Topic: PlayStation 5 --OT--

Expand

@Th3solution The Xbox One was first revealed around 21st May 2013 whilst the PS4 was first revealed around 20th Feb 2013. Both were revealed before E3 but E3 was the first real look at the console and its 'main' features. The fact that MS got so much wrong and gave Sony ammunition to fire back a few days later may overshadow the fact that both consoles were actually revealed prior to E3 and Sony were indeed first to announce the 'next' gen hardware.

What I said about the Xbox One X though does depend on whether MS are willing to allow devs to release games just for that console - assuming they don't want their games running sub 720p and/or lower than 30fps consistently. Essentially phasing out the 'weakest' console and so the X becomes the 'base' hardware for this generation. Another option of course is that the Xbox Scarlett becomes the X, the iterative upgrade when they do release. Most of the specs of the X are 'next gen' with VRR, Atmos, Dolby Vision, 4k HDR Bluray player. Apart from the 'core' (the APU and RAM), there isn't much to be an upgrade. Obviously that Core will be an upgrade to the gaming capability but MS can't upgrade the bluray drive, the audio capability, VRR etc so it may seem like an iterative step up for X owners anyway. The X is certainly a leap up over the base XB1 and a sizeable step up from the Pro too (sorry Sony fanboys but it is - Its GPU has as much computational power as the PS4 and Pro combined - a whole console step up, let alone the RAM advantage and slight CPU advantage). Looking at the tech world right now, the X is certainly covering all current gen features - you can't get significantly better than 4k HDR Blurays (they could add DV support) , HFR isn't necessary on this machine, VRR is already enabled and games don't use dynamic HDR anyway. In has the power to run VR too if MS choose so its all 'next gen' already - apart from a weak CPU. The issue though would be how MS handle the fact that some people have a capable piece of hardware (the X) and some have hardware that can''t run games at a suitable level? Do they annoy the X users and just not allow the game to release the game on Xbox or do they annoy the ones still playing on base/slim hardware and release the game on X only. It could be easier if they have the Scarlett released and phrase it in some way that the 6yr+ (depending on when it releases) console is being phased out and the X becomes the base. They could wait until late 2020, wait until after Sony releases the PS5 so you get 1yr of Sony 'dominance' (as far as the most powerful hardware) with MS taking that back for 2yrs until Sony releases the PS5 'Pro and a year later MS releases its next iterative jump - a 3yr cycle where Sony has the 'best' for a year before MS counters for 2yrs before Sony releases its next console/upgrade.

Sony seem to be sticking to a traditional format for consoles - every 'New' console being a 'new' generation - maybe with an iterative 'Pro' mid cycle release. MS may well be on that same path too although they did say they wanted to do away with 'generations'. Generations don't make sense any more because the 9th gen Nintendo can't play all 9th gen software. But I don't want to get side-tracked on that. MS could just keep iterating every 3 or 4yrs as required to keep up with the latest tech and performance metrics. 5/6yrs is a LONG time in technological terms and we can see that just by looking at the base hardware today, the performance metrics of most games. Releasing an iterative upgrade every 3 or 4 years would mean that Xbox could keep pace with PC hardware - important too if you want to amalgamate both MS console and MS PC gamers into one community. The new iterative hardware being the mid to high PC equivalent with the base console being the low to mid PC equivalent when all playing together. They have added Keyboard and Mouse support too which also tells me they are more likely on a different path where the 'Xbox' is just part of the 'family' of devices that are joined together under the MS 'Azure Cloud'. It fits in with their recent plans ( https://www.pushsquare.com/news/2019/02/microsoft_plans_to_bri... ) and makes a lot of sense. This way, your library carries on with you and like PC's, you reach a point where you have to upgrade IF you want to play ALL the latest releases but if you are an avid gamer, demanding the best, then you can upgrade every few years or so - just like upgrading from a GTX970 to a GTX2070 to keep playing games at the standards you want.

Its all speculation on my part and really depends on what MS will actually do. At the moment, the X and the base consoles are 'locked' together - just like the PS4 & Pro. Neither the Pro or X are getting extra games or specific DLC add-ons so when the Base hardware becomes too weak to run the latest games, both Pro and X owners will miss out - assuming the better hardware was powerful enough if course - maybe not if its a CPU limitation. Anyway, as soon as the base consoles stop being supported by devs/publishers because of hardware limitations, they will miss out completely. MS could of course allow the games to release as an X only (or X and Scarlett if its out) like 'minimum Xbox required: X'. Which would of course give them a way to wait if they wanted, wait for Sony's machine because the PS4 won't go much longer after the base becomes to weak, and then tweak their next box to be better and release later.

If MS don't do that, keep the X locked to XB1, then its life expectancy is going to be very short. The base XB1 is living on borrowed time and won't be long before devs can't compromise any more and still hit 720/30. Especially now multi-platform Devs will be looking at Ray tracing and what they can do with the most powerful PC hardware and worry about scaling it down to consoles later. Devs are competing for gamers attention so they will want to show what talented devs they are at creating impressive looking video games at their best. MS will have to make the first move - one way or the other. Either release a 'new' console to continue to bring MS gamers the latest titles OR split the consoles apart and allow X only releases. That doesn't mean 'every' game from that point on, inc any upcoming MS games will not release on X, just the ones where its not worth releasing it - hence phasing it out. That's again assuming Sony haven't yet made any moves. MS will have to come up with a statement regarding their plans sooner because the base XB1 is struggling to keep up more so than the PS4. They have to either release a 'new' console OR buy some time and allow the X to have 'unique' software so have to inform their audience of their plans. People will be upset regardless - those still with weak XB1's if they do allow unique software to the X, X owners will be upset if they lock it to base or replace their console with a better one so soon after, but they would be much more upset and angry if MS don't say anything....

Expand

See post above - I know its long so I will keep this brief and not repeat myself but I did mention the initial reveal dates of both and Sony revealed first - although were after MS at E3.

As for the Pro running 'better' than the X, that's depending on your parameters. Running better is not 'just' about the frame rates in my opinion but the game as a whole including the visuals. Lets look at Kingdom Hearts as an example. The base XB1 has a higher average frame rate than the base PS4 so you could argue that its running better. In my opinion, its running worse (as it would be being the weaker console) because its also not pushing the graphical quality the base PS4 is. The reason it has a 'frame rate' advantage is down to sacrificing on image quality, not doing anywhere near as much work and therefore has a higher frame rate. The PS4 version could drop the resolution down to say 800p and that would offer a higher frame rate and superior PQ. The point is, it really depends on where the focus is.

If you now look at the Pro vs X, when the Pro is set for 4k (or super-sampling to 1080p), the X beats it on both PQ and on frame rate performance. However, if you force the console into 1080p mode, thus increasing the visual quality gap between both consoles, sacrificing a bit more sharpness and detail, then the Pro has the best frame rate. Again depending on your focus.

The point is, 'running' is the result of producing the 'best' images (frames) in as quick a time (per second) as required. If you have to sacrifice the quality of the Frames (image) to chuck out more frames, that doesn't necessarily mean that 'X' game is running better. Its balancing both of these to give us the 'best' experience and games are not always just about frames per second - they also should delight visually and draw us in, should sound great to add to the immersion and should feel smooth to play. XB1 owners with certain TV's/Monitors using VRR won't even notice a dropped frame or if the game drops to 50fps for a second - the image and feel will still be very smooth. And they have the advantage of 1440p visuals - sharper and less upscale blur.

Pro owners have to really run the game in a forced 1080p mode - great for those with 1080p TV's, not so great for owners of a 4k TV and wanting a console to deliver (some) of the visual benefits of 4k (or even UHD) gaming that the Pro 'promised'. Again though, that comes down to the 'balance' that contributes to the way a game 'runs'. The Pro in this case is chucking out lower quality images slightly faster and more consistently than the X is chucking out higher quality images - that's why its 'Frames per Second'.

The Pro isn't running 'better' than the X in any of these cases its sacrificing more on visual quality to push out more frames per second where as the X is pushing out higher quality images which are taking a bit longer to draw so not pushing out as many per second. If the Devs dropped the resolution down to PS4 levels, so matched it on visual quality, the X would run much better - so much so that the HDMI 2.0 can't deliver the full bandwidth. Or if the devs pushed the visuals up to match the X, then the Pro would really struggle to keep up and the frame rate would drop below what the X is offering. So technically the X is running better because the Pro couldn't deliver the visual quality at a similar rate or if the X dropped down to 1296p, (after all its only a few drops here and there), it would perhaps run flawlessly whilst the Pro at 1080p would still see a the odd frame rate drops here and there.

