ATI Starts an Interesting Conversation ... Unintentionally

The technology blogs have been buzzing for the past two days about what is perceived as a weak launch of ATI's new flagship graphics card, the HD 2900 XT. Less emphasis is being paid to the extremely cost-competitive offering (ATI's top of the line, while underperforming Nvidia's, is $200 less) than the fact that they expected ATI to beat Nvidia on performance. Part of this is due to a late launch, and the remainder is simply fanboy wishing. It's more fun to argue about who has the better card when the answer isn't so clear.

What's interesting to me is what the price difference offers in terms of value-added opportunities. Already, vendors are coming forth with ways to make these uninspiring cards more appealing. Namely, Sapphire has launched a custom liquid cooling package, offering overclocking for two cards in Crossfire mode, as well as cooling CPU and RAM as well. There's really no room in the market for this kind of option at Nvidia's high-end.

I haven't bought a high-end card in years, simply because the need for them quickly eroded as I transitioned away from PC gaming (all I was playing was WOW, and I quit that cold turkey) and moved back into the living toom for console gaming. What's very interesting to me is video processing and offloading of the UI onto the video card in Vista, and it looks like even ATI's low-end cards should do this very well (they even have one passively cooled).

One of my favorite ATI products is my HDTV Wonder. Without an HDTV, it's the only way I can catch some of my shows in HD. Surprisingly, ATI has no mention of the card on their website any more, and there doesn't appear to be an HD tuner option on any of the new cards. I wonder if they're holding back, or if they've written off the HD market. Doesn't seem like there's much reason to be able to process high-end video without the one way to get video into your machine that makes the most sense; not everyone has an HD camcorder yet.

Maybe I could talk one of my friends at AMD/ATI into sending one of the new cards my way. I've got a hankering to build that Media Center PC that I've been putting off for a while.

The Crusade ... It Burns!

Annie called to tell me that I got a package from Blizzard today. It can only be one thing ... The Burning Crusade expansion for World of Warcraft.

I'm really not sure how to feel about this. On one hand, there's some cool new stuff in the expansion that I'm dying to try. On the other hand, I've had this monkey off my back for about a year now, and it's probably the only reason why my grades are decent and my wife hasn't left me. There was a time when I thought my office chair was growing out of my ass ... so firm was the grip Blizzard had on my cold, dark heart.

Of course, I had a great excuse to not get sucked in ... I didn't want to pay the monthly fee any more. Then my wife (having already committed a felony by opening my mail) proceeded to tell me that I can call Blizzard's PR rep and get a 90-day play code.

Those ... bastards. I wonder if I have to have the original installed, and if it'll run on Vista or not. I don't know that I even know where the original install discs are. I might just have an out. At least it wasn't the Collector's Edition they sent ... I might not have the willpower in such a case.

What Are the Games That REALLY Sell?

Just saw a story at GigaOM that led me to this piece at Next-Generation, discussing the Top 100 Games of the 21st Century. That means 2000-2006.

The results are somewhat surprising, but not very when you dig a little deeper. The results? Kids games and Casual games are ruling the list, and here's the kicker ... Backyard Basketball by the fine folks at Humongous/Atari beat Doom III. Doom III made more money, but probably wasn't as profitable. Other notables ... games with a non-game IP sell well (just about any marketer could have told you that), and multiplayer games are not the gold mine (Warcraft pun entirely intended) that you might think.

But it was the following line that I found curious ...

"Most gamer magazines and sites underserve and misrepresent the game industry."

It's a flawed assumption. Why? Because the hardcore gamers are primarily the ones buying the magazine. By definition, "casual" gamers are the ones that want something pick-up-and-play ... they're not going to spend time finding and reading a magazine to find out what's good. They'll download a bunch of trials (or play Web versions), then pay for the games they like. Similarly, Xbox Live Arcade has a demo model built into every game, negating the need for a magazine. The magazines are doing the exact right thing for them ... catering to the enthusiasts and developers.

Here's something I find far more interesting. Just how few units some of the top games sold. You don't crack 250,000 units until you get into the top 80. The PC platform is tougher to make big-budget games for, so you have to ensure that you can keep your costs under control to make a profit.

Other interesting facts ...

* The number 1 game (The Sims) sold almost TWICE the volume of the number 2 game (Diablo 2).
* Blizzard had three games in the top 10, including the aforementioned Diablo 2, World of Warcraft at number 3, and Warcraft III at number 7.
* EA dominates the top 10 like they dominate console publishing, with three titles. Microsoft Game Studios has two. Aside from Blizzard (who self-publishes, according to the list), Maxis has three games on the list from a development standpoint.

Check out the list. It's very enlightening.