This is why I think consoles won't exist in ten years time. I've said it a few times on Shacknews and probably here too.

The only reason consoles exist is to provide good graphics at a low price. As soon as the cheapest PC devices, including iphones etc, can handle todays graphics then there will be no reason for consoles to exist.

We don't need better graphics than we currently have.

Sounding rather defeatest there...

At the moment it is true (although i don't see too many games with the graphical quality that games like FF13 and God of War 3 provide) there isn't much room for improvement in the graphics department...

But that doesn't mean we just throw single player experiences down the toilet.

Is this Newell saying that there are no more good single palyer games to be made, and so as a compromise to graphical superiority, we just get addictive online multiplayer modes?

"We don't need better graphics than we currently have."

The current real-time graphics are all faked; as are the polygon (geometric) descriptions of the objects. The physics of fake objects are also fake?

We are still a generation away from real-time ray tracing, and possibly 3 or 4 generations away from excellent real-time ray-tracing. We then might wish to move towards molecule/atomic model with more accurate physical phenomenon.

I think there is at least 40 years of work before your sentence becomes remotely valid.

If you understand the fundamental problems of reliable (high-speed) routing and switching (from computing/telecoms); you'd know that local high performance hardware is not going to be replaced by cloud computing any day soon.

It is similar to the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow; the closer you try to get, the further away it looks.

'We are still a generation away from real-time ray tracing, and possibly 3 or 4 generations away from excellent real-time ray-tracing."
Eddie that is very true, but do gamers need or want it? That is not to say that academic institutions and research will stop, just that gamers do not need these to have an enjoyable experience.

Hmm... the consensus has been that now that things look purty we need to address the fact that they still act kinda dumb. Console, PC, or online... until we put more industry focus on AI, it won't matter how good it looks.

Yes, I do think we need ray-tracing in video games even when putting to one side that it produces better visual results.

The main benefit is that it is a simple brute force approach to simulate all the graphical problems, like shadowing, reflection, transparency, volumetric lighting, god rays, skin, etc.

Think of how easy it is to explain ray-tracing to a non-graphics programmer; by contrast to explaining just the process of shadow mapping. Shadow mapping requires a 2 pass render and lookup bias etc.

Current 3D graphics techniques are like a patch work quilt to explain. More patches than quilt; as every optical phenomenon needs forethought and accommodation at an early design stage to attain good frame rates.

Ray-tracing on the other hand will have an unoptimised upper bound on finite hardware, that will guide the choice of screen resolution, geometry tessellation, ray bounce level and ray split level with respect to a desired frame rate.

Think of how easy it is to explain ray-tracing to a non-graphics programmer
...
Current 3D graphics techniques are like a patch work quilt to explain.

Ray-tracing on the other hand will have an unoptimised upper bound on finite hardware, that will guide the choice of screen resolution, geometry tessellation, ray bounce level and ray split level with respect to a desired frame rate.

Maybe I should ask again.

"but do gamers need or want it? "

The need or want question, has been there since Quake3's lightmap lighting, and the evidence suggests that games consumers always want games to improve.

Most games in this generation, even the great ones; ultimately have to heavily compromise in the graphics department; whether by using

1)Fixed cameras, or heavily deterministic camera angles (for performance reasons)
2)Ignoring some common optical phenomenon (for performance reasons)
3)Or accept incorrect graphical artefacts such as incorrect shadowing or alias (because of insufficient framebuffer accuracy using single or multi-pass rasterization techniques)

I accept that it would suit Nintendo and Microsoft if real-time ray tracing doesn't happen in the next-gen; as neither have a financial strategy to bring this technology in on budget. It might also suit the PC games market if real-time ray tracing didn't happen next, as the PC games market is already fragmented in system requirements.

However, Intel, AMD/ATI, Nvidia, and Sony will all be looking at the possibility of this holy grail being achievable very soon; and in some form, all these players will be involved or disappear.

Whether Nintendo/Microsoft and high end PC gaming will join that gaming future isn't so clear.

I think it's premature to say graphics performance is a solved problem, or will be anytime soon. As has been said, all current solutions are faked, and are obviously so. Gamers will *always* go for better, more immersive graphics. It's how we're wired. We can talk about graphics being a solved problem when we're running around photo-realistic, 3D worlds on standard systems.

But it sure is past time to really concentrate on more robust, innovative AI, general gameplay, and online experience instead of just visuals. Gameplay hasn't improved much over the past 20 years, if at all. In fact it can be argued it's actually gotten worse, while graphics have improved exponentially (hence the resurgence in classic arcade gaming).

If we are even almost at the point where graphics can even be fancifully considered to be secondary, however, it's a good thing for games.

You know, when you go to the theatre they sometimes ask you to use your imagination for props, it's a lot more involving. That's why you could care for stick figures and icons or symbols in games for avatars, it gets the mind involved and you see beyond the representation, e.g. lemmings, or Civ. I think that a lot of developers forget that they are trying to create an illusion to the gamer and/or instead focus on graphics thinking this will give the realer world. But really it's a whole package, graphics, AI, the way it plays and the consistency of all parts with all other parts. AI is lacking but it's not adding smart AI it's using AI in a smart way. FEAR did it pretty well for the time, the stage environment was set up with audio and the AI. Another example, if an AI acts like a dumb robot, make the AI a dumb robot on screen rather than a human - it would be more believable.

The various points about creative choice to use a 2D avatar are valid, just as the points concerning other technology areas, such as AI being underdeveloped are valid.

However the main focus of the article was; that a company that relies on doing its' business mainly on PCs has claimed that all game graphics have been solved.

It sounds to me; like he's actually saying his business might be less valuable if the next console platform/s switch to real-time ray-tracing.

At present they are a big player in the current world of PC gaming, but assuming a new subsidized Sony platform; probably with AMD & Nvidia helping, and maybe one other competing platform, from say Intel & Microsoft. Would this alter Valve's market position?

Would everyone (including Core i7 owners) replace their systems at huge expense, to play ray-traced PC games, when a £500 console would suffice? Or would PC gamers just accept inferior graphics?

"The current real-time graphics are all faked; as are the polygon (geometric) descriptions of the objects."

My point is that your mother—or an average CoDuty player—is not going to be able to point out graphic differences between an Uncharted 2 screenshot and a screenshot of a game created in 10 years time with real-time GI, etc.

Those advances might make it easier for devs/artists to work without limitations, but the graphical difference is minimal to any casual gamer. What's the difference between a room lightmapped in UDK with light bounces/GI, and a room lit with real-time GI and ray tracing? No difference that any casual gamer could even begin to notice or explain.

Casual gamers don't have a clue that anything is faked and they don't care. The rest of us might want better graphics, but we don't need it, just want it, and I think we'll happily play games in 10 years time that have current day graphics without complaining about the visuals.

For the last 15 or so years my Dad has been saying he's noticed very little difference in Tv, games or audio fidelity; just like the woman you described. He regularly says that Jason & the Argonauts has much better FXs than today's films, and that all these digital FX aren't required.

We know his statement isn't true, especially when compared and contrasted with a great example like “Revenge of the Sith”, and suggesting that today's antiquated graphics techniques have solved the game graphics problem is also untrue.

You might be correct, it may take 10 years for them to be technologically replaced; but I very much doubt it. Full HD exposes the visual noise(artefacts) much worse than SD ever did