• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

|OT| Next-Gen PS5 & XSX |OT| Speculation/Analysis/Leaks Thread

onQ123

Report me for starting troll threads. Ban warning.
May 1, 2010
16,601
6,669
1,310
Which will leave the biggest sting for the hardcore Xbox gamers The beginning of the Xbox One generation when MS tried to treat the gamers as 2nd class citizens on a game console with a plan to become the iPad of the living room (the water cooler they called it )


Or this next generation where they are beginning to threat the Xbox Series X console as a supplementary platform to Xcloud as they focus on getting the mobile market to subscribe to Gamepass?

They really took the pride & joy of Xbox (Halo ) & tried to make it into Fortnite 2.0 & after the bad showing they are not even trying to reassure potential Xbox Series X owners that things are going to be better than what they have shown.


I'm well aware that Sony is going to do the same thing & have PS5 games in the cloud for mobile games & they ended up focusing on TV TV TV more than Microsoft in the end but at no point did they put the PlayStation gamers in the backseat.
 

X-Fighter

Member
Jan 10, 2020
2,596
4,025
365
As far as this insider malarkey goes, Matt is as reliable as they come. He was a former moderator, and a former dev, who now works in gaming industry in some capacity. Doesn't talk too much generally, but when he does, you take note.

As for taking his stuff with a "pinch of salt", he more often than not delivers news which a certain contingent don't like to hear, for instance, just 3-4 days back he said, he had heard that XBL Gold is not going away after there was a lot of chatter, a day later MS rep confirmed it's not going away. For them, his tagline of "terror which flaps at night" is really appropriate. So yeah, pay attention to what he writes. More so on the software/business news.
Didn't he claim that XBL would be put in Game Pass? That you needed Game Pass to play online?
 

FeiRR

Member
May 22, 2013
3,423
6,220
820
Poland
I had to google Hawkeye, to be honest. Ironman as well was pretty new with the latest movies to me, only knew spider man and X-men. So I would give it to Wolverine and Spiderman. No disrespect, but who the fuck reads comics books besides children?
There's a ton of quality comic book content for adults, not only superhero pulp fiction. Try Thorgal, try Rork. I grew up with those characters. It's a pity they aren't popular enough to be in other media like film and games. A Thorgal game would be incredible.
 

By-mission

Member
May 31, 2020
73
438
235
31
Not really true. Just like on a console, takeaway the 60fps and you would theoretically be able to achieve better graphics. Unfortunately I believe PC graphical prowess is held back because of the lack of optimixation and hodgepodge of components.
When you are in GAF it is common to lose the context of some jokes, well I explain ...
We have here a "verified industry professional" mantra is only the pc can achieve the graphics of dreams ...

But as you may have already noticed, he came to report that he is playing the Horizon ZD 30fps on his high-end PC, which according to Steam represents 1% of the market so imagine the other 99%
 
Last edited:

FeiRR

Member
May 22, 2013
3,423
6,220
820
Poland
Foxy so inject the salt.

If true, it's sad. That's at least 2-3 AAA games from first-party studios, fully funded. That's a lot of jobs for talented people, 2-3 new IPs, new worlds to visit. I just hope they know what they're doing and that money comes back with a good margin so then they can invest it in actual games. If they don't, fuck their arrogance.
 

Snowdonhoffen

Member
Apr 27, 2020
511
3,639
355
If true, it's sad. That's at least 2-3 AAA games from first-party studios, fully funded. That's a lot of jobs for talented people, 2-3 new IPs, new worlds to visit. I just hope they know what they're doing and that money comes back with a good margin so then they can invest it in actual games. If they don't, fuck their arrogance.
Games like Control were made with a $30 million budget, The Witcher 3 had a $81 million budget. Even though we don't really know how much budget does a Sony first party game has, I'd say those $750 million are a lot more than just 2-3 AAA games... hope that isn't true but with these recent rumors it could very well be.
 
Jun 2, 2020
458
1,620
415
If true, it's sad. That's at least 2-3 AAA games from first-party studios, fully funded. That's a lot of jobs for talented people, 2-3 new IPs, new worlds to visit. I just hope they know what they're doing and that money comes back with a good margin so then they can invest it in actual games. If they don't, fuck their arrogance.
I doubt it is true, if they are spending 750M in one game their budget to moneyhat the entire industry like Matt and Imran said must be HUGE, I think Sony know better.

And it’s foxy ffs
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rea

FeiRR

Member
May 22, 2013
3,423
6,220
820
Poland
Games like Control were made with a $30 million budget, The Witcher 3 had a $81 million budget. Even though we don't really know how much budget does a Sony first party game has, I'd say those $750 million are a lot more than just 2-3 AAA games... hope that isn't true but with these recent rumors it could very well be.
I meant top-tier AAA projects. TLOU2 must have cost at least $200m. The amount of work put in the game is staggering. End credits show thousands of people who worked on it. GOW prototypes burnt $100m alone.

And in case of Witcher 3, multiply the cost by at least 2 if it'd been created in the US.
 
Last edited:

ToadMan

Report me for trolling MS/Xbox threads > 06/20
Dec 2, 2018
1,139
4,247
600
Games like Control were made with a $30 million budget, The Witcher 3 had a $81 million budget. Even though we don't really know how much budget does a Sony first party game has, I'd say those $750 million are a lot more than just 2-3 AAA games... hope that isn't true but with these recent rumors it could very well be.
If that number is accurate and it’s really to get exclusivity of an in-development 3rd party game that ordinarily would’ve been multiplat (yeah - a lot of caveats) then the $750m isn’t a development cost.

It’s a “loss of sales” cost on the other platforms. Let’s say it’s for FFXVI - they’re adding up what they think that would have sold on Xbox, Switch if that was a target, and possibly even PC. Then they’ll add some sweetener to that and that’s what Sony would have paid.

The game we’re looking for would probably have sold around $500m on non PS platforms and that’s what we should look for in predicting which game it is. With the additional condition that it could be a smaller game with lifetime exclusivity or a big game with a shorter exclusivity.

For it to be COD, this figure might cover just 6 months of PS exclusivity (and really I think it’s just console exclusivity - ie it would still release day/date with PC). FFXVI this might buy a lifetime exclusivity.
 
Last edited:

Crazychipmunx

Member
Jul 7, 2020
55
336
230
Games like Control were made with a $30 million budget, The Witcher 3 had a $81 million budget. Even though we don't really know how much budget does a Sony first party game has, I'd say those $750 million are a lot more than just 2-3 AAA games... hope that isn't true but with these recent rumors it could very well be.
Theyre not mutually exclusive.
 

FeiRR

Member
May 22, 2013
3,423
6,220
820
Poland
If that number is accurate and it’s really to get exclusivity of an in-development 3rd party game that ordinarily would’ve been multiplat (yeah - a lot of caveats) then the $750m isn’t a development cost.

It’s a “loss of sales” cost on the other platforms. Let’s say it’s for FFXVI - they’re adding up what they think that would have sold on Xbox, Switch if that was a target, and possibly even PC. Then they’ll add some sweetener to that and that’s what Sony would have paid.

The game we’re looking for would probably have sold around $500m on non PS platforms and that’s what we should look for in predicting which game it is. With the additional condition that it could be a smaller game with lifetime exclusivity or a big game with a shorter exclusivity.

For it to be COD, this figure might cover just 6 months of PS exclusivity (and really I think it’s just console exclusivity - ie it would still release day/date with PC). FFXVI this might buy a lifetime exclusivity.
I don't believe it's Final Fantasy for several reasons. This brand's never been associated with Xbox. For me it's a Playstation game, I played FFVII there. For some people it might be a Nintendo game where previous instalments happened. FFXVI might be exclusive to PS anyway but it's not the big game. It doesn't have a mainstream appeal that Sony would certainly be looking for.

I was also thinking about Fortnite 2.0 because it's from Epic and it prints money like crazy. But Fortnite is on so many platforms that it wouldn't make sense. And I think it's been already announced for Xbox.

COD looks like a perfect candidate: previously associated with Xbox, now with PS brand, lots of deals already in place, which is very important to measure impact. Many COD games given away in PS+ in recent months, etc. With COD the deal seems cheap because we know that it earns the first billion in just a few days after release but we have to scale it down to just a few millions of early adopters on both sides. But isn't the next COD going to be released on current gen? What about that?

Maybe it's not a franchise with recurring sequel but one we forgot a bit about? It's fun to speculate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bo_Hazem

ToadMan

Report me for trolling MS/Xbox threads > 06/20
Dec 2, 2018
1,139
4,247
600
I don't believe it's Final Fantasy for several reasons. This brand's never been associated with Xbox. For me it's a Playstation game, I played FFVII there. For some people it might be a Nintendo game where previous instalments happened. FFXVI might be exclusive to PS anyway but it's not the big game. It doesn't have a mainstream appeal that Sony would certainly be looking for.

I was also thinking about Fortnite 2.0 because it's from Epic and it prints money like crazy. But Fortnite is on so many platforms that it wouldn't make sense. And I think it's been already announced for Xbox.

COD looks like a perfect candidate: previously associated with Xbox, now with PS brand, lots of deals already in place, which is very important to measure impact. Many COD games given away in PS+ in recent months, etc. With COD the deal seems cheap because we know that it earns the first billion in just a few days after release but we have to scale it down to just a few millions of early adopters on both sides. But isn't the next COD going to be released on current gen? What about that?

Maybe it's not a franchise with recurring sequel but one we forgot a bit about? It's fun to speculate.
I was using those as examples of games floated around but I’m actually not convinced about this 750m figure or even that Sony have money hatted several big 3rd party exclusives. This stuff gets teased but if anything does come out it’s usually pretty underwhelming.

Talking about COD specifically though, the 750m number would probably work using COD 2019 as the guidance.

COD 2019 made 600m in its opening 3 days and got to 1bil total after 2 months.

https://gamedaily.biz/article/1475/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-crosses-the-1-billion-sales-mark

So the 750m number may work to get console exclusivity for 6 months or so - Acti still gets the PC sales and this is a treyarch outing which usually aren’t as big hits/sellers as the IW releases.

If Sony did announce this I’d be pretty underwhelmed as an individual. I like cod and play a fair bit of mp but the treyarch versions are usually not day one purchases for me. As things stand if it didn’t include exclusivity for war zone I don’t think it would be the best use of the money.

If they get cod MP and even war zone as a next gen exclusive around console launch - that could be more impactful. Anyone wanting to go next gen for those would have to take the PS5 and that should drive PS5 sales hard out of the gates. I could see why Sony would do it, but personally I wouldn’t be wowed by it.
 

ksdixon

Member
Jul 31, 2010
3,010
1,084
1,010
Foxy so inject the salt.

Bullshit. Who the hell are Sony investing that much into, when they only did 250M into Epic?

"Sony has made a $250 million investment in Epic Games, the two companies announced on Thursday. The deal means Sony gets a 1.4 percent interest in the game development studio and publisher and gives Epic a valuation of $17.86 billion, reports VentureBeat."
 

Vae_Victis

Member
Mar 4, 2020
319
1,621
355
True most publishers of big games want to sell them at launch and not have them on something like Gamepass. Also gamepass will directly compete with alot of their games.

Gamepass is great but it's a double edged sword.
This, this is exactly the crux of the matter that nobody is talking about.

For most western games, attach rates are expected to be the same on PlayStation and Xbox. So even if there are 3 times more PlayStations around than Xboxes, and let's say you expect to sell 1 million copies on PlayStation, you are still also expecting to sell more than 300,000 copies on Xbox. So in order for Sony to make the game console exclusive, they would have to pay and advertise the game enough to make up for 300,000 less copies sold.

However, Game Pass changes the equation drastically. If as a publisher you are on board with the idea and think whatever Microsoft is paying and giving you to enter the program is worth it, then everything is fine. However, if you don't want your game to enter Game Pass (especially at launch), now suddenly a sale on Xbox becomes much tougher. If more than half of the people who buy an XSX also have Game Pass (and, in the plans of Microsoft, the more the better), how many of those will be willing to pay $60 at launch for a game, when they are simultaneously being given AAA games for "free" at launch month after month, if not on the very same day of your release?

Game Pass artificially cheapens everything that enters the program, and that indirectly also means that everything that does NOT enter the program is facing a much steeper competition in the console marketplace than before. It's as if a platform holder offered publishers to make their games on the console 80% cheaper immediately and forever, in exchange for a partial compensation for each sale and some advertisement. So all of a sudden when the next Call of Duty and Battlefield come out, the one that accepts the program costs the users 12$, the other $60. Who do you think is going to create an install base and make the greatest return overall on that platform?

The ultimate effect is that every game that is not interested in entering the Game Pass program is much more willing to leave Xbox behind in its totality than before. Adding to this the much larger projected install base of PS5 compared to XSX, the cost of platform exclusivity for Sony goes down to levels that would have been unthinkable in this or the past generation. If Microsoft keeps adding more and more games to Game Pass, and Sony in response to try and entice with exclusivity deals everyone else, the end result is two very different libraries, where Xbox offers you less games overall but for a cheaper, lump sum price, and PlayStation has everything buy you have to buy games individually.
 
Last edited:

Ar¢tos

Member
Oct 24, 2017
4,036
6,011
710
Krynn
Bull crap. I don't believe this shit. Sony can spend this much money and their 1st party studios can create Alot of new IPs just like GOT any day of the week and gonna sell like hot cakes. This amount of money just for timed exclusivity is just pure stupid.
All their 1st party studios are busy and they certainly aren't taking money away from them to make deals. They can't turn 750$m in to new studios or teams over night (or in 4 months) but they can use that money to increase Playstation value at the start of a new gen with exclusivity deals.
It's all business and Sony is just being more aggressive than usual.
 

Zathalus

Member
Jul 16, 2020
152
338
310
Wait what? It's funny to me that every time i hear someone quote the TFLOPs of the RTX 2080ti, they report a different number. But I honestly have never heard anyone quote the average performance at 16.5 TFLOPS. Where did you get that from? I hope you are not quoting some arbitrary third party OC version as that is hardly an "average".

A stock 2080Ti has a maximum TFLOP of 13.5TF based on the boost clock speed (which isn't an average either). So that 16.5 seems like quite a stretch. That said, the 13.5TF - 14TF value on average is entirely within reach of the XSX GPU based on what AMD has said about RDNA2 and the additional efficiencies associated with a closed system console.
The official TFLOP number of the 2080ti is 13.45. This is a extremly conservative number as it's calculated off the official boost clock of 1545 MHz. The number I quoted was utilizing a figure of 1900Mhz for the GPU clock during gaming workloads. That's a number that even the founders edition card can reach, almost all 2080ti cards get frequencies beyond that. My 2080ti reaches 2025Mhz which would equate to 17.6 TFLOP.


First, you should know that you can can't compare TFLOPs directly between AMD and Nvidia. So 12TF RDNA2 is not comparable to ~14TF Turing 2080ti. It's not an absolutely science, but here is a hint at the IPC difference between RDNA1 and Turing:

  • The RX 5700 XT and RTX 2070 Super are virtually identical in hardware components. Everything from the shader count, bandwidth, memory bus size, clock speed, and TFLOP count is as close as you can get between the 2 brands. Yet, the RTX 2070 Super is roughly 5% faster on average than the RX 5700. So that 5% is a pretty good ballpark for the IPC advantage in Nvidia's favor with Turing.
  • Using that figure, what is the theoretical TFLOP rating of an RDNA 1 GPU to match the 13.5TF RTX 2080ti? A simple math equation that results in ~14.2TF RDNA1 = 13.5 TF Nvidia Turing
  • So based on the theoretical numbers, the RDNA 2 IPC needs to be ~18% higher than RDNA1 for the XSX GPU to equal an RTX 2080ti: (12 TF => 14.2TF = +18%)
  • Of course, we don't know what the RDNA 2 IPC advantage is and so can't conclude if that is possible. But it is definitely within the realm of possibility
The IPC difference between Turing and RDNA 1 is anything from 5-10% depending on what you are looking at, Techpowerup lists it at around 8%. They are a good source as the numbers are derived from a large test set across a variety of games. Using a 18% jump in IPC advantage seems excessive, none of the previous GCN iterations had such a difference in IPC. It's certainly possible, but even that won't make up the difference between the XSX and 2080ti.

That comparison based on your initial post was using pure theoretical numbers which is a flawed way to expropriate performance. A more accurate way to do this is using actual game performance since real game perf reflects the reality that actual software almost never reaches 100% utilization to equal the "maximum theoretical numbers". Let's look at that approach:
  • Assuming same architecture, the raw compute advantage for the XSX over the RX 5700 XT is ~30% (9+TF vs 12 TF).
  • Looking at actual game performance across 50 games, the RTX 2080ti is roughly 27% faster than the RX 5700XT at 4K
  • So even without considering additional IPC benefits of RDNA 2 and console optimizations, the baseline performance of the XSX GPU should absolutely be on par with the RTX 2080ti! (in this case, extrapolating 30% over the RX 5700 XT is fair since both GPUs are similar architecture from same vendor)
  • In reality, the max perf of the XSX GPU should be a bit higher than a RTX 2080ti since RDNA 2 will have some higher IPC and the lower overhead on console should impact perf as well
So in short, RTX 2080ti is definitely within reach for the XSX and in fact it's ceiling should be even higher. Based on your 16.5 TF figure for the 2080ti, it probably wouldn't be but again looking at it that way is a fundamentally flawed approach to estimating performance.
Assuming the XSX will scale linearly over a 5700 XT is a flawed assumption as well. The 2080ti has almost 50% more SM units then the 2080, which leads to a 50% increase in TFLOP numbers as well, but it's roughly only 20% faster in games. One of the reasons is that as SM/CU units go up, the efficiency and ability to fully utilize the GPU goes down.

TFLOP is not a great way to estimate performance between different architectures or even in the same architecture. But Microsoft themselves were comparing the XSX against a 2080 class card. I can certainly see the XSX GPU beating a 2080 Super, but 2080Ti performance seems very unlikely.
 

aclar00

Member
Apr 7, 2020
182
270
240
When you are in GAF it is common to lose the context of some jokes, well I explain ...
We have here a "verified industry professional" mantra is only the pc can achieve the graphics of dreams ...

But as you may have already noticed, he came to report that he is playing the Horizon ZD 30fps on his high-end PC, which according to Steam represents 1% of the market so imagine the other 99%
lol yeah, especially when you havent read/seen all the comments. Its like overhearing a portion of a conversation then interjecting only to find out what they're talking about itlsnt what you think...lol
 

Lunatic_Gamer

Member
Jan 15, 2018
445
3,643
485
Denver, CO
PS5, Xbox Series X Specs Have Pros and Cons But End User Experience Matters, Says Dev

No Straight Roads director Wan Hazmer is interested in the services offered by both.

“We’re sure the technology of both systems has its pros and cons, but what we’re looking forward to most is what these consoles bring to the user experience in the end, not only in terms of the games themselves but also the services that are attached to these games. Sure, we can make fully seamless games with a faster SSD and richer graphics with a better core processor, and to be honest we’re very excited to develop for both, but at the end of the day, it’s the end user-experience that matters.”

“We want to see how these systems would integrate with the lifestyle and interests of the user outside of the game. In the field of music, it’s important for us to not only see the audio tech but also how these systems utilize the metaverse of cultures in its ecosystem, how well these systems understand the user, how it integrates with music libraries, online communities, etc. Creating a crafted experience that would seamlessly touch upon the user’s area of relevance in certain points would be wonderful, in a next-gen sort of way.”

 

Rea

Member
Jul 7, 2020
194
799
315
Knowing Rockstar's graphical grunt power, a gta 6 developed as an exclusive would look insane. Even RDR2 being multiplatform didnt stop them from making one of the best looking games this gen
Rock star is one of the best developers in graphical department in the industry. No doubts, GTA6 gonna looks insane.
 

FunkMiller

Formerly 'Neil_b4Zod'
Aug 14, 2014
1,656
6,037
730
Foxy is shit but imagine exclusive GTA6 for that money.
It’d have to be something like GTA for that amount of cash. Mind you, the GTA 5 revenue is now well in excess of six billion. Christ knows how much of that is pure profit for Rockstar, but you’d have to think they’d easily demand and get three quarters of a billion to make it exclusive.

Foxy’s probably full of crap, but if you wanted to kill off the competition this gen, and sell ALL of the consoles, this IS the game you’d choose to do it with.
 
Last edited:

danielJackson

Member
Jun 18, 2020
341
824
295
I had to google Hawkeye, to be honest. Ironman as well was pretty new with the latest movies to me, only knew spider man and X-men. So I would give it to Wolverine and Spiderman. No disrespect, but who the fuck reads comics books besides children?
How can you say that you have seen marvel movies, yet didnt know hawkeye?

And first ironman movie came out 2008, so havent you seen em all?

Whom watches movies starting from 20th one in series, besides children?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Falc67

X-Fighter

Member
Jan 10, 2020
2,596
4,025
365
It’d have to be something like GTA for that amount of cash. Mind you, the GTA 5 revenue is now well in excess of six billion. Christ knows how much of that is pure profit for Rockstar, but you’d have to think they’d easily demand and get three quarters of a billion to make it exclusive.

Foxy’s probably full of crap, but if you wanted to kill off the competition this gen, and sell ALL of the consoles, this IS the game you’d choose to do it with.
750mil for GTA6 would only get you 1 day of exclusivity
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pasterpl

Dan_of_Rivia

Member
Feb 29, 2020
943
7,371
505
UK
Foxy so inject the salt.

I don’t believe the guy, he can argue he’s had legit leaks in the past but they are so vague it’s hard to even to even stick it on him when he’s wrong. Anyways, 750 Million deal, I smell lots of salt, I mean literally no one else has reported or leaked this but somehow a mediocre Playstation centric channel on Youtube with 30 K subs seems to know the inside deals of a billion dollar corporation lol
 
Last edited:
Feb 15, 2013
8,277
4,747
730
London
I bet this turns out like a classic example of sensationalism from 'leakers' that get people building up the rumour to unrealistic levels (GTA or COD being exclusive) and in reality it turns out they have a 6 month exclusivity deal for Borderlands 4. Or Just Cause 5.