Creative Director, Greg Kasavin shares his thoughts on PS4 and Transistor.
This is actually very legitimate due to the cost of a high end PC versus a console.
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.
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.
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.
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"??
I would say PS4 will hold for at least 8 years, that is, game developers will support the system with AAA titles that long.
In fact they stopped producing PS2 only in 2012.
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.
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.
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.
@ Army of Darkness. Well my last computer lasted since 2004, so I think I have you beat.
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.
@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.
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
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.
@ 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.
@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
It's already obsolete and it's not even out yet... So in 5 years from now it will be ancient. At least the ps3 didn't use off the shelf PC parts like the ps4 do.
And yet, it will generate 10X the sales of PC games. I understand where you are coming from. but no one is paying the cost of bleeding edge tech to play games.
The PS4 is fully HSA compliant and has GCN 2.0 graphics. It will literally have cutting edge technology when it debuts.
I feel like this is the same old argument that continues to be shown as wrong as we continue to support these consoles well into their years...
We'll see about that. [email protected] Anyhow, I don't think PCs will "endanger" consoles just yet. I just built me something small for about $800 recently (wasn't 6 month ago) and yet, if I'd like to get PS4 like 1080 with a stable frame rate I would have to invest yet again. In 4-5 years from now, this target has to be around $200 - because that's where this console will be then. Currently you can't build a $400 machine like that, and it will just be tougher to do that for $200 in 4 years.
@eonjay "And yet, it will generate 10X the sales of PC games." You do realize PC gaming generates more money than the 360/ps3 combined right? So what makes you think ps4 would generate more money alone?
@Sorane Really? Not doubting you but is there a link you can provide because I would like to see what the margains are.
@gaming The numbers are all over google. PC gaming makes 20+ billion a year while the 360/ps3 make a little over 7 billion each a year. You guys can disagree with the facts all you want, but they're still facts :)
@sorane: Your facts are skewed as f***. Of course the entirety of PC gaming will make a ridiculous amount of money, but that could mean anything. It could literally mean all available PC games whether they are full games are flash games. Try finding out how much money PC gaming makes with more specific criteria like you pointed out for PS3/360, and you'll find the number is significantly less than $20 billion. You're trying to say that the gaming industry, which is a $40 billion industry, makes half its money from PC gaming and that's a load of bull.
@Sorane I did some of this so called googling you said I should do and it looks like console gaming has always made more revenue than PC gaming has. Here's a nice link provided by google of course: http://www.gamasutra.com/vi... Please disregard the 2014 numbers since that is just speculation. Try harder next time.
@skull You do realize there are more consoles than just the ps3/360 right? I said ps3/360 combined not ps1/ps2/ps3/xbox/360/wii/wiiu/ etc/etc/etc combined. Try harder next time. @dragon I don't even know what you're getting at. What criteria did I set for 360/ps3? The criteria I set for both is how much they make from games each year and my numbers are right. As skull below you pointed out all consoles combined make about 22-25 billion leaving the last 20 billion(from your 40 billion number) to pc.
@sorane - What kind of sense does it make to limit the numbers to two consoles yet count all PC games? You need to try harder and make more sense while you're at it.
@sorane: "I don't even know what you're getting at. What criteria did I set for 360/ps3?" You said "PC gaming makes $20 billion" encompassing the entirety of PC gaming from the smallest games, to the largest games. Not only is it impossible to figure out if that number is true, you also have no actual proof that it is true. But you conveniently said "the PS3/360 only make $7 billion." This shows that you purposely limited the console gaming aspect and didn't limit the PC gaming aspect. If you're going to impose limitations, then take a look at the entirety of sales for the PS3/360 combined and compare them to something like Steam, or only fully priced games, or something that is of a similar scaled. Elsewise you have to compare all currently available consoles to the PC and consoles still outperforms PC in sales because piracy is less rampant and the consoles are more popular. Regardless, both sides like to say the other is worthless for some reason. Neither side is going anywhere. PC gaming may have specs and freedom on their side at the cost of price, but consoles have popularity, ease of use, and more developer focus at the cost of high end specs and freedom. Each have their place so people saying consoles are obsolete or PC gaming is dead/dying are both wrong.
@mystic Why does is make sense to group any console together? They are all separate machines and each should be counted on it's own. I was doing you console gamers a favor because if we do it system by system the money isn't even close between the 2. It's not like microsoft/sony/nintendo throw all there money in a big pot and split it evenly at the end. So try harder and make more sense yourself.
If you want, you can go get that 16 000$ Gaming PC. It's cutting edge technology. In fact. It's So advanced, that the developers will only make games that take advantage of it's technology 20 years later when the next consoles arrive. Most people who will game on PC will use Mid-Range "Consumer Level" hardware that's affordable, nothing of that high end stuff unless they got money to throw out of the Window... Paying 1000$ for just a GPU is just absurd especially since there won't be that much optimization from the games themselves that'll even come close to use it's tech. Just wait for an affordable GPU instead.
@sorane If ur gonna do that. You have to comparee all consoles. Not jus ps360. Compare within a 7 year period pall consoles vs pc games. That would be fair. Those numbers u put up would look very contradictory lol. Pc fangirls are the best
But don't get me wrong, go ahead and pay the 16k$ if you have it. You basically pay up the R&D of the technology for us console gamers later on down the road. ;)
Obsolete? To whom? You haters say that for every new console generation. It must suck to be wrong for decades and having to deal with consoles being so popular.
PC elitists scoff at something that doesn't even matter to the console games or the gaming public in general. the average console gamer, and by extension the average gaming public tend to feel it is asinine to spend upwards of 300.00 + just for a video card, they feel that there is just no value in it. or even even a high quality Asus mainboard is fetching anywhere from 150 to 350.00, add a quality case 150.00 plus, ram an a nice big HD and you are talking a minimum of a thousand Plus for a high end gaming rig. Convince someone that they will get more value out of a gaming rig than a PS4/Xbone and you will be laughed at. then tell them they are gonna have to game at a desk for that money and the deal breaker is complete. (I know that you could hook up a PC to your TV and use a gamepad but, you know that almost nobody does that, esp a PC gamer elite)
No one can argue that games on PC will run and look better. BUT the console and PC war is pointless and dumb. Because they need each other. Consoles coming this next gen would not be like they are without trying to get to PC standards. BUT gaming on PC would not be where its at without the revenue that the consoles bring in. The best example would be the Battlefield series. Old school Battlefield was awesome on PC. And is still awesome to this day on PC. (Battlefield 3 kinda stunk but still) But the Battlefield jumped leaps and bounds when it hit consoles. And I can say that BF4 wouldn't look and play as awesome as it looks if they didn't have the cash from consoles. They go hand 'n' hand. PC push consoles to be better and consoles get that money for awesome games to be made.
I think sorane was replying to Eonjay who claimed the PS4 would generate 10x the sales of pc games which Eonjay is clearly wrong about.
Get over it you and all the other PC "elitists" are in the major minority....Nobody cares but you idiots how amazing a game looks graphically when there is nothing wrong with the games that get made for consoles, and console gamers don't have to screw with anything to make sure the game will work on their machine
At sorryane Stop your deliberate trolling and trying so hard to be stupid on top of it. Stop trying so hard to defend your idiotic claim FFS you just make yourself looking more and more stupid!
2012 report on PC industry: $20 Billion in software sales Est. 1 billion pc gamers worldwide About a quarter of which (250 million) are core players interested in traditional genres like strategy, action and role-playing games http://www.gamesindustry.bi...
You know whats funny, Console fans using ALL consoles to compare to the PC. PC is so good it takes ALL consoles to outsell it ;)
@Blackmagic GTA made $1 billion in 3 days on consoles, just saying
Everything is obsolete in 6 months... But I'll be damned if GTA v isn't making me enjoy my 360 for one last hurrah.. And it really has been obsolete for years, arguably the day it came out.. Consoles have never truely been cutting edge... Theyd cost 1500+ and very little market.. They make more based on volume
I don't care about gaming on PCs. Never have never will. I don't hate it but at the same time it's not even a consideration to me. It has no weight in my choises. My loss I guess. All I need is one console per gen. As long as it is a Playstation I have more games I have time to dig into available for me.
Wait, isn't Transistor an Indie? Or am I wrong?
Yeah, but a damn good one. It's the indie I'm most-pumped for IMO
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.
You can get a GPU for 200 bucks today that'll probably outpace next-gen consoles.
@WrongSpelledRain list them please and explain why they are better refering to specs, else you are just trolling!
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
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.
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.....
@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.
Games will keep players on consoles, that is where the majority of good games come from.
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.
Cool story bro
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.
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.
@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.
@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.
@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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
@xKugo where does that 8GB of GDDR5 go on your pc? the motherboard?