Support NeoGAF

[jakncoke]

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



Along with this, the entirety of THQ will be closed soon.

With nex-gen right around I wonder how many more that are barely hanging on will close up.

 

[PhatSaqs]

I feel wanting and requiring bigger/stronger/faster is what will kill consoles in the end. As a gamer I understand the want and need for it and would/will absolutely love to see crazy ass graphical masterpieces on my HD screen. But at what cost do we get this? Not cost as in dollars but cost as in overall enjoyment and variety overall within the hobby. The decline is already happening IMO. Could be i'm just getting older but I dont think so....sigh.

 

[Vanillalite]

Bigger issue is I personally think you can create a box for $400 with specs that won't blow everyone who's a tech guru away, but in terms of pure numbers is NOT a marginal upgrade. Hell going from the current ATI chip in the 360 to the rumored 4000 series chip in the Wii-U is NOT a marginal upgrade from a raw theoretical numbers game.

Problem is we are at a point where the changes that need to be done to get that "wow" factor graphically back are exponentially higher verses just being a sizable raw numbers jump. Sizable raw numbers jump will do wonders for games, but it won't give you a PS2 --> PS3 like visual leap at a glance.

That being said from a pure raw numbers standpoint there isn't any reason we can't get a cheaperish box that clearly outclasses the current systems. They just might not be wow factor boxes capable of running UE4 aka what Epic is pushing.

 

[mclem]

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.

First system I owned was in '87, although I'd still play in arcades and on the family console (a Rowtron!) from earlier than that, maybe '84 or so.

 

[j0hnny_385]

this is fucking depressing and I don't think Tim or Cliff are lying. I serioulsy think next-gen won't be all that "next-gen". It's a different climate now. back in '05 area the economy was good (at least on a first glance, now we all know that was a farce) and X360 and PS3 truly were revolutionary and next gen.
Now? Budgets are huge, costs high, etc. and you seriously think we'll get a 4-8GB RAM with 2GB VRAM and some 16-core CPU in NextBox or PS4? Oh god I wish but this news just proves that MS and Sony are in trouble in regards to next-gen and how "next gen" will that hardware be, not to mention it's "future proof" value.
FUCK, I feel both thrilled and depressed right now. Thrilled because of what UE4 can do, depress that we might not get the right hardware for it.
And to think some people wanted next-gen to launch this year? Oh god the ignorance...

 

[Thunder Monkey]

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).

The last GT game you played was made at best on 2005 hardware. I don't care if they only put a single midrange 2012 GPU in the thing, the visuals will be better. But even if they put in a quad GPU solution you aren't going to see that drastic of a difference. Lighting maybe. Since that's the one area that GPU tech is making leaps and bounds on.

 

[Erethian]

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.

Well yeah, and I know ever publisher would love it if Sony, Microsoft, and even Nintendo released the real powerful systems at a mass market price by taking a huge loss on each unit sold; one only needs to go back to when Activision was telling Sony every other week to drop the price on the PS3.

But I think we all know that the platform holders aren't altruistic entities. At the end of the day Microsoft wants to start making a reasonable return on the billions they've put into the Xbox division since day one, and Sony isn't exactly in a position to have another PS3 scenario. Nintendo kind of has to sell at a profit at, or close to, launch, albeit for different (though obvious) reasons.

 

[KageMaru]

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.

This really can't be reposted enough. It's spot on to how people are mistaken when they say we should cap how high the hardware goes.

 

[Ahasverus]

Hey guys, have you seen this? First images from UNREAL ENGINE 4
http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2012/05/ff_unreal4/

My mind is NOT blown

 

[Effect]

What about devs that don't want to make small games? The bar will be raised so high they can't possibly compete. Let's just completely kill off the rest of the mid tier developers while we're at it. They just want everyone to have to buy their engine to compete.

Exactly. This is about Epic wanting everyone to have to buy their engine. They don't give a damn about how much the console will have to cost after Sony and Microsoft have to R&D it and then manufacture it. This is actually a positive I feel if the Wii U can't run UE4. Nintendo is smart of enough to do what it is in the best interest for them as a business. That means providing a console that is actually affordable enough for customers to actually buy in significant numbers and that will not cause their development budgets to ballon. Nintendo being a software and hardware company is a positive. Epic is a software only and doesn't have to worry about this.

I just hope one of the other two are smart and tell Epic to jump off a cliff for the industry sake. Hopefully it's Sony. I don't believe Sony is at all in any position to even attempt to sell a $600 or even close to that console again.

 

[Twenty7KVN]

I feel wanting and requiring bigger/stronger/faster is what will kill consoles in the end. As a gamer I understand the want and need for it and would/will absolutely love to see crazy ass graphical masterpieces on my HD screen. But at what cost do we get this? Not cost as in dollars but cost as in overall enjoyment and variety overall within the hobby. The decline is already happening IMO. Could be i'm just getting older but I dont think so....sigh.

Cost in dollars is the number one reason for me.Devs no matter the engines can make fun games,but if the price is to high the i'm out.I got better things to do with the money i have.

 

[John Harker]

I really hope they lose. A 'quantum leap' in console 'power' will put so many developers out of business, we're looking at 1, maybe 2 consolidated Japenese firms and EA and Activision. And they'll buy studios and convert them to social connected and mobile devices that have higher revenue growth, while only releasing a handful of very large franchise titles which will make insane amounts of money. What a barren console future we're looking at.

Processing power bad. Connectivity and services good. Entertainment and service-based industry is the future. Save us from ourselves.

 

[gofreak]

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.

Yep, and I agree, as I said in my first post that's a constraint they need to balance.

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.

And this is a problem because...?

There are a lot of games on the 'blockbuster' end that had a lot of money spent on them that deliver spectacular production values wrapped around great games.

If I come along and want to compete here but could not - because I didn't have big original ideas or couldn't match the experience being offered by others - I don't think it would be right for me to appeal to platform holders to handicap other pubs that can do those things. Why should I expect that?

And why would you, as a consumer, want that? Why would you want all pubs limited so that middling publisher #234 can still sell you games at $60?

This is competition. If that pub cannot find ways to compete (and IMO there are more ways to compete here than just reducing price or whatever), then why should we smooth the output of all devs into one middle-ground of mediocrity?

And I'm not sure I'm going to feel too sorry for those pubs. There are many opportunities now for the non-blockbuster developer. Distribution and promotion avenues are being totally revolutionised. And I for one would like those devs to have better boxes to work with because on a shoe string budget, you can lean on better hardware more for 'freebie' improvements to your game.

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?

I mean publishers here, publishers figure out a budget and then do their best on that budget. If there are budget increases it's because someone thinks they can get a return on it. If no one is getting a return on those budgets they'll reduce. The market will provide the feedback pubs need here, and I for one don't think they're stupid enough not to adjust if they go too far. If they are, other companies that aren't so stupid will take their place and you'll have a revised 'high end'.

 

[muu]

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

Why not? It goes to show that at this point, artistic direction and budget is far more important than what an engine can pull off.

People talk about how awesome Samaritan is, how it's a glimpse at the next-gen and is the reason we need so much power -- but for some reason they never gave us an example of 'how it would look on current-gen hardware.' There's gonna be some effects that'll be hard to produce, but I'm willing to bet it's possible to put out something that's very close. Minor loss of fidelity will probably be trumped by camera work and general badassery that was presented. Epic doesn't want to do that because, of course, they want people to think "this is only possible if we move to better hardware." They're facing an issue similar to PC manufacturers (no one needs anything more powerful than a C2D for day-to-day computing tasks. Hell, the P4 works just fine in most cases still), and they're trying to cover up their case the best that they can.

 

[Twenty7KVN]

Hey guys, have you seen this? First images from UE4
http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2012/05/ff_unreal4/

My mind is NOT blown

Thread http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=474483 But yea i'm not that impressed either i'll hold of on my final judgment until i see it in motion.

 

[Foffy]

Well, their self-interest is likely to prove extremely damaging to the very industry they need to sell their fancy new engine to - both with respect to escalating budgets and with respect to higher console launch prices slowing adoption of the very hardware that will run their engine - so it seems pretty myopic on their part.

This is why Iwata directed Nintendo as a company to get out of the arms race of graphics and power. In fact, even before the Wii came out, he talked about the dangers and potential damage it can cause and it's amusing to see Epic as a company running with the exact ideals that Iwata has voiced against. And I for one think Iwata has a point: the costs of developing games today as is are pretty fucking high, and some here would even say the costs of the games at retail aren't even worth the quality of the product we get anymore considering the practices these companies are making to ensure they get returned income. Couple that with Japan being by and large unable to manage the cost boost from last gen to this one, which is why many of the bigger Japanese companies have more games on portables than on consoles. This race to the high end will only leave a smaller pool of studios able to produce products, and even more of this shit we as gamers hate from companies. I mean, we already praise the few companies not bucking the trends in the industry today, but I promise you if the next generation is all about power, there will be an even smaller number of those defiant to additional revenue streams with online passes, pre-order content, and on-disc DLC. They'll have to guarantee a return, so they'll have to take more channels to get that.

And of course, as some have said, Epic has an engine to sell. It's in their best interest to have very powerful machines, as it will cost companies less to simply use their engine compared to making an all new one.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

I really hope they lose. A 'quantum leap' in console 'power' will put so many developers out of business, we're looking at 1, maybe 2 consolidated Japenese firms and EA and Activision. And they'll buy studios and convert them to social connected and mobile devices that have higher revenue growth, while only releasing a handful of very large franchise titles which will make insane amounts of money. What a barren console future we're looking at.

Processing power bad. Connectivity and services good. Entertainment and service-based industry is the future. Save us from ourselves.

Please good GOD!

Save us from ourselves.

 

[UraMallas]

Epic isn't the dev next-gen wants, it's the dev next-gen needs.

 

[walking fiend]

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.

Yeah, just like every Japanese developer with installed based of their games on PS2 suddenly found it quite easy to develop for PS3 and utilize it; not to mention how every PS2 owner quickly moved on to the cheap PS3 and PS3 built a strong installed based.

 

[digita1alchemy]

It needs to be a quantum leap. 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.

Oh shut the fuck up already.

 

[sublimit]

I don't really care how much powerful next gen will be since i'm sure the publishers will not be interested to significantly raise their budgets in order to take full advantage of the hardware's power.

 

[lucius]

I like that Epic is pushing them to release better systems, I am all for more ram and Epic deserves all the success they have for pretty much making the goto engine but going forward I wish somone else made a decent engine just because I think right now Epic has to much power. At first I was against Silicon Knights lawsuit but the more facts that got out I kind of hope Epic loses and pays them something.

 

[Ponn]

I feel wanting and requiring bigger/stronger/faster is what will kill consoles in the end. As a gamer I understand the want and need for it and would/will absolutely love to see crazy ass graphical masterpieces on my HD screen. But at what cost do we get this? Not cost as in dollars but cost as in overall enjoyment and variety overall within the hobby. The decline is already happening IMO. Could be i'm just getting older but I dont think so....sigh.

Come on, JOIN TEAM INDUSTRY BURN AND CRASH!!

It is the only answer. It's going to be $599 PS3 all over again, difference being all the consoles (perhaps minus Wii-U, maybe, that tablet has to cost though) and an economy in the shitter. When the consoles aren't moving, developers can't afford to put out games and those that can have insane development times i'm just wondering what the excuse will be.

 

[FyreWulff]

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.

There's being cheap with a hardware refresh, being practical with a hardware refresh, and overengineering a hardware refresh.

Nobody is saying to cap the next generation at 360 levels. People want the next consoles to make the 'practical' jump in ability, so the consoles aren't $texas to buy and nobody ends up buying them, mooting the point of all the hardware sitting there.

Developers can make awesome games on a practical jump, but it'd be silly to just jump way too much just to please Epic for Unreal, who wants to get everyone off their UE3 license and onto a UE4 license. Previously, middleware developers made middleware for the hardware that existed, not the hardware they wanted. If Epic wants to pump the requirements up beyond where Sony and MS want to play ball, then it's Epic's problem and a middleware competitor will step in and provide a solution or engine that still provides a leap in graphics improvement.

 

[george_us]

If graphics don't get a huge improvement in the next gen consoles, then what the fuck is the point of making them? We may as well stay with our current gen until Sony and MS find it economically viable to make consoles with vastly improved graphics.

Why are there people in this thread actively rooting for a new gen with marginal graphical improvement?

You got me. If it's all the same to me, I'd rather Sony and MS wait a couple more years then pump out beast consoles when it's feasible to do so.

 

[FunnyBunny]

Bigger issue is I personally think you can create a box for $400 with specs that won't blow everyone who's a tech guru away, but in terms of pure numbers is NOT a marginal upgrade.

I agree with this.

The XBOX 360 is seven years old. A new XBOX manufactured with mid-range parts in 2012 or 2013 will be much more powerful. Games will look much better.

I also don't know what some people here want. The UE4 thread is filled with posts of "not impressed" or "meh." If that demo leaves people unimpressed, I'm not sure what will get the job done.

 

[Basch]

I'm always happy with more power, but... how expensive are these things going to be? And if another RROD situation happens because of this, I'll be pissed.

 

[Haunted]

I love you, Tim Sweeney.


I mean, it's pretty shameless how they're positioning themselves as the saviours of the core here (lol), but I can't help but support them. Pressure the shit out of those manufacturers who just want to phone it in. Looking at the general apathy new PS360 game reveals have brought in the last year or so, they absolutely need every bit of prowess they can muster to get people excited for the next generation again.

 

[Twenty7KVN]

I like that Epic is pushing them to release better systems, I am all for more ram and Epic deserves all the success they have for pretty much making the goto engine but going forward I wish somone else made a decent engine just because I think right now Epic has to much power. At first I was against Silicon Knights lawsuit but the more facts that got out I kind of hope Epic loses and pays them something.

Crytek makes a very good engine.Have been for years now.

 

[gofreak]

Yeah, just like every Japanese developer with installed based of their games on PS2 suddenly found it quite easy to develop for PS3 and utilize it

That's just a terrible shame - for those publishers. If other companies are making it work and you aren't, then the problem isn't them, or the hardware, or the market.

If no companies are making it work, there'll be a readjustment independent of the capability of the hardware on the market.

I know this sounds terribly ruthless, but competition is ruthless.

A platform holder can't spec their machine with the concern that Averagesoft won't be able to sell their wares at $60 anymore because Awesomesoft will find a way to make better products at the same pricepoint thanks to that hardware...

not to mention how every PS2 owner quickly moved on to the cheap PS3 and PS3 built a strong installed based.

...but they should spec it in a way that keeps the cost reasonable enough to attract a good market. Sure. I agree. But that should be the constraint. Not competition. Software competition will sort itself out.

 

[op_ivy]

They want to drive specs up so the higher end game releases look better so the market's expectations for visuals are raised so less rich developers are forced to buy a new engine license to compete rather than just relying on UE3 so they turn to the successor to the engine they're familiar with, and therefore help Epic make loads of money.

Same reason Crytek want ridiculously powerful consoles.

i think thats obviously part of their motivation, but i also think its in the console businesses best interest to do it as well so their is a big tech gap and experience gap between gaming on phones/tablets vs. consoles/pc.

 

[knitoe]

Microsoft and Sony's next console will be priced at $299 / 399, but that doesn't mean that's what the hardware will cost. Depending on how powerful the consoles are, it will determine how much of a lost they take on each on sold.

As a consumer, make it happen Epic. Get us powerful consoles. The higher lost on each console the better for us.

 

[1-D_FTW]

There's being cheap with a hardware refresh, being practical with a hardware refresh, and overengineering a hardware refresh.

Nobody is saying to cap the next generation at 360 levels. People want the next consoles to make the 'practical' jump in ability, so the consoles aren't $texas to buy and nobody ends up buying them, mooting the point of all the hardware sitting there.

Developers can make awesome games on a practical jump, but it'd be silly to just jump way too much just to please Epic for Unreal, who wants to get everyone off their UE3 license and onto a UE4 license. Previously, middleware developers made middleware for the hardware that existed, not the hardware they wanted. If Epic wants to pump the requirements up beyond where Sony and MS want to play ball, then it's Epic's problem and a middleware competitor will step in and provide a solution or engine that still provides a leap in graphics improvement.

It's everyone's problem if in two years, consoles aren't any better than ipad 5 and iTV. Apple is going to own the media convergence devices. That fight is over. If MS and Sony can't show (visually) why their games are "superior", the 60 dollar game is dead.

 

[RoboPlato]

"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."

Jesus Christ at this quote. I want powerful next-gen systems but usig Avatar as a metric of quality when it has to be interactive and rendered in real time is absolutely stupid.

 

[Metalmurphy]

I'm surprised someone as bright as Tim Sweeney is saying this. Rendering near avatar in real time is like 2 or 3 generations away, let alone the next one. oO

I guess it's possible, if MS and Sony empty their banks, team up, and release a $2000 console.

 

[joeygreco1985]

This.

The level of graphics being put out in something like Uncharted is perfectly fine - just give people the ability to put more bodies on screen and some more interaction with the environment and we're good.

I do not need 'Avatar in real-time'.

This is the same crap people were saying when the Wii was unveiled. You say it now but 3 years down the road you won't.

 

[Eteric Rice]

They want to drive specs up so the higher end game releases look better so the market's expectations for visuals are raised so less rich developers are forced to buy a new engine license to compete rather than just relying on UE3 so they turn to the successor to the engine they're familiar with, and therefore help Epic make loads of money.

Same reason Crytek want ridiculously powerful consoles.

Basically this.

Honestly don't want any more companies going out of business. I'm all for a nice juicy boost in specs, but they don't have to be bleeding edge. We can be reasonable here.

 

[joeygreco1985]

They're not gonna sell $500 hardware for $299/$399.

If they subsidize it with a plan similar to Microsoft's $99 Xbox bundle + subscription then yes, they can.

 

[lucius]

Crytek makes a very good engine.Have been for years now.

Do many console games use it? Just wondering because it seems like almost every other console game I boot up I see the unreal logo, I really like the console ports of Crysis and Crysis 2 on 360.

 

[Basch]

I'm surprised someone as bright as Tim Sweeney is saying this. Rendering near avatar in real time is like 2 or 3 generations away, let alone the next one. oO

I guess it's possible, if MS and Sony empty their banks, team up, and release a $2000 console.

One console future is the future.

 

[Pureauthor]

And this is a problem because...?

There are a lot of games on the 'blockbuster' end that had a lot of money spent on them that deliver spectacular production values wrapped around great games.

If I come along and want to compete here but could not - because I didn't have big original ideas or couldn't match the experience being offered by others - I don't think it would be right for me to appeal to platform holders to handicap other pubs that can do those things. Why should I expect that?

And why would you, as a consumer, want that? Why would you want all pubs limited so that middling publisher #234 can still sell you games at $60?

This is competition. If that pub cannot find ways to compete (and IMO there are more ways to compete here than just reducing price or whatever), then why should we smooth the output of all devs into one middle-ground of mediocrity?

And I'm not sure I'm going to feel too sorry for those pubs. There are many opportunities now for the non-blockbuster developer. Distribution and promotion avenues are being totally revolutionised. And I for one would like those devs to have better boxes to work with because on a shoe string budget, you can lean on better hardware more for 'freebie' improvements to your game.

I consider it a problem because on the most fundamental level there is absolutely no reason to make powerful hardware that breaks the bank in the process and segregates the market to such a ridiculous extent.

But it happened this generation anyway. And the current market situation is pure shit. Claiming 'competition will weed out those who cannot compete' is true, but it's gone to the level where even the biggest of the big like EA have trouble keeping up. And frankly I think it'll be less painful for everyone involved in the necessary changes happened before everything hits a totally unsustainable level.

I mean publishers here, publishers figure out a budget and then do their best on that budget. If there are budget increases it's because someone thinks they can get a return on it. If no one is getting a return on those budgets they'll reduce. The market will provide the feedback pubs need here, and I for one don't think they're stupid enough not to adjust if they go too far. If they are, other companies that aren't so stupid will take their place and you'll have a revised 'high end'.

Well, my point stands. Almost no one responsibly planned budgets out this generation, software and hardware creators alike. (Except the usual suspect.)

 

[JB1981]

I'm surprised someone as bright as Tim Sweeney is saying this. Rendering near avatar in real time is like 2 or 3 generations away, let alone the next one. oO

I guess it's possible, if MS and Sony empty their banks, team up, and release a $2000 console.

that was cliffy

 

[params7]

Sweeney's probably trying to rally up console fans with that Avatar quote. But any pressure put on Sony/MS will be good for gamers in the end.

 

[Metalmurphy]

that was cliffy

Oh, miss read it then. Now THAT makes alot more sense lol

 

[sublimit]

I guess it's possible, if MS and Sony empty their banks, team up, and release a $2000 console.

Even if that happened no publisher would have been crazy enough to spend $200.000.000 for a game's budget.So all that tech-power would went to waste either way.

 

[tkscz]

If MS and Sony accept, expect a shit ton of Japanese, mid and low tier devs to jump to Wii U. There is no way they can pay or even would bother paying for UE4. Most Japanese devs, have their own engine. Capcom are so skilled at using the MT Network, that they were able to port it to the fucking 3DS.

Crytek is starting to learn how to make their engine very powerful on weaker hardware. Hell, their SDK is free for PCs and even the DX11 engine doesn't require a GTX 680 to run. I also doubt they'd charge as much as Epic would for UE4 and that every next gen console, yes including the Wii U, will be able to run that. Serious, look at the Cryengine 3.4 tech demo. It's fucking amazing looking.

All I see from Epic is greed over caring for the industry. They want to sell their new engine, to do that, the console would need to run it at a level where people would want it. But honestly, Samaritan just may have been their down fall for that.

 

[knitoe]

They're not gonna sell $500 hardware for $299/$399.

Consoles, like X360 and PS3, are generally first sold at a loss. Only Nintendo sales their weak hardware at near cost or with a profit.

 

[witness]

God bless epic.

 

[krypt0nian]

Fight the good fight, EPIC. You have my sword AND my fucking axe!

 

[Forceatowulf]

Are Avatar graphics going to be the new Toy Story graphics for next gen?