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

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...

real games?

i can think of more polished turds that hide behind pretty graphics than games that don't have cutting edge but rely on quality game mechanics..

don't get me wrong i run 8800gts in sli, and I like great looking games... but the real games comment is total elitist prick mentality....whether thats you or not isn't the case, but i've heard the arguement before.

bottom line is...yeah crysis pushes hardware, but underneath the technology it's mediocre at best... there are other examples, but that seems to be the poster child at the moment
 
I'm an old time gamer (Space Invaders, Donkey Kong, Missile Command) and back then if you didn't have great game play the game didn't sell (Most importantly weren't fun to play) for most games back then the graphics looked like sh*t. In my opinion Blizzard has the right approach to games, but that's not to say games like Crysis don't have their place in the gaming industry for you need games like that to push graphic technology.
 
Heh, i think its funny this thread came up. Most people who buy the high end parts do it because they like having the best and tinkering with their machines. I just reinstalled d2 last night out of boredom, and my god is it horrible looking. 800x600 is the max res and its pixelated out all to hell and back on a 24" monitor. So yes, gameplay is one thing, but if it looks absolutely horrible, no one is going to play it.
 
Krenum said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hold on there, are you trying to say that a cheesy storyline of chuck norris in halo-esque style super armor suit battling North Koreans and crazy aliens on some god forsaken island in the pacific is not interesting to you? Did I mention that the aliens are FREEZING the whole island and then latter you get to battle it out in ZERO-G environment?!?!?!?! HOW CAN YOU NOT FIND THAT INSANELY AWSOME?

Played the game on friends computer, but had to turn down the graphics. Kinda boring storyline. Another thing that absolutely kills crysis is that multiplayer is not set up right and virtually non existent due to small amount of servers. What makes or breaks a game now is multiplayer and how well it is structured. If game has very poor multiplayer mode then it is going to have very bad re playability thus low sales.
 
phide said:
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.

Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't agree with the OP overall but it is a point that of the computer gaming revenue pie last year...Blizzard had like a 70% share or something ridiculous.
 
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!
Click to expand...

Hard drug use went way down when pot was legalized in Amsterdam so your analogy doesn't agree with your point ;) Some people may be willing to buy new hardware, but the majority probably won't even if they are able to. Many people CAN'T upgrade anything these days because they have no spare slots or a very small case. Why allow people to upgrade when you can just sell them a new PC? (also many people use laptops now)

As for the OP, I agree somewhat, but I don't necessarily see it as a bad thing. Good gameplay is always more important than good graphics IMO (but both is even better :)). The problem for me is the gameplay in Blizzard's games isn't that great IMO, obviously millions of people disagree though ;)

As someone else mentioned EA is doing more harm than anyone, just releasing the same old games with the same exact gameplay year after year. People are apparently buying their stuff though, so I guess that's what the general public wants.
 
Blizzard is not a threat to ATI or NVIDIA.
High-end setup is only a small portion of the market and the owner of such machines generally uses a very large monitor and are concerned by the IQ.
Any games can be stressful when AA & AF is cranked all the way up.

Bottom line, if you do not have the money or just no interested to get a high end system then good for you. The others are most likely enjoying their high-end systems.

Beside we are still far away from photo-realistic games so there is still a lot of room for improvement.
 
veedubfreak said:
Heh, i think its funny this thread came up. Most people who buy the high end parts do it because they like having the best and tinkering with their machines. I just reinstalled d2 last night out of boredom, and my god is it horrible looking. 800x600 is the max res and its pixelated out all to hell and back on a 24" monitor. So yes, gameplay is one thing, but if it looks absolutely horrible, no one is going to play it.
Click to expand...

Except the hundred or so thousand that still play it? :rolleyes:
 
damonposey said:
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.
Click to expand...

Crysis already sold 1.5 mil, or at least that is what EA says.
 
damonposey said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thats fine by me , gameplay is king . Graphics are great and all but they dont hold a candle to keeping you interested over long periods of time (WoW is the best example of this although its art style is still great). If it changes the graphic cards market then so be it, it wont stop people from buying the latest and greatest, plus 600+ dollar video cards cater a very small group of hardcore PC gamers , they arent the money makers by far compaired to the mid-range cards.

