I haven't snooped out Microsoft in a while, but Cerny's tech presentation I had watched almost in full when it came out, and there was no side by side gameplay, which is what I'm thinking of. Taking old and new Spider Man or Horizon and comparing the way they look and run, something like that, although the differences might not be that obvious for those, as they are transitional launch titles, which is why a dedicated demo taking full advantage of the hardware would be a better idea.
This kind of stuff is what I'm talking about. Microsoft did a few of them.
Not surprised by that. As for the Quixel assets, it's their demo after all, it only makes sense for them to use in-house software to make it, but I get your concern.
I mean I have no beef with Megascans, it's just that the average viewer might not understand their limitations.
I'm not putting all my expectations into the ray tracing alone, even though compared to Nvidia's RTX-ON crap which doesn't work properly without optimization and even DXR, games made to specifically run on the PS5 and make use of its GI and RT features might not be too bad actually. As I said though, it's this stuff combined with the other functionalities like the shading and rendering of more detailed assets and textures in real time without sacrificing performance or memory, which is in no small part made possible by the SSD, by the way.
Well it's what I said in the beginning, I think asset loading is going to make a bigger difference than RT or other such gimmicks. Rasterizing isn't going away. Obviously more compute power will make for higher resolution, more FPS, bigger textures and more objects on screen, but in terms of generational gap I don't think that will be as significant as the thoroughput improvements from storage to DRAM to compute.
The seamless loading is significant and will make designing games easier (the Ratchet and Clank gameplay was indeed a pretty cool demonstration of that, now that you mention it), but the custom flash controller will also help on the visual front, as I detailed above, so it's really more than just quality of life stuff.
I don't see how the flash controller will help anything besides getting assets from the NAND to the chip? They have that big 5.5 GB/s thoroughput that allows them to load assets directly, which is great, but that's still all about pumping out more assets faster. Anyway, I think the proper way to look at this is really as a system and not individual components. The point for them was to eliminate DRAM and storage bottlenecks.
Raw graphics quality improvements nowadays are hardly ever drastic. The real advancements will be more on the functional side of things, which will influence visual immersiveness in other ways than just a sharper image.
Isn't that what I was saying? Though I don't know what you mean by "visual immersiveness". For immersion I stick to VR.
The PS5 will be backwards compatible with the PS4, but not the other way around. The first games will be transitional indeed, but you won't be able to just pop them into a PS4. I might have misunderstood you though, so feel free to clarify.
I'm not talking about disc compatibility but the fact it will take a while for games developed specifically to take advantage of that custom hardware to come out.
Technologically speaking, it's actually a bigger step-up, but because of the diminishing returns you mentioned which I had also wanted to bring up, it's not really perceived as such a revolutionary shift by the general public as HD was in the 90s. If I had to choose what's more important I would go with higher refresh rates and color accuracy rather than pixel counts, but again, this is not why I mentioned Ultra HD in the first place.
How is it a bigger step-up technologically? It's just more pixels. A real technological step-up would be the switch to MicroLEDs. Now that's a big deal. Anyway, we seem to be in agreement that HDR and FPS matter more.
In terms of a downgrade due to the wide performance gap between consoles and PC, which is why I brought up Dark Souls II as an infamous example and what we were saying will hopefully not be a problem anymore, that's a different thing. Now, for the bullshit screenshots and misleading promotional material, there's an argument to be made that the better games look on their own, the reasons to embellish them and the amount of embellishments that can be added on top without making it too obvious will also diminish. So even if they are enhanced, the original is probably not much worse.
There will always be a performance gap between consoles and top of the line PCs, if only because PC parts get updated more frequently and can be priced much higher. And you can be sure misleading trailers and screenshots will keep popping up even with this new generation. But yeah, maybe as graphics get so good it will eventually disappear.
The PS3 and to a much lesser the degree the PS4 were notorious for having architecture that made developing and porting certain titles very difficult.
It's mostly the PS2 and PS3 that were horrible because of their custom chipsets. Once Sony moved to a more PC-like architecture (x86 + Radeon GCN GPU) things got much simpler.
But seeing them able to work with demons souls at least is nice. I always hear it has the best “world” out of the souls games. Makes me wonder how much of a remake vs. remaster it will be? Down that rabbit hole we go again it seems.
I like Dark Souls' world better for what it's worth. Demon's Souls had a hub which connected to separate zones (you teleport to them). It's a great game with a great atmosphere and Dark Souls is clearly its sequel, but as far as the world goes, I'd say Dark Souls wins. I do like Demon's Souls ending better however.