pasterpl
Member
Resident Evil 8 Will Apparently Be on PS5, Is First-Person And Will Be Announced Soon
A big departure, allegedly
www.pushsquare.com
just wondering when we will see next gen only games
- Status
www.pushsquare.com
just wondering when we will see next gen only games
FranXico
Member
Only for a given time period (a few years) I think.
ZywyPL
Banned
I was expecting someone to post that tweet, which ironically comes from a guy whose game run at 30FPS, with even infamous 15FPS crowd animations, and as recently showed 15FPS snow deformation... Why would they want to store even better quality assets if they already can't render the current ones at decent framerate? The graphics are already great as they are, performance is what's lacking. The reason PS4 Pro has performance modes, boost mode, better details etc. is simply because it has more processing power, not faster storage drive.
No one asked the devs to tun everything into open-world game, they can blame no one byt themselves. And same as above, storing data is one thing, displaying/rendering it is another story. I know there are people who wouldn't mind 1080p30 in yet another generation, but that's not me.
VanSiriusGabriel
Member
This pretentious idea of judging devs (on both sides) while you know shit is ridiculous. Go on Twitter and tell him "dude 30 fps" and let's see what he has to tell you.
And the last phrase is pure fallacy: more processing power leads to more performance, doesn't mean a custom SSD can't too.
Do you have solid proof about this or you just use an SSD on PC?
Farrell55
Banned
Looks like he is a member of this Famous "XboxEraDiscord" group
Metroiddarks
Member
Please check this videos from a Naughty Dog artist and owner of his own company of AI, he explain between other things we
need to seek a way a make AAA cheaper, removing bottlenecks but specially using AI for many things like the creation of
assets and rendering because if we follow this path well then make AAA game will be far of be a good business and this also cause
the studios doesn't search to take biggest risk.
That is why this new gen using an incredible fast SSD and even machine learning capabilities are more important than just
increment gpu raw power. Created a SSD with a bandwidth so big that sounds excessive, delete each part of its hardware which
can cause a problem for the devs and artist.
Looks Sony prefer to make a console with less barriers to create a game even if is a AAA in exchange to have a smaller gpu. Just like
Cerny told us they look to its past and learn I think especially in PS1 and PS2 what make Sony what is for the Videogame Industry
compared to his competitor in each era and that was variety of games a make an easy way to the studios to create a game.
need to seek a way a make AAA cheaper, removing bottlenecks but specially using AI for many things like the creation of
assets and rendering because if we follow this path well then make AAA game will be far of be a good business and this also cause
the studios doesn't search to take biggest risk.
That is why this new gen using an incredible fast SSD and even machine learning capabilities are more important than just
increment gpu raw power. Created a SSD with a bandwidth so big that sounds excessive, delete each part of its hardware which
can cause a problem for the devs and artist.
Looks Sony prefer to make a console with less barriers to create a game even if is a AAA in exchange to have a smaller gpu. Just like
Cerny told us they look to its past and learn I think especially in PS1 and PS2 what make Sony what is for the Videogame Industry
compared to his competitor in each era and that was variety of games a make an easy way to the studios to create a game.
Last edited:
Metroiddarks
Member
May or June you will the first from Sony, Ubi, EA,Activision for Xbox maybe more tech demos or showcases because its politics to be compatible with the old gen.Resident Evil 8 Will Apparently Be on PS5, Is First-Person And Will Be Announced Soon
A big departure, allegedly
just wondering when we will see next gen only games
ZywyPL
Banned
Gears 4/5 are the best examples here - you have the actual gameplay filled into RAM and running at let's say 4K60, OR, you have a single character filled into RAM and running at the same 4K60 in the main menu. The artists had those CGI-quality assets even back in PS360 era, the problem was and still is enough performance to actually render them in real-time. Because let's assume next-gen consoles will actually be able to stream those assets fast enough, there still has to be enough processing power to render them at at least 30FPS.
Last edited:
DForce
NaughtyDog Defense Force
What?
They run their multiplayer games at 60fps and single player at 30fps.
When you play survival mode online, the frame-rate drops to 30fps.
The Jaguar CPU is a huge bottleneck and that's why many action games target 30fps. Next gen consoles are going to receive a huge bump in CPU and storage speed, and that means hitting 60fps will be much easier. So it's not that they can't run their games at a higher frame-rate, they're just limited based on the hardware. It's really impressive that they're able to make a game that looks this good on such outdated hardware from 2013.
VanSiriusGabriel
Member
If you want a single character in a single scene to be as detailed as possible, you can push the system even at 10 fps, I agree.
But if you want to actually optimize an entire scene, with an SSD is easier to manage geometries and elements outside of the FOV or in the distance (with more granular LOD) with less use of the RAM, meaning the GPU and the RAM have less to worry about. I have no idea how much this will be possible, nor I believe in last minute magic where PS5 does better than SeX, but from my understanding an SSD can indirectly increase both RAM and GPU capabilities, meaning the system with the best SSD with the less bottlenecs can use more out of the other components even if they are weaker. This is my take, at least.
But please enough dev bashing anyway, maybe that guy did a snow thing at 15 fps but we can't pretend he works as we want when he just wanted to show an effect, probably the intent wasn't in delivering a perfect demo, just a demo. Especially, this doesn't mean he doesn't know more than us about what a fucking SSD means. Even if a mechanic does a mistake while fixing a car, you can't question him about how suspension works if the best you do is driving and check the oil. If the others credentials are just superior to yours, you don't question them unless you want to honestly learn or you have an undeniable proof.
Last edited:
DrDamn
Member
Maths says you don't
. I take the point though. I think if the really big titles which weight in at 90-100GB can come down a lot then initial SSD sizes will do fine for a while.I think the related family library/sharing stuff is still in there and that is a good thing. It's much easier and integrated than on PS.
It should all still be available from your library even when removed from the PS store. PT was an exception, as a demo the option to download from the library could be disabled.
ThisIsMyDog
Member
Will there be something like DLSS 2.0 on the new consoles? Imagine if Noughty Dog could create a 1080p game for PS5. Huge amount of power saved compared to native 4K.
megreotsugua
Banned
False.
And this is easily verifiable. Upping the texture quality on your PC games has no performance hit to the GPU. The only requirement is that you have enough VRAM to house all those ultra high resolution textures. Sometimes a fast SSD is also necessary.
Texel density and insane texture details is what the PS5 SSD will bring to the table. Sony first party studios will be the first ones to show CGI looking games.
Edit: To be fair, XSeX will probably have an advantage on screen output resolution.
Last edited:
VanSiriusGabriel
Member
We can likely expect open worlds and linear games to be mostly equal, this gen some open worlds have insane details on par with linear experiences.
Last edited:
M-V2
Member
Strawman?? Who brought SX in the conversation?? And when did I say the PS5 at max clock is more powerful than the SX?? I uploaded that because I saw many Xbox fanboys saying the ps5 is hard to develop for, and what I uploaded is simply otherwise because the devs can develop and the hardware will do things automatically they don't have to deal with the variable frequency.
3liteDragon
Member
There's been rumours going around a few hours ago that TLOU2's ending got leaked on 4chan with screenshots and Naughty Dog immediately took it down. I haven't seen anything today other than yesterday's leaked clips, but just be careful on Twitter and YouTube.
Last edited:
This thread is the best
PS fanboys can't prove how much frequency drop will be in PS5, but they are claiming PS5 is 10,2TF console, because Cerny said so, despite the fact, that Cerny is trying to sell them something. And to be honest, only reason why there is so much confusion and what is "arming" arguments from "other side" is Sony and Cerny themselves, who are refusing to address, how much downclock we can expect. Of course they won't say it because Xbox fanboys would take that info and run away with it.
Whole problem is transparency. Why we know, how powerful XsX will be? Because we know performance numbers and we know they are stable. PS5? "Up to" "Most of time" PR shit and no concrete answers. I find it hilarious to swallow everything that Cerny says without questioning it and then pretend that you know everything about console. Don't criticize other side, who questions Cerny and his claims when you don't have concrete answers too.
Just be real for a second. Reason why PS5 don't have stable clocks is because it can't have stable clocks. If it is because the chip gets too hot or too greedy with power is currently unknown. If it could, nobody would bother with "special sauce" variable frequency and then pretend to be best solution to nonexistent problem. But sure...reason why Sony choose insane clocks on less CU chip is "becuase they wanted to go narrow and fast." Yup. And reason why PS4 Pro sounded like a jet was because Sony and Cerny wanted to be like that, so every user will be immersed to sound of the console while playing...
But for sure. Cerny said 825GB because that will be final SSD space on console, he says that Sony chooses 36CU GPU, he says that high clock on RDNA 2 is best solution so we will swallow everything he says...because why?
If Cerny was clear and said "Max clock is 2,23GHz and lowest it can go is 1,925 (for example)GHz under max load" then we have clear info to work with. But he wouldn't do that, because than stories about power differences would be different.
PS fanboys can't prove how much frequency drop will be in PS5, but they are claiming PS5 is 10,2TF console, because Cerny said so, despite the fact, that Cerny is trying to sell them something. And to be honest, only reason why there is so much confusion and what is "arming" arguments from "other side" is Sony and Cerny themselves, who are refusing to address, how much downclock we can expect. Of course they won't say it because Xbox fanboys would take that info and run away with it.
Whole problem is transparency. Why we know, how powerful XsX will be? Because we know performance numbers and we know they are stable. PS5? "Up to" "Most of time" PR shit and no concrete answers. I find it hilarious to swallow everything that Cerny says without questioning it and then pretend that you know everything about console. Don't criticize other side, who questions Cerny and his claims when you don't have concrete answers too.
Just be real for a second. Reason why PS5 don't have stable clocks is because it can't have stable clocks. If it is because the chip gets too hot or too greedy with power is currently unknown. If it could, nobody would bother with "special sauce" variable frequency and then pretend to be best solution to nonexistent problem. But sure...reason why Sony choose insane clocks on less CU chip is "becuase they wanted to go narrow and fast." Yup. And reason why PS4 Pro sounded like a jet was because Sony and Cerny wanted to be like that, so every user will be immersed to sound of the console while playing...
But for sure. Cerny said 825GB because that will be final SSD space on console, he says that Sony chooses 36CU GPU, he says that high clock on RDNA 2 is best solution so we will swallow everything he says...because why?
If Cerny was clear and said "Max clock is 2,23GHz and lowest it can go is 1,925 (for example)GHz under max load" then we have clear info to work with. But he wouldn't do that, because than stories about power differences would be different.
Gudji
Member
This thread is the best
PS fanboys can't prove how much frequency drop will be in PS5, but they are claiming PS5 is 10,2TF console, because Cerny said so, despite the fact, that Cerny is trying to sell them something. And to be honest, only reason why there is so much confusion and what is "arming" arguments from "other side" is Sony and Cerny themselves, who are refusing to address, how much downclock we can expect. Of course they won't say it because Xbox fanboys would take that info and run away with it.
Whole problem is transparency. Why we know, how powerful XsX will be? Because we know performance numbers and we know they are stable. PS5? "Up to" "Most of time" PR shit and no concrete answers. I find it hilarious to swallow everything that Cerny says without questioning it and then pretend that you know everything about console. Don't criticize other side, who questions Cerny and his claims when you don't have concrete answers too.
Just be real for a second. Reason why PS5 don't have stable clocks is because it can't have stable clocks. If it is because the chip gets too hot or too greedy with power is currently unknown. If it could, nobody would bother with "special sauce" variable frequency and then pretend to be best solution to nonexistent problem. But sure...reason why Sony choose insane clocks on less CU chip is "becuase they wanted to go narrow and fast." Yup. And reason why PS4 Pro sounded like a jet was because Sony and Cerny wanted to be like that, so every user will be immersed to sound of the console while playing...
But for sure. Cerny said 825GB because that will be final SSD space on console, he says that Sony chooses 36CU GPU, he says that high clock on RDNA 2 is best solution so we will swallow everything he says...because why?
If Cerny was clear and said "Max clock is 2,23GHz and lowest it can go is 1,925 (for example)GHz under max load" then we have clear info to work with. But he wouldn't do that, because than stories about power differences would be different.
Okay warrior, enjoy your time here.
geordiemp
Member
This thread is the best
PS fanboys can't prove how much frequency drop will be in PS5, but they are claiming PS5 is 10,2TF console, because Cerny said so, despite the fact, that Cerny is trying to sell them something. And to be honest, only reason why there is so much confusion and what is "arming" arguments from "other side" is Sony and Cerny themselves, who are refusing to address, how much downclock we can expect. Of course they won't say it because Xbox fanboys would take that info and run away with it.
Whole problem is transparency. Why we know, how powerful XsX will be? Because we know performance numbers and we know they are stable. PS5? "Up to" "Most of time" PR shit and no concrete answers. I find it hilarious to swallow everything that Cerny says without questioning it and then pretend that you know everything about console. Don't criticize other side, who questions Cerny and his claims when you don't have concrete answers too.
Just be real for a second. Reason why PS5 don't have stable clocks is because it can't have stable clocks. If it is because the chip gets too hot or too greedy with power is currently unknown. If it could, nobody would bother with "special sauce" variable frequency and then pretend to be best solution to nonexistent problem. But sure...reason why Sony choose insane clocks on less CU chip is "becuase they wanted to go narrow and fast." Yup. And reason why PS4 Pro sounded like a jet was because Sony and Cerny wanted to be like that, so every user will be immersed to sound of the console while playing...
But for sure. Cerny said 825GB because that will be final SSD space on console, he says that Sony chooses 36CU GPU, he says that high clock on RDNA 2 is best solution so we will swallow everything he says...because why?
If Cerny was clear and said "Max clock is 2,23GHz and lowest it can go is 1,925 (for example)GHz under max load" then we have clear info to work with. But he wouldn't do that, because than stories about power differences would be different.
Is that Timdog or MisterX Media.
Why would anybody listen to you really, I read the first line and oh boy.
embarrasing.
Last edited:
CJY
Banned
To compare the Flop performance of next gen is narrow-minded and missing some crucial factors in this console war.
Prior generations except for this one have never been about the Flops.
PS1 was about CD-Rom & fully polygon graphics
PS2 was about DVD and "Emotion Engine"
OG Xbox was about PC-architecture in a box
PS3 was about HD, Blu-Ray & Cell
360 was about Achievements, Xbox Live Arcade
In the current gen, many people spoke about console Flops because for the first time, both consoles were very similar and both based on PC-architecture - pretty basic, standard PC architecture. And the idea of Flops as a metric of comparison comes from the PC arena, but the success of PS4 had little to do with Flop performance, it was for many other reasons, not least of which was the games... it's the games which drove the success of every other generation for PlayStation too, and it's why 360 led for most of that generation... but right now regarding next-gen, without the benefit of games, we are focused on just the specs.
It's no surprise that next gen, Xbox wants to keep playing that game of Flop performance, it's easy, clear and falls directly into MS's area of expertise, which is PC-based performance metrics. However, the history of PlayStation gen-on-gen shows that they promoted something beyond the raw performance. Sony having the "most powerful console" was also only in-arguably true this gen and not in any other gen. Again, this generation was an anomaly and they both went a "safe" route for reasons that are well documented. On the surface, Xbox One was in ways more forward-thinking and arguably even more innovative with the Kinect.
Cerny paved a new path with PS4 while also highly respecting the PlayStation lineage of consoles. To compete purely on Flops would turn the console war into an "enclosed-PC war" and the raw Flop performance of those will always invariably fall behind PC. This is why it was an astute and smart move to focus on something other than Flops and change the game/move the goalposts with SSD. I see SSD akin to a new format, much like CD, DVD, Blu-Ray, but this new format has potential far beyond those technologies which offered little else other than more storage capacity. This doesn't mean PS5 is more powerful, and it doesn't mean XSX is worse. They are just both playing different games.
Phil Spencer even came out and said Sony and PlayStation aren't their real competitors... but Google and Amazon. Here:
www.forbes.com
Stadia came out pushing their raw TFlop figure of 10.7. MS had to beat this. Again, MS are making their big push into streaming and they see Google & Amazon as their main competitors. Only MS can play this game with their deep pockets. Whereas Sony are marching to the beat of a different drum with the PS5 coming in below it.
Sony will easily win this console war IMO, just based on the back of their games alone.
MS has the high potential of coming out of this generation being the biggest overall gaming brand across Streaming, Mobile, Console & PC if they play their cards right.
Basically, the console war is good because it drives interest and debate, which in turn will lead to sales and a healthy industry and more/better games. Behind the scenes however, I don't believe there is much animosity between Sony and Microsoft. They probably recognise the fact they need each other in order to maintain a duopoly of-sorts, and I for one, as a Sony fan, am glad for Microsoft and Xbox to exist and playing the Flop game, and competing with those 1000-pound incumbents Google and Amazon. In a way, MS is a shield that protects Sony. I would hate for Sony to have to play the flop game (and only the flop game) and lose what makes PlayStation so special, which is innovative, unique and interesting gaming technology. In many ways, I see PlayStation as more "boutique".
Would MS like Sony's business? I believe they would love it, but I also believe they know they can't/won't compete directly right now when other massive competitors are coming up the rear.
Would Sony like MS's business? I believe Sony are comfortable exactly where they are for the moment and don't envy MS's position and their battle ahead against Google and Amazon.
Having said all that, Sony will possibly be forced to compete in the wider gaming arena before too long anyway, but my belief is that VR is a long-term lucrative growth area that remains largely untapped and holds massive potential for Sony to conquer, and MS will conquer streaming while leveraging their expertise in datacentres and servers. Bottom-line, the paths of both MS and Sony are largely divergent from here on out and while everyone continues to bicker and debate the pros & cons of their respective favourite systems, I'm sitting it out for a while and watching how this whole thing plays out.
Prior generations except for this one have never been about the Flops.
PS1 was about CD-Rom & fully polygon graphics
PS2 was about DVD and "Emotion Engine"
OG Xbox was about PC-architecture in a box
PS3 was about HD, Blu-Ray & Cell
360 was about Achievements, Xbox Live Arcade
In the current gen, many people spoke about console Flops because for the first time, both consoles were very similar and both based on PC-architecture - pretty basic, standard PC architecture. And the idea of Flops as a metric of comparison comes from the PC arena, but the success of PS4 had little to do with Flop performance, it was for many other reasons, not least of which was the games... it's the games which drove the success of every other generation for PlayStation too, and it's why 360 led for most of that generation... but right now regarding next-gen, without the benefit of games, we are focused on just the specs.
It's no surprise that next gen, Xbox wants to keep playing that game of Flop performance, it's easy, clear and falls directly into MS's area of expertise, which is PC-based performance metrics. However, the history of PlayStation gen-on-gen shows that they promoted something beyond the raw performance. Sony having the "most powerful console" was also only in-arguably true this gen and not in any other gen. Again, this generation was an anomaly and they both went a "safe" route for reasons that are well documented. On the surface, Xbox One was in ways more forward-thinking and arguably even more innovative with the Kinect.
Cerny paved a new path with PS4 while also highly respecting the PlayStation lineage of consoles. To compete purely on Flops would turn the console war into an "enclosed-PC war" and the raw Flop performance of those will always invariably fall behind PC. This is why it was an astute and smart move to focus on something other than Flops and change the game/move the goalposts with SSD. I see SSD akin to a new format, much like CD, DVD, Blu-Ray, but this new format has potential far beyond those technologies which offered little else other than more storage capacity. This doesn't mean PS5 is more powerful, and it doesn't mean XSX is worse. They are just both playing different games.
Phil Spencer even came out and said Sony and PlayStation aren't their real competitors... but Google and Amazon. Here:
Why Microsoft Doesn’t Think Sony And PlayStation Are The Real Competition For Xbox
We're getting ready for the Xbox Series x/playStation5 console war, but head of Xbox Phil Spencer says that Sony and Nintendo are not Xbox's true competition.
www.forbes.com
Stadia came out pushing their raw TFlop figure of 10.7. MS had to beat this. Again, MS are making their big push into streaming and they see Google & Amazon as their main competitors. Only MS can play this game with their deep pockets. Whereas Sony are marching to the beat of a different drum with the PS5 coming in below it.
Sony will easily win this console war IMO, just based on the back of their games alone.
MS has the high potential of coming out of this generation being the biggest overall gaming brand across Streaming, Mobile, Console & PC if they play their cards right.
Basically, the console war is good because it drives interest and debate, which in turn will lead to sales and a healthy industry and more/better games. Behind the scenes however, I don't believe there is much animosity between Sony and Microsoft. They probably recognise the fact they need each other in order to maintain a duopoly of-sorts, and I for one, as a Sony fan, am glad for Microsoft and Xbox to exist and playing the Flop game, and competing with those 1000-pound incumbents Google and Amazon. In a way, MS is a shield that protects Sony. I would hate for Sony to have to play the flop game (and only the flop game) and lose what makes PlayStation so special, which is innovative, unique and interesting gaming technology. In many ways, I see PlayStation as more "boutique".
Would MS like Sony's business? I believe they would love it, but I also believe they know they can't/won't compete directly right now when other massive competitors are coming up the rear.
Would Sony like MS's business? I believe Sony are comfortable exactly where they are for the moment and don't envy MS's position and their battle ahead against Google and Amazon.
Having said all that, Sony will possibly be forced to compete in the wider gaming arena before too long anyway, but my belief is that VR is a long-term lucrative growth area that remains largely untapped and holds massive potential for Sony to conquer, and MS will conquer streaming while leveraging their expertise in datacentres and servers. Bottom-line, the paths of both MS and Sony are largely divergent from here on out and while everyone continues to bicker and debate the pros & cons of their respective favourite systems, I'm sitting it out for a while and watching how this whole thing plays out.
Jesb
Member
anyone?
Bonsaibäumchen
Member
To compare the Flop performance of next gen is narrow-minded and missing some crucial factors in this console war.
Prior generations except for this one have never been about the Flops.
PS1 was about CD-Rom & fully polygon graphics
PS2 was about DVD and "Emotion Engine"
OG Xbox was about PC-architecture in a box
PS3 was about HD, Blu-Ray & Cell
360 was about Achievements, Xbox Live Arcade
In the current gen, many people spoke about console Flops because for the first time, both consoles were very similar and both based on PC-architecture - pretty basic, standard PC architecture. And the idea of Flops as a metric of comparison comes from the PC arena, but the success of PS4 had little to do with Flop performance, it was for many other reasons, not least of which was the games... it's the games which drove the success of every other generation for PlayStation too, and it's why 360 led for most of that generation... but right now regarding next-gen, without the benefit of games, we are focused on just the specs.
It's no surprise that next gen, Xbox wants to keep playing that game of Flop performance, it's easy, clear and falls directly into MS's area of expertise, which is PC-based performance metrics. However, the history of PlayStation gen-on-gen shows that they promoted something beyond the raw performance. Sony having the "most powerful console" was also only in-arguably true this gen and not in any other gen. Again, this generation was an anomaly and they both went a "safe" route for reasons that are well documented. On the surface, Xbox One was in ways more forward-thinking and arguably even more innovative with the Kinect.
Cerny paved a new path with PS4 while also highly respecting the PlayStation lineage of consoles. To compete purely on Flops would turn the console war into an "enclosed-PC war" and the raw Flop performance of those will always invariably fall behind PC. This is why it was an astute and smart move to focus on something other than Flops and change the game/move the goalposts with SSD. I see SSD akin to a new format, much like CD, DVD, Blu-Ray, but this new format has potential far beyond those technologies which offered little else other than more storage capacity. This doesn't mean PS5 is more powerful, and it doesn't mean XSX is worse. They are just both playing different games.
Phil Spencer even came out and said Sony and PlayStation aren't their real competitors... but Google and Amazon. Here:
Why Microsoft Doesn’t Think Sony And PlayStation Are The Real Competition For Xbox
We're getting ready for the Xbox Series x/playStation5 console war, but head of Xbox Phil Spencer says that Sony and Nintendo are not Xbox's true competition.
Stadia came out pushing their raw TFlop figure of 10.7. MS had to beat this. Again, MS are making their big push into streaming and they see Google & Amazon as their main competitors. Only MS can play this game with their deep pockets. Whereas Sony are marching to the beat of a different drum with the PS5 coming in below it.
Sony will easily win this console war IMO, just based on the back of their games alone.
MS has the high potential of coming out of this generation being the biggest overall gaming brand across Streaming, Mobile, Console & PC if they play their cards right.
Basically, the console war is good because it drives interest and debate, which in turn will lead to sales and a healthy industry and more/better games. Behind the scenes however, I don't believe there is much animosity between Sony and Microsoft. They probably recognise the fact they need each other in order to maintain a duopoly of-sorts, and I for one, as a Sony fan, am glad for Microsoft and Xbox to exist and playing the Flop game, and competing with those 1000-pound incumbents Google and Amazon. In a way, MS is a shield that protects Sony. I would hate for Sony to have to play the flop game (and only the flop game) and lose what makes PlayStation so special, which is innovative, unique and interesting gaming technology. In many ways, I see PlayStation as more "boutique".
Would MS like Sony's business? I believe they would love it, but I also believe they know they can't/won't compete directly right now when other massive competitors are coming up the rear.
Would Sony like MS's business? I believe Sony are comfortable exactly where they are for the moment and don't envy MS's position and their battle ahead against Google and Amazon.
Having said all that, Sony will possibly be forced to compete in the wider gaming arena before too long anyway, but my belief is that VR is a long-term lucrative growth area that remains largely untapped and holds massive potential for Sony to conquer, and MS will conquer streaming while leveraging their expertise in datacentres and servers. Bottom-line, the paths of both MS and Sony are largely divergent from here on out and while everyone continues to bicker and debate the pros & cons of their respective favourite systems, I'm sitting it out for a while and watching how this whole thing plays out.
Based on the fact that Sony is already cooperating with Microsoft and vice versa for the online services I would even expect both of them to merge at some point to fight against Amazon/Google/Nvidia/Nintendo and all those Publisher game stores if the need arrises. However currently each console be it PS, Xbox, Stadia, Switch and so forth have their own audience. They are all different in some ways.
Time will tell how the industry and audience is going to change.
Last edited:
ShadowWolf712
Member
No one said MS wasn't going to develop AAA games. They have 343, they have Playground, they have studios dedicated to those, everyone knows those are still gonna be a thing. They're citing Matt Booty's overt statement that most of their new studio acquisitions weren't.
In the context of fan warring, this is being touted as Xbox fanboys were insisting that each of these studios was gonna drop a Halo/Gears/Forza-tier BANGER every year for the next few years, that each would have access to AAA and even the rather silly "AAAA budget" that became a thing after an exec used some marketing speak, and that they would use that to "put Naughty Dog to shame".
Then one of their execs rather openly says that this isn't the case. Of course peeps are gonna use that to serve fanboys some crow. lol
In the case of The Initiative, they're sounding like they're just starting small first, then moving to bigger projects in the future, yes. But they're still starting small, which was the point of contention.
ShadowWolf712
Member
It usually depends on the company and the nature of the content. Licenses are usually very prone to going bye-bye.
I believe Konami, however, was so thorough in nuking PT that they tried to take steps to disable the already-installed demos via an update if I recall correctly.
pasterpl
Member
Exclusive Potential - Developer on Performance Differences Between PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X
The multiplatform will still look approximately the same on both consoles. Sony and Microsoft recently shared technical details about their
phonemantra.com
GermanZepp
Member
I switched to ps2 to 360. Bioshock, gears, mass effect, halo, and even multiplats like gta IV were better. The 360 controller was a novelty and very cool back then. Of course when my machine got the red ring I get a ps3.
FranXico
Member
I don't think they went that far, but I believe that one could not even re-download the demo shortly after it was delisted.
#FuckKonami
GermanZepp
Member
Hit that ignore button. How many times in how many ways are you going to explain it?
B_Boss
Member
Speaking of that
:
PS5 Will Allow Devs to Use 'Incredible' Texel Density for Highly Detailed Visuals, Says Town of Light Studio - PlayStation LifeStyle
The Town of Light dev LKA has expressed its excitement about PS5 specs and said that the console will allow "incredible" texel density.
www.playstationlifestyle.net
pasterpl
Member
Phil Spencer Reveals Which Classic Xbox IP He Wants Revived on Xbox Series X
Phil Spencer reveals which classic Xbox franchise he'd love to see make a return in the future, citing a classic multiplayer gem.
gamerant.com
Moridianae
Member
As the global economy has been devastated and will continue to be so for at least another two(at least) months before things could *potentially* begin to go back to a semblance of normal in the world, I'm beginning to wonder on these systems.
I don't see either one launching this year, to be honest. Being "on track" doesn't mean a lot in this new world. So was TLOU2, now delayed indefinitely. Jason Schreier has pointed to potentially more titles being pushed back. In my opinion, the consoles won't be far behind.
These systems will be expensive, so the question of whether its wise in this economy comes up. I'm thinking both slide to Spring 2021, which may be for the best on all fronts.
I don't see either one launching this year, to be honest. Being "on track" doesn't mean a lot in this new world. So was TLOU2, now delayed indefinitely. Jason Schreier has pointed to potentially more titles being pushed back. In my opinion, the consoles won't be far behind.
These systems will be expensive, so the question of whether its wise in this economy comes up. I'm thinking both slide to Spring 2021, which may be for the best on all fronts.
lepermessiah
Member
Shiiieeeeeeet
It makes no sense to delay unless there is manufacturing or software issues. These devices will be out in such limited quantities this fall they will be hard to find regardless of economy. Earlier adopters will find a way to afford it. Then as production can actually ramp up the economy will be better. At least in America a spring launch is asking for issues. People will be not only be paying off credit cards from Christmas but many will have a IRS bill due. From lowering deductions to make up income when 1 spouse lost a job or the millions who are not having taxes taken out of their unemployment benefits.
Last edited:
pasterpl
Member
PlayStation 5 vs. Xbox Series X specs: Using a PC to test next-gen consoles' power
I took the specs list of both next-generation consoles and built a PC to get an idea of what games could look like with the extra power.
www.cnet.com
Kusarigama
Member
There hasn't been any official word regarding this.
I was surprised why PS4 didn't support Bluetooth headphones while it is well supported on PS3 and DualShock 4 receives audio for the audio jack on Bluetooth. And we have come to end of the generation and still it is missing.
Last edited:
Shmunter
Member
Yeah, bad Sony!
Evilms
Banned
Godfall
- The game is mentioned as a SoulsBorne.
- There is no PS4 version.
- Monster Hunter is an inspiration for weapons (with chunky warhammers and human-sized swords).
- Dark Souls is an inspiration for the combat, with each action being able to generate an opponent's reaction, with weight on weapons and so on.
- The development team has around 75 people (some of them worked on Destiny 2).
Last edited:
ShadowWolf712
Member
Ah, just looked it up, was apparently a hoax back in the day. Wouldn't have shocked me though.
kensama
Member
Godfall
- The game is mentioned as a SoulsBorne.
- There is no PS4 version.
- Monster Hunter is an inspiration for weapons (with chunky warhammers and human-sized swords).
- Dark Souls is an inspiration for the combat, with each action being able to generate an opponent's reaction, with weight on weapons and so on.
- The development team has around 75 people (some of them worked on Destiny 2).
Did you know when it will be available digitally?
ShadowWolf712
Member
PlayStation 5 vs. Xbox Series X specs: Using a PC to test next-gen consoles' power
I took the specs list of both next-generation consoles and built a PC to get an idea of what games could look like with the extra power.
Well this will be completely relevant and useful information.
Evilms
Banned
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
You really think a studio that's pulled talent from several Sony AAA studios is "starting small"? I think people are taking that out of context; "starting small" could mean an IP revival: Perfect Dark has been rumored for a while now. But some people are trying to interpret that as them doing something like, I dunno, a Life is Strange? Some small-scale game like that? Pretty low probability it's around that level, whatever it is (not slighting Life is Strange btw...at least the first one. 2nd one...
)Also Booty's comment is just stating an obvious; they want to balance out AAA games with smaller-tier games. I actually prefer that because one thing I missed from Sony (and seems they are going to skimp on even more next gen) is the smaller 1st-party AA-style games. They seem to be focused on scaling back number of games from their 1st-party going forward, but making them even bigger AAA games.
The thing though is that they can do both, and it seems MS wants to do both. Sony's strategy seems to rely more on 3rd-party games to fill in the AA-tier and smaller-game slots, which is a good strategy, but not the same as them doing that themselves. That said some people are taking Booty's comments and spinning them as a slight or an edge for whatever weird reason, tho I have to admit his wording in general just gives a bit too much ammunition to people who like debating in bad faith to begin with. At least he isn't a Don Mattrick
Last edited:
splattered
Member
Eugen there specifically called out "loading times" and then said they still have time to explore the ways they want to use power provided by the new generation.
Why is the only underline about how it will improve the performance of the game? Of course it will, just like the SSD will in the XsX. I don't see that quote as anything reassuring for PS5 over the competition.
Also for the game Ready or Not they say they are hitting 80fps on mid-range devices (average PC's) so of course they are going to see better improvement on next gen consoles.
I need to find the full article online somewhere because people made it out to be a big deal.
kensama
Member
Apollo Helios
Member
Damn this is a great piece, thread mark worthy! Also would add that MS and Sony already partnered up on the datacenter in a deal. Sony will be using MS ones and will chip in for its growth in more areas.To compare the Flop performance of next gen is narrow-minded and missing some crucial factors in this console war.
Prior generations except for this one have never been about the Flops.
PS1 was about CD-Rom & fully polygon graphics
PS2 was about DVD and "Emotion Engine"
OG Xbox was about PC-architecture in a box
PS3 was about HD, Blu-Ray & Cell
360 was about Achievements, Xbox Live Arcade
In the current gen, many people spoke about console Flops because for the first time, both consoles were very similar and both based on PC-architecture - pretty basic, standard PC architecture. And the idea of Flops as a metric of comparison comes from the PC arena, but the success of PS4 had little to do with Flop performance, it was for many other reasons, not least of which was the games... it's the games which drove the success of every other generation for PlayStation too, and it's why 360 led for most of that generation... but right now regarding next-gen, without the benefit of games, we are focused on just the specs.
It's no surprise that next gen, Xbox wants to keep playing that game of Flop performance, it's easy, clear and falls directly into MS's area of expertise, which is PC-based performance metrics. However, the history of PlayStation gen-on-gen shows that they promoted something beyond the raw performance. Sony having the "most powerful console" was also only in-arguably true this gen and not in any other gen. Again, this generation was an anomaly and they both went a "safe" route for reasons that are well documented. On the surface, Xbox One was in ways more forward-thinking and arguably even more innovative with the Kinect.
Cerny paved a new path with PS4 while also highly respecting the PlayStation lineage of consoles. To compete purely on Flops would turn the console war into an "enclosed-PC war" and the raw Flop performance of those will always invariably fall behind PC. This is why it was an astute and smart move to focus on something other than Flops and change the game/move the goalposts with SSD. I see SSD akin to a new format, much like CD, DVD, Blu-Ray, but this new format has potential far beyond those technologies which offered little else other than more storage capacity. This doesn't mean PS5 is more powerful, and it doesn't mean XSX is worse. They are just both playing different games.
Phil Spencer even came out and said Sony and PlayStation aren't their real competitors... but Google and Amazon. Here:
Why Microsoft Doesn’t Think Sony And PlayStation Are The Real Competition For Xbox
We're getting ready for the Xbox Series x/playStation5 console war, but head of Xbox Phil Spencer says that Sony and Nintendo are not Xbox's true competition.
Stadia came out pushing their raw TFlop figure of 10.7. MS had to beat this. Again, MS are making their big push into streaming and they see Google & Amazon as their main competitors. Only MS can play this game with their deep pockets. Whereas Sony are marching to the beat of a different drum with the PS5 coming in below it.
Sony will easily win this console war IMO, just based on the back of their games alone.
MS has the high potential of coming out of this generation being the biggest overall gaming brand across Streaming, Mobile, Console & PC if they play their cards right.
Basically, the console war is good because it drives interest and debate, which in turn will lead to sales and a healthy industry and more/better games. Behind the scenes however, I don't believe there is much animosity between Sony and Microsoft. They probably recognise the fact they need each other in order to maintain a duopoly of-sorts, and I for one, as a Sony fan, am glad for Microsoft and Xbox to exist and playing the Flop game, and competing with those 1000-pound incumbents Google and Amazon. In a way, MS is a shield that protects Sony. I would hate for Sony to have to play the flop game (and only the flop game) and lose what makes PlayStation so special, which is innovative, unique and interesting gaming technology. In many ways, I see PlayStation as more "boutique".
Would MS like Sony's business? I believe they would love it, but I also believe they know they can't/won't compete directly right now when other massive competitors are coming up the rear.
Would Sony like MS's business? I believe Sony are comfortable exactly where they are for the moment and don't envy MS's position and their battle ahead against Google and Amazon.
Having said all that, Sony will possibly be forced to compete in the wider gaming arena before too long anyway, but my belief is that VR is a long-term lucrative growth area that remains largely untapped and holds massive potential for Sony to conquer, and MS will conquer streaming while leveraging their expertise in datacentres and servers. Bottom-line, the paths of both MS and Sony are largely divergent from here on out and while everyone continues to bicker and debate the pros & cons of their respective favourite systems, I'm sitting it out for a while and watching how this whole thing plays out.
On the VR plane, Sony is the only company who is standardizing the VR platform with inclusion into its own gaming platform. For PC it still stays as something niche for multimedia experiences and its push as gaming device came too late and from different vendors with different specced devices that splits the market even more.
But look at from PS VR perspective and you will realize it will be very healthy when it matures in its second generation, and if it stays the only VR platform in console gaming then I believe it will be unmatched as its base will grow really large, with more and more people buying it. Which will also probably push PC side as well, but I think there will be a clear winner there and PC VR will be consolidated going forwards within mostly one vendor.
Yup. I don't see Amazon and Google getting into publishing of games for their own platform, or basically exclusivity, as their base is too small and isn't showing signs of that much growth to be honest.
I see that they will not divide the existing players, but instead will add to those within their platform. Stream gaming with no console is kind of a business that has to cost less than a hundred $ since it is marketed as such. Plug this mini device into tv, get the controller in your hand and done. However, the game libraries are still too limited and the experience isn't exactly there. So no console player will go for it. Those are not appealing to console gamers. Thus, these streaming services can not split console gamers but can only add to existing gamers.
And there only MS has a plan to compete, and Sony hasn't AFAIK.
MS wants to get non console gamers to play on their TVs with a really small device (like a Lockhart that is comparable ins size to what Stadia has with Google Chromecast Ultra). Their power of cloud push was indicative of that. This device will not just stream data but also help render it while still streaming with much much less latency so that the experience on it will be much better than anything on Stadia. However since Stadia is still in its infancy, MS has no rush to come to market with Lackhart just yet. But when they do, it will be game over for Google, and Amazon (which is in it just for most datacentre race anyway and not gaming mainly). On Sony's side, I think they are comfortable if only their console owners can play from any screens with their own hardware streaming from somewhere else. And also they will be looking into at least doubling PS Now users to be serious about it in the future, so they will push PS Now to more markets, make some changes, include better versions and Remasters of the games instead of old PS3 versions, and then just see if it is growing in revenue, if it doesn't it will stay that way. But if it does grow, only then Sony can become serious stream gaming contender with their own plans, but that is really in the not so near future.
- Status