Microsoft fires the first shot in the "NEXT" generation.... - Page 136

The Wii U will be as relevant for third parties as the Wii was this gen. It's just not going to be able to run the same game. Not with half the ram, a quarter of the GPU power and a fraction of the CPU. It's in a completely different league. Wii U will get third party ports as long as they're still making 360/PS3 ports, and then just like the PS2....it's getting shut out as the world moves on.

As far as to what the disparity between the PS3 and 360 amounts to - frame rate and resolution. Since the CPU/GPU architectures are essentially the same, its as if we've got two different specs of PC. I don't think they'll really build games where the PS4 has higher quality assets or effects, as you say. We can see many games that run in full 1080p on PS4 need a lower res to run at the same frame rate on nextbox, similar to the way many games are 640p-ish now, even though they claim to be 720p. We can see some games simply running at a higher or just more stable frame rate on PS4. It may not be a huge difference in many cases, but its going to be a selling point.

Also noticed the nextbox has some sort of hardware video encoder. This amounts to a few interesting idea:

High quality in game video chat, or even livestreaming. It could mean there's a touchscreen/display on the controller like WiiU/PS4. You might be able to remote access your console from your phone/tablet, watch your recordings, play games etc. It might even be a way to serve up a multi-room gaming setup if the rumors of the set-top box are real. Buy one nextbox, and remote play it on any TV in your house with a set top. It could even serve up an entirely different view, game, whatever.

Sony had the hardware edge this Gen too, but on 95% of the titles, lot of good it did. The similar architecture means there will be much more parity next Gen, but Dev's are not going to go out of there way besides a few cost effective bells and whistles, which really isn't going to amount to much beside, as you said, selling points. Also fuels the free advertising that the fanbois wars generate, but ultimately to gamers there's not going to be much difference.

I'm getting excited because it looks like the likelihood of 720/60-1080/30 locked (and more likely 1080/60) is going to be a reality. Framerate issues and sub HD resolutions plagued this generation, and it'll be nice to finally be able to use my big screen HDTV outside of the arcade games.

It's a very different story next gen though. Current gen the consoles have radically different architectures. The PS3 may have been more powerful if you went out of your way to squeeze every bit out of the Cell...but no one but first parties did. Here we have basically the same architecture with one simply faster than the other.

Not to mention with it all running on x86, steam up and coming....PC ports should be effortless, and scalability implied. Devs basically have to build to one architecture instead of three....I'm sure they're loving this.

4K just isn't an option for these consoles. On PC today, with top-of-the-line hardware, it's do-able, but we're also talking about $1000 video cards here.

What unimpressive IS 4K sets...

The average consumer has absolutely no use for them, and is not able to discern the difference. Not many people have the money or space for a dedicated home theater, or 100" flat-screen, which is the setup needed to benefit from 4K. You might reel the tech nerds in, and those that need new toys; but that's not where the money is. HDTV and BD adoption has been pretty slow, and 4K is going to continue the trend where consumers take a look, then call their setups "good enough". Hell, most people are still trying to figure out why their 4:3 material has "black bars" and what the fuss about BD is, since it looks as good as DVD to them.

4K makes sense for other commercial uses (stadiums, bars, advertising, digital movies theaters, ect), but at home use they're not really going to break into the market except as replacement sets and as prices drop precipitously. Gaming consoles catering to anything but hardware up-scaling is wasting resources that could go into game rendering.

BF3 on these news systems running at 1080/60P will look beautiful. Getting half the performance out of it, while running at 4K would probably produce something looking like the current console version. The trade off really isn't worth, especially with how slow the consumers are going to be adopting 4K.
Edited by TyrantII - 1/21/13 at 12:39pm

As with any tech the cost will come down and it will become more reasonable over time. I saw that the new Oppo upscales to 4k which I assume is about the same as a DVD being upscaled to HD which IMO was rarely a noteworthy improvement. Has there been any word on DTS-HD MA or any high bitrate audio output?

HDTV adoption started off slow, but the TV industry was booming from about 2007-2010 as people replaced their old sets. HDTV has caught on just fine. BD adoption hasn't, but that's because people prefer other options that all show in HD (VOD, Netflix, etc.).

You are probably right about 4K, but I remember hearing all these arguments before. I'm more interested in OLED myself...

Yes, of course, but the consoles are coming this year.

DTS-MA is just a compression scheme, it gets you lossless audio. These consoles will certainly support uncompressed PCM direct over HDMI.

