djoye
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 3,115
Consoles makers should troll them and post specs showing only DX9-level features for their next-gen systems. heh
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Epic: New Unreal Engine Warrants PS4, Xbox 720
- Thread starter beardawnwood
- Start date
And Epic would then imitate some PC Gamers while bashing Crysis 2 and say "Microsoft and Sony are teh fail!! Xbox 720 and PS4 don't use DX11! Fail hardware and Epic hopes Microsoft and Sony go bankrupt!"
jonneymendoza
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2004
- Messages
- 6,395
if epic had any sense they would develope and make UT4 for pc only Now and release it for us and later when new consoles come out, release it again as a launch title and the console guys would still milk it up.
my point? use pc platform as a "test bed/benchmark and test out there new engine with us and see how it goes.
Thats what use to be the pinnacle reason of developing for pc's first. to see what can be done and practise their skills and iron out the issues later down the line so that consoles get a decent game at it.
my point? use pc platform as a "test bed/benchmark and test out there new engine with us and see how it goes.
Thats what use to be the pinnacle reason of developing for pc's first. to see what can be done and practise their skills and iron out the issues later down the line so that consoles get a decent game at it.
bullshit..
There are tons of game out there that sold millions of copies alone on PC, exclusively, heck even Single player only games too...
Not enough money or just lazy developer?
there are not, in fact "tons of game out there that sold millions of (PC) copies"
there might be a few.
Nintendo was the only company to give a "minor HP update" with the Wii. The PS3 and Xbox 360 were several magnitude of times faster than their predecessors (the PS3 was marketed as being 30x faster than the PS2). Nintendo took console gaming in a completely different direction and it panned out well for them.
You mentioned franchises like Starcraft and the Sims, two games that wouldn't play well on consoles given the control scheme (how many RTS games are there for consoles?). When it comes down to release time for BF3 and Skyrim, while they will undoubtedly be prettier on the PC, will sell much better on the console. The dev's of those games are smart enough though to code on the PC and then downgrade to the console to appease the PC crowd (smart move).
I still maintain that fragmentation and piracy is killing off PC gaming. I do hope it lasts, I play both console and PC games, but with the way dev's are vilified by the PC crowd as being PC haters while simultaneously having their work stolen...can you blame them?
I agree, they shouldn't hold their sparkley new engine back by waiting for consoles, it needs to be out in the PC realm. Heck, it'd behoove them to streamline it as much as possible in the PC realm now so it's a slicker package when the next generation of consoles are released.
But there could be tons of games out there that sold millions on the PC and the situation wouldn't be different. Console sales would still be far greater than those on the PC and that's what counts. For ANY developer out there. There's absolutely no exception.
No one is in the entertainment business, to NOT make more money...
And that's the whole point where the massive criticism based on ridiculous arguments makes no sense.
Those that do criticize with valid arguments on game mechanics, interface, controls and even graphics, is acceptable and can lead to a better game. The PC community is not shy of pointing out what would work best (in their opinion) in a certain game. But this depends on how open the developer is to this sort of criticism (which IMO is what made Epic look very bad, since they were not open at all and just said, "hey don't like what we did, then we won't "give" you anything else").
Now to be criticized solely based on what graphics API they use, after being criticized for using the latest greatest that no $5000 PC could handle, is retarded. So yes, I can't blame them if they ever give up entirely on the PC Platform. I'm specifically talking about Crytek obviously, since they're the ones under the criticism spotlight at this point.
Some PC Gamers feel they are entitled to something and that "something" must be exactly what they wanted or that game will not be payed for (although this doesn't mean they won't play it, if you know what I mean)...
This is not a good deal. Not at all, since more and more developers will start ignoring the PC platform completely. It's true that PC Games have been making much more compromises than console games, but to bash constantly, no matter what you do, is insane and will just make the PC platform even less appealing.
More to the point the games that sell the best on the PC are not system crushing powerhouses that most people can't run. Look at whole is doing really well, Valve, indie devs, Blizzard, games like the Sims. What all these have in common is that a lot of people can play them.
