EA: What would PlayStation 4 even do?

fyckfaco on 30 Aug '11 said:

In a way he's right.... other than the fact that nearly no ps3 games and blurays achieve full 1080p, even simple arade games are mostly 720 upscaled.
And the other point that devs spend most of their time, money and brain power on squeezing the ps3 rather than putting the expenses into the game content and ideas becuase the consoles have terribly small abouts of ram.

I guess one thing this gen has done, it has meant that devs have put serious amount of time into making our editors/engines and work pipelines much more accessible... if you have the money to go that route.

New consoles please.

slick loose on 30 Aug '11 said:

I'm happy with my PS3

moogiesboy on 30 Aug '11 said:

That article irritated me beyond belief.
Current gen graphics are stale. He uses BF3 as an example of console graphics moving forward but its a pale showing compared to the pc version. And where did this guy get the idea consoles output 1080p??? On 360, game are UPSCALED to 1080p and most modern games are sub 720p native nowadays - on PS3 they don't ever bother to upscale to 1080p on 99/100 games.
Another reason to update hardware, if you're Sony, is 3d. They're pushing it down our throats but on ps3 the tech just aint there to do it any justice.
I think this guy stands alone. Ubi want new consoles, so do epic and id and others.
I was thinking about Assassins creed the other day, and why we're getting Ezio ACII clones now every year, I think its clear there hanging on for next gen b4 we see ACIII.

ninja-key on 30 Aug '11 said:

who knows playstation 4 could cure cancer

deepbluerd on 30 Aug '11 said:

Surely the next gen must come with like 1TB hard drives or some cloud based system where you can download stream games. They would also need to keep physical media present. I just hope all the games are not in 3D or motion controller based either.

Flamey UK on 30 Aug '11 said:

60 frames per second at 1080p on all games would be nice.

coruscant on 30 Aug '11 said:

I 100% agree with this, I don't think now's the time for new consoles. I'm not willing to spend lots of money on consoles that are really not going to be a massive leap in graphics or any different control schemes or anything. I think that the next generation will be the last generation really, since I think we must soon come to a point when it's not actually possible to make better graphics. The only thing that makes the argument at all for me for the next gen is to make all games at 60fps at 1080p as some have said.

me4pd on 30 Aug '11 said:

I think he's saying that new machines would only make games look nicer. And that the leap isn't going to be earth shattering as has been the case before. All the gimmicks with internet, motion control etc are now in place. All that's left to do is beef up the machines. I know for a fact that those of you who clamour for bigger, faster machines will be the most disappointed when they come because all you're going to see are games that are exactly the same just nicer looking. And if all you really wanted were snazzier graphics every once in a while you'd have a PC.

Having said that, I suspect that what you really want is a kind of blurring between the capabilities of PC and HC. You want the improvement in hardware that comes with time (and who wouldn't?) but you don't really want to have to pay through the nose for a new machine. Now, I know nothing about PC gaming and the need to buy graffx c4rds every other 'timeperiod' but I do know that that is also part of the reason we play HCs-we don't want to have to upgrade the machine ourselves. But when each 5-7 year time frame generates a smaller and smaller improvement the logical steps are either to just get out and find a new hobby OR to accept that more and more time must elapse between each generation.

Cinema goers and people who read a lot of books have been consuming exaclty the same type of thing for decades or even centuries for books but videogames have evolved blindingly fast in comparison. Cinema evolved from still images to moving ones before the addition of sound all within 2-3 decades but many many decades later 3D came along. Books have been the same for thousands of years with (I suppose) only the Kindle now revolutionising the art of reading-Ia hobby once conducted at home or in a library is not limited by anything at all now. I suspect that although there are advances to be made that will fundamentally change videogames (like mind control and all that jazz) they are few and far between and more time will be required to get them off the ground.

So, to sum up: videogames of the next 5-10 years are going to look, feel and play pretty much the same way and with graffx alone being insufficient reason to buy a new machine at the 5 year juncture we are going to have to get used to 10, 15 or 20 year gaps. Tha is if the HC even survives in its current state which is probably unlikely in itself. But that is the subject for another lecture.

MattyR95 on 30 Aug '11 said:

The sooner it comes out, the sooner it becomes cheaper.

slick loose on 30 Aug '11 said:

I think he's saying that new machines would only make games look nicer. And that the leap isn't going to be earth shattering as has been the case before. All the gimmicks with internet, motion control etc are now in place. All that's left to do is beef up the machines. I know for a fact that those of you who clamour for bigger, faster machines will be the most disappointed when they come because all you're going to see are games that are exactly the same just nicer looking. And if all you really wanted were snazzier graphics every once in a while you'd have a PC.

Having said that, I suspect that what you really want is a kind of blurring between the capabilities of PC and HC. You want the improvement in hardware that comes with time (and who wouldn't?) but you don't really want to have to pay through the nose for a new machine. Now, I know nothing about PC gaming and the need to buy graffx c4rds every other 'timeperiod' but I do know that that is also part of the reason we play HCs-we don't want to have to upgrade the machine ourselves. But when each 5-7 year time frame generates a smaller and smaller improvement the logical steps are either to just get out and find a new hobby OR to accept that more and more time must elapse between each generation.

Cinema goers and people who read a lot of books have been consuming exaclty the same type of thing for decades or even centuries for books but videogames have evolved blindingly fast in comparison. Cinema evolved from still images to moving ones before the addition of sound all within 2-3 decades but many many decades later 3D came along. Books have been the same for thousands of years with (I suppose) only the Kindle now revolutionising the art of reading-Ia hobby once conducted at home or in a library is not limited by anything at all now. I suspect that although there are advances to be made that will fundamentally change videogames (like mind control and all that jazz) they are few and far between and more time will be required to get them off the ground.

So, to sum up: videogames of the next 5-10 years are going to look, feel and play pretty much the same way and with graffx alone being insufficient reason to buy a new machine at the 5 year juncture we are going to have to get used to 10, 15 or 20 year gaps. Tha is if the HC even survives in its current state which is probably unlikely in itself. But that is the subject for another lecture.

That's exactly what I meant! You just made it sound more clever

I liked your comment, you are now in my good books...no, it means nothing

coruscant on 30 Aug '11 said:

Yeah same here, me4pd put it better than I could.

TheCrimsonFenix on 30 Aug '11 said:

Nope, we simply do not need new consoles. Said this repeatedly in every pointless article about new consoles. Leave it longer until you even consider bringing out a PS4. BF3 may look better on PC but it certainly isn't to the point everyone is weeping for the console versions looking so poor. It just looks sharper in a few areas and a few better textures. Nothing that's going to stop a person having a riot on the game. Do you see people who enjoy console games bitching about these "bland" graphics, when we're seeing graphically beautiful games such as Uncharted? No, you don't. Do you see people complaining about Deus Ex's art style even though it's not got the greatest textures on any platform? No, you don't. Do you see people demanding new hardware and consoles not because of what the possibility of new tech could do for storytelling and new and original gameplay mechanics, but all because the graphics aren't looking "all that"? Yes, you do. That there is the problem.

When a developer is bringing something as beautiful in artstyle, audio, story and gameplay like Deus Ex, and something as fun yet simple and gorgeous to look at like the Uncharted series or Gears of War, it's safe to say in my opinion that any mention of new consoles is simply unneeded. As disappointing as this generation has been (with the exception of me being extremely happy about DEHR), I've no interest in even considering getting involved with new consoles., especially when the only thing they'll bring to the table is slightly better looking games that are the same old corridor and online shooters. Sorry but the difference in quality between PC and console right now.. is simply not big enough to impress me. Nothing some PC developer or elitist obsessed with poly counts and pointless tesselation and underwhelming directx11 upgrades, will change my mind. I have yet to see anything from any unoriginal tech demo for the "future" that impresses me. Same old s**t each generation. Promises and hopes, underwhelming results.

I'll stick with my consoles and current PC thank you very much.

Bond James Bond on 30 Aug '11 said:

All these gamers bitching about next gen consoles should buy a PC. I've been playing all my games above 1080p resolutions, 60fps, 16xAA, 16xAF, etc, and that has been since 2005.

The next gen is here, it's called a PC! Get one, then you'll all shut the f**k up...

Weezer on 30 Aug '11 said:

I would hope the next generation of machines would have power to spare, so instead of having to comb through code making tiny optimisations everywhere, game developers could just get on with making games (that runs happily at 1080p and 60fps). Things like a PhysX chip to handle physics; a DSP dedicated to AI and higher functions; a top of the range GPU; a s**tload of RAM so programmers don't have to page stuff or use clever streaming tricks... Talk to the developers and find out what they want - give them the power they need (within reason) and hopefully that can spend less effort coding bespoke engines and more time making games in a shorter time frame.

For me, if you just took most of the AAA games and made them 1080p/60 (with enough room that they didn't have to skimp on textures), I'd be pretty happy.

