• 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.

DF Direct: PlayStation 5 / Unreal Engine 5 Reaction - Now This Is Next-Gen!

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
35,215
55,216
1,170
this demo would run better on Series X than what is shown here.

just letting you know... since... you know... they both use the same tech but one if them is just more powerful.

so this is 1440p30fps, just imagine it was around 1600p30fps and you got yourself the Series X version of this
Calm down Aaron, you’re not telling the whole truth here.
 

Shmunter

Member
Aug 25, 2018
3,418
6,607
525
Nah. I disagree. The XsX storage bandwidth should be fast enough to handle the bells and whistles of the UE5 engine/demo. A standard SATA SSD? Maybe not.

Love the condescending nature of your posts though. Keep it up. War never changes.
if the demo only streamed at 2gig, then yes, the XsX will look even better. But if the demo took advantage of the PS5 5.5gig stream then you can work it out yourself. Taking Sweeney at his words, it was a showcase of PS5 streaming.

Sorry if I offended you. Facts don’t care about your feelings.
 

Redlight

Member
Feb 5, 2014
112
205
420
Maybe not as good as ps5 ssd runs circles around tht of nextbox. This is factual.
Tim Sweeney also said this...
"One is the GPU performance and GPU architecture to draw an incredible amount of geometry that you're talking about - a very large number of teraflops being required for this. The other is the ability to load and stream it efficiently"

As ever, it's not all about the SSD.
 

Shmunter

Member
Aug 25, 2018
3,418
6,607
525
Tim Sweeney also said this...
"One is the GPU performance and GPU architecture to draw an incredible amount of geometry that you're talking about - a very large number of teraflops being required for this. The other is the ability to load and stream it efficiently"

As ever, it's not all about the SSD.
That’s right, ssd doesn’t replace the GPU, it empowers it
 
Last edited:

Redlight

Member
Feb 5, 2014
112
205
420
The animation, water and motion blur were not that great either... I think it was put together fast and didn't have much polish, beyond the core tech that they wanted to show (lighting, very high density models, maybe sound).
It was a showcase for the engine and, understandably, focused on the new things that the new engine will bring and what it does best. It looked great, but the sobering thing is that they presented their dream scenario - yet compromises were necessary in the areas you mentioned as well as resolution and frame rate. Given that the engine doesn't release till 2021, and games take years to build, we could be well into next-gen before we even get close.
 
Jan 29, 2019
2,738
2,173
375
It was a showcase for the engine and, understandably, focused on the new things that the new engine will bring and what it does best. It looked great, but the sobering thing is that they presented their dream scenario - yet compromises were necessary in the areas you mentioned as well as resolution and frame rate. Given that the engine doesn't release till 2021, and games take years to build, we could be well into next-gen before we even get close.
You are right there won't be AAA games made on Unreal engine 5 for a very long time, however I count on Sony's studios to use that tech early on, at least some of it, I also assume Sony made their APIs well integrated into the system so that it's easy to pull off some benefits out of it, even if you don't use the whole thing.
I'm not sure how it will turn out in the end, we shall see.
Tim Sweeney also said this...
"One is the GPU performance and GPU architecture to draw an incredible amount of geometry that you're talking about - a very large number of teraflops being required for this. The other is the ability to load and stream it efficiently"

As ever, it's not all about the SSD.
You must be some kind of genius, I'm sure Sony was about to attach a 3DfX chip on their SSD, going as far as eliminating the CPU.... obviously this is never all about the SSD, this is never about a single part in a computer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Guilhermegrg

UnNamed

Member
Dec 21, 2006
312
354
1,185
This "not 4K/30(60)" is becoming very tiring.

Please stop believing IQ is tied to resolution, it has no sense. I can assure you UE5 can't match my TV channels despite they stream 720i.

Also stop complaining about performance in a 450$ machine. Buy a +1000$ PC and don't break the ball.
 

30yearsofhurt

Member
Feb 1, 2015
4,448
340
480
This "not 4K/30(60)" is becoming very tiring.

Please stop believing IQ is tied to resolution, it has no sense. I can assure you UE5 can't match my TV channels despite they stream 720i.

Also stop complaining about performance in a 450$ machine. Buy a +1000$ PC and don't break the ball.
I don't think you'll get this sort of performance from a $1k PC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Killer Sakoman

Lethal01

Member
Jun 15, 2019
352
405
310
You are right there won't be AAA games made on Unreal engine 5 for a very long time, however I count on Sony's studios to use that tech early on, at least some of it, I also assume Sony made their APIs well integrated into the system so that it's easy to pull off some benefits out of it, even if you don't use the whole thing.
I'm not sure how it will turn out in the end, we shall see.

You must be some kind of genius, I'm sure Sony was about to attach a 3DfX chip on their SSD, going as far as eliminating the CPU.... obviously this is never all about the SSD, this is never about a single part in a computer.
Can probably count on hellblade 2 using it.
 

DrScissorsMD

Gold Member
Apr 3, 2020
133
304
335
Stood out a bit compared to the environment.
Notice the plasticy looking hair as well.
So about the only thing that wasn't that great about the demo was the character model.
I honestly thought it was almost intentional, or like they didn’t care to put heaps of detail into the art for the model as they wanted to focus on the lighting/environment.
 

sol_bad

Member
Jan 17, 2006
4,334
2,575
1,485
According to this chart which is based on 20/20 vision:


You need to be 7 feet from a 55” display before you even BEGIN to notice 4K over 1080p. About 4 feet away to see the full benefit. (Full benefit of 1440p would be between those figures).
Not true at all. It's hard to see a difference between 1080p and 1440p but the jump up to 4K is very noticeable at 10-13 feet. I may not be seeing the full benefit of 4K but it is very noticeably sharper than 1440p.
This is for video games, it might be different for TV/movie footage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fillup

Redlight

Member
Feb 5, 2014
112
205
420
Let’s remember that this is a demo, not an actual game.

Let’s assume that the demo was made specifically to demonstrate the PS5’s strengths, particularly the SSD speed, and can’t run like that on the Series X or PC, there’s no evidence of that at this stage, but let’s imagine.

If that is the case then third-party games are not going to be designed around those strengths. Third-party games won’t utilise game designs that can only run efficiently on one piece of hardware, so the only games that will take advantage of those specific strengths will be first party.

So nothing really changes. The vast bulk of games are third-party and multi-platform, how they compare is still to be seen.
 

Dr Bass

Member
Jun 6, 2013
168
57
415
Directly from Sweeney, this demo is fundamentally a showcase of the PS5. He directly states it’s made possible by Sony’s I/o architecture. Anything from here will need to be downscaled...no surprises for those that took the time to comprehend what Sony was going for.

Tim Sweeney;

“Sony’s made another breakthrough that in many ways is more fundamental, which is a multi-order magnitude increase in storage bandwidth and reduction in storage latency.

The PS5 puts a vast amount of flash memory very, very close to the processor. So much that it really fundamentally changes the trade-offs that games can make and stream in. And that’s absolutely critical to this kind of demo,

This is not just a whole lot of polygons and memory. It’s also a lot of polygons being loaded every frame as you walk around through the environment and this sort of detail you don’t see in the world would absolutely not be possible at any scale without these breakthroughs that Sony’s made.”
And this goes to another post I made about this being no accident. There is no way Sony went down this system design path without knowing what Epic was doing with this technology. The guy that was in charge of Nanite stated on Twitter that Nanite has been in development for ten years. Sony made a clear bet on this being the next big leap for game visuals/design and put a significant engineering effort behind getting the system drive to be able to push the kinds of data requirements for Nanite to have hugely detailed and expansive worlds.

There is simply no way Epic developed that tech while Sony was developing it's SSD tech and it become a recent happy accident. It's just not how this stuff works.

You have to wonder how much of this MS knew. Outside of the developer talk, this is the first real thing we've seen from PS5, and I would feel like MS got caught with their pants down a bit. How else would you put out such a terrible initial showing if you knew what was coming down the pike along these lines? I buy every console that comes out but I can't help but feel the Xbox, at least from a messaging standpoint, has received an absolute plastering over the past week now.
 

Dr Bass

Member
Jun 6, 2013
168
57
415
Let’s remember that this is a demo, not an actual game.

Let’s assume that the demo was made specifically to demonstrate the PS5’s strengths, particularly the SSD speed, and can’t run like that on the Series X or PC, there’s no evidence of that at this stage, but let’s imagine.

If that is the case then third-party games are not going to be designed around those strengths. Third-party games won’t utilise game designs that can only run efficiently on one piece of hardware, so the only games that will take advantage of those specific strengths will be first party.

So nothing really changes. The vast bulk of games are third-party and multi-platform, how they compare is still to be seen.
Tim Sweeney said that this demo isn't possible on other platforms to "this level of detail" or something along those lines. You could still get PS5 versions of things that simple have the same worlds with 2X the detail as the xbox version (as an example given the roughly 2X bandwidth difference).

I also agree Sony first party games will probably prove to be the best looking games around for consoles, but that's been the case since the PS3 days so that's not exactly a giant leap in logic.
 

captainraincoat

Gold Member
Nov 15, 2010
3,686
3,591
1,055
So epic jump in with one of their usual tech demos they show every iteration of their engine which no game ends up looking like that afterwards and people go nuts

I’m not sure why people are jumping up and down....until you see an actual next gen game running nobody is going to have an idea on what’s possible so all you have are the specs to speculate on and there is already a large gap
 

Redlight

Member
Feb 5, 2014
112
205
420
Tim Sweeney said that this demo isn't possible on other platforms to "this level of detail" or something along those lines. You could still get PS5 versions of things that simple have the same worlds with 2X the detail as the xbox version (as an example given the roughly 2X bandwidth difference).

I also agree Sony first party games will probably prove to be the best looking games around for consoles, but that's been the case since the PS3 days so that's not exactly a giant leap in logic.
If you're going to reference Sweeney then I'd prefer the actual quote rather than 'something along those lines' which is purely your interpretation of what he might've meant. Do you really believe that PS5 will have "2x the detail"? Sounds a bit like wishful thinking.

In the end my point stands, if, say, the fly-through at the end of the demo is a benefit that's specific to the PS5's SSD, then third-party games won't utilise moments like that in their designs.

Btw, I think Red Dead Redemption 2 is the best looking console game this gen.
 

Yakuzakazuya

Member
Sep 26, 2018
168
337
305
This "not 4K/30(60)" is becoming very tiring.

Please stop believing IQ is tied to resolution, it has no sense. I can assure you UE5 can't match my TV channels despite they stream 720i.
My sentiments exactly. I would pick a game looking like a 1080p Bluray movie anyday over 4K games with less realism.

Framerate is more important though than res. Hope we eventually reach 60fps with the kind of detail in this UE5 demo.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mister D

pixelation

Member
Nov 21, 2014
5,404
282
550
So epic jump in with one of their usual tech demos they show every iteration of their engine which no game ends up looking like that afterwards and people go nuts

I’m not sure why people are jumping up and down....until you see an actual next gen game running nobody is going to have an idea on what’s possible so all you have are the specs to speculate on and there is already a large gap
Watch the following video and realize that games ended up surpassing that demo (and fairly soon too) on base PS4.
 

Goliathy

Member
Mar 18, 2020
428
1,371
340
if the demo only streamed at 2gig, then yes, the XsX will look even better. But if the demo took advantage of the PS5 5.5gig stream then you can work it out yourself. Taking Sweeney at his words, it was a showcase of PS5 streaming.

Sorry if I offended you. Facts don’t care about your feelings.
Facts? What fact? Did they confirm this? You do know that this is a multiplatform engine, right?
Why would a dev build games based on a single platform SSD, so that it wouldn't work like that on PC and XSX? Doesn't make any sense.

Sorry, that you have fallen for a marketing bubble, but it was a marketing event, same like PS4 back then, they had the same demo and with the same marketing agreement.
Why else hasnt been there any Xbox footage? why didn't even tim answer to Xbox questions and that there are no xbox comparisons, although the engine scales very well with the GPU?

this demo would run better on Series X than what is shown here.

just letting you know... since... you know... they both use the same tech but one if them is just more powerful.

so this is 1440p30fps, just imagine it was around 1600p30fps and you got yourself the Series X version of this
remember: this demo didn't use any ray tracing, since XSX has much more CUs, and RT scales with RT, it will not only have a higher res, but also a much better implementation of RT.

Anyway, we will see games using UE5 NOT before 2022/2023, by then PC will destroy them in that area lol
 
Last edited:

captainraincoat

Gold Member
Nov 15, 2010
3,686
3,591
1,055
Watch the following video and realize that games ended up surpassing that demo (and fairly soon too) on base PS4.
Very subjective

As mentioned it’s a tech demo....not an actual game

Games benefit from art direction...which you either love or hate and from a technical point of view I don’t think there has been an actual gameplay example of something similar...even on pc
 

CuteFaceJay

Member
Sep 11, 2019
763
407
290
Looks decent, Realistically don't expect anything to look this good till a good few years into the life of the systems.

Epic are wizards at this shit because they are the gods that make the tools. The studios that licence their tech don't tend to go all out with the features like these demo's show.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Guilhermegrg

FranXico

Member
Dec 7, 2010
10,131
12,601
1,225
You do know that this is a multiplatform engine, right?
It's quite noticeable due to the amount of gameplay stalls, placed there for loading the next section, that the demo is intended to run on any platform (even those without SSD). So yes, this would run on the XSX at higher resolution for sure.
Something designed to stream even more assets will need a faster SSD though.
 

Bryank75

Gold Member
Jan 12, 2018
4,499
7,119
710
Ireland
Further to my previous post about the demo being at GDC, it looks like this demo is from an early PS5 dev kit...not the latest ones.....
 

ZehDon

Member
Jun 13, 2013
2,320
1,344
585
Australia
So epic jump in with one of their usual tech demos they show every iteration of their engine which no game ends up looking like that afterwards and people go nuts

I’m not sure why people are jumping up and down....until you see an actual next gen game running nobody is going to have an idea on what’s possible so all you have are the specs to speculate on and there is already a large gap
I think the key reason that people are excited about this demo is that, after Xbox's bungled "gameplay reveal" and absolutely underwhelming display of "next gen", everyone was telling us to lower our next-gen expectations. Simply put: there were no more graphical leaps to be had. And lo, turns out, not only are there leaps still to be had, they're here already: running in real-time on the lesser-spec PS5. Epic went to great lengths to show off that this tech isn't bullshit - it's real time, you can play it today, and you can make a game look that good using this technology. People like to be excited about things they enjoy. Microsoft kind of shit of the "next gen" bed - while Epic and Sony knocked the damn bed out of the park.
 
Last edited:

Shmunter

Member
Aug 25, 2018
3,418
6,607
525
Facts? What fact? Did they confirm this? You do know that this is a multiplatform engine, right?
Why would a dev build games based on a single platform SSD, so that it wouldn't work like that on PC and XSX? Doesn't make any sense.

Sorry, that you have fallen for a marketing bubble, but it was a marketing event, same like PS4 back then, they had the same demo and with the same marketing agreement.
Why else hasnt been there any Xbox footage? why didn't even tim answer to Xbox questions and that there are no xbox comparisons, although the engine scales very well with the GPU?



remember: this demo didn't use any ray tracing, since XSX has much more CUs, and RT scales with RT, it will not only have a higher res, but also a much better implementation of RT.

