Support NeoGAF

[kpaadet]

I think a normal PS4 would be perfectly fine for someone that uses it only for exclusives and a gaming PC for everything else.

That is what I use my PS4 for, so I would agree.

 

[gookie_grisp]

Theres also a question what exactly people were/are expecting from the PS4 Pro in terms of graphics upgrade. The main draw, at least regarding PR, is the 4K part. There are many people who arent very senstive to IQ and framerate, and they wont notice an immediate difference. I'm one of them. I went from Battlefield 1 from regular PS4 to PS4 Pro and couldnt really tell any difference. I know that there are differences, but from my memory, the game feels about the same on both consoles. Maybe i notice a bigger difference if i go back to the regular PS4.

I mean there are differences, but the framerate isn't that much better in some games. And just remember, a lot of the games are not natively 4k. Most of them are upscaled. Maybe I was too wishful in wanting all the games 1080p 60fps or 4k native with at least 30fps. Hopefully the Scorpio will be powerful enough to either play 4k 30fps natively or 1080p at 60fps. Some of the games do benefit from the Pro, but others don't, like Last of Us remastered. Also iirc Battlefield 1 performs pretty badly on the regular PS4, with constant dropped frames

 

[entremet]

This was way better done that I thought.

You guys are bugging. Have people watched the video?

They should've used more games, though.

 

[dark10x]

This was way better done that I thought.

You guys are bugging. Have people watched the video?

They should've used more games, though.

Yeah, I think they made a bad choice here on the game. Uncharted 4 is one of those games that has great image quality on both platforms. The difference is subtle enough due to the strong TAA that your average person won't likely see a difference.

They should have used something like Call of Duty IW. The extra clarity is quite noticeable.

It's still ultimately a console for enthusiasts, though.

 

[SolidusDave]

Well there's your problem!

A single dark cut-scene on Uncharted 4 isn't the best showcase and still 4/5 correctly spotted which was the Pro. R&C is gorgeous on a 4K HDR TV, the image quality is ridiculous but it's something you have to see in person, without Youtube's compression. For PS4 Pro games that boost the frame rate or have a more consistent one however, the difference is really obvious even on Youtube.

You point out the problem but then ignore that you get the bigger difference, HDR, with the vanilla PS4 as well.
I would love to see a test in which they use OGPS4 on a 4KTV with HDR enabled and a PS4pro on the same TV without HDR or a 1080p screen. Probably most people would identify the OG PS4 as the pro.

The PS4 is fine for new buyers and basically a way for Sony to keep sales and margins up. But instead of double dipping you are better off investing in a good TV first.
I mean, sorry, but I highly doubt that most pro buyers own one of the handful 2015/2016 model HDR TVs. Not to mention the percentage that take the effort to set them up correctly... yet some of them will be the loudest in these threads to tell everyone about the pro's superiority.

VR games that supersample with the pro are another story though.

 

[potatohead]

How many lay people can tell the difference between Quake and doom and Duke nukem in terms of tech and visuals not many

 

[Timu]

This was way better done that I thought.

You guys are bugging. Have people watched the video?

They should've used more games, though.

That's the issue, they only used one game. Rise of the Tomb Raider, Call of Duty Infinite Warfare, etc., would had been better examples.

 

[Freshmaker]

I think a normal PS4 would be perfectly fine for someone that uses it only for exclusives and a gaming PC for everything else.

It's funny because I think PC gamers understand what the PS4 pro brings to the table better than any other group.

You buy a 50% more powerful GPU, it's not a night and day kinda thing.

Generally the PS4 Pro is chiefly for a rather small niche right now. 4K tv owners, and maybe people who don't currently own a PS4. (It's really a better long term purchase than a base PS4.)

Is it a system that a current PS4 owner needs? Not really.

 

[thelastword]

People commenting without having seen and without any willingness to see the video. Ok.

In my opinion, most of the complaints in the video are legit. The upgrade is not worthy for the average gamer.

The average who? Out of those 5 people interviewed, maybe one is a gamer. The darker colored interviewee is absolutely blind....blind I tell ya....


Btw, most of the people thought the one on the left looked better, so when the guy pulled his 20 percent stats and the other said "this thing is a catastrophe" I was marvelled....":I guess the general public have spoken now" amirite?

 

[shanafan]

That's the issue, they only used one game. Rise of the Tomb Raider, Call of Duty Infinite Warfare, etc., would had been better examples.

Agreed 100%. They showed only Uncharted 4. How is that a fair comparison? And, even though I know Mike thinks Farming Simulator is like the worst game ever made, the native 4K on PS4 Pro compared with OG PS4 would have been interesting.

Nevertheless, I think future PS4 titles will benefit more from the Pro upgrade, especially first party titles like Horizon Zero Dawn.

 

[dickroach]

"fuck no, who the fuck would do that?"
"i would do that"

 

[Belker]

When I went to best buy one day, a worker was explaining HDR to someone and they looked so confused.

I've been thinking about how to explain HDR to people I game with. What I've come up with so far is to compare it to a light bulb attached to a dimmer switch. With a normal bulb and dimmer you might be able to adjust the brightness from 0-10. Off to brightest.

With HDR you can turn that bulb and dimmer from 0-1000. Many more shades of darkness and much brighter at maximum too. I suppose you could say you could do something with colours, so you can get many more shades.

One of the reasons I went for a new TV instead of a Pro, is that I've read - as others have said on here - that HDR is a bigger change than the resolution. Plus the TV can upscale somewhat.

