Support NeoGAF

[JB1981]

Battlefield3 is a current gen game. Is this your first hardware transition? The first batch of next-gen games will look like Battlefield3 on Ultra settings, and then 3 years later, BF3 will look OLD. Yes, we will look back on Battlefield3 and laugh at its dated graphics. This will happen, just as it has happened before.

somehow i doubt this if we are only getting 4gb ram and a gpu on the level of something like an ati 7850.

 

[Vanillalite]

In 2000, Sony releases the PS2. In 2005 they put out a handheld that can get pretty close to matching PS2. In 2006 they release a new console that blows the previous one out of the water.

In 2006 Sony releases the PS3, in 2012, they put out a handheld that can get pretty close to matching PS3. In 2013... ?

Can you give any reason why this cycle won't repeat? Other than raw incredulity?

I'm saying it will, but there is a certain leveling off point. Mid range 4XXX series cards are a shit ton better than the current GPUs in the 360 and PS3. The problem is the GPUs above that aren't going to give you the visual casual eye test leap over what a mid range 4XXX series card can give unless you reaaaallly go BIG ie something akin to the current 7XXX series ATI cards that cost a rather large chunk of change.

A 5770 in terms of raw numbers has a decent gap between the 4770, but it's just not going to do anything to give you that much of an advantage for the casual eye test on screen.

It's why when the rumors were circulating about the 720 or PS4 using a 6770 you heard people on GAF posting it's not really going to give you that visual pop over a 4770-4870 series card that might be in say a Wii-U. Sure it's better, but it's not THAT much better to create at a glance visuals a casual gamer would easily notice.

 

[Paracelsus]

No one is saying that the PS4 won't be a lot more powerful than either the PS3 or Vita, just that there are limitations present today that didn't exist then. Putting a cutting edge GPU of today into the PS4 is impossible. Too hot, too much energy necessary for a case as "small" as the launch PS3.

Depends on what do you mean by "cutting edge", if they redesigned the bluray drive (which was a frickin juggernaut) even a custom 6990 would fit inside the launch PS3 and still have enough room for the required heatsinks.

 

[SapientWolf]

I sure hope you are right because I really want a big leap but I don't think that's correct for most people.
GTA IV is the top 20 because people love GTA. Make GTA VI next gen exclusive and people will buy the new consoles. I know it because I would most certainly buy a new console if I couldn't play the next Elder Scrolls on the current consoles.

Though I think you exaggerating. Assuming the next leap won't the big visualy, it's unlikely that the new consoles will costs anything near 400 $.

If GTA VI was a mindblowing upgrade then I can see that happening. But a GTA VI on a next gen console that looked just like GTA V would be a tougher sell.

For example, if GTA VI went PS3 exclusive, would all the 360 GTA fans pick up a PS3 or just wait it out and play GTA V? I think a lot of them would just wait it out.

 

[HoodWinked]

ms will cave, they fucking LOVE epic.

 

[brandonh83]

"They need to damn near render Avatar in real time, because I want it and gamers want it - even if they don't know they want it."

I must seriously not know that I want this or need this. I had no fucking idea that good gameplay and design has anything to do whatsoever with such visual fidelity.

Make the games look better, of course, but this mindset is exactly why we got so many shooters and crap this gen that were, IMO, very underwhelming gameplay experiences. Once the visual sheen of Gears 3, for example, wore off it was really nothing special at all. I had no desire to replay it or put any considerable time into MP because it was just more of the same shit.

Just really tired of this obsession over graphics. Make the gameplay and framerate better. Note that this is obviously just purely my personal opinion, but I can't say a whole lot of games this gen thrilled me. Some did, but only a handful, if that, of them were games that were high-end on the graphics scale.

 

[cw_sasuke]

ms will cave, they fucking LOVE epic.

More importantly, they have the money.

 

[Principate]

Battlefield3 is a current gen game. Is this your first hardware transition? The first batch of next-gen games will look like Battlefield3 on Ultra settings, and then 3 years later, BF3 will look OLD. Yes, we will look back on Battlefield3 and laugh at its dated graphics. This will happen, just as it has happened before.

We used to look at this:



And doubt it could ever look better.

Yeah that will happen in time, I never said it would look like that throughtout it's lifetime, but the majority of people really won't care if whether it completely blows battlefield out the water or not if the accomandied costs are too high.

Most of the jumps in graphics haven't been close to this generation outside of the jump to 3D, and people didn't care then. Do you honestly think people would care now, if to get those graphics you have to pay an extra $100 to $200. I mean hell people still use price as a reason against PC gaming.

 

[KageMaru]

To your average gamer at a certain point even if one model has a few more polys than another your average joe gamer won't notice this at a glance even if you can extrapolate the raw numbers and show that one is in fact better than the other.

To get something beyond this that your average joe gamer can see you have to go to the next tier as I'd like to call it which would require an exponentially more powerful GPU. I mean the difference between a 4770 and a 4870 is a decent gap, but you aren't going to produce visuals that'll show that gap off in an eye test to your average gamer very easily. Hell even the 1st gen/1st gen remixed DX11 cards won't show that. You'd have to really step up to the current cards to get that kind of effect to your average gamer.

Yet to make that next leap you're talking about a dramatic cost increase on the parts involved.

I could show you the raw number difference between a 4770 and a 5770 and there is quiet a bit of difference. You just won't notice it visually using the casual eye test for your average game. Joe gamer just won't really notice except for maybe a special effect here or there.

I see what you're talking about and agree.....to a point.

Make a game from the ground up for 4770 and another for the 4870 and I think even the average mainstream gamer will be able to see a difference. IMO it makes a huge difference when developers have closer access to the hardware and aren't limited by thick layers of API.

 

[SapientWolf]

Again that's hardly conclusive proof, practically everyone that saw the E3 battlefield pc video's were wowed, the fact Uncharted won a graphics award on one site is hardly conclusively proves that the mainstrem considered Uncharted to look better than it. the people that would be dissapointed if next gen looks like current PC games normally have decent gaming pc's, the rest don't care how pc games look because it's deemed "too expensive" or "too much hassle".

If most next gen games end up looking as good as Battlefield 3 or slightly better, looking at the current trends that would be enough.

I think you give the mainstream way too much credit. Last year I remember seeing some guy on tv say that the BF3 demo on the PC looked just like MW3 on the consoles. Said he couldn't see an improvement. Those were actual words said by an actual person.

 

[Maaseru]

Ever since the last consoles launching we, as consumers, have become accustomed to buying yearly(mostly worthless) updates to smartphones and tablets that cost from$500-$700 for each pop. So... why is there still so much complaining about consoles that come out every...5 to 7 years now? I guess you can do a lot more with one of those out of the box for the price, but there are trade off in everything.

I mean I would gladly pay 500-600 dollars again for a console, only if a true generational leap is given to us like EPIC wants. If it is Ps3.5 or Xbo360part 2 then I won't want to pay more than $350.

I just can't see how price or technology can be "limited" for next gen console seeing where we are as consumers right now.

 

[Threi]

If they can make more powerful consoles in a reasonable budget then go for it.

If not then they won't (unless they are idiotic and want to pull another PS3), but I think they all have seen the outcome of what has happened with Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo.

They should focus on building a console that makes themselves the most amount of money, and that is a balance of consumer needs (market price), developer needs (power), and their own needs (manufacturing costs). Prioritizing one over another will obviously not be ideal, and I'm sure all the console manufacturers know that. Look at what happened with the Wii and look at what happened with the PS3 (although the former was FAR more beneficial to their parent company's bottom line than the latter)

It is completely unreasonable and childish to ask them to do more than create a balance that tries to satisfy the interests of multiple parties.

But, if they feel they want to cater to one party only...let em burn, let the industry burn, they brought it on themselves. I've said this about a lot of things that have happened this gen (DLC, poor quality control and patches, homogenized game output) that you "gamers" may not like it, but you sure as hell deserve every last bit of it.

 

[mclem]

Wasn't SNES more powerful than Genesis?

Neo Geo was contemporary with them.

PS1 more than Saturn?

N64 was contemporary with them.

 

[Stallion Free]

I think you give the mainstream way too much credit. Last year I remember seeing some guy on tv say that the BF3 demo on the PC looked just like MW3 on the consoles. Said he couldn't see an improvement. Those were actual words said by an actual person.

I love hearing stuff like that.

