-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
4K market isn't big enough to carry a new generation of consoles yet so Microsoft & Sony's best bet is to be disruptive (Nintendo level of disruptive)
- Thread starter onQ123
- Start date
Aurelian
my friends call me "Cunty"
You're right to a degree, although there are diminishing returns. A Blu-ray disc looks sharper than a DVD in part because DVDs were so relatively low-resolution (480p) that the leap to 1080p is immediately noticeable. With 4K, you only really notice if you have a particularly big set, or if you pay close attention. I suspect 8K will be the end point for most people, since you need a gigantic set to notice that difference... and most people only have so much physical space.
tassletine
Member
Neither of those 2 have it in them to behave like that. Their company structure would need to be completely different for that to happen. Nintendo put a lot of faith in their products.
The other 2 know how to sell the hell out of already established products (like a console for example) but don’t have much experience pushing anything that is out of the ordinary.
The other 2 know how to sell the hell out of already established products (like a console for example) but don’t have much experience pushing anything that is out of the ordinary.
KINDERFELD
Banned
In here people with crap/budget 4K TVs are making comments like they've actually experienced proper 4K from a high feed.
A 4K bulray movie on a good 4K screen is quite distinguishable from 1080p coming from a high feed. 1080p in comparison looks like vaseline smeared on the screen.
Streaming 4K currently does not look good as watching a 4K bulray because of the compression and limitation of the feed.
Also, not every 4K TV has the same image quality. Most budget 4K TVs will not look like that much of an improvement over your high model 1080p tv.
A 4K bulray movie on a good 4K screen is quite distinguishable from 1080p coming from a high feed. 1080p in comparison looks like vaseline smeared on the screen.
Streaming 4K currently does not look good as watching a 4K bulray because of the compression and limitation of the feed.
Also, not every 4K TV has the same image quality. Most budget 4K TVs will not look like that much of an improvement over your high model 1080p tv.
FeldMonster
Member
You are being purposely obtuse. Clearly the poster you quoted is referring to TVs being manufactured and not "TV" as in cable network television. The fact that cable is still in 720p and 1080i is an embarrassment. You yourself said that you buy Blu-Rays (I still do as well, 200 and counting, though some are now UHD/4K). Would you want your TV to only show 720p/1080i (basically what the OP is arguing, just one "generation" prior when your preferred source of movies is 1080P?
Zekra Dezivad
Member
4k is just a resolution, what do you mean with "support"? We are talking about consoles, not TVs...
Last edited:
What? that's not what I'm arguing SMH , I'm saying that 4K isn't a big enough selling point to carry the next generation of consoles after Sony & Microsoft already released 4K consoles in the last few years so they need to make the new consoles stand out like Nintendo does.
MightySquirrel
Banned
Next gen can't come soon enough!
To get a rough idea how much developers are limited today look at this video. Compare gtx 1050 [it's a little more powerful than PS4] to 1080 Ti - that's very close to what next gen should be capable off. XBOX1X offers ~ gtx1060 perf. which is also in this video.
To get a rough idea how much developers are limited today look at this video. Compare gtx 1050 [it's a little more powerful than PS4] to 1080 Ti - that's very close to what next gen should be capable off. XBOX1X offers ~ gtx1060 perf. which is also in this video.
Danjin44
The nicest person on this forum
Limitation is not always comes from tech. It also about budget, time and man power, not all developers have the luxury for that. Star Citizen suppose to have the most advance graphical feature and using full power of PC but look how long is taking for the game to come out. Do you think all developers have the luxury to spend crazy amount of money and time to create their games?
Last edited:
AgentP
Thinks mods influence posters politics. Promoted to QAnon Editor.
4k is mostly hype. More pixels is better (basic sampling theory), but modern AA techniques make most aliasing issues rare. So it becomes a trade off for sharpness, aliasing, frame rate, & render effects. Reaching 4k is the least important of the list. Also, most people have poorly calibrated TV at large viewing distances, so they are just buying into the 4k hype if they think they can resolve those pixels.
