PCs will be the ideal platform for Sony devs over the PS5

[Deleted member 51]

I've always been under the impression that the same game on a capable PC, will 99.99% look and play better than on current Gen console, with the minor exception of a shitty port/dev. Many of the guys PC's in this thread are more than capable of consoles raw output and then some. It doesn't matter if we're in the top 25% of high end gamers, or top 1%. The facts still remain. Plus you can even configure a lower end card like a 3060 to get all the bells and whistles, and play at whatever optimized settings you want, to your liking.

I don't get why the "most pc gamers PC's are..." Card always gets brought up? You prefer what you like, let me prefer what I like. It's not a pissing contest that always needs to become "my console is better because I get exclusives, or my consoles sells better x,z,y more than on pc". There's a reason why I'll always stick with PC as my main gaming rig, cause I love playing ALL games, whether oldies, new games, indies, platformers, jrpg's, builders, VR, etc, and even the same ps5 AAA games from Sony people keep bringing up. Color me shocked .

 

[PropellerEar]

It's not false because there was no in-between hardware before in a console's lifecycle that was more powerful than the intro console. I'm not talking about why they did it but more so that they did.


PS4 Pro wasn't going to be a completely new architecture of course.

But that's what you said it was the games that had to have a mid-gen refresh, which still is nonsense.

 

[Deleted member 13]

But that's what you said it was the games that had to have a mid-gen refresh, which still is nonsense.

The games were cutting too many corners and the quality of the graphics was compromised.

If you think a mid-gen refresh wasn't required, then why would they do it after all these years?

 

[Kokoloko]

Whats the oldest/poopest spec PC developers have to cater to when they develop for PC. Or does it just depend on what the studio wants? For example are PC developers still making games for PC’s with 8gb Ram, normal HDD and a Nvidia 1050? For example

 

[Papacheeks]

From business perspective, it's not ideal. Sony earns more on Playstation platform.

They do when looking at availability of said title on multiple places to buy it like retail, on top of directly from their own online retail and digital store. But steam is so large that even with the cut valve is taking they are making a good 60-100Million off of their last couple releases.

Easy money. Once their storefront and dedicated PC application is done I forsee a lot of cross over that will bring in more money to Sony once they leverage PSN Cloud for PC. Imagine buying the game once, getting a PC version for Playstations PC app, and you could use your dual sense with all of its features with PSVR2?

To me its a win/win. They still make the hardware and sell the PS branded games/Perpherals but sell to even more people. Giving you the options to transfer you're saves. Imagine if you are stuck in a co-op game? Transfer over to your PC use discord and you can start where you left off and play with your friends still on PC.

Regardless if they are on Steam/PS app or PSN. Everyone wins, you get to sell Playstation hardware, and have choice.

 

[TubzGaming]

 

[SSfox]

Thanks god you don't work at Sony.

 

[Deleted member 13]

Whats the oldest/poopest spec PC developers have to cater to when they develop for PC. Or does it just depend on what the studio wants? For example are PC developers still making games for PC’s with 8gb Ram, normal HDD and a Nvidia 1050? For example

These days the graphics engine is extremely accomodating.

If a developer wants to implement Nanite for example. They would have that technique scale down or up according to graphics settings. They will always develop for the highest end tech across the board and scale down the demands of the technique.

Another example is textures. Create the highest resolution textures that may go beyond even the highest end GPUs like 4-8k textures and then allow a setting in graphics to scale down to the lower resolutions thereby saving on bandwidth for low end PC specs.

 

[PropellerEar]

The games were cutting too many corners and the quality of the graphics was compromised.

If you think a mid-gen refresh wasn't required, then why would they do it after all these years?

Why do you buy a new gfx card?
To play same old games with higher settings....

And you're fine with cutting corners on Image quality, aren't you loving those settings on Steam Deck?

 

[Hezekiah]

Whats the oldest/poopest spec PC developers have to cater to when they develop for PC. Or does it just depend on what the studio wants? For example are PC developers still making games for PC’s with 8gb Ram, normal HDD and a Nvidia 1050? For example

The most popular card on the Steam Survey is the 1060. Most people nowadays will have 16GB of RAM given that RAM is relatively cheap, and I imagine most will also have an SSD of some kind even if it's a sata.

Publishers are fully of this so in order to make big profits you need to cater toward these older/low-end cards - the vast majority of gamers simply aren't going to spend £600+ on a graphics card, therefore you need developers who have an engine that scales really well to high-end hardware.

However that generally isn't the case and a lot of games on PC aren't particularly well optimised.

 

[Deleted member 13]

Why do you buy a new gfx card?
To play same old games with higher settings....

I buy a new gfx card so that I have enough bandwidth to play ALL games past, present and (to a lesser extinct) future with maximum settings and maximum framerate.

And you're fine with cutting corners on Image quality, aren't you loving those settings on Steam Deck?

I'm not sure why you keep throwing my love for the SD into these discussions.

Viewing the game on an 800p screen whereby 1:1 framebuffer/screen pixel ratio is implemented (no upscaling BS), it does look very good. It's similar to playing a game on the Switch.

I don't hook up my SD to the TV and play games with an upscaler going from 800p to 4k. They would look like shit. Just like some games on the consoles running at 1080p and upscaling it to 4k.

 

[Deleted member 13]

The most popular card on the Steam Survey is the 1060. Most people nowadays will have 16GB of RAM given that RAM is relatively cheap, and I imagine most will also have an SSD of some kind even if it's a sata.

Publishers are fully of this so in order to make big profits you need to cater toward these older/low-end cards - the vast majority of gamers simply aren't going to spend £600+ on a graphics card, therefore you need developers who have an engine that scales really well to high-end hardware.

Unreal, Crytek, Capcom and idSoftware has very highly efficient graphics engines that scale really well.

However that generally isn't the case and a lot of games on PC aren't particularly well optimised.

I wouldn't say generally as that would include most games. You can't run on a GPU like a 1060 and judge it's performance relative to higher graphics settings and say it's not well optimized. Every multiplatform game engine is scalable from high-end to low-end since it covers across multiple hardware. A gaming company isn't going to create 512k x 512k textures for all platforms simply because they are concerned about 1060 GPUs not being performant with 4096 x 4096 textures.

 

[Alabtrosmyster]

Sony makes too much as a platform owner to risk moving their game's PC release too close to their consoles version. They need to keep that benefit, otherwise you end up with just another xbox.

Same goes for Nintendo, however I think that Nintendo is much more aware of this. Sony might take the change and make themselves irrelevant by doing so.

 

[PropellerEar]

I buy a new gfx card so that I have enough bandwidth to play ALL games past, present and (to a lesser extinct) future with maximum settings and maximum framerate.

So you love mid-gen refresh PC style, same old games with higher a settings.

I'm not sure why you keep throwing my love for the SD into these discussions.

Viewing the game on an 800p screen whereby 1:1 framebuffer/screen pixel ratio is implemented (no upscaling BS), it does look very good. It's similar to playing a game on the Switch.

I don't hook up my SD to the TV and play games with an upscaler going from 800p to 4k. They would look like shit. Just like some games on the consoles running at 1080p and upscaling it to 4k.

So cutting corners settings wise is ok for you. Gotcha!

 

[Deleted member 13]

So you love mid-gen refresh PC style, same old games with higher a settings.

??

So cutting corners settings wise is ok for you. Gotcha!

You have to have settings. Some people may like more features and don't mind 30FPS whereas others don't care about graphics features and would rather have the 60FPS.

 

[IntentionalPun]

People harping on the 1060 being the "most popular card" seem to be missing that it's still only ~6% of the users.

There are a significant amount of people with much better cards.. well above the 6% of users who have a 1060.

It's also just silly to point out because.. why in the world would I care, if I've got a 3080 TI?

 

[PropellerEar]

??

You said games required PS4 Pro, which still is complete nonsense.

You have to have settings. Some people may like more features and don't mind 30FPS whereas others don't care about graphics features and would rather have the 60FPS.

You don't mind 30fps.

 

[PropellerEar]

There are a significant amount of people with much better cards.. well above the 6% of users who have a 1060.

There is significant amount of users that have much worse cards than 1060 too.

 

[TubzGaming]

People harping on the 1060 being the "most popular card" seem to be missing that it's still only ~6% of the users.

There are a significant amount of people with much better cards.. well above the 6% of users who have a 1060.

It's also just silly to point out because.. why in the world would I care, if I've got a 3080 TI?

---

 

[Deleted member 13]

You said games required PS4 Pro, which still is complete nonsense.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. Sony/MS realized that their entry level consoles lacked the power needed to run games like developers anticipated.

Here's a link of what I'm talking about:

Original PS4 Receiving Games With Sub-Optimal Performance Due To NEO Is A Valid Concern – Developer

gamingbolt.com

The PS4 Pro had more bandwidth than the PS4 to run games at better settings. If there is a PS5 Pro, it will have more power and that will be why people will buy it. I'm not saying that none of the games running on the PS4 Pro can't run on a PS4.

You don't mind 30fps.

I don't mind 30FPS at all. I want more eye candy.


PS. Guys there shouldn't be hostility towards me concerning this thread. I'm stating that developers have more power at their fingertips and will take advantage of that -- Returnal is the first of such games.

They introduced ray-tracing options into the game that would not run on a PS5 at a reasonable FPS. This goes against what some people believe. And that belief is that developers would only take advantage of the lower end SKU leaving untapped potential of the higher end SKUs. Housemarque is , in fact, adding in features to the game that does indeed take advantage of high-end GPUs. I see this as the first of a trend and wouldn't be surprised if other 1st party studios do the same thing with their internal graphics engines. Why wouldn't they. They want their engines to be scalable too and they want to dabble in the latest tech for this generation --- ray tracing. Whether the PS5 can do it or not. That's the whole purpose for this thread.