Yeah, with a third of the frame rate it should look better (at least when you are not moving around).
Predict: The Next Generation Console Tech
- Thread starter Acert93
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, with a third of the frame rate it should look better (at least when you are not moving around).
Well if it needs pools to realize that graphics are important... 
that's what "video" games are about.
By it self that result says nothing. What do people call a major upgrade?
For example lightning improvements can cost a lot of power for in fine not that much of a difference to careless eyes.
Are those people playing on PC too?
I mean some people are just dreaming, Crisis is still unmatched on console. It would most likely not been vouched as good enough. BF3 is neither good enough.
It's not and hardware problem or software, it's more diminishing returns. BS claims like Epic ones about real time Avatars don't help either.
Epic is spreading a lot of shit lately. The only think that makes sense to me is that they are in need of powerful devices to get studios to buy their new stuffs.
Most likely UE3 is good enough (or close) and they know they will have a tough sell if the next gen are not godly devices.
that's what "video" games are about.By it self that result says nothing. What do people call a major upgrade?
For example lightning improvements can cost a lot of power for in fine not that much of a difference to careless eyes.
Are those people playing on PC too?
I mean some people are just dreaming, Crisis is still unmatched on console. It would most likely not been vouched as good enough. BF3 is neither good enough.
It's not and hardware problem or software, it's more diminishing returns. BS claims like Epic ones about real time Avatars don't help either.
Epic is spreading a lot of shit lately. The only think that makes sense to me is that they are in need of powerful devices to get studios to buy their new stuffs.
Most likely UE3 is good enough (or close) and they know they will have a tough sell if the next gen are not godly devices.
Doesn't mean much for the dicussion. Even if 72% of IGN poll responders want much better graphics (which may be satisfied with lower-than-bleeding-edge GPUs depending on their expectations), the console companies might be courting a broader userbase. eg. I'm sure a similar poll of GC owners would have shown a request for much better visuals from Wii, yet by ignoring them Nintendo created a very profitable box. Likewise, MS and Sony could ignore the existing consumer base requests and go with something else. There are...120 millionish HD gamers in the world. There are the best part of a billion or two non-HD gamers available to sell a product to. If you could invent the box that would appeal to those other customers even at the risj of alienating the existing gamers, wouldn't you go with it?
That's much more of a business decision. Suffice to say for this thread, what the consumers are asking for, or even the developers, doesn't give a huge insight into what the next-gen hardware configurations will be.
I disagree it's not a matter of casual vs hardcore, it's really about what is a major jump forward.
I've my idea about a major jump in "graphics" ( as a whole) I can't see next gen deliver.
Next gen can deliver high end pC IQ but that's it.
There is nothing fancy about over tessellated mesh, Epic and other have to use wire frame for people to really notice. Neither particles running on GPUs are news. More is different from new.
If people are a bit like me, which I expect as we are never that different, what they would want is more akin to voxel based world ala Atomontage. Only voxels will allow really deep interaction with the game world environment (from chemical to mechanic to whatever).
That's won't happen anytime soon.
Then there is animations and no easy solution in sight. One just have to look at robotic to see how tough it is to do fine movement and it requires feedback. That's a bit to much for an AI puppet trying to grab a stone on the ground.
My belief is that the technological curve is not at a point where major improvement can be offered.
More is the new new. No paradigm shift in sight only people with something to sell...
Last edited by a moderator:
On the back of a revolutionary interface design ...
Neither of which is the case anymore. Sony has already introduced Move and MS already introduced Kinect (and nintendo decided to go the non-portable Vita route). Any "wow factor" which would offset sub-par hardware is long gone.
The sales of these new boxes will be directly related to what is seen as "impossible" on current gen hardware to inspire sales.
This will require a hefty increase in tech.
Despite what some may see as a take it or leave it inevitable offering from both Sony and MS, if the offering isn't compelling enough, we may well see a mass exodus with people choosing the latter vs the former.
Other options at this point are numerous and likely to expand even further if weakness in the sector is detected by potential platform producers, so don't be too quick to blow off the demands of the consumer for what they are looking for in nextgen tech...
I never said it was. Only that the console companies' targets don't have to be just the wishes of the current fanbase. Hence this poll doesn't help us identify what the next-gen console hardware will be.
That's immaterial. If asked, the GC gamers would have wanted better graphics. We could have had a prediction thread for this gen, and posted poll results showing 99% of GC owners want much improved graphics, and that'd have shed no light whatsoever on what Nintendo were putting in the box. Anyone pointing to such a poll and saying, "well, I reckon Nintendo will go with something at least R420 based," would have been completely wrong. The consumers polled (if they had been) didn't really get what they askled for, but Nintendo were right to ignore them.
No-one knows what the next Big Thing will be that'll attract a huge audience (for all we know, it could be FaceBox, a console built around crappy FaceBook games), but if MS/Sony can find it, then they'd be right to ignore the wishes of the existing gamers and go with the best solution for their new project. Hence, regarding the prediction of next-gen hardware, the poll results are irrelevant. Yes, in your never-ending argument about what the business choices are where you don't believe there can be any interest in a consumer CE device beyond its graphics, if MS/Sony go that route then they'll need a beefy GPU. But this is not the thread to predict what direction they will take with their consoles. If they go cheap set-top box or portable or massive tower-PC design, it all changes the hardware.
Oops I miss your point. Agreed Sir
Prophecy2k
Veteran
This is the silliest thing I've read all day on this forum. To say that PS3 doesn't matter in the marketplace to Epic and UE3 is just plain ignorant fanboyish drivel. You're talking about a console that commands effectively half the total HD console installed base (which is half the number of devices that would place games built with Epic's engine), and a console that until very recently has consistently outsold the 360 globally since it's launch, with a significant price disadvantage.
That's hardly a platform I would say "doesn't matter in the marketplace" to Epic.
On the other hand I agree that Epic's opinions on PS4's potential HW specs SHOULD indeed matter to Sony. I would even say that UE4 should matter to Sony equally as much as their top-selling first party dev teams like Naughty Dog, SSM, MM & PD. Particularly because of the fact that I expect 3rd party middleware engines to play an even bigger role next-gen than this gen, in making AAA game dev affordable to the relatively small base of developers not owned by the biggest monolithic publishers.
I sure that if the rumours of an all AMD PS4, with x86 CPU, are true, then such a decision would have been made with a greater regard for third party dev partners like Epic etc, than Sony's own in-house WWS teams.
Middleware will be even more imporant in the future, as technology gets more and more sophisticated all the time. Not all studios can afford to reinvent the wheel. Cross platform games also will be more important, as game development cost is rising all the time, and you need huge amount of customers to cover up the development costs.
Unreal Engine is the most important cross platform gaming middleware. If it runs better on the other console than the other, of course it's going to matter for the developers and the customers.
Unreal Engine is the most important cross platform gaming middleware. If it runs better on the other console than the other, of course it's going to matter for the developers and the customers.
What's funny is despite the large leapfrogging of graphical capabilities in the past 20 years, you'd be hard pressed to spot the difference between the 360 and PS3 versions of cross platform games like you could back in the PS2/Xbox and certainly the PS/N64 days.
A nice set of questions answered about AMD's HSA architecture and plans: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5847/...geneous-and-gpu-compute-with-amds-manju-hegde
You seem to have had a couple of comprehension-fail issues here, and then gotten angry.
There is an important and clear distinction between "doesn't matter so much" and "doesn't matter" but you've turned the former into the latter, to the benefit of neither of us. You also don't seem to know what a "devils advocate is".
The conversation was about how much Unreal mattered on the PS3, nothing else. The PS3 doesn't actually control half of the "HD" market in the areas where Unreal games are so important, and naming only the "HD" market for some seemingly arbitrary reason eliminates the (very important) PC from the core gamer and "Unreal" markets. The PS3 actually accounts for much less than half of the market for Unreal games. If the PS3 had sold better in the US and Europe, more "Unreal" games would be sold on the PS3 and it would have "mattered more" - which was the possibility being offered in response to Mr Fox's comments about Unreal "not seeming very important on the PS3" (to paraphrase).
http://www.koreanewswire.co.kr/newsRead.php?no=622880&ected=
Maybe of interest to you guys, sorry if old, don´t know if it means anything for the Xbox 720, but still interesting that Microsoft joins a team so close to the metal.
Prophecy2k
Veteran
Wow!
I very much understand what "playing devils advocate" is. That doesn't change however that the statement you made, hypothetical or not, was nonesense.
Also on your notion of "PS3 not commanding half the HD market, because of PC", I clearly said half the HD console installed base. Of course PC is always there, but that's an assumed given. When we talk about consoles though, the market for UE-based software is a 50/50 split between the XB360 and PS3.
Epic doesn't simply want to sell UE games to those people that have bought UE games on console alone. Or people in various regions. They want to sell UE games to every PS3, 360 and PC owner (read anyone owning a device capable of running software developed on the platform). So you poor attempt at trying to downplay the installed base numbers of both consoles is laughable.
I wasn't even angry, you're the one getting emotional and trying to insult folks by being direct. My point was that your initial statement was silly, whether you were playing devils advocate or not is pretty irrelevant.
Anyway, I think this is quickly moving into thread derailment territory, so I intend not to further this particular line of discussion with you function, as its approaching OT.
Clearly Epic will want UE4 to perform well on both Sony and MS' next-gen consoles, so any apparent deficiencies in the dev kits they currently have will be a serious point of discussion between them and their platform holder partners. It's in Epics interest for UE4 to run well on all next-gen platforms, as most devs will not want to license an engine that doesn't.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, I think I read the news a couple of days ago or so, and I agree with the bolded part, on the other hand why not and most likely iti might be just to support a new standard rather than maybe actively developing or whatever. It will be interesting to see though what this will lead to...
Prophecy2k
Veteran
This is a nice find. I do wonder what the archetectural changes stated made to the APU are, that would make the chips more programmable, and if such changes would in any way compromise the performance of pure graphics and traditional GPU dedicated tasks.
Lets be honest, simply disclaiming 'playing devils advocate' shouldn't be a license to talk utter crap.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
