Gabe Says Something

[Krakn3Dfx]

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/...utraNews+(Gamasutra+News)&utm_content=Twitter

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 to call the technology "a game changer".

"This allows for a console-like experience on the PC," he said.

What?

 

[zerocool84]

He shouldn't have time to go anywhere. He should be busy on Episode 3.

 

[KaOTiK]

"This allows for a console-like experience on the PC," he said.

What?

We already get the console experience with half ass ports, average graphics, and overpriced crappy DLC for a start.

 

[JSt0rm]

lmao!! finally I can game as if i owned a 5 year old console!! The gods shine down upon us!

 

[Krakn3Dfx]

In defense, I think he was just referring to the meatier integrated graphics solution in the Sandy Bridge processor and how Valve is designing Portal 2 to run on it, as opposed to Intel's previously hideous integrated graphics solutions.

Still...lol.

 

[Maximilian]

lol

 

[Skurge]

What does that even mean?

 

[RavenSEAL]

Cool?

 

[Childs]

I hope there is more context.... I would even expect Intel to put out some sort of statement. I mean who would buy a $200-300 CPU to do what a $200-$300 console already does, without the cost of the rest of the PC.

 

[AstroManLuca]

LOL, Intel graphics.

If anything, the fact that games haven't gotten more demanding is the biggest boost to PC gaming performance on lower end cards. NVidia and ATI onboard graphics are constantly improving and a $100 discrete card from two years ago is still good enough to handle most games.

The real innovation that needs to be done isn't in graphics chipsets, it's in user experience. People who aren't comfortable with computers hate having to deal with all the problems associated with PC gaming and prefer the "drop in and play" you get with a console. That's what a "console-like experience" should be all about. Steam has made some progress there but it's still nowhere near as simple.

 

[emilyek]

I hope there is more context.... I would even expect Intel to put out some sort of statement. I mean who would buy a $200-300 CPU to do what a $200-$300 console already does, without the cost of the rest of the PC.

Here's the context: Gabe is in bed with somebody or sombodies who want to re-launch PC gaming, which means on-die graphics that can run casual games well and other games acceptably; the intention of which is to erase even more of the line between the PC and console experience, not by making better PC games, but by making games for PC shittier and even more of a take-all-comers format than consoles are.

Because while everyone might not have a console, hell, everybody's got a PC, which means even more digital distribution sales, and therefore more gold-plated doughnuts for Gabe to eat.

 

[Patrick Wolf]

Hopefully this means they'll optimize for Intel's graphics without screwing everyone else who wants eye candy.

 

[HeXen]

INTEL PAID HIM $$$$$$
they know darn good and well how respected Valve is to the gaming community, i'm guessing either they skipped John Carmak cause he's old news or cause he didnt accept the flow cause either or, when speaking...gamers listen and take it to heart. Intel knows that and this is all marketing BS

 

[BladeVenom]

I'm just going to assume that Gabe is too busy working on his next game to actually read all the way through the hardware reviews.

Yes the high end SB chips are going to have graphics close to low end discrete cards, but the majority of desktop chips are going to have the weaker version that is not that much better than the last generation of integrated graphics.

So this really changes nothing. Gamers buying high end CPU's will still add in graphics cards, those who buy the cheaper CPUs and don't buy a graphics card will not have a good experience.

 

[monkey333]

lmao!! finally I can game as if i owned a 5 year old console!! The gods shine down upon us!

Props to this...

 

[RavenSEAL]

lmao!! finally I can game as if i owned a 5 year old console!! The gods shine down upon us!

Oh yea, that went well last time. Thank you PCesus, DRM is the best thing since bread! Let us play games @ 1000*480!

Oh wait...

 

[snewdle]

You're right. Gabe did say something. Next time let us know though when he actually says something interesting or imporant.

 

[Dorkenstein]

I'd be more impressed if he chugged a 24 pack of Dew and then sprayed everyone in the room with a super soaker full of diabetic urine.

 

[coloumb]

I will pay attention when I hear "Half Life 2 episode 3 release date is [insert date here]". Otherwise... who the *F* cares if Portal 2 will be optimized to run on a laptop.

 

[wrangler]

I wonder if this has anything to do with the DRM that is built into SB?

 

[Barfo]

He shouldn't have time to go anywhere. He should be busy on the treadmill.

Fixed.

/douche

 

[Red Storm]

Valve lost their way a long time ago as one of the better PC dev companies. Need proof? You think $15 Call of Duty map packs are bad? Take a look at the in-game Team Fortress 2 store. Up to $18 for a hat. Yes, a single, purely cosmetic item that you can't even see yourself cause it's an FPS.

 

[JoshGuru7]

Valve lost their way a long time ago as one of the better PC dev companies. Need proof? You think $15 Call of Duty map packs are bad? Take a look at the in-game Team Fortress 2 store. Up to $18 for a hat. Yes, a single, purely cosmetic item that you can't even see yourself cause it's an FPS.

I'm confused why you think that's a bad thing. As you say, it is a purely cosmetic item which you have the option of purchasing, and options are good for consumers. If it was something that gave you a bonus in game then people would feel they needed to buy it to have a level playing field, and then I might agree with you.

Why are you worse off with the option of buying a cosmetic item then you would be if the option didn't exist? Does it bother you that other people might have those cosmetic items?

 

[Red Storm]

I'm confused why you think that's a bad thing. As you say, it is a purely cosmetic item which you have the option of purchasing, and options are good for consumers. If it was something that gave you a bonus in game then people would feel they needed to buy it to have a level playing field, and then I might agree with you.

Why are you worse off with the option of buying a cosmetic item then you would be if the option didn't exist? Does it bother you that other people might have those cosmetic items?

It bothers me that certain dev companies release DLC such as new squad mates or maps for $5-$10 and people flame them for it, and then Valve one ups the greediness by charging ridiculous prices on cosmetic, singular item DLC and they don't get the same treatment.

Basically, Valve seems to have become more greedy than the bastards at Activision & EA. That is quite an accomplishment.

As for TF2 itself... I am worse off, because I enjoyed the game for the new maps, well thought out class unlocks, and continuous balance updates. Look at TF2's update history as of late, it's all cosmetic/stupid items and fixes for the store and other crap while the actual game itself is abandoned. I am also worse off when members of your team decide to go afk mid-round to work out a trade with another player or try to decide what color to paint the christmas tree hat on their head. I mean the game has become an absolute joke. It used to have class and depth.

 

[Maximilian]

Valve lost their way a long time ago as one of the better PC dev companies. Need proof? You think $15 Call of Duty map packs are bad? Take a look at the in-game Team Fortress 2 store. Up to $18 for a hat. Yes, a single, purely cosmetic item that you can't even see yourself cause it's an FPS.

Hey if valve want to charge dumb people so they can get money to pour into portal 2/episode 3/whatever else then more power to em :thumbsup: