3 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- danbolt 6y ago
  Do the measurements for PS2/PS3 take into account their specialized hardware? Or the former's VU and the latter's Cell designs aren't really the same sort of thing as the PS1 or PS4.
- ksec 6y ago
  Wouldn't it be better if we look at PS4 vs PS5 rather than PS4 Pro which was more like PS4 with 4K. But in that case it is still only 5.6x.

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.
danbolt 6y ago
Do the measurements for PS2/PS3 take into account their specialized hardware? Or the former's VU and the latter's Cell designs aren't really the same sort of thing as the PS1 or PS4.
ksec 6y ago
Wouldn't it be better if we look at PS4 vs PS5 rather than PS4 Pro which was more like PS4 with 4K. But in that case it is still only 5.6x.