In what sense though? If you mean hitting the ceiling of a pre-patched game, then we have comfirmation that will happen, if you mean running 4k/upgraded 1080p, then no.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Is Sony missing the point of hardware upgrades?
- Thread starter SpokkX
- Start date
ArkhamFantasy
Member
SeeNoWeevil
Member
Why do people keep saying this, it isn't even remotely true.
But once they get Pro *being* a PS4, why downclock the hardware?
I mean, the S sort of confirms that this is what's happening. Scorpio won't be "emulating" One games. (I really hope not).
By confirming that games with dynamic resolution will be ran at the max of the dynamic range constantly due to the additional power, without a patch.
That means they're not limiting hardware. So if they've got a game which is dipping, for example Ryse, then you'll be safe in expecting it to be a constant locked 30.
Being a software test manager and a devops guy on the side, any hardware changes to a set system makes me start calling to batten down the hatches for my team, because we already know stuff will break, in all sorts of places. The more complex the application, or the larger the changes to the system, the more time and effort it will take to get everything sorted out. Anyone who has ever tested or developed software for real purposes understands what Sony has done.
As for those saying wtf why doesn't it work the way I think it should / api bad / sony bad / why should there be a patch, it should just work / etc. - optimizing down to the hardware level as some console devs do, on a set hardware platform means you can literally say: this operation will and must take x amount of time to start and finish, and then this one will start, etc - this design and assumption propagates throughout the codebase. This is one of the ways you squeeze the most out of your hardware.
Changing ANYTHING about the hardware spec will cause software built that way to suddenly experience shit like race conditions, deadlocks, TOCTTOU problems (which is of import to data and network security), concurrency control issues, and more. People saying lol so what, bugs - these range from trivial to LETHAL, depending on what that bug triggers.
As for those saying wtf why doesn't it work the way I think it should / api bad / sony bad / why should there be a patch, it should just work / etc. - optimizing down to the hardware level as some console devs do, on a set hardware platform means you can literally say: this operation will and must take x amount of time to start and finish, and then this one will start, etc - this design and assumption propagates throughout the codebase. This is one of the ways you squeeze the most out of your hardware.
Changing ANYTHING about the hardware spec will cause software built that way to suddenly experience shit like race conditions, deadlocks, TOCTTOU problems (which is of import to data and network security), concurrency control issues, and more. People saying lol so what, bugs - these range from trivial to LETHAL, depending on what that bug triggers.
Thank you for this.
So pretty much, this is also why consoles in general are not at their maximum clock speeds (apart from of course, yield and heat issues)
Thank you for this.
No worries
You have not lived as as a software person until you are trying to test and debug some shittastic race condition that happens in the most obscure of ways and action patterns and reproducing that crap is nigh-on impossible, in the first place. Ugh, memories. It gets magnitudes more silly when you add in multi-user interactions (e.g., multiplayer) which you can almost never really predict. Edit: Oh, and please note that though I understand why Sony did this, it does not mean I am, personally, happy about it, as a gamer T_T
visiblemode
Member
So confused...current games don't use Pro until patched. Devs patch games constantly, why would they just skip this one? "Tons more power? Nah ignore that, we devs hate extra power." Not likely.
Leaving it till patch is wise. Console gaming isn't traditionally a cross-your-fingers proposition.
Thanks for this , i think this will clear some confusion people are having here!!
Thank you for this.
So pretty much, this is also why consoles in general are not at their maximum clock speeds (apart from of course, yield and heat issues)
I appreciate you have come to understanding of the decision , Right?
It has been explained numerous times. And let's wait how MS will handle this with Neo for ALL games. Not the 5 inhouse titles that do use dynamic resolutions that will get a patch.
IMO this simple to get and not about API, coding to the metal or a fps cap.
Games haven't been tested for Pro and the difference is significant.
It happens on PC that some hardware combination have abysmal performance or freezes. Reason for these bugs can be quite complicated. Those games get patched after release and and then everything is fine.
For 2 year old games some pubs/dev might refuse to patch. Or the dev might already be out of business. And Sony can't have a Pro where game "XY" doesn't run.
Even if it is just one game. They'd tp take the copies from retail and buy them back.
Regarding this optional mode with warnings: This would lead to a situation where people block the Pro patch so they can run an untested game with more fps.
It 's obvious that publisher don't want this situation. Then they'll get flagged for bugs/freezes, synching problems in multiplayer and so - also they never intended to release the game in this way. Sony must have had discussions with devs and publishers about this. It is not just their decision.
As Cerny said they worked on it to make patching as easy as possible. It is the job of the publishers to QA their own games if they won't to provide a patch Sony can't do this, they don't have the source code. And blackbox testing (without source code access) by just playing a game doesn't assure that there is no major bug.
The better solution is that publishers add Pro patches for their older games (if they think it is worth it). And maybe even different modes. Optimized for fps or image quality.
It's quite obvious why the do it this way. Wait for Neo - MS will do something similar.
For future release... the PS4 is far from dead yet, if they are doing like Ps3 ans Ps2 it's going to live a long time.
Thanks for the thanks! I thought it would be pertinent to insert a more functional perspective. As you say below:
Understanding rarely leads to happiness, however. Maybe it leads to acceptance
You can also profile your code with an abstraction layer as D3D12 and Vulkan have proven, and adding more power will only guarantee better performance, not worse, as Microsoft has shown with Xbox ONE S.
If you intend to upgrade the hardware of your console every 3 years, squeezing the most out of one of the iterations is, by far, not as important as making those games scalable with those future iterations.
If you break with the traditional console concept you also have to break with the traditional way of developing for them. As I see, this is simple a lack of vision from Sony.
Where does test automation come into this for you then? Doing regression testing is a costly exercise and is the first prime candidate for being automated, especially for cross hardware/device testing?
This isnt about the testing, this is about your platform implementation from the beginning.
Companies like Microsoft will have expansive automation suites which will be able to hook into their hardware and perform these tests many times a day.
Great post, totally agree.
To me, this is more evidence that the PS5 will not have BC with the 4's. If they was planning this, then they would of done the leg work to put in the scalability in their software.
LukasTaves
Member
I don't think they missed the point, on the contrary I can clearly see the point of the Pro and how it may very well achieve it (but I'll get to that).
What I'm baffled at, is how everything feels so half assed and tackled. The console received a nice gpu boost, but clearly other components didn't followed like memory size and bandwidth. So you have a console that despite having more than twice the gpu power is having a hard time at even doubling the resolution of the Ps4 games, and in some cases like RoTTR they even had to reduce/remove some effects in 4k mode (at least when in development)
So, if their goal was to make a machine capable of running Ps4 games in 4k in at least the same specs and same framerate they would've missed.
They also made the pro being just a more powerful Ps4, with the same bottlenecks the same low level code the same everything practically, the only difference is that everything runs better on it. So if their goal with a mid cycle console was to improve their development space so it supported platform agnostic development then they also missed the point completely. Same for the transitional generation state. It's quite clear that this is indeed just a ps4 that will be phased out along it by the time Ps5 comes. So if the point was to move towards an iterative model then this again misses the point.
It also presents not enough advantage for current users, specially the ones that play on 1080p. Most of current games will run without any difference, and thus far 1080p mode offers completely insignificant improvements, most of the time it's just downsampling from the higher res. The biggest gain for 1080p users will be (new) games that run sub HD on Ps4. They will be native 1080p, and receive some upgrades like Paragon.
So what's the point of this then? Sony has spoken several times of what drove them to release a Ps4 pro, saying it was the Pc that pushed it, or the desire to support the new 4k tvs and hdr, but for all that talk it's clear the console wasn't designed with that in mind. It had one clear and specific goal and they nailed it: Beating Scorpio to the punch. There's a very high chance that by the time scorpio comes its extra horsepower won't matter, just like it didn't matter how much more powerful the first xbox was compared to Ps2.
That doesn't address the biggest problem Sony will face regarding Xbox in the feature which is the ever growing user base now that they are moving away from generation resets. But Ps4 Pro buys Sony the time they need to sort the above problems by the time Ps5 comes.
So, for many metrics it's a half assed product. But it's one that is coming in the perfect time and price, so in a sense you could say Sony completely nailed it.
What I'm baffled at, is how everything feels so half assed and tackled. The console received a nice gpu boost, but clearly other components didn't followed like memory size and bandwidth. So you have a console that despite having more than twice the gpu power is having a hard time at even doubling the resolution of the Ps4 games, and in some cases like RoTTR they even had to reduce/remove some effects in 4k mode (at least when in development)
So, if their goal was to make a machine capable of running Ps4 games in 4k in at least the same specs and same framerate they would've missed.
