[GI] Remedy: Next-Gen consoles are a quantum leap - Page 17 - Overclock.net

Forum Jump: 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
post #161 of 181 Old 08-27-2012, 09:03 PM
WaterCooler
 
Foolsmasher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,959
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by anticommon View Post

Well then I guess neither of you are arguing then.
Also, it is my understanding that while games come out on consoles fairly optimized, the true optimization starts getting pushed out after the console has been around a few years. This is why (apart from resolution) most console games are able to compete with their PC counterparts even when their hardware is starting to age. I'm not saying it will necessarily be better than PC graphics, but it's pretty amazing what they can do with their limited power, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to play a game on PC with similar hardware as on console, and achieve the same quality of graphics.
Anyways, I'm just happy next-gen is coming out so that PC games can start getting some new features that seem to only come around on the whim of console game manufacturers. I'd also like to see consoles do refreshes where instead of just coming out with a slim version of the console after 2-3 years, they might actually add some better hardware. It wouldn't be too hard for game makers to optimize their games for not just one, but possibly two or three GPU's, especially if MS and Sony keep the architecture fairly similar, or at least scale it all proportionately.

Increase dev costs by X% so you can play at a marginally higher resolution on a fragmented system. Yeah, not going to happen anytime soon.

Foolsmasher is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #162 of 181 Old 08-27-2012, 09:41 PM
Game Programmer
 
lordikon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 12,752
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 829
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foolsmasher View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by anticommon View Post

Well then I guess neither of you are arguing then.
Also, it is my understanding that while games come out on consoles fairly optimized, the true optimization starts getting pushed out after the console has been around a few years. This is why (apart from resolution) most console games are able to compete with their PC counterparts even when their hardware is starting to age. I'm not saying it will necessarily be better than PC graphics, but it's pretty amazing what they can do with their limited power, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to play a game on PC with similar hardware as on console, and achieve the same quality of graphics.
Anyways, I'm just happy next-gen is coming out so that PC games can start getting some new features that seem to only come around on the whim of console game manufacturers. I'd also like to see consoles do refreshes where instead of just coming out with a slim version of the console after 2-3 years, they might actually add some better hardware. It wouldn't be too hard for game makers to optimize their games for not just one, but possibly two or three GPU's, especially if MS and Sony keep the architecture fairly similar, or at least scale it all proportionately.

Increase dev costs by X% so you can play at a marginally higher resolution on a fragmented system. Yeah, not going to happen anytime soon.

This.

It's much cheaper to target a single set of hardware and optimize fully for that hardware set. PC game development for AAA games is more expensive than consoles for a reason, multiple hardware/software sets. More expense for development, more expense for testing on both the developer and console manufacturer. Console manufacturers have done this before, and it is usually only met with mild success at best. For more information see: Sega 32X, Sega CD, N64 memory expansion, and WiiMote MotionPlus. Very few games will use any of those expansions that improved upon the original console.

lordikon is offline  
post #163 of 181 Old 08-30-2012, 06:42 AM
333mhz
 
Dan_9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 244
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Coming from Remedy? the devs who spent eons on watered down Alan Wake which they claimed had a good story & not cheesy. Who said the 360 play was a actually fun. Oh lord. I lost all respect for Remedy after playing AW, quantum leap is a gross pathetic exaggeration.

There is nothing special about PC Gaming, it's just Dignity. But consoles are Poverty - a toyota corolla marketed as a Porsche.
Dan_9 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #164 of 181 Old 08-30-2012, 12:46 PM
 
paulerxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: New Joisey
Posts: 3,137
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Alan Wake was fantastic..Even on Xbox 360. Stop QQin.

swah

paulerxx is offline  
post #165 of 181 Old 09-01-2012, 09:19 PM
 
Norrec69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 0
I think the new consoles will be on par with the single card high end pc's when they come out. So that they will be long lasting consoles.

I have a gaming pc and I dont think anything looks next-generational on it. So its gonna be up to the consoles to determine how good the games will look on pc.
Norrec69 is offline  
post #166 of 181 Old 09-01-2012, 10:24 PM
Retired Staff
 
tpi2007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,463
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Code-Red View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by H60Ninja View Post

I highly doubt they would match the level of f high-ultra graphics the 680 and 7970 can do.

You must be young, so I'll explain this to you real quick.

NES at the time of release outsurpassed most computer graphics.
SNES and Genesis at time of release matched most 2D computer graphics.
N64 and PSX outsurpassed what 95% of computers were capable of at the time, because discrete 3D graphics cards were still a very limited consumer market.
PS2 and Xbox matched what was available to a computer gamer at the time.
360 and PS3 outsurpassed what the computer was capable of for a year or so after release.

I've had gaming rigs or at the very least a top of the line graphics card since 1995, I can assure you that whenever a new generation of console comes out, they will beat or atleast match what the computer is capable thanks almost directly impart due to their focused hardware programming and minimal background OS nonsense.

That is all more or less correct, except for one thing: those circumstances won't repeat themselves, and that is why both Microsoft and Sony waited so long to release the next generation consoles next year. Why ? Because they will have to be good enough to carry the games into almost realism. And even then it will be difficult against PCs.

When I talk about circumstances that won't repeat themselves I'm talking about two things: the fact that desktop GPUs nowadays can use up to 250w each, which is something that purely did not exist back in 2005, and interestingly, it was also around that time when Crossfire and SLI came out, so now you will be comparing consoles that won't use anything near the amount of watts a high end desktop GPU will use and there is no possibility to increase the number of GPUs.

You can argue that programming more closely "direct to the metal" and the fact the OS is very lighweight, along with the fact that you can optimize a lot better since you're only programming for one or two consoles, will give you probably twice the performance compared to a desktop GPU, but how long will that last ? In 4 years consoles will be very outdated compared to PCs. They will still of course be able to produce great graphics with the available hardware, but the questions is, how much will the PC be left idling along until a new generation consoles are released again ?
tpi2007 is online now  
post #167 of 181 Old 09-01-2012, 10:33 PM
News Fiend
 
Code-Red's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,694
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 63
^ I'll completely agree with that. They (along with PC developers) are going to hit a point on the "uncanny realm" (arguably we've hit that with computer animation movies) where it's going to take exponentially far more power to achieve better graphics than it ever has in the past. Not only that, but trying to fit faster and hotter components into a small case, with adequate cooling, while keeping costs down, AND making it reliable is going to get harder and harder.

The whole point to my argument though, was that graphics-wise, consoles upon their release and usually for a short while after dominate the PC. That was all I wanted to get across, because someone had rather pompously stated computers have always been better, which is very much not the case.

Code-Red is offline  
post #168 of 181 Old 09-01-2012, 10:57 PM
Game Programmer
 
lordikon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 12,752
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 829
You guys (above, but not necessarily directly above me), need to realize that buying a gaming computer is not something the average consumer can do easily, and your average computer that is selling in retail stores have things like A8-A10 trinity or HD 2000-3000 GPUs in them, which are barely keeping up with 7-8 year old consoles. Most people's computers could barely play the kinds of games that are on consoles until a few years ago when the console hardware was 5 years old. The machines we have on OCN are not the norm. I became a game developer when I was 25 years old, before that time I literally knew of nobody with a gaming PC other than myself.

What I'm getting at is that it doesn't matter what wattage the GPUs in gaming PCs are, or how many GPUs that they can hold, because neither of those things matter to the majority of gamers, which is who will be targeted with the next-gen consoles. The majority of gamers want to spend much less for a gaming rig, they will be paying $250-500 total for a platform that may last up to 8 years, not $250-500 for a single GPU, much less multiple GPUs.

Incoming car analogy: We on OCN are like hot rodders, who buy their own parts, build their own cars, want the best performance and every aspect of their car to be perfect. The majority of people don't build their own cars, don't want to build their own cars, don't want to spend that kind of money on cars, they just want something easy to use, reliable, and affordable. So which company makes more money, Ferrari, or Ford? Ford, and saying they won't succeed because they don't have a 600 hp V-12 in them makes no sense whatsoever.

lordikon is offline  
post #169 of 181 Old 09-01-2012, 11:09 PM
Retired Staff
 
tpi2007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,463
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Code-Red View Post

^ I'll completely agree with that. They (along with PC developers) are going to hit a point on the "uncanny realm" (arguably we've hit that with computer animation movies) where it's going to take exponentially far more power to achieve better graphics than it ever has in the past. Not only that, but trying to fit faster and hotter components into a small case, with adequate cooling, while keeping costs down, AND making it reliable is going to get harder and harder.

The whole point to my argument though, was that graphics-wise, consoles upon their release and usually for a short while after dominate the PC. That was all I wanted to get across, because someone had rather pompously stated computers have always been better, which is very much not the case.

