Uhm.. thank you for breaking the thread TWRoO??

Gaahhh.
I can't
edit my
post.

Unless middle ware completly soaks the slack and other developers sell their models for reasonable costs. yeah  right.

There is also however another technological barrier that isn't mentioned with the tech. Memory and Storage. The Ruby demos look awesome, but how much RAM and storage does that all use. I don't have the time to check at the moment, but these visuals while impressive for the card may have limitations in our homes. The computer it's running on could have 6gigs of ram and the total storage could be 200gigs while running on a quad machine.  Realisticly there are not enough people with machines like this next generation. Let alone consoles don't make the memory leaps like PCs do. Even the XBox360 has only 512. I know consoles don't need as much since they don't have the same OS overhead, but still those sample videos could require a whole lot more.

i give it 20 years before we see a game with this good of graphics. maybe longer.

there just is no way in the soon future will it be feasable to make an entire game with graphics this good. the tech and developement costs would be way too high.

you would need a console taht would costs an insane amount if they wanted this, and it would be even worse than Crysis sales on PC. Which I sitll find funny that they are bitching and complaining about pirates for that game.

I mean seriously what did they expect. they make a game that barely anyone can even play, and are targeting it towards the super hardcore computer geeks. who are the ones that are most likely to pirate this kidn of stuff as well.

@Jayderyu

The HD4870 is not a particularly large chip and isn't running at a particularly high temperature, and is produced using a 55nm process. We're about 3 to 4 years away from the next generation of consoles being released, which means that we should expect (roughly) 4 times the performance from most processors at a similar manufacturing cost. To put this timeframe into perspective, 3 to 4 years ago the "Amazing" graphics cards were the Radeon X800, Radeon X1800, Geforce 6800 and Geforce 7800; all of these graphics cards can be picked up for under $100 and are dramatically less powerful than the high end graphics cards that are available today.

On top of that, memory is not that big of an issue and (most) consoles tend to have somewhere between 1 and 2 times the ammount of memory that would be associated with a graphics card that has a similar GPU on it; at the current rate of growth, I would expect a next generation console to have between 2 and 4 Gigabytes of memory in it which will look tiny compared to the 8 to 16 Gigabytes that may be in some PCs at the time. Part of the reason why a PC needs more memory is because of the operating system, but (in my opinion) the main reason you need so much memory for PC games is that you don't have anywhere near to the level of control over your memory in a PC that you have on a console (and PC requirements have to be overly high to compensate for the ammount of crap running in the background).

As for the consern about development costs in the next generation ... I do expect to see a rise in the development costs of big-budget next generation games but not one of the same magnitude as this generation mainly because most developers will be using the same techniques as they're already using on the HD consoles, and producing a very similar quantity of content to populate the environment. On top of that, I expect one of the more major consequences of the Wii's success is that development costs of games on average will remain (much) lower than what most PS3 and XBox 360 games currently cost because developers are not going to focus on graphics as much; I wouldn't be that surprised to see a large portion (maybe even the majority) of games to not use shader effects at all (which would result in a lot of games looking like high detailed versions of Wii games) to keep costs down.

this thread has been broken well done, well done.


they didnt say how powerful the pc would have to be to run it. it would have been good if they said so many times faster then the such and such pc of today

The closer we get to 1:1 graphics the more i'm starting to dislike it.

I love it
that I can't read
the other
posts..
but I
agree with
Million..
I guess..

Didn't AMD just release (or are about to release) a couple terabyte video card? That's pretty heavy stuff... maybe they are trying to make the move quickly.

If I could see
the edit
button I
might be able
to fix this.