Top
120°

Epic President: 'What's The Point of Next-Gen Consoles?'

Nintendo's Wii U will launch sometime next year, and rumors continue to circulate that a new Xbox or PlayStation could follow one or two years after Wii U. The Wii U is reportedly a bit more powerful than either the Xbox 360 or PS3, but when a PS4 or Xbox 720 hits the market, those machines will no doubt be even more powerful. In a sense though, none of this even matters anymore. Mobile could effectively replace consoles by then, if you ask Epic Games President Mike Capps.

Read Full Story >>
industrygamers.com
The story is too old to be commented.
donniebaseball2688d ago

It's certainly an interesting dilemma for the industry.

kreate2688d ago (Edited 2688d ago )

mobile is expanding the industry. but its not replacing consoles.

console gamers still use consoles for primary gaming. that market is still there no matter what. and increasing due to young gamers getting older.

but mobile is just expanding on top of that market.
the 'casual' market is just becoming larger than before.

in conclusion. consoles are not dying anytime soon. nor is mobile games replacing consoles.

Tyre2688d ago

Well said, kudos and bubbles to you!

jacksheen00002688d ago

Game consoles will never be replaced by mobile...I like to see detailed graphic in full screen size...that's something mobile can never bring. In other words,screen Size does matter; But I will say this mobile is moving rather quickly in computational power.

Fishy Fingers2688d ago (Edited 2688d ago )

Thats the whole point. We're moving towards incredibly powerful mobile devices that you can carry with you, when you get home, they'll connect to your big screen, you'll pick up a pad and have the same console experiences you do now.

OpenGL2688d ago

Well there are already quite a few phones out with micro-HDMI ports capable of outputting 1080p(and technically higher because micro-HDMI is part of the HDMI 1.4 standard) like the Motorola Droid X2 and Droid 3.

Once we start getting SoC's like Tegra 3 in 2012 handheld devices like cell phones will begin to have graphical capabilities similar to the PS3 and 360.

Ju2688d ago

Tegra3 is at the level of the PS-Vita. Those device won't match PS3/360 anytime soon. Maybe they can bump out 1080p, but even the PS2 can if you want (I think GT4 runs 1080i as an option).

Resolution alone is not the only criteria, though. While quite awesome for mobile devices, they can hardly match a dedicated device, yet. See level of details, num polys, complexity of shaders, lower bandwidth, etc

What remains to be seen is, how those devices will sell. "will". Because so far what we are getting - brand spanking new - are a flood of (the same) Tegra2 tablets.

Even when the excitement factor seems to imply those were available since a while, and the best thing since sliced bread, the reality is, the Samsungs Tab10 just released - and similar devices might become mainstream by end of the year. A Quad tablet remains to be seen; its price as well.

I think tablets sell slow. Still too expensive. $599? Too much. $299-$399 well, then we can start talking.

OpenGL2688d ago

@ Ju

Well, Nvidia has Tegra 3's successor on their 2012 road map, and it is expected to use quad ARM Cortex A15s with a new GPU solution that is 2x as powerful as Tegra 3, and around 10x as powerful as Tegra 2.

Even the PSP Vita's GPU the PowerVR SGX543MP4+ isn't the best we'll see in 2012, as PowerVR has stated that the SGX543, 544, and 554 are designed to be paired with up to 16 GPUs. Some of the higher core configurations of the SGX544 and 554 would be able to outperform the PS3 and 360 GPUs.

Heck, the PSP Vita's GPU should have a pixel fill rate of around 4GPixel/s which is the same as on the PS3 and 360. Obviously that's not the only metric of performance, but we're not that far off.

Inside_out2688d ago (Edited 2688d ago )

.
What was the point of the Samaritan demo??? What is Mike Capps point. One minute they are all for next gen consoles and the next, he wants them to be all the same...O_o

The Samaritan demo was run on a 8-12 core computer with 3 gtx 580's...I don't see a phone or a tablet having that type of horsepower for a long time.

Could you play Gears of war 3 on a Iphone...maybe in the future, but the cover system in that game is one of the main attractions. I doubt any of the 12+ million gamers that bought Gears 1 or 2 are interested in playing those games on a touch screen. :/

You don't have to worry Mikey, Crytek appears to have the inside track for the future Xbox. Cry-engine 3 will serve quite nicely if you guys want to start making IOS apps instead...but the Epic team behind Gears no doubt won't let " beancounter " Capps throw them of course.

BlackKnight2688d ago

WHERE are you getting this 8-12 cores? Do you have any sources on that?

gamingdroid2688d ago

"Could you play Gears of war 3 on a Iphone...maybe in the future,"

That is what he just said, IN THE FUTURE....

Septic2688d ago

What is the point of a more detailed, rich, vibrant and complex virtual world if we are limited in the way we can interact with it? The standard control pad and even mouse and keyboards are draconian instruments for interaction.

Call me naive but this is one of the reasons I'm keeping an eye on Kinect and motion control gaming in general. These are all little steps towards the giant leap that is the holy grail of Virtual Reality Gaming, a truly immersive experience that we have imagined for so long.

And no, I am not high as I type this.

InNomeDiDio2688d ago

There is some kind of truth in your comment. Kinect is really a step forward. While Move is just a different kind of controller. But I like the way I can control games right now. Let's see what the future bring along with Kinect.

Machioto2688d ago

Unless kinect can transport you in to the virtual world,then I don't see it being a bigger than ps move .

Ju2688d ago

There is a lot of how we play games today what you cannot do with Kinect (style) controls. Kinect has nothing to do with next step or virtual reality, it is just, err, different.

I don't want to give up on traditional gaming. The controls is the biggest issues for tablets and phones. Those touch only controls are a step back for classic (I don't want to use hard core) gaming.

Each has its use. Kinect as well as touch and controllers - and the Move. Just because one is new, doesn't mean the other becomes obsolete.

Everone its own right. That's actually a good thing. More variety. I hope it'll stay that way and one isn't sacrificed for the other because one just sells better.

Venox20082688d ago

Actually I'm happy with current gen.. why so hurry to get a new console (X720 or ps4?) ...games look good, still costs are high for gaming making, do you want to pay 80 bucks for a game or more?

actually I need games twice more that a new gen could start, not enough good games in this gen were released... (in quantity)

donniebaseball2688d ago

Valid point about $80 games. If the next-gen is that much more powerful it will require even bigger teams and bigger budgets and costs keep going up. Those costs will be passed on to consumers. It's not sustainable.

BlackKnight2688d ago (Edited 2688d ago )

I am going to play devil's advocate here. It was claimed that these new consoles, 360/PS3, would force a 60 dollar price for games. However, if PC games are made today and most sell for 50, and sometimes 40 bucks (Crysis 1 sold 40 brand-new, and you saw the tech and research behind it) and PC's are harder to develop for due to many configs AND is more susceptible to piracy, why would a new console generation increase the cost?

This generations games cost 60 because they knew they could do it. Different games have COMPLETELY different development costs, but sell for 60 bucks no matter what, unlike PC. They do it because it is a closed platform.

Technology has ALWAYS changed. And many times it can make game development EASIER, such as APIs and hardware standards and so on. The console's were barely cutting edge when they launched and are already 10 fold slower than PCs. Games will go up in price next gen just because of consumer ignorance, not development cost.

vortis2687d ago

Blackknight is correct.

$80 is just a scare tactic corporations use to say that YOU MUST PAY IT BECAUSE WE SAY SO.

Don't be naive.

Is Limbo worth $60? Did it require 500 people to make that award-worthy game? No.

Did it take 1000 people to make the Samaritan demo? What's more, everything shown in that demo was in-house, so technically, without paying for voice-actors, they could have tossed in a H.U.D. and some A.I. routines and it would be a full-fledged game. So where are you getting this $80 stuff from?

Don't buy into the hype. Most of the development costs this generation is spent on QA, optimization and platform scaling. It took Turn 10 less than a year to develop Forza 4 and if it were being released on the Xbox 720 they would just scale up the resolution and multiply the shaders. Is that worth $80?

Didn't think so.

Show all comments (27)
The story is too old to be commented.