PlayStation 4 General DiscussionPS4

[Saidur_Ali]

I think we need to agree to disagree on this one and move back to topic.

Yep.

About PS4, what I am worried about is if they use AMD but not based on a new architecture regading CPU and GPU. It might hold it back if not careful, the future strength of console. One thing I would like is better OS and features especially regarding backing up game data and transferring to new console.

 

[thelvynau]

For me the original PSX controller design used until now is one of the best controller design, this is from someone who love the old school Nintendo controller .
I got used to it pretty quickly after using Super Nintendo pad for a few years before, I have PSX since it's release day, never have any issues with the buttons.

Maybe Sony will make slight changes again after DS3 ( more travel to shoulder buttons ), but the general layout and shape might stay, also it might get bigger in size a bit ( which is fine for me ). Another one I would love to have is better analog stick design which offer better range, smoother press/click action and precision.

They will have to make at least some improvement to the controller to show they are innovating.

 

[Samus]

Yep.

About PS4, what I am worried about is if they use AMD but not based on a new architecture regading CPU and GPU. It might hold it back if not careful, the future strength of console. One thing I would like is better OS and features especially regarding backing up game data and transferring to new console.

A new UI is certainly needed, they haven't touched the XMB since inception.

 

[thelvynau]

A new UI is certainly needed, they haven't touched the XMB since inception.

But what layout of xmb could they use without being accused of stealing features from Microsoft?

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

They will have to make at least some improvement to the controller to show they are innovating.

I am with you on that, better quality, precision, smoother presses and less noisy buttons, durability ( current analog stick worn out too quickly ), maybe reposition the analog stick ... although Dpad is still used on many types of games, like puzzle, fighting, RPG, ... basically other games that do not need precise movement like racing, flight, third person action or FPS. I am curious how Sony would place the analog and dpad on the stick layout.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

A new UI is certainly needed, they haven't touched the XMB since inception.

They will probably try and use a UI that could be similar on all high-end devices they sell. Functionality I am more interested in though, hopefully ability to record videos of game footage if they do decide to use two GPUs, one very low powered for video recording on the fly and also for low power of console when doing simple tasks like watching videos or browsing internet.

 

[Youngun]

Im gonna put this out there, but simonk will just disagree, ps4 having Blue-Violet (uv) discs over bluray disc as there 20x larger at lower wave length. I read a few years back that sony and Tohoku university were proto-typing larger disc storage with addable capabilities, and a month ago i read that pioneer has developed further. Plus 1TB of space, we could have all the GT6 cars Kaz could throw at us then.

 

[sems4arsenal]

Doubt they'd change the Controller that much,it's not the worst design in the world and people already know it by heart ,I for one never had any issues with it but I didn't play with other alternate controllers (wii aside) that much

 

[Earth]

3D has actually gone on the back burner in favour of 4k, look at CES. 3D was barely mentioned.

Well, they have to showcase something new, no matter impractical it may be for the general consumer.

I can go to any store and there are 3D TVs everywhere. Many for well under $1K. Where are the 4K TVs? What type of absurd price tag will they have? How much content is available for them compared to 3D?

If Sony actually tries to push 4K in the next 24-36 months they will go out of business, as its pretty much as stupid of a business move as they can make.

For the reason above, I'm pretty sure it will. Why would they go to the trouble of including the hardware for 4k video then not include it as a day one selling point? Especially with how much Sony are pushing 4k video.

Well, this is Sony, a company who's horrible business decisions have led them to the brink of bankruptcy. I probably shouldn't put something as ridiculous as pushing 4K to the mass consumer this soon above them.

Theres way more money to be made in 1080p technology and even 3D then there will be for 4K for a long time.

4K displays - extremely expensive, extremely rare. Is it even possible to buy one for under 10-15K. And look how all the displays are extremely large, well over 55". Thats because nobody can see the difference with anything smaller

4K content - extremely rare. A 35-40mbps 1080p 3D bluray movie gets very close to filling up a dual layer 50GB bluray disc. How are they going to fit 4K movies on such discs? They cant. Even a quad layer bluray disc with its 100 GBs wont be able to handle a 4K movie unless it uses a very low bit rate, and even then it will be a squeeze. Those 70 million bluray playing PS3s? None of them are capable of playing 4K content. Games are not optimized for 4K and wont be for a good long time. Sure you can play them in 4K now on some $3K PCs, thats if you like seeing how poorly detailed they look at such a resolution.

3D displays - growing cheaper everyday and very affordable, are everywhere

3D content - Theres alot of it, many new movies are being released in the format and older movies like Beauty and the Beast and other animation classics are being re-released in 3D. Even Jurassic Park will be released in 3D within 12 months. Theres plenty of 3D games and likely even more with next gen hardware that can handle the technology better.

 

[Ddrizle]

Doubt they'd change the Controller that much,it's not the worst design in the world and people already know it by heart ,I for one never had any issues with it

Agreed. I really like the DS3. The same goes for the updated X360 controller. I'm still not used to the Wii-mote/controller & have yet to try the Wii U gamepad/controller.

 

[Samus]

You're as bad as that Tenacious D guy, Sony are far from "The brink of bankruptcy".

Also you do realise resolution doesn't affect file size, right? Nobody knows what bitrate will be needed for 4k with HEVC because the spec isn't finished but even if they need double, 80Mbps, a 100GB disc would be enough. But given that HEVC is reported to be twice as efficient as H.264 that might even be too high. We'll see.

Personally I don't give a damn about 4k but clearly Sony are pushing it.

Im gonna put this out there, but simonk will just disagree, ps4 having Blue-Violet (uv) discs over bluray disc as there 20x larger at lower wave length. I read a few years back that sony and Tohoku university were proto-typing larger disc storage with addable capabilities, and a month ago i read that pioneer has developed further. Plus 1TB of space, we could have all the GT6 cars Kaz could throw at us then.

Blu-Violet is still years off, the most they'll have is a BR drive capable of reading 100GB discs. That will be more than enough for games and as for GT6 car models GT5 wasn't even 15GB total, they aren't going to need 1TB any time soon. Space is not a problem for PD, time is.

 

[Earth]

You're as bad as that Tenacious D guy, Sony are far from "The brink of bankruptcy".

Also you do realise resolution doesn't affect file size, right? Nobody knows what bitrate will be needed for 4k with HEVC because the spec isn't finished but even if they need double, 80Mbps, a 100GB disc would be enough. But given that HEVC is reported to be twice as efficient as H.264 that might even be too high. We'll see.

Personally I don't give a damn about 4k but clearly Sony are pushing it.

Resolution doesnt affect file size? I never heard of that. I just did a rudimentary test, I saved a blank 1080 image on MS paint and a blank 4K image. As expected the 4K image's file size was 4x larger. Or are you talking about an image that is upscaled?

I remain not convinced 100 GBs will be enough for 4K, at least quality 4K. 2-2 1/2 hour 3D bluray movies steaming along at 30-35MBPs like Avatar fill up most of the 50 GBs available on a traditional dual layered BD. (Apparently Avatar uses 41.8 of 43 available GBs)

If the next generation video format only requires 2x more disc space then...I dont want it. Its not worth the upgrade to me.

File size progression through the digital formats

480P .3 MP, needed 4-9 GBs (DVD) for movies
1080p 2 MP (6.5x .3 MP), needed 30-50 GBs (bluray) for movies (roughly 6x more space needed)
4K 8 MP (4x 1080Ps 2 MP) estimated 4x more space needed, or 200 GBs based on transition from DVD to bluray

No doubt they could squeeze a 4K movie on a quad layer bluray disc, but its not tech I would go out of my way to buy. Not enough content, likely low or unimproved bit rates, reminds me alot of HD-DVD which had many movies slog along at 8-9 MBPs.

In the end it doesnt matter, the tens of millions of bluray players out there dont support 4K output. Whenever 4K players are released they will be hyper expensive and wont reach mainstream prices for at least a few years. 4K has a much, much higher chance of bombing then 1080 bluray did, and 1080p bluray is barely hanging on. DVDs still outsell bluray at a 66:33 ratio.

Not sure why Sony is pushig 4K. Maybe they want to sucker several thousand from rich videophiles who have money to literally burn? As a projector enthusiast I can see the format really helping that medium, but not so much for pretty much anything else for a very long time.

 

[Samus]

I'm talking about video, the only thing that affects size is bitrate. A 480i file at 10Mbps would be the same size as a 4k file at 10Mbps. Also you have to bear in mind compression format, DVD uses MPEG-2 at up to 9.8Mbps. Blu-Ray usually uses H.264 or VC-1, both of which are much more efficient than MPEG-2. A 10Mbps H.264 480i file looks better than an equivalent MPEG-2 file. HEVC is going to replace H.264 and as I already said it's said to be twice as efficient as H.264. That suggests 4k video won't need that high a bitrate but again the spec isn't finished so nobody can say for sure.

 

[LaBounti]

Not sure why Sony is pushig 4K. Maybe they want to sucker several thousand from rich videophiles who have money to literally burn? As a projector enthusiast I can see the format really helping that medium, but not so much for pretty much anything else for a very long time.

Because they do not want to be the only major TV manufacture not making one. To not have competitive options in their hardware line up would make them seem behind the competition. Might scare the share holders...

 

[Samus]

Also you have to bear in mind that whilst informed people know you'll need a very large screen to notice the improvement in 4k you can be sure that won't stop manufacturer's producing smaller, cheaper screens and market them as making a difference. They already sell small, <30 inch 1080p sets which are too small for people to notice sat a reasonable distance away over 720p. Sony are also about to launch 'Mastered in 4k' Blu-Ray discs which are purposefully going to confuse people and make them think they're something better for 4k TVs when in reality most Blu-Ray discs are already made from 4k masters ands it's just like when they labelled DVDs as 'Mastered in HD'.

Honestly I'm with you, 95% of people are not ready for 4k and it's never really going to be relevant for most home consumers but it's clear to see Sony and others are going to do a lot to push it the next 2 years. Personally I would much rather see other improvements in digital such as 4:4:4 Chroma Sub-Sampling and 10-bit video.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

No doubt they could squeeze a 4K movie on a quad layer bluray disc, but its not tech I would go out of my way to buy. Not enough content, likely low or unimproved bit rates, reminds me alot of HD-DVD which had many movies slog along at 8-9 MBPs.

In the end it doesnt matter, the tens of millions of bluray players out there dont support 4K output. Whenever 4K players are released they will be hyper expensive and wont reach mainstream prices for at least a few years. 4K has a much, much higher chance of bombing then 1080 bluray did, and 1080p bluray is barely hanging on. DVDs still outsell bluray at a 66:33 ratio.

Not sure why Sony is pushig 4K. Maybe they want to sucker several thousand from rich videophiles who have money to literally burn? As a projector enthusiast I can see the format really helping that medium, but not so much for pretty much anything else for a very long time.

4K Blu-ray players should be cheap at launch or cheap a year in. 4k output one is already relatively low price.

4K screens should go down in price heavily in a couple years time. They are way overpriced currently. Not really that high res. Will be more relevant when PS4 comes out, 4K will be more affordable one year into launch. PS4 should support 4K from the off with some basic games and high quality video. Hopefully PS4 has HDMI 2.0 .

 

[Chqr]

I hope the PS4 will have a range of specs with a model with support for 4K and a model without support for it.

I for one don't want to pay a premium for a feature I'll never use.

I would hate for an Xbox to be launched at $300 and a PS4 to be launched at $450-500 which are the rumoured prices.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Honestly I'm with you, 95% of people are not ready for 4k and it's never really going to be relevant for most home consumers but it's clear to see Sony and others are going to do a lot to push it the next 2 years. Personally I would much rather see other improvements in digital such as 4:4:4 Chroma Sub-Sampling and 10-bit video.

Agreed. The world wasn't ready for a 48fps movie(2D or 3D it didn't matter), and I doubt that people will be ready for 4k resolution when we just broken the barrier of 1080p.

 

[Earth]

I'm talking about video, the only thing that affects size is bitrate. A 480i file at 10Mbps would be the same size as a 4k file at 10Mbps. Also you have to bear in mind compression format, DVD uses MPEG-2 at up to 9.8Mbps. Blu-Ray usually uses H.264 or VC-1, both of which are much more efficient than MPEG-2. A 10Mbps H.264 480i file looks better than an equivalent MPEG-2 file. HEVC is going to replace H.264 and as I already said it's said to be twice as efficient as H.264. That suggests 4k video won't need that high a bitrate but again the spec isn't finished so nobody can say for sure.

Timescape is 4K and weighs in at 160 GBs. And its only 52 minutes long.

If we go by history, the size of discs usually increase as time passes. Most early bluray discs fit on a single 25GB layer. Now all blurays are almost exclusively on duel layer 50GB discs. So I dont buy the idea of new codecs coming out that are more efficient which will reduce the size of these movies as time goes on.

I'll lean toward learning from the past before I buy into some fancy new tech that claims to be twice as efficient as what came before it. Sort of sounds like HD-DVD guys who said VC-1 15 MBPs bit rates are just as good as anything out there.

Because they do not want to be the only major TV manufacture not making one. To not have competitive options in their hardware line up would make them seem behind the competition. Might scare the share holders...

Well, if everyone (maufacturers) is in on it that just makes it worse. 4K is a flashy technology almost nobody is ready for or really needs, yet they are trying to push it as the next "must have thing" (look how many people are drooling over 4K , same crowd that has to have the latest everything, so it works, to an extent).

All they will end up doing is making 4K a niche product. The average consumer is simply not ready, but these electronic giants will try to force feed them. Of course that will lead to disaster and 4K flopping. If 1080 bluray struggled for 7 years to only take 33% of DVD's digital disc sales 4K has no chance to overtake bluray 1080, let alone DVD. All 4K will do is confuse the mainstream consumer and hurt bluray 1080 sales.

So who do I blame. The manufacturers who are pushing the technology or the "must have the latest" consumer who wants it? I think both are equally to blame. They cannot exist without one or the other.

4K Blu-ray players should be cheap at launch or cheap a year in. 4k output one is already relatively low price.

4K screens should go down in price heavily in a couple years time. They are way overpriced currently. Not really that high res. Will be more relevant when PS4 comes out, 4K will be more affordable one year into launch. PS4 should support 4K from the off with some basic games and high quality video. Hopefully PS4 has HDMI 2.0 .

$1,500 players at launch isnt really cheap.

The real problem is 4K needlessly complicates the HD movie market.

If there were 4K players for $150 I would not buy them. I will not buy any 4K TV under 65" which automatically prices me out of their range for a very, very long time.

 

[Samus]

The website says it's 25GB. http://www.timescapes.org/products/ . The Cineform version is 330GB but that is basically uncompressed, commercial 4k content won't be in that format.

I don't know why more advanced compression formats are hard for you to comprehend, H.264 already killed MPEG2 in compression performance, have you seen some Blu-Ray rips around 8Mbps? Miles better than MPEG2, HEVC is going to be more of the same. So yes in theory a film at 1080p with HEVC could be 20Mbps and look as good as H.264 at 40Mbps. Also more bitrate doesn't automatically mean higher quality. My Dark Knigh BR averages around 30Mbps and looks amazing, there is no guarantee a 40Mbps average would look noticeably better. Dark Knight Rises is only 22Mbps average.

I didn't suggest 4k Blu-Ray could be smaller than current 1080p discs, I just said with HEVC the bitrate could be lower than H.264 and still look as good.

 

[Earth]

The website says it's 25GB. http://www.timescapes.org/products/ . The Cineform version is 330GB but that is basically uncompressed, commercial 4k content won't be in that format.

I found this graph

http://www.timescapes.org/products/specs.aspx

Really odd how the 1080p bluray version is 17 GBs (about average for a 52 minute film) but the 4K version is 21 GBs. That leads me to believe its certainly not optimized for 4K and is on the format as a publicity stunt, with nowhere near the jump in quality it could have been.

OK I had this long post typed up but forget it. 4K is a joke, for now. Sony's marketing is working now as they got me wasting time talking about it.

 

[Lain]

One thing to keep in mind is that the higher the resolution, the smaller and less distinguishable the compression artifacts will be. I've noticed this effect on my Retina MacBook Pro when viewing JPG images with artifacts.

So even if things are more highly compressed for 4K, it'll still look better than the less compressed 1080p version.

 

[Samus]

I found this graph

http://www.timescapes.org/products/specs.aspx

Really odd how the 1080p bluray version is 17 GBs (about average for a 52 minute film) but the 4K version is 21 GBs. That leads me to believe its certainly not optimized for 4K and is on the format as a publicity stunt, with nowhere near the jump in quality it could have been.

OK I had this long post typed up but forget it. 4K is a joke, for now. Sony's marketing is working now as they got me wasting time talking about it.

Well again, you don't know do you? Neither do I. Until you watch a 4k film on a 4k display you have no idea how high a bitrate it will need. Having seen 1080p on huge displays with not a single sign of compression or macroblocking I have no problem believing 4k wouldn't need that much more to not have the same issues. I mean the still looks fine to me - http://www.creativeplanetnetwork.com/the_wire/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/TS_STILLS_3.jpg when I look at it in 100%, no signs of compression and that's a further compressed JPG file.

Also with this film in particular you have to bear in mind I assume there won't be a lot of heavy motion meaning not as high a bitrate would be required. Heavy motion content such as action films would need a higher bitrate for sure.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

$1,500 players at launch isnt really cheap.

The real problem is 4K needlessly complicates the HD movie market.

If there were 4K players for $150 I would not buy them. I will not buy any 4K TV under 65" which automatically prices me out of their range for a very, very long time.

They should not cost that much, a quarter of that price probably at most for entry level 4K. Should come down heavily with a year of launch.

4K will be like how 1080p is today. Once we get to 8K and higher, then it gets more interesting.

It won't be a very long time, as prices of 4K TVs, a year or so after launch of PS4 should be down to more normal levels.

 

[Sprite]

4k is coming and there is nothing much anyone can do. 8k is also on its way but at least 6 years or more. Personally I don't see any relevance of 8k in the living room and to truly benefit from it you will need a screen in sizes of 100" or more.

If PS4 is 4k, I welcome it with open arms and once I can pick up a 65" TV that's 4k for around £2000 I'm in. If Sony also have a player in my home already then that's a bonus, plus content will be a little bit easier to get by then.

4k games, I feel are still beyond the reach of PS4 and I think if Sony want to play it smart then they will either keep games down to 1080p or at least ask Devs to stick to the lower resolution. Also I think games will be native 1080p and not just up scaled. Xbox should be pushing this too.

As for pads and game controllers, Sony have filed for more patents of the Move controllers so that is obviously something we are going to see more and I agree with allot of people here that the triggers need to change. Curve them up and give them a rubberised coating.

I'd also like to see force feedback (not just rumble but resistance like wheels) on the anologue sticks and triggers this would be nice.

 

[Earth]

I can only say that we are focused on the E3 gaming event, scheduled for June. Announcement may be in that minute or even earlier in May."'

...

In that time we expect to deliver great news, but we must wait until May at least.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/386308/sony-exec-talks-playstation-4-launch-report/

 

[Musolini187]

interrseting read and agreed with poster:

http://www.gamespot.com/users/JustPlainLucas/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=m-100-26002705

 

[Samus]

Where are you buying games anyway? RRP here is £45 but I have never paid that much on day 1, most can be found for around 33, even 25 sometimes. Considering how much you get out of a game I think that is reasonable.

 

[Earth]

Well, it would be nice if games launched at $40. I would certainly buy way more.

Maybe they should do something similiar to bluray movies. When they launch, have them at a lower price for the 1st week. If you look enough its not hard to find any bluray movie, even 3D blurays, for $20 their first week on sale. After that they're $25 or $30.

I would like to see $50 or even $40 price tags for the first week, and then they can go back to $60 after that. Encourage the consumer to go out and get it knowing the price will go up. I know that certainly encourages me to get bluray movies the 1st week they are out instead of waiting. Even offer coupons. Disney offers loads of coupons on their movies. Why dont any publishers do this for their games?

But thats not going to happen. Theres too many people out there willing to pay $60 for games, even mediocre ones. Including that guy on that blog. The suits know this so they will continue to ask that price.

 

[chromatic9]

That's interesting, Earth.

I thought the $60 for a console game was a maximum or typical premium store price but you can find new games for around $50. Like SimonK says, over here £40-45 is the RRP but you can easily get it cheaper day 1 like £25-35. The US equivalent of this would $48-50. Thing is games would sit on the shelf or stay put in warehouses if they were strict on charging £40. Also game prices drop like stones and are mostly half price after 8-12 weeks and quite often 4 weeks.

When you take in to account the 20% tax included in the £25-35 that goes straight to the government, it really is a small profit compared to US if what you say is true. Easy to see why US is such a boon. Games are a tough sell here.