[Sirnaq]

http://www.gamesthir...owerful-enough/

I think that cdpr should just keep making pc games.

[slimgrin]

Somehow I'm not surprised.

[Chromie92]

“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.”

*cough PC cough*

[Costin Moroianu]

Well apparently based on leaked sources Xbox 720 will have 4-6 gigs of ram ( depends on the sources ), will be 64 bit, will have an eight core CPU and a pretty decent if not good GFX card. So it's not a bad hardware and it's something better then what a LOT of PC users have and I'd bet the PS4 is somewhat better.

Though yes it bellow high-end PCs...which costs thousands of dollars to make so duh. What Epic is trying to do however is convince Sony and MS to make consoles, I think, that could run a game similar to what a GTX 680 does run a game, because that's the GFX card Epic used to show people a demo of the Unreal 4 engine.

Chromie92: For Epic the PC does not exist, we all know that.

As much as I'd love to see the day when console gaming dies ( I think I'll just buy a bottle of wine to open if that day ever comes ) the reality is that console gaming is still a really really big thing and it does a great deal of power.

[Sirnaq]

Costin Moroianu said:

Well apparently based on leaked sources Xbox 720 will have 4-6 gigs of ram ( depends on the sources ), will be 64 bit, will have an eight core CPU and a pretty decent if not good GFX card. So it's not a bad hardware and it's something better then what a LOT of PC users have and I'd bet the PS4 is somewhat better.

Though yes it bellow high-end PCs...which costs thousands of dollars to make so duh. What Epic is trying to do however is convince Sony and MS to make consoles, I think, that could run a game similar to what a GTX 680 does run a game, because that's the GFX card Epic used to show people a demo of the Unreal 4 engine.

Chromie92: For Epic the PC does not exist, we all know that.

As much as I'd love to see the day when console gaming dies ( I think I'll just buy a bottle of wine to open if that day ever comes ) the reality is that console gaming is still a really really big thing and it does a great deal of power. Anyway, year old ›››

Id say 720 to have rather 4 gb ram, some high i3 or low i5 processor and wiiu tier gpu or weaker, they can't really use more expensive hardware because with their brand staple it would cost fortune for average consolist. Anyway, 1 year old, average tier pc have better sepcs than what you posted.

[.Volsung.]

I think we're reaching an inflection point where console hardware cannot be very high-end because its cost would be prohibitive and defeat the purpose of console gaming. Remember the list price for the PS3? Nearly $700, completely ridiculous.

Also, gaming hardware as it is is plenty good nowadays. What we need are good, creative, elaborate games that challenge the senses and the intellect, not "real-time Avatar". There's a reason why 28 years later people still play Tetris: because it's FUN! That's what games used to be about, they do not need to be a hollow showcase of spectacular graphics covering up for cheap writers and artists.

So my point is: who cares what hardware it is, it will be pretty good for games. Of course the PC being an open platform is highly customizable and may achieve that retarded real-time Avatar goal. But who cares about amazing graphics if there are no games worth playing?

[Lyc]

Sirnaq said:

Id say 720 to have rather 4 gb ram, some high i3 or low i5 processor and wiiu tier gpu or weaker, they can't really use more expensive hardware because with their brand staple it would cost fortune for average consolist.

Unsure about the expense though - the Xbox was _very_ heavily subsidised when it came out. I think it was Japan where they were actually losing money on console hardware sales (obviously hoping to regain it by software sales - I dont know if they did).

The interesting bit will be how their shiney box handles heat - it has never done well in that regard, and halfway decent GPUs are heat monsters.

[Aditya_the_warrior_within]

I already have the next gen console: a high end PC. Well agreed the next gen consoles will perhaps be cheaper than a PC, but still will be below to the power of PC. I'm no fanboy, just saying, I hate this exclusivity shit and believe everyone should be able to enjoy a good game. The only reason I want to buy a console(s!) is for playing games like Metal Gear (which is now removing PC versions too, hopefully will continue), FF, Halo and others, and here too there is a MS vs Sony shit . As for CDP/Witcher is concerned, I just hope they release for PC first and don't delay it for the console counterpart, they can just follow what they did with TW2.

[seamusgod]

no, consoles will continue getting what their system is capable of handling, highly scripted linear games that play themselves.

[Aver]

Of course consoles won't be powerful like high-end PC. They will cost around 400-450 dollars and my video card is more expensive. But for this 400-450 you will get way better hardware that you would get for the same price if you would by a PC.

Consoles are about being cheap and simple. PC are about being powerful and tweakable. But both are provides great enjoyment.

I, personally, don't need new consoles that will be capable to render Avatar in real time. Graphical fidelity stopped to amuse me long time ago. I just hope they will put better CPU this time, so devs won't have dumb down AI and physics.

Quote

Id say 720 to have rather 4 gb ram, some high i3 or low i5 processor

There is no chance for Intel CPU in consoles. Intel CPUs are way too expensive for consoles and Intel wouldn't give Sony/MS any good price discount because Intel's factories are already too busy with producing CPU's for a desktop market. I bet it will be AMD. After all both consoles will use their GPU and AMD hinted that at least one console may use their CPU. And if it won't be AMD then it may be Dell, Nvidia or maybe IMB (but IBM didn't do a good job with Wii's CPU so I doubt).

[Saoe]

New Gen consoles = 0% piracy, 100% profit. If they release it only on PC first, they will loose a lot of money.

[Sirnaq]

.Volsung. said:

I think we're reaching an inflection point where console hardware cannot be very high-end because its cost would be prohibitive and defeat the purpose of console gaming. Remember the list price for the PS3? Nearly $700, completely ridiculous.

Also, gaming hardware as it is is plenty good nowadays. What we need are good, creative, elaborate games that challenge the senses and the intellect, not "real-time Avatar". There's a reason why 28 years later people still play Tetris: because it's FUN! That's what games used to be about, they do not need to be a hollow showcase of spectacular graphics covering up for cheap writers and artists.

So my point is: who cares what hardware it is, it will be pretty good for games. Of course the PC being an open platform is highly customizable and may achieve that retarded real-time Avatar goal. But who cares about amazing graphics if there are no games worth playing? ›››

But what if there ARE tons of games worth playing with beautiful graphics? Why constrain devs and players when technology IS there?

Saoe said:

New Gen consoles = 0% piracy, 100% profit. If they release it only on PC first, they will loose a lot of money. ›››

Yet pc gamers buy the most games and spend the most money on games then any other platform. Piracy is irrelevant to sales.

[Aver]

Quote

But what if there ARE tons of games worth playing with beautiful graphics? Why constrain devs and players when technology IS there?

Because you don't need sparkly graphics to make a great game. You have to spent more money for ultra shiny graphics and at the same time you decrease your potential market because less people can afford rig to play your game. Even tho I do have high-end rig I don't care about great graphics. I'm actually annoyed that devs spent so much money on great graphics. They should use this money to make bigger, more open levels, better AI and more diverse gameplay.

Shiny graphics are curse for gaming nowadays - because it's easier to promote game saying "Best AI ever!" then saying "Best AI ever". You can't even show a screen shot of your sophisticated AI on box cover. So devs pump most of their resources into graphic...

Sirnaq said:

Yet pc gamers buy the most games and spend the most money on games then any other platform. Piracy is irrelevant to sales. ›››

It's not true. In stats PC gaming is showed as market that provides biggest revenue, but it's because social games (facebook), MMO subscription fees and free to play titles are counted too and for example WoW earns monthly around 150M$. I personally don't care about social games and MMOs. Sometimes I play FTP games, but it's rare too.

With big games, it's not that good. Developers, to describe PC sales, often use word "irrelevant". Of course there are titles that sell very well on PC like Diablo 3, SC2, TW2, Portal 2 etc., but overall big action games don't sell too well, even great games like GTA.

[Sirnaq]

That's because they count sells only in short period of time after premiere. Console game sell 1-2 month after premiere and that's all their revenue, pc games can still sell years after premiere. See for example warcraft 3 or starcraft.

Quote

Because you don't need sparkly graphics to make a great game. You have to spent more money for ultra shiny graphics and at the same time you decrease your potential market because less people can afford rig to play your game. Even tho I do have high-end rig I don't care about great graphics. I'm actually annoyed that devs spent so much money on great graphics. They should use this money to make bigger, more open levels, better AI and more diverse gameplay.

Shiny graphics are curse for gaming nowadays - because it's easier to promote game saying "Best AI ever!" then saying "Best AI ever". You can't even show a screen shot of your sophisticated AI on box cover. So devs pump most of their resources into graphic...

Im afraid it's the other way around. Let's say with console game you have 1 million poly limit, with modern pc you have 10 million poly limit, how do you think is it easier to make big world with 10 million polygons or 1 million? Also most of graphics technology is there, devs don't need to write for example anti aliasing or physics from scratch. Also how is it that modders that don't earn anything can echance graphics of game x by far but it's too expensive for devs? How is it that eastern european games like witcher, stalker, metro 2033 has the best graphics on the market even though studios are not cash gigants? Most money always go to voice acting.

[Aver]

Sirnaq said:

That's because they count sells only in short period of time after premiere. Console game sell 1-2 month after premiere and that's all their revenue, pc games can still sell years after premiere. See for example warcraft 3 or starcraft.

Yes, but you have to pay back your bank credits and investors now. Not in 10 years. There are examples of companies that made successful products, but sales were too slow, so they bankrupted and someone else earned all their profits.

Also lifetime of games for consoles are increasing too, because digital sales are becoming more and more popular on them.

Quote

Im afraid it's the other way around. Let's say with console game you have 1 million poly limit, with modern pc you have 10 million poly limit, how do you think is it easier to make big world with 10 million polygons or 1 million? Also most of graphics technology is there, devs don't need to write for example anti aliasing or physics from scratch.

But making models with more polyglons, higher res textures and stuff like that do cost more. For example artist can make 10 textures in quality of DX:HR or 1 texture in quality of TW2 at the same time (numbers taken out of my as* - but you get the point).

And number of polygons aren't problem. You can always make models with less polygons. After all we open world games on consoles of this gen and next gen will be able to render even more.

[Sirnaq]

Aver said:

But making models with more polyglons, higher res textures and stuff like that do cost more. For example artist can make 10 textures in quality of DX:HR or 1 texture in quality of TW2 at the same time (numbers taken out of my as* - but you get the point). ›››

If modder can do 10 textures for deus ex hr in quality of witcher 2 for free, then id say they cost pretty much the same.

[Aver]

Sirnaq said:

If modder can do 10 textures for deus ex hr in quality of witcher 2 for free, then id say they cost pretty much the same. ›››

You compare work of someone who do this for fun in his free time and work of someone who do this for living? Come on, modder can make it in two weeks after work, hired artist have to make same job in one day.

Also you can't hire guys for free to make models and textures.

Artist got paid X per month and in this month they can make 100 good textures or 10 great textures, so developer pay X for 100 good textures or for 10 great textures. Seeing that more detailed textures do cost more is not a rocket science.

[Sirnaq]

Im saying that you have to paid artist, but there is no difference in cost or time to make hd texture and low res. Good graphics, overall do not cost much more than shitty graphics. Low res textures are made by creating high res textures and then downgrading them.

[Aver]

Sirnaq said:

Im saying that you have to paid artist, but there is no difference in cost or time to make hd texture and low res. Good graphics, overall do not cost much more than shitty graphics. ›››

Maybe in your world making more detailed, higher quality pictures does not take more time.

[Sirnaq]

Then tell me how come not very rich studios can create good looking graphics and industry gigants somehow can't?