Crytek: 8GB of RAM will limit us this generation

[Athernar]

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.

 

Again, I've not stated anything in regards to what people should buy or what is the "better" system/product/platform.

 

What I have done however is attempt to correct your flawed comparison by explaining the disparity between different device classes, and the design goals of both now-current gen consoles moving away from utilising bleeding edge hardware.

 

No opinions, just observations.

[neoadorable]

Again, I've not stated anything in regards to what people should buy or what is the "better" system/product/platform.

 

What I have done however is attempt to correct your flawed comparison by explaining the disparity between different device classes, and the design goals of both now-current gen consoles moving away from utilising bleeding edge hardware.

 

No opinions, just observations.

 

Understood, and no problem. We are here to exchange opinions, we certainly don't have to agree. While i'm no engineer, i have been an IT customer on multiple levels, for gaming since age six, which was...longer ago than i care to admit. That makes me a stakeholder and means it's my money that has kept these industries going. Not tooting my own horn, the point i'm getting at is that i don't think consoles were ever supposed to be cutting edge. In fact MS and Sony have clearly stated that they were not going for the latest and greatest because it would be unaffordable to the target audience. They know competing with the ever-fluctuating PC component market is pointless, and even though a 2015 tablet may technically be able to do 360/PS3 level games you'd need to hook it up to a TV via HDMI and add a controller - otherwise it's the same old fiddly touch controls.

 

Sorry for the drivel, i am just saying that not much has changed. Consoles were never cutting edge, i think people who now claim 360 and PS3 were so advanced are simply revising history. They were not so advanced for their time, they just did things differently with the PowerPC architecture and all. So there's nothing inherently wrong with X1 and PS4, they are being condemned by many for doing what consoles have always done, which i think is unfair.

 

Mobile devices get a lot of leeway as they've managed to work their way into a wider "cool" aspect of the global psyche. Apple and Samsung sell more of each generation in one year than Sony or MS do in a decade, but that's not because of being super advanced - it's due to taking old functionalities and cramming them into a new form factor, which is impressive.

 

I don't think comparing them is flawed - i don't like that X1 and PS4 are being held to unfair requirements because that's the thing to do now. I really appreciate them, they've added to my life and made me happy. I don't like seeing the work that went into them being dismissed like it's nothing, and i don't like overly obvious double standards.

[trooper11]

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.

You were the one that mentioned a yearly cycle of new models. That is how the smartphone, tablet and pc markets work.

I'm just trying to figure out how MS or Sony could do that without taking significant losses on hardware.

 

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.

The X1 and PS4 both use components that are not off the shelf pc parts. Your advocating for a steambox model where they literally just use off the shelf parts in order to cut down on costs and make it easier to upgrade the systems yearly.

I'm not saying the idea is bad, just that I don't think the market can support that model. I think what we would see is basically a mirror of the pc gaming world: fragmentation. Sames goes in the smartphone and tablet markets. Developers would begin to create games for the lowest common denominator because many people would simply not buy upgrades or not buy a new system for 4 or 5 years.

There is a niche of gamers that would buy into such a system like steambox or pc gaming, but I'm not so sure that the bigger portion of the market would properly support the platforms, especially if there is more than one. The pc gaming market works fine, but I'm not so sure there is room for multiple versions of that model.

I think the biggest issue is that we are forgetting that most people like to hold on to things like consoles for a number of years. In order for a steambox idea to work, you have to convince most users to upgrade their console or buy a new one fairly often, or risk developer fragmentation/stagnation.

[Athernar]

<snip>

 

That may be your perception, but the truth is the previous generation of consoles were in relative terms "more powerful" than the current generation at release.

 

The PS3 with it's over-engineered Cell architecture (and accordingly exorbitant price tag (Remember my point about phones?)) is a prime example of why having the "best" hardware does not guarantee success. I think it's a fair statement to say that overall Sony ceded their position of dominance to Microsoft and the 360 in that generation because of this fact.

 

Even the 360 CPU was meaty for it's time, 3 PPC cores with 6 threads thanks to SMT. That might not sound amazing today, but when you take into consideration AMD had only just launched their Athlon 64 X2 line months before the 360 launched rather puts things into perspective. (It even becomes a little hilarious when you remember that at the time Intel was pathetically smushing two dies onto one CPU package to try to claim being the "first" dual-core x86 CPU)

 

I'm sorry, but the facts simply do not support your position. The industry has changed and is heading in a new direction.

[neoadorable]

That may be your perception, but the truth is the previous generation of consoles were in relative terms "more powerful" than the current generation at release.

 

The PS3 with it's over-engineered Cell architecture (and accordingly exorbitant price tag (Remember my point about phones?)) is a prime example of why having the "best" hardware does not guarantee success. I think it's a fair statement to say that overall Sony ceded their position of dominance to Microsoft and the 360 in that generation because of this fact.

 

Even the 360 CPU was meaty for it's time, 3 PPC cores with 6 threads thanks to SMT. That might not sound amazing today, but when you take into consideration AMD had only just launched their Athlon 64 X2 line months before the 360 launched rather puts things into perspective. (It even becomes a little hilarious when you remember that at the time Intel was pathetically smushing two dies onto one CPU package to try to claim being the "first" dual-core x86 CPU)

 

I'm sorry, but the facts simply do not support your position. The industry has changed and is heading in a new direction.

 

Facts are subject to interpretation, and i also believe you choose to overlook the specs on the current consoles. In processing power neither the 360 nor the PS3 were a challenge to PCs in 2005 and 2006 - i mean PCs that cost more than they did, even though you seem to think the Intel design for Core 2 was silly. Have had this coversation before, it seems to be a new tactic adopted by PC-centric folks who don't like the idea of a fixed console. Now the narrative is that X1/PS4 are not innovative, and have entered at a lower point than the 360/PS3. Which are suddenly depicted as better - i suspect for the sole purpose of making the current consoles look bad.

 

Funny thing is i remember having the exact same conversation back in 2005-2007, and in previous cycles before. I understand the lack of interest in fixed designs, i agree that consoles should not overstay their welcome (eight years is overkill, four-five is about right), but i don't agree there's anything wrong with X1 or PS4 strictly speaking. They hold their own very well, and will do better with time. That they could have been more powerful? Sure, but i honestly didn't expect an 18-core and a 20-core chip with five and seven billion transistors. If you think that's underpowered for $400, all the more power to you, no pun intended.

 

EDIT: what's the new direction the industry is headed in? You mean flexible, open designs, or multiple competing designs? That's not new. I'm not sure how old you are, but i was introduced to computing and gaming during an era that had literally dozens of competing designs, many of them very open - including ironically MSX from...well, MS, which is the original ancestor of Xbox (MSX). In case you are young, then you should keep in mind that the more things change, the more they really do stay the same!

 

If the below is the new direction, then i can't afford it!

 

Here's the full list of Surface Pro 3 versions and their prices:

• Intel Core i3, 64 GB and 4 GB of RAM - $799
• Intel Core i5, 128 GB and 4 GB of RAM - $999
• Intel Core i5, 256 GB and 8 GB of RAM - $1,299
• Intel Core i7, 256 GB and 8 GB of RAM - $1,549
• Intel Core i7, 512 GB7 and 8 GB of RAM - $1,949

[Athernar]

Facts are subject to interpretation, and i also believe you choose to overlook the specs on the current consoles. In processing power neither the 360 nor the PS3 were a challenge to PCs in 2005 and 2006 - i mean PCs that cost more than they did, even though you seem to think the Intel design for Core 2 was silly. Have had this coversation before, it seems to be a new tactic adopted by PC-centric folks who don't like the idea of a fixed console. Now the narrative is that X1/PS4 are not innovative, and have entered at a lower point than the 360/PS3. Which are suddenly depicted as better - i suspect for the sole purpose of making the current consoles look bad.

 

You need to refresh your CPU history, the Core 2 didn't occur until mid-2006 on a 65nm process and was a true dual-core design. The chip I'm referring to was Intel's initial 90nm "Pentium D", which was 2 silicon dies on one CPU package.

 

That same year Microsoft have a console with 3 cores and 6 threads, ironically you seem to be attempting the revisionism you claimed of me by dismissing this point.

 

I'm tired of your us vs them hyperbole, so to conclude I think I've made quite a solid case for my statements thus far. You are welcome to keep claiming otherwise on nothing but your own authority, I'm done here on this point.

 

EDIT: what's the new direction the industry is headed in? You mean flexible, open designs, or multiple competing designs? That's not new. I'm not sure how old you are, but i was introduced to computing and gaming during an era that had literally dozens of competing designs, many of them very open - including ironically MSX from...well, MS, which is the original ancestor of Xbox (MSX). In case you are young, then you should keep in mind that the more things change, the more they really do stay the same.

 

None of the above. I'm referring to a move towards shorter release cycles and an eventual convergence with the PC platform.

[neoadorable]

You need to refresh your CPU history, the Core 2 didn't occur until mid-2006 on a 65nm process and was a true dual-core design. The chip I'm referring to was Intel's initial 90nm "Pentium D", which was 2 silicon dies on one CPU package.

 

That same year Microsoft have a console with 3 cores and 6 threads, ironically you seem to be attempting the revisionism you claimed of me by dismissing this point.

 

I'm tired of your us vs them hyperbole, so to conclude I think I've made quite a solid case for my statements thus far. You are welcome to keep claiming otherwise on nothing but your own authority, I'm done here on this point.

 

 

None of the above. I'm referring to a move towards shorter release cycles and an eventual convergence with the PC platform.

 

That is correct, i am well aware of when Core 2 Duo came out because i bought one on launch. Thanks for correcting me. I am still quite convinced 360 didn't pose a challenge to a pricier gaming PC even with its tri-core 3.2GHz processor, which i was very fond of. I was reminded of this lack of challenging PCs at every turn back in 2005 by people who said it's just a PowerPC mod and that the original Xbox was "a Celeron anway", so why would the new consoles be any different.

 

You're right, we can go at it forever. Just keep in mind the X1 has a 360mm2 SoC with five billion 28nm transistors, which i think is pretty close to the Tahiti chips? Roughly same size and 4-5 billion transistors? For $400 and as a device that was likely finalized design-wise in mid to late 2012, that is not bad at all. It is honestly more than i expected, as is the 8GB RAM (people were expecting 2GB-4GB).

 

Convergence is certainly the trend, we can agree on that. Otherwise there wouldn't be a browser on your consoles or gamepad support for tablets. Take it easy dude, and don't be a hater. It's all good, be grateful these are the things we argue over.

[spaceelf]

I am still quite convinced 360 didn't pose a challenge to a pricier gaming PC even with its tri-core 3.2GHz processor, which i was very fond of.

It did for floating point, but integer ops were very weak according to the 'in depth' looks at it on the interwebs (a problem the new consoles do not have.)

 

Still, the CPU was the only part of the box that held up long term.

[neoadorable]

It did for floating point, but integer ops were very weak according to the 'in depth' looks at it on the interwebs (a problem the new consoles do not have.)

 

Still, the CPU was the only part of the box that held up long term.

 

Oh for sure, i'm not saying 360 was bad hahaha, same situation as now - it was a console, so i knew what to expect. I understand the desire to compare them to fully fledged PCs (i mean what we call PCs, not cheap pre-builts - you know what i mean), but i really get annoyed when people diss consoles because they can't measure to our PCs.

 

At any rate, 360 and PS3 aged very well - once more i reiterate my amazement that they managed to get such software running on a total 512MB in an age when PCs have graphics cards with 4GB and the results are not exponentially better, no matter how much i'd like to justify my PC purchases. Though i'm running a 7950 with 3GB - it cost me over $400 when i bought it. Like many others i double dip, and games first played on 360 do not look or run literally eight times better or whatever on PC. This is the point i was trying to make, we need to enjoy the plenty we have in context and with fairness.

[theyarecomingforyou]

And anyone who expected 4K gaming out of a $500 device is simply out of touch.

Who suggested that a 4K gaming device would only cost $500? That doesn't have anything to do with what was being discussed. The whole point is that console manufacturers should offer premium products, so we might see a $1000 premium model, a $500 standard model and a $250 budget model. As for 4K, it won't be cost effective even at the premium end for another year or two. However, it should at least be an option for those console gamers who don't want to mess around with custom build PCs and manual configurations - console owners shouldn't have to wait 6-7 years for the next console to offer 4K support.

 

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.

I honestly have no idea who you're arguing with. Nobody realistically expected the current generation of consoles to support 4K - however, they did expect them to support 1080p and do so with enough power to see through the next 6-7 years, which simply isn't the case.

 

 

And anyone who expected 4K gaming out of a $500 device is simply out of touch.

I agree but that doesn't have anything to do with what was being discussed. The whole point is that console manufacturers should offer premium products, so we might see a $1000 premium model, a $500 standard model and a $250 budget model. As for 4K, it won't be cost effective even at the premium end for another year or two. However, it should at least be an option for those console gamers who don't want to mess around with custom build PCs and manual configurations - console owners shouldn't have to wait 6-7 years for the next console to offer 4K support.

 

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.

They use mostly off the shelf parts, much more so than any previous generation. Moving to a standard model would significantly cut down R&D costs.

 

You were the one that mentioned a yearly cycle of new models. That is how the smartphone, tablet and pc markets work.

I'm well aware of how they work. Nobody is expected to buy a new mobile or PC each year just because a new model comes out, which would be the same with consoles. You're just not being reasonable.

[DeltaXray]

Wow there have been some hilarious posts in this thread.  So many of the PC Master Race still seeming to think that people are caring about banging that same old drum.

 

Expensive PCs can play games higher than 1080p. So what?

Expensive PCs can play games at >60 fps. So what?

 

There are two entirely different markets.  Consoles are designed for TV and therefore don't need higher than 1080p and my PS4 hits that with almost every game thrown at it.

 

There's also the fact that the PC for the most part lacks a proper TV UI (unless you want to use steam big picture) and you are also limited with your input methods unless the dev has baked controller support into the PC version.

Show me a PC that can hit 1080p60 for ?349 and only sucking~140w at full tilt.  Not going to happen.  They are different beasts for different markets.

 

Not to mention that the console community has propped up the game development industry as a whole for many years because of piracy on the PC.  I know Steam is popular but there is still way too much PC piracy.

 

The master race need to seriously give it up already, nobody cares about this PC / console debate it will pointlessly go round in circles forever.

[trooper11]

I'm well aware of how they work. Nobody is expected to buy a new mobile or PC each year just because a new model comes out, which would be the same with consoles. You're just not being reasonable.

Not being reasonable?

Sorry for quoting your own words.

Seriously though, if you didn't mean a yearly cycle then that is fine, I'm sorry I misunderstood you.

Beyond that point, the rest of my reply stands. I'm just not sure how such a plan would work if both Sony and MS tried it. I can see maybe one company being successful up to a point, but having two or three fighting over the marketing using that model might not turn out so well.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Wow there have been some hilarious posts in this thread.  So many of the PC Master Race still seeming to think that people are caring about banging that same old drum.

 

Expensive PCs can play games higher than 1080p. So what?

Expensive PCs can play games at >60 fps. So what?

If you don't care about resolution or framerates then why even bother with the XB1 or PS4? The only thing they offer is improved graphical capabilities.

 

Consoles are designed for TV and therefore don't need higher than 1080p and my PS4 hits that with almost every game thrown at it.

The PS4 is definitely the most capable of the two consoles but there are a lot of games that run at only 30fps or sub-1080p and we're only at the beginning of this generation.

 

There's also the fact that the PC for the most part lacks a proper TV UI (unless you want to use steam big picture)

You can't say that the PC lacks a proper TV UI and then mention Steam's Big Picture mode.

 

and you are also limited with your input methods unless the dev has baked controller support into the PC version.

Most PC games support controllers in addition to many other control schemes, so that's an advantage of the PC.

 

Show me a PC that can hit 1080p60 for ?349 and only sucking~140w at full tilt.  Not going to happen.  They are different beasts for different markets.

Exactly, which is why it makes sense for consoles to exist as dedicated gaming machines. If you look at Steam Machines you'll see they have much lower power requirements than traditional PCs and no doubt companies like Sony and Microsoft would be able to bring it down even further given it wouldn't be an open platform (they'd be the only manufacturers and could optimise the systems as they see fit). All I'm suggesting is that consoles offer different tiers and update them regularly rather than offering hugely limited machines that are expected to last the best part of a decade. The traditional console model of subsidising hardware failed dramatically last generation and both Microsoft and Sony lost money, so I don't see it as a sustainable business model.

 

Crytek is right that the amount of RAM in the PS4 and XB1 will be a limitation during this generation (just as the CPU and GPU power already are a limitation). Annual refreshes could avoid that.

[neoadorable]

Who suggested that a 4K gaming device would only cost $500? That doesn't have anything to do with what was being discussed. The whole point is that console manufacturers should offer premium products, so we might see a $1000 premium model, a $500 standard model and a $250 budget model. As for 4K, it won't be cost effective even at the premium end for another year or two. However, it should at least be an option for those console gamers who don't want to mess around with custom build PCs and manual configurations - console owners shouldn't have to wait 6-7 years for the next console to offer 4K support.

 

 

I honestly have no idea who you're arguing with. Nobody realistically expected the current generation of consoles to support 4K - however, they did expect them to support 1080p and do so with enough power to see through the next 6-7 years, which simply isn't the case.

 

 

I agree but that doesn't have anything to do with what was being discussed. The whole point is that console manufacturers should offer premium products, so we might see a $1000 premium model, a $500 standard model and a $250 budget model. As for 4K, it won't be cost effective even at the premium end for another year or two. However, it should at least be an option for those console gamers who don't want to mess around with custom build PCs and manual configurations - console owners shouldn't have to wait 6-7 years for the next console to offer 4K support.

 

 

They use mostly off the shelf parts, much more so than any previous generation. Moving to a standard model would significantly cut down R&D costs.

 

I'm well aware of how they work. Nobody is expected to buy a new mobile or PC each year just because a new model comes out, which would be the same with consoles. You're just not being reasonable.

 

Sorry, but you make assertions and then when they are directly countered you backup and claim it's not what you said. Anyway, let's get too bickersome. The multi-tiered model you are describing is not a game console, it's what Valve is trying to do with their boxes. It's a PC. Might as well get a PC, a pre-built one. If you mean something that has the flexibility of a pre-built PC and the greater simplicity and stability of a console, then yes, this is a concept that has been discussed many times and is what Valve is trying to do. Personally not a fan of this concept, but why not? Very happy with the existing console and PC environment, though aware it will sooner or later change beyond recognition (not in my lifetime though, likely to be short :laugh: )

 

The current consoles are not more off the shelf than previous generation, simply not true. Maybe more than the literla previous generation, but come on, original Xbox specifically described its CPU as Pentium III. The current consoles can easily do 1080, they can do 1440 i'd wager. What we are seeing is due to development, not hardware. I keep mentioning the specs, how both are at least on par with AMD Tahiti, but no one bothers to address that.

 

I think your vision for consoles while legit is not practical, as it is basically a PC. I also think your disdain for the current consoles is unwarranted.

[neoadorable]

Wow there have been some hilarious posts in this thread.  So many of the PC Master Race still seeming to think that people are caring about banging that same old drum.

 

Expensive PCs can play games higher than 1080p. So what?

Expensive PCs can play games at >60 fps. So what?

 

There are two entirely different markets.  Consoles are designed for TV and therefore don't need higher than 1080p and my PS4 hits that with almost every game thrown at it.

