predict how actual Xbox Next will differ from leaked specs

[Alejux]

If Tim Sweeney is basing his new engine on people having all these gigabytes of RAM, then perhaps he's not giving much thought about consoles. Who knows.

Like London Boy said, a downgraded version of the UE3 would never compete with engines made exclusively for these consoles. Perhaps having this "high-res parallax mapping/low polygon count" approach won't work well with the X2 and PS3 , because of their memory limitation.

Whatever approach console game developers take, given the level of these last generation games they managed to squeeze out of the PS2 (with it's whooping 32mb ram + 4mb video), I can only imagine what they'll be able to do on the PS3/X2. I'll bet anything it will be better then what the UE3 have shown so far.

 

[eastcore]

It's not underestimation, it's being realistic and not overly optimistic.
The difference between 3GB and 256MB is a lot, even when you count the OS out of the equation.
Obviously Xbox can run Doom3, like it can run HL2, or like the Genesis could run Virtua Racing. The point is that they're heavily downgraded. Like Unreal3, in all of its bloatedness, will have to be downgraded on Xbox2 and PS3. The fact that it might require 1GB of Video Ram only should give you a hint.
No one's slating anything, it's logical that if next gen consoles have 256MB Ram, things will have to be cut down for games that require GBs of Ram to run on PC.
That's why people shouldn't be so hung up on PC games conversions. Games built for the next gen consoles, with their architecture in mind, will look much better than Unreal3 anyway. Ram or not.
Look at what Konami (ZOE2, MGS2/3) or Naughty Dog (Jak1/2/3) or many other devs got out of little old PS2, working on its strengths, and compare those titles to PC games conversions on the same platform and you'll understand.

Good points. I also agree that the X2 will have games that look better than the UE3.

But you are supporting my point, though you may not know it. The fact that the X2 won't have enough memory to run that bloated code means the engine will have to be heavily optimized if a conversion is to be possible.

The fact that the X2 will have games that look better when properly coded for it means that the UE3 could be recreated and not nessecarly ported to the X2 with the same results. (Or mostly the same results)

Fact is, UE3's feature set is impressive, but the code seems extremely bloated. I'm betting it could be rewritten for X2 and run beautifully.

Hence, my statement that the X2 could handle UE3 easily. (not in it's current form - sure, but a conversion por to X2 would certainly require recoding - that's expected, espcially since the X2 is RISC - its a given)

Case in point - Halo - Ran great on the XBox - but on the PC - the code got extremely bloated - system requirement went up, and it ran like crap with minimal improvements.

Memory requirements went from 64MB to 160MB - more than twice. Processor speed also went up. You can blame it on windows.

But consider this - Longhorn is going to have insane system requirements. And Epic is basing those UE3 requirements on PC's running Longhorn.

So you can chop off a bit more of the cpu and memory requirements right there.

I stand by my statement. The X2 will handle UE3 levels of graphic detail, easily.

 

[Mariner]

If Tim Sweeney is basing his new engine on people having all these gigabytes of RAM, then perhaps he's not giving much thought about consoles.

Only if he's recently gone utterly insane.

If they expect to make lots of money from UE3 licensing (which I'm certain they do) then the engine had better work well on next gen consoles! The sheer number of console games sold in comparison to PC games means that you'd be mad to ignore this market altogether.

 

[London Geezer]

Eastcore, u're stating the obvious.
Obviously the engine(s) will have to be re-written, like they are now for current PC-Consoles conversions.
But we've all seen how good PC conversions turn out, whatever optimisation they get.

U3 needs all that Ram mainly because of its huge textures. Those will be to be tuned down drastically, and it will show. Simple as that.

Like it happens today, it's obvious.

Let's worry about Console specific games on consoles and PC games on PC. Ports are never the best on either platform. Whether it is from PC to console or the other way around.

 

[London Geezer]

If Tim Sweeney is basing his new engine on people having all these gigabytes of RAM, then perhaps he's not giving much thought about consoles.

Only if he's recently gone utterly insane.

If they expect to make lots of money from UE3 licensing (which I'm certain they do) then the engine had better work well on next gen consoles! The sheer number of console games sold in comparison to PC games means that you'd be mad to ignore this market altogether.

HL2 is quite recent and i don't see it being targetted at consoles. Still it sold a lot on PC and it will sell a lot on Xbox (or xbox2) too when they release it. Same for Doom3.

 

[Alejux]

If Tim Sweeney is basing his new engine on people having all these gigabytes of RAM, then perhaps he's not giving much thought about consoles.

Only if he's recently gone utterly insane.

If they expect to make lots of money from UE3 licensing (which I'm certain they do) then the engine had better work well on next gen consoles! The sheer number of console games sold in comparison to PC games means that you'd be mad to ignore this market altogether.

I agree with you. It doens't make much sense. Console games sell much more then PC ones, and IMO, the next generation consoles will even take out a bigger chunk of the market.

Depending on how general-purpose they make these new machines, a lot o people will prefer to have one instead of a PC. If you count that 80% of computer users only use computers to browse the internet, watch porn, playgames and send emails, then I would imagine these machines will fit perfectly for them.

 

[London Geezer]

I agree with you. It doens't make much sense. Console games sell much more then PC ones, and IMO, the next generation consoles will even take out a bigger chunk of the market.

Depending on how general-purpose they make these new machines, a lot o people will prefer to have one instead of a PC. If you count that 80% of computer users only use computers to browse the internet, watch porn, playgames and send emails, then I would imagine these machines will fit perfectly for them.

No, that's more like 99.9%.

 

[Alejux]

I agree with you. It doens't make much sense. Console games sell much more then PC ones, and IMO, the next generation consoles will even take out a bigger chunk of the market.

Depending on how general-purpose they make these new machines, a lot o people will prefer to have one instead of a PC. If you count that 80% of computer users only use computers to browse the internet, watch porn, playgames and send emails, then I would imagine these machines will fit perfectly for them.

No, that's more like 99.9%.

well...ocasionally, people do get work done with computers. But that's rare, a mostly between porn.

 

[one]

Why? Because the Unreal 3 engine was shown running relatively smoothly on a 6800 - yes, a crappy 6800 .

Really? How much fps can it get on GF6800 Ultra? UE3 supports Shader 3.0 so GF6800 is OK at that, but it's not guranteed that flagship UE3 games can run on it "relatively smoothly".

UE3 is developed by Epic, with support from MS and nVIDIA, so I bet it's meant for XNA (and the Xbox2) in mind from the beginning, and through nVIDIA as a proxy, for the PS3 too. XNA will have profiles based on target platforms, then if it has a GF6800-level profile UE3 may be able to run on it smoothly, but with only adequate details expected for GF6800. The full details of UE3 will be for something like machinema.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The BluRay pdf claims 54Mb/sec for the non rewritables, though I don't quite understand why the difference. So we could be looking at "only" 40seconds

And like I said before, 4x speed would be the sweet spot (giving roughly the same relative times as we got on PS2 DVD).

With any luck the next-gen consoles will only come with 64mb RAM so loading times are kept short.

 

[Acert93]

I could see a selling price of $350 being reasonable in my eyes if it has the higher specs.

Perhaps, in some peoples' eyes - namely those that can afford to spend $350 on a console, which is certainly a (much) lower number than those who can afford to spend $250 or less.

Hello Guden Oden

I agree that consoles need to hit certain price marks to enter the casual purchase market, but look at the PS2. It came out selling at $400-$450 if I remember correctly. And people bought it left and right. I remember the Saturn and PS1 coming out at $350-$400 also (I believe the N64 was $250, but a year late).

So if the demand is high enough (hype + low supply), we could see a million or two units get sold at $350-$400, with a $300 tag the following year when the PS3 is out. I am not making any predictions, but it could happen.

What will be interesting is to see how well the X2 compares to the PS3. Sony has an extra year to work things out. It will be curious to see how a PS3 with multiple CELL processors, a Nvidia GPU, and so forth will cost. With that in mind, the 1st year cost of the X2 is not competing with the PS3, so if their goal was to match PS3 in price in 2006 (lets say $400) they could do some things with the price in 2005. But then again, the goal is to get a head start and get an install base and hit 2006 with some major "killer apps".

It will be exciting!

 

[wco81]

PS1 and PS2 both launched at $300 in the US.

When Xbox2 launches, it will be competing with $150 or lower Xbox and PS2s. And $150 or lower DSes. And $200 or lower PSPs.

The hardcore gamers/early adopters will get the Xbox2 but a lot of people giving gifts to their kids will choose from all the gaming options out there.

So MS better expect a price-sensitive market.

 

[Megadrive1988]

Sony might have as little as 4 months of extra time if Xenon launches in November and PS3 in March 2006 in Japan.

 

[Alejux]

PS1 and PS2 both launched at $300 in the US.

When Xbox2 launches, it will be competing with $150 or lower Xbox and PS2s. And $150 or lower DSes. And $200 or lower PSPs.

The hardcore gamers/early adopters will get the Xbox2 but a lot of people giving gifts to their kids will choose from all the gaming options out there.

So MS better expect a price-sensitive market.

I think you underestimate the "drooling" syndrome and the "can I have one dad? can I have one dad?" syndrome. If the Xbox2 comes out, displaying some outlandish, awe-inspiring graphics, then I don't think it will compete with any of the old systems. It just won't be the same thing.

Of course on the other hand, there is the "I'm broke" syndrome, and the "shut the hell up" syndrome followed by the usual "do you think money grows on trees" syndrome. So in the end, my bet they would have to put the price not much higher then your suggested US$ 300.00. My guess, is that both the PS3 and the Xbox2 will have at least two versions. One will probably be pricier (around US$ 500.00) and have more features, and also be used as a more multi-purpose domestic appliance. I heard that somewhere, and it makes sense.

 

[eastcore]

Eastcore, u're stating the obvious.
Obviously the engine(s) will have to be re-written, like they are now for current PC-Consoles conversions.
But we've all seen how good PC conversions turn out, whatever optimisation they get.

U3 needs all that Ram mainly because of its huge textures. Those will be to be tuned down drastically, and it will show. Simple as that.

Like it happens today, it's obvious.

Let's worry about Console specific games on consoles and PC games on PC. Ports are never the best on either platform. Whether it is from PC to console or the other way around.

"Drastically" is a strong word. Their are many things that can be done to save memory.

A little math tells us:

2048x2048 bitmap texture, Raw, uncompressed @ 32-bit color = 16MB

128MB of X2 RAM set aside for texture data.

We'll give the X2 4:1 texture compression.

128 * 4:1 texture compression = 512MB

512MB / 16MB = 32

That's 32, 2048x2048 bitmap textures, compressed @ 32-bit color

That's 4MB for each texture - effective.

Epic says that UE3 will use about 5-20 characters on screen at once.

Assume 20 characters:

4 * 20 = 80MB for character textures.

128MB - 80MB = 48MB left for the rest of the scene - or 12 more characters.

Of course... you have to consider that every object is going to have at least 2 texture layers.

But then you can always shoot for higher compression ratios. Or set more RAM aside for textures.

The XBox could stuff a game like Halo 2 in 64MB with graphics included. (Lets leave the HDD out for simplicity)

Let's say Halo 3 uses 80MB total for the game engine. This leaves us with 176MB for textures.

A little math, and we get 44, 2048x2048 bitmap textures, compressed @ 32-bit color.

Not bad at all since texture compression can be higher. Hell, you could even drop the texture color to 24-bit. On top of that, drop the texture rez down to 1920x1920.

Even after compression and a drop in color depth, and drop in texture resolution, the average naked eye wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

UE3 = easy.

Like I said, "Drastic" is too strong a word to use.

 

[tEd]

why do you even want to use 2048*2048 textures when you running at res. 1280*720 max. maybe even lower. Makes no sense whatsoever

 

[eastcore]

why do you even want to use 2048*2048 textures when you running at res. 1280*720 max. maybe even lower. Makes no sense whatsoever

Exactly.

I already mentioned this. Certain changes are going to be made as a given when a game is get's ported.

The X2 shouldn't have any trouble handling the UE2 engine. Those numbers I used are over kill considering the averge joe is going to be used a crappy TV anyway.

 

[Alejux]

You seem to be forgetting that a lot of the geometric details in UE3's models are stored in the textures, via parallax mapping. I'm not sure you could just reduce the texture resolution and not have a big impact on the overall quality of the characters and other objects.

 

[eastcore]

You seem to be forgetting that a lot of the geometric details in UE3's models are stored in the textures, via parallax mapping. I'm not sure you could just reduce the texture resolution and not have a big impact on the overall quality of the characters and other objects.

It wouldn't even matter. In this case, systems like the X2 will be able to pump enough polys to lower the normal mapping resolution and just use higher detailed poly models. The X2 will have poly compression too.

 

[thop]

Xbox 2 announcement looks unlikely as CES looms