Support NeoGAF

[RagnarokIV]

u wot m8

 

[GymWolf]

How is this not a DR3AM topic?!

 

[Toots]

But at the same time i like your balls OP.
I say we make a 8tb game with AI assets only, let kojima write the script without any editor or outside interference, and have troy baker voice all characters.
Then i'll know for sure im actually dead and in hell.

 

[crackajack]

Devs struggle to make good "small" worlds on a tight budget as is, and you want them to spent actual billions on games that are as big as No Mans Sky but handcrafted and then hide that insane project on a platform not many care for?
okay.

 

[Moses85]

 

[Ristifer]

 

[PatientGamer]

Are you Gen Alpha, OP?

 

[Spukc]

I think Gordon Ramsey and Elon Musk should make out for more xbox sales

Trunk Dtread

 

[Lucifers Beard]

Ah yes because storage capacity and RAM are the only essential components for large non repetitive games...

 

[SweetTooth]

This thread is like Phil Spencer's winning plan to win this current generation of consoles.

Except more coherent lol

 

[Mephisto40]

I can make to a 20TB jpg if you like TC

 

[mckmas8808]

Except more coherent lol

Is it though?

 

[Fafalada]

MS are already doing this with Flight Sim 2024.
It had some detractors.

Tbf - in my experience, Flight Sim negatives mostly have to do with being stuck in the early 90ies as far as general user-experience and controls go - right down to taking like 10 minutes to load into the game even on Gen4 PCIE SSD, and 4 hours to install on a 1Gbpp/s (assuming nothing goes wrong - otherwise you multiply that number by how many tries because they apparently never heard of 'resume download' feature).

If game was actually cloud-native, at least load-times could benefit from ultra-wide storage that makes desktop SSDs look like floppy discs, and there are other benefits.

So explain how then.

See above.

 

[SweetTooth]

Is it though?

Its not, but still more coherent than any MS plans lol

 

[winjer]

 

[Perrott]

That's what FAIRGAME$ is.

 

[AMC124c41]

One is streaming data to your console over the Internet ( Flight Sim 2024 ) while the other would actually be a large game that can stream the data to VRAM at high speed then stream the visuals to your device ( Portal )

OP judging by this comment, I don't think you understand how video games work. The closest thing to what you're proposing is MSFS 2024 so maybe do some research on how that game works before you argue with anyone about your idea. Unless you're just trolling and if that's the case, have at it mate.

 

[Topher]

I don't smoke weed or drink alcohol

 

[SimTourist]

 

[Reizo Ryuu]

stream the data to VRAM at high speed

 

[yurinka]

 

[Sgt.Asher]

So that's this theoretical game's only hook? Large size and on the cloud?

 

[onQ123]

O onQ123 the power of the cloud 2 electric Boogaloo

You say this as if we're not already playing Console & PC level games on handhelds through streaming.

I mean, folks think this is crazy, but we went from SNES with 8mb to PS1 with 700MB per disk (annnnd we had games with like 3 and 4 disk)

From like 100GB to 8TB isn't as wild as many might really think tbh

That is less then the leap from SNES to PS1

edit. Let OP think outside the box, I think this is interesting and maybe the best use of the thread could be thinking of how could that space be used in the first place to do something very different and unique

I started at 2TB but that's only to drive home the point of the game being bigger than the standard SSD in our consoles but even 500GB would give devs more freedom it probably wouldn't be worth losing the user-base of people willing to download your game to their SSD

OP judging by this comment, I don't think you understand how video games work. The closest thing to what you're proposing is MSFS 2024 so maybe do some research on how that game works before you argue with anyone about your idea. Unless you're just trolling and if that's the case, have at it mate.

Ok if I was to make a fighting game with no stage select because all the fighting arenas are connected & highly detailed to the point that the VRAM is filled by only what's on the screen at any giving moment .

So every asset in this game has to be available at any giving moment as you move from area to area it's being streamed in around 2GB/s how would this work with the data being streamed in over a network?

 

[PaintTinJr]

One is streaming data to your console over the Internet ( Flight Sim 2024 ) while the other would actually be a large game that can stream the data to VRAM at high speed then stream the visuals to your device ( Portal )

But MSFS uses clipmapping - as all megatexture type techniques do - feels like you are arguing semantics that the mechanisms when boiled down aren't the same.

You can't stream directly into VRAM on a PS5, as the NIC talks to the DMA controller that streams into unified RAM. So it doesn't sound like you are explaining what you really mean on a technical level. The main reason MSFS uses clipmaps is because they want high quality data and as the 'game' (is it really a game) is open ended, open world knowing where each user will be is unpredictable, meaning one 2 PB dataset streamed in tiny payloads to individuals based on their coordinates makes sense. But how would this apply to single player games? The overall data if that large would need to all be used by the end user to have any value in producing it for a single player game, which then means rather than streaming chunks of 2 PB, they'd need to stream the whole lot in one play through with the unified 16GB@400GB/s of RAM being the limiting aperture. I don't think the numbers work when ideal 1000MB/s internet Broadband is at least 5, if not 20 times slower than SSD decompression bandwidth via the IO complex.

A bigger game pre-installed on a bigger SSD still seems like the most practical option for games in which the user sees all - or most of - the content that's authored IMHO.

 

[ComputerBlue]

This place is like gamefaqs of 2010 these days

 

[onQ123]

Nah, they better sell the games on a SSD, physical games FTW

I also pray for a cheap high capacity card situation

 

[jumpship]

But MSFS uses clipmapping - as all megatexture type techniques do - feels like you are arguing semantics that the mechanisms when boiled down aren't the same.

You can't stream directly into VRAM on a PS5, as the NIC talks to the DMA controller that streams into unified RAM. So it doesn't sound like you are explaining what you really mean on a technical level. The main reason MSFS uses clipmaps is because they want high quality data and as the 'game' (is it really a game) is open ended, open world knowing where each user will be is unpredictable, meaning one 2 PB dataset streamed in tiny payloads to individuals based on their coordinates makes sense. But how would this apply to single player games? The overall data if that large would need to all be used by the end user to have any value in producing it for a single player game, which then means rather than streaming chunks of 2 PB, they'd need to stream the whole lot in one play through with the unified 16GB@400GB/s of RAM being the limiting aperture. I don't think the numbers work when ideal 1000MB/s internet Broadband is at least 5, if not 20 times slower than SSD decompression bandwidth via the IO complex.

A bigger game pre-installed on a bigger SSD still seems like the most practical option for games in which the user sees all - or most of - the content that's authored IMHO.

I don't think thats what the OP means. It wouldn't work like MSFS because it wouldn't be streaming data for in game assets to be rendered. OP means a cloud streaming only game rendered in the cloud and streamed to a device. That way a game designed as cloud only will have no storage size limitation or the need to worry about sending large data intensive assets because those assets are already stored in the cloud where the game is rendered.

It's a great use of cloud technology and i'd be surprised if Sony wasn't working on such projects.

 

[crazyriddler]

I also pray for a cheap high capacity card situation

Yeah, joking aside it would be a fantasy, games on cartridges/SSD pre-installed and ready to use, with a small memory to store updates and DLCs on the cartridge itself.

 

[jumpship]

The idea is sound in that you can have an absolutely massive world. I mean world size worlds with huge details but it will become a barrier if it's streaming only and the huge budget required to create such a massive world with 8TB of actually interesting data. It isn't even that far fetched since MSFS already kind of does this. Imagine PS Home returning but without any loading screens, just one giant seemless world streamed, PS World.

Even with the storage speed limitations at the time I loved PS Home. An updated cloud only project like home with pretty much zero limitations could be amazing. Surely someone at Sony thinks the same.

 

[cormack12]

 

[PaintTinJr]

I don't think thats what the OP means. It wouldn't work like MSFS because it wouldn't be streaming data for in game assets to be rendered. OP means a cloud streaming only game rendered in the cloud and streamed to a device. That way a game designed as cloud only will have no storage size limitation or the need to worry about sending large data intensive assets because those assets are already stored in the cloud where the game is rendered.

It's a great use of cloud technology and i'd be surprised if Sony wasn't working on such projects.

But cloud IQ is crap compared to 14GB/s of even hdmi 1.4, so why bother with high production quality if it is all being compressed away by a delivery method operating at at least 20x less bandwidth?

