Crytek: 8GB of RAM will limit us this generation

[Guest]

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.

 

I don't get it, last generation consoles were so weak and old yet devs were making good-enough looking games in 720p / 30fps. Why are they still stuck at that when the new consoles are so much more powerful in comparison to the previous ones?

[Guest]

I haven't read much of this thread but I personally believe 8GB is too limiting.

 

What? Have you ever seen a game use more than 2 GBs of RAM to be able to say such a thing?

[MFH]

elenarie, on 22 May 2014 - 17:14, said:elenarie, on 22 May 2014 - 17:14, said:

What? Have you ever seen a game use more than 2 GBs of RAM to be able to say such a thing?

 

At least on the PC side there are quite a few games that use more than 2GBs of RAM. Don't forget that the 8GB on the consoles include both RAM and VRAM from the PCs perspective. Games like Battlefield 4 use 2+GB VRAM¹ + 2+GB RAM (x64) on the PC?

 

¹ That is for 1080p. 2GB VRAM are already considered a future (1440p and beyond) bottleneck?

[Guest]

Don't forget that the 8GB on the consoles include both RAM and VRAM from the PCs perspective.

 

Now that you put it that way...

 

But still, that is 4-5 GBs that developers have to work with, and in comparison, they only had how much, 512MBs? to work with on the previous generation.

[duoi Veteran]

What? Have you ever seen a game use more than 2 GBs of RAM to be able to say such a thing?

 

Have you ever loaded a game onto a RAM disk to be able to question such a thing? :)

[Melfster]

 

 

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).

 

 

 

I think it's the opposite PC industry has helped the console industry stay afloat.  Remember Sony lost a lot money on cell processor.  If they had to develop their own technology from scratch again they would be in a world of hurt.  The Witcher would not exist if it had not started on PC because small studios have trouble competing against the big boys in console market place.  Minecraft has had such great success because it started on the PC.   I find very few innovative games get started on the console and move to the PC.

[trooper11]

I have to wonder how people expect Sony or MS to build these crazy capable consoles while still hitting the $400-$500 price tag. 16GB of ram? SSDs? These things cost money and the console makers cannot afford to absorb losses like they may have last gen. How much would the ps4 have cost with 16GB of GDDR5?

Do you realize how tough it is to convince most gamers/users to actually buy a new console at those prices? You really need to realize the audience your talking about.

This is not the pc gaming crowd that is cool with upgrading parts every year or two for the latest games. I think there is a clear disconnect between the groups. Some of us live in both groups, but most seem to fall on one side or the other.

[MFH]

trooper11, on 23 May 2014 - 04:09, said:

console makers cannot afford to absorb losses like they may have last gen.

 

And why exactly is that? Microsoft sure as hell would have the money to cross-finance the Xbox One, it's just that they - like Sony and Nintendo - choose not to?

 

 

trooper11, on 23 May 2014 - 04:09, said:

Do you realize how tough it is to convince most gamers/users to actually buy a new console at those prices?

 

You mean after they bought a twice as expensive iPhone? /s

 

 

This is not the pc gaming crowd that is cool with upgrading parts every year or two for the latest games.

 

Whilst there are people that do that, it's certainly not the norm in the PC gaming market?

[trooper11]

And why exactly is that? Microsoft sure as hell would have the money to cross-finance the Xbox One, it's just that they - like Sony and Nintendo - choose not to?

Really?

So your advocating for console makers to take huge losses in order to hit the price points? You think Sony can afford to do that? Lets say MS did do that because they can just throw money away. If Sony cannot match that due to having less money to burn, they end up folding. Usually a tactic like that would be considered anti-competitive and land a company in court or fined several billion dollars.

 

You mean after they bought a twice as expensive iPhone? /s

I don't deny the irony, but keep in mind that most people buying an iphone end up doing it thanks to a subsidy from their cell phone provider. So many are likely just paying around $200 for that phone if it has just launched.

Most users don't equate spending $400 on a gaming console with spending money on a phone or pc. That is probably why MS and Sony push their consoles to do more than just game. Its a bit easier to sell when it can take the place of other devices.

Whilst there are people that do that, it's certainly not the norm in the PC gaming market?

But the whole idea I see people pushing in this thread is the idea of upgrading a console at a quicker pace by either just releasing new models with upgraded hardware or building the console to allow the end user to replace the hardware.

If most pc gamers tend to stick with what they have for say 4-6 years, then that is pretty darn close to the behavior of console gamers.

