Contrast Dev: “Very Little Difference Between Versions on PS4 and High End PC”

Sam Abbott talks about how Contrast will remain the same, regardless of platform.

Posted By | On 24th, Jul. 2013 Under News

contrast compulsion games
It’s often been the case that the PlayStation 4, and the Xbox One for that matter, won’t be as powerful as the most high-end PCs. Of course, given the architecture and how easy it is to develop for the PS4 compared to the PS3, it would make multi-platform development all the easier for the next generation.

Sam Abbott of Compulsions Games for instance, spoke to us about the studio’s upcoming indie platformer Contrast. When we asked if there would be any difference for the PS4 version as compared to the game running on a high-end PC, Abbott repsonded that, “Naturally, the PS4 is very powerful, so we can turn on a bunch of graphical features to make it look very nice.

“However, there should be very little difference between the PS4 and a high end PC. Contrast looks fantastic on both platforms right now, and we’re excited to share how it’s looking with people soon.”

He also revealed that Contrast will last for about 4-5 hours and they are also looking into DLC.

“Roughly 4-5 hours.  Contrast allows a bit more exploration than Portal, and while we’d like to enable additional content (perhaps through Steam Workshop), it’s not something we’re actively pursuing.  We may look at DLC too, if our fans are particularly interested in new content from us,” he added.

Contrast is currently set to release in Q3 2013 for PS3, PS4, PC and Xbox 360.

Awesome Stuff that you might be interested in

  • This will probably only hold true for indie developers and the first year of the next-gen console cycles. PC development will move way past both the PS4 and XB1 in short order. This isn’t a bad thing to my mind, as a PS4 purchaser, because with all this advancement PC players will also have to upgrade their machine’s hardware which will be very expensive.

    Right now most gaming systems will run just fine with 8GB of Ram. Expect that to expand by 16x in the next 4 years to around 64GB. I know it sounds preposterous, but it really isn’t. Look at the following math:

    • PS1 to PS2 (2Mb Ram to 32Mb Ram)
    • PS2 to PS3 (32Mb of Ram to 512Mb Ram)
    • PS3 to PS4 (512 Mb Ram to 8Gb Ram)

    See anything interesting? It is ALWAYS a 16x jump. ALWAYS. The Playstation basically kept up with the PCs of the time. This will continue into the next cycle and being a PC gamer on the cutting edge will cost a pretty penny.

    EDIT: as “Jewy McJew” rightly corrects – as the math predicts, the next consoles should have 128GB of ram. (faints!) And for the naysayers top of the line Alienware PCs are currently expandable to 32GB of ram – The next Apple Pro coming out this year is upgradable to 64GB of Ram. in 5 years you dont think we will see that memory being used?

    Also for record, I once bought a 1GB hard drive in 1994 for $1,000 and I once thought CD-roms were the largest storage I would ever need, or remember 100MB ZIP discs? All I’m saying is – it sounds preposterous, but 5 years is an eternity for technology. Hey remember when the iPhone was released? 6 years ago. Before that? We had Motorola Razrs.

    • Hussain Naseem

      gaming pcs with 64 gb ram in 4 years is nonsense. maybe servers but not gaming PCs.

    • Mitesh Ghanekar

      If not 64 Gb Ram, then a radical rethink of architecture would happen, even in pcs

    • Matt

      64gb… nah. Not with PS4/X1 being what the games are going to be made with in mind.

    • You do understand that servers currently can have 128GB+ of ram. What he says is perfectly logical and as he gave in his evidence, it has already happened. Technology evolves an an ever increasing rate and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

    • Hussain Naseem

      it holds for gaming consoles not for PCs. fact is majority of commercially available computers have been sold with 4GB of RAM for the past 4 years. an average person isn’t going to buy a Dell Power Edge and rack mount it at home. servers with RAM greater than 8/12 GB of RAM have been around for ages but it’s only now that the trend is translating to an average consumer pimping their PCs this way. even for gaming PCs currently on the market with 16 GB of RAM, tell me any single game that uses over 4/6 GB of RAM on a computer.

    • Certified Ninja

      I hope you realize a gaming doesn’t use system RAM to render games and instead uses the much faster GDDR5 ram from graphics card. So even even upgraded your ram to 64GB, its still wouldn’t make a lick of difference in gaming performance.

    • Matt

      System Ram controls everything else though… the Vram is mainly used for rendering the geometry and holding texture data while the system ram is used for the draw calls aka letting the GPU know what it needs to render at any given moment while also holding the AI routines and anything else going on in the game (Network traffic, Control input… etc.).

    • Dakan45

      And i hope you reallize the memory controlers are on the cpum and DDR3 is faster for cpu calculations so unless your cpu usage is low, you gonna need DDR3 and a godo cpu.

    • OK Naysayers – FOR THE RECORD! This year Battlefield 4 at E3 was running on:

      FX 8350 CPU – 8 cores running at 4Ghz
      12 Gb of DDR3 RAM
      Dual Radeon HD 7970 at 6Gb Each (total of 12 Gb DDR5)

      And that was to maintain a silky 60fps at 1080p at high settings THIS YEAR! What everyone doubting my comments fail to realize is the PC market has been slowed by lastgen consoles not updating their hardware. 4GB has been the standard for a few years BECAUSE game devs had to scale down. I would expect a boom in hardware as developers push the envelope of gaming.

    • Matt

      4GB has been the standard because games run off 32bit exe’s… meaning they have a 4gb cap on memory usage.

      Most gaming rigs… especially anything recent are ready for “Next-gen”. It’s basically the consoles catching up and alleviating that gap in technology that current gen consoles have been hanging onto. It’ll mean better looking/performing games for everybody for the most part…

      PC will maintain the lead as far as performance and freedom goes while the consoles will be affordable and easy to use unless a mandatory firmware update comes out that bricks it. :p

    • Totally true… for 32bit systems!

      Although with a 64bit architecture of most systems coming on line in the next 4 years… will have a max RAM capacity of (drumroll please) 128GB of RAM. So while I personally think it sounds ridiculous, 128MB of RAM is not impossible.

    • Matt

      You can already build a system that can handle 128gbs… just depends on the MB. Servers or a heavy duty workstation would be the only practical use for that much ram as of right now… and possibly for the next 20 years or so.

    • Dakan45

      Exactly scale down, crysis 3 and metro last light on consoles look worse than on the lowest settings. bf3 and max payne 3 run on low pc settings. Far cry 3 run on medium and the framerae reahed 24fps sometimes. The pc version of colonial marines has the same graphics as the E3, console fanboys need to reallize consoles are weak and thus play on dated graphics, NOT keeping up with pc.

      I am playing bloodrayne now and i am comparing it with the xbox version, it looks horrible on xbox. Pc graphics always were ahead. DEAL WITH IT

    • And PC graphics will continue to be light years ahead of consoles, but the fact still remains that the gaming market has been in technological limbo over the last few years as the dusty old consoles held full PC development back. Take BF3 for instance, the destructibility was scaled back on PCs BECAUSE of those gnarly old consoles couldn’t even handle the destructibility of BF2. Development always has to take into account the lowest common denominator. That sucks and I’m a console gamer! I know I’m living behind the curve and you will get no arguments for me about how rad PCs are! 🙂

      With this bump in power for the next-gen consoles, which I will freely admit is still behind PCs in terms of quality, game devs can now push graphics farther than they could. I foresee that in the next 5 years PCs will grow exponentially from where they are now as developers have more resources. This ultimately means the next 5 years will be hugely exciting for PC gamers, but the tech will also come with a pricetag.

      Ultimately all I’m saying is 64Gb of Ram or even 128 Gb or ram is not a crazy figure. It is exponential growth. It is the same growth we have seen in literally every technological market for the last 20 years. Maybe there will be new technological innovations or even stagnation which slows the march of progress – we’ll just have to see.

    • Zac

      I’d expect them to optimize the engine for much lesser GPU’s. I honestly dont see a huge improvement in graphics over BF3. Now the gameplay does look heck of alot better. I am sporting a 6950 unlocked, and hope not to have to upgrade anytime soon. I agree that the market has probably been slowed, hopefully we will see another “Crysis” title released for PC that will put nextgen to shame but i doubt it.

    • Jewy McJew

      8 * 16 = 128GB RAM.

      Although I doubt the next console will make the jump as it seems memory quantity has become less of a bottleneck and better to spend their money on CPU / GPU / Bandwidth.

      Rumor has it the plan was to only have 2GB of RAM on the PS4 but that amount doubled twice as the price of memory lowered faster than expected. Lucky Sony!

    • Matt

      LOL… 128gbs of ram. I doubt that pattern will stick going into next next gen. I think 32GBs max for a gaming console… even that sounds like a lot.

    • Jewy McJew

      Somehow the consoles managed to one-up moores law for the last 4 cycles. But if I had to guess, I would go with 64GB of GDDR6 (or whatever the fast stuff will be by then).

      It sounds like a ridiculously high number but it always does when you are looking 7 years ahead. For example, remember when our high-end PC’s had less power than our cell phones?

    • nate

      I think 64GB is too high. Maybe 32GB at the very most, for a few reasons. One is that when the PS3 and 360 were released, they had a very low amount of ram when compared to PCs of the era. The X1 and PS4 (8GB) have more RAM than many PCs today and an equal amount as most gaming PCs (not counting video memory, as most gamers use 8GB of DDR3, and 1-3GB of GDDR5). People who have 16 GB of ram probably never get close to using it all, unless they are doing some extreme multitasking or lots of rendering. The only reason i think any consumer computer or console will be able to use 32GB of ram is because of 4K resolutions.

    • Matt

      I figure they’d use more efficient and faster ram instead of just using more. I can’t see a need for more than 32gbs of ram for any purpose much less gaming.

      Cell phones have the fastest turn over rates of any technology… they’re basically the pinnacle of the best mobile tech on the market every time something new comes out which seems like every other week. They out date themselves just as fast too. They’ve never been able to outperform a high end PC though… maybe if you compare it to something old but then it wouldn’t be a high end PC would it. :p ( I know what you were saying though)

    • Yikes – well hopefully if it is only a 5 year console cycle we wont have to upgrade our PCs as quickly.

    • hakesterman

      Nope. The reason the PS4 got 8 GB of Ram was because the Developers told them through development feedback that 4 GB of Ram on the PS4 would be epic failure, so Sony went with 8 GB instead.

    • Dakan45

      Yes they didnt wanna make any more games like the ones we play today.

      You know, small linear corridors, small maps that stream and recycle resources and enviroments through the chips in order to fit all those resources on consoles tiny ram.

    • Zac

      PC’s of the time for the PS3 were running 4gb of ram! fail.

    • PCs are CURRENTLY running with 4GB of RAM my friend and they certainly were not in 2007.

    • Zac

      PC’s were running on 4gb of ram in 2006, and some idiots run them today at that amount. Current and new PC’s run at 8GB, but an intelligent buyer would get one w/ 16+. If you were a gamer or had windows vista (2006-07) then you had 4gb! If you had vista, and did not have 4gb then you were a very sad panda. If you have tripple channel then maybe at 6gb back in 2009-10.

    • nate

      technology moves fast, yes, but the need for that much more ram does not. Windows xp (2001) recommended 128MB of ram. Windows 8 (2012) recommends 1024MB of ram. So in 11 years time, the amount of RAM needed increased by a factor of 8. so in 11 years, PC’s might require 8GB of RAM. to say that any consumer product will be able to use even a fraction of 128GB of RAM is just stupid. The amount consoles use is largely controlled by the price of the memory, because consoles can’t cost too much. and memory prices have been dropping, as you said.

    • Matt

      That’s just Microsoft making their OS’s ram hungry as well… Windows XP was fine and it still is but they don’t make money off of something you already own so lets make it flashy with resource heavy effects like Aero then convince people they need to buy the upgrade to get features they could easily implement through a service pack update. The Win 8 only DX11.2 features are testament to this.

    • nate

      I was just trying to use that as an example lol. recommended amount of memory for PC games released around the same time follows a similar trend.

    • Hahaha, right – Windows 8 may run fine on 1GB of memory in 32bit mode, but good luck running any programs with 1GB of memory. Also good luck at running and 64bit programs in anything less than 2-4Gb of ram. 😉

      Also I’m taking about total RAM here for both your processor and your graphics card. I personally believe that the ratio RAM will shift from serial processors to parallell processors. You may only have 8GB of DDR3 in 4 years time, but your graphics card may be using far more, especially if 4k monitors become a standard. Being able to process full motion facial animation with performance cap is still in its infancy, but imagine what people will be getting up to in the next 5 years?! I could definitely see 16GB video cards on the market! Have them cross firing? You are already half the way there to 64GB!

    • nate

      I was just using that as an example because the specs are easily accessible lol. and its not like you can run any more programs on windows 8 in 2013 with 1 GB of ram than you could with XP in 2002 with 128MB of ram.

      your second paragraph is nearly identical to of of mine below, talking about dedicated gpu memory, 4k, etc. PCs are going to have an insane amount of RAM in the future!

    • Zac

      It is 2GB for 64bit. Just because you meet the bare minimal reqs does not mean you should attempt it. ..unless you hate yourself.

    • nate

      Its just for reference… The bare minimum ram for xp wasn’t any different.

    • Dakan45

      “he Playstation basically kept up with the PCs of the time”


      Quake 2 and the medal of honor games looked better on pc. When playstation couldnt do mouths on meta gear, half life had mouths.

      Pc had far cry, doom 3, prey, quake iv, fear, chronicles or riddick and wtf did ps2 had? God of war 2 pffffffff.

      In 2007 crysis proved consoles are weak.

      So no weak consoles= holding pc graphics back.

      Same architecture= more optimized pc games.

      So in the longrun pc has always been more powerfull and after a year or two consoles were dated.

    • Yes, you prove my point perfectly. PCs have always been ahead of the consoles in terms of power, graphics and consumption.

  • Kamille

    indie platformer….

    • Guest

      I know right, that’s the entire joke about devs like this and the likes of Johanthan Blow using this to its “full power” when we all know that will never be the case. It’s just the typical $0ny overhype that will underdeliver.

    • anthony

      how can u say that before even trying it little bitch…go suck ur mom..

    • Dakan45

      He is right sony always overyhpes with trash lies. They did it with ps2 and ps3.

  • Matt

    Technically it’s up to the Devs to improve the visuals to make use of the better hardware on PC… PC is upgradable while the PS4 will still be using the same tech 8 years from now. As far as comparing it to a high end PC… it’s awfully vague as to what their calling a “High-end PC”. I highly doubt it’s an i7 with a tri-titan setup…

    • Stu

      Game developers cannot build games that only work on 0.1% of “gaming” PC’s, which themselves are a tiny minority of the PC’s in general use in homes.

      There are two PC’s being used regularly in my household, I can barely run an fps game released 5 yrs ago at an acceptable framerate, yet these are the typical systems used.

    • Matt

      They don’t build games with P4’s in mind either. Dev’s can choose what they want their game to run on… thats why they have Min/Max specs. Most games can scale to the 0.1% of “Gaming PC’s”… it’s not going to tax those top end rigs at all but the extra power can go to pushing 120+ framerates at 4k resolutions… needless to say it’s not affordable to do so right now but there are always those privileged people who can.

    • taz

      single 4k displays are still limited to 30hz though aren’t they? Who the hell would play games at 30hz?

      Plus you would probably need 3 titans to push a 4k display at a decent frame rate even if you could

    • nate

      Thats a bit excessive to be classified as high end lol. Look at the graphics of ps3 and 360 launch games and compare them to the last of us or GTA V. The graphics these new consoles (and obviously PCs) will produce near the end of their lives are going to be pretty spectacular.

    • Matt

      Being excessive with it was the point… What is a high end PC? :p

      It’s only natural to see a progression in the “quality” of the games being released on any given console during it’s life span… I say quality because the technical capabilities of the consoles haven’t changed since they were released. Every game has it’s own engine… each engine has it’s strengths and weakness’s in terms on how it pushes the tech but it’s up to the dev to get the most out of it. “Graphics” is just a term coined to simplify everything that goes into what your seeing on screen while the art direction is really what dictates whether it’s “Good” or “Bad”. The biggest impact you can have on the visuals in a game are through the lighting engine and post processing effects.

    • nate

      I know about the technology behind making games, and the back ends and engines that produce what appears on the screen. you don’t have to sound technical to say that the games that are launched 6 years after a console is released look a hell-of-a-lot better than launch titles. The methods game devs use to achieve these better visuals isn’t what im talking about. Just simply that games look better on the same hardware over time due to optimization and what not.

      And i read the last part of your original comment completely wrong. I see your point now about being vague. sorry for my stupidity lol.

    • Matt

      I don’t know really… Perfect Dark Zero still looks impressive graphically if you can look past the horrible voice acting, poor story, cartoonish art design, and poor animations.

    • nate

      Ehhh.. it looks OK but not that good when compared to halo 4 or… I really haven’t kept up with console games the last few years lol.

    • Matt

      I think that has more to do with the massive budget behind Halo 4… LOL look at me trying to find good comparison screenshots of console games when I don’t own a console. HAHAHAHA.

      Here’s Crysis 3 XD.

    • nate

      yeah that surely had an impact on things lol… The only reason I still have an xbox 360(currently in a duffel bag in my car’s trunk, as it has been for 3 months) is for GTA V! and the occasional lan party type thing where my friends and i bring our xboxes and TVs together and play BF or halo.

    • Matt

      I remember the Halo lan parties from back in the day… GTA V on the other hand is making me contemplate buying a PS3 again even though I won’t.

    • nate

      yeah. Halo 4 was definitely the least fun and most frustrating, however… and BF3 on console just isn’t the same after you have played it on PC… Definitely get a PS3 if you can’t wait for the PC version to come. It’s the lead platform i think. R* says the two versions will have no discernible differences, but who knows.

    • taz

      It would most likely be an I7 3770k or 4770k with a single gtx 770 series card or a 7970

      I highly doubt they would be comparing it to a hexacore and 780 series or above. Keep in mind none of these would be based on watercooled CPU’s either they would just be stock.

      In reality an I5 with a single gtx 760 will probably trounce the new consoles anyway.

  • spideynut71

    LOL…well this is hardly the kind of game that will push EITHER platform. I don’t know who this guy is kidding, but it won’t take a “high end PC” to run this game on max settings ; not even Crysis was THAT poorly optimized.

  • JerkDaNERD7

    Difference as in the game itself.

  • Izzy Bozz

    It seems like we have several “computer engineers” in the comment section. -_-

    • Matt

      Don’t be so quick to judge… I’m currently going to college for it. I already have my AA and working towards a Master.

    • Izzy Bozz

      ok, ONE potential engineer… awesome.


    ” it would make multi-platform development all the easier for the next generation.”

    Wait what? EA basically said FIFA14 ignite engine is only on X1 and PS4 because big architectural and technical difference between them and PC version.

  • hakesterman

    You don’t need 64 GB of Ram for gaming, that’s retarded. I play Bioshock Infinite and Black OPS 2 and Devil may cry all in 1080P @ 60 FPS or higher and the most Memory my system uses at any given time is 3.8 GB. So all these people who are all jacked up about Memory are a Joke. If you have Windows 7 or 8 and do serious gaming,the most you need is 8 GB Tops, anything more than that is a complete waist unless your doing Cad Work or doing serious development Graphics work. My Prior PC that i played a lot of games at high settings worked jperfect with just 4 GB of Ram, too many Ram Rabbits out there.

    • taz

      i find 16GB more than enough even with multiple windows open . It allows me to run more than 1 game at a time and swap between them often too.

  • Dakan45

    Do you even have a godamn idea what a high end pc is?

    Ps4 had a midrange card and its not particulary powerfull. The cpu is low end and its amd cpu, which means its weaker than intel. Not to mention that DDR3 is better for cpu calculations, thus the cpu is a bottleneck. DDR4 is coming. GDDR5 is from 2008.

    Every time a console came out, the pc version looked better.

    Hell pc had doom 3, far cry, chronicles of riddick, quake iv, fear, prey and what did ps2 had? God of war 2…PFFFFFF please.

    Crysis proved consoles are weak in 2007.

    But THIS TIME JUST THIS TIME the ps4 will destroy pcs.


    Plese reallize consoles are weak and they are made cheaply to be sold at a loss for mass production.

    Here comes the latest trash i head, Planetside 2 will run better on ps4 than a 2000$ pc.

    Do consoletards even know that decent pcs dont cost even half of that? Did they also know that planetside 2 doesnt utilize quad cores and it has memory leaks in the highest antialising settings?

    But i forgot console fanboys are clueless about hardware.

  • GDDR5

    Please go home you pc Nerds…get a life


Copyright © 2009-2017 All Rights Reserved.