1040°

Transistor Dev Defends Against Claims That PS4 Will Be Obsolete In Few Years, Targeting 1080p/60FPS

Creative Director, Greg Kasavin shares his thoughts on PS4 and Transistor.

Read Full Story >>
gamingbolt.com
Eonjay3860d ago

This is actually very legitimate due to the cost of a high end PC versus a console.

cleft53860d ago (Edited 3860d ago )

Console lifespan depends more on the games than the quality of the hardware, of course the hardware is very important.

If the PS2 and PS3 is any judge than the PS4 will be relevant for at least another 6 years. That's more than enough time to enjoy PS4 games. Also, it really looks like Sony is going to issue in a Golden Age of gaming for the PS4. The last time that happen was with the PS2 and that console lasted for around 10 years before Sony stopped producing new PS2s.

At $400 this console is already a steal, when Sony starts dropping the price in a few years to $300 and then $200, it will easily revitalize the PS4 at that point, if it even needs it.

psoomah3860d ago

The PS4 being based on an x86 HSA APUs means it's replacements, if based on a future x86 HSA APU, will be far easier and less expensive to develop and will have built in backward hardware compatibility ... and all the programming expertise developed by the devs should be directly applicable.

schubacca3860d ago

This is why MS talks about balance. Both the X1 and the PS4 have been designed to last years. I am not talking secret sauce, but both machines have potential that will be unlocked in the years to come.

Army_of_Darkness3860d ago (Edited 3860d ago )

I bet you my soon to be ps4 will last longer than your gaming PC(before it needs an upgrade that is) ;-)

Point is my ps3 has been going 7 years now, so within those 7 years I wonder how much times the pc fannies have paid to upgrade their precious gaming pc to stay relevant and still be ahead "graphically"??

Magicite3860d ago

I would say PS4 will hold for at least 8 years, that is, game developers will support the system with AAA titles that long.

Magicite3860d ago

In fact they stopped producing PS2 only in 2012.

ShinMaster3860d ago (Edited 3860d ago )

It's mostly the PC fanboys that make that claim.

They make that claim every single new console generation, yet consoles remain as popular and profitable as ever. It must suck to be a PC elitist and be wrong for decades now.
So I ask, obsolete to whom? Not to gamers or developers.

ikkokucrisis3860d ago (Edited 3860d ago )

I don't see anything wrong with consoles going obsolete in 4 years. People buy $400+ phones every other year with a monthly service plan. Why should purchasing a console every 4 years be such a big deal? That's what the average lifespan of previous consoles used to be.

It would be even smarter of the console manufacturers to just keep the general architecture the same and simply scale up the specs (e.g. go from a 8 core to a 16 core CPU, or go from 8GB to 16GB of RAM) so the developers don't have to relearn anything.

tokugawa3860d ago

these consoles can last for a few years.

one thing that is gegining to stick in my head is this though.

IF,the ps4 does start destroying the xbo in the grfx and sales department (which could infact become reality on both counts), then i think that this next gen will be over in 4 years like the original xbox.

i can see microsoft sitting around as the dust cloud gets smaller.

BaronVonRhett3860d ago

@ Army of Darkness. Well my last computer lasted since 2004, so I think I have you beat.

mikeslemonade3860d ago

Xbox 360 was obsolete since Gears 2 came out. But games still kept coming out looking a little better and better. Being obsolete doesn't mean the system stops being a success.

ChrisW3859d ago (Edited 3859d ago )

@ShinMaster,

Any PC elitist will say that electronic technology is obsolete in a matter of months... They are about 1% of the PC niche.

But what truly defines a PC as being obsolete is when it can no longer play most up and coming AAA games on even medium settings, which normally takes about 6 or 7 years on average depending on if it was a 'high end' PC or not.

Irishguy953859d ago (Edited 3859d ago )

Army of Darkness my PC is 2007 and I still haven't upgraded, it runs games better than the Ps3/360...always. Very noticeable in multiplats where I a better experience. Other than them, PC exclusives that try look better than console games even on low settings.

This is the reason Optimization is such a sorry excuse for console fanboys, Game engines get optimized, not hardware. As the engines are optimized for consoles they are inadvertently optimized for PC's too. The exception was the Ps3 because of it's idioctic Cell processor which was so different than the rest, which led to it having lesser Multis than Xbox for years until devs finally started working with it. Either way my 2007 PC ran the games better. It has a 2006 GPU in it too, still an 8800GTX

DeadIIIRed3859d ago

Irishguy95 - the average PC build according to steam would have tech from 2007-2008 and only be able to squeeze out the minimum settings on Battlefield 3 (which looks terrible even compared to consoles).

I love the enthusiasm from PC gamers giving their individual experience, but the larger picture is that most PC rigs today can't touch seven year old consoles.

RVanner_3859d ago (Edited 3859d ago )

@ Army of Darkness
I'm sorry but you have probably paid out just as much if not more overall than the average PC gamer over the last 7 years. And yet they have enjoyed a far more technically impressive experience throughout. There are many other advantages to console gaming but I'm afraid the cost argument is not one. People who have experience with both platforms know this.

deSSy27243859d ago (Edited 3859d ago )

@Army_of_Darkness

ofc games on consoles are more optimized than PC games. Example, the X1800 based GPU in Xbox360 and 7800gt based in PS3 is better than X1950 for example in real time scenarios. I own a PC, PS3 and Wii so i know what im talking about, im in the PC era since 80s. You are completely ignoring the fact that 95+% new PS3 games are running in sub HD or 1280x 720 AT BEST and ofc 30 FPS, no AA, very low graphics settings etc

+ Show (12) more repliesLast reply 3859d ago
3860d ago Replies(27)
StoutBEER3860d ago

Wait, isn't Transistor an Indie? Or am I wrong?

Conzul3860d ago

Yeah, but a damn good one. It's the indie I'm most-pumped for IMO

JohnS13133860d ago

High end PCs are way too expensive. A PS4 is much better plus developers can make their games just for one console instead of a million different possible computers.

MidnytRain3860d ago

You can get a GPU for 200 bucks today that'll probably outpace next-gen consoles.

5eriously3860d ago (Edited 3860d ago )

@WrongSpelledRain list them please and explain why they are better refering to specs, else you are just trolling!

blackmagic3859d ago (Edited 3859d ago )

Here ya go:

Powercolor Radeon HD 7950 - $190

3.32 TFLOPS, 925 Mhz Clock, 240Gb/s 384 bit GDDR5, 28 Compute Units, 1792 Stream Processors, 112 texture units
http://www.newegg.com/Produ...

vs PS4
1.84 TFLOPS, 800 Mhz Clock, 176Gb/s 256 bit GDDR5 (shared), 18 Compute Units, 1154 Stream Processors, 72 Texture units

MidnytRain3859d ago (Edited 3859d ago )

Lol, I don't know much about specs (they're not real-world anyway), but search around for benchmarks and do some reading. The proof is in the results. The HD 7950 Blackmagic posted and the 660 ti are good examples. These are cards you can get for about $200 and can push games like BF3 at ultra at ~30 frames with anti-aliasing at 2560 x 1600 resolution.

insomnium23859d ago

I don't think games will ever be that optimized for your Radeon Blackmagic. The install base for that particular GPU is what? 10k? 100k? 1000k? Whatever it is it's pathetic compared to one single console configuration where the devs can optimize the hell out of it's specs.

You win on paper but everything else is pretty much out in the wild.....

blackmagic3859d ago (Edited 3859d ago )

@insomnium2
On PC, the developer optimizes for a target amount of power not a specific hardware configuration. Developers make games that are balanced and designed to run smoothly with a target power then the pc gamer has the power to manipulate the engine to suit their own rig.

Console gamers talk a lot about optimization but it takes years for that to happen while the PC industry completely walks away in terms of power. It's great that naughty dog got the last of us running on ps3 but it took them seven years to build that expertise and believe me when I say that a game running at 1280x720, 30 frames per second with basic AA is completely unimpressive and makes me sad that such a talented developer was so constrained by their hardware environment.

On PC, the developer makes a balanced game. The PC Gamer is the one that optimizes the hardware. The choice is yours.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3859d ago
3-4-53860d ago

Games will keep players on consoles, that is where the majority of good games come from.

awi59513860d ago (Edited 3860d ago )

NO most Pc's have expansion slots and atleast a quad core cpu. With that in mind they only thing a person would need to upgrade their pc is a new power supply since retail dealers put in crap power supplies. A mid end nivdia card or ATI card will surpass the PS4. So you are looking at 75 dollars for a 650 corsair power supply and a 150 to 200 dollar ati card will beat the PS4.

When it comes to nivida you would need a 260 dollar card though since they run at higer prices. But you can get your standard pc you already have in your home above PS4 performance easily for less than the cost of the PS 4.

N4Flamers3860d ago

How do you not factor in the cost of the pc into your equation before you ad another 275 to it?

Might as well just buy a ps4 then.

ded10203860d ago (Edited 3860d ago )

Not really, no. No optimization in your pc. Just raw power. And you don't know what new tricks will come up in the next gen based off of the consoles HSA arch. Also, I don't have a quad core cpu. You gonna give me a free one? Is there a quad core cpu tree somewhere?

PC its always the same. You get what you pay for. You buy the cheap fix now, be prepared to spend more sooner rather than later. Consoles are cheaper than PC's. You can't really successfully argue otherwise.

awi59513859d ago (Edited 3859d ago )

@N4Flamers and ded1020

Because ive built pc's with Better specs than ps4 for 500 dollars and the cost of parts are going down.The outgoing gen of graphics cards have more raw horsepower than the ps4 and with the older parts you can easily build one thats better. A PS4 will not out class the 550 dollar pc i just built my sister with dual 7850 2GB and 6 core cpu. Computer cases, motherboards, and ram can be found dirt cheap at like 30 dollars each. You dont need to buy the high end stuff unless you plan to overclock your system its not needed.

I bet you that the new games that come out on the PS4 and xbox one that are multiplat wont look as good as even a 2 year old pc.

Just wait untill BF4 on other games come out i bet 2 year old pc's with cheap 100 dollar graphics cards will still run at 60 fps on ultra with x4AA @ 1080P and the console version will have to be scaled back its the same old story just give up already.

These consoles arent even worth the prices they are charging the parts dont even add up to what they are charging. Atleast last gen the xbox and ps3 was worth the money when they came out. The xbox had a GPU that wasnt even on the market yet these consoles are already 2 years old. The 660ti the 7850 7950 already outclasses them and they have weak cpu's. Anyone that knows amd cpus more cores does not mean better performance. Amd doesnt do multicore well at all.

And pc's have optimizations like crazy its called drivers some drivers that come out increase game performance 15 to 50 percent.

insomnium23859d ago

@awi

"Because ive built pc's with Better specs than ps4 for 500 dollars and the cost of parts are going down"

Your PCs will never see the optimization consoles do so just throwing out specs is kinda irrelevant. On paper they are impressive for sure but everything else is up to the devs.

awi59513859d ago

@insomnium2

Wrong wrong wrong wrong their are hacks and mods that makes game run better than the developers could ever dream of. Some developers just suck and ive downloaded hacks and mods that made a unplayable game run silky smooth by some random guy that cared enough to fix this jacked up game that a developer put out.

awi59513859d ago (Edited 3859d ago )

@insomnium2
And for you info the PS brand has all been about whats on paper they crap out numbers and they never live up to them. My stats come from in game performance you can look them up on any pc website the consoles dont even qualify as mid grade pc's anymore because everyone is upgrading and the older cards have dropped in price.

That sounds like microsoft's excuse why its weaker than the ps4 lol. IT doesnt change the fact that its weaker lol. Optimization will not make up for the console being far weaker. My pc can run BF3 on ultra @ 1080P at 80 fps with x4AA. The ps 4 cant even do that now. And i have a far better 8 core running at 4.5gigs not some sorry 1.7 nonsense put that little (^(*^&*( away lol. Metro last light runs on ultra @ 1080P 60 fps its the pc benchmark right now and the ps4 doesnt have the cpu to make it run at 30 fps so you are so so wrong.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 3859d ago
SnakeCQC3860d ago

Console games have a much higher optimisation than pc games, which is why visuals can be pushed so far. Pc game devs depend on the user to upgrade every two years or so.

ded10203860d ago

TRUTH

I remember, after just buying and upgrading my then 5 year old pc back in 2010.
Looking at God of War 3 and being like "Hot damn, a game this good looking is coming out on this old ass hardware I bought for $600.
I'm throwing out the $2k hardware(from 2005) for newer $1k hardware, and games are STILL running like ass half the time on PC. (thanks lack of optimization)
Since then I've been on the razors edge on staying above ass on my pc.
With PC elitists like Jeff G from GB saying I'm not "dedicated enough" to keep up, has made me realize that if I just settle for a little less, I'd have more money and games.

SnakeCQC3860d ago

Its nice too see other people who aren't blinded by fanboyism. My second biggest gripes with gaming on pc is when its working everything is great but when there's a problem it can take alot of work to diagnose the problem and fix it.

xKugo3859d ago (Edited 3859d ago )

True statement.
PC gaming depends ENTIRELY on the raw power of your individual parts because developers do next no optimization for the games. If somebody has better specs than you in the PC gaming community, they will always have better graphics than you will unless you upgrade past their own specs. The luxury that we enjoy relies solely on both our willingness and ability to upgrade core system specs. No such dilemma exist on consoles, which in the gaming industry is seen as a massive advantage pro-console.

Something else to note: No one in the entire PC gaming community will EVER experience what their respective specs are capable of because no developer is willing to optimize for each and every PC set-up there is. Great example, if the PS4 had my core specs(GTX 780, 4770k clocked at 4.1Ghz and 8GB of DDR3 + 8GB of GDDR5( I just spent 800 dollars on the gddr5)) then the PS4 would thrash the same exact set-up in a PC because of vastly superior optimization for it's games.

awi59513859d ago

@ded1020

IF you paid 2k for a pc something is wrong with you. Just because alienware or whoever says they are the best doesnt mean its true. Just like Bose has lied and says their speakers sound the best and the average joe believes it. Their is no logical reason to pay that much.

FTLightspeed3859d ago

@xKugo

where does that 8GB of GDDR5 go on your pc? the motherboard?

DoctorJones3859d ago

@xKugo

Wow, you are a complete liar.

'( I just spent 800 dollars on the gddr5)'

This is why I never trust console gamers who downplay pc gaming and then tell us they have a monster pc that they never use. Most of the time they're talking out of their ass and don't have a clue what they're talking about.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3859d ago
50Terabytespersec3859d ago (Edited 3859d ago )

enough with PC versus PS4 etc.. yadda yadda , What it boils down to; and get your brainwashing consumer head out of your arse... IS BUDGET!! GAME DEV BUDGETS!!!!
Go ask MS and Sony and other companies ....
How the hell can you create an engine and fill all the RAM and Hard drive space with a team of 5 people and 100 Grand ...LMAO...
I don't care how much RAM you can shove in your PC and you SSdrive is 1 Terabyte a second.... Who is gonna green light millions and buy a great story to boot , for a PC platform ?when only a small fraction off nerds with no life can spend 1000 on a rig that will also be obsoleted in 6 months ...DUH ..Ever heard of Sony Pictures ??? Don't forget why they call them big budget Hollywood films ...GO ask how much it cost to make Avengers... a matter of fact go ask ILM and Weta etc how much they charge for all that man hours and huge production staff?? Figure out the math... Guess what hi calibur games require the same amount of Talent!!

Beastforlifenoob3859d ago

@DeadIIIRed

You know the developers of Battlefield 3 said that the lowest settings on PC were still higher than console...

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 3859d ago
yellowgerbil3860d ago

Won;t be obsolete, My PS4 will still play games at the best possible setting 8 years from now. If I was to buy a PC it would be obsolete long before that.
That is why I'm a console gamer. I care more about story, gameplay and style than graphics. And I've found those to be far better in console games Naughty Dog for instance.

cleft53860d ago (Edited 3860d ago )

To be fair, if you where to spend a great deal of money on a PC than hardware wise the PS4 and Xbox One would already be obsolete. However, hardware isn't what determines the relevance of a console, it is the games and how many units a game developer can sale.

There is a reason that GTA5 came to the consoles first and has yet to be announced for the PC, despite the fact that we all know it will eventually come to the PC. Developers tend to primarily make games for the consoles first because they can sale more units to that market. A market that is specifically geared towards buying and distributing games.

Regardless, next-gen consoles are good news for PC gamers, because the baseline for games will be raised. This benefits PC gamers with nice rigs because the console ports they get will now be closer to a game that was developed primarily with PC specs in mind. It's a win-win situation.

ATi_Elite3860d ago

Yeh which is why Diablo III and Minecraft came to PC first with each selling over 15 million units before being released to console.

So your whole POINT about games going to console first is WRONG.

Consoles have their games and audience while PC has it's games and audience.

Nekroo913860d ago

ATi_Elite how dare you to defend pc sales . cant you handle the facts?! software sales 1 year
xbox 360 154,515,522
ps3 148,974,355
pc 29,631,542

so good luck with the 15 million diablo 3 sales.
Pc elitist are the ones who call console players peasants for some reason they are the ones who seem who cant afford any games. so lets me play my only game on my gaming pc... irony

Gorilla_Killa_X3860d ago (Edited 3860d ago )

@Nekroo91 PC game software sales reached $20 billion last year. So your numbers are off. Going by your sales number of roughly 30 milliin, PC games sold for $667 or on average.

PS. I am not a PC elitist. I game on my PS3 primarily.

EDIT: Just fyi for y'all two, Diablo 3 sold 12 million on PC. Minecraft at 12.2 million.

hazardman3860d ago

@ati

Actually its not that they went to PC first as they were already exclusive to PC.

If anything they brought it to console to get a broader consumer base. Why leave it on PC when theres 100mil+ gamers on console. To much $$$ to leave on table!!

ded10203860d ago (Edited 3860d ago )

Thats 20 billion dollars combined over all of time.(already been pointed out)
Consoles have done 22-25 billion over time.
It's pretty known that, when a game is coming out simultaneously across the platforms, pc does the worst.
I mean look at bf3 sales.
As much as it's hailed as the best looking pc game and the stuff consoles can only dream of, 360 sold the most copies of that game, followed closely by PS3, and lagging far behind was pc sales.
7 mill, 6.6 mill, and 2.4 mill, respectively according to vgchartz. I know that doesn't reflect digital sales, but the scales aren't gonna tip much more either way.
It's not that there aren't a lot of pc gamers out there.
There aren't a lot that have or want these bleeding edge money gobblers of pcs to run this shit on.
And without that, though the appeal of PC is still there (backwards compatibility come to mind here) The draw of flashy high end games is gone.
That is until you see/are interested in new consoles ;)

Gorilla_Killa_X3859d ago (Edited 3859d ago )

ded1020...you claims of 20 billion dollars all time is ludicrous. The video game industry made $80 billion last year alone. And $25 billion all time for consoles is just as crazy. With 150 million Xbox 360s and PS3s, if each console had 1 new game bought, that equals 7.5 billions dollars alone in one year. So you are trying to say that in the 40 years of consoles they have only sold 25 billion dollars of software. Get outta here.

Yeah I agree that PC versions of games sale less than their console counterpart but your lifetime sales is ridiculous. PC game software had $20 billion in sales in 2012 and is expected to do $25 billion this year alone, which might surpass consoles sales. Fact.

One more thing, VGchartz is a joke. They don't count digital sales which PC has a higher percentage of than Xbox or PlayStation. Don't believe me, look at the VGchartz sales for minecraft on PC. What's that, it says 0. Minecraft has sold over 12 million units on PC but VGchartz says...0.

I'm done.

Gorilla_Killa_X3859d ago

How can you disagree with math? Use your head and some common sense. If you are gonna disagree, let me know why.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 3859d ago
worldwidegaming3860d ago

8 years? Try 5! Tech is evolving faster and faster. Eventually smartphones will catch up and we do not want that...

I_am_Batman3859d ago

Even if the smart phones catch up they will probably be double or even triple the cost of the PS4.

Dan_scruggs3860d ago

The Transistor dev is right. The PS4 is a locked piece of hardware and wont be able to adapt to new tech. It may be strong now but in a few years it will be a relic. You wouldn't buy a 6 year old phone or PC would you? The yearly incremental increases in technology will ensure that that tech keeps blazing forward in ways the home console market can't.

hazardman3860d ago

Thats ok tho no? I mean dev says its obsolete right. But yet its gonna take several yrs to see what the devs can do with new hardware. So then which is it then... or maybe im just to damn high to understand all this mumbojumbo!!

5eriously3860d ago

Ever heard of firmware upgrades? I guess not. Many smart phones are also locked pieces of hardware yet third party firmware always seems to improve things.
Look at the PS3 hardware and how the firmware updates improved the console for all these years adapting it to use new features. The same and even more so will apply for the next gen.

kingduqc3860d ago

"My PS4 will still play games at the best possible setting 8 years from now"

LOL, yeah right. More like the lowest setting available.

To be fair, a PC that you buy 800$ will out do a ps4 you get for 400$ + 400$ for online. You get better visual, better price for games. But consoles gamer are clueless about that.

ded10203860d ago

Though I agree the ps4 won't have the best looking graphics for 8 years, it's still pushing technology towards HSA which isn't in a $800 machine. Plus that machine isn't going to be catered to like the ps4 so assuming you're buying this mythical machine today, it'll still perform WORSE because its un-mature technology and maturation will come when you give AMD/nVidia more money.

xKugo3859d ago

$400 dollars for online accumulates to 8 years worth of online. If you don't upgrade that PC by that time, you will not be out-performing anything which includes the PS4. Forget about running it at a superior resolution and frame-rate. Comparable specs to the PS4 in a PC won't even run a game 8 years from now on low settings.

kingduqc3859d ago

"Though I agree the ps4 won't have the best looking graphics for 8 years, it's still pushing technology towards HSA which isn't in a $800 machine. Plus that machine isn't going to be catered to like the ps4 so assuming you're buying this mythical machine today, it'll still perform WORSE because its un-mature technology and maturation will come when you give AMD/nVidia more money."

You really are clueless aren't you?

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/1...

Here, i5, crossfire 7950 and under 800$ Take your hdd you got and the dvd reader on your actual pc and bingo you go yourself a 800$ pc that will outperform by 3 fold the ps4 in 8 years. There is no magic to it, HSA isn't going to magically triple the performance... get this out of you head in 7 years you'll be playing in 720p barely 30 fps just like ps3 and this pc will do 1080p 40-50 fps with better image quality.

yellowgerbil3859d ago

you took my quote outta context.
I choose ps4 because I know that there won't be new upgrades I'll need for future ps4 releases. 8 years from now that same box will play new games without me having to buy some new piece to make it reach the quality.
We are not clueless, and with plus I could go without ever buying a game at all and still have a dozen games a year for only 50$ so pricewise pc is no better either.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3859d ago
+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3859d ago
Goku7813860d ago

As long as great games with no problems with the system running them and nothing is rushed, who cares what anyone says. Everything gets out dated eventually.

SegaSaturn6693860d ago

If a single game drops below 60 fps, I'm trading this SOB in for 4 Ouyas. Because our future currency will have 100 dollar bills replaced by them.

Show all comments (176)
50°

5 Best Supergiant Games' Original Soundtracks

Yagmur Sevinc from NoobFeed writes - Isn’t it such a blessing that the studio that gave us such great games like Hades and Bastion has also given us incredible soundtrack albums too? If you like these games, you might want to look at the five best songs that the indie studio Supergiant Games has given us.

Read Full Story >>
noobfeed.com
150°

Nevi’s Favourite Video Game Soundtracks - Part 1

Nevada Dru, from Bits & Pieces, goes through some of his favourite video game soundtracks.

Read Full Story >>
bitsandpieces.games
Zeldafan641071d ago

Xenoblade Chronicles 1 and 2 have the best soundtracks ever

100°

Non-Horror Games That Were More Unsettling Than Most Horror Games

WTMG's Leo Faria: "The WayTooManyGames staff lists their favorite non-horror games that scared them more than actual horror games released over the years."

Read Full Story >>
waytoomany.games
1171d ago
213d ago
209d ago
190d ago