Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

AMD Wants to Standardize PC Gaming

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 6 years ago | from the long-road-ahead dept.

AMD 277

Vigile writes "Even though PC gaming has a very devout fan-base, it is impossible to not see the many benefits that console gaming offers: faster loads, better compatibility and more games that fully utilize the hardware to name a few. AMD just launched a new initiative called AMD GAME! that attempts to bring some of these benefits to PC games as well. AMD will be certifying hardware for two different levels of PC gaming standards, testing compatibility with a host of current and future PC titles as well as offering up AMD GAME! ready components or pre-built systems from partners."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

good very average joe (3, Insightful)

Max4400 (1154375) | more than 6 years ago | (#23466556)

I think this will be very cool for average joe who don't understand difference between 8400GS and 8800GT graphic cards. If game cover says its AMD GAME READY, joe can buy that game and play in his PC.

eh (2, Interesting)

dreddnott (555950) | more than 6 years ago | (#23466634)

This kind of crap has been going on for a long, long time. Anybody else remember the MPC standards?

Re:eh (3, Insightful)

MBCook (132727) | more than 6 years ago | (#23467204)

Bingo. But MPC was too slow, so they added MPC 2. Then 3. I think that's when they gave up. As another commenter pointed out this is how the RSX got started in Japan.

Computers move too fast. The only thing this is good for is smaller games (think PopCap) and with those it's a pretty safe bet you can play them if your computer was purchased in the last 4 years.

If you want this to work for FarCry or some such, you're dead.

Then there is the "playable" problem. Is 60 FPS at 1024 playable? I'd say yes. I'll accept 30 FPS at 1280. Many people here (and on other forums) will say "It must be at least 90 at 1600" to be playable. 3D graphics just made defining anything like this much much harder. MPC included CPU, colors, CD-ROM speed, and sound card. Now you have to deal with can the GPU render X number of Ys at Z resolution with Q pixel shaders at over L FPS.

Can't be done unless you can get some huge share of the market with ONE computer. The iMac (first gen, colorful) worked for something like that on the Mac side, but then again you can often just list the Mac models on the box because there are so few these days.

Re:good very average joe (4, Informative)

eln (21727) | more than 6 years ago | (#23466660)

I think you have that exactly backwards. The software won't be "AMD GAME!" branded, the hardware will be. It's basically a certification program similar to Microsoft's "Windows XP/Vista Certified" stickers on computers and components. AMD will test various components (certain video cards, etc.) to make sure they work as intended with the "latest games" (not sure which games they'll test).

So, if you buy hardware components that are "AMD GAME! Ready", you can be reasonably confident that you can play the most popular games on them. Personally, I think it's a pretty good idea, as if the label takes off, AMD can charge hardware manufacturers a premium to get the certification. And, of course, AMD's own offerings will be AMD GAME! certified before anyone else's.

Re:good very average joe (5, Insightful)

grm_wnr (781219) | more than 6 years ago | (#23466840)

One, AMD might shoot itself in the foot by targeting gamers especially (or not; I think gamers actually like to run AMD's top offerings on desktops so it might sense to concentrate on that market, but it's kind of sad).

Two, I think neither Intel nor Nvidia will ever want to get any of their hardware certified with their biggest competitor's logo. So if it's by component, it's dead in the water. If it's by system, it might have a little potential, but unless it gets the big shots (Sony, Dell, etc.) on board, it will be limited to the much smaller market of small run custom builders - and those are exactly the ones whose customers already know which systems run games well.

AMD's standard is a clusterfuck. This one's better (5, Insightful)

Cordath (581672) | more than 6 years ago | (#23467028)

First thing is first, if you really want to bring an even remotely viable standard to the industry, it can't have your brand on it. Not even if your processors didn't suck. So, AMDGame!, AMDGame Ultra, ect.: meet trashbin.

Second, if you base your standard on qualitative metrics today like regular, extreme, venti, extra loco, etc. they're all going to be in the sucks, super-sucks, sucks more dick than an intern at a political convention, range of categories in little over a year. That means you have to keep coming up with new, confusing, and retarded new names every product cycle or, alternatively, redefine the existing names each cycle so that last years Ultra is this years suck. How is this going to reduce confusion?

My suggestion is to slap a number on your standards. e.g. PC Gaming Score: 710 for this years Ultra, and 920 for next years. Every last mouth breather out there knows that higher numbers are usually better and will assume so, even when they aren't.

Now, it's important to note that these numbers aren't quite like a benchmark. Having one really fast component shouldn't quality a system for a number high enough to play a game when it has other components that will make that game unplayable. These numbers can't be mindless metrics that come out of a benchmark. It has to take all components into consideration, especially the bottlenecks. The goal is to provide a single number that a user can look at and say: Okay, the required number on gameX is lower, so I can play it. No worries.

It's that simple. No worrying about whether uber-awesome is greater than mega-extreme, or whether it's last years mega-extreme or this year's mega-extreme. It's, "is the number on the box of this game less than the number on my machine".

Seriously, it's about time companies like AMD realized that the same slice from a bigger pie still equals greater profits. If they want to increase the PC gaming market they really need to put their brand promotion on the back burner.

Re:AMD's standard is a clusterfuck. This one's bet (4, Insightful)

nelsonal (549144) | more than 6 years ago | (#23467180)

What about something like 2008 Basic and 2008 Performance that held steady for a year and then were reset the year after, it would allow game boxes to say complient with 2009 Performance 2010 Basic and all newer systems. That isn't too far from consoles which are on a slightly longer than annual cycle.

Re:AMD's standard is a clusterfuck. This one's bet (1)

infalliable (1239578) | more than 6 years ago | (#23467272)

I basically said the same thing lower down. You can't come up with fancy names for how good the performance is, because it's all relative. "Ultra" is going to be "not-so-ultra" is 2 years. You'll have a 2010 "basic" system thrashing a 2008 "ultra" system. The naming system will completely break down. You either have to date everything with the name to get anything out of it (which is insanely complex...I have a May 08 Ultra system...is that better than a May '10 basic???), or use a pure numeric benchmark-type score. Otherwise it is MORE confusing. It'll never work.

Re:good very average joe (1)

Translation Error (1176675) | more than 6 years ago | (#23467124)

So, what if a computer with an "AMD GAME! Ready" sticker sits on a shelf in a store for a bunch of months? Sure, it may have been great for the latest games when it was put there, but eventually, it'll be insufficient for current games and still have that sticker on it saying it can run new games.

