Playstation 5 review: Not just a more-powerful PS4(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Playstation 5 review: Not just a more-powerful PS4
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/11/playstation-5-review-more-of-a-generational-hop-than-a-leap/
61 comments
I wonder if we could hack/mod the airpod pro to gain access to their internal microphone, we could use it to create our own HRTF head model, probably what apple is doing to enable their version of spatial audio
For games? I wish it could be used for movies.
I'd buy a PS5 just to be able to watch movies if it had a good surround to HRTF conversion.
I'd buy a PS5 just to be able to watch movies if it had a good surround to HRTF conversion.
I might have missed something but they say the HRTF is unique per-person. They mention collecting the pattern from one person using specialized equipment but then just straight to "using an HRTF".
How does this apply to a consumer console like the PS5? Are they going to sample a lot of people and use some sort of average? Or is there some way to define it per-listener?
How does this apply to a consumer console like the PS5? Are they going to sample a lot of people and use some sort of average? Or is there some way to define it per-listener?
No, they'll have a set of pre-made HRTFs and then use a listening test to pick the most appropriate one for the user
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph8LyNIT9sg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph8LyNIT9sg
While HRTFs are unique per person, there's still a lot of similarity. You can use a "one size fits all" HRTF and still get quite good results, and a small menu of options is essentially sufficient.
Exactly, interestingly I remember Michael Abrash recounting when he was demoed personalized HRTF for the first time. They put headphones on him and sat him in a chair. A person started walking around him in circles holding a small speaker. But it was obviously a trick, the sound didn't come from the speaker but the headphones - but according to his account it was indistinguishable from the real thing. He was astounded when the person walking around him stopped but the audio remained circling around him. Personalized HRTF is a game changer.
Counter strike has HRTF. It’s nice.
PC gaming had positional audio with not just HRTF's but also reflections raytraced in the 90s from Aureal. These chips/cards were indeed quite high quality, and reasonably priced at the time.
Aureal was sued into bankruptcy by a patent lawsuit from Creative. Creative was able to buy the company out of bankruptcy court, before the patent case was even resolved, and promptly shuttered it, along with removing all drivers and support materials from the internet. Their competing hardware at the time was considerably inferior: just a reverb filter with some tuning knobs.
Aureal was sued into bankruptcy by a patent lawsuit from Creative. Creative was able to buy the company out of bankruptcy court, before the patent case was even resolved, and promptly shuttered it, along with removing all drivers and support materials from the internet. Their competing hardware at the time was considerably inferior: just a reverb filter with some tuning knobs.
Patent lawsuit by Creative over technology Creative copied from Aureal :/
Carmack intended to implement pure software 3D audio in Doom 3, but Creative threatened with a patent lawsuit over stencil shadows. Result was EAX support.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doom_3#Release
Carmack intended to implement pure software 3D audio in Doom 3, but Creative threatened with a patent lawsuit over stencil shadows. Result was EAX support.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doom_3#Release
I didn't know that one. Sigh. Creative truly is a loathsome company.
To add to that, you can now emulate EAX on any sound card via OpenAL Soft[1] and DSOAL[2]. Effectively turning any old game into HRTF. You can even run your custom HRTF profiles.
[1] https://www.openal-soft.org/ [2] https://github.com/kcat/dsoal
[1] https://www.openal-soft.org/ [2] https://github.com/kcat/dsoal
>Aureal was sued into bankruptcy
Well they won the lawsuit. But the Lawsuit cost was way too high. Not to mention Sound Card wasn't that important at the time, and PC Gaming Market was Tiny, as compared to today. Even Creative themselves lose as market shift to RealTek Audio.
I am said all these great thing happened in the 90s, 3DFx and Glide, along with Aureal 3D all lost.
Well they won the lawsuit. But the Lawsuit cost was way too high. Not to mention Sound Card wasn't that important at the time, and PC Gaming Market was Tiny, as compared to today. Even Creative themselves lose as market shift to RealTek Audio.
I am said all these great thing happened in the 90s, 3DFx and Glide, along with Aureal 3D all lost.
HRTF technology for computer games has been available since the 90s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aureal_Semiconductor#A3D
Not nearly at the level that the PS5 is promising. They quote a computational requirement that's equivalent to 2 Ryzen cores.
