Swift Hunta
Member
Thanks for the reply. I figured as much but wasn’t 100% sure.Yes. Gears 5 with 120fps is the native Xbox Series version of the game and they all require to be run from the SSD.
Thanks for the reply. I figured as much but wasn’t 100% sure.Yes. Gears 5 with 120fps is the native Xbox Series version of the game and they all require to be run from the SSD.
Then that Expansion is almost gonna be mandatory.1000-802= 198
512-198= 314
314 GB of usable space on Series S, unless there are things in the Series X overhead not needed for Series S.
r/theydidthemath.
Gta 4 60fps is some kind of an impressive benchmark for the new gen now? Am i not getting something here?
Then that Expansion is almost gonna be mandatory.
May as well just get a PS5 or Series X at this point if only for the sake of value.
I know but my point still standa. We are weeks of the launch you should be able to see some XSX games in action. How longer are they gonna wait till they show next gen games? I doubt we will get the same results in loading etc.ONLY BACKWARDS COMPAT AND SYETEM LEVEL FEATURES ALLOWED TO BE DISCUSSED DURING THIS PHASE OF THE EMBARGO.
Learn to read ffs
You must have a magic PS4Nope.
Not on PS4.
Maybe he swapped to an SSD on PS4(Pro).You must have a magic PS4
I know but my point still standa. We are weeks of the launch you should be able to see some XSX games in action. How longer are they gonna wait till they show next gen games? I doubt we will get the same results in loading etc.
Am i missing something?games optimized for Series X need to be on the internal SSD or the external seagate SSD...so the answer is yes. also it has to be patched first (have the badge)
its not designed to use the SSD....good luck running a series X game off an external SSD.
Am i missing something?
In that video, after 10:08, he plays that game on usb external ssd? Are you saying next gen games wont work on it?
Am i missing something?
In that video, after 10:08, he plays that game on usb external ssd? Are you saying next gen games wont work on it?
Going to have to disagree on this point.Nope.
Not on PS4.
I will post a video soon with the actual PS4 experience... I checked before ask if it was a Xbox issue..
Going to have to disagree on this point.
As somebody with nearly 1000 hours on my PS4 copy of Destiny, these loading screens for the X1X seem very comparable though ymmv. Depends on a lot of stuff beyond internet connection like fireteam or solo, server, etc.
I have the exact same TV stand and it was bad in terms of airflow even for the ps4 pro. it sounded like a jet engine inside and once i put it on top it was silent. The hot air stays inside the cabine. You dont have that problem with it?
This is what I've been saying. I can deal with nearly any plausible console width in horizontal mode, it's the height that becomes limiting first. I'm not as convinced as others the X wins on size, it's a very smart design but the tallness would limit me before the PS5's wideness laid flat.
Correct but you can work around it by transferring between the internal and an external HDD/ssdSex games only work on internal SSD right ?
Digital Foundry:
"Xbox fans will be pleased to hear, you will have plenty of time to read game hints, and look at weapon models"
PS5 loads in 2s, but RDR2 takes over a minute
game fucking over :lol:
1000-802= 198
512-198= 314
314 GB of usable space on Series S, unless there are things in the Series X overhead not needed for Series S.
r/theydidthemath.
Probably im going to get a PS5 because of my backlog, because of my friends and other stuff....
But man this dude is doing things wrong.
One Example is the "remaster of Spiderman", why to charge again for a game launched on 2018 and not optimize the game like xbox is doing.
Some people got mockups of of Series X and S months ago....PS5 nothing.
I could go on and on.
Really, Xbox is doping things right to reach Sony position, Sony on the other side....bad, really bad.
Hell I don't even know which ssd i need to buy in order to forget that the console has 800 gb in capacity
That's not how it actually works though, is it? I'm asking here, not telling.1000-802= 198
512-198= 314
314 GB of usable space on Series S, unless there are things in the Series X overhead not needed for Series S.
r/theydidthemath.
XSS SSD should be enough for around 3-5 games, but you can always buy cheap external HDD (I bet most gamers already have one anyway), and copy your downloaded games there. It's not optimal solution, but it's cheap .Then that Expansion is almost gonna be mandatory.
May as well just get a PS5 or Series X at this point if only for the sake of value.
This is what I've been saying. I can deal with nearly any plausible console width in horizontal mode, it's the height that becomes limiting first. I'm not as convinced as others the X wins on size, it's a very smart design but the tallness would limit me before the PS5's wideness laid flat.
Popeyes and forgetting to ask for extra napkins.How in the world a matt plastic can accumulate so many fingerprints?
That's not how it actually works though, is it? I'm asking here, not telling.
I thought it was that they advertised in bits but actually had bytes or some kind of shit. Something about the logarithmic scale. So like a 750GB drive only really has 698GB. So it wouldn't be that 512 was losing 198 GB. It would "lose" whatever amount mathematically translates to the fake advertised 512GB number and then whatever the OS and system takes up. Theoretically, it should be losing much less than 198 GB.
Is that right? It's been forever since I looked at how stupid it is that we advertise drive spaces one way when they're realistically used in another.
RDR2 in 2s huh? I don't really get the point in coming into a thread like this to lie about something so stupid. Lets see the RDR2 loading in PS5 source...Digital Foundry:
"Xbox fans will be pleased to hear, you will have plenty of time to read game hints, and look at weapon models"
PS5 loads in 2s, but RDR2 takes over a minute
game fucking over :lol:
Microsoft wants to advantage themselves at the cost of the gaming world.n
Still have no idea whether or not this is a bot.Phones are specific gaming is still an activity or hobby that can do better gamers are expecting mid gen refreshes now.
Digital Foundry:
"Xbox fans will be pleased to hear, you will have plenty of time to read game hints, and look at weapon models"
PS5 loads in 2s, but RDR2 takes over a minute
game fucking over :lol:
Would anyone here honestly be putting drinks or food near their xbox? Let alone a drink on top? I don't live with children, but that's about the only demographic I would assume would put something on top of the series X.Xbox Series X hands-on: The big back-compat dive begins [Updated]
Xbox Quick Resume impresses. Plus: New controller, auto-HDR, venting holes, and more.arstechnica.com
A good read
If people have to provide proof of a certain teraflop number with the PS5 or get banned, this guy should have to provide proof that RDR2 loads in 2 seconds on the PS5.
You do realize this statement is completely wrong right? The reason why the whole complaining about "why is spider-man ps5 paid for" is ridiculous to begin with is because its not just "ticking up the settings to ultra equivalent on PC and unlocking the framerate to 120fps" like Xbox Series X is doing with Gears 5, Spider-Man PS5 is completely upgrading ALL of the assets and adding in a 60fps mode with raytracing. Its a graphical upgrade using new assets. why the fuck should it be free? I agree that it shouldn't be required with a $70 edition and should be a separate $20 purchase, but thinking it should be free is all kinds of wack. Especially considering how well it sold, how the hell would sony make any money off of it? They would just lose money.Probably im going to get a PS5 because of my backlog, because of my friends and other stuff....
But man this dude is doing things wrong.
One Example is the "remaster of Spiderman", why to charge again for a game launched on 2018 and not optimize the game like xbox is doing.
That's not how it actually works though, is it? I'm asking here, not telling.
I thought it was that they advertised in bits but actually had bytes or some kind of shit. Something about the logarithmic scale. So like a 750GB drive only really has 698GB. So it wouldn't be that 512 was losing 198 GB. It would "lose" whatever amount mathematically translates to the fake advertised 512GB number and then whatever the OS and system takes up. Theoretically, it should be losing much less than 198 GB.
Is that right? It's been forever since I looked at how stupid it is that we advertise drive spaces one way when they're realistically used in another.