"Don't kid yourself, folks -- you're gonna see more crappy, cheap, I-wish-I-hadn't-bought-it gimmicks basee around that controller..." -- Mark Reign speaking on Nintendo's "Revolution" controller in 2005.

He deserves what's coming to him. Let there be integration.

I for one LIKE having integrated video on my motherboard, despite my being a gamer. Just because I have it doesn't mean I can't have an independent video card. OnBoard video provides a nice, convenient backup in case my video card dies (which has happened all too often to me (both ATI and nVIDIA). With the Onboard I can at least still get work done rather then being SOL.

Dude, I remember jill of the jungle, that game used to be the shiznit. Funny how when your little, graphics never really came into mind as much as if the game was fun or not

Oh boy, another day of Mark Rein sounding like an idiot. First of all, why would you blame Intel for the Integrated Graphics Cards? They are merely providing a service for their clients; PC manufacturers. Doesn't the blame lie more on the Dell's and HP's of the world for utilizing an on-board solution instead of a dedicated graphics cards?

Also, on-board graphics cards were around before Intel got into the video market AND almost every one I worked with could be disabled and replaced with a regular PCI, AGP, or PCI-Express card, based on your motherboard. So it's not as if a consumer cannot upgrade to a better card. Myself included since the on-board Intel card on my HP/Compaq computer wasn't good enough to play Oblivion and I had to buy an NVidia 6600 instead.

Of course, Mark Rein's company makes middleware. They profit off having complicated hardware and providing an engine that makes it easier for game designers to build games, so to say his opinion is biased wouldn't be putting it lightly.

I'll agree, in my opinion the Intel on-board graphics solution sucks, but I'd say that of just about any integrated graphics card. However considering how pro-Microsoft(and remember the 360 now uses a Non-Intel chip) Rein's starting to sound like he's being paid by them to spew distorted information, rather than truly spreading good knowledge to the public and to Epic's investors. And even with Microsoft backing me, I wouldn't want to start a fight with the behemoth that Intel is.

Buh.

Those figures might be true. But c'mon Mark, think for a minute!
Most of those integrated graphics chips go to business users. Your average company doesn't need anything more than standard 2D graphics on their PCs.

Another huge chunk of them go to lower-end users that have no intention of ever playing games.


Higher powered graphics cards cost money. Dell and HP can't make a $500 laptop or $300 desktop if they're going to include an expensive graphics card. So, for people that will never play games, integrated graphics makes PERFECT DAMN SENSE!


In any case Tom's Hardware claims that, in 2005, Intel held 43.7% of the market. A far cry from Mark's claims.

But it wouldn't be the first time I thought Mark made short-sighted, Epic-biased claims that didn't make too much sense.

In any case Intel claims a $7 cost per unit. Which is good for cheap PCs that will never game. And, let's be honest, these integrated chips are going into PCs that lack the RAM or the processor for gaming, too. It's not like someone is getting a middle-of-the-line PC with integrated graphics.

And, lastly, there's already been rumblings about Intel dropping this altogether, as it seems these chips will not support Vista properly. I had thought they announced this, but the only mention I see is from The Inquirer.



Mark just seems way out of line here. Why make businesses and people that will never play games pay for a games-capable system? That's akin to Sony making people that will never play blu-ray movies pay for a blu-ray player for gaming...

Intel provides a cheap solution for what clearly is the majority of the PC user population. Most people don't use their PC for games and don't feel the need to purchase a $10,000+ PC to do so. If a company is unable to adapt to the market, then you should be in financial trouble. You can tier your company to address a part of the market that isn't graphically oriented, instead of trying to drag them up to where you think they should be. My two cents.

You can't put on the shoulders of Intel the weight of the graphical evolution. The overal PC price has fallen during the last 2 years, due in part because of the cheap video chips installed. The price could be even lower if, instead of a 180 GB drive, you put a 80 GB drive, well enough for 90% of the population.

It's the responsability of the gamer to gear him up - Intel is only giving basic video functionalities.

So it's Intel's fault, and not the game developers' for refusing to create games for anything but the most high-end hardware? Hmm.

I'm not sure I understand his logic. There are several logical arguements that can be made against his.

