PlayStation 4: Geared toward Home Entertainment - Page 4

I own a PS3 (since launch) and while it got some heavy use for the first few years, I pretty much only use it for Netflix Instant these days. The majority of my gaming is done on my custom rig which also doubles as a HTPC so I'm covered on pretty much every front, most of which trump the PS3's spotty performance. Still, I'm looking forward to seeing what the PS4 will be all about.

Exactly. More like excuse, well we're putting in a GPU from the eighties because it's a media machine. Whilst still charging £300 for it.

This is pure nonsense. Unless you're joking you obviously don't have the slightest clue about computer graphics or game development, that's for sure..

They will but in an evolved form including a front-mounted touchpad: http://www.vg247.com/2013/02/13/ps4-controller-new-details-emerge-pre-reveal/

I'm not a computer expert by any means, but am I wrong to assume that a console with XYZ specs can do a whole lot more then a computer with those same XYZ specs? I mean a computer has countless other backround programs and things going on that require processing power- a game console can use all of it's power to run the game.. So if people say that the specs are comparable to a mediocre computer, wouldn't those specs actually be quite good for a console considering they can be used solely to run a game. Not trying to argue either way, just curious.

It's the other way around - purpose-built designs (eg gaming consoles) are inherently limited, mainly due to its strict budgetary considerations (think of its targeted role), which results in machine that's less powerful than a PC. However at those specific tasks these devices were designed they could be very competitive against a PC - but a PC, with it's 3x-10x price tag will be always more powerful, let alone upgradeable, expendable etc etc.

Yes, now is the time to jump into consoles... I never seriously considered any of them (sans testing both the first Xbox and PS2 for one day when they were new), I'll be a PC user forever but *IF* they indeed will introduce a whole lot of new, living-room & HT-oriented features *AND* provide a decent 4K/future-proof player *THEN* I will seriously consider getting a next-gen console.
And if I indeed end up getting one then it'll be a Playstation 4, saving some very stupid last-minute decision from Sony - I absolutely detest MS' arrogant and greedy behavior, see their statement of completely cutting out the used game market by tying every game into an online account...

......................./¯/
....................../../
.............../¯/¯/../¯¯\
..............|..'...'..'..|¯\¯|
..............|............¯../
...............\..........._/.........…
................|.........|...........…
................|.........|...........…

I am not really interested in playing games on a console but principles must be solid so, FU, Microsoft.

It's called sarcasm. When the PS3 came out the GPU was a after thought. It was already out of date when released.

"However at those specific tasks these devices were designed they could be very competitive against a PC" - I guess this is what I was trying to get at.. Since the console is using it's power solely for the given task, it can achieve that task with lower specs then a computer would need. So theoretically it could run a certain game at X resolution and X fps with lower specs then a computer would need to accomplish the same task. As a computer, the console would not be as powerful, but as a tool used to play games on (why I buy a console), it can run those games better with less- am I right? Basically, If I was to buy the components that are going to be used in the PS4 and I had the same GPU, CPU, etc- I would NOT be able to run PC games at the resolution and fps that the PS4 is able to do with the same specs.. RIght?

If so, the point I think I am trying to make is that when talking about actual gameplay/fps/graphics- comparing console specs to PC specs is NOT apples to apples. A console can play games at higher resolutions and fps then a PC. Am I missing something?

Here's my attempt at an analogy-

A 115 hp engine in a dump truck would be like XYZ specs on a computer... It may seem slow, because that truck is meant to do additional work then just go from a to b.. just like a computer is designed to do additional work then just play games..

BUT put that same 115hp engine in a motorcycle, and it can get from a to b pretty darn quick... a LOT quicker then the dump truck with equal specs. just like a console (If I understand it correctly) can run games a lot easier with those XYZ specs above.

Am I missing something here?

Actually... as I recall is RSX based on the NVG71 core... and if I remember correctly the difference was reduced rendering power and the memory bus was cut so while technically it was slower than PC cards especially the refreshment GTX NVIDIA brought out by then, as far as technology goes RSX in PS3 at launch, in 2006 was right on pair with its GeForce 7900 counterpart, it wasn't outdated at all.
And, even more impressively, with Xbox 360 Microsoft actually was ahead of the PC card, ATI designed them a brand new chip which later became the feature-base for the R600-family Radeon cards.

Yes. To stick to your analogy: the engines are not the same, see above my explanation. Think of video cards in PCs are uber-tweaked HEMIs vs their lighter-weighing mid-range engine variations in consoles.

This part is definitely true albeit comparison is not impossible, it's just more theoretical.

False. It's vica versa.

Yes, see my previous post.

Just came across this, a post made by one of the original Xbox team members, lambasting MS for its incompetency: http://ilikecode.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/stupid-stupid-xbox/

Interesting to read - he argues for a more open, widely available game development ecosystem a' la Android and iOS and seems to point out that trying to team up with dying content dinosaurs won't help MS on the long run... if Sony executes well they might have an opening here - they have lots of content, they could thrive even without licensing anyone else's but they will make deals with others, exchanging content so they can easily beat MS in this living room-dominance game... again, *IF* they execute well but knowing Sony's incompetent ways that's a big IF, right there.

Well then Sony most be using some magic because it has been verified the 4K version of The Amazing Spiderman clocks in at 52GB on their 4K server that ships with their 84" 4K UDTV. They can probably fit most movies on one side of a standard 50GB blu-ray and all the extras and commentary on the other side of a flipper disc. Even tough the BDXL drive can read triple layer 100GB BD and quad layer 128GB BD, it will give them time to make the change over.

Yeah, we've already debunked those crazy 'quad-BD' numbers, most likely he confused h.264 with h.265 (aka HEVC)... I'd argue that for shorter movies even a standard 25GB disc should be fine but at any rate a BD50 will be fine for just about everything.

I'm pretty sure that 52GB comes with everything included already. Alternatively they can still pull down those extras from the web, utilizing built-in storage (aka BD Live method), if they label it properly nobody can complain...

My brother and I just got the PS3 'move', and it's really a joke compared to the original Wii setup. I can play Wii Golf from outside, smoking a cigarette and drinking a beer. You CANNOT do that with the PS3. Other than that, my primary use for the PS3 is blurays, and I don't see myself upgrading anytime soon....when 4K projectors start to trickle down to the 3,000 and under forum

I wonder if you can build a HTPC for gaming for the same amount that will dominate the ps4 in every way....

" A console can play games at higher resolutions and fps then a PC. Am I missing something?"

ummm sorry. Wrong on both.

Xbox can do 720p/1080i? And PS3 not quite 1080p in GT5? Something like 1280x1080. I'm playing at higher resolution than that, 1920x1200. I have to use vsync to knock fps DOWN to 60fps otherwise I get screen tear.

You haven't been using a PC then. Which console can output at 2560 x 1600?

And as for FPS that depends on what GPU you have, SLI or Crossfire with two £400 GPU's, the game, drivers, what graphic settings. But I'm quite sure you could get more than 60fps in that resolution in a top top end gaming rig.

Did you happen to read the rest of that post?

In case that wasn't clear- based on the rest of the post, I meant when comparing a console to a pc IF they both were to have the SAME specs- wouldn't a console be able to run a game better then a PC? Obviously there are PC's that outperform consoles. I am not arguing that. I'm just saying it is not apples to apples when you are comparing specs from a console vs. PC. A console can use it's power to run the game, while a PC needs to use some of that power to run backround programs and other computer things. I am not a computer expert and am not trying to start any PC vs Console wars. In fact if you go back a post, you can see I was just asking a question. Hopefully someone more computer-literate than myself can re-word what I'm trying to say and shed some light on what I'm trying to get at here.

You are correct, if a console has similar CPU & GPU as a PC, and you're driving at the same resolution, and set PC graphics to that of the console, then the console will be most likely offer better framerate due to game optimised OS. However that ends within the next gen of PC hardware. It does not cost a lot to improve on the PS3 graphics. Picking up a Nvidia 8800GT for example for £25 now will blow away the PS3 and Xbox 360. Wheras with a console you're lumped with the hardware. And the limitations of it. ie I cannot use a Logitech G25 with the Xbox 360.

Forza 3 just looks terrible compared to the PC, I look over it but it could do with some AA. GT5 in parts looks better thanks to some AA and higher resolution, but I think it looks worse than Forza 3 as it just lacks graphical detail.

And once you're using a higher resolution display, in which case current consoles are topping out at 720p with no or little anti-aliasing, low or none anti-stropic, the PC will pull ahead.

And of course you have backwards compatibility. I can still play the old games. Wing Commander, Lucasart, Abe's Oddysee, Space Quest and other Sierra games, Another World etc.

I have both consoles, they're ok but PC does a lot more. Once you factor in prices for console games, compared to PC, console games are about £10-£15 higher. So if you buy a lot of games, the systems start to be similar price. A gaming rig does not cost a lot more than a newly released console. Also if you have a PC already that saves rebuying parts.

Also PC offers vsync. Consoles sometimes do not, and you get screen tearing with it. You can see this in GT5, or due to hardware not able to push 60fps at a steady rate.

I only have consoles because of the console exclusives. Whenever it's multi-platform it's always best on the PC. Look at Skyrim, for example. HD texture packs, extra spells and weapons, quests, buildings, scenery, pretty much anything.

And unlike the Xbox, on a PC you get free internet play. No need for MS gold subscription (or PS3 +)

And checkout Morrowind, a re-texture pack has been released to improve the old textures.
Edited by fatbottom - 2/14/13 at 5:10pm

Build a gaming computer, which is quiet as the PS3, for same price? No. Probably looking into water cooling. Problem is gaming rigs use more power so that means more heat. I try and build HTPC's as quiet as possible, so that usually means passive GPU, tower CPU cooler, and large low rpm fans all round. Not really a fast gaming rig as a £30 passive GPU doesn't offer good gaming performance.

Of course the PS3 media playback isn't that open. I've played around with it briefly but just use HTPC instead. Flac support? Connecting to Twonky? Playing H264 media files?

Actually it's a lot easier against the PS3 as it's a waaay outdated today....

CPU+GPU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819106013
MB: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157277
Memory:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231253
HDD: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822149380
PSU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817170017
Case: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811233073

Ugly as hell but for $215 total it absolutely beats any Playstation, for sure.

FYI if you replace the A4 with the fastest A8 you add about ~$50 (MB etc can stay the same), upgrade the memory to 2x4GB so around $300 you can likely mop the floor with the upcoming PS4 too...

This is confusing to me. Why wouldn't you still play games on the PS3? It has a HUGE library of incredible games. The exclusives are also very impressive.

My PS3 is used for Netflix, and it is an excellent BD player. I only use it as BD if I haven't ripped the movie yet and added it to my server. Other than that, I use XBOX live to play games

again why not use it for games? What about exclusives?

If it's multi platform, I'll look into which version is better. From reading if it's out on both, xbox version usually is superior. But PS3 offers free online play, so if has a excellent multiplayer mode and don't have gold live account, that's worth considering.