PS5 Teardown: An inside look at our most transformative console yet

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,384
How about Demon Souls with Ray-Tracing? You can do a lot on PC when it comes to graphic mods. Give it time and someone will mod it to look like the PS5 version.


Yea graphics, not anything else. Don't see how you're not understand my statement?

How about Demon Souls 2? How about Blood Borne 2? How about a new IP for $70? Demon Souls on the PS5 is NOT A NEW GAME. Better graphics is not a new game. It's an 11 year old game that nobody cared about until Dark Souls. Demon Souls is $40 at best, because that's the price of Dark Souls remastered.

Personally, I think re-shade RT looks like garbage across the board. The only thing it does is layer half-assed RT effects over existing effects, making both of them look sub-par. Either way, it still looks nowhere near the remake.

Also, that game "no one cared about" is the only reason Dark Souls exists in the first place. If you don't think the remake is worth $70, fine whatever. Everyone puts different values on things. However, if you think remaking a game from the ground up is "nothing" then you have no fucking clue about anything development related. It's not just redoing graphics. Everything is on a brand new engine, they have to recreate everything from the original game. They're clearly not reusing animations, so those are all new. Sounds will probably have to be completely redone. Voices may or may not need to be re-recorded. There's really very little in terms of actual assets that they're going to be able to reuse, if anything at all.
 

scojer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Messages
5,163
How about Demon Souls with Ray-Tracing? You can do a lot on PC when it comes to graphic mods. Give it time and someone will mod it to look like the PS5 version.

Still looks like crap compared to the remake, and no one will ever be able to mod the animations, add in extra effects, or add extra polygons to the models. It's clunky and looks like something I don't want to play.
Yea graphics, not anything else. Don't see how you're not understand my statement?
You said:

Like I already said, you don't have to design the game from scratch. No new ideas, no new game design. It's just Demon Souls with better graphics. I'd like to see how this compares to a texture repack of Demon Souls on RPCS3. I still remember how they Remastered Dark Souls.

I showed you how it compares to the texture repack. It looks way better, and the point of a remake is to bring a game up to date. It looks smoother, not as clunky.
It's more than just graphics. Yes, graphics are a part, but it's a new animation system, physics system, particle system, sound system, it's literally brand new everything, with the core gameplay the same, because the gameplay is what everyone wants. Why change that if it isn't broken?

So, please, tell me how I don't understand your statement. I do, and don't think you understand how wrong you are with your statement.

How about Demon Souls 2? How about Blood Borne 2? How about a new IP for $70? Demon Souls on the PS5 is NOT A NEW GAME. Better graphics is not a new game. It's an 11 year old game that nobody cared about until Dark Souls. Demon Souls is $40 at best, because that's the price of Dark Souls remastered.

The Dark Soul's remaster was literally a texture repack, so the $40 price point made sense.

Dark Soul's was the spiritual successor to Demon's Souls, and it had a few sequels of it's own. There's your sequel(s).

If they released Demon's Soul's with the crappy texture repack you're touting, then $40 is fair. But it's a complete remake, they brought it up to the standards of today's games, it is essentially a brand NEW GAME. Think of all the younger generation who didn't get to play it on the PS3, it's new to them. It's new to the Xbox to PS converters. Just because it isn't new to you or I, doesn't mean it isn't new to others.
Also, if it sells well, I'm sure they'll likely make a sequel.

As for a new IP, there are new IPs coming, Elden Ring is coming up. Who knows what else will be after.

I don't know what else to say to you, you're a lost cause who, for some reason, thinks the crappy retexture is all that's needed, and the remake is pointless.
 

T4rd

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
17,937
You all should learn to ignore that dude in any console threads. I've already had all the same arguments with him as you all are having in this thread. He has the an obvious bias against consoles for some reason, is unwilling to concede any advantage whatsoever that consoles can provide, ignores or dismisses any and all hard evidence you can provide to contradict his false claims, uses his prejudice against consoles as an excuse to pirate what games he can through emulation, and has thrown blanket insults to all who play games on consoles. He consistently has the worst takes on consoles and games in general that I've seen since I've been on the forum and uses the most skewed or irrelevant evidence and citations to back up his bad opinions as well.

Anyways, back on topic; PS5 looks great to me so far other than its massive size. But it seems Sony has finally put acoustics above all else this generation from the early reports of those who have the console on hand, as its being reported as being whisper quite in the games they're able to play on it so far. But the same can also be said of the Series X from what I've seen as well.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,318
You all should learn to ignore that dude in any console threads. I've already had all the same arguments with him as you all are having in this thread. He has the an obvious bias against consoles for some reason, is unwilling to concede any advantage whatsoever that consoles can provide, ignores or dismisses any and all hard evidence you can provide
I didn't discover any worthwhile advantages consoles would have, in 3 generations and 15 years. There was never a moment where I said "damn this would be a good feature to have on PC!"
Apart from the lower initial buyin price what can a console do that a PC can't? And that's not even an advantage to anyone who already owns a PC capable of running games.

Anyways, back on topic; PS5 looks great to me so far other than its massive size. But it seems Sony has finally put acoustics above all else this generation from the early reports of those who have the console on hand, as its being reported as being whisper quite in the games they're able to play on it so far. But the same can also be said of the Series X from what I've seen as well.
See, you are already forced to make excuses for it. Oh it's big, but it's all good since they are focusing on acoustics this time! And with that another advantage of the console bites the dust that was often used by console fans. First it was "but you don't need to install games on a console" then that went the way of the dodo (I'd have preferred to install games even earlier against the ridiculous loading times from disc) Now size advantage is going away as well.

And about those acoustics I'll believe it when I hear it, or rather don't hear it. Like Nvidia's 3080FE, where they focused on acustics and the end result is louder hotter and runs at a lower power target than partner cards, LOL.
I expect similar results from the PS5's cooling. It will be a step forward compared to a PS4, but it will still be a hairdrier compared to a well built PC.
 

T4rd

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
17,937
I didn't discover any worthwhile advantages consoles would have, in 3 generations and 15 years. There was never a moment where I said "damn this would be a good feature to have on PC!"
Apart from the lower initial buyin price what can a console do that a PC can't? And that's not even an advantage to anyone who already owns a PC capable of running games.


See, you are already forced to make excuses for it. Oh it's big, but it's all good since they are focusing on acoustics this time! And with that another advantage of the console bites the dust that was often used by console fans. First it was "but you don't need to install games on a console" then that went the way of the dodo (I'd have preferred to install games even earlier against the ridiculous loading times from disc) Now size advantage is going away as well.

