Epic Games' Tim Sweeney geeks out on technology and gaming in the next 20 years at D.I.C.E. 2012.
high-end PCs can do this type of visuals already. The Wiiu has no chance if the rumors are true (only twice as powerful as Xbox360).
We know that but the story is not about hi end pcs . It's about next gen consoles capable of producing hi end graphics. Epic games must know all the all the hardware specs of the next xbox I wish they would share them with us.
and people want a PS4 and Xbox720 in 2012. HA!
Epic may not be showing their interpretation of the literal "next gen". They also have an engine to license, so we have to take their tech demos with a grain of salt. Of course they're going to show things as the best they can be. That doesn't mean that they're saying, "This is what the next generation will bring." They're just saying, "This is what the engine can do if the hardware is there." And that's what I've always thought when watching this demo.
I wish they would, too. The development kits have been out for a while, no doubt Epic was part of the first to have them.
Personally I'd rather see advances in AI than graphics for the next gen consoles. Resolution gets to be a case of diminishing returns beyond a certain point, and lighting is at a "good enough" stage as it is. Nothing takes me out of a game's world faster than seeing bad AI in action.
"Personally I'd rather see advances in AI than graphics for the next gen consoles. Resolution gets to be a case of diminishing returns beyond a certain point, and lighting is at a "good enough" stage as it is. Nothing takes me out of a game's world faster than seeing bad AI in action." I have to agree with this statement. Take a game like Skyrim for example. The AI is just flat horrible.
Well, the PS4 needs to be at least 20 times more powerful than the PS3 to display UE4 in 4k resolution. I hope Sony won't fail us this time.
Let's not kid ourselves here. The talent and money required to produce this level of visuals in games is beyond most developers. And the ones capable of producing visuals like this, one misfire would probably bankrupt them. We're already seeing this happen today. Developers taking fewer chances with their games, and developers going under when a decent game sucks dry their entire resource pool only to be ignored by gamers and drive their company off a cliff. New tools and better hardware might make this level of visuals closer, but it doesn't suddenly slash the man-hours and talent requirements. As it is now there are few company's who have the talent and resources to push the current gen's hardware. Next gen isn't going to suddenly change gaming overnight.
darkride66, I totally agree with you. You can have the strongest quantum computer with infinite power, such good graphics won't come by themselves like by magic. Tell those people who did this tech demo to make an entire game with the same level consistency, you will find some places where the game looks like a PS1 game. People here in N4G don't understand that yes a good hardware helps getting those types of graphics, but you need more manpower, more TIME, more money and not only that but also game developers aren't scientists or researchers or software makers, they just don't have enough knwoledge to produce better physics or AI or lighting engines and they need to seek external help from specialized companies like Havoc or Geomerics. You can have infinite power and still produce not jawdropping games whereas you can get marvelous graphics on some decent hardwares thanks to SOME developers' talent and genius coding.
Holy S***! X360 *10 = Samaritan @[email protected] DO IT MS! :)
It may take more money and time to develop games that look that way, but it will happen next generation. I disagree with Darkride66. Sony now understands that tools are important. Microsoft always understood that. It takes less time and money to develop a game for the 360 than it does for the PS3 because of the architecture and the tools. In the next generation developers will most likely be working more powerful versions of the same consoles. On the PS3 it will be an updated Cell with more cores and a new Nvidia GPU. The 360 will be another Power PC chip fused to an ATI GPU. There will be updates to the chips, but the learning curve won't be nearly as steep. Developers are not working with multiple cores for the first time again. It will be much more expensive if they add additional content. If they use the added power for AI and destruction, it should be more expensive. But not excessively more.
I don't doubt the Wii U can run this game. The question is how much resolution and effects the game will lose.
Clearly you don't know, most people stating that the Wii U is anywhere from 1.5-2x stronger than 360...and the article clearly states: 1080p= 10x Xbox360, 720p= 4.4x Xbox360 Please read before posting. The Wii just like all Nintendo Consoles since the Gamecube will not be competing for best graphics. It's about the games and the none hard core market.
Honestly, I find it hard to believe that the WiiU is going to look any better than the 360. It's not getting any new releases, just re-releases, and even if it IS more powerful, any new releases will still be built for 360 and PS3 first. Has anyone even mentioned its power compared to the PS3?
It is only a tech demo at the moment. They have time to refine and optimize it. I doubt any developer would earn money if their games required super computers to run it. I'm not saying that the Wii U will run it in full, I'm saying it can run it with a lot of sacrifices. Clearly you are not being open minded.
