(Wired) EXCLUSIVE: WHAT TO EXPECT FROM SONY'S NEXT-GEN PLAYSTATION

sharknice

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
3,118
Well it probably will technically be able to render games in 8k. It'll have enough RAM for the framebuffer and so on. So you probably will see a couple... that are low detail/complexity. I mean we are seeing more games these days that are 2d or use simple 3d graphics, particularly in the indy scene (which is on consoles now). So those would be perfectly possible to do in 8k at 60Hz. You saw the same shit in the PS3 days where there were a few games that actually rendered at 1080 because they were simplistic and it did support that. However that is going to be the rare exception. We'll see some more than will do 8k at 30 with tiling, because when properly done tiling cuts the needed render power in half. Then I'm sure the majority will render at 4k, or lower, and just get scaled up.

Particularly since 8k is damn near useless on a TV. You have to have a pretty big TV and be sitting reasonably close before 4k is really noticeable over 1080. You can certainly do it, and many people do, but many don't. If you are 12' away from a 50" TV the chances you notice any difference between 4k and 1080 are pretty minimal. It might look ever so slightly sharper with real crisp scenes. For an 8k TV that problem is just magnified. If you sit 6' away from your TV, it needs to be about 95" before 8k is really going to start to be noticeable. That's not going to be many people out there. Hence spending the rendering budget on getting 8k is not going to be very worth it, just do 4k and call it good.

8k is really a solution looking for a problem, or more accurately marketing BS to try and convince people they need new toys. It is just not needed in the vast, vast majority of living rooms. Better HDR, wider gamuts, better viewing angles, these things will all improve image in a way people can see, 8k will not. However companies want to sell new toys so expect to see 8k marketed.

But hey, if you want to drop $15,000 on Samsung's 65" Q900 (the only 8k TV I know of) and then sit like 4' away from it you'd be able to appreciate an 8k game... if one existed :D.

The whole X feet away at X inches is 100% wrong and based on bad science. It's been proven wrong by actual experiments. People with just average 20-20 vision can easily tell the difference between 1080p and 4k at much, much further distances. Even "retina" pixel density distances were proven wrong with participants picking the higher resolution display 100% of the time.

But yes there are definitely diminishing returns on resolution at this point and HDR, contrast, viewing angles, frame rate, etc can have much more noticeable improvements.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
13,119
I have to roll my eyes at the reaction I have seen from kids elsewhere.

They are interpreting and spinning the statement about 8k (presumably because it has a HDMI 2.1 port. Anything with HDMI 2.1 is technically 8k capable, right?) to mean that it will be able to natively render games in 8k...


My prediction: True 8k60hz on top end PC's between the years 2028 and 2034, with console to follow 2-3 years after, if - and only if - hitting the limits of silicon doesn't slow GPU development (which it definitely will).

Based on assumptions below:

1.) We only just got the ability to do real 4k60hz rendering on new titles recently with the launch of the 2080ti in 2018.

2.) 8k has 4x as many pixels as 4k, so you need at least a 4x more powerful GPU if it scales linearly with pixels (but usually it scales worse, so you'll probably need more!)

3.) Each GPU generation lately has only given us 20-35% performance improvement

4.) Each GPU generation lately is 2 years long.

5.) Do the math

But... 8K! And these are Post-Next-Next Gen consoles we're talking about, after all.

:p
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,564
Physical games are already $60 minimum, unless the game was a flop or a small game/from a smaller studio...
If they stop making games on Blu-Ray and put the games on USB thumb drives then that is going to cost more to make each game. Printing Blu-Ray discs cost pennies to make while a usb flash drive like what you see on the Nintendo Switch will cost substantially more. So the console itself may cost less without the Blu-Ray drive which in turn allows Sony to pack in more processing power, but the cost per game will go up and Sony is likely to pass that cost over to the consumer. Or they just force you to download all your games.
 

vegeta535

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
10,021
I don't see a future for console gaming in the next generation, mostly due to cost and probably an incoming recession. There's a reason why Google and it seems everyone else is working on cloud gaming because the transition from the PS4 to the PS5 is going to be ruff. If the PS5 is $500 or more I can see people resisting to buy it. If there's no physical media to buy the games then you're really going to see people resisting the transition.

I don't see cloud gaming having a chance in hell either. What I see is a lot of people just holding onto their PS4's and Xbox One's and maybe even PC gaming gaining traction as well. In all seriousness PC gaming is the cheapest form of gaming compared to consoles and cloud gaming. All the old PC games work without a need to remaster them, and they're dirt cheap. You don't need to pay for a service to play your games online. You have many choices where to buy your games like G2Play, G2A, and Humble Bundle. You can pirate your games, and yes that's an option for people. Not like Denuvo does anything, amiright? You can mod games. You can play console games through emulators. You can play modded console games through emulators. ;)


I don't see people resisting a $500 price. $400 is the sweet spot no doubt but I hear a lot of people at work already chattering about it the next after this info went out. Sony hit it out of the park with the 1st party games this gen. Unless Sony shots themselves on the foot like MS did with the xbone they will run away with next gen again. MS is going to need to undercut Sony with a $400 price tag to stand any kind of chance. If all the rumors are to be true they will be both priced at $500 with about equal specs.
 

Armenius

Extremely [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
35,458
If they stop making games on Blu-Ray and put the games on USB thumb drives then that is going to cost more to make each game. Printing Blu-Ray discs cost pennies to make while a usb flash drive like what you see on the Nintendo Switch will cost substantially more. So the console itself may cost less without the Blu-Ray drive which in turn allows Sony to pack in more processing power, but the cost per game will go up and Sony is likely to pass that cost over to the consumer. Or they just force you to download all your games.
Yes, that is why games on the Switch cost $30 - $50 while games on the PS4 and Xbox One still cost $60.
 

lostin3d

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 13, 2016
Messages
2,043
I have to roll my eyes at the reaction I have seen from kids elsewhere.

They are interpreting and spinning the statement about 8k (presumably because it has a HDMI 2.1 port. Anything with HDMI 2.1 is technically 8k capable, right?) to mean that it will be able to natively render games in 8k...


My prediction: True 8k60hz on top end PC's between the years 2028 and 2034, with console to follow 2-3 years after, if - and only if - hitting the limits of silicon doesn't slow GPU development (which it definitely will).

Based on assumptions below:

1.) We only just got the ability to do real 4k60hz rendering on new titles recently with the launch of the 2080ti in 2018.

2.) 8k has 4x as many pixels as 4k, so you need at least a 4x more powerful GPU if it scales linearly with pixels (but usually it scales worse, so you'll probably need more!)

3.) Each GPU generation lately has only given us 20-35% performance improvement

4.) Each GPU generation lately is 2 years long.

5.) Do the math

Couldn't agree with you more. Especially after watching numerous youtube vids of both RTX titans and 2080TI's in SLI rendering in 8k for the games that truly support SLI. Despite whatever differences between console vs. pc designs I also found it interesting to note how even the Titan's 24GB was getting maxed out in some situations at 8k and the 11GB of the 2080TI was woefully inadequate for the same.



Well it probably will technically be able to render games in 8k. It'll have enough RAM for the framebuffer and so on. So you probably will see a couple... that are low detail/complexity. I mean we are seeing more games these days that are 2d or use simple 3d graphics, particularly in the indy scene (which is on consoles now). So those would be perfectly possible to do in 8k at 60Hz. You saw the same shit in the PS3 days where there were a few games that actually rendered at 1080 because they were simplistic and it did support that. However that is going to be the rare exception. We'll see some more than will do 8k at 30 with tiling, because when properly done tiling cuts the needed render power in half. Then I'm sure the majority will render at 4k, or lower, and just get scaled up.

Particularly since 8k is damn near useless on a TV. You have to have a pretty big TV and be sitting reasonably close before 4k is really noticeable over 1080. You can certainly do it, and many people do, but many don't. If you are 12' away from a 50" TV the chances you notice any difference between 4k and 1080 are pretty minimal. It might look ever so slightly sharper with real crisp scenes. For an 8k TV that problem is just magnified. If you sit 6' away from your TV, it needs to be about 95" before 8k is really going to start to be noticeable. That's not going to be many people out there. Hence spending the rendering budget on getting 8k is not going to be very worth it, just do 4k and call it good.

8k is really a solution looking for a problem, or more accurately marketing BS to try and convince people they need new toys. It is just not needed in the vast, vast majority of living rooms. Better HDR, wider gamuts, better viewing angles, these things will all improve image in a way people can see, 8k will not. However companies want to sell new toys so expect to see 8k marketed.

But hey, if you want to drop $15,000 on Samsung's 65" Q900 (the only 8k TV I know of) and then sit like 4' away from it you'd be able to appreciate an 8k game... if one existed :D.

Totally agree with you also here. I'm usually one to jump on the more pixels bandwagon but after experiencing wider color gamuts, HDR, and faster refresh rates, I'm presently more focused on those more than pixels. Not to mention graphical features like RT or whatever else comes up.

Just have to throw the PS2 a couple of bones for it's attempts to reach beyond what, at the time, was normal. Star Wars bounty hunter had a 480p display option that really made the game look nice if conncected properly. Gran Turismo A-Spec, or something like that, had a 1080i option. At first I had mine connected via gold connector S-Video to one of the last model Sony Trinitrons but eventually was able to get a cable that had composite video and finally able to test these with HD equipment. I had mine connected to my first 1080p projector and it looked pretty amazing for the time. Both looked great on our 1st 1080p T.V. as well. I think I might've had one other game, a strange Marvel one, that had something also but can't remember. PS2 was the last console I owned.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,564
I don't see people resisting a $500 price. $400 is the sweet spot no doubt but I hear a lot of people at work already chattering about it the next after this info went out. Sony hit it out of the park with the 1st party games this gen. Unless Sony shots themselves on the foot like MS did with the xbone they will run away with next gen again. MS is going to need to undercut Sony with a $400 price tag to stand any kind of chance. If all the rumors are to be true they will be both priced at $500 with about equal specs.
Traditionally no console has done well at $500. Not the PS3 and not the Xbox One. The Xbox One and PS4 didn't even catch on quickly for a couple of years due to remasters. Also, like I said, there's a recession coming with all the layoffs and bank issues recently.

I get why Sony and probably Microsoft are making powerful machines because PC gaming is a problem for them. The PS4 was a low end CPU with a mid range GPU that was a generation behind what was on PC in 2013. The PS4 though performs like a low end PC with a Radeon HD 7770. This time it's different with a Ryzen 8 core running at least 3Ghz and I presume the Navi 20 is going to be a high end GPU. Most PC gamers right now don't have that kind of hardware, so Sony isn't fucking around. Sony doesn't want PC gaming to take away market share, but it will.

Yes, that is why games on the Switch cost $30 - $50 while games on the PS4 and Xbox One still cost $60.
Some Switch games also don't have any physical media and ask you to download the game.

 

Vaulter98c

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - October 2009
Joined
May 21, 2008
Messages
5,775
Yes, that is why games on the Switch cost $30 - $50 while games on the PS4 and Xbox One still cost $60.

Um, quite a lot of switch games are $60 lol, and Nintendo rarely does sales or what not on their 1st party games games, hell they still have a launch title at $60 2 years later lol. Plus, a lot of those cheap games you quote are ports of much older games or indies, in both cases dev costs are seriously reduced, and they cost the same or less on other consoles. It's funny you use this as your argument, google the switch tax, a lot of switch games actually cost more then their other console releases because the cards cost so much since Ninty went with a proprietary design again. That and many games don't even fit on their own carts and require you to download large chunks to play them because the carts get much more expensive so they just pass on those costs to you and make you buy larger SD cards. This is also the reason people were pissed off when ports of 2-5 year old games were coming out and they were $60 bucks and still required you to use up space and get larger SD cards

Yes some console games that come on optical on bigger consoles will do installs and have extra downloads, but storage is MUCH MUCH cheaper and available on consoles then it is on handhelds, which is why people want physical media on handhelds in the first place. I can add 8 TB to my PS4 via a usb drive for like 180 bucks. Show me an 8 TB micro SD card and then show me the house I need to sell to be able to buy it. Plus Optical lets you get the 50 GB game installed a hell of a lot faster than most people's internet will here in the States and many other countries as well. Even on base storage the switch is the only console right now that couldn't even fit it's launch lineup on it's internal storage so you have to factor in things like that

You can't compare consoles and handhelds because they are 2 different unique use cases and have special circumstances the others don't. You tried to use this argument anyways and failed (switch tax) before you even got the chance to not acknowledge the differences
 

