How many more generations before you think new hardware becomes obsolete?

considering pre rendered graphics are graphics with no hardware limitations. How many more generations do you think before consoles hit pre rendered quality with real time graphics? I cant imagine more than 1 or 2 more consoles.

will be nice never needing to worry about buying new hardware.

How would hardware become obsolete? You need hardware to run games... Does not compute.

How would hardware become obsolete? You need hardware to run games... Does not compute.

akbar13

i meant before new hardware becomes obsolete.

If will never happen. There will always be room for growth even if visual quality is perfected.i5750at4Ghz

If that ever happens.

Thats impossible. As long as we are using the x86 architecture (which we have for the last 30 years with no realistic alternative in sight), processing data has a Big-O of (n). As long as (n) is somewhere in the equation, thats not going to be possible.

in english: What you are asking is something that can handle 1 object equally as well as a million copies of it. Think of Empire: Total War. Its limit is around 20,000 simultaneously units. How can you expect any machine to handle instead of 20,000, say, 2 million units on screen? Ok, sure, technology will get better and maybe one day it'll happen.... But then it should be able to process 200 million units. And the cycle continues.

Thats impossible. As long as we are using the x86 architecture (which we have for the last 30 years with no realistic alternative in sight), processing data has a Big-O of (n). As long as (n) is somewhere in the equation, thats not going to be possible.

in english: What you are asking is something that can handle 1 object equally as well as a million copies of it. Think of Empire: Total War. Its limit is around 20,000 simultaneously units. How can you expect any machine to handle instead of 20,000, say, 2 million units on screen? Ok, sure, technology will get better and maybe one day it'll happen.... But then it should be able to process 200 million units. And the cycle continues.

XaosII

Honestly i dont think the public would be willing to buy a new console so they can have 2 million units instead of 20,000 in one type of video game. At a certain point improvements will be so minor it wouldnt make sense to roll out all new hardware.

..

..

To an average consumer in a developed county it could well happen in some 20 odd years if services like Onlive take off (I believe there is a European equivalent). The infrastructure for something like this is not in place in the 3rd world, but I had my grandparents set up a 5mb internet connection in a remote village in Russia. Thats already enough to have something like Onlive function. I am not saying Onlive is the future, but rather that the idea behind it could be.

..

20 years back an internet connection would be a luxury, now its a given (again 1st world vs. 3rd world). Pong was released only about 30 years back, now we have companies trying to recreate our physical movements in 3D environments. I would not be surprised if hardware becomes less and less of worry for consumers, and subscriptions fees become more and more of one.

..

After rereading your opening post before submitting I think I completely missed the point of what your were asking..designer-

Yea my bad... thought i edited it to be more clear (must not have clicked the button). But cloud computing brings up a good point. I wonder if internet infrastructure will beat personal hardware to the punch.

Honestly i dont think the public would be willing to buy a new console so they can have 2 million units instead of 20,000 in one type of video game. At a certain point improvements will be so minor it wouldnt make sense to roll out all new hardware.

markinthedark

Why not? The Battle of Stalingrad was close to 2 million soldiers, with around 1.1 million casualties. What you are asking for is a console that can handle that a beyond Crysis-like detail on a per soldier basis.

It doesnt have to be limited to strategy. Why not a space sim that has every planet in our existance? A racing game with each car having billions of polygons? An RPG with a tornado spell that causes a multi-billion partcle effect that realistically lifts up and tears everything in its path with complex physics? How about even just a game where every rain drop its rendered realistically with fluid physics?

How about a game in a fantasy setting of Stalingrad's 2 million soldiers, with an extremely detailed version earth that you can zoom in and out at extreme distances, with tanks made up of billions of polygons, as a tornado ravishes your enemy realistically deforming terrain, while theres a heavy downpour going on?

And thats why we can never have hardware become obsolete. It doesn't scale infinitely with complexity.

We're still years from photorealism in graphics. The holy grail of video game graphics is photorealism. I can't see graphic card manufactorers / devs stopping at just CGI quality graphics. Crysis is the closest we've got to photorealism, and at a glance it can seem like it, but when you look closer at the finer details, there's still room for huge improvement. I'd say in the next 20 years we'll have reached pretty much photorealism.

Honestly i dont think the public would be willing to buy a new console so they can have 2 million units instead of 20,000 in one type of video game. At a certain point improvements will be so minor it wouldnt make sense to roll out all new hardware.

markinthedark

That's like saying "I don't think the public would be interested in the PS2 over the PS1, even though it'll be able to feature almost 10x the amount of AI onscreen at once". :?

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

Honestly i dont think the public would be willing to buy a new console so they can have 2 million units instead of 20,000 in one type of video game. At a certain point improvements will be so minor it wouldnt make sense to roll out all new hardware.

XaosII

Why not? The Battle of Stalingrad was close to 2 million soldiers, with around 1.1 million casualties. What you are asking for is a console that can handle that a beyond Crysis-like detail on a per soldier basis.

It doesnt have to be limited to strategy. Why not a space sim that has every planet in our existance? A racing game with each car having billions of polygons? An RPG with a tornado spell that causes a multi-billion partcle effect that realistically lifts up and tears everything in its path with complex physics? How about even just a game where every rain drop its rendered realistically with fluid physics?

How about a game in a fantasy setting of Stalingrad's 2 million soldiers, with an extremely detailed version earth that you can zoom in and out at extreme distances, with tanks made up of billions of polygons, as a tornado ravishes your enemy realistically deforming terrain, while theres a heavy downpour going on?

And thats why we can never have hardware become obsolete. It doesn't scale infinitely with complexity.

you could easily just increase the quality of character models as the camera zooms in, and use low poly versions when its zoomed out. Thats something that can be accomplished easily with software.

I mean, would you rather have this or this? ;)

We're still years from photorealism in graphics. The holy grail of video game graphics is photorealism. I can't see graphic card manufactorers / devs stopping at just CGI quality graphics. Crysis is the closest we've got to photorealism, and at a glance it can seem like it, but when you look closer at the finer details, there's still room for huge improvement. I'd say in the next 20 years we'll have reached pretty much photorealism.

WhenCicadasCry

CGI quality graphics is based on the artist, not the hardware. CGI is only limited by the modeler/animator. Same reason you can give one person a paintbrush and they can make a near photorealistic painting... and someone else will paint like crap... its not the brush holding them back.

Why would anyone think that graphics quality is the only thing new hardware would be needed for. Complex AI and physics will also require more hardware and we are a long, long way from having a game with realistic physics for every object, much less AI that is anywhere near as capable as the human brain. I seriously doubt we'll see that kind of technology in the next century, much less the next few generations of hardware.

I don't think hardware will ever become obsolete. Just look at the legions of people who still have NES and N64's hooked up to their entertainment systems. Every piece of technology serves a different function, especially this generation, and nothing on the market today is going anywhere anytime soon.

Why would anyone think that graphics quality is the only thing new hardware would be needed for. Complex AI and physics will also require more hardware and we are a long, long way from having a game with realistic physics for every object, much less AI that is anywhere near as capable as the human brain. I seriously doubt we'll see that kind of technology in the next century, much less the next few generations of hardware.

myke2010

True AI is a programming challenge, not a hardware challenge. And its not about perfecting everything... its about advancing to the point where people arent willing to spend money on a new console. If the playstation 4 was released tomorrow and the only improvement was better physics, i wouldnt buy it... would you?

[QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"]

We're still years from photorealism in graphics. The holy grail of video game graphics is photorealism. I can't see graphic card manufactorers / devs stopping at just CGI quality graphics. Crysis is the closest we've got to photorealism, and at a glance it can seem like it, but when you look closer at the finer details, there's still room for huge improvement. I'd say in the next 20 years we'll have reached pretty much photorealism.

markinthedark

CGI quality graphics is based on the artist, not the hardware. CGI is only limited by the modeler/animator. Same reason you can give one person a paintbrush and they can make a near photorealistic painting... and someone else will paint like crap... its not the brush holding them back.

But if you give the artist capable of creating a photorealistic painting 2 sets of hardware, 1 being superior to the other, which one would you think would gain better results. You can always improve unless you reach absolute photorealism.

I have yet to see a game that can model grass realistically. Look at some grass. It isn't just big blades coming out of the ground. There is small grass too and that isnt just really flat like it is shown in games. How come games dont have small blades of grass?

I have yet to see a game that can model grass realistically. Look at some grass. It isn't just big blades coming out of the ground. There is small grass too and that isnt just really flat like it is shown in games. How come games dont have small blades of grass?

akbar13

alot of that kinda stuff is part of the game engine... sure you can brute force it with pure hardware power... but its alot easier to handle it smarter with the game engine. Maybe when the next unreal engine comes out your grass will be up to snuff.

There will allways be improvements, AI, physics, bigger worlds, particles, etc...

Also CGI quality graphics are subjective. Ingame graphics this gen look better than many CGI from 90s (Not pixar ones of course).

There will allways be improvements, AI, physics, bigger worlds, particles, etc...

Also CGI quality graphics are subjective. Ingame graphics this gen look better than many CGI from 90s (Not pixar ones of course).

PAL360

the question is when do the improvements become so minor you arent willing to pay $400 to get them? because that will most likely be the last generation.

The main reason CGI looked so bad back then is because 3d modelers didnt have the much improved software to work with that they have today. Its like image editing in photoshop vs MS paint.

Hardware always catches up to software.

There'd be no Wii without Nintendo's want for motion control games, there'd have been no need for DVD without devs needing more space than CD's, etc etc.

Point is that unless a dev has a budget, and the capabilities to produce photo-realistic graphics there will never be a need for the hardware, and the fact is that there are so few devs out there that can survive in today's market if they attempt great looking graphics because it's too much of a risk. Just naming some games you've got Killzone 2 which I believe had a $60 million budget, God of War 3 with a $44 million budget, and even games like Half Life 2 had a $40 million dollar budget.

And they say that typically game budgets double each gen. Don't expect every dev out there to magically come up with $100 million to produce a great looking game. I'm personally expecting the next few generations to not really have much of a graphical leap over today other than being able to actually run in 1080p, and have all the nifty features of AA, and such like PC's can do now. I expect future consoles to just contain extra features not possible in todays hardware.

[QUOTE="PAL360"]

There will allways be improvements, AI, physics, bigger worlds, particles, etc...

Also CGI quality graphics are subjective. Ingame graphics this gen look better than many CGI from 90s (Not pixar ones of course).

markinthedark

the question is when do the improvements become so minor you arent willing to pay $400 to get them? because that will most likely be the last generation.

The main reason CGI looked so bad back then is because 3d modelers didnt have the much improved software to work with that they have today. Its like image editing in photoshop vs MS paint.

Not sure, but im sure it wont be anytime soon. Theres still alot room for improvement.

[QUOTE="myke2010"]

Why would anyone think that graphics quality is the only thing new hardware would be needed for. Complex AI and physics will also require more hardware and we are a long, long way from having a game with realistic physics for every object, much less AI that is anywhere near as capable as the human brain. I seriously doubt we'll see that kind of technology in the next century, much less the next few generations of hardware.

markinthedark

True AI is a programming challenge, not a hardware challenge. And its not about perfecting everything... its about advancing to the point where people arent willing to spend money on a new console. If the playstation 4 was released tomorrow and the only improvement was better physics, i wouldnt buy it... would you?

Yes, AI is a programming challenge, but it also requires resources from the hardware. True, intelligent AI requires more powerful hardware than that found in most FPS where enemies basically runs around like a braindead monkey. Imagine AI that can realistically react and utilize it's environment. I'm not talking about simply flanking or pushing, but when to take down the building you're in or how to send out a small unit to bait you and lure you into an ambush. AI that can properly decide how to use its surroundings against you. Now imagine the resources needed to have hundreds or even thousands of individual AI's all do this independently and simultaneously. The hardware requirements would be enourmous.

Now on to physics. Would I spend money on a next gen system if the only improvement was better physics? Well, it would depend on what kind of improvement it would be. If it allowed the same amount of interaction and deformation contained in the real world then the answer would be a whole hearted yes! Imagine a game world that literally allowed you to interact with every single piece of terrain and surroundings.

Weather that was 100% accurate and realistically affected the world around you. Wind that could blow over objects and water that could make you lose traction when running. Buildings that could be blown into rubble and not just preset debris like we see know. No more invincible walls and cover. Fire that actually acts like fire and spreads across the environment.

Imagine a game like GTA where if you crashed you would actually go into a building, hurtling desks, chairs, glass and plaster into unsuspecting office workers; possibly bringing down the entire building in the process. Such a revolution ins physics would radically and fundamentally change game design as we know it.

People who only see graphics as the future of gaming are incredibly short sighted.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

[QUOTE="myke2010"]

Why would anyone think that graphics quality is the only thing new hardware would be needed for. Complex AI and physics will also require more hardware and we are a long, long way from having a game with realistic physics for every object, much less AI that is anywhere near as capable as the human brain. I seriously doubt we'll see that kind of technology in the next century, much less the next few generations of hardware.

myke2010

True AI is a programming challenge, not a hardware challenge. And its not about perfecting everything... its about advancing to the point where people arent willing to spend money on a new console. If the playstation 4 was released tomorrow and the only improvement was better physics, i wouldnt buy it... would you?

Yes, AI is a programming challenge, but it also requires resources from the hardware. True, intelligent AI requires more powerful hardware than that found in most FPS where enemies basically runs around like a braindead monkey. Imagine AI that can realistically react and utilize it's environment. I'm not talking about simply flanking or pushing, but when to take down the building you're in or how to send out a small unit to bait you and lure you into an ambush. AI that can properly decide how to use its surroundings against you. Now imagine the resources needed to have hundreds or even thousands of individual AI's all do this independently and simultaneously. The hardware requirements would be enourmous.

Now on to physics. Would I spend money on a next gen system if the only improvement was better physics? Well, it would depend on what kind of improvement it would be. If it allowed the same amount of interaction and deformation contained in the real world then the answer would be a whole hearted yes! Imagine a game world that literally allowed you to interact with every single piece of terrain and surroundings.

Weather that was 100% accurate and realistically affected the world around you. Wind that could blow over objects and water that could make you lose traction when running. Buildings that could be blown into rubble and not just preset debris like we see know. No more invincible walls and cover. Fire that actually acts like fire and spreads across the environment.

Imagine a game like GTA where if you crashed you would actually go into a building, hurtling desks, chairs, glass and plaster into unsuspecting office workers; possibly bringing down the entire building in the process. Such a revolution ins physics would radically and fundamentally change game design as we know it.

People who only see graphics as the future of gaming are incredibly short sighted.

there already are games with fully destructible environments like red faction. Alot of the stuff you are describing is largely reliant on the game engine.

[QUOTE="myke2010"]

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

True AI is a programming challenge, not a hardware challenge. And its not about perfecting everything... its about advancing to the point where people arent willing to spend money on a new console. If the playstation 4 was released tomorrow and the only improvement was better physics, i wouldnt buy it... would you?

markinthedark

Yes, AI is a programming challenge, but it also requires resources from the hardware. True, intelligent AI requires more powerful hardware than that found in most FPS where enemies basically runs around like a braindead monkey. Imagine AI that can realistically react and utilize it's environment. I'm not talking about simply flanking or pushing, but when to take down the building you're in or how to send out a small unit to bait you and lure you into an ambush. AI that can properly decide how to use its surroundings against you. Now imagine the resources needed to have hundreds or even thousands of individual AI's all do this independently and simultaneously. The hardware requirements would be enourmous.

Now on to physics. Would I spend money on a next gen system if the only improvement was better physics? Well, it would depend on what kind of improvement it would be. If it allowed the same amount of interaction and deformation contained in the real world then the answer would be a whole hearted yes! Imagine a game world that literally allowed you to interact with every single piece of terrain and surroundings.

Weather that was 100% accurate and realistically affected the world around you. Wind that could blow over objects and water that could make you lose traction when running. Buildings that could be blown into rubble and not just preset debris like we see know. No more invincible walls and cover. Fire that actually acts like fire and spreads across the environment.

Imagine a game like GTA where if you crashed you would actually go into a building, hurtling desks, chairs, glass and plaster into unsuspecting office workers; possibly bringing down the entire building in the process. Such a revolution ins physics would radically and fundamentally change game design as we know it.

People who only see graphics as the future of gaming are incredibly short sighted.

there already are games with fully destructible environments like red faction. Alot of the stuff you are describing is largely reliant on the game engine.

There is absolutely nothing even remotely close to what I'm describing on the market. Red Faction has a bunch of buildings that react to damage with the consistency of styrofoam. It also has a lot of indestructible objects as well. I'm talking about actual on the fly physics that result in damage conistant with the materials involved and the forces being applied. I'm talking about a physics engine that is applied to everything you can see in the game world and not just the few items that the devs want you to play around with.

Yes, physics is reliant on the engine the game is built on, but the more complex that engine is the more complex hardware it requires. You can't just create a more complex physics engine and expect it to work on existing systems, the hardware can't handle it. The type of physics engine I described isn't currently possible on any desktop PC, much less any console. We have game engines that can have destructible buildings, realistic water, or terrain deformation, but we don't have a single one that can do all three at once, much less with anything approaching realistic levels of accuracy. And this isn't even mentioning the exponential increase in hardware requirements as we increase the size and scale of the levels involved. The gaming industry has barely scratched the surface of in-game physics.

I believe video games will one day look better than real life.

What I mean by that is the quality.

How many of you actually notice such detail like the every pore on someone's skin or every strand of hair.

A game will just take the quality of reality and make everything more noticeable.

With the way technology is advancing it won't be long before a home computer has the computation power of a human brain.

There is a super computer that is almost complete that will surpass those calculations.

Gives it another 15 years and I could imagine a personal computer with that amount of power.