PS4 Pro Speculation (PS4K NEO Kaio-Ken-Kutaragi-Kaz Neo-san)

Status
Not open for further replies.
goonergaz said:
I honestly think 4K is far too soon for gaming, to notice the difference you'd have to be sitting either far too close to the TV or have a stupidly large TV.
Click to expand...
Or game on a monitor (as some ppl with consoles do) I dont use consoles but playing an RTS,RPGs etc at 2048p vs (1080p or 1440p) is a massive visual difference. Sure with fast paced FPS's etc you mightnt see much of a difference but slow paced games you do.
Esp if the game lets you see more of the game area (and not just shows the same area with greater detail)
 
milk said:
That's more an archaism of the game's implementation than a resolution problem.
Click to expand...
archaism? you've got that backwards, back in the old days with 2d stuff, having a greater resolution often enabled you to see MORE of the playing area, nowadays with 3d you generally see exactly the same (Im aware of frustumsize, but thats valid for all resolutions).
eg in the following 2160p and 1080p, instead of what I would prefer is the 2160p to show more of the surrounding area.
Though occasionally like in the following game since its from 2004, you get lucky since high DPI wasnt really available and prolly didnt think of it, the makers dont scale the HUD elements they just use 2d sprites, thus the map to the right doesnt obscure a large part of the screen, nowadays it would prolly be in 3d and obscure a large part of the screen like the 1080p screenshot

titan1.jpg

titan2.jpg
 
the camera's frustum and HUD size should idealy be resolution independent. If gamers prefer to see more of the playfield, or having smaller hud elements, that should be a customizable feature of the game independent of rendering resolution. Even at low resolutions, a smaller HUD could still be plenty usable by players that are already familiar with it, and so would 3D elements remain readable with proper AA (which is much more computationally efficient than bruteforcing Higher Res) Requiring the player to buy a higher res monitor or to super sample the game in order to ajust the zoom level and HUD size is not very ellegant nor smart, and is typical of simplistic engines with little foresight for then-inexistent high resolutions (as you said) and thus why I called it Archaic, as in, very very old (in computer games notion of time, of course)
Anyways, that is borderline offtopic as no PS4 NEO games are gonna have a higher FOV than vanilla ps4 games, nor smaller HUD ellements.
 
I think we have a trend of GUI-less games, integrating information directly in-game to maximise the immersion.
That 1080 screen is really wrong IMO, way too much screen estate used/wasted on UI.
 
Rodéric said:
I think we have a trend of GUI-less games, integrating information directly in-game to maximise the immersion.
That 1080 screen is really wrong IMO, way too much screen estate used/wasted on UI.
Click to expand...

Those have red x on the top right corner so they can be removed. I don't think they are supposed to be on the screen all the time.
 
zed said:
Or game on a monitor (as some ppl with consoles do) I dont use consoles but playing an RTS,RPGs etc at 2048p vs (1080p or 1440p) is a massive visual difference. Sure with fast paced FPS's etc you mightnt see much of a difference but slow paced games you do.
Esp if the game lets you see more of the game area (and not just shows the same area with greater detail)
Click to expand...

I should have said 'console gaming' which is what I meant
 
Rodéric said:
I think we have a trend of GUI-less games, integrating information directly in-game to maximise the immersion.
That 1080 screen is really wrong IMO, way too much screen estate used/wasted on UI.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Division did a great job in this aspect. VR games are doing something similar as we'll.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
milk said:
the camera's frustum and HUD size should idealy be resolution independent.
Click to expand...
True in an ideal world, as I've mentioned lots of times in these forums most/everything should be allowable to be changed by the user, unfortunately with the majority of games this aint the case easyily

Dr Evil said:
Those have red x on the top right corner so they can be removed. I don't think they are supposed to be on the screen all the time.
Click to expand...
yes I like to have them open to see where Im going, with 1080p you stop, open map look, close map. vs 2160p (keep map open all the time)

goonergaz said:
I should have said 'console gaming' which is what I meant
Click to expand...
I mentioned gaming on a console attached to a monitor, where the user is typically sitting close to the screen.
20140104_targetdisplaymode-960x540.jpg

Also I like I said its the sort of games one plays, FPS's etc having higher res wont make much difference (just makes everything look nicer) but certain game types (the stuff I like, though these are genres that appear more with PC games) having higher res enables more info for the player.
 
zed said:
Also I like I said its the sort of games one plays, FPS's etc having higher res wont make much difference (just makes everything look nicer) but certain game types (the stuff I like, though these are genres that appear more with PC games) having higher res enables more info for the player.
Click to expand...

Again, not on ps4, as sony will enforce same experience on both.
If a dev wants to allow users to choose smaller menus, it will have to be a feature available for both HD and 4k resolutions on both vanilla ps4 and Neo. As it should be.
Honestly, changing HUD size through resolutions is hardly a "feature", It feels more like an exploit of a naive inplementation of the GUI, which idealy should be resolution independent.
 
milk said:
Again, not on ps4, as sony will enforce same experience on both.
If a dev wants to allow users to choose smaller menus, it will have to be a feature available for both HD and 4k resolutions on both vanilla ps4 and Neo. As it should be.
Honestly, changing HUD size through resolutions is hardly a "feature", It feels more like an exploit of a naive inplementation of the GUI, which idealy should be resolution independent.
Click to expand...
Typically, and to expand on this, UI can run on a different display plane from the main game, thus a separate resolution from the game.

