PlayStation 4: Geared toward Home Entertainment - Page 2

Originally Posted by LowellG 

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the specs and AMD APU wiith a graphics card equal to a 7770. Consoles used to push the envelope and at least be equal to current PC tech if not slightly above on release.

Originally Posted by supermr2 

The orginial PS3 and Xbox 360 had better graphics than what was available on PC

Originally Posted by w1retap 

I never understood how console gamers can continue supporting these consoles that keep getting further and further away from gaming, skimping on graphics/processing specs.

Originally Posted by supermr2 

The orginial PS3 and Xbox 360 had better graphics than what was available on PC.

My problem, as a PC gamer, is that was 10 years ago and all of the games have increased graphics from the coding rather than the hardware. So what that means for us PC gamers that actually now have hardware that is 10 years faster than PS3 and Xbox360 is the crappy ports we get for games. 80% of the PC games on the market are made for consoles first and then ported over to PC. I was really hoping that PS4 and XBOX720 would step up the graphics a notch so PC gamers could actually use the hardware we bought.

Originally Posted by imagic 

It's a good bet 4K capability will appear in these machines, but most games will run at 1080p, just like the current generation of games is 720p upscaled to 1080p. I don't spend too much time staring at tables, but I do know that from 10 feet away I don't see all that much fine detail despite having 20/10 vision. The real issue with video games is aliasing artifacts. Perfectly rendered 1080p will scale up to 4K and look fantastic, so long as there are no pixelation artifacts that are being magnified at the same time. I consider it a non-issue. I expect some games will eventually support full 4K. Games where the graphics are relatively easy to generate - usually arcade-style titles. Just look at Super Stardust HD on the PS3 - it is full 1080p, even in 3D.

Originally Posted by Ryan1 

Really, why? To show on what? Your 300" 4k screen?

Because on your average 40"-50" screen, 4k (and often full 1080p) is a nothing but a number that makes you feel good, since human eyes can't resolve such detail at normal living room viewing distances.

Not unless you pull up a chair and sit at 5 feet from the screen -- basically, if you have perfect eyesight, the maximum distance from which you can resolve 1080i on a 50' screen is about 6.5". For a 40" screen, the maximum distance it's just over 5 feet.

Even for 100" screen, the maximum distance beyond which you cannot resolve 1080i is just over 13 feet. Which means that all this 4k push is little more than marketing ploy to up-sell our average Joe to a new TV set in time for the next Super Bowl and make him feel like a "man," regardless of the dubious real world benefits.

Not that 4k is not a good thing in the right set up, but just keep it in perspective.

Originally Posted by KidHorn 

I'm amazed at how many experts there are regarding 4KTV. Experts on something that doesn't even exist yet outside of a few demos.

I remember years ago when people said no one could tell the difference between 720 and 1080 lines of resolution. Once 1080 TVs came out and people could see a difference, those people suddenly kept their mouths shut.
...

Originally Posted by imagic 

Actually, I have a theory that is the resolution Sony will use for most games on the PS4. 1440p, not 1080p. It is my own personal, completely speculative theory: PS3 = 720p upscaled to 1080p therefor PS4 = 1440p upscaled to 2160p

Everyone knows it is running on AMD hardware and like you said 1440p is not a big deal. All the 4K TV sets will upscale and so will the PS4 so the 4K sets will be sold to their target audience. I quote from a recent article in electronic house:

---

Originally Posted by Ryan1 

Hm, there is no magic to it: it has to do with what your eyes can resolve at a certain distance.

I gave you the numbers up above, and yes, it is true that in many settings, people are not getting the benefit of 1080i/p vs. 720p. If you are watching a 40" screen from 10", to your eyes it's irrelevant if the screen is 720 or 1080, they can't resolve the additional information (just as they cannot resolve the particles which make up the screen and everything else around).

In common home settings, where people sit 6-12 feet from the screen, 1080 does matter on large screens. For instance, if you have perfect eyesight, in optimum conditions, the maximum viewing distance to be able to resolve 1080 on an 80" screen is just over 10 feet. Which means that if your couch is at 8" from the screen, you are in 1080 bliss. But if your couch is at 18 feet from that 80" screen, you can't tell the difference between 1080 and 720. It also means that 4k is totally irrelevant to you as well.

As I said, 4k is a good thing in the right setting, of course. I was merely reacting to statements to the effect of "I ain't buying it, if it's not 4k," while in the same breath complaining about the several hundred dollar price tag. Well, guess what a large, hight density 4k display is going to cost, if it was readily available at BB today? Until hight density 120"+ screens are affordable for the average Joe, the only practical use of having a 4k set up on a 50" screen 10 feet from you, is bragging rights and impressing your beer buddies.

But I am sure Sony's marketing is aware that nobody has ever lost money underestimating the average consumer, so I'd guess a 4k sticker on the PS4 is very likely.

What a dumb post. You know how much horsepower you need to push 4k resolution games, way more than 1080 and brings no benefit unless super large screen with close viewing. Yes, let's all wait until PS4 can push 4K graphics so Mr. Blastermaster can enjoy it with his 150" screen with 8 feet viewing distance, LOL.

For me, all I want for PS4 is for it to play games, have a nice comfy controller, free online. That's it. They should aim for 1080P, 60fps for most games if possible. Of course have improved graphics from ps3, otherwise why release it.

Originally Posted by CMonMan 

I see 4K on the PS4 being what 1080p was on PS3.. a relatively cheap way for early adopters to watch it's content, and something occasionally used in games.. What I mean is, many people bought the PS3 because it was once of the cheapest, yet best ways to play 1080p content when it came out (and arguably is still one of the best 1080p, blu ray, HDMI capable media centers) Movies could readily be played on 1080p and were relevant from the beginning to end of the product's lifecycle, while still being capable of playing previous formats (DVD). Games could also use 1080p, but it was a stretch for most, and mainly used in simple graphic/arcade games or cut-scenes in others... not often seen at high fps action packed gameplay. I see the PS4 being the same with 4k technology. it will be a relatively cheap way to reliably play 4k content for early 4k adopters, yet will remain more then capable of playing 4k movies throughout it's lifecycle. Games will (hopefully) be played at 1080, 60fps in general, with some simpler graphics and/or cut-scenes being shown at 4k, and it will be able to upscale a lot of content to 4k for 4k tvs much like ps3 can upscale a lot of content to 1080p for 1080p devices. I think that it's a measurable science- 1080p makes a difference at around a 46 inch tv and above (depending on sitting distance) and 4k will make a difference at a certain distance as well.. maybe 84 inch and above? I don't know this number, as I've not physically seen one and reports vary.. but I am quite sure that someone using a projector or a huge 84 + inch screen WILL see a difference from 1080p to 4k JUST like those with a 46 inch or larger tv were able to to see a difference from 720p/1080i to 1080p.

I DO recognize TWO issues with THIS transition though
1) a 46+ inch tv is common and feasible for most homes, allowing 1080p to be "needed" by a large percentage of buyers. an 84+? inch display needed to see the difference 4k makes, is far less feasible for the average buyer.

2) Sony had a HUGE incentive to have the PS3 be a blu-ray playing, 1080p compatible device because it was highly invested in the technology, owned/owns replication lines, studios etc. With the blu-ray vs HD-DVD war at full swing, PS3 needed to play blu-ray.. This time around, I don't see Sony as having many connections to 4k anything...

That's my 2 cents.

Originally Posted by Phrehdd 

PS4 or should it be rightfully called the BS4?

Will it play MKV - probably not
Will it play iso files - probably not
Will it play VC-1 based M2TS files - probably not
and on and on.

The PS3 technically could handle all of the above but Sony in its infinite wisdom (and greed) elected not to support those files.

Meanwhile, people use XBMC, Plex and other software on the Mac (Win and Linux too) for free, or they get a Dune or Popcorn player and some use the newer Blu Ray players to stream content from their drives or Netflix and Hulu etc.

Sorry Sony, some of us just aint buying your "media center" BS-4. People with the PS3 should continue to use them and choose other devices for the difference that supposedly the new Sony Played-Out station will cover.

Gripe over (grin)

Originally Posted by csgamer 

A radeon 7870 can run BF3 on PC pretty well at 1080p, which means on console would be even more powerful. I would be surprised if ps4 comes out with an equivalent gpu or more powerful one, I'm expecting much less especially if they plan on releasing it this year.

Originally Posted by DDigitalGuy05 

 Yeah but,
pc gamers will stil argue over keyboard / mouse. Consoles like sony and microsoft needs that support for first person shooters.  

Originally Posted by Closet Geek 

As it relates to the speculation of improved gaming graphics, does anyone feel this remains strongly relevant outside of a console update in and of itself? What I mean is, a new PS# system is expected to and should have improved graphics in some form or fashion. However, considering all the attention that apps are getting these days, is this (a better gaming console with enhanced graphics) really the direction that we're heading? I'm not a heavy gamer so I'm asking the opinion of others just for the sake of discussion. I just know between Angry Birds, Fruit Ninja, Chess, Flow and Bejeweled, my kids can stay pretty well occupied and satisfied for a while and they never complain about cheap looking graphics. Thoughts?

Originally Posted by T2k 

I disagree. For one BF3 is an almost 2.5 YEARS old game, not to mention DICE's stupid compromises in its console-oriented Frostbite 2 engine - there's nothing write home about there in 2013. Secondly the 7870 is Pitcairn-based, 256-bit membus/80 TMU architecture, already one step behind AMD's current top dog, the Tahiti-based, 384-bit/128TMU Radeon 7970 - this is ~100GB/s less bandwidth on the 7870 but also means ~40% less energy consumption, making it an ideal base to build on in 2012 (when it likely taped out.) Clock-for-clock it won't be faster than the current flagship 7970 but taking the Windows tax out of the equation it might easily matches up in delivered performance.

I think that new, better ways to interface with video games is the focus of all the new platforms. Keyboard and mouse is the least appealing combo I can think of. I use them for work all day, when I play a game, I want a break from keys and mouse.