Unreal Engine 4 Not For Current Platforms (Except Kepler)

[RADIO_ACTIVE]

"The thing that separates consoles from FarmVille is the fact that consoles define the high-end gaming experience," he said. "When you look for the best graphics available in the whole game industry today, you look at Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, and those games are the best out there, bar none. And so the big opportunities for future consoles is to bring that to an entirely new level by delivering a dramatic increase in raw computing power."

Does anyone else feel like they need to throw up....

 

[Doobie13]

[citation][nom]ultimatum[/nom]"When you look for the best graphics available in the whole game industry today, you look at Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3"i lol'd...[/citation]

I had a major WTF moment... It saddens me that the PC is getting shafted like it is. I say we mutiny.

 

[joeman99]

"When you look for the best graphics available in the whole game industry today, you look at Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3"

LMAFO OK thats why Epics own Cliffy B recently announced a PC exclusive title...Only reason we are getting a PC exclusive is becasue current consoles are holding back UE4.

 

[MarioJP]

This argument shouldn't even be debatable. Believe me when i say that consoles pale in comparison when Nvidia says "the way its meant to be played" boy they are not kidding either. Launch dates for consoles compared to Technological advancements OF THAT TIME is also not debatable as well, because unlike these consoles. PC just does not stop evolving 24/7.

The release of the GTX 690 literally blows away any console planned for the future for up to 3 years in advanced maybe more give or take. Sadly all that horespower means squat when you have to depend on the weakest link (consoles), which has been for years. The fact that Tim Sweeney is not even considering PC's as a viable gaming platform just shows that the gaming industry is going downhill. Consoles are loooong over due nuff said.

 

[ojas]

[citation][nom]aggroboy[/nom]Was there ever a new console generation where PC hardware wasn't caught with its pants down?[/citation]
There won't be another.
And that doesn't justify saying that "oh look in 2012 console graphics are the best!!!!".

Why? Because they're not.

And BS about piracy. In India, people have been pirating console games for years. They cost 3-4x as much as PC games do anyway (here).

 

[MarioJP]

See the point that he is missing is. Consoles is, and will always will be static, while PC's are dynamic lol. So that statement of his does not even matter anyway.

 

[tipoo]

"When you look for the best graphics available in the whole game industry today, you look at Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, and those games are the best out there, bar none."

And by that he means our company aims for the lowest common denominator then does a hasty PC port. He said it himself, high end PC hardware today can run vastly more complex games than it currently is. Unfortunately we do have to wait for the next consoles to come out before that's used, and those (by the rumours) wouldn't be high end today, let alone in one or two years.

 

[captaincharisma]

so much for another unreal tournament. maybe gearbox can get that franchise from epic too.

 

[tipoo]

[citation][nom]ewood[/nom]Was there ever a new console generation that didnt use technology first developed for the pc? xbox360=x1900 ps3=7800[/citation]

To be precise, the 7800 in the PS3 was actually quite cut down, if I remember it had the number of ROPs as the 7600, and half the memory bandwidth of the 7800 card. It really was a rushed last minute add-in when they realized the Cell processor could not do both CPU and GPU work as well as they wanted.

The x1900 in the 360 was actually the first shipping chip with unified shaders, it was like the power of the 1900 with the architecture of the 2900.

 

[dreadlokz]

truth is, none wants to make a single plataform game anymore! they want the game to run on the PC and on all the other consoles, thats why games are almost the same in the past few years, we gonna se some improvement after next gen consoles launch, and then will stop again for several years! Don't expect another Crysis anytime soon! sad but true =s
If I win the lotery, I'll waste all my money to make the best pc game ever =D and no, it wont run on you shitty console ;p

 

[MarioJP]

while its true that the 360 was the first console to sport unified shaders its not like the industry was taking advantage of it right away, up until the 2900 was released, which quite frankly gave it the upper advantage over the PS3. Developers were moaning about PS3 not being "programmable friendly" lmao.

 

[MarioJP]

truth is, none wants to make a single plataform game anymore! they want the game to run on the PC and on all the other consoles, thats why games are almost the same in the past few years, we gonna se some improvement after next gen consoles launch, and then will stop again for several years! Don't expect another Crysis anytime soon! sad but true =s
If I win the lotery, I'll waste all my money to make the best pc game ever =D and no, it wont run on you shitty console ;p

I concur and be the first customer to buy this only exclusive AAA I mean Quad A PC title =D

 

[toxict51]

well all the comments above are as negative as what i had in mind on this useless article, its all console supportive, very disappointed that a gtx 480 or a gtx 560 cant handle ue4, epic should consider public opinions till now they are all negative about their decision. lets see what happens when UE4 comes out RIOT

 

[MarioJP]

well all the comments above are as negative as what i had in mind on this useless article, its all console supportive, very disappointed that a gtx 480 or a gtx 560 cant handle ue4, epic should consider public opinions till now they are all negative about their decision. lets see what happens when UE4 comes out RIOT

Yep..this is a console biased article with its console biased gamers backing it up. Sad indeed.

 

[kinggremlin]

Get a clue. Yes, in the past it has been true that consoles at launch give you better bang for your gaming buck than PCs, in terms of technology.

Completely false. Consoles since day one have always been the bang for buck leader. That is as much a truth today as it ever has been. XBox 360 is currently $200. PS3 is $250. I wish you luck trying to build a comparable gaming PC for those amounts. Tomshardware's own "budget" gaming rig is $650, and it isn't even a functional PC. It has no OS, no mouse and no keyboard.

What has been true in the past that looks like it won't be anymore is that consoles at launch are more powerful on paper than the best of the best that PC's can offer. What many people here seem to have no clue about is that specs on paper mean very little.

However, you are blowing things WAY out of proportion because you sound like you have no clue what PC hardware can actually do. Also, take a look at rumored specs for future consoles - it looks like the days of consoles using even remotely modern hardware at their launch are over.

You're the one here who sounds like you have no clue. You CANNOT compare the specs of a console to the spec of a PC on paper and come to any useful conclusion. Despite using similar hardware, the capabilites of the 2 platforms are extremely different with the console having a significant advantage in performance when using the same hardware.

A Corvette with an LS3 V8 engine will perform significantly better around a track than a dump truck with the same engine riding on go-kart wheels.

 

[Guest]

"you look at Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, and those games are the best out there, bar none."

I lol'd

Seriously though, this isn't any different than Any generation. Developers always assume the consoles are top dogs and they're going to get the big graphics and big sales. Same argument, different number.

 

[MarioJP]

Its called subsidizing people. Just like how you can buy Mac OSX Lion for 30 bucks Windows 200 bucks. Same principle applies to consoles. They lose sales on hardware but make it up for accessories, premium content etc and of course the games which are 50 a pop unless you can get it used. oh wait they are trying to get rid of the "aftermarket" oh well. PC's are NEVER subsidized cuz you are getting the real deal that does gaming well + some. Just like how you can get an Iphone 4S for $199 but if you buy it without contract it cost more than the 360 LOL!

Taken any economic classes??

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]kinggremlin[/nom]Completely false. Consoles since day one have always been the bang for buck leader. That is as much a truth today as it ever has been. XBox 360 is currently $200. PS3 is $250. I wish you luck trying to build a comparable gaming PC for those amounts. Tomshardware's own "budget" gaming rig is $650, and it isn't even a functional PC. It has no OS, no mouse and no keyboard.What has been true in the past that looks like it won't be anymore is that consoles at launch are more powerful on paper than the best of the best that PC's can offer. What many people here seem to have no clue about is that specs on paper mean very little.You're the one here who sounds like you have no clue. You CANNOT compare the specs of a console to the spec of a PC on paper and come to any useful conclusion. Despite using similar hardware, the capabilites of the 2 platforms are extremely different with the console having a significant advantage in performance when using the same hardware.A Corvette with an LS3 V8 engine will perform significantly better around a track than a dump truck with the same engine riding on go-kart wheels.[/citation]

Considering that old entry level graphics cards can have much more performance than a console's graphics and a CPU to match those graphics cards can be had as well, a PC that beats the consoles can be built that cheap.

Give it a Pentium Dual-Core, a cheap motherboard to go with it, 4GB of DDR3, a Radeon 4870, a cheap case, a cheap 500w PSU, an $80 hard drive (probably the most expensive part, lol), a cheap optical disk drive, and a $10 mouse+keyboard combo, you're good to go. Just use your TV and it's speakers like you would with a console. It's faster, about the same price, and it can do more than just media.

 

[MarioJP]

Considering that old entry level graphics cards can have much more performance than a console's graphics and a CPU to match those graphics cards can be had as well, a PC that beats the consoles can be built that cheap.

Give it a Pentium Dual-Core, a cheap motherboard to go with it, 4GB of DDR3, a Radeon 4870, a cheap case, a cheap 500w PSU, an $80 hard drive (probably the most expensive part, lol), a cheap optical disk drive, and a $10 mouse+keyboard combo, you're good to go. Just use your TV and it's speakers like you would with a console. It's faster, about the same price, and it can do more than just media.

You just be wasting your time putting these specs. simply put..People just don't understand of what you are saying. Its too "technical jargon" for them lol.

 

[princesswilly]

[citation][nom]kinggremlin[/nom]Completely false. Consoles since day one have always been the bang for buck leader. That is as much a truth today as it ever has been. XBox 360 is currently $200. PS3 is $250. I wish you luck trying to build a comparable gaming PC for those amounts. Tomshardware's own "budget" gaming rig is $650, and it isn't even a functional PC. It has no OS, no mouse and no keyboard.What has been true in the past that looks like it won't be anymore is that consoles at launch are more powerful on paper than the best of the best that PC's can offer. What many people here seem to have no clue about is that specs on paper mean very little.You're the one here who sounds like you have no clue. You CANNOT compare the specs of a console to the spec of a PC on paper and come to any useful conclusion. Despite using similar hardware, the capabilites of the 2 platforms are extremely different with the console having a significant advantage in performance when using the same hardware.A Corvette with an LS3 V8 engine will perform significantly better around a track than a dump truck with the same engine riding on go-kart wheels.[/citation]


Actually, you have your information a little off, bro. While it's true you can't compare the 'usual' specs that the masses use to compare PCs to compare consoles, specs play a Huge roll in everything. The systems are architecturally different, so certain specs are more important on one than the other.

Also, you are so Completely incorrect in stating that the same piece of hardware works better on a console than a PC. That makes absolutely no sense, and just shows that You are actually the one that doesn't know what he's talking about. Consoles don't use off-the-shelf pieces of hardware. They have hardware CUSTOM BUILT to utilize what they need. They don't to stockpile processor GHz like a PC does, they need cache size. So they get the companies to make them a processor like this.

Consoles work differently. They're cheaper for that reason. Microsoft buys Xenon processors in bulk, 'passing the savings on to you!'

You're also very misinformed on your pricing.

When the Xbox 360 came out it was almost 500 dollars. At that price, it was about a hundred dollars cheaper than PCs. That's cool. These days, it's 200 dollars. That's cool, still cheaper than PCs. I wholeheartedly admit that, consoles are the bargain bin of gaming.

However, I just built a computer for a scant 600 dollars. 3ghz quad core processor, 8 gigs of ram, couple hard drives, 550ti graphics card. Add in all the odds and ends. Let's even pretend I bought an OS, for shits and giggles. We're up at 700.

So, I've paid almost 4 times the price as I would for an xbox 360. You might ask, why would I do this? Elementary, my dear kinggremlin! For you see, I've been playing Skyrim for the past number of months. It looks amazing! Realistic water, great reflections, beautiful scenery, even some good looking player models!

I went to a friend's house, and he started playing Skyrim on his xbox 360. I ligitimately asked him why he had his settings turned so low. "Skyrim doesn't have graphics settings" he replied.

I'll take my overpriced gaming beauty over bargain any day. Until I lose my job anyway.

 

[MarioJP]

Actually, you have your information a little off, bro. While it's true you can't compare the 'usual' specs that the masses use to compare PCs to compare consoles, specs play a Huge roll in everything. The systems are architecturally different, so certain specs are more important on one than the other.

Also, you are so Completely incorrect in stating that the same piece of hardware works better on a console than a PC. That makes absolutely no sense, and just shows that You are actually the one that doesn't know what he's talking about. Consoles don't use off-the-shelf pieces of hardware. They have hardware CUSTOM BUILT to utilize what they need. They don't to stockpile processor GHz like a PC does, they need cache size. So they get the companies to make them a processor like this.

Consoles work differently. They're cheaper for that reason. Microsoft buys Xenon processors in bulk, 'passing the savings on to you!'

You're also very misinformed on your pricing.

When the Xbox 360 came out it was almost 500 dollars. At that price, it was about a hundred dollars cheaper than PCs. That's cool. These days, it's 200 dollars. That's cool, still cheaper than PCs. I wholeheartedly admit that, consoles are the bargain bin of gaming.

However, I just built a computer for a scant 600 dollars. 3ghz quad core processor, 8 gigs of ram, couple hard drives, 550ti graphics card. Add in all the odds and ends. Let's even pretend I bought an OS, for shits and giggles. We're up at 700.

So, I've paid almost 4 times the price as I would for an xbox 360. You might ask, why would I do this? Elementary, my dear kinggremlin! For you see, I've been playing Skyrim for the past number of months. It looks amazing! Realistic water, great reflections, beautiful scenery, even some good looking player models!

I went to a friend's house, and he started playing Skyrim on his xbox 360. I ligitimately asked him why he had his settings turned so low. "Skyrim doesn't have graphics settings" he replied.

I'll take my overpriced gaming beauty over bargain any day. Until I lose my job anyway.