I also agree with that, and that is also the reason it will be difficult for consoles to keep pace for long this time. If you look at the last time, it was already rather difficult. The Xbox 360 already had overheating problems and the PS3, though it didn't suffer from the same problem, was one of the biggest consoles ever made, with a little over 200w power consumption for the first version.

Yes, definitely, consoles are indeed able to match, quality wise, what PCs actually take advantage of in the year they are released. Next year we will have the HD 8000 and the GTX 700, which means that HD 7970 and HD 7950 and GTX 680 and GTX 670 will effectively become mid-range cards, which is what the market is aiming now to release next year, and next generation consoles, even with hardware that is probably only half as powerful as these now current high end cards, will probably be able to match it, but after that it will be a struggle.

I forgot about something which also benefited consoles this time around: they were able to match PCs for a very long time because both made the same approach to multi-core usage. Back in 2005 dual core CPUs had just been released, and the consoles, with their multi-core CPUs, only saw them being fully used years later, and the same happened with PCs. The first games for the Xbox 360 used one core, just as with the PC version. So, for a few years, the CPU part of the equation was able to keep consoles on par, as both consoles and PCs progressively saw the developers take more and more advantage of multi-core CPUs. But now that we are here, the question is: how many threads can game developers effectively use ? After having learned how to use 3 or 4 threads, is that scalable to, say, 8, 12 or 16 ? Or is quad-core the best, most efficient approach ? That is also an interesting question. AMD is pushing for more than 4 cores, even though their initial attempt was arguably a flop due to unbalanced performance in lightly threaded vs. highly threaded applications, but the direction in desktop CPUs is that: six core Intel CPUs will probably become affordable starting next year, with the probably entry level 22nm IB-e being a six core CPU, versus this years Core i7-3820, and the year after that will continue the trend, and AMD will release Steamroller, with arguably much needed and improved performance when compared to the first Bulldozer.

With more cores you can invest a lot more in A.I, making the games not only look but also feel a lot more realistic, I remember a guy from Valve saying that starting with quad cores things got very interesting from that point of view, so I wonder what developers will be able to do with more CPU cores, for example.

So the question is: how long will the next console cycle last ?
tpi2007 is online now  
post #170 of 181 Old 09-01-2012, 11:42 PM
Retired Staff
 
tpi2007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,463
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 857
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordikon View Post

You guys (above, but not necessarily directly above me), need to realize that buying a gaming computer is not something the average consumer can do easily, and your average computer that is selling in retail stores have things like A8-A10 trinity or HD 2000-3000 GPUs in them, which are barely keeping up with 7-8 year old consoles. Most people's computers could barely play the kinds of games that are on consoles until a few years ago when the console hardware was 5 years old. The machines we have on OCN are not the norm. I became a game developer when I was 25 years old, before that time I literally knew of nobody with a gaming PC other than myself.

What I'm getting at is that it doesn't matter what wattage the GPUs in gaming PCs are, or how many GPUs that they can hold, because neither of those things matter to the majority of gamers, which is who will be targeted with the next-gen consoles. The majority of gamers want to spend much less for a gaming rig, they will be paying $250-500 total for a platform that may last up to 8 years, not $250-500 for a single GPU, much less multiple GPUs.

Incoming car analogy: We on OCN are like hot rodders, who buy their own parts, build their own cars, want the best performance and every aspect of their car to be perfect. The majority of people don't build their own cars, don't want to build their own cars, don't want to spend that kind of money on cars, they just want something easy to use, reliable, and affordable. So which company makes more money, Ferrari, or Ford? Ford, and saying they won't succeed because they don't have a 600 hp V-12 in them makes no sense whatsoever.

I don't think you understood what I meant: since 2005 current desktop GPUs have lifted the TDP bar way beyond what console makers can commercially cram in a nice box to have in your living room. It doesn't really matter if it's a high-end GPU that few people can afford, the limitation is the same if you look at mid-range GPUs, those that sell in numbers. Take a look at the TDP of a Radeon HD 7850, which is a card a lot of people will be able to afford, and will realistically be in the price range of the HD 7770 next year, when consoles are released, and this definitely is the segment that sells the most: it's 104w (not counting with the 20% PowerTune, the card has an official 130w board power). This is probably the limit of what you can use in a console. This wasn't the case at all in 2005. The RSX used in the PS3 was based on the 7800GTX which was a card that was higher in the hierarchy compared to what the HD 7850 is now, and even more when you consider where it will be by next year, as I said.
tpi2007 is online now  
Closed Thread

Quick Reply

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off