apoklyps3:

Rich people, Please stop doing drugs!

Never....

Thanatos:

...

Incredible Lama:

...

Imglidinhere:

...

(just to keep this message shorter and that you guys get notification about reply) For quite a few people, it's not about getting the best possible graphics, it's about having a system which will run new games. For price of a console, say 500€ + 5games (60€ each)/year for 7 years. That would be 2600€. Say for 10€/less per game for a PC one, that would be 1750€ for a games on PC. Leaves 850€ for a PC to use for 7 years (inc. OS lisence). So, consoles are great value, even if you include 60€/year online subscription (which I did not remember was a thing you needed). Many of us have TV to use with console and I did not include monitor for that PC price, use TV or old monitor from work or so... I think 7 years old 500€ console vs that 7 years old cheap PC (even if you use 420€ to upgrade from that 60€/year for 7 years subscription), perhaps the console will run games better. And it's just easier to buy your child a console than a PC. 1000e/year for a PC if we are talking about high end PC (nice round number, I think 500€ would be too little). Means top of the line GPU when new generation comes out. Also you are going to need a new mobo + cpu from time to time. And upgrade monitor/VR setup. Not talking about mid range system which will run games, talking about system which will not hold back and will give devs power to run the best graphics they can do. This was about consoles holding devs back, same applies to computers. For consoles you dont need as much power to run games, devs have three different platforms to work on PC, PS and Xbox. It's easier to optimize the game when you know the system the game will run on. For a PC, there are many different systems, so optimizing for everything is not as easy or cheap. And if they are telling that consoles are holding us back, well, perhaps make PC only game? Or will it not sell well enough to justify that? So we either get a game with average graphics, or not get a game at all. Crysis was an exception, not that many PC exclusives with excellent graphics after that? So is it the consoles which hold us back or the money people are willing to spend on the computers and PC exclusive games? Indie games, there are those on console stores also and those usually are not that demanding that you could say that consoles are holding devs back. Not that I have checked console stores or bought anything from those, I only have PS3 and it has not been used for few years. Bought it from a sale when it was like 200€ and got (used I think) copy of GTA5 (not sure how much it was). Also played some other stuff with it, like Gran Turismo, I think it was a good purchase.

I find this kind of talk hilarious specially now that consoles are nothing more than PCs with a proprietary OS to run certain games... After all the talk that consoles would kill PC is funny that in the end consoles became (gaming) PCs...

I don't know what the disagreement is here. If you look at "10.000ft view," then we are all saying the same things but from our own perspective and biases. -- Just a thought experiment: Did you notice, that after every new Console release, graphics went UP across the board? Soooo, you could say: Consoles are driving the graphical development. And you would not be wrong. But there are other factors included to explain the situation. My statement would be: "Consoles are making the baseline for graphics for all platforms competing." (PS5, New Xbox, and PC.) --- Unreal Engine 5 We all know a lot of games will be using UE5. I just hope they did not sign some exclusivity deal with Sony. I hope Games that comes to PC "As Soon As Reasonably Possible" - bugs squashed, optimization with AMD and Nvidia, and drivers of said companies ready at launch. What were they showcasing was not THE MAIN THING they are banking on. It was impressive, no doubt. But the same effect you could achieve with "cheats". I am a senior software developer (but not in graphics!!!) so I have a lot of insight into arch/code optimization. This is not the best what they can achieve on PS5/XboX. We will have to wait a couple of years to see the fruits of the hard work.

Everytime a new console comes out, we see the same things in forums.

Consoles dont have enough RGB for my liking, besides....the thought of playing the Division2 with a control pad........pc`s forever, consoles may be cheaper and more efficient at what they do but where`s the fun in that. If the new consoles encourages devs to optimize games for more cores then that....hopefully will role over to pc games, it would be nice to have the next Division use more than 26% of my R7 3800x

These days I could imagine a couple of percent (1-5%) of devs who doesn't know how to (properly and effectively) multi-thread... but they have a specific knowledge of some obscure system (like NASA 70s source code) to stay in the business. In my own case Pentium 4 1 core with HT was a godsend. I could squeeze 5-30% more performance (then I was just a code monkey). MySQL numbers were, If I recall correctly, around 20-30% more queries on their site. So when Duals and Quads (which was "glued" dual cores) came I was ready when a lot of my competition was not. I was being paid a lot of money for optimizations for newer archs. Good times. That time I was driving AUDI 8 with ~250 bhp (I am not sure if it was Q because that time was a long time ago). --- >If the new consoles encourages devs to optimize games for more cores then that....hopefully will role over to pc games, it would be nice to have the next >Division use more than 26% of my R7 3800x It isn't always the case that the game is not multithreaded enough. There seems to imagine a scenario where if a game is not using ALL the cores it's not "optimized". @The Goose I don't want to "dunk" on you, I used your statement just for an example. There are so many ways you can screw up the performance of your code... And if you don't test it on enough configs then surprise WILL waiting for you. And probably won't be related with threads, CPU speed, background apps,... but something just a small number of users are able to recreate. That's why we have patches. NOT Patches on day one - this is different because this is evident they were not enough QT/QA, when they pulled the trigger to release.

Wow, I found the geometry detail in that amazing, the lighting was good too...is that gonna be better than what we can expect on say Ampere NVidia with the 3xxx series?? Ok, that wasn't ray tracing, but I'm wondering if PC will be able to compete with that level of detail in the scene (geometry), and it was fast moving & smooth in that video, particularly the flying part at the end - which might be related to the fantastic storage bandwidth integration they supposedly have with PS5.

"New consoles help design the PCs of the future" PC's should have always been at LEAST 3-5 years ahead of consoles (old or new) no matter what.Here, what he practically says is "PC's are not the future unless, newer consoles comes and be stronger, so PC's can also move on to the future".This is pathetic.They are trying to switch the roles of both machines.So the days where PC used to be independent are over, is what i get from all this.

The Goose:

Consoles dont have enough RGB for my liking

dont even joke about that I hate the whole RGB fad of lets put on everything that going around. last think I want is consoles to have, I have huge freaking issue with that damn log led light ps4 as it and man reason why never use the standby mode "not that I would use the standby mode i just turn the system off". is the led light turn amber if it was small light like the ps3 use i would not care but.

Megastitious:

"New consoles help design the PCs of the future" PC's should have always been at LEAST 3-5 years ahead of consoles (old or new) no matter what.Here, what he practically says is "PC's are not the future unless, newer consoles comes and be stronger, so PC's can also move on to the future".This is pathetic.They are trying to switch the roles of both machines.So the days where PC used to be independent are over, is what i get from all this.

console tend to be 2 years beyond pc tech/cpu/gpu wise upon launch this gen might only be 1 year behind. imo the SSD/NVME or what is being used on consoles it great it not the game change the making it out to be from the stand point of HDD to SSD it easy simply cause those 5400rpm they used were slow on consoles then on pc's using same drive cause the interface it used wasnt really able to push the speed 5400rpm could do in first place, the game engine need to be able to "use" those speed in first place which no game engine does and barely any game that were made specifically for pc and SSD in mind can process the kind speed they talking about, cpu and gpu process of that aside. it like saying i9 10900k+ 32gb + 3080ti will run swtor at 60fps at ALL TIMES just from shear brute force, which it WONT cause had bad engine for the game is which perfect example of if engine cant handle it wont mater, which goes for everything else if hardware/os/engine cant handle it wont mater. that and the dev actual have to put in the work for it actual happen too. That all aside I dont really see much diffrence between this and all the unreal tech demos done, almost no game today has match what the tech demo show ad be capple of anyway. I just want Epic to fix the texture loading issue unreal engine's suffer from.

This demo was very, very impressive, but it is obvious most games will never reach that level of quality for many reasons. The geometry in demo was absolutely maxed out in terms of content. If the console has 32GB RAM, that demo filled up 100% of that RAM. If the very fast SSD in it was 256GB, then that demo took the entire 256GB of storage. The hardware trick in that new machines is it is able to stream all that to RAM as quick as it is needed. The amount of effort to create that short level is way more time and effort than any normal "full" game devs would bother to do. No game can be big enough to fill the entire storage or else people are going to be buying a lot of very expensive storage in future.

Tim Sweeney is at it again by posting something that he has no idea what heck he is talking about. Earth to Mr Sweeney PCs have been more powerful than consoles for like the last decade or so. Also PCs already have lightning fast SSDs already thanks to PCI-E 4.0. With the PS5 and Series X this would be the first time that they would be even close to a PC in terms of performance. The only thing that this can do is help developers optimize games for PC better considering how close the new consoles are going to be to modern gaming PCs.

icedman:

I believe consoles up until now were doing the opposite and holding back everything its about time storage started to be managed and leveraged better till now pc's just brute forced adding faster drives to speed things up but now they can use that brute force and optimize it.

Scene is based on some real world scenes analyzed by software and turned into high polygon model of world assets. So, this is actually easier to make when you have required software available. And it looks so good because of their polygon heavy, but optimized library. They basically told you that this does not use bump/parallax-mapping. So, it is unlike methods that you are used to see in modern games. Their AO library is rather good too, even while it uses temporal data to reduce HW requirements. It is still real time for all objects, includes great self shadowing even on terrain. (Most of games that promise this, end up with baked-in AO and without proper self shadowing even on characters.) And when you manage to actually see what is presented through entire demo, you'll understand that given physics library does great job too. Cloth does not clip through any polygons of body or anything. And behaves really nicely in comparison to physX. Debris moves around very naturally. It falls, as it hits something it bounces and rolls. When rolling and falls flat while being too slow, it stops rolling, but still slides a bit before stopping. When I see job done ell, I have no problem saying it. And then there are advantages of given approaches. Many and big ones.

geogan:

This demo was very, very impressive, but it is obvious most games will never reach that level of quality for many reasons. The geometry in demo was absolutely maxed out in terms of content. If the console has 32GB RAM, that demo filled up 100% of that RAM. If the very fast SSD in it was 256GB, then that demo took the entire 256GB of storage. The hardware trick in that new machines is it is able to stream all that to RAM as quick as it is needed. The amount of effort to create that short level is way more time and effort than any normal "full" game devs would bother to do. No game can be big enough to fill the entire storage or else people are going to be buying a lot of very expensive storage in future.

Demo was not demo of Wolfenstein which used unique texture for each object you encountered in game. Approach in this demo is rather smart and conservative use of resources.

H83:

I find this kind of talk hilarious specially now that consoles are nothing more than PCs with a proprietary OS to run certain games... After all the talk that consoles would kill PC is funny that in the end consoles became (gaming) PCs...

Remember integrated graphics killing discrete video cards 😀 Meanwhile GPU have become bigger than ever and are defacto the accelerator of choice for all kinds of heavy lifting.

Guys relax.... Sony probably just dumped a ton of money on his desk and said "say nice things". Consoles have never done this, maybe it can be argued back in the 80's and 90's when PC's were not meant to be gamed on and mainly used for work related tasks. But as soon as PC's started using 3D accelerators it was game over. Once a console release is timed right they begin to match PC's but within a few months before or after PC hardware tends to slap the hammer down and leap frog them. Remember the Xbox 360 using a custom ATi X1800 based GPU a few months before or later the 8800GTX entered the chat and put that to rest. I will give consoles one benefit though, with their limitations and high user base they force developers/engineers to come up with tricks and techniques to squeeze more out of the hardware which leads to new forms of rendering techniques that become standard throughout the industry.

You have it backwards..

Consoles being ahead of PCs? I give you Sweeney's advisor: https://pics.me.me/thumb_iam-bleeding-making-me-the-victor-how-the-left-wins-36605118.png

Every new generation they say the same things . Till the xbox and ps5 become gaming streaming services and we have no new consoles anymore . They are already working on it ... Will ps6 be the last hardware one ? 7 ? Who knows.

fantaskarsef:

Sweeney at it again 🙄

tim moved to opposite land quite a few years ago

Sweeny is comparing apples to oranges. Apart from that PC's always have stronger hardware available he also completely ignores that console manufacturers earn from game sales and not the hardware itself. https://blog.us.playstation.com/2020/03/18/unveiling-new-details-of-playstation-5-hardware-technical-specs/ Looking at the specs also shows low CPU frequency and RDNA 2 implementation using 16GB shared system memory. Nvme PCIe 4.0 M.2 SSD that can handle 5GB/s read are available for PC's too, not to forget that they can be setup in raid. Btw. didn't Sony claim 9GB/s to start with? And how does RAW read translate to random read at given block sizes?