Unreal Engine 5 Revealed! Running real time on Playstation 5

[Factum]

No it's not. You actually think that if you buy a new video card of any caliber really that it immediately improves IQ on it's own? No need for the developers to do anything? It's just magic? It does not work that way.

I really hope you don't believe that. Now devlelopers will offer options that improve I.Q they do that. Not the video card. The video card just needs to be powerful enough to do it. That's it. I must say that someone telling me how minimum specs or maximum specs for that matter are determined within a game is quite amazing. Considering I did that and more for 5 years but please go ahead.

I'm not shifting anything. I'm speaking about the reality. Developers determine IQ more so than video cards, hell even FPS. PC doesn't have the same titles as consoles, that's some of the reason why people buy them including myself. You really can't compare a 5 year old console with a 1 year old or less video card. It's mental to do so. These are realities like it or not. I'm not playing a game here really.

So eg. CDPR was lying when they stated that the Witcher 3 was downgraded visually due to consoles?
Or do you just ignore such facts and go all-in on console launch marketing fluff (it happens every single generation!)?

 

[Aireoth]

Behind? Not really. Those are 8-core machines with 8GB of RAM neither of which were common and they are tied to GDDR for system bandwidth and video card which no PC had or even has even today.

Titles are launched on every platform? Nope Try again

Not being upgradable is a double-edged sword which is the point in case you missed it.

The video card does not dictate in anyway unless you are talking about video card specific APIs and features which enmasse are hardly used. The compliance with the API for the OS dictates far more. You need the API and video card compliance to work together for that to happen. A video card alone just isn't doing it. You need both.

Oh wow, great, so your crazy.

8GB of RAM is and was nothing special, nor anything to brag about. 16gb was pretty much the common back in 2013 outside of some office pc's. My 2013 pc has 24gb of RAM, which means one of my sticks has failed as it should be 32.

Multi-core machines have very little boost to most gaming performance, still 4 cores where pretty common for desktops back then. Plus the CPU on the PS4 (and I'm sure comparable on the XBONE) is a dinky 1.6Ghz, the pro model only pushed that up to 2.1GHz, pretty sure my 2013 desktop was running in the mid 3s on four cores.
*In fact I just checked and the system I am on is my 2013 CPU, I5-4670 running at 3.4GHz on 4 cores.

The video card was a special model of an existing PC card, the AMD HD series I believe. This is common, launched in 2012 (consoles came in 2013), and guess what, cross compatible with PC components and thus needing very little special programming to port.

Re-read what I said about video cards, I'm not going down your crazy road.

 

[Aireoth]

Given that the UE5 demo offered a practical demonstration of what's possible by optimizing for SSDs, and that numerous games will likely make substantial use of that optimization, wouldn't you at least want to be open to what's coming? I'm not so naive as to think that every PS5 game will shatter expectations (many won't, I'm sure), but if you didn't see the UE5 demo and realize what doors it opened, you weren't paying attention.

No, I think people are crazy counting on anything before its actually here, in your hands, to play.

New tech always looks way more promising in a demonstration than in actual practice. I'm sure we will march forward in IQ, but I don't buy the leap put forward in the demo and anyone doing so is a fool.

 

[kac77]

So eg. CDPR was lying when they stated that the Witcher 3 was downgraded visually due to consoles?
Or do you just ignore such facts and go all-in on console launch marketing fluff (it happens every single generation!)?

You might need to ask why? The question matters. Just assuming is what we call an assumption.
BTW why are you using a developers statement? Shouldn't you be using a video card manufacturers?

 

[Aurelius]

No, I think people are crazy counting on anything before its actually here, in your hands, to play.

New tech always looks way more promising in a demonstration than in actual practice. I'm sure we will march forward in IQ, but I don't buy the leap put forward in the demo and anyone doing so is a fool.

I think the reality will sit somewhere between that demo and where games are now, and that's still very good news. But it also means that the PC gaming industry may go through an awkward phase where its potential is stunted until game studios can generally assume that players have fast SSDs.

 

[kac77]

Oh wow, great, so your crazy.

8GB of RAM is and was nothing special, nor anything to brag about. 16gb was pretty much the common back in 2013 outside of some office pc's. My 2013 pc has 24gb of RAM, which means one of my sticks has failed as it should be 32.

Multi-core machines have very little boost to most gaming performance, still 4 cores where pretty common for desktops back then. Plus the CPU on the PS4 (and I'm sure comparable on the XBONE) is a dinky 1.6Ghz, the pro model only pushed that up to 2.1GHz, pretty sure my 2013 desktop was running in the mid 3s on four cores.
*In fact I just checked and the system I am on is my 2013 CPU, I5-4670 running at 3.4GHz on 4 cores.

The video card was a special model of an existing PC card, the AMD HD series I believe. This is common, launched in 2012 (consoles came in 2013), and guess what, cross compatible with PC components and thus needing very little special programming to port.

Re-read what I said about video cards, I'm not going down your crazy road.

There's no need to go down the "crazy road" you believe 8GB of RAM not DDR but GDDR5 is available on PC's as system memory in 2013. Um Ok.

 

[Aireoth]

There's no need to go down the "crazy road" you believe 8GB of RAM not DDR but GDDR is available on PC's as system memory.

I believe the overall size of available ram beats the speed of GDDR, 8gb of GDDR is vastly inferior to 16 or 32gb of DDR, and the GPU on the PC carries that fast GDDR for the PC user where it can make the most benefit. Anyway, I'm done unless you have something real to say, I agree consoles have their place, but your insane if you think they are somehow equal to decent gaming PC of the day. You clearly don't understand the current state of exclusives (I bought every console for the exclusives, and have found a major drought), and just want consoles to be something they are not, and haven't been for a very long time.

 

[kac77]

I believe the overall size of available ram beats the speed of GDDR, 8gb of GDDR is vastly inferior to 16 or 32gb of DDR, and the GPU on the PC carries that fast GDDR for the PC user where it can make the most benefit. Anyway, I'm done unless you have something real to say, I agree consoles have their place, but your insane if you think they are somehow equal to decent gaming PC of the day. You clearly don't understand the current state of exclusives (I bought every console for the exclusives, and have found a major drought), and just want consoles to be something they are not, and haven't been for a very long time.

Dude you go with that.

 

[Aireoth]

Dude you go with that.

And you have nothing, except a shared pool of GDDR with no video card RAM, no exclusives you've named.

Cya.

 

[odditory]

I think the reality will sit somewhere between that demo and where games are now, and that's still very good news.

The reality will sit somewhere between business as usual, and reduced loadtimes on consoles compared to what people are used to.

But it also means that the PC gaming industry may go through an awkward phase where its potential is stunted until game studios can generally assume that players have fast SSDs.

Nope. The business model of videogame development is not to sell consoles, or to vindicate the marketing claims of console makers, or to utilize console hardware to it's fullest extent.

The business model is to sell as many copies of games as possible, and develop as quickly as possible for as many platforms as possible.

Remember all the violent masturbation over the new gaming era that the PS3 Cell processor was supposed to usher in? Wet fart. I see videogame development from the inside - I assure you there's no business case for spending inordinate time on one specific console's unique feature that's supposed to make it stand out - not on a multiplat title. Why? Because significant disparities between platforms for a given game can actually hurt it's net sales.

 

[kac77]

And you have nothing, except a shared pool of GDDR with no video card RAM, no exclusives you've named.

Cya.

I already listed one many posts back: God of War. There's Bayonetta, hell any Mario game. Many many RPG's. There are tons. I'm just enjoying your responses at this point. I mean in your world 8GB of GDDR5 is worse than 16GB of SDRAM (if that were possible/made).

 

[Aireoth]

I already listed one many posts back: God of War. There's Bayonetta, hell any Mario game. Many many RPG's. There are tons. I'm just enjoying your responses at this point.

There used to be tons, that is what you are missing. I'll be proven right as the exclusive market continues to die, only a matter of time before Sony gives in to the pressure to sell games to much larger audience rather than restricted to xyz console.

Nintendo is the only exception these days.

 

[kac77]

There used to be tons, that is what you are missing. I'll be proven right as the exclusive market continues to die, only a matter of time before Sony gives in to the pressure to sell games to much larger audience rather than restricted to xyz console.

Nintendo is the only exception these days.

Ok well when the entire Nintendo library from the Switch, or Sony's exclusives becomes available on PC you let me know. I would be greatly interested. Besides I can have my cake and eat it too. As I said before I play on consoles and PC.

 

[Factum]

You might need to ask why? The question matters. Just assuming is what we call an assumption.
BTW why are you using a developers statement? Shouldn't you be using a video card manufacturers?

Because the hardware in consoles were not up to the task, it is public information, they stated it in multiple interviews.
The devs hit a performance ceiling on the consoles, so I take their word for it.

So we have game makers stating the console could not rendered the I.Q. infact it had to be scaled down.

And today it is even worse, since a few textures mods have increased the I.Q. on the PC...while the consoles...well, you can figure that one out.

Keep ignoring reality, but don't act surprised when getting called on it...

 

[Aurelius]

The reality will sit somewhere between business as usual, and reduced loadtimes on consoles compared to what people are used to.

Er, no. Not at all. However cynical you may be about console gaming, Sony, Microsoft and partners like Epic have been pushing hard for storage that lets developers do things that were previously impossible. It's entirely reasonable to expect some developers to take advantage of that, even if it's companies that are usually console-exclusive like Naughty Dog.

Nope. The business model of videogame development is not to sell consoles, or to vindicate the marketing claims of console makers, or to utilize console hardware to it's fullest extent.

The business model is to sell as many copies of games as possible, and develop as quickly as possible for as many platforms as possible.

Remember all the violent masturbation over the new gaming era that the PS3 Cell processor was supposed to usher in? Wet fart. I see videogame development from the inside - I assure you there's no business case for spending inordinate time on one specific console's unique feature that's supposed to make it stand out - not on a multiplat title. Why? Because significant disparities between platforms for a given game can actually hurt it's net sales.

And how do you sell as many copies as possible? By making a game experience that stands out. Which sometimes means taking advantage of hardware capabilities. And remember, highly optimized storage isn't just a PS5 feature, it's an Xbox Series X feature -- tuning a game for both may reduce the absolute potential for a game, but it'll still be a cut above what you can currently do with most PCs. Cell is a bad example, as Sony's chip was hampered by overly complex development that made it hard to optimize games.

Besides, it's a bit odd to say there's "no business case" for optimizing for one console when some of the best games of the PS4 era are gorgeous exclusives like Horizon Zero Dawn and God of War. Sure seems like a good developer can make a lot of money offering a showcase game for one console...

 

[Aireoth]

Ok well when the entire Nintendo library from the Switch, or Sony's exclusives becomes available on PC you let me know. I would be greatly interested. Besides I can have my cake and eat it too. As I said before I play on consoles and PC.

Actually you can't have your cake and eat it too, all you did is buy more cakes to eat.

Er, no. Not at all. However cynical you may be about console gaming, Sony, Microsoft and partners like Epic have been pushing hard for storage that lets developers do things that were previously impossible. It's entirely reasonable to expect some developers to take advantage of that, even if it's companies that are usually console-exclusive like Naughty Dog.

And how do you sell as many copies as possible? By making a game experience that stands out. Which sometimes means taking advantage of hardware capabilities. And remember, highly optimized storage isn't just a PS5 feature, it's an Xbox Series X feature -- tuning a game for both may reduce the absolute potential for a game, but it'll still be a cut above what you can currently do with most PCs. Cell is a bad example, as Sony's chip was hampered by overly complex development that made it hard to optimize games.

Besides, it's a bit odd to say there's "no business case" for optimizing for one console when some of the best games of the PS4 era are gorgeous exclusives like Horizon Zero Dawn and God of War. Sure seems like a good developer can make a lot of money offering a showcase game for one console...

Well you making a lot of assumption on new tech, and given your join date you are old enough to know better, so I'll just chalk it up to hope. I can't fault you for hoping, but history has taught me to just wait.

Sure game experience helps, but you can't possibly be saying that making a great game experience depends on being an exclusive, because while there maybe some correlations, I assure you it isn't causation. Also optimizing for the storage would also then apply to any PC port, pending you have the hardware.

There is no business case for optimizing for and exclusively releasing on one console, outside of the consoles manufacturer pays for it. which we all know they do. In the case of God of War it is a Sony owned IP and Sony funded studios, and thus becomes a Sony exclusive. I'd bet dollars to donuts that Guerrilla games was compensated for release on PS only, as they come from an era where developers joined at the hip with manufacturers (mid 2000's and they made Killzone) and whatever terms of that compensation are now up as HZD is coming to the PC.

The reason for exclusives is to sell consoles, not games, hence the manufacturer paying for exclusivity. If you are just looking to sell games and don't need assistance developing it, or the guaranteed cash of exclusivity, then targeting the broadest market always makes the most sense, especially since that market uses interchangeable hardware and an x86 instruction set (I believe that is the term).

 

[Aurelius]

Well you making a lot of assumption on new tech, and given your join date you are old enough to know better, so I'll just chalk it up to hope. I can't fault you for hoping, but history has taught me to just wait.

Sure game experience helps, but you can't possibly be saying that making a great game experience depends on being an exclusive, because while there maybe some correlations, I assure you it isn't causation. Also optimizing for the storage would also then apply to any PC port, pending you have the hardware.

There is no business case for optimizing for and exclusively releasing on one console, outside of the consoles manufacturer pays for it. which we all know they do. In the case of God of War it is a Sony owned IP and Sony funded studios, and thus becomes a Sony exclusive. I'd bet dollars to donuts that Guerrilla games was compensated for release on PS only, as they come from an era where developers joined at the hip with manufacturers (mid 2000's and they made Killzone) and whatever terms of that compensation are now up as HZD is coming to the PC.

The reason for exclusives is to sell consoles, not games, hence the manufacturer paying for exclusivity. If you are just looking to sell games and don't need assistance developing it, or the guaranteed cash of exclusivity, then targeting the broadest market always makes the most sense, especially since that market uses interchangeable hardware and an x86 instruction set (I believe that is the term).

I'm basing it mainly on how hard Sony, Microsoft and Epic (likely others too) are touting the storage capabilities. Again, I'm sure the reality won't be quite so rose-colored as the UE5 demo suggests, but I do think there will games that aren't just current-gen titles with some more polygons.

And yeah, there's no doubt that companies at least sometimes get financial incentives to release on one platform, but if I were a developer I'd rather have a game that becomes a defining experience for one platform than a watered-down experience for every device under the Sun. In the current circumstances, it'd be more like a defining experience for two platforms (PS5 and XSX) since there will likely be games that absolutely need fast SSDs, but don't need the specific bandwidth of one or the other.

I suppose that's what I'm getting at -- it's less about the PS5 specifically and more about both new consoles. If I were a game developer and had the choice between creating a genuinely fresh experience that's limited to 'just' the two hottest consoles this fall or a game with familiar limitations that runs on everything under the Sun... I'm going to choose the limited hardware. I'll still sell a lot, and I won't be lost in a sea of knockoffs.

 

[kac77]

Because the hardware in consoles were not up to the task, it is public information, they stated it in multiple interviews.
The devs hit a performance ceiling on the consoles, so I take their word for it.

So we have game makers stating the console could not rendered the I.Q. infact it had to be scaled down.

And today it is even worse, since a few textures mods have increased the I.Q. on the PC...while the consoles...well, you can figure that one out.

Keep ignoring reality, but don't act surprised when getting called on it...

Yep and some how Laura Croft on PS4 doesn't really look all that different than the PC version. I've played those games on both. The PC version is faster but the I.Q isn't that different. The higher resolution of textures is slightly noticable but it's not earth shattering.

How did that happen? Actually all of the games ported don't look all that different. Faster? Sure. Higher IQ? Barely.

 

[Aireoth]

I'm basing it mainly on how hard Sony, Microsoft and Epic (likely others too) are touting the storage capabilities. Again, I'm sure the reality won't be quite so rose-colored as the UE5 demo suggests, but I do think there will games that aren't just current-gen titles with some more polygons.

And yeah, there's no doubt that companies at least sometimes get financial incentives to release on one platform, but if I were a developer I'd rather have a game that becomes a defining experience for one platform than a watered-down experience for every device under the Sun. In the current circumstances, it'd be more like a defining experience for two platforms (PS5 and XSX) since there will likely be games that absolutely need fast SSDs, but don't need the specific bandwidth of one or the other.

I suppose that's what I'm getting at -- it's less about the PS5 specifically and more about both new consoles. If I were a game developer and had the choice between creating a genuinely fresh experience that's limited to 'just' the two hottest consoles this fall or a game with familiar limitations that runs on everything under the Sun... I'm going to choose the limited hardware. I'll still sell a lot, and I won't be lost in a sea of knockoffs.

Not sure why you think that way, the biggest (and some of the best) titles in this generation have been cross platform titles. developing for one platform alone, particularly in this generation, doesn't give the benefits it used too. pretty simple to put in some IQ settings for PC users of all stripes, and the xb/ps are similar enough I doubt any real work needs to be done outside of iq testing.

back in the days of specific hardware, sure, if you hunkered down and dug into cell processing you could really make it sing.

 

[Aireoth]

Yep and some how Laura Croft on PS4 doesn't really look all that different than the PC version. I've played those games on both. The PC version is faster but the I.Q isn't that different. The higher resolution of textures is slightly noticable but it's not earth shattering.

How did that happen? Actually all of the games ported don't look all that different. Faster? Sure. Higher IQ? Barely.

you have some bad eyesight.

 

[kac77]

you have some bad eyesight.

Yup so bad that i don't believe that spending over $1000 on a video card dramatically increases IQ.

 

[Aireoth]

Yup so bad that i don't believe that spending over $1000 on a video card dramatically increases IQ.

Good for you, I know different and opinions are just that.

Reality you keep railing against is that yes, a higher power video card can indeed achieve higher IQ settings in almost all games, and dramatically higher settings in most games. Like I said, your crazy and I am finally done with this.

 

[Factum]

Yep and some how Laura Croft on PS4 doesn't really look all that different than the PC version. I've played those games on both. The PC version is faster but the I.Q isn't that different. The higher resolution of textures is slightly noticable but it's not earth shattering.

How did that happen? Actually all of the games ported don't look all that different. Faster? Sure. Higher IQ? Barely.

Barely (if I turn a blind side to raytracing) is not equal.
So we are back to the PC winning both IQ+performance...thx for playing.

 

[Aireoth]

Barely (if I turn a blind side to raytracing) is not equal.
So we are back to the PC winning both IQ+performance...thx for playing.

its more than barely too, higher and more resolution options, no checkboard rendering, FOV settings, and the king of all gaming IQ higher FPS and higher hz monitors. I max most games settings on a 3440/1440 monitor at 100hz with gsync, the experience cannot be matched by a console, and like i mentioned before the fov on console games ruins the experience for me, really noticed it in spiderman and just couldn't keep going.

 

[Factum]

its more than barely too, higher and more resolution options, no checkboard rendering, FOV settings, and the king of all gaming IQ higher FPS and higher hz monitors. I max most games settings on a 3440/1440 monitor at 100hz with gsync, the experience cannot be matched by a console, and like i mentioned before the fov on console games ruins the experience for me, really noticed it in spiderman and just couldn't keep going.

I just used his own words aginst him, as that was the only way to make sure he would not reject what I posted...if he rejects his own statements...well a new low has been reached

 

[Deleted member 89018]

I’m a bit behind, are you guys arguing that a 7 year old console works better than a 7 year old pc, or that an unreleased console can’t be as good as a current pc?

anecdotally, it seems to me the last few generations that the console has a longer useful shelf life than a mid to high end gaming PC from the same timeframe. But the PC usually catches up in one or two GPU generations.

the ps4 pro and xbox one x are odd birds because they aren’t a totally new console like ps5 and xsx. It’d be like taking that mid range gaming pc from 2013 and putting the best possible video card from 2013 in it. So it doesn’t really do anything new, it just stretches the legs a little further. You’re still running 2013 era tech.

Horizon Zero Dawn is I think a good example. It came out in 2017. It looks incredible, it runs fairly well. No doubt it will look and run even better on PC, in 2020, with 2020 hardware powering it. But would it run as well on a 2013 PC as it does on a PS4? If anyone has an ivy bridge build with an R9 290 in it, wouldn’t be too hard to find out.

 

[Factum]

I’m a bit behind, are you guys arguing that a 7 year old console works better than a 7 year old pc, or that an unreleased console can’t be as good as a current pc?

If you have doubts, try reading the thread...

 

[Ready4Dis]

Horizon Zero Dawn is I think a good example. It came out in 2017. It looks incredible, it runs fairly well. No doubt it will look and run even better on PC, in 2020, with 2020 hardware powering it. But would it run as well on a 2013 PC as it does on a PS4? If anyone has an ivy bridge build with an R9 290 in it, wouldn’t be too hard to find out.

I've got a 280x, fury nano and fury x I could test... Sadly no 290 unless someone wants to donate . I have an i5-3450, so not top of the line but I doubt it'd be CPU limited anyways. I also have an OG PS4 and x box one... But that's not a game I have on any of my platforms and with my slow/limited satellite internet it'd literally take me days to download.

 

[Aireoth]

I’m a bit behind, are you guys arguing that a 7 year old console works better than a 7 year old pc, or that an unreleased console can’t be as good as a current pc?

anecdotally, it seems to me the last few generations that the console has a longer useful shelf life than a mid to high end gaming PC from the same timeframe. But the PC usually catches up in one or two GPU generations.

the ps4 pro and xbox one x are odd birds because they aren’t a totally new console like ps5 and xsx. It’d be like taking that mid range gaming pc from 2013 and putting the best possible video card from 2013 in it. So it doesn’t really do anything new, it just stretches the legs a little further. You’re still running 2013 era tech.

