Please register or login. There are 0 registered and 1800 anonymous users currently online. Current bandwidth usage: 326.30 kbit/s November 29 - 01:20pm EST 
Hardware Analysis
      
Forums Product Prices
  Contents 
 
 

  Latest Topics 
 

More >>
 

    
 
 

  You Are Here: 
 
/ Forums / AMD's Barcelona, cheaters never win?
 

  Re: AMD's Barcelona, cheaters never win? 
 
 Author 
 Date Written 
 Tools 
Continue Reading on Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, Next >>
FordGT90Concept Jul 07, 2007, 05:00pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: AMD's Barcelona, cheaters never win?

________________________
If I remember what I forgot, I have not forgotten it.
Want to enjoy less advertisements and more features? Click here to become a Hardware Analysis registered user.
John Ingram Jul 07, 2007, 05:39pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: AMD's Barcelona, cheaters never win?
Well it was Peter Molyneux of Lionhead that said that most publishers believe a PC only title cannot make money any more, hence the movve to console gaming for his company and more and more PC games either being ported to or from console not exclusively PC.

Your links also show that when looking at the highest selling games or the million selling games that excluding the Sims (its a phenomenon and has sold to non -gamers, ie people that own no other game) and Worlds of Warcraft, which operates on a different process where the numbers cannot be validated in the same way. (I have heard rumours that once you subscribe you stay on the subscribers list for the rest of the year even if you never log on again after that first time!) the best selling games are from a period prior to around 2002, with fewer and fewer as you come to modern times.

The lack of genres also has an impact. As if you had 150 sci fi RTS games and 150 fantasy RPG's released for PC, you would have 300 different titles released, but gamers would only buy two games, the best sci fi RTS and the best fantasy RPG. The hardcore gamers may buy the best and second best too, but nevertheless, in this extreme example sales will fall dramatically. As the genres shrink, a specific problem within PC gaming, not console gaming (where you can still get a Guitar Hero, for example) is this built in redundancy of games as many more just copy what has come before. After Company of Heroes, for example, many of the WWII RTS's seem very average all of a sudden, and I doubt many will sell well. This is always going to be a problem where very few genres are supported. PC Gaming did better 5+ years ago because there were many more eggs in many more baskets.

On PC a higher percentage of games sold are budget releases (in the above example, you may pay full price for Company of Heroes and then buy a couple of those 'ordinary WWII RTS's on budget six months later) , but as is well known money is not really made on budget releases. Neither is it made on those bargain bins you mentioned. And again I point out, if the only PC games being played are where someone orders 5 copies because they're free except for shipping then PC gaming will be dead.

Dead doesn't mean literally no one playing PC games. It means that it becomes practically invisible.

Like stamp collecting. No stores exist in the vast majority of towns and cities, most people wouldn't know where to buy stamps or the albums they go in, etc and would have to research it. To all intents and purposes stamp collecting is invisible, The average citizen doesn't think of it and doesn't see it in their daily life. It goes on, but it's 'dead' to them. The average citizen just does not think of it.

That's what I mean by a dead PC games market, a few hundred thousand games being sold via download and mail-order from small independent publishers. It will exist. Heck I expect the eBay retro section to grow exponentially as this happens, but it will be very specialist, not generic, competing with consoles, like it did up until a couple years ago. It will not be seen as in the same league as console gaming that is still in the public eye with game stores that carry the product and even general department stores; with reviews of games in the national and local press and specialist gaming magazines for the various formats available in local drugstores.

PC gaming is already becoming invisible. Here in the UK, last January, there was a TV show of the UK Gaming Awards. Between the award ceremonies, they had little 5 minute vignettes explaining the history of gaming. PC Gaming was not mentioned. In fact during the whole show the only time PC was mentioned was when they read out the nomination for Oblivion and said 'for PC and XBox'. That was the only time PC gaming was mentioned in the whole 90 minute show!I don't know about you, but things like that I find very scary!

FordGT90Concept Jul 07, 2007, 06:12pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: AMD's Barcelona, cheaters never win?
John Ingram said:
Well it was Peter Molyneux of Lionhead that said that most publishers believe a PC only title cannot make money any more, hence the movve to console gaming for his company and more and more PC games either being ported to or from console not exclusively PC.