The point is, running is about both the quality of the frames and the speed at which they are displayed - hence frames per second. That doesn't mean to say that you can't prioritise one aspect as your preferred metric - ie prioritise performance which may require lowering the quality of the frames being pushed out or prioritise graphics, which may well lock the game to a lower frame rate and have the 'highest' visual settings - whether that's resolution or shadow quality, reflection quality, draw distance etc. How a game runs in my opinion is the quality of the frames and speed at which they are displayed. I don't always favour/prioritise frame rates - I wouldn't play a game as stunning as the Uncharted series or H:ZD at 60fps and compromise on that stunning beauty that the devs have crafted - a choice of say 1080p/60 or 4k /30, I will take 4k/30 as 30fps was what I am accustomed to with these franchises - of course I would prefer 4k/60 but sometimes, that's not an option. If Battlefield or CoD gave me the same options, 4k/30 or 1080/60 for the MP, I would pick 60fps every time. That's choosing how a game runs - the quality of the visuals and how fast they are rendered.

The occasions that the Pro has an frame rate advantage is the occasions when the X has a big visual advantage. In most cases, I would probably prefer the Pro version but that doesn't mean its running better, just that its aligning more with my priority. Like I said though, the Devs 'could' drop the visual quality a bit, still have a higher quality PQ and have a higher frame rate than the Pro so better balance between visual quality and how many of those frames it can spit out per second.

I can understand why Frame Quality is less of a priority than how many it can render per second as dropped frames are really immersion breakers. The odd 1 here and there isn't a problem but a game that runs at 40-50fps is too much - I would rather they picked one side and prioritised that - whether that is image quality (cap at 30fps) or frame rate (reduce the image quality). Some games though will still struggle to run smoothly at 60fps if the CPU is the bottleneck, handling all the draw information, AI and physics calculations etc in half the time (16.6667ms compared to 33.3333ms that 30fps would offer). Either way, pick one side to balance the game too. In the case of Kingdom Hearts, they really should target 60fps and balance the visual settings to achieve that. If that means the Pro is only 1080p, the X only 1296p, the base PS4 only 800p and the base XB1 only 30fps (because if it drops any lower in quality, it won't even be HD any more) - so be it.

Hopefully though, the PS5 will make the devs job easier for balancing - not having to decide which areas to compromise on, which bits to sacrifice to ensure the games run at 60fps (as a minimum). I do hope they give us more in-game options to choose how we want our games to run. With so many different display options and the potential of HDMI2.1, that really should give gamers more choice - from HD to 1440p monitors to 4k to 8k, from 60 to 120 frames per second, Dolby Vision etc. Those with 1080p TV's or 1440p monitors for example could have 120fps option, 4k TV owners could have 120fps too (not that I think big games will run at that level but Fifa 17 runs at native 4k/60 on a Pro so Fifa 2020 could run at 4k/120 (if your TV has HDMI 2.1), VRR can take care of unlocked frame rates too so you could have games that run at 70 to 120fps (or 45 to 60fps on HDMI2.0 TV's that support VRR. Some games could well be running at 8k (remember the GTSport in 8k article) and upto 60fps with CB rendering. Those with 1080p getting 'PC Ultra' settings and 120fps, 4k/60 (HDMI2.0) PC high settings, 4k/120 TV owners running the game at 4k medium PC settings and those running the game on 8k (or up to using CB rendering) have the option of PC low/medium settings. This again is balancing out the visual quality and how quickly the console can render and send that image to a display. A game running at say 1080/120 isn't necessarily running better than picking the 4k/120 option but sacrificing more visual setting quality to deliver 4x the resolution. If my TV is a 4k/120 TV, I would rather sacrifice some of the visual settings to have a sharper, more detailed image rather than the 'ultra' settings and upscale blur. Because of the higher resolution (but medium settings), you could argue its running better than the 1080p ultra setting version despite the fact that the frame rate is the same 120fps but I would say its 'balanced' equally as well for users of each display. A game that's not running at a full 4k, despite running at a locked 60fps (the most a TV at the moment can offer) isn't running as well as a game running natively at 4k with the same visual settings and the same 60fps because one is sacrificing more on visual quality to try and match up on frame rate - if that makes sense.