PS4K information (~2x GPU power w/ clock+, new CPU, price, tent. Q1 2017)

So April fool has come and almost gone...and this thread survives still.

Tbh, I'm not sure it is a good thing for Sony to do this. It means in future, more will wait for the 'new' nextgen go bit before buying. As such it will take a longer time to hit critical sales volume and publishers will be more careful to invest big games for a next gen console.

Consoles gamers are not too loyal to keep buying new consoles every 3 years

So skip the PS4 and jump in when the PS4K hits?

But once the 4K hits the PS5 already kind of around the corner.

So skip the 4K!

And skip the PS5, too - we all know they will release a 5K eventually..

Although we know what happens after the 5K...


;)
 
Whatever the dev kit out now is likely just an early target spec, it's going to be very generic and general, so no specialized custom final silicon.

Since Sony isn't sure what the final CPU might be, it's likely they gave the devs an idea of lowest possible ballpark of what it could be. Really early dev kits (like Xenon G5 alpha kit) can feature much better CPU's that the devs just end up modifying as closer to the final silicon kits come out.

This isn't going to be a crazy architecture shift, so the whole thing "should" be pretty straight forward to adapt.

I would understand that more if we were talking being 2 years out but this could be on shelves in 7/8 months going by some.

What was the make up of the dev kits in February 2013 when PS4 was announced?
 
That's fine because most people can't tell the difference between PS4 and PC games.

I'd honestly be happier with 1080p60

That's exactly my point! The OP claims significant differences yet only cites a 2x increase in GPU power which doesn't even put it in the high end of PC GPUs. At best you are going to get 1080p 60 with slightly higher fidelity. No 4K native resolution though as that is out of reach of all but the most powerful PC rigs.

EDIT:

I have a Gtx 970.

It'll run the same game a Titan will run. Just not as well.

What am i missing?

Yeah, I think some people are confused about how this works already for PC gamers. I also think they are thinking a 2x increase in GPU power means a lot more than it actually does in reality.
 
After playing the FFXV demo i want that PS4k even more...those frame rates...
People must realize the hit in games is alresdy here,without a PS4K.Jaguar cores are a laugh.
 
No that's backwards compatibility. PS4K is backwards compatible with PS4, it will play PS4 games.



And that's forward compatibility - PS4 is capable of playing PS4K games at a lower quality because they are based on the same basic AMD architecture.

the opposite. The PS4k is backwards compatible as in it is compatible with 'backward" or old games. The PS4 is forward compatible in that it runs "future" ps4k games.

Yep, you guys are right. I had it backwards. At least I gave both so I hope that answered the question.
 
That's exactly my point! The OP claims significant differences yet only cites a 2x increase in GPU power which doesn't even put it in the high end of PC GPUs. At best you are going to get 1080p 60 with slightly higher fidelity. No 4K native resolution though as that is out of reach of all but the most powerful PC rigs.

Semantics. I would call the difference between 30 and 60fps "significant" for example.
 
One thing that makes me nervous about the new hardware is the possibility of a large delay between announcement and release. With E3 and PSX and a 2017 release date you're talking about a 6+ month window before release that will suppress interest in PS4 and buying new hardware. It's more Apple-like to release a revision within a couple months of announcement. Doesn't make sense to keep everyone waiting for such a moderate intermediate step.

Why would that make you nervous?
 
Going from $300 to $200 with the same profit margin? Never.

Consoles are not the money makers, software is king. Sure they wont get the same profit margin, but it opens up an even bigger market. PS2 did sold like crazy after the $200 price cut in 2002. Thats the point where the general public really starts buying.
 
Yes but there are well thought out arguments on why this is a bad idea that get met with the same response. As if it makes any less sense than someone's post who is all for this change.



I was hoping to see that sneaker guy, i think that's his name, in these threads. He had a good post for people who think it'll just be copy and paste between platforms.

Yea, he was cool. I asked him some questions and he was awesome in giving answers and his opinion from a industry perspective.
 
As would I, but how many people have purchased a PS4 so far and been happy with the experience it offers?

I´d say the vast majority. This is why I think the vast majority won´t care about the 4K in the way we do.

Or at least I don´t think the vast majority will be offended by the 4K.
 
Be honest.....have you seen what Uncharted 4 looks like? Underpowered isn't a word I'd use.

The problem is that a lot of people on GAF and other gamming forums (not the bigger and important mass market ) expected 1080p 60 fps consoles on this generation.

So everything will be underpowered no matter the games like Uncharted or The Order, etc..
 
So what benefits would a person who doesn't have a 4k TV gain from this
 
So what benefits would a person who doesn't have a 4k TV gain from this

Rumor says PS4K will be the only way to browse Golden GAF.



Do not see any benefits if you do not own a 4k tv. Maybe on PSVR games and. We need to see the final product (
 
I would understand that more if we were talking being 2 years out but this could be on shelves in 7/8 months going by some.

What was the make up of the dev kits in February 2013 when PS4 was announced?

Since there isn't any real architecture changes, and there is likely no truly exotic customizations, they don't need anything close right now. There have been instances in past generations where the truly close final kits that really represented what's in the final console didn't make it to some of the devs until much closer to launch.
 
Who is the earthly HECK thinks this is a good idea?!?! JESUS CHRIST! So do some people want the PS4 to also play PS5 games?

Do people realize that this will forever hold back the future consoles from reaching their true capability?

no, because it is crap.
 
Wouldnt PS4K owners have a competitive advantage against regular PS4 owners when playing multiplayer at higher resolutions and higher frame rates?

unlikely. There may be some benefits to say gaming on a huge tv with higher res which I have noticed but that is more preference. someone else may know more about technical stuff like latency or whatever....

however consider this, my friend stopped playing BF4 on pc now because it has been learned that people actually crank the details down as low as possible because it actually eliminates bushes, trees or other environments... so you could be hiding to reload, sneak, whatever and they are just staring at you on a blank hill lol.

also as I'm sure you've noticed, lag (which is unlikely to be tied to console power afaik) is not really one way. I've seen people lag terribly who have a distinct advantage because you are not seeing them move properly.
 
So what benefits would a person who doesn't have a 4k TV gain from this
Afaik, on games -optimized- for PS4K, better framerate/ effects.

There could be more, but until we have detailed specs (official), can't tell.
Imo, wouldn't be surprised by a dual band Wifi.
 
The problem is that a lot of people on GAF and other gamming forums (not the bigger and important mass market ) expected 1080p 60 fps consoles on this generation.

So everything will be underpowered no matter the games like Uncharted or The Order, etc..

Should see the outrage on the FF XV downgrade thread, it's witcher 3 all over again.

I have been very satisfied with PS4. Even though I play a lot of multiplayer games on my PC. I do think PS4 was a pretty damn good step up from what PS3 was giving us IQ, and frame rate wise.

But as with tech, people always want more I guess. Like when this PS4K comes out, and maybe we hear rumblings of whatever the full next generational console is, people will say PS4K still isn't enough.
 
So what benefits would a person who doesn't have a 4k TV gain from this

If dev put a little more effort, they should make 4K version and 1080p version with better AA, shadows all the Jazz.
Yup, dev going to make 3 different setting profile for one game from now on, PS4, PS4K with 4K tv, PS4K without 4K tv.
 
Huh. At 60fps you'd be sampling controller Input and rendering twice as much per second, that's way more than 30-40ms of tv input lag.

Well, then I finally have a proper excuse for sucking in GTS...

Seriously, "Pro-Gamers" will pay a shitload of money for every advantage they can get. The rest will most likely not be aware of that "severe" impact. And and the end of the day: If you suck, you suck, no PS4k advantage will change that.

So what benefits would a person who doesn't have a 4k TV gain from this

He or she can finally justify to abandon that lame-ass 60" Full-HD and buy that nice 65" 4k TV. I am fed up living in the stone age.
 
Who is the earthly HECK thinks this is a good idea?!?!

I do for one.

JESUS CHRIST! So do some people want the PS4 to also play PS5 games?

No, of course not. That's like suggesting that Apple should still be supporting the iPhone 3 or PC games should still support GeForce 4. Old hardware needs retiring, it's a question of timing.

Do people realize that this will forever hold back the future consoles from reaching their true capability?

Yeah, people keep saying that, personally I don't see it. I'm sure it hasn't been that much of a headache on other platforms. But hey, what do I know, the only games I've ever written were 2D sprite based monstrosities in Scratch or Basic.
 
Marty Chinn said:
So yes, PC games have always been held back by consoles
The only reason PC gets high-budget productions in the first place are the consoles - so no, they never held it back, financial realities of the marketplace do.
 
The only reason PC gets high-budget productions in the first place are the consoles - so no, they never held it back, financial realities of the marketplace do.

He is saying held back from a graphics stand point and that is true...but like you said they wouldn't even get most of these games at all if it werent for consoles.
 
Nope. If they targeted high end PCs, then we will have got reveal quality graphics for Watch Dogs and Witcher 3 on PC. But they didn't shoot that high because they knew PS4 and XBO versions would look like shit if they targeted a much higher spec.

Also, we have seen how extra developer effort can get us up to a 50% increase in performance (Witcher 3 swamp area in the PS4).

And they put extra effort in console versions of the game because they were showing the XBO version to market the game. Just imagine how much worse would The Witcher 3 have looked in PS4/XBO if developers had targeted PS4k specs and had much less available time to do each version. It would have looked and run like shit, and we would have accepted it because, well, the PS4 is underpowered, it can't do better.

And that's what's going to happen very soon if PS4k and XBO.5 have any kind of success.

We have seen it happen many times. The only way to prevent developers from doing shitty ports for your 2-3 years old hardware is having an enormous install base. While the PS4 was selling around 20 million consoles a year, that was guaranteed. Once buyers start choosing PS4k instead of PS4, developers are going to be less and less enticed to target og PS4. They will just target the most powerful system, use that material as advertising and hide the og PS4 version under the rug until launch.

PS4 is going to start with a 50M or more head start. It's sales pace is only going to pick up. Look at any console sales, the lower the price point, the higher the sales. PS4 best selling months are ahead of it. "Any kind of success" for the PS4K is not going to stop that. The PS4K will not outsell the PS4 for any sustained amount of time and will not have a higher instal base on PS4 until the PS4 is no longer supported.

PS4K is just another SKU to optimize for, and with so much similarity in hardware architecture, it's easier than ever. No one is going to have to outsource that like the did for PS4 vs. PS3, it will all be handled in house.

No one thinks that the existence of the XB1 has made the PS4 shit, or the NX coming out is going to make the PS4 shit, those are all additional platforms to optimize for. The hyperbole about developers not being able to optimize on SKUs, especially since they are already doing it is ridiculous.

You are taking a zero-sum approach to this argument. If developers have more to think about, everything suffers. Hell, if the developers decide to make an additional hour of the game, by your logic, every existing bit of the game is going to be less optimized and "Shit" right?

AAA game developers are good at what they do, and deal with a lot of complexity, a lot more than worrying about very similar platforms to optimize for. Give them some credit to be able to adapt and appropriately approach situations.
 
So Sony could just wait a few years and release a PS5 and risk MS making a comeback and overhauling them. Or they can release a PS4K and switch to an incremental model and effectively guarantee maintaining dominance of the market. Obviously they're gonna want to make the switch.

The only reason it hasn't happened earlier was because technology was moving too quickly and also development tools/ecosystems/architectures weren't mature and stable enough to allow for reasonable forwards compatibility.
 
The only reason PC gets high-budget productions in the first place are the consoles - so no, they never held it back, financial realities of the marketplace do.

Yes, and those financial realities rely on the console version which in turn means they have to make sure the game runs well on consoles and thus the visual fidelity of the game is held back by consoles. They would never make a game that a console couldn't handle because you wouldn't be able sell it on a console. So no matter how you slice it the reliance on consoles holds back the potential of what you can do on a PC.
 
He is saying held back from a graphics stand point and that is true...but like you said they wouldn't even get most of these games at all if it werent for consoles.

Its not very true. we're at a point where the primary differences are really AA, Shadows, textures, and resolution (linked to textures), and lighting.

But it's not consoles only at fault but Nvidia's as well closing down certain tech to their GPUs alone with how some things are rendered.

It's really everyone's fault including the industry itself
 
Should see the outrage on the FF XV downgrade thread, it's witcher 3 all over again.

I have been very satisfied with PS4. Even though I play a lot of multiplayer games on my PC. I do think PS4 was a pretty damn good step up from what PS3 was giving us IQ, and frame rate wise.

But as with tech, people always want more I guess. Like when this PS4K comes out, and maybe we hear rumblings of whatever the full next generational console is, people will say PS4K still isn't enough.

I mean this has been the point all along hasn't it? with so much media out there people are seeing these alpha builds of games running on powerful pcs and then when a 399 machine struggles they go crazy like they deserved much better (maybe they did too, but unfortunately 399 isn't a lot to throw around on pc equipment)....
Now Sony is saying well if we can get cheaper and better parts in the future lets upgrade this thing, and people will love it. but hey it's still gonna be a 399 machine, just 399 in 2016 dollars lol.
I'm totally happy with my ps4 but will upgrade when I feel like it.
 
Its not very true. we're at a point where the primary differences are really AA, Shadows, textures, and resolution (linked to textures), and lighting.

But it's not consoles only at fault but Nvidia's as well closing down certain tech to their GPUs alone with how some things are rendered.

It's really everyone's fault including the industry itself

It is true. Even the devs behind The Witcher 3 said the game would not exist without consoles. Publishers aren't willing to fund that high budget of a game as a PC exlcusive. There is a reason why most pc exclusives these days have tame visuals. Too much of a risk. Look at Star Citizen. Crowd funded.
 
Its not very true. we're at a point where the primary differences are really AA, Shadows, textures, and resolution (linked to textures), and lighting.

But it's not consoles only at fault but Nvidia's as well closing down certain tech to their GPUs alone with how some things are rendered.

It's really everyone's fault including the industry itself

So the only difference between a PS3 and PS4 is AA, shadows, textures, resolution and lighting?

giphy.gif
 
Yes, and those financial realities rely on the console version which in turn means they have to make sure the game runs well on consoles and thus the visual fidelity of the game is held back by consoles. They would never make a game that a console couldn't handle because you wouldn't be able sell it on a console. So no matter how you slice it the reliance on consoles holds back the potential of what you can do on a PC.

Following this to its logical conclusion PC's hold themselves back by virtue of not all PC owners having a Titan and people holding on to their 5 year old GPU.
 
It is true. Even the devs behind The Witcher 3 said the game would not exist without consoles. Publishers aren't willing to fund that high budget of a game as a PC exlcusive. There is a reason why most pc exclusives these days have tame visuals. Too much of a risk. Look at Star Citizen. Crowd funded.

What are you even getting at? Maybe that the market was primarily on console and not PC which then you only have the PC community to blame
 
Yes, and those financial realities rely on the console version which in turn means they have to make sure the game runs well on consoles and thus the visual fidelity of the game is held back by consoles. They would never make a game that a console couldn't handle because you wouldn't be able sell it on a console. So no matter how you slice it the reliance on consoles holds back the potential of what you can do on a PC.

This is true but also highly overstated. PCs aren't blowing away these games maxed at 4K 60fps. Just the other day in the Pascal thread I saw someone lamenting that even 980Ti SLI is not enough for modern games at 4K. Most High End systems do have to turn down settings to maintain 1080p60.

While the base target may be lower, developers are implementing features to get the most out of our cards, so it's not wholly accurate to say PC hardware is being held back.
 
Since there isn't any real architecture changes, and there is likely no truly exotic customizations, they don't need anything close right now. There have been instances in past generations where the truly close final kits that really represented what's in the final console didn't make it to some of the devs until much closer to launch.

I guess we'll have to wait and see. I'm surprised no leaks about the dev kit came before the Kotaku story to be honest.
 
Top Bottom