The one way i can see this working, Ps4 neo costs $399, alongside the neo Sony launch a Ps4 slim and price it at $199 or $249. In the long run this means more people get their hands on a Ps4 and software sales increase, while consumer that want a more powerful version can get it at $399. Sony really need to monitor the quality of the ports for both platforms and make it easy to port from one to another, a new 3DS situation would be horrible.
Its a real shame cause even if they stayed at the same res for games having double the ram could really increase the quality of the graphics. We wouldn't get so many repeated textures.It's probably been written on his thread before it exploded, but if anything, the relatively small CPU bump and same RAM amount are pretty much proof that Neo really is aimed at keeping the gameplay the same and only using extra processing for VR, or extra eye candy.
I am just wondering how much more eye candy you can push in a game like, say, Farcry Primal, if running at the same res. Personally to me, the biggest thing would be improved lighting, but I don't think that's part of the deal. Extra res or AA in games which already look very clean seems like a missed opportunity.
Maybe it's Sony's master plan to push people to buy a 4K TV. Who knows.
Or maybe it was SquareEnix that convinced them - FF15 would probably run properly only on PS4K, as much as they try to convince us that the PS4 will keep getting optimised games.
As DF said, there isn't a 36 CU Tonga so that'd rule it out pretty much.
Netflix/Amazon Prime/Youtube will be streaming 4K HDR before it gets a chance like DVD/Blu-ray. It will be a niche product.
This isn't even considering the fact that the physical copy rental market barely exists anymore.
Watching this IGN "panel" reaction vid to PS4 Neo. I'm 3 minutes in and they've already mentioned a bunch of stupid things like downloading special texture packs for the Neo version. So far, the general attitude I see from the pundits is expressing indifference, but not having anything positive to say about the concept and just running away with ideas about how it's stupid and could end up being bad for gamers.
It's nice idea but I wouldn't expect it at E3. At E3 if we are lucky we see slim's+permanent 299 IMO.
To me throwing some more CU's in is probably really cheap. They aren't altering the RAM or anything.
PC cards laugh at 3 teraflops and have for a long time. Mid/low range is 4+.
PC cards laugh at 3 teraflops and have for a long time. Mid/low range is 4+.
Its a real shame cause even if they stayed at the same res for games having double the ram could really increase the quality of the graphics. We wouldn't get so many repeated textures.
One word : inertia...Surely anyone not using virtual texturing these days is doing it wrong? I'm sure their are other arguments for more ram though.
Or Kojima! PS3 wasn't powerful enough for the MGS he wanted to make. Now he's in partnership with Sony and first thing he did was probably complain about the lack of power and convince Sony he needed a special console to realise his game. Expect MGS Neo (only it won't be MGS, of course)Or maybe it was SquareEnix that convinced them - FF15 would probably run properly only on PS4K, as much as they try to convince us that the PS4 will keep getting optimised games.
At increased cost to devs. Are they really going to spend extra on creating a niche Pro version of their games? They'd have to sell a graphics pack to justify it IMO.Its a real shame cause even if they stayed at the same res for games having double the ram could really increase the quality of the graphics. We wouldn't get so many repeated textures.
Do you have any kind of a source for that claim? Because this is the first I ever heard of it, and we've had multiple PS2 devs on this board.The same thing happened to PS2; later models were more powerful than the first model (even if only 5%)
Your lossy compression scheme discarded the underboob. That is unacceptable image quality!There's always a technological solution.
PS3 era was (painfully!) long and fruitful; customers got their money's worth out of that one, and then some. There is no genuine comparison to current consoles IMO.just like all those ps3 games continued to be made after the ps4 came out?
Like the 80 million ps3 owners were a significant incentive to keep making games?
Upgrading these is a much bigger job. RAM, because fast RAM is difficult and expensive, and memory subsystem of PS4 is already pretty fast as it is. CPU, because CPUs are complicated and fuckups here have extremely serious repercussions (including hardware recalls and extremely expensive replacements and so on.)Back to the hardware itself. I'm really curious about the CPU and memory not receiving much of an upgrade.
12GB RAM is assymmetrical. Assuming GDDR even supports that, you'd cut bandwidth in half when accessing the additional 4GB. It would have to be 16GB, and 16GB of 7GHz GDDR would cost a penny, probably.Why not 12GB of RAM? Why not a few more CPU cores, or a new CPU core that supports the same instructions?
Watching this IGN "panel" reaction vid to PS4 Neo. I'm 3 minutes in and they've already mentioned a bunch of stupid things like downloading special texture packs for the Neo version. So far, the general attitude I see from the pundits is expressing indifference, but not having anything positive to say about the concept and just running away with ideas about how it's stupid and could end up being bad for gamers.
I think Polaris is supposed to be 2.5X performance per watt. I'm not sure how to factor that into the raw increase.Not sure if this is touched on but if Neo is using Polaris core then the efficiency per watt should be much better right? So does that mean you get even more performance on top of a 2.3x raw power increase?
If I were sony, I'd be worried about ign's and neogaf's negative reaction to this.