Naughty Dog: move to next-gen is "terrifying"

By Johnny Minkley Published 19 December, 2011

Transition from PS2 to PS3 marked studio's "darkest days".

As talk grows of developers already working on PlayStation 4 titles, Naughty Dog has revealed its fears over the "difficult" transition to next-gen hardware.

Speaking to Eurogamer, studio co-president Evan Wells called the move a "double-edged sword", explaining that: "The geek inside you is always excited about a shiny new toy, but then the practicality of it starts to set in: this is going to be a lot of hard work.

"When you're going to new technology, every day is a slog, progress is slow and it really takes a different kind of attitude and mentality to get through that kind of push and it's not right for everybody."

Wells explained that the switch from PS2 to PS3 was "the period that Naughty Dog had its darkest days and we lost people on a weekly basis - people just couldn't get through it".

He continued: "It's tough and we're definitely walking into it with open eyes."

Fellow co-president Christophe Balestra described the prospect of moving to new hardware as "terrifying", adding: "We made some mistakes with our move from PS2 to PS3 and we won't make those again. I guess we've done it a couple of times!"

The studio last week lifted the lid on upcoming PS3 exclusive, The Last Of Us, which is being worked on by a previously secret second team.

As for the Uncharted team, Balestra said: "Right now they're not working that much. Some of them are working mainly on DLC for multiplayer, and a lot of them are on vacation.

"I think the team's going to regroup and we're going to figure out what's going to be the next move is for that team."

Wells added: "Next-gen, current-gen - that's totally in the air".

A tenner says Uncharted 4 for PlayStation 4.

Picture of Johnny.

About Johnny Minkley

Eurogamer TV's Johnny Minkley is a veteran journalist with a lifelong passion for games and the games industry. He uses Twitter more than most people use air.

Read more articles from Johnny by visiting the Johnny Minkley archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (64) Latest comment 2 months ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • inutaihanyou #1 2 months ago

    I would like to hear Naughty Dog's thoughts on their transition from PS1 to PS2.

    Jak wasn't that different from Crash in the general sense, but the scope was still amazing taking on such a bigger difference in power.

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #2 2 months ago

    Transition from PS2 to PS3 marked studio's "darkest days".

    When they took all their cartoon character artists into the parking lot and shot them?

  • dsmx #3 2 months ago

    All I want from the next generation of consoles is some fucking QA, I'm sick and tired of broken games being launched. For the sake of gaming sony and microsoft grow some fucking balls and stop them from releasing buggy pieces of crap.
    Edited by 1 at 19/12/11 @ 15:37

  • DSR3 #4 2 months ago

    Uncharted team - Jak 4 please!

  • CrispyXUK #5 2 months ago

    "Next-gen, current-gen - that's totally in the air"

    What does that even mean?

  • Inmediasress #6 2 months ago

    I would say that this is a problem brought on by the soulles mega corporations who are out for money like a bloodhound.
    They engaged in a war of throwing money at something and expecting quadruple returns.
    Short term it did work but long term it ruined gaming as we know it.
    Prices spiralled out of controll as they nurtured a new fanbase for gaming too quickly, who only await the next big game after the other with improved graphics and so on.
    They figured out that they could get away with increasingly shit games if they spent more money on marketing then on the game itself.
    Thats why we have half finished games and day one DLC.
    During this process, countless studios wnet out of business and many lost their jobs, no wonder devs don't look forward to the next gen.
    We can say that recent years were basically a slow well disguised gaming crash. Many devs closed down and that wasn't because of economic troubles.
    The problem was they couldn't keep up with the cost/profit ratio that the big players demanded.
    This is also the reason for recent mainstream and broadening the audience marketing shit, because they aren't happy with the profit margins as someone said 1 mill copies is not even a success anymore.
    If the indsutry doesn't change its ways drastically during the next gen it may as well see a real crash.
    The fear is probably not really about the difficulty of making games on the next gen hardware but the taskmaster's whip cracking on their backs for not delivering the expected profit margins and getting shafted in the process.

  • Deadly_Spike #7 2 months ago

    Well if Uncharted was what they came up with during their "darkest days" - I, for one, cannot wait what they push forward with on the next-gen (whenever that may be). They are by a mile the best PS3 developing team - i've owned all of their games and 'The Last Of Us' will continue that tradition.

  • PinktotheLast #8 2 months ago

    While I think we ultimately do need a 'next generation' sooner or later, its becoming apparent that the 'leaps' between generations are getting smaller and smaller.

    I think we have to be careful of thinking: 'Oh gaming is boring, I want a new generation', without being absolutely sure that it is beneficial for the industry to do it, or even that much better for us.

    I think the leaps between say the PS2 and PS3 was pretty marginal. For instance a game like SOTC for instance, feels to me a bit like a game that could have been made this gen. Also the brilliant games on the Wii, like Galaxy 2 or Skyward Sword could probably have been made on a PS2.

  • PinktotheLast #9 2 months ago

    @PinktotheLast
    To add to myself if I may. I think innovative gameplay concepts and ideas can be achieved on the level of tech we have right now. We just need some space to imagine them.
    I hope so at least.

  • Utilero #10 2 months ago

    No doubt Sony made their job even more difficult by coming up with a whole new architecture with the PS3. I think this was particularly the worst mistake made by the hardware team in Japan when designing the system.

    I believe Sony was naive and believed that developers would not mind this given the huge popularity of the PS2, but it backfired. One man from the rival company cold not be more right when he said: "Developers developers developers developers"

  • fongy #11 2 months ago

    I think once we get to a graphical level that matches most of today's cut-scenes and we get to a 'graphics plateau' - and then real innovation can begin...

  • kangarootoo #12 2 months ago

    @Inmediasress

    Blimey, there was a lot of hyperbole in there about "souless corporations" and "taskmaster's whip cracking", but I'm struggling to work out what you think has happened to the industry.

    Here is my take, lets see if you agree or disagree (you might even agree).

    Games as a business has gotten much bigger. The scope of the games it makes (at the top end at least) has gotten much bigger. The budget for these games is higher, the production complexity is higher, the risk is higher, strong marketing campaigns hold even greater influence.

    Lots of existing studios were simply not geared up to make games of that complexity without time, budget or quality suffering as a result. Studios that had previously operated in the AAA space were simply not able to keep up as the AAA space expanded around them.

    Sometimes as a result of studios getting beyond themselves and either producing sub-par products or going way over budget or both, and sometimes as a result of large coporations also struggling to make profit on their huge high risk investments, the large coporations got much risk averse and focussed on the safer brands (sometimes resulting in the closing of what appeared to be perfectly talented and functional studios).

    And finally, generations of hardware got closer together because we the buying public showed we were willing to buy new generations of hardware closer together. The hardware companies HAVE to compete with each, so they all have to keep up. And the large games publishers HAVE to release titles for the new platforms, because that is what we the public demand.


    You may see a growing trend here in my post. The public gets what the public wants. If we get more high budget, high risk games on ever more quickly developed hardware platforms, it is because we have shown a taste for it. You say that "corps figured they could get away with..." as if that isn't what every business does every day. Figuring out what your market is prepared to buy is part of business.

    If we don't want half finished games, we should stop buying them. If we don't want day 1 DLC, we should stop buying it. If we don't want sub-par generic FPS franchises that have more in common with movies than games and rest on multi-milion dollar marketing campaigns, we should stop buying them. You see, above all else, the big coporations will make what sells. That is all they doing right now, making what sells, which is exactly what they have always been doing. If the games business has changed in the last 10 years, it is because we the buying public have changed. We can rant about evil corps and their evil doing, but we are the customer and we hold the power in our wallets.

  • Zomoniac #13 2 months ago

    @inutaihanyou quite. In many ways that will have been a bigger jump, going from a corridor-driven, small-level based game to a big open-world affair (which IIRC had no loading screens). It marked a massive change in scope and direction, whereas the PS2-3 jump was fundamentally the same stuff but more polished and higher resolution.

  • Rogueywon #14 2 months ago

    It's a brave developer who builds a strategy around releases for next-gen hardware early in the cycle - particularly if they don't have a large cheque from the console manufactuerer as an incentive. You're doing expensive development on hardware you don't know well which has a small installed base (which you are hoping will grow). Everything costs more than it used to and you have a suspicious feeling that you'd get better sales figures on the old hardware.

    Of course, if you take the gamble and get it right, you can lay down the basis for a hugely-profitable mega-franchise, because your game was out there wowing people while your competitors were nowhwere near market. Gears of War stands out in my mind here.

  • johnson81 #15 2 months ago

    I think this is the problem with the games industry today, dev's spend all their time and money just making the game look great to please the graphics-whores. The cost of developing a top next gen games will be ridiculous, which will result in fewer original titles and publishers won't want to take the risk.

  • kangarootoo #16 2 months ago

    @Utilero

    "One man from the rival company cold not be more right when he said: "Developers developers developers developers""

    To be fair, he was talking to a conference of MS developers when he said that. If he'd been talking to a conference of MS parking vallets, he may have said something different :)

  • Stevehd #17 2 months ago

    The move from PS2 to PS3 would have been scary, as multicore CPUs and vertex + fragment shaders would have been new to a lot of console programmers.

    Developers now know how to write multithreaded applications and can already write fancy shaders, so the move to the next generation won't be so jarring.

  • asphaltcowboy #18 2 months ago

    Indeed, despite gamers going on about how desperate they are for the next-gen and how it'a already time, I'm not sure I can think of a single games developer I know that is desperate to leave the current gen behind.

  • kangarootoo #19 2 months ago

    @gotyourmoney

    A little harsh don't you think?


    Anyway, I think DE uses game-assets for its cutscenes, but adds all sorts of "posh" lighting and similar effects. To my eyes (besides the compression artificacts) the switch between cutscene and gameplay is jarring because of the clear change in presentation.

    Also, my issue with the original post would really just be the idea that graphics will ever plateu. Progress of that sort doesn't just stop, not while we gamers want ever more amazing graphics. Our business is now indeed led by graphical fidelity, but I don't see that changing for a long time.

  • agent55 #20 2 months ago

    yikes, sounds scary. i realize ND isn't a PC dev, but hopefully the next PS# is a more like a specialized PC rig than some anomaly like the PS3 that basically handicaps itself for most developers.

  • Lucodeath #21 2 months ago

    Well it was a fucker to code a ps3 at the start, everyone knows that.

  • Cjail #22 2 months ago

    What's terrifying is that some developers still don't know how to handle this generation, especially the PS3.
    Yes Bethesda I am talking about you!

  • Architect_z #23 2 months ago

    Unfarted 4

  • phil_75 #24 2 months ago

    The ability to have at least 8xMSAA and 60fps for every game at 1080p would do!

  • kangarootoo #25 2 months ago

    @gotyourmoney

    Just the last paragraph seemed a bit out of the blue :) Hey, the original poster hasn't complained though (and its not like I can't be quite arsey from time to time).

    Ah, good point about the scope of the original comment too. I was reading it as more wide ranging, as I've seen lots of instances over the years of people of people suggesting graphics might eventually get "so good" that we won't try to improve them any more, like in a permanent sense (people say that about storage capacity as well, plus about a host of other things).
    Edited by 1 at 19/12/11 @ 17:29

  • Der_tolle_Emil #26 2 months ago

    @asphaltcowboy Indeed, despite gamers going on about how desperate they are for the next-gen and how it'a already time, I'm not sure I can think of a single games developer I know that is desperate to leave the current gen behind.

    I kind of agree but that really depends on how much the architecture of the consoles change. I am 100% positive that every single developer would be happy if they had twice the amount of RAM, a hard drive in every single console or maybe faster optical drives (and BD support on the 360). These are all things that would make life a bit easier - I also doubt that developers really want to get used to totally new hardware though.

    So apart from such smaller upgrades I also don't see the need for a new generation. I think console hardware has evolved enough to know what is working and what does not work. We don't need another 'technological leap' that a new architecture is supposed to bring, we all know how much of the promises Sony made with the PS3 have been kept. The focus should be on good SDKs, improved developer APIs and most importantly efficient hardware. Less heat, less wasted energy. No need for a new type of CPU/GPU/Memory architecture, no one can afford that. It makes no sense these days to throw out 5+ years of experience just because the next gen architecture is vastly different.

    The only real improvement I can think of would be peripherals. I still don't see motion gaming as the pinnacle of today's and tomorrow's gaming but I think the Wii-U's controller has a lot more potential of bringing innovation than any new CPU/GPU could at the moment.

  • Garibaldi #27 2 months ago

    No doubt when they realised the PS3's architecture was just as bloody bonkers as the PS2.

  • Utilero #28 2 months ago

    @kangarootoo Sure the man was at a MS conference, but still the point stands. The tools Microsoft creates for developers working for Windows Phones, the Windows desktop environment and the Xbox are most of the time developer friendly, easy to use and well documented. Even an initiative such as the XNA dev program should be commended for bringing gaming tech to students and hobbyists, which happen to be also developers.

    I am a PS3 and PC gamer (sold my 360 1 year ago) but still I can see these strengths which have made the 360 a viable console for developers, and for many of them their lead platform. (Sorry in advance for any errors, english is not my native tongue)
    Edited by 1 at 19/12/11 @ 17:33

  • Utilero #29 2 months ago

    @Der_tolle_Emil +1 to this comment. You hit the nail on the head.

  • DodgyPast #30 2 months ago

    <quote>phil_75 wrote:
    The ability to have at least 8xMSAA and 60fps for every game at 1080p would do!</quote>

    Pretty much my thinking though adding in decent draw distance and shadows.

    Up to Sony and MS to make this as easy as possible though. If they do achieve that then the truly skilled developers will find clever ways to push the tech further but at least the devs are then relying on clever tricks for an edge rather than just to achieve a vaguely playable framerate.

  • bionic_v2 #31 2 months ago

    'A tenner says Uncharted 4 for PlayStation 4.'

    They can't give up on the Playstation 3 so soon. I'd be happy with PS3 for another ten years. Its ideas the devs need, not more power.

    What ever the next gen offers, I doubt higher resolution is an option. People are happy with the current standard of Hi-Def television. Blu-Ray looks great. I doubt thats a route worth taking. Audio has reached its max. More objects on screen is about the only way forward. It takes long enough, and costs millions just to support current gen. Who will create Playstation 4 games ???

  • HeNiCiDe1988 #32 2 months ago

    I dont get why tehy wouldnt do uncharted 4, like Ireally hope tehy are. It would be great for the next playstation, they done all they can with it on the ps3 and it would be a great debut title for sony.

  • asphaltcowboy #33 2 months ago

    @Der_tolle_Emil Indeed, a little bit of RAM goes a long way :)

  • inutaihanyou #34 2 months ago

    It doesn't make any sense. Didn't people say aging consoles were holding PC development back? Yet you don't want new ones, i am confused

  • riseer #35 2 months ago

    @MENTAL1ST Lol..

  • riseer #36 2 months ago

    Well i think the transition from Ps3 to Ps4 won't be nearly as bad.Ps3 is very hard to dev for yet ND does a great job.Ps4 won't be hard to dev for as Ps3.Sony learned their lession, if you look at Vita it's ez to make games on so this will translate to Ps4.

  • funkateer #37 2 months ago

    "They can't give up on the Playstation 3 so soon. I'd be happy with PS3 for another ten years. Its ideas the devs need, not more power."

    Yeah, let time stand still. That'll be great for innovation!
    /sarcasm

  • HAL9000 #38 2 months ago

    Isn't retrospect a wonderful thing...

  • Lunatic4ever #39 2 months ago

    Surviving the cut and developing an ace game for the next gen...thats how naughty dog can prove that they really are one of THE FANTASTIC DEVELOPERS present on the market. Good luck boys

  • funkateer #40 2 months ago

    My wish list for a next-gen console:
    1) replaceable HD as standard
    2) faster BluRay drive
    3) more memory
    4) lots more bandwidth (60fps 1080p 8xMSAA stereoscopic 3D please)
    5) a free SDK for PC/Mac for indies + 'open' appstore for them

    And I've said it before, and I'll just go ahead and say it again: A standard hardware spec for other vendors to implement would be great to bring down development costs. This gen was marked by 2 consoles that were mostly the same from the customer's pov (PS360), except that it requires massive costs to make games work for both of them. Collaboratively standardize (at least part of) the hardware to bring down hardware and software development costs.

    But what I guess the games industry needs most is more gamers!

  • Mister-Wario #41 2 months ago

    I want something that isn't meant to be realistic in the sense that Uncharted was- that's what bugged me about Insomniac, Naughty Dog and Sucker Punch. The fact that they moved to quite gritty, semi-realistic games. Well, maybe not Infamous as such, and we DO have Sly 4 on the way. I suppose I want to see more Jak and Daxters in the future.

  • Mister-Wario #42 2 months ago

    @funkateer I think, in a way, it will. If we had to stick with our current hardware a little longer, it might encourage developers to come up with new ways to wow us since they couldn't rely on graphics as much to do so. WiiWare has had some pretty interesting titles so far, for instance. But then so have XBLA and PSN.

  • funkateer #43 2 months ago

    "I think, in a way, it will. If we had to stick with our current hardware a little longer, it might encourage developers to come up with new ways to wow us since they couldn't rely on graphics as much to do so. WiiWare has had some pretty interesting titles so far, for instance. But then so have XBLA and PSN."

    I know what you're saying (and I didn't mean disrespect with my sarcastic remark btw :)), but all things considered I think artificially stopping hardware advancements will do more harm than good to software innovation.
    Yes, it will force developers to be creative with limitations, but it will limit the developer's creativity even more.

    Hardware performance is *always* limited to a developer, no matter how much silicon power you give them. The more power to play with, the more it will expand their horizons and ambitions.
    And also, more memory and performance brings its own unique development problems to solve that I'd prefer them to use their innovativeness and creativity for.
    Don't limit developers more than they need to, I say.

  • myms1ps3 #44 2 months ago

    What a great f***in studio. Wasn't overly impressed by U3 but credit where it's due.
    As far as i'm concerned, honestly approaching fans is a rare quality in a game studio these days.

    And at least they have the balls to hold their hands up, and admit they screwed up with the aiming system in U3 - unlike Bethesda, who offer no credible explanation or acknowdgement on the issues plaguing the PS3 Skyrim, just vague excuses, impractical work-arounds and lazy patches.

    Thank you ND.

  • exenpipp #45 2 months ago

    Well, they also made it tougher for them selves with games like Uncharted - always pushing the boundaries. They could have gone for a Crash Bandicoot-thingy, which must have been an easier task.

  • Laythe_AD #46 2 months ago

    @Cjail It's all very well talking about dev's not knowing how to handle the PS3, but that to me is a testament to sony's mistakes as much as their own. It's a hard system to work with, and Bethesda make remarkably ambitious games, as do Obsidian.

  • Cjail #47 2 months ago

    Laythe_AD
    "It's a hard system to work with"
    It's not the system: it is the developer that matters!
    Edited by 1 at 19/12/11 @ 22:53

  • Stuz359 #48 2 months ago

    I honestly don't feel the need for the next gen right now. I think games need to evolve on a storytelling level rather than a technological one and think that a next gen console at this satge would stall that progress. There needs to be a time when we start to explore what the medium can do, rather than pushing the boundaries technologically, at least for while.

  • Turfschipper #49 2 months ago

    Tell this to Konami. They just tell the next game is better and build from the ground up, but in fact still use old crappy engines, the masses will buy anyway.

  • Zaiz #50 2 months ago

    The PS4 had better be a "normal" console(considering there are just three that's an odd word) and have a simple quad core processor, a large RAM pool, and a powerful graphics card. And of course a decent HD. It'll make a great system.

    What they'll do is they'll make a single powerful CPU, then three slightly weaker CPUs,, and then about fifteen SPUs, and all of that slaved together in some horrific mess, with some bizarre RAM pool with three different sections(one labeled "tentacles", which the devs fear to use) and a one terrabyte harddrive.

    I don't even need to tell you about the mess the Xbox is getting itself into. Two different units and they describe one as specifically having a hard disk and an optical drive? What the hell, MS?

