Support NeoGAF

[JaseMath]

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'.

You don't know what you need.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

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.

And the largest loss so far has been purportedly $200 on the PS3.

 

[AAK]

Yeah, no, I don't want another $500 system, another 50 game development studios either close or abandon console gaming for Handheld/Tablet/Browser gaming, and games prices rising another $10.

Don't listen to them Sony/Microsoft.

 

[mclem]

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.

Well, there's Crytek. And I've got a hunch - nothing more than that, but still - that EA/DICE might be looking to license Frostbite in the future.

 

[Smellycat]

Epic is going to drive the industry into the ground.

 

[Basch]

You don't know what you need.

Epic knows what you need.

 

[muu]

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.

What'll eventually have to happen is that both the "blockbuster" and "lower budget" games hold the same price tag. Pay 60 bucks for a graphically impressive games with possibly impressive gameplay, or pay 60 for something that pushes previous-gen but still provides you w/ an engrossing experience. What's happening now is equivalent to people paying full price for Hollywood blockbusters, but shooing away indie and minor-label films because they didn't spend enough on their budget.

 

[KageMaru]

Yeah, no, I don't want another $500 system, another 50 game development studios either close or abandon console gaming for Handheld/Tablet/Browser gaming, and games prices rising another $10.

Don't listen to them Sony/Microsoft.

So you just want the same types of games we get this gen forever?

 

[knitoe]

And the largest loss so far has been purportedly $200 on the PS3.

Which would be great for consumers since that would mean $499/$599 console for $299/$399.

 

[Durante]

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.

Companies that could not adapt died. Those that made smart decisions, positioned their products well and adopted efficient development methodologies thrived. This is how progress works.

What some are arguing sounds akin to putting a 30 km/h speed limit on all streets so as not to put horse-drawn carriages out of business.

 

[Twenty7KVN]

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.

http://www.incrysis.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=34460 Don't know how up to date this list is.

 

[sajj316]

I'm not sure how I feel. They want to push hardware makers to produce something that would realize their vision for Unreal Engine 4. At what cost. I'm not looking for another $500-$600 dollar console. I can appreciate them moving the dial but let's not forget the intention to sell their gaming engine.

 

[Pyrrhus]

I understand the idea that people just can't afford another $600 console in this post economic crash market. But I don't understand the belief that a marginal hardware update is going to somehow save us from the big publishers and console makers fucking us hard with new DRM and monetization schemes next gen. Or for that matter stop the vortex of death that is currently laying waste to all the smaller developers and publishers. We've already reached a point where the business is so complex and competitive that companies who plan badly and take gambles that don't pay off will be ruined.

All the bad practices from this generation are going to intensify regardless of whether or not we have low spec hardware. The sickness is in how the games are budgeted and sold, not the hardware. If we're going to have to weather all of this anyway, why not have better resolutions, physics, draw distances, animation, AI, textures, and so on to go with it?

 

[FyreWulff]

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.

Different form factors and markets. People are used to tablets and phones refreshing every year. Consoles are on a slower refresh cycle. If you're worred about being outgunned 2 years in, you shouldn't be making a console or buying one to play on.

 

[kuroshiki]

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.

(looking at Wii support right now among Japan developers)

Really?

 

[genjiZERO]

I disagree if it means more expensive consoles and games. I'm perfectly fine with with less dramatically gorgeous games if they are cheaper. Higher tech just means more consolidation of developers and gameplay degrades in favor of graphics and being safe.

 

[RoboPlato]

Which would be great for consumers since that would mean $499/$599 console for $299/$399.

No one is ever going to take a hit like that again. Most of that cost was due to blu-ray though and the costs have come down on that a ton so there is more money for the hardware.

 

[walking fiend]

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...



...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.

That's a terrible shame for US that games we like either stopped existing, became shit quality wise, or in best case scenario didn't get localized.

I agree that the constraint should be the cost of hardware; but the thing is I believe what Epic is lobbying for will mean $450 consoles.

And in general, I may understand your point of view from a business standpoint; but I don't see it in my personal favor at all. I want a rather reasonable jump which will allow most developers to adapt to and the survival of a lot of mid-tier developers; this is because many of the best games I have played in my life were from mid tier developers (or smaller projects of bigger developers); something which I believe another big hardware jump may make it go extinct.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

Which would be great for consumers since that would mean $499/$599 console for $299/$399.

I just don't see Sony doing it again.

They lost every dollar they made from the massive PS2 generation, and are now about 90-100 million units behind their share last gen.

At best you're going to get a $399 console that costs $499 to manufacture. Similar to the PS2 in which Sony lost at the max of $75 at launch.

Companies that could not adapt died. Those that made smart decisions, positioned their products well and adopted efficient development methodologies thrived. This is how progress works.

What some are arguing sounds akin to putting a 30 km/h speed limit on all streets so as not to put horse-drawn carriages out of business.

And in the 30 years of stable industry growth we've went from the model T to the 2013 Corvette.

If you can't represent your vision on hardware as "weak" as a 360 you're no longer making a game. You're making an interactive experience. Which can be cool. But it's not a necessary prerequisite to making a game.

 

[mclem]

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?

I don't think it's a case of 'handicapping other pubs' as much as it is pitching the power at a level the majority of pubs can exploit to a high potential. Console manufacturers shouldn't base a console's design on a minority's desires.

 

[crazygambit]

For me it is more the fact that when these consoles hit they have to be good for 6 - 10 years. They can't be obsolete after 12 months. If EPIC are turning out UnrealEngine4 quality in 2012 what is 2022 going to look like ?

MS and SONY have to put things in place now to stop them needing a PS5 in 2015.

If MS hadn't listened to EPIC when the 360 was launched think of the dire situation they would have been in against the PS3 in the last 2-3 years.

Maybe that business model is no longer good enough.

Since next gen consoles seem to be abandoning exotic custom hardware and seem to be going more for off the shelf PC parts, what's even the point of having such long cycles anymore?

The point before was that if you really got down to the metal and optimized for the console you could get great performance out of cheaper hardware. But now with all the multiplatform games and basically PC hardware under the hood, I don't see the point anymore. First party exclusives will still be nice, but maybe we need a change in business model.

I think apple has it figured out with its yearly refreshed hardware cycle that still maintain backwards compatibility for the most part. I wouldn't be so opposed to doing the same for consoles. Say the new version can play today's games at higher resolution or with better AA. Basically a dumb down PC (which is what will be under the hood anyway).

 

[AAK]

So you just want the same types of games we get this gen forever?

We're already playing the same games this gen that we were playing in the PS2/GC/Xbox gen. Only things different now are the Digital distribution methods of selling games, HD graphics, and the Wii/Natal/Move controls.

 

[Durante]

I understand the idea that people just can't afford another $600 console in this post economic crash market. But I don't understand the belief that a marginal hardware update is going to somehow save us from the big publishers and console makers fucking us hard with new DRM and monetization schemes next gen. Or for that matter stop the vortex of death that is currently laying waste to all the smaller developers and publishers. We've already reached a point where the business is so complex and competitive that companies who plan badly and take gambles that don't pay off will be ruined.

All the bad practices from this generation are going to intensify regardless of whether or not we have low spec hardware. The sickness is in how the games are budgeted and sold, not the hardware. If we're going to have to weather all of this anyway, why not have better resolutions, physics, draw distances, animation, AI, textures, and so on to go with it?

Exactly. I'd be more open to the "weak hardware is good for you!" argument if there was any indication at all that it actually results in better games. But there's neither evidence nor even any kind of cohesive argument for that.

 

[sajj316]

No one is ever going to take a hit like that again. Most of that cost was due to blu-ray though and the costs have come down on that a ton so there is more money for the hardware.

Agreed. In addition, I don't see how that's great for the consumer long-term when the platform maker's financials are consistently in the red. Would be horrible for first party titles since there isn't enough cash to make them.

 

[j0hnny_385]

I wrote my thoughts on this on my blog, so I'll just leave this here:

Unreal Engine 4 – thrilled and scared

Unreal Engine 4 has been officially revealed today in Wired. Be sure to read this article:

The Imagination Engine: Why Next-Gen Video Games Will Rock Your World

And as much as I’m excited to see the next iteration of my favorite gaming engine and what it can do, that joy is overshadowed by this paragraph:

While “damn near render Avatar in real time” likely isn’t up on a whiteboard in the office, it’s the kind of rapid-fire hyperbole that has made Bleszinski the face of Epic to many gamers. For his part, though, Sweeney is a bit more diplomatic. “We’re much more in sync with the console makers than any other developer is,” he says. “That means we can give detailed recommendations with a complete understanding of what is going to be commercially possible.” In other words, Epic has seen the specs of proposed new consoles and is actively lobbying for them to be more powerful. It could be a bad sign for the industry if new, relatively underpowered consoles make an appearance at this year’s E3 consumer show (as is popularly rumored about Sony’s PS3 successor, the alleged specs of which leaked in April).

To make one thing clear: Epic truly does have a great relationship with the console manufacturers. Let’s not forget that it’s because of Epic that X360 has 512MB of RAM instead of the initially planned 256MB.
This means that if Epic has to convince MS and/or Sony that “NextBox” or PS4 needs to be more powerful, then we’re in trouble folks, big trouble.
Rumors of next-gen system have been floating around for over a year. One says that NextBox will have a 16-core CPU, the other that PS4 will drop the Cell architecture and return to some form x86 parts and that they won’t be able to play used games, etc. The rumors are endless, so is their variation.

What’s troubling me here personally is that it seems that next-gen won’t be so NEXT GENERATION as we’re hoping. Think about it. Back in ’05 the world was (seemingly) a better place. The economy was good, optimism was high and next-gen systems appeared in the form of X360 and PS3 (in ’06) with radical and brilliant hardware and truly redefined the gaming landscape, and we’re still enjoying games on those systems, 7 years later. 7 years. That’s huge in terms of console cycles. As we wait for 8th generation consoles to appear, naturally we’re expecting more from them. Me? I say 1080p with 60fps is a BARE MINIMUM in terms of visuals. Hardware? Frankly I don’t care if it’s something based on PowerPC, Cell, ATI’s GCN or NVIDIA Kepler as long as it’s capable of delivering something breathtaking for the next 7+ years. Remember, consoles are fixed hardware and once you make one, that’s it. Specs are fixed, the architecture is in place and there’s no real upgrading down the road. I say real because it’s possible to streamline the specs, make the components more efficent and power saving, etc. but you can’t change the CPU or GPU 2-3 years down the road. You get my point.

Well, now it’s 2012. and the world is in huge recession and turmoil and to think that MS and Sony are going to something truly next-gen like they did with X360/PS3 is somewhat unrealistic. The optimist in me expects something breathtaking from NextBox/PS4 but the realist really can’t grab onto anything to support this, and especially after this “Epic is convincing them” paragraph from the Wired article.

I’ll stop now, because I feel I could write for hours on this. I’ll keep the hope up and I say to MS & Sony: TAKE YOUR TIME AND DEVELOP SOMETHING AWESOME because this industry and we, the gaming people deserve it. We’ll gladly pay for it. Just bring us something truly NEXT GEN. Impress us, impress Epic like they impressed you with UE4. Everyone’s a winner then.

 

[Twenty7KVN]

Which would be great for consumers since that would mean $499/$599 console for $299/$399.

Sony is less likely to go that route again.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Yeah, no, I don't want another $500 system, another 50 game development studios either close or abandon console gaming for Handheld/Tablet/Browser gaming, and games prices rising another $10.

Don't listen to them Sony/Microsoft.

You know, studios don't have to waste millions making games. Just because the power is there it doesn't mean you have to use it.

 

[Kilrogg]

TIM SWEENEY: "There is a huge responsibility on the shoulders of our engine team and our studio to drag this industry into the next generation," said Gears of War design director Cliff Bleszinski. "It is up to Epic, and Tim Sweeney in particular, to motivate Sony and Microsoft not to phone in what these next consoles are going to be. 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."

Sweeney added: "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."

Apparently Epic has seen the specs of the PS4 and next Xbox and is "actively lobbying" for them to be more powerful.

Is this the first actual confirmation that we are to not be TOO excited about next-gen ? Very worrying if true.

There. That's what Mr. Sweeney shouldn't have said.

"We want it" is not a valid reason for anyone other than Epic.
"Gamers want it". Which ones? And what's the context? If the guy's point is "Nobody would ever turn down the promise of better graphics", then DUH. That's like saying "nobody would turn down a second ball of ice cream". Yeah, sure, except they might be content with one. Or they might not have enough money to buy more ice cream. Or the vendor might go broke if it starts giving out more ice cream for the same price. Or he might be able to afford it but all its competitors could not sustain the increase in competition.

