Support NeoGAF

[Deleted member 13876]

Games look good enough this gen. I don't really care how much better they can get as long as they're fun.

People said this last gen too, and probably the gen before that as well. It's not just about the graphics, it's about the complexity of stuff they can put on screen, their interactions with the game world, the number of objects etc etc. Epic lobbied for higher 360 specs last gen as well, and it's a good thing they did. As long as it doesn't guarantee astronomical surges in dev costs and console affordability by all means let them reach for the sky.

 

[Ponn]

This has been happening since the early 90s. Was the 486DX2 too powerful or could it be that a variety of different reasons are responsible for the closure/consolidation of great development studios?

To an extent. There was a boom of new studios in the PSone/PS2 era. Where are they now? You can stick your head in the sand all you want, isn't going to change end result of the current path. Get your backlogs ready.

 

[Durante]

I want native 1080p with good quality AA and texture filtering, is that really to much to ask for?

You certainly won't get it in the vast majority of "AAA" titles on next-gen consoles. But funnily enough, if they are reasonably powerful you may get it in "B", "A" and "AA" games!

To an extent. There was a boom of new studios in the PSone/PS2 era. Where are they now? You can stick your head in the sand all you want, isn't going to change end result of the current path. Get your backlogs ready.

I don't think I'll have to. I'm just not in the panic over development costs many here seem to be. Sure, many developers could close up shop, but others will always take their place (and maybe even on preferable platforms such as PC)

In fact, this is the first year I can remember where I already own 5 games that should be released next year (thanks to kickstarter). There's really no reason to be afraid.

 

[bigdaddygamebot]

People said this last gen too, and probably the gen before that as well. It's not just about the graphics, it's about the complexity of stuff they can put on screen, their interactions with the game world, the number of objects etc etc.

Sure...it CAN be about those things, but far too often it isn't.

Epic isn't known for brilliant AI or pushing the envelope with it comes complex interactions with their gaming worlds.

 

[Elginer]

Who's ready for $700 consoles with higher failure rates than the first generation of Xbox 360? Aren't you guys excited? Doesn't it feel great to be a hardcore gamer?

My thoughts exactly. There has to be a compromise and one that doesn't include my house burning down from 2 hours of gaming from having one of these things on.

 

[gofreak]

And budgets are still getting higher and higher for each gen despite everyone saying

Because the competition for your $60 is getting higher and higher.

What's being argued for here by some is that platform holders should put a cap on that competition with hardware.

If you are a consumer, why not wish for more competition for your dollar? I know a lot of people think that pubs will run themselves into the ground but I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that they might retune their investments and find a better center of gravity if they don't work out. If company A cannot compete at the high end anymore it's because other companies can. If other companies can't, the high end will recenter at another point. But should hardware make that call? IMO, no.

It's the job of the platform holder to put as much capability at the disposal of creators, and make it as easy as possible to access. Not to tell the children to play nicely with a big stick of reduced capability. The only reason Nintendo was trying to do that is because they didn't want that competition for themselves.

I think that that kind of competition is only relevant at the blockbuster end of the market anyway. For everyone else, they'll actually lower their costs with better hardware. The devs making $5 and $6 games on the digital market will be able to do a lot more at the same cost with better boxes.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Yeah but there is "powerful" and then there is "Epic powerful". The former is going to be more financially responsible hardware-wise.

Yeah, I'm thinking they're going to be good enough, but Epic wants them to be crazy powerful.

 

[kuroshiki]

Graphics are NEVER good enough.

 

[mclem]

Eh? They're not giving away anything close to concrete details at all. And to certain extents Epic has a good amount of leverage over Sony and MS- they can do stuff like this. It's called lobbying.

It's also riling up a vocal segment of the industry such that they could play Sony and MS off against each other - "let them down and they'll abandon you" sort of thing. It's a very canny move, I must say. I don't think it'll quite work, though, or rather, I think the power in this arrangement lies with Microsoft, not Epic; that is, I think the power level of the next gen needs to take into consideration what's best for the average third party company, *not* what's best for wealthy third parties, and I think where Microsoft goes will be where the average third party company goes. If they go weak and Sony goes powerful, I think Sony will struggle.

Last gen, Nintendo went with something that they felt was best for the average third party company. Third parties didn't take them up on it in general, but many suffered as a result. Not having the massed third parties onboard caused big problems for Nintendo, too; no-one really won out as a result of that.

Point 1: Average Third Party may think back to that and possibly be wary before going all-in on power.
Point 2: Console Manufacturers without support from Average Third Party will suffer, unless Wealthy Third Party can make up the deficit.
Point 3: Wealthy Third Party has ulterior motives for convincing Average Third Party to go all-in on power.

 

[Erethian]

Why do they NEED to be more powerful again? Do we REALLY need it?

Well the systems are obviously going to be more powerful, the argument is over whether they'll be powerful enough. Or specifically, whether they'll be too powerful to be reasonably affordable for a large number of consumers.

Personally I don't think the industry is in a position to be putting up price hurdles for adopters of the new platforms. Unless people want to start paying a lot more per game for big budget titles, the size of the userbase for the next-generation consoles needs to rapidly outpace what was achieved this generation.

 

[Pureauthor]

Because the competition for your $60 is getting higher and higher.

What's being argued for here by some is that platform holders should put a cap on that competition with hardware.

If you are a consumer, why not wish for more competition for your dollar?

Because a lot of that time they make that competition ends up being at the consumer's expense. 'Revenue enhancing devices' sound familiar?

 

[Pyrrhus]

I have a question for all of the people who are saying they want to stay with roughly the technology level we've been using since 2005. When did you start gaming? I'm interested in knowing if there's a correlation between when a person started gaming and what they want from next generation hardware.

 

[Durante]

Because the competition for your $60 is getting higher and higher.

What's being argued for here by some is that platform holders should put a cap on that competition with hardware.

If you are a consumer, why not wish for more competition for your dollar? I know a lot of people think that pubs will run themselves into the ground but I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that they might retune their investments and find a better center of gravity if they don't work out. If company A cannot compete at the high end anymore it's because other companies can. If other companies can't, the high end will recenter at another point. But should hardware make that call? IMO, no.

It's the job of the platform holder to put as much capability at the disposal of creators, and make it as easy as possible to access. Not to tell the children to play nicely with a big stick of reduced capability. The only reason Nintendo was trying to do that is because they didn't want that competition for themselves.

I think that that kind of competition is only relevant at the blockbuster end of the market anyway. For everyone else, they'll actually lower their costs with better hardware. The devs making $5 and $6 games on the digital market will be able to do a lot more at the same cost with better boxes.

Wonderful post. Very well said, and I agree completely.

I have a question for all of the people who are saying they want to stay with roughly the technology level we've been using since 2005. When did you start gaming? I'm interested in knowing if there's a correlation between when a person started gaming and what they want from next generation hardware.

I started gaming in the early 90s and I'm not ready for progress to stop any time soon.

 

[schwabdizzle]

That makes me think that they will be dual quad core tops.

 

[east of eastside]

The gamers wanting Epic graphics will be the next crowd to leave gaming following the casual exodus.

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

I am betting that both MS and Sony have like 2-4 GB of Ram and Epic is trying to get them to put 6 GB or more. The PS4 and the NextBox will be much more powerful than this gens PS360.

 

[IonicSnake]

I'm ok with this is Epic pays half the console price.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

I have a question for all of the people who are saying they want to stay with roughly the technology level we've been using since 2005. When did you start gaming? I'm interested in knowing if there's a correlation between when a person started gaming and what they want from next generation hardware.

Colecovision!

 

[mclem]

What are you even talking about? Enjoying good graphics in games has been something that was just completely normal for every single gamer -- at least until the introduction of the Wii. That's how I remember it.

There's a significant difference between enjoying them and requiring them.

I like Uncharted, but that doesn't mean I'm incapable of playing Zork.

 

[Deleted member 13876]

Sure...it CAN be about those things, but far too often it isn't.

Epic isn't known for brilliant AI or pushing the envelope with it comes complex interactions with their gaming worlds.

Yeah, I realize the if I posed is a big if.

 

[GDGF]

Colecovision!

That was my first system as well

 

[Pureauthor]

What are you even talking about? Enjoying good graphics in games has been something that was just completely normal for every single gamer -- at least until the introduction of the Wii. That's how I remember it.

Are you serious? Prior to the latest generation people who actively whined about graphical prowess not being up to par with the PS2 or the PS1 or (insert system here) were actively derided as being foolish and superficial.

There's a reason the term 'graphics whore' even exists.

 

[gofreak]

Because a lot of that time they make that competition ends up being at the consumer's expense. 'Revenue enhancing devices' sound familiar?

If the consumer makes that work for the publisher by buying in, then the consumer has accepted it. If they don't make it work for the publisher the publisher will have to find other revenue opportunities or, as I said, retune their cost base and lower their sights.

But again, what does this have to do with hardware? Why does it have to be the determining factor? The determining factor should be 'how much money can we spend on this production' - and then they should go hell for leather at it. If company A can only spend 5m but company B can make a budget of 10m work - should the hardware try and equalise them? I don't think so. Company A will have to balance things either with fantastic ideas that trump Company B's production values, or with reduced retail price, or whatever. That's just competition. (Meanwhile, Company A's product can actually be better and/or cheaper to make too than if they were on less powerful hardware.)

 

[Ponn]

The stronger the consoles, the better for me. Just because there's more power there, it doesn't mean that it has to be utilized. Plus, as devs learn the consoles, the games won't hit a graphical ceiling as quickly. I'm not exactly sure why anyone wouldn't want more powerful consoles. I would rather pay another 100$ then have a console with games that don't look as good as they could have.

Because though you may pay for it, doesn't mean others will, and if a system doesn't sell you have nothing to play on it. For example look at whats happening with Vita. I love that system and the hardware, but if Sony doesn't move systems due to cost that means developers are not going to make games for a small audience or you get only a few games.

Here's a general question, and its not a "PC is doomed!" innuendo. If you didn't have consoles to support the industry or put out all these games, even at lower graphics and resolutions compared to PC's then get PC ports later what would happen? If you didn't have consoles to put the Batman, Assassins Creed, Capcom fighters and games, Deus Ex and Rockstar, if that infrastructure wasn't there to support those games would they still be made only for PC?

Advanced graphics and hardware is a luxury to the industry, not the single motivator.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

There's a significant difference between enjoying them and requiring them.

I like Uncharted, but that doesn't mean I'm incapable of playing Zork.

On the flip side, even with dithering all over the place, low res textures. I still, to this day, think SMG is a prettier game than Mass Effect on the 360. At least it is cohesive. ME1 was this LoD pop-in, blurry texture, slowdowny mess in comparison.

You don't need cutting edge to make a good game, just something approaching competence.

 

[Orayn]

I have a question for all of the people who are saying they want to stay with roughly the technology level we've been using since 2005. When did you start gaming? I'm interested in knowing if there's a correlation between when a person started gaming and what they want from next generation hardware.

No one is saying that, you goofball.

 

[-PXG-]

If you're going to bitch about graphics on a console, do yourself a favor and get a PC.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

That was my first system as well

*brofist*

Donkey Kong!

Part of the reason I have an unhealthy fixation on Nintendo.

No one is saying that, you goofball.

Technically I am.

I'm perfectly content for another generation with that output, with better IQ, AA, texture filtering.

 

[Krauser Kat]

Dear Epic,

Fuck you

Signed,
KK

 

[AndrewDean84xX]

Epic gonna Epic

 

[Twenty7KVN]

I have a question for all of the people who are saying they want to stay with roughly the technology level we've been using since 2005. When did you start gaming? I'm interested in knowing if there's a correlation between when a person started gaming and what they want from next generation hardware.

Atari,and i don't want them to stay at 2005 tech level.I just don't what to have to mortgage a damn console.

 

[JB1981]

Hopefully Epic can convince Sony/MS to go with more POWAH. Sounds absolutely amazing.

 

[Man-is-Obsolete]

None of the things you mention is inherently negatively impacted by more powerful hardware. PC has more developers, more games, more niche genres and the most powerful hardware.

I guess console developers, or maybe publishers are more to blame, feel compelled to push the hardware to its limits. Also PC games pricing is all over the map whereas consoles are either in the $60 or $15 category, and that makes it difficult for games like Catherine, Disgaea, Asuras Wrath, and many others to be appealing at a $60 price point.

However, with rumors of Sony going more off the shelf and Microsoft as well perhaps dev cost would be less anyways. Take Battlefield 3 for instance the cost of bringing that game to consoles had to be extremely high and difficult. Hopefully next gen that won't be the case.

 

[Erethian]

If the consumer makes that work for the publisher by buying in, then the consumer has accepted it. If they don't make it work for the publisher the publisher will have to find other revenue opportunities or, as I said, retune their cost base and lower their sights.

But again, what does this have to do with hardware? Why does it have to be the determining factor? The determining factor should be 'how much money can we spend on this production' - and then they should go hell for leather at it. If company A can only spend 5m but company B can make a budget of 10m work - should the hardware try and equalise them? I don't think so. Company A will have to balance things either with fantastic ideas that trump Company B's production values, or with reduced retail price, or whatever. That's just competition.

I feel like the development cost argument is getting around the main issue. High-priced consoles are bad for the industry because it depresses userbase growth. Just ask Sony what it's like having a system with a userbase the size of the PS2, as opposed to the PS3. Or third parties for that matter.

 

[massoluk]

I have a question for all of the people who are saying they want to stay with roughly the technology level we've been using since 2005. When did you start gaming? I'm interested in knowing if there's a correlation between when a person started gaming and what they want from next generation hardware.

My first gaming devices were Atari 2600 and Game & Watch.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

Hopefully Epic can convince Sony/MS to go with more POWAH. Sounds absolutely amazing.

Looking at the UE4 screens it seems like a huge waste of money personally. You'll end up paying a lot for marginal difference in the core output, but better, faster lighting.

 

[1-D_FTW]

You certainly won't get it in the vast majority of "AAA" titles on next-gen consoles. But funnily enough, if they are reasonably powerful you may get it in "B", "A" and "AA" games!

