Is the PS4K a threat to PC gaming?
- Thread starter MutonCommander
- Start date
Dick Justice
Banned
Not really, because there's more to PC Gaming than being able to upgrade. Though it'll probably lure some people over to consoles who are more on the fence.
loll this thread is gold
People really act weird when Sony's realistic course of action is PS4 slim with 4K media support, lol.
Also, ironically, most PC gamers have shit PCs and shit connection, lol.
The target market for this are people with 4K displays and can stream/buy/download 4K media on the regular.
People really act weird when Sony's realistic course of action is PS4 slim with 4K media support, lol.
Also, ironically, most PC gamers have shit PCs and shit connection, lol.
The target market for this are people with 4K displays and can stream/buy/download 4K media on the regular.
Bl4ckSunsh1n3
Member
lol at the arrogance.
Which rumors specifically are you talking when you say unique control?
From what I've heard it's basically just a more sleek wii u gamepad with some independent gaming capability.
What can I get from a nx that I technically couldnt get with a ps4 + vita?
ahahahaha you're good man. Are you getting your info from your uncle @Nintendo?
LordRaptor
Member
Even at the height of Wii Mania PC gaming was far from niche, with titles like World Of Warcraft being household names.
PCs aren't consoles.
PC gaming is going to exist as long as PCs themselves exist, and PCs are going to exist as long as digital content production is required.
CaramelMarx
Neo Member
PC-exclusive performance/visual enhancement (ReShade, Overclocking, etc) gives huge advantages over consoles. (Especially considering those new & cheaper GPUs releasing soon.)
Considering the PC's higher level of customizable parts, freedom of use, and obvious applications outside gaming, its edge over consoles seems stable.
The big caveat I'd make is a lot of this depends on Sony's VR plans. If they bring a lot of exclusives to the table, via a VR system that consumers like, then who knows?
Yet the VR peripheral stuff obviously isn't going to be cheap. To say nothing of the PS4K's pricing itself. Assuming a $100-200 prince increase, why would anyone get a PS4K when, for around $200 more, they could get a pretty decent desktop rig? I know that's a lot of money for some people - myself included - but still: running that close to the PC's price point seems like a risky move.
Then again, if Windows pulls an Apple and forces devs to conform to their requirements in order to be sold on Windows devices, I'd say that would kill quite a lot of the PC's appeal as a gaming platform. Until then, it will probably remain synonymous with the worst phrase coined in recent memory: the 'hardcore gamer market'.
Considering the PC's higher level of customizable parts, freedom of use, and obvious applications outside gaming, its edge over consoles seems stable.
The big caveat I'd make is a lot of this depends on Sony's VR plans. If they bring a lot of exclusives to the table, via a VR system that consumers like, then who knows?
Yet the VR peripheral stuff obviously isn't going to be cheap. To say nothing of the PS4K's pricing itself. Assuming a $100-200 prince increase, why would anyone get a PS4K when, for around $200 more, they could get a pretty decent desktop rig? I know that's a lot of money for some people - myself included - but still: running that close to the PC's price point seems like a risky move.
Then again, if Windows pulls an Apple and forces devs to conform to their requirements in order to be sold on Windows devices, I'd say that would kill quite a lot of the PC's appeal as a gaming platform. Until then, it will probably remain synonymous with the worst phrase coined in recent memory: the 'hardcore gamer market'.
Camp Freddie
Member
Nope. The opposite is true and it makes PC gaming much more attractive. It's the main reason I wonder why it's being done.
PC gaming lets you use the same PC for ages, and just upgrade the graphics card and add an extra HD if you need some more space. Even the Win10 upgrade was amazingly painless.
Seriously, many of us are still rocking our sandy bridge i5 from before PS4/XBone were even a thing.
It's not like the bad old days where moore's law forced a complete PC upgrade every couple of years. Skylake and Ivy Brige were pathetic compared to what the AthlonXP or Core2Duo did.
In contrast, an updated console means that you either buy the whole thing or nothing. Probably for an extra $400, which is much more than a PS4.5-equivalent graphics card will cost.
If you want to keep up-to-date, then a PC is much cheaper.
The comparison always used to be a highly-subsidised $400 console vs. a new PC and several upgrades (including system-wiping OS migrations) over the 6-7 year cycle. The console easily wins on cost and convenience, but loses on end-of-cycle performance and versatility.
Now it's a "non-subsidised" $400 console vs. maybe a new GPU for about $200 (console equivalent), $300 (console beating) or $400 (actual 4K gaming). The new console will still have a CPU that is much less powerful than most PCs.
Or if you consider the full lifetime, it's $800 of PS4 for 6 years or a low-end PC with a couple of budget GPU purchases. Similar costs overall, but the PC has way more versatility in exchange for slightly more hassle.
Of course, some people seem to think the PS4K will somehow use a die shrink to provide bleeding edge 4K performance that'll rival a $2000 PC. I'm guessing it's a 4K blu-ray, upscaler, slim form-factor and maybe enough power to run PSVR without the breakout box (which could allow an even cheaper headset-only upgrade).
If we move to a 3-year cycle, I'll either switch to PC entirely or maybe switch system. Having a PS4 and an XBonepointfive will provide way more benefits than getting two very similar playstations.
PC gaming lets you use the same PC for ages, and just upgrade the graphics card and add an extra HD if you need some more space. Even the Win10 upgrade was amazingly painless.
Seriously, many of us are still rocking our sandy bridge i5 from before PS4/XBone were even a thing.
It's not like the bad old days where moore's law forced a complete PC upgrade every couple of years. Skylake and Ivy Brige were pathetic compared to what the AthlonXP or Core2Duo did.
In contrast, an updated console means that you either buy the whole thing or nothing. Probably for an extra $400, which is much more than a PS4.5-equivalent graphics card will cost.
If you want to keep up-to-date, then a PC is much cheaper.
The comparison always used to be a highly-subsidised $400 console vs. a new PC and several upgrades (including system-wiping OS migrations) over the 6-7 year cycle. The console easily wins on cost and convenience, but loses on end-of-cycle performance and versatility.
Now it's a "non-subsidised" $400 console vs. maybe a new GPU for about $200 (console equivalent), $300 (console beating) or $400 (actual 4K gaming). The new console will still have a CPU that is much less powerful than most PCs.
Or if you consider the full lifetime, it's $800 of PS4 for 6 years or a low-end PC with a couple of budget GPU purchases. Similar costs overall, but the PC has way more versatility in exchange for slightly more hassle.
Of course, some people seem to think the PS4K will somehow use a die shrink to provide bleeding edge 4K performance that'll rival a $2000 PC. I'm guessing it's a 4K blu-ray, upscaler, slim form-factor and maybe enough power to run PSVR without the breakout box (which could allow an even cheaper headset-only upgrade).
If we move to a 3-year cycle, I'll either switch to PC entirely or maybe switch system. Having a PS4 and an XBonepointfive will provide way more benefits than getting two very similar playstations.
I immediately laughed, too, when i read the title, but the more I think about it, the more I think that the model (not exactly a PS4K with a bit beefed up specs) could keep current console owners or PC owners tired of dealing keeping up with latest hardware could find the ease of being able to stick with previous iteration until they are comfortable with going to the next version and suddenly everything upgrades by plugging in a new box enticing.
On mobile but I know for an absolute fact most people don't have high end pcs that game on PC, plain and simple. Done the research myself.
This also excludes the people who play games like LoL,Smite, Starcraft etc.
Ps4k provides 0 benefit to anyone without a 4K display besides the possibility of more storage and being a bit thinner
Steam hardware surveys indicate that isn't the case. 4.39% of users have a 970 and assuming half of the 11 million concurrent users. Even if 1/4 of those concurrent users opted into the survey, that is still a lot of people with good gaming PC's. Hardly crap by any means. But 'you knowing for a fact' doesn't really count for much when you don't provide any data.
All these PS4K threads are gold. It will be hilarious to see Sony unveil a PS4 with 4K Bluray drive and general support for the resolution (such as rendering the home menu etc appropiately) but without GAFs wet dream of a hardware upgrade capable of running Uncharted 4 etc at 4K.
On topic though, no, I don't think so; resolution is just a tiny factor when deciding whether to buy a console or PC, I'd say. Or if already decided, most PC gamers will not switch exclusively to the PS4 ecosystem but rather invest in a high-end graphics card to profit from higher resolution/higher performance.
On topic though, no, I don't think so; resolution is just a tiny factor when deciding whether to buy a console or PC, I'd say. Or if already decided, most PC gamers will not switch exclusively to the PS4 ecosystem but rather invest in a high-end graphics card to profit from higher resolution/higher performance.
I just want to point something out...
Macs have been using the same Intel CPUs and architecture as PCs for over 10 years now. However, they are still Macs. They have a market segment that is interested in buying them. If someone never wanted a Mac, they still don't.
This is pretty much the same thing. A PC gamer is going to want PC gaming for specific reasons, none of which the PS4K will address.
Macs have been using the same Intel CPUs and architecture as PCs for over 10 years now. However, they are still Macs. They have a market segment that is interested in buying them. If someone never wanted a Mac, they still don't.
This is pretty much the same thing. A PC gamer is going to want PC gaming for specific reasons, none of which the PS4K will address.
XxRampage07xX
Member
Probably not but to be honest, if the PS4.5 does run PS4 games with better graphics and frame rate, I won't feel the need to own a new gaming rig since high performance will already be achieved on consoles anyway.
Blak_Status
Member
Looked at the thread title and came in for the jokes. I was not disappointed.
Bl4ckSunsh1n3
Member
Did you even bother to look at the data? A majority of them aren't high end but, calling them shit is way beyond silly. Show me your research and put it up against what Valve collects every month.
The majority own PCs that can't run intensive games from what you're telling me, even just for Steam users who opt in.
derExperte
Member
Reminds me of that 8gb GDDR5 thing people went crazy over.
I'm on mobile, but I'll be on my PC in a bit.
But even then, what is your argument?
That more than a very small minority is capable of running 4K at a decent, much less stable FPS? That PS4 slim is a threat to PC gaming?
Bl4ckSunsh1n3
Member
What if I told you that setting up my latest gaming PC was just as fast as the PS4 setup? Also, what if I told you that using tools like NVIDIA Experience make it so easy to update drivers that it is no different than a software update on PS4? Hell, it'll even set your game to the max settings your machine can handle with the click of a button.
The plug and play advantage is negligible in 2016.
What? No. Hell no. I'm saying that there are enough PC users out there with more powerful machines than a PS4K already so Sony putting one out won't matter at all to the PC install base. If anything it will hurt the console base and push more people to PC.
Want to contribute to the discussion or just parrot the same thing you're mocking?
TBF, those are two separate statements, upgradable vs. iterative. Some people are happier throwing out an old machine for a new one, than paying less to open the old machine and put in a new part.
I'm not saying it's logical, but there are people like that. I knew people who didn't want to set the clock on their VCR because they were afraid they would "break it."
geordiemp
Member
So much is up in the air, we have new 14/16 nm process node, new GDDr5x faster memory and potentially 3 new consoles coming soon.
I doubt all 3 would fail to at least look hard at the advances in tech this year. And then we have VR.
For me, should I build a gaming PC for lighthouse, or will PSVR be just as good and if PS4K can be powerful then no need to build a gaming PC.
Lots of unknowns, but for some a powerful Ps4 would be better than a gaming PC and would be for me as
1. I like playing COD with a controller against others using same - mouse clicking headshots with a guy a foot away from a 3 ms gaming monitor running the game at 144 Hz does not mix with me on the sofa.
2. Consoles are harder to hack than a PC, online gaming especially. If I ever see a wall hack in a game, my first thought is that is PC...
3. No Hassle - just watching Giant Bombs occulus stream and them farting around with getting stuff running - I really cant be bothered, some games having frame rate or set up issues even with a 970...Nah...
However, PC parts will also get a jump, and lighthouse looks cool, so we will have to see what falls.
I doubt all 3 would fail to at least look hard at the advances in tech this year. And then we have VR.
For me, should I build a gaming PC for lighthouse, or will PSVR be just as good and if PS4K can be powerful then no need to build a gaming PC.
Lots of unknowns, but for some a powerful Ps4 would be better than a gaming PC and would be for me as
1. I like playing COD with a controller against others using same - mouse clicking headshots with a guy a foot away from a 3 ms gaming monitor running the game at 144 Hz does not mix with me on the sofa.
2. Consoles are harder to hack than a PC, online gaming especially. If I ever see a wall hack in a game, my first thought is that is PC...
3. No Hassle - just watching Giant Bombs occulus stream and them farting around with getting stuff running - I really cant be bothered, some games having frame rate or set up issues even with a 970...Nah...
However, PC parts will also get a jump, and lighthouse looks cool, so we will have to see what falls.
Please don't do this.
No, that is just a lie propagated by the media, like Mother's Day.
A lot of people prefer PCs for more reasons than just better performance. Your 'some gamers' who fit only that category are not enough to be a threat to PC gaming.
Demanufacture
Banned
Can't even read the text on the peasant its so low res, I guess consoles really have taken over.
This of course is all my opinion but I'd figure I'd give my two cents:
Lighthouse, as far as hardware goes, is inherently superior. Lighthouse = Walking around VR. PSVR = If you turn around from the camera your motion controls will not work.
1. Recent Call of Duty games on PC have actually been better on a controller, because they get a STUPID amount of aim-assist.
That really doesn't matter. A majority really isn't a definable demographic, unlike again a targeted percentage who own a discreet GPU. You also don't need a majority to buy your products to make a profit to consider launching products. It's all relative.
You have to track what APU AMD is putting out this year, they are stuck with them if they want to keep compatibility.
JimJamJones
Member
Low-res pic hosted on photobucket. Perfect.
LordOfChaos
Member
Out of curiosity is the stupid amount just the console amount and PC players aren't used to it, or is it boosted beyond that?
It took me a while to start trusting aim assist on consoles after being PC most of my life, I tried to get too precise with the aiming and it made me too slow.
CoD games on PC have forced mouse acceleration so using a mouse doesn't feel good on them no matter what you do. I feel like that is the only reason people even use a controller.