or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Home Theater Gaming › PlayStation Area › PlayStation Meeting 2013 (PS4 unveiling - conference replay in first post)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

PlayStation Meeting 2013 (PS4 unveiling - conference replay in first post) - Page 5

post #121 of 1994
Quote:
Originally Posted by TornadoTJ View Post

Adding memory would not alter the console any more than adding a larger hard drive, which I have done to every PS3 I have owned. It isn't the same for having to program for different video cards and such, simply look at the memory available and be done with it. Microsoft is already in a worse situation having XBOX systems with and without hard drives for game installs.



Wasn't there some comment about these not being available due to RAM constraints? Wouldn't you rather spend $20 to upgrade to 4GB RAM to enable some of these functions rather than wish for a new $600 console?

Thing about ram upgrades is it changes the SKU's into have and have nots. You might have a bigger HDD, but that doesn't change a thing as far as the developers are concerned as every game has a HDD. If anything, it proves my point. The 20GB SKU is so low that it's most likely one of the reason we are not allowed to put games on the HDD and play them without using our disk drives. It would be impractical for lower size drives and breaking the market into different levels of users is not smart.

Start messing with RAM, and Devs both need to develop to the lowest SKU AND figure out ways to make purchasing more RAM worth it. You also then split your customer base.

You simply can not ignore the smaller SKU.


MS has this problem now because of the non-HDD and HDD SKU's of the 360. Game updateds and patches are regulated to 8MB only because some people will not have a HDD. Thats ok for fixes in code, but means assets (texture issues, level issues, ect) mise well be set in stone.

Really, if you're worried about leaps in GFX every few years and want to toy with upgrades, PC is your choice. Ram is yet again a limitation in the PS3, but I'm not having "less fun" because my games are not up to the eye candy on a PC. Good enough and ease of mind are the consoles selling points, and it won't be changing.

Just as Sega and Nintendo. SCD, 32X, and N64DD all were huge flops because they made that mistake.
post #122 of 1994
I think you could ignore the smaller SKU for the $60 shooters, which was my original point. Casual games would not matter and could all be developed for the smaller build. Same for casual gamers, I'd bet most PS3 owners don't care at all about cross-game chat, but it is one of the biggest complaints on this forum. I know some PS3 owners that have not logged into the PSN in over TWO YEARS, pretty certain they don't care about things like that.
post #123 of 1994
The people not logging in in two years are also the people not spending $60 a month of video games, part of which is licensing fees to Sony. It pays to keep your revenue generators happy, and I'm sure the majority of them want it. (cross game chat / party system)

Friends and I have been regulated to third party smartphone/PC options.

In the end memory expansion is just a mess and headache for Devs and the hardware manufacturer. It makes little sense for the small gain it might provide. When your largest selling point is plug and play and "easier than dealing with a PC", making it more like a PC is a bad road to start down.
post #124 of 1994
Quote:
Originally Posted by TornadoTJ View Post

I think you could ignore the smaller SKU for the $60 shooters, which was my original point. Casual games would not matter and could all be developed for the smaller build. Same for casual gamers, I'd bet most PS3 owners don't care at all about cross-game chat, but it is one of the biggest complaints on this forum. I know some PS3 owners that have not logged into the PSN in over TWO YEARS, pretty certain they don't care about things like that.

For adult hardcore gamers having low RAM sku's and high RAM sku's wouldn't be a problem a the cash register. But if little Bobby gets low RAM sku from Grammy for Christmas and can't play the game he got from cool uncle Dave, the sith will hit the fan.
Not to mention that it would fragment the install base for games, lots of devs would hesitate to develop a AAA class game that did not hit the widest market especially for new IP's.
post #125 of 1994
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeblow View Post

Yet another one of your derisive rants. He's not attempting to detail the PS4 so we have no idea what the machine's main focus is; he's just discussing the direction for some of the tech that's coming in the future, including stuff that might make it in and stuff not related to the PlayStation at all.

I wasn't being derisive. Just skeptical. There's a difference. I have nothing to gain by badmouthing (or praising) a piece of hardware--especially one that doesn't even exist. Frankly, it's just not an emotional investment for me. I guess I like to think that we've gotten past the "console war" BS. But whatever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TornadoTJ View Post

I don't think Move has failed, either. There have been some really crappy titles, but the hardware itself is just fine. On the other hand, there have been some good titles, too.

I agree. Actually, if you look back at my post, I never said those devices failed. What I said was that Sony's strategy failed (building amazing hardware in order to lure third party support). And that that failure could be seen in how the PSP, Move, and PS3 all had a tough time with third parties at various times in their life cycles (PS3 early on, PSP late in its life, and Move hasn't yet found it).

The devices themselves and the first party games for those devices are all great; I own all three.
post #126 of 1994
Quote:
Originally Posted by todrigo View Post

For adult hardcore gamers having low RAM sku's and high RAM sku's wouldn't be a problem a the cash register. But if little Bobby gets low RAM sku from Grammy for Christmas and can't play the game he got from cool uncle Dave, the sith will hit the fan.
Not to mention that it would fragment the install base for games, lots of devs would hesitate to develop a AAA class game that did not hit the widest market especially for new IP's.

How is that any different than the XBOX systems without and with hard drives? It certainly didn't mess up their sales. Regardless, I said let's make the slots available to cheaply add more RAM, that way if for any reason more RAM is needed, it's easy and cheap. Same as the hard drives are for the PS3.

When the poop would hit the fan is if the low RAM skus did not have any option to EASILY add industry-standard RAM.

Sony is already going down this avenue with the Vita, grammy buys little Bobby a Vita for Christmas with no memory card, then Bobby's mom has to go out and find a Vita specific memory card, and not cheap. Even worse will be if she buys an SD card thinking it will work, therefore making 2 trips to the store.
post #127 of 1994
Quote:
Originally Posted by TornadoTJ View Post

How is that any different than the XBOX systems without and with hard drives?

Good point. Being able to do installs can have a big effect on performance. The catch, though, is that developers still have to develop for the lowest common denominator. But even then, you get some folks (like DICE did with Battlefield 3 and its texture pack installation) who target those with the better setup.

But scaling something as significant as memory just seems pointless from a manufacturer perspective. In terms of cost-to-price ratios, it wouldn't be easy to scale at retail in a way that was profitable. It makes much more sense to produce different hardware models with scalable things that are relatively cheap (like harddrives) or with things that pay for themselves (3G).
post #128 of 1994
Yeah, but as said RAM is vastly different from a HDD in it's use. A HDD is used to store stuff that doesn't need to be accessed. With the xbox it just means you can't download DLC or store other media, you have less space for games saves, and you can not run the game from the HDD. Ultimately, it doesn't effect the core of the game (besides forcing dev's into a very limited patching system).

RAM is essential to processes running in real time. It would be the difference of the Skyrim we got, and a Skyrim that ran perfectly.

Which then begs the question, does skyrim then require additional RAM just to play, locking out the lower SKU? Do they release a game that barely runs on the lower SKU? Do they develop with the lower SKU in mind, but then try to add in perks for every iteration from the lower SKU to the memory limit?

One things that console Dev's like is that the system is fixed hardware, and they know exactly what they need to work with. They know their game will not preform wildly different for each user. It's part of their process and plan. It also allows them freedoms that aren't afforded to PC development, while also providing limitations.

Anyways, that's why it won't happen. It just doesn't make any sense without negating the whole point of consoles in the first place.

If anything, we're seeing PC and tablet hardware going towards the closed console model. Look at the iPhone, iPad and android (ok, so not the best example).
post #129 of 1994
From: WSJ

Quote:


Sony said it does not plan on making an announcement about a new home console at this year's E3 videogame trade show, deflating expectation that a successor to its PlayStation 3 will be on its way soon.

Kaz Hirai, who oversees Sony's videogame and consumer electronics businesses, said the company always viewed PlayStation 3, which debuted in 2006, as a product with a 10-year life cycle and he sees no reason to rush to replace it with a new system.

The E3 trade show, slated this year for early June in Los Angeles, is an event where many videogame console makers reveal plans for upcoming systems. Historically, new game machines are announced about every five years so there has been a lot of speculation that a new PlayStation may be unveiled at this year's E3.

During a roundtable with reporters at the Consumer Electronics Show, a reporter asked a question to Hirai attributing comments to the head of its videogame division, Andrew House, that there would be no announcement about a PlayStation 4 at the show.