MightySquirrel
Banned
They're always limited by tech. That's why today's game engines have advanced realtime debug tools that helps you to see the limit of how much stuff you can have on screen at once in real time and not go above target frametimes.
You're obv. right that some devs like R* are capable of achieving more than others having superior RAGE engine and budget allowing to have more devs working on one game. Having more devs allows you to pump more lod's so game looks way better at the distance just one example. GTA5 on box360 and ps3 was a monumental achievement no doubt.
Danjin44
The nicest person on this forum
Let me ask you this, why Far Cry 2 has much more interactive in its open world compare to Far Cry 5? The 5th game is running in much more powerful machine. I saw the same conversation near end of PS3/360 and they said how developers no longer have to worry about "limitation" and yet here we are talking about same shit and don't worry we going to have the same exact conversation near end of PS5 or whatever next Xbox is going to be called.
MightySquirrel
Banned
Lowly clocked notebook cpu in current gen + lazy devs. Ryzen is over twice faster at only same clocks [2 GHz] and it will likely to run at least 3 GHz on next consoles, so we're looking at minimum 3 times better perf from CPU. Let's take GTA5 as example. It runs 30 fps on PS4 - you could run that at 90 fps on PS5 , if you wanted or more precisely if devs allowed that.
Danjin44
The nicest person on this forum
And you think we going to have 4K with high FPS as standard with PS5? I'm pretty sure for developers with extra power going to push more for higher texture more detailed models and even bigger open world rather than high FPS and advance AI because the reality is more "pretty" and "shiny" graphics is much more marketable than high FPS and advance AI.
Last edited:
MightySquirrel
Banned
I want to believe there will be way more 60fps games. To my eyes there is nothing wrong in having RDR2 visuals at native 4K and locked 60 fps, but we know many devs will push graphics further and just lock to 30 which is a shame.
I'd rather have proper reconstruction technique used to render 4K with improved shaders and textures rather than native 4K with only 30 fps. The reconstruction in WD2 as example looks so similar to native, but saves 40% performance.
ON
OFF
I'd absolutely choose to save 40% performance and have better graphics instead of having native res with worse graphics or have 60 instead of 30. Obv next gen games will look way better than this.
Last edited:
V4skunk
Banned
This is false.
SlashBringingHasher
Banned
no. it doesn't for most games that it says it does. its checkerboarded. 2k upscaled to 4k
juliotendo
Member
For the vast majority of consumers, they cannot tell the difference between 1080P and 4K at equitable distances, nor do most consumers understand what 4K is. Want proof? Go to a Best Buy and listen to customers interact with the associates about 4K televisions...
Many games barely hit smooth 60 FPS in 1080p — the focus on 4K is overblown and mostly marketing gimmick. It’s a nice thing to have — I appreciate good 4K content, but I don’t see it as a must-have feature.
petran79
Banned
As long as smaller 4k 23-30 inch TVs arent becoming mainstream like with HD, I do not see the format becoming popular
Spukc
always chasing the next thrill
LIST WAAAAAAARS!!!!!
Badlucktroll
Member
Does anyone know if that new budget Vizio 2019 V-Series that has dolby vision is 10-bit, and if it has HDR 10? It seems like a really good value. $349 for a 50 inch. I want to replace my first generation 4k tv.
Last edited:
HeresJohnny
Member
Tying the new systems to a yet-to-be-adopted standard is foolish, but also necessary. In five years, more people will own 4k sets obviously, so it'll be an issue then. But by that time, the generation will probably either be decided or be damn close to it. I find the whole thing to be fucking hilarious as they're reaping what they've sown. So now they need to make expensive consoles that people need an even more expensive display to get the most out of, and one is thinking of tying their console to digital only content and the other is thinking about making VR standard. Its' a recipe for absolute fuckery. Obviously these guys have never taken a sales seminar, because they seem to love putting roadblocks up instead of freeways when it comes to getting people to jump in.
Last edited:
ResilientBanana
Member
Super sampling is better than being disruptive.
ReBurn
Gold Member
I think it's a weird assertion that the new consoles need to be disruptive to be successful. PS4 wasn't disruptive in any meaningful way and it has moved 80 million units. Nintendo's luck with being disruptive is mixed. Gamecube and WiiU didn't make the same impact as other efforts. People expect quirky changes from Nintendo because of their culture, but they're not expecting that from the other companies.
Disruption is good when it works. It can revive flagging markets or create new ones. But disruption for the sake of disruption probably won't be effective, and the change gamers want when purchasing new hardware isn't a gimmick or new way of playing the same games. It's more stable gameplay with better graphics and performance. It's the capacity for larger and more detailed experiences. Maybe that's just what I want. Who knows.
Disruption is good when it works. It can revive flagging markets or create new ones. But disruption for the sake of disruption probably won't be effective, and the change gamers want when purchasing new hardware isn't a gimmick or new way of playing the same games. It's more stable gameplay with better graphics and performance. It's the capacity for larger and more detailed experiences. Maybe that's just what I want. Who knows.
Before PS4 came out people was worried about a casual gaming takeover , Wii U tried to fit in with the tablet gaming & Xbox One was trying to be the iPad of the living room with Kinect 2.0. PS4 making it's self look like it was all about hardcore gaming was disruptive at that moment because everyone thought gaming was going in a different direction.
Last edited:
HeresJohnny
Member
Truthfully, the only systems I've seen who have aimed at being disruptive have been from companies that have been getting their ass kicked. I'd wager the corporate heads at these companies would blow ten elephants if it meant they could sell a hundred million consoles and the word disruptive would be Greek to them. A conventional machine can still sell 100+ million units. The only companies bitter are those who didn't make systems capable of hitting those numbers. Sony has a long track record of making conventional machines for the masses that sell hundreds of millions of units; if they go and stick their head up their ass to try and chase some flavor of the week fad, it will be a tragedy. Just do what you've been doing, Sony. Simple.
Iced Arcade
Member
Please don't use the wii for an argument. Was gaming dumb downed and sold to the masses of non gamers. Sold tons of units but software sales were not exactly strong.
HeresJohnny
Member
There's a reason why no one is following up on what the Wii started -- not developers, not Microsoft, not Sony, and not Nintendo. It was a mistake, and everyone knows it. If it was really as impactful as many like to proclaim, it would have made a difference in gaming today, but motion control games have thankfully been relegated to side show status and thank God for that.
EDIT: The Wii is actually an argument against disruption; because it was made to disrupt rather than enhance. It was designed to stir everyone's shit up rather than make gaming better. That's my honest take on it. There wasn't one noble thing about the Wii.
Last edited:
AgentP
Thinks mods influence posters politics. Promoted to QAnon Editor.
I was playing this last night, forgot I bought it. Wow, it looked great and was super fun. It might be one of the better arcade racers this gen (I know it's a remaster).
HeresJohnny
Member
Is it really? I've got more than a few games on it and none of them use motion controls appreciably. I would say it's more akin to a Wii U, which was a system that was like the Wii in name only when it comes right down to it.
UltimaKilo
Gold Member
OP is dead wrong. Next generation of consoles will be the 4K generation.
Yes they need more than 4K to sell, which is why Sony is investing so much in PSVR2.
But 4K will be much, much bigger towards the end of next year.
Yes they need more than 4K to sell, which is why Sony is investing so much in PSVR2.
But 4K will be much, much bigger towards the end of next year.
The best selling games on Switch use motion controls
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
To be fair, I honestly think those would sell the way they did even without motion controls. Nintendo's games are always the best selling on just the name alone.
Last edited:
HeresJohnny
Member
With the exception of 1-2 Switch and Arms, most are afterthoughts, definitely not the focus of the machine as the Wii was. Most of the games that have them shoehorned in have a way of disabling them in the options, which is decidedly unWii-like.
If I'm dead wrong why is there rumors of a 4TF & 12TF Xbox Scarlet? Why is Microsoft being really disruptive with partnerships with Nintendo & will be bringing Xbox games to none Xbox devices? We don't have any real info about what Sony is going to be doing but I can bet you they will not be trying to just sell you a more powerful PS4
ReBurn
Gold Member
Nobody was seriously worried about a casual gaming takeover, Wii U didn't seriously make an attempt at tablet gaming and Microsoft didn't try to be an iPad. If any of them tried to be an iPad it was Wii U, but like I said, Nintendo didn't try to take on tablet gaming. With Wii U Nintendo seems to have tried to test to see if people would adopt touch like they did motion controls, but as you can see that failed. Waggle controls on PS3 and PS4 went nowhere. The only Microsoft technology that was somewhat disruptive was Kinect on 360, but Microsoft clearly overestimated the long term appeal of arm flailing as evidenced by the poor launch of Xbox One with Kinect as the focus. Microsoft got it wrong, but they didn't try to be an iPad. I don't even know what that means.
Hardcore being overtaken by casual is not a real struggle in gaming and console gaming was never in any danger of falling to the casual side during the previous generation. We didn't need PS4 to save us from that fate. Lots of what would be considered hardcore games released on PS3 and Xbox 360 leading up to and after the launch of PS4 and Xbox One. The only real casual focus was the Wii, and that's because Nintendo abandoned it to waggle shovelware when the fad ended. Major publishers of hardcore games didn't want to try to shoehorn motion controls into games, and the Wii lacked the horsepower to make it worth attempting ports beyond the first couple of years of its life. I don't see any real evidence where that had any threat to console gaming as a whole. Even Nintendo invested in better hardcore content on the Wii's successor by publishing Wii U titles like Bayonetta and Xenoblade Chronicles X, so even they understood what people wanted.
Last edited:
Wii U controller was a tablet with buttons lol
For MS maybe serious disruption would be good, but I think trying to spread their service to other platforms is the better choice right now. For Sony - no way. The best thing they can do is copy the Apple model and ensure backwards compatibility for digital PS4 games out of the gate. IMO at least.
Gamernyc78
Banned
Bullshit Resogun, tlou Remastered and a few other games are native 4k. Don't say it doesn't support bcus thts not true, say it doesn't have many.
Gamernyc78
Banned
PS4 already made a move with the Innovative first true VR on consoles so idk what more u want Sony to do. They will maintain and grow VR next Gen and I'm happy bcus I've had dope experiences with it.
Torrent of Pork
Banned
$299 4k 50" smart tv with less than a minute of searching.
To put this into perspective I paid the same amount for my old 32" CRT screen in 2005.
To put this into perspective I paid the same amount for my old 32" CRT screen in 2005.
This isn't about people not having 4K TVs it's about selling consoles
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
I bought a Panasonic 27" CRT in 2001 for $600-700 cdn. Needed two people to haul it.
ReBurn
Gold Member
And it was a failure. I don't see your point. What most people wanted from it was for it to be what the switch is now. Something to allow them to play their console games in a handheld way. When the switch has the Joycons attached it's a touchscreen tablet with buttons that you can choose to play on your TV if you want to. Nintendo didn't release switch to disrupt the gaming industry. They reacted to what customers asked for.
Torrent of Pork
Banned
4K support on next gen consoles is a given. If either company wants me to spend more on a box than the current price of an X1X while not offering 4K they can piss right off. I wouldn't be opposed to more developers giving people the option to sacrifice resolution to run higher frame rates though. As an overall business model, however, I don't see Sony or MS changing much. Nintendo gets away with hijinx because Nintendo.