Support NeoGAF

[Md Ray]

Are you a game developer? Because multiple game developers have explicitly mentioned that SSD helps with graphics.

“The exceptionally powerful SSD on the PlayStation 5 offers a new level of detail for each individual object." -- Keith Lee, Counterplay Games, Godfall.

"The ability to load in the highest resolution version of any asset just in front of you and drop it immediately as you turn around means that every tree can have 3D bark and moss and ants marching on it just when needed, without blowing up the budget. It’s going to be great." -- Former Naughty Dog Techical Art Director, Andrew Maximov.

It's Mr. Maximov's explanation that stood out the most and was fascinating to me. Posting his Twitter thread so everyone can see:

And one more :

 

[TTOOLL]

So many “business analysts” on here talking about the Series S being a mistake and a failure, Microsoft should hire all of you. It’s obvious some of you know something that Microsoft doesn’t.

/s


It’s a $299 console with next gen features, specs, and graphics tech. It can do everything the Series X can at a targeted resolution of 1440P / 120 FPS. It was made for widespread appeal and the majority of buyers of the Series S are NEW TO XBOX, they’ve never owned an XBOX before. It’s the “entry” console into the new XBOX ecosystem that is being built for the future. It’s a smart business move and it will likely pay off well. These customers don’t give a shit or know anything about teraflops or SSD or IO or 4K or ray tracing or any of that bullshit. They just want to play and enjoy video games.

The amount of ignorance on here is shocking.

It can't.

 

[FritzJ92]

Someone posting about the PS5 SSD advantage is equivalent to another post about the XSX performance advantage... both consoles clearly punching above their weight in the area they were considered weak at... stupid thread IMO

 

[Heisenberg007]

Someone posting about the PS5 SSD advantage is equivalent to another post about the XSX performance advantage... both consoles clearly punching above their weight in the area they were considered weak at... stupid thread IMO

One difference here is that PS5's GPU was never "less powerful". PS5 is in many ways more powerful than XSX's GPU that doesn't directly translate into Tflop and, therefore, listed on the spec sheet, e.g., pixel fill rate, rasterization, cache scrubbers, etc.

Same with CPU with the nearly 400% more powerful decompressor unit and DMA controller.

 

[cryptoadam]

If making Games on PC is a thing, I HIGHLY doubt developing for these 2 consoles might be that different.

It just adds more time to a developer. Look at CDPR, they work their staff to the bone do they really have time to optimize a game for another system, one that will only account for 10-20% of Xbox sales, if that at all. What if S sells 1 or 2 million units in the next year and a half, is it worth it to spend extra time when you need to finish your game or get rid of bugs?

Sure maybe developers will just lower the settings and not care if the game runs like crap and is a dynamic res mess. Already games are having cuts. No RT or 120 on the S for COD. Foilage is missing in a lot of games, textures paired back etc... When barely anyone has an S whats in it for 3rd parties to optimize their game to get it running the best on the S?

I am sure there will be S versions, but I think most devs aren't going to put effort and just be like whatever lower the res cut features and shit it out.

S is a great looking machine, and would be a great Nintendo machine, but not a MS machine.

 

[Shubh_C63]

It just adds more time to a developer. Look at CDPR, they work their staff to the bone do they really have time to optimize a game for another system, one that will only account for 10-20% of Xbox sales, if that at all. What if S sells 1 or 2 million units in the next year and a half, is it worth it to spend extra time when you need to finish your game or get rid of bugs?

Sure maybe developers will just lower the settings and not care if the game runs like crap and is a dynamic res mess. Already games are having cuts. No RT or 120 on the S for COD. Foilage is missing in a lot of games, textures paired back etc... When barely anyone has an S whats in it for 3rd parties to optimize their game to get it running the best on the S?

I am sure there will be S versions, but I think most devs aren't going to put effort and just be like whatever lower the res cut features and shit it out.

S is a great looking machine, and would be a great Nintendo machine, but not a MS machine.

