It's a problem of economics. Its the businesses that aren't innovating for economical reasons.

So to conclude myself, we will not be changing the basic tools of trade, but changing the methods and way 'how we do a problem'.... that sounds gold.
I would say to myself that the usage of C++ will not decline, but grow with new platforms..

We will see changes when the 'best tools for the job' change.

Right now C++ is the focus because it is the common factor between the consoles, however it's recently been reported that due to the popularity of the iOS platforms Objective-C is now the 'most popular' language out there.

Basically 'the best tool for the job' rules the roost; be it C++ for the consoles, C# & .Net for tools, Objective-C for iOS work or Python and Lua for game logic scripting. Certainly if you are working on a console or PC game you'll use at least 3 of those 4 during the development time.

but, the basic tools for AAA game development revolve around C++...
And im talking about AAA platform, not mobile.

That depends on what you are talking about.

Most tools and pipelines these days are created using .Net based tools for Windows based companies.
Game logic is very often done in languages such as Lua or Python.
The core 'engine' might well be C++ but this depends on target platforms.

This is also the first time you've mentioned 'AAA' in any way; the games industry is far more than consoles and PC after all.

cloths are made with fiber.... But that depends on the target called human beings.... the primary market and advertisements depend heavily on mainstream games which are usualy AAA....

Which are CURRENTLY console and PC based - but given Epic recently reported that their iOS based game was the most profitable they have had this might not remain the truth forever.

At one point PC games were the main area - now they play second place to console games due to profit - if companies feel they can make more money in the iOS space they will switch focus.

There are lots and lots of people like me who demand 'crysis', 'assasins creed', 'nfs'...... Whatever may be the platform.....
But if someday iphone hardware becomes a little more capable (which is likely), will the studios use the platform language obj-c....
Has anybody invented latency free access memory???

We went from 16 colours to 16 million which is what the human eye can distinguish. We went from 2D to 3D which is what a human mind can comprehend. I suppose a 4D game in 16 billion colours wouldn't make sense. Lol

We went from 16 colours to 16 million which is what the human eye can distinguish. We went from 2D to 3D which is what a human mind can comprehend. I suppose a 4D game in 16 billion colours wouldn't make sense. Lol

Haha, I call that ''saturation''..... That's what I am talking about from the start.

The basic tools of trade wont' change, as per the most of the forum especially the clever answers from hodgman.

I actually disagree.

I think the tools will change as we continue to see more cores available on all platforms. At this rate, given some of the rumblings from Intel, we may see manycore come to mobile/lightweight platforms before it becomes entrenched in the desktop space, but that's obviously just speculation.

C++98 is terrible for multicore programming. C++11 goes a ways towards making the language more robust, but IMHO there needs to be more to tap into truly heavily manycore computing. Go is an interesting attempt at moving that direction, as is Rust. I think it will be a very long time before C++ is dethroned, but it will be.

Even if we end up programming in C++22 instead of some other language, the flavor of C++ will have to change pretty radically to cater to that kind of computational demand. So even if it still bears the name C++, it's going to be a very different tool than what we use today - much like C++11 is a very different tool from C++98 in many regards.


As for this idea of "saturation" - I think that's a terribly narrow perception. There's all kinds of new opportunities opening up for all kinds of entertainment, especially games, and there will only be more in the future. Consider the potential for augmented-reality courtesy of ubiquitous high-speed, reliable wireless Internet access; or more "physically engaging" devices similar to what the Wii introduced and was carried forward by Kinect; imagine what could be done with the Google Goggles platform; and if you want to get really far-fetched, why not consider virtual reality via brain-injected nanotechnology that directly stimulates your senses?


I don't think we're saturated at all. I think we're barely getting started. The idea of the interactive simulation aka video game is only a handful of decades old; it will be a very, very long time before we run out of directions to take that.