480°

Carmack: 60 fps “hard” to achieve on Consoles; Comments On His Coding Style

GB : It’s a known fact that RAGE runs at 60fps. You could probably say that RAGE was one hell of a technical achievement on consoles, considering it ran at 60 fps, although, that framerate is actually hard to achieve on consoles, says Carmack.

Read Full Story >>
gamingbolt.com
tigertron4553d ago

Hard, but not impossible. The Ratchet and Clank series is a great example of games that run in 60fps and look awesome.

tigertron4553d ago

Sub HD or not, there is no denying that the PS3 installments of R&C look good.

T9004553d ago (Edited 4553d ago )

Its funny how people will disagree with facts, Shaman is right.

Infact most console games which are hyped for good graphics only run at 30fps.

Hell consoles dont have a single first person shooter that runs in 1080p. Now the reason why i say first person shooter is because its the most demanding genere out there.

Even Sony with its much hyped Cell is yet to achieve a single FPS game at 1080p 5 years into the consoles life, so much for the blantant marketing.

nondecaf4553d ago (Edited 4553d ago )

@ t900 That's because the oringinal ps3 had different specs compared to now but cost caused the to switch,it may have been possible but who knows.

BattleAxe4553d ago

Carmack is a joke, he's lost all credibility since RAGE released. If I want to learn about whats easy or hard to achieve on consoles, I'll talk to Naughty Dog or Sony Santi Monica.

sher00win994553d ago

@nondecaf

are you smoking pot? do your research man...

T9004553d ago (Edited 4553d ago )

@nondecaf

Ill pretend u didnt write that.

@battleaxe

While Sony makes some great exclusives and their games can push the hardware to the max yet even they are unable to produce a single fps in 1080p. I would take Sonys word with a grain of salt at best, as they are known to over hype then under deliver. Kutaragi made it look like Ps3 would be playing all its games in 1080p, in the end the results are no where close. In the Pc industry if some company were to make such claims they would get laughed and bashed watch what happened with bulldozer.

insomnium24553d ago

@t900

I believe Kutaragi said that PS3 would SUPPORT 1080p. It's up to the developers to make it happen though. Show me a link where it says differently or admit that you are spreading false information.

malol4553d ago

Carmack = MAD

used to have a LOT of respect to this guy
but not after RAGE

Shaman4553d ago

@nondecaf
RAGE is 720p on both consoles but drops resolution rather than frames.

DragonKnight4553d ago

Wipeout HD. 1080p 60fps. 'Nuff said.

reynod4553d ago (Edited 4553d ago )

@dragonknight

Wipeout HD isnt a demanding game at all which is why it manages 1080p. However anything a little demanding like KZ only runs in 720p, and when asked to do 3D the resolution takes a further hit. It just shows current console tech is old.

If you do think Wipe out is a demanding game then explain why 90% of Sonys own exclusives are running only at 720p. It just proves when a demanding game comes up current consoles dont have the juice to play em at 1080p and probably have to take a frame rate hit too.

Machioto4553d ago (Edited 4553d ago )

@ shaman It makes my point valid because if part of the game is to intense it drops resolution which makes it sud hd,I rather take sub hd at 60fps with bunch of effects than a dynamic resolution just to make 60 frames.

@sher00win99 @ 1:13 it doesn't mention that the original ps3 was suppose to have two cell b.e but its proof that ps3 was going to be alot different than what we have now

Dark_Overlord4553d ago (Edited 4553d ago )

Don't know why people are disagreeing so much with nondecaf

http://uk.gamespot.com/news...

Originally (2005) the PS3 had

6 USB ports - 2 Back 4 Front

2 HDMI outputs

Ethernet (10BASE-T, 100BASE-TX, 1000BASE-T) x 3 (input x 1 + output x 2)

and also was meant to have 512MB of XDR ram

as shown here

http://www.engadget.com/200...

So yes the PS3 we eventually could buy did have its specs downgraded

EDIT - Yawn, disagreeing trolls again :/ Why not watch E3 2005 and see

Disccordia4553d ago

Just out of interest, what fps games are natively 1080p+ on PC? I know you can make them any resolution your monitor allows - but are most upscaled? Genuine question.

Ducky4553d ago (Edited 4553d ago )

^ Up-scaling usually refers to stretching an image to fit the screen.

The resolution you pick on PC isn't the same as up-scaling.
When you pick a 1080p resolution on PC, the hardware renders a 1080p image. On the other hand, a console game would just stretch the 720p image to fit the screen.

The general advantage to increasing resolution is the removal of 'jaggies'. The textures will just be limited to their native resolution. (Which are sometimes identical to the console ones)
The difference between a native 1080p image and an upscaled image is small for smaller screen sizes or if you're a reasonable distance away from the TV... but if you're close to the screen (like on PC) or have a fairly large TV, then the difference become noticeable.

Kahvipannu4553d ago

@Disccordia

Pc games don't stretch the picture, you choose the resolution, and fps alongside what your rig can run.

I have friends who can't play consoles becouse of the "horrible resolution" and only mostly 30 fps. I have no problem with it, but current consoles are old, and it shows.

@Dark_Overlord

Yes, I remember the hype Sony put out when first info came out before release of PS3.
They really didn't deliver what they promised (all games 1080p roflmao), but good enough.

DragonKnight4553d ago

@reynod: See, there it is. The famed PC fanboy "change the subject" tactic. When someone says 1080p and 60fps is hard or impossible on consoles, someone proves that statement wrong, then the PC fanboy comes and says "oh, but we meant in a shooter."

Have you played or even seen Wipeout HD? It's a PS3 launch title that did 1080p at 60fps before those numbers became buzz words thrown around by graphic whores and PC fanboys. Have you seen what happens on screen and at the speeds it happens? The only point you have in your favor is that KZ and games like it have more expansive environments. That's hardly worthy of being called demanding in the context with which you use the term.

Is KZ a more graphically impressive game? Yup. Did it have time to become so? Yup. Is my point invalidated? No. The point was on 60fps on consoles, and there are many games that have it. Wipeout HD, Ratchet and Clank (which has a hell of a lot more going on than any shooter) are just two examples I can think of off the top of my head. You want to be a PC fanboy boasting your rig, that's your choice. But your ignorance is showing.

As I tire of having to hear the same PC fanboy garbage over and over, I'll not reply to you, or any PC fanboy, in this thread from this point on.

Saladfax4553d ago (Edited 4553d ago )

@dragon

And there it is much more clearly, the famed console defender argument.

As always, you assume anyone who disagrees with fingers-in-ears, nothing-can-ever-beat-my-preci ous-PS3-at-anything whining has no objectivity. This, of course, when it's very obvious how much you project elitism on those who provide thoughtful counters to your erroneous standpoint.

Look up two things; they're related, so it won't confuse you too much. First, fidelity versus aesthetics. Second, the principle of the uncanny valley. Both are quite applicable to Ratchet and Clank (which are spectacular games, don't get me wrong). The second doesn't do quite as much for Wipeout HD, but the first principle still applies.

Try expanding your limited horizons. Then maybe you'll stop saying stupid stuff. Or at least you'll engage in articulate discussion as opposed to petty dismissal.

Kushan4552d ago (Edited 4552d ago )

@DragonKnight

Wipeout HD wasn't a launch title. It came out in September 2008. The PS3 launched nearly 2 years earlier, in November 2006.

Now look here, sourced from 2005:

http://uk.ps3.ign.com/artic...

"We have just been updated by our away team at the SCEA conference that not only will 1080p be supported by the system, but that this is considered the standard resolution for the system. Every game for the PS3 will be in incredible, indelible, indubitable HD. "

1080p isn't a "buzzword" coined up by PC fanboys, in fact at the time 1080p wasn't a "PC" thing, it was the entertainment/TV industry that came up with it. 1080p is a 16:9 aspect ratio. At the time widescreen PC monitors used a 16:10 aspect ratio, so the nearest equivalent to 1080p on PC at the time would be 1200p (1920x1200 instead of 1920x1080).

In the last few years, this has transitioned to where PC monitors tend to be 16:9 as well.

As for the 60fps thing, this was also not a "buzzword" coined up by PC fanboys. Take a look here:

http://uk.ps2.ign.com/artic...

This is a review of a PS2 game from 2004:

"Most impressive of all is the fact that the game never once dropped below the 60fps mark, and never once calmed down in terms of its activity. "

The 60FPS thing pre-dates that by quite some time, anyway.
And finally, another piece from 2005:

http://uk.gamespot.com/news...

"Sony Computer Entertainment president Ken Kutaragi said he expects the PS3 to be capable of running games at a stunning 120fps, according to a report in The Nikkei BP. "

So to hell with the whole 60FPS argument, apparently 120FPS is the real deal. Oh and once again - not PC fanboys stating any of this.

Check your facts before you comment in future.

Dark_Overlord4552d ago (Edited 4552d ago )

There was one launch game that was 60FPS and 1080p (native), that was Ridge Racer. Since then it seems only PSN titles have managed that

artynerd4552d ago

@Kushan

It's amazing how even through all of those lies, Sony Ponies will continue to swear loyalty. It's seriously pathetic - love video games, not corporations.

The only gamers who can claim superiority are PC gamers, just for the abundance of options alone. I don't game on PC because I spend 10 hours a day at home on one, the last thing I want to do is spend even more time at this desk :P

nickjkl4552d ago Show
SuperM4552d ago

@T900 Its amusing to see how many agrees you got concidering how dumb your comment really is.

Why dont developers make games in 1080p? Because they cant? Because consoles are to weak? Ofcourse not. If a developer wanted they could make a game running at 4K resolution on ps3/xbox kind of hardware. No problem. Ofcourse there is a catch. If you are to display in higher resolution you have to compensate by lowering polygon count/texture res/lightning etc etc...

So why dont developers make games in 1080p? Because the tradeoff going from 720p to 1080p simply isnt worth it. Games look better at 720p then at 1080p. Its as simple as that. It has nothing to do with PS3, or even 360 for that matter, being powerful enough to run games in 1080p.

ProjectVulcan4552d ago (Edited 4552d ago )

LOL @ some of the crap spewed here like claiming 1080p isnt worth it and its not to do with power. Of course it is!

Current console games could run 1080p and 60FPS. Why don't most of them then, why is this not the design target for developers?

Simples. Games companies want people to crow over their graphics and their screenshots and their video adverts on SDTV. This sells games. In order to get these fancy shots that are in line with your rivals and still keep the pre requisite HD rez of this generation you have to go for 720p.

720p is the lowest 'true' HD standard, and 30FPS the lowest realistic framerate to be nice and playable. Aiming for 1080p and/or 60FPS means you have to use lower quality assets, you have to make fairly hefty compromises on existing consoles and their limited memory and bandwidth and fillrates. It means in those still shots where resolution doesn't matter and framerate can't be seen your game looks crappier than your competitors. The jump from the last gen to the present seems smaller when you do not have the full resolution available in front of you.

Nobody really wants to know about what res or framerate the game is, average joe couldn't give a toss. He wouldn't know the difference. he just sees one static shot that looks meh and one that looks great and doesn't care if the great one runs 1024 x 600 low res nonsense and the other runs 1920 x 1080.

Nobody seemed to care that GT5 has 50 percent more res than Forza 4, they still want to compare them directly and moan about maybe some weaker visuals in areas of GT5. This forza texture looks better here see! Yes, it might, but its running lower res. Nobody worried about that when they compared them.

On console its all about that compromise, you could have poorer assets if you want more res, but again a lot of people only have 720p HDTVs. They are aiming for the lowest HD experience. 360 is clearly designed to aim at 720p, Microsoft said as much. The EDRAM is only really enough to fit lower resolution framebuffers, its not nearly enough for 1080p. Microsoft knew that this generation was going to aim for 720p only, 1080p was too much to ask and still keep a leap over the previous gen. Take a look from a 2006 article before PS3 launched: http://www.dailytech.com/Mi... read the quote.

I fully expect and really demand next generation however moves up to 1920 x 1080 MINIMUM mandated by the manufacturers. A powerful new console would have enough to increase the resolution and the visual quality together, much like how PC can already do that now.

zero_cool4552d ago

That series is not in sub hd quit trolling!

Kahvipannu4552d ago (Edited 4552d ago )

DragonKnight
"As I tire of having to hear the same PC fanboy garbage over and over, I'll not reply to you, or any PC fanboy, in this thread from this point on. "

Yes, truth hurts. It's exactly how Kushan and others putted it.

Sony promised too much, did deliver great gaming/entertainment system, but didn't deliver promises that it painted on sky. Still there is some people who I would call "loyalist", why are in denial.

My friend used to be too, since he told that he felt bad for buying the console when it came out with about 700€. He didn't want to admit that it was a bad deal, and I can understand him totally. I think this is one good example why someone would be in denial. I love my PS3 too, it's great stll, but I got it about year a go for 300€ with 4 games. That's the right value for it currently, since double that and you get decent PC.

Now the tech is old, I can't even think why someone would argue about that, since it's simple.

And yeah, Wipeout HD, lol. Great game and franchise, but terrible example.

+ Show (24) more repliesLast reply 4552d ago
Micro_Sony4553d ago (Edited 4553d ago )

Do you people go to bed dreaming about trolling articles on N4G?

I know you might be a little kid who plays COD all day but get a life dude and show Carmack some respect.

LMFAO @ trolls disagreeing - Yeah because comparing a complex game with out of this world graphics like Rachet and Clank to Rage is justifiable.

N4G where everything you say has to be pro Sony.

Voiceofsoi4553d ago

Complex game? Are you kidding me? The only thing complex about this game is the graphics and the AI, neither of which matter when a game does nothing to keep the player interested at all.

The vehicle combat is shallow and repetitive, the story is shallow and repetitive, the RPG elements are shallow and the gunplay is repetitive. The only part of the game I liked was the first appearance of the giant mutant. Admittedly, that was cool.

But I'm not going to show John Carmack a single shred of respect until his company produces a game that doesn't shamelessly copy Fallout 3 and Borderlands while sucking out every ounce of role playing fun.

RAGE is a monotonous, unimaginative, 12-hour action game that has just enough pointless, uninteresting dialogue and menu sorting to market itself as an action RPG. It is, by far, the worst gaming purchase I've ever made, and I bought DOA: Xtreme 2.

rdgneoz34553d ago

Its not too complex like some open world games, seeing as you're going through loading screens often and on consoles, it tends to take a second at times for some textures to load. Also, I wouldn't say the ending to Rage was too "complex" either...

jimbobwahey4553d ago

Carmack made some great games in the 90s but since then he's put out some incredibly average and disappointing games. You can cry about it all you want but other developers put out games with nice graphics, 60fps and above all fun gameplay too. Ratchet & Clank, Wipeout HD, Call of Duty games, Gran Turismo 5, Forza etc, the list goes on.

pctrollv54553d ago

show carmack respecT? for what? for betraying the platform that put him up there in the first place just so he can release a badly done game at 60 fps? complex? really? you havent really played much games have you? those "megatextures" look atrocious. It is boring, with no storyline, boring gameplay, repetitive, and a disgrace to pc gaming at 60 bucks and unplayable for a while. Please. Kirbys epic yard is better looking than rage.

