GlamFM
Banned
I would look at a game like The Witcher 3 and see how it scales between PS4 and PC.
It´s not "shit" on PS4, but it looks better on PC.
It was always developed with current gen consoles in mind to target the biggest possible audience.
PS4K information (~2x GPU power w/ clock+, new CPU, price, tent. Q1 2017)
- Thread starter OsirisBlack
- Start date
I would look at a game like The Witcher 3 and see how it scales between PS4 and PC.
It´s not "shit" on PS4, but it looks better on PC.
It was always developed with current gen consoles in mind to target the biggest possible audience.
Is a PS4k thread?
I guess the hardest thing is how long will this be a thing? At some point developer will push for the PS4K and less attention will be put on PS4. PS4 will still have really nice looking games but when the focus will be on 'The PS4K just does it better' where does that leave the old PS4?
TheLegendOfMart
Banned
Please.
They do it now, they push the consoles to their limits with effects to get them running loosely at 1080p30.
They will make pretty looking games for the PS4K that they can use in sizzle reels at trade shows and PS4 will get the cheap, quickly optimised, minimum amount of work to get them running "acceptably" games.
Witcher is the exception to the rule, CD Projekt have always been consumer orientated with the DRM stance and no bullshit approach.
Do you really think game farms like EA, Ubisoft, Activision will do everything they can to optimise games for the lesser console regardless of install base.
Just look at Xbox One games with downgraded res and choppy framerates.
GlamFM
Banned
Once PS4K lifetime sales get close to the PS4.
texhnolyze
Banned
Devs wouldn't want to do that (if they're smart enough) while their biggest market is the PS4 users. Except if the PS4K can surpass PS4 numbers in a year or two, which is highly unlikely if not impossible.
blastprocessor
The Amiga Brotherhood
PS4 extra sauce is probably more likely.
GlamFM
Banned
That´s because they are targeting the largest install base - and that´s the PS4.
Same thing last gen where games ran better on 360.
The PS4 has 40 million arguments against shitty ports.
And if that is indeed what ends up happening, both the devs and Sony will deserve what would be coming to them.
But I highly doubt that will be the case, unless they are morons.
This being said, what do you call "running acceptably"? Because if that is a "mostly" 30fps 1080p, that is what we are getting right now without the PS4K.
wapplew
Member
So PS4K will get shitty port, as in not much enhancement.
TheLegendOfMart
Banned
I understand what we get now. It all depends how devs use that extra power. This gen they kept 30fps so they could slap effects on.
Whats going to happen if they keep on the trend and PS4K gets really pretty 1080p30 upscaled games.
So Sony is going to bring out a console that costs £200/$200 more and it's just going to get slightly better looking PS4 games because the PS4 has 40m units?
Rhazer Fusion
Member
If the PS4K does play games in 4K then what is the point of it? Sure, it will most likely boost more visually impressive games due to more powerful architecture, but imo without native 4K support it will not probably surpass the PS4 enough to justify another $500 investment.
GlamFM
Banned
Why are you dead set on one of the two having to be "shit"?
How about both good?
I mean... I know this is the internet and something has to be shit, but...
c´mon..
wapplew
Member
Well, that's one possible outcome.
We could get PS4 shit port, PS4K shit port or both good port. Real world experience told us it won't be only both good.
Sony dropped the option of having another OS ages ago, they won't suddenly open up to use SteamOS, which is hardly making any traction.
Unless Sony actually enforce their own style of Parity i.e. PS4 has to be of this standard and the PS4K can go above that. Where that lands Sony is another matter all together because fans really hate anything that suggests Parity with a lesser system.
jimbobsmells
Member
Man people are so certain that the PS4 is going to be dropped like a stone huh? Let's just ignore all those XB1 owners too shall we?
If PS4k sits between the current PS4 and PC in terms of performance then it seems simple to me - PS4 carries on as normal, PS4k gets an experience closer to PC. PC gets high end visuals as usual.
If PS4k sits between the current PS4 and PC in terms of performance then it seems simple to me - PS4 carries on as normal, PS4k gets an experience closer to PC. PC gets high end visuals as usual.
You don't know that for a fact either.
Today games target PCs with well over 2x PS4 performance already. The PS4 versions look just fine.
Depends what is important to you.
Playing 4K upscaled games, 4K BD player and having (potentially, we are still talking about a rumor after all) a new baseline at 1080p60 for games would be pretty significant to many I think. #shrug
Personally I don't have a 4K TV and am fine with 1080p30 games, so atm no plan to upgrade, but when eventually I go for a 4K TV I'll be glad to trade a PS4 for a "PS4K" ... I think.
small44
Member
They never asked extra power on consoles.
Why they only stopped support last gen consoles just now with cross gen games then?
Right, but sometimes ports are shit, and you can't draw a definitive causal line between that and the existence of PS4K or not.
jhmtehgamr20xx
Banned
I'm now of the idea that, if Sony wants to push PSVR hard and the stock PS4 wasn't enough, why not simply throw the idea of the PS4K in the PSVR? Just hear me out.
The PSVR already has the breakout box to assist w/ VR. Why not just add the CPU/GPU to the breakout box for some processing offload? Sure it's not as optimal as having all of that horsepower on one motherboard in the system, but I'm sure Sony's engineers and Mark Cerny could have come up with an attractive solution to the problems it'd present, while still getting desired performance gains. And seeing that it probably would not cost them more than $100 or so for the CPU/GPU combo, that'd keep the PSVR solo around $499 and the combo for $599, the same price as the Oculus combo.
But here's the thing: by doing that they'd now have the extra processing power for the VR they envision taking hold, and it'd all be allocated to one piece of hardware instead of two. So in essence, it doesn't spread the target demographic too thin. Now for the best VR experience you're asking for $800 (assuming PS4K is $400), $900 for those that need the bundle unit, and for what, just a bit more horsepower than the solution being proposed here? Just how exactly does that look to current PS4 owners w/ the OG systems?
Here's the other thing; PS4 as-is can handle 4K media playback just fine. So if the 4K up-rendering feature that seems to be a part of the PS4K's push is a thing, why not just aggregate that to the PSVR unit? In this way you can actually drive the PSVR even more because you're adding more value to it instead of splitting value between two products, one of which (PS4K) is redundant in this scenario. People who don't care for VR or 4K up-rendered games can get by just fine w/ regular PS4, but those who want VR and/or 4K up-rendered games and higher game fidelity can get PSVR. This gives PSVR on its own even more selling power, because the chances are likely a lot of the people who'd want PSVR would also want what the PS4K can offer, but just as likely, a lot of them are conflicted w/ the fact they could be spread thin between the two devices as they currently are.
The PSVR already has the breakout box to assist w/ VR. Why not just add the CPU/GPU to the breakout box for some processing offload? Sure it's not as optimal as having all of that horsepower on one motherboard in the system, but I'm sure Sony's engineers and Mark Cerny could have come up with an attractive solution to the problems it'd present, while still getting desired performance gains. And seeing that it probably would not cost them more than $100 or so for the CPU/GPU combo, that'd keep the PSVR solo around $499 and the combo for $599, the same price as the Oculus combo.
But here's the thing: by doing that they'd now have the extra processing power for the VR they envision taking hold, and it'd all be allocated to one piece of hardware instead of two. So in essence, it doesn't spread the target demographic too thin. Now for the best VR experience you're asking for $800 (assuming PS4K is $400), $900 for those that need the bundle unit, and for what, just a bit more horsepower than the solution being proposed here? Just how exactly does that look to current PS4 owners w/ the OG systems?
Here's the other thing; PS4 as-is can handle 4K media playback just fine. So if the 4K up-rendering feature that seems to be a part of the PS4K's push is a thing, why not just aggregate that to the PSVR unit? In this way you can actually drive the PSVR even more because you're adding more value to it instead of splitting value between two products, one of which (PS4K) is redundant in this scenario. People who don't care for VR or 4K up-rendered games can get by just fine w/ regular PS4, but those who want VR and/or 4K up-rendered games and higher game fidelity can get PSVR. This gives PSVR on its own even more selling power, because the chances are likely a lot of the people who'd want PSVR would also want what the PS4K can offer, but just as likely, a lot of them are conflicted w/ the fact they could be spread thin between the two devices as they currently are.
dead monkey uk
Member
I think the name is great, a PS4 upgraded for 4K content. I can see the marketing now, 'PS4K' with the '4K in gold.
Why does anyone have to get the shitty port. PS4 games run at 1080P/30 or 900/60 as they are now, with the PS4K offering 1080/60 with improved textures/shadows etc (with PR around 4K upscaling for games)
Sony offering a PS4 at $299.99 and a PS4K at $399 - $499 sounds great.
Developers always want more power, its the reason we keep having new generations of consoles instead of still playing with the SNES.
Every time a developer makes a game and has to make compromises on that system, its because they are either (a) Not a great developer or (b) the system is just not good enough to do what they want to do. It happens to ever developer, since their dreams and ideas will always need bring back to tech reality.
There will always be a cross over for old and new gen, its how they keep making money while also slowly dropping off support.
Supposing that this isn't an elaborate April 1st prank using the previous rumors, I will give my two cents about this.
One thing I've been thinking is a previous rumor that said that most of the new GPU power wouldn't be available to devs. That's odd. What's even stranger is the whole 4K upscaling thing. 1080p to 4K is a linear scaling, you don't need to worry about losing IQ, it's not like 900p to 1080p where you have to do something to keep IQ.
