Approvals 10/10 ▼
jeb69 (1) - 4176d ago Cancel
hennessey86 (1) - 4176d ago Cancel
piroh (1) - 4176d ago Cancel
iamnsuperman (2) - 4176d ago Cancel
dedicatedtogamers (2) - 4176d ago Cancel
antbolton89 (1) - 4176d ago Cancel
ninavoljic (2) - 4176d ago Cancel
340°

Does the PlayStation 4 Need 4K Resolution?

Push Square: "As expected, Sony’s CES press conference focused heavily on 4K resolution. Like 3D before it, the manufacturer spent the majority of its showcase demonstrating a new line of Bravia televisions that will attempt to drive the standardisation of the burgeoning format. The company also touched upon re-mastered Blu-rays, video cameras, and more, all emphasising the importance of the technology going forward. But with the impending PlayStation 4 rumoured to support the new fangled feature, do we really need it?"

Read Full Story >>
pushsquare.com
Create Report !X

Add Report

Reports

Add/remove tag
remove ps3 tag
cl19834176d ago WhoDisagree(0)Agree(1)
+ Updates (1)- Updates (1)

Updates

Changed from Pending to Approved
Community4176d ago
iamnsuperman4176d ago

No because this resolution needs a 60 inch or bigger TV for humans to really notice any significant difference over 1080p which is too big for the average consumer. This with the massive price of these TVs means no consumer will have one and so means putting it in the PS3 is a bit pointless.

4K is great for movie theatres with the big screen but for the home/consumers it isn't worth it because the differences on smaller screen is hard to notice

Army_of_Darkness4176d ago (Edited 4176d ago )

Just give me 1080p at a solid 60fps in normal mode or 3D and I will be happy.

Anon19744176d ago

Agreed. I don't see any use for it, but at the same time those lucky enough to own 4k tv's, it would be nice to have something that supported it.

Mind you, maybe it couldn't hurt to future proof. If it comes out in 2014 and is expected to last 10 years again, who know's what TV's will be like by 2020?

chun-li4176d ago (Edited 4176d ago )

PlayStation 4 needs as much cutting edge tech as it can get but it just needs to balance affordability and be around 600 quid or so for a lot of consumers. I don't care how much the ps4 is just as long as its powerful with cutting edge tech to last for years like the ps2. I understand some people like good things for peanuts but either save or get a job.if youcan't afford a ps4 on release then wait or buy something else its a free world

Most people that would rail against 4k are people who know they won't be able to afford 4k tvs so they'll rather not be tempted by something they can't readily buy when it hits mass consumer availability pricing.

If ps4 could do 8k and toast my bread I wouldn't mind just as long as I can buy it and it gets a lot of software support and be cutting edge enough to last years down the road

Ps4 will support 4k resolution games and movies and judging by sonys ces 2013 press conference they'll be at the forefront of the 4k revolution resolution with the PlayStation nation.

I remember when people said hd was unnecessary but look where we are now. With sony being at the forefront of pushing 4k tech with upscaling blue rays to 4k, 4k native content, a 4k streaming service coming this year, 15000 blue rays being updated to 4k this year, releasing 55 and 65 inch 4k tvs to cost 4-7 thousand this year then ps4 is coming this year its only natural for them to make games in 4k resolution. the price of 4k tvs will go down because of a lot of competition so just like hd tvs which once cost 20k and up the price will be going down as there are more competition. Their are 4k monitors at 32 in for 4thousand at the moment and by next year 4k tvs will be quite affordable.

It would be way less of an incentive to own a ps4 if it'll never have games that could support blue rays. I know some angered sorts who have no love for Sony would be quick to talk about how they can't have an expensive system or can't pack too much tech in the ps4 but they are mostly fearful of Sony making tech far above whatever console they love. Sony have been taking a loss on tv sales and other things but it doesnt mean they'll make shoddy tech. They'll just try to reassess but continue to push cutting edge tech. The name Sony is synonymous with cutting edge so if they stop that they wouldn't be Sony

shoddy4176d ago

But the nextgen start when Sony say so.

Diver4176d ago

yes it needs it. those saying no are the same ones that said the 360 didn't need HDMI or a decent size hdd or wifi an the ps3 didn't need bluray. sorry but to be future proof for a 10 year console you need it.

the next PlayStation an Xbox won't launch until next year an by then 4k TVs will be down inprice by quite a bit. an screens will keep growing. look at the ces trend.

4176d ago
morganfell4175d ago

Welcome to 2005. These same arguments were made against the need for HD, HDMI, and expanded disc space. And everyone of those argument, just like those against 4K, are invalid. Sony has screwed up some things, this much is true. But they have also been right about the de facto standard every single generation - CD, DVD, Bluray. Now 4K and they are right again.

clrlite4175d ago

I agree. I wouldn't mind it being able to output 4k resolution, but pushing 4K games would be a bad decision at this point. Being able to play top notch 1080P/3D games would already cost a lot right now. Not to mention the fact that cheaper game development costs lead to more unique, creative, and fun gaming experiences.

pixelsword4175d ago

@ iamnsuperman:

"resolution needs a 60 inch or bigger TV for humans to really notice any significant difference over 1080p"

That sounds logical, but a lot of people who primarily game on PCs say that they get resolutions above 1080p and notice a difference, why wouldn't this?

Would increasing the framerate on a small 4k tv be visually distinct (less blurriness, etc.)?

blackbeld4175d ago

Well Said Chun-Li.

I Cant say it better. Sony should make it for the long run like they always do.

4175d ago
+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 4175d ago
dedicatedtogamers4176d ago

I don't think PS4 needs it, and here are several reasons:

- A lot of games nowadays aren't even native 720p, let alone 1080p. Additionally, a lot of games nowadays already struggle to maintain 30 frames per second, let alone 60. Let's get that taken care of first, please.

- Sony, as a company, has been losing a TON of money. Kaz Hirai recently said that "Sony as a company needs to be more focused". Pushing 4k resolution and 4k TV sets and 4k gaming with the PS4 seems like a step backwards. Blu Ray and 1080p resolution with 60 fps will be fine for next gen consoles

- HD TVs have not been on the market for much more than a decade, and HD TVs have been "standard" for not even half that time. The majority of people aren't interested in upgrading TVs AGAIN.

cl19834176d ago

Also most people updated for digital not hd.

LackTrue4K4176d ago

That's what I'm saying. If it can push it why not have it. It's like a car with lots of hp and torque,

"it's always nice to have extra then to come up short"

pixelsword4175d ago

IF the PS4 comes with a 60-inch 4K TV and be at or under $600, I'd get it.

RedDevils4175d ago

It not gonna hurt if Sony allow the PS4 to integrate the 4k support, better than making the same mistake that Microsoft doing when they didn't included the HDMI, I say future proof FTW!

Bordel_19004175d ago (Edited 4175d ago )

@dedicatedtogamers

Well said.

Sony should focus on delivering good gaming experiences. They should not repeat all the stupid hype that surrounded the PS3 before launch. Dual 1080p 120fps games, hyping meaningless specifications like the Cell being 2 times faster than the Xbox 360 processor, showing pre-rendered graphics claiming it to be all done by the Cell processor, RSX giving movie quality graphics etc. etc.. all this hype and bs that was never delivered has left a bad taste in my mouth.

PS3 and X360 are about on par gaming wise, with their own strengths and weaknesses.

This time around Sony should cut the bullshit.

Give me the Sony exclusive games and shut up about how much better than the competitor you think you are, specially when you are not. Something that this generation should have taught them.

I'm all for 4K support for movies even though today I don't think it's necessary.

Hyping 4K gaming on PS4 would be meaningless. Keep it real with beautifully rendered 720p/60fps and 1080p/30fps/60fps.

GribbleGrunger4175d ago (Edited 4175d ago )

I absolutely agree with you but one of the things that will guarantee that getting sorted out is if games could run in 4k at 30fps. Pushing for that high spot would benefit developers who want to make 1080p at 60fps games, rather like 3D has helped 1st party devs to maximise code.

As far as what the eye can 'really see', I have one small story to relate: I was sat at a friends house playing on his brothers PC. I was having a fun time when in he walked looking very happy. He asked me if I liked the game and I said yes. He then explained to me what resolution it was in. I said to him that there wasn't that much difference between 600 by 800 and the ridiculously high resolution he had the game running in. Instantly he sprang to the screen, his podgy little finger prodding the detail. 'Look at that detail', he proclaimed, 'Can't you see how much better it looks?' He went on and on and on, pointing to this and that. He made me feel really stupid so I just mutely walked away from the Monitor and sat elsewhere. And the moral of the story? I'd lowered the res to 600 by 800 just before he walked in to see if there was a difference.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 4175d ago
tdogchristy904176d ago

Does this bigger screen theory also translate to the oled tech. I guess I'm just curious which is more future proof and likely as the next great tv. Most TVs sales are the 32s, so 4k would be out. So oled would be the new standard?

cervantes994176d ago (Edited 4176d ago )

OLED is just a better screen technology that gives brighter, more vibrant colors and supreme black levels. Also very energy efficient and allows very thin screens - like 3mm thick.

Both OLED and 4K are similarly priced $10,000+ for a 55 inch screen. OLED will show visible improvements at smaller screen sizes though.

4K is more future proof though.

piroh4176d ago (Edited 4176d ago )

it´s kinda pointless, but as i know Sony they will include 4k support to PS4. as i know people we will be grateful for this in the upcoming years, look at The Cell and Blu-ray

sadly the only developers supporting 4k will be Sony´s first party studios

get2sammyb4176d ago

Some digital games with "simpler" graphics might opt to support it, but, yes, I generally agree.

piroh4176d ago

plus all PS3, PS2 and PS1 games throughout Gaikai

pandaboy4176d ago (Edited 4176d ago )

wait what, the cell? that is dated and dead technology... nobody is thankful for that...

piroh4176d ago

@pandaboy
now i see why you have only one bubble

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 4176d ago
jujubee884176d ago

What? That sounds like a bogus stat you just made up. No offense (this is no attack on you personally), but if you are going to make that kind of claim, you better back it up with some scientific fact(s).

iamnsuperman4176d ago (Edited 4176d ago )

I can't find the original thing posted by the BBC which gave me this information but this source might help

"Abbott expects to see 4K used extensively in cinemas long before it makes its way to the consumer space, if it ever does on a large scale. He says it makes more sense in the cinema environment, particularly because of the larger screens and the distance viewers sit from them."

"Kotsaftis says manufacturers will probably begin shipping and promoting larger TVs. “In coming years, 50-inch or 55-inch screens will have become the sort of standard that 40-inch TVs are now. To exploit 4K, you need a larger form factor. You’re just not going to notice enough of a difference on smaller screens."

http://www.techcentral.co.z...

"But most us don’t get all that close to big screen TVs. The 4K sets being shown at CES are big. Samsung has an 85 inch set, Sony is already selling an 84 inch model. About the smallest set you’ll find is 55 inches but even with that size screen, people tend to sit a bit from the screen. I have a 55 inch 1080p set perched several feet in front of my living room couch so I rarely get close enough to my TV to notice any gaps between pixels."
http://www.forbes.com/sites...

"Another big factor, and why 4K and 8K sets may have a hard time gaining traction in the home space, is viewing distance. You'll notice in a lot of press images for 4K and 8K sets, that the viewer is standing right in front of the screen. You really need to be that close to notice the extra pixel density. For most consumers that is just not a feasible viewing distance for the living room.
Some 4K booths had ropes in front of them, not allowing you to get close, and for those the difference between 4K and standard HD was barely noticeable. That's because at a typical viewing distance our standard 1080p HD set is very near Retina display quality, "Retina display" being a term coined by Apple to define a resolution where the human eye cannot resolve individual pixels at a typical viewing distance."
http://www.apartmenttherapy...

from a consumer point of view we really do not see a big enough difference to warrant a buy a 4K tv unless the screen is massive

jujubee884176d ago (Edited 4176d ago )

"The 4K sets being shown at CES are big. Samsung has an 85 inch set, Sony is already selling an 84 inch model. About the smallest set you’ll find is 55 inches"

The smallest 4k display is NOT 56 inches, it is 30 inches.

http://www.theverge.com/201...

"Another big factor, and why 4K and 8K sets may have a hard time gaining traction in the home space, is viewing distance. You'll notice in a lot of press images for 4K and 8K sets, that the viewer is standing right in front of the screen. You really need to be that close to notice the extra pixel density. For most consumers that is just not a feasible viewing distance for the living room. "

To be fair, that link did not take into consideration stuff like motion blur where pixels can look like a blur and details decrease. When shooting and getting native 4k, every single pixel location (on a denser panel) is crisp which translates into the entire array of a 4K panel. But, that's just in theory (I don't know if the processors in these 4K TV's can get a better "hz" refresh rate). And, yes, I would need to compare my 1080p Bravia vs a new 4K Bravia in both the living room and in a smaller room of the house.

I am not buying into any new technology that just comes out, but I can see the difference a 4k display can make. If something seems better replicated on a 4K vs a 1080p display in my room (not only the living room) than that would be awesome.

joab7774176d ago (Edited 4176d ago )

What? When ps3 launched, they made it capable of 3d with a blue ray player because they were betting on the future. Not many ppl were spending thousands at the time for 3d tv's. And 4k tv's will come down in price. And I just got my first 55" tv. If it's really good tech and the price is right, ppl will buy it. Why not have the capability. It also helps push the tech. The real question is whether it's worth increasing the price of the console or taking a loss to get the tech out there. Yes, they have great studios, but it's nice to have new tech to separate yourself from the Xbox, steambox, PC gaming etc. And it helps leverage the future. If it doesn't sell well at launch, u have a chance that many will buy it as a 4k player later on.

iamnsuperman4176d ago (Edited 4176d ago )

"Not many ppl were spending thousands at the time for 3d tv's"

3D tvs really are not selling because they cost a lot (and issues with glasses). 3D was that fad and now 4K is and adding it into a gaming device (like 3D isn't going to make people by into 4K

joab7774176d ago

First off, 3d tv's are not expensive anymore. I will give you that it's a fad- somewhat and much more for gaming. My family likes the movies. 4k isn't anymore a fad than 1080, it's a natural evolution in tech. Now, u can argue the old fps argument that the natural eye doesn't need 60 fps etc, but it's headed that way. I can't imagine 4k will b all that bad. If u have had a 40" 1080 tv and a 55", there is a loss in quality. If u can buy a 60" 4k tv in 4 yrs for $1200-1500, that's your market and it will sell. And if it's it tech, why not have it in a ps4? Now, as I mentioned, is it worth the production costs or taking a loss right now to possibly leverage the future. That's a different argument. I am not an expert but with their woes and increased competition, I say go for it. The only other route is a kick ads machine for cheap because the new Xbox and steamboat, along with PC evolution, Sony is gonna have a he'll of a time next gen and it saddens me.

