Overwritten.net
Games => General Gaming => Topic started by: idolminds on Friday, March 18, 2016, 10:51:42 AM
-
It might be a thing. (http://kotaku.com/sources-sony-is-working-on-a-ps4-5-1765723053)
Based on conversations with developers who have spoken with Sony, this ‘PS4.5’ will include an upgraded GPU both to support high-end 4K resolution for games and add more processing power that can enhance the games supported by PlayStation VR, the headset Sony will launch this fall. It’s unclear if ‘PS4.5’ is an official name or just a nickname that developers have been using. One developer jokingly called it the ‘PS4K’ while telling me about the device.
More at the link.
It only kinda-sorta worked for Nintendo handhelds to have these sorts of half-step upgraded hardware revisions, but I don't see that working out so well with $400 home consoles. As pointed out on Twitter, one of the main reasons people like consoles in the first place is you don't have to chase the hardware dragon.
-
I heard something about Microsoft considering something similar in an effort to stop having the console that not only has the lower installed base but also the crossplatform games that have worse resolutions and framerates.
This is not really a good trend, I don't think.
-
I specifically recall Phil Spencer saying that when a new console comes out and there's new games for that better hardware, it's exciting and he wants to keep that experience. But what he wants to change is the learning curve for developing on new hardware, and the abandonment of the previous generation's games. This sounds to me more like he's talking about the Xbox Two (whatever dumb name they come up with) will be a significant hardware upgrade just like any other new console, but will run the same games and use similar enough hardware that development doesn't change (but can push better graphics).
Though if Sony puts out a half-step console, I wouldn't be surprised if MS tries to do the same. It seems like an opportunity to try to eliminate the slight power gap they're dealing with right now.
-
This will permanently move me out of the console market. I'll go PC-only if this becomes a thing. I don't have this kind of money, and whatever I would put toward this bullshit I would just put into a better PC down the road.
-
This will permanently move me out of the console market. I'll go PC-only if this becomes a thing. I don't have this kind of money, and whatever I would put toward this bullshit I would just put into a better PC down the road.
PSX was my last console.
I left the console game when the PS2 arrived.
I've been all PC since then. :)
I'm so PC, I recently joined the gaming laptop club. :)
-
I've been following all the speculation about what Spencer said. Really, people are making too much of it, assuming that a piggyback upgrade is coming (like a 32X to a Sega Genesis--there's a disaster). I grabbed this to cut & paste in some conversations I had about it, but I can't recall the original link.
The feedback I received… “Am I going to break open my console and start upgrading individual pieces of my console?” That’s not the plan. There is something special about what happens with a console. You buy an applicance-like device. You plug it into your TV. It works when you plug it in. It’s not like I’m going to ship a screwdriver set with every console that comes out.
What I’m saying is: as hardware innovations happen, we want to be able to embrace those in the console space, and make those available, and maybe not have to wait seven or eight years for things to happen. But right now, we’re obviously not announcing hardware. I’m happy with the console we have, the platform we built on top of that console and the constant innovation, and the games that are there. But as a longer-term vision statement, I wanted to make sure people understood that what we’re doing I think is good for the console space, in addition to being good for the PC space.
I interpret that to mean something like "I opened my mouth too wide, and made some people nervous. We have no current plans to change the hardware, but wouldn't it be nice if we could have our cake and eat it too?"
Of course, if Sony follows through on their dumb scheme (which is news to me), it's going to be a free-for-all. They're already splitting the PS4 userbase with that VR device that goes for the price of a whole new console, and comes without other needed peripherals (camera + move stuff). By the time you add up the whole price tag, including console, may as well go for a build-it-yourself kickass PC.
Anything that excludes any part of the userbase splits the userbase. That's never a good thing in the console space.
-
I hadn't heard this, but I had heard that the PS VR would come with a breakout box that would do some of the work for the VR calculations. Is this the same thing?
-
Sorta on topic. Am I alone in not really caring about VR at this point? I kinda feel the same way with it that I did with 3D.
I mean I understand the tech's cool, and it opens up a bunch of possibilities, I'm just not all that interested in integrating it into my household.
-
No, you're not alone. I care about what I said--the negative impact on the console userbase. But VR itself in its current form suffers from the same kind of geeky gadget-itis (http://www.psvr.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/psvrplayer.jpg) that goes back a half-century to the red-and-green 3D spectacles. I can't see anything this expensive and this bad-Flash-Gordon-movie (https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/oAccw0wTz9cIGx6dO1AZ12XWTdQ=/0x0:2045x1363/1280x854/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/48903959/zuck.0.0.jpg) going mainstream. If they couldn't sell a pair of nearly normal-looking glasses for 3D TV, how are they going to sell a scuba mask for a blind man?
