Unreal Engine 4.0 to exclusively target consoles
Tim Sweeney has said that UE4.0 will exclusively target the next generation consoles. Why is Epic a part of the PC Gaming Alliance again?
Sweeney said that PC development would follow after the engine has been rolled out onto the Xbox 360's and Playstation 3's successors. He even went so far as to say that "if Nintendo ships a machine with similar hardware specs, then that [will also be supported before the PC]."
This is no doubt a major disaster for PC gamers, because Epic is one of the largest game engine licensers in the industry – many developers have licensed Unreal Engine 3.0 technology for use in their own games and we expect the same to happen when UE4 shows up.
What's more disappointing is that Epic Games is a member of the PC Gaming Alliance, yet it appears to be doing just about everything but helping to make PC gaming a better proposition. I honestly find Sweeney's comments to resemble something similar to a kick in the nuts for those of us that game on the PC and have made Epic what it is today - after all, Epic started life as a developer that made games exclusively for the PC.
Interestingly though, Sweeney believes there is a battle for supremacy brewing between CPU and GPU makers, as the two are starting to converge on one another.
"Both can run any kind of code, GPUs are just much better optimized for highly parallel vector computing," he said. "CPUs are better for authorized out-of-order, branching, and operating system type of things. Once they both have a complete feature-set, things will get very interesting there.
"We could see the CPU pushing GPUs out of the market entirely, if the integration of highly parallel computing influences future designs," Sweeney said. "Or, we could see GPU vendors start pushing actual CPUs out of the market: Windows or any other operating system could run directly on a GPU. There are lots of possibilities."
Discuss in the forums.
Previous Article
64 Comments
Discuss in the forums ReplyAnd with intel, ibm and amd's move to modular cpu's you could have a custom cpu assembled from standard design pieces, with a few custom DSP blocks, and paired with a gpu again assembled from standard design pieces to a custom design. Cheaper design costs, works with current standards, and allows a degree of flexibility to differentiate your console.
Chop-Chop Lads!
Epic pissing me off no end, **** it, thank god for blizzard, valve, crytek, bioware etc
When the current consoles are old hat who's going to be giving you money epic?
It's true that licensees of the Unreal Engines get unmatched support and (arguably) the best toolkit, but I think that Epic are making a blunder in focusing on an engine that is slightly better visually than UE3 and supports comprehensive customisation/artistic freedom - surely the point of licensing engines is that the developers don't have the time/money/manpower to create a proprietary engine, and UE4 sounds like more work for the developer than before... in terms of visual assets anyway.
I'am pissed off. And Tim "knows it all" S. can kiss my ass!
My conspiracy theorist side reckons it's so they can kill PC gaming from the inside.
You make a good point - I have expanded upon my "kick in the nuts" comments to reflect that. I thought a kick in the nuts would be enough, but apparently not. Thanks for kicking me in the nuts.
Oh, and for the record, I don't like kissing ass. :p
The problem is that it's not just Unreal Tournament. There are many many licensees that use Epic's technology to make PC games as well. This is bigger than Unreal Tournament and I don't think it's good news for us PC gamers.
We have a winner.
Devs need to realise that pushing the graphical boundary further and further forward just isn't the way to make games that are profitable. They need to start making PC games that lots of people can play. Take for example, Sins of a Solar Empire. The graphics are adequate, very rarely will you be looking close up on a ship, but when you do, on the high settings they look nice, not amazing. But the gameplay is fantastic, and because it doesn't need such an amazing computer to play it, lots of people can play it. Anyone who doesn't play the game purely because the graphics aren't better than anything else before it won't really be missed.
sorry, had to take that of my chest....
Each console generation gets bigger and bigger, and each year the gaming market for non RTS/MMO games on the PC seems to be getting smaller.
So imagine the hype about the coming PS4 / Xbox 720 / Nintendo Muhuha. That market will be big, and worth $$$$$/£££££ to a company who has an early next gen product capable of uber cross platform development.
It will probably take 4 to 5 years to make (hey the UT3 engine did) so starting now is a realistic business proposition.
You people have got to realise that it isnt just because you thin UT3 sucked, and Epic sucks, so they are evil blah blah blah. Think beyond your initial disgust that Epic may be prioritising consoles first. Why shouldnt they ?
Just because Epic started out on PC's doesnt mean anything!!!! Once again.. think like a business. Epic makes a hell of a lot of money from licence technology, and arguably more so than any other developer at the moment.
Let the market decide... and in a few years we will see the following : The PC will still be king of the high end, with amazing RTS/MMO/RPG games, plus a lesser number of amazing shooters. The current consoles will be a massive market and a clear money maker, plus hype over the next gen will have geared up, and people will be starting to develop for those machines too.
