Top
290°

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.

Read Full Story >>
infobarrel.com
The story is too old to be commented.
OneAboveAll1323d ago (Edited 1323d ago )

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.

Axecution1323d ago (Edited 1323d 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

joab7771323d 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.

Kennytaur1323d ago

iMacs are designed for editing, and you don't sit 2 or 3 meters away from them.

Hatsune-Miku1323d ago (Edited 1323d 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

insomnium21323d ago (Edited 1323d 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.

sikbeta1323d 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...

vulcanproject1322d ago (Edited 1322d 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. http://www.1up.com/news/lat...

The writer of this article is a bit of a clown and living in cuckoo land.

solideagle1322d 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.

Leio1322d ago

No but we arent in the future and i dont want the PS4 to have a futuristic price

rainslacker1322d 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.

Gawdl3y1322d ago

2560x1440 isn't new. It's been around in computer monitors for several years. 2560x1600 is better, though, but more expensive.

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 1322d ago
Genuine-User1323d ago

"Fart particle".. LMAO

I thought only my family used that word. Lol

rpd1231323d ago

My family calls them farticles.

FriedGoat1323d ago

They are actually Poo particles. The fart is just the collection of gas and poo.

mcstorm1323d 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.

Fishermenofwar1323d ago

Any Fart joke gets an automatic bubble up in my books... ( SLOW CLAP )

darthawesome901323d ago (Edited 1323d 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).

WeskerChildReborned1322d 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.

violents1322d 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.

tubers1322d ago

It will do 4k.. with games like Rayman Origins LMFAO.

Vector Graphics only hahaha!

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 1321d ago
iamnsuperman1323d ago (Edited 1323d ago )

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

slyleo20011322d 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.

violents1322d ago

I have a hdtv dlp projector that does 200 inches. It's farking amazballs.

Kamikaze1351323d ago

With how expensive a 4k TV is and will be for the next several years, no it doesn't.

dirthurts1323d 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.

ThatHappyGamer1323d ago

Ill be happy if next gen runs all games at 1080p & 60FPS.

adorie1323d ago (Edited 1323d 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.

dirthurts1323d 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).

Xenofex1323d ago

1600p Tvs dont exist so nope

Norrison1322d 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$.

@Xenofex
A TV that supports higher resolution than 1600p can play 1600p

bicfitness1323d ago

They'll price themselves out of the market if they try. So no.

andibandit1323d ago

No worries, theyre used to that...you just need to get a third job