Middle Generation Console Upgrade Discussion [Scorpio, 4Pro]

[Shifty Geezer]

Sony would need that tech to be reasonably widely adopted on PC otherwise it's just Sony. They can't drive a new generation on their own. But new audiences are not guaranteed for new tech. Plenty of tech fails - Kinect being the most recent gaming tech to be dropped.

Yes. I'm talking specifically about another PC like console in PS5. We said Software Generation, not Hardware Generation (as in a hardware paradigm shift). It is conceptually possible IMO for Sony to create a new machine based on PC tech that causes a software generational advance where otherwise software wouldn't target and utilise that bleeding-edge PC tech.

 

[mpg1]

I don't see the relevance of this? People generally buy something new either becuae their old thing broke or becuase they want a better experience. Very few people exhibit that wholly fanboy craving to have a better experience than everybody else, or just mostly everybody else. Most people just want to have fun playing games.

It's relevant in the context of people talking about "true next gen consoles or not"...and my point is console hardware is never going to truly wow people ever again whether it is defined a "new generation" or not. Therefore talking about generations is almost pointless. There is new console hardware and there is old console hardware.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

It is conceptually possible IMO for Sony to create a new machine based on PC tech that causes a software generational advance where otherwise software wouldn't target and utilise that bleeding-edge PC tech.

I agree it's possible, it's arguably more possible (and likely) for Microsoft who control the direction of graphics stack API on Windows.

It's relevant in the context of people talking about "true next gen consoles or not"...and my point is console hardware is never going to truly wow people ever again whether it is defined a "new generation" or not.

My PSVR has wowed a lot of people ;-) But I take your point and fear you may be right although I hope it's not the case. I think a manufacturing advancement rather than architectural advancements will likely be the only thing that may make it happen. Architectures are already sufficiently scalable but the production costs scale similarly.

 

[mosen]

If consumers care about that. If you're the type of consumer who buys a console cheap, buys games cheap, plays then once and never again, then no. It's too early to say how things will pan out in the long term. You can't even look at the AA/AAA market on the PC as a guide because the whole PC market has long been tethered to the technological trends of the console market. Changing the latter will have an impact but it would be difficult to predict how.

But all of this additional options only add to the value and we can only evaluate them as positives. Why should consumers be indifferent towards more options and values even if they aren't their first priority?

 

[Jay]

Lot of people jumped from X360 to PS4 this gen (I think that is the assumption at least) and lost their library.

not true.
that would only be the case if x1 had bc at the time and it didn't.
ps4 already had big momentum before bc came about.
so they lost their library either way, was their view.

Right. So the best time to buy a Scorpio will be... in 2-3 years time when it's cheaper, but also when the next Xbox is launched?

not true.
it will still have the better performing looking games/multi plats. How big the difference is, is currently unknown.
so it depends if that's enough of a reason or not.

I'd argue sustainable more than future-proof, but sustainability is the result of restraint. Again, you're back to the same dilemma of new hardware taking years to realise it's potential, not just because of lack of familiarity with the hardware as we have now, but also by an arbitrary support policy. Is that really better for consumers?

my counter to this view is that the hardware could actually reach it's potential earlier not later.
if a dev knows the spec, can target it whilst knowing they can also sell to a bigger install base by a scaling back for the lower spec machine, then your taking advantage of the more powerful machine sooner, compared to having to do cross gen development.
a lot will depend on api's, uwp, etc.

uwp is coming to x1 later this year which should help. If I understood their presentation on Thurs.
when I say help I'm talking about dev work.

I also think this will be the only machine that ms will mandate that all games must run on both (at least for now).
they've learned about trying to change the market too quickly.
publishers will be the ones that decide min machine to support.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I agree it's possible, it's arguably more possible (and likely) for Microsoft who control the direction of graphics stack API on Windows.

DX says otherwise IMO. MS introduces new APIs and devs don't use them. Why would they when doing so would alienate 95+% of their potential audience running older hardware? But when MS introduce a new DX box that requires games to use the new DX, those same games can be ported to PC.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

You're confusing devs with publishers.

He isn't. Sebbbi has already commented that most developers would prefer a rolling 2-3 console (generation/mini-generation/whatever you want to call it) support cycle where the generation never gets reset. That should be obvious as a developer lives and dies based on the sales of their title. The larger the install base the greater the potential for them make a profit. And if a generation is never reset, then you don't have the additional cost of supporting additional platforms.

For example, how many developers would have preferred if the PS3/X360 -> PS4/XBO transition featured hardware that allowed them to basically make one version for PS and one for XB, with the only material difference being the graphics settings used between the older and newer version of the console? I'd argue almost all of the multiplatform developers. 2 platforms to develop for instead of 4 platforms to develop for. Well 3 instead of 5 if you include PC. But if MS does merge XB into the Windows ecosystem WRT programming then that'd be even better for developers with 2 platforms versus 5 platforms during a generation transition.

That also means that while it wouldn't be earth shattering, they'd still get residual revenue from sales of games years and years after it first goes on sale. This may actually be of far more benefit for indie developers than it is for AAA devs/publishers. One of my favorite indie developers, Level Up Labs (Defender's Quest), gets a large bump in revenue anytime there's a steam sale. I love reading his blog as it goes into indie development, marketing, and the sometimes very long stegosaurus (lots of sales spikes) tail of revenue WRT digital sales of a product. That wouldn't exist if the platform he develops on had generational breaks like traditional console cycles.

This is assuming that developers don't feel compelled to support a Nintendo platform version of a multiplatform game.

Regards,
SB

 

[Deleted member 11852]

But all of this additional options only add to the value and we can only evaluate them as positives. Why should consumers be indifferent towards more options and values even if they aren't their first priority?

What value? When people bought PS4/Xbox One they immediately got the opportunity to play games that would have been all sorts of compromised if they had to work on 360/PS3. Game publishers and develpers were able to target those capabilities in advance of their launching. True, some games were cross-gen like like Watch Dogs, FIFA and Black Flag, but most games were not. Could those games have been scaled back for previous gen? Perhaps - at lengthened dev times and cost. Cost that will be passed on to consumers.

So I ask again, what value for people who don't replay old games?

my counter to this view is that the hardware could actually reach it's potential earlier not later. if a dev knows the spec, can target it whilst knowing they can also sell to a bigger install base by a scaling back for the lower spec machine, then your taking advantage of the more powerful machine sooner, compared to having to do cross gen development.

Actually, the dev is targeting the lower spec platform. It's much harder to scale down than up.

DX says otherwise IMO. MS introduces new APIs and devs don't use them. Why would they when doing so would alienate 95+% of their potential audience running older hardware? But when MS introduce a new DX box that requires games to use the new DX, those same games can be ported to PC.

Not all DirectX APIs are equal, necessary or even wanted and plenty have been just dumb. But the technical committee that contributes towards the direction of Direct3D is made up of Microsoft, Nvidia, Intel, AMD and software developers. The APIs that get adopted quickly are the ones that usefully solve problems that devs have. This whole argument assumes the tech Sony would deploy isn't just new but actually useful. I took that for granted.

Most new APIs do not cut off older generation hardware, that is kind of the point of APIs and drivers. It wasn't that long ago that games shipped with not only multiple Direct3D version support but OpenGL at all.

He isn't. Sebbbi has already commented that most developers would prefer a rolling 2-3 console (generation/mini-generation/whatever you want to call it) support cycle where the generation never gets reset. That should be obvious as a developer lives and dies based on the sales of their title.

That is indeed stating the bleeding obvious I don't know what survey Sebbbi has done but I write code and I'd much rather work with an evolving platform, architecture, API set and toolchain I am familiar with than have to relearn them, particularly when the change is for change's sake rather that introducing better or more efficient methods. I bet that is 99% of this desire.

 

[Jay]

Actually, the dev is targeting the lower spec platform. It's much harder to scale down than up.

harder yes, but it depends on where in the consoles life cycle the game is coming out, as to possibly decide which way around to do it.
even if you scale up, could easily be pushing the console more than if you had to spend resources developing multiple distinct versions, during early days/years of new gen.

 

[iroboto]

For years Scorpio is going to be in the same ballpark as Pro. Anybody who is expecting much more is likely setting themselves up for disappointment. The promise started out that everything would be native 4K but the leaked whitepaper walks back on that. Just took at Rise of the Tomb Raider on PS4 Pro for an idea of what to expect: combinations of higher resolutions (YMMV), 'richer visuals' (thanks Nixxes), higher framerate, longer draw distances. Probably better textures on some titles as well. Scorpio is not magic. If that's all you want then Scorpio will please you greatly.

I disagree partially, but you've got a very good defensible argument there. I think FL12_0+ that will be shipping with Scorpio will be a big deal. You're talking about a feature set that supports SVOGI, Frustum Shadows etc. I don't think we've really scratched the surface on how far these guys can go. Too much emphasis on compute power (at least in the discussion of this thread (edit: the internet rather)), not enough emphasis on features. We haven't even gotten started on the discussion of what SM6.0 will enable developers to do (or do better). Scorpio will be the beginning of exploring these new technologies. The removal of XBO would be the full blown implementation of them.

I agree it's possible, it's arguably more possible (and likely) for Microsoft who control the direction of graphics stack API on Windows.

DX says otherwise IMO. MS introduces new APIs and devs don't use them. Why would they when doing so would alienate 95+% of their potential audience running older hardware? But when MS introduce a new DX box that requires games to use the new DX, those same games can be ported to PC.

It's almost as if you're both agreeing/talking about the same thing here unless I'm wrong.

Not all DirectX APIs are equal, necessary or even wanted and plenty have been just dumb. But the technical committee that contributes towards the direction of Direct3D is made up of Microsoft, Nvidia, Intel, AMD and software developers. The APIs that get adopted quickly are the ones that usefully solve problems that devs have. This whole argument assumes the tech Sony would deploy isn't just new but actually useful. I took that for granted.

One thing to note though, the graphics committee (Intel, Nvidia, MS, AMD, PowerVR, etc) work together to determine the next set of graphics standards that are needed to build the next generation of graphics. It's up to the hardware manufacturers to decide how to best implement those features that developers need. I imagine OpenGl operates in a similar manner.

What Sony does (at least wrt R&D and technology) is to modify the hardware in whatever way they think would improve performance for their needs, they are not part of that committee, thus are not directly participating in the development of graphical standards. Sony's work would never carry over to Intel or Nvidia for instance.

 

[zupallinere]

my point is console hardware is never going to truly wow people ever again whether it is defined a "new generation" or not.

Never is a strong word. Say someone comes up with a way to put a bunch of memory with a bunch of bandwidth together with some AI chips that help manage that does a bunch of different things

• Modelling regular AI against a solo player
• Learn how a game moves data around to help move it around.
• If it's part of the tool-chain it could leverage how it understands how data is used and is moved around in a game to help developers hit frame rates they are looking for
• Other stuff we haven't thought of yet.

I would say there is little reason to go beyond 4k for anything so with that plateau to work with you could then go wide in functionality and depth instead of going up in resolution.

Obviously just spit balling here but you did use the world never

 

[mpg1]

Never is a strong word. Say someone comes up with a way to put a bunch of memory with a bunch of bandwidth together with some AI chips that help manage that does a bunch of different things

• Modelling regular AI against a solo player
• Learn how a game moves data around to help move it around.
• If it's part of the tool-chain it could leverage how it understands how data is used and is moved around in a game to help developers hit frame rates they are looking for
• Other stuff we haven't thought of yet.

I would say there is little reason to go beyond 4k for anything so with that plateau to work with you could then go wide in functionality and depth instead of going up in resolution.

Obviously just spit balling here but you did use the world never

yes but this will not be unique to a console..

The only way I could see a state of the art console hardware wise be released nowadays...is if AMD or Nvidia built one from the ground up without a care for the price tag/heat/energy use/form factor....

 

[zupallinere]

We

yes but this will not be unique to a console..

The only way I could see a state of the art console hardware wise be released nowadays...is if AMD or Nvidia built one from the ground up without a care for the price tag/heat/energy use/form factor....

Well you could have novel amounts of memory arranged in a fashion that would not be found in a PC along with whatever support logic for your CPU/GPU/AI amalgam. The AI chips themselves could be off the shelf although the software would be something more proprietary. 16GB of HBM2 and a bunch of other RAM all unified and relatively malleable compared to chatting over a PCIe bus. Not suggesting it would be the PS5 mind you but yeah Nvidia could throw a bunch of their ARM processors along with some of their AI chips although without x86 code to work with you are at a bit of disadvantage unless your toolkit is pretty good.

 

[mosen]

What value? When people bought PS4/Xbox One they immediately got the opportunity to play games that would have been all sorts of compromised if they had to work on 360/PS3. Game publishers and develpers were able to target those capabilities in advance of their launching. True, some games were cross-gen like like Watch Dogs, FIFA and Black Flag, but most games were not. Could those games have been scaled back for previous gen? Perhaps - at lengthened dev times and cost. Cost that will be passed on to consumers.

So I ask again, what value for people who don't replay old games?

Forward Compatibility?
Buying games that run better on newer/better hardware because they designed to do so?
Having access to a mature/feature-complete OS with many different apps at launch?
Being sure that you can play full catalog of games that you already bought on newer console?
Being able to use your saves on newer console?
Being able to play with much more people online at launch of new console?
Being able to use your current accessories on newer console/PC?
Being able to play your favorite game from 10+ years ago online/co-op?
To not have to buy any remastered game only for higher resolution?

You think Scorpio can run gears of war 4 at 4k/60fps on highest quality? Of course not, and this is a game from 2016.

If you think PS5 will define a new software generation by using more powerful CPU and complicated AI/gameplay then we have to wait and see what happens in future. However I don't remember to see any game with gameplay/mechanism on PS4/XB1 that I thought to be impossible to run on 360/PS3.

 

[Transponster]

It's relevant in the context of people talking about "true next gen consoles or not"...and my point is console hardware is never going to truly wow people ever again whether it is defined a "new generation" or not. Therefore talking about generations is almost pointless. There is new console hardware and there is old console hardware.

It might not "truly wow" simple-minded folks(because of diminishing returns, etc.), but it's this time around when we are getting 4x+ increase in everything, whereas ps4's Jaguar was more of sidegrade from ps3's CELL, so objectively it can be more impressive.
Fractioning that jump(which is what Scorpio might be doing, in the eyes of many, at least) makes zero sense and can only hurt everyone.

It's funny how many people call Pro a half-assed upgrade, yet consider Scorpio a full-blown next-gen, when it can only be the other way around, it's the half-assed next-gen that people don't want and won't stand, especially after underwhelming PS4 and X1.

 

[BRiT]

@Transponster I don't follow your logic if that last sentence is saying how 4Pro is more of a upgrade than Scorpio.

 

[Pixel]

However I don't remember to see any game with gameplay/mechanism on PS4/XB1 that I thought to be impossible to run on 360/PS3.

Assassin Creed Unity crowded streets and seamless transition inside and outside of buildings is a gameplay mechanic. Cpu and memory size limits? Maybe some areas of Uncharted.

Alot of games which dynamically load the game world would have issues with the hdd transfer speed limits and memory limits in last gen consoles, forcing many more loading screen.

64bit precision in No Man's Sky.

The quantity of zombies and physics in Dead Rising 3/4.

Lower playercounts in multiplayer.

 

[Transponster]

@Transponster I don't follow your logic if that last sentence is saying how 4Pro is more of a upgrade than Scorpio.

I'm saying that Scorpio can't be a proper next-gen, if the PS4 Pro is a "half-assed" mid-gen, it can only be a better mid-gen or an even more "half-assed" next-gen.

 

[iroboto]

It's funny how many people call Pro a half-assed upgrade, yet consider Scorpio a full-blown next-gen, when it can only be the other way around, it's the half-assed next-gen that people don't want and won't stand, especially after underwhelming PS4 and X1.

You're going to need to reposition here; only 1 person made that comment and he was the developer of a MS first party studio who could have knowledge of both consoles. The rest of us here were debating this post he left on neogaf.

Tldr: no one on b3d has from what I've seen ever implied that statement.

 

[iroboto]

I'm saying that Scorpio can't be a proper next-gen, if the PS4 Pro is a "half-assed" mid-gen, it can only be a better mid-gen or an even more "half-assed" next-gen.

This statement can be true or false depending on what defines "a generation". We had this conversion several pages back.

Only the people who know the specs of both Scorpio and 4Pro is in a real position to evaluate this statement anyway. This question may never be answered, as Sony is very tight lipped about their hardware. We may know more soon as GDC but I wouldn't count on it.