Why Blizzard is a threat to ATI/Nvidia's high-end segment and high-end PC gaming

D

damonposey

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 1, 2006
Messages
2,320
With the announcement of Diablo 3, the future is becoming more clear now. Let's face it, In 2 years the majority of PC gaming business will be going to Blizzard. What do WoW, Starcraft 2, and Diablo 3 have in common? They are/will be addictive as hell and have low system requirements.

Sure Blizzard might support dx 10.1 in d3 and sc2, some bells and whistles, but these games are still not going to push video cards very far, and they will still look and run great on low end hardware. If you can play WoW, you'll be able to play any other modern blizzard game.

With the majority of PC gamers using blizzard products, there will be even less of a chance for companies like Crytek to turn an (acceptable)profit with cutting edge graphics games. Not only is Blizzard a threat to ATI/Nvidia's high-end business, They are a threat to PC gaming as a platform for new, cutting edge graphics technology.

There are games like Sims and Spore that will also take business. But again, these are games that have low system requirements, so there's no incentive for PC gamers to get a high-end video card. This is the direction PC gaming is going, and ATI/Nvidia will be inevitably affected in the coming years.

This is just my current opinion and prediction, feel free to counter, but please be civil.
 
Yeah I'd agree.
I'd say the 'performance crown' will mean less and less each year/ vid card generation.
 
Thats just it, the number of high end systems is tiny compared to the number of mainstream systems. Companies like Crytek are insane to put out games that only play well on high end systmes. There was also a very good blog post recently from the (owner?) of Stardock saying the people with the $2000 systems are also the most likely to just pirate the games for some reason.

Sure, D3 or SC2 aren't even going to warm up your GTX 280, but by ignoring the few thousand people that buy a $650 video card they can sell to the 10 million using integrated or low end discrete graphics.
 
gone are the days when counterstrike beta .892 would push my voodoo4(pci) to its limits :(
 
Well, Blizzard games are meant to be accessible for large numbers of people. This has been their modus operandi for what, 15 years now?

I don't think I've ever heard of anyone upgrading their PC or building a new one for a Blizzard game.
 
damonposey said:
With the majority of PC gamers using blizzard products, there will be even less of a chance for companies like Crytek to turn an (acceptable)profit with cutting edge graphics games.
Click to expand...
You act like Blizzard is going to have some sort of stranglehold on PC gaming in the near future, as if PC gamers can only buy Blizzard games and nothing else. This is not a mutually exclusive deal, where if you're buying Blizzard games, you can't buy other games and vice versa.

Games like Half-Life 2, The Sims and Portal -- not cutting-edge games by any means -- haven't had any observable impact on high-end gaming despite having sold tremendously well. Simply put, there's a place for games like Audiosurf, Spore and Diablo 3, and there's a place for games like Crysis, FarCry 2, Rage, Alan Wake and so on. There are many sub-markets in the PC gaming market, and they can all coexist just fine.

damonposey said:
This is just my current opinion and prediction, feel free to counter, but please be civil.
Click to expand...
Good luck with that.
 
I don't see how it's any different than in the past. There have been many times in the past where a low system requirement game has gathered huge attention and success. WOW is like 4 years old now, or nearly. Diablo 2, Starcraft, previous Sims games all had low system reqs and were popular and haven't cannibalized the high-end segment. Non-issue IMHO.

Rumors of a new Wolfenstein/Doom4 lately.
Also ID's new IP, Rage.
The next installment to Crysis.
Alan Wake
Fallout 3
And whatever else I have not covered will make use of high end hardware.
 
Well I don't know if I totally agree BUT with what you said I do see truth in this. I have been using an old system for a VERY long time. I do keep up with new graphics cards and I expand my storage but really haven't built anything new. I put together a system here and was going to buy it but I kept thinking to myself WHY... I can play WoW with all settings and I can play all my other games with med. to high settings so not really a need to spend my 500-1000 bucks. So yea there is some truth to this I for one didn't buy anything new because I can play everything I want to play now so why upgrade.
 
Falling Anvil said:
Well, Blizzard games are meant to be accessible for large numbers of people. This has been their modus operandi for what, 15 years now?

I don't think I've ever heard of anyone upgrading their PC or building a new one for a Blizzard game.
Click to expand...

I dunno man, Diablo 2 tore my 266 apart when there was a lot of activity.
 
Doesn't bother me any. Back in the day I tried both SC and WC, and both of them bored me to tears after 30 minutes of playing them. I don't do WOW or other online RPG games. Because these games obviously aren't the type of games I play, I never even bothered with Diablo/II, so all you junkies out there sporting a boner for the release of this game can just keep on sporting, because I will stick to (real) games that do press my video card.
 
It only makes sense to make games that run well on all types of systems. I upgrade my computer all the time because I enjoy tinkering, but I respect games that are accessible to everyone. It nice to have the option to crank everything up thats for sure. I does come down to gameplay and not visuals. If the core gameplay is boring or uninspired who cares what the game looks like and the novelty of how good it looks wears off fast.
 
This is like saying pot is going to make people suddenly stop buying more hardcore drugs. (Stay with me please!) Someone putting out a game with great gameplay but only marginal hardware requirements will only act as a gateway game (gateway drug). They will say, hey this is fun! I want to try these other games at best buy. Oh they need more hardware, I'll buy it!

Is that to say they will be satisified with thier purchases of the new hardware? No. They may be upset at games like Crysis. But that doesn't mean they will stop buying hardware.

Besides, I expect more and more games to be scaleable in the future. Like crysis can be played on older systems using the medium or lower settings, you just don't get the eye candy.
 
Un4given said:
Doesn't bother me any. Back in the day I tried both SC and WC, and both of them bored me to tears after 30 minutes of playing them. I don't do WOW or other online RPG games. Because these games obviously aren't the type of games I play, I never even bothered with Diablo/II, so all you junkies out there sporting a boner for the release of this game can just keep on sporting, because I will stick to (real) games that do press my video card.
Click to expand...

So you're saying a game isn't truly a real game unless it stresses your video card? Tell that to Blizzard and all that money they're making off of that fake game called World of Warcraft.

:rolleyes:
 
darkpaw said:
There was also a very good blog post recently from the (owner?) of Stardock saying the people with the $2000 systems are also the most likely to just pirate the games for some reason.
Click to expand...

That makes sense because the people who pirate are usually the more knowledgable people...the same people who are more knowledgable about their own systems and hence spend more money on their own systems...plus when you spend that much on systems you can't afford the games! LOL.
 
I think we have to be careful of what is defined as high end at any given time, yes Blizzard has always targeted the mainstream and lower end graphics segment with their games, at least at the time of release.

However development cycles are so long on games these days, anywhere from 3-5 years from the time of initial concept to a shipping product, that 2-3 generations of GPUs and CPUs come to market before a game sees the light of day(or 6-7 generations and counting in the case of Duke Nukem Forever, this game will show up when The Great Prophet Zarquon does;)). This is a rapidly moving target and I think Blizzard knows this, they will develop for the higher end of that particular generation but when the game comes out more then likely the high end is now the middle-low end of the spectrum 2-3 years down the road.

I don't think Blizzard is deliberately planning on taking down the high end of the graphics market but they would quite unwise to insist on people having the latest and greatest to run their games, plus which the high end segment has never really been profitable to begin with.

Crysis, while great eye-candy to look at, took a huge risk in developing a game which IMO was 2-3 generations ahead of the mainstream graphics curve, yes there are the power users who will build a custom system just to run and play the game but they're such a small percentage that it doesn't even matter to the overall bottom line. By the time the mainstream can play Crysis on their average machines I think the game will have receded to an ancient title in most gamer's minds.

These days developers can't wait 3-5 years for a return on investment, they need to see profits almost immediately to justify the costs of development and to fund further games down the line, or their shareholders tend break out the torches and pitchforks.

Plus if you look at the type of mainstream PC games being developed in the last 5-7 years they all tend to be of two or three different but basically similar types, FPS shooters/sports games, MMORPGs and movie tie-in games. I haven't seen a truly original concept game in ages, the space shooter sim, flight combat sim, classical RPG and some types of strategy games we saw in the '90s are all but dead today. Certainly nothing which requires the revolutionary state of the art to play(aside from Crysis)

Anything which requires truly high end graphics takes enormous resources and time to develop something which most investors shy away from funding as it requires gambling on future technology.

If any company is killing the high end games business it's EA and not Blizzard, EA keeps releasing the same old rehashed, incremental versions of the same titles, year after year after year at full price, it's no wonder why the PC games biz is where it's at today, in the doldrums. I can also see why consoles are so attractive to developers, it's a much slower moving target(graphics don't change every year), something which most developers love since it doesn't require midcourse corrections during game development to to integrate new features that didn't even exist when the game was dreamed up. (for example a possible ray traced physics/imagery based game using current speculation).

I think the high end will always be around, however developers and publishers are a lot more accountable for their budgets these days and they're a lot more risk averse and are less willing to take chances then in the old days.
/end rant
 
Uhhh, that analogy is flawed both on the drug and the gaming side. The average person isn't going to go out and plop $200+ dollars down for a new video card and a game they don't even know they'll like, just because they happened to try another game and liked it. Chances are, they'll continue to play the game they liked, and others with similar performance requirements, until the sequel comes out.

vengence said:
This is like saying pot is going to make people suddenly stop buying more hardcore drugs. (Stay with me please!) Someone putting out a game with great gameplay but only marginal hardware requirements will only act as a gateway game (gateway drug). They will say, hey this is fun! I want to try these other games at best buy. Oh they need more hardware, I'll buy it!

Is that to say they will be satisified with thier purchases of the new hardware? No. They may be upset at games like Crysis. But that doesn't mean they will stop buying hardware.

Besides, I expect more and more games to be scaleable in the future. Like crysis can be played on older systems using the medium or lower settings, you just don't get the eye candy.
Click to expand...
 
Not to be rude, but this is a tried and true argument that has been raging since the dawn of the personal computer.

"640k should be enough for anybody"

Remember when VooDoo was introducing the ability to run multiple videocards in the same system (sort of an early SLI)? Everyone thought it was a joke. Who would want that? Now, look. Crossfire and SLI are doing just fine.

Remember when 3-d accelerators came out? People said, "This is cool. But who's going to spend the money? Besides, everyone loves sidescrollers. The gameplay is much more important than graphics. Pac-man didn't required a 3-d accelerator".

And it will be that way forever. The best games will always be able to be played on the run-of-the-mill mom and pop PC, that's how they become the best selling games. Because they work on the majority of computers.

Game designers know this. They know that they need to make games that can run on run-of-the-mill PC's. In order to sell a million copies, it needs to run on a million different systems. And, more importantly, it needs to have good gameplay even at the lowest settings of these million computers, since the bulk of computer owners are running on "outdated" hardware. Most of them are running on 3-rd party pre-built systems utilizing on-board graphics or the low-end budget video card from several years ago.

Thus, any game designer knows that the most profitable games MUST run at low graphics settings for the average user, and therefore, MUST have a solid plot/flavor/play experience in order to do well. Those games will sell on their ability to be entertaining more than their ability to push the high-end graphics cards.

HOWEVER! Graphics card makers know that they MUST continue to push the envelope. The only way to make sales is to have the "Corvette" in the showroom, even though they know the bulk of the sales will be the "Cobalt" and "Malibu". But, without that "Corvette", what's to bring buyers into the showroom to give the salesman a chance?
 
i dunno about you guys but when I was playing WoW I bought very few games, same for when I was playing D2 and SC. When I was hooked on them, they were the only games I felt like playing... Psht.. farcry? why would I buy that! ima go pvp on my zon!
 
Interesting point you are trying to make here, but this will not be a problem for other game makers.
 
Un4given said:
Doesn't bother me any. Back in the day I tried both SC and WC, and both of them bored me to tears after 30 minutes of playing them. I don't do WOW or other online RPG games. Because these games obviously aren't the type of games I play, I never even bothered with Diablo/II, so all you junkies out there sporting a boner for the release of this game can just keep on sporting, because I will stick to (real) games that do press my video card.
Click to expand...

GTFO
 
Injection of <3 said:
gameplay > graphics

Great graphics do not make up for generic gameplay. Crytek needs to learn that.
Click to expand...

