Support NeoGAF

[devilNprada]

The PS5 could actually pull off a legitimate The Flash game.

Ooooh yeah!

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

Go back and look at my responses. I've addressed that the Spiderman demo applies to PS4->PS5 conversion. That demo does NOT apply to PS5 -> XSX or PS5 -> PC. In other words, you wouldn't notice the difference between those platforms (and even more @ higher res @ faster FPS with a high-end PC).

On pcs with ssds. And even those might only be 2-5 times faster than an hdd. No one's going to design for a pc with 64-128+GB of memory. Even if they did, that could be up to 10 minute load times, who's going to design for 10 minute load times? Who's going to want to play that?

 

[mckmas8808]

Go back and look at my responses. I've addressed that the Spiderman demo applies to PS4->PS5 conversion. That demo does NOT apply to PS5 -> XSX or PS5 -> PC. In other words, you wouldn't notice the difference between those platforms (and even more @ higher res @ faster FPS with a high-end PC).

You are thinking of the wrong Spiderman video. We are talking about the video where the Insomniac devs explains how they made the Spiderman game. Not the PS4->PS5 demo.

 

[VFXVeteran]

You are thinking of the wrong Spiderman video. We are talking about the video where the Insomniac devs explains how they made the Spiderman game. Not the PS4->PS5 demo.

I gotcha. My bad. I'll look it up and give you my take.

What is your question exactly?

 

[Three]

I'm not talking about console versions of games. Of course the newer consoles needed to have high speed SSDs. I've never refuted that. What I'm refuting is the PC requiring such hardware.

I don't get it
Why make claims like this then?

With a limited amount of RAM to access on next-gen consoles, you'll need a fast streaming cache system that the SSD can give ONLY in an open world game.

maybe I'm missing the context.
Are you saying a PC should should just load everything in RAM if it is not open world? I disagree.

I haven't seen the video yet. But I think even crash bandicoot one streams part of the level as you're moving through it.

A lot of games that are not open world do this as I mentioned earlier. Even Driveclub and people called that a 'corridor racer'.

 

[VFXVeteran]

I don't get it
Why make claims like this then?
maybe I'm missing the context.
Are you saying a PC should should just load everything in RAM if it is not open world? I disagree.

I'm saying a PC can load more data into RAM than a console because there is more of it (16RAM + 11VRAM > console VRAM) thereby being able to have a slower HDD. Remember 100% of a console's RAM isn't used for a game. The amount of RAM it has for the OS and the game itself has to be resident. Whatever is left can be used for cache and storage of textures.

Imaginary scenario:

PS5 Console:

SSD -> VRAM ( 16G TOTAL - 4G (OS) - 3G (game) )

= 9G VRAM (448G/s) + SSD Virtual RAM (5G/s)

You are left with 9G for textures, resolution, and dynamic maps (i.e. shadow maps, normal maps, diffuse maps, etc..). SSD will need to fill that buffer pretty quickly but you are looking at a cache between 448G/s and 5G/s that must be sync'd with a resolution and a target framerate.


PC (2080Ti, 16G RAM example):

HDD -> RAM ( 16G TOTAL - 4G (OS) )

= 12G DDR4 RAM (~50G/s= 10x faster than Sony's SSD) + 11G VRAM (614G/s)

= 23G (TOTAL RAM + VRAM) + HDD Virtual RAM (~40mb/s)

23G can be used for the game and texture memory. Set up a streaming cache from HDD to CPU RAM with a much bigger buffer (that can run slow like HDD) of anywhere from 3G - 12G and still have plenty high bandwidth speed (614G/s) for the GPU and much more space to store textures in resident RAM with the TFLOPS to hold 4k @ 60FPS.

With Ampere coming out, it will destroy these imaginary scenarios. Hell, Ampere will have enough VRAM where I can store some game code into the GPU itself and use CUDA cores instead of the CPU (ala PhysX)

 

[-kb-]

PC (2080Ti, 16G RAM example):

HDD -> RAM ( 16G TOTAL - 4G (OS) )

= 12G DDR4 RAM (~50G/s= 10x faster than Sony's SSD) + 11G VRAM (614G/s)

= 23G (TOTAL RAM + VRAM) + HDD Virtual RAM (~40mb/s)

23G can be used for the game and texture memory. Set up a streaming cache from HDD to CPU RAM with a much bigger buffer (that can run slow like HDD) of anywhere from 3G - 12G and still have plenty high bandwidth speed (614G/s) for the GPU and much more space to store textures in resident RAM with the TFLOPS to hold 4k @ 60FPS.

With Ampere coming out, it will destroy these imaginary scenarios. Hell, Ampere will have enough VRAM where I can store some game code into the GPU itself and use CUDA cores instead of the CPU (ala PhysX)

im not 100% sure doubling the ram pool (124GB -> 24GB) makes up for streaming thats ~100x slower. It feels like you'd still need to do some heavy amount of caching and streaming or just live with constant hitches.

 

[VFXVeteran]

im not 100% sure doubling the ram pool (124GB -> 24GB) makes up for streaming thats ~100x slower. It feels like you'd still need to do some heavy amount of caching and streaming or just live with constant hitches.

PS5's SSD bandwidth is theoretical. It's completely dependent on how fast it can render a frame. I would be willing bet that it will run a lot slower based on the PS5's TFLOP limit (and the XSX). We don't design games around bandwidth from storage medium to RAM. We design games around a target FPS @ a certain resolution and adjust from there. Bottom line, we've always concerned ourselves with the question "how much data can I push from VRAM to the screen and hold my target FPS" (i.e. GPU bandwidth).

When I get some down time, I may make a demo testing the 2080Ti's bandwidth on my own computer (which has 64G of RAM).

 

[Shmunter]

im not 100% sure doubling the ram pool (124GB -> 24GB) makes up for streaming thats ~100x slower. It feels like you'd still need to do some heavy amount of caching and streaming or just live with constant hitches.

It doesn't, a tipping point occurs within seconds in favor of a faster SSD under a streaming scenario. The memory subsystem is only as good as it's weakest link. Aka 'bottleneck' as it's been know for forever.

 

[VFXVeteran]

It doesn't, a tipping point occurs within seconds in favor of a faster SSD under a streaming scenario. The memory subsystem is only as good as it's weakest link. Aka 'bottleneck' as it's been know for forever.

Are you implying that a game would slow down or hitch just because it has a slow HDD but have an enormous RAM pool to cache from?

 

[Shmunter]

Are you implying that a game would slow down or hitch just because it has a slow HDD but have an enormous RAM pool to cache from?

Precisely, when under a constant streaming load.

A larger PC cache will only help if the streaming is not full tilt for too long, so it can replenish - otherwise the data in the well will run out.

 

[VFXVeteran]

Precisely, when under a constant streaming load.

A larger PC cache will only help if the streaming is not full tilt for too long, so it can replenish - otherwise the data in the well will run out.

A developer would bound the stream around how much RAM is needed to hold the entire level in RAM (i.e. I wouldn't expect to see continuous reading from the HDD). It would cache anything new and then hold it in RAM. I've never ever seen a game even today that has overrun a 40mb/s HDD while still requiring a large footprint of RAM + VRAM from a PC. But I *have* seen a game that caps it's FPS @ 30FPS with 1800p resolution due to tflop limits.

 

[Shmunter]

A developer would bound the stream around how much RAM is needed to hold the entire level in RAM (i.e. I wouldn't expect to see continuous reading from the HDD). It would cache anything new and then hold it in RAM. I've never ever seen a game even today that has overrun a 40mb/s HDD while still requiring a large footprint of RAM + VRAM from a PC. But I *have* seen a game that caps it's FPS @ 30FPS with 1800p resolution due to tflop limits.

What are you talking about bro?

A whole level in Ram? What is a whole level?

Many games are streaming assets as you traverse the game all the time, single player, multiplayer, linear or open world. When you reach a point where the stream will not sustain you go through a slow door to catch up on data or get a load screen when you enter a new building, etc etc etc.

Large ram gives you the buffer to elevate limitations of streaming. And it's a tug of war to balance the shit out for smooth operation. That's how games are made today. As off next gen, shits gonna be quite different because the bar has been completely reset.

 

[VFXVeteran]

What are you talking about bro?

A whole level in Ram? What is a whole level?

Yes, there are loading screens to catch up. I thought I was clear. I'm talking about a level that continously needs to draw from an HDD. I'm saying that if you have enough RAM, (especially on PC), you don't need to keep fetching data on a level from the HDD.

Many games are streaming assets as you traverse the game all the time, single player, multiplayer, linear or open world. When you reach a point where the stream will not sustain you go through a slow door to catch up on data or get a load screen when you a new building, etc etc etc.

That is true. And that will continue to be the case.

Large ram gives you the buffer to elevate limitations of streaming.

Thank you for agreeing with me. That's what I was trying to say several posts ago.

And it's a tug of war to balance the shit out for smooth operation.

Yes for all hardware. Next-gen consoles will still have to balance shit out is my point. You fix the streaming bandwidth but then become GPU bound.

Thats how games are made today. As off next gen, shits gonna be quite different.

Disagree. If you want to claim that only Sony will make their games so custom that it can't be run on a PC, I'll claim that won't be the case if the game is being ported.

Obviously all multiplatform games will be able to run just fine with PC and XSX so not so much "different".

Lastly, how the hell would anyone know what is going on under the hood of a given PS5 exclusive. You can't. So I'm not sure why people think we'll be seeing a beatiful game and immediately crying wolf that it's the SSD that makes it look so good. That's a bunch of BS.

 

[Shmunter]

Yes, there are loading screens to catch up. I thought I was clear. I'm talking about a level that continously needs to draw from an HDD. I'm saying that if you have enough RAM, (especially on PC), you don't need to keep fetching data on a level from the HDD.



That is true. And that will continue to be the case.



Thank you for agreeing with me. That's what I was trying to say several posts ago.



Yes for all hardware. Next-gen consoles will still have to balance shit out is my point. You fix the streaming bandwidth but then become GPU bound.



Disagree. If you want to claim that only Sony will make their games so custom that that can't be run on a PC, I'll claim that won't be the case.

Obviously all multiplatform games will be able to run just fine with PC and XSX so not so much "different".

I'm not claiming anyone will make anything, that's not the conversation. The weakest link being raised means design limits are no longer as stringent. Game that is identical between all 3 platforms would therefore indicate it was deigned around the lowest common denominator due to a business decision -or- lacked ambition

 

[-kb-]

A developer would bound the stream around how much RAM is needed to hold the entire level in RAM (i.e. I wouldn't expect to see continuous reading from the HDD). It would cache anything new and then hold it in RAM. I've never ever seen a game even today that has overrun a 40mb/s HDD while still requiring a large footprint of RAM + VRAM from a PC. But I *have* seen a game that caps it's FPS @ 30FPS with 1800p resolution due to tflop limits.

You haven't seen anything overrun 40mb/s on a HDD because thats all the developers can expect without alienating all the current consoles and a number of PC players too. When this changes next gen I expect that you will see some games that start requiring SSDs at a certain to provide the bandwidth (and latency) needed to get the assets quick enough.

 

[Panajev2001a]

The definition of open world of course. I've never played Crash Bandicoot so I can't speak to that.

Fair enough, just leads me to think we may agree more games for the definition of open world based on what the game does and thus the impact streaming can have:

Andy had given Kelly a rough idea of how we were getting so much detail through the system: spooling. Kelly asked Andy if he understood correctly that any move forward or backward in a level entailed loading in new data, a CD “hit.” Andy proudly stated that indeed it did. Kelly asked how many of these CD hits Andy thought a gamer that finished Crash would have. Andy did some thinking and off the top of his head said “Roughly 120,000.” Kelly became very silent for a moment and then quietly mumbled “the PlayStation CD drive is ‘rated’ for 70,000.”

https://all-things-andy-gavin.com/2011/02/06/making-crash-bandicoot-part-5/ (good series of articles by one of the lead progrannera at ND at the time)

news

news

www.gamasutra.com

 

[Three]

I'm saying a PC can load more data into RAM than a console because there is more of it (16RAM + 11VRAM > console VRAM) thereby being able to have a slower HDD. Remember 100% of a console's RAM isn't used for a game. The amount of RAM it has for the OS and the game itself has to be resident. Whatever is left can be used for cache and storage of textures.

Ok so you are saying with huge RAM you don't need an SSD. Not everyone has 64GB of RAM even on PC but even then if you want to make efficient use of that RAM you would be streaming from the drive as you move through the level. This does not only apply to console and on console it does not only apply to open world.

Are you implying that a game would slow down or hitch just because it has a slow HDD but have an enormous RAM pool to cache from?

I don't think anyone is saying if you have infinite ram your HDD will be your bottleneck if you load everything into it by design. If you have such a huge RAM pool then you wouldn't want to waste it on things that are not on screen yet and would stream or change your level design anyway.

A HDD can become a bottleneck and cause hitches or slow down even on those systems. I suspect that this is the reason that Will of the Wisp has performance issues even on Xbox One X currently. It's streaming assets, it's not 'open world' in a traditional sense, it looks great, it stutters for a side scroller. Look at what the proposed remedy for fixing those hitches are, I'm pretty sure it's about data access from the HDD.

 

[hyperbertha]

You can't clear up and fill "in an instant". What does that mean? My goal is to access main memory so I can push it to the texture memory faster than pushing it straight from SSD to texture memory which is slow unless you have a unified memory model like the consoles. Even then, when I access a texture, I want the texture to already be in memory. At no point will a developer EVER make a texture call where the texture resides on the SSD. 448Gb/s >>>>>>> 9GB/s.

In a memory with 9 GB reserved for streamed data, 9Gb/s is filling up memory in an instant. How do you dispute this?

Drawcalls are overshadowed by the shaders. Drawcalls can be optimized on any platform. The speed of shader execution is another story. That's directly dependent on memory bandwidth and TFLOPS - not SSD I/O storage bandwidth. When you start talking about draw calls, your program is already working in main memory.

Doesn't matter when TFLOPS are NOT the bottleneck which is what I was telling.

If you are talking about the comparison from PS4 to PS5 yes. Not XSX vs. PS5 vs. PC.

This isn't about VS anything. This is about how not having memory limitations as a bottleneck can let you push way higher visual quality. A PC with 20GB/s SSD will perform better than PS5 in this regard, but those don't exist in the market as far as I'm aware.

You don't know what you are talking about with this paragraph. You talk like you know but I can tell you don't. I'll leave it at that. Wait for the next PS exclusive announcement coming to PC.

Interesting counter argument. You have NO WAY of knowing whether future exxcluisves will be coming to PC. Also tell me exactly how a PS5 game that relies on loading 9 GB/s is going to work on a PC driving an HDD with 50 MB/s (which is the kind of PC that they have to work on). Its not going to work.

 

[hyperbertha]

You haven't seen anything overrun 40mb/s on a HDD because thats all the developers can expect without alienating all the current consoles and a number of PC players too. When this changes next gen I expect that you will see some games that start requiring SSDs at a certain to provide the bandwidth (and latency) needed to get the assets quick enough.

Exactly, in a world where 40 mb/s is the only option, how can you expect games to be designed to rely on 9 GB/s?

 

[hyperbertha]

What are you talking about bro?

A whole level in Ram? What is a whole level?

Many games are streaming assets as you traverse the game all the time, single player, multiplayer, linear or open world. When you reach a point where the stream will not sustain you go through a slow door to catch up on data or get a load screen when you enter a new building, etc etc etc.

Large ram gives you the buffer to elevate limitations of streaming. And it's a tug of war to balance the shit out for smooth operation. That's how games are made today. As off next gen, shits gonna be quite different because the bar has been completely reset.

You nailed it right there. You can't just load an entire level into RAM on current RAM sizes. That's what SSDs are there for. To make RAM limitations not matter. Its what streaming is there for. Also he says he has never seen a game overrun 40 mb/s. How can that happen when games are not designed to do so? xD

 

[ZywyPL]

Taken from Cerny's presentation, seeing how much misconception with the SSDs are in the thread (and entire forum for the matter):


CURRENT-GEN:

NEXT-GEN:

Basically, each second of gameplay will have all of the 16GB (or ~13 to be exact) at its disposal, as oppose to average 150-200MB compared to current gen (5GB/30s), which you can say is kind of a "game-changer", especially from the developers perspective. But people who believe that SSDs with their laughably low 3-5GB/s bandwidth will stream data directly into CPU/GPU obviously shouldn't take part in any technical discussion, if that would be the case we would never need to move away from DDR1 RAM (3.2GB/s)...

 

[martino]

I can only add this that I got from devs for our podcast.

Improved SSD speed allows for companies to adjust and possibly create titles somewhat differently where their prior game performance budgets in a particular area made them a design a game solely around those limits. Which they all stated was rare if not truly unheard of.

Thats from devs who have worked on all systems and on PC games. And one who has also worked on switch. Also all of them stressed that the BIG difficulty would be creating a title where SUPER fast SSD showed a massive difference between a VERY fast ssd , if everyone is accustomed to slow storage. And how you would draw attention to that in a way that makes any sense and if even proving that delta made sense in the game's design.
None were unhappy about it, many were excited. But they were all more excited about faster storage in general versus the difference between the two as that makes a smaller difference in design changes than the holistic leap together does.

Hope folks try but as with all big improvements we shall see.

obviously except for Fboys

10x more beautifull ! let's remenber this one in particular.

 

[martino]

Taken from Cerny's presentation, seeing how much misconception with the SSDs are in the thread (and entire forum for the matter):


CURRENT-GEN:

NEXT-GEN:

Basically, each second of gameplay will have all of the 16GB (or ~13 to be exact) at its disposal, as oppose to average 150-200MB compared to current gen (5GB/30s), which you can say is kind of a "game-changer", especially from the developers perspective. But people who believe that SSDs with their laughably low 3-5GB/s bandwidth will stream data directly into CPU/GPU obviously shouldn't take part in any technical discussion, if that would be the case we would never need to move away from DDR1 RAM (3.2GB/s)...

the thing is on pc good amount to all the brown can be yellow (as veteran said)

 

[JägerSeNNA]

Don’t underestimate the power of that SSD. It is almighty.

 

[-kb-]

the thing is on pc good amount to all the brown can be yellow (as veteran said)

Its not the same though, because SSDs have good random access and low latency you can read into _any_ part of it quickly, nothing outside of storing the entire game in memory will match (and beat) those characteristics.

 

[martino]

Its not the same though, because SSDs have good random access and low latency you can read into _any_ part of it quickly, nothing outside of storing the entire game in memory will match (and beat) those characteristics.

assuming you need to put all the game into memory for same or better result.

 

[DForce]

Taken from Cerny's presentation, seeing how much misconception with the SSDs are in the thread (and entire forum for the matter):

But people who believe that SSDs with their laughably low 3-5GB/s bandwidth will stream data directly into CPU/GPU obviously shouldn't take part in any technical discussion, if that would be the case we would never need to move away from DDR1 RAM (3.2GB/s)...

Who exactly is saying this?


Looking through this thread, it obvious that people are misinterpreting what people are saying about the SSD.

Mark Cerny

When I talked about the dream of an SSD, part of the reason for that 5GB a second target was to eliminate load, but also part of the reason for that target was streaming. As in - what if the SSD is so fast that as the player is turning around it's possible to load textures for everything behind the player in that split second. If you figure that it takes half a second to turn and that's 4GB of compressed data you can load. That sounds about right for next-gen.

Digital Foundry: PlayStation 5 Direct

Richard Leadbetter

There's a ton of stuff sitting in memory isn't going to be required until a little bit further on down the road. All of that can go with the transition to SSD. What we're seeing is almost instant access to that data. So although there's only a two times increase in available memory with PlayStation 5, it should be a multiplier effect, we should see that memory being used far more efficiently simply because data can be funneled in from the SSD far, far more quicker, far, far more immediately.

We have six levels of priority. So, when you're in game, you've got the SSD being accessed multiple times, lots of different chunks of data are being requested at any given point developers can attach priorities to that to ensure that the data that they need right now gets priority over data that might be needed in you know a few seconds

The idea here that really fascinates me is the way they're talking is they basically wanna be able to treat the SSD like another pool of memory almost as if was like an old memory mapped cartridge and it could fundamentally change the way that data is read and used within a game. Like you said, they want to bring it down so that you always have sort of like a one-second window around you in terms of ok, if I turn to the left here, I need to be able to very quickly access data from the SSD and with the bandwidth and the custom hardware that they've implemented here really seems like it can just read from the disk almost if it were just RAM

The key point here is what people don't realize is that Cerny has specifically stated that he wants to be able to load 4GB of compressed data within a split second WHILE the player is turning around.

People are pointing out that the SSD on the Xbox Series X is not capable of streaming data nearly as fast as the PS5.

What people are actually saying is that within that time-frame of turning around, the PlayStation 5 is able to stream the highest assets possible within that time-frame. No, people are not saying the size of the data is limitless, neither is the highest quality assets...just the highest quality assets in which the system would allow (GPU, Memory, CPU).

 

[amstradcpc]

because many PS5 zealots are trying to paint the XsX SSD and baked in SSD advantageous features as slow, which is categorically untrue

fair is fair

they are both ultra fast storage solutions

But one is way faster ( more than x2 as the custom IO is the killer feature here not the ssd raw speed).

 

[CJY]

Far more accurate.

PS5 SSD:

Xbox:

 

[Leyasu]

And there was me thinking that all you needed in your next gen console was the fastest SSD to overcome anything....

 

[Leyasu]

But one is way faster ( more than x2 as the custom IO is the killer feature here not the ssd raw speed).

So what is that going to actually do apart from loading things quicker?

 

[-kb-]

assuming you need to put all the game into memory for same or better result.

Its not an assumption if you want to match the characteristics of a SSD whilst having a mechanical drive, its a fact.

 

[DForce]

So what is that going to actually do apart from loading things quicker?

Maybe you should read the thread.

 

[Leyasu]

I ain’t got time to go back and read 11 pages. For nearly a year now I have seen certain people trying to say that the SSD is going to change things, yet they can never come up with anything substantial.

 

[DForce]

I ain’t got time to go back and read 11 pages. For nearly a year now I have seen certain people trying to say that the SSD is going to change things, yet they can never come up with anything substantial.

If you can't watch this, then I believe you just want to stick to your beliefs.

 

[CJY]

I ain’t got time to go back and read 11 pages. For nearly a year now I have seen certain people trying to say that the SSD is going to change things, yet they can never come up with anything substantial.

"substantial" lol

 

[hyperbertha]

I ain’t got time to go back and read 11 pages. For nearly a year now I have seen certain people trying to say that the SSD is going to change things, yet they can never come up with anything substantial.

So you can't bother reading a few pages to find substantial information, yet still complain people never come up with anything substantial. Gotcha

 

[brian0057]

A fast SSD and more RAM will do wonders for next gen.
Now developers can have a shot at making games with 1/16 the immersion of Daggerfall or Thief.

 

[hyperbertha]

A fast SSD and more RAM will do wonder for next gen.
Now developers can have a shot at making games with 1/16 the immersion of Daggerfall or Thief.

Interesting. What made thief so great? I've played a couple levels and didn't see what you wouldn't see in modern triple A titles except, perhaps larger levels. Is that what you are talking about?

 

[brian0057]

Interesting. What made thief so great? I've played a couple levels and didn't see what you wouldn't see in modern triple A titles except, perhaps larger levels. Is that what you are talking about?

Not larger. Deeper in detail.
Imagine a level the size and scope of the dock mission from Thief II but with the power of next gen used in order to simulate everything.
Every crate and warehouse can be looted. Every guard has a story and motivation. Every piece of paper, every snippet of conversation, every environmental detail hints at a larger narrative. A full blown simulation. And all of this without wresting control from the player for a single second.
But what we get instead are larger open worlds with a fraction of the depth of the average Call of Duty... and also more Call of Duty.

 

[hyperbertha]

Not larger. Deeper in detail.
Imagine a level the size and scope of the dock mission from Thief II but with the power of next gen used in order to simulate everything.
Every crate and warehouse can be looted. Every guard has a story and motivation. Every piece of paper, every snippet of conversation, every environmental detail hints at a larger narrative. A full blown simulation. And all of this without wresting control from the player for a single second.
But what we get instead are larger open worlds with a fraction of the depth of the average Call of Duty... and also more Call of Duty.

I suppose this is the problem that developers of the most recent Thief game ran into. Their levels seemed detailed enough, but now all of it had to be broken up by loading screens.

 

[Shmunter]

I suppose this is the problem that developers of the most recent Thief game ran into. Their levels seemed detailed enough, but now all of it had to be broken up by loading screens.

Yeah, the loading sucked. But the world and detail were a treat. Finish it on PS4.

 

[brian0057]

I suppose this is the problem that developers of the most recent Thief game ran into. Their levels seemed detailed enough, but now all of it had to be broken up by loading screens.

Loading screens where the least of that game's problems.
Watch this video if you want to know why Thief 2014 was trash. And it's not because of technical issues.


Excluding indies, developers this days don't lack powerful hardware or technical prowess. They lack imagination.

 

[martino]

Its not an assumption if you want to match the characteristics of a SSD whilst having a mechanical drive, its a fact.

that is not what i was saying.and you are wrong 2 times :
1 )it will outmatch in that case
2) it will outmatch , this is why you don't need need it

 

[Shmunter]

Loading screens where the least of that game's problems.
Watch this video if you want to know why Thief 2014 was trash. And it's not because of technical issues.


Excluding indies, developers this days don't lack powerful hardware or technical prowess. They lack imagination.

Yeah, but it was still good. It’s like the Order 1886 situation.

 

[brian0057]

Yeah, but it was still good. It’s like the Order 1886 situation.

If you consider Thief 2014 and Order 1886 to be good games, I dread knowing what you consider a bad game.
But to each their own, I guess.

 

[Leyasu]

So you can't bother reading a few pages to find substantial information, yet still complain people never come up with anything substantial. Gotcha

Like I said, I have heard these tales for a year now. Everything just boils down to faster loading and streaming.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

I'm saying that if you have enough RAM, (especially on PC), you don't need to keep fetching data on a level from the HDD.

True. What people like me are saying is that in theory a level like a city could be 100+GB in size, and you could go back and forth flying or in car. In an hdd that'd be nearly 20 minutes to load into ram. And if current games are anything to go by, even with an ssd it'd 4-10 minutes of loading, without directstorage tech.

Obviously all multiplatform games will be able to run just fine with PC and XSX so not so much "different".

PC is likely getting directstorage which might do away with many of the limitations of their ssd. Don't know if that will require additional h/w, or just s/w. That will definitely help.

But as it stands without directstorage, with the current limits, and especially without ssds, there'd be issues.

Lastly, how the hell would anyone know what is going on under the hood of a given PS5 exclusive. You can't. So I'm not sure why people think we'll be seeing a beatiful game and immediately crying wolf that it's the SSD that makes it look so good. That's a bunch of BS.

Making of videos? and demos?

Like I said, I have heard these tales for a year now. Everything just boils down to faster loading and streaming.

Yes, but some developers have suggested that better streaming can lead to better graphics.

Even with current gen hardware we can render most single objects at lifelike detail... But we can't store all of the super detailed high res versions for all objs in memory.-Andrew Maximov. Technical Art Director, Naughty Dog. Maximov is the technical art director at Naughty Dog, the lauded creators of blockbuster titles like 2016's Uncharted 4.

from this post

Uncharted 1 and TLOU run on the same hardware yet TLOU looks clearly much better thanks to improved data management. We are going to see better looking games thanks to SDD for sure.

Again very relevant to the discussion. Notice how he says producing all the content at that level of fidelity is going to be a complicated issue. That is implying that the fidelity of assets for the entire game can be increased significantly thanks to ssds vs hdds.

 

[Evilms]

Nice damage control