Mal Posted July 10, 2012 Report Share Posted July 10, 2012 I would be hardpressed to say that a Chrysler is a Fiat. I view Chrysler as its own entity even though its owned by Fiat. I view games made by a studio owned by another studio/publisher in the same light. I won't be exluding them though but viewing them seperately is important to get a better handle on the situation. More later... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuchikoma Posted July 10, 2012 Report Share Posted July 10, 2012 I think it's important to look at what the Square-Enix brand, Square in particular, is known for. They've traditionally done their own development and made Final Fantasy their flagship franchise, so if suddenly FF doesn't matter and publishing works by their owned studios counts as Square developing games, then I think it's important to examine this massive shift. It'd be like if Nintendo decided to stop using Mario and started leaning on third parties to make "Nintendo" games (not sure who this would be now... traditionally I guess studios like Hudson and Rare would have fit the bill...) By the broader definition as a publisher, I suppose you could even call an S-E game, though it's really not what comes to mind when you bring their name up... Tangential at best, but wouldn't it be great if MS, Sony and Nintendo got together and all agreed on one architecture for their consoles? They don't have to agree on overall specs or anything, just make their processors the same architecture. Think what that could do for cross-platform games and backward compatibility. Personally, I still really support innovation in hardware architecture. They seem to be getting more conventional as generations go on, but there is still a LOT that can be done that's out of the box. (Personally, I really want to see a heavily multicore system, maybe powered by something like a CUDA family processor, but with at least 64GB of RAM, to allow heavy use of things like procedural content generation and high resolution voxel-based game engines...) One thing I haven't heard people propose though is rather than a unified console architecture, how about a unified software development platform? It would still be tailored to each system to allow optimizing and playing to each system's strengths, but it would also be made so that a lot of the high-level code would be easily ported, and if you're relying on a "default" engine (say, UE4) common tasks like level design, AI modelling, event scripting, 3D modelling, etc would be identical regardless of what system you're working on, so you wouldn't have to sort of reverse-engineer a game to port it, or port the tools used to edit it, or other reinventions of the wheel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted July 10, 2012 Report Share Posted July 10, 2012 I was under the impression that that's EXACTLY the task that cross-platform engines like Unreal perform. Re: Square-Enix: I wasn't saying that FF isn't important or is irrelevant, just that it's not the *only* thing SE does/has, and so you can't say that a statement by a SE exec is invalid because FF doesn't support it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuchikoma Posted July 10, 2012 Report Share Posted July 10, 2012 Yes, Unreal Engine and even in theory, DirectX are already moving things in that direction - it's by no means an original idea, I just think it solves the problem better than locking everyone into a similar architecture or platform. And I agree there are other S-E properties, but I think it's true that he's a bit out of place pushing for a new console generation when the flagship titles have barely appeared on the current gen, and the other sub-studios' works didn't exactly seem to be straining at the boundaries of what the current gen can do. It could be a different story if they had been, even if FF hadn't made a strong showing. Still though, I think the Square name is still very much synonymous with Final Fantasy, even if they have diversified a bit and acquired companies that make very different products. It's not that those other games aren't Square games - they are - much like how Vitaminwater is Coca Cola. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted July 10, 2012 Report Share Posted July 10, 2012 Wii n PS3 are both OpenGL. Even if all consoles were DirectX it wouldn't make cross-platform development much simpler. Same with UE, you can make a game in UDK and yes make it for PS3 to iPhone to PC, but you're going to have to tweak it for each platform still to get it running, they just take out a bunch of the stress. Also anyone thought maybe they, like many other studios, are holding back on stuff like Versus as something they'd want to put on a next gen console but now maybe getting a bit pissed that years are going by and no new console has reared its head. (FFXIV ain't on PS3 cos they're still sorting the PC version out). Also as noted: most games released over the past couple years have being straining the consoles. If you're waiting for something to be visually stuning to declare next gen as coming, say like their Agni Philopshy demo or what's shown in UE4/Samaritan, you're not gonna see it cos they need next gen specs to run on. Games won't/can't look visually stunning on this gen. The hardware is too shit. Look at PC and how much better that is in comparison as a sign a next gen will be coming. Heck this is what a 2-3 year old smartphone can do: And that's where SE have it right. When even phones are encroaching on their space then they've waited too long. Since the 360 and PS3 launched we've had the iPhone launched, Android launched, Onlive and Gaikia launched (And bought), Kickstarter, Facebook opened to public, Zynga opened, Steam rolling in cash, etc etc. Win Phone 7 and PSVita/PS Suite show they're both aware of the changes, but consoles designed at a time when CEOs used smartphones, Phantom was a joke, and browser gaming was Newgrounds they can only do so much to adapt with software. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted July 11, 2012 Report Share Posted July 11, 2012 I just checked the console release dates for the big three throughout their history to freshen up on the history. The average is about 6 years by just looking by the release year before the next one rolls around. It makes me wonder if there was any rumbling like what SE is doing right now about wanting new consoles in the past. I'm leaning no or not really since technology has really ballooned since I and you guys were kids. I don't think most people figured it would be this fast so the folks at Sony and Microsoft figured 10 years would be good. It seemed to make sense. Business wise it make sense. Technology wise, hell no. At this point, I think even 5-6 years is pushing it. (I'm glad I'm a PC gamer mostly now...) I also think that Sony and Microsoft might be sort of trying to "future resistant" their next console... maybe. So it can last 5-6 years without people bitching and bring up a good point like Dean's last paragraph. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted July 11, 2012 Report Share Posted July 11, 2012 There's no way to future-proof a console. Moore's law is still holding strong, and there's simply no way to protect against it for more than a couple of years without making your hardware ridiculously expensive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted July 11, 2012 Report Share Posted July 11, 2012 I know that. That why I used the term "future resistant". Nothing is ever _____-proof. Not even for the PC folks. PC folks only delay getting a whole new PC with upgrades and that what I think Generation Nine or Ten should be doing if the console makers want to have the 8-10 year lifecycle. Generation Eight doesn't seem to be a likely candidate for this since I feel it might be cheaper than the current gen since the format war (Blu-ray v. HD-DVD) is long dead and such. Consoles seem to be getting more and more expensive to develop. So a way to, somewhere down the line, expand its capabilities seems to make sense on a 5 or 10 year cycle. FYI, I follow the train of thought that consoles are becoming increasingly like PCs. Simplified, easy to use PCs/entertainment systems. So if they do expansions, they're pretty much making a slave system to boost the main console in a form that pretty much just snaps right in. Of course the console manufacturers can just go back to the 5-6 year cycle or go crazy like Nintendo and their DS family of handhelds to keep up with the ever increasing speed of technology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlyingGerbil Posted July 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 12, 2012 from DS to 3DS was 7 years. DS lite didn't change anything and even the DSi was only similar to the addition of Move/Kinect to the home consoles i.e. not a fundamental change to the hardware nor a new gen. They were more to do with keeping customers interested in the console than keeping up with technology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madbassman39 Posted July 13, 2012 Report Share Posted July 13, 2012 Last generation after 4 years I switched to PC gaming, but I couldn't afford to upgrade after that and when I could I wanted the ps3 instead. PC gaming has gotten more expensive and I've been wanting to jump back in but unfortunately my finances we're more rigid than they were 6 years ago until recently. I will be back into PC gaming until the next consoles arrive. And even then probably a while longer. I think the lifespan has been pretty good for me due to the market, but I'm ready to move on like I was at the end of the ps2 gen. It's time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted July 14, 2012 Report Share Posted July 14, 2012 PC gaming has gotten more expensive? How so? I think over time it's become less expensive to buy what you need. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted July 14, 2012 Report Share Posted July 14, 2012 PC gaming has gotten more expensive? How so? I think over time it's become less expensive to buy what you need. This. PC gaming has rapidly evolved from being about making machines cry with ridiculous hardware requirements to making games that just about anyone on any computer can play. Even if you build or buy a rather modest computer, chances are you'll be able to run the latest games on it for at least 5 years. Hell, on a netbook alone, there are thousands, if not millions of games that can be played, modern games even. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madbassman39 Posted July 14, 2012 Report Share Posted July 14, 2012 I'm sorry your right its cheaper, I miss typed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted July 14, 2012 Report Share Posted July 14, 2012 That'll change once Gen 8 rolls around and they're able to put more taxing games on consoles. Course it'll change back as those consoles age... lather, rinse, repeat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted July 14, 2012 Report Share Posted July 14, 2012 And they'll likely get cheaper faster too. Double bonus is established mature digital market means bigger devs might not dilly dally on spitting out new engines while waiting on next gen. Especially Epic with Unreal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 http://www.develop-online.net/news/42817/Carmack-Next-gen-games-will-still-target-30-fps So Carmack reckons next gen will continue at 30fps, but a boost to 1080p as standard. Which isn't too bad I guess, kinda what I was expecting, and there will be games that prefer 60fps over resolution (as there are this gen) that'll likely run at lower resolution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 So what the Wii U is already doing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 Is it? I've not seen any breakdowns of it's output but given it hovers between slightly powerful and not as powerful as the X360 and PS3 I find it hard to believe it has output 2 to 3 times (and a little bit on the side) more than those two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 Nintendo's standard on the Wii U is 1080p at 60 fps. My understanding is that third-party games tend to go for 1080p at 30 fps. But comparing the Wii U to the gen 8 consoles based solely on resolution and framerate isn't necessarily a good comparison, because the things the Wii U renders at that resolution will be otherwise lower quality (textures, polys, characters on screen, etc). Like how my computer can max out Call of Duty 2 at 1080p 60 fps, but it sure as hell can't do that with Battlefield 3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 Nintendo's standard on the Wii U is 1080p at 60 fps. My understanding is that it's 720p @ 60fps or 1080p @ 30fps. If by first party you mean some Mario game that requires barely anything out of the console then yes it will hit 1080p at 60fps. So did some PSN games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 Yeah a bunch of PSN titles (Critter Crunch, Super Stardust HD) will hit 1080p60. I would imagine Carmack is talking about stuff like Battlefield 4, Infamous 3, Watchdogs, etc. It would be pretty disappointing if any 8th gen console couldn't run Mario at 1080p60. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 Well and as I said obviously the games the Wii U runs at 1080p60 won't be as high fidelity in other respects as the gen 8 games that run at that will be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 http://penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-article/the-minecraft-problem-the-ps4-and-next-xbox-need-flexibility-not-power I thought I'd posted this a while back. Maybe I just threw it up on Pocket for later. Anywho a good read on the kind of things needed from Xbox 3 n PS4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted December 29, 2013 Report Share Posted December 29, 2013 Via Metalcaveman with regards to this being the last gen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saturnine Tenshi Posted December 29, 2013 Report Share Posted December 29, 2013 (edited) What's the gist of the video? Couldn't watch for long. Edited December 29, 2013 by Saturnine Tenshi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.