Theres' like 16 pages of arguments and very little context here.
First, if Sony were committed were to bringing new experiences and focused entirely on PS5, then GoT and TLOU II would have been launch titles made exclusively for PS5. That alone would have pretty much killed the launch competition for a lot of people. The new console drops within 5/6 months from all accounts, and the dev kits have been there for years. TLOU II could have done with at least a couple more months in the oven by all accounts and we've yet to make that call on GoT. Instead you'll get a 'remastered' or ported version to buy on PS5. Instead they've hamstrung their AAA studio's with nothing now for at least two years (and that's being conservative). Let's not pretend that both companies are not just basically PR'ing their arses off. In this case TLOU II would have been 'held back' by the base PS4 instead of using all the new tech and benefits of the new console and GoT could have been the new IP to bookend the PS4 lifecycle. It was targeted to the biggest install base, to make bank.
Second, there is a difference between game design and game performance. In terms of design, I get what people are saying on the back of Phils comments. They will have to design the assets and game streaming around the mechanical disk for now. However, UE5 arrives with its advancements releases next year, and most of MS studio's use UE. So they're going to change from these limitations to the more scalable tech of Nanite and Lumens which is more scalable to the hardware. Which will affect game design positively in the same way. It's a strategy based on a tech transition - or AAA might have the engine already, we're not sure.
As for the strategy, there's a reason why so many people requested the DS4 is supported on xCloud and if there will be an app on Playstation for it. DS4 is getting support, if you have a DS4 it's a pretty safe bet you own a Playstation - so there are playstation owners being added to the game pass MAUs and revenue. I also posted this thread in which CDPR went through the process of making Witcher 3 run on the Switch, and didn't have to change assets, geometry or anything major, but no-one was really arsed because it trivialised the issue:
https://www.neogaf.com/threads/how-...aker-hardware-witcher-3-eurogamer-df.1552008/
As for CPU, take a look at Total War: Three kingdoms where the CPU's can be scaled up to 500% across hardware, the rest will depend on core contention which prefers a higher clock count in that scenario. Hitman Two also showed how this is scalable
What is "Quality Simulation"? I'm talking about the setting that you can find when you start the game.
steamcommunity.com
So how does CPU affect performance when you choose to game with the “best” settings? “This will affect things like audio, crowds, cloth simulation, NPC animation, and destruction, just to name the major ones,” De Pascale said. “Crowds will be denser yet at the same time provide more visual variety with bespoke animations and behaviors. For instance, in the Miami level, you'll see many of them waving cloth-simulated flags.”
Though HITMAN 2’s largest level houses as many as 300 NPCs, only a small fraction of the NPCs actually receive a full update every frame. In other words, you might observe a lower frame rate in the animations of some NPCs than those of others depending on how many are onscreen at a time. “This can result in NPCs in the distance being updated at lower frequency and manifests with visible glitches in their animations,” De Pascale said. Having more cores increases the amount of NPCs that receive a full update per frame, with the “base” level updating 40, the “better” level updating 80, and the “best” level updating 120 NPCs.
The leap in SSD from what we are used to, is going to make such a massive difference to general loading, that the smaller more technical achievements of being able to do this much, much quicker it going to be a non issue for quite some time. Is anyone going to be bothered if those 7-10 second walking sections become 2-3 seconds rather than them being removed altogether? Eradication will be nice, but it serves the same purpose as making it non-intrusive or non-abrasive to the player.
I feel so many people in here are more keen to be for and against the latest statement made by their favourite side, instead of clearly showing why it will be an issue or why it won't be an issue, or having a proper discussion about the strategy. I wish threads actually went this way instead of the high level fanboying.
- shredded to pieces.
. I mean excluding any would be drama, what are your genuine thoughts on Phil’s words or thinking? I think they’re definitely relevant enough to create a topic from but surely at least if anyone attacks anything it should be Phil’s words and/or thoughts and not he himself as a person.
