Tim Sweeney: PCs Are Good For Anything, Just Not Games

[LMN8R]

And I'm sick and tired of dumbasses coming around who think you need to upgrade your PC all the time to enjoy good frame rates and image quality, when a 7800 is more than capable of pulling off everything that a 360 does.

 

[kiff]

Honestly I don't see the big deal about updating video cards. I spend around $250 every 2-3 yrs. Recently I bought a 8800gt 512mb, but only because the 7900 I had got a cpl yrs back fried out.

 

[Jonathan]

This reminds me of some of my rambling (in retrospect I really needed to ramble a ton less) comments earlier about the "Alliance":

http://forums.beyondunreal.com/showthread.php?p=2085799#post2085799

http://forums.beyondunreal.com/showthread.php?p=2085666#post2085666

Granted, I have a much weirder way of looking at the same problems. I do think he is right in saying that the magnitude of difference in computing power between a low end and high end PC 10 years ago was much smaller than it is now.

The problem basically comes down to computing power on the low end of the spectrum. If hardcore PC Gaming wants to thrive someone needs to figure out a way to move in on the turf that the casual market thrives in: low end PCs that don't have a lot of horsepower in the graphics department. To the best of my knowledge the only games that do this are Sims, WoW and Counter-Strike. Not much of a shocker that they are also selling a **** load more units than anything else out there. I don't think this is a coincidence. Nor is the fact that casual games sell just as well.

The hardware problem needs to be solved. This needs to happen at both the hardware manufacturers and with the OEMs. Dell and the like need to quit marketing these high-end pimped out rigs so that people don't associate gaming pcs with $2,000+ price tags. At the same time they should shy away from the integrated video cards. If anything put lower grade cards to use or hell, put last year's video cards in the budget line PCs.

While this is going on, gaming companies need to quit putting so much focus on graphics. There's no point in targetting the 1% of gamers who can actually afford a system to play your game *cough* Crysis *cough*.

That's a non-issue.

Back when Far Cry came out, my cheap frankenstein of a computer could play it pretty good, and now, even my laptop can play Crysis, and it's only a 8400 GPU.

All you need is a $100 GPU and a $100 processor, and the other parts, to play Crysis.

There ARE other settings other than very high, you know.

 

[dinwitty]

TG Daily posted an interview with Tim Sweeney made during GDC2008. Interview covers the future of the PC as a game platform, the role of the next-generation of game consoles, the next Unreal engine as well as the future of Epic.

cmon you public, get your hands dirty and open that computer case and slap that new vidcard in.

The current 3d equipped systems without the frop in card can do basic 3d, it can run that original Unreal with 3D accelleration just fine.

But with 2 major vidcard makers you have to drop in a good card and go for the cost, they beat out consoles in quality anyday.

I have yet to see a console beat the PC technically.

 

[willhaven]

"...IN BED"

omg it's true lol

Funny, we've been adding "in bed" to our fortune cookie statements for years. I think TomWithTheWeather started it at P.F. Chang's and we still do it to this day.

 

[atticbat]

Heh...

Pretty much everything I hear with a female voice ends in a mental "...in bed."

Keeps the marriage alive, even if she doesn't know what I am giggling about. I would also appreciate you NOT telling her about this post. Keeps the marriage alive, doncha know.

I think T.S.'s points are pretty on the mark. I can understand the frustration of having to design a game so that every PC out there will be able to play it. At the same time, this whole upgrade train is not really a catalyst (pardon the ati pun) in my opinion, rather it is only an issue if you are one who likes to have The Best PC Evar!!! and brag to your friends. I am damn happy with my 7950 dx9 vid card, and will not be going to vista Just To Play dx10 games anytime soon.

Not unless the games get hella better.

Hella Better.

With Intel pumping out sub par on board video, the 'bottom' of the barrel, and the sli and crossfire options being the top... yeah, I can imagine a game designer would rather focus on something like the console which is always gonna be the same hardware every time... less time spent coding, more time spent playing.

Kind of like the Apple vs PC argument in a way.

Regardless... UT3 is a blast... on mah pc... glad you like it on the consoles too. Sweet. ftw...

Time for Unreal 3. Now. Or maybe a mmorpg called SimSkarjj? Hmmm...

 

[Necros]

Maybe something will change when Intel's Larrabee comes out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larrabee_(GPU)

Sounds good.

 

[[SAS]Solid Snake]

I have yet to see a console beat the PC technically.

That's not the argument here. PC's are always going to better than consoles, if not now, then eventually since console hardware specifications don't change much other than increasing superficial things that do not generally affect performance all that much. But then again, when your talking about when consoles first come out, they do top PC's when it comes to price to performance ... as in you need a high-end PC which generally costs two to three times as much to match the raw power of a console. Of course, after a few weeks / months, this changes when one of the major vendors releases a new chip.

Personally, I am unsure about Intel's chipset. I mean they are yelling and hooting about how awesome this chipset is going to be, but we still don't really have any proven prototype results yet. It's like saying how cool SLI with 6 GPU's is going to be. Yeah it sounds cool, but when SLI first came out it wasn't exactly two times more power. It also depends how we go about making games for the future. Currently we're still using rasterization methods set by SGI many eons ago .. maybe this will change?

 

[GG-Xtreme]

I had actually posted a response to this on Epic Forums, in which I built a PC for $389.42 that could max out UT3 1280x1024 @ 60fps. Of course, by the time it reached 4 pages of relatively intelligent discussion, it was deleted without notice. The problem is not expensive hardware, it's the mass influence that tells people to think less and become lazy, to buy what you see in a commercial, instead of researching and finding stuff for yourself.

 

[ambershee]

A big argument people like to bring up is the lack of people in servers, well thats certainly one way to fix that.

I have to think (retrospectively) this was actually intentional on Midways part. They clearly didn't want to spend money on UT3, and thus weren't expecting a massive influx of players, as evidenced by the fact there were so few official servers from the start.

 

[Anuban]

I had actually posted a response to this on Epic Forums, in which I built a PC for $389.42 that could max out UT3 1280x1024 @ 60fps. Of course, by the time it reached 4 pages of relatively intelligent discussion, it was deleted without notice. The problem is not expensive hardware, it's the mass influence that tells people to think less and become lazy, to buy what you see in a commercial, instead of researching and finding stuff for yourself.

Which I still find ridiculous ... you didn't include all the components nor did you include the price of the OS. You seem to assume everyone has a computer and that is just not the case ... you folks in Ivory Towers crack me up. And in these days that is a low resolution so I am not impressed ... talk to me about running at 1680x1050 ... this is what most 20-22" monitors support and that is what the majority of gamers are getting today. Now if you are talking used components sure. But then you could always get a used console for cheaper as well.

 

[evilmrfrank]

The discussion isn't if computers can run games at the best graphics its if they can run them at all... 1280X1024 is not a really low resolution its probably what a majority of the lower - middle end monitors support. If you can run UT3 with a 400 computer at any resolution with that kind of FPS thats saying a lot.

 

[GG-Xtreme]

Which I still find ridiculous ... you didn't include all the components nor did you include the price of the OS. You seem to assume everyone has a computer and that is just not the case ... you folks in Ivory Towers crack me up. And in these days that is a low resolution so I am not impressed ... talk to me about running at 1680x1050 ... this is what most 20-22" monitors support and that is what the majority of gamers are getting today. Now if you are talking used components sure. But then you could always get a used console for cheaper as well.

What components am I missing? If you were able to read my topic, chances are you have at least a monitor, mouse and keyboard. At 1600x1200, there would be between a 7-12fps drop--still maintaining above 50fps. If you want to know, my computer is FAR cheaper than the one I posted (1GB of RAM, 7600GT, old Pentium 4), and even I can run it at 1280x1024 maxed and get between 35 and 40 fps. None of the components were used, they were OEM or Retail. And even if it was $200 more, I'd take the PC gaming experience (and the PC) over a console.

 

[Anuban]

What components am I missing? If you were able to read my topic, chances are you have at least a monitor, mouse and keyboard. At 1600x1200, there would be between a 7-12fps drop--still maintaining above 50fps. If you want to know, my computer is FAR cheaper than the one I posted (1GB of RAM, 7600GT, old Pentium 4), and even I can run it at 1280x1024 maxed and get between 35 and 40 fps. None of the components were used, they were OEM or Retail. And even if it was $200 more, I'd take the PC gaming experience (and the PC) over a console.

Did you read the part where I said that you can't assume everyone has PC just like you can't assume everyone has consoles from the prev era that they can trade in along with old games and accessories to bring the price of a console down. When people are talking about the cost of a PC vs the cost of a console then treat them equally and assume that both are being purchased brand new. So yeah you need to include ALL the things a PC needs to work properly and then do your comparison. It won't be under $500 that much is for sure. And again your definition of maxed and an acceptable gaming experience for graphics enthusiasts conflicts with most folks I know. Anyway I like all platforms (even the Wii though I did sell mine to help pay for the cost of my new PC/upgrade)... as long as the actual game is good and works well on it and so far I have had very pleasant gaming experiences on both the 360 and the PS3 (far less of course since I have had my 360 since launch and won the PS3 in January).

Of course if your point is that low cost PCs can run UT3 pretty well I can't argue that ... for most gamers a complete $700 system would probably be fine (who needs a printer/scanner if you are a gamer and actually you may be able to get a deal where the printer is free) ... but for a lot of other folks who want premium performance that is really far from acceptable. I know that I demand at least 1680x1050 for my gaming experiences and a steady 60 fps and I get that on ALL the retail maps and on about 97% of the user created levels (we all know that many levels need optimization) and this is with EVERYTHING at max (5/5 in UT3 and no adjusting the AF in the ini ... it is 16xAF). And on Team gametype levels I use no less than 12 bots and even on DM I won't less than 5 on 80% of the maps I play.

I do know what you mean however, that for a great many folks they won't be replacing every single thing. Take me as an example ... when I did my upgrade it really was almost like building a new system - I bought new cpu/mobo/memory, a new chassis, new primary hard drive, etc. basically everything but a new kb and mouse, speakers, sound card, monitor, my hard drives (internal and USB external) and printer. I could have kept the OS I had also but I chose to go with Vista. I had already replaced my old CRT monitor which blew out on me and I replaced my keyboard and sound card at a later date. So upgrading an existing system is definitely going to cut the costs down and really the amount of money a person spends can vary wildly. From a $175 vid card purchase to upwards of $1200-$2000 depending on all the bells and whistles you include ... in my case it was definitely over $1000 (the video component was $560 alone) but I am very very happy.

The discussion isn't if computers can run games at the best graphics its if they can run them at all... 1280X1024 is not a really low resolution its probably what a majority of the lower - middle end monitors support. If you can run UT3 with a 400 computer at any resolution with that kind of FPS thats saying a lot.

Well I would like to see someone build a COMPLETE new system for $400 (no used parts or eBay purchases) that can run UT3 even at that level of resolution using at least 3/3 settings. Tbh I don't even think you can run UT3 on it lowest settings at 800x600 on a $400 PC (if you can actually build a complete one for that price) Upgrading is not what I am talking about just to be clear ...

 

[LMN8R]

Why do you even bother asking for a "complete" system? It's completely irrelevant and meaningless. Yeah, it might be "fair" because you can get a complete console, but practically every person in the country, and most especially, everyone on this message board, already has an OS they can use, a monitor they can use, and probably 2-3 other parts they can use when putting together a system.

 

[Anuban]

Why do you even bother asking for a "complete" system? It's completely irrelevant and meaningless. Yeah, it might be "fair" because you can get a complete console, but practically every person in the country, and most especially, everyone on this message board, already has an OS they can use, a monitor they can use, and probably 2-3 other parts they can use when putting together a system.

That is not true man ... there are plenty of folks who still don't have a PC and have never had a Desktop PC. I know lots of folks who don't have a PC and who have consoles its a fact. I know many of you live in nice areas and probably don't know many blacks and latinos but the vast majority of blacks and latinos in urban areas DO NOT own a computer so please stop assuming they do. Practically every one does own some type of TV though so a console is going to be the least expensive gaming platform for them. As I said earlier ... stop thinking about your Ivory towers please. It really shows how out of touch with actual reality a lot of you are. But I would expect this ... there are not too many different types of folks represented on these forums in terms of Americans. Oh and for the record I am talking about the U.S. ... and other areas where people of European, Russian or Asian/Indian descent are not the overwhelming majority of the country.

 

[GG-Xtreme]

While I'm not going to continue that argument, here is an interesting point: the PS3 cannot run UT3 at 1680x1050, and its detail levels are set much lower than the 5/5 that a cheap PC could pull off.

 

[Anuban]

^^^ Very true and its a valid point, so we can end this little discussion on that note.

 

[kiff]

don't forget not to assume a person buying a console already owns a television sorry, couldn't resist

 

[GG-Xtreme]

Maybe the problem isn't expensive PC's, maybe it's poverty. Or maybe good graphics are overrated.