Its strange that people keep mentioning it because the way I see it 8th gen isn't even remotely close to CGI. I mean they do look good but games still look like games. If that makes sense...

I would say we might hit it next next gen (10) when GPU's are able to offer full raytracing in all modern titles. That's when devs can stop faking it and offer true-to-life lighting on all objects.

But yeah the jump in hardware alone is crazy. Especially the I/O offered in the SSD vs hard drives and GPU grunt. Makes me excited to see Microsoft can do with all that hardware next month.

One of the things about next gen that will stick out beyond a visual upgrade is just how many games won't feel like they take place in the same universe. Games will go from a hallway in an apartment, to space, to the underground, to a Cyber City, etc, etc. And it will look like cutscenes of old in real time.

*Pictures are rendered using some of the same techniques/engines/programs you've seen me use [these are not mine]. This is a hypothetical game, but would all happen on one production.

They are simply to illustrate just how much better it is going to get in regards to textures work, depth of field, raytracing, HDR, and world building/shifting (this is big, thanks to those SSDs).

I think the "diminishing returns" talk though is not to say the hardware upgrade is unimpressive? But rather purely based on the naked eye and perception of the layman.

So can we really disregard, what seems like the majority of online gamer sentiment, that the perception of visual fidelity shown thus far for PS5 is a bit underwhelming? After all the very fact that these opinions exist in relevant numbers kind of disproves the supposed visual fidelity leap.

That being said, I think most people are really waiting for that WOW moment..and maybe that was the UE5 demo...but needs to be something playable/tangible.

One thing I can say for sure though is that gamer's care about games first and foremost. Any negative sentiment on visual fidelity is completely irrelevant given the positive reception of the PS5 reveal event.

Too stressfull i assume?

What games are you even playing , did you play Horizon, uncharted 4, the last gears PF war?

Eh I've been a PC gamer for a long time and I've yet to see any game that comes close to quality of the UE5 demo scope of HZD2 on current gen hardware. The UE5 demo is an indicator on whats to come.

Just look at this tech demo provided by Quixel. This is running on the UE4 engine, with a Nvidia GTX1080Ti GPU. And its doable with hardware we have in next generation consoles.

The same thing is said at the start of every new generation. Just be patient.. next gen is around the corner.

Add that is what I'm trying to demonstrate. The leap is there. The comparisons are in this thread, the games shown on the Playstaion event would not be possible on 8th gen visually.

Games don't make themselves. Developers have to get used to using new tools and techniques which takes years to come into fruition.

The jump might not be there for you. But the games on the PS5 shown so far are impressive to me, and so many people watching.

Anyway going way offtopic and at fear of derailing the thread, gonna stop here. Can agree to disagree.

It all boils down to how you judge the advancement.

If you are looking at it from a point of view of photo-realism of people, things and the environment, and the dynamism of nearby objects/structures/characters then the PS5/XSX shows a massive jump due to the massive scale of objects that can be rendered per frame. Certain feats have been met, such as CGI-level graphics within an interactive game. This is a frontier that was never passed before. Loading times are cut out which is another frontier that was never passed for any disk-based system. Photorealism at the level we are seeing it now has never been achieved, to the point where human characters are almost believeable versus a picture. This is what the OP is highlighting, and it's all true.

If you're looking at it from a point of view of the satisfaction of graphics during a gameplay experience, it is difficult to feel the jump between the gen 8 and gen 9 graphics because that depends on many things: the size of your monitor, the resolution of your monitor, the mode of your monitor (helmet vs tv), the type of game your playing (cartoon vs photoreal), what developers do with the technology they have and which aspects of their artistic decisions cause that jump to seem bigger. Are reduction of loading times considered a generational leap, or were these already good enough on the X1S which also had an SSD?

How each person perceives the jump is subjective, that's why everything said in the thread so far is true. For some, we see the diminishing returns because what is being achieved does not add much to the overall experience. To others, the jumps are surreal and cross barriers we never crossed before.

Like all things, it's about perspective and subjective interpretation. For me personally, I was floored by the UE5 demo, and am very curious about what is now possible in VR combined with such lush and detailed worlds. The PS5 demo reel impressed me at Horizon and at GT, for the rest I was not as impressed as by the UE5 demo. In the end, we all perceive graphics our own very personal way, with some worlds resonating with us more than others. At the same time, there are some objective facts about what is being accomplished which are important to understand.

I'm personally really impressed by what I'm seeing in general and for the first time in a long time (I think since Second Son), I am being kind of wowed by graphics. Being a Nintendo gamer mostly, graphics don't matter to me as much as gameplay, but I feel like there is a generational leap here that impresses me.