PlayStation 4 Thread

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by Russic

As Mr.MastadonFarm said, the PS3 is still going to have a 10 year life-cycle. After all, the PS2 was still moving literally millions of systems as late as last year (11 years after launch). Sony isn't big on killing off old sku's at all.

Consoles don't need refreshes, but it certainly helps. As it's been touched on only a couple times by PC fans in this thread, the consoles get technically outdated pretty quick, and with no way to really upgrade the power that's the horse you have to ride for 6 years.

Understood. The thing is, unlike the late 90's, not many really go into high end PC gaming - at least not enough to call it mass appeal. Having said that and knowing the fact that MS and Sony don't make money off the actual consoles, and the full power of the PS not fully being taken advantage of yet, why the new refresh? There's really no first mover advantage IMO yet, because the new systems games aren't a giant step up from what I can see. So if Sony lets MS introduce the new 720, give themselves 2 years, and come out with something far more advanced, gamers would likely flock to their system, while MS has nowhere to go because of the capital invested in the then outdated 720. What I'm basically saying is, there's still room to grow with the PS3 from what I understand, so I don't understand why they needed a new system now.

[StrykerSteve]

Originally Posted by vektor

what's this game?

Many think that it's potentially Dragon's Dogma 2.

[Badgers Nose]

Icenhancer mod

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I pity anyone who has never enjoyed a LAN party.

Also, on that note, Media PC + 4x WiiMotes and/or 4x360 Wireless controllers + a gajillion ROMs makes for a more fun night than playing whatever terrible game EA or 2K is putting out this year.

But but but but updated rosters!

Can you stop being so annoying?

[Regulator75]

fyp

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I pity anyone who has enjoyed a LAN party.

[cDnStealth]

Originally Posted by fleury

Understood. The thing is, unlike the late 90's, not many really go into high end PC gaming - at least not enough to call it mass appeal. Having said that and knowing the fact that MS and Sony don't make money off the actual consoles, and the full power of the PS not fully being taken advantage of yet, why the new refresh? There's really no first mover advantage IMO yet, because the new systems games aren't a giant step up from what I can see. So if Sony lets MS introduce the new 720, give themselves 2 years, and come out with something far more advanced, gamers would likely flock to their system, while MS has nowhere to go because of the capital invested in the then outdated 720. What I'm basically saying is, there's still room to grow with the PS3 from what I understand, so I don't understand why they needed a new system now.

Because games on the current systems have been suffering from poor frame rates, texture pop-ins, long load times, screen tearing and more for years. It's time to move on. Sony isn't going to wait another two years. That would allow MS to build up a huge install base. Not only that, but every game would suddenly start being Xbox and/or Wii:U exclusive.

You guys need to cut the PC vs console crap. At the end of the day, PC games will always look better. That is not up for debate. That is a fact. But consoles have their fair share of great exclusive titles. I am happy that consoles are finally moving into the "next gen" because it means a step forward for PC gaming as well. I am tired of all these ####ty out-dated ports.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Can you stop being so annoying?

Can you get that stick out of your ass?

Originally Posted by Regulator75

fyp

You sir, are a wit.

Originally Posted by cDnStealth

I am happy that consoles are finally moving into the "next gen" because it means a step forward for PC gaming as well. I am tired of all these ####ty out-dated ports.

Unfortunately, this sentiment only holds for a few years until we're back to crappy ported textures, less lighting detail, and bizarre menu interfaces made for joysticks.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by fleury

the full power of the PS not fully being taken advantage of yet, why the new refresh?

That's been Sony marketing since launch day of the PS3 telling you that lie. There's really no such thing. The PS3 is very underpowered at gaming because of memory limitations that there is no "full power" that could be unlocked from the Cell processor. It's been 7 years since the console has been released and people still think that games still don't look as good as they could because developers don't know how to use it?

It's the 256MB of video memory and Nvidia G70 (equivalent to a PC higher end graphics card from 8 years ago) that causes everything to have bland and muddy textures and limited draw distance.

The PS3 is in fact so bad at graphics and the Cell processor proved so cumbersome for developers out of the gate that Sony is lucky to be able to leave it behind.

Ever wonder why the Xbox 360 was able to gain so much ground and why PS3 versions of multi-platform games usually look worse? It's because the cell architecture is very difficult for developers to come to grips with. If you lose developers, you lose good titles or you end up having inferior looking ports. That has dogged Sony since the PS3 has been launched.

There probably is some power in the Cell processor that can still be taken advantage of but the RSX chip (Nvidia G70) is holding everything so far back, there's really no point. Sony's old president wanted the Cell to be a new computing standard but the problem was that while it is actually a very interesting processor for computing (The US airforce networked a couple hundred PS3s running Linux together to build a super-computer), it's actually terrible for gaming and game developers who are used to having large memory caches instead of having limited memory they have to constantly stream into from a complicated core architecture.

As a result of this, developers are wasting more time optimizing, lowering texture resolution, limiting draw distance, displaying fewer polygons, having smaller maps, etc. to get a decent frame-rate out of the PS3 rather than "unlocking" any potential out of the architecture.

Sony needed this badly because developers never liked the PS3's hardware and if you lose developers, that's the death knell of any gaming system in terms of market-share.

That's what happened to Nintendo when they came out with the N64. Sure cartridges have their technical advantages but they were expensive and had limited ROM space therefore games had low quality sound, limited samples, low-resolution textures, etc. that wasted any processing power the N64 ever had. Developers decided they preferred having a cheap media and large capacity of CDs and that's why the PSX took off so fast in the first place as all the big name companies put their flagship games on the PSX.

The PS3 had 256MB of GDDR3 memory. The PS4 has 8GB of GDDR5 memory. That's 32 times the memory of the PS3. That's going to make a huge difference. You can also add in the fact that new GPUs have more transistors than most CPUs and general purpose computing on GPUs (GPGPU) erases any advantage the cell processor could have had for things like physics processing, etc.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

That's been Sony marketing since launch day of the PS3 telling you that lie. There's really no such thing. The PS3 is very underpowered at gaming because of memory limitations that there is no "full power" that could be unlocked from the Cell processor. It's been 7 years since the console has been released and people still think that games still don't look as good as they could because developers don't know how to use it?

It's the 256MB of video memory and Nvidia G70 (equivalent to a PC higher end graphics card from 8 years ago) that causes everything to have bland and muddy textures and limited draw distance.

The PS3 is in fact so bad at graphics and the Cell processor proved so cumbersome for developers out of the gate that Sony is lucky to be able to leave it behind.

Ever wonder why the Xbox 360 was able to gain so much ground and why PS3 versions of multi-platform games usually look worse? It's because the cell architecture is very difficult for developers to come to grips with. If you lose developers, you lose good titles or you end up having inferior looking ports. That has dogged Sony since the PS3 has been launched.

There probably is some power in the Cell processor that can still be taken advantage of but the RSX chip (Nvidia G70) is holding everything so far back, there's really no point. Sony's old president wanted the Cell to be a new computing standard but the problem was that while it is actually a very interesting processor for computing (The US airforce networked a couple hundred PS3s running Linux together to build a super-computer), it's actually terrible for gaming and game developers who are used to having large memory caches instead of having limited memory they have to constantly stream into from a complicated core architecture.

As a result of this, developers are wasting more time optimizing, lowering texture resolution, limiting draw distance, displaying fewer polygons, having smaller maps, etc. to get a decent frame-rate out of the PS3 rather than "unlocking" any potential out of the architecture.

Sony needed this badly because developers never liked the PS3's hardware and if you lose developers, that's the death knell of any gaming system in terms of market-share.

That's what happened to Nintendo when they came out with the N64. Sure cartridges have their technical advantages but they were expensive and had limited ROM space therefore games had low quality sound, limited samples, low-resolution textures, etc. that wasted any processing power the N64 ever had. Developers decided they preferred having a cheap media and large capacity of CDs and that's why the PSX took off so fast in the first place as all the big name companies put their flagship games on the PSX.

The PS3 had 256MB of GDDR3 memory. The PS4 has 8GB of GDDR5 memory. That's 32 times the memory of the PS3. That's going to make a huge difference. You can also add in the fact that new GPUs have more transistors than most CPUs and general purpose computing on GPUs (GPGPU) erases any advantage the cell processor could have had for things like physics processing, etc.

TLDR

Assume you wish we were all still using Commodore 64s.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by StrykerSteve

Many think that it's potentially Dragon's Dogma 2.

The matching d's in "Deep Down"?

[chemgear]

Some spec analysis:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/df...-playstation-4

The startling reality is that unless Sony has somehow got access to a larger chip that isn't yet in mass production and that nobody knows about, it has crammed 16 memory modules onto its PS4 motherboard. To illustrate the extent of the achievement, Nvidia's $1000 graphics card - the GeForce Titan - offers "just" 6GB of onboard GDDR5.

[Igottago]

I like what Sony presented but can't help but feel that I'm more than happy to wait it out a little bit before jumping into the next gen. Seems like most of the big titles like Destiny, Watch Dogs and of course GTA V are coming to the PS3 anyways. More than enough to stay occupied while they work out the next gen kinks and release some good bundles.

I like the look of the new controller, the size of the dual shock 3 has always bothered me a bit. I much prefer the Xbox controllers and it seems Sony has recognized their controller needed to be bigger.

Still find it very odd that they'd have this huge "reveal" but give no indication on the design of the console itself.

Looking forward to seeing what Microsoft has in store as a response.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I pity anyone who has never enjoyed a LAN party.

Also, on that note, Media PC + 4x WiiMotes and/or 4x360 Wireless controllers + a gajillion ROMs makes for a more fun night than playing whatever terrible game EA or 2K is putting out this year.

But but but but updated rosters!

Yeah, that's great. You stick to paying probably $1000 plus for your gaming needs and I'll stick to my $250 console and getting laid on a consistent basis.

[Raekwon]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yeah, that's great. You stick to paying probably $1000 plus for your gaming needs and I'll stick to my $250 console and getting laid on a consistent basis.

Well i guess there is nothing more to say when you put it that way, you must be a real ladies man. I wouldn't expect anything different from you, another compelling arguement.

Sent from tapatalk direct from your mothers basement.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Raekwon

Well i guess there is nothing more to say when you put it that way, you must be a real ladies man. I wouldn't expect anything different from you, another compelling arguement.

Sent from tapatalk direct from your mothers basement.

What? I thought that's how all gaming arguments were supposed to end.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yeah, that's great. You stick to paying probably $1000 plus for your gaming needs and I'll stick to my $250 console and getting laid on a consistent basis.

PS4 is listed at $429 & $529 US tentatively.

I've watched you post for years, and I would honestly say I'm surprised by the 'tude. But, I guess we all gotta swing the e-peen once in awhile.

For the record, I'm married to a woman 5 years my junior who is a former import model and currently works for an international design firm. She plays more damn PC games than I do ffs.

Because we have 2 gaming laptops and 2 gaming PCs, I'd estimate I spend about $1000 yearly, if not more.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

PS4 is listed at $429 & $529 US tentatively.

I've watched you post for years, and I would honestly say I'm surprised by the 'tude. But, I guess we all gotta swing the e-peen once in awhile.

For the record, I'm married to a woman 5 years my junior who is a former import model and currently works for an international design firm. She plays more damn PC games than I do ffs.

Because we have 2 gaming laptops and 2 gaming PCs, I'd estimate I spend about $1000 yearly, if not more.

Dude, the laid comment was purely tongue-in-cheek. But the cost part of it is kind of my whole point. I'm not a hardcore gamer by any means. Gaming for me is what I do when I get home from work and want to shut my brain off. Even at $429 or $529, if I can get a good, solid four years out of that then I consider it a good investment.

I don't play a lot of different games (mostly just sports titles), and I wouldn't really consider it a hobby. I suck at FPS, and get pretty bored with online multiplayer stuff (mostly because I suck at those too). I also go to school full-time and work full-time, so I tend to have very little free time on evenings and weekends. I just don't see the need to be investing big bucks into something that I don't consider to be a major aspect of my life.

To me, that's where consoles come in. I don't have a problem with the hardcore gamers residing in the PC realm. I just don't get why they feel the need to come in and crap on consoles, when consoles fill a completely different niche.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by rubecube

To me, that's where consoles come in. I don't have a problem with the hardcore gamers residing in the PC realm. I just don't get why they feel the need to come in and crap on consoles, when consoles fill a completely different niche.

A lot of the PC v Console hate stems from the last 7 years of terrible porting. It really has stagnated PC development and resulted in some really terrible ports that should have otherwise been better.

That said, many developers have stepped up in recent years and are putting out some insanely good cross-platform titles. Also, as cDnStealth mentioned above, at least for a few years, PC gamers won't have to worry about the "port gap", because the hardware will at least be comparable for a short while.

Also I hate controllers for anything but fighting games.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

A lot of the PC v Console hate stems from the last 7 years of terrible porting. It really has stagnated PC development and resulted in some really terrible ports that should have otherwise been better.

That said, many developers have stepped up in recent years and are putting out some insanely good cross-platform titles. Also, as cDnStealth mentioned above, at least for a few years, PC gamers won't have to worry about the "port gap", because the hardware will at least be comparable for a short while.

Also I hate controllers for anything but fighting games.

I will say that some of my earliest gaming memories are from the PC, as I didn't get my own console until I was about 16-17. I played a lot of Counterstrike before that, and I can tell you I'm just as terrible with a mouse as I am with a controller.

I can see why there would be frustration with regards to porting, but I think that's again where you get into the casual vs. hardcore gamer area. There are probably far more people who fall into the casual category, and thus do the majority of their gaming on consoles. So it makes sense that developers would prioritize consoles. It sucks, but that's the reality of the free market.

With that being said, even console gamers are starting to get ripped off with developers gearing more towards the mobile side of things.

[Russic]

Originally Posted by fleury

Understood. The thing is, unlike the late 90's, not many really go into high end PC gaming - at least not enough to call it mass appeal. Having said that and knowing the fact that MS and Sony don't make money off the actual consoles, and the full power of the PS not fully being taken advantage of yet, why the new refresh? There's really no first mover advantage IMO yet, because the new systems games aren't a giant step up from what I can see. So if Sony lets MS introduce the new 720, give themselves 2 years, and come out with something far more advanced, gamers would likely flock to their system, while MS has nowhere to go because of the capital invested in the then outdated 720. What I'm basically saying is, there's still room to grow with the PS3 from what I understand, so I don't understand why they needed a new system now.

Replace 2 years with 1 and you've pretty much got the current situation. The single year head start for xbox arguably put sony in a hole that they're just getting out of now, despite the PS3 having the more impressive hardware (in some categories).