I don't think UI compatibility will be an issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
zed said:
I mentioned gaming on a console attached to a monitor, where the user is typically sitting close to the screen.
Click to expand...

Which is not the case in 99% of the console gamer setups out there. My point stands, it's too early for 4K gaming, the consumers don't own enough TVs - they wouldn't benefit from them (due to the most common use scenario) and the consoles are not powerful enough.

Not quite sure why suggesting a few people play on a setup that would take advantage changes the fact that most don't...I even stated only a few would benefit.

Furthermore if you're going to game and sit that close a 4k monitor you're likely have a beefy PC to game on...and you even state that most of the games that benefit are on PC so erm yeah, like I said 'it's too early for 4k console gaming, in most scenarios you're better off 1080p with more effects'.
 
Last edited:
goonergaz said:
Which is not the case in 99% of the console gamer setups out there. My point stands, it's too early for 4K gaming, the consumers don't own enough TVs - they wouldn't benefit from them (due to the most common use scenario) and the consoles are not powerful enough.

Not quite sure why suggesting a few people play on a setup that would take advantage changes the fact that most don't...I even stated only a few would benefit.

Furthermore if you're going to game and sit that close a 4k monitor you're likely have a beefy PC to game on...and you even state that most of the games that benefit are on PC so erm yeah, like I said 'it's too early for 4k console gaming, in most scenarios you're better off 1080p with more effects'.
Click to expand...

If I am not mistaken less than 15% of American households owned a hdtv when the 360 launched in 2005. 4K ownership is forecasted to reach around 12.5% by the end of 2016. HDTV ownership in the US didn't cross 50% until sometime in 2010 while 4K adoption is forecasted to pass that figure in 2020.

Furthermore unless Sony plans on releasing Neo while discontinuing sales of vanilla PS4 and MS plans to sell the Xbox One S for just the next 12 months then Neo and the S are meant to serve as top tier devices. They are meant to serve a segment of gamers who want things like 4K resolution.

There are an abundance of 50"+ sub $800 4K TVs in the US markets so it's not like TV price will be all that much of a limiting factor to 4K capable console adoption. The average sales price of 4K is pretty close to $1000 right now. In 2005 the average sale price of an hdtv was ~$2500.
 
Last edited:
dobwal said:
If I am not mistaken less than 15% of American households owned a hdtv when the 360 launched in 2005. 4K ownership is forecasted to reach around 12.5% by the end of 2016. HDTV ownership in the US didn't cross 50% until sometime in 2010 while 4K adoption is forecasted to pass that figure in 2020.

Furthermore unless Sony plans on releasing Neo while discontinuing sales of vanilla PS4 and MS plans to sell the Xbox One S for just the next 12 months then Neo and the S are meant to serve as top tier devices. They are meant to serve a segment of gamers who want things like 4K resolution.

There are an abundance of 50"+ sub $800 4K TVs in the US markets so it's not like TV price will be all that much of a limiting factor to 4K capable console adoption. The average sales price of 4K is pretty close to $1000 right now. In 2005 the average sale price of an hdtv was ~$2500.
Click to expand...

Well firstly it seems you are agreeing that it's a bit too soon, when X360 launched it didn't have HDMI if you recall - a year later Sony launched with HDMI to take full advantage of HDTVs. But don't forget that when Xbox launched it was going to be a 5 year machine, we have Scorpio coming out in 2017 - a machine that will be much more suited to 4k gaming.

Then add the fact that even if you have a 4K TV you need to be sitting close enough or have a big enough TV to actually benefit. I would say a lot of people don't benefit from 1080p TVs due to viewing distances and TV size, you can't just blanket say if it's a 4K TV you will benefit.
 
goonergaz said:
Furthermore if you're going to game and sit that close a 4k monitor you're likely have a beefy PC to game on...and you even state that most of the games that benefit are on PC so erm yeah, like I said 'it's too early for 4k console gaming, in most scenarios you're better off 1080p with more effects'.
Click to expand...
PC gamers are lucky they can choose 1080x2560 or 1440x3440 over 4K TV screen and get a better experience :)
 
goonergaz said:
This gen I really expected devs to give gamers a 'switch' between 'pretty' and 'performance' - maybe next gen (hopefully)
Click to expand...
I think the way console games are tested these days, adding options like this exponentially increases the amount of testing. Maybe with neo, scorpio, and later rolling gens, the culture might change a bit, and "safer" programing practices might let devs be more confortable to ooen up certain cettings like that
A 900p60fps/1080p30fps switch would definetly be cool.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

O
New Ken Kutaragi interview (1) @ PC Watch
13 14 15
Replies
296
Views
37K
Pozer
P
H
IBM backstabbing sony and neglected Apple ? (long read)
5 6 7
Replies
126
Views
47K
Fox5
F
Back
Top