 

[Plinko]

You're jumping to some major conclusions here. We haven't seen UE4 in motion, opinions may very well change when we do. Not to mention how much of an impact art can have on an engine.

Am I jumping to conclusions here? People need a major reason to upgrade, as we're seeing right now with Vita sales (and, to an extent, initial 3DS sales as well). GAF has a tendency to massively exaggerate the need for better graphics when average Joe consumer seems to not give a damn. I've had experience doing surveys/research in this area--it is absolutely amazing to me to see how many people couldn't tell a difference between top-of-the-line PC and Wii (or just plain didn't care), let alone PC and PS3.

Also, not sure why you felt the need to call people in here who don't see this as being that impressive "Nintendo fans." Seems like a broad generalization. As for Nintendo-only fans, they already know Wii U isn't going to be the most powerful console and reading through the Wii U thread, it appears the vast majority seem to be fine with it.

 

[mckmas8808]

This. Epic isn't worried about dev costs, most other developers are.

I'm sure the existing specs are fine.

Actually Epic does care about this. It's why they want to create an engine and help many devs with cost of developing games.

 

[theBishop]

No one is saying that the PS4 won't be a lot more powerful than either the PS3 or Vita, just that there are limitations present today that didn't exist then. Putting a cutting edge GPU of today into the PS4 is impossible. Too hot, too much energy necessary for a case as "small" as the launch PS3.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_shrink

The first generation PS3 used 380W. Today's PS3 uses 200W.

Have you seen this thing?

It's dramatically more powerful than the current consoles. Uses 330W and is about the same size as the launch 360. And you can be sure Sony and Microsoft will put 20x more engineering effort into their multimillion-selling consoles as Dell put into this.

 

[Principate]

I think you give the mainstream way too much credit. Last year I remember seeing some guy on tv say that the BF3 demo on the PC looked just like MW3 on the consoles. Said he couldn't see an improvement. Those were actual words said by an actual person.

Again that's worthless, there's obviously going to be bias against the game, if Cod looked like that and Battlefield like CoD more likely than not he'd be showing you the difference. That doesn't change that they'll most probably be fne with tht of looking game s as standard if it came at a reasonable price.

 

[King_Moc]

somehow i doubt this if we are only getting 4gb ram and a gpu on the level of something like an ati 7850.

In a console, with optimization, why not? The 360 and PS3 pull off better graphics than a comparable pc would.

A lot of people are ignoring the bit where Epic say that what previously took 2 years should be doable in 1, as well. A lot of the advances sound like they just get 'switched on', like the lighting.

 

[Vanillalite]

I see what you're talking about and agree.....to a point.

Make a game from the ground up for 4770 and another for the 4870 and I think even the average mainstream gamer will be able to see a difference. IMO it makes a huge difference when developers have closer access to the hardware and aren't limited by thick layers of API.

I think a lot of this also comes down to just how smart (or not into graphics/ not smart) we think average joe gamer is as well. On that point I think we all probably have slightly difference ideas in our minds.

 

[theBishop]

Most of the jumps in graphics haven't been close to this generation outside of the jump to 3D, and people didn't care then. Do you honestly think people would care now, if to get those graphics you have to pay an extra $100 to $200. I mean hell people still use price as a reason against PC gaming.

Are you saying this current generation was a big leap? Or not as big as the jump to 3D? I'm a little confused.

I think with each jump in hardware, we see changes in game design. When Uncharted was first announced Naughty Dog was talking about how hardware capability played into the designs of Crash, then Jak, then Drake. You couldn't do Uncharted with the 'graphics knob' turned down to PS1 level. Even if you could get the "gameplay" right, it would be absurd.

We have plenty of meathead action games this generation, just like we always have (*cough* Contra), and we will next gen too. But we also have a lot of teams trying to pull off something more sophisticated. And maybe some B-level teams this gen who had to hold back because they didn't have the technical talent or budget will be able to do more ambitious work on the next consoles. They'll pale in comparison to next-gen's AAA action games, but they'll be impressive in their own right.

 

[SapientWolf]

Again that's worthless, there's obviously going to be bias against the game, if Cod looked like that and Battlefield like CoD more likely than not he'd be showing you the difference. That doesn't change that they'll most probably be fne with tht of looking game s as standard if it came at a reasonable price.

To bring it back around...

Most console gamers are not overawed enough by current PC graphics to buy new hardware (like the $400 gaming PC) or betray their own biases. Therefore, I believe that if next gen games have graphics similar to current gen PC they are going to have to have other selling points to win over the mainstream.

 

[KageMaru]

Am I jumping to conclusions here? People need a major reason to upgrade, as we're seeing right now with Vita sales (and, to an extent, initial 3DS sales as well). GAF has a tendency to massively exaggerate the need for better graphics when average Joe consumer seems to not give a damn. I've had experience doing surveys/research in this area--it is absolutely amazing to me to see how many people couldn't tell a difference between top-of-the-line PC and Wii (or just plain didn't care), let alone PC and PS3.

Did you survey a bunch of wii only owners when they couldn't tell the difference between a top-of-the-line PC and the Wii? Even my mother could tell the difference between the 360 and my ps2/xbox when it first launched in 2005.

Also, not sure why you felt the need to call people in here who don't see this as being that impressive "Nintendo fans." Seems like a broad generalization. As for Nintendo-only fans, they already know Wii U isn't going to be the most powerful console and reading through the Wii U thread, it appears the vast majority seem to be fine with it.

Because it's the Nintendo fans who have been downplaying the importance of graphics in other threads while creaming their pants to the Zelda and Bird demos in the Wii-U speculation thread. If people wish to downplay graphics in other threads, they should be doing the same in the Wii-U thread, otherwise they are hypocrites IMO.

I love Nintendo, and have no issue with what they are doing with the Wii-U, but for some people to be acting like that's the only correct way next gen should be handled is incredibly ignorant. So this has nothing to do with how powerful the Wii-U is or what other people expect from the system. No reason to take my comment personally unless you fall into this group of people...

Edit: also I didn't say Nintendo only fans are unimpressed by this, I was merely calling out the hypocrites who downplay graphics. Sorry, think I originally read this part of your post wrong.

I think a lot of this also comes down to just how smart (or not into graphics/ not smart) we think average joe gamer is as well. On that point I think we all probably have slightly difference ideas in our minds.

Yeah, you are right. There are also other aspects that would effect the outcome, such as art direction.

 

[i-Lo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_shrink

The first generation PS3 used 380W. Today's PS3 uses 200W.

Have you seen this thing?

It's dramatically more powerful than the current consoles. Uses 330W and is about the same size as the launch 360. And you can be sure Sony and Microsoft will put 20x more engineering effort into their multimillion-selling consoles as Dell put into this.

Actually, the first gen PS3's power supply was indeed 380W but its actual power draw was around 210W at continuous max. I assume the next gen system will be around 200-250W and for that we can have substantial performance gains.

With regards to UE4.0

It looks like their engine is focussing on cutting down on dev time. Therefore, isn't it reasonable that their engine is focussing both on performance while keeping costs down for next gen? If so, then isn't a great win for Epic?

 

[crazygambit]

Um, no. The problem with AI at the moment is that 'just a set of complex instructions' is, well, nowhere near comprehensive enough to get a particularly smart AI. Someone needs to write a better 'just a set of complex instructions'. And that's *hard*. And nothing to do with the power of the processing units.

Programming is the bottleneck on AI complexity, not the current processing power of CPUs

I think you guys are talking about different things. Sure to get once character to respond intelligently and act smart a better set of instructions is required and pretty much any CPU can handle it fine.

If you have a screen full of guys moving in 3D space, reacting to obstacles and each other's movements, it suddenly becomes a lot more taxing for the CPU. Basically every actor casting a ray to see what's going on, plus correcting on the fly for obstacles and responses to the player and other actor's actions seems pretty CPU intensive to me.

 

[vg260]

Ever since the last consoles launching we, as consumers, have become accustomed to buying yearly(mostly worthless) updates to smartphones and tablets that cost from$500-$700 for each pop. So... why is there still so much complaining about consoles that come out every...5 to 7 years now? I guess you can do a lot more with one of those out of the box for the price, but there are trade off in everything.

I mean I would gladly pay 500-600 dollars again for a console, only if a true generational leap is given to us like EPIC wants. If it is Ps3.5 or Xbo360part 2 then I won't want to pay more than $350.

