Epic Games VP Is Impressed With PS4's Hardware

Epic Games VP Is Impressed With PS4's Hardware

image

Mark Rein, vice president of Epic Games, says "[the PS4] is a phenomenal piece of hardware and we're going to do amazing things with it."

Chances are you've played somewhere between one and ten games that run on Unreal Engine 3. The engine has dominated the current console generation, providing the inner workings for smash hits like Bioshock, Gears of War, Dishonored and Batman: Arkham Aslyum. So when the vice president of Epic Games, the folks behind the Unreal engine, is impressed with the hardware of the PS4, it's a good sign, as we are sure to see numerous games in the upcoming console generation built on Unreal Engine 4.

When asked if he got what he wanted with the PS4, Rein replied "Yeah, we're really pleased with what we got - at least so far from Sony. Tim Sweeney is really the best person to ask that question but he's over the moon with it." He explained that it is really important for next-gen consoles to use off-the-shelf PC parts, as it makes it much easier for developers to make games for it. "It's a smart thing to do. They're going to benefit from it - there won't be that whole 'how do we make this work', there's just going to be 'wow, what can we do with this?' And we'll do great things."

"It's like giving you the world's best PC. 'We're going to make it super convenient, we're going to make it easy for you to get games on there, we're going to start the games running while you're downloading them and we're going to perform your updates in the background.' You're not going to turn this thing off... you're just going to sleep it and it's going to come back on."

Rein says that it is "abundantly clear" that the PS4 is being developed as a collaboration between Eastern and Western philosophies. Sony, a Japanese company, has traditionally developed their PlayStation consoles first and foremost for Japanese developers, much to the disdain of Western developers looking to create cross-platform games. He expects the next generation of consoles to exhibit a high level of convenience. "To have [convenience] combined with amazing hardware specs that everybody will have, at I'm sure will be a reasonable price... it will be good for everybody."

Fortnite will be the first Unreal Engine 4 title to be published by Epic Games. Rein hesitated to offer up more details of the zombie-survival game, but assured us that "It's because it's so good that we're going to take our time with it, then we're going to have a very slow rollout of it, get a few hundred people to play it and do cool things. It's got such a long lifespan that we just don't want to rush it."

Source: CVG

Permalink

Well it has the power of an average consumer computer, and the PS3 is weaksauce now (comparatively) so it is a nice spec jump.

Isn't Epic one of the companies that believes that better graphics is the most important part of a game?

Graphics is emotions!

Deathlyphil:
Isn't Epic one of the companies that believes that better graphics is the most important part of a game?

Graphics is emotions!

Look at the polygons! LOOK AT THEM!

ADMIRE THE GONS AND SUFFEEEEEEEEEER

EMOTIONALLYYYYYYYYYYYYY

Evil Smurf:
Well it has the power of an average consumer computer, and the PS3 is weaksauce now (comparatively) so it is a nice spec jump.

I'd say it has slightly more power than the average consumer computer. It's basically a mid-range gaming PC from 2 years ago, most consumer computers in the same price range wouldn't have anything above intel integrated graphics and an i3.

Still, there are more powerful PC's out there and they're available for around 600 from scracth (less if you skimp on case and mobo). I'm looking forward to whatever next gen brings, slightly lower specs can be a boon in a way, keeping the requirements down and meaning PC gamers don't have to upgrade so often.

I'm also excited by the prospects of octo-core AMD APU's being in consoles. Provides steady income for AMD and helps prevent the terror that would be a monopoly run by Nvidia and Intel. It also means we'll see games start to take advantage of more than 3 or 4 cores.

8 of them in fact.

Delicious multithreaded functions :D

Edit: Does anyone have a link to that next-gen Unreal 4 tech demo running at anything above 720p?

To be honest, you will see games on PS4 that looks better than anything we have now. While on iron level it's just a tad better than average gaming PC you're forgetting that PS4 is iron level coding for devs. No Windows, no drivers. There's a reason why 512 mb of RAM in console basically equals 4 gb in a PC for games.
Of course you can get, for example, 32 GB of RAM right now. But that's not your average PC and it's not GDDR5.

If you are impressed by PS4, it just means you are too easily impressed.

Lord_Gremlin:
There's a reason why 512 mb of RAM in console basically equals 4 gb in a PC for games.

Do you even know what RAM does?

Lord_Gremlin:
But that's not your average PC and it's not GDDR5.

We still don't know what they mean by GDDR5, as currently, it is exclusively VRAM.

I still think that the PS4 will have a combined RAM of 8GB, and part of that 8GB is VRAM.

Hawkeye21:
If you are impressed by PS4, it just means you are too easily impressed.

Lord_Gremlin:
There's a reason why 512 mb of RAM in console basically equals 4 gb in a PC for games.

Do you even know what RAM does?

Do you know what a "driver"? Almost every asset requires more memory space on PC.

Deathlyphil:
Isn't Epic one of the companies that believes that better graphics is the most important part of a game?

Graphics is emotions!

Doesn't that basically make them on par with the average gamer?

Lord_Gremlin:
To be honest, you will see games on PS4 that looks better than anything we have now. While on iron level it's just a tad better than average gaming PC you're forgetting that PS4 is iron level coding for devs. No Windows, no drivers. There's a reason why 512 mb of RAM in console basically equals 4 gb in a PC for games.
Of course you can get, for example, 32 GB of RAM right now. But that's not your average PC and it's not GDDR5.

Its actually not.

The CPU is actually a cheaply made tablet CPU.

The PS4 is rocking tablet specs, the only difference is the DDR 5 which is useless if the rest of the specs are weak.

Frankly, I don't see anything really powerful from the PS4, its just on par with electronics today (very roughly) but decent today is outdated 2 years from now and absolute garbage 4 years from now.

I honestly don't think the industry is ready for this. They squeeze too much out the technology we have now. I dread to think of how much the next generation of games will have to sell to meet sales projections if they try to take full advantage of the PS4 hardware right off the bat.

Ultratwinkie:

Lord_Gremlin:
To be honest, you will see games on PS4 that looks better than anything we have now. While on iron level it's just a tad better than average gaming PC you're forgetting that PS4 is iron level coding for devs. No Windows, no drivers. There's a reason why 512 mb of RAM in console basically equals 4 gb in a PC for games.
Of course you can get, for example, 32 GB of RAM right now. But that's not your average PC and it's not GDDR5.

Its actually not.

The CPU is actually a cheaply made tablet CPU.

The PS4 is rocking tablet specs, the only difference is the DDR 5 which is useless if the rest of the specs are weak.

Frankly, I don't see anything really powerful from the PS4, its just on par with electronics today (very roughly) but decent today is outdated 2 years from now and absolute garbage 4 years from now.

And that's irrelevant, as long as the games are good.

You guys forget one thing.
The OS will be optimized for gaming (and this social bullshit, but whatever). Windows, even a clean installation, is incredibly bloated. The amount of services and applications that run in the background slow it down, because they need to be able to respond quickly.
Most people don't know, but your PC cannot multitask. It just switches between processes really fast. You need to prioritize the processes though, which is done by the so called scheduler. For Windows the UI is a high priority, since you don't want delays when working with it. IF you WOULD assign all the resources to a game, it would take forever to alt-tab out of it, and once you did, Windows would be barely usable (if at all).

I would like to see someone build a PC that has PS3 specs and run PS3-games on it. Good luck.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

Ultratwinkie:

Lord_Gremlin:
To be honest, you will see games on PS4 that looks better than anything we have now. While on iron level it's just a tad better than average gaming PC you're forgetting that PS4 is iron level coding for devs. No Windows, no drivers. There's a reason why 512 mb of RAM in console basically equals 4 gb in a PC for games.
Of course you can get, for example, 32 GB of RAM right now. But that's not your average PC and it's not GDDR5.

Its actually not.

The CPU is actually a cheaply made tablet CPU.

The PS4 is rocking tablet specs, the only difference is the DDR 5 which is useless if the rest of the specs are weak.

Frankly, I don't see anything really powerful from the PS4, its just on par with electronics today (very roughly) but decent today is outdated 2 years from now and absolute garbage 4 years from now.

And that's irrelevant, as long as the games are good.

If its tablet specs, the games will be strung back by how weak it is MUCH sooner.

Its only a temporary fix for a few short years, but we need long term fix to how limited the consoles are. We can't wait for 7 years on a tablet like we did this gen.

I guess Sony was right when they say the number 4 is cursed.

TheSniperFan:
You guys forget one thing.
The OS will be optimized for gaming (and this social bullshit, but whatever). Windows, even a clean installation, is incredibly bloated. The amount of services and applications that run in the background slow it down, because they need to be able to respond quickly.
Most people don't know, but your PC cannot multitask. It just switches between processes really fast. You need to prioritize the processes though, which is done by the so called scheduler. For Windows the UI is a high priority, since you don't want delays when working with it. IF you WOULD assign all the resources to a game, it would take forever to alt-tab out of it, and once you did, Windows would be barely usable (if at all).

I would like to see someone build a PC that has PS3 specs and run PS3-games on it. Good luck.

Sony cant afford highly unique OSes anymore. They want it to be more in line with a PC than console, because they just can't afford it.

If anything, this makes emulation easier, as well as the resource management.

People forget the PS3 and the market crash really took it out of Sony. They can't afford to be unique and "powerful" moneypits anymore. They need something cheap.

Ultratwinkie:

If its tablet specs, the games will be strung back by how weak it is MUCH sooner.

Its only a temporary fix for a few short years, but we need long term fix to how limited the consoles are. We can't wait for 7 years on a tablet like we did this gen.

I guess Sony was right when they say the number 4 is cursed.

Funny enough, games don't come with a shelf-life on 'fun'. Chrono Trigger is still a hugely fun game. Super Metroid is still a fun game. Super Mario 3 is still a fun game. The fact that those games run on tech equivalent to a modern calculator has no bearing on how great or fun they are.

Jesus, just look at the Indie renaissance. The majority of the Indie games doing well right now deliberately emulate the styles of games made during the NES/SNES era. Why? Because not only is that style easier to emulate, but because those games are still fun.

If you're definition of what makes a game good is what tech is running underneath it, then I can only assume that you're into gaming for entirely different reasons to me. The PS4 is going to have 8GB of RAM, an 8 core CPU and a high-end GPU. If that's not enough for you, then I offer the suggestion that nothing short of a dual GPU, 32GB 12 core CPU would satisfy you, and I therefore follow that your expectations are completely divorced from reality and the current state of the industry and the economy.

Now if you'll excuse me good sir, I'm going to go play some Fire Emblem, check out some Shovel Knight, and have myself a grand old time.

Ultratwinkie:
Sony cant afford highly unique OSes anymore. They want it to be more in line with a PC than console, because they just can't afford it.

If anything, this makes emulation easier, as well as the resource management.

People forget the PS3 and the market crash really took it out of Sony. They can't afford to be unique and "powerful" moneypits anymore. They need something cheap.

The PS4 will have its own OS like every console ever.
The architecture has nothing to do with it.

Ultratwinkie:

Its actually not.

The CPU is actually a cheaply made tablet CPU.

The PS4 is rocking tablet specs, the only difference is the DDR 5 which is useless if the rest of the specs are weak.

Frankly, I don't see anything really powerful from the PS4, its just on par with electronics today (very roughly) but decent today is outdated 2 years from now and absolute garbage 4 years from now.

Assuming that game devs don't go out of their way to optimize for the console's weaker specs.

Like they do with every single console game they make.

I don't really know why the specs are a big deal. The console with the best specs has never sold the most. It's the quality of the games that count people.

Able Seacat:
I don't really know why the specs are a big deal. The console with the best specs has never sold the most. It's the quality of the games that count people.

This. I want to see what sony has to offer in game department, don't care about social networking, OS functionality, hardware or the amount of EMOTIONS on the screen.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

Ultratwinkie:

If its tablet specs, the games will be strung back by how weak it is MUCH sooner.

Its only a temporary fix for a few short years, but we need long term fix to how limited the consoles are. We can't wait for 7 years on a tablet like we did this gen.

I guess Sony was right when they say the number 4 is cursed.

Funny enough, games don't come with a shelf-life on 'fun'. Chrono Trigger is still a hugely fun game. Super Metroid is still a fun game. Super Mario 3 is still a fun game. The fact that those games run on tech equivalent to a modern calculator has no bearing on how great or fun they are.

Jesus, just look at the Indie renaissance. The majority of the Indie games doing well right now deliberately emulate the styles of games made during the NES/SNES era. Why? Because not only is that style easier to emulate, but because those games are still fun.

If you're definition of what makes a game good is what tech is running underneath it, then I can only assume that you're into gaming for entirely different reasons to me. The PS4 is going to have 8GB of RAM, an 8 core CPU and a high-end GPU. If that's not enough for you, then I offer the suggestion that nothing short of a dual GPU, 32GB 12 core CPU would satisfy you, and I therefore follow that your expectations are completely divorced from reality and the current state of the industry and the economy.

Now if you'll excuse me good sir, I'm going to go play some Fire Emblem, check out some Shovel Knight, and have myself a grand old time.

But here's the thing: the specs are vague, and when they are specific it comes up weak.

"high end" GPU?

A tablet CPU?

8 gigs of ram, when the rest is presumed to be weak?

Hell, just look at this:
image

Do you even know what a Jaguar is? Its a 8 core, low power Tablet CPU. The 8 core tablet CPU is actually 8 WEAKER cores to control the power draw, not regular cores.

Hell, they even said its akin to a weaker quad core. Its said to be about 1.6-2 GHz. Even the Intel I3 has way more than that. Its not some godlike machine that can't improved on because its too expensive, its a decent one because the market realities have changed.

I agree wtih him for once excep for "It's like giving you the world's best PC. you're just going to sleep it and it's going to come back on."
its not the worlds best PC. its the worlds average PC and will be a slow pc in a year (when it launches). and i will most definatelly turn it off if i end up having it.

SkarKrow:

I'm also excited by the prospects of octo-core AMD APU's being in consoles. Provides steady income for AMD and helps prevent the terror that would be a monopoly run by Nvidia and Intel. It also means we'll see games start to take advantage of more than 3 or 4 cores.

Your excited that a old/inferior technology maker that cannot create a CPU to beo n part with new Intel design having to resort to adding 2x as many cores to play catch-up is going to be having a steady income while them arket leader Intel is going to suffer? Or that Nvidia - the card you want to take if you want gaming without having to deal with driver issues constantly - is not going to be there? Why would you be excited for having the inferior technology?

IF you WOULD assign all the resources to a game, it would take forever to alt-tab out of it, and once you did, Windows would be barely usable (if at all).

not if the game frezes its graphics while on alt-tab, which is true for 90% of games after 2007. also not true if your computer is faster than your game needs to run properly, that is, unelss you are stupid enough to remove the framerate cap and your GPU is faster than your CPU.

Ultratwinkie:

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

Ultratwinkie:

image

Do you even know what a Jaguar is? Its a 8 core, low power Tablet CPU. The 8 core tablet CPU is actually 8 WEAKER cores to control the power draw, not regular cores.

Hell, they even said its akin to a weaker quad core. Its said to be about 1.6-2 GHz. Even the Intel I3 has way more than that. Its not some godlike machine that can't improved on because its too expensive, its a decent one because the market realities have changed.

[quote="Ultratwinkie" post="7.404944.16796056"][quote="TheSniperFan" post="7.404944.16796036"]You guys forget one thing.
The OS will be optimized for gaming (and this social bullshit, but whatever). Windows, even a clean installation, is incredibly bloated. The amount of services and applications that run in the background slow it down, because they need to be able to respond quickly.
Most people don't know, but your PC cannot multitask. It just switches between processes really fast. You need to prioritize the processes though, which is done by the so called scheduler. For Windows the UI is a high priority, since you don't want delays when working with it. IF you WOULD assign all the resources to a game, it would take forever to alt-tab out of it, and once you did, Windows would be barely usable (if at all).

I would like to see someone build a PC that has PS3 specs and run PS3-games on it. Good luck.

Sony cant afford highly unique OSes anymore. They want it to be more in line with a PC than console, because they just can't afford it.

If anything, this makes emulation easier, as well as the resource management.

People forget the PS3 and the market crash really took it out of Sony. They can't afford to be unique and "powerful" moneypits anymore. They need something cheap.

Do you even have ANY idea what your talking about? Who gives a flying fuck that the CPU isn't an i7 or something. The GPU is what matters for rendering graphics, the CPU specializes in numerical calculations and programs. And did you think Sony was going to put Windows 8 or something on it? Its going to have its own OS and it won't need nearly the same amount of resources as a windows pc that has to be ready run anything I throw at it. Hell, pc's slow down in time after they get so much stuff installed on them anyway especially drivers that can ass-rape various programs. I once had a keyboard driver that installed from a MOUSE I used causing problems with Bethesda games not recognizing the tilde` key causing me to be barred from using console commands. Software is of huge importance, the hardware only allows for potential, its why Metal Gear Solid 4 still looks amazing despite coming out a year after the ps3's launch

I get it. You don't want a console. You don't have to make stuff up to justify pc as "clearly better"

PoolCleaningRobot:

Ultratwinkie:

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

[quote="Ultratwinkie" post="7.404944.16796056"][quote="TheSniperFan" post="7.404944.16796036"]You guys forget one thing.
The OS will be optimized for gaming (and this social bullshit, but whatever). Windows, even a clean installation, is incredibly bloated. The amount of services and applications that run in the background slow it down, because they need to be able to respond quickly.
Most people don't know, but your PC cannot multitask. It just switches between processes really fast. You need to prioritize the processes though, which is done by the so called scheduler. For Windows the UI is a high priority, since you don't want delays when working with it. IF you WOULD assign all the resources to a game, it would take forever to alt-tab out of it, and once you did, Windows would be barely usable (if at all).

I would like to see someone build a PC that has PS3 specs and run PS3-games on it. Good luck.

Sony cant afford highly unique OSes anymore. They want it to be more in line with a PC than console, because they just can't afford it.

If anything, this makes emulation easier, as well as the resource management.

People forget the PS3 and the market crash really took it out of Sony. They can't afford to be unique and "powerful" moneypits anymore. They need something cheap.

Do you even have ANY idea what your talking about? Who gives a flying fuck that the CPU isn't an i7 or something. The GPU is what matters for rendering graphics, the CPU specializes in numerical calculations and programs. And did you think Sony was going to put Windows 8 or something on it? Its going to have its own OS and it won't need nearly the same amount of resources as a windows pc that has to be ready run anything I throw at it. Hell, pc's slow down in time after they get so much stuff installed on them anyway especially drivers that can ass-rape various programs. I once had a keyboard driver that installed from a MOUSE I used causing problems with Bethesda games not recognizing the tilde` key causing me to be barred from using console commands. Software is of huge importance, the hardware only allows for potential, its why Metal Gear Solid 4 still looks amazing despite coming out a year after the ps3's launch

I get it. You don't want a console. You don't have to make stuff up to justify pc as "clearly better"

And here's the thing, its an APU.

The CPU and GPU are the same thing on a console, because its integrated into a single thing.

And secondly, computer slow downs? If you have "computer slow downs" you aren't as tech savvy as you think you are.

Hardware is important, because it determines what is and isn't possible and for how long this thing lasts. The problem here is the PS3 is ancient and is holding gaming back. Now its just a case of hiding the ugliness in a game. The PS4 isn't any better, as it has a low power tablet CPU. That alone doesn't give it much flexibility.

That isn't going to last long, and very soon we'll back right back where we started with the PS4. Old, and highly outdated. Only this time we have to wait it out some more because Sony can't afford to make another one so soon.

and third, I said HIGHLY UNIQUE OS. Its going to be more accessible because the PS3 was a nightmare. Which in turn makes anything the PS4 has easier to emulate on PCs because it doesn't need to compensate for the OS as much. It also helps developers because they don't need to change much.

Ultratwinkie:

And here's the thing, its an APU.

The CPU and GPU are the same thing on a console, because its integrated into a single thing.

And secondly, computer slow downs? If you have "computer slow downs" you aren't as tech savvy as you think you are.

Hardware is important, because it determines what is and isn't possible and for how long this thing lasts. The problem here is the PS3 is ancient and is holding gaming back. Now its just a case of hiding the ugliness in a game. The PS4 isn't any better, as it has a low power tablet CPU. That alone doesn't give it much flexibility.

That isn't going to last long, and very soon we'll back right back where we started with the PS4. Old, and highly outdated. Only this time we have to wait it out some more because Sony can't afford to make another one so soon.

and third, I said HIGHLY UNIQUE OS. Its going to be more accessible because the PS3 was a nightmare. Which in turn makes anything the PS4 has easier to emulate on PCs because it doesn't need to compensate for the OS as much. It also helps developers because they don't need to change much.

Fine. I have no idea what your talking about with APUs. The ps4 will be capable of graphics better than a tablet is something I know for sure. Just look up the trailers and the Metal Gear Solid 5 gameplay. Can't do that shit with a terga 3

I've worked in tech support at my college for 2 years and I don't have a degree or anything but I've talked about exactly these problems with my boss who's been gaming on a pc since probably before you were born. Computers just get random problems. It happens. Obviously, you wouldn't notice these things if you drop more than a grand on a sweet ass machine. There's no way to avoid slow downs unless I bought fantastic pc but I spent a lot of money on a gaming laptop years ago so I'm not looking to replace my baby. I could use winpatrol to delay start up programs so my boot is faster but they all have to start eventually.

And the ps3's interface was a "nightmare"? Oh wow, you got these buttons on the controller and these icons like "Internet browser" and "playstation store" and "play game" how is anyone supposed to figure that out?

And even if it does become outdated (read: it won't. I've been using a ps3 for 7 years) does it really matter to the people they're selling it to? I want a machine that will help me play games on a controller that are perfectly optimized for my needs so I won't need to spend an hour tweeking graphics settings to get the most frames for the most pretty and I don't want to spend more than $500 a device for this AND getting software to facilitate my needs. I already have a pc. I use it when it is more convenient like mods and indy games and stuff.

Basically this: you always want the best graphics and options? Then buy a nice computer! If you don't give a shit and want to plug and play? then buy a console!

PoolCleaningRobot:

Ultratwinkie:

And here's the thing, its an APU.

The CPU and GPU are the same thing on a console, because its integrated into a single thing.

And secondly, computer slow downs? If you have "computer slow downs" you aren't as tech savvy as you think you are.

Hardware is important, because it determines what is and isn't possible and for how long this thing lasts. The problem here is the PS3 is ancient and is holding gaming back. Now its just a case of hiding the ugliness in a game. The PS4 isn't any better, as it has a low power tablet CPU. That alone doesn't give it much flexibility.

That isn't going to last long, and very soon we'll back right back where we started with the PS4. Old, and highly outdated. Only this time we have to wait it out some more because Sony can't afford to make another one so soon.

and third, I said HIGHLY UNIQUE OS. Its going to be more accessible because the PS3 was a nightmare. Which in turn makes anything the PS4 has easier to emulate on PCs because it doesn't need to compensate for the OS as much. It also helps developers because they don't need to change much.

Fine. I have no idea what your talking about with APUs. The ps4 will be capable of graphics better than a tablet is something I know for sure. Just look up the trailers and the Metal Gear Solid 5 gameplay. Can't do that shit with a terga 3

I've worked in tech support at my college for 2 years and I don't have a degree or anything but I've talked about exactly these problems with my boss who's been gaming on a pc since probably before you were born. Computers just get random problems. It happens. Obviously, you wouldn't notice these things if you drop more than a grand on a sweet ass machine. There's no way to avoid slow downs unless I bought fantastic pc but I spent a lot of money on a gaming laptop years ago so I'm not looking to replace my baby. I could use winpatrol to delay start up programs so my boot is faster but they all have to start eventually.

And the ps3's interface was a "nightmare"? Oh wow, you got these buttons on the controller and these icons like "Internet browser" and "playstation store" and "play game" how is anyone supposed to figure that out?

And even if it does become outdated (read: it won't. I've been using a ps3 for 7 years) does it really matter to the people they're selling it to? I want a machine that will help me play games on a controller that are perfectly optimized for my needs so I won't need to spend an hour tweeking graphics settings to get the most frames for the most pretty and I don't want to spend more than $500 a device for this AND getting software to facilitate my needs. I already have a pc. I use it when it is more convenient like mods and indy games and stuff.

Basically this: you always want the best graphics and options? Then buy a nice computer! If you don't give a shit and want to plug and play? then buy a console!

You are making shit up now aren't you?

I said it was a nightmare to try to emulate or port games to. It was something that developers had to put up with, and hated how needlessly unique it was for little reason. Now Sony doesn't want to do that because it costs money and scares away prospect developers.

The Jaguar CPU is basically what a tablet can do now. It only looks amazing because the PS3 was done on 2005 tech, something tablets NOW outclass. However, APUs are not as good as a dedicated card, which puts too much cost into production.

If you are trying to argue, try to keep up.

And yes, it will be outdated. the only reason the PS3 stayed around is because Sony didn't want to dump more money into consoles, and the lifespan of the PS3 also lasted this long because, compared to what was around at the time, the PS3 was also considered "bleeding edge." The PS4 is using 2 year old technology on a budget as many people point out. The consoles only started making profit around 4 years ago, it doesn't make business sense to bankrupt yourself again just when you start making money on another development cycle. Which is why they wanted to do a cheap console now.

Ultratwinkie:

You are making shit up now aren't you?

I said it was a nightmare to try to emulate or port games to. It was something that developers had to put up with, and hated how needlessly unique it was for little reason. Now Sony doesn't want to do that because it costs money.

The Jaguar CPU is basically what a tablet can do now. It only looks amazing because the PS3 was done on 2005 tech, something tablets NOW outclass. However, APUs are not as good as a dedicated card, which puts too much cost into production.

If you are trying to argue, try to keep up.

And yes, it will be outdated. the only reason the PS3 stayed around is because Sony didn't want to dump more money into consoles. Because consoles only started making profit around 4 years ago, it doesn't make business sense to bankrupt yourself again just when you start making money. Which is why they wanted to do a cheap console now.

For the love of... (one Google search later). Oh gee. Looky here. Info on the Jaguar CPU:

"Last but not least, there's that custom AMD processor to discuss, and here's where we need to be extremely careful about jumping to conclusions: with a custom design, there's no telling exactly how powerful the processor might be, or how much developers might get out of it. Still, we can draw a few parallels: we actually saw a quad-core Jaguar processor at CES, inside AMD's Temash reference design. Contrary to what you might believe, Jaguar actually isn't a beefy CPU; AMD's selling the tiny cores in chips designed for low-end laptops and tablets. And yet, with floating-point performance of 1.84 teraflops and a next-gen Radeon architecture, the GPU will likely have more power than a 1.76 teraflop AMD Radeon HD 7850, a mid-range graphics card for gaming computers."
~The Verge

Oh and here's that common tablet you were talking about: http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/7/3848868/amd-temash-hands-on-windows-gaming-on-a-1080p-tablet

A fucking experimental tablet pc designed for gaming shown a few months ago.

And as I keep trying to say, the whole point in buying a console is because its an accessible method of gaming for a reasonable price. And it only looks amazing because ps3 is 2005 tech? Do you think I've never seen a high graphics game before? Good looks good. Games don't become ugly because they aren't the best of the best. Its. Not. About. The best. Specs. Sony (and Microsoft) didn't want to "dump money" into a console because updates allowed for software optimization that extended the life of this console cycle. It was fun while it lasted but the gap between console and pc has gotten too big.

And you think I'm making shit up? The operating system wasn't what made it hard to develop for the ps3 which is why I was confused by your nonsense. It was the cell processor which was some kind of 7 core with a weird set up that made it "better" but a bitch to design for. Yeah they hated it but they figured it out

EDIT EDIT EDIT: Ohhhhhhhhhh. I get it now. After looking over your previous posts, I see you don't know what an OS is and have gotten it confused with CPU architecture. Well, allow me to enlighten you FOR FREEEEEEEE (its normally my job). An operating system is kind of like the main framework for a computer. All the programs on a device and its user interface are controlled by the OS. Computer OS's like Windows, Linux, and Mac OS typically use a lot more resources than a specialized device like a game console. Unfortunately, games need a lot of resources and an OS like Windows just can't give up some of its resources but a game console can focus all its attention on games which is handy. Sony didn't use a cpu architecture that was similar to a pc because "they couldn't afford a special one". They did it because they want games to be developed more easily for there console because having more games makes their device more attractive to customers

PoolCleaningRobot:

Ultratwinkie:

You are making shit up now aren't you?

I said it was a nightmare to try to emulate or port games to. It was something that developers had to put up with, and hated how needlessly unique it was for little reason. Now Sony doesn't want to do that because it costs money.

The Jaguar CPU is basically what a tablet can do now. It only looks amazing because the PS3 was done on 2005 tech, something tablets NOW outclass. However, APUs are not as good as a dedicated card, which puts too much cost into production.

If you are trying to argue, try to keep up.

And yes, it will be outdated. the only reason the PS3 stayed around is because Sony didn't want to dump more money into consoles. Because consoles only started making profit around 4 years ago, it doesn't make business sense to bankrupt yourself again just when you start making money. Which is why they wanted to do a cheap console now.

For the love of... (one Google search later). Oh gee. Looky here. Info on the Jaguar CPU:

"Last but not least, there's that custom AMD processor to discuss, and here's where we need to be extremely careful about jumping to conclusions: with a custom design, there's no telling exactly how powerful the processor might be, or how much developers might get out of it. Still, we can draw a few parallels: we actually saw a quad-core Jaguar processor at CES, inside AMD's Temash reference design. Contrary to what you might believe, Jaguar actually isn't a beefy CPU; AMD's selling the tiny cores in chips designed for low-end laptops and tablets. And yet, with floating-point performance of 1.84 teraflops and a next-gen Radeon architecture, the GPU will likely have more power than a 1.76 teraflop AMD Radeon HD 7850, a mid-range graphics card for gaming computers."
~The Verge

Oh and here's that common tablet you were talking about: http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/7/3848868/amd-temash-hands-on-windows-gaming-on-a-1080p-tablet

A fucking experimental tablet pc designed for gaming shown a few months ago.

And as I keep trying to say, the whole point in buying a console is because its an accessible method of gaming for a reasonable price. And it only looks amazing because ps3 is 2005 tech? Do you think I've never seen a high graphics game before? Good looks good. Games don't become ugly because they aren't the best of the best. Its. Not. About. The best. Specs. Sony (and Microsoft) didn't want to "dump money" into a console because updates allowed for software optimization that extended the life of this console cycle. It was fun while it lasted but the gap between console and pc has gotten too big.

And you think I'm making shit up? The operating system wasn't what made it hard to develop for the ps3 which is why I was confused by your nonsense. It was the cell processor which was some kind of 7 core with a weird set up that made it "better" but a bitch to design for. Yeah they hated it but they figured it out. Its why most games are on both consoles now but that wasn't the case at launch. Thus, they're using more dev friendly specs this time. Just another case of software being more important than hardware in some cases

Yes, it is technically for gaming but still pretty paltry. Modifying a moped doesn't turn it into a Harley Davidson. Plus you just gotta love how the verge contradicts itself by saying no one can predict how powerful it is then try to predict its power to be on par with a 7000 series. On a company that is fighting to survive, and known for cheap and weak parts.

Even in your example, Dirt Showdown is a game on current gen consoles. 2005 tech. It would be embarrassing to NOT outclass 2005 tech in 2013. 1080p? That is what so amazing? 1080p has been around for a while.

And no, games don't become ugly when they aren't the hardware isn't the "best." They become restricted when developers are stuck trying to stick what amounts to an elephant into a clown car. Unless your console can keep up with the demand of developers in the future, they will just leave.

If your hardware is short term, so will the lifespan for it. They don't want to be restricted like they are now with the PS3. A conssole means nothing if developers aren't happy. They don't want to work around a console's limitations, they don't want to be rubbing up the very edge of what they can do every single time. The PS4 doesn't do very much to change that. They don't want to constantly hide the limitations of what they can do.

Its why they are trying streaming, but that will never work because console gamers don't have the patience for always online, which inevitably turns into DRM and simcity-esque debacles.

Ultratwinkie:
Snip

Yes cause obviously the only thing devs care about is how many emotions - I mean polygons - they can fit into a game. Its why they focus so much development time on the pc. Oh wait, they don't do that cause they make most of their money off console game sales. Its only become a problem within the last 2 years maybe. Fuck. READ THE TITLE OF THIS ARTICLE

And the Verge can make that comparison because the CPU makes makes more teraflops than a mid range graphics card and its not like they said their theory was more than an educated guess. And your motorcycle comparison doesn't hold water because you still don't get that console gamers don't want a high end PC.

Not that any of your comments matter. You already showed you don't know what you're talking about. You just over exaggerating details about the CPU being for tablets when you don't even know what fucking operating system is

PoolCleaningRobot:

Ultratwinkie:
Snip

Yes cause obviously the only thing devs care about is how many emotions - I mean polygons - they can fit into a game. Its why they focus so much development time on the pc. Oh wait, they don't do that cause they make most of their money off console game sales. Its only become a problem within the last 2 years maybe. Fuck. READ THE TITLE OF THIS ARTICLE

And the Verge can make that comparison because the CPU makes makes more teraflops than a mid range graphics card and its not like they said their theory was more than an educated guess. And your motorcycle comparison doesn't hold water because you still don't get that console gamers don't want a high end PC.

Not that any of your comments matter. You already showed you don't know what you're talking about. You just over exaggerating details about the CPU being for tablets when you don't even know what fucking operating system is

Activision makes most of their money on PC (70%), so does EA. Hell, Steam is is on par with PSN and XBL. Its far from "niche."

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/361110/ea-is-making-more-from-pc-than-ps3/
http://www.gamepolitics.com/2010/06/22/activision-70-percent-income-comes-non-console-games#.UV-Z-Vccyi8

When you have to cut levels into tiny pieces, with some games like Hitman using it as a crutch, you know its getting bad. Its been an issue for 3 years of a now 8 year cycle. A minor upgrade wont help for very long. Hell, even Nvidia laughed at the PS4's specs, and tech sites called it underwhelming. Epic games was the number one complainer about the PS3's limits, and they wanted to do more instead of cutting corners. Of course they would love the PS4, because they absolutely hated the PS3.

And its worse when you didn't even know what an APU is and thought consoles had dedicated graphics cards. When in reality they rely on APUs which try to do everything but less effectively. So you can't tell me I am worse when you don't even know whats inside a console you owned for 8 years. Sure I mixed up the os and x86 when I read developers hated to code for the PS3, but you thought a console had a dedicated graphics card and a set up like a PC. You might as well say the PS3 has a liquid cooling system at this point. Sure I mixed up one thing, but you made two mistakes and went off about how mid range specs are "elitist."

And lastly you keep going on about "how we console peasants cant have the best" when the stuff I am talking about isn't even the best. Its mid range slipping into low end. Not to mention the 7000 series is on its way out very soon, a series that was sat on for a year.

Ultratwinkie:
Snip

What, you thought I wouldn't read your sources? that 70% is from Wow subscriptions. you know Wow? that game that is the best selling most played mmo ever? that wow? and EA's money came from micro transactions. and I mistakenly thought the ps4 would have some kind of GPU the way you kept comparing to other CPU's like it was the same damn thing. And I'm not elitist. I love pc gaming, but at this point in my life it can't meet all my needs and I'm trying to explain that but you don't get it. here's an experiment: go buy a cheap chrome book. it's specs must blow the xbox and ps3 out of the water. then put Linux on it and steam then see how many AAA games can be played on it. Then look at at a $200 ps3 with 500 megabytes of ram with a processor in the megahertz run call of duty or something. Consoles are not low spec pc's they are completely different. If you had some fucking empathy you could see that

By the way, a little meta-note here: You know what the master race vs Sony optimists argument has achieved, speaking as someone who has no idea of the difference infrastructure has on computing ability or anything like that? I'm apathetic. I don't care anymore whether it is better or worse than an average PC. There are so many people who will swear either way it's ridiculous.

PoolCleaningRobot:

Ultratwinkie:
Snip

What, you thought I wouldn't read your sources? that 70% is from Wow subscriptions. you know Wow? that game that is the best selling most played mmo ever? that wow? and EA's money came from micro transactions. and I mistakenly thought the ps4 would have some kind of GPU the way you kept comparing to other CPU's like it was the same damn thing. And I'm not elitist. I love pc gaming, but at this point in my life it can't meet all my needs and I'm trying to explain that but you don't get it. here's an experiment: go buy a cheap chrome book. it's specs must blow the xbox and ps3 out of the water. then put Linux on it and steam then see how many AAA games can be played on it. Then look at at a $200 ps3 with 500 megabytes of ram with a processor in the megahertz run call of duty or something. Consoles are not low spec pc's they are completely different. If you had some fucking empathy you could see that

Yes, and you said people don't get money from PC gaming, when both of the big dogs get most of their money off PCs.

What you don't get is that I am saying developers need more leg room, but you say "nooooo! that's elitist! Its expensive!" when in reality its mid range specs that would go a long way, not rely on what is described as a tablet APU. Which would satisfy developers for now, but not for long. Which is what Sony wants to do, do a long haul so it won't spend as much every few years. It also wants streaming, but streaming will hardly be viable in the near future.

And technically most CPUs now are APUs, so technically it is the same thing. The problem is APUs are no where near power to compete with actual cards. No one really relies on APUs exclusively. Consoles are modified pcs, but they follow the same principle.

And Linux is actually getting more games now because people generally don't like Windows 8. So Linux is no longer the no mans land it was, and it is growing.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here