Next-Gen Consoles "Quantum Leap Forward"?

dowie said:
would be interesting to see what apple offers if enter the console market

whether they'll try to compete on specs with sony/MS - maybe aiming for the sort of success sony had when introducing the PS1

or whether they'll not try to compete in that way and just aim to do something innovative with a lower specs like the nintendo wii
Click to expand...

Probably more litigation.

:p
 
The only thing the console's are holding back in the gaming industry is the graphics which is something I don't care about that much as long as they're decent; substance over style. The developers and consumers, the ones who go out and buy the same games year in year out and neglect the fresh new games from an aspiring new developers who have great new ideas, are what are holding back the industry.
 
Main Entry: quantum leap
Function: noun
Date: 1956
: an abrupt change, sudden increase, or dramatic advance

Well of course it will be a leap forward in all kinds of ways, otherwise what's the point.

Btw love gaming on my PC...and on my 360...and on my PS3.
 
Nikumba said:
To be honest it was well built the problem came from the lead free solder they had to use to conform to new environmental laws, as apparently lead solder has more flex in it than the lead free stuff they were using.

Kimbie
Click to expand...

I disagree. The 360 S is well-built, but the original 360s were nasty, rattly, loud horrible things. You can't just blame the quality of the solder for that
 
Moothead2 said:
The only thing the console's are holding back in the gaming industry is the graphics which is something I don't care about that much as long as they're decent; substance over style.
Click to expand...

wrong on a mahoosive count. the CPU in consoles is so far behind current tech that many physics options for the PC just arent options for the consoles. if we take pCARS as an example the proposed tyre model for the PC is just too complex for the consoles so the tyre model being used for the AI cars on the PC will be used for the player on the consoles. PC gamers will get the proper model for their own car but there is no way a console could cope with it. i think, but am happy to be proved wrong, that the consoles will be pegged back at 180Hz for the physics model whereas the PC will get 600Hz.

is this a problem for pCARS? only slightly because the extra dev time and money being spent on the console tyre model will come to some use for PC gamers. is this a problem for other developers? yes, because a lot of developers just cant, or wont, develop two separate physics models so they pander to the safest option, the consoles.

the tiny amount of RAM in consoles is also seriously limiting for developers, meaning that many of the ideas just cant even be considered because of RAM usage. i dont know of any specific cutbacks because of RAM usage but i'm sure that there are loads of things that arent in games that would be if the PC was the most profitable for development
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonev...gs-apple-one-step-closer-to-a-gaming-console/
Click to expand...

I sincerely hope apple don't enter the console market. I actually like apple products and think they have some great innovation, but I don't think that anything they make warrants paying double over what the competition has to offer. I'm sure an apple games console would look cool, be well built and really easy to use, but would probably cost about £800 and be aimed at ironic t-shirt wearing 30 somethings who are willing to camp outside an apple store for a week just to be the first to get one!!!
 
Joebob said:
I sincerely hope apple don't enter the console market. I actually like apple products and think they have some great innovation, but I don't think that anything they make warrants paying double over what the competition has to offer. I'm sure an apple games console would look cool, be well built and really easy to use, but would probably cost about £800 and be aimed at ironic t-shirt wearing 30 somethings who are willing to camp outside an apple store for a week just to be the first to get one!!!
Click to expand...

I am more worried what tactics they might use!!

BTW,your sig is quite distracting - who is it??:p
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
I am more worried what tactics they might use!!

BTW,your sig is quite distracting - who is it??:p
Click to expand...

haha, i did a google search by image on his sig for the exact same reason and the next post i read was this :D

her name is Denise Milani. the name seems familiar but i'm not sure why. i thought it was because she was the most downloaded woman in the world but after a lot of "research" i've discovered that i'm wrong there

*edit*
back on topic, i have to agree with Joebob in that an apple console would make things even worse than they are now
 
wannabedamned said:
Explain to me why PCs cant branch out on their own? Why a console is stopping PCs from "show its true graphical potential"
Click to expand...

It's far from only graphics, very far from only graphics, but since you asked specifically about graphics I'll use that as an example.

Imagine you're running a company that makes games (either directly or through subcontracting, doesn't matter which). You have contractual obligations to publishers. You have competitors who are making similar games and which comes out first will make a big difference to sales. You have other reasons for deadlines, such as seasonable variations in sales.

You have three main potential platforms for your games - PC, PS3, Xbox360.

PS3 and Xbox360 are very similar in terms of hardware capability and input devices. You'll need to optimise a game seperately for each, but you can use the same artwork and the same UI design for both. PC is vastly more powerful and has completely different input devices by default.

So your choices as a developer boil down to one of these:

1) Develop a PC version of your games and a console version. Two quite different development projects, requiring two teams of artists, two teams of UI designers, etc, etc. You'll end up with two substantially different games, requiring two sets of support (if you bother with post-sales support).

2) Develop a console version of your games and only a console version. Port it across to PC if you want, but don't develop for PC. This decreases the time and cost of developing the game - you only need to develop one version. One team of artists, one team of UI designers, etc.

So companies go with the second choice. In some ways, they have to. If they do the job properly (option 1), they'll be beaten by competitors who only develop for consoles (option 2).

This, obviously, means that PC games are limited to console capabilities. Not just for graphics, but including graphics. There might be some resources allocated to tarting up the console graphics a bit for the PC version and there might be some resources allocated to slopping in some graphical options into the menu for the PC version, or there might not. Even if there are, it's still all designed for the limitations of the consoles that it was designed for, in graphics and in everything else.