 

There's also the fact that the PC for the most part lacks a proper TV UI (unless you want to use steam big picture) and you are also limited with your input methods unless the dev has baked controller support into the PC version.

Show me a PC that can hit 1080p60 for ?349 and only sucking~140w at full tilt.  Not going to happen.  They are different beasts for different markets.

 

Not to mention that the console community has propped up the game development industry as a whole for many years because of piracy on the PC.  I know Steam is popular but there is still way too much PC piracy.

 

The master race need to seriously give it up already, nobody cares about this PC / console debate it will pointlessly go round in circles forever.

 

Delta, you're making too much sense for the PC elitists to fathom. They just hate consoles, but will never come out and say it. Some sort of weird insecurity thing, i'll never understand why. You can make the most logical arguments and they will counter with the same old refrains. Oh if you don't want 1080, then why bother with PS4/X1? Who said they can't do 1080? Oh but Trials HD is 900p/30. Well yes but that's because developers have families to go to and can't be bothered to work three more months on a project just to give us an extra 180 pixels that no one will notice on their TV.

 

Everything you said here is true and i agree 100%.

 

For the record, the current generation of consoles never promised more than 1080 and being at the beginning of the cycle means we will only get better performance with time.

[Melfster]

 

 

Not to mention that the console community has propped up the game development industry as a whole for many years because of piracy on the PC.  I know Steam is popular but there is still way too much PC piracy.

 

The master race need to seriously give it up already, nobody cares about this PC / console debate it will pointlessly go round in circles forever.

 

 

This is really typical of console fanatics.   The console community owes just as much to PC community as does PC community does to the console   community.  After all both xboxone and PS4 are based on PC parts.  Development of all games are done on PC.   In fact lots genre  such as FPS and RTS have big roots in the PC side.  Even big titles such as the Witcher first apeared on the PC.  Yes piracy is problem but it less of problem for multiplayer games.  (such as WoW).  In my opinion there is a lot more innovation PC side gaming then the consoles.  Major kickstarter game such as Star Citizen that are not possible on consoles.

[McKay]

If you don't care about resolution or framerates then why even bother with the XB1 or PS4? The only thing they offer is improved graphical capabilities.

 

 

The PS4 is definitely the most capable of the two consoles but there are a lot of games that run at only 30fps or sub-1080p and we're only at the beginning of this generation.

 

 

You can't say that the PC lacks a proper TV UI and then mention Steam's Big Picture mode.

 

 

Most PC games support controllers in addition to many other control schemes, so that's an advantage of the PC.

 

 

Exactly, which is why it makes sense for consoles to exist as dedicated gaming machines. If you look at Steam Machines you'll see they have much lower power requirements than traditional PCs and no doubt companies like Sony and Microsoft would be able to bring it down even further given it wouldn't be an open platform (they'd be the only manufacturers and could optimise the systems as they see fit). All I'm suggesting is that consoles offer different tiers and update them regularly rather than offering hugely limited machines that are expected to last the best part of a decade. The traditional console model of subsidising hardware failed dramatically last generation and both Microsoft and Sony lost money, so I don't see it as a sustainable business model.

 

Crytek is right that the amount of RAM in the PS4 and XB1 will be a limitation during this generation (just as the CPU and GPU power already are a limitation). Annual refreshes could avoid that.

 

The games at the start of last generation looked like crap compared to the ones coming out near the end. Games were running in odd resolutions like 540, 610, anything really. Towards the end what did we get? Graphically demanding games consistently hitting 720p. GTA 5 managed to hit 720 on both platforms, Halo 4 was the best looking Halo game of the generation and hit 720, The Last of Us hit 720. 

 

Throwing better hardware at Devs is a double edged sword. Forcing them to work with limited hardware in comparison to PCs forces them to optimise and this benefits everybody. Look what they achieved with GTA 5 compared to 4, look at Skyrim compared to Oblivion, Battlefield 3-4 are leagues above Battlefield 2: Modern Combat. 

 

I also game on PC as well as consoles and I've seen some truly awful efforts by Devs. I can hit 50FPS on Battlefield 4 on High Settings, yet Borderlands 2 chugs along with medium settings at 25-30FPS. I just don't think the Mobile Phone market ideas can work for Consoles. Look at how quickly phones become obsolete and abandoned by Devs. iPhone 4 came out in 2010 and there are games that abandoned it, requiring better phones. 

[neoadorable]

This is really typical of console fanatics.   The console community owes just as much to PC community as does PC community does to the console   community.  After all both xboxone and PS4 are based on PC parts.  Development of all games are done on PC.   In fact lots genre  such as FPS and RTS have big roots in the PC side.  Even big titles such as the Witcher first apeared on the PC.  Yes piracy is problem but it less of problem for multiplayer games.  (such as WoW).  In my opinion there is a lot more innovation PC side gaming then the consoles.  Major kickstarter game such as Star Citizen that are not possible on consoles.

 

Except the console fanatics in this discussion also happen to be PC users, and not of the shabby old PC variety. I suspect the PC elitists in this discussion would not touch a console with a cattle prod. I find this is often the case, console haters really don't want consoles, while console fanatics have no problem with PC and usually enjoy both.

 

And what Delta meant is that over the last decade plus consoles have saved gaming. Period. All of the big franchises that currently exist became big on console. The Witcher included. Back in 2004 PC gaming was fumbling, not dying, for sure not that. But not doing that great. Money pumped into the coffers of developers and publishers from the very stable console market starting with PS2 has given rise to the massive industry we know today. I think it was less than $15 billion in 2000 total. It must be over $100 billion now. This is not thanks to Steam sales alone, let's put it like that (said by someone who's a compulsive Steam sale buyer).

 

 

The games at the start of last generation looked like crap compared to the ones coming out near the end. Games were running in odd resolutions like 540, 610, anything really. Towards the end what did we get? Graphically demanding games consistently hitting 720p. GTA 5 managed to hit 720 on both platforms, Halo 4 was the best looking Halo game of the generation and hit 720, The Last of Us hit 720. 

 

Throwing better hardware at Devs is a double edged sword. Forcing them to work with limited hardware in comparison to PCs forces them to optimise and this benefits everybody. Look what they achieved with GTA 5 compared to 4, look at Skyrim compared to Oblivion, Battlefield 3-4 are leagues above Battlefield 2: Modern Combat. 

 

I also game on PC as well as consoles and I've seen some truly awful efforts by Devs. I can hit 50FPS on Battlefield 4 on High Settings, yet Borderlands 2 chugs along with medium settings at 25-30FPS. I just don't think the Mobile Phone market ideas can work for Consoles. Look at how quickly phones become obsolete and abandoned by Devs. iPhone 4 came out in 2010 and there are games that abandoned it, requiring better phones. 

 

Again, you are making too much sense and they won't listen to this logic. X1 and PS4 can't do 1080, that's all they'll say. It can't possibly be developers, it's gotta be because they're just mud-caked peasant machines. Not shining uber race PCs. Maybe they should check the Steam discussions for all those poor souls with dual Titans who were crying because XCOM The Bureau of all games was running in 15fps on their builds in DX9.

[duoi Veteran]

I haven't read much of this thread but I personally believe 8GB is too limiting. I don't understand why RAM disks are underutilized-- I would have loved to see 16 or 24GB in these consoles with a giant chunk of that dedicated to preloading maps, sounds and textures and such. If you think SSDs are quick at 500MB/s, then you should note that RAM works at +7GB/s.

[neoadorable]

I haven't read much of this thread but I personally believe 8GB is too limiting. I don't understand why RAM disks are underutilized-- I would have loved to see 16 or 24GB in these consoles with a giant chunk of that dedicated to preloading maps, sounds and textures and such. If you think SSDs are quick at 500MB/s, then you should note that RAM works at +7GB/s.

