Will Next Gen Consoles be more powerful then PC on launch

It won't happen... but if it did, you can bet your ass ill be spinning out of the driveway on my way to Fryes electronics to build new rig.

 

I'm posting what I posted in another thread

We have AMD and some developers whining about the current APIs' huge overhead sucking up performance.
When AMD complained about DX11, they took the draw calls as an example
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2011/03/16/farewell-to-directx/2

This thread on Rage3d is 6 months old, but Bobvodka's (a dev) posts are about the PC's big disadvantage when it comes to draw calls...From the way he talks about it, the future looks pretty grim if there's no solution

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33986186&page=3


Read through all his posts and you will see that for the PC, it's mostly a software problem.
Currently, the consoles can't use their draw calls advantage because their GPUs are so weak, but that will change when the next-gen consoles come with modern, more powerful, GPUs

In other threads, he points out that even if something is to be done, you're looking at a period of almost 2 years lead time for things to begin being put into place. And if it's a new API, it will most likely take time before it starts being used.

 

why do these questions even exist anymore??

consoles just ruin the game industry because of long life cycles and of course the gamers suffer

 

Not a chance with the high end gaming rigs that people have now and in the future. There is no console out there that uses multiple GPUs in either crossfire or SLI. Also there is no Console GPU that has 4GB of memory like the high end GPUs that our PCs have now. Heck they dont even have 1GB of memory yet.
Also PC GPUs are up to GDDR5 memory.

 

Sorry but i recon it's the opposite, consoles actully help the games industry and long life cycles don't make gamers suffer at all.

I mean check out the industry now and remember, consoles have been around since gaming began.

 

What about the industry? Consoles help the console industry but inhibit forward progression of software development.
Aside from a handful of titles, gaming hasn't progressed any further than it was 4 years ago.

That's why companies like Bethesda can release new titles that use 5yr old engines.

 

This has way more to do with the cost of development of that engine then consoles getting in the way.

 

pc is the ultimate gaming station..period

consoles will never get near to a pc in therms of power

2gb of ram in 2013 that is just sad and stupid

 

that was 30 years ago before pc became ultimate gaming rig, and the consoles arrived and ruined creativity and innovation..

 

I know saying this is anathema here, but I'm actually kind of glad for this given my current system specs

 

.. and I'm pleased that I don't have to upgrade ever so often and enjoy what I own

 

And during every major console timeline since PC's, PC's have always had more power (or had more power after a very short time after console release), yet somehow gaming is still going strong (actully scratch that, is stronger than ever) despite consoles "ruining" creativity and innovation.

Consoles are not ruining gaming at all, infact the current consoles are letting more people game than ever before.

I really think a lot of people look back with rose tinted glasses regarding gaming in general, and i really think some PC gamers need to get off their high horses with how they treat consoles.

 

The reason is more the console gamers and the way publishers treat the PC because of console sales.

The only good thing about consoles is it brings in more gamers that after a while graduate to PC and see the light.

 

The publishers themselves demonstrate on the PC these days Remember Ubi's Watch Dogs demo?

 

sorry but not true

there was a study in great Britain which shows that only 10 percent of c gamers use their console for sole purpose of gaming.. the rest falls on web browsing or watching movies..as for the high horse of course pc gamers are elitist because we know what is good and what is crap

and as for innovation thing those where not my words

http://beefjack.com/news/firefall-dev-lack-of-openness-on-consoles-killing-innovation/

there are others but don t have the nerves to search

consoles just need to die so that gaming can go where it deserves to the greater platform in every way the PC

 

If by consoles you mean excessively large budgets, I agree.

Stop blaming consoles for everything. The only thing they do is hold back graphics and not even by much. Look at BF3 on a PC, a game that was designed for PC graphics, compared to the PS3/360. The PC is definitely better, but not 16x better, yet it has 16x more performance.

