Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

The PS5 and Xbox 2 thread - it's happening

DalekFlay

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Messages
14,118
Location
New Vegas
4k isn't "useless," it definitely looks crisper. The problem is 4k is insanely expensive. The 2080ti can't even run a lot of modern games at 4k with maxed settings, and that card alone costs $1200 or so. There's no way the PS5 or XboxWhatever will have a card that powerful, let alone much MORE powerful. So the more developers target 4k, the more they sacrifice elsewhere. Textures, draw-distance, geometry, size and most importantly framerate. The focus on 4k means another generation of 30fps with dips to the 20s and a lot of the same old graphical issues, because they care more about flashy 4k marketing than game performance.

A great thing about PC is you can choose yourself what's most important to you. For me, 1440p with 120fps is WAY the fuck more important than 4k 60fps (let alone 30fps). Seriously once you go high framerate there's no going back, even 60fps feels like a choppy mess. However you can choose to get a 2070 and run at 4k 30fps if you want to. You have that choice. Console gamers won't have a choice.
 

Wirdschowerdn

Ph.D. in World Saving
Patron
Joined
Nov 30, 2003
Messages
34,462
Location
Clogging the Multiverse with a Crowbar
I play with 120/144Hz too, but sometimes going back to 60 fps (with frame limiter) only takes me a couple minutes to re-adjust. For most slower-paced games it's very adequate. Your sensibility may vary.

As for the next-gen consoles, I suspect it will be a mixed bag. First-party studios will defininitly go with 4K/Ultra graphics at the expense of framerates (think TLoU), but I suspect most developers will shoot for various options (i.e. 4K/30Hz, 1440p/60Hz, FHD/90Hz or something like that).
 

abija

Prophet
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
2,892
“When it comes to graphics, if you’re really dedicated to a game, normally you lower all settings in order to get the maximum performance. So I don’t really care about graphics.

This is absolute crap. If the game had proper visibility and good enough performance, people wouldn't lower settings.
 

Makabb

Arcane
Shitposter Bethestard
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
Messages
11,753
There's no way the PS5 or XboxWhatever will have a card that powerful, let alone much MORE powerful

lol, the xbox one x has a 6 tflop gpu and 12gb vram (same as gtx 1080 ti) and it does a native 4k, now imagine if the new consoles will have 14tflops and 24gb vram.
 

DalekFlay

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Messages
14,118
Location
New Vegas
I play with 120/144Hz too, but sometimes going back to 60 fps (with frame limiter) only takes me a couple minutes to re-adjust. For most slower-paced games it's very adequate. Your sensibility may vary.

Definitely varies per person, sure. When I can only play a newer game around 60... like Control for example... it drives me nuts. So much more choppy. Other people though are happy with 25-30fps. That's why I'm saying the best part about PC gaming is you choose what is more important to you, not marketing people looking for pretty screenshots and a 4k label on the box.
 

Makabb

Arcane
Shitposter Bethestard
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
Messages
11,753
It begins

b79bkb5zpa241.jpg
 
Self-Ejected

unfairlight

Self-Ejected
Joined
Aug 20, 2017
Messages
4,092
Yeah that kind of hardware has to be $500 or more, or sold at an extreme loss. Guess the idea of a $400 console is over.
4 teraflops for the base model seems low, the Xbox One X has a faster GPU (or two? I recall it has the base model APU and a Polaris GPU which can work together.)
The primary thing I hope for is some sort of advancement in controllers and giving consoles rebinding. Dual analogue sticks are just flat out boring and weak these days, they need to include gyroscope aiming in more games.
 

Wirdschowerdn

Ph.D. in World Saving
Patron
Joined
Nov 30, 2003
Messages
34,462
Location
Clogging the Multiverse with a Crowbar
Lockhart should be at least as fast as XBone X (given the more efficient µarch), but for 300 bucks.

I can't really see them sell Anaconda for below ~500-600 bucks. They'll likely support Xbox One for another couple years until the user base for Scarlett has grown considerably.
 

DalekFlay

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Messages
14,118
Location
New Vegas
If they do another base console that's a lot weaker keep in mind every game will be designed around that, with the other console just boosting resolution and maybe framerate. That news would suck for the industry as a whole, if you're interested in graphics advancement.
 

Tehdagah

Arcane
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
9,235
Only 16GB of ram? Techfags please explain this.

Yeah that kind of hardware has to be $500 or more, or sold at an extreme loss. Guess the idea of a $400 console is over.
4 teraflops for the base model seems low, the Xbox One X has a faster GPU (or two? I recall it has the base model APU and a Polaris GPU which can work together.)
The primary thing I hope for is some sort of advancement in controllers and giving consoles rebinding. Dual analogue sticks are just flat out boring and weak these days, they need to include gyroscope aiming in more games.
Controllers need buttons on their back.
 

Zeriel

Arcane
Joined
Jun 17, 2012
Messages
13,379
Or they reverse it and everything is based around the high-performance version, and if you use the cheaper one they just say, "That's intended. Upgrade if you want the real experience."

TFLOPS is a dumb measure but I still have immense :doubt: over the specs they keep giving for these consoles in the GPU department. People are acting like you're going to get a thousand dollar video card performance in a $400-500 for all hardware package. That's so far beyond the realm of reality it's laughable.

Everything else seems in line with current budget Zen/PC lineup.

Edit: Actually, this is kinda funny. Maybe it is just TFLOPS bullshittery. So let's look at the 5700XT.

FP16 (half) performance
19.51 TFLOPS (2:1)
FP32 (float) performance
9.754 TFLOPS
FP64 (double) performance
609.6 GFLOPS (1:16)
No sane person would expect a general TFLOPS number to be FP16 but that's probably what they're doing with these numbers. So the GPU by that metric is probably a 5500 or 5600 budget solution. All the folks expecting 2080 tier performance are gonna be really ball-busted.
 
Last edited:

Zeriel

Arcane
Joined
Jun 17, 2012
Messages
13,379
lol 4k is not pointless, it's like arguing that 1920x1080 is pointless or 800x600 is pointless because hey, you can also play in 320x200 like in early 90's, some time ago 1080p was 'pointless'.

I play in 3840x2160 and the textures and image is much more sharper..... just what you would expect out of a resolution bump, nothing more, nothing less.

A higher resolution is always preferred to a lesser one for image quality.

It's better. It's not 4X better, in terms of the experience for the end-user. That's basically the issue. If you can get 4K60FPS sure, why not. But that gets into the issue of people having to choose. Do they want 4K60FPS (super expensive), or 1080P-1440P 144-244HZ? Considering that LCD needs at least 1000 HZ to be on par with CRT image quality with any motion involved, that's not an academic question. 4K is fine if you really really need it, but I agree with those quoted that it is not worth it for most people, and certainly not comparable to gameplay innovation/fundamentals.
 

DalekFlay

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Messages
14,118
Location
New Vegas
Or they reverse it and everything is based around the high-performance version, and if you use the cheaper one they just say, "That's intended. Upgrade if you want the real experience."

I really doubt they would do that. PR and sales nightmare. Also previous generations have shown a price higher than $400 is toxic, so if they sell the base model for around that it needs to be a competent machine. Also no matter what you still need the games to run on both, so their core (level size, number of things on screen, etc.) would be the same. I'd guess they basically market them as 1080p and 4k machines, similar to how nVidia now markets the 2060, 2070 and 2080 as 1080p, 1440p and 4k GPUs respectively.

This is all assuming any of these rumors have a factual basis to begin with.
 

Zeriel

Arcane
Joined
Jun 17, 2012
Messages
13,379
When there is a cross-generational time they sell new games on older systems and yeah sure a few plebs complain, but no one cares and it doesn't seem to bother the console makers any.

I really doubt the difference between the $400 and $500 hardware would be a deal breaker for console audience. If you look at the specs the only difference is in the GPU unit. It's basically swapping a video card on a PC.
 

DalekFlay

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Messages
14,118
Location
New Vegas
When there is a cross-generational time they sell new games on older systems and yeah sure a few plebs complain, but no one cares and it doesn't seem to bother the console makers any.

I really doubt the difference between the $400 and $500 hardware would be a deal breaker for console audience. If you look at the specs the only difference is in the GPU unit. It's basically swapping a video card on a PC.

You're not really refuting the point here. Cross-generation games... $100 difference in hardware (Xbox 360, PS3, PS4)... both those things mean the games are developed for the lowest common denominator. You're literally listing examples of what I am saying will happen.
 

Zeriel

Arcane
Joined
Jun 17, 2012
Messages
13,379
That's not what happens though. Those games are not designed for the old hardware. In fact, they are backported with shitty implementations that barely work at all. It won't be that bad with a slight GPU difference, but the precedent is there. Price is important, but relative performance has never been something console players riot over.
 

Wirdschowerdn

Ph.D. in World Saving
Patron
Joined
Nov 30, 2003
Messages
34,462
Location
Clogging the Multiverse with a Crowbar
The weaker lockhart (ms console):

- 1440p 60FPS
- No disc drive

https://www.tweaktown.com/news/6913...ignificantly-less-ram-1440p-gaming/index.html

Sony has no 'weaker' console, so let's hope devs won't be using lockhart as the 'base' console for next gen games.

The "base" will still be the Xbox One for quite some while, because MS wants to treat their Xbox family plus PC gaming (a lot of low end hardware) as one ecosystem. That's a fundamentally different strategy than Sony's.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom