better PC as opposed to a budget PC. No salesman in his right mind will sell you a budget PC if you even have the slightest inclination for gaming.

This whole article is a load of bull. Yeah, Intel sucks for putting crappy integrated graphics on their motherboards. It's true. However, that's not the reason that your game flopped.

You ever been to the gamefaqs forums? That's where those morons are. In vast herds, like buffalo in the west in the 1700s.

Do they compare to the guys on System Wars on Gamespot?

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

I'm pretty sure that they're the same guys.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante

Originally posted by: jjones
Actually, the true culprit is the PC industry as a whole. Face it, the average PC user doesn't need anything but integrated graphics to run their PC.

But what if you could buy a gaming card and just push it into a premade slot on your PC. No opening the case, no need to have a tech do it for you. The PC came with a slot accessible on the outside of the computer that you just take off the cover and plug in your new gaming card. How easy would it be for the average schmuck to game on their PC then?

It's amazing how behind the times the typical computer build is. Everything thing on the computer should be modular, snap in, and easily handled by the most ignorant of PC users. Able to be done without ever cracking the case. It's not hard to build a computer, but it's way harder than it needs to be considering how far we've come at this stage of the game.

Why is the computer still being built from the inside out? Why do I have to open the case and mess with cables if the only thing I'm doing is replacing a hard drive? All I should have to do is push the hard drive into a slot accessible on the outside of the case. The basic computer construction has not changed in more than 20 years. This is sad.

Wow, that's a really good idea. You could actually have a very slim case, with the motherboard being the front face with some plastic stuff over it. Then you can just plug stuff into the right slots, all pre-wired. You could even just stick a processor into the front.

imagine how easy it would be for your average idiot to wreck it by spilling something, knocking the card, etc. the case provides protection for all of the components.

I disagree. If everything is in a rectangular shaped slot (like PCMCIA, Expresscard, etc), it will be safe, even from spills.

What isn't safe is to have to open your case, pull cards and crap out, etc etc. Every time you work inside your case, you risk scratching your motherboard with a screwdriver, hitting a capacitor with your hand, bending a hard drive pin, breaking the poorly designed SATA connectors, discharge static etc.

When I dismantled my system to move to a new case, I dropped a thumbscrew on my motherboard. Then when it wouldn't boot up, I was afraid that the thumbscrew damaged a teeny tiny trace on the motherboard, which definately possible. It turned out to be the hard drive boot order set up in the BIOS, but there I have no way of knowing whether I did damage the mobo.

Then the problem is, even if you do cause damage to your hardware, it's not necessarily apparent. My HP laptop manual even warns about static damage, and says that even if the system works, there could be invisible errors. Why should, for example, a RAM stick even have the possibility of damage this way? Encase it in metal or plastic. Remember those old Seagate hard drives with the Seashield? All hardware should be like that.