Crytek: 8GB of RAM will limit us this generation

[Melfster]

No, for $1000 you'll get a PC that can do 1080p/60 in all games in high settings. That's hardly kicking their butt. Kicking their butt would be at least 1440p/60 with ultra settings. That's the baseline for master race creds. Everything else you say about PCs is true and self evident, but consoles are not meant to compete with that. Console specs stay static? Wow, what a revelation, i thought my X1 could upgrade itself...seriously dude, we know what the differences between a PC and a console are. That's why many of us have both categories if we can afford to. There's no need to hate.

 

And no one is saying the PC gaming market is shrinking, how is that even relevant? You're just a console hater, sorry to say.

 

 

Don't put words in my mouth.  I am not a console hatter in fact I own a PS3.   You really have no Idea what your talking about.  Go look PC percepitve guys did  Yes you can put togetter system that did that. I am just pointing out value proposition they are not the great deal right now.  

 

[neoadorable]

No offense, but saying you own a PS3 sounds like saying "some of my best friends are console gamers". Anyway, you are preaching the PC and saying X1 and PS4 are not good devices...certainly your opinion but one i disagree with. A Taurus or Camry are not bad cars just because an Audi RS8 exists. You get my point, i hope. Then again, Crytek would probably say a 500bhp V12 isn't enough because it can be "maxed out".

[Athernar]

 

I am getting sick and tired of the hypocrisy. Samsung or some other bunch launches a $700 device with 3GB of RAM and an eight-core processor that barely performs like a 10-year old PC, but everyone goes oh look, amazing! Sony and MS release very powerful machines for less than $500 and everyone calls them dated cause they're less powered than a $2500 PC. The idiocy never ceases.

 

 

That's hardly hypocrisy. Smartphones are a completely different class of device with heavy limitations in terms of size and electrical power.

 

Smartphones are undergoing an arms race in terms of specification right now, so it's not really surprising that people applaud the latest model or that the price tag is so high. Those are natural consequences of being at the bleeding edge.

[neoadorable]

That's hardly hypocrisy. Smartphones are a completely different class of device with heavy limitations in terms of size and electrical power.

 

Smartphones are undergoing an arms race in terms of specification right now, so it's not really surprising that people applaud the latest model or that the price tag is so high. Those are natural consequences of being at the bleeding edge

 

Don't see it like that - they are simply miniaturized PCs, the advancement is in fitting computing power into a smaller form factor. Consoles are the same, except not to that extreme. We got 16 times more gross memory than the previous generation - which is the biggest leap i believe ever between console "generations", but that's still not enough. As someone who enjoys gaming on PC and consoles very much and is grateful for every minute with all of them, i do not like this constant putting down and making it seem like PCs and consoles are somehow contradictory when in fact they are complementary. Meanwhile price-gouged mobile devices get a pass.

[Athernar]

Don't see it like that - they are simply miniaturized PCs, the advancement is in fitting computing power into a smaller form factor. Consoles are the same, except not to that extreme. We got 16 times more gross memory than the previous generation - which is the biggest leap i believe ever between console "generations", but that's still not enough. As someone who enjoys gaming on PC and consoles very much and is grateful for every minute with all of them, i do not like this constant putting down and making it seem like PCs and consoles are somehow contradictory when in fact they are complementary. Meanwhile price-gouged mobile devices get a pass.

 

They aren't even remotely similar. The power considerations alone make such a comparison absurd. This point is easily proven by the fact that smartphones still utilise ARM RISC cores over far more power hungry x86 CISC cores.

 

As I said, smartphones are in a state of arms race between vendors, similar to the old PC days of the race to 1GHz. The tech is bleeding edge and is priced accordingly.

 

The new consoles aren't on the bleeding edge, it's simple as that. That doesn't have to be a negative either, but it does mean they're not going to be seen as technically innovative as the absolute latest tech available.

[Paul L.]

 

He identified himself as a Crytek team member, so he speaks for the company.

 

 

 

 

What's your point? PCs can be built with 64GB RAM and now 6TB hard drives. They also cost a lot more than both consoles combined. For less than $1000 you cannot build a PC that can really be called master race. But console haters never acknowledge this point. Also, i really doubt MS and Sony plan on this generation lasting as long as the previous one.

 

I am getting sick and tired of the hypocrisy. Samsung or some other bunch launches a $700 device with 3GB of RAM and an eight-core processor that barely performs like a 10-year old PC, but everyone goes oh look, amazing! Sony and MS release very powerful machines for less than $500 and everyone calls them dated cause they're less powered than a $2500 PC. The idiocy never ceases.

 

But that's the point now, the components you are talking about will fall down in price while the console has to last various years with the same specs. Again, I don't see Sony or Microsoft making this generation to last long if they are competing more and more over year, vs services like Steam, Origin, or whatever comes next that has very nice offers on games that you are going to play (or even not). Physical media is not attractive anymore for both consumer (increasingly) and manufacturers just because the cost of a Bluray/DVD and the wide availability of Internet connections with a lot of bandwidth and the "easyness" to just buy a game from the online store.

 

What Crytek is saying is probably true, not now, but in the near future, because games are limited to the capability of the hardware that is not upgradable. RAM is not equal to graphics processing, it's not the same thing, and neither to CPU speed. As said above, games are limited to use an amount of the RAM, while a lot else (2GBs) are reserved to the operating system, Xbox One based on Windows kernel, and PS4 based on FreeBSD.

 

And if you think about optimization and Crytek, then, you know nothing about what you are thinking or talking about, just look at the CryEngine SDK, which is free, and get releases as often as two weeks. 

[The Evil Overlord]

Physical media is not attractive anymore for both consumer (increasingly) and manufacturers just because the cost of a Bluray/DVD and the wide availability of Internet connections with a lot of bandwidth and the "easyness" to just buy a game from the online store.

Sorry, but physical media is still extremely attractive, not only do you not need to worry about the amount of drive space needed for a fully digital download, (although one can get around that by having larger/multiple drives) a game on a disc that happens to be a couple of years old can be bought for a pittance compared to it's digital counterpart, (to which I've seen still going for near launch price)

[neoadorable]

But that's the point now, the components you are talking about will fall down in price while the console has to last various years with the same specs. Again, I don't see Sony or Microsoft making this generation to last long if they are competing more and more over year, vs services like Steam, Origin, or whatever comes next that has very nice offers on games that you are going to play (or even not). Physical media is not attractive anymore for both consumer (increasingly) and manufacturers just because the cost of a Bluray/DVD and the wide availability of Internet connections with a lot of bandwidth and the "easyness" to just buy a game from the online store.

 

What Crytek is saying is probably true, not now, but in the near future, because games are limited to the capability of the hardware that is not upgradable. RAM is not equal to graphics processing, it's not the same thing, and neither to CPU speed. As said above, games are limited to use an amount of the RAM, while a lot else (2GBs) are reserved to the operating system, Xbox One based on Windows kernel, and PS4 based on FreeBSD.

 

And if you think about optimization and Crytek, then, you know nothing about what you are thinking or talking about, just look at the CryEngine SDK, which is free, and get releases as often as two weeks. 

 

OK Crytek rep, thanks for that and for stating the obvious...PCs are upgradable, consoles are not, you need RAM to run games. I feel so enlightened now :wacko:

[neoadorable]

They aren't even remotely similar. The power considerations alone make such a comparison absurd. This point is easily proven by the fact that smartphones still utilise ARM RISC cores over far more power hungry x86 CISC cores.

 

As I said, smartphones are in a state of arms race between vendors, similar to the old PC days of the race to 1GHz. The tech is bleeding edge and is priced accordingly.

 

The new consoles aren't on the bleeding edge, it's simple as that. That doesn't have to be a negative either, but it does mean they're not going to be seen as technically innovative as the absolute latest tech available.

 

Smartphones and tablets aren't the latest tech available, they're simply created to do what's been done for ages in a new form factor. You are right that they are in a greater state of flux.

 

More anti-console bias...they're not the cutting edge? What did you expect, a Cray for $400?

[Paul L.]

Sorry, but physical media is still extremely attractive, not only do you not need to worry about the amount of drive space needed for a fully digital download, (although one can get around that by having larger/multiple drives) a game on a disc that happens to be a couple of years old can be bought for a pittance compared to it's digital counterpart, (to which I've seen still going for near launch price)

 

So why Flash devices are increasingly popular and Bluray is not? Again, that's why I am talking and probably Crytek is not talking about now, but the near future.

 

OK Crytek rep, thanks for that and for stating the obvious...PCs are upgradable, consoles are not, you need RAM to run games. I feel so enlightened now :wacko:

 

 

Yeah, someone said once that 64kb of RAM should be enough for everyone, of course. What an argument  :rofl:

[neoadorable]

Yeah, someone said once that 64kb of RAM should be enough for everyone, of course. What an argument  :rofl:

 

That's not the argument i'm making. If you can make me a gaming console with 128GB of RAM for $500, i'd like to know. First get Ryse to run in 1080p using the 5GB you have available on X1, then we'll talk

[Paul L.]

That's not the argument i'm making. If you can make me a gaming console with 128GB of RAM for $500, i'd like to know. First get Ryse to run in 1080p using the 5GB you have available on X1, then we'll talk

 

I am not sure why you even said "Crytek rep", for what I know, you want more juice from a orange that doesn't have any. 5GB does not matter, it's not about the RAM! it's about the AMD GPU that is based on HD 7xxx series, and yes, for that specs, I would say that just don't run it on the Xbox One, if I was a Crytek representative I would say "guys, just don't publish this if we can't made it run on these specs, people spects 1080p, good gameplay, good graphics", and I know that because I don't care about the graphics, but Crytek is MOSTLY about the engine, not the games they made, it's about making their engine famous enough so other publishers start making games on top of the engine. And yes, because they don't have the resources available in the Xbox One is not a way to say "it's not my fault", either do not publish it, or publish it working good enough.

[theyarecomingforyou]

What's your point? PCs can be built with 64GB RAM and now 6TB hard drives. They also cost a lot more than both consoles combined. For less than $1000 you cannot build a PC that can really be called master race. But console haters never acknowledge this point. Also, i really doubt MS and Sony plan on this generation lasting as long as the previous one.

My point is that PCs aimed at average users, not enthusiasts, far surpass the current console offerings in most areas and that gap will only grow. In previous generations consoles were at least competitive with high-end PCs at launch but now they can't even hit 1080p, which is what they were designed for. I built my system two years ago and I'm still able to game at 1600p @ 60fps with the latest titles - top end systems now can do the same at 4K.

 

No, for $1000 you'll get a PC that can do 1080p/60 in all games in high settings. That's hardly kicking their butt. Kicking their butt would be at least 1440p/60 with ultra settings. That's the baseline for master race creds.

On the XB1 Watch_Dogs will be 792p @ 30fps; Dead Rising 3 is 720p @30fps; Battlefield 4 is 720p @ 60fps, COD: Ghosts is 720p @ 60fps. That's without even going into image quality, where the PC has the upper hand. To hit 1080p @ 60fps puts PCs above the current consoles.

 

It's not that PCs are better?that has been the case for a long while for those willing to spend the money?but that even average Dell systems now offer better specs. Add in a decent graphics card and you have yourself a very capable system. That would be fine if Microsoft and Sony released a new, more powerful model each year like most sectors (mobile, tablet, PC) but it's not when they're expected to last 7 years.

 

Crytek is right to criticise the amount of RAM available in the current consoles and the CPU / GPU situation is even worse. Consoles are a great idea for those who want a dedicated gaming system and don't want the hassle of a PC setup - my criticism is the 7yr lifecycle, which is crippling them. They need to be releasing new models each year and offering users a variety of models at different price ranges. They're based on mostly off-the-shelf PC parts now, so backwards compatibility isn't an issue any more.

[The Evil Overlord]

So why Flash devices are increasingly popular and Bluray is not? Again, that's why I am talking and probably Crytek is not talking about now, but the near future.

Ok, this appears to be contradictory, flash devices have thier uses, but that doesn't automatically mean blu ray doesn't, the now, previous gen, and current gen both utilize blu ray discs, and bdplayers can be bought in the lower 2 figure ranges, digital will, in my opinion, never offer the value for money as discs currently, as a case in point, I have just purchased wolfenstein the new order, occupied edition for ?42.99, the digital version right now, is ?49.99 in the playstation store, and doesnt come with the extras the physical did.

Which is why I responded, not in the distant future, I don't see how digital can compete while customers are in control, (which is how it should be, people work for their money, so they decide how they're going to spend it)

[Athernar]

Smartphones and tablets aren't the latest tech available, they're simply created to do what's been done for ages in a new form factor. You are right that they are in a greater state of flux.

 

More anti-console bias...they're not the cutting edge? What did you expect, a Cray for $400?

 

Not in every case no, but the high-end devices certainly are the latest tech.

 

Nothing I've said here is biased against consoles, it's purely a dispassionate evaluation of the reality of the technical choices made by both vendors. On the other hand it's quite clear you're letting yourself be driven by your emotions rather than reasoning and facts.

[BajiRav]

If ND can make Uncharted 2 and The Last of Us with the PS3's memory allocation, I have no problem riding through this generation with 8GB.

Too bad their programmers slit their wrists after working on those damn SPEs.

(This is a joke, relax.)

[trooper11]

Crytek is right to criticise the amount of RAM available in the current consoles and the CPU / GPU situation is even worse. Consoles are a great idea for those who want a dedicated gaming system and don't want the hassle of a PC setup - my criticism is the 7yr lifecycle, which is crippling them. They need to be releasing new models each year and offering users a variety of models at different price ranges. They're based on mostly off-the-shelf PC parts now, so backwards compatibility isn't an issue any more.

How do you release new models every year from a practical point of view?

How could MS or Sony survive as console makers with that kind of strategy? The only way I could think would be to totally abandon the idea of a closed system, just build a pc and slap their name on it. That sounds like suicide, so maybe they instead try to license their designs to third party hardware makers sort of like Steamboxes or consoles like the CDi back in the day. I still don't see that being an effective strategy.

It just sounds like the things you want to see change would require the end to console gaming and everyone jumping to pc game development. They built these consoles to sell at a loss or near break even, so unless they are willing to take huge losses on hardware, I'm not sure what else Sony or MS could have done.

[Alera]

How do you release new models every year from a practical point of view?

How could MS or Sony survive as console makers with that kind of strategy? The only way I could think would be to totally abandon the idea of a closed system, just build a pc and slap their name on it. That sounds like suicide, so maybe they instead try to license their designs to third party hardware makers sort of like Steamboxes or consoles like the CDi back in the day. I still don't see that being an effective strategy.

It just sounds like the things you want to see change would require the end to console gaming and everyone jumping to pc game development. They built these consoles to sell at a loss or near break even, so unless they are willing to take huge losses on hardware, I'm not sure what else Sony or MS could have done.

 

It's called an upgrade path, allowing you to slot in better hardware year after year, perhaps even a "contract" where you don't own the console but are allowed to switch out to a newer console a year or two down the line while renewing your contract. Where have I heard this before... :o

[theyarecomingforyou]

How do you release new models every year from a practical point of view?

Exactly like mobile phone, tablet and PC manufacturers do. New Android devices are released each year and when you buy a new one you don't lose the ability to run all the apps you've already purchased, as you can run them on the new device and they usually perform better. Consoles could be sold at cost because the money is made from software sales, much like Amazon does with the Kindle Fire.

 

Advocating for regularly updated consoles and varied performance tiers is not advocating PC gaming, as it was still be a closed ecosystem. What it would do is allow discerning console owners to buy a better specced model so they don't have to deal with games running at sub-1080p as has become the norm for the XB1. It also allows people who want to game at 4K the option to do so.

[trooper11]

It's called an upgrade path, allowing you to slot in better hardware year after year, perhaps even a "contract" where you don't own the console but are allowed to switch out to a newer console a year or two down the line while renewing your contract. Where have I heard this before... :o

That's a neat idea and all, but what realistic chance is there that those systems would be a draw for the general console gaming market end user?

People are pretty resistant to contracts to begin with, so I'm not sure how that solution would fly with most people.

 

Exactly like mobile phone, tablet and PC manufacturers do. New Android devices are released each year and when you buy a new one you don't lose the ability to run all the apps you've already purchased, as you can run them on the new device and they usually perform better. Consoles could be sold at cost because the money is made from software sales, much like Amazon does with the Kindle Fire.

