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 26

post #751 of 1994
12/25/12 at 10:30am
Pendragon, why so preoccupied with the system wattage? What does it matter if it uses 150W or 300W as long as it is powerful. Not being a dick, just wondering.
Reply
Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #752 of 1994
12/25/12 at 10:48am
System wattage directly relates to heat output. The higher the heat output the more likely a RRoD situation becomes. Building a console is a balancing act between system power and heat output.

The Wii U is the extreme of power efficiency at the cost of system power. It uses a mere 33w of power in game (vs 70w for the PS3 super slim)

The PS3 at launch used just under 200w of power while in a game. That is pretty much the upper limit for a game console.
Reply
Reply
post #753 of 1994
12/25/12 at 6:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by PENDRAG0ON View Post

System wattage directly relates to heat output. The higher the heat output the more likely a RRoD situation becomes. Building a console is a balancing act between system power and heat output.
The Wii U is the extreme of power efficiency at the cost of system power. It uses a mere 33w of power in game (vs 70w for the PS3 super slim)
The PS3 at launch used just under 200w of power while in a game. That is pretty much the upper limit for a game console.

And higher the heat output, higher the failure rate, and/or the more a console will cost in thermal cooling.
Reply
Reply
post #754 of 1994
12/25/12 at 8:15pm
This isn't 2006. They'll figure out the cooling issues. Besides, power efficiency is key with the boom of mobile devices. Heck, my phone has a 1.5 Ghz dual core processor and it doesn't even have a fan or cooling ducts. And the international version is a quad core. Again, no cooling of any kind. This just isn't an issue as I see it.
Reply
Reply
post #755 of 1994
12/26/12 at 5:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by PENDRAG0ON View Post

It is more about asuring your customers that your PSN purchases on PS3 will still work once you move on to new hardware. Lots of games are PSN exclusive and people will NOT be happy if they can't play them on their PS4. (same with current paying PS+ members who would probably make the jump to PS4 sooner than most.)

Steam really changed the way people look at DD

I'm equally interested in both PS3 and PSN games running on the PS4. Even if I'll rarely play the games....not having a console in my HT that can play the games on my shelf is a big deal to me. It makes all those games seem like dead weight rather than a core part of my collection. Even if I have to pay for some sort of addon hardware, so be it. But if one next gen system has BC and the other doesn't....it's a big deal to me.
Reply
Reply
post #756 of 1994
12/26/12 at 7:42am
If they change the CPU set like they are, there's no way we're getting backwards compatibility.

It's going to be like today where a developer can spend a whole bunch of resources and port the code of a PS1 or PS2 app to the new chipset.

So 3 or 4 years on down the line, we'll be able to download Infamous 2 on the PS4 kinda junk.
Reply
Reply
post #757 of 1994
12/26/12 at 8:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by defdog99 View Post

If they change the CPU set like they are, there's no way we're getting backwards compatibility.
It's going to be like today where a developer can spend a whole bunch of resources and port the code of a PS1 or PS2 app to the new chipset.
So 3 or 4 years on down the line, we'll be able to download Infamous 2 on the PS4 kinda junk.

Early PS3s have full hardware backwards compatability. The reason it was removed was the cost of the PS3 not the cost of the PS2 chips. Cutting $20 per unit was a lot of money when it cost almost $900 to make, every penny saved mattered.

With the PS4 I seriously doubt Sony will be needing to cut costs as drastically due to taking a $300+ loss per unit. I honestly doubt they will take any loss at all on the PS4 once the initial launch blitz is over. (rush orders, faster shipping to meet demand)

It all depends on how much the next die shrink reduces costs for the RSX and Cell. (should happen sometime next year)
Reply
Reply
post #758 of 1994
12/26/12 at 10:04am
The problem with BC isn't just hardware cost. Remakes and rereleases have been too lucrative this generation for publishers to just leave that on the table. If BC does happen, it won't be comprehensive. And it won't necessarily be Sony's fault. No one has any idea what the PSN license agreements are, and whether they originally included deals that stretch over the life of the PSN platform, if those are limited to just the PS3, or if publishers will find a loophole that allows them to limit support for those titles. It's all a big question mark what publishers will do. The thing with DD is that it puts more power in publishers' hands than in the platform holders'.

Comprehensive BC for disc-based games might actually be more likely than for PSN games. But again, it's all a big question mark. On the positive side, companies have kept the prices of DD games high on PSN and XBLA, so they don't necessarily lose much by continuing support into the next platform.
Reply
Reply
post #759 of 1994
12/26/12 at 10:17am
Backward compatibility is dumb.
Reply
Reply
post #760 of 1994
12/26/12 at 10:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by PENDRAG0ON View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by defdog99 View Post

If they change the CPU set like they are, there's no way we're getting backwards compatibility.
It's going to be like today where a developer can spend a whole bunch of resources and port the code of a PS1 or PS2 app to the new chipset.
So 3 or 4 years on down the line, we'll be able to download Infamous 2 on the PS4 kinda junk.

Early PS3s have full hardware backwards compatability. The reason it was removed was the cost of the PS3 not the cost of the PS2 chips. Cutting $20 per unit was a lot of money when it cost almost $900 to make, every penny saved mattered.

With the PS4 I seriously doubt Sony will be needing to cut costs as drastically due to taking a $300+ loss per unit. I honestly doubt they will take any loss at all on the PS4 once the initial launch blitz is over. (rush orders, faster shipping to meet demand)

It all depends on how much the next die shrink reduces costs for the RSX and Cell. (should happen sometime next year)

Yeah, I wouldn't be mad at the "standard" PS4 cutting out the cell and not having BC. Whatever they need to do to build userbase.

But Id be willing to pay a solid extra $100-200 for a truly premium PS4 with BC and a classy metal chassis. It's not like Sony doesnt know how to make gear that looks at home on a HT rack. Better yet make it entirely compatible with PS1-PS3, not just PS3. Sony is still is the business of physical media, they'd do well with a certain crowd by putting out a box that emphasizes physical media is permanent.
Reply
Reply
post #761 of 1994
12/26/12 at 12:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by PENDRAG0ON View Post

System wattage directly relates to heat output. The higher the heat output the more likely a RRoD situation becomes. Building a console is a balancing act between system power and heat output.
The Wii U is the extreme of power efficiency at the cost of system power. It uses a mere 33w of power in game (vs 70w for the PS3 super slim)
The PS3 at launch used just under 200w of power while in a game. That is pretty much the upper limit for a game console.
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Reply
Reply
post #762 of 1994
12/29/12 at 1:36pm
The PS2 finally ended production this week.

So that's another example of how backwards compatibility is going to work on the PS4.

Simply sells PS3s for another 6 years.
Reply
Reply
post #763 of 1994
12/29/12 at 2:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by defdog99 View Post

The PS2 finally ended production this week.
So that's another example of how backwards compatibility is going to work on the PS4.
Simply sells PS3s for another 6 years.

And sell 1080p 60fps remasters of select PS3 games in True HD collections.

The question then becomes, how many people will notice the jump? 480i to 720p is a massive jump, from 720p to 1080p not so much if you don't have a large enough 1080p TV...

That alone is enough to make proper BC more worthwhile, HD upgrades would no longer be the quick cash in they are now. (since the main appeal would be gone)
Reply
Reply
post #764 of 1994
12/29/12 at 2:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by PENDRAG0ON View Post

And sell 1080p 60fps remasters of select PS3 games in True HD collections.
The question then becomes, how many people will notice the jump? 480i to 720p is a massive jump, from 720p to 1080p not so much if you don't have a large enough 1080p TV...
That alone is enough to make proper BC more worthwhile, HD upgrades would no longer be the quick cash in they are now. (since the main appeal would be gone)
They'll find another, more convincing way to get people to double dip. Maybe they'll finally include fully featured cross-play with Vita and PS4 for "remastered" PS3 titles? Whatever it is, it'll have to be much more than just a bump to 1080p and/or 3D.
Reply
Reply
post #765 of 1994
12/30/12 at 6:50am
A bump from 720p/2D/30fps to 1080p/2D/60, 1080p/3D/30 or 720p/3D/60 is going to be pretty damn noticeable. I'm holding off playing through uncharted again just waiting for those.

