Next Unreal Engine is aimed at consoles first, PCs last
If you know your shooter history, then you’re aware that the Unreal Engine has always been primarily for the PC. When Tim Sweeney, the creator and founder of Epic Games, suddenly says otherwise, then you just might see hell freezing over.
That’s right; the next edition of Unreal Engine (version 4 if you’re keeping count) is aimed at consoles.
“Version 4 will exclusively target the next console generation, Microsoft’s successor for the Xbox 360, Sony’s successor for the PlayStation 3 - and if Nintendo ships a machine with similar hardware specs, then that also. PCs will follow after that.”
Then again, if you’re a PC gamer for the past few years, then you may have noticed that the console love has already been happening since the beginning of the millennium.
It’s tough to be a PC gamer in this day and age, unless you have an unlimited source of funds for your l33t gaming rig. You have only to thank Halo and its offspring’s commercial success for Epic to worship console gaming’s feet.
Image for Unreal Engine 3 is courtesy of Midway Games.
Tags: console_games, pc, playstation_3, tim_sweeney, unreal, unreal_engine, xbox_360Related Stories
POSTED IN: Game engines, News
4 opinions for Next Unreal Engine is aimed at consoles first, PCs last
Droniac
Mar 13, 2008 at 7:49 am
To be expected. Epic screwed up their PC version of UT3 and then blames it on their own community (while ignoring/banning them) - only to then use it as an excuse to grab some easy money… err move over to consoles.
Anyway, I don’t think it’s all that tough being a PC gamer nowadays. Compatibility issues and fatal errors in games have never been more rare and in the meanwhile we get all the greatest of console games (not that I know that many to be honest) right alongside our good old PC games. Meanwhile my current gaming setup (top of the line rig, 22″ widescreen TFT, several dozen games purchased since that PC) is already way less expensive than what a comparable console adventure (console, 720p/1080p HDTV, same amount of 2-4x more expensive games) would’ve cost me.
Nah, I think I’ll stick to my PC.
If Epic’s QA and support for UT3 PC is any indication of their future products, then it won’t be worth the money anyway (which is a shame, because the gameplay was awesome, just everything else wasn’t). As for a console version: don’t even get me started on UT3 PS3…
Mike
Mar 14, 2008 at 7:46 am
Hi Droniac,
Haven’t seen you in a while. ;) You’ve raised some interesting points about the costs between console and PC gaming.
“Compatibility issues and fatal errors in games have never been more rare…”
Problems aren’t really that far off. I don’t know if you’ve read it, but I’ve bitched about a recent GFW title for the technical headaches that it’s been giving me.
Last time I heard, there’s a new patch for Gears of War but I haven’t had the energy to reinstall it because I’ve done this several times already. I don’t want to spend more time and energy installing the game (it takes forever to install) not knowing if the latest update would fix everything.
See, that’s the danger of PC games. Having an original copy doesn’t guarantee a trouble-free experience. There are just too many combinations for developers to consider regarding hardware/software compatibility. Console hardware doesn’t change drastically for a generation so games are generally more stable.
As a result, you’re practically guaranteed that a console game would work on your unit when you insert the disk in the drive (save for some rare games in the Wii).
I disagree that a rig like yours would be cheaper overall than getting a console since HDTV is entirely optional in console gaming. High-end PC games like Crysis, however, require powerful rigs that ask for an arm and a leg. You can settle for a middle-of-the-road PC that can run such games at a minimum, but I’m sure you know how not fun that is.
Add six months to one year from the time you bought your monster rig and a new game/resource hog would likely give your Crysis PC some chugging (I know this too well). In contrast, console games get better visually when it nears the end of its generation because developers get better in making the most out of the hardware.
A console generation’s life is worth at least five years. If you invest on an HDTV at one time, you’d still end up spending less compared to a bleeding-edge PC that gets outdated much earlier than you’d want or expect.
How many bleeding-edge gaming PCs would you use in five years? One? Come on.
Cheaper games? That’s what rental is for. Sadly, we can’t rent PC games.
Despite my views regarding the costs however, I still prefer PC gaming. Why? Because its games are much more sophisticated, and nothing beats the keyboard and mouse combo when it comes to shooters.
Droniac
Mar 17, 2008 at 7:14 am
Hehe, yeah it’s been a while.
Hmm yeah, I’ve heard of the problems with Gears of War, although I personally didn’t have any. Still, if it’s just one game among many dozens, that still makes critical issues a rarity. Personally the only recent game I had trouble getting running (or installed at all for that matter) was the F.E.A.R expansion pack Perseus Mandate. If you have the standard new-user partition setup then you won’t have any issues (so basic users wouldn’t have any whatsoever), but for advanced users with intricate setups and dedicated windows C drives - let’s just say I had to hack my registry to get it installed. That said, it’s still the only example I can name in the past couple of years, which (from my perspective) makes critical issues for PC games quite rare.
Plus - I’ve never had a PC die on me before, whereas most of my friends with an Xbox360 are now onto their second or third system. Furthermore, many of my friends who purchased a 360 early on have actually had to buy multiple copies of the same game, because the old disc got damaged. The only PC games I have now with damaged discs are The Sims (who cares) and Dawn of War (a shame) - both I can easily download, install and play fully with my legal keys. That’s something you’re not going to do so easily with a X360 game. So in a sense, from a reliability standpoint, both platforms have their ups and downs.
Of course in the price equation I was talking about how the comparison would be for me. If I had a console then I would’ve wanted the full experience, just like I’m getting right now with my PC, which would have meant purchasing a HDTV. Otherwise it’s no different from playing Crysis on a 15″ CRT monitor: heresy! An average casual gamer might not have these expenses, true. But then… just about everyone does have a PC nowadays, even if you play games on your console you’re still bound to have one. I don’t have that extra cost, because I can just use my gaming PC for all those PC-associated matters (work, online purchases, chatting, etc). This kinda needs to be factored into the equation as well - and then does clearly start to show that the whole “PC gaming is so much more expensive” line doesn’t really work anymore.
Furthermore, the hardware in my current PC is technically already just about one and a half year old (although I’ve only actually had it for slightly over half a year). Meanwhile it’s still just about the best you can get. It runs Crysis and World in Conflict maxed out - and Gears of War and Unreal Tournament 3 on my PC put the console versions to shame. I can literally play every game maxed out (albeit without DX10 effects, I don’t have Vista) today, which is more than console users can honestly claim from their hardware - already!
And seeing as the currently announced generation of PC games looks to be less demanding than the likes of Crysis and World in Conflict (save for Age of Conan). I think it’s fair to say my hardware should be able to handle just about anything maxed out during the coming year as well. Which means it’ll be 3 year old hardware and still going maximum detail in high resolutions with the latest of games. In that regard it should handle 5 years of games (just like an Xbox) rather easily, albeit not entirely at full detail (again just like an Xbox). Besides - my 6 year old laptop can handle Unreal Tournament 3 in low detail (still better looking than anything any Xbox 1 can conjure up) today… so graphics improve just as much on PC hardware (if not more, because PC hardware tends to be too powerful for the games at release, contrary to console hardware).
I couldn’t see myself renting games. That takes the entire relaxed atmosphere straight out of gaming (having to rush through each game and never being able to play it again without renting yet again). So I would be buying console games, which would make PC games a lot less expensive. That said, ’sort of renting’ games on PC is also possible and much less expensive than renting console games individually - see GameTap (hundreds of full games, fixed $9.95 fee per month, no discs - just downloads). So in that regard I would say the PC would still be less expensive in terms of actually getting those games you want to play.
Oh and just so you can check up, my PC hardware is as follows:
Geforce 8800GTX (November 2006).
Core 2 Duo E6750 (E6700 in a smaller format, so July 2006)
The rest doesn’t really matter as much for performance.
Mike
Mar 18, 2008 at 12:44 am
Perseus Mandate? I better stay away from that expansion then. ;) I just might get the inspiration to install Gears this week, but I’m still mulling over it.
Very good point on the 360. I didn’t get one either because it’s very unreliable. What good is a platform with fantastic games if your console breaks down every so often? I chose the PS3 instead.
Nice rig you got there! The budget for my current PC wasn’t as sizable so I had to make do with what I had. I ended up with a pretty good (albeit low-end) video card, but had to settle for a slightly cheaper processor. My PC is turning two this October, and it can only run current shooters at medium detail.
PCs may theoretically be used for gaming for as long as five years (or an entire console generation’s lifespan). However, this would apply only with the killer rigs. Average PCs (like mine) wouldn’t be able to stay competitive (in terms of gaming) from day one. A PC may be much more invaluable than a console because of its other practical applications, but the expensive gaming rigs are a class of their own in terms of visual quality and price.
Consider this for perspective: My middle-of-the-road PC already costs a bit more than my PS3.
Don’t forget about RAM when maximizing performance. ;) Its gains may not be as drastic as that of a video card or processor’s, but you’ll feel a significant boost overall.
Say, what’s running in your PC’s drive lately?
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: