8 ms·

Playstation 5 review: Not just a more-powerful PS4

62 points by evo_9 6y ago

theklr 6y ago
Really interested to see some of the choices Sony has made trickle out into other applications. This is the first time in a long time in video games I’ve seen some risk-taking that could revolutionize the industry.
- capableweb 6y ago
  The articled submitted here seems to say it's not "risk-taking that could revolutionize the industry" but rather "hard to wholeheartedly recommend spending $500 for feature upgrades that are more pleasant than transformative" I'm with the latter. Cool incremental upgrade, but not transformative for gaming.
m3kw9 6y ago
The SSD speed was always going to be the game changer, it’s more than just load times, which is already huge in helping the game play experience. It’s the type of yet imaginable game play allowed when you can load textures and game data in realtime.
- capableweb 6y ago
  Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person who don't like this new "stream textures as it becomes required" instead of loading screens. It's very disruptive to the illusion of video games when textures change on the fly as you interact with the game. I just wish it could be configurable instead of assuming it's always best to stream textures from disk on the fly, instead of upfront loading of them.
  - polytely 6y ago
    Well that seems to be more of a problem of current gen hardware not being able to keep up with the requirements of the game. I hope that the ps5 and xbox series x(?)(microsofts naming scheme keeps confusing me) faster memory will make it so that you won't see them loading in anymore. I can imagine this immersion breaking effect was one of the reasons they both went in this direction with the development of the new consoles.
    - bobbob1921 6y ago
      I agree that the name Microsoft chose for this new Xbox is a bit ridiculous. So they have the current gen- Xbox X, and the new GEN is called the “Xbox series X“ (I’m not a big gamer so I may have that wrong)
  - gruez 6y ago
    >Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person who don't like this new "stream textures as it becomes required" instead of loading screens But we're talking get rid of loading screens, what you described would only occur in the first few seconds of the game. It's hardly immersion breaking. If we're talking about the general problem of pop-ins (ie. during normal gameplay), loading screens aren't better either, as you would see jarring loading screens as you move through the game world.
  - mappu 6y ago
    Mipmaps aside - I remember texture pop-in being a common complaint for the original RAGE (and being one of the complainers). But i replayed it recently on a regular SSD and the effect was barely noticeable at all. So i'm confident that an NVMe disk with direct GPU DMA will really make this a non-issue.
0-_-0 6y ago
Besides standardising NVME storage for games to rely on, I'm the most excited about SONY's HRTF [1] implementation for the PS5 [2]. It's something I've been waiting for years for someone to implement for computer games, and it could be a game changer for audio. Listen to this [3] with good headphones to see (well, hear) what I'm talking about, better with higher volume. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-related_transfer_function https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-related_transfer_function [2] https://youtu.be/sSmWIR-D6ro?t=2526 https://youtu.be/sSmWIR-D6ro?t=2526 [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYdIidUIbAs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYdIidUIbAs
- kevincox 6y ago
  I might have missed something but they say the HRTF is unique per-person. They mention collecting the pattern from one person using specialized equipment but then just straight to "using an HRTF". How does this apply to a consumer console like the PS5? Are they going to sample a lot of people and use some sort of average? Or is there some way to define it per-listener?
  - jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
    While HRTFs are unique per person, there's still a lot of similarity. You can use a "one size fits all" HRTF and still get quite good results, and a small menu of options is essentially sufficient.
    - pastrami_panda 6y ago
      Exactly, interestingly I remember Michael Abrash recounting when he was demoed personalized HRTF for the first time. They put headphones on him and sat him in a chair. A person started walking around him in circles holding a small speaker. But it was obviously a trick, the sound didn't come from the speaker but the headphones - but according to his account it was indistinguishable from the real thing. He was astounded when the person walking around him stopped but the audio remained circling around him. Personalized HRTF is a game changer.
  - 6y ago
MaxBarraclough 6y ago
> Graphical improvement over the PS4 doesn't have the "wow factor" you migth expect. In the machine's defence, I imagine game-engines will evolve to make much better use of the available hardware, especially regarding raytracing. In previous generations, games released late in a console's lifecycle are often visually significantly better than games released early in the lifecycle.
- dougmwne 6y ago
  Another (crude) way to look at this in the improvement in megaflops from one generation to the next. Console Tflops Mflops Impv vs. prv gen ps 0.0001 100 ps2 0.0062 6,200 6200% ps3 0.23 230,000 3710% ps4 1.84 1,840,000 800% ps4p 4.2 4,200,000 228% ps5 10.28 10,280,000 245% So it should not be surprising that this new console doesn't look dramatically better than the PS4 Pro because it's raw computational power is about the same as the jump from PS4 to PS4 Pro. In addition, that power is mostly going to be taken up by resolution and framerate increases, so less is left over for more complex visuals. Besides, I suspect we're well into the diminishing returns curve with respect to visuals. Graphics are now very lifelike and to take them from "almost live action" to "indistinguishable from live action" may take vastly more computational and artistic resources then we maybe getting for the next 5 console generations.
  - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
    > that power is mostly going to be taken up by resolution and framerate increases, so less is left over for more complex visuals Personally I doubt this. Previously, when game studios have been given the choice between high framerates, high resolution, or better effects, they've favoured better effects. The PS3 was capable of 1080p/60fps, but most games were at 720p/30fps. VR might shake things up here, as a very high framerate is a hard requirement, but I think VR will remain a niche. > more computational and artistic resources I think it's the latter that really matters. The difficulty of coding an engine to take advantage of fancy hardware (cutting-edge graphical effects, physics, etc), can be at least partly addressed by licensing an existing engine. This doesn't apply to game-specific assets though. If it takes double the art budget (compared to the previous generation) to produce the best looking game possible, many games will wisely choose not to bother. As for the next 5 generations, perhaps the necessary investment in game assets might eventually come down as tooling improves. Improving horsepower ramps up the ceiling on game asset quality, but improving artwork tools will make it easier/cheaper to reach a given level. Overall though I think we should probably expect game development prices to continually increase, following the long trend over the years.
haunter 6y ago
Really torn between the X and the PS5 and which one to get. The Gamepass is incredible value and PS5 will have $70 exclusives. But yeah those exclusives are really really good.
- ucha 6y ago
  Is the gamepass incredible value? If you keep the console 7 years which is about its expected lifetime, would you expect to spend $840 in games?
  - haunter 6y ago
    >would you expect to spend $840 in games If you get the PS5 then... yes. That will be just 12 games on release and thinking back I bought much more on PS4 I mean you buy 3 games a year on release that will be $210 on PS5. Of course you can wait for sales and such but still, Gamepass is an incredible value no matter what. And they are also combining it with EA Play
    - ucha 6y ago
      Interesting... I didn't expect people to spend that much on games as I do sometimes wait for sales or buy used, and even sell back back disc games I'm done with.
  - Kipters 6y ago
    In my case, yes
  - falcor84 6y ago
    $840 gives you just 12 full priced games over that period, while game pass gives you over 200 games at any point in time, including all first party titles
  - awinder 6y ago
    This is an interesting way of looking at it, but couple of numbers jump out: 1. Average next gen console purchase estimated coming with 3 games, which would put you at a 50% discount at year one. That’s a big discount to amortize over the rest of the years. 2. PS4 had a software attach rate at 10 games per console. That’s in the neighborhood at least. For me it’s worth it because I don’t have to weigh an economic decision. I just download the game and figure out if I do like it and want to continue. So it’s a complex product to evaluate for sure. I also have to rerun my math because $5/month on pc was absolutely a no-brainer.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bluetidepro 6y ago
> 667GB of usable storage doesn't go as far as you might like. Wow, WHAT?! It has a 825GB NVMe, so that means the OS/system default is ~158gb. That seems super high to me. Considering when you think of the size of MacOS or Windows 10, that seems like a very poor optimization on their end. Especially when you consider most triple A titles these days are getting upwards of 200gb (looking at you, latest Call of Duty games). You think they would have optimized the system and OS files a ton more to get it down to at least 50gb or less. But that could just be a bad personal take, someone technical please correct me if that ~158gb is justified somehow... UPDATE: I get that it's not just PURELY OS size probably, but even ~158gb seems incredibly large RESERVED space compared to your average computer for the system to need. It still smells like poor optimization on the developer end to me.
- awinder 6y ago
  It’s not all operating system. Space reserved to avoid ssd performance degradation on full drives, keeping it open for future software updates, cache etc.
- freefal 6y ago
  It could be that 825GB is the typical marketing GB (i.e., 1000^3) and the 667GB is the OS reported GB (i.e., 1024^3). That difference only reduces the 825 "marketing" GB to 768 "real" GB. So still a 100GB of OS/system files, which seems large, as you say.
  - akhosravian 6y ago
    giga- (along with kilo-, mega-, peta- and every other prefix we've ever used with bytes) in any other context is based on powers of 10. Just because computers are based on binary doesn't mean it was ever a good idea to redefine the meaning of those prefixes.
- fabian2k 6y ago
  I'd guess this is more like "space reserved for system purposes" than OS size alone. You need space to upgrade OS components, probably space for the hibernate-like feature of consoles and a bunch of other stuff I don't know about. They also can't easily increase the amount of storage for the system, but they can decrease it in the future. So they might include a bit of buffer they don't use yet.
rasz 6y ago
Ars review: "Not just a more-powerful PS4" Reality: "just faster PS4" ~3x faster CPU, ~2.5x faster GPU, 10-100x faster storage. PS4 games finally run at speeds they were intended to run, speeds PC players always enjoyed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKQ6NeTjccA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKQ6NeTjccA
- pier25 6y ago
  Indeed. RDR2 for example runs like crap on the PS4 (non pro).
- musicale 6y ago
  The PS5 adds ray tracing, which was not present in the PS4. This is the largest graphical upgrade and it's pretty obvious when you look at the reflections in the PS5 screen shots. Also open world streaming that eliminates zoning in games is different from just having faster load screens. Joy-con like haptics, 3D audio, quieter fans, chat without headset are a few other non-speed changes vs. PS4. Activity cards may be the biggest UI change.

62 points by evo_9 6y ago

Really interested to see some of the choices Sony has made trickle out into other applications. This is the first time in a long time in video games I’ve seen some risk-taking that could revolutionize the industry.

capableweb 6y ago
The articled submitted here seems to say it's not "risk-taking that could revolutionize the industry" but rather "hard to wholeheartedly recommend spending $500 for feature upgrades that are more pleasant than transformative" I'm with the latter. Cool incremental upgrade, but not transformative for gaming.

m3kw9 6y ago

The SSD speed was always going to be the game changer, it’s more than just load times, which is already huge in helping the game play experience. It’s the type of yet imaginable game play allowed when you can load textures and game data in realtime.

capableweb 6y ago
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person who don't like this new "stream textures as it becomes required" instead of loading screens. It's very disruptive to the illusion of video games when textures change on the fly as you interact with the game. I just wish it could be configurable instead of assuming it's always best to stream textures from disk on the fly, instead of upfront loading of them.
- polytely 6y ago
  Well that seems to be more of a problem of current gen hardware not being able to keep up with the requirements of the game. I hope that the ps5 and xbox series x(?)(microsofts naming scheme keeps confusing me) faster memory will make it so that you won't see them loading in anymore. I can imagine this immersion breaking effect was one of the reasons they both went in this direction with the development of the new consoles.
  - bobbob1921 6y ago
    I agree that the name Microsoft chose for this new Xbox is a bit ridiculous. So they have the current gen- Xbox X, and the new GEN is called the “Xbox series X“ (I’m not a big gamer so I may have that wrong)
- gruez 6y ago
  >Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person who don't like this new "stream textures as it becomes required" instead of loading screens But we're talking get rid of loading screens, what you described would only occur in the first few seconds of the game. It's hardly immersion breaking. If we're talking about the general problem of pop-ins (ie. during normal gameplay), loading screens aren't better either, as you would see jarring loading screens as you move through the game world.
- mappu 6y ago
  Mipmaps aside - I remember texture pop-in being a common complaint for the original RAGE (and being one of the complainers). But i replayed it recently on a regular SSD and the effect was barely noticeable at all. So i'm confident that an NVMe disk with direct GPU DMA will really make this a non-issue.

0-_-0 6y ago

Besides standardising NVME storage for games to rely on, I'm the most excited about SONY's HRTF [1] implementation for the PS5 [2]. It's something I've been waiting for years for someone to implement for computer games, and it could be a game changer for audio. Listen to this [3] with good headphones to see (well, hear) what I'm talking about, better with higher volume. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-related_transfer_function https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-related_transfer_function [2] https://youtu.be/sSmWIR-D6ro?t=2526 https://youtu.be/sSmWIR-D6ro?t=2526 [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYdIidUIbAs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYdIidUIbAs

kevincox 6y ago
I might have missed something but they say the HRTF is unique per-person. They mention collecting the pattern from one person using specialized equipment but then just straight to "using an HRTF". How does this apply to a consumer console like the PS5? Are they going to sample a lot of people and use some sort of average? Or is there some way to define it per-listener?
- jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
  While HRTFs are unique per person, there's still a lot of similarity. You can use a "one size fits all" HRTF and still get quite good results, and a small menu of options is essentially sufficient.
  - pastrami_panda 6y ago
    Exactly, interestingly I remember Michael Abrash recounting when he was demoed personalized HRTF for the first time. They put headphones on him and sat him in a chair. A person started walking around him in circles holding a small speaker. But it was obviously a trick, the sound didn't come from the speaker but the headphones - but according to his account it was indistinguishable from the real thing. He was astounded when the person walking around him stopped but the audio remained circling around him. Personalized HRTF is a game changer.
- 6y ago

MaxBarraclough 6y ago

> Graphical improvement over the PS4 doesn't have the "wow factor" you migth expect. In the machine's defence, I imagine game-engines will evolve to make much better use of the available hardware, especially regarding raytracing. In previous generations, games released late in a console's lifecycle are often visually significantly better than games released early in the lifecycle.

dougmwne 6y ago
Another (crude) way to look at this in the improvement in megaflops from one generation to the next. Console Tflops Mflops Impv vs. prv gen ps 0.0001 100 ps2 0.0062 6,200 6200% ps3 0.23 230,000 3710% ps4 1.84 1,840,000 800% ps4p 4.2 4,200,000 228% ps5 10.28 10,280,000 245% So it should not be surprising that this new console doesn't look dramatically better than the PS4 Pro because it's raw computational power is about the same as the jump from PS4 to PS4 Pro. In addition, that power is mostly going to be taken up by resolution and framerate increases, so less is left over for more complex visuals. Besides, I suspect we're well into the diminishing returns curve with respect to visuals. Graphics are now very lifelike and to take them from "almost live action" to "indistinguishable from live action" may take vastly more computational and artistic resources then we maybe getting for the next 5 console generations.
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago
  > that power is mostly going to be taken up by resolution and framerate increases, so less is left over for more complex visuals Personally I doubt this. Previously, when game studios have been given the choice between high framerates, high resolution, or better effects, they've favoured better effects. The PS3 was capable of 1080p/60fps, but most games were at 720p/30fps. VR might shake things up here, as a very high framerate is a hard requirement, but I think VR will remain a niche. > more computational and artistic resources I think it's the latter that really matters. The difficulty of coding an engine to take advantage of fancy hardware (cutting-edge graphical effects, physics, etc), can be at least partly addressed by licensing an existing engine. This doesn't apply to game-specific assets though. If it takes double the art budget (compared to the previous generation) to produce the best looking game possible, many games will wisely choose not to bother. As for the next 5 generations, perhaps the necessary investment in game assets might eventually come down as tooling improves. Improving horsepower ramps up the ceiling on game asset quality, but improving artwork tools will make it easier/cheaper to reach a given level. Overall though I think we should probably expect game development prices to continually increase, following the long trend over the years.

haunter 6y ago

Really torn between the X and the PS5 and which one to get. The Gamepass is incredible value and PS5 will have $70 exclusives. But yeah those exclusives are really really good.

ucha 6y ago
Is the gamepass incredible value? If you keep the console 7 years which is about its expected lifetime, would you expect to spend $840 in games?
- haunter 6y ago
  >would you expect to spend $840 in games If you get the PS5 then... yes. That will be just 12 games on release and thinking back I bought much more on PS4 I mean you buy 3 games a year on release that will be $210 on PS5. Of course you can wait for sales and such but still, Gamepass is an incredible value no matter what. And they are also combining it with EA Play
  - ucha 6y ago
    Interesting... I didn't expect people to spend that much on games as I do sometimes wait for sales or buy used, and even sell back back disc games I'm done with.
- Kipters 6y ago
  In my case, yes
- falcor84 6y ago
  $840 gives you just 12 full priced games over that period, while game pass gives you over 200 games at any point in time, including all first party titles
- awinder 6y ago
  This is an interesting way of looking at it, but couple of numbers jump out: 1. Average next gen console purchase estimated coming with 3 games, which would put you at a 50% discount at year one. That’s a big discount to amortize over the rest of the years. 2. PS4 had a software attach rate at 10 games per console. That’s in the neighborhood at least. For me it’s worth it because I don’t have to weigh an economic decision. I just download the game and figure out if I do like it and want to continue. So it’s a complex product to evaluate for sure. I also have to rerun my math because $5/month on pc was absolutely a no-brainer.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

bluetidepro 6y ago

> 667GB of usable storage doesn't go as far as you might like. Wow, WHAT?! It has a 825GB NVMe, so that means the OS/system default is ~158gb. That seems super high to me. Considering when you think of the size of MacOS or Windows 10, that seems like a very poor optimization on their end. Especially when you consider most triple A titles these days are getting upwards of 200gb (looking at you, latest Call of Duty games). You think they would have optimized the system and OS files a ton more to get it down to at least 50gb or less. But that could just be a bad personal take, someone technical please correct me if that ~158gb is justified somehow... UPDATE: I get that it's not just PURELY OS size probably, but even ~158gb seems incredibly large RESERVED space compared to your average computer for the system to need. It still smells like poor optimization on the developer end to me.

awinder 6y ago
It’s not all operating system. Space reserved to avoid ssd performance degradation on full drives, keeping it open for future software updates, cache etc.
freefal 6y ago
It could be that 825GB is the typical marketing GB (i.e., 1000^3) and the 667GB is the OS reported GB (i.e., 1024^3). That difference only reduces the 825 "marketing" GB to 768 "real" GB. So still a 100GB of OS/system files, which seems large, as you say.
- akhosravian 6y ago
  giga- (along with kilo-, mega-, peta- and every other prefix we've ever used with bytes) in any other context is based on powers of 10. Just because computers are based on binary doesn't mean it was ever a good idea to redefine the meaning of those prefixes.
fabian2k 6y ago
I'd guess this is more like "space reserved for system purposes" than OS size alone. You need space to upgrade OS components, probably space for the hibernate-like feature of consoles and a bunch of other stuff I don't know about. They also can't easily increase the amount of storage for the system, but they can decrease it in the future. So they might include a bit of buffer they don't use yet.

rasz 6y ago

Ars review: "Not just a more-powerful PS4" Reality: "just faster PS4" ~3x faster CPU, ~2.5x faster GPU, 10-100x faster storage. PS4 games finally run at speeds they were intended to run, speeds PC players always enjoyed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKQ6NeTjccA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKQ6NeTjccA

pier25 6y ago
Indeed. RDR2 for example runs like crap on the PS4 (non pro).
musicale 6y ago
The PS5 adds ray tracing, which was not present in the PS4. This is the largest graphical upgrade and it's pretty obvious when you look at the reflections in the PS5 screen shots. Also open world streaming that eliminates zoning in games is different from just having faster load screens. Joy-con like haptics, 3D audio, quieter fans, chat without headset are a few other non-speed changes vs. PS4. Activity cards may be the biggest UI change.