Horizon Zero Dawn is I think a good example. It came out in 2017. It looks incredible, it runs fairly well. No doubt it will look and run even better on PC, in 2020, with 2020 hardware powering it. But would it run as well on a 2013 PC as it does on a PS4? If anyone has an ivy bridge build with an R9 290 in it, wouldn’t be too hard to find out.

I have a 2013 pc as my second machine, can test that for you, but yes I beleive a relatively high end desktop from 2013 beats even the pro refresh models. I have an Ivy Bridge and an old 780Ti kicking around.

 

[MangoSeed]

Horizon Zero Dawn is I think a good example. It came out in 2017. It looks incredible, it runs fairly well. No doubt it will look and run even better on PC, in 2020, with 2020 hardware powering it. But would it run as well on a 2013 PC as it does on a PS4? If anyone has an ivy bridge build with an R9 290 in it, wouldn’t be too hard to find out.

Doesn’t HZD run at 1080p 30fps on PS4? That should be achievable on 2013 era hardware. GTX 770 etc.

 

[Aireoth]

Doesn’t HZD run at 1080p 30fps on PS4? That should be achievable on 2013 era hardware. GTX 770 etc.

yes, to my understanding all major titles basically ran 1080 @ 30 fps on the original PS4.

 

[Deleted member 89018]

If you have doubts, try reading the thread...

I was reading it for a while, but it has devolved into another PC vs Console thread, just like the other one about PS5 pricing, and I honestly can’t tell what point you guys are trying to make anymore. You’re all just talking in circles again.

especially since now we’re also talking about the ps4 and comparing it to gaming PCs built with newer tech? I’m not sure what that has to do with engine 5 demo on PS5.

My point is just, if someone wants to make a direct comparison of the PS4’s capabilities vs. a PC, just take a gaming PC built with all 2013 parts and run something like Horizon on it when it comes out later this year. Using a newer game gets you a better example of the system’s capabilities than a first gen one that might not be as optimized.

you could also use, say, the assassin’s creed games, which have been available on both ps4 and pc, and see how they run on each system at same resolution / comparable quality levels. I don’t know if a cross platform game would be as heavily optimized as an exclusive might be though.

personally I think the console would outperform the pc (assuming the pc has a comparable video card), but as soon as you put in a higher end GPU the PC would be faster. Closest GPU I can think of for the regular PS4 is probably an R9 270, and for the PS4 Pro is maybe an RX 480? Add in price of console vs pc parts of you really want to make a detailed value/dollar comparison. The console is cheaper obviously, but the question of whether you think the PC is worth the added cost and never ending upgrade cycle is subjective.

anyways, you’re probably just going to go back to arguing... whatever it is you guys are arguing, I was just trying to make a suggestion about how you could do a comparison.

 

[Factum]

I was reading it for a while, but it has devolved into another PC vs Console thread, just like the other one about PS5 pricing, and I honestly can’t tell what point you guys are trying to make anymore. You’re all just talking in circles again.

especially since now we’re also talking about the ps4 and comparing it to gaming PCs built with newer tech? I’m not sure what that has to do with engine 5 demo on PS5.

My point is just, if someone wants to make a direct comparison of the PS4’s capabilities vs. a PC, just take a gaming PC built with all 2013 parts and run something like Horizon on it when it comes out later this year. Using a newer game gets you a better example of the system’s capabilities than a first gen one that might not be as optimized.

you could also use, say, the assassin’s creed games, which have been available on both ps4 and pc, and see how they run on each system at same resolution / comparable quality levels. I don’t know if a cross platform game would be as heavily optimized as an exclusive might be though.

personally I think the console would outperform the pc (assuming the pc has a comparable video card), but as soon as you put in a higher end GPU the PC would be faster. Closest GPU I can think of for the regular PS4 is probably an R9 270, and for the PS4 Pro is maybe an RX 480? Add in price of console vs pc parts of you really want to make a detailed value/dollar comparison. The console is cheaper obviously, but the question of whether you think the PC is worth the added cost and never ending upgrade cycle is subjective.

anyways, you’re probably just going to go back to arguing... whatever it is you guys are arguing, I was just trying to make a suggestion about how you could do a comparison.

It is pretty simple:
EVERY single launch the PR fluff machine declares consoles "ahead" of the PC in I.Q.+Performance...and EVERY single launch that claim falls flat on its face.

This is what is going on here...pretty straightforward...not rocket science.

Hint:
This will happen at the NEXT console launch too..some people seem to forget the the past...fast!

 

[Aurelius]

Not sure why you think that way, the biggest (and some of the best) titles in this generation have been cross platform titles. developing for one platform alone, particularly in this generation, doesn't give the benefits it used too. pretty simple to put in some IQ settings for PC users of all stripes, and the xb/ps are similar enough I doubt any real work needs to be done outside of iq testing.

back in the days of specific hardware, sure, if you hunkered down and dug into cell processing you could really make it sing.

I'll concede that developing for one platform usually isn't a great idea. However, I do think you're underselling things somewhat. It's one thing when image quality in a given scene is dependent on fast storage; it's another thing when the very nature of gameplay is dependent on that storage. You can make a sprawling, highly detailed open world on a PS5 or XSX that would be utterly impractical on most PCs, and there's no IQ toggle that would change this.

 

[next-Jin]

IQ/Resolution being better than PC hasn’t happened since the X360 for a whole 1-2 months iirc.

That said I do expect Sony 1st party titles to be able to achieve something not possible on PC, not in terms of IQ/Resolution but I have confidence that their I/O and SSD enhancements will be their “secret sauce”.

I don’t know what that looks like but there’s so much overhead in PC I/O and drivers I think Cerny was right to address that first and foremost.

I may have mentioned it before but an Ant-Man game where you can scale to various sizes instantly comes to mind. You can destroy buildings as a giant, enter them and enter act normally with them at normal size or go small and enter the building at the molecular level. No loading, no texture pop in, no discernible difference in the game world other than your shifting.

Enemies react to your shifts in size, etc.

Even with the best PC PCIE 4.0 NVME drives that’s not possible unless developers set that as a minimum requirement and even then with all of the driver and I/O overhead I’m not entirely sure.

 

[Aireoth]

I'll concede that developing for one platform usually isn't a great idea. However, I do think you're underselling things somewhat. It's one thing when image quality in a given scene is dependent on fast storage; it's another thing when the very nature of gameplay is dependent on that storage. You can make a sprawling, highly detailed open world on a PS5 or XSX that would be utterly impractical on most PCs, and there's no IQ toggle that would change this.

I'm not underselling anything, nothing has been sold yet and I am always skeptical of new tech. Yes it could be used to to create such sprawling worlds but until it happens I don't buy it.

I don't know why you think it would be impractical on most PCs, everyone I know these days uses SSDs in their systems or that its impossible to make an IQ toggle for it, draw distance is a thing.

I don't buy next-Jin's I/O concerns either, one of two things will happen, either it won't be a problem (PC's can keep up anyway or the titles never really materialize) or the technology will take off and PC's can't keep up, in which case a new part will be developed and sold to PC users (the wonders of being on team master race).

 

[next-Jin]

I don't buy next-Jin's I/O concerns either, one of two things will happen, either it won't be a problem (PC's can keep up anyway or the titles never really materialize) or the technology will take off and PC's can't keep up, in which case a new part will be developed and sold to PC users (the wonders of being on team master race).

I don’t think anyone is saying the PC market wouldn’t catch up. That just seems a bit silly, if that is the route that happens (it’s not possible on PC) then I fully expect changes,

I have a 9900k and 2080Ti with a 970 EVO Plus. I’m part of the master race but you can see the overhead and restrictions we are dealing with on all PC games running off SSDs atm. Loading is not instant and the debelopment pipes still requires issues where the legacy HDs show up on fast SSDs.

On Xbox One Series X we still see that in demos. Wait times and loading where it reminds of me of my PC. Yeah it’s way faster, but nothings really leveraging it and it’s still capped at 2.5GB uncompressed versus 5.5GB uncompressed with the PS5.

That’s a gigantic difference even with current PCIE 4.0 drives. Windows, Drivers, legacy I/O devices and subsystems, etc.

The PS5 has none of that. So while we might not get native 4K 120fps titles we may get 1440p checkerboarding at 30fps games that aren’t possible with Sony first party and other developers who exclusively launch on PS5.

I could be wrong here but I’ve read and listened to every article and podcast/YouTube video I could. The only negative thing people are saying is that developers will build games off the lowest common denominator which is XSX SSD speeds and PS5 graphic abilities.

That doesn’t work include 1st party and exclusives.

 

[Aurelius]

I'm not underselling anything, nothing has been sold yet and I am always skeptical of new tech. Yes it could be used to to create such sprawling worlds but until it happens I don't buy it.

I don't know why you think it would be impractical on most PCs, everyone I know these days uses SSDs in their systems or that its impossible to make an IQ toggle for it, draw distance is a thing.

I don't buy next-Jin's I/O concerns either, one of two things will happen, either it won't be a problem (PC's can keep up anyway or the titles never really materialize) or the technology will take off and PC's can't keep up, in which case a new part will be developed and sold to PC users (the wonders of being on team master race).

It's good to be skeptical, but remember that Sony, Microsoft, Epic and others are pushing the gameplay advantages of SSDs /[hard]/. They expect game devs to take advantage of that hardware. It's going to happen, it's just a matter of degrees.

Remember, "most PCs" means most PCs in the real world, not anecdotal observations from game enthusiasts or those in the industry. Most PC owners, even frequent gamers, don't have cutting-edge hardware. Hell, Steam's hardware survey suggests that the most common graphics card is a GeForce GTX 1060, a mid-tier card from four years ago -- what makes you think they have an SSD that might cost more than their GPU?

Like next-Jin said, it's not that PCs won't catch up, it's that there may be a period where PC games will conspicuously trail behind in some areas as developers wait for NVMe SSDs to to become popular enough (as in actually popular enough) that they can take advantage of the speed for more than speeding up conventional experiences.

 

[Aireoth]

It's good to be skeptical, but remember that Sony, Microsoft, Epic and others are pushing the gameplay advantages of SSDs /[hard]/. They expect game devs to take advantage of that hardware. It's going to happen, it's just a matter of degrees.

Remember, "most PCs" means most PCs in the real world, not anecdotal observations from game enthusiasts or those in the industry. Most PC owners, even frequent gamers, don't have cutting-edge hardware. Hell, Steam's hardware survey suggests that the most common graphics card is a GeForce GTX 1060, a mid-tier card from four years ago -- what makes you think they have an SSD that might cost more than their GPU?

Like next-Jin said, it's not that PCs won't catch up, it's that there may be a period where PC games will conspicuously trail behind in some areas as developers wait for NVMe SSDs to to become popular enough (as in actually popular enough) that they can take advantage of the speed for more than speeding up conventional experiences.

SSD's are cheaper than GPU's and most people are kinda dumb when it comes to making PC's, they put odd priorities on (like SSD over GPU). Most of the PC gamer owners I know are actually quite poor, with an income in the range of 30-40k CAN a year if that (many run around 20k). Most of the people I know with more money don't game on a PC but console and spend most of their time working or doing things other than gaming, hence the console focus.

Then I just don't believe that it will be that much of a problem for PCs even initially without specific hardware, as you say devs will take advantage of it but in degrees and the first push is always conservative. I just don't see the leap making consoles that much better than PCs, I think those days are over. I don't think PC's have had to catch up to consoles since maybe the 360. Sure consoles have some gimmicks because they don't have to run everything under the sun, but that just helps keep them competitive, doesn't really put them ahead.

 

[next-Jin]

SSD's are cheaper than GPU's and most people are kinda dumb when it comes to making PC's, they put odd priorities on (like SSD over GPU). Most of the PC gamer owners I know are actually quite poor, with an income in the range of 30-40k CAN a year if that (many run around 20k). Most of the people I know with more money don't game on a PC but console and spend most of their time working or doing things other than gaming, hence the console focus.

Then I just don't believe that it will be that much of a problem for PCs even initially without specific hardware, as you say devs will take advantage of it but in degrees and the first push is always conservative. I just don't see the leap making consoles that much better than PCs, I think those days are over. I don't think PC's have had to catch up to consoles since maybe the 360. Sure consoles have some gimmicks because they don't have to run everything under the sun, but that just helps keep them competitive, doesn't really put them ahead.

To be honest, I don’t know if PCs would catch up all that fast. If we are only talking about a certain aspect of gameplay or world design it might take a very long time for the PC market to justify that transition. Especially if it’s not a disruptive technology. It could just be Sony’s niche thing that is cool in a way but nothing so significant that folks clamor too.

I know for sure their first parties will be doing cool thing with it but again, unless it’s something truly remarkable that’s a must have where Xbox or PC players say “OMG” it might not make its way to PC in any other way other than normal attrition and market demand.

I think it’s at least intriguing if anything. MS has the lead in raw TFLOPSs and Sony has the lead in raw I/O so Digital Foundry companions will be interesting.