Hirai, who appointed House for the job, said they are not talking about a new home console now and that they don't plan to do so at E3.

Andy (House) is absolutely right in that we are not making any announcements at E3, Hirai said. I've always said a 10-year life cycle for PS3, and there is no reason to go away from that.
post #130 of 1994
And quick on the heels of Kaz Hirai's anti-announcement is this bit of wild speculation:

Quote:


Sony was quick to shoot down rumors that a PS4 would be announced at this year's E3, but things just got a lot more interesting all of a sudden, as cloud gaming service Gaikai has commented that one of the current console manufacturers actually won't be creating another console for the next generation. Speaking during CES, Nanea Reeves, chief product officer for Gaikai, predicted, "Not all of the current console makers will have one more generation. That will be the big news at E3."

If true, wow. With Wii U guaranteed to launch in 2012, that means it's either going to be Microsoft or Sony. Our take is that it's probably Sony because financially the company would have a tougher time with the huge R&D and manufacturing for yet another new console.

Beyond that, it's easy to speculate that perhaps Sony is working on some major cloud gaming partnership with Gaikai instead of devoting resources to another piece of hardware. We'll bring you more as we hear it!

http://www.industrygamers.com/news/s...edicts-gaikai/

EDIT: What if Sony does a major hardware redesign for the PS3 instead of launching a new console? What if that's their big announcement for E3? Even slimmer than the slim. Bigger harddrive. Revamped streaming services, new OS, and improved PS+ service. Rather than even doing a PS3.5, they could put all of their "next gen" energies into beefing up the service, content, and usability of the PS3. It'd be a hell of a lot cheaper for Sony with a hell of a lot more profit potential. It'd effectively be a way to take the wind out of the competition's sails (outdoing MS in media service and outdoing Nintendo in hardware and software library, and outdoing both in price). And if they can finally figure out how best to integrate the Vita into the PS3, they could possibly rejuvenate the platform for another 3-5 years--depending on where Vita support goes.

Basically, rather than releasing next gen hardware, they'd be releasing a "next gen" suite of services, features, and content. MS has been trying to do this, but it's been rolled out slowly and haphazardly and with major faults. This could be a big opportunity for Sony to do it right.
post #131 of 1994
Quote:
Originally Posted by confidenceman View Post

And quick on the heels of Kaz Hirai's anti-announcement is this bit of wild speculation:

http://www.industrygamers.com/news/s...edicts-gaikai/

That's quite the gamble. Who ever is out, is out.

MS's gaming division is still really, really far in the red, so they'd be my first guess (if only because they did the right thing and covered their hardware frak ups). They always have leveraged their other areas into their gaming division, but seeing the success of Apple's iPhone and iPad might have them thinking they need to compete here at home. They're two systems in the red now, with questionable penetration overseas, and honestly I'm not sure why shareholders would tolerate a third.

I really can't see Sony going the streaming / DLC only route anytime soon with their hubris and lack of skill with internet integration. If they do, the PS brand is dead, dead, dead in American and probably Europe. I'm also doubting this, as we already have word that Sonys first party studios have been in contact with Sony HQ about where to go next system wise. Confidenceman's edit would probably be more what this is if the rumor is talking about Sony, as it's what Sony really needs to focus on in the first place. Still, it's going to alienate a lot of current users who will need to upgrade to play slightly better titles.

Could it possibly be Nintendo after they bombed at the last E3 with the Wii (NG+)? Maybe they cut their losses on that horrible Wii-U and decided they needed something revolutionary.
post #132 of 1994
Ultimately, it's just speculation. But coming from Gaikai, it's possible they know something we don't. Either that, or they're trying to set themselves up as competition to traditional console manufacturing. But once you start looking at which companies can actually afford the R&D, manufacturing, and marketing expenses of a new console, you can see why Sony's in no rush to jump back into the fray anytime soon. But that could be a good thing. Repackaging the PS3 and transforming its services could be a surprise coup in the industry.
post #133 of 1994
I remember reading an article (can't find it now) that suggested the only reason MS entered the gaming console arena was to stop Sony from putting a cheap PC alternative into our homes. The next gen will probably have the power/features to suit that role, but it is no longer relevant. MS was worried about Sony, but the real threats turned out to be Google and Apple.

Honestly, I wouldn't mind if Sony or (preferably) MS bowed out. With the Mass Effect series coming to the PS3, the only 360 exclusive that interests me is Gears of War. I don't game as much as I used to (backlog is in double digits) and can't justify having more than one console next gen.
post #134 of 1994
If there's any truth to that then MS is in the best position to make the jump to a net based console. There's the XBL that's in place and they already have a subscriber base. MS could sell the box and make a subscription mandatory for any gaming, a valid charge since everything will be "from the cloud". The big problem is relying on current internet infrastructure, which is barely adequate for broadband anything (unless you live in South Korea). XBL has those size caps in place for a reason.

I suppose Sony could go more net based, and do the whole update of existing hardware thing. If the service, speed, and software offered is that revolutionary then Sony might trump everyone. I just don't see Sony giving up hard media, not when it still provides the highest fidelity A/V presentation you can get.
post #135 of 1994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crash44 View Post

I suppose Sony could go more net based, and do the whole update of existing hardware thing. If the service, speed, and software offered is that revolutionary then Sony might trump everyone. I just don't see Sony giving up hard media, not when it still provides the highest fidelity A/V presentation you can get.

There are alternatives. For example, both Gaikai and OnLive just announced that their platforms will be integrated into televisions (Gaikai with LG and OnLive with GoogleTV). Apple is likely planning something similar.

I had speculated a while back that Sony might do something along these lines by incorporating gaming into one of their TVs. They've begun paving the way with their PS branded 3D TV. And while this hypothetical PSTV would likely include new tech (faster processor, built-in camera and microphone, etc), it wouldn't technically be a new "console" or something that could be called a "successor" to the PS4. It's a way to reconcile Kaz Hirai's statement with the Gaikai rumor with Sony staying a major force in the industry. Win, win, win.

EDIT: The Vita would also be a possible way to run interference in Apple's ecosystem. Sony's advantage over Apple is that it knows gaming hardware and it knows big-budget game content. Make no mistake, everyone (Apple, MS, Sony, Google, and even Nintendo) are all racing to be the first successful all-in-one device. The advantage that Sony, MS, and Apple have is that they have a full "ecosystem" of integrated devices (assuming Sony can get its **** together with the Vita).

Considering that Sony has a huge entertainment publishing company (movies, music, TV), a display tech division (though it's in trouble), and a large gaming division, it's criminal that they haven't already gotten this figured out. The big missing piece is an integrated online storefront and media platform akin to Apple's iTunes--the secret sauce behind Apple's continued success. Sony keeps trying, but it never works because they are still in the dark when it comes to running a network. But maybe Sony's Next Big Thing (the "NBT") will finally solve this problem.

Regardless, the next era of gaming will have a lot more competition between competing services and hardware, which means consumers will be the big winners.
post #136 of 1994
Thread Starter 
Even if we were to believe a random rumor, Sony's not bowing out next gen. Their execs have mentioned how coming out too late after next gen starts wouldn't be good. One of the top dogs also said this:


Quote:
Sony will launch its next generation home console when developers are unable to improve the games they make, a senior executive at the company has said.

When that happens, Sony will have to "seriously consider" launching the PlayStation 4, worldwide studios boss Shuhei Yoshida told Eurogamer.

"Looking at the platform cycle, when the platform becomes something game developers are not able to improve their creations with, that's the time we have to really seriously consider shifting to the next generation," Yoshida said.

They have added more major studios as opposed to shedding them in recent years. In house Sony gaming developers are already gearing up for next gen, including Naughty Dog and Media Molecule. The recent snippets from my last post is from a Sony engineer working on next-gen gaming tech (and even next-next gen gaming tech).

If the rumor is true, and I'm not sure that it is, he's not referring to Sony.
post #137 of 1994
Quote:
Originally Posted by confidenceman View Post

I wasn't being derisive. Just skeptical. There's a difference. I have nothing to gain by badmouthing (or praising) a piece of hardware--especially one that doesn't even exist. Frankly, it's just not an emotional investment for me. I guess I like to think that we've gotten past the "console war" BS. But whatever.

