Rumor: New “Erebus” platform found in Unreal Engine 4 [Update: Or not - Read OP]

[John Bender]

Has Sony ever used code names for their mainline consoles? I could swear that are always named PlayStation X

Click to shrink...

Read the OP.

After Orbis (PS4), Morpheus (PS VR), Neo (PS4 Pro), now Erebus?

Click to shrink...

 

[CarthOhNoes]

7nm would open the door to the power/performance and die space consoles use for such a GPU. Certainly not impossible if Nvidia releases a RTX 3060 in 2 years.

Click to shrink...

Thing is, if they're going with Nvidia, 2 years for a standard desktop part would mean a long time before a lower powered, semi custom variant. Consoles will have their main hardware profiles and core architecture set in stone a long time before launch.

I feel like this is exactly the same situation as when people convinced themselves that Scorpio would use a Zen based CPU - if PS5 is coming in 2020 then they almost certainly have the main architecture planned out. They won't just stick a desktop part in there and I think it is very unlikely that Nvidia will produce a semi custom SoC before their main desktop parts - even AMD don't do that.

 

[Christo750]

Isn't Google making moves towards their own console? Could it be that?

 

[kennyamr]

Google would probably use jollier codenames for their stuff.

 

[z0m3le]

Thing is, if they're going with Nvidia, 2 years for a standard desktop part would mean a long time before a lower powered, semi custom variant. Consoles will have their main hardware profiles and core architecture set in stone a long time before launch.

I feel like this is exactly the same situation as when people convinced themselves that Scorpio would use a Zen based CPU - if PS5 is coming in 2020 then they almost certainly have the main architecture planned out. They won't just stick a desktop part in there and I think it is very unlikely that Nvidia will produce a semi custom SoC before their main desktop parts - even AMD don't do that.

Click to shrink...

Nvidia and Microsoft released a GPU in the original Xbox that was more advanced than their current GPU on the market. I'm not saying I'm convinced they went with Nvidia, but unlike Sony, Microsoft is hardware agnostic, they could use ARM and PowerVR if they want.

 

[CarthOhNoes]

Nvidia and Microsoft released a GPU in the original Xbox that was more advanced than their current GPU on the market. I'm not saying I'm convinced they went with Nvidia, but unlike Sony, Microsoft is hardware agnostic, they could use ARM and PowerVR if they want.

Click to shrink...

Would that not totally go against their b/c efforts? Play Anywhere, b/c and Gamepass etc all require fairly consistent hardware architecture, surely? Sticking with AMD makes huge sense in terms of retaining strong compatibility with the current Xbox library.

 

[z0m3le]

Would that not totally go against their b/c efforts? Play Anywhere, b/c and Gamepass etc all require fairly consistent hardware architecture, surely? Sticking with AMD makes huge sense in terms of retaining strong compatibility with the current Xbox library.

Click to shrink...

No, Microsoft's work in their API a very abstract layer for hardware, as long as the hardware is capable of "x" it will run the program, it simply needs to be powerful enough to run the program at a high enough performance. It's the same way it works on PC, where hardware configurations are vastly different from one another.

 

[Lyrick]

It's an extremely confusing assignment statement, but you should check it again. Flipping around the order of the second line might make the logic a bit easier to see:

const bool bPS4SeenOtherConsole = (
    ((PartyPlatforms.Contains(OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_XBOX) || PartyPlatforms.Contains(OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_EREBUS)) && ExistingPlatforms.Contains(OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_PS4)) ||
    ((ExistingPlatforms.Contains(OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_XBOX) || ExistingPlatforms.Contains(OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_EREBUS)) && PartyPlatforms.Contains(OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_PS4))
);

Click to shrink...

Would Someone be willing to get into the source and make the following change

const bool bPS4SeenOtherConsole = false; // fuck Sonys stance on crossplay
/*(
    ((PartyPlatforms.Contains(OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_XBOX) || PartyPlatforms.Contains(OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_EREBUS)) && ExistingPlatforms.Contains(OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_PS4)) ||
    ((ExistingPlatforms.Contains(OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_XBOX) || ExistingPlatforms.Contains(OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_EREBUS)) && PartyPlatforms.Contains(OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_PS4))
); */

so we can get closer to having crossplay...

 

[CarthOhNoes]

No, Microsoft's work in their API a very abstract layer for hardware, as long as the hardware is capable of "x" it will run the program, it simply needs to be powerful enough to run the program at a high enough performance. It's the same way it works on PC, where hardware configurations are vastly different from one another.

Click to shrink...

Ah I didn't know that. They've got some wizards on their emulation team.

 

[TheOldestGamer]

I think most here are wrong. Xbox or Play station will be eveloutionary steps on the current platform hardware. I cant see either requiring a new core to support. Its likely a different platform.

Microsoft is hardware agnostic, but i dont expect the next platform from them to require a new core.

 

[NinjaScooter]

It's clearly Vita 2.

Spoiler: /s

YOU THOUGHT THIS POST WAS SARCASM, JOJO! BUT IT WAS SERIOUS!

Click to shrink...

It doesn't say Errorbus

 

[KratosEnergyDrink]

Sony's only move into the portable realm is via a smart phone, like a vita inspired xperia play. That could very realistically become a valid platform for developers.

Click to shrink...

Sony doesn't sell much mobiles to begin with. Its not even in the top 10 worldwide and only a fraction of people who are still buying Sony mobiles are interested in games.

 

[Verdanth]

Reminds me uroboros from Resident evil 5.

Plus Orobas from Persona series.

 

[Kittens McMittens]

No, Microsoft's work in their API a very abstract layer for hardware, as long as the hardware is capable of "x" it will run the program, it simply needs to be powerful enough to run the program at a high enough performance. It's the same way it works on PC, where hardware configurations are vastly different from one another.

Click to shrink...

That's not quite true. If MS went with Nvidia, they'd have to use an ARM CPU core instead of x86 as Nvidia lacks the patents needed to make x86 parts. That means MS would have to port the b/c software they wrote for PPC based 360 titles, as well as updating it to emulate x86 on ARM.

Of course, MS could get an AMD or Intel CPU with Nvidia GPU, but that would increase costs substantially.

 

[Deleted member 4093]

Only for PS4??????

 

[Meelow]

So we thinking it's Switch Pro?

 

[Dinobot]

Nintendo Switch Advance for March 2020. Let's go.

 

[z0m3le]

So we thinking it's Switch Pro?

Click to shrink...

Yeah, could even be a dock or console.

 

[Blade Wolf]

It's the Google console.

 

[Deleted member 5764]

It's the Google console.

Click to shrink...

I believe the Google console is codename "YETI"

 

[Blade Wolf]

I believe the Google console is codename "YETI"

Click to shrink...

It's probably a decoy.

 

[ThePhoque]

days gone as well

but stilk will not release a next gen before release all of the games

So 2020 is expected before it might happen but unlikly

Click to shrink...

well Days Gone will be out in Q1 2019 if i'm not mistaking, I guess similar cases happened with PS3 .

but i still think that Q1 or Q2 2020 [ tops ] is a thing.

 

[z0m3le]

That's not quite true. If MS went with Nvidia, they'd have to use an ARM CPU core instead of x86 as Nvidia lacks the patents needed to make x86 parts. That means MS would have to port the b/c software they wrote for PPC based 360 titles, as well as updating it to emulate x86 on ARM.

Of course, MS could get an AMD or Intel CPU with Nvidia GPU, but that would increase costs substantially.

Click to shrink...

Microsoft as an abstraction layer for ARM to run x86 code on Android devices, honestly as long as they used A75 cores clocked high enough, the extra die space could be used for more GPU performance and still have a CPU multiple times more powerful than Jaguar in xb1x. While using 1/10th the power consumption of a Ryzen CPU. Could also lead to higher clocks.

 

[Lukas Taves]

Looking at the full function, it really does seem like OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_EREBUS should actually be OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_SWITCH. It doesn't make any sense otherwise (unless PS4 and Switch players are now allowed to play together).

bool UPartyBeaconState::CrossPlayAllowed(const FPartyReservation& ReservationRequest) const
{
    bool bCrossplayAllowed = true;

    bool bEveryoneAllowsCrossplay = true;
    TSet<FString> ExistingPlatforms;
    for (const FPartyReservation& ExistingReservation : Reservations)
    {
        for (const FPlayerReservation& ExistingPlayer : ExistingReservation.PartyMembers)
        {
            bEveryoneAllowsCrossplay &= ExistingPlayer.bAllowCrossplay;
            if (ExistingPlayer.Platform == OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_PS4)
            {
                ExistingPlatforms.Add(OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_PS4);
            }
            else if (ExistingPlayer.Platform == OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_XBOX)
            {
                ExistingPlatforms.Add(OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_XBOX);
            }
            else if (ExistingPlayer.Platform == OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_EREBUS)
            {
                ExistingPlatforms.Add(OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_EREBUS);
            }
            else
            {
                ExistingPlatforms.Add(OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_OTHER);
            }
        }
    }

    if (ExistingPlatforms.Num() > 0)
    {
        bool bPartyAllowsCrossplay = true;
        TSet<FString> PartyPlatforms;
        for (const FPlayerReservation& Player : ReservationRequest.PartyMembers)
        {
            bPartyAllowsCrossplay &= Player.bAllowCrossplay;
            if (Player.Platform == OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_XBOX)
            {
                PartyPlatforms.Add(OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_XBOX);
            }
            else if (Player.Platform == OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_PS4)
            {
                PartyPlatforms.Add(OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_PS4);
            }
            else if (Player.Platform == OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_EREBUS)
            {
                PartyPlatforms.Add(OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_EREBUS);
            }
            else
            {
                PartyPlatforms.Add(OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_OTHER);
            }
        }

        const bool bPS4SeenOtherConsole = (
            ((PartyPlatforms.Contains(OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_XBOX) || PartyPlatforms.Contains(OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_EREBUS)) && ExistingPlatforms.Contains(OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_PS4)) ||
            (PartyPlatforms.Contains(OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_PS4) && (ExistingPlatforms.Contains(OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_XBOX) || ExistingPlatforms.Contains(OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_EREBUS)))
        );


        TSet<FString> Delta = PartyPlatforms.Intersect(ExistingPlatforms);

        // The intersection of party/existing will be less if something new is added
        const bool bPartyAddsNewPlatform = (Delta.Num() != PartyPlatforms.Num());
        // There is something foreign if our party makeup doesn't exactly match the existing parties
        const bool bExistingMatchesParty = (Delta.Num() == ExistingPlatforms.Num());

        // Don't cross mingle consoles
        const bool bCrossConsoleAllowed = (!bPS4SeenOtherConsole) || (bPS4SeenOtherConsole && !bRestrictCrossConsole);
        const bool bExistingPlayersOk = (!bPartyAddsNewPlatform || (bPartyAddsNewPlatform && bEveryoneAllowsCrossplay));
        const bool bIncomingPlayersOk = (bPartyAllowsCrossplay || bExistingMatchesParty);

        bCrossplayAllowed = bCrossConsoleAllowed && bExistingPlayersOk && bIncomingPlayersOk;

        FString ExistingStr;
        for (const FString& Existing : ExistingPlatforms)
        {
            ExistingStr += Existing + TEXT("|");
        }
        UE_LOG(LogPartyBeacon, Verbose, TEXT("Existing: %s"), *ExistingStr);

        FString PartyPlatformStr;
        for (const FString& PartyPlatform : PartyPlatforms)
        {
            PartyPlatformStr += PartyPlatform + TEXT("|");
        }
        UE_LOG(LogPartyBeacon, Verbose, TEXT("NewParty: %s"), *PartyPlatformStr);

        UE_LOG(LogPartyBeacon, Log, TEXT("UPartyBeaconState::CrossPlayAllowed bEveryoneAllowsCrossplay:%s bPartyAllowsCrossplay:%s bCrossConsoleAllowed:%s bExistingPlayersOk:%s bIncomingPlayersOk:%s bCrossPlayAllowed:%s"),
            *LexToString(bEveryoneAllowsCrossplay),
            *LexToString(bPartyAllowsCrossplay),
            *LexToString(bCrossConsoleAllowed),
            *LexToString(bExistingPlayersOk),
            *LexToString(bIncomingPlayersOk),
            *LexToString(bCrossplayAllowed));
    }

    return bCrossplayAllowed;
}
[code]

Click to shrink...

Yeah, using only Erebus and not switch should be a give away that it is indeed the switch since otherwise switch wouldn't be taken into account.

But holy cow, why would they program it like that? It's way more verbose than it should be for such a simple check, I'm starting to think that the times they allowed crossplay were truly non intentional XD

That logic pretty much shows that PS4 and Xbox alone can't see eachother (no cross-play), but when Erebus launches, cross-play will be enabled.

When running the logic, when only PS4 and Xbox are used in the comparative arrays, then the result is PS4Seen == False. But when you factor in Erebus into any of the arrays and PS4 is included, then PS4Seen is true.

Click to shrink...

This is wrong, this code definitely sets Ps4SeenOtherConsole to true when there's Ps4 + any other console, and that flag set to true disables crossplay unless a more global flag permits it.

 

[Kittens McMittens]

Microsoft as an abstraction layer for ARM to run x86 code on Android devices, honestly as long as they used A75 cores clocked high enough, the extra die space could be used for more GPU performance and still have a CPU multiple times more powerful than Jaguar in xb1x. While using 1/10th the power consumption of a Ryzen CPU. Could also lead to higher clocks.

Click to shrink...

Oh yea, they already do x86 don't they? It's x64 they are missing, unless they have that too now? If not then they would have to get x64 working for XB1 back compat. They could totally do it though.

 

[gofreak]

I think most here are wrong. Xbox or Play station will be eveloutionary steps on the current platform hardware. I cant see either requiring a new core to support. Its likely a different platform.

Microsoft is hardware agnostic, but i dont expect the next platform from them to require a new core.

Click to shrink...

I think Sony's been pretty clear that next gen will mean a new separate software cycle starting over... and I'm fairly sure MS has more recently indicated the same wrt speculation around forward compatibility. Neither is going to want to tie their next cycles of software to be runnable on Jaguar.

In engine terms that would probably lead to new, separate optimization paths.

 

[Andromeda]

Looking at the full function, it really does seem like OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_EREBUS should actually be OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_SWITCH. It doesn't make any sense otherwise (unless PS4 and Switch players are now allowed to play together).

bool UPartyBeaconState::CrossPlayAllowed(const FPartyReservation& ReservationRequest) const
{
    bool bCrossplayAllowed = true;

    bool bEveryoneAllowsCrossplay = true;
    TSet<FString> ExistingPlatforms;
    for (const FPartyReservation& ExistingReservation : Reservations)
    {
        for (const FPlayerReservation& ExistingPlayer : ExistingReservation.PartyMembers)
        {
            bEveryoneAllowsCrossplay &= ExistingPlayer.bAllowCrossplay;
            if (ExistingPlayer.Platform == OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_PS4)
            {
                ExistingPlatforms.Add(OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_PS4);
            }
            else if (ExistingPlayer.Platform == OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_XBOX)
            {
                ExistingPlatforms.Add(OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_XBOX);
            }
            else if (ExistingPlayer.Platform == OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_EREBUS)
            {
                ExistingPlatforms.Add(OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_EREBUS);
            }
            else
            {
                ExistingPlatforms.Add(OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_OTHER);
            }
        }
    }

    if (ExistingPlatforms.Num() > 0)
    {
        bool bPartyAllowsCrossplay = true;
        TSet<FString> PartyPlatforms;
        for (const FPlayerReservation& Player : ReservationRequest.PartyMembers)
        {
            bPartyAllowsCrossplay &= Player.bAllowCrossplay;
            if (Player.Platform == OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_XBOX)
            {
                PartyPlatforms.Add(OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_XBOX);
            }
            else if (Player.Platform == OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_PS4)
            {
                PartyPlatforms.Add(OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_PS4);
            }
            else if (Player.Platform == OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_EREBUS)
            {
                PartyPlatforms.Add(OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_EREBUS);
            }
            else
            {
                PartyPlatforms.Add(OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_OTHER);
            }
        }

        const bool bPS4SeenOtherConsole = (
            ((PartyPlatforms.Contains(OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_XBOX) || PartyPlatforms.Contains(OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_EREBUS)) && ExistingPlatforms.Contains(OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_PS4)) ||
            (PartyPlatforms.Contains(OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_PS4) && (ExistingPlatforms.Contains(OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_XBOX) || ExistingPlatforms.Contains(OSS_PLATFORM_NAME_EREBUS)))
        );


        TSet<FString> Delta = PartyPlatforms.Intersect(ExistingPlatforms);

        // The intersection of party/existing will be less if something new is added
        const bool bPartyAddsNewPlatform = (Delta.Num() != PartyPlatforms.Num());
        // There is something foreign if our party makeup doesn't exactly match the existing parties
        const bool bExistingMatchesParty = (Delta.Num() == ExistingPlatforms.Num());

        // Don't cross mingle consoles
        const bool bCrossConsoleAllowed = (!bPS4SeenOtherConsole) || (bPS4SeenOtherConsole && !bRestrictCrossConsole);
        const bool bExistingPlayersOk = (!bPartyAddsNewPlatform || (bPartyAddsNewPlatform && bEveryoneAllowsCrossplay));
        const bool bIncomingPlayersOk = (bPartyAllowsCrossplay || bExistingMatchesParty);

        bCrossplayAllowed = bCrossConsoleAllowed && bExistingPlayersOk && bIncomingPlayersOk;

        FString ExistingStr;
        for (const FString& Existing : ExistingPlatforms)
        {
            ExistingStr += Existing + TEXT("|");
        }
        UE_LOG(LogPartyBeacon, Verbose, TEXT("Existing: %s"), *ExistingStr);

        FString PartyPlatformStr;
        for (const FString& PartyPlatform : PartyPlatforms)
        {
            PartyPlatformStr += PartyPlatform + TEXT("|");
        }
        UE_LOG(LogPartyBeacon, Verbose, TEXT("NewParty: %s"), *PartyPlatformStr);

        UE_LOG(LogPartyBeacon, Log, TEXT("UPartyBeaconState::CrossPlayAllowed bEveryoneAllowsCrossplay:%s bPartyAllowsCrossplay:%s bCrossConsoleAllowed:%s bExistingPlayersOk:%s bIncomingPlayersOk:%s bCrossPlayAllowed:%s"),
            *LexToString(bEveryoneAllowsCrossplay),
            *LexToString(bPartyAllowsCrossplay),
            *LexToString(bCrossConsoleAllowed),
            *LexToString(bExistingPlayersOk),
            *LexToString(bIncomingPlayersOk),
            *LexToString(bCrossplayAllowed));
    }

    return bCrossplayAllowed;
}
[code]

Click to shrink...

I agree. And the others platforms are then simply the platforms allowed to have crossplay with PS4: PC, Android and Iphone. Which is why they are not in the bPS4SeenOtherConsole boolean declaration, cause they are allowed to crossplay with PS4.

So Erebus would be the internal name of switch in UE4.

 

[z0m3le]

I agree. And the others platforms are then simply the platforms allowed to have crossplay with PS4: PC, Android and Iphone. Which is why they are not in the bPS4SeenOtherConsole boolean declaration, cause they are allowed to crossplay with PS4.

So Erebus would be the internal name of switch in UE4.

Click to shrink...

Switch is already there. It even has the code name "SWT" this is "TST2" it's a new/different device, using Switch's api, and can't crossplay with Sony, so it's obviously a Nintendo platform.

 

[Zombegoast]

Oh No, Epic is trying to open Door-Kun

 

[BitsandBytes]

Switch is already there. It even has the code name "SWT" this is "TST2" it's a new/different device, using Switch's api, and can't crossplay with Sony, so it's obviously a Nintendo platform.

Click to shrink...

So you think it is a completely new Nintendo console then? I mean it can't be a Switch iteration as neither X1X or Pro were added separately to game engines/middleware.

 

[SharpX68K]

If it's a Nintendo console, maybe it's the long-rumored Supplemental Computing Device / SCD that was a hot topic of debate during the NX days. The SCD went through patent approval but hasn't been heard of since, I don't think.

I think MS is going with nVidia next-gen (so they can make use of RTX and DXR (DirectX Ray Tracing API) and it's for the Scarlet boxes. I don't think Sony will be making use of ray-tracing at all but it wouldn't surprise me if MS do as that will be a big difference in the two systems.

Click to shrink...

While I believe Microsoft is more likely to use AMD again for Scarlett, I won't rule out them going with Nvidia so they can make use of RTX and DXR.

So lets say Scarlet did use Nvidia, which GPU architecture would it be -- Not Turing, which is on TSMC's 12nm, a specialized version of their 16nm for Nvidia, and would be roughly 2 years old by the time Scarlett is released. So then whatever Nvidia's next architecture is, on 7nm. Nvidia people have said that raytracing & RTX support will get faster with each new GPU generation. Lets say "Ampere" is meant to be the next gen GPU after Volta and Turing. The name is not important of course, so whatever Nvidia's first 7nm GPU architecture is, would likely be what Scarlet uses, IF Microsoft decides to use Nvidia.

I'm well aware that if Microsoft goes with an Nvidia GPU, that cannot be made into an APU with AMD's Zen architectures. However, there's nothing to prevent them using separate Zen (Zen 2) CPU chip with a discrete Nvidia GPU, other than cost. Microsoft *can* afford it, even though they had a bad time with Nvidia pricing with the original XBOX. That said, Phil Spencer wants Xbox to be the most powerful console going forward, and Nvidia could absolutely guarantee better normal graphics performance than anything AMD could do for Sony,

 

[christocolus]

If it's a Nintendo console, maybe it's the long-rumored Supplemental Computing Device / SCD that was a hot topic of debate during the NX days. The SCD went through patent approval but hasn't been heard of since, I don't think.



While I believe Microsoft is more likely to use AMD again for Scarlett, I won't rule out them going with Nvidia so they can make use of RTX and DXR.

So lets say Scarlet did use Nvidia, which GPU architecture would it be -- Not Turing, which is on TSMC's 12nm, a specialized version of their 16nm for Nvidia, and would be roughly 2 years old by the time Scarlett is released. So then whatever Nvidia's next architecture is, on 7nm. Nvidia people have said that raytracing & RTX support will get faster with each new GPU generation. Lets say "Ampere" is meant to be the next gen GPU after Volta and Turing. The name is not important of course, so whatever Nvidia's first 7nm GPU architecture is, would likely be what Scarlet uses, IF Microsoft decides to use Nvidia.

I'm well aware that if Microsoft goes with an Nvidia GPU, that cannot be made into an APU with AMD's Zen architectures. However, there's nothing to prevent them using separate Zen (Zen 2) CPU chip with a discrete Nvidia GPU, other than cost. Microsoft *can* afford it, even though they had a bad time with Nvidia pricing with the original XBOX. That said, Phil Spencer wants Xbox to be the most powerful console going forward, and Nvidia could absolutely guarantee better normal graphics performance than anything AMD could do for Sony,

Click to shrink...

The possibility of them working with Nvidia is high considering Nvidia has also been working on delivering cloud-based gaming/streaming tech too and their DX team has een hard at work with Nvidia on Ray tracing tech... Do you really think it is likely they are both working on the Scarlet streaming box?

 

[JusDoIt]

That's not the name of a Matrix character.

 

[Unicorn]

Erebus is a doomed name, based on history with The Terror and Erebus

 

[Deleted member 5764]

Lol...

IGN just reported on our little theory here, crediting the proper user and ERA of course. I guess we might find out soon enough if this codename is legit. Surely some other outlet (like Kotaku or Eurogamer) would come forward to verify this as true or false if the information is actually out there.

 

[SharpX68K]

The possibility of them working with Nvidia is high considering Nvidia has also been working on delivering cloud-based gaming/streaming tech too and their DX team has een hard at work with Nvidia on Ray tracing tech... Do you really think it is likely they are both working on the Scarlet streaming box?

Click to shrink...

Nvidia already has GeForce Now. It would be interesting to see if that tech works with, or is related to, the Scarlet streaming box and Scarlet Cloud. Again, if Microsoft is working with Nvidia on the Scarlet graphics hardware.

 

[CRIMSON-XIII]

I was about to buy a PS4 pro this afternoon... should I skip ?

Click to shrink...

PS5 is 2020 or 2021.

Not before. And definitely not next year.

Last of Us 2 and ghost of tsushima and death stranding could be next year.

 

[Deleted member 5764]

I was about to buy a PS4 pro this afternoon... should I skip ?

Click to shrink...

If you're that concerned, you might want to wait things out until at least Spring 2019. If PS5 is close, we'll surely have more information by then. Whether it be via official reveal or rumors.

 

[Xeontech]

PS5 2019 confirmed

 

[Maneil99]

MS could be working with intel seeing as they are targeting GPUs for 2020

 

[Deleted member 32309]

MS could be working with intel seeing as they are targeting GPUs for 2020

Click to shrink...

i wouldn't feel secure to do that for both cpu and gpu even targeting 2020

 

[Maneil99]

i wouldn't feel secure to do that for both cpu and gpu targeting 2020

Click to shrink...

How come? I can see Intel having driver issues with PC parts but a tailored console GPU shouldn't. Also they could use MS DirectX team for legacy PC driver support

 

[Deleted member 20297]

Hm. I mean we know from at least one additional source that there is a new NDA'd platform in the works for middleware. And to be honest, after following some Twitter feeds, I have a strong feeling it's an ARM based console and I very much doubt Sony will go ARM next gen.

 

[VX1]

Lol...

IGN just reported on our little theory here, crediting the proper user and ERA of course. I guess we might find out soon enough if this codename is legit. Surely some other outlet (like Kotaku or Eurogamer) would come forward to verify this as true or false if the information is actually out there.

Click to shrink...

Not just IGN,bunch of other sites as well :)

https://www.cnet.com/news/the-ps5-is-codenamed-erebus-according-to-these-internet-sleuths/

https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/71337...codename-sony-is-using-for-the-playstation-5/

https://comicbook.com/gaming/2018/08/30/playstation-5-codenamed-erebus-rumor/

http://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2018/08/30/playstation-5-codename-uncovered/#/slide/1

https://www.vg247.com/2018/08/30/unreal-engine-code-hints-erebus-new-next-gen-console/


I hope we will get some unofficial,of course,reaction soon...

 

[Last_colossi]

I wouldn't think it's the PS5.

 

[Deleted member 5764]

Not just IGN,bunch of other sites as well :)

https://www.cnet.com/news/the-ps5-is-codenamed-erebus-according-to-these-internet-sleuths/

https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/71337...codename-sony-is-using-for-the-playstation-5/

https://comicbook.com/gaming/2018/08/30/playstation-5-codenamed-erebus-rumor/

http://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2018/08/30/playstation-5-codename-uncovered/#/slide/1

https://www.vg247.com/2018/08/30/unreal-engine-code-hints-erebus-new-next-gen-console/


I hope we will get some unofficial,of course,reaction soon...

Click to shrink...

Hot dang! I don't really follow those other sites, so that explains why I only saw the IGN article. Now we wait...

 

[Deleted member 32309]

How come? I can see Intel having driver issues with PC parts but a tailored console GPU shouldn't. Also they could use MS DirectX team for legacy PC driver support

Click to shrink...

i wouldn't bet on a first try and 10nm keeps being delayed.
But yes it's an outisde view at things.

 

[z0m3le]

If it's a Nintendo console, maybe it's the long-rumored Supplemental Computing Device / SCD that was a hot topic of debate during the NX days. The SCD went through patent approval but hasn't been heard of since, I don't think.

Click to shrink...

There was the Foxconn leak from October 2016. It detailed a larger model with what sounded like a GTX 1060 in it. That leak was very accurate, even got the weight of the Joycons right... I'd suggest, this is that.

 

[Deleted member 721]

I think If this was nothing this would be answered in a tweet already, i believe.

 

[Diarrhea Day-Lewis]

Ive said it many times but so little is gained with a switch pro. I guess you could have docked mode in portable mode but even then, i'm Supposed to care that suddenly my docked switch games can run at 800GF instead of 400Gf? Cool i guess. Seems tiny and like it wouldn't make much of a difference especially considering they would still restrict CPU to 1ghz.

In the past Nintendo added hardware power to handhelds but rarely used it. Why anyone would think it will be different with switch is strange because the result of more power in Nintendo systems has been shown so many times. Dsi didn't use the extra ram for much, new 3DS had like two retail exclusives and snes classics, game boy color got its own games and was its own platform so unless switch pro had its own games i doubt they do that.

Nintendo would be much smarter to go after the budget consumer or consumer who wants a smaller portable (a la 3DS) to by shrinking the node to reduce energy use, remove the fan, and reduce the size of the device with a possible added sku. That market is so much bigger than the market for a switch pro that offers marginally better performance that still won't even match 2013 Xbox One levels.

If 20% of xbox and ps4 buyers are getting the pro and x model while they offer 4K gaming and a host of options in games (1.3/1.8 TF to 4.2 and 6TF) then i can't imagine how few people would upgrade BECAUSE of switch now suddenly being able to do 800GF docked.

Also, Nintendo has never upp'd the resolution of the screen either so i doubt they do that too. I can't imagine this is Nintendo related and it would be far too risky to introduce a new model with substantial differences so soon after emerging from the Wii U brand.