And about those acoustics I'll believe it when I hear it, or rather don't hear it. Like Nvidia's 3080FE, where they focused on acustics and the end result is louder hotter and runs at a lower power target than partner cards, LOL.
I expect similar results from the PS5's cooling. It will be a step forward compared to a PS4, but it will still be a hairdrier compared to a well built PC.

Yeah, I remember you complaining about your controller handicap in the Horizon ZD thread too; made it seem like combat was way too hard with the controller before I showed you a video of someone doing the hardest lodge challenge on the hardest difficultly that I was able to replicate myself after a handful of attempts.

I'm sorry about your handicap, but there are plenty of people like myself that prefer controllers for 3rd person adventure games like that and stick to PC for FPS games and maybe some other 3rd person shooters like Control. And it happens that Sony publishes the best single player games in that genre in the industry, so that's reason enough for me to buy one. You're good with waiting to see if/when they may be ported to PC, I'll just play them on both platforms if that happens, but be happy still if it doesn't.

But the other nice perk of consoles for me is the general ease of entry and stability. It's pretty common PC games, esp. older games but some newer games too like Metro Exodus recently, crash or glitch out way too much to enjoy due to newer hardware and software incompatibilities. Then I get to spend time tweaking and tinkering with all the graphical settings to get the performance I want even on my 2080 and upcoming 3080. Hopefully the game supports my ultrawide resolution as well, which amazingly some newer games like Ace Combat 7 doesn't support (seems like a massive oversight for that genre) without some crazy hacks, a game that I just recently picked up on PS4 instead actually because I thought I'd enjoy it more on my 65" OLED anyways with HDR support that many PC games don't have either.

So it's a convenience thing for me to just turn on the console and play without worry of crashing/bugs, messing with graphical settings, or other interruptions from Windows. But the single player exclusives are the best in the industry as well, which are easily worth the price of the console for me. Can't wait to play some of the ones I missed on PS5 and replay some others when I get it.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,318
Yeah, I remember you complaining about your controller handicap in the Horizon ZD thread too; made it seem like combat was way too hard with the controller before I showed you a video of someone doing the hardest lodge challenge on the hardest difficultly that I was able to replicate myself after a handful of attempts.
What is your point? You can play games with a controller on PC if that's your preferred control method. How is that an advantage that only the console can give you?
And I never claimed it is impossible to play games with a controller. I hate it however, so it is a definite disadvantage of the console for me.
I cannot choose to use a mouse on it, but you can choose to play with a controller on PC in almost every game.


I'm sorry about your handicap, but there are plenty of people like myself that prefer controllers for 3rd person adventure games like that and stick to PC for FPS games and maybe some other 3rd person shooters like Control. And it happens that Sony publishes the best single player games in that genre in the industry, so that's reason enough for me to buy one. You're good with waiting to see if/when they may be ported to PC, I'll just play them on both platforms if that happens, but be happy still if it doesn't.
Yeah but where is the advantage of the console? All I said that a console has no advantages over a PC.

But the other nice perk of consoles for me is the general ease of entry and stability. It's pretty common PC games, esp. older games but some newer games too like Metro Exodus recently, crash or glitch out way too much to enjoy due to newer hardware and software incompatibilities. Then I get to spend time tweaking and tinkering with all the graphical settings to get the performance I want even on my 2080 and upcoming 3080. Hopefully the game supports my ultrawide resolution as well, which amazingly some newer games like Ace Combat 7 doesn't support (seems like a massive oversight for that genre) without some crazy hacks, a game that I just recently picked up on PS4 instead actually because I thought I'd enjoy it more on my 65" OLED anyways with HDR support that many PC games don't have either.
It was a pain in the ass to set up the ps4, having to create online account with an on-screen keyboard. I barely spend time on the PS4, yet it crashes more often during games than my PC. I'm not exaggerating, while playing TLOU2 I had at least 3 bluescreens on it. In the course of a 25 hours game. If my pc crashed that often I'd throw it from the upper floor window.
Being able to set up graphics settings is an advantage not a disadvantage. It allows me to choose if I prefer the best graphics or compromise on graphics for FPS. Sadly on the consoles it's always a compromise on both accounts.
Ultrawide that's a great case against PC, since on console literally no game supports it LOL.
The games that have HDR on the PS4 will also support HDR on PC, why wouldn't they?
And you can connect the PC to a 65" 4k TV, you cannot however connect the console to an ultrawide monitor and fully utilize it.

So it's a convenience thing for me to just turn on the console and play without worry of crashing/bugs, messing with graphical settings, or other interruptions from Windows.
As already mentioned crashes are not unknown on console, it seems to me that they happen more often nowadays than with earlier generations. And not just by my account, I've read numerous complaints about crashes.
You can just leave everything on medium on PC, it will still look better than the console version :p
And about that convenience. Whenever I turn on my PS4, or PS3, it was always "system update" and "game update". What little motivation I've had to play was gone by the time I was able to.
But the single player exclusives are the best in the industry as well, which are easily worth the price of the console for me. Can't wait to play some of the ones I missed on PS5 and replay some others when I get it.

That was exactly the point, if sony decides to bring it's exclusives to PC then I have zero reason to buy a PS5. I'm already banging my head against the wall that I finished HZD on PS4. Had I knew it will come out for PC I'd have waited. As I've waited with GTAV. I purchased the PS3 version but sold it after a few hours and decided to wait for the PC version instead. Never regretted it. You see they made their own bed, now they have to lay in it. They planted the seed of doubt in me, so I'll wait and see, otherwise I'd probably got a PS5 at the first interesting exclusive title. Now I'm not sure I'm going to do that.
 

T4rd

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
17,937
What is your point? You can play games with a controller on PC if that's your preferred control method. How is that an advantage that only the console can give you?
And I never claimed it is impossible to play games with a controller. I hate it however, so it is a definite disadvantage of the console for me.
I cannot choose to use a mouse on it, but you can choose to play with a controller on PC in almost every game.



Yeah but where is the advantage of the console? All I said that a console has no advantages over a PC.


It was a pain in the ass to set up the ps4, having to create online account with an on-screen keyboard. I barely spend time on the PS4, yet it crashes more often during games than my PC. I'm not exaggerating, while playing TLOU2 I had at least 3 bluescreens on it. In the course of a 25 hours game. If my pc crashed that often I'd throw it from the upper floor window.
Being able to set up graphics settings is an advantage not a disadvantage. It allows me to choose if I prefer the best graphics or compromise on graphics for FPS. Sadly on the consoles it's always a compromise on both accounts.
Ultrawide that's a great case against PC, since on console literally no game supports it LOL.
The games that have HDR on the PS4 will also support HDR on PC, why wouldn't they?
And you can connect the PC to a 65" 4k TV, you cannot however connect the console to an ultrawide monitor and fully utilize it.


As already mentioned crashes are not unknown on console, it seems to me that they happen more often nowadays than with earlier generations. And not just by my account, I've read numerous complaints about crashes.
You can just leave everything on medium on PC, it will still look better than the console version :p
And about that convenience. Whenever I turn on my PS4, or PS3, it was always "system update" and "game update". What little motivation I've had to play was gone by the time I was able to.


That was exactly the point, if sony decides to bring it's exclusives to PC then I have zero reason to buy a PS5. I'm already banging my head against the wall that I finished HZD on PS4. Had I knew it will come out for PC I'd have waited. As I've waited with GTAV. I purchased the PS3 version but sold it after a few hours and decided to wait for the PC version instead. Never regretted it. You see they made their own bed, now they have to lay in it. They planted the seed of doubt in me, so I'll wait and see, otherwise I'd probably got a PS5 at the first interesting exclusive title. Now I'm not sure I'm going to do that.

My point was I remembered you complaining about it a lot in that thread and others, so of course you're not going to care much for consoles that force you to use a controller.

I've had the exact opposite experience with crashing; absolutely no crashing after 2 completions of TLOU 2 for me on my Pro and only a handful across the several years I've had the base and Pro console. Whereas I've had countless crashes on many games consistently on PC on both old and newer games, and no OC'ing involved either. I had to give up playing Metro Exodus because of consistent crashing every 15-30 mins. Almost the same story playing the original Crysis games, CoD Infinite Warfare & Modern Warfare/Warzone for the first couple months, and Wolfenstein YB as well.

You missed my point about ultrawide not being compatible; if a game doesn't support it still, I'm less inclined to play it on PC LOL :rolleyes:. There's tons of games that support HDR on console, but not PC too, as HDR monitors have only became standardized in the last couple years, but was on TVs years before that. I'm not dragging my PC out to my living room just to hook it up to my TV either, only to have to drag it back to my office. I have Shield TV and Steam Link for that, but it's a big compromise since it doesn't support 4K60 across the network, but works ok otherwise, just not nearly as easy or seamless as a dedicated console.

You're never forced to update the console or game to play them either when it prompts you, so that's a non-issue. Leaving graphical settings on medium is leaving IQ on the table for hardware I paid to fully utilize. Sometimes I'm in the mood for it, sometimes I'm not. Regardless, I'm in game much faster and hassle free from standby most of the time on console than I am on PC. You can try to negate my experience with yours all you want, but that's not going to change my experience or opinion about it.

I don't get why you're "banging your hard on the wall" for playing HZD on PS4 either, other than your controller handicap I guess. I did as well and am glad I did and bought it again on PC to play again with better performance... only to experience a lot of crashing that plagued it for its first couple patches, lol. So thanks for bringing up another example of more bugs on PC games. Not one crash on my PS4 Pro over 100 hours and two play-throughs in that game either.
 
Last edited:

Aurelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 22, 2003
Messages
2,952
What sony has convinced me by releasing these games on PC is that I no longer need to struggle in front of a TV with a controller, and more importantly no longer need to buy an expensive console for a handful of games. I can wait. I already wait on PC because of games that are exclusive to the windows store or epic store.

To me every console I owned was a necessary bad, now they removed the necessary part, so what's left is just "bad".

It's not that console gaming will die out because of this. It's that Sony realized that they can make more money by selling games on PC than by trying to force consoles on everyone. And if the rumours are true that they sell consoles at a loss, then they are actually loosing money on people like me.
Well, as someone whose partner enjoys cuddling up during gaming sessions, who spends all day working at a computer and would rather not stay there for gaming, who often plays games that benefit from a controller... I'd say consoles are good 😛

I'd say it's important to remember that Sony is likely treating PC ports as a value add that ultimately helps console sales as well, not a way to shore up sales. It's unclear if Sony is selling the PS5 at a loss, but it's true that at least some console makers have done that early on in hopes that game attach rates will make up for it. Yeah, Sony would likely lose money on you!
 
Last edited:

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
5,003
and what does the use of GDDR5 have to do with this aspect?
Sincerely asking.
Why don't desktop PC's use GDDR5 or GDDR6? The bandwidth is clearly higher than DDR4. The reason for this is the fact that CPU's deal with linear code, as in code that runs in-order. You can't run all the code in a program at once. CPU's are all about IPC and to get better results you need not only bandwidth but lower latency. Ryzen CPU's like bandwidth but we know they also like lower latency as well. So imagine how the Ryzen cores in the PS5 and Xbox One X are going to perform compared to desktop counterparts?
Not quite - the Xenon CPU used a much simpler design with a 3-core PPC CPU with 2-way SMT (6 threads), which overall would be much simpler to emulate over the IBM Cell (1 PPE and 7 SPEs) across conventional modern many-core x86-64 CPUs today.
That aspect hardly shows how "weak" the PPC cores were in the Xenon, which they absolutely were not at the time in the mid-2000s.
You can see how bad those CPU's were. And they were horrible. The PS3 was slower than a Athlon XP 2500 at compression. Given the benchmark doesn't utilize the SPE's but then again most games on the PS3 didn't either. The 360 would probably be 3x faster assuming it gets 1/3 less in compression time so then I assume it performs like a G5.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
5,003
It's not that console gaming will die out because of this. It's that Sony realized that they can make more money by selling games on PC than by trying to force consoles on everyone. And if the rumours are true that they sell consoles at a loss, then they are actually loosing money on people like me.
It's the reason why I think that some studios that Sony owns might leave Sony to go alone and release games on all platforms. As profitable as the Playstation platform is, it's far more profitable to release a game on the PC, Switch, and Xbox platforms. But Microsoft is aware that without exclusives then nobody will care about the Xbox platform, which is why we're already getting hints that the next Elder Scrolls game maybe exclusive to Xbox and PC. The only reason this didn't happen to Minecraft was because Minecraft was bigger than Xbox. It's going to be very hard going into this gaming generation with games exclusive to what is essentially 1/3 of the total gaming market. Especially during a recession and when games are going to be $70. Chances are there's going to be a lot of people who own one gaming machine and only one gaming machine, for financial reasons.

 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
5,003
However, if you think remaking a game from the ground up is "nothing" then you have no fucking clue about anything development related.
I didn't say nothing, I said $40. You want $60 then make a Demon Souls 2. You want $70 then good luck with people waiting for the price to come down.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
5,003
The Dark Soul's remaster was literally a texture repack, so the $40 price point made sense.
You think people were happy with that? Dark Souls already had community texture repacks, so we didn't need a $40 one. I paid $20 because I owned the original Dark Souls, which was more reasonable. The main thing was that From Software fixed their buggy net code so that PvP wasn't shit, and they didn't even do a good job at that.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,384
It's the reason why I think that some studios that Sony owns might leave Sony to go alone and release games on all platforms. As profitable as the Playstation platform is, it's far more profitable to release a game on the PC, Switch, and Xbox platforms. But Microsoft is aware that without exclusives then nobody will care about the Xbox platform, which is why we're already getting hints that the next Elder Scrolls game maybe exclusive to Xbox and PC. The only reason this didn't happen to Minecraft was because Minecraft was bigger than Xbox. It's going to be very hard going into this gaming generation with games exclusive to what is essentially 1/3 of the total gaming market. Especially during a recession and when games are going to be $70. Chances are there's going to be a lot of people who own one gaming machine and only one gaming machine, for financial reasons.


In order for a studio to leave Sony they'd have to do what Bungie did and buy themselves free. They'd do so without any of their IP however. That is, of course, assuming that Sony would even be willing to part with the studio. Given how well most Sony exclusives sold last gen I don't think any studio is exactly chomping at the bit to leave. If anything, more are likely to want to join the fold. I'd be surprised if Sony doesn't pick up Bluepoint this generation. AAA development costs are only going to go up (exponentially) this generation, making it much harder for studios to remain independent. We'll likely see more studios get gobbled up by Microsoft and Sony over the next few years.

As for that hint: I think it can be taken many ways. They've already said everything from that purchase is decided on a "game by game" basis. Spencer saying they have no obligation to release on other platforms adds to that. ES6 could be exclusive or it could not be, it will all depend on what makes sense at the time. It will likely be a couple/few years before they're ready to head into full production on the game and make a final call on platforms, so it's going to heavily depend on how well the Series consoles do and what the Xbox division feels is the best move. Of course, I could also see Spencer and co trying to push to get Game Pass (or, at least, the game streaming part) on other platforms in order to entirely mitigate the issue.

Most people already only own one console, or an Xbox/Playstion + Switch, that's always been the case. The increased prices might push more people down that route, but given it was already the majority not much will change there.

I didn't say nothing, I said $40. You want $60 then make a Demon Souls 2. You want $70 then good luck with people waiting for the price to come down.

We'll see. I think you are vastly underestimating how popular FromSoft is these days and the attention that Demon's Souls will get.
 

vegeta535

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
4,831
It's the reason why I think that some studios that Sony owns might leave Sony to go alone and release games on all platforms. As profitable as the Playstation platform is, it's far more profitable to release a game on the PC, Switch, and Xbox platforms. But Microsoft is aware that without exclusives then nobody will care about the Xbox platform, which is why we're already getting hints that the next Elder Scrolls game maybe exclusive to Xbox and PC. The only reason this didn't happen to Minecraft was because Minecraft was bigger than Xbox. It's going to be very hard going into this gaming generation with games exclusive to what is essentially 1/3 of the total gaming market. Especially during a recession and when games are going to be $70. Chances are there's going to be a lot of people who own one gaming machine and only one gaming machine, for financial reasons.

I see it is as good news. Bethesda makes nothing but garbage.
 

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
10,683
Why don't desktop PC's use GDDR5 or GDDR6? The bandwidth is clearly higher than DDR4. The reason for this is the fact that CPU's deal with linear code, as in code that runs in-order. You can't run all the code in a program at once. CPU's are all about IPC and to get better results you need not only bandwidth but lower latency.
Ding ding ding, we have a right answer - nice job, I wasn't sure if you would be able to get that one right.
But, if this were such an issue for specifically for gaming (which it isn't), then why does the original XBone have similar performance to the original PS4/Slim since it itself is running with DDR3 and not GDDR5?

Ryzen CPU's like bandwidth but we know they also like lower latency as well. So imagine how the Ryzen cores in the PS5 and Xbox One X are going to perform compared to desktop counterparts?
If they were running other applications outside of gaming, they would perform much more poorly due to the increase in latency.
But again, since this isn't an issue for games, game engines, etc., it shouldn't be a problem as the last generation proved - you are grasping at straws here.

You can see how bad those CPU's were. And they were horrible. The PS3 was slower than a Athlon XP 2500 at compression. Given the benchmark doesn't utilize the SPE's but then again most games on the PS3 didn't either.
That bolded part right there shows how bullshit your statement, and that benchmark, both are.
The IBM Cell is not a conventional nor general-purpose CPU - the code has to be written to take advantage of the SPE units (I cannot stress this enough!!!), and if it doesn't, then that code is only going to only run on the single general-purpose PPE, which is the rough equivalent to a 1.6GHz IBM 970FX CPU, which is extremely similar in performance to the single-core 1.7GHz IBM 970FX CPU in the Oct. 2005 G5 iMac.

As an example, when the Intel Pentium 4 debuted in 2000, it was actually slower in code execution than the previous Intel Pentium 3, clock-for-clock, because software wasn't yet written to take advantage of the then-new SSE2 instructions featured in the Pentium 4.
The Pentium 3 had a far better microarchitecture, pipeline, etc. which even without SSE2 completely outperformed the Pentium 4 clock-for-clock on software that was only optimized for SSE.

Again, software has to be written (optimized) to take advantage of hardware in a CPU.
This is why your arguments are bullshit, are apples-to-oranges at best, and why damn near everyone on this forum (and certainly in console threads) are sick and tired of your crap.

Also, it was only at the very beginning of the PS3 life cycle that a few games would only take advantage of the PPE unit and not the SPE units, as the software and coding knowledge to do so was not widespread.
By 2010, every game on the PS3 would have taken full advantage of the entire Cell CPU, which is why the PS3 lasted as long as it did, especially with amazing games like The Last of Us, which was a massive technical feat in and of itself to run on such old and limited hardware by its debut in 2013, especially on the PS3 with only 256MB of RAM and 256MB of VRAM - now that is some incredible optimization!

