I quoted what he said. He talked about the "boost this time around". Why mention "boost this time around" if there is no distinction or relation to what the PS4 Pro did?
Whether it's a mode, or just how it works.. the frequencies would be described as boosted.
That's not what the PS blog says, that for Boost mode.
Even Xbox tweeted about Xbox not having to downclock speeds to support BC, Sony has that and it's called PS4 legacy mode on the ps5.
No, it means, it must run on PS5 catering to PS5 spec. They cant just do a PS4 game that runs on PS5 via BC, they have to take advantage of PS5 hardware for the game.....
Yes by throwing the responsibility to games developers. I mean thats fair and all, but clearly Sony dont care / allocate as much resources on BC.
. This is likely more than simple BC, but as other reminded you before they also give developers more resources by not forcing them into a virtualisation layer which, although it is very fast, does still impose a performance tax. So it is a balance.
Again, more jumping to conclusions
Right now, without developers doing anything, they got PS4 BC in PS4 Pro, so something similar can be expected, but those titles did not see any form of boost right away which they eventually fixed. What they are asking is likely something that MS is asking too: you are making a new title, just do some small bits of due diligence so that PS5 BC engine can do its job better. Not sure why you are trying to make a storm in a teacup here.
So my PS4 game that I want to make for a PS4 must take full advantage of the PS5? Then... it's a PS5 game
So my PS4 game that I want to make for a PS4 must take full advantage of the PS5? Then... it's a PS5 game
Anyway, I think you've misunderstood - the original post you quoted is correct. The games must only be compatible, which is to say, work as a part of their normal operation. This is Sony offloading the compatibility work on to developers who continue to developer for PS4 to ensure they don't have to keep expanding their internal backwards compatibility program themselves. It makes sense from a company who thinks backwards compatibility isn't used... but, in my opinion, it defeats the purpose of a platform-level backwards compatibility program. The benefit of Microsoft's approach is that, well, Microsoft is doing it.
If cyberpunk dont deliver what smart delivery promises, sure be disappointed, same thing with the/any advantages of 'fast new i/o' gameplay.
Nah, smart delivery sounds like it will open a gap in BC then what is available currently.
It is not a marketing name, but they needed a name nonetheless to highlight this gap.
MS has invested big in BC, lets see when cyberpunk sets the early standards.
Because smart delivery is a certification that Series X version will be enhanced instead of having to buy the enhanced Series X version.
While we can break down the backend as some simple cross buying, but it seems MS wants to take that up a notch. We shall see.
Yes MS only comes up with marketing terms and no research greese needed, like 'Veeelocity'.
Anyway with Smart delivery, at least we are guarantee to run games like the below 'PS4' version instead of having to rebuy it.
Will Sony BC mentioned here, runs cross gen games like 'PS3' or 'PS4' below.
.
Some games get enhanced and most games will be supported. This is true for both consoles. MS will enhance a portion of those games without requiring developers work yes, but it is far from saying that those games will not run.
I expect titles with dynamic resolution and variable unlocked framerate to be similarly enhanced for both. Still yes, MS’s solution does have its pluses, what did you think they asked developers to pay a virtualisation performance tax for nothing? No, of course not
because MS transparent pro-consumer approach under Phil is exciting. Add to the long term gamepass and xcloud possibilites, we are breaking free from console traditions.
Never said full advantage, not like how first parties would take advantage of all the hardware. I said take advantage, meaning that these games would be PS4 rooted games, maybe with some high and some medium settings on that console at 30fps. PS5 will be able to max out such games relative to settings, perhaps double framerates and get the resolution to 4k, utilizing quicker loadtimes would be another area where they would utilize the PS5, and of course there would be less pop-in as well......This is what Sony meant by making games PS5 compatible after the said date. The hardware is imminent and devs should be transitioning to it anyway....So my PS4 game that I want to make for a PS4 must take full advantage of the PS5? Then... it's a PS5 game
Anyway, I think you've misunderstood - the original post you quoted is correct. The games must only be compatible, which is to say, work as a part of their normal operation. This is Sony offloading the compatibility work on to developers who continue to developer for PS4 to ensure they don't have to keep expanding their internal backwards compatibility program themselves. It makes sense from a company who thinks backwards compatibility isn't used... but, in my opinion, it defeats the purpose of a platform-level backwards compatibility program. The benefit of Microsoft's approach is that, well, Microsoft is doing it.
because MS transparent pro-consumer approach under Phil is exciting. Add to the long term gamepass and xcloud possibilites, we are breaking free from console traditions.
Oh, and the courage to build most performant hardware helps. Im still shocked at the big APU choices, 2 gen in a row.
MS is building their ecosystem from ground up to support generations ahead. This flower will take time to blossom.Now this is a novel way to bring back Xbox One propaganda (“ We invented DirectX... di not doubt us”).
.Virtualisation is a per CPU hit too, unless you can show me IPC / per core efficiency gains not slowing down as time goes by then why do you think this “tax” will become negligible that fast?
? C’mon now...
Sony is sticking to their old accepted methods. The bc wasn't their focus if not for MS effort. As seen in topic, BC is on developers hand after that cutoff date to ensure new games work on PS5.
Yes approach is different. But it seems MS is more gamers friendly?
Im not stirring, im just saying Sony wants developers to make sure their games work after that cutoff date. Before that date, developers have no obligation to make their games work on PS5, and it is down to Sony to test the backlog.You are trying to stir up a controversy that is not there. This is likely for some limited enhancements support and do you have an idea of how many PS4 titles are out there now already? Is the problem really the titles after that cutoff date
Not new, but chose to ignore until their competitors revive and offer it
Im not stirring, im just saying Sony wants developers to make sure their games work after that cutoff date. Before that date, developers have no obligation to make their games work on PS5, and it is down to Sony to test the backlog.
Seems clear cut.
Not new, but chose to ignore until their competitors revive and offer it
Not really - it's a new TRC item, so the responsibility is 100% on Sony CERT testing what gets through or not. Which is how consoles always worked, including Microsoft or Nintendo ones when you have multiple compatible hardware SKUs out there. Noone is insane enough to 'cross their fingers and hope it'll just work' after testing one SKU.
