tgdaily.com — "'We would all be better off,' if Intel exited the graphics market." - Mark Rein, VP Epic games.I suspect Epic may soon get a visit from a few Intel Bunnytroopers? Maybe game devs should focus less on pushing the latest expensive graphics hardware and more on better content? Don't blame Intel's crappy graphics for crappy games IMO.
Jul 12, 2006 View in Crawl 4
somerandomnerdJul 13, 2006
Surely your 70 year old grandfather has no more need for integrated 3d graphics than a seperate graphics card?I could be wrong- I don't know a lot about graphics cards, but I thought the point of the article was that if users don't need 3d graphics, then they shouldn't have to pay for 3d graphics hardware. (I know that in Linux, I discovered that I don't actually use accelerated 3d graphics for anything other than screensavers and other eye candy.)
punishedoneJul 13, 2006
Intel + Graphics= No.Wait, Intel in general= GTFO.
johnnyrottenJul 13, 2006
I completely agree with the Epic VP. I've worked in games and 3D visualization development, and there have been many times when a potentially great product has been ruined because of the requirements that it run on crappy Intel integrated video systems.Of course, maybe the real problem is that the marketing people put too much stock into making sure that games run on these systems. It might be easier to find marketing people who actually understand their markets, rather than using the "shotgun approach" to selling products.
cfazziniJul 13, 2006
Epic games is one of the few companies that actively tries to support as many systems as possible from the start. I remember when the UT2k3 demo came out, I was still running a Voodoo3 card, and there was issues. Literally days later, a patch was released with fixes for Voodoo card users.
obkenobiJul 14, 2006Submitter
But children LIKE toys.Take the entire mobile gaming market. And the retro gaming fad. Eventually they might tire of them and want something more sophisticated, but having higher hardware requirements doesn't necessarily mean better games.Game devs are getting sloppy and not challenging themselves anymore. Except maybe John Carmack? They rely on DirectX to do all their work for them. Then when they discover how badly their game runs, they say too bad, get a new graphics card and 10GB more RAM and 1000W power supply.How much $$$ do they want gamers to spend on gaming? This kind of thing will kill PC gaming, because no one but a few fanatics will spend the money on it if it continues to get much worse.The new Ghost Recon game is a great example of that. It was TOO high-end. Better gameplay and lower hardware requirements would have made that game a success as the previous ones were.
Closed AccountJul 15, 2006
No no. My name is MacSuxWindozSux just to poke fun at the rivalry.I'm multi-platform.I said what i did above because i know it's probably true for 2 reasons.1. A guy from ID Software was making light of the issue a few years back when Q3 was big.2. Responding to what you said, it's only half the concern if the program isn;t that much harder to make, you have all this extra code laying around it bloats the program and introduces wierd hardware specific bugs. Which my point was *less then ideal*
tock172Jul 16, 2006
I dont think Intel needs to stop making these low end onboard video cards. People who are not interested in gaming (i know it is hard to fathom) do not need or want to spend money on a better video card when they arent going to use it. therefore, when they buy a computer this cheap video card will be all the need. I think they can stay if they want they arent trying to compete w/ ATI or Nvidia, they are appealing to a different market.
matt_rubinJul 18, 2006
i am just saying to the clueless and we all know macs arn't for gaming so it doesn't matter anyway