Support NeoGAF

[StreetsofBeige]

Preach it.

the £500 PS3 was full of bloat and expensive tech. It was a bad move tbh. Imagine the streamlined effectiveness of a PS4, but with an extra £150 to play with? Potentially the PS4 launch console could have been a PS4PRO.

Ya. The games it churned out years later like God of War were phenomenal.

Just imagine what they could have done if they scrapped BR for a DVD drive, and scrapped Cell/RSX for a beefed up traditional cpu/gpu vs. 360. They could have sold PS3s for less than 360, but have a beefier system.

 

[EDMIX]

One of the major issues during the launch between 360 and PS3 what the battle for the future of media between Bluray and HD DVD. Sony took a gamble on the future of media and initially lost at first but have since clearly won because of it.

Dunno how many people have an HD DVD player for the Xbox 360. I do and it's completely wasted shit. Who had the foresight to take the initial loss and crush their opponent in the next generation? Sony. If Microsoft had won the media war, everything would be different right now.

I don't mind the speculating they're going to fall on their butts going forward, but using past history isn't playing in your favor.

Agreed. I don't even see what they did with Bluray as arrogant as someone needed to move the medium forward and we can't really do that going from DVD to DVD again. PS4 and even XONE are as cheap as they are today, because of almost 90 million PS3's selling to move those Bluray units.

Someone needs to push the medium. So I don't see Sony as being arrogant cause they thought of the future of the industry vs a quick buck.

They thought of BC and put the PS2 chip in and "wow bro how arrogant"
They understood that DVD was used on PS2 and couldn't work on PS3 if they wanted a leap but "wow bro MGS4 exclusive to PS3 cause bluray, how arrogant"
They clearly understood how connected the market would be by having wifi and ethernet all built in but "wow bro, how arrogant of them, should have fragmented the market and solid it as an add on, that is less arrogantz bro" /s lol

So all PS3 tells me is Sony is willing to take a LOSS to push the damn industry forward, not gimp a whole generation to turn a buck. If someone wants next gen, they must respect that it will cost them. Lets say SSD and a new format is expensive for PS5....SOMEONE NEEDS TO DO IT, we can't keep using dated crap just to keep the price the same, yet complain when the result is THE SAME TYPE OF GAMES! So I don't care if its Sony or MS, but clearly someone needs to be the adult and actually start putting in new hardware, formats, design etc.

 

[EDMIX]

Sony has a stick up thier butt and MS could take them next gen. I find PS4 to be overrated this gen. I think both MS and Sony put out no exclusive that were worth buying a console for. If your a baseball fan then MLB the show. If you like a good racer then Forza. Not one exclusive this gen screamed buy this consoel for this one game.

I think the ps4 was the better console up until ps4 pro and xb1 x.

I bought a pro the last 3 years just for mlb the show and I sell it when Madden and NBA 2k come out. I didnt buy one this year because Sony is arrogant. I bought all 3 ps4 pros for 300-$350. Some were LE edition with a game or a $50 gift card. I watched ps4 pro for last couple months and not one deal. I refuse to pay max price $400 for a console with 1 year of life left that I bought on release day for $333.

"Sony has a stick up thier butt and MS could take them next gen " Not likely. MS seeking to put their games on all platforms will only result in even less actually buying their next system. They are pretty much establishing that they have no real desire to have some hardware war with Sony... Their games appearing on PC day and date very much shows that.

"I bought a pro the last 3 years just for mlb the show and I sell it when Madden and NBA 2k come out. I didnt buy one this year because Sony is arrogant" huh? Ummmm sounds to me like you needing to sell a system and then buy a it back is more then just "Sony is arrogant" as I know of very little people buying game systems based on attitude of company. For most that is just irrelevant. I can say MS is "arrogant" in many respects, but what on earth does that have to do with me needing or liking Windows 10 OS? Sooooooo most of us buy products based on use (what you said sounds like its massively irrational and illogical to the point where its just not the norm and not the majority of how and why someone buys something)

 

[somerset]

Heaven- have we forgotten all the design disasters the PS3 had?

In the dinosaur age, consoles were weird non-standard harware, and the game devs just had to shut up and accept this. Sony had a tame US company designing their GPUs for the first two consoles, and no.2 had the most bizarre complicated bunch of disperate CPU and GPU chips ever witnessed in a console. A horrer to code for, but the PS2 was a success. Japan likes a formula, but 3 went full on insane.