Anyway, we will see games using UE5 NOT before 2022/2023, by then PC will destroy them in that area lol
Yes I know it’s a Multiplatform engine. What on gods green earth gave you the impression that was under discussion?

What’s being discussed is streaming requirement for the demo presented. The facts are that PS5 has twice the streaming speed off XsX. Does the demo use the PS5 speed? We can’t be certain, indications are IT IS based on rhetoric from Epic.

Now that you are armed with all the info, you should be able to draw your own conclusions..

Happy to clarify, thank you come again.
 
Last edited:
  • Fire
Reactions: Panajev2001a

CuNi

Member
Sep 4, 2014
859
626
585
Germany
I think the key reason that people are excited about this demo is that, after Xbox's bungled "gameplay reveal" and absolutely underwhelming display of "next gen", everyone was telling us to lower our next-gen expectations. Simply put: there were no more graphical leaps to be had. And lo, turns out, not only are there leaps still to be had, they're here already: running in real-time on the lesser-spec PS5. Epic went to great lengths to show off that this tech isn't bullshit - it's real time, you can play it today, and you can make a game look that good using this technology. People like to be excited about things they enjoy. Microsoft kind of shit of the "next gen" bed - while Epic and Sony knocked the damn bed out of the park.
While I agree about the graphics taking a good leap forward, this doesn't change the fact that upcoming "next-gen" games like AC will NOT look like the UE5 Demo but instead look like the "kind of shit 'next gen' bed" for both consoles.
MS also confirmed that many, and I really mean many of their first party studios are going to utilize that engine, but I can't blame MS for showing games that will be released in 2020/2021 on the XSX/PS5 as cross-platform games with the graphics that they will come with. You can blame MS all you want, AC and other games releasing at first will indeed look "this-gen" and less "next-gen".
 

RPS37

Member
Nov 16, 2006
4,010
421
1,340
If games look this good, I might be alright with them only being 4K/30, instead of 60.
 
Last edited:
  • Triggered
Reactions: Hendrick's

pawel86ck

Member
Jan 27, 2018
1,458
1,964
400
It's next-gen because of the nanite technology. The lighting and textures are pretty much the same as this gen. Also, the PS5 running at 1440p/30FPS should tell you that it's still bandwidth constrained (as will the XSX). What I want to see is the nanite, 4k, ray-traced lighting and 60FPS. Something only an Ampere would probably be able to pull off - and that's a big MAYBE.
On PC we have real time GI in few games already thanks to RTX, but what PS4P / Xbox One X game use realtime GI and 8K textures?
 
Last edited:

ZehDon

Member
Jun 13, 2013
2,320
1,344
585
Australia
While I agree about the graphics taking a good leap forward, this doesn't change the fact that upcoming "next-gen" games like AC will NOT look like the UE5 Demo but instead look like the "kind of shit 'next gen' bed" for both consoles.
MS also confirmed that many, and I really mean many of their first party studios are going to utilize that engine, but I can't blame MS for showing games that will be released in 2020/2021 on the XSX/PS5 as cross-platform games with the graphics that they will come with. You can blame MS all you want, AC and other games releasing at first will indeed look "this-gen" and less "next-gen".
I don't disagree - but gaming sites, "influencers", and other commentators were telling folk that Valhalla was what "next gen" was going to look like. So, clearly, they're wrong - but it's because Microsoft demoed this stuff as their big "next gen" reveal. So, people took Microsoft at their word, believed what we saw was what the Xbox Series X was going to deliver, and believed we needed to seriously lower our expectations. For that, I put the blame on Microsoft for shitting the bed because, frankly, it's their bed and they chose to shit in it. They could've shown us anything - anything at all. It is not Ubisoft's fault Microsoft themselves decided that Ubisoft's multi-gen multi-platform game was the best choice to introduce the world to the power of their "next gen" console. Whether they meant to or not, Microsoft created the expectation that Valhalla was Series X's "next gen" standard. It's Microsoft's fault for thinking a multi-platform multi-gen title could stack up against the absolute best Sony had to show... when that title is also on Sony's own console. An utterly baffling choice from Microsoft, frankly.