    Meanwhile Nintendo will make something with six year old parts, smile, and quietly deliver their fantastic exclusive that will push the boundaries of their tech immensely. It will also have a weird controller, but only one. I expect that's because they didn't want to get accused of milking their fanbase.

    >_> Someone is going to accuse me of being a nintendo fan, but I don't give a fuck. You all know that's going to happen, since Sony loves weird tech that doesn't deliver on a tenth of their promises, Microsoft is flailing about trying to emulate everyone's success and Nintendo does what it wants.

    In the background, you'll hear PC gamers quietly whining about how all the ports are absolutely miserable again, since they forgot to take analogue stick acceleration off the mouse controls.

  • Okamiwolf #51 2 months ago

    @phil_75 They'll always sacrifice AA, fps and resolution to achieve fancier effects. It's been that way since the beginning of 3D gaming.

  • coughunter308 #52 2 months ago

    @ kangarootoo im just curious you said generations have got closer together I live in North America so I cant say I know how your country did release consoles maybe it skipped every other generation but since 1972 the longest generation has been 6 years so unless the ps4 comes out in the next 2 weeks then it will be around the same as the longest previous console generation release and actually the ps2 released Madden 12 in North America this year so hear in N.A right now is the longest ever a console has released new games. I remember when I'd see that Japan would have some consoles 1-2 years before N.A. Sega Genesis,Super NES and Playstation. But I guess if you never knew any different then its not like your missing anything I have relatives in England and they would get them about 6 months after I did like the ps3 was but they always got the same system released in England. And my best wishes for you and the rest of the gamers in your country to not skip anymore console generations. Cheers

  • Darren #53 2 months ago

    I can't help but wonder if Naughty Dog's 'darkest days' might have been that bit brighter had Sony designed the PS3 to be a little more coder-friendly or even if they'd developed for the Xbox rather than PlayStation?

    After all, Sony are notorious for the past two generations for releasing hardware that is an absolute bitch to code for whereas Microsoft seem to have the much better platform to develop for, with excellent software tools and thoughtfully designed hardware. I can only hope that Sony have learned their lesson with the PS2 and PS3 and that the PS4 will have had more thought put into it for both developers and gamers.

  • bf #54 2 months ago

    They work in a technology driven industry and are afraid of technology? If that's the case and we're talking PS4 then get on sony to make better dev tools or simply don't develop anything for the PS4.

  • kangarootoo #55 2 months ago

    @Utilero

    I know, I know. I was being flippant about the MS conference thing :)

    I am all about decent tools and am in total agreement with you about XNA and the like.

    And your english is extremely good.

  • kangarootoo #56 2 months ago

    @coughunter308

    No, you are quite right. Maybe it just feels like there are more generations of hardware these days :) I know MS have been talking about next-gen earlier than before, and I believe Sony have also said something like "we can't afford to be as late with our next-gen as we were with the PS3" (compared to the 360).

    To be honest, I was just on a roll and needed a few more points to flesh out that particular sentence :)
    Edited by 1 at 20/12/11 @ 09:28

  • Adi-C #57 2 months ago

    To say that they're so affraid of making a transision to a new hardware is pretty strange when coming from the guys that only have to work with ONE console, as opposed to 99% other devs who have to work with TWO entirely different consoles...
    Guess who has it harder- ND who have full backup of sony's know-how, they only have to know one platform, don't have to bother with "how to make it run on a 360 AND ps3"...

    I haven't heard so many worries from guys at crytek, epic or dice.
    And they all work with THREE platforms (pc)... All of them are saying- "next-gen? bring it on!"

    Plus the transision this time won't pose such a problem (at least it shouldn't)- ps3 was hard in that it was multithreaded, whereas previous consoles were working on one thread only (on the pc transision was smoother- one-two-four cores, yet valve bitched about multithreaded engines being SOOO MUCH more complicated, difficult and expensive to make), but now we pretty much have it nailed, we know how to make an engine work on 4 or 8 threads, or even more. That will not be as much of a problem as going from ONE thread on xbox1 to SIX on x360, or seven on ps3...

    Also, it was the first time when there were TWO on-par consoles- everybody though "ps3 will win as always, so games will be made on ps3 and MAYBE ported to 360, which will be the second console, inferior in sales"... Easy. Nope! Ps3 didn't "win"- and THAT was a first! Nobody expected that sony would not clearly win.
    You were left with TWO consoles that you had to make games on, because you could not tell which one was "winning".
    So while in times of ps TWO you could make a game on a ps2 and be fine, maybe port it to x1 later, BUT now- on a ps3/x360 you just had to make a game as TWO games, on two different platforms. There was a lot of confusion about this. We now know how to manage that, but it was something different back in the day. Now everyone knows how to make -kind of- TWO games at a time, one for x360, one for ps3- they work different, but for the player seem the same game.
    As for the nextgens- we're now ready for more than one console, and there being no "main console" that you develop for- nobody now expects that one platform will win, everyone seem to have understood that you'll be forced into making a game in two versions.
    And the Ps3 was entirely different in terms of memory structure, cpu and gpu architecture from x360, so games had to be made in different ways... but- oh wait, ND guys don't have to worry about THAT :)
    Every other dev have to work on these differences, have to make a game on TWO platforms at the same time, and when the nextgens are around- guess what- there will be TWO of them.
    Now WHO is going to have it tougher?

    So coming from ND, this sounds really weird.
    Edited by 5 at 20/12/11 @ 12:52

  • MattRobson #58 2 months ago

    The next generation needs a leap in the AI, new shiny graphics are nice and all but ultimately superficial if the actual content and game world are not believable.

  • General-Apathy #59 2 months ago

    Considering the convoluted architecture of PS3 (and PS2) that even now few developers have truly got to grips with, no wonder ND are worried.

    Sony, developer friendly PS4, please, for fuck's sake!

  • tankboi #60 2 months ago

    Well this time move to Microsoft and you won't even notice a transition. Its just like getting a more powerful PC with the same architecture right? Sony try to reinvent the wheel with new architecture every console, which baffles even the most knowledgeable coders. Maybe mention to Sony that new architecture from the future of out of space, is no good if no one can understand it.

    @Adi-C

    Totally agree with you mate.
    Edited by 1 at 20/12/11 @ 13:09

  • Ryze #61 2 months ago

    PS2 to PS3 were the darkest days because both the PS2 and PS3 have fucked up Krazy Ken architectures.

    If Sony have learned anything, then there'll be a smooth and easy trasition to PS4 as there seems to be with the Vita.

    Nobody's asking them to max out the PS4 immediately. Just set a 1080p 60fps benchmark, with the highest res textures and nicest AA and other effects that you can manage to begin with.

    We're more interested in you using the extra resources for new gameplay experiences.

    Why does everyone think that they have to push every single processing cycle of these consoles?

    Think Braid, think Trials HD, think of the best of the best games in terms of GAMEPLAY, then use the horsepower to make them beautifully detailed and smooth. Everything doesn't have to be immediately vast and like a fucking hollywood popcorn crap Transformers overspending special effects eyesore.

    Jesus!

    edit: /blog!
    Edited by 1 at 25/12/11 @ 04:45

  • Moz #62 2 months ago

    Why is everyone fixing on graphics!!! The big thing that next Gen hardware will bring is the power to implement better AI more memory to expand the scope of games. Skyrim is a good example of the limitations of the current hardware, for everything it does well it then falls short in other areas in part because the systems just don't having anything else to give.

  • TarickStonefire #63 2 months ago

    @CrispyXUK ""Next-gen, current-gen - that's totally in the air"

    What does that even mean?"

    Fairly obviously given the context, it mean that he's making out like they haven't even worked out what console the next Uncharted will be on, let alone started working on it.

    Well, seemed that way to me.

  • DryHeat #64 2 months ago

    8gb mimimum ram for consoles.
    With 4k and 8k oled resolutions round the corner, they will need more memory for textures for hd graphics. If I was sony or microsoft I would release the consoles with an 1 x 8gb or 2 x 4gb dimms. Then 4/5 years later tell everyone to upgrade to 16/32gb. They should make it easy to install dimms just like you do on laptops.