Video Game Console Makers Confront Performance Ceiling (bloomberg.com) 53
An anonymous reader shares a report: The human eye can't really tell the difference between 4K and 8K resolution. Video game console manufacturers, who have built their businesses selling increasingly powerful machines every few years, are grappling with a future where performance improvements are becoming less dramatic.
Sony Group launched its PlayStation 5 Pro console in mid-November. The $700 upgraded version of Sony's 2020 gaming machine uses AI to improve games' frame rate while maintaining exceptional image quality -- at least for 82 games that have been enhanced to take advantage of the new specs. That means gamers can see the realistic glint of their metal sword and experience smooth, sword-swinging battle action.
But despite all the fancy tech and a $200 price increase over the previous version, reviews so far haven't suggested it's a must-have machine. "It's an improvement, but there's nothing that makes it a complete generation above what the Series X offered," Daniel Ahmad, director of research and insights at Niko Partners, said. "It's a lot more difficult to distinguish the jump between each generation." The number of households with a gaming console hasn't really budged in more than a decade. Many gamers are replacing older machines more slowly, finding the one they already have is good enough.
Sony Group launched its PlayStation 5 Pro console in mid-November. The $700 upgraded version of Sony's 2020 gaming machine uses AI to improve games' frame rate while maintaining exceptional image quality -- at least for 82 games that have been enhanced to take advantage of the new specs. That means gamers can see the realistic glint of their metal sword and experience smooth, sword-swinging battle action.
But despite all the fancy tech and a $200 price increase over the previous version, reviews so far haven't suggested it's a must-have machine. "It's an improvement, but there's nothing that makes it a complete generation above what the Series X offered," Daniel Ahmad, director of research and insights at Niko Partners, said. "It's a lot more difficult to distinguish the jump between each generation." The number of households with a gaming console hasn't really budged in more than a decade. Many gamers are replacing older machines more slowly, finding the one they already have is good enough.
A game console? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see a need for a game console, personally, since I always had a powerful PC which was able to play most current games at good resolutions and framerates.
Exclusive games didn't help, quite the contrary: I saw them as me being denied from playing them, rather than something that prompted me to buy a console.
It was never about money or performance, but rather a genuine "why should I even bother"?
As long as consoles remain something more limited and less versatile than a PC, I am not going to buy one.
Re:A game console? (Score:4, Insightful)
A game console is still for the most part cheaper than a like capabilities "gaming rig" at least for some period near the start of the generational introduction.
For many many years I was with you than something else hapend, the need for PC power to do anything but game was kinda of eclipsed as well. For certain things sure you can't have enough compute or memory or GPU bandwidth, etc. If you have one of those use cases super, but for most people at home doing their taxes, browsing the web, watching streaming video, writing letters, doing research, even "learning to code" you can do all that with a five year old box now and want for nothing. However unless you spent $$$$$ on that PC five years ago you most likely can't have as good a gaming experience with the latest titles as you could with a launch PS5.
For the person who wants to come home for work or school and just play a game for an hour or two without any 'fuss' it is darn hard to beat the console experience or the price point in the PC world. As for us nerds, well if you are going to do the PC gaming thing you probably still have to run Windows for the cutting edge and well eww...
Re: (Score:2)
For the person who wants to come home for work or school and just play a game for an hour or two without any 'fuss' it is darn hard to beat the console experience or the price point in the PC world.
There is certainly convenience with a dedicated game console. However, in comparing price, since almost all gamers will also need a computer, shouldn't the price comparison be between a console plus low-end laptop/PC compared to a high-end laptop/PC? In that type of comparison, the console is more expensive. The big consideration is whether a high-end laptop/PC provides a good enough game experience and whether the weight of that laptop impacts portability.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, I'd have to dispute that "almost all gamers" will also need a computer. These days, they can do their stuff on their phone.
A low end PC is like $100, and a "good" gaming PC is like $1k, so the combination of a cheap PC and a gaming console is often cheaper than a gaming PC.
That's without considering that these days you can often add a bluetooth keyboard and mouse and straight up use the console as a basic computer. Use google docs or such, office suite on the web.
Re: (Score:2)
$100? No. There's no way you're getting anything new for $100. Used? Maybe. Just the monitor is going to cost $100.
Re: A game console? (Score:1)
My primary PC is a 14" Thinkpad. I've looked into gaming laptops and they're just not alluring as a coding / LaTeXing machine, notably due to size, durability, keyboards, and battery life. A desktop might be nice, but it's not portable. So as you can see, there is no suitable replacement for my 14" Thinkpad that plays games too. Now if Lenovo decides to make a gaming version of the t14s or Carbon series of laptops, I might be tempted.