EDIT: And no I don't want a f**king great expensive PC cluttering up my lounge, thanks.

Bond James Bond on 30 Aug '11 said:

I would hope the next generation of machines would have power to spare, so instead of having to comb through code making tiny optimisations everywhere, game developers could just get on with making games (that runs happily at 1080p and 60fps). Things like a PhysX chip to handle physics; a DSP dedicated to AI and higher functions; a top of the range GPU; a s**tload of RAM so programmers don't have to page stuff or use clever streaming tricks... Talk to the developers and find out what they want - give them the power they need (within reason) and hopefully that can spend less effort coding bespoke engines and more time making games in a shorter time frame.

- Making games (that runs happily at 1080p and 60fps)
- PhysX chip to handle physics
- Dedicated DSP's
- top of the range GPU
- s**tload of RAM

You just described my PC there...

gearyboy on 30 Aug '11 said:

How about a console that doesn't keep crashing when I'm using PlayTV or the internet browser?

I had no problems at all with my original 'fat' 60gb PS3 (that is until the YLOD). The slim seems a far inferior version of the same product. Have loads of little hassles with it (just enough to niggle) but apparently nothing wrong with it?

Anyone else with these issues?

VectorF22 on 30 Aug '11 said:

I don't think this guy really knows what he's talking about to be honest...

Ever heard of Moore's law? Computer power doubles every 2 years which means that after 6 years now, we could have consoles at least 8 times (1x2x2x2) more powerful than the 360 and ps3!

The graphics and overall power on today's consoles ARE looking very dated now and people are noticing more and more. That being both dev's and the consumer's.

The day's of huge leaps have gone? I don't think so... The biggest reason people get so shocked and amazed by new technology is because they think that we're already at the pinnacle of our technical prowess. That's just ridiculous!

Idgaf on 30 Aug '11 said:

You know, the argument I always see from people is about about the eye candy and that is the problem. New hardware is needed, but its not for the sake of graphics. What is needed is more cpu power and ram, forget the graphics and focus on what would make for better games. He talks up BF3 as some showcase of what they are able to achieve but doesn't mention the fact that it had to be scaled back in order to get it to work on a console. Some of the developers have said this about next-gen, some go on about graphics. A game doesn't have to have the best graphics in the world to be a great game.

Imagine (insert your favorite game here) would be like with better AI, greater interaction with the environment, smoother frame rates, greater physics and all the things that could suck you even more into the world the game is trying to portray.

PC gamers always say "haha get a PC and you will have those great graphics". The problem being is that PC games may have the better graphics, some times, but aren't getting a better game. PC gaming has been held back by the console market for a decade. If they make a game that took complete advantage of the power that it has, and then tried to release a neutered version to the console market, the console players would bitch and moan like crazy.

Bring on a new console, load that sucker up with tons of ram and a top end cpu. Top it off with a great video card and a sizable hard drive and let the developers go to town on it. Then developers can't bitch and moan themselves for releasing the same game over and over again without any real advancement in gameplay because of the hardware specs. A console like that would last a long time and go a long way to holding off the eventual transition to services like Onlive for a few more years.

humanhand on 30 Aug '11 said:

Lazy.

martinawatson on 30 Aug '11 said:

All these gamers bitching about next gen consoles should buy a PC. I've been playing all my games above 1080p resolutions, 60fps, 16xAA, 16xAF, etc, and that has been since 2005.

The next gen is here, it's called a PC! Get one, then you'll all shut the f**k up...

I've been playing all my games above 2160p resolutions, 120fps, 32xAA, 32xAF, etc, and that has been since 2004.

allright dickwad

me4pd on 30 Aug '11 said:

Bring on a new console, load that sucker up with tons of ram and a top end cpu. Top it off with a great video card and a sizable hard drive and let the developers go to town on it. Then developers can't bitch and moan themselves for releasing the same game over and over again without any real advancement in gameplay because of the hardware specs. A console like that would last a long time and go a long way to holding off the eventual transition to services like Onlive for a few more years.

But that's exactly the point. That's all you're going to get. A football bouncing a bit more nicely or facial expressions just a little bit less stupid. Fair enough much much larger games can be produced with better hardware and stuff like improved AI make for better experiences but the problem with that argument is that (a) they can still be realised the better skilled a developer is and (b) I do NOT want to pay for a new machine so soon if that's all i'm going to get. I want more bang for my buck. It is my duty as a consumer to want more to force the market to offer me more. Raise your expectations!

steagz on 30 Aug '11 said:

@ coruscant

im glad somebody said it.

it cracks me up when you get all these people comeing into the comments section of these sort of articles thinking they know more than what the experts do.

Idgaf on 30 Aug '11 said:

But that's exactly the point. That's all you're going to get. A football bouncing a bit more nicely or facial expressions just a little bit less stupid. Fair enough much much larger games can be produced with better hardware and stuff like improved AI make for better experiences but the problem with that argument is that (a) they can still be realised the better skilled a developer is and (b) I do NOT want to pay for a new machine so soon if that's all i'm going to get. I want more bang for my buck. It is my duty as a consumer to want more to force the market to offer me more. Raise your expectations!

Your kidding me right, your using a sports game as your example? A genre that really wouldn't see any jump in gameplay no matter what the hardware is? As to your "a", no it can't without sacrificing in other areas. Developers are saying that they can't get anymore out of it in those areas because of the limitations that are there. But according to you, they just aren't skilled enough to accomplish it. And your "b" comment, sums up your argument, you don't want to pay. Just because you can't see what the improvements would be, doesn't mean that there wouldn't be a lot. Better AI means the CPU team comes at you in different ways than just scripted reactions.

The improvements are not going to overly effect multiplayer at the start, but the single player game could be so more immersive than what is even capable today. I enjoy multiplayer just as much as the next gamer, but a really good single player game that you can get lost in is where it would be. Today's games just don't do that.

Metatasian on 30 Aug '11 said:

All these gamers bitching about next gen consoles should buy a PC. I've been playing all my games above 1080p resolutions, 60fps, 16xAA, 16xAF, etc, and that has been since 2005.

The next gen is here, it's called a PC! Get one, then you'll all shut the f**k up...

I've been playing all my games above 2160p resolutions, 120fps, 32xAA, 32xAF, etc, and that has been since 2004.

allright dickwad

Erm... he's right! The next gen has been here for years, its called the PC, mad cos u ain't got one?

KK-Headcharge78 on 30 Aug '11 said:

Not needed right now for me, another 2-3 then maybe it will be about time, in the meantime as the man says buy a PC!!

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Two different things which happen to appear in the same pod, besides don't you need like a PhD for one of them

mw13 on 30 Aug '11 said:

i think the next console needs to be able dispense beer in someway, also, if there was a way of going to the toilet without having to get off the couch this would be helpful, but most important if they can find away for my girlfriend to leave me alone while i play this should be included in the design.

groble on 30 Aug '11 said:

Come on CVG it's Ounce not Once

TOKEN on 30 Aug '11 said:

All these gamers bitching about next gen consoles should buy a PC. I've been playing all my games above 1080p resolutions, 60fps, 16xAA, 16xAF, etc, and that has been since 2005.

The next gen is here, it's called a PC! Get one, then you'll all shut the f**k up...

Im in the process of building with an phenom 2 x4 980 3.4ghz,4-6 gb ram,as for this console gen is dragging and although ps3 is great it didernt have a great start and it as lacked in software also with 360 getting old ms is always snapping at the heals of ninty and sony and sony cannot afford to lag behind next gen.
improvements could be better online connection 100-200GB bluray discs,faster cpu,loads of ram and a wooping great big gpu.

lordirongut on 30 Aug '11 said:

Well, I know I'm quite satisfied with PS3 and 360 graphics and I don't particularly want to shell out hundreds of pounds for new machines yet, so...

Cogglesz on 30 Aug '11 said:

I feel the new generation is needed, alot of games are just packed with jaggies and lag spikes and below 1080p 99% of the time, the ps4 isn't just going to bring more power, its going to bring new features just like the ps3 did, i mean look what they did with their portable playstation, its got tons of features and it looks as good as a ps3 or atleast good enough to look like one on a handheld screen, if they can innovate new technology for their handheld then imagine what they are doing with the ps4 right now, i also agree with the pc comments, hell my one was cheaper to build than what i paid for my ps3 and everygame has atleast £10 off on release, along with mod support on alot of games and free online gaming and the moment new games start to run bad all i need to do is invest £74 on another one of my graphics cards (XFX 1gb 5770) run it on crossfire and i'll be back to 60fps on everything, my xbox 360 was more expensive to buy, maintain and build a library of games for it than my pc is, you can even catch dlc cheaper on steam along with games and it looks way better than the old 360 and ps3 and i've saved about £250 on just games alone, nevermind dlc and xbox live etc, more and more of my freinds are going to pc gaming for the first time in their life, they all had either 360's and ps3's so that must be a sign for change, i was afraid of big pc prices and building it, but with a little help online and from a mate who's also into pc gaming it was a piece of cake and it was fun building the damn thing, you just got to do a little research about it, but i'm sure once the ps4 comes along or a new xbox i'll jump right back to the consoles, for now though i'm just playing MK9 on ps3 until the pc version comes out!

martinawatson on 30 Aug '11 said:

Erm... he's right! The next gen has been here for years, its called the PC, mad cos u ain't got one?

Just to let you know bud, (and im being serious this time) my PC actually is as powerful as getting punched in the face by Mike Tyson in his heyday.
Its a i7 quad core matched with a s**t hot chunk of Nvidea goodness, but i don't really play games on it , apart from Sanctum (which is excellent and you'll find on steam) .
I purchased my PC for Video editing, music writing and graphics work, and i think that spending the sort of money on it for that purpose warrants it, however i am less convinced that buying a pc for games for the same sort of wedge is a sensible move, not that you wouldn't get superior graphics in many cases , it just doesn't seem sensible (or mature in a way).
I know exactly what i want in my next console and what i want it to do, and to have it at a price point that consumers will buy means it is at least two years away at the earliest.
As console (and increasingly mobile platform) development actually leads games development now, your not going to see any huge advances/steps in the PC world of gaming either in regards to ray-tracing etc.
The next bunch of next gen consoles will be fairly exotic inside and at that point will probably make gaming Desktop PC fairly redundant, so enjoy it while you can as im afraid to say that within 5 years , its dodo time.

Ellscore on 30 Aug '11 said:

Great ideas make great games not ram and polygons. Dont really want to see a new console until the developers know what to do with it. The first two years of a console's life cycle is full of games that just dont measure up. Just look at the first ass creed compared to brotherhood. Actually...hmm.. motorstorm was wicked and a day one release. Bring out the PS4 now ffs.

Jensonjet on 30 Aug '11 said:

EA: What would PlayStation 4 even do?

This question coming from the company who believes gamers are happy with the online pass doesn't surprise me!

The question of an update could be used for ANY product. Does any household product ever need updating? Does anything ever need updating?

The question is so dumb, so naive, it borders on ridiculous!!!

And coming from within the game industry makes it utterly unbelievable. How does anyone who so seriously lacks intelligence and common sense end up speaking for a business like EA? Maybe next week he'll ask why anyone bothers to eat!!!

Actually, I have a question... why was this guy even born?

Beetle Bum on 30 Aug '11 said:

As much as I hate to say it but I think Onlive given a few years will be huge and will take a large percentage of all the consoles. The components and specifacations of the next gen consoles will be pointless and to expensive to sell at a low competitive price, when you can have Onlive and still have the best graphics and the little onlive box for free when bought in a package deal.

budge on 30 Aug '11 said:

We've been spoilt this generation and because nothing surprises anymore we pine for a change.

I'm perfectly happy at the moment and looking forward to the fabulous November.

Sleepaphobic on 30 Aug '11 said:

How abt some AA and textures that don't make you want to vomit? Oh and hardly any of the games being released are rendered in 1080p.

ianson on 30 Aug '11 said:

Cinema goers and people who read a lot of books have been consuming exaclty the same type of thing for decades or even centuries for books but videogames have evolved blindingly fast in comparison. Cinema evolved from still images to moving ones before the addition of sound all within 2-3 decades but many many decades later 3D came along. Books have been the same for thousands of years with (I suppose) only the Kindle now revolutionising the art of reading-Ia hobby once conducted at home or in a library is not limited by anything at all now.

Here is the thing when we talk about the evolution of film or literature we talk about content, when we talk about games we talk about tech... this is why games are stale. Not graphics or power... the experiences need to evolve. I would like to see consoles with dedicated AI and Physics cards along with Sound, Graphics and CPU. Built from the ground up with their job in mind. Maybe with software built into the sdk to cheapen dev cycles and allow smaller companies entry. Not more powerful than now just more dedicated and more open.

vampyren on 30 Aug '11 said:

I would hope the next generation of machines would have power to spare, so instead of having to comb through code making tiny optimisations everywhere, game developers could just get on with making games (that runs happily at 1080p and 60fps). Things like a PhysX chip to handle physics; a DSP dedicated to AI and higher functions; a top of the range GPU; a s**tload of RAM so programmers don't have to page stuff or use clever streaming tricks... Talk to the developers and find out what they want - give them the power they need (within reason) and hopefully that can spend less effort coding bespoke engines and more time making games in a shorter time frame.

- Making games (that runs happily at 1080p and 60fps)
- PhysX chip to handle physics
- Dedicated DSP's
- top of the range GPU
- s**tload of RAM

You just described my PC there...

Your forgetting the
- Installation and patching that usually is more painless on consoles.
- Windows problems with driver updates and conflicts
- Viruses
- Big box
- small screen (depending on your budget)

Consoles are more for people who just want to sit on their couch and start the game without hassle.
I personally have both depending on my need but i can for sure understand why some people only want to stick to consoles.

vampyren on 30 Aug '11 said:

In a way he's right.... other than the fact that nearly no ps3 games and blurays achieve full 1080p, even simple arade games are mostly 720 upscaled.
And the other point that devs spend most of their time, money and brain power on squeezing the ps3 rather than putting the expenses into the game content and ideas becuase the consoles have terribly small abouts of ram.

I guess one thing this gen has done, it has meant that devs have put serious amount of time into making our editors/engines and work pipelines much more accessible... if you have the money to go that route.

New consoles please.

Sort of funny how most people know this except the Boss and maybe CVG for why else wouldnt they bring it up.

Any way i fully agree that the resolution (GPU + CPU perhaps) + RAM size is the only areas it could be improved.
But seriously even from 8bit consoles up to now not much has changed really! Sure people are or rather can be connected but many people like myself (and friends) just hook up their console for some quality gaming time alone or maybe with their kids. I dont need the console to grow a tail or horn to just for being different! For me it is enough it gets updated with better hardware to keep up with the graphic and offer developers more capability to do better games rather then optimizing all the time.
People today have to strange expectations i think. I rather have a PS4 with kick ass GPU+CPU+RAM then a Wii U with a lousy touchpad as controller any day. Just my opinion.

woodins on 30 Aug '11 said:

All these gamers bitching about next gen consoles should buy a PC. I've been playing all my games above 1080p resolutions, 60fps, 16xAA, 16xAF, etc, and that has been since 2005.

The next gen is here, it's called a PC! Get one, then you'll all shut the f**k up...

I've been playing all my games above 2160p resolutions, 120fps, 32xAA, 32xAF, etc, and that has been since 2004.

allright dickwad

Agree totally (without the dickwad bit, was that becessary eh?). EA man wants the resources they have invested in this gen (which is the most expensive to develop ever for a number of reasons ) to last a bit longer. Carmack has rattled on about how all the assets everyone has will be re-used on the next-gen as it has cost too much in time and money to develop games recently, so we are really deluding ourselves if we think a quantum leap in tech is gonna happen.

I have absolutely no probs this gen lasting two more years. Looking at Skyrim, Rage etc (360 owner but really looking forward to some PS3 exclusives in the pipe-line) I can happily live with the current gaming fidelity. I do think that the PC should be viewed as "space exploraion" and all the new grapical techniques should be road-tested there before being shifted to the next-gen consoles. PC gamers can afford it. Everyone wins.

fzeroman on 30 Aug '11 said:

You guys are forgetting that there is a platform that outputs at 1080+p at 250 Fps without the need for texture compression and makes little sound.

it's called real life assholes

martinawatson on 30 Aug '11 said:

You guys are forgetting that there is a platform that outputs at 1080+p at 250 Fps without the need for texture compression and makes little sound.

it's called real life assholes

What the f**k are you doing reading it if your not interested........dickwad (sorry woodins)

TheCrimsonFenix on 30 Aug '11 said:

You guys are forgetting that there is a platform that outputs at 1080+p at 250 Fps without the need for texture compression and makes little sound.

it's called real life assholes

Oh yes it comes with a wires free force feedback system called SmartArse which gives certain people the feel as though they're getting the s**t kicked out of them.

alan666 on 30 Aug '11 said:

maybe the PS4 will work without needing constant updates ?

discostoo on 30 Aug '11 said:

All the features mentioned in the comments would lead to a console priced around £500 and even then I think i'm on the low side. There was enough outcry over the £429 PS3 original pricing structure, imagine what would happen with a £599 price tag on the PS4?

lordirongut on 30 Aug '11 said:

You guys are forgetting that there is a platform that outputs at 1080+p at 250 Fps without the need for texture compression and makes little sound.

it's called real life assholes

The graphics are great but the gameplay is s**t.

nihilism on 31 Aug '11 said:

OMG LOL AT ALL OF YOU WANTING BETTER CONSOLE HARDWARE AND BITCH AND MOAN ABOUT THE PRICE TAG.

