Playstation 5 [PS5] [Release November 12 2020]

[Shifty Geezer]

I'm trying to rationalise it because the companies investing in upgrading the visuals have to. You ned a good argument. You made a game, sold n thousand to current gamers. Lots and lots of gamers didn't buy it. Is it worth improving the visuals to try and sell it again to those gamers that didn't buy it, or just let it run on the emulator and sell it cheap in the store?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That's more or less what I said.
I even said most probably won't see an improvement unless they were running with an uncapped frame rate and dynamic resolution.

NMS is very much about the content, not the improved visuals. I doubt it'd have sold more if all it got in its free updates were resolution and framerate buffs.

 

[fehu]

- - -
wrong thread...

 

[JPT]

They basically used the Bloodborne engine for Dark Souls 3. The tests for 60fps mode have already being done for Dark Souls 3.

A couple questions comes to mind

1. Why did the creator/publisher upgrade Dark Souls 3 to 60FPS
2. How much did that cost
3. Was it financially successful ?

As for Bloodborne upgrade somebody doing it at home vs something that is done for pay, means the QA and cost are not comparable, imo

 

[JPT]

Microsoft seems to be hard at work trying to achieve it.
Not sure if any publishers really qualify these days, Blizzard used to but it looks like glueing Activision under their roof has infected them too.
CD Projekt Red seems to be held in pretty high regards overall, they're running DRM free GOG (=we're the good guys) and no-one seems to be afraid of pre-ordering whatever they release.

Kudos to MS for that, and probably being to harsh, CDPR is almost a one trick pony.

 

[JPT]

This happens on PC all the time.

We are talking about PS5, which will have costs in regards to certifications and issuing patches and storage on PSN Store etc.
So again, is it a viable endeavour for the publisher?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I don't think there are any costs for certification or patching. I think it's operated the same as every other store nowadays - Sony take a 30% cut from everything bought on PSN, with some QA testing so they can randomly refuse some titles for bugs other titles are allowed to ship with, and regional variance so the US will allow a game the EU won't be non-regional considerations.

 

[JPT]

It incentivizes new sales from older games as well if they get upgrades...i know quite a few people who would dip if a 4k60fps patch for Bloodborne dropped in their laps.

But are the numbers big enough to offset the cost?
Which games on PS4, do you think deserves a 60FPS/4K upgrade, that will sell enough due to the upgrade to just cover the cost?

For PS5 I doubt unchartered is any point, because there does not seem to be any new ones coming and most people that wanted to, will probably have played it already?

If we think a Last of Us 3 is coming, sure then maybe number 1 and 2 could get it as long tail thing and preparing the way for 3, but...

 

[JPT]

I don't think there are any costs for certification or patching. I think it's operated the same as every other store nowadays - Sony take a 30% cut from everything bought on PSN, with some QA testing so they can randomly refuse some titles for bugs other titles are allowed to ship with, and regional variance so the US will allow a game the EU won't be non-regional considerations.

Last time read anything about it, there was costs for QA/Certification, but you actually make games and release them, so I bow to your knowledge of the case. But still you have to do the work and that is not free.
I just think people have a bit to rose tinted glasses on when it comes to this.
Yes, Sony/MS maybe would like to showcase something, but is not a new title better? I am aware of FF remix quadrillion is different, but its hard to predict hits and people got backlogs, why would you want to go back and re-do an experience if its just "prettier/smoother"?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I haven't released anything on consoles beyond MS's freebie option, but I've friends who have. AFAIK competition has removed a lot of those old-fashioned barriers. Patching definitely has no cost. I'm 99% sure there are no QA costs because a friend was having to keep resubmitting his title for network bugs when Sony didn't provide a way to test networking. I believe now you just pay for membership of the development programme and an SDK, then you submit content same as for Apple or Google where they'll do some testing and either let you publish or require some changes, with no costs for submitting.

I do agree though that the cost to improve visuals is non-zero, and the gains have to be measured against the costs. Especially if the new platform is going to support BC for free and you can carry on selling without having to improve an old title.

 

[disco_]

The maybe a 30% - 50% discount on fees for PS plus people also is wellcome

It's been ~$30 from various sources for the past 3 months. Go stock up.

 

[Tkumpathenurple]

I'm trying to rationalise it because the companies investing in upgrading the visuals have to. You ned a good argument. You made a game, sold n thousand to current gamers. Lots and lots of gamers didn't buy it. Is it worth improving the visuals to try and sell it again to those gamers that didn't buy it, or just let it run on the emulator and sell it cheap in the store?

Perhaps a means of encouraging patches would be to make a "PS5 Enhanced" tag have some perceived value. That's easier said than done, of course, but the relative dearth of content at launch might aid the matter.

If a hobbyist can do it in their spare time in, I think, a matter of months (I'll go check after this post - I've not finished watching the whole Digital Foundry video yet,) then it's reasonable to extrapolate that a handful of professional programmers being paid full time ought to be able to crank out patches at a fair pace.

According to this, the average entry level video game programming salary is $44,000. Even though 1 hobbyist can do it in a few months, I'll be conservative and say 2 programmers for 6 months = $44,000.

Is $88,000 a reasonable investment? I'm not an investor, but that doesn't look to me like too much money to have a punt at a profit.

I suppose the next biggest cost would be QA. Perhaps this is something that Sony could handle directly or be involved with, lending resources? It would be an expense for Sony, but it would also be a means of gathering large amounts of data from developers who are looking to generate a profit anyway.

Each investment runs a chance of breaking even or even generating a profit. All the while, and also when they fail to break even, Sony gather more data relating to BC. Microsoft are definitely ahead on this matter, as it's been part of their DNA for decades, and Sony shouldn't risk getting left behind.

Personally I'd love a "PS5 Enhanced" label on games from the PS1, PS2, PSP, PS3, PSVita, PS4, and PSVR:

• 4K60 (or 4K120 in PSVR's case)
• cloud saves
• screenshots and video recording
• custom background music
• social stuff like party chat

That's it. If they didn't have trophies (e.g. PS1) don't fart around with the expense of putting them in. Keep it cheap. Get it running at 4K60 and take care of the legalities that would allow for all of the system-level features to operate.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

For early titles it makes more sense. If you stand out among old compatible titles, you'll have more chance of being picked up. But if everyone does it, you're no better off, ending up another small fish in a big, overpopulated pond.

As for your costs, that's only half the equation. You are also taking resources away from your new project which is next-gen and should have fundamentally more appeal than your old game, depending on what game you are coming from. Those resources included console dev-kits, office space and employees, and man-hours focussing on the new engine/systems including potentially market communications. What does $88,000 invested in up-qualitying your old title get you over $88,000 invested in your upcoming new title? If it's less, you're better of spending that investment in the new title.

The important point being it's not an easy, no-brainer win. It'll vary by company, title, and circumstances. It'll vary based on how well the inbuilt emulation/BC supports the old title. I think the majority of the devs would prefer the system to enhance old titles and just sell the old game distribution.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...tation-5-compatible-from-july-sony-tells-devs

Sony has told PlayStation 4 game developers that any new titles submitted for certification must also be compatible with PlayStation 5, beginning 13th July.

This means all PS4 games received by Sony for testing after the middle of that month are technically forwards compatible - playable on Sony's next-gen console - though it is up to each game's developer to ensure this is the case.

Further documentation sheds light on what "compatibility" means. A game will be deemed compatible with PlayStation 5 only if its submission code runs without issues on Sony's next-gen machine, and provides the same features on PS5 as it does on PS4.

If a game was originally submitted to Sony before 13th July 2020, any new patch or remaster after that date would not require PS5 compatibility, but it would be "strongly recommended".

If a game was originally submitted to Sony after 13th July 2020, any future patch or remaster to that game would need to keep PS5 compatibility. Once a game is PS5 compatible, it must stay so.

TBH that doesn't bode too well for BC on PS5 IMO. If devs have to make their game compatible on PS5, I wonder how much of bringing the PS4 catalogue to PS5 will require developer involvement?

 

[disco_]

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...tation-5-compatible-from-july-sony-tells-devs

TBH that doesn't bode too well for BC on PS5 IMO. If devs have to make their game compatible on PS5, I wonder how much of bringing the PS4 catalogue to PS5 will require developer involvement?

This is about "performance"mode for PS4 games using native ps5 clocks. No different than the PS4 pro mandate that came in October 2016. When all that settled, there were 3-4 games that had issues running PRO/boost mode over stock PS4 mode.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Yeah, I did wonder what they meant by 'certified for PS5'. That could mean run in native PS5. However, nothing in that article points to boost mode, and it only says PS4 games have to run on PS5, suggesting games already don't run and devs need to ensure they will. The article may be inaccurate in the way its written, but I don't think it 100% safe to say 'boost mode' at this point without a better source talking about those developer documents (DF update to article?).

 

[Deleted member 13524]

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...tation-5-compatible-from-july-sony-tells-devs

TBH that doesn't bode too well for BC on PS5 IMO. If devs have to make their game compatible on PS5, I wonder how much of bringing the PS4 catalogue to PS5 will require developer involvement?

They don't say if they need to release PS5 binaries or if it's just tested compatibility with the PS5 Boost mode (36CUs @ ~2GHz?). It's probably the latter.

Aren't all games required to have a PS4 Pro mode at the moment?
If they are, then the certification process for the PS5 Boost mode should present little effort over the PS4 Pro version.

If not, then in practice they're saying it needs to have a PS4 Pro mode with PS5 Boost testing done.


I don't see how this says anything about PS5's BC. Back when the boost mode for the PS4 Pro released, it supported pretty much every game without any extra work. Only a handful of games had problems with the higher-clocked GPU and CPU.


EDIT:

Yeah, I did wonder what they meant by 'certified for PS5'. That could mean run in native PS5. However, nothing in that article points to boost mode, and it only says PS4 games have to run on PS5, suggesting games already don't run and devs need to ensure they will. The article may be inaccurate in the way its written, but I don't think it 100% safe to say 'boost mode' at this point without a better source talking about those developer documents (DF update to article?).

The article is pretty accurate:

Further documentation sheds light on what "compatibility" means. A game will be deemed compatible with PlayStation 5 only if its submission code runs without issues on Sony's next-gen machine, and provides the same features on PS5 as it does on PS4.

1 - It says "compatibility".

2 - Same features on PS5 as it does on PS4 means it doesn't need to support any PS5 exclusive features.

It's BC mode.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Seems like the difference here is Microsoft is testing BC for titles on Xbox where Sony is pushing some of that onto developers. Essentially it should be the same process, just a difference in who is doing it.

 

[see colon]

We are talking about PS5, which will have costs in regards to certifications and issuing patches and storage on PSN Store etc.
So again, is it a viable endeavour for the publisher?

It depends on how Sony handles patches that enable new features on a new console. Did they charge publishers to release PS4Pro enhanced patches? Did they pay publishers to release PS4Pro enhanced packages? Or maybe it was a free option for them.

 

[disco_]

Someone posted this on ERA in regards to dev kits/sdk. Sounds like it's a simple check for compatibility. That's what this whole article is based on?

Developer documentation - released on PlayStation's internal Partner website and seen by Eurogamer - details an option developers must check to state their game has been tested for compatibility with PS5 hardware. This option was added at the end of April in a new version of Sony's PS4 software developer kit.