88399 réponses à ce sujet

[LolaLei]

Tweet:

Cameron Lee: "Back on Canadian soil. 200 unread emails waiting for me, but Sprint Review on Friday so excited for rest of the week regardless."

[WardenWade]

elfdwarf wrote...

Wiedzmin182009, fifth picture is shartan and Andraste.

That is one way to get elves in the Chantry...

Modifié par WardenWade, 30 janvier 2013 - 12:45 .

[Brockololly]

ElitePinecone wrote...
Things like the scope of the game, the level design, graphical shinyness, even the amount of stuff you can fit on a disc would all be radically different between console generations. All of those are presumably things that are decided in pre-production, they're pretty fundamental to the scope and design of the project.

Yeah, you're likely right on this. You look at many of the games that released on both original Xbox or PS2 along with 360 or PS3 versions and often times the main differences weren't any thing beyond the 360/PS3 versions having slightly nicer image quality and fancier visual effects.

ElitePinecone wrote...
If a hypothetical game was designed first for old-gen consoles then "ported" to the new ones, it just wouldn't be taking advantage of what the new consoles could do in terms of memory or graphics output - especially in things like level size or sophistication, animations, the number of things on screen at once, textures, etc. If a game was designed for the new consoles then "ported down" to the old ones, I struggle to see how it'd even be possible to adjust a game's scope to fit with the old hardware, without making a game with a radically different scope (smaller levels, I dunno).

That's almost exactly what DICE did with Battlefield 3, comparing the PC version and the console versions- the PC has 64 player maps with the ability to support higher resolution and nicer graphical effects while the console versions have scaled down versions of the maps that at most support 32 players, I think, with lower resolution and so forth.

And if you read that link to the Battlefield 4 rumors I posted, it sounds similar- BF4 on nextgen approximating what BF3 on PC already did- support for 64 players, higher resolution, higher FPS and  so forth. Or even look at the Crysis 3 beta on PC compared to current consoles. The difference in the visuals between consoles and PC is staggering. Subsequently, the PC version's system requirements are much higher than your typical console port.

I agree with what you're saying though- if something like DA3 is coming out as a cross generational game, then almost by design it would seem unlikely the nextgen or PC versions would really be taking advantage of the extra hardware on a fundamental level. In that case, it would likely be better graphics and image quality that would separate the 2 nextgen and current console versions.

ElitePinecone wrote...
Regarding the mindset of the publisher in only releasing on next-gen, it may be that wowing potential customers with incredibly shiny, expansive, detailed and polished games (as compared to the current-gen) could even result in more sales compared to an equivalent game released with current-gen tech on current-gen consoles. *Particularly* if that game gets all the launch hype and free marketing of people checking out new consoles and the Microsoft/Sony hype machine.

Yup. Worked pretty well for Oblivion, even if that came out ~6 months after the 360 launched. Still, it was only a nextgen game and for the time, pretty impressive. And it was just about the only fantasy RPG on the 360, so it kind of had a monopoly on that type of game for 360. If Dragon Age 3 launched with the nextgen consoles or soon thereafter, it probably would have that kind of exclusivity as well.

[Fast Jimmy]

The problem isn't "will DA3 be cross-generational for consoles?" The real problem is will it really matter?

Current rumors have the 720 with 8G of RAM and an 8-core, 1.6 Ghz CPU. Not too bad, but definitely not cutting edge. Much more than the current console, but by the time they come out (late this year, early next), things on the PC will already be well ahead, let alone a few years down the line.

PC players who are jumping up and down with glee about the new consoles should temper their expectations. Not only will game makers lose nearly a decade's worth of tricks in optimizing the current console and utilization, but they'll also need to come up with a way to handle an 8-core setup, which no console developer has had to do (and which even PC game makers haven't found too many uses for yet). All for tech which will be outpaced by a good stretch even before its released.

I'm not saying PC players will be disappointed with the first year or so next-gen games that also come out on PC... but PC players will be disappointed with the first year or so of next-gen games that will also come out on PC.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

I agree that PCs always have more resources and possibilities than consoles and any game made for one will ultimately have to pander to the lowest common denominator.

But, by the same token, that doesn't mean that a new generation console is going to open up a brand new world for PC players. If anything, it will make games made on both systems easier to port to the PC for a while, but PC technology has already outpaced these designs. After all, the consoles are designed around low-cost, easy to manufacture components, not necessarily the fastest or best.

The only thing PC players can hope for is technology hitting a wall where either game development can't utilize any further advances in processing power (unlikely) or that technology just stops advancing (in which case a console being released two years ago will have roughly the same technological specs as a PC being released today). Neither of those things seems likely in the near future.

However, PC players do get options such as digital distribution (at reduced price), improved customization of the UI, being able to read subtitles in nearly every game you play (a REAL issue for most console players) and things like mods and easy patch updates. So while you can't maximize the usage of your PC for every game that comes out on all platforms, you still get a better product for sometimes cheaper than us console peasants. So hopefully that can help everyone sleep easily at night.

[Melca36]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The problem isn't "will DA3 be cross-generational for consoles?" The real problem is will it really matter?

Current rumors have the 720 with 8G of RAM and an 8-core, 1.6 Ghz CPU. Not too bad, but definitely not cutting edge. Much more than the current console, but by the time they come out (late this year, early next), things on the PC will already be well ahead, let alone a few years down the line.

PC players who are jumping up and down with glee about the new consoles should temper their expectations. Not only will game makers lose nearly a decade's worth of tricks in optimizing the current console and utilization, but they'll also need to come up with a way to handle an 8-core setup, which no console developer has had to do (and which even PC game makers haven't found too many uses for yet). All for tech which will be outpaced by a good stretch even before its released.

I'm not saying PC players will be disappointed with the first year or so next-gen games that also come out on PC... but PC players will be disappointed with the first year or so of next-gen games that will also come out on PC.

If its an 8 core set up, I do hope they put a decent power supply in them.  I still remember how hot my first generation 360 felt.

Modifié par Melca36, 30 janvier 2013 - 06:19 .

[ElitePinecone]

Brockololly wrote...
 if something like DA3 is coming out as a cross generational game, then almost by design it would seem unlikely the nextgen or PC versions would really be taking advantage of the extra hardware on a fundamental level. In that case, it would likely be better graphics and image quality that would separate the 2 nextgen and current console versions. 

If DA3 is a cross-gen title (and we have no idea either way, really) then yeah, I think this would be something that's probably probable, maybe. 

It's producing a weird sort of empathy on my part towards PC master-race-types, I usually intensely dislike hardware masculinity comparions but I would feel slightly disappointed if the scope of any next-gen game were compromised by the need to also develop for its predecessor - particularly if the advantages to buying a next-gen version are restricted to just shinier graphics rather than the more fundamental improvements that moar memory and better hardware can do in terms of gameplay and level design. 

Perhaps it's an unfair (and totally hypothetical, at this point) misconception, but I feel like the next-gen version of any multi-gen title would be handicapped in some way by the limitations imposed on its fundamental design; making it for one or the other would be a far more simpler way to do things. 

That said, I'm totally open to being convinced either way to shovel fistfuls of money at high-definition fireballs, whatever the console. Any day Bioware wants to start convincing is fine by me...

[Steppenwolf]

I hadn't heard the rumor that the 720 will only have 8 gigs of RAM. Sheesh. I just built a new gaming PC with 64 to make sure I won't have to upgrade RAM for 2 or 3 years. The 720 will be old technology before it hits store shelves, and I'm sure the PS4 won't impress in this regard either since they know they have to make their console comparable for cross-platform development.

Modifié par BasilKarlo, 30 janvier 2013 - 06:50 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Just as an idea of where I'm getting my info from:

http://m.techradar.c...g-to-be-1127315

[Fast Jimmy]

BasilKarlo wrote...

I hadn't heard the rumor that the 720 will only have 8 gigs of RAM. Sheesh. I just built a new gaming PC with 64 to make sure I won't have to upgrade RAM for 2 or 3 years. The 720 will be old technology before it hits store shelves, and I'm sure the PS4 won't impress in this regard either since they know they have to make their console comparable for cross-platform development.

If you read (and believe) the article above, it says the PS4 will actually have half the amount of RAM as the 720 (4G instead of 8G). 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 30 janvier 2013 - 07:27 .

[Steppenwolf]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

If you read (and believe) the article above, it says the PS4 will actually have half the amount of RAM as the 720 (4G instead of 8G). 

This is what stood out to me:

"Sony PS4 Orbis gets 18 Radeon GCN units. Microsoft Xbox Durango makes
do with just 12. Elsewhere, Durango will have 8GB of shared DDR3 RAM
along with 32MB of superfast ERAM for the GPU and a grand total of
170GB/s of bandwidth. The PS4, meanwhile, will sport just 4GB of
RAM, but it will be of the ultra-quick GDDR5 variety. All told, it's
thought Durango will pack a grand total of 1.23 teraflops of raw compute
power to Orbis's 1.84 teraflops. Oh, and both are expected to have
Blu-ray drives."

Even with better RAM adding some additional power, the PS4 is still unimpressive. And neither one of them is even on par with a budget gaming PC.
I find it hard to imagine that neither Microsoft nore Sony could get 32 gigs of RAM in their consoles without breaking the bank. Any manufacturer would be frothing at the mouth to be the RAM provider for either of these consoles. I can get 32 gigs of high quality RAM for less than $150* so there's no way these titans of the industry couldn't get 32 gigs of even good quality RAM at a very reasonable cost. The average age of gamers is no longer 14. Adults are willing to spend more than $300 on a console, for crap's sake.
GAH!



*Check NewEgg if you're skeptical. I got 8 8GB Dominators for about $400 on NewEgg, so...


EDIT: And sorry for the off-topic rant.

Modifié par BasilKarlo, 30 janvier 2013 - 08:37 .

[Allan Schumacher]

BasilKarlo wrote...

I hadn't heard the rumor that the 720 will only have 8 gigs of RAM. Sheesh. I just built a new gaming PC with 64 to make sure I won't have to upgrade RAM for 2 or 3 years. The 720 will be old technology before it hits store shelves, and I'm sure the PS4 won't impress in this regard either since they know they have to make their console comparable for cross-platform development.

64 GB is probably a bit on the overkill side.

In 2000-2001 I was the first among my friends to pass the 1 GB threshold, and in 2010 when I got my current box I went with 8 GB (I since had a machine with 2 GB and 4 GB in between).

I cheaped a bit on the processor (one of the AMD quadcores... 939 or something - I don't recall off hand), went with the Radeon 5850 vid card, with 2 4GB sticks of memory and I still don't have much issue playing games on my native resolution (1920x1200) with graphics set on high.  Now this isn't Ultra settings by any means, but given it took me 10 years to feel a 2^3 improvement in memory was worth it for gaming, I'd be surprised if we expected it to shoot up at a faster rate over the next two to three years.  Perhaps you multitask a lot more than I do (I typically just have a game and Firefox open as my big apps at home), but if you just have a gaming rig like me, you'll probably do fine with much less for the next 2-3 years.

Heck, the machine I compile/debug on at work still only has 12 GB of memory, and it lets me run around in debug builds that are much, much, much slower than any build we'd use for release.

PC players who are jumping up and down with glee about the new consoles
should temper their expectations. Not only will game makers lose nearly a
decade's worth of tricks in optimizing the current console and
utilization, but they'll also need to come up with a way to handle an
8-core setup, which no console developer has had to do (and which even
PC game makers haven't found too many uses for yet). All for tech which
will be outpaced by a good stretch even before its released.

Much of the multicore cost has already been absorbed.  Once you learn how to properly set up dual/quad core processes, going to 8 is less of an issue as much of what you had to learn is transferrable.

[Maugrim]

Nothing so far during the conference other than mentioning they'd be talking about more next gen games in May during some conference call/event that I didn't catch the name of.

[Fast Jimmy]

Much of the multicore cost has already been absorbed. Once you learn how to properly set up dual/quad core processes, going to 8 is less of an issue as much of what you had to learn is transferrable.

I was actually not thinking of the process cost, but just the lack of applications for it. To my understanding, having an 8-core system would be (like a high amount of RAM) more for multi-tasking situations. While games have a lot of graphics functions going on at once, I didn't think they had a large number of other actual data processing tasks to handle all at once. Making the 8-core system more of something that doesn't fit a demand of the industry right now.

But I am speaking WAY out of my element here right now. And it could be a design that Sony and MS think game development is heading towards, so it will solve a future potential ceiling limit? Again, talking way outside my area of expertise.

[Maytrows]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The problem isn't "will DA3 be cross-generational for consoles?" The real problem is will it really matter?

Current rumors have the 720 with 8G of RAM and an 8-core, 1.6 Ghz CPU. Not too bad, but definitely not cutting edge. Much more than the current console, but by the time they come out (late this year, early next), things on the PC will already be well ahead, let alone a few years down the line.

PC players who are jumping up and down with glee about the new consoles should temper their expectations. Not only will game makers lose nearly a decade's worth of tricks in optimizing the current console and utilization, but they'll also need to come up with a way to handle an 8-core setup, which no console developer has had to do (and which even PC game makers haven't found too many uses for yet). All for tech which will be outpaced by a good stretch even before its released.

I'm not saying PC players will be disappointed with the first year or so next-gen games that also come out on PC... but PC players will be disappointed with the first year or so of next-gen games that will also come out on PC.

For me as a PC gamer it is not as much the power of the new consoles but rather the compromises I have to do with the game when a game is designed towards consoles.
For example the big weapons in DA2 was there so they where distinguisable on a TV that has lower resolution the a monitor(at least I think that why they where big).  Or how combat was changed from DA:O to DA2 , in my mind it was done to get the the combat to work on consoles.

So what hurts me as a PC gamer is to see games being developed with all focus on the console and how the evolution on gamemechanics and design on PC slows or stops. Also often after release the updates/patches on a game are often dictated by the speed by which you can get them out on consoles eventhough it could be done faster on PC. 

As for DA3 I sincerly hope that the game will be not just made playable on a PC but have its own mechanics and optimiztions that is tailored for the PC. 

[DragonMage95]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

BasilKarlo wrote...

I hadn't heard the rumor that the 720 will only have 8 gigs of RAM. Sheesh. I just built a new gaming PC with 64 to make sure I won't have to upgrade RAM for 2 or 3 years. The 720 will be old technology before it hits store shelves, and I'm sure the PS4 won't impress in this regard either since they know they have to make their console comparable for cross-platform development.

64 GB is probably a bit on the overkill side.

In 2000-2001 I was the first among my friends to pass the 1 GB threshold, and in 2010 when I got my current box I went with 8 GB (I since had a machine with 2 GB and 4 GB in between).

I cheaped a bit on the processor (one of the AMD quadcores... 939 or something - I don't recall off hand), went with the Radeon 5850 vid card, with 2 4GB sticks of memory and I still don't have much issue playing games on my native resolution (1920x1200) with graphics set on high.  Now this isn't Ultra settings by any means, but given it took me 10 years to feel a 2^3 improvement in memory was worth it for gaming, I'd be surprised if we expected it to shoot up at a faster rate over the next two to three years.  Perhaps you multitask a lot more than I do (I typically just have a game and Firefox open as my big apps at home), but if you just have a gaming rig like me, you'll probably do fine with much less for the next 2-3 years.

Heck, the machine I compile/debug on at work still only has 12 GB of memory, and it lets me run around in debug builds that are much, much, much slower than any build we'd use for release.

PC players who are jumping up and down with glee about the new consoles
should temper their expectations. Not only will game makers lose nearly a
decade's worth of tricks in optimizing the current console and
utilization, but they'll also need to come up with a way to handle an
8-core setup, which no console developer has had to do (and which even
PC game makers haven't found too many uses for yet). All for tech which
will be outpaced by a good stretch even before its released.

Much of the multicore cost has already been absorbed.  Once you learn how to properly set up dual/quad core processes, going to 8 is less of an issue as much of what you had to learn is transferrable.

I hope it stays on the current consoles. Not that next-gen is bad. I just don't have the money to buy a next-gen console and next-gen games. I wish the Dragon age team would at least gives us a heads up if its going to be next-gen or current gen or both so I know if i need to start saving up on money. Can you at least tell us that Allan?Will it be next-gen,current-gen, or both? 

[Fast Jimmy]

For me as a PC gamer it is not as much the power of the new consoles but rather the compromises I have to do with the game when a game is designed towards consoles.
For example the big weapons in DA2 was there so they where distinguisable on a TV that has lower resolution the a monitor(at least I think that why they where big). Or how combat was changed from DA:O to DA2 , in my mind it was done to get the the combat to work on consoles.

So what hurts me as a PC gamer is to see games being developed with all focus on the console and how the evolution on gamemechanics and design on PC slows or stops. Also often after release the updates/patches on a game are often dictated by the speed by which you can get them out on consoles eventhough it could be done faster on PC.

As for DA3 I sincerly hope that the game will be not just made playable on a PC but have its own mechanics and optimiztions that is tailored for the PC.

To be fair, next gen consoles will not fix any of the situations you outlined, if these things are indeed tied to the game coming out on consoles. Consoles will still be played on TVs, so the weapons will need to be big. Consoles will still be player with controllers, meaning radial menus and a design of using only six skills at once to accommodate the game pad as opposed to the keyboard will be in play. And patches, DLC and other online content will still need to be through a console manufacturer's approval process, so that will still create any delays to PC content.

So, assuming all these things are legitimate causalities, a next gen console won't solve anything for you.

[Steppenwolf]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

BasilKarlo wrote...

I hadn't heard the rumor that the 720 will only have 8 gigs of RAM. Sheesh. I just built a new gaming PC with 64 to make sure I won't have to upgrade RAM for 2 or 3 years. The 720 will be old technology before it hits store shelves, and I'm sure the PS4 won't impress in this regard either since they know they have to make their console comparable for cross-platform development.

64 GB is probably a bit on the overkill side.

I have a huge HD monitor with 2560x2048 resolution and usually run high-res texture packs with tons of mods. Plus I edit HD video and use multiple design programs simultaneously for my job.

[ElitePinecone]

makenzieshepard wrote...

Nothing so far during the conference other than mentioning they'd be talking about more next gen games in May during some conference call/event that I didn't catch the name of.

Yeah, there was nothing in the end about DA3. 

(Though the overall health of the company seems to be okay, which is important, I guess, for what franchises they choose to invest in.)

I don't think we'll need to wait nearly as long as May for info about DA3; from the context of what that person (Peter Moore?) was saying May just referred to their next quarterly earnings call. Somewhere closer to March or April would be more likely, I'd guess. 

[Steppenwolf]

Take it with a grain of salt, but I know a few people who are in the know(peripherally) with the gaming industry and pretty much all of them are expecting the Durango/Orbis to be announced this calendar Spring. None of them actually work directly with game studios, but they know plenty of people that do. I'm still expecting DA3 to be current gen so I'm betting we'll get some substantive info before then. Announcing the new consoles before Bioware unveils their current-gen title would basically take the wind out of the game's sails.

[Maytrows]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

To be fair, next gen consoles will not fix any of the situations you outlined, if these things are indeed tied to the game coming out on consoles. Consoles will still be played on TVs, so the weapons will need to be big. Consoles will still be player with controllers, meaning radial menus and a design of using only six skills at once to accommodate the game pad as opposed to the keyboard will be in play. And patches, DLC and other online content will still need to be through a console manufacturer's approval process, so that will still create any delays to PC content. 

So, assuming all these things are legitimate causalities, a next gen console won't solve anything for you.

It wont be solved so thats why Im hoping companies like Bioware that has a history with the PC will do a PC version and a console version of the game. Not a console version that is playable on the PC.
For example how about a weapon pack that has a more PC friendly size (if there indeed will be oversized weapons).

[Allan Schumacher]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I was actually not thinking of the process cost, but just the lack of applications for it. To my understanding, having an 8-core system would be (like a high amount of RAM) more for multi-tasking situations. While games have a lot of graphics functions going on at once, I didn't think they had a large number of other actual data processing tasks to handle all at once. Making the 8-core system more of something that doesn't fit a demand of the industry right now.

But I am speaking WAY out of my element here right now. And it could be a design that Sony and MS think game development is heading towards, so it will solve a future potential ceiling limit? Again, talking way outside my area of expertise.

Ah fair enough.  One difference between an 8 dedicated machine and an 8 core standard PC is legacy support.  There's much less value in investing in that level of multicore support if you still need to make sure it runs properly on a dual core processor.

But you are right, there are diminishing returns on cores too, if you aren't really using them.

[DaringMoosejaw]

Christ, I upgraded to 16 Gigs (That's actually the most my motherboard can handle) and figured that was incredible overkill. 64 seems absolutely friggin' insane to me. Seems like I have to buy ANOTHER PC to keep up in a couple years...which is another reason that, despite the online options and the better graphics, I prefer to just play these games on my console that I know will work out of the box with no worry to optimize.

As for the 8 gigs not being anything to the current PC base, it is tremendously better than 512. These specs are a gigantic leap in my opinion.

[Allan Schumacher]

As a PC Gamer, I actually don't mind. I do feel I have gotten more years out of my PC machines than I did in the previous console generation.

Though at this point this discussion should probably slide to the off topic forum... >.>