[neoadorable]

I think it's the opposite PC industry has helped the console industry stay afloat.  Remember Sony lost a lot money on cell processor.  If they had to develop their own technology from scratch again they would be in a world of hurt.  The Witcher would not exist if it had not started on PC because small studios have trouble competing against the big boys in console market place.  Minecraft has had such great success because it started on the PC.   I find very few innovative games get started on the console and move to the PC.

 

You're talking about the hardware industry, that's not PC. Chip designers and makers work with everyone, they don't consider themselves PC-centric. It may be that most chips end up in PCs, but Cell was co-developed as an offshoot of technology that was used in many applications. Consoles and personal computers have always been one and the same technology-wise, from the early Zilog chips to the Motorola 68000, to Tahiti/Jaguar in the current consoles.

 

There's no way PC gaming has kept consoles afloat. PC gaming was struggling for air, publishers were jumping ship left and right. Let me remind you in the dark days of 2006 COD3 didn't even bother with a PC version but had PS2 and Wii releases. I pump money into gaming on PC like there's no tomorrow thanks to Steam and Origin, but i'm not deluded. The Withcer and CD Projekt Red were niche until Witcher 2, which was boosted by console sales.

 

Not saying PC gaming can't exist without consoles, but it would have to suffer huge setbacks as publishers derive most of their income from consoles and increasingly mobile. You don't need to convince me Melfster, i love gaming on my PC and i love the feeling of upgrading and DIY, but i don't know why that ought to make me hate consoles. i just don't get the contradiction.

 

 

And why exactly is that? Microsoft sure as hell would have the money to cross-finance the Xbox One, it's just that they - like Sony and Nintendo - choose not to?

 

 

What are we communists now? Why do they need to subsidize anything and eat the cost? You want 32GB of RAM and a 2TB SSD, go put together a PC. There's plenty parts on Newegg. This is not a valid argument, and MS and Sony are not catering to this demographic. I agree with you on the smartphone part...even the word smartphone is prejudiced. It's just old tech modernized to fit a tiny form factor, so it's smart. But a much more powerful and considerably cheaper device is just a "console" or a "PC".

 

 

I have to wonder how people expect Sony or MS to build these crazy capable consoles while still hitting the $400-$500 price tag. 16GB of ram? SSDs? These things cost money and the console makers cannot afford to absorb losses like they may have last gen. How much would the ps4 have cost with 16GB of GDDR5?

Do you realize how tough it is to convince most gamers/users to actually buy a new console at those prices? You really need to realize the audience your talking about.

This is not the pc gaming crowd that is cool with upgrading parts every year or two for the latest games. I think there is a clear disconnect between the groups. Some of us live in both groups, but most seem to fall on one side or the other.

 

Very well said dude, i concur with every word.

[Melfster]

You're talking about the hardware industry, that's not PC. Chip designers and makers work with everyone, they don't consider themselves PC-centric. It may be that most chips end up in PCs, but Cell was co-developed as an offshoot of technology that was used in many applications. Consoles and personal computers have always been one and the same technology-wise, from the early Zilog chips to the Motorola 68000, to Tahiti/Jaguar in the current consoles.

 

There's no way PC gaming has kept consoles afloat. PC gaming was struggling for air, publishers were jumping ship left and right. Let me remind you in the dark days of 2006 COD3 didn't even bother with a PC version but had PS2 and Wii releases. I pump money into gaming on PC like there's no tomorrow thanks to Steam and Origin, but i'm not deluded. The Withcer and CD Projekt Red were niche until Witcher 2, which was boosted by console sales.

 

Not saying PC gaming can't exist without consoles, but it would have to suffer huge setbacks as publishers derive most of their income from consoles and increasingly mobile. You don't need to convince me Melfster, i love gaming on my PC and i love the feeling of upgrading and DIY, but i don't know why that ought to make me hate consoles. i just don't get the contradiction.

 

 

 

 

You make it sound like PC  industry has nothing to do with console industry. There is no way console industry would survive without pc industry.  The reason why most games are multiplatform is that don't make enough money if they just targeting one platform.  Nobody is saying you have to hate the console.  My main problem with the consoles is the lack of innovation.  I think we will see much innovation on the PC side then console side this generation.

[neoadorable]

You make it sound like PC  industry has nothing to do with console industry. There is no way console industry would survive without pc industry.  The reason why most games are multiplatform is that don't make enough money if they just targeting one platform.  Nobody is saying you have to hate the console.  My main problem with the consoles is the lack of innovation.  I think we will see much innovation on the PC side then console side this generation.

 

Never said they have nothing to do with each other, i clearly stated they share the same technology. Consoles have always been essentially watered down personal computers, and remain so inclined. Innovation is always welcome, it's hard to say which is more innovative, and personally i welcome all innovation - whether it ends up good or not is up to us as end users to decide. You can't say consoles are not innovative, that's patently wrong.

 

As for multiplaform gaming, i think you have it the other way around. PC-only publishers have gone with consoles over the last decade to survive and grow, to the point where there are no major PC-only publishers left. This is not a bad thing and should not offend anyone, it's business. Now with PC gaming growing again, a PC version is essentially a given for the majority of games. You're forgetting that there was a time in the 2000's when PC versions were always in doubt and often late, dismal ports.

[DeltaXray]

You make it sound like PC  industry has nothing to do with console industry. There is no way console industry would survive without pc industry.  The reason why most games are multiplatform is that don't make enough money if they just targeting one platform.  Nobody is saying you have to hate the console.  My main problem with the consoles is the lack of innovation.  I think we will see much innovation on the PC side then console side this generation.

 

Games as an industry would collapse if they had to rely solely on PC gamers.  There is still so much piracy, less compared to how rampant it was in previous years but still so much still around. Not to mention the lower prices paid by PC gamers when it is bought legitimately.

 

These days games are developed first on the consoles because that is where their bread is buttered. That is where they are making their living.

 

Take games like GTA V for example. From such a huge developer, where is the PC version? That type of thing is common.  The PC versions are now more of a gift to the PC community because the ROI just isn't there.  Developers and publishers aren't stupid in this respect.  If there is money to be made there they won't ignore it.

[Melfster]

Games as an industry would collapse if they had to rely solely on PC gamers.  There is still so much piracy, less compared to how rampant it was in previous years but still so much still around. Not to mention the lower prices paid by PC gamers when it is bought legitimately.

 

These days games are developed first on the consoles because that is where their bread is buttered. That is where they are making their living.

 

Take games like GTA V for example. From such a huge developer, where is the PC version? That type of thing is common.  The PC versions are now more of a gift to the PC community because the ROI just isn't there.  Developers and publishers aren't stupid in this respect.  If there is money to be made there they won't ignore it.

 

 

Well I also can make an argument the console industry would collapse without the PC gamers. PC gamers basicallly subsidize the console hardware by buying new graphics cards.  If console prices were a lot higher how many people would buy new console.   Why are both consoles basically PC hardware because its way to expensive to build their own solution.  PC prices are lower simple because publishers don't have to pay a good chunk of the profits to the console makers.  PC versions are not gift to PC community they make money of PC its not charity.  As for GTA 5 there is no XBOX1 or PS 4 version either.  My guess is that all 3 will be released this year.   Its basically the Publisher decision.  

[neoadorable]

Well I also can make an argument the console industry would collapse without the PC gamers. PC gamers basicallly subsidize the console hardware by buying new graphics cards.  If console prices were a lot higher how many people would buy new console.   Why are both consoles basically PC hardware because its way to expensive to build their own solution.  PC prices are lower simple because publishers don't have to pay a good chunk of the profits to the console makers.  PC versions are not gift to PC community they make money of PC its not charity.  As for GTA 5 there is no XBOX1 or PS 4 version either.  My guess is that all 3 will be released this year.   Its basically the Publisher decision.  

 

Console hardware is derived from hardware that is also used in PCs, stop saying it's just PC hardware. The same basic designs are also used in graphics workstations, storage, servers, etc. And X1/PS4 specifically have their own solutions, they did not just take an existing AMD design and slap it on a mini-ITX board. Both the SoC and the board are custom.

 

No one is saying PC gaming is a charity, but it was on the brink of collapse. The Steam sales and $49.99 instead of $59.99 and such on consoles are specifically because they need to entice sales on PC more so than on consoles.

 

PC DIY is a tiny market compared to consoles. Show me one GPU that has sold 100 million units in the history of dedicated graphics cards. Your average mid to high end GPU from NV or AMD is lucky to sell a million during its lifecycle. There is no subsidizing of consoles by PCs, there is trickle down of technology for sure. The sad truth is that 90% of PC users are low end desktops and notebooks, what we would call true gaming PCs (and I know that sounds disgustingly prejudiced), is unfortunately a very small market. AMD and NV would be dead now if they had to rely on PC gamers, hence the move to consoles and mobile devices.

 

None of this is a threat to PC gaming as we know it, just keep supporting it while we can. I've added a Steam card to my sig - looks goofy but I feel good broadcasting that I am a true renaissance gamer. Even if I don't really know how to spell renaissance without an autochecker.

 

< Taps self on back >

 

EDIT: Steam portion of sig couldn't fit, so removed it. Guess that shows my true colors, given a choice I leave the XBL/PSN part in :/

[DeltaXray]

You also need to remember that this generation is the closest to PC hardware that any console gen has been (followed by original Xbox and Dreamcast) and even so they are not off-the-shelf parts.  Pretty much every other console used custom developed CPU and GPUs.

 

It is just simple maths.  Consoles are closed systems, so piracy is negligible.  Price per game is a lot higher. PC gamers are made up of a relatively small number of hardcore gamers which upgrade their boxes frequently and spend a lot of money on their rig, and pirates. You don't really get casual gamers on PC.

 

The majority of game sales are on console and it has propped up the gaming industry for many years. That is just simple fact. If consoles weren't around games publishers and developers would have shut up shop long ago.

 

That's NOT to say PC gaming doesn't have its place.  I was born a PC gamer and i'll die a PC gamer, but I spend way more of my time gaming from my couch on my TV because that's where I prefer to play these days.  The PC gaming community has a huge role to play, especially mods and suchlike which we will likely never see on consoles.  But to say that that small community of PC gamers is propping up the industry as a whole is nonsense.

[neoadorable]

You also need to remember that this generation is the closest to PC hardware that any console gen has been (followed by original Xbox and Dreamcast) and even so they are not off-the-shelf parts.  Pretty much every other console used custom developed CPU and GPUs.

 

It is just simple maths.  Consoles are closed systems, so piracy is negligible.  Price per game is a lot higher. PC gamers are made up of a relatively small number of hardcore gamers which upgrade their boxes frequently and spend a lot of money on their rig, and pirates. You don't really get casual gamers on PC.

 

The majority of game sales are on console and it has propped up the gaming industry for many years. That is just simple fact. If consoles weren't around games publishers and developers would have shut up shop long ago.

 

That's NOT to say PC gaming doesn't have its place.  I was born a PC gamer and i'll die a PC gamer, but I spend way more of my time gaming from my couch on my TV because that's where I prefer to play these days.  The PC gaming community has a huge role to play, especially mods and suchlike which we will likely never see on consoles.  But to say that that small community of PC gamers is propping up the industry as a whole is nonsense.

 

+1 for sure.

 

To tie this to the topic, Crytek are a typical example. If PCs are so great and consoles are so limiting, how come all of their games have ended up on consoles? Because the Yerli brothers are sane businessmen, with families and a responsibility to other people's families and lives. There is no shame in this. A console version does not lessen the technically superior PC version. I have said this before, the existence of a Taurus or a Camry doesn't make an Aventador any less exciting.

[MFH]

trooper11, on 23 May 2014 - 04:31, said:

So your advocating for console makers to take huge losses in order to hit the price points?

 

Yeah, a never before heard of concept, what am I thinking?  /s

 

 

trooper11, on 23 May 2014 - 04:31, said:

You think Sony can afford to do that?

 

Yeah, as a consumer that is really my problem - NOT!

 

 

trooper11, on 23 May 2014 - 04:31, said:

Usually a tactic like that would be considered anti-competitive

 

 

Yeah, 'cause this is not an established practice in the console market? /s

 

 

neoadorable, on 23 May 2014 - 04:52, said:

What are we communists now?

 

So by your logic: Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo at various points of their console hardware business were communists, because they were actually doing what I suggested? - maybe learning what communism actually is, would help you understand that this is not even remotely related to it?

 

neoadorable, on 23 May 2014 - 04:52, said:

Why do they need to subsidize anything and eat the cost?

 

Let's see: Because it allows them to offer somewhat future proof hardware at a low price by cross-financing it via increased game prices [which actually have not been "adjusted" to this non cross-financing model in this generation(!)] ? (you know, the model that has been used at least since the Nintendo Famicon/Entertainment System.. - those damn Japanese communists at Nintendo, right?)

  

neoadorable, on 23 May 2014 - 04:52, said:

You want 32GB of RAM and a 2TB SSD, go put together a PC.

 

No, I don't want that. But how about getting hardware the price is worth? At this point in time from a hardware standpoint the Xbox One is a lower specced PS4 for the same price - some what considerer that a rip off? (Had MS just shelled out about 20 dollars more per system [note that DDR3 is still cheaper than GDDR5, which means that MS is likely having lower costs on a Xbox than Sony has on a PS?] to increase the ESRAM - a big limitation of the design(!) - the Xbox would not be that lacking compared to the PS?)

[Melfster]

+1 for sure.

 

To tie this to the topic, Crytek are a typical example. If PCs are so great and consoles are so limiting, how come all of their games have ended up on consoles? Because the Yerli brothers are sane businessmen, with families and a responsibility to other people's families and lives. There is no shame in this. A console version does not lessen the technically superior PC version. I have said this before, the existence of a Taurus or a Camry doesn't make an Aventador any less exciting.

 

If you look at a game like Star Citizen (which uses the Crytek engine)  the developer has indeed said consoles are limiting therefore not coming consoles right now.  If you build the right game for PC customers will support you.  If look at Star Citizen the largest crowd funded game in history.    Crytek is not the developer to say that the consoles are inferior I think Epic games has said the same thing.   

[Lamp0]

No, I don't want that. But how about getting hardware the price is worth? At this point in time from a hardware standpoint the Xbox One is a lower specced PS4 for the same price - some what considerer that a rip off? (Had MS just shelled out about 20 dollars more per system [note that DDR3 is still cheaper than GDDR5, which means that MS is likely having lower costs on a Xbox than Sony has on a PS?] to increase the ESRAM - a big limitation of the design(!) - the Xbox would not be that lacking compared to the PS?)

 

 

Buying a console is not like buying a PC where you check the specs with the aims of running a bunch of high end software. When you buy a console you're buying into a closed system & everything that comes with it, it's solely about whether the hard ware is this powerful or that powerful. If MS goes to E3 with a bunch of amazing 1st party titles & Sony have nothing, then who's going to feel ripped off?

 

You look back at prior generations & you can see that many times the weakest console is just as successful if not more than the more powerful alternatives.

 

I am not saying MS is doing well or that they are going to come out on top, but they aren't getting backed into a corner because their hardware is less powerful.

[trooper11]

Yeah, a never before heard of concept, what am I thinking?  /s

You do realize that a strategy like that is unsustainable don't you? Why has Nintendo always avoided it and why do Sony and MS try to avoid it now?

 

Yeah, as a consumer that is really my problem - NOT!

It is your problem when the platforms fold and your left with less choice in the form of competition. Its one thing to make a suggestion, its another to ignore how these things work.

 

Yeah, 'cause this is not an established practice in the console market? /s

yeah cause that hasn't gotten companies in trouble.... /s

 

 

The bottom line is that Sony and MS chose the current path because the old path was unsustainable.

The old idea of taking losses up front worked out because you had a long cycle. If everyone demands a quicker cycle such as 3-4 years, then you have to change the strategy,

[McKay]

Tt is your problem when the platforms fold and your left with less choice in the form of competition. Its one thing to make a suggestion, its another to ignore how these things work.

 

yeah cause that hasn't gotten companies in trouble.... /s

 

 

Even last generation when I only owned a 360, hearing about Sony's financial trouble worried me. Sony and Microsoft keep each other on their toes. I dreaded to think if Sony pulled a Sega and pulled out and left Microsoft running against Nintendo. 

 

Either Microsoft would have ignored Nintendo as not competition, seeing as they mostly targeted a different audience at the time, or severely "causal" the 360 to target Nintendos primary audience, which they did with the Kinect and Avatars anyway.

[neoadorable]

If you look at a game like Star Citizen (which uses the Crytek engine)  the developer has indeed said consoles are limiting therefore not coming consoles right now.  If you build the right game for PC customers will support you.  If look at Star Citizen the largest crowd funded game in history.    Crytek is not the developer to say that the consoles are inferior I think Epic games has said the same thing.   

 

Agree with you and liked your post. This is very healthy, I have no problem that Chris Roberts is open about targeting very high end desktops, that's part of a healthy market. I'm not saying every game needs to run on everything, just that the existence of more powerful hardware doesn't make the less powerful devices bad. I see people getting genuine joy from playing on smartphones and tablets, so i'm supposed to look down at them? No, they're enjoying themselves, that's the purpose of gaming.

 

However, knowing Chris Roberts' efforts from his very first releases, expect a lot of Steam discussions about Star Citizen causing $2000 GPU crashes :rofl:

 

And just because Crytek aren't the only snobs doesn't make snobs OK. Like I said before, Crytek need to be quiet fast as 90% of their money comes from consoles now.