PlayStation 4 General DiscussionPS4

[Tired Tyres]

In that case we shouldn't even have this thread open because a PS4 hasn't even been officially announced... Oh wait it's a discussion thread. Since you want backwards compatibility you throw out the "it's not official" card.

Regardless, no one said "officially" there would be backwards compatibility one way or the other.

You don't say... Say buying in bulk means lower prices? This sounds familiar... No, that's a myth.

Care to point to me where I have actually said I want backwards compatibly?

The only thing I said about it is that it will cost sales if it is not built in.

As for purchase prices. I work in a service industry company. I know what we pay for goods. No way can I as a private citizen get those prices.

No official information on the PS4 specification is not a card to play to validate anyones opinion. Yours or mine. It's a fact. Simple as that.

 

[marchi]

The ps3 isn't backward compatible anymore. Sony can earn Money with digital HD Remakes, PS1, PS2 games.
They could sell digital PS3 Games.

Just give me One reason why you think Sony won't want to earn Money and will make the ps4 backward compatible.

How do you make hd remakes on already HD games? Imagine sticking Max Payne 3 into the ps4 and it running at 1080p with 60fps. The graphics are already good enough, and that would attract alot of consumers into buying the console. The games are built in with a max FPS limit, but a simple update for those games would mean that they can utilise the added processing capacity of the new console. Especially by using software emulation rather than hardware emulation, which i've been told by a very reliable source had been seriously thought about on the PS3 up until around 2010 when the idea was dropped. Even now, most of those PS2 games in the PSN store are using built in emulators to adapt to the PS3 hardware.



Also I'm not sure if you noticed, but if you happen to pick up a ps1 game, you can actually stick it in your PS3 and it works perfectly 💡

Doesn't actually seem that Sony are that concerned with not allowing backwards compatibility.

 

[Sanji Himura]

I would like to point out these two images. They were from a patent application that Sony filed that would allow non-BC PS3's to play PS2 games. I'm starting to suspect that the device described in the application will be applied to the PS4 to allow Backwards Compatibility for those who want it.

 

[ch3ng]

How do you make hd remakes on already HD games?

Also I'm not sure if you noticed, but if you happen to pick up a ps1 game, you can actually stick it in your PS3 and it works perfectly 💡

Doesn't actually seem that Sony are that concerned with not allowing backwards compatibility.

I mean. Sony Cut the backward compatibility of the ps3 and released PS1,2 and HD Remakes.

According to Wiki only ps1 Disc work with Every ps3.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...ompatible_PlayStation_2_and_PlayStation_games

But we have other problems too. It's possible that the ps4 won't have a Cell and Sony wants less costs of a product.

 

[Robin]

OK, I'll pick up a a new PS2. Wait a minute, there's no space since I already have an Xbox and PS3 linked up to my TV.

The slim PS2 is about the size of a DVD case, you seriously can't spare that kind of space? And if its about ports what's the big problem is switching out one thing for another. My old room TV had one AV port which meant I had to constantly switch stuff out for years and years and it didn't bother me one bit. Or you could get a hub / switcher.

Of course, why didn't I buy one at the start when they were hugely expensive.I should've known they were going to suddenly cut backwards compatibility, and should've magicked enough money to buy one out of thin air.

If you were not willing or couldn't afford the original 60GB and are not willing to go the cheaper route and incur some minor inconvenience then there is no way of pleasing you. People buying a slim now are paying much less and you get the features you pay for so why should it have BC?

Also there was nothing sudden about the removal of BC. Sony gave ample notice that they would remove BC completely with the 40GB and there were plenty of opportunities to buy 60GB stock at a more reasonable price. Plus people can still pick up BC PS3's today on ebay.

OK, I'll go and buy GTA: Vice City, GT4 and Need for Speed Underground 2 from PSN. There's only one problem... They aren't on PSN.

There are many other major titles which are available and new HD collection box sets come out all the time. I wouldn't be surprised if we see a GTA3,GTAVC,GTASA box set come out and some point, maybe for the release of GTA5. The European 60GB might not have been able to play some specific PS2 titles anyway.

 

[marchi]

I mean. Sony Cut the backward compatibility of the ps3 and released PS1,2 and HD Remakes.

According to Wiki only ps1 Disc work with Every ps3.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...ompatible_PlayStation_2_and_PlayStation_games

But we have other problems too. It's possible that the ps4 won't have a Cell and Sony wants less costs of a product.

PS2 games in the PSN store that aren't HD remakes 'Metal gear etc' such as NFS most wanted, use in built emulation to work on the PS3 system. It wouldn't be difficult at all for Sony to implement software in their systems to provide an emulator for ps3 games regardless of whether it has Cell or not. No different to Nintendo 64 emulators on a computer.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

PS2 games in the PSN store that aren't HD remakes 'Metal gear etc' such as NFS most wanted, use in built emulation to work on the PS3 system. It wouldn't be difficult at all for Sony to implement software in their systems to provide an emulator for ps3 games regardless of whether it has Cell or not. No different to Nintendo 64 emulators on a computer.

LOL!

Really?

Couple of questions for you...

How does emulation work?

Why was PS2 compatibility dropped from PS3?

Why doesn't a PS3/360 emulator exist for PC?

And why (LOL) is it no different from N64? LOL.

 

[marchi]

LOL!

Really?

Couple of questions for you...

How does emulation work?

Why was PS2 compatibility dropped from PS3?

Why doesn't a PS3/360 emulator exist for PC?

And why (LOL) is it no different from N64? LOL.

Emulation was dropped to not only save power but to reduce costs of producing the PS3 unit which was still expensive at the time. Also the PS2 was selling gangbusters 'and still is' in lower income markets such as India and the likes, while making a reasonable profit for Sony. The PS3 will likely not retain the same sales in decline, which is mainly due to the PS2's extensive catalogue and it allowing itself to hold its own against next gen consoles.

Emulation works by coding software to act as a blanket that utilises the hardware of the console or in the case of PS2 and N64 emulators on mac and PC, their hardware. How do you think specific game engines and cross porting works.... Its why producers like PD and Naughty dog for Playstation can extract so much more from the PS3 because their games are designed around the unit and not for two platforms.


There isn't a PS3 emulator yet 'don't most 360 games come out on PC anyway?' because emulators use a tonne of ram and power. There's a reason that emulators for PS2 really only came on strong in the mid to late 2000's even though the hardware of the PS2 was developed in the late 90's.


Just to prove its possible

http://kotaku.com/5304117/sony-patents-method-to-emulate-ps2-on-ps3

Oh look.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

Emulation was dropped to not only save power but to reduce costs of producing the PS3 unit which was still expensive at the time. Also the PS2 was selling gangbusters 'and still is' in lower income markets such as India and the likes, while making a reasonable profit for Sony. The PS3 will likely not retain the same sales in decline, which is mainly due to the PS2's extensive catalogue and it allowing itself to hold its own against next gen consoles.

Emulation works by coding software to act as a blanket that utilises the hardware of the console or in the case of PS2 and N64 emulators on mac and PC, their hardware. How do you think specific game engines and cross porting works.... Its why producers like PD and Naughty dog for Playstation can extract so much more from the PS3 because their games are designed around the unit and not for two platforms.

There isn't a PS3 emulator yet 'don't most 360 games come out on PC anyway?' because emulators use a tonne of ram and power. There's a reason that emulators for PS2 really only came on strong in the mid to late 2000's even though the hardware of the PS2 was developed in the late 90's.

Just to prove its possible

http://kotaku.com/5304117/sony-patents-method-to-emulate-ps2-on-ps3

Oh look.

We're not talking about PS2 emulation. We are talking about PS3 emulation. But, since you went there...

You link a blog from 2009... Yet, where is the PS2 emulation on PS3? The games available through the PSN? If you have the ability to put in a PS2 disc into your PS3 and play it (assuming you have a later model) please let me know. Otherwise, I don't know why you decided to share this "oh look" moment with me.

So there's no PS3/360 emulator for PC's due to lack of resources; considering even a mid/high end PC is leaps and bounds above "next-gen" consoles what makes you think they will be able to do what a high end PC cannot?

I challenge you to go on any tech site and ask when a PS3 emulator will be available on PC.

And, what makes N64 emulation "no different" than PS3 emulation?

If there already are N64 emulators shouldn't there be PS3 emulators?

 

[nick09]

Emulation was dropped to not only save power but to reduce costs of producing the PS3 unit which was still expensive at the time.

And yet the last model of the 80GB FAT PS3's played PS2 games via software emulation. The PS3 has a single core just for OS and 7 smaller cores(one was disabled to make room for a possible bad core or if a core fails in the future) which managed the games when they were told to do so by the single core. These are clocked at 3.2GHz and the GPU which was clocked at 550MHz would not have a problem emulating a PS2 game. I doubt to see the processing power not being there or too much "power" being used from the socket.

 

[marchi]

We're not talking about PS2 emulation. We are talking about PS3 emulation. But, since you went there...

You link a blog from 2009... Yet, where is the PS2 emulation on PS3? The games available through the PSN? If you have the ability to put in a PS2 disc into your PS3 and play it (assuming you have a later model) please let me know. Otherwise, I don't know why you decided to share this "oh look" moment with me.

So there's no PS3/360 emulator for PC's due to lack of resources; considering even a mid/high end PC is leaps and bounds above "next-gen" consoles what makes you think they will be able to do what a high end PC cannot?

I challenge you to go on any tech site and ask when a PS3 emulator will be available on PC.

And, what makes N64 emulation "no different" than PS3 emulation?

If there already are N64 emulators shouldn't there be PS3 emulators?

Where were the PS2 emulators on PC's around 2004-2005? Even by 2002 you could build a PC significantly more powerful than the PS2 yet the Emulators were rubbish. Even now a high end PC wouldn't run a PS3 emulator that well because the system was not designed for console specs. In fact PC's are rubbish at running games in the first place hence the reason you need to spend atleast double the amount to produce the same level of graphics of a console, and thats on some games primarily made for PC.

If you read my whole post instead of what you wanted, I quite clearly pointed out why Sony didn't implement a software based emulator on the PS3. Its right there in black and white and clear as day. They are making too much money off the PS2 to warrant putting the chip into the PS3. They want people to buy more PS2's

The oh look moment was proof that the software does exist in terms of providing emulation for completely different hardware which was the whole point about the N64, but go ahead please.

 

[marchi]

And yet the last model of the 80GB FAT PS3's played PS2 games via software emulation. The PS3 has a single core just for OS and 7 smaller cores(one was disabled to make room for a possible bad core or if a core fails in the future) which managed the games when they were told to do so by the single core. These are clocked at 3.2GHz and the GPU which was clocked at 550MHz would not have a problem emulating a PS2 game. I doubt to see the processing power not being there or too much "power" being used from the socket.

Processing power is there, but Sony went out of their way to reduce power 'as in socket power' consumption in the console. I believe they've already cut it in half since the first release PS3. You've also got additional heat ECT as well. And again it was cheaper to produce.

 

[Tornado]

And yet the last model of the 80GB FAT PS3's played PS2 games via software emulation

No it didn't. It played PS2 games via hardware-assisted software emulation, retaining the PS2's infamously tricky GPU to maintain compatibility but eliminating the fairly-straightforward CPU to save costs. Massive difference between that and pure software emulation.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

Where were the PS2 emulators on PC's around 2004-2005? Even by 2002 you could build a PC significantly more powerful than the PS2 yet the Emulators were rubbish. Even now a high end PC wouldn't run a PS3 emulator that well because the system was not designed for console specs. In fact PC's are rubbish at running games in the first place hence the reason you need to spend atleast double the amount to produce the same level of graphics of a console, and thats on some games primarily made for PC.

If you read my whole post instead of what you wanted, I quite clearly pointed out why Sony didn't implement a software based emulator on the PS3. Its right there in black and white and clear as day. They are making too much money off the PS2 to warrant putting the chip into the PS3. They want people to buy more PS2's

The oh look moment was proof that the software does exist in terms of providing emulation for completely different hardware which was the whole point about the N64, but go ahead please.

Where we're they? THAT'S THE POINT! PC's would have to run hardware emulation in order to process it. Why did the PS3 have backwards compatibility in the beginning? BECAUSE THEY INCLUDED THE HARDWARE FROM THE PS2! THERE WAS NO EMULATION. You remove the hardware required to run an application so you need to do one of two things: Re-code an entire library of applications or use hardware emulation.

If you honestly think you need to spend double the amount you are greatly mistaken. I suggest going to newegg and looking up prices. My little brother spent $500 on his PC and he can run BF3 on high settings while maintaining around 50 FPS in a TRUE 1920x1080 render (something we probably won't see out of next-generation). Compare that to the $599 launch price of the PS3.... Throw in the fact that PS3 limits the FB2 engine in BF3 to a 720p render locked at 30 FPS at something compared to PC's LOW graphics settings... Oh ya, and less than half the amount of players on map because the hardware can't handle the load....

Yes, emulation does exist for legacy hardware.... Again, another point that you don't seem to grasp. Emulating for N64 is ENTIRELY different and EXTREMELY less demanding than PS3. Otherwise I would be playing GT5 on my PC without all that pathetic screen tearing and refresh lag.

"In fact PC's are rubbish at running games in the first place hence the reason you need to spend atleast double the amount to produce the same level of graphics of a console, and thats on some games primarily made for PC."

Honestly, this sentence right here proves you have no idea what you are talking about so I am done.

 

[tribolik]

Where we're they? THAT'S THE POINT! PC's would have to run hardware emulation in order to process it. Why did the PS3 have backwards compatibility in the beginning? BECAUSE THEY INCLUDED THE HARDWARE FROM THE PS2! THERE WAS NO EMULATION. You remove the hardware required to run an application so you need to do one of two things: Re-code an entire library of applications or use hardware emulation.

If you honestly think you need to spend double the amount you are greatly mistaken. I suggest going to newegg and looking up prices. My little brother spent $500 on his PC and he can run BF3 on high settings while maintaining around 50 FPS in a TRUE 1920x1080 render (something we probably won't see out of next-generation). Compare that to the $599 launch price of the PS3.... Throw in the fact that PS3 limits the FB2 engine in BF3 to a 720p render locked at 30 FPS at something compared to PC's LOW graphics settings... Oh ya, and less than half the amount of players on map because the hardware can't handle the load....

Yes, emulation does exist for legacy hardware.... Again, another point that you don't seem to grasp. Emulating for N64 is ENTIRELY different and EXTREMELY less demanding than PS3. Otherwise I would be playing GT5 on my PC without all that pathetic screen tearing and refresh lag.




Honestly, this sentence right here proves you have no idea what you are talking about so I am done.

500/2=250=PS3 I think he is about right but thats just me... I myself cant find a PC that costs me 500 and can run games with the same quality as the PS3... but then again I probably have no idea of what Im talking about also...

 

[marchi]

500/2=250=PS3 I think he is about right but thats just me... I myself cant find a PC that costs me 500 and can run games with the same quality as the PS3... but then again I probably have no idea of what Im talking about also...

I was waiting from that comment from him. Especially the last bit. I guess applications like direct x are lost on some folk. They are designed to compensate for the linear PC Hardware and base software that are not at all designed with gaming in mind.

I wasn't even attempting to troll and he's blown a fuse. He's effectively repeating everything i've said without actually noticing it.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

XBOX 360 250 GB $300

http://www.gamestop.com/xbox-360/co...250gb-matte/97765?affid=9797&cid=ppc_60000001

PS3 320 GB $300

http://www.walmart.com/ip/PlayStati...52791&sourceid=1500000000000003142040&veh=cse

CPU $68
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103888

MOBO $45
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157215

RAM $22
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820576003

CASE $20
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811233073

PSU $30
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817822002

HDD $70
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136770

GPU $55 + FREE DIRT 3
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102988

OS LINUX + WINE FREE

= $310 "oh look"

If you HAVE to have windows then $75 (or you know... NOT pay for it)

http://www.discountmountainsoftware...+(Branded)&utm_campaign=google_product_search


This is without shopping around spending 5 minutes picking out parts I haven't researched and would personally never purchase being a PC gamer, and wanting more than what 7 year old hardware can do for me.... I would personally spend no less than 1500 on gaming PC, that is my work PC, that is my school PC, that is my home PC. But, I like triple screens for productivity, or 60 FPS at 1920 x 1080 or higher on games with crazy real looking graphics... you know... silly things consoles don't do.

At Microcenter you get a free motherboard with the purchase of a processor....


Take into consideration the fact you can get brand new games for a fraction of what a console user would pay:

http://www.cdkeyhouse.com

Oh and before I forget, so you do you post on GTP on your PS3?

What exactly are you using? A PC? If so.... how much do a PS3 and a PC (for NOT gaming) run you?.........

 

[tribolik]

The PS3 cost me around 250 euros (around 3 years ago) and the Asus laptop I use was 700 euros (two years ago) and I use it mainly for work (autocad) and internet but strangly enough it cant run games with PS2 quality let alone PS3. I do have a PC that I bought 7 years ago for work and sound processing and that cost me 1200 euros (300 was the sound card) but that isnt up to part with the laptop now a days so IMO buying a PC for gaming is a bad investment... I would buy one if I didnt have other priorities... but Im afraid I cant spend 1500 euros every two or three years just to have a machine for gaming...

 

[CMvan46]

The PS3 cost me around 250 euros (around 3 years ago) and the Asus laptop I use was 700 euros (two years ago) and I use it mainly for work (autocad) and internet but strangly enough it cant run games with PS2 quality let alone PS3. I do have a PC that I bought 7 years ago for work and sound processing and that cost me 1200 euros (300 was the sound card) but that isnt up to part with the laptop now a days so IMO buying a PC for gaming is a bad investment... I would buy one if I didnt have other priorities... but Im afraid I cant spend 1500 euros every two or three years just to have a machine for gaming...

You don't have to spend 1500 euros and nor do you need to spend that every 2 or 3 years. Also I'm going too assume everybody here has a PC. I know the average cost of your barebones word processing/Internet browsing home pc is about 300-400 euros. So take that plus the cost of your ps3 and you have roughly the cost of a gaming pc.

Yes you need to upgrade it more often and yes it works out to more expensive than console gaming but not quite at the exaggerated amount most people claim. As a trade off you get far better graphics, mod support, higher resolutions, cheaper games and entire genres of games that really dont exist on consoles. Is that extra cost worth it for those reasons? I dont know thats for each person to decide and for their budgets.

Personally I'll finally be making the switch to pc gaming next spring when school is finally all done with. I'm going to need a PC when I move out anyway, my girlfriend will be doing AutoCAD work on it as well so it has to be a half ways decent computer to start with do the extra bit of money I'll be throwing into it just to make it more gaming friendly isn't too bad when you consider I'll be avoiding the next $500 console launch.

It really doesn't matter you spent 700 euros on a laptop that can't play games better than PS2 quality. My girlfriend just bought her laptop for just over $1000 CAD and it plays Battlefield 3 at medium settings so I you just bought a laptop without a decent graphics card.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

The PS3 cost me around 250 euros (around 3 years ago) and the Asus laptop I use was 700 euros (two years ago) and I use it mainly for work (autocad) and internet but strangly enough it cant run games with PS2 quality let alone PS3. I do have a PC that I bought 7 years ago for work and sound processing and that cost me 1200 euros (300 was the sound card) but that isnt up to part with the laptop now a days so IMO buying a PC for gaming is a bad investment... I would buy one if I didnt have other priorities... but Im afraid I cant spend 1500 euros every two or three years just to have a machine for gaming...

