PS4 Super Slim and PS4 Pro Slim?

[potato_hamster]

KBG29 said:

potato_hamster said:

It's because you ignore it every time it's explained to you. Unlike their Walkman, Xperia and Bravia, the people making content for the Playstation have to develop for each and every performance specification. Just like the PS4 Pro, everyone besides Sony and other rare exceptions would support this high performance console in the most minimal way they can get away with and nothing more.

Console video games don't scale the way you believe they do. If they did, the Nintendo Switch would be getting pretty much every multi-platform third party title, or at least ones that use multi-platform focused engines like unity. But you don't see that, do you? Developers have to put in the same special effort they always did. It doesn't appear to be any meaningful gains in development to port a PS4 game to the Switch than there was to port a PS3 game to the Vita. How do you explain that if " games [are] being built with dynamic frame rates, and resolution, needing nothing more than additional power to achieve locked performance" the opposite should be true, shouldn't it?

You're more likely to see Sony drop the pro model next time around than you are to see them make a super high performance model. The Pro experiment was not a success. Third parties have largely ignored it. Sony had to figure out a way to do additional post-processing to render in 4K while emulating regular PS4 functionality because third parties weren't supporting it any more than they had to. You know that"enhancement" feature actually runs games poorer than they would if developers actually took the time to support the PS4 pro properly, right?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with minimal support. It is about Sony offering their games at a level that takes full advantage of their TVs. Premium consoles are not about offering anything other than higher resolution, better frame rate, better AA, better shadows, better draw distance. A premium console does not mean they are going to develop completely different assets, it is just a better looking/performing way to experience the same content. I don't know where you get the idea that Pro was not a success or supported, a Sony executive just said it was a success and a necessary evolution. We will definitely have multiple PS5 offerings next gen.

http://www.pushsquare.com/news/2018/12/ps4_pro_has_been_a_good_example_of_necessary_evolution_says_sony

 

Switch has nothing to do with scalability on PlayStation. Switch to PS4 is no different than PS3 to PS Vita, it is nothing like PS4 to PS4 Pro. Switch uses a different architecture than PS4/XBO/PC, so of course it takes extra work to port games to Switch. When Sony was building games for PS3 (Cell/Nvidia), PS Vita (ARM/PowerVR), and PS4 (X86/Radeon), that was a ton of work. With PS4 and PS4 Pro there is no porting, PS4 Pro runs the same code as PS4, not only are they both X86/Radoen, they are mostly the same exact X86/Radeon technology. Adding in support for the Pro's additional CU's take very liitle effort.

Here is Mark Cerny's exact quote “The target was to make sure that support [for the PS4 Pro] could be done for a fraction of a percent of the overall effort,” Cerny said to Gamasutra. “And I do mean a fraction of a percent. I mean, I’ve run the math, and it’s 0.2 or 0.3 percent for these projects — some of them. So at that point, I think it’s very natural for the development community to support the platform.”

https://gamingbolt.com/mark-cerny-converting-a-base-ps4-game-to-ps4-pro-version-is-just-0-2-or-0-3-percent-of-the-overall-effort

That means on a 5 year project, you are looking at about a week to tune in Pro support. This is with Sony offering a new system mid generation, without developers aware of the additional hardware. A future console that is built with multiple tiers in mind from the start would take even less work, as the Hardware, API's, and Development Tools are all be built from the ground up with scalability in mind. 

 

As for your final question, yes I know that Boost Mode only takes advantage of the clock boosts on the CPU and GPU, and does not take advantage of the 18 additional CU's on the Pro GPU. That just proves that extra performance can be absolutely free. If a PS5 Pro and a PS5 Premium both had the same CPU and GPU, but the Pro runs at 3.2GHz and 1400MHz, while the Premium offers 4.0GHz and 2000MHz, that would offer a significant performance boost for the Premium. In this situation it would take no additional work from Sony, it would just be a matter of setting aside the highest quality PS5 chips exclusively for the Premium model. 

 

Just because a exec says something doesn't mean it's written in stone. Microsoft could very well publicly say they are pleased with Xbox One sales, but they're so proud of its sales that they don't actually post the numbers so. Just like Sony intentionally groups the sales of PSVR and PS4 Pro sales into broad sales categories, as is to mask their numbers, as if they're not actually that proud of them. Care to explain that?


You still don't get it do you? There absolutely is something wrong with minimal support. How many people are willing to spend an extra $1000 on a PS5 ultra that only has 4-6 games every year released for it that actually take advantage of the hardware? I can't help but think you'll be hard pressed to find anyone, besides you, that's willing to accept that. Those features you're suggesting? They have to be programmed in. Developers have to put effort into it. Mark Cerny can make all the claims he wants about what little effort it takes, the fact of the matter is that Sony had to change it's policy on PS4 Pro support because of developer push-back - because it was so much additional effort from the start. Remember, that Boost Mode came out after the fact mostly as a result of so few developers actually being willing to put any effort into adding PS4 Pro support. It's honestly not worth the effort at all for any third party. It doesn't make their games sell better and it makes game development cost more. Third parties do not give a fuck about the PS4 Pro and would prefer if it didn't exist. IT's a minor pain in the ass (albeit a minor one) and nothing more.

Switch has everything to do with the current state of scalability, but because you fundamentally don't understand how game scaling actually works, you see it as a different thing. Game engines are what have to to have the game scalability built into them. Not the hardware. Not the game itself. The engines, and engines like unity or the unreal engines are built from the ground up to be multi-platform, yet games, to this day, do not scale well among the platforms they support. You can literally recompile a PS4 game to run on Switch, and it still requires a massive amount of work to get it to run at acceptable levels. Please explain that - and I'll give you a hint. It has almost nothing to do with architecture.

Also, wasn't VR the future of gaming? It appears to me you can't make up your mind.