Edit: Added a couple of fun image links.
-
Yeah, I don't care about it at all. Not because the tech isn't cool, but because the games they've talked about with it really aren't. It's going to be a good while before anything worth caring about is developed. I understand that the VR aspect can MAKE things that are less cool into something neat, since just being in a space alone can be interesting in that way, but on the whole I think it's going to be a while before there's something compelling enough to get me to part with the cost. Then again, maybe not ... time will tell. But for now, I'm in the same camp as you guys. The cost to benefit ratio is just too lopsided.
-
Sorta on topic. Am I alone in not really caring about VR at this point?
Nope. I'm not much interested either.
I kinda feel the same way with it that I did with 3D.
Ditto.
I mean I understand the tech's cool, and it opens up a bunch of possibilities, I'm just not all that interested in integrating it into my household.
Same here.
EDIT:
The cost to benefit ratio is just too lopsided.
Bingo. Which was the same problem w/ the 3D Tech, as well.
I'm not going to go after a 970 card or above just so I can do VR. No thanks.
-
If they couldn't sell a pair of nearly normal-looking glasses for 3D TV, how are they going to sell a scuba mask for a blind man?
I don't disagree with you but I think a lot of the reason that the most modern iteration of 3D failed is that it still didn't have the content needed in order to push it. Avatar was sweet with it, but nothing after that really took advantage and the effect was a bit distracting at times. With VR, it seems everyone who's casually tried it is enamoured with it. Not enough to spring for it for sure, but I haven't heard anyone actually say it sucks, like they have with 3D.
I think there's a place for VR, but for me it's at least 5-10 years out.
-
Yeah, I think VR is more inherently useful than 3D. 3D is just kind of a dumb gimmick, while VR can potentially offer something interesting. Still a ways out for me too, but I don't really put it on the same level as 3D at all.
-
I personally don't think VR is going to make it, just like motion controls, 3D, and the previous attempt at VR before it. That said, a ton of people in technology and gaming think it's going to be a huge game-changer and it is here to stay now, so I guess we will see.
-
VR will make it, but maybe not for games or in the home for a while yet. Architectural visualization, educational uses, and things of that nature I think is where it will gain its foothold first. An architect buying a VR headset to give clients a view of their designs is an easy business expense to justify. Or rather, easier to justify than someone buying it for home use to play some weird game demos.
-
Details emerge (http://www.giantbomb.com/articles/sources-the-upgraded-playstation-4-is-codenamed-ne/1100-5437/).
The NEO will feature a higher clock speed than the original PS4, an improved GPU, and higher bandwidth on the memory. The documents we've received note that the HDD in the NEO is the same as that in the original PlayStation 4, but it's not clear if that means in terms of capacity or connection speed. Starting in October, every PS4 game is required to ship with both a “Base Mode” which will run on the currently available PS4 and a “NEO Mode” for use on the new console.
Original PS4
CPU: 8 Jaguar Cores at 1.6 GHz
GPU: AMD GCN, 18 CUs at 800 MHz
Memory: 8 GB GDDR5, 176 GB/s
NEO
CPU: 8 Jaguar Cores at 2.1 GHz
GPU: Improved AMD GCN, 36 CUs at 911 MHz
Memory: 8 GB GDDR5, 218 GB/s
Sony seems committed to keeping the NEO and the original PS4 player bases connected. As such, there will be no NEO-only games, and Sony will not let developers separate NEO users from original PS4 players while playing on PSN. Likewise, Sony explicitly and repeatedly states that developers cannot offer exclusive gameplay options or special unlockables for NEO players—so don’t expect NEO owners to get a level editor or a special Rocket League car that you won’t have access to on your original PS4. That said, so long as both systems have the same feature, the NEO can run an improved version. A local co-op game that features four players on the base PS4 could offer an eight player co-op mode on the NEO, for instance. But again, don't expect those differences to transfer to online modes.
-
I already complained on Twitter, and I said it before in this thread even, but ... yeah, this is probably my exit from the console market. I mean if this becomes a real thing. I like having a console around, and it sucks to think I'll have to just stop, but this isn't something I want any part of. It was bad enough in the past with iterations they did, but a real, substantial hardware increase mid-lifecycle? I was angry when Nintendo did it with the 3DS even though the New 3DS basically didn't do anything with it, and to see a major home console do it makes me sad.
Not angry. I mean, I get it. It just indicates to me that it's time to move on, because I don't need another consumer electronics money-sink, especially one that I get so little use out of. I can't think of a single game on Xbox One I give half a fuck about, and while I've had some good times on my PS4, those times have been extremely limited, and mostly stuff I could have been playing on the PC had my old, pre-upgrade PC not been so ailing. Which is why I bought it; and of course for Bloodborne. I'm glad I got to play Bloodborne, but that's the only exclusive I've cared about, and the only game of any substance I've spent substantial time with on there. I got an unexpected PC upgrade, and thus now I can't think of any reason I'd ever want to put more money into that console, or to buy another that was headed down this same path. I'd much rather save that money and put it into a future PC.
-
The 2 mainstream consoles are so similar this gen that getting one pretty much means not giving a fuck about what's on the other. But that's about to change, in this rather bizarre way. Sony just threw away one of the most basic rules of consoles. As soon as I heard the rumors, and Sony did nothing to deny them, I knew the best thing for all fence-sitters to do was stay perched very tightly.
So the thing is that, for those of us who don't have a PS4, it no longer offers just a (more-or-less) lateral move. Once this NEO hits, it will be a significant hardware move forward. The PS4 was already more powerful than the X1 to begin with. On one hand I hate that they're violating the integrity of a console generation. But on the other, more pragmatically, it sure does seem like the time to get into the Sony camp. Play the handful of exclusives I want; up the bar on the hardware enough to improve the experience; see what the PSN crowd is all about. I've been missing out on that altogether, since my last Sony console is a PS2.
I wonder what Microsoft will be doing about all of this. My guess is that they already are doing something. I doubt that they've been in the dark about it as much as we have.
-
Oh, they've been talking. Phil Spencer has made some sort of unspecific—even pacifying—but loaded comments. It'll be interesting to see where it goes for sure.
-
I just don't understand what the point of this is.
-
I've been thinking about that ever since the rumors started. Several possibilities? (1) Lots of new sales. That only makes sense if they can make it at a profit. A lot of affluent-enough fans out there will buy this right away even when they already have a PS4, plus the sales to new buyers and those who eventually give in and decide to upgrade. The Sony gaming division is driving Sony right now. Other divisions are experiencing losses. (2) Leave the competition struggling. Microsoft are already kicking themselves for cheaping out on some of the hardware. Now they'll feel it even more. (3) PSVR needed the stronger hardware. I think the minimum demanded by Sony is something like 90 fps, ideally 120 fps. And the higher the res, the better.
-
I just came back from reading an article about this at Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/04/ps4k-neo-details-specs-revealed-rumours/). The feeling there is that, while Sony has made a big upgrades to the CPU, the GPU is a smaller upgrade and there is next to no RAM upgrade; therefore, people don't think it will be able to handle Oculus Rift like VR and don't think it will handle native 4K. So I don't really get it on that front.
On the other hand, someone did make the point that the new PS4 will allow many games to at least upscale to 4K and that might help drive some Sony 4K TV sales.
Edit: Added a link to the article I referenced.
-
Ars Technica? I'll have to check that out.
I thought the GPU got a bigger boost than the CPU, with double the compute units (18 to 36). Anyway, off to find the article.
OK, aside for more in-depth tech talk, I see nothing fundamentally different in that article. And it's all still officially a rumor. Let's see when the other shoe gets to drop.
-
I just came back from reading an article about this at Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/04/ps4k-neo-details-specs-revealed-rumours/). The feeling there is that, while Sony has made a big upgrades to the CPU, the GPU is a smaller upgrade and there is next to no RAM upgrade; therefore, people don't think it will be able to handle Oculus Rift like VR and don't think it will handle native 4K. So I don't really get it on that front.
On the other hand, someone did make the point that the new PS4 will allow many games to at least upscale to 4K and that might help drive some Sony 4K TV sales.
Edit: Added a link to the article I referenced.
Native 4k on consoles is a ways off. Native 4k on anything less than top tier gaming pcs for most mainstream games is still a ways off at this point. A $350 970 isn't recommended for 4k and a ~$500 980 is seen as the minimum - not even hitting 60fps or high details. I think they're pushing for upscaling here and movies.
I guess I'm glad I didn't JUST buy a PS4, and now I'll buy a Neo. I'm torn over whether or not this is a terrible thing.
-
Given the option, I'd take a lower resolution with high framerates than a high resolution with low framerate any day. Like I would much rather have games at 720p but smooth as butter than 1080p and locked at 30 fps.
Now that I'm used to a 144Hz monitor, I find 60Hz satisfactory and 30Hz unacceptable (except for certain games). I've noticed it's mainly games that involve camera movement or 3D spatial movement where 30 fps (or 30Hz) just bugs my eyes like crazy.
This has been one of the major decision factors when I'm considering buying a multi-platform game or a game that's better with a gamepad. My thought process generally goes like "Hmm, Batman Arkham Knight.. Gamepad recommended.. PS4 version is locked at 30 fps.. F*ck that, PC it is!"
Needless to say that particular title didn't pan all too well for the first 7 months of its release on PC, until they finally fixed it.
I'm hoping the PS4 Neo will basically keep things running at a smooth 60 fps, even if it is upscaled. Smooth framerates are far more important to me than 4K resolution. Frankly 1080p is great as it is, they should just focus on getting that running smooth.
-
Ars Technica? I'll have to check that out.
I thought the GPU got a bigger boost than the CPU, with double the compute units (18 to 36). Anyway, off to find the article.
OK, aside for more in-depth tech talk, I see nothing fundamentally different in that article. And it's all still officially a rumor. Let's see when the other shoe gets to drop.
Sorry, you're right. It's a small CPU upgrade and a bigger GPU upgrade. Still a negligible memory upgrade though (only 512 MB more addressable on the NEO vs. original).
-
Given the option, I'd take a lower resolution with high framerates than a high resolution with low framerate any day. Like I would much rather have games at 720p but smooth as butter than 1080p and locked at 30 fps.
Now that I'm used to a 144Hz monitor, I find 60Hz satisfactory and 30Hz unacceptable (except for certain games). I've noticed it's mainly games that involve camera movement or 3D spatial movement where 30 fps (or 30Hz) just bugs my eyes like crazy.
This has been one of the major decision factors when I'm considering buying a multi-platform game or a game that's better with a gamepad. My thought process generally goes like "Hmm, Batman Arkham Knight.. Gamepad recommended.. PS4 version is locked at 30 fps.. F*ck that, PC it is!"
Needless to say that particular title didn't pan all too well for the first 7 months of its release on PC, until they finally fixed it.
I'm hoping the PS4 Neo will basically keep things running at a smooth 60 fps, even if it is upscaled. Smooth framerates are far more important to me than 4K resolution. Frankly 1080p is great as it is, they should just focus on getting that running smooth.
My thoughts exactly, man. Most people don't even see the difference between 720p and 1080p. Their sets are too small, or too far away, or scale to a fixed-res consumer screen that's nowhere near 1920x1080. Now all of a sudden (and I mean all of a sudden, because even a year ago this wasn't a thing) they want to quadruple the resolution to 3840x2160. It's ludicrous for a TV-connected console, and still an unreasonable load for a PC. I'm fine with 720p myself, if that means a locked 60 fps. Even a locked 30 fps is fine, if 1080 means chugging every time 3 things happen on the screen at once.
-
I like seeing 3D movies, I try to see them whenever I can. Mostly because seeing a movie in the theater is already an experience, seeing it in 3D in the theater is hard to recreate. On that note, seeing a movie in 3D costs about $15, try it once, see if you care for it. I have no idea how/where to try out vr, I'm certainly not buying it without trying it.
-
My thoughts exactly, man. Most people don't even see the difference between 720p and 1080p. Their sets are too small, or too far away, or scale to a fixed-res consumer screen that's nowhere near 1920x1080. Now all of a sudden (and I mean all of a sudden, because even a year ago this wasn't a thing) they want to quadruple the resolution to 3840x2160. It's ludicrous for a TV-connected console, and still an unreasonable load for a PC. I'm fine with 720p myself, if that means a locked 60 fps. Even a locked 30 fps is fine, if 1080 means chugging every time 3 things happen on the screen at once.
I'm perfectly happy at 1080p at High-to-Ultra settings normally here w/ my desktop PC, sitting right in front of my 23'' monitor. And even w/ my desktop PC connected to my 48'' HDTV, it looks great when gaming here at 1080p @ those High-to-Ultra settings at 30FPS+.
I think 4K's too expensive. I already own a 4GB 960 for my desktop, so I won't be looking for a new card for a while. My desktop PC's vid-card is the 4GB 960, which is really built for mostly 1080p. Worst of all, to go 4K, this means I would need a 970 card for the desktop PC - and those cards are around $290-300 when on sale; and that doesn't always handle 4K games, as sometimes that card's better off at 1440p if you check the benchmarks! Meaning, you'd be better off looking into way more expensive 4GB 980 (around $400-500) or 6GB 980Ti (around $600-700). I'm not even going to discuss the $1000 Titans, so forget that. Oh, and this is not even getting into also needing to buy a 4K monitor!
I can't imagine how expensive a console would be, aiming for proper 4K support right now!
Actually, my Acer Nitro laptop allows for 4K with its 15.6'' monitor, but I don't use that 4K most of the time. My 4GB 960m is built for 720p/900p/1080p anyways. Some UI's for some app's like Raptr are no matter what always TOO small, even when using Windows 10 zoom's settings or anything else to try enhance b/c the UI wasn't built for adjustments, zoom, or any of these higher settings. Most games here on my laptop are running here at 900p to 1080p on Medium settings (Fallout 4 PC + WWE 2K15 PC) - and with a monitor that small, doesn't matter much b/t 900p or 1080p. Sure, I can see the difference - but at that size, it ain't too much. Most importantly w/ my laptop, I really want the performance anyways - i.e. some HD resolution like 720p/900p/1080p with 30FPS+ at Medium settings or better.
-
I like seeing 3D movies, I try to see them whenever I can. Mostly because seeing a movie in the theater is already an experience, seeing it in 3D in the theater is hard to recreate. On that note, seeing a movie in 3D costs about $15, try it once, see if you care for it. I have no idea how/where to try out vr, I'm certainly not buying it without trying it.
I watched Avatar in 3D when it was new. The effect was really well done. The only downside was the brightness of the image was down a lot. My first experience with movie-screen 3D was at least 30 years ago. It was a Kodak-sponsored demo at Epcot Center in Disney World at Orlando. It was unbelievable. I had no idea until then that it was possible to get an object to move toward me off the screen until it hovered over the head of the guy ahead of me in the next seat row. It was a kite flown by a smiling little boy. A few years later I watched Michael Jackson's Captain Eo in that same 3D theater.
The tech used at projection theaters is nearly perfect. It relies on oppositely polarized light from 2 superimposed images. Simple clear lenses can isolate each image to the appropriate eye. Doing this on a video screen is impossible, so either we make do with the crappy red/blue lenses, or we go to shuttering devices. The other alternative is what I called a scuba mask for a blind man, which to me is the least attractive of all.
-
I couldn't give less of a shit about 4k. Yeah, to me better actual core tech and stable framerates are far more important than a slightly higher resolution. I'll probably end up with 4k stuff only when it becomes the new norm and all my old shit dies and needs to be replaced.
-
4K is a significantly higher resolution than 1080p (it's double the resolution, which is 4x the pixels) and while that's noteworthy on paper it's not so in practicum,m especially when you're sitting 4-5 feet away from a screen 32"-60" in size. The difference becomes negligible.
I've compared videos running at 4K and 1080p and I can only tell the difference when I close into the screen uncomfortably close.
4K seems to be only truly significant when you're sitting in close proximity to your screen such as when using a PC or Laptop (perhaps even a tablet).
In my mind, I'll only accept 4K as a standard when it is not a detriment to performance and framerate.
-
It's theater resolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinema). If you have a big screen and sit close enough for it to fill most of your FoV, then it's going to make a difference (if you have good or properly corrected vision). For most home (and certainly mobile/tablet) applications, it's overkill, a way for hardware makers to get more money out of us. They tried 3D to bolster sales of TVs. That failed, so voila--4K! Gotta have it! Buy now!
Edit: When you consider rendering budgets, in order to maintain the same frame rate going from 720p to 1080p, you need (1920*1080)/(1280*720) = 2.25 times the speed per pixel. Going from 720p to 4K (2160p) requires 9 times the speed (or 1/9th the time) per pixel. Going from 720p@30Hz to 4K@60Hz requires 18 times the rasterizing oomph. All for something that most of us are not going to get much benefit from.
-
In my mind, I'll only accept 4K as a standard when it is not a detriment to performance and framerate.
Besides the obvious $-cost factors, THIS. Amen.
I'm currently happy w/ my desktop PC at 1080 with High-to-Ultra; and my laptop at 720p/900p/1080p with 30FPS+.
I could probably try 1440p for my games on my gaming laptop for the hell of it, since it has a 4K monitor and all...but I'm not sure I really know if it'll be worth it on a 4GB 960M, which feels like it was built for HD from 720p/900p/1080p for games for 30FPS+ or so from benchmarks and what I've been experiencing first-hand.
The next logical step for me on my desktop probably isn't 4K, but could be 1440p. Don't know if and when that'll be b/c my 4GB 960 desktop card via the benchmarks seems primed for 1080p. Even right now, I don't think I really need to jump to 1440p on the desktop.
EDIT:
This has been one of the major decision factors when I'm considering buying a multi-platform game or a game that's better with a gamepad. My thought process generally goes like "Hmm, Batman Arkham Knight.. Gamepad recommended.. PS4 version is locked at 30 fps.. F*ck that, PC it is!"
Needless to say that particular title didn't pan all too well for the first 7 months of its release on PC, until they finally fixed it.
Batman:AK PC still doesn't run that hot on my 4GB 960 desktop PC. It looks "meh" to me at Normal for an newer title, but looks great with some stuff thrown up. Might as well throw it up higher, if one can.
At 1080p w/ first set of graphics maxed, VSync Off, NVidia GameWorks section off, 60 FPS cap in-game internally - nasty drops and rises b/t the 30FPS-60 FPS range. Screw that. Might as well lock it down to 30FPS internally in-game and called it a freaking day; or find a framerate worth dealing with and use MSI Afterburner or something to lock it down with a 35-40 FPS cap just to get a few extra frames.
Not everybody is going to drop in a sale say $300 or so on a 4GB 3.5GB 970; $400 or so on true 4GB 980; $600-700 on a 6GB 980 Ti; or spend a lot of cash (i.e. $1000 or more) on a 12GB Titan.
-
I watched Avatar in 3D when it was new. The effect was really well done. The only downside was the brightness of the image was down a lot. My first experience with movie-screen 3D was at least 30 years ago. It was a Kodak-sponsored demo at Epcot Center in Disney World at Orlando. It was unbelievable. I had no idea until then that it was possible to get an object to move toward me off the screen until it hovered over the head of the guy ahead of me in the next seat row. It was a kite flown by a smiling little boy. A few years later I watched Michael Jackson's Captain Eo in that same 3D theater.
The tech used at projection theaters is nearly perfect. It relies on oppositely polarized light from 2 superimposed images. Simple clear lenses can isolate each image to the appropriate eye. Doing this on a video screen is impossible, so either we make do with the crappy red/blue lenses, or we go to shuttering devices. The other alternative is what I called a scuba mask for a blind man, which to me is the least attractive of all.
I've only seen vids of people using VR. In order to sell it, they would need a display in every retail store. I can't see that happening, but it would be cool to try.
-
Game Informer - PS4 Pro will costs $399, and is coming November 10th. (http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2016/09/07/ps4-pro-has-a-price-and-a-date.aspx)
Game Informer - PS4 Pro announced w/ "4K" support + HDR support. (http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2016/09/07/sony-announces-ps4-pro.aspx)
Game Informer - 4K Ultra Blu-Rays won't work in PS4 Pro. (http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2016/09/07/4k-blu-rays-will-not-work-on-the-playstation-4-pro.aspx?utm_content=buffer20d1e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer)
-
Polygon - List of games supporting PS4 Pro. (http://www.polygon.com/2016/9/7/12831840/playstation-4-neo-games-list)
Out now or coming in 2016
Deus Ex: Mankind Divided
Rise of the Tomb Raider
Watch Dogs 2
Infinite Warfare
Killing Floor 2
Modern Warfare Remastered
Black Ops 3 with day one patch
FIFA 17
Battlefield 1
Dishonored 2
Coming Soon
Mass Effect Andromeda
For Honor
Spider-Man
Horizon Zero Dawn (also HDR)
-
And there's a surprise to no one. The specs look just like what Giantbomb outed all those months back. The only important new tidbit is the price. $400 is not bad. If I ever do get a PS4, this will be it (unless they pull the rug out from under their userbase again before I decide on it).
-
What the fuck is 4K ultra bluray?
-
4K-res high-dynamic-range (HDR) Bluray. Apparently, the PS4 Pro doesn't get one, and lots of graphics whores are crying about it. The console warmongers stir things up further by boasting that the Xbox One S does have one of those.
Is it too obvious that I'm fed up with where games, gamers and hardware are at right now? It must be age.
-
But it says its going to have 4k and HDR support, so it does.
-
4K and HDR support doesn't mean it can play Ultra BR discs. It can stream in 4K HDR for sure, but there was no mention of a new disc player at the Sony meeting, apparently. Oversight? Can't tell. I haven't checked any gaming news yet today. It may be that it does get one after all. But as of yesterday, the buzz was that it does not.
Edit: Nope, sorry. It's definite. (https://www.engadget.com/2016/09/07/ps4-pro-uhd-blu-ray/) The PS4 Pro does not get an Ultra BR disc drive. The Engadget guy asked the question, and got back a negative from Sony.
-
4K and HDR support doesn't mean it can play Ultra BR discs. It can stream in 4K HDR for sure, but there was no mention of a new disc player at the Sony meeting, apparently. Oversight? Can't tell. I haven't checked any gaming news yet today. It may be that it does get one after all. But as of yesterday, the buzz was that it does not.
Edit: Nope, sorry. It's definite. (https://www.engadget.com/2016/09/07/ps4-pro-uhd-blu-ray/) The PS4 Pro does not get an Ultra BR disc drive. The Engadget guy asked the question, and got back a negative from Sony.
That is so weird. Sony owns Bluray! The Xbox One S has a 4K Bluray drive.. Weird.
-
“Our feeling is that while physical media continues to be a big part of the games business, we see a trend on video towards streaming,” he said. “Certainly with our user base, it’s the second biggest use case for people’s time on the system so we place more emphasis on that area.”
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/08/playstation-boss-andrew-house-ps4-pro-our-approach-isnt-reactive-this-time-around
I think they wanted to come in at the $400 price point, and they're still smarting from how much the original Bluray cost them on the PS3. The complaint I've read often is that if this is meant to be a premium-tier system, then it should include UHD BR and get priced higher. The consumer-friendly price says otherwise, doesn't it. For all Sony's protestations that this is an optional step up from vanilla PS4, their actions tell me they hope it will sell like gangbusters across their userbase, gain them new buyers, and become the future norm for PS4.
What sense does it make to buy a $300 1.8TF PS4 Slim when $400 buys a 4.2TF Pro?
-
Eurogamer / Digital Foundry - 3 hours with PS4 Pro... (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-three-hours-with-playstation-4-pro?utm_source=eurogamer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=net-daily)
...with their thoughts on the system's specs/power; performance; & how the checkerboarding upscale to 4K is working + how it varies in quality from game-to-game.
-
GameSpot built a PC with extremely similar PS4 Pro specs and share the results + benchmarks. (http://www.gamespot.com/articles/we-built-a-pc-using-ps4-pro-specs-how-does-it-perf/1100-6443491/?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_content=57d8af2204d3012cd2eb396b&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter)
-
Interesting, but there's too much fudging back and forth to try to balance the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. For one thing, the console has shared memory, which may be seen as a negative by PC owners used to the poor performance of integrated hardware accelerators. But in fact, dual-gated VRAM was a godsend on the early 80s micros. Graphics and program data coexist, and are immediately accessible to both the CPU and the display hardware. There can be no quicker path from rendering to the screen, when a system is designed from the ground up to use the same memory for all processors. Modern consoles, like that old Atari 800 I'm thinking of, are so designed. Also, the memory in the AMD card is DDR3 while the Pro's memory is GDDR5. I just don't see how these solutions are very comparable. And then there's the question of how does the PC version of a game compare to its console counterpart. They're two different programs.
"For science!" Yeah, well, I can see that, definitely. I guess in my day, I'd enjoy such an exercise at work too.
-
"For Science!" aka "We literally have nothing to do at work today" That article doesn't tell consumers anything at all.
Anyways, I'm in the market for a PS4 now that games have been coming out/are starting to come out more. Ratchet and Clank, Uncharted 4, EA Sports is hitting the generational sweet spot, FFXV looks interesting, and Persona 5 does as well. I also have like 50 PS plus games on the PS4 to keep me occupied.
I don't know which way to go though. The Slim got a price reduction (here at least) and is bundled with Uncharted 4. The Pro is (reasonably) more expensive but is it even worth it? I mean, I think the games that would really benefit from it would come out on the PC as well and it's not like I'd be buying a 4k TV anytime soon.
I think I'm going slim.
-
The pro is way more powerful, like 2.5 times, for a 33% higher price. That power applies to a hell of a lot more than resolution. If your screen is 1080p, you can get better frame rate or better detail from games that "open up" on the Pro. (Expect most big titles in the future to have special Pro modes.) To me, there's no question. The way forward is the Pro, particularly if you don't yet have a PS4.
-
You make a good point. You may have actually just changed my mind there but I'm still going to wait on it a bit.
-
Eurogamer / Digital Foundry - Rise of the Tomb Raider: PS4 Pro vs. PC. (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-rise-of-the-tomb-raider-ps4-pro-vs-pc-comparison)
As you could've guessed: PC wins.
Some special effects (i.e. some lighting, some DoF is missing, etc) + texture quality is MISSING in PS4 Pro version, whereas those who can handle native 4K at "Very High" settings on PC have more going on.
Though, Eurogamer / DF do thing PS4 Pro version looks really good; just not on the level of PC version at 4K on "Very High" settings.
Click here for Video from Eurogamer + DF comparing PC vs. PS4 Pro for Rise of the Tomb Raider. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yu-ST4ntGjc)
-
I got one, my first next gen console. PSN had a sale going with Bloodborne complete for $20 so I grabbed that too.
-
Man its been sometime since Ive used a console other than to watch movies. The weird shit they do really is baffling. The download progress screen for games is just a clever bait and switch which doesnt actually show the full progress of the download, EVEN THOUGH IT SAYS IT HAS DOWNLOADED THE FULL SIZE, it only means it has downloaded enough to where you can actually play while it downloads the rest in the background, so certain options wont be available unbeknownst to the user. I hope there's an option to change this.
-
Really? Do tell. I've been keeping an eye on it. Over double the power for $400. There's no reason to buy the original system anymore.
I'm surprised it doesn't tell you where you are in your download. The Xbox gives you a percentage of the current install process right on the home page, and if you go to Games and Apps, you see detailed updating stats on the download--bandwidth, and bytes loaded out of bytes total. Are you sure you don't have a similarly detailed page somewhere?
-
That's what is so bizarre about it. You can bring up a progress screen which shows you how fast it's going and how much gigabyte's it's downloading. I had the PS4 up and running for sometime, it literally showed that it downloaded the full 36 gigabytes when it finished. Showed the game as installed when I launched it, then in the menus the first option I had was to play it offline or online and I only had one choice,online wouldn't work since the "full game wasn't installed" despite the contrary of what the console OS had told me. I had to look into the game information screen to show that actually half the game downloaded for me to play. I'm not sure if any other game does this but it's the most bizarre instance of digital delivery I have experienced.
-
On the Xbox One, some games support running them before the whole thing is downloaded. In these cases though, you'll get a popup saying that the game is ready to start, but the download progress will still show that it's only partially complete.
-
I know The Division and Uncharted 4 have options to start playing when a "playable" amount is downloaded, then it downloads the rest while you play. Uncharted 4 also asks you if you want to start downloading the Singleplayer or Multiplayer first.
-
Eurogamer - "Why are some PS4 Pro titles running slower than base hardware?" (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-why-are-some-ps4-pro-titles-running-slower-than-base-hardware?utm_source=eurogamer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=net-daily)
-
Eurogamer - "Why are some PS4 Pro titles running slower than base hardware?" (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-why-are-some-ps4-pro-titles-running-slower-than-base-hardware?utm_source=eurogamer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=net-daily)
Yeah, Digital Foundry ran some tests comparing the games. It looks like the source of the issues is that even on 1080p the PS4 Pro renders at higher resolution then downsamples, which looks nicer (less aliasing, smoother edges) but does take a performance hit.
The difference is minor though, a few frame drops. Devs are looking into them and the expectation is that most of these games were never made with the PS4 Pro in mind and that newer games will work as intended for the Pro.
-
Yeah, Digital Foundry ran some tests comparing the games. It looks like the source of the issues is that even on 1080p the PS4 Pro renders at higher resolution then downsamples, which looks nicer (less aliasing, smoother edges) but does take a performance hit.
That's, kind of, asinine? If the game is designed for 1080p rendering, and the display res is 1080p, it's pretty dumb to go an extra mile, then high-tail it back. The developers already made it look as good as they were able, including filtering and maybe even AA. If you can't improve it, at least leave it in as good a state as you found it.
-
That's, kind of, asinine? If the game is designed for 1080p rendering, and the display res is 1080p, it's pretty dumb to go an extra mile, then high-tail it back. The developers already made it look as good as they were able, including filtering and maybe even AA. If you can't improve it, at least leave it in as good a state as you found it.
One would think. Even on PC I don't use the Nvidia "Dynamic Super Resolution" option, which is basically rendering at a higher resolution and downsampling it to the lower screen resolution. It does technically give smoother edges and a sharper overall look but it's rarely worth the drop in performance. I generally prefer running native resolution on whatever screen I'm using. The one exception being my 4KTV where I will frequently run 1080p.