Next gen PS4 and Xbox already outdated compared to PC says Crytek.

[Phusius]

http://www.computerandvideogames.com...-gen-consoles/

"We were one of the first studios in the world to get access to all of the next-generation consoles. Obviously we can't talk about what they are but we know what next-gen entails. I think people... I'm not going to judge it because it'll get me in trouble, but next-gen is actually not a clear picture right now."


Interesting. I would argue this is kind of true, I am sure the PS4, etc will be limited to 1080p where as we are only limited to 1600p. That by itself makes games look better already.

[erocker]

[In character] Filthy console peasants don't deserve anything better. In all honesty though, unless these new consoles are priced over a grand and have the hardware to go with it, the PC will always be ahead.

[20mmrain]

Originally Posted by erocker

[In character] Filthy console peasants don't deserve anything better. In all honesty though, unless these new consoles are priced over a grand and have the hardware to go with it, the PC will always be ahead.

Ha I love it! Bring the pain!

Like you said unless next gens consoles are $1500 bucks they don't stand a chance. The only good news is.... maybe developers will start using PC's to more of a higher level once Consoles update a little.

[Crap Daddy]

Originally Posted by erocker

unless these new consoles are priced over a grand and have the hardware to go with it, the PC will always be ahead.

They will not because they will not sell. It is impossible to match PC power in a console envelope. Also the design is done today and will not evolve in hardware terms over one generation whereas the PC is moving forward. That is of course if they don't have some hardware from the future brought through a time machine in MS and Sony's labs.

[erocker]

Originally Posted by Crap Daddy

That is of course if they don't have some hardware from the future brought through a time machine in MS and Sony's labs.

Some good ol' innovation is what they need.

[LAN_deRf_HA]

What has happened before is new consoles are ahead of PCs for 8-16 months and then advancements pioneered in consoles are brought to consumer video cards. This time however we have excessive vga performance going underutilized due to progressively worse PC optimization of games. New consoles will look better than PC games using only a fifth the computing power. That's how big the optimization advantage is for consoles.

[FordGT90Concept]

Originally Posted by LAN_deRf_HA

What has happened before is new consoles are ahead of PCs for 8-16 months and then advancements pioneered in consoles are brought to consumer video cards.

Uh, what? Consoles for the past decade have been using GPU cores virtually unchanged (except for the memory interface/management) from what is available for computers. I can't name the last time computers borrowed graphics technology from consoles--likely because it was in the 80s.

New computers have so much power, they have no need to optimize the code, so they don't. Even your most intensive games these days don't use much more than half of a quad-core.

Consoles can get more out of their hardware because there is only a handful of hardware configurations available. With computers, there's billions of potential hardware combinations and it is impossible to optimize for more than a few.

[cheesy999]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

New computers have so much power, they have no need to optimize the code, so they don't. Even your most intensive games these days don't use much more than half of a quad-core.

Thats because they all use 2 threads!

[Chevalr1c]

Who cares about PC gaming being "ahead", if the course we should take is not "even more beautiful" graphics with lame physics and stuff we have already seen countless times (mainly because it is the same dumb stuff console gamers like).
Games are fiction anyway so what is the point of "superrealistic" graphics if the game is not really realistic anyway? I rather see that either some resources are saved to be used for other things, or resources to be saved in order to be able to (almost) fully enjoy the game at medium-power graphics cards. Consoles will always limit what game devs can do graphics wise, so the extremely high-end consumer grapics cards currently released to market are not having much of a point IMHO.

[Fourstaff]

Originally Posted by Chevalr1c

so the extremely high-end consumer grapics cards currently released to market are not having much of a point IMHO.

Metro 2033, Shogun 2 Total War etc at 2560x1600 would like to have a word with your misinformed brain

Extreme high end consumer cards today will be completely shit in 5 years time, so having them is more or less "taste the future" more than anything else.

[LAN_deRf_HA]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

Uh, what? Consoles for the past decade have been using GPU cores virtually unchanged (except for the memory interface/management) from what is available for computers. I can't name the last time computers borrowed graphics technology from consoles--likely because it was in the 80s.

New computers have so much power, they have no need to optimize the code, so they don't. Even your most intensive games these days don't use much more than half of a quad-core.

Consoles can get more out of their hardware because there is only a handful of hardware configurations available. With computers, there's billions of potential hardware combinations and it is impossible to optimize for more than a few.

