I think if they're thinking multi-platform from the start it probably makes some difference compared to a game that's developed for PS5 only and then ported by a different team. I actually can't see the case where Sony develops with PC as the primary platform. It would be too damaging to their brand. The only way that happens is if their PC sales dominate their console sales, and I can't see that happening any time soon, especially with the prices of pc hardware.
Sony PlayStation cross-platform game strategy
- Thread starter Shifty Geezer
- Start date
I think if they're thinking multi-platform from the start it probably makes some difference compared to a game that's developed for PS5 only and then ported by a different team. I actually can't see the case where Sony develops with PC as the primary platform. It would be too damaging to their brand. The only way that happens is if their PC sales dominate their console sales, and I can't see that happening any time soon, especially with the prices of pc hardware.
Metal_Spirit
Regular
I can agree on this. Sales numbers on PC are way lower than PS5. Loosing sales on PS5 would criple sony's finances. Loosing them on PC, would hardly be noticeable.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Since PS3, PlayStation hardware has increasingly begun to adopt PC commodity technology. PS3's RSX was a Nvidia 7xxx chip and PS4 and PS5 are variations of AMD's CPU and GPU technologies, albeit with the known pros and cons of unified memory architectures. Whilst you get marginal tech that doesn't exist on PC, like PS4's GPU compute command queues, and PS5's NVMe I/O sub-system, for the most part you're looking at the same tech - with some things being easier to achieve and other things more difficult. And the same consoles advantages - like a known quantity hardware configuration - continue to apply meaning some problems are easier to solve because the architecture is known quantity.
The idea that you can "focus on the PC" really defines the problem of developing anything for PCs, which is lack of any base common hardware on which to focus development.
Last edited by a moderator:
I can certainly foresee certain design decisions being made to cater for the PC in some respects to make the job of porting easier, but I would see that as a choice of implementation path rather than end result.
@Globalisateurs post seemed to suggest specific limitations on the IO/storage side on PC which might prevent games fully utilising the PS5's capabilities in the future while citing Ratchet and Clank and Miles Morales as examples of games designed specifically with the PS5 IO in mind - both of which are on the PC and work similarly to the PS5 versions.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
The difference will always be the the performance of any PS5 is predictable because developers can test performance using data compressed using various profiles of hardware-supported decompression and they can test and predict what I/O performance will be from the first PS5 off the assembly line in 2020 will be no slower than PS5s rolling off the assembly line next year. On PC, you simply do not know which PCIe chipset, CPU. RAM, GPU GDDR and NVMe performance any user will have. And some combination variations work better than others depending on the game.
God examples being Baldur's Gate III and Starfield which both lean more on the CPU than GPU, but not to a degree where the GPU isn't important, nor the I/O system - assuming you don't want massive load times. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Yes, but that's why PC games have settings that scale. And minimum requirements etc... there's nothing about that which means a PS5 version has to be held back to cater for a PC version.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I/O has never scaled well. I speak from experience as this is one of the biggest challenges in server infrastructure. I am sure you remember when there there were distinct settings for PC textures but I've not seen that setting in a newly-released PC game for the best part of a decade. What also doesn't scale well? Shaders. Ergo, in terms of data moving over the PCI bus from RAM to GDDR, or indeed filling GDDR. or indeed consuming the bandwidth of any given graphics card, there is only so much scalability In terms of hard resources (RAM and bandwidth).
It's only really the realtime computational stuff that scales now. This is why DF keep banging on about 8Gb for new graphics cards being the bare minimum. There simply are few options to scale lower the way modern PC games are developed.
You might want to explain that to all the people running Ratchet and Clank from HDD's and SATA SSD's.
I'm not really sure what you're talking about here because pretty much every PC game has a texture quality setting and it generally makes an enormous difference in consumed VRAM. This in turn can have a huge impact on IO requirements, which Ratchet and Clank again demonstrates aptly. e.g. at medium and below textures they don't even bother with Direct Storage because the IO requirement (including decompression) is so much lower.
No one is expecting that turning the shader quality down is going to significantly impact IO requirements. But textures absolutely will. So will model quality and shadow map quality.
And even where you can't simply change game settings to reduce load on the IO, the gameplay itself can generally be elastic enough to accommodate the longer load times. Again - see Ratchet and Clank with it's extended portal transition times on slower PC's.
With all the extensive discussions we've had on this forum around how games scale with VRAM as well as all of the recent attention in the media, I must admit to being a bit baffled as to why you are pushing this argument.
To be clear, texture settings absolutely do scale very well on PC in the vast majority of cases. That is in fact why 8GB cards are still entirely viable still (at lowered textures settings) and Digital Foundry aren't recommending 16GB cards to everyone.
DavidGraham
Veteran
Glad Nixxes is in charge of this port, we should expect DLSS3, FSR and XeSS, and maybe some RT goodness along the way.
Awesome! We knew it was coming but great to finally see it made official. Especially with Nixxes at the helm.
Looks like a 2 year delay over the PS5 original or 3 months or so for the complete edition.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Still not played the DLC.. I think I have a finite appetite for robot dinosaur antics. 
DavidGraham
Veteran
More games from the Geforce Now leak have appeared. Metal Gear Solid, Cities Skylines 2, and Monster Hunter 6 were among the big names that finally appeared in 2023.
www.pcgamer.com
2 years later, that Nvidia leak just keeps delivering—and I'm expecting even more in 2024
Metal Gear Solid, Cities Skylines 2, and Monster Hunter 6 were among the big names that finally appeared in 2023.
www.pcgamer.com
Are any of those Sony published?
probably their point was that it adds credibility to the general leak itself, not specifig to sony. thus it also addss credibility to the soly leaks
DavidGraham
Veteran
Yes, the leak has proved true for Ratchet and Clank, Horizon 2 and Returnal. GT7, Damon's Souls Remake and Ghost of Tsushima have yet to be proven right.
What? Horizon 2 for PC release hints? I missed it, please explain 'cause I've really been waiting for that!
It's confirmed for early next year on PC:
Horizon Forbidden West: Complete Edition is coming to PS5 and PC
Explore distant lands and brave new threats in the Forbidden West and the ruins of Los Angeles in the complete collection.
blog.playstation.com