Where people come up with the idea that it costs 1500 every 2 years is beyond me.

What exactly do you plan on buying with 1500? An entirely new PC? That is a bit overkill when you can just use what you already have... All you need to do to play games MAXED out is update your video card. That is IF you want to play every game possible at the highest settings at resolutions higher than 1920x1080. No one makes you upgrade your system every other year. Developers don't code games to ONLY run on PC's that are less than 6 months old lol.

And just because you bought a laptop, which are generally more expensive than identical hardware in a desktop, for 700 doesn't mean every combination of hardware that runs 700, or 300 as you saw in my previous post, won't be able to outperform a console.

 

[Sanji Himura]

I agree, spending 1500 euros every two years is a bit overkill when you can use one for the same purpose for years without any trouble.

 

[polizei]

no one needs to spend 1500 every two years to have a good time pc gaming. So long as you don't build an already dated machine you can easily upgrade with newer, better, and often times cheaper, components. Not to mention you can scale the graphics back for smoother frame rates and still run at resolutions and fidelity higher than any console.

 

[ch3ng]

PS4 since 2010 in development?

http://www.linkedin.com/in/attilavass?_mSplash=1

 

[gtone339]

PS4 since 2010 in development?

http://www.linkedin.com/in/attilavass?_mSplash=1

Here's explanation.

link: http://www.gamezone.com/products/playstation-4/news/ps4-allegedly-in-development-since-august-2010

Significance of PS3 Slim even with PS4 looming

link: http://www.inentertainment.co.uk/20120702/significance-of-ps3-slim-even-with-ps4-looming/

 

[BlisteredHand]

Sony do want to be able to provide a £/€100 PS3 console, they know it would be very popular.

 

[Ddrizle]

Rumored specs sent to devs.

CPU
-4 core (2 core pairs) 3.2 GHz AMD x86 (Steamroller)
-aggregate, 10x PS3 PPU performance
-512 KByte L2 per core pair
-64 bit pointers

GPU
-AMD R10x series GPU @ 800 MHz (Tahiti)
-aggregate 10x RSX performance, 1.84 TFlops
-DX”11.5″
-cheap branching
-18 compute units, focus on fine grained compute & tessellation

MEMORY:
-2 GByte UMA, pushing for 4 GByte
-192 GByte/ sec non-coherent access for e.g. GPU
-12 GByte/ sec coherent access for CPU
->50% longer memory latency for CPU/ GPU compared to PC!!!
-DXT is lowest bpp texture compression format

MEDIA:
-50 GByte BD drive
-PCAV, between 3.3 and 8x BD, most likely clamped to 6x
automatic background caching to HDD
-HDD SKU with at least 380 GByte
-downloadable games

EXTRA HARDWARE:
-video encoder/ decoder
-audio processing unit, ~200 concurrent MP3 streams
-HW zlib decompressor

DX11.5?

 

[polizei]

DX11.5?

most likely it means DX11 with some post-processing effects.

 

[Robin]

DX11.5?

I call bull on those specs mainly because of the Direct X bit, Sony doesn't use Direct X they use OpenGL. Plus there are other odd things in it like the 50GB BR disks, clearly Sony will go with 128GB BDXL which is already retail available.

 

[BlisteredHand]

Pretty sure it wouldn't be restricted to a 50GB blu-ray drive as that would mean it would not be future proof for 4k definition films/content on next gen Blu-ray discs. I think PS4 will have the capacity built in to be compatible for next gen. (If they want it to have a 10 year life cycle anyway).

 

[dice1998]

Rumored specs sent to devs.

CPU
-4 core (2 core pairs) 3.2 GHz AMD x86 (Steamroller)
-aggregate, 10x PS3 PPU performance
-512 KByte L2 per core pair
-64 bit pointers

If that's true.. Sony really screwed devs over as they were just getting comfortable with CELL.

I don't see a reason why replace it (other than lowering costs) as it's still a capable CPU by today's standards!