Comments (114)
« 1 2 »
GraveLord  +   1156d ago
The jump from SD to HD can never be replicated, but HD is still at its infancy in current consoles. Next-gen consoles have a chance to have perfect HD. At least 720p with no frame-rate issues and stuff.
Axecution  +   1156d ago
You would honestly be fine with 720p?

If next-gen consoles dont have 100% of the games in 1080p 30-60fps im legit just gonna upgrade my PC a bit with the money. Its 2012 there's no reason we should have to deal with 720p lol
Detoxx  +   1156d ago
60 FPS and 1080P should be standard issue on Next-Gen consoles. If it's not I just might as well build a gaming PC as you just said
solid_warlord  +   1156d ago
720p and 1080p on a 32ich or smaller HDTV..u cant even tell a difference between the two. 1080p makes a difference when u hit 40inch or higher.

I rekon Next gen most games will stick with 720p, for most games atleast. So it would be able to achieve alot of DX11 features and implement advance FXAA, MSA never before seen on consoles.

Yes, Next COD will finaly be HD, 720p Native. Locked on 60fps, but dont expect superier anti aliasing ect that will be seen in many top range games such as Uncharted 4 or Gears of War 4 ect.
bumnut  +   1156d ago
@solid warlord

What you said is only true for video, if you have a 1280 x 720 game and a 1920 x 1080 game side by side the difference is huge no matter what size the screen is.
#1.1.3 (Edited 1156d ago ) | Agree(34) | Disagree(8) | Report
darthv72  +   1156d ago
but what is a "video game"? It is a game in motion at all times. It isnt like the days of Myst where the still images had more clarity and detail (for the time).

If you are playing a game at either res no matter the screen size i can guarantee you , you aint paying attention to anything but keep your ass alive (if its a shooter that is).
kupomogli  +   1156d ago

Bumnut is right. Among PC games, it's common that when you describe a 720p video game versus a 1080p video game, it's not the near unnoticeable picture quality, it's the view that is portrayed.

Unless it's 720p to 1080p upscaled, you can see two times as much in a 1080p game than you can in a 720p game.

The original Diablo 2 aspect ratio is maxed at 800x600. Here's how it looks in 1080p. If you've played Diablo 2 before this will be quite the noticeable difference.
mrkeith  +   1156d ago
1080p in solid 60 FPS is hard to do even on PC. Programmers are going to have to learn how to optimize there code then. Being a PC gamer i see this all the time. Also comparing 720p to 1080p is very noticeable especially if you don't run AA. With 1080p you will see way less jaggy edges. I run no AA on 1080p and it looks super slick but if i do that on 720p then you will notice. I can personally careless honestly cause i made the jump from console to PC gaming so 720p (no AA) is fine with me but you can tell the difference. When comparing to a 32 inch screen (like the example above) you may not see much of a difference but thats because AA is turned on. Turn it off and it will be totally noticeable. However it may be possible to get 1080p with 60 FPS since the hardware will be the same. It won't be like PC's where the developer needs to worry about AMD and Nvidia cards. As for having DX11 type graphics at a solid 60 FPS in 1080p I highly doubt it. It's hard to get even the newest custom PC's to do that. There is no way that Sony or Microsoft will spend $500 just on a GPU alone. That would be no profit for them.
#1.1.6 (Edited 1156d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(5) | Report
MysticStrummer  +   1156d ago
Get ready to upgrade your PC then, Axecution. I can almost guarantee you that 100% of the next gen games won't be 1080p and 60fps. There will always be devs who sacrifice resolution and fps to squeeze in some extra effect, detail, or some other thing that impacts performance. Hell I have a more than capable 50 inch TV but I'd be fine with 720p. I'd rather see improvement in other areas besides visuals.
f789790  +   1156d ago
Ok, my $150 graphics card is doing just fine at 1080p 60fps in Skyrim ultra settings. I don't see how this is difficult to pull off especially when console games are optimized for a single set of hardware.

That said, it won't be hard to pull off unless devs want to do some ridiculous things with textures and things on screen.
NoFanboyRequired  +   1156d ago
You cant tell the difference because games on consoles are upscaled to 1080p.
lets say you play a game on PC at 720p and you have a monitor that supports a resolution of 2560x1440, the picture will be so distorted and look like total crap compared to 1080p or the native resolution.

How do i know this? Because i game on my overpriced 27 inch iMac from time to time. lol
dougr  +   1156d ago

That is a lie if I've ever heard one. The only way your $150 video card handles skyrim @ 60 FPS on Ultra is if you are playing at a resolution of like 800X600 and have the lots set to 5 or 3. If you have the lots set to 7 there is absolutely no way you aren't full of shit.
sak500  +   1156d ago

Agreed well said... For current gen i bought my first "HD" TV back in 2005. At that time it said HD not HD Ready if i'm not mistaken as it could play 720p/1080i only. DIdn't come with HDMI input since HD standard was still much in infancy but even though it was a SONY product. The jump from ps2 component input on it to xbox360 component input was like a light year jump for me as far a PQ goes. PDZ and PGR3's graphics blew me away.

Now for next gen, i would want 1080p 60fps with minimum 4xAA, bump mapped (normal mapped), 4xAF textured characters and environments and physics rivaling Phyx or whatever hardware it was i dont have time to google, which got incorporated in NV chips.

I dont care about Quad HD for next gen as it's still way too early for mainstream and probably be acceptable in 5~6 years time plus i'm stuck with 3 1080p TVs, (50", 42" and 42" 3D).
#1.1.11 (Edited 1156d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report
lfclee  +   1155d ago
My friend have you nou seen the future 4k will comedown in price but in japan they have know produced 8k no need for 3d it will bee on the market in about 4 years time.
BLuKhaos  +   1155d ago
I don't care if it runs at 720p or 1080p I just want 60fps to be the standard refresh rate.
That way if there there are frame drops then the game would still be playable as long as they don't from below 30fps.
tehpees3  +   1155d ago
The more they add the more the price gets impacted on the consumer end. Its time to give up the ghost. The next gen leap will not be the kind of leaps we have had in the past.

And regardless of what graphics lovers say I (and the majority of consumers) will rush out and buy a console for the great exclusives on them. People don't care about power. The fact that more powerful consoles have often been the lower end of the sales proves that.

What you guys should worry about is what he means by systems focusing on something besides specs. Incoming motion controls and multimedia features.
bozebo  +   1155d ago
There WILL be 30fps games.
The console business is lead by marketers who think graphics are the most important thing, so games have to compete for graphics (it's the easiest thing to show off in advertisements) - causing reductions in frame rates.
shutUpAndTakeMyMoney  +   1156d ago
What is perfect HD?

Don't tell me you fell for that "FullHD" Marketing crap.

I laugh when I see full HD on tv ads then go home and play steam games at 1920x1200p.

Next gen console will do 1080p & 30fps as standard. Especially as they get older devs will want extra power and won't worry about 60fps.

I realize as standards get higher consoles will run out of gas even faster.

Also Crytek must really pay to much attention to consoles now. High cost of memeory?

been awhile since they built a pc I guess.
#1.2 (Edited 1156d ago ) | Agree(17) | Disagree(13) | Report | Reply
bumnut  +   1156d ago
I just invested in a 2560 x 1440 monitor, it looks amazing. Consoles can't compete with that because HDTV's don't go that high res.

Yes I know 4K tv's are out, but the cost makes them out of reach.
Kennytaur  +   1156d ago
Because 1920x1200 is so much more than 1920x1080... That's mostly a difference in aspect-ratio.

I agree with the rest of your points though, but high speed custom built memory for consoles could be more expensive than what you pay for "over-the-counter" memory. I've personally got 16GB of DDR3 in my 14" laptop, so...
MAJ0R  +   1156d ago
If anything consoles use/will use memory clocked at a lower speed than desktop computers using so called "over-the-counter memory" e.g. Corsair Vengeance, Kingston Hyper X, both high quality RAM. Desktop memory is miles better, and can be overclocked as well.

Memory can generate a lot of heat too if it's running at high MHz.
FanboyPunisher  +   1156d ago
LMAO, 720 with jaggies out the ying yang is HD?

Sorry bro tell me when consoles do 1080p standard; then i'll call them 'HD'.

Jaggies make 720 not even worth considering 'HD' on consoles IMO regardless of what the wikis say about HD resolutions.
MysticStrummer  +   1156d ago
You can knock yourself out making up your own personal definitions if you want to but the industry doesn't agree with you. HD is 720p and up. Ultra HD was just recently defined, starting at 2160p I think.
R6ex  +   1156d ago
720p is only HD-Ready.

1080p is Full HD.
Kurt Russell  +   1155d ago
No, 720p is not only "HD-Ready" it's HD :/ Where on earth did you get that from?
steve30x  +   1155d ago
Going from 720P to 1080P wont make much difference to jaggies. The higher resolution will make a bit of a difference but its anti aliasing that fixes those jaggies.
showtimefolks  +   1156d ago
give us a system that can do 60FPS with full 1080P. i expect both ms and sony to do that.

let's not just look at 2013 and say/ask what these systems can do in 2013 when they will be in market till 2019, so while you have to have a system that has the now tech and some future proofing would help too

just make development easier and if possible(which its not)cheaper, if these development costs keep up expect a jump for $5-10 in prices
tubers  +   1156d ago
Devs like to cram lots of OTHER effects and mechanics.. Guess why today's consoles don't run 1080p.

HELL even higher end PC's don't get stable 60s on a lot of newer games in the highest settings with good amounts of filters.

There's only been 3 of us I've read so far who think 720p with stable framerate will be acceptable as long as the effects and other filters MAKE UP for it.

Not running at 1080p@60 FPS =/= Amazing visual impact.

Reserve those 1080p@60 FPS for soon to be "PS3 Classics".

I want MOAR effects, lighting, better textures and new rendering tecnhiques (@ realistic res and fps expectations)!

#1.5 (Edited 1156d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
Bolts  +   1155d ago
720p would be fine if it's native. However very few console games are even doing that. Most of the shooters today have texture res that are dipping into standard resolution. With the possibility of 4K TVs in the next four years the so called nextgen consoles will once again be out matched by the display they're being played on.
#1.6 (Edited 1155d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
Pintheshadows  +   1156d ago
The main things I hope for in next gen games are better texture retention at range (no more blurry textures or texture pop in), higher detailed textures, lighting improvement, framerate stability and longer draw distances. If the consoles specs are equivalent to a high end PC now i'll be fine with that as the hardware will be specifically optimised for console performance.

I never expected a massive jump in the first place if i'm honest. I just hope we see more games like Far Cry 3, Dark Souls, and Red Dead Redemption and less linear shooting galleries.
ab5olut10n  +   1156d ago
yes, less linearity, more open world/multiple dynamic systems/emergent gameplay
JamieL  +   1156d ago
With improved AI, and physics. One of the most amazing things to me this gen was the Euphoria Engine (used in Star Wars TFU, RDR, and GTA 4). The fact every NPC in the game can react to the world around them on the fly was just amazing to me. Improvements in that tech I am excited for next gen.
chadboban  +   1156d ago
I somewhat expected this. Still I know that top tier devs like Naughty Dog, Guerrilla Games, Media Molecule, 343, Retro Studios, Monolithsoft, From Software etc will be able to put out amazing looking games since they seem to know how to get the most out of the hardware they develop for.
Norrison  +   1156d ago
First party devs always output the best graphics on consoles.
Cueil  +   1155d ago
not always... Chaos Theory was easily the best looking console game last generation... by a land slide... it looked so good that Penny Arcade said that it made them question whether we even needed the next generation yet.
SpartanQ8  +   1156d ago
im ok with 200 Kuwaiti dinar which is 685$ but i want something good..and this will be the range of new console prices here
dirthurts  +   1156d ago
At that price, why not just have a pc? It's upgradable, and it would do much much more.
SpartanQ8  +   1156d ago
your right but the pc you are talking about cost 1500$ i think i better stick with my xbox :))
3GenGames  +   1156d ago
^ You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. You can build an AMD 3.8Ghz 8-core, 8GB RAM, 500GB HDD, ATI HD6950 computer for about $750. Probably cheaper with the sales going on now.

If you're spend over $1200 on any PC, you're stupid because you either got ripped off or bough a Mac. Both of those options are retarded.
#4.1.2 (Edited 1156d ago ) | Agree(13) | Disagree(9) | Report
kaozgamer  +   1156d ago
^PC part prices aren't the same all around the world...
Here in Australia we are still getting ripped off even though our dollar is on parity with the us dollar...
Cueil  +   1155d ago
@3GenGames Umm... he lives in a different country... surely with import laws and tariffs. We don't all get to live in the US with massive amounts of free trade.
FlameBaitGod  +   1156d ago
you think a gaming pc cost $1500.... with 1,500 you would have a monster :/. 800 is enough for a good pc(one that will run games better than next gen consoles), you already have a monitor or tv so you don't need that.
Dread  +   1156d ago
dude read his comment.

he is exchanging currency

thus if the 360 is twice the cost then it follows that the pc will also be twice the cost.
mushroomwig  +   1156d ago
@3gengames and Flamebaitgod

Not sure why you've been given any agrees because you're both completely mistaken. He lives in Kuwait and that's the exchange rate he has to deal with.
3GenGames  +   1156d ago
Nope. The currency conversion is irrelevant, the price will be the same for the PC, they will be converted. He thinks 200 Kuwait which is ~$700USD is good for the new consoles. So the PC would cost ~200 Kuwait too, which is what the argument is about, the PC costing about the same. I am not missing anything here.
#4.3.1 (Edited 1156d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(6) | Report
SpartanQ8  +   1156d ago
your right man thats what i meant in kuwait pc parts is more expensive than US and if i wanna build a pc for gaming it will cost me 1200 to 1500 $ and btw im writing this comment on my galaxy nexus 10 wifi 16GB which i bought for 600$
sandman224  +   1156d ago
I'm really interested to see what valve is going to do with there console compared to Sony and Microsoft. We know that multiplatforms run best (most of the time) on Xbox. And 3rd party games helped 360 out big time. But we need to remember that the PC version of 3rd party games destroys the console versions. So if valve caters there new game console to the average joe out there at a good price. I can see Sony and Microsoft in for some tough competition.
#5 (Edited 1156d ago ) | Agree(10) | Disagree(3) | Report | Reply
Jadedz  +   1156d ago
The current top selling software on the PS360, is a third party title (Call of duty).

Exclusives will be more important than ever during the next generation.
Cueil  +   1155d ago
No... impact exclusives will be important next gen... rumbling out tons of low selling exclusives isn't going to get any of these companies anywhere.
bozebo  +   1155d ago
Just to clarify, Valve aren't releasing a "console".
It's just them supporting the creation, distribution and marketing of computers bundled with Linux. Same thing MS do for Windows PCs, just with marketing (and likely distribution) differences. Though I can see why the term 'console' almost applies. Most models will be designed for use under a TV, as the desktop market is already saturated with people who would prefer to build their own etc.

But yeah, I'm thinking it will be more expensive at first, then after 1-2 years of next-gen consoles being out, it'd be far better to get a steam box for TV gaming (unless you like building your own computers etc, which will be cheaper and better as usual - hopefully Windows will die and Linux will be the platform of choice because of Valve's efforts).
Though, platform exclusives will be a huge factor so gamers might want/need a sony or MS console, but most multiplats will be cheaper on Steam. MS and Sony will lose money if they don't get enough new games sales - somewhere between 5 and 15 per console (guessing at the moment) to make a profit on the unit as the console is sold at less than manufacture cost - without being sold at a loss they won't even nearly compete with PC price-performance. So there is a reasonable risk posed by Valve, a lot could happen. Sony will continue their route of good quality first party titles, MS will probably find more suckers willing to pay for P2P multiplayer.

So yeah. Next gen, if you want to play Sony or MS exclusives you have to pay out the ass for it. Rather than consoles being the cheaper option they are going to be more expensive. (though, MS's shittiness this gen has made me spend more on 360 than on PC overall)
#5.2 (Edited 1155d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
violents  +   1156d ago
I think this article is some bs. I don't think consoles are ever ahead of pc's and never were. At the launch of every console generation they try to get as close as possible to current high end pc specs while trying to keep it affordable for the average consumer. Thinking that consoles are ever going to be as good or better than a high end pc is just rediculous.

I will agree however with the fact that we prob will not see the huge graphical leap we saw with the advent of the last gen of console. We will see a huge leap in textures, particle effects, lighting(which IMO will make the biggest difference) and AI. Hopefully they can manage to make 1080 res and 60fps the standard as well.

Guess we will just have to wait and see. I'm hopefull and cant wait for next gen.
1upgamer99  +   1156d ago
People are Complaining that Wii U, which has more memory, and Newer tech is over priced. I paid $349 for my PS3 3 years ago, and $359 for a Wii U two weeks ago. I remember when PS3 came out it was $499 for a basic. $599 for one with a 60gig hard drive. I am hoping that the new PS3 basic is $399 at the most, but doubtful because a PS3 with a 250 Gig hard drive is $299 NOW.
LAWSON72  +   1156d ago
Memory is expensive?
konnerbllb  +   1156d ago
The guy kind of loses credibility after saying that huh?
Dasteru  +   1156d ago
I think Crytek is based out of Germany so Ram might have a large premium on it there, not sure.

It is certainly not expensive in NA though.

I payed $220 for 8GB of 1333Mhz Ripjaws a little over 2 years ago, that same pack of Ram now is around $60.

Newegg Canada currently has a 32GB pack of 1600mhz G-skill Tridents for $230
#8.2 (Edited 1156d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
mysterym  +   1155d ago
Did you really just say newegg?

You do realise that the memory they are talking about is high-speed gddr 5 or an equivalent and not a normal stick that you put in your pc? There are practical concerns like how they are going to put that many chips into the console as they only come in certain memory sizes per chip and your talking new egg LOL.
Dasteru  +   1154d ago
It was simply an example of current Ram costs.

Also you do realise that the G in GDDR stand for Graphics right?

GDDR5 is Graphics double data rate v5, it is VRam not DIM Ram. Current Ram is DDR3 which is exactly what Sony and MS will be using. All console memory is basically the same as off the shelf PC Ram, they simply build the memory chips and a single controller board directly into the motherboard to save space vs DIM slots.

I guess it is possible Sony may go with XDR ram but it would be alot more expensive than DDR3 and so is highly unlikely.

MS is almost sure to be sticking with DDR3, its either that or design their own new type of Ram from scratch which is even less likely than Sony sticking 8Gb of XDR in the PS4.

The WiiU btw is using 1600Mhz DDR3.

P.S Spelling, Grammar and for F sakes paragraphs. They will be your best friends someday.
#8.2.2 (Edited 1154d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
mysterym  +   1155d ago
Yes its expensive as its GDDR they are talking about - not a pc mem stick you numpty!
Sevir  +   1156d ago
concidering that Crytek is at the forefront of MS's Next Gen Xbox
I Can give into the notion that Consoles in the upcoming gen won't be a big leap and will probably be just comparable to current top end PCs, but I simply don't agree with the notion that memory is expensive!

Doesn't seem as if Crytek has built a rig on on today's pc specs recently.

By the same Token, Exclusives generally have been the torch bearers this generation for the HD consoles, and its quite amazing to see that 8 and 7 year old consoles are still pushing out software which sits nicely among the top end pc offerings with few concessions. We know textures and resolutions, graphics and ailiasing are of higher fidelity on current pc specs, but you'd be hard pressed to complain about halo 4, gears 3, TLOU, GoW:A, or even games like Watch Dogs, MGS:GZ or Beyond:2S and those are confirmed current gen games.

Dedicated, Closed down hardware like these are still keeping up. Likely, Games on Next Gen will excel the same way without the worry of having its resources split to run Windows/Mac.

And Devs like Rockstar, GG, Sony Santa Monica, ND, Bethesda, Epic, 343, Irrational games will be right at home.
landog  +   1156d ago

"Consoles in the upcoming gen won't be a big leap and will probably be just comparable to current top end PCs)

current top end pcs are a GIANT leap over 8 year old ps3/360

ps4/nextboxes will not be anywhere near that level, honestly, people are fooling themselves if they thing nextbox and ps4 will be anything even remotely close to an i-7 2600k, gtx 680 and 12 gb ram

consoles next gen will be awesome, i am quite convinced, and will do 1080p at 30 frames with 4x anti aliasing and dx11-like features, the games will look totally amazing,

...but, a 2 year old pc already does that, and a modern pc with the above specs does all that in 2560x1600p or even higher at 60-120 frames with 8x aa and better filtering

next gen consoles are going to be a huge leap over ps3/360, but not even close to a modern gaming pc.
dantesparda  +   1156d ago
Amen brother!
BrianG  +   1156d ago
Keep in mind home consoles can afford to have lower spec parts in them. Since developers only need to worry about ONE GPU and CPU combination per console they can squeeze every ounce of power out of that combo.

Versus modern PC developers that have to consider 1,000's of CPU and GPU combinations. A modern day GTX 680 isn't even remotely close to being tapped out since developers don't make the game specifically for that GPU.

So of course the next gen consoles wont have modern high end specs of today, if they did it would demolish anything you see on a high end PC today.

And I'm sure console makers are smart enough to see that 2560x1600 is not a house hold TV resolution right now. So they can afford to skimp on the GPU power to offer games at 1080p max. Unless someone decides to change the standard.

But hey, if the next gen consoles launch at about $800 bucks or more (the price of the parts you listed above in a best case scenario in a couple years) then I would expect them to outperform modern day PC's.
#9.1.2 (Edited 1156d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report
PersonMan  +   1156d ago
Consoles do NOT use standard PC RAM you idiot.
Sevir  +   1156d ago
Duh you ignoramous
No where did I say they did. Have a f***ing seat!
Az1mov  +   1156d ago
Cause Peter Molineux was feeling so loneley. Cervat and his previous statement: "we maxed out the consoles (this time for realz)" and his Crytek studio are just talking bullshit as usual.

Would you just shut up and work harder, we saw what maxing out the consoles meant for crysis 2.
3-4-5  +   1156d ago
The Price for memory is falling every week.

Is this person an idiot ?

8 GB Ram at Best buy is like $89.99 this week.

They have no excuse.
Kennytaur  +   1156d ago
Sony and Microsoft don't buy their memory at Best Buy though...
Barneyco  +   1156d ago
Hell, Sony and Microsoft probably pay half the price or less that we do for memory considering they are buying millions of them. Bulk prices maybe.
ABizzel1  +   1156d ago
What ram are you buying. 8GB is like $40 and 16GB is around $80. Go to and save.
sh0ryuu  +   1156d ago
Hell, I just bought 16GB of DDR3 ram for $50 on cyber Monday. Prices are dropping constantly and then buying during sales is even better.
mshope10  +   1156d ago
i been saying this for awhile.the systems out now have graphics that are already great!so when the new consoles come out its only going to be noticeable to the most hardcore gamer.

thats why each system will have a gimmick.vr glasses,vr projector so they can separated there selfs from whats out already.
solid_warlord  +   1156d ago
Well alot of people are expecting graphics like or close to that of Avavar movie..Well they are gonna be very disappointed cause not even the highest end PC in the market comes close to achieving Avatar like graphics.

Looking at high end PC's of today..its basicaly current gen like grapahics with advanced physics, lighting and anti alaising techinques. Not the stupendous revolution some devs and Nvidia/AMD clowns are claiming to be Avatar like near photo realism in next gen console. Not a chance, Sorry.
#12.1 (Edited 1156d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(5) | Report | Reply
ABizzel1  +   1156d ago
It's possible they just need a dual 16 core cpu, 2 gtx 690's, and at least 32GB ram. That $4,000 console will be a beast :D
#12.1.1 (Edited 1156d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(5) | Report
Ingram  +   1156d ago
You can't code a game exclusively for i7's and top GPU's, in the PC market you have to cater to the lowest common denominator so people with an i3 and a GTX 550 can play. Hence, why most games are not optimized, it's just not cost effective.

With fixed hardware, a lot more performance can be unleashed.

Avatar is WAY overrated, we -definitely- will see those kind of real time graphics. Quote me on this, it's just months away.
Norrison  +   1156d ago
Current gen like graphics? PC games look better than next gen console games will look.

Killzone 3 Console

Battlefield 3 PC

Uncharted 3 Console

The witcher 2 PC
#12.1.3 (Edited 1156d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(2) | Report
solid_warlord  +   1156d ago

"It's possible they just need a dual 16 core cpu, 2 gtx 690's, and at least 32GB ram. That $4,000 console will be a beast"

Hahahaha u are either stupid or ill informed. Avatar movie required 10,000 square foot server farm packed with high end CPU and GPU, costing more than 100 million dollars.

No way on earth u will be able to play avatar like graphics in real time let alone pre reder it with a market based PC today, no chance.
#12.1.4 (Edited 1156d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(0) | Report
Dasteru  +   1156d ago
@ABizzel1 & Ingram:

Not even close.

"To render Avatar, Weta used a 10,000 sq ft (930 m2) server farm making use of 4,000 Hewlett-Packard servers with 35,000 processor cores with 104 terabytes of RAM and three petabytes of network area storage running Ubuntu Linux, Grid Engine cluster manager, and Pixar's Alfred queue management system. The render farm occupies the 193rd to 197th spots in the TOP500 list of the world's most powerful supercomputers. Creating the Na'vi characters and the virtual world of Pandora required over a petabyte of digital storage, and each minute of the final footage for Avatar occupies 17.28 gigabytes of storage"

And even with all that it took several hours to render a single frame.
#12.1.5 (Edited 1156d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report
NoFanboyRequired  +   1156d ago
lol we'd hit pixar graphic quality in gaming way before we could even think about hitting avatar quality in games. And honestly, i'd rather have pixar quality ;)
madjedi  +   1156d ago
"Well alot of people are expecting graphics like or close to that of Avavar movie." Show me one gamer in real life that seriously expects consoles to hit avatars lvl graphics.

Why are people, even bothering to debate, avatar graphics as if it's expected.

"Looking at high end PC's of today..its basicaly current gen like grapahics with advanced physics, lighting and anti alaising techinques."

Yeah not hardly, comparing pc graphics to consoles is selling pc's very short. How old is crysis 1, has any console game remotely touched it graphics wise, i seriously doubt it.

Maybe a lower-mid range pc is the best we should expect out of the next gens. Even low end video cards roast the rsx and xenos.

We will achieve similar to avatars graphics eventually do to moores law, likely scaled down considerably do to either storage or memory requirements.

But it will probably after we switch to quantum processors and several other advancements in memory and storage capacity.

So not anytime remotely soon.

Memory is cheap as hell, motherboards and processors(pc) is another story.

Hopefully crysis 3, is alot better than part 2 the graphics were lacking even for a console game, and the gameplay wasn't anything interesting.
ABizzel1  +   1155d ago
@solid_warlord & dasteru

And here comes the die hard fact readers. If I posted those specs. (which are obviously far above anything the PS4 or Nextbox would be capable of), don't you think I'm well aware of what was used to render the movie Avatar, especially considering it's been posted on EVERY tech site, over and over (hence your links to a couple of those pages).

Lighten up. No one is expecting next-gen consoles, or PC's to run Avatar level graphics or else we would have seen them by now. The purpose of that post was to show it's not happening no time soon.
Ingram  +   1156d ago
Crytek seems to inhabit a parallel dimension where

1) They know if hardware is 99% maxed out, regardless of what other developers have done. They are the best developers there are, no one can "max" specs over them.

2) In the Crytek Dimension, RAM is not at an all time low price, it's expensive.
onandonandon  +   1156d ago
I was promised 1080P and 60fps this gen so I definitely want it next gen!!
animegamingnerd  +   1156d ago
who promised you that?
NoFanboyRequired  +   1156d ago
SONY did.
BrianG  +   1156d ago
Sony said the PS3 could handle 1080p at 60fps.

A notable mention being Gran Turismo 5, which runs 60fps at 1920x1080p.

Sure it's an example of one game, but at least they didn't lie.
Bolts  +   1155d ago
Lol GT 5 is not 1080p. Please stop drinking the Kool Aid. There is only one 1080p spec that counts and that's native 1080p. And there's only a handful of Sony games that truly support that spec. Wipeout is the one them if I recall correctly.

If you're going to count scaling then hell, even CoD 4 can be played at 1080p, but that doesn't mean the game is 1080p.
BrianG  +   1155d ago

I'll admit I'm wrong. I double checked and GT5 is running at a sub 1080p native resolution. Still a beautiful game.

But on topic, Wipeout is native 1080p 60fps. There are also a couple downloadable PSN games that support the native 1080p resolution as well.

Btw, not getting the Kool Aid reference if you want to clear that up.
#14.1.4 (Edited 1155d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report
Kennytaur  +   1155d ago
Wipeout runs at a dynamic resolution, it's not a constant 1080p.
dantesparda  +   1155d ago
Brian G

Drinking the kool aid means that you believe the bullsh!t. It means that you believe anything Sony says.

The phrase comes from a real cult from Guyana headed by some American guy named Jim Jones in the late 70's that all killed themselves by drinking cyanide laced kool aid.

and p.s. Wipeout does use a dynamic resolution
onandonandon  +   1154d ago
The box the PS3 came in!!
ardivt  +   1156d ago
This will just Not Happen. Take killzone3 or uncharted 3 and make it Full hd with 60fps and next Gen Consoles will probably maxed Out. You can either have a huge overall quality Jump or 60fps fullhd.
Personally I don't care for 1080p, I want better Lightning and Textures!
Ju  +   1156d ago
Well...this is probably a radical idea and won't happen anyway. But maybe they should reconsider the business model. A brand new console is maybe not the answer. But a scalable one could be. Trouble with that idea is, it would require to build uppon the current gen.

In that sense I'd almost give MS the edge since they run a SW platform first and foremost. Sony would keep the PS4 compatible with the PS3.

But, I'd almost say there is some juice left in a "SuperPS3". Better cell, more mem, better mem bandwidth could push current content easily up to to 1080p, update the GPU, too.

But, with such a thing, games would run on either platform, scaling to the power of the machine opening up one market for developers and different pricing brackets for consumer. A low end PS3 - which can go down to $150 (or so) and than some layers of power boxes, the faster the more pricier letting the choice to the consumer to go with what they can afford but allowing a top end power model for who ever wants it also taking away the pressure to have the lowest price for the manufacturers.
#15 (Edited 1156d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
konnerbllb  +   1156d ago
cpu's maybe but memory has gone way down over the years
SDF Repellent  +   1156d ago
I am not worry. I am pretty sure Microsoft will launch the Xbox 720 at $599 with a DVD drive, cheap specs because they are greedy and all they care about is profits while Sony will release the PS4 at $299 with a free Vita, 4K graphics and state of the art specs because they will sacrifice loss profit to please the fanbase. I am pretty sure that is the wet-dream all N4G fans would want.
GenMasterB  +   1156d ago
He should have said "The LOW Cost of CPU's and Memory will impact"..... The fact you can build a fairly monster PC for 500 bucks that could probably dance around even the next-gen consoles should make game companies realize they'll need more then just "cpu cycles" to win the next-gen race..
Rageanitus  +   1156d ago
I love how console fanboys are convinced you cannot notice anything above 720p and its nto a big deal especially on small screens.... hello just look at the tablets today 1080p resolution is a HUGE and noticible difference over 720p even on a 10 inch screen.

Just look at the retina display vs the ipad mini.
IWentBrokeForGaming  +   1156d ago
We ALL already KNOW that whatever PS4 and Xbox720 have in them... that it'll already come out of the gate so dated to what is available for PC's...

Thats what I don't get about the costs of internal components... when if they are dated by time they debute wouldn't that actually cut costs?
PersonMan  +   1156d ago
I play games on both PC and PS3 and they games look the same for the most part. It's not as mind blowing as people seem to think it is. When I play a game on PC at max settings, I expect to be blown away right?... but, to me it just looks slightly better than the console version.

The biggest difference I see is that shadows don't look as pixelated on PC. Textures, polygons and draw distances look pretty much the same.

I'd rather play on my PS3 to be honest. I like the console experience better when given the choice between the two.
Steadyhndz  +   1156d ago
Processing costs have gone down at a rate we couldn't imagine 4 years ago...memory 3 years ago...try about $50 a you can get 4GB for $50....therefore the title has made me rate this article a 0/10 due to stupidity and not knowing the market at all.
DFresh  +   1156d ago
Rising cost of memory?
You can get 8GB of RAM for $60 on

Rising costs of processors/graphics cards?
Depends what you want.
AMD and NVIDIA have been dropping their prices of video cards due to competition.
You can get either an ATI 7950 or NVIDIA GTX 670 in the $300-$350 range.

By the time the next gen consoles come out in the next few years or so these cards will be affordable to use.

It's impossible to keep up with PC it's a never end growing market.
(If anything I'm glad the consoles are kinda slowing done the process on the PC gaming side because you won't have to upgrade as much and it won't cost a fortune to keep up to get the latest graphical gaming specs.)
mastershredder  +   1156d ago
Yeah, what rising cost of memory? Apparently not paying attention to the recent memory market crash.
Roccetarius  +   1156d ago
Cevat Yerli have said so much shit in the past months. Crytek always delivers forgettable games, so i wish more effort would be put into that instead.
Mathew9R   1156d ago | Spam
black911  +   1156d ago
Quantic Dream says PS3 stil has alot of power left.
WitWolfy  +   1155d ago
*Face palm* Gawd I hate these articles!
wadukadoo  +   1155d ago
All you people talking about how avatar like graphics are almost possible. Read this quick article.
I think it is safe to say its not going to be any time soon.
unicronic  +   1155d ago
I don't understand how a commodity product can rise in cost. Makes no sense whatsoever. Most commodities are overproduced and get cheaper going forward.
« 1 2 »

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login