490°

Geomerics Founder On Xbox One eSRAM: I’d Be Wary of Rushing to Snap Judgments About The New Hardware

Unless you are living under the rock, the Xbox One's eSRAM has been subject to much debate and controversy regarding it's inability to render 1080p resolution.

Read Full Story >>
gamingbolt.com
MCTJim3547d ago

in other words..I dont know.

Dudebro903547d ago

If you got that from that statement, you are either illiterate or a jerk.

LordMaim3547d ago

To be fair, Doran didn't give any information, opting for marketing buzzwords instead.

To sum up what he said, "we'll have to wait and see."

dantesparda3547d ago (Edited 3547d ago )

So you didnt read the article you just read the headline. He literally says nothing other than PR speak.

gman_moose3547d ago

To me it sounded like his comment was from before the launch of these consoles. Either that, or he's a moron.

He says:
"You cannot really say anything until the first games are out and consumers have got their hands on both devices"

Ummm... gamers DO have the first games, and have got their hands on both devices. What the hell is the guy smoking?

ABizzel13547d ago

I personally don't understand what MS was thinking of with the XBO. I get unified RAM being convenient for development, but this is one case where they should have went with separate pools of memory.

4GB DDR3 (console RAM) + 4GB GDDR5 (Game RAM) would have been the wiser choice, because Day 1 they would have had a easy to understand set-up, and performance would be nearly as much of an issue. They could have still used the eSRAM if they wanted to, but honestly it would have been better to add more shading units to the APU, to push the console closer to the PS4 in performance.

They went with a theoretical solution that won't show it's best results until late in the generation when the winner has already been decided, when they could have had a near comparable console Day 1, and possibly have price advantage on their side by $50, which was needed all last gen to keep the 360 neck and neck with the PS3 (as well as winning NA).

redwin3547d ago

Interesting you say that. The PS4 was not gonna have the GDDR5 until the last day, the Xbox was twice as powerful as the ps4 was gonna be. Sony reluctantly changed it the last minute. That article was placed here in N4G about 3 months ago. When I read that, lol, the first thing in my head was, corporate espionage . Lol, but of course that's just me playing around. But I know that Sony would like to get to MS for what they did to blue ray.

ABizzel13547d ago

@redwin

Could you please link me this article, because based on facts and not rumors, we know the PS4 was always going to have GDDR5 it only changed to from 4GB up to 8GB the last day. Also the XBO would have had twice the amount of RAM, but not twice as powerful as the PS4 had they gone with 4GB of GDDR5.

Prior to their launch there were tons of rumors claiming the PS4 and XBO were going to be using APUs (which turned out to be true), but the rumors were based on APUs available at that time which were Trinity / Richland (which the XBO is currently just over 2x more powerful than).

The twice as powerful rumor came from the rumor of the XBO being powered by a GTX Titan, but it that was easily shot down by anyone with hardware knowledge considering the Titan was a $1,000 GPU, and was more than 2x more powerful than the PS4.

Regardless MS should have known better than simply going with DDR3, because an APUs performance is greatly affected by the speed of the memory, and looking at any GPU available at the time it was clear that 2GB of GDDR5 was a minimum requirement for the graphics and performance they were trying to achieve.

It was flatout smarter and easier to just drop in 4GB of DDR3 + 4GB of GDDR5, and call it a day. The only downside to this, is that they couldn't dynamically add or reduce memory usage if they ever needed to, which is the benefit of a shared memory pool, but when gaming is suppose to be your main function the graphics memory was the more important of the two, and seeing how Sony had access to a confirmed 4GB, MS should have at least be able to do the same.

TFJWM3547d ago

@redwin Ummm no. Sony had been planning on going with GDDR5 for awhile but it was only going to be 4mb. The last day Mark Cerny went into the meeting and said we really need 8 and they went for it.

3547d ago Replies(9)
mochachino3547d ago

"I’d be wary of rushing to snap judgments about the new hardware. You cannot really say anything until the first games are out and consumers have got their hands on both devices,”

Many games are already out.

Why do I feel that the close EA-MS relationship is somehow behind this. All games mentioned using guys middleware are EA games.

Volkama3547d ago

OK, here's what we've got: EA and Microsoft, in conjunction with the saucer people, under the supervision of the reverse vampires, are forcing middleware developers to provide neutral quotes about the consoles.

Is that about right?

joeorc3547d ago (Edited 3547d ago )

yes because no companies use Astroturfing techniques on the internet..LMAO

A:
http://www.pcworld.com/arti...

B:
http://arstechnica.com/gami...

C:
http://techrights.org/2009/...

D:
http://nintendoeverything.c...

Yes; because No one does it, sure thing is all a conspiracy.

