Epic's Mark Rein: Intel is killing PC Gaming

Buy a cheap computer = Get cheap results

I can understand why Rein is pissed. PC gaming is potentially the biggest games market, the installed base is enormous, but so is the number of PCs unsuited for games because of the lousy built-in graphics card. The good news is that this is going to change with the hardware requirement for Vista Premium. If that becomes the standard for new home and business PCs next year, it will mean that the graphics on every new PC will be at least DirectX 9 compatible. There aren't any reviews for Intel's new graphics chip in the G965 chipset, but it's expected to be suitable for gaming. It probably can't compete with even current low end Nvidia and Ati-chips, but if its on the same level as last year's low budget chips, it will still be a big step in the right direction.

@ #18 - Lost Canadian
No offense, but you clearly do not work in the industry, or if you do, you don't know what you are talking about.

Intel's integrated systems are limited, yes, but by design. It's the ATI and Nvidia units that require tons of additional work to support as a result of all the extra features and specific interfaces.

Even when comparing a ATI vs Nvidia vs Intel integrated graphic solution, we always tackle the Intel code first to get it up and running, its the easiest to get going.

@ Rein
Get off your horse and design games people want.

@ 44 PJ

I agree with your problem statements of people trying to play games on systems that can't support them, this however, is different then how I read Lost Canadian's post.

To me he was saying that somehow Intel's solution is hard to work with. It's not! Getting people to understand that their $700 laptop can't handle games that require a $300 graphic card (and desktop) is not as easy.

I'd really would love it if game companies jumped off the pc ship and head to consoles. Fact is there's always pluses and minues in the pc vs console world, but console is the mainstream. (Not to mention online friendliness with united communities instead of pc: based only on game) It's just an obvious choice to program for to make more money. And yes, I'm well aware of the HITS on pc that make money, but still don't make up the entire gaming market. I have an awesome pc, but still enjoy console gaming more.

I think I just figured out what the problem with PC gaming, and console gaming in general.

Game developers, and technology developers, in an attempt to produce the best looking, fastest, highest frame rate, video games have outstripped the core market. Sure, we have the technology available to make photorealistic games with incredible physics, but we are pushing the boundaries of top of the line hardware with these applications, driving the hardware costs up to crazy levels.

Symptoms include pricing on next gen consoles (In my youth, I couldn't imagine a video game console that cost 400 dollars, much less 600), PC games with stiff hardware requirements, and the fact that common, budget hardware can't perform well enough to play most new games.

In short, developers are now aiming for the high end gamers, and leaving the common man behind.

I also believe that Ninendo sees this trend as well, and that was yet another reason for making the Wii so much weaker than the other 2 consoles.

I read an article in EGM, I think, about why, after many years of gaming, we still haven't fixed frame rates in games. Most new games will still hiccup every now and again and framerate will plummet. The explanation for why is because even though we have more and more powerful hardware, expectations for photorealism and physics keep pushing that hardware to its limitations. The wii, which is aiming for not-quite-next-gen graphics and resolutions, has more than enough horsepower to get a consistent framerate in all its applications.

If the Wii is as successful as is hoped, this could bring everyone else back into the fold of "good enough" graphics on budget hardware.

"1. "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."

He's right though. The Wii will have some great superior games but you know theres gonna be some crappy painting or w/e type of games coming out for the Wii. If you were a publisher and could develop on the Wii for cheap then wouldn't you make some crappy gimmicky games? Like games based off this guy:

http://www.bobross.com/

I remember when I first got a computer (12 yrs ago, or so) I wanted to play games on it, but I realized quickly that my computer wasn't up to the high demands of the good games--like 8MB of RAM! It was very dissapointing, and the workarounds that I had to do to get the games to play weren't worth it.

the point is, I was expecting a computer--any computer--to work like a console. Fast forward 12 years, and there are even more casual computer users with the same expectations to play PC games as easily as consoles. If Mark Rein still doesn't "get it" and cater some games to the low-end computers, then let him stay stuck with a 1994 mentality.

