Gran Turismo Sport: General Discussion

[Tornado]

It is unfortunate of course that the original ps4 has proved inadequate so fast, but it does not justify the handicapping of another product to protect people's feelings

It does if Sony don't want this experiment to blow up in their face as spectacularly as every other time companies have tried something similar.

 

[GranTurismo guy]

It does if Sony don't want this experiment to blow up in their face as spectacularly as every other time companies have tried something similar.

Sony should have thought of this beforehand.

 

[Nato_777]

I don't have a problem with PS4 Pro, it's not like you have to upgrade. It's a fair better situation than the mobile phone market - buy an iPhone 6 and next year there's an iPhone7 and the financial outlay on those is far greater.
The fact is technology is always advancing at a great pace and at the current rate I don't think consoles can hang in there on the 'current' gen as long they used to.

 

[Robbks]

The fact is technology is always advancing at a great pace and at the current rate I don't think consoles can hang in there on the 'current' gen as long they used to.

I think console makers need to get smarter and allow them to be upgradeable.
Rather than selling us a box every 5 years
Sell us an upgrade board with processor, and RAM on it, and make them a plug n play device
- Remove a couple of ribbon cables
- Remove 2 screws holding the board in
- Install new board
- Plug it back in.
DOne.

 

[TrevorPhilips]

There are 40 million PS4's already in homes, even if Sony would allow it, for any publisher to even consider coding extra gameplay specific features for a product with a lukewarm reception and an install base of zero, it's going to have to have some serious legs out of the gate. Even then I doubt it. The only reason all devs are willingly upgrading the aesthetics now is because Sony made it mandatory for any game released after October 15th.

Also, why would any dev or publisher want to go through the trouble of juggling another build to go with the PC, XBO and PS4 builds already on the plate. Throw in the NX maybe and Scorpio (will almost certainly be different to XBO architecture IMO) That's potentially 5 builds without a PS4Pro specific version. Some devs are complaining now because they have to meet two targets with basically the same build, imagine changing the build too! Nightmare.

Makes no sense to me to worry about the PS4 becoming obsolete, it's the one in the driving seat here. If the CPU was a substantial upgrade I might share this doubt, but it isn't. To see any kind of substantial gains on the things that define gameplay, developers would have to tap hard into GPGPU and considering what I said earlier about install base and juggling existing platforms, never going to happen, for Pro at least.

 

[Nato_777]

If the mass market is actually wanting 4K gaming right now then the PS4 Pro could be a huge success for Sony as consoles are still the most cost effective solution even if each gen only last 3-4 years. Although admittedly that does depend a little on where in the world you live.
As of now (in NZ) if I wanted to upgrade my perfectly capable gaming PC for 4K gaming at decent frame rates it would cost me more than 2 PS4 Pro's for the GFX card alone (if I wanted one that wouldn't be obsolete tomorrow ), add in other PS4 Pro or two for a better CPU and more RAM.
As for GTS and PS4 Pro, I am curious what PD will do with it. Haven't read the developer guidelines but I suspect that 4K would be pretty much mandatory when a 4K display is connected and when an HD display is connect instead then you would get improved frame rates and possibly better textures and more detail (such as more trees/people etc...).

 

[freedom1104]

I think console makers need to get smarter and allow them to be upgradeable.
Rather than selling us a box every 5 years
Sell us an upgrade board with processor, and RAM on it, and make them a plug n play device
- Remove a couple of ribbon cables
- Remove 2 screws holding the board in
- Install new board
- Plug it back in.
DOne.

I don't think this would be doable.Anyone with relevant experience could had carried out the task easily without problem, but what about those who just want to play? This solution for me is only possible with authorized dealer doing the upgrade for you. so many things can went wrong if you messed with internal circuit board.

 

[Tornado]

Sell us an upgrade board with processor, and RAM on it, and make them a plug n play device

There's no way that modern consoles would allow access to anything of importance inside. Even from a warranty perspective it would be a nightmare long before any actual expansion capability released; nevermind the problems it would pose with packaging/cooling. To keep people from blowing their consoles up in the process would require a completely separate module that attached to the base system in some way.




Or:

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I think console makers need to get smarter and allow them to be upgradeable.
Rather than selling us a box every 5 years
Sell us an upgrade board with processor, and RAM on it, and make them a plug n play device
- Remove a couple of ribbon cables
- Remove 2 screws holding the board in
- Install new board
- Plug it back in.
DOne.

Why when you can just do the entire thing yourself already with only access to a field known as PC games...

Console makers are doing the smart thing, they spend money in R&D for a system, sell it at a premium and everyone runs to buy them and then slowly drop the prices and still make it relevent through bundling. Then they do it all over again a few years down the road, making your prior system obsolete (unless you're a collector) and you shell out even more money than last time perhaps.

Also most people aren't going to want or bother with actually getting their hands dirty and messing with even a relatively simple hardware update.

 

[Nato_777]

Why when you can just do the entire thing yourself already with only access to a field known as PC games...

Console makers are doing the smart thing, they spend money in R&D for a system, sell it at a premium and everyone runs to buy them and then slowly drop the prices and still make it relevent through bundling. Then they do it all over again a few years down the road, making your prior system obsolete (unless you're a collector) and you shell out even more money than last time perhaps.

Also most people aren't going to want or bother with actually getting their hands dirty and messing with even a relatively simple hardware update.

I still would say that the cost of a new console each generation is favourably comparable to the cost of upgrading a PC for the same period. Let's use your 5 year cycle for instance - if 5 years ago you put a high end GFX card in your PC you would have had a GTX 580 or Radeon HD 6990 in your PC, by now that card would be pretty inadequate for the current crop of games so if you now wanted to upgrade to a current high end GFX card to last you the next 5 years you would be looking at something like a GTX 1080 or such which would cost significantly more than the new console. And then there's all the other PC components which by now are quite long in the tooth and need upgrading.
For the casual player a console is pretty much a no-brainer, for the PC enthusiast tinkering with and upgrading the PC is part of the enjoyment and a console doesn't meet that need I guess.
Of course I do realise that overall PC games are less expensive than their console counterparts and there are no subs for online play so that does come into consideration and depending on how many games a year you normally purchase it may even things a little bit.

 

[Robbks]

OK then,
It's not entirely that difficult to engineer
have a box with modules you slot in and out.
think of it as if you're pulling a HDD out of a server

Step 1, turn off power
Step 2, remove "Processing Module"
Step 3, Insert new Processing module
Step 4, turn power on.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I still would say that the cost of a new console each generation is favourably comparable to the cost of upgrading a PC for the same period. Let's use your 5 year cycle for instance - if 5 years ago you put a high end GFX card in your PC you would have had a GTX 580 or Radeon HD 6990 in your PC, by now that card would be pretty inadequate for the current crop of games so if you now wanted to upgrade to a current high end GFX card to last you the next 5 years you would be looking at something like a GTX 1080 or such which would cost significantly more than the new console. And then there's all the other PC components which by now are quite long in the tooth and need upgrading.
For the casual player a console is pretty much a no-brainer, for the PC enthusiast tinkering with and upgrading the PC is part of the enjoyment and a console doesn't meet that need I guess.
Of course I do realise that overall PC games are less expensive than their console counterparts and there are no subs for online play so that does come into consideration and depending on how many games a year you normally purchase it may even things a little bit.

I never used a five year cycle...

I also say console production is quite smart on the end of the creators due to the fact that the buyers aren't going to want to have to put up with frequent hardware updates. That in turn they would install themselves or pay someone else to do. Those who would want that as I said and you seem to misunderstand are probably better off with PC because of such ease and availability. Making consoles, a small version of PC gaming would shoot prices up really since you're asking for internals in a smaller package. The suggestion would be akin to gaming laptops. And if this were to happen, company's like Sony and Microsoft could easily exploit it and make tiers of gaming consoles based on hardware (which to a small extend happens now).

In the end you basically just echoed, what I was trying to stress to the user I quoted...so confused you've made me.

Edit: thanks for the crash course in graphics cards, I know it was just a general illustration but I'm traversed in them.

 

[Nato_777]

I never used a five year cycle...

Apologies, that was @Robbks - my mistake.

 

[Imari]

Let's use your 5 year cycle for instance - if 5 years ago you put a high end GFX card in your PC you would have had a GTX 580 or Radeon HD 6990 in your PC, by now that card would be pretty inadequate for the current crop of games so if you now wanted to upgrade to a current high end GFX card to last you the next 5 years you would be looking at something like a GTX 1080 or such which would cost significantly more than the new console.

You'd do better buying a $300 card every 2-3 years than buying an $800 card every 5. PC hardware best practices don't match up well to console cycles.

 

[Nato_777]

You'd do better buying a $300 card every 2-3 years than buying an $800 card every 5. PC hardware best practices don't match up well to console cycles.

Of course, but even then you would have spent more on GFX cards in the same console cycle than a new console.
If it comes down to pure economics then I think the console will win, you probably will get a better overall experience game quality wise with the PC though (with more frequent upgrades).

Anyway we are getting off-topic again - apologies.

 

[05XR8]

Not much news at the GTA Movie World finals. Same track(Tokyo).

 

[ScottPuss20]

You'd do better buying a $300 card every 2-3 years than buying an $800 card every 5. PC hardware best practices don't match up well to console cycles.

No they don't. Although the PC gaming segment has grown over the last few years, it is still very much a niche market. Consoles will always remain mainstream because of their accessibility and pricing. Besides, if you want to build a PC, you need to know a lot about the components in order to make something which works for you. Most people want to buy something that's already set up and ready to play, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. You could argue that consoles provide the most fun for the least amount of cash.

 

[PzR Slim]

No they don't. Although the PC gaming segment has grown over the last few years, it is still very much a niche market. Consoles will always remain mainstream because of their accessibility and pricing. Besides, if you want to build a PC, you need to know a lot about the components in order to make something which works for you. Most people want to buy something that's already set up and ready to play, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. You could argue that consoles provide the most fun for the least amount of cash.

Plenty of suppliers offer pre built capable machines where the only choice a consumer has to make is how much they want to spend. And with machines like Steam boxes turning up the lines between console and PC will become even more blurred over the coming years.

 

[jm79]

Plenty of suppliers offer pre built capable machines where the only choice a consumer has to make is how much they want to spend. And with machines like Steam boxes turning up the lines between console and PC will become even more blurred over the coming years.

I think the main benefit with this new raft of PC-like consoles is the price, for sure. But then there is also the custom stuff that enables the things to punch above their weight. EG's latest DF video is pretty effusive about how this $400 box can display HDR/4K with the help of some mysterious custom GPU stuff. I'm fairly certain that you can't get a PC that can do the same for $400. The Tomb Raider example is particularly impressive.

Also, I'm a big fan of the new console not making the last one obsolete. When I moved countries I only packed the PS4 - that meant I couldn't play GT at all anymore, or any of the other titles I bought for that machine, and likely never will again. That is kind of annoying.

 

[Seanspeed]

I think the main benefit with this new raft of PC-like consoles is the price, for sure. But then there is also the custom stuff that enables the things to punch above their weight. EG's latest DF video is pretty effusive about how this $400 box can display HDR/4K with the help of some mysterious custom GPU stuff. I'm fairly certain that you can't get a PC that can do the same for $400. The Tomb Raider example is particularly impressive.

Also, I'm a big fan of the new console not making the last one obsolete. When I moved countries I only packed the PS4 - that meant I couldn't play GT at all anymore, or any of the other titles I bought for that machine, and likely never will again. That is kind of annoying.

There's no mysterious, custom GPU stuff. They simply have the advantage of having a fixed hardware solution and custom, low level API where they can really dig deep and create some interesting software solutions utilizing the GPU's capabilities.

I imagine this stuff is all theoretically possible on PC using DX12/Mantle, but would be more reliant on developers to program, which would be a much bigger headache when they have to make it work for a range of hardware specs. In fact, we've already seen games like Quantum Break utilize reconstruction techniques similar to this 'checkerboard' rendering.

 

[jm79]

There's no mysterious, custom GPU stuff. They simply have the advantage of having a fixed hardware solution and custom, low level API where they can really dig deep and create some interesting software solutions utilizing the GPU's capabilities.

I imagine this stuff is all theoretically possible on PC using DX12/Mantle, but would be more reliant on developers to program, which would be a much bigger headache when they have to make it work for a range of hardware specs. In fact, we've already seen games like Quantum Break utilize reconstruction techniques similar to this 'checkerboard' rendering.

Quantum Break looked amazing btw 👍

And yeah, maybe I misheard that from the DF guys on that Eurogamer video. I was paraphrasing something techy, of which I have not much expertise

But they do seem to be very impressed with the performance, however. Which bodes well for GTS at the very least.

 

[Imari]

Also, I'm a big fan of the new console not making the last one obsolete. When I moved countries I only packed the PS4 - that meant I couldn't play GT at all anymore, or any of the other titles I bought for that machine, and likely never will again. That is kind of annoying.

To be fair, that only really started in earnest partway through the PS3 generation. Original PS3s were backwards compatible, as were PS2s. PS4 was the first release hardware from Sony that wasn't.

It will be nice if they've changed their stance on that.

 

[mister dog]

It will be nice if they've changed their stance on that.

Why would they as they can sell them to you once more digitally in a 'remastered' edition. And people do actually pay upwards to 15 bucks for it.

