Forums - Gaming Discussion - MS Executive says Devs will need to learn how to work around Slower SSD on XSX

Bonzinga said:
Devs wont need to learn anything, they will do exactly what they have been doing since the beginning of the industry. Also if gamers are expecting majority of devs to take full advantage of the PS5's SSD than they might be sadly disappointed next gen, unless its exclusives.

Its the same thing every gen.
Sega - Blast Processing
Sony - Power of the Cell Processor
Xbox - Power of the Cloud
Sony - (Insert SSD brand moto here)

All these motos work and the technology actually exists however devs wont flock to it if it makes them the minority in the industry unless they are paid to do so eg: Exclusives. Cell was a very powerful CPU, leagues ahead of anything we have seen yet devs didn't jump onboard, Power of the Cloud showcases we can stream in majority of the game reducing load off the GPU etc and devs didn't jump on board, and now we have a super fast SSD light years ahead of anything else.. and most likely again, devs wont jump on board because again the industry isn't up to that standard yet. Gamers need to understand and accept this as all will come is disappointment when majority of 3rd party games releasing on PC, Xbox and Switch wont be utilising the full potential of the PS5's SSD.

Also Devs aren't exactly stupid either, if they can make games like Red Dead 2, TLOU 2, BOTW, Halo Infinite and Cyberpunk 2077 on basic HDD than its not going to matter as good games will always do the talking over technology.

At first I was going to give a full explanation, but Setsu already gave most of it for me so I'll mostly reinforce.

Sega - They trully had a faster CPU and it was used fully, the blast processing was real (and reason Sonic was able to be that fast) but since the system had worse GPU and some other parts it was generally weaker than SNES.

Sony - Cell Processor was really much stronger than the one in Xbox to the point that it covered for the weaker GPU and still had some juice left, the problem was that the type of specialization that CPU had wasn't the best fit for gaming programming at the time. Nowadays perhaps it would have done better since at the time most devs were threating it as a single core.

MS - Yes power of the cloud was total shenanigan since it neve made Xbox 3 times more powerful than without it, but still had some minute use. You can't use the power of the cloud to parallel processing because of the internet speed and latency. Today it is either totally generated on the HW or totally streamed (so you only need the bandwidth for video and input signal), with the exception of some heavy calculation that is "totally independent" of bandwidht and latency.

Sony again - SSD and I/O are real and implemented on the system if you want to believe it won't be used that is your prerrogative, but still would be false.

Pemalite said:
DonFerrari said:

As Pema said raid SSD drives (althought there is already commercial drives over 7Gb/s) and RAM Drives. But the main problem as put by some dev (like Epic boss) is that the computer itself isn't programmed to take advantage of the fast I/O yet.

In the case of a Ram drive, it completely bypasses the I/O that SSD's connect with, removing any of those technical limitations.

But a Ram drive is volatile unlike NAND which is non-volatile.

padib said:

Right. That's why I asked for an example, because from what I understood from the Linus video is that the limited I/O pipe in a PC (even Linux) the actual throughput of the AORUS Gen4 AIC Adaptor is not 15.5GBps but perhaps half of that.

We need to keep in mind also that there is different types of "tasks". - It is all well and good to proclaim you are the "speed king" in sequential reads... But if your performance tanks doing a random write and your application requires lots of random writes, then sequential reads are actually a useless metric.

The messaging I am trying to build however across the forums is that...

People need to stop grabbing one number or terminology and ignoring the rest of the system... A console or PC is functionally a heap of different parts cohesively working together... And only using terms like "8GB GDDR5" or "Teraflops" or "SSD" without understanding their fundamental implications to rendering a game is doing a disservice to the amount of engineering that gets put into a console.

The Playstation 5 has so much more hardware behind the SSD and so much more to offer that we need to move past the SSD advertised feature and start asking the question of what those other components are going to mean for gaming? Because honestly that's not really happening... It honestly just feels like a pissing match to see who  has the bigger wang.

Thanks for mentioning the RAM Drive skipping some of the limitations, but that still wouldn't solve the problem at hand while devs don't make their games use this feature right? Without it That would really be a solution that would mostly only improve loading time and quality of textures/pop in right?

setsunatenshi said:
Bonzinga said:

Care to prove your point or is that your best argument?

You basically just agreed to my post by saying we let the games do the talking which has been the very point since platforms existed.

You are talking out of ignorance comparing things that have no possible comparison.