Cannot compare subsidized consoles. The real true costs of consoles is around $600-$700 (PS3 its $1000 or more due to the very expensive Cell technology plus a specialized Dev kits for the PS3 is $20k) but you won't see that at their end...Nope. Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo can really take a big hit taking a risk that people will subscribe, buy and keep on buying software with premium content.

Why do you think sony has removed PS2 compatibility on the PS3. Not because they want to. Because it cost money for the Emotion Engine to be slapped on the PS3. So what do they do?. virtualize PS2 as an emulator except fails to emulate the real PS2 so Sony ends up removing it instead to avoid complaints. Why do you think Sony is ditching the Cell technology on the upcoming PS4 and is going with AMD or x86 equivalent instead?? (PC architecture) Because PC x86 is cheap and more profits for them. This "subsidizing" can only stretch so far Sony knows this first hand lol.

Which also explains the lifespans per each gen console are very long, but cleverly hide it by saying? PS3 and 360 is the best thing out there no need anything else" cuz deep down they are hurting badly per each console sold, hoping consumers will fall into their "gimmick" marketing schemes. Their business model really depends on it LOL!

Whats next?? A subsidized Console with PC parts slapped in, except it has no windows or Linux but a custom os truly endorsed by Tim Sweeney himself?? It might be if they keep cutting corners like that.

it all makes sense!! and unreal too!!


One last thing.. This whole "custom CPU/GPU is crap. Its all marketing because it shows quickly after the console has been released. There is no bazillion drivers and "video cards" there are only 2 GPU's in the world. Nvidia And AMD. which is funny. The PS3 has Nvidia and the 360 has AMD Readon. Nice try Tim Sweeney. Any more Marketing tricks coming out your rear that isn't crap??

My 2 frakin cents

 

[internetlad]

I read the whole article, and at the end of it saw "Sounds like hardware is finally catching up with the software."

I immediately knew without looking at the author that kevin parrish wrote the article.

Seriously, though. I'm running a 4870 and have been for several years, i'm currently looking at a 7970/680 because i picked up Arma2 (A game designed exclusively for PCs) and it absolutely spanks all hardware available on the higher settings, because the draw distance on the graphics is Ten Kilometers

Let's see you do that on your cutting edge xbox, Epic.

 

[MarioJP]

I read the whole article, and at the end of it saw "Sounds like hardware is finally catching up with the software."

I immediately knew without looking at the author that kevin parrish wrote the article.

Seriously, though. I'm running a 4870 and have been for several years, i'm currently looking at a 7970/680 because i picked up Arma2 (A game designed exclusively for PCs) and it absolutely spanks all hardware available on the higher settings, because the draw distance on the graphics is Ten Kilometers

Let's see you do that on your cutting edge xbox, Epic.

and there's that. Good point!.

"maximize" the length of console by not pushing the console to the limits too quickly??.

Now it definitely makes sense.

 

[rantoc]

[citation][nom]princesswilly[/nom]I went to a friend's house, and he started playing Skyrim on his xbox 360. I ligitimately asked him why he had his settings turned so low. "Skyrim doesn't have graphics settings" he replied.I'll take my overpriced gaming beauty over bargain any day. Until I lose my job anyway.[/citation]

Ask your friend what he paid for the game as well, console games costs more and that for less like described above. I rather pay some extra up front ending up in savings later!

 

[kinggremlin]

Give it a Pentium Dual-Core, a cheap motherboard to go with it, 4GB of DDR3, a Radeon 4870, a cheap case, a cheap 500w PSU, an $80 hard drive (probably the most expensive part, lol), a cheap optical disk drive, and a $10 mouse+keyboard combo, you're good to go. Just use your TV and it's speakers like you would with a console. It's faster, about the same price, and it can do more than just media.

Where are you buying a 4870 for new? How is comparing new to used a valid comparison? I can buy either console used for less than new.

And don't start with the crap about "doesn't include OS" because that console price doesn't include all your controllers or any other peripherals you may desire for the console.

What console has sold without a controller? Every console comes with everything you need to play games. A PC without an OS is a completely useless paperweight.

Also, you are so Completely incorrect in stating that the same piece of hardware works better on a console than a PC. That makes absolutely no sense, and just shows that You are actually the one that doesn't know what he's talking about.

I didn't say that. I even gave an example of what I was talking about, and you still didn't understand. Not sure what else I can do for you. I didn't say the part itself performed better, I said the system will perform better.

When the Xbox 360 came out it was almost 500 dollars.

I don't know where you live. But here in America, the XBox 360 launched at $279, which is almost half of $500 by most peoples' math, and $320 less than the $600 PC estimate you gave.