Playstation 4

PS1 featured a CD player, PS2 featured DVD, and PS3 had Blu-Ray. What will it be in the PS4? I'm assuming there won't be a next step media player in it, outside of repeating Blu-Ray, but I'm curious.

demonbox wrote:

PS1 featured a CD player, PS2 featured DVD, and PS3 had Blu-Ray. What will it be in the PS4? I'm assuming there won't be a next step media player in it, outside of repeating Blu-Ray, but I'm curious.

Knowing Sony, it will certainly support 4K. I don't know yet if there is a disc-based 4K equivalent to Blu-Ray, but you can be sure Sony will fight for it. Personally, I'd rather see (at least) a 2TB hard drive with a focus toward downloadable games. That is the future.

If I had to guess, 4k support for next-gen will be like the current-gen supports 1080p. I think it'll output a 4k signal, but good luck finding much that renders to that resolution natively.

demonbox wrote:

PS1 featured a CD player, PS2 featured DVD, and PS3 had Blu-Ray. What will it be in the PS4? I'm assuming there won't be a next step media player in it, outside of repeating Blu-Ray, but I'm curious.

Hadn't looked at Sony's consoles in this way, but its kind of impressive to me.

PaladinTom wrote:

Personally, I'd rather see (at least) a 2TB hard drive with a focus toward downloadable games. That is the future.

AMEN.

I got one. Is it too much to ask for an IR port on the PS4? I don't want to have to buy adapters to use my universal remote. It's a must for me if they want a chance of overtaking the Xbox as the media player of choice.

It's a big prediction to say it will certainly support 4k, are there many affordable 4k TV's out there at the moment?

On the other hand I suppose they will want to future proof the console somewhat so maybe...

I recently said I'm not looking forward to the new consoles much. I doubt I'm going to be a launch buyer of the next MS or Sony console. Mostly I'm worried about the reliability of both consoles.

I didn't want a 360 because I know one person that claims theirs has never had an issue. Everyone else that I hang out with has had at least one console replaced, and many of them have had 2 or 3 consoles die on them. Because of MW2 and one very dedicated friend that played it I eventually got one and it died in less than a year.

Sony was pretty reliable with the PS3. I knew two people that had some hardware issue, one broke completely, the other just broke the disk drive. I had a 60gb backwards compatible system work until August 2012. Having put thousands of hours into the system I wasn't too surprised that it wore out. Also, I was probably playing it way too much for how hot it was at the time.

I wouldn't be surprised if both companies put out their console before it's ready. I will likely buy the PS4 first but I will definitely take advantage of cloud storage for game saves because I am really disappointed that I have lost all my save files from my 40 games.

troubleshot wrote:

Am I the only person who prefers the Dualshock to the Xbox controller?

Nope. I prefer the ps3 controllers by a large margin. I do wish it had proper triggers instead of doubled shoulder buttons though.

Scratched wrote:

I think that besides "having the latest thing" that's going to be an issue for some people, as being "HD consoles" is less of a thing as "Well, we're doing HD properly now". In other words as heavyfeul said, the games (and services) are going to be damn important. What can you do on the new consoles that you couldn't on the old - have they got more than shinier graphics?

And there-in lies my problem with the next Playstation... The current one, which brings together a great gaming offering (downloads, high quality titles, and free online multiplayer) with excellent services (web browser, film streaming, PlayTV), has such a strong offering that it would have to offer something mind-boggling brilliant in order for me to 'upgrade'. And I just can't see what that offering might be. Full backwards compatibility with existing PS3 games perhaps? But what else?

As someone else has pointed out, the PS1 took us to disks, the PS2 gave us a DVD player, the PS3 gave us Blu-Ray (a big meh for me, but doubtless a draw for others) and online multiplayer. The PS4 gives us...?

My suspicion, however, is that Sony will attempt to subtly offer us less rather than more. I expect some kind of mandatory subscription service for online multiplayer (they must have salivated over Microsoft's revenues from their Gold Account over the last 5 years). And I expect some attempt to appease publishers by tethering games to individual consoles or console-owners.

detroit20 wrote:

As someone else has pointed out, the PS1 took us to disks, the PS2 gave us a DVD player, the PS3 gave us Blu-Ray (a big meh for me, but doubtless a draw for others) and online multiplayer. The PS4 gives us...?

Fair enough that the PS3 was a good cheap Blu-Ray player when the format launched, but if you want a Blu-Ray player, a DVD player - just go and get one, it is a GAMES console after all, if it does anything else, then fair enough but it's just a bonus!

The PS1 did play CD's, but, so did my CD player, and I didn't have to plug it into a TV.

As DVD players go, the PS2 was one of the worst you could use, even when it first launched. I remember reading loads of tech reviews of the DVD function saying it was crap compared to proper DVD players. The PS3 was a good Blu-ray one though, even is now.

If the PS4 supported 4K, it would be the only 4K device I would have, should I buy one, so I wouldn't go out and buy a new TV for it, maybe in 3 or 4 years 4K will be the standard/nearly the standard as 1080p is now.

Apart from that, they need to redo the XMB (they've already started with the new store & Vita dashboard) and they need to ship the PS4 with 500gb - 2tb hard drives. As digital games become the norm, what kind of download would you be looking at for a 4K game? Especially with PS+ being the way it is (65 free games a year)

dissposablehero wrote:

It's a big prediction to say it will certainly support 4k, are there many affordable 4k TV's out there at the moment?

No.

And there's no content at all.

I almost forgot that Sony bought Gaikai. http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/07/02/sony-to-acquire-gaikai
Gaikai is a streaming service like OnLive was. I would put money on it that this will be integrated in the PS4 somehow.

I'm conflicted on if Sony will put 4K support in the PS4. On one hand, it future proofs it like they've always done. But their company as a whole is struggling right now...I think they want to avoid a repeat of the PS3 launch that had a price tag too high for a regular consumer to justify purchasing. Sure the PS3 is fine now, but its start was pretty terrible. I guess it depends on if they have to do short term price savings by not including it, or can go more longterm and have it. I agree with the thoughts about 4K tvs and game file sizes... /shudder

PS4 is the hardware I'm looking forward to. For a while, I was quite jealous of people who owned 360s. At first, they had great exclusives and a budding online presence and marketplace. But now, besides a few online features, I feel the PS3 is better for me. I only play 360 for the rare exclusive, and their MP infrastructure has never worked well with my connection.

It's quite clear that Sony has a handful or so of rabbits in its hat. There are some 1st party devs that we haven't heard from in years, and while launch window is an obvious conclusion, I hope more so that they're new properties (no KZ4 or U4, thx). And adding to that is the great compulsion I have for PS+. I don't mind being a fan-boy and saying that the anticipation and receiving of free games makes me feel grand. Sony's got me hooked.

An interesting tidbit was on IGN today regarding 4K. It sort of sounds like he is hinting it won't be in PS4.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/01/...
What do you think?

Current 4K sets will likely be dead in terms of connectivity once the new connection standard is established...

I don't think it would be dooming anything if they add 4k later on.

The PS3 already has (very) limited 4K support, so I can't imagine the PS4 would have less than that. I think 4K TV prices will fall really fast, as a lot of brands announced their investing in the standard at CES. Current HDMI has enough bandwidth to do non-3D 4K at 24/30p, so it seems reasonable to think a PS4 could ship with support for 4K Blu-rays, which are in the works. The question is whether HDMI 2.0 (necessary for 4K/60p content, but interestingly doesn't seem to support 4K/60p in 3D according to Wikipedia) will be available by the time the PS4 goes to manufacturing, or if an HDMI 1.4b connector can be updated via software.

Some other rumor updates Eurogamer has published. Anonymous sources they claim are reliable, make of that what you will:

PS4 to feature 8-core 1.6GHz AMD, 7970m-level GPU, 4GB GDDR5 RAM vs. Xbox's 8-core 1.6GHz AMD, possibly a slower GPU, and 8GB DDR3 RAM

Sony to drop dual-shock

Some guy on reddit claiming he knows more stuff about the next consoles

Chairman_Mao wrote:

The PS3 already has (very) limited 4K support, so I can't imagine the PS4 would have less than that. I think 4K TV prices will fall really fast, as a lot of brands announced their investing in the standard at CES. Current HDMI has enough bandwidth to do non-3D 4K at 24/30p, so it seems reasonable to think a PS4 could ship with support for 4K Blu-rays, which are in the works. The question is whether HDMI 2.0 (necessary for 4K/60p content, but interestingly doesn't seem to support 4K/60p in 3D according to Wikipedia) will be available by the time the PS4 goes to manufacturing, or if an HDMI 1.4b connector can be updated via software.

I actually don't think the prices will fall for 4k that fast.

There's no content for it. Games won't use the higher resolution, everything's currently topping out at 1080p resolutions(even though top of the line gaming PC's probably can push out more pixels). There aren't any movies, and none of the TV broadcasters actually produce a full 1080p signal, let alone anything higher.

1080p prices really started to go down in 2008 or so, and only recently(like 2010-2011) got into the non-videophile price range. I don't see 4k doing anything different. If anything, the price for 4k TV's will probably be at affordable levels around 2018.

I'll repost some of what I wrote on my blog in response to these articles:

Me wrote:

On the software side of things the implications of article are immense: We have two major consoles that are targeted by every large A to AAA game publisher/developer that basically have standardised PC hardware inside. This potentially means that porting a game from one system to another is much, much easier than it ever was at any point in the history of console gaming.

Me wrote:

IF all target hardware for most big-name publishers and developers is AMD-based then it stands to reason that those software will be designed to take advantage of its quirks and architecture. These games will be optimised for AMD CPUs and GPUs. They will literally, most likely, run best on AMD hardware - despite that hardware not being the fastest or best out there. We're talking about less need for driver specific optimisations on AMD hardware, requiring fewer patches and updates to those drivers and, potentially, no more releases of drivers that increase optimisation on "Game X" like we've seen over the last half a decade in the PC space.

Interesting times ahead on both the hardware and software fronts...

troubleshot wrote:

Am I the only person who prefers the Dualshock to the Xbox controller?

Nope, count me in. Although I did mod my controller to make the triggers (L2&R2) easier to um, trigger.

Duoae wrote:

IF all target hardware for most big-name publishers and developers is AMD-based then it stands to reason that those software will be designed to take advantage of its quirks and architecture. These games will be optimised for AMD CPUs and GPUs. They will literally, most likely, run best on AMD hardware - despite that hardware not being the fastest or best out there. We're talking about less need for driver specific optimisations on AMD hardware, requiring fewer patches and updates to those drivers and, potentially, no more releases of drivers that increase optimisation on "Game X" like we've seen over the last half a decade in the PC space.

Of course, part of the issue I've seen with AMD lately is that while the hardware is usually solid, their optimization support still lags behind NVidia, although they've been more visible about their efforts since the 5000 series launched.

Also, it's a big loss for IBM's fabs, as they were in everything last generation. Now it's just the Wii U if the reporting is true.

RolandofGilead wrote:
troubleshot wrote:

Am I the only person who prefers the Dualshock to the Xbox controller?

Nope, count me in. Although I did mod my controller to make the triggers (L2&R2) easier to um, trigger.

I much prefer the DualShock but I grew up with the SNES and migrated to the PSOne so it feels very natural to me.

shoptroll wrote:

I much prefer the DualShock but I grew up with the SNES and migrated to the PSOne so it feels very natural to me.

Hrm. My console path was NES > SNES > N64/PS1 > GC/PS2 and I strongly prefer the 360 controller. Obviously this is super subjecive, but it fills my hands better. The real disparity for me comes from the feel of the analog sticks. I actually started resenting Sstick design during the PS2, when first and third person shooters started becoming relevant. To this day, there's not enough resistance on them for me to aim precisely and being on the same plane is less than ideal (I have the same issue with the Wii U Gamepad, so far).

Duoae wrote:

On the software side of things the implications of article are immense: We have two major consoles that are targeted by every large A to AAA game publisher/developer that basically have standardised PC hardware inside. This potentially means that porting a game from one system to another is much, much easier than it ever was at any point in the history of console gaming..

The way the first xbox worked? Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see more and better ports (both ways), but I'm tempering my enthusiasm.

Scratched wrote:
Duoae wrote:

On the software side of things the implications of article are immense: We have two major consoles that are targeted by every large A to AAA game publisher/developer that basically have standardised PC hardware inside. This potentially means that porting a game from one system to another is much, much easier than it ever was at any point in the history of console gaming..

The way the first xbox worked? Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see more and better ports (both ways), but I'm tempering my enthusiasm.

IIRC games were easier to develop for Xbox from a PC background. e.g.:

wikipedia[/url]]
The Xbox was chosen over other consoles because of BioWare's background of developing PC games and greater familiarity with the Xbox than other consoles: "We could do the things we wanted to do on the Xbox without as much effort as we'd need to do it on the PS2 or GameCube," Gallo said.

Not to mention all the modding to get XBMC and linux variants working on them...

Honestly, back in those days I don't remember many ports of console games to PC except first person shooters. Platformers were never usually ported, nor most sports games. Things are a bit different now with a larger percentage of games on console being first and third person action games which are usually ported to PC.

It's certainly going to be interesting what happens with ports. Developers and publishers want to sell as many of their games on as many platforms as possible, but counterbalancing that the platform holders want exclusives.

Scratched wrote:

It's certainly going to be interesting what happens with ports. Developers and publishers want to sell as many of their games on as many platforms as possible, but counterbalancing that the platform holders want exclusives.

I'm not sure that's as true as it once was. Developing a platform exclusive (beyond a timed-exclusive, which has become more popular in the last few years) is not financially viable for the bigger projects and the platform holders can't afford to make huge pay-outs when console preference appears to be largely game-agnostic for gamers these days. I mean, I'm not saying that games aren't important just that people seem to be more concerned about online services, controllers and brand.

I think those are preferences, but games are what move people to a platform. Let's be honest too. Most of us will buy both.

Duoae wrote:

and the platform holders can't afford to make huge pay-outs when console preference appears to be largely game-agnostic for gamers these days.

I'm reasonably sure they still can. Heck, if MS and Sony can afford to set up and run their own studios (and MS recently set up a new one in Vancouver), or contract to 'second parties', and can afford the hundreds of millions (at least) to develop, manufacture and market a new console, then they can still afford the odd tens of millions here and there in back-hander agreements to get at least timed exclusives.

heavyfeul wrote:

I think those are preferences, but games are what move people to a platform. Let's be honest too. Most of us will buy both. ;)

The point being, if they're using such similar architecture, there may not be a REASON to going forward, other than first-party developments. Infamous 2 remains one of my favorite sandboxes. But for every other game I own, it wouldn't have mattered. Plus, as the recent DLC debacle for Skyrim has shown, customers do not appreciate being told to wait so one platform can be first.

Scratched wrote:

I'm reasonably sure they still can. Heck, if MS and Sony can afford to set up and run their own studios (and MS recently set up a new one in Vancouver), or contract to 'second parties', and can afford the hundreds of millions (at least) to develop, manufacture and market a new console, then they can still afford the odd tens of millions here and there in back-hander agreements to get at least timed exclusives.

In the case of Microsoft I expect the answer is "Yes". Windows, Outlook and all the rest are probably making oodles of money. But I think there are question marks over the depth of Sony's pockets this cycle. Didn't they have to undertake a sale-and-leaseback of their New York HQ recently? In addition, I read regularly that their TV business is no longer the financial juggernaut that it once was. And finally, their last two handhelds - the PSPGo and the Vita - are considered by many to expensive flops. In my view that doesn't bode well for them competing with Microsoft for timed exclusives or indeed for any exclusives.

And to go back to an earlier point, this is one of the reasons why I can't see their current business model, involving the provision of free online functionality, surviving intact. They just can't afford to spend money or forgo revenues in order to build and maintain market share. Everything has to pay for itself.