Playstation 4 Announced, Diablo 3 and more coming

Crni Vuk said:
Ilosar said:
Crni Vuk said:
This pretty much sums up the Diablo 3 PC community.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wZJ5RJdi2Y&list=UU4irjUYpgjMTg0Wq8WhVNYQ&index=1

First world problems ...

Ayup. I've never seen a community that was so whiny as Blizzard's. They shit and moan about their gamees far, far more than they play them it seems.

.
to be fair though they have all reason to "whine" about it since D3 is not even close to the quality of the past games. There is no real end game content, and there is also no PvP despite the fact that it was promised and also "advertised" (it was on the back of the box as far as I remember) and they promised to release it with patches. Still nothing here yet. The items and Skills in D3 are very simplified and almost boring as only a small number of stats and affixes are important and usefull. And the game has only 4 players, the console supports 4 players (coinsidence? Who knows ...) despite the fact that D2 had 8 player support.

Oh, they were like that wayyyyyy before Diablo 3, believe me. Used to play WoW when I was young and foolish, and the forums were a cesspool only matched by the likes of 4chan. The Diablo 2 ones were even worse. The SC community was only slightly less retarded. And I have no reason to believe any of this has changed for the better.

But yeah, back to the PS4 with us. I do appreciate that they announced a few indie games at launch, instead of another God of War 76 or the like.

Also, that abridged convention is hilarious.
 
Unified memory pool is really the only thing I was interested in and wanted to hear from the announcement. Didn't expect it to be 8 GB, though.
 
WorstUsernameEver said:
Unified memory pool is really the only thing I was interested in and wanted to hear from the announcement. Didn't expect it to be 8 GB, though.

Not just 8GB.

8GB GDDR5!!!!!! :shock:
 
FearMonkey said:
Not just 8GB.

8GB GDDR5!!!!!! :shock:


Meh...
Sure it is better than a regular mid level 2013 pc atm, but those specs will fall to an equal level in just 8-12 months and fall below pc levels under 2 years.

Besides, based on the config, it seems that ps4 games will be going for less but better defined/textured objects route whereas regular 1k$ range gaming pcs are going to be able to display twice to eight times more (but lesser detailed) stuff on screen. 2 gig vram + 8-16gig sys ram anyone?
 
Another yes and no question. Compared to PCs, PS3 has minuscule amounts of total ram but manages to support games like Uncharted via it's Cell (cpu&gpu) architecture.

8 gigs of DDR5 (if) used in a steamlined/dedicated manner may provide a very good output. But then again, PS3 is going to be based on x86 (pc like) architecture so all I/we can do is semi intelligent WAGs :)
 
no 32 bit game can use more than 4 gig total ram.

and that includes the video ram it uses.

so say the game reserves 2 gigs of vram, it can only use up to 2 gigs of normal ram.

64 bit architecture eliminates that. and i dont see anything saying that it will use a 64 bit architecture. so it will probably still be 32 bit.

so it will have over 4 gigs of ram unusable, putting in that extra 4 gigs of ram was pointless.
 
TheWesDude said:
64 bit architecture eliminates that. and i dont see anything saying that it will use a 64 bit architecture. so it will probably still be 32 bit.

so it will have over 4 gigs of ram unusable, putting in that extra 4 gigs of ram was pointless.
... Lol? You seriously think they tacked on 4GB of GDDR5 (which isn't dirt cheap like DD3) that they can't even use?

AMD's Jaguar architecture is 64-bit. Of course, whatever OS they're sticking on the thing has to be 64-bit as well, but it's a safe bet it will be.

Also, this is a unified memory pool so it's not just a question of if games need it. The system's OS is going to use up some, and given that they're going to enable background downloading and having a game open in the background while you multitask, having a large enough pool of memory available is a must. 8GB is surprisingly foward-looking, given it's a console. Not to mention, this should hopefully mean there won't be ugly low-res textures all over the place, which happens with current console games primarily due to the anemic memory.

As far as the whole "oh who cares about graphics, the games are going to suck anyway" sentiment... that's the same shit that's been said since the dawn of gaming. Advances in graphics (and other technical parts of game engines) neither imply nor preclude games being good or bad. However, video games are a very visual medium, and saying that graphics don't matter (or more advanced physics systems or game engines in general) is just asinine.
 
Kyuu said:
As far as the whole "oh who cares about graphics, the games are going to suck anyway" sentiment... that's the same shit that's been said since the dawn of gaming. Advances in graphics (and other technical parts of game engines) neither imply nor preclude games being good or bad. However, video games are a very visual medium, and saying that graphics don't matter (or more advanced physics systems or game engines in general) is just asinine.

How is it asinine to point out the decline in innovation and creative design in big budget games?
 
Tagaziel said:
How is it asinine to point out the decline in innovation and creative design in big budget games?
1) It's not related to the increased processing power of platforms or better graphics.

2) That's opinion, not an objective fact (which isn't to say I necessarily disagree with you).
 
TheWesDude;
Isn't there a weird semi-parallel process design that uses 2 layer ram use? In this case using 2sys+2vid to play the game and layer an additional 3(ish) gig expand the processed assets with additional layers (bumpmaps, AA, soft shadows, sound depth and so on)
 
1) It's not related to the increased processing power of platforms or better graphics.

