Support NeoGAF

[Panajev2001a]

I think it's exciting. Don't want to have to wait 6-8 years for new technology ever again.

The thing is that if you went too far with the other route is like owning a Porsche and keeping it in the garage as developers will not take advantage to it (booooo iterative yearly console, booooo ).

 

[baphomet]

I see people are still touting the "graphics are good enough" that they have been since the PS2 generation.

 

[SealOfTheProphet]

So you consider PS2 (which was fully BC with PS1 games) and Wii (fully BC with GameCube games) iterative consoles?

I mean for all intensive purposes the Wii was...

 

[SealOfTheProphet]

I hope they don't both go for x86 again. Having two consoles that are essentially the same competing does nothing to further the industry or boost graphical fidelity.

Especially when one of the consoles is slightly underpowered. Then you run the dilemma where at best the superior console gets a slightly higher resolution, and at worst it's not taking advantage of the hardware. The best thing about the previous generation was when devs took full advantage of the hardware. Of course, it took a few years to get to that point (PS3 programming problems, The conversion to HD game development), but I'd like a difference in consoles that pushes development on each of the consoles.

Two PCs of relatively parity is kind of boring.

 

[Bitch Pudding]

The thing is that if you went too far with the other route is like owning a Porsche and keeping it in the garage as developers will not take advantage to it (booooo iterative yearly console, booooo ).

Okay, to make myself more clear:

I am okay with a 3y cycle based on a "new gen - refresh - new gen - refresh - etc." cycle, not forcing users to upgrade every 3 years to be able to actually play the most recent games.

 

[piratepwnsninja]

I hope they don't both go for x86 again. Having two consoles that are essentially the same competing does nothing to further the industry or boost graphical fidelity.

Especially when one of the consoles is slightly underpowered. Then you run the dilemma where at best the superior console gets a slightly higher resolution, and at worst it's not taking advantage of the hardware. The best thing about the previous generation was when devs took full advantage of the hardware. Of course, it took a few years to get to that point (PS3 programming problems, The conversion to HD game development), but I'd like a difference in consoles that pushes development on each of the consoles.

Two PCs of relatively parity is kind of boring.

You may find it boring, but it's incredibly useful for devs of all kinds. I honestly don't see it changing.

 

[c0de]

I hope they don't both go for x86 again. Having two consoles that are essentially the same competing does nothing to further the industry or boost graphical fidelity.

Especially when one of the consoles is slightly underpowered. Then you run the dilemma where at best the superior console gets a slightly higher resolution, and at worst it's not taking advantage of the hardware. The best thing about the previous generation was when devs took full advantage of the hardware. Of course, it took a few years to get to that point (PS3 programming problems, The conversion to HD game development), but I'd like a difference in consoles that pushes development on each of the consoles.

Two PCs of relatively parity is kind of boring.

Who should go for which technology? I mean, there is hardly any alternative to x86, perhaps ARM but that's it. And nobody is going to go with ARM next gen, there is no reason to, at all.

 

[Hermii]

I see people are still touting the "graphics are good enough" that they have been since the PS2 generation.

Honestly I don't see the point or how it's financially sustainable to have another "generational leap" in graphics and inchrease already enormous budgets. Throwing processing power at things that doesn't inchrease the budget like iq, framerate, more npcs on screen etc I'm all for, but making games look better at the expense of higher budgets and less content isn't sustainable at some point.

 

[Shin]

Honestly I don't see the point or how it's financially sustainable to have another "generational leap" in graphics and inchrease already enormous budgets. Throwing processing power at things that doesn't inchrease the budget like iq, framerate, more npcs on screen etc I'm all for, but making games look better at the expense of higher budgets and less content isn't sustainable at some point.

One has to keep in mind that the price of games haven't gone up for over a decade (I think), so it has to happen at some point.
On top of that there have been 8k TV's at CES for the last 3 years with them coming to the market this year I believe.
Don't know if the platform holders can do much about evolution but to go with the program.
At some point they might start focusing in other area's than just graphics, personally I think that area is within native 4k60fps.

 

[Wollan]

You have devs pushing back this time on 4K as the resolution gains are starting to reach their end (tech lead on Doom for example). 4K 60fps will be the upper developer target for 2D monitors for a long time I suspect (while VR/AR will aim for eye-tracking and foveated rendering). Until the next revolution in chipset comes around (nano tubes?) and we have more processing power then we know what to do with so 2030+. Any screen resolutions beyond that in the interim and developers will simply use checkerboard techniques and put their GPU resources to use elsewhere. Many films are still not filmed in 4K even, Star Wars episode 7 had effects mastered in 2K.

 

[mckmas8808]

I hope they don't both go for x86 again. Having two consoles that are essentially the same competing does nothing to further the industry or boost graphical fidelity.

Especially when one of the consoles is slightly underpowered. Then you run the dilemma where at best the superior console gets a slightly higher resolution, and at worst it's not taking advantage of the hardware. The best thing about the previous generation was when devs took full advantage of the hardware. Of course, it took a few years to get to that point (PS3 programming problems, The conversion to HD game development), but I'd like a difference in consoles that pushes development on each of the consoles.

Two PCs of relatively parity is kind of boring.

Except it makes it easier for developers to make games. And that's what we are really here for right? To actually play and talk about games?

Or do you like to discuss hardware on GAF more?

 

[Shin]

Someone has to say it so I guess I'll be that guy and Tweet them about features requested and/or consumers would like to see on PS5 on day one.
Otherwise they will keep fucking things up like they've have with PS4/PS4 Pro without being any wiser...hopefully it rings a bell with them.

• Backwards compatibility with PS1 (money to be made here through PSN sales)
• Backwards compatibility with PS2 (money to be made here through PSN sales)
• Backwards compatibility with PS4 (good way to lock players your eco-system)
• LFG feature (the way Microsoft implemented it on Xbox, it's not like Communities on PS)
• Hardware handling rendering of older titles to native 4K and 60FPS where applicable
• PSN ID change (truncate older ID's that aren't used, 5 years of no activity -> free up ID)
• Date of birth change (every modern system has this enabled by default yet not on PSN)
• System wide super sampling / downsampling for those that are still on a 1080p TV
• Emphasis on CPU, learn from your mistake with PS4 and PS4 Pro, make it a priority
• Ultra High Definition drive, along with 4K TV's goes 4K movies (Sony sells those)
• Trophies background syncing - still not available in 2017
• PSN download speeds are still slow and not using a users max bandwidth, fix it
• Cross Platform - you're on the outs and look like the bad guy, everyone else is doing it
• Digital Refunds - still not a thing outside of EU and that's because of the law, learn from Steam

24Gb GDDR6 in clamshell mode should be more than sufficient for true 4K while helping with loading times.
Microsoft is doing a lot right, you'd be ignorant to not copy them, first party studios are carrying PS but that's it.
This from someone that have owned every PlayStation console to date, I even flew to Japan to pick up a PS2.

 

[hitgirl]

No we're not.

Really?
http://neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1402414

 

[FalsettoVibe]

I hope they don't both go for x86 again. Having two consoles that are essentially the same competing does nothing to further the industry or boost graphical fidelity.

Especially when one of the consoles is slightly underpowered. Then you run the dilemma where at best the superior console gets a slightly higher resolution, and at worst it's not taking advantage of the hardware. The best thing about the previous generation was when devs took full advantage of the hardware. Of course, it took a few years to get to that point (PS3 programming problems, The conversion to HD game development), but I'd like a difference in consoles that pushes development on each of the consoles.

Two PCs of relatively parity is kind of boring.

I'll take boring if it gets me more games.

 

[DriftingSpirit]

Really?
http://neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1402414

That is Michael Pachter. He is just speculating.