Unreal Engine 4 - Primarily for Consoles.

[Kshitiz]

Unreal Engine 4 - Primarily for Consoles.

See this Q and A session a website had with Tim Sweeney from Epic :-

TG Daily: Let’s talk about your game visions for the future and the next Unreal Engine? Where is EPIC going with the Unreal Engine 3.5 and 4.0?

Sweeney: The Unreal engine is really tied to a console cycle. We will continue to improve Unreal Engine 3 and add significant new features through the end of this console cycle. So, it is normal to expect that we will add new stuff in 2011 and 2012. We're shipping Gears of War now; we're just showing the next bunch of major tech upgrades such as soft-body physics, destructible environments and crowds. There is a long life ahead for Unreal Engine 3. Version 4 will exclusively target the next console generation, Microsoft's successor for the Xbox 360, Sony's successor for the Playstation 3 - and if Nintendo ships a machine with similar hardware specs, then that also. PCs will follow after that.

Full Q and A : - http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/36436/118/1/1/

That's betraying the PC lol. They are betraying the same thing that brought them into the position they are now? Unreal Engine is synonymous with PC's, and now once they have gone up in name and fame, they are ditching the same PC whose hardware capabilities in 4 years will be far more than those of consoles? That's not fair is it?

What are your thoughts?

 

[Rohitpatel]

Re: Unreal Engine 4 - Primarily for Consoles.

Well I dont understand much about this unreal engine but I think you are saying that they are giving preference to consoles over PC?

 

[Kshitiz]

Re: Unreal Engine 4 - Primarily for Consoles.

Yeah. Unreal Engine btw is the game engine that powers up all the unreal games and many others like metal solid 4, Bioshock etc.

 

[Nightvision]

Re: Unreal Engine 4 - Primarily for Consoles.

I suppose that's one way of looking at it. However, I don't have a problem with this.
I've been playing games on both PC and Console for what must be nearly 15 years now (my first PC was a Pentium 75mHz with 16MB ram and (at the time) a whopping 1GB hard drive.), and now I have a job and financial commitments and so on and so forth, I can only realistically afford to play games on a console.
PC gaming is becoming increasingly targeted towards the top 10% of machines. About 18-24 months ago, I built my current PC from scratch. It wasn't designed to be a world-beater, just something with enough 'oomph' to be able to handle a few of the better games. It's a 2gHz Athlon with 512MB RAM and a Radeon 9500 video card. Hardly groundbreaking, but adequate. Nowadays, I don't even bother looking at new games for the PC, because I know my machine won't run them without me paying about £150 for upgrades. This is in less than 2 years.

On the other hand, I bought an XBox 360 last year, and for an initial outlay of about £200, I've got a gaming machine that should keep me gaming for at least another 3-4 years. And I won't have to pay £150 every time a new game comes out I want to play.

Traditionally, the PC has always had two major things over the consoles with regards to gaming:
1) Multiplayer Gaming
and 2) Far better Graphics
Now, with the advent of Xbox live (let's use the most popular example), the PC has now lost one of it's biggest strong points - it is no longer the only way you can face off against other people all over the world. Also, the consoles are now producing such graphically stunning games (Condemned 2 looks spectacular, even in non-HD on Xbox, and I'm sure there are better examples) that even though the PC is capable of surpassing them, you'd need such a ridiculously high-end machine to do this that it probably isn't worth the extra money unless you already have such a machine.
With these two strong points more or less negated in recent years, the PC is now looking a lot weaker in it's stature as the gaming platform of choice. Sure, I'd love to be able to play Quake Wars, but am I prepared to shell out hundreds of pounds to do it when I have Halo 3 and Call Of Duty 4 on XBox? Hell no.
I have a funny feeling that I'm not alone, and it would be interesting to see the number of gamers that have migrated from PC to console in recent years, as I'm guessing it would be quite a few. I'm also guessing that it could well be this trend that has lead Epic to focus their products so that they are more focused on the majority of the market, rather than the hardcore minority. Gaming is no longer the habit of the bespectacled nerd sitting alone in his darkened room (me circa 1997) - it is now a multi-BILLION dollar industry, and is probably going to overtake the movie industry in the next decade or two in terms of sheer money involved. You can't blame Epic for looking after their interests, which to put it simply is their bottom line.

 

[AB]

Re: Unreal Engine 4 - Primarily for Consoles.