 

Advocating for regularly updated consoles and varied performance tiers is not advocating PC gaming, as it was still be a closed ecosystem. What it would do is allow discerning console owners to buy a better specced model so they don't have to deal with games running at sub-1080p as has become the norm for the XB1. It also allows people who want to game at 4K the option to do so.

But again, can something like that really fly with the general consumer? A new $400 box every year? I mean it works for phones and tablets due to things like subsidies. Most people are not paying full price for the new iPhone. I don't see how selling consoles via contracts would go over well with most.

I'm not sure how that scenario is not basically the Steambox model. I guess your right that it would still be closed since it would have an exclusive OS/UI, but the components would have to be of the pc variety.

A 1 year change over would require that the upgraded models be backwards compatible as you say to not only allow you to keep playing your old games, but to also keep developers from going nuts trying to adapt to new hardware each year. That pretty much guarantees that a console maker would stick to off the shelf pc parts with little in the way of custom hardware designs. Making it anything but pc standard would create a nightmare for themselves regarding backwards compatibility and depress developer support due to costs. So again, this puts consoles in the Steambox model.

[neoadorable]

My point is that PCs aimed at average users, not enthusiasts, far surpass the current console offerings in most areas and that gap will only grow. In previous generations consoles were at least competitive with high-end PCs at launch but now they can't even hit 1080p, which is what they were designed for. I built my system two years ago and I'm still able to game at 1600p @ 60fps with the latest titles - top end systems now can do the same at 4K.

 

On the XB1 Watch_Dogs will be 792p @ 30fps; Dead Rising 3 is 720p @30fps; Battlefield 4 is 720p @ 60fps, COD: Ghosts is 720p @ 60fps. That's without even going into image quality, where the PC has the upper hand. To hit 1080p @ 60fps puts PCs above the current consoles.

 

It's not that PCs are better?that has been the case for a long while for those willing to spend the money?but that even average Dell systems now offer better specs. Add in a decent graphics card and you have yourself a very capable system. That would be fine if Microsoft and Sony released a new, more powerful model each year like most sectors (mobile, tablet, PC) but it's not when they're expected to last 7 years.

 

Crytek is right to criticise the amount of RAM available in the current consoles and the CPU / GPU situation is even worse. Consoles are a great idea for those who want a dedicated gaming system and don't want the hassle of a PC setup - my criticism is the 7yr lifecycle, which is crippling them. They need to be releasing new models each year and offering users a variety of models at different price ranges. They're based on mostly off-the-shelf PC parts now, so backwards compatibility isn't an issue any more.

 

Have to disagree with everything you said here. The current consoles are no different from their predecessors. Back in 2005 i was gaming at 1440 x 900 on my PC, i clearly remember this. PS3 and 360 never went above 720 in their entire existence. In 2005 my X800 card had 512MB of VRAM, the total memory in a 360 or PS3. In fact the current consoles are more competitive, as they have memory that is comparable to PCs much more than was the case in the past.

 

But consoles are not designed to compete with PCs, they are designed for an entirely different purpose. Saying PCs offer better performance is really like saying the sun is hot.

 

Your idea of releasing updated consoles every year...sorry man, that's just plain silly. You don't like the idea of a gaming console, we get it. Don't buy them. You have a PC, i have a PC, most people here have capable PCs. A console that's upgradable is a PC. What's the point then?

 

EDIT: for the record, i think the trouble with getting 1080 on X1 and PS4 right now is down to developers, not hardware. Either that or Sony and MS are flatout lying about the specs, which i think would be impossible.

 

 

Not in every case no, but the high-end devices certainly are the latest tech.

 

Nothing I've said here is biased against consoles, it's purely a dispassionate evaluation of the reality of the technical choices made by both vendors. On the other hand it's quite clear you're letting yourself be driven by your emotions rather than reasoning and facts.

 

You said quite a lot that's clearly anti-console, which is fine, it's not like you're proposing genocide. But you're making it seem like it's a positive, when it's a negative. Just like theyarecomingforyou, you simply don't like the idea of a games console because you're a PC snob - sorry to say. I have no idea why you would mind consoles if you're so happy with your PC, it's not like Sony and MS have shown up at your doorstep with a shotgun to force you to buy one.