1. People who want to play the latest and greatest PC games don't buy integrated graphics.

2. People who do buy integrated graphics chips do so either because they do not plan on playing games often, or they do it because they don't know any better. (I'm guessing the latter is his arguement).

3. If a person who bought an integrated chip without knowing went and bought a "next-gen" PC game (which, btw, is a completely rediculous term in the PC gaming world for obvious reasons. Right now there are dozens of 'generations' of hardware on the market all communicating and playing with each other), he could get a graphics card that fulfills the minimum requirements for even the most demanding game for $75 or less (See: http://tinyurl.com/qpw42), which is just barely more than the game itself.

4. Suggesting a non-competitor vendor who is only peripherally related to your enthusiast market is hurting your share by selling to non-enthusiast customers is absolutely rediculous. Perhaps Intel should only make $300 graphics chips that must be included in every computer? That way your 85 year old gramma can play F.E.A.R. before asking you how to send a picture for the fortieth time.

All in all, that was the most absurd thing I've read this morning.

Most anyone who games is not using "integrated graphics chips" they are used in budget PC's and corporate systems. Cripes, even my 2 year old laptop has a mobility 9800 256mb, and a HT P4. How about making a game other than Unreal? (I will still buy 2007, just for the Physx support, gotta justify my card somehow) If epic fears consoles so much, then why make the most anticipated game for 360? You would think Mark Rein is the god of PvP with the amount of sh1t he talks.

What a tool. Most users don't care about 3D graphics, so they buy computers with cheaper graphics cards. A decent graphics card is going to cost 20-40% of the entire price of most PCs. He can't blame Intel for providing what the market wants. Why doesn't he go produce some games good enough that "average" consumers want to buy the hardware to play them.
I think for many gamers beyond the Popcap type, a games console is all they want or need anyway.

As much as I dislike Intel, I disagree with Mark. People want a choice and if people want to game, they will purchase a graphic card.

What Intel and other mobo manufactures are doing by providing integrated graphics are so people can enjoy reasonable light 3D and 2D applications straight out of the box.

It is pointless (and enviromentally unfriendly) to include graphic accelerators in budget priced mobos if your average dad or mum isn't going to use them.

And as Wedge said, it does provide a nice backup if your graphic accelerator dies.

Well, at least he wasn't saying Nintendo was killing gaming this time around.

As childish as Mark is, he has a point with the integrated graphics. When the Macbook Pro line came out, people were encouraged to see a decent integrated video card in the machine. But the real bread and butter is the Macbook, which was released with one of the weakest Intel integrated cards ever. Various forums were all spazing out if they could play WOW and DOOM and whatnot, or how Oblivion will look. It's really too bad that the card is barely passable for any platform these days. Consumers are better off paying the extra $100 for the ATI and nVidia solutions.

number 10, I gotta disagree.. a 'decent' graphics card can be had for less than a 100 bucks.. which I suppose is %20 of a $500 PC.. but I don't think that's what you meant.

Last Gen graphics cards (which are still less than a year old) fall in price incredibly quickly. Hell, you can get a 6800GT for $125 if you look hard enough.

Another question: How often do you change graphics cards? Not just for #10.. for everyone.

"which I suppose is %20 of a $500 PC.. but I don't think that's what you meant."

I think that is what he meant. In the US, most PCs sold are very cheap.



"How often do you change graphics cards?"

When I change PCs. So 2-3 years. I only remember switching graphics cards without switching PCs twice. Once was when I got my old Canopus Pure 3D. The other time was when I ordered a computer for work with a 9800 Pro in it, brought the 9800 Pro home and used the integrated card at work. That was a good day.



It's worth pointing out that desktops with integrated chips usually also have PCI-E slots. So, if someone accidentally buys a non-gaming PC, they can upgrade the graphics card. But usually not the processor, at least not easily. And, like I said, the processors on systems with integrated chips are usually not up to Rein's standards, either.

You can't blame the chipmaker for consumer disinterest. Like the quote said, "It's the economy, stupid." Intel is following commercial demand, and consumers largely don't demand nice graphics cards. Next-gen gaming is obviously not a priority for most people buying computers.

Here's an idea-- why not go along with them and *gasp* follow what consumers can and will support? Make games that will run well on integrated chips, and advance in areas like AI (finally) and design, since processor power only increases. What shows up onscreen is not the only way gaming can move forward.

And those questions are patently ridiculous. The utter failure of FFXI (the most successful console MMO, as far as I know) compared to World of Warcraft or even Guild Wars should put to rest the question of whether computer MMOs are in any immediate danger.

EDIT: Those first two questions, anyway. All I can say for the others is to follow the money.

He should probably make games for integrated graphics cards if he wants to sell his games to those people. Who is he to declare that general computer component manufacturers should change what they're doing to suit his highly specialized software's needs?

Intel might not be _killing_ PC gaming per se, but they do make it a pain in the ass for graphics software developers (like myself). I don't think you guys realize that it's not just a performance issue - the integrated Intel graphics cards out there simply aren't up to par compatibility-wise with other cards. At my company, we have to keep writing special cases in certain sections of the graphics code because the Intel hardware (or maybe the driver?) is crap. Not only is Intel slowing down development by forcing software to work around the various compatibility issues, they're also causing people to blame software for issues caused by the hardware.

I don't doubt his integrated graphics figures - almost every customer we deal with seems to have an integrated Intel card, and it's a pain convincing them to upgrade. If Intel hadn't created their shitty integrated solutions, the computer would already contain a better-supported ATI or NVIDIA card.

Activision seems as one developer looking to abandoning the PC platform.

Call of Duty 3 console exclusive. First hint.

Sorry but the notion that Intel is killing PC gaming is ridiculous. Perhaps Mark should be investing more effort in gameplay than graphics.

It's stupid to blame Intel.It's like blaming ATI and NVIDIA for creating extreme SLI setups that support advanced 3D gaming.
I think that they are worried that if they create game X for platform X,there might not be enough people with the required hardware to run game X to make them a profit.

This guys doesnt know what he's talking about, think about it for a second. I'd bet that 95% of all PC Gamers do it has a hobbie, and are not casual gamers. The rest that are casual gamers play games like The Sims, and other similar games which work perfectly fine on integrated graphics. Secondly, the future of computers is integration, down the road I wouldnt be supprised if intel/amd would have powerfull graphics capabilities from thier Cpu. And finally, this is the kicker, Tim Sweeny, a guy from the same company says in this interview that the future of pc components (cpu, gfx, physics) is integration. here is the qoute


"Sweeney- Looking at the long term future, the next 10 years or so, my hope and expectation is that there will be a real convergence between the CPU, GPU and non traditional architectures like the PhysX chip from Ageia, the Cell technology from Sony. You really want all those to evolve in the way of a large scale multicore CPU that has a lot of non traditional computing power as a GPU has now. A GPU processes a huge number of pixels in parallel using relatively simply control flow, CPU's are extremely good at random access logic, lots of branching, handling cache and things like that. I think really, essential, graphics and computing need to evolve together to the point where the future renderers I hope and expect will look a lot more like a software renderer from previous generations than a fixed function rasterizer pipeline and the stuff we have currently. I think GPU's will ultimately end up being... you know when we look at this 10 years from now, we will look back at GPU's being kinda a temporary fixed function hardware solution, to a problem that ultimately was, just general computing."

The interview transcrip/video can be found here
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=70056&page=8

"But the real bread and butter is the Macbook, which was released with one of the weakest Intel integrated cards ever."

Apple's fault, not Intel's.


"Consumers are better off paying the extra $100 for the ATI and nVidia solutions"

Wait. So my mother, who plays nothing more complicated than Sudoku, is better off with a $100 3D solution that will never display a single 3D graphic than having an extra $100 in her pocket?

Gamers are not the majority of PC buyers. We're the minority. The majority is better having $100 extra dollars than having hardware they will never, ever use.



And to the people saying Rein should just support integrated graphics - no, he shouldn't. Would you want to play a game coming out next year that was capable of being played on a system that can't even run Far Cry? No. You want something shiny and good, not just good. Especially from Epic, a company that defines itself exclusively on bleeding-edge technology.

What Rein needs to do is stop whining and accept that most people don't play games not because they can't but because they don't want to.
Accept that the market isn't all PC users but PC users that want to play games.
All Rein wants is to be able to license his engine for more money. But giving more people the potential to play games won't necessarily increase the amount of people that play them.
I mean, we can charge everyone in the country $100 to have a dance studio installed in their home but that doesn't mean everyone will suddenly want to be a ballerina.

computer gaming will always be around because we REALLY LIKE showing off our specs. Seriously now, its the highlight of my day / Lan Party

Also, you can't optimize a console like you can optimize a computer. Yeah, the consoles are MADE for gaming, but can you get a gamer grade T.V.? High-def or not, we've heard of the slight lag problems, and well, the contrast ratios aren't very good on those things unless you get a REALLY expensive one. They work for Oblivion and stuff on the xbox 360, but I wouldn't want CS:S or DOD:S on there to save my life.

"Wait. So my mother, who plays nothing more complicated than Sudoku, is better off with a $100 3D solution that will never display a single 3D graphic than having an extra $100 in her pocket?"

She will when Vista arrives. If not now, she sure will then. And it wont be to play Unreal Tournament 2010.

I get the feeling a few people missed the point. I'll admit to not knowing who Mark Rein is, so I've no bias one way or another. What I took from this is that the install base of home PCs is huge, yet a great many of these are incapable of playing the latest games - be they old or have integrated video. So what if someone sees a new game that they would like to play?

In this scenario, they have a choice: upgrade/replace the machine to bring it up to spec to play the game, or buy a console if the game's available. Given most people's reluctance to start replacing components and the confusion surrounding video card models (I'm looking at you, ATI.), they are lost customers.

Blaming Intel is a fairly simplistic and successfully headline-grabbing thing to say, but the issue is a real one.

Its not intels fault. PCs are not built for gaming. Thats the just of it. This means there isnt a universal platform for gaming in the PC world because of the high turn over rate of technology in the PC. New OS Updates, New Drivers, New Video cards, New Disk Mediums, etc. Hell, PC gamers still cant run a game just off of the CD even with the advent of 30X(and above) drives. Most consoles still have 2X or 4X BTW.

I have been saying much of what Mark said, for a few years now, and i have been watching less and less PC games be made (over the course of my PC gaming career, anyone remember jazz jackrabit or those TD2152? apogee rocked!). (Hardcore) PC gaming really is in trouble because the "lowest" denominator has really been extended, and it will only get more protracted as technology comes out faster and faster () while people adopt slower and slower....the field is becoming bottom heavy, and peppered with hardware configurations from hell.
Another way to look at it is if Sony had to develop games that played on the PS1/PS2 and PS3. Would God of war look and Play as good as it does now if development had to be split to make sure it looked good on the PS1? Will MGS4 look good (and be fun) on the PS3 if Konami has to spend time making sure it looks good on the PS1 and PS2 as well? (to make sure they get maximum sells). The Playstation is a good example, and think if a new Playstation was released each year, with updated processor and graphics.

Developers have to decide whether or not to add in all the newest features that the newest $399-499 video card offers and/or the newest Physics technology? or spend valuble time making sure it looks and plays great on a Radeon 8500 / Geforce 3? Also dont forget the crazy shelf life of a PC game, it only last about a year if the developer is lucky (normally 3-6 months).


And no, it isnt Intels fault (I would actually blame Nvidia lol for those who dont remember, crazy release cycles of video card technology started with Nvidia and their 1 year development cycles to crush 3dfx...before that things came out at around 2 years or longer), and yes the new MMO Hero is awesome!

This is where Vista's "Premium certification" will hopefully kick in. Retailer's are going to want that sticker on their system to sell it, and part of the requirements is a DX9 compatible card (DX10 by June 1, 2008). Now I don't know if an integrated graphics chip can be DX9 and give horrible performace (even the FX5200 is many times more powerful than Intel's integrated), so if anyone has an answer to that I'm all ears.

PC offers a lot of advantages over console. 1) Interface matters (for example: the Wiimote, FPS's). 2) Development costs are lower for PC than for consoles (so many smaller developers wouldn't want to move). 3) Gigantic user base http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Installed_base. I see little reason to believe PC gaming is dying.

As for one of Mark's questions, "Why aren't developers taking big bets on PC gaming?" My gut says (and guesses) that it's because console gaming is more mainstream than PC gaming (for instance, the massive sales of EA sports, the Halo 2 media blitz, GTA, etc.) due to, possibly in part, of the lower cost to the consumer. If anything, I think it's the console segment that's more regulated to the mass market than the PC one (excepting casual games of course).

