The next iPad and iPhone will not offer anything close to the graphical performance of the Xbox One or PlayStation 4.
Link?
iOS currently uses quad-core PowerVR and it benchmarks around the same as the Intel HD3000 in cross-platform benchmarks. This is faster than the PS3 and 360. The next generation could be 2x faster if they go with the highest-end GPU option. The PS4 and XBone are 3-10x faster than last-gen so the iOS devices will fall short of the raw capability but visually, it doesn't matter much these days and within another 2-3 generations will match the power. The next iOS devices should perform like the Tegra K1:
[VIDEO]
[VIDEO]
[VIDEO]
[VIDEO]
These demos aren't simultaneously working out enemy AI, characters and so on so these visual demos won't translate fully to a real game but the quality they have from the physically-based engine is amazing. When you see how long physically based rendering takes on a CPU (say 10 minutes per frame) and this is running at least 30 frames per second, this is 18,000x faster for comparable visual quality to a CPU. It's not quite the same processing going on or anti-aliasing but it's the result that matters. If this kind of thing was usable for post-production, it would be great. Real-time photoreal images for broadcast advertising. I don't why Adobe, Autodesk or Apple don't commission Unreal or Crytek to build a real-time engine for post-production. They'd just stipulate a virtual memory requirement for textures.
The next iOS devices should perform like the Tegra K1:
Next iOS device ~= Tegra K1 <<<<<< Xbox One (~HD7770) << PlayStation 4 (~HD7870)
You also can't ignore other factors such as RAM (8GB with a massive bandwidth) and CPU (8 low power Jaguar cores). Even the Tegra K1 in NVIDIA's demo was using 4GB of RAM.
how is it a stab in the back? Microsoft has the only console that'll have this game, their agreement obviously did not apply to non console systems.
Well considering MS and Apple are competitors this can't be very good news for them. But the fact that the developer is taking advantage of that loophole can only hurt Microsoft's sales
Titanfall is an online-only multiplayer game so the game is pretty much like Unreal Tournament or Quake where you run around with a gun shooting while teenagers shout obscenities into their headsets:
[VIDEO]
It doesn't look like the fun would last long but there's the added possibility to mess around with XBox guys because it's voice activated so if you use a gamer tag that's one of the XBox audio commands, it can mess their game up:
[VIDEO]
The developers and Microsoft hope that Titanfall will be a blockbuster game but games like Call of Duty have an immersive story-driven campaign on top of the mindless multiplayer so they appeal on two levels. It could be that the run and gun audience is bigger than the campaign audience on the XBox but less likely to be the case on the Mac.
Feral Interactive does a better job with picking games ports. They are bringing Hitman Absolution over soon.
This is getting to be the case with more and more games. It can help slow down piracy but it does make the space tight on SSDs. Call of Duty Ghosts is 40GB+. It gets worse with DLCs that add to the base game.
You also can't ignore other factors such as RAM (8GB with a massive bandwidth) and CPU (8 low power Jaguar cores). Even the Tegra K1 in NVIDIA's demo was using 4GB of RAM.
That's just for the textures. Lighting is more important. The last-gen consoles run with 512MB of RAM and they handle GTA V, Call of Duty Ghosts etc.
Well considering MS and Apple are competitors this can't be very good news for them. But the fact that the developer is taking advantage of that loophole can only hurt Microsoft's sales
I am sorry but your comment shows a lack of understanding of how this works.
The developer has said on numerous occasions they did not set out to target Microsoft platforms. Games have developers and publishers. EA is the publisher and they signed the deal with Microsoft. I don't know the terms of the deal or how they used the "loophole", but Respawn has every right to pursue every loophole when their publisher forced them into a situation they are not happy with. Also, the EA agreement is only good for the first game. My guess is Titanfall 2 will be available on multiple consoles or EA and Microsoft will expand the deal and make it air tight.
ummm... Do you even know who published this game? Only the biggest backstabber in the world: EA
The same EA that backstabbed Nintendo after stating publicly that they'd support the Wii U to the fullest and believed in the system. then Days later saying the console was "crap" and claiming it was weaker than a 360 until their own developer Criterion proved them wrong.
Oh and the reason Titanfall didn't come to ps4 was because EA thought ps4 would fail:
Titanfall is not an exclusive like Halo. So expect to see Titanfall 2 on several platforms.
I also don't understand the hype in these new gaming systems. $400 for a ps3 with slightly better graphics? REALLY? This has got to be the biggest ripoff in gaming history. And don't even get me started on the $500 XBone.
It’s just so pathetic, the “quality” of these new consoles. Inexcusable frame rates, disgustingly low textures… These are machines explicitly DESIGNED FOR GAMES and not only do all other standard computers play the games in higher resolution with better textures and higher frame rates, the NEXT FREAKING IPAD AND IPHONE will have content that is graphically better than them!
At least Nintendo has an experience behind it. By explicitly not caring about the oft-combined generic concept of “graphics”, they combine gameplay, story, and unity of design to wild success.
I don't think you've seen/played too many new gen games - if any. Watching YouTube videos really doesn't count. Granted, there aren't many games yet, but if you look at available exclusives, they look pretty much top-notch right now.
I'm not Xbox gamer but I did play Forza 5 at my friend's place, and I believe it is the best looking racer as of today, with silky smooth 60fps and 1080p.
I also played Killzone: ShadowFall on my PS4, and I think that it is the best looking FPS currently available on any platform, PC included. Light and textures are insane. I've spent some time hitting objects/rocks/... with my (virtual) head to see how well textures hold close scrutiny, and they did. Detail is amazing. Likewise the light - the way player's shadow projects on dust particles when moving through spotlights is downright eerie.
Ryse is also supposed to be great looking game.
Other games currently available are multiplats and mostly multigens, so there are limitations of spread development effort and lowest performing factor (which are last gen consoles) that will make an impact on performance and/or visuals across the range.
And of course, there is a question of current state of drivers and development tools. If you had chance to compare franchises across PS3 (or X360) lifespan, there was a huge gain of visual quality, complexity and performance as platforms mature. What we are seeing now is likely nowhere close to what we will be seeing in 2 years time.
ummm... Do you even know who published this game? Only the biggest backstabber in the world: EA
The same EA that backstabbed Nintendo after stating publicly that they'd support the Wii U to the fullest and believed in the system. then Days later saying the console was "crap" and claiming it was weaker than a 360 until their own developer Criterion proved them wrong.
Oh and the reason Titanfall didn't come to ps4 was because EA thought ps4 would fail:
Titanfall is not an exclusive like Halo. So expect to see Titanfall 2 on several platforms.
I also don't understand the hype in these new gaming systems. $400 for a ps3 with slightly better graphics? REALLY? This has got to be the biggest ripoff in gaming history. And don't even get me started on the $500 XBone.
Actually, first Titanfall was advertised as Microsoft exclusive. It is a bit unclear if it is time-limited exclusive; Developers did say that first one will not see the light on PS4 - PERIOD, but if there are sequels, they will be on PS4 too. This might mean they are not allowed to port 1st one to PS4 at all, or they might think that retro-releasing it a year later is pointless - especially if they want to release new one in a year time (and since they were CoD developers, a year development cycle does not sound like strange idea).
Graphics in PS4 are way better than PS3. I'm guessing you are just flaming here, other option would not be any flattering for you... but I'll bite anyway. PS3 graphics are based on Nvidia 7800 hardware which was released in mid-2005. Theoretical performance is 192 GFLOPS vs. 1840 GFLOPS from PS4 graphics. 22.4GB/s vs. 176GB/s bandwidth. 256MB GDDR3 vs. 2GB (or more) of GDDR5. 512MB of total RAM vs. 8GB of total RAM - this alone will open PS4 to MMO titles (Planetside 2 already being announced), something that previos generation simply did not have enough resources to cope with.
It is widely spread opinion that PS4 is around 10x more powerful than PS3.
Give it a year or two, you will be amazed with what comes out of PS4. Relative to 2006 PC games like Prey, MoH: Airborne, UT2007, Halflife 2, PS3 release games (like Resistance) didn't look as good as PS4 Killzone looks compared to current PC games. It is a great start.
Yeah, 720p, as opposed to literally every television these days at 1080. Meanwhile, we’re playing at 1440p or even 2880p on our computers.
60 FPS? Not on, oh, every single game released. Under 30 most of the time.
The benefit to my PS4 is knowing I don't have to compete against some guy with a water-cooled, overclocked-out-the-wazoo $4k gaming rig with a much wider field of view from 3 27" monitors that, oh yeah by the way, is also running the latest aimbot and health upgrade hack.
The benefit to my PS4 is knowing I don't have to compete against some guy with a water-cooled, overclocked-out-the-wazoo $4k gaming rig with a much wider field of view from 3 27" monitors that, oh yeah by the way, is also running the latest aimbot and health upgrade hack.
First, not everyone has a stupendously expensive computer. A huge majority of even the gaming community has normal computers costing no more than $1200 (yes, that's twice as expensive as a console, but a computer is ten times as useful and dynamic than a console).
Second, yes, while HEX hacking and trainer multiplayer gaming does spoil the fun (and actually becomes irritating at one point), you can not neglect the fun of modding games (like Elder Scrolls) and the ingenious ways of the modding community (fun, that consoles will never have).
First, not everyone has a stupendously expensive computer. A huge majority of even the gaming community has normal computers costing no more than $1200 (yes, that's twice as expensive as a console, but a computer is ten times as useful and dynamic than a console).
Of course not. But there are those that do, and you are competing against them. With consoles, it's a completely level playing field from a hardware standpoint. No one has faster hardware than you. No one has 30-button mice with macros. No one has multiple displays for increased field of view.
The benefit to my PS4 is knowing I don't have to compete against some guy with a water-cooled, overclocked-out-the-wazoo $4k gaming rig with a much wider field of view from 3 27" monitors that, oh yeah by the way, is also running the latest aimbot and health upgrade hack.
You’d take a purposely crippled experience instead of the real one simply because you’re afraid that a fraction of a fraction of a percent occurrence will mess up your K/D?
Originally Posted by RedHotFuzz
Of course not. But there are those that do, and you are competing against them. With consoles, it's a completely level playing field from a hardware standpoint. No one has faster hardware than you. No one has 30-button mice with macros. No one has multiple displays for increased field of view.
Welcome to life. We’re not all equal. You want to win? Put the effort in.
I think if you're adopting a "you want to win, put the effort in" stance with video games, you've already lost.
I play because it's fun, not because I'm obsessed by winning. It stops being fun for me when I need to reinvest in hardware every couple of years for a playable experience, or when other players have hardware advantages that making playing frustrating.
Comments
iOS currently uses quad-core PowerVR and it benchmarks around the same as the Intel HD3000 in cross-platform benchmarks. This is faster than the PS3 and 360. The next generation could be 2x faster if they go with the highest-end GPU option. The PS4 and XBone are 3-10x faster than last-gen so the iOS devices will fall short of the raw capability but visually, it doesn't matter much these days and within another 2-3 generations will match the power. The next iOS devices should perform like the Tegra K1:
[VIDEO]
[VIDEO]
[VIDEO]
[VIDEO]
These demos aren't simultaneously working out enemy AI, characters and so on so these visual demos won't translate fully to a real game but the quality they have from the physically-based engine is amazing. When you see how long physically based rendering takes on a CPU (say 10 minutes per frame) and this is running at least 30 frames per second, this is 18,000x faster for comparable visual quality to a CPU. It's not quite the same processing going on or anti-aliasing but it's the result that matters. If this kind of thing was usable for post-production, it would be great. Real-time photoreal images for broadcast advertising. I don't why Adobe, Autodesk or Apple don't commission Unreal or Crytek to build a real-time engine for post-production. They'd just stipulate a virtual memory requirement for textures.
60 FPS? Not on, oh, every single game released. Under 30 most of the time.
Yeah I was just taking the piss out of him for making a statement about a product that hasn't been released. Thanks for the reply though; a good read.
Link?
The next iOS devices should perform like the Tegra K1:
Next iOS device ~= Tegra K1 <<<<<< Xbox One (~HD7770) << PlayStation 4 (~HD7870)
You also can't ignore other factors such as RAM (8GB with a massive bandwidth) and CPU (8 low power Jaguar cores). Even the Tegra K1 in NVIDIA's demo was using 4GB of RAM.
They’d have to actually create another product first.
‘Kay.
Microsoft
http://www.craveonline.com/gaming/articles/657503-titanfall-on-xbox-one-struggles-with-framerate-despite-792p-resolution
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2014/01/27/microsoft-exec-defends-xbox-ones-frame-rate-resolution-problems/
http://xboxonedaily.com/2014/02/call-of-duty-ghosts-on-xbox-one-troubled-by-frame-rate-issues/
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/446551/tomb-raider-xbox-one-frame-rate-half-of-ps4-version/
http://www.cinemablend.com/games/xbox-one-lower-frame-rate-lower-resolution-defended-by-albert-penello-61847.html
Never mind the demonstrations of Xbox One games aren’t actually running on them, but on PCs.
Sony
http://www.examiner.com/article/watch-dogs-ps4-and-xbox-one-publisher-reveals-frame-rate-and-resolution
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2013/11/05/reviewers-are-reporting-frame-rate-problems-with-call-of-duty-ghosts-on-ps4/
http://www.videogamer.com/ps4/thief/news/ps4_thief_capped_at_30fps_producer_suggests_60fps_not_a_necessity.html
Titanfall is an online-only multiplayer game so the game is pretty much like Unreal Tournament or Quake where you run around with a gun shooting while teenagers shout obscenities into their headsets:
[VIDEO]
It doesn't look like the fun would last long but there's the added possibility to mess around with XBox guys because it's voice activated so if you use a gamer tag that's one of the XBox audio commands, it can mess their game up:
[VIDEO]
The developers and Microsoft hope that Titanfall will be a blockbuster game but games like Call of Duty have an immersive story-driven campaign on top of the mindless multiplayer so they appeal on two levels. It could be that the run and gun audience is bigger than the campaign audience on the XBox but less likely to be the case on the Mac.
Feral Interactive does a better job with picking games ports. They are bringing Hitman Absolution over soon.
This is getting to be the case with more and more games. It can help slow down piracy but it does make the space tight on SSDs. Call of Duty Ghosts is 40GB+. It gets worse with DLCs that add to the base game.
That's just for the textures. Lighting is more important. The last-gen consoles run with 512MB of RAM and they handle GTA V, Call of Duty Ghosts etc.
I am sorry but your comment shows a lack of understanding of how this works.
The developer has said on numerous occasions they did not set out to target Microsoft platforms. Games have developers and publishers. EA is the publisher and they signed the deal with Microsoft. I don't know the terms of the deal or how they used the "loophole", but Respawn has every right to pursue every loophole when their publisher forced them into a situation they are not happy with. Also, the EA agreement is only good for the first game. My guess is Titanfall 2 will be available on multiple consoles or EA and Microsoft will expand the deal and make it air tight.
Wow. What a stab in the back
ummm... Do you even know who published this game? Only the biggest backstabber in the world: EA
The same EA that backstabbed Nintendo after stating publicly that they'd support the Wii U to the fullest and believed in the system. then Days later saying the console was "crap" and claiming it was weaker than a 360 until their own developer Criterion proved them wrong.
Oh and the reason Titanfall didn't come to ps4 was because EA thought ps4 would fail:
http://www.inquisitr.com/1155724/titanfall-ps4-port-cancelled-due-to-ea-assuming-a-playstation-4-fail/
Titanfall is not an exclusive like Halo. So expect to see Titanfall 2 on several platforms.
I also don't understand the hype in these new gaming systems. $400 for a ps3 with slightly better graphics? REALLY? This has got to be the biggest ripoff in gaming history. And don't even get me started on the $500 XBone.
I don't think you've seen/played too many new gen games - if any. Watching YouTube videos really doesn't count. Granted, there aren't many games yet, but if you look at available exclusives, they look pretty much top-notch right now.
I'm not Xbox gamer but I did play Forza 5 at my friend's place, and I believe it is the best looking racer as of today, with silky smooth 60fps and 1080p.
I also played Killzone: ShadowFall on my PS4, and I think that it is the best looking FPS currently available on any platform, PC included. Light and textures are insane. I've spent some time hitting objects/rocks/... with my (virtual) head to see how well textures hold close scrutiny, and they did. Detail is amazing. Likewise the light - the way player's shadow projects on dust particles when moving through spotlights is downright eerie.
Ryse is also supposed to be great looking game.
Other games currently available are multiplats and mostly multigens, so there are limitations of spread development effort and lowest performing factor (which are last gen consoles) that will make an impact on performance and/or visuals across the range.
And of course, there is a question of current state of drivers and development tools. If you had chance to compare franchises across PS3 (or X360) lifespan, there was a huge gain of visual quality, complexity and performance as platforms mature. What we are seeing now is likely nowhere close to what we will be seeing in 2 years time.
Actually, first Titanfall was advertised as Microsoft exclusive. It is a bit unclear if it is time-limited exclusive; Developers did say that first one will not see the light on PS4 - PERIOD, but if there are sequels, they will be on PS4 too. This might mean they are not allowed to port 1st one to PS4 at all, or they might think that retro-releasing it a year later is pointless - especially if they want to release new one in a year time (and since they were CoD developers, a year development cycle does not sound like strange idea).
Graphics in PS4 are way better than PS3. I'm guessing you are just flaming here, other option would not be any flattering for you... but I'll bite anyway. PS3 graphics are based on Nvidia 7800 hardware which was released in mid-2005. Theoretical performance is 192 GFLOPS vs. 1840 GFLOPS from PS4 graphics. 22.4GB/s vs. 176GB/s bandwidth. 256MB GDDR3 vs. 2GB (or more) of GDDR5. 512MB of total RAM vs. 8GB of total RAM - this alone will open PS4 to MMO titles (Planetside 2 already being announced), something that previos generation simply did not have enough resources to cope with.
It is widely spread opinion that PS4 is around 10x more powerful than PS3.
Give it a year or two, you will be amazed with what comes out of PS4. Relative to 2006 PC games like Prey, MoH: Airborne, UT2007, Halflife 2, PS3 release games (like Resistance) didn't look as good as PS4 Killzone looks compared to current PC games. It is a great start.
Yeah, 720p, as opposed to literally every television these days at 1080. Meanwhile, we’re playing at 1440p or even 2880p on our computers.
60 FPS? Not on, oh, every single game released. Under 30 most of the time.
The benefit to my PS4 is knowing I don't have to compete against some guy with a water-cooled, overclocked-out-the-wazoo $4k gaming rig with a much wider field of view from 3 27" monitors that, oh yeah by the way, is also running the latest aimbot and health upgrade hack.
The benefit to my PS4 is knowing I don't have to compete against some guy with a water-cooled, overclocked-out-the-wazoo $4k gaming rig with a much wider field of view from 3 27" monitors that, oh yeah by the way, is also running the latest aimbot and health upgrade hack.
First, not everyone has a stupendously expensive computer. A huge majority of even the gaming community has normal computers costing no more than $1200 (yes, that's twice as expensive as a console, but a computer is ten times as useful and dynamic than a console).
Second, yes, while HEX hacking and trainer multiplayer gaming does spoil the fun (and actually becomes irritating at one point), you can not neglect the fun of modding games (like Elder Scrolls) and the ingenious ways of the modding community (fun, that consoles will never have).
First, not everyone has a stupendously expensive computer. A huge majority of even the gaming community has normal computers costing no more than $1200 (yes, that's twice as expensive as a console, but a computer is ten times as useful and dynamic than a console).
Of course not. But there are those that do, and you are competing against them. With consoles, it's a completely level playing field from a hardware standpoint. No one has faster hardware than you. No one has 30-button mice with macros. No one has multiple displays for increased field of view.
You’d take a purposely crippled experience instead of the real one simply because you’re afraid that a fraction of a fraction of a percent occurrence will mess up your K/D?
Welcome to life. We’re not all equal. You want to win? Put the effort in.
I think if you're adopting a "you want to win, put the effort in" stance with video games, you've already lost.
I play because it's fun, not because I'm obsessed by winning. It stops being fun for me when I need to reinvest in hardware every couple of years for a playable experience, or when other players have hardware advantages that making playing frustrating.
Consoles are great.