Considering the heavy system requirements for Oculus Rift, it certainly seems possible. But where does that leave non-VR titles in the coming years?
if devs delt with 512mb last gen for 7-8 years they can deal with 8gb ram for 7 years lol
I think he talking about Vr both XboxOne &Ps4 is under power now throw in Vr the struggle going to be real.
The PSVR comes with a separate processor and memory box I believe that's suppose to help it with power
Yeah but will it be enough? I still think the lack of power will hurt the VR experience on the PS4. I reckon next-gen, depending on how VR pans out this gen, it would be truly effective.
@Septic After playing it at PlayStation experience last year I thought it work great. I enjoyed London Heist and Kitchen. I didn't get a chance to play Rigs though. I'll also be at the Microsoft Xbox one and Windows 10 event to check out Halolens display and the future of Microsoft since its in California my home. I'm really looking forward to get more details about the technology since I'm so into new tech and gadgets lol.TBH, I'm really looking forward to all technology from Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo as a fan of technology and gamer. I'm also going to Nvidia next event :)
Shadow Knight, correct me if I am wrong, but the extra processor is only there for post processing like reprojection in order to add frames of data that PS4 cannot do natively. Those frames are added in a similar fashion to the interpolation techniques on TV's, so as I understand it the processor will not make the PS4 more powerful. For example, all of my XB1 games run at 120fps with the setting on my TV enabled, but my system is not more powerful because of my TV's processors.
"For example, all of my XB1 games run at 120fps with the setting on my TV enabled, but my system is not more powerful because of my TV's processors. " @TheCommentator I think you need to understand that to setting you are talking about on your TV is not making you Xbox1 run at 120fps, you TV depending on what brand you have is using its motion rate engine to create extra frames between scenes aka Sopera effect, its not making your game run in 120fps. Your games are still running in 30-60fps its actually making your game worst since its adding more processing to the tv increasing your input lag.
@Septic Surely as a first gen VR product for the masses I suspect PSVR will not be perfect. That seems logical. However, judging by other people's first hand accounts of the experience with it, it sounds very promising. But naturally next gen will probably be even better.
External GPU? Yep, wouldn't be surprised if it uses the PS4's Camera port and the camera plugs into the external GPU to be powerful enough for VR. The question is price...
Gamingbolt still interviewing nobodies trying to ignite console wars, what a shame. "Story Quality = WTF" "Like This Website? = Hell No"
@ShadowKnight Not going to be enough, probably for alternative uses but not for gaming. It baffles me how some here actually believe that PSVR is going to be good for games on the PS4. I mean if it was also for PC then yes PSVR is a thing. If anything at this point it's a desperate move by Sony and it's not going to succeed. Currently right now Occulus has a ton more potential with the backing of Facebook funding and further development. @xHeavYx Oh sure, like you haven't done your part. Save us the BS everyone knows your fanboy sentiments.
2pacalypse Now, I do understand. I even said that the system did not get more powerful in my post when I alluded to the fact that there are 120fps worth of data being shown on the TV. The external processor, located in the TV, is interpolating frame data that the system itself is not which is why I called it post processing(that means after the console, btw). To the best of my understanding, the extra processor that is included in PSVR is also a post processor - one that reprojects frame data that the system itself is not processing. Reprojection is a different way of getting extra frame data than interpolation but neither technique makes the source more powerful.
@murk The backing from Facebook is actually one of the better reasons to stay away if you ask me. I don't want virtual ads and microtransactions in my VR. @septic Have to start somewhere right? I've been seeing a lot of naysayers about the PSVR in support of oculus or just not VR at all, but I think Sony has a winner here. People talk about wanting to move forward and new experiences. I think this is a good thing
Holding the assets for a 3D stereoscopic image shouldn't take inherently more room than holding them for display on a flat screen. They use the same assets, just the stereoscopic rendering requires two render frames for the same image. GPU and memory speed(or # of channels) would be more important than the amount of memory. Adding more memory won't make the image render faster, it'll just allow more stuff to be held in memory for quicker access for the renderer. All you might need more memory for is the frame buffer, but that's a relatively small amount of memory compared to the overall sum. For the most part, when it comes to available memory, or any resource given to devs, whatever is given is never enough or optimal. It's just kind of a programming thing...particularly for games.
There's no way possible that the PS4 isn't powerful enough. The PS4 just has the most power ever! In reality though, textures and resolution increase memory use exponentially. If you have seen the demos of the PSVR then you already know the graphics look subpar/last gen and they will have to in order to keep the frame rate high. Some games are even going to run natively at 120 fps so imagine the downgrade in graphic quality for those types of games. This is were devs will have to get creative and use style and artistic flair in order to mask the apparent decrease in graphical fidelity. Some good games may even come from it. It's not impossible, but it certainly won't be on Oculus/Vive level paired up with a machine able to deliver more realistic images and experiences, ie PC. Too many here are stuck in their own deluded world, even going so far as to ask people to leave when their unsubstantiated beliefs are questioned. I applaud the fact you guys will purchase this inferior product to help usher VR into mainstream.
No one needs Vr anyways, this Vr thing is just the next gimmick flop. Vr is the equivalent of Kinect or waggle crap of this generation.
PSVR is without a doubt the low end of VR. This cannot be disputed, IT's not even true VR, If you're using a console controller and sitting in a chair, It's not VR. Look up the word reality fanBOY's.
@Night99 I completely disagree. VR is the end game of video games. The place where games have been striving to get to ever since they were created. The Wii, and Kinect, and Move were all flops for sure. Two of those were just trying to ride on the success of another anyway. At least with Move it enhances games like FPS for those that had it. Either way those had to come out first before things like VR. I don't believe that VR will be the failure some are claiming. Here are countless books and movies out that use it or are based on it. All years before the tech is even out. Were there movies about Wii controllers, Kinect, and Move? Of course not. THOSE were gimmicks. You don't make movies or write books on gimmicks @vegas it doesn't matter if this is "true VR" or not. The point is you have to start somewhere. Rome wasn't built in a day, you know. People should stop being so negative and welcome this. I mean before this generation even started people were whining about wanting new experiences and stuff. Now it's coming, people still complain.
guys understand this. its not about whether playstation will make it or not. to be completely honest sony has to do it right. if they dont then its slow for sony, and we know they been putting alot of resources into it. they can not mess it up. if its getting good reviews which i have seen it does then im pretty sure it will be atleast a working product. another point remember how everyone says the jump to ps2 to ps3 was more enjoyable graphically then the last gen jump. maybe how they are going to wow us graphically to make the jump to ps4 way more attractive is this VR. if thats the strategy sony cant mess it up plain and simple.
Septic "Yeah but will it be enough? I still think the lack of power will hurt the VR experience on the PS4. I reckon next-gen, depending on how VR pans out this gen, it would be truly effective." Oh yes, Realistically , your out numbered by people that have actually tried PSVR and have nothing but positive experiences with it. Please go shill away in your (MS) augmented reality.
It's more than enough as long as they optimize the game.
Time will tell. I hope so. Optimisation is key though, youre right.
Yeah, last gen with sub-720p resolution and almsot all settings below low. I am not a PC mustard race supporter, i am just saying.
Most settings were not below low, that's ridiculous.
In the last gen both the PS3 and XBox360 could do 1080p. I won't deny that many games did come out that were 720p which still part of the high definition standard.
Yep, they will have make due with what the consoles offers or just make games for pc only, which is not going to happen. How did they ever make PS2 games with 32 megs, lol. I kid, but ram seems fine in the consoles, CPU might be an issue but not ram, imo.
you have no idea what goes into a real time graphics pipeline. you should really look into that before making comments like this one. no offense but it makes you sound completely ignorant to the entire process of what goes into building a game.
U4one, if you are referring to me, I think most of us have a pretty good idea of what goes into building games. I think most people are simply saying if they are going to make games for the consoles, they are going to have to make sacrifices, like they always have. It is that simple.
you realize that to make graphics more realistic, it takes more of everything, right? more sophisticated rendering to include things like ambient occlusion, dynamic HDR lighting, subsurface scattering, ray tracing, higher res textures, and on and on, not to mention all the other stuff like more complex animations, more things happening on screen at once, more physics to make things more realistic.... last gen consoles couldn't do tons of that stuff. Sure they made good stuff, but they also made huge sacrifices to the games because they couldn't do completely what they wanted from a power standpoint. now we can do more... but it takes a lot of RAM to help. Rendering in general is VERY RAM HUNGRY -especially when doing real time. Ive said this from the beginning - I love my xb1 and my ps4 both but they aren't super powerful compared to whats out there on the PC end. I mean my work computer (granted its a Mac Pro so not a gaming PC... which for the record I lean away from apple for gaming rigs) has 64 gb of ram, 2 graphics cards each with 3gb of gddr5 vram and 2.2 tflops performance EACH. My point is that while consoles can get down to the metal in terms of graphics, they are mid range PC comparable at best. Thats why PC's will always be superior in the graphics department. What does this mean for devs? Consoles have more constraints which makes it necessary to have tradeoffs. More specs, means less tradeoffs graphically and creatively. Regardless, if we say things like "we did this for 7 years and it was fine" we'd never progress. Couple that with everybody crying about graphical downgrades and expecting more, we come to a crossroads. If you want more graphics, you need more machine. a strange time we are in when people cry for 1080p/60 or more but scoff at dev saying higher specs are needed. ignorance is indeed bliss.
RAM simply holds the assets. It doesn't directly affect the quality of the render other than if there isn't enough to hold all the necessary assets to achieve the quality that is desired. For the most part, the amount of memory provided is well above the standard for today's games, even if it's not the full 8GB. While you can get a better image if the GPU is capable by having more memory, if your GPU can't process all those assets in a given render frame, then there's no real point in upping the quality of the assets. About all you'd achieve is being able to hold more assets to allow for larger worlds, but it's going to come to a point where you can only display so much at one time anyways, and there are more efficient ways of handling the memory shuffle without having huge memory loads. While having more memory does allow for things outside the render process, like animations, the amount of memory won't generally have that much of an impact beyond a certain point.
You are absolutely correct. But ain't nobody got time for that. At least around here. "If it doesn't run the best on PS4 then it's inferior!" This begs the question; if this is the case, then is the PS4 holding back technology? (ﾉ°0°)ﾉ~ So now we must spend time "optimizing" for PS4 instead of pushing the limits of better hardware. 4GB just isn't enough anymore and we've already discovered that on PC.
@unspoken ever consider, for consoles right now, optimizing is pushing the limits, making the system and engine as efficient as possible to make full use of the systems hardware. from your comment (not to sound offensive with this) it sounds like you are saying that becuase you cant upgrade or change the interior hardware of the ps4 that there isnt a point to working on it, when we could work on things that push tech. ps4 and x1 are a part of tech in our days, so optimizing would be pushign that tech to its limits. take history for example, games at the start of ps3/360 days didnt look as good as games developed at the end of the console cycle. yes more trade offs are required at that point (no sp for BO3, etc.) my 2 cents
@Unspoken "So now WE[emphasis added] must spend time "optimizing" for PS4 instead of pushing the limits of better hardware." Who's this we? are you a dev? I am, and I know...as would you if you are a dev...that devs always spend time optimizing for whatever console or even PC they build to. If you want better hardware, at an affordable price, consoles probably aren't the place for you to play. For a dev, it's a place where games sell, so WE[as in I and other devs] spend time optimizing games for the user base because it's our job. From my personal experience, all better hardware does is allow for devs to throw stuff together without bothering on the optimization process. THe power mostly goes to waste, because if it runs to standards, it's considered done, and taking advantage is costly and increases production time.
They could, but the rest of the hardware is already outdated. So 5 years max.
With regard to a high end PC the hardware of the PS4 and XB1 are outdated however the majority of PC's that are sold today are not "high-end" many are really equivalent to i3 processors with 4GB of RAM. Want better? No problems but you are going to pay for it and most people can't see the advantage unless they are interested in serious gaming and have the money to pay for it. Want a high end graphics card? You are probably going to pay more than it would have cost you to buy a PS4 or XB1. Not only that but you have to consider if your enclosure's power supply will power it adequately. In addition it is rather pointless getting a really good graphics card if you have a small 1080p monitor. Get high speed memory? No problems how about 16GB of DDR4? Oh wait your old motherboard won't support that you will need a new motherboard and while we are at it you will need the appropriate CPU since older CPU's won't fit. Sure there will be serious gamers who do want the best and don't mind paying for it but the majority of people are quite happy with apps (gaming or otherwise) on lower end PC's, Android or IOS (Apple) devices.
nitus10 - The 360 was a monster for its time. I was hoping for the same kind of leap this time around and was a little disappointed. I would have paid a bit more for a little more power. Especially on the CPU side so we could see developers achieving their 60fps goals.
I completely changed my thought process when I saw the source. This site I downvote every time. I wish it would just go away. It's always trying to create problems where there isn't any or bring up old stuff all the time. It seems to like to fuel the console wars and spread lies too. Is Gamingbolt making a VR headset? I didn't think so As others have said and I agree, developers were using just 512MB all last gen. This 8GB stuff is plenty. Yes we can always use more, but we can also be more efficient in coding too. Otherwise it doesn't matter how much we have, it will never be enough. Developers were wanting memory and now they have it. "The Bolt" should stop making it an issue. Start talking about bad programmers or something. I mean seriously, I'm old enough to see laziness everywhere and smart enough to know that what people say is hard isn't. If I were a company giving someone this much RAM and they gave me some of the stuff that's released, well.....
I agree with what you are saying in terms of memory in the consoles but what you need to remember that's great for what the devs are doing with an out of the box console but vr is an add on that also needs to use part of the ram to support what its doing just like move and Kinect did last gen. For me I still don't think VR will be a big hit when it comes out. I could be wrong but seeing what is said outside the gaming world about VR I don't think it will be as big as its being made out to be. We only need to look at the industry as it is now to see what most people do on a console and the masses is yoy games like FIFA and cod. Something I don't think VR will work well in.
If Naughty Dog and Sony Santa Monica can do it.....
I call BS, Half life 2 required 512mb of ram on the PC when released and yet they got it running on the original Xbox which had 256mb of ram. Its all a case of weather the dev can be bothered to optimize the code.
A PC at the time of HL2's release would be lucky to have even half of that 512MB available for applications. 128MB was usually even a stretch. In any case, the GPU's at the time held the graphics, except for times when windows used a virtual GPU buffer with system RAM, which was often pretty good for it's time, although not sufficient by today's standards.
12 GB would have been perfect for this generation...but, hindsight is 20/20.
Lol, but average mobile CPU are....
It's RAM not CPU.
Who are these weak programmers?
Probably used to programming using high level languages and have absolutely no idea how memory allocation works.
Completely agree, they need a lesson from ICE Team.
I guess you can tell the lazy and untalented developers from the creative and smart ones. The creative and smart ones can adopt to any situation and optimized if necessary. The lazy and untalented ones uses their resources wastefully and never optimized to utilized it's full capabilities.
A few things I have come to know about game developers: They will always say they are using a console to its fullest potential until they start their next project and can do more than before AND they will always be wanting / asking for more power/ram regardless if they really need it.
FOr the more is better mantra, that's pretty true of all developers, game or otherwise.:)
Obviously more RAM is better, so what is optimal, 70GB so you can fit the whole game in RAM?
Imagine that tho lol you could have the whole of gta cities never share an asset again, no copied ppl no copied cars everything individual.
Obviously having more memory is great however this is going to be allot more expensive. When designing a PC which is a bit like hi-tech Lego you have to consider all major parts of the computer which is CPU, Memory, Motherboard, Input/Output devices (includes storage), Display driver (ie. Graphics card) and of course the actual display device or monitor. Yes it is possible to have what could be called a RAM disk which is a virtual disk that is a dedicated part of memory. This would improve storage performance tremendously however it may not improve CPU to memory performance. The bottom line is when designing a console or anything really, the developer has to consider overall cost to overall performance. It is all rather pointless and expensive developing a very powerful product if your potential customers aren't going to buy it.
*** SAVE YOUR CLICK *** What a terrible "article". What a terrible title. This is garbage. The "dev" is a creative director. It is a single person removed from programming and engine work. The title is sensational and nothing more. The content is a guy speculating on stuff that isn't out yet and literally speculating on speculations. Here is a quote from one of the four half-paragraphs quoting the creative director: "'And VR is coming – that’s going to come with hefty requirements. Who knows what will happen in the end? There are rumors that the PS4 VR has a separate box with unknown hardware inside. Maybe they’ve added a little extra hardware to help with the requirements.'" There. I saved you time and made an effort to stop this author/website from getting any clicks for this.
Gamingbolt ALWAYS puts out sensational headlines to go with their poorly written articles that contribute nothing to the topics they're talking about. They're the worst site I've seen for gaming "news"
And look at all this shit those actual programmers are getting for this article? I bet none feel this way or are just grateful to have the huge amount of memory this generation brought compared to previous generations.
Don't you dare comparing DDR3 to GDDR5. The XBox was developed thinking on running several processes at once (Kinect, Tv in and out, the snap app, etc) But the PS4 was build thinking on raw graphical performance, and VR requires just that. Besides, PSVR will come with an external processing unit that will combine with the PS4 to deliver an adequate frame rate. The way I see it, the PS4 will be able to provide a native VR experience, but the XB1 won't
PS4 was built for RAW graphical performance. If it was pushing the boundaries of this generation i might be inclined to agree but its not that much more powerful than its competition. You act like its pushing pc boundaries. You sir have had enough to drink
he didn't say that....
I'm a PC gamer but atm the PS4 has at least two games that look better than anything on PC.
@kraenk12 i love what the ps4 does for gamer but your statement is just crap thats far from true.
I should stop arguing with people that the ps4 is not the end sll be all console
Sony vr will be great or they wouldnt release it.
Considering most PC graphics cards only have 2 to 4 GB of memory, I think 8 GB is more than enough. The CPU power is where the systems may struggle. But, that is why Sony gave access to another CPU core. I wouldn't doubt seeing Sony raise the CPU speed to at least match that of the Xbox in the future, also. I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong on my information, that the CPU cores of the PS4 can be theoretically raised to 2.75 GHz. (See: http://gamingbolt.com/plays... ) Of course, system cooling is the main culprit of why that hasn't been done up to this point. But, since Sony has had zero issues with system reliability, I imagine that they have been playing with this at corporate in lieu of the release of PSVR. They also have 2 redundant GPU cores for backup that, at least one of, could be unlocked. Though, I'm not positive they can be used as separate entities, programmable at developers will. It will be interesting to see the extent of the visuals when PSVR is introduced and has time to mature in the market. I'm sure Sony wouldn't release something that, in lieu of trying to drive the new industry forward, would look archaic compared to a normal game on the same system. And, looking at games like Eve running on the system, it gives me faith that next gen visuals will be possible in the VR space. Maybe minus a few resource heavy effects. The games are what are going to sell the system. If consumers don't think the games match up to their expectations... they will be the first ones to let Sony, and every other manufacturer in the VR race, know. I just hope Sony hasn't jumped the gun, by releasing it just a few years into the current generation... if the processing power isn't there to make real games and not just demos of what can be fully realized 2 or more years in the future, with faster hardware. Only time will tell, but VR is what I've always wanted to experience with games. Feeling like I am really there doing whatever is expected in the game. Whether it be running towards the goal post for a touchdown, or possessing the body of Lara Croft and finding the Ark, while battling enemies trying to keep me from doing so.
The PS4 does not have two redundant GPU cores... It does have two "extra" CU's which APPEAR to be "soft" disabled however I personally don't believe they will/can be enabled but I could be wrong.
They already gave access to one of those cores months ago.