"Consoles are about making the most with the hardware you currently have," says Jakub Mikyska from Grip Games
Jakub is right. But I really wish they made the consoles more expensive with hardware that can run all games at 1080p 60fps as a standard. I feel both Ms an Sony cheaped out on hardware to get that low low price. If people can pay £500 for a smartphone I don't see anything wrong with consoles being near that price since you don't upgrade em for 6-7 years. At least then the hardware would be more capable of 1080p/60fps.
i completely agree. I would have paid $600+ per console if they had stronger gpu's and some degree of 4k capability - even if that was limited to media playback and apps. I mean i bought a ps3 for $599 back in the day so its not a foreign concept. I have a Sony 4k TV now and it makes me not want to use a lot of the apps on the consoles because they max out at 1080p whereas the TV apps already have 4k sections. My consoles (ps4, x1) are barely a year old and are already feeling dated on that front at least - even moreso when you see what pc's are doing or will be doing fairly soon in terms of graphics on top of it. i dig my consoles, but yeah... definitely would have paid more for more.
I don't know about Xbox one, but the ps4 does have 4k output for pictures and videos
I thought that both consoles were capable of 4k video. I definitely could be mistaken.
@LogicalReason - Yes I would because buying one better console less often is still cheaper than buying incremental consoles more often. Think of the long game. And also - the PS3 did have a rough launch but it still ended up outselling the x360 globally, so again - the long game proved successful. FWIW i heard that the ps4 and x1 would have 4k media updates at some point in the future though info on this is scarce. I hope this is true because I also read that there could be new hardware revised consoles to handle 4k media (just simply codec decoder hardware etc, no crazy gpu, cpu upgrades). It would be really annoying if the second scenario were true because then instead of paying say $600 for a better console initially, I'm going to be paying $8-900 because I will essentially have to buy the new updated console for a second time if I want it to support 4k playback. I can't help but feel like the second scenario is unlikely though.
that would just kill the purpose. sony paid heavily with $600 pricetag people buy consoles not to compete with pc graphics but to conveniently play games.what percentage of the userbase will honestly be comfortable paying ,say $700, if it guaranteed [email protected] im sorry but no one really cares about it as much as the internet would lead you to believe.just because a few loudmouths here are willing to pay more doesnt make it a feasible model of business. would i like my consoles to have more 60fps games? yes would i be willing to give to twice the money for it? f** no.id rather play the game at half the fps and by 2 consoles or build a new pc instead infact im 99% certain games will still be built around 30fps and just look better or support higher resolutions. pc gets 60 fps because theres little to no pc exclusive AAA develompent or market. were devs to fully utilize a 980, then itd look jaw dropping but run at 30fps because everyone needs to SEE the best it can do,infact do you honestly think 90% of pcs would even be able to run that game? pc games are built around console specs and because they have the additional hardware, the get to 60 more often than not besides whats the guarantee that the additional hardware doesnt become just as obsolete a yer down the line people always want more,with the $800 unit , theyll want every game to be 4k and then continue to whine the same way
Yea man it amazes me how people are so simple to think that putting in better hardware and taking a loss is some magical solution when it makes the product far to expensive for the average consumer so the company's would take a loss on hardware and not have a large enough install base to profit on software and subscriptions
I agree with you on many points but I'd have gladly paid an extra 40-50 dollars for a better CPU! I think the GPU's are very capable in the new gen consoles, a lot of power compared to previous gen, but it's not the same case with CPU's. Previous gen had very fast CPU's for their time (Xenon was very capable compared to PC cpus at the time, and Cell, although not super fast for general computing, blitzed through certain tasks that even current CPU's have trouble with (although for some very specific subset of problems).. New gen CPU's were anemic right at the gate. (I have no interest in 4K yet, this will change in future, but the feature set of the console GPU's is very sufficient)
When every game is 1080p 60 fps people will complain about it not being 4k. Mainly from salty PC gamers, who secretly wish PCs got as much attention as consoles get.
Thats because likely by the time every game is 1080p60, 4k will be/have been the standard, just as 1008p60 has been the standard for a long while now. And a majority of PC gamers aren't complaining about any consoles resolution, because they're able to play games at their preferred resolution, so why would they complain? The primary groups complaining about anything are the respective fanboys of each console.
salty pc gamers lol whats that anyways.. Listen Some PC Gamers will be stupid say about frame rate or resolution but not all of us are like that why? Cos we mature no need state the obvious what we can cant do plus i think everyone by now get that. As for 4K its early days atm sure get decent 30fps you need top end card i mean top end sometimes couple cards But thats soon changing with next line up of GPUs We no longer be using GDDR5 and memory bandwith be hugely increased so 4k can start to become the norm on PC. PC will always be 2 steps ahead consoles just the way its been for many years but that doesnt mean PC better than consoles, maybe in terms raw power yes but there areas that make consoles better choice. Cheaper Plug in play Physical copys that not tied down to a single account Not have worry about windows But as a GAMER both PC and console the one thing i hate is comming on here seeing few gamers that have a pc start acting like a fanboy its petty. Same time im fedup with same consoles choose your platform and play.
"PC gamers, who secretly wish PCs got as much attention as consoles get." Worst kept gaming secret ever. @Tempest - It's not so much complaining as showing up in console-centric articles to say "Hey what about PCs?". 4K won't be a real force in the gaming market until 4K TVs are way more common, and that won't happen this console generation.
"Thats because likely by the time every game is 1080p60, 4k will be/have been the standard, just as 1008p60 has been the standard for a long while now" lol, "standard". I'm not sure what you think a standard is, but something that the vast majority don't have does not count as much of a "standard".
@SilentNegotiator 1080p has been the primary viewing standard that pretty much all mainstream viewable media has been going for for ~3-5 years...60 fps has ALWAYS been the goal for gaming, at least since I started in 2001...just because not everyone has it doesn't mean its not the expected level of quality.
It wasn't even the target of 90% of developers in the 7th gen, which started in 2005. An entire decade in which 30fps, not 60, has been the target for the vast majority of games. I think after 10 years, it's time to stop pretending like 60fps is the industry standard.
That's stupid. Most PC gamers own consoles as well.
Attention? What kind of attention are the consoles getting?
You can gimp any game and make it run at 1080/60, but thats not the point.
Dialing down pointless visual effects is a far cry from "gimping."
? Once you know why that is, you'll know it can really happen that way. 1. Resolution and frame is developer choice. They choose that setting. If PS4 and XONE had 4 times the GPU power, Ubisoft, EA etc would just make an engine 4 times stronger...meaning that indeed they would have to choose between frame and resolution on certain titles to compete. With better GPUs, they still have to compete against each other, a game maxing out the GPU will look better then a game that lowers some settings to get 1080p or 60fps. This is just the give and take nature of a GPU on set systems. Sooo you see lack of 1080p 60fps not because the systems can't but because developers won't make that trade off against competition. Would you market GTA SA against GTA V on PS3 and 360 and advertise that its 1080p 60fps as if that matters? Consider GTA V at the lessor frame and res STILL LOOKS BETTER, is more demanding etc. THAT is what developers have to deal with, that trade off isn't worth it to most developers, ie why GTA V was on a new engine to begin with, if Rockstar wanted that last gen, they would have never made a new engine, just keep using Renderware.... Do you really think that its cause they "can't" or that they won't? 2. Folks can pay what they want for phones....game systems are not phones, it cost MILLIONS to make some of these games, they need the install base to justify such a thing, folks don't buy game systems to have the newest fashion trend....they buy them to game. Its something that just can't be compared. Once you know that res and frame are based on developers choice and not solely the system, you'll realize why it makes no sense. Has anyone not considered that a developer could just continue to use the same engine as last gen or just have low quality assets to stay at 1080p 60fps if indeed they even really, really wanted that? Hell, look at how many games last gen were at 1080p, or 60fps or both, do you think those same titles stand a chance looking like last gen games with minor updates JUST to hit some number? I'm sorry but at the end of the day, gamers want a new beast engine vs set numbers. I'll take a new GTA engine that looks like real life at a lower res and frame, then a GTA running on the same engine. Who here legit wants the next GTA to look exactly the same JUST to hit some number? Also consider its not the power of the GPU, but the GPU's support. What damn PC game do you even see that requires whats in a PS4 or XONE in order to play? Soooooooo what does it matter what the GPU actually is if no PC developer seven require such things on PC? Soooo if a super computer exist in Japan that is 20000 times stronger then a titan card 4 way SLI'ed..does it really matter that any thing is weaker then it if no developer on earth even uses its specs? So why care that PS4 or XONE's GPU's are what they are when no developer on PC even required such power in the first place? Your indeed seeing next gen quality as thats not the norm on PC in terms of engines as once again...how many PC titles require such power? Never mind PC GPU comparisons, they mean nothing when it comes to actual support.
'Has anyone not considered that a developer could just continue to use the same engine as last gen or just have low quality assets to stay at 1080p 60fps if indeed they even really, really wanted that?' Funny you should say that, there is a company doing just that. And the game is called Call of Duty. They release it every year as you know and it outsells all other games. its a shame really...
@Spinal For once this isn't true. COD:AW is a new engine and it shows.
There's no such thing as "1080/60 as a standard" for consoles. That just doesn't make sense and people need to stop saying that. With fixed resources you're always going to have the option to make a 30 FPS game with far more visual detail and many developers will continue to select that option. Consoles will always work that way.
I agree, even if a console had a 980 or Titan in it, there would still be developers that would target the best visuals possible over a smooth framerate because visuals show up in commercials and screenshots. This is why I thought the Uncharted 4 announcement was strange because developers ALWAYS prioritize visuals over framerate, and none of the previous installments were 60fps. The Last of Us Remastered was 60fps because it was a PS3 game running at 1080p on PS4. Naughty Dog didn't want to create all new assets and it made fiscal sense to leave the assets more or less the same and just push a higher resolution and framerate.
I would take 60 fps over higher textures or what not. Any day of the week. 60fps soild is awesome.
I hear ya. I wish they put dual GPUs in the PS4. Im sure that would have driven the price up, but a guy can dream...
They did not need crossfire. They just needed to put better gpu's in. As a poster above said a hd 7970 would have been perfect.
Even if the consoles could do games that were both 1080p and 60fps that looked great there would still be developers that will sacrifice the framerate for extra detail. It's just how developers are.
Is that really possible though? The thing is, hardware is stagnant. All developers would need to do is keep making more detailed/bigger games. Since they know exactly what they're working with, they would probably just push the hardware and it could never consistently hit 1080p/60fps. In other words, if a game like Drive Club were released on a more powerful PS4, Evolution would be able to do 1080p/60fps if the graphics stayed the same, but they would likely add even MORE detail and it would still be a 1080p game at 30fps.
Very good comment, I feel the same way. I'm more than willing to shell out an extra $100 for better hardware.
who will buy a console that expensive? btw the overall majority dont pay £500 for a smart phone, they purchase the phone via contract. that system wouldnt work with a home console, its not as if a console is a fashion accessory etc like a good phone is
Because average people don't use their consoles nearly as much.
Console prices are perfect in my opinion. If they charged more than $500 most people would just go buy a PC, myself included.
I wouldn't mind spending more for a console for it to have a longer life, and more power out of the box, but Sony received a ton of backlash for that last gen, despite losing a lot of money on every unit sold. MS received a lot of heat for pushing out a $500 console this gen. Admittedly both those scenarios have a catch which doesn't make it applicable 100% to your argument...PS3 had a lot of new expensive tech and X1 had Kinect to drive up the price. But I think it shows clearly that price is a big factor when considering a console, and likely has more to the average customers perception than the actual hardware involved. When it comes to consoles, so long as they improve on the last gen, it's usually good enough to most people. Unfortunately, us hardcore that would actually spend another $100(or more) on a console to have more power and hopefully better games, are far outnumbered by those that jus