PlayStation 4 General DiscussionPS4

[occasionalracer]

For an occasional racer you do ask for a lot...

👍 What's more... I don't see myself buying PS4 for anything BUT occasionally racing. I've been brought up in a manner that has thought me patience in a sense that if you can't afford it, save up and come back when you're ready to purchase a quality product. All these cheap, half arsed products out there (non-console related) drive me nuts, when I buy anything I go for a good combination of quality and quality. Why would I want a $300 PS4 when I've got a PS3 that's just fine?.... All I can say is PLEASE SONY... for the sake of an epic GT6 gameplay experience, give us a high end machine! Boy do I wish PD could develop for PC's.

 

[nick09]

Article is good but missed one important point, you can't really compare PC specs with Console specs, because no matter what powerful your PC is, games for it are not coded to the metal

That's why Consoles can squeeze so much from the same HW in new games after years contrary to PC, where HW is not optimized and can't be for the simple fact that new GPUs are released everytime, so there is no point in taking advantage of only one GPU out of thousands in the market

No, computers are quite better at playing games. The RSX graphics card in the PS3 was developed by Nvidia. According to the article it is very similar in design to a Nvidia GeForce 7800(specs actually seem very close to a 7800 GT, just clocked 50MHz faster). Sure it was a high-end GPU about... 6-7 years ago but no matter how much optimization goes on in the background the newer graphics cards will always be better. Yes, a fresh new GPU like a HD 7770 for example may not be optimized as well but it has loads more processing power. So much so that games that are ported from the 360 or the PS3 is limited in optimization unless a game developer takes the time to redesign the game to take advantage of the features and performance. Even some games that are ported actually limit the computer to 30fps due to game design fault. Read this article. The review used a PC with a GeForce 8800 GT. Still ancient tech compared to the graphics cards that are released every year but still is better with detail and render distance.

In the end the console is what limit most games that end up ported to a PC and when is ported right, is better. Crysis 1's game engine had to be redeveloped and "optimized" when Crysis 1 was ported to the PS3 in 2011. For a reference check this. It's obvious that the PC is quite better.

It's understandable if a person who has a very limited budget will go for a $300 console rather than a $600 gaming rig which most people would consider alright for what it is but will still get better gaming performance. It all depends if the person is willing to invest the money into an amazing computer or would rather just spend as little money as possible and get the cheapest option which is a $300 console.

 

[CrackedTrigger]

I've a fat ps3 from launch day, a Sony rep said at the time that the system at launch was running at about 40% power and would be turned up as games reqiuring the extra power were developed, and until then the power could be used by the folding at home application, which I think is still around, I believe it's some charity thing. But then they chopped out a whole load of stuff and releases the 80 gig versions which were the same shape, but about 4 kilogrammes lighter, had a motherboard less and hardly any vents compared to mine. So it was the origional PS3 which had this long life span that Sony speak of, but then they made it cheaper and less powerfull therefore shortening the consoles lifespan. So now do they try to recreate the origional ps3 performance with cheaper parts? I remember Sony saying there will be no need for a ps4 as the ps3 was so powerful, and a ps4 would be a "repackaged" PS3.

So PD say that GT5 was limitted by hardware, so Kaz hints at the next game being developed for the PS4. So we can assume from that, the PS4 will outperform the PS3. And let's face it, this subject is being discussed off the back of rumours, probably started by fanboys and other noncredible sources, or by one of the other parties standing to gain from such rumours. I won't even believe there'll be a PS4 untill it comes from the horses mouth (Sony)! Sorry for the wall of text

 

[LaBounti]

30fps on the PS4, even using DX11 = Epic Fail.
Seriously 30fps on a PS4.
Facedesk.
When facepalm is not enough.

That is what we though about ps3 until we saw the first bunch of games not even running 720p60.... and to this day PS3 doesn't run its worse looking games at true 1080p60. Its dominated by 30fps games.

You are looking at it from PC perspective. Compare it to what ps3/360 can do today at 720p30. That game at 1080p30 is good knowing that other games not running a demanding engine like Crysis 2 DX11 say Unreal Engine almost guaranteed to run many games at 1080p60.

 

[Robin]

I've a fat ps3 from launch day, a Sony rep said at the time that the system at launch was running at about 40% power and would be turned up as games requiring the extra power were developed, and until then the power could be used by the folding at home application, which I think is still around, I believe it's some charity thing. But then they chopped out a whole load of stuff and releases the 80 gig versions which were the same shape, but about 4 kilogrammes lighter, had a motherboard less and hardly any vents compared to mine. So it was the origional PS3 which had this long life span that Sony speak of, but then they made it cheaper and less powerfull therefore shotening the consoles lifespan. So now do they try to recreate the origional ps3 performance with cheaper parts? I remember Sony saying there will be no need for a ps4 as the ps3 was so powerful, and a ps4 would be a "repackaged" PS3.

The Sony rep kinda bent the truth with what he was telling you, the console games were at launch likely to be using 40% of the machines potential but it was not running at a reduced power. Folding at home came a while after the console and was not there at launch.

Also all PS3's from the launch to the current slim have exactly the same processing power capabilities, absolutely nothing has changed in that respect. They made it cheaper by removing non essential components and by improving production methods and components. The lifespan has not been shorted at all because of the PS3's redesign, if anything it helped extend it because in the fat form is was nosediving.

The PS4 will not be a PS3 repackaged, it will be much more powerful than the PS3 however from what has been reported so far it seems Microsoft and Sony might be taking a different and maybe more sensible approach. The consoles will probably be designed average at release rather than ground breaking focusing more on the game play than raw power therefore making them cheaper to buy.

So basically I'm thinking this is what will happen....

PS3 and 360, Very Powerful > Long Life Cycle > Expensive > Big Gamble

PS4 (Orbis) and Xbox 720 (Durango), Averagely Powerful > Shorter Life Cycle > Less Expensive > Less Risk

Its a product of hard times and the gaming public today and it seems to make more sense.

Robin.

 

[sikbeta]

Just a shame those "coded to the metal" games use the scheme release now, fix later...... maybe.

Budget and development constraints in a convoluted industry where Publishers release dozen of games per month do that, devs rush out to release first and fix later, not related to coding optimization and more to do with quality assurance

 

[Luminis]

PS3 and 360, Very Powerful > Long Life Cycle > Expensive > Big Gamble

PS4 (Orbis) and Xbox 720 (Durango), Averagely Powerful > Shorter Life Cycle > Less Expensive > Less Risk

I agree with you on basically everything, aside from the Durango. Latest rumours state that it's far more powerful than previously assumed. This leads me to an interesting question, though: There's a possible chance that the PS4 might be replaced earlier than the Durango. As you said, a less powerful console might indicate a shorter life cycle.

This could mean anything from Sony getting a small head start with the PS5 (if they're still in the console business, at that point) up to the console manufacturers straying away from the closely timed released... I think it's going to become quite interesting real soon.

 

[LaBounti]

For some reason I'm just not buying what is in the Orbis even in rumor form. The PS3 Dev kits had 6800's in SLI for its GPU. The final GPU could be something different in PS4.

Even the 360 dev kits had a different CPU. Its way too early to settle on these rumors if they are coming in 2013 or later.

So I'm going to just assume PS4 will be more powerful than what we think.

 

[HKS racer]

Budget and development constraints in a convoluted industry where Publishers release dozen of games per month do that, devs rush out to release first and fix later, not related to coding optimization and more to do with quality assurance

At the end of the day the only thing you should care as a customer, is the final product quality. Those arguments makes no sense when you go purcase something. I just couldn't care less if someone is forced by pubblishers to release massively bugged products. I simply do not buy their crap.

 

[Luminis]

The differences int he dev kits, though, were minor. The architecture was very, very similar and the overall power output didn't skyrocket, either. At best, it was a slight imporvement.

So I'm going to just assume PS4 will be more powerful than what we think.

Sorry if I may offend you, but that sounds like you're believing it because you want to.

At the end of the day the only thing you should care as a customer, is the final product quality. Those arguments makes no sense when you go purcase something.

I just couldn't care less if someone is forced by pubblishers to release massively bugged products. I simply do not buy that crap.

You're acting as if that was the norm... Crap games were released back in the day, as well. And it's not like every game is borken and unplayable out of the box. Batman Arkham City seemed to work fine, Rayman Origins seemed to work fine, Sonic Generations seemed to work fine, Dark Souls worked fine, as well as basically everything ever made by Blizzard. And that's just of the top of my head. I think this whole thing is blown out of proportion, big time.

Not that I disagree with the general idea that games should be released after being finished. But it's not like you have to go through a dozen games before finding one that wasn't broken and bug ridden to the point of being unplayable.

 

[LaBounti]

Not offended, It's just rumors so we shall see what comes of it. But I'm fine with whats rumored.

 

[nick09]

So I'm going to just assume PS4 will be more powerful than what we think.

My plan is just to assume nothing and wait for news from Sony. There is a limit to how powerful a console can get until it gets too pricy for a certain market depending on the cost(There is a limit to how cheaply you can price a product before the components get too cheap for the hardware).

 

[HKS racer]

The differences int he dev kits, though, were minor. The architecture was very, very similar and the overall power output didn't skyrocket, either. At best, it was a slight imporvement.

Sorry if I may offend you, but that sounds like you're believing it because you want to.

You're acting as if that was the norm... Crap games were released back in the day, as well. And it's not like every game is borken and unplayable out of the box. Batman Arkham City seemed to work fine, Rayman Origins seemed to work fine, Sonic Generations seemed to work fine, Dark Souls worked fine, as well as basically everything ever made by Blizzard. And that's just of the top of my head. I think this whole thing is blown out of proportion, big time.

Not that I disagree with the general idea that games should be released after being finished. But it's not like you have to go through a dozen games before finding one that wasn't broken and bug ridden to the point of being unplayable.

Don't forget console games have pc competitors that sells on steam for a lower price. Console games can't just be playable. They have to tempt people because they are great products. Why I should buy something for 60 bucks when I can go on Steam and find a similar product for half less?
Obviously not everyone will become a pc user, but console producers have to recon what Steam is doing.

 

[Luminis]

Well, frankly, because PC gaming demmands a higher initial price than most consoles, usually requires more frequent updates and also requires the user to be a bit more fit and knowledgable to use it (without spending a small fortune, that is).

It's cheap plug and play, basically. Sure, the games are a bit more expensive, but you also get it as a physical copy. I can't see how games have to be superior to sell on a console, really.

 

[HKS racer]

Do you remember last year? People who spent 60 bucks for Shift 2 Unleashed at Day 1 with all those bugs, the time wasted to get an half decent FFB.. and all the unfixed bugs, not exactly cheap plug and play.

 

[Spagetti69]

Do you remember last year? People who spent 60 bucks for Shift 2 Unleashed at Day 1 with all those bugs, the time wasted to get an half decent FFB.. and all the unfixed bugs, not exactly cheap plug and play.

Luckily I got the Xbox version. The steering lag on PS3 was rediculous.

 

[Luminis]

Do you remember last year? People who spent 60 bucks for Shift 2 Unleashed at Day 1 with all those bugs, the time wasted to get an half decent FFB.. and all the unfixed bugs, not exactly cheap plug and play.

Okay. I got Shift myself last year. Wasn't that bad on the Xbox, but still. What other games did I get in the meantime?

• Forza 4: Fine.
• Batman: Arkham City: Fine.
• Skyrim: Fine.
• Rayman Origins: Fine.
• Sonic Generations: Fine.
• Red Dead Redemption: Fine.

Okay. So you found a game that wasn't done well. On the other hand, I've bought six times as many games that were, indeed, fine. Get my point?

 

[HKS racer]

Forza 4 is the only game you mentioned I'll consider worth the money. The others are not for me, maybe Red Dead, but I'm not a huge western fan. Problem is this gen have only 2 big racing games, one for console, Forza on X360, GT5 on PS3. Others can't compete with what pc can offer.
I think in a site where the main topic is Gran Turismo and racing games in general, it's something worth the talk.

 

[tribolik]

Luckily I got the Xbox version. The steering lag on PS3 was rediculous.

And the PC version and the Xbox version also have the steering lag (the PC version is a bit improoved after the unofficial comunity patch so they say)
By the way do you still play it?

 

[Spagetti69]

And the PC version and the Xbox version also have the steering lag (the PC version is a bit improoved after the unofficial comunity patch so they say)
By the way do you still play it?

I haven't played in ages. I'm into Forza too much.
I bought the PS3 version which was plagued with lag. Raudi posted up some excellent Fanatec/Xbox settings and I exchanged versions. Found it a lot better. Framerate and graphics were improved. There is a FF bug that occasionally happens on the start. Basically the FF just drops out. Pause and umpause sorts it out. I just automatically do it on the grid each time.

Might put it on one day. The historic DLC was a bargain for once.

 

[sikbeta]

At the end of the day the only thing you should care as a customer, is the final product quality. Those arguments makes no sense when you go purcase something.

I was just stating a fact, individual opinions don't change the fact that Devs rush out and release games as soon as possible to get a share of that $60 price, more when price-cuts are effective within a week and used games are available from day 2 (Gamestop)

Who do you think would push for these online 24/7 + game copy per ID crap?

I just couldn't care less if someone is forced by pubblishers to release massively bugged products. I simply do not buy their crap.

Cough.The Real Driver Simulator.Cough.

Was 5 years in the making, cost 80,000,000 and people still complain about an "unfinished" product

But again, as stated before

Rushed product =/= bad coding optimization

Glitchs and Bugs are present always, that's why QA teams check the games and report to devs so they can fix those problems

Also what Luminis said, games were broken generations ago and some bugs even gave the ability to exploit certain games, but it isn't something you have to deal all the time, at least from now on, if something is broken in a game, it can be fixed 👍

 

[lemansfanatic]

Sony plans to cut 10,000 jobs, reduce TV models : http://usat.ly/I9QsFX

Interesting bit for us gamers at the end. basically the gist of Sony's plan to be more profitable is produce 40% less flatscreen tvs and focus more on "digital cameras and gaming".

 

[HKS racer]

Console Dev meme:

I don't always fix games

But When I do I make sure to introduce new bugs.


And about GT5, sikbeta you may need the cough syrup, as you probably know for several people was the only reason of a PS3 purchase. Yes, even with all the bugs it does the job better than his poor competitors. If you don't wanna call it " the best" you can at least consider it as the less crappy racing game on PS3. Problem is it's just one and you can't play GT5 for ever. So people needing good racing games will end up looking for other platforms.

 

[Luminis]

Forza 4 is the only game you mentioned I'll consider worth the money. The others are not for me, maybe Red Dead, but I'm not a huge western fan. Problem is this gen have only 2 big racing games, one for console, Forza on X360, GT5 on PS3. Others can't compete with what pc can offer.
I think in a site where the main topic is Gran Turismo and racing games in general, it's something worth the talk.

We're discussing the state that the video game industry is in, no? All I'm trying to point out is that there is the ocassional Shift 2 that is bug ridden, but it's not exactly the rule. Even if you're going by just racing games I've played on the Xbox360 during this generation:
Forza 2 was fine, Forza 3 was fine, Forza 4 was fine, GRID was fine. And the Xbox version of Shift 2 my have its issues, but it was far from being unplayable.

The fact that you bought a grand total of three games, of which one was bugged, doesn't mean that a third of all games are released in a broken state. If all you're eating is fish and chips and a restaurant sells bad fish and chips, but is excellent when it comes to everything else... Well, it might not be for you, but that doesn't mean that it's a bad restaurant in general.

Also what Luminis said, games were broken generations ago and some bugs even gave the ability to exploit certain games, but it isn't something you have to deal all the time, at least from now on, if something is broken in a game, it can be fixed 👍

Exactly... My personal assumption is that people were far more willing to deal with minor issues, back then. After all, what could they do? Coming with games that were as badly glitched as Shift 2 should be fairly easy for every generation.

Sony plans to cut 10,000 jobs, reduce TV models : http://usat.ly/I9QsFX

Interesting bit for us gamers at the end. basically the gist of Sony's plan to be more profitable is produce 40% less flatscreen tvs and focus more on "digital cameras and gaming".

To be expected, in my opinion. And I'm quite certain that the TV business isn't the only part to take a hit.

Console Dev meme:

I don't always fix games

But When I do I make sure to introduce new bugs.


And about GT5, sikbeta you may need the cough syrup, as you probably know for several people was the only reason of a PS3 purchase. Yes, even with all the bugs it does the job better than his poor competitors. If you don't wanna call it " the best" you can at least consider it as the less crappy racing game on PS3. Problem is it's just one and you can't play GT5 for ever. So people needing good racing games will end up looking for other platforms.

If we're being honest, true sim racers are the exception, not the rule. Thats's why there are so few games that cater to them.

And, well, yeah, people will, eventually, deviate from GT5. There's another franchise, though, that releases its games far more frequently

 

[Sanji Himura]

I understand, and always undertood.

I don't think that you do, however. I have either owned, or have played on most major consoles that has come down the pipe since the NES(owned 3 of those.) Most do not realize that the little gems that are consoles today, are not the consoles that of my childhood. Remember the recent Spike VGAs's? They honored "The Legend of Zelda" and Shigeru Miyamoto at the show. Instead, I would honor Ralph H. Baer and the console that would become the Magnavox Odyssey.

Why that man? Because, if it was not for the patent of "interactivity with a television", the modern video game industry would not have even been born.

The family friendly entertainment that both Miyamoto and Baer envisioned gave way to violence like COD and all of the other popular games that 13 year olds like to play today. That is why I am glad that Nintendo is still around as that last visage of Baer's vision.

 

[HKS racer]

*Philosoraptor meme

If GT5 sold 7.3 milions unit and counting

Why console devs thinks sims won't sell?

If the plan was ok, "let's sell hardware on loss and make money with games!" and then you only provide an half decent racer several years after PS3 release... well I think something goes wrong in the masterplan. Most of PS3 losses are due to this poor strategy. Seriously, at D1, They really were thinking to hype people with Riiiiiiiiiiidge Racer?

Wasn't their motto saying: "It simply does everything?" If you offer an all in one product, you wonna cover all the potential markets IN TIME, because that's how your model of business work. If you don't do that, people will buy your console and then after a year buy something else because you did't provide good stuff for their market.

FYI Luminis I didn't buy Shift 2, day 1 users learned the hard way. I was just disappointed for not having a GT5 alternative. If racers crowd bought a PS3 for GT5 and they end up playing only GT5 because there are no other good racing games, the sole GT5 purchase is not enough to cover hardware losses. That's my point.

Bottom line, for PS4, Sony you better cut out a couple of un-necessary shooters and develop a second solid racing game to gather more people from the market, and at the same time give them less reasons to buy other gaming platforms. If people buy Microsoft because Forza and buy Pc because Sim Racing, as Luminis said not everyone care ONLY about racing, they can also buy fps, arcades, rpg's for your competitor's platforms effectively damaging your global market and you Sony loose, because you sell hardware on loss.

 

[ch3ng]

*Philosoraptor meme

If GT5 sold 7.3 milions unit and counting

Why console devs thinks sims won't sell?

If the plan was ok, "let's sell hardware on loss and make money with games!" and then you only provide an half decent racer several years after PS3 release... well I think something goes wrong in the masterplan. Most of PS3 losses are due to this poor strategy. Seriously, at D1, They really were thinking to hype people with Riiiiiiiiiiidge Racer?

Wasn't their motto saying: "It simply does everything?" If you offer an all in one product, you wonna cover all the potential markets IN TIME, because that's how your model of business work. If you don't do that, people will buy your console and then after a year buy something else because you did't provide good stuff for their market.

FYI Luminis I didn't buy Shift 2, day 1 users learned the hard way. I was just disappointed for not having a GT5 alternative. If racers crowd bought a PS3 for GT5 and they end up playing only GT5 because there are no other good racing games, the sole GT5 purchase is not enough to cover hardware losses. That's my point.

Bottom line, for PS4, Sony you better cut out a couple of un-necessary shooters and develop a second solid racing game to gather more people from the market, and at the same time give them less reasons to buy other gaming platforms. If people buy Microsoft because Forza and buy Pc because Sim Racing, as Luminis said not everyone care ONLY about racing, they can also buy fps, arcades, rpg's for your competitor's platforms effectively damaging your global market and you Sony loose, because you sell hardware on loss.

Well... 2 Racer like GT are useless on 1 console if the Same Company develop it.
It wouldn't be a System seller and it would decrease the GT sells.
That means Sony would invest more Money, because they make 2 Racing Games and have to buy all license for each One.

That would be stupid and they will Never make 2 Racing Sims.
Shooter are different. They have Story etc. It make more Sense to make more RPG, Shooter than a Racing SIM.

 

[HKS racer]

Imagine 2 games like Forza and GT on the same console. Why do I should remotely consider the purcase of another console or even a pc?

What you think makes "more sense" are not proven by facts. At the end of the day Sony are loosing money with a PS3 filled with fps and only 1 racing game.
Balance is the key.

 

[ch3ng]

Imagine 2 games like Forza and GT on the same console. Why do I should remotely consider the purcase of another console or even a pc?

What you think makes "more sense" are not proven by facts. At the end of the day Sony are loosing money with a PS3 filled with fps and only 1 racing game.
Balance is the key.

Well what we - the costumer - would like to See and what makes Sense for a Company are different things.

2 Racing Sims would cost alot of Money, but wouldn't Create more Sells. Or only a bit.

And a SIM will come to console. Called pCARS. But believe me Sony will Never ever Create 2 Sims if they can earn Money with GT Franchise.
And its a intelligent decision.

You can't compare Racing Sims with Shooter etc.

 

[sikbeta]

Sony plans to cut 10,000 jobs, reduce TV models : http://usat.ly/I9QsFX

Interesting bit for us gamers at the end. basically the gist of Sony's plan to be more profitable is produce 40% less flatscreen tvs and focus more on "digital cameras and gaming".

8 years losing money went to a level in which Sony merged with other Divsions (Gaming Division being one of them ) to hide the massive losses and show a "better picture" instead of show what was really happening = Gaming Division + others made up for the losses of TV Division

Good to know that Gaming Division is intact and will be part of the core business of the group, I was skeptical about this at first to be honest, my pessimist self played with the idea of Sony dumping PlayStation to favor their Bravias glad to know it wasn't the case

Console Dev meme:

I don't always fix games

But When I do I make sure to introduce new bugs.


And about GT5, sikbeta you may need the cough syrup, as you probably know for several people was the only reason of a PS3 purchase. Yes, even with all the bugs it does the job better than his poor competitors.

Eh... I love GT5, I play it every day, though I want daily seasonals, after finish one, want to jump to another and so on

If you don't wanna call it " the best" you can at least consider it as the less crappy racing game on PS3.

GT5 = The Only Simulator on PS3, NFS is arcade and the others as well, never cared about Dirt and the bunch, PD constant support is top notch, some devs after the first 3 months totally abandon the games, PD being updating the game since launch is an exception rather than a rule, but that's obviously because of how big GT is 👍

Problem is it's just one and you can't play GT5 for ever. So people needing good racing games will end up looking for other platforms.

Well, yeah IF someone likes Sims and is tired of GT5 will try something new, it happens always with any game, DLC can help to avoid that but, it's impossible to think that 100% of the like, 8m people who bought the game will pay for DLC to keep going, never happens with any game