Nobu

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
8,849
If they stop making games on Blu-Ray and put the games on USB thumb drives then that is going to cost more to make each game. Printing Blu-Ray discs cost pennies to make while a usb flash drive like what you see on the Nintendo Switch will cost substantially more. So the console itself may cost less without the Blu-Ray drive which in turn allows Sony to pack in more processing power, but the cost per game will go up and Sony is likely to pass that cost over to the consumer. Or they just force you to download all your games.
They wont use USB drives, too expensive and complex, easy to break. Sdcards are pennies in comparison, simpler, and store almost as much data. Probably won't use more than 32gb cards anyway, just make you download the rest if it's bigger. They'll use those, or a custom card like the PS Vita or switch, if they use a card/stick at all.
 
Last edited:

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,564
They wont use USB drives, too expensive and complex, easy to break. Sdcards are pennies in comparison, simpler, and store almost as much data. Probably won't use more than 32gb cards anyway, just make you download the rest if it's bigger. They'll use those, or a custom card like the PS Vita or switch, if they use a card/stick at all.
Yea, sounds like the Switch. I'd imagine whatever Sony or Microsoft uses for storage will be proprietary as to prevent piracy. Whatever the case is console's have enjoyed cheap media to distribute games for a while now and they will pass on the savings on removing the Blu-Ray drives to the games themselves. Either by forcing you to download the games and/or physical flash media that will cost $70.

One quick point about optical media on the PS4/Xbox, all games are installed.
Consoles also have HDD's.
 

Nolan7689

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 5, 2015
Messages
1,694
Consoles also have HDD's.
Why the fuck are you telling me that?

Yes some console games that come on optical on bigger consoles will do installs and have extra downloads

That’s the only line I was responding to as it could be misconstrued that only some games on optical are installed. The fact is all games are installed at least in part.

Telling me that they have HDDs is just asinine and self back patting as if you knew something we didn’t.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
35,491
I don't see a future for console gaming in the next generation, mostly due to cost and probably an incoming recession. There's a reason why Google and it seems everyone else is working on cloud gaming because the transition from the PS4 to the PS5 is going to be ruff. If the PS5 is $500 or more I can see people resisting to buy it. If there's no physical media to buy the games then you're really going to see people resisting the transition.

I don't see cloud gaming having a chance in hell either. What I see is a lot of people just holding onto their PS4's and Xbox One's and maybe even PC gaming gaining traction as well. In all seriousness PC gaming is the cheapest form of gaming compared to consoles and cloud gaming. All the old PC games work without a need to remaster them, and they're dirt cheap. You don't need to pay for a service to play your games online. You have many choices where to buy your games like G2Play, G2A, and Humble Bundle. You can pirate your games, and yes that's an option for people. Not like Denuvo does anything, amiright? You can mod games. You can play console games through emulators. You can play modded console games through emulators. ;)




I see the next gen of Consoles being one of the last where they have a real presence.

Game streaming will suck for those serious about games using mouse and keyboard due to the inevitable input lag, but for console kids with controllers who already have a dulled control experience they will be fine.

I foresee the entire console market splitting. Those who are semi serious about it going to the PC and those who are more casual just using their smartTV app to access game streaming services.

Consoles just don't have a future much beyond the next gen, IMHO.
 
Last edited:

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
35,491
I've heard that about as often as I've heard "PC gaming is dead". People were seriously saying that this gen would be the last time anyone made consoles.

I've heard it before too. I didn't believe it then, but I do now considering how many players are developing cloud gaming services.

Consumers are generally opposed to spending lump sums up front if they don't have to, so because of this I foresee a mass exodus to these monthly subscription style cloud gaming services, that require no investment other than a compatible smart TV and a bluetooth controller.
 

Grimlaking

2[H]4U
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
3,246
I've heard it before too. I didn't believe it then, but I do now considering how many players are developing cloud gaming services.

Consumers are generally opposed to spending lump sums up front if they don't have to, so because of this I foresee a mass exodus to these monthly subscription style cloud gaming services, that require no investment other than a compatible smart TV and a bluetooth controller.

Just like PC's were supposed to be killed by portable devices. I see those wanting a higher end gaming experience will have access to buy a non subsudized console to game on OR their PC.

So I wouldn't say consoles in peoples houses are going away. Just like buying blueray movies hasn't gone away. It's still the better experience and people who know that and want it will invest their money to obtain it.
 

sharknice

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
3,118
I've heard that about as often as I've heard "PC gaming is dead". People were seriously saying that this gen would be the last time anyone made consoles.

If the streaming services catch on you'll be able to use them directly through your tv like an app. That would be a big blow to consoles. I don't think it's going to kill them though. And it's going to be a while before streaming services catch on.


Also as consumers start experiencing the new low latency hdmi 2.1 features such as variable refresh rate in new tvs and consoles they'll be more perceptive to how terrible cloud gaming latency is.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
13,119
Yes, that is why games on the Switch cost $30 - $50 while games on the PS4 and Xbox One still cost $60.

Actually the best games on Switch cost $60. Development costs are likely lower for Switch games due to the lower end graphics, I assume you don't need as many artists. But I can see some games like Zelda and Mario as having average AAA game development costs still.
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,675
Just like PC's were supposed to be killed by portable devices.

People thought that would be tablets, and while that may still happen, laptops really have been what most people have switched to. Anyone serious generally has both; same for businesses to a lesser degree, as desktops are still cheap as dirt at the volume lowest-common-denominator level.

And that's even true for gaming that's PC centric. While AAA titles may push some boundaries, much of your MOBA / F2P / etc. stuff that absolutely counts as PC gaming is targeting integrated graphics or not much better, and your basic discrete mobile GPU is generally overkill.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,564
Why the fuck are you telling me that?
Because you point out that consoles also download parts of a game, but a Switch doesn't have a large storage device like consoles have. One of the benefits of buying physical games on the Switch is to avoid the very limited space the console has. Not that I'm saying the practice of putting some of the game on physical media is ever a good thing.

Game streaming will suck for those serious about games using mouse and keyboard due to the inevitable input lag, but for console kids with controllers who already have a dulled control experience they will be fine.
No, that would be the opposite. PC gamers will feel the effects of the lag less because the smartest of us use wired keyboards and mice which help to reduce lag, plus low latency monitors. The console kiddies are using wireless gamepads with TV's that have high latency. Latency isn't negated cause you have other sources of it, it adds up.

As someone who uses a keyboard+mouse that is wired and uses a monitor primarily I can tell you that it's noticeably bad when I go to my HTPC which uses wireless devices on a HDTV. The input lag is painful.
I foresee the entire console market splitting. Those who are semi serious about it going to the PC and those who are more casual just using their smartTV app to access game streaming services.

Consoles just don't have a future much beyond the next gen, IMHO.
I see things differently. I see a lot of PS4 and Xbox One users to continue to use these machines well into the PS5 and Xbox Two era, simply because of cost. There's also the issue with not being able to buy used games, which was something Microsoft tried to pull with the Xbox One, and well... you can see how that played out for Microsoft. Going all digital is going to leave a bad taste for a lot of people, plus a lot of the games will still be released for both the PS4 as well as the PS5.

As for cloud gaming... that'll never happen. Seriously, nobody asked for it. The console kiddies have a much shorter fuse and will rage quit their subscription once they die too many times to Sekiro Latency Killed You More Than twice Edition. I died so many times in that game I would definitely blame it on cloud gamings lag. You still have the issue of not being able to buy used games, plus the monthly fee for cloud gaming will seem overpriced compared to actually buying a console. I also don't think many people would be big fans of the idea that if you stop paying for the service you stop getting access to the games you bought. Remember when Microsoft was going to force Xbox One users to have their games phone home to be able to play them? That also didn't work well for Microsoft either, with the Xbox One having half the sales of the PS4.

As for PC gaming I think we'll see a renaissance like period but not with people using $600+ Nvidia or AMD graphic cards. Instead PC gamers will migrate over to APU's as their choice for gaming due to cost and it being good enough. Also, nobody expects the Intel Spanish Inquisition as I'm sure Intel isn't going to foolishly release a $300+ GPU in a market where AMD could never break through the Nvidia mind share. I also see Linux becoming the gamers choice of OS due to Microsoft insisting to merge Windows with Xbox, because the Xbox One was such a huge failure that Microsoft decided to put an actual working copy of Windows 10 on Xbox Two. Then there's the AAA industry which seems to like to fail a lot and will continue to do so with predatory micro-transactions and DLC. At some point I see the Indie gaming industry take off on PC due to the open nature of it as it has done historically.

The PS5 and Xbox Two will die a slow and painful death, with both Sony and Microsoft desperately trying to get gamers to use their cloud service and they will fail doing so. Nintendo will eventually move to smart phones, though I don't see games anywhere near the quality as they've done in the past. Nintendo will live off brand recognition for as long as they can. Remember there's a recession coming so people won't exactly have money to throw around for gaming, so that has to be taken into consideration.
 

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
11,809
Decent read but no real surprises yet.

One assumes they are going m.2 and doing away with SATA for the SSD. SATA SSD on current PS4/Pro didn't make enough of a difference to be worth the cost.
That was because the CPU was too anemic to properly utilize any SSD properly.
A SSD does not magically make a system faster - the CPU does have to have the processing capabilities to read/write data from any disk.

I remember upgrading netbooks with single and dual-core Intel Atom CPUs from a 5400RPM HDD to a SSD.
The load times were exactly the same, and only in a very few case scenarios where the CPU wasn't a driving factor of the data being pushed, was the SSD an actual improvement.

We basically saw the same thing with the current-generation consoles, and while a SSD did make a noticeable improvement, it wasn't night-and-day like we saw in most desktops and laptops, thanks to the Jaguar CPU being the primary bottleneck of the system, and especially so with any single-threaded tasks.

Granted, this will be a non-issue with the PS5 if the Ryzen 2 CPU will be used in the console, even with an NVMe-based SSD.
 
Last edited:

GoldenTiger

Fully [H]
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Messages
26,617
Remember there's a recession coming so people won't exactly have money to throw around for gaming, so that has to be taken into consideration.
Wrong as usual Mr pirate. Spending on entertainment generally goes up in recessions. What are you spouting off about a recession for anyway?
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,675
I don't see cloud gaming having a chance in hell either.

Cloud gaming itself I do not see as being hugely popular, for all of the obvious reasons. But a form of hybrid cloud gaming could most certainly take over. Think of a merger between the concepts of 'games as a service' and 'game streaming'.

And it'd likely work a lot like current Blizzard games (among others) that show that they are playable before the whole game is downloaded, except that the only parts of the game that will be downloaded will be those that need to be rendered locally for the sake of responsiveness. FMV scenes, cutscenes, and likely plenty more may be either pre-rendered and streamed or streamed from a live cloud render.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,564
Wrong as usual Mr pirate. Spending on entertainment generally goes up in recessions. What are you spouting off about a recession for anyway?
Because Mr GoldenTigger today's games cost more money than ever and a recession is usually when people stop buying unnecessary things like games. The PS5 is probably going to be released right as the recession hits which the PS3 avoided the 2008 recession by being released in 2006. Sony isn't being conservative with their hardware choices either, with as much performance as they're packing, the cost of a PS5 is going to be at least $500. Plus you have a lot more old great games that people can play that cost like $3 at your local GameStop. And yes, piracy is certainly going to go up cause nobody likes to lower prices. Why you think every game company is circle jerking over cloud gaming? No more piracy, no more used games.
 

dragonstongue

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
3,162
So does that mean amd is adding ray tracing cores to their upcoming GPUs or is it just marketing bs?

I personally call BS that fixed function hardware is "needed" to do this.
if one can recall back to when Tessellation was "activated" in DX Nv (and Intel among others?) are able to do this via software AND hardware.

If Nv could figure out how to "trick" the code into using its specific design (using CUDA cores) to do things there is no reason why AMD could not do something similar.

AMD did say straight up until everyone has access to it across their product portfolio stack they are not rushing to get it out the door before the eco system is truly ready for it.

