What turned out in the end was possibly due to MS's 180 that gen when they had to redesign there entire console. Remember when the console was meant to be always online with being DRM heavy? Obviously their strategy had to change so the cloud compute was never implemented. The tech does exists, it was just never put out to the consumers. No different to Sony's Power of the Cell.. which turned out the 360 was dishing out better ports with a less than capable CPU. Its all messy and its why we shouldn't be jumping on these platform holders laps just because they create new tech. Its exciting but let time tell, lets not assume results are immediate.

No I didn't misunderstand marketing to what exists, because the super fast SSD in the PS5 actually exists, just like how Cell actually exists in the PS3 and held many promises. However I know how companies work and they will market and promise many things and even have others market it because everyone wants the same thing, a successful console launch. As I said, I am denying the tech, but we see this every generation. There is always something new to keep the customers interested and this time it is the super fast SSD.

I have seen the UE5 demo, and Tech demos in general don't impress me as its only a tech demo and worse, a tech demo of a game that does not exist.. also only being rendered at 1440p and at 30fps. I wont deny it looked good for what it showed but I treat tech demos like I treat in-engine cutscenes. Just because you can control the main character doesn't impress me, might earn more credit if it was an actual game coming out we can actually play.

Of course games will look better later on in the generation, but it had nothing to do with Sony making it super hard to develop for. The PS2 was considered one of the weakest systems of that era by big margins. What we see with the improved visuals on the PS2 is the exact same with just about every console in existence.

They still kept talking about the power of the cloud even after removing the always online. They would never deliver the 3x the power. And Sony was explicit on saying PS1, 2 and 3 they made the system harder to develop to ensure we would be getting better and better looking games as the gen gone on.

Obviously MS tried to implement the Cloud Compute however wasn't able to since my guess is due to the 180.

Well I don't understand why Sony needs to make a console difficult to develop for to make better looking games in the long term since all games improve on consoles over the course of a conso9le generation. That statement baffles me.

They still had online games and that is the area of strenght of MS, they used Cloud for drivatar and for destruction on CD3. But the power of cloud was just talk to minimize their inferiority on power.

Well you not understanding doesn't mean it didn't happen.

That's what it turned out to be, the power of the cloud was talk in the end, but that's no different to Sony claiming the Cell is leagues better than any other CPU ever created and it never shown. Its all the same BS with these major companies. Its all talk, and the SSD is just another piece of tech to get the customers talking. Will we see it prevail? Lets just say none of the games shown at the PS5 event looked like it can only be done on the PS5's super fast SSD.. but ill give them more time to prove it.

You are still mixing technology with PR but ok.

Last time I checked, The Cell Processor, Power of the Cloud and the Super SSD is all technology, all hyped and advertised to be the best thing on the market. They all have PR behind it. But I am a man of results, I want them to show me. Until than, its overhype.

Except the "power of the cloud to make X1 3 or 4x stronger" never existed or were used. So you mixed buzz words (which implies that they are more like publicity stunts) with the technology and implementation.

That's what it turned out to be, the power of the cloud was talk in the end, but that's no different to Sony claiming the Cell is leagues better than any other CPU ever created and it never shown. Its all the same BS with these major companies. Its all talk, and the SSD is just another piece of tech to get the customers talking. Will we see it prevail? Lets just say none of the games shown at the PS5 event looked like it can only be done on the PS5's super fast SSD.. but ill give them more time to prove it.

They already did. Ratchet and Clank used some pretty cool warping tricks to utilize the SSD, and HZD2 looked downright insane with loads more assets variation compared to part 1. 

Maybe the MS event was just an appetizer for July. But if it was, it sure was a yucky one. MS really needs to show they're serious about Series X and their 1st party support. The last thing they should show now is another stream of Xbox One games with a bunch of optimized for Series X logos. It's definitely going to be interesting to see how MS responds, though.

Cloud processing can be used for things like DLSS... nVidia uses it's giant server farms to analyze various images on it's servers, which is then the necessary data that the Tensor cores use in order to upscale a game.

Playstation Now game streaming, project xCloud, Stadia are all cloud solutions as well.

Cloud-processing isn't a new thing, it's not an exclusive technology to any platform, anything with an internet connection can leverage it.

But it was certainly a buzzword... And I would argue the "64 bits" on the Nintendo 64 was a buzzword as well, every console manufacturer is guilty of using buzzwords to various degrees, it helps build hype.

It wasn't all "talk" the buzzwords never are. It just wasn't understood what it's limitations and ramifications were by the general public.
Cloud computing is definitely a thing and definitely being used more and more as time goes on.

Cell was definitely an impressive chip, having that many threads back in 2006 was definitely impressive, it's just that it's per-core performance was pretty average... And anything outside of iterative refinement floating point was also pretty poor... And because a console is more than just a single component, games never looked significantly more advanced than Xbox or PC at the time.

But the Cell definitely had some advantages if a developer leveraged it right.

The real issue is individuals grabbing those marketing terms and plastering it everywhere without actually understanding what it means for gaming, how it applies and influences how a game is being developed or rendered is where the real issue steps in.

It was like when we transitioned away from using "bits" in console-speak to determine a consoles generational capabilities... The 5th Gen Nintendo 64 was a 64bit console and the Original Xbox was a 32bit console like the PS1, there is certainly benefits to using 64bit registers, but there is so much more that determines capabilities than bits, hence why the Original Xbox, despite being only 32bit was significantly more capable than a 64bit console overall.

You sure that isn't a function of a doubling of Rram, additional ray tracing Cores, multiples better CPU capability, much improved memory bandwidth or a significantly improved graphics processor or something else? Why is it chalked up to just the SSD? Did nothing else contribute?

Yeah Microsoft's PR has been pretty average up to this point, they did start off really well though, but they need to get a hold of the changing narrative.

Keen to see what happens going forth.

Cloud processing can be used for things like DLSS... nVidia uses it's giant server farms to analyze various images on it's servers, which is then the necessary data that the Tensor cores use in order to upscale a game.

Playstation Now game streaming, project xCloud, Stadia are all cloud solutions as well.

Cloud-processing isn't a new thing, it's not an exclusive technology to any platform, anything with an internet connection can leverage it.

But it was certainly a buzzword... And I would argue the "64 bits" on the Nintendo 64 was a buzzword as well, every console manufacturer is guilty of using buzzwords to various degrees, it helps build hype.

It wasn't all "talk" the buzzwords never are. It just wasn't understood what it's limitations and ramifications were by the general public.
Cloud computing is definitely a thing and definitely being used more and more as time goes on.

Cell was definitely an impressive chip, having that many threads back in 2006 was definitely impressive, it's just that it's per-core performance was pretty average... And anything outside of iterative refinement floating point was also pretty poor... And because a console is more than just a single component, games never looked significantly more advanced than Xbox or PC at the time.

But the Cell definitely had some advantages if a developer leveraged it right.

The real issue is individuals grabbing those marketing terms and plastering it everywhere without actually understanding what it means for gaming, how it applies and influences how a game is being developed or rendered is where the real issue steps in.

It was like when we transitioned away from using "bits" in console-speak to determine a consoles generational capabilities... The 5th Gen Nintendo 64 was a 64bit console and the Original Xbox was a 32bit console like the PS1, there is certainly benefits to using 64bit registers, but there is so much more that determines capabilities than bits, hence why the Original Xbox, despite being only 32bit was significantly more capable than a 64bit console overall.

You sure that isn't a function of a doubling of Rram, additional ray tracing Cores, multiples better CPU capability, much improved memory bandwidth or a significantly improved graphics processor or something else? Why is it chalked up to just the SSD? Did nothing else contribute?

Yeah Microsoft's PR has been pretty average up to this point, they did start off really well though, but they need to get a hold of the changing narrative.

Keen to see what happens going forth.