Support NeoGAF

[FiggyCal]

Funny, because I felt the PS4 was underpowered from the start.

I mean, the fact that its CPU is blatantly inferior to my i5 2500k which is running on close to seven years old at this point was never a great selling point.

That being said, the games are certainly holding up better this time around, it's true. And I'd chalk that up to a superior knowledge base when it comes to graphics technology, especially thanks to the advent of PBR.

That doesn't mean the console ain't underpowered, though. (And he's talking about all consoles, BTW, not just the PS4 specifically.)

Congrats btw. It sounds like you spend a lot more money on videogames and computers than the vast majority of people alive care to.

 

[peakish]

Gotta say that I don't like this type of quote mining threads. It's an off-hand comment in a longer interview. Is it really important enough to single out for a thread?

E: I mean, even reading the context it doesn't seem like Fares is making a big point or anything, just reflecting loosely about development.

 

[Aztechnology]

Also five years. It just got a CPU overclock and a higher-grade GPU.

The GPU is arguably two years or so, given the AMD 470 ~= Nvidia 970, and the GPU inside the Pro is down clocked, and better effeciency. But the CPU, yea it's got some years

 

[barybll]

Hardware being underpowered never seemed to hold nintendo games from being good

 

[Mohasus]

I really like the irony of people defending the PS4 now but complaining about cross-gen games a few years ago.

Just look at what happens when a 3DS game is announced.

 

[Aztechnology]

Gotta say that I don't like this type of quote mining threads. It's an off-hand comment in a longer interview. Is it really important enough to single out for a thread?

Nope. And I don't help these threads either. I just look at them as an attempt to dispell some misconceptions before they're closed down.

 

[Caronte]

That's because of ballooning budgets and scope creep. Bloody everything has to be open-world in this day and age, which automatically results in much longer dev times as the sheer amount of content is far larger than older mid-budget games.

That plus the incessant desire for more and more detailed game worlds, including more incidental objects to populate those worlds with (just compare, for example, a modern Assassin's Creed game to the first Assassin's Creed), are huge contributors to the massive dev times involved in modern video games. The fact that technology is allowing this to happen is orthogonal to the developers' ambitions to realize these facets.

If we had enough technological power to realize full real-time path tracing the dev times would be almost entirely unchanged, but they would look much, much better graphically. Obviously, we don't have that power right now, but don't expect dev times to get any longer than they already have - unless a dev is shooting for something really ambitious.

I really hope you're right.

 

[IdreamofHIME]

Make your game for pc only then.

 

[Toki767]

"Like a 5 year old PC" is honestly not bad for a 4 year old machine...

 

[Papacheeks]

Oh, are we at that point of the generation already? Can't wait for Kinthalis and Alexandros to come back on alt accounts.

There is no such thing as "holding back", when will people realize this?

That Alexandros guy was a asshat when it came to talk about console architecture vs pc.

 

[Dictator93]

Dont those games run on pcs weaker than the consoles?

They require both single and multithreaded performance generally beyond what the consoles put out AFAIK.

Also total war and coh/dow arent very optimized titles and probably have lots of room for improvement, especially with the lack of overhead on console

They seem rather optimised from what I have played over every Total War and COH / DOW game. *shrugs* Total War games you generally just kinda accept that the highest settings mean below 60fps on almost every PC out there. I do not think the lack of overhead on consoles can spare them the pain of highly intensive single threaded performance. Some things like AI really cannot be super parallelised...

 

[thepenguin55]

Are people shocked by this? The PS4 & X1 were both coming in way under powered when they launched.

 

[nycgamer4ever]

in a world of 144hz, 30fps is nowhere near smooth

I game on pc anywhere between 60fps to 120fps. Have absolutely no problems enjoying Horizon or Uncharted 4. Pretty smooth to me.

 

[TheSpecialOne]

Honestly, the comment by the dev is what I'd classify as a joke post. They were given more power and they're giving us better looking versions of ps360 games. PS2->Ps360 marked a paradigm shift but PS360->PS4one has been a mere iteration if that.

Assassin's Creed is the poster child of the stagnation that's been occurring.

There has been serious stagnation in the ai department(more about skill than power) especially in the sports and fps genres. Devs always ask for more power and very few use it wisely. Look at the ARK devs who's game barely runs at 1080p 60fps on a GTX 1080ti. Embarrassing misuse of computational resources. More power doesn't not necessarily mean more innovation.

I'm still waiting for the vast majority of games to deliver experiences that don't feel like games that could be done on the ps360.

Finally, those counting frames and pixels are just jokers. As someone who games on PC, I've come to realize that the most popular games on pc require very little power to run and the most demanding games are usually console ports. There are a few exceptions to this like Star Citizen but I don't consider a console port and a higher resolution and framerate to be a "game changing" experience.

 

[Clear]

Hardware being underpowered never seemed to hold nintendo games from being good

Ding. Thread winning quote right here.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Hardware being underpowered never seemed to hold nintendo games from being good

Pretty much my thoughts. I feel like a lot of devs like to use hardware as an excuse when the reality is we would absolutely be getting the same games if hardware on consoles was nicer right now, they'd just be a bit prettier

 

[nycgamer4ever]

My point was that such comparisons are pretty pointless when looking at the games as a whole. Witcher will some things better while Horizon will do other things better. I too think that Horizon looks great, but that speaks more about the resources and talent of the studio and not about the hardware itself.

This I agree with. I've been saying it's more about the budget, resource and the developer skill level than it is about power.

 

[Papacheeks]

Are people shocked by this? The PS4 & X1 were both coming in way under powered when they launched.

Cpu wise maybe, but not PS4 when looking at GDDR5 ram, and GPU ability.

A GTX 760 back in 2013 was like 2.4 TF. The PS4 was 1.84 TF.

So not bad for the time it came out. The CPU was what was killing it the most.

 

[Ploid 3.0]

A ha! Now're we're getting to the bototm fo this.

AMD's CPU is what's holding us back. And who own's AMD? A bunch of investors, many of whom are probably asian! And who are these asian investors? Probably just rich business people, but some might be puppets for the North Korean Regime!

Kim-Jong-Un is holding back gaming people! Open your eyes!

Oh my god, what the heck hahah.

 

[nycgamer4ever]

Honestly, the comment by the dev is what I'd classify as a joke post. They were given more power and they're giving us better looking versions of ps360 games. PS2->Ps360 marked a paradigm shift but PS360->PS4one has been a mere iteration if that.

Assassin's Creed is the poster child of the stagnation that's been occuring.

There has been serious stagnation in the ai department(more about skill than power) especially in the sports and fps genres. Devs always ask for more power and very few use it wisely. Look at the ARK devs who's game barely runs at 1080p 60fps on a GTX 1080ti. Embarrassing misuse of computational resources. More power doesn't not necessarily mean more innovation.

I'm still waiting for the vast majority of games to deliver experiences that don't feel like games that could be done on the ps360.

The last time I looked I didn't think Ark looked all that great. I can't believe it's not running at 4k 60fps on that card.

 

[Aztechnology]

Hardware being underpowered never seemed to hold nintendo games from being good

Console games outside exclusives are usually designed for agnosticism in mind to some degree.they have to be playable on multiple devices, and hold up. Nintendo games are always designed specifically for Nintendo and with their limitations in mind.

Also personally there's many game I chose not to play on Nintendo hardware. Not because I'd say I'm a graphics snob, just that they were too poor and far behind. I love games like Fire Emblem on 3DS for instance, given it's limited controls, graphics and display it's a good fit. However something like Monster Hunter, I just couldn't really stomach on 3DS. Even though I wanted to play it. It made my eyes bleed having to play a few inches from the screen and the resolution was just so poor. If it had been like the Switch and allowed output to a TV I probably would have been more likely, but it still was just ugly and reminded me how much I wanted it on a device that could really free the game from it's limitations.

It never stopped them from being good sure, but I could never stop thinking about how I'd really like to see the games on a more powerful platform.

 

[Laiza]

Congrats btw. It sounds like you spend a lot more money on videogames and computers than the vast majority of people alive care to.

I do, yeah. I won't even deny it. Hell, I bought a 1080 Ti because the two 970s I had weren't cutting the mustard for me anymore.

I wish I weren't such a rarity a lot of the time, but I do the best with what I've got regardless. It's not like I have any shortage of games that really test my PC's mettle.

The GPU is arguably two years or so, given the AMD 470 ~= Nvidia 970, and the GPU inside the Pro is down clocked, and better effeciency. But the CPU, yea it's got some years

Sounds about right, yeah. Hopefully we won't be talking about the next generation in these terms. Heh.

I really hope you're right.

I mean, look at what happened to Mass Effect Andromeda - they spent, what, two years just experimenting with stuff that ultimately didn't pan out? I imagine most big AAA game studios have at least some of that going on, assuming they're not like Naughty Dog where all they care about is doing the exact same thing a little bit better.

Wouldn't surprise me if dev times actually shorten a bit in the future as tools and pipelines improve and people really settle into their grooves. Automation is also going to be a contributor (but not a major one for some time yet).

There's really no curtailing ambition when faced with nearly limitless funding, though. It's just too easy for ambitious directors and producers to go hog-wild when they feel invincible.

 

[SnakeEyes]

"Like a 5 year old PC" is honestly not bad for a 4 year old machine...

^^^

Toki's got a point here...

 

[rodrigolfp]

The PS4 in itself isn't holding anyone back, money is what's holding developers back.

Money both in terms of what developers can actually afford to make in terms of graphics and asset quality, and money in terms of what manufacturers can actually sell at an affordable price.

you know what, thats the absolutely truth. not having enough money is always the problem

 

[potatohead]

Cpu wise maybe, but not PS4 when looking at GDDR5 ram, and GPU ability.

A GTX 760 back in 2013 was like 2.4 TF. The PS4 was 1.84 TF.

So not bad for the time it came out. The CPU was what was killing it the most.

The 760 only had 2 gb vram compared to 8 gb unified gddr5 for ps4 also

And yes money for development is even more an issue than performance will be asset creation especially non algorithm type will continue to rise with increased expectation and increased fidelity

 

[Shane89]

No

 

[hesido]

That's because of ballooning budgets and scope creep. Bloody everything has to be open-world in this day and age, which automatically results in much longer dev times as the sheer amount of content is far larger than older mid-budget games.

That plus the incessant desire for more and more detailed game worlds, including more incidental objects to populate those worlds with (just compare, for example, a modern Assassin's Creed game to the first Assassin's Creed), are huge contributors to the massive dev times involved in modern video games. The fact that technology is allowing this to happen is orthogonal to the developers' ambitions to realize these facets.

If we had enough technological power to realize full real-time path tracing the dev times would be almost entirely unchanged, but they would look much, much better graphically. Obviously, we don't have that power right now, but don't expect dev times to get any longer than they already have - unless a dev is shooting for something really ambitious.

I too think we're way past the "more power > more things 'needed' to populate > longer dev times" era.

Most content is now produced using billion polys and very high detail texture work, which is then applied on a lower poly model. That workflow is now the standard and unlikely to change with more hardware power. The widening of scope is what is making things longer to develop.

 

[rayman1900]

Somehow it seems that this thread was made to trigger a war between Sony fanboys and PC mustard race. GG OP!

 

[ValfarHL]

Woot, show me a pc game with the animation, production value and fidelity of for example Uncharted 4. Graphics is about more than pixels and framerates.

 

[rodrigolfp]

I game on pc anywhere between 60fps to 120fps. Have absolutely no problems enjoying Horizon or Uncharted 4. Pretty smooth to me.

enjoying is one thing, being really smooth is another, especially if they need to blury things (motion blur) to achieve this "smoothness". plus the input lag of 30fps + vsync

 

[nycgamer4ever]

You may or may not be ignoring entire genres of games :X

Larger release RTS specifically in its current form on PC could not be possible on consoles given their heavy CPU performance requirements: Total War, Dawn of War, COH2, Ashes... etc.

Lot's of AI, lots of objects, lot's of animations.

Any game is doable on console it's just a matter of compromising and optimizing. Skyrim is coming out on the Switch.

 

[Evolution of Metal]

Arma III is the only game which is held back by the console hardware, but the PC trends are obvious: 99% players are going to play the same games where high-end AAA games are selling poorly on PC. We don't even need to go into arguments that most demanding games aren't doing anything more elaborate design wise and in many cases, underpowered hardware fosters creativity in design like Nintendo games.

Both LoL and Minecraft, the most popular PC games can also run on potatoes.

 

[Laiza]

you know what, thats the absolutely truth. not having enough money is always the problem

Talent is also an issue, especially with the amount of churn the games industry has. No amount of money can make up for just not having the right people for the job.

Any game is doable on console it's just a matter of compromising and optimizing. Skyrim is coming out on the Switch.

"Optimizing" in a game like Ashes of the Singularity's case would be compromising on the number of units and projectiles onscreen at any one point in time. At that point you're getting a literally inferior experience, defeating the purpose.

 

[nycgamer4ever]

enjoying is one thing, being really smooth is another, especially if they need blurry things (motion blur) to achieve this "smoothness". plus the input lag of 30fps + vsync

As long as there is no fluctuation in the framerate and no screen tear then it will be smooth. Any drops however and that is out the window. Thank goodness both games are pretty consistent. Input lat is another story. Clearly the pc is superior there. I'm not saying a higher framerate isn't better. I just don't think a locked 30 fps is shit/unplayable as some make it seem.

 

[geordiemp]

Hardware being underpowered never seemed to hold nintendo games from being good

Depends on what you like, but at 720p (GPU) and look how empty BOTW was with 3-5 spawning enemies (CPU), that is not good looking or good enemy AI density for me in 2017.

If anybody else had 2D models which disappeared when the 3D models came in they would of been crucified on GAF, but its OK because its Mario, but imagine if that was Ubisoft....

Some fans dont care, but many do appreciate IQ and dense worlds and more believable animations.

Bioware said Frosbite struggled with 8 AI enemies in ME3 in the SP, this gen devs have had to do lots of tricks to make them look fake populated.

 

[HiredN00bs]

I'm okay with buying either a PlayStation 5 in November 2018. Sony needs to stay hungry, though.

 

[120v]

every generation has to serve some outdated baseline at some point (outside of PC exclusives). and yeah it eventually becomes an anchor.

i don't think anybody would be privy to paying $600 for a console in 2013 so there's pretty much no way around this until consoles become obsolete, or there's some iterative model with the audacity to cut off support of past models at a certain point

 

[Aaronrules380]

Depends on what you like, but at 720p (GPU) and look how empty BOTW was with 3-5 spawning enemies (CPU), that is not good looking or good enemy AI density for me in 2017.

Bioware said Frosbite struggled with 8 AI enemies in ME3 in the SP, this gen devs have had to do lots of tricks to make them look fake populated.

And yet none of this has stopped the vast majority of players from loving and enjoying BotW far more than most games with much higher enemy density

The point is that design absolutely trumps technical prowess in making a game good. Devs like to act like they can't work on new and innovative ideas without better tech, and yet some of the most innovative and creative games coming out are indie games that could run on decade old hardware.

 

[nycgamer4ever]

Well gotta go gaf brethens. Duty calls. Good debate. TTYL.

 

[Anticol]

PC is essentially the same thing. The more interest in PC, and the more users, the more they will care too.



Because some level of parity is a good thing, and necessary. Consoles aren't going anywhere obviously, but given the shriking costs and rising capability of even lower end gaming machines now it's important they try to keep up to some degree. Like has been said in here numerous times, the CPU is really holding these new machines back, so the choice to keep the jaguar CPU's seems baffling, considering the alternatives. Do they have a valid reason to hold the CPU back? Would consumers be ok shouldering a small increase in cost for the higher end machines like Pro and XboneX? We can't know because it was never presented as a choice for consumers. On PC they can make that decision, on console it's made of us. Like with the PS4 UHD HDR Blu-ray example I gave earlier. It was a decision arbitrarily made for us. I would have been happy to pay an extra $8-10 or even $20 for it.

M8 I a with you, I have a ps4 pro and a pretty decent pc but I still prefer to play on console. I am just confused why this developer is complaining when he can choose what to develop for, if you wanna be as creative as you want go for it, who cares what the publisher says just find another or find a way but stop fkn complaining is not like someone is pointing a gun to his head in order to get this game on consoles.

This guy comes as a huge dbag.

 

[Dictator93]

Any game is doable on console it's just a matter of compromising and optimizing. Skyrim is coming out on the Switch.

Of course you can hack off large bits and pieces to downsize a port to make it possible (hello tons of historical console points of classic PC games!). That is why I said this

"Larger release RTS specifically in its current form"

I would not consider making a game have less units playable on field or something anything other than a compromised port.

Heck, it is not just RTS games if you thinhk about it. Games like Doom 2016 balanced the game design in the form of something like Snap Map around console CPUs... hence how it allows such pathetic object and enemy unit limits. And since Bethesda is silly, these arbitrary limits are on the PC version... for some reason.

 

[Q8D3vil]

i wish Sony start allowing VR games to be released exclusively on pro.
I think normal games can be released on ps4 since they only need to run at something like 15-20 fps (lol) and on a higher frame on pro, but VR games need to run at a high stable fps to work and avoid motion sickness.

 

[rodrigolfp]

Talent is also an issue, especially with the amount of churn the games industry has. No amount of money can make up for just not having the right people for the job.


"Optimizing" in a game like Ashes of the Singularity's case would be compromising on the number of units and projectiles onscreen at any one point in time. At that point you're getting a literally inferior experience, defeating the purpose.

agreed. actually talent is the first of the problems. talent->money->hardware

 

[Caronte]

I mean, look at what happened to Mass Effect Andromeda - they spent, what, two years just experimenting with stuff that ultimately didn't pan out? I imagine most big AAA game studios have at least some of that going on, assuming they're not like Naughty Dog where all they care about is doing the exact same thing a little bit better.

Wouldn't surprise me if dev times actually shorten a bit in the future as tools and pipelines improve and people really settle into their grooves. Automation is also going to be a contributor (but not a major one for some time yet).

There's really no curtailing ambition when faced with nearly limitless funding, though. It's just too easy for ambitious directors and producers to go hog-wild when they feel invincible.

To be honest, people make fun of Ubisoft sometimes for how many people work on their games but I think they do a pretty good job keeping their teams focused, and they don't seem to have problems with their engines. They pump out games consistently and nothing disastrous has happened yet to them like for other studios (BioWare, Square, Capcom...).

Hopefully tools improve as you say (and all studios get their management problems sorted out) and things get better with time.

 

[geordiemp]

And yet none of this has stopped the vast majority of players from loving and enjoying BotW far more than most games with much higher enemy density

The point is that design absolutely trumps technical prowess in making a game good. Devs like to act like they can't work on new and innovative ideas without better tech, and yet some of the most innovative and creative games coming out are indie games that could run on decade old hardware.

Sure Nintendo fans love Zelda, maybe at something like 4 million now, you cant project that onto 'most players'. GTA 5 is what, 85 million ?

If UBI did agame with no map I am sure reactions would be different, you know that really dont you.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Sure Nintendo fans love Zelda, maybe at something like 4 million now, you cant project that onto 'most players'. GTA 5 is what, 85 million ?

I mean, Zelda is also only available on an extremely limited supply new console and the wii u which was a failure. And sales don't define quality. And GTAV is hardly a new or cutting edge game either at this point

 

[gafneo]

If PS4 is holding PC back, than why does a first party game like Horizon Zero Dawn make anything on PC look like an upscaled port of a gen 1 console game? Where is that one massive game like Crysis. Where is that one high profile PC exclusive that takes even the slightest bit of power from a single Titan X? If the answer is Black Desert or Arma 3, we got problems.

Truth be told, do we really want anything that surpasses the power we have now when a God of War in 4K takes up half the hard drive space? Also, what do companies want to do with all that power? Shadow of War fetch quest games with a 200 million dollar budget? Seems like the more power we get, the more static worlds we get. I'd rather play an HD ps1 game like Minecraft if it means more gameplay possibilities.

 

[rodrigolfp]

As long as there is no fluctuation in the framerate and no screen tear then it will be smooth. Any drops however and that is out the window. Thank goodness both games are pretty consistent. Input lat is another story. Clearly the pc is superior there. I'm not saying a higher framerate isn't better. I just don't think a locked 30 fps is shit/unplayable as some make it seem.

very far from unplayable. people who say that are been hyperbolic. or just nonsense

 

[CamHostage]

I guess I'm just curious what unique games I would be playing in a world without "PS4 holding us back" and from the examples I'm seeing I'm looking at games that primarily use keyboard+mouse and VR games. Power certainly plays a part in the latter but not the former.

Yeah, I'm reading through this thread, and I'm not finding much inspiration for a new generation leap besides cleaner graphics.

We missed out on Dynamic Global Illumination (which was originally showcased as this generation's breakthrough tech when UE4 was giving us our first glimpse of the next generation, but Epic apparently underestimated GI's demands; in the meantime, we've gotten other swipes at GI as well as various work-around methods.) Otherwise I'm not hearing lots of murmurs about awesome next-gen tech that we just couldn't dream of with our current boxes. VR is laying bare the limitations of our consoles, but most people don't want VR anyway and few VR experiences can afford to push technological boundaries with sales so thin and pricing so limited. Next-gen animation and deformation seem to be limited by sheer conceptualization of solutions rather than horsepower.

Is there technology on the horizon we should know about that will make these platforms seem obsolete? I feel like I've gone a generation and a half expecting the "next big thing" to come along, but so far, we've mostly gotten really good games and fairly solid engines improving upon what's already come before.

Why do people always ignore the fact low - mid end PCs hold high end PC back just as much as consoles do?

Right, we're in an era of scalable engines and a wide range of hardware expectations. Our future is in the middle of the high-end and low-end of the market, and unless something comes along that requires next-generation processors (so far VR has been the most clear indicator that we need what most homes don't have, but even that has tremendous range,) that's where things will stay. I can't even think of any arcade/entertainment installation experiences designed for bleeding-edge PC technology (and I'm including some of those VR experiences that are popping up in LA/NY/SF from Starbreeze and others.)

 

[Grief.exe]

It was technically outdated from the jump.