News PC gaming too specialised, says Nvidia, Intel

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2007/11/20/pc_gaming_too_specialised_says_nvidia_intel/1

At the GeForce LAN 4 Event a number of industry figureheads have spoken about why the PC Gaming market is on the defensive.

 

Dying?! I've seen more top class PC titles come out this year than any I can remember. Why would there be any reason it would die now?

 

I haven't bought a PC game in ages, mainly because I don't think my system cuts the mustard anymore and I haven't got the spare cash laying around to upgrade at the moment (hmm, maybe I shouldn't put mustard in my 'puter then, it might last longer). But saying that, I have still got UT3 on Pre-order (mainly because it was cheap when I pre-ordered it last year and it looks like it'll scale down to my lowly 6600 graphics card).

I find myself playing on my 360 a lot more than I play on my PC these days (I seem to be on my 360 constantly at the moment)

 

beacuase the numbers they are actually selling are low

this is where piracy actually makes a differance i would never pirate a game and those that do download cracked versions of crysis etc should be shot. this is not the music industry where producing a title cost relative pittance. the amount of cost that goes into development of a game is astronomical and the market is smaller than music so cant support mass piracy. for those of you who do pirate games sitting at home thinking well i got my game for free why should i care i'll let the other guys buy it, do you not realise the potential for your acts to shape the PC gaming industry.

 

I would have to agree though. The lifecycle of a gaming pc is probably about 1 year, where the lifecycle of a console is easily 5 years and the cost is less.

 

How many 360s or PS2s have people been through?

Not to mention new "HDMI" or "Slim" ones.




Randy-wots-his-face at Intel needs a slap with a wet fish. Intel is the sole reason we're all being held back thanks to its craptacular integrated graphics.

 

I still play cs, tfc after 10 years. So whats up whit that then?

 

Indeed, with all the releases we have hade this year, and along with all the other past games, I wish there was more hours in the day to play more gameage.

However despite there being a mass of great games out this year, I still find myself playing other such classics as starcraft and C&C RA2 for example, todays game graphics are all very well, but tbh, its the gameplay and replayability that counts, somthing of which Bioshock lacks replayability, yet was still an awesome game.

 

i bought more games this year than probably the last 5 put together

my system is about 2.5 years old now too, its had 1 graphics card upgrade in that time (which alone cost less than a new console)
still plays everything out now, even crysis (just )

 

Personally, I think that Intel needs to make its integrated graphics chipsets a hell of a lot better than they are currently... at that point, I'd say it's worthwhile making good games that support Intel IGPs. At the moment, there's no way you can introduce new gameplay innovations (I'm not saying this is the solution to making better games, by the way) with Intel's graphics because they're not powerful enough to render them.

Hopefully Intel's push to make integrated graphics dramatically better than they are today in the next three years will help make Stude's vision more of a reality.

 

We have seen some good games come our way this year, but I really dont have anything good to look forward to in the future. and if people dont stop stealing games, that may not change a lot.
Although, it would be nice if game developers focused as much on making a really good story as they do with really good graphics. that being said, a graphic upate for starcon 2 would have me shelling out some moneyt just to play that story again.

 

I don't think games really need to run on integrated graphics. But it would be nice if I could buy a game, and play it as nice as I might on a console even though I "only" have an 1950GT. Take for instance Oblivion. I can play it nicely now. Nicely - but not as good as on a 360. Before I had an 6600GT - the game ran like crap. 800x600 with everything at Medium to get a somewhat playable framerate. I bought the game because I had more than the recommended game specs.

Since then I haven't bought any game right when it did come out, but later, when I don't have to pay so much, and my hardware is better. Sometimes the industry seems to forget, that it isn't the poeple with the top notch rigs that finance the gaming industry, but people like me, who can buy a computer around every 3 years, and a middle range graphics update every 12 to 18 months. And I know many people who are fed up by the fact, that they cannot even run a game on 1024x768 with settings on high, after having foked over $60 for it.

In fact I would buy a next gen console, if it weren't for the crappy gameplay using a joystick. Even a PS3 for $600 + a TV would save me much money on the long run. New titles on the PS2 - which really has bad specs - don't exactly look bad, so it seems that it is possible indeed. It would be possible on a PC too - if it weren't for companies like NVIdia or ATI, who actually demand from modern games to only run on their newest technology.

Oh yeah: This is no whining. I don't buy games, that's all that's to it.

 

If I could use my keyboard and mouse on the latest consoles, I might consider buying one. But until then, I'm sticking to my PC.

 

Well, PC can do a lot! A lot more than any consoles can, presently or even in the future, in practical theory though... The problem is that developers are having a hard time juicing the true potential of PC... When i said developers, that's both the softwares and the hardware-notably the lack of support for various input devices... What do we have now, a mouse, a keyboard and occasionally some nifty game controllers, still thats way limited...

 

I think intel has hit on a way to improve pc gaming in the future much better intigrated graphics as
many casual gamers buy their pc's in commercial stores where all pc's are sold with this type of graphic's as well as sound. of course hardcore gamers will always opt for custom or personal built pc's
with top notch graphic's and sound.

 

Sadly w/ PCs, both hardware and software have to be at their best to get people to jump on the bandwagon (myself). I want to see a "leap" in gaming in terms of both gameplay and realism (graphics). W/o those two things I am left waiting/hoping while I play on my friends' 360s/PS3s and continue hating my current PC setup due to its inferiority to play games even near the consoles' potential....

I want futureproofing, as well, to get the most out of my $1XXX investment because every year or so a game that I want to play comes out and requires me to replace my old card that I just spent $1XX on a year ago, and now I get to sell it for $20 on ebay. And that's not just it, my CPU as well, and how about a new mobo while we're at it...the list keeps growing, so with that said, PC gaming is ready to grow, but w/o innovation overall (that seperates PC gaming from Console gaming) there's no need for PC gamers such as I to want to spend the money to upgrade.....

I also like how PCs can use controllers/wheels/joysticks as well for sports, racing & flying games which helps for selling those kinds of games on PC....

Having bought my computer 4 years ago (2500+ & 9600PRO baby!) and having bought all types of games during those first 2 years of ownership, I disagree w/ the statement that PC gaming is too "specialised"...there just needs to be a "push" and I feel w/ DX10, games such as (Crysis, Bioshock & Episode 2) and hardware innovation; if these areas continue to grow, come this summer I will have a reason to get back into PC gaming....

you can M+K on the PS3 natively, and on 360 using a 3rd party adaptor (which is hella expensive for what it is btw)....

 

Yeah, Intel knows that those are things coming, but the question should be raised on what degree does the company's commitment is up to... AMD's got a better chance in this manner, so to speak, but like the blue ones, their commitment is really not that kind of welfare to those non hardcore gamers... Its because profit is the most important after-product a company wants, IMO...

 

In 1999, Quake 3 launches and reaches a new high-water mark for graphics, some fear the advanced graphics will hurt pc gaming

In 2004, Doom 3 launches and reaches a new high water mark for graphics, some fear the advanced graphics will hurt pc gaming

In 2005, FEAR launches and reaches a new high water mark for graphics, some fear the advanced graphics will hurt pc gaming

In 2006, Oblivion 4 launches and reaches a new high water mark for graphics, some fear the advanced graphics will hurt pc gaming

In 2007, Crysis launches and reaches a new high water mark for graphics, some fear the advanced graphics will hurt pc gaming

 

Why, because it involves a little more than just plugging something in and pushing the 'on' switch?

 

We hear the same load of ******** year in year out. Consoles have come and gone. PC gaming has remained at the forefront of innovative gaming since as far back as I can remember. If PC games sales are down, I imagine it's due partly to the upsurge of Online MMORPG gaming. Single player games are second place now (in my book anyways) to online gaming. The market has changed yes, but PC gaming is as strong now as it ever has been.