Does the PlayStation 4 Need 4K Resolution?

Push Square: "As expected, Sony’s CES press conference focused heavily on 4K resolution. Like 3D before it, the manufacturer spent the majority of its showcase demonstrating a new line of Bravia televisions that will attempt to drive the standardisation of the burgeoning format. The company also touched upon re-mastered Blu-rays, video cameras, and more, all emphasising the importance of the technology going forward. But with the impending PlayStation 4 rumoured to support the new fangled feature, do we really need it?"

[iamnsuperman]

No because this resolution needs a 60 inch or bigger TV for humans to really notice any significant difference over 1080p which is too big for the average consumer. This with the massive price of these TVs means no consumer will have one and so means putting it in the PS3 is a bit pointless.

4K is great for movie theatres with the big screen but for the home/consumers it isn't worth it because the differences on smaller screen is hard to notice

[hennessey86]

Game no just no

[Army_of_Darkness]

Just give me 1080p at a solid 60fps in normal mode or 3D and I will be happy.

[Anon1974]

Agreed. I don't see any use for it, but at the same time those lucky enough to own 4k tv's, it would be nice to have something that supported it.

Mind you, maybe it couldn't hurt to future proof. If it comes out in 2014 and is expected to last 10 years again, who know's what TV's will be like by 2020?

[chun-li]

PlayStation 4 needs as much cutting edge tech as it can get but it just needs to balance affordability and be around 600 quid or so for a lot of consumers. I don't care how much the ps4 is just as long as its powerful with cutting edge tech to last for years like the ps2. I understand some people like good things for peanuts but either save or get a job.if youcan't afford a ps4 on release then wait or buy something else its a free world

Most people that would rail against 4k are people who know they won't be able to afford 4k tvs so they'll rather not be tempted by something they can't readily buy when it hits mass consumer availability pricing.

If ps4 could do 8k and toast my bread I wouldn't mind just as long as I can buy it and it gets a lot of software support and be cutting edge enough to last years down the road

Ps4 will support 4k resolution games and movies and judging by sonys ces 2013 press conference they'll be at the forefront of the 4k revolution resolution with the PlayStation nation.

I remember when people said hd was unnecessary but look where we are now. With sony being at the forefront of pushing 4k tech with upscaling blue rays to 4k, 4k native content, a 4k streaming service coming this year, 15000 blue rays being updated to 4k this year, releasing 55 and 65 inch 4k tvs to cost 4-7 thousand this year then ps4 is coming this year its only natural for them to make games in 4k resolution. the price of 4k tvs will go down because of a lot of competition so just like hd tvs which once cost 20k and up the price will be going down as there are more competition. Their are 4k monitors at 32 in for 4thousand at the moment and by next year 4k tvs will be quite affordable.

It would be way less of an incentive to own a ps4 if it'll never have games that could support blue rays. I know some angered sorts who have no love for Sony would be quick to talk about how they can't have an expensive system or can't pack too much tech in the ps4 but they are mostly fearful of Sony making tech far above whatever console they love. Sony have been taking a loss on tv sales and other things but it doesnt mean they'll make shoddy tech. They'll just try to reassess but continue to push cutting edge tech. The name Sony is synonymous with cutting edge so if they stop that they wouldn't be Sony

[shoddy]

But the nextgen start when Sony say so.

[Diver]

yes it needs it. those saying no are the same ones that said the 360 didn't need HDMI or a decent size hdd or wifi an the ps3 didn't need bluray. sorry but to be future proof for a 10 year console you need it.

the next PlayStation an Xbox won't launch until next year an by then 4k TVs will be down inprice by quite a bit. an screens will keep growing. look at the ces trend.

[morganfell]

Welcome to 2005. These same arguments were made against the need for HD, HDMI, and expanded disc space. And everyone of those argument, just like those against 4K, are invalid. Sony has screwed up some things, this much is true. But they have also been right about the de facto standard every single generation - CD, DVD, Bluray. Now 4K and they are right again.

[clrlite]

I agree. I wouldn't mind it being able to output 4k resolution, but pushing 4K games would be a bad decision at this point. Being able to play top notch 1080P/3D games would already cost a lot right now. Not to mention the fact that cheaper game development costs lead to more unique, creative, and fun gaming experiences.

[pixelsword]

@ iamnsuperman:

"resolution needs a 60 inch or bigger TV for humans to really notice any significant difference over 1080p"

That sounds logical, but a lot of people who primarily game on PCs say that they get resolutions above 1080p and notice a difference, why wouldn't this?

Would increasing the framerate on a small 4k tv be visually distinct (less blurriness, etc.)?

[blackbeld]

Well Said Chun-Li.

I Cant say it better. Sony should make it for the long run like they always do.

[dedicatedtogamers]

I don't think PS4 needs it, and here are several reasons:

- A lot of games nowadays aren't even native 720p, let alone 1080p. Additionally, a lot of games nowadays already struggle to maintain 30 frames per second, let alone 60. Let's get that taken care of first, please.