If Epic jumped the gun and put some system shattering game, it would be the Crysis 1 fiasco all over again. EPIC can whine about piracy all they want, but that was never the real problem. The earlier versions of Unreal Tournament were pirated to hell and back, still are, and they didn't have a problem selling well. They released UT3 way too soon. Not only was it buggy, but from being on the ProUnreal and other forums at the time, next to nobody could run it. And by the time it was all patched up and people had PCs that could run it, they'd moved on to other games, namely TF2, which everybody could run when it hit.
Piracy is a very good excuse which is being used and abused by devs for the last few years to help justify their lack of PC support. We get it, and it's old news. We also get that piracy has been around forever. What alot of you don't get is, piracy was something they had to deal with back in the day in order to sell still sell alot of copies on the PC. They had to endure it. Now a days they don't have to endure it and alot of devs are choosing not too. Yes piracy exists on the consoles but nowhere near the degree percentages wise that it does on the PC, not even close. The consoles are easier to dev for and sell in much greater numbers. You (us) as PC gamers simply cannont continue to eat your young ( steal from those that create our games) anymore, those days need to end. Developers don't have to endure it anymore like they used too. Yes yes yes yes we know there are a certain few titles(genres) that excel well on the PC and sell well and make a ton of money on the platform. Ie: MMO's, sims,sc, valve games etc etc...I know the PC platform made more money in 2010 than 2009 and is still showing growth overall but that is in very specific genres. It shows if you pick and choose your battles on the PC you can win as a dev but you have to be very careful. You don't have to be as careful on the console side sadly.
The bottom line here is (to me at least); Be aware of the situation and buy whatever games you play. DO NOT goddam steal ANY games. I don't care what your bullshit rationale is, just don't. You fuck us all over by doing that and there is never an excuse for it. Secondly, vote with your wallet. Think Crysis2 is a piece of shit console port? Fine then don't buy it but for god sake don't steal the fucking thing. You send the message the devs are looking for. Games not good enough to buy but good enough to play through if it's free. That's bullshit, just don't do it. Show some backbone. Just because you can steal something cause noones looking and you probably won't get caught doesn't mean you should, excercise some dignity.
The bottom line here is (to me at least); Be aware of the situation and buy whatever games you play. DO NOT goddam steal ANY games. I don't care what your bullshit rationale is, just don't. You fuck us all over by doing that and there is never an excuse for it. Secondly, vote with your wallet. Think Crysis2 is a piece of shit console port? Fine then don't buy it but for god sake don't steal the fucking thing. You send the message the devs are looking for. Games not good enough to buy but good enough to play through if it's free. That's bullshit, just don't do it. Show some backbone. Just because you can steal something cause noones looking and you probably won't get caught doesn't mean you should, excercise some dignity.
Piracy on consoles is pretty damn bad, it always has been. I travel a lot for work and bootlegs of games for every console are sold all over the place, ditto even for rom carts like the nintendo DS. It's just as bad.
Here is the problem though, if you're going to lose 25% of possible sales to piracy, but a PC version of something can only sell a possible 100 units, but an xbox version can sell a possible 1000 units than it's a moot starting point. The install base of consoles is just so massive that you can laugh off the loses because you are still going to make a ton of cash.
That's the core problem right there. Even if the piracy went away on the PC and increased on the console, the amount of units you can move for certain types of games is far smaller than the amount you can move on a console, it's pretty cut and dry. Furthermore the cost of making games is increasing, so your spending even more money than you used to get an even crappier return, that's not a winning business strategy.
The types of games that shine on the PC, tend to either be small indie devs where there isn't really that much of a development cost at all and who don't have to jump through hurdles to release a game on console, for the PC is by far the better platform. Or companies like Valve, Blizzard, and others who don't try to push the limits of PC hardware which vastly expands the install base they are targeting so their potential sales on the PC skyrocket.
And that's pretty much the wall EPIC ran into. Unreal 3 was far more system taxing than their prior games. The difference between a "computer" (runs office, internet, email, plays videos) and a "gaming computer" was far, far, far greater for Unreal 3 than it was for Unreal Tournament 99 or 2004, so their potential sales were going to be a lot lower, the game was way to demanding. Combined with the fact that it cost a ton more to make and you had a recipe for disaster. Gears of War was pirated to hell and back as well, but anybody who had a 360 could play it so it had the potential to sell like crazy and make bank regardless of how much it was pirated.
Cliffy B is just a jackass with his head up his ass. Before he was ranting about the lack of hardware in consoles he was going off about the lack of hardware in PCs. Tough shit, he can either develop games for the hardware that actually exists or he can continue throwing tantrums. This whole thing smacks of when they were bitching about Dell, intel, laptops, and integrated graphics.
Here is the problem though, if you're going to lose 25% of possible sales to piracy, but a PC version of something can only sell a possible 100 units, but an xbox version can sell a possible 1000 units than it's a moot starting point. The install base of consoles is just so massive that you can laugh off the loses because you are still going to make a ton of cash.
That's the core problem right there. Even if the piracy went away on the PC and increased on the console, the amount of units you can move for certain types of games is far smaller than the amount you can move on a console, it's pretty cut and dry. Furthermore the cost of making games is increasing, so your spending even more money than you used to get an even crappier return, that's not a winning business strategy.
The types of games that shine on the PC, tend to either be small indie devs where there isn't really that much of a development cost at all and who don't have to jump through hurdles to release a game on console, for the PC is by far the better platform. Or companies like Valve, Blizzard, and others who don't try to push the limits of PC hardware which vastly expands the install base they are targeting so their potential sales on the PC skyrocket.
And that's pretty much the wall EPIC ran into. Unreal 3 was far more system taxing than their prior games. The difference between a "computer" (runs office, internet, email, plays videos) and a "gaming computer" was far, far, far greater for Unreal 3 than it was for Unreal Tournament 99 or 2004, so their potential sales were going to be a lot lower, the game was way to demanding. Combined with the fact that it cost a ton more to make and you had a recipe for disaster. Gears of War was pirated to hell and back as well, but anybody who had a 360 could play it so it had the potential to sell like crazy and make bank regardless of how much it was pirated.
Cliffy B is just a jackass with his head up his ass. Before he was ranting about the lack of hardware in consoles he was going off about the lack of hardware in PCs. Tough shit, he can either develop games for the hardware that actually exists or he can continue throwing tantrums. This whole thing smacks of when they were bitching about Dell, intel, laptops, and integrated graphics.
Last edited:
Blaming piracy is very controversial and I think it's unnecessary to put so much of the blame on it. While the number of people pirating games may or may not be increasing (with faster intarweb tubes, lol sure it is not increasing), but the declining number of people paying for PC games does not make developing as many or many types of games on the PC worth it anymore. The "just make games and people will buy" thinking has been tried even recently and the graveyard is littered with PC-centric gaming companies that are out of business, often destroyed by just one failed PC exclusive release. Multi-platform is not just a plot against PC gaming or "greed", it's often insurance for survival. Big publishers are NOT willing to rescue the game development companies.
Certainly there must be other contributing factors like a bad economy and competition for entertainment dollars. Like I wrote earlier, the situation is crummy for the small percentage of honest PC gamers.
Certainly there must be other contributing factors like a bad economy and competition for entertainment dollars. Like I wrote earlier, the situation is crummy for the small percentage of honest PC gamers.
Good post overall, but I'm not sure that's exactly true. I don't think the UT3 demo was really any more taxing when it came out than the UT2k3 demo was when it came out. Both UE2 and UE3 ran pretty darn well at launch all things considered.
I don't really buy that it's increased at all.