Do you not remember DX10's introduction? Those features were pioneered on 360 with ATI and that's why everyone was expecting ATI's DX10 card to be so amazing because of their head start experience with it. Was quite some time before they brought that tech to PC.

[FordGT90Concept]

DirectX 9.0c = Shader Model 3.0
Xenos = Shader Model 3.0+
DirectX 10.0 = Shader Model 4.0

That was Microsoft's innovation, not ATI's. ATI had early access to what would become Shader Model 4.0.

Xbox 360 came out in November 2005. Vista came out Novemeber 2006. They were largely co-developed.

Originally Posted by cheesy999

Thats because they all use 2 threads!

No, there's usually at least 4 threads but those threads combined don't burden CPUs enough to consume more than 50% of a quad-core. Games are becoming more GPU intensive than CPU intensive (like they were a decade ago).

[Chevalr1c]

Originally Posted by Fourstaff

Metro 2033, Shogun 2 Total War etc at 2560x1600 would like to have a word with your misinformed brain

Extreme high end consumer cards today will be completely shit in 5 years time, so having them is more or less "taste the future" more than anything else.

1) Who is going to play at 2560x1600 in the near future, except for some "look I have 3+ screens" sillies?
2) Metro 2033 supports tesselation, but is dark for a major part so it is barely noticeable according to folks who made a comparison (I believe we once discussed that here at TPU before; I will search the web for threads like that later, if you wish).
3) I did not play Shogun 2, but assuming it is pretty much the same as the previous games mechanics wise, then CA has other priorities (a more consistent BAI, and some more realism like no factions that conquer half the campaign map in a few turns anymore).

[MxPhenom 216]

Originally Posted by Chevalr1c

1) Who is going to play at 2560x1600 in the near future, except for some "look I have 3+ screens" sillies?
2) Metro 2033 supports tesselation, but is dark for a major part so it is barely noticeable according to folks who made a comparison (I believe we once discussed that here at TPU before; I will search the web for threads like that later, if you wish).
3) I did not play Shogun 2, but assuming it is pretty much the same as the previous games mechanics wise, then CA has other priorities (a more consistent BAI, and some more realism like no factions that conquer half the campaign map in a few turns anymore).

dude you really are misinformed. There are a ton of people who play at that resolution if not higher. Have you ever heard of multi monitor gaming like eyefinity? yeah well people game at those resolutions and have like 2-3 cards to do it.

[Fourstaff]

Originally Posted by Chevalr1c

1) Who is going to play at 2560x1600 in the near future, except for some "look I have 3+ screens" sillies?
2) Metro 2033 supports tesselation, but is dark for a major part so it is barely noticeable according to folks who made a comparison (I believe we once discussed that here at TPU before; I will search the web for threads like that later, if you wish).
3) I did not play Shogun 2, but assuming it is pretty much the same as the previous games mechanics wise, then CA has other priorities (a more consistent BAI, and some more realism like no factions that conquer half the campaign map in a few turns anymore).

People are starting to get 2560x1440/1600 screens, look at the Catleap thread. I dont think it will be massively off the mark if I say that 2560 is going to be the standard in a few years time for PC gaming. You say that Metro 2033 doesn't really have a difference visually with extreme graphics setting and high, but it another year or two and we will see much more games which are at least as demanding.

[Chevalr1c]

Originally Posted by nvidiaintelftw

dude you really are misinformed. There are a ton of people who play at that resolution if not higher. Have you ever heard of multi monitor gaming like eyefinity? yeah well people game at those resolutions and have like 2-3 cards to do it.

I am quoting my previous post below. Take a good look at the bold part, please.

Originally Posted by Chevalr1c

1) Who is going to play at 2560x1600 in the near future, except for some "look I have 3+ screens" sillies?
2) Metro 2033 supports tesselation, but is dark for a major part so it is barely noticeable according to folks who made a comparison (I believe we once discussed that here at TPU before; I will search the web for threads like that later, if you wish).
3) I did not play Shogun 2, but assuming it is pretty much the same as the previous games mechanics wise, then CA has other priorities (a more consistent BAI, and some more realism like no factions that conquer half the campaign map in a few turns anymore).

Originally Posted by Fourstaff

People are starting to get 2560x1440/1600 screens, look at the Catleap thread. I dont think it will be massively off the mark if I say that 2560 is going to be the standard in a few years time for PC gaming. You say that Metro 2033 doesn't really have a difference visually with extreme graphics setting and high, but it another year or two and we will see much more games which are at least as demanding.

Only with tesselation enabled. In Direct3D 10 Metro 2033 is not much more demanding then what is usual for the genre. And it is stated more often, that consoles are holding back "PC" games so 2 years is too quick to be realistic. Games like Need for Speed don't even have built-in AA on the pc, if the rumours are true.
It takes at least 5 years for 2560*xxxx to become a "standard" for gaming. Probably even more because keeping one's 1920*1080 monitor leads to the "ability" to game on graphics cards of less high price ranges. Sensible people will do that (until <200 euro cards can pull it and monitors of that resolution are becoming somewhat affordable), but as it seems you are a very zealous early adopter.

[Solaris17]

Originally Posted by nvidiaintelftw

dude you really are misinformed. There are a ton of people who play at that resolution if not higher. Have you ever heard of multi monitor gaming like eyefinity? yeah well people game at those resolutions and have like 2-3 cards to do it.

I call BS the people that use that many monitors are total showboaters and thats the only reason that forums look saturated with them. I would hate to have 3 + monitors removed bezel or not. not to mention the headache with configuring resolutions centering bightness adjustment etc. me and my 50" play games all day just fine. id rather take 1 large monitor over some toolbags battle station. anyone informed isnt impressed with that anyway.

[crazyeyesreaper]

true but higher resolutions will be the norm, we have TVs in the pipeline now that are 4k resolution as is, far about the 2560x1600, but as always content lags behind further impeding progress. but regardless,

Id like to see Xbox 360 or PS3 render Shogun 2 with 20-30,000 soldiers on screen etc lol, their are games out their that clearly cannot be done on console. but regardless i dont care next gen consoles will be lackluster, more the same, now if they offered me the ability to use a keyboard and mouse to PLAY console games id make the switch but, sadly cant do that so no dice.

[Crap Daddy]

Originally Posted by Phusius

I'm not going to judge it because it'll get me in trouble, but next-gen is actually not a clear picture right now."

I think the problem here is not so much the power of the new consoles but to where they are heading. There are some big decisions to be made first from a business standpoint. Will these new machines be compatible with current games? Are the consumers ready to pay more than 300$ on a console? How big is the threat of mobile gaming and "mobile style of life"? What about cloud gaming? Sony is already in deep s**t for various reasons and Vita seems to have some problems so what next?

[dorsetknob]

its Not consoles v PC They have lost that war
consoles now have to compete against the next gen of smartphones
with the speed of progress in the Smartphone / Tablet market (Android more than Appleware) and the possible entry of the (Linux)Steam Box
That is the Market they have to compete against

[Splave]

well with the pc equivalent of the xbox360 and ps3 being x1900 / 7800gtx I think graphics on consoles looks pretty damn good cheers to the coders.

Imagine what they could do with even the fire power of a 6970 / gtx480 even, sounds exciting to me!

[RejZoR]

Of course they look good, developers are forced to make optimal games for the existing hardware. For ever evolving PC's, they don't give a flying donky fart and they just crap out the engine and call it a game. Plus, with consoles, you get 1 single hardware and driver configuration. With PC's, even if you do find 2 identical hardware configs, it's very unlikely they'll also be running same software and drivers. That's why they in generally can afford to make pretty good looking games on very outdated consoles. I mean, if you take Radeon HD5850 at the moment and make a game specifically made for it, it could easily look better than anything we've seen even on GTX 680. But it would only run on that card and nothing else.

[HossHuge]

Originally Posted by Chevalr1c

except for some "look I have 3+ screens" sillies?

Did you just call me silly?

No! Your silly!

[Frag Maniac]

Odd that CryTek would say this right after retooling CryENGINE for consoles. They pretty much did a politically correct version of Cliffy B's too many PC players are pirates comment, and now they're playing with fire calling even yet to be built consoles inadequate.

Aside from that, it doesn't even need mentioning because it's obvious to most. What's a big leap for consoles is always old gen hardware for PC, and in the price ranges they target, it will always be that way. Wii U gets HD 4000 series graphics, yeah, FOUR YEARS after PC had them. Four years in the cyber world is at least ten or more years in the organic world.

[FordGT90Concept]

Software developers are never satisifed with the hardware. There's alwas something they want to do that the hardware prevents them from doing.