News Mark Rein continues to opine

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/07/27/Mark_Rein_continues_to_opine/

 

PC Graphics are terrible? Let's see them run Oblivion with Jaggie mode off on the XB-360 then. Seriously, this frigging idiot needs to quit waffling on, as not the whole world is using the same Intel 915 graphics he is.

 

Indeed!! Not to mention the graphics capabilities of all these nex gen consoles are fixed, theres no upgrades in a years or so time! Take the G80 for instance, they're using it in the ps3 right? Sure the graphics are awesome but PC users will have the card in the next few months then give it a month after that and we'll have the next offering!

 

One word: keyboard. I hate controllers. Thus I find console gaming generally disagreeable, regardless of the quality of the content and/or graphics.

I just remembered that I prefer the old-school arcade controls for some types of games (not FPS, though I'm tempted to give it a try at some point, but most console games). I just had a go in Centipede and Golden Axe just to decide whether I do want to drop the cash to build a MAME cabinet, and while the keyboard approach just isn't right, I still preferred it to a controller. In fact I'm trying to figure out if there will be a good way to interface the control sticks and whatnot to a Playstation connector.

So, uh, to each his own, but this guy is really clueless. I could discount the fact that PC graphics are almost universally superior if there were actually some worthwhile releases that were unique to consoles.

 

But he's not talking about people like us who have the latest, greatest s**t hot graphics cards (at least not the way I read the article). He's talking about the vast bulk of people who are still trying to run games with their integrated graphics chipsets ("It's Intel, so it must be good, right?"), or their graphics cards that they bought a few years ago from the local PC store for £100/$100 ("Well, I bought a new graphics thingy a couple of years ago, why would I need to buy another one?")
But these people are always going to think of gaming as something that happens on a console - after all, the PC is only for doing the accounts and surfing for porn, isn't it?

 

Its the same rant as before as Fibble says, Its just the integrated graphics which people don't get told.

Parents goto PCWORLD, buy a family computer thinking little tom/dick/henrietta can play their games on it supervised.

They get home, find its not what they want and PCWorld tell em to get lost

 

Yeah you see these things alot, even family games like the sims 2 require a half decent rig to run. A friend of mine bought a cheap laptop (he wasn't really expecting it to be amazing with the integrated graphics he had anyway) and there were several games of mine he couldn't play at all because the shoddy intel GFX chip didn't have the features we take for granted with the most "basic" GFX cards.

The guy does make a very good point, us who have bleeding edge rigs that can run anything at full settings are in the minority when it comes to PC gamers, even people who have a half decent rig (capable of playing anything, but not at medium or low settings) are in the minority compared to someone who plays CS 1.6 on thier family PC. Hell, about a year or two ago I was still using a 400MHz K6-II with a 2Mb graphics card to play games, and the only reason I managed to play any new game is because I got myself my own PC.

My dad and brother would still be using that ancient rig if I hadn't given them my old medium powered PC. They didn't use that thing just for accounts and porn too, it got it's fare share of gaming (at least the games it COULD play).

I do think that the reports on how many people play PC games is a bit dodgy though, I don't count flash word games as proper PC games, if you count those types of games as a PC game (and these survey people usually do) then my mum is a PC gamer too

 

$399-499 for an Xbox that can play all new games for it, without configuration, at near max spec at 720p.

$599-699 for a 7950GX2 that offers superior graphics, requires a working knowledge of computer hardware, and requires at least a few hundred more for the rest of the computer to play a game at max spec. That brings it to well over $1000/$1500.

True you can do other stuff on a computer, but you could get a cheap laptop and an Xbox for less.

Now, I personaly wish to see PC gaming to stay, and for it to remain one of the top, if not the top priority of developers, but look at the numbers above.

Wouldn't your average computer superstore customer just go for the Xbox? It's cheaper, and while not neccisarily better, it's way better than any gaming computer you can get at that price.

 

Thats a bit overkill, I can play Oblivion at max setting (well very, very nearly) with a 7800GTX, granted that cost the same as a 360 at the time I bought it anyway and I'm running the game at 1280x1024, not at gigantic widescreen resolutions.

But yeah generally, if you want the equivalent graphics on your PC (well the graphics are better on a PC I suppose), then you need to spend alot more money. 360 premium is about £300 in the UK, my PC I made over 6 months ago cost ALOT more than that, but then you have to consider, you get "equal" gaming PLUS you also get alot more functionality than the 360 has to offer. Hundereds of pounds worth of functionality? I think so, but the person in charge of the average family will not, as you could get a 360 and an accounting/porn PC for less than my rig cost (many, many people do by more than one console though, in my house we used to have 2 PS2s, 2 PS1s, 2 Xboxes, and a few other consoles that got sold, and I know I'm not the only one like that, with the pricing of this generations consoles, it looks like buying all 3 will be VERY expensive).

 

Exactly, scq. That's what makes Rein's comments all the more stupid. Those who don't know anything or don't want to know anything about graphics hardware would I'm sure be more than happy with an Xbox360 and a cheap laptop. Those of us who care a little more about up-to-date graphics will be willing to shell out a little extra in order to get the best there is.

For some reason Rein is whining at Intel because the people who buy his games don't know enough about games and graphics cards not to buy a PC with integrated PC graphics. He's blaming Intel for his customers' ignorance.

 

the thing is.... if prices for Graphic cards were lower.... i think i would buy a more powerfull graphic card.... the makers of the Card would profit, and the profit would be very big for Game companies.

$700 for a graphics card is to much, even if it is the best.

 

Yeah...but you don't need to buy a $700 gfx card to get "decent" performance. The fact is, alot of people out there just get integrated or a crap gfx card in their system and they think they can play PC games - which is hurting PC gaming a bit, and I think it's true. With the way PC games are heading now with DX10, there is *no way* a low-end version of the new cards from ATI/nVidia are going to help PC gaming.

Of course the console will be a choice for gaming, it will always be. I think Rein wants PC gaming to stay, which is prob why the guy is ranting about it. (Obviously, I do too).

 

Not another PC versus console flame war

They're two different things and the PC is constantly evolving. It's always a pointless debate

The fact that PCs can do other things apart from games is irrelevant because to play games you need a certain standard of PC to start with, then your fancy graphics card on top of that.

My PC is now a below average XP3000, 1gig, 6600GT system. Including the parts I carried over from the previous box when I upgraded 18 months ago, it probably cost me £450. Oblivion ran terribly, Quake 4 was abysmal and I recently got NFS:MW which runs with medium details at 800x600 at about 20fps.

But hey, I can surf the internet and send emails so it's gotta be better than a console.

 

i think that the main fault come from the people who sells graphics cards, whitch tell the buyers that a 99€ radeon 9250 or geforce 6200(on my local store, these dinossaurs still avaliable!!!!), will play the games they want (they do not specify in whitch conditions, and I suspect that the sellers don´t even play games). I know a lot of peple who came home illuded with they new p4 3,4Ghz, 1 Gb ram, fancy case with lots of lights, and they didn´t even suspect that under the hood is a weak, underpowered graphics card with directx 8.1/9.0a technology. if the sellers cut money in the cpu, wireless keyboard/mice, and other useless features, and save the money for a medium graphics card and a good game to show it, i'm sure that many people will begin to understand why is important a decent graphics card.

you can tell what you want, but a console isn´t the best way to save/see that funny videos and pictures from the last hollidays, receive emails, and post on bit-tech forums.

Now think:
You buy a 1000€ pc, for dealing with videos, email, internet, even Porn lol...
With 300€ (the same price that you pay for an nextgen console) you can upgrade your machine to a level that is equal or better than a nextgen console, with all the flexibility that a pc offer (manipulate images, create 3d stuff, create dvds with your videos, create music)

My rig (i will buy a new one in a few months) is a PIII 1Ghz, 512Mb ram, an a radeon 9600XT, and believe it or not, I'm playing Oblivion on it, at 1024*768 (everithing almost minimum at 15/20 fps.) But a friend with a P4 3.2Ghz, 1Gb DDR ram, can´t even play this game. Why? again a old direct x 8.1 card.
I think thats all
I know taht my english sucks, sorry

 

That can't be right. My PC is three times older than yours and it ran NFS:MW fine. The res was 1024x768 I believe on an old Geforce 4. You must have lots of anti-aliasing enabled.

