Jason Schreier (Kotaku Splitscreen) : "Sony will have PS5 only titles at launch"

Hermii · Jan 12, 2020

I mean if a game can theoretically run on last gen, why not make it run on last gen. As the Switch have shown, it's amazing what can run on a much weaker machine with the right comprises (Witcher).

There is no reason why at the very least indies shouldn't support current machines for the entire next gen.

asmith906 · Jan 12, 2020

Kaguya said:
MS have to do it, between commitment to current game pass subscribers, most their major studios having just released games(or about to) and their newer studios already having existing plans before the acquisitions just a year ago. They have to mention it because the blow back will be way harder if people just noticed on their own that MS have no next gen exclusives for the first two years, this way they get rid of the discussion early instead of it dominating the full reveal/get in the way when their marketing really kicks off.

What's the point of making an incredibly expensive console if you don't give current gamers a reason to even upgrade to it. As much as I enjoy my Xbox one, it doesn't have a single exclusive game I feel is worthy enough to tell someone to go buy the console for that can't be experienced somewhere else.

Beer Monkey · Jan 12, 2020

PS5. You'd buy it even if you needed a second job to pay for it.
PS5. You'd buy it even if it had no games.

Eeyore · Jan 12, 2020

Hermii said:
I mean if a game can theoretically run on last gen, why not make it run on last gen. As the Switch have shown, it's amazing what can run on a much weaker machine with the right comprises (Witcher).

There is no reason why at the very least indies shouldn't support current machines for the entire next gen.

I think it's a tall order to expect newer indie games to release on PS4 and XB1 three or four years down the line. That's a lot to ask of small development teams.

icecold1983 · Jan 12, 2020

snowhite said:
Firstly, that's just your opinion. Secondly, what makes you think Horizon: Zero Dawn wouldn't run on Switch? It runs on a base PS4 at locked 30 fps. Could probably be ported to Switch by the same devs who did it for Witcher 3, if Sony ever allowed such blasphemy.

So thanks for proving my point.

Its doing a lot more with its rendering than witcher 3. It probably could be ported to switch in some fashion but would likely require even more cutbacks than that title did. Your point can never be proven because its simply wrong.

H-I-M · Jan 12, 2020

jerfdr said:
I haven't seen any solid data suggesting that Sony was selling PS4 Pro's much faster than MS was selling Xbox One X's (after the One X release), have you?

And Switch has the unique adventage of being portable, and generally targets a bit different demographic.

We might not have detailed sales breakdown, but we do KNOW that the PS4 still remained on top after the X1X's release, even in the North America market (which is Microsoft's biggest one).

Meaning that the 'strongest console currently' wasn't capable of outselling the weaker PS4 and PS4 Pro.
Which validates his argument and proves that people didn't care about which one had the most TFs'....

GreenEarth · Jan 12, 2020

Birdseye said:
Have a thought for all the studios that are going to crunch hard for this to happen

In contrast to having to develop an Xbox One, Xbox One S, Xbox One X, Xbox Series X (+Lockhart?) and a PC SKU?

modiz · Jan 12, 2020

snowhite said:
Firstly, that's just your opinion. Secondly, what makes you think Horizon: Zero Dawn wouldn't run on Switch? It runs on a base PS4 at locked 30 fps. Could probably be ported to Switch by the same devs who did it for Witcher 3, if Sony ever allowed such blasphemy.

So thanks for proving my point.

I am sure that GG could just press the instant port button to release it on switch, like how the CDPR did for the switch version, obviously didnt require a large team working on that ports for months long, clearly having a team that ports down every effect takes no resources from the dev team that they might prefer to put on creating the actual game which is why brad sams heard that devs were celebrating the idea of a lockhart and having the port down their games to that system.

And to make sure my sarcasm gets through to you, there is no magical switch port button, those switch port teams are large and require shifting resources away from the actual game, and MS were originally putting lockhart on ice because devs didnt like it and decided to make their games from lockhart up instead of from the high end consoles down, because games are made from the baseline.

rusty chrome · Jan 12, 2020

Beer Monkey said:
PS5. You'd buy it even if you needed a second job to pay for it.
PS5. You'd buy it even if it had no games.

