You're not the only sceptics of the rumoured PlayStation 4K, it seems. Speaking with GameSpot, retired BioWare co-founder Greg Zeschuk has said that the hypothetical hardware half-step could prove a "gigantic pain in the ass" for tdevelopers – if, of course, it requires games makers to target two different specifications.
"It's funny, there's actually some stories behind that. For example, the original Xbox... Microsoft actually had multiple different DVD drives," he said. "They didn't tell anyone that, but as a developer you discovered that you have different performance and sometimes you'd have these boxes of refurbished drives and different brands and different equipment. It caused incredible variability."
He continued: "The whole purpose of consoles is the set of requirements that you work against from a hardware perspective," he said. "To change that is complete lunacy." It's worth re-iterating, however, that Zeschuk is now retired, so he's unlikely to be intimately familiar with what Sony's got planned – if the rumours are even true to begin with.
Many say that Sony's purported platform will feature upgraded innards, but it's still perfectly possible that it could merely be PS4 Slim with some 4K-focused features bolted on. We'll have to wait and see what the platform holder has to say, but for now, it's safe to say that the jury's still out – for consumers and industry veterans alike.
[source gamespot.com]
Comments 52
While i agree with him, i don't really think he should be speaking on issues like this. I mean, releasing the third game in a series that promised big, cohesive, multiple endings and payoffs from your dozens of hours of progression and decision making, and not delivering on that promise is also complete lunacy, is it not?
@Napples Zeschuck had already left BioWare by the time Mass Effect 3 came out, if I remember correctly.
tdevelopers are awesome
I'm hoping that the PS4K is just a minor step, maybe a new external design, 4K support, and put that extra CPU box for PSVR inside the base console.
Graphical upgrades should be restricted to PSVR and that's it........once you start dividing for the base PS4 (no matter how minor), it's all downhill............
@ShogunRok He hadn't, actually. More likely the Internet prompted him to re-evaluate his life after the backlash to that ending.
Even MS has come out and said that a half step, or PS4K/Xbox One.5, would be a bad idea. After MS pulling their horse out of this race I can't see Sony doing it.
it's not necessarily a bad step. i still think that the ps4.5 isn't meant for higher resolution but higher framerate. that way, they all jsut target 30 fps for ps4 and then unlock 48-60 fps for ps4.5. higher framerate is far more usable and appreciable than resolution for the vast majority of users out there.
He is fear mongering. The PS4K could be a dream to program for.
All due respect because I love the old Bioware and this guy helped build that, but he's not in the industry anymore and even if he was he's more old school and times change. Who's to say the younger developers of today will struggle adapting? The way things change these days you have to be able to move along with the times pretty quickly.
I just want Sony to announce what the hell is PS4K already so I can make my decision whether to get the Uncharted special edition PS4 or wait for the 4K
It is more than likely just a PS4 Slim with 4k streaming tact on for Netflix.
So let me get this straight thIs guy who is talking complete sense and is clearly a) switched on and b) talking from experiance. We're not going to listen to because gamers sent him away after they didn't like the ending to a game.
Is it really his fault that the internet wants watered down story telling that ties up every loose end rather than allowing creative people to take risks to try to deliver the best experiance so they can send off a trilogy of games they've dedicated years of their lives to create.
If Mr Zeschuk is saying its a bad idea, I completely agree.
The guy made Baldur's Gate, Knights of the old republic, Jade Empire and Mass Effect. If there's one person with a stamp of quality its this guy. Regardless if he's been out if the industry for a few years he still knows his stuff.
I think he knows more about developing than we all together. He has my respect.
Isn't the PS4K just a method of keeping Sony in the news cycle during the release of the first push of VR and the build up to the NX?
It's just someone in PR earning their keep, and well done to them, it's been super effective
I can't believe so many gamers choose to side with a retired dev, just because they can't stand the thought of others playing the same game on a better resolution or framerate. At first I thought I had to explain that this would only mean that the other console would have a better performance but the base console would play all games just fine like it does now, so that they didn't have to worry.... Turns out gamers are so upset because they don't want people that want to spend the money on it to have a new shiny toy that's better than theirs!
The people who just recently bought a PS4 are the funniest of the bunch: "well, that's just great! I figured my console would last me 7 years and now people will have consoles with better performance already: I might as well buy a PC". First of all: NO, PC gaming with its millions upon millions different setups isn't anyway near 2 Xboxes and 2 PS4s for devs. The consoles will still have an optimized and closed environment and with the x86 architecture games will easily scale; the new PS4k will be hamstrung by the base model if anything because no publisher will leave a 40 million install base behind. And second of all, and this is the part that annoys me most: those people that are crying foul now didn't mind not having a PS4 when it was 1 or even 2 years on the market! They didn't adopt early, which is their choice and which I totally respect, but now they somehow feel bad about not having the latest tech?? Come on!?
A new PS4k would be great, especially for people who don't always want to have the latest tech or people who don't have a lot of money. The 'original PS4' will soon be even more affordable as it is now so families who just want a Netflix box and minecraft are more inclined to get one, maybe infecting one of the members of the family with the gaming- virus in the process. And, and this is why I'm such a vocal supporter of PS4k, people in 3rd world- and upcoming countries will have a better chance to buy a PS4 within the next couple of years. Not only will the PS4k enlarge the potential consumer base tremendously, it will also give these people a console which they can use longer than in the old days.
The PS360 era was an anomaly and console cycles usually don't take that long. In the old system consoles would shift to new architectures and even if consoles were BC, new games for those consoles WEREN'T compatible with the old console; so if you didn't have the cash or interest to switch, your gaming options became very slim, very fast. If we have new iterations every 3 years based on the same architecture, our 'base console' will still be able to play indies and less taxing games 10 years from now. And this is were the Bioware dude is wrong: for devs it will be a whole lot easier in the long run to make "legacy" games (think sports games f.e.) for the millions of 'base PS4' owners with 1 architecture that saw 3 iterations, than for 2 entirely different architectures!
We didn't get cutting edge technology for our $399 and I can't believe some people still think they did. Sony and MS realized that the old days of funding their hardware are over, especially when the margins on software are getting so much smaller and software sales declining year over year. The industry has to take this step or else it'll be over before you know it. This isn't just about building a library that is still fully compatible in 10 years or having the latest piece of tech, this is about me not wanting to play games on my phone exclusively in 2020 because Sony, Nintendo and MS realized they can make much more with mobile games with way less risk involved.
But think of all the extra planets we could scan without still actually landing on them.
So changing a disc drive caused a lot of issues... How did they cope with various CPU's in the various different PS3's. How about the thousands of different CPU, GPU and RAM combinations on PC's - let alone multiple different disc drives on those too...
Just because the PS4 is not 3yrs old in market age, doesn't make something the technology that young. Maybe Sony opted to use more dated' technology to keep the price down BUT as a result aimed to replace or upgrade it sooner?
Would you rather have a cheaper console every 3yrs or a very expensive one (like the PS3 was) that lasts 5-6yrs?
Would love an upgraded PS4 with better hardware, day one purchase.
@Napples
Attacking him on a different angle doesn't disprove his point. This is about developing a game on two different specs where you'll have to test it on both if it runs properly. And if they focus on one first, the other will be an afterthought leaving the other version inferior (or underutilized depending if they went with the weaker one first).
@Splatburst my preference would be develop for the weaker one so I know it'll run on the stronger one. Sucks but if that's what it takes to get games performing as they should do on consoles I'd stump up.
@kyleforrester87
Yeah, I'd prefer that they develop for the weaker version first then add some bells and whistles to the stronger one if they want (which will make the weaker version inferior) than the other way around. Or just leave it the same graphics wise with just an advantage of a solid framerate.
I still don't believe these rumours but I hope SONY is listening because it seems 90% of consumers(and Game makers) don't want a updated PS4. I want a PS4 with a 4K Blu-ray player in it that would sell more future PS4's easily(if it's the same price as the PS4 is now) Do that SONY
@Carl-G 90% of gamers and developers eh? Where'd you get that handy little stat?
@Splatburst How do game developers test the game for PC's? Surely they don't test it running on EVERY possible combination of CPU (both AMD and intel) with various different clocks speeds, GPU (AMD and nVidia) and RAM (both DDR3 and GDDR5 - 4MB upto 32MB). Of course they don't!!
If a game runs on the 'minimum spec' it will run on the higher spec. They have a target to aim for - both a minimum spec and a level of performance. For example they mat aim for a certain level of CPU, GPU and RAM size (DDR3) and a performance of 1080/60. They will 'tweak' the game to run at that level. They do not remove higher performance information (like textures, higher resolution images etc) so that a higher level PC can adjust 'sliders' to increase these. They let gamers decide after that if they want/can have better visuals/frame rates. Often its a trade off - better visual for lower frame rates. Even a minimum spec PC can show 4K gaming (if you have the monitor) but the frame rate is too slow to be playable.
I personally would buy a PS4k IF it has more power and improves the games visually and/or frame rates too. I have a 4K TV (not bragging but stating a fact) and therefore could take advantage of resolutions above 1080 (1440p I would guess if its double the power GPU). I currently have a PS4 which is just over a 14months old. I wouldn't buy the 4k if all it did was add a 4k Bluray player and allow 4k streaming - I don't watch Bluray movies and don't subscribe to netflix etc.
I really do not see why people are so concerned at the moment. If handled right, this could be a great thing. Games will be available to both PS4 and PS4k. Its not like you PS4 owners won't get God of War 4 or the Last of Us 2 etc These may run at 1080/30 on PS4 but 1440/30 on PS4k (maybe 1080/60). MP games (like Uncharted 4) may run at 900/60 but 1200/60 on PS4k - same locked frame rate. I have NEVER seen an image where the 'extra' resolution from 900/1080p suddenly make enemies more visible or give a distinct advantage. There is more advantage in having different size TV's and not setting them up for gaming now!!
@BAMozzy
It doesn't work for consoles. You don't expect the players will tweak their console to properly run their game. It's the dev's job to tweak it to work on both which means extra work, extra testing. That was the point.
@Splatburst If it runs on the weakest, it will run on the more powerful console. They DON'T have to test it to make sure it works on both. The Consoles (in effect) would have the same architecture and OS - just one has more power than the other. It means that if a game runs at 1080/30 (for example) it will definitely run on the more powerful console. ANY improvement because of the extra power - be it resolution, frame rate or both is essentially a 'bonus' but the game will run on it because it runs on the PS4. There are GPU's which will turn 'native' 1080 into a 4k image. If that's all they use the GPU to do, then all they need to do is ensure that the game runs well on PS4 - a simple check - maybe a 'problem' area during PS4 testing - would be sufficient!
@Carl-G People are outraged now, but it's because none of us know what it really is. It could still be an awful idea, of course — but it's harder to know how to feel about something that hasn't been announced.
I think I'll side with Sam and say it's a 4k streaming/bku ray ready ps4 slim with a better wifi chip
@BAMozzy
So you're saying they won't tweak the game at all? No visual enhancement on the more powerful machine? Because it'll surely work on a more powerful console. If that's the case, that brings to my other point, the more powerful machine will be underutilized. To some, it's not a big deal. To others, it may not be enough reason to upgrade. To another, they may not be getting their money's worth because they're not getting their PS4K's full potential. Does Sony wants that? Maybe, maybe not.
Now if they tweak it to add visual enhancement, then there's extra work for the devs (the point of Mr. Zeschuk) to test if they've tweaked enough, or it needs more, or they've tweaked it too much. They'll need test the whole damn game if it runs smoothly throughout. It may become worst when they'll need to patch the game later either. It maybe buggy on the other version while it may run smoothly as before on the other. If they tweak or add a feature to the game later, it may run flawlessly on one while it may present a problem on the other which they may not foresaw when they initially released the game.
To gamers who have the old one, expect some of them will feel they'll be playing an inferior version of the game knowing the PS4K is better. You know how entitled gamers are now. They may not still be open to the idea of upgrading consoles so soon.
Either way, someone will be affected and won't be pleased. As a consumer, I personally don't mind if they release a PS4K. I actually prefer if they release a new upgraded console (same OS which means it can play older games without needing to port) every 3-4 years to keep up on game demands (graphically, features, etc).
Edit:
(I removed the rumor/speculation part)
If Sony unveils the PS4k at E3, it could be a new $599 moment for them. Just in time for the 10 year anniversary of Riiiiidge Raceeeeer and Giant Enemy Crab!
@Splatburst A developer doesn't need to run everything through to check it works on the PS4K. If it runs on the PS4 at a certain spec, it will definitely run on a higher spec machine. Lets say for example a couple of 'areas' were 'problem areas on the PS4, these are likely to be problem areas on the PS4k. What you do then is look at those and see how they run. For example if an area had 'difficulty' running at 1080/30 on PS4, look at these areas and see if they run at 1080/60 without issue or maybe 1440/30. Maybe a slight 'tweak' maybe needed but if you've don the tweaking on PS4, then these areas probably won't be an issue. Maybe the only difference between the PS4 and the PS4k is the fact that the PS4k's GPU upscales the game to 4k - the extra power is basically being used to do fancy upscaling. Regardless, the 'extra' workload is minimal. Like I said developers don't have to spend ages making sure a game runs on 'every' configuration of CPU and GPU so why would they have to check 'every' second of a game that clearly runs on the lowest possible configuration. The point is, the base coding of both the PS4 and PS4k would be the same. Its not like the difference in coding between the PS3 and PS4. The PS3 had several different hardware changes over its life - including its CPU. You didn't get issues with games running on the smaller 45nm chip but struggling on the 90nm chip because the all ran the same OS and source code.
As for gamers feeling entitled, so what? they've had up to 3yrs of playing 'next' gen games at what is essentially the highest possible level on Console. Times change! I bet they didn't feel 'sorry' for PS3 owners who got to play essentially lower res versions of a lot of games. What if MS bring out a new console and PS4 gets 900/30 games when the new Xbox runs these at 1080/60 (or more) - would you feel entitled to a new console then? Do PS4 owner feel inferior because their games are only 30fps when the same is 60fps on PC as standard??
As I said above, would people prefer a relatively cheap console that lasts 3-4yrs or prefer to spend double+ on a console that lasts 6+yrs? The PS3 at launch was a lot more (especially if you factor in inflation) than the PS4. I wonder if Sony had built a 'console' to sell at the equivalent price, it would last just as long from a technological point of view.
If Sony are planning its next gen (as in PS5) for 3years+ time, factoring in a transition period too, the PS4 has to last another 5years. Can you honestly see games maintaining a 1080/30 if they continue to grow and expand - especially with the PC advancing year on year too. Cyberpunk 2077 (CD Projekt's next game) is supposed to be bigger in every way to the Witcher 3, if so would that mean it runs at 900/30 on PS4 - maybe less?
Its all speculation of course. However in the last few years, we have seen a number of technological leaps - smaller, more efficient and more powerful chips, new API's, new streamlined OS systems etc all of which is contributing to the gulf between consoles and PC's. I know there is a gulf in price too but a GPU that's twice as powerful as the one in the PS4 that can upscale to 4K is only £180 retail (not the next gen 14nm chips) so would cost Sony a lot less if they buy millions in bulk.
As far as 'visual' tweaks - putting in more information than the PS4 version to make it 'worthwhile' - well that is just ridiculous. They don't make a game in say 1080p and then add extra details for PC players who play in 1440, and then more for those who play in 4k. What they do is make a game in 4k (and higher) and essentially crop it down in size to fit. Its like taken Photo's - you can take 20+ MP photo's that are 'massive' to capture the little details, then crop it down to fit what you need. If you blow it back up in size, it looks awful - however the source will still have all that information. The final stage of a games development is to basically 'flatten down the layers and 'crop' to fit. PS4 multi-platform games have the 4k (and higher) 'models' in the original source code - its why these run at 4K (native) on very high PC's. Games like the Witcher 3, the Division etc all looked much better when we first saw them - all developers have done is 'shrink it down' to fit.
As long as they don't split the library I'm more than fine with it. I highly doubt they would do that. That would be lunacy.
Also Splatburst and I are not related.
@BAMozzy
Again you're comparing it to PC where the devs don't have to test for each configuration of PCs. It's up to the PC gamers to tweak it how they want.
This is a console we're talking about where there will only be two configuration. PS4 and PS4K. They'll tweak two versions until they're satisfied with the performances. It could even affect the art style or the scope of the game they are aiming for IF there is a significant graphical power differences between the two (that's why I said earlier they should develop for the weaker PS4 FIRST IN MIND so by the time they "tweak" the game to run in it, it won't take too much graphical hit or downgrade on what they aimed the game for). The developers will be responsible how both versions will run, unlike on PC games where the users are the one who makes the adjustments. That's the point of Zeschuk, it will mean more work for them.
Also I get the impression that you are arguing with me if Sony should or should not release a PS4K, if it's a good idea or not, or that gamers should accept it's a good thing. As I said and I'll say it again, I don't mind if Sony releases a PS4K. You should argue with those who are against it. Not me.
@Splatburst If you actually read the first sentence of my comment, i said i agree with him. I wasn't trying to disprove his point at all, just pointing out that he's no longer in the business, and my "attack" was just pointing out the promises him and his team failed to deliver on. Yes, i'm still upset that someone who created some of the greatest RPGs ever made looked at the final code for ME3 and let it go to print. He needs to stick to beer making or whatever he does now.
@Napples
I've only played ME and ME2 and refused to play ME3 way back then because I WAS an Origin hater. ME3 wasn't released on Steam and even though Origin is better now, I've yet to pick up ME3. So I can't comment on ME3
Some people are really looking into this way to much. A higher resolution isn't a big deal, the games that would support 4k with a steady framerate for the PS4 would be graphically simple anyway.
In the end, this is NOT a big deal and quite stupid to get upset over such a thing.
@Splatburst The point is that games are predominantly made on PC's. PC gamers don't have to tweak their PC to make a game run, the game runs - full stop! (well if it meets the minimum recommended settings). A developer still has to make the game in at least 4k resolution for gamers with high power PC's. They still have to make sure it runs on both AMD and nVidia GPU's. You don't get games that run on a minimum spec PC that doesn't run on a higher spec. When developers make a game, they only make it once, they don't make 3 (or more) separate versions - it gets 'ported' to different platforms. All a developer would need to do is make sure a game runs on its minimum spec - its guaranteed to run on a higher spec version. All they need to do then after getting it running at a 'standard' they want, knowing any 'problem' areas is look at those on a higher spec system. They don't have to look at the whole game again on the higher spec. If they want a higher res (for example 1440) any problem areas on the PS4, would be problem areas in the PS4k. Any fixes they needed for that, would probably be fixes for the PS4k too. Any clipping problems will be dealt with on the 'source' coding and that will fix it across ALL platforms.
Games are not made with the 'minimum' spec in mind - at the moment that's XB1. Developers make games they want, and at a high spec/standard, and crop it down to fit. Its why games are identical regardless of platform in essence but why PC's have 4k visuals, higher frame rates. Consoles are cropped down to 1080 and locked at 30 (if they can't guarantee a consistent 60) and why the XB1 often is cropped down further - like 900p. What they are NOT doing is making a game with the XB1's capability (being the lowest) or aiming for the PS4's specs first and foremost and then 'adding' in better visuals afterwards for PC. The game and its 'vision' comes first.
PC gamers have a certain amount of 'in-game' tweaks available to them - things that are 'taken out' of console version because of the 'fixed' hardware. there is no need to put in graphic sliders to improve resolution etc. Its already been 'cropped' down to run on that spec. Its why current PS4 games are unlikely to benefit from the PS4k. If they do make the PS4k, it won't change how developers make a game.
When developers made games like Turok 2 (for example), they didn't make 2 versions - 1 for the expansion pak and one for the standard N64. They made 1 version. If you had the expansion pak, you could activate a 'high res' mode. If the PS4k is made, I can see this type of option being available. Maybe the game will automatically detect the version and automatically boost the resolution (or crop it down if you are on PS4).
I am not arguing with you about whether or not Sony should do it but trying to say that games won't take any longer or significantly more work IF Sony do. Its already proving difficult for developers to crop games down to Console level - getting them to run on these at a 'decent' standard. The CPU is proving to be a big hurdle to overcome - more so than the GPU because it's relatively slow. Getting a game to tun on a 'higher' spec is 'relatively' easy - especially if its a higher spec system. If they can get the game running on the PS4, then running it on the PS4k is pretty much guaranteed. Any issues on the PS4 are likely to be the same 'issues' on the PS4k - just at a higher resolution. With 'double' the power, developers effectively could give double the resolution (i.e. not crop it down so much) or double the frame rate (lock it at 60fps instead of 30). If a game struggles on PS4 at a certain point, it will have the same issues on PS4k so the same fixes will work. Its hardly going to take months of 'extra' work - which is my point!
@Kamikaze_Krunch Its totally possible that games on PS4 now could run at 4k (well some of them) if the output supported 4k. IF the rumoured specs are believed, a game like the Last of Us or Nathan Drake collection - in theory could run at 4k. Double the power would enable to double the resolution - that means an increase from 1080p to 1440p (roughly) If you then half the frame rate, you can effectively double the resolution again meaning that these could run at 4k/30.
I certainly wouldn't expect games to run at a native 4k though as standard - certainly not the majority of AAA games. I wouldn't be surprised though if games were running at 1440p. It may not seem like a lot but that is effectively double the pixel count. On a 4K TV, that would still mean that every other pixel would have to be artificially added in the upscaling process but considering only 25% of pixels are native at 1080p, this is quite significant.
I don't understand the 'upset' either. Its not like games are going to have a 'different' story, extra enemies or lacking content (like BO3 on PS3). By the time games can only 'run' on the PS4k, the PS5 is likely to be out. I do have concerns though that 'some' VR games may need the PS4k because of the extra processing required for 'motion' and the higher frame rate that is needed.
@BAMozzy
Yeah I'm not reading all that. Like I said, I, Splatburst, would PREFER if they would work around the graphical limitations of the weaker console (PS4 vs PS4K, I'm not particularly talking multiplatform games but it can work) rather than aim too high on the artstyle and graphical direction. Read my earlier post. Project CARS would be a good example. They aimed to high (not a bad thing) and look what happened? The Wii U version got cancelled because they couldn't make it run. When I say run which I think you've been confusing is to run properly on acceptable/playable levels. Of course Wii U can run project CARS at PS2 graphics and/or 20fps if that's what you're thinking. Also do you think, that I think they're making 3 or 4 versions of the same game for each console including PC? Then there's no point arguing with you.
@kyleforrester87 @BAMozzy @Splatburst
I dont' get the whole "split market" hard to code for different models thing.
