News & Rumours: Playstation 4/ Orbis *spin*

[Phil]

I don't see a cheaper box with cheaper components being anything to cheer about. The reason PS4 wasn't $600 was because it has less in it relative to PS4. The PS3 put $800 of hardware in a $600 box. PS4 puts $400 of hardware in a $400 box. How is PS4 far more favourable for gamers? The same favourability would put $500+ of hardware in a $400 box, or sell the current PS4 at $300.

I'm going to play devils advocat here a bit.

I cheered. When looking at the progression of the video games in the context of consoles, we've had a few generational shifts. For simplicities sake, I'll just look at it from the PlayStation perspective:

NSES -> PS (1994/95) -> PS2 (2000) -> PS3 (2006/07) -> PS4 (2013/14)

Going from NSES to the first PlayStation, we effectively went from 2d to 3d.

Going PS to PS2, we went from pixelated 3d to 3d in much higher fidelity.

Going from PS2 to PS3, the market saw a shift when we went from CRT to flatpanel and from Standard-Definition (480/576p) to HD (720p/1080p).

From PS3 to PS4 - there won't be such a big generational leap, neither in 3d technology nor in resolution. Even if at some point, there might be a shift to 4k, it's unproven that there is a big desire by the mainstream population because of viewing distance and because on standard sized televisions, 1080p already offers a very high pixel density across your viewing distance.

So what exactly does this new generation offer? Obviously not very much, when we look at it from the angle that this new generation isn't exactly pushing the bounderies of silicon. What if we look at the current state of the art what technology has to offer, i.e. PCs. What do they offer?

Now, from where casuals are sitting, I really don't see a huge generational leap between PS3 and what a high-end PC can offer (ignore resolution and framerate for a moment). Sure, Call of Duty and similar games do look much cleaner, better image quality, better textures etc - but the game mechanics are pretty much unchanged. That's because IMO, we are reaching a point of dimishing returns where games have reached a level where they are adequately satisfying across the board - from graphics to gameplay mechanics.

The jump is clearly not as high, as any of the previous generations when the market saw a huge shift in either resolution or technology (2d -> 3d).

So what exactly would the benefit be if Microsoft and Sony opted to go for loss-making $600-$700 hardware sold at a loss and pushing silicon and heat budgets? Better graphics? Sure. But to which extend? Looking at current PC's best, I really don't see THAT much of a difference. Sure, you can argue beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I'm certainly not argueing that there isn't a difference present... I am more arguing that we have reached a point, where the difference between x10 performance or x12 performance (compared to lasts generation) isn't that high when you're viewing it from a 12 feet distance on a 46" television.

On the other hand, the advantage we are getting by Sony and Microsoft shipping "medium-spec" consoles are smallish sized hardware that runs considerably cooler and energy-efficient, which some people actually care about.

IMO - the difference you can buy for going over the top hardware wise is not that big of a factor as it might have been during previous generation shifts.

As an example: Compare Resogun (PS4) to SuperStarDustHD (PS3). Both 1080p, both 60fps. One's a bit prettier, perhaps a bit more complex, but i wouldn't call Resogun a game that is a generational shift. Certainly, not any casual would either. The same apply to most games - as nice as KZ:SF is - KZ3 wasn't leaps behind and already a very pretty game by all accounts. I certainly think the difference between KZ3 and SF is less striking then comparing any games of the previous generation, like for instance MGS (PS) to MGS3 (PS2) or MGS3 (PS2) to MGS4. With each generation, the difference between the new and the old is getting smaller making striving for even better hardware more redundant.

 

[Strange]

I don't see a cheaper box with cheaper components being anything to cheer about. The reason PS4 wasn't $600 was because it has less in it relative to PS4. The PS3 put $800 of hardware in a $600 box. PS4 puts $400 of hardware in a $400 box. How is PS4 far more favourable for gamers? The same favourability would put $500+ of hardware in a $400 box, or sell the current PS4 at $300.

Of course, that'd be stupid business sense and something Sony shouldn't do, but claiming it's for the good of the gamer is PR fluff. PS4's hardware is relatively less than PS3's was, so it's not surprising it's cheaper.

The problem for the consumer is value, not how much you put in the box.

I'm pretty sure if we put the PS3 against the PS4 against each other in their respective launch times, Many people probably see more value in the $400 hardware over the $800 hardware 7 years ago 2 weeks after launch.

It ultimately doesn't matter how much you put in the box, it's how much value you bring your customer, and PS4 is quite impressive in bringing a lot of value in a $400 USD package whole not breaking their own banks.

If they can bring the the same value in a $400 USD package with $1 cost, I'd say go for it. As long as the value to the customer is actually worth it.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

People at E3 cheered. We saw that on the live streaming, remember ?

They cheered because it was an affordable console, not due to it being less powerful. If Sony followed the economic model of PS4, they'd have put in $500 of hardware into PS4 and announced it at $400. Their new economic model doesn't benefit the gamer.

Simple economics. More people have $400 to spare for a hobby than $600, no matter if that $600 gives you $800 worth of hardware, you can't take $200 worth of hardware out of it and sell that on so you can afford it with your $400 budget.

Yes. Sony set a $400 price-point instead of a $600 price-point. They achieved that by putting in relatively less hardware. Sony had several options

1) Put in $800 in a $600 console
2) Put in $600 in a $400 console
3) Put in $400 in a $200 console
4) Put in $600 in a $600 console
5) Put in $400 in a $400 console
6) Put in $200 in a $200 console
7) Put in $400 in a $600 console
8) Put in $200 in a $400 console
9) Put in $100 in a $200 console

1-3 are to the advantage of the gamers. 4-6 are neutral. It's no particular benefit to the gamers but means the company doesn't lose money which is what they're most interested in. 7-9 serves the company best and would decidedly not in the gamers' best interests and would only be considered by a different Japanese console company!

Sony did not sit down with a list of options like that and ask, "What will be best for the gamer?" They asked, "What will be the best business model, getting large interest and adoption and maximum profits?"

On the other hand, the advantage we are getting by Sony and Microsoft shipping "medium-spec" consoles are smallish sized hardware that runs considerably cooler and energy-efficient, which some people actually care about.

That's a fairly arbitrary point, and I doubt many gamers are really that interested in a lower power hardware, nor cooler running. I don't think the case, "We put in less powerful hardware in our $400 machine than we could have done for you, the gamer!" would wash. Nor do I think, "We could have put in $600 of hardware and sold it at a loss, but decided to put in $400 of hardware and sell it at break even, because that's better for you, the gamer!" is going to meet with resounding approval. "We could have built a monster machine at a crazy price but none of you could afford it, so we went a little more realistic and made a machine you can actually buy," has some merit, but the backdrop of that statement would be, "We didn't want to release a niche product with little adoption of no revenue stream. We want a mainstream product at a mainstream price so pitched at $400 and got a good bit of hardware for the money."

The choice of the new, break-even economic model is not to benefit the gamer.

 

[patsu]

They cheered because it was an affordable console, not due to it being less powerful. If Sony followed the economic model of PS4, they'd have put in $500 of hardware into PS4 and announced it at $400. Their new economic model doesn't benefit the gamer.

Like any sustainable relationship, it has to work both ways.
It's not exactly a new economic model since it's similar to PS2. They still lose money but by not much.

Like Vita, they aimed for certain sweetspot and designed the system to appeal to gamers. They also interviewed developers to understand their needs.

This approach is different from the performance driven model.

In the end, it was well received by the gamers when announced.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Like any sustainable relationship, it has to work both ways.

Of course, and I recognise that. I'm not against Sony's strategy - it makes sense. The interviewee just shouldn't have put that pointless little snippet on the end. It's not as if the interwebz would have thrown its arms up complaining that PS4 was running to a different economic model. It's just a blanket PR philosophy 'say we're wonderful' that's become ridiculous.

 

[manux]

Of course, and I recognise that. I'm not against Sony's strategy - it makes sense. The interviewee just shouldn't have put that pointless little snippet on the end. It's not as if the interwebz would have thrown its arms up complaining that PS4 was running to a different economic model. It's just a blanket PR philosophy 'say we're wonderful' that's become ridiculous.