They also made the pro being just a more powerful Ps4, with the same bottlenecks the same low level code the same everything practically, the only difference is that everything runs better on it. So if their goal with a mid cycle console was to improve their development space so it supported platform agnostic development then they also missed the point completely. Same for the transitional generation state. It's quite clear that this is indeed just a ps4 that will be phased out along it by the time Ps5 comes. So if the point was to move towards an iterative model then this again misses the point.
It also presents not enough advantage for current users, specially the ones that play on 1080p. Most of current games will run without any difference, and thus far 1080p mode offers completely insignificant improvements, most of the time it's just downsampling from the higher res. The biggest gain for 1080p users will be (new) games that run sub HD on Ps4. They will be native 1080p, and receive some upgrades like Paragon.
So what's the point of this then? Sony has spoken several times of what drove them to release a Ps4 pro, saying it was the Pc that pushed it, or the desire to support the new 4k tvs and hdr, but for all that talk it's clear the console wasn't designed with that in mind. It had one clear and specific goal and they nailed it: Beating Scorpio to the punch. There's a very high chance that by the time scorpio comes its extra horsepower won't matter, just like it didn't matter how much more powerful the first xbox was compared to Ps2.
That doesn't address the biggest problem Sony will face regarding Xbox in the feature which is the ever growing user base now that they are moving away from generation resets. But Ps4 Pro buys Sony the time they need to sort the above problems by the time Ps5 comes.
So, for many metrics it's a half assed product. But it's one that is coming in the perfect time and price, so in a sense you could say Sony completely nailed it.
LukasTaves
Member
When they announced it. That all games even pre patched would run better, and dynamic res games wouldn't drop resolution anymore.
They kinda already delivered on that with the S, though the bump is really small to actually make a difference.
The desperation level is going to go nuclear when we get the November NPDs.
its stronger than most but its most certainly not "very strong technical background"
Specs for Pro, and its existence were known way before Scorpio was announced. If there is one console build to beat the other that is Scorpio, that is still a year away and was announced a early to minimize PS4 Neo/pro impact as possible.
Sony may fail in this midgen upgrade, nothing guarantees success, but the console seems very well thought, with a competitive price, reasonable spec bump, and in time for VR. Checks all the boxes, to me (and i ain't buying one)
You lost me, here. Xperf and GPUview are tools I know devs use to check their code's performance, but that has nothing to do with the abstraction layer they are using, or any performance gains that are made using said layer.
Not to mention you are perfectly able to add code that is prone to the issues I wrote about above regardless of how you are building an application. Profiling your code in some ways helps you do this, because then you know exactly how long something takes, and you can use those timings to eke out more performance (and thereby introduce possible bugs related to timing).
Also, the very nature of code profiling means you need to have the hardware to profile it on - how do you propose developers do this on hardware they do not have? Make even MORE assumptions? Your comment pre-supposes that the PS4Pro hardware was finalized and available as soon as the PS4 was released, which I do believe is not the case...
I can't blame Sony for keeping their mouths shut about new hardware, I can't blame them for playing it safe in a market that crucifies you for anything that might possibly go wrong. I can't even blame them for not saying what amusing stuff breaks in their internal tests - that would have been amazing to see or know about.
I can't even blame devs assuming that hardware would remain static barring a generational leap, and coding straight down to the metal for that. No one foresaw this mid-gen refresh, barring some straight out psychic people.
I guess I am all out of blame.
Neo was in development long before Scorpio.
Thank you for this.
Its clear who has understanding on this vs others who just shit post why it should just magically work. Armchair developers are the worst.
I'll just address this point, since I am intimately familiar with it
Automated testing is not a panacea for finding software bugs. By its very nature, you cannot automate a test for something you do not know goes wrong - this means that you need your dev and QA team to find the precise conditions it occcurs, which can and does take loads of time. Since time and budget is limited you target your regression suite on a risk-based system, prioritizing the most used functions. This is relatively easy, if time-consuming, on most programs. There are loads of really awesome tools for this~ I love fiddling with them, myself.
Games, however...considering the vast amount of interaction a user can have with it? This is incredibly complex, and vastly prone to missing things. The amount of interactions you have with just Mario is enormous, regardless of its seeming simplicity. To get all the obscure things that can go wrong, you would have to script EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE interaction with it.
You can, also (and a much better idea), write a unit test suite that covers the core operations, and check those. This isn't so much test automation, however - though one can argue this.
You seem to of quoted him and then replied with rambling which is pretty unrelated to his post.
It's simple, and clear especially with from the Mark Cerny interview with Verge. Sony have allowed compatibility between devices by hardware, keeping it relatively the same. Whereas MS have allowed compability between devices by software, removing any hardware constraints. This gives us the scenario we're in now, and like I stated above, makes PS5 native BC highly unlikely.
I'll just address this point, since I am intimately familiar with it
Automated testing is not a panacea for finding software bugs. By its very nature, you cannot automate a test for something you do not know goes wrong - this means that you need your dev and QA team to find the precise conditions it occcurs, which can and does take loads of time. Since time and budget is limited you target your regression suite on a risk-based system, prioritizing the most used functions. This is relatively easy, if time-consuming, on most programs. There are loads of really awesome tools for this~ I love fiddling with them, myself.
Games, however...considering the vast amount of interaction a user can have with it? This is incredibly complex, and vastly prone to missing things. The amount of interactions you have with just Mario is enormous, regardless of its seeming simplicity. To get all the obscure things that can go wrong, you would have to script EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE interaction with it.
You can, also (and a much better idea), write a unit test suite that covers the core operations, and check those. This isn't so much test automation, however - though one can argue this.
No, but manual testing isn't panancea for finding bugs either. You can automate a test for anything you want to, aslong as it's technically possible. For example, you can probably guarantee that MS have an automated framework which will have multiple Xbox's sat in a grid fashion running through certain tasks, like playing a game. You know that game is meant to run, you know it's meant to perform in certain ways and to certain benchmarks, and your test will be monitoring and asserting based on those profiles.
Yeap, you'd prioritise your suite based on a risk-based approach, but you'd also do the same with manual testing. As you know, manually performed regression testing is an easy money/time sink. The cost/time deltas between the two are huge.
Like, in this instance, you'd have a suite of tests which go in, boot up certain games, perform a certain set of actions which you can monitor. If you're testing hardware changes, you know if something is wrong, it's going to show it's face pretty damn quickly.
You have to profile on a given hardware, of course, but you don't need to talk directly to the hardware for doing it. You can profile for the lowest hardware denominator and talk to an abstraction layer.
If you do that, and design your software for being scalable, you won't break anything by adding more power, you only will get benefits. That is the point of doing things scalable.
As I said, Microsoft has done this with Xbox, no one profiled their code for Xbox ONE S, yet games are running better and nothing has been broken.
I mean, this is not any kind of misterious, this is how PC games have always worked.
Necron
Member
This, it makes perfect sense.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
For a start off CPU speed has no bearing on resolution. Secondly, going from 1080p to 4k is 4x the pixels, so being able to achieve that with less than 4x the GPU power shows that efficiencies and techniques have been improved.
Lastly and most importantly the object of the exercise is to hit a performance target for a rigidly defined price-point. So improvements are only made where they are necessary to achieve that goal within those cost parameters.
Thats smart, responsible, design.
LukasTaves
Member
If you think Ms or Sony only knew about Scorpio/Pro when they announced that is.
They may not knew back them all the details, but that it was coming and a target time frame, perhaps even a little cat and mouse game with some false information trying to lure the competitor from the real plan.
For instance, Ms knew how Neo would be less powerful than Scorpio, that's why they presented at E3, that's precisely why they said what they said at E3 regarding uncompressed pixels and such. You don't just make a presentation and talk PR out of nowhere, that had a clear target.
Like I said, the Pro comes at a perfect time and a perfect price. It's coming in a time where they can beat Ms to the punch, where no one is going to hold them for not delivering a $400 box not capable of native 4k, and at the same time hits the same bullet points Scorpio will hit a year later.
I rambled indeed, good sir. Perils of a Friday afternoon. However, my thoughts on code profiling should still be valid. You would need the hardware (spec) and constrain your test environment that way - unless you have another way of code profiling I have never used, myself.
As for the hardware / software bit, I assume you are referring to how Xone S allows small performance gains? This is great stuff, and frankly I expect some performance increases on PS4 games that don't pin their gameplay systems to specific GPU/CPU timings, regardless of the downclock the PS4Pro will do. It is simply down to how devs have coded their game engines and interactions.
I still would love to know what issues they ran into when they ran old games on the upclocked ps4 pro.
LukasTaves
Member
Please read what I wrote. The gpu had a 2.3 boost. Memory size (and bandwidth) didn't. They increased the memory by 10% and the speed by 24%.
The result is that most of the 13 games they shown, are *not* even doubling the rendered resolution. Most of the games are rendering bellow twice 1080p, being upscaled to it and then checkerboard is applied to hit 4k.
And in some games like Tomb Raider, despite not hitting twice the framerate they even reduced some effects (at lest until the final version), so even within their performance target of doubling resolution and applying checkerboard to 4k the console is falling short.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/some-xbox-one-games-might-run-better-on-project-sc/1100-6440959/
"If you look at a game like Halo 5, [it] implements something called dynamic scaling," Spencer explained. "As scenes get more complex, in order to maintain 60 frames per second, they will actually change the resolution that you're running at, and they're not the only game that does this. So if you run that game on Project Scorpio you're actually going to be at the max frame rate of that game more often."
"I'm not going to put that as a top-selling feature of Scorpio because not all games use dynamic scaling," Spencer explained. "I'm trying to be transparent with people with the design of Project Scorpio and what it was designed for. It was designed in order to enable these high fidelity 4K experiences. So some of the existing games will actually run a little better if they're using dynamic scaling."
Bolded part is key. This is probably why MS said the One S doesnt have any power gain, because its confusing people.
"If you look at a game like Halo 5, [it] implements something called dynamic scaling," Spencer explained. "As scenes get more complex, in order to maintain 60 frames per second, they will actually change the resolution that you're running at, and they're not the only game that does this. So if you run that game on Project Scorpio you're actually going to be at the max frame rate of that game more often."
"I'm not going to put that as a top-selling feature of Scorpio because not all games use dynamic scaling," Spencer explained. "I'm trying to be transparent with people with the design of Project Scorpio and what it was designed for. It was designed in order to enable these high fidelity 4K experiences. So some of the existing games will actually run a little better if they're using dynamic scaling."
Bolded part is key. This is probably why MS said the One S doesnt have any power gain, because its confusing people.
I don't think i know anything. I just state what we know from leaks and things already announced. If you want to speculate about that, good, but everything points to MS reacting to Sony's midgen refresh and not the other way round. SOny had enough time to change things for Pro if they wanted and release a different product next year similar to Scorpio and still beat them since they already have de upper hand this generation.
But they provided the tools for developers to make games scalable since the beginning, Sony instead force developers to make two different versions of the game in the same disk, one for PS4 and one for Pro.
Correct me if I am wrong, but you are saying that it is Sony's fault that games aren't being built in a scalable manner. Would this not be the developer's problem? They are the ones actually making the software.
Sony not telling them that there is a system refresh coming down the line, and yo dudes, make your shit scale would be something I can cast shade on them for up to a point, but even then, devs can STILL decide to make stuff run the way they have.
Sony QA would be saying: jfc 100 of these 700 games still fucking flub at full clock speed. Marketing and PR says: lol everyone would think that it is our fault, and no one would buy our stuff - make that stuff work exactly the same way as the OG PS4.
To me, it seems to be a downclock because of actual QA results and possible PR blowback than anything else we are supposing here, on a technical level.
PS4 games store the equivalent of "drivers" along with the game. A game that doesn't have stored info about the Pro could break, especially considering this "butterfly" GPU design.
Just noticed there's a lot of content ^^^
Brad Grenz
Member
If you are going to make claims like "most" you need to show your math. Out of all the games we know about the details for it is pretty clear to me only a minority fail to double the samples for 1080p.
Ofcourse it's Sony's fault as developers only develop to a spec which they're given. What Sony has given them isn't capable of scalling across different hardware configurations.
visiblemode
Member
This thread is full of people calling Pro "poorly thought out" and "sloppy" yet, read Mark Cerny's own words on the subject. Clearly immense thought went into it. Cerny is inarguably a genius and shows amazing thoughtfulness.
Does this translate to automatic success? In the case of Vita: No. Yet the hardware is superb and failed due to marketing, pricing of memory, and the declining segment. In the case of PS4: Yes. Massive success and devs love it too.
Will Pro take off? Very hard to say. Early indicators have been that there are strong preorders. It's the continuation of a very successful brand, but there are no guarantees. However, devs are likely to embrace it because under Cerny, hardware development is very much done with broad developer input.
What's confusing is this attack on the product rather than it's prospects for success. Most of the things being complained about are actually the product of very specific intention and far from "sloppy."
Does this translate to automatic success? In the case of Vita: No. Yet the hardware is superb and failed due to marketing, pricing of memory, and the declining segment. In the case of PS4: Yes. Massive success and devs love it too.
Will Pro take off? Very hard to say. Early indicators have been that there are strong preorders. It's the continuation of a very successful brand, but there are no guarantees. However, devs are likely to embrace it because under Cerny, hardware development is very much done with broad developer input.
What's confusing is this attack on the product rather than it's prospects for success. Most of the things being complained about are actually the product of very specific intention and far from "sloppy."
And you will see the difference in both the ports , when people will ask , why i can't get better Effects or better shadows on my 1080 TV with Scorpio. To get the real juice out of Scorpio and to utilise its full potential , Developers need to patch the game .
I don't think you will get better performance on HDTV with Scorpio for games like RYSE or Sunset overdrive. Or are they?
Not every game has this and even just different clocks could break games and even the dynamic resolution is deplyed differently by different developers. Unless MS is going to test every game and then make developers patch broken games on the new specs/blacklist these games specifically from using the power (which is expensive as hell), then it's not going to happen.
Yes, MS have internal tools they have deployed to their first party games and probably made them available to developers, but that does not mean every single game will play nicely with a random bump in specs they weren't expecting. The idea is to make it perfectly compatible with games released on day 1 and that's not going to happen out of the box.
I'd be willing to bet that even some of MS's first party early games won't use the extra juice without a patch. its only in the last year that PC versions and all the scalable stuff has come out swinging.
LukasTaves
Member
Yeah right. It took many more years of engineering for them double the gpu and increasing the clock of everything.
But I'll let you tell me, where exactly all these years of designing the Pro went? The console itself? The development platform to support having two different consoles running the same games? Solving the problem of the stronger console running older games better? (This is possible BTW, and even Cerny said that sony wanted to make sure it ran all the games without any bugs first, before trying to make them running better).
So please tell me what exactly on the Pro requires many more years to develop compared to scorpio, that not only will be more powerful, it will also solve the problems Sony didn't have time to resolve like making the games run better, or having games that run on drastic different architectures.
Because looking at the results, one clearly feels like something that was planned and has been developed for quite some time, the other is clearly a quicker job.
LordKasual
Banned
It's not really a matter of fragility....changing the hardware when your game was developed for a very rigid set of specs is definitely able to break a game
gamingPotato7
Member
Why? The Ps2 didnt run psone games faster just because it was more powerful. The fact that the ps4 has a much simpler architecture than ps3 shows that Sony doesnt want to make the same mistakes. But perhaps they didnt think that they would create ps4 pro when they designed the api for ps4. People would not expect better graphics and 60 fps if this was ps5. But since its still a ps4 with just increased specs then people are annoyed by this.
Backlogger
Member
As long as it switches modes automatically depending on which game is running I don't see this being a big deal
Sony can't ensure that every title won't have issues with the beefed up hardware and they also know that not every publisher is going to bother patching their games so this seems like the safest most consumer friendly thinking way to handle it
Sony can't ensure that every title won't have issues with the beefed up hardware and they also know that not every publisher is going to bother patching their games so this seems like the safest most consumer friendly thinking way to handle it
TheLegendary
Member
I get why Sony is doing this and without really being a developer or having knowledge of how things work it seems silly to speculate what the real cause is. But on that line of thinking, isn't the Xbox One Game environment already abstracted from the hardware to an extent by running on a Hyper-V layer? Wasnt that their whole approach in separating the game environment from the "Apps/TV/TV/TV!!!" environment? I'm no developer and I know their method of interfacing with the hardware is much more "to-the-metal" than a typical virtualized environment, but wouldn't that suggest that the hardware that's running beneath it can be improved/adjusted much easier than without that layer? I'm assuming that's partly why they can get away with letting games use the slight uplock of the Xbox One S and perhaps a good sign that there's a way they'll be able to take advantage of the huge upgrade in the Scorpio for games not designed or patched for it. Not much Sony can do in that case.
IF things are so easy & fast , why does MS need a year and a half to put Scorpio on the shelves?
Sorry by BC I meant native BC not just BC in general.
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
We really don't know this because again, we don't know what the Scorpio is and what problem it's fixing. This thing isn't even out yet.
Unlike Microsoft, the PS4 was already made *correctly* so for Sony, making a Scorpio-like device is not needed at all. On the other hand, Sony isn't trying to sell you a new console... It's selling you an upgraded console for the purposes of higher definition output.. Will other areas of the games be better? Yes because both of those need each other in a sense.
I don't know all the technicalities of how each system works but speaking about Scorpio in absolutes when we literally know next to nothing on how it works, we have no technical jargon and final specs to even talk about how it's doing what better than the Pro, makes no sense to use as an example. Unless you have visual evidence to show that the Scorpio is already doing things better than the Pro, then cut it out the conversation...