Epic Games' technical head Tim Sweeney says next-generation games consoles need to be "huge and fundamentally new" before a hardware shift is justified.
"We have been able to ship three Gears of War games on the same generation of hardware, each one with dramatic improvements over the last and a two to three-year development cycle," he said.
"So it's been a very good thing for a game business today. With each new title, there is a bigger and bigger Xbox 360 installed base of users, so the games can sell more.
"On the other hand, it gets harder to generate the same excitement from the same hardware. That is when the new hardware is justified. But then you reset the installed base to zero and it's a lot harder to sell a lot of games again.
"So you should only replace the hardware when you can make a dramatic leap in quality, not just 2X or 3X. It has to be huge and fundamentally new."
Epic of course famously persuaded Microsoft to upgrade the Xbox 360 with more RAM, a decision that Sweeney claims costs the platform holder "$1 billion".
"They put in extra memory and that is one of the reasons we were able to make Gears of War look so compelling," he explained. "Without that extra memory, we would have far less space for details.
"That decision cost Microsoft about $1 billion, but you can say that it paid off big time. They would not have succeeded to the extent they have today if they had not done that."
Gamers will be hoping the Gears of War developer can dictate Microsoft's hardware plans again, after it showcased a stunning 'next-gen' Unreal Engine video early last year.
Comments
28 comments so far...
Padua on 30 Jan '12 said:
Wow - the 360 might have come out with only 256Mb of ram? That is just scarey
I wonder what Halo 3 would have looked like in 256Mb - surely Bungie were jumping up and down too?
Mobius01 on 30 Jan '12 said:
Halo 3 runs at 640p anyway so 256MB of VRAM would've been terrible. The 512MB it has now is barely enough for proper HD gaming.
Barca Azul on 30 Jan '12 said:
I agree, but 3 x gears or Uncharted, can't see anyone complaining! I expect that the next iterations of both to be on new hardware though!
flyfletch on 30 Jan '12 said:
Epic are right about this, and thats why i think the 720 will be a lot more powerful than people think, Epic have a lot of influence with MS, and they i am sure have showed them the Samaritan demo and said, this is what we want to be able to achieve, and i reckon MS will listen, they where right when they told MS to increse the RAM, so MS will listen. Just wait and see.
Mobius01 on 30 Jan '12 said:
Agreed! Considering the age of the hardware, they look fantastic.
nologo on 30 Jan '12 said:
since i upgraded my pc..i cant even turn on bf3 on my ps3 anymore without crying.
the graphical difference is huge! its like a new game
MPH on 30 Jan '12 said:
Indeed. I'm actually struggling to go back to my consoles now. I tried playing some MW3 on my 360 at the weekend (yeah I know... MW3 sucks but I'm still on a quest to find this so called 'fun' in it). It just looked abysmal. Popped in BF3 and it was the same story. Promptly logged back into BF3 on my PC.
MisterBedo on 30 Jan '12 said:
The thing is, even a top of the range PC only increases the graphical quality of the games by about 2x or 3x, the hardware doesn't exist yet to make these leaps that he's talking about. That's why I think the next gen (whilst probably having a lot more up to date graphic hardware and s**tloads of memory) will probably focus on being more 'PC like'. By that I mean becoming more of a multimedia piece of kit.
Also:
No. The graphics were a bit better in each iteration, but the game remained the same. I'm not saying GOW is crap, but I'd argue against there being any 'dramatic improvements' between each one.
Rhodes666 on 30 Jan '12 said:
I wish people would stop harping on about how great things look on a top PC, i should bloody hope they do!! A top spec PC to play games with all the bells and whistles turned on is the best part of £1,000 if not more and yet with a good TV and a £150 - £200 console you can kick back and enjoy from the comfort of your sofa. Dont get me wrong i own a yop end PC which graphically trounced the xbox etc but if im honest the xbox (cant comment on PS3 ) still runs most games more smoothly and i have more fun playing on them than hunched over a desk with a keyboard and mouse.
MisterBedo on 30 Jan '12 said:
No tryna flame, but how can that be true? A top end PC should run any game smoothly. I hear that a lot about PCs being uncomfortable, hunched over a desk etc. Personally I have my monitor sat on a small table next to my sofa, and I spend hours comfortably lounging there shotting stuff - outside of FPS games I also tend to use an xbox pad which makes it even better.
kmcroc on 30 Jan '12 said:
The improvments to Gears 1,2,3, are way better than what activision has done with thier copy & paste game , can we agree on that .
SavageEvil on 30 Jan '12 said:
This is bonafide crap, how many games have generated excitement and it's in the same generation? It's not simply put as needing new hardware it's all about innovating the gameplay, tweaking the visuals making things compelling and interesting. If this train of thought is to be believed then GoW and UC series would have needed to be on 3 seperate hardware built in succession of each other.
I can't see MS or Sony wanting to take large hits in their Gaming division to bring out the most powerful pieces of kit. The economic climate is not the brightest and it would be better to leverage the fact that visual quality is getting ever closer to that point where it matters very little on the power the system outputs and more on the creativity of the men designing the game and utilizing the hardware. Sony's Cell is a processor that they can build on its strengths and target it's weaknesses, having more bandwidth for both the CPU and GPU would make things easier for Devs to use power more efficiently. I can't see Sony leaving the Cell tech out of PS4. MS on the other hand is probably going to go with the traditional route as the rumors have suggested, but I don't expect these new systems to boast ridiculous amounts of power, it will be best bang for your buck sort of situation. Streamlining and efficient use of power is what the next generation is going to focus on. Economic issues will slow down the next gen spending sprees, expect the players to utilize shorter life cycles interim until the climate gets much better and the forecast isn't grim.
matty2000uk on 30 Jan '12 said:
I agree. The difference in graphic quality between gears 1 and 3 is pretty big. Search on Google images and you will see. Gears 2 falls right in the middle (funnily enough).
I'd say actually the difference between 1 and 3 is not far off from the difference between 3 and that Samaritan video (or at least how it will actually look as a game).
Mobius01 on 30 Jan '12 said:
^^THIS
My friend, you do realise the Samaritan demo IS in-game footage?
It took 3 $400+ cards (3x GTX580s) and top-end i7 to run it in real-time. How can the difference between two games running on the same hardware (GoW1 and 3) be the same as the difference between GoW 3 running on a 6 year-old console and the Samaritan demo running on a stupendously powerful modern PC?
gypsygib on 30 Jan '12 said:
I think MS owes it's success this gen to Epic, EVERY game on PS3 would have look quite a bit better if 360 only had 256 RAM.
Imagine much worse graphics AND RROD - 360 would have been done by 2008.
divinebeetle on 30 Jan '12 said:
Its not hard to connect your PC to the TV and most games support the 360 controller. Great graphics from the sofa
Mobius01 on 30 Jan '12 said:
^^This.
The 'hunched over a keyboard' argument is old. I along with the vast majority of PC gamers have their rigs hooked up to their main HDTV. Also, apart from FPS and racing sims (playing FPS games with a pad is horrible), all other games are played with a wireless 360 pad from the comfort of my sofa.
krel on 31 Jan '12 said:
if you think next gen consoles will be capable of the samaritan demo you are sadly mistaken, have u seen the rig that was used 2 run that demo?
stealthylemons34 on 31 Jan '12 said:
I really would like to see Samaritan graphics on the next console or at least one of them have that level of graphics...Microsoft could bundle kinect with their next system and other features too like a technology to create pockets of sound that they have a patent on and have been working on since around 2007. Just the kinect alone might lower the secs on everything else (GPU, CPU, and RAM) because of extra cost. And since the rig that ran the Samaritan demo cost easily over a couple grand retail i doubt were going to get those graphics sadly.
However what i find interesting is why is epic games trying to persuade Microsoft with such an expensive tech demo? i mean maybe Microsoft and sony can put a machine together by 2013 that could meet epic games tech demo half way or more not fully but something close. With how optimized the technology in consoles are i think there's a chance.
snake2011 on 31 Jan '12 said:
looking at the Last Of Us trailer I would say Sony has more to show the 360 peaked a while back imo.
1Nightmare1 on 31 Jan '12 said:
Well hopefully MS will listen to Epic this time as well. Epic are one of the biggest innovators when it comes to pushing hardware to its' limits. I really hope Microsoft doesn't go all crazy on just the casuals like they did at the last E3 conference, if they do then all the hardcore fans will move Sony and the xbox will be left to compete with wii.
Barca Azul on 31 Jan '12 said:
PC's will always be ahead of the console curve though, maybe level when a console launches.
Im fairly technical when it comes to things, but I must prefer the simplicity of consoles and its the same for many and vice versa of course. I think the average person is more than happy with what they see on a console today, but its not just about graphics.
flyfletch on 31 Jan '12 said:
Yes, i know your right, but this was Epic saying to MS, this is what we want to achieve, but what we will end up with is a compromise, and dont forget, Epic themselves said those standards would be achievable if it was highly optomised, in other words they used that rig, but could be achieved with less. And if you think about it, Epic are not going to aim low when saying to MS this is what we want, they will get more from them if they aim high and come to a compromise. I have a feeling the next Xbox will be able to come close, its a console, it doesnt have the same demands on it as a pc, (im not putting down the PC) im not that technically minded about PC rigs, but i know that this would be achievable on less of a rig on a console (i hope). You only have to look what can be achieved with the consoles we have now, some of the games are amazing!
MisterBedo on 31 Jan '12 said:
No argument from me there pal, I'm not a COD fan. Kinda enjoyed the original zombies in WAW, but after that it got real tired, real quick. My point was that each succesive version of GOW hasn't been the immense leap that he seems to think it's been.
deepfell on 1 Feb '12 said:
What they really REALLY! have to do is make these new consoles raytrace on the fly in 3d on a 8k tv.
Ill admit that sounds impossible.......they should do it anyway.
Kezwar on 1 Feb '12 said:
Why would you even buy them on 360 if you have them on PC?
Kezwar on 1 Feb '12 said:
Finally someone who talks sense. PC fan-boys are the worst kind. They have a superiority complex over everyone else. THey don't seem to realise the compromise you have to make for PC gaming just doesn't make it worth it...for now. I wouldn't be surprised if PC gaming makes a comeback in the future though.
xxx128 on 2 Feb '12 said:
Making huge leaps in hardware was what it has been back then. What it will be now is they give you a s**tty low end pc with a trendy gimmick controller and terrorize you with massive marketing hype. This industry is so full of it.