Anyway no one said this was a debate about which was better, a PC or console. The point is that people choose one or the other based on what they want or need. And also that Mark Rein is making an idiot of himself again.

 

I think some console folks have a slightly wrong idea of what it takes to game on a PC..

Okay, lets first of all take it as a given that it's a good idea to have a PC regardless of intent to game or not, and a decent current one at that so that when serious work needs to be done we don't have to let an old P3 500mhz crunch along at it overnight just to sort a huge mail inbox or a large database file from work.. or edit videos, hash-check torrents, heh, etc.

To do all of the above, we're talking low-end dual core (holy cow, at this point, why not?! its cheap!), 512-1gb RAM, SATA HD (again, why not), integrated or super-low end video, integrated sound.

$500 should be more then enough to take that pre-existing minimum list for a middle-class gen-x somewhat-savvy family computer up to something with good performance. Current generation video cards that can do 1600x1200 in a lot of games you shouldn't pay over $300 for. $200 ones get the job done and probably at HDTV resolutions. That leaves $200 to $300 to either get up to 1GB or more RAM + even a low-end Core 2 Duo or mid-range AMD chip. OC all of the above, and the rig suddenly becomes killer.

And if the XBox360 isn't on an HDTV, then even 1024x768, which almost no gamer games at, puts it to shame.

Ex. parts:
X2 3800+ (Easy OC to 2.4-3.0, given luck) $169 retail, roughly +$80 above minimum
7600GT $155 (Probably +155 above min. integrated, less though if discrete low-end)
1 GB extra DDR $90 (Either should bring up a base model to 1.5 or 2gb)

Total here: $325 on top of a computer that you need ANYWAY to add XBox-like gaming capabilities. $414 if you don't believe on counting just the extra cost incurred in the upgrade. Still under the ridiculous $700 to $1000 claims here.

That would get you game relatively happily. An extra $100, bringing it to $425 or so, would allow for a 7800GT. 7600GT gets Oblivion over 30fps avg at 1280x1024 HDR, 8xAF, etc.

The debate can't be about money, 'cause right now, consoles lose. I think they always will. it's a matter of preference, minimal tech knowledge (even caring about tech knowledge), and your preference in mass gaming: LAN party style, or console parties?

I prefer LANs, and gaming while encoding movies with custom music playing in the background. Thats me, though.

Oh: All those prices from NewEgg. Better could be found if one were to dig no doubt. And C2D especially makes console gaming look hideous.


Edit: Disclaimer: That above applies mostly to new to not-too-old systems. Obviously you'd need a new mobo if we're talking NF2, etc.

 

problem is a non tech savvy person wouldnt know what the hell u just said to be honest, theyd be thinking 'x2 3800+ overclock to 2.4-3.0......wtf is all this, look a birdie!'.
they wnana buy a pc that does it all for a reasonable price, ie under 1000 cos to someone with kids who wants consoles aswell 1000 is quite abit. so they go on what the sales man at he store says even tho we all know they work on comission alot of the time and want to sell u the most expensive pile of rubbish they have, but as they work in a shop like pc world they must know about pcs right?

id imagine most people just think of pcs like any other appliance, u buy it, it works, afew years down the line when it dies from all that spyware etc they buy a new one for about the same price and just go by what the guy in the store says again.

so if they really cared about value for money rather than impulse buying they would get a good pc after alil research.

my mum sill does impulse buying on tech items even though she uses the internet alot and researches stuff before she buys, such as the PDA she got on impulse that isnt very good at all but was expensive so it must have been good >.<;;

 

Thats true, but I have to say that he does bring up a very good and very true point. Hes been a bit of an idiot and laid the blame solely on intel (originally) for it's integrated graphics.

It is one of the causes for the probelms he's talking about, but deffinitely not the sole or the biggest cause, but it's a factor. The main cause is your average family buying an average PC from PCWorld or Dell, and finding that they can't play the sims 2, or whatever as they have shoddy graphics, be it an integrated chip or an old card.

So in that chain really there are three or four main causes;
1) The GFX chip manufacturer for selling an awful chip
2) The person for being ignorant of what all the specs mean (so what the PC can and can't do essentially)
3) The shop for cashing in on thier ignorance ("This PC ALSO comes with an intel graphics chip with 64Mb of RAM for all your gaming needs!" I know I've heard that kind of thing before)
You could also blame the game manufacturer for not labeling thier system requirements well enough, but this is really down to the ignorance of the buyer, they should know what thier system is capable of and be able to see if thier PC is up to the specs on the box.

Point 1 is hardly the biggest cause, infact, you can't really blame them at all, the main reason is the ignorance of the buyer, I knew nothing of PCs untill not very long ago (I havn't really had one for that long compared to people who've grown up with them), it really isn't that complicated to know what many of us on BT would consider the very basics of computer hardware. So basically what each part does, therefore knowing your system, so you know when you need an upgrade when you look at the box of a game.

But then you have some other causes for people not getting PC games and using consoles, the price is a major one, consoles are far cheaper than getting a PC that can run games, specifiactions on the box are a bit vague, unless you know your stuff, you know that meeting minimum requirements won't mean the game will run well, FEAR on my old PC looked absolutely horrible.

We all forget though, even with this apparent decline in PC gaming, it's still a hell of alot more popular than it used to be a few years ago.

To have a PC that can play a game up to par with a next gen console it isn't a huge amount more than buying a console. Also building it yourself isn't too hard to do.

I first really liked the idea of building my own PC when I saw an article about it on gamespy, I saw that it isn't really all that tough, after a few months of browsing forums and tech sites I had found via google, I knew quite a bit, this wasn't all day, all night, cramming the information, it was just something a did an evening or so every week.

It isn't hard to learn and to build a PC, it's just people don't realise how easy it is. The problem is telling the public how easy it is to learn about your PC, you don't need to know all about CPU architecture and whatnot (I know nothing like this, I just can't be bothered to learn about it as it's not really that essential to me).

Hopefully we're starting to get more and more people who know about PCs.

 

That's right on. I think in this day and age, a ton of responsibility has to get dropped on consumers.. a little personal responsibility. It'd only take 30 minutes on the good ol' intarweb to land ones self at sites like this one, [H], Anandtech, TechReport, etc, that will steer them on a true course for their large $1500 (give or take $500) purchase. Much more of a true course than a salesman that spends a couple nights a week playing Deer Hunter - Redneck Rampage or whatever. Sites like this one really tell it how it is, too. I found this 'cause Brent Justice over at [H] said they do stand-up quality reviews here and glad I checked it out. New home page! Less confrontational than [H], less commercialized feeling than Anandtech. All three have good reviews, just a matter of preference I guess.

Heheh, what I'm waiting to see happen is conventional wisdom catch up with our tech community. We've been saying for years to go AMD. Now that the C2D is crushing Athlon 64 X2's, watch segments of the masses start buying AMD thinking they're getting high-end gear 'cause their tech friends a year ago built a shrine in honor of AMD in their basement

Edit: To keep it fully on topic though, I'll add this: Mark Rein's comments should be looked at purely as a source of humor, I think

 

I think you've really missed the point of this article. He's not talking about us enthusiasts that spend a tonne of money on our PC's, he's talked about average joe. Average joe likes consoles because they work and they're simple, average joe likes PC's too, but they're complicated and buying a PC for the same money as a console gets you a PC that's crap at games.

It's intresting to note that the big money in graphics isn't in the high end, it's in the middle end and the low/integrated end. Being the best in the high end as Nvidia were during the 6800U days doesn't mean a huge ammount for a companies profits. During that time ATi held the low end with a huge integrated Intel contract and strong sales of 9550's to OEM's, so they were doing better off. It may seem stupid, but the cheap crap is what sells to the majority, and this is what this guy is complaining about.

So long as OEM's are selling kit that makes PC games look like sega mega drive games Mr. Average joe isn't intrested. That's why this guy is happy about Vista, it'll force OEM's to use fairly decent cards by comparison, and they can start to compete with Xbox games.

What this man is saying is that the potential is there, and it really should be taken advantage of, because it could be so easily and it unlocks even greater things for video games.(at least, that's what I took away from it all).