Support NeoGAF

[Zathalus]

Why isnt Ratchet utilizing the full potential speed of the system?

Why is a 3.2 GBps drive performing the same as a 5.5 GBps drive and a 2x faster 7 GBps drive? Surely the 2-3 second portal rifts should've been shorter on the faster SSDs, no? Isn't that why Cerny went for the overkill 5.5 GBps?

So clearly, the 5.5 GBps speeds are not the bottleneck. And they are not enhancing the experience in any meaningful way by shortening the portal load times. So where is the bottleneck? The I/O? The RAM? The question needs to be asked if the extra speeds was even necessary if the APU and all that kracken decompression isnt able to full utilize the extra 3.8 GBps of speeds.

I'd imagine the bottleneck is likely the engine and the development itself. Having this much bandwidth and decompression on tap is rather revolutionary for game developers at this stage. Imagine developers were struggling along with a 300Mhz Pentium 3 and then suddenly a 8 core 16 thread 3.5Ghz CPU was the upgrade that they now had to take advantage of. Obviously the first generation game engines would not take advantage of that. It took well over a decade before proper multithreaded game engines were a thing, but in the end the payoff was worth it.

It may well be the PS5 has an overkill I/O system for the majority of this generation, and we will only truly see the benefits of it towards the end of the consoles lifespan. But that leap had to have been taken someplace, and I have a feeling the payoff is going to be worth it. Or it may not, but I feel it is certainly way to early to tell.

 

[Md Ray]

So clearly, the 5.5 GBps speeds are not the bottleneck. And they are not enhancing the experience in any meaningful way by shortening the portal load times. So where is the bottleneck? The I/O? The RAM?

The game engine.

 

[Shmunter]

Why isnt Ratchet utilizing the full potential speed of the system?

Why is a 3.2 GBps drive performing the same as a 5.5 GBps drive and a 2x faster 7 GBps drive? Surely the 2-3 second portal rifts should've been shorter on the faster SSDs, no? Isn't that why Cerny went for the overkill 5.5 GBps?

So clearly, the 5.5 GBps speeds are not the bottleneck. And they are not enhancing the experience in any meaningful way by shortening the portal load times. So where is the bottleneck? The I/O? The RAM? The question needs to be asked if the extra speeds was even necessary if the APU and all that kracken decompression isnt able to full utilize the extra 3.8 GBps of speeds.

Are you still going on about this? The question needs to be asked? Who here is an actual Sony, AMD and Insomniac engineer/programmer to give you that answer? Why do you expect a first year release(I'm amazed at how Insomniac were able to even get this out so polished) game to use the full potential of the PS5/SSD/IO? God of War and TLOU2 which are both benchmark games for PS4 came out 5 years after. Did the first year PS4 games max out the PS4?
Or did you expect Cerny to design the system so that it's maxed day one? Sometimes I think people leave behind common sense in game design. It's been explained multiple times that the developers need to shift to making games that take advantage of SSD as a base. Engines have to be adapted and then developers will learn new tricks etc.

Ratchet and Clank blueprint was likely based on early specs of what next gen may look like. It is quite possible that they never envisaged PS5 reaching such a high water mark with I/O and as such designed for a lower baseline. This whole thread is nothing but speculation, and this one is no more or less valid.

 

[martino]

The game engine.

indeed
And you can't expect that the fast transistion to radically different and deep engine changes will go better than that the fast adoption of async compute by the industry.

 

[Soosa]

Some people have weird black&white logic here.

if slow drive is enough now -> they claim THE SSD is scam!

Smart people see it as -> while it is enough now, in the future it may not be.

Technically it is as stupid as claiming "yeah 10-12 Tflops is a scam because 0,6 tflops system can run this one game!" when talking about some 2D indie multiplatformer.

I bet that these bone headed people will buy some slowest SSD they can find, and then cry after 1-3 years when some game wont work on it, after engines and devs find the need and ways to use full bandwith

 

[GHG]

Some people have weird black&white logic here.

if slow drive is enough now -> they claim THE SSD is scam!

Smart people see it as -> while it is enough now, in the future it may not be.

Technically it is as stupid as claiming "yeah 10-12 Tflops is a scam because 0,6 tflops system can run this one game!" when talking about some 2D indie multiplatformer.

I bet that these bone headed people will buy some slowest SSD they can find, and then cry after 1-3 years when some game wont work on it, after engines and devs find the need and ways to use full bandwith

That's literally what DF's conclusion was but people are ignoring that for whatever reason.

Oh and those people you're referring to, don't worry, most of them are not the ones going out there buying an SSD for the PS5.

 

[Werewolfgrandma]

Some people have weird black&white logic here.

if slow drive is enough now -> they claim THE SSD is scam!

Smart people see it as -> while it is enough now, in the future it may not be.

Technically it is as stupid as claiming "yeah 10-12 Tflops is a scam because 0,6 tflops system can run this one game!" when talking about some 2D indie multiplatformer.

I bet that these bone headed people will buy some slowest SSD they can find, and then cry after 1-3 years when some game wont work on it, after engines and devs find the need and ways to use full bandwith

If it takes 4 years into a 6 year cycle to actually use something it sounds like that something wasn't all that necessary.

 

[GHG]

If it takes 4 years into a 6 year cycle to actually use something it sounds like that something wasn't all that necessary.

What a stupid take.

So you're basically saying any mid/late gen games that we've seen on previous consoles should never have existed.

From a development perspective It's always better to have overhead than it is to not have it.

 

[Gameplaylover]

If it takes 4 years into a 6 year cycle to actually use something it sounds like that something wasn't all that necessary.

And in 4 years we already got the Pro and whatever MS calls it every core gamer is going for.

 

[GHG]

And in 4 years we already got the Pro and whatever MS calls it every core gamer is going for.

The whole point of those mid gen refreshes is that they are optional.

Going by this logic no high end PC hardware should ever exist.

 

[Gameplaylover]

The whole point of those mid gen refreshes is that they are optional.

Going by this logic no high end PC hardware should ever exist.

I bet that all the people who give a shit about the >9000 SSD and 12Tf are going to get those optional refreshes and then have new shit they can defend or discuss about. The rest are the Fifa/COD/2K/Madden/GTA casuals that usually don't buy first parties anyways.

 

[Boglin]

Apparently if you can't use a new technique right now then it should never be used
The need for instant gratification really is ruining the world.

 

[Werewolfgrandma]

What a stupid take.

So you're basically saying any mid/late gen games that we've seen on previous consoles should never have existed.

From a development perspective It's always better to have overhead than it is to not have it.

The not using something to it's potential until 5 years later is a fallacy. On top of that the time and budget required to need 5.5gbs constantly just isn't happening outside a handful of games. If only a handful of games require something then yes it's a waste of time. Unless your talking load times in which case I don't care if they go down to 1 second from 2 seconds.

 

[GHG]

I bet that all the people who give a shit about the >9000 SSD and 12Tf are going to get those optional refreshes and then have new shit they can defend or discuss about. The rest are the Fifa/COD/2K/Madden/GTA casuals that usually don't buy first parties anyways.

Some will some won't. Its better to have than it is to not have.

I've heard it all now. What you're basically saying is that the SSD and the increased teraflops shouldn't have been put in these consoles because the developers are not maxing them out today?

If you don't want technological advances and for hardware to be on it's knees from day one then Nintendo will gladly cater to your needs.

The not using something to it's potential until 5 years later is a fallacy. On top of that the time and budget required to need 5.5gbs constantly just isn't happening outside a handful of games. If only a handful of games require something then yes it's a waste of time. Unless your talking load times in which case I don't care if they go down to 1 second from 2 seconds.

Ok and in that case can we agree that the 12tf Series X wasn't necessary then because it will take a few years for developers to get used to the system and utilise all of its power? Maybe we should have just settled for the Series S?

 

[Werewolfgrandma]

Some will some won't. Its better to have than it is to not have.

I've heard it all now. What you're basically saying is that the SSD and the increased teraflops shouldn't have been put in these consoles because the developers are not maxing them out today?

If you don't want technological advances and for hardware to be on it's knees from day one then Nintendo will gladly cater to your needs.



Ok and in that case can we agree that the 12tf Series X wasn't necessary then because it will take a few years for developers to get used to the system and utilise all of its power? Maybe we should have just settled for the Series S?

I don't give a shit about Xbox. Why is that always everyone's response?

 

[Gameplaylover]

What you're basically saying is that the SSD and the increased teraflops shouldn't have been put in these consoles because the developers are not maxing them out today?

No, what i'm basically saying is that most people who are defending and hating the shit out of the stuff most likely will never be able to take advantage of it because they already switched to the upgrade models when it becomes useful.

 

[Snake29]

I don't give a shit about Xbox. Why is that always everyone's response?

Why not, why do you care about the PS5 so much? Why are people so concered about the PS5 hardware? It's the only console atm showing and releasing next-gen games from launch.

I think that question is fair to ask in this case. You must also be one of those people who buys a 16core CPU, 64GB ram, 3090 and then plays games that will never use it in their life, but in the meantime bitch about a custom controller that actually shows a difference in different areas.

 

[Werewolfgrandma]

Why not, why do you care about the PS5 so much? Why are people so concered about the PS5 hardware? It's the only console atm showing and releasing next-gen games from launch.

I think that question is fair to ask in this case. You must also be one of those people who buys a 16core CPU, 64GB ram, 3090 and then plays games that will never use it in their life, but in the meantime bitch about a custom controller that actually shows a difference in different areas.

There is zero concern. Ps5 is great especially for the price. Also no my PC isn't nearly that good. 2 paragraphs and you didn't manage to get a single thing right.

 

[strange headache]

Aside from a couple times writing to the slow WD750 took forever (like 9x longer than writing to the 850), everything else from gameplay, frame rate hitches, and loading times were basically a wash between the WD750, WD850 and PS5's internal SSD.

In other words, the WD750 3.2gb/s SSD is just as good as the internal SSD.

If you look closely at the gameplay triple comparison, there are times the WD drives frame rates are a bit better than PS5's for a fraction of a second.

For all you PC gamers who'd chime in once in a while in an SSD thread saying your PC's slower SSD could probably do R&C's time warping tunnels. You're right. A PC 3.2gb/s SSD did it fine.

So it really was all just marketing bullcrap, whodathunkit!

 

[Darius87]

The not using something to it's potential until 5 years later is a fallacy. On top of that the time and budget required to need 5.5gbs constantly just isn't happening outside a handful of games. If only a handful of games require something then yes it's a waste of time. Unless your talking load times in which case I don't care if they go down to 1 second from 2 seconds.

it will be used to it's potential until 5 years later just not to it's limits and it's not about 5.5gb/s every second, it's how quick you can get data into RAM so 5.5gb/s can be 1.1gb in 0.2s do people actually think PS5 SSD should be runing at 5.5gb/s all the time? otherwise it's over engineered?

edit: the quicker you can get data into RAM the less RAM usage actually needed.

 

[Shmunter]

it will be used to it's potential until 5 years later just not to it's limits and it's not about 5.5gb/s every second, it's how quick you can get data into RAM so 5.5gb/s can be 1.1gb in 0.2s do people actually think PS5 SSD should be runing at 5.5gb/s all the time? otherwise it's over engineered?

edit: the quicker you can get data into RAM the less RAM usage actually needed.

But you’ll run out of game in 10 seconds for a 50 gig game!

 

[Rea]

Many posters in this thread forget about this video, refreshes your memories on why i/o and data transferring speed is critical in next gen gaming. It is time stamped for your convenience. Enjoy.

 

[Snake29]

There is zero concern. Ps5 is great especially for the price. Also no my PC isn't nearly that good. 2 paragraphs and you didn't manage to get a single thing right.

What a weak way to try to get out from under your own wrongness. From now on, in my eyes, you also belong to that group of clowns who are tone deaf.

 

[FranXico]

Many posters in this thread forget about this video, refreshes your memories on why i/o and data transferring speed is critical in next gen gaming. It is time stamped for your convenience. Enjoy.

It's only good/useful/important once PC gets it. Didn't you get the memo?

 

[GHG]

I don't give a shit about Xbox. Why is that always everyone's response?

The same principle applies there and for PC parts.

When someone tells you they are building a new PC do you only consider the games and software that we have now or do you tell them to also consider the future if they plan on keeping it for 5 years?

Show me where you've said 12TF is unnecessary because it will take developers 4-6 years to fully utilise it and we will agree to disagree.

Like I said before. If you're not a fan of the output from consoles improving over the course of a generation then there's a console manufacturer that will cater perfectly to you needs. You know, because a console chugging along at sub 30fps from day one is what we all want to see.

No, what i'm basically saying is that most people who are defending and hating the shit out of the stuff most likely will never be able to take advantage of it because they already switched to the upgrade models when it becomes useful.

The systems are built with overhead on mind so that everyone (both developers and end users) can benefit from things improving over the course of the generation. People hating or defending has no impact on that.

The consoles have got to last a lifecycle of ~7 years so of course they are going to use the best hardware possible, even if that means it won't be fully utilised for a couple of years. All of the games we are seeing now started development long before final development kits were available.

 

[Snake29]

It's only good/useful/important once PC gets it. Didn't you get the memo?

I can already imagine these first RTXI/O threads with the same clowns jerking each other off.

 

[NickFire]

Why isnt Ratchet utilizing the full potential speed of the system?

Remember, when the PS5 was first announced in the wired article in April of 2019, Gen 3 SSDs were still relatively new and topped out at 3.5 GBps. The devkits went out immediately after the article and at that time there was no 5.5 GBps ssd on the market or anywhere really. I highly doubt devs expected or wanted anything over 3.5 GBps.

You answered your own question one post down.

Why isn't ratchet utilizing the full speed? Simple, when the game was developed the technology was still new.

Anyone else remember the surprise that PS4 was able to use cutting edge ram at the time? Seems history is repeating. Devs will catch up.

 

[MrFunSocks]

You think Sony would spend a lot of money for fast ssd if it was just a marketing stunt ?
PS5 Games will use the speeds once the PS4 is truly dead. Or Cerny is the biggest idiot around, I don’t see that being the case.

This is the same Sony that spent a fortune on the Cell that they banked on being used across all of their electronic devices company wide, only for it to only ever be used in a single device and for it to be the reason why that device was a disaster for them.

Point being they don't always know best. They thought split RAM was a good idea. They thought UMD was a good idea. They thought proprietary memory cards on the vita was a good idea. I don't think it, the SSD speeds, was a marketing stunt, but I believe they vastly overestimated its importance. Games don't really need 5GB a second when the entire game is only 50GB in size including audio, video, etc. You're not going to be loading 5-10% of the game data per second even if it's possible.

 

[skit_data]

This is the same Sony that spent a fortune on the Cell that they banked on being used across all of their electronic devices company wide, only for it to only ever be used in a single device and for it to be the reason why that device was a disaster for them.

Point being they don't always know best. They thought split RAM was a good idea. They thought UMD was a good idea. They thought proprietary memory cards on the vita was a good idea. I don't think it, the SSD speeds, was a marketing stunt, but I believe they vastly overestimated its importance. Games don't really need 5GB a second when the entire game is only 50GB in size including audio, video, etc. You're not going to be loading 5-10% of the game data per second even if it's possible.

Except CELL was a completely different architecture whereas pretty much everything points to I/O becoming among the most important factors in GPUs and consoles in the upcoming generation of games.

It’s intellectual dishonesty to even compare this to the CELL IMO.

 

[Werewolfgrandma]

What a weak way to try to get out from under your own wrongness. From now on, in my eyes, you also belong to that group of clowns who are tone deaf.

So you write 2 paragraphs of false assumptions about me and I tell you they are false, but I'm the clown?
You sir are a dickhead to which I say good day.

 

[Werewolfgrandma]

The same principle applies there and for PC parts.

When someone tells you they are building a new PC do you only consider the games and software that we have now or do you tell them to also consider the future if they plan on keeping it for 5 years?

Show me where you've said 12TF is unnecessary because it will take developers 4-6 years to fully utilise it and we will agree to disagree.

Like I said before. If you're not a fan of the output from consoles improving over the course of a generation then there's a console manufacturer that will cater perfectly to you needs. You know, because a console chugging along at sub 30fps from day one is what we all want to see.



The systems are built with overhead on mind so that everyone (both developers and end users) can benefit from things improving over the course of the generation. People hating or defending has no impact on that.

The consoles have got to last a lifecycle of ~7 years so of course they are going to use the best hardware possible, even if that means it won't be fully utilised for a couple of years. All of the games we are seeing now started development long before final development kits were available.

You are comparing something easy to use(up the res or a million other things) to something I just don't see being used fully. I've already said in this thread that it's not due to specs or ability, but simply time and budget.

 

[SF Kosmo]

So much for the revolutionary SSD, and people in here were saying rift apart wasn't possible on PC because of the ssd

That's still sort of true because PC games still have to cater to lowest common denominator specs.

 

[Snake29]

So you write 2 paragraphs of false assumptions about me and I tell you they are false, but I'm the clown?
You sir are a dickhead to which I say good day.

Your one of the people that still trying to spin the wheel.

That's still sort of true because PC games still have to cater to lowest common denominator specs.

PC gamers still living in their bubble thinking that every other pc gamer around them has that superduper pc like they have, and then their own pc isn't even fast enough in the end.

 

[mckmas8808]

I dont know why you are quoting me?

Because you said, you believed the fast SSD and great hardware I\O was only there to speed up load times.

 

[GHG]

You are comparing something easy to use(up the res or a million other things) to something I just don't see being used fully. I've already said in this thread that it's not due to specs or ability, but simply time and budget.

If it were so easy to fully utilise then we would see a marked difference, but yet we aren't.

 

[Topher]

This is the same Sony that spent a fortune on the Cell that they banked on being used across all of their electronic devices company wide, only for it to only ever be used in a single device and for it to be the reason why that device was a disaster for them.

Point being they don't always know best. They thought split RAM was a good idea. They thought UMD was a good idea. They thought proprietary memory cards on the vita was a good idea. I don't think it, the SSD speeds, was a marketing stunt, but I believe they vastly overestimated its importance. Games don't really need 5GB a second when the entire game is only 50GB in size including audio, video, etc. You're not going to be loading 5-10% of the game data per second even if it's possible.

You go back 20 years in any companies history and you'll find instances of mistakes. How is any of it relevant to what is being discussed at all? Show me one of the console makers who haven't made mistakes in that time period. You can't. So that proves jack shit.

And one of the benefits we have seen from PS5's faster SSD is smaller game sizes as assets do not have to be duplicated as much. This has been shown on multiple occasions. Either way, making data IO less of a bottleneck in gaming is a good thing. I'm a bit baffled there are those trying to argue otherwise.

 

[twilo99]

Is ratchet a next gen game or not? I thought it was a showcase for next gen gaming, or is it just a glimpse into next gen? Its rather confusing.

The best part is, soon there will be more "true" next gen games that claim to require the speeds of the internal SSD to function, and soon after you will get someone testing that same next gen game on a 3.2gb/s drive to see if that's really the case, so we will know..

 

[Darius87]

I don't think it, the SSD speeds, was a marketing stunt, but I believe they vastly overestimated its importance. Games don't really need 5GB a second when the entire game is only 50GB in size including audio, video, etc. You're not going to be loading 5-10% of the game data per second even if it's possible.

it's not how much data goes from SSD to RAM it's how quick it goes so game size is irrevelant.

 

[yurinka]

The most impressive thing is that an SSD rated at 3200mb runs at at 5173mb on PS5, is that a bug or something else?

PS5 I/O system features many extra sauce stuff like a chip to decompress in real time the data from the SSD (all of it it's compressed) plus very cool memory management stuff and other things.

The raw data transfer of that SSD can be 3200mb/s and still run at that speed. But if instead of looking at its raw speed you look at the amount of data copied after decompressing it, these 5173mb/s are possible. Specially considering that with their stock 5500mb SSD they can achieve up to 22GB/s.

Very likely when implemented the streaming in Ratchet they did it with the 5500mb in mind without knowing that thanks to decompression & co. they were going to have faster speeds with the stock SSD, and knowing the console was going to feature slower external SSD maybe made the game only using 5000mb or slightly less.

 

[ReBurn]

Is ratchet a next gen game or not? I thought it was a showcase for next gen gaming, or is it just a glimpse into next gen? Its rather confusing.

The best part is, soon there will be more "true" next gen games that claim to require the speeds of the internal SSD to function, and soon after you will get someone testing that same next gen game on a 3.2gb/s drive to see if that's really the case, so we will know..

I think we've passed the point of useful conversation about the topic. Ratchet and Clank does what Insomniac set out to do and that's all that matters.

All that has been proven in this thread is that games currently available will run just fine from a drive that is slower than Sony's recommended 5.5 GB/s. Differences in the hundredths of a second in load times are going to be imperceptible to everyone except maybe the people who claim they can see the difference between 59 and 60 FPS over the course of a few seconds with their naked eye and we know those people are full of shit.

As for people claiming future games will make extensive use of raw speeds faster than 5.5 GB/s read I think it's safe to ignore those people. Sony's advertised spec for internal storage is 5.5 GB/s raw read and they probably won't ever officially support more than that despite newer drives that support faster speeds becoming available. It probably is possible that people who use a slower drive could have problems in future games and those people will be on their own because they didn't adhere to spec. We'll all be able to laugh at people complaining their games won't play from their 3.2 GB/s drives because they should have known better in the first place. But we aren't there yet.

 

[Werewolfgrandma]

Your one of the people that still trying to spin the wheel.



PC gamers still living in their bubble thinking that every other pc gamer around them has that superduper pc like they have, and then their own pc isn't even fast enough in the end.

I said good day

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I think we've passed the point of useful conversation about the topic. Ratchet and Clank does what Insomniac set out to do and that's all that matters.

All that has been proven in this thread is that games currently available will run just fine from a drive that is slower than Sony's recommended 5.5 GB/s. Differences in the hundredths of a second in load times are going to be imperceptible to everyone except maybe the people who claim they can see the difference between 59 and 60 FPS over the course of a few seconds with their naked eye and we know those people are full of shit.

As for people claiming future games will make extensive use of raw speeds faster than 5.5 GB/s read I think it's safe to ignore those people. Sony's advertised spec for internal storage is 5.5 GB/s raw read and they probably won't ever officially support more than that despite newer drives that support faster speeds becoming available. It probably is possible that people who use a slower drive could have problems in future games and those people will be on their own because they didn't adhere to spec. We'll all be able to laugh at people complaining their games won't play from their 3.2 GB/s drives because they should have known better in the first place. But we aren't there yet.

Spot on.

Also one other thing people wont be able to tell the difference with SSD comparisons..... the gap between one SSD loading a game in 1 second, another in 1.2 seconds and another in 1.3 seconds.

So it shows despite SSDs with a big gap in speed from 3.2 to 5.5 to 7.0, the difference read speeds and loading is so negligible, not only is the absolute difference in time super small already, but the gap is more like only +/- 10% and not +/- 100% like it looks on paper.

It's like 3 baseball player being showcased to be drafted. One is a hulk, one is medium sized and one is tiny. At first glance the big looks like he'll hit 35 HR, the average guy 20, and the tiny guy lucky if he hits 10.

Turns out the big player hits 26, the medium guy 25 and the small thin guy 24.

 

[Werewolfgrandma]

Is ratchet a next gen game or not? I thought it was a showcase for next gen gaming, or is it just a glimpse into next gen? Its rather confusing.

The best part is, soon there will be more "true" next gen games that claim to require the speeds of the internal SSD to function, and soon after you will get someone testing that same next gen game on a 3.2gb/s drive to see if that's really the case, so we will know..

That's how it always is. Goal posts always moving to the next game.

 

[Md Ray]

If it takes 4 years into a 6 year cycle to actually use something it sounds like that something wasn't all that necessary.

The use of async compute engines in the OG PS4, which was championed by Mark Cerny, also took 3-4 years into the cycle for widespread adoption. He even knew exactly when these HW functionalities will be used and went on record saying it's a feature that will be explored by the devs in the year three or year four of the console's cycle. Does that mean it wasn't necessary?

Or how about Turing incorporating all the DX12U features like mesh shaders, sampler feedback... 3 years on since its release and we still haven't seen a single real game using those said features, and people are already talking about RTX 40 series, some are moving from RTX 20 series or the ones looking to buy a new graphics card are eyeing RTX 30 series. Does this mean it wasn't all that necessary to have these features in a 2018 architecture which won't be used for many years to come? Why not just skip 20, 30 series and include these features into 40 or 50 series cards altogether instead?

Or... how about Sony including a blu-ray drive in every PS3 console that could read up to 50GB of discs but the game size on the disc was hardly 10GB, GTAV at the end of PS3's cycle was only 17GB on disc.

6 years from now devs won't suddenly stop making games for the PS5, it will be supported for the next 8-9 years to come just like we are still getting games like HFW, GoW Ragnarok, GT7 on PS4 - 9 years after its launch.

 

[Werewolfgrandma]

The use of async compute engines in the OG PS4, which was championed by Mark Cerny, also took 3-4 years into the cycle for widespread adoption. He even knew exactly when these HW functionalities will be used and went on record saying it's a feature that will be explored by the devs in the year three or year four of the console's cycle. Does that mean it wasn't necessary?

Or how about Turing incorporating all the DX12U features like mesh shaders, sampler feedback... 3 years on since its release and we still haven't seen a single real game using those said features, and people are already talking about RTX 40 series, some are moving from RTX 20 series or the ones looking to buy a new graphics card are eyeing RTX 30 series. Does this mean it wasn't all that necessary to have these features in a 2018 architecture which won't be used for many years to come?

Or... how about Sony including a blu-ray drive in every PS3 console that could read up to 50GB of discs but the game size on the disc was hardly 10GB, GTAV at the end of PS3's cycle was only 17GB on disc.

6 years from now devs won't suddenly stop making games for the PS5, it will be supported for the next 8-9 years to come just like we are still getting games like HFW, GoW Ragnarok, GT7 on PS4 - 9 years after its launch.

Those are all fine examples... Except the blu ray in PS3. That was just too push Blu ray adoption. I have no issues being wrong. It would be a present surprise. It's the certainty of most with less proof then I have is the issue. It all sounds to me like more juggling for devs that I just don't see happening. Once more I will be happy if I'm wrong.
We still have pretty trash optimization and the dev environment has been pretty standard for decades. People want full by the mili second memory management and I just don't see it happening.

 

[phil_t98]

Some people have weird black&white logic here.

if slow drive is enough now -> they claim THE SSD is scam!

Smart people see it as -> while it is enough now, in the future it may not be.

Technically it is as stupid as claiming "yeah 10-12 Tflops is a scam because 0,6 tflops system can run this one game!" when talking about some 2D indie multiplatformer.

I bet that these bone headed people will buy some slowest SSD they can find, and then cry after 1-3 years when some game wont work on it, after engines and devs find the need and ways to use full bandwith

no one of the things that has been said over and over is things like the unreal 5 demo and stuff like ratchet and clank COULD NOT be done on any other hardware, check Tim from Epic's initial marketing talk saying only possible because of the PS5 SSD when we now know that its possible on other devices

 

[Snake29]

no one of the things that has been said over and over is things like the unreal 5 demo and stuff like ratchet and clank COULD NOT be done on any other hardware, check Tim from Epic's initial marketing talk saying only possible because of the PS5 SSD when we now know that its possible on other devices

If they heavenly using the I/O complex, then no it's not possible on any other device. The PS5 SSD storage is more then only raw speed, it's the damn I/O complex people trying to explain here constantly that makes the difference.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

no one of the things that has been said over and over is things like the unreal 5 demo and stuff like ratchet and clank COULD NOT be done on any other hardware, check Tim from Epic's initial marketing talk saying only possible because of the PS5 SSD when we now know that its possible on other devices

This is the part that can be interpreted in different ways which is sketchy.

When someone says "can only be done on PS5 SSD", do they really mean its 5.5 gb/s capacity?

Or simply that PS5 has an SSD (of any kind) and whatever speed rating SSD it is inside a PS5 makes no difference. As long as its SSD it'll work wonders over HDD?

Its kind of like the other thread about Sony promoting GT7 having RT all year, then finally it's only garage and replay stuff. Technically, they never said it's in the entire game in any promo shot earlier. So in a way, they are right that RT is in the game.

 

[Werewolfgrandma]

If they heavenly using the I/O complex, then no it's not possible on any other device. The PS5 SSD storage is more then only raw speed, it's the damn I/O complex people trying to explain here constantly that makes the difference.

Just not for lumen in the land of nanite. Except when it was. It's hard to keep up what is what with you bunch.

 

[sankt-Antonio]

This is the same Sony that spent a fortune on the Cell that they banked on being used across all of their electronic devices company wide, only for it to only ever be used in a single device and for it to be the reason why that device was a disaster for them.

Point being they don't always know best. They thought split RAM was a good idea. They thought UMD was a good idea. They thought proprietary memory cards on the vita was a good idea. I don't think it, the SSD speeds, was a marketing stunt, but I believe they vastly overestimated its importance. Games don't really need 5GB a second when the entire game is only 50GB in size including audio, video, etc. You're not going to be loading 5-10% of the game data per second even if it's possible.

And you know what happened to Kutaragi, and why Cerni was paid to develop a PS console , again after making the right calls for PS4?