I'm all for these collections, I just wish they came in a collectible case (like blu rays) instead of a budget one. I want special features, commentaries, etc....games worth rereleasing are worthy of that treatment. Then I'll happily fork over large amounts of money for them....they need to start treating the great games of yesterday like classics worth preserving, not disposable trash. They don't need to restrict BC to make that happen, they just need to make the new editions worth buying all over again.
Edited by bd2003 - 12/30/12 at 6:56am
Reply
Reply
post #766 of 1994
12/30/12 at 7:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

A bump from 720p/2D/30fps to 1080p/2D/60, 1080p/3D/30 or 720p/3D/60 is going to be pretty damn noticeable...features, commentaries, etc....games worth rereleasing are worthy of that treatment.

To people like us, maybe, to the average joe, not a chance. They can't even tell when a game has massive screen tear or drops below 20fps or runs under 600p, no way they would notice a bump to true 1080p and 60fps.

Like you said, a proper collectors edition could do it, but it would still need more than that to hook the average joe.
Reply
Reply
post #767 of 1994
12/30/12 at 7:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by PENDRAG0ON View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

A bump from 720p/2D/30fps to 1080p/2D/60, 1080p/3D/30 or 720p/3D/60 is going to be pretty damn noticeable...features, commentaries, etc....games worth rereleasing are worthy of that treatment.

To people like us, maybe, to the average joe, not a chance. They can't even tell when a game has massive screen tear or drops below 20fps or runs under 600p, no way they would notice a bump to true 1080p and 60fps.

Like you said, a proper collectors edition could do it, but it would still need more than that to hook the average joe.

The average joe probably wouldn't care about older games to begin with.
Reply
Reply
post #768 of 1994
12/30/12 at 8:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by PENDRAG0ON View Post

To people like us, maybe, to the average joe, not a chance. They can't even tell when a game has massive screen tear or drops below 20fps or runs under 600p, no way they would notice a bump to true 1080p and 60fps.
Like you said, a proper collectors edition could do it, but it would still need more than that to hook the average joe.

Call of Duty is multi-billion dollar franchise running on a 12-15 year old engine.

Only the minority hardcore are worried about the real tech. The rest is just marketing fluff that people just accept, don't bother to verify, and repeat to themselves to feel all warm inside..
Edited by TyrantII - 12/30/12 at 8:57am
Reply
Reply
post #769 of 1994
12/30/12 at 8:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by TyrantII View Post

Call of Duty is multi-billion dollar franchise running on a 12-15 year old engine.
Only the minority hardcore are worried about the real tech. The rest is just marketing fluff that people just accept and don't bother to verify.

I hope the message they get from that is that people really like 60fps, even if they don't know what it is.
Reply
Reply
post #770 of 1994
12/30/12 at 10:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

I hope the message they get from that is that people really like 60fps, even if they don't know what it is.

Me too.

Getting back into Killzone 3, and dealing with Twisted Metal I tend to agree. They both have severe frame-rate drops in intensive, full rooms. Add to that lag, and well..

I'd rather a slightly less graphically intensive showing if it means a butter smooth frame-rate and as little lag as possible. the only thing I'm really wishing for next gen is DX11 capabilities at 60/1080 locked. It's more than good enough for a console to find creative ways to make some very impressive games.
Reply
Reply
post #771 of 1994
12/30/12 at 11:09am
Thread Starter 
Just like Charlie Brown expecting Lucy to hold down the football when he kicks it, each generation of 3D modeling consoles will continue to raise expectations that we'll get 60 fps as standard. It won't happen.

Sure, the power of consoles continue to increase, but so do the technical demands of the new features they always add. Improvements in physics, particle effects and lighting alone will create a hit that will drag the frame rate down from the ideal standard.

I too wish it could be better; in fact, my two most played PS3 games this year happen to be 60 fps gems (Tekken Tag Tourney 2 and Pinball Arcade). The snappiness of a high frame rate makes a game a lot more enjoyable to those of us who can easily see and feel the difference. But even high powered PCs struggle to maintain 60 fps when new gen games come out to challenge the specs. Consider that Crysis 3's developers say their upcoming game will bring state-of the-art PCs to their knees for a few years. No doubt a ton of new graphic engines will be tough on the hardware as well.

So it's a never ending cycle that keeps the 60 fps standard out of reach. Even when there's nothing left to be done with 3D modeling to where gaming literally looks like a top tier film in visuals, hologram gaming will have developers complaining that they need better graphic processors and more than 100 GB of RAM to keep a steady 30 fps.
Reply
Reply
post #772 of 1994
12/30/12 at 11:47am
Well, a lot of PS2 games did run at 60fps. I think that a console can be engineered in a way to encourage 60fps (PS2 was a fill-rate monster), but nowadays GPUs are designed to throw out tons of fancy effects at the screen, and those fancy effects encourage 30fps.

I don't mind 30fps, what I do mind is some of these really terrible things developers do, like Halo's lame motion blur effect. It's awful looking.

I think there is a link between COD's success and its framerate, but it's tough to quantify. The main problem is that 60fps doesn't benefit the graphics but the control. You can't put that in a magazine or even a Youtube video.

I've been playing a lot of games on PC at 60fps and it really is fantastic. Right now we are in this lull where a modest PC can run console games and look better and smoother. It's awesome but it won't be this way when the new systems hit.
Reply
Reply
post #773 of 1994
12/30/12 at 12:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeblow View Post

Just like Charlie Brown expecting Lucy to hold down the football when he kicks it, each generation of 3D modeling consoles will continue to raise expectations that we'll get 60 fps as standard. It won't happen.

Sure, the power of consoles continue to increase, but so do the technical demands of the new features they always add. Improvements in physics, particle effects and lighting alone will create a hit that will drag the frame rate down from the ideal standard.

I too wish it could be better; in fact, my two most played PS3 games this year happen to be 60 fps gems (Tekken Tag Tourney 2 and Pinball Arcade). The snappiness of a high frame rate makes a game a lot more enjoyable to those of us who can easily see and feel the difference. But even high powered PCs struggle to maintain 60 fps when new gen games come out to challenge the specs. Consider that Crysis 3's developers say their upcoming game will bring state-of the-art PCs to their knees for a few years. No doubt a ton of new graphic engines will be tough on the hardware as well.

So it's a never ending cycle that keeps the 60 fps standard out of reach. Even when there's nothing left to be done with 3D modeling to where gaming literally looks like a top tier film in visuals, hologram gaming will have developers complaining that they need better graphic processors and more than 100 GB of RAM to keep a steady 30 fps.

All devs have to do is just show a little restraint. 60fps is always a choice, even the n64 and PS1 had a few 60fps games.

That said, some engines have really good, almost film quality motion blur....for the right game, that can be almost as good.
Reply
Reply
post #774 of 1994
12/30/12 at 12:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeblow View Post

Just like Charlie Brown expecting Lucy to hold down the football when he kicks it, each generation of 3D modeling consoles will continue to raise expectations that we'll get 60 fps as standard. It won't happen.
Sure, the power of consoles continue to increase, but so do the technical demands of the new features they always add. Improvements in physics, particle effects and lighting alone will create a hit that will drag the frame rate down from the ideal standard.
I too wish it could be better; in fact, my two most played PS3 games this year happen to be 60 fps gems (Tekken Tag Tourney 2 and Pinball Arcade). The snappiness of a high frame rate makes a game a lot more enjoyable to those of us who can easily see and feel the difference. But even high powered PCs struggle to maintain 60 fps when new gen games come out to challenge the specs. Consider that Crysis 3's developers say their upcoming game will bring state-of the-art PCs to their knees for a few years. No doubt a ton of new graphic engines will be tough on the hardware as well.
So it's a never ending cycle that keeps the 60 fps standard out of reach. Even when there's nothing left to be done with 3D modeling to where gaming literally looks like a top tier film in visuals, hologram gaming will have developers complaining that they need better graphic processors and more than 100 GB of RAM to keep a steady 30 fps.

To a point. Generating the jump from 320-480 to 1080 (really more like 680 for most PS3 games) is quite a system hog. You're literally doubling the number of pixels to just get COD running, which is saying NOTHING about games like GT5 in native 1080P. As hardware gets better and cheaper, it'll be easy to hit a benchmark of 1080P that IS set in stone.

It already happened with PS1-PS2 in the 480i/p SD era. It should be happening again. 4K won't eve be entertained for native resolutions for a good, long while. Hell, it still hasn't caught on in the PC world, yet.

We tend to forget that consoles are closed systems, and to spec. Developers, should they choose, have a lot more resources (tricks) to squeeze out effects and more power that PC Dev's can not because they're building a game to run on a billion different system configurations.

So, at least with consoles, we can have our cake and eat it too. As long as it's cost effective, and as long as Sony/MS provide a little QC direction.
Reply
Reply
post #775 of 1994
12/30/12 at 1:11pm
60fps must be a standard, I cringe whenever the frame rate drops even below 30fps in many games released this generation. Also, anti aliasing and Textures are ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE, I'm expecting each one of those to have a huge upgrade with next gen consoles. Physics needs some break through technology as well, I have some high hopes specially after watching the next gen FF engine demo.

I'll take stable 60fps @ true 1080p (not the upscaled crap) over 25-35 FPS UHD 4K resolution any day of the week. About that, don't you guys think the PS4 will have some support for 4K so it would be more future proof? I have a feeling it'll be included for blu-ray movies but not games, I hope that's the case if they weren't able to come up with something that will be able to handle those insane resolutions for gaming.
Reply
Reply
post #776 of 1994
12/30/12 at 1:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TyrantII View Post

the only thing I'm really wishing for next gen is DX11 capabilities at 60/1080 locked. It's more than good enough for a console to find creative ways to make some very impressive games.
It's nice to want things. wink.gif

But seriously, the problem is that from a publisher perspective, other bells and whistles have a bigger effect on sales than 60fps. Big explosions. Lots of flashy lights. Lots of things/people/creatures on screen causing general mayhem. Better hardware means more things to explode and shoot. The 30fps target framerate is here to stay. Hell, if anything, framerate targets have been getting lower rather than higher as this generation has progressed. 30fps is easier, faster, and cheaper to target. Games are getting more expensive to make. Devs need to cut corners somewhere and having lower framerate targets is an easy way to do so. The next gen will just mean we'll get higher resolutions, more polygons, more physics, more particle/shader effects, more interesting AI, more simultaneous "background" features running (like online connectivity), etc.

But I don't see 60fps becoming a new standard. Some devs might shoot for it, but it would mean sacrificing other technological showpieces that better catch the average consumer's eye.
Reply
Reply
post #777 of 1994
12/30/12 at 2:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by confidenceman View Post

It's nice to want things. wink.gif
But seriously, the problem is that from a publisher perspective, other bells and whistles have a bigger effect on sales than 60fps. Big explosions. Lots of flashy lights. Lots of things/people/creatures on screen causing general mayhem. Better hardware means more things to explode and shoot. The 30fps target framerate is here to stay. Hell, if anything, framerate targets have been getting lower rather than higher as this generation has progressed. 30fps is easier, faster, and cheaper to target. Games are getting more expensive to make. Devs need to cut corners somewhere and having lower framerate targets is an easy way to do so. The next gen will just mean we'll get higher resolutions, more polygons, more physics, more particle/shader effects, more interesting AI, more simultaneous "background" features running (like online connectivity), etc.
But I don't see 60fps becoming a new standard. Some devs might shoot for it, but it would mean sacrificing other technological showpieces that better catch the average consumer's eye.

Is that really true though? Quite a few of the best selling games are 60fps.

If devs are really interested in cutting corners on budgets, I think we'll actually see *more* 60FPS games - you can get away with lower quality assets. Many if not most XBLA games are 60fps, and they have tiny budgets.

I guess we'll find out soon enough. Just the thought of everything being 60fps brings a smile to my face though.
Reply
Reply
post #778 of 1994
12/30/12 at 4:00pm
4k will be easy to support, just slap a decent dedicated scaler in the system that supports 4k and they will be fine for games. Even at 80" it would be hard to notice a jump from 1080p to 2160p.

Obviously the PS4 will natively play 4k movies, and it will probably be the cheapest player that can do it for a while.

As for the 60fps argument, look no further than Insomniac, they used to be heavy pushers of 60fps tech, but after A Crack in Time they said no more. Now their games are sub 30fps and really suffer for it.
Reply
Reply
post #779 of 1994
12/30/12 at 4:48pm
Thread Starter 
4K in the PS4, as it relates to gaming, is mostly so that some games can perform at 60 FPS / 1080P in 3D, which isn't currently possible. There has been nothing to suggest that 4K resolution games are in development.
Reply
Reply
post #780 of 1994
12/30/12 at 4:56pm
4K games would cost $100 lol

Speaking about that, I forgot about the bump in game prices with each console generation, it would really suck if they decided to make games cost $70!!
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PlayStation Area

Gear mentioned in this thread:

AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Home Theater Gaming › PlayStation Area › PlayStation Meeting 2013 (PS4 unveiling - conference replay in first post)