The PS5 and Xbox 2 thread - it's happening

[vonAchdorf]

That's a bullshit pastebin. We already know that Sony is targeting an end of 2020 PS5 release.

Source : Sony.

It's also ancient ("i'd say Q2 2019 small reveal").

 

[Morgoth]

Not sure where to put this, so I'll put it here (and Mods can move it if inclined):

https://www.vg247.com/2019/11/06/4k-gaming-useless-says-playdead-founder/

4K gaming: “It’s useless,” says Playdead founder
By Matt Martin, Wednesday, 6 November 2019 14:02 GMT

Share on: Facebook Twitter Reddit Google+

4K gaming doesn’t interest game developers and is just another tech upgrade being flogged by manufacturers to sell consoles and hardware.

That’s according to Dino Patti, co-founder of Limbo and Inside developer Playdead, who warned an audience at Reboot Develop in Canada last week that development studios that follow hardware trends will only stumble into failure.

“I think it’s useless,” he said. “It’s something that’s being pushed by tech vendors to push the next console.

“I want to select a path by myself and not be drawn in by money from tech vendors. There’s a lot of people that see something shiny and follow that. You can definitely see all the herd walking one way and falling,” he said.

Patti, who has recently founded Coherence and Jumpship after leaving Playdead, sees 4K as just another gimmick in a long line of technology being pushed on the development community.

“[Manufacturers] don’t respect the natural evolution of games and you force technology. Microsoft with Kinect, they paid studios to make a lot of shitty games,” he said.

Klang Games co-founder, Guðmundur Hallgrímsson, who was also on the Reboot Develop panel, said that his next game, Seed, has eschewed hi-fidelity visuals and is happy for other studios to tussle over the graphics problem.

“We went for a super-simplistic art style because the battle for higher fidelity graphics is something for a handful of really big studios to fight over,” said Hallgrímsson.

“When it comes to graphics, if you’re really dedicated to a game, normally you lower all settings in order to get the maximum performance. So I don’t really care about graphics. At the end of the day the gameplay is always key.

Chet Faliszek, former Valve writer on Portal, Left4Dead and Half-Life 2, added that it’s not tech that influences games development so much as new business models.

“Fidelity, that way, it’s an uninteresting thing to chase. It doesn’t change the game in a meaningful way.

“Tech doesn’t influence gameplay so much as business models. Apple Arcade allows you to make single-player mobile games where you couldn’t before. Those sort of influences are more impactful,” he said.

Absolutely agree.

But the vicious cyle of selling you $800 graphics cards and unoptimized piece of shit ports *cough* RDR2 *cough* must continue to maximize shareholder value.

 

[Makabb]

lol 4k is not pointless, it's like arguing that 1920x1080 is pointless or 800x600 is pointless because hey, you can also play in 320x200 like in early 90's, some time ago 1080p was 'pointless'.

I play in 3840x2160 and the textures and image is much more sharper..... just what you would expect out of a resolution bump, nothing more, nothing less.

A higher resolution is always preferred to a lesser one for image quality.

 

[unfairlight]

Please tell me who the fuck "Playdead founder" is and why I should care? The change from 1080 to 1440 or 4k isn't as big as that of 720 to 1080, but it's going to happen whether you like it or not. I'm sure someone in 2035 will laugh at you saying 4k is pointless while reading the text on their 8k screen.
Although chances are we'll stay stuck at 4k for a while, since transistor shrinking is getting only slower and more expensive.

 

[Achilles]

I play in 3840x2160

On a PS4 Pro? No you're not. You're upscaling to that resolution.

 

[Makabb]

I play in 3840x2160

On a PS4 Pro? No you're not. You're upscaling to that resolution.

on pc

 

[Achilles]

I play in 3840x2160

On a PS4 Pro? No you're not. You're upscaling to that resolution.

on pc

Now you're talking, good job.

 

[Makabb]

I play in 3840x2160

On a PS4 Pro? No you're not. You're upscaling to that resolution.

on pc

Now you're talking, good job.

ps5 will also have native 4k

 

[Achilles]

I play in 3840x2160

On a PS4 Pro? No you're not. You're upscaling to that resolution.

on pc

Now you're talking, good job.

ps5 will also have native 4k

I don't doubt it. I fully expect developers to target 4K with cinematic 20 fps framerates.

 

[DalekFlay]

4k isn't "useless," it definitely looks crisper. The problem is 4k is insanely expensive. The 2080ti can't even run a lot of modern games at 4k with maxed settings, and that card alone costs $1200 or so. There's no way the PS5 or XboxWhatever will have a card that powerful, let alone much MORE powerful. So the more developers target 4k, the more they sacrifice elsewhere. Textures, draw-distance, geometry, size and most importantly framerate. The focus on 4k means another generation of 30fps with dips to the 20s and a lot of the same old graphical issues, because they care more about flashy 4k marketing than game performance.

A great thing about PC is you can choose yourself what's most important to you. For me, 1440p with 120fps is WAY the fuck more important than 4k 60fps (let alone 30fps). Seriously once you go high framerate there's no going back, even 60fps feels like a choppy mess. However you can choose to get a 2070 and run at 4k 30fps if you want to. You have that choice. Console gamers won't have a choice.

 

[Morgoth]

I play with 120/144Hz too, but sometimes going back to 60 fps (with frame limiter) only takes me a couple minutes to re-adjust. For most slower-paced games it's very adequate. Your sensibility may vary.

As for the next-gen consoles, I suspect it will be a mixed bag. First-party studios will defininitly go with 4K/Ultra graphics at the expense of framerates (think TLoU), but I suspect most developers will shoot for various options (i.e. 4K/30Hz, 1440p/60Hz, FHD/90Hz or something like that).

 

[abija]

“When it comes to graphics, if you’re really dedicated to a game, normally you lower all settings in order to get the maximum performance. So I don’t really care about graphics.

This is absolute crap. If the game had proper visibility and good enough performance, people wouldn't lower settings.

 

[Makabb]

There's no way the PS5 or XboxWhatever will have a card that powerful, let alone much MORE powerful

lol, the xbox one x has a 6 tflop gpu and 12gb vram (same as gtx 1080 ti) and it does a native 4k, now imagine if the new consoles will have 14tflops and 24gb vram.

 

[DalekFlay]

I play with 120/144Hz too, but sometimes going back to 60 fps (with frame limiter) only takes me a couple minutes to re-adjust. For most slower-paced games it's very adequate. Your sensibility may vary.

Definitely varies per person, sure. When I can only play a newer game around 60... like Control for example... it drives me nuts. So much more choppy. Other people though are happy with 25-30fps. That's why I'm saying the best part about PC gaming is you choose what is more important to you, not marketing people looking for pretty screenshots and a 4k label on the box.

 

[Makabb]

It begins

 

[Morgoth]

Fresh rumors about Project Scarlett, consisting of one entry-level console and one Über-console:
https://www.windowscentral.com/xbox-scarlett-anaconda-lockhart-specs

TL;DR

 

[unfairlight]

Yeah that kind of hardware has to be $500 or more, or sold at an extreme loss. Guess the idea of a $400 console is over.
4 teraflops for the base model seems low, the Xbox One X has a faster GPU (or two? I recall it has the base model APU and a Polaris GPU which can work together.)
The primary thing I hope for is some sort of advancement in controllers and giving consoles rebinding. Dual analogue sticks are just flat out boring and weak these days, they need to include gyroscope aiming in more games.

 

[Morgoth]

Lockhart should be at least as fast as XBone X (given the more efficient µarch), but for 300 bucks.

I can't really see them sell Anaconda for below ~500-600 bucks. They'll likely support Xbox One for another couple years until the user base for Scarlett has grown considerably.

 

[DalekFlay]

If they do another base console that's a lot weaker keep in mind every game will be designed around that, with the other console just boosting resolution and maybe framerate. That news would suck for the industry as a whole, if you're interested in graphics advancement.

 

[Tehdagah]

Only 16GB of ram? Techfags please explain this.

Yeah that kind of hardware has to be $500 or more, or sold at an extreme loss. Guess the idea of a $400 console is over.
4 teraflops for the base model seems low, the Xbox One X has a faster GPU (or two? I recall it has the base model APU and a Polaris GPU which can work together.)
The primary thing I hope for is some sort of advancement in controllers and giving consoles rebinding. Dual analogue sticks are just flat out boring and weak these days, they need to include gyroscope aiming in more games.

Controllers need buttons on their back.

 

[deuxhero]

Tehdagah
Vita legit had that.

 

[Zeriel]

Or they reverse it and everything is based around the high-performance version, and if you use the cheaper one they just say, "That's intended. Upgrade if you want the real experience."

TFLOPS is a dumb measure but I still have immense :doubt: over the specs they keep giving for these consoles in the GPU department. People are acting like you're going to get a thousand dollar video card performance in a $400-500 for all hardware package. That's so far beyond the realm of reality it's laughable.

Everything else seems in line with current budget Zen/PC lineup.

Edit: Actually, this is kinda funny. Maybe it is just TFLOPS bullshittery. So let's look at the 5700XT.

FP16 (half) performance
19.51 TFLOPS (2:1)
FP32 (float) performance
9.754 TFLOPS
FP64 (double) performance
609.6 GFLOPS (1:16)

No sane person would expect a general TFLOPS number to be FP16 but that's probably what they're doing with these numbers. So the GPU by that metric is probably a 5500 or 5600 budget solution. All the folks expecting 2080 tier performance are gonna be really ball-busted.

 

[Zeriel]

lol 4k is not pointless, it's like arguing that 1920x1080 is pointless or 800x600 is pointless because hey, you can also play in 320x200 like in early 90's, some time ago 1080p was 'pointless'.

I play in 3840x2160 and the textures and image is much more sharper..... just what you would expect out of a resolution bump, nothing more, nothing less.

A higher resolution is always preferred to a lesser one for image quality.

It's better. It's not 4X better, in terms of the experience for the end-user. That's basically the issue. If you can get 4K60FPS sure, why not. But that gets into the issue of people having to choose. Do they want 4K60FPS (super expensive), or 1080P-1440P 144-244HZ? Considering that LCD needs at least 1000 HZ to be on par with CRT image quality with any motion involved, that's not an academic question. 4K is fine if you really really need it, but I agree with those quoted that it is not worth it for most people, and certainly not comparable to gameplay innovation/fundamentals.

 

[DalekFlay]

Or they reverse it and everything is based around the high-performance version, and if you use the cheaper one they just say, "That's intended. Upgrade if you want the real experience."

I really doubt they would do that. PR and sales nightmare. Also previous generations have shown a price higher than $400 is toxic, so if they sell the base model for around that it needs to be a competent machine. Also no matter what you still need the games to run on both, so their core (level size, number of things on screen, etc.) would be the same. I'd guess they basically market them as 1080p and 4k machines, similar to how nVidia now markets the 2060, 2070 and 2080 as 1080p, 1440p and 4k GPUs respectively.

This is all assuming any of these rumors have a factual basis to begin with.

 

[Zeriel]

When there is a cross-generational time they sell new games on older systems and yeah sure a few plebs complain, but no one cares and it doesn't seem to bother the console makers any.

I really doubt the difference between the $400 and $500 hardware would be a deal breaker for console audience. If you look at the specs the only difference is in the GPU unit. It's basically swapping a video card on a PC.