I’ve Disappointed and Embarrassed Myself.

[abazigal]

On 6/6/2020 at 3:40 AM, spartaman64 said:

i still dont quite understand how this is useful couldnt they have spent the rnd cost to just have more ram or is using the storage going to be faster than ram

It’s basically the difference between fixed costs and variable costs. 

 

Increasing the specs means that your hardware costs more, which in turn translates into higher prices, or lower profits. 

 

Developing faster flash storage would allow Sony to provide faster performance at the same cost (or even lower). It would cost more upfront, but assuming Sony can sell enough units, it would eventually pay for itself. Not to mention that the technology can also be used in future game consoles. 

 

Not to mention that is this means that flash storage is virtually indistinguishable from ram, so that sounds like a lot of cost savings down the road. 

[Nex6]

Going to be a bit longer post, but it's my first one so I can put few extra minutes into it. Thanks for patience.

 

I think that apology was not necessary, but it's a personal thing so if Linus thought one was needed, good for him.

 

I think that Sweeney is shilling and his statements sound like marketing and could end up being ridiculed in the future. In fact I think that the reason everyone from the other side rejected Linus' interview suggestions is precisely that. It's easy to post marketing slogans but it's harder to get grilled about details that you wouldn't be able to walk back from later. I also think that Sweeney only correcting Linus on "statements that he didn't say" is dishonest, when there are other big publications out there, writing things that he didn't say either, but since they are favorable for Sony, he doesn't feel the need to correct them.

 

Before I go on, I will admit that I am a member of "PC = Master Race" club and I do so unapologetically. (why is this word underlined red; I know my long words). I think that us PC gamers are suffering in many ways because of consoles. But enough whining. I only wrote that to also say that I genuinely hope for these consoles to be great. To be as good as possible. Because this will bring better games for everyone. Even if they do end up better in one tiny segment (we already know that in most segments they are going to lag behind PC's of 2018), it's not something that would last for long.

 

When I read Sweeney's comments back when they were posted, I immediately smelled marketing slogan, it's hard not to. But then I read few articles explaining it and I realized than there is more to it. I don't know if Sweeney intentionally said it the way he did, but it's easy to misunderstand him, too easy. I look forward to this new technology entering gaming world but I have problem with the "it's something that PC can't buy today for any money" statement. First of all, as Linus cleverly mentioned in the video, if this ends up being something very good (and very different, something that PC can't emulate right now) then this would be available only on PS5 exclusive titles. In that it becomes rather irrelevant whether it's "best in class", as there will be nothing to compare it to. I hope that nobody thinks that there has ever been a developer that decided to make a PS exclusive title because of a particular piece of hardware. It's always a business decision, nothing to do with development or desired characteristics of final product.

If on the other hand this can be emulated by PC, then this is quite good, as it will definitely be done and developers will then take it as a new standard.

 

I agree with those that bring up RAM comparisons and I don't understand the detractors. First of all, saying that putting in more RAM would make it more expensive, is proving the point - they are just making a cheap improvement, instead of going for the real improvements. PC should be able to "beat" all that through nothing but brute force, if needed.

 

I don't understand what is meant by statements like "It would need too much RAM". How much RAM would be needed? I read in an article that PS5 games could use something like 30GB of SSD to load maps or whatever they want to do with it. Surely this can be replaced with 30GB of RAM in PC's? Personally I believe that this will be the direction games go in the future, especially if this PS5 storage tech becomes reality - devs will make games in a way that they will either use the new PS5 storage or more RAM on PC. Somebody said that it would still be better on PS5 in this thread... honestly I don't understand how that could be possible, RAM is a completely different beast, there is no way new PS5 storage solution could compete with it. I look forward to time where games will come with recommended requirement of 32GB RAM or even 64GB. Gaming will instantly become much better.

