A PC rig lasts far longer than a console. It's more frontloaded in price, but that's quickly made up for. It's more the logical conclusion of, if they're going to be upgrading every few years instead of 5-6, may as well take the platform that does it best and reap the other benefits too. In addition to having far better graphical fidelity than consoles even with a low-mid-range PC.
Kotaku: Sony is working on a PS4.5; briefing devs on plans for a more powerful PS4
- Thread starter shinobi602
- Start date
A PC rig lasts far longer than a console. It's more frontloaded in price, but that's quickly made up for. It's more the logical conclusion of, if they're going to be upgrading every few years instead of 5-6, may as well take the platform that does it best and reap the other benefits too. In addition to having far better graphical fidelity than consoles even with a low-mid-range PC.
Marvel
could never
I just bought the new quieter matte model myself last month as my white one sounded like a leafblower, still happy to buy the PS4K at launch.I just bought one this Christmas
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
I still do not see it. If consoles do not upgrade, you stay? If they offer an upgrade, that does not effect your current machine, you jump ship to the PC realm of upgrading? Why not just 'stay' on the model you have and skip the upgrade? It would be the same shit, lol.
I still think some are disingenuous drive by postings. Even while I am on the fence and skeptical with some concerns, I never would say, "Consoles having more power options every 3-4 years? Fuck that, I am going PC which has more power options sometimes twice a year! I want them to stay 5-6 years or bust."
GamerMax73
Member
I feel has if I'm missing something. Doesn't the PS4 have 8Gb unified Ram? Aren't existing games made using memory maps based on this space availability? Even if all the Ram isn't being used there's no second guessing which address locations a dev used in their game. Doesn't that mean that halving the available memory, or going back to a conventional split Ram architecture (4Gb System/4Gb Graphics), would break backwards compatibility? Using 4Gb HBM in place of 8Gb GDDR5 makes no sense to me what-so-ever. Hell, I'd have nievely thought more Ram is better than faster bandwidth because you can spend less time loading assets from slower hard drives...no?
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Do not worry, they will not do the HBM on the 'upgrade'. It would make no sense financially, as well as what you mentioned. HBM should be thrown out the window right now as far as thought process in guessing. I do not expect to see it until PS5 if anything with HBM2 possibly.
They'd continue to play on consoles because it's worth the investment. If to them the consoles are no longer worth the investment as they edge closer and closer to PCs, then PC starts to look way more attractive. Go hard or go home - a fully modular PC is more attractive than having to replace a console every 3-4 years for many in the cost department. To me, trying to drive the narrative 'oh you're just being a whiny baby let me tell you why you won't do that' is disingenuous.
Caayn
Member
Because if consoles do follow the upgrade path, you might as well go to the platform that allows you to choose your own upgrades.
The logic behind that is not that strange.
GamerMax73
Member
Oh, I'm not worried, I'm just curious about the logic of people suggesting either 4Gb Ram and/or HBM. Given the PS4 architecture it seems a strange thing to be suggesting.
Beerman462
Member
Looking at the end of last gen we got games that ran at 30fps, but dropped to low 20s. I feel like a slightly more powerful PS4.5 would just eliminate those drops . So original PS4 owners will have drops like the end of last gen while PS4.5 will not.
I prefer the PC upgrade route. The way things look it's going to be a new CPU/Mobo, and Ram every 5 years. A new GPU every two or three years. Depending on how much you can get out of your old set ups you could keep costs pretty low.
I prefer the PC upgrade route. The way things look it's going to be a new CPU/Mobo, and Ram every 5 years. A new GPU every two or three years. Depending on how much you can get out of your old set ups you could keep costs pretty low.
I think he was referring about the actual ps4 bandwith and the 4k support. If it's not, the only problem of the hardware is not surely the bandwidth. Everyone knows just cpu it's the weaker point of the ps4.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Hence why I edited to say 'some'. Sure there are those who needed that push to do so for PC, but there are just as many being very disingenuous (just reacting and not being 100% honest). Again, you are not forced to upgrade anything, supposedly. At this point it is the envy or want playing a role as well.
It will help with the PSVR I am sure, but the breakout box will always be there this iteration of PSVR, and I would guess not integrated until the 'PS5'.
If compute can be used to re-project 60fps to 120fps & it can be used to up-render SD PS2 games to HD PS2 games on PS4 what make you think that added compute & new hardware can't be used to up-render 1080P PS4 games to 4K.
I just want to see Dreams in 4K.
The Artisan
Member
How do you mean? I guess I am a little confused because I've heard conflicting explanations of this new hardware being exactly the same as what we have now, only difference being it is 4K ready, to the new hardware being a decently overhauled upgrade in hardware for better graphics and what not.
What's the other way of concern?
Na yo, I can't treat console gaming the same way. It simply isn't the same. Not for me.
I know I don't have to but I already explained my stance on this on the last page. If I were a PC gamer, I would always want the ample tech to play and work with, and it is of my understanding that new parts come out every 2-3 years and that's spending at least $100 every 2-3 on just hardware. And I don't want to do that.
And now that's happening with console gaming; I would want the ample hardware for my platform of choice (PlayStation) to work/play with and for the past 3 generations it's been one set of hardware for the whole generation so better or worse hardware was never a headache for me and that's going to be it with this Ps4K shit; it means buying new hardware 2-3 years, in the same generation, and I'd have to do that to get the ample hardware to work with, and I don't want to do that. So I don't want in on console gaming at all if that's how it will be.
Uhh, what? This gen started in 2013, late 2013. It's the start of year 3 for this gen, and gens are usually 5-6 years long...there's no way anyone was expecting Ps5 this year.
nekkid
It doesn't matter who we are, what matters is our plan.
No they can't. Leaked plans for the launch of the PS4.5 include Shu visiting every existing PS4 owner and smashing the shit out of the one they already have.
They're saying that if PS3 launched in 2006 and was on a normal 5 year cycle, PS4 would have been 2011 and PS5 would be this year.
GamerMax73
Member
Current Console: single consistent hardware platform, single model, develop for 1 develop for 38m (sic)
Current PC: 2 CPU manufactures with more SKU's each than I have fingers at speeds from <1Ghz to >4Ghz. 3 GPU manufactures with 3-4 current product ranges each and multiple speed/memory configurations.
Future Console: single consistent hardware platform, two models, develop for 1 run on both
Future PC: 2 CPU manufactures with more SKU's each than I have fingers at speeds from <1Ghz to >4Ghz. 3 GPU manufactures with 3-4 current product ranges each and multiple speed/memory configurations.
You want to choose components why? Surely if it's that important you'd be a hardcore PC gamer already?
The way I see it is that there are potential problems that come with upgraded consoles. Fragmented multiplayer communities for one. If I'm playing Destiny 2 at 30fps while my competition plays at 60fps on the PS4K, there's nothing I can really do about that. On PC, I'd at least be able to tweak settings to make things better.
Then there's the fear that developers will put less time into whatever version of the game you own. People would not be happy with God of War 4 playing at a solid 4K30fps on the new PS4 while the OGPS4 runs it with dips below 30. Again, this kind of thing is tweakable on PC.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Good point. An aspect some are not paying attention to, and instead focusing on 'raw power needed' for the 'native task' due to PC comparisons.
This happens now on not only the PC, but between the Xbox One vs PS4 in DF threads.
Nothing will change in retrospect, only a new player to argue over.
Seeing how the leaks also said all PS4 games will still be the same, even on this, I am leaning towards a reprojection to 4K, since this is a common theme right now between VR framerate, and PS2 upscaling/framerate.
That's my expectation. This new model is most likely limited to improving existing PSVR experiences and supporting 4K TVs and Blu-Rays. That's it. Games need not even change.
And you are basing this on what? If anything, the cable mess of the launch PSVR is *exactly* what a revised PS4 could be designed to address. That is my biggest hope along with 4K Blu-Ray support (which feels almost given at this point).
Well it isn't overwhemingly negative responses here, I feel like it's 50/50 which seems about right.
I personally welcome the change
Blackleg-sanji1
Banned
This is still happening in here? Thats a shame
The Artisan
Member
Oh I see. This is off topic but I'm also in the minority of appreciating that last gen was an extra few years long. I'd rather generations be longer like that tbh
duhmetree
Member
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but there are certain thresholds, when crossed, where more VRAM would be beneficial. We need high VRAM in GDDR5 to receive higher bandwidth to break the 'bottleneck'. More 'brute forcing' things. Just look at the Fury X, 4GB can run 4K30 because of it's bandwidth. With a new GPU and GCN4.0, 4GB HBM should only improve/stabalize at 4K30
I believe console gaming (AAA) will not need more than 4GB in the immediate future and that games will benefit most from the added bandwidth. Ideally, it would be nice to have both. That's why I'm hoping for a dual-linked interposer or something of that nature.
AMD/SKhynix are heavily invested in the technology. It seems as if a lot of companies will skip over the 1st generation of HBM, moving straight towards HBM2.. It would make business sense for them to sell it to consoles to receive some form of return on R&D... Maximizing profits from each generation of HBM.
This is obviously all conjecture and opinion.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Basing it off of heat, form factor, extra ports needed, PSU, etc., (The breakout box has it's own fan supposedly).
But we will see come E3 I suppose.
blastprocessor
The Amiga Brotherhood
I just bought one this Christmas
Who said its only for Christmas?
Beerman462
Member
What does this mean? 30fps? 60fps? Max settings, console equivalent settings, minimum settings.?
The great thing about the PC is you set your hardware based off of what you can tolerate.
It's most likely going to be more than $100 every couple of years though. I think you could safely spend $300 every 2-3yrs on a GPU and $300 every 5-6yrs on CPU, Mobo and Ram and get 60fps in most games.
The Artisan
Member
The most max that you can get, yeah. And as newer hardware goes up, so does the ceiling for the max settings, yeah?
What do you mean tolerate?
Well that's worse than I thought and it's proving my point.
How is that the same thing? PS4 and XBO players don't compete against each other, and the PS4 that everyone has now is the only system that can play Uncharted 4
Beerman462
Member
I really like 60fps, but I can tolerate 30fps and even lower at times. I bought Dark Souls 2 on PS3 a month before the PC release, because I couldn't wait. It ran at sub 30fps alot, but I didn't care. The Xbox 360 version ran better and I could have bought it there, but it had tearing and I can't tolerate tearing.
My top priorites on the PC are 30fps+, no tearing and native resolution. After that I want good textures and AF.
Alot of max settings are a total waste. Usually medium is enough.
Futurematic
Member
GamerMax73
Member
I ask to try and learn something new myself.
The PS4 doesn't have any VRAM per say. At least not in the dedicated conventional sense. Dev's may not be using even 4Gb of what the PS4 does have for video, or they can be using more - I'm not a dev, I wouldn't know. The point is the PS4's Ram is unified and is used for everything and anything, not just graphics. Whether they only need 4Gb of VRAM or not is entirely academic, the system needs at least 8Gb Ram total for everything. If faster memory tech can't provide that then it can't be used.
The Artisan
Member
That sounds more like personal preference to me than what someone could or could not tolerate.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
You are not comprehending what I said, since I replied to both of your comments (so it could be my fault).
People have always dealt with power advantages in online games on the PC, and there is only so much you can do to try and shrink that gap (outside of some MMO's framerate capping). There will always be some 120fps gamers, where you struggle to get 45fps gaming online. That is on the network code side to 'even the playing field'.
The second part of people 'not being happy or thinking they could have done more', is the same shit when you see 'parity' claims on DF threads between the PS4/One now. So the narrative remains the same, only an extra player. While it is fine to have those concerns, the leaks do not suggest that at all, especially when one of the original specifics, are the PS4 games to be developed the same way as they are now.
Beerman462
Member
That doesn't even make sense. I personally cannot tolerate tearing. The PC settings are obviously my preference based off what I will or will not tolerate while gaming.
The Artisan
Member
Exactly. Are you listening to yourself?
Okay maybe to give you perspective, in terms of PC hardware I wouldn't tolerate anything but the best; that'd be my personal preference but in order to keep up with it I'd have to buy new hardware every 2-3 years, apparently at a cost of at least $300 each time
Going back to the point of PCs being more appealing than iterative consoles, some people would rather be able to tweak their performance gap even if it's by a little bit, vs not being able to do anything at all (PS4 vs PS4K)
I don't think leaving your first customers behind performance wise is the same thing as PS4/X1 parity.
duhmetree
Member
I'm talking about a complete new architecture for the 'PS4K'. IF 4G HBM were to be used, we would have dedicated system RAM and VRAM. Only way unified RAM would work is if some new tech would allow 8GB HBM.
Optimization, for the devs, would work the same way it currently does for the PS3 to PS4. Moving forward they would drop the PS3, with the PS4 taking it's place and add the PS4K. Sony and devs will still support 2 consoles for the foreseeable future.
edit- the one possible issues I see, is online play.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Then those people would have a PC and this does not effect them, I do not get the argument here? What am I missing with what you just said?
Why are you ignoring that the leak said PS4 games will still be designed as is? Nothing will change with that supposedly, hence why the 'reproduction to 4K' theory seems more solid.
GamerMax73
Member
But a complete new architecture is a non-starter, it would break backwards compatibility. Existing PS4 games would not run on PS4.5 machines. I wouldn't even expect Ps5 to break with a complete new architecture at this stage, especially if PS4.5 is a thing.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
No but they're not banned
Beerman462
Member
Yes are you?
I originally said
You as in you personally. We are saying the same thing. I think you just want to argue.
Your second point doesn't make a lot of sense either, but I'm not going down that path. The inexplicable need of people to "Max" settings on PC at the detriment of performance, yet be perfectly content accepting what ever presets developers give you on consoles.
Your basically saying that when it was just the PS4 you could ignore the superior PC performance, but you can't ignore the PS4.5?
I'm as confused as both our avatars.
What was this?
my"beef" is you constantly called it a bad idea when i brought up the idea of a premium ps4 up a while back not taking anything into consideration. it is well known you prefer your xb1 and i was just connecting the dot when you changed your mind so quickly to accepting this idea as soon as phil talked about uwp and possibility of upgraded hardware coming out. if you think i was wrong with that assumption then so be it but at the end of the day you changed your position not me.
with regards to struggling to say something lol, i just didn't want to bother continuing the conversation like i said in the other thread that i knew you were just going to keep arguing you didn't mean what you said which was pretty clear on where you stood a few months back but keep fighting the good fight
In the beginning it seemed like you didn't understand why people were saying they'd rather get a PC than continue with upgraded consoles.
And where does it say in the Kotaku leak that development won't change? The article actually says "...developers would have an opportunity to push more effects and other graphical tweaks to make their games look better".
The more interesting part of this is that we've come to the end of disruptive console generations. Whatever is the next console from Sony, whether it's called PS4k or PS5, it's going to also be based on FreeBSD, the x86 architecture and use the same PSN infrastructure. It's not going to be like earlier in this generation, where for example Destiny PS4 and Destiny PS3 existed separately from each other, and demanded significant development resources, different servers, and different purchases from the consumer.
Given that we've reached that point in services, software and hardware architecture on the console side, things like cross play between generations are a given. Or cross buy: why make two different discs for two different platforms when it's the exact same code running, just at different graphical presets?
And once you got to that point, why only make bigger jumps every 5 years when you can seamlessly make a jump every 3 years? And by seamlessly, I mean: it would be more expensive to build the original APU from 2013 in 2017 than to make a faster, better APU for cheaper. Why artificially build slower hardware then?
The fears that as soon as a new box comes out the current one is invalidated are not without merit, as that's exactly how the current transition worked out. But the situation is clearly different here, we've reached a new level in technology where things can evolve. Sony and Microsoft would do well to communicate that fact by keeping and actively promoting both the new and old platforms as one. For example, releasing a brand new slim PS4 and PS4k simultaneously at price points like $299 and $449, with the same product branding and all, would send a clear message that they're not dropping an old platform to support a new one.
Given that we've reached that point in services, software and hardware architecture on the console side, things like cross play between generations are a given. Or cross buy: why make two different discs for two different platforms when it's the exact same code running, just at different graphical presets?
And once you got to that point, why only make bigger jumps every 5 years when you can seamlessly make a jump every 3 years? And by seamlessly, I mean: it would be more expensive to build the original APU from 2013 in 2017 than to make a faster, better APU for cheaper. Why artificially build slower hardware then?
The fears that as soon as a new box comes out the current one is invalidated are not without merit, as that's exactly how the current transition worked out. But the situation is clearly different here, we've reached a new level in technology where things can evolve. Sony and Microsoft would do well to communicate that fact by keeping and actively promoting both the new and old platforms as one. For example, releasing a brand new slim PS4 and PS4k simultaneously at price points like $299 and $449, with the same product branding and all, would send a clear message that they're not dropping an old platform to support a new one.
Nein.
I'm going to take this as subtle confirmation that he was right and that Kagari is now in on the secret.
D:
He was the insider that leaked some Sony E3 stuff last year, and was actively fanning this PS4K (or PS4.5) rumour when news first broke out. For instance, this is the stuff he's hinted at in the other PS4k thread:
He was teasing stuff again, this time in this thread, but Kagari asked him to PM her and show some proof.
He hasn't replied since then, but he also hasn't been banned, and that has....implications.