• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Next-Gen PS5 & XSX |OT| Console tEch threaD

Status
Not open for further replies.

Orenji Neko

Member
Eh? how about you read the discussion thread being had before jumping in and making assumptions. The post where it originated from specifically mentioned games where the cpu is maxed out
PC comparisons based on current gen games are flawed and don't apply because games are designed around Jaguar cores as base spec.

Finally console devs squeeze every bit of hw resources, that's the benefit of targetting fixed hw and designing your game around that spec. By mid gen devs won't be leaving many if any idle CPU resources.

Making assumptions is not a practice of mine. By mid (console) gen, PCs would have access to even more powerful hardware so the point is moot. The assumption that twice the CPU power will always be required to hit 60FPS doesn't always hold up. It's a case by case, or game by game scenario. GTAV is an example of a game that is not all that impressive, but is notoriously CPU bound.
 
Last edited:
The focus on streaming (every single game on next xbox is also on xcloud) and the need to have old pc hardware be able to run xbox exclusives and the fact that they will release a cheapo console kinda kills the next gen xbox hype for me personally. There will be nothing exclusive to the anaconda, so does having new hardware really matter? It is like nvidia releasing the next rtx series, cool and all but not hype inducing.

Still, they are the only company with a console that bothers to put on a show for their fans, so i hope it is a fun show for those who watch. Sony and Nintendo marketing are boring as fuck.
Your whole first paragraph is hyperbolic, unproven, and untrue. Even Halo infinite requires a capable PC according to Frank O’Connor. They won’t be building to the lowest common denominator.
 
Last edited:

SonGoku

Member
Making assumptions is not a practice of mine. By mid (console) gen, PCs would have access to even more powerful hardware so the point is moot.
You just did in the post i quoted with your that's not how it works condescending post.
I don't know if 2-3 years into next gen there will be CPU cores with a massive IPC increase over Zen2 (doubt) or 6Ghz+ clock speeds.
Point still stands, no cpu exists today that doubles Zen2 per core performance.
 

bitbydeath

Member
Your whole first paragraph is hyperbolic, unproven, and untrue. Even Halo infinite requires a capable PC according to Frank O’Connor. They won’t be building to the lowest common denominator.

It still has to be made with S in mind so that it works on it. Even if they do reduce it to 720p.
 

Orenji Neko

Member
You just did in the post i quoted with your that's not how it works condescending post.
I don't know if 2-3 years into next gen there will be CPU cores with a massive IPC increase over Zen2 (doubt) or 6Ghz+ clock speeds.
Point still stands, no cpu exists today that doubles Zen2 per core performance.

Don't see how pointing out that this isn't how it works is condescending. The point still stands that twice a Zen 2 will not always be needed to hit 60 FPS. An example of how this varies is Doom 2016, Overwatch, and GTAV running on a Lattepanda which has been connected to an RTX card. Both Doom and Overwatch easily hit the 60 FPS mark despite that device have a CPU that falls below the requirements, and is dual-core. On the other side of the coin, GTAV, which is an extremely CPU bound game hits in the 25-35 FPS range despite the GPU grunt being available. Not every single game is going to translate as a CPU hog between platforms.


Edit: Doom and Overwatch hit over the 60 FPS mark, Doom more easily than Overwatch however.

2nd Edit: After reading my own post again, the only other way I can communicate the point I'm making (which is not intended to be some kind of flame or argument) is this isn't how it always works. Thinking of a game I personally play a lot, Monster Hunter World, it's possible that the reason the PC version came so long after console is that the console version is very CPU bound, and Capcom reworked it to be otherwise for PC. That might be the case, though I don't know; we only have their claim that they needed time to make the "best PC version" which could mean a myriad of things, but on the topic of what we were just talking about, it could be a re-balancing of how the game allocates or uses available GPU/CPU resources. That or it's just an empty excuse to release it later and hope for double dipping, but that's an entirely different conversation altogether.

On the other hand, it takes less time to have a game go as directly as possible to all planned platforms, with only the bare requisite changes needed (different API between an Xbox and a Playstation), and in that case, the way the game operates will be largely the same on a PC as a console requiring more of a "brute force" touch if one wanted to greatly increase the performance of how the game runs. The point I am making is this isn't always done that way; some devs put more time into shaping ports to be more specific to the strengths of the hardware they are releasing the game on.
 
Last edited:
It still has to be made with S in mind so that it works on it. Even if they do reduce it to 720p.
The can scale back Using less effects, lower poly models, dynamic resolution, less lighting,etc. just like PC.

Switch versions of modern games come out all the time.
 
Last edited:

Ar¢tos

Member
They are? this gen?
This gen all I've seen is news of MS sending in teams to help with the xbone esram config
Sony has several 3rd party support teams, there is a team inside SSM, Inside Japan Studio and in Europe they have Xdev.
Bloodborne frame pacing issue is a deeper issue that seems impossible to fix without a total rewrite of one or more engine modules. They released 3 games with the problem. It's not up to Sony to fix 3rd party engines, even if they are built on top of their engine (phyreengine that has been modified over and over since Demon's Souls).
Its hard to believe that Sony didn't have a few people over at From several times, considering how close From studio is from Japan Studio.

You see news of everything MS does because MS never misses an opportunity to announce something they do.
 
Last edited:

SonGoku

Member
Don't see how pointing out that this isn't how it works is condescending.
Because you are assuming thats wasn't acknowledged before making the topic which was very specific about games maxing out the cpu on a console, which is very different from a PC GPU bound game
. The point still stands that twice a Zen 2 will not always be needed to hit 60 FPS
60fps on console wasn't even the focus lol, quite the opposite. The idea was maxing out the cpu on 30fps games making it very hard for PCs to double the frame rate.
An example of how this varies is Doom 2016, Overwatch, and GTAV running on a Lattepanda which has been connected to an RTX card.
Because all those games were designed around Jaguar cores as base spec.
Its no surprising 60fps console games will be easy to push through on PC

There will be 60fps Nexgen console games and in those it will be easy for PCs to push 60-90 framerates. The difficulty will come with 30fps next gen games that max console CPU.
 
Last edited:
Because you are assuming thats wasn't acknowledged before making the topic which was very specific about games maxing out the cpu on a console, which is very different from a PC GPU bound game

60fps on console wasn't even the focus lol, quite the opposite. The idea was maxing out the cpu on 30fps games making it very hard for PCs to double the frame rate.

Because all those games were designed around Jaguar cores as base spec.
Its no surprising 60fps console games will be easy to push through on PC

There will be 60fps Nexgen console games and in those it will be easy for PCs to push 60-90 framerates. The difficulty will come with 30fps next gen games that max console CPU.

it’s possible, but you still need a rather well spec’d PC to do so. Below you will find recommended specs, but non of those specs will allow you to play at ultra level quality. They just guarantee that it will run decently.

Forza Horizon 4
You need well above a Jaguar to play at recommended specs.

Quantum Break https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri/requirements/quantum-break/13088/amp

Gears of War 4
 

SonGoku

Member
it’s possible, but you still need a rather well spec’d PC to do so. Below you will find recommended specs, but non of those specs will allow you to play at ultra level quality. They just guarantee that it will run decently.
Is it true a rx480 matches the X quality settings?
 
Replacing the secondary processor with a cell woudnt make the console energy efficient to pass standby mode certification.
Realistically speaking, how many watts would Cell consume at 7nm? Has anyone done the math?

I also remember Sony saying it would eventually be scalable enough to be integrated in phones, fridges etc.

Don't see how pointing out that this isn't how it works is condescending. The point still stands that twice a Zen 2 will not always be needed to hit 60 FPS. An example of how this varies is Doom 2016, Overwatch, and GTAV running on a Lattepanda which has been connected to an RTX card. Both Doom and Overwatch easily hit the 60 FPS mark despite that device have a CPU that falls below the requirements, and is dual-core. On the other side of the coin, GTAV, which is an extremely CPU bound game hits in the 25-35 FPS range despite the GPU grunt being available. Not every single game is going to translate as a CPU hog between platforms.

Edit: Doom and Overwatch hit over the 60 FPS mark, Doom more easily than Overwatch however.

2nd Edit: After reading my own post again, the only other way I can communicate the point I'm making (which is not intended to be some kind of flame or argument) is this isn't how it always works. Thinking of a game I personally play a lot, Monster Hunter World, it's possible that the reason the PC version came so long after console is that the console version is very CPU bound, and Capcom reworked it to be otherwise for PC. That might be the case, though I don't know; we only have their claim that they needed time to make the "best PC version" which could mean a myriad of things, but on the topic of what we were just talking about, it could be a re-balancing of how the game allocates or uses available GPU/CPU resources. That or it's just an empty excuse to release it later and hope for double dipping, but that's an entirely different conversation altogether.

On the other hand, it takes less time to have a game go as directly as possible to all planned platforms, with only the bare requisite changes needed (different API between an Xbox and a Playstation), and in that case, the way the game operates will be largely the same on a PC as a console requiring more of a "brute force" touch if one wanted to greatly increase the performance of how the game runs. The point I am making is this isn't always done that way; some devs put more time into shaping ports to be more specific to the strengths of the hardware they are releasing the game on.
But PC folks have been telling us since 2013 that x86 CPU programmning is easy peasy lemon squeezy, correct?

So why would x86 ports need "extra care" CPU-wise? You write code once and then you port/compile everywhere.
 

joe_zazen

Member
Your whole first paragraph is hyperbolic, unproven, and untrue. Even Halo infinite requires a capable PC according to Frank O’Connor. They won’t be building to the lowest common denominator.

Halo infinite not best example as it will run in xbox one OG. I am sure a 5-10 year old pc will do fine.
 

Orenji Neko

Member
60fps on console wasn't even the focus lol, quite the opposite. The idea was maxing out the cpu on 30fps games making it very hard for PCs to double the frame rate.

Which is what I just touched on. That isn't always going to be the case. It depends on the game, the developer, and whether they feel like (or want to, have time, etc) a PC port would be reworked to handle resources in a different manner. A CPU maxed game at 30FPS on a console isn't always going to translate to needing double the CPU power to hit above 60FPS on a PC. A likely scenario where it would is when the port is more direct, and by that I mean only the minimum changes required for it to run on this platform, or that one, are put into place. Where it wouldn't be required is, like I said, when the PC port comes out later because they wanted to rework the way the game operates on PC versus on a console. Either offloading more onto what they know are the available GPUs, etc as an example. The game can be specifically tailored in one way because all the PS5s are the same, but with the variable PC hardware, adjustments can be made where if user "X" has such and such GPU, then the software can leverage that in lieu of simply saturating the CPU or the GPU in the same manner as the console build. Of course as we know and have seen, some devs claim they do that for a PC port and it ends up not being true which is evident when people play the game and realize something is wrong.

Not every dev has the time or resources to do that however (ports that play to the strengths and differences of platforms) which is why I'm saying this won't always be the case. Some need the game out on all the platforms in close proximity and we run into possible performance issues not just between PC and console, but between console and console. Others farm out the work to another dev to ensure that version of the game is tailored to whatever platform (Black Ops 4 is a recent example that I recall), and then you have some that decide to push back other platforms till later because they intend to do the optimization work themselves.

Again, the point I'm making is that it isn't a universal rule, not that it never applies because there are a myriad of examples of both. That's also why I clarified in my edit above that I should have said "That isn't how it always works.." because that is what I'm communicating here which isn't intended to be condescending as I said, or even raise an argument; I'm pointing out how we cannot use that as a universal rule.

Even among those of us who play on PC, a good general rule of thumb is to not let your CPU, or GPU upgrades languish because there are those situations where you play a game that favors one over the other and you could end up screwed. Going back to what you are saying about needing double the CPU; considering that the baseline is being raised from the lowly Jaguar to a Zen 2, then yeah, those people who, for example, buy some old cheap Inspiron off Ebay, slap a decent GPU in, and enjoy great performance are going to find that to be less the case as the upcoming gen moves forward and matures. I'm not even disputing that because I, for one, rather like that such a baseline is being dropped. However, for good rigs (and ignoring upcoming PC parts and hardware for the sake of discussing the here and now), it's going to be a variable situation. Some games will need something like that, sure, others will end up being tailored otherwise and it won't be a 1:1 case.


TL;DR
Taking a 30 FPS, CPU-saturated next gen console game and doubling the performance on a PC:

1. Non-PC optmized port: Very unlikely or just a flat-out "No" until hardware that can brute force the gains is available.

2. Budget rigs: Unlikely even with optimized ports. The key here is that the baseline has made it's first appreciable step forward for the first time in what feels like a very long time. (Zen2) I don't want to insult people who buy cheap rigs and slap good GPUs in them, but the fact is that things are moving forward and that's a good thing. I'm not hand waiving the frustration of having to pay even more money to stay in the game; I'm just simply pointing out what is happening here.

3. Power rig: Depends on the port and if the developers make changes to account for available PC hardware strengths the PS5 doesn't have. (Like a more powerful GPU than whatever the PS5 uses.) As mentioned above, this can either be difficult with a non-optimized port where the brute force is needed (this method gets easier as time goes on and better hardware is available), or you have the optimized ports that account for the differences in a PC and the goal of having double performance or frame rate is far more feasible. (30fps to 60fps or beyond.)
 

Orenji Neko

Member
But PC folks have been telling us since 2013 that x86 CPU programmning is easy peasy lemon squeezy, correct?

So why would x86 ports need "extra care" CPU-wise? You write code once and then you port/compile everywhere.

I'd assume that in general, maybe, but the "extra care" would be to account for the hardware differences. If a PS5 game saturates the CPU and GPU, and a dev wants to port it to the PC, they can either go the direct route and it operates largely the same, requiring more powerful hardware to force appreciable performance gains, or they could consider elements such as the availability of more powerful GPUs in the PC market and have certain optimizations that account for that and require less straight grunt to achieve higher framerates, etc. The fact of the matter is that either approach isn't the one and only method employed. This is why I say it isn't universal to assume that double the CPU power will always be needed.

Also the "extra care" isn't always a thing. Sometimes a PC port comes later and that's truly what they did (and the game runs great or has added graphical features, etc), and sometimes it's just not the case and to put a tin foil hat on, it might be to hope for double dip sales. Sort of like how people want patches for games that take advantage of the PS4 Pro, or the Xbox One X, but they don't always happen which leads to understandable frustration among those who bought those systems. I believe they (or one of them at least) has a boost mode that is pretty similar to trying to force some performance out, but it still isn't as good as when they go back and make a patch that equates for, and takes advantage of, the difference between the base console and the improved version.
 

psorcerer

Banned
a PC port would be reworked to handle resources in a different manner

If we closely follow rumours ps5 will be able to mmap its whole flash drive into memory mark all the pages as read-only and then esssentially get a slower (4gb/sec) but huge (~1tb) memory extension.
How are you going to get that on PC?
Windows does not support neither overcommit, nor proper mmap.
 
I'd assume that in general, maybe, but the "extra care" would be to account for the hardware differences.
But people have been saying that PS4/PS5 are basically PCs... what hardware differences?

If a PS5 game saturates the CPU and GPU, and a dev wants to port it to the PC, they can either go the direct route and it operates largely the same, requiring more powerful hardware to force appreciable performance gains, or they could consider elements such as the availability of more powerful GPUs in the PC market and have certain optimizations that account for that and require less straight grunt to achieve higher framerates, etc.
Wait, are you talking about offloading CPU calculations to GPGPU? If so, who says console games don't do that already?

We're strictly talking about code that cannot run on the GPU (x86-64 branchy/logic code).
 
Last edited:

Orenji Neko

Member
If we closely follow rumours ps5 will be able to mmap its whole flash drive into memory mark all the pages as read-only and then esssentially get a slower (4gb/sec) but huge (~1tb) memory extension.
How are you going to get that on PC?
Windows does not support neither overcommit, nor proper mmap.

That's part of the "tailoring the port" for the PC environment differences that I was talking about. Just the basic manner in which PCs evolve (hardware and software) would likely see something like this available in time.

But people have been saying that PS4/PS5 are basically PCs... what hardware differences?

Differences in the capabilities of the CPU and the GPU. People who say the PS4 and PS5 are basically PCs are not wrong since they are largely using more standardized hardware than the consoles of the past (a considerable difference even regarding the Xbox One and PS4 versus the PS3 and the 360). Hardware differences would be something like the difference in power of the PS5 GPU/CPU versus the PS4 GPU/CPU as well as the PC, but the variables are wider with the PC: you have budget builds, power rigs, AMD cards and CPUs, Nvidia GPUs, Intel CPUs, etc.
 
Last edited:

bitbydeath

Member
Are we expecting PS5 to launch first? Devs only ever seem to mention PS5 in passing comments that I have noticed. It sounds like MS hasn’t released dev kits yet?
 

Fake

Member
Are we expecting PS5 to launch first? Devs only ever seem to mention PS5 in passing comments that I have noticed. It sounds like MS hasn’t released dev kits yet?
Maybe, or both PS5 and the first nextbox.
Microsoft conference is getting close.
 

SonGoku

Member
Realistically speaking, how many watts would Cell consume at 7nm? Has anyone done the math?
I don't think it will consume much, the problem is shrinking the cell to 7nm will require a significant redesign investment akin to redesigning a new chip. Might as well make Cell2 that improves on the previous design and removes bottlenecks.
TL;DR
Taking a 30 FPS, CPU-saturated next gen console game and doubling the performance on a PC:

1. Non-PC optmized port: Very unlikely or just a flat-out "No" until hardware that can brute force the gains is available.

2. Budget rigs: Unlikely even with optimized ports. The key here is that the baseline has made it's first appreciable step forward for the first time in what feels like a very long time. (Zen2) I don't want to insult people who buy cheap rigs and slap good GPUs in them, but the fact is that things are moving forward and that's a good thing. I'm not hand waiving the frustration of having to pay even more money to stay in the game; I'm just simply pointing out what is happening here.

3. Power rig: Depends on the port and if the developers make changes to account for available PC hardware strengths the PS5 doesn't have. (Like a more powerful GPU than whatever the PS5 uses.) As mentioned above, this can either be difficult with a non-optimized port where the brute force is needed (this method gets easier as time goes on and better hardware is available), or you have the optimized ports that account for the differences in a PC and the goal of having double performance or frame rate is far more feasible. (30fps to 60fps or beyond.)
I agree with what you are trying to say but disagree somewhat on the execution.
Touching on point 2: There isn't much CPU code that's GPU friendly besides physics in particular particle effects. If devs go all out to make a 30 fps console game that maxes out the CPU with code that isn't GPU friendly it won't be feasible to offload CPU tasks to GPUs on budget rigs.

Touching on point 3: Even a top of the line i9 9900k at 5GHz won't double the CPU grunt to brute force double the fps.

The only other option left is for devs to optimize their code for 12 and 16 core CPUs. But parallelizing game code is hard im not sure most console devs will invest on 16 core systems unless next gen engines are built to take advantage of more threads than available on consoles.
 

Orenji Neko

Member
I don't think it will consume much, the problem is shrinking the cell to 7nm will require a significant redesign investment akin to redesigning a new chip. Might as well make Cell2 that improves on the previous design and removes bottlenecks.

I agree with what you are trying to say but disagree somewhat on the execution.
Touching on point 2: There isn't much CPU code that's GPU friendly besides physics in particular particle effects. If devs go all out to make a 30 fps console game that maxes out the CPU with code that isn't GPU friendly it won't be feasible to offload CPU tasks to GPUs on budget rigs.

Touching on point 3: Even a top of the line i9 9900k at 5GHz won't double the CPU grunt to brute force double the fps.

The only other option left is for devs to optimize their code for 12 and 16 core CPUs. But parallelizing game code is hard im not sure most console devs will invest on 16 core systems unless next gen engines are built to take advantage of more threads than available on consoles.

I get what you are saying, and barring what is now looking like an unfortunate miscommunication, we are largely saying the same thing which is why I was taken aback at the first reply (though after re-reading how I have worded things, that's my fault.)
 

Fake

Member
Just take a picture or quote. I don't want to give this site clicks anymore.
 
Last edited:

nowhat

Gold Member
Christ... Another next gen CoD in 2020?
There will be a CoD in 2020?

im_shocked.gif
 

SonGoku

Member
The can scale back Using less effects, lower poly models, dynamic resolution, less lighting,etc. just like PC.

Switch versions of modern games come out all the time.
If a game was made to run on xbone it will compromise the scale of the game and gimp it in the process
I doubt MS will do crossgen for more than two years.
 

Geki-D

Banned
They are? this gen?
This gen all I've seen is news of MS sending in teams to help with the xbone esram config
Actually now that you mention it, I t was more of a last gen thing. Bloodborne was still made in partnership with Sony, though, so that game would have had Sony guys working on it.
 

CJY

Banned
But people have been saying that PS4/PS5 are basically PCs... what hardware differences?

Calling consoles "basically like PC" is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard in my whole life and anybody who says it can't be taken seriously whatsoever.

It's like saying a car is basically like a plane. They've both got wheels, an engine, windows, run of fuel, seats... yeah, they're basically the same.
 

CJY

Banned
Reads like bait, lol.

I feel confident MS will have their own solution creating a negligible different.

And that’s good for console gamers!
I don't think it's bait. Sony are not designing their next consoles with the PC in-mind. By all accounts, MS are creating games that target PC and Xbox One OG as a baseline, so it stands to reason the next Xbox won't have or implement any tech that would be hard/impossible to replicate on the PC-side, whereas Sony are heavily incentivised to do so for differentiation purposes. MS are the ones will pursue the "standard" narrative of "more power" this time, while Sony will be the more innovative and ingenious in their approach towards the next generation and in providing new gaming experiences.
 

CJY

Banned

I believe what this tweet is referring to is something similar to Radeon Pro SSG (Solid State Graphics) tech, which has normal GDDR or HBM, and then combines that with super fast SSD-style persistent storage device linked directly on the graphics card itself. This means that the GPU doesn't have to negotiate with the CPU at all for texture/graphics data for data stored on a slow HD/SSD. A Radeon Pro SSG (Like this one: here) costs upward of $7k. I've no doubt Mark Cerny is using a derivative of this technology in the PS5. I say derivative because he openly states that the tech he's using is not available on PC. And PCI-E 4.0 isn't the whole picture either. PCI-E 4.0 may be in PS5, but that alone doesn't explain the drastic speed increase in loading times.

Radeon Pro SSG is a tech that is only available on a discrete graphics card at the moment on the PC. So my guess is Sony's implementation is an SSG-like solution, combined with an Zen2/Navi APU. Instead of there being 1/2TB of SSG, I'm guessing there will be 128-256GB (1-2 BD-Roms-worth) of SSG linked to the APU with Infinity Fabric and the fast PCI-E 4.0 lanes will intelligently pipe data to the SSG from the normal SSD on an as-needed basis.

One of the most interesting technologies that helped define this current generation of consoles for me is "PlayGo". This is where you could start playing the first part of a downloaded game while the rest of the game downloads in the background. Using this tech, the PS5 could intelligently place the relevant parts of an installed game onto the SSG.

This sounds similar in concept to the way a SSHD (Solid state hybrid drive) works... but significantly faster across the board.

Cerny himself said this:
“The raw read speed is important, but so are the details of the I/O [input-output] mechanisms and the software stack that we put on top of them"

I believe PlayGo is the philosophical and technical foundation for Cerny's approach to the PS5's IO software stack. PlayGo itself is a major facet of Playstation's technology stack. [see: here]

The implementation of this software, [whatever they end up using] will need to make the shuffling of data between different silos completely invisible to the developer.

This article - Inside the PlayStation 4 With Mark Cerny, goes in-depth into Cerny's though-process behind some of the decisions he made with the PS4 and I have no doubt he will follow a similar trajectory with PS5. He also talks about PlayGo fairly extensively on page 3, not just as it pertains to downloads, but the streaming capability of slow Blu-Ray drives, some insight into the installation process from disc, and how such a system might deal with non-linear games.

I've literally been thinking about this since the Wired interview and how a system architect like Cerny would go about solving such a puzzle. Seeing Apple unveil their new Mac Pro with Custom Dual Radeon Pro Vega II "MPX" cards utilising Infinity Fabric and Samsung licensing Navi RDNA graphics architecture for their Exynos lineup showed me how open AMD are to creating custom solutions with their partners and Lisa Su has expressed on numerous occasions that Sony have some very specific customisation requests for the PS5. I feel confident now I have a fair idea of what Cerny is cooking up to achieve the kind of results that have been shown.

Bottom-line: Simply using an SSD on a PCE-E 4.0 bus isn't enough to satisfy the PS5's data-needs. Fast IO is the main differentiator of the PS5 versus past gens/other consoles. A completely custom solution is the most likely outcome. Microsoft will-indeed have a problem keeping up. Microsoft could easily use a custom solution too to ultra-fast IO, but doing so might negatively affect their ability to design games that run across their various platforms.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom