270°

Epic Says UE3 Samaritan Demo Is How Next-Gen Games Will Look

Gaming Blend "You know that Samaritan demo everyone was talking about at this year’s GDC? Well, none of that was cinematic. It was all real-time. To hammer in that point Mark Rein confirmed in a recent interview that the real-time Samaritan demo is pretty much how next-gen console and PC games will look."

Read Full Story >>
cinemablend.com
lazertroy4823d ago

Doesn't look that impressive to me.

Surfaced4823d ago

If we can have real-time gameplay like that in the next-gen, I will be impressed and satisfied.

fluffydelusions4823d ago (Edited 4823d ago )

So I wonder how long a full length game of that quality will actually take to make not to mention how much will it cost consumers.

@below yeah I know they are scaled back due to hardware but the samaritan was bordering on CGI looking. Not to mention it was running on 3x580 cards which I seriously doubt next gen systems will have.

cyguration4823d ago

@fluffydelusions

All the resources were in-house so for Epic it shouldn't cost anymore than it would to make Gears of War...maybe less, depending on the voice talent, etc.

Remember, games can look waaaaaaay better than they do now but the tech is holding back a lot of stuff like real-time physics simulation, clothing, AA, etc. So most recent games are actually scaled back for the sake of the hardware. It's also known as LOD scaling.

arjman4823d ago

WHAT!?! It looks amazing, I don't know what your were looking at

JsonHenry4823d ago

I am sure it will. I remember way back at E3 (the year the xbox360 launched) tech video of Gears of War looked amazing and they delivered on that. Of course now we looked at that game and say "meh" but at the time the visuals were simply amazing. Especially given the fact it was a console that was pulling it off.

Inside_out4823d ago

.
Sorry, the next consoles won't be running 8-12 core deep with 3 $500 graphics card which is what Mark Rein said is behind the Samaritan Demo.

That demo was to show the POTENTIAL of Unreal 3-4 and to fight back against guys like Crytek who have been making giant strides in the middle-ware arena.

Epic and their Unreal middle-ware are big sellers and Epic was putting their best foot forward.

Interestingly, all the Nvidia love from them seems to have caused a small ripple of dissent in the M$ camp. M$ is with AMD/ATI and it did not go unnoticed. Maybe that is why Crytek and cry 3 seem to have the inside tract for the next Xbox...if you believe the rumors.

Kurylo3d4823d ago

Mark Rein also said the demo was unoptimized and can look the same and be scaled back to work on only 1 580gtx

cyguration4823d ago

If next gen is two years from now (2013) the 580gtx will be old news by then and a heck of a lot cheaper than it is now.

I'm not sure why gamers are never forward-looking.

BeastlyRig4822d ago

Becuz they think in 10 year cycles..

Ahasverus4823d ago (Edited 4823d ago )

I've read this title like a thousand times.

And by the way, I don't like it, it looks like a shinier version of Unreal Engine, and I think unreal engine has done more harm than good to this generation. It's too.. lifeless, inorganic.. kinda plastic.

8bit_Nes_Rambo4823d ago

Agreed, the Unreal engine is rather crap. Also from a subjective standpoint, I'm not digging the artstyle of the samaritan demo at all.

starchild4823d ago

Complete and utter nonsense. The Unreal 3 engine powers some of the best-looking games of this generation. Gears of War 3, for example, is easily among the top three best looking games on consoles.

The Samaritan demo blows away any current game a thousand times over. If you aren't impressed with that tech demo it's only because you are blind and know nothing at all about graphics. You might as well go back to playing on the Atari; you probably can't tell the difference anyway.

Minato-Namikaze4823d ago

Easily? Killzone 3, GOW 3, and uncharted3 3 all look better than gears. But i'd put gears in my top 10 on consoles

Ahasverus4823d ago (Edited 4823d ago )

I know the demo is impressive but after seeing how Battlefield 3 achieves photorealism in current PC's, you can't help but feel that the Samaritan demo is not mind blowing enough to be called /next gen/, and again it looks plastic, completely plastic

Foxgod4823d ago

Silly haters, i suppose none of you is playing or will be playing:
Mass effect
Mortal Kombat
Gears of war
Batman Arkham city
Aliens Colonial marines
Bioshock
Borderlands

Because they look plastic right?

Ahasverus4823d ago

Of course I play them, because it's GAMEPLAY what matters and it seems that some people just can't realise it. Mortal Kombat loks like crap, Mass effect looks impressive but organic elements are, yep you guessed it, like plastic dolls, gears is a brown fest (impressive froma technical perspective but unnapealing from an artistic standpoint) Arkham Asylum is magnificent froma gameplay perspective but the human models are very very uncanny, Alens colonial marines looks generic, Bioshock is wonderful but thanks to artistic design, Borderlands is great because it doesn't want to be realistic. I'm not saying that gams powered by Unreal are BAD, some are the best of the generation, but the engine itself is laughable, go play castlevania, God of War, Crysis, even Final Fantasy XIII, Uncharted and Red Dead Redemption and see the difference

sikbeta4823d ago (Edited 4823d ago )

Dude, it's middleware, of course it's used by many devs for many games, that's the purpose of the engine and that's why Epic wants a new gen asap, to license the hell out of it (and don't lose ground against Crytek), like they do all the time, if they wanted, they could start making games for PC with higher graphics instead of waiting for Consoles manufacturers to jump into a new gen.

xtreampro_REVENGE!4822d ago (Edited 4822d ago )

You are flippin deluded, stop using that stupid 2008 UE3 is too shiny argument and open your eyes for once in your life, if ND made that demo you would be praising it like a mad man. Seriously if I saw you in real life I would pound your face into the ground without any hesitation.

I myself used to think it's too shiny but the Samaritan demo has proved me wrong and I accept it. Can't you just stop being a flippin fanboy?

Is it really that hard?

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 4822d ago
maniac764823d ago

except in 30fps,1080p with jaggies around stuff lol

Foxgod4823d ago

1080p with jaggies?
On a 20 feet screen maybe....

limewax4823d ago

Running 1080p wont do you any good without the right quantity of anti-aliasing

Pandamobile4822d ago

Depends on the game, but I've got no problem running games at 1080p with no anti-aliasing.

I barely notice aliasing in Crysis, yet my eyes bleed if I play TF2 without AA.

Show all comments (57)
70°

Fortnite maker's appeal in Epic vs Apple case smacked down by Supreme Court ruling

The Supreme Court seems to have given it's final verdict on Epic and Apple's legal battle in the US.

Read Full Story >>
videogamer.com
220°

Epic win: Jury decides Google has illegal monopoly in app store fight

Three years after Fortnite-maker Epic Games sued Apple and Google for allegedly running illegal app store monopolies, Epic has a win. The jury in Epic v. Google has just delivered its verdict — and it found that Google turned its Google Play app store and Google Play Billing service into an illegal monopoly.

Read Full Story >>
theverge.com
gold_drake289d ago (Edited 289d ago )

oooo shiiiit
well, there ya go

but i think the biggest issue are the judges in these cases.
most of them have no clue about all them things.

ii wonder what the judge will decide Epic actually "won" or what the out come is.

Petebloodyonion289d ago

Why are you saying the judge have no cases?
I think the judges shows lots of clairity that in a duality market (APPLE and Android) there's no competition when both are already agreeing on the price.
Do you think there would be deals if Wallmart was the only store where you could buy food?
How would the argument of "but there's competition between Cookies and cereal brands" would hold up when Wallmart could decide that each provider must pay a 30% comission just to display product in store?

There's already tons od laws to make sure that there's not only 1 physical store brand and that store owners can't be in cahoot with competition in order to fix price so why would this be different for Virtual storefront?

gold_drake289d ago

i didnt say that.
read properly next time.

and the digital market is more complex than supernarkets.

Einhander1972289d ago (Edited 289d ago )

"Do you think there would be deals if Wallmart was the only store where you could buy food?"

This isn't even the same types of argument, you have a variety of different devices you can get content on, like Apple pr Google or PC or consoles, all these things plus more compete with each other.

The only winner in this decision are Epic, Microsoft and other people who are already rich. All these greedy companies are using the law to steal profits from each other and it's going to be the consumers who pay more.

All these devices we use are heavily subsidized by the profits these platform holders make from selling peoples products. If you think Epic is going to start charging less for their MTX now or whatever your crazy, consumers are not going to get anything back from the winners here. All consumers get is the privilege to pay more for devices.

Edit:

"Wallmart could decide that each provider must pay a 30% comission just to display product in store?"

Walmart does take a cut of every sale in their stores....thats how they make money. They also sell shelf space, the products that are are in the center instead of the top or the bottom pay to be there and to have higher visibility and easier access. They also sell access because obviously they don't have enough space for every brands products.

Using your Walmart analogy, how long do you think Walmart would stay in business if they just let anyone walk into their store and sell things without helping to pay for the upkeep of the stores and other costs? They wouldn't that's why things don't work like that.

That is what Epic wants, they want to use these devices with out paying to help maintain them.

Petebloodyonion289d ago (Edited 289d ago )

@Gold _Drake
Sorry bad writting from my part I meant to say Why do you think Judges have no clues?

@Einhander1972
Last I checked tons of small developpers and consummer association complained about the 30% tax cut that Sony Steam, Google, Apple are charging so why do you say only Epic benefit from that decisision is beyond me. Heck I recall this article making the headline recently
https://www.gamesindustry.b...

As for Walmart Upkeep, I would like to remind you that it's Wallmart and other store who need to cut in THEIR profit margin if they want to match price seen in other stores and not the other way around like in the digital market where Game publisher must sign price parity clause to please Google, Apple, Valve and Sony
https://www.linklaters.com/...
https://www.ign.com/article...

289d ago
Extermin8or3_288d ago (Edited 288d ago )

Thst isn the issue here. Thr issue ws the secret deals Google was doing to lower its cut for certain big apps publishers and only them and the fact that a requiremenf for said deals was nof helping epic games sefup its own mobile store.

Einhander1972288d ago (Edited 288d ago )

"Last I checked tons of small developpers and consummer association complained about the 30% tax cut that Sony Steam, Google, Apple are charging so why do you say only Epic benefit from that decisision is beyond me. Heck I recall this article making the headline recent"

Yes, yeah developers and other people who are selling things to you may benefit but the main benefit is these large companies who want to bypass fees.

But at the end of the day they are not going to start charging you less, they are going to charge the same but get more profits.

And the link you posted about the case against Sony is filed by Alex Neil a certified con artist who doesn't care about consumers they just want a huge personal payout.

And as for parity clauses again the money is going to come from the consumers one way or another, these people are fighting to take each others profits, if the parity clauses are blocked we'll pay more for hardware.

The idea that any of these changes are going to make things cheaper for the consumer are a joke, the only thing that changes is who gets the profits.

And as for Walmart, you missed what I was saying Walmart may lower the price on an item but they just charge the manufacturer of that item more to stock it on the shelves.

In some ways the digital stores are better because they don't charge an upfront fee to put an item on the store they instead charge a fee per sale. Which if they have to reduce the fee that charge for sales they would likely recoup that money by charging a fee to sell something on the ap store. Which also would benefit the rich companies over small developers who would be able to pay upfront fees that smaller developers may not.

Which is the reason Walmart only stocks the major brands and not a bunch of start up small brands, because the major brands can pay for shelf space.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 288d ago
1Victor289d ago

Don’t hold your breath yet there’s a long road ahead with the appeals process then the Supreme Court will have the last words and I don’t see this court going against the big corporations earnings.

I’m been known to be wrong some times and truly hope I am on this one

anast289d ago

The pot has been stirred.

Einhander1972289d ago

This is terrible news for consumers, while Epic and others get richer we'll now have to pay more for our devices.

ChasterMies288d ago

How? Android phones like Samsung Galaxy are not subsidized by purchases from Google Play Store. And Google can’t quit on Android because of how much money Google makes from Google search on Android.

Einhander1972288d ago (Edited 288d ago )

Google pays Samsung billions to have their store on Samsung phones.

Samsung also offers it's own store.

neutralgamer1992288d ago

Einhander1972

samsung has it's own store but how many know about that store? its like comparing MS store to other well known stores

GamerRN289d ago

So does this mean Apple also has a monopoly?

Plague-Doctor27289d ago

No. The cases argued were different.

Epic sued Apple for a monopoly over iOS. Apple said iOS competes with Android, MS, Nintendo, Sony, etc for Fortnite. Therefore there is market competition and no monopoly. The judges agreed.

Epic sued Google over a monopoly on android devices. Because Google was found to have shady deals preventing phone manufacturers from putting competing stores on phones as a default app, among other shady dealings, they found google has a monopoly on android marketplaces specifically.

Basically, Apple being a walled garden actually kind of protected them

ChasterMies288d ago

Android isn’t a walled garden tied to hardware like iOS. Android is like Windows or Linux for PCs. Any phone manufacturer can use Android and any seller can have their own store on Android. But Google used its muscle to tie up 90% marketshare for apps on Android. That’s monopolistic behavior.

Hofstaderman289d ago (Edited 289d ago )

Phil and slimey company sitting up and plotting.... expect to hear how Sony is anti-gamer for refusing to have GamePass on their ecosystems they may very well do this to avoid 2027 . I can imagine his email to Satya...."we got them" lol.

Show all comments (33)
80°

The Epic Game Store Has Two Freebies This Week

The Epic Game Store has two free titles they are giving away this week.

Read Full Story >>
terminalgamer.com
Minute Man 721299d ago

Got them both to play with my kids