• 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.
  • Hi Guest. We've rebooted and consolidated our Communities section, so be sure to check it out and subscribe to some threads. Thanks!

Faster loading times on Scarlett/PS5 will be dependent on optimisation and developer priorities (AI, Gfx, physics, HFR)

psorcerer

Member
May 1, 2012
452
329
505
instant load will not happen for the same reason why the PS4 doesn't have instant load in there games.

No amount of SSD speed will change this.

Which also makes all those topics about insane SSD speed that sony is going to push on exotic hardware solutions completely ridiculous.
And what's the reason?
 

-kb-

Neo Member
Jun 17, 2019
27
15
90
Id expect the load to be quite fast if it is not instant, after all the max data the initial state can be is the size of the RAM. So if the SSD is 3GB/s and the ram is 24GB it'd only take 8 seconds to fill it all. Thats assuming the SSD is as fast as or faster then a NVMe drive and the ram size is 24GB.

This also assumes not much time is spent generating data to the HDD or on CPU time.
 
Last edited:

Ar¢tos

Member
Oct 24, 2017
2,634
2,983
625
39
Portugal
it's 2019 and people think this is slow, 😂😂😂😂 people today have no idea what it means by slow, this is extreme fast loading to me I have absolutely no problem with it.
I remember loading games via tape on the Zx spectrum and the MSX, THAT was slow.
I just don't think next gen will have 2min loading times like some titles this gen.
Even if devs don't bother maxing the reading speed, it will always be faster, and with SSD as a standard its even easier to hide loadings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FranXico

psorcerer

Member
May 1, 2012
452
329
505
Id expect the load to be quite fast if it is not instant, after all the max data the initial state can be is the size of the RAM. So if the SSD is 3GB/s and the ram is 24GB it'd only take 8 seconds to fill it all. Thats assuming the SSD is as fast as or faster then a NVMe drive and the ram size is 24GB.

This also assumes not much time is spent generating data to the HDD or on CPU time.
It can be 2x faster if data is compressed on disk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Polygonal_Sprite

onQ123

Member
May 1, 2010
14,886
1,792
1,075
Breaking News! Water Is Wet!

All he is saying is that devs could push the limits & make it slow by loading more data.

But on the other hand games will come on 100GB disc so it's not going to be much more data to load next gen vs this gen so if the SSD is 4GB/s - 8GB/s & the RAM is 16GB - 24GB a dev would really have to go out of their way to make the loading slow.


8GB/s SSD could fill 24GB of RAM in 3 seconds if there is no decompressing & just moving data from the SSD to RAM but on the other hand with a fast SSD some data don't even have to be loaded at all because it can be streamed.
 

Kenpachii

Member
Mar 23, 2018
2,673
2,260
555
And what's the reason?
All kinds of reasons

Higher price consumer and for company itself which can also put them in a worse spot against competition.

Users not being able to extent and replace with usb drives or replacing them in the box itself which will result in them having to opt for high capacity base model which will cost money even more.

Nobody that's going too optimize for it as people will simple build games around the weakest dominator.
First party devs will build there games around limitations on that box no matter what. Faster or slower ssd doesn't matter to them.

What's the point in pushing anything faster then a normal SSD in that box, i couldn't see it.

Breaking News! Water Is Wet!

All he is saying is that devs could push the limits & make it slow by loading more data.

But on the other hand games will come on 100GB disc so it's not going to be much more data to load next gen vs this gen so if the SSD is 4GB/s - 8GB/s & the RAM is 16GB - 24GB a dev would really have to go out of their way to make the loading slow.


8GB/s SSD could fill 24GB of RAM in 3 seconds if there is no decompressing & just moving data from the SSD to RAM but on the other hand with a fast SSD some data don't even have to be loaded at all because it can be streamed.
Games will be far over 100gb, those games will be heavily compressed of those blu-ray discs are going to sit at 100gb cap.

Games already are pushing on PC towards 150+ gb on newer titles. Add 4k textures and 4k video's into that mix and what sony advertises with 8k, yea good luck with 100gb blu-ray discs. Aspect super long install times.
 

-kb-

Neo Member
Jun 17, 2019
27
15
90
8GB/s SSD could fill 24GB of RAM in 3 seconds if there is no decompressing & just moving data from the SSD to RAM but on the other hand with a fast SSD some data don't even have to be loaded at all because it can be streamed.
I think the biggest difference will be the latency and not the speed, making random reads much faster.

