Playstation 5 [PS5] [Release November 12 2020]

[Silent_Buddha]

... isnt it a 2013 game?

Yep

It's a game released in 2013, but the engine is a 2020 engine. It's more advanced than most AAA games released in the last year. For example, about 6 months ago they started work to convert all the textures to Oodle textures in preparation for the new consoles. They're also constantly updating the rendering engine with 1-2 major engine updates each year that keep it at the forefront of game rendering technology.

So, while it's true that it released in 2013, it's misleading to just say it's a 2013 game. The 2013 release featured it supporting DirectX 8 and DirectX 9. Neither of those are supported in game anymore because the engine, as it is now, wouldn't be able to render the graphics that it does now, on those APIs.

Regards,
SB

 

[BoardBonobo]

@BoardBonobo

What’s next for Warframe: Digital Extremes shares their vision for the future

https://blog.playstation.com/2020/1...-extremes-shares-their-vision-for-the-future/

Exciting times

 

[Insight]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1324362619810172934

 

[Silent_Buddha]

That's because you can't trademark parts that can be easily found in other cars from other brands.

Issues arise when Sony themselves intend to sell faceplates (which they probably are) and this company starts selling that before Sony does. Who wins?

You mean like Recaro racing seats? Or how about replacement displays for an iPhone that cannot be use on any other phone and aren't made by Apple?

Or how about 3rd party reusable coffee filters for Keurig K-cup coffee machines? The coffee pods that are sold are how Keurig makes money, so they most certainly do not want anyone selling anything that allows you to use whatever coffee you want in their machines, but they can't legally stop anyone from selling them. They also only work in Keurig coffee machines.

As I said, in the US, a manufacturer cannot prohibit an end user from using or modifying a piece of hardware however they wish once it is sold. This includes using aftermarket products or parts (like reusable filters) that a manufacturer does not want to exist because it eats into their potential revenue.

This is why the only way to prevent non-manufacturer approved controllers from working on consoles is to include a security chip that checks to see if a controller is officially licensed. But if those are somehow circumvented without the use of an official chip, then anyone can make and sell controllers for a console without requiring the permission of the console maker. There is nothing that any console maker (Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo) could do to legally make them stop.

Regards,
SB

 

[PSman1700]

It's a game released in 2013, but the engine is a 2020 engine. It's more advanced than most AAA games released in the last year. For example, about 6 months ago they started work to convert all the textures to Oodle textures in preparation for the new consoles. They're also constantly updating the rendering engine with 1-2 major engine updates each year that keep it at the forefront of game rendering technology.

So, while it's true that it released in 2013, it's misleading to just say it's a 2013 game. The 2013 release featured it supporting DirectX 8 and DirectX 9. Neither of those are supported in game anymore because the engine, as it is now, wouldn't be able to render the graphics that it does now, on those APIs.

Regards,
SB

Seems il have to try it again just for the graphics.

 

[BoardBonobo]

Just got my confirmation email that my payment has\is being processed. Happy days.

 

[Strange]

You mean like Recaro racing seats? Or how about replacement displays for an iPhone that cannot be use on any other phone and aren't made by Apple?

Or how about 3rd party reusable coffee filters for Keurig K-cup coffee machines? The coffee pods that are sold are how Keurig makes money, so they most certainly do not want anyone selling anything that allows you to use whatever coffee you want in their machines, but they can't legally stop anyone from selling them. They also only work in Keurig coffee machines.

As I said, in the US, a manufacturer cannot prohibit an end user from using or modifying a piece of hardware however they wish once it is sold. This includes using aftermarket products or parts (like reusable filters) that a manufacturer does not want to exist because it eats into their potential revenue.

This is why the only way to prevent non-manufacturer approved controllers from working on consoles is to include a security chip that checks to see if a controller is officially licensed. But if those are somehow circumvented without the use of an official chip, then anyone can make and sell controllers for a console without requiring the permission of the console maker. There is nothing that any console maker (Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo) could do to legally make them stop.

Regards,
SB

Sure. You may like to give the company some legal advice so they continue selling the faceplates.
It's a trademark issue, not a function issue.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

So today we're seeing SeriesX / S reviews, tomorrow we'll be seeing all the PS5 ones?

Oberon is not PS5 apu. It was just used as a test plateform ? It didn't have RT for exemple ?

Some people like to pretend the final PS5 we'll see on the shelves starting next week is using a 9TF RDNA1 GPU called "Navi 10 Lite".
Just let it be. It's a religious thing, and it brings them joy.

 

[chris1515]

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Sure. You may like to give the company some legal advice so they continue selling the faceplates.
It's a trademark issue, not a function issue.

It's a trademark issue if the design is exactly like the one that is trademarked. But if it is a different shape then it no longer violates any trademarks.

The problem with the one that was taken down was that the shape was too similar to Sony's own design and Sony trademarked that particular design. And even then it's possible that the aftermarket company may have won in a court of law. However, as in many cases where a large company bullies a smaller company, the smaller company can't afford to go to court to try to defend their case.

But that's part of the whole trademark/patent thing. If you don't attempt to defend it, you risk losing it. And since it's easier to defend your trademark/patent against a company that can't afford to go to court, that's who the larger companies usually target.

Regards,
SB

 

[AbsoluteBeginner]

Some people like to pretend the final PS5 we'll see on the shelves starting next week is using a 9TF RDNA1 GPU called "Navi 10 Lite".
Just let it be. It's a religious thing, and it brings them joy.

I am still waiting on 48-52CU PS5 as "Cerny is not a moron, he would never design such a narrow system running on insane 2.0GHz clocks. He likes it wide and slow (sounds a bit weird saying this"

But seriously, regression test. Oberon is real, we know that now.

Having said this, back to PS5...I love the controller god damn thats like best part of next gen for me. A miss for MS not including something like this, if used for 3rd party games, could be good reason to own PS5.

 

[anexanhume]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1324362619810172934

Probably my most desired 60FPS upgrade.

 

[Strange]

It's a trademark issue if the design is exactly like the one that is trademarked. But if it is a different shape then it no longer violates any trademarks.

The problem with the one that was taken down was that the shape was too similar to Sony's own design and Sony trademarked that particular design. And even then it's possible that the aftermarket company may have won in a court of law. However, as in many cases where a large company bullies a smaller company, the smaller company can't afford to go to court to try to defend their case.

But that's part of the whole trademark/patent thing. If you don't attempt to defend it, you risk losing it. And since it's easier to defend your trademark/patent against a company that can't afford to go to court, that's who the larger companies usually target.

Regards,
SB

The faceplates were designed to Sony's dimensions and they just changed the colors. Cheers.

 

[snc]

Probably my most desired 60FPS upgrade.

that must be lou2

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Probably my most desired 60FPS upgrade.

Bloodborne doing 60FPS at 1080p on the PS5 should be very easy to implement, since the 30 FPS were obtained using just 18 CUs @ 800MHz and the PS5 can run the same number of CUs at clocks almost 3x higher.

What would be a nice surprise on Bloodborne is if they got FromSoftware to implement the graphics upgrades they never did for the PS4 Pro, making use of a wider GPU to achieve a higher resolution and better assets / effects / etc.

The faceplates were designed to Sony's dimensions and they just changed the colors. Cheers.

I'd say the fittings are probably IP protected, so even if the shape was different they'd need permission to sell compatible plates.
Unless of course they were some chinese sellers on Aliexpress who don't give a shit about that because they never into trouble for infringing IP.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

The faceplates were designed to Sony's dimensions and they just changed the colors. Cheers.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious. Like, duh.

Which just goes to prove my point, that the only reason it was taken down was that it was too similar to Sony's own design and that Sony presumably trademarked that design. Hence, any other shape or design cannot be legally prevented from being sold in the US.

And, even then Sony would have to show in a court of law that the design isn't common enough to be un-trademarkable. I personally don't believe that it's a common design so their trademark should hold if it goes to court. Then as long as the design is exactly the same or very close to the same, then the other party would be liable for violating that trademark.

If the other party had thought it through they could make minimal changes to the design that would have made it free of any potential trademark or patent dispute. Even just having square corners would likely have been enough. Or as someone else mentioned, just make the entire panel flat and it wouldn't violate any trademark or patent.

Regards,
SB

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I'd say the fittings are probably IP protected, so even if the shape was different they'd need permission to sell compatible plates.
Unless of course they were some chinese sellers on Aliexpress who don't give a shit about that because they never into trouble for infringing IP.

Trademark law in the US only deals with things that make a product easily identifiable to a consumer. Thus, things such as the name of a product, the shape of a product, or the overall look of product are trademarkable. Things like how X piece attaches to Y piece is generally not trademarkable unless it is a distinctive design of a product that is visible to the consumer.

Thus the bits that connect the side panels to the body of the PS5 are not trademarkable because they are not visible to the consumer and thus not part of the distinctive design of the product. The shape of the side panels are visible and are distinctive and thus can be trademarked.

Now if Sony were in the business of selling panel attachment devices (like a screw) they could in theory patent that design as long as it is not a generic design or one that has been used in past products by other manufacturers or sellers. But that only holds if Sony are selling those to other consumers of said panel attachment devices. If it is only used internally, it is not trademarkable.

Regards,
SB

 

[iroboto]

M2 slot disabled for launch.

This removes some of our thoughts that they would/could support slower drives for PS4 titles etc. It looks like certified only going in there.

While the PS5 features a dedicated internal slot that can theoretically fit standard stick-shaped M.2 SSDs and an easy way to access it, the slot will apparently be disabled out of the box. “[T]his is reserved for a future update,” Sony tells The Verge.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/5/21551165/sony-ps5-playstation-5-no-m2-ssd-expansion-launch

 

[Unknown Soldier]

 

[3dilettante]

You mean like Recaro racing seats? Or how about replacement displays for an iPhone that cannot be use on any other phone and aren't made by Apple?

Or how about 3rd party reusable coffee filters for Keurig K-cup coffee machines? The coffee pods that are sold are how Keurig makes money, so they most certainly do not want anyone selling anything that allows you to use whatever coffee you want in their machines, but they can't legally stop anyone from selling them. They also only work in Keurig coffee machines.

As I said, in the US, a manufacturer cannot prohibit an end user from using or modifying a piece of hardware however they wish once it is sold. This includes using aftermarket products or parts (like reusable filters) that a manufacturer does not want to exist because it eats into their potential revenue.

This is why the only way to prevent non-manufacturer approved controllers from working on consoles is to include a security chip that checks to see if a controller is officially licensed. But if those are somehow circumvented without the use of an official chip, then anyone can make and sell controllers for a console without requiring the permission of the console maker. There is nothing that any console maker (Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo) could do to legally make them stop.

Keurig actually did try to block third party pods with an electronic tag on its official products. Encrypt the functionality, and attempts to reverse-engineer run afoul of the anti-circumvention parts of the DMCA.
Similar measures have been made with printers. There have been decisions against some of them, but I'm not aware of a consistent legal basis that would prevent further attempts elsewhere, and defenses like fair-use are defenses after expensive litigation has begun.
Depending on the market, relative strength of the companies involved, or possibly other regulations there can be an established source of third-party parts for things like cars, although the specifics of what is handled with design patents or aftermarket car modifications are outside my area of expertise.
A small team trying to sell side plates isn't as difficult to take on as an auto-parts manufacturer.

It's a trademark issue if the design is exactly like the one that is trademarked. But if it is a different shape then it no longer violates any trademarks.

The problem with the one that was taken down was that the shape was too similar to Sony's own design and Sony trademarked that particular design. And even then it's possible that the aftermarket company may have won in a court of law. However, as in many cases where a large company bullies a smaller company, the smaller company can't afford to go to court to try to defend their case.

But that's part of the whole trademark/patent thing. If you don't attempt to defend it, you risk losing it. And since it's easier to defend your trademark/patent against a company that can't afford to go to court, that's who the larger companies usually target.

The part of the dispute I saw that mentioned trademarks was the use of the name platestation--which Sony said was too similar to their established brand.
Design patents seem to govern the plates, which may have different rules about defense. I recall the Apple/Samsung case about infringement of design patents, and I recall reading "patent pending" on things like fast-food fry containers. The latter likely meant design patents, since I don't think the idea of holding food in a container was novel.
The "defense" for taking money for knock-off plates in advance of the launch was that they thought they could because the patents were only pending, which is not a defense as much as an admission of willful infringement in a future court case after the patents were granted.