The future of computing will be in software not hardware, as everything will be standardized. Look at the phone industry, 99% of these phones are exactly the same underneath the casing. ARM CPU, a modest (512mb-2gb) of RAM, flash drive, etc. Even the Vita is souped-up cell phone tech. It's all about software.

The days of spending hundreds of millions of dollars to design and build your own chip and write custom SDKs are thankfully just about over.

It is up to Sony and MS to tailor their software setup the way they think people will want it.

It's definitely a big win for everyone but IBM.

Also, another reason why the Wii U will get **** on, cause the world has moved on from PowerPC and they didnt get the memo.

Intel even moreso.

HDTV caught on fine, but look at what drove it. Form factor and falling prices were a bigger driver of sales, than any visual test. 3D TV's are moving at a snails pace, and 4K will be even slower. People simply loved the idea of flat screen, and hanging them over fireplaces and on walls, getting rid of their bulky CRT's. It's why rear projection HD sets like mine are practically considered dinosaurs, even as the picture is one of the best 1080p displays to this day.

I will say one thing, reliability is way down compared to CRTs of old. The industry has made great strides in making flat screen TV's much more like other non-durable consumer goods. That will help resells, but I don't think we're going to see people adopt anywhere near the levels DVD and then the flat screen form factor begot. The technology will filter in, but it won't be selling sets. After all, we've already gone through 120hz, 240hz, visual processing, 3D, and now 4K trying to reclaim those level of sales.

I think large factor OLED displays that are thinner than a comparatively sized picture frame would really be the only thing to drive new sales/adoption higher in any meaningful way. A 2cm thin, 10lbs 60" display would drive more sales than a 4K TV that consumers don't see a difference with.

I thought I read that Sony or someone already demo'd a 4k OLED? 3D is a gimmick, if people could by the same TV for less by not having it 3D capable they would. I have a few 3D titles and it's fun but I could care less, I want the best PQ i can get for the $$ period. Physical media is mostly dying because people are freakin lazy. They'd rather stream a crap feed from NF then rent or buy a quality physical copy. Vudu is the only worthwhile streaming service IMO. Most of us HT enthusiasts will continue to buy physical media as we want the most out of our system/investment. I don't know if studios could get away with an upconvert in a post 4k world but on the same token I doubt we will see even the same level of commitment they had to bluray catalog releases and even fewer will be rescanned for 4k.

As far as the nextgen goes, yes I want lossless and could care less if its uncompressed PCM or something my AVR will decode as long as the bitrate does not suffer for it. I'd like to see an end to wired chat as well. While we're at it why not go for 1080/90

Right, the TV business is terrible right now because everyone replaced their old HDTVs. That level of sales is not coming back for a while.

4K probably won't be some game changer, but I have heard before that technology XYZ is dead in the water because people can't tell he difference or don't care. I don't know of a single person who can't tell the difference between HD and SD, DVD and Blu-Ray, etc. Yet even on tech sites like Slashdot, all the nerds were saying their upscaled DVDs were just fine.

The "problem" with BRs isn't that they are just as good as DVD, it's that there are many other ways to watch movies, all of which are in HD. People are probably reluctant to re-buy their entire collections, but I think people also see less utility in having that collection. I can rent thousands of movies from my couch...

Sure, the point is make it better. 3D doesn't make TVs materially better. 4K might.

I don't have Netflix but I rented a movie from Amazon IV the other day and it was just fine. I would say 90%-95% of a Blu-Ray, from my couch. It's about convenience. You can call that lazy, but I'm happy.

I have bought a number of BRs (Criterion Co, other favorites, etc.), but there's no way I'll go out of my way to rent a disc again.

I've seen very few amazon VOD rentals I was impressed with, not to mention they cap out at DD 5.1. I stream movies from amazon, NF, and Vudu but when it is something I care about seeing, a "blockbuster" title or something I see get high marks for A/V around here I will wait for the BR from NF or buy it. I've invested too much into my HT and enjoy the experience too much to dumb it down because I don't want to wait for the disc. Nothing wrong with it, people can rent what and how they want but I typically want to experience the movie the best I can given the limitations of my system and current tech.

Yah, amazon might have an edge on titles, to me, but the quality is less than Netflix and Vudu.

1080p to 4k is going to be about as significant as SACD. Barely noticeable difference, but might as well go all the way if you've got the capability.

Except....we don't really have the capability. Consoles won't be able to do it this round, bluray cant do it, broadcast can't do it, and barely anyone has the bandwidth to stream it....though maybe in 5ish years when 4K TVs are under $1000, I'll somehow convince myself its just something I have to have....

It's AVS, that's what we do

Until I can see the bluray version of a movie compared to the 4k scan/version of the same I'll reserve judgement. The demo material is always a joke and never a representation of what to expect most of the time. As with anything content is king and it will be a while before we see the next real stage in PQ evolution me thinks.

Well, we know what it will be. It's frame rate and 3D. Resolution is basically a solved problem at 1080p for the vast majority of people with consumer gear.

Increased frame rate is coming to movies (with plenty of resistance, just like 3D). It's always been there for games, if devs show restraint in their vision. 3D is the other evolution, eventually the glasses go away, and with a higher frame rate, its pretty easy on the eyes too.

And that's fine, but it won't drive the market for many. To get any utility besides "just knowing I got the best" out of 4K you'll either have to sit uncomfortably close to your set, or upgrade to 70"+. We're running smack into the point where the finite resolution of human vision really cramps "The best PQ for the $$$ period." And while it will grab videophiles, it's not going to drive a new wave of sales / upgrades. Just ain't gonna happen, because very few people have a need for it, let alone will be able to literally see a reason to. They'll just get it as a feature when they need a new TV, because it'll be standard by then.




It's not going to fail, not all all, it will take over the marketplace eventually. It just not going to be a quick change, nor one that 99% of people actively seek.

Where's that gameboy kid so we can gloat about that blu-ray drive in the new xbox.

Yes, you'll notice that he's been silent lately. So much for his inside track.

I have to agree. We all want "the best PQ" but I just don't see the need for 4K right now, especially when I can't even turn my TV on and get 1080p without inserting a Blu-Ray Disc into my players. There simply isn't going to be a reason for 4K to even be talked about until we see more HD adoption, AND see everyone adopt at least 1080p for everything, and even then, like you say, you aren't even going to see a difference unless you have a monster screen and not many people will go for 70" units. I'd prefer to see full bandwidth 1080p, in all its glory, be the standard for quite some time.

Lots of assumptions about 4k from people I'm assuming haven't seen one yet? Like I said before, I'll reserve judgement until I see an apples to apples comparison. I'm not about to shell out $$ for new tech if it is not a fairly significant improvement that I can see and that has some content to make it worth while. There are plenty of channels that are broadcasting in 1080p but that doesn't mean the source material has not been dumbed down or processed by some numbskull fresh out of college. How many blurays have we seen that have been molested by a studio, some so bad that they were forced to re-release it... Gangs of New York, Gladiator, etc. Look at how many versions of Total Recall we have now with different color timing, grain, etc. The resolution output is almost nothing if the content is not handled properly.

Sorry to go so OT here, the thrust of my point was I'd like to see something from MS that has at least the ability to grow a bit as the AV world advances, assuming we will have this for another 7 years +/-.

I really would like to know of some channels that are truly 1080p....serious question, because as a Dish customer, I don't know of anything they are sending out at that rez. I am with you 1 million percent on seeing the console grow with technology, which is why I mentioned (in an earlier post) having the console be "upgradeable", so that people are given some flexibility and allowed to have a bit more customization, personalization, and uniqueness to their systems. They sort of started that with faceplates, but I'd like to see it move beyond that, to storage options, etc.

Edit - I admit, I haven't seen a 4k demo yet, but there is a limit to what you can see, at smaller screen sizes, so the person that posted about requiring a larger screen to get the benefit, is very much correct. I still think that by in large, good, solid, 1080p, at 60fps, on a console, would wow people and make them forget 4k for quite some time.

I'm sure the nextbox will be handle 4k in the way the 360 handled 720p, it wil support it for video but not for games. There's a chance they can make the platform flexible enough to output 4k games in a few years with upgraded hardware, but the box you buy this year will never fully support 4k.

Forgive the dumb question as I know more about film than video games but how does that compare to say 96Hz Playback of 24p?

Unless you're using frame interpolation/soap opera effect, 96hz playback of 24p is still 24 frames a second, its just displaying each frame 4 times, so there is no flicker. TVs display by default at 60hz, but 24 doesn't divide very well into that, so it doesn't look as smooth as it should. A display mode that is multiple of 24 solves that, some TVs also do 48, 72 or 120.

Most games run at 30fps, 60 fps is butter smooth - its what cod runs at.