 

I get it, some people think consoles are a bad and static idea that holds technology back. I upgrade/update or just put together a new PC every 2-3 years, and still buy new consoles if i can afford it. I like them all and think they are all great. I have no need to put any of them down, unlike you guys with your passive aggressive posts that are cloaked as "reasoning and facts". We all know the facts, what of them?

[theyarecomingforyou]

But again, can something like that really fly with the general consumer? A new $400 box every year?

Where do you get the idea that people would have to buy a new console every year? I don't buy a new phone every year, nor do I upgrade my PC every year; people don't buy a new car each year just because a new model comes out.

 

I'm not sure how that scenario is not basically the Steambox model. I guess your right that it would still be closed since it would have an exclusive OS/UI, but the components would have to be of the pc variety.

It's not any different, that's the point. To me that is the direction that Microsoft and Sony should be going. As for components, the PS4 and XB1 are built on mostly off the shelf PC components anyway - the XB1 has ESRAM but that's been attributed to most of the performance problems, so that's not a great argument for custom hardware. Console gamers that want to play at 4K simply don't have the option to do so - that may not be so much of an issue now but it will certainly be an issue in several years time. Console gamers who want more than 500GB of storage have no option to do so.

[neoadorable]

Where do you get the idea that people would have to buy a new console every year? I don't buy a new phone every year, nor do I upgrade my PC every year; people don't buy a new car each year just because a new model comes out.

 

 

It's not any different, that's the point. To me that is the direction that Microsoft and Sony should be going. As for components, the PS4 and XB1 are built on mostly off the shelf PC components anyway - the XB1 has ESRAM but that's been attributed to most of the performance problems, so that's not a great argument for custom hardware. Console gamers that want to play at 4K simply don't have the option to do so - that may not be so much of an issue now but it will certainly be an issue in several years time. Console gamers who want more than 500GB of storage have no option to do so.

 

I'm not trooper haha but didn't you say you thought MS and Sony should offer a new model annually? Maybe i read you wrong.

 

And anyone who expected 4K gaming out of a $500 device is simply out of touch. I don't mean Flappy Bird in 4K like tablets may offer next year, i mean Watch Dogs in 4K. Who in their right mind expected new games consoles in 2013 to be capable of this when just a 4K monitor is twice their price tag? They were not designed for 4K, it's not even an issue for them. Any console gamer that wants to play in 4K should be sent to the local mental hospital for a touch of ECT...they are clearly not in sync with our reality.

 

The storage you're right about, i definitely agree 500GB and at 5400rpm is way too low on both counts. And cluttersome USB storage won't solve that even when they update the firmware finally.

 

X1 and PS4 have SoCs that are custom built, you know this. Very related to standard desktop/notebook processors, but still custom made. That's not off the shelf, as i said, they didn't call Tiger Direct.

[Athernar]

You said quite a lot that's clearly anti-console, which is fine, it's not like you're proposing genocide. But you're making it seem like it's a positive, when it's a negative. Just like theyarecomingforyou, you simply don't like the idea of a games console because you're a PC snob - sorry to say. I have no idea why you would mind consoles if you're so happy with your PC, it's not like Sony and MS have shown up at your doorstep with a shotgun to force you to buy one.

 

I get it, some people think consoles are a bad and static idea that holds technology back. I upgrade/update or just put together a new PC every 2-3 years, and still buy new consoles if i can afford it. I like them all and think they are all great. I have no need to put any of them down, unlike you guys with your passive aggressive posts that are cloaked as "reasoning and facts". We all know the facts, what of them?

 

I've not been anti or pro anything in this thread at all, my posts have been dispassionate observations.

 

Your posts however are skewed by your cognitive biases and current emotional state, which explains why you are perceiving a neutral position as negative.

 

"Sorry to say", but if anyone is being a snob here. It is quite clearly you.

[neoadorable]

I've not been anti or pro anything in this thread at all, my posts have been dispassionate observations.

 

Your posts however are skewed by your cognitive biases and current emotional state, which explains why you are perceiving a neutral position as negative.

 

"Sorry to say", but if anyone is being a snob here. It is quite clearly you.

 

Thanks for saying that, i appreciate your honesty. I am not denying being passionate about this, otherwise i wouldn't be here. I don't see your stance as neutral, that would be saying let people buy whatever they feel is best for them. Anyway, my cognitive bias is clear: i don't like negativity.