How will "Next Gen" games affect PC players?

There are a lot of smart and very informed folks on this forum and I'm interested to know your thoughts on how the next generation of consoles will impact the PC versions of upcoming multiplatform games. Do you think a laptop which can play most current gen games at 1080p will still be able to handle next gen games in 2014 or whenever they launch?

We have already seen a couple of "next gen" game demos (Star Wars 1313 and Watch Dogs), and I've played a few PC exclusive titles that were not so different from multiplatform games in terms of the graphics. I'm not so sure that the graphics for next gen games will be all that different for us when we play them on PC, or that suddenly all our mid-range graphics cards would become obsolete, as we already have a lot more graphics options for multiplatform games that are unavailable to console users.

Another area I'm wondering about is if the next gen consoles will use x86-64 architecture, would resulting multiplatform games be more optimized for multicore processors, with a result that you get higher frame rates if you have a fast quad core CPU, even if your graphics card is not the greatest.

Personally what's most exciting for me is not the next gen graphics, but the fact that the consoles will have more than 256MB RAM and faster CPUs. Possibly this would permit multiplatform PC games to incorporate more complex and dynamic open world game systems, etc., and better optimization for multicore processors.

For example, we can already scale up the resolution for a current gen PC port or multiplatform title, use DX11, high quality shadows, anisotropic filtering, high res texture packs, etc. But there is no way to "scale up" better A.I., larger, more interactive and complex game world, more actors onscreen, more persistent data, etc. These are fundamental game design choices baked into the engine, severely restricted by the limited memory and weaker CPUs of current console hardware. I wonder if we will begin to see more ambitious strategy games, better A.I., more complex open world sandbox games with dynamic events and lots of persistent data, etc.

 

You make some good points. While there is no concrete information available, the general consensus is next-gen consoles from Microsoft and Sony will release this fall using pc-based hardware, though most sources say they will probably be much cheaper than new consoles of this generation were at launch. With this in mind, I don't think we will see the massive improvement in graphics that we have seen in previous generations; the changes will be evolutionary rather than revolutionary. I agree with what you're saying: there will be noticeable improvements in AI, physics, complexity, etc. With more vram, consoles will finally display in full resolution with improved textures (things that we've had for ages now.)

I don't think the next generation will automatically render most of today's hardware obsolete, rather it simply lead to improved pc ports and better utilization of pc hardware.

 

Whichever way it goes I'm only sure of two things.............1, I'll spend money on it and 2, I'll spend too much money on it.

Frankly though, if the next gen consoles come out and have the ability to play the games I like at 1080p without tweaks and driver issues and so on there's a strong possibility that I'll be one of the "ex-pc gamer" types you read about because my enjoyment comes from playing the games not playing with the hardware so I can play the games.

 

well they have been using x86 for a long time, the original xbox was literally an intel celeron 667mhz downclocked. I could get into how crappy the build quality was to the point where they specifically engineered it to use bad ram - but that's another thread

I think the 360 uses multicore 64bit power-pc processors though I could be wrong, so I think if they switched to x86 again it would be a lateral step.

As always, graphics will be a generation behind, lack of operating system overhead will enhance performance, and graphics will (most likely) still be the bottleneck of the console after RAM limit if applicable. I would hazard a guess of 4-8GB system RAM and 1-2GB VRAM. I'd be willing to bet they might go as low as 2GB system RAM. Knowing Sony, they did 256M/256M when 1GB/2GB was common, so who knows these days.


I bet it will unleash them - though it will be catch-up at first since they are down-grading games to fit hardware constraints on current gen - but I doubt it will be any major leaps as far as PC is concerned.


My two cents, definitely open to other thoughts on this one though, as I don't do much console gaming.

 

Different strokes I guess... half the fun to me is upgrading, tweaking, and learning. I understand where you're coming from, but I just get so bored with consoles after a while.

 

Consoles won't be as powerful as most high-end gaming computers. It would defeat the purpose. I'm not worried, that's all I'm saying. Because the market for these products are between $399 - $699, I wouldn't expect hardware that would outperform a gaming PC. But they take into account how many units will sell as well, so they are able to lower the price. They will sell millions of Xbox's and PS4's, so the hardware may be pretty good.

Who knows, all I can do at this point is guess and speculate. I love Xbox either way, so, I'm in.

And yes, I know for a fact all gaming rigs bought this year and last year will be able to handle the next year of gaming. Why? Because if they made games expecting people to buy a new PC just to play them, they'd be out of business.

 

From everything I've heard, I'm pretty sure sony and ms are introducing the consoles under the $400 mark, so yeah, they still won't be able to reach the performance of high-end rigs. Granted, I've always been impressed at what devs can accomplish with ancient console hardware. It's crazy to see something like The Last of Us or Heavy Rain running on a 7 year old console.

 

"Next gen" games. I remember that term from 2005. Heck, I remember that term being thrown around in the mid 90s when PS1 was released, and before that, the first 32-bit add-ons for consoles.

The next crop of games will likely start to be released on PC late this year with or just after their release on Xbox 720 and PS4. Whatever you want to label these games, they will follow the same pattern as other waves of games designed to run on new hardware: a near-top-of-the-line GPU will be able to play them just fine with highest or near-highest settings.

My guess is a laptop with dual 7970ms or 680ms now will have no problem running the next crop of games; a laptop with a single, newer 8970m or 780m should have no problems either. If rumors are true, a single 8970m or 780m is about equivalent (or a bit more powerful) of what's going in the 720 and PS4. Anything lower, will likely need to tone it down.

 

IMO when the new consoles are released we wont see much difference in the PC side until developers can get the hand of and fully utilize the components on the new consoles. If i remember correctly the PS3 was released I read that it was very difficult to program for it because the Cell CPU was complex, but once developers got the hang of it we got games like God of War III which IMO was the best looking PS3 i've seen. I think once that happens then the PC players will benefit and get better ports and more complex (in all aspects, AI, Graphics, Physics etc..) games

 

I highly doubt that consoles will be releasing gtx 670-equivalent hardware at less than $400. My guess is they will be more in line with mid-range desktop gpus like the gtx 560 or 650.

 

Unless there is a final change, we almost already know the inside of ps720 : apu derivated from an A10 and a middle range southern island dedicated gpu ( mostly a 7670 or 7750 ) => hybrid crossfire, where each card can be dedicated to a specific task.
The rev2 dev kit are made of 8 to 16 Go of ram.

So basically, it's not that there won't be no improvements for us pc gamers, but not that much either. I mean, we won't see low texture res anymore, not under than 2048x2048 ( pointing darksiders 2 or dishonored )
Consoles have to close the gap with actual pc gaming : sony and $soft want their hardware to run smoothly at 1080p high res textures ( most of the games will be 30fps i'm pretty sure ), and that will also come with low ressources demanding filters as fxaa ( i'm pretty sure msaa is going to disapear ).
And we already have all that with high end gaming laptops.

 

Fxaa is pretty terrible. I don't think it's going to be a major consideration long term, and it certainly isn't a replacement for multisampling.

 

I don't see any chance the new gen games scream "get a $300 video card or no go".

 

Personally I love FXAA. In most games it looks about the same as 4xMSAA, but without the performance cost.

 

The two, consoles and PC, might be similar in terms of power, atleast comparable, for a year maybe, after that every port to PC will be damned by the PC gamers for having such poor graphics

 

lol it's the way of the PC master race, we have to constantly complain about bad ports and make fun of the console guys. It helps ease our pain over spending thousands on laptops that end up obsolete every few years lol

 

It's scary how fast minimum game requirements are rising even now with stagnant console hardware. When the new consoles are released the minimum specs required for the so-called 'next-gen' games ported to PC shall shoot up astronomically for PC hardware, such is our luck

The moment consoles overtake my PC is the moment I have to start worrying. Hoping I can afford a new laptop once the new consoles are out and my laptop becomes obsolete!

 

Trust me man, your laptop won't be rendered obsolete by the ps4 and nextbox. The 650m is a stout little gpu, you will be playing games at 768 for a few more years.

Although, you can always upgrade to some 780m sli monster anyway... that's always a good choice

 

Yeah I don`t like the multi platform trend thats been going on. But I can see it from the developers perspective, a lot of money and more time is needed to make a new PC version. But hey, atleast we get some games that was originally planned only for consoles

 

Yup, the money is consoles these days. I honestly think the pc has the best overall library of current gen games. We get great pc exclusives, tons of multiplatform support, a massive indie game library, and great prices through Steam. There are only a handful of console exclusives I wish would be ported to pc (I would sacrifice a pinky, and maybe even my big toe, for The Last of Us in 1080p and 60fps lol)

It's too bad most people view the pc as too expensive, complicated, and confusing. Maybe Valve's "Steam Box" will open the doors for some new people to get into pc gaming.

 

This is going to happen, 100% guaranteed. There's no way we don't see a sharp raise of the minimum requirements, when the console hardware strengthens by 8-10x the current crop.

Be prepared and get out of denial.

You are way behind the current info. The PS4 has a powerful dedicated 8000 series GPU to go along with the APU.

 

Can you elaborate? What specific graphics features could be included in console ports that would require that much more powerful PC hardware to run at 1080p?

We can already scale up the current gen games with high res texture packs, higher display resolution, anisotropic filtering, shadow quality, etc. Do you predict some brand new feature that is just not going to run at 1080p on mid range graphics cards?

 

Keep in mind that many console games today run at 720p nd simply upscale to 1080p. The quality of console games visually is lower than many people perceive it to be.

 

It's simple.

Imagine that, next-gen, all decent budget console ports are at a minimum as demanding on PCs as Crysis 2 on Ultra w/ DX11 high-res textures @ 1080p.

That's a huge jump from the basic Crysis 2 min system reqs of today.

 

Both the 720 (Oban) and PS4 (Omni) are rumored by multiple sources to have an AMD 8900-level card with some more advanced tech -- a bit like the 360's 1900xt with semi-unified architecture (Xenos). Even if it's something like a downclocked "8950" or "8930" (the 720's GPU is rumored to run around ,800mhz), it will be faster than a gtx 670, and assuredly faster than a gtx 560.

 

I definitely haven't heard anything of that nature. If it's the case, I shouldn't have spent a few grand on an AW when a $300 console could kick its **s. Doesn't really make sense.

 

It won`t be faster than GTX 670. Could you imagine a 670 GPU and perhaps something like 2600K inside small device like PS4 with its tiny fan? I think the hardware will be a lot weaker than that.

 

There are size constraints, but the biggest factor would be the budget imo. Next gen consoles are rumored to be cheaper than the 360 and ps3 were at launch, I couldn't imagine them having cutting-edge high end graphics cards in them for a few hundred bucks.

 

Yes good point, price is also important here.
It will be a mobile GPU too so price/performance is gonna be crappy.

 

I still don't understand. Crysis 2 on Ultra is demanding because 16xMSAA is a demanding setting, for pretty much any game.

Are you saying you think every game will require minimum 16xMSAA? Or do you think there will be some brand new feature that makes games unplayable for everybody unless you have the most expensive graphics cards?

Yes, I've noticed it seems about 99.99% of games run at 1280x720 on Xbox and PS3 with no AF, low quality textures, low quality shadows, and usually 2xAA or 0xAA.

When you play the same game on PC, you can scale it up to 2560x1440, 16xAA, 16xAF, high quality shadows, (which is demanding), or scale down to 800x600 if you have a PC that is crappier than a console. If the next gen games run on the PS4 at 1920x1080, with, say 4xMSAA and 8xAF, and you have an old laptop that can't handle those particular settings, you should still be able to scale down to 1366x768 and turn off MSAA, etc., no?

 

I don't think next gen consoles in terms of hardware will have any impact for PC. The current development machines used by developers to release games for the these next gen are already generations behind current PC tech. That is no issue.

We already know the next gen hardware are going to be in power similar to an AMD Trinity A10. This is not DX11 Crysis 2 Ultra hardware, sorry.
- But it is a huge jump still as you have to remember, consoles are developed to the metal, not without the overhead of API like DirectX which is on top of the Win32 framework.

The big issue will be how people play games. I think motion sensor devices will become more and more popular. Now we have different headsets that are in development for a more immersive gameplay etc. I think over time, PC Gamers will have to evolve their play style. While I think the mouse is still the king for pointing and shooting, but we may have a joystick like apparatus for movement etc. And more and more games are involving more types of actions, movements and skills, so that will have to evolve as well.

 

Sony and Microsoft will be getting low $ per unit than you're thinking from AMD, especially since their contracts promise sales of at least 50 million units from each side. We're talking about bulk discounting on a massive scale. And they will be no cheaper than the Xbox 360 at launch. Expect a $399 or higher SKU from each company.

Also, it's true that the newest leaks say that both consoles will have some form of an 8800 series dedicated GPU. I haven't seen anything about 8900 series though.

Again, the PS4 will have a dedicated 8000 series GPU besides the APU, which is said to have up to 4GB of GDDR5 memory.

 

I'll believe it when I see it and even then, I don't expect it to be much. Speculate all you want, but I won't believe for even a second that next gen hardware will pose any threat to PC, even the remotest until it's proven.

All your information is based on one source whose credibility is questionable. And as notebook users, we very well know what just because the core may be the same doesn't mean it will be the same power.

Lastly, the next gen consoles will be having a much more robust OS than previously, and will have to dedicate far more resources to these consoles for OS and other apps other than gaming now.

Let's be serious here, we are no longer talking about gaming consoles. These next gen boxes will be computers, running on some derivative of Linux and probably some MS OS.

Either way, I see no reason why us notebook users will have any worry. Especially since games are now being so cross-platform, the development will be for the lowest denominator, not the fastest, which may be the PS4. But won't matter cause the games will look look the same as and play about the same I bet as it does on the Wii U and MS entertainment computer.

 

Latest rumors say that PS4 will have AMD A10 APU + Southern Islands GPU (aka 7000 series or 8000 OEM)
Here is the potential GPUs

I predict its one of the GPUs from the middle of that list and down. A10 APUs are cheap too so everything makes sense to me
It may even be a custom made GPU similar to the 7000 series

 

8000 series GPU could still be something weak like an 8550m, or the 8790m, which I understand is an updated 7670m, or it could even be a rebrand of the 7600G integrated graphics, updated with 8000 series model number.

Whatever it is, I predict the Valve steambox will blow it out of the water and probably not be too much more expensive.

 

All I'm saying is, you're kidding yourself, if you don't believe the PS4/720 will have an effect on system requirements. How could they not? Reqs are what they are now, based on ports from 8 year old, outdated hardware, that out laptops blow out of the water. So developers will start porting from 10 or more times faster consoles, and nothing will change? Please be realistic.

 

Yes, however I can already scale up current gen console ports to make them unplayable on my laptop with 16xMSAA and increased display resolution beyond 1920x1080, etc. My 5830 mobility is probably right around the borderline of the weakest card that can still run most recent games at 1080p.

What kind of features would be different with these next gen games that might suddenly make them that much more demanding on PC? Has some kind of new anti-aliasing been invented, or will every game have Nvidia Physx, some sort of new dynamic shadow detail features? Or perhaps every game will be more demanding on the CPU instead of the GPU, with more actors onscreen, etc., and better optimization for multicore processors?

For console users, clearly the fact that their console will be able to handle games at 1080p with higher res textures, better AA, adding some anisotropic filtering, etc., means their game is going to look a lot better on their 1080p HDTV, compared to the old console running their game at 1280x720 with low res textures. So far I haven't heard anything yet about new engine features that would melt our PC hardware.

 

To the bolded: Yes but what you're not doing is increasing the assets. Sure we run current-gen console games at 1080p and add AA, but the texture resolution is still 256x256. Things will be different when they're 2048x2048 or even 4096x4096.