I remember when starcraft was about to come out and people were bitching that there 486 DX2's (a whole 66mhz at the time) couldn't run it cause it had 8 (or 16) bit color sprites and had alot going on at times, plus the soundtrack and sound effects were a huge step up. Back then though, computer's didnt have 3D graphic cards (atleast they did but had few games use them) ..they had display cards , these cards while a blessing of the 2 color chrome green days and didn't do anything else but display you're windows 95 at the barest level possible. It wasnt until 3dfx came along that it started to become what it is today , a requirement.

Fast foward a number of years and we all have great video cards compaired to back then , while they do a great job , they are RARELY fully put to use. Many modern day games run perfectly fine at standard settings (minus AF/AA) cause most people dont care if AF or AA is enabled period. A few games out there really pump our cards to the max and even then thats ONLY if we ask them to , none of you went out and bought Crysis and didn't have the ability to run it (at whatever setting it would auto optimize for and baring any technical issues) for the most part , you just wanted it to run at the fullest settings even though everyone knew that wasnt possible with a playable frame rate.

I admire Blizzard for sticking to the little guys or the common gamer , cause it benefits us the hardcore gamers to have a company with such a large pull over the industry that not only makes fantastic games but also isnt trying to erect a statue claiming there dicks are the biggest (looking at you Crytek) of all time. We (gamers,video card lovers) shouldn't worry about how this will impact us , we should be happy that we can just enjoy the ride and let the company's out there stress out over it.

We will benefit in the end of this.
 
eh, diablo2 is like diablo1 expansion pack. Friggin ripoff. There is more development in the finger of a Crysis sprite than the entire diablo series.
 
starcraft was released in 1998 noone was even gonna try and run it on a 486.......lol

You might be thinking of Quake which required a Pentium 60 or better to play...........lol it used to put a turtle on the screen when it got too slow.......
 
yeah, 2d is so much more deep and complex than 3d with multiple levels with physical modeling. please enlighten everyone or go back to your graph paper. I'll go back to triple integration over solids.
 
Why games with proper content are a threat to people trying to justify expensive hardware.
Click to expand...

Oops.

Obviously there is a slight difference between developing game dynamics and developing (read: buying and re-using) expensive render engines, with the difference being that one of the two actually requires brain. :p

Nobody who wants to target a mass market (like Blizzard) would be stupid enough to create artificial barriers for the consumer by blindly raising the hardware requirements.
 
I dont play MMORPG, RTS or what is diablo? RPG? either way.. i dont play these "click on an enemy and watch your guy chase it down and kill it" games... RACING, FPS, STEALTH, etc etc.. are the ONLY games I play... I havent owned a blizzard title since WarCraft 2 - Tides of Darkness... bout the same time i quit enjoying RPG/RTS games (never played a MMO)

building levels? boring
building armies? boring
building cities? boring
controlling armies from the sky? boring
mining for minerals? sounds too much like work.. oh yeah.. boring..
shoot some fucker in the head? AWESOME

i remember a time when ALL videogames were about speed and reaction times... ok sure i enjoyed some RPG games in the middle of my gaming career.. games like secret of mana, crono trigger, final fantasy... but if i wanted to WATCH games instead of play them, that would be great....

so yeah somebody better come take my cash.. cas blizzard aint gettin it..
 
Blizzard games are never top-end in graphics but are still good. They usually don't require much upgrading just like Valve games. Blizzard has the best cinematics. Can't wait for both games!
 
Quote: timme
Why games with proper content are a threat to people trying to justify expensive hardware.

Oops.

Obviously there is a slight difference between developing game dynamics and developing (read: buying and re-using) expensive render engines, with the difference being that one of the two actually requires brain.

Nobody who wants to target a mass market (like Blizzard) would be stupid enough to create artificial barriers for the consumer by blindly raising the hardware requirements.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I enjoy realistic games to justify all the cash I sink into my expensive hardware too. Oh, sorry you have to stick with the low end build. Hey, you can still enjoy D3 in all its glory and quote yourself all day long.
 
I play diablo 2, age of empires 2, counterstrike source, and the call of duty games. thats about it, but I still want the latest cpu, gpu. It won't affect my purchases of better hardware, I guess this is as much of a hobby as gaming itself.
 
gaspah said:
I building levels? boring
building armies? boring
building cities? boring
controlling armies from the sky? boring
mining for minerals? sounds too much like work.. oh yeah.. boring..
shoot some fucker in the head? AWESOME
.
Click to expand...

Great post.....LOL.
 
Injection of <3 said:
gameplay > graphics

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

Well, that's your opinion.
Far Cry and Crysis happen to be among my favourite games. I think the gameplay is very cool, especially because there are so many ways you can finish a mission.
You are free to choose the order in which you complete your checkpoints, and you can choose to confront, avoid or distract your enemy in various ways.
 
blizzard makes sense... at least they will be the cause why pc gaming wont go extinct. In a few years time there will be little in between consoles and PC anyway
 
darkpaw said:
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.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I'm just old, but until a few years ago, I didn't know any better.
I had to buy a new PC to play Wolfenstein 3D.
I had to buy a new PC to play Doom.
I had to buy a new PC to play Quake.
Etc...
All the way up to Doom3, there would be new games that required cutting-edge hardware to be played at decent detail and resolutions (sure, you could disable shadows in Doom3, but that's not the same game, is it?).

Then for some reason the industry got into some kind of impasse, where game engines were just recycled and nothing much really happened. Crysis is the only game that is actually pushing forward. And what are we talking about anyway? With a dualcore and a nice 8800GT card or so, you can already play it very well, even in DX10, at resolutions of at least 1280x1024. The 'high-end' argument doesn't really hold anymore.
 
Thats an awful lot of speculation about how well these unreleased games will run and how popular they will be. Yeah they've got a whole load of attention, but that doesn't gurantee popularity, CS:S still struggles to pull players away from the older CS1.6

Fact is people need little reason to get an upgrade, how many times have you read "I'm upgrading my system for this game"? On these forums quite a lot I reckon. It's not as if the top end videocard market is even popular to begin with, it's not a massive money maker, I doubt the people buying these sorts of high end cards now are going to let games like D3, SC2, Spore etc stop from from wanting to max out Crysis Warhead and Alan Wake etc.
 
Scali2 said:
Well, that's your opinion.
Far Cry and Crysis happen to be among my favourite games. I think the gameplay is very cool, especially because there are so many ways you can finish a mission.
You are free to choose the order in which you complete your checkpoints, and you can choose to confront, avoid or distract your enemy in various ways.
Click to expand...

I also love both of those games too, so much replayability and I also love the tropical setting much more than those plain corridor shooters. People seem to think that a game can't have both good graphics and gameplay, which is just absurd. Games like q4 and d3 of john carmack's id studio fall into that category I think, despite of them being one step behind crytek in the graphics department.
 
I can see why nVidia could be hurt by this but it's not really all that big. Just because Blizzard has captivated millions or billions of players by playing there low requirement games doesn't mean it's going to hurt nVidia. Blizzard has never made an FPS and I know for a fact not everyone out there likes RTS type games.
 
Blizzard does not release games on a yearly basis though, so the idea about them putting a stronghold on PC gaming is absurd. Especially with the millenials (born 1982 and later), who have very short attention spans.

Blizzard has to come up with booster packs, additional add-ons etc.
 
Frostex said:
Thats an awful lot of speculation about how well these unreleased games will run and how popular they will be. Yeah they've got a whole load of attention, but that doesn't gurantee popularity, CS:S still struggles to pull players away from the older CS1.6
Click to expand...

Yet CS:S is the second most popular online FPS game.
Fact is people need little reason to get an upgrade, how many times have you read "I'm upgrading my system for this game"? On these forums quite a lot I reckon. It's not as if the top end videocard market is even popular to begin with, it's not a massive money maker, I doubt the people buying these sorts of high end cards now are going to let games like D3, SC2, Spore etc stop from from wanting to max out Crysis Warhead and Alan Wake etc.
Click to expand...

I heard it a lot more a few years ago. Now what's becoming more common is, I'm going to buy a console for so-and-so game, because console exclusive games are becoming more desirable. Heck it worked on me, a PC gamer since 87, didn't own a console since the SNES yet I bought a PS3 for gta4 and mgs4 alone.

The question is what games are PC exclusive on the horizon, AND are leaps and bounds above the graphics on consoles. I can count one. Crysis: Warhead. Alan wake, Mafia 2, they're all coming out on consoles. People need more of an incentive to upgrade their PC with so much competition from consoles in action titles.

So it's not just Blizzard and other low-system requirement games that are a threat to high-end action PC gaming, it's also the console scene that's stealing gamers away from PC gaming. But theres no need to get into a console vs pc gaming debate here, that's for another forum in another thread.
 
damonposey said:
Crysis: Warhead. Alan wake, Mafia 2, they're all coming out on consoles.
Click to expand...
Warhead is PC-exclusive, just like Crysis.

damonposey said:
So it's not just Blizzard and other low-system requirement games that are a threat to high-end action PC gaming, it's also the console scene that's stealing gamers away from PC gaming.
Click to expand...
That's always been the case. So what?
 
Alan Wake may come out on console, but from what I've seen, the PC version will be more detailed. They showed some footage on a quadcore PC which I don't think any current console could handle.
 
Considering DX10.1 is meant to increase performance, I don't see how ATI's current cheap $150-$199 4850 wouldn't really benefit from Blizzard's games.
 
phide said:
Warhead is PC-exclusive, just like Crysis.
Click to expand...

I'll blame my lazy grammar for your confusion. (I know warhead is pc exclusive)

That's always been the case. So what?
Click to expand...

Consoles haven't always sported HD resolutions, nor have they always stolen whole franchises that started on the PC to be console exclusive. These are different times now. Just in the past year in the hardforum gaming forums, you can see all of these guys that were hardcore PC gamers back in the day bashing consoles, caving in now and getting them for games they just can't live without.(or wait months for).

The gap between consoles and PCs is smaller than it ever has been. No doubt I prefer games to be on the PC personally. but when the gap is as small as it is now, I'm not so rigid and strict about which platform I game on.

Scali2 said:
Alan Wake may come out on console, but from what I've seen, the PC version will be more detailed. They showed some footage on a quadcore PC which I don't think any current console could handle.
Click to expand...

Indeed, it will be. and the same is true for Mafia 2. It's just, is this extra detail worth spending hundreds of dollars for? Like I said above, that graphics gap isn't huge anymore, so you'll find a lot of people struggling to justify upgrading their computer hardware to get a little more detail.
 
I never upgraded my PC for a new game that came out except EQ1 back in the day so I could run the new models when they first came out lol.

That being said I usually spend 2k + on a computer when I build it and then hope for a 5 to 6 year runtime out of it so that I can run games on High at first and then 2 to 3 years later its medium and then on years 4 through 6 its medium to low with the "pretties" turned off and then rinse and repeat.

The computer I have in my sign I built in 2004 minus the sound card which I bought for 30 dollars after rebate a year after I built it and the graphics card. WoW raids and a hot room killed my old 6600gt so I just upgraded to the 7600gt since it was like 150 dollars at the time. I've probably put around 2500ish into my PC over the last 4 years. Come November I'll be starting Year 5 on my PC. I think its got 2 more years then its going to Server Status.
 
High end gaming isn't going anywhere. There will always be a market for that because it's such a small market and some people will always want to be on the bleeding edge of technology.

Blizzard is just a very smart company. They bring quality games to the masses which in turns deepens their pockets and other companies have followed them. Valve is abusing their Source engine for as long as possible which isn't a bad thing. HL2 played quite nicely on my old Radeon 9700 Pro and my current setup stomps it into the ground which I don't mind at all because I still play CS:S.

StarCraft 2 and Diablo 3 will have DX9/10/10.1 paths allowing just about anybody to run the game smoothly and have a great gaming experience. Those with DX10.1 will just get slightly more eye candy then somebody with DX10. But as stated earlier:

Gameplay > Graphics

Nintendo proved that one with the Wii.

-V
 
A lot of these posts confuse me...or at least make me feel old :(

I have no idea why people are using valve or blizzard as examples of developers choosing bare-minimum systems for their target audience.

First of all, I'm guessing the only reason the poster above me had a 9700 to run HL2 was because of BF1942. Maybe it was some other game, but anyone who hadn't already upgraded their system specs around 2002-3 were gearing up for HL2's launch with the best money could buy.

Simply because they made a kick-ass engine that they could refine for 10 years doesn't mean halfway through it's life cycle that it wasn't cutting edge at release. Yeah, you can play it on a $40 video card now, but that wasn't the case in 2004.

Any of use who followed the AoE, Warcraft, Empire Earth, and even Civ franchises know that each iteration required system upgrades for the best gaming experience. None of their developers, Blizzard included, argued that they were aiming for low standards. Nope, they all claimed they were bringing the best to the table...and they did. It wasn't some developer scheme to aim for the low-budget market that allowed integrated systems to play most of those games, it was the drastically falling prices and technological advances that placed relatively incredible gaming power into integrated chipsets on pre-configured computers.


The fact of the matter is, there are periods in tech advances where one generation is night and day different from the previous one. But there are also development cycles where it seems not much has changed. As our tech becomes increasingly advanced, radical changes become harder to accomplish.
 
Nuker said:
People seem to think that a game can't have both good graphics and gameplay, which is just absurd.
Click to expand...

Good point, I couldn't agree more. I think people who are bashing Crysis never actually played it.

The game is sick! Very open-ended FPS style of play. Also, some of the most immersive and reactive environments in a video game EVER. From being able to chop down trees with firepower to picking up little tropical frogs and throwing them...what other games can you do crazy crap like this in?

Granted, best game of ALL time is GTA 3 San Andreas...and it probably REALLY is GTA 4, but I haven't played that yet. Why? Because the game was very open and loaded with very addicting and FUN content!
 
damonposey said:
Yet CS:S is the second most popular online FPS game.


I heard it a lot more a few years ago. Now what's becoming more common is, I'm going to buy a console for so-and-so game, because console exclusive games are becoming more desirable. Heck it worked on me, a PC gamer since 87, didn't own a console since the SNES yet I bought a PS3 for gta4 and mgs4 alone.

The question is what games are PC exclusive on the horizon, AND are leaps and bounds above the graphics on consoles. I can count one. Crysis: Warhead. Alan wake, Mafia 2, they're all coming out on consoles. People need more of an incentive to upgrade their PC with so much competition from consoles in action titles.

So it's not just Blizzard and other low-system requirement games that are a threat to high-end action PC gaming, it's also the console scene that's stealing gamers away from PC gaming. But theres no need to get into a console vs pc gaming debate here, that's for another forum in another thread.
Click to expand...

CS:S is more happenstance than anything, the original just happened to be very popular, my point wasn't how popular it was in absolute terms but rather the relative popularity of CS:S to the original. That's a typical trend you'll see where sequels rarely live up to the originals in the eyes of the gamers who loved the original.

No disrespect here, but I think buying a gaming machine for 1 maybe 2 exclusive titles which are going to appear on the PC 6-12 months later is a bit silly.

Most of us are well aware of the cost of the console, yes the hardware is cheaper although the games are severly marked up to compensate for that. Pick whatever quality you want, personally I cant stand the relative low quality of consoles, low resolutions especially, even when a console game does sacrafice enough graphical detail to run in 1920x1080, it's still 1/2 the resolution of what I currently game at.

Quality costs, consoles are a poor mans PC, that suits some people, and that fine, but others who appreciate quality and have large amounts of disposible income will always invest in the high end market. And there being lower quality alternatives out there is never going to ruin that, as long as theres a market for something, there'll be someone there to make money out of it, guranteed.
 
phide said:
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.


Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

exactly.. d3 wont affect ANY hardware sales and has no threat to anything?? love to visit your world sometime.

iuf anything people may buy a new rig because i doub d3 will run great on old old systems.
 
Having great games with low system requirements is A GOOD THING for PC gaming. Getting mad at a dev for not making high spec games that can tax your $600 card is ridiculous. I know you need justifications for spending that much on a card, but there are still many of us who want great games that don't require much from your computer. Games like tf2, spore, d3 all have/will have low system requirement and are a joy to play.
 
Frostex said:
Thats an awful lot of speculation about how well these unreleased games will run and how popular they will be. Yeah they've got a whole load of attention, but that doesn't gurantee popularity, CS:S still struggles to pull players away from the older CS1.6
Click to expand...

Lol dont give me that bs. Everyone knows the reason 1.6 has more players is because it is less gpu demanding thus more players in foreign countries can afford to slap a cheap piece of **** computer to play it. You need at least a $50 gpu to run source and in some countries that is like a months pay. BTW most people in USA already switched to source and pro cs players switched to source as well because that is where the money is right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top