There is a time for major push to new heights and other times one must sit back and go "is it really worth the cost"
RTX 20 series has "shown" not quite yet, the cost to truly enable it is far too high at this point (to code for, to use, to produce, to purchase)

SSD will be quite cool though, every new generation of PS far back as I can remember (having owned a few of them) the loading times have gotten far better, I can only imagine how much snappier things would feel via way quicker storage/memory interface especially once them fancy engineers have had time to take advantage of it (they did very fine work with ancient spinning rust afterall)

hopefully they make TRIM/BGC active as well as a chunk of overprovision, here is also hoping Sony/MSFT go all out when it comes to the cooling systems being used, maybe even to have a simple remove stock fan replace with different one type thing (problem with pretty much all consoles ffs, some things like cooling fans or swapping drive etc should not be like pulling teeth ^.^
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,564
Cloud gaming itself I do not see as being hugely popular, for all of the obvious reasons. But a form of hybrid cloud gaming could most certainly take over. Think of a merger between the concepts of 'games as a service' and 'game streaming'.

And it'd likely work a lot like current Blizzard games (among others) that show that they are playable before the whole game is downloaded, except that the only parts of the game that will be downloaded will be those that need to be rendered locally for the sake of responsiveness. FMV scenes, cutscenes, and likely plenty more may be either pre-rendered and streamed or streamed from a live cloud render.
Games live service is a thing they're doing already and it's a failure. Nobody likes it. I get it's a form of DRM but it won't work for the same reasons why cloud gaming won't work.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,262
I personally call BS that fixed function hardware is "needed" to do this.

What exactly are you calling BS on?

No one, anywhere said you need fixed function HW to do ray tracing.

It's math. You can do with just about any general purpose HW, CPU or GPU.

BUT dedicated RT HW will do it more efficiently, and given what we have seen so far, likely necessary to do it at decent frame rates.

A Titan Xp with the new NVidia drivers to enable Ray Tracing has it slower than a RTX 2060 with dedicated HW.

I expect Navi will have some kind dedicated RT HW.
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,675
Games live service is a thing they're doing already and it's a failure. Nobody likes it. I get it's a form of DRM but it won't work for the same reasons why cloud gaming won't work.

I don't like the business model either, but I can't really make predictions going forward- a killer game is really all that's needed to sell it.

I'm mostly just speaking from the technical side of things, in how they can keep the idea of streaming, in particular minimizing end-user hardware in terms of both processing and storage, without sacrificing performance the way pure streaming does today.
 

sharknice

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
3,118
What exactly are you calling BS on?

No one, anywhere said you need fixed function HW to do ray tracing.

It's math. You can do with just about any general purpose HW, CPU or GPU.

BUT dedicated RT HW will do it more efficiently, and given what we have seen so far, likely necessary to do it at decent frame rates.

A Titan Xp with the new NVidia drivers to enable Ray Tracing has it slower than a RTX 2060 with dedicated HW.

I expect Navi will have some kind dedicated RT HW.

Yeah I think there needs to be dedicated hardware. If it could be done "through software" efficiently with existing hardware it would have been done by now. Maybe they can modify the HW in a way so all cores can be used to do it like they did with unified shader architecture or something, but it definitely requires some sort of hardware change.

I'm skeptical they'll have it ready for the PS5 considering they haven't given a concrete plan.
 

Grimlaking

2[H]4U
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
3,246
People thought that would be tablets, and while that may still happen, laptops really have been what most people have switched to. Anyone serious generally has both; same for businesses to a lesser degree, as desktops are still cheap as dirt at the volume lowest-common-denominator level.

And that's even true for gaming that's PC centric. While AAA titles may push some boundaries, much of your MOBA / F2P / etc. stuff that absolutely counts as PC gaming is targeting integrated graphics or not much better, and your basic discrete mobile GPU is generally overkill.

Those games are entry level. But I will say they are doing something right. It shows by giving gameplay that feels modern to people that don't know better and making it 100% accessible so Billy can play it with his friend Amy right down the street both on their parents older PC's or work laptops does make it something everyone can enjoy.

But those games I would argue are 'gateway' games into real gaming. But perhaps I'm just old.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,717
Because Mr GoldenTigger today's games cost more money than ever and a recession is usually when people stop buying unnecessary things like games. The PS5 is probably going to be released right as the recession hits which the PS3 avoided the 2008 recession by being released in 2006. Sony isn't being conservative with their hardware choices either, with as much performance as they're packing, the cost of a PS5 is going to be at least $500. Plus you have a lot more old great games that people can play that cost like $3 at your local GameStop. And yes, piracy is certainly going to go up cause nobody likes to lower prices. Why you think every game company is circle jerking over cloud gaming? No more piracy, no more used games.

