It's always a pleasure to speak to Mark Rein. The Epic VP lives up to his studio's name in both vision and opinion, never shying away from dropping a few controversial thoughts or letting the world know what he thinks.
His upcoming titles, the eagerly-awaited Gears of War and Unreal Tournament 2007, have already got shooter fans falling over themselves in anticipation, and Unreal Engine 3 has taken the industry by storm with companies like BioWare, EA, and Sony snapping-up Epic's tech to construct their next-gen titles.
In the second part of our recent chat, Rein sways away from his upcoming mega-titles and talks about the games industry as a whole, touching on the raging success of Unreal Engine 3, the future of the PC market and Epic's recently acquired Nintendo Wii dev-kit.
So without further ado, it's over to Mr. Rein...
Are you surprised by the runaway success of Unreal Engine 3?
Mark Rein: No. I know that doesn't sound very humble (laughs). You know, we're a small company; 80 people with three teams; two game teams and an engine team and we have been working on this engine for four years now at least. The goal is to be able to be competitive with the biggest companies with the biggest resources, and build something like Gears of War with a reasonably-sized team without having to have 80 people working on it. To do that we really had to spend a lot of money and a lot of time creating the best tools that we could, creating for ourselves a huge advantage over all of our competitors or all the people who aren't using our technology. Creating ourselves this great advantage by concentrating on tools, by pouring in all the money we made from the last game and all the money we made from engine licensing back into building a great engine.
And most developers can't afford to do that; I mean it's an expensive process. If your job is to ship a game - if that's what you get paid for, nobody pays you to make technology, they pay you to ship something. Publishers' money and publishers' own internal teams are not paid to build cool stuff, they're paid to ship games because that's where their money comes from. So we're fortunate that in being independent and being small and profitable we've been able to re-invest a lot of our profits into creating great tools. It doesn't surprise me that people go 'oh, Epic can make Gears of War with an average team size of 25?!' - I mean, we're probably a little short; that's definitely cutting it close. Then at times the team has grown to 40 people as we've stolen some guys from UT but for the most part the average size of the team has been about 25 or-so. And people look at that and they say: 'how are they doing that? We've got to look at this Unreal Engine technology and see if we can apply it in our shop'. I think that's really what's happened; people have seen that and said 'we could do that, we could benefit from that'.
So it doesn't surprise me that people want to find a way to offset the higher cost of making next-generation content.
A lot of traditionally PC-centric developers are now moving over to console development. Where do you see the PC market going? Is it in decline?
Mark Rein: It's tough. You know my diatribe about Intel integrated graphics and how I think that's hurting the marketplace. I mean, I went to PC World in the UK; I went to PC World and I walked around their shelves and I had my Blackberry out. I wrote myself an email and every time I saw something with integrated graphics I would put an 'I', and every time I saw something with a decent nVidia card I would put an 'N', a decent ATI card I would put an 'A' and I did a count of integrated graphics, which includes ATI's crappy integrated graphics which they sell to intel and Intel sells on, and the point is that 80% of the laptops were integrated graphics. 55% of the desktops - this is at this particular store, and that's an enthusiast store too, it's not just Best Buy like we have in the US; it's a high-end PC store. 55% of desktops were integrated graphics, and some of those weren't upgradeable at all even though they were desktops.
The truth is I was very surprised by that 55% number because I expected that to be higher. But when I looked carefully, the machines that didn't have integrated graphics were £1300 and up - that is not a cheap computer, those are expensive machines and they happen to sell a lot of expensive machines. And the laptops that didn't have integrated graphics again were expensive gaming-model laptops. But the problem is all the other machines, the average buyer goes into the store and he wants to spend £500, he doesn't want to spend £1500. And so the problem is, in that price range its vary hard, almost impossible to walk out of PC World with a computer that's capable of playing games. Now, don't get me wrong; you can go to Dell's website and you can configure a computer for less than that that has a decent graphics card in it, but those aren't the configurations that they're pushing on people and you have to know quite a bit about the game business and quite a bit about video cards, graphics and options in your PC to build that. The truth is, you can go to Dell's website, spend $300 -or-$400 more and still get crappy integrated graphics, and the chances that you'll get integrated graphics if you don't know what you're doing are much higher because the majority of the configurations start there.
So that's a real problem. We're selling the largest part of the market computers that aren't capable of playing games, so if they get a game home and they play it and it doesn't work, they're out of gaming - we've lost them completely, 'gaming's left me by' or 'I'll go buy a console'. That's why consoles are doing so well, because 'instead of spending money on an add-on video card that I don't understand how to install anyway, I'll go buy a console'. And that's where the mass consumers are getting their gaming fix, if they're getting it at all. You know, back in the Doom II days any computer was capable of running Doom II; it's software rendering, you just needed a decent CPU. Now you can buy a very expensive, very high-end CPU and still have a computer that's incapable of playing your average, decent action game. That's a problem.
So that's how we're losing customers; we're selling people machines that are completing incapable of playing games. And they don't know how to fix that situation; you can't upgrade a laptop - a lot of people are moving to laptops are their primary computing platform. If you get the wrong one, you're screwed. And I don't know of any laptops in the low-end price-ranges that have anything but integrated graphics in them. Intel's been massively successful at selling these because they sell it all as a bundle and they give you a nice little marketing kick-back too. So you know, there's a lot of competition there, and the OEM say 'well if everyone's going to buy that I might as well too, that's the only way I can compete on price'. It's a really significant problem.
And what do you think the solution is?
Mark Rein: I don't know. The solution is for Intel to spend a few bucks, maybe cut their marketing kick-backs and put a few of those bucks - and I'm not talking about $30, I'm talking about $5 or $10 more cost of goods into each of those graphics chips and make something that's actually competitive. And I don't mean an nVidia 7900 competitive, I mean an nVidia 7400 competitive or ATI X1600 - something that's at least decent, not expensive but decent.
And Intel could do it, because they have the quantities that other people don't have at marketplace, and they're already giving people huge marketing kick-backs. But you know, the problem is they're so successful how do you tell their sales people 'this isn't a successful strategy what we're doing'. It's going to take them to have some leadership that decides 'you know what? If we get people a little interested in graphics, we can send them the higher-end CPUs where our margins are better, we can actually make more money because these guys will get a little interested in graphics and they'll gradually start upgrading.
The problem is, Intel doesn't sell a better graphics chip than the one you get in the cheapest computer, so there's no value to them in selling you an upgraded graphics chip; they're only interested in selling you a higher-end CPU. So that's a problem. Maybe the merger of ATI and AMD will change that because right now AMD is at a fairly-large disadvantage to Intel's Core 2 processor, the new one. It's a great processor, the Core 2 and certainly the fastest ones are faster than any answer AMD has. So maybe they'll win business at the low-end, where a lot of business is and AMD will bundle a good CPU with one of ATI's better low-end GPUs, like the X1600 and a core chipset. And maybe they can do that at a price that competes with Intel and convince the OEMs that 'hey, forget about just CPU performance; that's a terrible way to measure overall performance of your system, lets look at the overall performance'. Because even though AMD may lose the CPU benchmarks by a couple of points, they'll drastically win the GPU benchmarks, giving them an overall advantage. And that's what's important to us; building systems that are balanced. You know, a dual-core CPU with integrated graphics is a complete waste; there's not much point to that other than padding Intel's profit. But a dual-core CPU made into a decent graphics chip; that's a better situation.
So we'll have to wait and see if AMD has the balls to go up against Intel. I'm nervous about that because when you come to trade shows like this you see huge, huge Intel stands and you see a little, small AMD stand. Marketing hasn't exactly been their strong suite, and they really need to get out there and market this kind of thing if they're going to beat Intel. So we'll see. We'll push them as hard as we can and we'll keep pushing Intel, but we need other people to speak up too. We need other people in the industry to acknowledge that this is a problem, I hear it all the time from developers: 'oh you're so right, it's such a problem', you know, Doom 3 probably sold half of what Doom II did for that exact reason and I'll bet you that Half-Life 2 has sold significantly-less than Half-Life 1 again for that exact same reason. People get it home, they try it on their computer and 'oh, Half-Life 1 worked fine on my old computer'. Guess what? Now you need a GPU to have decent experience and most people don't have a good one. So it's a real problem.
There's a lot of buzz going around at the moment with the imminent arrival of Windows Vista. What's your take on Vista?
Mark Rein: Well I think Vista will ultimately be good for games, it's going to get us a lot closer to the hardware, much in the same way you can get significantly more power out of an Xbox than the same piece of parts configured into a PC. And that's partially because Windows wasn't designed for games originally, so one of the things they've done is they now have Direct X powering the desktop, so we have less competition between the GDI layer and Direct X for resources. That's good. On the other hand I'm bitterly disappointed that they're shipping a 32-bit version of Vista; I think that's very short-sighted, I really don't see the point of it. I think they kind of capitulated to Intel; you know Intel was going along really well making 64-bit chips until their original core chips which are 32-bit, and then I think Intel put the squeeze on Microsoft and said 'we're still going to do some 32-bit chips, you've got to do a 32-bit version'.
And I'm also disappointed that the Aero Glass interface isn't the standard interface for Vista. In other words isn't the only interface for Vista; I think that would've helped us a lot in terms of bringing up the bottom of integrated graphics if Microsoft said 'no Intel, we're not going to capitulate to you, you're going to have to make better chips if you want people to run Vista on your machine'. Now I understand they're a business, they're trying to sell as many as they can but I think they had a good opportunity there to move the market forward and you know, they kind of dropped the ball a little on that. But that's just my view, I think there's lots of good things in Vista that will help gaming but I think the biggest thing they could've done was maybe give us 64-bit only.
What do you think about Microsoft's big Games for Windows push? Do you see good things coming for that?
Mark Rein: My fingers are crossed that they're going to basically help fix the marketing problem with games. In the US, you walk into a store, It's almost impossible; the PC games are in the back, they're filed sideways, there's no rhyme or reason to them, the stores don't market them and then they wonder why they don't sell. Best Buy does a pretty good job; they give us front facings and things of that nature, but the specialty shops have almost given up on Windows gaming. They're happy to take the money from it but they're not giving it enough shelf space, they're certainly not pushing it and that's probably because they can't re-sell those games. But hopefully what Microsoft are doing with Games for Windows will get us some more shelf space and get us some front facing and better organisation, better marketing - I'm going to wait to actually see it happen, you know, actually see EB put those shelves and displays in before I actually label it a success. It's certainly a valiant effort and something that's badly needed.
Before we finish up: did Epic ever get that Wii dev kit?
Mark Rein: (laughs) I can't say, I'm under NDA with Nintendo. But I can tell you that we're not doing, internally any development right now on the Wii. The Wii I'm sure is going to be a fantastic machine and sell really well but it's kind of below - it's not Intel integrated graphics but it's pretty far bellow the kind of min-bar of Unreal Engine 3. If you built a PC with that spec it wouldn't really be capable of playing an Unreal Engine 3 games decently. They're aiming at clearly at different audience that what we are. You know, Unreal Engine 3 can't run on Xbox 1 or PS2 either - and that's not to say that some of our licensees wont find a way to shoe-horn it into that platform, we certainly have some licensees that are doing some experiments in that area and it could very well happen. But that's a really tough job. And one thing that has become public knowledge in the last little while is that Ubisoft's game Red Steel is using Unreal Engine 2, so there will be Unreal Engine games on the Wii. There will be Unreal Engine games on the Wii and hopefully they'll be successful and maybe we'll make a little money from it, but Unreal Engine 3 - that's a little below our target platform.
Do you think the Wii will be able to emulate the success of the DS?
Mark Rein: They certainly have a lot of buzz right now and if they can have a low enough price (NOTE: our interview was conducted before Nintendo's recent price announcement)- you know, people compare the DS and the PSP but the DS is half the price of the PSP, It's going for a different market than the PSP almost and so maybe that's the difference between Wii and PlayStation 3 or Wii and Xbox 360. Maybe they're going to come out at a significantly lower price point and they'll be able to do some really cool stuff with it, we'll have to wait and see. Or wait and Wii (laughs).
Cut your cloth according to your means, then Mark!
Even with integrated graphics PCs can run some great games, if you are not so greedy with your engines' demands. Market research will tell you the sweetspot to aim for, then you can adjust to fit, rather than complain that the world won't move to fit what you (and a relatively few, to be honest) want. Worked for Sims.
I've been playing games for the last 20 years, and guess what, the graphics thrust is getting boring. Half-Life 2 was good looking, but I didn't feel it grabbed me as much as the first. I'm having more fun playing Giants!
Anyway, I have pre-ordered a Wii, as that looks to be just what the doctor ordered. I hope Ubisoft make a good job of their new FPSs for the platform, and that will persuade some more people to take a look at a fresh alternative.
michaelarran@aol: I read the article and thought the self same thing as you! How anybody INSIDE the industry can say 'our game sold half as many as it could of because PC's in homes couldn't run it!' Hey, how about writing games that WILL Mr Epic, et al?!
In any other business the market follows the customer base. Still tons of VHS recorders in homes, so plenty of companies selling movies on tape and blank tapes. Are they all producing on HD DVD only and then complaining their sales are halved? No. They produce for the market AS IT IS!!!!
The PC gaming market used to do this. As per the statements on Doom II selling twice as many as Doom 3. 10 years ago you did have Wing Commander pushing frontiers, (I blame WC for a lot of the problems of today, because it moved the market to only supporting the hardcore, rather than general gamers) but at the time the vast majority of games were written for CURRENT PC's!
In fact that was the case up until about 1998-99, then all of a sudden it changed to expect gamers to keep up with games. We have been in that mode since, and gaming has declined accordingly.
So Mr Epic and everybody - find out what PC's are getting sold and write games for them! It worked well during the early to mid 90's - the peak of PC gaming! You can have the odd game that pushes the environment, but not every single one!
Of course, the media has to change too. Gameplay and entertainment value has to be the key, not how many polygons and new technologies have been utilized!
Let's also not forget that as consoles get more sophisticated how they also get more expensive and also how more is put into the graphics and the technology rather than the gameplay. Do we really think PS2 games were as entertaining (on average) as PS1 games? And certainly with regards X-Box and X-Box 360! Also in the same way it was mentioned that £1,300+ was too high a price for most customers, I can see a lot of people walking away from £500 consoles and £60 games. What will the PS4 and X-Box 720 cost? £700? £800? And the games? £80? £90? And will they have fantastic gameplay, fantastic AI, great stories, value for money? Because that's what gamers want! Or more likely, will they go the PC route and just copy successful games ad neuseam and rely on the graphics and technology but with shallow gameplay?
If things carry on the way they are going, not only are we in the last months of PC gaming, but we may be in the last 2-3 years of a mass console market, and 4-5 years from just a niche console/gaming market all around with an even larger retro market.
As a PS. The Unreal engine and cost benefit of using it is part of the reason we get similar games with just slight variations. In the 90's you got a flight sim, a racing sim, a sub sim, a graphic adventure, a wargame and a platform game. Now we will get 5 different type of Sci-Fi shooters. In the 90's games, you might have bought 2 or 3 of the those games, but generally, you'll only buy the best one of those 5 similar sci-fi shooters. So variation of genres and gaming is also a key point.
As a second PS. Because of all the above, I really do hope the Wii is a success, as it will tell the market that you don't need to write for the highest technology to be successful. It might also change the gaming media too, which is the other half of the reason we have a declining market.
Agreed, Agreed. I've got a high end PC, but that doesn't guarantee that the top spec games are good to play. I'm sick and tired of the more power/more GFX situation as well. Half the time, there's not point in all the GFX thrills either as most people have an 'average' PC that will run most modern games on medium settings if they're lucky. Talking of which, I played CoD2 online a lot (until every bugger starting hacking) but used the DirextX 7 setting for a nice fast framerate. You know what, that's just fine by me, the GFX were fine because the gameplay was just so good.
As for the Unreal II Engine being able to run on the Wii. That's great news. The Wii is my console of choice because it will be focussed on gameplay vice GFX overload. Also, the Unreal II Engine produces great GFX as far as I'm concerned, there is no actual need for improvement on it's presentation.
If devs seem to think that 'realistic' environments are as big a step forward as 3D (yes, some idiot Dev or CEO said that, what shortsightedness) then how come LEGO Star Wars II has shifted over one million units in such a short time? It's only a cheesy platformer, but as someone who owns a copy I can honestly say it's one of the best games I've played for a long time.
Also, ask any Football Manager addict (like me) if GFX are important in that game? Answer, p**s off! It's the enormous depth of gameplay that makes that game and the top down 2D match engine is the best way to present the gameplay. If it were isometric 2D or pure 3D, people would still go to 2D top down mode because it's the easiest to understand the gameplay.
I don't care for the PS3 one bit. As for the 360, I've been tempted by it's shiny GFX (I'll admit) but I know fine well that the games will just be prettier version of the same s**t that came out for the Xbox.
I'm quite happy for the gaming technology to stop right now and slow right down, it's getting stupidly expensive for the devs and the end user (us gamers) that no one can afford to buy the flippin games and the hardware needed.
For the PC, I'm hoping the small indie teams will get back into the fight, after all, I think Microsoft has been quite prophetic in releasing a set of game building tools for free!
I think Vista may actually become a great leveller, with it's scaling of how powerful your PC is (1-5 I think) and all Vista games requiring the power needed to play the game, a lot of devs are suddenly going to find units not shifting because (suprise, suprise) only a few people have a PC capable of running the game. Unless of course they do the minimum specs trick with the numbering system and put a rating in which the game will run, but be far from playable. In which case, us lucky Europeans will be laughing all the way to a tribunal. Or at least getting our money back for the game.
As for all this next-gen console malarky, the term next-gen has come to mean some giant leap in gameplay vice just a new range of consoles being released. As for that competition, well, the 360 and PS3 may sell, but most true gamers know that all the real fun and games is going to be on the Wii.
The Wii. Sure it's cheap technology compared to the 360 and PS3, but the GFX will be just fine and it comes packed with a few features not available on the more expensive consoles. It uses Wi-fi for a start so no cabling problems their, you can use it with any TV in the house. Want to do that with the 360, that's £70 please for the wi-fi connector; almost half the price of the whole Wii console!!! How about games? £50 for a 360 game (and worse for the PS3 I expect). p**s off! I'll stick to my £30 PC games or £35 Wii games.
Blu-Ray, HD-DVD (or whatever it's called). Pah! We've only just got to the stage where most households have a DVD player, and that format isn't going anywhere for a long while. Heheh, just look at the pointless UMD. I've got a PSP, but six months later I bought DS; miles better and much cheaper.
I don't care about numbers of consoles sold, I don't care about polygon counts and triple multiple dogs b******s shading...
I just want to play fun games
Thankyou Nintendo for understanding this simple statement.
The rest of you can (and will) dissappear up your own bum mapped bottoms!
We need one media outlet to take up the baton. One media outlet to say it as it is and get on the publishers backs!
Because given what conclusions we immediately come to, why didn't the interviewer say anything?!
Why don't we have a Jeremy Clarkson type character within the media, allowed to say it as it is?!
I have said for months now, that Far Cry graphics are good enough, that by now we should forget about graphics and sound - they are just developer engine products. We should be concentrating on story and AI.
Without the media taking a stand nothing will happen, and I don't see the media doing that, unfortunately.
So goodbye PC gaming. Hello bland console gaming and Hello retro gaming!!! (Full time now I suppose....)
Aye, we've got a bad case of Jellyfish Journalism (spineless) at the moment. Maybe if a magazine rocks the boat they'll lose their precious exclusives. After all, a lot of the magazine articles (generally speaking) are nothing more than a 2-5 page giant advert for a game. I'm sick of hearing about how 'great' BF2142 is going to be when most of us know it's still buggy as hell and under the thumb of the Evil EA who couldn't fix a fight with Don King helping them out.
I'd rather buy a games mag that asked akward questions and fought for it's users than one that has yet another 5 page spread on bloody HL2 and it's spawn (yawn).
Aircool: Know HTML? Sounds like a plan! We'll take over the print media later!
Eventually SOMEONE'S going to realise this is how you will get readers/viewers back!
Oh by the way: Vivendi announced October 20th they are releasing XP compatible Police Quest, Space Quest, Kings Quest and Leisure Suit Larry compilations for around $20. If they are a success along with the Wii, we could be looking at the first catalysts of change! Who would have thought Vivendi and Nintendo being the potential savours of the market!
What's the betting though that the two successes that WON'T be cloned and copied ad nauseam will be these two!! It will also be interesting to see how the media report on these compilations too!
LOL, I got slated in PC GAMER magazine for saying I'd prefer to spend a tenner on and XCOM game with a lick of paint (and workable in 1240x1024) than spend hours downloading a 5 hour game from Steam. Those guys are so out of touch. I'm not stuck in the past, I can just see the future heading in completely the wrong direction.
As for the original XCOM, it had the following amazing features (all on 2 floppies) that have the press drooling with buzzwords at the *sigh* next-gen of games....
Character improvement. Individual equipment loads for each soldier (total customisation). Bloody good AI, particularly on harder modes. Destructable Terrain - yes, back in 1994 you could blow the crap out of buildings with rocket launchers etc... it's not a new thing. Great storyline Variable aliens Tension - you always felt like you were losing A great and variable tech tree Pacing, like I said, the game always made you feel like you were losing, evertime you for a new tech, tougher aliens would appear. Random environments, each tactical map was different f**king great turn based gameplay (what's that? Turn based doesn't sell? *cough* Civ *cough* Advance Wars. But best of all, immersive gameplay, and that need to 'research the next bit of tech' or 'to just take on one more mission before bedtime'
How about this - it's still on my HDD and I still play it (although, lol, 256 VGA looks awful on a 19" screen, if only I could window it)
Cheers
As for HTML, I don't know much about it. But I am 'retired' (invalided from the RAF so I live on a measly medical pension) and have plenty of time on my hands
So PC Zone - what's the answer? Assuming you even read these messages: Why did the interviewer not question what Mark was saying? To call it an interview is wrong.it is a question and answer statement. Because certainly the interviewer dis not respond to what Mark was saying was he? The answers were just washing over him while he looked at the next question on his sheet i presume?
So PC Zone - what's the answer? Assuming you even read these messages: Why did the interviewer not question what Mark was saying? To call it an interview is wrong.it is a question and answer statement. Because certainly the interviewer dis not respond to what Mark was saying was he? The answers were just washing over him while he looked at the next question on his sheet i presume?
The interviewer's name is at the bottome of the article, click on it and you can email them. As long as your polite and put your argument across clearly (of which I'm in doubt), you'll get an answer.
So PC Zone - what's the answer? Assuming you even read these messages: Why did the interviewer not question what Mark was saying? To call it an interview is wrong.it is a question and answer statement. Because certainly the interviewer dis not respond to what Mark was saying was he? The answers were just washing over him while he looked at the next question on his sheet i presume?
The interviewer's name is at the bottome of the article, click on it and you can email them. As long as your polite and put your argument across clearly (of which I'm in doubt), you'll get an answer.
Aircool
I've gone down that route before Aircool. It doesn't work. I am trying to get a public response, which we all deserve. This way, if there is no answer, we all know it. If I am on here saying I did not get a reply and PC Zone said I did, how could I prove it? On here, by not answering, we have the proof in front of us, and if they do reply, we all see it.
Could be because of the weekend y'know. But I agree with everything said so far. It's as if the gaming industry is trying to put itself out of business. You can't base your marketing strategy on what sells as you'll end up making the same game as you did last time. Funnily enough, that's exactly what happens though, it stifles creativity and experimentation .
In a few years time there'll only be about 5 games on the market.
Homogenised Shooter Homogenised Racer Homogenised Freeform Game (ie GTA and the like) Homogenised Sim (be it people, planes or whatever) Homogenised Adventure (with a choice of goblins, stealthy laconic macho man or bizzare japanese pant sniffing, cross dressing dude)
Dare I say it Aircool, even you don't quite get it ....
Even the Sims, any big game, needs all the buzz of an industry/hobby behind it! With the razmatazz of the media and the big trade and consumer shows, with the PC Zones of this world, even the Sims can't do it.
When we were kids, lot of kids collected stamps. In my neighbourhood I had two stamp/coin shops to buy stamps at. At least 1/4 of my friends collected either stamps or coins or cards.
Fast forward to 2006, and we know stamp and coin collecting still goes on, but the shops are gone, the buzz has gone there's no media interested and as a mainstream hobby it has to all intents and purposes, gone.
