@wendopolis_bruh: if we're talking about perspective sure, information was not around so people didn't active see news reports on the latest CPU/GPU because no one cared most of us were on consoles more than PC for gaming. Not to mention, people didn't know much about hardware then.
Now it is marketed well and it matters to people so people can't really avoid such announcements. Perspective it did probably seem slower unless you were in to computers like myself, but on a literal front its going slower. Which is depressing.
15 years ago no one bragged about their 800by600 resolution and 30FPS bragging rights over a console that didn't have that. Now kids argue over such technical things that 10 years ago only tech heads would really know wtf it was.
I'd argue were going an additional step for some game development that people are learning how games are made and we see studio reports so now we know the names of game engines like CryEngine, Frostbite etc, which people didn't ever talk about 10 years ago, so from that perspective i imagine game engines are getting churned out faster but thats largely remained the same.
@wendopolis_bruh:Technology is moving slower now not faster. Evidently you didn't follow hardware much 15-20 years ago. It was just as mind blowing as each iteraiton is today. The frequency of jump was annual almost. Now its 2 or 3 years.
CPU tick-tock model have doubled in time. Moore's law has been decreasing for a substantial amount of time and is approaching its limit.
I don't think you pay attention to hardware much at all. Or you don't know much about it, which ever one.
Have a read: http://wccftech.com/intel-new-2-5-year-cadence-tick-tock-tock/ = tl;dr next generations are now half a year further apart than previously... a sign of reaching the limits.
The problem simply is computers are closing in on the literal limit the universe allows due to quantum uncertainty principles. The only solution is to totally change the architecture or maybe ditch classic computers entirely, such as quantum computers - but they may have no practical use for a PC game as they won't be any much better for performing classical based software, plus building a budget computer is not going to happen. So the industry has to look for better options, and soon otherwise they will have nothing to sell in terms of power products.
But they will branch into portable stuff to get them on par with computers. We might be stuck for a decade on a particular hardware level at some point in the future, not good news! Lets hope they find a solution though!
The only reason the consoles are pathetic to say the PC is because companies are squeezing as much profit out of it. PlayStation used to sell at a loss, now they make margins, so they use cheaper less powerful hardware...essentially they trying to sell the least powerful for the most price that still appears as an improvement on the past, and the average gamer is a retard and likes to buy shiny new shit even if it is literally shit. Thats the real reason the console jump was unimpressive to those who know just how powerful PCs are in comparison.
@Ayzed: It would if they did it today. Thats why they are saying "Battlefield 12" in the article which is like an easy 20 years yet. Think 20 years ago from today. 1996. Broadband wasn't in any one's homes then except possibly wealthy businesses and military. We were all on dial up 56 k playing play station one.
So imagine the leap from that to now, again in the next 20 years for internet speeds, were talking easily 2 or 3 Gb/s. And what they would do is stream the output of the game as a video to your screen, just like as if your watching a Twitch or Youtube video (which we can easily handle already), only that you can send your controller data to it so you can control it. By the time were at 2 or 3 Gb/s lag would be pretty much the fault of the game programming itself and not the internet connection of the user.
@Ayzed: I am a bit confused what the division has to do with streaming it via the internet, in order to play anything online your streaming data - just not the graphics. This article is talking about simply streaming both the data & the graphics which isn't a big step up from what we have now for online games anyway. The idea of streaming is that there is no loading because the server did it before for another player and just stores that in memory and just streams it to you as a video. Essentially a super computer runs the game. It's a solution for allowing huge graphic fidelity that a consumer could not purchase hardware for.
But of course, if the pay system is bad they won't sell as well as conventional means so it would have to be inviting pricing system. I have to agree with you that i don't like the idea of paying for access, i prefer paying per game that i want to play.
As some one who lives in Europe, my internet connection is like 500 MB/s with unlimited data so internet connection is not an issue here. I'm aware in USA they lag behind a lot on that regard so such services won't really be around for ages yet.
@Ayzed: They said that about games being only purchasable online but people got used to it. What you are demonstrating is a prime example of older generations not accepting change that the next generation will consider to be the norm and so only you miss out. In 20 years time streaming will be no big deal. Or it might never take off at all just like 3D TVs didn't take off yet was coined the future.
sirchick's comments