But I'm thinking well beyond simply texture resolution; the physics, particle, animation, and lighting technologies being used are going to be more advanced.

The Unreal Engine 4.0 Tech Demo gives a preview of the higher levels of technical fidelity I'm talking about.

 

Aren't higher res textures more reliant on other aspects of your hardware, such as your drive's read speed, amount of VRAM, etc? My graphics card is pretty weak, but I've installed high res texture packs for Dragon Age 2, Skyrim, and high res texture mods for a number of games without any noticeable impact on frame rate, and I assumed it was due to my SSD.

 

In the end, it's just going to be a mid-range computer. Nothing impressive. As for new graphics tech, not going to happen. Frostbite 2 is going to be EA's bread and butter engine for even the next gen. CryEngine 3 will be the same. I'm not impressed by UE4 either. Even the best UE3 game doesn't look nearly as good as the tech demos that Epic Games displayed to show off the max that UE3 could do. UE4 games are not going to be earth shattering. I expect Crysis 3 to exceed any future UE4 game still, I just don't see UE4 being used for the best visually, pushing the limits games. Going to be for the lowest denominator once again.
- The main features I saw for UE4 was level development, in real time. The lighting, shadows etc, whatever, nothing new.

And if you have problems, be a hardcore PC gamer and upgrade your system. Big woops.

 

Great video, very interesting!

Looks like UE4 will incorporate some advances in dynamic and indirect lighting, and lighting for volumetric particles that will probably be rather taxing on the GPU. Hopefully all these kinds of features can be toggled off if the frame rate cost is too high for weaker graphics cards.

What really blew me away is the UE4 scripting system, which appears to be extremely user-friendly. Hard to imagine previewing in-game in realtime, while your script is compiling and as soon as it finishes compiling the changes happens in-game. Very different from the scripting system for Skyrim's engine, for example.

 

The only notables for me from the UE4 demonstration was that Epic Games still thinks BLOOM and LENS FLARE is realistic and that they are still kneeling in front of Nvidia's crotch.

 

I wouldn't call UE3 the lowest common denominator. It's been used to make some great looking games. Not the best-looking, but great nonetheless. Arkham City, Bioshock Infinite, Aliens: Colonial Marines, and Borderlands 2 to name a few. UE4 has the potential to make some really gorgeous games.

Agree with everything you're saying though. Next-gen systems won't pump out gtx 670 or 7970-quality graphics.

 

They will affect me by making me buy two new consoles. I don't see upgrading my PC side for a couple years yet..

 

I think a few of you don't realize how significantly the consoles' 2005 tech has been holding back game development.

 

Indeed. Once new consoles are out in the wild, the complexity of games will increase dramatically. With the OS API overhead to contend with, all but the high end PCs will struggle to keep up with console quality graphics - which will be highly optimised.

We see it today. Console tech can squeeze out visuals far in excess of what the PC tech released at the same time can today. Think 2005/2006 GPUs. They could never run anything like Far Cry 3, Bioshock Infinite, Battlefield 3 etc.

Visuals like Crysis 3 will become the norm. And just look at the required specs to run that game - they are astronomically high.

For starters all games will become DX11 only, with DX11 as the requirement.

 

You might find this interesting:

Orbis unmasked: what to expect from the next-gen PlayStation.

tl;dr - it has about a tweaked 7970M @ 800MHz

 

I suppose I'll believe it when I see it

It's just hard to imagine M$ and Sony taking massive losses on each unit sold unit sold (like Sony did with the PS3) especially since the consoles are supposed to be much cheaper this time around.

 

That's good news, I get better performance with DX11 games. Also, hoping the rumors about x86-64 architecture turn out to be true, as that suggests multiplatform games will be better optimized for multicore CPUs and less GPU bound.

 

One sick machine PS4 is gonna be.

Quad core CPU
7970M
4GB GDDR5

Almost equally powerful as my laptop. Not sure if I like or not