Topic: Are You Getting PS4 Neo?

Give me an official price, release date and run-down of what it does from an official source and then I'll start to think about it.

If it makes a difference to the performance of games running on my standard TV, then sure, I'd more than likely get one at launch. If it only really benefits 4K sets I wouldn't get one right away, but I'd look to sell my current TV at some point next year for a 4k and get one then. My current TV is only a couple of years old but I'd rather get rid of it while it's worth a bit more if I'm going to be doing that.

Surely this question can't/shouldn't be answered until we actually know enough about it to make the decision?

I'm not even going to consider it. I have a 1080p television so there's no point. For the price it'll be I can throw an RX 480 in my PC and have £100 change for even better performance. I know 4k televisions are right down in price now but until they sort out what the standard is going to be a simple resolution boost isn't even worth it. The single format for HDR is now under way and by the time that gets nailed the new Xbox Scorpio will surely be the better option.

Not sure yet.

I do want to buy a new TV either this year or early next year, but that PLUS a Neo, PLUS PSVR....that'd be a bit too much.

@mrobinson91: it's kinda obvious: it's a new ps4 with roughly double the power that is 4k video ready

@Oi_Oi_Spanky: HDR specs have been nailed down a while now. HDR10 is a standard to which ALL HDR TV's, BluRay players, Bluray films etc have to meet to be officially classified as HDR. Dolby Vision, an 'enhanced' version of HDR10 essentially, is a closed system - it requires everything - from the content, to the player, to the screen - to all support Dolby Vision. Because its an enhanced version of HDR, it can deliver HDR10 but DV will not work on HDR 10. HDR is specified as having a 10bit colour depth and peak brightness of 1,000nits (SDR content is around 100nits), DV has 12bit colour depth and upto 10,000 nits (although NO TV can reach this level yet).

DV is closed system - it requires a chip to receive the metadata and apply that to the screen - every pixel will be determined by the chip, no colour correction or calibration of the TV required - you can't adjust the way it looks - the metadata is on a frame by frame basis- ie producers will dictate exactly how every frame must look. HDR10 leaves this all to the television to decide how it wants to output the image and uses only static metadata for the entire film - meaning you could adjust the brightness or colour balance to your preference.

Its kind of like a music producer deciding exactly how much Bass and Treble, setting the Graphic Equaliser for each second of music and if you prefer more bass or more emphasis on the vocals - under Dolbys option that's tough but with the open source (HDR), you can turn up the bass or tweak the GE to put more emphasis on the vocals. Their might be another layer or two to the Dolby option though and it will still play the open source version (with the same freedom) but the open source can't play the DV version.

Every HDR film going forward should meet HDR10 standards. A few films may add the extra layer of Dolby Vision but its expensive currently and only available on LG's OLED TV's - No Dolby Vision players yet either - Licenses for Dolby Vision players were only sent out in July (I believe). Its that expense, coupled with the closed and very limited system that could be DV's downfall (think Betamax). It maybe 'superior' but its also more expensive and not very well supported.

Sony are, like MS has already and likely to do with the Scorpio, most likely to stick with just HDR10 support. It means they don't have to pay Dolby for the license and chip to play Dolby Vision enabled content on top of HDR10. It still means they are HDR enabled and will work on ALL HDR enabled TV's

@WebHead: will it offer frame rate improvements on previously released games? What difference will there be in visuals between it and the original PS4? What size is it? Any additional features? How much will it cost?

@KratosMD: The xbox one benefits games that have 'unlocked' frame rates and games that use dynamic resolution but the 'extra' processing of the GPU is supposed to be for HDR and upscaling. In practise though that does seem to give a few 'extra' frames per second in some games at some points - not scenes that are CPU heavy (like Hitman or AC - where there are lots of NPC's).

Applying the same principal to the PS4 Neo, In theory, games that use unlocked frame rates and/or dynamic resolution should not have any need to drop below the target - not with the additional power and faster CPU. Even scenes such as in Hitman and AC: Unity that struggles more than the XB1 because of PS4's slower CPU, should have more significant improvements than the XB1s. The Neo however won't be of benefit to games that are 'locked' to a certain frame rate without some 'patch' to adjust the settings. It may still benefit these games with less screen tear, texture pop in etc = maybe.

One of my 'fears' is that we may see games pushing for 1800p when the tech is better for 1440p and have a few other issues as a result or stuck to 30fps. I would prefer that developers aim first off for 1080p and LOCKED 60fps. Then turn the visual settings up higher to give better overall look and only then, any additional power can be used to up the resolution to 1200, maybe 1440p and then upscale to 4k! I would rather have that than 1800-4k/30fps - low settings!

I'm sorry if this sounds naive, but I don't see why 60 fps is such a big deal. Games look fine at 30, and even some games have been locked at 30. From Software, in an interview about Dark Souls 3 said that they purposefully tried to lock the game at 30 fps as a cinematic choice of preference.

tbh, I think most people didn't really care about this with the exception of die-hard PC gamers. Not until digital foundry came along though, and suddenly fps became a thing to throw against the competition on why playstation or xbox is better than the other one.

Or I could be wrong about all of that. (o_O ). But I guess I just don't get the whole "must own best of everything" mentality, if that's what is behind it. btw, I got my ps4 as a Christmas gift, so I don't have any plans to get a neo. I'm going to get a Nintendo NX instead (maybe).

@Utena-mobile: Its not so much the look of 30fps but the feel of it from my perspective.

The cinematic look is OK but cinematic movies are 24fps and are not 'smooth' motion. In the 1920's, when movies added talking, films were recorded at 24fps and because of that, movies have a certain look. When the Hobbit was recorded at 48fps, something looked 'off' because we are not used to seeing motion that smooth in films. High speed has a slight 'judder' to the action. Movie projectors, for example run at 48fps but each frame is shown twice so each frame gets shown twice.

In gaming a locked 30fps is 'playable' but fast action has a bit if that 'judder'. The controls feel a little 'heavier' etc. Dark Souls 3 though was not 30fps on PC so it wasn't locked for cinematic choices but as a necessity for the Consoles because of its hardware limitations. It’s one thing to be technically limited when developing a game and being honest about it and it’s another to pass of the limitation as a feature or an art-style decision.

60fps has been around longer than Digital Foundry - even games as far back as 1994 on console - Tekken 1, 2, 3 on the PS1, F-Zero X on the N64, Virtua Fighter 2 on the Sega Saturn for example. CoD is probably the biggest and most well know franchise that offers 60fps and whilst it may not have been as visually impressive as Battlefield on last generation, it certainly offered a smoother, more precise and faster paced game. The small sacrifice to deliver 60fps - this was all well before youtube and Digital Foundry!!

When a game is rendered at 60fps, it means you’re getting 60 rendered frames per second, perfectly matching the display’s own refresh rate. What this results in is a far smoother, more flicker-free experience. It does more than impact just the visuals though; it also impacts on your game input. A faster frame rate means your controller inputs are translated to on-screen actions quicker.

There’s inherent lag between your brain and the controller; the controller and the console, the console’s calculations and its output, and the output and the screen. Improve the rate at which any of those happen, and your inputs will feel smoother. When a game is rendered at 60fps vs 30fps, it’s polling your inputs twice as much, so you have smoother control. In 3rd person action games it’s possibly less important than it is in shooters and racing games, where split-second decisions and inputs are key.

It goes beyond just what you see to how a game feels. You’ll have to play a game that’s running at 60fps, and then play the same game running at 30fps to feel the difference (look at Uncharted 1-3, Last of Us and their remastered PS4 versions for example). A 60fps game is just smoother, feels more natural and responsive.

In general Digital Foundry compares games that supposedly are 'equal' and whilst they rarely make a point of the native 'resolution', they are far more concerned with the way a game runs. If a game is promising 1080/60, then they look at that and see how close they are to delivering that. Take Doom as an example - described as 1080/60 on both PS4 and XB1 yet has unlocked frame rate and dynamic resolution. The only time the XB1 hits 1080/60 is when standing still in an empty corridor with no visual effects (like sparking lights). The majority of the game seems to run at about 900p (occasionally dropping down to 792p) and around 52fps (average). The PS4 runs mostly at 1080p with occasional drops to 900p and an average frame rate of around 57fps (this is in the first few chapters). Is it right that the XB1 version should call itself a 1080/60 game when the majority of the time you are playing at 900/50? Its like saying you can get up to 80Mb/s Broadband, paying for 80Mb/s but most of the time only getting 50Mb/s and at peak times dropping down to 30Mb/s.

At the end of the day 60fps isn't the be all and end all. It is though if you play fast pace twitch shooters, racers and arcade fighters - which is why these games target that figure. I would prefer to have that much smoother, more responsive feel in all my games though IF possible. rather than hitting 4k - even though I have a 4k TV. I would rather have the visual effects turned up as high as possible and stick to 1080/60 than scale these effects right back just to hit 4k.

At the 8.40 mark, they compare PS4 specs with Neo specs running both at 1080p but the Neo using 'Ultra' settings... The, lighting, Shadows, reflections, particles etc look a lot better in my opinion... So I would prefer this to hitting 1440p+

@Utena-mobile: It does make a difference, but its not until you play 60fps games regularly that you notice the drop back to 30fps.

1080p 60fps needs to be the standard.

"in an interview about Dark Souls 3 said that they purposefully tried to lock the game at 30 fps as a cinematic choice of preference."

Or this is spin and they struggled to get the game towards 60fps and the PR team use this as an excuse.

I'm unsure what games you play regularly but after extended games of Rocket League and MGS 5 you really notice the difference dropping back to 30fps.

ah, ok. That makes a bit more sense. I like more adventure/story type games like Zelda or Kingdom Hearts so I've never really had to worry about fps since those games don't really require fast, twitchy reflexes. But I'm picking up King of Fighters soon, so maybe my opinion on fps 30 vs 60 will change.

What I don't understand is, if 60 fps is so great (or a locked 30 fps), why don't developers drop the visuals of their game a little bit, or artistically reduce the amount of action on screen to ensure a steady fps?

@Utena-mobile: Because then it looks visually less impressive, and when you're seeing an ad on TV or a trailer on YouTube, the visuals matter more than the framerate. Because you van see the visuals, but you can't really see the framerate on a TV ad.

@Octane: oh, lol. I wasn't talking about resolution. I meant like, lets say there's an explosion. If having a little bit less smoke, or taking away a huge shower of sparks that come out after the explosion improves the frame rate, why not do so? Or if the game starts dropping frames because there are 32 npcs all doing something, why not drop it down to 28 npcs? That's what I meant.

But yeah, I agree. visuals are much more important than fps( up until fps start to really mess with the screen).

@Utena-mobile: That's part of the visuals as well. It really depends on the game though, but a smooth framerate is often far more important than visuals.

I'm not - I don't have a 4k telly and enhanced visuals aren't enough for me. I would rather spend the moolah on PSVR.

I must say though, the Xbox One S is a sexy looking machine, I would hope the Neo also ups the sex factor.

Some games sell on their visuals, the story etc. In an ideal world ALL games would run at 60fps AND deliver the 'wow' factor too. However, first impressions count and our first impression always comes from the visuals. In the past it was just pictures in a magazine, picture on the back of the box etc but now we get to see these in action - whether its a youtube type video or an advert on TV. You don't get to see the frame-rate or feel how it impacts on the game-play.

If you look back over the history of video games, visual presentation has often been important in determining a games success - rightly or wrongly. Games like the Division, Watchdogs (in recent times) have been highly criticised for 'drops' in the visual quality by the time they are released. Look at the removal of 'Fog' in the Fallout 4 DLC and the impact that had just to hit 30fps - so its not always 'easy' to downgrade visuals to hit a certain target figure.

Naughty Dog know the importance of 60fps in competitive gaming - they have opted to drop the resolution to 900p for their MP to hit that 60fps frame-rate where their main game is only 30fps. Uncharted 4's campaign though is a visually stunning game and certainly benefits from 1080p. It doesn't stop the campaign from being 'playable' just because its 30fps but it doesn't feel as 'slick' or 'smooth' as the MP. If you switch between the two, it does 'feel' different and can take a while to get used to that differences. If you go from the MP to the Campaign, it 'feels' heavy, slow but if you go from campaign to MP, it feels light and like your on ice, the sensitivity has been turned up to 10, its too responsive.

The difference between 30fps and 60fps is like trying to park a car with and without power assisted steering....

A game like Dark Souls 3 would greatly benefit from being at 60fps. It relies on precise timing and quick response times. A game like Uncharted has more of a focus on Story than combat and therefore can get away with 30fps.

It seems to me a lot of us are waiting on buying a 4k TV. I went sofa shopping of all things recently and on our travels some of those HDR 4k 50+ inch screens look unbelievable - but they also have a price point to match. The current 50 inch LG HDR 4K oled screen, which is really the size and type I need and want for my new back wall couch is £2000. So Im waiting until next year.

No point in buying the first screens some of them look really dark in comparison.

@themcnoisy: OLEDS are very expensive but they also can't reach the same level of 'bright' as an LED type screen. Fortunately the 55" Samsung (55KS8000) is cheaper than £2k - well just about....

Samsung also make a 'cheaper' model. If you are looking for a 49" screen, you can pick one up (KS7000) for around £1.2k or 55" for £1.4k from Richer Sounds with a 6yr Guarantee!

Blacks on these are BLACK! Not only does HDR stipulate that Peak Brightness has to above 1,000nits (with LEDs - 540nits with OLED's), Blacks have to be below 0.05nits. These also have a 10bit (1bn colours) wider colour gamut too where as 1080p TV's are only required to have 8bit (16m) colour..

I love my TV - its got the best PQ I have ever seen on an LED (OLED's may just have the Edge because of the blacks but can't match the HDR impact of an LED imo). Even upscaled HD looks fantastic but now with Sky's UHD content, WOW just WOW - Liverpool vs Barcelona tomorrow in 4k!! can't wait!!!