Oh please, what recession? Sheez dudes, this is a gaming and PS5 thread, not a "let us try to predict the future based on my favorite candidate" thread. And no, the games are not the most expensive they have ever been, not even close. :D Also, $500 is hardly expensive for a brand new console and I would imagine, probably the same cost for the XBox Whatever the Next gen will be, as well.
 

Dekoth-E-

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
7,599
Why are people assuming the next consoles won't still use blu-ray? BD discs are very cheap these days and have more than enough storage going forward.
Because they are idiots who have bought into this stupid narrative that just because they have great internet and hate physical media, everyone else does as well.
 

Brian_B

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
3,354
Specs seem difficult to parse.

AMD has had audio available for a very long time. I think it came out with the 6000 series? Wikipedia says 2013. This is the first time I've heard of anyone actually using it though. Cool, I guess. Will see how it performs.

8K - yeah, kinda like how current PS4 does 4K. Ok, cool, but it's just a marketing bulletpoint, and probably in there to try to sell more Sony TVs than consoles.

SSD. Now this is welcome news, the load times were my biggest gripe about the PS4. My only concerns here are: a) upgradeability, doesn't sound like they are thinking SATA or M.2, and b) total storage size, as 1TB is entirely inadequate today. I'm cautiously optimistic about this.

Navi/Zen2 - not expecting miracles here. Raytracing is just the buzzword - current chips could all "do" raytracing, just not very effectively, so I don't think this necessarily means dedicated RT hardware. Even if it did, you'd just see a very limited implementation of it via the software API - good for god rays or other particular effects. CPU I'm still expecting 8 cores mid 2Ghz range, CPU was not often the bottleneck and they will want to save TDP for the graphics. I'm guessing maybe 8-9TFLOP range on graphics? That would double the speed of the PS4 Pro, and I could imagine would be doable on 7nm Navi inside of a smaller console TDP. That would also put it somewhere between a RX590 and Vega56 in terms of PC Graphics power, which is about in line for what I'm expecting from Navi.

Physical media - I don't know that Sony will go away from the BluRay just yet. They may in a budget console to save costs, but I bet the premium version retains it, and (hopefully) gets 4KUHD (I was always disappointed the PS4 did not support this). That being said, I wouldn't miss it if it were gone, as physical media isn't any better any more, with massive Day 0 downloads and a lot of content locked behind one-time online activations. That, and I hate getting up to swap discs.

I think Sony learned their lesson on cost with the PS3. I also think both they will do the standard/premium approach (PS4 & Pro, XB1 & 1X), I just don't know which one these specs are describing. $500 probably works fine for the premium high spec edition, but the standard needs to stay a bit lower. PS4 and XB360 did ok at $400, but XB1 and PS3 struggled at $500 (compared to the $400 alternative).

Will I buy one? Probably, I've always liked the Sony ecosystem better than the Microsoft one for some reason, and I enjoy my PS4 and PS4Pro. Backwards compatibility means that it will be an early purchase for me, whereas before I usually wait a year or so for either the game library to get built up or for that one must-play game before I jump on a new console generation.
 

Gideon

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
3,153
Streaming cant take over the market when their are bandwidth caps by most ISP's. Consoles will continue to thrive along with PC gaming, kind of funny so many continue to predict the end of either PC gaming or consoles.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,564
I don't like the business model either, but I can't really make predictions going forward- a killer game is really all that's needed to sell it.

I'm mostly just speaking from the technical side of things, in how they can keep the idea of streaming, in particular minimizing end-user hardware in terms of both processing and storage, without sacrificing performance the way pure streaming does today.
I'd like to see how well that works for single player games. Imagine paying a monthly fee to play a single player game because of streaming parts of the game.

Oh please, what recession? Sheez dudes, this is a gaming and PS5 thread, not a "let us try to predict the future based on my favorite candidate" thread. And no, the games are not the most expensive they have ever been, not even close. :D Also, $500 is hardly expensive for a brand new console and I would imagine, probably the same cost for the XBox Whatever the Next gen will be, as well.
Sure, if you consider $1,289.79 cheap. Today companies don't sell you the whole game, they sell you a chunk and the rest you buy in pieces.
 
Top