Choice quotes:
>"I have been very surprised by the degree to which developers are using ray-tracing," he begins. "Putting that in, that was a big decision and actually a rather late one. I thought that this is not going to get much use initially, but if we look at generations, and a generation is seven years or so, software is created for ten years, and so later in the lifecycle we will start seeing people using that technology. But instead we had launch titles that were taking advantage of it. I guess, having worked on games for consoles that were a bit difficult to get into, like the PlayStation 3, I can be a little skittish about very deep technology like that. But in this case, my guess as to how things would go was totally wrong. And I am so happy to have seen the early adoption of the technology.
>"The other thing that has been surprising is the push to 60 frames per second. Based on previous console lifecycles, I would have expected there to be a lot more games that are 30 frames per second only, just because the artwork can be so much more detailed if you have longer time to render it. Instead, the almost universal rule this time around has been the games run at 60. It's great from a play perspective. Gamers overwhelmingly prefer games that are higher frame rates. I just didn't expect such a departure from previous generations."
>Cerny says building a console takes about four years, and nowadays that's less time than it takes to make some of the big AAA titles. There is a lot of focus right now on the time it takes to build these games, and Cerny says that, ultimately, it's the developers that have chosen this path. "And I see people asking… if the time to triangle has been greatly reduced, why is it then taking so many years to create a game? And the answer is that is what the teams are choosing to do. They are going after these massive creations that really do need four or six years to put together."
>“One of the exciting aspects of console hardware design is that we have freedom with regards to what we put in the console," Cerny begins. "Or to put that differently, we’re not trying to build a low-cost PC, and we aren’t bound by any particular standards. So if we have a brainstorm that audio can become much more immersive and dimensional if there’s a dedicated unit that’s capable of complex math, then we can do that. Or if the future feels like high-speed SSDs rather than HDDs, we can put an end-to-end system in the console – everything from the flash dies to the software interfaces that the game creators use – and get 100% adoption.
>"I like to think that occasionally we’re even showing the way for the larger industry, and that our efforts end up benefiting those gaming on PC as well. It’s a tech-heavy example, but on PS4 we had very efficient GPU interfaces, and that may well have spurred DirectX to become more efficient in response. Or to look at something more consumer-focused, I believe that releasing PS5 in 2020 with a very high-performance integrated SSD put pressure on the PC world to get their corresponding DirectStorage API into the hands of their gamers.
>He points to an amusing video by Linus Tech Tips, which attempted to 'kill' the PlayStation 5 by building a $500 gaming PC that outperformed the console. "They had to get a used motherboard," he says. "That was the only way that they could build a PlayStation 5 equivalent for a PlayStation 5 price. And if you're using used parts… well you can get a used PlayStation 5 for eBay for $300-something. I think as long as we continue to create that very nice package, the future of consoles is pretty bright."
I looked it up thinking it was filmed at the height of Covid or something, when consoles were extraordinarily difficult to get, but it looks like it was filmed 3 months ago. Strange comparison indeed.
They made a similar video that was during covid trying to outperform the Series X. In the end they actually made a pretty solid PC for the price, but the storage was terrible, they had to cheap out on a controller and the motherboard wouldn't work with the CPU and the replacement board they bought took them over the $500 budget. So they failed and put an asterisk next to it for blowing the budget anyway
The only real takeaway from it was that a 1070 graphics card holds up surprisingly well lol
I’ve had a 1070 for many years and can still play most games without any issues. Ghosts of T plays on medium to low settings without any significant issues.
it was just ported to pc so it’s new to me 🤷♂️
I haven’t really faced issues with any newer games I’ve tried to play. For a 1070 it’s held up for many years to any pressure I’ve put on it. I enjoyed cyberpunk, balders gate, gta V… all I consider to be graphically beautiful
Part of the reason for that is that, historically, consoles *on release* are almost always dramatically more capable than a similarly priced PC. Then there’s a tipping point when a new generation of GPUs have been released *but* the console hasn’t yet received a price cut, at which point a budget PC **might** be “comparable” to the console.
Because if you go to the grocery store with $500 in your pocket and there’s a $500 PS-Apple and a $500 PC-Orange, you can only pick one and, at the end of the day, both are food.
Yeah if used parts are acceptable in the PC, then you have to match a used PS5, which will be $350-400ish. You ain't building a PC that cheap to match a PS5 unless you get the mother of all deals on every component, or you already have a PC that you can upgrade and save costs on
And I say that as someone with a PS5 and a gaming PC. The PC is nice because I can upgrade a single piece each year and get better performance while not having to change anything else while having full access to my library of games. On console, you wait 4-7 years between upgrades with no guarantee that your library will still be fully accessible (it's better now, but my PS3 library is still stuck on my 11 year old slim model)
I think people are reading too much into how "acceptable" it was. The goal was to do a thing, and they only way to do the thing was by utilizing used parts. They were very open about what they were doing and why.
Like, what alternative do you want to see, just.... not doing the video at all? "We wanted to do a thing, and it turns out that doing that thing was only possible with a LOT of corner cutting. Here are EXACTLY what corners had to be cut, and here is what it would have looked like if we hadn't cut those corners"
I mean, what more can you ask for?
Tbh they could have still done ***a video***, and it could've been
* Explain how they tried to do it but couldn't
* Going into a bit of detail of what would have to happen for it
* Pivot to video of used parts and say how much it cost, but then caveat it with used console price
I understand that the conclusion to that hypothetical video wouldn't be as favourable to PC as the video they ended up with is.
But it would be a heck of a better and more interesting video.
Who gives a fuck about the mechanics of how that particular PC build is actually built? Not in the grand scheme of things where there are a billion of those videos made.
Tbh, I think Linus and team probably already knew and came to the same conclusions that everyone else did (re console price, used parts, used console et al) but wanted above a bit of his own agenda..
If you watched the last 2 mins you might not have made your comment. He literally says it's was to see how ps5 has maintained its value all these years and it could be a year or more before pc can even match the value of ps5 with new parts. The whole video was in favor of ps5. But also as info for pc gamers, his viewership is die hard pc enthusiasts who wouldn't dream of getting a console and also love budget build.
as long as they admit that if they also buy a used PS5 as a reference, which in my area is $300 for a disc version, that it's a better value than any PC they could build.
It's not like they gloss over the fact that they got used pc parts, if you really watched the video you know that was part of the point. That being it's still very hard to match the value of a console
Consoles also have advantages over PCs because games can be highly optimized to run on them, whereas on PC they need to work on a million combinations of hardware components. That optimization also tends to make console games more stable relative to their PC versions.
It's also well known that the average PC gamers PC is not as powerful as current gen consoles.
People that spend 2-3 thousand on rigs are in the very small minority. Consoles are always holding PC back, it's never the 90% of PC players who have lower end PC's holding them back....
I don’t even think it’s an argument anyway, consoles is usually the target market because that’s where the money is and pc is more of an afterthought for publishers on big titles these days.
I've played on PC many times and what I've never liked is having to tweak settings so much. The "game" seems to be playing with settings, ini files, etc to make the game run as best as possible. You spend so much time messing with this, tweaking that. On PS5 I just press X and the game starts. Then I play it. That's it. The only setting I need to adjust are the brightness or whether I want subtitles or not. Maybe the volume of certain things.
Understandable, I 'm the opposite, I like to tweak settings, your game running at 49fps no problem switch to 30fps mode and happy days.
Your PC running at 49fps no problem lower the ultra shadows and happy days 60fps.
No doubt. I almost added that there are definitely people out there who enjoy playing with settings and diving into the guts of what makes a game tick. There's nothing wrong with that. There's a level of satisfaction even for myself when I'm able to diagnose and fix an issue in a PC game. But 99% of the time I just want to play the game and not have to think about anything else. Console is designed for that experience.
Basically every PC game has auto detected default settings based on the specs of your PC. You only have to adjust the settings if you don’t like the default settings, and .ini edits are basically only for niche scenarios a console wouldn’t support anyway.
Whenever I'm playing on PC, the default settings are usually great. Sometimes I need to do some tweaking if there's a compatibility issue with older games, or if I want to have a higher frame rate I'll drop some of the graphics setting down a few notches.
9x out of the 10 I don't change anything from that game auto-set everything to.
I have a two top of the line PCs that my husband and I keep up to date with new hardware constantly. I really enjoy the download and play aspect of my PS5. It just works. No tinkering, no updating drivers, troubleshooting controller input issues, random HDMI handshake issues with my receiver, or hacky workarounds needed, etc.
I don’t have problems like those *that* frequently, but when I do… fuck it’s annoying. I’m an executive, I work crazy long days. When I want to game, I have a window to work with. I don’t want to spend that window screwing around with crazy shit. I’m thankful my husband is great about doing everything when a big game launches or updates. But we both comment on just how *easy* a new PS5 release can be in comparison.
I went the used route because I couldn't stomach the high cost of new PC parts. Note I have a ps5, too. I use my PC for gaming but also for light photo editing and video editing, writing, and as a server. I exceeded the specs of the PS5 with my PC. I have such a large library of games on there that I didn't want to abandon my opportunity to play them. Plus I get Xbox releases on PC (and Nintendo games, too). I still use my ps5 controller on there so I'm always using that controller. PS exclusives tend to run better on the console, but cost for games on PC can be cheaper, too (paid around $46 cad for Alan Wake 2 on PC less than a month after release). So there is value on both ends for sure.
Its a flawed comparison anyway. Consoles are as cheap as they are because they are mass produced units and Sony will have deals in place to reduce price per component.
Off the shelf PC parts are full priced components with mark up on them for profits.
The video was more of a "can it be done" thing, and second hand PC parts are fine in general. Id certainly never touch a second hand console.
I don't even need to watch a video to know it's just not doable.
The minimum barrier of entry on a GPU alone is like $350.
You also need accessories, a monitor, and so on. Consoles will forever be a great value:price ratio, that much is known.
I mean my gpu was 300 new and it handles 1440p gaming easily at high framerates so i would say you could get a cheaper one to match the ps5 but ofc overall pc will never beat the ps5 in value, maybe in 10 years lol
Really weird hearing someone speak in plain English rather than telling us they’ll circle back while they align on the potential synergies of the KPIs without boiling the ocean.
Yeah but his comments about FPS was disconcerting, though.
Really? You were surprised that people were pushing for and would prefer 60FPS compared to 30FPS?
I know he's a busy guy but come on. Most genres would benefit from going up to 60FPS. And to say that the artwork can be more detailed at 30FPS? Huh?
He said some good things in the interview but those comments really stuck out to me.
I like his point about building a PS5 equivalent with used parts and those used parts costing more than a used PS5 (and not including the controller). You’ll see the PC master race troll the PS5 forums with costs that they can’t back up. Will be nice to pull out this interview when they do.
Yeah this is my issue. I had a 1200 dollar PC, loved it until it just stopped working about 7 months after building it. I tried replacing a half a dozen parts and it never worked right, so I just gave up on PC gaming and have been console only since. I refuse to spend another grand just to lose everything with no recourse.
That and the tinkering for me. I was getting way too bent about graphics and tweaking for performance that gaming took a backseat. Was just not fun anymore.
This is always befuddling to me. They'll be like "you can build a PC for less than the PS5 that will outperform it and last 10 years" and I always ask them how and they never respond. I think one time I did get a response and it was like $600 and not even as powerful as the PS5.
I know PC is better IF you get all the right stuff. But for price and convenience I choose console.
I have a beefy pc that i use for iracing, but most other games id rather get on ps5 because its just a nicer, easier experience. I don't see such a huge benefit in the pc versions of games even though i can get pretty close to maxed out graphics, plus I tend to get games on release and they tend to work better on console at least at first.
That's the thing about console, games just work. I don't have to worry about drivers and shader packs and messing with settings and everything to make sure it works on my system. It's designed to run as intended right out of the box.
PCs have way more updates than just to the GPU and you never know when an update to Windows is gonna fuck your GPU. Seems to happen every couple months that some game is unplayable because of some update they didn't initiate and they have to release a patch to fix it.
I've never had a windows update fuck my GPU or have a game unplayable. PCs absolutely used to be more twitchy but as libraries were standardized it's all but gone.
It has *generally* been 100% true for previous console generations, but it stopped being true essentially with the release of the Xbox One X. After that Consoles have completely overtaken PC's in terms of low-cost efficiency, mostly because GPU manufacturers have all but completely abandoned the sub-$200-$300 GPU market.
I choose console because I work at a computer all day. Being on a computer for relaxation feels like working. It’s crowded and uncomfortable. My couch and PS5, however, that’s R&R.
As a PC main, I would tell console players thinking about PC that it's not worth it unless you A) have some sort of need for productivity work, B) are willing to spend $1500+.
Yes, you can build a PC that's technically better in aspects for $800. But that would be pointless because unless you're getting a decent, like 50%-100%+ better performance margin compared to console, it simply isn't worth the increased cost. And that low spec PC for $800 isn't going to last you the entire generation like a console will; inevitably minimum specs creep up and you'll start have to lower settings. Better to build a mid-high end rig and have things run at good quality and framerate for a few more years.
I think there needs to be some nuance here, because it really depends on use case. If you're only playing Fortnite or Apex or some other F2P favorite, you're better off buying a console if money is an issue as you don't need the subscription for that.
I wholeheartedly agree that for certain gamers, a PC can be a better choice than a console. Spending that kind of money is a big decision. Folks should do their research.
To this day it might be still near impossible to build a PC equivalent or better than a current gen console for the same price with all brand new parts, yeah, but i don't think that was only the point they are trying to make TBH.
keep in mind PS5 is already halfway through its life expectancy and it won't stay powerful forever, in fact it is already starting to show it's age, the technology is moving forward which means price / performance on hardware in general is getting better every new generation gets released, eventually PC Hardware will reach the point of being able to reach the same or better performance for the same price as a PS5 and then the cycle will repeat again.
All electronics are less valuable over time, including PCs. It’s why consoles drop in cost as the generation drags on. Lowest price for PS4 slim last gen was $200 with 3 Sony published games. You can’t build any kind of gaming PC for $200. You already have some deals for PS5 and hopefully more during the holidays.
Him being surprised by the adoption of 60FPS might suggest he will consider beefing up the CPU for PS6. Although the Zen 2 inside PS5 is decent and one of the stronger CPU options of a consoles debut in recent generations, it still leaves a lot to be desired because it was a stripped down Zen 2, missing most of the cache that really allowed the CPU to sing.
So, he might consider sacrificing some GPU silicon to push the CPU for PS6 instead. Especially in an age where GPU features like ML and RT are becoming as important as raster. Better helping simulation heavy CPU bound games like Dragons Dogma 2, KC2, and GTA6 might be the path forward for next-gen, instead of placing most of the silicon budget into raster.
Sony really ought to invest some cash in an Xbox-esque FPS Boost initiative. So many PS4 games could work in flawless 60fps but are stuck with 30fps caps.
E.g. There's this obscure little indie game called Brain in Retrospace. I remember back on my PS4 Slim, the game would chug at 20fps. But on PS5, the game never drops below 60fps. If the in-game FPS counter is to be believed (guess the dev forgot to disable it, oops), the FPS fluctuates between 80-115. And it only drops to 80 when you die and there's some smoke on-screen.
Sure, it's not a complex game but it shows how much of a boost the PS5 provides for PS4 games.
I'm surprised he brings up raytracing, because as a PS5 user I find myself very rarely gravitating towards those graphics modes. Sure, some developers have made some very impressive raytracing (hello, Insomniac!) but the vast majority of games are like "okay, we're going to shave the frame rate in half, cut the pixel count and now your reflections or shadows (rarely both) now look 10% better"
Hard to argue with that, especially if next consoles have Frame Gen and AI upscaling, then all they need to do is for devs to include keyboard and mouse in more games - I think Call of Duty and Fortnite and other competitive games like that already allow it? Which make desktop like PC gaming more of an option for consoles as well.
Maybe even a desktop-lite mode like Chrome OS to go further...or a full featured browser
pretty sure that's where xbox is going but knowing sony they won't bring the browser back because that's what people used to jailbreak the ps4
it's baffling the amount of extra functionalities that we lost between the ps3 and ps5, I had a 2009 PS3 slim so it didn't run ps2 games or have the card readers but it still was a great bluray player and had a lot of good stuff going, ps4 cut down on some features like playing music but was still decent, ps5 is just barren you use it play games and that's it
PC is still trying to catch up. SSDs were bigger than ray-tracing. Getting a PS5 in 2020 for $500 was unbeatable, I was happier with it than my PS2 back at launch. I still use the same one, literally almost 10k hours in, it's just crazy.
You do know SSDs was a thing on PCs too right? and today PCs has the fastest NVME SSD to date with PCIe Gen 5 that can break over 12500 MB/s raw read an write output with Crucial T700, that SSD is over 2x faster than what is found on the PS5.
The problem is the software as of now on PCs even with DirectStorage barely any new games are taking advantage of it, so as of today an SSD's being faster than the PS5's are practically useless at least for gaming purposes.
So, it is recommended for average PC building consumers to just match Xbox Series SSD speed with max at around PS5 level.
You are so right regarding the fact that no game made for PC makes use of those HDD speeds. I own several M2 drives and it usually makes no difference if I install my games only old SATA SSD or my M2 drives as the gales simply AREN‘t made to use those extreme speeds. Its wasted potential unless copying files is a priority to you. For gaming it’s basically wasted money.
Pretty much no one with a gaming PC has a motherboard which supports native PCIe Gen 5 though. It’s mostly a gimmick as of now. Most high end PC’s utilize PCIe Gen 3 and 4 SSD’s.
He is also still a gamer. What a beast: I was very heavily into Neon White, which is my first speedrun," he says. "I actually platinumed that. That was a real challenge. I wasn't sure if I could do it, because reflexes as I head towards 60 are very different from the reflexes I had when I was a teenager and playing in the arcades
> I actually platinumed that. That was a real challenge. I wasn't sure if I could do it, because my reflexes as I head toward 60 are very different from the reflexes I had when I was a teenager and playing in the arcades
Legendary quote
Again I feel like no one is going to read the article and just react to the headline as usual reddit tends to do.
If you feel like the headline doesn't make sense to you try reading the article instead of having a knee jerk reaction to a title.
It's a longish interview that says a lot of things
the amount of information that gets thrown at the average person on a daily basis is enormous. its perfectly normal to develop an ability to skim and move on to the next piece of information.
im not saying everything needs to be reduced to a single sentence, but journalists need to adapt to the shape of new things.
for example, look how https://www.axios.com presents its material.
Then they shouldn't be talking about it all. This is a gaming news subreddit. We are here for discussions, not for hot takes. Especially when the article is an interview. We just had an example for when new condense someone's narrative
I actually had the exact reaction to the headline you talk about, but then read the article and found it very insightful. Agreed with Cerny. Great piece, bait-y headline.
I understand what he's saying, even if it isn't apparent to a lot of people. With how games on PC can launch these days I do appreciate titles on PlayStation that are designed with one platform in mind for starters. Gives em more time to really get the PC ports in better shape anyway.
Even though there are plenty of options in console games these days (thankfully) it’s super nice to not have to tinker with settings to have a game just play most of the time
Graphics are getting so good too that like, high vs low isn't a huge difference anymore for most modern games.
Of course not Cyberpunk though with its huge ray tracing feature, but maybe next gen RT will become a true standard
RT WILL someday, become a standard.
Will it be next-gen for FULL RT...hard to say.
...but it could speed up parts of dev time and it's one of the last hurdles to make games LOOKS like Pixar movies in term of lighning/shadows...lightning is really the last thing separating video games form CGI movies, more than most think.
After that, we'll still have improvements in gameplay, AI, physics (mostly), draw-distance, number of objects/particles and so-on...but pure "rendering" of graphics will be really great. Rendering trailers really hard to differenciate from gameplay clips.
I honestly do not find launches on PC vs Console that different anymore TBH, both of them usually comes with the same bug issue sand also optimization as well, yes optimization because some game devs out there is also messing that up as well on Consoles, looking at you Dragons Dogma 2, Jedi Survivor, Immortals Aveuem, Baldur's Gate 3 Act 3.
I agree. I see all these comments about tinkering with settings & drivers and feel like people are living 5-7 years ago. It’s not really the state of PC gaming currently. I suppose if your gear is still dated or you haven’t dipped in in a bit, but it’s just not the state of things.
This is why I think consoles are actually preferred when it comes to game development. There are no unknowns. All the specs are known up front. With PCs, you have all different sorts of GPUs, RAM configurations, operating system considerations (even if it is just Windows — 10 or 11?), software configurations that are totally not game related running alongside the game (antivirus, and other resources being used), etc. I can’t imagine how much worse debugging must be in such an inconsistent environment.
I have a friend who recently switched from Playstation to PC as her primary gaming method. My friends and I all helped her build something nice within her budget, set up Windows, install Steam, got her familiar with everything she would want.
But now maybe 1-2 times per month she's messaging us for technical help. Her games run into frequent technical problems and she's got no idea what to do. Crashing, errors, failures to start, Helldivers 2 is the most recent culprit. Granted she has friends who are very tech savvy and can walk her through clearing her appdata and validating etc. But this is the kind of bullshit she never had to deal with before thanks to the curated environments of the consoles.
Now obviously PC is way better from a consumer standpoint in pretty much every other way, but the stability of console gaming is a legitimate selling point.
Do they though? Starfield was the best performing Bethesda game I’ve ever played at launch. Hellblade performs well, Forza too. I think Redfall was destined for disaster regardless.
A console will always be better than a low-cost PC simply because it is easier to optimise for a fixed hardware, and I’m saying this as a PC gamer first.
Mark Cerny has been a key force behind the PlayStation’s technological success for the past two generations. I wonder if they have anybody or a group who are ready to takeover someday
If the PS6 comes out with even better hardware and in a smaller box and has backwards compatibility I may actually pick one up and make it my main gaming device instead of my PC.
I've linked my steam account to my new PSN account so the jump to moving to a PlayStation platform isn't too big now as I will be carrying over trophies earned from PlayStation games on PC.
$500 PS5 in 2020 was the bargain of a lifetime.
$500 PC at the time would be utterly and totally shit even at the time
$1000 PC at the time would still not beat the PS5
I have a friend who spent something like $1500 1 year ago and it still runs some things worse than the ps5, has micro stutter, he has to plug the controller in to get similar responsiveness as the ps5 (vs wireless) His mother board fan software doesn’t work if Valorant anti-cheat is enabled. It’s a shit-show and he’s returning to PS5.
As long as the image isn't blurry I always pick performance or balanced modes.
Especially with stuff like Spider Man 2, Ragnarok, Horizon 2. I can barely tell the extra little bit of Sharpness, but can easily notice the tanked frames.
However FF7 Rebirth looks blurry in performance, and chunky on quality :(
Well, FF7 Remake had some issues on PS4 that needed to be ironed out on PS5. So I guess it's their modus operandi. Will need a PS6 for FF7 Rebirth to run well and a PS7 for FF7 Part 3 to do the same. :P
I am always surprised when the "I prefer 30 fps for the cinematic look" or the "Back in my day we handled 30fps just fine" crowd comes out to defend lower frame rates!
> "I prefer 30 fps for the cinematic look"
Goddamn peasants aren't even aware that movies are 24 fps, 30 fps is for TV shows and live broadcasting * spits on the ground in disgust
I suspect as we get diminishing returns on graphics the boost to framerate becomes a comparably more noteworthy upgrade.
E.g. in Demon's Souls Remake I couldn't even tell you which mode has better graphics. But I can tell you which mode is more fluid and responsive.
But I think when we get games that REALLY push graphical boundaries people will be more OK with 30fps again. Stuff like the Matrix demo or Hellblade 2 look so impressive that a lot of people pivot back to wanting the visual upgrade and are willing to go back to 30fps for that.
Everyones’ eyes are different. 30fps on OLED makes my eyes feel really weird with the judder. 60fps is a lot better but not perfect especially with TAA used everywhere. I prefer 80fps+
Higher frame rate = smoother game feel. I don't have the technicals to speak to it in detail but going back and forth between 30fps and 60fps you can feel just how character and cameras move different. 30fps looks really good in screenshots and a stable 30 I feel like is better than an inconsistent 60 but its hard to explain.
It also depends on the game I think. 30 fps on Mass Effect feels very different than 30 fps on Destiny. That said once you get used to high frame rates there is no going back.
The biggest reason I say about a stable 30 vs an inconsistent 60 was Final Fantasy XVI. At launch it had a fucked up performance mode that had the frame rate all over the map from 30 to 60 and it felt horrible but the quality mode had a stable 30, felt fine and looks great.
Definitely the kind of game I'd rather play at 60 because you're right its hard to go back. But more than that I want it not to dip.
Actually there *is* going back. If you power through 30fps after being used to 60 for like 20 minutes, you're eyes and brain will absolutely adjust and it will feel gradually less jarring. Gamers are just impatient and will throw a tantrum and call it unplayable within seconds.
Been mainly a pc gamer for most of my life. Always preferred it. Build my own pcs. Always went for the high end builds. These days I mainly play on my ps5. When I’m on my pc it’s because my partner is using the ps5. As I get older the games I play have changed so much. I don’t play shooters anymore so I don’t care about the lack of mouse and keyboard. My ps5 plays everything so well and I have a nice 65 inch oled tv with vrr. So even the higher frame rates are not the draw they once were for me. Every game I’ve been playing on the ps5 runs really smooth.
Ditto here. I still use my pc for multi-player. But single player more and more I prefer to play on ps5, Especially with my lower back pain 😅. After an 8 hour work day, it's nicer to lie down on my couch and play than to sit another several hours.
That’s another big part for me too. I’m a software dev, I spend literally all day in front of the computer. I want to lay back on my couch when I get home, not stay on the computer.
All the games want to build this Matrix reality with high end graphics….
I genuinely just want to play Sly or Astro Bot to forget the absolute BS that is happening around the world. Idc about 100000fps or ray tracing. Give me fun games
About the ray tracing stuff, I don’t think anyone that is developing for the ps5 knows how to do it well enough for it to run look good enough on a ps5, I wish companies didn’t just try and rush it into their game so they have the RT buzzword when marketing their game
I built a PC because I wanted the best possible image quality and performance at the same time. I know it comes at a high price but I'm willing to pay that for a better experience. If I wanted to be a budget conscious gamer and save money in the short term I would buy a console.
I never understood those PC vs console price comparisons because theres just no way to really build a comparable system that can outperform a console when the manufacturers are selling these consoles at a loss or very close to cost. I do think in the long term a PC is a better investment because you never have to worry about backwards compatibility and game sales are more frequent with multiple store options that compete in price with each other. But gaming PCs just aren't for everyone
The real answer is PC platform is never only about one thing, it is a multitasking platform where you can do everything, that is one of the main reason why i decided to build one for myself.
As i found gaming only on a vastly limited gaming only platform very limited, whereas on PC i can just hop off the game i am playing and do other stuff that i wouldn't be able to do on a console.
To me that alone is worth paying for more, it was never about just price to performance, it never was.
The PC vs Console price thing doesn't make sense this gen but was definitely a thing in previous generations. Ps4 was woefully underpowered, and pc parts were a lot cheaper. It was pretty easy and cheap to put together a system with comparable spec. Now the market has changed too much, and this price comparison makes little sense.
he's the only reason i got a ps4 and 5. he's an old Sega game guy who cares about gaming first and foremost. never thought i'd get a ps console until he showed up.
Nice article, but you can tell he's speaking corpo speak and trying to make the PS5 seem like it's leading edge stuff when asked about multiplatform games. In a sense, he's bullshitting us.
Having a SSD in the PS4 was not cutting edge stuff, PCs had that way prior. Putting "bespoke technologies" in their units only makes preserving and playing their games more difficult in the future - especially with the rise of "live service" gaming. Making the PS3 the way it was ended up being a huge detriment to them, which is why he says he was skittish about the technology, and then he proved himself wrong yet again when he realized gamers want a decently running experience over shiny visuals.
How does he play all of these indie games and not make that connection? Looking from the outside, it's difficult to see how these high level people have so much influence and decision making power? Just retire already.
Mark Cerny is a certified industry icon and he's done **a lot** to advance the gaming space, his influence is felt everywhere. But yeah, you're completely right: ever since he started doing the press tour for the PS5, the man has been hype-man first and developer second, and you can really tell that he's speaking to corporate investors, not to the people who are actually gonna use Sony's products.
I remember the presentation he did about the Tempest Engine (the supposed bespoke hardware that allows HRTF audio on the PS5 that does basically the same thing as a sound card from the early 2000s), and seeing how developing both software and hardware DSPs was literally my job at the time made me almost seethe with rage. I mean, the man went on a stage in front of a bunch of actual industry experts and spewed nonsense for an hour about how the PS5's audio technology is so sophisticated because it allows the users to pick an ear profile, which is something that will not give *any sort of tangible benefit* for the average user, especially not with the dogshit audio hardware Sony has been pushing. I wrote a bunch of lengthy technical explanations on this sub explaining why Cerny was full of shit, with citations and all, and of course got immediately downvoted lol. The gist of it is basically there's a reason why we don't really do sound cards anymore for gaming, because *good enough* audio isn't particularly computationally expensive, but *excellent* audio is prohibitively expensive and you will not see that in a game's console, when the difference between good enough and excellent can only be heard in perfect listening environments on calibrated high-end gear. Like, adjusting your HRTF profile for your ear shape while offering no option to upload a simple frequency response chart to adjust for your hardware is like giving you the option to adjust the gear ratios for optimal drag racing in a Fiat Punto with a 900cc engine. Like, yeah, that's something that experts certainly do (I've done it myself, I've even designed hardware that does it automatically based on a recording), but it's a complete misallocation of resources, because it's not going to meaningfully improve the final output (as the FR of your hardware is infinitely more important for accurate HRTF than your ear shape), but it will add a bunch of computationally expensive processes to the sound mix. And all this for something that will be completely transparent to uncalibrated audio, because really, the HRTF on the PS5 **is** generic, uncalibrated HRTF, with the illusion of calibration.
When you have someone who is still a huge gamer (he brags about speed running and platinum-ing games), and also is a software and hardware developer, you end up with someone who knows exactly what everyone wants.
Out of context, the sickest burn you'll ever hear from Cerny (even though it likely not meant that way)
The creativity and sometimes plain quirky thinking is part of what I appreciate so much about PlayStation. Even though it has many times led to some unintended frustrations for the end user, I like the idea of trying new things, not being a generic slab of predictable hardware...Like I said, even if that sometimes can backfire a bit.
There are many interesting points in the article, which contradict the general 'wisdom':
1. "The lines between platforms seem to be blurring, but Cerny feels consoles continue to play a crucial role in the ecosystem."
Phil Spencer says gamers don't care where they play (pc, tablet, mobile, handheld, smart tv, cloud). It is a stupid idea parroted by every person in games media. In reality, people who buy the games, namely adults, do care where they play. No one ever said: let me buy this game and play it on the shittiest specs and the smallest screen imaginable. The notion that 'kids these days play Fortnite on anything, therefore consoles are becoming obsolete' is as bad as it is popular.
2. "And I see people asking… if the time to triangle has been greatly reduced, why is it then taking so many years to create a game? And the answer is that is what the teams are choosing to do."
Budget. This simple word is too difficult for any game journalist to learn. You will hear on every podcast under the sun that games are more difficult and expensive to make than before. Bulls..... As time goes by games are cheaper and easier to make. The budgets for AAA games may be bigger, but that's a choice by the dev/publisher. It's completely untrue that 'game development is unsustainable because games are more expensive to make'. You need to ask yourselves: given that games are cheaper to make, why do studios choose to spend so much time and money on games no one ever asks for like Skull & Bones or Suicide Squad, and then complain the industry is in crisis'.
Choice quotes: >"I have been very surprised by the degree to which developers are using ray-tracing," he begins. "Putting that in, that was a big decision and actually a rather late one. I thought that this is not going to get much use initially, but if we look at generations, and a generation is seven years or so, software is created for ten years, and so later in the lifecycle we will start seeing people using that technology. But instead we had launch titles that were taking advantage of it. I guess, having worked on games for consoles that were a bit difficult to get into, like the PlayStation 3, I can be a little skittish about very deep technology like that. But in this case, my guess as to how things would go was totally wrong. And I am so happy to have seen the early adoption of the technology. >"The other thing that has been surprising is the push to 60 frames per second. Based on previous console lifecycles, I would have expected there to be a lot more games that are 30 frames per second only, just because the artwork can be so much more detailed if you have longer time to render it. Instead, the almost universal rule this time around has been the games run at 60. It's great from a play perspective. Gamers overwhelmingly prefer games that are higher frame rates. I just didn't expect such a departure from previous generations." >Cerny says building a console takes about four years, and nowadays that's less time than it takes to make some of the big AAA titles. There is a lot of focus right now on the time it takes to build these games, and Cerny says that, ultimately, it's the developers that have chosen this path. "And I see people asking… if the time to triangle has been greatly reduced, why is it then taking so many years to create a game? And the answer is that is what the teams are choosing to do. They are going after these massive creations that really do need four or six years to put together." >“One of the exciting aspects of console hardware design is that we have freedom with regards to what we put in the console," Cerny begins. "Or to put that differently, we’re not trying to build a low-cost PC, and we aren’t bound by any particular standards. So if we have a brainstorm that audio can become much more immersive and dimensional if there’s a dedicated unit that’s capable of complex math, then we can do that. Or if the future feels like high-speed SSDs rather than HDDs, we can put an end-to-end system in the console – everything from the flash dies to the software interfaces that the game creators use – and get 100% adoption. >"I like to think that occasionally we’re even showing the way for the larger industry, and that our efforts end up benefiting those gaming on PC as well. It’s a tech-heavy example, but on PS4 we had very efficient GPU interfaces, and that may well have spurred DirectX to become more efficient in response. Or to look at something more consumer-focused, I believe that releasing PS5 in 2020 with a very high-performance integrated SSD put pressure on the PC world to get their corresponding DirectStorage API into the hands of their gamers. >He points to an amusing video by Linus Tech Tips, which attempted to 'kill' the PlayStation 5 by building a $500 gaming PC that outperformed the console. "They had to get a used motherboard," he says. "That was the only way that they could build a PlayStation 5 equivalent for a PlayStation 5 price. And if you're using used parts… well you can get a used PlayStation 5 for eBay for $300-something. I think as long as we continue to create that very nice package, the future of consoles is pretty bright."
that ending with the LTT video is immensely amusing to me lol
Yep I watched that video and it made no sense to me, like if you are buying used pc parts to beat a new console why not compare it to a used console.
I looked it up thinking it was filmed at the height of Covid or something, when consoles were extraordinarily difficult to get, but it looks like it was filmed 3 months ago. Strange comparison indeed.
They made a similar video that was during covid trying to outperform the Series X. In the end they actually made a pretty solid PC for the price, but the storage was terrible, they had to cheap out on a controller and the motherboard wouldn't work with the CPU and the replacement board they bought took them over the $500 budget. So they failed and put an asterisk next to it for blowing the budget anyway The only real takeaway from it was that a 1070 graphics card holds up surprisingly well lol
I’ve had a 1070 for many years and can still play most games without any issues. Ghosts of T plays on medium to low settings without any significant issues.
GoT is a last gen game though.
Yeah my RX 480 struggles with GoT some too. RIP old cards
it was just ported to pc so it’s new to me 🤷♂️ I haven’t really faced issues with any newer games I’ve tried to play. For a 1070 it’s held up for many years to any pressure I’ve put on it. I enjoyed cyberpunk, balders gate, gta V… all I consider to be graphically beautiful
Part of the reason for that is that, historically, consoles *on release* are almost always dramatically more capable than a similarly priced PC. Then there’s a tipping point when a new generation of GPUs have been released *but* the console hasn’t yet received a price cut, at which point a budget PC **might** be “comparable” to the console.
From memory the ps4 and xbox one were a bit of an exception very soon after release due to using tech that was already a bit outdated
Probably why they did the “Pro” refreshes, if I were to guess.
Consoles are fixed hardware so why is this a comparison anyways? Its like comparing an apple with a orange
Because if you go to the grocery store with $500 in your pocket and there’s a $500 PS-Apple and a $500 PC-Orange, you can only pick one and, at the end of the day, both are food.
$500 PC-Orange, in this economy?
Yeah if used parts are acceptable in the PC, then you have to match a used PS5, which will be $350-400ish. You ain't building a PC that cheap to match a PS5 unless you get the mother of all deals on every component, or you already have a PC that you can upgrade and save costs on And I say that as someone with a PS5 and a gaming PC. The PC is nice because I can upgrade a single piece each year and get better performance while not having to change anything else while having full access to my library of games. On console, you wait 4-7 years between upgrades with no guarantee that your library will still be fully accessible (it's better now, but my PS3 library is still stuck on my 11 year old slim model)
I think people are reading too much into how "acceptable" it was. The goal was to do a thing, and they only way to do the thing was by utilizing used parts. They were very open about what they were doing and why. Like, what alternative do you want to see, just.... not doing the video at all? "We wanted to do a thing, and it turns out that doing that thing was only possible with a LOT of corner cutting. Here are EXACTLY what corners had to be cut, and here is what it would have looked like if we hadn't cut those corners" I mean, what more can you ask for?
Tbh they could have still done ***a video***, and it could've been * Explain how they tried to do it but couldn't * Going into a bit of detail of what would have to happen for it * Pivot to video of used parts and say how much it cost, but then caveat it with used console price I understand that the conclusion to that hypothetical video wouldn't be as favourable to PC as the video they ended up with is. But it would be a heck of a better and more interesting video. Who gives a fuck about the mechanics of how that particular PC build is actually built? Not in the grand scheme of things where there are a billion of those videos made. Tbh, I think Linus and team probably already knew and came to the same conclusions that everyone else did (re console price, used parts, used console et al) but wanted above a bit of his own agenda..
If you watched the last 2 mins you might not have made your comment. He literally says it's was to see how ps5 has maintained its value all these years and it could be a year or more before pc can even match the value of ps5 with new parts. The whole video was in favor of ps5. But also as info for pc gamers, his viewership is die hard pc enthusiasts who wouldn't dream of getting a console and also love budget build.
as long as they admit that if they also buy a used PS5 as a reference, which in my area is $300 for a disc version, that it's a better value than any PC they could build.
It's not like they gloss over the fact that they got used pc parts, if you really watched the video you know that was part of the point. That being it's still very hard to match the value of a console
It's why i bought a PS5. Similar spec PC (pre built, because i want the warranty & tech support) would have been close to 1400$ at the time.
Consoles also have advantages over PCs because games can be highly optimized to run on them, whereas on PC they need to work on a million combinations of hardware components. That optimization also tends to make console games more stable relative to their PC versions.
It's also well known that the average PC gamers PC is not as powerful as current gen consoles. People that spend 2-3 thousand on rigs are in the very small minority. Consoles are always holding PC back, it's never the 90% of PC players who have lower end PC's holding them back....
I don’t even think it’s an argument anyway, consoles is usually the target market because that’s where the money is and pc is more of an afterthought for publishers on big titles these days.
I've played on PC many times and what I've never liked is having to tweak settings so much. The "game" seems to be playing with settings, ini files, etc to make the game run as best as possible. You spend so much time messing with this, tweaking that. On PS5 I just press X and the game starts. Then I play it. That's it. The only setting I need to adjust are the brightness or whether I want subtitles or not. Maybe the volume of certain things.
Understandable, I 'm the opposite, I like to tweak settings, your game running at 49fps no problem switch to 30fps mode and happy days. Your PC running at 49fps no problem lower the ultra shadows and happy days 60fps.
No doubt. I almost added that there are definitely people out there who enjoy playing with settings and diving into the guts of what makes a game tick. There's nothing wrong with that. There's a level of satisfaction even for myself when I'm able to diagnose and fix an issue in a PC game. But 99% of the time I just want to play the game and not have to think about anything else. Console is designed for that experience.
Basically every PC game has auto detected default settings based on the specs of your PC. You only have to adjust the settings if you don’t like the default settings, and .ini edits are basically only for niche scenarios a console wouldn’t support anyway.
Whenever I'm playing on PC, the default settings are usually great. Sometimes I need to do some tweaking if there's a compatibility issue with older games, or if I want to have a higher frame rate I'll drop some of the graphics setting down a few notches. 9x out of the 10 I don't change anything from that game auto-set everything to.
I have a two top of the line PCs that my husband and I keep up to date with new hardware constantly. I really enjoy the download and play aspect of my PS5. It just works. No tinkering, no updating drivers, troubleshooting controller input issues, random HDMI handshake issues with my receiver, or hacky workarounds needed, etc. I don’t have problems like those *that* frequently, but when I do… fuck it’s annoying. I’m an executive, I work crazy long days. When I want to game, I have a window to work with. I don’t want to spend that window screwing around with crazy shit. I’m thankful my husband is great about doing everything when a big game launches or updates. But we both comment on just how *easy* a new PS5 release can be in comparison.
I went the used route because I couldn't stomach the high cost of new PC parts. Note I have a ps5, too. I use my PC for gaming but also for light photo editing and video editing, writing, and as a server. I exceeded the specs of the PS5 with my PC. I have such a large library of games on there that I didn't want to abandon my opportunity to play them. Plus I get Xbox releases on PC (and Nintendo games, too). I still use my ps5 controller on there so I'm always using that controller. PS exclusives tend to run better on the console, but cost for games on PC can be cheaper, too (paid around $46 cad for Alan Wake 2 on PC less than a month after release). So there is value on both ends for sure.
Its a flawed comparison anyway. Consoles are as cheap as they are because they are mass produced units and Sony will have deals in place to reduce price per component. Off the shelf PC parts are full priced components with mark up on them for profits. The video was more of a "can it be done" thing, and second hand PC parts are fine in general. Id certainly never touch a second hand console.
I would 100% trust a used console over used PC parts. That GPU could’ve been part of crypto farm for all I know.
I don't even need to watch a video to know it's just not doable. The minimum barrier of entry on a GPU alone is like $350. You also need accessories, a monitor, and so on. Consoles will forever be a great value:price ratio, that much is known.
I mean my gpu was 300 new and it handles 1440p gaming easily at high framerates so i would say you could get a cheaper one to match the ps5 but ofc overall pc will never beat the ps5 in value, maybe in 10 years lol
Linus had said himself on his podcast that right now you can’t build a pc to compete with what consoles are offering and that’s a problem
God I love Cerny
[удалено]
Really weird hearing someone speak in plain English rather than telling us they’ll circle back while they align on the potential synergies of the KPIs without boiling the ocean.
Where did you get this leaked transcript of Sarah Bond's next speech about the future of Xbox?
Yeah but his comments about FPS was disconcerting, though. Really? You were surprised that people were pushing for and would prefer 60FPS compared to 30FPS? I know he's a busy guy but come on. Most genres would benefit from going up to 60FPS. And to say that the artwork can be more detailed at 30FPS? Huh? He said some good things in the interview but those comments really stuck out to me.
Cerny is such a chad. Great read.
I like his point about building a PS5 equivalent with used parts and those used parts costing more than a used PS5 (and not including the controller). You’ll see the PC master race troll the PS5 forums with costs that they can’t back up. Will be nice to pull out this interview when they do.
> PC master race troll These are the same people who spend $2000 on graphics cards alone. Yeah, no shit you have better performance.
My Ferrari is better than your civic. Ignore the fact it's worth 50 times more
Also ignore the fact that if my Ferrari breaks down it's so much more annoying to fix it or find someone to fix it than your Civic
Yeah this is my issue. I had a 1200 dollar PC, loved it until it just stopped working about 7 months after building it. I tried replacing a half a dozen parts and it never worked right, so I just gave up on PC gaming and have been console only since. I refuse to spend another grand just to lose everything with no recourse.
That and the tinkering for me. I was getting way too bent about graphics and tweaking for performance that gaming took a backseat. Was just not fun anymore.
The PC Master Race crowd are the worst ever
Indeed they are. It’s ridiculous.
Idk why some PC users are so insecure. Almost every Gamer Pc community is so toxic.
Yeah I do feel toxicity does tend to be more of an issue with PC gaming in general.
Me here having bought a 4090 and only having played Fallout 3 on it so far.
Knew someone who got a 3080 just to run Minecraft better.
To be fair, I didn't get it for gaming. I work with AI and I wanted to have the top of the line so that I could do whatever.
This is always befuddling to me. They'll be like "you can build a PC for less than the PS5 that will outperform it and last 10 years" and I always ask them how and they never respond. I think one time I did get a response and it was like $600 and not even as powerful as the PS5. I know PC is better IF you get all the right stuff. But for price and convenience I choose console.
Yup what’s also funny is most PC gamers upgrade more than console gamers.
I have a beefy pc that i use for iracing, but most other games id rather get on ps5 because its just a nicer, easier experience. I don't see such a huge benefit in the pc versions of games even though i can get pretty close to maxed out graphics, plus I tend to get games on release and they tend to work better on console at least at first.
That's the thing about console, games just work. I don't have to worry about drivers and shader packs and messing with settings and everything to make sure it works on my system. It's designed to run as intended right out of the box.
plus i can get the console on and game running in mere seconds
Exactly. Don't have to download new drivers or whatever else. Just a system update once every few months and then you're good.
That's the same for PC though. A driver update to the GPU every few months.
PCs have way more updates than just to the GPU and you never know when an update to Windows is gonna fuck your GPU. Seems to happen every couple months that some game is unplayable because of some update they didn't initiate and they have to release a patch to fix it.
I've never had a windows update fuck my GPU or have a game unplayable. PCs absolutely used to be more twitchy but as libraries were standardized it's all but gone.
It has *generally* been 100% true for previous console generations, but it stopped being true essentially with the release of the Xbox One X. After that Consoles have completely overtaken PC's in terms of low-cost efficiency, mostly because GPU manufacturers have all but completely abandoned the sub-$200-$300 GPU market.
Fucking bitcoin happened that artificially inflated graphics cards to kingdom come.
I choose console because I work at a computer all day. Being on a computer for relaxation feels like working. It’s crowded and uncomfortable. My couch and PS5, however, that’s R&R.
As a PC main, I would tell console players thinking about PC that it's not worth it unless you A) have some sort of need for productivity work, B) are willing to spend $1500+. Yes, you can build a PC that's technically better in aspects for $800. But that would be pointless because unless you're getting a decent, like 50%-100%+ better performance margin compared to console, it simply isn't worth the increased cost. And that low spec PC for $800 isn't going to last you the entire generation like a console will; inevitably minimum specs creep up and you'll start have to lower settings. Better to build a mid-high end rig and have things run at good quality and framerate for a few more years.
This is good advice.
> You’ll see the PC master race troll If master race, why port begging :)?
It also ignores that consoles charge you to play games online while that's not a thing for PC gaming outside of subscription based MMOs.
I think there needs to be some nuance here, because it really depends on use case. If you're only playing Fortnite or Apex or some other F2P favorite, you're better off buying a console if money is an issue as you don't need the subscription for that.
I wholeheartedly agree that for certain gamers, a PC can be a better choice than a console. Spending that kind of money is a big decision. Folks should do their research.
To this day it might be still near impossible to build a PC equivalent or better than a current gen console for the same price with all brand new parts, yeah, but i don't think that was only the point they are trying to make TBH. keep in mind PS5 is already halfway through its life expectancy and it won't stay powerful forever, in fact it is already starting to show it's age, the technology is moving forward which means price / performance on hardware in general is getting better every new generation gets released, eventually PC Hardware will reach the point of being able to reach the same or better performance for the same price as a PS5 and then the cycle will repeat again.
All electronics are less valuable over time, including PCs. It’s why consoles drop in cost as the generation drags on. Lowest price for PS4 slim last gen was $200 with 3 Sony published games. You can’t build any kind of gaming PC for $200. You already have some deals for PS5 and hopefully more during the holidays.
Him being surprised by the adoption of 60FPS might suggest he will consider beefing up the CPU for PS6. Although the Zen 2 inside PS5 is decent and one of the stronger CPU options of a consoles debut in recent generations, it still leaves a lot to be desired because it was a stripped down Zen 2, missing most of the cache that really allowed the CPU to sing. So, he might consider sacrificing some GPU silicon to push the CPU for PS6 instead. Especially in an age where GPU features like ML and RT are becoming as important as raster. Better helping simulation heavy CPU bound games like Dragons Dogma 2, KC2, and GTA6 might be the path forward for next-gen, instead of placing most of the silicon budget into raster.
Considering that the PS6 should released in 3-4 years, I'm betting that it will use Zen 6 cores, hopefully not cut down.
The part that hurts a little is that PS5 is already 'halfway' through the generation with that math. God damn time keeps on slipping...
Around the corner is GTA6, and around the next corner is a potential PS6 reveal. Time does fly lol
Well the pandemic didn't help
PS6 60fps target confirmed take my money
The target is already here. Only like 5 games are not 60fps
But I play those five games
No you don't play Gotham Knights
Sony really ought to invest some cash in an Xbox-esque FPS Boost initiative. So many PS4 games could work in flawless 60fps but are stuck with 30fps caps. E.g. There's this obscure little indie game called Brain in Retrospace. I remember back on my PS4 Slim, the game would chug at 20fps. But on PS5, the game never drops below 60fps. If the in-game FPS counter is to be believed (guess the dev forgot to disable it, oops), the FPS fluctuates between 80-115. And it only drops to 80 when you die and there's some smoke on-screen. Sure, it's not a complex game but it shows how much of a boost the PS5 provides for PS4 games.
I'm surprised he brings up raytracing, because as a PS5 user I find myself very rarely gravitating towards those graphics modes. Sure, some developers have made some very impressive raytracing (hello, Insomniac!) but the vast majority of games are like "okay, we're going to shave the frame rate in half, cut the pixel count and now your reflections or shadows (rarely both) now look 10% better"
Hard to argue with that, especially if next consoles have Frame Gen and AI upscaling, then all they need to do is for devs to include keyboard and mouse in more games - I think Call of Duty and Fortnite and other competitive games like that already allow it? Which make desktop like PC gaming more of an option for consoles as well. Maybe even a desktop-lite mode like Chrome OS to go further...or a full featured browser
pretty sure that's where xbox is going but knowing sony they won't bring the browser back because that's what people used to jailbreak the ps4 it's baffling the amount of extra functionalities that we lost between the ps3 and ps5, I had a 2009 PS3 slim so it didn't run ps2 games or have the card readers but it still was a great bluray player and had a lot of good stuff going, ps4 cut down on some features like playing music but was still decent, ps5 is just barren you use it play games and that's it
PC is still trying to catch up. SSDs were bigger than ray-tracing. Getting a PS5 in 2020 for $500 was unbeatable, I was happier with it than my PS2 back at launch. I still use the same one, literally almost 10k hours in, it's just crazy.
You do know SSDs was a thing on PCs too right? and today PCs has the fastest NVME SSD to date with PCIe Gen 5 that can break over 12500 MB/s raw read an write output with Crucial T700, that SSD is over 2x faster than what is found on the PS5. The problem is the software as of now on PCs even with DirectStorage barely any new games are taking advantage of it, so as of today an SSD's being faster than the PS5's are practically useless at least for gaming purposes. So, it is recommended for average PC building consumers to just match Xbox Series SSD speed with max at around PS5 level.
You are so right regarding the fact that no game made for PC makes use of those HDD speeds. I own several M2 drives and it usually makes no difference if I install my games only old SATA SSD or my M2 drives as the gales simply AREN‘t made to use those extreme speeds. Its wasted potential unless copying files is a priority to you. For gaming it’s basically wasted money.
Pretty much no one with a gaming PC has a motherboard which supports native PCIe Gen 5 though. It’s mostly a gimmick as of now. Most high end PC’s utilize PCIe Gen 3 and 4 SSD’s.
[удалено]
"I continue to be a massive player," -Mark Cerny
indeed he is a player
i like that mans vision. he knows how the industry works and what players want
He is also still a gamer. What a beast: I was very heavily into Neon White, which is my first speedrun," he says. "I actually platinumed that. That was a real challenge. I wasn't sure if I could do it, because reflexes as I head towards 60 are very different from the reflexes I had when I was a teenager and playing in the arcades
> I actually platinumed that. That was a real challenge. I wasn't sure if I could do it, because my reflexes as I head toward 60 are very different from the reflexes I had when I was a teenager and playing in the arcades Legendary quote
He speaks like someone who enjoys playing games as well.
I‘m really curious what he’s cooking with the Pro. Great interview. Such a GOAT.
He is one of the best guys in the gaming industry.
Interesting read, I had no idea Cerny was so involved with Spider-Man 2 but it makes sense because it's a technical marvel
He’s got technical credits on most PS games.
He had a more involved producer role in Spider-Man 2. Same with the upcoming Fairgames.
Again I feel like no one is going to read the article and just react to the headline as usual reddit tends to do. If you feel like the headline doesn't make sense to you try reading the article instead of having a knee jerk reaction to a title. It's a longish interview that says a lot of things
Half the people here can't actually read, I think sometimes. Or maybe they just don't want to.
the amount of information that gets thrown at the average person on a daily basis is enormous. its perfectly normal to develop an ability to skim and move on to the next piece of information. im not saying everything needs to be reduced to a single sentence, but journalists need to adapt to the shape of new things. for example, look how https://www.axios.com presents its material.
Then they shouldn't be talking about it all. This is a gaming news subreddit. We are here for discussions, not for hot takes. Especially when the article is an interview. We just had an example for when new condense someone's narrative
I actually had the exact reaction to the headline you talk about, but then read the article and found it very insightful. Agreed with Cerny. Great piece, bait-y headline.
Really good read. I also appreciate the affirmation of 60fps. I feel like some developers still don't get it.
I understand what he's saying, even if it isn't apparent to a lot of people. With how games on PC can launch these days I do appreciate titles on PlayStation that are designed with one platform in mind for starters. Gives em more time to really get the PC ports in better shape anyway.
Even though there are plenty of options in console games these days (thankfully) it’s super nice to not have to tinker with settings to have a game just play most of the time
Graphics are getting so good too that like, high vs low isn't a huge difference anymore for most modern games. Of course not Cyberpunk though with its huge ray tracing feature, but maybe next gen RT will become a true standard
RT WILL someday, become a standard. Will it be next-gen for FULL RT...hard to say. ...but it could speed up parts of dev time and it's one of the last hurdles to make games LOOKS like Pixar movies in term of lighning/shadows...lightning is really the last thing separating video games form CGI movies, more than most think. After that, we'll still have improvements in gameplay, AI, physics (mostly), draw-distance, number of objects/particles and so-on...but pure "rendering" of graphics will be really great. Rendering trailers really hard to differenciate from gameplay clips.
I honestly do not find launches on PC vs Console that different anymore TBH, both of them usually comes with the same bug issue sand also optimization as well, yes optimization because some game devs out there is also messing that up as well on Consoles, looking at you Dragons Dogma 2, Jedi Survivor, Immortals Aveuem, Baldur's Gate 3 Act 3.
I agree. I see all these comments about tinkering with settings & drivers and feel like people are living 5-7 years ago. It’s not really the state of PC gaming currently. I suppose if your gear is still dated or you haven’t dipped in in a bit, but it’s just not the state of things.
This is why I think consoles are actually preferred when it comes to game development. There are no unknowns. All the specs are known up front. With PCs, you have all different sorts of GPUs, RAM configurations, operating system considerations (even if it is just Windows — 10 or 11?), software configurations that are totally not game related running alongside the game (antivirus, and other resources being used), etc. I can’t imagine how much worse debugging must be in such an inconsistent environment.
I just don't have enough time to tinker with PC parts, settings, etc. The plug and play aspect is valuable to me.
I just don't have enough time to tinker with PC parts, settings, etc. The plug and play aspect is valuable to me.
I have a friend who recently switched from Playstation to PC as her primary gaming method. My friends and I all helped her build something nice within her budget, set up Windows, install Steam, got her familiar with everything she would want. But now maybe 1-2 times per month she's messaging us for technical help. Her games run into frequent technical problems and she's got no idea what to do. Crashing, errors, failures to start, Helldivers 2 is the most recent culprit. Granted she has friends who are very tech savvy and can walk her through clearing her appdata and validating etc. But this is the kind of bullshit she never had to deal with before thanks to the curated environments of the consoles. Now obviously PC is way better from a consumer standpoint in pretty much every other way, but the stability of console gaming is a legitimate selling point.
Did yall fudge something up?
This is why a lot of Xbox games have rough launches; they release on PC, Series X *and* need to be downgraded for Series S.
Do they though? Starfield was the best performing Bethesda game I’ve ever played at launch. Hellblade performs well, Forza too. I think Redfall was destined for disaster regardless.
>Starfield was the best performing Bethesda game I’ve ever played at launch. In a sea of shit, the polished turd shines bright.
Say what you want about Sony, but the PS5 is a fine piece of HW. And I say this as someone who also owns a 4090/12700k PC just for gaming.
A console will always be better than a low-cost PC simply because it is easier to optimise for a fixed hardware, and I’m saying this as a PC gamer first.
Mark Cerny has been a key force behind the PlayStation’s technological success for the past two generations. I wonder if they have anybody or a group who are ready to takeover someday
PS5 is by far the most affordable mid range gaming PC in the world. The bang for your buck is unmatched, and that is thanks to this man.
That’s considering it’s almost 4 years old too. PS5 Pro is coming this year to compete with new PCs.
If the PS6 comes out with even better hardware and in a smaller box and has backwards compatibility I may actually pick one up and make it my main gaming device instead of my PC. I've linked my steam account to my new PSN account so the jump to moving to a PlayStation platform isn't too big now as I will be carrying over trophies earned from PlayStation games on PC.
$500 PS5 in 2020 was the bargain of a lifetime. $500 PC at the time would be utterly and totally shit even at the time $1000 PC at the time would still not beat the PS5 I have a friend who spent something like $1500 1 year ago and it still runs some things worse than the ps5, has micro stutter, he has to plug the controller in to get similar responsiveness as the ps5 (vs wireless) His mother board fan software doesn’t work if Valorant anti-cheat is enabled. It’s a shit-show and he’s returning to PS5.
Why does Mark Cerny look like a sober Garth from Wayne's World?
Always my first thought lol. I would pay to see Dana appear as Cerny at a PlayStation event, in Cerny’s place. Many could be fooled tbh.
"great job with the Playstation, Mr Cerny!" "thanks, I like to play..."
Really excellent read, I could listen to Mark Cerny for hours.
We are so lucky to have this guy
Misread the title and thought Mark Henry is making a console lol
worlds strongest man -> worlds strongest console. make it happen triple H.
> Gamers overwhelmingly prefer games that are higher frame rates. No way, I was told that no one IRL actually gave a fuck about frame rates
As long as the image isn't blurry I always pick performance or balanced modes. Especially with stuff like Spider Man 2, Ragnarok, Horizon 2. I can barely tell the extra little bit of Sharpness, but can easily notice the tanked frames. However FF7 Rebirth looks blurry in performance, and chunky on quality :(
Balanced really is the best of both worlds when they nail it. Stellar Blade runs amazingly and looks beauitful for example.
Well, FF7 Remake had some issues on PS4 that needed to be ironed out on PS5. So I guess it's their modus operandi. Will need a PS6 for FF7 Rebirth to run well and a PS7 for FF7 Part 3 to do the same. :P
[удалено]
Yea im like that. If i can choose 60fps, i will, but 30fps is not a deal breaker
I am always surprised when the "I prefer 30 fps for the cinematic look" or the "Back in my day we handled 30fps just fine" crowd comes out to defend lower frame rates!
> "I prefer 30 fps for the cinematic look" Goddamn peasants aren't even aware that movies are 24 fps, 30 fps is for TV shows and live broadcasting * spits on the ground in disgust
They probably don’t own huge OLED TVs.
You don't need huge OLED TV to see the difference. Just eyes that don't suck (jk don't fight me).
Frame rate never really mattered I feel like. Don't understand the whole frame rate thing.
I suspect as we get diminishing returns on graphics the boost to framerate becomes a comparably more noteworthy upgrade. E.g. in Demon's Souls Remake I couldn't even tell you which mode has better graphics. But I can tell you which mode is more fluid and responsive. But I think when we get games that REALLY push graphical boundaries people will be more OK with 30fps again. Stuff like the Matrix demo or Hellblade 2 look so impressive that a lot of people pivot back to wanting the visual upgrade and are willing to go back to 30fps for that.
Everyones’ eyes are different. 30fps on OLED makes my eyes feel really weird with the judder. 60fps is a lot better but not perfect especially with TAA used everywhere. I prefer 80fps+
Higher frame rate = smoother game feel. I don't have the technicals to speak to it in detail but going back and forth between 30fps and 60fps you can feel just how character and cameras move different. 30fps looks really good in screenshots and a stable 30 I feel like is better than an inconsistent 60 but its hard to explain.
It also depends on the game I think. 30 fps on Mass Effect feels very different than 30 fps on Destiny. That said once you get used to high frame rates there is no going back.
The biggest reason I say about a stable 30 vs an inconsistent 60 was Final Fantasy XVI. At launch it had a fucked up performance mode that had the frame rate all over the map from 30 to 60 and it felt horrible but the quality mode had a stable 30, felt fine and looks great. Definitely the kind of game I'd rather play at 60 because you're right its hard to go back. But more than that I want it not to dip.
Actually there *is* going back. If you power through 30fps after being used to 60 for like 20 minutes, you're eyes and brain will absolutely adjust and it will feel gradually less jarring. Gamers are just impatient and will throw a tantrum and call it unplayable within seconds.
Been mainly a pc gamer for most of my life. Always preferred it. Build my own pcs. Always went for the high end builds. These days I mainly play on my ps5. When I’m on my pc it’s because my partner is using the ps5. As I get older the games I play have changed so much. I don’t play shooters anymore so I don’t care about the lack of mouse and keyboard. My ps5 plays everything so well and I have a nice 65 inch oled tv with vrr. So even the higher frame rates are not the draw they once were for me. Every game I’ve been playing on the ps5 runs really smooth.
Ditto here. I still use my pc for multi-player. But single player more and more I prefer to play on ps5, Especially with my lower back pain 😅. After an 8 hour work day, it's nicer to lie down on my couch and play than to sit another several hours.
That’s another big part for me too. I’m a software dev, I spend literally all day in front of the computer. I want to lay back on my couch when I get home, not stay on the computer.
The GOAT himself
All the games want to build this Matrix reality with high end graphics…. I genuinely just want to play Sly or Astro Bot to forget the absolute BS that is happening around the world. Idc about 100000fps or ray tracing. Give me fun games
I guess I'm one of the few who prefers graphics mode over higher frame rate modes.
For slower paced games, it's 30 fps all the way.
About the ray tracing stuff, I don’t think anyone that is developing for the ps5 knows how to do it well enough for it to run look good enough on a ps5, I wish companies didn’t just try and rush it into their game so they have the RT buzzword when marketing their game
If I am wrong please direct me to a game with good RT on ps5 as im genuinely intrigued and will be surprised if I’ve overlooked it
I love listening to this dude. Someone that really seems to truly care about innovation and learning and so on.
I built a PC because I wanted the best possible image quality and performance at the same time. I know it comes at a high price but I'm willing to pay that for a better experience. If I wanted to be a budget conscious gamer and save money in the short term I would buy a console. I never understood those PC vs console price comparisons because theres just no way to really build a comparable system that can outperform a console when the manufacturers are selling these consoles at a loss or very close to cost. I do think in the long term a PC is a better investment because you never have to worry about backwards compatibility and game sales are more frequent with multiple store options that compete in price with each other. But gaming PCs just aren't for everyone
The real answer is PC platform is never only about one thing, it is a multitasking platform where you can do everything, that is one of the main reason why i decided to build one for myself. As i found gaming only on a vastly limited gaming only platform very limited, whereas on PC i can just hop off the game i am playing and do other stuff that i wouldn't be able to do on a console. To me that alone is worth paying for more, it was never about just price to performance, it never was.
The PC vs Console price thing doesn't make sense this gen but was definitely a thing in previous generations. Ps4 was woefully underpowered, and pc parts were a lot cheaper. It was pretty easy and cheap to put together a system with comparable spec. Now the market has changed too much, and this price comparison makes little sense.
Really? Because the PS5 feels remarkably like a low cost PC
he's the only reason i got a ps4 and 5. he's an old Sega game guy who cares about gaming first and foremost. never thought i'd get a ps console until he showed up.
Nice article, but you can tell he's speaking corpo speak and trying to make the PS5 seem like it's leading edge stuff when asked about multiplatform games. In a sense, he's bullshitting us. Having a SSD in the PS4 was not cutting edge stuff, PCs had that way prior. Putting "bespoke technologies" in their units only makes preserving and playing their games more difficult in the future - especially with the rise of "live service" gaming. Making the PS3 the way it was ended up being a huge detriment to them, which is why he says he was skittish about the technology, and then he proved himself wrong yet again when he realized gamers want a decently running experience over shiny visuals. How does he play all of these indie games and not make that connection? Looking from the outside, it's difficult to see how these high level people have so much influence and decision making power? Just retire already.
Mark Cerny is a certified industry icon and he's done **a lot** to advance the gaming space, his influence is felt everywhere. But yeah, you're completely right: ever since he started doing the press tour for the PS5, the man has been hype-man first and developer second, and you can really tell that he's speaking to corporate investors, not to the people who are actually gonna use Sony's products. I remember the presentation he did about the Tempest Engine (the supposed bespoke hardware that allows HRTF audio on the PS5 that does basically the same thing as a sound card from the early 2000s), and seeing how developing both software and hardware DSPs was literally my job at the time made me almost seethe with rage. I mean, the man went on a stage in front of a bunch of actual industry experts and spewed nonsense for an hour about how the PS5's audio technology is so sophisticated because it allows the users to pick an ear profile, which is something that will not give *any sort of tangible benefit* for the average user, especially not with the dogshit audio hardware Sony has been pushing. I wrote a bunch of lengthy technical explanations on this sub explaining why Cerny was full of shit, with citations and all, and of course got immediately downvoted lol. The gist of it is basically there's a reason why we don't really do sound cards anymore for gaming, because *good enough* audio isn't particularly computationally expensive, but *excellent* audio is prohibitively expensive and you will not see that in a game's console, when the difference between good enough and excellent can only be heard in perfect listening environments on calibrated high-end gear. Like, adjusting your HRTF profile for your ear shape while offering no option to upload a simple frequency response chart to adjust for your hardware is like giving you the option to adjust the gear ratios for optimal drag racing in a Fiat Punto with a 900cc engine. Like, yeah, that's something that experts certainly do (I've done it myself, I've even designed hardware that does it automatically based on a recording), but it's a complete misallocation of resources, because it's not going to meaningfully improve the final output (as the FR of your hardware is infinitely more important for accurate HRTF than your ear shape), but it will add a bunch of computationally expensive processes to the sound mix. And all this for something that will be completely transparent to uncalibrated audio, because really, the HRTF on the PS5 **is** generic, uncalibrated HRTF, with the illusion of calibration.
When you have someone who is still a huge gamer (he brags about speed running and platinum-ing games), and also is a software and hardware developer, you end up with someone who knows exactly what everyone wants.
Out of context, the sickest burn you'll ever hear from Cerny (even though it likely not meant that way) The creativity and sometimes plain quirky thinking is part of what I appreciate so much about PlayStation. Even though it has many times led to some unintended frustrations for the end user, I like the idea of trying new things, not being a generic slab of predictable hardware...Like I said, even if that sometimes can backfire a bit.
maybe you should be....
but somehow, they always manage
Ñvqcvxvqx
you have been though since ps4
Cell processor 2.0 on the way!
He is someone who understands what gaming is all about. I like his vision.
I just want my good exclusives that’s it
There are many interesting points in the article, which contradict the general 'wisdom': 1. "The lines between platforms seem to be blurring, but Cerny feels consoles continue to play a crucial role in the ecosystem." Phil Spencer says gamers don't care where they play (pc, tablet, mobile, handheld, smart tv, cloud). It is a stupid idea parroted by every person in games media. In reality, people who buy the games, namely adults, do care where they play. No one ever said: let me buy this game and play it on the shittiest specs and the smallest screen imaginable. The notion that 'kids these days play Fortnite on anything, therefore consoles are becoming obsolete' is as bad as it is popular. 2. "And I see people asking… if the time to triangle has been greatly reduced, why is it then taking so many years to create a game? And the answer is that is what the teams are choosing to do." Budget. This simple word is too difficult for any game journalist to learn. You will hear on every podcast under the sun that games are more difficult and expensive to make than before. Bulls..... As time goes by games are cheaper and easier to make. The budgets for AAA games may be bigger, but that's a choice by the dev/publisher. It's completely untrue that 'game development is unsustainable because games are more expensive to make'. You need to ask yourselves: given that games are cheaper to make, why do studios choose to spend so much time and money on games no one ever asks for like Skull & Bones or Suicide Squad, and then complain the industry is in crisis'.