In any case, the gain for consumers is minimal at best, but might very well turn into a loss.

All things being equal, people will always want better everything. But there is no such thing as "all things being equal" in the real world.

 

[Durante]

You know, studios don't have to waste millions making games. Just because the power is there is doesn't mean you have to use it.

More than that -- if the power is there you can always use it, and you can decide how budget-intensive you want your use of it to be!

 

[mclem]

So you just want the same types of games we get this gen forever?

I'd rather have the games we didn't have this gen because they wouldn't turn a profit.

 

[Proelite]

Avatar in real time?

Quantum leap?

Seems like he wants the consoles to be out in 2014 / later.

 

[krypt0nian]

Sony is less likely to go that route again.

Without the pricey introductory B-R Drive, they won't have to. They can provide all the power leap without the giant markup.

 

[tkscz]

(looking at Wii support right now among Japan developers)

Really?

Wii U isn't doing a Wii. Wii was an overclocked Gamecube. Wii U is actually using hardware above this gen. It's No "Quantum Leap" but it is however a leap. Nintendo is also giving devs free middle ware for physics, AI, animations and UI. They are finally embracing programmable shaders and getting a better online system and allowing for games to be digitally downloadable from the get go.

So you just want the same types of games we get this gen forever?

Because you know, games can't be different or better on lower end hardware

 

[Thunder Monkey]

More than that -- if the power is there you can always use it, and you can decide how budget-intensive you want your use of it to be!

And then when those games bomb you can try to make a huge game that will bomb harder because you can't keep up with the expectations of gamers!

There's a reason the mid-range game all but disappeared this generation. Because they couldn't keep up with the baseline expectations of gamers who feel they deserve, not only the best, but many times that.

 

[AAK]

You know, studios don't have to waste millions making games. Just because the power is there it doesn't mean you have to use it.

Keep telling yourself that, the public are going to look at games made by Crytek, EA, and Epic and then compare them to what other developers make and they simply won't buy them.

We could have used the same logic for this generation but again look how many developers sunk.

EDIT: Only time where the public would go for it is if they sell it at a budget price on PSN and things, but then it doesn't become profitable for developers at that point.

 

[sajj316]

You know, studios don't have to waste millions making games. Just because the power is there it doesn't mean you have to use it.

However, whether you use 25% of the systems power or 90%, the cost of the hardware tool kit is the same. It prices the smaller players out. With the cost the same, you'll need an engine to make it go. It'll take significant capital to make your own so this is how Epic makes a good bit of their money .. to license their engine. Unless Epic delivers multiple flavors of their engine, it can be a significant cost to developers.

 

[Soul_Pie]

Man, the release of this next generation of consoles is going to be a crazy time, it will be so interesting to see what direction each of the big 3 take. I can't wait to see what gets shown at E3, going to be very exciting indeed.

Personally, I'm fine with a modest update in terms of power, after all the 360 is 7 years old so you can imagine technology has moved forward a fair bit in that time, the games are going to be good looking no matter what.

What I'm really interested in is improvements to the online infrastructure, getting the developers properly equipped to get games going straight away, the indie game market, etc. I think the most important thing is ensuring that the transition is incredibly smooth so that nobody gets left behind.

 

[Fantomex]

Done deal epic. Just make sure to offset high console prices by doing a MSRP of $39.99 on your videogame software. What? That's not cost efficient for developers? But the consumers Cliffy!

 

[RooMHM]

There. That's what Mr. Sweeney shouldn't have said.

"We want it" is not a valid reason for anyone other than Epic.
"Gamers want it". Which ones? And what's the context? If the guy's point is "Nobody would ever turn down the promise of better graphics", then DUH. That's like saying "nobody would turn down a second ball of ice cream". Yeah, sure, except they might be content with one. Or they might not have enough money to buy more ice cream. Or the vendor might go broke if it starts giving out more ice cream for the same price. Or he might be able to afford it but all its competitors could not sustain the increase in competition.

In any case, the gain for consumers is minimal at best, but might very well turn into a loss.

All things being equal, people will always want better everything. But there is no such thing as "all things being equal" in the real world.

You're thinking too much over some CliffyB verbal diarhea. This guy just talks out of his ass always spreading bullshit and hype. He's just a PR guy, better not pay attention.

 

[ThatCrazyGuy]

Good stuff epic. I hope for the best hardware possible. He probably is just talking about more RAM though, haha.

The developers that want/can use the extra power can use it, and the ones that can't/don't want to can still put out games.

I do hope they restructure XBLA/GOD, so devs can more easily put stuff out at varying price points without hassle, and it is promoted more on the dashboard.

I think XBLA stuff will still be good next gen (I love a good number of the XBLA offerings this gen).

 

[Spieler Eins]

One generation too early, at least. Unless anyone wants to see even more devs dying down that don't belong to the big AAA shooter- and sports game manufacturers, while this hobby gets even more expensive. Nextgen will be about new gimmicks, services, etc.

No one doesn't want the most beautiful graphics possible and whatnot, but some must also realise that it isn't the time for this yet, sorry.

 

[Hero]

I've been speculating this for a while now, anyone reasonable would do so as well. There is absolutely no way that the industry at large would be able to survive another generation like we had these past 6/7 years. Nintendo scaled back the Wii while MS and Sony throttled their systems forward and look how that turned out. Xbox 360 hardware reliability was a fucking joke for the first half of the generation. The Playstation 3 launching at 599 was the beginning of the end of Sony's reign coming off their PS2 throne. Gamers got spoiled to hell with a "quantum leap" by those companies but it didn't really pay off for either of them. Only since last year did Microsoft begin to see better than average sales and that could attributed to a system redesign and the fucking Kinect accessory, not any graphical bells and whistles for the average consumer.

This generation has been around longer than previous generations and we STILL don't have any system that is at the 99.99 MSRP. Sony and Microsoft would have to be nuts to repeat their arms race in a similar fashion because it would take way long for that strategy to pay off. Sony especially cannot afford to make any more mistakes with how things have gone for them the past few years so I don't see them trying to bleed money with every PS4 sold right out of the gate to lackluster sales. And Microsoft is seeming to embrace the Nintendo casual approach the last year and a half so I can see them not going for what Epic is trying to push them into this time around.

Also for the few people who are trying to claim that in a few years that the iPad is going to rival consoles and that is somehow going to be a factor, it's already happening to a degree right now but it doesn't have shit to do with graphics. People that are that casual about gaming like the iPad (or any other iOS device) because it's a product that is capable of a lot of things and they get their share of free or 99 cent apps all they want. Nobody is buying an iPad just to play games.

Edit:

(looking at Wii support right now among Japan developers)

Really?

Here's something else you can look at: The state of Japanese developers right now. They're pretty much all fairing pretty miserably right now. They could not make the HD transition very well. Square-Enix, probably one of the biggest Japanese developers/publishers absolutely failed in every single regard this generation. Their output was absolutely atrocious and their games were ho-hum to bad despite taking so much longer to develop. Versus XIII is the new Duke Nuke Em Forever and still doesn't have a release date in sight. I mean hell, Dragon Quest X is on the Wii and look how long it's taking. Sega is nearly dead, Konami is still managing somehow despite their lack of releases, etc etc. Capcom is the only that seemingly has done decent enough but they also went out of their way to shift their company philosophy to appeal to western gamers. If next generation is a quantum leap forward I can see a lot of Japanese developers not even bothering with those systems because it would be suicidal.

 

[op_ivy]

Yeah, no, I don't want another $500 system, another 50 game development studios either close or abandon console gaming for Handheld/Tablet/Browser gaming, and games prices rising another $10.

Don't listen to them Sony/Microsoft.

so dont buy it day 1.

 

[FoneBone]

More than that -- if the power is there you can always use it, and you can decide how budget-intensive you want your use of it to be!

I see it's already been hammered in, but this generation shows the market just isn't going to work like that.

 

[gofreak]

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.

It's not the hardware that's creating the competition. It's the relative capability or willingness of the pubs/developers. Hardware is just giving them the breathing room to exercise that. Again, I don't see why anyone's capability should be handicapped beyond the need to make a reliable, reasonably sized box at a reasonable price point.

If we want to advance production values at the best rate possible, we need the best hardware possible (within the constraints mentioned) when opportunities for new boxes arise.

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.

If EA tanks, if pubs in general can't make things work, they'll reassess their budgets, their direction. Hardware won't force implosions before this can happen.

My point is, wherever sort of central point pubs balance around for the typical $60 game - whatever the economics end up dictating - all else being equal, better hardware will mean better products. The economics should dictate that point though - the better the hardware, the better they'll be able to do at that point, and that's why I want as capable a palette as can be given to them in a 299 or 399 box.

And in general, I may understand your point of view from a business standpoint; but I don't see it in my personal favor at all. I want a rather reasonable jump which will allow most developers to adapt to and the survival of a lot of mid-tier developers; this is because many of the best games I have played in my life were from mid tier developers (or smaller projects of bigger developers); something which I believe another big hardware jump may make it go extinct.

There is no need for that. There are growing opportunities outside of the $60 shelf. Hopefully those companies will exploit them, and perhaps even get their products to more people at lower prices.

 

[Durante]

And then when those games bomb you can try to make a huge game that will bomb harder because you can't keep up with the expectations of gamers!

Or you can adjust your budget to a sustainable level and stay in business. The mid-range games I care about are mostly still around, and (surprisingly?) they are almost all on PC and PS3.

Also, from your argument it seems like "the expectations of gamers" are to blame, not hardware. If so, then I find it hard to be too disturbed by the prospect of those same gamers maybe not getting the games they want.

 

[gatti-man]

Maybe that business model is no longer good enough.

Since next gen consoles seem to be abandoning exotic custom hardware and seem to be going more for off the shelf PC parts, what's even the point of having such long cycles anymore?

The point before was that if you really got down to the metal and optimized for the console you could get great performance out of cheaper hardware. But now with all the multiplatform games and basically PC hardware under the hood, I don't see the point anymore. First party exclusives will still be nice, but maybe we need a change in business model.

I think apple has it figured out with its yearly refreshed hardware cycle that still maintain backwards compatibility for the most part. I wouldn't be so opposed to doing the same for consoles. Say the new version can play today's games at higher resolution or with better AA. Basically a dumb down PC (which is what will be under the hood anyway).

No. Apple doesnt have it figured out. People arent willing to rebuy consoles every 2-3 years. Ipad1 to ipad3 huge difference and the best games dont run or dont run right on the 1.

 

[Dictator93]

Pretty much. I don't believe for a second the claims that the new lighting techniques will actually drive costs down.

A lot of development time is spent iterating and changing up level design. With baked lighting, you have to re-render the entire scene to bake in the lighting which takes a long time. With faster dynamic lighting, you can do it at the flip of a switch.

It is the reason why crytek and many others are and have switched to fully dynamic lighting. It speeds up development quite a bit while keeping quality high (money is saved).

 

[Jac_Solar]

I'd obviously prefer great graphics, but not at the current cost.

The next Xbox shouldn't 'leap' too far ahead, just a couple of steps. It controls the market and decides how rich developers/publishers need to be to stay financially viable. Unfortunate but true.

Cliff's opinions are always contradicting each other; wanting emergent gameplay, a better multiplayer experience integrated in every game is necessary, and the best possible graphics. It doesn't take long to realise he doesn't know what he's talking about, or atleast that he's just dreaming about his ultimate fantasy game business world (Which he should write in his diary, not post on gaming sites.) and hopefully Microsoft is aware of his opinions on stuff.

And it's somewhat amazing to me that some developers are actually so focused on graphics. You'd think that as they get a better understanding of how games work, they would start to appreciate more of the subtler things like mechanics, balance, A.I, animations, gameplay in general and such, but it does not seem like it.

Sure, it's very nice with incredible graphics, and I too greatly enjoy a game with good graphics, but beyond acceptable levels of quality, which was achieved years ago, it's just a bonus, but pointless if the core quality isn't there.

(The accepted level of quality is relative to the generation, and it's constantly moving forward, pushing other developers out of business.)

MS has a responsibility to the developers, and they need to stay within their financial range. The better graphics, the more money will be spent on graphics, and the worse the game will be. If you don't believe me, take a look at the previous and current generation of consoles.

However, hopefully developers will learn that AAAA games, as is, isn't feasible anymore. And the elements they consider to be a core part of an AAAA title, like known actors, famous people, scripted events, QTE or whatever it is that they throw their money at to replicate that mediocre Hollywood movie feel, should be tossed away.

 

[WrikaWrek]

I bet Epic is just lobbying for more Ram.