Re: (Score:2)
No, consoles are never cheaper once you factor in the annual fees, not to mention, it's enabling classist corporate market manipulation.
Consoles are for kids.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, you're out of your mind.
You can get an AMD NUC type box for $350 that'll blow the latest Xbox/PS platforms out of the water at half the cost and be a capable desktop computer. Hell, you'll even get AI capabilities.
Re: (Score:2)
Ehhh not really. PS5 Pro in particular has a beefier GPU than what you'd get in a Rembrandt machine (for example). And there's no telling what you'll get for $350.
Maybe you just don't enjoy new experiences? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see a need for a game console, personally, since I always had a powerful PC which was able to play most current games at good resolutions and framerates.
You're making the mistake of comparing resolution and framerate vs experience. First of all, visual fidelity ain't great now. It looks good if you have a tiny monitor, but on a TV..there's a lot of room for improvement in the complexity of the models...Even in UE5, most games look like PS4 models with REALLY GOOD lighting. It's a jump up, but the character details are very meh. Agreed, 8k or 120Hz won't help there.
What I am more excited about is complex play. Imagine a shooter where you can actually use the environment?...or where you're dealing wth new types of enemies and strategies? Space Marine 2 is the first swarm game I've played. Imagine having a LOT of enemies swarming you...the past games I played long ago have been "meh". But with better physics, it'll feel like 1000 individual enemies instead of a large graphic simulating a large number...very expensive computationally, but very fun. What if you can ACTUALLY change your environment?...some games kinda do that...imagine if it got better enough to make a strategic advantage? What if you could toss a grenade and see the cover chip away slightly?...not just in pre-computed manners, but in realistic ones?
We're far from the pinnacle of game design. Sure, your PS3 games have been mastered. The PS5 Pro will render the shit out of them and make them as beautiful as possible...so will your PC, but you're still stuck with 15 year old game play and mechanics...which even the best games were surprisingly simple when you go back and play them a 2nd time.
I don't want greater framerates or resolution. I want more sophisticated and interactive games with better physics...it's quite expensive, but I think that will wow us in the next generation.
Regarding your PC? Game consoles are social, cheap, and worry-free. Your PC isn't. My kids and I play any split screen games we can find in couch co-op mode. My parents and non-gamer wife enjoy a Nintendo switch game on occasion. I hated consoles at first because I enjoy shooters and using a mouse, but after a few years, adapted to the controllers and greatly prefer the experience. I spend all day in a computer chair writing code. It's nice to sit on a couch at night when it's time to have fun. No matter how powerful I made a PC, there would be glitches here and there. I tried making a PC a game console...routed it to a TV so my son and I could play multiplayer games...constant issues with Bluetooth controllers. My XBox...connects reliably every time...those same controllers on a nice PC?....spontaneous disconnect at least once per day. I even tried upgrading controllers, getting a USB one I could have sit in our laps...just drama...poorly tested...not a great adventure.
When we visit relatives for long periods of time?...pack the XBox in a suitcase and hook it up to grandma's TV for rainy days.
Different strokes for different folks. Consoles are great for some...PCs are better for others. Since games have become social for me since kids, I prefer the console experience. When I had more time alone and disposable income than friends or loved ones...PC was the way to go.
Re: Maybe you just don't enjoy new experiences? (Score:2)
Agreed, 8k or 120Hz won't help there.
I think display size vs distance determines that more than anything. Think VR glasses.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want greater framerates or resolution. I want more sophisticated and interactive games with better physics...it's quite expensive, but I think that will wow us in the next generation.
A good point. Personally, having played Ark: Survival a lot, just fixing pathing would do a great deal to fix my gaming experience. There are things that you're obviously supposed to be able to do in the game - such as wander around with a pack of dinos to protect you, that you really can't do because the dinos keep getting stuck. In other games I've seen large to small "quirks" that were obvious patch jobs because they couldn't get something to work right.
For example, in "The Callisto Protocol", you're
Re: (Score:2)
Okay so, first off - PC Master race, I said it. PCs can easily be superior to consoles in every single way. Bar none.
Especially with more sophisticated games. I mean screw graphics, sure I like pretty things but gameplay and complexity is where my heart lives. To that end, the computational power of my PC is incredibly important. Take simpler graphical games like Factorio, or pretty space ones like Space Engineers, or even Minecraft - the complexity of the worlds, the sizes of the world or 'maps' vastly lar
Re: (Score:1)
Problem is that today, you'll pay entire console's price for just the GPU. Pandemic/Ethereum POW mode pricing stuck with those. It's fucking awful.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see a need for a game console, personally, since I always had a powerful PC which was able to play most current games at good resolutions and framerates.
Exclusive games didn't help, quite the contrary: I saw them as me being denied from playing them, rather than something that prompted me to buy a console.
It was never about money or performance, but rather a genuine "why should I even bother"?
As long as consoles remain something more limited and less versatile than a PC, I am not going to buy one.
It's way more comfortable and relaxing to plop down on my couch with a controller than sit hunched up at my keyboard, especially after working all day. Yes, one could build a PC for the living room and run Steam in big picture mode or something, but a console offers a turn-key solution that doesn't ask anything of you. Also, a console is a fixed configuration for game makers to target, so generally (and yes, I'm aware that there are exceptions), performance-driven games will run more consistently. Not be
Console remaining advantage: Standard platform (Score:2)
I don't see a need for a game console, personally, since I always had a powerful PC which was able to play most current games at good resolutions and framerates. {...} It was never about money or performance, but rather a genuine "why should I even bother"?
Well indeed, console *hardware spec* isn't a major seller anymore. Back in the late 80s and early 90s a home console would have crazy hardware capabilities (graphics, audio) that either wasn't available or was prohibitively expensive on home computers. Nowadays, both Microsoft's Xboxes and Sony's Playstations are basically variations on PC Hardware (same AMD CPU, familar Radon AMD GPU, etc.)
BUT
There's another reason for game consoles: (even the one which are outright litteral PCs in a weird form factor like
Re: (Score:2)
I still prefer PC gaming but talking through discord does not match up with sharing the couch with a few friends or family members and laughing together.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey everybody, war4peace doesn't see a need for your products that sell 10s of millions of units a year so you better cut that shit out.
Re: (Score:2)
Once the price hit 200+$ per console... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The price hit $200 in the 80s
Great (Score:3, Insightful)
Excellent news (Score:3)
Now they can focus on game play and bug fixing.
Re: (Score:3)
Now they can focus on game play and bug fixing.
Nope. They'll focus on shoveling AI at the users. AI will save them, just like it's gonna save everything and every body else!
Re: (Score:2)
AI would certainly save them, as long as it's improving the incredibly stupid enemy AI in so many games.
Seems like only a handful shooter games have sufficiently smart enemies, and those are even several years old.
I've seen the improvements in graphics and world size from Far Cry 2 to 5, but also the dumbing down of NPCs. I wish I could expand on FC 2's campaign because there the enemies were smart enough to hide when one of them died from sniper fire. And the graphics were good enough to bring on the Afric
Not just resolution (Score:3)
There's been a pointless performance war in frames per second when the vast majority of people can't tell the difference past about 60-80 fps anyway.
What would make a big difference IMO is proper full realtime ray tracing rather than the not very impressive 1st gen stuff in the current gen of consoles. Even on PCs the realtime side isn't that impressive yet. And yeah ,I know some people think that texture mapping + shading + lighting algos can look the same , yeah, no , it really doesn't. When you've seen some high end ray tracing images absolutely nothing compares.
Duh (Score:2)
No version of any PlayStation has ever been a must-have machine. You can get more fun and value out of a defunct Dreamcast.
Graphic performance is not... (Score:2)
...the only important thing.
Gamers want good games. Performance is cool, photorealism is cool, but the games need to be good and fun.
Based on sales reports and reviews, the current generation of high end games are being rejected, not because their graphic performance is subpar, but because gamers don't enjoy playing them
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. I have more time playing "dredge" than I do any "AAA" game in the last 5 years.
It's not the vessel but the software (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a gamer and a coder all the way from the 80s. Still I guess I call myself a "gamer".
The thing is, it's no longer about the vessel, call it console, call it a PC - call it a vessel for your entertainment.
If you have a 1000+ team making an AAA+ game, you are in for a visual treat, sometimes the fun of the game can get lost in all the detail, but oh boy is the details good.
The resolution don't matter so much if you make realistic game graphics with good anti-aliasing and all that DOF goodness with proper lights, the more realistic the lighting environment is, the more real the game will look. The more natural the motion is the more real the game will look.
Walt Disney said it best when he said a good story won't be destroyed by bad animation but all the best animation in the world is not going to save a bad story, and that still holds true today.
So - game devs and even hardware devs, focus on story and content, there's where the future truly is.
Re: (Score:3)
There were games in the late 90s with better 'world engine' physics than what current FPS games present. That was the big talk for a long time: we would soon be able to have fully destructible worlds.
Instead, we just got higher poly count cutscene cinematics and 90 minutes of gameplay. Some time later, extremely low polygon builder games came about with fully destructible environments (eg. minecraft/blockcraft and similar).
We're still not there yet for most games. We haven't even gotten back to the "oh look
Re: (Score:1)
>If you have a 1000+ team making an AAA+ game, you are in for a visual treat, sometimes the fun of the game can get lost in all the detail, but oh boy is the details good.
Reality: Trepang 2 vs Dragon Age Veilguard. With premade assets and Unreal Engine being what it is today, you can make a great looking game alone. Or a trash looking game with that massive "quadruple A" team.
But is it more fun? (Score:2)
While there is a certain contingent (especially in the PC space) that demands higher resolution and frame rates to justify the expensive GPU they just bought, they are a minority. But does it even matter anymore now that game companies are obsessed with putting ugly character designs into games? I don't need 4K or 8K graphics to watch a third-person view of the back side of an obese, ambiguously-gendered person, with a skin tone chosen to be neither too light nor too dark for opinionated people who wouldn't
Re: (Score:2)
That's because a certain demographic, which is not particularly good at story or tech but has been disproportionately represented in media for decades, has been able to get into game development due to -
- an absence of competition (which happens in all fields when male representation drops below about 60%)
- low pay for game developers (ie not a lot of job competition)
- the ease with which games can be developed now (vs having to code game engines from scratch, 10+ years ago)
- large media conglomerates runni
Wrong thought process! (Score:2)
Rather than saying "we don't need more pixels", they should be saying "we need bigger screens".
Start selling home versions of "The Volume". Put them in a hemisphere of pixels to immerse them in an environment.
Re: (Score:2)
People shouldn't even bother with consoles because of how limited they are, and nobody should put up with sub-30fps games.
That's as dumb as saying "nobody should put up with driving a Honda Civic". Not everyone needs a Ferrari.
Focus should be on making better games (Score:2)
1) The focus should be on making better games, regardless of technology.
2) Most people probably cannot tell the difference between 1080p high definition and 4k or 8k because we have not seen any games built for 4k or 8k. That much data requires faster internet, as long as games are streamed from the cloud. When we finally get 8k and framerates of 120fps, it will seem like reality.
3) I want a more immersive environment, and objects I can move or change inside the game.
4) FFS I wish Call of Duty would pick 1
Re: (Score:2)
oh yeah, the M4 Pro Mac Mini is probably going to be more powerful than the Playstation 6, just saying.
Re: (Score:2)
Case in point: Counter-Strike has been one of, if not the, most popular game of all time.
It's effectively the exact same game it was in 1998. Slightly different engine (Source 2 instead of Source), slight variations in the maps and gameplay dynamics, but otherwise the same game. People still play it, regularly, because it's good. Counterstrike 2 is still the most played game.
Dota 2? It's a game mod, or at least started that way (IIRC, as a Starcraft or a Warcraft 3 map type). Second most played game on Stea
Performance isn't just graphics (Score:2)
Current gen consoles promised us smooth 60fps/4k, but what we are currently getting is often something much lower, like 2k upscaled and only running at 25-40, so there is plenty of room for improvement just in terms of hitting framerate and resolution targets.
But beyond that, there is plenty of room to improve simulations. More destructible environments or ineractable objects, more intelligent and reactive NPCs, better physics, etc.
In fact though, I think the real factor that is going to define the envelop
The real ceiling (Score:2)
The real "ceiling" for games was hit years ago, and it really has very little to do with FPS, resolution, graphic shaders or any of the tech.
That ceiling is the quality of the underlying game - the gameplay, which is a combination of writing, game mechanics, music, and any number of other things. There are games from the early 90s with story and MIDI 'soundtracks' that I can recall almost instantly simply because they were good, immersive games. You kept opening avenues for exploration as the game progresse
The PS5 pro went the wrong way IMHO (Score:2)
Imagine graphics performance vs price depicted as a saturation curve: PS5 went the wrong way, getting more expensive for very little performance gains. I wish Sony would have (in addition to the Pro, perhaps) went the other way: give me the same PS5 graphics (perhaps even slightly less!) but for WAY cheaper. And smaller, while we're at it. That might have gotten me to invest in a PS5 while I would never get a Pro.
What's better than higher res graphics? (Score:1)
Porn is always the answer (Score:2)
Sony just has to let a company make a 4k, ultra realistic, VR porn game. Then the consumers will pay the jacked off prices. Er, jacked up.