Epic's GDC Tech Demo

[adam_grif]

Several days old now, but we finally got non-cam footage.



This is Epic's "Next generation tech demo" from their recent GDC presentation. It's running on 3 way SLI'd GTX 580's. Epic has stated that they are confident they can get this to run on a single card after optimization. This seems to indicate that next generation boxes will be approximately equivalent to a GTX580 in graphical terms. The smart money is on 2012 for a Nintendo next gen box and 2013 for Sony/MS.

[Mr Bean]

I'd bet against the 2013 timeline. Sony/MS from all indications have done none of the spadework for the launch of brand new hardware in 2013. That's two years or less away. By this time before the Xbox 360/PS3 launches we had all sorts of hints that development was underway. Everything from the stuff you can hide like hiring positions being posted to rumors leaked out with unusually detailed specs to the virulent non-denial denials. To note in 2003 we had a detail list on the "Nextbox" from Microsoft despite the launch being over two years away.

Meanwhile what do we have now?
Not much that's what.
Remember we are in an atypical generation. It used to be that you had to launch hardware every three years because that's what your competition was doing. Now however you have both MS and Sony talking about decade long generations. They just got their Move/Kinetic peripherals out and are trying to see what kind of sales traction they can get with them. If you want a time line on the decade model that means 2015 for Microsoft with 2016 for Nintendo and Sony.

[adam_grif]

Everything from the stuff you can hide like hiring positions being posted to rumors leaked out with unusually detailed specs to the virulent non-denial denials. To note in 2003 we had a detail list on the "Nextbox" from Microsoft despite the launch being over two years away.

Microsoft Seeking Staff For Next-Gen XBOX

Nintendo is traditionally very secretive and Microsoft notoriously leaky. Systems can come out of nowhere, i.e. the 3DS announced late 2010 and released in japan recently (although the fact that a new handheld was in development came out Early 2010). The 360 is 6 years old this November, and releasing 2013 would mean an 8 year generation for it, which would be unusually long. Given Kinect/Move we can safely conclude that they won't launch 2011/2012 because they're too invested in their current systems, but Nintendo has no such attachments and people think it's a good bet they'll launch a system substantially more powerful than PS360 circa 2012, at which time they will be forced to respond quickly or get left in the dust (and they are probably anticipating this).

[weemadando]

Man. Fucking consoles. *I'm a smarmy asshole*?

Bean is correct in the talk of a decade long console cycle. But maybe all that means is that the true, hardcore, gamers will come to PC so the can get their global dynamic subsurface lighting on. While those damn consoles are still only running those same games but less impressively.

[adam_grif]

Either bring up an argument or visit another thread. "He's right" plus some smarmy crap isn't content. MS is hiring for the next generation, and they can't go 4.5 more years without getting destroyed by a new system from the competition. I'm sure they'd love to stretch it out to a 30 year generation to milk as much money out of idiots who buy CoD and Madden every year, but the reality is that Nintendo won't let them without a fight.

And really, is it too much to ask for you to participate in a thread without shitting it up with console vs pc stuff?

[Mr Bean]

Microsoft Seeking Staff For Next-Gen XBOX

Well that's a good sign but not definitive yet because it's less than a month old and we are not yet seeing the broad based hiring (200+ people) that we see when new consoles are developed. We see the same thing with several hundred people being hired on not just two or three. But who knows we might see all those job posting going up in the next few weeks and this is just the tip of the first wave.

Nintendo is traditionally very secretive and Microsoft notoriously leaky. Systems can come out of nowhere, i.e. the 3DS announced late 2010 and released in japan recently (although the fact that a new handheld was in development came out Early 2010). The 360 is 6 years old this November, and releasing 2013 would mean an 8 year generation for it, which would be unusually long. Given Kinect/Move we can safely conclude that they won't launch 2011/2012 because they're too invested in their current systems, but Nintendo has no such attachments and people think it's a good bet they'll launch a system substantially more powerful than PS360 circa 2012, at which time they will be forced to respond quickly or get left in the dust (and they are probably anticipating this).

There two flaws with that logic
1. Handhelds are different from full consoles as you can do them in house at Nintendo totally in house you don't
need to do the same kind of mass hirings so while handhelds (Both the 3DS and the Sony phone were very quiet launches) but the Wii, Gamecube, Xbox/360 PS2/PS3, we have not had a surprise launch since the PS1 where we knew very little about exactly what was coming.

2. 2013 is two years of lead up time from this instant, console development is typically three years sometimes five (PS3 was forty one months, Xbox 360 was twenty one months or forty eight if you believe that the 360 was a reworked high end blueprint for the standard Xbox before they cut features for cost, Wii was nearly five years)

Two years is on the short side for paper design to launch, made worse if you have any kind of features like a Kinetic being added on top of standard development. Remember how long it took the 360 to get stable and not overheat? IE two years and all those replacements cost MS a huge amount of money on a console they were not exactly racking in money hand over first. You'd think they would do it again or instead take a solid year extra to make sure they have everything worked out solid.



So here we stand it's 2011, the only console maker who would want to rush is Nintendo, except Wii's still sell well. They might have the Revolution 2 under tight development but we had huge hints about the Gamecube and Wii within a few months of their development being started. And I don't personally know of anything from that angle. Everything still speaks about another three years before we see another Console launch.

Might be a touch longer, know why?
Because the current big thought in the console world is that the next consoles might be in part or totally download based. After every year they delay download speeds get faster and more people get broadband. If they can sell a PS4 that has a two terabyte drive and the ability to download and start playing a game instantly after buying it from the PS zone for 60$ of which 0$ goes to Gamestop...

[Mr Bean]

Follow up edit time ended
It does not benefit Microsoft or Sony to jump the gun and launch a brand new console, the 360 and PS3 still have lots of games in development and more pipeline. Only Nintendo has a need to launch a new console to compete on graphics... except they are still the winners of this current generation selling the most games and consoles all at a profit and still more of their back catalog to go through. If Nintendo does not launch in 2013 then why NOT wait till 2015 or 2016.

Remember once they can sell us a Console that is 100% digital content they can make money hand over fist, saving money in not having to print the discs, not losing money to the second hand market and not having to lose money to the companies like Gamestop. You know MS or Sony would love that. And the longer they delay the better their chances of being able to go 100% digital rather than still sticking a blueray drive in the player.

[adam_grif]

Well that's a good sign but not definitive yet because it's less than a month old and we are not yet seeing the broad based hiring (200+ people) that we see when new consoles are developed. We see the same thing with several hundred people being hired on not just two or three. But who knows we might see all those job posting going up in the next few weeks and this is just the tip of the first wave.

Did they fire all of the people who worked on the 360? I'm actually surprised we got any visible hires for people obviously working on the next generation, I would have thought they'd be more secretive about it. Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft are all companies that constantly do Hardware R&D whether they're actively working on next generation consoles or not, and they're more likely to reshuffle existing workers from one department to another than to hire up 150 staff-members overnight with obvious tip-off hiring adds.

1. Handhelds are different from full consoles as you can do them in house at Nintendo totally in house you don't
need to do the same kind of mass hirings so while handhelds (Both the 3DS and the Sony phone were very quiet launches) but the Wii, Gamecube, Xbox/360 PS2/PS3, we have not had a surprise launch since the PS1 where we knew very little about exactly what was coming.

In many cases they do external contracting instead of in-house development with new-staff, they never make their own GPU and CPU for instance, they simply contracted other companies to design and build them. The actual work they do with their own staff is not small, but it's not like they have to build these systems De Novo either. Especially early on in development, they can get away with having minimal staff working on the projects.

I would also point to the more recent videogame industry trend of being highly secretive with upcoming projects. For the past three years, all three major companies have held the following year's lineup close to their chest until E3, when they announce the rest of the year. I would certainly say they are doing a similar sort of thing with hardware now, because announcing your new hardware early is a good way to slow sales when people think the successor is just around the corner.

2. 2013 is two years of lead up time from this instant, console development is typically three years sometimes five (PS3 was forty one months, Xbox 360 was twenty one months or forty eight if you believe that the 360 was a reworked high end blueprint for the standard Xbox before they cut features for cost, Wii was nearly five years)

They aren't just now starting to work on it, they would be just now starting to home in on designs that will be close to what they will eventually go for. The Wii was in development since the GC launched, for example, although they certainly did not get things finalized and ramp up staff until late in this cycle. At least on paper, they have almost certainly been studying possible next generation architectures and designs for several years now.

So here we stand it's 2011, the only console maker who would want to rush is Nintendo, except Wii's still sell well. They might have the Revolution 2 under tight development but we had huge hints about the Gamecube and Wii within a few months of their development being started. And I don't personally know of anything from that angle. Everything still speaks about another three years before we see another Console launch.

The Wii is slowing. It's still selling well, but it is being overtaken in sales by both competitors, and this is going to get worse. When the DS slowed in 2009 we saw the 3DS announced the following year. Not saying this is something that "has" to happen, but even though the DS was still selling great right up until the 3DS launched, relatively speaking, it was clearly losing momentum, and the Wii is doing the same now that the Kinect and Move are eating Nintendo's lunch.

We also had a statement from Reggie that they would talk about the Wii's successor "when the Wii hit 45 million in the US". Which is going to happen mid-way through this year assuming their projections hold. I'm not stupid enough to take that statement as gospel, but the timeframe is very right for a 2012 Nintendo launch, and if this happens I think the competition will be pressured into launching in 2013 or risk getting curb stomped.

Might be a touch longer, know why?
Because the current big thought in the console world is that the next consoles might be in part or totally download based. After every year they delay download speeds get faster and more people get broadband. If they can sell a PS4 that has a two terabyte drive and the ability to download and start playing a game instantly after buying it from the PS zone for 60$ of which 0$ goes to Gamestop...

I'm a huge proponent of DD gaming and would love nothing more than for this to happen, but I don't think it will this generation. Retail sales are the majority of the market, and physical stores will fight tooth and nail to keep their place in the market. Ultimately, they can't expect to sell their consoles without the aide of retailers, and retailers love selling games.

It does not benefit Microsoft or Sony to jump the gun and launch a brand new console, the 360 and PS3 still have lots of games in development and more pipeline. Only Nintendo has a need to launch a new console to compete on graphics... except they are still the winners of this current generation selling the most games and consoles all at a profit and still more of their back catalog to go through. If Nintendo does not launch in 2013 then why NOT wait till 2015 or 2016.

My 2013 prediction is predicated on the idea that Nintendo will launch a new system. I've already discussed this above.

[weemadando]

Either bring up an argument or visit another thread. "He's right" plus some smarmy crap isn't content. MS is hiring for the next generation, and they can't go 4.5 more years without getting destroyed by a new system from the competition. I'm sure they'd love to stretch it out to a 30 year generation to milk as much money out of idiots who buy CoD and Madden every year, but the reality is that Nintendo won't let them without a fight.

Fuck man. You are a business genius.

Nintendo couldn't give two shits. Whatever system they crank out after the 3DS product cycle begins (Wii 2, whatever), will be aimed squarely at milking those sweet, sweet mainstream family demographics. If you are worried about Microsoft or Sony wanting to compete with them in a console space, you shouldn't because MS and Sony learnt that Nintendo isn't their fucking competition.

MS and Sony won't show up with a new console concept this year as Kinect and Move are both performing relatively well for them, so they'll roll out gen2 stuff for that. Not to mention the fact that lots of parts of the world are still in financial hurt, so selling a new console is harder than it would be normally.

A 10 year console cycle brings us to 2015 launch windows, which isn't really that astounding.

And also, if you looked at all of Epic's talks on the matter, you'd see that hte intent behind this tech is to create these effects on the current consoles with scaleability from iOS/Android all the way through to 10k Gaming PC without having to spliy teams. Because that's where they, and other developers, can make CAAAAAAAAAAAAAASH.

As for the CoD/Madden stuff - it's not "idiots" who buy those every year. But I suppose your unfounded elitism and the fact you can't even buy Madden on PC anymore plays into that.

And really, is it too much to ask for you to participate in a thread without shitting it up with console vs pc stuff?

[Sarevok]

I am thinking something else. The graphics is indeed very nice but the question is will the games built using the new Unreal engine be good ?

One of the positive outcomes of the hiatus in graphics race brought on by consoles is the improvement in gameplay. With graphics more or less same since last few years designers have been forced to come up with new gameplay mechanics. I love all the innovative work done on various genre hybrids, sandbox games, the evolution of RTS games beyond starcraft/CnC etc.

But now if we are set for another 90s/early 2000s like rush for better graphics is not gameplay going to suffer ? Because that's what experience shows. Cutting edge graphics require tremendous resources both in monetary and time form. And companies traditionally sacrificed gameplay if it meant that their game look better than their peer competitors.

[adam_grif]

I am thinking something else. The graphics is indeed very nice but the question is will the games built using the new Unreal engine be good ?

Games don't get worse when they get up-ported to new hardware. The people who work on graphics are not the same people who work on design, and I don't believe you really have any evidence to support your assertions about games "getting better because of limitation. For every high concept game that gets released on these systems, there's five gears of war knockoffs and a CoD clone. Games simply get better over time as concepts get spread around the industry and refined.

We started to get the best games this generation in 2006/7, and the quality has been reasonably consistent since then. TPS adopted cover systems as standard, CoD4 style multiplayer became FPS shooter standard, sandbox games have been around since the PS2 era, etc. RTS games on console went through a bit of an experimental phase but I can't think of any big ones on the horizon. By your logic, the Wii should be the best platform with the most great games because it puts big limitations on developers.

Game design will not be altered by giving the tech guys fewer limitations, and if anything it puts less limitations on the gameplay developers because they can build larger levels with more NPCs while still looking graphically appealing. Assassin's Creed with its dense cities was not possible on previous gen systems, for example. There are likewise more possibilities for future games on more powerful systems that we haven't thought of yet, but you may well be enjoying five years from now. Not just bigger levels, but the number of NPCs, the processing power dedicated to better A.I., great physics, whatever. It's usually the case that you don't know you want it until someone makes the killer app for it, and people could easily have made similar arguments that you're making now circa 2004 with no real modifications necessary.

Nintendo couldn't give two shits. Whatever system they crank out after the 3DS product cycle begins (Wii 2, whatever), will be aimed squarely at milking those sweet, sweet mainstream family demographics. If you are worried about Microsoft or Sony wanting to compete with them in a console space, you shouldn't because MS and Sony learnt that Nintendo isn't their fucking competition.

Are you implying Nintendo is going to make a system that it's impossible to make "core games" for? Because simply by releasing a powerful system (relative to PS360, even if it's 2 GPU generations behind the curve graphically, it will still blow those systems away), they automatically win up-ports of every year's biggest multiplatform games. Jesus, they release a CoD every year on Wii and they have to make it specifically for the system. It doesn't matter what you think Nintendo is "targeting", because there is no reason they can't have both, and you're a fool if you think Nintendo doesn't want to get in on the multiplatform hardcore action that they would have to actively work to prevent in order to stop it from happening.

MS and Sony won't show up with a new console concept this year as Kinect and Move are both performing relatively well for them, so they'll roll out gen2 stuff for that. Not to mention the fact that lots of parts of the world are still in financial hurt, so selling a new console is harder than it would be normally.

Nobody said they are rolling it out this year, but we already know they're working on their new shit, regardless of when it's coming out.

And also, if you looked at all of Epic's talks on the matter, you'd see that hte intent behind this tech is to create these effects on the current consoles with scaleability from iOS/Android all the way through to 10k Gaming PC without having to spliy teams. Because that's where they, and other developers, can make CAAAAAAAAAAAAAASH.

What are you trying to say here? That because people like to make games on a diverse range of platforms to maximize the number of people they sell to, that means there's no XBOX 2 until 2015? The PS2 was sold on shelves and had new games coming out for 2 years into the PS3's lifespan. They don't just drop support for a platform when the successor comes out (unless you're Microsoft and your platform is the XBOX 1, lol).

As for the CoD/Madden stuff - it's not "idiots" who buy those every year. But I suppose your unfounded elitism and the fact you can't even buy Madden on PC anymore plays into that.

Yeah, you found me out. I secretly hate every game that isn't on PC.

[weemadando]

Nintendo couldn't give two shits. Whatever system they crank out after the 3DS product cycle begins (Wii 2, whatever), will be aimed squarely at milking those sweet, sweet mainstream family demographics. If you are worried about Microsoft or Sony wanting to compete with them in a console space, you shouldn't because MS and Sony learnt that Nintendo isn't their fucking competition.

Are you implying Nintendo is going to make a system that it's impossible to make "core games" for? Because simply by releasing a powerful system (relative to PS360, even if it's 2 GPU generations behind the curve graphically, it will still blow those systems away), they automatically win up-ports of every year's biggest multiplatform games. Jesus, they release a CoD every year on Wii and they have to make it specifically for the system. It doesn't matter what you think Nintendo is "targeting", because there is no reason they can't have both, and you're a fool if you think Nintendo doesn't want to get in on the multiplatform hardcore action that they would have to actively work to prevent in order to stop it from happening.

My point is that Nintendo discovered with the Wii that you don't have to break your back with dev costs and can sell a console from day one at a profit at a price point below everyone else, because as long as you make it fun, people don't give a shit. Especially Nintendo fans who'd buy a truck of whale menses if you told them it played the new Zelda.

The problem of course is that the massive mainstream market who bought the Wii, well, they bought the Wii. And have played Wii Sports. But that's OK. Because Nintendo still made a profit on that. And Nintendo is making more money than it has ever dreamed of with the DS. Can you name someone who doesn't own one? I fucking struggle to, even amongst the most cranky old coot parts of my family.

Nintendo doesn't NEED to launch a new console. Especially not until they have an idea of whether they can just keep on rolling in 3DS money.

MS and Sony won't show up with a new console concept this year as Kinect and Move are both performing relatively well for them, so they'll roll out gen2 stuff for that. Not to mention the fact that lots of parts of the world are still in financial hurt, so selling a new console is harder than it would be normally.

Nobody said they are rolling it out this year, but we already know they're working on their new shit, regardless of when it's coming out.

No shit. Of course they're looking at new ideas. But you'd initially talked about a console reveal or tease this year which is, to be kind, highly unlikely.

And also, if you looked at all of Epic's talks on the matter, you'd see that hte intent behind this tech is to create these effects on the current consoles with scaleability from iOS/Android all the way through to 10k Gaming PC without having to spliy teams. Because that's where they, and other developers, can make CAAAAAAAAAAAAAASH.

What are you trying to say here? That because people like to make games on a diverse range of platforms to maximize the number of people they sell to, that means there's no XBOX 2 until 2015? The PS2 was sold on shelves and had new games coming out for 2 years into the PS3's lifespan. They don't just drop support for a platform when the successor comes out (unless you're Microsoft and your platform is the XBOX 1, lol).

No. I'm saying that Epic making magic tech isn't going to force the console makers into shoving out a new generation ahead of their schedule. Especially when the purpose of Epic's tech is to be scaleable so that people can make one game and the engine scales it to all platforms that they want to run it on.

Console tail after the launch of a new console doesn't even enter into this point.

As for the CoD/Madden stuff - it's not "idiots" who buy those every year. But I suppose your unfounded elitism and the fact you can't even buy Madden on PC anymore plays into that.

Yeah, you found me out. I secretly hate every game that isn't on PC.

Damn straight I found you out. I mean, you can somehow twist the fact that there are two franchises that people buy year after year in seemingly ever increasing quantities is somehow "bad" and holding everyone else back? There's got to be some issues in there.

[adam_grif]

The problem of course is that the massive mainstream market who bought the Wii, well, they bought the Wii. And have played Wii Sports. But that's OK.

This isn't a big problem at all, considering that the attach rate is only a tiny bit lower than the PS3, as shown here. I'm sure you have loads of personal anecdotes of people buying a Wii and never buying games, but it's no software slouch, and the Wii pushes huge volumes of software because while the attach rate is lower, the install base is higher.

Nintendo doesn't NEED to launch a new console. Especially not until they have an idea of whether they can just keep on rolling in 3DS money.

1. Hardware sales of the Wii are down YoY by a substantial margin, most likely due to direct competition from Move and Kinect. This will not go away, those systems offer everything the Wii does and more, and they are getting aggressively marketed.

2. Nintendo is a publicly traded company, and they are not going to be content with just the 3DS even if it manages to be a DS level smash (i.e. world record breaking console sales), because they've spent the last 5 years with a DS level smash... and also a Wii level smash. It means they will shrink as a company and their profits will be plummeting.

New console soon = no brainer. It allows them to counter-attack the Kinect and Move by providing a superior system, it allows them to steal hype away from sony's NGP by becoming the new shiny box on the block, and it disrupts their competition. It also allows them to sell more consoles to the people who already own a Wii, which means more profits. That they will now be getting day-and-date versions of big multitplatform games now too will mean that they cut into their competitors sales and increase 3rd party sales on their own console.

They have a big opportunity to become the 360 and Wii of the next generation - to steal the casuals AND the hardcore, to sell to your grandma and also to the "I buy 30 new games per year" hardcore guys. This is what Microsoft wants to be with Kinect for 360 and what Sony tried to do with Move.

No shit. Of course they're looking at new ideas. But you'd initially talked about a console reveal or tease this year which is, to be kind, highly unlikely.

No I'm pretty sure I talked about Nintendo in 2012 and Sony+MS in 2013. The only console that will get revealed this year, if any, will be the Wii2 at either E3 or (more likely) TGS to give minimum response time for the competition.

No. I'm saying that Epic making magic tech isn't going to force the console makers into shoving out a new generation ahead of their schedule. Especially when the purpose of Epic's tech is to be scaleable so that people can make one game and the engine scales it to all platforms that they want to run it on.

Nope, it's that Epic are buddy buddy with Microsoft, and wouldn't be making a Tech demo if they didn't think they could actually do anything with it for the next 4 years. Epic doesn't make PC exclusives anymore, and like I said - the last time they did this was a year prior to the 360's launch, and they were showing off Gears of War assets. They explicitly stated they think this is what the next generation of consoles will look like, so they obviously know something. A 2013 console with the power of a GTX 580 is perfectly reasonable, a little conservative even.

(I'm secretly hoping that Epic brings it out on Nintendo's next system as an exclusive, just to watch the internet meltdowns that would ensue. Would be legendary!)

Damn straight I found you out. I mean, you can somehow twist the fact that there are two franchises that people buy year after year in seemingly ever increasing quantities is somehow "bad" and holding everyone else back? There's got to be some issues in there.

Pretty sure I never said it was bad for the industry or holding people back I called them idiots because they're apparently satisfied with a slight variation on same game every 12 months, at full 60 dollar price. They can burn the money for all I care, but I'd still call them idiots.