Slashdot Mirror
Unreal Creator Proclaims PCs are Not For Gaming
An anonymous reader writes "TG Daily is running an interesting interview with EPIC founder and Unreal creator Tim Sweeney. Sweeney is anyway very clear about his views on the gaming industry, but it is surprising how sharply he criticizes the PC industry for transforming the PC into a useless gaming machine. He's especially unhappy with Intel, which he says has integrated graphics chipsets that 'just don't work'."
There aren't many GOOD pc games coming out lately. So, if the manufacturers drop the ball on hardware ... it doesn't REALLY matter, because the software developers aren't doing much better either.
... they're focusing on consoles because there is more money in consoles!
I don't think that it is a downward spiral, either - software companies aren't focusing on consoles because the PC hardware isn't great
without the ads. http://www.tgdaily.com/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=36390&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=118
He's not saying that the PC is not a gaming platform, or that it shouldn't be. He's saying that there are 'high-end' PCs that can play games, and 'low-end' PCs that can't, and the gap between them is large and transparent to the average consumer (who doesn't realize that buying a PC with "Integrated Extreme Graphics" is the same thing as buying a PC that "can't play modern games").
I really believe the last bastion of PC gaming lies in real time strategy games, a genre that essentially requires at least a mouse. I guess many die hards would say the same about first person shooters, but I am comfortable playing with either a mouse or controller, and ever since Halo came out back in 2001, the FPS scene has been migrating to the consoles at a pretty quick rate. The PC will always have Counterstrike, but when it gets pretty popular console games such as Gears of War a year after their console release, you can tell that times have changed.
But yeah, real time strategy games, I don't think we'll ever a decent port of say Starcraft 2 to the consoles, but I suppose if anyone can pull it off, Blizzard can.
I'm not really sure if PC games losing to consoles is entirely a bad thing, I think people are just fed up with trying to keep their system up to date with hardware, nasty CD protection schemes that kill their drives, and console ports that can play just as well and in the comfort of their living room.
Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
U+F8FF
Of course integrated graphics aren't for gaming. that's what a dedicated video card is for. If you want to use your PC for gaming (Which I do, casually.. with dual geForce 8600GTSs) you have to add on.. it's a simple procedure as everyone here is probably aware. but integrated graphics are VERY useful for office environments where they don't NEED 3d performance. wow.
Have you even tried to play Unreal III? It takes far more PC than most people have. and that same problem plagued ID on it's last 2 releases for almost 2 years. Hell I know people that STILL dont have a pc capable of running Doom III at any playable speeds. Gaming companies are killing themselves. They are selling games that require a 4ghz dual core, 4 gig ram, and a $500.00 video card. While the world is happy as hell with their 3 year old Pentium 4 3ghz running that $45.00 Geforce 6600 card.
you cant sell a crapload of games that runs on hardware that most people dont have.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I fully agree with the sentiment. In the good old days, you had to be creative to get the most out of the hardware you had, and gameplay was at the centre (or center) of attention. These days it is all about how many frames per second you can push from your graphics card and cpu.
and stop having an anuerism everytime someone tries to add a mouse, I'd pretty much stop using my PC to game with.
I will NEVER use a joystick to play an FPS. Period. It's inferior. Period. A good mouser can beat the best joysticker everytime, given a level playing field (and before you start, it's almost NEVER a level playing field - so don't tell me how good you are on a console. The target areas are programmatically larger. The AI is dumbed down. Etc, etc. These are facts - look it up)
If you even START to suggest adding a mouse option to consoles, the kiddies starting pitching a fit and immediately begin insulting your mother. It's pathetic - the fear of having their asses handed to them in combat is funny. I really enjoy my 360 - but not having a mouse as an OPTION prevents access to a lot of what is cool on it.
Until that time, the PC platform will remain strong. Consoles need a mouse. It's just silly they don't have them. If M$/$ony will EVER gets some balls and support a mouse, I think you'll see the PC side take a huge hit. I'd rather play on my 65" HD.
EK
I used to be a complete hater when it came to keyboard and mouse fanboys. But even since my friends and I started playing UT2K4 together about a month ago (yeah I know it's an old game shut up), I have seen the truth. FPS's are meant for the mouse. Until a console fully supports this, I will refuse to believe that PC gaming is dead.
From the perspective of type of resources "modern" games require, he's right. But large portions of the gaming industry seem to have lost sight of the fact that games do not need to be pretty, only fun. They are games after all.
In the last six months I've logged more hours playing Mahjong on my N810 than I have playing UT3, EVE Online and Half Life 2 mods combined.
So from a wider perspective he's not only wrong, but lost sight of what is important in a game. Not that I don't personally think that UT3 is fun as hell, I actually bought that one. But some perspective on his part would be beneficial to him and his customers.
Question everything
this article and interview are NOT about mouses and joysticks. this article and interview are NOT about PC vs. Console.
This article and interview ARE about how the overwhelming majority of PCs sold in the US do not come remotely close to being able to run current game software. It is almost a plea to Intel to stop making integrated graphics chips, because they suck at running games. If 90% of the PCs sold can't run the software you write and publish, then you aren't going to be a big fan of PC gaming at the moment.
Yes, we know, if you're posting here you can build your own PC, upgrade your graphics card every six months, and use your mouse and keyboard to headshot Osama Bin Laden in his cave from orbit. That doesn't change the fact that you are a part of a minority, and can expect that other game publishers will begin thinking of bailing out on the PC as a platform.
I like Tim, I especially liked his presentation on programming languages in games, but his comments about 64-bit Vista seem rather out of touch.
Yeah? It'd also have cleaned up all the "legacy" software people are using. Like iTunes. Not to mention all the actual legacy software like kids educational software, drivers for old hardware, etc. I also don't know why he thinks this would have cleaned up viruses and spyware. These guys adapt fast and the extra anti-patch systems in 64 Vista aren't all that strong.
I just bought a new motherboard with integrated Intel GMA3100 graphics. I ended up buying a low end Nvidia 8400 for 40 EUROS because it sucked so much. The Intel can barely run Google Earth. It runs Quake3 worse than a 6 year old Geforce. The 8400 runs ET:QW at 30 fps @ 1680x1050, medium-low settings with shadows disabled. That's not £300, just £30, and it's capable of running recent games decently.
/. still can't display the EURO sign, what the fuck is wrong with you people? *
So yeah, the guy's right, Intel's graphics adaptors are terrible. I don't know about the X3xxx series, they're supposed to be much better, but I wouldn't count on it.
* OH FOR FUCK'S SAKE
If M$/$ony will EVER gets some balls and support a mouse
Hmm?
Unreal Tournament 3 on PS3 can be played with mouse and keyboard just fine.
People have also made arguments that FPS is better on the PC (you can get higher frame rates and some prefer the mouse + keyboard combo). The same could be said for MMOs. (I think they've managed to successfully simplify most RPGs on consoles; however, an MMO where timing and networking are important still feels better on a PC. I think the number of MMOs on console vs. on PC shows the industry believes this as well.)
At the same time, there are games where simplified control allows the console to strive. I think this is why most sports titles are better sold on consoles then the PC. Platform games also feel more natural on the console. Granted, these can be made to work on PCs with the help of additional game controllers; however, this is another piece of clutter for a desk.
In the end, I think both PC and consoles have their place in the gaming world. I own a PC for gaming (mostly FPS and Lord of the Rings: Online), and I own a console (the Wii) for various game types.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
That's twice that someone from epic say pc gaming is dead. I think that's because they have sour grapes that UT3 sales failed.
The problem is that they failed on many points:
1. They shouldn't have released an unfinished games to meet seasonal sales, because in the end they missed much more than just christmas 07 - they made people ignore the game altogether.
2. When you release a primarily multiplayer game with the idea that it's third parties who'll host most of the servers, you have dedicated linus server binary available on the release day. On release day people had to host servers on windows with a retail CD in the drive for fuck's sake.
3. When you release a successor to ut2004 that had tons of maps and mostly the same gameplay and game mechanics (minus the bugs and unfinished features of ut3 like spectating), don't expect people to upgrade just for the visuals - especially since ut2004 can run so well on today's machines.
4. And they should have listened to complains and answered them on their forums instead of deleting any post suggesting ut3 is far from a perfect game in the hope that other potential buyers wouldn't otherwise find out (how stupid can those PR fucks be?). That or just don't have forums at all.
Show the the console that can play Crysis. For that matter show me a console that plays the newer 'Total War' games. Show the the console that supports various MMO's.
Drink your coffee before you post!
That's sorta true. . . but not so much. . .
By the time you finish upgrading your computer, you've spent enough money that it might have made more sense to by a medium-spec next gen machine, instead of trying to upgrade your last-gen machine to high-spec (for that generation). Because the medium spec machine will likely be more powerful than the high-spec last-gen machine. Or, you have, really, bought a new computer, one part at a time, anyhow, and probably spent $400-$600, at least, to do it.
If 90% of all PC's sold can't play 90% of the games sold, who's fault is this? Is it the hardware manufacturers that sell people PCs at a reasonable price, or the game manufacturers who target hardware only found in 10% of PCs? Even if only 1/9th of all the people buying low-end PCs wanted to buy games, that would still double the target market (and that is assuming that all of the people buying "capable" machines want to buy games).
Games manufacturers could easily start to target the 90% instead if they wanted to increase their market. Even an Intel GMA 950 (which is in an awful lot of PCs and laptops) should be capable of playing 3D games if the graphics are scaled down properly.
Personally I think a lot of games manufacturers are pissing away the chance for a large increase in their sales, by being way too '1337'. They want to show off their game, and they want to make it look super slick, which is fair enough... but don't come complaining if this rules the game out for a large part of the market.
The PC should never have been used for gaming. It took kludge on top of kludge to make it work, and the end product is so far from its roots as a general-purpose computational device that it is barely recognizable.
And those jaw bones should have been left the hell alone, too. You can barely recognize them, either, and in their current form, they are NO GOOD FOR CHEWING!
Why can't people leave well enough alone?
The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them. - Mark Twain
Yes I'm aware of that, however pretty much no game supports it. The support is half-hearted at best and is basically non-support.
And, yeah, it is Sony's (and MS's) fault. Say 'ok you can plug in a mouse' is not 'You must also support a mouse'.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Sooo... in the grand scheme of things, Sweeney has found himself a free pass out of the creative side of game development.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
CPU - $90
Motherboard - $140
2 gigs RAM - $80
Graphics card - $160
HD - $120
Grand total? $590. Considering I built this system almost a year ago now, it's safe to say that you could purchase the same components for under $500 today. 5 years ago I couldn't have even bought a basic system for under $1200, let alone one capable of running the most recent games!
> criticizes the PC industry for transforming the PC into a useless gaming machine
Humorously ambiguous sentence
I personally think that the PC, particularly under Windows XP, is a terrible gaming platform. I find myself cringing every time people complain about how bad Linux/Mac are for games, as opposed to the great and wonderful Windows. Here's a little list of annoyances I can think of off the top of my head right now:
* The need to install a game on your hard disk. Why can my Gamecube run any game within seconds of plopping the CD in and turning it on? (...and it's not like I can legitimately run the game without the original CD anyway.)
* The horribly slow and ugly process of switching from the Windows desktop to full screen. First the screen flickers. Then the screen turns black. Then the desktop shows up for a second, "magnified" (because the resolution is lower). Then more blackness. Finally, the game shows up. Hard disk grinding throughout this time. Reverse this process when the game is over.
* Occasionally some stupid popup (like an instant message or a warning about my swap space running low) will force the game out of full-screen mode and back to the desktop. This cuts you out of the action for at least 30 seconds, as the disk grinds its way to swap everything back in and the resolution change as described above occurs yet again.
* The occasional background process causes the game to stutter or jump slightly every once in a while.
* I've rarely ever seen a 3D, or even a 2D game on the PC that has consistent smooth moving animation and scrolling at the refresh rate of the monitor with no tearing - things that are a given in almost any console game. That is, it should be that FPS == refresh rate, and refreshes occur while screen is not updating.
* When quitting a game, very often all windows that were previously open are now confined to the upper-left corner within bounds equal to the size of the game's full-screen resolution.
* Sometimes the same goes for all desktop icons. So what if you've spent time arranging them in a particular way? They're all bunched up in a 320x200 corner now, sorry.
* No matter how good your hardware, a game will always give you the impression that something needs upgrading (see the stuttering phenomenon mentioned above).
In my experience the Mac is much better in most of these respects. I've never tried gaming under Linux or Vista, and I do realize some of these points may have been fixed in Vista.
While but a small number of sales, the people I game with (12 or so, tops) have not (other than 2-3 initial purchases) made the jump from UT2k4 to UT3. Why?
No Linux or Mac ports
No initial Linux server
Severely downgraded server app (No webadmin, no ability to ban by CD key, limited functionality mapvote, repeated server crashes, bugs in the beta which were reported, but not fixed on release, etc.)
While we've been playing UT for 8 years or so, this is by far the WORST release we've ever seen. With the last server patch, things are starting to look up. But the hardware requirements are so high, and UT2k4 works so well, that we're still not making the jump as a group. (You pointed out the content difference, which is HUGE as well.)
UT3, for the most part, has been a half-assed piece of dog crap. And that's coming from a group of people who have played UT as a primary FPS for 8 years.
The only reason PC gaming is "dead" is that UT3 was complete shit. Had Epic actually released a stable, full-functioning game, they'd be rolling in the money, and "PC gaming" would be "alive and well". Releasing such a blatantly unfinished game vs the other FPSes that came out around that time was really, REALLY stupid. That being said, we're planning to make the switch in another 3-6 months, once the major issues get fixed.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
I really agree with Tim here. This was the perfect opportunity to transition to 64bit. Most compatibility issues with Vista are Vista related, not 64 bit related. This would have given us more access to memory beyond 2GB and accelerated 64bit application development and might have even given me a reason to go with Vista. If you are breaking a lot of drivers and programs anyway, why not got 64bit at the same time and gain some benefit in the process. Heck Apple managed to swap to a whole new CPU architecture with minimal pain. You need to have stones to move forward.
But by giving everyone a choice again and all the OEMs pushing 32bit, there is practically no movement to 64bit and practically no new capabilities exercised, no 64 bit games. etc..
Another thing is MS should have upped the minimum HW requirements for Vista. 64bit processor 1Gig memory and graphics capable of at least running the interface. That is how bad Intel Integrated is. It can't even run Vistas bloated interface (hence lawsuit). No surprise it can't run games.
There should be some kind of game certification as well and the bar needs to be high enough that Intel Integrated fails even the minimum standard.
It needs to be made absolutely clear than standard integrated graphics are incapable of running games.
Blaming Intel and integrated graphics for the decline of PC gaming is a cop out. These game companies have been operating under the principle that a game with better graphics is a better game. Instead of creating new an innovative was to game on a PC, they enhance the graphics of an old game and call it a new game. Don't blame Intel if your game does not work on their GPU platform and you are using the latest, cutting edge, extensions and expecting the latest amounts of video ram. The fact that some of these companies are listing specific graphics cards as system requirements should indicate that there is a problem. At that point you are limiting your audience on your own. If you want a big audience, you should target machines with integrated graphics and then find ways to scale up when there is more power instead of targeting the latest and greatest and then complaining that you can't scale back to make it work. By promoting the idea that better graphics equals better game, they entered into a stupid race and they can only blame themselves.
What did everyone had at home? Televisions.
What do you need to use a console? Televisions.
When everybody has a computer at home, wouldn't it be natural for consoles to connect to the computer and use it's display? Wouldn't it also follow that, having connected to the computer you could also use it's peripherals?
At the same time, aren't graphic cards concentrating more and more of the power needed to run a modern game?
So, on one side we'll have consoles that lack display (as now) but also controls and sound, and graphic cards concentrating almost all the power to run a cutting edge game.
What differentiates those two pieces of hardware?
Probably not a good example considering we're still waiting for a PC that can play Crysis. ;)
The problem is the people who buy a business class machine, like one of the Dell machines intended solely for office work, e-mail/surfing and expect it to be a gaming machine.
There is nowhere that this is more apparent than The Sims franchise where people who are not gamers suddenly want to play a game and find they can't or that the performance sucks.
The problem lies with the fact that PCs are not consoles and people have choice. If every PC was sold as something capable of handling games, the price would be much higher. You wouldn't be able to get those $300 desktops for grandma to check her email on.
Don't blame the industry for giving consumers a choice. Blame the consumers for not educating themselves and making a proper choice. Better yet, educate consumers. Run an ad campaign, set up a website as a resource for explaining the difference between an e-mail machine and a gaming machine.
^_^ The funny part is that they are planning on releasing Crysis 1.5 on the PS3.
Not only will it be coming to the console, it will contain 50% more stuff.
http://kotaku.com/gaming/cry-on/crytek-says-crysis-for-consoles-possible-284534.php
http://www.ps3fanboy.com/2008/03/03/rumor-crysis-for-ps3-looking-probable-will-be-an-almost-50-n/
I steal signatures. This one used to be yours.
That's amazing. Now how about you give the prices of: case, power supply, CD/DVD drive, keyboard, laser mouse, monitor, speakers, and value of your time spent on building it. :-P
Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
The high end game industry lives in its own (un)reality.
How the hell is it Intel and the PC's manufacturer's fault for integrated graphics, when most PC's are for business use, where they, at best, play card games on. People won't pay for power they don't need.
The market for insanely fast, high-end games seems to have shrunk in favour of casual games, MMOs, and "gameplay" games. Instead of working on graphics engines, the hotspot for innovation seems to be game play and game experience. Examples abound: Wii Sports, Bio Shock, Mass Effect, World in Conflict, the endless stream of "war games" like Gears of War and Call of Duty, etc.
None of these games can be played with Integrated graphics; WoW will run max ~10-15 fps on X3100 Integrated graphics, and will probably degrade without aftermarket cooling. Almost all sales people at Best Buy or even at the Apple Store are very clear about what models are meant for games, and which ones aren't. Yet Tim claims that poor, blind, customers are being sold PC's that won't play games. I guess he's never heard of a "2 week return policy"?
I think Doom 3 killed the market -- after that experience, people don't want to buy the same old 10 year old game with new graphics and some minor gameplay improvements.
For example, if you improve the graphics (a bit) AND the gameplay AND change the setting or genre, you may have a winner... The current graphics champ, Crysis, has done fairly well, selling 1 million through the end of January, despite early reports that it was flunking as bad as UT3. Gears of War 2 is hotly anticipated and I bet will slam UT3's sales despite being on the same engine. I haven't heard what UT3's sales are, last I saw it was 1.2 million for PS3 + PC combined, which seems to indicate PC sales sucked.
-Stu
But still crap overall. The major problem is that they use system RAM. Graphics is very RAM bandwidth intensive and the system RAM just can't provide that. Part of the problem is that you are fighting for access to it with the CPU, but the other part is that it is just slow by graphics standards. I mean consider that the brand spanking new high end RAM for a motherboard is DDR3-1333. That's 1333MHz in RAM speak (meaning 1333 million transfers per clock). Most people don't have that, even with high end systems since it is brand new. Most are DDR2-667 or DDR-800 which are, of course 667MHz and 800MHz. Ok, now compare that to a high end graphics card. These days they have RAM in the 1800-2000MHz range. What's more, they have a very large memory controller (or rather a lot of parallel 64-bit controller), between 256-bit and 384-bit on today's high end.
The upshot of it is a high end motherboard might have a theoretical max 10GB/sec of memory bandwidth, a high end graphics card can have as much as 10 times that (the 8800 Ultra has a theoretical max of 103GB/sec).
Now if you talk more realistic systems like where you'd actually be using integrated graphics, it isn't even that high. You have a system with DDR2-533 and, well, that's 4.2GB/sec peak and remember that's shared with the CPU. Even the cheap 8400 has more than that (6.4GB/sec peak) and, of course, that is all dedicated for it, no sharing.
So while the Intel chips themselves aren't all that bad (they aren't great either, don't get me wrong), they are just going to be permanently crippled with regards to games so long as they are sharing slower system memory. Doing graphics operations on lots of pixels just demands lots of memory bandwidth. Doesn't go over so well when the bandwidth is low, and you have to fight with the CPU for access to it.
Wouldn't an optical mouse be better? The ones with a roller ball are really outdated. Unless you meant a trackball?
Here is an opposing viewpoint from Doug Lombardi.
I tend to agree that PC gaming is not going away. PC game programming definitely has it's challenges. The console programmer is programming for known hardware so he can optimize much more easily than a PC game programmer who has to deal with unknown graphics capabilities, cpu speed, memory size, monitor resolution, etc. Good graphics APIs help, but do not take the problem away. OTOH, once you have programmed for this variability, you have a more portable game. When I buy a new PC, I don't mind paying a few hundred more for discrete graphics card (I don't buy consoles anyway), and I enjoy loading all my old games onto it and knowing they'll (usually) still work. Sometimes I even find that some group has created a modified version of the game that improves the experience on faster hardware (like open GL versions of doom or descent). Also, user created content (maps, characters, campaigns, etc) is an area where PC games outshine their console counterparts.
Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
If the console say, came with a mouse and some sort of layout controller (ala a nostromo for instance) then there would be more defacto support. I am not saying force the devs ( and whatever on content control - the devs are currently 'forced' to a standard controller) to be forced - if a mouse/keyboard was a standard part of the consoles it would take care of itself.
And yah, sometimes I don't know why I bother to post here *smile*.
EK