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...
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
PS4K information (~2x GPU power w/ clock+, new CPU, price, tent. Q1 2017)
- Thread starter OsirisBlack
- Start date
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...
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?
Going from $300 to $200 with the same profit margin? Never.
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:
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.
People must realize the hit in games is alresdy here,without a PS4K.Jaguar cores are a laugh.
Yep, you guys are right. I had it backwards. At least I gave both so I hope that answered the question.
I have a Gtx 970.
It'll run the same game a Titan will run. Just not as well.
What am i missing?
Semantics. I would call the difference between 30 and 60fps "significant" for example.
From the info we have so far, it really is this simple.
Change is scary and people assume the worst.
Don't forget i am talking about Xmas \ Back Friday time.
It's not about profit margin around that time.
I can see PS4 going $250 but only lower around times like that .
Imo $249 will be the lowest, and for a brief time period (BF).
Why would that make you nervous?
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.
As would I, but how many people have purchased a PS4 so far and been happy with the experience it offers?
Yea, he was cool. I asked him some questions and he was awesome in giving answers and his opinion from a industry perspective.
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.
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..
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.
no, because it is crap.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I do for one.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
I'm sure games will still look better on regular 1080p tvs.
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
Wow. no hyperbole to your fear-mongering at all...
Upscaled then downscaled back is going to have no difference in result of visual fidelity. It's only when rendered at a higher res and then downscaled do you get visual improvements.
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.
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.
So the only difference between a PS3 and PS4 is AA, shadows, textures, resolution and lighting?
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.
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
So the only difference between a PS3 and PS4 is AA, shadows, textures, resolution and lighting?
Quite true for cross gen titles, especially those from Japan.
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.
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.