All kinds of reasons

Higher price consumer and for company itself which can also put them in a worse spot against competition.

Users not being able to extent and replace with usb drives or replacing them in the box itself which will result in them having to opt for high capacity base model which will cost money even more.

Nobody that's going too optimize for it as people will simple build games around the weakest dominator.
First party devs will build there games around limitations on that box no matter what. Faster or slower ssd doesn't matter to them.

What's the point in pushing anything faster then a normal SSD in that box, i couldn't see it.
I swear this is a reason for the instant load / faster load scenario and not the opposite. If Sony does this right it should be 99.99% transparent to the programmer to get to 99.99% of the speed. You don't need reprogram a game for it run faster on a SSD it just happens, same with a NVMe SSD. So if developers develop a game with a 1GB/s SSD in mind then a 4GB/s will load 4x as faster data wise.
 
Last edited:

Kagey K

Member
Dec 18, 2013
4,418
4,301
735
I’m very interested to see how they handle expanded storage.

Right now the biggest games are hitting over 100 gigs each. I have 11 TB hooked up to my XB1, but I'm not buying 11 TB SSD at these prices.

How are they going to handle this?
 

onQ123

Member
May 1, 2010
14,886
1,792
1,075
All kinds of reasons

Higher price consumer and for company itself which can also put them in a worse spot against competition.

Users not being able to extent and replace with usb drives or replacing them in the box itself which will result in them having to opt for high capacity base model which will cost money even more.

Nobody that's going too optimize for it as people will simple build games around the weakest dominator.
First party devs will build there games around limitations on that box no matter what. Faster or slower ssd doesn't matter to them.

What's the point in pushing anything faster then a normal SSD in that box, i couldn't see it.



Games will be far over 100gb, those games will be heavily compressed of those blu-ray discs are going to sit at 100gb cap.

Games already are pushing on PC towards 150+ gb on newer titles. Add 4k textures and 4k video's into that mix and what sony advertises with 8k, yea good luck with 100gb blu-ray discs. Aspect super long install times.


I'm not sure what point you're trying to make games will still be in the 100GB rang which was my point of saying the disc will be 100GB . even if the games was 500GBs you wouldn't have to load it all into the RAM at the same time before you can start playing.
 

Shangounchained

Your, You're
Dec 1, 2018
824
573
465
Breaking News! Water Is Wet!

All he is saying is that devs could push the limits & make it slow by loading more data.

But on the other hand games will come on 100GB disc so it's not going to be much more data to load next gen vs this gen so if the SSD is 4GB/s - 8GB/s & the RAM is 16GB - 24GB a dev would really have to go out of their way to make the loading slow.


8GB/s SSD could fill 24GB of RAM in 3 seconds if there is no decompressing & just moving data from the SSD to RAM but on the other hand with a fast SSD some data don't even have to be loaded at all because it can be streamed.
Coming on 100gb discs doesnt mean 1 disc could be 2 or more if call of duty needed 172gb install on pc today and rdr2 on PS4 needed 150 try to imagine how much space a ps5 exclusive or a triple a game for instance gta6 will take on a next gen console with all the expensive assets onboard! Assets will look like they came straight from zbrush!
 

Area61

Neo Member
Jun 13, 2019
22
22
110
So basically what they are saying is SSD is an improvement but won't be something magical thanks to devs who will work on better details rather than loading time issues. Looks like it's just a marketing scheme of selling the next-gen.
 
Last edited:

Shangounchained

Your, You're
Dec 1, 2018
824
573
465
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make games will still be in the 100GB rang which was my point of saying the disc will be 100GB . even if the games was 500GBs you wouldn't have to load it all into the RAM at the same time before you can start playing.
Remember the ps5 is pushing 24gb of data 672gb/s at 28-30 FPS this is too fast for any ssd the Apu will be busy asking for data every Pico second to keep the frames stable, I'd like to see how the do the data capping with the ssd installs or the rumoured catridges!

But how about open world games what if I load a specific area in next gens version of Spiderman or GTA 6and take a plane to fly somewhere else and haven't installed that part yet?
 