Model years (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23467348)

So, what if a computer with an "AMD GAME! Ready" sticker sits on a shelf in a store for a bunch of months?
I like nelsonal's idea [slashdot.org] of a model year. That way, casual game developers can aim for the spec of five years ago, while developers of more hardcore games can require a 1- or 2-year-old PC. Even Americans understand model years from cars and the "born on dates" printed on beer packages.

Re:good very average joe (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 6 years ago | (#23467170)

Not to mention that Intel's chips will probably take forever and a day to be certified, if they ever are.

Re:good very average joe (4, Insightful)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 6 years ago | (#23466892)

I think this will be very cool for average joe who don't understand difference between 8400GS and 8800GT graphic cards.

I disagree. I didn't even finish reading the summary before I realized this wasn't going to work. TFA just confirmed my suspicion.

A few problems:

1. AMD will only certify AMD/ATI hardware. Which kind of makes this useless if you're an Intel/NVidia user.

2. Game Systems gain their stability due to LOOOOONG (4-5 years) release cycles. In PC terms, 4-5 years is an eternity.

3. AMD is going to butt heads with the PC Gaming Alliance [wikipedia.org] they just helped form.

4. Given that PC Hardware is a moving target, how will AMD certify future machines? Will AMD GAME and GAME ULTRA also be moving targets? If so, will that not confuse Joe Gameplayer when AMD GAME system from 2008 fails to smoothly run AMD GAME software from 2010?

5. Epic and Id are the primary drivers behind the PC game market. Their engines are the keystone that holds the whole thing together. Thus it is their engines that make the market. Maybe I missed it, but I don't see AMD having their cooperation on setting future standards.

A much better system would be a versioned hardware spec that is maintained across the industry. e.g. PC-Spec 1 would certify GeFore 8400/Radeon HD 2400 and PC-Spec 2 would certify GeForce 8800/Radeon HD 2900. A new revision of the spec would be created for each sliding window. Each spec would consist of a certain performance plateau combined with a given feature set. (e.g. Support for GL Programmable Shaders.) The latest 3D engines from companies like Id and Epic would target the latest, upcoming spec. (A spec which those companies would have helped define when they were in early development.)

From a consumer perspective, this makes my life easier. Because instead of looking if RAM, Graphics Card, and CPU match, I can simply look for the spec number. If my computer supports a higher spec number than what's on the box (e.g. I have a PC-Spec 5 computer and this game requires PC-Spec 4) then I know I can play the game.

It's not quite as simple as consoles, but such is the way the PC world works.

Re:good very average joe (1, Interesting)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 6 years ago | (#23466964)

For that matter, you could just figure out the algorithm that MS is using to determine the Vista experience scores, and use THAT.

Re:good very average joe (5, Funny)

Leonard Fedorov (1139357) | more than 6 years ago | (#23467334)

I don't think a random number generator is going to help us here...

Re:good very average joe (1)

cliffski (65094) | more than 6 years ago | (#23467020)

5. Epic and Id are the primary drivers behind the PC game market.
both these companies recently announced they were moving away from the pc because of piracy.

Re:good very average joe (2, Insightful)

ttapper04 (955370) | more than 6 years ago | (#23466978)

I don't see something like this going over, seeing as the "average joe" doesnt know if he has an AMD or Intel chipset.

Any initiative of this type would require the cooperation of Intel/others.

Re:good very average joe (1)

Bombula (670389) | more than 6 years ago | (#23467250)

While it's a good thing that a hardware vendor is initiating some sort of performance standard that will help the mass market determine whether a machine can play most games, I think it would make more sense if this was done in software with benchmarking.

Vista already has this feature, if I recall (I still use XP). But if I recall correctly, it's a random 1-5 metric - maybe with a decimal? - and it doesn't offer anything useful like, "Unreal Tournament 3 requires a score of 3.5 or higher; Crysis requires a 4.8 or higher" etc.

I hate to say it, but for Windows gaming there should be a Microsoft-led campaign to get games to list performance scores. To play Game X with full-features (AA, high res, max effects, etc) then you need so-and-so score. For average performance on Game X, you need so-and-so score. My guess is that this was the original intention with Vista, but that the ball got dropped somewhere along the way.

Yup, standardise on one game! (1)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 6 years ago | (#23467378)

Think of the benefits just having one game will bring. You only have to ever make one purchase, once!.

Standardisation is a great thing!

good idea, hard to do (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 6 years ago | (#23466558)

This is a good idea, but I'm sure it will show to be very difficult. The neat thing about consoles is they are all the same, roughly, where PCs can be made up of pretty much any component you can find. On top of that, you have all sorts of software that can be present that have just as much as, or in some cases more than, hardware.

Re:good idea, hard to do (1)

joecasanova (1253876) | more than 6 years ago | (#23466618)

I think that someone needs to develop some sort of standardized platform to launch PC games from besides windows or other alternatives. Something that is JUST for gaming. Something like the OS that is loaded onto the consoles. Anyway, I'm eager to see what AMD has in store. Perhaps it'll make upgrading and building gaming capable PCs easier for the not-so-tech-savvy. That is what keeps most gamers from entering the PC gaming market.

Re:good idea, hard to do (1)

magarity (164372) | more than 6 years ago | (#23466816)

some sort of standardized platform to launch PC games from besides windows or other alternatives. Something that is JUST for gaming.
You've just described a console game machine. What's needed is to just boot a PC OS on the powerful hardware of the console box whenever you don't put in a game disk to boot. Beats the heck out of me why they not only don't do this but also make it difficult to after-market fiddle the things to do it. I guess if a version of Windows were tailor made for certain hardware combination so the drivers and whatnot never freaked out and crashed everyone would whine endlessly over why their mish-mash PC ever has that problem.

Re:good idea, hard to do (2, Insightful)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 6 years ago | (#23467208)

You've just described a console game machine.
Yep. I was totally waiting for the "Maybe they could call it the Xbox or something?" punchline in the GP's post and it never came along.

Microsoft essentially did EXACTLY that in the original Xbox. They took commodity PC parts and designed a gaming machine out of them. It was a bit large, ugly, and has it's issues, but it worked reasonably well as a console (speaking as someone who owned all 4 systems from that generation and has no bias towards any one in particular).

Honestly, with the advent of HDTV displays the horrible graphics resolution of console games has finally been fixed. The new consoles also come standard with networking/internet capability. Aside from input methods, there's not much difference between a console and a computer now. Even that is being improved. Xbox 360 has those little mini keypads that fit under the controller now. While I can't stand those things, I have to admit that to a generation that has grown up using cell phones to communicate using SMS messages, they're probably not bad at all.

I'd bet that the next generation of game system will include an RF keyboard with them, at least as an option. And honestly, this convergence isn't a bad thing. It's not as if PC games are dying and loosing out to a console like the SNES. It's just that the best attributes of both systems are being combined to form a better gaming paradigm.

Re:good idea, hard to do (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23467292)

Aside from input methods, there's not much difference between a console and a computer now.
Two major differences remain: PCs have small monitors, and unmodded consoles don't run games that are self-published by small developers. That makes it difficult for small developers to publish games designed for four players in a single room, as nobody wants to buy a $2,000 set-of-four-PCs to play one game.

Re:good idea, hard to do (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 6 years ago | (#23467390)

and how meny people really want to play a game in a 4 way split screen? With out even having there own sound channel?

Small businesses? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23466940)

I think that someone needs to develop some sort of standardized platform to launch PC games from besides windows or other alternatives. Something that is JUST for gaming. Something like the OS that is loaded onto the consoles.
But which company would control the bootloader, and would it be open to small businesses? The big advantage of PC gaming, apart from the focus on keyboard and mouse control, is that small businesses can self-publish on the platform.

That is what keeps most gamers from entering the PC gaming market.
That and the fact that you usually need a separate PC for each user, unlike a console that supports multiple users at once.

Re:good idea, hard to do (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 6 years ago | (#23466620)

consoles are not all the same any more some have no hd a bigger hd, differnt controller add ons, and other stuff.

Most video cards on the pc use the same video chip they just have more or less ram , pipe lines, and differnt speeds.

Re:good idea, hard to do (2, Funny)

Splab (574204) | more than 6 years ago | (#23466998)

So they are all the same, except everything is different?

PCs used to be rather divergent (1)

mollog (841386) | more than 6 years ago | (#23466706)

PCs used to be a rather diverse collection of hardware. I'll bet most of the older techie's can remember the horrible variations on IBM's original PC. Even IBM made horrible variations.

My point is that standardization is possible, even probable. So, I think that, yes, there can be some effort to enable the technology for gaming; memory management, graphics buss technology, cell processor technology, etc.

It seems like the processor divergence works against this. The various 'Intel' compatible processors all have a requirement of specialized Northbridge/Southbridge type glue silicon and that works against standardization.

A better way? (5, Interesting)

Kelbear (870538) | more than 6 years ago | (#23466720)

It's a nice ideal, but AMD has no authority or power to make this happen. The difference between PCs and Consoles is who is in control. With a console the manufacturer can dictate standardization, but with a PC the user gets to decide what goes where. AMD will need to ask all the gaming-hardware manufacturers to join together voluntarily to make the user's choices fit into a standard. They can't just restrict the user to standardized options, the user will pick as they please.

I think the best chance for standardized PC gaming is for someone to pitch a desktop-console. Essentially they'd just be selling a standardized box of subsidized PC hardware. Market it well enough to developers and to consumers and hopefully enough people will hop on board to make it a defacto standard by popularity. What would make this difference is pre-packaging an affordable gaming box instead of having casual consumers pick out hardware on their own. Hardcore gamers will of course prefer to do this themselves, but casual consumers would rather that things "just work".

Re:A better way? (0, Redundant)

Big Boss (7354) | more than 6 years ago | (#23466782)

I think the best chance for standardized PC gaming is for someone to pitch a desktop-console. Essentially they'd just be selling a standardized box of subsidized PC hardware. Market it well enough to developers and to consumers and hopefully enough people will hop on board to make it a defacto standard by popularity.

So, XBox then?

Re:A better way? (1)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 6 years ago | (#23466970)

Well I own one of those and it's nice. But PC gaming could persuade me to go back. Here is how it would work. PC games would want to be listed as working with AMD GAME! and so they would write games to that. Then I buy the AMD GAME! certified hardware to upgrade and off I go back into the wonderful world of PC gaming.

Re:A better way? (1)

Kelbear (870538) | more than 6 years ago | (#23467192)

Pretty much. The Xbox360 has USB inputs but by MS mandate, developers are not allowed to use a keyboard as a gaming input. I don't believe mice work natively like keyboards do, but it would be trivial to add support for this.

The window for the xbox360 to also market itself as a desktop console has passed. It's a bit late for a massive turnaround like this. The console would need to identify itself as a desktop right off the bat to avoid such ambiguity. The market pitch needs to be clear and cohesive and would have to fight the established knowledge of the Xbox360 as a traditional TV/Couch console. More importantly, development support would still be needed to take advantage of the standardized platform. MS can't just enable kb/mouse support, it needs to get both consumer and developers synchronized for the launch of a kb/mouse game on the Xbox360. It can try it and fail with little cost, but having failed with a half-hearted attempt will make consumers and developers more apprehensive at embracing a future full-fledged attempt.

I'm not really wondering if it will happen though, in my opinion it's more a question of when. Keyboard/mouse have proven themselves to be great input devices and I'm sure some console will eventually involve these input devices as a centerpiece(PS3 has it enabled, but has emphasized the use of sixaxis instead). While they may be a bit awkward to use on a couch as console users are accustomed, my first several months playing the Xbox360 was on my PC monitor, there's no reason they can't just put the kb/m on the desktop to play.

Re:A better way? (1)

FireXtol (1262832) | more than 6 years ago | (#23467268)

Hah. Flamebait is the best.

The dangers of subsidy (2, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23466990)

I think the best chance for standardized PC gaming is for someone to pitch a desktop-console. Essentially they'd just be selling a standardized box of subsidized PC hardware.
The problem here is that for the last couple decades, just about every subsidized gaming platform has shut out smaller developers. Don't expect to see a lot of free software, freeware, shareware, or user-created mods on a subsidized platform, as the platform's security won't be able to distinguish those from illegally copied commercial games.

Re:The dangers of subsidy (1)

Kelbear (870538) | more than 6 years ago | (#23467380)

This isn't a necessary quality of subsidized hardware, it's dependent on the approach of the manufacturer in qualifying what goes on the platform. Nintendo has been fairly draconian on this historically, but even Nintendo is now pitching Wiiware. Xbox360 has established success with Xbox Live Arcade. PS3's store is off to a rocky start but can only improve. Everyday Shooter for instance was developed by 1 guy with a computer and a guitar.

There are definitely obstacles in getting user-content on the platforms, but this is still an issue of balance between quality/security control and freedom. This will depend on the implementation. PS3 is willing to allow free-content packs for UT3, while MS could allow the same, they demanded that Epic pay MS in order to give free content to the users(even though the users had already paid for XBL...). The difference was in the implementation, but both platforms are on subsidized hardware. I'm sure we can imagine alternative methods of quality control that will still allow for freebies to work their way onto the platform. They could even declare that the developer's game experience is seperate from the user-created game experience and allow full access to mods/maps albeit with no guarantee of quality, much like the system already in place for todays PC gamers.

Re:A better way? (1)

raptor386 (1212810) | more than 6 years ago | (#23467318)

Like the horribly failed Phantom? [wikipedia.org]

Not that hard to do (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23467048)

Just do not use ATI graphics cards.

I mean over 5 years now I know of the infamous ATI Drivers going into Infinite loop on simple OpenGL.

http://www.google.com/search?q=ati+drv+infinite+loop&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1 [google.com]

I think they should not worry too much about a standard game and worry more about their own drivers.

This will get abused.... (5, Insightful)

rotide (1015173) | more than 6 years ago | (#23466574)

This will get abused/misused just like the "Vista Capable" mark. Find a way to technically be compliant but in reality be quite sub-par to what the consumer expectations are.

Re:This will get abused.... (1)

brxndxn (461473) | more than 6 years ago | (#23467376)

That's why it is nice that AMD is doing this rather than Intel... considering Intel were the biggest abusers of the 'Vista Capable' mark. At least if it's the underdog dictating the standards, they will never be able to dictate standards that are sub-par.

Ohhh this will work... (0)

hyperz69 (1226464) | more than 6 years ago | (#23466580)

Because AMD is the Champion of Standards. In fact they should come up with a set of instructions like SSE... we can specialize them for Graphics... call it 3DNow!

Re:Ohhh this will work... (1)

Lussarn (105276) | more than 6 years ago | (#23466680)

3DNow! predates sse.

Forget Awful Macro Designs (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23466588)

The supporters of M$ should never be supported. Out of all of the microprocessor manufacturers, only Intel supports free software to its fullest.

Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

Re:Forget Awful Macro Designs (2, Interesting)

pdusen (1146399) | more than 6 years ago | (#23466922)


GFW Lookalike? (1)

SoulMan007 (1136759) | more than 6 years ago | (#23466596)

The chances of this going the way 'Games For Windows' did is quite likely. Be interesting to see how it plays out however.

Nice try. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23466608)

By building your corporate name into the name of the "standard," you won't be getting Intel on board. 3DNow redux.

Microsoft wasn't even that dumb when they pushed OOXML through ISO.

No standards to see here, please move along.

Re:Nice try. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23466742)

Maybe Awful Macro Design$ is pwned by M$.

Friends don't help friends install M$ junk

Re:Nice try. (1)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 6 years ago | (#23467266)

Good call, they might as well have named it "AMD gaming decimates all - NVIDIA and Intel suxors"

Eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23466628)

So what, we wait for INTEL GAME! and POWERPC GAME! too? Geez....

"I support standards, (1)

urcreepyneighbor (1171755) | more than 6 years ago | (#23466650)

as long as I get to write them!"

first post? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23466652)


Translation (5, Insightful)

Hankapobe (1290722) | more than 6 years ago | (#23466666)

FTFA: The goal for AMD with the new GAME! initiative is pretty simple: make it easier for PC gamers to buy a system or components that will competently play most modern titles at reasonable quality levels and frame rates.

Dumb everything down so that everyone with the infrastructure to make crap can enter the marketplace regardless of the quality and merits of their product. Those that make the cheapest shit that just barely conforms to the standard will capture the market.

Hey, it worked great for the PC market; didn't it?!?

Re:Translation (1)

esocid (946821) | more than 6 years ago | (#23467018)

Yeah, I don't see the merit of this with the exception of letting joe six pack make sure he can play whatever he buys. But as everyone knows, all PC titles list required and recommended specs on the box. What's so hard here? I'd rather not have standards (read as limitations) for developers who would like to push the envelope like crysis did. The far cry engine would never ever play on console equipment at the current configuration. So all our game titles will be forced to conform to what the standard is.

And wouldn't these standards have to be constantly changing to adapt to the hardware market? I can see it's value, but the negatives outweigh the positives IMHO. The article does make a good point that if it is implemented it should be done by a third party, and not someone tied to the hardware and software.

Exclamation marks in trademarks suck! (5, Funny)

DancesWithBlowTorch (809750) | more than 6 years ago | (#23466708)

I'm looking forward for Yahoo! to answer by joining this idea to get Gaming! ready! for the Internet! with Yahoo! Game!

Heavens, people, whoever thought it'd be a great idea to trademark punctuation needs to be slapped!(tm)

Re:Exclamation marks in trademarks suck! (2, Insightful)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 6 years ago | (#23467296)

What's up with the all caps crap too? Remember when NVIDIA was just nVidia? ugh. AMD GAME! - 'cause GAME just looks cooler than Game...

as doomed as (2, Informative)

Wootzor von Leetenha (938602) | more than 6 years ago | (#23466748)

ODF standardizing document formats. While it succeeded, the 800 lb gorilla in that market quickly came in and created their own standard. I await Intel / Nvidia's response. This might be off, I apologize if it is.

Wasn't Windows Vista supposed to have something like this where they'd take all your components and assign you a number based off of their estimated performance? Then games would be marked with a number - "You need at least an X computer to play this game. Y is recommended". I don't run Vista so I don't know.

In other words... (1)

puff3456 (898964) | more than 6 years ago | (#23466778)

So what AMD are trying to say is that they are getting into the game console business except that their system will run Windows and have upgradeable hardware.

Xbox runs Windows 2000 (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23467068)

So what AMD are trying to say is that they are getting into the game console business except that their system will run Windows and have upgradeable hardware.
Xbox runs Windows XB, an operating system based on a Windows 2000 kernel [wikipedia.org] . Xbox 360 runs a newer version of Windows XB and has upgradeable hardware: compare the core system to the full system. By now, the noticeable differences between a PC and a game console are that 1. a game console has a larger median display size, and 2. applications will run in user space on an unmodified PC without having to be signed by the platform maker.

The real solution (5, Insightful)

Charcharodon (611187) | more than 6 years ago | (#23466788)

The day that the console makers come out with a console on a card will be about the time you see some sort of standardization in PC gaming. Hell a Wii minus the DVD player could do that now. Plug it into your theater PC and you are good to go.

It's either that or PC makers/buyers wise up and tell Intel graphics to shove off and buy whatever is in the $50-100 range from Nvidia or ATI or one of their integrated solutions they've been talking about.

Looking at Valve's hardware survey that's about where the majority of PC gamers reside. Give it another year or two and Crysis level graphics will run nicely at that price point. Maybe then the PC gaming renaissance can commence.

Where are the theater PCs? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23467130)

The day that the console makers come out with a console on a card will be about the time you see some sort of standardization in PC gaming. Hell a Wii minus the DVD player could do that now. Plug it into your theater PC and you are good to go.
The problem is that theater PCs are almost as rare as teeth on chickens. Most PCs that I've seen are connected to monitors smaller than 23 inches diagonal, and it's a pain in the behind to fit four players' bodies around a single 17" or 19" monitor. Even the people who have theater PCs have problems finding titles [slashdot.org] because the AAA four-player games are made for either one console or multiple consoles, and if they are ported to PCs running Windows, they need a separate PC for each player.

Re:The real solution (1)

MBCook (132727) | more than 6 years ago | (#23467256)

He he he. The 3DO Blaster [wikipedia.org] . Haven't thought about that thing in a long time.

The best solution we'll get is what you suggested: get Intel to finally put out a half-competent GPU. They say their next one will be, but they have said similar things before.

Asymetric competition (1)

Sta7ic (819090) | more than 6 years ago | (#23466798)

Although AMD seems to be in a bit of a bind on all marketing fronts, I don't see how this will positively affect their business. They'll have to pitch it pretty hard to get vendors to sign on, and most "gamers" are pretty familiar with the hardware offerings. The types who don't research what they're buying, but instead grab something off the shelf without asking pointed questions about the power supply and specific slots, probably are looking for a home computer more than a game playing device. There's a lot of information out there to anyone who wants to see even rudimentary benchmarks.

If they *are* able to sell their services, though, more power to them. I'm kinda disappointed with their latest offerings, but I must say that the new Intel Q6600 is keeping pace with my 5600 in everything that was CPU-bound or single-core'd.

virtualization and gaming (1)

xzvf (924443) | more than 6 years ago | (#23466802)

While some intense games require specific types of hardware from what I've seen most require the computer to be dedicated to playing the game. Why not take advantage of the virtualization extensions AMD and Intel have built into their CPU's and virtualize a gaming environment.

How well is OpenGL virtualized? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23467168)

Why not take advantage of the virtualization extensions AMD and Intel have built into their CPU's and virtualize a gaming environment.
You'll probably figure out the answer to that once you answer this: How well does OpenGL perform inside PC-on-PC emulators such as VirtualBox and VMware?

Re:How well is OpenGL virtualized? (1)

MBCook (132727) | more than 6 years ago | (#23467366)

If done correctly they can perform quite well. Things are improving, but they still have a way to go.

On the face, they can do very well because OpenGL is standardized and you can just pass the calls outside the emulator into the real OS. All you have to do is adjust for window co-ords and such (not that bad).

The big problem (as I seem to remember hearing it) is all the extensions. Since much of it isn't standardized (pixel shaders and such) nVidia and AMD have done their own thing and you have to support both. They are both tuned to their architecture so you have to make both, or translate one into the other. Since games push the envelope and use these kind of things, it's not nearly as easy as if you tried to run something like Quake 2 which OpenGL has all the facilities built-in for. OpenGL 2 is supposed to help but who knows when that will come around.

DirectX is the real problem. It runs like a dog because it has to be translated into OpenGL with all the problems inherent in that (extra calls, switching from clockwise poly-winding to counter-clockwise poly-winding, etc). Add in that no one but MS can see the insides (which means you can only implement a driver, so you code goes game->DirectX->driver layer->virtual machine barrier->OpenGL->driver layer->hardware) and things aren't fast.

The vitualization thing could be interesting in providing a simple environment to program in (thus giving you "bare metal" except for some functions to access the disk/etc) but Windows has filled in that void and the ship has passed. Since most people won't reboot to use that environment without the memory overhead of Windows (I hate rebooting my Mac to play TF2)... people won't use it.

Yet another BRANDING erm I mean CERTIFICATION (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23466804)

Another Vista Capable, another Nvidia ,the way its meant to be played advertisement.

Seriously that is all this is, ADVERTISING.

MPC Levels Anyone? (1)

KrisWithAK (32865) | more than 6 years ago | (#23466846)

Sounds like the MPC level labels they tried using back around the time (1992) when I bought King's Quest VI [wikipedia.org] . I think I may have gotten the upgrade from the floppy disk stack to the "new" version on CD-ROM for free.

The easiest thing to do would be to create an independent capability standard for cpu, sound, video, etc. like a simple DirectX release number. But, trying to keep pace with the actual power in our computers will get silly with all of the elements combined. What would we be at now, MPC Level 103?

Those who fail to study history... (3, Informative)

chill (34294) | more than 6 years ago | (#23466866)

...are doomed to repeat it.

Can you say "MSX [gamespy.com] "?

  + What is a MSX computer?
      The whole MSX story started in 1983 when the computer companies
      wanted to make a worldwide home computer standard.
      The idea was that you could run programs made for one machine
      on a variation on models from different companies (Just like the
      PC standard today).
      Companies involved with this was among others, Sony, Philips,
      Spectravideo, Sanyo, Yamaha, Mitshubishi, Panasonic, Dragon,
      Daewoo and a lot of other companies.
      The MSX was based around the Z80 3.5Mhz 8Bit CPU, a well
      know and well supported CPU for its time. It also came with
      a 3 channel PSG which had no problems matching the poor quality
      PC sound or other machines made in the early 80's. There was also
      the possibility to add extra sounds via SCC cartridges made by
      Konami, MSX Music (FM-Pac) from Panasonic and also a soundcard
      originally made by Philips. As it also supported 16 colors the
      machine was well suited for games and education programs.
      Later models had more colors and more RAM.
      The MSX did very well in Japan, South America (there are 400.000
      MSX machines only in Brazil!) and quite well also in Europe.
      It did not however become a huge success worldwide, but it did
      reasonably well, in fact it was made and sold in Japan till
      well into the 90's... and the user base still have lots of active
      fans (including myself), though not the same as it was 10 years
      ago for natural reasons... (the developent goes on and so does the
      computer freaks :)) Still it is possible to obtain new hardware
      for the MSX even today thanks to various MSX clubs. These clubs
      make the Moonsound soundcard based on OPL-4 and is said to be
      very good. There is also the GFX9000 graphics board that add even
      better graphics to the MSX in addition comes things like SCSI
      interfaces, adapters etc......

...are doomed to play Xbox (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23467224)

...are doomed to repeat it. Can you say "MSX [gamespy.com] "?
Konami fans can. Konami put out several games for the MSX. Even if this "MlayStation" failed in the United States, the Xbox and Xbox 360 have failed just as hard in Japan.

4 consoles? (2, Interesting)

ZephyrXero (750822) | more than 6 years ago | (#23466868)

Sounds like AMDs aiming to make 4 different "console" type setups... to make this really work they need to focus on a singular setup rather than what they're doing... unfortunately I just don't think their heart is really in it enough. We've been working on the Open Game Console project for over 2 years now to figure out these sorts of issues and I just don't see AMDs current game plan working.

Re:4 consoles? (1)

Zygfryd (856098) | more than 6 years ago | (#23467282)

Your project looks pretty interesting.

I was thinking about such a thing in relation to AMD for a while now. Since they have all the core technology required to make a console (cpu, gpu, chipset), they could introduce their own console and build a linux-based environment for it. As they'd be using the x64 arch and linux/opengl, there's no reason their platform couldn't allow for games targetting their console to run on PCs too. Sounds like you're developing a platform they could use for that, to mutual benefits.

Too bad they're bleeding cash right now and working furiously on other projects, so they probably don't have the resources to do so. But if they decided to, there's a high chance that they'd succeed in biting off a nice part of the console market as the next generation comes out.

Virtual Game Machine? (2, Interesting)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 6 years ago | (#23466902)

One of the biggest advantages of a games console is a specification and implementation once released. A PC (whatever the OS) is a moving target and because of the complexities of configurations and different hardware proves to be harder to get right, especially when you are pushing the edge. Taking this into account and the existence of virtual machine technologies, such as Virtual PC, I wonder how successful a Virtual Games Machine environment would be. The idea is that you provide a virtual machine environment that runs transparently to the user on whatever OS they happen to have (MS-Windows, Linux, MacOS X) and provides the right hooks to run on the underlying hardware. This is probably wishful thinking, but maybe it is the only way PC gaming has a way to survive beyond the speciality games that are suited for a PC - think World of Warcraft and other strategy games.

Re:Virtual Game Machine? (1)

beirutbob (1002743) | more than 6 years ago | (#23467360)

How about putting a dedicated gaming console OS at the BIOS level, kinda like the Splashtop [splashtop.com] software. You could boot into standard PC mode or console gaming mode. One downside (there would probably be many) would be that user X's quad graphics card rig would perform the same as user Y's mid-range card. Heck, take it one step further and emulate Xbox and/or Playstation consoles there.

Doomed to failure (4, Insightful)

snarfies (115214) | more than 6 years ago | (#23466918)

1) AMD Game is pretty low-spec.
2) PC gaming, unfortunately, is a constantly moving bar. There are a few games out today that will run just fine on AMD Game. Tomorrow? Probably not, Crysis 3 will come out and require a 16-core 5.5mhz processor and 8264234gb of RAM, and if you bought into AMD Game thinking it'll last any longer than any other system you can buy/build, guess what?
3) Enthusiasts will ignore Game, seeing points 1-2 clearly. This leavs Joe Sixpack to market to, and Joe Sixpack will be angry by this time next year once he sees Elder Scroll 7 won't even attempt to launch on his POS.

Re:Doomed to failure (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 6 years ago | (#23467368)

Crysis 3 will come out and require a 16-core 5.5mhz processor
That's some rather exotic CPU you've got there. Some Z80 reincarnation with 16 cores? Will that run faster than a single Pentium 1 at 100MHz?

Just kidding, just kidding. But I do wonder what such a CPU could actually be used for.

Re:Doomed to failure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23467382)

> 16-core 5.5mhz processor

I for one, would like to see Crysis running on a 16-core 5.5mhz processor.

Oh wait, did you mean ghz?

I must finally be "too old". (2, Interesting)

maillemaker (924053) | more than 6 years ago | (#23466924)

Dammit, I _do_not_want_ a separate computer to play games on!

I _have_ a computer. It is primarily for playing games. I don't want another computer for playing games, and a separate computer for email, web browsing, watching movies, etc. etc.

And while more and more of this functionality is showing up on gaming consoles, now I'M RIGHT BACK TO HAVING A COMPUTER AGAIN.

I just do not understand the console appeal. My last console was an Atari 2600.

Re:I must finally be "too old". (1)

aliens (90441) | more than 6 years ago | (#23467308)

Console appeal is the same reason you do not want a separate computer.

Ease of use. I don't want to have to tinker and download drivers now that I'm Old(tm).

I've got 30minutes to chill and play a game, just work for fucks sake.

Not the people to do it... (1)

uberzip (959899) | more than 6 years ago | (#23466932)

It seems like this sort of thing has been tried numerous times already and I don't see anything here that will make this any sort of success... Did the Viiv thing work for anybody? Tell me this, does having another case sticker help anybody? When I go into the local stores the computers are already plastered with so many Intel inside, vista ready, media ready, blah blah blah stickers that I doubt the average person even knows what they mean. So what's going to make anybody look for an AMD Game! sticker... In addition, how does it even benefit the gamer past 6 months or a year? Sure the pc will run games at 30fps today but then what? You just run into the same problem because you have no versioning... If it was AMD Game! 1.0 the user could then know it a 1.0 game could play on it but not a 2.0 game. But this isn't manageable in the industry because you got to get software makers to work with you. The other problem is that you have one manufacturer trying to change the industry and it just won't work. The only people who could possibly do this by themselves would be Microsoft. I was hoping that the Games for Windows thing would take off but its too closely tied to Vista and the Xbox team. To get anything like this to work, it will have to be done by a task force made up of several companies or somebody like Microsoft will need to do it but in a way that's a bit more protected from Microsoft itself. If MS didn't care about DX 10 being vista only and trying to get people to pay $$ for Live services this could really go somewhere. The only other company I can see being successful is Valve with Steam. Its just a fantastic system and all that needs to be added is pc performance scoring to tell the average joe what they are able to play or what they need to upgrade in order to play a game. It already has the content protection nailed down. Wild tangent is trying this but they really have to prove themselves on this one... Wild tangent itself wasn't relevant to any mainstream gamers that I know of.

Wouldn't it be great... (3, Insightful)

bill_kress (99356) | more than 6 years ago | (#23466952)

If this were combined with the "Preloaded linux in rom for browsing" thing. Call it a "Console Mode" for PCs, where you can just boot up from the DVD and the game starts running instantly.

It could still load the DVDs to disk.

And the whole thing could be set up to run as a VM inside another OS if available--making games platform independent.

And there would be world peace...

(Might as well throw that in with the other pipe dreams)

Re:Wouldn't it be great... (1)

grm_wnr (781219) | more than 6 years ago | (#23467122)

Call it a "Console Mode" for PCs, where you can just boot up from the DVD and the game starts running instantly.
Current OSs feature bootup time that is, umm... well, the term "instantly" does not come to mind, even from the HD, which is orders of magnitude faster than booting from DVD. And if it's not using a standard OS, it's not a PC in any meaningful sense anymore; it's an Xbox (or LinuXbox or whatever). All these nifty game APIs need time to load, you know.

Re:Wouldn't it be great... (1)

bill_kress (99356) | more than 6 years ago | (#23467300)

Exactly. The story I was referring to had a version of Linux loaded in rom for instant-on browsing. Hence my suggestion of the addition of a "Console Mode" to the instant-on OS.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. Perhaps I should have referenced the other story (Still not gonna, it's played here a few times now)

Epic Fail (2, Insightful)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 6 years ago | (#23466972)

Nvidia and Intel will never sign on to anything called "AMD GAME." This is doomed from the start because of the name.

Re:Epic Fail (1)

Fumus (1258966) | more than 6 years ago | (#23467240)

They aren't even going to bother certifying anything except AMD/ATI, so Nvidia/Intel was never expected to sign it.

This was why I left console gaming (1)

micahfk (913465) | more than 6 years ago | (#23466984)

1) Multiple loading times and "please wait" - PC games do NOT do this
2) Saves money - why spend $300+ on a separate system that I can just play on my gaming computer anyway? Save the money for a new computer.
3) Better graphics - PC gaming had better graphics (PS3 is an exception probably) so why by a console system for poorer performance?

Re:This was why I left console gaming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23467244)

Today a moderate spec computer blows a console away. Sure PS3/360 were drooly worthy specs when announced, but after their release and adoption to market (2 years later) they are rather mediocre. a 8800 GT eats the GPU in both rather handily. Not to mention gigs of ram and fast sata HDDs (before we talk about raid and 10k drives) for zippy load times. IMHO there are ways the PC gaming experience is better.

Mind you pay dearly for that.

The problems with AMD GAME! have already been pointed out by astute slashdotters, but I ask the question, what do we actually want? We do need some kind of standardisation in the industry, but how to do this?

Windows Shista has an experience index performance test, why not do something similar for game performance? We already have 3dmarks, but it's a rather bloated and synthetic way to gauge how well a pc plays games.

So if I look on the back of the box UT3 had a index of 8.0, and Crysis requires 12.0, and the 2-minute game performance test I did through my browser said I have a PC with a index of 9.0 I'd know I can play one fine, and one with reduced detail.

That's the kind of experience we need out of the box for PC gaming. Some ideas are looking close to doing that kind of thing, but this AMD GAME! Business looks more like branding and a way to dupe consumers into buying more hardware that yet again won't really give them the experience promised.

Re:This was why I left console gaming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23467260)

"1) Multiple loading times and "please wait" - PC games do NOT do this"

The hell? On my PC games load just as often as on consoles; no speed increase at all for PC. Some games even load faster on consoles I've found...

Truth #1: Standards, aren't. (1)

Duncan Blackthorne (1095849) | more than 6 years ago | (#23466994)

I'm not just talking about gaming, either. If someone creates a "standard" for something, somebody else will come along and find some reason to break the standard. Remember when they tried to standardize C? Yeah, that worked out well didn't it? Besides, so-called "standards" are just as likely to stifle innovation as they are to eliminate compatibility problems -- and I'm sure that isn't lost on AMD, who'd stand to profit greatly if everyone just nodded their heads emptily and said "'K! We'll do it all your way!"

Alternate Boot (3, Interesting)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 6 years ago | (#23467014)

You know how some laptops have an alternate, simple OS built in that can fire up in seconds to play movies, listen to music, and so forth? I think that would be a slick way to establish the pc back as a gaming console. It could be a stripped down, heavily tainted linux OS, or a severely trimmed XP; the point is you would put in a disk and hit the 'game' button on the case, and bam!

No meaningful output.. (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 6 years ago | (#23467038)

Basically, it's a branding initiative with zero weight behind it. AMD is in the unfortunate position of not having leading products in either graphics or processor, and yet they are trying to emphasize themselves as a leader for gaming enthusiasts. Of all the markets to try to hoodwink, this is a poor choice to focus. There has been a long standing history of PC gaming nuts keeping a close eye on technology and commenting. The ones that aren't so obsessive about it have either moved to consoles or don't bother buying hardware and just game with what they got, with the titles they are comfortable with. They already know that even as of B3 stepping Phenoms, the processor isn't up to compete with Core2. They know that nVidia still has the edge, from either driver optimization or the hardware itself, it's hard to tell.

So what you are left with is a branding initiative targeting a market that is admittedly potentially high margin, but in this scope to savvy to fall for such a move. If they truly want that market, they need to push their product from a technical, not marketing standpoint. With the offering they have now, their only viable option is to emphasis value for the money, regrettably relegating themselves again to the budget market. AMD has been there before and didn't die and emerged with an overwhelming product before, and they have just got to accept it and regroup.

Wow the title is misleading (1)

gyranthir (995837) | more than 6 years ago | (#23467086)

The way this works out is that they want to be able to Label systems as Game or Game Ultimate if they meet or exceed certain specifications. Kinda like the way Microsoft labeled systems as "vista ready". This really isn't a standardization, they are looking to be able to set customers expectations via a labeling system, so that the customer will have a good idea what they are getting before they get it out of the box.

Wait... (1)

AmonEzhno (1276076) | more than 6 years ago | (#23467096)

On that note: Don't all pc games already have this? I think it's called the minimum system requirements? Besides, doesn't nvidia already do something similar to this?

I mean I see little nvidia stickers all over the gamestore?

Re:Wait... (1)

dtml-try MyNick (453562) | more than 6 years ago | (#23467354)

The thing is that average joe doesn't understand, wants to understand or tries to understand what all those numbers mean that are listed under "recommended system req"

My girlfriend is a avid gamer, not even totally computer illiterate. But she wouldn't know the difference between a geforce 4 and a 8800GT. She just knows she needs new stuff when the games go choppy, but she wouldnt know what "stuff" she would need.

The big crowd just wants to know if "their computer" is able to run that game, not going through all the fuss of figuring out what component is how fast and what version it is.

I had a good example today. I spend about 2 weeks of reading reviews, browsing through a variety of (webshops) to put together a very decent gaming system for a reasonable price (the budget was about 700 euros).
When I told my friend he said I was insane because I could buy a ready to go pc for less then 400 euros too.
He's the kind of guy that needs a sticker to tell him if he can play a game or not. And with him there is the big majority of people.

done already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23467102)

This was done in the 90s. It was called MPC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimedia_PC

It will get fragmented... (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 6 years ago | (#23467164)

The wide choice of hardware in the x86 market is counter to easy and performant gaming...
You end up needing multiple levels of software abstraction between game and hardware to cater for hardware that is fundamentally incompatible with each other.
Compare that to consoles, where the hardware is always the same, so you can program it directly without lots of extra overhead..

For a good example, try building a pc with as close a configuration to an xbox as you can, and try running some of the games side by side on it and a real xbox... Something like halo will run like garbage on a similarly specced pc once you have the overhead of windows, while the xbox will run it quite well, and it still has layers of abstraction on the xbox, not hitting the hardware directly.

What AMD should do, is get together with other vendors and create a standard "gaming spec" every couple of years... Where the CPU will always be a certain level or faster, memory a certain amount, and videocard a certain performance and with a guaranteed hardware level interface. Then the games can boot directly from DVD, without the overhead of an OS.

You can also never guarantee compatibility when you rely on third party software to be running, which seems to be one of the goals... You will always get users who have a powerful enough system, but some crap running in the background that drags the performance down far enough to make the game unplayable.

Won't work (2, Insightful)

infalliable (1239578) | more than 6 years ago | (#23467182)

Good idea, crappy ass execution. Biggest issue with is the entire thing is the X PC configuration is labeled as Ultra and Y PC configuration is label basic. How long will these configurations be the adequate for PC gaming? In 2 years, the "ULTRA" system may be pretty crappy compared to what is for sale. You have to keep coming up with new names to identify that this is different from that. Essentially, PC hardware changes all the time. How is one to know how todays "basic" compares to yesterday's "ULTRA?" It makes the entire mechanism useless over time. If you are going to do it, you need to say some system is the baseline system with a score of 100. Over time, you rate the PC based on that. So in 2 years, a "standard" pc may end up rating a 200. You say a game requires a rating of Z score to play. It is of course not foolproof as there are many factors that go into a PC's performance but it's a lot better the "basic" and "ULTRA"

There already was one. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23467202)

Remember MPC1, MPC2 etc? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimedia_PC) ... capable display resolution, colors, audio, cdrom with xSpeed etc.

Considering how fast GPU's and other hardware are shipping/changing there's going to have to be separate versions and it's going to be changing every few months which is why I think the MPC standards went by the wayside anyway. Good Luck to AMD, but I'm putting this one up in the Fail column from the start.

Terrible... (1)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 6 years ago | (#23467212)

Where do I start!? This faster loads and games that take more advantage of the hardware talk is ridiculous. My computer loads games FAR faster than my piece of crap XBox 360 (looks at rock band). How are there more games that fully utilize the hardware on consoles? Is that because there's less to use? Have they heard of Crysis? You can only just now run that maxed at a decent framerate and that game has been out ages. Those things are not console advantages. Being able to buy one system, never upgrade it and "know" that games will work - those are advantages. (know is in quotes because console games seem to be getting buggier and buggier.)

As for the standard - I don't see it being any more useful than Microsoft's performance index in Vista which was supposed to make playing "Games for Windows" so easy! I don't know about anyone else but I've never seen a game box (not even a Vista-only-DX10-wonderland type game) with a performance index recommendation on there. Maybe after "Vista Capable" game makers realized that pinning their hopes on a Vista performance index was a *bad* idea.

Good concept (1)

ClosedEyesSeeing (1278938) | more than 6 years ago | (#23467252)

I think this is a really good concept for the PC gamer. This would allow the removal of minimum system requirements being long and drawn out, you need AMD GAME! or higher. I'm very interested in how this will play out with the community overall. The average gamer now has a rally point to know what is needed to play the games and the developers now have a baseline to what they need to achieve for compatibility. On the whole, I think it's a good initiative on AMD's part.

Wildtangent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23467270)

This is alot like wildtangents "Orb". Maybe the two should team up as the "Orb" already has deals with all the major OEM's to come preinstalled.

No year on the stickers? (2, Insightful)

Brit_in_the_USA (936704) | more than 6 years ago | (#23467284)

This PR stunt will die in 1-2 years as the stickers and reports I have seen make no mention of appending a date (a year would be enough). Get ready for class actions in 1-2 years when old stocks of AMD game certified machines are on sale and do NOT play the latest games well.

A well thought out system would put the year on the sticker and have a site dedicated to the specs required historically for the year in question.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?