On a side note: Originally ordered my laptop from Dell explicitly with a Nvidia chipset. That laptop died. (I kid you not, it self-ignited and smoke came out of the machine.) I sent it back to Dell to have it exchanged. The machine they sent back was an "upgrade" on the hardware I had. Intel graphics with more graphics memory. /owned =(

There is a line of pcs that you cannot use graphics cards on due to the intergrated graphics chip. Quite a number of people got outraged when they found they couldn't disable the intergrated graphics chip on their pcs.

In some cases disabling the intergrated graphics chip is a next to impossible task.

I would say a lot of desktops have intergrated graphics chips. I had a bestbuy clerk open up each desktop I was interested in and most of them were not upgradeable graphics card wise. Hell most of them didn't have any PCI slots either for any thing.

I don't know, im on the fence here, I got screwed by onboard video, but thats because my motherboard didnt have an AGP slot (which they didnt tell me when I asked)

but when someone asks me why they cant play games on their brand new computer and you tell them to buy a extra 100 video card and 100$ for installation or they will void there warranty they tend to get upset.

you and I both know its nothing to install a video card, any one can do it, but you remove that sticker and your provider wont be to happy.

I think epidodic content will kill off gaming. Why? hey lets release HALF the game's story and then make people download the rest for x much amount. OR how about 1/4 the game's story.

I think this is the most stupidest concept along with greedy. Companies that end up doing this are just plain greedy. I dont mind the occasional, 'content pack' like new levels, costumes, maybe weapons and such, but to have to pay to get the rest of the story or just the rest of the game is ridiculous. Extra's are fine, as long as thats what they are: extra's NOT the main part of the game

"She will when Vista arrives. If not now, she sure will then. And it wont be to play Unreal Tournament 2010."

I already mentioned Vista earlier in this thread, and how it makes Rein's point moot.

As for your average integrated-chip consumer, Vista won't make a difference. Do you really think someone buying a bargain computer with an integrated chip is going to upgrade to Vista? NO! My mother, and all casual computer users, will remain Vista-free for the entire duration of her current computer. She won't get Vista until she buys a new computer, as she'd have no clue how to upgrade nor would she see any reason to spend the money. By then Intel will either have created integrated solutions that can handle Vista or left the now-shrivelled integrated market.

Just a thought, but if I was Epic or any other Developer concerned about the casual pc consumer who purchases a low end pc then I would simply look at that as an opportunity to market at the casual gamer. Produce simple games that would interest the casual gamer and run easily on their pc. EA is doing it with cell phones, Nintendo is trying to do it with the Wii, and even Microsoft has those little games that come free on Windows.

All I see our dollar bills walking around who buy those cheap computers. Make an easy download interface like iTunes, keep it cheap, and let them just download away to play your games.

Integrated graphics keep overall costs down. If you're a business or not a gamer, it's an ideal solution. If you're a gamer, or a CAD user, or a graphics artist, then you certainly want to invest in a better video card.

Don't really care about what Mark says, but look at the background picture! Didn't anyone else notice that? ZZT! Jill of the Jungle! So awesome ... the games that "made" Epic. (You can both get both & hundreds more at dosgames.com btw.)

Jill of the Jungle was fun but ZZT was far superior. In fact, I was just playing it 5 minutes ago.

how does one create seemingly neutral questions but load them full of 8ull$hit:

* Do games like The Sims, World of WarCraft and other low-budget Asian MMOs prove Mark's hypothesis, that PC gaming is going away because of Intel, wrong?
* Will console MMOs put the nail in the coffin of PC gaming?
* How come big publishers aren't placing big bets on PC gaming? (Mark says that he knows of at least two "major" developers that are considering moving exclusively to console based development, although he failed to elaborate on which ones).
* Will the PC market be relegated to only mass-market and casual games?

I think there is a simple solution. Have developers offer older pack-in games for new computers that meet the recommended requirements of their upcoming games, FOR FREE. I loved the games I got with my sound card: Dues Ex and Citizen Kabuto. This would open PC users to the world of PC gaming and have them ready to purchase the next game the developer has ready to roll out. They could even do agreements with ATI or nVidia to get a little kick back.