One more family of statements I don't understand, and that's claiming that it will be a problem for PC because "devs will not be able to assume that most PC's use SSD's". Again, devs will be making games that run on both, consoles and PC's. I am pretty sure that we are not far away from the moment where games will assume that users have SSD's, especially if consoles have them. On PC there might be also a slower mode for less demanding gamers that don't have SSD's. But I don't see how games would be made in such a way, that they use the SSD storage advantage in consoles and not use it in PC's. It's all or nothing.

 

[spartaman64]

7 hours ago, abazigal said:

It’s basically the difference between fixed costs and variable costs. 

 

Increasing the specs means that your hardware costs more, which in turn translates into higher prices, or lower profits. 

 

Developing faster flash storage would allow Sony to provide faster performance at the same cost (or even lower). It would cost more upfront, but assuming Sony can sell enough units, it would eventually pay for itself. Not to mention that the technology can also be used in future game consoles. 

 

Not to mention that is this means that flash storage is virtually indistinguishable from ram, so that sounds like a lot of cost savings down the road. 

but its still not as fast so you are spending all that rnd for a half solution

[TheNamelessOne]

16 hours ago, GDRRiley said:

BS. this is purely linus owning up to and admitting he was wrong. ever hear of this set?

@LinusTech

You're wrong, if this was him just being wrong he would've mentioned it on WAN Show and be done with it. There was no need to make a 12 minute professional video talking about how much he misunderstood what was going on and apologizing to another company.

It would've been a footnote on the WAN Show, something like this:

Linus: Hey Luke, I've finally had time to watch Mark's video about the fastest SSD in the world that's in the PS5. It's not quite what I was led to believe.

Luke: Oh Ok. Whatever.

Linus: Speaking of whatever, our sponsors Private Internet Access and LTTstore dot com. XD

All of this while Luke laughs in the background. And then it would've been forgotten and never mentioned again. Because it doesn't matter and no one cares.

 

8 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Honestly, watch Cherno's video series where he goes over it from a game developer's perspective...it is a lot more than marketing.  The tl;dr is that it allows for less restrictive game design.  Throwing more RAM at the solution wouldn't solve the problem, as you would effectively need a lot more RAM (and thus raising the price).  The idea behind the direct streaming of SSD to RAM without really CPU intervention is that you can now you only need to buffer around 1 second of render-able objects.  (An example is imagine flying around a detailed city very quickly, you would have pop-ins, or lower res buildings/scenery...this isn't possible with more RAM...or at least you would potentially need a lot more RAM).

 

Yes, the benefits will only initially show up in the PS5 exclusives, but if enough games begin to utilize it (or enough people question why it isn't on PC) then it will push PC hardware (or pc requirements up) which is a good thing for PC gamers.

 

Could this be done on a PC...yes, but there are caveats in that game devs. have to build to a lower spec'ed system (which might include slow harddrives)

I've watched that video when it came out and after watching it this is what I thought:

And here's the thing, nobody cares what this means from the game developers perspective. They are not in charge. Their bosses are and their bosses are and so on. It doesn't matter how cool the tech is when you can't implement it because you're on a dead line and you have to get the game out by x date because that's what the people above you told you. Do you think game developers who work for their paycheck will spend hours, day, week, months to use a new way of doing things and learning how to do it when they are on a dead line when they can just use the old way which they know and it's easier for them? Plus they are not the ones that decide what method they will use. So the perspective of the game developer means nothing since they are not the ones dictating how things go. They are payed to do a job and if they don't do the way their bosses want it, they get fired.

 

Yeah it's a cool tech.... when it's going to be used and implemented in everything. Right now it's just marketing and it will remain like that for years. Just like all the other cool tech and ways of doing things.

