Support NeoGAF

[z0m3le]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=474501

Yeah, kind of puts doubts on those target spec documents, where did they come from anyways?

Sony can't really sell at a loss at all, I know we say they can't sell at as big of a loss, but Vita is already selling at a loss last I heard, and at least in 2006 when PS3 was selling at it's 200-400 dollar losses, they still had the adoption of HDTVs to make up the losses, now that business is dead for Sony and they are betting heavy on videogames, with a 31 year low in value, and a new president at the head who should be able to clearly see the future of the playstation brand not returning to PS1(2)... I don't think they will sell it at much of a loss at all, and probably plan to sell it under $400, even if Microsoft's subscription model comes into next gen (which I think we all pretty much hate) they still didn't have this plan when they were coming up with the hardware.

I believe we are expecting too much from PS4 and that it could be 3-6X as powerful as the box they have right now and wouldn't see $1 less from next gen, so why do it?

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

Right. There's a lot of shit that is currently bad, and could get worse for the console industry. But Epic is not 'dumb'. Every single business move they've made regarding engine production and middleware for an entire generation has been the exact opposite of 'dumb'. They've had a generation worth of developers abide by the rules of UE3, and built UE3 to the strengths and weaknesses of consoles, PC and now mobile. There is literally nobody in the entire industry as business savvy and intelligent with middleware than Epic currently is.

Whether or not they fuck it up with UE4 remains to be seen, especially when it comes to their requests regarding hardware and what that means for the industry. But until that happens it's extremely premature to call them 'dumb'.

I think they're being dumb but maybe that's not the right word. Close-minded maybe? I understand they want to be able to sell a new engine to everyone and they need consoles to run it, that's their thing. But they seem to operate in this world where they don't seem to realize that sometimes that shit just isn't gonna work for companies. I mean lobbying for more power? Crytek is the same with their 8gb ram though I'm still assuming that was some kind of joke.

I'm lobbying for the government to abolish all current loans that people owe and solve world hunger....even though I know the implications that would have would be very bad for the people current in charge of this country. It just seems close-minded? Pointless?

I don't understand why they can't repackage some shit, throw in some stuff to make it a worthwhile upgrade, and then sell THAT to devs. Not sure why it has to be the moon or bust. I guess they want to distance themselves but the way they talk you would think there are no consequences, no collateral damage. "Oh just give the people what they want MS and Sony you silly motherfuckers!" Sad part is one of them will listen. Guess we'll see.

Microsoft could sell at a loss, that I can see since they can recoup it in Live fees and whatnot and now their odd contract idea. I don't think Sony is in a position to do this at all though. Their turn around needs to begin sooner rather than later. And you know Nintendo won't barring a meltdown.

 

[IdeaMan]

But doesn't that really equal to just "Lackluster"?

Can't see how they cancel each other out.


Edit: But really what he thinks isn't that important imo

It's the trap !

slightly lackluster = one -
slightly increase = one +
then the lackluster is neutered

silly talk, but just a way to have fun of all those negative statements about Wii U we've heard since a moment now.

 

[GameplayWhore]

MS has been profitable for years, they didn't just start profiting off the 360 last year.

Yes, that's what I was saying. When I said "Sony's game division… and… Microsoft's", I was referring to "Microsoft's game division". I don't think that Microsoft as a whole could be unprofitable if they tried.

Also, you have the whole razor and blades business model wrong. You really think they plan to lose money on the games they release? It's sell X amount of software to make up for X amount lost on hardware. This is what they do and have been doing for generations.

Do you really think that Sony intended for the Playstation 3 to be profitable off the bat after games were figured in? (edit) I think it's clear that they anticipated overall losses in order to gain sales for later profit

 

[MDX]

Sadly, I will still have to consider Wii U current gen if it can't get it.

Well you do what you got to do, but Epic is running a scam. And Nintendo, being in the business long enough, is not going to fall for it. Epic doesn't determine what next gen is.

 

[Izick]

Yes, that's what I was saying. When I said "Sony's game division… and… Microsoft's", I was referring to "Microsoft's game division". I don't think that Microsoft as a whole could be unprofitable if they tried.

Well, Windows 8 and Zune are trying to fight you on that.

 

[Nibel]

Epic doesn't determine what next gen is.

Yup, Sony does

 

[Disorientator]

It's the trap !

slightly lackluster = one -
slightly increase = one +
then the lackluster is neutered

silly talk, but just a way to have fun of all those negative statements about Wii U we've heard since a moment now.

Ah....the trap...ofcourse!!

I'm with you man.

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

I think some games or demos will be presented behind closed doors, but we won't see any console reveals.

This post is hilarious on multiple levels.

You want Epic to downplay graphics when that is a large part of their business. You think graphics alone are the prime factor towards rising development costs. Last, you think MS and Sony aren't going to sell at a loss next gen.

I think it's fine if you wish to live in your little box, but it's wrong to assume the rest of the industry should.

MS has been profitable for years, they didn't just start profiting off the 360 last year.

Also, you have the whole razor and blades business model wrong. You really think they plan to lose money on the games they release? It's sell X amount of software to make up for X amount lost on hardware. This is what they do and have been doing for generations.

I live in a little box? Go look at Sonys news recently and tell me what they can and cannot do again. Go check out the industry as a whole too. It's all a very delicate situation happening right now. I get high risk high reward when you can afford to do it, but it's just dumb for them now. I know Epic would never say "hey we need more power even though it's a terrible idea for you it's great for us!!!!!1". But come on.

 

[FoneBone]

Right. There's a lot of shit that is currently bad, and could get worse for the console industry. But Epic is not 'dumb'. Every single business move they've made regarding engine production and middleware for an entire generation has been the exact opposite of 'dumb'. They've had a generation worth of developers abide by the rules of UE3, and built UE3 to the strengths and weaknesses of consoles, PC and now mobile. There is literally nobody in the entire industry as business savvy and intelligent with middleware than Epic currently is.

Whether or not they fuck it up with UE4 remains to be seen, especially when it comes to their requests regarding hardware and what that means for the industry. But until that happens it's extremely premature to call them 'dumb'.

I wouldn't say "dumb" but their current rhetoric regarding next-gen is seeming extremely short-sighted to me.

 

[MDX]

I don't think they will sell it at much of a loss at all, and probably plan to sell it under $400, even if Microsoft's subscription model comes into next gen (which I think we all pretty much hate) they still didn't have this plan when they were coming up with the hardware.

I agree, Sony will go back to their roots, and sell at 349 with no loss, and depending how well the WiiU does, they might be forced to go for 299 with a loss.

 

[lherre]

I believe we are expecting too much from PS4 and that it could be 3-6X as powerful as the box they have right now and wouldn't see $1 less from next gen, so why do it?

I think you like a lot multipliers XD I hope a bit more than you to be honest.

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

I agree, Sony will go back to their roots, and sell at 349 with no loss, and depending how well the WiiU does, they might be forced to go for 299 with a loss.

I still think 299 won't be a loss.

 

[Donnie]

But doesn't that really equal to just "Lackluster" ?

Can't see how they can cancel each other out ;p


Edit: But really what he thinks isn't that important imo

Slightly lackluster performance would mean that performance is right on the edge of being better than lackluster (whatever that is). So a slight increase would technically mean its no longer lackluster. If the interpretation of slight was exactly the same between the person who said "slightly lackluster" and the person who said "slight increase in performance".

What are we talking about??

 

[tkscz]

Epic made a killing doing just this for the entire current generation. It's a business model that, for them, is tried and true. It's their bread and butter. They're also pushing the mobile market.

Epic is the leading company when it comes to middleware. They're doing it right where everybody else is doing it wrong. They're far from 'dumb'.

I just can't agree with how they do it though. They basically bully hardware companies into making what they want so that THEY profit and hardware companies take a dive. On the other hand, people like Crytek are making an amazing engine, using lower specs. Originally, crytek never thought the Cryengine would be on this gen consoles at any iteration and wanted 8 gigs for next gen. Now look at them, the CE 3.4 is producing things I find above UE3 Samaritan, and doing with lesser hardware (didn't take them 3 GTX 580s).

 

[IdeaMan]

Slightly lacklustre performance would mean that performance is right on the edge of being better than lacklustre (whatever that is). So a slightl increase would technically mean its no longer lacklustre. If the interpretation of slight was exactly the same between the person who said "slightly lacklustre" and the person who said "slight increase in performance".

