Topic: PlayStation 5 --OT--

Expand

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...