Anonagrog4553d ago (Edited 4553d ago )

@ Voiceofsoi, Carmack's primary role in a company that he co-founded is that of technical director. The complex AI and graphics you mention, amongst most things engine related, are usually where he spends most of his time. The area he stood out in was programming. If you're going to take the position of not showing respect, then do so by directing that at the entire studio, but if you are going to dissect the team on a deeper level by jumping on Carmack directly, then weigh it up based on his specific role, and his ability to carry it out. If all the iterations of the idTech engine were rubbish, then by all means point fingers at him, but the engines have always been impressive. He is good at what he does, even if the studio doesn't match that.

2v14553d ago

y blame sony blame the fanboys

Eiffel4553d ago

@Voiceofsoi

RAGE has been in development since 2004. Fallout 3 and Borderlands came out well after it's development period.

tiffac0084552d ago (Edited 4552d ago )

And you still get disagrees even when you do.

Don't feed the trolls!

The only way to go is to ignore the trolls outright and not show any insecurities when they disagree with you.

Edit: Also lets not stereotype the entire Sony fanbase on this site as if they where the same as a group of fanboys who just wants to piss the other side off (which what most fanboys usually do these days anyway)

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 4552d ago
ChickeyCantor4553d ago

" Now the reason why i say first person shooter is because its the most demanding genere out there. "

Ill make sure I'll never take whatever you are taking...ever...

limewax4552d ago

Apparently RTS doesn't exist for him

Laxman4552d ago

He didnt say impossible. His last game, RAGE plays in stunning 60FPS and is the best looking game I have ever seen on consoles.

badz1494552d ago

nice joke. I think you forgot to put /s at the back there

MysticStrummer4552d ago

You either spent most of this gen with a Wii and nothing else, or RAGE is the only console game you've looked at.

Play2Win4552d ago

RAGE on PC in real 1080p is one of the best looking games ever made. Even if some textures look washed out it is the the whole image quality that makes the graphics outstanding. And all with 60FPS!

Rageanitus4552d ago

Well just look at the COD series.... its running at around 60 FPS but sub hd native REZ..... then again im not joking but alot of console fanboys think it is HD just because it ays output 1080p on the back of the box.

So Carmack does not have to worry if he is targetng that market ;)

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 4552d ago
camel_toad4553d ago

I would have rather had 30fps and much less texture pop-in than the unplayable mess it turned out to be. Way too distracting when every time you turn, you catch the textures reloading.

MasterCornholio4553d ago

I agree with you that RAGE visually was a mess in many aspects.

XperiaRay

Edgeofglory4553d ago

Guy is wayyy over-hyped, just cause he was deemed the best bk in the day does not mean he is the best, alot of new talent have come through over the years n just do it way better than this guy. I guess ps1 graphics for rage are given a free pass if it comes from carsmack

NYC_Gamer4553d ago

i fully agree,Carmack/ID have done nothing to receive high praise in many years...

vickers5004553d ago

"I guess ps1 graphics for rage"

I seriously can't facepalm hard enough at such an utterly moronic statement such as that.

badz1494552d ago

1. "Guy is wayyy over-hyped" - I think you mean over-rated

2. "I guess ps1 graphics for rage are given a free pass if it comes from carsmack" - Carsmack lol!

Laxman4552d ago

You must have played it on the PC.

Cyb3r4553d ago

It does run at 60fps but I would rather if it ran at 30fps and had no texture popin

Rageanitus4552d ago

It really depends on the game....

I remember back in the Quake3 Days I used to lower the graphic detail just to achieve above 100 FPS.

Just look at COD series on the consoles.... I have to say this but they got it right... focus on better FPS (60FPS) and not improve the graphics much because ummm it is mainly a multiplayer game.

FourGees4553d ago (Edited 4553d ago )

I can't wait till next-gen when all games run at native 1080p 60FPS :D

Series_IIa4553d ago (Edited 4553d ago )

Or just HD in general

There are more games which are sub HD than even 720p at the moment on consoles.

FourGees4553d ago

720p is HD.
I want native 1080p.

kcuthbertson4553d ago

@FourGees

Not gonna happen this gen of consoles...

Voiceofsoi4553d ago

Only 10% of people can tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. This is not just me estimating, this was from a study referenced by Michael Pachter in the Bonus Round show.

If 90% of people can't tell the difference between 1080p and 720p, how many people can tell the difference between 720p and slightly-sub-hd resolutions like 700p.

Red Dead is 700p on 360 and I can't tell the damn difference. GTA IV is even less on PS3 and the difference is so small you'll forget about it while playing.

Getting games running smoothly at a constant frame rate is way more important than resolution, but 30fps is absolutely fine. Games like Gears 3, Skyrim and Killzone 3 have a response time of more than 1/30th of a second, yet they feel fine. Visually, films are 24fps and no one complains about that.

kevnb4553d ago (Edited 4553d ago )

It all depends on viewing distance and size of TV/monitor. And 30 fps feels terrible compared to 60 fps. 24fps in movies include motion blur to compensate and they don't require user input. The hobbit will be 48 fps and change everything.

torchic4553d ago

@ kevnb

agreed. i can clearly tell the difference between 30 & 60 fps. i always noticed the difference, but after jumping from playing nothing but Battlefield 3 for a week straight, on to Black Ops, my eyes were really opened.

60fps for EVERY GAME is a must for next gen consoles. resolution, mot so much. high resolution i think is not such a huge issue in gaming. yea sure every game should run in HD, but full 1080p isn't really required. although i would suggest Square Enix to keep 1080p on future Final Fantasy games, just for those unbelievable pre-rendered cutscenes.

Somebody4553d ago

@kevnb and torchic.

Totally agree. I used to play PC games in 30fps on during the time when Carmack was relevant to gaming world. When I discovered 60 fps...I refused to go anywhere near 30fps (realistically between 40-60fps). 30fps is way too near to the edge when we will see the game stutters. 40-60fps will have plenty of headroom that you won't see the game stutters.

In some games that are forced to adhere to 30fps limits like Split Second, the difference is so obvious. It took me while to figure why the game felt weird in the first several minutes of playing.

Rageanitus4552d ago

There are so very little games out there that are native 1080p, but hey console fanboys dont notice this ;)

Hell there are even many games out there that are not even 720p but upconverted.

PPL should really get their eyes checked.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 4552d ago
DigitalAnalog4553d ago (Edited 4553d ago )

And what about graphics? Surely you can't really expect a HUGE jump in that department if all available resources are dedicated to doubling the resolution and frame-rate. If that was the case, then the next gen is no different from emulating the Wii-U: Introducing new/updated hardware to meet current demands. Unless of course you're expecting next-gen to have current-gen graphics then yes, 1080p/60fps would be viable.

FourGees4553d ago

Current-gen graphics are barely 720p.

I expect next-gen consoles to be able to easily run a game like Battlefield 3 in 1080p, 60FPS. Without compromise.

DigitalAnalog4553d ago

So I assume BF3 is your expectations of "next-gen"? I'm was hoping more in the line of the Samaritan demo.

pctrollv54553d ago (Edited 4553d ago )

you need some massive specs for that, specially if you want games like BF3, witcher 2 and metro 2033 to run at max. It is already hard as hell to run in 1080p at 60 fps on high end pcs unless you have dual gpus and i7's for those games mentioned. If next gen can do what pc cant do now, then someone rape me up the butt with a rusty plunger.

Bob5704553d ago

I don't know if you remember this, but when the 360 launched, a comparable graphics card for a PC was an ATI X1900, which was a $600 graphics card.

So I'm not too worried about next gen consoles being able to run BF3 in 1080P at 60 FPS since they are still a couple years off. I would assume a $600 graphics card in late 2013 would be able to do that.

Bob5704553d ago

1080P will probably happen, but all games running 60 FPS? Not a chance. Devs will always want to do more and more, and many of them will decided that it's worth dropping the framerate to 30 FPS in favor of being able to have more enemies on screen, better graphics, larger environments, better physics (which is something I would bet we will see massive improvements upon next gen).

The point is, next gen consoles will be very powerful, but developers will still have boundaries.

hesido4552d ago

The feeling of a 720p 60fps fast-action game is orders of magnitute better than 1080p 30fps. However, since 1080p will be the buzz word for nextgen, I think will be seeing more 1080p than 60fps.

turgore4553d ago

60fps doesn't really add anything. I;d rather have better graphics than extreme framerates.
For example, the reason why COD looks like A$$ is because it runs at 60fps. If they wouldn't be limited by that (at least in singleplayer) then maybe it would look as good or better than other FPSs.

Ducky4553d ago (Edited 4553d ago )

CoD's appeal is in its controls. By limiting itself to 30fps, it might attain better visuals, but it will suffer with a bigger input delay.

The fast precise controls of CoD is one of the reasons so many people enjoy the game.

To me, 60fps adds more to a game than mere eye-candy.

baodeus4553d ago

@turgore

i guess u prefer looks over substance?

hesido4552d ago (Edited 4552d ago )

60fps really adds a lot. It's not just the input delay. Everything *in motion* looks and feels much better at 60fps. Things look more natural that way, 60fps feeds more motion information to the eye.

ninjahunter4552d ago

I can See HD being a prerequisite next gen, but 60fps will probably never be the norm. The difference of what you can pull off between 30 and 60fps is so staggering that i doubt anyone would pass it up.

On high end gaming rigs playing juggernaught games 60 and 30 fps is usually the difference between minimum and maximum settings at 1080p.

Play2Win4552d ago

The difference between 720p and 1080p is like day and night. I'm a PC Gamer and I always play with a 1080p resolution. But I also played a lot of games on PS3 and 360. The difference is so hard that nearly most games on PC look better just beacause of a higher resolution. Not including other settings. Of course this isn't a big deal for everyone but for me it's a big one. I've seen RAGE on consoles for example. On Xbox 360 and while the games is looking really good there are still miles between console Rage and Full HD Rage on PC.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 4552d ago
Voiceofsoi4553d ago

I'm really beginning to dislike John Carmack. I don't care what he's done in the past, you can't make bold claims and deliberately controversial statements like he does every single time he gets interviewed.

Especially when your latest game is an action RPG that's too short and dumbed-down to be an RPG and too monotonous and repetitive to be an action game.

It would be like the developers of Final Fantasy XIII telling people 'the right way' to make RPGs. Even though some individuals on that team were involved with FFVII and FFX, their words simply don't carry any weight any more, and neither do Carmack's.

Cyb3r4553d ago

I agree I was very dissapointed with Rage I didnt even bother to finish it it was that dissapointing

Voiceofsoi4553d ago

It seems this is almost universally the case. It makes me wonder what gaming journalists saw in the game at E3 2010. I played the level they used for that demo and it didn't impress me.

I suppose out of context it might have seemed like the game offered much more, but actually what they showed at E3 was just about it... over and over again.

kevnb4553d ago

They saw it on PC using an nvidia card.

Ducky4553d ago (Edited 4553d ago )

Carmack is a programmer. He makes game engines. He isn't a game designer.
So complaining about RPG elements isn't really a relevant argument against him.

I didn't find RAGE to be a great game; the characters were dull (despite being well animated) and as soon as the plot became mildly interesting, the game ended.

However, the engine itself is pretty amazing. The only real motivation I had to keep playing was to see which environments were next, and at times, it felt like playing through concept art... and all of it at 60fps just made it that much more impressive.

Show all comments (155)
250°

John Carmack, the consulting CTO for Meta's virtual-reality efforts, is leaving.

businessinsider writes: "His exit came on Friday, the people said. Carmack, who has been openly critical of Meta's advancements in AR and VR, core to its metaverse ambitions, posted to the company's internal Workplace forum about his decision to leave."

Read Full Story >>
businessinsider.com
BlackIceJoe515d ago

I hope he starts up another new company and can get another new game engine on the market too.

Number1TailzFan514d ago

He's apparently focusing on AGI, Artificial General Intelligence, AKA trying to get AI to be sentient. Which according to Ray Kurzweil could happen by 2029.

Rainbowcookie514d ago

SKYNET approves

SKYNET becomes a follower

SKYNET left the forum

Yui_Suzumiya514d ago

Then I need to look more into this because it sounds like the backbone tech I need to make Projekt Monika a reality.

camel_toad514d ago (Edited 514d ago )

AI advances are really starting to open my eyes to us not even having scratched the surface. But with the field itself growing exponentially and stuff I'd never considered before like putting AI to work finding cures for major diseases - it's exciting but also kinda scary tbh.

More on topic - sentient AI. Creating a digital soul so to speak. Spooky in a what have we done and is it good or bad kind of way.

masterfox515d ago

He is like: "Im done with F#@#$%NG nonsense, pff Metaverse da funk I was thinking!!, Im out!! :D"

Yeah he put a smile in his face too in the end.

Orchard515d ago

I hope he goes back to traditional games.

VR gaming is a flop and the Metaverse has (fortunately) completely failed to take off.

Babadook7515d ago

VR has much more potential than flat screen games. Just need to tap the right market and fund AAA development. Meta is a rotten company though so good to see him leave.

Orchard515d ago (Edited 515d ago )

That's where it becomes a catch-22 problem though. Very few companies (if any) are going to spend AAA amounts of dollars on VR if the market isn't there - and the market isn't there.

If it was the future of gaming we'd see the big publishers getting involved - and basically none of them are.

Agree on Meta 100% - horrible company and I really do hope FB (and social media) dies some day soon.

JackBNimble515d ago

There will never be AAA games until VR sells at the rate of mainstream consoles. Understand that even if Sony do sell 3.5 million VR in the next 2 or 3 years like they hope, that isn't ever going to get any commitments for AAA budget. No investor would ever sign off on that.

Orchard515d ago (Edited 515d ago )

The adoption has been terrible and the market basically non-existent as a result of that.

We're now 10 years into PC VR gaming, 6 years into console VR gaming and it just hasn't taken off - the reality is, most consumers don't care for it.

Even with a huge install base like the PS4, only a few million adopted it, about 3-4%.

ApocalypseShadow515d ago

He only thinks it in his mind. Because Microsoft isn't offering "high fidelity VR." Only Sony is offering "high fidelity VR" because they actually deliver.

I just read today that Honda is moving forward in using VR and has vehicles that were built in VR without an actual real vehicle.

Orchard just doesn't know any better. He claims he's a PlayStation fan but doesn't want Sony to succeed in growing the VR market. But he's okay with Microsoft buying up the industry and game pass. Tell you where his mind is actually at. Or he has investment in it.

But Carmack leaving is only that he was frustrated with higher ups. But he's very interested in AI. And that's a good field of investment too.

JackBNimble515d ago

If any of the big 3 had sales were like VR for their console, they would fold like the Saturn. Right now VR is nothing more then a high priced peripheral and no one should expect AAA for it.

By the way , I am one who would like to see VR succeed, but it has a long way to go before that ever happens.

Orchard514d ago (Edited 514d ago )

@Apocalypse

"Only Sony is offering "high fidelity VR" because they actually deliver."

And the reality is, from what we've seen thus far, the vast majority, about 97% of Sony customers don't care about it in the slightest. They can't even sell out of PSVR2 devices, which are supposedly in short supply. Better to just invest in traditional experiences instead.

"I just read today that Honda is moving forward in using VR and has vehicles that were built in VR without an actual real vehicle."

Yes. And that helps gaming how? I've said time and time again that AR/VR is great for enterprise. Just not great for gaming.

The lack of customers, lack of customer interest, and lack of AAA game companies investing & AAA game experiences being crafted says everything we need to know about the state and future of gaming VR.

tagzskie514d ago

When uncle philly announced true vr experience and demoed fallout 4 in one x, some xboys sings different tune..

Orchard514d ago

@tagzskie Well, those people were wrong.

Knushwood Butt514d ago

'Just not great for gaming.'.

That's your heavily biased opinion. You are in every VR thread trying to project your doom and gloom. Why?

There are many genres where VR is at least equal to or better than flat. VR in a driving game destroys the flat experience.

FPS, horror games, even Tetris is better in VR.

You speak about AAA as if it's the only consideration, moving goalposts.

Capcom.

Are they not a AAA publisher?

Is RE4 not a AAA game? RE7? RE8?

Hofstaderman514d ago (Edited 514d ago )

The Metaverse is one big flop but VR gaming on its own still has steam and growth potential. Remember Mark and his Meta wants you to associate gaming with the meta verse the gaming industry and its large number of users has the capacity to sway the opinion of the mass market.
Incidentally, Meta is haemorrhaging money and expertise that’s what this article is highlighting.

ApocalypseShadow514d ago

See, the problem orchard is that you see what you want to see. Sony sold PSVR at profit. They made money on software. They made money on a 10 year old peripheral. Yeah. It didn't sell 100 million. How many games sell bucket loads when they cost almost 10 times less than PSVR was at launch? That's why the new headset is coming. Before, there was no console VR. There is now. To grow the market, you must keep pushing and not be afraid like Microsoft. Facebook, HTC, ByteDance, Varjo, Valve, Sony, etc are growing the gaming market. Did flat gaming sell millions overnight? No. It took time. Just like any other product. Fads fade. VR is not a fad because it has potential in many areas. Sony doesn't want PS VR 2 to be a Kinect. A fad. Millions on advertising but no substance. It's why PS Move still exists and works on PS5. And Kinect is dead. Move had substance. PSVR had substance. Which is why PS VR 2 exists.

Honda is an example of VR entering other sectors. It's fairly obvious that it "ain't no 3D TV." Bugatti also uses VR as well as other car manufacturers. VR is here to stay. I know it hurts you that it's growing bedsides flat gaming being successful too. Just like mobile.

You just like to lie to yourself and others. VR is in education, in construction, in the automotive industry, medicine, real estate, music.... AND GAMING. The market wasn't there. Now it's here and it's growing in every sector besides gaming. But you want it to jump out there immediately like some viral video or fad. That's not how it works.

Chances are, you developed something, because you call yourself a developer. And no one wanted your product. So you're projecting.But there are other companies and developers who are successful in making VR work. You just sucked at it.

You claim Sony isn't selling out on pre-orders. But you don't even know what numbers they have allocated. Or how many they are producing to meet demand. You just pull it out from you know where and lie to everyone that Sony is failing. Sony has said they will have headsets for launch and not have to worry about production. What do you have that goes against Sony's statements on the matter? Absolutely nothing. Put up your facts against Sony's production lines?

But tell us. What software you made for VR that failed so that we all can know where your mindset is?

Orchard514d ago

@Knush You just highlighted the problem perfectly - the only AAA taking part in console VR is Capcom. Where is COD VR? Battlefield VR, GTA VR? All the big pubs are skipping on it because they don’t believe in its future - if they did they’d be investing in it now.

@Apocalyspe At the time I thought MS were insane for not getting into VR, but looking back on it, given where we are now, that seems like a very smart decision.

Honda making VR for car showrooms or whatever means nothing for gaming. The vast majority of gamers - PS gamers included - don’t care in the slightest about VR. The numbers show that.

I’ve never worked on a VR game nor do I want to. The market being non-existent means salaries are substantially lower when compared to AAA salaries. I wouldn’t take the pay cut - I’ve been in AAA since graduating college, and I intend to keep it that way.

But that’s also the good point of being a developer, ultimately it doesn’t really matter to me if the game sells well or poorly - I still get paid the same at the end of the day.

It’s funny that you mention Kinect because I consider the Kinect a failure too - but it still had 4x the sales of PSVR and a way higher attach rate.

We are supposedly still in the tail end of a chip shortage, so clearly we would expect a new device like PSVR to sell out - Sony themselves were too or they wouldn’t have done invites to get one initially - they thought it was going to be difficult for people to get one (so did many on here) but when it turned out it wasn’t they opened it up to everyone.

Clearly it isn’t moving as many units as they’d anticipated.

Come talk to me when we’re all sitting in our living rooms with VR headsets on and the attach rate is so high they ship it in the box as the default controller method - so I guess I won’t ever be hearing from you again :p

Knushwood Butt514d ago

@Orchard

'the only AAA taking part in console VR is Capcom'.

No, EA and Ubisoft have VR games on console.

https://www.ea.com/games/f1...

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 514d ago
Stanjara514d ago

Problem with VR is that it hasn't have legs. Everything from mevement, enemies, pacing, puzzles has to take that into equation.

514d ago Replies(2)
Hofstaderman514d ago

I agree with you. I remember when Second Life was as the dogs bollocks and big business had store fronts or ambassador land parcels but soon discovered that it was pie in the sky. Second Life is still operational but only frequented by a stagnant population of people who were with it since it’s launch. New people sign up to try it out but tend to not stay. People want to browse the internet or use it to play games not live in it.

generic-user-name514d ago

"And yet, you can provide me no evidence to the contrary."

Compare sales of gen 1 VR headsets with sales of gen 1 home consoles.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 514d ago
XxINFERNUSxX515d ago

One of if not, the best game engine developer in the world. I hope he gets back into developing game engines.

Orchard515d ago

I could see him in some kind of director role at Epic games working on Unreal Engine. That would be pretty cool.

MadLad515d ago

I would hope he stays away from modern day Epic.

Orchard515d ago

@Mad Depends. Their engine & online services are highly impressive and very advanced.

The games on the other hand... Fortnite... no thanks.

Wrex369515d ago

They need to stick VR back in RnD departments everywhere that or let the porn industry lead the way like everything else that's been introduced then brought to mass market after porn made it a thing lmfao

Number1TailzFan514d ago

Yea VR has that virt-a-mate thing which seems to be quite popular with adult Quest 2 owners, but i mean there is Half Life Alyx, few other things.. nothing huge after those so far.

Show all comments (39)
440°

John Carmack on Bethesda Acquisition: Maybe I will be able to Re-engage with some of my old titles.

Legendary developer John Carmack reacted to the acquisition of Bethesda and ID Software's parent company ZeniMax Media by Microsoft:

"Great! I think Microsoft has been a good parent company for gaming IPs, and they don’t have a grudge against me, so maybe I will be able to re engage with some of my old titles."

porkChop1332d ago

That would be cool to see. Bring him on for a new Quake and the next gen id Tech.

dcbronco1331d ago (Edited 1331d ago )

John Carmack has always innovated game technology. Carmack having access to a Microsoft R&D budget can be very bad for the competition. Plus Jim Keller is out there too. Phil get on both of those task.

Bruh1331d ago

iD Tech 7 is probably the foreseeable version of the engine going into next-gen

porkChop1331d ago

Yeah, but it'll be seeing an upgrade for next gen. New features, optimizations, etc.

RaidenBlack1331d ago

A Quake I (Gothic) Reboot please!

RaidenBlack1331d ago (Edited 1331d ago )

Yea, he's more interested in making gamer's head and hands move vigorously.

LightofDarkness1331d ago

He left the VR world to focus on AI, actually. We need him now more than ever, in that case.

Si-Fly1331d ago

Wow, Carmack’s got in on the game porn scene now? This I have to check out!

Marquinho1331d ago

Because it doesn't entirely depend on him. He always had a good relationship with Microsoft (rare given his personality) so if he's given a good project, that'd be great news. I remember he was the first guy who pushed streaming assets directly from the HDD in games with Rage. Direct Storage/XVA guys would be happy to have him showing stuff off.

dcbronco1331d ago

Geniuses often have issues dealing with people that don't have their vision. It can be hard to believe that things that are obvious to them aren't just as obvious to you. It's actually a compliment to you and shows that they don't see themselves as special. Unfortunately, their vision IS special.

Marquinho1331d ago

Indeed. He actually foresaw what's going on now with consoles and SSDs and that was in 2009 (when he first shared his vision)

Give him a damn Quake game with awesome visuals. The fanbase will be glad.

ExLivingGhost1331d ago

Come on microsoft, give him a quake project.

TheColbertinator1331d ago

Yeah I need some new Quake arena goodness

RonsonPL1331d ago

This is so annoying that this much welcomed news comes AFTER Facebook deleted their VR for everyone not gullible enough to give away their whole privacy for pennies.
I would be so happy if this news happened a few months ago. Now I couldn't care less.

Show all comments (22)
110°

Xbox Deals With Gold and Spotlight Sale Discounts – 4th-10th Aug 2020

Neil writes: "Just been paid? Fancy getting a new game added to that backlog of shame? The Xbox Deals With Gold and Spotlight Sale is back with even more discounts on a variety of great Xbox titles. If you've got time in your life for a new gaming experience, the following bargain basement titles are available for your cut-price purchasing between 4th-10th August 2020."

Read Full Story >>
thexboxhub.com