Epic Games president blames Intel for stifling PC innovation

Intel Logo

By on May 20, 2013 at 10:48 am

Epic Games’ co-founded and president Mark Rein has used Twitter to lambast processor-manufacturing giant Intel for holding back PC innovation.

“For years we tried to convince Intel to fix their graphics but their data said they were good enough,” claimed Rein. “PC innovation suffered for it.”

“Intel still owned the lions’ share of the graphics market with integrated,” he continued. “That’s why their data said it was good enough.”

Rein doesn’t provide an idea of when they attempted to convince Intel to fix their graphics, but it’s an interesting perspective nonetheless — although many modern games sadly no longer push the boundaries of PC gaming, with multiplatform releases meaning a lower-end hardware requirement. Who knows what might have been?

Source: Kotaku

Tags: ,
36 comments (Leave your own)

Intel’s GPU’s whether discrete or onboard have always sucked… That’s why god created Nvidia, AMD and PCI-E slots :)

 

I understand where he’s coming from with needing a higher standard of graphics performance overall but his words ring shallow when his company doesn’t support PC either.

 

Gaming community blames Epic Games president for stifling PC innovation.

When I have a PC that happily plays all games on 3 screens at 6048×1200, PC hardware is good enough.

Except for Unreal tech games. Their Eyefinity support sucks. What a load of crap.

 

Given one of their best franchises (Gears of War) is console exclusive, and they really haven’t focussed on PC games for some time, I’ll take his words with a grain of salt.

 

Yeah, i think he mistook console for pc. with console hardware not being upgradable you cant push boundarys for graphics because of multiplatform releases not because of intels onboard graphics cards.

 

I’m sure casuals and non-gamers would just love to be paying an extra $200 for their computers for hardware they don’t need.

Considering it would also have zero impact on 99% of games… yeah, good one.

 

IMO if intel where pushing for cutting edge graphics through their processors then (i assume) they would cost more to make and therefore more to buy, not a smart move business wise. Although the blame maybe with Intel for the stifling of the low end graphics market, AMD and Nvidia are to equally to blame for holding back their next generations of graphics cards that where originally planned for early 2013.

But maybe the market is to blame, there are less people buying new computers these days, and the consumers pocket money for technology is now split between tablets, phones, apps etc. etc.

But for me im happy, my computer plays all the latest games and probably will for years to come :)

 
Lord_PorkSword

I’m just not sure why Epic just won’t say “we don’t want to support the PC platform” rather than keep coming up with excuses why it’s too inconvenient for them to support PC’s.
Honestly, what serious gamer out there purposely intends to use an intel card to run their games? Nvidia and AMD have been the standard for years now. Intel may have the numbers but how many of these are in corporate non-gaming areas…

Steam Hardware Survey(eg Gaming purpose) – Only 13.26% are Intel cards. Nvidia and AMD make up around 86% of the surveyed PC’s.
Steam HW Survey

Why doesn’t Epic just admit that their stance of primarily supporting old console hardware is really what’s stifling PC innovation…

 
steve_rogers42

lulz,

Considering the graphical power of the IGPs offered with the current and next gen Intel cpus and those on offer from AMD, Mark you need to check yo self fool.

 

rattus007:
Yeah, i think he mistook console for pc. with console hardware not being upgradable you cant push boundarys for graphics because of multiplatform releases not because of intels onboard graphics cards.

Why would you want to push graphics when the gameplay has been the same for the past 10 years?

Epic are doing literally nothing new except making things shinier; I don’t want shinier, I want better.

What kind of a world do we live in where people prioritise graphics over a good story, sound design, and game mechanics executed well? Jesus.

 

rapid101: Why would you want to push graphics when the gameplay has been the same for the past 10 years?

Epic are doing literally nothing new except making things shinier; I don’t want shinier, I want better.

What kind of a world do we live in where people prioritise graphics over a good story, sound design, and game mechanics executed well? Jesus.

Holy crap, Yes, you are spot on man.

 

ralphwiggum,

That’s not enough salt. You may need a kilo.

 

Do you honestly believe that, without consoles, that your games would be so much more likely to set off your fire alarm? Making a game look orgasmic is not simply a choice at a head-of-departments meeting, it take extra money and extra time, extra resources and extra staff.

Consider this: we live in a time where the cost in creating, maintaining, and releasing a top-shelf title is becoming more and more expensive, and developers are being let go, left right and centre, to make ends meet; and: the markets that consoles have opened up to gaming the massive amount of extra revenue that consoles have garnered for the gaming industry are so large it is almost impossible to fathom. There are a great deal of console markets that never would have been PC markets even if consoles had stopped being a thing at the end of the Playstation/64 era. This means that there are a lot of people who love gaming, who call themselves gamers, and who spend a chunk of their pay-packet on the gaming industry who never would have done so had consoles been but a distant memory. It is through this extra revenue that new studios, new IP, new distribution channels have been able to come into fruition to create the games that you have loved, hated and cried over (the very games that you accuse of being held back by a supposed console dampening effect).

So all these folks are saying that consoles are holding PC gaming back but without consoles a good deal of the companies that make these games would not exist and if they did, the implication that they would have the extra money and resources to pour into making rig melting games with the contribution of the consoles is a rather shallow one…

 

Consider this. Publishers have been rorting Game Dev’s for the past decade so much that they can’t make ends meat so the publishers ditch them after making millions off their work.

Sorry but consoles have held back PC gaming a lot. Things would have been different if consoles hadn’t been so limited or pushed to last for 6-10 years instead of releasing hardware updates or modular upgradable designs (oops that’s a PC isn’t it…). Even if they brought games to the masses and turned geeks into everyone, the damage done to game development is harsh and only just starting to be broken down. Luckily the indie and kickstarter markets are starting to breach the publisher stranglehold and we should end up with a bunch of publisher independent dev’s with some serious brand power.

 

PinothyJ: This means that there are a lot of people who love gaming, who call themselves gamers, and who spend a chunk of their pay-packet on the gaming industry who never would have done so had consoles been but a distant memory.

Speculation.

Watch, I can do it too…

If all the money spent on consoles and their marketing had been spent on PCs and their games and marketing we’d be seeing far more advanced games then we do now and the people who are currently happy with their crap console games and their crap graphics, physics and game-play would instead be being blown away by PC gaming.

 

So all these folks are saying that consoles are holding PC gaming back but without consoles a good deal of the companies that make these games would not exist and if they did, the implication that they would have the extra money and resources to pour into making rig melting games with the contribution of the consoles is a rather shallow one…

Wrong, consoles are harder to develop one because you need to sign up to Microsofts terms, and jump though a bunch of hoops they’ve set up to basically railroad you into running your game on their system alone. The PC is an open platform, anyone can create games for it.

Secondly, consoles are all out of date hardware. Devs can only develop games capable of running on that hardware (the fact that the CoD games now have to limit their FoV to limit how much the game renders is a clear example of this). And consider this, it’s in Microsofts interest to stifle innovation. They’re making a killing out of the Xbox, why would they spend money and update their hardware when they can continue raking in cash from stone-age machinery?

If anything consoles have been the downfall of most games companies. You can’t innovate on a closed system.

:)

 

You can innovate on a closed system. Innovation is often created through developers finding ways to work within limitations. Necessity is the mother of invention, and all that.

 

To create a bad analogy,

PC owners are like car owners, gamers are like car enthusiasts.
Complaining that not all car owners want to go racing in their car because intel didn’t put a turbo in every car sold?

Just shows they don’t understand their audience or business model.

 

spiffmeister,

So the fact that any single console often outsells by double or more its PC counterpart when multiplatform has nothing to do with allowing companies to put more and more budget into game development?

Name 10 innovative games from 2005 onwards, and then recall how many were multiplatform either at release or post-release.

Let alone having to develop solely for the x360/PS3, which are 2 configurations, and already having roughly 80% of your playerbase covered for has nothing to do with it?

PC you also have to bugtest for nvidia cards, AMD cards, intel onboard, different CPU and GPU configurations in case of severe bottlenecks, work with driver support, decide whether or not to use PhysX when most computers can’t use it, and more.

Also,
PinothyJ,

It’s not necessarily that the cost of developing a game has gone up, it’s that you have to spend more to compete with your neighbours on the shelf space inside of an EB Games, JB Hi-Fi or what have you, as well as advertising.

Anyway, this whole debate is somewhat eased by Kickstarter; I can pay Uberent for Planetary Annihilation as it’s a game I want to play, with mechanics that haven’t been used in this way before. I can pay Project Eternity because I want an isometric RPG with enormous depth to it. I can pay for Star Citizen because I feel like I haven’t had a good space fighter fix in a while.

With that being said, the real innovation is up to the KS devs in that case, as they may try out a mechanic that they were selling to us but then realise that it’s just not fun.

Hopefully with the new generations growing up being increasingly more connected to the internet then they can do more research into what they want instead of just buying a game based on what the cover says about it or what the metacritic score us.

 

rapid101,

Well said

 
Leave a comment

You can use the following bbCode
[i], [b], [img], [quote], [url href="http://www.google.com/"]Google[/url]

Leave a Reply

PC Gaming Calendar 2014

Follow Games.on.net

YouTube

Steam Group

Upcoming Games

Community Soapbox

Recent Features
Destiny

Destiny continues to impress in beta: Our thoughts as Bungie’s new juggernaut rolls on

It's clear that Bungie are putting their best foot forward with Destiny, but as James discovers, playing on your own can be strangely empty.

Screencheat

Five Australian Indie Games We’d Hand Arbitrary Awards To: AVCon 2014

From a split-screen shooter where everyone is invisible to an abandoned space station, Australian indies are killing it at this year's AVCon.

Mass Effect 3 580x300

Here are 10 things BioWare absolutely must NOT do in Mass Effect 4

The hard truths that BioWare don't want to hear.

Survarium

Survarium Beta (PVP): Hopeless landscape, hopeless hit registration

James picks up where STALKER left off, but finds that the PVP part of this game may not have been the best way to go public.

Heroes of the Storm

Heroes of the Storm makes other MOBAs look like crap: My scientific analysis

Five highly objective examples of why other MOBA games can just get lost, thanks.

Streaming Radio
Radio Streams are restricted to iiNet group customers.

GreenManGaming MREC

Facebook Like Box