LMAO

Or maybe just maybe you can count on a company to do what a company does in its best own interests!

example:

“Just keep rubbing it in, via the press, analysts, newsgroups, whatever. Make the complete failure of the competition’s technology part of the mythology of the computer industry.” -

–Microsoft, internal document

http://boycottnovell.com/wp...

TankCrossing3547d ago

@joeorc you think MS and EA are teaming up to offer incentives or strongarm middleware developers into giving neutral answers like "From what we are seeing both PS4 and Xbox One are well thought out pieces of kit"

You're in deep, but I am glad you can laugh about it LMAO

Bathyj3547d ago

We're through the looking glass here people.

rdgneoz33547d ago

Yep, a lot of games are out, and the differences have been shown. Games will only get better looking as the gen goes on, but the opposition won't be sitting on their hands. Last gen MS had the console that was easier to make games for off the bat and multiplats looked better on it for a while (the cell was a bit complex to work with). This gen, both systems are similar architecture (x86) and similar CPU, with differences being mainly in ram and GPU. And judging by the games currently available, the shoes on the other foot this gen.

And seeing as MS has called the esram an evolution of the 360's edram, it's not too hard to get a grasp on like it was for developers with the PS3's cell.

http://gearnuke.com/microso...

kingvendrick3547d ago

Its just more damage control. The PS4 sales figures beg to differ.

Sonital3547d ago

Damage control by Geometrics?

Cryptcuzz3547d ago

They are a middleware company and so they would be smart to stay neutral as much as possible. All they want is to promote their middleware to as many developers on all sides as possible.

Gh05t3547d ago (Edited 3547d ago )

So much stupid spin in this article it makes me dizzy.

He really has no opinion yet? He is lying and trying not to make either Sony or Microsoft mad at him by claiming a better console. I am an Xbox One owner but c'mon its okay to say PS4 is easier to make games or middleware for or vice versa... Have an opinion or dont answer the question but to speak this drivel to not alienate one console or another is cowardly.

Why o why3547d ago

Spoken like a champ.

These judgements aren't snap ones

Show all comments (68)
70°

Disney Dreamlight Valley teases part two of paid expansion

Disney Dreamlight Valley devs have officially teased the second part of the paid expansion titled The Spark of Imagination.

70°

Best Stardew Valley Farm Names – 100 Funny, Nerdy, Cute Ideas and More

Starting out a new farm, but need help choosing a name? Check out this article for a 100 farm name ides for Stardew Valley.

190°

Bethesda Needs to Reduce the Gaps Between New Fallout and Elder Scrolls Releases

Waiting a decade for new instalments in franchises as massive as Fallout and Elder Scrolls feels like a waste.

Read Full Story >>
gamingbolt.com
-Foxtrot13h ago

Microsoft have Obsidian but I feel it's Bethesda who just don't want to play ball as they've always said they want to do it themselves.

Once MS bought Zenimax in 2020 they should have put the Outer Worlds 2 on the back burner, allow Bethesda to finish off its own Space RPG with Starfield (despite totally different tone why have two in your first party portfolio with two developers who's gameplay is a tad similar) and got Obsidian for one of their projects to make a spiritual successor to New Vegas.

When the Elder Scrolls VI is finished Bethesda can then onto the main numbered Fallout 5 themselves.

The Outer Worlds 2 started development in 2019 so putting it on the back burner wouldn't have been the end of the world, they'd have always come back to it once Fallout was done and it would have been nicely spaced out from Starfields release once they had most likely stopped supporting it and all the expansions were released.

If they did this back in 2020 when they bought Zenimax and the game had a good, steady 4 - 5 years development, you might have seen it release in 2025.

We are literally going to be waiting until 2030 at the very earliest for Fallout 5 and all they seem bothered about is pushing Fallout 76.

RaidenBlack11h ago(Edited 11h ago)

Its not just only Todd not playing ball.
Obsidian have made a name for themselves in delivering stellar RPGs, but most famous once have always been sequels/spin-offs to borrowed IPs like KOTOR 2, Neverwinter Nights 2, Fallout: New Vegas, Stick of Truth etc.
Obsidian wants to invest more in their own original IPs like Outer Worlds or Pillars of Eternity with Avowed.
Similar to what Bluepoint & inXile wants to do or Kojima is doing (i.e not involving anymore in Konami's IPs).
So yea, even if New Vegas has the most votes from 3D Fallout fans, Obsidian just wants to do their own thing, like any aspiring dev studio and MS is likely currently respecting that.
But a future Fallout game from Obsidian will surely happen. Founder Feargus Urquhart has already stated an year ago that they're eager to make a new Fallout game with Bethesda, New Vegas 2 or otherwise. Urquhart was the director of the very first 1995's Fallout game after all.
And don't forget Brian Fargo and his studio inXile, as Brian Fargo was the director of Fallout's 1988 predecessor: Wasteland

KyRo8h ago(Edited 7h ago)

Obsidian should take over the FO IP. They're do far better with it than Bethesda who hasn't made a great game for almost 15 years

RaidenBlack2h ago(Edited 2h ago)

@KyRo
So, by 15 years, you mean Fallout 3 was the last great game Bethesda made?
You don't consider Skyrim a good game, which came out 13 years ago?
I'd consider Fallout 4 a pretty decent game as well. It's Story & RPG elements were a bit downgrade from New Vegas but the exploration and shooting on the other hand, were upgrades.
FO76 was disappointing and Starfield could've been better at launch I'll agree.

Duke197h ago(Edited 7h ago)

I disagree. Part of these games is the support for the mod community. If they move to releasing a "next game" every 2 or 3 years, the modding support plummets and the franchises turn into just another run of the mill RPG.

Make the games good enough to withstand the test of time, to keep people coming back to them and expanding on them with mod support.

--Onilink--5h ago(Edited 5h ago)

I dont think anyone is saying they need to come out every 2 years (not to mention almost no game is released that quickly anymore)

By the time Fallout 5 comes out, it will be more than 15 years since Fallout 4 came out (same with ES6 coming out 15 years after Skyrim). Even if you want to use F76 as the metric for the most recent release, that one came out in 2018. It will be a miracle if F5 comes out before 2030

The point is that for a studio that doesnt seem to operate with multiple teams doing several projects at once, that their projects normally take 4-5 years as a minimum, and that now they even added Starfield to the rotation, it becomes a 15+ years waiting period between releases for each series, which doesnt make sense. Imagine that Nintendo only released a mainline Mario or Zelda game every 15 years…

They either need to start developing more than 1 project at a time, let someone else take a crack at one of the IPs or significantly reduce their development times

Duke193h ago(Edited 3h ago)

Why should someone else take a crack at one of the IPs? Look at what happened to Final Fantasy as a recent example - there is pretty clear FF fatigue setting in because they are now pumping out titles in the franchise every few years. Pumping out more games faster doesn't always make a series better.

There are plenty of options to make new games, not just create more titles in the same universe at a faster pace.

-Foxtrot1h ago

"Why should someone else take a crack at one of the IPs"

He's literally just told you why

We're waiting like 15 years before a sequel comes out, it's insane

Skyrim came out in 2011, the next game is expected to come out in 2027 at the earliest so that's 16 years apart while Fallout 4 came out in 2015 and might not release until 2031, again 16 years.

We're fine with Bethesda trying new things and doing new IPs like Starfield but adding a new game to the cycle now means a bigger wait. Also Starfield didn't meet most peoples expectations, can you imagine waiting 15 years or so for a sequel and it's disappointing? It would feel even worse because you would have to wait another 15 years to see if they manage to come back from it.

They need to give it to another developer, we don't need main numbered titles but a spin off of Fallout and Elder Scrolls should be cycled in between the long gaps of the main releases.

Once again you are making out people want these games as quick as possible when all we want is a standard development time of at least 4 years or so rather than waiting 15.

mandf5h ago

Yeah I’m going to say it, who cares about the modding community when making a game? Half the time developers only tolerate modders because they fix there game for them.

Skuletor6h ago

Yeah, let's all advocate for smaller gaps between series' releases, then we'll probably get headlines about how the series have dropped in quality and they could have benefited from more time in the oven. Let them cook.

SimpleSlave5h ago

"how the series have dropped in quality and they could have benefited from more time in the oven" So every Bethesda game then? Got it.

Listen, I would agree if this was about From Software or something, but Bethesda?

🤣

C'mon now. What timeline are you from?

Skuletor3h ago

Think about it, they're already bug filled messes on their current schedule, can you imagine how much worse it would be if they rushed things?

-Foxtrot59m ago

@Skuletor

Who's saying to rush the releases? No one is saying that...

People just don't want to be waiting 15 years for a sequel, they aren't working on the game for that long, you do realise that right? The issue isn't coming down to them working on the game and us "rushing them", it's the fact they are working on other games like Starfield now meaning bigger gaps before they even get started on them.

I bet you any more Elder Scrolls VI only entered full development last year when Starfield was finished despite being announced in 2018.

Duke193h ago

I mean you aren't wrong. People are going to complain about anything

isarai5h ago

Hows about you focus on quality, just a thought 🤷‍♂️

Sciurus_vulgaris4h ago

Bethesda [or Microsoft] would have to reallocate internal and external studios towards fallout and elder scrolls titles. Bethesda has the issue of developing 2 big IPs that are large RPGs on rotation. If you want more Fallout and Elder Scrolls, development will have to be outsourced.

Show all comments (22)