When it is a consensus from most devs and they were already saying that during this gen that the storage solution limited several of their options, when you see a full GDC presentation done to other devs presenting several examples of choices they were obliged to take because of the storage then it isn't just wanting to sell their games and make excuses.

Would you mind to show your credentials before calling almost all devs of liars, lazy, etc?

It isn't about gameplay element not existing before, but you know what was the main motive behind Knack design? To make the simulation of those several thousando of blocks that make the char (same with the feathers of Trico) and allow it to increase, decrease and move and sure that would possibly be possible on PS3 with major sacrifices. As already said if you cut enough almost anything done today could run on PS1 or PS2 from the gameplay elements, but the shit presentation and framerate you would have would be very bad.

Again keep ignoring devs, not only the ones on reports and interviews but guys like CGI just because you don't want to admit that storage is a bottleneck and limit design or that it was something devs have wanted improved for a long time. If it was unnecessary then why would you think both MS and Sony at the same time and without coordination decide for very good and costly SSD solution? Was it for the giggles? And Sony gone above and beyond to make it to a solution that even in PC would be quite expensive to superate (the number of lines, the priority levels, the speed, the decompression chip, the I/O control and coherence)? If the SSD wouldn't really improve the game design, presentation or easy of development they would put a very simple and barebone SSD with small memory just to cache and use that money to put more GPU.

Many aspects of AMD jaguar absolutely beat Cell. Integer operations is a massive advantage in Jaguars favor.

The proof is in the games, games that run on AMD Jaguar tend to have superior physics, A.I and higher player/A.I counts than any Playstation 3 game.

But I never said that storage was not a bottleneck; of course it is! so is the GPU, and the CPU, and the memory. Heck, even your monitor can hinder your experience if it doesn't have the features to match your system.

But I think you guys are, once again, falling into the hype that this generation will bring "gameplay experiences" never seen before. You cannot tell me that PS4 and X1's hardware is limiting action-adventure games when you have BOTW on the Wii U. You cannot tell me that PS4 and X1's hardware is limiting platforming games when you have Mario Galaxy on the Wii. You cannot tell me that PS4 and X1's hardware is limiting FPS shooters when no shooter on this generation can match Half Life 2 from 2004.

Most devs on this gen have focused on making bigger, prettier, more detailed worlds, with better lighting and better shadows. You know what most devs will be focusing on next gen? bigger, prettier, more detailed worlds, with better lighting and better shadows. Because that's what sells.

There have been articles claiming the Cell is far more capable than the Jaguar CPUs. Maybe its technically true, but it only seems theoretical to me and we can't ignore developers struggled with it. Therefore even if it was more capable, Jaguar CPU was still a better option than the Cell on PS4.

In regard to what we actually saw in games with the Cell on PS3, its worth considering it was limited to the significantly lower RAM and GPU capabilities of PS3. So that would impact AI and player counts as well. Either way, I'm not convinced the Cell was a good CPU for a gaming console.

I see you said, "you guys." Maybe you're being diplomatic, but I think its him that believes whatever studios say.

I look at the software, Don's argument has been what developers say.

Much like you, I'm using 7th gen games to show 8th gen's launch content was not that impressive. I argue console releases of Farcry 3/4 and Crysis games were far more impressive than KZ:Shadowfall. More enjoyable as well. The only significant edge I can give Killzone:SF is graphics obviously.

Agreed.

We were all wowed by how awesome the rocks looked in the UE5 demo.

Not sure what you're saying, do you mean no game can be next gen gen because they can just scale everything down and have it run on a mobile too? That would mean BF5 isn't a current gen game because it has the same gameplay as BF 1942 from 2002, with only a bit better rocks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ybtURWmcdU

Next gen is all about new gameplay experiences, not necessarily new gameplay elements or even guaranteed better games. There will always be crappy games no matter how powerful the hardware is. Hell, we've already seen a bunch of them like Godfall and most games during MS's conference.

In any case, it doesn't matter what me or anyone on this forum thinks about both companies conferences. We can just look at the numbers. The Unreal 5 demo got over 11m views, has nearly 300k likes and only 6k dislikes. MS's conference had 1m views, 35k likes and 45k dislikes... Its a bit pointless to pretend that we don't know why both companies got the reactions they did, and what an introduction to next gen games should look like. We all know MS desperately needs to show something in July that has that same wow effect. We've already seen the reactions to a mere tech demo, so just imagine the reactions if Sony shows off actual games looking like that in June and MS has another stream showing Xone games with an optimized for Series X logo on the screen. 

The Cell can beat Jaguar in a few key scenarios... Such as Iterative Refinement in Floating Point, Games use all different kinds of maths/equations/problems and that is constantly changing, the Cell simply is only good at a handling a select few.

Where-as Jaguar is a far more balanced architecture as it needs to be proficient at all types of problems as the PC isn't some single-use environment, which means that higher precision floating point, integers and so forth tend to be higher performing on Jaguar.

Look at this way...

Let's say you have Cell and Jaguar cruising down the highway, the Cell might cruise happily at 100kilometers/miles per hour, but "occasionally" speed up to 200/km/miles depending if there are favorable road (I.E. Math) conditions.

Where-as Jaguar is able to do 150km/miles per hour constantly regardless of road conditions... And as such is able to beat Cell in the race to the end, Cell might have the higher potential top speed, but it's impossible to maintain it.

It's another case where "Flops" does not tell the entire story, only the theoretical maximum, not the sustainable amount.

The Cell was definitely a good gaming CPU for the time, but it was obscenely difficult to program for, at the time developers were only getting used to building games for 2-threads, let alone the 6-7 of the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3, but when they did get used to building games in such a parallel fashion, games started to come into their own.
The other issue is that they are in-order designs, where-as Jaguar is very capable at handling "dirty" problems due to it's out-of-order design, branch prediction and so forth... And thus maintaining a degree of efficiency on the Cell and Xenon needed to have compilers optimized and "hand guided" in order to reduce CPU pipeline stalls on Cell and Xenon.

I could go more in-depth here, but that is a rough idea of why Jaguar is better than Cell... And again, the games do actually prove it, Frostbite multiplayer games on Xbox One/Playstation 4 had big increases in player counts, more impressive physics and so forth and that was a trend that occurred all generation long and allowed for a new Genre aka "Battle Royale" to become possible.

Zen takes things a big step forward though in a generational CPU increase, we probably haven't seen such a jump in a very long time on the CPU front, the CPU might only be mid-range, by Zen is stupidly capable and that has me moist for what it will bring to the table.

No what he and others have meant in this thread is you argue both sides of the same coin whenever it suits your agenda. So it's no surprise that after making a few threads where you claim that next gen should be about more than pretty graphics, you're impressed by a demo and what it can showcase for next gen when that demo is literally just better graphics slapped onto gameplay that could have easily come from 2008. You also argued a ton that those types of graphics can't scale, that there's no way XSX games can look next gen if they are also designed to work on Xbone. And yet, again, you're very impressed by this demo designed to scale from the most powerful PC's all the way down to tablets and phones.

Even now you're starting to teeter back to the argument that next gen should be about new gameplay experiences, even though this demo showcased none of it (and why should it, it's not even a game). But you'll just have multiple people again tell you that cross gen doesn't limit the type of gameplay experiences you can offer, and also that next gen launch games typically don't wildly innovate gameplay anyway. Remember the other thread when you were honestly trying to tell us that Infamous 3 was a legit next gen game because it offered experiences not available on PS3, and you even linked a DigitalFoundry article? An article that literally said Infamous 3 didn't offer anything new gameplay wise but sure looked pretty? You've had a double standard from the start.

Also regarding views and likes and follows and tweets, didn't a picture of a controller or something blow up more than Microsoft actually showing the whole box and Hellblade II? I can see why you'd like to latch on to the numbers argument as it's seemingly all you have left, but they are clearly irrelevant. Playstation is simply more popular worldwide and by a large margin. Anything they show will have higher numbers.

It's also bizarre that you're criticizing one company for showcasing smaller games and cross gen games knowing full well that they have a first party showcase planned for July, while the other has shown literally nothing and you're fine with it lol

I don't know about goal posts but I've gone on record several times saying that this entire gen felt like gen 7.5. I watched Ryse on Twitch and it actually made me NOT want an Xbox One. I just wasn't impressed. And Second Son was my second PS4 game. Just like the PS3 (and PS2 now that I think about it--that's why I bought The Bouncer) I wanted my second game to be a graphical monster.

Maybe I just had unrealistic expectations but I was disappointed with both. It took a long time for me to be happy with the 8th gen. It was a slow evolution. The PSVR, on the other hand. I was blown away on day one. That's the "wow" I wanted from a new machine. I think I've said Until Dawn was the first game that looked next gen to me--but thinking about it, it may have been The Order. Never played Killzone even when I could have gotten it for free. 

Maybe it's less about moving goalposts and people genuinely not being amazed.

*Edit* I actually wound up buy Ryse three different times 😂