Wired Playstation 5 Exclusives , new article 8/10/19

[Thunderchild]

ps4 owner here, they're really not missing out on much.



wait, what? so... people with $200k+ sportscars should buy honda accords because... they're missing out on the franchise?

and i'm not sure i agree that each gen gets better. the hardware is obviously newer, but the with consideration to their respective time/hardware/pc counterparts/games, i think they've been getting worse since the ps2/xbox (ps3 had great games but garbage hardware)



you don't seem to have an argument, as far as i can tell.

and it's (probably) not even a 60 fps vs 30 fps issue. i played/saw some ps4 games that couldn't sustain 20 and many that were prone to pretty bad stutters.

Cool. Don't buy a PS5 then I guess?

 

[rob mafia]

Capcom got RE2make running at over 1080p at 60fps.

are you talking about the ps4 pro?
i know the first RE remaster was 30 fps... i know that re2 has a variable framerate that's generally 40+, but i don't think it can run 60 (on the regular ps4, at least)

 

[KaNesDeath]

It’s pry best to just walk away at this point. Not even master racers like you.

Thats why i avoided coming back to this thread. Finding different ways to repeat facts isnt worth it. Jefferz post made zero sense in context of standardized M.2 slots installed on gaming Pc motherboards that are PCIe based.

 

[jefferz]

Im talking to someone who thinks game developers can program differently because SSD's are standard now on Playstation 5. Including different types of the M.2 slot is trivial since the 2280 won out. Its equivalent to me talking about HDD's and feeling the need to list IDE.

When you try to act all PCMasterRace and don't know what the fuck you're talking about, you look even more silly than he does because you tried to come off as an expert.
I highly doubt you even know what 2280 means without googling it.
Just stop kid, you're embarrassing yourself.

 

[KaNesDeath]

When you try to act all PCMasterRace

All i did was air my grievance of them keeping a primary storage connection type that is being phased out. From a fluff article praising it as revolutionary.

 

[Madmick]

I didn't find Kane's comments that controversial even if they are spiced with a bit of haterade, and muddled form factor correlations. Normally, I wouldn't hone on that stuff, but this is what Mark Cerny pushed in that Wired exclusive: SSD storage. This is what the consoles have been reduced to as a selling point?

Did you read the whole paragraph?

They say the SSD setup in PS5 is faster than anything currently available on PC.

There's no way that whatever storage they're using is faster than Optane. There's also no feasible way to put a serviceable amount of Optane storage into these things without them running thousands of dollars. When they hype you without giving the details it's because they're honey-dicking you, Pooh Bear.

PS4 was released in 2013, which means it had been in development for several years prior. SSDs, at that point, and still to this day, although they've gotten better, have a very limited lifespan of 2-3 years. It would not have been an economically feasible decision to use ssd storage given the price point and state of the technology at the time.

Furthermore, as someone else pointed out, if you actually read the article, the SSD they are introducing is a proprietary setup that is supposedly faster than anything available for PC.

We get it, PCs have better hardware, but what they don't have is the games, so 'welcome to the last decade of games' on your ultra-nukem-hardware I guess - I bet you just can't wait to play Train Simulator at 500fps and 32K resolution.

If limited lifespan were still a problem to this day then why would the technology be any less problematic? In fact, the type of SSD technology which has proliferated since then actually has a shorter lifespan, but is much more economical, and that's why it is now feasible in a console (TLC or QLC NAND types). SSDs are limited by life cycles, not years, and drive lifespan is not a typical concern outside server or professional environments:
https://www.compuram.de/blog/en/the...es-it-last-and-what-can-be-done-to-take-care/

 

[Boxing_paloney]

this is what Mark Cerny pushed in that Wired exclusive: SSD storage. This is what the consoles have been reduced to as a selling point

I hoped they'd make it backwards compatible with the whole Playstation line, every system. So many people have piles of playstation and PS2 games that it could work like a foot in the door for potential buyers who stopped playing consoles. Probably impossible though and they'd rather try squeezing another 50,000 more polygons into a face. Do we really need that realistic of a face.

 

[jojoRed]

ps4 owner here, they're really not missing out on much.

Except the most critically and commercially successful single player exclusives on the market.

 

[Madmick]

I hoped they'd make it backwards compatible with the whole Playstation line, every system. So many people have piles of playstation and PS2 games that it could work like a foot in the door for potential buyers who stopped playing consoles. Probably impossible though and they'd rather try squeezing another 50,000 more polygons into a face. Do we really need that realistic of a face.

From the Wired exclusive:

For example, the next-gen console will still accept physical media; it won’t be a download-only machine. Because it’s based in part on the PS4’s architecture, it will also be backward-compatible with games for that console. As in many other generational transitions, this will be a gentle one, with numerous new games being released for both PS4 and the next-gen console....

“I won't go into the details of our VR strategy today,” he says, “beyond saying that VR is very important to us and that the current PSVR headset is compatible with the new console.”

I can't believe I didn't see it immediately. It's pretty obvious what they're doing. Ironically I was just fretting over this with the Xbox's next gen rumors in the Halo: Infinite thread, but my realization this morning settles my mind:

There's supposedly a disc less version of the Xbox One in the pipeline for this year ,then for next gen there's possibly going to be 2 consoles, a "Arcade" type version that's a step up from the X and then a more powerful version , the codenames for these are Lockhart and Anaconda.

Yuck. Please no.

I understand the logical sensibility of offering an upgrade revision down the road like they did with the X and the One this generation, especially to meet the additional requirements of an emerging new mainstream standard as the changeover takes place (i.e. 4K screens), but the notion of splitting a console launch upon release sounds like a great recipe to shorten that console's lifespan considerably. But of course that is bad for profits, so it isn't an option.

Watch. They'll start releasing titles 5 years out where the baseline version won't be able to play them.

Originally, console generations indicated a new "box" (as they like to ridicule them in Silicon Valley). This was a brand new piece of hardware and software. When you said "Playstation 2" it referred to that specific hardware product: a PS2. That was its brand.

That ended this past generation with the PS4 and Xbox One. Suddenly, they released revisions of the hardware, and thus "PS4" didn't really mean a box, anymore. It referred to an operating system that could run the games. It could be the PS4 or PS4 Pro. What made the PS4 the PS4 was the ability to play PS4 games. The operating system had become the brand.

This is the final stage of the transition.

This PS5 will supposedly carry full backwards compatibility on Day 1 with the old PS4, and also run the PSVR. So why aren't they just calling it a new PS4? Because the brand "PS5" represents what games the system will run. Ironically, in reality, that's really what it has always meant. But now the PS5 will run PS4 games since there is no reason to have it otherwise. However, that doesn't mean the PS4 will run PS5 games.

This is how Microsoft and Sony dumb down the "Can my system run it?" question for console gamers. This is why if Microsoft launches two different versions of their new console I won't expect future compatibility issues with games. It walls off the new from the old. Any game could run on both, but if the older consoles can't run it adequately, you just designate it a PS5 game, and don't release it on PS4. It will be interesting to see if the Pro/X get any PS5 games when the base unit does not.

Effectively, this market is now identical to the PC market, but with less user choice. You don't get to choose when your system needs or gets an upgrade, and you don't get to choose how much. Yet, when the upgrade comes, you can't ignore it, and must have it. You could play that 2020 PS5 game on your 2013 PS4, but your PS4 isn't strong enough, so unless you upgrade your hardware, you won't play the game. Psychologically this is better for the merchant because the buyer is never made aware of the loss. In his mind only the PS5 can run it. Playing it on the PS4 was never an option. Still, it's a big plus for console gamers despite that it's another sign this product strategy probably doesn't really make sense going forward, anymore, and doesn't seem long for this world. Google Stadia and Apple Arcade are future models.

 

[Law Talkin’ Guy]

Lots of arguing between the plebs and master race in this thread when it boils down to this for most plebs, myself included: I know a console is generally significantly inferior to a PC in pretty much every technical aspect, top to bottom, but am fine with that because I’m only paying $300-400 for the damn thing.

Don’t know why this needs five pages of “lulz, the plebs are excited about ssd!”

 

[Boxing_paloney]

From the Wired exclusive:

I can't believe I didn't see it immediately. It's pretty obvious what they're doing. Ironically I was just fretting over this with the Xbox's next gen rumors in the Halo: Infinite thread, but my realization this morning settles my mind:




Originally, console generations indicated a new "box" (as they like to ridicule them in Silicon Valley). This was a brand new piece of hardware and software. When you said "Playstation 2" it referred to that specific hardware product: a PS2. That was its brand. That ended this past generation with the PS4 and Xbox One. Suddenly, they released revisions of the hardware, and thus "PS4" didn't really mean a box, anymore. It referred to an operating system that could run the games. It could be the PS4 or PS4 Pro. What made the PS4 the PS4 was the ability to play PS4 games. The operating system had become the brand.

This is the final stage of the transition.

This PS5 will supposedly carry full backwards compatibility on Day 1 with the old PS4, and also run the PSVR. So why aren't they just calling it a new PS4? Because the brand "PS5" represents what games the system will run. Ironically, in reality, that's really what it has always meant. But now the PS5 will run PS4 games since there is no reason to have it otherwise. However, that doesn't mean the PS4 will run PS5 games.

This is how Microsoft and Sony dumb down the "Can my system run it?" question for console gamers. This is why if Microsoft launches two different versions of their new console I won't expect future compatibility issues with games. It walls off the new from the old. Any game could run on both, but if the older consoles can't run it, you just designate it a PS5 game, and don't release it on PS4. It will be interesting to see if the Pro/X get any PS5 games when the base unit does not.

Effectively, this market is now identical to the PC market, but with less user choice. You don't get to choose when your system needs or gets an upgrade, and you don't get to choose how much. Yet, when the upgrade comes, you can't ignore it, and must have it. You could play that 2020 PS5 game on your 2013 PS4, but your PS4 isn't strong enough, so unless you upgrade your hardware, you won't play the game. Psychologically this is better for the merchant because the buyer is never made aware of the loss. In his mind only the PS5 can run it. Playing it on the PS4 was never an option. Still, it's a big plus for console gamers despite that it's another sign this product strategy probably doesn't really make sense going forward, anymore, and doesn't seem long for this world. Google Stadia and Apple Arcade are future models.

Agreed with all this. If this works out for them and they lean too hard into it it could splinter the userbase. I hope there's at least one guy at Sony pushing for this to be a controlled thing.

Maybe worth pointing out the Wii (And I think the Wii U) was mostly a gamecube, to the point there's a hack that'll let it play old gamecube games without emulating them. Same with the 3ds playing GBA games. It's probably a similar thing. There's been rumors the Switch is getting an "Enhanced/regular" version, and the 3ds already has the 3dsxl.

 

[Diogenes of Sinope]

Lots of arguing between the plebs and master race in this thread when it boils down to this for most plebs, myself included: I know a console is generally significantly inferior to a PC in pretty much every technical aspect, top to bottom, but am fine with that because I’m only paying $300-400 for the damn thing.

Don’t know why this needs five pages of “lulz, the plebs are excited about ssd!”

elitism. The average person prefers a console for convenience.

 

[helltoupee]

If limited lifespan were still a problem to this day then why would the technology be any less problematic? In fact, the type of SSD technology which has proliferated since then actually has a shorter lifespan, but is much more economical, and that's why it is now feasible in a console (TLC or QLC NAND types). SSDs are limited by life cycles, not years, and drive lifespan is not a typical concern outside server or professional environments:
https://www.compuram.de/blog/en/the...es-it-last-and-what-can-be-done-to-take-care/

Yes, I realize that an SSD life cycle is based on mechanical failure - and at the time the ps4 was in development, the average life cycle was 2-3 years, which was the point of my post - no console developer is going to charge $400 for a system that is expected to fail within a couple years.

Obviously that has been improved upon, which is why SSDs are being included in the development of the newer console.

At least, this is how I understand it - I'm completely open to being educated if I'm off about that - it seems that you misunderstood what I was trying to say. Anyways, my threadripper is still chugging away - by far the best computer I've ever used - thanks again for taking your time to help me out.

Despite the fact that I like to think that I have a top of the line computer, overall it seems that game development for PCs is seriously lagging, and I'd much rather play games on my playstation.

 

[Corona]

PS4 was released in 2013, which means it had been in development for several years prior. SSDs, at that point, and still to this day, although they've gotten better, have a very limited lifespan of 2-3 years. It would not have been an economically feasible decision to use ssd storage given the price point and state of the technology at the time.

Furthermore, as someone else pointed out, if you actually read the article, the SSD they are introducing is a proprietary setup that is supposedly faster than anything available for PC.

We get it, PCs have better hardware, but what they don't have is the games, so 'welcome to the last decade of games' on your ultra-nukem-hardware I guess - I bet you just can't wait to play Train Simulator at 500fps and 32K resolution.

Not to mention putting an SSD in a ps4 in 2013 prob would’ve put the cost of a ps4 at something absurd lmao. I’m sure that would’ve been well received.

 

[Dizzy]

are you talking about the ps4 pro?
i know the first RE remaster was 30 fps... i know that re2 has a variable framerate that's generally 40+, but i don't think it can run 60 (on the regular ps4, at least)

Yeah I’ve been playing on Pro for a little bit now. But MH was on my old PS4 and ran fine.

Can’t speak to the other games.

Bloodborne was one of the only ones I could think of that would drop the frame rate that badly. And even then it was only in specific scenarios. It held steady most of the time.

 

[Madmick]

Yes, I realize that an SSD life cycle is based on mechanical failure - and at the time the ps4 was in development, the average life cycle was 2-3 years, which was the point of my post - no console developer is going to charge $400 for a system that is expected to fail within a couple years.

Obviously that has been improved upon, which is why SSDs are being included in the development of the newer console.

At least, this is how I understand it - I'm completely open to being educated if I'm off about that - it seems that you misunderstood what I was trying to say. Anyways, my threadripper is still chugging away - by far the best computer I've ever used - thanks again for taking your time to help me out.

Despite the fact that I like to think that I have a top of the line computer, overall it seems that game development for PCs is seriously lagging, and I'd much rather play games on my playstation.

You have been radically misled about the average life of an SSD inside a gaming machine. Even in 2012 this myth already had a shelf life. The reason they didn't include an SSD in 2013 had nothing to do with concerns for SSD lifespan. It was about cost. Back then even the cheapest 500GB SSDs would have cost about the same as the rest of the system combined:

https://www.anandtech.com/show/6459/samsung-ssd-840-testing-the-endurance-of-tlc-nand

NAND endurance is something that always raises questions among those considering a move to solid state storage. Even though we have showed more than once that the endurance of today's MLC NAND based SSDs is more than enough for even enterprise workloads, the misconception of SSDs having a short lifespan still lives. Back in the day when we had 3Xnm MLC NAND with 5,000 P/E cycles, people were worried about wearing our their SSDs, although there was absolutely nothing to worry about. The move to ~20nm MLC NAND has reduced the available P/E cycles to 3,000, but that's still plenty.

We have tested MLC NAND endurance before but with the release of Samsung SSD 840, we had something new to test: TLC NAND. We have explained the architectural differences between SLC, MLC and TLC NAND several times by now, but I'll do a brief recap here (I strongly recommend reading the detailed explanation if you want to truly understand how TLC NAND works):

SLC MLC TLC
Bits per Cell 1 2 3
P/E Cycles (2Xnm) 100,000 3,000 1,000
Read Time 25us 50us ~75us
Program Time 200-300us 600-900us ~900-1350us
Erase Time 1.5-2ms 3ms ~4.5ms
The main difference is that MLC stores two bits per cell, whereas TLC stores three. This results in eight voltage states instead of four (also means that one TLC cell has eight possible data values). Voltages used to program the cell are usually between 15V and 18V, so there isn't exactly a lot room to play with when you need to fit twice as many voltage states within the same space. The problem is that when the cell gets cycled (i.e. programmed and erased), the room taken by one voltage state increases due to electron trapping and current leakage. TLC can't tolerate as much change in the voltage states as MLC can because there is less voltage headroom and you can't end up in a situation where two voltage states become one (the cell wouldn't give valid values because it doesn't know if it's programmed as "110" or "111" for example). Hence the endurance of TLC NAND is lower; it simply cannot be programmed and erased as many times as MLC NAND and thus you can't write as much to a TLC NAND based SSD.

If you read this whole page you'll see that a 512GB TLC SSD in 2013 would have an estimated life of 47 years. It all depends on usage. The technological sophistication that has increased their practical endurance for gaming has been the advance of caching in mainstream market SSDs, but Sony or Microsoft could have been a market innovator in that technology. Instead, game consoles no longer advance PC hardware. They merely catch up.

Not to mention putting an SSD in a ps4 in 2013 prob would’ve put the cost of a ps4 at something absurd lmao. I’m sure that would’ve been well received.

It's this. This was the issue.

 

[rob mafia]

Except the most critically and commercially successful single player exclusives on the market.

i wasn't too impressed with any of them.

and if it keeps someone from playing the last infamous game, all the better.

 

[jojoRed]

i wasn't too impressed with any of them.

and if it keeps someone from playing the last infamous game, all the better.

List some of your favourite games this gen, and then list your all time top 5 or 10. I just want to confirm something.

 

[rob mafia]

List some of your favourite games this gen, and then list your all time top 5 or 10. I just want to confirm something.

well, zero from this gen are in my all time top... 50?

this gen ha been so bad that the best games are still from last gen (ie: gta5)... so i'm not even sure how to answer that, anyway.

 

[jojoRed]

well, zero from this gen are in my all time top... 50?

this gen ha been so bad that the best games are still from last gen (ie: gta5)... so i'm not even sure how to answer that, anyway.

Interesting....

What about your all time?