@KB0 - Wrong. Wiiu is rumored to be anywhere from 2x x360 to 8x more powerful than the x360 (rumor was 20% less powerful than x720 which was 10x more powerful than the x360). Honestly people here have no clue how to launch a next gen console. They aren't going to release some super new high tech device that can run games as good as a $1500 high-end computer. No, they're going to release machines that will cost between $350 and $500. That price is NOT 10x more powerful than current gen. If they go anywhere above $500, they lose all but their loyalest fans. That's just horrible business sense...
If WiiU has something akin to a Radeon 4870, a high end RV770 as purported, then that = around 4-5 times faster than 360 in raw performance. As stated on Epic's slide 360's GPU performance is 0.25Tflops, 4870 is officially 1.2Tflops. However the other rumours state it is 'only' about twice as fast as 360, which suggests something closer to a 4670 level GPU. 4670 is officially 0.48Tflops. So by Epic's own calculations of an optimised versions of the Samaritan demo, an RV770 equipped WiiU could run this at a HD res, 720p. Anything less means sub HD, only 2x performance means forget it totally.....
I agree, if anything it'll be able to run the game at the same resolution as the console Call of Duty games. Regardless, I'm not worried.
I guess most people didn't realize that the HD Zelda trailer shown for the Wii U was running in-engine. http://youtu.be/arHNcSMXaBk Pretty sure the Wii U will be able to stand on it's own.
@shackdaddy, when you buy things in bulk they become cheaper. You may find your $1500 high end PC or higher could be possible in a 200-400 machine. Just think at the time when Sony first put Blu-ray into the PS3 it was costing over $1000 in stores and that's without mentioning any other hardware components.
Well if you look up the rumored WiiU specs (4870 and a power CPU power7 3-3.5 GHZ) that places about 5 times more powerful than PS3 ( which is a little stronger than 360) so the WiiU should be able to run this at 720p as should the xbox 720 according to IGN
Shackdaddy836, actually you need to study a little more yourself. Console makers own their chips. They can take them to who ever is willing to make them the cheapest. IBM or ATI might help make them based on their parts, but they are modified using MS or Sony money. The 360 cost $526 per console to manufacture when it launched. After die shrinks, fusing the GPU and CPU, moving manufacturing from place to place and other improvements the cost of making a 360 is much cheaper. Industry experts believe it is surely less than $150 and maybe even under $100. Another die shrink and it has to be under $100. The new consoles will have parts that are upgraded versions of the current parts. That will be cheap. And there is a huge difference between the parts from 2004 and the parts now. Price and power. Computer parts have gotten a lot more powerful and a lot cheaper.
WII U is not a next gen console. Didnt Satura say that awhile back?
Even if the WiiU had the 4890 in it. It's GPU would only have half the power of what I am expecting from next Xbox and Next PS GPUs. I am estimating that next gen. PS4, X720 GPUs are aiming for something with 21-26+ GPixels with a TDP around 100-150+. Still aiming around 1.2 Tflops though. Current gen has around 4.x GPixel GPUs in the PS3/X360. The most Gpixels the WiiU could have in the R700 series is 13.6 unless they have 4850x2 or 4870x2 which are powerhouse + heat. Not likely in the console. WiiU probably will run Unreal Engine 4.0, but likely on a lower resolution or with a little less. hmm...1024x768 possible I believe maybe? I know 720 is 1200x720. Either way. Nintendo has admitted that WiiU will not be an equal to Xbox 720/PS4. From what I have read. http://www.xbitlabs.com/new... Either way I expect graphics to be possibly around 2-3 times better than PS3/X360 graphics. Which are high enough quality to make a console platform last I believe as many claim this gen has many years left in it. Nintendo grabbing in third party developers as well will bring life into their console cycle. As most of what was missing with the Wii was recognizable multiplatform titles that we all love.
No one cares. The gameplay alone of the next Mario game alone, which will be HD and look better than any PS3 or Xbox 360 game, will have better gameplay than anything Epic will ever release in their company's life time.
No offence but i doubt mario will ever look as good as some high end ps3/360 games. Unless the completely change the whole art style, it wouldn't feel or play like mario if it had crazy graphics. My thinking anyway.
The same Mario that hasnt changed its gameplay since it started and has the same storyline? You are very disillusioned
@Opticalmatrix. A high end 1080p facepalm for your comment comming up.
But this must be a very expensive PC. You need more like 2 or 3 really fast GPUs and a strong CPU to run such visuals smooth. Even the next Xbox wont be able to pull out such visuals in true 1080p. But it's just a Tech-Demo.
EPIC said that - with optimization - they could run Samaritan on about 1/3rd the specs of the original demo. So, I don't think we'll need insane specs on the next gen of consoles to make this work.
To be fair the demo if I remember correctly was running on THREE gtx 580s in SLI and one of the highest end Intel CPU's on the market today and god knows how much RAM (google it and you'll see). So lets do some math on your statement. 3 GTX 580s divided by three gives you ONE gtx 580 and lets cut down the CPU and RAM. Assuming that this CPU was HIgh end (it would have to be to run all those cards) like Epic has said lets go with something in the middle like an Intel i7 980x CPU (not too high not too low to be fair because we don't know) and lets assume we are using 16 gb RAM on this system (again they probably used more, but lets keep this somewhere in the middle). So after dividing it down you'll end up with a system that is something like this: 1 gtx 580, maybe an intel i5 processor, and 4gb of RAM. That is a type of computer that most PC gamers today don't even have!! Why would they put that in a console that takes years of R&D to make? it would cost roughly 600 bucks for just those three parts!!!!! Not including the disk drive, casing, motherboard, power supply and hard drive. Not to mention the fact that companies like Sony/Microsoft mark up the prices to high hell so in the end if they went cheap on the rest of the parts (which would kill you on hard drive because games are just getting bigger) you'd still end up with a system that costs 1000+ just for the parts without a markup and it would be deeply flawed as the cheap parts wouldn't be good for the high end parts used, creating a bottleneck. So if a system that did launch with specs 1/3 of what the demo used it would be 1) Unreliable/ deeply flawed 2) astronomically expensive and 3) not worth the price. I say not worth the price because when ever a developer says "Oh we can optimize it" do you really think no visual quality will be sacrificed? This game will probably be SEVERELY toned down and not look even close to the demo. So back to your statement the specs may not be as insane as they initially were, but they are still considered high end by todays standards. Plus with rumors of microsoft using the AMD 66xx series which is nowhere near 1/3 the specs of the system (its probably 1/20 what 3 gtx 580s are capable of) it doesn't look like the Samaritan game is coming in its real form unless its played on a PC.
@angels, um yes a lot of PC gamers do have 1 GTX 580, Intel i5 and 4GB of RAM. You can get a bare-bones PC from a few places like pricewatch with a top of the line CPU/Mobo combo for under $250. I have a mid-ranged PC and it's sporting Crossfire cards with 6GB of RAM and an OC'd quad-core CPU @ 3.66ghz and this PC is old. I was able to get this all for under $350.
$600 for the ram CPU and gfx card today? But by the time the PS4 and 720 are out the price of those components would have dropped even for PC gamers... and the PS3 used to cost $800+ to produce when it came out way above $600!!!
@Gumtrol Um yes, but you have to remember that companies are making models NOW for next gen tech so in a few years yes the price will drop, but (if the consoles already launched) so would the consoles. The PS3 was NOT 800+ it was $799 to start an how did it do at launch btw? Oh yea thats right it did TERRIBlE until 2008 when they dropped the prices waaaaayyy down. NO the ps3 did NOT cost $800+ to produce LOL that was an old rumor to say that sony was selling ps3s for less than they were worth. The prices drop as the tech ages, but when you build tech now for something that launches in 2013 you have to pay TODAYS prices.
People seem to forget is that PCs push horsepower to get things done. Consoles don't need as much because the specs are known. It's like the difference between snow tires and all-terrain tires. All-terrain works okay. But snow was made for that purpose. Consoles are optimized platforms. Another forgotten thing is that when the 360 was released, it was better than most PCs. It had more cores on the CPU. And was the first mass production unified shader GPU. The next consoles will have advantages too. It will take you $1,500 to do what the next consoles do when they release. It's always that way.
Next Gen not only will run Samaritan like graphics, but couple years into the next Gen consoles life span and games will blow this demo out of the water! The key is optimization. Do you know how outdated the ps3/360 gpu but yet we get games like uncharted 3 and gears 3!! Because PC games are not as optimized as console games they use brute force instead. PC games won't surpass next Gen consoles before they arrive. Sure the specs are here but the games are not. That was always the case through the years and no game/tech for the PC from the Xbox/ps2 era looks better than today's games on consoles.
I'm a borderline PC Elitist (still love my PS3 and 360 and even Wii though), but I totally agree. PC is the most terribly optimized thing for gaming. It is understandable though seeing as there are literally thousands of combinations of specs. It really is amazing to see what 360 and PS3 can do with the hardware that they are using. You couldn't dream of games looking like Gears 3 or Uncharted 3 on PC's using comparable graphics cards.
Arguable. It depends on what your definition of 'looking better' is. You see PC games are typically designed to be scalable whereas console games are designed to run for a set resolution. Battlefield 2 or F.E.A.R for example looked at least as good as anything i played that came later on 360's INITIAL wave of launch games, but it was also possible to run these 2560 x 1600 and 60 FPS on a top end PC, a resolution and speed faaaar beyond anything the current consoles have ever done. PC never lacks the speed for this even if you would say the game is 'unoptimised'. PC has always been more powerful, and the hardware is always around to beat the consoles even when they are brand new. Another example is something like COD2 or Quake 4 that were launch games for 360, PC already easily outstripped the settings, res and framerates that 360 managed before the machine even launched. Typically designers for PC games before a new console generation tend to be conservative so they build games to enable them to run at the highest resolutions with existing hardware. So more people can play the game from those with slower systems up to those with top end gear. You COULD build a PC game that looks better than anything on a console generation before it launches, but then that means no system would be able to run it 2560 x 1600, only high end ones 1080p/30FPS or whatever. It is less about the ability to do that, it more about the philosophy of the designer. Consoles do tend to move the goalposts for game quality, but then the thing that moves the technology goalposts forward to ALLOW consoles to move the game visuals forward is PC. This is why the industry needs both to survive.
Nearly every good PC Game looks overall sharper and better than Uncharted 3 or Gears 3. Due to resolution and advanced Settings a console game will never touch PC visuals.
Eve online in 2003 looked better than a lot of 360 and ps3 games now and now eve's even better looking.... edit:2003 launch trailer http://www.youtube.com/watc...
Haven't you heard? If the rumors are true, the Wii U is actually twice as powerful as the 720, NOT the 360. The 4870 is roughly 2x stronger than the 6670 rumored to be in the 720.
Wow.. Epic retard.
@DrJones... LMAO u just made my day....+bubble
He isn't lieing if you compare the rumored gpus of the xbox 720 with the wii u's gpu the wii u has a lower clockrate, but the fill rates and everything else is about 2x as powerful as the 720's rumored gpu
Do your research people before you start going around calling people retards. 4870 Memory Bandwidth: 115.2 GB/sec FLOPS: 1200 GFLOPS Pixel Fill Rate: 12000 MPixels/sec Texture Fill Rate: 30000 MTexels/sec 6670 Memory Bandwidth: 64 GB/sec FLOPS: 768 GFLOPS Pixel Fill Rate: 6400 MPixels/sec Texture Fill Rate: 19200 MTexels/sec I know what I'm talking about. You people just refuse to get out there and educate yourselves.
There's no way the Wii U is using a Radeon 4870 running at desktop clock speeds because the TDP will be far too high even on 40nm for the Wii U's tiny case. Even the Mobility Radeon 4870 would likely have too high of a TDP. Anyway, Nintendo is more likely to use something based on the Radeon 4670 because the die size is considerably smaller, and the thermal envelope would fit more with the form factor of the Wii U.
First of all Shok, Why the feck would you be parading around using rumored specs for both machines and tossing about your opinion like it's the gospel truth? Neither of the consoles you mentioned have specs that have been confirmed, so your "careful research" is STILL just rampant speculation at this point. If you jump the gun, you need to take the consequences like a man. Stop using rumors to back up your arguments.
@Clizz Dude, I said "if the rumors are true." I totally acknowledge that what I was about to say was based purely off of speculation. I was not making it out to be 100% confirmed information. I was saying, BASED off the rumors. Apparently you got upset over what I said or something lol. Why didn't you get on the first poster? What he said was purely based off rumors as well. Why target me? I smell some bias here lol.
Good job with the amazing defense Shok. + bubble
Before someone twists this into "consoles are holding us back, ZOMG!", consider some things: 1) This demo took 3 gtx580s. How many PC gamers have this? 2 rich guys, maybe? The average PC gamer doesn't have anything close to ONE gtx580, nor will they for a VERY long time. "high-end PCs can do this type of visuals already" - If by high end you mean super computer, sure. You're obviously not considering the taxing fine details in the Samaritan demo. 2) Look at what is becoming more popular....Laptops, tablets, etc.....the standard of PCs are almost going down to accommodate portability. Consoles make a better standard than the average laptop/tablet that is coming out. If not for 200+ million consoles, the lowest common denominator would be WAY lower and the market would become even more filled with games to accommodate low power machines. 3) The comparison is rather silly. A demonstration that takes a veritable supercomputer takes an exponential power of a consoles to run? Shocker. Plus, it doesn't exactly work that way. You need different unified hardware that works differently....it's not like you'd SLi 10 systems together. It's really not a good comparison. 4) This won't even exactly happen when it's reasonable for PC gamers to have setups with the power of 3 gtx580s. Remember when in the demonstration, they controlled the character live and made him throw rubber chickens at the bad guys? No? That's because there weren't any gameplay mechanics at all. Gameplay mechanics require taxing calculations all of their own. With fast turns and such, processing would have to be even MORE powerful to do exactly what the demo did.
My sentiments exactly
The PC fanboy crowd hates to acknowledge that only 1% of them have the god-hardware they like to think all PCs have.
And you guys fail to acknowledge the reality of PC hardware. Sure this game might have currently taken 3 GTX 580's which is quite expensive, but is the game out now? By the time this game comes out, you won't even need 3 GTX 580's, what would be the point? There's going to be even better hardware out there, which in turn make previous generation cards cheaper. Didn't they also say that they can still optimize it to run on less than 3 GTX 580's? The HD 7970 is out now and it has been shown to be much faster than the GTX 580. So instead of shelling out for 3 GTX 580's, you only need to shell out for two HD 7970's, which also means less PSU requirements and save money (fun fact, the HD 7970 uses less power than GTX 580, go figure). No, people won't have that godlike setup, but the point is that there always be new videocards coming out that will wipe the floor with the other and eventually we'll need only 1 high end card to run Samaritan at high or max settings. The fact is, PC hardware in general is getting cheap and you're argument on how we need godlike setups will be thrown in the trash. Edit: For SN's point on #2, desktop PC's believe it or not are actually getting popular nowadays since anyone who can do proper research can build a PC by themselves (and the hardware is cheaper). Consoles will, and always have been more popular in standard gaming, but it doesn't mean PC's are decreasing in popularity either. Last semester in Uni, I've met a lot of people who built their own computer who I would never of thought would.
I heard the "rumors" were that the next Xbox was 20 percent more powerful than the wii u. Can't really draw conclusions based on rumors.
Besides when a developer works on one graphics card they use alot out of it,because consoles are limited and they will try to take advantage of all it has.Most graphic cards are under used and aren't put to there true power because the developers can develop on other graphics cards,but the ones on console,they only have one to develop on.The next xbox is said to have Radeon HD 6670,which if developed enough on,will be very good graphics.
Well you're not off topic at all..
Extremely high end. Triple-SLI GTX 580's were required to produce Samaritan. Would probably cost around $2000 - $3000 for a PC on that level, depending on the non-GPU parts. GPU cost is $1500 alone.
High end PCs cannot do this kind of graphics. You need atleast 3 types of GTX580 to render Samaritan. Until only 1 card can pull this off, there is nothing we should be excited about.
How this article got approved is beyond me. It's a post from neogaf. A forum post. I might as well get some of my forum posts on n4g.
the rumors actually say a little more than 5 times as powerful ( according to IGN)
I really hope that the true next gen consoles will at least be able to display samaritan like graphics. I know it ran on three GTX 580 and I doubt that next gen will have such power. But still I think because of optimization there's a slight chance of seeing graphics like this.
It could be possible, if people wouldn't mind it running in 720p or at a lower framerate (I know I wouldn't).
x3 GTX 580s would be far to expensive at this moment in time and probably still in years time
People really need to stop saying this because they have no clue. 3 GTX580s doesn't mean that the performance is 300% of one GTX580, more like 200-250%. There is some big difference here. Also, it was running at a resolution of 2560x1440 with cranked up SUPERSAMPLING, plus it was unoptimized. Man, who am I talking to? No one understands this... :/
yeah einstein, it's pretty hard to understand... maybe we can just agree that it's very doubtable that next gen consoles will have graphic cards comparable even to just one gtx 580 still I think such optics are possible next gen, just not in this resolution.
Wha...what he say???