 

Everyone would have loved 64GB consoles, but that would have meant an $800 PS4/X1. Even the 8GB was only managed thanks to saving on stuff like the hard drive, which is your basic Samsung/Hitachi OTS 5400rpm model. Or PS4 having a whopping two USB ports. Or neither supporting 802.11ac. But let's not forget they did include extra RAM/flash that can be utilized for stuff other than app swapping if needed. There is quite a lot of untapped potential in both consoles.

[theyarecomingforyou]

The games at the start of last generation looked like crap compared to the ones coming out near the end.

Obviously techniques improve and developers become more familiar with the hardware but the graphics became more dated as time went on relative to PC gaming, an inevitability of having a fixed-spec platform. GTA V looked really bad, for instance.

 

Throwing better hardware at Devs is a double edged sword. Forcing them to work with limited hardware in comparison to PCs forces them to optimise and this benefits everybody. Look what they achieved with GTA 5 compared to 4, look at Skyrim compared to Oblivion, Battlefield 3-4 are leagues above Battlefield 2: Modern Combat.

Yes, but if they're not able to hit 1080p?the target resolution for this generation?then it's clearly not enough power. As always, that applies more to the XB1 than it does to the PS4.

 

I also game on PC as well as consoles and I've seen some truly awful efforts by Devs. I can hit 50FPS on Battlefield 4 on High Settings, yet Borderlands 2 chugs along with medium settings at 25-30FPS.

I didn't have any issues with Borderlands 2 but I appreciate there are lots of different configs out there.

 

I just don't think the Mobile Phone market ideas can work for Consoles. Look at how quickly phones become obsolete and abandoned by Devs. iPhone 4 came out in 2010 and there are games that abandoned it, requiring better phones.

That would be why developers should move forward. Four years is a long time in computing. Developers that want the extra power should be able to push gaming forward knowing that they'll have a more limited audience, while more casual games will target as many platforms as possible and focus on the gameplay experience. The whole point of moving to a refreshed model would be so that consoles don't have to last so long and don't end up limiting the experience. Heck, consoles could even adopt the subscription model that allows mobile phones to be so affordable for the average person, something Microsoft was actually considering.

[trooper11]

That would be why developers should move forward. Four years is a long time in computing. Developers that want the extra power should be able to push gaming forward knowing that they'll have a more limited audience, while more casual games will target as many platforms as possible and focus on the gameplay experience. The whole point of moving to a refreshed model would be so that consoles don't have to last so long and don't end up limiting the experience. Heck, consoles could even adopt the subscription model that allows mobile phones to be so affordable for the average person, something Microsoft was actually considering.

That's fine for developers, but the question is whether you can convince the console gaming user base to embrace the model in a way that allows a company to be successful. A lot of users like the fact that they can buy something that lasts multiple years without having to worry about being made a second class citizen because a new model came out the next year or two.

[DeltaXray]

You've also got to remember that we're not going to see a generation gap like the last one again, or at least for some time yet.  That spanned one of the biggest recessions in recent memory.  Both Microsoft and Sony have said they expect to be back to ~3year cycles again this time around so the specs of consoles will be being bumped up faster than we have become used to .

 

Especially with the Xbox One getting a hammering I fully expect them to get a new device our by 2016/2017 and Sony won't want to be left behind. By then I expect 12-16GB ram per machine.

[McKay]

Yes, but if they're not able to hit 1080p?the target resolution for this generation?then it's clearly not enough power. As always, that applies more to the XB1 than it does to the PS4.

But as I said last generation lots games were coming out at wacky resolutions like 800x640. As devs got more familiar even some of the most demanding games of the generation were hitting 720 reliably.

With exceptions to Call of Duty, plenty of the really demanding games are hitting 900 in XB1, I don't think it's too much of a push to jump to 1080, BF4 probably could have hit 1080 if they'd gone for 30fps instead of 60.

[MFH]

McKay, on 22 May 2014 - 15:26, said:

As devs got more familiar

 

What's there to get familiar with?!

In contrast to the 360 and the PS3 with their (weird) custom CPU designs, this generation uses standard x86-based CPUs that are well known and used everywhere in the industry for 30+ years?