What do you expect from next gen consoles in terms of graphics?

[jadillac]

I dont think we'll see much difference.

This will be the smallest jump from current to next gen that we've seen yet. We already have 1080P, so things cant get much better than that. Maybe more detail and smoother textures is about it.

On top of that, the more powerful the system the more TIME, MONEY, it's gonna cost to develop games. Most companies aren't gonna push too much b/c they'll probably claim they're losing money.

 

[courtdog]

I dont think we'll see much difference.

This will be the smallest jump from current to next gen that we've seen yet. We already have 1080P, so things cant get much better than that. Maybe more detail and smoother textures is about it.

On top of that, the more powerful the system the more TIME, MONEY, it's gonna cost to develop games. Most companies aren't gonna push too much b/c they'll probably claim they're losing money.

I don't understand why you guys insist on repeating lies or shyt you no nothing about. But we've already had this talk, and I SHOWED you how what your saying is false. Games will actually be cheaper this go round
And the jump will most definitely be HUGE
Cheaper games...
Take-Two CEO Says Next-Gen Consoles Will Bring Development Costs Down
Huge leap in graphics...

But what that video doesn't know about is the new xbox's "secret" way of making games look even better than what people would expect from the specs. It has its own unique way of rendering and applying textures that have to been seen to be believed.
Here's it in geek speak World Exclusive: Durango’s GPU detailed -
But I'll find an easier read later...

 

[Ayo]

Photo-realistic video games should be possible in 10-15 years. The technology already exists. Its just a matter of it becoming cheap/ubiquitous so that it can used to mass produce games.

Photorealistic was possible 15 years ago. They almost did it in Myst.

The thing is that the world in Myst wasn't alive. You were essentially walking amongst a set of pictures (textures.) The lighting and shadows weren't dynamic. Nothing really moved or adjusted to your characters position in the world. Etc Etc

In order to get the photo-realism REAL WORLD that you're thinking about and looking for (dynamic lighting, reflections, high polygon interactive textures and environments, etc etc) it's going to take a lot longer than 10-15 years.

For example...

It took anywhere from 7 to 30 HOURS to render 1 FRAME of Toy Story 3. Pixar has a render farm that has over 12,000 cores all working on that said 1 frame!? That's 12,000+ cores all connected through 1gb/10gb switches taking 7 to 30+ hours to render one frame. How many cores does the new PS4 supposedly have? 8? With 4gb of RAM?

Just to reiterate what I just said above. It takes 12,000+ cores anywhere from 168-720 hours to render 1 second (24fps) of a Pixar movie. Pixar is on record saying that it took a total of 1084 days to render the entire Toy Story 3 movie.

I know video games don't generally have to be so precise and smooth. And a lot of the textures are not generated on the fly and are prerendered. AND WE STILL are not even at Pixar level yet. Photo realistic in the next 10-15 years?

You're not going to see true photo realistic graphics running at 5fps on a console in the next 10-15 years, never mind at 60.

Note: Of course developers can cheat to get there and do what the devs of Myst did 15 years ago. Hey, their doing it now. But it's not going to be immersive nor is it going to be "photo realism". That's why we're seeing more gimmicks than ever in the video game world. There's a new Power Glove coming out every other year.

 

[Swagnificent]

Even if that power was on desktop/laptops. Games still wouldn't look like that because games are more Intensive then movies. also you have to think about the power/heat that would be generated. Think about the PSU/Cooling systems you would need to get away with generating that type of real-time rendering. I couldnt even imagine at this time how one PSU could handle all of that when thr movie industry is using multiple computers stored in some cold ass room and its still taking them a long time render those scene

I dont have the clip with me, but John Carmack give a speech a few years back about the difference between the gaming industry and the movie industry and why the movie industry moves faster than games. he also stated that after 1 CPU you lose return on investment as you add more CPU's
. Desktop hit that wall after we cross the 1 GHz line, hence everything being Dual-Core/Quad core etc.

Yes computers will continue to become faster but its going to take alot more than just throwing in more cores/upping the ram etc. Yes walls do exist. Look at NASA which has some of the smartest ppl in the world, how much have they advanced since the 60's?


In the end I dont anybody is totally disagreeing with you Swag, you're just making it sound like Cost is the reason why we arent there yet. In my opinion we would need some type of breakthrough and i believe its going to come from mobile devices as they have to deal with adding more power and finding a way to not kill your cell battery.

Listen. Of course it will take breakthroughs to accomplish computing power on one chip that now takes up rooms of supercomputers. I'm not acting like it'll just happen by magic. However, we've done this many times already. Our laptops today contain chips that doing more calculations per second than the most powerful supercomputers did just 15 years ago.