I think that snippet was just a pun towards microsoft and kinect. Also if you put more Non gaming hardware it doesn't do any good for gamers(blu-ray and kinect says hi). Non gaming hardware might do bad for gaming as it makes manufacturing more complicated(more limited supply) and forces price to be higher which limits mass appeal.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Now, from where casuals are sitting, I really don't see a huge generational leap between PS3 and what a high-end PC can offer (ignore resolution and framerate for a moment). Sure, Call of Duty and similar games do look much cleaner, better image quality, better textures etc - but the game mechanics are pretty much unchanged. That's because IMO, we are reaching a point of dimishing returns where games have reached a level where they are adequately satisfying across the board - from graphics to gameplay mechanics.

The jump is clearly not as high, as any of the previous generations when the market saw a huge shift in either resolution or technology (2d -> 3d).

So what exactly would the benefit be if Microsoft and Sony opted to go for loss-making $600-$700 hardware sold at a loss and pushing silicon and heat budgets? Better graphics? Sure. But to which extend? Looking at current PC's best, I really don't see THAT much of a difference.

PC games don't show that much of a difference, because the hardware is severely underutilized. High end hardware could produce much better visuals, but It simply isn't cost effective to target high end PCs when making a game, instead PC gets slightly tuned console assets. If you'd give a large budget to a talented developer and asked them to target a high end PC, the results would be great. The Infiltrator demo shows pretty good graphics running on a single GTX 680, a card that has been already been surpassed by quite a large margin.

 

[Cjail]

Sony explains PS4 digital game pricing.

 

[zed]

Going from PS2 to PS3, the market saw a shift when we went from CRT to flatpanel and from Standard-Definition (480/576p) to HD (720p/1080p).

Wait you cant use resolution from ps2->ps3 as a leap and then ignore the increase in resolution of the ps3->ps4.
for ps2->ps3 you could use the increased colordepth, dynamic lighting, proper shadows etc.
My prediction before the ps4 came out looks like happening, this time there will be far more 60fps games. Yes I do agree with diminished returns

 

[Arwin]

I am quite different from you guys, and actually a bit shocked at how much better Killzone 4 looks!

Resogun too, it's clearly held back by the art, I admit that, but you can see a considerable power increase in this game too - look at them voxels man! Super Stardust is a masterpiece technically, particularly Endless mode, but this is definitely something else.

The internet is lagging again in its capacity to show the true fidelity though, just like when Uncharted came out with those insane looking textures that only really stood out on your own tv, and ditto with sound.

 

[BoardBonobo]

I am quite different from you guys, and actually a bit shocked at how much better Killzone 4 looks!

It's not Killzone 4! That's not out yet

 

[BeyondTed]

PS4 & Vita Bundle = Real

So the bundle is real:

http://www.polygon.com/2013/11/28/5154580/ps4-and-vita-bundle-heading-to-europe-today-for-under-500

I was pretty positive about the original bundle rumors, but that price is not no exciting...

 

[Silent_Buddha]

They cheered because it was an affordable console, not due to it being less powerful. If Sony followed the economic model of PS4, they'd have put in $500 of hardware into PS4 and announced it at $400. Their new economic model doesn't benefit the gamer.

Yes. Sony set a $400 price-point instead of a $600 price-point. They achieved that by putting in relatively less hardware. Sony had several options

1) Put in $800 in a $600 console
2) Put in $600 in a $400 console
3) Put in $400 in a $200 console
4) Put in $600 in a $600 console
5) Put in $400 in a $400 console
6) Put in $200 in a $200 console
7) Put in $400 in a $600 console
8) Put in $200 in a $400 console
9) Put in $100 in a $200 console

1-3 are to the advantage of the gamers. 4-6 are neutral. It's no particular benefit to the gamers but means the company doesn't lose money which is what they're most interested in. 7-9 serves the company best and would decidedly not in the gamers' best interests and would only be considered by a different Japanese console company!

That's definitely an interesting point. It could be argued that with PS1/2/3 Sony put the gamer first by offering hardware that was much more capable than the price point it was offered at. And then making money back through software sales from grateful gamers rewarding them for offering a console that was more powerful than it's price would reflect. Worked fine with PS1 and PS2, but not so much with PS3 as the competition was much more fierce.

While with PS4, Sony thought of itself first and the gamer second by offering less hardware power relative to the cost of the console when compared with previous generations of PlayStation hardware. A concession that they were no longer the top dog and couldn't necessarily rely on software sales from grateful gamers alone to recoup hardware losses and additionally drive profit.

Interesting way to look at it. And honestly it isn't a bad way to do things. They couldn't continue with previous model with the company as a whole struggling to be profitable the past 7-8 years.

Regards,
SB

 

[RenegadeRocks]

I am quite different from you guys, and actually a bit shocked at how much better Killzone 4 looks!

Resogun too, it's clearly held back by the art, I admit that, but you can see a considerable power increase in this game too - look at them voxels man! Super Stardust is a masterpiece technically, particularly Endless mode, but this is definitely something else.

The internet is lagging again in its capacity to show the true fidelity though, just like when Uncharted came out with those insane looking textures that only really stood out on your own tv, and ditto with sound.

Absolutley true for this gen. We are just unable to see those texture resolutions or the lgihting glinting here n there inthese compressed videos and pics. The high bit rate video, small as it was, showed a completely different lighting ! And the real game will obviously look even better as it will be lossless on my screen. Everytime I talk to someone about KZ, the first thing they say is that they can see threads in all of the Helghast clothing: something we find ourselves hardpressed to see in the screens. We are not really seeing the gains till we get it, it works negatively in that regard but makes for a great surprise when u actually get it !

 

[Phil]

PC games don't show that much of a difference, because the hardware is severely underutilized. High end hardware could produce much better visuals, but It simply isn't cost effective to target high end PCs when making a game, instead PC gets slightly tuned console assets. If you'd give a large budget to a talented developer and asked them to target a high end PC, the results would be great. The Infiltrator demo shows pretty good graphics running on a single GTX 680, a card that has been already been surpassed by quite a large margin.

Yes and no. Underutilized, yes, severly? Not that sure about that. After all, the pace in the PC market is quite rapid and for a reason, you have all these complex settings you can tailor the game to run on your setup. Sure, it's not all as efficient as on consoles where you have less to consider, but I don't think the difference is what it used to be. And to equal the level playing field a bit, just compare multiplatform games (on consoles) and exclude exclusive content.

Wait you cant use resolution from ps2->ps3 as a leap and then ignore the increase in resolution of the ps3->ps4.
for ps2->ps3 you could use the increased colordepth, dynamic lighting, proper shadows etc.

I was more speaking about upper boundaries. PS3 had quite a few games that were 1080p while PS2 was practically limited to 480p/576p. And the difference between 1280x720 and 480p/576p is actually quite a bit bigger than 720p to 1080p if you take viewing differences into account. The difference between 4k and 1080p will be even smaller (despite the pixelnumber) unless you're sitting inches away from your screen...

 

[Cjail]

I think Sony will soon come out to reveal how much PS4 sold in EU

EDIT
I have a question, more of a doubt actually.
Is it safe to say the DD and disc version on PS4 are identical?
Has anyone reported something to contradict this?

Sorry if this is the wrong thread to ask but I don't know whether this belongs to news or technical discussion.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Yes and no. Underutilized, yes, severly? Not that sure about that. After all, the pace in the PC market is quite rapid and for a reason, you have all these complex settings you can tailor the game to run on your setup. Sure, it's not all as efficient as on consoles where you have less to consider, but I don't think the difference is what it used to be. And to equal the level playing field a bit, just compare multiplatform games (on consoles) and exclude exclusive content.

(Though I don't fully understand what you are trying to say there. )

Complex settings that have little effect to the image... A truly high end PC has easily over 20X the GPU power of the PS3 and see how the games don't look that much better than say Uncharted 3. Witness how much better Uncharted 4 on PS4 is going to look compared to the 3rd and that will still be on a machine that pales in comparison to a high end PC of today or some time in the past...

