Current Generation Hardware Speculation with a Technical Spin [post GDC 2020] [XBSX, PS5]

Status
Not open for further replies.
goonergaz said:
I feel Sony and MS would want more than a 25% transition, hence the need for other reasons than performance gains.
Click to expand...

It was 25% for a midgen upgrade, but how many typically upgrades when a new generation rolls around and how quickly. Its a different "thing" then.
Historically how many years does it take for 100% of the installed based to convert? It never was 50% in the first year, somebody with the sales numbers handy can probably do th math.
I mean PS3 = 100M and X360 = 100M, how many converted year 1, year 2 etc?
The assumption is that nobody jumps ship nor any new comes to the platform, to make the math silly simple.
 
JPT said:
It was 25% for a midgen upgrade, but how many typically upgrades when a new generation rolls around and how quickly. Its a different "thing" then.
Historically how many years does it take for 100% of the installed based to convert? It never was 50% in the first year, somebody with the sales numbers handy can probably do th math.
I mean PS3 = 100M and X360 = 100M, how many converted year 1, year 2 etc?
The assumption is that nobody jumps ship nor any new comes to the platform, to make the math silly simple.
Click to expand...
I think the issue is that the consoles still sell at roughly 4:1 - so people still would rather spend less than get better performance, otherwise we’d be hearing about closing gaps.

Obviously a new gen is a bit different, but to the layman it’s simply more of the same with better performance.
 
Lalaland said:
None, none at all. AMD is their dev partner and adding a discrete GPU from a 3rd party would make Lockhart significantly more expensive than Series X
Click to expand...

Not to mention that it would prevent developers using their RDNA2 optimised code on Lockhart, and also shoot down being able to run Lockhart 'emulated' mode on XSX devkits!
 
iroboto said:
I know some things ;) I don't know if they necessarily materialize.
Click to expand...
If you don't know whether something will materialise then you don't know. This is the difference between knowing and having a reason to believe something - which is pretty low test. If you doubt what you "know", then you don't. Two months from release, you either 100% certain know or you don't know. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
DSoup said:
If you don't know whether something will materialise then you don't know. This is the difference between knowing and having a reason to believe something - which is pretty low test. If you doubt what you "know", then you don't. Two months from release, you either 100% certain know or you don't know. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Click to expand...
yea, I don't know if it will materialize. Surface Duo and Neo did materialize; but the timing was way off from when I knew about it; the project was, as I understand it, shelved and resurrected under another team. I only know what's been worked on but that doesn't mean it's going to be a release product. I wouldn't put much stock into it except to entertain the outside possibility for a non-traditional offering.
 
iroboto said:
yea, I don't know if it will materialize. Surface Duo and Neo did materialize; but the timing was way off from when I knew about it; the project was, as I understand it, shelved and resurrected under another team. I only know what's been worked on but that doesn't mean it's going to be a release product. I wouldn't put much stock into it except to entertain the outside possibility for a non-traditional offering.
Click to expand...
And it would be interesting to see a "non-traditional offering". But I'd really like to see a conventional home console Series S that launches at the same time, and runs the same games and as Series X. If nothing else it will disprove the fallacy that has to die: given the option more people will pay for performance. Even after the mid-gen updated hardware, some people still hold this belief despite Sony's sales figures showing it's not the case for PlayStation owners and there is no data to suggest the situation is any different for Xbox. Just like it isn't for PC. And supported by Switch sales.

It's almost like the majority of the gamers are in for the games, rather than the cutting edge hardware. Bless their simple hearts!:love: Also, and just for clarification, I wasn't dumping on you in the previous post, there is knowing about something and knowing about product plans and they are different but re-reading my post in the warm sunlight of day, it could be construed as a bit arsey - it wasn't meant that way!
 
Considering storage space for all next gen consoles, I was thinking about duplicated assets.
Next gen games just won't do it, but current non patched games would still have duplilcated assets taking up space.

It would be very useful to dedupe them and have an extended file table as indirection pointing to single asset.
This system level file io would only need to be used for legacy games.

Not sure if either would bother do it, maybe as part of xbox bc program especially for the XSS initial launch PR, current gen games takes up average 30% less space.
(no idea of the actual figure)
 
Jay said:
It would be very useful to dedupe them and have an extended file table as indirection pointing to single asset.
This system level file io would only need to be used for legacy games.
Click to expand...

In a way, that's similar to a dictionary compression system... But on actual games, I assume most of the duplicated data is packed together with other data and compressed in large blocks, so such a process may not be feaseble without actual source code...
 
Both consoles have hardware compression technology, though. The gains in throughput couldn't be utilized if it wasn't a blanket feature. I would expect a reduction in game size simply because the games will be compressed on install. Even if the compression ratio isn't huge, it all adds up. Cerny says in the road to PS5 presentation that Kraken gives you about 10% better results than the Zlib compression of PS4, so I think we should expect that on average, games would be 10% smaller without the need for modifying game assets. Also, unless I'm understanding things wrong, this is one of the problems that Smart Delivery is meant to solve. The idea there is that you only install the assets that you need for your platform. So, on a disc or in the cloud you would have assets in a variety or formats and quality, but the installer only copies over the assets appropriate for you system. I remember Shadows of Mordor and Gears 4 both being games that had high res texture packs for One X, but there wasn't any way to remove the original textures, so you had a sizable chunk of game assets that simply aren't used if you had the enhanced console.
 
Silent_Buddha said:
Modification of packaged game code or assets can get into tricky legal territory as well if MS were to do it without developer/publisher approval. For older games it could get tricky getting that approval.

Regards,
SB
Click to expand...
Would only need to go as far back as XO really, although x360 would be nice.

MS is talking about HDR at system level, resolution increases and doubling framerate, so they obviously have some scope.
They could even get aproval from any game that is greater than 10GB install size. Via initially an automated process. They know install sizes, have studio contact details, etc.

At least this wouldn't be having any effect apart from removing duplicated assets/textures.
The game would still read it in as the same asset.
 
if the data deduplication happened at the block level like ZFS, they wouldn't be modifying the existing game or how its distributed. It would mean the same huge size downloads, but the installation sizes would be smaller.
 
There was an interview a while ago about backwards compatibility and they mentioned that they worked a lot of things into new contracts to take care of issues they were currently seeing with 360 games IRT licensing. Given that some 360 games have had their assets tweaked or replaced when played on Xbox One, and in at lease 1 case (GTA San Andreas for original Xbox) the entire game was replaced, I think it's plausible that repackaging games without duplicate data or even asset replacement could be part of the contracts now.
 
Silent_Buddha said:
Modification of packaged game code or assets can get into tricky legal territory as well if MS were to do it without developer/publisher approval. For older games it could get tricky getting that approval.

Regards,
SB
Click to expand...
I don't think this is a new issue for them. For their already on-going BC, they have had to make some changes for some games (albeit not at that level), and walked the whole legal mumbojumbo path before. With some of them, they didn't make it and they never became BC. The publisher approval for older games is always required anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jay
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Shifty Geezer
Current Generation Games Analysis Technical Discussion [2024] [XBSX|S, PS5, PC]
23 24 25
Replies
496
Views
46K
trinibwoy
T
BRiT
  • Locked
Current Generation Games Analysis Technical Discussion [2023] [XBSX|S, PS5, PC]
133 134 135
Replies
3K
Views
280K
pjbliverpool
P
BRiT
Current Generation Hardware Speculation with a Technical Spin [2022] [XBSX, PS5]
2
Replies
22
Views
8K
eastmen
E
BRiT
Current Generation Games Analysis Technical Discussion [2022] [XBSX|S, PS5, PC]
130 131 132
Replies
3K
Views
304K
BRiT
BRiT
iroboto
  • Locked
Are current games less effectively executed than previous generations? *spawn
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
Shifty Geezer
Shifty Geezer
Back
Top