It doesnt have to be another PC is dying thread. There is plenty of room to co-exist. The game developers should just start developing games for PC's that people actually want to play on PCs. Thats where the money is (Sims, MMO, Company of Heroes, Starcraft).. these games are licences to print money AND SHOCK HORROR on the PC as well.
moving to console makes sense as a business proposition: consoles represent the majority demographic so you're not losing too much money, and your support costs go right down - three static platforms to support? easy! RnD suddenly gets a lot simpler for them too as they have plenty of time for plan and get to grips with new platforms that stick around for a long while.
basically what i'm saying is maybe Epic's got some financial issues, and due to having to drop PC platform as their focus (as it IS expensive), are spinning it into something positive.
They already do I think.
Also, the the poster who said PC market is getting smaller, educate yourself bro, it is growing, and expected to grow more this year.
http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2008/02/20/gdc_long_live_pc_gaming/
http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2008/02/21/gdc_will_steam_add_movies_music/
Valve is ten times the developer EPIC is, they know what they are doing, epic expects to make console ports, then sell them on PC, DUH. People who make games with PC in mind sell well EPIC. Epic sell outs.
Exactamundo!
If Epic are going to continue this whole PC bashing debacle then they should at least withdraw.
I think It's very untasteful and disrespectful on their part to be making such sweeping comments about the "decline" of PC gaming whilst they're still a part of the gaming alliance. I wonder how the other dev's in the alliance feel about Epic's stance?
It's a bit like a footballer joining a new club (say for arguments sake this club had trained him as a youth into a great player) and then telling everyone in the press that the club's gone to sh*t and that they'll never win anything; whilst making it abundantly clear that they're aleady making the plans to move to a club abroad where they pay more more money. The press would have a field day!
EPIC fail >:(
For MMO's... its growing massively
For RTS its growing
For Simulation (Sims) its growing massively
For RPG (Oblivion) its growing **slowly**
For Casual Family (Peggle) its growing
For Shooter its declining
For Racing its declining
For Platform its declining
For Party (Mario Party / Singstar / Guitar Hero) its declining
For Arcade game (Geometry Wars / Super Star Dust / Virtual retro Consoles) its declining
**Declining above means that console sales are outpacing the PC sales nowadays.
It just so happens that the majority of UT3 engine games are NOT RTS / RPG / Simulation etc..
All areas which are declining are GROWING on consoles. So thats why their engine will be targeted that way.
Cant fault VALVE though. They have done an excellent job with the Orange Box, but where next for them ? Portal ... is more simulation/strategy. Team Fortress is fantastic but other than art work and balanced classes, its nothing new. Half Life 3... will sell because of its story. All their stuff was also licenced for consoles as well. So even Valve wants a piece of the console $$$$.
I agree people who make games with the PC in mind will sell them (if they are good), but the demographic is changing... People really need to make PC games which people want to play on PC's as outlined above. If the majority of your shooter market is using a console then why spend millions making it for the PC if you are not going to see a profit ?
I have officially boycotted any EPIC games, and considering other developers are thriving on the PC market, they really are ignorant to make sweeping generalizations about the PC market. It is not PC gamings fault EPIC does not make games PC gamers care for much, we don't want rehashed console ports. Tell Valve PC gaming is dying. Epic are about one thing, greed, and licensing the same engine for 5 years can be done on consoles because they never get any better, EPIC can't compete in the PC market with engines like Cryengine 2 and others coming out that already surpassed UT3. I knoe ths was what EPIC were about for awhile with their ignorant comments.
Your clueless, Epic cannot stop others from licensing the engine and making a PC game out of it.
Is there any particular reason why so many of your posts in response to others begin with a personal attack?
Learn to argue properly.
(Also learn to use the edit button)
Racing declining? U obviously don't know the wealth of racing games on PC.
Shooters are not declining, the sales have about stayed the same, just more and more go multi-platform. Don't tell Crytek, Valve or GSC gameworld shooters are declining. Platformers where never much ON PC, nor sports games.
Arcade games? There are more arcade games on PC then all consoles combined, PC has a ten times bigger market for arcade games, the difference is console usually make u pay for them, which is assinine. The most downloaded arcade game of the year was peggle on Steam.
Also, they release a console game on PC a year after it is released, a game that is geared towards the arcadey gameplay of the consoles, and complain about sales? Not to mention the game is a buggy mess for many. UT3 has not sold well on PS3 or PC, and the PC version has actually outsold the PS3 version, PC gaming is thriving in Europe. Epic blames PC for their lackluster games they released on PC. Gears of War is an arcade game designed at the console, instant gratification of the console audience, and they whine it never sold well on PC? PC has many better shooters to play for one, being a year late doesn't help either.
What Epic are not telling U, is it really has nothing to do with PC gaming's decline, but everything to do with being able to milk an engine on the weaker hardware of the consoles for 5 years. Imagine what PX graphics will be like in 09, compared to consoles? Epic know this so they only way they can milk their engine is license it until the end of the life cycle of consoles, where UT3 is the appex of their graphical prowess.
Another example : BIOSHOCK.
In August 07, the PC version sold a respectable 77,000 copies. The 360 version sold 491,000 copies. (source : IGN)
Can you see now why they target the consoles ????? The vast number of copies sold means huge amounts of money.. Thats all its about. They are a business !!
That means that in comparison to the whole market available for COD4 sales, the PC share is in decline when compared with the other platforms.
Just imagine if no console version had been made. A whole ton of money would not have been made either.
US PC game sales brought in $910.7 million at retail in 2007, down from $970 million in 2006, according to NPD figures. World of Warcraft, The Sims and Call of Duty 4 ruled the top 10.
The Entertainment Software Association released the PC figures on Thursday, revealing that overall US computer and videogame sales reached a record $18.85 billion in 2007.
NPD said a total of 36.4 million units of PC game software were sold last year at US retailers.
Console software sales dwarfed PC game sales, raking in $6.6 billion (153.9 million units)
Source : http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=180600
When will people learn NDP are TOTALLY INACCURATE for PC sales? Bioshocks Ken Lavine said in an interview last month, the PC version had sold the MOST. NDP also said Crysis was a flop, it has now sold 1.5 million. Epic releases a game a year late that has console gameplay, and they wonder why it never sold well? Many PC games sold better then console versions, the orange box sold more on PC then all consoles combined, sorry, load of crap, make a good game geared for PC, it sells. Not some rehash and console port a year late.
http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2008/02/21/gdc_will_steam_add_movies_music/
The US is actually a smaller market for PC sales, Europe and Canada, PC gaming is thriving.
Sigh, since been rebuked, and is totally inaccruate, u guys need to leanr NDP = useless for PC, PC actually hauled in over 2.7 billion in 07, growing in 08, Geez, people.
http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2008/02/20/gdc_long_live_pc_gaming/
READ and EDUCATE yourself. NDP is an estimate, and US only, does not include digital distribution, which is very popular, more people are using Steam D2D to buy games then ever before.
EVEN NDP themselves says that their figures for PC does not include digital distribution, and are not accurate for PC sales.
How come Orange box sold more then all consoles combined? PC gamers buy games made with PC in mind, don't buy console ports much. PC sales are healthy and growing, if u read the articles I posted u would see this, people posting NDP need to realise those are not accurate in the least for PC games.
I personally didn't buy bioshock because of the invasive drm i can infer some others also didn't buy it for the same reason.
All these number show is that the console version sold better in august it doesn't give any indication why, it could be the drm it could be PC gamers are tired of playing the same old thing, it could the no death interface suited the console better it could simply be that the orange box was out about the same time along with a raft of other games and it was lower down the pecking order. What it doesn't show is how the game has continued to sell as the game becomes cheaper on the pc but remains comparatively expensive on the console.
AMEN!
They shouldn't be crucified just because they call out obvious problems facing the platform - integrated graphics, piracy, driver issues, min specs. Most other members of the alliance are publicly traded companies and are aware of the issues; they just can't say anything publicly since they have to worry about their stock prices.
Epic is just calling out the issues, and if you would read the entire interview, you would understand this.
And dumping the platform (for all intents and purposes) yet staying on the panel.
if they would have the slightest interest in saving pc gaming they would do something to address the issues, not run for the hills, so i'll stick with my epic? get bent statement. The last thing Pc Gaming needs are Traitors like Epic who think they would be heroes by abandoning the pc.
there's an ignore user function on this forum for a reason. i suggest you put it to use. why do you think nobody replies to him anymore? :)
Addressing the issues is exactly what Tim Sweeney did in those interviews.
But the bottom line is that Tim Sweeney said that Unreal Engine 4.0 will exclusively target next-generation consoles. The PC isn't even looked on as the third platform in the market any more by Epic - no, it even feels Nintendo is ahead in the pecking line if it makes a system powerful enough to utilise the engine. Here's a full quote:
Tell me I'm not pointing out the bleeding obvious by saying that isn't this biting the hand that made Epic successful?
Sweeney made some GREAT points in the interviews and he went a long way to addressing a lot of things - like the problems with the gap between the highest end and lowest end graphics chipsets. That problem isn't really the hardware manufacturers... well, maybe it's Intel's problem in some respects, because their control of the integrated market is stifling innovation from the discrete graphics guys. The biggest culprits are the high street retailers though because they are misinforming the consumer with nothing but complete lies. Since when was a 965G chipset classed as "POWERFUL 3D GRAPHICS", as we've seen recently in some brick and mortars? Yeah, uneducated gamers are going to be upset when they get home and can't play their games on something like that.
