Like on PCs where you can upgrade the CPU or double up on graphics cards and still run the same games but better.
PlayStation 4 Pro in-bound
- Thread starter antijoke
- Start date
Like on PCs where you can upgrade the CPU or double up on graphics cards and still run the same games but better.
Volta GPU? That's not out til 2018.
The most important thing for me at this point is that all future systems are backwards compatible. I'd be really annoyed if I couldn't play PS4 games on the next system and would probably change to PC although I really do not want to.
How is it any different right now? My PS3 never had backward compatibility and neither does the PS4.
How can you upgrade the CPU? You usually need a new motherboard.
Caporegime
Yeah, I know but I've invested a lot of $$$ in digital games on PS4 whereas I didn't with previous consoles.
They'd still need to cater for the different hardware though, the game won't just magically "know" it's running on faster hardware and crank up the levels of detail, texture resolution etc.
The industry moves too fast for console players, I got rid of my PS3 because Blu-Ray died, The games were crap and ugly so if they wanted people like me to return it seems natural they have to offer 4K and UHD Blu-Rays. The fact is upscaling from below 1080p for AAA games and displaying this on a 4K screen is not going to be ideal. The source has to match the output although that would still mean a x4 increase in power would be needed. This 2x is not going to cut it unless they drop the details down but that would actually be great.
Example i cannot stand Battlefields AA, And i cannot run it at 4K but the game to me looks far better dropping everything but textures down and increasing the resolution. They can do this on a 4.5 machine too. But the sad fact is too all these people buying 4K screens need a new machine. And when you do the maths you would probably be better off with a PC... But if like me you already have one then i bet this will be making you do a mental toss up versus a dedicated UHD player. The PS3 was a fantastic machine for Blu-Rays no one can deny that was a massive success for Sony in getting one into the living rooms of non gamers too.
Example i cannot stand Battlefields AA, And i cannot run it at 4K but the game to me looks far better dropping everything but textures down and increasing the resolution. They can do this on a 4.5 machine too. But the sad fact is too all these people buying 4K screens need a new machine. And when you do the maths you would probably be better off with a PC... But if like me you already have one then i bet this will be making you do a mental toss up versus a dedicated UHD player. The PS3 was a fantastic machine for Blu-Rays no one can deny that was a massive success for Sony in getting one into the living rooms of non gamers too.
Last edited:
I definitely have an upgrade path from my CPU without a new MOBO, certainly sufficient enough to make 4k viable if the GPU side is sorted. But anyway the point stands, even cross chipsets, games just work with the more power you give them.
I'm pretty sure devs capable of writing an AAA game are capable of writing an IF statement to change graphics settings dependent on which of 2 hardware configurations it detects.
Soldato
I can see this being a tweaked PS4 with 4K support, I just can't see them totally dividing their user base, it's not good business and would likely drive people away from the platform in future. I'm thinking a new design with 4K movie support and that's it.
Last edited:
If PC devs can routinely build games that cater for dozens if not 100s of configurations using sliders in graphical options etc then I'm sure PS4 devs will be able to code games that have 2 specific graphics settings, as long as Sony don't completely change the hardware architecture.
Soldato
Going for a 4k player on release would have been a bad move, assuming it would have been possible. One of the main factors when trying to sell a new console is price, I cant say how much extra the PS4 would have cost at the time but it wouldn't be a trivial difference. I remember the PS3 getting a fair amount of stick on these forums for its retail price even though it came with a few extras its competition didn't. Sony would not be able to justify the extra cost for functionality that would only be utilized years later by consumers.
The PS3 was a different kettle of fish as Sony was using it to push the BR format and HD DVD was competing with it at that time. The PS3 acting as a BR player may have been one of the major factors for BRs dominance over HD-DVD, so Sonys gamble paid off.
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2014
- Posts
- 1,070
This is my biggest worry as well, but I'm hopeful Sony will have the sense to ensure that development of PS4K optimised games won't impact the quality of the experience on the PS4. Something like 2 sets of graphics settings (targeting the same frame rate) for the 2 different consoles would be quite acceptable to me. If the frame rates achieved on a particular game are different between the two machines then this would affect the fairness of online play, which would be a compromise too far in my opinion.
I don't understand why the concept of running on both PS4 and 4.5 (assuming it has better hardware) is difficult to understand?
The majority of games are cross platform between PS4/Xbone, two completely different systems (but have familiar hardware architecture), surely then if 4.5 is just a hardware spec bump it'd be real easy for devs?
It's not difficult to understand at all. I was refuting the suggestion that a "spec bump" will automatically mean games will look and run better.
The whole point of a new console generation is that it pushes forward not just the games on a visual level but also what's possible in those games in terms of AI and physics, and how we play and interact with them. All this rumoured mid-gen "spec bump" will achieve is to appease the small crowd who think everything should run at 60fps. For next-gen console money, it'd be a thoroughly current-gen experience for the most part. I don't see how Sony could really convince people otherwise.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 12 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 26,776
I guess it depends. I only pay £35 a month and that's for unlimited data, unlimited texts and 1,000 minutes. I stream pretty much everything, all throughout Cardiff I get 4G and for the drive home podcasts and Spotify all stream fine.
You can always use Apple Music / Spotify / Google Music / whatever and just set a playlist up of whatever you want to listen to. There's no need to have to stream from your PC.
This happened.
Associate
Still requires streaming via an internet connection though.
Indeed it did. Wrong thread too mate (I'm sure this was originally posted on the PS4 thread, wow that's very off-topic).
Jim Sterling made a video about this PS4.5 business too. Long story short, he thinks it's nice idea, but Sony would inevitably mess it up somehow. I also love the short dig at Nintendo during the video. "Copyright claim this!" Gotta love that man.
Scaling game engines have been a thing on the PC since like forever, if the PS 4.5 comes with beefier CPU/GPU then I can see developers adopting this paradigm on the console side. In my opinion this is long overdue since historically the console development cycles have been way too long in the past to take advantage of tech advancements.
This is a good thing people, embrace scaling game engines.
This is a good thing people, embrace scaling game engines.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 12 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 26,776
Whereas I pay £8 a month for 2GB, and anything I want to listen to is easily stored in an offline playlist.