Playstation 4 Catch-All

Backwards compatibility is very exciting!

From the "that's what she said" files

I certainly like the idea of an SSD, but definitely not the added cost. I've always prized storage space over speed - I like to have all my downloaded games stored locally, and even the disc-based games I'm currently playing (yes, I still buy discs when I can - my internet connection isn't particularly fast and can be flaky) or are likely to fire up when friends drop over I keep stored internally, so they're quickly available and all updated.

I've got a 2TB FireCuda Hybrid drive in my PS4, but in the last year even that has gotten maxed out, and I have to delete a game or two any time I want to start a new game. That drive currently costs $90 (it was $115 when I bought it in 2016), but a 2TB internal SSD is currently going for $250–$300. And as more and more games become download-only, I'm going to want an even larger drive in my next Playstation.

I think there's a strong possibility Sony may go the Apple route and instead of using removable drives it will go with "drives" (sets of chips) soldered on to the motherboard, with no additional internal storage - you'll buy a set amount of internal storage, and that's it - no more swapping in larger drives as time goes on. It saves them money and space, and possibly pushes people to spend more to buy a bigger drive than they need. Which is a real shame - the ability to easily, quickly, and at market cost upgrade the drives in both the PS3 and the PS4 has been a real advantage of the Playstation line. It's possible they'll offer the ability to have external storage attached - I expect the port situation on the PS5 will be USB3 - and you'll be able to move games from external to internal to take advantage of the speed of the internal drive, but that's certainly more fiddly and annoying than just letting the user install whatever size hard drive they want inside their machine.

As someone who's gotten a huge amount of entertainment out of my launch PSVR, though, I'm delighted to have their commitment to VR reaffirmed. And as someone who's running out of outlets in my media room, I'm happy that the backwards compatibility of the PS5 seems to mean I can unplug the PS4 when I upgrade. (But I'll need even more storage space if I'm going to have PSVR, PS4, and PS5 games on the new console.)

Fedaykin98 wrote:

I like the sound of the SSD performance, but it's hard to believe that they're going to put what they describe as a much better than average SSD in there for a reasonable price. I think they learned their lesson with the PS3 that $600 is a non-starter.

I feel that $500 seems to be the reasonable price. Since the launch of the PS3 was in 2006, that $600 price point would be about $760 in today's currency.

A built in SSD is very exciting.

Evan E wrote:

I think there's a strong possibility Sony may go the Apple route and instead of using removable drives it will go with "drives" (sets of chips) soldered on to the motherboard, with no additional internal storage - you'll buy a set amount of internal storage, and that's it - no more swapping in larger drives as time goes on. It saves them money and space, and possibly pushes people to spend more to buy a bigger drive than they need. Which is a real shame - the ability to easily, quickly, and at market cost upgrade the drives in both the PS3 and the PS4 has been a real advantage of the Playstation line. It's possible they'll offer the ability to have external storage attached - I expect the port situation on the PS5 will be USB3 - and you'll be able to move games from external to internal to take advantage of the speed of the internal drive, but that's certainly more fiddly and annoying than just letting the user install whatever size hard drive they want inside their machine.

That seems fine to me. External storage is fiddly at the moment because the PS4 is not really set up for it. But if we could transfer games between drives in the background, and transfer speeds were faster, and there were some better placed USB ports, then it wouldn't be a problem. I have an external drive for my PS4 that I use to store games I'm not actively playing right now, and in practice I hardly ever need to pull games back off it.

It took me two years to fill up a 2TB hard drive, and I never really delete anything, so as long as it has similar size it shouldn't really be a problem

Fastmav347 wrote:

It took me two years to fill up a 2TB hard drive, and I never really delete anything, so as long as it has similar size it shouldn't really be a problem

Well, it's not a problem for the first two years. The PS4 came out November 2013, so if you had a launch PS4 (as I do), that would mean 3-1/2 years of regularly having to purge the drive to make room for what you want to play currently. It'll happen even sooner with the PS5, since it's an 8K machine - all those games are going to take the same jump in storage size that we saw moving from 480i to 1080p to 4K.

Evan E wrote:
Fastmav347 wrote:

It took me two years to fill up a 2TB hard drive, and I never really delete anything, so as long as it has similar size it shouldn't really be a problem

Well, it's not a problem for the first two years. The PS4 came out November 2013, so if you had a launch PS4 (as I do), that would mean 3-1/2 years of regularly having to purge the drive to make room for what you want to play currently. It'll happen even sooner with the PS5, since it's an 8K machine - all those games are going to take the same jump in storage size that we saw moving from 480i to 1080p to 4K.

No games will have 8K textures.. unless those 8K textures are made up of 8 polys. The Sony announcement read like current PC GPU tech buzzword bingo.

No way will this console do 8K gaming with anything remotely looking like current gen AAA games.. even some indie titles would struggle.

Nvidia's top of the line GPU (at 300W power draw and costing $1200) can barely run titles at 1080P at Ultra @ 60fps with their fancy Ray Tracing turned on let alone 4K let alone 8K... no way are you squeezing that level of GPU performance into a $500 set top box.

In the form factor you will get the PS5 in you will be lucky to finally run at true 4K resolution at 60fps instead of faux 4K the PS4 Pro puts out (checkboarding lol)

Evan E wrote:
Fastmav347 wrote:

It took me two years to fill up a 2TB hard drive, and I never really delete anything, so as long as it has similar size it shouldn't really be a problem

Well, it's not a problem for the first two years. The PS4 came out November 2013, so if you had a launch PS4 (as I do), that would mean 3-1/2 years of regularly having to purge the drive to make room for what you want to play currently. It'll happen even sooner with the PS5, since it's an 8K machine - all those games are going to take the same jump in storage size that we saw moving from 480i to 1080p to 4K.

I got mine a year after launch and upgraded hard drive couple years go, last week was the first time I saw the storage warning message. (all those ubisoft games lol)

TheGameguru wrote:

No games will have 8K textures...

The Wired article explicitly states that it's an 8K console: "While the next-gen console will support 8K graphics, TVs that deliver it are few and far between, so we’re using a 4K TV."

It sounds like the PS4 Pro does upscaling to 4K rather than true 4K. Could it be that the PS5 is capable of 8K upscaling? Would that impact hardware demands?

I believe GG is making a distinction between supporting 8K output and 8K textures on the models. Higher textures resolutions requires more gpu memory which costs money.

The whole hybrid of rasterization and raytracing thing sounds like a boondoggle to me. With typical raster techniques you can greatly limit the number of polygons you need to think about for any given frame. Introduce reflections and the cost of determining which polygons are required plus the actual rendering of them seems like a cost/quality trade off that isn't worth it.

Evan E wrote:
TheGameguru wrote:

No games will have 8K textures...

The Wired article explicitly states that it's an 8K console: "While the next-gen console will support 8K graphics, TVs that deliver it are few and far between, so we’re using a 4K TV."

Sure it can output 8K that’s easy. Running a high detailed game at 8K is a completely different story at anything but a slideshow frame rate.

Are we already talking about 8k?

I’m still playing on a 720p plasma screen that I bought ten years ago. I’m hoping to replace it sometime after everyone starts complaining about 64k being too muddy.

Knowing Sony they’re planning on keeping this thing on shelves through 2030(!) so it seems they’re trying to future proof it as much as possible.

It is also likely attempting to stave off the competition from streaming services from MS and Google next gen.

I wish they would focus more on FPS than on pixels. I also wonder at what point where eye's will no longer be able to tell the difference. Although even that one will probably be on per person based. I would much rather have a 4k 90-120 fps then 8k 60fps I would much rather have 1080p 60fps then 4k 30 fps.

I have actually done a fair amount of testing with my father on this. He can tell difference up until ~65 fps. I can until about 95 fps (for now obviously years might change that) ages 58/33 when we tested. We were both able to pick out 4k from 1080p but was much easier for me. I wonder if he will even be able to see difference between 4k - 8k.

They can't future proof it a whole lot, especially not at a reasonable price. There is no way next-gen AMD Navi cards will handle 8K well. At best it will be like 4K is on todays consoles.
8K seems a bit pointless as a goal though. Maybe Ill be wrong and everyone will have 8K TVs soon enough, but 8k feels like it is getting into overkill territory, with a resolution only needed for extremely large TVs.

I wonder what AMDs raytracing will mean for Nvidia. Their implementation was already kinda useless with todays GPUs, but if consoles only support another implementation, it seems like Nvidia wont have much of a chance. Unless it is super easy for game engines to support multiple different raytracing implementations at the same time.

escher77 wrote:

I wish they would focus more on FPS than on pixels.

Yeah, agreed. With hdmi 2.1 new TVs should start to support 4K at 120 fps - maybe even with VRR/freesync technology on top. I'd much rather have games try to aim for that.

I'd settle for 1080p with a smooth 60 frames, nevermind 4k. I know some games have done it, but not many of the ones I play - particularly open world sandbox games and From titles.

PaladinTom wrote:

Knowing Sony they’re planning on keeping this thing on shelves through 2030(!) so it seems they’re trying to future proof it as much as possible.

It is also likely attempting to stave off the competition from streaming services from MS and Google next gen.

Shadout wrote:

They can't future proof it a whole lot, especially not at a reasonable price. There is no way next-gen AMD Navi cards will handle 8K well. At best it will be like 4K is on todays consoles.
8K seems a bit pointless as a goal though. Maybe Ill be wrong and everyone will have 8K TVs soon enough, but 8k feels like it is getting into overkill territory, with a resolution only needed for extremely large TVs.

I wonder what AMDs raytracing will mean for Nvidia. Their implementation was already kinda useless with todays GPUs, but if consoles only support another implementation, it seems like Nvidia wont have much of a chance. Unless it is super easy for game engines to support multiple different raytracing implementations at the same time.

escher77 wrote:

I wish they would focus more on FPS than on pixels.

Yeah, agreed. With hdmi 2.1 new TVs should start to support 4K at 120 Hz. I'd much rather have games try to aim for that.

Some of it is future-proofing. You want your OS and Hardware to support 8K TV's so if/when they become common enough the PS5 can output native to 8K. This would be important because if anything supports 8K first it would be streaming services. The FCC adopted a broadcast standard for 4K in Feb of 2017 and two years later tell me how many Cable Channels or OTA broadcast at 4K?...But I could see 8K TV's approaching some measure of affordability in the PS5's lifetime.. which would mean some streaming services could have some 8K content.

But 8K for the OS and Streaming apps is a far cry from 8K for gaming. We haven't even approached being able to game at 8K on the PC side at any price point, so no way is AMD going to be able to build an 8K GPU to both fit and cool efficiently in a set top box.. and certainly not for $500 or $600. Maybe for the PS6 in 2028.

Shadout wrote:
escher77 wrote:

I wish they would focus more on FPS than on pixels.

Yeah, agreed. With hdmi 2.1 new TVs should start to support 4K at 120 fps - maybe even with VRR/freesync technology on top. I'd much rather have games try to aim for that.

Me too, but I'm doubtful that will happen. Higher fidelity is so much easier to market than higher FPS.

Evan E wrote:
Trashie wrote:
vypre wrote:

Do you have HDR enabled? I read something not too long ago that the PSVR breakout box doesn't support it.

I do have HDR enabled. I believe the V2 PSVR headsets support HDR pass-through. I'll try the cables first - the weird blink on other games (like Apex which doesn't have any HDR) makes me think something is up with the cable they provided.

Just to confirm - the launch PSVR blocks HDR information, but the current v2 PSVR does not. In fact, I discovered just last night if you try to enable HDR in the PS4 OS with a v1 PSVR it will specifically tell you it can't because of the model PSVR that's hooked up.

Which means when my remarkably-still-going-strong ten-plus-year-old HDTV finally dies there will be an extra bit of cash I'll have to shell out for a replacement.

For anyone tracking this, it was the cable. Swapping out the cable that came with the PSVR solved the problem.

Related, any good websites for tracking good VR releases? There seems to be a lot of shovelware on the PSN store.

