Consoles are not cell phones, and they are not computers; people seem to miss a distinguishing quality they possess.
Passionately contested battles of words have featured on numerous news stories and comment sections since the rumors of upgraded consoles came to light. PS4 Neo, Xbox Scorpio, or whatever they end up as, both come at a controversial time. A time deemed too soon by some. A time deemed acceptable by others. Often the arguments made on both sides are valid and understandable. I don't want to get into them.
However, the argument I find more troublesome, the argument which misses the point: "Other industries experience similarly fast cycles" or "Cell phones/Computers are upgraded every year," and that because people don't complain about those industries, there should be no reason why consoles can't operate similarly. And it sounds compelling, we may be inclined that consoles could just be treated like cell phones, which receive frequent revisions and upgrades. While consoles share qualities with cell phones and computer products, there is a key distinction which I feel is often ignored.
Consoles are different because their performance improves over time. Now they may not reach their full potential.
In no other industry which they have been compared to (phones and computers), does the performance of a product increase over its lifespan. Now you may ask how, or what exactly I'm referring to; I refer to the optimization process with console software. The optimization process which results in games like Killzone 2 (early PS3 game, which had great console graphics for it's time) looking hideous compared to The Last of Us (late production PS3 game, which graphically competes with some early ps4 games). Perhaps you will want to point out that PC games can be similarly optimized; and this is true, but not true of how the industry truly works. Nvidia and AMD release optimization patches, and developers can update and refine the game; but because of the ever-changing components, there is no need to constantly optimize for a specific set of components. In other words, while Naughty Dog can use their experience from Uncharted 1-3 to produce the graphical prowess of The Last of Us (all for the ps3's parts), PC developers don't need to specialize on a set few components to squeeze out their power. As for mobile phones, apps can receive updates to optimize, but developers need not squeeze power from one device since there will likely be a more powerful one releasing soon.
It's exactly this squeezing-out of power, and mastering the components which I am concerned with for these new consoles. Developers simply won't be challenged the same way, for within a few years (sometimes the development length of 1 game itself), they can have more power to play with. People commonly say things like "Devs will produce for both consoles, so you won't lose anything with the lower spec!" "If you're happy with the performance, than there's no reason to be upset; the newer consoles will just add some more power to those who care". The fact is, the final quality of games from launch to end-cycle will likely show less improvement than before. In other words, yes, the lower spec can still play the same games as it would have without the Neo/Scorpio. But in a sense, that lack of improved optimization is a legitimate loss incurred with the lower spec consoles. A missing distinction when comparing consoles to other products.
I'm not doubting the improvement of PS4/X1 games alongside the upgraded consoles. In other words, even if the new consoles arrived tomorrow, I have no doubt that end-cycle-original-spec PS4 games will continue to look much better than 2014-original-spec PS4 games. The question is by how much, and If they will capture the full potential of the console. Either way, new consoles will limit the potential performance of the current ones.
-
As a final analogy, to close things off; think of a race car driver who competes in a 400 horsepower car. The idea is that, given his 400 horsepower, he will constantly be refining and improving his times around the lap. In his first event, on circuit X, he completes a 5 minute lap time. At the end of the season, he returns to circuit X, and he sets his new record of 4m 30s.
Next season however, his employers give him a new 500 horsepower car; the same car (system) but new weight to deal with, different dynamics, different speeds. His lap time on circuit X at the beginning of the season comes out to 4m 25s, a mere 5 seconds faster than before.
The idea is that there is potential to be drawn out of machines. So much so that a 400 horsepower car can compete with a 500 horsepower car if driven masterfully, if practiced, and if motivated. Ultimately, there is no doubt that the newer machine performs better; the concern is how much faster the older car could have gone if given another season (cycle).
We may never see the in-generation leap in graphics we saw with the PS3/X360 era with more frequent cycles.
Bloodious Games' psychological horror MADiSON VR is out now for PSVR 2, with 31 terrifying trophies to collect.
Stride Fates is one of the most nauseating games I have played in VR. It would be worth it if the gameplay, story, and world weren’t so bland at best.
It's subjective but I found I agree with most of it. I bought it weeks ago and haven't went back after the second level. Just wasn't "feeling it." And I love action games. There are games that just wow you right off the bat. I wish it was like that with parkour being fun when done right.
I just wish someone would copy the freedom of movement of games like Sairento. Flip in any direction, wall run, wall hang, guns, swords, throwing weapons, slow mo, etc. It didn't have a great story but the gameplay more than made up for it.
Give me that movement with a great story and voice acting, and I'd probably never play anything else. Lol. Stride is passable with a deep discount. Other than that, there's just much better out there that the developer could have learned from.
I know you love VR & I'm not trying to be shady but it seems lately like VR is just not taking off especially with PSVR2. I have not seen any current adverts for any first party or 3rd party videogames for the PSVR2. Is Sony including any big developers making any AAA games for PSVR2?
Senua's Saga: Hellblade 2 is now available on Xbox Series X|S and PC. Read ahead to learn how both versions compare in terms of visuals.
my other article got canned, but if you skip to 11.39 on this video, it contains the same information, can't hold 30fps on either console, not all the time, but some of it,. and this is even with smaller number of pixels being rendered due to the massive black bars top and bottom for 'cinematic effect'
if they really wanted cinematic effect they would run the whole thing at 23.97fps, as thats what films run in hehehe
Whats crazy is I haven't even noticed. This just goes to show you the technical genius that goes into these games. There are few devs that are just top notch. ND, Sony Santa Monica, turn 10, The coalition... we get so wrapped up in counting pixels and frames that we forget to just stfu and enjoy these games
I know the Xbox and PC has the option to play this game in Dolby Vision if you have a compatible TV or monitor that has dolby vision build in it. That should make it look even more incredible
The PC version asks for an RTX3080 to play the game at 1080P 60 frames sec.
that explains why they cut on consoles as the current PS5/Seriex is more like a Rtx 2070
Also, the basic rig in this video uses an RTX4060 TI
That requirement for 1080/60 surprises me tbh watching this video. A 3080 is comfortably more powerful than a 4060ti and this video shows 70+ with a 4060ti at 1440. At 1080 a 3080 would be 100+. My card is very close to a 4060ti so I'll give it a test myself at 1080 when I've finished the first game.
Doesn't seem like it takes anywhere near as much as they suggested to hit 60 fps at 1080 on PC given the 1440 performance. I'll give it a test tomorrow at 1080 see what frames i get. Find it odd the series X can't do it looking at this video unless it's heavily CPU based
Sexy game all around.
Series S: hot fries right out the grease
Series X: hot fries salted
PC: hot salted fries extra crispy.
Author makes some good points but my counter would depend on how the new models are designed. If the new models literally the same just with better parts, meaning the thoughput and necessary game design is the same then there is 0 reason why games can't be optimised the same as always. If developing for neo is the same as developing for ps4 then optimising on ps4 can still happen and it gets cranked up if played on neo. From what Sony has said according to the rumours, I'd be more fearful that it's the new console that would lack optimisation and not be used to its potential more than the base ps4.
This is a stupid development. All it's going to mean is that the two companies are going to constantly be trying to outdo each other leaving console owners feeling like they need to upgrade before many people will have even bought enough games to have gotten the value out of the previous console. And anyone thinking that in this kind of war the older generations won't get left behind as Sony and Microsoft encourage the developers to push the limits so people will want to buy the upgrades are delusional.
Enter the era of the 1-2 year console cycle for $400+.
I think people are ignoring the point that you don't have to buy it.
Is just a rumour and I agree with the author and his blog.
It is exactly my biggest concern as well from the start. It is not money. I buy a new unlock flagship andorid every 18 months. I buy a top range MSi gaming laptop for work and play every 3 years. I bought my PS3 at launch with my Sony 42 Bravia back then. Still to this day the best purchase ever!!.
My concern is the same as yours. It will change console gaming as we know it. Console model has always been about static specs that devs gets more out of as time progress and they learn more. In effect we get upgrades via software.
With this model it will changes the console model to become like PC with the focus is on hardware upgrade instead of software optimisation.
There was a time when I buy a game and a get the full game. Now we get parts of games. There was a time when we get a game, pop in and away we go. Now it is almost certain you will need day one patches and more later.
The simplicity of console gaming is slowly eroding and this is just another step in the wrong direction I feel.