However, when you're pointing out all of the problems and then rather than trying to fix them, you come out with a quote like the one above - do you not think the PC gaming community will really believe that Epic cares about them any more?
games sux
Epic were born on the PC, now their crapping all over it, go die in a hole
Sure, PC gaming is what made Epic what it is today - but the problems faced a few years ago have getten a lot worse - piracy, the ever widening gap between hardware specs and transparency to consumers, etc.
These challenges will not go away overnight, and the the gaming alliance is a long-term effort. Why not put the cards on the table now so that everyone involved is crystal clear on the issues and ultimately held accountable - Intel for integrated graphics, everyone for some kind of minimum spec standards, hardware and retailers for better educating customers regarding what machines will run their games.
Some of the challenges facing PC gaming will have to be addressed before most "next-gen" game companies put the the platform before console.
I miss the old days.
Nah, just make games for a living, and understand the challenges.
You'll notice that everyone in the industry who comes through here says the same things about PC gaming, whether it be the guy from EPIC, the former hear of Iron forge, that Lurks guy, they're all preaching the same tune. Writing games for the PC is a pain in the arse and not profitable enough to be worth the headache. Piracy, minimum specs, hardware variations, etc all make it way way more difficult that consoles.
The console development cycle is also much friendlier to a developer. New console tech comes out, what. every 4-5 years? Having a reliable, predictiable, cycle to develop on instead of the constant bleeding edge of PC gaming not only makes life easier on developers, but it also makes for better games if you're not trying to rush them out the door before the tech becomes obsolete next week.
I understand there are a lot of challenges with PC games development--many more than there are in console development. My speciality is mainly in the graphics side of things and, from that perspective, am I right in thinking that the introduction of SM4.0 goes a way to helping PC gaming's attractiveness from a development standpoint?
Of course, the installed base is small at the moment and publishers focus on installed bases - I know Nvidia's developer relations team is working hard on the installed base side of things by trying to demonstrate that there are a massive number of GeForce 6 (and above) users out there... enough to meet a 200:1 hit ratio by selling 1m copies of an AAA title. Let's forget about the piracy aspect at the moment - it's there on every platform, but more obviously prevalent on the PC and it is something I am hoping the PC Gaming Alliance will go a long way to fixing.
SM3.0 hardware is obviously still being developed for--with many developers going back as far as SM2.0 and sometimes even further, depending on the game they're making and in order to hit their desired hit ratio--and there are massive hurdles to overcome with pre-SM4.0 compliant hardware because of the caps bits in DX9.0. Because of that, hardware-specific codepaths are often required to achieve the same result on hardware from the different IHVs. However, because SM4.0 has removed the caps bits (and from my talks with David Blythe, DirectXNext will expand upon this), doesn't that remove one of the biggest time-drains in PC games development from the graphics side of things?
Otherwise.. nothing would be said or done.
Or would you rather we all lived like the Chinese, with a huge firewall blocking the things we really want to read about.
All you who say EPIC is dumping / crapping / selling out the PC market need to wake up and go buy yourselves an IQ. They are just debating the issues publically. Duh!
This is very disapointing to me since I have always supported the developers that make great games for the PC and Epic has always been one of them.
However, this current generation I have noticed a decline in their quality and support for PC gaming. Fine by me I will just stop buying their products on any platform.
I mean the EVIL Tim S. Not the nice bit-tech Tim S.
:D lol
brilliant.
3,944,460 for X360 and 1,819,305 for PS3.
______________
As for the topic:
There is a long life ahead for Unreal Engine 3. 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.
So thats 82% of all COD 4 sales in 2007 were console based.
Another indictor on WHY it makes financial sense to target the console markets as their primary clients as opposed to the 18% PC market.
I personally own COD4 for the PC and PS3 for what its worth. A job well done on both platforms in my opinion.
- Call of Duty 4 piracy is rampant
- PC game sales constitute 14 percent of total sales
- Piracy
Less games sales overall are going to confirm exactly what they're saying, PC gaming IS in a decline, you can blame who or what you want (pirates, developers, consumers, hardware) whatever, the simple fact still remains that there are better profit margins available for developing console games.
Put yourself in their shoes!
Picture this, you're a kid who's trying to earn money by mowing lawns, it's Sunday afternoon and you have the choice of two lawns to mow, one is a 10m square without any trees or plants to avoid and the owner will pay you £20 and is very reliable. The other lawn is a 20m square with several intricate plant beds to navigate around, a few big trees in the way and some of the garden is on a 45 degree slope. The owner says he will pay you £10 but he is a drunk and last time you mowed his lawn he didn't pay you.
What would you chose?