The 360 would probably be 3x faster assuming it gets 1/3 less in compression time so then I assume it performs like a G5.
"G5" isn't a processor, and you didn't even specify which G5 you are referring to, so... fail.
The rest is pretty much what I said before:

The tri-core Xenon PowerPC CPU was clocked at 3.2GHz, so it had similar performance to 3 IBM 970FX CPUs clocked at 1.6GHz, which is multitudes above 3 Atom cores of any variant.
At the time, x86-64 CPUs were only just becoming dual-cores, so unless it were a multi-socket 2P system, no x86-64 CPU would compare to the Xenon CPU in 2005 and even into 2006.

The Xenon CPU also featured 2-way SMT, which with 3 CPU cores then offered 6 threads.
Again, this is when x86-64 CPUs were only finally allowing for 2 threads or 4 threads with the pathetic excuse of a "dual-core" that the Netburst Pentium D offered with Hyper-threading.
At the original price point of the 360 in 2005 to mid-2006, no PC would even come close to that level of performance for gaming.
 
Last edited:

scojer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Messages
5,163
You think people were happy with that? Dark Souls already had community texture repacks, so we didn't need a $40 one. I paid $20 because I owned the original Dark Souls, which was more reasonable. The main thing was that From Software fixed their buggy net code so that PvP wasn't shit, and they didn't even do a good job at that.


Yes, people were happy with that. Why? Because the target audience isn't existing players. It's new players. If you had it on PC and got texture packs, good for you! But, get this, they aren't trying to sell to you. They're trying to sell to those who never picked it up before, those who were either too young when it first came out, or that simply didn't have the means to play. Sure there are a few die hard fans that would repurchase it, and those that do, do so to help support one of their favorite developers.

You're a customer, if you don't like it, don't buy it. You don't have to be their customer. A lot of others will be.
 

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,614
Ding ding ding, we have a right answer - nice job, I wasn't sure if you would be able to get that one right.
But, if this were such an issue for specifically for gaming (which it isn't), then why does the original XBone have similar performance to the original PS4/Slim since it itself is running with DDR3 and not GDDR5?


If they were running other applications outside of gaming, they would perform much more poorly due to the increase in latency.
But again, since this isn't an issue for games, game engines, etc., it shouldn't be a problem as the last generation proved - you are grasping at straws here.


That bolded part right there shows how bullshit your statement, and that benchmark, both are.
The IBM Cell is not a conventional nor general-purpose CPU - the code has to be written to take advantage of the SPE units (I cannot stress this enough!!!), and if it doesn't, then that code is only going to only run on the single general-purpose PPE, which is the rough equivalent to a 1.6GHz IBM 970FX CPU, which is extremely similar in performance to the single-core 1.7GHz IBM 970FX CPU in the Oct. 2005 G5 iMac.

As an example, when the Intel Pentium 4 debuted in 2000, it was actually slower in code execution than the previous Intel Pentium 3, clock-for-clock, because software wasn't yet written to take advantage of the then-new SSE2 instructions featured in the Pentium 4.
The Pentium 3 had a far better microarchitecture, pipeline, etc. which even without SSE2 completely outperformed the Pentium 4 clock-for-clock on software that was only optimized for SSE.

Again, software has to be written (optimized) to take advantage of hardware in a CPU.
This is why your arguments are bullshit, are apples-to-oranges at best, and why damn near everyone on this forum (and certainly in console threads) are sick and tired of your crap.

Also, it was only at the very beginning of the PS3 life cycle that a few games would only take advantage of the PPE unit and not the SPE units, as the software and coding knowledge to do so was not widespread.
By 2010, every game on the PS3 would have taken full advantage of the entire Cell CPU, which is why the PS3 lasted as long as it did, especially with amazing games like The Last of Us, which was a massive technical feat in and of itself to run on such old and limited hardware by its debut in 2013, especially on the PS3 with only 256MB of RAM and 256MB of VRAM - now that is some incredible optimization!


"G5" isn't a processor, and you didn't even specify which G5 you are referring to, so... fail.
The rest is pretty much what I said before:
Thank you for taking the time to do this. Jesus. It's like trying to stop your kid from putting his/her finger in the electrical socket.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
5,003
But, if this were such an issue for specifically for gaming (which it isn't), then why does the original XBone have similar performance to the original PS4/Slim since it itself is running with DDR3 and not GDDR5?
Firstly because both the PS4 and Xbone have... similar hardware. So similar that a novice looking at specs couldn't tell the difference between the two besides memory. Secondly, games on the Xbone were effected in terms of resolution since DDR3 is worse than GDDR5 for the GPU. Modern games do not make good use of the CPU better than the GPU, which means that we've stagnated in things like physics and AI. Ever wonder why Half Life 2 a 2004 game looks so good today? Also the PS4 CPU was benchmarked and in single core performance it's half that of i5 3317U, and in multicore performance it's slower than a i7 3840QM.



If they were running other applications outside of gaming, they would perform much more poorly due to the increase in latency.
But again, since this isn't an issue for games, game engines, etc., it shouldn't be a problem as the last generation proved - you are grasping at straws here.
So wait, you think games care less about latency? Games mostly care about IPC and therefore lower latency would increase performance for games. It certainly did for Linus.

Again, software has to be written (optimized) to take advantage of hardware in a CPU.
This is why your arguments are bullshit, are apples-to-oranges at best, and why damn near everyone on this forum (and certainly in console threads) are sick and tired of your crap.
Jesus you guys have issues. THE SPE's or Synergistic Processing Elements were not... how do I say it... easy to utilize? They were poorly made and had a lot of issues that the developer had to deal with constantly to even make them semi work. The SPE's have no branch prediction and the moment you don't have clean code, it will massively slow down the performance. The PowerPC core has to babysit the SPE's to make sure everything works OK when using branching code, which you should never have running on them. On top of that, the SPEs only have 256KB SRAM each dedicated to them and they cannot directly access RAM. It is impossible to fully utilize the SPE's in a game scenario, and the peak throughput of the Cell is unattainable. Even though a cluster of Cells remained one of the top 50 supercomputers for longer than the average time, but in games 14.4 GFLOPS is the collective total the SPEs can attain in an ideal situation.

You can't benchmark that shit because nobody could fully utilize it to begin with. You would need to write extremely concise and small code that has the absolute minimum amount of branching if/then/else, while parallelizing code across 7 chips, keeping them busy so not to waste time with the pipeline. You see what's needed to write "Hello World" on a SPE?

 

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
10,683
Firstly because both the PS4 and Xbone have... similar hardware. So similar that a novice looking at specs couldn't tell the difference between the two besides memory. Secondly, games on the Xbone were effected in terms of resolution since DDR3 is worse than GDDR5 for the GPU. Modern games do not make good use of the CPU better than the GPU, which means that we've stagnated in things like physics and AI. Ever wonder why Half Life 2 a 2004 game looks so good today? Also the PS4 CPU was benchmarked and in single core performance it's half that of i5 3317U, and in multicore performance it's slower than a i7 3840QM.




So wait, you think games care less about latency? Games mostly care about IPC and therefore lower latency would increase performance for games. It certainly did for Linus.


Jesus you guys have issues. THE SPE's or Synergistic Processing Elements were not... how do I say it... easy to utilize? They were poorly made and had a lot of issues that the developer had to deal with constantly to even make them semi work. The SPE's have no branch prediction and the moment you don't have clean code, it will massively slow down the performance. The PowerPC core has to babysit the SPE's to make sure everything works OK when using branching code, which you should never have running on them. On top of that, the SPEs only have 256KB SRAM each dedicated to them and they cannot directly access RAM. It is impossible to fully utilize the SPE's in a game scenario, and the peak throughput of the Cell is unattainable. Even though a cluster of Cells remained one of the top 50 supercomputers for longer than the average time, but in games 14.4 GFLOPS is the collective total the SPEs can attain in an ideal situation.

You can't benchmark that shit because nobody could fully utilize it to begin with. You would need to write extremely concise and small code that has the absolute minimum amount of branching if/then/else, while parallelizing code across 7 chips, keeping them busy so not to waste time with the pipeline. You see what's needed to write "Hello World" on a SPE?

First part of that statement, I already knew the answer to, I really just wanted to see what you had to say on it.
I've already pointed out what level of performance the 8-core Jaguar has in multiple posts in this thread alone, so thanks for being redundant.

What does HL2 have to do with any of that statement? (really, this is the kind of nonsense you post that goes no where and has no point, just FYI)
As for the SPE units, the Cell in the PS3 is capable of around 25 GFLOPS FP32 in the PPE and 150 GFLOPS FP32 in the 6 available SPEs (25 GFLOPS per SPE).

So, that "14.4 GFLOPS" statement you just made, especially for games, is total bullshit.
Yes, it is very possible to fully utilize all of the available SPE units in a "game scenario" as you call it.

Ok, so they "only have" 256KB of SRAM on each SPE - x86-64 CPUs at the time used between 256KB-1MB of L2 cache per CPU core, and many single-core x86 CPUs at the time used as little as 128KB of L2, so your point is...???
Yes, it is possible to benchmark it, but the benchmark has to be written to take advantage of it.

Yep, Hello World requires more code, certainly, but other tasks can be more or less efficient in the amount of code required of a general-purpose CPU core, so that argument is invalid, and was proven invalid well over a decade ago - nice try, though.
Yep, code has to be optimized to take advantage of it - again, your point is???

This is like you are bitching about devs having to write branching code to access more than one CPU core via SMP on a multi-core CPU - like, learn to do that and get over it?
Seriously, what is your point about all of this???

you guys have issues
Hmm, looks like the only issue we all have in this thread is you.
Well, that and your bullshit posts that go no where, make no point, are incorrect on almost every technical level, and are hypocritical to the point where you should probably just stop.
 
Last edited:

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
5,003
What does HL2 have to do with any of that statement? (really, this is the kind of nonsense you post that goes no where and has no point, just FYI)
It shows that games have stagnated in CPU utilization, which is because the CPU in consoles have not increased that much in performance. The PS5 and Xbox Series X are the first consoles to have a genuinely fast CPU in them.
So, that "14.4 GFLOPS" statement you just made, especially for games, is total bullshit.
Yes, it is very possible to fully utilize all of the available SPE units in a "game scenario" as you call it.
At 25.6GFLOPS, all 8 SPEs would have a combined theoretical maximum throughput of 204.8 GFLOPS; with double precision floating point calculations, 14.4 GFLOPS is the collective total the SPEs can attain in an ideal situation, which is sad. Non-integer numbers involving 64-bit calculations will slaughter the performance on the PS3. In theory, each SPE @ 3.2GHz is capable of 25.6 GFLOPS when using double precision floating point numbers, which the SPE is capable of a pitiful 1.8 GFLOPS with the entire system capable of 20.8 GFLOPS in total, including the PPE, in these cases.

Ok, so they "only have" 256KB of SRAM on each SPE - x86-64 CPUs at the time used between 256KB-1MB of L2 cache per CPU core, and many single-core x86 CPUs at the time used as little as 128KB of L2, so your point is...???
It's not the same thing. If the SPE has to go outside of that 256 then it slows down massively, as Gabe Newell points out. That 256KB isn't cache on a CPU, but ram. Whatever you write for the SPE, must fit in 256KB of memory. Once it's in memory then fetching more memory from ram would drastically slow things down.


Yep, Hello World requires more code, certainly, but other tasks can be more or less efficient in the amount of code required of a general-purpose CPU core, so that argument is invalid, and was proven invalid well over a decade ago - nice try, though.
It requires 144 lines of code. You know, instead of 3-5 lines of code like most traditional CPU's. My point is the SPE's were rarely if ever fully utilized in games, and Sony's claims of the performance of the PS3 were very much exaggerated.

Hmm, looks like the only issue we all have in this thread is you.
Being wrong is not a democracy.
Well, that and your bullshit posts that go no where, make no point, are incorrect on almost every technical level, and are hypocritical to the point where you should probably just stop.
Was going to same the same to you. You spend more time Ad hominem then anything technical.
 

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
5,159
I think $70 is fair, for a game that is over a decade old, was only on PS3, and, is getting rebuilt, from scratch.
This is how gaming industry goes to shit. One step at a time. If a remake, with all the work mentioned, is worth $70, what is a completely new, made from ground up, game worth? $90?
 

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
10,683
with double precision floating point calculations, 14.4 GFLOPS is the collective total the SPEs can attain in an ideal situation, which is sad.
That is double-precision, aka FP64, which not all games (even to this day) fully utilize or rely upon.
Remember, this is 2005-era tech, and the best x86-64 dual-core CPUs out at that time could maybe push 5-10 GFLOPS in FP64 at most.

That 256KB isn't cache on a CPU, but ram. Whatever you write for the SPE, must fit in 256KB of memory. Once it's in memory then fetching more memory from ram would drastically slow things down.
That makes sense, which is why the code written has to be optimized to take advantage of said hardware, especially so since they are not general-purpose CPU cores nor are they of the PPC ISA.
I've seen that video, and while I get where Gabe is coming from in it, that was early in the PS3's life cycle, and it essentially comes down to Gabe and his programmers not understanding anything outside of single-threaded x86 coding at that point in time.

I remember Gabe and Valve devs hating the PS2 with it's MIPS-based EE CPU as well for similar reasons, and at the end of the day, they just didn't like it because it wasn't x86.
Gabe is a highly intelligent person, and what he says does ring true - at the same time, however, it is up to the coder and developer to learn to utilize a new architecture, or simply stick with what they know.

The Cell CPU was hardly a perfect design, and I have read elsewhere from other software developers (non-gaming) that there were many limitations to it, but once the code was optimized, that the Cell CPU was very powerful for the time and especially so for the price/performance ratio, thus making it highly sought-after.
A similar x86-64 workstation capable of the same computation in FP32 would have required a 4P system and then top-end CPUs, thus costing upwards of five figures in USD - compared to a $600 PS3 to achieve the same computational throughput.

Perhaps gaming wasn't the greatest value of the Cell CPU, but then again, it did allow developers to make amazing games like The Last of Us on the PS3 into the mid-2010s, nearly a decade after its debut in 2006.
The Cell also pushed forward many computationally challenging tasks, and the PS3 console itself was used in multiple supercomputers and beowulf clusters around the world at that time, so it must have been doing something right.

Was going to same the same to you. You spend more time Ad hominem then anything technical.
Even though I have countered you on almost everything you have posted thus far... ok.
Really, this comes down to you just not liking the consoles, and that is fine and all, but do you really need to shit on them in every thread, though?

The new architectures, software, game engines, and base-line hardware increases are always interesting from a technological standpoint.
This is especially so when it pushes new boundaries and limitations of PC gaming, which at the end of the day, is the biggest win for all of us - I would think you, of all people, would care about that at least.
 

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
10,683
This is how gaming industry goes to shit. One step at a time. If a remake, with all the work mentioned, is worth $70, what is a completely new, made from ground up, game worth? $90?
In all fairness, the Demon's Souls game is a remake from the ground up, minus the concepts and basic game/character information, so other new games should hopefully not cost more than $70 as well.
But then again, don't forget about DLC, season passes, and extra content, which for the last decade has made games optionally cost well more than $70 for the 'full' experience.
 

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
5,159
In all fairness, the Demon's Souls game is a remake from the ground up, minus the concepts and basic game/character information, so other new games should hopefully not cost more than $70 as well.
It's a thorough remake, but still less work than a new game, any way you cut it.
But then again, don't forget about DLC, season passes, and extra content, which for the last decade has made games optionally cost well more than $70 for the 'full' experience.
And it all started with the first customer agreeing it was worth it.
 

T4rd

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
17,937
It's a thorough remake, but still less work than a new game, any way you cut it.

And it all started with the first customer agreeing it was worth it.

Barely; the only thing they're saving on really is writers and storyboarding outside of whatever minor deviations they may make to the story, script, and characters. Otherwise it takes pretty much the same amount of resources. I'm pretty sure it took Capcom significantly more time and money to develop RE2 and RE3 remakes and I think they mostly justified their full price tag because of it. Same goes here.

Fortunately too, Sony has been really good about not padding their games with superfluous DLC and add-ons for their exclusives, which I expect they're aware that's what separates them from many 3rd party games of the same genres and will continue to deliver that for their exclusives.
 

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
5,159
Barely; the only thing they're saving on really is writers and storyboarding outside of whatever minor deviations they may make to the story, script, and characters. Otherwise it takes pretty much the same amount of resources. I'm pretty sure it took Capcom significantly more time and money to develop RE2 and RE3 remakes and I think they mostly justified their full price tag because of it. Same goes here.

Fortunately too, Sony has been really good about not padding their games with superfluous DLC and add-ons for their exclusives, which I expect they're aware that's what separates them from many 3rd party games of the same genres and will continue to deliver that for their exclusives.
You're underestimating the manpower and hours that are spent in the concept phase and during initial management, fleshing out, scripting, directing... Some projects spend years there.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,384
You're underestimating the manpower and hours that are spent in the concept phase and during initial management, fleshing out, scripting, directing...

This is true, though a lot of pre-pro work is still needed on a remake like this. It would be less than making something like this from scratch, but there clearly still seems to be a ton of work and effort put into the remake. If it's anything like their Shadow of the Colossus remake it will easily be the definitive way to play the game. Whether or not that's worth $70 is up to each person.
 
  • Like
Reactions: T4rd
like this

scojer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Messages
5,163
This is how gaming industry goes to shit. One step at a time. If a remake, with all the work mentioned, is worth $70, what is a completely new, made from ground up, game worth? $90?

Honestly I'm surprised it's taken so long for games to start raising in price. $60 has been the standard for YEARS, the pricing has remained relatively stagnant while everything else goes up. As Red Falcon pointed out, there are a ton of DLCs and add ons that help the developers recoup the costs.


And it all started with the first customer agreeing it was worth it.

And if you don't agree it's worth it, don't buy it. Vote with your wallet, I do, others do. It's how the world works.
 

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
5,159
This is true, though a lot of pre-pro work is still needed on a remake like this. It would be less than making something like this from scratch, but there clearly still seems to be a ton of work and effort put into the remake. If it's anything like their Shadow of the Colossus remake it will easily be the definitive way to play the game. Whether or not that's worth $70 is up to each person.
I agree. But not only is it full price, it's simultaneously the newly invented +$10 full price. It's kicking you down and spitting on you for good measure.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,384
I agree. But not only is it full price, it's simultaneously the newly invented +$10 full price. It's kicking you down and spitting on you for good measure.

Eh. I don't feel that way. There are very few remakes, from very few companies, I'd pay this kind of money for. Demon's Souls and Bluepoint hit those requirements. I don't like the new price, but that just means I'll buy less games at that price. CP2077, Miles UE, and Demon's Souls are the only games I'm picking up for the rest of the year and possibly for a few months into 2022.
 
  • Like
Reactions: T4rd
like this

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
5,159
Honestly I'm surprised it's taken so long for games to start raising in price. $60 has been the standard for YEARS, the pricing has remained relatively stagnant while everything else goes up. As Red Falcon pointed out, there are a ton of DLCs and add ons that help the developers recoup the costs.
That's a red herring. Distribution is cheaper, market is at least an order of magnitude larger, games are ofter partly released and require various passes, DLCs, etc. to be complete, and microtransactions bring in more than initial sales do. On average, a $60 game today is much more profitable than a $60 game in the past.
 

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
5,159
Eh. I don't feel that way. There are very few remakes, from very few companies, I'd pay this kind of money for. Demon's Souls and Bluepoint hit those requirements. I don't like the new price, but that just means I'll buy less games at that price. CP2077, Miles UE, and Demon's Souls are the only games I'm picking up for the rest of the year and possibly for a few months into 2022.
That's not an argument, that's just stating you love it so much you don't care if it demands a price premium. Which is why they can ask that much and therefore should. It doesn't make it not part of a long road of shitty trends in the gaming industry, though.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,384
That's not an argument, that's just stating you love it so much you don't care if it demands a price premium. Which is why they can ask that much and therefore should. It doesn't make it not part of a long road of shitty trends in the gaming industry, though.
Fair. Though we're mostly debating on opinion when it comes to value. At the very least, I'll take this over the $70 virtual casinos other publishers put out. Doesn't make Sony's tactics less shitty (and there's a nice list of shitty things to talk about with them), just comparatively better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meeho
like this

Darunion

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
4,043
Sony to optimise the PS5 fan with online updates

"Various games will be released in the future, and data on the APU's behaviour in each game will be collected," Otori said. "We have a plan to optimise the fan control based on this data.""

This sounds like the marketing guy needed something to release. What I could see having value is in a game if you were just playing and now it is a video sequence that maybe needs less power, quieting the fan to allow it to rise in temp to keep the sound low for the story.

I dunno, this feels like disaster at some point. What should be a if statement for temp and fan pwm control, will be a botched update that disables the fans.
 

scojer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Messages
5,163
That's a red herring. Distribution is cheaper, market is at least an order of magnitude larger, games are ofter partly released and require various passes, DLCs, etc. to be complete, and microtransactions bring in more than initial sales do. On average, a $60 game today is much more profitable than a $60 game in the past.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_video_games_to_develop

Games aren't cheap to develop, and that is why more and more developers are relying on DLC and micro transactions.

If you look at GTA V, Development cost $137,000,000 + marketing cost $128,000,000
That's $265,000,000.
They would have to sell 4,416,666 copies to break even, and obviously more to make a profit. They did sell more than that, they sold 11 million copies in two days, but not every game has as great of a launch, and, with the launch of GTA online, how much of the profits went towards supporting that venture?

It's always a gamble on development costs, marketing costs, and, it doesn't always pay off. That's why studios close, or games don't get sequels.

So, again, vote with your wallet. If enough people refuse to spend $70, they'll lower it. On the flip side, if enough pay it, $70 will be the new normal for a while, for the base game, before DLC.
 

vegeta535

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
4,831
Honestly I'm surprised it's taken so long for games to start raising in price. $60 has been the standard for YEARS, the pricing has remained relatively stagnant while everything else goes up. As Red Falcon pointed out, there are a ton of DLCs and add ons that help the developers recoup the costs.




And if you don't agree it's worth it, don't buy it. Vote with your wallet, I do, others do. It's how the world works.
Well they have been making a killing of DLC/MT but the greed is getting to them now.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
5,003
Honestly I'm surprised it's taken so long for games to start raising in price. $60 has been the standard for YEARS, the pricing has remained relatively stagnant while everything else goes up. As Red Falcon pointed out, there are a ton of DLCs and add ons that help the developers recoup the costs.
The $70 price is not to your benefit as a consumer. Are $70 games going to have DLC's? Are $70 games going to have micro-transactions? If the answer is yes then how are we benefiting from this as a consumer? Also, are game developers and publishers losing money? They're making record breaking profits. So the $70 price is just to gouge the consumer because they can and they will.
And if you don't agree it's worth it, don't buy it. Vote with your wallet, I do, others do. It's how the world works.
I certainly do as I can't remember the last time I bought a game for $60. I have so many other games to play that by the time I remember a certain game that came out, the price has fallen so low that I end up picking up the game for $20. I never played BloodBorne, and when it does come out on PC it'll probably be cheaper than $60. That game has no business being $60, let alone $70.

Also keep in mind that PC gaming has no gold standard when it comes to pricing, so while there certainly will be games on PC for $70 it will be up to the developer to price it that high. Personally I think this $70 price increase in games will have a massive backlash from the community, to the point that some will avoid buying a PS5 and Xbox One X in fear of $70 games. Also the cheaper PS5 and Xbox Series S will have massive problems with the community when they realize they can't buy, trade, or rent used games like they could with the more expensive $500 versions.

While $500 consoles may not seem expensive to some people here, do remember that we're in a recession where the price of food has gone up and people are still dying everyday from COVID19. I know that the PS5 and Xbox Series X has backed up pre-orders but many things in the past have had strong initial sales but very poor sales afterwards. I don't see many people who are excited to go buy a PS5 to play a remake of a 9 year old game that didn't even sell that well to begin with. Demon Souls with 1.7 million copies vs Dark Souls 25 million copies worldwide. Xbox won't fair any better with the Halo Infinite missing launch release and Fable a forgotten series that Microsoft has canceled before.
 

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
10,683
I never played BloodBorne
First you say you have never played Bloodborne, and then right after, you say:
That game has no business being $60, let alone $70.
So you are calling price-judgement on an absolutely amazing and incredibly popular game, arguably one of the best (if not the absolutely best) exclusives on the PS4... of which you have never played. :meh:

Also keep in mind that PC gaming has no gold standard when it comes to pricing, so while there certainly will be games on PC for $70 it will be up to the developer to price it that high.
I will agree with the first part of this statement to a point, since Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon (an amazing full-length game disguised as a standalone DLC) has been available for $15 since its release 2013.
The second part of the statement, I disagree with, though - you are failing to understand that inflation is a real thing and absolutely factors into game costs and sales.

We aren't going to mention when NES, Genesis, and SNES games were $80+ in the 1980s and early 1990s.
$80 in 1989 would be the rough equivalent of $167 in 2020. (the cartridges, memory chips, SRAM, etc. were all big factors in this high cost back then, though)

From about 2000 to 2005, AAA top-tier PC games were $50.
I remember this actually changing in late 2005 with the DVD version of F.E.A.R. which was $60, and from that point forward, all new AAA PC games (and soon after, console games) were $60 - which coincided with the new trend of PC games being released on DVD instead of multiple CDs.

Now, $60 in 2005 would be roughly the equivalent of $80 in 2020.
So, games being moved up to $70 really isn't so bad if you think about it.

Not to go all "ad hominem", as you said, but you completely fail to understand basic monetary concepts, and even video game sales history as well.
If you don't want to be called out on your bullshit every other post you make, maybe you should actually start learning from your mistakes and quit acting like a scrub in every console thread you choose to participate in.

"PC Gamer" my ass. :meh:
 
Top