The EA investor’s meeting focused on the PS4 is now over, here’s the highlights. -PSLS
8-10x more power? All these developers are contradicting each other. Oh well. It's more powerful, that much is a fact.
2 things I find contradictory: 1. If what took months to do previously now takes days, why would dev costs rise and games cost more? 2. Consumers love microtransactions...wtf?!?
Yep the whole point of things like the Unreal Engine, Unity etc is that it makes everything easier. But the cost is never in tech, that's the thing the cost is always in labour. Paying hundreds of wages for the complete dev cycle is the cost of a game. If you are selling a million copies of a game and not making a profit there is something fundamentally wrong with the cost in producing your game and you need to figure out how to reduce that cost.
More work to be done - takes less time to do the bits and pieces but there are more bits and pieces to do. @sypher - you are right in a large amount of cost is in staffing, but this is calculated in man hours so Jobesy is right in his initial confusion over taking less time, but not costing less. And Jobesy, on microtransations - Ultimate Team for FIFA is a huge, huge seller of microtransactions.
"“What used to take months in the past will now take days to do” [due to consoles being more like PCs]." From the article. I wonder if most multi plats will lead on pc?? Just make sense to me. It's all pc x86 anyway.
But if they still have to develop for current gen systems then I guess we shouldn't expect BF2 sized maps. So more of the same but with better FPS and graphics? Good lord. I just hope their netcode is up to par.
@bangshi It's pure greed. If what you say was the real reason then cost would never go back down. This is an excuse to raise prices while people are distracted by new graphics and physics. They're trying to pad their pockets. And most games will not have larger worlds. Madden, Fifa NBA. Most EA games will be different in physics and graphics if that.
“[PS4 and next Xbox are] between 8 and 10 times the power [of previous gen]“ Full quote from the article.
Jobesy your 1st question, answer is greed. They want us to think it costs more so they can charge more. sooner or later these publishers are gonna jack up the price to $65-70. i totally agree with you if these newer consoles take less to develop than why are developing costs going up? your second question's answer is the casuals, you have too look at all the facebook and other casual games where your have micro transactions do very well. i think think MT is targeted towards us the core gamers. its for those who don't want to do the work of find stuff within the game world and would much rather spend extra $20 to have full access to everything from start. that's what i never understood the hate on dead space 3, did EA forced anyone to buy anything to be able to play the game besides the game itself? micro transactions are here to stay there i said it. We the core gamers make everything about ourself when its not. MT isn't targeted towards us the core games yes i am saying it twice people will complain about online passes well guess what get ready for offline single player passes like kingdoms of reckoning had, where if you buy the game used you won't get the 100% single player missions and now Micro Transactions are here to stay, yopu never have to buy anything just play the game as normal and get everything you need within the game world while playing the game. what was over looked in dead space 3 was how good the game actually was. The single player was lengthy, the combat was fun,the world was fun to travel through. but all anyone said or talked about was the micro transactions stop complaining
"If what took months to do previously now takes days, why would dev costs rise and games cost more?" *re-coding for platforms with different architecture takes the most time, things need to be taken apart and put back together again. With similar architecture it could be as simple as re-scaling and testing. * dev prices rise because presumably games will have bigger scale/longer draw distance/ higher resolution textures/better physics, all that needs more manpower, and that means more salaries. an extra 10 people with a salary of 50$ on a 2 year development cost 1m$
they will certainly blow our minds. think about it when the 360 came out some time ago call of duty 2 looked way nice, but look at the titles now. Imagine kz shadowfall as call of duty back then and imagine what they will pull from these systems in about 5 years. It will be spectacular to say the least.
The rise in dev costs will come from asset creation more than anything else. In the next gen asset creation will be more time consuming because it has to be better, although this gen most things were made at high res then down scaled. Games could theoretically get bigger and more complex, so while when one thing taken individually could now be done in a few days, as a whole it could take just as long or longer for the whole project. Inflation in general will mean that dev costs will always rise. This is all theory of course, because quite honestly I don't see a whole lot of longer games being made. More complex maybe, and the worlds could certainly become bigger, and more assets required to populate them(which is probable). Overall though games have struck a pretty decent balance on length and content vs price...outside some glaring exceptions. As to micro-transactions, they have become quite a money maker for publishers. I personally don't mind the ones that are purely aesthetic(costumes), or the ones that give a little boost for SP(money packs, armor/weapon packs). I never buy them though, but apparently a lot of people do. Casuals spend a lot of money on them, and they tend to be a major focus of cheaper or F2P games. In this case some companies do it respectfully, others are just hungry to withhold content to make an extra buck, and they range anywhere in between.
@Jobesy, Exactly: its going to take less time and youre going to raise the cost of said game or games. Also, with micro transactions? I'm glad there aren't any EA games that I must have day 1!
Exactly, I think most of the numbers are just guesses from developers, once the kit has been out for a few years, that is when we will know the true potential.
But it's only 2GHz?
It has to do with skills and creativity. One man's blue hammer builds a house, the other one has a red one and slams a thumb, which hammer is better.
60fps. I'm drooling.
EA are just crying over WiiU and Origin not happening so they will make us wiiu owners feel left in the dark i really dont care how powerful the ps4 is just waiting for proof in game.
They are really upset with that. However, it was stupid for them to propose it in the first place. Talk about a conflict of interest!
EA are a business. They aren't going to leave Nintendo out out of spite. Grow up. If they leave out the Wii U it will be for reasons that should be obvious to everyone by now. PS4 has shown "in game". Just youtube "Shadowfall Jimmy fallon." There's your proof.
I think you would have to be brain dead to buy the quick unlocks from EA for bf3, why spend money on unlocks when you can just play the game for a few hours and unlock them for free lol
You would be surprised......people run out buy the quick unlocks then still suck at the game, that's the funny part to me
For me it's not about the money, but why would I ruin part of the game experience? Where is the reward if you just buy the unlock?
rainstorm i definitly agree with you there like, its only a matter of time before the prices for quick unlocks rise ( just like dlc ) and people will still fork out the money, if people refuse to pay more money for dlc then companies wont put the price up lol. what do u play bf3 on ?
They basically said that the 720 will be out this year too.
No surprise there.
I feel sorry for N4G's mods during that month...
^people in the waiting room think I'm crazy, cuz that made me laugh so loud.
the fact streets of rage can even still comment proves there are no mods.
I wonder if they will keep that name "720" or go with "infinity" or whatever was rumored.
Or pull an Apple and just called it the 'Xbox'.
Or maybe Xbox 3G. Going with the Apple Joke TrendyGames started.
You know this is an interesting subject, nobody knows what they will call the next xbox. XBOX 362 Git it...? Xbox Three Sixty... Two...
It kinda has to be, I think.
I wonder if SimCity will come to nextgen consoles?
It's certainly possible! EA doesn't like to ignore a market, but SimCity is so PC-centric.
Yeah but they can still change the controls to make it work with consoles. Look at Minecraft/Terraria for example I just don't want a dumbed down version like the Sim games If they did proper ports they could use the expansions as massive DLC packs which people would glady buy with how much an expansion would bring a game. Look at the Sims 3 for example insted of expansions we get crappy stuff like things to unlock content early...for £7-10, just for social interaction expressions. Then look at the neighborhood, instead of a full map without load times we get three/four houses per hub....are they seriously saying consoles can't support these types of games
True but SimCity 2000 was on PS1 and it's on the PS Store too.
Yes it probably will. You'll just press X on your controller and your front door will open.
If they can put it on consoles without needing to cut corners, then im all for it.
SimCity started on the SNES. No reason for it not to be on consoles.
BF3 DLC alone brought in $150 million?!
That actually surprised me and I have Premium. I wonder if they count the servers in that as well?
Oh how i hope the next generation would just stay at this principle of having games run at 60fps, but of course they are gonna try and push the boundaries, as soon as they reach some kind of limitation. I just love playing games smoothly more than i like playing games that look prettier, in most cases.
Exactly, we could have had 60fps games this generation but then there wouldn't have been titles that looked like Uncharted 3 and Red Dead Redemption. The same thing will happen next-gen, 60fps does not show up in screenshots, so developers won't stick to it.
There's a reason COD has looked the same since 2007...
On microtransactions: “We’re building into all our games the ability to pay for more, to unlock faster… trucks, levels, etc. microtransactions. Consumers love that.” Noooooooooooooooooo! levels? LEVELS! No, they wouldn't do what I'm thinking they'll do surely? 'Sorry you need to pay the gate keeper to access this side quest'.
All sorts of fail, EA. No more microtransactions!
Unfortunately we seem to be the vocal minority here. There's too many idiots out there that don't understand what buying this crap is doing to the industry. I mean, why the hell are people even paying for these games if they can't even be bothered to actually PLAY THEM!?
Levels as in multiplayer ranking. They're already doing what your talking about, they did it with Dragon Age. But I think in this context he/she was talking about multiplayer levels not levels on a map or in a single player.
I love microtransactions, they just told me so!
Gamers may not always agree on everything.. but im pretty damn sure nobody likes microtransactions.. where are they pulling their data from?
What's wrong with you guys? I love microtransactions. It's a type of cake isn't it?
If EA charge for levels already on the disc, people will boycott their games...I don't mind having a choice in paying for something extra if I want to, but not if that content is integral to completing the game. 8-10x power is good enough for me..I'm still trying to get my head around how they got Crysis 3 to run off 256mb vram. Whatever happens next gen, PS3 will be remembered for ushering in new IP's and making a last technological stand with the likes of Uncharted 3 and Last of Us. I feel extremely fortunate to be a gamer ;)
"Microtransactions. Customers love that." What now?
did I misread/misunderstand the pricing quote? “We haven’t set price, but you will probably see a similar trend (where prices go up $10, but then fall back down)" what does that mean? another $10 hike? *nevermind, just saw the other article :)
Turns out it was actually EA misspeaking (or so they claim)
They'd better be. I think games starting at $70 would spell disaster for the industry.
1080p/60fps is what I like to hear.
optimization will allow 1080p and 60fps. I have HD7850 which PS4 is slightly more powerful but HD7850 can do BF3 at 1080p 60fps. So i think B4 running at 1080p 60fps wont be hard.
Radeon HD7850 has 2GB GDDR5 ram vs 8GB in the PS4. Slightly more powerful??...... ;)
i doubt itll use all that ram now
Oh god not this again , the 8 gigs of RAM have nothing to do with graphic cards VRAM which in ps 4 is 2 or 2.2 gigs , there literaly isn't a single desktop (PC) card with that much VRAM ( largest amount is in Titan 6gigs GDDR5 ) cuz there is no point in putting so much VRAM when gpu cant handle the tasks and abnormaly large textures that would fill up 8 gigs , most vram tasking game is modded skyrim with god knows how many graphics mods , and thats due to unoptimization and lots of resource hogs , and it fills up only 2.8 gigs ...
PS4 GPU power is more akin to GTX 660 with 1.8TFlops . However PS4 will certainy overpower it.
V-ram is different from ram... geez. It's like he's never built a gaming rig or invested in a gaming pc/laptop.
^SoCalledMe 8GB's of GDDR5 doesn't necessarily have to be only about putting things in it. Having that amount of extra RAM could be beneficial for resolution and Anti Aliasing. I actually won't mind if PS4 games end up being 30fps. But by god, they better f'in have absolutely NO REASON NOT to put high levels of Anti-Aliasing and minimum 1920x1080.
I don't think I'm some kind of expert but isn't AA taking up more VRAM , the memory that gpu is using, and not the system memory , I don't know how the console arhitecture works , is system memory shared with gpu so that gpu can use it ? I read the article when one of gg guys clearly says that shadow fall is using 1.5 out of 2 or 2.2 gigs cant remember correctly ...