If Sony just sold games on more platforms…
They ruined that when they announced no more pc ports, followed by no more disc
I missed the PC ports thing. They’re actually going to stop PC porting games? At least before they had a chance at getting my money. That move will guarantee they don’t get shit from me.
Yea, supposedly not seeing the returns they’d like - I think they just gave up too quickly and didnt want to cannibalize PS5 sales…
The last report I’d read said they were making bank on porting some of their games. I can see waiting a year or two on their exclusives before wanting to go to PC in order to drive their console sales and higher margins of selling it on their consoles, but for games a year or so old, it’s practically a free money printing factory.
Or at least it was before everything just goes digital. I guess once they get most console users to only buy digital copies of games, they can more easily keep trying to get money out of selling older games.
TIL the PS5 has 6 games.
Sounds accurate actually. (games that are still PS5 only)
To be fair that’s completely PS5 exclusive. If you were a PS4 owner looking for a reason to upgrade, you’d be looking at the list of games available on PS5 but not PS4 and that should be longer since it includes some newer cross-platform games.
Seeing as the PS5 is itself x86, is this truly an emulator as in the QEMU sense, or is it more of a compatibility layer in the WINE sense?
I don’t know the details, but one of the reasons why the games run so good is that they don’t need to emulate the CPU in its entirety. So the emulator wouldn’t work on anything else than x86, unless the emulator is run with an emulator on top of it (like Fex). But I don’t know to what degree the emulation goes deep. I mean we can install Linux operating system and run the Steam games directly without emulation on the PS5. It is probably something like Wine. But compared to Windows, the environment is pretty clear and users cannot install or replace anything in the system themselves.
Disclaimer: I don’t know what I’m talking, this is just information fact checked by my gut feeling.
How many FPS does it take to satisfy the human eye? Why would adding more than that matter, if there is a limit? Is it just the puffery of salesmanship?
For many games the lower limit is 30 FPS for it to feel not like a slideshow. 60 is considered mostly smooth. Up from that it will feel smoother a nice achievable swetspot is 90-120 FPS. Everything above that is only really useful for esports.
It depends on the game.
Chess is playable on 1 FPS, Snake and Pong are probably playable at 10-15 fps, most games where you move your character are playable with slowdown around half speed (30 FPS), and slowdown is hardly noticeable on the 50 FPS column unless the game is very time-precise or it’s being speedran
It depends on the person and the application.
For most people, when it comes to film, 24 frames a second is the minimum necessary for it to be perceived as fluid motion.
With a video game, where the user controls the input, 30 frames per second is typically the minimum target necessary for fluid motion; but personally, I only see it become truly fluid at 60 or more.
You can certainly see a lot more than that and reality doesn’t really operate on frames per second, so there’s no way to know how many FPS becomes more than you’d ever perceive.
Something to think about. What I’m getting is FPS for analog and FPS plus “refresh rate” for digital.
Refresh rate and FPS are basically the same exact thing but one is the GPU and the other is the display, and it’s a thing on analogue displays, too. CRTs actually have a higher refresh rate than modern displays as well as near infinite resolutions.
Damn. I was so close. Thank!
Which six?
Is this going to be Sonys version of ‘New iPhone better camera’?
I find it somewhat funny that suddenly this project is off like a rocket 2 months before GTA6.
