Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
PlayStation (Games) Microsoft Sony XBox (Games) Games Hardware Technology

The PlayStation 5 vs. the Xbox Series X: Which Is More Powerful? (engadget.com) 111

Posted by BeauHD from the head-to-head-comparisons dept.
Now that Microsoft and Sony have published the technical specifications of their respective next-gen gaming consoles, we can compare them head-to-head to see which one has the edge. While Sony appears to lag behind Microsoft when it comes to specs, the PS5's speedy custom SSD may be its secret weapon. Engadget reports: Sony's lead PlayStation architect, Mark Cerny, finally gave us an in-depth look at the PS5 in a livestream event, in lieu of a major GDC keynote. [...] Cerny confirms that the PlayStation 5's graphics processor will feature 36 compute units and up to 10.28 teraflops worth of compute performance. That's a bit less than the Xbox Series X's 12-teraflop GPU, but realistically you might not see many differences in performance. There are plenty of other system optimizations, like the company's focus on a custom 825GB SSD, that'll be a huge leap over the PlayStation 4. That SSD will push 5.5 gigabytes per second compared to a mere 50 to 100 MB/s, meaning it can fill the system's 16GB of GDDR6 RAM in two seconds. And on the plus side, Sony will let you plug in a standard NVMe SSD to expand storage while Microsoft will rely on specialized 1TB SSD expansion cards.

Cerny was quick to point out that teraflop numbers are a "dangerous" way to measure absolute levels of performance. A teraflop from the PlayStation 5 translates to much more gaming performance than a teraflop from the PlayStation 4, thanks to the new console's more-efficient architecture. Still, it's not exactly unfair to compare the PS5 to the Xbox Series X, since both systems will be based on AMD's CPUs and GPUs. It's interesting to see how Sony and Microsoft devices take advantage of AMD's hardware. The PS5's eight-core Zen 2 CPU will run up to 3.5GHz with variable frequencies, so it can slow down when necessary. The Xbox Series X, meanwhile, will lock its Zen 2 processor at 3.8GHz, and devs can also choose to run their games at 3.6GHz with hyper threading. Sony also chose to use 36 RDNA 2 compute units running at up to 2.23GHz with a variable frequency while Microsoft stuffed its system with 52 compute units running at 1.825GHz. Cerny argues that running fewer cores at a higher frequency rate is more beneficial than running more cores at a lower rate, since it will lead to a speed bump across many GPU tasks.

Sony definitely has the lead with its custom SSD with 5GB/s of raw bandwidth and 8 to 9GB/s of compressed throughput. The Xbox Series X's SSD will be limited to 2.4GB/s of raw data and 4.8GB/s compressed. Again, while the numbers are significantly different, it's unclear how the performance will vary in real-world use. Microsoft also has a slightly higher GDDR6 memory bandwidth -- 10GB at 560GB/s and 6GB at 336GB/s -- than Sony's 448GB/s, which could make up for the slower storage. As for backwards compatibility, Sony announced that the PlayStation 5 will support PS4 and PS4 Pro games, but the company made no mention of retro PS1, PS2, and PS3 titles. Microsoft, on the other hand, stated that the Xbox Series X will support all games playable on the Xbox One, including those Xbox 360 and original Xbox console titles currently supported through backwards compatibility on the Xbox One.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The PlayStation 5 vs. the Xbox Series X: Which Is More Powerful? More

The PlayStation 5 vs. the Xbox Series X: Which Is More Powerful?

Comments Filter:

  • So here's the thing I've never understood.

    Why would you get an Xbox instead of just a PC?

    If you want a console, Sony has a pretty good Console experience, that is very console. Power is not as much a concern, because you are in it for what Sony has people do with the platform.

    The Xbox is just kind of stuck in a place where you could have even more power with a PC and really crank up stuff, but instead you have a console with pretty much the same games...

    At least that's what it seems like to me as a buyer.

    • XBOX is a console, a PC is not. Is there a way to get that neat Xbox Game just released on your PC and attach those wireless controllers?

      • Re:Power seems irrelevant (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Xenx ( 2211586 ) on Wednesday March 18, 2020 @06:32PM (#59846510)
        You can easily attach those, or other wireless controllers to the PC. There are a lot more Xbox titles that are playable on Windows than there are PS4. In fact, Microsoft plans for all first party titles to be available on Xbox and PC. If you have a gaming PC and have to choose between Xbox and PS, you'll get the most choice of games from getting a Playstation.