Ar¢tos

Member
Oct 24, 2017
2,634
2,983
625
39
Portugal
Coming on 100gb discs doesnt mean 1 disc could be 2 or more if call of duty needed 172gb install on pc today and rdr2 on PS4 needed 150 try to imagine how much space a ps5 exclusive or a triple a game for instance gta6 will take on a next gen console with all the expensive assets onboard! Assets will look like they came straight from zbrush!
But since you can have the SP installed separately from the MP or vice versa, it will make less difference next-gen.
Remember the ps5 is pushing 24gb of data 672gb/s at 28-30 FPS this is too fast for any ssd the Apu will be busy asking for data every Pico second to keep the frames stable, I'd like to see how the do the data capping with the ssd installs or the rumoured catridges!

But how about open world games what if I load a specific area in next gens version of Spiderman or GTA 6and take a plane to fly somewhere else and haven't installed that part yet?
You are assuming that 24gb of data need to be replaced every second, which is wrong.
You are assuming that open world games are flat with no obstructions to line of sight in any circumstance, which is also wrong.
Buildings, mountains, trees, canyons, clouds, so much that can hide the loading of assets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doctor Van Nostrand

Shangounchained

Your, You're
Dec 1, 2018
824
573
465
Breaking News! Water Is Wet!

All he is saying is that devs could push the limits & make it slow by loading more data.

But on the other hand games will come on 100GB disc so it's not going to be much more data to load next gen vs this gen so if the SSD is 4GB/s - 8GB/s & the RAM is 16GB - 24GB a dev would really have to go out of their way to make the loading slow.


8GB/s SSD could fill 24GB of RAM in 3 seconds if there is no decompressing & just moving data from the SSD to RAM but on the other hand with a fast SSD some data don't even have to be loaded at all because it can be streamed.
24 GB at 672gb/s 28-30 FPS next gen remember 30 frames a second that's the CPU asking for data 30x in one second and the GPU asking for vram 30x in one second 24gb needed 30x in one secodn, think about it let's say I'm flying over gta6 from scenery to scenery if Spiderman a PS4 title took a second a game that only uses 5.5gb of ram what will a game that uses 20gb take, let's wait n see
 

Shangounchained

Your, You're
Dec 1, 2018
824
573
465
But since you can have the SP installed separately from the MP or vice versa, it will make less difference next-gen.

You are assuming that 24gb of data need to be replaced every second, which is wrong.
You are assuming that open world games are flat with no obstructions to line of sight in any circumstance, which is also wrong.
Buildings, mountains, trees, canyons, clouds, so much that can hide the loading of assets.
U said I can install a part of the game for instance I can install a city in GTA and start playing then what happens if I took a jet and moved to a city I haven't installed yet this data capping works well with generic games not so well with open world games and bringing the old tricks back of using buildings and blocking views is silly and simply proves my point.

And yes for a title to push ps5 and it's 24gb to its knees, that's 672gb/s divide by 28fps you'll have 24gb per frame that's if u push it all at a stable frame rate and really milked the ps5 of its power same way with Spiderman or current games running at 30 FPS on consoles they push all that 5gb available for gaming every second on average and that's how u get beautiful games like rdr2 Spiderman god of war n so forth!
 

sn0man

Member
Nov 23, 2013
440
109
420
But why does next gen have to mean "the absolute best possibly graphics we can squeeze out of this hardware whilst maintaining 30fps most of the time".

Why can't next gen mean things like instant loading, unprecedented AI, new types of gameplay only possible on super fast hardware.

Why does it always have to fall back on super high fidelity graphics? He already explained that you can't have everything so why must it be bleeding edge graphics over everything else?
I agree with you. Take a PS4 checkerboard 4K game, have enough more gpu to hit 1800p msaa or 4K and use the rest of the power for a more seamless experience.

Also, what I really like about closed / fixed specs HW generations (with exclusive software) is that, unlike a PC, you can customise the full stack from the file I/O logic in the kernel, to the SSD driver, to the SSD controller itself, etc... you are not building a PC part meant to be installed in tons of varied computers and are restricted to a generic interface and on the OS side you are not making a Windows/macOS change that needs to be tested on tons of different HW configs.
Even if you are just using the standard API in the way that the platform vendor provides you can focus your development on loading performance. For example DOA4 on 360. That game looks great, has a great frame rate, and loads really well. Just having the same ram size, processor, and storage bandwidth for all hardware you target allows you to refactor the assets such that the game is responsive and you aren’t looking at a loading screen for more than 5 seconds.


Not gonna lie, GAF, faster loading times* is not nearly as sexy as the better resolution and performance that was promised last generation.
Why not both gif

it's 2019 and people think this is slow, 😂😂😂😂 people today have no idea what it means by slow, this is extreme fast loading to me I have absolutely no problem with it.
I had a 286. PC gaming was fun and had a lot of loading for sure. Worse with cd rom games.

To pretend console gaming on the Atari and NES weren’t vastly vastly superior on the loading time front is disingenuous. I know we aren’t getting cartridge speeds back, I think most gamers had that expectation tempered with the Switch release.

For myself:
I do believe (maybe foolishly) in the marketing tale Cerny has pitched that multiple developers have wanted an SSD or similar speed bump in IO. If a developer wanted to tell the sequel to something like Spider-Man, going from a 40 second loading screen to a 5 second one would be a real treat. The GPU fill rate on the next gen console is still going to be higher. A lot of the texture assets of current games look great at higher resolution
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ar¢tos

Shmunter

Member
Aug 25, 2018
1,741
2,588
475
I can’t see loading 16gb into ram being super fast no matter the storage solution. But once loaded, things should stream without a hitch, meaning detailed levels and worlds Unlike before.
 
Last edited:

Clear

Member
Feb 2, 2009
9,390
2,787
980
The simple analogy is that buying a faster car isn't necessarily going to get you to work quicker if you are regularly held back by speed limits and congestion on the route. What it does mean though is that you can take alternate longer routes and get there in around the same time.
 

KlickKlack

Banned
Dec 26, 2018
311
305
275
Remedy developers clears the elephant in the room about loading times.....

lol
.... all this speed only noticeable on old gen games.... all this hype was in real only PR speak?
30 fps confirmed.... console must be under 10TF... he clearly speaks about compromises, stronger PS5 console [>10TF] must be possible to make good graphics + 60 fps.....

where are 8K 120 fps comedians?
 
  • Like
Reactions: blly155

blly155

Member
Aug 3, 2014
10,381
2,159
580
So basically what they are saying is SSD is an improvement but won't be something magical thanks to devs who will work on better details rather than loading time issues. Looks like it's just a marketing scheme of selling the next-gen.
that's exactly what it is.

ssd will improve performance for sure but it's not gonna be a huge change. we've been using ssds on PC for over a decade.
 

Shifty

Member
Sep 25, 2015
8,154
7,417
755
the planet Thra
I'm not click baiting and I've posted the important thing


Basically with any computer, the more data you have the slower you can't have both you can't push ps5 to the limits and have it load instantly
Memory and speed are not linked in the way you seem to think they are. It isn't that simple.

The runtime performance impact of filling up RAM with large datasets is dependent on the acceleration structures and algorithms used to store and access them. Memory is just a place to put stuff- the code that fetches that stuff is the part that will cost computation time, and it can vary from finger-snap instant to multiple seconds depending on how optimized it is for the use-case.

This has nothing to do with the faster I/O afforded by the new SSD, nor the framerate, AI, environmental complexity, or other runtime elements mentioned in the thread title. Those things aren't running at load-time unless the game is streaming in an open-world or other 'seamless' gameplay scenario, and will be throttled as necessary in such a situation to prevent performance from taking a dive while the CPU does extra work.

The only gain from the SSD in this situation is the obvious one: Disk I/O finishing faster, meaning shorter load screens and less Mass Effect-style elevators designed to stall the player while loading happens. The CPU and GPU are going to decide the quantity and quality of stuff that actually exists in the game world.
 
Last edited:

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
27,300
32,016
1,170
that's exactly what it is.

ssd will improve performance for sure but it's not gonna be a huge change. we've been using ssds on PC for over a decade.
And nothing has been developed to take advantage of said SSDs. You still have duplicated and over compressed content due to those nagging 5400’s.

Star Citizen would be the first to venture into that arena on the PC. And it is doing things mechanicals and other games designed around mechanics are not doing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: demigod

Mass Shift

Member
Jun 12, 2019
425
361
315
Memory and speed are not linked in the way you seem to think they are. It isn't that simple.

The runtime performance impact of filling up RAM with large datasets is dependent on the acceleration structures and algorithms used to store and access them. Memory is just a place to put stuff- the code that fetches that stuff is the part that will cost computation time, and it can vary from finger-snap instant to multiple seconds depending on how optimized it is for the use-case.

This has nothing to do with the faster I/O afforded by the new SSD, nor the framerate, AI, environmental complexity, or other runtime elements mentioned in the thread title. Those things aren't running at load-time unless the game is streaming in an open-world or other 'seamless' gameplay scenario, and will be throttled as necessary in such a situation to prevent performance from taking a dive while the CPU does extra work.

The only gain from the SSD in this situation is the obvious one: Disk I/O finishing faster, meaning shorter load screens and less Mass Effect-style elevators designed to stall the player while loading happens. The CPU and GPU are going to decide the quantity and quality of stuff that actually exists in the game world.
ALL I can say is that there is going to be some major egg on the face if all of these claims of blazing load times turn out to have been disingenuous.
 

GermanZepp

Member
Feb 15, 2017
870
865
435
It's fine. Now developers will have that option. Some of them are going to take advantage of it, some of them maybe not. Its going to be a feature. And a thing that maybe some games are gonna be designed around. If the game i'm making has no loading times i'm going to make sure everyone knows about it. Edit: i expect racing, fighting ,sports and indie games to take more noticeable advantage of it.
 
Last edited:

Shmunter

Member
Aug 25, 2018
1,741
2,588
475
Memory and speed are not linked in the way you seem to think they are. It isn't that simple.

The runtime performance impact of filling up RAM with large datasets is dependent on the acceleration structures and algorithms used to store and access them. Memory is just a place to put stuff- the code that fetches that stuff is the part that will cost computation time, and it can vary from finger-snap instant to multiple seconds depending on how optimized it is for the use-case.

This has nothing to do with the faster I/O afforded by the new SSD, nor the framerate, AI, environmental complexity, or other runtime elements mentioned in the thread title. Those things aren't running at load-time unless the game is streaming in an open-world or other 'seamless' gameplay scenario, and will be throttled as necessary in such a situation to prevent performance from taking a dive while the CPU does extra work.

The only gain from the SSD in this situation is the obvious one: Disk I/O finishing faster, meaning shorter load screens and less Mass Effect-style elevators designed to stall the player while loading happens. The CPU and GPU are going to decide the quantity and quality of stuff that actually exists in the game world.
Streaming is not exclusive to open world. Many games stream assets and geometry within a level although maybe that’s what you mean by ‘seamless' gameplay scenario
 
Last edited:

Shangounchained

Your, You're
Dec 1, 2018
824
573
465
Memory and speed are not linked in the way you seem to think they are. It isn't that simple.

The runtime performance impact of filling up RAM with large datasets is dependent on the acceleration structures and algorithms used to store and access them. Memory is just a place to put stuff- the code that fetches that stuff is the part that will cost computation time, and it can vary from finger-snap instant to multiple seconds depending on how optimized it is for the use-case.

This has nothing to do with the faster I/O afforded by the new SSD, nor the framerate, AI, environmental complexity, or other runtime elements mentioned in the thread title. Those things aren't running at load-time unless the game is streaming in an open-world or other 'seamless' gameplay scenario, and will be throttled as necessary in such a situation to prevent performance from taking a dive while the CPU does extra work.

The only gain from the SSD in this situation is the obvious one: Disk I/O finishing faster, meaning shorter load screens and less Mass Effect-style elevators designed to stall the player while loading happens. The CPU and GPU are going to decide the quantity and quality of stuff that actually exists in the game world.
Bullcrap
 

Shangounchained

Your, You're
Dec 1, 2018
824
573
465
It's fine. Now developers will have that option. Some of them are going to take advantage of it, some of them maybe not. Its going to be a feature. And a thing that maybe some games are gonna be designed around. If the game i'm making has no loading times i'm going to make sure everyone knows about it. Edit: i expect racing, fighting ,sports and indie games to take more noticeable advantage of it.
Depends a game like FIFA doesn't need alot of loading time because it simply loads all the assets on a scene the teams the ball the pitch and so forth but a racing game doesn't load all the track it simply streams the assets as you drive and most racing games are 60fps so to stream expensive nextgen assets each frame as you race at 200mph will surely need faster loading
 

SleepDoctor

Gold Member
Nov 11, 2019
186
177
265
So Remedy wanted to piss in Sony's cereal lol.


You'd have to be clueless if you expected next gen 4k/60fps and instant loading tho. I don't care for the latter as long as we get the former on every game.
 

EverydayBeast

Member
Aug 18, 2017
3,664
1,876
620
Mount Olympus
www.neogaf.com
I think developers have a good sample size of 4K, SSD with PC, so I expect developers to figure out PS5 pretty quickly, SONY can win with the PS5 with whatever hardware just as long as good games are involved, which Microsoft can't do.
 

