Epic: New Unreal Engine Warrants PS4, Xbox 720

[jamesedgeuk2000]

[citation][nom]shloader[/nom]Nice little bitch slap to the platform that made unreal technology popular in the first place. As if exclusive IP deals weren't bad enough (Gears) now you want to usher in the next console refresh sooner? Don't get me wrong. I love my 360, Wii, and PC all for different reasons (I cheated on my PS3 by putting a blu-ray drive in my HTPC and it left me for my best friend). But quite stoking the console fire first. It didn't put you where you are.[/citation]

The platform that made UT popular is called the PC 😉

 

[xambron]

[citation][nom]shloader[/nom]The Geforce 560ti I just bought, last performance card I buy as an adult now. No point. Glad it can dual purpose with CUDA and DirectCompute. Duke Nukem Forever feels like it will be an end of an era.[/citation]
When I first read your post I thought you were just another gamer that went overkill on their hardware, but then I read "end of an era", and I think you're absolutely right. When games began there was no multiplayer, no online, no seperate difficulties, no achievements, no codes, just a fun game. And while most of what I listed has no difference, achievements changed a lot of things and is almost like a timeline for a developer. For example, you'll be at in the storyline when you have amount of achievement points.

 

[theshonen8899]

The only developer that needs a new console is the Wii. The Xbox 360 and the PS3 are fine in terms of graphics. If people really wanted good graphics, they would just get a PC. Consoles have been and always will be about people sitting on a couch shit-talking to each other with HALO, LittleBigPlanet or Mario Kart.

 

[4th floor]

I don't know what Microsoft's plans are but Sony is expected to release it's ps4 in time for the holiday season 2013. It will have the following specs
Updated Cell based processor running 8 full cores between 4-4.5Ghz built at the 28nm node. The chip will have much larger cache then the existing chip and will be just over twice as fast as the current chip overall, in some areas it will be up to 4 times the speed.
Graphics will be a new AMD based chip with between the rendering power of a 6970 and then 6990 built as well on the 28nm node.
Ram will see a large jump to 8gb and they will be sticking with rambus's xdr.
Hard drive will remain conventional and expected to be 3Tb with 64mb cache, they might have to dial back to 2TB for the initial models due to pricing concerns for 2.5" drives.
Blu-Ray will be upgrades to to BDXL and be a 12X speed again with 64mb cache.
Connectors will be 6 ports of USB 3 (4 front 2 rear) and will have Bluetooth 3 and wifi 902.11N built in.
Due to similar architecture to the PS3 it will be backward compatibility and as a nice bonus it will include emulation to allow PS2 and PS1 compatibility built in as well as PVR abilities dependent on your tv provider
Sony if targeting the ability to provide 60fps gameplay at 1920*1080 with the equivalent of 16af and 4aa and much improved physics. The system will also provide 60fps at 1920*1080 in 3d but w/o the af and aa.
They are aiming for a $399 initial pricetag and the same thermals as the current PS3 slim with a price reduction to $299 and lower thermals 18months later with a switch to 22nm.
PS5 is looking at a 2017-2018 timeframe and no hardware consideration has been given, the goal is for it to be the first console to be built around raytracing.
.

 

[Ogdin]

[citation][nom]4th floor[/nom]I don't know what Microsoft's plans are but Sony is expected to release it's ps4 in time for the holiday season 2013. It will have the following specsUpdated Cell based processor running 8 full cores between 4-4.5Ghz built at the 28nm node. The chip will have much larger cache then the existing chip and will be just over twice as fast as the current chip overall, in some areas it will be up to 4 times the speed.Graphics will be a new AMD based chip with between the rendering power of a 6970 and then 6990 built as well on the 28nm node.Ram will see a large jump to 8gb and they will be sticking with rambus's xdr.Hard drive will remain conventional and expected to be 3Tb with 64mb cache, they might have to dial back to 2TB for the initial models due to pricing concerns for 2.5" drives.Blu-Ray will be upgrades to to BDXL and be a 12X speed again with 64mb cache.Connectors will be 6 ports of USB 3 (4 front 2 rear) and will have Bluetooth 3 and wifi 902.11N built in. Due to similar architecture to the PS3 it will be backward compatibility and as a nice bonus it will include emulation to allow PS2 and PS1 compatibility built in as well as PVR abilities dependent on your tv providerSony if targeting the ability to provide 60fps gameplay at 1920*1080 with the equivalent of 16af and 4aa and much improved physics. The system will also provide 60fps at 1920*1080 in 3d but w/o the af and aa.They are aiming for a $399 initial pricetag and the same thermals as the current PS3 slim with a price reduction to $299 and lower thermals 18months later with a switch to 22nm.PS5 is looking at a 2017-2018 timeframe and no hardware consideration has been given, the goal is for it to be the first console to be built around raytracing..[/citation]

I smell bs,and lots of it.

 

[mcbowler]

I think they should make a new console every other year and charge $2000 for it.

 

[pocketdrummer]

[citation][nom]blibba[/nom]Sorry to double post, but the PS3 has an 8 core CPU...[/citation]

Those cores aren't actually CORES in the sense of complete independent processing units. They're basically mini-cores. It's a different chip design.

 

[enforcer22]

[citation][nom]pocketdrummer[/nom]Those cores aren't actually CORES in the sense of complete independent processing units. They're basically mini-cores. It's a different chip design.[/citation]

hah i was about to post this but you beat me to it. Kinda like shader units on video cards.

@alidan "consoles come out with top end parts, that you cant even get because the equivalent is retardedly expensive."

Actually when the ps3 came out it used a stripped down i think 7900 was the series video card at the time yes top of the line for nvidia. The xbox used a modified x1900xtx with a special memory configuration. also at the time was the top of the line ATI card both weren't retardedly expensive but you were able to purchase them at many online stores. As far as the rest i wouldn't exactly call them top of the line parts. Both xbox and ps3 were lacking in memory had vary stripped down cpu's. The only thing that was actually nice was the blueray.

Also if you were trying to insinuate that the consoles were capable of the same level of graphics as a computer of today is i only have one thing to say... BUA HA HA H AHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.

 

[enforcer22]

sorry for double post but i went back and read a couple more posts and saw this idiot

@decrypted

Everything you said makes no freaking sense. your analogy are idiotic.

PC gamers are pissed off that they don't optimize for the pc unfortunately like you said consoles are selling more games and consoles have crappy graphics cards and use old API's so the developers don't see a point in making direct x 11 games. which is where the console is holding back games graphically. If you cannot understand that simple truth i don't know what to tell you.

BTW your car analogy was amusing but a freaking stupid apple to orange comparison.

O and actually i can get video cards for free that would destroy the crappy ones in the consoles. its completely irrelevant if i could have then since i don't live in one point in time my whole life. the major reason you cannot use the same specs on pc as you can on a console is because the PC versions though not optimized totally for the new tech out there are let lose a little. If you took the same PC version and got it to play on a console the box would catch fire. Console versions are stripped down enough to run on the fossilized hardware they still use.

Take your own advice don't participate in a pissing contest and grow up. Also if the games were worth taking them for what they were i would but its been many years since there was one worth even playing. PC gamers don't need to buy new games to play stuff made 5 years ago we bought games 5 years ago we are still playing waiting on a new game worth buying to come out. Which likely wont happen until more company's jump off the DX 9.0c bandwagon and start trying to put more effort into some game play and well as updating their graphics to something that doesn't look 5 to 7 years old.

Once again sorry for double post..

 

[secolliyn]

Hey here's a though and please remember this is just a rough thought I think the console makers are going about consoles all wrong. They are still thinking back to a day before consoles had internet and where just used for games i think what they should do is make one main component the console it's send with out a GPU and have it cost somewhere around $200-$300 now you ask why do that? well it's simple you then sell 3 GPU Cards for it all plug and play and you let customers choose what kind of graphics they have and you keep a running SKU count for 3 GPU's at a time a low end a middle range and a High end that way if i decide that i want to buy my 8 year old nephew a console and he just wants to play the Lego games i dont need to buy the highest end gpu i buy the lower or mid range

That would solve the current thing we are getting into now if this case come up again the console makers would just release a new GPU and

The reason i think this would work is because CPU's are not really getting any faster for the foreseeable future we are in the Cores games now how many cores can i fit into one Chip? so every 10 years you get a new main box and then upgrade the GPU's and i know this is much mike a computer but are Consoles just consoles anymore? i would say no i use my PS3 to watch streaming movies from my network something you wouldn't have dreamed of when the PSone was out on the market so let us have a choice and rate Games as 3 tears you've got
L= Light M= Medium H = High to let customers know what they are buying will tun on their console with their current GPU and if a game comes out that is M or H and they happen to Have a L they just go down to Best buy grab the Medium or High go home and play the game

 

[gidgiddonihah]

Guys, really? This has turned into a Console vs. PC fanboy fight because the article had PC and console together in it?

Consoles, even when they first came out were very similar to PC graphics. The problem is, they wait for who knows how long to refresh and by then PC's own the graphics part of a game. When the refresh comes again, the graphics are similar again. This will happen time and time again, meanwhile tablets and smartphones will take up the lower and middle end (While being very small).

Those people who say PC graphics haven't come very far since DX9 (And the last console refresh), compare Battlefront II (2005) or Age of Empires (Gamespy's Best 2005 graphics) to lets say Crysis (ONLY DX10), or any other modern game. Let me tell you, its come a LONG way.

Not to mention that graphics ARE NOT ALL TO A GAME!!!!! If the graphics are pretty, well great . How long does the eye candy last before you realize that the controls are all in the wrong spot and instead of snipering the 'bad guy', you end up fall to your death ten stories below you. Fun game right?

I am partial to the PC (And I am a graphics critic ), but if you like consoles all the more power to ya, just know that you will still have to wait awhile before the new hardware refresh.

 

[SteelCity1981]

EnFoRceR22, your statement is soo way off. Console games do not hold back developers from making good solid graphical pc games. Case and point, look at Crysis and Far Cry and all the other stunning graphical games that where on PC first long before they were on consoles. It's a lot easier to take an existing game for the PC and downgrade the graphics to make it suitable to run on a console then it is to take an existing console game and upgrade the graphics to make it visually better to suit a PC.

 

[Guest]

Um....Epic....how about like um...releasing a game that looks like that um.....like um....for pc's today? Like um....you know when um.......you had um Unreal or Unreal 2 and like they were designed to um.....run on pc's and pc's like um.....got the AAA graphics title first because umm.....consoles are OLD AND SLOW AND USE GAMEPADS. Umm..........

PC's are THE place to game. Just awesome to know that EPIC didn't mention they would be building PC ONLY games now that BLOW console games out of the water as ALL developers SHOULD be doing. Nope.....hit my X, Y, L and R, jiggle thumbstick auto aim nice.

 

[mj4358]

Interesting short article on PS3 AA capability........

http://gamer.blorge.com/2010/01/05/ps3-smoothing-beyond-that-of-high-end-pc-graphics-card/

 

[adamboy64]

No, an improvement in graphics isn't much in itself to warrant the next gen of consoles. Otherwise, each 'gen' would only last a year.

 

[mayankleoboy1]

how about developing some PC games?

 

[enforcer22]

[citation][nom]SteelCity1981[/nom]EnFoRceR22, your statement is soo way off. Console games do not hold back developers from making good solid graphical pc games. Case and point, look at Crysis and Far Cry and all the other stunning graphical games that where on PC first long before they were on consoles. It's a lot easier to take an existing game for the PC and downgrade the graphics to make it suitable to run on a console then it is to take an existing console game and upgrade the graphics to make it visually better to suit a PC.[/citation]


Those games look far from amazing. In fact i would say at least in crysis terms they look dated even before they were released. Farcry not exactly much better. They are also crappy games to top it off. If those are the best examples of new PC graphics it was way worse then i thought.

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]decrypted[/nom]ANYONE trying to compare PCs to consoles are just plain ignorant, self-conscious, or just have a superiority complex. It cracks me up when people spout out that "a $80 blah blah video card can kick a consoles ass", well that $80 card didn't cost $80 when it came out, and it more than likely came out YEARS after the console did[/citation]
I got my Radeon HD4670 3 years after the Xbox 360 came out, I have had 3 years of usage from it.
Before I bought it my PC could not play games as well, aftewards it plays them better.
I paid a grand total of £85 for it and every year that goes by with no successor to the Xbox 360 is an extra year of value.
Due to the large cycle between consoles you can expect a performance bonus from consoles over PCs but they will age very badly as the cycles between CPUs and GPUs, which also forces down pricing on the generation below significantly, means if you intend to own a PC for the same length of time as the developmet cycle of a console the PC will still be better value for money.

also, and this is my favourite part, PCs and consoles are not stand alone, they require games and PC games cost less than console games - the savings for someone who buys X amount of games per year are significant.

 

[SteelCity1981]

What do you want movie style CGI gaming graphics, that no avg gamer could play because the hardware would be soo demanding that you would have to basicly need a super computer to play them? For starters it would cost the developers way too much money to develope a game like that and considering you would have to be pretty weathly to be able to play a game like that on a super super highend computer, then it wouldn't leave much room for the vast majority of everyone else to play those games on a pc, thus the gaming developers would lose a ton of money on something that 1 or 2% of the gaming population could actually play. Games are develeoped for a wide range of hardware pc platforms. the problem isn't consoles that are holding games back from further ehancing the graphics on the games it's pc's standards that are. Look at all the games that are bogged down that have to support Intergrated graphics because of licencing agreements, that's the reason.

 

[enforcer22]

CGI no... though it would be nice to have the option i wouldn't ask that. The use of advanced shader effects make DX9 look like total crap. i played a couple games in dx 9 and dx10,11 its like night and day in graphical effects and style.

Integrated graphics are not why they don't make more graphical games. Its been said but a few major game developers that it makes no sense to develop dx10 or higher games because their main focus and audience is consoles.

CGI is extreme but alot of people could play dx10 graphical games and quite a few could even play dx11 graphical games. If by chance the devs started making games with these API's there are a lot of people that would upgrade.

Don't get me wrong in the fact graphics while important to me isn't what makes a game. However it is a good part of the experience. A lot of the games i enjoy most are dx9 games but some of that is that its been almsot a decade since a game has come out that i liked and the ones that did come out that i liked are still only DX9 games. Aside i believe 3 of them.

Now battlefield 3 looks freaking great. A prime example IMO of what a game should look like. And i don't care what you say if the people cant play it they will upgrade. Thats how a quality game works. It drives more then just gaming it drive hardware. Something consoles cant do.