Predict: The Next Generation Console Tech

[Prophecy2k]

Backwards and platform compatibility might be a bigger thing this time. It would mean you can still hook up with friends on the old console.

In addition to that some of my hardcore friends on Live are in love with their gamerscore.

Regardless of whether the next-gen consoles are backwards compatible or not I expect trophies and gamerscores to carry on into next-gen.

However of course you won't be able to take your gamerscore over to PSN if you decide to switch platforms next-gen. At the same time though I don't see anyone remaining with a platform and platform holder on the sole basis of a gamer score. There are far more important things that will hold a greater sway on people's decisions whether to switch or remain next-gen. Plus, your xbox gamerscore will still be alive on PC with GFWL (or whatever MS call their Win8 version), and given the rumoured specs of these next-gen boxes i can see many investing in a high end PC as well as their consoles, in order to satisfy their rabid and insatiable grafix whore desires.

I personally see many being happy to switch consoles if given enough reason to. I certainly am, and that's considering I've never owned an xbox this gen and have never really seen any reason to.

 

[Rangers]

More a difference of emphasis than a difference of design. The broad generalization is that MS has more CPU cores and more memory but a little less GPU. ie, MS ~1.5-2x CPU, 2-4x memory ~.5-.7x gpu. Most everything points to them both using AMD derived CPUs and GPUs. So far it really seems they are as close to the same as we've seen consoles in a long long time. It is highly likely they both will support the same GPU feature set and the same CPU feature set.

I dont see how (rumors) of 2-4X RAM difference(plus different speeds, probably EDRAM in one system)+up to 1.8X GPU difference is more similar than today where we have both machines with the same amount of RAM and GPU's arguably within 10% of each other.

Maybe the programming differences will be less, but the capability differences in key areas should be much greater. Multiplatforms for example will probably diverge much more than today, and not all in one direction.

 

[SKYSONY]

I somehow doubt the Durango specs are weak as some reports claim, since DaE already said the Durango dev kits are PCs, and powerful PCs. I don´t know what to expect from Sony, since it seems much more in the air.

 

[McHuj]

I somehow doubt the Durango specs are weak as some reports claim, since DaE already said the Durango dev kits are PCs, and powerful PCs. I don´t know what to expect from Sony, since it seems much more in the air.

Personally, I wouldn't read much into the fact that the dev kits are powerful PCs. If I were shipping a dev kit running on a PC, I would ship a very powerful one as well. It's cheap to do and the benefit to the developer is great. It isn't all about the target specs sometimes you just need a fast dev kit with a lot of ram for fast compile, simulation, and debug times.

 

[SKYSONY]

Personally, I wouldn't read much into the fact that the dev kits are powerful PCs. If I were shipping a dev kit running on a PC, I would ship a very powerful one as well. It's cheap to do and the benefit to the developer is great. It isn't all about the target specs sometimes you just need a fast dev kit with a lot of ram for fast compile, simulation, and debug times.

The problem is what we hear leads to confusion. I´ve read from DaE that the dev kits are powerful PCs. BUT, Rangers said he was told the GPU was closer to the 7770, which is a crappy GPU even nowadays.

 

[kagemaru]

The problem is what we hear leads to confusion. I´ve read from DaE that the dev kits are powerful PCs. BUT, Rangers said he was told the GPU was closer to the 7770, which is a crappy GPU even nowadays.

Even after the rumors, I still have a hard time believing MS would skimp on the GPU after the xbox and 360.

 

[Carl B]

I dont see how (rumors) of 2-4X RAM difference(plus different speeds, probably EDRAM in one system)+up to 1.8X GPU difference is more similar than today where we have both machines with the same amount of RAM and GPU's arguably within 10% of each other.

Maybe the programming differences will be less, but the capability differences in key areas should be much greater. Multiplatforms for example will probably diverge much more than today, and not all in one direction.

I'm in the camp that views similar architectures as lending to "similar machines," even if the numerics of the particular components are scaled in relation to one another. Exclusive titles will reflect the advantages of one vs the other, and perhaps due to the ease of coding, those differences will be more pronounced than the previous gen. Maybe.

In this realm I would view RAM and GPU as being the most important in leading to perceptible differences for the broader gaming public. CPU strengths would reflect more subtly, normally, which is why it would surprise me if MS devoted double the silicon to it as Sony.

Likewise Sony coming harder on the GPU while halving the memory seems odd as well - I just almost can't expect it.

But when all systems go from variations on exotic architectures to using the same basis, how can that not be considered a move towards similarity?

 

[Carl B]

The problem is what we hear leads to confusion. I´ve read from DaE that the dev kits are powerful PCs. BUT, Rangers said he was told the GPU was closer to the 7770, which is a crappy GPU even nowadays.

A relatively weak GPU can look plenty impressive on a small fixed resolution, and today we're at the point were 720p is quite small indeed. I think the bigger question almost is whether games this gen are going to make the move to 1080p standard as their target resolution, or whether resolution such as it pertains to HD console gaming will stop being a talking point altogether.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I dont see how (rumors) of 2-4X RAM difference(plus different speeds, probably EDRAM in one system)+up to 1.8X GPU difference is more similar than today where we have both machines with the same amount of RAM and GPU's arguably within 10% of each other.

Maybe the programming differences will be less, but the capability differences in key areas should be much greater. Multiplatforms for example will probably diverge much more than today, and not all in one direction.

At first I thought the opposite to this, but rereading to reply, I'm actually thinking you may ahve something. If the hardware is programmatically identical, there'll be no clear limit to extracting performance from the machine. Thus the same graphics engine can run at '1x' on one platform and '1.5x' on the other with little more than a flag set in the compiler, very much like rendering to different PC specs. This might represent the worst utilisation of console hardware ever if developers don't mix and match techniques to extract best performance. eg. this gen devs had to find CPU technqiues to augment GPU where necessary because without those CPU techniques, the result would have been well below par. Will they go to that same effort next-gen to utilise CPU resources to aid the GPU, say, when the machine can run the same game in a lower spec with virtually zero effort?

I guess the expectation is for scalable engines. If the consoles are effectively PC hardware at two different specs, it'd behoove the devs to create a game that scale to available resources. "How much RAM? Then render buffers at this res. How fast a GPU? Then use this AA. CPU to spare? Run the physics on that. GPU to spare? Run the physics on that instead."

This could be fabulous for developers. It'd be moderately close to the unified platform that they want. No more worrying so much about how to do something one different platforms. The research in the PC space will be applicable in the console space. The engine just needs to balance across resources effectively, shifting all the optimisation onto the balancing process rather than onto specifics of implementations.

That's if the hardware is all AMD. It'd only need a PPC/nVidia variation to continue the same pains of cross-platform development.

 

[McHuj]

One of the things I have a hard time reconciling with the system being basically the same SoC is the supposed (rumored) different RAM types. The first rumors of PS4 had a BW of 192GB/sec implying a bus of 256-bits and 6gbps GDDR5 (high end but reasonable.) On the other hand, if MS is rumored to be using DDR4, they probably wouldn't reach half that bandwidth.

 

[Squilliam]

I think that's highly unlikely, even from just a fairness perspective. If you're playing a competitive game where the person on the next gen machine has a higher resolution and/or framerate, that's not going to go over well. Besides, the platform holders need to encourage adoption of the new platform. Straddling the line does not help that. And for 3rd parties, if you are compromising your game design to accommodate a last gen SKU, you're just opening yourself up to comparisons with competing games that use the next generation hardware fully.

So what you're saying is that people won't want to play with differing resolution etc on consoles but are perfectly happy on the PC? Also how would they be compromising the game design? It is easier to cut than to add, according to Joker.

Look at this gen, and name one single game that launched on both gens of machines and did well? There's no historical precident for it. And plus by launching a stripped down version on the old machines you also give critics a point of reference to make unhealthly comparisons between the two versions (i.e. the new version is crap because it doesn't look next-gen enough compared with the current-gen version). Outside of sports franchises like Madden, Pubs will simply avoid launching on old gen consoles entirely.

There is no historical precedence for a console to have a 2nd peak. There is no historical precedence for a previous generation console almost selling as well as the current generation replacement and beating it for a while (PS2). If the current generation wasn't important then Sony wouldn't be bothering with yet another PS3 revision.

 

[onQ]

I don't think you'll see any games that are NOT generational exclusive by third parties after the console initial launch window has passed. Sales for this gen consoles and games are already tailing off. Pubs and developers have no reason to develop software that straddles the generational line, as they would invariably be not taking full advantage of the new HW, which would be the primary selling point for the uprgade in the first place.

Pubs have already been clammoring for next-gen, and rather publically so. They see a new generation launch as a means to launch new IPs and franchises on new machines that they can market as new experiences which couldn't be done on old HW. If they go and release the same software on old hw they risk giving consumers the impression that they need not upgrade at all. On a new platform they have less competition, and given that its the "high-attach rate" hardcore who are always the early adopters, pubs want to get these guys/gals hooked on their new franchises early, especially before the big name juggernauts start launching with their new next-gen iterations (e.g. COD, Halo, AC, BF etc etc).

Look at this gen, and name one single game that launched on both gens of machines and did well? There's no historical precident for it. And plus by launching a stripped down version on the old machines you also give critics a point of reference to make unhealthly comparisons between the two versions (i.e. the new version is crap because it doesn't look next-gen enough compared with the current-gen version). Outside of sports franchises like Madden, Pubs will simply avoid launching on old gen consoles entirely.

I thought games like Madden , Fifa , The Show & some others was still selling well on PS2 a few years into this Generation.

also God of War 2 sold well on PS2 & PS3, yeah I know that's different & what about The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess?

 

[bgassassin]

Is that website reputable in anyway? I don't know so I'm asking. IMO, this is effectively the one console future Dyack was asking for and would be a huge boon for developers. I wonder if the supposed (assuming its true) third party was AMD. It seems they're big enough to have that sway. I'm sure they had the backing of developers as well.

The author posts on one of the same boards that I do and I have occasionally talked with him. But beyond that, I can't vouch for him or write him off as just trying to get hits.

But all that was just speculating for the fun of it due to those bits of info. Speaking from a more tangible perspective, from what I gather MS is doing like Nintendo and leaving out key parts of the target specs. So devs are left essentially guessing at how powerful it is, unless they bother learning what's in the off-the-shelf version of the dev kit as the GPU power will supposedly be the same as the final according to MS.

 

[Rangers]

The problem is what we hear leads to confusion. I´ve read from DaE that the dev kits are powerful PCs. BUT, Rangers said he was told the GPU was closer to the 7770, which is a crappy GPU even nowadays.

Dont forget DaE isn't a verified source yet anyway.

And he also told me when I asked over IM whether the GPU was closer to a 7850 or 7770, that it was closer to the latter. It's hard to know whether anything he says has meaning anyway, I'm not convinced he knows what a 7770 or 7850 is.

 

[SKYSONY]

Dont forget DaE isn't a verified source yet anyway.

And he also told me when I asked over IM whether the GPU was closer to a 7850 or 7770, that it was closer to the latter. It's hard to know whether anything he says has meaning anyway, I'm not convinced he knows what a 7770 or 7850 is.

Yep, I agree. I think or the info we get on the forums is really accurate, or he just read it and then post it, so what he says makes any sense. I´ve asked him if the RAM was DDR3 or faster, firstly he told me there will be more RAM, then I answered that was because of the dev kit, then he told me less in the final console, and when I said what about 8 Gb of DDR4 he told me no more than half the dev kit RAM for the moment and where the fu-ck have I read DDR4.

Kind of weird.

 

[Rangers]

Yep, I agree. I think or the info we get on the forums is really accurate, or he just read it and then post it, so what he says makes any sense.

Yep, I get that distinct feeling too. Like he's just repeating the rumors. He hadnt said a single thing that really proves anything or is new info. Either he's repeating BG's info from reading it online (possibly even this thread ), or BG's info is pretty accurate, one of the two.

EXCEPT I guess, that apparently he maintains it's Intel CPU.

I´ve asked him if the RAM was DDR3 or faster, firstly he told me there will be more RAM, then I answered that was because of the dev kit, then he told me less in the final console, and when I said what about 8 Gb of DDR4 he told me no more than half the dev kit RAM for the moment and where the fu-ck have I read DDR4.

Kind of weird.

Too be fair, DD4 probably is not in the kit at all, since it barely exists if it exists. Even if they plan DDR4 for the final, it's likely not in the kit.

I think if DaE does have a kit, he might be a lot more into the programming nuts and bolts and a lot less into whats under the hood. It just doesn't concern him that much. That's the feeling I get. Also, if the kit is ill-gotten somehow, he may have incomplete or missing documentation, and according to BG MS is pulling a Wii U and not even including GPU specs in the target specs, so thats another aspect that could be affecting his knowledge.

He said he was going to post kit related pics on his twitter if I understood correctly, and didn't. Another opportunity to verify, that he hasn't come through on.

 

[Proelite]

Tell him to run Dxdiag and have him post the processor information, the total system memory, the display device name, and the total amount of video memory.

I am under the assumption that there is a windows environment on the dev kit.

If he doesn't know what Dxdiag is then he is not a developer. He would be lying if he said so.

 

[Brad Grenz]

So what you're saying is that people won't want to play with differing resolution etc on consoles but are perfectly happy on the PC? Also how would they be compromising the game design? It is easier to cut than to add, according to Joker.

PC gamers and console gamers have different mentalities and expectations. Serious competitive PC gamers already try to outspend competitors to ensure they have the highest resolution, longest draw distance and fastest frame rate, the best mouse pad, largest monitor, lowest ping... Console gamers have an expectation of a level playing field where everyone is equal. People already complain about host advantage.

As to my other point, if you are trying to create a cross generation, interoperable game the map sizes and player counts, destructability, etc, are going to be dictated by what the last gen hardware can manage. If a 360/PS3/720/PS4 MW4 with small, static maps and relatively tiny matches is on the shelf next to a PC/720/PS4-only BF4 with huge maps, full destructability and larger more dynamic modes, that could become a problem. Now imagine you don't have the brand strength of CoD to carry you.

 

[Rangers]

Tell him to run Dxdiag and have him post the processor information, the total system memory, the display device name, and the total amount of video memory.

He's cagey with the specs anyway. Even if he completely has them he wouldn't just give them out seemingly.

 

[Osamar]

He's cagey with the specs anyway. Even if he completely has them he wouldn't just give them out seemingly.

He always could send somebody a censored HWINFO summary screen