PlayStation 4 General DiscussionPS4

[thelvynau]

Grammar, please; that is in the AUP and your posts are difficult to read.

Like I said, its not going to be cheaper when you take into consideration the increased power draw, decreased chip lifespan, and additional cooling requirements compared to a non-OCed card. Also, consider the R&D required to implement it, and the potential risks associated with it....

No.

There is no point in overclocking a GPU in a console because you will not be able to achieve clocks high enough to see any considerable performance increase... you are trying to cool a ridiculously compact hardware system with little air flow.

Fair enough.

Edit: I do see how my previous post was hard to read but not all are.

 

[Team THRT Drift]

Well, I'll wait till next month, when Sony starts talking about their new console.

 

[thelvynau]

Well, I'll wait till next month, when Sony starts talking about their new console.

That would be at a Sony organised event? Cant remember what the name was.

 

[Samus]

Why do people keep referring to DDR5 RAM? There is no such thing, we don't even have DDR4, that's due in 2015 last I read. GDDR5 yes, but that's graphics memory, not system memory.

 

[Team THRT Drift]

That would be at a Sony organised event? Cant remember what the name was.

I forgot too... but honestly, I think I'm going for the Steambox. I just saw a video, the commentator had some pretty legit facts(rumours?) about the Orbis and Durango(Xbox 720). One thing that really pissed me off is the fact that Sony is going to be ban used games AND Orbis wont be compatible with PS2 and PS3 games.... just another way to rip their customers off.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hR8l1SuMM84

 

[Samus]

Once again, that is not a fact. Sony filed a patent for the technology, it is not confirmed that they will use the technology in the PS4. It's also certainly not confirmed either way what backwards compatibility it will have.

 

[Sanji Himura]

What? Hes disappointed in hardware that can run Battlefield 3 in 1080p @ 60fps? A Radeon 7850 is a pretty stout card. My brothers desktop has a GTX 460 and can play Battlefield 3 at 1080p with high/medium-high settings and enjoy what feels like 50-60fps and absolutely no slow down ever, even on the largest 64 player maps. And according to some quick google searches a Radeon 7850 outperforms the GTX 460 by a healthy margin.

That has me very excited about the prospects of this next gen. For various reasons, consoles have always, always produced graphics that look better then their specs.

I think those who are disappointed had some unrealistic expectations for next gen. I was one of those for a while, I had hope'd they chose something around a GTX 550, but obviously that type of performance wasn't realistic price wise.

It is probably because of 4k HD that is expected to be hit in every home in America by the end of the year or that sort. Seriously, the guy doesn't get the fact that 4k HD is impossible to get next gen, or even the generation after that. He is probably a plant for 4k.

There is no point in overclocking a GPU in a console because you will not be able to achieve clocks high enough to see any considerable performance increase... you are trying to cool a ridiculously compact hardware system with little air flow. They have enough problems with cooling as it is.

Have you seen the final designs for the new consoles? While I will give you the fact that green might be the code word of the day, they have to keep them ice cold, and that is something that Microsoft and Sony have shown a decided understanding of. It will reflect on the console's final designs.

EDIT:

Once again, that is not a fact. Sony filed a patent for the technology, it is not confirmed that they will use the technology in the PS4. It's also certainly not confirmed either way what backwards compatibility it will have.

I personally don't care for PS3 backwards compatibility as long as the PSN is available for PS3 consoles. I just hope that PS2 BC gets back in for PS4.

 

[TheDabbinDave]

Wow, when did 4 cores @ 3.2GHZ/8 cores @ 1.6GHZ become entry level. Technology sure is flying. But the key is it always has. I remember around the time of the PS3's launch PCs were being fitted with 1GB of ram. Mass marketed consoles have no chance of keeping up.

In the end the processor will be tailored to the needs of the console, making it more efficient then it could ever be if stuck in a random laptop.

4 GBs of DDR5 ram isnt medicore IMO. If someone was building a gaming PC today that would be enough for current games. People only really add more to future proof themselves. So why shouldnt consoles add more to future proof themselves? At some point its going to be the graphics card or processor holding developers back instead of ram. Do we really know that adding more ram will allow developers to make better looking games in the long haul?

With a PC you can just pull out the old graphics card and throw a new one in there that will play games that need that extra ram.

OK we heard about developers crying about RAM all the time, but did that stop the PS3 from having really good looking games? No. Im quite sure Sony doesnt want to repeat the Ram shortage issue. Im confident in their R&D team that 4GBs of DDR5 will be enough to maximize the processor and graphics card.

According to this 8GBs of Ram offers little performance increase over 4GBs, let alone 4GBs of DDR5 ram. Google searches reveal Battefield 3 only uses 1.5 GBs of Ram on high settings. That number can jump to 3GBs on ultra settings, but imagine it will be some time before developers push the hardware far enough to utilize that much of the ram while maintaining a stable gameplay experience.

If Sony goes with high end DDR5 ram you're probably looking at increasing the console cost by 10% or more for every 4GBs of ram added.

What? Hes disappointed in hardware that can run Battlefield 3 in 1080p @ 60fps? A Radeon 7850 is a pretty stout card. My brothers desktop has a GTX 460 and can play Battlefield 3 at 1080p with high/medium-high settings and enjoy what feels like 50-60fps and absolutely no slow down ever, even on the largest 64 player maps. And according to some quick google searches a Radeon 7850 outperforms the GTX 460 by a healthy margin.

That has me very excited about the prospects of this next gen. For various reasons, consoles have always, always produced graphics that look better then their specs.

I think those who are disappointed had some unrealistic expectations for next gen. I was one of those for a while, I had hope'd they chose something around a GTX 550, but obviously that type of performance wasn't realistic price wise.

According to the article linked earlier, the Jag-u-r chip is "entry level for laptops and tablets".

 

[Samus]

Yes but not an 8-core version. I still highly doubt that is in both consoles though.

 

[Shaun]

Also, ya... a 7850 can run bf3 at 1920x1080 at 60 fps... at like medium, maybe high, settings. Not stating what eye candy is being used is a little bit ridiculous.

This.

If the next gen gear has the equivalent of a 7850 the way I see it they will be on the back foot right from the start.
For myself to buy a PS4 it's going to have to be a killer multi-talented machine to pull me away from my new found PC gaming enjoyment.

Cheers Shaun.

 

[Earth]

Why do people keep referring to DDR5 RAM? There is no such thing, we don't even have DDR4, that's due in 2015 last I read. GDDR5 yes, but that's graphics memory, not system memory.

Based on the rumors its probably exotic, like the XDR ram used in the PS3, and not a run of the mill 1333 mhz DDR3 ram you can find anywhere for $25 (4GBs)

It is probably because of 4k HD that is expected to be hit in every home in America by the end of the year or that sort. Seriously, the guy doesn't get the fact that 4k HD is impossible to get next gen, or even the generation after that. He is probably a plant for 4k.

I think Sony listed their first 4K TV at $25,000. So. Games are making the jump from 720p to 1080p this gen. Thats just doubling the pixels. 4k is quadrupling the image compared to 1080p. That represents a significant jump.

I still haven't played a AAA, true 1080p game on a console . Can we wait and do that before Sony tries to stuff 4K down our mouths? I know some games like Metal Gear solid 3 and Halo 3 werent even HD. I think MGS3 was 1024x768 and Halo 3 was 576p.

Games arent optimized to look thier best in 4K, and wont be for some time. The whole 4K thing will be relevant 5 or so years down the line

According to the article linked earlier, the Jag-u-r chip is "entry level for laptops and tablets".

Yeah but do they also consider the Radeon 7850 entry level, too? Probably. Compared to whats out there, they are. But again, thats not taking prices into consideration.

 

[DG_Silva]

There is no way a £170/$270 GPU could be considered entry level, epecially when the 66xx and 77x serie are still available.

Also, while the Jaguar may be called 'entry level', I believe the title is a bit of a misnomer. The best way to describe it woud be 'considered standard'. Looking at the Wikipaedia entry, the Jaguar is supposed to have massively improved FPU performance, and a 28nm die cut. The main reason behind using this CPU is because of the low power TDU. Have you tried to build a PC that draws less than 400W nowadays? It's very difficult to do so with any level of performance.

 

[Luminis]

They could overclock, maybe? I think that because consoles have been afraid to overclock their GPUs due to cooling, their performance have suffered through the years. Since the next-gen consoles are effectively PCs, cooling wouldn't be that much of an issue.

Hm, heat generation has been somewhat of an issue with consoles already. If you consider longevity and energy consumption, it seems unlikely for them to do that.

They could with a faster chip but they can spend less and overclock it for power for cheaper.

The overcloking itself might be cheaper, but the necessary airflow to keep the chip cooled down will likely push the total cost upwards of what a faster chip would run them.

4 GBs of DDR5 ram isnt medicore IMO. If someone was building a gaming PC today that would be enough for current games. People only really add more to future proof themselves.

But isn't that exactly what you want to do, or rather, have to do when designing a piece of hardware that's supposed to run good-looking games for better part of the next decade? I wouldn't ever doubt that 4GB is enough for contemporary games, I'm just concerned what'll come of that in three or four years.

OK we heard about developers crying about RAM all the time, but did that stop the PS3 from having really good looking games? No. Im quite sure Sony doesnt want to repeat the Ram shortage issue. Im confident in their R&D team that 4GBs of DDR5 will be enough to maximize the processor and graphics card.

According to this 8GBs of Ram offers little performance increase over 4GBs, let alone 4GBs of DDR5 ram. Google searches reveal Battefield 3 only uses 1.5 GBs of Ram on high settings. That number can jump to 3GBs on ultra settings, but imagine it will be some time before developers push the hardware far enough to utilize that much of the ram while maintaining a stable gameplay experience.

Remember how Sony demoed GT5 in 3840 x 2160? Super HD being the way forward and yada yada? 3D gaming? That's far beyond what current hardware has to get done, but stuff like that is going to be a factor in a few years, I reckon. Not in 2013, maybe not in 2014. But in 2017, maybe, when the consoles will still have to make do with the hardware they're getting now.

That's the whole point, really. You can't have a system that's a) cheap, b) generates profit from its launch and c) is future proof for the duration of a typical console life cycle. Personally, I'd rather see point b) getting shafted than the other two.

I mean, have you compared what current games look like on a console and a PC? The difference is significant already. And it's not just looks, after all. Framerate suffers, sometimes physics are being cut back, number of players in multiplayer and what not. It's pretty bad already and we might still have another year to go before getting new hardware. Skimping on the hardware of the upcoming consoles is only going to make that worse once those next-gen consoles come of age.

You can't prevent that completely, sure. At some point, the old hardware is bound to fall off. But MS and Sony could at least try to not intensify the whole issue, compared to the current generation.

What? Hes disappointed in hardware that can run Battlefield 3 in 1080p @ 60fps?

Uh, yeah, and I can understand why. BF3 was released in October 2011. It'll be two years old by the time the new hardware is out. Maxing a 2011 game by the end of 2013, maybe early 2014 isn't a big feat. It's like bragging about your new track car being able to beat a Toyota Prius. It's just no feat at all, it should be all but a given.

And a 7850 doesn't even do that! It plays BF3 at these resolutions just fine, but it won't manage to keep a maxed out BF3 at 60FPS. Maxed out, BF3 would be running somewhere around 30 FPS on average. During a single player mission. You can't max out last year's game in full HD on that card, and that's supposed to produce goodlooking games for the better part of the next decade?

Well, iI don't need to be a developer to be disappointed by that.

Here's a source for the FPS figures I've claimed. It's in German, but should be easily udnerstandable regardless.

That has me very excited about the prospects of this next gen. For various reasons, consoles have always, always produced graphics that look better then their specs.

Better opimisation being the prime reason, no cluunky OS the other big one. But, I'm a bit on the opposite side of the fence. If those rumours hold true, the new consolees won't be bringing that huges step forward to the table that old consoles did. They won't make you think "I'd need a $ 2,000 PC to match those games". Even with superior optimization, they'll just be cathing up to what PC gamers have access to already. And that has me worried. There's no pushing of boundaries and with the current trend to go multi-platform, sequels and spin-offs, it's unlikely to witness a huge breakthrough in terms of gameplay - aside from some gimicky stuff, maybe.

So, yeah, I'd rather get a consoole that's better bang for the buck, has more power overall, is at least somewhat future proof and gives developers the tools to wow us with.

I think those who are disappointed had some unrealistic expectations for next gen. I was one of those for a while, I had hope'd they chose something around a GTX 550, but obviously that type of performance wasn't realistic price wise.

Thing is, it was realistic (and it was done) with the 360 and the PS3, so to speak. Just because Sony doesn't have the means to sell their console at a loss and MS probably doesn't need to as long as that strategy is out of the picture for Sony, doesn't mean that I'm not disappointed that the consoles are more expensive relative to the hardware we're getting this time around.

Have you seen the final designs for the new consoles? While I will give you the fact that green might be the code word of the day, they have to keep them ice cold, and that is something that Microsoft and Sony have shown a decided understanding of. It will reflect on the console's final designs.

You need some serious cooling to get any notworthy OC going. And consoles are meant to fit in the living room, being small and compact. You're never going to fit ssomething like this into it, to ensure the cooling needed for proper overclocking:

Passive heat dissipation is only going to get you so far. And as long as MS and Sony aren't willing to produce consoles the size of a regular desktop PC, they'll have to make do without a crapload of fans.

Based on the rumors its probably exotic, like the XDR ram used in the PS3, and not a run of the mill 1333 mhz DDR3 ram you can find anywhere for $25 (4GBs)

What are we talking about here, being exotic for the hell of it? You can get 2133 mhz DDR3 relatively cheaply. That'd offer a nice balance between speed, quantity and price. I fail to see the point of doing something exotic that screws the balance over just because it is, well, exotic.

I think Sony listed their first 4K TV at $25,000. So. Games are making the jump from 720p to 1080p this gen. Thats just doubling the pixels. 4k is quadrupling the image compared to 1080p. That represents a significant jump.

That jump has been made aages ago. Not on consoles, granted. But consoles aren't the only thing there is. You can't take baby steps every seven or eight years. You gotta leap just to keep up.

I still haven't played a AAA, true 1080p game on a console . Can we wait and do that before Sony tries to stuff 4K down our mouths? I know some games like Metal Gear solid 3 and Halo 3 werent even HD. I think MGS3 was 1024x768 and Halo 3 was 576p.

Hey, I'd be happy with full HD. 4K is just an example of why you'd want to consider a little bit of future proving. Bet lets look at something that's a thing already: 3D gaming. Think a 7850 can render a game like BF3 with full details at the 120FPS? Nope, it'll manage a fourth of that. Yay for playing 2011 game at 15 FPS in 3D on hardware that's supposed to last us until 2020.

I'm obviously exaggerating the issue, but you get the idea. Hardware that can't max out a 2011 game != hardware I want to play on in 2020.

Games arent optimized to look thier best in 4K, and wont be for some time. The whole 4K thing will be relevant 5 or so years down the line

People said that about the 360 not doing full HD, too. Well, dunno, it has been relevant for few years now, hasn't it?

Yeah but do they also consider the Radeon 7850 entry level, too? Probably. Compared to whats out there, they are. But again, thats not taking prices into consideration.

A graphics card that can be had for about 150 bucks is, at least, not high end. It's midrange, at best. By the time the Orbis and Durango are out, it will probably be on par with stuff like a Geforce GTX730 or whatever, which would indeed be considered entry-level.

There is no way a £170/$270 GPU could be considered entry level, epecially when the 66xx and 77x serie are still available.

270?! Even Amazon.com has 7850s for $ 180 on offer. Besides, performance should be the deciding factor to classify the GPU. Don't care if it's $ 50 or $ 500, if it performs similar to an entry level GPU, I'll consider it to be either just that, extremely overpriced or outdated. Neither of which is very flattering.

 

[DG_Silva]

270?! Even Amazon.com has 7850s for $ 180 on offer. Besides, performance should be the deciding factor to classify the GPU. Don't care if it's $ 50 or $ 500, if it performs similar to an entry level GPU, I'll consider it to be either just that, extremely overpriced or outdated. Neither of which is very flattering.

£155 is the cheapest we can get it in the UK on amazon's site. I might have to look into my PC upgrade from 'Murica and see how much the shipping would be.

 

[Luminis]

Dunno about the shipping, but that sounds like a huge price gap there. The retailer I ordered my computer from has a 7850 on offer for €143. That's about £130, I think... But, given current exchange rates, ordering one from the US seems like the cheapest way.

Newegg has a 7850 for $159, should be just above £100 at the moment.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

Have you seen the final designs for the new consoles? While I will give you the fact that green might be the code word of the day, they have to keep them ice cold, and that is something that Microsoft and Sony have shown a decided understanding of. It will reflect on the console's final designs.

Ya I have....

I just used common sense, critical thinking, and logic to come to that conclusion. Sorry if you can't see that.

While I will give you the fact that green might be the code word of the day, they have to keep them ice cold, and that is something that Microsoft and Sony have shown a decided understanding of. It will reflect on the console's final designs.

Code green; ice cold.... what?

PC's don't even keep their components "ice cold."

Rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric.

 

[ch3ng]

Why do people keep referring to DDR5 RAM? There is no such thing, we don't even have DDR4, that's due in 2015 last I read. GDDR5 yes, but that's graphics memory, not system memory.

Go to eurogamer and read the rumour at Digital foundry

 

[Earth]

But isn't that exactly what you want to do, or rather, have to do when designing a piece of hardware that's supposed to run good-looking games for better part of the next decade? I wouldn't ever doubt that 4GB is enough for contemporary games, I'm just concerned what'll come of that in three or four years.

In 3 or 4 years I'd expect you'd need more then a 7850 along with more then 4GBs of Ram to run the latest games high settings.

That's the whole point, really. You can't have a system that's a) cheap, b) generates profit from its launch and c) is future proof for the duration of a typical console life cycle. Personally, I'd rather see point b) getting shafted than the other two.

It wouldnt surprise me at all if Sony's business strategy has changed. Instead of pushing for ultra long life spans for their consoles, its very likely they could be looking at just 5 years before the next Playstation. There was 7 years between the PS3 and PS4. I doubt that ever happens again. Developers complained. The aged hardware held back developers. I dont see that happening again.

Instead, I expect a significant price drop on hardware every 12-18 months. The new consoles will get to $200 within 4 years.

I mean, have you compared what current games look like on a console and a PC? The difference is significant already. And it's not just looks, after all. Framerate suffers, sometimes physics are being cut back, number of players in multiplayer and what not. It's pretty bad already and we might still have another year to go before getting new hardware. Skimping on the hardware of the upcoming consoles is only going to make that worse once those next-gen consoles come of age.

You can't prevent that completely, sure. At some point, the old hardware is bound to fall off. But MS and Sony could at least try to not intensify the whole issue, compared to the current generation.

The consoles have been out for almost 7 years. Thats the reason for them looking the way they do in comparison to the latest PC games. With the new consoles having a shorter life cycle, perhaps 5 years, as supported by developers link and link, falling so far behind shouldnt be as big of an issue again

Uh, yeah, and I can understand why. BF3 was released in October 2011. It'll be two years old by the time the new hardware is out. Maxing a 2011 game by the end of 2013, maybe early 2014 isn't a big feat. It's like bragging about your new track car being able to beat a Toyota Prius. It's just no feat at all, it should be all but a given.

Im sure it can max newer games as well, or at least play them on the higher settings. Being able to run BF3 without the huge performance restrictions of last gen like only 24 players online and 30FPs will be huge. Multi plat PC games like BF3 will be an option for me to buy on the PS4 since they wont have all the restrictions of last gen, at least not initially. Thats one of the reasons why developers say waiting so long for new consoles was a mistake, they lagged so far behind it hurt the quality of the games in comparison to the PC versions

Here's a source for the FPS figures I've claimed. It's in German, but should be easily udnerstandable regardless.

6fps high then a GTX 460. 👍 The idea ultra is possible with 30fps and the developers havent optimized it for the consoles is good news for me. Im sorry, maybe my expectations are just lower. I see this as encouraging, not discouraging.

Better opimisation being the prime reason, no cluunky OS the other big one. But, I'm a bit on the opposite side of the fence. If those rumours hold true, the new consolees won't be bringing that huges step forward to the table that old consoles did. They won't make you think "I'd need a $ 2,000 PC to match those games". Even with superior optimization, they'll just be cathing up to what PC gamers have access to already. And that has me worried. There's no pushing of boundaries and with the current trend to go multi-platform, sequels and spin-offs, it's unlikely to witness a huge breakthrough in terms of gameplay - aside from some gimicky stuff, maybe.

So, yeah, I'd rather get a consoole that's better bang for the buck, has more power overall, is at least somewhat future proof and gives developers the tools to wow us with.

To build a PC equal to a PS4 you'll need, at the very least

$50 case
$100 3.2 ghz quad core AMD Phenom II
$150 Radeon 7850
$100 700 watt PSU
$100 Windows 7
$30 4GBs Ram
$30 DVD drive
$30 keyboard/mouse
$100 motherboard

$700.

Right off the bat Im saving almost 50% when choosing a PS4 over a similar gaming PC. Look I played BF3 with a GTX460, and I thought the game looked fine. More importantly, it allowed for 64 player battles , unlimited draw distance and a framerate much closer to 60 fps then 30fps. Thats more important to me then super high res textures or whatever else.

Gran Turismo 5, on the 7 year old PS3, can at times look amazing and photorealistic. What will they be able to do with PS4 tech? I have no doubts we will be wowed. Theres alot of good looking PS3 games that can wow. Heavy Rain or its sequel, Uncharted, Metal Gear Solid. When these developers are given hardware much more powerful, I think we will be in for a shock.

Thing is, it was realistic (and it was done) with the 360 and the PS3, so to speak. Just because Sony doesn't have the means to sell their console at a loss and MS probably doesn't need to as long as that strategy is out of the picture for Sony, doesn't mean that I'm not disappointed that the consoles are more expensive relative to the hardware we're getting this time around.

Long story short, at the time of launch the PS3 used 18 month old GPU tech (nvidia 7800 first launched June 2005) the PS4 apparently will use 24 month old GPU tech. (radeon 7850 first launched January 2012).

I'd prefer a more expensive, more powerful console too. But there sure was alot of crying and whining when they announced the 599 US dollars price tag. The average gamer have simply gotten what they asked for.

Hey, I'd be happy with full HD. 4K is just an example of why you'd want to consider a little bit of future proving. Bet lets look at something that's a thing already: 3D gaming. Think a 7850 can render a game like BF3 with full details at the 120FPS? Nope, it'll manage a fourth of that. Yay for playing 2011 game at 15 FPS in 3D on hardware that's supposed to last us until 2020.

I'm obviously exaggerating the issue, but you get the idea. Hardware that can't max out a 2011 game != hardware I want to play on in 2020.

From what I read most of what your concerns are based on the 8th generation of consoles attempting to last 7+ years again. I dont see that happening again. They tried it this last gen and it didnt work.

 

[ch3ng]

@ earth

4GB DDR3 costs about 30$. The PS4 rumours say it'll have 4GB GDDR5.

Huge differents.

 

[Luminis]

In 3 or 4 years I'd expect you'd need more then a 7850 along with more then 4GBs of Ram to run the latest games high settings.

You obviously would. You actually do now. That's why I want the hardware to be at least high-end now. Gives us at least some time where hardware power is no issue at all.

It wouldnt surprise me at all if Sony's business strategy has changed. Instead of pushing for ultra long life spans for their consoles, its very likely they could be looking at just 5 years before the next Playstation. There was 7 years between the PS3 and PS4. I doubt that ever happens again. Developers complained. The aged hardware held back developers. I dont see that happening again.

Doubt that. Highly. You'd have to accomodate for the RnD and consoles are highly reliant on their installation base. Exchanging the hardware that much faster is going to mess with that. If they do push the coming generations out faster, that'd be the one reason to go with less powerful hardware now, though.

Instead, I expect a significant price drop on hardware every 12-18 months. The new consoles will get to $200 within 4 years.

That'd be nice, but I'd think it'd be hard for both MS and Sony to pull of if they're going for a competitive price point while also generating some profit on every sold console. They can only maintain that as long as they drop the price proportionally as to how much cheaper the hardware becomes to manufacture.

The consoles have been out for almost 7 years. Thats the reason for them looking the way they do in comparison to the latest PC games. With the new consoles having a shorter life cycle, perhaps 5 years, as supported by developers link and link, falling so far behind shouldnt be as big of an issue again

You think UbiSoft and SquarEnix (of all people) bitching about that will make MS, Sony and subsequently Nintendo change their plans? I'm not really sure about that. Especially since it seems to be pretty common practice for both MS and Sony to sell a refreshed version (or in Sony's case, two) of the same console. Milking your customers that much in just five years seems harder to pull off than in seven. I mean, it's not like console life cycles are aimed at a decade for no reason at all...

Im sure it can max newer games as well, or at least play them on the higher settings. Being able to run BF3 without the huge performance restrictions of last gen like only 24 players online and 30FPs will be huge. Multi plat PC games like BF3 will be an option for me to buy on the PS4 since they wont have all the restrictions of last gen, at least not initially. Thats one of the reasons why developers say waiting so long for new consoles was a mistake, they lagged so far behind it hurt the quality of the games in comparison to the PC versions

And still, you're advocating to equip the console with a GPU that, in a PC application, can't max out BF3?

6fps high then a GTX 460. 👍 The idea ultra is possible with 30fps and the developers havent optimized it for the consoles is good news for me. Im sorry, maybe my expectations are just lower. I see this as encouraging, not discouraging.

I guess we do differ in terms of expectations. What did I expect? I expected a game like BF3 to run maxed out with 64 players in 1080p and a steady 60FPS. Otherwise, how would the console have the necessary headroom to even match a late 2013? Or a 2014?

To build a PC equal to a PS4 you'll need, at the very least

$50 case
$100 3.2 ghz quad core AMD Phenom II
$150 Radeon 7850
$100 700 watt PSU
$100 Windows 7
$30 4GBs Ram
$30 DVD drive
$30 keyboard/mouse
$100 motherboard

$700.

$700 for a gaming PC.
$300 PC for office applications, surfing and whatnot (I don't know one person who'd get a PS4 who doesn't own something along those lines) + $400 PS4 = ?

Right off the bat Im saving almost 50% when choosing a PS4 over a similar gaming PC.

I assume you still have a computer, no? Add the cost for that on the PS4 and see what's more expensive. Remember that a gaming PC replaces your console and a basic PC. If you did two jobs, you wouldn't want to be paid for only one, right?

Gran Turismo 5, on the 7 year old PS3, can at times look amazing and photorealistic. What will they be able to do with PS4 tech? I have no doubts we will be wowed.

For starters, they would absolutely have to putperform Project CARS. Which isn't going to be easy. I've stopped playing console games exclusively some time ago, so to wow me, you've got to do more than look better than old console games.

I'd prefer a more expensive, more powerful console too. But there sure was alot of crying and whining when they announced the 599 US dollars price tag. The average gamer have simply gotten what they asked for.

The average gamer also loves the Wii and Call of Duty. I deduce from that that the average gamer is a moron

From what I read most of what your concerns are based on the 8th generation of consoles attempting to last 7+ years again. I dont see that happening again. They tried it this last gen and it didnt work.

They tried it with every generation. It never worked. They still did it for 8 generations. Will it change because some developers are moaning now? I would hope so, because you are right with what my concerns are based on. It would make the future proofing much less important, indeed. And yes, it would ease a lot of my concerns a bit. Kinda. As of now, I'm not in the market for a new console and I won't be for some time (and that's only partially down to the fact that the hardware isn't exactly knowcking my socks off), but I have the nagging feeling that MS and Sony won't cut the next generation of consoles off right when the consoles are at their cheapest to produce. And couple that fact with that I consider the rumoured hardware to be weaker relatively to a good gaming PC than the PS3's, and all of a sudden, five years would still mean that console hardware is going to suck for the last two years of the generation. It's just that instead of five years of decent graphical fidelity, we get three.

@ earth

4GB DDR3 costs about 30$. The PS4 rumours say it'll have 4GB GDDR5.

Huge differents.

Let's be honest, there's a new rumour every week and if there's one thing that makes me shake my head, it's using DDR5 for the console main RAM. The 2133MHz RAM you can get today is plenty fast and cheap enough to use in a big quantity. 4GB of DDR5 seems to help with neither future proofing the console nor with bneing cost effective. I mean, sure, maybe there's some brilliant master plan behind all of that, but it just seems so... Dunno, unintuitive.

 

[Froudeybrand]

http://m.computerandvideogames.com/387287/cvg-sources-sony-to-abandon-dualshock-design-for-ps4/

 

[stiggygonzalez]

If the rumour about the PS4/Orbis being 400$,that's seems more than reasonable to me considering how much the PS3 was at first 600 700$?
I just hope the PS4 will include these feaures:
-True 1080p
-No screen tearing,freezing,lag etc.
-An internet browser as good as PC's
-Compatibility with software such as: photoshop,firefox etc.
-A online cloud TV service such as the rumoured
one by Intel,that doesn't freeze and uses cloud storage
-Poweful hardware(I'm no expert but something to rival the graphical quality of Pcars)

Quick question,can the PS4 ouput graphics as good as the ones shown in the new NSX trailer?

 

[Samus]

Photoshop on a games console? Whut?

 

[stiggygonzalez]

Photoshop on a games console? Whut?

Why not?
Just an example of software that could be made compatible along with drawing tablets similar to Udraw.

 

[iMikeTheKing]

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/01/21/ps4-sony-will-let-microsoft-make-first-move

I guess I'm not expecting a PS4 this year or there will be a shortage of them.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

Quick question,can the PS4 ouput graphics as good as the ones shown in the new NSX trailer?

It should look much better...

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/01/21/ps4-sony-will-let-microsoft-make-first-move

I guess I'm not expecting a PS4 this year or there will be a shortage of them.

Hopefully Sony learn from their PS3 mistakes. They never took Microsoft seriously enough. They could have easily dominated but instead took market share for granted and not capitalised on the delay to improve hardware slightly. Some extra bit of ram would have done wonders for them.

Hopefully they do this time but I think Microsoft will be making a big mistake, if they don't release the more powerful console of the two graphically as they are in a better position financially to do so. If Sony can somehow release the more powerful console, I am expecting market share to go back to Sony more as long as price is reasonably competitive especially if they keep free online but with all features Xbox Live has.

One thing for Sony and Microsoft is, hardware prices and power consumption is now very low to do 1080p gaming at 60fps and insanely high detail. They both will most likely will be releasing profitable consoles at launch at lower prices than say PS3 at launch.

 

[iMikeTheKing]

Hopefully Sony learn from their PS3 mistakes. They never took Microsoft seriously enough. They could have easily dominated but instead took market share for granted and not capitalised on the delay to improve hardware slightly. Some extra bit of ram would have done wonders for them.

Hopefully they do this time but I think Microsoft will be making a big mistake, if they don't release the more powerful console of the two graphically as they are in a better position financially to do so. If Sony can somehow release the more powerful console, I am expecting market share to go back to Sony more as long as price is reasonably competitive especially if they keep free online but with all features Xbox Live has.

One thing for Sony and Microsoft is, hardware prices and power consumption is now very low to do 1080p gaming at 60fps and insanely high detail. They both will most likely will be releasing profitable consoles at launch at lower prices than say PS3 at launch.

I think it will be close. Unless Microsoft spends more money, I don't think they will beat Sony when it comes to power graphically. If Sony releases the more powerful console at a similar price around the same time as the next-gen xbox then they will crush Microsoft.

If I remember correctly, the next-gen Xbox should be announced in either February or March. If that does happen I think we will see the PS4 at E3.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

I think it will be close. Unless Microsoft spends more money, I don't think they will beat Sony when it comes to power graphically. If Sony releases the more powerful console at a similar price around the same time as the next-gen xbox then they will crush Microsoft.

If I remember correctly, the next-gen Xbox should be announced in either February or March. If that does happen I think we will see the PS4 at E3.

Question will be, will Microsoft take their current market share for granted like Sony did and skimp out and let their competitor off the hook, or will they go for it and make Sony's product look overpriced and rubbish in comparison. They have power to do both. I am hoping they skimp out, gives Sony a chance to recover as a company then too which means a stronger Gran Turismo game in future. Problem with going low on hardware specs is future strength of console but positive will be pricing so it won't neccesarily be one way street depending on which way both go. It will be better if both are similar strength though like this generation. It will be much harder to tell difference between the two consoles if they are similar in maximum performance due to most likely reaching solid frame rates at similar detail.

 

[Luminis]

I think it will be close. Unless Microsoft spends more money, I don't think they will beat Sony when it comes to power graphically. If Sony releases the more powerful console at a similar price around the same time as the next-gen xbox then they will crush Microsoft.

That's a big "if". Sony is, as upposed to Microsoft, in a shaky situation, money-weise. Which is why I'd be fairly suprised if Microsoft doesn't abuse that advantage to its fullest. Now is THE opportunity to release a more powerful console at the same price as the PS4 by selling it at a loss to snatch even mire market share.

I am hoping they skimp out, gives Sony a chance to recover as a company then too which means a stronger Gran Turismo game in future.

I sure hope MS pushes their hardware as far as possible. Gives us better hardware for the money and Sony a reason to actually push themselves a bit. Regarding Gran Turismo, I'd think that Forza is the best thing that could've happened to GT. PD has always been without actual competition and it was about time someone started to push them a little.

 

[Samus]

Why not?
Just an example of software that could be made compatible along with drawing tablets similar to Udraw.

But why? Given the choice, why would anyone want to use Photoshop on a game console rather than their PC?