Gaming Signal: Intel and Episodic Gaming Are BAD!!!

Intel and Episodic Gaming Are BAD!!!

Well, at least according to Mr. Mark Rein of Epic Games, and the presentation he gave at the Develop Conference last week. According to the articles I have linked, Mr. Rein has indicated that Intel's integrated graphic solutions are bad for computer gaming since they really don't have the capabilities to run games at any decent resolution, but have a large market penetration. He also felt that episodic gaming is equally bad since it is a broken business model and will result in regurgitation of content that ends up costing the consumer more in the long run. Hmm, interesting statements really, but is he right? I don't think so and according to the article on Next Generation it was not well recieved at the conference. And I think he is wrong!!! But why do I think that? And what the heck do I know about this stuff? I am just going to ignore that second question since I don't like that tone, and focus on why I think Mr. Rein is really missing the boat here.

Updated to put this whole spiel on the main page since our feed is acting screwy...
Updated since our feed is now fixed (thanks JP) and to fix some language issues - English is my only language...

Now the Intel thing, and this gets a bit sticky. The problem may partially reside on the folks at Intel with the architecture of the shared graphics adapters, but the cost of the overall system is really part of that solution. Mr. Rein indicates the difference in capabilities is only few dollars, but I question where that few dollars is determined at. Furthermore, if its at the hardware level, that value is not accurate since a few dollars can mean huge differences as prices roll up to the consumer. And as we know in the US, cost is king since we like our stuff relatively inexpensive. The bottom line here is that for folks who make middlewear (Unreal Engine) with obscene hardware requirements need to understand that a majority of consumers will not be running the equipment of that nature. I also hate to mention the real reason that consoles are starting to win over consumers is the rolling upgrade that PC games seem to require (new video and processor options almost yearly). Consoles do offer stability of a gaming platform that I think is lacking in the PC, but that doesn't mean I want to see PC gaming disappear. I think those smart guys at game companies should be looking for ways to make this stuff work on the technology that is readily available. Sure there will be those consumers who run a $10000 gaming rig, but if you rework the design to meet a recommended (notice I said recommended and not minimum) specification that the average consumer can afford - I am sure the market will respond with higher sales numbers. Furthermore, with a focus on gameplay and story - as compared to building yet another rendering engine - maybe we will see some real innovations in gaming versus deathmatch ad naseum (I have a whole rant associated with the concept that a short crappy single player experience that really is a last second thought for a multiplayer game.)

This last statement leads into the whole concept of Episodic Gaming. Mr. Rein seems to think this is a broken model, and I think he is totally wrong. Gaming is not about latest graphics package nor how realistically you can render water - its about the story and game play. The problem is that many of these awesome looking games are really weak or shallow with respect to things like story or gameplay. Combine that with the fact most games are simple multiplayer affairs which float around until the next sequel comes out that adds new graphics and yet more crappy story (which all goes back to another rant which I really should write up). Half-Life was different for me in that it had a griping story and Half-Life 2 picked it up from there to continue the narrative - but I felt it was short and the ending was missing. In comes episodic gaming and you can build on your existing game and release levels/chapters/scenes to continue the story in decent sized chunks. This opens a whole new market for game developers in that they can really leverage the engine they spent years crafting with a decent story to keep their customers happy. Furthermore, you will see quality stuff released on a schedule versus the current mod-only community (whom I love) that releases stuff when they get a chance. I mean this concept is not new, and works for many different media types. Games have been in this mode for years but as compared to releasing a new game as a series of levels - they wait and package them with more levels and a new rendering engine together as a full blown title. I don't deny that releasing all titles as episodic will not work, but I think it works for Valve. I also think that this will work very well for RPGs, and it does work for the MMO market - where small content changes are free, but larger land expansions are boxed versions sold to the consumer.

Ultimately, the story to our game producers is that we play games for that reason - to play. Games like WOW work since they have a very low technology barrier and do not require me to buy a dual SLI enabled PC to experience the game. These games have focused their effort on game play and content, but also making it work and look good on middle range hardware. And if episodic gaming enables that type of experience using an existing engine to tell a decent story - I am in. Focus on the topics I have discussed and look at what a stable console has done for games. I dare say that some of the best titles released come at the end of a console's life cycle and that is reinforced by looking at some of the great titles that are available for the soon to be replaced PS/2. Remember it is not about having the best rendered water - it is about learning what you can do with what you have available and giving the consumer a experience that is fun.