Molyneux is a game designer (employee of a developing firm he jointly established), not a publisher. Lionhead Studios was purchased by Microsoft in order to get their popular titles on both XBox and Windows. Essentially, Microsoft is using Lionhead as an advertising ploy. Because XBox and Windows work on the same foundation, XBox is said to be an extension of Microsoft's Windows. Lionhead now appeals to both PC and console gamers.


John Ingram said:
the best selling games are from a period prior to around 2002, with fewer and fewer as you come to modern times.

That excludes C&C Renegade, 007 Nightfire, Mafia, and many more. That, I simply don't agree with.


John Ingram said:
The lack of genres also has an impact. As if you had 150 sci fi RTS games and 150 fantasy RPG's released for PC, you would have 300 different titles released, but gamers would only buy two games, the best sci fi RTS and the best fantasy RPG. The hardcore gamers may buy the best and second best too, but nevertheless, in this extreme example sales will fall dramatically. As the genres shrink, a specific problem within PC gaming, not console gaming (where you can still get a Guitar Hero, for example) is this built in redundancy of games as many more just copy what has come before. After Company of Heroes, for example, many of the WWII RTS's seem very average all of a sudden, and I doubt many will sell well. This is always going to be a problem where very few genres are supported. PC Gaming did better 5+ years ago because there were many more eggs in many more baskets.

You make so many assumptions (lots of "would's" and "will's") and I can tell you right now, most are in accurate. I know a lot of die hard Starcraft fans also own an assortment (or the whole collection) of Command & Conquer titles. They are both sci-fi but yet completely different. Another example is Close Combat compared to Company of Heroes: same genre (WWII RTS) but completely different styles of play brought about by being made over half a decade later and by different people. I think you need to try some of those games I listed and you will see just how varied they are.

John Ingram said:
Neither is it made on those bargain bins you mentioned. And again I point out, if the only PC games being played are where someone orders 5 copies because they're free except for shipping then PC gaming will be dead.

If you sell ten, $5 games or you sell one, $50 game, you end up with the same amount of revenue.

The distributor which is offering that deal is the one paying for the disks.


John Ingram said:
That's what I mean by a dead PC games market, a few hundred thousand games being sold via download and mail-order from small independent publishers.

Tell me why game design courses in colleges is booming then? There is a lot of interest and over the next decade or so as younger generations get involved in game development, things could really change.

John Ingram said:
PC gaming is already becoming invisible. Here in the UK, last January, there was a TV show of the UK Gaming Awards. Between the award ceremonies, they had a little vignette explaining the history of gaming. PC Gaming was not mentioned. In fact during the whole show the only time PC was mentioned was when they read out the nomination for Oblivion and said 'for PC and XBox'. That was the only time PC gaming was mentioned in the whole 90 minute show!I don't know about you, but things like that I find very scary!

In your opinion. Gamers don't like watching other people game so why would a gamer watch a gaming award? There is absolutely no demand. Gaming is not a spectator sport which is why it appears "invisible." On the other hand, look how much attention the press is giving it over games that cause controversy such as Grand Theft Auto.

You have to realize that comparing PC to console gaming is sort of like comparing Windows to Linux. The fundamentals are all the same, the only difference is which you prefer. Because XBox bridges the gap between consoles and PCs, ports from console to PC or the other way around have been more frequent (e.g. Halo, True Crime, Fable, etc.). This doesn't mean the death of PC gaming, it means a broader audience for very little additional expense which in turn means more profits.


Any way you shake it, PC gaming will be around for a long time yet.

________________________
If I remember what I forgot, I have not forgotten it.
John Ingram Jul 07, 2007, 06:27pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: AMD's Barcelona, cheaters never win?
Ford, all I will say, if it gives me any credence, is that I own and have played every single PC title you mentioned in your last post. When I bought Command and Conquer I didn't know about Starcraft or Company of Heroes, etc as they had not been released. But if they had all been released in the same year with the same editorial coverage and the same review scores I probably wouldn't have bought them all. Time is a factor and using examples of games that came out with gaps of up to 5 years between them do not count! :)

And it's not about the viewership or who watches award shows. It was the fact that within the show a total of 20 minutes was given over to the history of gaming and the PC was not mentioned as part of that! Heck the Commodore 64 was, but the PC wasn't! That is not good news whatever way you look at it.
.

Julian Innerhofer Jul 07, 2007, 06:35pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: AMD's Barcelona, cheaters never win?
Lots of games were released, as usual, but few were notable and saught after titles.


But this year there are a lot of significant titles be released, like Command&Conquer 3, StarCraft 2, Crysis and Unreal Tournament III (althought UT3 maybe released in 2008).

John Ingram Jul 07, 2007, 06:47pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: AMD's Barcelona, cheaters never win?
Starcraft 2 is also due in 2008 I believe.

It's never about what games are due out, it's about how many copies they sell and whether that income satisfies the publisher.so that they release future PC titles. When you look at how few PC only titles are released nowadays, that is not a good sign. The number of exclusives tells you how strong a format is. Lots of PC only games tells you PC gaming is doing okay. Fewer means it isn't. Given that Crysis is a VISTA promoter you might almost argue that is coming out on a 'different format'!

Julian Innerhofer Jul 07, 2007, 07:14pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: AMD's Barcelona, cheaters never win?
Crysis runs also on Win XP, you only need Vista if you want to play Crysis w/ DirectX 10.

Also Vista games use the same ahrdware arcitecture as XP games, so you can also argue, that it is the same platform.

John Ingram Jul 07, 2007, 08:03pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: AMD's Barcelona, cheaters never win?
I HOPE your right about Crysis, but I THINK you're wrong.

Seth Tucker Jul 07, 2007, 11:42pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: AMD's Barcelona, cheaters never win?
Ok, since when did rumors extracted from sources of varying repute suddenly become propaganda? AMD has officially said almost nothing about their new CPU, and there are very few hard facts out there. Give it time. We don't really have any particularly good info about what AMD will do with their new architecture.

Shadow_Ops_Airman1 Jul 08, 2007, 12:03am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: AMD's Barcelona, cheaters never win?
Well Sander, I have to disagree with alot of Stuff, Despite the CPU being at a Clock Disadvantage, Its possible it may topple what Intel Has, It seems the Multicorewar has become just a Repeat of Single Core Speed. I remember Intel Bounding back with their CPUs that ran lowerclocks than AMDs best and Topple them. I also recall Up until the Core 2 that Intel was suffering from Netburstitis.

AMD Athlon XP-M 2500+ (133x14= 1867MHz) (209x11= 2299MHz)
DFI LP NF2 Ultra-B (Hellfire 3EG Rev2)
Antec SX800, Neo HE 500, 4 Antec 8CM Fans
Thermalright SI-97 1 Antec Tricool 12CM Fan
CL SB XFi Xtreme Music
2x Barracuda HDs (250/400)
2x Samsung Write
dark41 Jul 08, 2007, 12:41am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: AMD's Barcelona, cheaters never win?
Julian Innerhofer said:


I think, that AMD can survice, because most users don't buy high end systems:

- The cheapest A64 CPUs are still cheaper than the cheapest Core 2.
- Motherboard prices are also chepaer for A64 as for C2D.
- Semprons are still faster than Celerons.

Also the cheap Athlon 64 models are in the same price category as Pentuim 4/D and they are still faster than Pentium 4/D.


I think your points are a bit outdated.

I agree that most users don't buy high end systems. I would add that most users don't buy low end systems either. The majority buy middle range systems. At this point, Intel dominates both the middle and high end CPU markets. The low end systems are a toss up as I see it for price and performance, with Intel having the advantage of an upgrade path with their low end, where AMD does not at this time.

As a system builder, one of our primary concerns is the ability to ugrade. The constraint for upgrading always lies with the motherboard. There is no upgrade path to buying a A64 motherboard and CPU at this time. So our base systems now include P35 motherboards and C2D (speed of which is up to the customer). Granted, there are a ton of system builders still building and trying to sell Semprons/Celerons, and I think most of them are struggling to survive, let alone make a profit. By the same token, no DIYer in their right mind would build a system right now with A64 with upgrading in mind.

Both P4 and Celeron are being phased out by Intel. Our Intel supplier now lists 1 Celeron D (BX80552356) and no P4s. So any Celerons or P4s that you buy at this time are old stock and no longer being manufactured.

Intel's bottom of the line CPUs are now the C2D E-2*** series, and very competetive with anything AMD has for price and performance. E-6*** is the current middle range Intel CPU. Penryn and Xeon will supply the high end CPUs of the near future.

I also see no difference in pricing for a basic A64 motherboard to a basic C2D motherboard.

I'd really like to see AMD do more than survive as competition is great for both the industry and the end user. It was nice seeing the 'little guy' on top for a bit too, although I'd argue that AMD has always been crap for multi-tasking. But the fact is that AMD has some serious catching up to do if they are going to continue providing competition. :)

EX38-DS5
E8500@4.0GHz (445x9, 1.40v) TRUE Black
Corsair HX620W
2x2gb Kingston HyperX 9600
HIS IceQ4 HD4850
2X1TB F1s (RAID 0) XP Pro/Win7 Ult 64
Auzen X-Fi Prelude 7.1
Cambridge Soundworks 500w 5.1
G5, Antec 1200
Bitmap Jul 08, 2007, 12:41am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: AMD's Barcelona, cheaters never win?
Julian Innerhofer said:
Bobby Phillipps said:
Don't quote me, but I believe there is something faulty with the architecture to the point that anything past 2.0 GHz causes error and/or overheating. Again, don't quote me. I may be wrong.


Most Core 2 Duo CPUs can also be clocked at at least 3.5 GHz, but the highest default clock speed for C2D is still 2.93 GHz. This is because the clock speed has to be stable for years an higher clock speeds also shorten the lifespan of CPUs.

I also once had an Athlon XP 2700+, which I could clock @2.4Ghz and it was stable for about one week, after that I had to reduce the clock rate to 2.3GHz. And I used only 1.75V Vcore, which is only .1V over default, so it was not a case of SNDS.


I was referring to the Barcelona architecture.

________
"None of you understand. I'm not locked up in here with you. YOU'RE locked up in here with ME." - Walter Kovacs, A.K.A. Rorschach.
FordGT90Concept Jul 08, 2007, 02:37am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: AMD's Barcelona, cheaters never win?
John Ingram said:
Ford, all I will say, if it gives me any credence, is that I own and have played every single PC title you mentioned in your last post. When I bought Command and Conquer I didn't know about Starcraft or Company of Heroes, etc as they had not been released. But if they had all been released in the same year with the same editorial coverage and the same review scores I probably wouldn't have bought them all. Time is a factor and using examples of games that came out with gaps of up to 5 years between them do not count! :)

The list of games I was referring to are the ones released in 2006. The year in which you say gaming is in decline.

People like more of the same. That's why expansion backs are wildly successful. You may only buy the best of a genre but that only speaks for yourself. In one year, I acquire many TPS, RTS, and FPS games and enjoy every single one of them for their plot and different approaches to the same genre. The only relevance time has is how much the genre evolves (usually due to better technology).


John Ingram said:
And it's not about the viewership or who watches award shows. It was the fact that within the show a total of 20 minutes was given over to the history of gaming and the PC was not mentioned as part of that! Heck the Commodore 64 was, but the PC wasn't! That is not good news whatever way you look at it.

Shows always try to appeal to an audience and clearly, that show was appealing to the console audience only. No history is ever complete without the mention of Doom, SimCity, and Command & Conquer. Those games launched the FPS, simulation, and RTS genres single handily.

________________________
If I remember what I forgot, I have not forgotten it.
FordGT90Concept Jul 08, 2007, 02:45am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: AMD's Barcelona, cheaters never win?
John Ingram said:
The number of exclusives tells you how strong a format is. Lots of PC only games tells you PC gaming is doing okay. Fewer means it isn't. Given that Crysis is a VISTA promoter you might almost argue that is coming out on a 'different format'!

That used to be true but now that XBox and Windows are a very similar platform, it only makes sense to release on both. Some games use engines which were designed for almost all popular platforms (e.g. PlayStation 3, GameCube, XBox, XBox 360, PC, PlayStation Portable) so why not release it on all and milk it for all it's worth? Publisher's care about what platforms will get the biggest audience. For instance, releasing a fighter game on PC or an RTS on consoles is simply a mistake. Games like GUN which is a TPS appeal to large number of people on every platform.

________________________
If I remember what I forgot, I have not forgotten it.
Chris Dawson Jul 08, 2007, 05:54am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: AMD's Barcelona, cheaters never win?

andy conners Jul 08, 2007, 07:20am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: AMD's Barcelona, cheaters never win?
sounds faintly familiar to any amd/intel marketing battles of the past 10 years, and anyway as your own write up says amd allegedly used out of date benchmarks, are you too not at risk of being accused of the same in assuming that the benchmarks of the new 2ghz chip arriving later this year being better than current the 2.6ghz benchmarks. Can you find out these benchmarks since they underpin your summations.

In my opinion the trend will be for energy efficiency anyway, its about time this was brought further into the debate

John Ingram Jul 08, 2007, 09:11am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: AMD's Barcelona, cheaters never win?
What does it matter that 8 million have subscribed to WoW (with no knowledge of how many are actually playing it still!) if the boxed/retail PC market is dying.

Using your example, I suppose one highly rated TV show on one channel would be enough for the TV industry. Or one blockbuster movie a year would keep the movie business going?!

Brandon DeCoppel Jul 08, 2007, 10:40am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: AMD's Barcelona, cheaters never win?

Lovin' Windows 7
Darren Reynolds Jul 08, 2007, 11:29am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: AMD's Barcelona, cheaters never win?
Wow ... Sander finally put something up again on the front page !!!

Jumping on the same bandwagon as the rest of the armchair tech hacks tho ... nothing new there.

I think the posts though are quite enlightening.

No mention of power saving functionality on the Barcelona chips ... which will be a big difference I feel.

As we move forward this century efficiency will be a big factor.

Barcelona has awesome FP power and efficiency ... that's what we need for big server farms.

Whether or not this translates into a good gaming box well ... maybe Intel will keep the lead on single chip systems.

That's my prediction at least.

FordGT90Concept Jul 08, 2007, 12:06pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: AMD's Barcelona, cheaters never win?
John Ingram said:
What does it matter that 8 million have subscribed to WoW (with no knowledge of how many are actually playing it still!) if the boxed/retail PC market is dying.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/06/arts/design/06worl.html?ex=1...mp;ei=5070
In a subscriber-based multiplayer online game, the customer buys the game's software for perhaps $30 to $50, and then pays a monthly fee of usually around $15. (There are also many games that are sold at retail but then are free to play online.)

Since November, World of Warcraft has signed up more than four million subscribers worldwide, making for an annual revenue stream of more than $700 million. About a million of those subscribers are in the United States (with more than half a million copies sold this year) and another 1.5 million are in China, where the game was introduced just three months ago. By contrast, EverQuest II now has between 450,000 and 500,000 subscribers worldwide, with about 80 percent in the United States.

The article was written almost two years ago. In any case, that's as**tload of money for a game that costs no more than one million to develop and maintain. Blizzard posted $1.5 billion dollar revenue in 2006 which, if you recall, ATI was only posting $2.2 billion revenue before it was acquired by AMD. Blizzard is extremely strong right now and really have been since Starcraft was released.

John Ingram said:
Using your example, I suppose one highly rated TV show on one channel would be enough for the TV industry. Or one blockbuster movie a year would keep the movie business going?!

e.g. CSI alone put CBS on top of the drama charts, Soprano's put HBO on the weekly schedule, SimCity allowed Maxis to expand in to many fields of gaming (including publishing, and so on. There are make or break times in reality.

________________________
If I remember what I forgot, I have not forgotten it.

Continue Reading on Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, Next >>

 

    
 
 

  Topic Tools 
 
RSS UpdatesRSS Updates
 

  Related Articles 
 
 

  Newsletter 
 
A weekly newsletter featuring an editorial and a roundup of the latest articles, news and other interesting topics.

Please enter your email address below and click Subscribe.