Which is kind of funny. Because I played rfactor in 3D for the first time the other night (a game that wasn't a looker even in 2006) and with 1080P, supersampling AA, 120hz, and 3D, the game makes my jaw drop in ways it has no right doing.

 

[Krauser Kat]

Here's a general question, and its not a "PC is doomed!" innuendo. If you didn't have consoles to support the industry or put out all these games, even at lower graphics and resolutions compared to PC's then get PC ports later what would happen? If you didn't have consoles to put the Batman, Assassins Creed, Capcom fighters and games, Deus Ex and Rockstar, if that infrastructure wasn't there to support those games would they still be made only for PC?

They would be made for the markets that is available, which the largest right now are PCs and IOS

 

[Pureauthor]

If the consumer makes that work for the publisher by buying in, then the consumer has accepted it. If they don't make it work for the publisher the publisher will have to find other revenue opportunities or, as I said, retune their cost base and lower their sights.

But again, what does this have to do with hardware? Why does it have to be the determining factor? The determining factor should be 'how much money can we spend on this production' - and then they should go hell for leather at it.

Two reasons:

The first is that it's not simply what the hardware consists of that defines a console. The very way it's sold and advertised helps define its identity. In the specific cases of the 360 and the PS3 they were marketed on the basis of their immense graphical power, with the unspoken implication that if you could not compete on those graphical terms your game was not 'worthy' and should be relegated to XBLA or PSN. That's where the death of the 'A' and 'B' tier games came from - either they tried to compete in graphics and burnt to death in the process or they went 'fuck it' and aimed low.

Secondly, 'how much money can we spend on the production' was obviously not very well defined this past generation. The PS3 will never turn a profit for Sony and the 360 took a long time to actually get onto its feet. Should I just assume they'll get it right this time?

 

[jimmypython]

render Avator in real time?...Nice one

 

[Ponn]

I have a question for all of the people who are saying they want to stay with roughly the technology level we've been using since 2005. When did you start gaming? I'm interested in knowing if there's a correlation between when a person started gaming and what they want from next generation hardware.

Well aside from the snarky and untrue first part of your statement i've been gaming since Pong/Atari 2600.

 

[SmokyDave]

If you're going to bitch about graphics on a console, do yourself a favor and get a PC.

I have one but I doubt I'll be seeing Gran Turismo 6 released on it.

 

[KageMaru]

Why do they NEED to be more powerful again? Do we REALLY need it?

Why are you excited about the Wii-U and ready to move on to it from the Wii?

Honest question since the reasons you're excited for the Wii-U is likely the same reason many of us want to be excited about ps4/720 in regards to power.

 

[mocoworm]

Why are you excited about the Wii-U and ready to move on to it from the Wii?

Honest question since the reasons you're excited for the Wii-U is likely the same reason many of us want to be excited about ps4/720.

Tablet controller, gameplay innovations.

 

[JB1981]

Looking at the UE4 screens it seems like a huge waste of money personally. You'll end up paying a lot for marginal difference in the core output, but better, faster lighting.

yea don't think you can make that statement from looking at some screens.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

I have one but I doubt I'll be seeing Gran Turismo 6 released on it.

And whenever it releases it will be beautiful. No matter the hardware in the console.

yea don't think you can make that statement from looking at some screens.

I can and will make that statement. The demo there, isn't doing anything we haven't seen before. The lighting might be impressive in motion, but the core output doesn't look like it needs insanely powerful tech to run.

If gamers don't see a huge difference, the mass market will think "Jesus they are ripping me off."

 

[Gr1mLock]

I want great looking textures at high resolutions and high fps. You tell em Epic.

 

[Rush2thestart]

This news is a hilarious turn of events as a follower of Wii U news. Seriously, you cant make this shit up.

 

[mclem]

I feel like the development cost argument is getting around the main issue. High-priced consoles are bad for the industry because it depresses userbase growth. Just ask Sony what it's like having a system with a userbase the size of the PS2, as opposed to the PS3. Or third parties for that matter.

Expensive consoles don't have to be high-priced. That is, Microsoft (not so much Sony!) are in a position to massively subsidise a system if necessary, and it's a move that *could* reap huge dividends if Epic are right. If Epic are wrong, however, it'll lose them billions.

 

[SmokyDave]

And whenever it releases it will be beautiful. No matter the hardware in the console.

Yeah, but will it be marginally more beautiful than GT5, or considerably more beautiful?

For me to invest in a new console, it needs to be the latter. I don't mind spending £400-£450 on a console if the tech is good enough to last a proper cycle (5-6 years).

This news is a hilarious turn of events as a follower of Wii U news. Seriously, you cant make this shit up.

Why? Because they didn't even bother with Nintendo?