I just can't see how price or technology can be "limited" for next gen console seeing where we are as consumers right now.

I don't understand either, especially now that console have so many other functions besides games.

 

[theBishop]

Ever since the last consoles launching we, as consumers, have become accustomed to buying yearly(mostly worthless) updates to smartphones and tablets that cost from$500-$700 for each pop. So... why is there still so much complaining about consoles that come out every...5 to 7 years now? I guess you can do a lot more with one of those out of the box for the price, but there are trade off in everything.

I mean I would gladly pay 500-600 dollars again for a console, only if a true generational leap is given to us like EPIC wants. If it is Ps3.5 or Xbo360part 2 then I won't want to pay more than $350.

I just can't see how price or technology can be "limited" for next gen console seeing where we are as consumers right now.

Yeah, personally I think this price justifiable. I don't miss the $600 I paid in 2006, and it's great that we're still seeing better-looking games every year. The Last Of Us looks incredible.

But going above $400 is just too risky. The uptake this generation was slow and 3rd parties didn't really hit their stride until 2007. I'd like to see 'core gaming' healthy out of the gate.

 

[AzaK]

I definitely think this quantum leap could happen. All it requires is for Microsoft and Sony to send Epic an invoice for cost of manufacture. Done!

 

[JGS]

I would think gamers would think this price justifiable. the people who keep the systems in business may not though.

Microsoft offering a contract is a fix to the issue of cost anyway. I'll be waiting until at least the first price drop as usual.

Epic trying to force the issue perhaps at the expense of other developers sucks though.

 

[Conflict NZ]

Courtesy of kotaku... Every game studio closed since 2006.

I look through that list and all I see are studios which made crappy shovelware, studios which attempted to take on WoW, studios which had terrible management(3D realms, Team Bondi) and the occasional studio that thought they could get away with demanding their independance(ensemble). Everyone seems to be lamenting the death of the B game but they forget they are B games for a reason, they aren't very good and besides a small niche of people, no one really wants to play them. I'm glad a lot of the crap is getting cleared away.

I also find it hilarious that the majority of people in this thread think that better graphics = higher costs. Epic made Gears Of War 2 for $12million, some games last generation had a higher budget than that. There are more factors than graphics which go into the cost of a game, and graphics isn't even at the top of the list when it comes to rising costs. You should be blaming content, marketing and needless multiplayer first.

If there is little graphical improvement on the next consoles I think the Core audience will stick with current consoles longer, which means less early adopters when the consoles are at a high price point early which could mean disaster for console manufacturers. Hopefully epic get their way, I want to see real time Avatar next generation. Even with the large debts I have I could still afford a $500 console, I don't know why people are whinging about a $400 launch price.

 

[Stallion Free]

Yeah, personally I think this price justifiable. I don't miss the $600 I paid in 2006, and it's great that we're still seeing better-looking games every year. The Last Of Us looks incredible.

I think the important question here is: how many 600$ launch PS3's will even survive a playthrough of TLOU after managing to survive Uncharted 3 last year lol.

 

[i-Lo]

Yeah, personally I think this price justifiable. I don't miss the $600 I paid in 2006, and it's great that we're still seeing better-looking games every year. The Last Of Us looks incredible.

But going above $400 is just too risky. The uptake this generation was slow and 3rd parties didn't really hit their stride until 2007. I'd like to see 'core gaming' healthy out of the gate.

$450 is under $500 which is the taboo threshold. They could still do well in terms of sale if the product on it is worth the price of admission in the eyes of general consumers. Given MS is exploring the subscription model, it would not surprise if either one or both Sony and MS plan to proliferate faster through alternative sales methods.

 

[mugurumakensei]

I also find it hilarious that the majority of people in this thread think that better graphics = higher costs. Epic made Gears Of War 2 for $12million, some games last generation had a higher budget than that. There are more factors than graphics which go into the cost of a game, and graphics isn't even at the top of the list when it comes to rising costs. You should be blaming content, marketing and needless multiplayer first.

That $12 million number is misleading.

Any changes Epic makes to the UE3 engine to improve their games gets filed under UE3's budget and not the budget of the games.

Similarly, the budget for the Witcher 2's engine is separate from the budget of the Witcher 2.

