Ok first off Tim willis siad in a interview at E3 that Doom3 will be doen when its done not a real time when it will be out because they dont know they just started on the MP part of it 2 months ago and JC is curently optimizing the SP part of the game better but also as i recal peaple when the FX 5900 was out many sites did benchmarks with Doom 3 on high and 1600x1200 and was able to get 32FPs out the game on high easy while the 9800pro got a mere 18fps . so idesay it was running good i have the alpha leak runing on my desktop on a 1.6ghz amd 333 ddr ram and a Gf4 Ti 4400 and i get almost 26fps at 1024x768 due to i messed with the config and other settings in the Doom 3 files in its folderit was originally using 64megs of video ram not 128 so i turned that up. also iam running Doom 3 on my lapop runs perty fare .

They will probably be keen to release it, when they can see the risk of some other game pushing it off the top spot, if it is delayed any further.
Other than that, they may as well hold it back and improved it.

I suspect that the potential effects of the competition is taken into account, by most game developers.
Also, the potential effects of releasing a less than perfect game, is also taken into account.

From David U.K.

From what I read recently, iD recently stated that the game would not come out until 2004. The primary reason stated is that they wanted to make the game more scaleable. I also don't think they would release this game when the majority of the people cannot play it at even 75% of its full potential. It is all economics. Hypothetically, if they release it now not many people will buy it at full price, forcing them to reduce the price etc. iD will wait as long as it needs to, to have a huge response to the "most anticipated game" in a long time. They would rather improve on the game and let technology bound ahead. Lastly, I agree with the netcode comment above. My cheesy P3 plays Half Life solid in any scene, but if I play CS on aztec with 20 people, my frames are about half or worse.

Again, remember that this was a preview version of Doom 3, not the final product. However, I will say that if the final game needs a really high-end computer to play properly, John Carmack and company are going to lose a lot of sales. Almost all of the people I know live in the real world - they cannot or will not upgrade because of one game running slow or somewhat slow. The only exception might be one person I know who is something of an elitist, but he isn't 100% convinced any more that my 2.26GHz P4 and 9800 Pro is a solid gaming system. Take that for what you will.

yeah I'm not sure whats up with these poor performance reports or the fact that apparently it was being demoed at 640x480 on GF5900Ultra's. I mean the ALPHA runs at about 50 fps for me @1024x768 on my (overclocked) Ti4600.

Alrighty. Let's set the record straight.

I was at quakecon and I played the Doom 3 Mp demo. I too felt that it was running quite sluggish in some spots and that the gameplay seemed slow. I noticed it DID seem to be pretty low res and jaggies were very noticeable.

I asked the guy from id (in the booth) what the specs of the machine was and he said it was Athlon xp 3200+ with GF FX 5900. He also told me that they had been having problems with the systems.

Fast forward a few hours later, to the id keynote; one guy (i forgot who it was) said that the Doom3 mp demo upstairs was running at 640x480 and it was running on LINUX.

So take that as you will.

I'm all for HL2 anyway.

The thing to remember here is that Scott was playing a preview version of Doom 3. Previews do not equal final product. It sounds to me like it's running a lot better than the Alpha that was leaked last year, and we also have to bear in mind here that we don't know what graphics settings Scott was playing at, nor do we know what hardware was in the computer he was using. I think it's a little premature to go into panic mode over system specs right now and I think we should also remember that Doom 3 won't be out until at least Q1 2004. By then, I'm sure those who currently have lower-end systems will have put the money aside for an upgrade. I'm also certain that a 3GHz or 3000+ processor will be quite affordable by then too. So don't worry. :)

this was running on that AMD and nVidia supplied box? And it was slow?

Oh great... I do have to upgrade.

I believe it's laggy because of it's network code and not gfx. I got 60fps with a 9700Pro @1024x768 with everything maxed up with the old alpha so i believe it's impossible to have low fps with 5900U @640x480.

GameSpy: With all the work being put into the single-player game, when did the team begin to ramp up effort on the multiplayer stuff?

Tim Willits: John [Carmack] was able to implement the basic networking a few months ago, and the last couple of months we've been focusing on it.

Todd Hollenshead: … really, REALLY focusing on it the last couple of weeks. (laughs)

GameSpy: I'd agree - it's a rare opportunity for fans, and from the feedback I've gotten, they seem to appreciate it.

Todd Hollenshead: I think they do, too, and I think the feedback that we've initially gotten online is really going to recharge the team. It's a lot of work to get ready for something like this, where id shows something public for the first time that isn't completely done, so there's going to be a few flaws here and there. You just hope that people can look past that stuff, and know you're headed in the right direction, and that that they enjoy it.

Damage, did it look like AA was enabled? I ask because I remember the E3 D3 preview was 6x4 2xAA on a 9700P (although it was also single-player, thus less stressful).

Per this thread

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7425

PlanetQuake also noted the sluggish performance, and Gamespot reported 640x480 with 5900's--not encouraging. Maybe id is waiting for 3D hardware to catch up before releasing D3?

On that note, I wonder how an Opteron fares with D3? :)

Edit: Hmm, just saw your previous post, where you listed an Athlon64+5900U for Q3A. D3 wasn't running on the same systems? Was D3 running off an LCD, and could this have affected your perception of the game's framerate?

I think we'll be safe if we avoid crapping our pants for now--I'm sure they'll make a lot of speed optimizations before its release. If most gamers can't play it very well on the boxes they have, they'll have a hard time selling any once the word gets out. They have to make it accessible to as many as possible, so I'm just gonna wait until the final release and read some reviews.

Of course that's not nearly as fun as speculation:) I can't wait to see it.