Colin Moriarty of Kinda Funny: source says "most developers are not happy with PS4.5"
- Thread starter Chobel
- Start date
It's not being replaced
WiiRevolution1
Member
Late reply, but it doesn't seem to be the case.
The giantbomb rumor said starting in October, all games must be compatible with Neo. If all PS4 games work on PS4N out've the box, there should be no requirement needed, which suggests that there will have to be more work done and not a simple copy and paste like there would be on all older PS4 games. Which seems really weird and dumb thing to do when all older PS4 games would work out've the box anywayz.
From the rumors it seems like Sony is forcing devs to have atleast a bit of difference since Neo is mandatory and you can't simply develop in "base" mode like every PS4 game so far.
Audioboxer
Member
It's not even announced.
Mediking
Member
This is why those who are pissed off should still be cool with their OG:
It's all good.
Dear gawd. GORGEOUS
But the PS4 would be lasting 6-7 years anyway since there aren't supposed to be any Neo exclusives...
Teletraan1
Banned
Exactly. Don't you think adding ubersampling or Nvidia or AMD specific features are extra work as well that gets done because it moves a few more units.
CosmicQueso
Member
If even one dev isn't sold on the idea, it's a bad idea?
I don't understand your argument or logic.
Papacheeks
Banned
Then please explain to me the big descrepency between first party development and third party development? I see nothing but solid frame rates, solid resolutions and great looking animations.
Third party you get a mixed bag, some of them run flawlessly because their code/engine was up to snuff. Or it runs like shit, looks like shit and even with patches still manages to not improve.
Something has to change and to me it's third party development. I think seriously they are the true bottleneck of the industry. Take more time, develop each version that runs as best it can, and if that means More time, or a spread out release then so be it.
Stop making iterative games, or half assed games. If your engine isn't up to snuff use a different engine or prolong the game. It's third party publishing that have the issues not the hardware.
It wasn't PC hardware that was the cause of Batman, Mortal Kombat X running looking like shit on PC. IT wasn't the xbox one or the PC hardware's fault for how Gears of war ultimate and QB turned out.
Microsoft could have prolonged release to get the games where they needed to be on PC. It's not a hardware issue.
Cross posting with some other PS4 thread being left in the dust:
Async compute is about using an APU with a GPU. Not the case here. Anyway, some thoughts to mull over:
CPU:
Puma was largely an increase in efficiency over Jaguar cores associated with transistor design. The 14 nm shrink makes a change to Puma largely redundant since it incorporates a more effective transistor design (FinFET). It's near pointless trying to differentiate between the two after this die shrink (though there are other differences). Saying they remain Jaguar helps clarify that they will have an extreme degree of compatibility.
GPU:
It sounds like they are using the new Polaris Architecture (and hence GCN spec) based on the fact there will be new GPU instructions available on the new hardware.
The 380x (which is just under these specs) barely squeaks by at 4k30medium, 1440p30(+-very)high, and 1080p30ultra in instances where it is not CPU bound in modern games. This should be able to hit these 30fps targets for those resolutions and settings. I am referencing essentially locked framerates (99 / 99.9 percentile).
If a dev were to put more emphasis on framerate they should easily hit a solid 1080p60high or VR spec.
RAM:
As expected, more was needed and a bump in bandwidth to go along purely through higher clocks rather than a wider bus. Also I think some are trying to apply the PC standard for bandwidth and coming up with slightly off numbers because they are forgetting the PS4 has a custom bus design (onion, garlic, or everything nice?) and may be bumped by different amounts in different areas.
Overall:
In general it seems easier to keep compatibility when changing GPU architectures than CPU architectures. Particularly for this situation. It's an odd balance, but pretty much exactly what is needed to retain such a high level of compatibility. It's still a decent bump and GPGPU can be more extensively utilized for those that do want a higher frame rate over resolution which was something the PS4 design is highly considerate of.
Some additional thoughts pertaining more to this thread:
I mentioned it several times, but: COMPATIBILITY. These specs scream it.
The CPU instructions are exactly the same as the CPU is exactly the same. All optimizations on this side are going to be applicable to both.
There is expected to be some additional GPU instructions, but there shouldn't be any or extremely few removed. That means you should be able to optimize for OG PS4 then move up to the new system and everything should still work.
At this point you drop in some variables representing where you want to lock the framerate and resolution to and maybe call the scalar if you wind up at some midpoint resolution.
At this point you can call it a day. If you want to optimize to specific timings cycles per system beyond this, or add additional or drop AA, particle effects, change textures, etc. it's your call, but most will be happy with a locked framerate and/or higher resolution.
This should be far easier than even porting between Xbone and PS4. Considering the obvious approach to developing for these systems starts from the bottom up, if the OG PS4 runs a game at certain performance metrics, it probably would have to begin with. There is little in extreme time consuming optimizations you could possibly do to the new system that would not be applicable to the original.
Sure, someone could go crazy and develop a new GI lighting system, but for the most part that should mostly be left to the middleware game engines.
I expect UHD BR playback capabilities to account for a large portion of the perceived value difference for the time being, so hopefully that takes some of the edge off.
Async compute is about using an APU with a GPU. Not the case here. Anyway, some thoughts to mull over:
CPU:
Puma was largely an increase in efficiency over Jaguar cores associated with transistor design. The 14 nm shrink makes a change to Puma largely redundant since it incorporates a more effective transistor design (FinFET). It's near pointless trying to differentiate between the two after this die shrink (though there are other differences). Saying they remain Jaguar helps clarify that they will have an extreme degree of compatibility.
GPU:
It sounds like they are using the new Polaris Architecture (and hence GCN spec) based on the fact there will be new GPU instructions available on the new hardware.
The 380x (which is just under these specs) barely squeaks by at 4k30medium, 1440p30(+-very)high, and 1080p30ultra in instances where it is not CPU bound in modern games. This should be able to hit these 30fps targets for those resolutions and settings. I am referencing essentially locked framerates (99 / 99.9 percentile).
If a dev were to put more emphasis on framerate they should easily hit a solid 1080p60high or VR spec.
RAM:
As expected, more was needed and a bump in bandwidth to go along purely through higher clocks rather than a wider bus. Also I think some are trying to apply the PC standard for bandwidth and coming up with slightly off numbers because they are forgetting the PS4 has a custom bus design (onion, garlic, or everything nice?) and may be bumped by different amounts in different areas.
Overall:
In general it seems easier to keep compatibility when changing GPU architectures than CPU architectures. Particularly for this situation. It's an odd balance, but pretty much exactly what is needed to retain such a high level of compatibility. It's still a decent bump and GPGPU can be more extensively utilized for those that do want a higher frame rate over resolution which was something the PS4 design is highly considerate of.
Some additional thoughts pertaining more to this thread:
I mentioned it several times, but: COMPATIBILITY. These specs scream it.
The CPU instructions are exactly the same as the CPU is exactly the same. All optimizations on this side are going to be applicable to both.
There is expected to be some additional GPU instructions, but there shouldn't be any or extremely few removed. That means you should be able to optimize for OG PS4 then move up to the new system and everything should still work.
At this point you drop in some variables representing where you want to lock the framerate and resolution to and maybe call the scalar if you wind up at some midpoint resolution.
At this point you can call it a day. If you want to optimize to specific timings cycles per system beyond this, or add additional or drop AA, particle effects, change textures, etc. it's your call, but most will be happy with a locked framerate and/or higher resolution.
This should be far easier than even porting between Xbone and PS4. Considering the obvious approach to developing for these systems starts from the bottom up, if the OG PS4 runs a game at certain performance metrics, it probably would have to begin with. There is little in extreme time consuming optimizations you could possibly do to the new system that would not be applicable to the original.
Sure, someone could go crazy and develop a new GI lighting system, but for the most part that should mostly be left to the middleware game engines.
I expect UHD BR playback capabilities to account for a large portion of the perceived value difference for the time being, so hopefully that takes some of the edge off.
You're buying the new one. I don't see that bolded statement changing.
Nintendo will do the same, is my guess. So you can go PC-only where you.... you know.... will have the same "issue" that let you leave the consoles.
Of course.
Makes me question its existence even more. What's the point of bringing out new faster machine when it has to restrained in order to accommodate 40 million slower machines?
In an ideal world, the OG PS4 wouldn't exist and the Neo would be the target spec.
I'm sure a lot devs will be thinking "imagine what we could do if we didn't have to cater for existing PS4s".
We already know it's more than just one dev. My point is that this whole thing is not open and shut, there's people on both sides and there's disagreement for a reason.
What's the point of the PC?
You'll get better image quality, maybe better performance in SP. It's an OPTION. Unless things go south and OG owners get fucked (and Sony will never hear the end of it) don't let this new model announcement bug you too much.
Melchiah
Member
Yet, TLOU ran at sub-30fps, and many multiplatforms at sub-720p, despite of the lack of PS3K affecting the development. It just seems like people are looking at the this subject from a negative angle because they're against it, and I'm sure every time we'll get sub-1080p/30fps games on PS4 from now on, they'll be blamed on the PS4K, whether it had anything to do with it or not.
The only real negative I can think of.
Digital Foundry compares will be insufferable...
...which makes no sense considering the PC already makes this a reality.
TeddyShardik
Banned
This shit needs to crash and burn. I'm baffled by the the amount of support this idea is getting here.
Thrilled to pay 400 every two years for constant cross-gen level games.
Thrilled to pay 400 every two years for constant cross-gen level games.
MMaRsu
Banned
But Uncharted 4 doesnt run sub 30fps does it? sub 1080p? Isnt it 900p 60fps for multi as well?
You are talking about optimizing for a Cell proc instead of whats inside the ps4.
I feel the same way about it.
Oh, you can you sure about that. Nearly every major AAA game has some performance 'issues' day 1. Sometimes it's bad textures, bad shadows, or frame drops to 25, frame pacing issues, and so on.
Can't wait for the 'that's unacceptable Sony. It's all PS4K's fault' posts. As if these 'issues' did not exist during the pre-PS4K era.
NullPointer
Member
That's a guarantee, because people won't know one way or the other. In terms of perception and expectations there's no way to avoid it.
Like I asked before, what if Fallout 4 had instead released a few months after the NEO? The performance delta between the two machines is going to cause serious gnashing of teeth whether the devs focused on the NEO or not, because games with performance problems will only play as they're meant to (or closest to it) on the NEO.
GHG
Member
Good thing you don't have to upgrade every 2 years then.
Movalpolos
Banned
Thanks for this. Very informative.
meanspartan
Member
I think this will stop developers from really pushing hardware. Whatever the PC equivalent of the Ps3 GPU was could not do something like Last of Us. Will this gen get anything like that? Probably not if developers are just targeting PS4.5.
"Coding to the Metal" is getting watered down a bit.
ShutterMunster
Junior Member
Hey! I learned something on Gaf today. Thanks.
The issue of having to support two similar systems is still more work, regardless of how easy it is to jump between the both (bet my dollar it's not as easy as people think it is).
So now developers have to worry about maintaining compatibility between two, similar systems. (With the same pay off as only having one console to wory about, no compensation for extra time / money ).
meanspartan
Member
You're right, I don't have a statistic. But I think it's pretty clear if you were to put this to some sort of vote, most Ps4 owners would vote for Ps4k to not happen.
Maybe I have some sort of confirmation bias, but from the reaction I think it is plainly an unpopular move.
Firmus_Anguis
Banned
Bad use of words on my part - But that's all you took from it?
He defended the console's longevity, saying it wouldn't feel outdated, going so far as to say it'll only get better in year 3 and 4... He defended the simplicity of consoles and the advantages of focusing on one single architecture.
The PS-NEO contradicts what he said.
Good that you don't have to buy it. Good that you won't get a new model every 2 years.
We are getting more options and I like options. So I'm supporting this idea.
Scrotum Phillips
Member
I mean, I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here? Devs struggling isn't going to really change with the existence or not of PS4K. It's just likely to get more apparent the longer this gen goes with the wider range in technology between PS4 and PC. Also, can't really say there's been that many great Playstation first party games either this gen although I'm obviously way excited by for Uncharted.
well i cant live without nintendo exclusives. i can live without the other two's exclusives as most games go to PC anyways as multiplat nowadays. my ''issue'' is the ease and understanding that i know what a 400 dollar purchase will get me and it will last a full system cycle. if they are just going to be glorified pcs with half step upgrades, i might as well finally take the plunge on a badass pc.
im the guy that owns all the systems but now if i want the latest in console capabilities it will be prohibitevly expensive and unrealistic. hence my comment about being pushed to be a PC owner.
Wishmaster92
Member
Sorry tomb raider has faults with its pbr pipeline and the environments look nowhere near as detaileD as uncharted 4, have you seen the open environment? Even the ground and trees have ridiculous amount of detail not to mention the character models are a clear cut above. Battlefront does look amazing but the character models especially the animations just don't compare to uncharted. I would say Ryse is the only one that comes close but once again the texture resolution, the close ended environments just don't compare.
I feel that the shift away from exotic hardware, like Cell to the current x86 set-up, will not yield those same levels of late-gen technical wizardry.
I look at UC4 and don't really see how they can get better than that on vanilla PS4s.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
It doesn't even run in 3D on the og 3DS. It's a de facto exclusive when the downport is an unsalvageable mess. Some devs can't consistently target 30 or 60fps right now, what happens when they have the ability to market a version that hits those numbers while the others don't come close?
The downports will still pass cert as long as they run (see 360/PS3 versions of the last LOTR game), but compromise is inevitable as devs on the high end keep trying to one up one another.
I should note that I'm not against this; I just kind of see it as the end of the traditional console hardware cycle, as we move to something more akin to the smartphone cycle, with each numbered version simply sharing the same software environment. That should be better for devs in the long run. And in the smartphone arena, you see apps that are compatible with older phones but are clearly meant for the newer hardware.
TeddyShardik
Banned
It's either that or get the leftovers. It's not really a choice. And of course it's not going to be every two years Mr. Beancounter. Make it 3 years between iterations then. It's still nonsense for consoles. On the old one you get the scraps and if you're willing and crazy enough to pay up every time you get slightly shinier scraps.
Melchiah
Member
Here's what OsirisBlack actually said about the subject:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=199646466&postcount=1
Yet people parroted about "gimped ports" throughout the thread.
As for Cerny's past words, if the PS4k's architecture is similar to the PS4's, and both take advantage of GPU compute, how is it a contradiction to what he said?
meanspartan
Member
Then buy a PC. Seriously, console strength lies in the LACK of options in order to pursue simplicity. It sounds like you'd be right at home with what you like by buying a new GPU every other year.
I guess ultimately I'm fighting a losing battle lol. This is gonna happen no matter how much we kick and scream. I just wish people weren't acting like the death of a reliable console lifespan is a good thing.
meanspartan
Member
I agree that part of the reason Ps3 was so impressive at the end was because the cell processor artificially held back its own potential for a while by being difficult to learn.
But other gens prove that even simpler systems produce pretty games at the end. Look at early Ps2 games, then look at God of War 2.
I don't think Ps2 was as weird as Ps3's cell processor, so exotic architecture cant be the only factor.
We need proof, which no one has provided yet.
A lot of "theorizing" going on without any proof of concept. We are in a wait and see pattern at the moment.
SolidSnakeUS
Member
I think too many people are taking from this that the older PS4 is being replaced and forcing you to upgrade, which is not the case at all. If you want to use your older PS4, you're perfectly fine doing so.
Movalpolos
Banned
And it also contradicts what Andrew House said more recently at the PSVR price reveal at GDC.
Papacheeks
Banned
What I'm saying is, the majority of bad development or games that are unoptimized messes are mostly Third party.
Look at all the first party games. Some took sacrifices like locked resolution at 900p, or using scaling resoslution technique to achieve certain frame rates.
But games are locked, pretty solid, and don't have the big slow downs or glitches most third party games do.
There are success stories like mostly anything from CD PJRED now, Rockstar, and maybe Treyarch. But many many other's have tons of issues and these have been ongoing since last gen, I'm looking at you Bethesda, Ubisoft, even DICE.
There's a huge discrepancy between exclusive development and third party. Unless the game has a tiered release like Tomb raider did, I don't see it improving with another spec to develop for, i see it getting worse.
meanspartan
Member
It's a discussion forum. We discuss.
Well then you know what you have to do. Because instead of an ordinary new slim model mid-gen, you will get a more powerful slim model mid-gen. If it's an issue for you that people can pay more and get better graphics for it.... yeah, than you have to choose and go PC only (or PC + one console) as it seems.
LostDonkey
Member
Yes ive seen the open environment. It doesn't look as close to something like far cry 3/4 running on a pc or just cause 3 running on a pc. Have you seen these games in 4k/5k and above etc? That's what I'm saying, the statement better than any pc game is ridiculous when you take into consideration pc games can be free of the console limits of resolution, anti aliasing, lighting etc. Hell Skyrims environments with some nice mods in 4k and above look better than Uncharted.