NeoBasch4176d ago (Edited 4176d ago )

@ iamnsuperman

uh... 3D TVs are actually doing pretty well. Most cost between $800 to $1500. I wouldn't call that expensive, and they're not dinky TV's either. Those ones I was referring to were anywhere from 40" to 55". That's pretty big. Most people won't even buy above those sizes anyways.

Besides, most retailers are switching their stocks out. They're getting rid of the regular LCD displays for Smart 3D LED or Plasma TVs. That's just the way things are, and I don't expect them to change.

Let me see, I'll give you some stats. If I remember right, the last couple high-profile 3D Blu-Ray releases were adopted at 23% (The Avengers), 25% (Prometheus), 37% (Titanic), and 48% (Finding Nemo). Now this is the percentage of total units sold on opening week. Most of these, increased their percentages in following weeks. For example, Prometheus was at 46% a month later.

That goes to show you that anywhere from a quarter to half of consumers are purchasing new media on a 3D format when available. Therefore, 3D is not a gimmick and actually holds quite a large share in movie sales. Oh, and just in case you're still stuck in the dark ages, Blu-Ray as a whole has a 75% share on new media on average week in and week out. I'll let that sink in for you.

3D isn't going anywhere. In fact, it'll likely increase its shares when The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is released, being that The Hobbit is one of the first movies to make use of native 48 FPS, which will translate into a more smooth and respectable 3D image (as I'm sure many movie-goers who watch on digital projectors can attest).

Speaking of which, The Hobbit series of films is being filmed from a 5K source, which I'm sure they've mastered to 4K for the future. If Sony plays their cards right, I'm sure this will be a big success for them if they make the 2160P master available (each movie takes up no more than 128 GB of space--mind you this is just for the video).

So yeah, I definitely see 4K as the future. Followed by 8K, which will complete the Ultra High-Definition phase. ;)

metroid324175d ago

PS4 is said to be around the same power as WiiU ? all 3 consoles will support 1080p Native at 60fps as that's almost twice the resolution the current 360/PS3 run at Natively.

WiiU will show off Amazing 1st and 3rd party games at E3 2013 that show off their new Game Engines from Retro studio's and that Starwars 1313 demo will look bland in comparison.

ElectricKaibutsu4175d ago

Metroid32... this isn't about the Wii U, man. I like my Wii U too but there's a time and a place.

I would be shocked if the PS4 couldn't play 4k blu-ray movies. I would also be shocked if it COULD play 4k games. That tech is just not cheap enough for a console yet, whether you want to believe it or not.

The people that are getting the agrees here are saying that price doesn't matter, they want the PS4 to be the most powerful console with all the bells and whistles. I can respect wanting that, but that would sure be bad for Sony's bottom line. The Xbox gained a ton of ground this generation for two main reasons: they were first to market; they were $200 cheaper. If they didn't push that cell processor, Sony would have released sooner and a lot cheaper and just utterly destroyed the 360. The 360 wouldn't have had a chance. Why would anyone buy a 360 when the successor to the PS2 is sitting right next to it for the same price?

My point is Sony is going to try to keep the price low which means: 4k movies, yes! 4k games, no.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 4175d ago
NeoBasch4176d ago (Edited 4176d ago )

Well, I wouldn't say 60" (you do know 2160P contains 4x the amount of pixels as 1080P, right?). 50" would be pretty good though. I'm pretty sure you'd be able to tell the difference at 40" though, but 50" would be ideal, especially with the new OLED tech Sony and Panasonic are working together on (56" is the largest 2160P OLED TV they've managed yet).

Regardless, 2160P would most definitely be for videophiles like me. No games would support it as that would require top of the line GPUs and CPUs. Most games have a hard enough time running in 1080P native.

Also, the selection for movies shot natively in 4K is pretty limited. It'll expand rapidly now with the introduction of digital 4K projectors (though 99% of theaters do not have any) and affordable lightweight cameras in the movie industry. Prime examples would be Argo, Skyfall, The Life of Pi, Drive, Melancholia, Hugo, and The Avengers. Matter of fact, I've seen more TV shows use these cameras like Game of Thrones (would be the big one), Fringe (season 4 and onward), Person of Interest, Downton Abbey, Once Upon a Time, Revenge, and Homeland. All of these should have 2160P masters.

I know Sony has been tinkering with their Blu-Ray disc specs so they can keep up with the changing times. I think they managed a 1 TB disc, but I can't say for sure. Even so, they'll need to update the profile. So I'm guessing more firmware related to this. From Sony's eyes, it's better that than losing out to HVD (Holographic Versatile Disc) for the coming generation (Ultra High-Definition: 2160P and 4320P).

In summary, it would be a nice feature to add for the upcoming release of 2160P movies (though I'm not exactly sure how Sony plans to release them, this is the best I could find for now --which is a cheat --downsizing 2160P masters to 1080P for a more rich and accurate color pallete, so not true 2160: https://blog.sony.com/press... ).

aquamala4176d ago

why not? we have tablets now that have higher resolution than 1080p . ipad 3 is 2560 x 1600.

Muffins12234176d ago (Edited 4176d ago )

Not if your upclose,On a computer monitor i can tell if something is 4k or 1080p and its only 27 inches...half what you say the human eye can see...phhh bullshit.

wastedcells4176d ago

Why not. People said PS3 didn't need bluray or Hdmi. Times they change fast. More tech the better I say. F@ck the hatters. Gimme bleeding edge. I work hard to be able to afford it.

kupomogli4175d ago (Edited 4175d ago )

People who are saying 4k doesn't matter are people who really know nothing about resolution types in games.

Let's say the latest Resident Evil was native 1080p. It's 720p but let's just say it's 1080p. If the exact same game was in 4k resolution, there's two ways it could be developed. It could have been developed in 4k the exact same way so less jaggies, better color, etc or, it could be the exact same graphics and you see four times more of the area.

Another way to describe 4k resolution compared to 1080p. Open a picture in an art program that is the exact same size as your PC monitor. Change the zoom to 400%. That right there would be considered 1080p. Now change it back to 100%. That would be 4k. The comparison is that you can see four times as much with 4k than you can with 1080p, so if a developer wanted to create a game that looks just as good as another game but allow you to see a larger area, they could do so.

DeadlyFire4175d ago (Edited 4175d ago )

Need no? Will it have 4k games at 30 fps? Only way I see that being possible is with 4 Tflops in the console. There was an article I remember reading about next generation games being 30fps again. That would guarantee 1080p at 60+ fps. In a way that makes sense but its ultimately up to Sony to let us know so....

They lasted 7-8 years this generation before a new console with PS2 lasting 12 years. How many years are they aiming for with this new generation again?

4K playback and up scaling possible for movies definitely.

B-radical4175d ago

But think 3-5 years from now will 60inch tvs be standard? Blu-ray really hadnt taken of when ps3 was released but sony did a great job thinking ahead and it paid of

shutUpAndTakeMyMoney4175d ago (Edited 4175d ago )

@iamnsuperman
Then why did they show a 55 inch?

Sony is really pushing 4k kinda earlier than I think they would.

If you watch the CES show( http://www.gsmarena.com/wat... they said they are launching a more consumer friendly 4k tvs end of 2013 and also they are starting a US only 4k streaming service and all their upcoming movies and recent movies(like spider man) will be available in 4k.
Also their new blu rays will upscale movies to near 4k resolution. All this ha\\announced for 2013.

I would buy a 4k tv if price is down to <$5000

lfclee4175d ago

Samsung have already released there 4k tv !

Gamer19824175d ago (Edited 4175d ago )

4K will be supported but games will hardly use it like now no game uses 1080p. The reason is hardware like now. Unless it comes out with stupid hardware making the console cost over $700 its gonna be underpowered for 4k gaming. It might work fine for 4k TV and movies however there will be no movies and tv broadcasts for about 5 years so its completely pointless right now. You cannot even fit a 4k movie on a 25gb bluray. Plus movies and tv shows arent recorded in anything above 1080p right now. So lack of content even if the tv could show it.

Toolster4175d ago

"No because this resolution needs a 60 inch or bigger TV for humans to really notice any significant difference over 1080p which is too big for the average consumer"

If that's true then why did Sony and Panasonic show there 4k sets only being 56" in size?

lfclee4175d ago (Edited 4175d ago )

Yes I think Samsung and l.g have released there's haven't they already .

Crazyglues4175d ago (Edited 4175d ago )

I don't know how this is even a question? for one PS4 is a system that is designed to last 10 years by definition of how Sony makes their systems with a 10 year cycle..

PS2 - 10 year cycle
PS3 - 10 year cycle
PS4 - What were you thinking 2 yesrs.. LoL

No it's a 10 year, so if you just think about that, it means you really have to think about the future for your system to last.

So in a year or two 4k will be what all HDTV's will be about as they become more affordable and consumers see them in person and see the value in 4K content.

This then becomes the standard for how you want all your movies - you can watch youtube 4k videos right now - http://bit.ly/HhX1fM - watch that video in 720p it looks amazing..

So if the system is going to be future proof then it needs 4k

When people say oh it doesn't need to do games bigger then 1080p .... LOL

I want to say you do know PC's have been doing higher res then 1080p for a long, long time.

And while right now thinking about a game running in 2k might seem crazy, 4 years from now that could be the new standard, especially if you have a 4k HDTV...

.____........___...____
.____||......||.......____||
||.........___||.......____||

hakis864175d ago

Yes it needs 4k - because all major TV makers are now pushing 4K, and TV's with 4K will get affordable soon. And there is a HUGE improvement in picture quality.

I sure as hell want 4K, at least video (not expecting to see 4K games).

GribbleGrunger4175d ago (Edited 4175d ago )

No, it doesn't 'need' it but it's likely to have it in one form or another. Sony have TVs to sell and many other companies rely on Sony to broaden the market. Sony did it with Blu-ray and now they're doing it with 3D. If we are to get what we want then Sony needs to get what they want. As someone else pointed out, I would be happy with 1080p at 60fps (providing nothing at all gets compromised such as lighting or AI)

We may just see the occasional PSN titles in 4k but that is likely to be all.

evilunklebud4175d ago

Maybe.... it appears 3d, in its current iteration, is failing to attach..... got to get people excited about something.....

+ Show (18) more repliesLast reply 4175d ago
chukamachine4176d ago

I have 4k eyes, so I can't wait.

Seriously though.

1080p 60fps with some aa would do for UNCHARTED4,KILLZONE4,BF4,RESIS TANCE4,MOTORSTORM4.

PS4.

Question_Mark4176d ago

You have four thousand eyes? Where do you put them?

ElementX4176d ago (Edited 4176d ago )

LOL the franchises. Is that all people want? More of the same?

FlyingFoxy4176d ago (Edited 4176d ago )

PC's sweet spot with a mid-high end video card is 1920x1080 for games to run at a consistent high framerate.

Go higher and you need a dual card, this introduces microstuttering. Until microstuttering is ccompletely eliminated i don't see a point in higher res for games.

For films yes, for games definitely not unless video cards can magically become over 100% faster on next release, and we all know each new card is usually between 10-20% faster than the last. So that aint gonna happen. But if you want a constant 60FPS you need to run full HD not higher, PC gamers should be fine because John Carmack even said next gen consoles will only run Doom 4 at 30FPS, so even the new consoles won't be capable of smooth framerates.

b_one4176d ago

if games will be made for 4k resolutions just imagine how maxed out specs will be to support such res.

Tzuno4176d ago (Edited 4176d ago )

They need 4k(more like a "brand" name) as a excuse for next gen.

Show all comments (121)
200°

Sony shares big new PS Plus stat, but not the one we want to see

PlayStation Plus has improved the split of PS4 and PS5 players on its priciest tiers, but Sony continues to hide total subscriber numbers.

Read Full Story >>
theloadout.com
Create Report !X

Add Report

Reports

+ Updates (1)- Updates (1)

Updates

Changed from Pending to Approved
Community16d ago
mandf15d ago

lol acting like it’s equivalent to ms numbers

Mr Logic15d ago

Uh...They're definitely not equivalent.

"Microsoft’s Xbox Game Pass service now has 34 million subscribers."

"the total number of PS Plus subscribers across all tiers was 47.4 million"

darthv7215d ago (Edited 15d ago )

That PSN number seems like it should be much higher... especially when you consider that PS4 alone has a sell through of over 117m. To not even be at least half that is rather interesting.

To the XB side, having 34m to an install base of roughly 50m (XBO sell through) or even 85m (360 sell through) is a greater percentage of unit to member ratio than PSN.

bloop15d ago

That's not the "gotcha" you think it is Darth.

darthv7215d ago

^^it's not supposed to be bloop.... it's just an interesting observation.

Einhander197215d ago

darthv72

"That PSN number seems like it should be much higher... especially when you consider that PS4 alone has a sell through of over 117m. To not even be at least half that is rather interesting.

To the XB side, having 34m to an install base of roughly 50m (XBO sell through) or even 85m (360 sell through) is a greater percentage of unit to member ratio than PSN."

Have you ever heard of a PC before? I hear they are pretty popular.

fr0sty15d ago

MS started lumping gold subscribers in with those GP numbers... keep in mind.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 15d ago
shinoff218315d ago (Edited 15d ago )

What. Definitely more os plus subscribers but that makes sense due to actual console sales

Darth the difference between the bases are huge your right but you gotta think. Ps players buy more games, where as the Xbox base relies on gamepass for their gaming. So it makes perfect sense

darthv7215d ago (Edited 15d ago )

What makes perfect sense though? You say PS players buy more games... so then logically there should be more PS+ subscribers given the increased number of online multiplayer games in the PS4 generation alone. The PS4 was the first time that + was required for online play much like Gold was for 360 users.

Keep in mind we are talking subscribers, not simply XB/PS users. I assume you meant to say offline single player games, which is most likely true as well. That gen also saw a significant increase in games with an online component comparted to the previous gen.

victorMaje15d ago

I for one will be going back to essential at the next renewal. When I feel a game is good & right up my alley, I’ll check trusted reviews & just buy it.

jznrpg15d ago (Edited 15d ago )

I have the top tier until 2028 as they gave me a massive discount for all the years I had left but I’ll most likely go to essential as well. I buy my games but my kids do use the service occasionally. They do prefer to own their games as well since any game can leave the rental service at some point and they don’t like that idea. They mostly use it to demo games then ask me to buy games if they really like it.

RedDevils15d ago

For me, I will cancel it all together but unfortunately I still have it till 2030 lol

meganick15d ago

I would like to see Sony add a fourth tier of PS Plus for people who just want to be able to play games online without any of the perks like monthly games, store discounts, or anything like that, and it should cost $20 annually, $30 maximum. There’s no way I’m paying $80 just to play games online. Even the original $60 fee was too much, and I would often wait for sales to re-up my subscription.

P_Bomb15d ago (Edited 15d ago )

Essential is too expensive, I agree. We’ve got one Essential and one Premium sub. Dropping the Premium when it expires.

gamerz15d ago

Just let my subscription lapse for the first time since 2010. Will sub again every now and then for a month or so to access my old ps+ games but for me it's the end of an era.

DivineHand12515d ago

Let those numbers continue to drop because it is now too expensive. $80 per year just to play online. I noticed they didn't offer any discounts on the subscription or controllers during this year's days of play for the first time in many years and they will feel it when people choose not to renew.

My subscription will lapse next month and it will stay that way until further notice.

KevtheDuff15d ago

There were savings on subs and controllers here in the UK? I bought a controller yesterday in the sale..
It would be weird if those deals were not in other territories too?

300°

Sony Says The PS5 Is Its “Most Profitable Generation To-Date"

During Sony’s recent business segment meeting and investor presentation regarding its game and network services, the PlayStation company revealed that PlayStation 5 is the company’s “most profitable generation to-date.”

It’s the top slide of the presentation, showing that in its first four years, the PS5 generation has already hit $106 billion in sales, having almost caught up to the PS4’s total $107 billion generated.

Operating income for the PS5 generation has also already surpassed that of the PS4, having now reached $10 billion.

Create Report !X

Add Report

Reports

+ Updates (3)- Updates (3)

Updates

Changed from Pending to Approved
Community17d ago
Changed: title
Changed: credit url
ApocalypseShadow17d ago (Edited 17d ago )

I wouldn't doubt it. They released a high quality system. A lot of high quality games from themselves and their support of 3rd party developers and indies. They released many high quality remakes and remasters. They released a high quality GaaS game going against the naysayers thinking Sony would abandon single player games. And they most likely are profiting a lot more than PS1, PS2 PS4 and the loss leading PS3 that drained all their profits.

Now, I'll wait to see what's cooking tomorrow. But can you use some of those profits to better support your high quality VR headset? Because, by supporting it, you can sell more games and more systems and make more profits?

jznrpg17d ago (Edited 17d ago )

I want RPGs for PSVR2! Good ones of course

shinoff218317d ago

If it had some rpgs I would buy right fking now. It looks dope and alot of fun, but it's biggest game resident evil 4(maybe) I've got no interest in. I'm not a fan of racing games, even with that metro game coming i was never much into that series. Rpgs would be fantastic.

MrNinosan17d ago

Lemme know if ya wanna play some Zenith 🙌
Bought it at release, but haven't played it more than 1-2 hours but for sure on my "todo list".

Cacabunga17d ago

Normal when they released mostly cross gen games so far. That’s a lot of money saved..
We haven’t seen what PS5 can do yet. 4years in and PS4 games still look great to me. The gen leap isn’t quite there yet.

--Onilink--17d ago

The interesting metric for me is the $106billion in operating income/profit (not sales as mentioned in the article) reaching the same as the PS4 did with only half the consoles sold.

In particular because they all are supposed to be making the most per hardware sold after a few years when manufacturing costs are down.

So even putting inflation aside(and the higher console price), it is interesting that they could reach PS4 $ with just half the consoles sold.

Maybe there is more to the metric thats whats seen at face value, but they have clearly been making a lot more money than before on the software side (with also less games released I suppose, given its only been half the generation so far)

VersusDMC17d ago

The bulk of the money has to be coming from the 30% cut on all games and microtransactions. Especially on all the free to play juggernauts like genshin, apex, fortnight, etc.

--Onilink--17d ago (Edited 17d ago )

@Versus

They are definitely making a lot on that for sure (which the $70 price increase factors into as well), but its not like many of those games werent around for the PS4 too.

They might be counting the gen as a whole and not just PS5 itself (so extra profit from PC sales, whatever that may be)

PS+ price increase and different tiers probably amount to part of that too.

But in general, its still quite a surprising metric. Half the time, half the consoles sold, less first party games released so far and still already making more of a profit than last gen is quite something, and as mentioned, there is probably more to it that we dont know, after all, since we are talking about operating income, all the expenses they have also factor into it, so it is also possible that they have found ways to significantly reduce that + all the means of increased revenue that appear to be factoring into the equation

All in all, just an interesting situation from a business perspective

porkChop17d ago

It's for the whole generation, so it would likely be including PC. They also make much more profit on digital sales vs retail, and digital is far more prominent these days. The generation also started at the height of COVID when everyone was home, spending far more money on gaming/hobbies. It makes a lot of sense for this gen to be more profitable.

Abnor_Mal17d ago

This will surely shut up all the new trolling accounts trying to spread lies and non facts in other articles comment sections before this article is posted.

Hofstaderman17d ago (Edited 17d ago )

Obscurely, those trolls or troll will not show in these articles as the truth is contradictory to his or their orchard-sized daily dose of copium and hopium.

Tacoboto17d ago

Or... They're intentionally trolling you guys specifically. Because they know it upsets you so easily.

Name-dropping Orchard, after this many months? How long has it been and he's still in your thoughts?

Elda17d ago (Edited 17d ago )

I'm quite sure the individual is reading these positive comments downvoting & seething at the same time. Edit: It just downvoted my comment...lol!!

Hofstaderman17d ago

No I'm entertained by this individual. I love unhinged people, they are so interesting lol.

repsahj17d ago

Wow! I am super impressed that in just 4 years, ps5 already caught up to the PS4's. Congratulations.

JackBNimble16d ago

That happens when half of your games are cross platform. I'm still waiting to see what the ps5 is capable of, because they sure haven't pushed any limits.

And where are all these ps5 exclusive games?

sagapo17d ago

Not really surprised as Sony barely has any competition at the moment.

Show all comments (47)
150°

Sony CEO says although AI "has been used for creation," it's "not a substitute for human creativity"

"AI is not a substitute for human creativity. We position it as a technology that supports creativity. Creativity resides in people. We will continue to contribute to people's creativity through technology," the CEO said.

Read Full Story >>
gamesradar.com
Create Report !X

Add Report

Reports

+ Updates (1)- Updates (1)

Updates

Changed from Pending to Approved
Community23d ago
1nsomniac23d ago (Edited 23d ago )

...not yet but 100% within the next 10 years!

..Then Sony will use it like the drop of a hat. They're no different to the others.

isarai23d ago (Edited 23d ago )

They used to be 😞 sure it was always a business, and money's always the priority, but they used to have a very strong stance on supporting artists and creativity. "Dont f#@k with the artist" was a phrase they touted a few times back in the ps1-ps3 era, a philosophy carried over from their music branch PlayStation was created from. It's not COMPLETELY gone, but it's barely there compared to what it was back then, i just want them to return to that.

Eonjay23d ago (Edited 23d ago )

I am highly encouraged by their statement about human creativity. "Dont f#@k with the artist" is exactly what they are saying. But at the same time, I don't think people understand that Sony is a corporation. If they don't realize growth, they don't get to exist. When you say 'Sony', you are talking about a bunch of investors. To speak about them any other way is a illogical and incorrect. They haven't changed. They have been a group of investors since they became a public business.

isarai23d ago

Ugh, i really wish people would stop gambling people's livelihoods by turning a project/game into their political soapbox. Im all for statements and having your own opinion, but there's more people working on this than just druckman, ham fisting your political beliefs onto just seems inconsiderate for everyone elses job security when it can result in a failure due to people avoiding it for that reason.

I play games for escape, im so tired of nearly every AAA game blatantly dragging real world issues to shove in my face when I'm trying to take a break from it all. They don't even bother to be subtle about it, quite the opposite, it's blasted and force fed to you and it's just getting exhausting

Einhander197223d ago

People are taking a whole interview and cutting it down to clips that make him look bad and take what he actually was saying out of context. For example he also said things like this AI has "ethical issues we need to address"

-Foxtrot23d ago

@Einhander

Why defend him at this point?

It’s not taking things out of context, he said what he said.

Old ND would never talk about soulless AI taking over so many creative things they are well known for. The whole “ethical issues” is just a good PR spin people who push this crap fall back on to make their statements not seem as bad. So many AI lovers do this.

AI has no place is so many creative based things.

Einhander197223d ago

Well yeah, because everyone else is using it so they need to stay competitive. It's the same as paid online, they didn't want to go that route but their competition was making so much money they needed to add paid online just to keep up.

RaiderNation23d ago (Edited 23d ago )

AI will never replace humans in game development in terms of conceptualizing new games. Humans still need to come up with the ideas and what they want to implement. However much of the day to day menial coding could be AI driven to reduce production time and team size. I could also see AI being used for bug testing/optimization that could lead to better quality games at launch. I'm actually very optimistic about how AI can positively impact game development.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 23d ago
XiNatsuDragnel23d ago

Good statement but hopefully this holds up

NotoriousWhiz23d ago

People that aren't software developers just don't understand the benefits of AI. People who's only exposure to A.I is the Terminator movie and other related sci fi films won't understand the benefits it provides.

It's not about replacing human labor. It's about making human labor easier.

Many years ago, I had laser eye surgery done. It was performed by a robot. The doctor took my measurements and calibrated the machine to make sure it would do what needed be done. And then the robot corrected my vision in 10 seconds.

15 years later and I still have 20/20 vision.

Eonjay23d ago

AI in and of itself is not a 'bad'. Money is bad. Money is evil, and corporations will do whatever they can to get more of it. They will find ways to implement AI to replace as may jobs as possible. This isn't even up for debate. It is the charge of the corporation to maximize returns for the investors. They have no choice. I'm a developer and I know that my job will absolutely be replaced. Therefore, I have decided to become an AI dev. AI has a lot of potential to help us solve problem on a scale most can't even imagine. The issue, as ever is that our monetary system only ever allows us to focus on greed and fiscal growth.

But I am a pragmatist. Perhaps an AI model can be built to help protect us from our most dangerous instincts and habits. And perhaps Congress can pass laws to protect us from people who would use AI to manipulate and control us (spoiler: they wont).

RaiderNation22d ago (Edited 22d ago )

Progress is inevitable. Nobody driving cars today is complaining that the horse and buggy is no longer around. Yes, some jobs will be lost but guess what? With innovation comes new job opportunities. It's how the cycle of the job market works.