Ah, but I believe it's part of the problem. Games cost more and more to make, in part because graphically advanced products require more time, more people, more money. As such, many publishers only greenlight absolute surefire hits, and a single flop can put a studio down under for good. They refuse to take risks, and thus thread the familiar grounds we all know; linear FPSes, God of War clones, the works. It,s not THE reason, but it's part of it.
 
actually today its not much more expensive to make games compared to the past. There is a lot more standardized technology, a lot more competition and people out there which can do the job. Seriously, just take a look on character design today and in the 80s. People like sid meier known for his Blade Runner designs for example cost a fortune. Today thx to the internet its easier to find high quality artists with afordable price ranges. Just as example of course. Its today an own "branch" to speak so with schools dedicated to such design. You can also teach your self a lot here now that the programs and lessons are affordable!

Most of the money with games is spend in marketing like TV comercials, print magazines, trailers etc.

Not long ago "real life" acting for an game was rather rare or even just game trialers(!) which show you actually nothing from the game it self and are just there to set the tone and hype you.

I dont want to know how much they payed for that super bowl comercial for God of War. That alone must have been quite a lot, CBS alone is charging around 3,8m dollars for 30 sec in TV! One comercial is more then most games cost to be made ... granted the ads for God of war was just for the Super Bowl stream, but still I am sure it was quite a lot of money as far as games go.
 
care to elaborate? I am speaking relatively here. Just the production costs. Not the projects.

A game like Call of Duty for example has to make a lot more money to get all the costs in, so a game like Skyrim has to sell around 3 million copies just to get even (according to Bethesda).

Games like CoD easily spend around 100m of Dollar on marketing alone.

Now a game like Path of Exile require MUCH less in making them compared to a game like Diablo 3. Crowd Funding projects are another proof. Those games dont lack necessarily quality or content. They just dont go with the LATEST possible technology nor do they spend to much time on marketing. And why should they? Wasteland 2 would not be the better game just becaues it features dynamic shadows and HDR lighting. But even that CAN be used for games today without exploding in price.

As said, its a lot easier today to get all the things you need together. There are websites for concept artists, 3d models, programming, a lot of open source software and programmers out there or platforms where you can hire them. There is today Blender, Google Sketchup and many other free ware programms that people can use to experiment and learn. Programs like Photoshop, 3Dmax/maya or Z-Brush are affordable for the usual person 600$ compared to like some 5000-10.000$(!) somewhere in the past, and that all for professional programms! They do whole movies with Blender today and there is an huge community behind it helping each other, with tutorials etc. The things alone I do with photoshop and ilustrator are self taught. Not long ago if you wanted to learn those things you had to pay a lot for workshop where someone would explain you how to operate the programms.

I dont get this "it was all easier in the past!" thing from people that actually dont work with designs.

The risk you have to take today is the same like in the past that is of course true. And I dont dispute that. But to just find the people and tools is today easier compared to the past before the Internet became that huge social platform. And in some cases its even cheaper. Seriously, certain modifications alone today offer more then some games of the 90s. Be it single player OR multiplayer. Thats because its easier to get the people together to share your vision or to work on an single project. The work can be done from home over the net and send over in less then a day. I can do concept here from Germany for a company in the US. All over the net while maybe not long ago it would have been required to meet at least once because you cant really do everything over the phone.

Thats of course not always good for the usual person trying to get a job. Because everyone can download the programms and do something right away. Its not that hard to get illustrator or photoshop to work on your PC watch some tutorials and with enough time you might learn how to use the programms. And honestly thats what many graphic designers do today. Operating the software not coming up with new and crative ideas, that is done in some huge and popular agency where they have the money and time to come up with new fancy designs. But as far as the "usual" buisness goes a lot has matured. And the same is true for games. Standardisation is the keyword.
 
actually today its not much more expensive to make games compared to the past.

Yes it is. You need many more people on a project, all that third-party technology doesn't come free, and as you said the marketing budgets are soaring (but in an ultra-competitive envirionment, that's to be expected). We're talking AAA games here, Crni; of course indie games that use freeware and have smaller teams/use crowdfunding have far more freedom. That's kinda the point of the discussion, and why people actually fund them in the first place; because they fill a role big budget titles can no longer assume.
 
Uhm how are they THAT much more expensive though? You know costs can be as well overblown. Which is what many times happens with AAA games.

Again, compare the costs of projects in the past and compare them to projects today, they might have somewhat increased in the costs slightly which I dont even deny. But most of it is spend for the marketing. Big difference!

With the programming and game making it self a lot of things have become even cheaper which allowed companies to hire more people and do more with the visuals for example. There are more employes on the market, more people working with the software and devloping it, more standartisation and it is a lot easier to hire the right people for the job, alone the numbers of animators, 3D artists, concept artists etc. to how games have been made in the late 1980s and early 90s. To get designers like Syd mead or Jean Giraud which did nothing else but visual art was not common, because they have been pretty expensive those people usually worked for movies, car companies and the like. Today though you have a very high number of designers available which are very specialiced in game making. And they cost a lot less then what someone like Giraud got.

Again I am talking relatively here.

If you take a game like Doom which had an cost of around 300 000$ and compare it to a game like Kill zone 2 which was around $45 million then you have to remember as well how many people worked on Kill zone and how many on Doom, it wasnt rare that maybe 4-5 people worked on ONE project while today you have 100 sometimes even more. REmove the cost for marketing in the games which can easily be like 90% of the costs and then you are left with the production. If you consider that you have 100 people here and not 5 then you will realize quite fast the RELATIVE production cost is not that much higher.

You konw its the same like when you say that some 40 years back you could get everything for an nickel so everything was cheaper right? Wrong. People also earned less money overall!
 
One of the new plagues on gaming industry is the US and EU corp laws. Development groups are generally stuck on the wrong side of minimum personnel thresholds, artificially inflating their operating expenses.
 
Back
Top