Now what if the PS4K just renders all games exactly like the current model does.No upgrades or simply minor performance/visual improvements. In this scenario, the PS4K would finish rendering a frame faster than the current model, so it would have some milliseconds to spare during rendering. Maybe it will use this time to:
1 - Upscale the image to 4K
2 - Apply a good AA solutions such as MSAA, removing partially the jaggies of a 1080p image on a 4K display.
As we know, it couldn't run native 4K games, but upscaling + AA would result in an image closer in quality to a native 4K image than simply a 1080p frame upscaled linearly. So PS4K would be capable of native 4K video and high quality 4K upscaled games. Devs also wouldn't have any extra workload because it would just be a regular PS4 game with a "free" high quality upscaling included. It would also fit the strategy of selling more 4K TVs since it would help solving the current lack of 4K content. That upscaling solution would also help PSVR when dealing with games that would potentially be 900p.
One thing I've been thinking is a previous rumor that said that most of the new GPU power wouldn't be available to devs. That's odd. What's even stranger is the whole 4K upscaling thing. 1080p to 4K is a linear scaling, you don't need to worry about losing IQ, it's not like 900p to 1080p where you have to do something to keep IQ.
Now what if the PS4K just renders all games exactly like the current model does.No upgrades or simply minor performance/visual improvements. In this scenario, the PS4K would finish rendering a frame faster than the current model, so it would have some milliseconds to spare during rendering. Maybe it will use this time to:
1 - Upscale the image to 4K
2 - Apply a good AA solutions such as MSAA, removing partially the jaggies of a 1080p image on a 4K display.
As we know, it couldn't run native 4K games, but upscaling + AA would result in an image closer in quality to a native 4K image than simply a 1080p frame upscaled linearly. So PS4K would be capable of native 4K video and high quality 4K upscaled games. Devs also wouldn't have any extra workload because it would just be a regular PS4 game with a "free" high quality upscaling included. It would also fit the strategy of selling more 4K TVs since it would help solving the current lack of 4K content. That upscaling solution would also help PSVR when dealing with games that would potentially be 900p.
small44
Member
Developers always want more power, its the reason we keep having new generations of consoles instead of still playing with the SNES.
Every time a developer makes a game and has to make compromises on that system, its because they are either (a) Not a great developer or (b) the system is just not good enough to do what they want to do. It happens to ever developer, since their dreams and ideas will always need bring back to tech reality.
There will always be a cross over for old and new gen, its how they keep making money while also slowly dropping off support.
AAA games cost increase gen by gen so I'm sure devs want longer gen and not shorter gen.
TheLegendOfMart
Banned
It doesn't make sense to have a really powerful GPU and then not allow devs to use it.
Unless they have figured out a way to do VR processing within the extra power so it doesnt require a breakout box.
If it is simply a 4K upscaling console then I am OK with that.
Sony really needs to get out in front of this, all the rumours and split community is a mess.
Unless they have figured out a way to do VR processing within the extra power so it doesnt require a breakout box.
If it is simply a 4K upscaling console then I am OK with that.
Sony really needs to get out in front of this, all the rumours and split community is a mess.
I agree. The situation is completely out of control... they can't remain silent.
I think it'd be destructive to say nothing until E3.
David Ricardo
Member
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.
wapplew
Member
With the leak spec, I doubt PS4K could run 1080/60 without a CPU upgrade.
Dont expect them to spill the beans now... so close to Uncharted 4's release, a potential must have title that can push console sales.
Once the Uncharted 4 thing dies , then MAYBE they will come out and announce something.
But even then I dont expect them to, this is not something you can easily announce early, rather than when you are fully ready to push to the market.
Can you imagine what will happen to PS4 sales if sony comes out tomorrow and say that PS4K releases Q1 2017?
It will be savage.
cyberheater
PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
Sony won't do a trade in program.
WooHooAlex
Member
I'm sure retailers will take care of that. Gamestop always has some sort of trade-up bonus going on.
I'm inclined to believe that it was their intention to get this new out in the wild. Not only they get a good sample from the community's stance on such an upgrade, but they also get a fair portion of mindshare in the months leading up to e3.
I mean if what the OP says is true, he was on a smaller scale meeting and should be easy to identify him for Sony and the OP knows this. Yet he still posted the info here.
Damerman
Member
I mean the op says they don't have a determination yet.
The point is, the difference between the PS4K version and the PS4 version will be smaller and less noticeable than the difference between the PS4 version and the PS3 version that represents the 7 years tech difference. Whiners tend to forget this point too easily.
It's not practical for them to do one. They don't have thousands of stores where people could trade in their PS4s.
Gamestop does.
I don't think that the GPU will replace the breakout box, but I believe that they will include its hardware on the unit and launch a PSVR SKU without the box 20 or 30 dollar cheaper.
Also, I don't think they will comment the rumor. They are:
- Doing the PS4K: they can't deny it and launch it later anyway. Confirming it now would damage current PS4 sales.
- Just doing a cheaper, slim PS4: same as the previous.
- Doing a 400-500 bucks PS4K and a 200-250 bucks PS4 slim: again, same situation.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Can someone please explain to me what Forward Compatibility is?
It's possible of course but it is indeed a worst case scenario, and it's questionable how likely it is. Devs have historically targeted either the most popular console, or the lowest common denominator target for a given game. In multiplat scenarios. I'm not sure how often devs have targeted resources at the least popular, but most powerful, target at the expense of others? I'm sure there are probably cases of that but I don't think it's typical. Devs know that if they're perceived to be short changing original PS4 users, it's a dangerous game that could cost them sales. Especially now that - it seems - people, and the media perhaps, will be hyper sensitive to it in a new multi-sku generation model.
As I said earlier, I think if anything it might be 'PS4K' users who might feel a bit short-changed, initially anyway, as devs will probably target low hanging fruit rather than going all in on exploitation of the new model. Although low hanging fruit - IQ/framerate improvement beyond the standard - may be quite enough for the target audience I guess.
GamerMax73
Member
If there's any chance of this being a 'plan' for Sony then the PS4.5 will be a very bad buy. "We'll support PS4 for 8yrs (PS4.5 games will run on PS4) but if you buy a PS4.5 you'll be lucky if we support it beyond 3-4yrs".
Mmm, not a good business model. Better sticking with traditional console cycles than doing that IMHO
This is of course what we are hoping this is the start of, and really what I was getting at in my reply you quoted. It makes the most sense to me. Effectively overlapping generations.
- PS4 + PS4.5
- PS4.5 + PS5
- PS5 + PS5.5
- PS5.5 + PS6
- etc.
This is not the PC/iOS model, option 2 is the PC/iOS model. Option 3 is stark raving bonkers. It's like trying to get iOS 9 to install on an iPhone 3G, or Civilization V to play on an AMD K6 with Voodoo3 graphics - it just ain't gonna happen.
Why do people think an iterative model means Sony have to support the PS4 for all eternaty? The PS4 will and should have a natural life span be that 6,7,8,10,12 years, what ever. As should the PS4.5 and any console that follows.
I think everyone agrees with that sentiment, and logically it's the least likely scenario. It just doesn't make any sense at all.
dead monkey uk
Member
The leak mentions the CPU may be getting an upgrade that will effect the price.
Game you make for PS4 now will work on PS4K. So devs don't need to shift to a new platform or change the way they make games. Much like backwards means they just make it for PS4K and it automatically works on PS4.
Saint of Killers
Member
Maybe we'll hear something before e3 if PS4 sales start to be affected...
cyberheater
PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
OK. I hope the do but I really doubt it.
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
I can't see how there would be an impact to the Xbox One, the problem becomes that they have the same budget likely for playstation but need two versions or will need to spend more money for it so it's likely one version will get more attention than the other since it's a fork of the company.
I was very articulate about the 3DS so I'm not sure how to help you if you can't understand the point I made.
Your second point isn't really a point, you're making an assumption of performance. Just because it will also run doesn't mean it will run well, you keep pulling 1080p and 30fps as a given but somehow can't comprehend a world where ps4 is "playable" but also has framerate issues where it keeps dipping below 30fps. Will this happen? Who knows, but this assumption of what performance will be is absurd.
The final part is something we have to see still, do you think this will always be niche? We're still pretty early in the life, this is an experiment and if it succeeds you can't see more time being put into the PS4K instead of the PS4? Obviously the PS4 will have a larger initial base, I'm not even sure how that keeps mentioning.
Your retort is pretty much but dismissive. You've guessed a minimum performance standard that NO ONE has articulated and refuse to believe anything else is possible until someone can show you a game where it happens. It doesn't work like that.\
Yes... And I listed it as such, I also gave the best case scenario too... They may not initially but if this succeeds (which obviously sony is hoping) it very much could, I could also seeing some devs trying to do a Crysis or similar to really showcase hardware of the new console, will that mean that the other version suffers? Not necessarily but I could see them doing things where only the PS4K version has X in it because the normal system can't handle it. Naturally a lot is subjective also of what people determine good enough in terms of quality.
GamerMax73
Member
The idea that an older model will remain compatible with games for a newer model. So the PS4 will be able to play games written for the PS4.5. Which considering they are based on the same basic architecture shouldn't be too difficult.
The hope would be the PS4.5 will be able to play early PS5 games at a lower quality than the PS5 itself when that console arrives, thus it is hoped the PS4.5 would be forwards compatible with the PS5 - again based on the same AMD APU family and unified memory systems.