HRTF is now quite common with VR games since it's guaranteed that you'll be using headphones. I've had to implement it for a couple of titles and the result is quite nice as the audio positioning matches your head movement.
> 667GB of usable storage doesn't go as far as you might like.
Wow, WHAT?! It has a 825GB NVMe, so that means the OS/system default is ~158gb. That seems super high to me. Considering when you think of the size of MacOS or Windows 10, that seems like a very poor optimization on their end. Especially when you consider most triple A titles these days are getting upwards of 200gb (looking at you, latest Call of Duty games). You think they would have optimized the system and OS files a ton more to get it down to at least 50gb or less.
But that could just be a bad personal take, someone technical please correct me if that ~158gb is justified somehow...
UPDATE: I get that it's not just PURELY OS size probably, but even ~158gb seems incredibly large RESERVED space compared to your average computer for the system to need. It still smells like poor optimization on the developer end to me.
Wow, WHAT?! It has a 825GB NVMe, so that means the OS/system default is ~158gb. That seems super high to me. Considering when you think of the size of MacOS or Windows 10, that seems like a very poor optimization on their end. Especially when you consider most triple A titles these days are getting upwards of 200gb (looking at you, latest Call of Duty games). You think they would have optimized the system and OS files a ton more to get it down to at least 50gb or less.
But that could just be a bad personal take, someone technical please correct me if that ~158gb is justified somehow...
UPDATE: I get that it's not just PURELY OS size probably, but even ~158gb seems incredibly large RESERVED space compared to your average computer for the system to need. It still smells like poor optimization on the developer end to me.
Some consumer whatcdog should start looking at those claims, thats just borderline false marketing claims.
It’s not all operating system. Space reserved to avoid ssd performance degradation on full drives, keeping it open for future software updates, cache etc.
It could be that 825GB is the typical marketing GB (i.e., 1000^3) and the 667GB is the OS reported GB (i.e., 1024^3). That difference only reduces the 825 "marketing" GB to 768 "real" GB. So still a 100GB of OS/system files, which seems large, as you say.
giga- (along with kilo-, mega-, peta- and every other prefix we've ever used with bytes) in any other context is based on powers of 10.
Just because computers are based on binary doesn't mean it was ever a good idea to redefine the meaning of those prefixes.
Just because computers are based on binary doesn't mean it was ever a good idea to redefine the meaning of those prefixes.
I'd guess this is more like "space reserved for system purposes" than OS size alone. You need space to upgrade OS components, probably space for the hibernate-like feature of consoles and a bunch of other stuff I don't know about.
They also can't easily increase the amount of storage for the system, but they can decrease it in the future. So they might include a bit of buffer they don't use yet.
They also can't easily increase the amount of storage for the system, but they can decrease it in the future. So they might include a bit of buffer they don't use yet.
Save states write to the SSD. That's taking up a chunk of storage.
I'm not sure about the PS5, but the Xbox Series has support for four games to be put into the background and brought back in roughly 2 seconds. Four games at 16GB per game is 64 GB of storage.
I hope they add the ability to reduce this to free up more storage. I don't share my systems with other people and only ever play one game at a time.
I'm not sure about the PS5, but the Xbox Series has support for four games to be put into the background and brought back in roughly 2 seconds. Four games at 16GB per game is 64 GB of storage.
I hope they add the ability to reduce this to free up more storage. I don't share my systems with other people and only ever play one game at a time.
This is becoming an issue on PC as well.
The new Call of Duty Modern Warfare + Warzone takes up over 256GB of an SSD.
The new Call of Duty Modern Warfare + Warzone takes up over 256GB of an SSD.
All of a sudden 1TB SSD seems like tiny. I wonder when we could see 2TB SSD at sub $100 RSP.
The Xbox is doing the same thing, they reserve ~180GB of space for OS and the smart resume feature. They need to be able to store the full memory state of 10 games on the SSD, which works out to 13.5*10=135, so add OS room and you got it. They’ll probably make it configurable if people start hitting the limit immediately.
It may be 10% reserved to prolong SSD lifespan. Especially if they are using QLC memory (or as we should marketing-call it - 4-level MLC). Another idea - fully populated SSD drive is slow, because when it has a lot of free space it can emulate SLC mode by using some space behind the scenes, freeing it when needed. Samsung calls this Turbo Write technology.
> Graphical improvement over the PS4 doesn't have the "wow factor" you migth expect.
In the machine's defence, I imagine game-engines will evolve to make much better use of the available hardware, especially regarding raytracing. In previous generations, games released late in a console's lifecycle are often visually significantly better than games released early in the lifecycle.
In the machine's defence, I imagine game-engines will evolve to make much better use of the available hardware, especially regarding raytracing. In previous generations, games released late in a console's lifecycle are often visually significantly better than games released early in the lifecycle.
Another (crude) way to look at this in the improvement in megaflops from one generation to the next.
Besides, I suspect we're well into the diminishing returns curve with respect to visuals. Graphics are now very lifelike and to take them from "almost live action" to "indistinguishable from live action" may take vastly more computational and artistic resources then we maybe getting for the next 5 console generations.
Console Tflops Mflops Impv vs. prv gen
ps 0.0001 100
ps2 0.0062 6,200 6200%
ps3 0.23 230,000 3710%
ps4 1.84 1,840,000 800%
ps4p 4.2 4,200,000 228%
ps5 10.28 10,280,000 245%
Besides, I suspect we're well into the diminishing returns curve with respect to visuals. Graphics are now very lifelike and to take them from "almost live action" to "indistinguishable from live action" may take vastly more computational and artistic resources then we maybe getting for the next 5 console generations.
> that power is mostly going to be taken up by resolution and framerate increases, so less is left over for more complex visuals
Personally I doubt this. Previously, when game studios have been given the choice between high framerates, high resolution, or better effects, they've favoured better effects. The PS3 was capable of 1080p/60fps, but most games were at 720p/30fps.
VR might shake things up here, as a very high framerate is a hard requirement, but I think VR will remain a niche.
> more computational and artistic resources
I think it's the latter that really matters. The difficulty of coding an engine to take advantage of fancy hardware (cutting-edge graphical effects, physics, etc), can be at least partly addressed by licensing an existing engine. This doesn't apply to game-specific assets though. If it takes double the art budget (compared to the previous generation) to produce the best looking game possible, many games will wisely choose not to bother.
As for the next 5 generations, perhaps the necessary investment in game assets might eventually come down as tooling improves. Improving horsepower ramps up the ceiling on game asset quality, but improving artwork tools will make it easier/cheaper to reach a given level. Overall though I think we should probably expect game development prices to continually increase, following the long trend over the years.
Personally I doubt this. Previously, when game studios have been given the choice between high framerates, high resolution, or better effects, they've favoured better effects. The PS3 was capable of 1080p/60fps, but most games were at 720p/30fps.
VR might shake things up here, as a very high framerate is a hard requirement, but I think VR will remain a niche.
> more computational and artistic resources
I think it's the latter that really matters. The difficulty of coding an engine to take advantage of fancy hardware (cutting-edge graphical effects, physics, etc), can be at least partly addressed by licensing an existing engine. This doesn't apply to game-specific assets though. If it takes double the art budget (compared to the previous generation) to produce the best looking game possible, many games will wisely choose not to bother.
As for the next 5 generations, perhaps the necessary investment in game assets might eventually come down as tooling improves. Improving horsepower ramps up the ceiling on game asset quality, but improving artwork tools will make it easier/cheaper to reach a given level. Overall though I think we should probably expect game development prices to continually increase, following the long trend over the years.
Wouldn't it be better if we look at PS4 vs PS5 rather than PS4 Pro which was more like PS4 with 4K.
But in that case it is still only 5.6x.
But in that case it is still only 5.6x.
Do the measurements for PS2/PS3 take into account their specialized hardware? Or the former's VU and the latter's Cell designs aren't really the same sort of thing as the PS1 or PS4.
The SSD speed was always going to be the game changer, it’s more than just load times, which is already huge in helping the game play experience. It’s the type of yet imaginable game play allowed when you can load textures and game data in realtime.
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person who don't like this new "stream textures as it becomes required" instead of loading screens. It's very disruptive to the illusion of video games when textures change on the fly as you interact with the game. I just wish it could be configurable instead of assuming it's always best to stream textures from disk on the fly, instead of upfront loading of them.
Well that seems to be more of a problem of current gen hardware not being able to keep up with the requirements of the game. I hope that the ps5 and xbox series x(?)(microsofts naming scheme keeps confusing me) faster memory will make it so that you won't see them loading in anymore. I can imagine this immersion breaking effect was one of the reasons they both went in this direction with the development of the new consoles.
I agree that the name Microsoft chose for this new Xbox is a bit ridiculous.
So they have the current gen- Xbox X, and the new GEN is called the “Xbox series X“
(I’m not a big gamer so I may have that wrong)
>Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person who don't like this new "stream textures as it becomes required" instead of loading screens
But we're talking get rid of loading screens, what you described would only occur in the first few seconds of the game. It's hardly immersion breaking. If we're talking about the general problem of pop-ins (ie. during normal gameplay), loading screens aren't better either, as you would see jarring loading screens as you move through the game world.
But we're talking get rid of loading screens, what you described would only occur in the first few seconds of the game. It's hardly immersion breaking. If we're talking about the general problem of pop-ins (ie. during normal gameplay), loading screens aren't better either, as you would see jarring loading screens as you move through the game world.
Mipmaps aside -
I remember texture pop-in being a common complaint for the original RAGE (and being one of the complainers). But i replayed it recently on a regular SSD and the effect was barely noticeable at all. So i'm confident that an NVMe disk with direct GPU DMA will really make this a non-issue.
I remember texture pop-in being a common complaint for the original RAGE (and being one of the complainers). But i replayed it recently on a regular SSD and the effect was barely noticeable at all. So i'm confident that an NVMe disk with direct GPU DMA will really make this a non-issue.
Ars review: "Not just a more-powerful PS4"
Reality: "just faster PS4"
~3x faster CPU, ~2.5x faster GPU, 10-100x faster storage.
PS4 games finally run at speeds they were intended to run, speeds PC players always enjoyed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKQ6NeTjccA
Reality: "just faster PS4"
~3x faster CPU, ~2.5x faster GPU, 10-100x faster storage.
PS4 games finally run at speeds they were intended to run, speeds PC players always enjoyed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKQ6NeTjccA
The PS5 adds ray tracing, which was not present in the PS4. This is the largest graphical upgrade and it's pretty obvious when you look at the reflections in the PS5 screen shots.
Also open world streaming that eliminates zoning in games is different from just having faster load screens.
Joy-con like haptics, 3D audio, quieter fans, chat without headset are a few other non-speed changes vs. PS4. Activity cards may be the biggest UI change.
Also open world streaming that eliminates zoning in games is different from just having faster load screens.
Joy-con like haptics, 3D audio, quieter fans, chat without headset are a few other non-speed changes vs. PS4. Activity cards may be the biggest UI change.
Indeed. RDR2 for example runs like crap on the PS4 (non pro).
Really torn between the X and the PS5 and which one to get. The Gamepass is incredible value and PS5 will have $70 exclusives. But yeah those exclusives are really really good.
Something that would absolutely make me buy an Xbox would be to be able to install and play Steam games (without streaming). There are many games I'd rather play on a big TV with a controller and home theater.
I used to have the gaming PC in the living room but then I couldn't play k/m games. I now have a very long HDMI cable and USB extender from my studio to the living room, but it's a hassle to set it up every time I want to play.
I used to have the gaming PC in the living room but then I couldn't play k/m games. I now have a very long HDMI cable and USB extender from my studio to the living room, but it's a hassle to set it up every time I want to play.
Is the gamepass incredible value? If you keep the console 7 years which is about its expected lifetime, would you expect to spend $840 in games?
>would you expect to spend $840 in games
If you get the PS5 then... yes. That will be just 12 games on release and thinking back I bought much more on PS4
I mean you buy 3 games a year on release that will be $210 on PS5. Of course you can wait for sales and such but still, Gamepass is an incredible value no matter what. And they are also combining it with EA Play
If you get the PS5 then... yes. That will be just 12 games on release and thinking back I bought much more on PS4
I mean you buy 3 games a year on release that will be $210 on PS5. Of course you can wait for sales and such but still, Gamepass is an incredible value no matter what. And they are also combining it with EA Play
Interesting... I didn't expect people to spend that much on games as I do sometimes wait for sales or buy used, and even sell back back disc games I'm done with.
Given the number of games I play, I think Game Pass is a great value. I would have easily spent more buying games individually than the cost of Game Pass. Granted, I have the cheaper $5.32/mo version, but I'll keep it when it's $9.99 as well.
Plus, I believe MS is offering a version of the service where the xbox is included in the subscription.
I understand that most people don't like the idea of not keeping games forever, but I have a library of >1,200 games on Steam, >150 on GoG, and 20 or so on Origin. Most of those games I'll never play again, so it doesn't bother me at all that some are only available for a limited time period. If I end up trying something I love and want to keep, like The Outer Worlds, I buy it.
Plus, I believe MS is offering a version of the service where the xbox is included in the subscription.
I understand that most people don't like the idea of not keeping games forever, but I have a library of >1,200 games on Steam, >150 on GoG, and 20 or so on Origin. Most of those games I'll never play again, so it doesn't bother me at all that some are only available for a limited time period. If I end up trying something I love and want to keep, like The Outer Worlds, I buy it.
This is an interesting way of looking at it, but couple of numbers jump out:
1. Average next gen console purchase estimated coming with 3 games, which would put you at a 50% discount at year one. That’s a big discount to amortize over the rest of the years.
2. PS4 had a software attach rate at 10 games per console. That’s in the neighborhood at least.
For me it’s worth it because I don’t have to weigh an economic decision. I just download the game and figure out if I do like it and want to continue. So it’s a complex product to evaluate for sure. I also have to rerun my math because $5/month on pc was absolutely a no-brainer.
1. Average next gen console purchase estimated coming with 3 games, which would put you at a 50% discount at year one. That’s a big discount to amortize over the rest of the years.
2. PS4 had a software attach rate at 10 games per console. That’s in the neighborhood at least.
For me it’s worth it because I don’t have to weigh an economic decision. I just download the game and figure out if I do like it and want to continue. So it’s a complex product to evaluate for sure. I also have to rerun my math because $5/month on pc was absolutely a no-brainer.
$840 gives you just 12 full priced games over that period, while game pass gives you over 200 games at any point in time, including all first party titles
In my case, yes
So, one of the reviews I've watched had this to say: "We have two next generation consoles coming out, but only one next generation controller."
I've heard amazing things about the PS5 controller.
I've heard amazing things about the PS5 controller.
I've watched several reviews and both controllers got good scores. They don't seem to be that much of a big jump than previous gen but imo that's not a problem
People who didn't have a PS4 should factor in the 'PS Plus Collection' - it's twenty top-flight PS4 games included for download on the Playstation Plus subscription at time of PS5 release. It seems to be a one-time thing, not a full competitor to Gamepass, but it's a canny move. Anyone who has never played Bloodborne, The Last Guardian, God of War PS4, Uncharted 4, Ratchet and Clank PS4... minds will be blown before they even start on the next-gen exclusives.
Is it confirmed to work everywhere? I know US, Japan, Canada, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea confirmed but they only said the "rest" will follow
Honestly, to me, there is no point in buying an Xbox anymore BECAUSE of Gamepass. All the good games/exclusives on Gamepass are also on PC where they run better/look better anyways. At this point, your best (full coverage of exclusives) option is to just get a decent PC, and then also get a PS5. There is no longer a need to have all 3 for the full coverage. And again, "full coverage" being the key point in that take.
If it boils down to PS5 or Xbox only, then my 2 cents is the PS5 is still your best bet because of the exclusives on PS platform are significantly better.
If it boils down to PS5 or Xbox only, then my 2 cents is the PS5 is still your best bet because of the exclusives on PS platform are significantly better.
Really interested to see some of the choices Sony has made trickle out into other applications. This is the first time in a long time in video games I’ve seen some risk-taking that could revolutionize the industry.
The articled submitted here seems to say it's not "risk-taking that could revolutionize the industry" but rather "hard to wholeheartedly recommend spending $500 for feature upgrades that are more pleasant than transformative"
I'm with the latter. Cool incremental upgrade, but not transformative for gaming.
I'm with the latter. Cool incremental upgrade, but not transformative for gaming.
[deleted]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-related_transfer_function
[2] https://youtu.be/sSmWIR-D6ro?t=2526
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYdIidUIbAs