"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 $100(or more) on a console to have more power and hopefully better games, are far outnumbered by those that just look at initial price point. Typically the cheapest console is people's pick, but in some cases paying a bit more if there is a perceptible difference(even if only in people's minds in some cases) is acceptable.
I am with you, I would have paid 50 to 100$ more for a better CPU/GPU combo! However, there is no such thing as "hardware that can run all games at 1080p 60fps" well, unless games are designed to target this (render every frame under all circumstances in 16ms, no matter what's going on on the screen). Now the PS4 has been often close enough and I can't recall any game except Thief that has sustained drops below 30fps at 1080p (maybe it's the games I played)... heck, we have less 900p games on the PS4 than the XB1 has ~720 (or 792p) titles! Just to say, yes it could be better, but I find it perfectly acceptable, this is the first time I say this of a console since the Dreamcast back in 99!
* People "in the know" leaked out bit by bit, that this gen wasn't going to be as powerful as we'd really want it to be. * Very few of you actually paid attention to that, and still you WANTED it to be A, when it was always going to be B. * What we have is "good enough", but the next gen is going to really do what we thought this one did. * This gen was to bridge the technology gap from the past to the future way of doing things.
I thought Sony would cheap out more and use a GPU as weak as the X1, but luckily only one company made that mistake. There's no way to make it stronger though without either losing TONS of money or making it so far fewer people can afford it. Yeah a $600 console 50% stronger than the PS4 would have been nice, but that's what PC is for.
I totally agree. I would have rather spent $500 on a powerful machine than $450 on a new GPU but Sony and Microsoft made my choice for me. 30fps is just not acceptable.
i paid £379 onlaunch with killzone and fifa 15. i would of happily paid £450 for a beefier console,but at same time im really enjoying ps4 how it is and most of games looks amazing and good enough. bloodborne for example looks amazing. the faster last gen dies the better looking games will become.
Though I agree with you the problem comes that in different countries die ps4 is at different prices. In South africa where I live its about a third of a teachers salary already. The other problem is that all hardware becomes obsolete eventually so if you boost the hardware where do you draw the line. Adding more power might add 2 years but by that time your competitor Msoft or nintendo might have a brand spanking new machine that is better and you know the world loves updated "new" things
I would gladly pay $600 for a PS4 with 1080p @ 60fps. Gladly. Hell I paid $600 for the PS3 just for the Bluray alone and at least that delivered.
i kinda agree with you, however not many people can afford that high price for gaming. i personally dont mind paying more since i will get a good few years out of that product but the majority will complain about the prices. remember people going crazy over the PS3 prices? I also think that MS and Sony got fed up with not making profit from their consoles so this time round they made sure that they wont be making a loss from each console sold from the start.
The console hardware is obsolete. It was old hardware when it released. I'd just like to see that devs would not try to squeeze all that quality out of the hardware. Instead they should try to optimise for performance. 60fps is just so much better and more important for gameplay. They try to come close to the visual quality of the PC and they sacrifice performance for eye candy.
So Jakub confirmed what I've said for two years now, about how the PS4's GPU has nowhere near enough processing power to come even remotely close to saturating the amount of bandwidth provided by GDDR5. The PS4 has roughly the same memory bandwidth as my old nVidia GTX 680, while having only have the flops. And the only way to max out the GTX 680's memory bandwidth would be to run lots of anti-aliasing (MSAA, TXAA, SSAA) and crank the resolution well above 1080p.
That's an excellent point, and it's evidenced fully by their use of non customised mobile apus.
Non customized, huh?
Well, the Xbone's version of jaguar is slightly customised. The only "customisation" really going on here is that they stuck two of those 4 core APUs together.
Yh which is why there is a mobile GPU with the same compute units as the PS4's or a laptop that uses GDDR5 for system ram /s. Both consoles have custom chips. The only customisation on the CPU side of things for XB1 apart from like you mentioned both having 8 cores was for virtualisation and the like - "There had not been a two-cluster Jaguar configuration before Xbox One so there were things that had to be done in order to make that work. We wanted higher coherency between the GPU and the CPU so that was something that needed to be done, that touched a lot of the fabric around the CPU and then looking at how the Jaguar core implemented virtualisation, doing some tweaks there - but nothing fundamental to the ISA or adding instructions or adding instructions like that." - http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...
I never understood comments like this: "But I really wish they made the consoles more expensive with hardware that can run all games at 1080p 60fps as a standard." If they made the consoles more powerful, we'd still be in the same exact situation because they could still use up all the extra power and we'd still have 30fps games. How come people don't understand this? It doesn't matter how fast the machine is, they'd (the devs) still find ways to overload it and then make the decision whether to cap it at 30fps or better visuals or pair it back for 60fps.
GDDR5, such amazing technology from 2007
Well that's what modern GPUs use.
Exactly and until PS4 came out there hadn't been a single APU that used GDDR5. The OLED is tech that dates back to the 1960's yet it's hardly what you would call the most prevalent technology used in modern TVs, yet most people would consider it one of the most advanced technologies for displays.
VRAM and SRAM and DDR4 are the "New" memory types that modern GPU's and CPU's use...
@GUTZ Here's a list to Tomshardware GPU chart. http://www.tomshardware.com... Looks like the top of the line GPUs still use GDDR5 ram. ;)
You mean sdram right guts, vram is just short for video memory. DDR4 is used only for system memory and even then it is pointless vs high speed ddr3 because of it's higher price tag and minimal performance gain for general use. Such potential in oled tvs, if only they could gets the issues ironed out.
GDDR5 is amazing enough to run Bloodborne and the Order 1886, so its fine for me.
No not really!
Yeah , that's why every PC has it as part of its architecture as does the Xbox one...oops!!
Actually most graphics cards use GDDR5 because it's specifically designed for graphics related tasks, such as GAMING.
Current GPUs use GDDR5. APUs using GDDR5 are unique. But I'm sure you knew that already..
The first video card to use GDDR5 came out in 2008 and every high end video card on the market uses GDDR5 including the $1000 Geforce GTX Titan X. There are no HBM video cards yet.
It already is obsolete... If it wasn't, every single game would be 1080p 60fps at minimum with the atrocious graphics settings they use currently.
It's not obsolete at all, obsolete implies it's not used at all, PS4 is the most popular games console, it's also the most advanced one too date. It's about as far from being obsolete as you can get!
I guess my dreamcast is not obsolete at all. Love that SEGA DC.
Mrsec. I don't believe the Ps4 is really a advanced as you think. Everything's basically of the shelf. But yes it does have gddr5. But the pc used to make is games probably run ddr3. So that really doesn't feel advanced now. PS3 with the Cell I would think was more advanced. Only comes down to utilizing it.
Maybe devs should be focusing on making great games first anyway. More titles like Bloodborne and less titles like Crysis 3 please.
@Areswarlord: Not according to the definition of the word. ;) @Macxb1: As far as consoles go it's the most advanced system, making a comparison with PC is a red herring, not really applicable when I said "console". Cell is old tech, from 2005/6, the CPU tech in PS4 is more advanced, same goes for the GPU and memory in use in the platform. Efficiency of design, raw performance, PS4 is much more capable in both regards. @HighResHero: The platform's a tool, a means to an end for gaming. Sony always brings the variety and quality, every generation, so you shouldn't have any worries in that regard. What 1st party and partners have in the works should be pretty amazing. Hopefully we'll see more of that shown at E3 and later conferences this year. ;)
"If it wasn't, every single game would be 1080p 60fps" nope. That is a setting that is game dependent, not system. A developer made that call. It has nothing to do with "can't" it has to do with WON'T!!! That is like saying on a GPU every single game can run 1080p 60fps, that makes no damn sense if you don't factor at what quality settings, what engine etc. That isn't a set number bud, that varies greatly depending on game, engine, setting etc. Developers don't want low quality as a trade off, thus make the choice to not force it just or numbers.
Isn't the current PC GPU budget card that is selling the most right now in the same class as the PS4 and X1...or actually in a lower class than the current consoles? Obsolete in computing means that it is no longer relevant to development, and I dunno about you, but it seems kind of dumb for a developer to not support the most common card being used at time the game will be released. I hate to say it, but those budget cards are the ones that pop up most in OEM builds, and are the ones typically used for systems with integrated graphics, and they far outnumber the hardcore gaming cards by a very far margin, making them anything but obsolete. It'll be another 5-6 years before you won't see them on the shelf or in OEM builds anymore, and even then they'll still exist for another few years after that meaning some kind of support. Heck, my relatively cheap at the time PC GPU is now almost 5 years old, and it's still over the minimum to play any game being released today outside a few games which are extremely demanding. May not look as good, but it's still supported.