PC gaming was dying long before Intel started integrating GPUs into their chipsets. The only reason for it is consumer buying preferences. Consumers are very price sensitive, and very convenience-oriented -- i.e. we want "cheap" and "easy".

We want cheap computers, and we don't want to go through the hassle of maintaining and upgrading them. The result? We buy the systems with integrated everything, and we are happy with them. Sure, they don't play the latest high-end titles, but we really don't care about that. Games aren't that important to our lives, and if they are, we'll buy the console systems in order to play them, because the consoles are the "cheap" and "easy" solution for gaming. That's just the market reality.

If Mark Rein and his compatriots want to expand the PC gaming market, maybe he should try developing games that work with consumer preferences. That's the tactic most other industries use. You provide us consumers with what we want, you don't whine because we won't buy the things you think we should.

It's funny because two day's ago I made the same rant to a friend. His problem? His recently-bought HP PC had an intel-based integrated video adapter, that shared memory with the cpu. The real problem was that it didn't have an AGP or PCI-Express slot. The only PCI card he could find was an ATI 9250 which is not a dx9 card. Bottom line - no Oblivion.

I have the same problem with my laptop. It has an intel-integrated video adapter (company wouldn't allow any options). And, being a laptop, no option to upgrade. Bottom line for me - Quake 3-style games at best.

I will blame intel for not making any attempt to raise the bar on the chips to at least a budget nvidia/ati level. I feel bad for the middle-income family who finally gets the new PC, and junior is all excited about the games he'll play, only to find that they crawl / don't work on the card. I think a $50 boost in price would take care of that.

"If Mark Rein and his compatriots want to expand the PC gaming market, maybe he should try developing games that work with consumer preferences."

That's what Rein is afraid of - other companies doing that.

His company is exclusively a technology company. Sure, they make games, but they fit the games into the technology, not the other way around. Which is why licensing is so huge for them.
I mean, think about it - would ANY of the Unreal games been blockbusters if they weren't cutting-edge graphically? I'm going to go with "no."

So if the PC industry moved away from the emphasis on bleeding-edge graphics that only the very experienced could create, what is Epic left with?
Every gaming company is capable of doing a quick 3D engine that maxes out integrated chips. If that's the ceiling, Epic loses all of its licensing.
And if every game has a static graphical ceiling, and therefore looks alike, it becomes much harder for Epic to distinguish their games from the rest of the pack. They'd have to do it with gameplay, not with graphics. And while the Unreal games have mostly had good to great gameplay, sales would still go down significantly as they've lost their only true advantage.


I think Mark is a bit afraid that gaming might get homogenized and simplified, eating away at his company's role. And this is both a good thing and a bad thing for consumers. Lesser graphics and more simple games are bad. But easier to develop games can lead to more innovation. And in any case the pendulum will always swing back. If games got more simple to attract a wider audience the wider audience would start clamoring for more complicated games.

What he is saying is that he's finally seen his own downfall. He's finally seen enough of the future to realize that the good times have come and gone. As hardware and graphic cards get more and more powerful there comes a point to where the average Joe doesn't want to pay a BIG premium just to have the best graphics. If Mark had his way we'd all have CGI workstations. However if your going to do the things that most people do on their computers you don't need any of that. Unless your a hardcore PC gamer. I'm sure the thought of more and more computers not even being capable of running their software keeps him up at night. I think the title should be changed to "Intel - Please stop shrinking my user base".

"I will blame intel for not making any attempt to raise the bar on the chips to at least a budget nvidia/ati level. I feel bad for the middle-income family who finally gets the new PC, and junior is all excited about the games he'll play, only to find that they crawl / don't work on the card. I think a $50 boost in price would take care of that."

But whose fault is that?

Intel is giving customers what they want - $7 graphics solutions!

If you want more and fail to spend, whose fault is it?


If I go out and buy an entry-level Kia and then decide I want something that holds as many people as a Denali or goes as fast as a Mustang should I blame Kia? NO! I made the choice. Kia made a product that meets the needs of many people. Just because it doesn't fit my needs doesn't mean I should blame Kia. I should instead blame myself for not buying something that suits me.

Your friend bought a shitty PC that doens't fit his needs. He should blame himself for being a poor consumer, or the company that sold it to him for not letting him know how limited it was. He should not blame the manufacturer of a perfectly good component just because it isn't what he wants.
You bought a shitty laptop. Again, is it Intel's fault that you purchased a laptop with their solution, or is it your fault? Accept some responsibility here.

Intel has done nothing wrong. A lot of people want nothing more than 2D graphics. It's insane to think we should charge them for something that can run 3D because some people want 3D. Let the people that want 3D pay for 3D and the people that want 2D pay for just 2D. If you screw up it's either your fault or your computer manufacturer's fault. It is in no way Intel's fault.

Hey, Mike - GeForce 6200 OC, with 256MB comes in PCI, available on the shelf at Best Buy. That's what I had to get for Oblivion. Well, that, and another GB of RAM from Crucial.

If you are a PC gamer, then you WILL find a way to play games - most of which simply involve buying a new graphics card for your PC. At the price points involved - I picked up an HP P4 3.2Ghz, 1 GB RAM, with the Intel 128 MB integrated graphics card, a DVD writer and 15" LCD monitor for $399 in a pre-holiday sale last fall. $140 for the graphics card, $80 for the memory - add in a second DVD player from an old system, swap my 19" LCD monitor out and give old system (now with 15" LCD monitor) to my kids - and I've got a fairly decent gaming computer for under $650.

Lost_Canadian wrote:

"Intel might not be _killing_ PC gaming per se, but they do make it a pain in the ass for graphics software developers (like myself). I don't think you guys realize that it's not just a performance issue - the integrated Intel graphics cards out there simply aren't up to par compatibility-wise with other cards. At my company, we have to keep writing special cases in certain sections of the graphics code because the Intel hardware (or maybe the driver?) is crap. Not only is Intel slowing down development by forcing software to work around the various compatibility issues, they're also causing people to blame software for issues caused by the hardware.

I don't doubt his integrated graphics figures - almost every customer we deal with seems to have an integrated Intel card, and it's a pain convincing them to upgrade. If Intel hadn't created their shitty integrated solutions, the computer would already contain a better-supported ATI or NVIDIA card."

I think this was EXACTLY the point that he was trying to make but wound up making himself look like a doofus instead. :P

Integrated graphics chips, mainly Intel's but any that go into the "thin and light" notebooks and/or cheapie PC boxes, are the bane of any game developer's existance. I speak of this from personal experience not only from a person who does compatibility testing for PC games but as one who has had to also support said games.

Say "nobody plays games on these" all you like but the evidence is out there if you look for it. Just follow the screams of yet another unhappy customer who cheaped out and/or bought the sales pitch by Dell at any game developer's support forum.

There is really no reason or excuse whatsoever why Intel, ATI, or Nvidia can not provide an inexpensive integrated 3D graphics chip. Intel came very close this time with their next-gen chipset but killed it, yet again, with their goofy emulation scheme.

As far as cost goes, how difficult is it really to tweak say a Radeon Mobility 9500, integrate it with a motherboard chipset, and sell it for the same cost? Nobody is asking for cutting-edge graphics here but it would not kill them to have hardware Vertex and Shader support. -_-

I am an non casual gamer. I have an old graphics card, a radion 8500 that once costed 400€ but i bought it for 35€. Also i don't buy the latest games, i just pick them up for like 3-6€. Maybe those games aren't the coolest ones around but i feel i have a lot of fun for my ±50€/year i spend. (thats right almost the price of a game, i'd like to mention again: almost)

I look at the new games with some awe, they are rich in color (hdr is very nice) But i don't feel like spending 500€/year for gaming. And i enjoy deus ex, vice city, hitman, mafia.

quality does not expire and tell me: has AI really improved that much?

I have nothing to add here, other than that Jill of the Jungle was a great game, one of the few shareware titles of the time that I purchased the full version of. I hope I still have those 3.5" disks sitting around somewhere.

He's kind of right though. My girlfriend bought a new, middle range laptop from Dell 2 months ago. I told her it was fine, except for gaming. Then she saw me playing Civ 4. I figured that would run okay on her laptop, and boy was I wrong.. even on the lowest graphic settings, it is slow as molasses. i can't even imagine trying to play a FPS on it.