What are we talking about??

You get the logic

 

[GameplayWhore]

MS has been profitable for years, they didn't just start profiting off the 360 last year.

Wait, I just realized what you actually meant by this. Okay, all we really have to work with are the numbers for Microsoft's "Entertainment and Devices Division". This contains other things, but I believe that the Xbox 360 comprises the vast bulk of this division's business. Also, if other devices (like the Zune) dragged down the profits in this division, I submit that my numbers do not count the huge initial R&D outlay for the Xbox 360.

Anyway, starting from CY2005Q4 Microsoft was overall in the red for their Entertainment and Devices Division until 2011Q4. As of right now (not taking into account that the different reports have varying levels of inflation, Microsoft has made around $250m). As of Q3 of last year they had a slight overall loss.


To clarify, this is not a measure of running profits and losses, but an examination of how much they have made or lost from the baseline starting point of the quarter in which the system started selling.

Well, Windows 8 and Zune are trying to fight you on that.

Hah, they made five or six billion this quarter. I think they're going to be fine.

 

[Izick]

I think some people are worried that PC gaming is just going to completely lap consoles, and basically there will be a point where the PC version is just completely different looking, due to power differences.

Yes, PC games look way better than console games now, but if this is a small jump, think how big the differences will be when the next consoles are halfway through. The gap will be even larger, and everything will get weirder.

 

[MDX]

I still think 299 won't be a loss.

 

[Thraktor]

I think they're being dumb but maybe that's not the right word. Close-minded maybe? I understand they want to be able to sell a new engine to everyone and they need consoles to run it, that's their thing. But they seem to operate in this world where they don't seem to realize that sometimes that shit just isn't gonna work for companies. I mean lobbying for more power? Crytek is the same with their 8gb ram though I'm still assuming that was some kind of joke.

I'm lobbying for the government to abolish all current loans that people owe and solve world hunger....even though I know the implications that would have would be very bad for the people current in charge of this country. It just seems close-minded? Pointless?

I don't understand why they can't repackage some shit, throw in some stuff to make it a worthwhile upgrade, and then sell THAT to devs. Not sure why it has to be the moon or bust. I guess they want to distance themselves but the way they talk you would think there are no consequences, no collateral damage. "Oh just give the people what they want MS and Sony you silly motherfuckers!" Sad part is one of them will listen. Guess we'll see.

Microsoft could sell at a loss, that I can see since they can recoup it in Live fees and whatnot and now their odd contract idea. I don't think Sony is in a position to do this at all though. Their turn around needs to begin sooner rather than later. And you know Nintendo won't barring a meltdown.

Epic's reasons for wanting über-powerful hardware are simple. It means

(a) Because of the increase in costs of developing custom engines, move developers buy Unreal Engine instead
(b) Epic can charge more for Unreal Engine

Epic are selling a product. They want a business environment where they can make as much money as possible from that product. It doesn't matter to them if MS or Sony lose billions along the way, it doesn't matter if the industry becomes so risk averse that the only big games released are cookie-cutter FPSs

Spoiler

oh wait, that's already happened

. They, along with Crytek, just want game budgets to go as high as possible so they can make as much money as possible.

 

[Disorientator]

What are we talking about??

Just fooling around, nothing more.

 

[Discomurf]

Stop the presses...


NinjaBreadMan is apparently coming to the Wii U on Whocares Engine 4™

https://twitter.com/#!/NinjaBreadM

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

Epic's reasons for wanting über-powerful hardware are simple. It means

(a) Because of the increase in costs of developing custom engines, move developers buy Unreal Engine instead
(b) Epic can charge more for Unreal Engine

Epic are selling a product. They want a business environment where they can make as much money as possible from that product. It doesn't matter to them if MS or Sony lose billions along the way, it doesn't matter if the industry becomes so risk averse that the only big games released are cookie-cutter FPSs

Spoiler

oh wait, that's already happened

. They, along with Crytek, just want game budgets to go as high as possible so they can make as much money as possible.

I'm not saying what they're doing is dumb, I'm not an idiot lol I know what they do. I'm saying their comments are dumb. And like I said, I concede that dumb might not be the right word, close-minded, near sighted, whatever you want to use. They're just so blasé about it when there are such huge things at risk. Things much bigger than them. IfI were Sony I'd tell them 'uhhh no thx we want to make money and people can just use cryengine or something".

Ok I wouldn't but just saying

 

[walking fiend]

I see a future where consoles are selling 50m a generation, and the only console producer is Nintendo.

I am REALLY happy that Nintendo is and probably will be a solely gaming company.

 

[Shadow Hog]

"NinjaBread Man" was such a cool name. What a shame that it was wasted on shovelware...

 

[Disorientator]

Stop the presses...


NinjaBreadMan is apparently coming to the Wii U on Whocares Engine 4™

https://twitter.com/#!/NinjaBreadM

"Roll + cut out the Ninjabread Men on the controller, drop them in the oven, then escape before you're cooked!"


TV=Oven
UPad=Cutting board

Edit: Wondering if they could be using the same principle as the drag-between-screens patent posted earlier...

 

[Izick]

Stop the presses...


NinjaBreadMan is apparently coming to the Wii U on Whocares Engine 4™

https://twitter.com/#!/NinjaBreadM

Exclusive? Wii U console of the ages re-confirmed.

 

[ColdBlooder]

Burnpork you should learn to tolerate people that think different than you :¬D

It wasn't trolling, is just that the UE4 demo is not the type of thing you just judge by some select pictures. It needs to be seen in motion and with a complementary explanation of feature set to properly appreciate.

Don't you think?

Wanna bet that WiiU will be judged, laughed at, made fun of and declared DOA from non NGAFers with just pictures?

Spoiler

or just some heresay from an anonymous dev, wich basically has already happened...

 

[z0m3le]

lherre: well someone has to be a voice of reason, Sony might not survive the next 5 years if they lose even as much as the 360 did last gen, can you imagine what their board members will say if they don't turn a profit for the next 2 years in a row and still run red? you think they will put up with another 2 years beyond that to return to profitability? I think most will just jump ship and Sony will tank.

I still think 299 won't be a loss.

I think if Sony were to be around Wii U's specs, the entire industry would just target their games to that level and it would be a better move for Sony in the end as well... I just don't see them losing money or multiplatforms if they went with a box that was 1TFLOPs rather than 2+.

 

[MDX]

Stop the presses...


NinjaBreadMan is apparently coming to the Wii U on Whocares Engine 4™

https://twitter.com/#!/NinjaBreadM

NinjaBreadMan ‏@NinjaBreadM
@nintendolife The #WiiU and #WiiRemote interactivity is gonna work so well for Ninja Bread Man 2.

See... wiimote isn't dead.

 

[Boss Man]

I know one thing, this machine will probably sell a lot better than people are expecting.

For people on NeoGaf, it looks like a waste. For people with an iPhone and/or iPad, it's going to look familiar and have all of these great games we've been playing for the past five years but they haven't really seen.

 

[Rösti]

I'm not sure Speedtree has been discussed already, but I found this anyway: http://www.speedtree.com/downloads/SpeedTree_Evaluation_Form.pdf

SECTION 7: SUPPLEMENTAL CODE
Customer indicates by placing an “X” in the appropriate box(es) below that
Customer desires to evaluate the corresponding Supplemental Code, defined
generally as object code that enables the use of the Software with a third
party’s object code (“Partner Software&#8221.

CUSTOMER FURTHER REPRESENTS AND WARRANTS
THAT CUSTOMER IS A CURRENT LICENSEE OF ANY
PARTNER SOFTWARE THAT CORRESPONDS TO ANY
SUPPLEMENTAL CODE THAT CUSTOMER HAS REQUESTED:

SpeedTree for Xbox® 360* SpeedTree for PlayStation®3*
SpeedTree for PSVita* SpeedTree for Mac OSX
SpeedTree for Linux SpeedTree for Wii U™*
SpeedTree Integration with Unreal Engine 3*

[NOTE: Use of Unreal
Developers Kit (UDK) does NOT qualify Customer for this Code]
*BY CHECKING ANY BOX IN THIS SECTION 7, CUSTOMER
AGREES THAT IDV SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO DISCLOSE
TO THE OWNER OF THE RELEVANT DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONMENT OR GAMING PLATFORM THAT CUSTOMER
IS EVALUATING SUCH SUPPLEMENTAL CODE.

The file reads "Version: ALL PURPOSE April 5, 2011", but it was updated on the 5th of April this year (according to Interactive Data Visualization's download folder anyway), perhaps it's a misprint in the document. When the Wii U part was added I do not know. It's nothing revolutionary seeing as Wii has support for this as well, but it's nice to know it's onboard.

Fact sheet: http://www.speedtree.com/downloads/SpeedTree_For_Games.pdf
Landing page: http://www.speedtree.com/games/

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

I think if Sony were to be around Wii U's specs, the entire industry would just target their games to that level and it would be a better move for Sony in the end as well... I just don't see them losing money or multiplatforms if they went with a box that was 1TFLOPs rather than 2+.

I've mentioned that before and I think you're right. Instead of siding with Microsoft to box Nintendo out, why not side with Nintendo and hope to box MS out or worst case scenario have them join in the box as well, then everyone is happy.

Except poor poor epic, HOW WILL THEY LIVE. But yeah, for 399 which I think will be the target price for Sony and possibly MS, they can still create something pretty powerful, more so than the wiiU by a notable level when you factor in that they have a year difference. So I don't think they'll hover around WiiU specs (sony), but I think they'll stay in the same ballpark.

 

[KageMaru]

Yes, that's what I was saying. When I said "Sony's game division… and… Microsoft's", I was referring to "Microsoft's game division". I don't think that Microsoft as a whole could be unprofitable if they tried.

That's what I meant as well, MS' E&D division, which includes all things gaming. AFAIK they have been pulling in profits for a few years now, they didn't just start making profit last year as you imply. They were also able to accomplish this with other products and services (Zune, Windows phone, Bing, etc) dragging these profits down.

I'm not saying they should plan to lose billions and billions, with no hope to recoup those losses. It should be possible to provide a good leap in performance without repeating Sony's mistakes this gen.

Do you really think that Sony intended for the Playstation 3 to be profitable off the bat after games were figured in? (edit) I think it's clear that they anticipated overall losses in order to gain sales for later profit

Sony's mismanagement with the PS3 is the poorest example to how the razor blade model works and you know that. No company, Sony included, will make these same mistakes next gen, so it's hardly irrelevant.

I live in a little box? Go look at Sonys news recently and tell me what they can and cannot do again. Go check out the industry as a whole too. It's all a very delicate situation happening right now. I get high risk high reward when you can afford to do it, but it's just dumb for them now. I know Epic would never say "hey we need more power even though it's a terrible idea for you it's great for us!!!!!1". But come on.

Again Sony is a poor example, their current situation and downfalls this gen were a product of their mistakes, not them taking a generational leap in performance.

I'm well aware, and none too happy, about the current state of our industry. I wouldn't be surprised if we had another crash within the next 20 years if it keeps up this way. However providing a good leap in performance is not going to be the direct cause of this crash. Publishers handled this gen very poorly from multiple aspects, if they learn from these mistakes, we'll hopefully see things turn around.

Edit:

Wait, I just realized what you actually meant by this. Okay, all we really have to work with are the numbers for Microsoft's "Entertainment and Devices Division". This contains other things, but I believe that the Xbox 360 comprises the vast bulk of this division's business. Also, if other devices (like the Zune) dragged down the profits in this division, I submit that my numbers do not count the huge initial R&D outlay for the Xbox 360.

Anyway, starting from CY2005Q4 Microsoft was overall in the red for their Entertainment and Devices Division until 2011Q4. As of right now (not taking into account that the different reports have varying levels of inflation, Microsoft has made around $250m). As of Q3 of last year they had a slight overall loss.


To clarify, this is not a measure of running profits and losses, but an examination of how much they have made or lost from the baseline starting point of the quarter in which the system started selling.

Yeah this is what I meant, and I didn't realize you included recouping all losses. I was merely speaking of the platform itself being profitable in general.

It's almost impossible for MS or Sony to spend as much in hardware next gen. The law of physics restricts to how much they can put into a console-sized case. However I still think it's possible to provide a good leap in performance without breaking the bank too much. On top of that, it's expected that next gen will last even longer than this gen, so that also allows some breathing room for how much can be spent up front early in the generation.

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

I'm well aware, and none too happy, about the current state of our industry. I wouldn't be surprised if we had another crash within the next 20 years if it keeps up this way. However providing a good leap in performance is not going to be the direct cause of this crash. Publishers handled this gen very poorly from multiple aspects, if they learn from these mistakes, we'll hopefully see things turn around.

alls I'm saying is it's a slippery slope. Also epic is asking for something where nobody really benefits except them. So why bother doing it from a manufacturer perspective.

 

[BurntPork]

I'm not sure Speedtree has been discussed already, but I found this anyway: http://www.speedtree.com/downloads/SpeedTree_Evaluation_Form.pdf



The filed reads "Version: ALL PURPOSE April 5, 2011", but it was updated on the 5th of April this year (according to Interactive Data Visualization's download folder anyway), perhaps it's a misprint in the document. When the Wii U part was added I do not know. It's nothing revolutionary seeing as Wii has support for this as well, but it's nice to know it's onboard.

Fact sheet: http://www.speedtree.com/downloads/SpeedTree_For_Games.pdf
Landing page: http://www.speedtree.com/games/

What is this, exactly?

 

[EatChildren]

I just can't agree with how they do it though. They basically bully hardware companies into making what they want so that THEY profit and hardware companies take a dive. On the other hand, people like Crytek are making an amazing engine, using lower specs. Originally, crytek never thought the Cryengine would be on this gen consoles at any iteration and wanted 8 gigs for next gen. Now look at them, the CE 3.4 is producing things I find above UE3 Samaritan, and doing with lesser hardware (didn't take them 3 GTX 580s).

Everyone I've spoken to about CryEngine 3 has told me it is less feature rich, more difficult to use, and with weaker support than Unreal Engine 3. I love the power behind CryEngine 3, but I have seen no evidence to suggest it is a better platform for developers.

Epic's support documentation and networking is about as good as it gets. Crytek's is not. The toolset in UE3 is apparently easier to use. Crytek's still has some problems. So which do think developers and publishers are going to choose? Which is more affordable for them, and which has the better support? Which gives them the most comfort in knowing they can develop their games with minimal problems?

UE3 scales exceptionally well. It's nice what Crytek are doing with CryEngine 3, but it's too little too late. Epic got in first and did a far better job. Simple as that. If they didn't, pubs and devs wouldn't bother with the middleware. It would be more work than it's worth. But they do bother with it because it's better than pretty much everything out on the market, and Epic continually improve their support documentation and toolset.

 

[z0m3le]

I've mentioned that before and I think you're right. Instead of siding with Microsoft to box Nintendo out, why not side with Nintendo and hope to box MS out or worst case scenario have them join in the box as well, then everyone is happy.

Except poor poor epic, HOW WILL THEY LIVE. But yeah, for 399 which I think will be the target price for Sony and possibly MS, they can still create something pretty powerful, more so than the wiiU by a notable level when you factor in that they have a year difference. So I don't think they'll hover around WiiU specs (sony), but I think they'll stay in the same ballpark.

yeah more like PS2 VS Xbox specs... I just don't think I can see Sony using a "hail mary" when this gen turned out so wrong for them.

 

[Disorientator]

I'm not sure Speedtree has been discussed already, but I found this anyway: http://www.speedtree.com/downloads/SpeedTree_Evaluation_Form.pdf

Fact sheet: http://www.speedtree.com/downloads/SpeedTree_For_Games.pdf
Landing page: http://www.speedtree.com/games/

Good find, thanks.

What is this, exactly?

From SpeedTree site:

SpeedTree is a powerful toolkit used to create 3D vegetation for games, films, and animations.

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

yeah more like PS2 VS Xbox specs... I just don't think I can see Sony using a "hail mary" when this gen turned out so wrong for them.

me neither. I said that before but high risk high reward is a viable strategy when you can afford to do it (spoilers: they can't afford it). Don't think they want to play that game.

Then again I won't pretend to understand Sony. So we'll see. Epic will do fine either way. They'll continue to license their shit, they'll tweak their shit if need be. I wager that Sony/MS are smart enough to know that they hold the power here. They don't have to give in to the whims of a middleware peddler.

Of course one of them, probably microsoft, will look to differentiate power wise so someone will listen, maybe.

 

[BurntPork]

From SpeedTree site:

... There's middleware for this?

 

[EatChildren]

... There's middleware for this?

SpeedTree is middleware.

 

[Easy_D]

SpeedTree is middleware.

Isn't that what he just said?

 

[z0m3le]

EC: I think Crysis looks better than anything from UE3, and Frycry 3 / Crysis 3 look to move that a step or two forward, the demo of 3.4 looks remarkable really, so I am not sure it's a matter of features but more a matter that all devs know UE3 and not cryengine, so I am pretty sure that is why we can expect UE to remain the go to engine, whether it's UE3 or UE4 for the next 3 to 4 years, is anyones guess.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

SpeedTree is middleware.

Don't get too mad at him.

He's still learning.

 

[BurntPork]

SpeedTree is middleware.

Yes. And I'm surprised such middleware exists. I'll make it more clear:

... There's middleware made specifically for rendering plants? Seriously?

 

[EatChildren]

EC: I think Crysis looks better than anything from UE3, and Frycry 3 / Crysis 3 look to move that a step or two forward, the demo of 3.4 looks remarkable really, so I am not sure it's a matter of features but more a matter that all devs know UE3 and not cryengine, so I am pretty sure that is why we can expect UE to remain the go to engine, whether it's UE3 or UE4 for the next 3 to 4 years, is anyones guess.

That's what I'm saying. It doesn't matter how good CryEngine 3 or whatever look. It's the toolset (not engine rendering features, but what developers have access to in developing their games, and how well these tools are built), familiarity and support documentation that sell UE3 over CryEngine.

I've talked with Nirolak about this actually, but I've found it baffling why Crytek hasn't pushed engine marketing and publisher deals harder. They obviously want to be a big player in the middleware scene, but they've got a hell a long way to go.

Isn't that what he just said?

No idea. I'm not following .

Yes. And I'm surprised such middleware exists. I'll make it more clear:

... There's middleware made specifically for rendering plants? Seriously?

Oh, I get you. And yeah. Think of it like Havok for physics. Rendering lush forests and rich flora requires engines be programmed to accommodate such things, balancing asset streaming, optimisation, lighting across multiple assets, and so on. SpeedTree is a good middleware solution for efficient engine rendering of flora. Saves dev time, and still looks great. The Witcher 2, for example, uses SpeedTree.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

Yes. And I'm surprised such middleware exists. I'll make it more clear:

... There's middleware made specifically for rendering plants? Seriously?

It takes just as long to make a plant as it does to make a bench. But there are millions of plants, and only so many benches.

 

[tkscz]

Everyone I've spoken to about CryEngine 3 has told me it is less feature rich, more difficult to use, and with weaker support than Unreal Engine 3. I love the power behind CryEngine 3, but I have seen no evidence to suggest it is a better platform for developers.

Epic's support documentation and networking is about as good as it gets. Crytek's is not. The toolset in UE3 is apparently easier to use. Crytek's still has some problems. So which do think developers and publishers are going to choose? Which is more affordable for them, and which has the better support? Which gives them the most comfort in knowing they can develop their games with minimal problems?

UE3 scales exceptionally well. It's nice what Crytek are doing with CryEngine 3, but it's too little too late. Epic got in first and did a far better job. Simple as that. If they didn't, pubs and devs wouldn't bother with the middleware. It would be more work than it's worth. But they do bother with it because it's better than pretty much everything out on the market, and Epic continually improve their support documentation and toolset.

I understand all that, but it's not like Crytek isn't trying. Their latest iterations is obviously trying harder at a better UI and adding more features to the engine, all that's more scalable, and user friendly. Again, I realize how late in the game that is now, and that the CE 3 of before was a bitch to use, kind of obvious from the lack of support. But what they have now with 3.4 is obvious above that, and only getting better. I just feel that devs should give Crytek a chance again. Epic is basically going unchallenged right now, which is why they're doing what they are. No competition means they can do what they want.

 

[Forsaken82]

Yes. And I'm surprised such middleware exists. I'll make it more clear:

... There's middleware made specifically for rendering plants? Seriously?

been around for quite a while actually.