Blast processing was a marketing buzzword used by Sega which simply had no application to games in the Mega Drive / Genesis.

Cell processor was a real thing, an extremely advanced architecture (multi core cpu) that was simply not adopted widely, it was highly efficient, but very challenging to code for. Subsequently, made the backwards compatibility with the PS3 extremely challenging. The de facto industry standard is x86, hence why the cell was discontinued.

Cloud gaming is real and both PS Now, Stadia, etc are proof of that. What was bullshit was some fanboys assumptions that you would parallelize compute tasks between local hardware and some other GPU sitting in an Azure dataroom somewhere. Having said that, apparently the new flight simulator will leverage streaming of the world map from the Azure servers, which is a really cool thing. It means the game is only playable with an internet connection, but hey, it is what it is.

The new PS5 SSD - I/O solution is also the real deal and a paradigm shift. Extremely fast access to game assets without requiring loading times, elevator rooms, walk and talk moments means you can actually develop new kinds of experiences. Flying in games? Yes please. No duplication of assets on the storage (even in multiple LoDs). Let's go. Instant loading of games, switching between games on the fly, no texture pop in on large open worlds... I could go on and on but it should be enough to make the point.

Look at the UE5 demo, look at the Spider Man demo showing the loadtimes and fast moving through the city and finally, feel free to watch today's games presentation. If you don't think these things are real benefits, then probably you're not a gamer.

Good Summary.



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

Around the Network
Bonzinga said:
setsunatenshi said:

You clearly have no clue what you're talking about, but that's ok, the games will speak for themselves

Care to prove your point or is that your best argument?

You basically just agreed to my post by saying we let the games do the talking which has been the very point since platforms existed.

DEvelopers have always flocked to Sony's platforms. The ps2 was a pain in the ass to develop for, in fact it was actually part of Sony's strategy so we would get better looking games once developers started wrapping their brain around the design. Still, every developer on the planet was supporting it with AAA exclusives. 

Obviously developers will always support pc or any other platform too if there's little extra work involved in bringing their games there. That's simply a matter of economics. But if they have to put too much time and resources in it, they might just focus on the platform that sells them the most copies. Same reason why loads of developers aren't bothered with doing Switch ports.



setsunatenshi said:
Bonzinga said:

Care to prove your point or is that your best argument?

You basically just agreed to my post by saying we let the games do the talking which has been the very point since platforms existed.

You are talking out of ignorance comparing things that have no possible comparison.

Blast processing was a marketing buzzword used by Sega which simply had no application to games in the Mega Drive / Genesis.

Cell processor was a real thing, an extremely advanced architecture (multi core cpu) that was simply not adopted widely, it was highly efficient, but very challenging to code for. Subsequently, made the backwards compatibility with the PS3 extremely challenging. The de facto industry standard is x86, hence why the cell was discontinued.

Cloud gaming is real and both PS Now, Stadia, etc are proof of that. What was bullshit was some fanboys assumptions that you would parallelize compute tasks between local hardware and some other GPU sitting in an Azure dataroom somewhere. Having said that, apparently the new flight simulator will leverage streaming of the world map from the Azure servers, which is a really cool thing. It means the game is only playable with an internet connection, but hey, it is what it is.

The new PS5 SSD - I/O solution is also the real deal and a paradigm shift. Extremely fast access to game assets without requiring loading times, elevator rooms, walk and talk moments means you can actually develop new kinds of experiences. Flying in games? Yes please. No duplication of assets on the storage (even in multiple LoDs). Let's go. Instant loading of games, switching between games on the fly, no texture pop in on large open worlds... I could go on and on but it should be enough to make the point.

Look at the UE5 demo, look at the Spider Man demo showing the loadtimes and fast moving through the city and finally, feel free to watch today's games presentation. If you don't think these things are real benefits, then probably you're not a gamer.

Thanks for telling me things I already know. No where in my post did I say this technology didn't exist or worked. The point must of missed you. Its all buzz words regardless if it exists or not. Sony used the Cell Processor as their buzz word to get developers behind there technology exactly what they are doing with their new SSD technology. This scenario is exactly the same instead of Cell Processor (Insert new tech here). 

Xbox advertised Power of the Cloud which is also a thing that works and Sega's Genesis did have a CPU advantage over the SNES hence there Blast Processing terms to attract consumers. The Cell existed, Power of the Cloud existed, Blast processing actually existed, this new SSD is no different, it works, its a thing but like all new high tech, people don't just adopt straight away which is exactly my point. If people think the world is just going to stop using other means of hard drives just because Sony has invented a new super fast SSD than they will sadly be mistaken and disappointed. We will see it with their 1st party line up and exclusives but again, it doesn't matter if you have a super SSD, 12TF or 1000gigs of Ram, good devs will make good games on cave man technology and that's where the games will always do the talking, tech or no tech. 

Why don't Sony talk about the major CPU advantage in the PS5 over the PS4? This gens CPUs were the worst part of the consoles and the CPU boost is actually more exciting. That's just me. 



DonFerrari said:

At first I was going to give a full explanation, but Setsu already gave most of it for me so I'll mostly reinforce.

Sega - They trully had a faster CPU and it was used fully, the blast processing was real (and reason Sonic was able to be that fast) but since the system had worse GPU and some other parts it was generally weaker than SNES.

Sony - Cell Processor was really much stronger than the one in Xbox to the point that it covered for the weaker GPU and still had some juice left, the problem was that the type of specialization that CPU had wasn't the best fit for gaming programming at the time. Nowadays perhaps it would have done better since at the time most devs were threating it as a single core.

MS - Yes power of the cloud was total shenanigan since it neve made Xbox 3 times more powerful than without it, but still had some minute use. You can't use the power of the cloud to parallel processing because of the internet speed and latency. Today it is either totally generated on the HW or totally streamed (so you only need the bandwidth for video and input signal), with the exception of some heavy calculation that is "totally independent" of bandwidht and latency.

Sony again - SSD and I/O are real and implemented on the system if you want to believe it won't be used that is your prerrogative, but still would be false.

Ok so many people replied to me. 

Okay ill make this clear, I am not doubting the tech exists, I am saying its just another buzz word for a new generation to get people on board. Sure the tech exists, sure its amazing, but the lowest common denominator will always win. PS1 outsold the more advance N64, PS2 outsold the more advance Xbox and Gamecube, Wii outsold the more advance 360 and PS4 and now we have the Switch outselling the more advance PS4 and XB1. Weather the PS5 has amazing tech or not will not determine the outcome of the system. Price points, huge library of games and marketing is what sells consoles and yes this SSD in the PS5 is being used to leverage the marketing towards Sony as its the thing it has over its competitors but it wont matter as I mentioned to whatever the other guys name is. Good devs will make good games regardless if they are using a super fast SSD or having a 12TF GPU. I think Nintendo is a prime example of my point here.

goopy20 said:

DEvelopers have always flocked to Sony's platforms. The ps2 was a pain in the ass to develop for, in fact it was actually part of Sony's strategy so we would get better looking games once developers started wrapping their brain around the design. Still, every developer on the planet was supporting it with AAA exclusives. 

Obviously developers will always support pc or any other platform too if there's little extra work involved in bringing their games there. That's simply a matter of economics. But if they have to put too much time and resources in it, they might just focus on the platform that sells them the most copies. Same reason why loads of developers aren't bothered with doing Switch ports.

We didn't get better looking games on the PS2.



Bonzinga said:
setsunatenshi said:

You are talking out of ignorance comparing things that have no possible comparison.

Blast processing was a marketing buzzword used by Sega which simply had no application to games in the Mega Drive / Genesis.

Cell processor was a real thing, an extremely advanced architecture (multi core cpu) that was simply not adopted widely, it was highly efficient, but very challenging to code for. Subsequently, made the backwards compatibility with the PS3 extremely challenging. The de facto industry standard is x86, hence why the cell was discontinued.

Cloud gaming is real and both PS Now, Stadia, etc are proof of that. What was bullshit was some fanboys assumptions that you would parallelize compute tasks between local hardware and some other GPU sitting in an Azure dataroom somewhere. Having said that, apparently the new flight simulator will leverage streaming of the world map from the Azure servers, which is a really cool thing. It means the game is only playable with an internet connection, but hey, it is what it is.

The new PS5 SSD - I/O solution is also the real deal and a paradigm shift. Extremely fast access to game assets without requiring loading times, elevator rooms, walk and talk moments means you can actually develop new kinds of experiences. Flying in games? Yes please. No duplication of assets on the storage (even in multiple LoDs). Let's go. Instant loading of games, switching between games on the fly, no texture pop in on large open worlds... I could go on and on but it should be enough to make the point.

Look at the UE5 demo, look at the Spider Man demo showing the loadtimes and fast moving through the city and finally, feel free to watch today's games presentation. If you don't think these things are real benefits, then probably you're not a gamer.

Thanks for telling me things I already know. No where in my post did I say this technology didn't exist or worked. The point must of missed you. Its all buzz words regardless if it exists or not. Sony used the Cell Processor as their buzz word to get developers behind there technology exactly what they are doing with their new SSD technology. This scenario is exactly the same instead of Cell Processor (Insert new tech here). 

Xbox advertised Power of the Cloud which is also a thing that works and Sega's Genesis did have a CPU advantage over the SNES hence there Blast Processing terms to attract consumers. The Cell existed, Power of the Cloud existed, Blast processing actually existed, this new SSD is no different, it works, its a thing but like all new high tech, people don't just adopt straight away which is exactly my point. If people think the world is just going to stop using other means of hard drives just because Sony has invented a new super fast SSD than they will sadly be mistaken and disappointed. We will see it with their 1st party line up and exclusives but again, it doesn't matter if you have a super SSD, 12TF or 1000gigs of Ram, good devs will make good games on cave man technology and that's where the games will always do the talking, tech or no tech. 

Why don't Sony talk about the major CPU advantage in the PS5 over the PS4? This gens CPUs were the worst part of the consoles and the CPU boost is actually more exciting. That's just me. 

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.



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

Around the Network
Bonzinga said:
setsunatenshi said:

You are talking out of ignorance comparing things that have no possible comparison.

Blast processing was a marketing buzzword used by Sega which simply had no application to games in the Mega Drive / Genesis.

Cell processor was a real thing, an extremely advanced architecture (multi core cpu) that was simply not adopted widely, it was highly efficient, but very challenging to code for. Subsequently, made the backwards compatibility with the PS3 extremely challenging. The de facto industry standard is x86, hence why the cell was discontinued.

Cloud gaming is real and both PS Now, Stadia, etc are proof of that. What was bullshit was some fanboys assumptions that you would parallelize compute tasks between local hardware and some other GPU sitting in an Azure dataroom somewhere. Having said that, apparently the new flight simulator will leverage streaming of the world map from the Azure servers, which is a really cool thing. It means the game is only playable with an internet connection, but hey, it is what it is.

The new PS5 SSD - I/O solution is also the real deal and a paradigm shift. Extremely fast access to game assets without requiring loading times, elevator rooms, walk and talk moments means you can actually develop new kinds of experiences. Flying in games? Yes please. No duplication of assets on the storage (even in multiple LoDs). Let's go. Instant loading of games, switching between games on the fly, no texture pop in on large open worlds... I could go on and on but it should be enough to make the point.

Look at the UE5 demo, look at the Spider Man demo showing the loadtimes and fast moving through the city and finally, feel free to watch today's games presentation. If you don't think these things are real benefits, then probably you're not a gamer.

Thanks for telling me things I already know. No where in my post did I say this technology didn't exist or worked. The point must of missed you. Its all buzz words regardless if it exists or not. Sony used the Cell Processor as their buzz word to get developers behind there technology exactly what they are doing with their new SSD technology. This scenario is exactly the same instead of Cell Processor (Insert new tech here). 

Xbox advertised Power of the Cloud which is also a thing that works and Sega's Genesis did have a CPU advantage over the SNES hence there Blast Processing terms to attract consumers. The Cell existed, Power of the Cloud existed, Blast processing actually existed, this new SSD is no different, it works, its a thing but like all new high tech, people don't just adopt straight away which is exactly my point. If people think the world is just going to stop using other means of hard drives just because Sony has invented a new super fast SSD than they will sadly be mistaken and disappointed. We will see it with their 1st party line up and exclusives but again, it doesn't matter if you have a super SSD, 12TF or 1000gigs of Ram, good devs will make good games on cave man technology and that's where the games will always do the talking, tech or no tech. 

Why don't Sony talk about the major CPU advantage in the PS5 over the PS4? This gens CPUs were the worst part of the consoles and the CPU boost is actually more exciting. That's just me. 

You clearly conflated marketing speech with actual technologies that actually make (made) an impact. That's such a simplistic analysis that merits much more than my initial dismissal.

Maybe go watch the UE5 tech demo and the several independent Dev analysis to this technology before dismissing it out of ignorance of the topic. 90 minutes to go... tic toc



Bonzinga said:

We didn't get better looking games on the PS2.

What?

Ridge racer 5 to GT4



The difference between the start and end of the ps2 generation is huge, which is because of getting to grips with the hardware over time. Just look at the difference between God of War and God of War 2.



Bonzinga said:
DonFerrari said:

At first I was going to give a full explanation, but Setsu already gave most of it for me so I'll mostly reinforce.

Sega - They trully had a faster CPU and it was used fully, the blast processing was real (and reason Sonic was able to be that fast) but since the system had worse GPU and some other parts it was generally weaker than SNES.

Sony - Cell Processor was really much stronger than the one in Xbox to the point that it covered for the weaker GPU and still had some juice left, the problem was that the type of specialization that CPU had wasn't the best fit for gaming programming at the time. Nowadays perhaps it would have done better since at the time most devs were threating it as a single core.

MS - Yes power of the cloud was total shenanigan since it neve made Xbox 3 times more powerful than without it, but still had some minute use. You can't use the power of the cloud to parallel processing because of the internet speed and latency. Today it is either totally generated on the HW or totally streamed (so you only need the bandwidth for video and input signal), with the exception of some heavy calculation that is "totally independent" of bandwidht and latency.

Sony again - SSD and I/O are real and implemented on the system if you want to believe it won't be used that is your prerrogative, but still would be false.

Ok so many people replied to me. 

Okay ill make this clear, I am not doubting the tech exists, I am saying its just another buzz word for a new generation to get people on board. Sure the tech exists, sure its amazing, but the lowest common denominator will always win. PS1 outsold the more advance N64, PS2 outsold the more advance Xbox and Gamecube, Wii outsold the more advance 360 and PS4 and now we have the Switch outselling the more advance PS4 and XB1. Weather the PS5 has amazing tech or not will not determine the outcome of the system. Price points, huge library of games and marketing is what sells consoles and yes this SSD in the PS5 is being used to leverage the marketing towards Sony as its the thing it has over its competitors but it wont matter as I mentioned to whatever the other guys name is. Good devs will make good games regardless if they are using a super fast SSD or having a 12TF GPU. I think Nintendo is a prime example of my point here.

goopy20 said:

DEvelopers have always flocked to Sony's platforms. The ps2 was a pain in the ass to develop for, in fact it was actually part of Sony's strategy so we would get better looking games once developers started wrapping their brain around the design. Still, every developer on the planet was supporting it with AAA exclusives. 

Obviously developers will always support pc or any other platform too if there's little extra work involved in bringing their games there. That's simply a matter of economics. But if they have to put too much time and resources in it, they might just focus on the platform that sells them the most copies. Same reason why loads of developers aren't bothered with doing Switch ports.

We didn't get better looking games on the PS2.

Of course we saw better looking ps2 games later on but that's not the point. Point being, developers are always looking to reach the best demographics for their game. RTS games for example historically sell for crap on anything but pc, nobody buys cod games on a Nintendo console and Animal Crossings probably wouldn't have sold over 10m copies if it was a Xbox or ps4 exclusive.

Sony also has an audience that clicks better with certain genres or ip's than any other platform, and I definitely see some of those going exclusive. Especially if it's too much work to alter core game design elements so they can run on other platforms too. 



SvennoJ said:
Bonzinga said:

We didn't get better looking games on the PS2.

What?

Ridge racer 5 to GT4



The difference between the start and end of the ps2 generation is huge, which is because of getting to grips with the hardware over time. Just look at the difference between God of War and God of War 2.

Sony themselves said that for PS1, 2 and 3 they choose a good architecture but not easy to develop or max out just to ensure the games would improve during the gen and people would be eager for the next game.

Sure that even with PS4 being a lot easier to dev for we still got improvements during the gen.



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

DonFerrari said:

Sony themselves said that for PS1, 2 and 3 they choose a good architecture but not easy to develop or max out just to ensure the games would improve during the gen and people would be eager for the next game.

Sure that even with PS4 being a lot easier to dev for we still got improvements during the gen.

True, games always get better with new techniques over time. The difference was, on ps2 you ended at higher resolutions 1080i in GT4 (480x540 to be precise) while nowadays average resolution (and stability) goes down towards the end of the generation. First gen that 'needed' mid gen refreshes to keep the graphics hype going.

Next gen will be more traditional again while devs explore how to get the most out of the vast increase in I/O speed and 3D audio.