Yeah right Epic. You take on no risk when it comes to proposing that consoles sell as loss leaders. Sony sold quite slowly while it was selling at a loss, but even now the console has been a money loser for Sony despite all the software royalties.

Having said that, if Epic thinks 360 was bleeding edge enough for this gen then clearly it's possible to create Epic's concept of bleeding edge for an acceptable price without going all crazy arsed PS3 with it's $200 loss per console at launch.

I do think PS4 will be $50-$100 more than Durango at launch, but it will be a break even price, not a loss. PS3 managed to pull itself out of the mire sufficiently for Sony to think that it can still be the most expensive kit on the block, just not quite as expensive, and not making such a huge loss out of the gate. Which means at least another 2 years of PS3 gaming for me after PS4 launches.

Epic should stick to PC game development. Where all of those games pushing the "bleeding edge" technology are pummeling their counterparts in the gaming console industry.

"Epic" - the name is fitting for them, it's one of those annoying words that nerds use to describe everything - and they're nothing more than annoying nerds.

This is an excellent post. The generations birthed from the idea of the rate of growth within the HW field. Since systems could easily overpower each other in the 70/80s up until now.

The fact that there is little significant growth (that matters to the gamer) for some time is a very unusual, peculiar and fascinating phenomenon.

The Wii line is the main benefactor from this upcoming generation. After that, a new console could be released for a major HW/SW(Api) architectural change, but little more in terms of graphics processing & general computing capabilities.

this honestly seems like such a stupid statement to make.. i would list why i think that but i think everyone already knows aha

Do you even enjoy gaming? sounds like you don't. 

Part of UE3's advantage was that it was the only engine really capable of taking advantage of "the cutting edge" hardware in the beginning and that enabled them to dominate in the engine licensing market while the other engines were still trying to catch up.

It's pretty much their business to make cutting edge easier to program for. They need a market where the cutting edge is wanted. They didn't push MS to   512mb for their own good. They did it in their own interest.

Some of their recent comments regarding next gen consoles give the impression that they have seen the next gen hardware targets and are trying to pressure the console makers for more. Their hyperbolic statement about Apple "beating" them if they don't go cutting edge and Apple using a similar model of bleeding edge hardware similar to MS and Sony, which is totally untrue, the Samaritan processing requirement analysis , another recent accasion where they said they were  trying to show console makers a game could be made on par with Samaritan in an affordable manner, just solidifies that impression.

They said at GDC that "if devs were making a game for next-gen systems that you'd also want running on current systems, you would still go with UE3 and try for Samaritan-level sizzle in the next-gen versions of the game. But if you were going purely next-gen, you'd go with UE4."

They WANT Sony and MS to have hardware that requires UE4 for high end development. It's in their interest that their new engine is adopted next gen as much as possible after all.

Why is it Crytek seem to have a more conservative expectation of next gen in their CryEngine 3 GDC 2012 demo while Epic are pushing for something like Samaritan and beyond?

Cutting edge would benefit Epic and give them an advantage over their engine-licensing competitors. The reason they are pushing Sony and MS so much is for their sake. They want to maintain their dominance.

That's irrelevant on a video game sales site. He could be an analyst for all it matters.

But whether he does or not, I'll let him answer since I don't really care.

Irrelevant to what? I was just asking a question. 

To OT, and to the forum. What was the point? (if you were just kidding, nevermind me )

I was going to engage in witty discourse and possibly a passive agressive exchange of words.

That's relevant to my enjoyment of this forum.