bender
What time is it?
I clearly stand corrected![]()

I clearly stand corrected![]()
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?
No, ever since onQ123 clarified he was talking about (thin client/server) cloud gaming and we are effectively talking about video codec rates for it, which by comparison to local codec rates of +20GBit/sec of hdmi delivering 4K60, the whole need for a game with 2 or 8TB (mostly made up of 8K 8192x8192 or 16K textures data that will look crappy via streaming) complete disappears.It wouldn't be a handheld only game but a cloud game viewable from 720p resolution up to 2160p.
Are you still thinking it works like MSFS, meaning why use a streaming rate of 150KB per frame for a 8TB game?
Both numbers should be treated separate for cloud. An 8TB cloud game can access / stream any part of that 8TB it needs in it's 16GB ram to render a frame, then stream it over the internet at 150KB per frame.
I agree with your general premise that streaming to a lower res handheld requires smaller assets defeating the purpose of 2-8TB of data but I think when you're talking about HDMI bandwidth you're not taking into account that the data is compressed when talking about video codecs and and not compressed when talking about HDMI.No, ever since onQ123 clarified he was talking about (thin client/server) cloud gaming and we are effectively talking about video codec rates for it, which by comparison to local codec rates of +20GBit/sec of hdmi delivering 4K60, the whole need for a game with 2 or 8TB (mostly made up of 8K 8192x8192 or 16K textures data that will look crappy via streaming) complete disappears.
Games need such asset quality and storage because they are rendered native(locally) and delivered at full bandwidth to a TV via hdmi.
I get that completely - and talking about VBR, etc complicate things further, as does image prediction - but IMO without PQ parity - so it would be possible to change every pixels between two successive frames without compression errors - via cloud streaming - the whole premise of lets use the cloud to surpass native storage limitations to make better games is false IMO,I agree with your general premise that streaming to a lower res handheld requires smaller assets defeating the purpose of 2-8TB of data but I think when you're talking about HDMI bandwidth you're not taking into account that the data is compressed when talking about video codecs and and not compressed when talking about HDMI.
Then what's your point, cloud games?!? They already tried that and failed, miserably I might add
ssd physical games sound fucking awesome. 500gb SSDs that you plug into your PS5 like a cartridge would be the funniest turntablesNah, they better sell the games on a SSD, physical games FTW![]()
What the hell are you talking about?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.
If you don't need 100GB - a normal PS5 game size - you certainly don't need 20x to 80x that amount like you are claiming.What the hell are you talking about?
I do believe that's an admission that you do harder drugs.I don't smoke weed or drink alcohol
You do understand that what you're talking about has nothing at all to do with the size of the game data right?If you don't need 100GB - a normal PS5 game size - you certainly don't need 20x to 80x that amount like you are claiming.
As I've mention at least of couple of times already Google Stadia promised this exact same thing and it never happened because it's not economically viable. Now for the sake of argument let's assume Sony decide to make a 500 million dollar game that uses the cloud so it has a a massive world and ridiculous detail, then what? You'll be streaming said game on your Portal or PS5 and because of the horrible compression and general internet speeds you won't get to see any of said detail due to the blurry and choppy image quality. Not to mention the gamming experience will be laggy and dependant on your internet's mood that day.Portal is already playing PS5 games from the cloud or your home PS5. My suggestion is to take advantage of the fact that cloud games are not limited to the 1TB of most people's PS5 & make some games that are not held back by the standard storage size limitation to be played on Portal or PS5 from the Cloud.
No, that's wrong, there is a direct correlation between game sizes and game data sizes at a texture fidelity.You do understand that what you're talking about has nothing at all to do with the size of the game data right?
Portal is succeeding where Stadia failed.As I've mention at least of couple of times already Google Stadia promised this exact same thing and it never happened because it's not economically viable. Now for the sake of argument let's assume Sony decide to make a 500 million dollar game that uses the cloud so it has a a massive world and ridiculous detail, then what? You'll be streaming said game on your Portal or PS5 and because of the horrible compression and general internet speeds you won't get to see any of said detail due to the blurry and choppy image quality. Not to mention the gamming experience will be laggy and dependant on your internet's mood that day.
That's ignoring the fact that as Google Stadia, OnLive, etc have proven streaming games is never preferable to playing them locally so why would Sony spend huge amounts of money on something like this?
Anyway, I feel like this is going around in circles and you could easily figure out why others have tried and failed with this streaming angle by just doing a little Google searching on your own for 5min
Uhm, the PS Portal is streaming games over Wi-Fi in your house and those games still need to be installed and run on the PS5. This is the description from the official Portal website:Portal is succeeding where Stadia failed.
Soon there will be about 4 or 5 million Portals in the wild & that's a good enough reason to attempt at making a must have Portal / PS Cloud game that's basically a PS5 game but without the limitation of local storage.
You seem to be lost & loudUhm, the PS Portal is streaming games over Wi-Fi in your house and those games still need to be installed and run on the PS5. This is the description from the official Portal website:
So, tell me again how Portal is succeeding where Stadia failed?!? They're not even providing the same functionality.
- Put your PS5 in the palm of your hand.
- Play your favourite PS5 and PS4 games installed on your PS5 Console over your home wifi
You seem to be lost & loud
PS5 games are not able to push the boundaries of constant data streaming into RAM because the game will either have to be too big for your SSD space or small in scope or repetitive . But if the game is in the cloud it could be a really large SSD or other storage device that's shared between multiple servers & stream that data into RAM as you play .
If you want to make a fool of yourself speaking about something you don't know of go ahead but trust me I'm not talking crazy.This is the guy who considers himself so intelligent he quotes himself daily.
That is not how you apply for a new positionThis sounds like something my non technical boss would say whilst I scream into a cushion.
Games will only get larger in detail and model quality, especially with neural rendering becoming a thing, the solution will be a few things like neural compression, allowing textures up to 1/10th the size of standard BC compression while combining all the pbr materials and allowing the compressed version in vram. The other will be decreasing SSD costs which means buying a 4TB or 8TB or even 16TB won't be anywhere near as expensive in the future so games can reach a few 100GB without issue. Streaming your games from the internet as video still has too much latency and visible compression artefacts that ruin the quality as well as annoying jitter, streaming the game data can work to an extent but more in the case of downloading the first few hours worth of data needed for gameplay and what is explorable then allowing the rest to download while you play. You have to consider that if the SSD can stream in upto 5.5GB of data per second your average 1Gb connection(125MB) is 44 times slower.PS5 games are not able to push the boundaries of constant data streaming into RAM because the game will either have to be too big for your SSD space or small in scope or repetitive . But if the game is in the cloud it could be a really large SSD or other storage device that's shared between multiple servers & stream that data into RAM as you play .
If you want to make a fool of yourself speaking about something you don't know of go ahead but trust me I'm not talking crazy.
I said 2-8TB8TB worth of ultra hi res textures just to be destroyed by streaming compression .. yeah so smart
What? LolYou want to stream 8TB of data from a source that can't match a Blu-ray disc instead of using NVMe drive...
So you're talking about a complete streaming method rendered remotely, like Stadia or Playstation Now.What? Lol
No
I'm saying make games without the limitation of our home PS5 SSD size & let that game be playable from the PS5's in the sky ( Cloud) that could be equipped with larger SSDs than what's standard at home 1TB.
It's not going to take anymore power than it takes now to unpack assets . Also a lot of time is spent reducing the size of games .So you're talking about a complete streaming method rendered remotely, like Stadia or Playstation Now.
And you're thinking 2/8TB of data for games that currently take developers 6/8 years to make.
And this hardware would also have to be powerful enough to be able to unpack all this asset data as well?