Companies can't spend $100m developing a game and having the game fail. That's the reality of today's development. So what do they do? They build the same generic crap over and over again, because it's safe, and people buy it. Want innovation and creativity? Look for indie games on xbox arcade or steam. Has nothing to do with being on a console.

That isn't consoles killing it. That's Microsoft and Sony killing it. Microsoft is attempting to do the same thing to PC's too with Windows 8. Why do you think Gabe/Blizzard/Mojang/etc are so against it?

 

^BF3 started out designed for PC but then priority switched to console during development.

If console platforms were updated sooner we wouldn't have to put up with the rinse & repeat cycle publishers give us.
They aren't going to release software that consoles can't run, it's not like joe consolefag can upgrade his gfx card just so he can play the shiny new EA release (like I did with BF3 ).


I'm over gaming really....the only 2 I've really enjoyed in recent times were ME2/3 & FNV.

 

Not really, I have seen many people simply buying into AAA titles on PC simply because they had more graphical options, while the actual, creative, innovative titles tend to be ignored for lack of marketing or lack of beautiful, shiny 3D graphics with ambiant occlusion and high resolution textures.

Consoles have absolutely nothing to do with the mess the game industry is today, some of the best and most creative games years ago were on consoles, they didn't need all the horsepower a gaming PC has, it is not to say PC games weren't creative or innovative in any way, they definately were back then.

What's happened is that the cost of game development is simply too high and publishers do not dare take any risks by pushing new IPs that do not fit within whatever their marketing department thinks is going to sell. Development teams have become way too large thus making communication more difficult, not to mention that the creative minds being those games have little actual creative control as they need to adhere to whatever their publisher thinks is going to sell.

Remember those articles about Free Radical's troubles with EA, Activision and LucasArt? The things said in those happen more commonly than you think. How about that Dead Space 3 needs to absolutely sell at least 5 million units to make a profit, thus causing them to try and make sure it appeals to a much broader audience? The high number of third and first person shooters that look and play mostly the same?
The completely unnecessary quick time events? The overabundance of command prompts appearing on screen to take you out of the game? The games constantly holding you by the hand as if the publishers/developers think the players are stupid people unable to figure out even the most simplistic things?

Look at old PC and console games, how they lacked those, yet you were still able to figure out how to play them, and when a challenge appeared before you you actually persevered and learn from your mistakes, truly getting better at the game, this happened with both mediums. Had problems with the controls? You'd just look at either the manual or the in-game menu to see how things are mapped, or perhaps you would simply push buttons until you figured it out? Yes, yes you probably did that, and it worked.

Laying the blame on consoles is childish, they could create fantastic games regardless of the platform/hardware, but they won't because of the money involved.

New consoles are only going to make things worse, but it won't be because of their existance.

 

The reference 6670 has 1GB DDR5 which should be fine for 1920x1080 2xAA. AMD will probably advise them to use the fast ddr3 cause of the APU

GT5 runs at 1280x720 60fps on a 7800GT, sure the 6670 is a low end card but its a hell of a lot faster than a 7800GT and it has the A8's gpu for hybrid xfire or that new two way gpu thing they been talking about.

The PS and PS2 were very successful consoles, so we know Sony are capable of making a good console. Perhaps they've learnt from their mistakes with the PS3 ?

@pillmonster

BF3 has eight core support, native dx11 (non of that patched in wtf amounts of tesselation bull****) and the PC version's graphics are vastly superior to the console version. The metro map was clearly targeted at COD players though.

 

The rinse and repeat cycle is due to cost of development and risk associated with launching a major title. Look at Starwars Old Republic, $200M to develop and the game is free to play already. There is no way in hell they covered those development costs.

Most games now in days are around $100m in development, they sell what? 1-2M copies? That's about breaking even - if you consider $50 a sale and all the money as profit. To build another game they'd need to ship at least four million.

Faster and better consoles would only lead to even higher development costs. And besides, what PC exclusive game has even pushed the graphic envelope recently? Only thing I can think of is Metro 2033 and it barely looks better than games "limited" by consoles.