While I can appreciate Rein's anxiety over diminishing returns for increasing levels of investment, Intel is the last party at whose feet blame can be placed. Intel defines the low end. Entry level. If your game can be fun on an Intel business desktop, you're golden with the casual market. One of the most profitable PC games a few years ago was 'Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?' Used a lot of video of Regis Philbin and that was the extent of the high tech. Sold by the truckload to people who otherwise ignore PC games.

It would run not just on pretty much every machine then being sold but also machines going back five or more years. The bleeding edge technologies are exciting stuff, as are the games that exploit them but ATI and Nvidia have been raising the bar at a far more rapid pace than the mainstream gamer market can absorb, nevermind the casual market.

The fact is that an Intel integrated chipset sold currently does excellent 3D. By the standards of 1998. It isn't Intel's fault that the high end evolves so rapidly and some developers are compelled to pursue that much smaller piece of the PC market. The next Intel chipset will move things up to about 2002 standards. This is stuff that would have cost thousand or the sale of an eternal soul less than a decade ago but how do you satisfy developers whose games aren't happy with anything less than the bleeding edge of a mere two years ago.

THe closest Intel came to putting a real hurt on game developers was in 1999 with the 810 chipset. This chipset lacked any AGP support. The very popular 815 chipset was nearly identical but had that vital feature for supporting AGP video boards. Tons of 810 machines were sold into the business and low end consumer markets with no provision for upgrading the video except using a PCI board. Which was actually pretty adequate so long as the board had a decent amount of local memory and hey, you got back some of the system RAM.

Intel saw the error of their ways (plus the savings for not having AGP support largely disappeared as they went to smaller process nodes) and has since kept their chipset more fully featured. Machines with later chipsets that lack AGP slots do so because the PC vendor wanted to save space. Caveat emptor. Even so, while DX8 and DX9 became mainstays of PC gaming, there was no need for anything more than a competent DX7 compliant video solution to serve Win2K and WinXP for non-gaming (or other high-end graphic) use.

Even so, the Intel integrated solutions have seen some upgrades since then. Vista for the first time makes the video subsystem a real issue for supporting OS features in a business setting and Intel is responding. They have integrated DX9 compliant hardware coming. IT won't be exciting compared to third generation DX9 cards from ATI and Nvidia but it will be cheap and effective. A lot of games that previously couldn't run decently on integrated graphics hardware will be playable on these machines.

Meanwhile, Nvidia and ATI will have their own integrated solutions and those will seek to be better than Intel but cheaper than dedicated boards. Slowly but surely the lowest common denominator for graphics hardware improves and developers targeting the casual market gain more options.

The pain for those doing customer support isn't going to go away. The casual user will continue to try running games aimed at high-end machines on his three year old box that was low end when purchased. Even console-ish machines like the Amiga had support issues. Relatively minor chipset improvements could become support nightmares if developers leaned on the new features too heavily. Going from 512K chip RAM to 1MB chip RAM is almost beneath notice compared to the difference between two recent consecutive years in video cards.

This is one of the big reasons why console specs remain frozen. The Wii could be labeled GameCube II and keep using the min-discs but imagine the support hassle when a customer doesn't understand why his new game doesn't work on the old machine. Far better to treat it as an entirely new platform that by sheer coincidence runs GameCube games, too.

There will always be a place for cutting edge games but the business model has to be designed around the limited audience. It may be a great experience but it could take a long time to reach enough consumers to turn a profit. It would be like Hollywood producing a $150 million epic solely for IMAX and no other venues. You either have to have packed houses in the IMAX for a good long while or, from a PC perspective, hope dropping costs of IMAX leads to a lot more places able to show the content.

Will the PC market be relegated to only mass-market and casual games?

If acceleration doesn't become standard, yes.

Remember the 90s before Voodoo cards when you could throw ANY game at your PC and play away? Now unless you have a "gaming" PC - ie one with an ATI or NVIDIA chip - your options are drastically reduced. For a software developer it must be galling to have your target market reduced by 80%.

You know, I have to agree with Mark on this one. You know why Blizzard games sell so damn well? Not just because they're so damn good... but also because they're not built for the highest end, top of the line PC out there. They never have been. Neither has Maxis' games.

Do we not see a pattern? It's simple math: you make a decent game that's compatible with a larger number of systems, more units get sold. Games designed for the high end look great and all, but a lot of us end up watching said games from afar until we can afford to dish out for a machine capable of running them.

Having said that, I love the slide he's got up there. I LOVED Jill of the Jungle. I remember the old days, playing it on a CGA monitor in four shades of retina destoying neon colors. That, Commander Keen, Duke Nukum (with a U, not an E), Wolfenstien 3D, and Catacomb 3-D were next to all I played back then.

Ah, the memories.

My mistake. I'm not agreeing with Mark at all. Actually, I'm going in quite a contrary direction.

Good call, Zoë. :/

@ 54 RIGOR_MORTIS

I'd really love it if game companies jumped off the consoles ship and all headed to the PC. That way I wouldn't need to buy 2-3 additional gaming-only PCs (consoles) to play all the great games that come out exclusively for them. Plus we'd be able to mod them and get other user-created mods for free, how cool would that be? Not mentioning free online play and a way larger online community.

Aaah, wishful thinking... :)

Companies are unwilling to take a chance on games because games are becoming so expensive to develop and market that it's hard to make money. Big game companies like Vivendi, THQ, Activision, and Electronic Arts had income-to-revenue ratios of 6-9 per cent in 2005 (Take Two, kind of a special case, got creamed - 4%). Two or three years ago those companies were pulling money in at twice that rate.

Couple that with the fact that the game market is so high risk and it's almost a wonder anyone's still making games. Money's going to follow returns.

Also, the argument that the game market is somehow reliant on high-end graphics is a crutch. GTA San Andreas' graphics were sludge and that title moved eleven million units.

Ah, the old "Blame the Easy Target" strategy. Next, he'll say Microsoft hurts gaming because Windows eats too much memory so there's nothing left for developers (oh yeah, and MacOS X uses more memory than Windows).

I think the Epic VP is full of BS! I got a diaper ready for him! >:)

Anyway, I tire of this trend of PC upgrades just to play games! Now, we gotta upgrade to run Vista's
superficial graphics! I don't take issue with upgrades, I take issue with these points:

1. The FREQUENCY of upgrades is a problem.

2. Laptop's can't be upgraded. I'm disabled and I got VERY sick. Getting sick weakend me to the point that a trackball and On-Screen Keyboard is the ONLY way I can interact with my PC. Getting sick has made it
temporally impossible for me to play console games.

3. The Sims, RTS and FPS games work best on a computer, PERIOD. They could be adapted to run on consoles, but they would be watered down and diminished.

4. For hopefully obvious reasons, Playing an RTS game on a gamepad would be a MAJOR pain in the butt. Mouse/trackball provides an elegant, smooth control method for these games.

Have you tried their GMA 950 or even read the specs?

I got a mobo with it to save $$. I could always add a PCI express v-card if I needed to. Gaming was not the primary use for the PC build - PVR was and it needs DX 9. When I have some spare time I will try Doom 3 and see.

You can't blame Intel for "Killin PC gaming". Where's the proof that PC gaming is even dieing? Consoles suit the consumer that doesn't want to deal with the PC upgrade game.

I know marks comments are unpopular on this site, on others people agree with him more.

I have to say i agree with him on intel, Intels graphics chips play hardly anything, a graphics upgrade are needed. i have a few PCs with build in graphics and had to use the built in for a bit, and hated it. However, the PC isnt a console, there is no standard for a PC to be able to play games.

As for episodic gaming, i like the idea, but wouldnt want it to be the prevalent way of making games.

My favorite games are Deus EX, Thief series, System shock series, Halo, Diablo, etc fairly long games.
I am not a huge half life fan, but ill give it a try

As a guy who does a bit of unofficial tech support for a game company (I write lots of game FAQs, over 60 different games so far) I don't agree totally with Mark Reign, but I can see where he's coming from.

One of the most frequent questions I had to answer was "why did I get a 'cannot initialize renderer' error?"

Well, it's because your video card does not support the feature we needed.

From here, either the user is understanding that they *do* have crappy hardware, or they get defensive and abusive: my PC's new! Your software must be crap! I'm never buying anything from you again!

To put plainly, the integrated video chipsets SHOULD be at DX8 at the minimum (hardware T&L included) but the Intel chipsets so far still has yet to include hardware T&L, even though it was introduced with NVIDIA's GeForce 1 over SIX years ago, and that's how many generations? Depends on how you count, I guess.

The gap between the have and have-not is wider than EVER. That only adds to the burden of support and infrastructure, and indirectly, push some people toward the consoles. So in THAT sense, it IS killing PC gaming, but in a very roundabout way.

On the other hand, IGP does NOT have to totally suck. ATI's Radeon Express 200, based on the X300 core, while not brilliant, at least supports hardware T&L.

It's all the OTHER integrated cards that really *do* suck.

Q: 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?

My Answer: no, I'd have to say we've yet to fully explore the powers that are currently available in the hardware. Think about it: when we had no 3D cards, Origin came up with bitmapped 3D for Wing Commander, and indirectly reinvigorated the whole industry by pushing the sales of 386, memory, Diamond Speedstar VGA cards, and Creative SoundBlaster 16's. When we DID get 3D video cards, we got 3D shooters (no longer 2.5D fakes like Doom) with better and better effects, but the basics have NOT changed.

If you only consider the "tip of the spear" hardcore PC gaming like Quad SLI, Quad-Core, 1000 W P/S, multi-widescreen, liquid cool, and all that to be "PC Gaming", then yes. However, PC gaming is a wide segment from Celerons and IGPs to P4 Dual Cores and multiple X1950's/GF7950's. And online gaming doesn't need "tip of the spear" hardware to run to still have fun.

Q: Will console MMOs put the nail in the coffin of PC gaming?

My Answer: again, no. Consoles can never achieve the interactivity of a PC. And if you add keyboard and headset to a console, you've pretty much created a PC, albeit a cheap one. With a bare minimum PC available now for under $400 and a premium console for about the same price, PC's are just fine as a game platform.

Q: 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).

My Answer: If you look at it from another angle: PC Gaming is in danger of driving itself extinct. The hardware is moving WAY TOO FAST, partly driven by the relentless hardware race between NVIDIA and ATI, partly by benchmarkers like 3DMark and all the websites that reports on stuff like that, and partly by game developers who constantly try to out do each other, not by innovative gameplay, but by adding more and more eye candy.

I only three months ago upgraded to a P4, and I went with a low-end 2.67 GHz CPU and ATI Radeon Xpress 200 IGP. Why? Because it's cheap (my entire system costs under $500, and that's including an LCD monitor, 1 GB RAM, TV Tuner, and more) I know I'm nowhere near tip of the spear, but why should I be? It runs all the games I want it to run. It may not run the latest and greatest shooters at 1600x1200 at XX AA, but should I care? Really?

I tried running 3D Mark 01, 03, and 05 on this machine. Wasn't expecting much. 2001 is fine. 03 has pretty low, and 05 chugs along with frame rate in the single digits. So what does that tell me? It tells me that today's games are way too demanding on hardware, yet there are no "must-play" titles like Wing Commander to justify a spending spree. Gamers are getting TIRED of upgrading every other month. And the constant hardware innovation PLUS all the review sites hawking them aren't helping either.

Another part of the equation is economics. Think about it... How many hardcore gamers are out there with the latest hardware ready to run the latest games? How many console gamers are out there that can run the game, if ported? Console market is MANY MANY times larger than the PC market. The PC game market is turning itself into a niche market for grognards, not a mass market, and profit in a niche market is much harder to come by with today's budget than for a mass-market product such as a console game.

Q: Will the PC market be relegated to only mass-market and casual games?

My answer: no, there will always be niche products that can ONLY exist on a PC. Steel Beasts Pro, for example, can only exist on a PC. Who else except some uber-Geeks are going to pay $125 (or so) for a simulation? That's where the PC market is heading: super-specialized games, if it doesn't stop its niche-rization.

Sorry, haven't got time to read the other comments right now, but Rein did cite a source for his Intel integrated gfx sales percentages; at the start of that particular slide he said something along the lines of "I wandered around a PC World store and took note of how many machines had intel integrated graphics [reads out percentages] and these aren't cheap machines these are, like, £1200/£1500 machines".

I didn't find him to be a particularly good speaker. He contradicted himself on every point he made. Jason's heckles made the session entertaining though.