- Sony, as a company, has been losing a TON of money. Kaz Hirai recently said that "Sony as a company needs to be more focused". Pushing 4k resolution and 4k TV sets and 4k gaming with the PS4 seems like a step backwards. Blu Ray and 1080p resolution with 60 fps will be fine for next gen consoles

- HD TVs have not been on the market for much more than a decade, and HD TVs have been "standard" for not even half that time. The majority of people aren't interested in upgrading TVs AGAIN.

[cl1983]

Also most people updated for digital not hd.

[LackTrue4K]

That's what I'm saying. If it can push it why not have it. It's like a car with lots of hp and torque,

"it's always nice to have extra then to come up short"

[pixelsword]

IF the PS4 comes with a 60-inch 4K TV and be at or under $600, I'd get it.

[RedDevils]

It not gonna hurt if Sony allow the PS4 to integrate the 4k support, better than making the same mistake that Microsoft doing when they didn't included the HDMI, I say future proof FTW!

[Bordel_1900]

@dedicatedtogamers

Well said.

Sony should focus on delivering good gaming experiences. They should not repeat all the stupid hype that surrounded the PS3 before launch. Dual 1080p 120fps games, hyping meaningless specifications like the Cell being 2 times faster than the Xbox 360 processor, showing pre-rendered graphics claiming it to be all done by the Cell processor, RSX giving movie quality graphics etc. etc.. all this hype and bs that was never delivered has left a bad taste in my mouth.

PS3 and X360 are about on par gaming wise, with their own strengths and weaknesses.

This time around Sony should cut the bullshit.

Give me the Sony exclusive games and shut up about how much better than the competitor you think you are, specially when you are not. Something that this generation should have taught them.

I'm all for 4K support for movies even though today I don't think it's necessary.

Hyping 4K gaming on PS4 would be meaningless. Keep it real with beautifully rendered 720p/60fps and 1080p/30fps/60fps.

[GribbleGrunger]

I absolutely agree with you but one of the things that will guarantee that getting sorted out is if games could run in 4k at 30fps. Pushing for that high spot would benefit developers who want to make 1080p at 60fps games, rather like 3D has helped 1st party devs to maximise code.

As far as what the eye can 'really see', I have one small story to relate: I was sat at a friends house playing on his brothers PC. I was having a fun time when in he walked looking very happy. He asked me if I liked the game and I said yes. He then explained to me what resolution it was in. I said to him that there wasn't that much difference between 600 by 800 and the ridiculously high resolution he had the game running in. Instantly he sprang to the screen, his podgy little finger prodding the detail. 'Look at that detail', he proclaimed, 'Can't you see how much better it looks?' He went on and on and on, pointing to this and that. He made me feel really stupid so I just mutely walked away from the Monitor and sat elsewhere. And the moral of the story? I'd lowered the res to 600 by 800 just before he walked in to see if there was a difference.

[tdogchristy90]

Does this bigger screen theory also translate to the oled tech. I guess I'm just curious which is more future proof and likely as the next great tv. Most TVs sales are the 32s, so 4k would be out. So oled would be the new standard?

[jujubee88]

I just found one (for professional use),

http://www.theverge.com/201...

[cervantes99]

OLED is just a better screen technology that gives brighter, more vibrant colors and supreme black levels. Also very energy efficient and allows very thin screens - like 3mm thick.

Both OLED and 4K are similarly priced $10,000+ for a 55 inch screen. OLED will show visible improvements at smaller screen sizes though.

4K is more future proof though.

[piroh]

it´s kinda pointless, but as i know Sony they will include 4k support to PS4. as i know people we will be grateful for this in the upcoming years, look at The Cell and Blu-ray

sadly the only developers supporting 4k will be Sony´s first party studios

[get2sammyb]

Some digital games with "simpler" graphics might opt to support it, but, yes, I generally agree.

[piroh]

plus all PS3, PS2 and PS1 games throughout Gaikai

[pandaboy]

wait what, the cell? that is dated and dead technology... nobody is thankful for that...

[piroh]

@pandaboy
now i see why you have only one bubble

[jujubee88]

What? That sounds like a bogus stat you just made up. No offense (this is no attack on you personally), but if you are going to make that kind of claim, you better back it up with some scientific fact(s).

[iamnsuperman]

I can't find the original thing posted by the BBC which gave me this information but this source might help

"Abbott expects to see 4K used extensively in cinemas long before it makes its way to the consumer space, if it ever does on a large scale. He says it makes more sense in the cinema environment, particularly because of the larger screens and the distance viewers sit from them."

"Kotsaftis says manufacturers will probably begin shipping and promoting larger TVs. “In coming years, 50-inch or 55-inch screens will have become the sort of standard that 40-inch TVs are now. To exploit 4K, you need a larger form factor. You’re just not going to notice enough of a difference on smaller screens."

http://www.techcentral.co.z...