I think you are quite correct. Even though I prefer PC for gaming, because I can afford to upgrade it every few years, I think consoles are a much better and logical option. Sure a top-of-the-line PC can beat a console, but how many people can afford to buy it? If you have a console you can be assured that all the games you buy will work on it. Its relatively easier for developers to develop for consoles because they don't have to account for different hardware.

 

[Mike111]

Re: Unreal Engine 4 - Primarily for Consoles.

Piracy for PC games is much easier than for consoles. Thats going to be a factor as well. Not many people want to void their warranty by installing a mod chip and many dont even know about it.

 

[Kshitiz]

Re: Unreal Engine 4 - Primarily for Consoles.

Well, you guys are over exaggerating the PC's required expenses. I think the only thing you should count as "spendings" for gaming on the PC is your graphics card - These days processors and other stuff arent really that required if you've got the better card. Plus the rest of the PC you bought is used for other purposes too, isnt it? How much processing power you need to write a letter and send it?

And then, how much for the card itself you might ask? One would say look at those $600 9800GX2 Dual GPU monsters and who needs them.... and stuff. But think carefully, do you even need that much power? You have the budgets to buy 30" 2560 x 1680 resolution monitors to do justice to these cards? Most can't. See my case for example. I just bought myself a 9600GT - could be found for easily around $140 on newegg. Slammed it in a very general rig - Intel Pentium Dual core 1.8GHz, P35 Chipset motherboard, 2 Gig's of RAM- Just a Pc one would take even for general home purposes, nothing special. Put in the card and BOOM! I can play every single game maxed out(bar Crysis in Directx 10). The Quality FAR FAR surpasses what the Xbox 360 can even think of - whose cheapest version is $279 btw. You get an Xbox 720 and maybe then you can think of the quality of gaming I am having with Crysis with such a cheap but powerful graphics card. And no, I am not running it at a minnow resolution either - 1680x1050. Now you might even say that HD is 1920x1200, but wait, because except Crysis every single game out there DOES run at that Res without any problems. When it comes to crysis, people saying that see, one again needs better hardware, well, you do, because the game far surpasses the Xbox 360's capabilities. Or even PS3's in some cases - which is again $400 btw. I am easily sure that I can happily game on this card for another 2 years, maybe even 3.

What you guys see in tech sites, the things where they say that this card has been brought to its knees or that one, Well, its because that's their job. Bringing the cards to their knees and then test them. They do that at insane settings. When you play the games in your computer you wouldn't even need those high settings. There's too much exaggeration now a days.

 

[AB]

Re: Unreal Engine 4 - Primarily for Consoles.

Does the average gamer really know about this stuff? Do they build their own PC? As Nighvision said, nowadays, the average gamer is not a computer expert or a nerd.
Gaming on a PC is too much of a hassle for most. You need to keep upgrading your PC every 2-3 years. In 2-3 years, you'll find that your motherboard is outdated, and it won't support the latest graphics cards out there. A console, on the other hand, wont need any upgrading and will last for 5 years.

 

[Stumped]

Re: Unreal Engine 4 - Primarily for Consoles.

why but a pc when u can have fun on PS3 and Xbox and Wii !

 

[Kshitiz]

Re: Unreal Engine 4 - Primarily for Consoles.

why but a pc when u can have fun on PS3 and Xbox and Wii !

It could be said the other way round too. Why PS3 or Xbox 360 when you can have fun on PC?

Does the average gamer really know about this stuff? Do they build their own PC? As Nighvision said, nowadays, the average gamer is not a computer expert or a nerd.
Gaming on a PC is too much of a hassle for most. You need to keep upgrading your PC every 2-3 years. In 2-3 years, you'll find that your motherboard is outdated, and it won't support the latest graphics cards out there. A console, on the other hand, wont need any upgrading and will last for 5 years.

Well, when you say that if the average PC gamer know all this stuff, its not a point justifying the consoles - it only shows why consoles are getting more popular. It doesn't justify if the consoles are better or not.

Moreover, gaming on a PC does NOT require so many upgrades. Its just pure hype. One reads them on tech sites. When Crysis came out, everyone went baffling, saying that you got to upgrade, you got to upgrade etc. That is, after reading reviews. The same reviews which test at insane settings. But you don't really need it. I can sure you - even a measly 8500GT can run Crysis at 1024 * 768, which is a resolution more than enough to enjoy the game. Only some games like Crysis make the PC look like you need to upgrade but these types of games are quite few.
Take Half Life 2 for example, even though its new, sort of revamped, it doesn't require some highly monstrous card to play it. Ditto Unreal Tournament 3.