Asinine on 31 Aug '11 said:

OMG LOL AT ALL OF YOU WANTING BETTER CONSOLE HARDWARE AND BITCH AND MOAN ABOUT THE PRICE TAG.

^^^^^ This ^^^^^

While I am happy to pay the price of a new console, in real terms cheaper than they have been in previous generations, there are some who complain about the cost and some who don't mind paying the premium for a PC big rig or an Apple i'product'.

While I like my PC, I don't want to sit at a desk and play games, neither do I want to clutter up my living room TV unit with a PC, my console looks good and fits perfectly into my TV unit and is perfect for just casually picking it up to enjoy some great media or gaming titles that even my computer phobic wife is happy to pick up and turn on.

Moore's law is not going to exponentially improve facial animations each year, infact Nvidia actually stated that "Moore's Law CPU scaling “is now dead” claims NVIDIA", they are now working on heat and cost efficiency brought with the advances rather than speed, (we've been at around ~3GHz for a while now), a lot of the detail in graphics is down to programming, budgets and trying to get a profit out of spending time and effort into a title in the first place, and taking a look at Uncharted, LA Noire, Deus Ex, Daemon's Souls or whatever floats your boat just shows that consoles can output stuff that is quite stunning to look at on the largest of TV's.

I would be quite happy to see the new consoles come out tomorrow, but only if the consoles and games warranted it and brought something new to the table. Consoles can never be future proofed to everyone's liking, sticking a shed load of RAM and CPU power into it on release is just going to make it expensive and unprofitable, Microsoft and Sony have struggled with that, only recently becoming profitable on hardware sales. Nintendo really didn't make a hardware advance gamble on the Wii, the hardware was not revolutionary and was therefore cheap, looking at the Wii U it doesn't look like a hardware advance either that will be at the forefront of graphics for years to come.

I'm intrigued to see the next generation, I would welcome it warmly, I just don't want it to be released prematurely with less functionality, less advance in visuals et al and higher cost because of it.

Cinaclov on 31 Aug '11 said:

I'm really not very fussed. Truth is i'll buy a new console if it gets to the stage where there's 3 or 4 games out for it that I really want that I can't get on any other console. That's in addition to wether I can afford it. Case in point the 3DS, it's nice and can technically do loads more than a DS, but i'm not fussed until there's at least 3 or 4 must have games (a solid RPG amongst them ) but until then my original 'phat' DS plays just fine 'ta.

Andre Peaface on 31 Aug '11 said:

I struggle to understand why people think graphics can’t get better. Would suspension bridges buckling and hurling cars into all directions be amazing in Motorstorm be better. Would explosions in GTA causing thousands of people to run through the streets be better? It’s not just about more shiny, it’s about people acting like people and buildings acting like buildings – doing amazing things that stretch beyond the movies. AI, physics & realistic graphics all pulling together to create more believable spaces to game in – epic draw distances, thousands of people running around, building buckling as cars smash into them.

Zubee on 31 Aug '11 said:

I got the cash together for a ps3 THIS YEAR, haven't been able to game this generation before that. I'm not having anyone talking about ps4s already.

Zubee on 31 Aug '11 said:

I got the cash together for a ps3 THIS YEAR, haven't been able to game this generation before that. I'm not having anyone talking about ps4s already.

TheCrimsonFenix on 31 Aug '11 said:

I struggle to understand why people think graphics can’t get better. Would suspension bridges buckling and hurling cars into all directions be amazing in Motorstorm be better. Would explosions in GTA causing thousands of people to run through the streets be better? It’s not just about more shiny, it’s about people acting like people and buildings acting like buildings – doing amazing things that stretch beyond the movies. AI, physics & realistic graphics all pulling together to create more believable spaces to game in – epic draw distances, thousands of people running around, building buckling as cars smash into them.

Ah I remember when I would imagine like that

Too bad that sort of stuff is promised each time and we still end up with the same stuff we've been playing for the last ten years. Fancy effects and technical achievements do not a great game make. Maybe if devs had a more grounded sense of reality, people would actually be excited. Don't get me wrong, we do get some really great games but they're very few and far between. It happens with each generation. Devs and tech heads show videos of some amazing new techniques, make out as if that's what will be gracing our monitors and television sets in swarms soon, and deliver very few games that even feel worthwhile of all the hype. It won't change next generation or the one after.

Developers need to fully know how to make a worthwhile experience with what we have right now instead of getting every ones and their own exaggerated hopes up that new tech is going to somehow spruce things up and give us something "better".

TOKEN on 31 Aug '11 said:

The only reason EA and others say this sort of thing about next gen is that they've got investment in games for this gen and they'll lose money if people save for next gen.
im now waiting for next gen BF3 pc style.

Polarwiseman II on 31 Aug '11 said:

I've been trying to make Churros recently and to be honest, I suck at it. If the PS4 could make delicious treats for me that would surely be a bonus.

Darkwun on 31 Aug '11 said:

I struggle to understand why people think graphics can’t get better. Would suspension bridges buckling and hurling cars into all directions be amazing in Motorstorm be better. Would explosions in GTA causing thousands of people to run through the streets be better? It’s not just about more shiny, it’s about people acting like people and buildings acting like buildings – doing amazing things that stretch beyond the movies. AI, physics & realistic graphics all pulling together to create more believable spaces to game in – epic draw distances, thousands of people running around, building buckling as cars smash into them.

Ah I remember when I would imagine like that

Too bad that sort of stuff is promised each time and we still end up with the same stuff we've been playing for the last ten years. Fancy effects and technical achievements do not a great game make. Maybe if devs had a more grounded sense of reality, people would actually be excited. Don't get me wrong, we do get some really great games but they're very few and far between. It happens with each generation. Devs and tech heads show videos of some amazing new techniques, make out as if that's what will be gracing our monitors and television sets in swarms soon, and deliver very few games that even feel worthwhile of all the hype. It won't change next generation or the one after.

Developers need to fully know how to make a worthwhile experience with what we have right now instead of getting every ones and their own exaggerated hopes up that new tech is going to somehow spruce things up and give us something "better".

this. i'll buy a new console when im shown theres a real need to. not by the fancy tech demo's that fantasize what developers WANT to happen

vampyren on 31 Aug '11 said:

You guys are forgetting that there is a platform that outputs at 1080+p at 250 Fps without the need for texture compression and makes little sound.

it's called real life assholes

What the f**k are you doing reading it if your not interested........dickwad (sorry woodins)

LOL just what i was thinking some jerk ehum people have personality issues.

BoringName on 31 Aug '11 said:

When they make a machine powerful enough to render 1 million zombies on screen then I'm sold. The magic number people, 1 million zombies.

liveswired on 31 Aug '11 said:

1080p - typical marketing spiel.

I'm happy with the current gen, but it's pretty obvious most games on console these days are 576/600p/720p native. No ps3 game I know has hit the 1920x1080 125fps Krazy Ken used to shout about lol.

I won't be jumping from my ps3 anytime soon - so the next gen can wait.

horngreen on 1 Sep '11 said:

That article irritated me beyond belief.
Current gen graphics are stale. He uses BF3 as an example of console graphics moving forward but its a pale showing compared to the pc version. And where did this guy get the idea consoles output 1080p??? On 360, game are UPSCALED to 1080p and most modern games are sub 720p native nowadays - on PS3 they don't ever bother to upscale to 1080p on 99/100 games.
Another reason to update hardware, if you're Sony, is 3d. They're pushing it down our throats but on ps3 the tech just aint there to do it any justice.
I think this guy stands alone. Ubi want new consoles, so do epic and id and others.
I was thinking about Assassins creed the other day, and why we're getting Ezio ACII clones now every year, I think its clear there hanging on for next gen b4 we see ACIII.

3D is a fad so don't bother and after 30 minutes with a game anyone with an IQ higher than 80 is used to the "improved" graphics.

CJG on 2 Sep '11 said:

To me this just sounds like EA wants to be lazy. Making games for new systems means EA would have to spend some money. They want to stay with current consoles because it's a safe bet. They can keep pumping out BF 15 and Madden 89 without having to spend anything. Don't they see it? People are talking about PC again because the consoles are so freaking outdated. PS3 can't even do cross game chat and has less than 512mb of RAM. Don't get me started on the 360's dirt old DVD. If EA wants to stick with the 360 and PS3... oh well, f**k em. I'll just have to make do without EA when the 720 and PS4 come out. That wont be too hard

lazy
lazy

Displace on 2 Sep '11 said:

Whatever, everybody's entitled to their opinion, but EA is just saying this because it's better for their bottom line. Anyone saying that they are experts and they know better is a tool.

kenneth50 on 4 Sep '11 said:

What would the PS3 even do?

Well, for starters I‘m confident that it‘ll achieve something which the 360 has repeatedly failed at which is basic functionality...

Mandatory Grape on 4 Sep '11 said:

Well one thing we can pretty much say for sure is that the ps4 will have party chat...