To get real specific: Sony made sure they had something - anything - that offered up a taste of what we can expect from their new console. Sure, this may not be an accurate reflection of Sony's launch titles - no arguments there - but they have provided players something to help us understand what the long term investment in their console can look like. Now we know where that 10.2-ish TFLOPs is going to go, and what our money is going to buy. And, frankly, it's pretty incredible. And look around - people are very excited for the PS5 because we can see what makes it "next gen". We get it - PS4 cannot do what we saw today. We've seen "next gen".
On the opposite side of the fence, to introduce the entire world to the incredible raw potential of their turbo-charged new "next gen" console, Microsoft selected... multi-platform and multi-generational third party titles, most of which will be on Xbox One. And now everyone expects Series X games to look like launch window cross-gen titles because that's what Microsoft selected to show. Months of PR, dozens of articles and blog posts, and an entire hour long presentation, and they still haven't shown off what their 12 TFLOPs can ultimately deliver. And look around - people are very underwhelmed by Microsoft's new console. That's on them. I have no doubt Series X can deliver visuals on par or better than the demo we saw today. But Microsoft haven't really proven it to anyone.

In short: Microsoft had their chance to get out and define next gen, and they dropped the ball in a big, big way. Now, Sony's intercepted the ball and defined "next gen" on their own terms. Microsoft let that happen, so it's absolutely on them.
 
Last edited:

smithg5

Member
Nov 4, 2014
83
161
335
Not true at all. It's hard to see a difference between 1080p and 1440p but the jump up to 4K is very noticeable at 10-13 feet. I may not be seeing the full benefit of 4K but it is very noticeably sharper than 1440p.
This is for video games, it might be different for TV/movie footage.
That graph is based on how we measure human vision, not TV/movies.

20/20 vision means your eyes are able to resolve approx 60 pixels per degree. If that’s ”not true at all” then doctors need to throw away their eye charts.

Also, your breakdown of 1080p–>1440p “hard to see a difference” and then 1440–>4K “noticeably sharper” doesn’t make any sense. That’s the opposite of diminishing returns. On that trajectory 480–>1080 must look identical and 4k—>8k will be the most important transition.

The truth is that those jumps are identical (doubling the number of pixels each time), but because there’s limits on our vision (including factors of screen size and distance), at some point there’s no need to add more pixels. That point is measurable, and while there might be some variation in the individual and the type of content or type of display, it’s not going to stray far from this.
 

TGO

Member
Sep 5, 2007
9,200
4,359
1,330
UK
I don't think there's is need for anything more then 4k, I think the time is right to fill these pixels with as much detail as possible.
UE5 seems to be targeting just that, and that's exciting.
 

sol_bad

Member
Jan 17, 2006
4,334
2,575
1,485
That graph is based on how we measure human vision, not TV/movies.

20/20 vision means your eyes are able to resolve approx 60 pixels per degree. If that’s ”not true at all” then doctors need to throw away their eye charts.

Also, your breakdown of 1080p–>1440p “hard to see a difference” and then 1440–>4K “noticeably sharper” doesn’t make any sense. That’s the opposite of diminishing returns. On that trajectory 480–>1080 must look identical and 4k—>8k will be the most important transition.

The truth is that those jumps are identical (doubling the number of pixels each time), but because there’s limits on our vision (including factors of screen size and distance), at some point there’s no need to add more pixels. That point is measurable, and while there might be some variation in the individual and the type of content or type of display, it’s not going to stray far from this.
That graph has the years 2006-2012 on it, 4k TVs only started releasing the same year and they werent available at 55 inch. Its all theory as far as I'm concerned. I don't think any real world tests were done.

Have you done real world testing yourself? You own a 65inch 4k TV. Have you hooked a PC up to it and compared games at 1080p, 1440p and 4k?