kirby007 said:
probably because all PS games coming to PC will be sold in the Epic Store, probably |
think for 2 seconds before you post please:
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1151640/Horizon_Zero_Dawn_Complete_Edition/
setsunatenshi said:
think for 2 seconds before you post please: https://store.steampowered.com/app/1151640/Horizon_Zero_Dawn_Complete_Edition/ |
doesnt mean it won't be sold in the epic store, for example look at death stranding
check multiple source? ty
"I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007
Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions
Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.
hinch said:
Goes to show how good up-scaling tech has come along. Kinda sad that people try to downplay the resolution when most can't even tell if it is native 4k unless told so. Would definitely prefer the extra fidelity (and performance) over native 4k, just looks insanely good and detailed. Actually really excited at the prospects that consoles have SSD's as standard.Who knows, maybe high speed SSD's will be requirement (minimum spec) on certain games on PC in the near future. |
Native 4k is very noticeable. Its hard to not see the extra clarity that ir provides. Its obvious when a game is upscaled as its not as sharp as native resolution.
Why cant we have both? Why cant we have amazing visuals, 4k res and good framerate. It just requires a good hardware which is possible as well. The demo was nice. The lighting look right. The game would alot nicer if there was rt in it.
As a question to CGI: can a really fast ssd bridge the gap in game visuals despite having a weaker hardware?
kirby007 said:
doesnt mean it won't be sold in the epic store, for example look at death stranding |
Yeah, so? Means it's sold everywhere, including Epic's main competitor, Steam store.
What's the implication you're trying to make? Just spell it out, don't be shy.
setsunatenshi said:
Yeah, so? Means it's sold everywhere, including Epic's main competitor, Steam store. What's the implication you're trying to make? Just spell it out, don't be shy. |
1. epic gets money from sales done in the epic store
2. sony gets money from sony games sold in the epic store
3. both are in it for the money, not to give you the best for free
in the end its all about the money, why show it on hardware from a manufacturer that doesn't pay you vs showing it on next gen console specs for a certain fee
its a no brainer even if you can push the engine with a good pc right now much further why would you, if it doesnt get you paid
"I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007
Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions
Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.
kirby007 said:
1. epic gets money from sales done in the epic store in the end its all about the money, why show it on hardware from a manufacturer that doesn't pay you vs showing it on next gen console specs for a certain fee its a no brainer even if you can push the engine with a good pc right now much further why would you, if it doesnt get you paid |
1. Most Sony first party studios do not use Unreal Engine (not sure about Days Gone, might be the only one)
2. Sony gets money from Sony games sold in the Steam store
3. All of them are in it for the money, not to give you stuff for free (what a useless point to make)
You show a game engine wherever it shows best. Epic is in it to wow people and inspire them to use their engine. If they could have shown better on different hardware, they would have. Was the same for all previous versions of unreal engine. Get the beefiest PC you can reasonably assemble and advertise their proprietary engine running there, boom.
You know you have bad logic when it literally applies in the one exact case it's somehow convenient to your narrative.
PS: I read through your signature and seems quite interesting how you seem to be going completely against it: "Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong."
Oh the irony...
setsunatenshi said:
1. Most Sony first party studios do not use Unreal Engine (not sure about Days Gone, might be the only one) 2. Sony gets money from Sony games sold in the Steam store 3. All of them are in it for the money, not to give you stuff for free (what a useless point to make) You show a game engine wherever it shows best. Epic is in it to wow people and inspire them to use their engine. If they could have shown better on different hardware, they would have. Was the same for all previous versions of unreal engine. Get the beefiest PC you can reasonably assemble and advertise their proprietary engine running there, boom. You know you have bad logic when it literally applies in the one exact case it's somehow convenient to your narrative. PS: I read through your signature and seems quite interesting how you seem to be going completely against it: "Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong." Oh the irony... |
that is only if im wrong,
Epic could have used CGI's or pemalites setups and produced something even more mind boggling, but they didn't, why didnt they, because 1. they got paid and 2. they wanted to show off scalability
"I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007
Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions
Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.
setsunatenshi said:
Good thing we're not talking about the SSD alone then but how it's integrated in the system's architecture. Or, to quote Tim Sweeney: "The storage architecture on the PS5 is far ahead of anything you can buy on PC for any amount of money right now. It’s going to help drive future PCs." Btw, I'm pretty sure we'll be able to upgrade to an even faster SSD in the future as prices come down. Also, @bolded: Why didn't Epic show it running on PC like they did in the past for their previous engines? If I'm showing my product I would want to show it in the best light possible. |
Could be a variety of reasons. There could be some financial benefits put in place or development/technology sharing in order to gain more developer support for the engine, who knows.
EPIC follows the cash cows typically, hence the Epic Store, Hence why they partnered up with Microsoft once, hence why they dropped the Unreal Tournament sequel in favor of Fortnite. EPIC is a business, it's capitalism at work.
We don't know if the drive is upgradeable in the Playstation 5, it's not a commodity drive, so they may lock it down to ensure a degree of consistency with the performance, they wouldn't want people replacing it with a drive half the speed, would they?
But let's say that it theoretically was capable of being upgraded... It would be limited by the 4x PCI-E 4.0 lanes... Which tops out at 8GB/s. (Actually less in the real world due to overheads and so forth.)
Where-as PCI-E 5.0 is gaining traction in the PC space (Controllers already exist) which would offer 16GB/s on a typical nVME drive with 4x lanes.
Or get a PCI-E addon card with 16x lanes for a total of 64GB/s.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
dane007 said:
Native 4k is very noticeable. Its hard to not see the extra clarity that ir provides. Its obvious when a game is upscaled as its not as sharp as native resolution. Why cant we have both? Why cant we have amazing visuals, 4k res and good framerate. It just requires a good hardware which is possible as well. The demo was nice. The lighting look right. The game would alot nicer if there was rt in it. As a question to CGI: can a really fast ssd bridge the gap in game visuals despite having a weaker hardware? |
There is always a tradeback, so a dev will see what is the best balance for them.
And CGI will tell you that the SSD doesn't do any computation so it won't bridge any gap per see. But it being faster to transfer assets will alleviate the burden on the CPU/GPU and that can help a little.
setsunatenshi said:
1. Most Sony first party studios do not use Unreal Engine (not sure about Days Gone, might be the only one) 2. Sony gets money from Sony games sold in the Steam store 3. All of them are in it for the money, not to give you stuff for free (what a useless point to make) You show a game engine wherever it shows best. Epic is in it to wow people and inspire them to use their engine. If they could have shown better on different hardware, they would have. Was the same for all previous versions of unreal engine. Get the beefiest PC you can reasonably assemble and advertise their proprietary engine running there, boom. You know you have bad logic when it literally applies in the one exact case it's somehow convenient to your narrative. PS: I read through your signature and seems quite interesting how you seem to be going completely against it: "Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong." Oh the irony... |
The reason they showed with PS5 is because they partnered with Sony to do the demo and also show the improvements PS5 is bringing per Tim Sweeney information.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."
kirby007 said:
that is only if im wrong, |
I find it interesting this assumption that they got paid, would love to see some proof of that. I would even grant there being a case if they come on some Playstation conference stage (or virtual stage) and did some selling out there.This event was a Epic / Keighley thing and as far as I can tell, Sony wasn't associated with it. No advertisement on the PS Blog or anything.
In the past when Epic would show their engine running on Nvidia / Intel hardware, is that because they were paid to do so? Or is it because a) benefits them to show their engine in the best light possible and b) appealing to the most common platform?
I fail to see what this paying off narrative is all about when this is a 3rd party engine that will run on every platform imaginable (except Commodore 64 I hear) lol
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