Exactally , its whats been said all along, gameplay>graphics, Blizzard understands this. Its a very simple formula , make a great game that everyone will enjoy playing, make money.

But there is a fine line, you cannot souley make a game just for the purpose of entertainment, you have to make some games so that there can be an advancement in technology i.e. Crysis, and so on.
 
Un4given said:
Doesn't bother me any. Back in the day I tried both SC and WC, and both of them bored me to tears after 30 minutes of playing them. I don't do WOW or other online RPG games. Because these games obviously aren't the type of games I play, I never even bothered with Diablo/II, so all you junkies out there sporting a boner for the release of this game can just keep on sporting, because I will stick to (real) games that do press my video card.
Click to expand...

Your loss.
 
Krenum said:
But there is a fine line, you cannot souley make a game just for the purpose of entertainment, you have to make some games so that there can be an advancement in technology i.e. Crysis, and so on.
Click to expand...

Crytek didn't make crysis for the sake of advancement in technology, they made it because they thought they could make money doing so. They are now seeing that it's not as profitable as they thought it would be, and like they said, if warhead doesn't do well, they are going to reconsider the games they make.

Also, I'm not saying Blizzard will single-handedly alter PC gaming, but they are setting an example for everyone in the industry, and developers and publishers are watching. It's very clear how to make huge profits in PC gaming in the modern era now, and the developers who don't want to mold to the model are switching over the console game development.
 
You've already heard Valve praising Blizzard and less high tech games. For that matter Valve is the perfect example, they will extend the Source engine as far as they can, and with the upgrades from EP2 it appears to work pretty well, that game still looks great but doens't take a super beast of a system to run on fairly high settings. Pay attention, because AMDs new found love of the mid-range might be a brilliant move in the coming year or so.
 
Remember Morrowind back in 2001? Oblivion in 2005(ish)?

Just wait until the next elder scrolls game comes out.
 
I absolutely disagree with the op. Blizzard is not gonna be the cause for any sort of change in high end graphics (imo).
 
Krenum said:
damonposey said:
Crytek didn't make crysis for the sake of advancement in technology

We'll you could have fooled me , what , with all the tech demos and videos showing off DX10 before launch:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Not sure what you're trying to say. They are a business, they are in it for the money. Showing off tech demos is their way of saying, look how spiffy this is, you know you want to give us your money for it! and people do, but the number of people that do are dwindling as more and more great games with low system requirements prove that you don't need incredible graphics for an incredible gameplay experience.
Click to expand...
 
I think the OP is forgetting that the High End video card market is a very small percentage anyways. If anything, Blizzard is GOOD for ATi and nVidia, they help sell even more low-mid range video cards, which is where most of their money is coming from.
 
I think it's important that developers focus on scalability as well. People with high-end video cards like to be able to utilize them for extra eye candy and whatnot.

People will low-end video cards like to be able to play the game as well.
 
That's_Corporate said:
Yeah I'd agree.
I'd say the 'performance crown' will mean less and less each year/ vid card generation.
Click to expand...

I would suggest it already does. How many times do we have to say that outside of 1 to 3 games, even a 9600GT will play everything just about fine outside of 2560 resolution. We only HAVE to test with a few games now days to get the full picture.
 
Better graphics permit deeper game immersion. Which means little if the game itself lacks imagination.
 
We are just at the begining of 3D video gaming in all ernest there is much to be done and there will always be a maket for the latest and greatest technology that provides a wow factor. Sure garphics don't make up for a bad game otherwise, but a great game without great presentation in terms of graphics these days isn't going to draw much attention most of the time either.
 
Un4given said:
Doesn't bother me any. Back in the day I tried both SC and WC, and both of them bored me to tears after 30 minutes of playing them. I don't do WOW or other online RPG games. Because these games obviously aren't the type of games I play, I never even bothered with Diablo/II, so all you junkies out there sporting a boner for the release of this game can just keep on sporting, because I will stick to (real) games that do press my video card.
Click to expand...

Agree, I'm never even going to try these absurd games with all of these dragons and trolls and so on. People can say all they want, I don't care about the games blizzard do, much because of them being so popular and mainstream.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top