Topic: PlayStation 5 --OT--

@BAMozzy I'm not saying the ps5 will be 400 quid or under. Read my post again and I said that is what some people thought this generation of consoles would sell for AND be able to do 4k and 60fps when they were first released.

And personally I still do not think we will get Ray Tracing next gen. I could be wrong and I base this on rather limited knowledge, but I think people need to get their expectations in check.

😂 Haha.

@WebHead I'm kinda with you there. I would still buy a PS5 with excellent specs for 500, but I might prefer slightly less impressive graphics if it means a cheaper console.

@JohnnyShoulder I wasn't 'just' answering you but also making a comment about anyone assuming the PS5 would be $400 AND offering the type of specs that would be a 'generational' leap above anything we have around now. The X is a relevant point because Sony won't want to release something that isn't an X beater - even if it puts most of the money into the CPU and compromises on GPU and RAM - again not specifically responding to you but anyone who also thinks the X and its 'price' is irrelevant to Sony's next console.

The mid-gen consoles are 'relevant' to the future of the next gen machines. Of course the base consoles are as well but if Sony were to offer a $400 that matches the X but with a better CPU, I think that hands MS the opportunity to deliver a much more powerful and more capable console for $500 that not only has a better CPU (or at least similar one to pS5) and more Powerful GPU than the X and certainly the PS5. I know Sony fanboys will buy the PS5 regardless but those sat on the fence may well jump to Xbox. Its not 'just' the exclusives that people decide which console to buy but which console will play the games the best. Most people buy more multi-platform games than Exclusives and they will want to know which console plays CoD, Fifa, Battlefield etc the best - not the 'fanboys' that buy Sony or MS regardless but the rest of the gamers. MS also has a lot of Studio's now too and whilst we don't know what they are working on, the promise that exclusives will come, along with the extra power may make a big difference in their decision.

You can't underestimate the fact that Sony had the most powerful machine at the start of this Generation. It wasn't all down to E3 and the mistake MS made because at launch, the 'only' mistake MS had was bundling in Kinect - something that was removed after 6/7 months. That also gave MS the cheapest console yet Sony's PS4 continued to outsell - a lot of that was down to the console being the most powerful and clearly showing it in the performance of games when compared. It wasn't down to 'exclusives' either as MS had more AAA games in the first year or two and even when they added BC, 4k HDR bluray player etc the gap still increased because PS4 is more powerful and why would people buy an Xbox when games are 720-900p when they can buy a PS4 and get 900-1080p and often with better performance for a bit more money.

A Zen R7 1700 8core CPU costs around $300 - $330. I know that purchasing a single CPU for a PC is going to cost an individual a lot more than it will cost Sony/MS to buy an APU with the Zen built in and purchasing in bulk but I just wanted to indicate the type of price a Zen at the lower end of the range will cost to a individual. Add in a GPU, RAM, Bluray drive (probably 4k HDR as that also has more storage capacity for games too), HDD, PSU, cooling, ports (HDMI, USB, LAN etc) Controller, cables and packaging and hitting $400, I think it will be difficult to offer a next gen upgrade. The X is relevant because if it can't beat the X, a mid gen refresh, by a considerable margin, how much of a next gen is it? How will it hold up in 2 or 3yrs let alone 5 or 6yrs?

Anyway, time will tell of course. I still think $400 is unlikely - not if Sony want to offer a generational leap over their own hardware, let alone the X. You want to beat you closest rival after all. $400 would be fine for me as I tend to buy both anyway but I would prefer the PS5 to be competitive with whatever MS releases so I don't end up with 1 console being just an exclusive box whilst the other is used for everything else - pretty much what my Pro is now.

PS5 is a console thats coning out over 2 years after the One X. Of course it is going to be better. Plus while One X did launch at $500 its not uncommon to see it at $400-450.

Power.Is.Not.Everything.

Tbh that the ps4 was more powerful was pretty low in my list when I was deciding on which console to go for, it was like an added bonus along with all the other things that went against the XBO. Now this isn't me saying it power is not important, as different things are important to different people. It's just not be all and end all of everything for me. If that was the case the Switch wouldn't be selling as well as it is, and be on course to outsell the XBO.

I'm not loyal to any one brand either and would happily jump ship to MS next gen if Sony muck things along the same lines as MS did for this gen. I'm pretty confident they won't though, I just hope history doesn't repeat itself again.

@JohnnyShoulder pretty much. I'm not loyal to any brand I will go to whichever best serves me. In fact as far as I know ps4 is the only console gen wehre the strongest console at launch sold the most.

But yeah if you are consumer friendly, affordable and have the must have games the sales will come.

@WebHead @JohnnyShoulder As someone who has owned consoles from all of the current competitors, I don't consider myself to be "loyal".

However, I don't think it's a coincidence that I have preferred the PS over the competition almost any generation. (Only exception is the GameCube, which I preferred above PS2.)

@Kidfried of course everyone like has a preferred platform. I wont lie in that I have favored PS so far but not like I agreed to a blood oath or anything to them. If Scarlett Arcade or Pro demonstrate themselves as being better worth my time I will switch to those.(Xbox is heavily rumored to be released in 2 skus of different power levels.)

What is it with these buzzwords 'loyal', 'fanboy', 'piece of plastic' people throw around? These are derogatory in the way they are often used. There s nothing close to 'loyalty' when someone is happy with a brand from their personal experience. Why do people feel the need to express some virtue signalling on everything now? It's more about customer satisfaction with whatever product they feel comfortable with from their personal experience. I go with PlayStation and don't feel the need to justify it., PS5 it is for next gen, no question about it

@BAMozzy A lot of causal people don’t know the difference, and a lot of the hardcore people were ticked off by MS’s convoluted used game and always online system they were pushing for, as well as the insurance pricing comparison. I think was a factor, but it was a lower on the list. By the time the bad PR wore off Sont was doubtmuch better exclusive wise and Sony also has much heightened rated exclusives even close to the start of the generation. There are many more important reasons than power that Sony outsold MS.

@Jaz007 exaclty. Power helped but its not why PS4 won. MS screwed up hard. Plus PS1 and PS2 had stronger rivals and they godstomped their competition. Its all about the games.

Besides I do not really care for dumb console war stuff anymore. The business side of things is none of my business.

Of course Power matters where AAA games are concerned. You can't use the Switch either as an Example as that is also a portable device and the lack of power does affect the games it has in common with PS4/XB1. You only have to look at Doom or Wolfenstein to see how the lack of power affects both playability and visual quality.

Lack of power, both in the CPU and GPU affects game development and design. Lack of CPU power in this gen affected games like AC:Unity and Just Cause 3 because the CPU couldn't handle the amount of AI and variety of people in Unity and couldn't handle the amount of physics of the destructions in Just Cause 3. Lack of power effects what a Dev can and cannot do as well as the Visual Quality of a game.

Obviously power matters if you want/need to hit a certain criteria such as native 4k/60, 1080/60 etc as a minimum and without too many compromises to the countless visual settings. Obviously you don't need as much power to hit 4k/60 in a 2D 16bit era styled game compared to hitting 4k/60 in a game like Ghost of Tsushima or Last of Us 2. If Sony are happy to target say 1800p or even use CB rendering then they won't need as much GPU power.

The PS5 won't be just playing Sony Exclusives but also multi-platform releases too. It will need to offer a reasonable spec to be able to those games. I don't expect it to have to much issue, but the more powerful it is, the longer it will stay relevant without needing a mid gen refresh or a 'replacement'. It does depend on what the majority deem acceptable because if the PS5 isn't 'that' powerful and only able to offer 1440 as an average, that's equivalent to the PS3's 720p as a HD era console. That being said, the PS4's power jump up is what enabled numerous games to come to PS4. The lack of power comparatively of the XB1 is why we are seeing 'ugly' 720p versions of games that generally also doesn't offer consistent frame rates leading to screen tear and/or stuttering. Its Power that gives the X an advantage in both visual and frame rate quality.

If power 'doesn't matter, then you may as well just stick with the PS4 and be happy with visual and frame rate quality dropping. Its still got headroom over the XB1 and by headroom, I mean the fact that game quality could drop down to the XB1 performance level maybe even drop down to Switch level as games continue to get bigger, better and more resource heavy so need to be scaled down more and more to run on the available hardware.

I know that Power isn't everything in some circumstances - like if you want to make simple cartoon style visuals with little/no post processing, anti-aliasing etc, doesn't matter if you are looking to make retro style 2D games, doesn't matter too much if you have a USP like Portability or Motion based controllers etc but does matter if you want to be at the cutting edge of game design, visually intensive and High resolutions & frame rate performance. We know the Pro can output games at 4k/60 and does do with a select few. There is a big difference in visual quality between Last of Us Remastered and Uncharted Lost Legacy or Last of Us 2 as well. The lack of 'power' is why Uncharted Lost Legacy only runs at 1440/30 compared to 1800/60 that Last of Us runs at - a lower resolution and frame rate. I know how 'great' the visuals are in games like Uncharted and Last of Us on last gen hardware but there is no doubt that the newer games look so much better - not just in resolution terms but in the characters, the textures, the world etc. the reason is that there was a lot more power to enable the devs to develop those games and would need a big power jump not only or necessarily to hit a certain metric like 2160/60 for example, but to improve the visual quality and/or game-play to evolve gaming further. If the only purpose of a generation is just to improve resolution and/or frame rates, then to me, that's an iterative device - like the X and Pro were.

I know this gen may seem a bit of an iterative advancement over last generation in some ways but there has been 'new' games that couldn't run on 'older' systems even if you scaled down the resolution and some 'visual' settings. The Switch is 'testament' to that as its not getting games like the Witcher 3, Watchdogs, Batman: Arkham Night, RDR2, CoD, BF etc. We saw how last gen consoles struggled with BO3 and all the alterations to the MP it had to make, couldn't run the SP or cope with more than 1 DLC packs due to hardware limitations. Power mattered to game designers to bring 'new' experiences, not just better looking versions of last gen games. I know that in some cases, it may seem like it - CoD, Fifa and Battlefield for example - but even Fifa these days can't bring 'everything' to weaker consoles like Switch or last gen hardware - and its not just because last gen is dead either.

Battlefield is a great example of what this gen offered straight away with BF4 - full 32 vs 32 PC sized lobbies instead of restricting the player count down because the hardware couldn't cope with that number and all the destruction, vehicles and gunfights that BF4 is known for. Lets not forget that PS3/360 also targetted 30fps but both struggled to maintain that with a lot of screen tear too. On XB1, the 'resolution' wasn't much of a leap at 720p but targetted 60fps and had the full Battlefield experience - not the scaled down for console experience the last gen consoles offered. That was because of a 'Power' jump.

I don't know what 'next gen' could offer we haven't seen or experienced before on console. You can argue that we have experienced everything this gen offered on last gen if you go right back to 'general' elements - like open world RPG's like Skyrim so how is the Witcher 3 much different? Its much different because its more seamless and far fewer loading screens or interruptions. The same as Batman Arkham Knight too. You can argue that we had FPS games like Battlefield before but never played Battlefield with 32vs32 and 60fps before. I doubt games like H:ZD with the open world, giant Robot dinosaurs that can have 'armour' and weapons ripped off would have worked without an increase in power. It really depends on the devs, what 'new' things they find to do that the hardware limitations of the current hardware is preventing them to do now.

We have heard Bethesda state that they cannot bring a 'new' Elder Scrolls game to this generation because this generation is too limited to realise their 'ambition' for that game. I do hope its more than just visual effects - like better hair/fur, better draw distances to eliminate pop-in of objects (let alone shadows, reflections, textures etc). I know Sucker Punch were struggling with 'Infamous' because of the CPU and it bottlenecking - we can see at least 1 or 2 of the limitations of the PS4 in their GoT demo too - the relatively short draw distance for 'quality' shadows - where the draw distance of the best quality shadows pop in to replace lower quality shadows so what could they do with a better CPU? I don't know how much the Devs have been held back or impacted their ambition/game design by the limitations of this generations hardware design and what they could do with 'next generation' hardware - especially if the hardware has a much better CPU and more balanced design principal rather than more GPU focused.

CPU is generally responsible for physics calculations, AI, motion, object tracking, collision detection, sound processing, sending and processing data over servers etc and tells the GPU what to draw and where to draw objects - its the 'brain' of the machine where the GPU is generally the 'artist' that draws what it is told to so everything you see is drawn by the GPU but told by the CPU what to draw, where to draw things and what the objects are in terms of materials so the light, shadows etc react properly so you get the right looking reflections, highlights, shadows etc.

Who knows what Devs can do - more NPCs with more complex AI for example - bigger crowds of more unique looking characters with unique AI too. I know PS4 can obviously cope with 'big' numbers (look at Days Gone) but the AI is relatively simple and applicable to all the enemies - its all just head to the character where ever he goes but having a big crowd, all uniquely dressed and mobile/active is a 'massive' task for a CPU to track each, apply their unique outfits, have their own AI etc - especially if they have to do all this and communicate to the GPU to render the frame all in 16.6ms to hit 60fps - let alone 33ms for 30fps. Maybe combine a big crowd of uniquely different characters with a lot of physics too. For example, a building exploding near to a busy Market square and seeing the crowd react to that in a 'realistic' way - some running away, tripping over bodies that have fallen over trying to get away, some people helping others whilst some are just looking to get away as fast as possible whilst bits of building, fire & smoke are affecting the light - smoke blocking some natural light and the fire light illuminating areas. The physics of the market stalls and produce affected by the people rushing to get away from the building and bits of building raining down. That would really stress a PS4 hardware but could be a reality on PS5 if a dev thinks that can be used in a 'game' context. So many games have 'limited' physics - buildings, trees, tables etc that shouldn't withstand an RPG blast remain unscathed. This is just an example but with more 'power' in the CPU that could bring something more to gaming and more power to the GPU means that it can render the scene at a higher resolution and within a more limited time frame - like 16.6ms for 60fps gaming.

A number of people have been quite vocal about the Pro offering 1440/30 and not delivering 1080/60. They have stated that the Pro should have used the extra resources to hit 60fps rather than using the extra power to boost resolution. Its obvious why the Pro was built to improve resolution primarily because the focus of the upgrade was centred on the GPU - a jump of around 2.3x where as the RAM and CPU had a slight boost by comparison. The boost in GPU was designed to increase the size of the image by around 2x and to render that bigger image in the same (or quicker) time it takes the PS4 GPU to render a smaller image. If it was built to boost frame rates, it would have seen a bigger boost in CPU to do all the calculations and get the GPU to draw the image in 16.6ms instead of 33ms. Dropping the res only saves some of the time needed for rendering but if the CPU can't process all the calculations and get the instructions to the GPU in time for the GPU to render the image regardless of size to hit that 16.6ms frame time, you end up dropping frame rate down. Unlocked and unstable frame rates are due to both the CPU and GPU's time to calculate and render a frame - if the time taken doesn't hit 16.6ms or 33ms - say 25ms, you get 40fps which would fall outside of a TV's natural refresh rate leading to stutter or screen tear More power will enable the CPU and GPU to do its work quicker at 16.6ms (or under) to deliver 60fps.

There is another way of delivering more power by using the cloud to help with a lot of the calculations. Whether Sony develop their own 'cloud' to be used to support the PS5, I don't know. With it, gamers could get a 'weaker' spec console for less money that when connected to the internet boosts game performance and when disconnected, still plays the games at a lower metric - kind of like the N64 with the expansion pack or like the Pro is to the PS4.

I bet if we were to ask every Sony gamer, what's more important, Frame Rate or Resolution, I bet Frame Rate would be voted for the most. Power though is important to improve the frame rate - not just the GPU which would need to render a frame in much less time, but also the CPU to calculate and instruct the GPU on what to draw and where everything is in the scene. We see how much 'power' matters when you look at the base consoles and how that lower powered GPU has affected the way games look and run compared to a PS4. Not only has power mattered in what games this generation has been able to bring to us, but also how well they look and play. 30fps does impact on the way games look and play too - including how responsive the games are to play. The only way to get them to play smoother and more responsive is to increase the 'power'. You can't tell me that Power is not everything when it really determines how games look, play and what the Devs can actually design their games to do. Its always been that way and why now the Switch isn't supported with every 'new' game coming out, why we are seeing more and more games dropping in visual quality, frame rates or both. The 'lack' of power is why games like God of War, Uncharted 4 etc only run at 30fps and, in the case of U4, only run at 900/60 in the MP. ND wanted to make U4 run at 1080/60, Sucker Punch too with Infamous, even GG had to be 'creative' and implement a reconstruction technique (early CB) in its MP as the game only runs at 960x1080 in the MP because the console isn't powerful enough to run the game natively at 1920x1080 and at 60fps. The power mattered for the Devs because they had to either compromise on Frame Rates (cap the game to 30fps), Resolution (implement reconstruction techniques, drop resolution down below the optimum, implement dynamic resolution scaling etc) and/or turn down the quality of certain visual settings (shadows, Ambient Occlusion, Anti-aliasing, draw distances that Shadows, textures etc are substituted for higher quality versions, object draw distance and/or quality of these, LOD quality etc). The first two (frame rates and resolution) are obvious metrics that can show where power makes a difference. The last may not always be so obvious until compared to the same game running on a higher/lower spec machine. Some are obvious because you can almost see a line where textures or shadows suddenly become higher quality or where certain objects pop-in. Its not so obvious if the ground is 'less dense' of grass/rocks etc until you see what's missing on a higher spec machine - its less dense on a lower spec machine.

Other ways devs have to compromise with lower spec machines is by reducing the quality and/or frame rate of certain aspects. In Hitman 2 for example, the reflections in windows are only 25% resolution of the game and with no post processing so don't get ambient occlusion or shadows in the reflection. In RE2 remake, the enemies only run at 50% frame rate until you get close enough to run them at 60fps. The same happens in RDR2 as well as more distant objects (like animals, horse & carts, NPC's etc) run/refresh at 50% of the games normal frame rate. Often racers too have half frame rate refresh for reflections in mirrors and rain on windows too. More power could stop all of this as well as the things I mentioned above enabling the devs to realise their ambitions and vision for their games and allow us to play them the way they were envisioned to be played.

You are right that power doesn't matter for some games - those 'indies' that are targetting a 16bit visual style. It wouldn't matter if you have the worlds most powerful console or a Switch. The game is most likely going to look the same, run the same etc and the extra power is almost a waste but it certainly matters if you want to play games like RDR2 at 4k/60 on Ultra settings. I know the X can't do that because its not powerful enough in both the GPU and CPU to render each frame in half the time it takes the X to do it now. The Metro analysis I shared above also shows the difference between a 4k X image and a 4k PC image running at Ultra settings. It shows what had to sacrificed and reduced in quality - let alone the much lower cap on the frame rates.

If people expect a native 4k, 60fps PS5 as a 'minimum' standard for the majority, if not all games as well as 'high' if not more visual settings with decent draw distances for all aspects, Power will matter...

I am sorry I typed so much - didn't realise I had so much to say...

Anyway the point is power matters to both gamers and devs. Its what enables the devs to explore an create new experiences they couldn't before and for gamers to experience the games as the dev intended without too many, if any compromises.

If the PS5 isn't much more powerful than an X, with a better/newer CPU, that can still limit Devs and us as gamers too. More power can eliminate things that as gamers can break our immersion - pop-in, responsiveness of controller, stuttering or screen tear, interruptions for loading screens, empty worlds etc etc. Its not 'just' the exclusives or MS's mistakes before the console released. Only the Kinect issue remained at launch and that went within a year and became the cheapest console - so price wasn't an issue. The constant 'resolution' difference that kept highlighting the weaknesses of the Xbox for the first couple of years had a big impact too on sales. Power mattered at the start of this generation and now the X is out, power somehow doesn't matter anymore. I bet it would matter again if the PS5 is more powerful than the next xbox. It mattered a LOT to the vast majority of my Xbox friends that wanted to play games like CoD and Battlefield at 1080 & 900p instead of 900 & 720p, wanted to buy the console that had more power because they knew that down the line, the performance of games would be better on PS4 because the hardware was better - not because of DRM always online etc that never materialised anyway. Exclusives don't matter too much if 85%+ of the games look and run worse on that machine. Its better to buy the console that plays 85%+ of the games at the best quality and pick up the other years down the line when its 'cheap' to play any exclusives you wanted. I know there are PS4 gamers that picked up a cheap Xbox recently to play the exclusives and 360 games they missed that are in Game Pass.

Like I said, I know a few will buy PS5 regardless of its specs because they are PS gamers only - whether it does deliver the games at the highest frame rate and visual quality or not but there will be a lot of gamers that will buy whichever has the 'most' power and uses that to deliver the highest quality visuals and frame rates.

I like how your summary is still longer than the average post

@BAMozzy I’m gonna admit I just skimmed through that, but Unity is a great example why power is needed as I loved Unity and thought what it was trying to do was fantastic. Power does matter, but the difference between the X1 and PS4 wasn’t a huge factor in the sales difference. Now, I agree that the Switch isn’t a good example specifically because it’s portable, but let’s say the X1 had released with the Switch’s specs and that was the only thing that we changed. I’d agree then that the power would make a big difference in sales, but because it wasn’t such a big gap, the effect was much smaller I think. We’re not arguring that power doesn’t matter, because I think it absolutely does, but that the specific difference in power between the PS4 and X1 wasn’t a big factor in sales.

Everything will be fine. PS5 will be stronger than One X. As long as it sells devs will support it. It is their job. That is all I have left to say on the matter.

@BAMozzy Power clearly matters but so does price point. $500 was clearly to expensive back in 2007. The average game has become richer and money has become less valuable since then but if it’s too expensive it won’t reach the economies of scale needed. I think it’ll stay in development until they can achieve a meaningful power increase at a price the mass market is willing to pay.

@Jaz007 I think its quite a big difference. OK its not such a big difference as a Switch to PS4 or XB1 but when you have 1.4Tflops (Slim, the OG XB1 was less @ 1.31Tflops) compared to 1.84Tflops, that doesn't sound a lot because you are dealing with 'small' numbers but in reality, that's more of a gap than combining an Xbox 360 and XB1 together, that's more of a gap than adding a Switch and XB1 together. That's more than the Computational power of a 360 or PS3 difference. Its like saying the X isn't all that more powerful because 6Tflops doesn't sound a lot when the Pro is 4.2Tflops BUT that's like combining a PS4 and a PS4 Pro together - a whole PS4 more computational power and we know how 'great' the PS4 is. 6 - 4.2 = 1.8Tflops virtually the same as a PS4 difference.

Point is, a 'little' gap is perhaps not a big deal between consoles - if you are comparing a PS3 and XB360 for example but when the gap is more pronounced as it was this generation - more than a whole PS3/XB360, then things are different. Granted the CPU was a bit faster on the XB1 but the XB1 also had much slower RAM too which also has an impact on the games, the visuals and performance.

This is why the XB1 has the worst visual quality and at least 75% lower resolution. 1080p is 2.07m pixels compared to 900p's 1.44m. Whilst 1080p to 900p doesn't sound like a 'big' difference - only 180p. That is a BIG difference in size, in area. You are losing around a third of the area by dropping down from 1080 to 900p bit it seems a 'small' drop because 1080p to 900p only sounds like a drop of 180p compared to 633,600 pixels. that's just under half the number of pixels that 900p delivers that is missing. That's a LOT but it seems 'small' because we are dealing with just one metric - the smallest too - just height. If we used Horizontal metric, 1920 down to 1600 is a bit of a bigger gap but if we talk about Pixel count, 2.07m to 1.44m or 633,600 pixels difference, then its a much larger gap.

Its the same with Tflops 1.84tflops to 1.31tflops may not sound a lot but that's 503gflops when a 360 was around 240gflops and the PS3 was around 230.1gflops - in other words, the difference between a PS4 and XB1 in terms of GPU is MORE than both a PS3 and XB360 added together... Do you still think its a 'small' difference???

To be honest sony can probably get away with $499 for year one.

@BAMozzy The only reason I mentioned Switch is because it still sells well despite being less powerful than the other two consoles. With the games you mentioned okay they didn't sell or perform as well as on the other two, but the majority of people that bought it are not concerned about that, they bought for the Switch so they can play it on the move.

I don't think any one is saying power is not important when it comes to consoles. It obviously is important to you, but not to everyone. If that were not true the Switch would not have sold the numbers it has.

I think we need to move on from this as I'm getting a bit sick of typing and reading the power lol.