PC versions will get a boost now that the base performance level gets risen due to new consoles, but they will still be tightly connected to the console versions like always. Just because you can make the framerate drop with settings, doesn't mean that those extra settings are often giving good value for their power need.

 

[Phil]

I guess I was just arguing on some level that PC games are underutilized. I agree, they are underutilized, but I don't think they are to the extend you are suggesting here. You can use performance in various different ways and not all of them will strike as impressive as others. PCs use a lot of the performance offered through better hardware to achieve higher resolution, higher framerates and at the same time, more sophisticated effects that are toned down on console versions. If you take the best the PC currently offers, I don't think those developers would produce something that is heaps and bounds better than what they did if they had concentrated on that sole hardware - that was my point.

It doesn't really matter though - this specific point wasn't crucial to the greater point of my argument. That being that I don't believe that $400 hardware in a $400 console produces substantially less impressive looking games than $600-$700 hardware in a $500 console.

The keyword here being substantial. Sure, more performance equates to better graphics - but how much that difference amounts to on a TV screen being viewed at respectable difference to the average consumer is something that is slowly fading. I think for that, you would need far better hardware that is substantially more powerful to the point where we are talking about a year or two in technology. And even then, when you compare PS3 -> PS4, the relative difference from the eyes of an average consumer viewing his games on a TV screen is smaller than any generation jump before it. Because games are reaching a point where they are delieving a standard that is quite high, making it harder to tell the difference unless you start to look close and analyze.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

I don't think those developers would produce something that is heaps and bounds better than what they did if they had concentrated on that sole hardware - that was my point.

I have to disagree with that.

If you look at the difference between the PS4 and the old gen consoles, you see a typical or imo even above average differences what you see in multiplatform games on PC vs old consoles. The difference is there, but clearly the base assets and development is what dictates the quality of the PS4 or PC version.

Here is one of the last games that targeted only PC hardware and imo the difference to the console version is pretty staggering at least compared to most multiplatform games of today. Crysis 1 was released in 2007 to boot, only two years after the X360 came out. PC games haven't really shown much better graphics since then. The best scenes in Crysis 1 are still pretty damn good looking. I think the multiplatform games will look much better in a year or two once the devs have totally dropped PS360 support.

It doesn't really matter though - this specific point wasn't crucial to the greater point of my argument. That being that I don't believe that $400 hardware in a $400 console produces substantially less impressive looking games than $600-$700 hardware in a $500 console.

I think it would have, but it would also be very tough to make it work in the marketplace and cost reduction road probably don't favour such a desing either. A console with a $700 POM could probably be twice as powerful as PS4 and thus have a huge lead over the Xbone.

 

[Cyan]

I have to disagree with that.

If you look at the difference between the PS4 and the old gen consoles, you see a typical or imo even above average differences what you see in multiplatform games on PC vs old consoles. The difference is there, but clearly the base assets and development is what dictates the quality of the PS4 or PC version.

Here is one of the last games that targeted only PC hardware and imo the difference to the console version is pretty staggering at least compared to most multiplatform games of today. Crysis 1 was released in 2007 to boot, only two years after the X360 came out. PC games haven't really shown much better graphics since then. The best scenes in Crysis 1 are still pretty damn good looking. I think the multiplatform games will look much better in a year or two once the devs have totally dropped PS360 support.



I think it would have, but it would also be very tough to make it work in the marketplace and cost reduction road probably don't favour such a desing either. A console with a $700 POM could probably be twice as powerful as PS4 and thus have a huge lead over the Xbone.

For me CoD : Ghosts shows a more pronounced difference between previous gen and this generation. Ubisoft in fact admitted themselves that they couldn't add as much as new features as they'd like to 'cos we are in the middle of a generational transition.

On another note, this is one of the curious news that happen in this world from time to time.

http://www.pcgamesn.com/battlefield/battlefield-4s-dynamic-weather-could-match-weather-outside