With leaked details of octal-core processor banks paired with 8GB of RAM, the PlayStation 4 "Orbis" is sounding powerful (just for comparison of RAM alone, the 8GB of system memory is roughly 32 times more than the current model). But to see where 4K comes in it's worth taking a trip back seven years.
In 2005, very few people had an HDTV. According to one study, there were "as many" as ten million homes with high-definition screens -- globally. The problem, according to many commentators, was the lack of HD content: nobody wanted to buy an HDTV because there was little HD content; very little HD content was made because there were very few people to sell it to. Classic catch-22.
Don't forget, back when HDTV came out, no one wanted that either. You often heard: Too pricey, the difference isn't that much better than what I see with DVD, there isn't any content available, etc...etc. In 2008, less than a quarter of TV's in the US were HD. Now that number is over 3/4. When the prices start coming down and more content becomes available, why wouldn't you buy 4K?
http://youtu.be/Cx6eaVeYXOs
I would love to buy it but the prices are ridiculous. They will obviously come down as time goes on however in the near future I'll pass.
I'll also stick with my 1080p.
It's pointless to talk about technology when the price difference is negligible for an upgrade. Furthermore, HD has been around for almost a decade available to consumers.
With HD, it wasn't necessarily the video quality that attracted the masses, but rather the form factor of the TV itself (i.e. significantly smaller and lighter) as well as the quality of the screen i.e. the more pleasant viewing as opposed to the traditional tube TV.
If you really looked at how DVD migration to Blu-Ray happened it is very telling. It was very slow, and only when prices really really dropped as to be as cheap as DVD, traction really gained. Basically, the demand wasn't there to pay a premium. DVD was good enough unless the upgrade was insignificantly more in price.
4k content? That will take even longer for adoption than HDTVs. It will probably be slightly better than 3D adoption until it becomes the standard.
However, there is no real demand for it!
Imagine a bunch of companies producing around a standard that is still very much in it's infancy...
Sony learned their lesson this gen with loads of money lost because of the ps3 and vita also TVs "Sony were losing $100 for each ps3 sold not to mention the annual loss reports lately http://www.ign.com/articles... i don't think they can afford to make an expensive console with their current economic/financial state, they'll make a decent console more capable than the Wii U depending mostly on their first party games
xD
LMAO I'm already gaming in Ultra HD 1600p
Besides 4K TV's are still $20,000 and with NO 4K broadcast available I really do not see a big influx of people rushing out to buy 4K TV's when the prices drop especially seeing how their 1080p TV's are just fine.
ALSO remember how this Gen was suppose to USHER in 1080p Gaming......How did that work out?
I'll tell you how that worked out. NOT one AAA game is in 1080p and most AAA games struggle with 720p.
Consoles have Wattage caps and therefore they do not have the power needed to pump out superior graphics at high end resolutions. They do make good use of the limited specs that they do have.
Also 4K is more Hype than substance as 4K only helps TV's that are 60" or bigger. So don't get caught up in the 4K Hype unless you got deep pockets and 80" TV in your living room.
The proposed GPU's in the next Gen consoles are 4K capable but will sacrifice frame rates in order to do so.
Also unless you go over 50" most people won't notice the differnce in TV/movies. It will be a niche product i'm telling you now.
H265 was just approved the other day so we're almost set for 4K content to begin being made available. We just need the new HDMI and bluray specs to be updated, and both of those are due this year from what I hear.
But I don't know about 4K for streaming. If you've chosen streaming as your preferred video medium then you have chosen convenience over quality. It that's the case then you probably wouldn't care about 4K.
http://gizmodo.com/5942233/...
I mentioned before in another post, it makes sense for the next gen consoles to be looking at this tech. If the consoles are designed for another 10 year cycle, that's going to take it into the 2020's. If they want to make sure their consoles aren't left behind by TV tech, they need to be making gambles on what TV's will look like in another 5 years, and that seems to be trending towards continued 3d (3d tv sales doubled in 2012 and don't appear to be slowing, if though focus has shifted off the feature) and 4k resolutions.
But it's no different from HDTV adoption. We're not going to see 4k take off until prices come down, which will happen over time.
They wont be maintream for at least another 7-10 years, then we will see price drops.
Those current $25,000 4K TVs would never have much market appeal at any price since they are a massive 84 inches. So why not charge a premium since they will never sell in big numbers anyway.
This all makes sense in my mind because for example, the news channels generally still use the old format "Beta" method or whatever, and they have been waiting for a long time to use a new standard, I would see 4K being this standard. I believe the consoles will be much like what Microsoft did wih the Xbox 360 this gen; Initially there was support up to 720p and 1080i, and then a little while later the console was updated to output all the way up to 1080p as necessary. Same thing will happen this gen. These consoles will HAVE to be future proof enough that they will have a lot of support for 4k as 4k will become what 1080p is today IMO.
Also there are the TV stations. The government made them switch here. I don't see them allowing themselves to be pushed into new equipment so soon. Plus a lot of TV personalities hate HD, They would really fight 4K.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
You say gimmick I say made playing Batman Arkham City, Crysis 3, Resistance 3, Killzone 3, God of War Chains of Olympus/Ghost of Sparta way better than what they would have been.
Just because you can't afford something doesn't mean you have to knock it.
I work for a living and get paid pretty good and I know everyone who comes over to my house and sits down in front of my 60 OLED Samsung 3D Tv and starts playing Batman or Crysis ends up being super jelly...which is what your doing right?
:P
The fact that you assume that I can't afford something, is mind boggling. Secondly people who are susceptible to motion sickness, and equilibration issues have problems watching 3d programs.
But at what cost for me it wont be for years when 4K Becomes cheaper to make becomes the norm where all brands start to make 4k The norm, then the prices will greatly reduce "Then" I will switch my £1300 tv.
16 x 2
So yeah its 16 times the current PS3 RAM bank total. Still though that is rumor.
http://www.costco.co.uk/vie...
I'll get it when it's priced twice to what 1080p screens do today.
What's needed next generation is higher resolution textures, polygon count, anti aliasing and FPS than our current generation not 4K(waste of resources).
Don't take me wrong though, I'd love to see 4K and eventually 8K, but it's still too early.
Only game I know that runs at 60fps is CoD but it isn't a good looking game so it doesn't matter lol
Try gaming in 60fps multiplayer and then going back. It'd be like shooting yourself in the foot. Or falling into a bowl of porridge.
The consoles are definitely the next step to the adoption, but will most likely not see it in their lifetimes.
http://www.gtplanet.net/gra...
16gb ram.
new high end top of the line graphic card "quantum leap".
1tb HD.
and their first party plus good 3th party studias = best console ever!!!
IMO, the PS4 need only be 2-3x as powerful as the PS3 (with optimization) to enable quite a slew of 4K games. Sure, AAA games probably won't see much of it, but then again, GT games are what I'd consider AAA.
It has nothing to do with how the human eye perceives light and movement, so for gamers is a big fat waste of space. Even movie fans only get the extra space for that "cinema feel".
Sure, those still images and short clips on-screen at trade shows look great, but only because they are still, or moving veeerry slooowly. As soon as there's action, about 40% of the content is ignored by the viewer. Unless you want to watch Avatar frame by frame, or re-run all your CoD missions in super slo-mo, what's the point?
4k is on it's way, whether you like it or not! Be a late adopter again for 4k and it won't matter...
Now hiring: locksmith, getawaydriver, weaponsspecialist and anyone with a map of Fort Knox.
Lets not get carried away on idiotic rumours that have no realistic chance of being close to possible. 1080p at 60 frames a second should be what's expected of next gen. Perhaps support for Ultra wide TV's with a 16:10 ratio, but not 4K. It just wouldn't be workable with complex games.
Ppl on here kill me you dont have to be a rocket scientist to know that even if the ps3 is 4k "supported" games wont be 4k and we are lucky if half the games are 1080p.
tl;dr 4K next gen for the purpose of future proofing. Perfect future proofing? Unlikely, but better than no future proofing at all.