And the folks at intel, IBM, and DARPA are RIGHT NOW working on the next generation of supercomputers that are going to do computations on the exascale. That means the individual chips in the supercomputers of the year 2020 will be doing petaflops, which is what the most powerful supercomputers are doing today. That means in 10 years, the average laptop graphics card will have the ability to do the computational power that todays supercomputers do.

Yes. CGI in movies requires less intensive computing power than would real-time rendering of games, however, my point remains true. Our only issues with getting photorealism is cost and time. Its not like we don't know how to code a computer with the correct algorithms to produce photorealistic graphics. Tim Sweeney explained in that earlier video that we do. Our only problem is getting the computing power necessary to do it. And there is nothing in the laws of physics that tells us we can't get graphics cards that can do 5 petaflops. We know its possible, its just about getting it done.

Also, the NASA analogy is wrong because NASA has had incredible advances in technology. Just because we aren't sending humans into space doesn't mean that the tech there hasn't advanced. We have robots right now roaming the surface of Mars collecting data without the need of any human intervention. I would call that a monumental leap over sending humans to the moon. The future of space exploration simply doesn't require humans. Robots are cheaper and more efficient.

 

[Swagnificent]

It took anywhere from 7 to 30 HOURS to render 1 FRAME of Toy Story 3. Pixar has a render farm that has over 12,000 cores all working on that said 1 frame!? That's 12,000+ cores all connected through 1gb/10gb switches taking 7 to 30+ hours to render one frame. How many cores does the new PS4 supposedly have? 8? With 4gb of RAM?

Just to reiterate what I just said above. It takes 12,000+ cores anywhere from 168-720 hours to render 1 second (24fps) of a Pixar movie. Pixar is on record saying that it took a total of 1084 days to render the entire Toy Story 3 movie.

I know video games don't generally have to be so precise and smooth. And a lot of the textures are not generated on the fly and are prerendered. AND WE STILL are not even at Pixar level yet. Photo realistic in the next 10-15 years?

You're not going to see true photo realistic graphics running at 5fps on a console in the next 10-15 years, never mind at 60.

Note: Of course developers can cheat to get there and do what the devs of Myst did 15 years ago. Hey, their doing it now. But it's not going to be immersive nor is it going to be "photo realism". That's why we're seeing more gimmicks than ever in the video game world. There's a new Power Glove coming out every other year.

Lets see....who should I believe? some clown on a message board or Epics's Tim Sweeney? not a difficult choice at all

No one said the new PS4 would be doing photo-realistic graphics. It only does 1.8 teraflops and has 4GB of ram. However, in 10-15 years, the next gen consoles of that era will be doing petaflops and have terabytes of RAM. Thats computing power that is a 1000x more powerful than today's tech and 1000x more memory. Once that tech becomes available, photo-realistic rendering will be possible.

I'm not just saying this for wishful thinking, this is what folks in the industry like Tim Sweeney say will be possible.

 

[Liquid]

The jump from PS1 to PS2 was larger than the one from PS2 to PS3.

Also, there were people back on that didn't feel this was good enough to be considered next gen -

Unreal Engine demo - Samaritan - YouTube

Keep in mind, they had to run that on 3 gtx 580s when it originally debuted, they cut back some effects and got it to run on 1 GTX 680. Neither next gen system will have the horsepower of 1 680, and all the optimization in the world can't make up for power.

Yeah and the jump from PS1 to PS2 was smaller than the SNES/Genesis to the PS1 (the biggest jump of all time)

Its definitely slowing down a bit when it comes to gaming. Budget has a large part to do with it, but let some of these clowns tell you otherwise. They buy into the hype that EA and all these companies feed down their throat. You would think by now we would be playing Madden looking like the characters in Avatar locked at 60 fps

 

[Savior]

The jump's not gonna be too big...they already have PC's better than the specs to next gen consoles. Obviously no game utilizes that type of power but the most graphically advanced game would be a Crysis type game that needs a top of the line PC to play

 

[Wild self]

@Liquid you right, if people want to see them super high end graphics, they gotta pay $800+ per console, and only Sony can do that and still have stans

 

[Data-Hawk]

News: id Software's John Carmack 'not excited' by next-gen - ComputerAndVideoGames.com

John Carmack says PS4, Xbox 720 nothing to be excited about - SlashGear

We may be hitting the point of diminishing returns.

So as you can see, even the experts dont totally agree on stuff..

 

[Malta]

Lets see....who should I believe? some clown on a message board or Epics's Tim Sweeney? not a difficult choice at all

No one said the new PS4 would be doing photo-realistic graphics. It only does 1.8 teraflops and has 4GB of ram. However, in 10-15 years, the next gen consoles of that era will be doing petaflops and have terabytes of RAM. Thats computing power that is a 1000x more powerful than today's tech and 1000x more memory. Once that tech becomes available, photo-realistic rendering will be possible.

I'm not just saying this for wishful thinking, this is what folks in the industry like Tim Sweeney say will be possible.

Delusional plain and simple.

14 years ago there were people saying what we see in Star Wars Phantom Menace would be possible on home consoles today

How about we see consoles or PCs render something of the Final Fantasy Spirits within level before you start talking about photo-realism in real time. You are without question going to be disappointed by the next gen systems, your expectations are completely unrealistic.

 

[Malta]

News: id Software's John Carmack 'not excited' by next-gen - ComputerAndVideoGames.com

John Carmack says PS4, Xbox 720 nothing to be excited about - SlashGear

So as you can see, even the experts dont totally agree on stuff..

What does Carmack know!

 

[hex]

14 years ago there were people saying what we see in Star Wars Phantom Menace would be possible on home consoles today

This is the same shyt I said earlier in the thread. When it comes to technology the media always presents the best case scenario as inevitable.

Fred.

 

[Swagnificent]

Delusional plain and simple.

14 years ago there were people saying what we see in Star Wars Phantom Menace would be possible on home consoles today

How about we see consoles or PCs render something of the Final Fantasy Spirits within level before you start talking about photo-realism in real time. You are without question going to be disappointed by the next gen systems, your expectations are completely unrealistic.

Well anyone who said that is an idiot. Look bro, I don't care if you wanna willow in some pity about how games aren't as advanced as you want them to be. Me, I've been happy with what has been done so far this gen and I'm looking forward to next gen pushing the envelope even further. The basic premise you seem to not understand is that computing technology advances EXPONENTIALLY. So yes, when photo-realistic games come about, it'll look like they came outta nowhere. That is how exponentials work. They don't work in some linear manner in which we see things work incrementally along to photo-realism. We'll go from a gen that is still cartoonish to totally real because of exponential increases.

No one denies that in 10-15 years, the common laptop will be capable of doing calculations equivalent to what todays supercomputers do. You can argue with me about whether that is enough to produce photo-realistic graphics. But the rate of computational power increasing is a FACT.

A $400 console that does 5 petaflops and has 5 terabytes of RAM will be POSSIBLE in 2025. That is simple Moore's law. You can argue with Tim Sweeney about whether that'll be enough to produce photo-realistic graphics. Don't argue with me that we won't have that much computing power in 2025.

 

[Swagnificent]

This is the same shyt I said earlier in the thread. When it comes to technology the media always presents the best case scenario as inevitable.

Fred.

And one of these days they'll be right. You idiots are following a logical fallacy. Because they were wrong in the past doesn't mean they'll be wrong now. Do your own research and then determine whether these projections of the capabilities of technology are possible.

 

[yseJ]

Not a computer engineer but I've read enough to know what the exponential rate of computing power means. It seems as though you have less knowledge than I do on this topic even though you claim to be a computer engineer. Here's Epic's Tim Sweeney explaining how more RAW computing power can produce better graphics The Future of Gaming - Tim Sweeney (Epic) DICE 2012 Session - YouTube

at the 4:25 mark he says that to make photo-realistic games we only need 50x more computational power than the graphic cards of today.....he puts it at 2 more generations before we get games that are INDISTINGUISHABLE from real life.......that makes my mid-2020s date sound slightly early but still at about the right time

we are not very far away from playing games that are equivalent to being in the Matrix.....thanks for Moore's law

again, moores law is simply the law that governs processing power. like ive said, the question isnt whether we will be able to render photorealistic graphics because of computation power growth.

the question is will the games with such graphics be made and how much will it take to make them. it's one thing to render a photorealistic room....which will take lots of power. but another to create it from scratch.

again, I dont claim to be an expert on graphics, so Ill stand corrected but I dont see any refutation of my claims.

the pixar renders might take a long time, but they are so slow because of resolution. and compared to photorealistic stuff, pixar models are VERY low poly. now think about how much time people at pixars create those models animations and backgrounds.

rendering is a monkeys job. you could leave frames rendering in parallel and youd be able to render with less computational power

who is going to create a whole game full of photorealistic graphics ?

the more complex graphics is, the more manpower it requires to build. me and you can create 8-bit graphics, but we cant create hi-res textures and multipoly models fast

incredible cost of grpahics is the biggest reason why games today are so much shorter than back in the day