01011001

Member
Dec 4, 2018
403
532
350
Noone needs games that look better than the best looking current gen titles...
improve on details like draw distance and reflections and put the rest of the CPU and GPU power towards framerate and better simulation
 

Shifty

Member
Sep 25, 2015
8,154
7,417
755
the planet Thra
ALL I can say is that there is going to be some major egg on the face if all of these claims of blazing load times turn out to have been disingenuous.
I'm not saying that the load times aren't going to be fast, just that an SSD isn't going to magically increase performance for non-disk tasks.

Some folks do seem to be seeing it as the second coming of Secret Sauce Jesus though 🤔

Streaming is not exclusive to open world. Many games stream assets and geometry within a level although maybe that’s what you mean by ‘seamless' gameplay scenario
It is, yeah. Bolting pieces of level onto eachother as the player goes through, rather than loading it all at once.

Since loading that stuff is an I/O bound task that will block a CPU thread until it completes (and will take an unknown amount of time to complete), games 'time-slice' it, or run it on another thread to prevent the main game thread from stalling and dropping frames.

You pay a load time penalty for that, partly from the CPU not throwing everything it has at the loading process, but primarily from time spent waiting on disk I/O. That's what an SSD will improve.

Prove it :messenger_halo:

Ten monopoly bucks says my decade plus of game programming experience beats your selectively-quoted paragraph. AMA.
 
Last edited:

demigod

Member
Apr 17, 2007
7,046
2,989
1,280
I don't remember Sony ever saying instant loading for PS4 like people are claiming. Do you guys have a link to it? The only thing I remember is the ability to play the game while its still installing.
 

Shangounchained

Your, You're
Dec 1, 2018
824
573
465
I'm not saying that the load times aren't going to be fast, just that an SSD isn't going to magically increase performance for non-disk tasks.

Some folks do seem to be seeing it as the second coming of Secret Sauce Jesus though 🤔


It is, yeah. Bolting pieces of level onto eachother as the player goes through, rather than loading it all at once.

Since loading that stuff is an I/O bound task that will block a CPU thread until it completes (and will take an unknown amount of time to complete), games 'time-slice' it, or run it on another thread to prevent the main game thread from stalling and dropping frames.

You pay a load time penalty for that, partly from the CPU not throwing everything it has at the loading process, but primarily from time spent waiting on disk I/O. That's what an SSD will improve.


Prove it :messenger_halo:

Ten monopoly bucks says my decade plus of game programming experience beats your selectively-quoted paragraph. AMA.
Your 10 years of game programming isn't going to make next gens ssd faster or bend physics whether you've programmed for 10 years or 1000 computers will always be slower when overloaded with alot of data so your programming experience doesn't mean anything!
 

Shangounchained

Your, You're
Dec 1, 2018
824
573
465
Noone needs games that look better than the best looking current gen titles...
improve on details like draw distance and reflections and put the rest of the CPU and GPU power towards framerate and better simulation
Nope we need games that look far better than current games playing a next gen game that looks like current with a longer view distance and framerate is putting make up on a frog it's shit
 

bilderberg

Member
Jul 5, 2015
708
1,100
495
He's outlining the problem in his statement. The common expectation is that things look/sound better which means maxing out the hardware for as much visual spectacle as possible at the expense of performance.

Why can't the expectation be that things look slightly better but at the same time perform VASTLY better than the previous generation.

I don't want another 8 years of 30FPS. Give me 8 years of games performing faster than ever before.
Because what you can do at 60, you can do double at 30. This will never change.

So basically what they are saying is SSD is an improvement but won't be something magical thanks to devs who will work on better details rather than loading time issues. Looks like it's just a marketing scheme of selling the next-gen.
That's not what he said at all. A super fast SSD still has value if it lets devs load more data. Would you really want devs to just focus on loading times at the expense of games' going forward essentially being how they're now? Sony demo'd this tech on an already existing ps4 game, Spiderman, of course games on ps5 are going to be a generation ahead in terms of demand. Unless you just want a ps5 version of Spiderman to just be the ps4 version, minus load times. Most people probably don't though.
 
Last edited:

Stuart360

Member
Sep 9, 2018
2,866
4,399
485
As a PC user with 2 SSD's, i have to say some of the SSD talk from console gamers over the last year or so, has made me chuckle quite a bit. I think a lot of you are in for a shock when next gen consoles launch and we still get sizeable load times.