The PS5 News and Info Thread



  • Lot of seeming confusion here.

    BOTH Series X/S and PS5 use SSD drives. The PS5's is faster, the Series X/S is a custom form factor. Both have their up and down-sides right now.
    BOTH will support bulk storage from USB drives, but neither will play next gen games from them, as even the slower/lower bandwidth SSD's in the Series X/S require more bandwidth than a USB cable can push. Anything you're connecting with a cable is going to bottleneck AT THE CABLE.

    The Series X/S one is custom form factor SSD that acts like a memory card. It will not generally lower in price over time, as there are limited production partners. It is essentially the Vita memory chip. (which was a custom form factor SD card) Right now there's only Seagate partner cards, but I would expect even other third party cards to be roughly the same price, as the cost of manufacturing the custom SSD's isn't really going to fall with the market.

    The PS5 uses a "standard" M.2 NVMe SSD that you will have to open the case and install into the empty memory card slot. As of RIGHT NOW, there are no officially approved SSD's that have enough bandwidth to run next gen games off of. Samsung's 980 Pro just came out and might be among the first to be approved, but it's not approved yet. As the cost of these "new" drives falls over time, it should be cheaper and cheaper to get drives for the PS5.

    Assuming the 980 Pro is the first approved SSD, at launch - the cost of 1TB upgrades of either system is going to be roughly $220.

    The cheapest way to keep a lot of games on disk is to get a USB drive, and just copy games back and forth onto the system drive as needed. That will be true for both consoles.



  • @el-shmiablo said in The PS5 News and Info Thread:

    That's the price of bleeding edge technology.

    i don't want or need bleeding edge technology. i just want fun games that run decent and don't cost shitloads of money. they even raised the $60 game price tag to something like $80 USD for PS5 and Xbox Series X games. what was wrong with how games ran on PS4 and Xbox One?!?!?

    PC is more bleeding edge than PS5 or Xbox will ever be anyway.



  • There isn't anything wrong with how games run on PS4 or Xbox One, but the advancements that these consoles bring to gaming will help both the developer and consumer.
    Ray tracing means that devs can spend less time worrying about how a game looks since the engines can just handle it themselves.
    Instant loading means less forced slow walking sections or crawling through narrow corridors to mask loading screens, which will change the way levels are designed and make them flow better.

    As for the prices, games have stayed the same price for many years. A price increase is actually kind of overdue considering how much more it costs to make games these days. We're kinda lucky games never adjusted to inflation until recently. Then again I usually never buy games until a year after release so this doesn't effect me all that much.

    I agree about PC, though I think it is also fair to point out that to build a PC that can reach the capabilities of a PS5 or XBox Series X costs significantly more than either. If it weren't for Sony's exclusives generally staying on the console I would probably ditch consoles altogether.



  • @el-shmiablo said in The PS5 News and Info Thread:

    There isn't anything wrong with how games run on PS4 or Xbox One, but the advancements that these consoles bring to gaming will help both the developer and consumer

    what advancements? i highly doubt that the gimmicky triggers the PS5 controller added makes a game like Spiderman ultimate require over over gigs of data.

    most of the money looks like it's been spent on making the games look slightly prettier than they were on PS4 and Xbox One.

    i only bought a PS5 because they will make PS5 exclusive games like Sackboy



  • @yoshi I literally explained what the advancements were in my post. I also explained why games cost more in that same post.
    You should really give it a read.



  • @el-shmiablo said in The PS5 News and Info Thread:

    As for the prices, games have stayed the same price for many years. A price increase is actually kind of overdue considering how much more it costs to make games these days. We're kinda lucky games never adjusted to inflation until recently. Then again I usually never buy games until a year after release so this doesn't effect me all that much.

    games look more cinematic 4K. the cost has gone up because they're spending more on making them look prettier. if they didn't work as much on making cutting edge graphics and focused more on a decent art style in HD then they wouldn't need to raise the price so much.



  • @yoshi As I already explained, games have hovered around the same price point for almost two decades, and never really adjusted with inflation. Budgets went up but the consumer still paid the same. That is why a lot of companies turned to other revenue streams, such as microtransactions and DLC, to help alleviate the massively increasing costs of production.

    Games could certainly focus on having a consistent art style, but for some games realism is the art style. I don't think The Last of Us would have had the same impact of you couldn't see the the jaw tendons of your character as their face is ripped open by a Clicker in painstaking detail.

    Either way, I welcome any advancements that help improve game development for developers and make games more convenient for gamers. Now instead checking my phone for a minute while I wait for Assassin's Creed to load I can just boot the game up and play instantly.

    I'm not even sure what the point you're trying to make is at this point, dude.
    Progress is bad?
    Technoligical advancement is unneeded in an industry that relies almost entirely on technology?
    Fill me in here dude.



  • @yoshi said in The PS5 News and Info Thread:

    games look more cinematic 4K. the cost has gone up because they're spending more on making them look prettier. if they didn't work as much on making cutting edge graphics and focused more on a decent art style in HD then they wouldn't need to raise the price so much.

    This isn't necessarily true. Games, pretty, ugly, or somewhere in the middle, need to spend at least 2 years in the oven cooking. Most game companies are in cities which, generally speaking, have high cost of living. It isn't like the entirety of development on God of War was making the 4K textures and that's what took it 5 years to make. You have to pay every employee a fair and competitive wage if they are going to work in AAA game development. Even a low end paying studio making a game for 12 months would cost millions of dollars if they had like 50-100 workers.

    High fidelity is a part of it, but not every game is The Last of Us using armies of contract workers to do rope physics and eye lighting. Even smaller scale projects cost a lot if the employees are paid fairly.

    EDIT:

    I also want to add that "less fidelity" does not necessarily equal less money. I speak from personal experience.

    More than once my studio has taken on animated projects with small budgets (say $500k) so we employ small teams to get it done. However, without a full time line producer or production manager hovering over the teams shoulder (something that the budget doesn't afford), then the production can run amuck with what was supposed to be a "limited" or "cartoony" art direction / style guide, now ends up having full blown posing, FX, and compositing.

    Essentially, the act of reducing costs money in itself. Somebody has to be consistently vigilant and say "OK this storyboard has too many poses, let's strip it down". So we paid for a board artist who submits an overdone board, then we pay a director or assistant director to now strip everything back, then an animation supervisor to pass that baton onto their team in hopes that they too keep everything dialed back. Let's assume some people are over animating. So now we have to get revisions to fix their work and spend more time training these people to stay on-style.

    It just as difficult to supervise employees to make sure they are staying on-style for this so called "decent art style" as it is to supervise employees making sure they stay on-style for a graphical powerhouse title. If anything in my experience, it's harder to keep people staying true to a certain style. We use black clean lines for props and characters in one show which means people we hire need to know how to keep drawings and character rigs as clean as possible, despite the cartoony art direction. You'd be surprised how much of a challenge it is.

    My whole point is that EVERYTHING costs time and money. It's such an oversimplification to say less graphical fidelity means less dollars spent.



  • A new trailer for Sackboy: A Big Adventure, with a bit more details about the game.

    Youtube Video

    Also, here's more screenshots for Demon's Souls. They just look so good man, I hope there's a photo mode or something, at least a disable UI option.



  • Whether or not the secular trend of increasing development budgets is due to graphics or not, it's fair to believe that money hasn't been in proportion to quality increases. And based just on qualities increases that I value, I would doubt that too (if quality has even gone up in certain areas).

    I can't confidently claim to know how profitable the gaming business is now compared to 2001 or something, but it seems to be more profitable than ever. This is much more relevant than inflation, although that doesn't also mean it isn't profitable to increase the base price this gen either. I imagine budgets have ("rightly") ballooned for so long because it is more profitable to do so. I'd even speculate they might become unprofitable if budgets increased too conservatively, given other market participants who are willing to outspend you on development.

    Funnily enough, it is rumored that the XSX is being sold at a 100 dollar loss, the PS5 is similar, and the XSS is being sold at a larger loss than that. Consoles are less profitable than ever.



  • @chocobop That is pretty par for the course though. Every console Sony and Microsoft have produced to date has been sold at a loss to start, and the money is recouped through game and accessory sales.



  • @dipset said in The PS5 News and Info Thread:

    My whole point is that EVERYTHING costs time and money. It's such an oversimplification to say less graphical fidelity means less dollars spent.

    It does.
    but somehow Nintendo is able to keep the cost of their games down still at $60 USD but Sony & Microsoft aren't able to for some reason.

    pretty sure Nintendo is considered the low tech company of the 3 and the Switch doesn't even try to have cutting edge graphics like the PS5 and Xbox Series X are trying to have.
    maybe it's because the tech they use is older and thus cheaper hence why they can continue just charging $60 USD and the others can't?....



  • @yoshi

    I mean, highly qualified people are expected to work for free in Japan so that might have something to do with it.



  • Nintendo games are also notoriously rarely on sale and don't depreciate over time. Breath of the Wild is still a $50-60 title everywhere. Horizon is like $20 with all the DLC.



  • You should really stop asking questions if all you're going to do is ignore the answers people are giving you.



  • @dipset said in The PS5 News and Info Thread:

    I mean, highly qualified people are expected to work for free in Japan so that might have something to do with it.

    Sony is also a Japanese Company. yet they still jacked up the price of their games despite the free work they would also get.



  • @tokyoslim Breath of the Wild has been on sale lots of times. it's base price is $60 but it isn't always $60.

    i'm talking about the price of games when they first launch and at the moment when a new game launches the price is $60 USD for a new Switch game and it's $80 USD for a new PS5 or Xbox Series X game



  • @el-shmiablo oh you mean like how you're ignoring the point and question i just made instead of providing any sort of counter point?
    (probably because you don't have one)

    games have been around the same price for around 2 decades. but that doesn't explain why 1 company can continue to charge $60 USD while the other 2 companies jack up the price to $80 USD does it?



  • @yoshi said in The PS5 News and Info Thread:

    @tokyoslim Breath of the Wild has been on sale lots of times. it's base price is $60 but it isn't always $60.

    You seem to not want to understand the very simple point I made. Cheers.
    When's the last time Breath of The Wild's regular retail value was $19.99? With all the DLC? Oh, never? Weird.

    Here, a visual aid:

    0_1601424172574_a222329a-fa8c-4dff-9f2c-779b0797e9af-image.png
    0_1601424224628_9e136614-33c9-4e8c-9645-8a7021ee90eb-image.png



  • @yoshi Now you're just trying to be willfully ignorant.

    Nintendo haven't jacked up their prices because nobody has jacked up their prices yet. In a little over a month and a half, the Switch will be a last generation console.
    You're naive if you don't think they'll increase prices for their games when they release a new console.