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 18

post #511 of 1994
Heck, most HD stations aren't even dvd quality. Most CoD players think that it runs at 1080p because the info button on their TV says that it is.
post #512 of 1994
PS4 is going to have to be something special to make me purchase it. I've always waited for the price drop so I wouldn't be getting it at launch anyway. This will give me plenty of time to assess whether I will buy it. I already feel that there isn't anything on the horizon that would compel me to purchase a PS4. FPS's all look the same with no innovation. Sequels rule and nothing new is introduced. 4K and 3D (which I can't stand) aren't technological leaps that would force an upgrade either.

As I see it, the next gen launch better be priced well or those systems won't sell very well. And, with talk of Sony, and others, looking to implement tech to reduce/eliminate the second hand market in next gen won't help their sales either.
post #513 of 1994
Quote:
Originally Posted by PENDRAG0ON View Post

Heck, most HD stations aren't even dvd quality. Most CoD players think that it runs at 1080p because the info button on their TV says that it is.

It isn't just COD players. It is gamer in general. Most don't care. In the case of COD I don't personally care. Looks good on my LED displays along with other game i enjoy playing.

If resolution was really a driving factor for games or consoles in general the Wii would have been the least console sold.
post #514 of 1994
Quote:
Originally Posted by PENDRAG0ON View Post

Most CoD players think that it runs at 1080p because the info button on their TV says that it is.

Even those of us who know CoD is running below 720p still think it runs, feels, and looks better than 99% of other games out there.

I'm not a fan of the series, but I wish other devs would be willing to take a hit in resolution and other effects for the sake of framerate and faster response times.
post #515 of 1994
Quote:
Originally Posted by confidenceman View Post

Even those of us who know CoD is running below 720p still think it runs, feels, and looks better than 99% of other games out there.

I'm not a fan of the series, but I wish other devs would be willing to take a hit in resolution and other effects for the sake of framerate and faster response times.

I agree 100%

Heck, I would be happy if most games looked and played as well as the first Metroid Prime on the Cube. Give me a good atmosphere and a solid framerate, then work on the resolution and extra effects.

Skyrim would have been better off if it was sub HD on the PS3 because of the performance issues it still has even after all these patches.
post #516 of 1994
Quote:
Originally Posted by PENDRAG0ON View Post


Skyrim would have been better off if it was sub HD on the PS3 because of the performance issues it still has even after all these patches.

That might of helped but as far as I know it wasn't the GFX engine doing it but the massive memory resources it needed to keep item game persistence going. The New Vegas guy talked of how they loaded everything into RAM that you've ever touched and that causes major issues on consoles. It was bad design, and they did the same in their new engine.
post #517 of 1994
Quote:
Originally Posted by TyrantII View Post

The New Vegas guy talked of how they loaded everything into RAM that you've ever touched and that causes major issues on consoles. It was bad design, and they did the same in their new engine.

Not so much "bad design" as a bad decision motivated purely by profit potential. The Elder Scrolls games are built to scale with scalable RAM (as on a PC). They're simply not built to work well with console design.

A game like Minecraft on XBLA found a reasonable solution: drastically scale back the possible size of the world in order to work within the RAM constraints of a console.
post #518 of 1994
Lowering the resolution can reduce the memory load (see crysis 2 PS3 vs 360) probably wouldn't have done much good though, even a PC with 16gb of Ram can suffer from save game bloat and slowdown. It is just crap coding on their part.
post #519 of 1994
Quote:
Originally Posted by PENDRAG0ON View Post

Lowering the resolution can reduce the memory load (see crysis 2 PS3 vs 360) probably wouldn't have done much good though, even a PC with 16gb of Ram can suffer from save game bloat and slowdown. It is just crap coding on their part.

I wouldn't call it crap coding
post #520 of 1994
Quote:
Originally Posted by mboojigga View Post


I wouldn't call it crap coding

Would extremely lazy work better? This issue has been around since Oblivion and ruined the PS3 fallout titles (the locked v-sync doesn't help either, why does the 360 version drop it under load but the PS3 version maintains it at all times? Varriable v-sync could have helped greatly.

They may make fantastic games, but they can't make their code work right.

Skyrim actually has a mod that greatly reduces the save bloat and it is a simple fix at that.
post #521 of 1994
Quote:
Originally Posted by PENDRAG0ON View Post

Lowering the resolution can reduce the memory load (see crysis 2 PS3 vs 360) probably wouldn't have done much good though, even a PC with 16gb of Ram can suffer from save game bloat and slowdown. It is just crap coding on their part.

You can't fix it by lowering the resolution. No one suggested such a thing. As I said above, the solution for Minecraft was to dramatically decrease the size of the world. Very different.

Nor would I call it "crap coding." The problem is that they should never have released their games for the PS3. Each of their games has worked great from me (as far back as the original Arena). I played Arena through Oblivion on PC, and played Skyrim on 360 (and Fallout 3). No major issues. Sure, there have been bugs aplenty. But nothing terrible. And I've dropped at least a hundred hours (and often more) into each game.
post #522 of 1994
I've played all their recent games on both consoles. The problem with the PS3 releases is that they just didn't try. (Oblivion was the exception, it was pretty good on PS3, but that was outsourced...) The PS3 version of Skyrim is the first time they have tried anything to fix the PS3 version of one of their games. (and it is a partial solution at best, my file is starting to bog down at the 8.3mb mark. (to be fair, I have almost done every major quest line and a bunch of side quests)
post #523 of 1994
Quote:
Originally Posted by PENDRAG0ON View Post

(to be fair, I have almost done every major quest line and a bunch of side quests)

That's still no excuse. Bethesda really had no good excuse for releasing this.
post #524 of 1994
Quote:
Originally Posted by confidenceman View Post

That's still no excuse. Bethesda really had no good excuse for releasing this.

They should have spent the time and effort to do a proper port, the 360 version of everything Fallout 3 and later has been fantastic and ported very well, it is clear that all their effort was spent on those releases and the PS3 versions were just a fast port with minimal testing.

Bethesda sucks at programing (ladders?), and their engine is outdated. (just how much memory could the PC version of Skyrim use at launch, how about multi core cpus?) They need to stop and improve everything about the engine, not just small pieces of it.

Hopefully with next gen using more or less identical PC style builds they won't have this problem.
post #525 of 1994
The thing I don't get is why the persistence data isn't saved to the HDD, and just pulled into active memory when you're in X+1/2 mile of whatever it is is needed.

There's simply no reason to load EVERYTHING into RAM, even when it's 1/2 way across the map. If fast travel on consoles doubles load times, so be it.

What makes me mad is they told everyone that they fixed the issues on consoles with their new engine. 90 hours in, no dice.
post #526 of 1994
Quote:
Originally Posted by TyrantII View Post

The thing I don't get is why the persistence data isn't saved to the HDD, and just pulled into active memory when you're in X+1/2 mile of whatever it is is needed.

There's simply no reason to load EVERYTHING into RAM, even when it's 1/2 way across the map. If fast travel on consoles doubles load times, so be it.

What makes me mad is they told everyone that they fixed the issues on consoles with their new engine. 90 hours in, no dice.

What makes me mad is that they told everyone it was a new engine. It is the same engine powering Oblivion, just with a few parts of the code updated. (new foliage engine being the big update)
post #527 of 1994
Quote:
Originally Posted by TyrantII View Post

The thing I don't get is why the persistence data isn't saved to the HDD, and just pulled into active memory when you're in X+1/2 mile of whatever it is is needed.

There's simply no reason to load EVERYTHING into RAM, even when it's 1/2 way across the map. If fast travel on consoles doubles load times, so be it.

It's a bit more complicated than that, but yeah. The problem is that they've built these games on top of one another code-wise. I'm sure they're running everything on a frankensteinian mess of new code grafted onto old code grafted onto even older code. And that older stuff all operates under a PC paradigm (and an outdated PC paradigm at that).

They're effectively trying to fit a square peg into a round hole to get these games running on a PS3. And they're simply too big and too complicated to be able to go back and change that older stuff without spending ten years rebuilding it all from the ground up.

At this point, they're better off just waiting for PC and console architecture to merge (the 360 is most of the way there). I think they thought they'd found a "good enough" solution to the PS3's memory bottleneck, but old code structures have a way of popping their heads up eventually no matter what workaround they thought they'd found.

Quote:
What makes me mad is they told everyone that they fixed the issues on consoles with their new engine. 90 hours in, no dice.

To be fair, I think they actually did think they'd gone far enough back into the code to root out the underlying problems. Hopefully now they (and everyone else) realizes that it's a lost cause. Without a PC-like architecture for the next PS, there's no chance the next Elder Scrolls will be any different.
post #528 of 1994
Well, Fallout 4 should be shown at E3 in some form so let's see what is up their sleeves for that one.
post #529 of 1994
I'd love to see Fallout 4 go back to Fallout 2 style. Fallout 3 really sucked for me.
post #530 of 1994
For me, I think the PS3 as a unit right now, is a fantastic deal at $249(160GB slim version).

Not being a "huge" gamer, like most here, I think the PS3 offers so much at that price point, it would be foolish to pass it up.

An excellent gaming machine. Free access to PSN. Apps like Netflix, Amazon, Vudu, CinemaNow, HuluPlus, MLB.TV, NHL GameCenter, and the one that stands out the most that only DirecTV HAS, NFL Sunday Ticket. And it is an excellent Blu-Ray player too boot.

You can't beat that at $249+tax. All of that, with more to come through updates/deals hopefully(ESPN/HBOGo/etc...)

I know the PS4 is coming, no matter what. But I would concentrate on the PS3 soley, and through updates add apps galore, and other mods. Then promote the hell out of it and show people all the stuff you get for $249, or lower in the future.

Just a fan of the system as a whole here speaking. And in no way am I putting down the 360. Just thnk the PS3 offers more for everyone now, at a grest price.

I wouldn't change a thing right noe, other than more apps for movies/tv/music/sports/etc...
post #531 of 1994
Thread Starter 
Agreed!

~~~

The Wall Street Journal reports that Sony once considered a download-only PS4:

Quote:


Sony decided against a download-only model for other reasons, largely because Internet connectivity is too inconsistent around the world, a person familiar with Sony's thinking said. Because game files are large, customers in countries where Internet connections are relatively slow would be hobbled by a requirement to download games.
post #532 of 1994
Quote:
Originally Posted by STEELERSRULE View Post

For me, I think the PS3 as a unit right now, is a fantastic deal at $249(160GB slim version).

Not being a "huge" gamer, like most here, I think the PS3 offers so much at that price point, it would be foolish to pass it up.

An excellent gaming machine. Free access to PSN. Apps like Netflix, Amazon, Vudu, CinemaNow, HuluPlus, MLB.TV, NHL GameCenter, and the one that stands out the most that only DirecTV HAS, NFL Sunday Ticket. And it is an excellent Blu-Ray player too boot.

You can't beat that at $249+tax. All of that, with more to come through updates/deals hopefully(ESPN/HBOGo/etc...)

I know the PS4 is coming, no matter what. But I would concentrate on the PS3 soley, and through updates add apps galore, and other mods. Then promote the hell out of it and show people all the stuff you get for $249, or lower in the future.

Just a fan of the system as a whole here speaking. And in no way am I putting down the 360. Just thnk the PS3 offers more for everyone now, at a grest price.

I wouldn't change a thing right noe, other than more apps for movies/tv/music/sports/etc...

I agree as well. I'm somewhat of a gamer. Ok, I'm a pretty big gamer, just don't have time to play as much as I'd like. I have the big 3 consoles and a decent pc. We use our PS3 for Netflix almost every day. Last year, I almost soiled my shorts when they announced the NFL Sunday Ticket was on the PSN. I'm in moldy cheesehead land and I'm a Bears fan, so I usually would have to go somewhere else to watch the games. The PSN+ is interesting as well. I've used it to get games at a heavily discounted price. Very good product at a decent price.
post #533 of 1994
considering current ps3 cost 250... I dont see the ps4 being less than 450 with the kind of specs that are rumored.

IMO i'd rather have

4gb of ram

12x bluray drive

1gb ATI v4900

and keep the same cell.

Sell it for 299. Just he higher memory alone would create much more massive games with out constant texture pop in. In this economy climate its suicide to bring a 400+ console imo. Under/unemplyment by college grads is 53%.
post #534 of 1994
ps4 won't launch at anything higher than 400. sony learned their lesson with that one already.
post #535 of 1994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goatse View Post

considering current ps3 cost 250... I dont see the ps4 being less than 450 with the kind of specs that are rumored.

IMO i'd rather have

4gb of ram

12x bluray drive

1gb ATI v4900

and keep the same cell.

Sell it for 299. Just he higher memory alone would create much more massive games with out constant texture pop in. In this economy climate its suicide to bring a 400+ console imo. Under/unemplyment by college grads is 53%.

Cell is going away because it requires vodoo to make software that takes full advantage of it. The next processor is supposedly going to be in the same style as used in a PC, hopefully smoothing out game development for everyone.

The other stuff on your list is probably close to what we're gonna get.
post #536 of 1994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crash44 View Post

Cell is going away because it requires vodoo to make software that takes full advantage of it. The next processor is supposedly going to be in the same style as used in a PC, hopefully smoothing out game development for everyone.

The other stuff on your list is probably close to what we're gonna get.

Honestly, next gen will be more like coding for cell then not cell. I wouldn't be surprised to see a 8 core PowerPC or Sandy Bridge, which is somewhat similar.
post #537 of 1994
Well, another report of PS4 due in 2013.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/playsta...tag=whatshot;1
post #538 of 1994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mounta1n View Post

Well, another report of PS4 due in 2013.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/playsta...tag=whatshot;1

Makes a good point about not going with a download only platform. Could only imagine the uproar when everyone would start reaching their data caps mid-download.
post #539 of 1994
Quote:
Originally Posted by TyrantII View Post

Honestly, next gen will be more like coding for cell then not cell. I wouldn't be surprised to see a 8 core PowerPC or Sandy Bridge, which is somewhat similar.

It wasn't just the multiple cores. It was also the fact that the PS3 has a split memory system.
post #540 of 1994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mounta1n View Post

Well, another report of PS4 due in 2013.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/playsta...tag=whatshot;1

I've been thinking 2013 all along. It really feels like it's time. But I will admit that the graphics are still serviceable at this point. Was playing Arkham City again today and it still looks good. That being said, I'm ready for more.
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)