I agree. Actually, if you look back at my post, I never said those devices failed. What I said was that Sony's strategy failed (building amazing hardware in order to lure third party support). And that that failure could be seen in how the PSP, Move, and PS3 all had a tough time with third parties at various times in their life cycles (PS3 early on, PSP late in its life, and Move hasn't yet found it).

The devices themselves and the first party games for those devices are all great; I own all three.

Hi confidenceman

My article originally here and given that the software issue has come up, I wanted to qualify a couple of things in Tsuruta-san's defence (if that's the right word).

He was speaking at one of the main silicon design conferences, the International Electron Devices Meeting, so the hardware roadmap was obviously what he'd arrived prepared to speak about. And it's my own background as a hack. Similarly, if you've read the full piece, that IEDM keynote did feel a lot like a shopping list - it was a chance for Sony to reach out specifically to a hardware design audience, full of companies that work at the leading edge, and alert them as to the kind of thing it is looking for to meet its roadmap.

However, he did briefly allude to the fact that, yes, Sony will have to do a lot of work on the SDK as well as facing a considerable silicon SoC design challenge and that the new SDK will have to be easier to work with than that for the PS3. Similarly, as far as that refers to the OS and code base for the specific fourth gen PS environment, he added that they would also look to simplify the Linux-based environment for other online accessed services.

So, they are addressing that it's software AND hardware. It's just that given that this is for E&T's electronics section, my interview took a particular direction in terms of the focus as well as the word budget.

Nevertheless, a sin of omission on my part. Hope this answers some of your point, though.
post #138 of 1994
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulDempsey View Post

So, they are addressing that it's software AND hardware. It's just that given that this is for E&T's electronics section, my interview took a particular direction in terms of the focus as well as the word budget.

Nevertheless, a sin of omission on my part. Hope this answers some of your point, though.

Awesome news. And thanks for the post!
post #139 of 1994
Quote:
Originally Posted by TyrantII View Post

Yeah, but as said RAM is vastly different from a HDD in it's use.

RAM is essential to processes running in real time. It would be the difference of the Skyrim we got, and a Skyrim that ran perfectly.

Which then begs the question, does skyrim then require additional RAM just to play, locking out the lower SKU?


Anyways, that's why it won't happen.

If anything, we're seeing PC and tablet hardware going towards the closed console model. Look at the iPhone, iPad and android (ok, so not the best example).

It probably won't happen, I agree.

I know the difference between a hard drive and RAM.

I'm not going to compare the PS3 to a tablet or phone. There's no room in those portable devices for tinkering around. I used to work for a company here in the Dallas area that did 512k upgrades to the little Atari Portfolio palmtop computers back in 1990 (we had 3 employees!) I know what it takes to get inside little devices to do memory upgrades, it's not feasible for just anyone doing an upgrade to an iPad, iPhone, or anything else of that nature on their own, nor is there room for even SODIMM slots on one of those devices.

I stated in the original post that the heavy hitter games would be the prime candidate for requiring an upgraded PS3, and I still think anyone purchasing a $60 game would spring $20 for some additional RAM that took 10 seconds to install. So yes, I'm saying some games could require it. No different than certain games requiring a special controller, IMO. In fact, RAM is cheaper than most (if not all) add-on controllers. To me it's no different than the developers of DJ Hero stating you must have a turntable device to play.
post #140 of 1994
Quote:
Originally Posted by TornadoTJ View Post

I stated in the original post that the heavy hitter games would be the prime candidate for requiring an upgraded PS3, and I still think anyone purchasing a $60 game would spring $20 for some additional RAM that took 10 seconds to install.

On the flip side, why would a game developer target a fraction of the overall PS4 market with a more complex game instead of targeting the entire PS4 market?

I guess I see it as a long shot to incentivise developers to develop for the extra memory.

How many non-nintendo developers made anything that used the "add-in" memory expansion cartridge on the N64?

-Suntan
post #141 of 1994
Don't know, never been a Nintendo fan.

Did Rock Band or Guitar Hero target a fraction of the PS3 market by releasing a game that (pretty much) required you to have add-on peripherals? I think they did pretty well.

Back in the old Atari 2600 days, there were several games that required additional hardware. Sometimes the hardware came with the games. I'm not proposing anything new.
post #142 of 1994
Thread Starter 
Those are specific software franchises. You're talking about adding RAM for general purpose access by game developers... the hardware producer (Sony) can't fracture the user base like that. For one, people will complain that the RAM deficient model is gimped or the Beta model. As soon as games are shown to be running more sluggishly on the smaller RAM system when compared to the one with more, people will accuse Sony of forcing people to upgrade for foul $$$.

In the same way that consoles won't allow us to upgrade the CPU or GPU, extra RAM would never be viewed as an optional peripheral; it's a vital component of the system that should and will remain set in stone when the new machine launches.
post #143 of 1994
Quote:
Originally Posted by confidenceman View Post

I had speculated a while back that Sony might do something along these lines by incorporating gaming into one of their TVs. They've begun paving the way with their PS branded 3D TV. And while this hypothetical PSTV would likely include new tech (faster processor, built-in camera and microphone, etc), it wouldn't technically be a new "console" or something that could be called a "successor" to the PS4.

I think this seems like it would be a really smart strategy for Sony to follow. And I assume the Vita could be used as a mega-remote control for all functions of these gaming TVs.

I'd buy one, but wonder how much thicker they'd have to make the TV for this. Probably not much these days.
post #144 of 1994
Quote:
Originally Posted by mgr_stl View Post

I think this seems like it would be a really smart strategy for Sony to follow. And I assume the Vita could be used as a mega-remote control for all functions of these gaming TVs.

I'd buy one, but wonder how much thicker they'd have to make the TV for this. Probably not much these days.

Totally. This would sell me on Vita in an instant. And I'd even be willing to buy another TV if this were done right. But at the very least, if they can get Vita working like a cross between the iPad (with the forthcoming AppleTV) and the WiiU tablet, I'd be all over it.
post #145 of 1994
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeblow View Post

For one, people will complain that the RAM deficient model is gimped or the Beta model. As soon as games are shown to be running more sluggishly on the smaller RAM system when compared to the one with more, people will accuse Sony of forcing people to upgrade for foul $$$.

I'm not the only one thinking this way:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/arti..._campaign=news

Yes, it's an XBOX 720 article, but it's still relevant.
post #146 of 1994
You can't have consoles with different amounts of ram. YOU CAN'T. It ain't happening, never going to happen, move on. As much as I would love to have an upgradeable console, there is really no way of doing it. You would almost have to have a tiered system somehow. There would be a Tier 1 or level 1 which is the base system. Dev's would design for that base system. But if you added a expansion card bringing your console to Level 2 with that card having extra ram, another gpu or whatever then this would turn on extra textures, lighting, physics etc. Then your into a PC kind of scenario where those of us with better hardware can turn up the res, AA, AF on our own. The expansion card would just turn on those features automatically since the extra power is there, and devs would have the larger textures and whatnot available on the blu ray but would not be enabled until you got that card. At least this way the gaming experience is the same for everyone, just that the eye candy is better for those of us that care about it. Hardware wise this wouldn't be hard to do. Just have an extra PCIe slot sitting there, and some means of inserting a expansion card without opening the system. You could even make it modular somehow for things like the LAN cards. Some of us need the wireless, some use wired, so make a module for both, we buy what we need. win win.

Make sense? But that's dream land. That being said if someone uses this idea.....it is my idea, I want at least a free console with level 2 graphics! We can call it overdrive or turbo mode or something
post #147 of 1994
Quote:
Originally Posted by newfmp3 View Post

You can't have consoles with different amounts of ram. YOU CAN'T. It ain't happening, never going to happen,

It already did years ago. Nintendo had the option of buying and installing double the memory into the N64.

From Wikipedia:

Quote:


The Expansion Pak (拡張パック, Kakuchō Pakku?) allows the random access memory (RAM) of the Nintendo 64 console to increase from 4 MB (megabytes) to 8 MB of contiguous main memory.[8] With the help of an included key, the Expansion Pak fits into the slot that is below a removable panel on the top of the N64 console. Game developers can take advantage of the increased memory in several ways, including making games that are more visually appealing.[9] The add-on was released in 1999 and contains 4 MB RDRAM, the same type of memory used inside the console itself.[1][8] By increasing system memory, there is potential for enhancements to games designed with the added RAM storage in mind. The Expansion Pak is installed in a port on top of the Nintendo 64 and replaces the pre-installed Jumper Pak, which is simply a RAMBUS terminator.[7][8]

A few games, including Rare's Donkey Kong 64 and Nintendo's The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask require it to run.[10] Capcom's Resident Evil 2 used the Expansion Pak for making areas of the game and monsters more detailed. Perfect Dark had limited gameplay options when the Expansion Pak was not present.[9] Supporting games usually offered higher video resolutions or higher textures and/or higher color depth. For example, the Nintendo 64 all-remade version of Quake II features higher color depth but not a higher resolution when using the Expansion Pak. It was used in StarCraft 64 to unlock levels from the popular Brood War add-on for the PC version of the game. Many games such as Castlevania: Legacy of Darkness and Indiana Jones and the Infernal Machine optionally used the Expansion Pak to add a high resolution 640x480 display mode for games, while other games saw the benefit of a smoother frame rate. The Expansion Pak was available separately as well as bundled with Donkey Kong 64. In Japan, the Expansion Pak was additionally bundled with Zelda: Majora's Mask and Perfect Dark, though the games were also available separately in other regions.

That said, I see offering an expanded memory pack as "focusing in the wrong direction." Simply put, Sony needs to concentrate on things other than just hardware superiority this next go round.

-Suntan
post #148 of 1994
It's just PC enthusiast wishing there was a way where they didn't have to upgrade every 3-6 months and do a complete tear down every year.... to keep up with GFX. They want something inbetween. I don't see a big market there, since it won't appease them.

Honestly, I think Microsoft, and to a lesser extent Sony, are starting to realize the unprofitability of the arms race they're in, and how it's only catering to the biggest fanboys. People already buy consoles with the understanding that GFX will be below PC in a years time. They like they don't have to worry about add-ons and things not working, or working less than they'd like. Hell, the PC market is shifting that way (tablets). The phone market is showing that standardization is also what people are looking for.

Nintendo really did change the game; showing that you can be hugely profitable, without being the most powerful, if the hardware and software (to a lesser extent) hit the right mark. There's nuances that need to be accounted for there, but it doesn't make that untrue.

There's other ways to expand quality, fun gaming besides bleeding edge graphics. Skyrim, even on PC, is a tantamount to that. It's beautiful, but far from the most graphically impressive PC game. The content, the detail, and the number of hours of interesting play is what pushes it over the edge of many gamers. Look at Rage, a beautiful game that was largely another ID tech demo flop of a game. Not bad, but not note worthy either.

There's a lot of other areas that Sony and MS can go really, that don't involve releasing cutting edge systems that will be loss leaders for 1/2 their generation. AAA Dev's have been screaming for standardization and simplification as their costs have ballooned to movie like budgets to keep up with the GFX race.

Anyways, I think next gen is going to be a little more nuanced than the last two. It's going to have to be, if anyone is going to make some serious dough.
post #149 of 1994
To your point, I'd be disappointed if Sony makes 4k video a priority for the next system. The Playstation platform has historically been a catalyst for the next video format, but this time around I don't think it's necessary.
post #150 of 1994
Thread Starter 
Well, it'll handle 4K if only to display movie files at that resolution that are obviously on the way since filmmakers are starting to use 4K cameras and starting this year manufacturers are releasing 4K and 8K resolution HDTVs. Sony's even releasing a new Blu-ray player this year that upscales 1080P movies to 4K, so a 4K PS4 is pretty much given. Article on 4K status:

Quote:


Many films are already shot using 4K cameras. David Fincher's The Social Network was shot and screened in 4K, and an increasing number of cinema films use the format.

I doubt the PS4 pushes it as much of a feature as DVD and Blu-ray were since there would be no discernible difference from 1080P on most people's HDTVs. In fact, most people can barely distinguish between 720P and 1080P because you have to sit no more than 7-feet on a 50-inch set to notice one is more detailed than the other. Sure, you would see a difference between 1080P and 4K on your 85-inch screen, but...

Whatever the main features of the PS4 are, a tech upgrade like this will be more like the icing on the cake as opposed to its major focus.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PlayStation Area
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Home Theater Gaming › PlayStation Area › PlayStation Meeting 2013 (PS4 unveiling - conference replay in first post)