"But most us don’t get all that close to big screen TVs. The 4K sets being shown at CES are big. Samsung has an 85 inch set, Sony is already selling an 84 inch model. About the smallest set you’ll find is 55 inches but even with that size screen, people tend to sit a bit from the screen. I have a 55 inch 1080p set perched several feet in front of my living room couch so I rarely get close enough to my TV to notice any gaps between pixels."
http://www.forbes.com/sites...

"Another big factor, and why 4K and 8K sets may have a hard time gaining traction in the home space, is viewing distance. You'll notice in a lot of press images for 4K and 8K sets, that the viewer is standing right in front of the screen. You really need to be that close to notice the extra pixel density. For most consumers that is just not a feasible viewing distance for the living room.
Some 4K booths had ropes in front of them, not allowing you to get close, and for those the difference between 4K and standard HD was barely noticeable. That's because at a typical viewing distance our standard 1080p HD set is very near Retina display quality, "Retina display" being a term coined by Apple to define a resolution where the human eye cannot resolve individual pixels at a typical viewing distance."
http://www.apartmenttherapy...

from a consumer point of view we really do not see a big enough difference to warrant a buy a 4K tv unless the screen is massive

[jujubee88]

"The 4K sets being shown at CES are big. Samsung has an 85 inch set, Sony is already selling an 84 inch model. About the smallest set you’ll find is 55 inches"

The smallest 4k display is NOT 56 inches, it is 30 inches.

http://www.theverge.com/201...

"Another big factor, and why 4K and 8K sets may have a hard time gaining traction in the home space, is viewing distance. You'll notice in a lot of press images for 4K and 8K sets, that the viewer is standing right in front of the screen. You really need to be that close to notice the extra pixel density. For most consumers that is just not a feasible viewing distance for the living room. "

To be fair, that link did not take into consideration stuff like motion blur where pixels can look like a blur and details decrease. When shooting and getting native 4k, every single pixel location (on a denser panel) is crisp which translates into the entire array of a 4K panel. But, that's just in theory (I don't know if the processors in these 4K TV's can get a better "hz" refresh rate). And, yes, I would need to compare my 1080p Bravia vs a new 4K Bravia in both the living room and in a smaller room of the house.

I am not buying into any new technology that just comes out, but I can see the difference a 4k display can make. If something seems better replicated on a 4K vs a 1080p display in my room (not only the living room) than that would be awesome.

[joab777]

What? When ps3 launched, they made it capable of 3d with a blue ray player because they were betting on the future. Not many ppl were spending thousands at the time for 3d tv's. And 4k tv's will come down in price. And I just got my first 55" tv. If it's really good tech and the price is right, ppl will buy it. Why not have the capability. It also helps push the tech. The real question is whether it's worth increasing the price of the console or taking a loss to get the tech out there. Yes, they have great studios, but it's nice to have new tech to separate yourself from the Xbox, steambox, PC gaming etc. And it helps leverage the future. If it doesn't sell well at launch, u have a chance that many will buy it as a 4k player later on.

[iamnsuperman]

"Not many ppl were spending thousands at the time for 3d tv's"

3D tvs really are not selling because they cost a lot (and issues with glasses). 3D was that fad and now 4K is and adding it into a gaming device (like 3D isn't going to make people by into 4K

[joab777]

First off, 3d tv's are not expensive anymore. I will give you that it's a fad- somewhat and much more for gaming. My family likes the movies. 4k isn't anymore a fad than 1080, it's a natural evolution in tech. Now, u can argue the old fps argument that the natural eye doesn't need 60 fps etc, but it's headed that way. I can't imagine 4k will b all that bad. If u have had a 40" 1080 tv and a 55", there is a loss in quality. If u can buy a 60" 4k tv in 4 yrs for $1200-1500, that's your market and it will sell. And if it's it tech, why not have it in a ps4? Now, as I mentioned, is it worth the production costs or taking a loss right now to possibly leverage the future. That's a different argument. I am not an expert but with their woes and increased competition, I say go for it. The only other route is a kick ads machine for cheap because the new Xbox and steamboat, along with PC evolution, Sony is gonna have a he'll of a time next gen and it saddens me.

[NeoBasch]

@ iamnsuperman

uh... 3D TVs are actually doing pretty well. Most cost between $800 to $1500. I wouldn't call that expensive, and they're not dinky TV's either. Those ones I was referring to were anywhere from 40" to 55". That's pretty big. Most people won't even buy above those sizes anyways.

Besides, most retailers are switching their stocks out. They're getting rid of the regular LCD displays for Smart 3D LED or Plasma TVs. That's just the way things are, and I don't expect them to change.

Let me see, I'll give you some stats. If I remember right, the last couple high-profile 3D Blu-Ray releases were adopted at 23% (The Avengers), 25% (Prometheus), 37% (Titanic), and 48% (Finding Nemo). Now this is the percentage of total units sold on opening week. Most of these, increased their percentages in following weeks. For example, Prometheus was at 46% a month later.

That goes to show you that anywhere from a quarter to half of consumers are purchasing new media on a 3D format when available. Therefore, 3D is not a gimmick and actually holds quite a large share in movie sales. Oh, and just in case you're still stuck in the dark ages, Blu-Ray as a whole has a 75% share on new media on average week in and week out. I'll let that sink in for you.

3D isn't going anywhere. In fact, it'll likely increase its shares when The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is released, being that The Hobbit is one of the first movies to make use of native 48 FPS, which will translate into a more smooth and respectable 3D image (as I'm sure many movie-goers who watch on digital projectors can attest).

Speaking of which, The Hobbit series of films is being filmed from a 5K source, which I'm sure they've mastered to 4K for the future. If Sony plays their cards right, I'm sure this will be a big success for them if they make the 2160P master available (each movie takes up no more than 128 GB of space--mind you this is just for the video).

So yeah, I definitely see 4K as the future. Followed by 8K, which will complete the Ultra High-Definition phase. ;)

[metroid32]

PS4 is said to be around the same power as WiiU ? all 3 consoles will support 1080p Native at 60fps as that's almost twice the resolution the current 360/PS3 run at Natively.

WiiU will show off Amazing 1st and 3rd party games at E3 2013 that show off their new Game Engines from Retro studio's and that Starwars 1313 demo will look bland in comparison.

[ElectricKaibutsu]

Metroid32... this isn't about the Wii U, man. I like my Wii U too but there's a time and a place.

I would be shocked if the PS4 couldn't play 4k blu-ray movies. I would also be shocked if it COULD play 4k games. That tech is just not cheap enough for a console yet, whether you want to believe it or not.

The people that are getting the agrees here are saying that price doesn't matter, they want the PS4 to be the most powerful console with all the bells and whistles. I can respect wanting that, but that would sure be bad for Sony's bottom line. The Xbox gained a ton of ground this generation for two main reasons: they were first to market; they were $200 cheaper. If they didn't push that cell processor, Sony would have released sooner and a lot cheaper and just utterly destroyed the 360. The 360 wouldn't have had a chance. Why would anyone buy a 360 when the successor to the PS2 is sitting right next to it for the same price?

My point is Sony is going to try to keep the price low which means: 4k movies, yes! 4k games, no.

[NeoBasch]

Well, I wouldn't say 60" (you do know 2160P contains 4x the amount of pixels as 1080P, right?). 50" would be pretty good though. I'm pretty sure you'd be able to tell the difference at 40" though, but 50" would be ideal, especially with the new OLED tech Sony and Panasonic are working together on (56" is the largest 2160P OLED TV they've managed yet).

Regardless, 2160P would most definitely be for videophiles like me. No games would support it as that would require top of the line GPUs and CPUs. Most games have a hard enough time running in 1080P native.

Also, the selection for movies shot natively in 4K is pretty limited. It'll expand rapidly now with the introduction of digital 4K projectors (though 99% of theaters do not have any) and affordable lightweight cameras in the movie industry. Prime examples would be Argo, Skyfall, The Life of Pi, Drive, Melancholia, Hugo, and The Avengers. Matter of fact, I've seen more TV shows use these cameras like Game of Thrones (would be the big one), Fringe (season 4 and onward), Person of Interest, Downton Abbey, Once Upon a Time, Revenge, and Homeland. All of these should have 2160P masters.

I know Sony has been tinkering with their Blu-Ray disc specs so they can keep up with the changing times. I think they managed a 1 TB disc, but I can't say for sure. Even so, they'll need to update the profile. So I'm guessing more firmware related to this. From Sony's eyes, it's better that than losing out to HVD (Holographic Versatile Disc) for the coming generation (Ultra High-Definition: 2160P and 4320P).

In summary, it would be a nice feature to add for the upcoming release of 2160P movies (though I'm not exactly sure how Sony plans to release them, this is the best I could find for now --which is a cheat --downsizing 2160P masters to 1080P for a more rich and accurate color pallete, so not true 2160: https://blog.sony.com/press... ).

[aquamala]

why not? we have tablets now that have higher resolution than 1080p . ipad 3 is 2560 x 1600.

[Muffins1223]

Not if your upclose,On a computer monitor i can tell if something is 4k or 1080p and its only 27 inches...half what you say the human eye can see...phhh bullshit.

[wastedcells]

Why not. People said PS3 didn't need bluray or Hdmi. Times they change fast. More tech the better I say. F@ck the hatters. Gimme bleeding edge. I work hard to be able to afford it.

[kupomogli]

People who are saying 4k doesn't matter are people who really know nothing about resolution types in games.

Let's say the latest Resident Evil was native 1080p. It's 720p but let's just say it's 1080p. If the exact same game was in 4k resolution, there's two ways it could be developed. It could have been developed in 4k the exact same way so less jaggies, better color, etc or, it could be the exact same graphics and you see four times more of the area.

Another way to describe 4k resolution compared to 1080p. Open a picture in an art program that is the exact same size as your PC monitor. Change the zoom to 400%. That right there would be considered 1080p. Now change it back to 100%. That would be 4k. The comparison is that you can see four times as much with 4k than you can with 1080p, so if a developer wanted to create a game that looks just as good as another game but allow you to see a larger area, they could do so.

[DeadlyFire]

Need no? Will it have 4k games at 30 fps? Only way I see that being possible is with 4 Tflops in the console. There was an article I remember reading about next generation games being 30fps again. That would guarantee 1080p at 60+ fps. In a way that makes sense but its ultimately up to Sony to let us know so....

They lasted 7-8 years this generation before a new console with PS2 lasting 12 years. How many years are they aiming for with this new generation again?

4K playback and up scaling possible for movies definitely.

[B-radical]

But think 3-5 years from now will 60inch tvs be standard? Blu-ray really hadnt taken of when ps3 was released but sony did a great job thinking ahead and it paid of

[shutUpAndTakeMyMoney]

@iamnsuperman
Then why did they show a 55 inch?

Sony is really pushing 4k kinda earlier than I think they would.

If you watch the CES show( http://www.gsmarena.com/wat... they said they are launching a more consumer friendly 4k tvs end of 2013 and also they are starting a US only 4k streaming service and all their upcoming movies and recent movies(like spider man) will be available in 4k.
Also their new blu rays will upscale movies to near 4k resolution. All this ha\\announced for 2013.

I would buy a 4k tv if price is down to <$5000

[lfclee]

Samsung have already released there 4k tv !

[Gamer1982]

4K will be supported but games will hardly use it like now no game uses 1080p. The reason is hardware like now. Unless it comes out with stupid hardware making the console cost over $700 its gonna be underpowered for 4k gaming. It might work fine for 4k TV and movies however there will be no movies and tv broadcasts for about 5 years so its completely pointless right now. You cannot even fit a 4k movie on a 25gb bluray. Plus movies and tv shows arent recorded in anything above 1080p right now. So lack of content even if the tv could show it.

[Toolster]

"No because this resolution needs a 60 inch or bigger TV for humans to really notice any significant difference over 1080p which is too big for the average consumer"

If that's true then why did Sony and Panasonic show there 4k sets only being 56" in size?

[lfclee]

Yes I think Samsung and l.g have released there's haven't they already .

[Crazyglues]

I don't know how this is even a question? for one PS4 is a system that is designed to last 10 years by definition of how Sony makes their systems with a 10 year cycle..

PS2 - 10 year cycle
PS3 - 10 year cycle
PS4 - What were you thinking 2 yesrs.. LoL

No it's a 10 year, so if you just think about that, it means you really have to think about the future for your system to last.

So in a year or two 4k will be what all HDTV's will be about as they become more affordable and consumers see them in person and see the value in 4K content.

This then becomes the standard for how you want all your movies - you can watch youtube 4k videos right now - http://bit.ly/HhX1fM - watch that video in 720p it looks amazing..

So if the system is going to be future proof then it needs 4k

When people say oh it doesn't need to do games bigger then 1080p .... LOL

I want to say you do know PC's have been doing higher res then 1080p for a long, long time.

And while right now thinking about a game running in 2k might seem crazy, 4 years from now that could be the new standard, especially if you have a 4k HDTV...

.____........___...____
.____||......||.......____||
||.........___||.......____||

[hakis86]

Yes it needs 4k - because all major TV makers are now pushing 4K, and TV's with 4K will get affordable soon. And there is a HUGE improvement in picture quality.

I sure as hell want 4K, at least video (not expecting to see 4K games).

[GribbleGrunger]

No, it doesn't 'need' it but it's likely to have it in one form or another. Sony have TVs to sell and many other companies rely on Sony to broaden the market. Sony did it with Blu-ray and now they're doing it with 3D. If we are to get what we want then Sony needs to get what they want. As someone else pointed out, I would be happy with 1080p at 60fps (providing nothing at all gets compromised such as lighting or AI)

We may just see the occasional PSN titles in 4k but that is likely to be all.

[evilunklebud]

Maybe.... it appears 3d, in its current iteration, is failing to attach..... got to get people excited about something.....

[chukamachine]

I have 4k eyes, so I can't wait.

Seriously though.

1080p 60fps with some aa would do for UNCHARTED4,KILLZONE4,BF4,RESIS TANCE4,MOTORSTORM4.

PS4.

[Question_Mark]

You have four thousand eyes? Where do you put them?

[ElementX]

LOL the franchises. Is that all people want? More of the same?

[FlyingFoxy]

PC's sweet spot with a mid-high end video card is 1920x1080 for games to run at a consistent high framerate.

Go higher and you need a dual card, this introduces microstuttering. Until microstuttering is ccompletely eliminated i don't see a point in higher res for games.

For films yes, for games definitely not unless video cards can magically become over 100% faster on next release, and we all know each new card is usually between 10-20% faster than the last. So that aint gonna happen. But if you want a constant 60FPS you need to run full HD not higher, PC gamers should be fine because John Carmack even said next gen consoles will only run Doom 4 at 30FPS, so even the new consoles won't be capable of smooth framerates.

[b_one]

if games will be made for 4k resolutions just imagine how maxed out specs will be to support such res.

[Tzuno]

They need 4k(more like a "brand" name) as a excuse for next gen.

[ziggurcat]

"Does the PlayStation 4 Need 4K Resolution?"

i dunno... did the PS3 need 1080p?

what an idiotic question, and not even worth clicking.

and besides, 4K won't necessarily be there for games anyways - it'll be there for other 4K-related media (i.e. movies), just like how 1080p was really only supported because of other blu-ray media as barely any games on the system are native 1080p.

[DivineAssault]

upscaled or for movies maybe but i highly doubt it for games.. People arent going to go out & buy 4K tvs just for PS4 or Ultra HD playback.. It will take an entire generation for the world to move on from what they have already.. I also dont think many common folks are willing to drop $15k plus for a tv anytime soon

[swansong]

only if it doesnt add much to the final cost of the PS4.

[JohnnyAkiba]

For movies yes of course. PS4 just needs a hdmi 1.4 and a modern gpu. Can can even do 8k.

[sarshelyam]

Of course it doesn't "need" it, but why not put it in every household and push the userbase before the displays become a potential standard. In a lot of ways, the PS3 worked the same angle with its future-forward approach. It was the first 3D Blu-Ray player to market through firmware updates. Is it a necessary feature? Certainly not, but every household that has a PS3 is now 3D ready should they make the leap into a 3D display sometime in the future.

I'd much rather have my hardware support more that I may use down the road, than not support it and be left wondering what road to take in the future.

[5eriously]

Many such same stupid arguments were raised about BluRay, guess what? I am all for 4K on the PS4 irrelevant if it is a requirement or needed, hell most will not even be able to afford a 4K TV so who cares. The PS3 was used to introduced ground breaking technology and i am proud to have been part of it, it really changed my lifestyle by adding world class entertainment value in my living room. I will be happy and are looking forward towards the possibilities the PS4 will bring and if 4K is part of the deal then so be it. F all the negative haters!

[th3n00bg4m3r]

NO.

[NastyLeftHook0]

jesus people! we barely got out of the sdtv times and were already talking about 4k?! wtf! some people dont even have hdtv's yet. wait atleast 10 years.

[Yangus]

PlayStation 4 Need:

1080p 3D 60fps many AAA exklusive games.

[specsmatter]

This is what is needed. Dont get me wrong 4k would be a good feature to future proof the system but even then the 4k would only be used for movies and not games.

By the way im one of those ppl that spent thousands on a tv when 1080p first came out (and now those same big screen tvs are like 700) and i also went and bought a 55 inch samsung 3d tv when it first came out for thousands. I love me new tech and new televisions lol

[Pillsbury1]

It would be a nice feature for those that can afford a 20k$ 4k tv but not important if it doesn't have the feature.1080p 60fps is all we need.

[supraking951]

Sony just getting ahead of the competition just like they did with bluray.

[NastyLeftHook0]

thats why everyone want to be sony but they cant. sony is top dog in terms of making consoles.

[ajax17]

oops... double post

[ajax17]

Sony just wants to be future proof. Is that so bad? I bet there were people saying the PS3 didn't need a blu-ray drive either...

[GraveLord]

Because Sony makes 4K TVs and it makes no sense for its future-proof console to not support it.

[the worst]

give it to me
i want the lastest and greatest in my
upcoming ps4
@tentonsoftube i been out of SDTV
speak for youself

[AKS]

Do we even have 2K TVs yet? I may have missed something.

[BitbyDeath]

2K is technically 1080P (once you round it up)

[AKS]

Oh, I see. I hate these "K" marketing terms. An x * y resolution is a lot easier for me to make sense of.

[Rhythmattic]

Full HD (1080P) was measured by its vertical pixel count...

So yes 1920 x 1080 could be called 2k by its horizontal.

This is what 4k Is... Measured on the Horizontal... 4096×2160

Why not 2160P ? :)

I got to say though, I saw the digital remaster of Blade Runner in 4K at a local cinema years ago... Sony had only 4 capable projectors in the world at the time and one was flown in to Sydney for a special screening...

Oh My God....

[BitbyDeath]

Don't know why people are against 4K, your 1080P sets will still work just fine. By the middle or end of the gen most of us here may have 4K sets so why not let Sony prepare for the future rather than just the here and now?

I'll be happy with 1080P but 4K i wouldn't knock either, it's not going to cost more as PC developers are already doing this without problem.

[animegamingnerd]

we don't even need it cause it will jack the PS4 price up high for something that very few people even have the TV that 4K needs

[BitbyDeath]

Why would it jack the PS4 price up high?

[Indo]

Why 4k when they can barely make 1080p Native games as it is.

[ajax17]

Not for gaming use, but 4K blu-ray sounds awesome! And people always say what's the use of 4K under 60 inches... Well that's like saying what's the use of having 1080p phone screens. Which I hear the Galaxy S4 might be getting. It looks damn good! People will be able to tell the difference.

[cee773]

I say make it happen at least for movies and possibly upscaling ps3 games and exclusive psn games would be cool and for those who claim you need a big screen to notice is blind I can Tell the difference of 1080p and 720p on a 32in and were talking 4x that resolution with 4k so you can tell with all those pixels packed on a screen just as we can tell the difference between apples retina on macs and ipads

[jay2]

Yes, the nicer my games and movies look, the better.

[Conzul]

It doesn't *NEED* 4k to be successful, but I believe the capability will definitely be there.

It is the way of Sony to push amazing new tech that very few people can afford. I love that, personally.

[silkrevolver]

It will be capable of it, regardless.
Sony is clearly pushing 4K like all of the other manufacturers, and just like DVD in the PS2, 3D and Blu-Ray in the PS3, the PS4 will support their 4K initiative.

I don't think it needs it, and I won't be able to afford a 4K TV for another 5+ years (once they go down in price) so I don't really care.

[Conzul]

Edit: Shit laggy double post

[Conzul]

The argument that people can't tell the difference between 1080p and 4k is utter bullshit (especially on 80" TVs).

Those people who thinks so should take the money that they won't be spending on a 4k TV and get their eyes repaired. THEN they can lament with the rest of us who live in reality.

[DEATHSTROKE-cro-]

"In its current guise, the PS3 struggles to run games at 720p."

Wipeout = 1080p 60FPS
no lag. I have the game.

-__-

[DwightOwen]

Wipeout sucks.

[DEATHSTROKE-cro-]

Your opinion is so important to me and the rest of the internet.

[BrianC6234]

That part was funny. The PS3 can handle 1080p games. If it had more RAM all games could have been 1080p. For this new 4K feature hopefully Sony will put enough RAM in the PS4.

[Raoh]

Stupid question.

Sony has been introducing new tech since before the Playstation brand was ever conceived. Just like Microsoft has provided servers to the enterprice since the first xbox live payment was ever cashed.

As hardware manufacturers in the TV space continue to introduce new technology, Sony is in a position its competitors (no, not microsoft and nintendo) like samsung and lg to push new tech through a gaming console that resides in the living room.

As for 4k in gaming. LOL again stupid question. Movies require it be filmed in 2k at least. Blu ray plyaers and discs require upgrades. I don't see EA or Capcom creating 4k games. Sony may work some magic for 1 to 3 games.

What the PS4 will do is support blu ray upconverting. Just like upconvert dvd players just a few years ago. While MS used dvd9 that was about 9gb of disc space, sony had 25gb/50gb discs. For movies and other needs like backups we are moving to up to 200gb of disc space, I'm expecting 100gb minimum for PS4.

4k resolution has been discussed for years. Your new so called experts are debating in the same way people said we didn't need anything above 480p or that 360's non hdmi console was good enough.

Technology is no longer for us geeks, everyone with an hdtv, a game console and a smartphone is now an armchair/hobbyist techs.

Again its a stupid question because as tv manufactures like samsung and sony push for future standards sony can help push it along with its console like they did dvd and blu ray.

Its like asking if a microsoft products needs office or internet explorer. What do you expect them to run? open office and google chrome?

All of you have 720/1080 hdtv's, at one point those tv's were around $10,000.00 and up. But you have one now. Don't you think it was good that someone brought in the tech so that we could eventually get to a standard that would give us that quality at a middle class affordable price?

For everyone else, its a luxury, if you can't afford a luxury, its not meant for you, stop complaining.

[ase4132]

It needs to be the best it can be. It needs other OS back. That's the worst thing that ever happened to the playstation.

[PAYNEinc85]

I don't even think a pair of GTX 690s (yes I said 690s) Could run the next gen of games at a high framerate and at 4k resolution. Maybe current games with mediocre graphics like Arkham City, Borderlands 2 or Racing games but not truly next gen games like the final fantasy tech demo we saw or watch dogs.

[DFresh]

No.
Not even ATI's 7950/7970 and NVIDIA's 660/670/680 can handle 4K support.
(Though these current GPU cards can do 2K Support. 2500X1600.)
Though I wouldn't be surprised if NVIDIA/ATI are in the works of making 4K GPUs.
(ex: NVIDIA: 760/770/780; ATI: 8950/8970)

[PAYNEinc85]

The new 700 series from Nvidia and 8000 series from ATI won't be enough of an upgrade IMO to run 4k either. Atleast on games that really tax the system.

[steve30x]

You havent seen the Nvidia shield running games on 4K then and its not even on those GPU's

[landog]

not happening

we'll be lucky if we get pc level graphics at 1080p 30 frames per second with 4x aa with ps4 and nextbox, damn lucky

my bet is we'll see many games at 720p, unfortunately

[Neko_Mega]

Playstation 4 will be like Playstation 3, yes you can play games at 1080p if you have a HD TV. Otherwise you can play it in SD, I see PS4 doing that.

But that might mean it won't support SD, which is a bad thing for those that don't got HD TV's. But you can bet Sony will make it use 4K, because why would they have Bluray movies that support it and no games? Plus the system needs to support it for the movies (I would think).

[black911]

For games No. Because one thing we learned this especialky Sony should no. Developers are "LAZY"!

[Jag-T1000]

They need to make the most powerful system they can so that in 8 years from now they can drop it and make another system. Then everybody can say" but the PS4 hasn't reach its full potential yet". Just like the PS3.

[Jamaicangmr]

For Games as of today i'd say no but remember the PS4 will be around for atleast 10 years and technology will have advanced greatly in that time. So by then there may be 32inch TV's capable of 4k and in which case my answer would change.

Remember when the PS3 came out 1080p was just available on i think 42inches and over now you can get that on much smaller screen. Hell when the PS3 came out i couldn't even afford an HDTV until like 2 years later but i still loved that it was HD Ready before i needed it.

I would like to my PS4 to be future proof so 4k i will welcome.

[Rayansaki]

If it comes at a reasonable cost, I think they should include 4k output on the console, but they shouldn't encourage their first party developers to develop games at 4k. We want 1080p60 not 4k30 with fps drops and screen tearing.

Planing ahead for the future is great, but if games try to go 4k route, it's rushing to the future and will have ugly results.

[NintyJazz]

Reading these comments depresses me. I dont want the ps4 to have 4K because I want Sony to succeed. People here approve of a $600 console? Really? Stop being so selfish; Sony needs to balance affordability, and at that price they will most definitely fail. Sony needs more than just the core gamers, they need to expand to a wider audience which already views 300 dollars as tightly expensive for a video game console. Yes we all want cutting edge tech, but I want Sony to be able to stay in the console race dammit. Get a PC if you want to bleed your eyes out.

[steve30x]

The PS4 and Xbox 720 will be $400 minimum. It will be newish tech which wont be cheap and they will probably be selling at a loss for a while.

[NintyJazz]

Look at Sony's situation right now. As strong as their PS brand is, the ps3 bled out sony from the losses it took. You cant say that was a good business model. Sony's trying to make this gen last as long as possible because they're just recently recovering from the losses. They are junk status right now. There's no denying the tech will be more advanced. 4K, however is just overkill. It's not the same situation as the previous gen. By the time 4K tv's become affordable, next gen wont be so new, probably 5 years from now. Not to mention the shaky economy leaves peoples wallets insecure. Next gen should be $450 max, and thats really pushing it. Even the 360 sold at a profit from the get go im sure.

[1upgamer99]

Sony's new CEO said He would not let them sell at a loss anymore, not just for Playstation but all of their products. I am just telling you that is what he said. PS3 just started selling at a profit a few years ago.

[steve30x]

Whatever size TV you have 4K will make a big difference to jaggies you see in games. Even if its a 32" TV the difference between 4K and 1080P will be big with jaggies. It wouldnt make as much difference as 2X AA > 4X AA but the difference would be very noticable because of the pixel density.

[steve30x]

4K 20" tablet coming later this year

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

So many misinformed people on here. Including the person who disagreed with my previous post.

[DJ]

Nah, all PS4 games are going to be either 720p or 1080p. Nothing higher than that.

[-Gespenst-]

If that television fell over it could actually kill you.

Are all 4K televisions gonna be that size? I mean, not everybody has the kind of space in their home to fit something like that...

Plus 1080p burns my eyes after a while...

[1upgamer99]

It would be nice if PS4 could support 4000K, but At what cost? Is it going to make PS4 go up $100 to include the tech? I mean I don't know. I just bought a another new HD 55inch LED 240mhz. So its going to be a few years before I get another one. I have seen some really cool things that 4000k TVs can do on the news from CES and I had NO IDEA how cool they really are, but still $10,000 (they said on the news) for the least expensive.

[DFresh]

I'll be pleased if PS4/Xbox 720/Steam Box can do 1080P at 60 frames per second.
If Valve makes Steam Box upgradable like the PC then the possibilities are endless.

[Jason143]

Being a gamer of all platforms all I can say is we dont even have many true internally rendered 1080p games. Majority of titles are 720p. I can think of 4 in 1080p so this would be a waste of hardware costs imo.
On the bright side it is going to require one hell of a video card to run 4k so if the ps4 does have it Id be shocked at cost of games and the hardware.

[mayberry]

, 'Does the PlayStation 4 Need 4K Resolution?'..... Does a Ferrari Italia need an engine that puts out 503 hp and 346 lb-ft of torque? NOPE, it doesn't, but im glad it does. ps4 w/4k day one!