It makes sense what you say but that is why I included PC in the mix. If they can optimize things for something so varied in nature, multitude of combinations and problems, then optimising for XBS shouldn't be THAT hard. Yes even after considering the time cost analysis. Xbox should be close to their PC spec counterpart. (Of course they are consoles, problems will be slightly different from PC recommend specs)

 

[cryptoadam]

It makes sense what you say but that is why I included PC in the mix. If they can optimize things for something so varied in nature, multitude of combinations and problems, then optimising for XBS shouldn't be THAT hard. Yes even after considering the time cost analysis. Xbox should be close to their PC spec counterpart. (Of course they are consoles, problems will be slightly different from PC recommend specs)

I think the time cost analysis over time eventually won't be worth it. I just don't see them putting the time to optomize so you will end up with a lot of CODs where the S version wont get features that MS touted. COD on S has less details, no RT shadows and no 120 mode. Pretty bum deal if you bought the S under the assumption that it will be just like the X but in 1080P.

Sure if a developer puts in the time and effort they can get the job done, but for a system that you will sell a few thousand copies will it be worth it? I doubt it.

I don't think its about being hard so much as just not being worth it. With the pandemic we already see how its effecting developers. By the time its over the S will have catered in sales that putting in the extra effort would be better spent getting rid of bugs and getting the X version to run 60 smooth rather then dedicated 1 or 2 guys to work 100 hours a week to get the game running the best it can on the S.

Not trying to shit on the S. It would make a great Nintendo system. Great piece of kit and an old school style CONSOLE that maximize power for form factor and price. But with its paltry memory and underpower compared to PS5 and X its just something that doesn't fit in to "next gen". MS oversold the box in their marketing.

 

[BootsLoader]

1: Loading times really are not going to be the game changer people think it will be.

2: what do these developers think is going to happen with the Xbox one X/S. They're going to ignore the Xbox entirely and put their games on playstation alone?
It's possible but highly unlikely.

It will make a big difference in gameplay and the possibilities in the games. Mark Cerny talked about gigs of data loading in the fly as you move your camera in the game. Even seconds will matter down the line. Just my two cents.

 

[teezzy]

The idea that loading screens were this huge bane that Sony thankfully slayed is laughable.

If the only advantage of the SSD is faster loading, than fuck it.

SSDs for consoles have been long overdue. PC players have been enjoying the tech and watching it evolve for years now.

Most people don't get too geeky about SSD speeds though. I don't want to meet the nerd who really cares that he waits 3 seconds opposed to 5 seconds or 8 seconds opposed to 12 seconds. No way that dude isn't a knob

 

[karasu]

SSD has been available on PC for years and nothing has seen significant improvement besides loading times.

If the argument is that you have to make every PC game work with an HDD then fair enough.

I'll put it to you though that even Sony themselves make an excellent game like God of War which has barely any load times at all and that was doing it without an SSD.

There hasn't been any example of anything besides loading times for the SSD for the PS5 so far.

I'm seeing perhaps Ratchet and Clank that might use it but nothing else.

Fuck PC games. Consoles. We've only just begun.

 

[YeulEmeralda]

Microsoft is perfectly capable of making mistakes, so is Sony for that matter.
Remember the 599 PS3 or Xbox "TV TV TV" one?
Could be the series S is another mistake.

 

[Freelance Yakuza]

SSD has been available on PC for years and nothing has seen significant improvement besides loading times.

because games are made base on the less powerful system that most people will use.

 

[JonkyDonk]

I'm going to be honest. You're all over the place man. I think you've made it abundantly clear that you're a Sony fan through and through.

But to go from thread to thread reading your posts is frustrating. You'll post about how the XSX won't reach parity with the PS5 in one, mention how these early multiplats are indicative of how they'll be going forward in another.

Then come into this thread, and first use those early multiplat games comparisons as part of your pro Sony argument, only to then post about how we haven't seen anything in these early games due to being held back by last gen.

Like, man just stop. You're using single points of data to argue both ways to fit your preference, and at other times using a specific argument in one thread, while simultaneously claiming it moot in another.

If you're going to argue or debate with people, at least do so from an honest standpoint.

What the fuck are you talking about? You don't know anything about me and are talking utter garbage.

I never said XSX wont reach parity with PS5. Don't make bullshit up.

Learn to read: I said that the multiplats show that the platform that is easier to develop for, can have better optimization and therefore better performance, which has been proven by multiple comparisons. What we haven't seen in these early games is any example of games designed with next-gen SSDs in mind, which is again 100% true. Those are NOT the same thing. Educate yourself first before arguing about a topic.

You are ignorant and a liar. Don't drag me into your shit with this made up nonsense.

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

1: Loading times really are not going to be the game changer people think it will be.

2: what do these developers think is going to happen with the Xbox one X/S. They're going to ignore the Xbox entirely and put their games on playstation alone?
It's possible but highly unlikely.

This is an ignorant post sent from some kind of luddite's apocalypse alternate reality. It should be bookmarked so we can laugh at it in a few years' time.

It's desperately uninformed to think a fast SSD built as an integral part of a console will just effect loading speeds. Even if it did only this, you try and enjoy gaming on your 5400rpm HDD and its chronically slow loading times for next gen games whilst the rest of the world moves on.

 

[Schnozberry]

What the fuck are you talking about? You don't know anything about me and are talking utter garbage.

I never said XSX wont reach parity with PS5. Don't make bullshit up.

Learn to read: I said that the multiplats show that the platform that is easier to develop for, can have better optimization and therefore better performance, which has been proven by multiple comparisons. What we haven't seen in these early games is any example of games designed with next-gen SSDs in mind, which is again 100% true. Those are NOT the same thing. Educate yourself first before arguing about a topic.

You are ignorant and a liar. Don't drag me into your shit with this made up nonsense.

Playstation certainly delivered a much better early environment for developers. The PS4 development environment has been said to have carried over very smoothly to PS5, and there was a comfort level there. DX12 Ultimate and RDNA2 hardware weren't finalized until March of 2020, which Microsoft apparently waited for before finalizing the development kit. Some developers got the final kits in July and August, which is the same time it appears most of the consoles were manufactured.

So while "the tools" have now been memed to infinity and back, it does seem like Microsoft was late in delivering the goods for Xbox Series consoles to development teams. That shouldn't be seen as an excuse. That's a mistake that Microsoft should be criticized for.

Along with Sony's custom I/O interface, they also have some advantages built in to their GPU design, aiming for fewer compute units at higher clock speeds. Microsoft aimed for a wider GPU with more compute units, but with lower clocks. They also have the same 64 GPU ROPS as Sony. So, in real terms, in means Microsoft is at a disadvantage in regards to raw rasterization performance, particularly in situations where the engine can't keep all the additional compute units busy. ROPS are a fixed function unit, and 64x2230 is a bigger number than 64x1825, so Sony can push more raw pixels. That said, Microsoft may have advantages down the road when developers attempt to make more use of Ray Tracing, VRS, Mesh Shaders, and any machine learning related tasks that might arise if they are able to adopt AMD's competitor to DLSS. Because 36x2230 is a smaller number than 52x1825 on the compute unit side of things.

I still maintain that we are most likely going to see developers aim for parity. There's very little incentive for third parties parties especially to optimize beyond reaching acceptable performance on both machines.

 

[oagboghi2]

Loading isn’t limited to the traditional static loading screen though. It could mean many things including on the fly loading of assets.

I wouldn‘t count what we see right now as the standard of next gen. Too many cross gen games.

Than say that.

I would like to hear more about these supposed new game design ideas that couldn't be done before, instead of just "faster loading screens"

 

[JonkyDonk]

Playstation certainly delivered a much better early environment for developers. The PS4 development environment has been said to have carried over very smoothly to PS5, and there was a comfort level there. DX12 Ultimate and RDNA2 hardware weren't finalized until March of 2020, which Microsoft apparently waited for before finalizing the development kit. Some developers got the final kits in July and August, which is the same time it appears most of the consoles were manufactured.

So while "the tools" have now been memed to infinity and back, it does seem like Microsoft was late in delivering the goods for Xbox Series consoles to development teams. That shouldn't be seen as an excuse. That's a mistake that Microsoft should be criticized for.

Along with Sony's custom I/O interface, they also have some advantages built in to their GPU design, aiming for fewer compute units at higher clock speeds. Microsoft aimed for a wider GPU with more compute units, but with lower clocks. They also have the same 64 GPU ROPS as Sony. So, in real terms, in means Microsoft is at a disadvantage in regards to raw rasterization performance, particularly in situations where the engine can't keep all the additional compute units busy. ROPS are a fixed function unit, and 64x2230 is a bigger number than 64x1825, so Sony can push more raw pixels. That said, Microsoft may have advantages down the road when developers attempt to make more use of Ray Tracing, VRS, Mesh Shaders, and any machine learning related tasks that might arise if they are able to adopt AMD's competitor to DLSS. Because 36x2230 is a smaller number than 52x1825 on the compute unit side of things.

I still maintain that we are most likely going to see developers aim for parity. There's very little incentive for third parties parties especially to optimize beyond reaching acceptable performance on both machines.

Sure, all of that might well be true. But what I said to that fool is very true as well. We are seeing the advantage of having an easier platform to develop for in these early multiplatform games. Things will change in the future, but there is no telling exactly how much or in what way that change will happen. And more importantly the real generational leaps in game design have yet to show. Which is what I've always said.

 

[Schnozberry]

Sure, all of that might well be true. But what I said to that fool is very true as well. We are seeing the advantage of having an easier platform to develop for in these early multiplatform games. Things will change in the future, but there is no telling exactly how much or in what way that change will happen. And more importantly the real generational leaps in game design have yet to show. Which is what I've always said.

It's absolutely true because we go through this every generational hardware release. There were far more wonky performance problems with cross gen games moving to PS4 and Xbox One.

 

[killatopak]

Than say that.

I would like to hear more about these supposed new game design ideas that couldn't be done before, instead of just "faster loading screens"

They did. Well not exactly them but other developers did. On the DF interview with Bluepoint and on the Road to PS4. There are examples listed specifically for Demon’s Souls remake and Jak and Daxter level design being limited by asset streaming.

 

[JonkyDonk]

It's absolutely true because we go through this every generational hardware release. There were far more wonky performance problems with cross gen games moving to PS4 and Xbox One.

Wonky performance or not, the cross gen games last gen were a pretty good indication of where the consoles landed in terms of performance. There were improvements over time, but that first impression was still quite accurate.

 

[hussar16]

It's Mr. Maximov's explanation that stood out the most and was fascinating to me. Posting his Twitter thread so everyone can see:

And one more :

i dont think this is true.the lighting toward the end of ps3 took a massive hit, uncharted 1 while not polished and with bad textures had much superior lighting and shders, the flat lighting we saw in the end of that gen was the product of trying to squeeze more power

 

[l2ounD]

i dont think this is true.the lighting toward the end of ps3 took a massive hit, uncharted 1 while not polished and with bad textures had much superior lighting and shders, the flat lighting we saw in the end of that gen was the product of trying to squeeze more power

I agree with you, hussa! I like your quick take more than the tech artist dude that worked at ND

 

[Md Ray]

i dont think this is true.the lighting toward the end of ps3 took a massive hit, uncharted 1 while not polished and with bad textures had much superior lighting and shders, the flat lighting we saw in the end of that gen was the product of trying to squeeze more power

"I don't think this is true"

He was a Tech art director at Naughty Dog who had a hand in the development of both of those games.

 

[Schnozberry]

Wonky performance or not, the cross gen games last gen were a pretty good indication of where the consoles landed in terms of performance. There were improvements over time, but that first impression was still quite accurate.

I don't think anyone aside from console warriors in denial had any doubts about where last gen was going to land once the full specs were revealed. The difference on paper was considerable. It's actually far smaller this time around, which is why it's reasonable to assume they are going to end up performing very similarly aside from edge cases where architectural differences provide an advantage.

 

[anothertech]

He is correct. The S is a shit next gen product, and the SSD io tech is likely the reason ps5.is matching and surpassing SeX in third parties.

 

[sircaw]

So looking forward to seeing Sony studios work in the generation ahead, the difference is going to be amazing compared to the previous generation.

I mean just look at the games they produced last-gen, God of war, Ghost of Tsushima, Last of us, spiderman. etc etc. and imagine their sequels or followons alltaking advantage of that new hardware and feature set of the ps5

The future is going to be Mindblowing