I think you were trying to achieve something with this post and it ended up making no sense at all. Just say what you mean instead of posting some driveby trolling.

Deleted member 19767 · Jan 12, 2020

Beer Monkey said:
PS5. You'd buy it even if you needed a second job to pay for it.
PS5. You'd buy it even if it had no games.

What.

Tiago Rodrigues · Jan 12, 2020

GreenEarth said:
In contrast to having to develop an Xbox One, Xbox One S, Xbox One X, Xbox Series X (+Lockhart?) and a PC SKU?

This

Beer Monkey · Jan 12, 2020

ducktape said:
I think you were trying to achieve something with this post and it ended up making no sense at all. Just say what you mean.

I'm sorry. I'm completely stupid and incapable of making a point. Apologies for my big dumb moronic self.

Malcolm9 · Jan 12, 2020

Handsome James said:
being openly transparent with your fans and not cutting off a 40-50 millions install base to hopefully sell 2 million next gen consoles next holiday isn't "wrong", it's just not

jerfdr said:
This might be my personal bias, but I believe that MS' strategy is the right one. Sell your consoles on the merit of being the best consoles to play third-party games (Xbox One X sells very well; and Series X is rumored to be quite a bit more powerful than PS5), and sell your games to as many people as possible, including the sizable number of people like me who will never buy any console whatsoever, no matter the strength of its exclusives; thus Sony won't see any of my money ever except for the cases like Death Stranding (and I applaud the Death Stranding decision) where they probably get some cut prom the PC sales, while Microsoft does see my money (no UWP-only crap, though, please).

Xbox One X selling well..........it's not made a drastic difference to sales for MS at all. Series X being quite a bit more powerful than PS5.......it won't; there won't be much between them but keep dreaming though.

I want my new console to play the newest and best games, not having to pander to 7 year old consoles.

R0987 · Jan 12, 2020

Funny enough right now I dont care about ps5 exclusives (it was a given that Sony will have those) but instead to what extend can I take my ps4 games to the ps5.

Chettlar · Jan 12, 2020

Earthed said:
Not as drastic? Have you seen how Star Citizen runs on a mechanical hard drive?

It's also not built to run on a hard drive at all, like explicitly. That is not a priority in any way. Making it a priority, they could probably make it run. It is not a factor when designing the game, so anything that could help it, like say, asset duplication can be ignored. But like, when designing a game, like, the entire thing is fluid. There are so many grades of this multifacted spectrum where one could design things in such a way that a compromised version of that could work on an older system. And when you actually are supporting that system, there are ways to shore up differences and make it as good as possible. Yes this takes more development time, but that's up to microsoft to decide to do.

Also, Star Citizen has been in development for high end systems for, oh, how long now? Whereas we'll be starting this next generation.

Like, look, I've been in other threads arguing that SSD is a HUGE DEAL. It really is. There are so many things that can be made better now. But I also believe that we're not going to see that very much immediately, and that there are still many types of games that by their nature really don't require and SSD to work, even if they could be a lot better with one. If this was the whole generation, I would be worried, but it isn't.

And even so I await to see what efforts Sony puts into their PS5 exclusives. But like people arguing that there will just be this huge gulf between series X and PS5 games are deluding themselves.

icecold1983 said:
Its doing a lot more with its rendering than witcher 3. It probably could be ported to switch in some fashion but would likely require even more cutbacks than that title did. Your point can never be proven because its simply wrong.

Dude. You are literally proving his point.

The fact that it is possible means that THAT IS WHAT TO EXPECT FROM XBOX.

You will have series X games that are compromised in some fashion relative to the series X, on the xbox one. This really, really is not hard.

And I'm sorry but you are talking out of your ass. "It's doing a lot more with its rendering." Dude. That's not how that works at all.

The point is that if you wanted, you could probably get Horizon running on switch. So series X games will be running on xbox one. Yes, they will be compromised. That's the whole idea. Yes. You are so close to getting it.

Malcolm9 · Jan 12, 2020

jerfdr said:
I haven't seen any solid data suggesting that Sony was selling PS4 Pro's much faster than MS was selling Xbox One X's (after the One X release), have you?

And Switch has the unique adventage of being portable, and generally targets a bit different demographic.

The base PS4 was and is outselling the Xbox One X. If you want solid data it's pretty easy to find. The Pro and X were more for gamers who wanted to take advantage of their 4k TVs and play the best version of games.

Even the Xbone S sells more than the X btw.

ClamBuster · Jan 12, 2020

snowhite said:
On the Nintendo Switch? Sure, that's my entire point.

Downgraded in general? It's still the best-looking RPG of the generation, so this means nothing.

i hear you mate, and i agree

a series x game on day one will look phenomenal... you'll just also be able to get a cloudy jaggy choppy 540p version on the old console

Kaguya · Jan 12, 2020

asmith906 said:
What's the point of making an incredibly expensive console if you don't give current gamers a reason to even upgrade to it. As much as I enjoy my Xbox one, it doesn't have a single exclusive game I feel is worthy enough to tell someone to go buy the console for that can't be experienced somewhere else.

MS have abandoned that idea quite a while ago when they started releasing XB exclusives on PC. They obviously value their services platform(digital stores and game pass) more than they do selling hardware.

Saint of Killers · Jan 12, 2020

I am now a little more likely to buy a PS5 on launch. (Just need to know what the games are now.)

jerfdr · Jan 12, 2020

H-I-M said:
We might not have detailed sales breakdown, but we do KNOW that the PS4 still remained on top after the X1X's release, even in the North America market (which is Microsoft's biggest one).

Meaning that the 'strongest console currently' wasn't capable of outselling the weaker PS4 and PS4 Pro.
Which validates his argument and proves that people didn't care about which one had the most TFs'....

In my opinion, it doesn't really validate his argument, as this could be the case due to 1) the base PS4 being cheaper than the One X, and cheaper products sell higher volumes generally, and 2) Xbox still struggling this gen with the perception of it being the weaker machine, after the years of the PS4 dominance in power over the base Xbox One.

Naturally, in all this reasoning I'm assuming that Series X will be priced similarly to PS5 (no more than $50 more expensive); otherwise people will just buy the cheaper machine.

nekkid · Jan 12, 2020

jerfdr said:
This might be my personal bias, but I believe that MS' strategy is the right one. Sell your consoles on the merit of being the best consoles to play third-party games (Xbox One X sells very well; and Series X is rumored to be quite a bit more powerful than PS5), and sell your games to as many people as possible, including the sizable number of people like me who will never buy any console whatsoever, no matter the strength of its exclusives; thus Sony won't see any of my money ever except for the cases like Death Stranding (and I applaud the Death Stranding decision) where they probably get some cut prom the PC sales, while Microsoft does see my money (no UWP-only crap, though, please).

I agree with all of this.

It's not like they're committing to this for years. Games that aren't available on XB1 will come, and in pretty short order.

Deleted member 46489 · Jan 12, 2020

modiz said:
I am sure that GG could just press the instant port button to release it on switch, like how the CDPR did for the switch version, obviously didnt require a large team working on that ports for months long, clearly having a team that ports down every effect takes no resources from the dev team that they might prefer to put on creating the actual game which is why brad sams heard that devs were celebrating the idea of a lockhart and having the port down their games to that system.

And to make sure my sarcasm gets through to you, there is no magical switch port button, those switch port teams are large and require shifting resources away from the actual game, and MS were originally putting lockhart on ice because devs didnt like it and decided to make their games from lockhart up instead of from the high end consoles down, because games are made from the baseline.

Your arguments would improve dramatically if you put some effort into improving your reading comprehension.

Did I say there was a magic port button? Did I say it was easy or simple? I simply said that the devs who ported The Witcher 3 were probably talented and experienced enough to do so for Horizon as well. Are you claiming they don't possess such expertise?

Now, for your other straw man arguments. I have no idea why you are ranting about Lockhart, as none of my comments here relate to Lockhart at all.

The rest of your argument boils down to the increased resources and time required to develop for multiple platforms. Duh?

You think devs don't want their games on as many platforms as possible? Game dev is hard. People do it because they love making games, and love seeing millions of players play their games. They support multiple platforms not just because a publisher wants them to, but because they want to maximise the reach of their game.

As for increased resources, that's Microsoft's business. They intend to support last gen consoles and PCs for all their exclusives (initially) because they believe they can sell more copies this way and make a higher profit. I'm sure a trillion dollar corporation knows more about profitability than your esteemed self, random Era poster.

Chettlar · Jan 12, 2020

modiz said:
I am sure that GG could just press the instant port button to release it on switch, like how the CDPR did for the switch version, obviously didnt require a large team working on that ports for months long, clearly having a team that ports down every effect takes no resources from the dev team that they might prefer to put on creating the actual game which is why brad sams heard that devs were celebrating the idea of a lockhart and having the port down their games to that system.

And to make sure my sarcasm gets through to you, there is no magical switch port button, those switch port teams are large and require shifting resources away from the actual game, and MS were originally putting lockhart on ice because devs didnt like it and decided to make their games from lockhart up instead of from the high end consoles down, because games are made from the baseline.

So it takes time and resources to do that. Got it.

So...okay this isn't hard now. Microsoft has decided to fund those resources and invest that time into their first party titles. They aren't forcing anyone else to do this. It's...really that simple.

modiz · Jan 12, 2020

snowhite said:
Your arguments would improve dramatically if you put some effort into improving your reading comprehension.

Did I say there was a magic port button? Did I say it was easy or simple? I simply said that the devs who ported The Witcher 3 were probably talented and experienced enough to do so for Horizon as well. Are you claiming they don't possess such expertise?

Now, for your other straw man arguments. I have no idea why you are ranting about Lockhart, as none of my comments here relate to Lockhart at all.

The rest of your argument boils down to the increased resources and time required to develop for multiple platforms. Duh?

You think devs don't want their games on as many platforms as possible? Game dev is hard. People do it because they love making games, and love seeing millions of players play their games. They support multiple platforms not just because a publisher wants them to, but because they want to maximise the reach of their game.

As for increased resources, that's Microsoft's business. They intend to support last gen consoles and PCs for all their exclusives (initially) because they believe they can sell more copies this way and make a higher profit. I'm sure a trillion dollar corporation knows more about profitability than your esteemed self, random Era poster.

The fact that devs are worried about a lower sku holding their games back proves i am right though

Black_Stride · Jan 12, 2020

inguef said:
Being able to target SSD's as the default means developers have a lot more flexibility with streaming data.

Sony having PS5 only titles at launch.....explains why SSDs are a key feature?
So if Sony didnt have any PS5 only titles at launch, you would be confused as to why SSDs are a key feature?

Im trying to connect the dots between your post and this thread....and how PS5 only titles from Sony suddenly made you realize that SSDs are a key feature.

P.S So Since MS have said XGS games at launch will be crossgen.....you dont understand why they would tout their SSD as a key feature?

edit: Looks like you werent the original person I was quoting.....but im still trying to connect the dots between the whole Sony will have SCE PS5 only games at launch explains or makes sense of the SSD being a key feature, when regardless of crossgen or nextgen only titles the SSD would be a key feature.

gundamkyoukai · Jan 12, 2020

Chettlar said:
It's also not built to run on a hard drive at all, like explicitly. That is not a priority in any way. Making it a priority, they could probably make it run. It is not a factor when designing the game, so anything that could help it, like say, asset duplication can be ignored. But like, when designing a game, like, the entire thing is fluid. There are so many grades of this multifacted spectrum where one could design things in such a way that a compromised version of that could work on an older system. And when you actually are supporting that system, there are ways to shore up differences and make it as good as possible. Yes this takes more development time, but that's up to microsoft to decide to do.

Also, Star Citizen has been in development for high end systems for, oh, how long now? Whereas we'll be starting this next generation.

Like, look, I've been in other threads arguing that SSD is a HUGE DEAL. It really is. There are so many things that can be made better now. But I also believe that we're not going to see that very much immediately, and that there are still many types of games that by their nature really don't require and SSD to work, even if they could be a lot better with one. If this was the whole generation, I would be worried, but it isn't.

And even so I await to see what efforts Sony puts into their PS5 exclusives. But like people arguing that there will just be this huge gulf between series X and PS5 games are deluding themselves.

I think we will see the effect of the SSD on Sony games immediately.
If HZD2 get flying mounts it will be the effect of the SSD right away .
As for the gulf between series X and PS5 games if there is a gulf it won't be in gfx but other things .

Gemüsepizza · Jan 12, 2020

That's good to hear. If you look at the specs of next-gen consoles, it makes it even more obvious why this is the right choice:

40x increase in storage bandwidth

4x increase in CPU performance

This is unprecedented and kind of insane, it will allow completely new game experiences. Makes it even more baffling why Microsoft chose to limit themselves in those areas.

Jonathan Lanza · Jan 12, 2020

I didn't realize MS' approach was this frowned upon.
I don't think it's bad for gaming or anything, it's similar to the PC. My PC being able to play old games doesn't mean new games are suffering.

Danteyke223 · Jan 12, 2020

asmith906 said:
What's the point of making an incredibly expensive console if you don't give current gamers a reason to even upgrade to it. As much as I enjoy my Xbox one, it doesn't have a single exclusive game I feel is worthy enough to tell someone to go buy the console for that can't be experienced somewhere else.

I got loads of games that I have for the Xbox One X that I decided to stop playing due to the load times. Stuff like Hitman 2 , Destiny 2 , Red dead 2 , Gta 5. I barely care about exclusives and my Ps4pro is gathering dust cause once I play an exclusive i switch back to the X.

I'll buy both this year, but I am kinda worried about Sony's hardware design and quality plus noise factor.

Eggman · Jan 12, 2020

Atom Heart Mother said:
my biggest reason why i dont mind this because most games that come out at the beginning of a generation are barely different from the previous generation. You really think a game like Killzone Shadowfall could've ran on the PS3? I mean, probably if you just downgraded the graphics. There's nothing there that demanded it to be made for PS4. Most games truly that advantage of the new consoles like 2 - 3 years in, anyway. And even then you can have shit like DOOM or The Witcher 3 be scaled down so hard without any gameplay compromises on to a damn switch. We're not missing anything if you just want pure graphic upgrades. I'd love to see more games take advantage of the new CPU to make AI better, more enemies, deeper systems, etc. But that's not gonna happen for a while. Most games this gen felt like just prettier Xbox 360/PS3 titles. I'd rather the guise of bullshit be lifted and just make shit cross-gen for a year or 2 and be upfront. Also, exclusives suck. Put games on everything. Just downgrade if you have too.

There were certainly games that took advantage of the Xbox One and PS4 in the first couple years.

Things are much different this time though. Sony developers don't have to learn a new process architecture since they are sticking with the same for PS5.

Going from PS3 - PS4 there was a learning curve. That will be eliminated and development time will increase and get easier.

And I don't want developers to have to worry about supporting old tech. They could do much better without having to waste resources on it.

Mr.Deadshot · Jan 12, 2020

What could be so ground-breaking that it's only possible with a PS5? We already have vast open worlds with lots of stuff going on running just fine on a launch Xbox One. XSX will just enhance on that. Think Halo Infinite in 4k/60FPS with an additional ultra-texture graphics pack. It can still look "next-gen".

That said I am all for Sony's approach. It truly sets the new console apart und doesn't make it feel like another mid-gen upgrade. We will see how much difference it makes to natively develope for one hardware contrary to X1, X1S, X1X, PC and XSX when we see the next Halo and Horizon.

Skittles · Jan 12, 2020

All ports are possible with enough time

Eggman · Jan 12, 2020

Jonathan Lanza said:
I didn't realize MS' approach was this frowned upon.
I don't think it's bad for gaming or anything, it's similar to the PC. My PC being able to play old games doesn't mean new games are suffering.

If new AAA PC games had to work on the Jaguar CPU from close to a decade ago they would be suffering.

Tezza · Jan 12, 2020

I can't remember any of Sony and Microsoft not having first party games as exclusives at launch, only 3rd parties do cross gen for obvious reasons, and Nintendo have only ever done Zelda Twilight princess and BotW and that was only due them actually being announced for the previous gen hardware.

Content is why I would get another console, I like the fact that Sony and Nintendo believe in generations, basically Microsoft are saying the Xbox Series X, is a high resolution/Frames per second Xbox One from 2013, how is that okay?

Halo is being built on 2013 hardware, but will just look shiny on Xbox Series X? So AI can't be improved to take advantage of spec, cause it has to work on old hardware.

I am for everyone playing games, as not everyone can afford new hardware, but let's not all pretend as gamers, that this is a good thing for the games, maybe for the wallets of companies

Jaxar · Jan 12, 2020

Beer Monkey said:
PS5. You'd buy it even if it had no games.

I'll have tons of PS4 games to play in between the big PS5 releases.

Earthed · Jan 12, 2020

Chettlar said:
It's also not built to run on a hard drive at all, like explicitly. That is not a priority in any way. Making it a priority, they could probably make it run. It is not a factor when designing the game, so anything that could help it, like say, asset duplication can be ignored. But like, when designing a game, like, the entire thing is fluid. There are so many grades of this multifacted spectrum where one could design things in such a way that a compromised version of that could work on an older system. And when you actually are supporting that system, there are ways to shore up differences and make it as good as possible. Yes this takes more development time, but that's up to microsoft to decide to do.

Also, Star Citizen has been in development for high end systems for, oh, how long now? Whereas we'll be starting this next generation.

Like, look, I've been in other threads arguing that SSD is a HUGE DEAL. It really is. There are so many things that can be made better now. But I also believe that we're not going to see that very much immediately, and that there are still many types of games that by their nature really don't require and SSD to work, even if they could be a lot better with one. If this was the whole generation, I would be worried, but it isn't.

And even so I await to see what efforts Sony puts into their PS5 exclusives. But like people arguing that there will just be this huge gulf between series X and PS5 games are deluding themselves.

It's not built to run on a HDD because it's built around the notion of an SSD, which is kinda my point.

Anyway, I'm personally not assuming quite yet that the difference will be "huge". But that doesn't make the conclusion that there won't be a noticeable difference the logical assumption. Because for there not to be a noticeable difference, you'd have to be assuming that Sony simply isn't whatsoever going to leverage the SSD in any way, which would be illogical. Same goes for every other aspect that PS5 exclusives can depend on existing as a base to develop for. That's all I'm saying.

Chettlar · Jan 12, 2020

gundamkyoukai said:
I think we will see the effect of the SSD on Sony games immediately.
If HZD2 get flying mounts it will be the effect of the SSD right away .
As for the gulf between series X and PS5 games if there is a gulf it won't be in gfx but other things .

Perhaps so. I await what PS5 games there will be. My console I get, assuming, and hoping (although I'm not so sure I'll be able to) I get a console this holiday, I'll be getting a PS5.

But I really don't feel that this difference will just make microsoft games pale in comparison. Flying mounts could absolutely work in a current gen game. I mean... we have flying games right now. If you mean something flying at mach 1, sure. But I guess I don't see how that's this transformative experience that cannot be matched by the fun of a microsoft first party game in some other way. Plus, you'd need to make a map big enough to make mach 1 speeds workable in. That's, really, really huge. My point is that you have to make games that take advantage of faster speeds. Like, is Halo Infinite suffering because it doesn't have super fast aireal combat? I mean...no? Like it's a thing you could do, but it's not like the game is going to suffer by following in the same general fashion to their previous games. And even so, there are ways to make this a big difference. Like as simple as, on Series X, you click load checkpoint and you are just there, whereas the Xbox One version requires a loading screen. That's a big change, that is scalable, that naturally fits into the design ethos of the game.

I think developers will take some time before these new features are absolutely essential. I don't think there will be a huge gulf right away. But by 3-4 years in the difference will be unmistakable.

Absolutely you CAN do new things with an SSD, but there's also a lot of things you can do without one. So they will do the things they can without one and release them in the first year or two. Meanwhile games built from the ground up for the series X only will be in development and released after.

My point is that yes, absolutely, SSDs will make a big difference, but I don't believe that xbox games will just be lame and out dated somehow. It's not going to be that dramatic at all.

Deleted member 21709 · Jan 12, 2020

Black_Stride said:
Sony having PS5 only titles at launch.....explains why SSDs are a key feature?
So if Sony didnt have any PS5 only titles at launch, you would be confused as to why SSDs are a key feature?

Im trying to connect the dots between your post and this thread....and how PS5 only titles from Sony suddenly made you realize that SSDs are a key feature.

P.S So Since MS have said XGS games at launch will be crossgen.....you dont understand why they would tout their SSD as a key feature?

I just answered your question. You are talking to the wrong person.

SSD will always have advantages over HDD, but it being available in every PS5 (and XBSX) sold means developers can actually design their games with this in mind. This will be huge. And will be a bit of an advantage over PC where of developers can't control if people have an SSD.

Jonathan Lanza · Jan 12, 2020

Eggman said:
If new AAA PC games had to work on the Jaguar CPU from close to a decade ago they would be suffering.

Isn't the Series X getting new revisions as time goes on though? If they reach a point where everything has to upgrade then I'm sure they'll release the necessary system. Again it just seems like a PC deal to me.

H-I-M · Jan 12, 2020

jerfdr said:
In my opinion, it doesn't really validate his argument, as this could be the case due to 1) the base PS4 being cheaper than the One X, and cheaper products sell higher volumes generally, and 2) Xbox still struggling this gen with the perception of it being the weaker machine, after the years of the PS4 dominance in power over the base Xbox One.

Naturally, in all this reasoning I'm assuming that Series X will be priced similarly to PS5 (no more than $50 more expensive); otherwise people will just buy the cheaper machine.

I hear your argument and I'll have to disagree.
1. Microsoft has the cheaper Xbox One S, HEAVY discounts all around the globe yet still struggle hard. People didn't just buy the cheaper machine.

2. 'perception of it being the weaker machine'
That implies that Microsoft's marketing teams weren't able to properly convince people that the X1X was the more powerful console.

ClamBuster · Jan 12, 2020

ms have now also confirmed this morning that the SSD in the series x will remain completely 100% inactive for the first two years

they further confirmed there will be a live switching on of the SSD in november 2022

more to follow...

(rolls eyes)

Deleted member 31133 · Jan 12, 2020

I'm cool with this. I want a launch game that's going to benefit from the PS5 without the Devs having to think about getting the game running on PS4.

I just want Sony to now announce a reveal date!

Marble · Jan 12, 2020

Yearsoflurking said:
Ps4 was the best place to play 3rd party games majority of this generation I'm confused by this post lol

It was cheaper and eventually had the best exclusive software. X1X isn't particularly catching up I assume.

jerfdr said:
I haven't seen any solid data suggesting that Sony was selling PS4 Pro's much faster than MS was selling Xbox One X's (after the One X release), have you?

And Switch has the unique adventage of being portable, and generally targets a bit different demographic.

No, because MS doesn't want to share hard data. Wonder why that is. But do you actually think X is outselling Pro? Very unlikely.

Black_Stride · Jan 12, 2020

inguef said:
I just answered your question. You are talking to the wrong person.

SSD will always have advantages over HDD, but it being available in every PS5 (and XBSX) sold means developers can actually design their games with this in mind. This will be huge. And will be a bit of an advantage over PC where of developers can't control if people have an SSD.

I realized i that i was talking to someone else. Ninja Edited my post already.

What I was pointing out is that how does this thread; that Sony will make PS5 only titles at launch make SSDs being a key feature suddenly make sense?
SSDs are a key feature whether Sony made PS5 only titles at launch or not , it seems redundant or rather weird for someone to go "Oh shit thats why they were talking about SSDs.....because they are gonna make PS5 only titles at launch"
The two points dont really seem linked.

jerfdr · Jan 12, 2020

Malcolm9 said:
The base PS4 was and is outselling the Xbox One X. If you want solid data it's pretty easy to find. The Pro and X were more for gamers who wanted to take advantage of their 4k TVs and play the best version of games.

Even the Xbone S sells more than the X btw.

The base PS4 is quite a bit cheaper than the One X, of course it will be selling much faster. And in the next gen case Series X is probably going to be priced similarly to PS5 (if it's indeed the case; if PS5 ends up being signiticantly cheaper people will just buy the cheaper machine). So I don't think that your argument is too relevant.

Malcolm9 said:
Series X being quite a bit more powerful than PS5.......it won't; there won't be much between them but keep dreaming though.

Rumors suggest that Series X is going to be significantly more powerful than PS5; they could prove false, naturally.

And I'm not dreaming; I won't be buying Series X or PS5 (or any console whatsoever; in fact there is no TV in my household at all), so I'm not personally invested.

Beer Monkey · Jan 12, 2020

Jaxar said:
I'll have tons of PS4 games to play in between the big PS5 releases.

Fuck! Jesus, I'm really thick. Thanks for filling me in.

Chettlar · Jan 12, 2020

Earthed said:
It's not built to run on a HDD because it's built around the notion of an SSD, which is kinda my point.

Anyway, I'm personally not assuming quite yet that the difference will be "huge". But that doesn't make the conclusion that there won't be a noticeable difference the logical assumption. Because for there not to be a noticeable difference, you'd have to be assuming that Sony simply isn't whatsoever going to leverage the SSD in any way, which would be illogical. Same goes for every other aspect that PS5 exclusives can depend on existing as a base to develop for. That's all I'm saying.

Right I don't think we exactly disagree a ton here, but my point is that there is a difference between,

1) designed for gen8 on gen9
2) designed for gen9 on gen 8
3) designed for gen8 and gen 9

So, what I'm saying is, the performance of an HDD in star citizen probably could be better than it is. I listed the example of asset duplication with is a common practice used to cut load times, although it does bloat the size of games. There are various ways to optimize for an HDD that would not compromise the design for an SSD; Star Citizen just isn't doing them because that takes design resources.

Like let's say you walk into a room and suddenly out of nowhere a guy appears and he's really complicated and whatever. Well on an HDD, that would chug the game massively trying to load him into memory. On an SSD he just comes right up no problem. Well, so when designing the game, you need to pre-load the guy in and put him somewhere else, and just move him at the time he's supposed to appear. The SSD won't care, but the HDD will suddenly be able to do things just fine. Then when loading into this scenario where this happens, well the SSD can probably just instantly boot it up, whereas the HDD may require giving it a loading screen.

So in this example, Star Citizen is just not doing the pre-loading thing. So naturally when you use a hard drive, it chugs.

In order to make this impossible for an HDD to work you have to be loading in way way more stuff to the RAM than actually fits into the RAM. Okay, so that means you need to be designing scenarios that require that. So like, going hyper speed through a really detailed area. Thing is that detailed area doesn't build itself. World sizes will still be constrained by dev time and design scope. So unless you are specifically designing something that involves hyperspeed through a super detailed area, that particular advantage is useless.

So in the end these games need to be taking advantage of things that are utterly both a) impossible and b) not feasible to replace with a facsimile in the lesser version of the game. While I'm excited to see games where you have super speed, for example, not every game needs super speed, and so while it's awesome that options are opening up, I don't think that there is inherently impossible to do right now that will just make everyone look at Xbox and going why aren't you doing that.

Eggman · Jan 12, 2020

Jonathan Lanza said:
Isn't the Series X getting new revisions as time goes on though? If they reach a point where everything has to upgrade then I'm sure they'll release the necessary system. Again it just seems like a PC deal to me.

I may be confused by your question but I would say the SX should be that system. Games are already struggling on the original Xbox One and PS4. It's time to move on. Even PCs reach a point where they can't run new games anymore.

Bitch Pudding · Jan 12, 2020

As long as all the Xbox Series X does is playing Xbox One games it's exactly that: Another iteration of the Xbox One platform. See, some games on Xbox One X also look amazing and are able to hold a candle to the high end PC editions. Yet nobody called the One X a next gen console just because of that. So why introduce a different rule set for the Series X? MS themselves said they don't believe in classic generations, so I just take them by their word here.

Once there are exclusive games for it like that amazing looking Hellblade 2 I've no problem with welcoming Series X to the club, but until then the only next gen platform out there is the PS5.

For that reason I personally don't consider buying the series X anytime soon.

Polyh3dron · Jan 12, 2020

DeadlyVenom said:
If people are this bent out of shape about cross-gen titles, they must lose their minds over PC games. WHAT GEN AM I PLAYING ON RIGHT NOW? I NEED TO KNOW!

This has always been an issue with PC games. They never take full advantage of the most powerful hardware out there because they also still need to run on hardware that isn't quite as powerful.

Jason Schreier (Kotaku Splitscreen) : "Sony will have PS5 only titles at launch"

User requested ban

alt account

User requested account closure

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account

User requested account closure

"I've made a Gigantic mistake"

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account

User requested account closure

"I've made a Gigantic mistake"

User requested account closure

Prophet of Regret