Back in the day, like floppy days, the only way I found out that a computer game even existed was because someone either gave me the game or came over and installed it on my computer. People just mass copied things and spread them about like crazy, or just installed Doom on every single computer in the office from a single copy. When I first got into online gaming heavily, Quake World, if you could track down a server to play on you could also FTP game the game just as easily.
Hell for EPICs own "best seller" Unreal Tournament 99, you could download it/FTP it, whatever from just about anywhere, and most people hosting a dedicated server also hosted a copy of the damn game for everybody and anybody who wanted it.
The question is why aren't they paying for PC games, and piracy is not the real culprit here, see above PC games were always "free" to anybody with a CD drive or an internet connection.
It's rather funny that EPIC are the ones ginning up complaints about the gaming industry, yet again, because they are really a dead horse here. Unreal Tournament 99 was the best game they produced, the most pirated game they produced, wasn't overly expensive to produce, and could be run on the largest percentage of machines out there when it was released. It won GOTY, and as pirated as it was still managed to sell like crazy and was a huge hit for them.
By contrast, each game they have produced later has cost more to create due to increasing development costs associated with high end graphics, and sold less copies because the difference between a gaming machine and a typical computer is far vaster than it's ever been before. Even if piracy had gone down producing a high end block buster on the PC is a far, far worse idea than it was back in 1999 when EPIC cranked out their best hit.
And they aren't unaware of this. They've ranted and whined in public about how Dell and the like aren't forcing people to buy high end hardware capable of playing games. When the truth is nobody wants high end hardware capable of playing games, they want a small and light computer, Dell is responding to the market. They savaged intel for making graphics chipsets, intel graphics are more than enough for 99% of computer users and large GPU's are a disadvantage and not wanted. And then they screamed and cried about the sky rocketing costs of making and selling games.
EPIC has an idea of what kind of games they want to make and where they want to go, but the truth is the market they need to do it simply doesn't exist the way they'd like it to.
Fun times, when both UT2k3 and UT3 hit I heard some of the same complaints "it's consolized!", "it's changed!" which are all standard fair and mean precisely nothing. On the other hand I could run the UT2k3 Demo on a laptop, and crappy Sony desktop, with intel integrated graphics, not well, but it would run. And on the desktop it took a mere 300 bucks to get a 9700pro and have the best graphics out, at just 300 bucks and it fit into the tiny ass desktop and didn't require a new PSU.
When UT3 came out, well you weren't running it on a laptop or anything without dedicated graphics, there goes the entire college crowd which is almost all laptops, and to buy the best graphics you were looking at dual 630 buck 8800gtx cards that there was no way in hell you could actually fit in the case of an off the shelf computer, and if you could you'd probably blow up the PSU.
There was a massive change in the actual install base of computers. Computers had moved more towards smaller, and more portable systems, where gaming video cards had grown vastly larger, more power hungry, and more expensive.
The market changed on them and they refused to do anything about it and went about this as if nothing had happened.
Plenty of PC gaming companies turn a handy profit and do just fine, they also aren't the ones out there bitching and moaning. EPIC is just stupid enough to think that the market of what people want and have for hardware is going to change to suit them, and that's just not the case.
You are aware that artists generally create extremely high poly models and then scale down correct?
Exactly! I said that earlier in here and apparently my idea was "Stupid". So yeah.
zero2dash
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2007
- Messages
- 6,100
And wasn't GoW for Windows nothing more than a port with 1 extra stage added? IE they didn't optimize it for PC, did they? (Genuinely curious here; never picked it up because I was under the impression it was a port job and nothing more.)
My thoughts on Mark Rein trying to trojan horse UE4 with new game consoles is very simple -
I'm happy with the current consoles and the current graphics on the consoles. You want to do UE4 on consoles, be my guest......I won't be buying any new consoles just for UE4 so unless you're supplying the consoles, either do it on PC (and do a respectable job) or GTFO. Take the highest games graphically on any console (of which IMHO the Uncharted series has set the bar) and show me why UE4 is a requirement rather than your sloppy trojan horse.
chameleoneel
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2005
- Messages
- 7,601
The PS3 is counterpoint to all of this.
Not really. It has an anemic amount of RAM, a piddly little graphics card, and every iteration since the first has stripped features. The PS3 was pricey at launch because of Blu Ray, not because every piece of its guts were cutting edge. About the only cutting edge hardware in the PS3 is its CPU.
And of course, what did that accomplish? Total erosion of Sony's dominate position at the top of the home console industry.
Wouldn't be shocked at all if both the next Xbox, PS3 and Nintendo console all launched with moderate hardware and price tags to match.
edit:
Yes. What is your point?
Lyric Suite
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2010
- Messages
- 273
Well, Unreal 1 was most certainly epic, at least it felt that way at the time due to the sheer power of its visuals. No other game that i can think ever made that big of a jump. They even made Id software look like amateurs. Of course, it was a one time wonder due the fact the game coincided with the introduction of the first accelerated graphic cards, but still.
chameleoneel
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2005
- Messages
- 7,601
I was saying the PS3 is counterpoint to spending as little as possible in creation and selling for as much profit as possible. Of course 5 years later, its specs are going to seem anemic. All things considered though, the first party games look pretty damn good.
Sony dumped a lot of money into R&D on Cell. It got even more expensive when IBM delivered the first batch that didn't live up to Sony's demands, so they had IBM do it again. (I'm sure the situation was a little more complex than that, but...)
It was originally planned that Cell would cover both the processing and graphics duties, but late in the game it became clear that the first version of Cell would not be able to completely cover graphics duties on its own. So, the RSX was made, based on the Geforce 7 series. The PS3 was released only about 1 year after the 7 series released, so the RSX was added to the PS3 spec when the 7 series was still cutting edge.
a general problem with consoles has always been lack of ram, PS3 is no different. But it does use XDR ram which is expensive and way efficient.
and on top of all of that yes, the PS3 also included Blu-ray and HDMI (which was not initially present on the Xbox 360). This was a risk because the both the HDMI and Blu-ray spec were not finalized when the PS3 released. But, due to the forward thinking design and firmware updates, to this day the PS3 remains a relevant Blu-ray player, offering nearly all of the latest features. Something that no early release Blu-ray player can claim.
initially, they effectively put a free PS2 inside of it, as both the PS2's processor and graphics chip were originally present inside the PS3, delivering near emulation free playability of PS2 games.
The PS3 released later than planned due to the setbacks with Cell and the late partial ratification of the Blu-ray spec.
I has gigabit ethernet and a wireless card built in. The "slim" PS3 was updated with a wireless N card.
The PS3 was a very expensive, forward thinking, and premium design. There was no "cheapness" in any aspect of it. It was expensive, but even at the original price, it was sold at a loss.
To meet the price demands, they cut out the PS2 hardware and removed other frivolous things like the multi-card reader and a couple of USB ports.
It was just announced in the past couple of days that global PS3 sales have surpassed the Xbox 360. The only market in which the 360 has ever consistently done better is the U.S.
Last edited:
A year is ancient for graphics cards. For a non-upgradable card stuck in a console, it's prehistoric. The hardware in the console needs to be beyond cutting edge when it launches to have half a prayer of staying relevant even a couple years later. I've heard that CELL as GPU/CPU hybrid thing was never the case, just a rumor before PS3 launched. In either case, PS3 had old gfx tech on day one, and it's gotten progressively older ever since. That's not cheap?
There's absolutely cheapness in the PS3. It launched with a cheap video card and a shitty amount of RAM. It launched with a controller that didn't rumble. Sony might have played up the premium angle by tacking on a bunch of secondary stuff like 4 USB ports or built in wireless, but to be honest, I think those things being "features" just illustrates how hilariously cheap the average console is.
Whatever camp you fall into, there's no denying the Xbox and PS3 are in operating at the same basic performance level: 720p/30fps on a good day. Start tossing in extra effects and both those metrics degrade. That's future thinking? 1080p was a standard when PS3 launched. 720p was the red headed step child of HD resolutions. And the PS3/Xbox can't even hit that resolution with any sort of consistency. Because they're both cheap boxes that cut corners to achieve mass market profitability.
BTW, that report from the last couple days didn't say PS3 outsold Xbox, it said the "active user base" of the PS3 surpassed the Xbox. Which means an analyst is estimating that out of all the Xboxs and PS3s out in the wild, more PS3s are actually being used (which means lots of Xbox shaped doorstops or paperweights, I guess.) It's a bullshit study from a dumb ass analyst using shoddy data to extrapolate an unverifiable conclusion. But, even assuming it was correct, what's that mean? That Sony went from first place, such a dominant first place that the PS2's sales more than doubled the combine sales of GCN/Xbox, to barely eaking out a second place position ahead of the Xbox 360 at the cost of billions of dollars in losses subsidizing the too expensive PS3? Victories don't get more pyrrhic.
There's absolutely cheapness in the PS3. It launched with a cheap video card and a shitty amount of RAM. It launched with a controller that didn't rumble. Sony might have played up the premium angle by tacking on a bunch of secondary stuff like 4 USB ports or built in wireless, but to be honest, I think those things being "features" just illustrates how hilariously cheap the average console is.
Whatever camp you fall into, there's no denying the Xbox and PS3 are in operating at the same basic performance level: 720p/30fps on a good day. Start tossing in extra effects and both those metrics degrade. That's future thinking? 1080p was a standard when PS3 launched. 720p was the red headed step child of HD resolutions. And the PS3/Xbox can't even hit that resolution with any sort of consistency. Because they're both cheap boxes that cut corners to achieve mass market profitability.
BTW, that report from the last couple days didn't say PS3 outsold Xbox, it said the "active user base" of the PS3 surpassed the Xbox. Which means an analyst is estimating that out of all the Xboxs and PS3s out in the wild, more PS3s are actually being used (which means lots of Xbox shaped doorstops or paperweights, I guess.) It's a bullshit study from a dumb ass analyst using shoddy data to extrapolate an unverifiable conclusion. But, even assuming it was correct, what's that mean? That Sony went from first place, such a dominant first place that the PS2's sales more than doubled the combine sales of GCN/Xbox, to barely eaking out a second place position ahead of the Xbox 360 at the cost of billions of dollars in losses subsidizing the too expensive PS3? Victories don't get more pyrrhic.
chameleoneel
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2005
- Messages
- 7,601
Yes, that would be ideal. but its pipe dreams. At the time the 7 series was put into the PS3 spec, it was cutting edge. yeah, it didn't release until a year after the 7 series. But an entire PS3 was $600. Sold at a loss. At the time the final PS3 spec was ratified, its possible Nvidia didn't have the 8 series far enough along to include. Its also possible that it would have just cost too much to include, to be able to meet an at all reasonable price point for the total console. The 8 series launched days before the PS3 released. A single card being sold for as much as an entire PS3. Its just not realistic. If stuff like that happened, nobody would game on PCs except crazy people.
It is the case, as the version of Cell in the PS3 is still capable of graphics duties and is regularly used by better developers to enter the graphics pipeline and offload to its SPUs: shader duties, MLAA, many high speed precisions checks, gamma correction, as well as other things, so that RSX can focus more on Geometry and Textures.
Think about 2005/2006. In retrospect, the PS3 is chock full of premium features. there's a reason why it used to cost more than the 360.
I'm trying to be objective here and present facts, but I'd say the lack of rumble was due to the legal battle set upon Sony over the technology. They probably figured it wasn't worth further delaying the release of the PS3 over controller vibration. MS opted to pay out, Sony opted to fight it. To each his own i guess.
there's no denying that the PS3 and 360 don't deliver 1080p in games. But I don't think that performance would have been realistic unless they had A: waited even longer to release or B: upped the price significantly to include such a GPU. The 360's GPU was even the first to market with hybrid shaders (see: no longer separate geometry units) and released a year earlier than the PS3, when the 7 series was still king on PC. So in essence, the consoles and PC's were nearly the same in theoretical performance!
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/...orldwide_Nintendo_Successor_Within_A_Year.php[/quote]
well I don't want to fight over the words because terms like "market share" "installed base" and "total sales" are used interchangably all the time. I will point out that NPD numbers were included and the report itself is taken from a presentation made by Gamestop to its sharefholders, so it should be pretty accurate, whether it represents total sales or actively used hardware.
1st, 2nd, 3rd, the PS3 is doing damned fine.
Last edited:
Well, fine is a relative term, isn't it?
PS3's doing super fine compared to the Dreamcast. Compared to the PS2, not so much.
My final word on that report is this emailed follow up from the author.
PS3's doing super fine compared to the Dreamcast. Compared to the PS2, not so much.
My final word on that report is this emailed follow up from the author.
IMO, nonsense report. The goal is trying to figure out where future console game sales will happen, but the criteria their using to determine sounds very dubious to me.
PrincessFrosty
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,905
I find this funny borderline hilarious, I made a few predictions back when Epic threw their toys out of the pram over UT3 failing.
Because they were a technology/engine company first and game developer second that the predicted delay with next gen consoles being well into 2011-2012 (and now estimated at closer to 2015) that they'd be left with nothing to really do, no real engine enhancements to make and it would make their engine very hard to sell because they'd have no more features than any other engine.
What makes it funnier is they're trying to showcase DX11 which has been available on the PC and in some form of limited use for a while now, by the time the next gen consoles role around we'll almost certainly have Windows 8 and DX12 and well into that cycle.
The whole console lagging technology thing is just pathetic, MS and Sony don't give a crap about fancy DX11 effects, they give a crap about making a good ROI, the massive investments they make to sell off hardware at a loss takes years to recover through game royalties and it's in their best interest, financially, to draw out the console lifespan as long as possible.
It was kind of predictable that Epic would find this sag in technology a problem, they've always been close to the front of the technology curve, now they're woefully behind it.
I hope that their better sales on the console, was worth selling out from being top of their field, to just another indistinct muddy blotch that in the uniform puddle of mud that the console market is.
Because they were a technology/engine company first and game developer second that the predicted delay with next gen consoles being well into 2011-2012 (and now estimated at closer to 2015) that they'd be left with nothing to really do, no real engine enhancements to make and it would make their engine very hard to sell because they'd have no more features than any other engine.
What makes it funnier is they're trying to showcase DX11 which has been available on the PC and in some form of limited use for a while now, by the time the next gen consoles role around we'll almost certainly have Windows 8 and DX12 and well into that cycle.
The whole console lagging technology thing is just pathetic, MS and Sony don't give a crap about fancy DX11 effects, they give a crap about making a good ROI, the massive investments they make to sell off hardware at a loss takes years to recover through game royalties and it's in their best interest, financially, to draw out the console lifespan as long as possible.
It was kind of predictable that Epic would find this sag in technology a problem, they've always been close to the front of the technology curve, now they're woefully behind it.
I hope that their better sales on the console, was worth selling out from being top of their field, to just another indistinct muddy blotch that in the uniform puddle of mud that the console market is.
When UE3 first hit, yeah it was better than most other engines on consoles. The problem they have now is that various big name developers, capcom, konami, who make Epic seem like small fries, have all developed their own customized games engines that spank the crap out of Unreal 3.
Why the hell should say Capcom, use UE3 and pay Epic, when their own MT Framework runs better, looks better, makes better use of the hardware, and they don't have to pay Epic? Other than the fact that MT doesn't port to the PC, but there isn't enough money on the PC to make publishing a AAA title on it worth it. So save the cash, keep it console, and go with the better development platform.
Why the hell should say Capcom, use UE3 and pay Epic, when their own MT Framework runs better, looks better, makes better use of the hardware, and they don't have to pay Epic? Other than the fact that MT doesn't port to the PC, but there isn't enough money on the PC to make publishing a AAA title on it worth it. So save the cash, keep it console, and go with the better development platform.
MT framework is developed with PC first, then ported to console..
Capcom titles on PC all used MT Framework now, beside SF4.
I stand corrected, I did not know they ported MT to PC, that was one of their "can't be on the PC" reasons for various games.
SF4 is PC native though, it was made of the taito x2, which is a PC with embeded XP>
relapse808
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2005
- Messages
- 1,709
Ahhh EPIC how I once loved you. You used to make my favorite games for PC and I loved all of your games. How the times have changed. I think a piece of dog terd is more appealing to me than your games and console ranting. Its a shame. So I ask PLEASE LEAVE MY GAMING PLATFORM FOR GOOD.
I find this amusing honestly. Other than the original Unreal, and Unreal Tournament 99, what have they done other than crank out engines?
You know what was good, Unreal 2 XMP, shame they killed it off, shame they ditched DE, all for the sake of Onslaught, which was horrible.
TheGreySpectre
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 439
You can talk all you want about how consoles went the "cheap route" but at the time the xbox360 came out it's graphics were almost on par with my new computer at the time which cost 3 or 4 times as much. My video card alone cost almost as much as a console at the time (I had a 7800gtx).
I enjoyed UT2k4, UT2 and UT99, but for me UT2k4 was the last game I enjoyed from epic. I did not like UT3 as much as UT2k4 or UT99, gears of war was not for me and I felt like bulletstorm was way to short and was extremely lacking for ending.
I do think it's funny though that some people are bashing on epic for saying the exact same thing we say all over the place on this forum. That we need new consoles to come out to help advance graphics.
I enjoyed UT2k4, UT2 and UT99, but for me UT2k4 was the last game I enjoyed from epic. I did not like UT3 as much as UT2k4 or UT99, gears of war was not for me and I felt like bulletstorm was way to short and was extremely lacking for ending.
I do think it's funny though that some people are bashing on epic for saying the exact same thing we say all over the place on this forum. That we need new consoles to come out to help advance graphics.
chameleoneel
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2005
- Messages
- 7,601
Actually, Capcom is the only Japanese developer I know of this generation that created their own in house middleware to be used across several games and several platforms. The big problem with the Japanese industry right now is that historically, they have created brand new engines for each and every game and cross platform versions have required full on porting (often farmed out to a lesser developement studio), rather than just a few tweaks. But that is becoming a larger and larger time and financial sink, so large, that its stifling the time, manpower, and creativity to actual make game content and innovate at the content at the same time. Lately, many Japanese companies have started experiments with middleware (typically UE3) and/or farming out their franchises to western developers.
and regarding Epics "message" to the console companies. Its in the best interest of both the console hardware companies and epic themselves that the next consoles can run UEnext. The hardware companies are nothing without software. If they can't run one of the most popular middleware, there is a problem. Its in Epic's interest because the console market is a little more certain in regards to making money. But only a little. Several dev houses and even whole companies nowadasy float on a game to game basis. THQ's future was literally riding on Homefront being a financial success. It was, so they live on to develop another game as the current THQ.
History very much disagrees. Graphics are a huge selling point. The Wii is a dust-collecting joke, regardless of its sales.
Lyric Suite
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2010
- Messages
- 273
That's because most of the games at the time were made for the xbox360, not for high end PCs.
chameleoneel
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2005
- Messages
- 7,601
peeking at the wikis on games released each year. Even excluding Crysis (2007) it wasn't until 2007 that PC saw games that probably couldn't be done on a console with comparable settings, theoretical resolution excluded from the equation. and that's probably because the Geforce 8 series didn't release until november 2006. Due to how dev cycles work, it makes sense.
The Wii doesn't really have much to do with it. Microsoft and Sony screwed up, the consoles were too powerful and cost too much, they need to keep them going as long as possible. Plus, the cost of making games is way too high at this point.
As impressive as their engine is, it doesn't really solve the problem of cost of making games.