Bristow9091 said:
Okay so if I'm understanding this...
Based purely on numbers alone the PS5 is <15% weaker/slower/whatever than the XSX, but has a much faster SSD which could help close the gap or something? I mean, I was expecting to the XSX to be the more powerful console anyway, which I'm sort of hoping means the PS5 will be the cheaper of the two.
How does this difference in specs/power/whatever look in comparison to the difference between the PS4 Pro and the One X? I'm assuming it's a much smaller gap in power? Either way I'm happy with the level of graphics and such we have now (Still think Horizon looks fucking beautiful, you PC guys are in for a treat!), so all of this doesn't really bother me, I'm just more interested in the games than what's under the hood, although I did find the presentation/talk interesting.
|
What can help diminish the gap is also the extra frequency that could push some aspects of the GPU more than higher CU count. But let's not make something of a secret sauce case, let's keep at 10-20% difference in performance.
X1X was like 30% more powerfull than PS4Pro across the board, but since base models held all back we only saw a higher res most of the time.
sales2099 said:
DonFerrari said:
Sony didn't worry about power difference on PS1, PS2, PS4Pro, and power never really made a system sell more than the others =p
And sure Sony will start developing the next system before the year end, be it mid gen upgrade or PS6. It have always been like that.
|
From my perspective, Ps3 (cell!!!), PS4 > Xbox One, PS4 pro releasing a year before Xbox X....respectfully I beg to differ.
Its more for the core fans, which drive the initial sales of the console. And like I said it either helps social media PR or snowballs negatively like the various “XB1 version is only 900p” comments. Everything helps.
|
On PS4 Sony gone for price and easy to develop, it being more powerful than X1 wasn't even a concern or something Sony advertised.
But yes I can understand that social media can make the performance difference something that keeps coming and could impact PR and image leading to smaller sales, though that never really affected console sales so far.
FloatingWaffles said:
Lack of full backwards compatibility with past consoles is bullshit. There's no excuse for Sony not to be able to when Microsoft is able to not only offer Xbox, Xbox 360, and Xbox One day and date WITH IMPROVEMENTS none the less on Series X. And don't give me any of that "But the PS3's cell processor!", Sony has nobody but themselves to blame for choosing to use that back then, tough shit if it's more work it's still up to them.
Sony's whole attitude of thinking that BC isn't important and nobody cares just annoys me, especially after Jim Ryan's comments on it a few years ago.
Full BC would have made me purchase a PS5 on that alone.
|
Cerny have talked about it on PS4 release, that they done their research and although BC was much talked it was low used and also didn't affect sales of consoles (X360 was selling good without, PS3 sold better when they removed it giving lower price, PS4 dominated without, etc) so basically they done a cost benefit verification and it wasn't worth the cost to make more BC then what they decided for PS5 to back into the silicon so it doesn't impact the price of the chip (so almost zero cost) while PS3 and before would either need more customization (cost and taking silicon), original chip or SW BC (MS route that is quite expensive since you need to do case by case).
FloatingWaffles said:
Bandorr said:
Never quite understood this level of thought.
The wii U had full BC. Even with wii games.
The XB1 has no BC with Kinect games. Or any games it didn't get permission from the publisher. And I doubt the X series has BC with X1 kinect games either.
The PS4 didn't have any BC - and absolutely dominated. The switch has no BC - and is absolutely dominating.
This just feels like fake rage, or rather undeserved rage built from people thinking "yeah we are getting XYZABCDEF" etc.
Plus it is 2020 and you care more about.. playing old games - like PS3 and old - than new ones?
Just DEjavu all over again with the ps4.
|
I don't even understand what your point is with this. Yes, just because something can be successful without something doesn't mean they shouldn't still strive to offer it if possible? I'm not saying it will be a dominating factor by any means as to whether something is successful.
If you wanna argue against whether the amount of work it would take to get full BC is worth it for the amount of people who would use it versus focusing on what you know most will use, then that's a different conversation altogether.
Plus, I always knew that PS1-PS2-PS3 BC was a pipe dream, i'm not annoyed that I didn't get what I wanted, moreso it's towards Sony's stance on it that it's not even worth looking into and that nobody cares about it.
And to your last question you're basically asking me "Why would you want to play 4 generations of amazing games all on one single system?".
|
We didn't really had a Sony stance saying they didn't look at it and nobody cares or similar. They certainly looked at how much money it would cost and bring to them and on their simulation the payback wouldn't occur.
