Remedy: Next-Gen consoles are a quantum leap

[QUOTE="Sushiglutton"][QUOTE="SecretPolice"]I can go along a bit if speaking on the hardware side of things but riddle me this Batman :P why is the 2007 Crysis still considered by many if not most the current graphics king and it'l soon be 2013. :shock:

Obviously_Right

:lol: owned

Owned by what? A figure Ubisoft pulled out of their ass to make Piracy look bad and force their DRM more because it failed? They haven't provided a shred of evidence to support those figures at all

And then there are PCs which were quantum leaps years ago. Blabadon

And then there are PCs which were quantum leaps years ago. Blabadon

[QUOTE="Blabadon"]And then there are PCs which were quantum leaps years ago. SaltyMeatballs

That's why everyone should be embracing them and not fighting about it. Once next gen consoles hit everyone will benefit, it will move everything forward again

[QUOTE="Obviously_Right"]

[QUOTE="Sushiglutton"] Because piracy also took a quantum leap to 93-95%, so Crytek made a quantum leap to the console market.seanmcloughlin

:lol: owned

Owned by what? A figure Ubisoft pulled out of their ass to make Piracy look bad and force their DRM more because it failed? They haven't provided a shred of evidence to support those figures at all

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="Obviously_Right"]

:lol: owned

Sushiglutton

Owned by what? A figure Ubisoft pulled out of their ass to make Piracy look bad and force their DRM more because it failed? They haven't provided a shred of evidence to support those figures at all

Then think about this. If the piracy rate was so high (which that figure is astronomically high) it would leave no room for profits to be made on PC at all, so why do they continue to support the platform? If it was as bad as they say then they would cut off the PC side of things to save their money.

Also it's still only Ubisoft if it's true anyway, doesn't paint a picture of the whole platform or PC itself, A dev like DICE would have a far less piracy percentage due to the nature of their games. People also pirated Ubisoft games because of their intrusive and limiting DRM they implemented and the pirated versions work without it making them far easier to use. Ubisoft shot themselves in the foot with their DRM.

And again people only pirate what they believe is not worth their money. If a consumer sees a product worth getting with high quality they will buy it, that's why iTunes became popular, CDs costed too much so people pirated, then they release a service that has hugely lower prices and it booms. Same with netflix, people pirated movies all the time and still do yet netflix is hugely successful too. Why? because they have a service people deem good enough to pay for.

Ubisoft want less piracy? remove the DRM that alienates people and make better quality games. Simple

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="Obviously_Right"]

:lol: owned

Sushiglutton

Owned by what? A figure Ubisoft pulled out of their ass to make Piracy look bad and force their DRM more because it failed? They haven't provided a shred of evidence to support those figures at all

Irrelevant

Extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence. Ubisoft made the claim, Ubisoft has to back it up. This is basic logic. Show us the data, and the methods used to come to the conclusion. Otherwise Ubisoft can STFU. ESPECIALLY at what they're doing now.

*Tells PC gamers they are not worth I am Alive port*

Link

*retracts statement*

Link

*95% piracy statement*

Link

*I am Alive coming to PC next month*

Link

And when I am Alive doesn't sell on the PC, guess what they are going to blame it on? Piracy.

[QUOTE="Sushiglutton"][QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

Owned by what? A figure Ubisoft pulled out of their ass to make Piracy look bad and force their DRM more because it failed? They haven't provided a shred of evidence to support those figures at all

seanmcloughlin

Then think about this. If the piracy rate was so high (which that figure is astronomically high) it would leave no room for profits to be made on PC at all, so why do they continue to support the platform? If it was as bad as they say then they would cut off the PC side of things to save their money.

Also it's still only Ubisoft if it's true anyway, doesn't paint a picture of the whole platform or PC itself, A dev like DICE would have a far less piracy percentage due to the nature of their games. People also pirated Ubisoft games because of their intrusive and limiting DRM they implemented and the pirated versions work without it making them far easier to use. Ubisoft shot themselves in the foot with their DRM.

And again people only pirate what they believe is not worth their money. If a consumer sees a product worth getting with high quality they will buy it, that's why iTunes became popular, CDs costed too much so people pirated, then they release a service that has hugely lower prices and it booms. Same with netflix, people pirated movies all the time and still do yet netflix is hugely successful too. Why? because they have a service people deem good enough to pay for.

Ubisoft want less piracy? remove the DRM that alienates people and make better quality games. Simple

[QUOTE="Sushiglutton"][QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

Owned by what? A figure Ubisoft pulled out of their ass to make Piracy look bad and force their DRM more because it failed? They haven't provided a shred of evidence to support those figures at all

Mozuckint

Irrelevant

Extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence. Ubisoft made the claim, Ubisoft has to back it up. This is basic logic. Show us the data, and the methods used to come to the conclusion. Otherwise Ubisoft can STFU. ESPECIALLY at what they're doing now.

*Tells PC gamers they are not worth I am Alive port*

Link

*retracts statement*

Link

*95% piracy statement*

Link

*I am Alive coming to PC next month*

Link

And when I am Alive doesn't sell on the PC, guess what they are going to blame it on? Piracy.

and they don't have to prove a thing. Sushiglutton

aaaand we're done here. Congrats on your self ownage..have a nice day:)

[QUOTE="Sushiglutton"]and they don't have to prove a thing. Mozuckint

aaaand we're done here. Congrats on your self ownage..have a nice day:)

And then there are PCs which were quantum leaps years ago. Blabadon

PC elitists...knowing what is next-gen before even seeing it.

[QUOTE="Sushiglutton"][QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

Owned by what? A figure Ubisoft pulled out of their ass to make Piracy look bad and force their DRM more because it failed? They haven't provided a shred of evidence to support those figures at all

Mozuckint

Irrelevant

Extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence. Ubisoft made the claim, Ubisoft has to back it up. This is basic logic. Show us the data, and the methods used to come to the conclusion. Otherwise Ubisoft can STFU. ESPECIALLY at what they're doing now.

*Tells PC gamers they are not worth I am Alive port*

Link

*retracts statement*

Link

*95% piracy statement*

Link

*I am Alive coming to PC next month*

Link

And when I am Alive doesn't sell on the PC, guess what they are going to blame it on? Piracy.

Arent the quanta the smallest particles in nature of wich electons, proton and neutrons are made of? So wouldnt a quantum leap be a small leap? idk, I'm not an expert but this is what I was getting...

Of course it's going to be a huge leap. This has been the longest console cycle and if Sony/Microsoft expect to sell new consoles then they have to offer an incredible improvement over current gen consoles. If there isn't a noticeable improvement then what is the point of upgrading. Microsoft/Sony would not be stupid enough to release underpowered consoles that they expect to last 8 years.emgesp

With more increased software development costs that'll come with more beefier hardware. Lovely. And those were already bad enough on PS3 & 360.

Source(German, google translated)

Thanks to neogaf (neogaf link)

[Quote=""]We are working as usual, first with a relatively small team on a next-generation project," said Hakkinen.
"One wonders all the time: Can the new consoles really be that much better than the previous? Rest assured: they are, it is a quantum leap.".campzor

inb4sheep

Show me an article where a console company claimed their product was just a little above what they were previously selling. In other words why are they going to try and market something that won't get the consolite audience hyped??? Do you honestly think they are going to be completely honest about how powerful these things really are? Yeah right...:roll:

Why don't you tell us what the true figure and also provide the evidence for that? Companies like Ubisoft follows the market as closely as they can, using the best analysis tools/data available. I'll take their estimate before what hermits think they know any day in the week.Sushiglutton

Speaking of pulling things out of one's ass...

[QUOTE="emgesp"]Of course it's going to be a huge leap. This has been the longest console cycle and if Sony/Microsoft expect to sell new consoles then they have to offer an incredible improvement over current gen consoles. If there isn't a noticeable improvement then what is the point of upgrading. Microsoft/Sony would not be stupid enough to release underpowered consoles that they expect to last 8 years.Shinobi120

With more increased software development costs that'll come with more beefier hardware. Lovely. And those were already bad enough on PS3 & 360.

[QUOTE="Shinobi120"]

[QUOTE="emgesp"]Of course it's going to be a huge leap. This has been the longest console cycle and if Sony/Microsoft expect to sell new consoles then they have to offer an incredible improvement over current gen consoles. If there isn't a noticeable improvement then what is the point of upgrading. Microsoft/Sony would not be stupid enough to release underpowered consoles that they expect to last 8 years.emgesp

With more increased software development costs that'll come with more beefier hardware. Lovely. And those were already bad enough on PS3 & 360.

You're naive if you really think that. More beefier hardware = more increased software development costs. Happens throughout each generation.

Plus there were many studios that have closed due to PS3/360 development.

[QUOTE="emgesp"]

[QUOTE="Shinobi120"]

With more increased software development costs that'll come with more beefier hardware. Lovely. And those were already bad enough on PS3 & 360.

Shinobi120

You're naive if you really think that. More beefier hardware = more increased software development costs. Happens throughout each generation.

Plus there were many studios that have closed due to PS3/360 development.

[QUOTE="emgesp"]

[QUOTE="Shinobi120"]

With more increased software development costs that'll come with more beefier hardware. Lovely. And those were already bad enough on PS3 & 360.

Shinobi120

You're naive if you really think that. More beefier hardware = more increased software development costs. Happens throughout each generation.

Plus there were many studios that have closed due to PS3/360 development.

Not really no. That's not why development costs are going so high. One big reason is voice acting costs quite a bit and hiring big name actors adds even more. The hardware maybe changing but the tools are also changing too and the languages are made easier and easier to use the more generations they have. Also there is a time factor involved. Games like CoD need so much money because they are going for yearly releases which means they are stacking up the development costs by trying to get it done as fast as possible, which means a higher headcount. The headcount is almost always the hugest cost for any development company. Also advertisement budgets are astronomical. Really it's not because the hardware is getting beefier, it's other reasons why the costs are going higher.

[QUOTE="emgesp"]

[QUOTE="Shinobi120"]

With more increased software development costs that'll come with more beefier hardware. Lovely. And those were already bad enough on PS3 & 360.

Shinobi120

You're naive if you really think that. More beefier hardware = more increased software development costs. Happens throughout each generation.

Plus there were many studios that have closed due to PS3/360 development.

I still think next gen consoles are going to be about 10X stronger then their predecessors.

Ubisoft won't provide any data obv, because that kind of information is worth a lot of money ans they don't have to prove a thing. Their word is more reliable to me than what a bunch of fanboys claim they know, who haven't seen a shred of real data in their entire life. Sushiglutton

Yes they do, a bold claim is worthless if not backed up by any evidence, also as the user you quoted pointed out with sources, Ubi contradicts themselves all the time...

Just because Ubisoft is a large corporation in the gaming industry doesn't mean their spokesmen can spout unsubstantiated statements...

Also, no one denies the existance of piracy on the PC (and in the rest of the entertainment industry), we're just saying Ubisoft statement in its current state has no credibility.

next gen consoles at their launch will look and play like 12 month old pc's.

that's not an insult or anything it is just the way things are.

Sounds like Nvidia marketing terms.

I would be surprised if they managed to surpass the latest PC tech (obviously won't happen due to PCs being upgradable).

Infact, I'm willing to bet they'll be compromised again (like the 360 and PS3 were with their low amounts of RAM, gimped GPUs (128-bit memory interface in 360's Xenos & reduced ROPs in PS3's RSX), ect.).

They should be impressive compared to the current consoles, however.

I still think next gen consoles are going to be about 10X stronger then their predecessors.

super600

MS can afford taking a loss, Sony can't.

That does not bode well for PS4 if they go head to head in a competition between two powerhouse systems.

MS can afford taking a loss, Sony can't.

That does not bode well for PS4 if they go head to head in a competition between two powerhouse systems.

SuperFlakeman

MS will not a take a loss either, they have proved they can sell a ton at a low price point without dropping 100's of million on console only games. I honestly don't expect these huge leap people talk about. Outside of the vocal minority, all my non-hardcore gaming friends are happy with the graphics, so why spend more

Honestly i think if you are lucky it will match a mid end pc. It will not be on par with high end pc's

Sounds like Nvidia marketing terms.

I would be surprised if they managed to surpass the latest PC tech (obviously won't happen due to PCs being upgradable).

Infact, I'm willing to bet they'll be compromised again (like the 360 and PS3 were with their low amounts of RAM, gimped GPUs (128-bit memory interface in 360's Xenos & reduced ROPs in PS3's RSX), ect.).

They should be impressive compared to the current consoles, however.

nameless12345

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Sounds like Nvidia marketing terms.

I would be surprised if they managed to surpass the latest PC tech (obviously won't happen due to PCs being upgradable).

Infact, I'm willing to bet they'll be compromised again (like the 360 and PS3 were with their low amounts of RAM, gimped GPUs (128-bit memory interface in 360's Xenos & reduced ROPs in PS3's RSX), ect.).

They should be impressive compared to the current consoles, however.

emgesp

It was, but it was not better than what was possible with PC (X1800 in Crossfire or GTX 7800 in SLI).

Altho it's true that on the 360 all games run and on decet quality while on a X1800 barely any games run anymore (or if they do they don't look or run particularly well).

[QUOTE="SuperFlakeman"]

MS can afford taking a loss, Sony can't.

That does not bode well for PS4 if they go head to head in a competition between two powerhouse systems.

James161324

MS will not a take a loss either, they have proved they can sell a ton at a low price point without dropping 100's of million on console only games. I honestly don't expect these huge leap people talk about. Outside of the vocal minority, all my non-hardcore gaming friends are happy with the graphics, so why spend more

Honestly i think if you are lucky it will match a mid end pc. It will not be on par with high end pc's

Yeah that's why I said they can afford a loss, not that they will take a loss :P

I agree.

Most $300 pre-built laptops these days are a quantum leap over the 360/PS3. This comment could mean anything.Zeviander

Laptops are not the best choice for gaming.

A good gaming laptop costs $1000 and more but doesn't match desktop performance.

Besides, they're not upgradable.

Laptops are not the best choice for gaming.nameless12345

[QUOTE="emgesp"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Sounds like Nvidia marketing terms.

I would be surprised if they managed to surpass the latest PC tech (obviously won't happen due to PCs being upgradable).

Infact, I'm willing to bet they'll be compromised again (like the 360 and PS3 were with their low amounts of RAM, gimped GPUs (128-bit memory interface in 360's Xenos & reduced ROPs in PS3's RSX), ect.).

They should be impressive compared to the current consoles, however.

nameless12345

It was, but it was not better than what was possible with PC (X1800 in Crossfire or GTX 7800 in SLI).

Altho it's true that on the 360 all games run and on decet quality while on a X1800 barely any games run anymore (or if they do they don't look or run particularly well).

Expensive hardware is not a good idea for consoles next generation. I don't believe it for a second.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="emgesp"]

The GPU in the 360 was pretty high-end in 2005.

emgesp

It was, but it was not better than what was possible with PC (X1800 in Crossfire or GTX 7800 in SLI).

Altho it's true that on the 360 all games run and on decet quality while on a X1800 barely any games run anymore (or if they do they don't look or run particularly well).

[QUOTE="super600"]

I still think next gen consoles are going to be about 10X stronger then their predecessors.

emgesp

Games will be easier to port to all consoles next gen.

Most $300 pre-built laptops these days are a quantum leap over the 360/PS3. This comment could mean anything.Zeviander

it would cost at least $2000 to even come close to matching the 360/ps3 graphically, and the 360 would still be a quantum leap ahead.

Expensive hardware is not a good idea for consoles next generation. I don't believe it for a second.

Zen_Light

[QUOTE="Zen_Light"]

Expensive hardware is not a good idea for consoles next generation. I don't believe it for a second.

Heirren

[QUOTE="Zeviander"]Most $300 pre-built laptops these days are a quantum leap over the 360/PS3. This comment could mean anything.BeardMaster

it would cost at least $2000 to even come close to matching the 360/ps3 graphically, and the 360 would still be a quantum leap ahead.

Nope

http://www.futureshop.ca/en-CA/product/toshiba-toshiba-qosmio-17-3-intel-core-i7-3610qm-gaming-laptop-psplxc-02700f-psplxc-02700f/10215710.aspx?path=48ea2e10b2137ec3daea7537084666a8en02

I found a laptop that is significantly more powerful then the 360 or PS3 for $1999

[QUOTE="BeardMaster"]

[QUOTE="Zeviander"]Most $300 pre-built laptops these days are a quantum leap over the 360/PS3. This comment could mean anything.super600

it would cost at least $2000 to even come close to matching the 360/ps3 graphically, and the 360 would still be a quantum leap ahead.

Nope

http://www.futureshop.ca/en-CA/product/toshiba-toshiba-qosmio-17-3-intel-core-i7-3610qm-gaming-laptop-psplxc-02700f-psplxc-02700f/10215710.aspx?path=48ea2e10b2137ec3daea7537084666a8en02

I found a laptop that is significantly more powerful then the 360 or PS3 for $1999

i know i just wanted to feel like a hermit for a moment, and just completely make something up.

[QUOTE="Zeviander"]Most $300 pre-built laptops these days are a quantum leap over the 360/PS3. This comment could mean anything.BeardMaster

it would cost at least $2000 to even come close to matching the 360/ps3 graphically, and the 360 would still be a quantum leap ahead.

So they are saying it's not going to a big leap?