"Cleaning the IQ up to absolute perfection" alone requires a huge leap over the current consoles. And that's keeping everything else exactly the same.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Epic knows PS4/NEXTXBOX specs - [Giving recommendations w/ commercial mindedness]
- Thread starter mocoworm
- Start date
Man-is-Obsolete
Member
I'll take shorter dev cycles, more games, more niche genres, and more developers than having more realistic graphics.
Angry Fork
Member
Because they're more concerned with how much money the company makes then their own interests.
I really don't get it at all. If it's about cost then just stick with what you have. Either go hard or go home. New consoles are going to be expensive that's just the way it is.
I want both, which is possible with higher end tech.
I have a gaming PC but I keep PS3 for it's exclusives. I would like a huge tech oriented PS4 for it's exclusives too.
mugurumakensei
Member
It doesn't require a "quantum leap" though.
Do you really want a $600-800 console? That's what a quantum leap will cost at minimum.
Oh god, stop with this bullshit please. Game wont cost that much more to produce and indie isnt going anywhere.
BTW thats indie too that is being made by couple of guys
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLd8kEQJIzw
What about devs that don't want to make small games? The bar will be raised so high they can't possibly compete. Let's just completely kill off the rest of the mid tier developers while we're at it. They just want everyone to have to buy their engine to compete.
You'll get yearly CoD installments, THE BEST GRAFICS, no niche genres, and more great devs biting the dust in the name of AAA blockbusters. Are you fucking pumped for this shit?
None of the things you mention is inherently negatively impacted by more powerful hardware. PC has more developers, more games, more niche genres and the most powerful hardware.
Epic is stupid. If they make consoles that gives graphics near Avatar levels, how expensive and huge are these consoles going to be? 2x the size of a Xbox for 1000$? How long are games going to take to develop? How much money will developpers have to spend to make a game?
Wouldn't be the first time a company failed to take a long-term view. Though they seem aware enough to be diversifying their product support so they've got an escape route, as it were, if everything goes tits up.
Just having most games play at 1080P at a solid 60 fps (Hell let's be real here, even a solid 30 fps) would be a quantum leap. I could see Microsoft putting more muscle into their machine but after the PS3 I don't see sony doing anything besides pulling a 'Wii' this next time around.
walking fiend
Member
Apparently Wii U doesn't support UE4, and if any of the remaining one doesn't, it means their lobbying have failed; they will have to dumb down the engine to make the games portable to the other too
So it should be both
Thunder Monkey
Banned
All of it is a gamble. But at least my way isn't forcing consoles along a completely unsustainable trail. Today they can't compete with top end PC's. You aren't going to be able to fit quad GPU designs into a console. Until you can fit such tech into a console, at the same energy usage of a PC, with a similar case size, we will never have consoles that can compete.
They will always be based on moderate parts, with moderate energy and heat usage.
I'm trying to get consoles away from a losing battle before they price themselves out of the market completely. The markets price of entry for a console doesn't seem to be over $399. PS3's had incredibly slow growth in America until they'd dropped to that barrier.
Consoles can't compete, and this past time they tried we saw incredibly slow market adoption. Either the market is going to have to change and accept $399 and over consoles, or we are going to have to change our perception of a generational change.
Small games = small budgets? I don't know that I agree with that statement. And, besides, it's moot. It's already happened. This is about making sure the premium companies like Epic, Activision, EA still have hardware that can dazzle consumers enough to get them to continue parting with their 60 dollars. It's basically an effort to keep the 60 dollar AAA tier from suffering the same fate as the middle tier on consoles.
mugurumakensei
Member
Yea, they will. It's gone up exponentially every gen (much more so this gen).
Saying it won't cost much more to produce ignores the reality of the console gaming market.
Barrel Cannon
Member
I am not satisfied by the quality of visuals on console games these days. Art direction has been amazing in many of the big blockbuster games but I/Q(resolution & anti-aliasing) and shadows have been so bad in so many console games that it makes me want to barf. I'm tired of playing games like that and if we don't get a major boost we are still going to have those same problems. Compromise after compromise is what we get and with such a low bar set even with a beastly PC you aren't always able to clean up the image of a console port to a good I/Q level.
I feel that many of the people who wish for cheaper specs won't even buy the console within the first year or until they drop in price. I'm actually going to go out and buy the console launch day but I don't want it to be a mild upgrade. That's not going to justify me spending 499.99+tax or 699.99+tax at launch.
I feel that many of the people who wish for cheaper specs won't even buy the console within the first year or until they drop in price. I'm actually going to go out and buy the console launch day but I don't want it to be a mild upgrade. That's not going to justify me spending 499.99+tax or 699.99+tax at launch.
Ninja Moomin
Banned
An engine guy will always ask for more power... and a hardware maker will always want less cost.
... what was the point of this thread again?
Oh yeah, EPIC's PR team are doing an amazing job of positioning them as the 'champion' of real next gen gaming.
... what was the point of this thread again?
Oh yeah, EPIC's PR team are doing an amazing job of positioning them as the 'champion' of real next gen gaming.
What if they're more concerned about a company's continuing existence so they will still be around to make games? Wouldn't that be in the best interests of a gamer?
Someone needs to get a hold of higher res versions of those UE4 screens.
UE4:
even though its slightly blurred, that looks real unimpressive
EternalGamer
Banned
Here is the thing though, no matter what the initial cost, the tech will become cheap within a couple of years. That is why it is a good idea to invest in the better hardware.
I think what will happen with MS anyway is that they will offer as subscription model to an improved version of Xbox Live (TV channels etc) that will subsidize the console price.
So you'll pay maybe $199 or $299 and buy a 2 year subscription plan.
There will of course be an option to buy it outright but it will be the minority. Just like there are a billion Iphones out there but almost nobody buys it outright. Everybody buys a contract plan instead. Same thing will happen with the next consoles.
That is the smart way for them to have their cake and eat it too.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
Then the console market is dead.
They can't compete with top-end tech by their very design. The only thing they can hope for is software and services making them an integral part of the mass markets entertainment plans.
Too powerful hardware can stifle consumer uptake on hardware and result in developers and publishers having to squeeze more money out of each consumer, though.
Microsoft and Sony, in the current climate, should be targetting $350 hardware as a maximum, honestly. Then it's up to them how much money they can afford to lose on each unit sold, and choose their specs around that.
abacab driver
Banned
Correct.
Thats always been the most disturbing difference between "console" game developers and "PC" game developers to me. Now that their so close its bleeding over. What happened to being smarter about your developing and programming, being more creative and getting every last ounce of juice out of the machine. There is a reason why at the end of the consoles life games look better then launch games. Yet instead of enjoying them or letting us enjoy them they want to skip right into the next console.
Then theres the lazy developers, lets make everything bloated and just whine we need 8 gigs of ram and the newest tech to hide our lazy programming. In the end the consumers paying for that and only a handful of these developers are using all that tech, or in the case of next gen able to afford to use it. These companies have piss poor track records of thinking about the future or their actions.
There's already a market for the hardware dependent lazy programming, its the PC. You get all your FPS and the best graphics to your heart content without having to worry about constraints. Console gaming should stay a separate ecosystem.
Then theres the lazy developers, lets make everything bloated and just whine we need 8 gigs of ram and the newest tech to hide our lazy programming. In the end the consumers paying for that and only a handful of these developers are using all that tech, or in the case of next gen able to afford to use it. These companies have piss poor track records of thinking about the future or their actions.
There's already a market for the hardware dependent lazy programming, its the PC. You get all your FPS and the best graphics to your heart content without having to worry about constraints. Console gaming should stay a separate ecosystem.
Good Job Bob
Member
Wow, I'm shocked at their being such a large portion of GAF who don't want this.
Wow.
Wow.
I sort of understand Epic's point, and it makes me worried about what we'll get, and hopeful that perhaps one of the console makers might go for it to look for a competitive advantage.
But so much of that quote reads like they have an overblown sense of entitlement and self-image
But so much of that quote reads like they have an overblown sense of entitlement and self-image
I am actually happy to hear that Epic is disappointed with "next-gen" tech. If Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo want more profit and be competitive to not only each other but also Apple and Google, they need to release consoles at a lower price point especially at launch.
It's always fun to see how far graphics can go but that's what a PC is for. The big three are companies need to go with economical flow, and from the sounds of it, that's exactly what they will be doing next gen, at least that's what I hope.
It's always fun to see how far graphics can go but that's what a PC is for. The big three are companies need to go with economical flow, and from the sounds of it, that's exactly what they will be doing next gen, at least that's what I hope.
shinobi602
Member
To get "big leaps" over current gen, you can't expect a cheap system. It's naive to want big leaps, but not fork out the cash for it. If all the talk is true, that MS and Sony don't want get into that hole again, their next consoles won't deliver the visuals we'd expect nowadays.
To get big leaps, you have to pay big leaps. Samaritan and UE4 are big leaps. CryEngine 3 with all the bells and whistles enabled is a big leap. MS and Sony should listen to Epic if we're to get those leaps.
We'd be stuck with 256mb of ram in our 360s if it weren't for Epic.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
I want a tech increase, I don't want it to be at the expense of the market. Another round of $399 and over consoles and this industry is on its deathbed.
But it is accurate to use it.
A quantum leap skips the middle-ground and goes instantly from one point to the next. Epic is defining point A as now, and point B as the "real" next gen. They do not want there to be a middle, a transition or a stop-gap. The only caveat is that this is not happening in sub-atomic space, but then again, figurative expressions like this are never meant to be taken literally.
But on the topic: I fail to see how this will help anyone but engine developers. A lot of companies are having hard times now. If MS and Sony go this route, unless there are some superb dev tools, I imagine many smaller devs might develop for the Wii U only. It will be an HD machine without breaking the bank.
EternalGamer
Banned
There are definitely still exclusive IPS on all three consoles that I would like to play. In fact, Nintendo, surprisingly, is the one I'm actually considering most because I would like to play their exclusives now that they at least won't be a blurry mess. I could deal with Nintendo games that are the equivalent of 360 or PS3 graphics, I think.
However, in reality, I don't need any of them. There are more PC games than I can ever play. I have about 2 dozen awesome games sitting my Steam library right now that I've barely touched (and I've played through a lot of PC games in the last year).
It used to be that gamers needed to own all the platforms to always have quality games to play. Nowdays that simply isn't true. It's impossible to play everything anyway and any one platform has more than enough. I think I could easily go for just PC gaming alone. Especially if the current trend of formerly console only like games like Dark Souls continue to coming to PC. Rayman and Dark Souls are the only two games I played on consoles last year for any extended amounts of time.
Zoe
Member
Graphics are the only thing that can be improved?
Thunder Monkey
Banned
Because old gens were big leaps in terms of technology.
2D->some 3D->full scale 3D, advanced lighting->shaders, motion capture, full voice acting, high res models and textures that are downsampled for maintaining framerate.
But new gen will be about using those advanced assets in their full potential and better lighting, interaction etc. It wont increase cost exponentially, because there is no planned feature to do so [like full voice acting or million poly models].
They are already making games like CG movies, with almost the same technology.
Guys think first, comment later, because we will just repeat the same argument over and over in every page.
Angry Fork
Member
It's not going to be the same increase as this gen because it'll still be 720p/1080p (hopefully). It's not like it's going ultra HD or anything. The jump from SD to HD is what seemed to really hurt a lot of companies. But some have gotten on fine and we've gotten more amazing experiences than ever. It's not just about graphics but physics scale animations etc. all that stuff. I want more more not 'meh good enough' otherwise don't bother upgrading at all.
Because a console that can give graphics near Avatar will surely be sold for a reasonable price am i right? Nothing will ever go wrong am i right?
Don't get me wrong, we ALL want consoles that can do something like that, but we're not there yet. At least, not in a way where everyone can get it for a decent price.
People are easily baited by these news outlets.
I mean come on : "We're much more in sync with the console makers than any other developer is. That means we can give detailed recommendations with a complete understanding of what is going to be commercially possible."
To this from Eurogamer: Apparently Epic has seen the specs of the PS4 and next Xbox and is "actively lobbying" for them to be more powerful.
Critical thinking and reading skills go out the window in this thread. Bunch of fishes.
I mean come on : "We're much more in sync with the console makers than any other developer is. That means we can give detailed recommendations with a complete understanding of what is going to be commercially possible."
To this from Eurogamer: Apparently Epic has seen the specs of the PS4 and next Xbox and is "actively lobbying" for them to be more powerful.
Critical thinking and reading skills go out the window in this thread. Bunch of fishes.
SolidSnakex
Member
I think most are expecting next gen machines to cost $400, and i'm completely fine and even happy with that. It's when you start getting into the $500+ range that you start turning people off. I don't see why we couldn't have a very powerful console at a $400 price range.
That depends on software competition.
It is not, IMO, the job of the platform holder to try and lowest-common denominator everyone via hardware in order to suppress technical competition and the costs that may be incurred as a result.
More hardware power, better engines, better tools, will only make it easier and cheaper to achieve a given result. If the standard for results rises its because pubs are willing to make those investments. If the investments are too big, the pubs will fail in their efforts, and they'll row back their investments. They'll find a spot where they can make it work. If investments continue to grow it's because they're getting a return. If some pubs are willing to take smaller margins to deliver me more ambitious games than another, and the market favours the former, then it's just tough luck for the latter. They're not up to scratch. They can compete at another end of the market if they want, where they'll actually find it cheaper to make games because of that better hardware.
The platform holder should balance power with cost in order to be able to sell a machine at a reasonable price. But within that constraint, IMO, they should put as much power as they can in there. Expect more. You're not shareholders of pubs who're worried they won't be able to compete for $60 on better hardware (I presume).
shinobi602
Member
Then don't expect any decent tech increases.
They need to be around $400.
$500 is killing it. It needs to be in the $300-$400 range again (for different SKUs).
Zoe
Member
That would require infrastructure that is a long way off.
MikeE21286
Member
Jesus...
Not assuring
Not assuring
why are we worrying about the manufacturers by the way? Why do we care if it costs them a couple hundred more to make a console? Thats how its worked in the past and they can make it work now - MS have things like LIVE fees, and you cost engineer anyway, so those subsidies are only for the first year or two, where your volumes aren't that high. By the time you're hitting the mainstream, you want a break-even console.
I'm not. The amount of subtle (and not-so-subtle) lobbying against high-end gaming over the past years has been staggering, particularly on this forum. Unsurprisingly, it started when Nintendo released the Wii. I can't recall gamers on message boards worrying incessantly about development costs before that.
I wonder how different this thread would be had that never happened.
snoopeasystreet
Member
I bet they'll both put a 4K upscaler in their box. Can't see them support it natively.