eva01beserk said:
EricHiggin said:
Well then I would assume you're also not sold on XBSX and it's higher TF either. With PS4 and XB1X, the performance gap was enough that gamers said they could notice it. Not like it blew their minds, but if you paid attention you could see the difference. That was with a 40% difference or so. Now we're looking at a 20% difference or less, depending on how much devs optimize XBSX over PS5.
If it's not worth optimizing PS5's vast SSD potential to some degree, then why bother optimizing for a slight visual enhancement for XBSX?
Third party will probably spend a little bit of time optimizing PS5 for extra speed, while they spend a little bit of time optimizing XBSX for extra visuals. PS5 would end up slightly faster and snappier, and XBSX would look slightly better. Both will likely offer diminishing returns when it comes to third party games. It won't be until first party games before we see these specialties put to good use, and it will take 3 or 4 years before first party can push these consoles hard enough to truly see what both can ultimately do.
Most devs seem to be saying, from what's out in public anyway, that they are quite happy and excited about the SSD. If they go and ignore it now, that's pretty hypocritical on their part. No point in praising something you're never going to use, and liable to backfire. I don't remember devs in general praising cell though. They were not happy about it but weren't as vocal because it was a different time and social media wasn't really a thing. I'm pretty sure Cerny said the SSD in some ways is practically invisible to devs and will just do it's own thing. While that doesn't mean optimization isn't needed, it certainly helps. The SSD situation doesn't seem to be anywhere the nightmare that cell was.
As for the games, while I doubt MS/XBSX has near as many AAA exclusives as SNY/PS5, I'm willing to bet that MS will at the very least, let a few studios go absolutely hog wild and create a few amazing games (might have to wait two years though). This is all MS really had before as well, and it worked for them, so I wouldn't be surprised if they try that approach again. The rest of the studios would churn out smaller, just ok games, consistently for Game Pass. This will allow MS to tout that they now have a little bit of everything and it certainly could help them gain traction. They have to have a few GoW/HZD level overall splendors or XBSX won't sell worth a damn, unless it's surprisingly cheap. All that performance needs to get pushed at least here and there or it's mostly for nothing. Hopefully they don't just put all their funds into hyper subsidizing XBSX to be cheap, while making their studios work with lower, tighter budgets. That would be a shame.
|
I dont think at the begining they would like to scare off xbox gamers so parity will be standard if the ps5 ends up outperforming the xbox. But the ps5 will in no doubt sell more regardless so after that in like 2years when the ps5 has sold a great deal more I do see third party's really pushing the ps5 even if the xbox can't keep up.
|
That would be the lazier, easier way to go about it. Save time and effort and just make the game run almost identical on both for the first year, maybe two. The devs will have to put the consoles potential to good use sooner than later though, or SNY and MS will stop listening to them as much going forward and stop giving them as many new advancements. SNY and MS would just rely more on marketing to sell consoles in the future then, and the devs and gamers would suffer, and nobody wants that.
It's in the best interests of everyone to push the next gen consoles as much as reasonably possible since it's not like PS3 vs 360. Let gamers decide which they prefer, more eye candy or speed, and let them have that. If that leads to one selling better than the other, then the people have spoken.
PS5 has an advantage right now based on PS4's momentum, but that's no guarantee it will lead to sales similar to this gen. It still has to prove itself.
