If i had to notice this before i would of included it with my other reply.
What about the start of the gen Base XBone vs base PS4?. How many years did Xbox fans have to put up with Sony fans rubbing it in their faces every time the was a minor dif?.
The difference with the launch Xbox One and Playstation 4 was pretty massive... Most titles were 720P experiences and looked downright muddy and ugly, the console was also $100 more expensive.
It just wasn't a good buy.
Later on in the generation when Microsoft ditched Kinect and freed up CPU+Ram+GPU resources from that requirement, they also reduced the Operating Systems Ram/CPU footprint which helped significantly to close the visual gap.
The gap still exists today.
Criticism where criticism is due is something I am very supportive of.
And before we go back to the XB360 days and PS3. What was the PS3 going to do to everything before it launched?, Next gen doesnt start till Sony says?, Take out a loan to buy a PS3?, Nothing else compares to the power of PS3. Ps2 fans also giving it to Nintendo and Xbox fans in that gen too.
It's called hype, every console manufacturer does it.
It's why I don't take the statements from Cerny or Spencer at face value, but I am in a position where my understanding of computer technology tends to be greater than their "demonstrations" that they do towards the general public to build hype.
It's as impartial as you can get in my opinion.
Its been an endless battle that it seems Sony fans keep looking for when things are in their favor, but then cry victim when the table turns a bit.
Both sides are guilty of this.
The power narrative and entitlement has always existed on either side, pending on the generation you are looking at. The PS4 and X1, for example, Sony fans made a big deal about the very slight power advantage they had. Then when the One X and Pro, the script flipped and all of a sudden it was not a big deal anymore. Likewise the 360 fans were insufferable when it came to power differences in the PS360 generation.
Sony historically never had the power advantage for an entire generation.
The Playstation 1 was trounced by the Nintendo 64.
The Playstation 2 was owned by the Gamecube and Original Xbox.
The Playstation 3 definitely had the theoretical advantage, but arguably the Xbox 360 had the practical edge.
The Playstation 4 was superior against the Xbox One, but got bested by the Xbox One X.
The Playstation 5 gets beaten by the Xbox Series X.
And that is perfectly fine.
Sony has proven with every single console that the best hardware isn't a requirement for some of the most impressive looking games... Ghost of Tsushima on the base Playstation 4 absolutely looks better than anything on the base Xbox One... And even allot of games on Xbox One X.
Same with Microsoft with the Xbox 360 where it showcased that balanced hardware brings benefits across multiplats and properly engineered exclusives (With lots of baked effects like Halo 4) can match superior hardware.
But what changes things today compared to prior generations is that Microsoft and Sony are leveraging PC commodity hardware, so their architectures are extremely balanced and almost identical as it's building upon years of PC R&D and improvements. - Essentially we are nitpicking to find faults in either platform now.
In theory that would mean the most powerful hardware should benefit backwards compat and multiplats.. Rather than a technically inferior platform like the Xbox 360 holding an advantage over the Playstation 3.
I'm not going to get into a "That side did that, so I can do it to" mentality, going to stick with the facts that some hardware is simply better than others rather than try and justify a certain platform over another.
You see it now from both sides as well, it is low hanging fruit. But it is also a fickle argument that can make you look bad later on, especially in these early months of a console release. People made a big deal about an assumption that CoD Cold War was supposedly better on PS5, just to find out the XSX actually has the advantage when DF broke it down. Likewise in the case of Valhalla, PS5 started with the advantage. Now after this patch the XSX has an advantage over the PS5 (before and after the PS5 was patched). Then when DMCV comes out, when the XSX has an advantage in 3/4 modes you get people arguing over which mode is most important.
Right now the power game is not really feasible for debate. These cross gen games were made for the lowest common denominator, and does nothing to show what these consoles can do. The differences are so small right now because of that, and lack of optimization causes conflicting results. There is no reason for the PS5 version to run this bad after the patch, nor for Dirt 5 to be as bad as it is on the XSX. It is clear that they made them based on the previous generation and threw in some extra features for the new gen, but instead of optimization they expected the raw horse power to just make it work.
Give it time, both consoles will have their advantages in certain areas. But right now, be it power or SSD speed, we will not be seeing the extent of those advantages as it is now. In time this will be a more interesting discussion, but things as they are do little for these debates.
Definitely. As soon as this hardware was revealed I already broke down the strengths and weaknesses of the Xbox Series X and Playstation 5 and what we should be looking out for in terms of graphical nuances that showcases those strengths and weaknesses.
The Xbox Series X thanks to having more compute should show advantages in lighting, where the Playstation 5 thanks to the SSD should show advantages in mesh complexity.
I kid you not, I can't even make a distinction between 4K and 1440p so both versions are identical as far as I'm concerned. But this doesn't change the fact that PS5 is handling more workload.
I'd much rather having the power used to pushing pixels directed elsewhere. Anything above 1440p is a waste of resources in my book.
I can tell the difference between 4k(2160P) and 1440P, but I don't think the expense in resources is worth the justification to jump from 1440P to 2160P, I would rather an increase in visual fidelity and/or framerates.
The difference between the two however does rely on a multitude of factors like your own visual acuity, distance from display, size of display, quality of the panel in your display, the frame reconstruction and post process effects of the game you are running and more.