portable PC gaming device...hmmm

Dyr

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiQ0AnlfBu4&feature=player_embedded#!

Razer trying something different...atom processor...small screen..wonder how this will work out

landsleaving

The first guy in the video makes it seem like a parody, which isn't a great start. 'Where it becomes pure genius'...

It looks like a netbook with flashy keys and little more tbh, might as well just get a laptop and wireless mouse.

Hercule

awesome

sink

Interesting idea but I don't want to play PC games designed for 24" 1920x1200 monitors on a 8" 1024x640, sorry.

gizmo

The keys alone look like those found on the Optimus Maximus keyboard released awhile back. That baby alone came with a price tag of over $2000 so I reckon this is just a prototype from Razor that will either change dramatically before release or simply never happen.

Cuddlesworth

gizmo wrote: »

The keys alone look like those found on the Optimus Maximus keyboard released awhile back. That baby alone came with a price tag of over $2000 so I reckon this is just a prototype from Razor that will either change dramatically before release or simply never happen.

Technology isn't there for anything outside of a 6-8 year old game. I'd like to see how WOW runs in a packed city on that thing. 1-2 fps anybody?

Dyr

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Technology isn't there for anything outside of a 6-8 year old game. I'd like to see how WOW runs in a packed city on that thing. 1-2 fps anybody?

Pretty much..can't see how they could pack enough ooomph into a device that size to run anything of a recent vintage..it would have to come with a set of oven gloves too :pac:

PogMoThoin

I just got a little sick in My mouth:

Valve is placing its vote of confidence behind Intel's new "Sandy Bridge" microprocessor, and even designed Portal 2's PC version with the processor in mind, says CEO Gabe Newell. Intel unveiled the new, second-generation core i7 processor at the Consumer Electronics Show this week, where Newell took the stage.

The Valve boss called the integrated CPU and graphics technology - the latter of which is reportedly better than 40-50 percent of the discrete graphic cards on the market - "a game changer". "This allows for a console-like experience on the PC," he said, according to an International Business Times report.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/32297/Valve_New_Intel_Microprocessor_Will_Bring_ConsoleLike_Experience_To_PC.php

FFS Gabe, update Your engine, its ancient now.
Don't consolise and completely fcuk up the pc as a format.

Glad I only really concentrate on Arma these days, everything else seems either a letdown, a half-arsed attempt or a slick marketing ploy

gizmo

PogMoThoin wrote: »

I just got a little sick in My mouth:

FFS Gabe, update Your engine, its ancient now.
Don't consolise and completely fcuk up the pc as a format.

Glad I only really concentrate on Arma these days, everything else seems either a letdown, a half-arsed attempt or a slick marketing ploy

I ****ing knew people would take what he was saying up arseways and have a nice rant about it. :pac:

What Gabe was referring to was the ability for developers to be able to make a game and not worry about minimum hardware requirements on the PC given the strength of the integrated GPU. Having such a standardised platform to develop for would allow developers to access a far larger market and would help the PC games industry immensely, something which is generally regarded as a good thing.

In the context of Portal 2 being designed with this in mind, this is just reiterating the scalability of their engine which will allow it to run on a wider range of machines.

the untitled user

"console like" experience? You mean **** resolution and no AA?

gizmo

the untitled user wrote: »

"console like" experience? You mean **** resolution and no AA?

Christ. No, he means from a developers perspective they can make a version of the game that they know will play on everyone's machine once they have a Sandy Bridge chip.

No more minimum requirements to worry about.
No more reduced market for titles due to said restrictive requirements.
More customers -> more revenue -> greater incentive to invest in the PC as a gaming platform.

the untitled user

That was a dig at the near obsolete graphics hardware in consoles btw.

PogMoThoin

gizmo wrote: »

I ****ing knew people would take what he was saying up arseways and have a nice rant about it. :pac:

Arseways

Gabe is just saying that we are now at the stage where Intels integrated graphics that come in all budget pc's are now equal in power to the Xbox360 and Ps3. We can finally enjoy console games on any pc. Yay!!

Just update Your engine Gabe, and give us HL3. Set Your standards bar a little higher than that.

gizmo

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Arseways

Gabe is just saying that we are now at the stage where Intels integrated graphics that come in all budget pc's are now equal in power to the Xbox360 and Ps3. We can finally enjoy console games on any pc. Yay!!

Just update Your engine Gabe, and give us HL3. Set Your standards bar a little higher than that.

Arseways is a bit harsh I guess, misinterpret is probably more apt.

But no, that's not the point he's trying to make. It's quite similiar to what Mark Rein was saying awhile back - one of the most difficult hurdles for developers to overcome on the PC is the lack of standardised or even baseline hardware. Intel are in the best position to do something about this via improved standards in integrated graphics hardware which in this case is what Sandy Bridge brings to the table.

PogMoThoin

gizmo wrote: »

But no, that's not the point he's trying to make. It's quite similiar to what Mark Rein was saying awhile back - one of the most difficult hurdles for developers to overcome on the PC is the lack of standardised or even baseline hardware. Intel are in the best position to do something about this via improved standards in integrated graphics hardware which in this case is what Sandy Bridge brings to the table.

Prolong the NOW generation of console shíte even further. No doubt about it, console games are holding the pc back. After 4 years they should be releasing new next generation consoles, instead they release gimmicks and toys, just like the PS2 got at the end of its life cycle. Its not that hard make games for pc, they just use that as an excuse as they want to cover as many bases as possible. Reducing the standard of the pc to that of a console helps. I'd prefer if they didn't bother with pc, console is where they want to go, off with them. We want next gen games, not last gen.

Kiith

I'm not going to get into the PC vs. Console debate again, but i think we can all agree that Sandy Bridge is a ****ing awful name for it.

Duggy747

Kiith wrote: »

I'm not going to get into the PC vs. Console debate again, but i think we can all agree that Sandy Bridge is a ****ing awful name for it.

Sounds like a place you'd see in a small town in the midlands :pac:

Sisko

landsleaving wrote: »

The first guy in the video makes it seem like a parody, which isn't a great start. 'Where it becomes pure genius'...

It looks like a netbook with flashy keys and little more tbh, might as well just get a laptop and wireless mouse.

hahah yeah I thought it seemed like a parody too, the gaming netbook idea might work for lan party heads , if the price is right.

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Prolong the NOW generation of console shíte even further. No doubt about it, console games are holding the pc back. After 4 years they should be releasing new next generation consoles, instead they release gimmicks and toys, just like the PS2 got at the end of its life cycle. Its not that hard make games for pc, they just use that as an excuse as they want to cover as many bases as possible. Reducing the standard of the pc to that of a console helps. I'd prefer if they didn't bother with pc, console is where they want to go, off with them. We want next gen games, not last gen.

I know what you mean, replaying HL2 recently, considering how old it is, its kinda amazing how little things have come since , largely due to the consoles. Things always slow down once a console gen is in full swing. Its when they start to die off we get a spike in PC gaming in terms of leaps forward, but then the next console gen appears and things slow down again.

gizmo

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Prolong the NOW generation of console shíte even further.

The huge number of fantastic console titles released over the last number of years shows it's anything but "****e".

PogMoThoin wrote: »

No doubt about it, console games are holding the pc back. After 4 years they should be releasing new next generation consoles, instead they release gimmicks and toys, just like the PS2 got at the end of its life cycle.

Consoles didn't hold Crysis or indeed anything developed with the CryEngine back, prohibitively high hardware requirements did though. The same goes for any major innovation in PC gaming, supporting the latest graphics techniques and pushing high end hardware in your games never leads to massive sales. Look at the biggest selling PC games from the last number of years, are any of the major ones titles which pushed the envelope tech wise?

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Its not that hard make games for pc, they just use that as an excuse as they want to cover as many bases as possible.

No, it's just hard to sell them to a large audience which is what companies need to do to pay their staff and stay afloat.

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Reducing the standard of the pc to that of a console helps. I'd prefer if they didn't bother with pc, console is where they want to go, off with them. We want next gen games, not last gen.

And in response to this, more words from the big man himself...

The PC platform is a "centre of innovation" and key to the future of gaming according to Valve boss Gabe Newell.

Speaking to Develop, Newell explained, "We see [the PC] as the centre of innovation of everything that's going on, whether it's microtransactions, MMOs, free-to-play, or something like CityVille which – after its first month – has 84 million people playing.

"To us, this is just an indication of why open platforms are where innovations are going to occur."

Even thought the traditionally PC-focussed studio behind the likes of Half Life, Portal and Left 4 Dead has now embraced console development too, Newell insisted that he was "tremendously excited about the future of PC gaming."

Despite many commenters' claims that PC gaming has seen better days, a number of high profile developers have joined Newell in sticking up for the platform in recent months.

Back in October, Blizzard's Rob Pardo said, "I always laugh because as long as I've been in the games industry, every year I'm asked 'is PC gaming dead?' But it keeps on growing despite the fact it's been pronounced dead 20 times."

And in September, id Software boss Tim Willits told Eurogamer, "In my opinion the PC will always be the core of the gaming industry - it is the timeless stable platform that as developers we will always be able to rely on.

"Unlike consoles, the PC doesn't disappear because one company decided it wasn't profitable or decided to make a new version. The PC platform is always evolving but staying stable."

Next up from Valve is Portal 2, due out on PC, PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 on 21st April.

the untitled user

gizmo wrote: »

one of the most difficult hurdles for developers to overcome on the PC is the lack of standardised or even baseline hardware.

Testing across the range of configurations is a tedious task, but the biggest obstacle for PC developers is the lack of a dedicated GPU and graphics memory in the majority of PCs.

I'd blame the PC manufacturers here. For years we've seen the major vendors of preassembled PCs (HP, Dell etc) charging ridiculous prices for dedicated graphics hardware, it's their excessive margins on the products that make PC gaming so prohibitive for the average user imo. And I'm sure Intel encouraged this given their utter failure to claim a stake in the graphics market.

Hopefully Sandy Bridge will help raise the profile of PC gaming among casual users, but I think it's a bit much to be labeling it a 'game changer', if anything it further undermines the innovation of ATI/AMD and Nvidia. Those two are the real game changers when it comes to graphics because they are at the forefront so much, if their resources or incentive to develop are hampered further it could actually be a big blow to the games industry in the long run imo.

gizmo

the untitled user wrote: »

Testing across the range of configurations is a tedious task, but the biggest obstacle for PC developers is the lack of a dedicated GPU and graphics memory in the majority of PCs.

Well if the market isn't there due to the myriad of hardware configs and the lack of acceptable ones, then there's no point in even beginning development, hence my ranking it as their highest concern.

the untitled user wrote: »

I'd blame the PC manufacturers here. For years we've seen the major vendors of preassembled PCs (HP, Dell etc) charging ridiculous prices for dedicated graphics hardware, it's their excessive margins on the products that make PC gaming so prohibitive for the average user imo. And I'm sure Intel encouraged this given their utter failure to claim a stake in the graphics market.

Hopefully Sandy Bridge will help raise the profile of PC gaming among casual users, but I think it's a bit much to be labeling it a 'game changer', if anything it further undermines the innovation of ATI/AMD and Nvidia. Those two are the real game changers when it comes to graphics because they are at the forefront so much, if their resources or incentive to develop are hampered further it could actually be a big blow to the games industry in the long run imo.

This is pretty much bang on. As I mentioned earlier, Mark Rein had a rant about this awhile back when he blamed ****ty Intel integrated solutions for "killing PC gaming". With improvements like Sandy Bridge though they may be finally getting the message.

Overheal

The issue isn't hardware.

Right now game developers seemed to have reached a peak at what they hope to accomplish. You could argue well that they do it because they want to cater to consoles but more or less, can you think of many titles that would require a next-gen of hardware? There were times when we simply didn't have the rendering libraries capable of making a game like Prey or Portal. There was a time when you couldn't even make a 3D game, or have dynamic lighting. Thats all there right now though. What more is there to be added at this point that makes sense? Looking at CryEngine 3 Im not entirely sure what the big quantum leap is. Yes they make a good do with cloth textures and are able to crunch through into the realm of ray-tracing, kinda, but as far as gaming though and indeed as far as our needs go is it really necessary to Make the Game? This isn't like when HL2 needed a Physics Engine to handle the Gravity Gun or anything: what do these iterations (not innovations) in game rendering actually add to the game experience?

