Originally Posted by ToTheSun!
I feel like you're circumventing my main point.
There's a difference between marketing "more performance!" and sacrificing components in a BOM in order to accommodate a specific storage solution with a basis on the work and input of in-house developers.
You say it's farfetched to assume new "game types" (not what I said, but ok), but it seems even more so to think the market leader (Sony vs MS duel) would invest in a component not traditionally highly valued by the target consumer to the detriment of a component that IS, in fact, habitually used as a selling point, all for the sake of an empty promise that yields, practically by design, no significant measurable advantage on PC.
In the realm of speculation, we have to deal in logic and probability. And your position simply looks the weakest. There's little reason to believe Sony's bet will not, in some form or another, allow the creation of revolutionary gameplay mechanics, be them player centric or storytelling/worldbuilding related.
Benchmarks show that PCIe 4.0 SSDs under heavy load usually still drop to practically the same performance as the older drives, Optane is still slow in many instances, and small random reads especially kill bandwidth regardless of what drive you're using.
So when Epic is talking about geometry culling on a per-tiangle basis it sounds like exactly the kind of workload that does kill high speed SSD performance.
If people want to do crazy random things with the SSD it needs to be expecially good at Random Reads, we don't know what workload the PS5's "5.5GB/s" is tuned for.
Second is the issue of capacity.
let's say Sony makes a game where environments are so detail dense that every time you make a 180 degree turn you've loaded 5GB of data, after 10 spaces only large enough to view everything from one location you will have consumed 100GB.
Creating full sized games at this fidelity is simply an impossibility, and as soon as you've fit all your game content into a size that people are willing to download, 5GB/s is no longer relevant.
If you want to create a sufficiently memory intense task to use 5GB/s it's going to be limited to a handful of instances before you run out of storage space, and at that fidelity people won't notice the "super high quality" assets taking an extra two seconds to load after the "high quality" assets.
We're talking about enough bandwidth to effectively load an entire modern game level per-second, 2.5GB/s is still an order of magnitude more than you need just to have decent textures instantly loaded.
People are genuinely going to struggle to find ways to differentiate PS5 from Xbox.