I feel like this is a good starting point for where we are headed for next gen.
It's got all the goodies technically speaking. Just need to see it running on the hardware.
Baseless Next Generation Rumors with no Technical Merits [post E3 2019, pre GDC 2020] [XBSX, PS5]
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
- Status
I feel like this is a good starting point for where we are headed for next gen.
It's got all the goodies technically speaking. Just need to see it running on the hardware.
What's so terrible if GDC comes and there are leaks before Sony make their big pitch? For the wider market, they'll never hear about GDC leaks, and for gamers following these things, it won't make any difference to them. Let's say it's leaked that PS5 is 9 TFs, and a bunch of ex-Sony fanboys cry and say they are done with Sony and are buying the 12 TF XBSX. If PS5's reveal shows not much difference, they'll change their mind. Or if they won't, they cry and jump ship anyway, even if Sony reveals PS5 looking great in February and then GDC leaks have the 9 TF news.
I'm not seeing a hard deadline. The problem with leaks is when you lose the punchline, like movies, or info gets out you'd rather not, like 9 TFs. For game platforms, it doesn't change the experience whether people learn the specs ahead of time or not. By the time the product releases, the same info is known. If 9 TFs or whatever unwanted spec is made known, it doesn't matter when its made known. OR if it does, I'd say the earlier bad news gets out, the better, as people will remember the most recent feelings. 9 TFs in March, incredibly RT visuals in October - OMG I gotta have this thing. Incredible RT graphics in March, 9 TFs in October - shit, just 9TF? XBSX has 12.
I'm not seeing a hard deadline. The problem with leaks is when you lose the punchline, like movies, or info gets out you'd rather not, like 9 TFs. For game platforms, it doesn't change the experience whether people learn the specs ahead of time or not. By the time the product releases, the same info is known. If 9 TFs or whatever unwanted spec is made known, it doesn't matter when its made known. OR if it does, I'd say the earlier bad news gets out, the better, as people will remember the most recent feelings. 9 TFs in March, incredibly RT visuals in October - OMG I gotta have this thing. Incredible RT graphics in March, 9 TFs in October - shit, just 9TF? XBSX has 12.
Sure, but no matter what Sony say, the same information will get out no matter which order it's released. Those people desperate for specs now will have those specs whether they are leaked before or after PS5's official reveal. For the wider market that doesn't care about specs, they won't know what the specs are whether they leak before or after PS5's reveal.
So what difference (materially, in terms of sales) does it make what order the information outs?
It's not the hardcore that will be affected by the spin. The casual user who hasn't heard the leaks, doesn't read any of the sites that post the 'insider' rumors.
A reveal lets Sony sell them on the positive aspects and if they announce first they are competing with a ps4pro at most.
A reveal lets Sony sell them on the positive aspects and if they announce first they are competing with a ps4pro at most.
The higher the resolution the more you hit diminishing returns at the same screen size and distance.
So a game rendered at 1800p will be hard for the huge majority of people to tell the difference between 2160p, yet the raw TF power needed to render it is pretty substantial comparatively.
Not facturing in temporal up scaling, and everything else that's making pixel counting harder.
So if a game looks the same, but one loads in 5 secs and the other 8, then you could argue that it's more easily demonstratable, and easier to see the difference. Even if in the big scheme of things it's not like it's a difference between 1 and 2 mins.
So, how do you think it gets marketed and reported? Unless your DF doing pixel counting (which they are already finding hard in some cases) , the reporting will be both looks the same but one is better because of faster loading. Even DF could end up saying rather the faster speed over perceptually equal IQ, which will cause melt downs on the net.
It's about what can be seen and demonstrated, and with resolution it will be getting hard.
So TF isn't the be all, end all that some people think. As long as in same ballpark, and 9 to 12 is if just lower the resolution of target 4k.
So a game rendered at 1800p will be hard for the huge majority of people to tell the difference between 2160p, yet the raw TF power needed to render it is pretty substantial comparatively.
Not facturing in temporal up scaling, and everything else that's making pixel counting harder.
So if a game looks the same, but one loads in 5 secs and the other 8, then you could argue that it's more easily demonstratable, and easier to see the difference. Even if in the big scheme of things it's not like it's a difference between 1 and 2 mins.
So, how do you think it gets marketed and reported? Unless your DF doing pixel counting (which they are already finding hard in some cases) , the reporting will be both looks the same but one is better because of faster loading. Even DF could end up saying rather the faster speed over perceptually equal IQ, which will cause melt downs on the net.
It's about what can be seen and demonstrated, and with resolution it will be getting hard.
So TF isn't the be all, end all that some people think. As long as in same ballpark, and 9 to 12 is if just lower the resolution of target 4k.
I’d be more interested if either company wants to step outside the norm and sacrifice power for peripherals. MS tried that with Kinect 2 and failed miserably.
Wii pulled it off in spectacular fashion. Same with switch.
Sony could feel the VR market is at a tipping point and do a VR centric console now. Show the next gen GT game in next gen VR and you got a show stopper already with no peers in sight.
As someone on the sidelines I’m more exited to see what non standard innovation either brings to the table. Flops and SSD types are fun to speculate but more of the same.
Wii pulled it off in spectacular fashion. Same with switch.
Sony could feel the VR market is at a tipping point and do a VR centric console now. Show the next gen GT game in next gen VR and you got a show stopper already with no peers in sight.
As someone on the sidelines I’m more exited to see what non standard innovation either brings to the table. Flops and SSD types are fun to speculate but more of the same.
Assuming the ssd tech patent sony have is related to ps5, one of the main points was a cost reduction compared to conventional methods.
Exactly. Such a custom tech could be both faster and cheaper in the long term.
Ugh pretty sure as long as there is graphical difference, DF wouldn't say it's same even the game have same res on both console, looks at this gen.
And nah, loading time has never be THAT big of problem even back in PS360era, not even 10+ seconds of difference, i can't see 3 seconds will making people melt down too.
Edit: but think about it, Sony's marketing machines are pretty aggressive, i can see they will full force to try doing what you said that make it actual happen like 2013's resolution gate...so SSD gate this time? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Last edited:
I think for the first year or so there won't be much of a performance difference between 3rd party titles. Even a ~9TF console is likely to run games @4K/60fps with the CPU in these things.
The only X factor would be what performance impact there is when RT is enabled. Or more generally like we sometimes now if a developer just does half-assed job on optimization for a particular system.
The only X factor would be what performance impact there is when RT is enabled. Or more generally like we sometimes now if a developer just does half-assed job on optimization for a particular system.
https://wccftech.com/spencer-on-xsx...ke-that-sony-is-investing-in-ssd-for-ps5-too/
Both can use it as virtual RAM maybe.
I am looking at this gen.
It's possible the only difference could be resolution, say 1800p.vs 2160p.
Every other effect the same. So you think res will make that much of a difference when that high etc
Previous gens was lot easier to tell the difference, its getting harder. If the systems are like what is being presented it will only get harder even by top tier experts like DF.
There's already been games where they've had to speculate that the 1X was higher resolution, but everything else the same. If it's that close then loading is an easily measurable difference, especially by every other journalist.
This is if all things being equal apart from TF and SSD.
but what if the cheaper one is the faster one?
The point is if everything else is perceptualy the same, what will the reviews of multi gens be.
TF isn't even known by most journalists, if game looks and plays the same, the only people who care are us in the forums
Last edited:
I don't know if next gen is supposed to be marketed as 4K native. While the Pro and X1X were marketed as the 4K variants of the existing base consoles; I don't think that will be the messaging necessarily for next gen. They don't need to adhere to 4K if they are pushing higher graphical options or frame rates.
I honestly don't know what they'll do, but if htey want to show next gen graphics, they'll need next generation methods. Otherwise it's thus this mid-gen refresh generation + higher fps
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
