• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

FRIDAYTON MK II: 5.5 million bears and salmon create unholy allliance to sack SONY HQ

LiquidMetal14

LiquidMetal14

hide your water-based mammals
Vane_MagicCity said:
Windows 8 is using 1.2 GB of RAM. What in the hell could they need twice that amount for?
Click to expand...

You know when you open up a browser or your media player or a game or anything that requires resource does require memory right? I had 14 out of 16GB of use a couple of weeks ago. I guess that means Windows 7 requires 14GB of memory.
 
G

Gestault

Member
KingSnake said:
This is very logic, but it does not really fit to the PR story that the increase from 4GB to 8 GB was purely for the developers.
Click to expand...

There's also the realization that some people will have to come to when they notice the same reasoning applies to Microsoft's decision for their XB1 RAM pool, which was heavily criticized previously. Just yesterday, I was seeing lists of the pros/cons being quoted again and again in threads with the OS-footprint difference bolded as one of the PS4s greatest strengths. This seemed shortsighted to me then, and taking the info coming in now into account, it might also suggest that Microsoft had been planning for specific features from an earlier point. Again, the rhetoric about one company rushing things or being behind seems an odd choice, seen in this light.

I'm a fan of more memory being allotted to the OS (if it's true, I think the PS4 is in better shape as a platform than it had been), but I can't ignore the contradictory reasoning or suddenly selective acceptance of the reasoning behind the rumored change in many of the more vocal posters.
 
cyberheater

cyberheater

PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
BlazingDarkness said:
Sony came out and said they pushed for 8GB of RAM to appease developers, and they stood and soaked up the cheers when it was revealed during their PS Meeting presser. And then they continued to push it as a gaming machine built for gamers. So yes, they totally deserve criticism for not making it clear that the pool would have a substantial split to cover OS tasks. 3.5 GB of RAM is a huge number, nobody expected that, and for that Sony is to blame.
Click to expand...

Yep. If the rumour is true then this is also my thought. No way should Sony be let of the hook if true.
I'm saving my rage for proper confirmation.
 
K

kevm3

Member
Minigo said:
maybe there will be more RAM available for when that time comes, why give it to developers now if they won't use it?
Click to expand...

Because there are developers that actually WILL use it, and since when has it been wise to treat developers like farm animals or babies, corralling them off from resources that they might not use immediately? "Hey little buddy, you're not going to play with this toy right now so daddy is going to put this in the closet out of your reach. When you're ready to play with this, maybe daddy will go and get it for you."

There is NO justifiable reason for Sony to be blocking off so much RAM if this report is true, which I doubt. I can understand blocking off 1.5 GB, but 3.5 is an utterly ridiculous amount.
 
RedAssedApe

RedAssedApe

Banned
famousmortimer said:
I told myself I wasn't going to post in this thread because people are foaming at the mouth and not thinking.... but here I am, which makes me an idiot.


First off, I know all you guys want are hard numbers and I don't have them. But I do know the philosophies in place currently. If you would like to use your brain and think critically about things... keep reading. If you want to get into a 5>4.5 OMG IM CANCELLING MY PREORDER conversation - this thread won't help you, in either direction.


I was told by a couple of Devs in the lead up to E3 that the OS footprint was "bigger than expected" but not a single one of them complained about it. No one is in danger of running out of ram. As some people have mentioned in this thread - games like the The Last of Us are happening with 512mb of ram. Launch titles, of all things, are not going to be pushing the hardware in any sort of way... and that includes ram.

So why is the ram footprint bigger than expected? It's fairly simple - Sony is hedging their bets. They were absolutely caught with their pants down with their OS this gen. Not having the memory overhead to do things like Party Chat gave Microsoft a huge advantage when it came to online gaming, which is obviously a growing sector. So much like $399 as a target price was a reaction to $599 being a disaster... "big OS footprint" is a reaction to "small OS footprint" being a disaster.

But the thing that I'm hearing and I believe there was even a line dedicated to this in the eurogamer article is that these numbers aren't set in stone. The fact of the matter is that high end PC games use around 3gb of ram and use higher res textures (art tends to take up the largest chunks of ram) than the ps4/x1 do. The idea that launch games need 7gb of ram is absolutely ludicrous. 4gbs is fine. Anything more, at this point, is overkill. It won't be overkill forever... but it's overkill for now.

So Sony gets to sit on this chunk of ram, be in 1gb or 3gb - again, I don't know the numbers. I don't know if eurogamer is right (I do know at E3 that some thought more ram would be freed up when the final dev kits shipped... but I don't know anyone working with a final dev kit). But Sony is coming at this from a position of power. They don't need the ram currently so they get to take a wait and see approach before saying "ok, devs, you guys get this." The systems will launch and they will look at what people are doing with their own OS, they will see what features people are asking for, they will see if microsoft or Nintendo (or even steam) come out with some surprise feature that catches fire - and if it does they will have the memory there to be able to do it also. If it doesn't that chunk of ram gets freed up for developers.


This thread is looking at this entire thing like the endgame is the day it launches. That's day one, guys. This is a long term strategic move and, imo, a smart one. They are putting themselves in a position to be able to adapt... something they couldn't do with the ps3. I know as gamers all we want to hear is higher numbers. But find me one developer that thinks the ram available to them on either system isn't enough (and this goes for the x1 as well guys... all this 5gb hurr hurrr stuff is fanboyish nonsense that you can go through my post history and see I never took part in once).


I feel like this post is far to philosophical for this thread of LARGE NUMBER > SMALL NUMBER, but hopefully this info is useful to some of you. Sony have created a nimble system and this is part of that philosophy.
Click to expand...

Logic? What's dat? Great post.

Also...what was the initial and final memory footprints for the PS3? Just curious...
 
Jinfash

Jinfash

needs 2 extra inches
famousmortimer said:
I told myself I wasn't going to post in this thread because people are foaming at the mouth and not thinking.... but here I am, which makes me an idiot.


First off, I know all you guys want are hard numbers and I don't have them. But I do know the philosophies in place currently. If you would like to use your brain and think critically about things... keep reading. If you want to get into a 5>4.5 OMG IM CANCELLING MY PREORDER conversation - this thread won't help you, in either direction.


I was told by a couple of Devs in the lead up to E3 that the OS footprint was "bigger than expected" but not a single one of them complained about it. No one is in danger of running out of ram. As some people have mentioned in this thread - games like the The Last of Us are happening with 512mb of ram. Launch titles, of all things, are not going to be pushing the hardware in any sort of way... and that includes ram.

So why is the ram footprint bigger than expected? It's fairly simple - Sony is hedging their bets. They were absolutely caught with their pants down with their OS this gen. Not having the memory overhead to do things like Party Chat gave Microsoft a huge advantage when it came to online gaming, which is obviously a growing sector. So much like $399 as a target price was a reaction to $599 being a disaster... "big OS footprint" is a reaction to "small OS footprint" being a disaster.

But the thing that I'm hearing and I believe there was even a line dedicated to this in the eurogamer article is that these numbers aren't set in stone. The fact of the matter is that high end PC games use around 3gb of ram and use higher res textures (art tends to take up the largest chunks of ram) than the ps4/x1 do. The idea that launch games need 7gb of ram is absolutely ludicrous. 4gbs is fine. Anything more, at this point, is overkill. It won't be overkill forever... but it's overkill for now.

So Sony gets to sit on this chunk of ram, be in 1gb or 3gb - again, I don't know the numbers. I don't know if eurogamer is right (I do know at E3 that some thought more ram would be freed up when the final dev kits shipped... but I don't know anyone working with a final dev kit). But Sony is coming at this from a position of power. They don't need the ram currently so they get to take a wait and see approach before saying "ok, devs, you guys get this." The systems will launch and they will look at what people are doing with their own OS, they will see what features people are asking for, they will see if microsoft or Nintendo (or even steam) come out with some surprise feature that catches fire - and if it does they will have the memory there to be able to do it also. If it doesn't that chunk of ram gets freed up for developers.


This thread is looking at this entire thing like the endgame is the day it launches. That's day one, guys. This is a long term strategic move and, imo, a smart one. They are putting themselves in a position to be able to adapt... something they couldn't do with the ps3. I know as gamers all we want to hear is higher numbers. But find me one developer that thinks the ram available to them on either system isn't enough (and this goes for the x1 as well guys... all this 5gb hurr hurrr stuff is fanboyish nonsense that you can go through my post history and see I never took part in once).


I feel like this post is far to philosophical for this thread of LARGE NUMBER > SMALL NUMBER, but hopefully this info is useful to some of you. Sony have created a nimble system and this is part of that philosophy.
Click to expand...
While I appreciate your honest and reasonable post Mortimer, I'm really sorry... but to me that reads like a long apology. This is disappointing news regardless of "how much disappointing," and does indeed close the gap between the two consoles (if ever so slightly). At the end of the day, we've always been comparing techs in these pre-launch threads, and numbers always mattered. And in their context "please understand" doesn't really cut it.
 
N

nded

Member
L.O.R.D said:
reading the comments here and i realize this

c78.gif
Click to expand...

Off topic, but what is this from, by the way?
 
K

Kagari

Crystal Bearer
BlazingDarkness said:
Sony came out and said they pushed for 8GB of RAM to appease developers, and they stood and soaked up the cheers when it was revealed during their PS Meeting presser. And then they continued to push it as a gaming machine built for gamers. So yes, they totally deserve criticism for not making it clear that the pool would have a substantial split to cover OS tasks. 3.5 GB of RAM is a huge number, nobody expected that, and for that Sony is to blame.
Click to expand...

The full 8 was never going to be used for games ever.
 
J

JoeTheBlow

Banned
dubq said:
THIS is a post that should be added to the OP before the article. Fucking voice of reason/sanity right here.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. Vita proves that you don't need a multi-gig OS unless your doing crazy shit like MS.
Sony didn't add 4 gigs of very expensive RAM just to reserve it "just in case", everything we've seen so far shows that it was designed with the input of devs, and they all requested as much GDDR5 as possible.
 
S

shinobi602

Member
famousmortimer said:
I also haven't talked to a single person who thinks that the ram available currently is not ever going to rise. 100% believe the number will rise but that Sony is being conservative currently so they don't get burned and because no one needs that level of ram currently. I have 16gb of ram in my PC but that doesn't mean that when I play The Witcher 2 that 15gbs of it goes into the ram. That's not how this works - even though most of this thread seems to think this way.

Though, J. Blow (that's his rapper name) saying that The Witness uses 5gb hints that 4.5gb number is, in fact, wrong.


They did something similar with the PSP as well.
Click to expand...

Same here, everyone is saying the amount available is absolutely more than sufficient to deliver 'next gen' games, and it will only get better from launch.

Like I said a few pages back, possibly might get concrete numbers today (could be 10 minutes, could be hours) and will doubly make sure to post them here if I do, hopefully. I hope not to get anyone's hopes up, just a possibility at this point.
 
K

Krakn3Dfx

Member
famousmortimer said:
I told myself I wasn't going to post in this thread because people are foaming at the mouth and not thinking.... but here I am, which makes me an idiot.


First off, I know all you guys want are hard numbers and I don't have them. But I do know the philosophies in place currently. If you would like to use your brain and think critically about things... keep reading. If you want to get into a 5>4.5 OMG IM CANCELLING MY PREORDER conversation - this thread won't help you, in either direction.


I was told by a couple of Devs in the lead up to E3 that the OS footprint was "bigger than expected" but not a single one of them complained about it. No one is in danger of running out of ram. As some people have mentioned in this thread - games like the The Last of Us are happening with 512mb of ram. Launch titles, of all things, are not going to be pushing the hardware in any sort of way... and that includes ram.

So why is the ram footprint bigger than expected? It's fairly simple - Sony is hedging their bets. They were absolutely caught with their pants down with their OS this gen. Not having the memory overhead to do things like Party Chat gave Microsoft a huge advantage when it came to online gaming, which is obviously a growing sector. So much like $399 as a target price was a reaction to $599 being a disaster... "big OS footprint" is a reaction to "small OS footprint" being a disaster.

But the thing that I'm hearing and I believe there was even a line dedicated to this in the eurogamer article is that these numbers aren't set in stone. The fact of the matter is that high end PC games use around 3gb of ram and use higher res textures (art tends to take up the largest chunks of ram) than the ps4/x1 do. The idea that launch games need 7gb of ram is absolutely ludicrous. 4gbs is fine. Anything more, at this point, is overkill. It won't be overkill forever... but it's overkill for now.

So Sony gets to sit on this chunk of ram, be in 1gb or 3gb - again, I don't know the numbers. I don't know if eurogamer is right (I do know at E3 that some thought more ram would be freed up when the final dev kits shipped... but I don't know anyone working with a final dev kit). But Sony is coming at this from a position of power. They don't need the ram currently so they get to take a wait and see approach before saying "ok, devs, you guys get this." The systems will launch and they will look at what people are doing with their own OS, they will see what features people are asking for, they will see if microsoft or Nintendo (or even steam) come out with some surprise feature that catches fire - and if it does they will have the memory there to be able to do it also. If it doesn't that chunk of ram gets freed up for developers.


This thread is looking at this entire thing like the endgame is the day it launches. That's day one, guys. This is a long term strategic move and, imo, a smart one. They are putting themselves in a position to be able to adapt... something they couldn't do with the ps3. I know as gamers all we want to hear is higher numbers. But find me one developer that thinks the ram available to them on either system isn't enough (and this goes for the x1 as well guys... all this 5gb hurr hurrr stuff is fanboyish nonsense that you can go through my post history and see I never took part in once).


I feel like this post is far to philosophical for this thread of LARGE NUMBER > SMALL NUMBER, but hopefully this info is useful to some of you. Sony have created a nimble system and this is part of that philosophy.
Click to expand...

This makes way too much sense.
gtfo.gif
 
P

Paches

Member
BlazingDarkness said:
Sony came out and said they pushed for 8GB of RAM to appease developers, and they stood and soaked up the cheers when it was revealed during their PS Meeting presser. And then they continued to push it as a gaming machine built for gamers. So yes, they totally deserve criticism for not making it clear that the pool would have a substantial split to cover OS tasks. 3.5 GB of RAM is a huge number, nobody expected that, and for that Sony is to blame.
Click to expand...

Did you really think the OS was going to use zero RAM?
 
G

gundamkyoukai

Member
ThoughtsOfSpeaking said:
All well and good, but my issue is that Day 1 dev will have the same pipeline as day 1000 dev. Once the consoles are out in the wild, games will be made to the lowest common denominator. Will someone like ND make a PS4 game with 6,7gb of ram? Perhaps. But this decision ensures that it will be the isolated few devs, not something everyone is working towards.

So my point still stands. If this is true, im out. With only price seperating the two consoles, i feel it prudent to sit and wait to see if the value if either can be increased beyond what is currently offered. PS360 are nowhere near dead. Ill wait.
Click to expand...

That is not true .
The first thing you have to remember is launch games would have hardly had any time on final devs kits to take advantage of the ram in the first place .
Then you have cross gen games that make things even worst .
Also pipelines (tools) get better as time goes on and all devs uses the extra ram in PS3 when the OS went down from 120 to 50 .
It will be the same it both next gen system lower the OS numbers .
 
BadAss2961

BadAss2961

Member
BlazingDarkness said:
Sony came out and said they pushed for 8GB of RAM to appease developers, and they stood and soaked up the cheers when it was revealed during their PS Meeting presser. And then they continued to push it as a gaming machine built for gamers. So yes, they totally deserve criticism for not making it clear that the pool would have a substantial split to cover OS tasks. 3.5 GB of RAM is a huge number, nobody expected that, and for that Sony is to blame.
Click to expand...
Sony wasn't blowing smoke though. If the PS4 had 4GB of RAM as originally intended, developers would have much less to work with after the OS footprint.
 
Q

QaaQer

Member
shinobi602 said:
Same here, everyone is saying the amount available is absolutely more than sufficient to deliver 'next gen' games, and it will only get better from launch.

Like I said a few pages back, possibly might get concrete numbers today (could be 10 minutes, could be hours) and will doubly make sure to post them here if I do, hopefully. I hope not to get anyone's hopes up, just a possibility at this point.
Click to expand...

make sure to make a new thread if you do, cuz I'm sure this thing is going to be really really long...
 
F

famousmortimer

Banned
KingSnake said:
This is very logic and very nice, but it does not really fit to the PR story that the increase from 4GB to 8 GB was purely for the developers.
Click to expand...

4GBs of ram, with an OS, didn't give developers as much ram as they wanted. So they asked for more. 8GBs of ram, with an OS footprint that is increased, gives developers the ram they want. Again - I don't know of a single developer who thinks that 5gb on the x1 or whatever the PS4 number is (likely higher than 4.5gb but who knows...) is too little. Developers are completely satisfied with how much ram is available to them. So how does this not fit the PR? Developers wanted more ram, developers got more ram, developers are happy with the amount of ram they have. That's the entire story as far as developers are concerned.



ThoughtsOfSpeaking said:
All well and good, but my issue is that Day 1 dev will have the same pipeline as day 1000 dev. Once the consoles are out in the wild, games will be made to the lowest common denominator. Will someone like ND make a PS4 game with 6,7gb of ram? Perhaps. But this decision ensures that it will be the isolated few devs, not something everyone is working towards.

So my point still stands. If this is true, im out. With only price seperating the two consoles, i feel it prudent to sit and wait to see if the value if either can be increased beyond what is currently offered. PS360 are nowhere near dead. Ill wait.
Click to expand...


I don't think you understand how all of this works, ToS. Day 1 devs will not have the same pipeline as day 1000 devs. How the box ships on day one will not matter in the slightest. The firmware will update what's available to developers... so a system bought on day one will have the same power/memorypool/etc as a system bought 5 years from now. Dev kits get more powerful throughout the generation - every gen, especially with the advent of upgradeable firmware. Let's say that Sony is allowing devs 5gb of ram at launch. And then come release of Infamous 3 they decide that they can free up an extra 1gb because they have a few months worth of OS data and can relax their pool a bit. They put the firmware update online and on the disc (for offline systems...) and everything works just fine. I don't really understand what you mean by "lowest common denominator." All systems are identical and when things get opened up they will for all systems.
 
L

liquidspeed

Member
BlazingDarkness said:
It's terrible that Sony let people think for so long such a larger number of RAM was available to developers.
They may not have blatantly lied with numbers but I think their lack of clarification is a case of misdirection.
If they'd made it clear earlier and communicated about it that would be fine, but in this instance they deserve any backlash they get. Pretty bad move by them.
Click to expand...

This is exactly my thought. Its funny how emotions work though. Beforethe 8 GB upgrade, I was fine with 4 GB of ram.Now im kinda pissed that they may have taken away about 2 more GB of ram for the OS (3-3.5 total).... I sitll really hope this is at least somewhat false though.
 
1

140.85

Cognitive Dissonance, Distilled
Well, if the purpose of all this was try to get people to disregard facts and start talking about how PS4 and XB1 are equally powerful, mission accomplished.

Keep ignoring that faster RAM and better GPU console warriors.
 
B

backbreaker65

Banned
BlazingDarkness said:
Sony came out and said they pushed for 8GB of RAM to appease developers, and they stood and soaked up the cheers when it was revealed during their PS Meeting presser. And then they continued to push it as a gaming machine built for gamers. So yes, they totally deserve criticism for not making it clear that the pool would have a substantial split to cover OS tasks. 3.5 GB of RAM is a huge number, nobody expected that, and for that Sony is to blame.
Click to expand...

Thank You, it's a lie by omission, and they should be called to the carpet for such blatant basking in bullshit.
 
Q

qa_engineer

Member
There is a lot of derpy derp derping going on in this thread. Pre-orders canceled, comments about hardware downgrades, and something about Cerny ravaging your mother. I came here to tell you all to keep calm and go f yourselves, San Diego.
 
S

smallios74

Member
I always find these threads useful, I can spot the nut jobs and fanboys from the rational sensible people. If true would be interesting what exactly they are using the all that extra ram for, the 15min video has been touted so it wont be anything to do with that (and that would prob go straight to HDD). I wonder if it has not been mentioned as its a NDA'd feature they was going to announce at a later date taking up the extra ram?
 
C

Calavera520

Member
Just going to join in and thank Mortimer for his voice of reason post. Both consoles will be fine and it's not very smart to determine their success now based on what happens launch week.

I put down a PS4 preorder 'just in case' at e3 but I really have no interest in getting either console at launch. Best to wait a year see how it all goes. And I know that's a tough proposition but honestly I expect to be pretty happy and occupied with GTA V to feel that I'm missing out.
 
M

mrklaw

MrArseFace
Jinfash said:
While I appreciate your honest and reasonable post Mortimer, I'm really sorry... but to me that reads like a long apology. This is disappointing news regardless of "how much disappointing," and does indeed close the gap between the two consoles (if ever so slightly). At the end of the day, we've always been comparing techs in these pre-launch threads, and numbers always mattered. And in their context "please understand" doesn't really cut it.
Click to expand...

Basically this.

It also makes no sense for Sony to absorb the cost impact of an extra 4Gb of ram, only to release a tiny amount of that for games.

Plus I have no idea what you'd need that amount for. Cross party chat doesn't need 3GB. How much dos vita use,and that has multiple apps open at a time with instant switching, and cross game chat etc.




As for Sony releasing ram over time - don't forget you'll get lag from that. If Sony frees up another 1-1.5B, it'll be a year or more until games take advantage of it.

Using the argument that PC games don't need that much is shortsighted too
 
V

Vane_MagicCity

Banned
LiquidMetal14 said:
You know when you open up a browser or your media player or a game or anything that requires resource does require memory right? I had 14 out of 16GB of use a couple of weeks ago. I guess that means Windows 7 requires 14GB of memory.
Click to expand...

I know how RAM works but are you really going to have a whole lot of shit open on a console while also playing a game?

Firefox uses about 180 MB and iTunes about 35 MB. Do you know how much shit I would have to open to use up 3.5 GB of RAM?
 
B

BobLoblaw

Banned
My main problem with this is less RAM = less AA/1080p. I never plan on using features like that video sharing, so for me it's pretty freaking bittersweet.
 
D

daveo42

Banned
shinobi602 said:
Same here, everyone is saying the amount available is absolutely more than sufficient to deliver 'next gen' games, and it will only get better from launch.

Like I said a few pages back, possibly might get concrete numbers today (could be 10 minutes, could be hours) and will doubly make sure to post them here if I do, hopefully. I hope not to get anyone's hopes up, just a possibility at this point.
Click to expand...

I'd like to think you'll get them, but starting to think that Sony'll be the one to release them first. The lack of info about this from any insiders or devs probably means it's a big piece of Sony's NDA. the lack of OS demos/talk at E3 speaks volumes about how much Sony is just not ready to talk/show it to the public yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Tom Warren - Sony’s PS5 Pro is real and Sony is asking developers to get games ready over the summer, with a push for ray-tracing support
News Hardware Hype 2 3 4
186
12K
DanielG165 replied
Alone in The Dark Pc Requirements Revealed
Platform
3
509
Elysium44 replied
PS5 Pro Specs Leak are Real, Releasing Holiday 2024(Insider Gaming)
38 39 40 41 42
2K
129K
Perrott replied
Was 8 CPU cores enough for 9th gen consoles? Strix Halo, the prefect console.
Opinion Analysis 2
62
3K
Tertullian replied
Tekken 8 PC requirements: Requires 100 GB available storage space
News Platform
16
2K
Spukc replied
Top Bottom