By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - PS5 Confirmed Backward Compatibility

OTBWY said:
twintail said:

Xenogears? I feel like you should worry more about whether PS1 is even included in the PS5 BC first

That... kind of comes with it. 

Sony has for some reason been dropping the ball on just releasing their PS1 load onto their main system. I for the life of me can't understand why they don't invest in this more. Seeing how they handled the PS Classic, I think they just don't care.

When they confirmed Backwards Compatibility, I'm 100% sure it was in reference to PS4 games. Not PS3, PS2, or PS1 games. Expecting them to do that is just dumb, and completely irresponsible thinking.

Just because all of PlayStation's flagship consoles were disc based, doesn't mean they'll work just fine regardless of hardware and architecture disparity/differences.

It's not like Sony has it's finger on an On/Off switch and just refuse to flip it on in the name of pure greed. 



Around the Network

This makes it easier to buy on day 1 then. Great stuff.



KLXVER said:
This makes it easier to buy on day 1 then. Great stuff.

Same with me, but I was going to get all three again anyways. However moves like this help justify my purchase. 



 

Pemalite said:

That is the end goal sure, but geometry engines are still here to stay as many of the latest games (Like Metro) are still pushing them.

I realize that it's undesirable having to constantly do some rearchitecting for your engine/game to use the latest technology to get optimal performance but that's the direction the entire industry is headed in which is mesh/primitive shaders ... 

Next gen consoles are guaranteed to have primitive shaders since it's going to be enabled for the Navi architecture this year on PC ... 

Primitive shaders have a brighter future towards bringing higher geometry throughput than either tessellation or more geometry engines could've ever did ... (I don't know what Microsoft was thinking at the time when they standardized tessellation since were some serious fundamental flaws with it and we should've went straight to doing primitive shaders instead but I guess we're just going to have to live with the fact that there's wasted die space in the GPUs)



V-r0cK said:
Will this be the end of remasters that are only 1 gen apart?? lol

If indeed this is true then honestly this is great news as my backlog is taking awhile to complete but would love to move forward as well.

Its a debate iv had for years. BC makes remastering games useless since the option to play the older games removes the need of the customer to rebuy it. All consoles should be pushing for BC. Its a shame its only BC with PS4 but if its BC with PS1/2/3 and 4 than ill buy a PS5 day one.



Around the Network
fatslob-:O said:
Pemalite said:

That is the end goal sure, but geometry engines are still here to stay as many of the latest games (Like Metro) are still pushing them.

I realize that it's undesirable having to constantly do some rearchitecting for your engine/game to use the latest technology to get optimal performance but that's the direction the entire industry is headed in which is mesh/primitive shaders ... 

Next gen consoles are guaranteed to have primitive shaders since it's going to be enabled for the Navi architecture this year on PC ... 

Primitive shaders have a brighter future towards bringing higher geometry throughput than either tessellation or more geometry engines could've ever did ... (I don't know what Microsoft was thinking at the time when they standardized tessellation since were some serious fundamental flaws with it and we should've went straight to doing primitive shaders instead but I guess we're just going to have to live with the fact that there's wasted die space in the GPUs)

Don't get me wrong, I am a massive supporter of Primitive Shaders, it would resolve one of the largest fundamental bottlenecks of Graphics Core Next, Geometry... And instead shift the burden to Graphics Core Next's greatest strengths, compute.

In saying that... It's not looking good since AMD canned Primitive Shaders.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/7sedpq/amd_cancels_the_driver_path_for_primitive_shaders/

So who knows if they will bring it back with Navi?

Even then Primitive Shaders won't resolve the Geometry bottlenecks of current games or even games coming out in the immediate future which will continue to rely on Tessellation or parsed high poly models.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

DonFerrari said:
Mr Puggsly said:

I believe that's more dependent on the actual game and other specs versus the storage medium.

While SSD is faster, RAM is significantly faster. So if the PS5 has like 20GB of RAM, I believe that's helping playing a bigger role in fast traveling. I mean that's four times storage a PS4 has for games so much of assets and textures could already be in the RAM.

That's also last gen content he's running, so don't expect the same for actual 9th gen games.

Of course it will depend on the game, anything bad codded can ruin any HW it run on.

RAM surely is faster and probably bandwidth will be higher, but there is a reason the PS4 and X1 games don't run from the BD disc, because they are to slow, and there is a reason why putting a SSD on they make loading much faster and also the in game loading faster.

So it is only reason that SSD architeture will enable much faster and agile, nothing of kool-aid here so far.

We can expect same difference between slow HDD versus fast SDD next gen. He didn't promise all games will load in 1s. Seems like you are reading more than what is being said.

The funny thing is games seem to often load more in the 8th gen than last gen. Even with vastly faster and more RAM, better CPUs, better GPUs and being optimized for HDDs. The load times in fighting games have suddenly become the worst they've ever been.

I don't feel running games off a HDD was done out of necessity. The PS3 was able to run games directly from a BD disc, so did the Wii U (likely BD tech). Therefore its not crazy to assume PS4 and X1 could have as well especially with their faster drives. I believe they opted for HDD primarily because that made optimization easier, faster transfer speeds and storage dropped in price significantly.

I'm not sure what they did to make Spiderman load so fast on the PS5 devkit, but I think they're misleading us on how it was done. He's giving the impression its because of the SSD on its own, but that just doesn't make sense. I believe it has more to do with the other specs of the hardware, especially RAM. I mean if basically all the textures and other assets can be stored in RAM, that's gonna eliminate much of the streaming needed from the storage. Maybe consoles using unified RAM helps simplify this process.

Last edited by Mr Puggsly - on 19 April 2019

Recently Completed
River City: Rival Showdown
for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Pemalite said:

Don't get me wrong, I am a massive supporter of Primitive Shaders, it would resolve one of the largest fundamental bottlenecks of Graphics Core Next, Geometry... And instead shift the burden to Graphics Core Next's greatest strengths, compute.

In saying that... It's not looking good since AMD canned Primitive Shaders.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/7sedpq/amd_cancels_the_driver_path_for_primitive_shaders/

So who knows if they will bring it back with Navi?

Even then Primitive Shaders won't resolve the Geometry bottlenecks of current games or even games coming out in the immediate future which will continue to rely on Tessellation or parsed high poly models.

I'm not surprised at all that AMD canned exposing primitive shaders since the VAST majority of AAA games out there don't even do GPU compute culling so there's practically zero interest currently from developers to even implement the basics but we can't deny that there are real use cases for it ... 

I believe that bringing upon a new generation will be the panacea we need and I can guarantee you that AMD engineer have heavily implicated functional primitive shaders for Navi but why on earth would anyone need more raw geometry performance ? A Radeon VII at 2Ghz can churn out 8 billion triangles per second which can will give you well over 130 million tris per frame at 60Hz. Even when we're talking about 120Hz, that still gives you 65 million tris per frame which will still give you sub-pixel triangles at 8K resolution! 

Heck, most of the geometry performance goes into rendering the shadow maps but why would anyone need to do that when you have hardware accelerated ray tracing in the first place which are better than using shadow maps ? Geometry bottlenecks are mostly due to game developers not finding the best ways to utilize hardware like using tessellation or not doing GPU compute culling ... 



TranceformerFX said:
OTBWY said:

That... kind of comes with it. 

Sony has for some reason been dropping the ball on just releasing their PS1 load onto their main system. I for the life of me can't understand why they don't invest in this more. Seeing how they handled the PS Classic, I think they just don't care.

When they confirmed Backwards Compatibility, I'm 100% sure it was in reference to PS4 games. Not PS3, PS2, or PS1 games. Expecting them to do that is just dumb, and completely irresponsible thinking.

Just because all of PlayStation's flagship consoles were disc based, doesn't mean they'll work just fine regardless of hardware and architecture disparity/differences.

It's not like Sony has it's finger on an On/Off switch and just refuse to flip it on in the name of pure greed. 

....theres a patent filed for the exact same thing though.. lol 



thismeintiel said:
The_Liquid_Laser said:

That article has some interesting info indeed.  Here is what I get from a business perspective.

Pros:
-Disc based
-Backwards Compatibility

Cons:
-Powerful (pricey?)
-VR is going to be a priority
-Not releasing this year

So far PS5 is not doing too hot.  It is looking kind of like the PS3, but it may be too early to tell.  If they are smart they will do an early 2020 release, and maybe the VR is mostly talk.  We'll see.

This is nothing like the PS3.  The PS3 was an incredibly expensive console to make. Supposedly, $800+ to make and was sold for $499 as the entry price, meaning Sony was losing over $300 per console. A lot of the price came from pushing the new Blu-ray tech, not from any powerful GPU.  Sure, the Cell was powerful, but because it was 100% custom and hard to develop on, gamers didn't really see the results of that extra $200 the PS3 coat over the 360.   For a year or more, 3rd party games actually looked worse on the more powerful system.

This won't happen with the PS5. Sony is waiting til next year for prices to fall. If they price it at $499, which isn't so bad with 14 years of inflation added in since the PS3, I doubt they would have to subsidize it more than $100.  It's also using slightly customized off the shelf parts, based on the same architecture as the PS4. If it's $50-$100 more than the XB2 because it's more powerful, gamers will see the results day one.

The only way PS dares try another PS3 priced $599 console, is if these Lockhart and Anaconda rumors are mostly true and PS5 follows suit. Based on the rumored specs you would expect Lockhart around 4TF for $299, and Anaconda at max 12TF for $499. Since PS likes their $399 price point, they could offer a base PS5 at around 6TF for $399, and a no compromises native 4k model at max 14TF for $599. (The exact TF isn't crucial for each model as long as the arrangement between them all stays the same) 

Now PS hasn't really said anything as of yet to make me think they will be launching two home consoles at once, but having one with a weaker GPU and smaller storage etc, would more easily allow for the $399 sweet spot, and if XB is doing it there's no reason PS can't either. While there could be a bunch of reasons why Cerny never mentioned RAM or GPU specs, I can't help but wonder, what if there were two PS5 SKU's and they were more like the XB1 models, where the premium version has a little more RAM and a much higher performing GPU than the base model?

Now if PS were actually going to offer a weaker base model 'home console', I would think this is less likely, and that a Switch like docking device was more likely. Neither of which are near as likely as a single subsidized SKU like we're used to.