Try our new beta!Click here
Submitted by Danlord 1153d ago | article

PS 4 needs to be able to do 4K HD gaming to be future proof

When the PS 3 launched way back in 2006, one thing it came out with that no other console had was Blu-ray Disc player. The inclusion of Blu-ray to the PS 3 is one of the main reasons why the PS 3 is very successful today. The fact that it can play HD movies as well as games makes it a number one choice for anybody who is looking to buy a console that can ‘play it all’. But that’s not to say it didn’t come at a cost. In fact, one of the major reasons why the console was delayed for almost a year was because Sony did not get enough of the Blu-ray parts it needed for its PS 3 production that year so they had to push their launch date a little further ahead to meet up with supply. The Blu-ray was also one of the main reasons why the console was very expensive when it launched. The decision to include a Blu-ray with the console almost lead to its downfall, but in the end it paid off and proved to be a wise decision on Sony’s part. (Dev, Industry, Next-Gen, PS Vita, PS3, PS3 Pulse Wireless Stereo Headset - Elite Edition, Slider - PS3 move, Sony, Tech)

Alternative Sources
« 1 2 »
OneAboveAll  +   1153d ago | Funny
There is really no need for 4K resolution. Not unless the games have such high resolution textures that you can see a fart particle on someones pants and i highly doubt that will happen because high resolution textures are very expensive and taxing.

Also, TV's and Monitors capable of 4K Res are in the thousand dollar range. And when I say thousand dollar range I mean more like $7,000 to $40,000...

The Sharps Eyevis is $53,000. Keep dreaming.
#1 (Edited 1153d ago ) | Agree(49) | Disagree(8) | Report | Reply
Axecution  +   1153d ago
Future proof.
In the future, it wont be $53,000.

And also the "WE DONT NEED IT ITS 1080p IS FINE" argument is absolutely ridiculous. You probably said the same thing about 480p. "I dont need bluray cause i dont need to see the sweat on peoples faces! You cant even see the difference unless you *whips out ridiculous chart* sit this distance from the screen!"
I was talking to my room mate about 4K TVs and he said "Thats too much. It doesn't need to be that realistic". I think it's the stupidest thing anybody could ever say about technology.

The new iMacs have 2560 x 1440 screens at only 27 inches.
Im 100% sure that 4096 x 2304 TVs will exist at semi-affordable prices within the next few years as they get mass produced and people start seeing them.

THAAAT BEEEING SAAAAID i dont think the PS4 needs it. The cost increase would be way too much for riiiight now. Maybe save it for a PS5 and let it just chill on PC for the really wealthy people
#1.1 (Edited 1153d ago ) | Agree(25) | Disagree(25) | Report | Reply
joab777  +   1153d ago
We dont need any of this but processing power will get better and it will happen. Then, 60 inch tv from a distance will look like a 30 inch. We will want it. Maybe they can build the ps4 4k ready somehow like 3d so that when its reasonable to buy, it can b used...even if u hav to drop a few bucks to upgrade. This may require hardware that is too expensive though without taking a big loss, so we will have to c. My money is that it will happen and be big.
Kennytaur  +   1153d ago
iMacs are designed for editing, and you don't sit 2 or 3 meters away from them.
Hatsune-Miku  +   1153d ago
I agree that ps4 needs to be able to do 4k gaming to be future proof. The reason why most people now would be opposed to the idea is because it'll be something unattainable for them because the 4k teli will be expensive. I love the idea and as soon as 4k teli can reach a price of £5000 ill get one. 4k telis are very expensive now and by next year there will be 14 different models on the market for sale and each new coming year the model count will increase and prices go down.

I remember people use to say that blu rays are unnecessary, just like high definition telis would be unnecessary, ipads and all sorts. The people that sit around playing games all day can simply go out and work then they'll be able to afford more things. Also, not everyone is suppose to have everything they'd like. Sometimes you have to do without .

I hope ps4 can do 4k and I believe it will since Sony is already selling two different types of 4k res telis now. They'll be quite affordable in 2-4 years just like plasmas and all other new tech
#1.1.3 (Edited 1153d ago ) | Agree(10) | Disagree(12) | Report
insomnium2  +   1153d ago
In all honesty Sony has done enough to progress the industry. They can take a brake for one gen if (when) it means there is less risk involved financially.

It's enough if we get 60 fps and 1080p imo. You have streched enough for the industry Sony. No need to go the extra mile and provide a 4k console since you KNOW all you get is s*it from the media for it. I think PS3 is more than enough proof of that.
#1.1.4 (Edited 1153d ago ) | Agree(7) | Disagree(8) | Report
sikbeta  +   1153d ago
Read on Gaf long ago:

*Sony 89' 4k TV = $40000*

more than a car... WTF!?

Tech is too expensive right now, they better don't release a console @ $600 again if they want the PS4 to sell well right from the start, IMO anything over $400 will be a tough sell...
vulcanproject  +   1153d ago
3840 × 2160 is 4k UHD.

Firstly, there is no way that a console out in a year or even 2 will run games in this resolution. Anyone that thinks it will is probably brain damaged. Not even 2560 x 1600 is that common on PC right now (0.20 percent on steam)

This is besides the fact it is pointless on virtually all size screens 99 percent of the population have inside their homes. You just wouldn't really see such a massive resolution unless you were gaming sat at a desk. If you were gaming on a sofa at least 8 feet away you would need a redonkulously huge screen to tell the difference.

http://3dtvscdn.3dtvs.netdn... Just to see 1440p you need roughly a 70 inch screen at 8 feet.

Now think about 2160p.

Fact is this is unrealistic, and unnecessary for 95 percent of people gaming on consoles in the next 5 years.

1080P is all most people will need. 60FPS is unlikely to be mandatory, more like 30FPS because most developers prefer to push visuals than have the higher framerate.

The writer of this article is a bit of a clown and living in cuckoo land.
#1.1.6 (Edited 1153d ago ) | Agree(7) | Disagree(3) | Report
solideagle  +   1153d ago
Now this is the problem, Now everyone asks this and that and pressurize Sony. Then Sony will release an Expensive Console and everyone/website will become cry babies...Let the Next Gen article war begins.
Leio  +   1153d ago
No but we arent in the future and i dont want the PS4 to have a futuristic price
rainslacker  +   1153d ago
It's predicted that HDTV (720/1080) will only have a 50% share of the marketplace by 2016. Given that number, do you think 4K resolution will have some magic acceptance that will make it needed for the upcoming generation? Consider that that 50% was only for up to 1080 resolutions.

Since 4K resolution will become cheaper, as you say. While it would be nice for them to offer it for those that take the plunge, I, like you, would much rather see them spend that money on things that make a difference. The only reason I would see them including 4K support in their consoles would be to push their TV's, kind of like they did with 3D. However when this console comes out, and likely for the next 5 years after, 4K will still be priced out of most peoples budget. There is little to no support for it, and a lot of people never really saw the need to even bother with HDTV until the support came along.
Gawdl3y  +   1153d ago
2560x1440 isn't new. It's been around in computer monitors for several years. 2560x1600 is better, though, but more expensive.
Genuine-User  +   1153d ago
"Fart particle".. LMAO

I thought only my family used that word. Lol
rpd123  +   1153d ago
My family calls them farticles.
FriedGoat  +   1153d ago
They are actually Poo particles. The fart is just the collection of gas and poo.
rpd123  +   1152d ago

mcstorm  +   1153d ago
I don't think the PS4 needs to be. The PS4 needs to be able to run games at 1080p at 60fps and the PS5 will then be able to run at 4K.

4K is still way to expensive and it will be another 8 years or so before it gets to be how HD tv is now and 1080 is still not on our TV's. Sky or Freeview HD is still only 720p.
Fishermenofwar  +   1153d ago
Any Fart joke gets an automatic bubble up in my books... ( SLOW CLAP )
darthawesome90  +   1153d ago
According to an article on cnet 4K hdtv's are not really necessary. The average person won't have a problem until the screen size approaches 77 inches with 1080p.

The reason they are pushing it is more for marketing their new OLED hdtv's. These HDTV's wont make it out until next year and may be credit card thin and even over 70 inches. The problem is that these HDTV's won't be affordable for the average consumer until the end of the PS4's life-cycle (think $10,000 for OLED 55" and $20-25k for a 84" OLED current announced prices).
#1.5 (Edited 1153d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
WeskerChildReborned  +   1153d ago
Maybe it will support it but will mainly focus on 1080p since most people will have that or they can wait next gen after that when the tvs cost a bit cheaper.
violents  +   1153d ago
agreed, when ps3 and xbox360 came out hdtv's were a couple thousand dollars on average(I'm sure you can find ones that were cheaper or much more but i'm trying to make an educated average) whereas these 4k res tv's that are coming out are like an average of 20,000 dollars. It will be so long before they are affordable that IMO its a waste of resouses to put that tech into the console, the bulk of society isn't going to purchase a tv that expensive, and it will be years before its affordable enough to be a household staple. Keep launch model costs down and just concentrate on making something that can produce 1080 res at a stable framerate and the general public would be ecstatic.
tubers  +   1153d ago
It will do 4k.. with games like Rayman Origins LMFAO.

Vector Graphics only hahaha!
iamnsuperman  +   1153d ago | Intelligent
What so it can be relevent in 15 years time. 4K is not needed. There are no tv broadcast (and will not be for some time due to technical limits) that support 4K so the average consumer will not buy into it. The only way to really see a visible difference in 4K tv is to have a 80 inch tv which is just ridiculously big (lets not get onto price). 4K is well away/ never coming. When tv broadcast start having 4K signals then gaming can worry about it. I can see it being used in cinemas as it makes sense with the big screen but not in the home
#2 (Edited 1153d ago ) | Agree(20) | Disagree(5) | Report | Reply
slyleo2001  +   1153d ago
Well said
I think the issue here is a lot of people just don't know the facts about 4k and just see the number and think bigger is better.
violents  +   1153d ago
I have a hdtv dlp projector that does 200 inches. It's farking amazballs.
Kamikaze135  +   1153d ago
With how expensive a 4k TV is and will be for the next several years, no it doesn't.
dirthurts  +   1153d ago
This and the fact that no gaming hardware available can render at 4k on the the fly without having stacks of video cards.
You can't include something that doesn't exist.
ThatHappyGamer  +   1153d ago
Ill be happy if next gen runs all games at 1080p & 60FPS.
adorie  +   1153d ago
Got Arkham City running maxed out, vsynced 90+fps @ 1080p.

Next Gen should focus on 2500X1600p IMO.

Edit: but the masses are just not fun!
Aim for the checkbook.
#4.1 (Edited 1153d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(11) | Report | Reply
dirthurts  +   1153d ago
Costs sir, cost.
It won't do 1600p, and it shouldn't.
Most people don't even have a 1080p set yet. You aim for the masses. Not the few who actually run at silly high resolutions (for the time).
Xenofex  +   1153d ago
1600p Tvs dont exist so nope
Norrison  +   1153d ago
I run batman at 1600p 120fps on 670 sli, it looks better than 1080p I can confirm that, but next gen should be 60fps and 1080p if you want it to be -400$.

A TV that supports higher resolution than 1600p can play 1600p
bicfitness  +   1153d ago
They'll price themselves out of the market if they try. So no.
andibandit  +   1153d ago
No worries, theyre used to just need to get a third job
asmith2306  +   1153d ago
The PS3 is a solid blue print to build the PS4 from. Just add more of the basics like RAM, better GPU, CPU, etc and I will be very happy. With PS+ and PSN they also have a solid online strategy already, again, just upgrade them. Don't fix what isn't broken. The Dualshock is testament to that kind of thinking and it works.

The key to the PS4 being a success in my opinion rests with the entry point price for people. I don't think Sony will get away with the arrogance like they did this gen, saying people will buy just because it's a PlayStation; even though I was one who did buy on day one! But there are millions and millions who won't and that is important this time around.

In a nutshell, I want the PS4 to be a powerful upgrade of the PS3.
Conzul  +   1153d ago
Very well said!
asmith2306  +   1152d ago
Then give me a bubble ;)
Conzul  +   1152d ago
I did, but it's not showing up.
MrDead  +   1153d ago
NHK said they are going to go from HD to 8k and skip 4k support, but we won’t see those screens to buy till 2020. They also say 8k fools your eyes into thinking you are seeing a 3d image.

I'll be happy with 4k till then, even if its only to watch movies on the PS4.
#7 (Edited 1153d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
gaffyh  +   1153d ago
No point at all, they should just focus on 1080p across the board, because by the time 4k TV's are prominent in the home, the next console will be due.
PS4isKing_82  +   1153d ago
Those high costs are what held Sony back for a good portion of this gen. And this guy thinks Sony should go that same route again and risk losing even more money? As long as the new consoles can push out a steady 60fps or slightly above, and at 1080p, that will be plenty. Along with the obvious graphical upgrade we'll be seeing. But ya, there's no need to support 4k. That's just an unneeded and wasteful expense. Just like move and 3d were.
nevin1  +   1153d ago
3D was a huge flop.
PS4isKing_82  +   1153d ago
Yes it was. I'm glad up see Sony slowly stepping away from supporting it finally. Now that they know what works and what doesn't from this gen, they'll be able to make the ps4 the huge success ps3 should have been.
#9.1.1 (Edited 1153d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(6) | Report
hardcorehippiez  +   1153d ago
speak for yourself . i currently enjoy 3d gaming and am anticipating the next evolutionary move to vr . make it happen sony
rainslacker  +   1153d ago
While he was less than eloquent in his delivery, his point is pretty accurate.

3D is a nice feature when used properly, but it was not accepted by the masses. I've had the opportunity to try it here and there, and it's pretty cool for gaming, but again, the technology is still not really great for long term use(at least for me, partially blind in one eye).

It's kind of the way 3D has always been. A cool thing on occasion, but lacks mass market penetration. It comes along in new forms every decade or so, but usually ends up the same.

It is better than it has ever been though, so at maybe it will become standard eventually.
5eriously  +   1153d ago
Sony dropping 3D? What a stupid notion

["The “ultimate goal” for the hardware, we were told, is for it to be able to run 1080p60 games in 3D with “no problem,”"]

Sony is the front runner in producing 3D content and TV's so why would they drop it???
#9.2 (Edited 1153d ago ) | Agree(7) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
PS4isKing_82  +   1153d ago
I agree Sony does 3D well, but it doesn't appear to he a huge issue for them anymore lately. That's kinda why no one bought their 3d display and glasses and now it's under $200. 3D is and always will be a fad, a gimmick at best. And nothing more.
ALLWRONG  +   1153d ago
3D is just an add on slapped onto a modern display. They charge a higher price for the TV and even more for extra for glasses. Fact is just about any display can run 3D and should by default. 3D is fun for maybe a couple hours. If you use it for gaming, or for long movies, get a bottle of aspirin ready.
#9.2.2 (Edited 1153d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(2) | Report
Kennytaur  +   1153d ago
Support for 4K output with pictures, menus and videos in mind could be handy. But no need for it in terms of games. Focus on 1080p @ 60fps for games.
tigertron  +   1153d ago
I don't see anyone owning 4K TVs for many-many years. They're too expensive. Unless you're rich there is no point.

The PS4 only needs to do 1080p at 60fps. That should be the standard of next-gen games.
LightofDarkness  +   1153d ago
The most powerful GPUs today can only run games like BF3 et al at about 60FPS @ 1080p with AA. I can tell you now that you will not be seeing equivalent chips in next-gen consoles because they're 1) too expensive, and 2) too big and hot.

While I look forward to the next few years as the resolution bump looks to be happening, it is a slow process. Over the course of the next "gen", we should start to see PC monitors climbing up the resolution ladder, perhaps finally arriving at 4k in the high-end mainstream market in about 4-6 years. But realistically, GPUs may still be the hindrance here, as I doubt even then that they'll be capable of rendering "next-gen" visuals at nearly 6 times the resolution close to 60FPS.

What we really ought to be hoping for is 1080p/60 standard for the next gen (maybe allowing for 30 in some cases), and the proliferation of affordable OLED displays.
josephayal  +   1153d ago
4K? Why not?
PS3 has been next gen since 2009
5eriously  +   1153d ago
Let the technology come! It's progress. 4K is not required at the onset as long as the PS4 tech can be upgraded at will anytime in future by doing a firmware or driver upgrade.
MasterCornholio  +   1153d ago
Hooray 100$ games.

Motorola RAZR i
sway_z  +   1153d ago
The PS4 or whatever Sony call it does not and will not need 4K display capability for at least another 10 years. Sure it's 'Nice' to have, but need?? ...Gimme a break fake journalist.

Only nerds know what that even is...Joey Bloggs and his missus couldn't give a rats tutu!!

How about we get full 1080P running at 60FPS first before harping on about a red herring ;)
Canary  +   1153d ago
I have a feeling we'll all be running around on holodecks before 4k TVs become a reality. As fidelity increases, improvements become less noticable.

Here, check out this handy resolution comparison image I made for my own use a few days ago.

(You can ignore the 1366 resolution, that's just the size of my new 14" ultrabook display)


640x480 (SDTV) yields ~300,000 pixels.
720p yields ~900,000 pixels.
1080p yields ~2,000,000 pixels.

Which translates to 720p having roughly 3 times the fidelity of SDTV resolutions, and 1080p having roughly twice the fidelity of 720p.

And we all know some people out there that cannot discern the difference between 720p and 1080p.

It's because the greater the fidelity increase, the less noticable the fidelity increase. Going up to 4k displays would increase costs exponentially, and would not present a large enough leap in visual quality to justify those costs (due to the human eye not being able to discern the increased quality from a distance).

4K displays make sense for PCs, as the user is located nearer to the display and thus can more easily discern the greater image quality.But with entertainment like console gaming and television... not so much.

I don't see 4k displays ever becoming a big deal for either medium.
5eriously  +   1153d ago
What is the difference between gaming on a PC or gaming on a console regards to distance? I do both from the same chair as well as for watching videos my PC or PS3 and the same applies. I also are connected to a 32" TV and I can see the difference quiet well, even with my old and worn eyes!
#17.1 (Edited 1153d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
Canary  +   1153d ago
Most people have their PCs on a desk and sit with their eyes less than a meter from the screen. Most people have their consoles hooked up to a TV in a larger, family area and sit several meters from the display.

Obviously, that's not true of everyone... but it is true for the vast majority of consumers out there.

It's about perspective. If you've got a 3DS or a Vita or whatever, you can demonstrate the concept fairly well by moving the screen close to your face and then pulling it away. As the screen gets closer, you see the pixels better--resulting in a perceived loss of image quality. Pull the screen away, and you eventually won't be able to discern the pixels any more, resulting in a perceived increase in image quality.
rainslacker  +   1153d ago
4K is probably best for much larger screens. Somewhere around 70+ inches. On a smaller screen (32-48") you would not see a difference in a normal viewing room.

I've seen a 4K resolution on a 72"(i believe), and we were sitting about 15 feet from the screen and the picture was incredible, but not so much better that I would be willing to spend that much money on it. I've also seen it on a smaller(not sure the size, maybe 60") sitting about 10 feet away, and I couldn't really tell a difference from regular 1080.

For the common user, given today's technology, 1080p is likely the most they will need for the next decade or so. New display technologies may change this, but even then, content providers will be slow to offer media to really take advantage of it.
Hicken  +   1152d ago
I think one of the things being left out of all this is the fact that people aren't immediately able to see the difference because they're not used to it even existing.

Before I got an HDTV myself, I really couldn't see the difference between 1080 and 720. All I could really tell was that they were both vastly superior to SD.

But once I'd had my TV for a few years, the difference was MORE than noticeable; for some reason or another, the HDMI connection from my PS3 to my TV went out. Briefly, I attempted playing in SD, but that was torture, so I bought some component cables. Even if the games were normally just upscaled to 1080p, the difference between what I'd seen with HDMI and what I saw with Component cables at 720 was like night and day.

Honestly, when I looked back and realized that I was once not able to tell the difference, I was surprised.

The same will happen with 4k and again with 8k: until your eyes are used to the higher resolution, you won't be able to see the difference.

It's sorta like walking around with glasses that slightly improve your vision for a year, then suddenly not wearing them: the difference will have seemed minimal until you go DOWN in ability.

As for whether or not the PS4 needs to support 4k, I don't know. HD is really just hitting its stride, and I can't honestly see 4k hitting HD's current level of popularity for at LEAST another decade. But if Sony's planning to support the PS4 like they do all their other consoles, they may want to think about somehow making it possible to implement that ability in the future, if not at launch.
rainslacker  +   1152d ago
I don't know, having seen the difference it is pretty clear there is one. However it does come down to is it worth the price. 1080p with a quality source is extremely good, and a marked difference to SD. Even 720 was a huge boost to picture quality, and that was quite apparent in the store if you were looking at them.

There are certainly some applications where 4K is better(namely larger screens), but to the majority of people out there it just isn't really necessary. It's a bigger barrier than 720/1080 had to face.

For comparison's sake, look how much harder it was for Blu-ray to gain market share as compared to DVD. After DVD's finally became affordable, VHS support pretty much vanished in a year. Blu-ray is now an accepted technology and being widely adopted, however DVD players and discs are still widely available. It's going to be a similar scenario with 4K, and for the most part the difference, while sometimes notable, isn't so great that people will want to upgrade.

It's not until 4K becomes the norm, and the prices are at the same as current HDTV's, that 4K will become needed in a console. Even then there are bandwidth issues that may need to be addressed before you see content providers even wanting this technology on a mass scale.
knifefight  +   1153d ago
Also 4D.
SnakeCQC  +   1153d ago
my gtx 670 cant do 4k all these articles show how little these "journalists" know about gaming 4k would require an insane amount of gpu power. Console gamers this gen haven't really experience 1080p gaming at 60fps which is at its best. Console makers and devs need 1080p gaming to become a standard and 4k will probably be a standard in a decade
Xof  +   1153d ago
A decade or more.

Keep in mind that we're already reaching bandwidth saturation, and higher resolution = greater file sizes = longer downloads.

Gaming technology will begin to plateau (it already has) because too much of the industry is built around digital distribution, and digital distribution simply can't accommodate games too much bigger than they are now.

And that's not an opinion. Available bandwidth is a FINITE resource--one we've *already* used up (many mobile providers are actually borrowing bandwidth reserved for the military).

So, yeah, it's not going to happen. The limitations of digital distribution and the cost of the tech pretty much ensure that, even in 10 years, 4k gaming is an unlikely future.
-Gespenst-  +   1153d ago
I'm pretty sure there's a point in terms of resolution where the human eye just doesn't notice any difference or something.

Also for me 1080 is fine. I don't have to play that long to get a headache from it. Any more and my head'll burst.

Then again, presumably next-gen games will be more detailed and will require the greater resolution. I don't know if this shit's good for our eyes... I know 3D definitely isn't.
Xof  +   1153d ago
There is, but I don't think that point is the same for every person and it's almost certain dependent on physical proximity to the screen.

But, in general, I think it's fair to say that once resolution increases past a certain point, it becomes increasingly difficult to notice.

Didn't someone just say something about how we all know at least one person who has a hard time telling the difference between 720p and 1080p? The greater display resolutions become, the more of those people are going to exist, and the more of those people exist, the smaller the market for higher resolution displays will be.

Like 3DTVs, I have a feeling this is another "next big thing" that won't really catch on.
sway_z  +   1153d ago

I like your logic...I have read a number of comments on this site, and you always make sense to me. If we were books, I'm sure we'd be on the same page lulz

Makes a change from the serious lack of tangible sense I often see on N4G.
wishingW3L  +   1153d ago
I'm pretty sure the 3 people with 100 inches TV will care....
GraveLord  +   1153d ago
No chance this will ever happen. Literally 0%.
Even doing native 1080p next-gen will be pretty hard. No way in hell we're getting native 4K games. Upscaled? Maybe.
Jason143  +   1153d ago
well directx11 and 1080 isnt going to hit 60fps with current dev specs. Id be surprised if it hits 30 stable at 1080 on those specs/ Upscaled is only way i see it as well
animegamingnerd  +   1153d ago
hell i don't even expect most games next gen to be in 1080P especially at launch for the consoles and most likely mainly first party games later down the line will be in 1080P
#22.2 (Edited 1153d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Smokingunz  +   1153d ago
I agree with axecution comment to the fullest. Nuff said. He pretty much knock the nail with the hammer on its head.
sway_z  +   1153d ago
Seems to me the only people that demand the top end of everything are those spoilt brats with rich dummies for parents or those who stink so much of money...the entrance of their butt passage must resemble a piggy bank!

These types have no recourse or care for the rest of us (working folk)...without whom, there would be no games industry.

Quit askin' for impossible shite (4K capability, $1,000 hardware and a Bluray drive that produces blood diamonds) that only YOU can afford!

Your only and sole benefit to a company like Sony is as an early adopter...bunch of rich beta-testers!

Gaming is for everyone on all budgets!
#24 (Edited 1153d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(3) | Report | Reply
Belking  +   1153d ago
Ps4 won't be able to do that. It won't have too. If sony goes that route they will price themselves right out of the market like they almost did with ps3.
VonBraunschweigg  +   1153d ago
PS3 didn't just have Blu ray at launch, but also a harddisk and HDMI. And not just one particular version, but all PS3's. I hope PS4 has a simmilar basic standard, but 4k? I'm not sure, I don't see people upgrade to 4k tellies as fast as we went from SD to HD. Imo a 1080p 60fps standard would be enough for PS4, we hardly got that this gen, not even with WipEout HD.

Announce WipEout 4K3D and I'll start robbing and looting.
Coach_McGuirk  +   1153d ago
uh, we'll be lucky if next gen console games run 1080p @ 60fps.. if you think they'll be able to play AAA titles @ 4k you've been misled.
gamern4g  +   1153d ago
I do not need 4k resolution.
creized1  +   1153d ago
I could care less about 4k at this point. All i need is 1080p on ALL games.
Plus even if it has 4k, yes it will be good to show "future" But come on... how many people can afford to buy 4k TV's? and since most bought new LED 3D TV's lately i doubt they will change them this soon and pay a high price for a 4k TV
Dlacy13g  +   1153d ago
OK lets get this out of the way...there is no such thing as "future proof". The notion is ridiculous and just PR/Marketing BS. If you don't think so then why do we need a PS4 if the PS3 was already deemed "future proof" this generation. There is no such will always change and what you thought was great specs year 1 of cycle will be dated by year 5/6.
« 1 2 »

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
New stories

Review: Crypt of the Necrodancer | The Outerhaven

31m ago - Jason writes: Roguelikes are a tricky thing. They ask you to pay close attention to every move, d... | Crypt of the NecroDancer

Why MMOs Should Keep the Trinity

6h ago - Liore presents a compelling argument for keeping the holy trinity in MMOs. | PC

List of PS4 Games that are coming out this month

Now - Looking for a new game for your PS4? Head over to our release calendar and see what is coming out this month. | Promoted post

Review: Pokemon Rumble World (Nintendo 3DS) | Digitally Downloaded

7h ago - DD: Alternatively, you skipped past the free-to-play game, which means you are either unaware it... | 3DS

The Witness Review – Life Is One Giant Puzzle | WCCFtech

7h ago - WCCFt: The Witness is an excellent puzzle game, featuring many complex yet fair puzzles, a great... | PC

Review: Act It Out! A Game of Charades (Sony PlayStation 4) | Digitally Downloaded

7h ago - DD: I think this developer has an awful lot of latent talent within it, and it’ll be one to watc... | PS4