I hope this zero scalabilty will force people into 1080p 60FPSs.
I'd expect PS4 and 720 to deliver much better results than what's currently on PC. Yes high end PC's will still have a ton more horsepower but I don't think they will be able to catch up with nextgen consoles at launch and probably for some more time. My PC is several times more powerful (and expensive) than my PS3 yet the difference you get there is no way a PS2 PS3 difference, it's the same stuff with more resolution, framerate and image quality. I expect this and something else from nextgen consoles.
I'd expect PS4 and 720 to deliver much better results than what's currently on PC. Yes high end PC's will still have a ton more horsepower but I don't think they will be able to catch up with nextgen consoles at launch and probably for some more time. My PC is several times more powerful (and expensive) than my PS3 yet the difference you get there is no way a PS2 PS3 difference, it's the same stuff with more resolution, framerate and image quality. I expect this and something else from nextgen consoles.
I hope this zero scalabilty will force people into 1080p 60FPSs.
I'd expect PS4 and 720 to deliver much better results than what's currently on PC. Yes high end PC's will still have a ton more horsepower but I don't think they will be able to catch up with nextgen consoles at launch and probably for some more time. My PC is several times more powerful (and expensive) than my PS3 yet the difference you get there is no way a PS2 PS3 difference, it's the same stuff with more resolution, framerate and image quality. I expect this and something else from nextgen consoles.
Your memory is WAY off.
The amount of geometric detail and effects (depth of field and motion blur being new) in early PS2 games far outstripped anything on the PC. High-end PS2 games also routinely delivered 60 fps. That Metal Gear Solid 2 demo released in March 2001 blew away anything on any other machine.
The ONLY advantage PCs had at the time was screen resolution.
Power Stone was more visually impressive IMO.
I just tried this shit with another 580 a few months ago. It's improved for sure but it still doesn't produce the kind of 60 fps I expect. It looked 'off' to my eyes and I yanked it out quickly. The numbers it produced were awesome, but it just didn't deliver the fluidity I wanted.
Sure they did.
The SNES and Genesis absolutely smoked the PC when it came to tile based 2D games. Those systems could render loads of parallax layers and plenty of sprites at a smooth 60 fps back then. PC platformers from that era (right up until 1994 and 1995) struggled to deliver performance that fast as a result of how PCs handled 2D content. This is also why some systems (like the 3DO) failed to match those older consoles at 2d performance.
Now, the PC obviously had more memory and better processors capable of delivering things like Doom but they were massively outclassed when it came to high performance 2D.
When PSX and Saturn came around I would argue they were also quite superior. They too could deliver perfect 2D visuals but, more importantly, they were able to push polygons around at a smooth framerate. A lot of PSX to PC ports required very high-end PCs at the time and even then often suffered. This was all before 3D cards, of course.
Then we had Nintendo 64 which introduced actual texture filtering and other features common to 3D cards. When N64 first launched, there wasn't anything on the PC that could match it. That changed pretty quickly, though, when 3DFX took off (earlier 3D cards were much slower outside of, perhaps, the Rendition cards). PCs caught up quickly during this generation but consoles definitely lead the way.
The PS2 generation is where things really flipped in favor of consoles for quite a while. It wasn't until 2003 or so that PCs finally started to exceed consoles again.
With 360 and PS3 I'd say they weren't too far ahead of PCs at time of launch and were surpassed quickly. That'll probably happen again this time around.
Yeah, I don't expect people will be pushing 60 fps at higher than 1080p resolution with SGSSAA with UE4 titles.
What will make it seem as if consoles have an advantage is the change in the way games are developed. As it stands, most games are still targeted for PS3/360 and so the PC has little difficulty delivering smoother, cleaner versions of those games. If the game development fundamentally changes and targets a new hardware spec things will change.
You need hardware that buttfucks consoles several times over to run PC ports decently. So, good luck with that. I foresee people with 680s crying when PS4 ports arrive.
That's mostly because console-focused development has resulted in PC ports that don't tax the system at all. There are maybe like five games that on PC begin to tax current mid or high-range systems, and all of them look vastly superior to console games in my opinion. This is assuming we'll even get a PS2-to-PS3 difference at launch next gen. If we start seeing stuff like Samaritan or Agni (which already run on current high-end PCs) right at launch I'll be thoroughly impressed. If we just get games that look like the PC versions of The Witcher 2 or Medal of Honor Warfighter on max settings I'll be satisfied.
In an alternate universe I can envision consoles releasing 2013 having a 1080p minimum res across the board. Sadly there isn't a single scenario where I can see 60 fps being the standard for console games. Sadly.
The consoles will be vastly inferior, technically, but don't be surprised if the early games get no PC release, or the ones that do run like crap on top of the range gear that smokes the consoles on paper.
Hmmm, gonna have to do some digging and check release dates, but I honestly don't remember thinking SNES or PlayStation games being ahead of what my PC was running at the time.
If anyone is expecting the Xbox 3 and PlayStation 4 to have "vastly better graphics than PC games", they're deluding themselves. It's going to be roughly on par with the best graphics PC games currently offer, and no further.
$ per performance, it's possible.
If anyone is expecting the Xbox 3 and PlayStation 4 to have "vastly better graphics than PC games", they're deluding themselves. It's going to be roughly on par with the best graphics PC games currently offer, and no further.
This isn't true for a properly optimized port..
Is this you guy's first rodeo?
Consoles will be better at first but it won't take long for the average PC to open back up.
I thought it was the software we were interested in? A quad 780 setup will certainly be more powerful than anything in the consoles but if the games aren't up to snuff then it doesn't matter how much blood we're trying to squeeze out of the stone.
PC was further behind. Even the 2D Arcades (Especially from Konami) were crushing the PC.
Again, it's different.Hmmm, gonna have to do some digging and check release dates, but I honestly don't remember thinking SNES or PlayStation games being ahead of what my PC was running at the time.
So many clueless people in this thread, I'm not gonna pick on individuals but jeez.
The ONLY way the new consoles (PS4 and X720) will 'surpass' the majority of modern gaming PC's (I'm talking about the $500-700 range) is if the manufacturers choose to spend that kind of money on each unit and price them accordingly. With the rate at which video card and CPU improvements are coming along, it's simply not possible for any console that'll be on the market for less than $600 to even match (yes, match) the current graphical fidelity available on PC's. Keeping that in mind too, any 'up to date' console released will become second-rate in a few months.
The power of PC's is essentially infinite as in the end, it's down to your wallet. You could pay $2000 and get near-CG quality graphics, but I like the majority have spent around a third/half of that, and achieve a level of fidelity that far surpasses the best-looking console games. Yeah, games like Halo 4 are impressive, but 720p at 30fps? Come on. I'm definitely getting one of the new consoles anyway, but that's for the exclusives, not the graphics.
Even so, a solid PC will squeeze out more FPS and assuming they have higher textures, higher textures as well as better resolution.
Just as an example, Dark Souls was designed to be on par with consoles but PC users unlocked the fr and added custom resolution which makes the game look LIGHTYEARS better.
You need hardware that buttfucks consoles several times over to run PC ports decently. So, good luck with that. I foresee people with 680s crying when PS4 ports arrive.
I agree on that and I understand as games begin being developed with nextgen consoles in mind PC will benefit from it. But still, I look at the top of the line console games releasing today and I can only imagine what will be possible with new hardware and developers being able to squeeze that closed architecture.
But that goes without saying and the statement itself is rather redundant... Of course an optimized port will require less beefy hardware but the majority of the latest batch of multiplatform games have had less than desirable performance on high end pc hardware.
It's Unreal Engine 3. When this generation began and the first UE3 games hit the PC it took some decent muscle to pull off smooth framerates. Now that the engine has been around for so long it's no surprise that the requirements remain low.Not when Mass Effect 3 still lists a 9600GT under "recommended specs."
It's Unreal Engine 3. When this generation began and the first UE3 games hit the PC it took some decent muscle to pull off smooth framerates. Now that the engine has been around for so long it's no surprise that the requirements remain low.
When NEW engines are used (such as UE4) those requirements will be much higher on the PC side. That's what he's talking about.
Right, but I expect you will need quite a powerful PC to play the game and most likely won't be able to max out at 60 fps with SGSSAA and such.Epic is already developping their first UE4 game for PC, so i kind of doubt consoles will have much of an advantage in regards of optimisation.
It's so weird to see this kind of statement. You're likely correct on the matter, but it's weird as consoles have *ALWAYS* outclassed PCs at launch. This will be the first time that does not happen.There is no way consoles will ever outclass PCs.
I think the elite console games will surpass PC's on that front this next generation. The main thing that PC's always had over consoles was 1080p (or higher) and better AA, both those advantages are likely to get wiped out. In all honestly, more than 1080p at normal viewing distances just isn't necessary unless you have some crazy sized or multi screen set up, which most don't.
Are we really thinking the next consoles won't hit 1080p? I'm not stupid (enough) to assume they'll even nearly hit 60fps (doubt they'll even try) but if they can't do 1080p this time, that's a real deal breaker. I bought a 1080p tv 3-4 years ago now, I don't need a new piece of hardware next year that doesn't meet that resolution.
I'm not sure how I feel about that. Resolution is low on the list of things that display manufacturers need to work on. Once we get proper OLED TVs up and running then they can worry about 4k resolution. A 4k LCD is a completely unattractive idea to me. A waste of money, if you will.And both 1080p and AA will go out the window a few years into the generation if the current is any indication.
Right, but I expect you will need quite a powerful PC to play the game and most likely won't be able to max out at 60 fps with SGSSAA and such.
It's Unreal Engine 3. When this generation began and the first UE3 games hit the PC it took some decent muscle to pull off smooth framerates. Now that the engine has been around for so long it's no surprise that the requirements remain low.
When NEW engines are used (such as UE4) those requirements will be much higher on the PC side. That's what he's talking about.
Right, but I expect you will need quite a powerful PC to play the game and most likely won't be able to max out at 60 fps with SGSSAA and such.
.
Are we really thinking the next consoles won't hit 1080p? I'm not stupid (enough) to assume they'll even nearly hit 60fps (doubt they'll even try) but if they can't do 1080p this time, that's a real deal breaker. I bought a 1080p tv 3-4 years ago now, I don't need a new piece of hardware next year that doesn't meet that resolution.