backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 83 comment(s) - last by eman 7613.. on Jun 19 at 8:46 PM
id Software's id Tech 5 engine could make games prettier than ever

John Carmack, the genius behind the 3D game engines from id Software, once considered stepping away from games programming to focus on space-related endeavors. Thankfully for the games industry, Carmack appears to be still deeply rooted in games technology, as he demonstrated the next-generation 3D engine during Steve Job's address at Apple's Worldwide Developers Conference 2007.

Called “id Tech 5,” the new engine shies away from the cramped indoor engines of id Games of yesterday. Quake Wars will take the DOOM3 engine outdoors, but id Tech 5 will make it completely nature savvy.

“What we've got here is the entire world with unique textures, 20GB of textures covering this track,” said Carmack. “They can go in and look at the world and, say, change the color of the mountaintop, or carve their name into the rock. They can change as much as they want on surfaces with no impact on the game.”

The engine technology is aimed at the Mac, PC, PS3 and Xbox 360. If Carmack is able to pull off what he claims, we could soon be looking at an entirely new generation of in-game artistry. With game development costs higher than ever with the rising capabilities of consoles and video cards, id Tech 5 may help simplify the art and texture process.

Click here to see a video of John Carmack’s presentation.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Thats great! but no lower prices..
By TimberJon on 6/12/2007 3:59:12 PM , Rating: 2
If he gets it just right and they all buy it en-masse, excellent! But while it might make game creation a little easier and maybe faster, they won't lower the prices of games. It would be nice, but I think theyre already up there and will just shrug and say "more for us!" as well as all the middlemen.




RE: Thats great! but no lower prices..
By TxJeepers on 6/12/2007 4:09:13 PM , Rating: 5
It's so old seeing people complain about prices. Sure $50 is $50 and not chump change for a lot of us, but give me a break. I'm more of a MP kind of gamer, but even when I buy something for its SP, I get MANY hours of entertainment for that price. Any serious online gamer racks up 10's, if not 100's of hours playing their favorite title. I'm well 200 hours just in BF2142. At 200 hours I was $.25 per hour of entertainment. How is that expensive?


RE: Thats great! but no lower prices..
By FITCamaro on 6/12/2007 4:40:49 PM , Rating: 2
I don't mind paying $50 for a game. The issue is that 360 and PS3 games are $60, not $50 for the majority.

And what really bugs me is that a game thats released simultaneously on the 360 and PC will cost more on the 360 than on the PC. Now that I have a 360, that upsets me because I want to use it, but why pay more for the same game?

One instance of this is the upcoming game Overlord. I plan to get it but the 360 version is $60 and the PC version is $40. I'd like to get it for the 360, but do I want to pay a 50% premium over the PC version just to play it on my 360? Especially when I have a PC capable of playing the game at higher resolutions than my TV(720p) offers with the same (or more depending if the game offers it) details.

The only thing I get on the 360 is being able to lay on the couch and play vs. sitting at my desk. Of course I could get a really long VGA cable, hook that to my TV, somehow hook up my Audigy to my receiver (anyone know how to do this with the standard computer speaker jacks?), get a wireless receiver from my Xbox 360 controller and play on the TV that way using the 2nd DVI port on my graphics card and set it to the proper resolution.


RE: Thats great! but no lower prices..
By RGC on 6/12/2007 4:53:14 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
why pay more for the same game?


Royalties to Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo.


RE: Thats great! but no lower prices..
By arazok on 6/12/2007 6:29:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And what really bugs me is that a game thats released simultaneously on the 360 and PC will cost more on the 360 than on the PC.


Does it also bother you that you paid less for the console then it costs to make?

I'm happy to pay that extra $10. It lets be afford a console that would otherwise be over $1000 retail.


RE: Thats great! but no lower prices..
By FITCamaro on 6/12/2007 7:00:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It lets be afford a console that would otherwise be over $1000 retail.


Heh. Not even the PS3 at launch cost $1000 in materials to make. It was estimated around $825. The 360 was far less and soon, Microsoft will be breaking even on the sale of 360 console hardware.

Losses have always been a part of console sales. The games still didn't cost more than the PC version.

And to the guy above saying its because of licensing fees:

1) Then why do games from Microsoft studios also cost as much? They don't have to pay fees to themselves, and

2) Licensing fees per copy don't amount to $10-20 which is what the difference is between a lot of 360/PS3 games and their PC counterparts.


RE: Thats great! but no lower prices..
By Houdani on 6/12/2007 7:18:46 PM , Rating: 4
The $1000 statement wasn't referring to the build cost. Rather, it was referring to what the MSRP may have been under a more traditional business model.


By arazok on 6/12/2007 7:52:36 PM , Rating: 3
Thank you...


By KernD on 6/12/2007 8:01:35 PM , Rating: 3
I work in the industry and can buy the games from our company at cost and the console games cost 10$ more, so it's exactly what the royalty is.


RE: Thats great! but no lower prices..
By Martimus on 6/12/2007 7:14:40 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
anyone know how to do this with the standard computer speaker jacks?


Just buy a standard single stereo output split to two input jacks for the receiver. I have had this setup for almost 10 years, and after losing the cable quite a few time (when I have moved) I know it is easy to find that cable at Radio Shack, or even Best Buy. Use Monster cables if you worry about the sound quality. I use a standard cable because I lose the cable too often, but after being in the EMI field for a while I can't tell you how good a well shielded cable helps your signal quality, especially for analog signals like sound.


RE: Thats great! but no lower prices..
By PrinceGaz on 6/13/2007 5:50:12 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Use Monster cables if you worry about the sound quality.


I hope you're not being serious. Monster cables are over-priced over-packaged junk.


By therealnickdanger on 6/13/2007 8:20:10 AM , Rating: 4
It's called "Monster" for a reason, as in "monster bullsh*t", "monster snake-oil", and "monster hole in your wallet".


RE: Thats great! but no lower prices..
By Martimus on 6/14/2007 10:26:54 AM , Rating: 1
I am not joking. Monster cables are way overpriced, but they are not junk. They are actually very well shielded, and make a difference for analog, or heavily multiplexed signals. Things like Component Video, or even S-Video don't make much of a difference, because the signals are seperated and won't be as susceptable to noise. AV cables, on the other hand, are heavily susceptable to noise, so buying a well shielded cable makes a big difference in the signal quality.


RE: Thats great! but no lower prices..
By Spivonious on 6/15/2007 9:24:33 AM , Rating: 2
The only time I've seen a cable make an audible difference was on my dad's $10000 tube amp setup where they threw in $1000 cables for his new speakers.

Conclusion: $1000 cables sound better than $5 ones. $50 cables sound the same as $5 ones. Especially ones that you get at a home electronics store, as they are so marked up it's not even funny.


By Martimus on 6/16/2007 4:43:16 PM , Rating: 2
$50 cables do make a difference over $5 cables. However, in sound because the signal is a differential it isn't as noticable (because whatever noise is present on one side of the signal will likely be present in a similar manner on the other side of the signal). For video, it is a huge difference because the signal is heavily multiplexed, so the signals run together when noise is present. It isn't as important for S-Video or Component cables, because the signals are seperated, but on standard AV cable, shielding makes a large difference. Monster Cables are WAY overpriced, but they aren't crap, and they aren't the same as regular cables. Depending on the environment, they may be worth it.


RE: Thats great! but no lower prices..
By RMTimeKill on 6/14/2007 4:56:19 PM , Rating: 2
If you don't like Monster cables, then what do you use? The ones out of the box? Overpriced, yes, you can get them for almost s 50% discount if you work at your major electronics stores w/ emp. discounts and they still are making a 5% profit... do they make a difference from the reference cables that come in the box or the $10 set a wally world? oh hell yea they do... Its like running 87 octane in your favorite muscle car vs running 102 octane with NOS in the same car, you WILL see/hear a performance difference...


By Uarmm on 6/14/2007 6:17:11 PM , Rating: 2
laffo, the monster cable crew is out in force today. Here's a tip, your 150 dollar cable;
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8296...
is in no way superior to this 7 dollar cable;
http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id...

In fact, the 7 dollar cable is probably even better than the monster cable because it has ferrite cores to reduce signal noise.


By RubberJohnny on 6/14/2007 10:13:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
do they make a difference from the reference cables that come in the box or the $10 set a wally world? oh hell yea they do...


You are joking right?

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/10362/do_...


RE: Thats great! but no lower prices..
By GlassHouse69 on 6/12/2007 8:17:34 PM , Rating: 1
60 dollars is a ripoff.

it just is. 50 for the first two months of a game I can see, then 40 for rest of year is reasonable.


RE: Thats great! but no lower prices..
By colonelclaw on 6/15/2007 8:25:40 AM , Rating: 2