Even if they bother developing a version optimised for PC, it's still designed for consoles. Usually they just port the Xbox360 version to PC, with varying degrees of casualness, and rely on the far greater power of the PC to brute force the inefficiencies of quickly and cheaply done porting.

Obviously it's impossible to do it the other way around, i.e. design for PC and use that design on consoles. The result would be unplayable because the game wouldn't fit into a console's memory, so it wouldn't work at all. Even if it did, somehow, the UI wouldn't be restricted enough to work with a console's controller and the framerate would be a matter of seconds per frame rather than frames per second. You must either design a console version and a completely seperate PC version or design only a console version which you then port to a PC with varying degrees of giving a damn. All your competitors will be designing only a console version, so if you double your workload by designing both then your costs will be much higher than your competitors' costs and you'll probably go out of business.

So yes, consoles do greatly restrict the development of games for PCs. Graphics are merely the most obvious way, but it applies to pretty much every aspect of a game.
 
why do anyone expect the new consoles have gtx 780s and core i9s? dont they realize it cost like £2000 per console and no one will buy it. wii is the only current gen console making real profit in terms of hardware, due its low cost.

also when will people realize graphics does not equal great games. hence regardless how bad or good the console graphic is, it wont make pc games any better. to me there havent been enough real good, creative games since the late 90s and early 00s. because of this graphics demand (money), developers and publishers are not able to take a risk and make something new, so they are getting eaten by get bigger fish like ea. they are not lazy or anything, but there is not enough money or creativity, nor there is a demand for it.

some people blame social games, consoles, etc for the fall of pc games, but they dont realise how small the market for this quote and quote high-end graphics pc game is.

it is foolish to think developing these "great" games make a lot of money. sheume on the dc is a great game, way ahead of its time. and you know what, sega spent too much on that game and they went bust. face it, its all about the money, if they dont make money, there is no point of doing it. it is easier to make money on console games than pc games.

http://hexus.net/gaming/news/pc/44129-ubisoft-says-pc-games-piracy-rate-95-per-cent/

this is a fact and people just dont know it.
 
they will be more powerful than people think they always are.

this is what i dont understand its not new every console on release is pretty powerful .

look at the xbox how it works and so on it still has a pretty decent cpu and gpu is been worked out to be about same as a 8800 ish card . now remember that is 7 years old.

the new one will have fast cpu and a gpu of somewhere like 7950 670 performance watch !

doesn't matter if you disagree the engines being used by the new consoles they have to have that spec even with cut down graphics to play okay.

people saying oh theyll have a 6770 or something how can it have that if it wont even run ur4 engine for eg ? which is going to be launched in the title games for the console. they lose on consoles for many years and recoup on games.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
people saying oh theyll have a 6770 or something how can it have that if it wont even run ur4 engine for eg ? which is going to be launched in the title games for the console. they lose on consoles for many years and recoup on games.
Click to expand...

Quite simple, when you have a fixed hardware spec and less OS overhead you can do much more with the same hardware.

I mean the PS3 has the equivalent of a Geforce 7000 series GPU, now you try running a game like Uncharted on a PC with a Geforce 7800 GTX and have it look and run like it does on the PS3, it won't.

All consoles have the exact same hardware, this means devs don't have to write for many, many different hardware configs, this means they can optimise much more in their games.

The new consoles will pretty much be around 6770 level in terms of GPU and they will be fine.
 
People need to remember that mass producing a certain hardware spec brings the costs down. If you mass produce a console that contains quad cores with the latest iteration of the most powerful graphical units available, it will be significantly cheaper unit for unit than simply building a single PC. It's the same principle behind newsagents buying hundreds of chocolate bars for 20-30p for example, which they can sell individually for more.
 
Economies of scale yes. But there is always a bottom cost where the raw materials can't be bought any lower and margin %s can't be trimmed any shorter.

The ps3 will probably end up with a trimmed 660ti or 670 at a push but it depends when the actual release date is
 
Protomize said:
No, it's the fact that consoles hold back the gaming industry. The graphical capabilities PC's have, we won't see, because of consoles.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of PC exclusives which you can go play if you want eye-candy. As for the multi-platforms, most of them wouldn't be made if they were PC only because there wouldn't be enough sales to support the investment, so stop complaining.
 
Protomize said:
No, it's the fact that consoles hold back the gaming industry. The graphical capabilities PC's have, we won't see, because of consoles.
Click to expand...


I've no idea what else has been said in this thread but that is true. Even a few devs have come out and said the same thing.

malachi said:
Its the developers who are lazy and cant be bothered start new IP's. Instead they work on 10 year old game engines, give it a number after the title yearly and expect it to sell.
Click to expand...

And the reason they won't release new IP's and work on old engines is because of the fact that the consoles we're using are outdated.
Publishers aren't going to release new IP's when they know new consoles will be out in a year or 2. They'll wait til they come out so they can say "look at our lovely new game with super shiny new graphics."
 
Pigeon_Killer said:
Don't want a quantum leap forward in graphics, I want a quantum leap forward in gameplay or at least something original when the next gen consoles are released.
Click to expand...

This, il take a small increase in gfx power for new titles that aren't churned out year after year, so much so that they lose their story line entirely like a pirates of the carribean film
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom