Blast Processing was actually real, it is what happens when the marketing team gets a-hold of a technical specification and runs with it.

Essentially Blast Processing was actually the DMA unit in the VDP graphics processor which expedited memory transfers... It was actually an underutilized feature, but it was there.

Storage subsystems are never going to compensate for a weaker CPU or GPU... Storage generally doesn't do any processing to aid those scenarios.

What a fast storage system can do is compensate for RAM constrained environments.

The Xbox Series X has the technical edge, that cannot be disputed, by how much? We need to wait for the games to see the real-world implications, for simpler games (Platformers etc'), ports from older systems (Xbox One, Playstation 4) the experience will absolutely be identical.

Keep that optimism going.

We don't know every aspect of the GPU yet, the differences could be larger than the current specifications entail.

Ray Tracing is the next-gen buzzword feature, the SSD helps... But the SSD isn't doing all the processing to showcase the pretty pictures on your display... And the Xbox Series X will potentially have additional functional units to possibly handle Ray Tracing better.

Not true. Vega 7 has 60 CU's vs Vega 64's, 64 CU's. Vega 7 is significantly faster due to it's bandwidth and clockrate advantages.

Sony made the best decision for Sony and hitting their goals.

There are two ways to bolstering GPU performance... More functional units or higher clockrates. (If all else is kept equal of course!)

Both have their Pro's and Con's... And contrary to popular belief a smaller chip with higher clockrates isn't always cheaper to manufacture... If a process suffers from terrible power characteristics and the chip is extremely leaky, then yields can be lower than a larger chip.

In short, it's a balancing act... And Sony made the right choice for Sony... And instead put more engineering into the storage subsystems.

Both consoles will be fantastic pieces of kit.

Microsoft has already confirmed that the Xbox Series X can maintain it's clockrates without throttling in it's reveal.

Which is in stark contrast to Sony as it is relying on mobile technology to share thermal/power.

There was a massive difference. Just not all developers decided to leverage the differences to the fullest extent... And many differences weren't even down to the computational capabilities... But in part thanks to the increased CPU and RAM capabilities.

It will be nothing like the Xbox 360 vs Playstation 3 scenario.
The Playstation 3 had a multitude of technological advantages, not just one.

Any consoles success isn't based on a singular aspect, that is a 2 dimensional way of looking at things.

The Switch was successful because it was portable, introduced new novel concepts and had amazing games... Even if it's best games are WiiU titles... All at the right price.

The Playstation 4 was successful because it was cheaper and more powerful and had amazing games.

Errr... MS and Sony's decisions are ALWAYS influenced by what the other does or might do. Even if they publicly deny it, I will never believe otherwise. BUT, like I said before, at the moment of designing the console neither of them knew how many CUs and clock the other was going to use, so they both had to make a decision and shoot in the dark, and hope for the best.

Also you are forgetting another VERY important aspect of the decision making process, price. Companies design their products around a certain price point they are trying to meet. If you are planning to sell your device at $399-449 then you have to choose the parts that fit into that price range. Same if you are planning to sell it at $499-549.

Now, we don't really know what price points both MS and Sony were trying to hit but we do have MS on record saying that they were not going to make the same mistake of releasing a weaker console, so at least we know their INTENTION was to shoot as high as possible when it comes to performance. On the other hand, we also have Sony on record saying that they were planning to make PS5 "affordable" so I think is fair to assume that pricing influenced their final decision.

I'm sure it will win accolades. Rdr2 had a bad crunch aswell.

Hm... my thread didn't turn out which way?

You are the one derailing the thread bringing petty attacks here, lol, shameless as always.

That's the kind of thing you come to post:

"People forget the XSX has a SSD too. And all sorts of other technology MS engineered to make game development better. This SSD crap is worse than any eSRAM or cloud crap I heard about Xbone 😆

Of course the main thing people mess up on is they forget the power in PS5 is variable, so it’s not always a 2TF difference. Like we’ve been saying, all this SSD secret sauce will do for PS5 over XSX is make games load a few seconds faster."

That's your magnific contribution to the topic.

It sounds like you are still hurt about the XBO, lol.

Also it's ok if you don't remember the stuff you post, I would like to forget it as all if I were you.

Enough for some of it's staff hoping for it to fail, or loosing 70% of its original staff? I like Naughty Dog as a company, and I understand the meaning of hard work. BUT I also understand the feeling of being taken advantaged off. People leave companies, not because of the hard work, but because of it's unfair practices. People feel motivated to see others working just as hard as you are, and it's almost like an energy boost; However, they feel stress and frustration when they take notice of unfair/preferential treatment, uneven work loads, and not enough time for a psychological reset(time off).

I'm dropping my expectations on this game, and I hoping Naughty Dog, as a company, has not become too large that it's being run like a profit-driven corporation.

I hardly believe it won't live up to the hype, it has been so long since the last time ND didn't to be honest (2007, and it was still a good game), specially when what was already shown looks pretty good.

I understand crunch is bad, but its common stuff within triple A games, even AC Unity probably had quite the cruch and we know how it turned out.

RDR2 had A LOT of it and turned out excellent, apparently.

When you are working to deliver high quality a lot of hard work is usually necessary.

I don't endorse cruching and I believe with the money ND makes for Sony they should have more staff to cover up for all the work instead of having the ones there work too much. It doesn't matter if there are already a good amount of people there, if even more is necessary to achieve what they aim for, them bring all those needed.

As of now the quality of that game shows no sign of taking any hits at all, tho.

Every company needs to be run like a profit-driven corporation, it aint a charity.

Hm... my thread didn't turn out which way?

You are the one derailing the thread bringing petty attacks here, lol, shameless as always.

That's the kind of thing you come to post:

"People forget the XSX has a SSD too. And all sorts of other technology MS engineered to make game development better. This SSD crap is worse than any eSRAM or cloud crap I heard about Xbone 😆

Of course the main thing people mess up on is they forget the power in PS5 is variable, so it’s not always a 2TF difference. Like we’ve been saying, all this SSD secret sauce will do for PS5 over XSX is make games load a few seconds faster."

That's your magnific contribution to the topic.

It sounds like you are still hurt about the XBO, lol.

Also it's ok if you don't remember the stuff you post, I would like to forget it as all if I were you.

Crunchy time will always exist, because they happen at the end of the project on final touches that weren't expected, so besides postponing the release (which can also make more crunchy time), and there isn't time to make massive hiring, train and supervision. Costing more would be the lesser problem, the overburden on the team would be higher, the efficiency lower and result probably worse.