[Acert93]

How about $10-15 DLC for "Next Gen" packs. e.g. you can get certain games (like a Forza or Halo) "supersized" with updated graphics. For my favorite MP games with legs that would be a nice perk as launch libraries are often pretty weak so come, say, winter/summer 2014 (assuming a 2013 launch) getting some "next gen" treatment of favorite titles would fill in those long lulls and encourage cross platform play as well.

[liolio]

Originally Posted by milk

Next gen is a vague term indeed. In fact both sony and MS could very well Wii-out this time and release 1.5 versions of their consoles. I doubt that would happen, but they could do it if they wanted to.
But when we say Next-Gen, we are inferring the transition that we have come to expect from a new console cycle. Its a matter of history. With every new console generation so far, the graphical difference between their games has always been big. They never looked like improved versions of predecessors, but true technological leaps. BF3 on ultra is indeed impossible on current consoles, but I wouldn't call it a Huge evolution over what we have already. It would be enough for a launch game or for the first years of a ps4 or xbox1080, but after next gen matures we will laugh at the graphics of it.
Its just a matter of remembering the other console generations. Before ps2, what was the most highend pc game of the time? Quake 3? (You might think of another one, I'm just using it as an exmple) Does that compare to latter ps2, xbox or gc games? Resolution aside, the quality of models, lighting, animation, physics an all, came even close? Or think of Gears of War 1 this gen, to my taste I find it quite underwhelming actually, but it was the big eyeopener to the possibilities of this gen, and there was no pc game to match its graphics before people started developing for the 360.
With few exceptions, you can easily tell the gen of most games just from looking at it, even if it is a pc game, you can tell from what console era it comes.
It's not me saying console cycles have influence in the development of game technologies, its the developers themselves that acknowledge this fact. Watch some talks of the past GDCs...
One thing is having a couple devs, looking at what cool thing they can do with dx11 for the pc version of a game, while still keeping the engine somewhat runnable on a 360 and ps3 and sharing his attention to those versions of the game as well. Another is having a developer making an engine for the ground up for dx11 only and the entire team of artist making assets with completely different tech in mind (curved surfaces, displacement mas, more complex shaders, dynamic GI, hundreds of shadowed lights, who knows what else). Now we may have a couple devs working on pc only titles, and that leads to advancements in the field, sure, but it is a slow process. Now imagine dozens of the best devs out there dedicated exclusively to next gen machines, doesn't that make a difference?
The first few years of new console releases have always been the most prolific in the development of new real time rendering technology, this time could be the exception, but based on what we've seen in the past, next gen games should way better looking things then anything we could have seen in any real time scenario. We are just basing our speculations on the premise that this next gen will be equally impactful in the overall look and appearance of games as the past ones were.

Well I will not dispute the fact that new consoles would push the PC developers to move to direct x10.1 /11 only engines. They have not for multiple reasons, one being I guess the user base in the PC realms.

But I still don't agree with the most significant parts in your posts (to me the one I enlightened).
I like history, looking back can teach us a lot of things, but this time is different. Usually that is on average a wrong statement to make but it applies here. Last gen introduce multi-threading and that was the real challenge for the devs this gen imho. Last gen with saw two approaches: a pretty standard (or that was to turn out as the standard) SMP set-up ofr the CPU, Xenon, and the Cell>
We also had a pretty off the shelves PC GPU, the RSX. Actually even Xenos was really close to the GPUs that shipped within a year of the 360 release.

Now this time around, there is simply no longer any room for exotic approaches, games is for now over, SMP CPU won and nobody can put together a competitive GPU (no nobody could already last gen as Sony fail and gave up). The result is that we may end up with pretty off the shelves parts.
Of the shelves AMD CPU, off the shelves GPU for most parts.

Actually we may have something "worse" (from an enthusiastic pov) than high end PC. At this point it is really likely that the CPU perfs of either MSFT or Sony won't touch the perfs of core i3 4xxxx not too mention the core i5 4xxxx (Haswell based). The GPU might be perform really well ( I guess more because of highly efficient blend of ROPs and lot of bandwidth than crazy number of paperflops), but still unlikely to top nowadays pc high end.

So definitely we are no longer in the part of of the technology curve we were before 2005. PC is next gen for the devs than want it to be.
The part about BF3 make me wary as it definitely rings with what some call diminishing returns, it costs that much (processing) to have better lightning and your post make it sounds that is not enough.
Anyway it's not like Dice (and others teams) will start working because the next generation of consoles launch quiet the contrary. So it will get better.
I hope that approaches as Forward+ will ended successful as as I get it, if it would be a win both in memory usage and performances vs deferred rendering

Other than that Dice is doing a great job but so are others, think of what Killzone II achieve with a ~300 FLOPS GPU, 22.4GB/s of bandwidth. They may do so much better with not even a crazy set-up.
Thing is I'm scared that for a lot of people it would fall along not that significant improvements. I wonder if (not for you but the average Joe) we are indeed getting in the diminishing returns territoty

Originally Posted by COPS N RAPPERS

what i was inferring to was new ideas starting for games not just shooters, you have heavy rain, gears of war, god of war and final fantasy setting early examples. ( for the way games should play, not in just only looks.) In the pc gaming world these days have gotten much better but mostly what you see is influences the console industry has given. and PCs improve up on those ideas with much more sophisticated tech and features.

it's true pcs always set the mark on graphics and features, which intern are used in consoles, but the gameplay mechanics and the way they play out on consoles usually sets the trends.

PC starts the development of features and graphics, consoles start the game trends, and PCs later on elaborates them with newer features.......and thus the cycle continues and repeats.

that's why you have console manufactures like Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft being out for so long and their quests for more innovation.

Well I would be really wary in stating that the consoles brang us more game genres than either Arcade or PC, actually quiet the contrary.

[Billy Idol]

I don't care for this gen. I am happy to insta replace all console by there next gen versions and never look back!

Cross gdn is big waste of money imo!

[milk]

Originally Posted by liolio

Well I will not dispute the fact that new consoles would push the PC developers to move to direct x10.1 /11 only engines. They have not for multiple reasons, one being I guess the user base in the PC realms.
[...]
I like history, looking back can teach us a lot of things, but this time is different.

You misinterpreted my intentions with that post. I was just specifying what people generally mean when they say "a generational leap in graphics" as that was a point of discussion.
Some said the current high end pc games on ultra settings are good enough for next gen.
Many others disagreed, myself included.
Those first users then said "well why not? they looke pretty don´t they? Better then current gen console games don´t they? 60fps, 1080p, aniso, highres textures are a big deal already"
Then I posted a video of Zelda with highres textures, 60fps at 1080p, which despite looking better, didn't look as good as a ps2 game, even though the resolution was way superior then any actual ps2 game.
"Well so what is it that you need to call something a generation leap then?"
There comes my post, a generation leap is like the difference from snes to n64, or from psone to ps2, or ps2 to 360. It isn´t updated effects and textures. Is a whole new set of how games are made. The pipeline for developing the game, its assets and then simulating gameplay and rendering the graphics is considerably different from gen to gen.
Now if you read the beginning of my post you will see that I admit that this gen could very well be different. I don´t believe so, but it could. I know that just because things have always been a sertain way they absolutely have to happen again this gen again.

Originally Posted by liolio

The part about BF3 make me wary as it definitely rings with what some call diminishing returns, it costs that much (processing) to have better lightning and your post make it sounds that is not enough.

I agree with everything you said about there not being much room for exotic designs this gen. Still not impossible, but Highly unlikely. Still, this has also been the longest generation so far, and even with off the shelves hardware, there is plenty of room for change, specially when you consider the aditional bonus boost in capability consoles get by allowing closer to the metal programing and more focused optimisation. DX10 and 11 also introduced many different paradigms that have been used very superficially so far. And in my opinion BF3 is an example of this.
I understand all the graphical improvements of that game, yet it isn´t close to what could be done in the same hardware with more development time and no cmomitment to run the game on consoles, even if downgraded.
Most of the first games on the 360 saw very moderate improvements from past gen games, so much so uninformed people called it the xbox 1.5. Well I´m sure this will happen again this gen, and maybe even for longer, but eventually completely new approaches to rendering will emerge and show things simply impossible on a 360. But that will take time.
using history again, think of Half Life 2, or Far Cry. Those were incredible games from a technical standpoint. They were the games that showed what the newer pc hardware could do. Yet both were brought to xbox, heavily paired down, but they were. And after 360 ps3 came and became established consoles, hl2 and FC got to look very dated.
In my opinion that is what is going to happen to BF3.

[dobwal]

Originally Posted by milk

Some said the current high end pc games on ultra settings are good enough for next gen.
Many others disagreed, myself included.

I think its kind of hard to quantify if the current high end PC hardware is enough for next gen. In previous gens, there were PC centric developers like Epic, Valve, id and Crytek who develop games that pushed PC hardware. There aren't any developers that I can think that have the desire, budget, know-how and an attractive IP to push current gen PC hardware as if it were their sole focus and with the intent of using every last drop of performance in a PC gpu. Large PC budgets seem to be available only to those developing subscription based MMOs or MMORPGs, where the bulk of the budget isn't spent on visuals.

Epic, Valve, Id and Crytek aren't PC centric anymore and have spent an appreciable amount of their effort to make sure their engine work well on consoles. I think most develop with consoles in mind and then use the extra power that a PC offers to step up the visuals but without the effort and time that were given in the past.

The gap between first released console titles and those released now are relatively noticeable and all with the same hardware. The gap between PC games produced in 2005 and those now, one could assume should be much larger. Given that the PC hardware has grown in power. Since the 360 was released, AMD has went through X1000 series, HD 2000 series, HD 3000 series, HD 4000 series, HD 5000 series and HD 6000 series card with the HD 7000 planned for later this year/early next year releases. We went from 320million transistors gpus in X1800 series cards to now with 6970 based gpus with well over 2 billion transistors.

Either AMD/Nvidia has become horribly inefficient at increasing performance or developers aren't as motivated to squeeze out the performance as they have in the past. I think its the latter, but even if its the former, then next gen gpu parts aren't going to do much more than current parts can do now.

[milk]

Originally Posted by dobwal

I think its kind of hard to quantify if the current high end PC hardware is enough for next gen.

Again, I agree with that. My point was, the kind of graphics we get from current AAA games on pc with suppor for advanced DX11 features and enhanced assets is not as big of a generational leap of the kind we had with previous console transitions. If the avaredge xbox1080 game looks like crysis 2 or BF3 on ultra settings (as much as that would be undeniably good looking) that would be quite underwealming compared to the graphical evolutions of the past. I would like to see way more than that, and believe even with relatively low-spec hardware, next gen will produce at least considerably better stuff than what we have seen so far.
A good point to think about though, is how much graphics do have to improve for the avaredge joe to really notice a big change, since many of the flaws we complain about and notice from miles away, do pass by unoticed by many people. But that was also said last gen and it was proven to not be the case.

[Dr Evil]

Originally Posted by dobwal

Since the 360 was released, AMD has went through X1000 series, HD 2000 series, HD 3000 series, HD 4000 series, HD 5000 series and HD 6000 series card with the HD 7000 planned for later this year/early next year releases. We went from 320million transistors gpus in X1800 series cards to now with 6970 based gpus with well over 2 billion transistors.

Heh what year are you living on son
6970 was released in 2010. 7970 with 4.3B transistors was released 9 months ago and 8000-series are perhaps coming in Q1 2013.

But yeah those PC-parts aren't seeing the kind of visuals they should. New consoles should help with that.

[almighty]

Metro 2033 last light will give you them visuals, I can't wait for it..

STALKER series has really pushed PC as well..... in many respects the first STALKER games is still leaps and bounds above any console game.

And let's not forget modding, Skyrim modded is a next generation game

[Billy Idol]

Hm, BF3 on ultra @1080p and 60Hz...I really doubt that next gen consoles can achieve this...but of course I hope that this happens!

I further wonder the following: do we see some next gen remakes on the new consoles? Devs could release an ultimate edition of their games on the new hardware, e.g. BF3, Crysis 2 and Metro?!?

[liolio]

I don't think we should see bf3 but the next title.leveraging frostbytr engine 2, may be 2.x.

[almighty]

BF3 Looks like ass anyway....

[Billy Idol]

Originally Posted by almighty

BF3 Looks like ass anyway....

Lol, listening to some of the posters here...it seems so.

1080p 60Hz BF3 ultra with good AA...I doubt next consoles are going to be capable of this...but I sure hope

[RancidLunchmeat]

Originally Posted by Dr Evil

But yeah those PC-parts aren't seeing the kind of visuals they should. New consoles should help with that.

I think this is the key point, and is the reason that we should expect to see the same sort of generational leap in graphics with the next consoles.

How many times has it been said that consoles are holding back PC gaming? PCs have tremendous power and the top of the line components are freaking nuts, but is anybody really tapping into those resources or are they just scaling up (sloppily, most likely) existing assets?

[Arwin]

Originally Posted by RancidLunchmeat

I think this is the key point, and is the reason that we should expect to see the same sort of generational leap in graphics with the next consoles.

How many times has it been said that consoles are holding back PC gaming? PCs have tremendous power and the top of the line components are freaking nuts, but is anybody really tapping into those resources or are they just scaling up (sloppily, most likely) existing assets?

But PCs themselves are also holding back gaming. We´re only now starting to move away from DirectX9, and combined with all the abstraction layers, having to run on very many different systems, and the crazy concept that you write for an abstraction layer, and then a company like Nvidia or AMD are going to put optimisations for each and every game in their drivers, is not helping the PC to achieve its full potential. Consoles are much more free from these shackles in theory (even if in practice sometimes multi-platform engines are used that negate this advantage sometimes), so that if you put the same hardware into a closed box, and can write software that takes full advantage of that box, that in itself should give a considerable performance increase over a PC running the same hardware.

Also, stuff like CPUs and GPUs not being able to work together on the full pipeline for many things because the latency is too big doesn't help PC's achieve their full potential either. The 360 and PS3 can do that much better.

[Rangers]

was puttering around internets and saw this from sweeney back in 2009

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/tim...gine,9223.html

Unreal Engine programmer thinks Larrabee could have been something cool.

Zoom

Intel's decision to shelve its graphics chip development project codenamed Larrabee caught some off guard. While the project was often delayed and didn't appear to compete on the same level as the best that AMD and Nvidia have to offer, it did have flashes of brilliance that could have changed the way many thought of GPGPUs.

Epic Games' Tim Sweeney, best known for his work behind the popularly used Unreal Engine, told Bright Side of News why he was excited about Larrabee.

"I see the instruction set and mixedscalar/vector programming model of Larrabee as the ultimate computing model, delivering GPU-class numeric computing performance and CPU-class programmability with an easy-to-use programming model that will ultimately crush fixed-function graphics pipelines," Sweeney said, adding that Intel's technology would be revolutionary whether sold as an add-in card, an integrated graphics solution, or part of the CPU die.

GPU makers today may boast about how many Teraflops its chips can pull off, but Sweeney says that focusing on pure performance "misses a larger point about programmability."

