Support NeoGAF

[chemicals]

Yeah at the moment i feel like I'm going for the one (Yes reference). But years down the road i will probably pick up a ps4. I wonder if any gaffers who have PS4's but DO NOT HAVE ps+ can give me some insight.. I'm gonna get an xbone first and keep on paying for Xbox Live, but i want to play Last of Us really bad, and other Playstation brand exclusives, so i will also get a PS4 down the road.

 

[ChipotIe]

How would it not? You said you wanted a modular console, not just a more powerful one. If all you want is a more powerful system that is $900 instead of $400, no problem. If you want the system to be modular, then things get significantly more complicated. Unless you also expect Sony to get in to the business of building their own GPU and CPU lines.

After reading ahead I see what you were getting at. I wasn't expecting any sort of universal slot that allowed non proprietary options and I would imagine Sony would make deals with the necessary hardware manufacturers in the same way docking stations and expansion bays expanded the use of laptops and mobile devices. I just want access to higher performance by any means. Whether it is literally selling a more powerful system or even giving us the option to buy a second console and sticking it on top of the first I just want a way to guarantee 1080p (or higher these days) at 60 fps as well as making room for the high demands of VR. I understand why concessions needed to be made to provide a low cost console that yields a larger possible install base but I would love a premium option as well. People get excited for in-engine custcenes running at 60 FPS for a reason, and if there was an easy way to give the fans and developers the means of doing it at a direct cost to the consumers I don't see how it could be a bad thing.

 

[JordanN]

I don't see what's wrong with PS4's specs. Like, what are the games missing?

PS4 can already push 2-3x the polygons of PS3. Texture sizes are now 2k x 2k instead of 512 x 512. Lighting is a huge step over last gen. We're seeing more physics simulations instead of billboard effects, and the IQ is 2x bigger (1080p vs 720p).

Bumping it to $500 wouldn't have changed much. You would be paying more money for games that would still look the same.

 

[DemonCleaner]

PS4 can already push 2-3x the polygons of PS3. Texture sizes are now 2k x 2k instead of 512 x 512. Lighting is a huge step over last gen. We're seeing more physics simulations instead of billboard effects, and the IQ is 2x bigger (1080p vs 720p).

well moar gpu umph for things like even better lighting simulation would have been big.

sony has made some clever design choices which helps to put some very impressive results on screen even early in ps4s life circle. but the over all lack of raw power (in comparrison to the pc's high end) may make the ps4 run out of steam pretty early. a 3TFlops GPU would sure have been nice (and for 500 $ propably doable from a financial perspective).

 

[SoulPlaya]

Developers aren't taking advantage of a lot of the PS4's power now.

 

[UpUpDownDown]

Nope it's pretty great. I can't get 60fps with newer stuff anymore but a locked 30 with high settings is still no problem. My point still stands. Infamous looks better

You are right. The quality of the assets/shaders alone is like nothing I've seen before.

 

[JordanN]

well moar gpu umpf for things like even better lighting simulation would have been big.

sony has done some clever design choices which helps to put some very impressive results on screen even early in ps4s life circle. but the over all lack of raw power (in comparrison to the pc's high end) may make the ps4 run out of steam pretty early. a 3TFlops GPU would sure have been nice (and for 500 $ propably doable from a financial perspective).

Just about every type of lighting simulation can be done on PS4 level hardware. The ones that can't, would require hardware far more expensive and heat producing than $100.

 

[Sectorseven]

Did all of you in favor of a pricier, more powerful PS4 go out and buy the $600 PS3? The feedback in this thread feels opposite the reaction I remember that getting, even among the hardcore gamers.

 

[travisbickle]

I think consumers got the best "bang for buck" at the current price. Sony made a console to sell at $400 then near the end chucked in the extra RAM after being pushed into it by developers, cutting their profits short term.

If it was a $500 console, the extra money would have been split between a mild bump in GPU/CPU + larger power source and probably larger casing to house it. And they probably would have been more hesitant to bump up the RAM at the last minute.

 

[DemonCleaner]

Just about every type of lighting simulation can be done on PS4 level hardware. The ones that can't, would require hardware far more expensive and heat producing than $100.

tales from your arse?

 

[IncandescentPrecept]

Did all of you in favor of a pricier, more powerful PS4 go out and buy the $600 PS3? The feedback in this thread feels opposite the reaction I remember that getting, even among the hardcore gamers.

Exactly.

In addition to that, $500 in the US = way more expensive in other territories.

 

[artist]

I'll post this here, my thoughts (not posted) when Nvidia launched the GM107 earlier this year. Never got around to making this thread so here;

So Nvidia introduced their Maxwell architecture last week, albeit in a smaller form with the emphasis on doubling the performance per watt.

Any ASIC that has a very good perf/W is an ideal candidate for being a console GPU since the console vendors have a much smaller TDP budget compared to PCs. So obviously, this is an theoretical exercise about what if Nvidia had supplied a GPU twice the capability of the GM107.

I took the GM107, doubled it and ran the numbers at 800MHz. So there are obviously some assumptions in place, for example a doubled GM107 would be ~270mm2 rather than 296mm2 (148mm2 x 2), the doubled GM107 running at 800MHz would produce a peak TDP of around 100W rather than 120W (60W x 2).

Regarding the CPU, since we're going the Nvidia way, let's pick the top Bay Trail from Intel. Performance would be mostly comparable to Jaguar as per Anandtech. I believe there are 4 core desktop versions of the same that would end up with slightly lesser TDPs than Jaguar. Anyway, these cores wouldnt take up much area, maybe in the range of 50mm2 at the most.

So how does the theoretical double GM107 (@ 800MHz) stack up?

In terms of die area, we would be looking around the same ball park as the PS4 GPU (346mm); 270mm2 + 50mm2 = 320mm2 for this combination. In terms of power consumption, Bay Trail is more efficient than Jaguar and a doubled GM107 would also most likely draw less juice but probably by a whole lot less; 100W + 5-10W = 105-110W. Compared to PS4's peak power consumption, its about ~25% less.

So we have a very similar overall spec setup but with slightly less peak power consumption levels. The die area is also in the same range but with added board complexity (separate CPU/GPU die). Also doesnt take into account of disabling any of the functional units for the sake of redundancy or yield purposes.

And not to forget it would be mean not launching in '13 with the amount of launch units they did. Overall I think, even considering Maxwell's superior (effficient) architecture Sony's combination of CPU+GPU in the PS4 is very competitive and the best decision they could have taken for the launch window they had in mind.

 

[JordanN]

tales from your arse?

I put together this thread that documents all the next gen effects seen on PS4/XBO/PC (although some of the information is old or could do with newer ones).

As for more expensive tech, here is a Nvidia document on Voxel based Global Illumination and it gives MS times. It's way too high on a GTX 650* ($150 GPU) and it only gets practical on a GTX 770($400 GPU) and GTX Titan ($999 GPU).
http://on-demand.gputechconf.com/gt...2-rt-voxel-based-global-illumination-gpus.pdf

The Brigade Render, used 2 GTX 580's and it gets 10fps at 1280 x 720 (although now it can run on 1 Titan).


*With AO and Global Illumination, It's impossible at 60fps. At 30fps, it uses 85% of your render time.

 

[TetraGenesis]

I put together this thread that documents all the next gen effects seen on PS4/XBO/PC (although some of the information is old or could do with newer ones).

As for more expensive tech, here is a Nvidia document on Voxel based Global Illumination and it gives MS times. It's way too high on a GTX 650* ($150 GPU) and it only gets practical on a GTX 770($400 GPU) and GTX Titan ($999 GPU).
http://on-demand.gputechconf.com/gt...2-rt-voxel-based-global-illumination-gpus.pdf

The Brigade Render, used 2 GTX 580's and it gets 10fps at 1280 x 720 (although now it can run on 1 Titan).

*With AO and Global Illumination, It's impossible at 60fps. At 30fps, it uses 85% of your render time.

Great work on that tech wrap up thread! (Sorry it didn't gain more traction.) Very interesting to see it all laid out like that. I can't wait to see the further implementations of some of those technologies throughout the gen.

 

[Jtrizzy]

I certainly wish Destiny was targeting 60 fps.

 

[Sakujou]

I always find it strange when people complain about added software functionality in games consoles. Why would Sony or Microsoft want to build machines that are powerful enough to handle the most demanding games, but then not use any of the power to also provide functionality that a cheap phone can do in its sleep. I shouldn't have to buy and AppleTV/Roku/FireTV/Chromecast or whatever alongside my games console simply to do shit they can handle easily anyway. Should I be expected to carry a separate calculator around with me so my phone can get back to only making calls? Makes no sense to me.

a phone is indeed capable of doing all these things at once. on the other hand, i have the feeling, if a videogamesystem gets all these added functions it works so much worse than it should.
an example: the psp was released in 2004/2005 and while a lot of mobile phones at that time were able to run videos it was a hassle to put a compatible video on the psp despite running it on it was also weird because of the worse quality until sony unlocked the cpu for getting a better res.

 

[Brofist]

They released at $100 cheaper than the competitor and a more powerful system. I don't think releasing a slightly more powerful system would have been worth missing launching at that much of a price advantage.

 

[WeAreStarStuff]

I'm pretty damn satisifed with my PS4, but a better CPU, larger drive space, and slightly upclocked GPU prob. could have been done for only $450. Hell, I would pay $600 for a beastly PS4, but thisisneogaf.gif

 

[TheSinkingKnight]

I think a 400 USD PS4 was just fine. As long as the PS5 comes out in 2019, then we're good.

 

[kudoboi]

An extra $100 wouldn't bring a massive leap in perfs.

yes it would. linus tech tips did a video a few days back showing the GTX 480 running watch dogs and then comparing the GPU power to xbox one. if they were to fit in a $100 more expansive GPU into the XB1, they would have been able to push the game from 792P to 1080P and even 60FPS if they spent a little more.

not gonna link the video here because it could be considered a PC circlejerk

 

[Synth]

a phone is indeed capable of doing all these things at once. on the other hand, i have the feeling, if a videogamesystem gets all these added functions it works so much worse than it should.
an example: the psp was released in 2004/2005 and while a lot of mobile phones at that time were able to run videos it was a hassle to put a compatible video on the psp despite running it on it was also weird because of the worse quality until sony unlocked the cpu for getting a better res.

The PSP's video quirks were simply down to compatible formats, not too dissimilar to when the 360 launched and couldn't play back AVI's. This has nothing to do with the hardware itself. I'm also struggling to picture many phones from 2004 being better video playback devices that the PSP (the 1st generation iPhone didn't appear until 3 years later). Then you have to consider that playing back videos was purely added functionality. It in no way made the PSP worse at playing games, so there would be no benefit to disallowing it. Not to mention that anything that would cause the machine to be better at playing back videos (such as unlocking the CPU), also made it better at running games.

I'm failing to see any real downsides to the inclusion of these added features. If the hardware can do it without harming its ability to other stuff, then it should. It only makes it more useful overall, and saves me from having to buy separated (and almost always inferior) hardware purely for that purpose. There's no good reason (outside of possible business incentives) for the PS4 and Xbox One not to be able to stream media locally. There's no good reason for the PS4 not to have 3D BluRay support etc. I shouldn't have my last gen consoles still hooked up to my TV for stuff that the current hardware should be better at in every respect.

 

[dmr87]

I'd want one but I'm also in the high-end PC space so I'm prepared to pay for performance, $400 is better for the sales and masses.

 

[barit]

I´m happy so far and I think their is plenty juice left in this sexy beast

In 2015 we'll see some truly 2nd gen titles that will blow our minds.

 

[ROMAD]

I´m happy so far and I think their is plenty juice left in this sexy beast

In 2015 we'll see some truly 2nd gen titles that will blow our minds.

This is pretty much what every gamer says every year.

 

[Peltz]

As we've seen for several generations now, game developers will target 60fps or 30fps based on their own agenda no matter what kind of modern hardware they are working with, or how powerful it is. So, when you ask this question, the real thing you've got to weigh is this:

Is the marginal increase in power that $100 will bring worth the smaller install base (and the baggage that comes with it) that the $100 increase would also bring? Does that $100 increase yield to more cool content or less cool content in the long run?

 

[FirewalkR]

This is pretty much what every gamer says every year.

But it's true. Imagine if one of the late last-gen titles like UC3, TLoU, Beyond, or even mid-gen stuff like KZ2 and GoW3 showed up at the beginning of last-gen?

The learning curve for devs this gen shouldn't be as steep but we'll surely have some great looking stuff in coming years.

With that said, more power would always be better if they could maintain costs and prices. I wonder if it would have been feasible for them to have a...stronger partnership with AMD, and release a "Sony PS4 - powered by AMD" or something, with AMD incurring some of the cost and having stronger hardware.

 

[jhmtehgamr20xx]

Ultimately no. PS3 costed Sony all the profits they ever saw w/ PS1 AND PS2, lost major marketshare in NA (the biggest market), major mindshare, and a lot of goodwill. All of this started with that magical "U.S 599 dollars" bomb at E3.

In the end it doesn't really matter if PS3 was value-packed for its price; that wasn't balanced out with profit and marketshare for Sony. If there isn't a balance in a product's value and the company's profit gain from the product, it's not a good decision. PS4 is great value for the price and still allows Sony to be profitable, that's pretty good imho.

PS4 is very value-packed where it counts the most; the guts. It's designed for games first and foremost. As long as great games keep coming to the platform and a nice chunk of them push the hardware to its limit, that's good enough right there.

I always find it strange when people complain about added software functionality in games consoles. Why would Sony or Microsoft want to build machines that are powerful enough to handle the most demanding games, but then not use any of the power to also provide functionality that a cheap phone can do in its sleep. I shouldn't have to buy and AppleTV/Roku/FireTV/Chromecast or whatever alongside my games console simply to do shit they can handle easily anyway. Should I be expected to carry a separate calculator around with me so my phone can get back to only making calls? Makes no sense to me.

Well for me it comes down to reliability issues; every time I had a system fail, it was due to an app. My PS3 YLOD on a website. My Wii crashed on Netflix. I've had a 360 stall on a couple apps.

Granted these things can happen with any device, and I'm being extreme here, but it's frustrating when they happen with a game console. Consoles are supposed to be ultra-reliable, but for someone who's experienced these things over and over, they may get a small impression that, sometimes, these apps aren't designed with 100% reliability. It can be downright depressing when the $400 machine you bought to play games, gets broken by a Netflix buffer.

 

[Synth]

Well for me it comes down to reliability issues; every time I had a system fail, it was due to an app. My PS3 YLOD on a website. My Wii crashed on Netflix. I've had a 360 stall on a couple apps.

Granted these things can happen with any device, and I'm being extreme here, but it's frustrating when they happen with a game console. Consoles are supposed to be ultra-reliable, but for someone who's experienced these things over and over, they may get a small impression that, sometimes, these apps aren't designed with 100% reliability. It can be downright depressing when the $400 machine you bought to play games, gets broken by a Netflix buffer.

Still, none of this sound like a good argument to have the features removed. Using Netflix crashing your Wii as a reason for not having apps on these devices is like using the PS3 version of Skyrim as a reason why they also shouldn't play games.

You said it yourself, these things can happen on any device, because at the end of the day, it's the software that crashed. So instead of you spending $400 and having it crash when you watch something, you could spend $400 on a console + $100 for a media box, only to have that crash in exactly the same fashion. Where is the benefit in that? For all the previous gen consoles watching Netflix meant you couldn't have even been playing a game at that time anyway, so the result is identical, only it costs less to have a single device.

If you really dislike the apps, then you can choose not to use them and buy a separate box anyway. But the Wii wouldn't have been any better at playing games if it was unable to run Netflix. The PS3 would be no better at playing games if it was unable to browse the web. The Xbox 360 would be no better at playing games if it didn't have its apps. So why would any want them to not be an option at all?

 

[Neff]

I want a PS4 with a PS3 inside it and would have paid the extra for it.

 

[OsirisBlack]

All of the PC comments in this thread are shameful ..... the XB1 started at $499 and that is not a PC.

OT If it had started at the same price point as the XB1 it probably would have been a bit more powerful either cpu or gpu wise.

 

[jhmtehgamr20xx]

If you really dislike the apps, then you can choose not to use them and buy a separate box anyway. But the Wii wouldn't have been any better at playing games if it was unable to run Netflix. The PS3 would be no better at playing games if it was unable to browse the web. The Xbox 360 would be no better at playing games if it didn't have its apps. So why would any want them to not be an option at all?

Personally, that is something I might consider doing in the future, if only for peace of mind. And it's not like I haven't had system that lacked apps not die/crash either (sometimes ridiculously so). I might just have bad luck with consoles and non-game apps.

For the console manufacturers it's a great revenue stream, so I don't see them ever giving it up. I don't want them too, either. I'd just like to have slightly better luck w/ those apps on game consoles.

 

[Phediuk]

Would have been nice for the hardcore, but $400 was crucial for reaching the mass market.

 

[Andodalf]

All of the PC comments in this thread are shameful ..... the XB1 started at $499 and that is not a PC.

OT If it had started at the same price point as the XB1 it probably would have been a bit more powerful either cpu or gpu wise.

Try a lot more powerful. It's an extra 100 spend some on power. It's not 1/5 more powerful. Only a part of the 400$ you pay today is for the apu. I'd be surprised if the apu was even 100$ of the cost. This would double the Silicon budget.

 

[GrantDaNasty]

It was important to reach a price-point that was reasonable to consumers, especially in an era where people worry about casual/mobile gaming eclipsing the traditional model.

Things could always be better, always have more juice, but you gotta draw the line somewhere, unless you plan on going the smartphone route and just having incremental upgrades every year or 2.

I think Sony has done well with the PS4, the lessons learned from the PS3 has made them focus down super-hard this time around, to their benefit.

 

[Synth]

Personally, that is something I might consider doing in the future, if only for peace of mind. And it's not like I haven't had system that lacked apps not die/crash either (sometimes ridiculously so). I might just have bad luck with consoles and non-game apps.

For the console manufacturers it's a great revenue stream, so I don't see them ever giving it up. I don't want them too, either. I'd just like to have slightly better luck w/ those apps on game consoles.

Yea, maybe I've just had better luck than most, but I've had very few issues with any media apps on consoles, and I probably use my consoles for them as much as I do for games. Plus, as their reliability is primarily a software concern, the apps are likely to become better the more the devices are used for them, so minimizing their focus is not exactly going to help the convince creators of these apps to put more time into making them more stable.

To be fair, your post didn't really come across as wanting the apps to be stripped out completely. Sakujou's original post on the other made it sound like we would somehow be better off if you'd boot up your PS4, and not be able to do anything other than run the disc or manage saves. That made perfect sense back in the days when the hardware itself was unsuitable for doing anything else, but even the Mega CD could play back audio CDs, because the second that hardware was added, it made sense to allow it to do so.

 

[Summer Haze]

I'm fine with the way PS4 games are looking and running so far, but I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't have bought a £100 more expensive PS4 if the games performed even better (more 60fps titles would be nice).

 

[ethomaz]

I really wanted an up in GPU horse power close to 2.5TFLOPS and I don't think it will cost they $500 price point.

A up to 900Mhz and the release of two more CUs could have reach near that: 2.3 TFLOPS.

Or 950Mhz with the same hardware: 2.18 TFLOPS.

 

[infiniteheteroskdasticity]

I doubt it would have made much of a difference to anything other than Sony's marketshare. Getting more performance out of it would have meant an even larger die or overclocking of the APU both of which would blow through a TDP budget which already appears to be pushing the envelope. Just adding more CUs would also mean adding more memory bandwidth which would mean even more expense.

The PS4's hardware design is about as good as you could do in 2013. Microsoft spent more money on a bigger die and only managed ~66% of the PS4's performance. Games like Killzone and Infamous look as good as anything available on any platform and as the platform and tools mature, they'll look even better. I'll take what we got with the PS4 and wait for a PS5 in 2017/18 with ~4x the performance at the same price.

 

[npa189]

I would rather have a cell SoC so we would have native PS3 game support. Yes I still have my PS3 with no intention of getting rid of it, but playing my back catalog on a shinny new machine would have been nice.

 

[GiantAssPanda]

I think Sony got the price & performance spot on with PS4. Having it beside my gaming PC seems like a good combo for this generation.

 

[Fjordson]

I would have paid for it, but tough to predict how it would have performed with the general market.

I think they did a good job with the current PS4. $400 is a decent price and the games look great to me.

 

[CouchMaster]

For $500 I would've had the exact same hardware but with full backwards compatibility with PS3 games. I wish they had tiered it that way.

 

[jhmtehgamr20xx]

sony has made some clever design choices which helps to put some very impressive results on screen even early in ps4s life circle. but the over all lack of raw power (in comparrison to the pc's high end) may make the ps4 run out of steam pretty early. a 3TFlops GPU would sure have been nice (and for 500 $ propably doable from a financial perspective).

Well Sony's biggest priority is making a profit with the system, and all systems sold. At $500 the PS4 would be selling slower. At $500 there would be smaller profits overall (more profit per system offset by less units sold). And at $500, it'd have thrown away its biggest perceivable advantage over the XBO right out of the gate.

So short answer: no, not worth the hassle.

 

[Bricky]

As long as the Xbox One remains the weaker system it doesn't really matter how powerful the PS4 is. Multiplats will always be designed with the weaker system in mind and stuff like Uncharted 4 already looks impressive enough to warrant a console upgrade anyway. I am 100% sure a $500 PS4 would have resulted in less units sold if anything.

E: Oh, and extra RAM would be extreme overkill. Both current-gen systems are on par with the majority of mid/high-end gaming PC's, the PS4 RAM even outclassing them in speed, and while more is always better (it would make optimizing games with lots of detail, NPC's or big levels easier) it would in no way justify a more expensive system.

 

[velociraptor]

Well Uncharted 4 runs at 1080p60 and if it looks as good as that reveal trailer then I don't think it'll matter too much.

More power is always better, but then you have to ask yourself 'at what price point'?

I personally would have been happy to purchase a more powerful PS4 at £400. But would everyone else? Probably not.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

The entire advantage of a console is knowing that any console you get is effectively the same thing everyone else gets and that developers can "write to the metal"

Sony putting out another system with completely different specs would be beyond stupid.

Agreed. I don't know why this same stupid argument gets brought up

 

[kudoboi]

I would rather have a cell SoC so we would have native PS3 game support. Yes I still have my PS3 with no intention of getting rid of it, but playing my back catalog on a shinny new machine would have been nice.

yes. I would much rather have backwards compatibility built in rather than better graphics.

 

[DieH@rd]

I really wanted an up in GPU horse power close to 2.5TFLOPS and I don't think it will cost they $500 price point.

A up to 900Mhz and the release of two more CUs could have reach near that: 2.3 TFLOPS.

Or 950Mhz with the same hardware: 2.18 TFLOPS.

PS4 already has 2 more additional CUs, but they are turned off so that chip yields could be better.

 

[StevieP]

The entire advantage of a console is knowing that any console you get is effectively the same thing everyone else gets and that developers can "write to the metal"

Sony putting out another system with completely different specs would be beyond stupid.

There is no metal. It's all abstraction layers now, like everywhere else

 

[Respawn]

$500 device with external power brick and the size of the Xbox One.

8 Jaguar CPU at 2.0 ghz
24 CUs at 1.0 ghz, 3.1 teraflops

8GB GDDR5 Ram
32mb Edram

Background OS CPU,
4GB of LPDDR3 OS ram.

Why did you even post this?