Also, We must clear up that Gaming on PC at 40 fps is same as 200fps, there's no difference actually. So, since my 9600GT is giving above 100 fps in most games, I wouldn't have any problems with it gaming for another 4-5 years, even when it dips to 40 fps.

You only need to upgrade your PC every 2-3 years, if you just want the highest of unneccessary settings, or want to show off your Uber fast machine.

 

[AB]

Re: Unreal Engine 4 - Primarily for Consoles.

A PC can always beat a console at performance, but that isn't what this discussion is about. Consoles are better for gaming because its a much more logical option, not because its better at performance. Also, you do need to upgrade your PC 2-3 years. In 2-3 years, you many find out that a new technology has replaced PCI-E and you can't find a new graphics card to work with your motherboard. DDR3 RAM may replace DDR2 and may not work on your motherboard. Games, certainly, wont continue at the highest or even medium settings.
Ultimately what the developers care about is money. And since consoles are more popular for gaming, its only logical for them to make consoles their first priority.

 

[Nightvision]

Re: Unreal Engine 4 - Primarily for Consoles.

This is true.

When I built my PC, I decided to go for a Socket A motherboard/processor. Mainly because they were slightly cheaper than Socket 752 or 939 at the time, and I was on a budget.
I also went for 512MB of RAM, which was more than enough, as most games at that time were happy with 128-256MB as a minimum spec.

Now, in the time between now and then, my computer is obsolete. It still runs a few new games on minimum settings, but that won't be the case for much longer. In less than a year, I'll have to upgrade to be able to play new games.

You can no longer buy Socket A processors from anywhere other than clearance bins, so that means I'll also need to upgrade my motherboard when the time comes to inject some life into this old dog. So there's £120 for a decent processor and motherboard (and that's a conservative estimate!).
I'm guessing that DDR3 or similar will be around by then as well, but even so, I'll certainly have to pep up my 512MB of RAM by at least 1GB, and probably 2 if I want to be able to run anything vaguely demanding after a month or two. That'll probably be at least another £50 (I'm factoring in Moore's law here as well).
Chances are that my 9500 will need replacing by then, and we all know how much a graphics card can cost if you're mad enough to spend that kind of money. A mid-range one will probably be about £150. Oh, and don't forget that Windows will be more or less shutting the door on XP soon, so I'll probably have to shell out for Vista as well at some point. There goes another £100.
So basically, from the £450 I spent building my machine in the first place, in 3-4 years' time, I'm going to have to spend £420 just to keep it in the middle of the road. That's £820 compared to the £250 it would have cost for a brand new Xbox.
So, let's weigh up the options:
An Xbox 360, with pretty good graphics, excellent game selection, no expensive upgrades, and no performance issues that will last you at least 5 years before the next model comes along = £250
A PC with nicer graphics over the same period and a few games you can't get on XBox = £820

It's not a tough decision, really is it?

Moreover, gaming on a PC does NOT require so many upgrades. Its just pure hype. One reads them on tech sites. When Crysis came out, everyone went baffling, saying that you got to upgrade, you got to upgrade etc. That is, after reading reviews.

The point about the tech sites is probably true, I don't know, as I don't really read them. I occasionally get PC Zone or something like that, but most of my knowledge regards requirement of upgrades etc is from a combination of experience (getting a game home and find it's unplayable of your system), or simply reading the 'minimum requirements' box on the bottom of the packaging. There's no hyperbole, no exaggeration, simply a statement of what the manufacturers believe is the minimum required system to run the game at an acceptable level.

Don't think I'm a die-hard console boy, because I love PC gaming. Unreal Tournament and Black & White are two of my favourite games of all time, both of which were on the PC. I've been playing games since the Amstrad CPC 464, and for a long time vastly preferred PC gaming to Consoles, but the goalposts have moved as I'm growing up. Financial viability is the main concern for me as a gamer now, and I'm sorry, but PC gaming simply does not get even close to offering value for money these days.

 

[Kshitiz]

Re: Unreal Engine 4 - Primarily for Consoles.

A PC can always beat a console at performance, but that isn't what this discussion is about. Consoles are better for gaming because its a much more logical option, not because its better at performance. Also, you do need to upgrade your PC 2-3 years. In 2-3 years, you many find out that a new technology has replaced PCI-E and you can't find a new graphics card to work with your motherboard. DDR3 RAM may replace DDR2 and may not work on your motherboard. Games, certainly, wont continue at the highest or even medium settings.
Ultimately what the developers care about is money. And since consoles are more popular for gaming, its only logical for them to make consoles their first priority.

But why would you need DDR3 RAM and a new slot graphics card unless you're just wanting to have unnecessary top of the line rig?

This is true.

When I built my PC, I decided to go for a Socket A motherboard/processor. Mainly because they were slightly cheaper than Socket 752 or 939 at the time, and I was on a budget.
I also went for 512MB of RAM, which was more than enough, as most games at that time were happy with 128-256MB as a minimum spec.

Now, in the time between now and then, my computer is obsolete. It still runs a few new games on minimum settings, but that won't be the case for much longer. In less than a year, I'll have to upgrade to be able to play new games.

You can no longer buy Socket A processors from anywhere other than clearance bins, so that means I'll also need to upgrade my motherboard when the time comes to inject some life into this old dog. So there's £120 for a decent processor and motherboard (and that's a conservative estimate!).
I'm guessing that DDR3 or similar will be around by then as well, but even so, I'll certainly have to pep up my 512MB of RAM by at least 1GB, and probably 2 if I want to be able to run anything vaguely demanding after a month or two. That'll probably be at least another £50 (I'm factoring in Moore's law here as well).
Chances are that my 9500 will need replacing by then, and we all know how much a graphics card can cost if you're mad enough to spend that kind of money. A mid-range one will probably be about £150. Oh, and don't forget that Windows will be more or less shutting the door on XP soon, so I'll probably have to shell out for Vista as well at some point. There goes another £100.
So basically, from the £450 I spent building my machine in the first place, in 3-4 years' time, I'm going to have to spend £420 just to keep it in the middle of the road. That's £820 compared to the £250 it would have cost for a brand new Xbox.
So, let's weigh up the options:
An Xbox 360, with pretty good graphics, excellent game selection, no expensive upgrades, and no performance issues that will last you at least 5 years before the next model comes along = £250
A PC with nicer graphics over the same period and a few games you can't get on XBox = £820

It's not a tough decision, really is it?

The point about the tech sites is probably true, I don't know, as I don't really read them. I occasionally get PC Zone or something like that, but most of my knowledge regards requirement of upgrades etc is from a combination of experience (getting a game home and find it's unplayable of your system), or simply reading the 'minimum requirements' box on the bottom of the packaging. There's no hyperbole, no exaggeration, simply a statement of what the manufacturers believe is the minimum required system to run the game at an acceptable level.

Don't think I'm a die-hard console boy, because I love PC gaming. Unreal Tournament and Black & White are two of my favourite games of all time, both of which were on the PC. I've been playing games since the Amstrad CPC 464, and for a long time vastly preferred PC gaming to Consoles, but the goalposts have moved as I'm growing up. Financial viability is the main concern for me as a gamer now, and I'm sorry, but PC gaming simply does not get even close to offering value for money these days.

Just to let you know, my friend bought a nVidia 7600GT like 3-4 years ago, to go with is Pentium 4 and 915 chipset rig. He's still running all of the games out here happily at pretty high settings. There's actually no game that refuses to run on his PC. And I don't remember the 7600GT to be more than $230 at anytime(not to mention that its faster counterparts are even much cheaper, almost half nowadays). And there's no game that refuses to run, even at good settings. Now even if he wants to upgrade his card 1 year later, he can easily do so with the same platform. And all game's will once again run....

Socket A 3-4 years ago? Comeon you're kidding me! Did you, even at that time, buy it from some old shop?

 

[AB]

Re: Unreal Engine 4 - Primarily for Consoles.

But why would you need DDR3 RAM and a new slot graphics card unless you're just wanting to have unnecessary top of the line rig?

For the same reason that I would buy DDR2 RAM and PCI-E graphics card now. Whats the point of buying an AGP card or DDR1 RAM on this day? It hard to even find an AGP card today.
When you upgrade you want it to last for at least 2-3 years, buying outdated technology will not help.

 

[Kshitiz]

Re: Unreal Engine 4 - Primarily for Consoles.

Yes, but surely, I am saying, why would you need to upgrade in the next 2-3 years when your current technology, even though outdated, is still lasting you good and nice?