Few here understand, but Sony went for one system to do both graphics and code in the PS3- the unthinkably godawful 'Cell' design. Few here know that Intel's monumental disaster Larabee was the *same* awful awful concept- lots of very weak CPUs with a terrible internal DSP-style bus using code running on the CPU cluster to render graphics.

Few understand the maths of Computer Science- certainly Sony and Intel didn't at the time. Just before release, Sony got the results of graphics rendering using cell code, and screamed in corporate terror. Intel's Larabee, designed at a greater cost than every graphics chip at both ATI and Nvidia across their entire history, never released as a GPU- it was that rotten.

Sony had no choice but to go begging at AMD and Nvidia. Nvidia offered a very expensive discrete GPU solution that Sony had no choice but to accept. And now this PC class GPU was to be bonded with the most stupid general purpose CPU architecture in history. So, of course the PS3 was expensive and had a very difficult launch. Worse, Sony then needed fans to troll forums telling peeps just how wonderful 'cell' was.

But today the dinosaur age is over- consoles are gaming PCs- AMD's x64 ISA (yes, Intel couldn't even do a decent 64 bit version of their own x86 architecture- cos Intel at the time was working on another failed CPU design)- and AMD's GPU. With a bus that makes all gaming PC's (that still use Intel's dreadful motherboard buses- 2x64 bit on the CPU side with Intel's PCI-express) look like a joke.

Here's the thing. Initially the PS5 and Xbox next will be expensive, *but* both are directly comparable to vastly more expensive gaming PCs that are actually the same.

A playstation was *not* a gaming PC. Nor was the PS2 or PS3. Both were high risk to own. But the PS4 and PS5 are low risk- they get everything but MS exclusives, and run the games predictably.

The only question a PS5 asks is whether there is market demand for a high-end gaming console at *half* the price of a *directly* comparable gaming PC. And the PS5 price will directly reflect its internal PC identical specs. You wanna game like you have a high-end gaming PC, you gotta pay maybe 50-60% of what that PC would cost to home build- and that's a giant bargain *if* console gamers want to match their PC brethren.

Of course since console gamers are TV gamers, and TVs are now 4K (PC gamers are mostly 1440p at best), how do you think your consoles are gonna drive that 4K well? You think Sony is going to *give* you that PC identical hardware that costs so much on the PC side? Now *that* is what I call 'entitled' thinking.

 

[EDMIX]

Preach it.

the £500 PS3 was full of bloat and expensive tech. It was a bad move tbh. Imagine the streamlined effectiveness of a PS4, but with an extra £150 to play with? Potentially the PS4 launch console could have been a PS4PRO.

"the £500 PS3 was full of bloat and expensive tech. It was a bad move tbh. Imagine the streamlined effectiveness of a PS4," ? huh? Soooo did you ignore PS4 being able to be as cheap as it is to day because of that um "bloat and expensive tech"? Bluray is cheaper today in BOTH PS4 and XONE cause Sony took the hit on the PS3. Someone needs to drive the industry in terms of a new hardware. So SSD in PS5 might be expensive, ray tracing in PS5 might be expensive.....but someone needs to push this in a home console so those can sell well past 90 to 100 million to drastically drive down the cost for PS6, PS7 etc. Consider you are legit ignoring that at the time of PS4's launch, the cost to do something like the specs of PS4 Pro was NOT going to be the same price it was when it actually released. That would be like saying "it was a bad move bro, imagine if PS3 just released with PS4's specs with a extra 150" etc.

no.

That comes at a cost as the cost today for such tech will be different then it is tomorrow. Sony is simply making sure it can be driven down vs keeping dated parts simply to move a quick buck. Thats what MS did and it cost them billions with that RROD situation and a system with a bunch of add ons at an extra cost that ended up even losing exclusives because of its use of a dated format.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

"the £500 PS3 was full of bloat and expensive tech. It was a bad move tbh. Imagine the streamlined effectiveness of a PS4," ? huh? Soooo did you ignore PS4 being able to be as cheap as it is to day because of that um "bloat and expensive tech"?

Your post comes across as defensive?

Anyway, tech does get cheaper. Going in with the Cell wasn't the best idea. Slapping in a PS2 for BC wasn't the best idea. Splitting the RAM against the wishes of devs(IIRC) wasn't the best idea.

Sony could have shaved a few quid off of the console. However, they launched with a console A LOT more expensive than the 360, that took years to show off what it could do, by that point it was 'too late'. They had lost a lot of good will and support to Microsoft.

Purely talking about the price in a vacuum, did you feel, at launch, that the PS3 was far superior to the 360 and was worth the extra price? No.

However. If Sony, with all the knowledge they had in 2013/2014, launched the PS4 with a more effective use of the cash and launched at £500, the difference between PS4 vs Xbox one, would have been (even more) staggering.

 

[EDMIX]

Your post comes across as defensive?

Anyway, tech does get cheaper. Going in with the Cell wasn't the best idea. Slapping in a PS2 for BC wasn't the best idea. Splitting the RAM against the wishes of devs(IIRC) wasn't the best idea.

Sony could have shaved a few quid off of the console. However, they launched with a console A LOT more expensive than the 360, that took years to show off what it could do, by that point it was 'too late'. They had lost a lot of good will and support to Microsoft.

Purely talking about the price in a vacuum, did you feel, at launch, that the PS3 was far superior to the 360 and was worth the extra price? No.

However. If Sony, with all the knowledge they had in 2013/2014, launched the PS4 with a more effective use of the cash and launched at £500, the difference between PS4 vs Xbox one, would have been (even more) staggering.

"Going in with the Cell wasn't the best idea" Agreed.

"Slapping in a PS2 for BC wasn't the best idea" Subjective. Consider how much that feature is talked about right now and consider Sony was coming off the PS2 breaking all sorts of records with sales never thought to be broken by home consoles. It made sense why someone thought it was a must have feature for them at the time and I don't disagree with the move at the moment to put it in. It makes sense.

"They had lost a lot of good will and support to Microsoft. " Did they ? MS own RROD didn't suddenly keep those customers and making a solid system that pushes the industry is more important to them then simply selling a cheap, dated, faulty box to just get sales. So MS choices with 360 also resulted in XONE selling as less as it sold. If MS got that support and "good will" from that generation, they'd move MORE units now, not less.

"Purely talking about the price in a vacuum, did you feel, at launch, that the PS3 was far superior to the 360 and was worth the extra price? No." ?? What? Don't do that. Seriously, you asked a question and then answered it for me. I might disagree with you on some points, but I'm also respecting your post, comments, answers etc vs telling you what you are saying or something.

So my answer (if I'm allowed to do that) is yes. Bluray for film and what its doing for games, BC to PS2 and wifi and Ethernet support is far superior then what 360 was offering. Keep in mind they had free online gaming at the time, keep in mind PS3 never had some crazy faulty issue to the same degree as 360. SO "superior"? ABSOLUTELY RROD sealed that deal my friend. So I agree with you on the Cell and in hindsight of BC being added in regards to the price, but their choice of media format and packing the system with as much tech to build a solid base (bluray, wifi, Ethernet), and building it solidly enough not to have the whole RROD situation is why I'd have to respectfully disagree with you. THAT is what built good faith in Playstation as a brand that resulted in PS4 moving those massive units. EVEN if those folks didn't buy a PS3 and bought a 360, they also got to see less REAL exclusives, nickle and dimed for features like HD-DVD, Wifi, dealt with RROD and clearly saw that PS3's launch price being high in HINDSIGHT might have been justfied compared to seeing several versions of 360's add features finally, while dealing with RROD etc. MS might have made the system so cheaply that their fans got to actually see what they COULD have had if they actually didn't go off of launch price and worry and doom articles alone.

PS3's launch price is just that......its launch price. MS having a nice cheap, dated design might have got their foot in the door, but it ultimately hurt their brand deeply because of how they gimped that generation with dated hardware and poor tech ie RROD.
So I don't know if PS3 was unusually high for last gen or if 360 was unusually low as PS3 is not the one with billions of dollars with tech issues.


"However. If Sony, with all the knowledge they had in 2013/2014, launched the PS4 with a more effective use of the cash and launched at £500, the difference between PS4 vs Xbox one, would have been (even more) staggering." Hard to say and a debate for another day tbh.