Just divide the 2TB or 8TB by 20 and produce the same game with 20x less asset detail and an AI upscaler to recover more detail would be my superior lower latency local compute suggestion

 

[nemiroff]

I don't think thats what the OP means. It wouldn't work like MSFS because it wouldn't be streaming data for in game assets to be rendered. OP means a cloud streaming only game rendered in the cloud and streamed to a device. That way a game designed as cloud only will have no storage size limitation or the need to worry about sending large data intensive assets because those assets are already stored in the cloud where the game is rendered.

Wait, wtf... This "vision" is about being exactly the same as how cloud games are now - only bigger..?

My bad for assuming more than I should've, I guess. That'll teach me, lol

 

[Euler007]

Remember to stop sniffing glue when you get light headed.

 

[onQ123]

But cloud IQ is crap compared to 14GB/s of even hdmi 1.4, so why bother with high production quality if it is all being compressed away by a delivery method operating at at least 20x less bandwidth?

Just divide the 2TB or 8TB by 20 and produce the same game with 20x less asset detail and an AI upscaler to recover more detail would be my superior lower latency local compute suggestion

It's being streamed to the Portal with a 8" screen

 

[GHG]

This place always has a funny way of reminding me when the weekend is arriving.

 

[AMC124c41]

You say this as if we're not already playing Console & PC level games on handhelds through streaming.

I started at 2TB but that's only to drive home the point of the game being bigger than the standard SSD in our consoles but even 500GB would give devs more freedom it probably wouldn't be worth losing the user-base of people willing to download your game to their SSD


Ok if I was to make a fighting game with no stage select because all the fighting arenas are connected & highly detailed to the point that the VRAM is filled by only what's on the screen at any giving moment .

So every asset in this game has to be available at any giving moment as you move from area to area it's being streamed in around 2GB/s how would this work with the data being streamed in over a network?

Well that's the thing, it wouldn't. The PS5 SSD has a read speed of 5.5Gbps so how are you going to beat that over the internet? Also, the VRAM is filled by what's on screen at any given moment, that's how game engines work. You read stuff that you need in a scene from the SSD, fill the VRAM with all the assets needed for that scene and as soon as you move on all of that data gets dumped out of VRAM and new data fills it. This happens very fast, much faster than any SSD or internet connection and it happens constantly while you play.

Plus, there needs to be a major distinction made here. Streaming video versus streaming assets. Which one are you suggesting to be used cause I don't think you ever clarified?!? Streaming assets is what Microsoft Flight Sim already does and streaming interactive video is what all the other streaming services do

Finally, Google Stadia existed and have a look at how that went

 

[PaintTinJr]

It's being streamed to the Portal with a 8" screen

You don't even need 100GB to feed high quality visuals from a PS5 for that tiny screen over +80MBit/s wifi. Your whole reasons for needing 2TB-8TB are being undermined by your intended target device.

 

[onQ123]

Well that's the thing, it wouldn't. The PS5 SSD has a read speed of 5.5Gbps so how are you going to beat that over the internet? Also, the VRAM is filled by what's on screen at any given moment, that's how game engines work. You read stuff that you need in a scene from the SSD, fill the VRAM with all the assets needed for that scene and as soon as you move on all of that data gets dumped out of VRAM and new data fills it. This happens very fast, much faster than any SSD or internet connection and it happens constantly while you play.

Plus, there needs to be a major distinction made here. Streaming video versus streaming assets. Which one are you suggesting to be used cause I don't think you ever clarified?!? Streaming assets is what Microsoft Flight Sim already does and streaming interactive video is what all the other streaming services do

That's what I was explaining to the people who barked in saying that Flight Sim already does it.

Me explaining the data being streamed to RAM was me giving the reason why the game would be bigger than the normal 100GB.

 

[PaintTinJr]

That's what I was explaining to the people who barked in saying that Flight Sim already does it.

Me explaining the data being streamed to RAM was me giving the reason why the game would be bigger than the normal 100GB.

But it seems like you've given little, to no thought about the inherent relationship between PQ and the storage for HQ assets to deliver that PQ,

If you can't delivery equal PQ (in bandwidth of local rendering) and make the game 20x bigger then there's no need for 20x the storage in the cloud, as there are far better local rendering compromises that cost less in PQ, keep latency lower and local.

 

[AMC124c41]

That's what I was explaining to the people who barked in saying that Flight Sim already does it.

Me explaining the data being streamed to RAM was me giving the reason why the game would be bigger than the normal 100GB.

The reason you have everyone arguing with you in this thread is because the very start of your supposition is wrong. You can't stream data from the internet to your RAM directly. As I said, you would need to have a connection that can beat the 5.5Gbps speed of a PS5 SSD and have it be incredibly stable not just fast. Never slow down, no packet loss, just perfect.

Also, Google Stadia promised games that would be bigger and more detailed because they run on a server and they never even came close to delivering on that so there's your real life example right there.

 

[bender]

You can't stream data from the internet to your RAM directly.

Oh, really?

 

[Bert Big Balls]

Nah fuck that

 

[ShadyAcshuns]

Bruh, share some of that good stuff with us.

 

[jumpship]

But cloud IQ is crap compared to 14GB/s of even hdmi 1.4, so why bother with high production quality if it is all being compressed away by a delivery method operating at at least 20x less bandwidth?

Just divide the 2TB or 8TB by 20 and produce the same game with 20x less asset detail and an AI upscaler to recover more detail would be my superior lower latency local compute suggestion

Have you tried the newer PS cloud streaming on a PS5 or Portal as the image quality is much improved over the streaming quality previously (4K stream on PS5). Latency is also very good now.

Streaming quality and latency is pretty much solved for most people (the hardcare will always nitpick).

No need to reduce detail by 20x, if we remove the labor costs for art a second it's possible a cloud game could have massive highly detailed worlds. With the ability to seamlessly jump from one highly detailed world to the next with ease or traverse highly detailed worlds at really high speed.

Basically a game that pushes PS5 integrated I/O + near limitless cloud storage space.

 

[onQ123]

The reason you have everyone arguing with you in this thread is because the very start of your supposition is wrong. You can't stream data from the internet to your RAM directly. As I said, you would need to have a connection that can beat the 5.5Gbps speed of a PS5 SSD and have it be incredibly stable not just fast. Never slow down, no packet loss, just perfect.

Also, Google Stadia promised games that would be bigger and more detailed because they run on a server and they never even came close to delivering on that so there's your real life example right there.

No where did I say you would be streaming data from the Internet to RAM

 

[PaintTinJr]

Have you tried the newer PS cloud streaming on a PS5 or Portal as the image quality is much improved over the streaming quality previously (4K stream on PS5). Latency is also very good now.

Streaming quality and latency is pretty much solved for most people (the hardcare will always nitpick).

No need to reduce detail by 20x, if we remove the labor costs for art a second it's possible a cloud game could have massive highly detailed worlds. With the ability to seamlessly jump from one highly detailed world to the next with ease or traverse highly detailed worlds at really high speed.

Basically a game that pushes PS5 integrated I/O + near limitless cloud storage space.

I own a Portal and like it, but the fact remains that the "bandwidth" is about ~150KB per frame @ 60fps used for portal versus ~50MB per frame @ 60fps rendered on PS5 at 4K.

Why need 2TB or 8TB for making handheld games with an effective streaming bit-rate of 150KB per frame?

 

[jumpship]

Wait, wtf... This "vision" is about being exactly the same as how cloud games are now - only bigger..?

My bad for assuming more than I should've, I guess. That'll teach me, lol

Yeah I guess it could be simplified to just saying bigger games in the cloud. But it's more than that, a service like PS Home would benefit tremendously from current cloud technology as a cloud only feature for example. Spitballing here but a cloud only Superman game with the ability to traverse planets flying at highspeed would be great.

 

[AMC124c41]

No where did I say you would be streaming data from the Internet to RAM

Then what's your point, cloud games?!? They already tried that and failed, miserably I might add

 

[PaintTinJr]

Yeah I guess it could be simplified to just saying bigger games in the cloud. But it's more than that, a service like PS Home would benefit tremendously from current cloud technology as a cloud only feature for example. Spitballing here but a cloud only Superman game with the ability to traverse planets flying at highspeed would be great.

Sounds like you'd need NMS world data generation - that exceeds 100GB games by multiple factors AFAIK - and that game runs fine without the cloud.

 

[AMC124c41]

Oh, really?

I clearly stand corrected