"Today's GPU programming models are too limited to support large-scale software, such as a complete physics engine, or a next-generation graphics pipeline implemented in software," Sweeney told bsn. "No quantity of Teraflops can compensate for a lack of support for dynamic dispatch, a full C++programming model, a coherent memory space, etc."

Stay tuned for more reaction.

interesting for the conspiracy theorists lol.

though i must admit whenever somebody starts talking about physics my eyes kinda glaze over.

[almighty]

This is what the next generation consoles will be competing with, Metro 2033 Last Light

http://i.minus.com/i0sgh6358HWDA.gif

http://i.minus.com/i0ZzlaeEDZ353.gif
http://i.minus.com/ibrNWEMcZ8wnJN.gif
http://i.minus.com/iUTgmSFO5CrxA.gif
http://i.minus.com/ivLjmokAE9quC.gif

All of the above was made from videos of PC gameplay.

[Dr Evil]

Originally Posted by Arwin

But PCs themselves are also holding back gaming. We´re only now starting to move away from DirectX9.

Also, stuff like CPUs and GPUs not being able to work together on the full pipeline for many things because the latency is too big doesn't help PC's achieve their full potential either. The 360 and PS3 can do that much better.

They are only now slowly moving from DX9, because the consoles are still DX9 hardware. Even now that high number of PCs are equipped with DX10 and higher GPUs, the PC market alone is not large or viewed as lucrative enough to warrant huge investments aside from few exemptions. Once the next consoles come out and hopefully manage to kill the old gen swiftly, we should see the devs starting to develop for higher configuration specs.

I agree that closed box console environment brings huge!! (/Trump) benefits, but the differences in hardware power between a high end PC and the old consoles is way too big for that to matter too much at this point in time. I mean those next gen demos we saw like the elemental demo, 1313 and that Square one were running on a high end, but still reasonable PC-configuration. The games could pretty much be looking like that today.

[Rangers]

Originally Posted by almighty

This is what the next generation consoles will be competing with, Metro 2033 Last Light


http://i.minus.com/i0ZzlaeEDZ353.gif
http://i.minus.com/ibrNWEMcZ8wnJN.gif
http://i.minus.com/iUTgmSFO5CrxA.gif
http://i.minus.com/ivLjmokAE9quC.gif

All of the above was made from videos of PC gameplay.

should be a doddle to destroy that imo.

not that it's bad looking, actually very good. just common sense of what's doable on todays ancient consoles vs what next will offer.

thats why i say a pc perfect, 1080p port of crysis 3 should be the low end of next gen. Because that's something that should fit without too much problems on the 7850 class card rumored for PS4. And that alone will be pretty great, but like this gen, we'll end up getting a whole lot more 2-3 years in.

[almighty]

Originally Posted by Rangers

should be a doddle to destroy that imo.

not that it's bad looking, actually very good. just common sense of what's doable on todays ancient consoles vs what next will offer.

thats why i say a pc perfect, 1080p port of crysis 3 should be the low end of next gen. Because that's something that should fit without too much problems on the 7850 class card rumored for PS4. And that alone will be pretty great, but like this gen, we'll end up getting a whole lot more 2-3 years in.

Crysis 3 is still built with console limitations so it's perhaps not the best game to use, next generation won't be able to handle Metro 2033 like PC can.

You would have to reduce the settings, a single 7850 can't even max the fist Metro game out at 1080p let alone this new game.

[french toast]

Originally Posted by almighty

Crysis 3 is still built with console limitations so it's perhaps not the best game to use, next generation won't be able to handle Metro 2033 like PC can.

You would have to reduce the settings, a single 7850 can't even max the fist Metro game out at 1080p let alone this new game.

If they build next gen in the same manner current gen, ie advanced..then of course it will run ANY current pc game at max settings 1080p.

People seem to forget when trying to compare consoles to pc that pc gaming is so much less efficient, probably to the factor of 10.

I expect something funky and innovative from at least one manufacturer that will close the gap...if any pc game was ported to a next gen console and done properly, including using the intended bespoke console features..then it would no trouble, I'm perfectly sure of that.

Remember unreal engine 4 has been developed..I can't see that being done without next gen console in mind in 2013..that would be terrible business sense.

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by french toast

People seem to forget when trying to compare consoles to pc that pc gaming is so much less efficient, probably to the factor of 10.

I think that's a gross exaggeration. If true, PS360 would be equivalent to an order of magnitude more powerful PC, which clearly they aren't. The efficiency gains are there, but they are limited, and diminishing I believe, especially with cross-platform development.

[fearsomepirate]

Originally Posted by Arwin

But PCs themselves are also holding back gaming. We´re only now starting to move away from DirectX9, and combined with all the abstraction layers, having to run on very many different systems, and the crazy concept that you write for an abstraction layer, and then a company like Nvidia or AMD are going to put optimisations for each and every game in their drivers, is not helping the PC to achieve its full potential.

Neither is the fact that only a tiny fraction of PC gamers have whatever the current most powerful video card is. What determines the level of PC development is the hardware that potential customers actually have on their desks. You don't see what DX[new] is truly capable of until it's safe for a developer to not support DX[old] without excluding 50% of its potential customers.

And really, if Metro 2033 is the best PCs are doing right now, seven years after the 360 launched, we really are at the point of diminishing returns. The difference between that and the best-looking current-gen console games is nowhere near as big as it as in previous gens (examples: Crysis was 7 years after the PS2 launch, and Return to Castle Wolfenstein was 7 years after the PS1 launch).

[JasonLD]

I still think next generation games will look much better than any PC games out there currently. PC games right now are basically nothing more than higher res version of ps360 games with directx11 topping.

[milk]

Originally Posted by almighty

You would have to reduce the settings, a single 7850 can't even max the fist Metro game out at 1080p let alone this new game.

Neither of those were ever developed FOR the maximum settings. The tech behind the game is built and optmised to play well on avarege hardware on medium settings. And still they are not that optmised since they need to use much more generic solutions to run on a multitude of hardware.
The number of consumers capable of running those games on Ultra is too low for any developer to give much thought to. Every effect and feature they offer in the maximum are extremely underoptmised, mostly brute force versions of medium settings effects turned up to 11 without much consideration to cost vs. benefits, or naive implementations of new tech that has multiple oportunities for improvement that are not really looked at for lack of development time.

And that is only looking at the tech side. Art also makes a big difference to the ultimate look of a game. And art too is constrained by the consideration of the medium and low settings version of a game. Artists just can't go too crazy as stuff needs too look similar on all specs.

Originally Posted by fearsomepirate

The difference between that and the best-looking current-gen console games is nowhere near as big as it as in previous gens (examples: Crysis was 7 years after the PS2 launch, and Return to Castle Wolfenstein was 7 years after the PS1 launch).

Its because this gen is lasting longer than the past ones. You just pointed out another evidence of how influencial the console cycles are to the whole industry, even the pc-centric segments are affected.

[McHuj]

Originally Posted by milk

Neither of those were ever developed FOR the maximum settings. The tech behind the game is built and optmised to play well on avarege hardware on medium settings. And still they are not that optmised since they need to use much more generic solutions to run on a multitude of hardware.
The number of consumers capable of running those games on Ultra is too low for any developer to give much thought to. Every effect and feature they offer in the maximum are extremely underoptmised, mostly brute force versions of medium settings effects turned up to 11 without much consideration to cost vs. benefits, or naive implementations of new tech that has multiple oportunities for improvement that are not really looked at for lack of development time.

Completely agree with you. If you look at the min specs of PC games, even great looking ones like Witcher 2, the minimum requirements are all around a ATI 38xx GPU, a high end GPU but from 2008. I'm not a believer in engines that are that scalable (38xx series to 78xx, vastly different architectures, orders of magnitudes in performances). When the min spec is a 7750 GPU, then we'll see next gen games.