 

[TrevorPhilips]

Emulating PS3 on PS4 would be nigh on impossible, the only way to play would have been to include the cell chipset like they did with the PS2 chips in early gen PS3's. There's a briefing from a year or 3 back on PS3 vs PS4 CPU around the net somewhere which shows the Cell actually outperform PS4's chip in some scenarios.

 

[sems4arsenal]

No

 

[freedom1104]

I think the main benefit with this new raft of PC-like consoles is the price, for sure. But then there is also the custom stuff that enables the things to punch above their weight. EG's latest DF video is pretty effusive about how this $400 box can display HDR/4K with the help of some mysterious custom GPU stuff. I'm fairly certain that you can't get a PC that can do the same for $400. The Tomb Raider example is particularly impressive.

Also, I'm a big fan of the new console not making the last one obsolete. When I moved countries I only packed the PS4 - that meant I couldn't play GT at all anymore, or any of the other titles I bought for that machine, and likely never will again. That is kind of annoying.

Not mysterious stuff. Just 2k upscale to 4k using checkerboard magic. Its not native 4k, its something similar like 1080I during ps2 era.

OK then,
It's not entirely that difficult to engineer
have a box with modules you slot in and out.
think of it as if you're pulling a HDD out of a server

Step 1, turn off power
Step 2, remove "Processing Module"
Step 3, Insert new Processing module
Step 4, turn power on.

Yes its easy to slot in something like you mentioned. But the thing is, what if dust/moisture went in during upgrading, does warranty cover these damage caused by user during upgrading module? As we all know, Sony do not like people fiddle with their hardware internally, same like other not custom built pc by acer, hp or etc. They always put those sticker to prevent user from messing about. If they notice the sticker is broken, warranty void immediately.

 

[Imari]

Emulating PS3 on PS4 would be nigh on impossible, the only way to play would have been to include the cell chipset like they did with the PS2 chips in early gen PS3's. There's a briefing from a year or 3 back on PS3 vs PS4 CPU around the net somewhere which shows the Cell actually outperform PS4's chip in some scenarios.

It's true, but that's because of the way that they chose their architectures for PS2 and PS3. Those machines were essentially crazy custom chipsets, and so it's very difficult unless you have exactly the same hardware.

If they stick with something similar to the PS4 for the PS5 (and they probably should) then I imagine emulation of old games will be a lot easier. New PCs have no trouble playing older PC games, and honestly having a big library of old games is a great way to keep people locked into one brand.

 

[TrevorPhilips]

I know, we were actually talking about this in March over in the PS4 thread.

Seen the streamlining of both of the big console companies coming a mile off. It is so obvious where they are going in terms of strategy and it also makes a lot of sense to me from every stand point. I also understand that some people have worries over compatibility but that is a 100% non issue over 2-3 iterations of the same architecture and the benefits for these companies and customers would far outweigh the drawbacks.

Whether it turns out to be true and we see a better spec PS4 is irrelevant in the bigger picture, no matter what happens in between we are going to get the same architecture for PS5 with true backward compatibility and cross generation multiplayer. A slightly different strategy for MS where the hardware will be a closer match to PC hardware than it is currently but a very similar business model from there on in.

So basically what I am saying is, whether it is called PS4.5, PS4k (Copyright of @FT-1) or PS5 it will basically be an upgraded PS4 and clear cut console generations will be blurred. The messaging is key to going forward for both companies and could be easily ****** up but the era of exotic hardware changes is dead and good riddance to it, costs too much money and time for everybody involved.

When I think about it, I honestly do not know why MS didn't mention that backward compatibility was being worked on when XBO became a thing. Unless they were not planning to of course but I think it's a major selling point to keep people in your ecosystem, like you said.

 

[Famine]

in the PS4 thread

Which would be an ideal place to continue it.


I appreciate that since the decision was made to delay GT Sport there's not been an awful lot of news to discuss, but if this thread is for that and that alone. There's no harm in letting it lie fallow while there's an absence of news - you don't have to keep it active by posting wide-ranging, tenuously connected material in here which would be better placed in other threads suited to those topics.

[/public service announcement]

 

[KevinHeryanto]

Not mysterious stuff. Just 2k upscale to 4k using checkerboard magic. Its not native 4k, its something similar like 1080I during ps2 era.

Its different. it runs at 1800p (which is better than 2k) and use the checkerboard technique to give the look of 2160p.
Plus the differnce isnt really big unless you have a 4K HDR TV (impressive considering the PS4 Pro weak specifications)

Click the image to view it in full detail.