 

[Badlucktroll]

While i plan on getting the next Xbox and Ps5, (Ps5 first) i feel that the next generation will mirror the current gen. I fear that the game studios that MS acquired will yield mediocre commercial failures, for example, Quantum Break, and Sunset Overdrive, (i loved both). And MS will close and disband the studios they bought after each game fails. Perhaps i am being overly pessimistic.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

"Going in with the Cell wasn't the best idea" Agreed.

"Slapping in a PS2 for BC wasn't the best idea" Subjective. Consider how much that feature is talked about right now and consider Sony was coming off the PS2 breaking all sorts of records with sales never thought to be broken by home consoles. It made sense why someone thought it was a must have feature for them at the time and I don't disagree with the move at the moment to put it in. It makes sense.

"They had lost a lot of good will and support to Microsoft. " Did they ? MS own RROD didn't suddenly keep those customers and making a solid system that pushes the industry is more important to them then simply selling a cheap, dated, faulty box to just get sales. So MS choices with 360 also resulted in XONE selling as less as it sold. If MS got that support and "good will" from that generation, they'd move MORE units now, not less.

"Purely talking about the price in a vacuum, did you feel, at launch, that the PS3 was far superior to the 360 and was worth the extra price? No." ?? What? Don't do that. Seriously, you asked a question and then answered it for me. I might disagree with you on some points, but I'm also respecting your post, comments, answers etc vs telling you what you are saying or something.

So my answer (if I'm allowed to do that) is yes. Bluray for film and what its doing for games, BC to PS2 and wifi and Ethernet support is far superior then what 360 was offering. Keep in mind they had free online gaming at the time, keep in mind PS3 never had some crazy faulty issue to the same degree as 360. SO "superior"? ABSOLUTELY RROD sealed that deal my friend. So I agree with you on the Cell and in hindsight of BC being added in regards to the price, but their choice of media format and packing the system with as much tech to build a solid base (bluray, wifi, Ethernet), and building it solidly enough not to have the whole RROD situation is why I'd have to respectfully disagree with you. THAT is what built good faith in Playstation as a brand that resulted in PS4 moving those massive units. EVEN if those folks didn't buy a PS3 and bought a 360, they also got to see less REAL exclusives, nickle and dimed for features like HD-DVD, Wifi, dealt with RROD and clearly saw that PS3's launch price being high in HINDSIGHT might have been justfied compared to seeing several versions of 360's add features finally, while dealing with RROD etc. MS might have made the system so cheaply that their fans got to actually see what they COULD have had if they actually didn't go off of launch price and worry and doom articles alone.

PS3's launch price is just that......its launch price. MS having a nice cheap, dated design might have got their foot in the door, but it ultimately hurt their brand deeply because of how they gimped that generation with dated hardware and poor tech ie RROD.
So I don't know if PS3 was unusually high for last gen or if 360 was unusually low as PS3 is not the one with billions of dollars with tech issues.


"However. If Sony, with all the knowledge they had in 2013/2014, launched the PS4 with a more effective use of the cash and launched at £500, the difference between PS4 vs Xbox one, would have been (even more) staggering." Hard to say and a debate for another day tbh.

That's a lot of Sony defending, considering Sony sales dropped from 150M PS2 units to about 85-90 PS3 units, while XBox OG sold about 25M units, and 360 sales more than tripled to around the same as PS3 at 85-90M.

The "Cheap" 360 system you call it still had better games than PS3, and it came out one year earlier. In console gaming, the later released systems are always more powerful.

The key reason why PS3 sold terribly the first few years was price. Sony gamers didn't want to pay $600. As soon as Sony released that slim model which put it toe and toe with 360, it sold much better. All Sony had to do was keep th train rolling by releasing a DVD system (which 360 games had no problem churning out good games), and at $400 like 360 did in 2005 and PS3 would have steamrolled 360. But they released a year later, included BR which many people didn't care for and charged $600.

So it shows all the reasons you stated are thrown out the window when a couple hundred bucks are the difference.

 

[EDMIX]

That's a lot of Sony defending, considering Sony sales dropped from 150M PS2 units to about 85-90 PS3 units, while XBox OG sold about 25M units, and 360 sales more than tripled to around the same as PS3 at 85-90M.

The "Cheap" 360 system you call it still had better games than PS3, and it came out one year earlier. In console gaming, the later released systems are always more powerful.

The key reason why PS3 sold terribly the first few years was price. Sony gamers didn't want to pay $600. As soon as Sony released that slim model which put it toe and toe with 360, it sold much better. All Sony had to do was keep th train rolling by releasing a DVD system (which 360 games had no problem churning out good games), and at $400 like 360 did in 2005 and PS3 would have steamrolled 360. But they released a year later, included BR which many people didn't care for and charged $600.

So it shows all the reasons you stated are thrown out the window when a couple hundred bucks are the difference.

"The "Cheap" 360 system you call it still had better games than PS3 " Subjective

" All Sony had to do was keep th train rolling by releasing a DVD system (which 360 games had no problem churning out good games)," No.

You wouldn't have Bluray in XONE or PS4 at the price they are at now without that almost 90 million unit install base. They had no issue making games for 360, they simply limited the scope of their games to fit the limited media format. As to why stuff like Killzone 2 or MGS4 or The Last Of Us is basically impossible on 360 without drastically gimping the game.

So.....no. Thats a lot to ignore to save a few bucks on a system that is basically going to keep breaking down...

"PS3 would have steamrolled 360" And? They also could have run across something as bad as RROD RUSHING OUT a system to turn a buck, they also would have had a uphill battle with PS4 because Bluray would have not sold those units to be added in to PS4 as CHEAP as it is today because its use in PS3. So i have no issue spending the extra money for a quality, next gen system that is pushing the industry vs some stripped system, with dated design looking to cut as much corners to win some sales race. RROD doesn't help me, add ons (basically micro-transactions for hardware lol) doesn't help me, missing games because of missing features doesn't help me and low tech resulting in an experience like last gen 1.5 doesn't help me either. Nothing on XB exist like The Last Of Us or Killzone 2 or Metal Gear Solid 4 etc....but then again...MS used DVD. So I'm not looking for that type of trade off man. I have no issue paying for next gen quality vs gimped RROD
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/mgs4-required-cuts-to-fit-on-blu-ray
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/news110707harrison

 

[Aidah]

Their censorship policy is trash, otherwise there is nothing to worry about. $500 at launch isn't a problem, as long as the machine makes the most of it, and not $500 because of a useless camera no one wants, or some other dumb reason. As for Xbox, I still think it's as dull as its been since the start of the generation, based on owning an OG and an X (both were gifts, didn't buy neither), plus it barely has a market share in more places than not.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

Snip

Yeah the RROD showed a rushed and shoddy build quality but it didn't really hurt MS. For all the mudslinging at the time it didn't kill, slow or effect the 360 brand. It was and probably still is, one of the worst failure rates in modern electronics, they lived through it though.

We could try and justify the price of the PS3 but as you correctly say it is subjective. For me, I didn't see what the PS3 offered that was worth the extra £150 a launch. Consider as well that the PS3 launched later than the 360 and still didn't showcase a clear graphical advantage.

Whereas, if Sony had launched the PS4Pro as a launch console, the difference between it and the Xbox one would have been night and day. Asking for an extra £100-£150 for a ps4 over an xbox would have been an easy ask.

 

[Ar¢tos]

Is MS halfway to becoming the next Sega, if they start releasing every game on pc?
Might as well ditch the hardware and release them on Ps4 too, and keep the streaming service. With hardware being sold at a loss and they are telling gamers to not buy on console because its out on pc too, it kinda makes sense.
Edit: sold at loss regarding next gen (potentially), if they want to have the more powerful console and still have a competitive price, there is no other way.

 

[petran79]

Is MS halfway to becoming the next Sega, if they start releasing every game on pc?
Might as well ditch the hardware and release them on Ps4 too, and keep the streaming service. With hardware being sold at a loss and they are telling gamers to not buy on console because its out on pc too, it kinda makes sense.
Edit: sold at loss regarding next gen (potentially), if they want to have the more powerful console and still have a competitive price, there is no other way.

Problem is they stopped releasing hardware sales figures of Xbox One since 2015, mainly to avoid low sales negativity. They'll probably do the same for next gen, just releasing sales for the first few years.

I would not be surprised if multiplatform games followed the Witcher 3 trend, with PS5 and PC competing, while Xbox remaining in third place, used mainly for streaming and as a media box.

 

[Despera]

For a quality console in 2020, $500 seems reasonable to me.

 

[Dragon Lord]

I think Sony will be all right, but I do agree that I see signs of hubris in their behavior.

 

[EDMIX]

Yeah the RROD showed a rushed and shoddy build quality but it didn't really hurt MS. For all the mudslinging at the time it didn't kill, slow or effect the 360 brand. It was and probably still is, one of the worst failure rates in modern electronics, they lived through it though.

We could try and justify the price of the PS3 but as you correctly say it is subjective. For me, I didn't see what the PS3 offered that was worth the extra £150 a launch. Consider as well that the PS3 launched later than the 360 and still didn't showcase a clear graphical advantage.

Whereas, if Sony had launched the PS4Pro as a launch console, the difference between it and the Xbox one would have been night and day. Asking for an extra £100-£150 for a ps4 over an xbox would have been an easy ask.

"Yeah the RROD showed a rushed and shoddy build quality but it didn't really hurt MS"

When you have a failure rate that high, you can't with a straight face try to say that didn't hurt the company and its consumers.

PS3's price at LAUNCH might have been high, but that is a complain for a few months
360's RROD is a trust issue that will last a few generations and their XONE reveal didn't do much to gain consumer support or trust.

At the end of the day, its launch price is not that big of a deal compared to a broken system missing multiple features that MS now wants you to pay extra for to complete their system post launch. I'll take a high price at launch and quality system with features intact vs a cheap price, RROD and missing parts.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

"Yeah the RROD showed a rushed and shoddy build quality but it didn't really hurt MS"

When you have a failure rate that high, you can't with a straight face try to say that didn't hurt the company and its consumers.

PS3's price at LAUNCH might have been high, but that is a complain for a few months
360's RROD is a trust issue that will last a few generations and their XONE reveal didn't do much to gain consumer support or trust.

At the end of the day, its launch price is not that big of a deal compared to a broken system missing multiple features that MS now wants you to pay extra for to complete their system post launch. I'll take a high price at launch and quality system with features intact vs a cheap price, RROD and missing parts.

OK we get it. You love Sony consoles.

For all the anti-MS stuff you spew last gen, it sure didn't help PS3.

Unlike PS2 destroying all competing systems, 360 and PS3 sold about the same number of units.

 

[Romulus]

Microsoft has cleaned house on management, and has slowly turned the Xbox One into a solid product with a lot of great games.

 

[Panajev2001a]

OK we get it. You love Sony consoles.

For all the anti-MS stuff you spew last gen, it sure didn't help PS3.

Is there a need for personal attacks there? You may not like the points he was making, for the record without RROD it is possible Xbox may have sold a lot more, but it was more than “you Xbot, we get you love Xbox!!! Your PS hate is not helping Xbox One trolololol” .

 

[Ar¢tos]

Halo, Gears and Forza. Do try to keep up, ok?

 

[Dr. Claus]

Halo, Gears and Forza. Do try to keep up, ok?

Gears 4 had a good campaign, but its rather ugly looking MP skins and lootboxes (and its over reliance on Horde mode DLC) really put me off. Forza 5, 6, 7 were awful - to the point that even the creators needed a year off to make sure the next game wouldn't be terrible. Halo 5 is considered the worst Halo game by most in the community.

Ori, Forza Horizon, and better versions of the third party releases (and uncensored versions at that) are why I play my Xbox One personally.

 

[Tupinambis_WOT]

The specs for the PS5 look incredible, but I would *LIKE* to imagine that Sony is smart enough to not follow the $599 debacle. I don't know how many people are in positions of power who were around then and are still around now, but the institutional memory should be good enough to not repeat that mistake twice

Also supposedly Microsoft has been telegraphing that they're one-upping Sony in at least some aspects of the hardware, so their box may not be any cheaper anyway.

 

[Freeman454]

The specs for the PS5 look incredible

What specs?

 

[The Pleasure]

I like consoles not having children on them. 600 bucks plus subscription costs please. That and gimme the power. Give me that NEO GEO SHOCK!

 

[Tupinambis_WOT]

What specs?

What little that Cerny was able to actually confirm, like the standard SSD and ray tracing support, which is a tall order unless he's hyper-bullshitting what he meant with "ray tracing".

 

[Shmunter]

Yes, no, maybe...