Is it true we're now running on a console time frame?

[Radiation]

It's perhaps both a good and a bad thing i guess but it seems to me we've now been running in console time for a few years, i upgraded my motherboard, cpu, ram and graphics card early last last year and decided to see what £250 can get me, turns out i can still run everything on high and i've not even overclocked,.

Does this mean we have to wait 5+ years for any real advancements in graphics and physics now?

I think many years ago we could expect respectable improvements maybe every year or two, so i wonder if this slowdown is the result of consoles or hardware, perhaps with less need there will be less progress?

 

[KNiVES]

I've had my current system for 4 years and it still runs the latest and greatest PC games on maximum settings with extremely few exceptions.

You make it seem like a bad thing.

 

[Jezcentral]

Apparently, there won't be an new Unreal Engine until the next console generation, and as that is the backbone of a lot of games, I don't thik you will see too much innovation in graphics. Spreading costs over multiple platforms will also keep things on a plateau.

Hopefully, the likes of Crytek will keep going with their engines, and the increasing numbers of PCs that are cheap, and can still handle console-centric games will mean more PC games, which will mean more chances for a company to try some thing new.

So, yes, we may well have to wait 5+ years, with only a few exceptional games in the meantime.

 

[Calneon]

5-10 years ago there was a lot of room to improve, nowadays graphics are so good that developers are basically waiting for hardware to improve to run their games. Metro 2033 and Crysis are proof that you can have games with better graphics, hardware just needs to keep up.

But you're right, a lot of games are console ports so we will notice a good leap in graphics when new consoles are released.

 

[Radiation]

I've had my current system for 4 years and it still runs the latest and greatest PC games on maximum settings with extremely few exceptions.

You make it seem like a bad thing.

I actually think its both, i can run everything i want for a lot less in upgrade costs and games are at a decent enough level that looks fine, i just wonder if consoles are hurting development in the long run as there will be less hardware upgrades needed and i think games have been the biggest reason for pushing progress forward in computing.

 

[KNiVES]

Of course consoles are hurting PC development in the long run. Nobody wants to spend millions developing a PC game and struggle to profit from it, and nobody wants to spend more on a single GPU than they would on an entire console package. You can buy four Playstation 3s instead of this for example.

The scale tips heavily towards console development.

 

[Evilsod]

I actually think its both, i can run everything i want for a lot less in upgrade costs and games are at a decent enough level that looks fine, i just wonder if consoles are hurting development in the long run as there will be less hardware upgrades needed and i think games have been the biggest reason for pushing progress forward in computing.

The likes of Intel and Nvidia are unlikely to slow down development. Don't forgot its not just the gaming industry that want good computers and really its only the serious fanatics that splash the cash on new releases which are generally massively overpriced due to the low supply rate and barely provide a benefit anyway.

 

[Evilsod]

Of course consoles are hurting PC development in the long run. Nobody wants to spend millions developing a PC game and struggle to profit from it, and nobody wants to spend more on a single GPU than they would on an entire console package. You can buy four Playstation 3s instead of this for example.

The scale tips heavily towards console development.

As if picking the highest priced graphics card available proves a thing. You can easily play games with cards at a fraction of the price.

 

[Relentless81]

Play games such as BC2 and AvP on a console and then play them maxed out on a PC and then come back to this thread

 

[npjnpj]

Does anyone really want those times back that almost every game release required a hardware upgrade? No thanks! I'm happy the way it is now.

It'd be ideal if there were gigantic leaps in graphics without any additional hardware requirements, but as that's not possible I prefer the situation now to the one a few years ago.

New hardware perhaps every 5 years instead of every week seems OK to me.

 

[Glaucus]

I think the biggest problem is nothing to do with consoles. But the sheer amount of man power and huge costs of modern graphics. The prettier the graphics the more it costs. Think we have hit a point where it costs so much making an engine that they will only come out when the hardware is capable of a very large jump.

 

[ThorpedoUK]

How will this effect nvidia and ATI?

do you think it will have a big impact on there profits?

 

[Glaucus]

How will this effect nvidia and ATI?

do you think it will have a big impact on there profits?

I doubt it, most people do not buy top end cards, those that do don't it because they need the power. not in the last 5years+ anyway.

99.9% of pre-built systems aren't sold with top of the range gfx and I would say 90% of self builds are done on bang for buck.

 

[Fr0dders]

How will this effect nvidia and ATI?

do you think it will have a big impact on there profits?

no because theres always legions of fanboys waiting to get the best 3dmark score on the internet.

Then theres your average punter who just wants the best and doesnt mind how much it costs.

These people buy the big expensive top end cards, which makes the money, which enables them to spend more and more money on R&D for the next gen. Once said next gen comes out, the technology filters down and becomes affordable to your average punter who then purchase it at a sub £200 price range instead of £300 +

Either way, nvidia and ATI can still sell the tech to all segments.

 

[carlazai]

I think the biggest problem is nothing to do with consoles. But the sheer amount of man power and huge costs of modern graphics. The prettier the graphics the more it costs. Think we have hit a point where it costs so much making an engine that they will only come out when the hardware is capable of a very large jump.

Absolutely the right answer. If the game is worth it then it gets all the bells and whistles e.g. BFBC2 and if not it reuses an engine that cost a fortune to develop and ages well e.g. Unreal engine

 

[Fr0dders]

I think the biggest problem is nothing to do with consoles. But the sheer amount of man power and huge costs of modern graphics. The prettier the graphics the more it costs. Think we have hit a point where it costs so much making an engine that they will only come out when the hardware is capable of a very large jump.

this

Developing new game engines to take advantage of the latest graphics is becoming more and more expensive.

Combine that with the second hand games market, and piracy all pushing their profits, there's little incentive to develop a brand new engine unless you're going to cross platform it (like Dice with the Frostbite 2 engine) or you just simply use somebody else's engine - like the Crytek engine used in Crysis.

Absolutely the right answer. If the game is worth it then it gets all the bells and whistles e.g. BFBC2 and if not it reuses an engine that cost a fortune to develop and ages well e.g. Unreal engine

the reason DICE could justify the Frostbite 2 engine was that it was cross platform. They would get game sales from PS3, Xbox, PC etc.. Cross platform means more sales, and more profit, and thus able to get the money used for the R&D back.

 

[iv-tecman]

To be honest, I’m pleased Hardware requirements to run PC games has started to slow down…. The mid 90’s was maybe the most hectic and most expensive period of PC gaming… You only had to look on the shelf and see boxed PC games, and look at the back of the box with the system specs listed and wonder – would my system run this??

Today, after years of hardware developments and countless upgrades for many users, its just no longer a case of - will my system run this?? Why, well I don’t know but I’m pleased you no longer look at system specs and think – hmmm £500 worth of upgrades needed to play Quake II..!!

I had a Dell D600 Pentium CPU 1.4ghz (if I remember) with an ATI 128MB video card, and 1GB of memory.. Guess how many games back then I got to run on it… Hardly any, unless you count solitaire…. Hmmm

I now have a Dell 1749 laptop. It has a i5 540m CPU with a 5650 1GB GPU, guess how many games I’ve managed to get running on this laptop, that when actually using comparable inflated values from 2001 - 2010 cost less then the Dell D600.. Anyhow, guess how many??

Pretty much my entire steam catalogue, including Metro 2033 has ran on it, by simply tweaking resolutions and details, but I tell you now, not one game has had to have the resolution dropped below 1280 x 720, and nearly all run at max detail 1600 x 900 and many run at 1920 x 1080, the max res I can get out the laptop including Batman Arkham. Running on the unreal engine..

My desktop destroys all games, including Metro 2033 at 1920 x 1080. Basically, I’ve got a portable computer that can run pretty much every game on the market, and to me that’s excellent. I’ve also got a desktop I can’t see any need to upgrade for 2 years or more, and that’s a whole lot better then every 3 – 6 months like it used to be.

Me, I’m pleased its slowed down. I’m pleased to buy a game, and it actually runs at 30 + fps or more…without dropping to a stupidly low res, or turning off all details. I’m happy to pick up something like Batman Arkham, whack the res up, details up and enjoy HD gaming on a Laptop on a 42” plasma or even on my lap..!!

PC gaming needs to be more accessible. I really do not think it needs another – WOW will my system run this scenario for every game released at the moment. Games like Metro 2033 and Crysis have given the PC community some eye candy to say WOW to console gamers, however it needed to slow down, and I’m pleased it has. PC graphics are still top class, as mentioned, install COD 4 MW and whack the details up to max and up thee res to 1920 x 1080 or something and see the world of difference and yet admire that even those with modest PCs can still run the same just as quick with just as much eye candy as an Xbox360.. PC gaming is in another era, its no longer about upgrading every 6 months.. Thankfully..

 

[mame]

It's perhaps both a good and a bad thing i guess but it seems to me we've now been running in console time for a few years, i upgraded my motherboard, cpu, ram and graphics card early last last year and decided to see what £250 can get me, turns out i can still run everything on high and i've not even overclocked

You're right, it's good and bad that this has happend. Whilst devs are making one game for three platforms, we won't see much of an improvement of graphics

Does this mean we have to wait 5+ years for any real advancements in graphics and physics now?

I think many years ago we could expect respectable improvements maybe every year or two, so i wonder if this slowdown is the result of consoles or hardware, perhaps with less need there will be less progress?

Possibly but that's a PC way of thinking. It's easy to think that the PS4 will have a 4ghz CPU, GTX 480 and 4gb of RAM. It might do and if it did then yes, it would raise the bar and the whole cycle would start once more.

We can't assume that the PS4 will have a GPU based on DirectX PC hardware, I don't think it will. I wouldn't be surprised if the PS4 gets released in about 2014 as a small box with about 6 Cell processors in and not a lot else. If Sony decided to do that then developers would be *forced* to use it. Just look at Gabe Newalls recent speech. If the next consoles completely change architecture then I'm not sure what it would mean for PCs apart from making DirectX graphics cards obsolete.

My personal guess is that there will be 2 more generations of console. One in about 2014 and then the final generation in about 2020. By the time that gen nears end of life in 2026ish, we will all have SKY/Virgin box's capable of playing games much better graphically than anything we can imagine now and an additional game box will be not wanted or needed. In the same way, I think we will only have 1 more generation of hand held. The Nintendo 3DS and a PSP2. By the time they become end of life, people will have smartphones so capable of games that an additional device to carry around will not be wanted or needed.

Look at it from the other way around. Consoles command the direction in which gaming is going. Most of us agree with that. It just so happens that this generation the consoles are using DirectX nvidia/ATI GPUs borrowed from PCs. Convenient because it means that this gens console games can be played on a PC. What if the next generation doesn't?

 

[cmndr_andi]

I think the biggest problem is nothing to do with consoles. But the sheer amount of man power and huge costs of modern graphics. The prettier the graphics the more it costs. Think we have hit a point where it costs so much making an engine that they will only come out when the hardware is capable of a very large jump.

This is it.

It is just so darn expensive to make modern AAA games that the publishers need to sell the game to every possible platform to claw their money back and make some profit.

As for this is a good thing or a bad thing for PC gaming and PC gamers - I'm unsure. On the plus side, due to limited console graphics - a £400 PC can play modern multi-platform games and make them look better than a console. This will mean that PC gaming is becoming more accessible (especially with the wonder that is steam) and more people will take it up.

However, it does mean that the progress with PC gaming graphics will slow down for the next few years. I'm just hoping we see the ascendency of many of these excellent PC games from Independents or small studios - there are so many good ideas and great talent that arrive on the PC first.

That all said, there are gaming Genres that are virtually PC-only. Strategy, management and MMO games are almost all on the PC - hopefully some great new games from these genres will come out soon and remind us all how great PC gaming still is (I for one have pre-odered Civ V).

 

[Fonz-Valo]

Absolutely the right answer. If the game is worth it then it gets all the bells and whistles e.g. BFBC2 and if not it reuses an engine that cost a fortune to develop and ages well e.g. Unreal engine

I quite like this statement, think back to how many games used the quake 2 and 3 engines, i'm sure they were making games with the quake 3 engine for at least 5 years after release of it....