Okay. I guess there's middleware for just about everything commonly used in development...
- Status
Okay. I guess there's middleware for just about everything commonly used in development...
Wat
Never thought I would get my mind blown in this thread
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
They'll give them a chance when Crytek can match what Epic offers, in terms of product and support, and all signs point to them not doing so. I wish Crytek would challenge Epic harder, pushing their engine onto the bigger publishers to show how good their games can look on CryEngine 3 versus Unreal Engine 3. And, ideally, have the ease of development and support documentation to back it up.
But they're not. At the moment pubs/devs can just look at the two engines and go "okay, what does CryEngine 3 do that we can't do well enough in UE3, an engine we already know more about, and has better documentation?". And the answer probably is "not much".
Maybe faltering with UE4 will help put other middleware developers in the limelight. Until then though, the only way devs and pubs will give other engines a chance is when those middleware devs step up and offer the same kind of stuff Epic does. Otherwise they'll stick to what works and what they know (which is logical, as UE3 is an excellent engine), or their own in-house engines (eg: Frostbite).
I think it's just a matter of experience. Epic have been selling their engines as middleware for probably 15 years now and will have learnt a lot over that time in terms of what devs want from them, so Crytek have a lot of catching up to do.
Shadow Hog
Member
I get that UE4 has a lot of improvements for the developer side of things, but honestly, I don't think the average gamer is going to see those improvements. I'd really like to see more of the improvements that the end user can appreciate, which those UE4 screenshots... don't really show off, tbh.
UE1 -> UE2 was an obvious jump. Environments were much less blocky. Textures were higher resolution. Models were smoother.
UE2 -> UE3 was another obvious jump. Improvements in shader technology and hardware power made environments pop out even more than they had in UE2. The improvements in texture resolution and model polygon-count and detail were immediately apparent, as well.
UE3 -> UE4... is not at all obvious from a glance.
It's kind of telling that we now have to wait for a video to see these apparently obvious enhancements. That's not really a good sign, especially because, at many retailers, you're not going to have the luxury of video on your box to sell just why your new game is improved upon your old one. People will very likely just look at the screenshots and see what most of GAF was seeing in the UE4 thread - it looks pretty damn samey. Why should they spring several hundred dollars on a new console when the outputs it provides are so similar to what they're already getting? (I mean, I'd probably pick up on the improvements in AA, image resolution, etc, but there are plenty of people who won't, and even then, I already have a gaming PC for the most part.)
UE1 -> UE2 was an obvious jump. Environments were much less blocky. Textures were higher resolution. Models were smoother.
UE2 -> UE3 was another obvious jump. Improvements in shader technology and hardware power made environments pop out even more than they had in UE2. The improvements in texture resolution and model polygon-count and detail were immediately apparent, as well.
UE3 -> UE4... is not at all obvious from a glance.
It's kind of telling that we now have to wait for a video to see these apparently obvious enhancements. That's not really a good sign, especially because, at many retailers, you're not going to have the luxury of video on your box to sell just why your new game is improved upon your old one. People will very likely just look at the screenshots and see what most of GAF was seeing in the UE4 thread - it looks pretty damn samey. Why should they spring several hundred dollars on a new console when the outputs it provides are so similar to what they're already getting? (I mean, I'd probably pick up on the improvements in AA, image resolution, etc, but there are plenty of people who won't, and even then, I already have a gaming PC for the most part.)
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
Nobody benefits from more powerful hardware? So you think Nintendo shouldn't bother releasing the Wii-U and just keep supporting the Wii? It would look suspicious if you think it's fine for Nintendo to make a generational leap but not MS and Sony.
Battlefield 3 also uses it.
You begin to baffle me :lol
Didn't know that SpeedTree can be used so that vegetation looks good. I remember hating it because of Oblivion.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
Technically Wii to WiiU is about as close to a generation and a half as it is a generation. I think given what we're seeing of UE4 it might just be a waste. The only huge advantage I've seen for it is purely on the development side. Visual differences are definitely not pronounced at this point.
I might have a different stance after seeing it in motion.
Battlefield 3 also uses it
Loads of games use it. I wouldn't be surprised if it were the most commonly used piece of middleware out there (or possibly second after Havok). I actually quite admire the SpeedTree guys, they found a niche that good middleware could fill, and did an excellent job filling it.
Edit:
We don't know how faked the lighting in the bird demo was, but then again I suppose we don't know how faked the lighting in the UE4 demo is either.
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
That bird gif has become exceptionally annoying.
To my knowledge, the vegetation assets still have to be made by the devs. SpeedTree just handles the rendering, streaming and optimisation of scenes with heavy use of flora. In cases where SpeedTree looks like shit, it's usually the devs fault.
CDP mastered it.
Yep. Experience is a massive factor. But, you know, while I might necessarily agree that Epic's business philosophy for UE4 is good for the industry, I just cant fault them for UE3. It's an excellent engine that does what needs to be done, and is easy for developers to use.
To my knowledge, the vegetation assets still have to be made by the devs. SpeedTree just handles the rendering, streaming and optimisation of scenes with heavy use of flora. In cases where SpeedTree looks like shit, it's usually the devs fault.
CDP mastered it.
Yep. Experience is a massive factor. But, you know, while I might necessarily agree that Epic's business philosophy for UE4 is good for the industry, I just cant fault them for UE3. It's an excellent engine that does what needs to be done, and is easy for developers to use.
JohnTinker
Limbaugh Parrot
Disorientator
Member
You guys don't know this, but back in 2006, I correctly that Wii would need to claim >51% market share to get third-parties to put major games on it. I just might have been right.
Wii U, however, is in a much stranger position. Games don't need to be remade for it; using Wii U as the lead platform and a next-gen engine should be enough to get a game that takes advantage of all three systems. How much market share does it need, though? I don't think it needs needs >51% in this case, but it does need to be the market leader. 40% is probably the absolute minimum.
Wii U, however, is in a much stranger position. Games don't need to be remade for it; using Wii U as the lead platform and a next-gen engine should be enough to get a game that takes advantage of all three systems. How much market share does it need, though? I don't think it needs needs >51% in this case, but it does need to be the market leader. 40% is probably the absolute minimum.
Replace that falcon with a crow and bam. Lighting is a non issue.
I just want to see smaller devs making bigger games exclusively for it. Not sure how dumb that sounds.
I just want to see smaller devs making bigger games exclusively for it. Not sure how dumb that sounds.
snowdog1971
Banned
I'd take that PR bollocks from Epic with a large portion of salt. Designing an engine that's only designed for high-end hardware and not easily scalable is a crap engine and a waste of Epic's considerable time and money. They'll have it scalable to Apple products, smartphones, browsers and kitchen toasters if they can get away with it. They need to have it running on as many platforms as possible if they want to get their R&D costs back and earn some serious profit.
I want to say that the next Xbox will be the market leader, but who really knows anything? We all figured that the next Playstation would dominate after the PS2's success. I honestly have no idea.
I still think that whatever console catches steam and just has the perfect storm of factors will becoming king. The Wii was basically a wild card because of how different it was, and even with the Wii U pad, I don't think that will be the case. I think this will be more comparable to the PS2 era than this generation. There will likely not be a culture craze for any console like there was for the Wii.
Yeah, I definitely think people should withhold judgement until we see it in motion. There is a lot that can be lost in those screenshots.
I would be horribly disappointed if the Wii-U was the lead platform. Would be better to lead on the PS4 ot b720 and port down to the Wii-U IMO.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
I expect major market contraction.
Especially if Sony or MS again try to sell people consoles for more than $399.
Especially if Sony or MS again try to sell people consoles for more than $399.
MisterHero
Super Member
the Wii U percentages are going to be nerfed because of Nintendo's own 3DS, and will vary wildly depending on whether such a pie chart represents who has more users (bias towards mobile perhaps) and who made more revenu or profit (Nintendo, even if Wii U only did Gamecube levels). Percentages aren't a measure of success.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
I'm perfectly fine with people judging based on those screens. I have.
As a first impression they don't scream metric change. As long as they are willing to admit their mistake if the video delivers.
There will be no Wii again sales-wise. The newness and novelty of it was what made it a cultural thing, and I think Pachter is partly right on that a lot of casual people aren't going to bother buying consoles, at least for a while now.
I think the next big console will sell well, but it won't be that huge sales jump that the Wii had, but hopefully it will be a lot smoother and more consistent, and will foster an environment where 3rd parties can sell as well, like the PS2.
I think the next big console will sell well, but it won't be that huge sales jump that the Wii had, but hopefully it will be a lot smoother and more consistent, and will foster an environment where 3rd parties can sell as well, like the PS2.
It'll be too hard to port down for them to bother. Most Wii U ports would end up being a few months late. It would end up being worse than GC.
DXB-KNIGHT
Member
I don't know, that gif is pretty gray.
This is where exclusives come in a la Gears of War, you don't have to compare cause there's no comparison.
They already mentioned going for mobile with it a few months back, I guess it's just that they want the high end to be really high end.
Yep, even for clothes (movements, etc.)
GameplayWhore
Member
That's also what I was saying. "I think they're still willing to sell at an initial loss, albeit not as large as this generation's". I suspect that we're roughly in agreement, with the general message being that last gen was a bit too aggressive in some ways and that the bloodletting will be much smaller now.
Okay, glad we're on the same page here.
I've been wondering for a while what the limits are here. Out of curiosity, when you do your ruminations on potential performance do you have a particularly approximate maximum power draw of the device as a whole and of its components. Like "350W system, 150W GPU max TDP", that sort of thing?
I see the bird & Zelda demo as simply indicators where graphically Nintendo is planning to
focus their attention on. And this is lighting and its attributes.
It would be in Nintendo's best interest to create a platform where they can cut their development time. Does the WiiU SDK offer what Epic is trying to sell?
I keep expecting to see it poop on that rock.
Fair enough, I agree with that.
So you think it's fair for owners of the other two systems to be under-utilized? Did you enjoy all the ps2 ports to the GC last gen, or would you have preferred more developers created the game first on the GC and then ported to the PS2 like RE4?
IF the software sales are strong enough to support the investment, the Wii-U should enjoy better support regardless.
Yeah let's troll an engine we have hardly seen!
SMH
Some of you people are just as bad as the trolls who bash Nintendo or the Wii-U.
AceBandage
Banned
UE4 presents an interesting challenge for us...
DXB-KNIGHT
Member
Its not much trolling as it's just disappointment since I really believed the bird demo was UE4 until now.
Gahiggidy
My aunt & uncle run a Mom & Pop store, "The Gamecube Hut", and sold 80k WiiU within minutes of opening.
Just had a thought....
what if apple does get in the game business somehow and they end up doing rapid 2-year upgrade iterations, throwing a monkey wrench in everyone's 10-year plans?
what if apple does get in the game business somehow and they end up doing rapid 2-year upgrade iterations, throwing a monkey wrench in everyone's 10-year plans?
Thunder Monkey
Banned
Parts of that UE4 demo are more colorful than this bird GIF.
The bird demo overall has more popping color, but as always it is completely dependent on the developer. Mirror's Edge was made in UE3.
GameplayWhore
Member
You mean the game business as in the segment involving high budget games? Hrmmm I'm thinking that maybe it'd be difficult for devs to support a rapidly moving target. Having to make sure that their game scales enough to work with the iPlay and the iPlay 2 and the iPlay 2G AND the iPlay 2GS may make already large budgets even larger.
However, I do think that we could be seeing further de-syncing of console maker schedules. For example, if Sony and Microsoft decided to really push a ten year cycle, then we might find a situation where Nintendo releases multiple systems during one of the cycles. Wow, what madness would Wikipedia's "History of Video Game Consoles" come to! :O
GameplayWhore
Member
Light-based puzzles? Any particularly clever ideas for that?
We've had the Hero of Wind and the Hero of Time; the "Hero of Light" has a nice ring to it.
Why Mario or Zelda? You have a good idea, it can fit an entierely new IP!
Zelda puzzle with the mirror shield can be very good too if you want to think just about Zelda.
Oh, I see lots and lots of Mirror Shield usage in this one. Maybe the Wiimote as the sword and the uPad as the Mirror Shield? And implement Miyamoto's intended first-person perspective?
(and.. beaten! drats.)
Gahiggidy
My aunt & uncle run a Mom & Pop store, "The Gamecube Hut", and sold 80k WiiU within minutes of opening.
Well, the "high enough budget" games business. Just an observation that nobody can be confident in their machine lasting 8-10 years as there is always the threat of a newcomer. Apple, with their iterative approach to hardware, could start out way behind their competitors in horsepower, but by version 3 get a slight edge in processing but will also have built up a fervent customer base for their gaming iDevice. Meanwhile, assume this is 4-5 years in, Microsoft is only halfway through their console's lifespan and have to figure out how to respond. (Nintendo is immune in this scenario, because they're Nintendo).
Didn't Luigi's Mansion do that a decade ago?
A Temple of Light in a Zelda game based around that concept would be pretty cool, though.
- Status