[wanderingfool2]

13 hours ago, GDRRiley said:

it fully could be done if games used more ram. most use so little. nothing says a game can't take up say 12gb. I wish games would ask how much ram you want to give so I can feed some of them like 20gb so that I got less loaded during gaming.

its just a cleaver hack to require less ram/vram. Most PC now have 8-16 of ram and at least 4 if not 6-8gb of vram. vs the 16 total on PS5

PC ram isn't the same as console ram utilization.  On a console, you know the fixed amount of ram you have (and thus can fully utilize the space).  On PC's, you have 16GiB but cannot assume you have all 16 to utilize (Windows is bulky, and you need to assume users have other applications running).  Developing for a PC, you need to ensure it runs on the targeted systems (both high end, and lower end systems)...if you have 20GB of video game assets, you might really need 26GB system ram...if you do super HD textures and have lets say 40GB asset sizes, the SSD to RAM as in the PS5 would be able to handle it (as the needed assets could be streamed quickly to ram).  The PC equiv. would need 40GB, so it shows a good point in why Sony would RND this...it is a brilliant solution to a restriction.  (Also VRAM and ram when not shared, there is overlapped data...it's not like you  can add the VRAM to RAM)

 

4 hours ago, TheNamelessOne said:

So the perspective of the game developer means nothing since they are not the ones dictating how things go. They are payed to do a job and if they don't do the way their bosses want it, they get fired.

The tech prevents a workflow that allows potentially easier map designs, and less constraints for certain activities (i.e. not being forced to send players down a hallway).  [As was mentioned in the videos, it could save time as there are less restrictions when it comes to map designs/considerations].  It will be PS5 exclusive titles that utilize the technology.

 

4 hours ago, TheNamelessOne said:

Yeah it's a cool tech.... when it's going to be used and implemented in everything. Right now it's just marketing and it will remain like that for years. Just like all the other cool tech and ways of doing things.

Technology like this is what pushes the industry forward, it is more than just marketing (it is Sony actually listening to the game developers).  The benefits for PS5 exclusives will be hopefully pretty quick (it cleans up the data flow).  You literally called people buying it because it's new dumb (and that Sony should have spent the money on RAM)...but you are failing to see what could potentially come out of this.  It would be akin to people who bought 3d video cards back when they first became a thing, and claiming they were dumb because 3d is just something that no one will utilize.

 

6 hours ago, Nex6 said:

I don't understand what is meant by statements like "It would need too much RAM". How much RAM would be needed? I read in an article that PS5 games could use something like 30GB of SSD to load maps or whatever they want to do with it

Game developers target a certain % of audience, look at the Steam average specs and find where 50% of players could play...that means if developers targeted systems with 32GB of system ram, it would mean they eliminate a large chunk of their audience.  If they target systems with SSD's they again eliminate a large % of their audience.

 

6 hours ago, Nex6 said:

In fact I think that the reason everyone from the other side rejected Linus' interview suggestions is precisely that.

My thought behind this would be that they have better things to focus on and LTT didn't exactly start off on the right foot...especially when places like LTT's has shown lack of knowledge of consoles in the past.

6 hours ago, Nex6 said:

I have problem with the "it's something that PC can't buy today for any money" statement. First of all, as Linus cleverly mentioned in the video, if this ends up being something very good (and very different, something that PC can't emulate right now) then this would be available only on PS5 exclusive titles. In that it becomes rather irrelevant whether it's "best in class", as there will be nothing to compare it to.

In the past, consoles have sometimes been the forefront of gamer tech (which because of the innovations leads to changes within the PC market).  One would hope that a similar thing happens here

[Nex6]

18 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

PC ram isn't the same as console ram utilization.  On a console, you know the fixed amount of ram you have (and thus can fully utilize the space).  On PC's, you have 16GiB but cannot assume you have all 16 to utilize (Windows is bulky, and you need to assume users have other applications running).  Developing for a PC, you need to ensure it runs on the targeted systems (both high end, and lower end systems)...if you have 20GB of video game assets, you might really need 26GB system ram...if you do super HD textures and have lets say 40GB asset sizes, the SSD to RAM as in the PS5 would be able to handle it (as the needed assets could be streamed quickly to ram).  The PC equiv. would need 40GB, so it shows a good point in why Sony would RND this...it is a brilliant solution to a restriction.  (Also VRAM and ram when not shared, there is overlapped data...it's not like you  can add the VRAM to RAM)

 

The tech prevents a workflow that allows potentially easier map designs, and less constraints for certain activities (i.e. not being forced to send players down a hallway).  [As was mentioned in the videos, it could save time as there are less restrictions when it comes to map designs/considerations].  It will be PS5 exclusive titles that utilize the technology.

 

Technology like this is what pushes the industry forward, it is more than just marketing (it is Sony actually listening to the game developers).  The benefits for PS5 exclusives will be hopefully pretty quick (it cleans up the data flow).  You literally called people buying it because it's new dumb (and that Sony should have spent the money on RAM)...but you are failing to see what could potentially come out of this.  It would be akin to people who bought 3d video cards back when they first became a thing, and claiming they were dumb because 3d is just something that no one will utilize.

 

Game developers target a certain % of audience, look at the Steam average specs and find where 50% of players could play...that means if developers targeted systems with 32GB of system ram, it would mean they eliminate a large chunk of their audience.  If they target systems with SSD's they again eliminate a large % of their audience.

 

In the past, consoles have sometimes been the forefront of gamer tech (which because of the innovations leads to changes within the PC market).  One would hope that a similar thing happens here

Simple question:

 

Suppose that PS5 solution is so much better than anything that can be bought today for PC and it can NOT be emulated easily on PC right now. What do you think will happen with games, what do you think developers and publishers will do? Do you expect them to start making many more games exclusive to PS5? If no, then what?

[wanderingfool2]

2 hours ago, Nex6 said:

Simple question:

 

Suppose that PS5 solution is so much better than anything that can be bought today for PC and it can NOT be emulated easily on PC right now. What do you think will happen with games, what do you think developers and publishers will do? Do you expect them to start making many more games exclusive to PS5? If no, then what?

This actually is quite a complex issue, that too many people boil down to simple metrics.  Examples being, using TFLOPs, it might give some clue into performance but it can also be a red herring as well.  Ultimately technology like this isn't cut and dry, it shouldn't be shunned by the PC community as it is creating a new baseline for developers to go off of.

 

This can already be emulated with PC's (it's taking the approach of dynamically loading zone to a whole new level though).  On the PC front, it would mean requiring more ram and games to be run on SSD's (like as a requirement).  So if developers choose to do PS5 exclusive but then port to PC, the PC port would potentially require higher specs than what the PS5 has (ie. SSD, and depending if they are doing like in the PS5 a stronger CPU).

 

What I expect is this, exclusive party titles coming out utilizing tremendously details open world environments (that may only be possible on more powerful setups, running SSD's)...eventually a few of these titles will be ported to PC (maybe toned down textures or models), and requirements for things such as SSD's, higher core counts or higher memory requirements.  As I've mentioned before, consoles aren't meant necessarily to be better than high-end systems, but it doesn't mean that consoles hold back games.  It actually leapfrogs games, as developers can target PC systems that are equiv. to the game consoles (in terms of performance, when SSD's, CPU and such are accounted for).  If you look at the steam average system, the system is actually pretty weak compared to consoles if you are targeting 75% of the PC market...but with console gaming being as it is, they might target console + top 25% PC systems

[LinusTech]

On 6/6/2020 at 8:40 AM, TheNamelessOne said:

Someone already said this, but the only time a company makes a public apology to other company is when they are being sued or warned that they will get sued if they don't retract what they said. That's what happened here Epic/Sony/Both sent LTT a letter telling them they will get their asses sued into oblivion if they don't rectify what they said.
And anyone who can't see that or denies that is a fool and doesn't know how things work.

As for the PS5 SSD ...yeah it doesn't really matter since only the first party games so the ones directly from Sony will use it if they even use it so that's like 3 games and only 1 game will properly use it and people won't even be able to tell something's different. All other game developers won't even touch it since they want to make sure their games work on all platforms the same and spending money and time just for the PS is not something they will do, not only that but no matter what voodoo magic Sony claims they've discovered with their controller, it's still way too slow compared to DRAM.

 

All this bullshit of revolutionary SSD is nothing more than marketing made for dumb people to buy it because it's NEW and exciting and you don't have it. They should've added more RAM instead of spending who knows how many millions of dollars in developing a unless feature that's going to fade away and ignored.

You're throwing around baseless statements as if they are fact. You shouldn't.

 

That was supposed to be the lesson in this video.

 

There was no letter or other communication. Just the tweet from Tim Sweeney we showed in the video. I was completely transparent about the whole situation.

[LAwLz]

Good video, but it feels like a lot of people take this as "wow, Linus is wrong once and makes a big apology video about it. He must be right about all the other stuff he says" when in reality Linus is constantly wrong and doesn't apologize for it.

 

 

Again, great video, but I am worried that it will further solidify the idea a lot of Linus' viewers has that if Linus says something, it must be true, when i actuality it might very well be wrong.

I think it is best if people watch LTT as an entertainment channel, kind of like Top Gear for computers. But sadly it seems like a lot of people watch it as an educational channel, and this video will further cement those peoples' view of LTT as an educational channel.

[Nex6]

On 6/12/2020 at 4:41 PM, VegetableStu said:

anandtech did an analysis/op-ed article on the SSD structure of the upcoming consoles, and also makes theories on the knock-on effects on gaming or technical game design as a whole (should the PC adopt said storage acceleration methods)

 

https://www.anandtech.com/show/15848/storage-matters-xbox-ps5-new-era-of-gaming/3

 

Thanks for this, great read. I agree with the thought process there. I think lowering expectations (at least when it comes to comparing the consoles to PC's) would be beneficial.
 

On 6/8/2020 at 8:40 PM, wanderingfool2 said:

This actually is quite a complex issue, that too many people boil down to simple metrics.  Examples being, using TFLOPs, it might give some clue into performance but it can also be a red herring as well.  Ultimately technology like this isn't cut and dry, it shouldn't be shunned by the PC community as it is creating a new baseline for developers to go off of.

 

This can already be emulated with PC's (it's taking the approach of dynamically loading zone to a whole new level though).  On the PC front, it would mean requiring more ram and games to be run on SSD's (like as a requirement).  So if developers choose to do PS5 exclusive but then port to PC, the PC port would potentially require higher specs than what the PS5 has (ie. SSD, and depending if they are doing like in the PS5 a stronger CPU).

 

What I expect is this, exclusive party titles coming out utilizing tremendously details open world environments (that may only be possible on more powerful setups, running SSD's)...eventually a few of these titles will be ported to PC (maybe toned down textures or models), and requirements for things such as SSD's, higher core counts or higher memory requirements.  As I've mentioned before, consoles aren't meant necessarily to be better than high-end systems, but it doesn't mean that consoles hold back games.  It actually leapfrogs games, as developers can target PC systems that are equiv. to the game consoles (in terms of performance, when SSD's, CPU and such are accounted for).  If you look at the steam average system, the system is actually pretty weak compared to consoles if you are targeting 75% of the PC market...but with console gaming being as it is, they might target console + top 25% PC systems

I don't disagree with what you wrote, in principle. But it does look to me that I don't disagree with you because you kind of agree with me... The statement that money can't buy what consoles will get - I called that out and you seem to think it's nonsense as well. There is no way that 3090 24GB monstrosity doesn't wipe the floor with anything PS5 can provide. Brute force approach.

If your main disagreement with me is my claim that consoles at the moment are holding back games in general, I do think that it's factually true - at the moment. And as I said, I hope these new consoles are very good so that it raises the bar for everyone... but I don't think that it's going to be PC's holding back game development. Yes, average system might not be that great, but those systems will not run at  100 fps with ultra graphics. Developers are targeting weak systems for "recommended" requirements. But at the same time, they give some extra candy to those with better computers. And that's the bar I'm talking about, the high end. Consoles need to move and then high end PC gaming will move as well, especially if the move happens because of new technology. Whatever consoles do, high-end PC solutions will do it better. For much more money, of course. If you agree with this, then it looks like we both think Sweeney is shilling.