MGSV - PS3, PS4, Xbox360, Xbox One. Wasn't that basically the same game on all 4 consoles released at the same time? Aren't PS3 and Xbox One about as different as 2 consoles can be, yet all 4 versions of the same game released at once? Yes there are graphical differences, but ti's the same game. 4 versions on 4 different hardware bases all at once.
Watch_Dogs had all of that as well, plus a Wii U version at a later date.
So I don't see why PS4 and PS4.5 is the end of the world for devs.
As for graphics being inferior on PS4, does that matter? How many people were complaining about the graphics for The Last of Us and GTAV way back on PS3? When the superior looking PS4 versiosn came out did people trash their PS3 versions? Did those become horrible games that needed to have their rating lowered b/c they somehow became ugly? My point is, just b/c PS4.5k may be better, doesn't mean PS4 version is bad. I know freaked out fanboi gamers will see it that way, but it doens't make it so.
PS3 had a lot of great looking games before PS4 came out. PS4 ran a lot of the same games as ports from PS3. I don't see how PS4.5k is the end of the world for devs or gamers. Instead of making PS3/Xbox360 games alongside PS4/Xbox One games, devs make Ps4/Xbox One games alongside Xbox1.5/PS4.5 games, drop the old last gen hardware. That means actually less work for them, not more.
I don't see what all the fuss is about. Well I get people complaining, that's what the internet is for, 1 big venting, but the reality is, last gen had some beautiful games, last gen and this gen shared some great multiplats, this gens incremental bump should be basically meaningless for everything but marketing and people streaming Sony's "Ultra" 4k service on their PS4k Ultra.
@rjejr
I only wanted to say Zeschuk has a point and it will mean more work for the devs fine tuning their games on multiple console configurations, but the discussion went deeper. I'm out.
1.4k is going to be the standard soon
2.4k ps4 makes sence
3.With this said i have no idea how they would even start implicating this without ticking alot of people off.
@BAMozzy @rjejr well bloody said!!!!!!
@BAMozzy @rjejr well bloody said!!!!!!
So long as it doesn't split the library, and the ps4 is compatible with all games up until ps5 release (then the ps4k would be compatible with all game up until 5k release) and the 4k is bc with all ps4 games, and cross console gaming/interactions is a thing I fail to see the issue. Essentially so long as the ps4k is extra eye candy/4k video support I don't see the issue. My only complaint and it's a minor one, is that both sony and ms stated that ps4 and x1 would be getting 4k video support down the road and that has yet to be mentioned. I don't have a 4k tv, and won't until the end of this year so it's not a big deal for me, but I can see where some people would have an issue.
Ps4k slim or ps4 slim. Probably they have used the production / components (to the advantage of sony to keep costs as is the case with all the various slim microsoft or sony). They will also have added a bluerayUHD player for viewing movies and not games, maintaining the same cost (due to savings in production). Just think of the fat from ps3 60gb, and later versions, 2 usb less, replacing touch buttons with mechanical ones and various construction materials.
I assume that Sony has the very strong interest for Blueray UHD format (such as for the blueray on ps3) and intends to spread it through the ps4.
Ps4 is selling well and does not feel (for most people) the need on the part of the consumers of more power. A sony a possible ps4k enhanced cost you in terms of design and distribution, regardless of when they started to plan it.
Sony also displease a lot of people, more than I would happy, as well as create a lot of confusion among consumers.
Sony must be careful how to move, because the playstation is one of the few if not the only area where it is going well and that sustains the company.
Anyway, it's really so widespread 4k technology? And the TV 4k on the market (leaving aside those from 2500 € up, which also have their a nice lag!) Are suited to videogames? I have tried some of them with ps4 and connected xone. some titles were unplayable by what was embarrassing on the input lag.
Sorry for my english xP
It needs added functionality to really get people excited about upgrading. If it can make me breakfast while I play games, I'm in. PS4, poached eggs on wholemeal toast, please.
@ale5510 Whilst I must admit I have struggled to understand your post, I appreciate that English isn't your first language.
To answer your part about 4k TV's and Lag. My 4k TV has a 'game' mode, as do most. According to Leo Bognar tests (not me testing myself), My TV does well and is actually comparable to a lot of 1080p TV's - better than a lot too (around 22-26ms - that's 0.022-0.026 of a second). It can't compete with Sony's though (generally around 15ms +/- 3ms) and their game modes but these are the market leader in that area. If you don't set up your TV properly, then Lag can be very high but my 55" 4k is actually better than the 1080p TV it replaces in terms of input lag and better than ANY TV that isn't set up in 'game' mode.
It is possible to buy a branded 55" 4k TV for less than £500 and a big choice if you stretch that budget up to £750 - you can often get Smart TV's with 3D in this price range. Its estimated that 50% of the US will have a 4k TV in the next few years. 4K TV's are outselling 1080p and its likely that you will struggle to buy a 'new' 1080p TV - you could buy new stock that's been sat in a warehouse for a year or two...
@BAMozzy its not always about performance, its about compatibility. Even slight deviations in the hardware can require different sets of drivers that can act in different ways and have their own set of quirks. In the PC world, most devs just dont give a. If some combination doesnt work, they just list it as incompatible, and leave it up to the user to find a solution. Thats not an option on consoles. That being said, I doubt that the PS4K is going to be a big issue, but its a disturbing thought for the future of consoles, turning into PCs.
@thedevilsjester Watch the language -Tasuki-
@thedevilsjester The difference here though is that in all likelihood, the PS4k will be running an AMD CPU and GPU with the same OS. Its slightly different from the variety of CPU's that Sony used in the various different PS3's .
As it stands at the moment, even if the rumour does come true, this is nothing like PC's. If both are available, both will have a 'set' hardware configuration. Its not like PC's which can have a variety of different combinations and clock speeds too - and even more than 1 GPU too.
I think Sony and MS knew they couldn't make a console to last 6+yrs like the PS3/XB360 for £350-400 at the time and maintain a 'certain' graphical standard. This at least keeps the fanbase together better than releasing a whole new PS5...
I really dont want to be stuck in 7 year console cycles anymore. Ill happily day 1 pay for an upgraded console which runs the same games at better res/framerates. There is no reason they'd need to 'split' their library at all - there would just be an option for the many gamers who would like to pay to upgrade every 3 years or so. Those that dont want to, dont have to.
@BAMozzy I am not talking about the PS4k being a problem, I am talking about the concept as a whole, and I can tell you, as a game and software developer, even tiny hardware variations can have enormous impact.
That aside, the whole idea of "they will be made for the lowest power system, and then 'enhanced' or 'better' in some way on the bigger systems" is just a fallacy. In fact, taking a cue from the PC world, the "minimum requirements" (being the PS4) and the "recommended requirements" (being the PS4k), minimum requirements are rarely enjoyable.
Just think if this begins a trend. The PS2 only recently (a few months ago) shut down production, the PS3 is still going strong. So what does this tell us? That we will have 3 full generations of hardware going at the same time. Now imagine each generation having one or two hardware refreshes, then we get 6 to 9 different spec'ed systems out (and active). What system becomes the minimum system? When will a system fall "out of rotation" and no longer be supported? This is one of the biggest reasons I dropped PC gaming. Its just a nightmare of upgrades and crossing your fingers hoping that the minimum requirements are even close to reasonably playable. The only way to avoid this is to not support older hardware, but as the PS3 (and even the PS2) has shown, if there is a user base with a lot of those consoles, developers are loathe (and slow) to move on.
I am not opposed to a PS4 that can play 4k media, just so long as it does not offer any increase in power for gaming.
Tap here to load 52 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...