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.
120°
30°
40°
40°
40°
Ad 
30°
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.
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
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
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.
*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...
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. http://www.1up.com/news/lat...
The writer of this article is a bit of a clown and living in cuckoo land.
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.
I thought only my family used that word. Lol
....
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.
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).
Vector Graphics only hahaha!
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.
You can't include something that doesn't exist.
Next Gen should focus on 2500X1600p IMO.
Edit: but the masses are just not fun!
Aim for the checkbook.
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
A TV that supports higher resolution than 1600p can play 1600p
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.
I'll be happy with 4k till then, even if its only to watch movies on the PS4.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/...
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.
["The “ultimate goal” for the hardware, we were told, is for it to be able to run 1080p60 games in 3D with “no problem,”"]
http://www.vg247.com/2012/1...
Sony is the front runner in producing 3D content and TV's so why would they drop it???
The PS4 only needs to do 1080p at 60fps. That should be the standard of next-gen games.
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.
PS3 has been next gen since 2009
Motorola RAZR i
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 ;)
Here, check out this handy resolution comparison image I made for my own use a few days ago.
http://img827.imageshack.us...
(You can ignore the 1366 resolution, that's just the size of my new 14" ultrabook display)
Anyway.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Even doing native 1080p next-gen will be pretty hard. No way in hell we're getting native 4K games. Upscaled? Maybe.
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!
Announce WipEout 4K3D and I'll start robbing and looting.
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