The reason why it is misleading is because the average developer does tweak UE3 so their budget numbers will report that statistic while engine developers get to leave it out.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

I look through that list and all I see are studios which made crappy shovelware, studios which attempted to take on WoW, studios which had terrible management(3D realms, Team Bondi) and the occasional studio that thought they could get away with demanding their independance(ensemble). Everyone seems to be lamenting the death of the B game but they forget they are B games for a reason, they aren't very good and besides a small niche of people, no one really wants to play them. I'm glad a lot of the crap is getting cleared away.

I also find it hilarious that the majority of people in this thread think that better graphics = higher costs. Epic made Gears Of War 2 for $12million, some games last generation had a higher budget than that. There are more factors than graphics which go into the cost of a game, and graphics isn't even at the top of the list when it comes to rising costs. You should be blaming content, marketing and needless multiplayer first.

If there is little graphical improvement on the next consoles I think the Core audience will stick with current consoles longer, which means less early adopters when the consoles are at a high price point early which could mean disaster for console manufacturers. Hopefully epic get their way, I want to see real time Avatar next generation. Even with the large debts I have I could still afford a $500 console, I don't know why people are whinging about a $400 launch price.

No one is bitching about a $400 launch price. That's the top end of what I expect for any of them. We are bitching about people actively wanting $500 and over consoles just so they can get a menial tech boost. Like adoption for the PS3 and 360 wasn't slow enough, people want another generation of the same?

 

[Rebel Leader]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_shrink

The first generation PS3 used 380W. Today's PS3 uses 200W.

Have you seen this thing?

It's dramatically more powerful than the current consoles. Uses 330W and is about the same size as the launch 360. And you can be sure Sony and Microsoft will put 20x more engineering effort into their multimillion-selling consoles as Dell put into this.

I like that

 

[mugurumakensei]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_shrink

The first generation PS3 used 380W. Today's PS3 uses 200W.

Have you seen this thing?

It's dramatically more powerful than the current consoles. Uses 330W and is about the same size as the launch 360. And you can be sure Sony and Microsoft will put 20x more engineering effort into their multimillion-selling consoles as Dell put into this.

That thing is about as powerful as the likely known specs for PS4, and it's $700 for the base version...

Now, imagine what Epic wants if it considers that as too weak.

Edit: When I say about as powerful, current rumored specs have about twice the computing power of this although PS4 likely does not have 8 GB of ram in its current incarnation.

 

[Conflict NZ]

That thing is about as powerful as the likely known specs for PS4, and it's $700 for the base version...

It's made of off the shelf PC parts being put together for a premium by Dell. You could probably build one for less than $450.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

It's made of off the shelf PC parts being put together for a premium by Dell. You could probably build one for less than $450.

And fall short of running UE4.

 

[lefantome]

Nintendo infected an already ill industry with one of the biggest threat ever. Now it's paying the consequences of its move.

What's the poin in next gen if it doesn't offer a power quantum leap?
They can provide software updates and new controls systems without make us buy a new console.


The current gen is going to last at least 7 years, probably 8, how can you think about a 600$ console?
it's 7 years! the worls changed a lot from 2005. We have not gaming dedicated smartphones with the capabilities of our home consoles.

Look at the smarphone industry: the top level phone costs around 600$, one year later you can find them second hand to 300$ and new from 400$ and their effective cost is way lower than their price.

Console producers can sell a high spec console to 399$ in the first year with a small margin maybe(Nintendo is selling it's 3ds below cost), it's a fair price.

Then they can earn a lot of money in the following years because they manage to keep the console values: a 7 years old hardware with minor addiction a higly reduced production costs, cost 299$ at best buy. It's only 100$ lower than its launch price.

You don't have to buy the console on day one, you can buy it one year later if you can't afford it, but then, you will have a real next gen console.
I don't want to buy an overpriced old gen console for 250$ on day one that will be my main gaming system for the next 8 years or more.

The thing that next gen implies a huge rise of development costs is a MYTH(partially).

Play a ps2 game, everything changed since then: now the publishers are spending tons of money on motion caputure, professional actors, licensed music and expensive advertising,better artists.
Everything is more polished.

It's true that next gen requires more efforts on some sides of development but on the other side you have new professional tools, lots of middleware, procedural generation and you don't have to write your own engine like years ago.
Also you can share tech and assets with other team if you're part of a big company. Or you can buy them.

This is why now indie teams can create AAA loking games with small budgets.

 

[mclem]

I think you guys are talking about different things. Sure to get once character to respond intelligently and act smart a better set of instructions is required and pretty much any CPU can handle it fine.

If you have a screen full of guys moving in 3D space, reacting to obstacles and each other's movements, it suddenly becomes a lot more taxing for the CPU. Basically every actor casting a ray to see what's going on, plus correcting on the fly for obstacles and responses to the player and other actor's actions seems pretty CPU intensive to me.

It's only the LOS tests which are particularly harsh - and how intensive they are is dependent on your geometry complexity among other things. That said, there's ways to optimise so you don't need too much of them.

On the AI systems I've worked on, we simplified the level down to a grid of nodes that could be moved between; obstacles were trivially handled by removing that node from play. That's not terribly intensive provided you've got a good routefinding algorithm.

 

[AgentP]

More importantly, they have the money.

So $599 US dollars?

Or huge losses on each unit, pick your poison.

Frankly Epic should just make their crap work on whatever they get, they should stay out of the hardware business.

 

[Koren]

Play a ps2 game, everything changed since then: now the publishers are spending tons of money on motion caputure, professional actors, licensed music and expensive advertising,better artists.
Everything is more polished.

Except the story and the scale for JRPG? Damn, the most important thing...

 

[crazygambit]

It's only the LOS tests which are particularly harsh - and how intensive they are is dependent on your geometry complexity among other things. That said, there's ways to optimise so you don't need too much of them.

On the AI systems I've worked on, we simplified the level down to a grid of nodes that could be moved between; obstacles were trivially handled by removing that node from play. That's not terribly intensive provided you've got a good routefinding algorithm.

I was thinking more along the lines of dynamic obstacles, but more importantly each character in a large unit moving independently instead of as one big entity like I've seen in most games. Think of something like Dynasty Warriors, but with competent enemies all reacting to each other. That last part is what seems to be the most troublesome, but I could be wrong.

Still, my point is that a better CPU would actually have an impact in making AI better.

 

[WrikaWrek]

Here's my problem with the screenshots:

A very sizable portion of the consumer base that buys these consoles will see almost negligible differences between UE4 and the graphics of current-generation consoles.*

Are they an upgrade? Yes, especially to those of us tuned in to these things. But are they enough to get average Joe consumer out and buying new consoles? I don't think there is a chance in the world.

This industry is in trouble.

*Every damn generation.

Not long ago the industry was setting records, and now it's in peril.

 

[goomba]

I dont really understand why people whom want the best graphics possible and worthy of a considerably larger investment are playing consoles instead of PC's anyway.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

*Every damn generation.

Not long ago the industry was setting records, and now it's in peril.

Well we started the generation with a slow starter (360) a year later an explosive starter launched, and then fizzled out, while the entire market contracts.

Not hard to see why some are hesitant doing the same thing all over again.

 

[KageMaru]

It's only the LOS tests which are particularly harsh - and how intensive they are is dependent on your geometry complexity among other things. That said, there's ways to optimise so you don't need too much of them.

On the AI systems I've worked on, we simplified the level down to a grid of nodes that could be moved between; obstacles were trivially handled by removing that node from play. That's not terribly intensive provided you've got a good routefinding algorithm.

How would you address characters being aware and reacting to each other in something like a shooter? Read in the past that reactions to the environment, and even the player, isn't too intensive. However it becomes more demanding when different AIs need to react to each other such as in a halo game.

 

[i-Lo]

I dont really understand why people whom want the best graphics possible and worthy of a considerably larger investment are playing consoles instead of PC's anyway.

Because these people want their console exclusives to look "pwetty".

 

[Freezie KO]

$299 WiiU vs a $1000 beastly PS4urango. Let's get this generation started right.

 

[KageMaru]

I dont really understand why people whom want the best graphics possible and worthy of a considerably larger investment are playing consoles instead of PC's anyway.

No one wants the "best" graphics. We just want a good leap.

Plus they are cheaper, easier to work with, receive great support, and are more widely accepted making it easier to play with your friends.