Backwards compatibility is a must with the way the PSN Store has become the Steam of PS4. Whether you’ve bought tons of AAA titles, indies, shovelware or all of the above, to not support this would’ve bee marketing suicide. Also the relative seamless ness of cross compatibility on mobiles devices + modern expectations.

Exciting news about the SSD. I hope that if I buy a base SKU they bother to include storage capacity that is slightly more than what I would need. I want to say 1TB in 2020 is sufficient but maybe the 2TB starting point is where we need to be.

Sony's got another State of Play coming this Thursday, May 9th, at 3pm PT/6pm ET.

PlayStation Worldwide Studios will be showing off an extended look at MediEvil, as well as a first look at a new title. And we’ll have other updates and announcements from upcoming PS4 games.

One note: Don’t expect any updates relating to our next-generation plans this time. Sorry!

It's neat to see Sony and Microsoft trying to copy the Nintendo Direct in their own way. However, neither company has cottoned on yet that people get excited about Nintendo Directs because they have announcements worth giving a damn about. The first State of Play and Microsoft's Inside Xbox have been snoozefests.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

It's neat to see Sony and Microsoft trying to copy the Nintendo Direct in their own way. However, neither company has cottoned on yet that people get excited about Nintendo Directs because they have announcements worth giving a damn about. The first State of Play and Microsoft's Inside Xbox have been snoozefests.

That's true, but at least they're setting expectations this time. Making the first one heavily VR focused with no warning didn't make a great first impression. When Nintendo has a Direct that is only about Pokemon, they tell us first. I hope Sony and Microsoft take the hint and start setting expectations in a similar way.

Also, I wouldn't want them to try to copy Nintendo's "look how sincere we are" approach. I think Nintendo is the only company that can pull that off, but it would be nice to have some kind of human presence in these things instead of just a parade of trailers with some voiceover. Sony has lost most of its more charismatic presenters in the last few years though, so I'm not sure who could do this.

Well, that was an underwhelming 10 minutes. I'm not sure that their "extended look" at Medievil was more than the length of a trailer.

Why did they even make this?

To remind everyone they exist? I honestly couldn't tell you. In fact, after it finished I realized I had forgotten almost everything sandwiched between Monster Hunter World expansion and FF7 Remake.

And I seriously don't know if I've ever had my hype killed as fast as that Predator game announcement. As soon as I heard the bongos in the background I sat up in realization they were making a Predator game. Then I realized its probably a Battle Royale or something. "Asynchronous multiplayer shooter!" Ugh... is AvP2 seriously going to be the last good Predator game we ever get?

I mean, really, as far as I'm concerned, that whole presentation was just an advertisement to watch Capcom's stream of the Monster Hunter World expansion, and to tune into Square Enix's E3 presentation where they might actually have info on the FF7 Remake that everyone's going to be excited for until it comes out and turns out to piss them off for warranted and completely unwarranted reasons.

The Predator game seems like a natural extension of the 1v4 idea behind Evolve and other games like it. It makes a lot of sense, and it ties really well into the Predator concept.

But what a terrible teaser. A slow pan back from some ruins, a shimmer effect, and a logo. That's it? You have nothing more to show than that? Why bother?

I actually did a bit more digging, and I can see the logic behind it. More recent than Evolve is the Friday the 13th video game, and while I had no clue who the studio was, other journalists have confirmed that's the studio doing the Predator game.

So stepping outside of myself, I can understand the decision. Friday the 13th actually made a decent splash, and given the care and love given to those films and their spirit, it makes sense to hire those guys to make an asymmetrical multiplayer game based on the Predator. Unfortunately for me, even if it does make sense, that's not the kind of game I want to play, and I'd rather that game exist only if there's a separate single-player game in development that can actually be good, not Concrete Jungle, which was awful.

my younger brother doesnt really bring recomendations to the table. But..he said he found something that he wants to play so we can play it together.

Granted the only games we play together are Uncharted and NHL...usually well after work has ended and the wife and kid are asleep. But he seemed excited so i said ill buy it and we'll play through it.

So...i ask you fellow GWJ, has anyone played " A way out" ? that 2 player prison escape game? i think its a year or so old...the premise looks neat and the play store page has a high review and the clips look great.