Aside from AA on consoles, I can't think of much to add, myself.

gizmo

Overheal wrote: »

The issue isn't hardware.

In the context of Newell's statements it's precisely the issue though.

Overheal wrote: »

Right now game developers seemed to have reached a peak at what they hope to accomplish. You could argue well that they do it because they want to cater to consoles but more or less, can you think of many titles that would require a next-gen of hardware? There were times when we simply didn't have the rendering libraries capable of making a game like Prey or Portal. There was a time when you couldn't even make a 3D game, or have dynamic lighting. Thats all there right now though. What more is there to be added at this point that makes sense? Looking at CryEngine 3 Im not entirely sure what the big quantum leap is. Yes they make a good do with cloth textures and are able to crunch through into the realm of ray-tracing, kinda, but as far as gaming though and indeed as far as our needs go is it really necessary to Make the Game? This isn't like when HL2 needed a Physics Engine to handle the Gravity Gun or anything: what do these iterations (not innovations) in game rendering actually add to the game experience?

Immersion for one. I'll take Crysis for example, a game which was lambasted for being style over substance yet, for me at least, had some truly fantastic set pieces. These instances however, were only so memorable because of the advances in rendering and indeed technology evident in the game itself.

One scene in particularly towards the end of the game had me faced with travelling through a ravine which had tanks posted on the high ground on either side. Soldiers were also dotted around and lighter vehicles backing them up. While I managed to get some bit of distance through the area I was eventually spotted and all hell broke loose, shells were raining down, particles were going everywhere, as I spun around the motion blur kicked in fantastically, gunfire lit up my screen, smoke filtered across my vision etc... Without any of these fancy graphical techniques the scene would have been utterly boring, yes I would have had to accomplish the same mission but not been as immersed were it not for these effects.

Metro 2033 is another example with it's fantastic volumetric fog which was only available in the DirectX 11 version of the game. Bioshock had it's water too and while not as impressive as some of the above effects, was still cracking for when it was released. Now none of them directly affected the gameplay but at the same time, it would have been a far less interesting world had they not been there.

Of course the likes of Limbo and Super Meat Boy have shown us we don't need graphics to make a ****ing fantastic game but there's certainly room for both types of title.

the untitled user

Overheal wrote: »

The issue isn't hardware.

Right now game developers seemed to have reached a peak at what they hope to accomplish. You could argue well that they do it because they want to cater to consoles but more or less, can you think of many titles that would require a next-gen of hardware? There were times when we simply didn't have the rendering libraries capable of making a game like Prey or Portal. There was a time when you couldn't even make a 3D game, or have dynamic lighting. Thats all there right now though. What more is there to be added at this point that makes sense?

I can think of ****loads of tech that would help makes games better. Realistic crowd simulations for one. Procedural texture generation is another. Audio synthesis, dynamic mixing and better audio spatialisation. Skinning can still be pretty sh*t on a lot of console titles. Natural Language processing. Actual Intelligent AI algorithms as opposed to scripting, christ some games can still barely get basic path finding in place. GPGPU could perhaps facilitate higher resolution bounding boxes (it seems every game I've played recently I've fallen through the floor somewhere or another). Lack of resources continually hampers.

Overheal wrote: »

Looking at CryEngine 3 Im not entirely sure what the big quantum leap is. Yes they make a good do with cloth textures and are able to crunch through into the realm of ray-tracing, kinda, but as far as gaming though and indeed as far as our needs go is it really necessary to Make the Game? This isn't like when HL2 needed a Physics Engine to handle the Gravity Gun or anything: what do these iterations (not innovations) in game rendering actually add to the game experience?

Aside from AA on consoles, I can't think of much to add, myself.

You've missed the point a little here. The primary development focus for CryEngine 3 was scalability and cross platform portability, they want to commercialize it.