By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - You people want MOAR Power in 8th Gen consoles, but........

ethomaz on 10 February 2013

Mazty said:

I specified 60 FPS did I not?

Dropping below 30 FPS is not acceptable. 
Not even passing 45 is not a good show.

If the game played like butter then why do competitive FPS' insist on 60 FPS minimum...?

Either way what is your point? The next consoles, as far as I'm aware, won't even come close to the power of the HD 7970. As for the GTX 680 18 fps is wholly unacceptable.

That's how the game run in consoles... 30fps with some drops to 20fps.

CoD is 60fps with drops to 40 or less.

Again your afirmation is just wrong... GTX 680 / HD 7970 can run games in 4k... more games: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-4k-gaming



Around the Network
T.Rexington on 10 February 2013

Seems like some devs are already making engines for the next gen. There's gonna be more engines available to devs, I wouldn't be surprised to see budget digital games get a bit more light shined down on them, and some devs are already prepared. I mean, just look at 343's engine for Halo 4, that seems like something being prepped for the next xbox alone. I doubt Sony is letting their devs get off the hook either.

That said, I do expect games to get more expensive. I can see publishers like Deep Silver and 505 going under because they couldn't handle the high costs and less than desirable income. Believe it or not, I expect more budget games with no levels for success to come around next gen. Every company needs a low budget money maker to help offset any losses. Whether that's through a store like XBLA/PSN or through games like Rayman. I think you'll be seeing a more diverse portfolio from devs because the one big gamble doesn't seem to be working out.



ethomaz on 10 February 2013

I think with the PC like aprouch from PS4/Nextbox the cost for developer a game will be a little less than this gen... less complexity is more cheaper  for devs.



Player2 on 10 February 2013
Turkish said:
Player2 said:
Turkish said:
Player2 said:
Turkish said:
Player2 said:
Turkish said:
Mazty said:
Turkish said:


1080p was about getting the price to come down? What are you talking about? You don't make sense. The first 50" 1080p plasma cost around $15,000 back in 2006. Over time they got cheaper, the average tv size has been getting bigger and will continue to get bigger as they gradually become affordable. I hear today many people say they wished they bought a bigger tv afterwards getting a 42-46" set. You're again ill informed about the sizes 4K come in, Sony will release a 55" 4K tv in spring. Here's the average screen sizes from 2002-2009. TVs got bigger and they will continue to get bigger.

 

 

 

In due time 4K will be affordable, once they're affordable so will there be an increase in content. If there was no substance to the quest for greater resolution, then no one would've cared about Retina displays or 1080p on smartphones. 4K is another part of the pixel density war.


For fucks sake let me repeat myself:

Ultimately, the issue with 4k is not the price, it's the size, and that won't

change over time.

Many people won't, and can't, fit a 60+" TV in their living room.

 

Understand? You don't seem to understand living room size. In Japan and Europe, rooms are much smaller than in the USA. Your chart shows that it has plateaued at 46", which backs my point up. 

 

You fail to comprehend what I'm saying. There is a relation between the price and size of a tv screen. You are ill informed if you think people can't fit a 60" tv in their living room. Do you have a source to backup your claim? Any study that proves you right? How do you know rooms in Europe are much smaller? Thats just your assumption with no truth. (I live in Europe and I have enough room to fit in a +80" tv.) My chart is also from 2009. You're accepting your assumption as true without proof which again makes no sense.

Fact is that average tv sizes increase. http://www.displaysearchblog.com/2012/10/average-size-of-lcd-tv-panels-increases-by-2-inches-in-12-months/

There are several factors leading to increases in the average LCD TV panel size:

  • The emergence of new sizes has led many customers to choose larger sizes, such as moving from 26W to 29W, from 37W to 39W, from 46/47 to 50 inch, and from 55 to 60 inch.
  • As consumers replace older LCD TVs, they tend to choose a larger size. Many consumers in North America originally had a 32 inch LCD TV in their bedroom and a 40-50 inch set in their living room, and are upgrading to a 39 or 40 inch in their bedroom and a 50 inch or larger set for the living room.
  • LCD TV brands are promoting larger sizes in order to preserve profit margins.

With the year-end, many promotions will be launched, such as the rumored 60 inch LCD TV for $999 on Black Friday. With such attractive prices on large size LCD TVs, we can expect other consumers to migrate to larger sizes, further driving increases in average screen size.

Once 60" TVs become affordable at 999 you bet your bottom $ they'll be what people buy when they're in the market for a new tv with the budget.

Ok, I'll finish this.

"Based on panel makers’ shipments reported in the Monthly TFT LCD Shipment Database, the average TV panel diagonal has increased from 34.8” in August, 2011 to 36.8” in August, 2012. With a typical range of 18-20M panel shipment per month, an increase of 2 inches in screen size is significant, and has helped to increase area demand."

"Sharp has the highest average screen size of TV panels shipped, and it grew significantly in the past year, from 39.1 to 48.3 inches. Most other panel makers saw an increase of approximately 2 inches in screen size over the past year. AUO increased from 34.4 to 36 inches, BOE from 29.9 to 32.7 inches, Chimei Innolux from 30.9 to 33.6 inches, LG Display from 36.2 to 38.9 inches, and Samsung from 37 to 39.4 inches."

The current trend is an increase in 2 inches per year.

The average in the industry (not Sharp's) was 36.8" in August 2012. To reach an average of 60" we'll need over 11 years. We'll be playing with the PS5 then.

The source is the same article you used to cherrypick all that.

I'll be good and ignore the trick hidden in the 2002-2009 graph.


Eh I never talked about an average of 60".

The paragraph below "Television size over the years" points to that.

Thay may be, I never talked about an average of 60", the point I was making was that average screen sizes are increasing, are you challenging this fact?

If you don't agree with something don't post it, or make it clear.

Tv diagonal length is increasing but it won't increase at the pace it did in 2002-2006.


You're vague. Do you mean the Sharp prediction for 2015? If thats the only thing you got from my comments, then you missed the point rather spectacularly.

I'm saying that the data from the last decade cannot be extrapolated to calculate future increases in Tv diagonal size because there was a transition in aspect ratio from 4:3 to 16:9 in those years.



Mazty on 10 February 2013
ethomaz said:

Mazty said:

I specified 60 FPS did I not?

Dropping below 30 FPS is not acceptable. 
Not even passing 45 is not a good show.

If the game played like butter then why do competitive FPS' insist on 60 FPS minimum...?

Either way what is your point? The next consoles, as far as I'm aware, won't even come close to the power of the HD 7970. As for the GTX 680 18 fps is wholly unacceptable.

That's how the game run in consoles... 30fps with some drops to 20fps.

CoD is 60fps with drops to 40 or less.

Again your afirmation is just wrong... GTX 680 / HD 7970 can run games in 4k... more games: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-4k-gaming


I'll repeat myself:
"Either way what is your point? The next consoles, as far as I'm aware, won't even come close to the power of the HD 7970. As for the GTX 680 18 fps is wholly unacceptable."

". On a PC you can build yourself for around £800, 4K is viable,"

Do you really think the next gen consoles will have the performance of an £800 /$1200 PC? More to the point, did you read :

"While we couldn't get ultra settings to work"

If you expect an improvement over last gens graphics AND an increase in resolution to 4k, you are wholly mistaken. If they make games that play at 4k natively, then expect absolutely no improvement in graphics over this generation. Do you think that'll happen?



Around the Network
Scoobes on 10 February 2013
hivycox said:
ethomaz said:

hivycox said:

btw.: Ace combat looks brilliant and I don't see THAT much difference with that vid your posted a moment ago

The video in youtube runs in 1080p at max... you will never see the difference in a video... I just posted to show a GTX 680 running games in 4k.


well yeah I can't argue with that ... It surely will be impressive... But Ace combat can put out nice graphics even with an outdated console like the ps3... I'm just saying that there won't be a visible jump in the next gen...

Think about this carefully. Ace Combat only needs to generate cool air battles. Battlefield 3 needs to do this, FPS scale combat and other vehicle combat with 64 players and all the physics that that entails. There is a lot more going on in Battlefield 3 and it's doing so at 4K and at playable frame-rate.

Now imgaine if the devs wanted to make an Ace Combat game and could concentrate on only air combat. The possibilities for that, with the power available here is immense. This is why new consoles are needed. The current gen have hit a proverbial brick wall.




Get your Portable ID!

ethomaz on 10 February 2013

Mazty said:

I'll repeat myself:
"Either way what is your point? The next consoles, as far as I'm aware, won't even come close to the power of the HD 7970. As for the GTX 680 18 fps is wholly unacceptable."

". On a PC you can build yourself for around £800, 4K is viable,"

Do you really think the next gen consoles will have the performance of an £800 /$1200 PC? More to the point, did you read :

"While we couldn't get ultra settings to work"

If you expect an improvement over last gens graphics AND an increase in resolution to 4k, you are wholly mistaken. If they make games that play at 4k natively, then expect absolutely no improvement in graphics over this generation. Do you think that'll happen?

I think you are misunderstanding all.

ethomaz said:

Mazty said:

If you think the PS4 can game at 4k you've no idea what you're talking about. Even $1000 GPU's couldn't game at that resolution with a game with decent graphics.

Wrong. The top GPU in the market (GTX 680/HD 7970) can run game in 4k in max setthing.

And...

ethomaz said:

OP.

- The Wii U itself is cheapers because the dated hardware... the Gamepad puts the things a little high... that's the reason.
- PS4 will have 4k for movies and some PSN games but the standard will be 1080p.
- Dev cost will not change from that generation... the buget will be the same.
- PS4/Next will be MOAR powerful... 8-10x PS360.
- The evolution in graphics will define the next generation.





thismeintiel on 10 February 2013
hivycox said:
ethomaz said:

hivycox said:

btw.: Ace combat looks brilliant and I don't see THAT much difference with that vid your posted a moment ago

The video in youtube runs in 1080p at max... you will never see the difference in a video... I just posted to show a GTX 680 running games in 4k.


well yeah I can't argue with that ... It surely will be impressive... But Ace combat can put out nice graphics even with an outdated console like the ps3... I'm just saying that there won't be a visible jump in the next gen...

Seriously, what is with you Nintendo guys?  No visible jump in next gen?  What would be the point of new systems, then?  I know you're praying for that, but it won't happen.  Not when the majority of games this gen were sub-HD.  Next gen, not only will 1080P be the standard, but it will also come with much higher poly counts and higher res textures.  So yes, there is going to be quite the visible leap from the PS4/NeXbox.



 

IamAwsome on 10 February 2013
thismeintiel said:
hivycox said:
ethomaz said:

hivycox said:

btw.: Ace combat looks brilliant and I don't see THAT much difference with that vid your posted a moment ago

The video in youtube runs in 1080p at max... you will never see the difference in a video... I just posted to show a GTX 680 running games in 4k.


well yeah I can't argue with that ... It surely will be impressive... But Ace combat can put out nice graphics even with an outdated console like the ps3... I'm just saying that there won't be a visible jump in the next gen...

Seriously, what is with you Nintendo guys?  No visible jump in next gen?  What would be the point of new systems, then?  I know you're praying for that, but it won't happen.  Not when the majority of games this gen were sub-HD.  Next gen, not only will 1080P be the standard, but it will also come with much higher poly counts and higher res textures.  So yes, there is going to be quite the visible leap from the PS4/NeXbox.

Nintendo fans never said there woudn't be a jump. They said that the jump won't be as big as people are saying. They pushed 1080p/60FPS as the standard for next gen just llike you are. 



DieAppleDie on 10 February 2013

i think theres going to be a pretty noticeable jump in grafix next gen, even WiiU will show a clear improvement in shaders and more modern stuff