        That isn't to say there isn't a reason to buy an Xbox. It's just that the game selection isn't likely to be one of them.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

        Honestly, with the way win10 is going, PCs are effectively "almost consoles" today if you let it, at least when it comes to windows 10 store. Everything locked down and encrypted, and if you allow it, pretty much all of configuration and driver management is automated. It even installs software you don't want and won't let you easily uninstall it.

        And with every win10 update, it's shifting more and more toward the console model where user has no control and company has total control.

      • Not only is the XBox 360 a standard Bluetooth game controller, the USB version works as a standard game controller as well. Non standard controllers work too. I used to use a Switch Pro controller to play many games on the PC, the program xbox360ce https://www.x360ce.com/ [x360ce.com] emulates an xbox controller including button remapping options.

        • The 360 controller is not BlueTooth.
          The Xbox One controller is.
          Its also has MicroUSB.
          I use it on my PC no issues (with the wired connection). Both 7 and 10.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by stikves ( 127823 )

      I have a capable PC and the Xbox, but the Xbox offers a better experience. Even Steam's TV mode is not sufficiently easy to use.

      It was like KDE and GNOME. I was a KDE user, and I could customize every aspect of the system. However switched to GNOME, and realized I *do not* want to customize the system. It should just work, I have more important things to worry about. (Nothing wrong with either platform, they just cater to different needs).

      PC is the same way. I used to edit configs, download mods, and whatn

    • At launch and for 1-3 years after, it will be an equivalent of a stupidly powerful gaming PC at 1/3 to 1/2 the cost.

      • I've said it before and I'll say it again. "Stupidly powerful" and "shared memory architecture" simply do not belong in the same sentence.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Khyber ( 864651 )

          Son, Cray supercomputers shared their memory back in the day and those were fucking INSANE compared to a desktop from the same year. Come back when you actually have a goddamned clue about semiconductor design, history, and what hardware has been around.

        • Uhh, from a console perspective, yes they do. Shared memory is vastly superior, since it makes it way easier for the CPU and GPU to work together on the same memory. No fucking around having to go across the PCI bus, and limiting GPU uploads because theyâ(TM)re slow.

          These shared memory architectures are not the same as the days-of-old intel integrated chips which just used system RAM as GPU memory. Theyâ(TM)re high performance graphics memory systems that the CPU gets to directly write if it wa

          • CPU and GPU to work together on the same memory.

            That's not how that works. The CPU and GPU aren't working on the same data. The CPU has no reason to load textures or geometry into memory just as the GPU has no reason to load net code into memory. They have separate tasks.

            Unified memory is a cost cutting tactic. Having dedicated memory that is optimized to each task is very expensive. Buying one fixed spec of memory in bulk and using that for everything is cheaper in mass production.

            No fucking around having to go across the PCI bus,

            PC's haven't had a PCI bus for well over a decade, and even when they did

            • You're right that it's a cost cutting tactic predominately, but for the rest of your post you're thinking like a PC developer. Even all the way back in the days of VGA, reading from video memory was slow so you "don't do it". Reading from your Voodoo framebuffer was slow so you "don't do it". Reading from an opengl render to texture was slow so you "don't do it"... and so on. Sometimes you'd do it anyway and be disappointed in the results and you'd realise why everyone said "don't do it".

              Meanwhile on consol

          • Shared memory come with one BIG tradeoff, both the CPU ang GPU can't access the memory at the same time!

            Consoles mitigate this problem by using fast memory which on PC's is only used on GPU's. The mandated compiler on consoles also has optimizations that optimize memory operations and avoid costly calls.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Xenx ( 2211586 )
        It will not be something that can be classified as stupidly powerful. It will be above average in GPU performance, based on numbers. The rest of the hardware is in the category. It's definitely a solid machine, especially for the expected price range. The performance, I'm sure, will be great. Especially since there is performance to be had when you can optimize for a specific hardware configuration.

        It just won't be able to touch the high end of PC gaming, even at release. It falls short of even reaching th

    • Why would you get an Xbox instead of just a PC?

      For one reason and one reason alone: subsidized hardware costs.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by dfghjk ( 711126 )

      Apple doesn't make an Xbox so it seems unlikely that you're a buyer.

      Perhaps it's that you think "the same games" is all that matters that you will "never understand". Maybe the Trump administration can explain it to you...

      • Apple doesn't make an Xbox so it seems unlikely that you're a buyer.

        And yet I've owned the last few Playstations... I also eat food not made by Apple, or even called an Apple. :-)

        I have nothing aganst the Xbox, it just seems like if I wanted games on an Xbox I would build a PC instead (which I've done a while ago).

        • I have nothing aganst the Xbox, it just seems like if I wanted games on an Xbox I would build a PC instead (which I've done a while ago).

          I can agree with you for the XBone generation. But the stuff they are saying for this coming one is interesting. The PC was good at just being faster than everything else. But the new XBox has features that *may* (I said MAY, I don't know for sure) not be replicable on a PC. Stuff like the low-latency controller input, the NVMe drive so fast that it's to be treated more like NUMA than storage, the 10+6GB shared RAM. This is stuff that the PC isn't designed for and why should it be? You could get a 8GB/s NVM

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by teg ( 97890 )

        Apple doesn't make an Xbox so it seems unlikely that you're a buyer.

        Perhaps it's that you think "the same games" is all that matters that you will "never understand". Maybe the Trump administration can explain it to you...

        Actually, if you're an Apple user having an Xbox makes more sense as you won't have the PC to play these games elsewhere. So you have Mac for work and hobbies, and an Xbox (and in my case: Also Nintendo and Playstation) for most games.

    • The obvious answer is my pc is more powerful than both of those things, but the people who like console stuff don't want to be bothered with PC ownership.

      Most games these days are so dumbed down that you probably don't need a PC to play them anyway. Games that really play better on a PC just don't get made as much. It's a shame, most of these games are so damned boring and limited by their user interface.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

        The biggest game on the market (PC, console, mobile) today is a shooter. Shooters play far better on a PC than a console due to control issues alone, and that's before we talk about refresh rates and their impact on gameplay.

        Which is why crossplay has to give console players significant advantages like the "aim assist" which is what we used to call "aim botting" back in the day to compensate for inferior control scheme.

        • I assume you're talking about fortnite? The trouble with that is that it's played by kids. And kids probably aren't likely to be bought gaming PCs. It doesn't matter that M+KB is the pro-choice for FPS when it's not aimed at people who can just drop a grand. And the sad truth is, if they were given a grand to spend, they'd likely buy an iphone because that's more important to the children of today than your teenage self's Quake 3 box. The publishers only want to make casual friendly "hero shooters" and "bat

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

            Considering the amount of money being spent on Fortnite, dropping 600-ish on a computer that can run Fortnite at 120fps on decent settings at 1080p is a drop in a bucket.

            Modern parents can't really take Bobby's whining about being picked on in school because he keeps dragging his buddies down in their favourite past time.

    • Let me explain that for you (Score:5, Informative)

      by Qbertino ( 265505 ) <moiraNO@SPAMmodparlor.com> on Wednesday March 18, 2020 @06:10PM (#59846422)

      Worthwhile Gaming PC: North of 650 Euros in hardware. Fiddling with the hardware, OS and installations. Bulky, fussy, noisy.

      Xbox One S: 200 Euros. Unpack, hook up, turn on, works.
      Hardware and OS and System and Software Delivery and Services all built by the same people.

      Just like Apple, only way cheaper.

      I've got a complete setup with 27" screen, soundbar, keyboard and multiple controllers and still have spent less than for a gaming PC setup.
      I got a gaming PC back in 1996. A Cyrix P200+ rig for 6000 Euros. It had a brand newfangled thing called a Matrox Mystique Videocard with some bizar new feature that made is especially suited for - dig this - playing games! My current Xbox One S is orders of magnitude more powerful than that box. I couldn't be bothered to make a big fuss about getting 8k / 60fps out of some contemporary gaming rig that costs as much as a compact car. That doesn't make sense anymore these days, those times have long since gone. Luckily.

      That's why many people settle for a console rather than a PC.

      • Re:Let me explain that for you (Score:5, Insightful)

        by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Wednesday March 18, 2020 @06:53PM (#59846580) Journal
        That was 10-15 years ago. These days a good gaming rig is still fairly expensive, but it will be a turnkey system, bit fiddly, and quiet. Also, in the old days the advantage of consoles is that they turned on instantly, while a pc needed time to boot. These days? A Windows 10 desktop boots in seconds. So does my PlayStation.... which will then patch itself first, followed by patches for any games I might want to play. This can take up to an hour... hardly compelling to a casual gamer.

        • That sounds like a "gamer" who's not on their PlayStation daily.

          • Not sure what that has to do with anything. After initial setup is finished both my console and my gaming PC are ready to go by the time my arse is on the couch. And I use both daily. Both were a pain to setup once, and once only. Both can be out of action for a while during an update.

        • Console fanboys have always compared the cost of future consoles to currently shipping PC's, while leaving out the cost of their display. So that $500 Playstation jumps up to $1000 when you include a 4k TV to use all that processing power.

          • Add another $600 for a laptop, because you can't do your tax return on a playstation.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Rakhar ( 2731433 )

            I know people that use computer monitors for thier console, and I know people that use 65" 4k tvs for thier PC.

            On top of that, you can get a reasonably sized 4k tv for $200, while a monitor of decent size will probably cost more.

            Either way that argument makes no sense. Might as well throw the cost of a house, internet, and electricity in there. It would make as much sense.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Uberbah ( 647458 )

              Either way that argument makes no sense.

              But of course it does. If console fanboys get to write off a necessary piece of equipment, then so too do PC gamers. So what should it be? Pretend that $300 CPU or video card didn't cost anything?

              Might as well throw the cost of a house, internet, and electricity in there. It would make as much sense.

              Don't herniate a disk going through all those contortions to defend selective math.

      • Because if you paid $6k in 1996 dollars for a Cyrix (the budget option at the time) and a Matrox Mystique (not super cheap, but not super expensive either) then something's not right. On the other hand $600's a bit low for that vintage. Was it $1000 :)? .

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

          It was over it. I had pretty much that exact system, but with a P120 that I flipped a mobo jumper to run at 133MHz. Overclocking before it was a thing. Bitch wouldn't run at 150.

          Lara's tiddies with acceleration looked amazing.

      • Worthwhile Gaming PC: North of 650 Euros in hardware. Fiddling with the hardware, OS and installations. Bulky, fussy, noisy.

        You forgot to say capable. The question is not whether. It's cheaper to buy an Xbox or a PC. The question is whether it's cheaper to buy an Xbox + Laptop (or small work desktop) or a PC.

        I my daughter can't finish her school assignments on your xbox.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • So here's the thing I've never understood. Why would you get an Xbox instead of just a PC?

      Because when I got divorced I lost the house and ended up in an apartment with no room for a desk. My laptop does all the work related things I need to do.

      Not to mention, on the PS{2|3|4} games just work. I don't have to fuck with drivers, or DRM, or whatever. I never realized how much time I spent dicking with my PC to play games until I no longer had to do it.

      That said, once I get back on my feet I plan to buy a gaming rig. It's a much better gaming experience, plus I can get mods to games I lov

      • To me, the biggest disadvantage of consoles is no access to cheats/trainers. I don't play a lot but when I do, I want to relax, so I use trainers for unlimited ammo and sometimes health if it's a particularly difficult level. Do consoles have any of that? Before anybody objects, I don't play online multiplayer games, only open world RPGs or FPS. In online games I'd stand no chance against 16 year olds.

    • Because I donâ(TM)t want to have to fuck around wondering why ASUS power management utility is popping up and stopping steam being full screen; and I donâ(TM)t want to deal with the Bluetooth controller randomly deciding to lag; and I donâ(TM)t want to deal with the weird third party HDMI CEC dongle deciding that it doesnâ(TM)t want to turn on the screen, and I donâ(TM)t want to have to find a mouse and keyboard every time something goes wrong (but also donâ(TM)t want them sat

    • If you're very tech savvy you're right, you can get a PC to do pretty much all of what the Xbox does.

      BUT, 99% of the people using a gaming console aren't tech savvy and would have no idea how to build a gaming optimized machine much less set up a wireless control system to boot. Consoles are narrowly focused on a few tasks. A PC is a utility tool meant to take on any task with options for customizability.

      • BUT, 99% of the people using a gaming console aren't tech savvy

        How many people really are these days though? It seems like there are a lot of custom gaming builds you can buy wholesale. Sure a lot of them might not be as powerful as a console even, but it could be a similar case to why someone might want another console system - they could play not only most Xbox games, but also a lot of indie stuff that doesn't make it to consoles so that might make even a somewhat crappy "gaming" PC more desirable than

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

        If you want a "console experience", prebuilt machines with locked down win10 and windows store are basically xbox in a PC form.

        It's one of the main complaints we power users have with win10. The "console experience" is also propagated to the rest of us, and with every update, it keeps eroding the "customizable PC" aspect of it as consolitis creeps in. To the point where those of us with interest in an actually customizable PC without console aspects have to jump through ridiculous hoops and are effectively

      • I would be considered tech savy and a PC can not do one thing consoles can do.. allow you to play every new release without dicking around with drivers settings configs and spending hours complaining to the devs about stability in probable 1/3 AAA releases. IMO opinion itâ(TM)s not worth the effort so you can see reflections and smoke and more textures in sand when playing a game.
    • most console gamers are console gamers. The comparison with a PC is irrelevant to them. At this point it looks like MS has a good chance this gen.

    • Why would you get an Xbox instead of just a PC?

      To not have to infect a PC with drm or windows.

      If you like having control over your own machines and better ability to audit them (not complete, the chain of trust starts at the foundry) windows in any form is pretty much a nonstarter. Easier to compartmentalize it to its own hardware that is also conveniently subsidized.

    • I do tech all day. The last thing I want to do when I want to have fun and relax is do more tech. Tinkering around with PC's and custom firmware for phones was fun years and years ago, but now I'm just not that interested in it. Just want stuff to work. A console fits the bill because everything is wrapped up nice and neat in a convenient package.

      I push a button, and it works. I don't need to worry about getting a faster video card, or more memory or CPU to make things run better.

      I don't want to troubleshoo

    • I use to think the same before i ditched PC for Xbox. You get disappointed over and over again when that new AAA title is launched and it crashes.. or there is driver issues.. I just found time after time you end up spending your time troubleshooting your system as opposed to playing the game. Neirs Automa was the game that made me say forget PC gaming for good. Ussually after a month or so it would get sorted out.. with Xbox you can just game.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kfh227 ( 1219898 )

      Because not everyone has the money for a $2000 gaming PC.

      To many, a $500 console itself is a luxury. Most families in the US make around $50K a year. None of these families are running out to buy their kids a PC for themselves, let alone a gaming PC that costs more.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by LesFerg ( 452838 )
      Based on some of the questions on gaming and PC subreddits recently, there are quite a few gamers who simply don't understand how to spec out a great gaming PC. The console is the best option for the less technically minded, who just need to know why all their school work has not left enough memory to install fortnite.

  • Neither (Score:5, Funny)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Wednesday March 18, 2020 @05:37PM (#59846256)
    Only the Sega Genesis has Blast Processing.

  • That's not the question to ask (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Wednesday March 18, 2020 @05:42PM (#59846278)

    Which one will have the more interesting titles and which one will offer more to its customer?

    That, if anything, is going to decide which console will have more customers.

    • The question is whether either has enough power to do run modern titles @4K/60; I definitely have my doubts about the PS5.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Kjella ( 173770 )

        The question is whether either has enough power to do run modern titles @4K/60; I definitely have my doubts about the PS5.

        The nice thing about a console is that they'll optimize for the exact level of performance you got, sure that won't make miracles but if they target 4K/60 they'll just tweak the graphics details until they get there. It's the kind of thing you can do when you have tens of millions of users with identical hardware, it's not like >10 TFLOPS is too little.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

        Neither will be able to do so at meaningful detail levels and decent frame rates. Those GPUs are weaker than modern high end GPUs on PC side in terms of compute, and even those struggle mightily to run games at 4k at decent quality settings and frame rates.

        So we'll probably see the same "fake 4k" we've seen for a awhile where they either upscale from internal resolution, or they bring quality and frame rates way down.

      • If Nintendo's success has shown one thing, then that graphics ain't everything. Graphics are much like a new car smell, it's gonna evaporate and after that, what you will notice is utility and usability. Flashy gimmicks may give you initial sales but long term viability will be determined by other qualities.

      • Care to elaborate? I've always been an Xbox user, but even I don't see anything in there that would give me any cause for significant concern on the Playstation side.

  • Which has better games? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Way Smarter Than You ( 6157664 ) on Wednesday March 18, 2020 @05:48PM (#59846306)
    There's always exclusives. And maybe you prefer one controller over the other.

    The rest is bullshit. Doesn't matter how any petaflops of gigachunks or whatever else.

    These are game machines. They play the game you like with a quality experience at a price you're willing to pay.

    Or not.
    • I am unsure why your comment was modded down to -1. It is correct.
      People who buy gaming consoles probably never think about how many giggity-bytes it has.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward
        He STARTS at -1. Check his posting history to see why.
        • Wow. I did not even know that was possible.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

      Yes and no. At least Microsoft spent last few years trying to fuse it's PC desktop business and it's console business as much as they could. And not in the direction of PC.

      You can basically turn your PC into a very close analogue to a modern xbox console with windows 10 today. Even the game offerings and the subscription package are the same. And you get all the same "black box of encrypted goodness you can't even mod" of a console on a PC gaming. It's a common theme today to see people on steam forums ask

  • I've got 1080p on my Xbox One S. Looks good. If I need to get an 800€ Screen to enjoy my newgen console, I'm not getting one.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Z80a ( 971949 )

      There are rumors that microsoft is doing a cheaper, 1080p box that runs the same games as the tall monolith thing.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Rakhar ( 2731433 )

        I just run my XBox One X at 1080 anyway. I have a 65" 4k TV and even then I can't tell the difference between the XBox in 4k mode vs 1080 with my TV upscaling it most of the time.

        People can have all the pissing contests they want with graphics numbers, but the diminishing returns are already a real thing. I have XBox, Switch, and PC, and which one has the most pixels and frames doesn't even register on my priority list when deciding what to play.

  • It's going to have enough power for the designers to do whatever they want to. The console's become immaterial, what matters is the game.

  • Soooo, AMD stock? (Score:3)

    by Snotnose ( 212196 ) on Wednesday March 18, 2020 @07:04PM (#59846610)
    For a long time it was around 28, then in September it started to rise to 51 with a peak at 57. It's now at 39, which makes it the only stock I know of that is worth more now than it was 6 months ago.

    Both the XBox and PS5 are using their hardware, which on their own is millions of units. Add to that the Intel HW bugs and one has to wonder if server farms will switch en masse.

    What say y'all?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

      Console hardware margins are utter garbage, which is why Intel and Nvidia are lightweights in that market. They have excellent margins on PC side, and don't want to tie limited production capacity to manufacture very low margin parts.

      This is especially true for Intel that is currently selling every modern chip it can get actually made. When you're massively constrained on production, you don't want to waste production capacity on lowest margin product.

  • I won't buy Sony anymore. (Score:4)

    by twocows ( 1216842 ) on Thursday March 19, 2020 @08:39AM (#59848378)
    I know this won't matter at all to a lot of people, but it matters a lot to me because hey, I like cute girls in games, they brighten my mood after a shitty day. Sony's been getting particularly prudish over eastern releases ever since Kaz retired and they moved their gaming branch to the US. There's the widely distributed example of the scene where the developer had to cover up a girl with ridiculous amounts of sunbeams... except there wasn't anything M-rated in the picture to begin with, just a bit of T-rated skin. I'd maybe expect that in the western release, but they were required to do this in the Japanese release, too. It's also worth noting that so far, they've been almost exclusively doing this to eastern releases and western releases have supposedly been getting a pass for showing skin.

    I understand most people won't care and no small number will probably point and laugh, but it matters to me -- I'm sure people feel the same when violent games aren't allowed to have blood in certain countries. No, it's not the end of the world, but the experience is being curtailed because of some prude's personal vendetta against {sexuality, violence}. It's irritating and it's not something I want to support with my money in any way. I wouldn't mind if they just put those tools into the hands of consumers -- by all means, have a toggle that covers up all the ankles in the game so grandpa doesn't have a heart attack. But give me that choice, don't make it for me. It may not seem like a big deal to you, it's a minor thing in a subject you likely don't care about, but VNs are probably my favorite form of media and what happens to them matters greatly to me. I have friends who have been arguing for years that bringing VNs to the west would result in the west influencing VNs in the east, to their detriment, and I've been trying to argue against it -- it's really hard when Sony's basically proving their point for them.

    It's a real shame because Sony's platforms used to be havens for VNs. The PSP and Vita had quite a few, the community even translated some that never came to the west. It's a strange, strange world when Nintendo's more accepting of sexuality in their games than Sony is.

  • Unimportant (Score:4, Informative)

    by sad_ ( 7868 ) on Thursday March 19, 2020 @09:33AM (#59848602) Homepage

    if Nintendo has learned us something, then it is that the power of a console doesn't matter one bit.
    Indeed, if you really want the most powerful gaming machine, you should just buy a PC.

    What matters on a console is the games and the whole experience around it.

  • Once I move up from i5-4670k I have

Slashdot Top Deals

Do you suffer painful illumination? -- Isaac Newton, "Optics"

Close