Discussion: PlayStation 4

[DJ-Daz]

Seeing as the PS3 has been busted wide open, will Sony be pushing for a PS4?
Will Sony want to lead the pack this time with the new generation?
Are frame rates and true 1080p resolutions a requirement for the future?


Rumour has it that all the SPU's (7 available to devs) still haven't been utilized by any game.
Uncharted 2 only used 2 (if memory serves) and that was a lush game.
So do we need more horsepower if we still haven't used anywhere near enough of the old engine yet?
Is ram really the deciding factor?
Is the vga card slowing things down?

Games like BFBC 1/2 and Red dead redemption dont even run at the full 1280x720p, so would an increase in CPU cores and a new VGA card make a difference? Especially if those games aren't using all the power available to them.

Discuss

[YorkshirePud]

it seems that everytime i have a current gaming machine i look and think, they cant possibly make it look better, and maybe this time they cant at the minute? they are adding 3D now to give extra depth but is that it?

i dont think sony will bin the machine, it would make a few people upset to say the least and as they used to say back in the 90s "DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF PLAYSTATION" i think there is life in it still

i hope so as i said this was the last games console i was going to buy

[theENIGMATRON]

Lets see is there a pattern here:

PlayStation released in December 1994
PS One Released in July 2000

PlayStation 2 Released in 2000, 15
PlayStation 2 Slimline Released in 2004,

PlayStation 3 Released on November 11, 2006
PlayStation 3 Slim Released in 2009

So it would Seem the console lasts for 6 years!
Before a new one is pushed onto the market
4 years later they release the Slim version.

2 years after the slim a new one is out!!

[DJ-Daz]

What would it look like?
Like this:

Or like this:

[DJ-Daz]

I think timescales are unreliable and even unimportant.
What is important are market demands and now security.

If people are happy with 720p gaming, then fine, there's no need to update. But if people want 1080p for every game, then either developers need to figure out how to access more SPU's, or Sony need to provide more hardware.

3D will be the biggest driving factor for hardware, as anyone with two braincells can tell you that 3D doubles the works (not really but not far off either). Most 3D TV's are capable of a minumum of 120hz, some 200hz and plenty at 600hz, so thats a lot of extra frames that can go into games. On current hardware, 3D games will be 720p period. Even Wipeout is 720p. I think Super Stardust is 1080p, but it's not a massively complex game like a first person shooter.

If 3D takes off, then that might help convince Sony that it's time to update.

But isn't there a new hardware GPU/CPU coming out for the PS3? Something that bolts onto the back of the console?

[theENIGMATRON]

The biggest change i think you will notice in the PS4
is i think it will be based on a Cloud system.

Everything i know of, is all shifting into the deep heart of Cloud.

I think console gaming will soon to follow. if its this console or the next.

That would mean Disk free!!
Making the system 99% secure from hackers.

No retails to take a cut!!
no packaging to eat the profit!!
No Reselling / 2nd Hand Games!!
They Pick the price they want No one to compare price with

One factor to think about would be well some people dont have the net!!
Well i think it will be, well tuff get a PS3
They will manufacture games for some time after and then slowly stop.

The small portion that have 0 Internet to the markup they make on 100% sales
hmmmm what do you think!

[DJ-Daz]

I think cloud computing is fine for sharing office documents, but for gaming? It'll never really fly.

There are too many variables to convince people it's worth it.
A lot of people struggle to get 2mbit even in this day and age of 50mbit. But having a superphat web pipe is no guarentee of quality.

The distance from your house to the exchange determines the broadband speed, the distance from the exchange to the ISP servers and subsequent hops to the game server determines the latency.

On a good day it might work fine, but at the weekend or maybe even peak times, it could all go down the toilet.

For places like Japan it might work, but Europe is not Japan.

Then what about 3D? Surely that will mean double the bandwidth too? Seeing as a lot of TV manufacturers now have a deeply vested interest, they'd stand to loose a fortune just so game devs wouldn't loose out on royalties.

[DJ-Daz]

One way cloud computing could work, is instead of sending HD video, send the geometry instead. That would reduce the speed overhead and latency. And it'd keep 3D Tv makers happy.

Another reason it wouldn't work in the UK: 2 million gamers all downloading upto 1080p video at the same time?
This country, and probably other countries just dont have the hardware for that constant amount of data. And even if we did, dont you think the ISP might have something to say about it?

[theENIGMATRON]

3D TV is new Techo

My honest opinion its BETA

One way was discovered using glasses, But i have also seen 3 other ways of watching different types of 3D tv without glasses.

You open One door.
The water floods in a Bursts all the other doors open.

3D TV in my opinion is too early to make that investment,
You spend £1,000 or w/e on a TV that requires you to wear glasses.
And in a year or even 2, there is going to be a TV without Glasses.

Its a baby atm, and its growing quick, how quick is the question.

Would you invest billions on something that could be banished by something newer very soon?
Something that is a cheaper solution
(£100 per glasses)

Another reason it wouldn't work in the UK: 2 million gamers all downloading upto 1080p video at the same time?
This country, and probably other countries just dont have the hardware for that constant amount of data. And even if we did, dont you think the ISP might have something to say about it?

Data can be compressed dramatically as long as you have the technology to uncompress it as quick at the over side.

OnLive for a perfect example!

[DJ-Daz]

The technology behind 3DTV doesn't matter, what matter is that they all work on current 3D blurays and games, it's just a different way of displaying the images.
I never mentioned anything about ME investing in a TV, I know that in 2 years time they'll be better, glasses free and cheaper, but if nothing significant happens NOW, 3D will again die.

You can buy passive TV's now, but the TV is expensive while the glasses are cheap, they also have a very tightly focused hot spot, and if you go out of it you loose the 3D effect.
Active TV's are cheap but the glasses are expensive, have a much wider veiwing angle, and a good plasma will reduce bleeding to zero... you do the math.

Onlive may work in a country as big as the USA with good infrastructure using modern cable technology and server. But we live in the UK that is mostly using copperwire that was installed years ago and needs constant attention. Then factor in 2 million gamers at peak times and weekends, and it'll fail.

Then think about the poor ISP who's serving this data, hour after hour, day after day, and I can tell you now, prices for broadband will go up.

[DJ-Daz]

Yes you can compress video, but at what cost to the visuals?
If it gets so bad that colours look washed out, bleed, artifacts and latency, then most people will give up and go to the PC or a console based on disks.

[Symonator]

I hope the ps4 has some powerful hardware.
Of course they will never allow upgradable hardware like ram or gpu's.
But whatever it is, it won't be for a while lol, the ps3 only really started to make a profit.

[InfiniteStates]

3D will be the biggest driving factor for hardware, as anyone with two braincells can tell you that 3D doubles the works (not really but not far off either). Most 3D TV's are capable of a minumum of 120hz, some 200hz and plenty at 600hz, so thats a lot of extra frames that can go into games. On current hardware, 3D games will be 720p period. Even Wipeout is 720p. I think Super Stardust is 1080p, but it's not a massively complex game like a first person shooter.

If 3D takes off, then that might help convince Sony that it's time to update.

But isn't there a new hardware GPU/CPU coming out for the PS3? Something that bolts onto the back of the console?

It doesn't matter what the update frequency of the screen is, as long as it's not less than the game wants to update at.

It's not really that much extra work and most of it will fall on the GPU (which probably explains the bolt-on). There might be a little extra work for the CPU(s) in terms of pre-clipping (either 2-passes or a wider clipping volume). But essentially it just means the GPU needs to calculate and render the geometry pipeline twice, with different viewing matrices.

And don't underestimate Super Stardust
Just because it's not a complex game, it's actually running on a very impressive engine. It pushes around an incredible number of polygons. But then it probably defers all it's clipping to the renderer, with no need for expensive pre-clipping.

One way was discovered using glasses, But i have also seen 3 other ways of watching different types of 3D tv without glasses.

Dude, that guy making his eyes blink alternately at 30Hz does not count LOL

[theENIGMATRON]

One way was discovered using glasses, But i have also seen 3 other ways of watching different types of 3D tv without glasses.

Dude, that guy making his eyes blink alternately at 30Hz does not count LOL

LMAO!!!
But you have to admit Impressive!!
But that was only 1 way i see that way,

Seen a few others. Just an example i shared with you!! of Insanity!!

[DJ-Daz]

@infinite, thanks for the info on refresh and the 3D'ness. I really thought it would add a lot more strain on the GPU/CPU to create a 3D image.

Back in the day of Elsa Revelator glasses it did make a huge difference in framerate, but that was 10 years ago, and no doubt things have changed since then.

But it also explains why Wipeout HD is 720p in 3D, Liverpool Studios are'nt getting paid to re-optimize for 1080p.