Without the retail stores carrying PC games (which slowly they're dropping), with circulation of magazine like PC Zone and PC gamer dropping through the floor, with less than half the number of PC game releases so far than 3 years ago, (and I don't even want to say for 10 years ago!) we're heading down the same road!
That's why I think PC gaming will 'die' not disappear. There will always be inde's on the web and there may be something like Steam still around, but can you really see EA and such in a market where a game sells 100,000 worldwide and they have to re-tool for much simpler games with simpler graphics, etc? I don't think so. I think they'd move into TV or movies or something.
You could argue that Steam and Episodic gaming is just publishers who see the writing on the wall and are trying to eek out a few extra dollars per game while they can. I mean it cannot be a coincidence that a 30 hour game like HL2 is £35, yet 4 episodes of 5 hour gaming as a follow up would cost £80 for 20 hours of gameplay! Valve have said their productivity is up 400%. You can see why! There not working any harder, just getting 100%+ more for the product!
I am sorry to say, at least on the PC, by 2008 you'll be struggling and having to work quite hard to find a PC game to buy, and games like The Sims, in the short term will be on console only, but even then I think the console market, with it's £500 consoles and £60-70 games is also going down a dead end road. So I am not even sure about console gaming.
Only thing I am certain of is more and more interest in retro gaming. Ebay has added a whole retro gaming section in the last year, so you know it'as growing - another sign that modern gaming is'nt cutting it. Even the Wii is being promoted as a 'retro machine' with it's built in emulation, etc!
I don't know how it is in the good old UK, but here in the states there are no VHS movies sold at Wallmart(the largest of our retail chains) unless they find some stacked away in the back (I'm not joking either they found hundreds at my local wallmart a few months ago) The reason that VHS is almost 98 percent gone is because you have the search to find a VHS player. If Intel accually put something that could run HL2 in something other than ugly mode people may find themselves pulled into the game more. There is nothing more than stuttering graphics and long loading times to ruin a game for you. The point in this is that if you can run one of the really good new games like HL2 that you'll get hooked into the market of high end games rather than spend money on Sims and it's endless expansions. Nobody with half a brain would want to play games on a intel graphics card anyway. I'd rather have a sub 50USD card than that crap. And lets face it even the sims 2 needs a little power. You can't run that crap on a 333mhz with 8 megs graphics card like the first one. Somehow I doubt your 2.53ghz Intel with intergrated 64 meg graphics will get you up and running with the next sims and maybe not with Spore... now that's a interesting game.
Daniel. So you are in the camp of 'blaming' PC owners for not having a powerful enough PC?
As in my first statement, tell me any industry that sells to 'what may be' rather than 'what is'
In the UK and most of Europe, and dare I say it, even in North America, it is obvious that average households do not want to spend more than about £600/$900 for a PC.
It is quite simply the job of the PC games industry to find out what is being sold, investigate what games people want to play, through focus groups and polls and then release those games for those PC's. This was how it was done, more or less, up to about 1998!
I don't care if Intel, AMD and NVidia market their cpu's and video cards; until we get a PC gaming advertising campaign, like we do with Sony and Nintendo, etc, nothing will change. And even then, we need the games to back it up. It is not rocket science. But I think it's too late. This industry is not capable of small change, let alone big change. It's just too egotistical an industry.
LOL, zylex, I was just being glib with the sims comment.
But you're right. The PC has never been a 'games machine', it's just been a machine that can run games, and that was what will probably be known as the 'golden era' of PC gaming. Games where written for the PC's that people owned, not what they might own in 18 months time.
As for episodic gaming. I'm with you 100%. From the reaction of the press, I though 'how can I be the only one to see the truth here?' Put the question to the devs and you'll get the usual bulls**t line's. However, the press will swallow this quicker than a cheap whore. Put the question to the press and you're labelled as a reactionary with no imagination and no capacity to embrace evolution.
So not only are devs going to write games for PC's that few of us own, but their going to disribute them online where you'll probably spend just as much time downloading the game as you will playing it.
It's like petrol stations that refuse to sell anything but diesel complaining that they're not making any money because everyone drives a car that runs on unleaded. Are the car drivers gonna flog their cars and get a diesel? Or will the petrol station that sells unleaded suddenly become popular.
(this is just an analogy before anyone decides to get into a discussion about cars 'n' petrol).
The gaming industry must be one of the few industries that has the oppositive of supply and demand. They demand the specs and we have to supply the PC to play the games - fekking stupid.
How many people can run oblivion at a resolution of at least 1240x1024 with all detail set to maximum and have totally smooth gameplay with the framrate never dropping below 30fps (24 fps might work for cinema, but a good 50fps makes smooth gaming. In an ideal world fps would be tied to monitor refresh and never deviate).
Anyone who says they can either has an uncommonly high specced rig or is just plain lying.
It's a great game allright, but if the GFX had been similar to Morrowind, it would still be a great game. However, run Oblivion on low GFX to make it look like Morrowind, and suddenly you feel a bit cheated and the game feels crappy, just because we've had to lower our expectations from all the screenshots and the hype.
If GFX and processor power stopped increasing right now, no one would be too bothered as devs would have to start relying on tight coding, imagination and other ways of making an immersive or just plain fun game. Somtimes, basic gameplay can be a good thing too *cough* LEGO Star Wars II *cough* over one million copies in 1 week *cough*. Lets face it. DOOM3 was in my opinion let down my the extra features (emails, logs, discs, code locked lockers) which fragmented the DOOM experience; running and gunning. I played the original DOOM on my DS and remembered why I loved it in the first place; me and my friends would take turns to play a level or until we lost a life, whichever came first. It became a contest of how quickly and cleanly you could shoot through a level, getting as many secrets on the way. No story, no physics, no flash GFX (well it was at the time I suppose) but the simple run 'n' gun gameplay ruled. Even Serious Sam II was let down by too many 'breaks' in the action via cutscenes etc.
On the opposite end of the scale, I can't remember a recent game that had the variety and depth of Terra Nova but the ease of play that it had too.
I could go on for hours but even I must sleep (albeit with weird dreams about LEGO Greedo and other stuff that's been lodged in my subconciousness all day).
One Oblivion comment as another proof of media/industry being too friendly.
We have gotten page after page, print and web, about the £1.99 horse armour add-on. Every single report talked about how £1.99 is a small amount of money in anyone's book, etc, but is it? Start connecting it: £1.99 for a 3 bedroom house - now it's 'dead cheap!!!', £1.99 for a single digestive biscuit in a cafe - now it 'an outrageous price!'
When you consider £2 is approxiametley 5% of the price of the full game I think it points out what a rip off it is! But has anybody talked about this add-on in this regard? No.
The second point is, you may be aware that there is a free program called OLDBlivion.exe that allows nvidia FX and low ATI cards to play the game more decently than the low default does within the game itself. This program got hardly any press attention at all.
So an add-on that should have been part of the game, or sold for no more than 49p gets a million pounds of free publicity and a free utility that helps 100,000's of gamers play Oblivion where in any other way, they could not got none. Proof, to my mind, of a media that is there exclusively to 'sell us things' and not provide a service.
There are probably 10,000's of Oblivion gamers running it on their FX5600,that are playing it at the lowest 'morrowind' setting, just because they don't know about the OLDBlivion program! That is a crime! But it is just typical of a media that does not support gamers, just tells them what new stuff is out there 'to buy'
Although I agree with many of the above comments, I think we are in the minority.
The market demands better graphics everytime a new game is released, which is why we see the constant drive towards photo realism in games, and the constant stream of new GFX cards.
I will admit some of these games absolutely blow me away with their graphics, and good graphics really adds to the sense of immersion, particularly in realistic shooters.
Graphics DO matter for many genres particulalry FPS games, but I do think the boundaries of what is accepted are pushed too far.
For example I enjoy Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter, and I have a pretty nice PC and GFX card (3.0Ghz, 2GB Ram, 256Mb 7800 GS) and not only can I not play in high settings, but even in low settings my frame rate was terrible, and I had to spend hours going through a tweak guide!
As Mark said an average PC owner wouldn't have a clue what is involved in this even if they did have a nice GFX card, and would probably give up on it.
With PC games its more of a risk when you buy, since many shops wont allow you to return them, and because some games demand stupid specs even in low settings its really squeezing the market. I also agree with Mark though, if integrated graphics chips could be improved slightly (because at the moment they are completely useless for running games even 3-4 years old) it would make a big difference to the games market on PCs.
funkyjack. Go into a PC world, etc and you will see PC's with integrated graphics for £500 and with a reasonable card (say a 6600 equivalent) at around £800-£1,000) - a £300-500 mark up to add a £120 card. This cost is added at this rate because stores just do not get much interest from customers once the PC price goes above around £600.
The customer has made the decision clear. Either hardware companies put 6600 equivalents in PCs for under £600 or they produce games that will still be perfectly decent on integrated graphic cards. Games with the graphics of Far Cry, AI of the original Half Life and story telling of Fahrenheit or Dreamfall could run perfectly okay on these machines.
Overall though, all any industry can do is produce 'software' for the 'hardware' people have. For example over the last 30 years many more men use an electric shaver, but a minority still use razors - so do we have an industry not producing razors and trying to force guys into buying electric shavers? Are they bemoaning the fact that some men are 'old fashioned'? Of course not!
So first and foremost it is the games publishers who have to produce games for the PC's that are out there. They can wish for better PC's, they can complain to hardware companies like Intel and Nvidia and ATI, but at the end of the day ALL markets have to sell to the customer base that is there. This industry stopped doing that about 8 years ago and the market has been slowly declining (although at an increased rate of decline!) ever since!
To put it another way, would anyone make a game for a console that doesn't work on that console? Nope. Although if there's one thing I hate about console games is when you get poor framerates or lag. That's just inexcusable. So even console games suffer to a minor degree (and the loading times as well). As an aside, the only good thing about Auto Assault (I was in the beta) was it had an enormous variety of amusing messages during loading screens; it was far more entertaining than the game.
It also doesn't help that there a loads of different models of GFX card on the market with very confusing classification names. Is an x850GTO better or worse than an x800XT? I dunno, this card is £100 cheaper than that card but has 4 pipelines pinched off? Eh, does that make it value for money or not? It doesn't help the PC World sells cards like the 6800(plus additional obscure lettering) at inflated prices as their most powerful card. I mean, I try and keep up with technology, but the amount of different video cards that basically come from either Nvidea or ATI doesn't help and within six months you can see your new video card drop by £100 or more...
Ok, so they're marketing different cards for people on different budgets, but that just makes things worse for us gamers if Mark Rein has his way. But what pees me off the most is that they make these games for top of the range rigs that might, or might not be available in 18 months time when the game hopefully ships.
Mr Reins attitute defies common sense. I can understand his grumbling about integrated GFX. Yeah, it would be nice if all PC shipped with a proper (integrated or not) GFX card. However, that still leaves the same problem, he'll be moaning next that all integrated GFX are no better than an X800GTO (or something, I dunno).
So, would Mr Rein apply his same attitude to multi platform games. "Yeah, it's all Nintendo's fault for not equipping the DS with at least a 7800GS". Meanwhile Advance Wars DS or Animal Crossing are hailed as great games and bought by almost everyone who owns a DS.
"Yeah, but the DS/PSP and other consoles are different entities".
No they're not, they're all bloody gaming platforms. Sometimes I might sit at my PC and play games, sometimes I might sit in my favourite chair and play on the DS.
And until the press stop their 'Emporers clothes' attitude to GFX things are unlikely to change and we'll all be reading Retro Gamer because no-one will make PC games anymore.
It makes me said to say it, but I think Uncle Bill Gates probably has the right idea. Instead of making the PC into a gaming machine, we'll make a gaming machine into a PC. As soon as an Xbox comes out with a keyboard & Mouse, he'll smile, look around and say...
"My work here is done"
Before heading off to his flying saucer and bringing gaming & computing to another race of idiots in a universe far, far away.
Seems im the only one, but i want games graphics to keep improving as much as possible. It all adds to the immersion.
And what about Crysis, its not just advancing graphics, its advancing playablity. Destructable forests, proper vehicle area damage etc. These things are amazing.
Just upgrade your pc, it only costs around £500, I got just below top of the range specs for all the main components. Everything runs smooth now and will do for at least 2 years I expect Im happy.
Why should people have to spend "only" £500 to upgrade everytime a new game comes out. Theres nothing wrong with improving graphics but why should we have to pay out half the cost of our PC again, just to upgrade 1 or 2 bits every year or so, just to play a game where the only improvements are to graphics with barely any thought gone into gameplay or AI
I see where u coming from. By the way the £500 upgrade was the parts u said (not ram thought. It was my first upgrade for about 3-4 years (small ram upgrade in middle) - and games still ran fine. I just wanted to have everything on full gfx, now low
I was a bit shocked the other day I went into Virgin, and in the computer games section there was NO pc section at all. Have to see how things go when vista is out for a while.
Seems im the only one, but i want games graphics to keep improving as much as possible. It all adds to the immersion.
And what about Crysis, its not just advancing graphics, its advancing playablity. Destructable forests, proper vehicle area damage etc. These things are amazing.
Just upgrade your pc, it only costs around £500, I got just below top of the range specs for all the main components. Everything runs smooth now and will do for at least 2 years I expect Im happy.
Well p**s off and buy a PS3 then. I don't want to have to keep getting a new GFX card every 18 months so I can run newly released games at just over medium setting. It's ridiculous. Most gamers still use Nvidia 6x00 generation or Ati 9x00 generation. They're not even proper DX9 cards....
It's only £500? Have you not noticed that people are p**sing on the PS3 for being about £500?
Look, it's this simple.
1. PC games used to be made for PC's that were available at the time.
2. A few companies started making games for PC's that would be available in 18 months time. This resulted in flash looking games (Strike Commander, System Shock, Wing Commander etc..) that would run on the newest computers available, but for most people, ran like s**t and we're barely playable. However, they were popular because the media 'loved' these games because they all had the latest hardware to play games on.
3. This soon became common practice, and unless your PC was less than 6 months old, games could not be played to their full capacity (sound and graphics options turned down, crappy frame rates etc...). Therefore, some wise guy invented the 3D accelerator card (GFX card), and for several years, you had the option of playing a game in software or hardware mode.
4. GFX cards now become standard for games, adding to the cost of PC gaming. Generally, a processor and memory would last a long time (minimum 18 months) before requiring an upgrade. Upgrading was easy as you either just slotted in a higher clock speed pentium x, or a new AMD chip depending on you mobo. Perhaps an extra stick of RAM. Then the GFX industry took off, again led by the gaming companies and the gaming media. I can remember the first GForce card to come out.
5. Things escalate out of control and games appear that even a modern PC cannot run to max effect (Oblivion for example). Meanwhile, most PC's owned by the public have crappy integrated GFX because 3D cards are so fekking expensive. The media chucks it's muck over these glorious visuals and hypes these games & game engines to the public, who groan and say 'f**k me, I'll need a new GFX card now'.
6. People like Mark Rein come along and blame intel for putting s**te GFX in PC's and moans that it's hard to make money when so many PC's can't run my game engine!?! The PC used to be at the cutting edge of gaming. Now, read that last sentance carefully. If cutting edge means flashy & more realistic GFX, then PC gaming may as well throw in the towel to the consoles right now, because that's about as far as they're gonna push gaming (Wii aside, that's a different kettle of fish and more what I consider cutting edge). So called next-gen consoles are gonna (and indeed do) look great visually. In fact, on a high def TV (like we've all got one of those in our houses. Tell you what console makers, how about an adaptor so I can use your console on my nice monitor? That would be innovative to say the least) the GFX are so impressive it looks Unreal (no pun intended). However, you're going to be getting the same homogenised s**te on the 360/PS3 that's been around for years; no innovation on the horizon as far as I can see (and I can see a very long way).
6. The fate of the PC? First things first, if you want to sell PC games, stop wasting so much time, money and manpower on top shelf GFX. Most game players turn off all the shiny bells and whistles just to get a decent framerate. How about squeezing more out of whats available (look what CoD did with the Q3 engine, impressive at the time). Better still, just concentrate on some interesting gameplay, have some games with depth. Don't treat us like idiots. Sure we like a 3D shooter every now and then, but nothing has yet to beat the original DOOM. Why's that, because DOOM had very, very simple gameplay, it was a (pseudo) 3D shoot em up. You took pride in how fast you could complete a level, with all the secrets found and all the monsties killed. Now we have cutscene overload, stupid puzzles and games pausing to load s**t into memory every 2 minutes. No fun there. It's why I love the DS so much. There's simple games and complicated games, but here's the point...They're all made for the capabilities of the machine. Dammit, the only problem with the DS is that I can't play some of the games on the PC on a nice big screen and not cramping my fingers.
7. It can be done, DEFCON is an example. It's simple, cheap and good fun (espec in multiplayer). On the other hand of course, there's the spectacular Company of Heroes. However, CoyoH would be just as much fun running on a DX7 engine (in fact, who plays that game with all GFX on max at a resolution of 1240 x 1024 or more; maybe a few, but not many). Sure, on a DX7 engine it wouldn't look so great, but once you get stuck into the game, it actually doesn't matter that much because basically, your moving animated icons around a map (or board) and getting them to perform some basic functions.
It really is getting bad and getting worse. PC gaming is becoming expensive and narrow minded. Sure we've got Spore to look forward too, but that might end up just being a slightly more interesting version of the Sims. It's time for a reality check. Has anyone done any 'real' market research into what PC gamers will play, and what systems they own? My mother likes puzzle games for example, but there's not actually that many around that are good quality. She's better off with a DS, but why should she get a small handheld when she's got a perfectly reasonable Laptop with oodles more power than a DS.
You see my point? If the DS or GBA can have some of the best, most interesting and most wide ranging games on the market, why can't the PC. Why does the PC have to follow the console model when it used to dictate the console model? The PC shouldn't even be in competition with consoles, it should just do it's own thing. It's got lots of power (even a 6600/9600 is a decent bit of kit), plenty of versatility and a s**tload of users who like to play more than the next iteration of last years top selling 3D shooter/RTS/RPG/MMO/Sports Sim etc....
The blame for poor PC gaming sales rests on the shoulders of the devs and publishers, why can't they see that? They're making games that look nice, that the media loves but only a small minority of PC users can play.
Sort yourselves out for f**ks sake, it's not hard and concentrating on what makes a good game vice what makes a pretty game will actually save you time and money in the dev process.
I've got a nice PC that I built last christmas, it's now considered an average PC...Yet no-one is now making games that will run well on it unless I turn off half the options. It's crazy. It's like if everyone stopped making Xbox360 games right now and concentrated on a console that would be released in 2 years time.
Most people have PC's that are less powerful then mine and struggle to keep up with the pace of technology, they're an untapped market. They won't give a s**t about better GFX because they're happy with what their machines are capable of right now.
Sort it out Devs & Publishers otherwise you'll be either filing for bankruptcy or being swallowed by EA and turned into zombies....
Wow, you PC gamer types have been waiting for an outlet for all of that! Busting, the lot of you! The PC market is going to die! It’s dead on its feet! Graphics are important to the average Joe! He walks into a shop and flips over a game box and sees all those fancy screen shots and licks his lips! Average Joe doesn’t read this stuff! Average Joe doesn’t know the first thing about the inner workings of his PC, he can look at the spec needed on the game box and not know weather he can run it or not! On the other hand he can buy a new console and it dose everything (games wise) a top spec PC can do with out the stress and worry of needing to upgrade in 6 months time. Most of the games you guys spoke about as being PC games are out on Xbox360! Which is cheaper than a new PC, more user friendly and has a bunch of games in the pipe line that will work on it when they get released in a 18 months time. It’s to late for PC gaming! They need to look better than console games to get average Joe hooked in and they need to look better than the last game to make it look like a step forward, a nasty cycle that has killed the PC gamer market, it just needs to stop thrashing about and actually die. RIP.
Well Humorguy, I think you’re right to. But the thing with consoles is they come out at a high price but they always get cheaper. PS2 came out around the £300 mark and only 2 years ago it was down to just over £100. But PC’s always need to be top spec and after a handful of worthwhile games it needs a bunch of upgrade – which costs a lot of money and is such a daunting and confusing exercise it puts people of, even the one’s who can afford it! I didn’t buy a PS2 until it had a must have game and by that time it was £100 cheaper than when it first came out! Sony need the PS3 to be huge, Blu-Ray depends on it! But at the moment it’s got no good games you can’t get on the Xbox360 so I think the price will tumble after only a year – just a prediction but it did happen with (the first) Xbox. So console gaming will get cheaper but PC gaming is always punching your wallet for some cash!
I agree that consoles are getting more and more like PC’s in a way but every add on that comes to them is used with games in mind – it’s all about the games. I hope, and think, Wii will shake things up and show everyone that graphics aren’t the be-all and end-all of the games industry.
Humorguy: The die-hard fans will have it (PS3) sold out within an hour, that won’t be hard, there won’t be many out there to buy. But Sony know how to market and advertise very well. The vast majority will be swayed and wooed into parting with there cash. Microsoft and Nintendo don’t advertise enough to get the average Joe’s attention. I hope it will see a price cut in the first 3 months but I think it will hold it’s price for at lest a year, maybe a bit less if it slashes it just before Christmas 07. I also think Xbox360 will slash it’s price soon after PS3 hit’s shops, well, think/hope, I quite fancy getting one after I get the Wii.
I don’t know about make or brake, I think, as I’ve said, that the PC is already "broke", I don’t think Nintendo are really in the fight in the same way, they’ll be fine, it’s Xbox360 and PS3 where the biggest upsets will be (apart from the PC).
Another point to touch on is the ever-expanding retro market. This is a market that is growing very fast and shows everyone that a grate game is a grate game regardless of graphics! The Wii (and I think the Xbox360 but I’m not shore and I don’t know about the PS3) is supporting retro with old games for down load. And then there is backwards compatibility! Xbox360 plays the big hits from the Xbox and PS3 will play PS2 and Psone games! I don’t know if it’s the same now but when I was last into PC gaming (mid to late 90’s) my new PC wouldn’t play my old games! It ran them to fast! I’m not a PC tech head and I couldn’t slow it all down and I think that was a turning point for me.
Personally I don’t think graphics need to get any better for a while, just let it stay at this level and then make a genuine step forward with them, it will have much more of a wow factor and more impact and in the meantime make some grate games that run on PC’s people have or can afford to get!
I must say, this is a grate debate! You PC guys really know how to discus the sh*t outta stuff! IF the PC dose die away as a games format, what will you guys do for your gaming fix?
The DOSBox sounds fantastic! I had no idea there was anything like this. PC sounds like it will be the home of retro gaming. This is probably where the future for PC gaming is.
I agree that PC gaming won’t ever go away completely (I don’t wont it to!) and as long as it’s there in the background there is always the chance for it to come back and tack, or reclaim, the top stop but right now I really don’t know how it will ever without a complete change of attitude from game designers and maybe PC manufactures, which I guess brings us back to where this discussion started.
If PC developers are jumping ship to develop for consoles, or at lest keeping them in mind when they are working on PC titles, maybe the games will stay at a nice tech level for porting to consoles meaning that PC games will stay on at a certain level, because if they went to far on the spec/tech front then they wouldn’t be able to easily port it to the consol market. Maybe that will stop them pushing so hard, because there can’t be much money to be made from publishing on PC only, with the amount of time and money that goes into developing a game they will need to make as much money back as they can.
You can't really use the X number of PCs in home arguments. Many PC owners would never even look at their PC as a gaming machine. I've known plenty of people over the years who would rather do their gaming on a console despite owning a PC. This is not down to their PC being capable, it's more down to consoles being simpler to use. Until PCs become as simple to use as consoles (which is never going to happen) console games will always be easier to market.
I don’t think PC gaming has a grate image ether. You don’t sit in front of it on a nice comfy sofa, the screen is nearly always smaller, often the PC is tucked away in the spear room or an office and it doesn’t encourage multie player – only on line, and I still prefer to have a bunch of mates round rather than on line gaming. I think that is a big pull for the console market.
And it always comes back to games being to flash for the PC you bought a year ago – no one wants to buy a PC every year or to go through the hassle of up-grading (if they know where to begin, even). Plus a PC has so much more that it dose now, I’ve got loads of stuff on mine that I don’t want to lose or get rid off and I don’t want the hassle (yet more hassle) of shifting it all to a new PC! It just goes round in circles and every time it completes a loop it losses a few more players.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