 

[dano1]

Well for real gamers that own the pro they know the difference.

Try Battlefield 1 on both and things become pretty clear witch one is the PSPro!

 

[v1oz]

This was a very poorly done test. The interviewer knew which screen had the base PS4 and Pro behind them. Based on their prior video, they had shown a bias as to the outcome. This is a big no-no and a reason why double blind tests are the gold standard for doing these types of comparisons.

Then they committed another problem by having the viewers rate the consoles based on their appearance before doing the test. The Pro is not supposed to look better than the base PS4 just different, so that's what most people said. However forcing the viewer to state ahead of time that the consoles were the same, even though they were not judging image quality, makes them more likely to want to back up that initial assessment when they do judge image quality.

Finally 80% of the people did say they still could tell the difference. However while 90% said they didn't care, the test had the previous problems to bias this result. It also didn't appear that many of these people were that concerned about image quality in the first place. Remember once again that 80% did see a difference, they just did not care.

This is worthwhile test to do, but unless they are going to do it properly it is less than useless because it promotes unsubstantiated conclusions. Get back to me when they have a test that...

• Is double blind
• Judges only the image quality and doesn't show the consoles at all
• Uses people the Pro is actually targeting. Asking some of these people would be like asking me which abstract art painting was the best. (Hint: I could not care less and would just choose the cheapest option)

Which is best?

I don't think they claimed that this was the most scientific test ever. It would take a lot of resources to do a fully scientific double blind test. Even then it wouldn't be worth the effort because the results would be largely the same. They weren't just comparing visuals but everything about the machine including the price point and what you get for your money compared to experience of the standard PS4. No amount of blind testing can make for the perceived lack of value proposition in the Pro model.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that the Pro is not supposed to look better design wise than the Slim. Sony certainly never said such a thing. They both have a similar design language and if anything the Pro is marketed as the high end premium model. Plus certainly side by side the three layers of the Pro's profile compared to the two layers of the Slim gives the impression of being a more capable machine. If that wasn't the case they would have kept a two layer design for the Pro but just increased the dimensions.

 

[v1oz]

Well for real gamers that own the pro they know the difference.

Try Battlefield 1 on both and things become pretty clear witch one is the PSPro!

Why not Skyrim and Deus Ex?

 

[LowParry]

Well, the first thing he says off the bat that this is a new system with no games? Skipped a bit here and there. The people they interview seem to get the idea of what the PS4 Pro is. 4k resolution and a better CPU. Upgrade.

Don't really care what it looks like. It is what it is.

A good game to compare (UN4) but what about other games? "After they played the games...".

Lies.

The cheaper option is always going to be top of the list with most customers.

As people already said, best quote. "Fuck no. Who the fuck would do that?" Priceless.

Oh man 10 hours to test? Jesus. Someone save these poor people.

20% couldn't tell the difference. 90% said they didn't care. Based off of 4? 5 people? Oooookay.

General public won't do it. Catastrophe. Not worth the money.





They really need to stick with the retro stuff.

 

[Dubz]

Spent my money on a 1070. I could see the differences in the video, but the 1070 owns the Pro IMO.

 

[shanafan]

Spent my money on a 1070. I could see the differences in the video, but the 1070 owns the Pro IMO.

What monitor you running? I just got a 1440p, 144 hz Dell monitor and combined with my 1070, it's incredible.

 

[Sorcerer Supreme]

Spent my money on a 1070. I could see the differences in the video, but the 1070 owns the Pro IMO.

well no shit

 

[thuway]

Good video IMO. Its not a digital foundry style analysis but that was the entire point. It was just to see what the average person on the street thinks. I can appreciate that.

How is this a good video in any sense of the word? It's blatantly misleading.


Everything from the sample of games used, to the description of the device, to the conclusion clearly lacked nuance.

 

[wbEMX]

So, the entire purpose to get normal people is to prove a point that has been obvious to me since the announcement of PS4 Pro. The general public does not care.

That doesn't make the video horrible, but the system is called PS4 Pro for a reason.

 

[thuway]

So, the entire purpose to get normal people is to prove a point that has been obvious to me since the announcement of PS4 Pro. The general public does not care.

That doesn't make the video horrible, but the system is called PS4 Pro for a reason.

Well it's a vexing proposition because the PS4 Pro does a lot of really incredible things to make Playstation games look rather clean. Unfortunately, the level of misinformation, miscommunication, and misunderstanding of the benefits- value - and purpose are completely lost becuase Sony themselves didn't bother.


If a game comes out and looks substantially better than the original PS4 - there will be pitch forks. If a game comes out and looks like a cleaned up version of an existing PS4 game - there will be pitch forks.


Either way the system offers no absolutes which is something the public is crying for. Whenever the narrative or messaging has a 'if' or a 'but' or a 'except' - you can welcome and embrace pathos. PS4 Pro doesn't offer 4K across the board, doesn't offer locked 60 FPS upgrades, and it can't play UHD disks. For as enthusiastic as I am about the product - even I can't understand why Sony would release a product that doesn't have a defining message. At the moment they are in a Catch 22 of enthusiast's fervor and the tone deaf lay man.

 

[Stealthcobra]

As a pro owner.. I'm very happy with my purchase. From the great iq to the vastly improved download speeds.

I consider myself an average gamer.. Dont care about frame rates, etc... The amount of anal investigation that gaf does in regards to games is annoying.. Beat a dead horse 10 times over about the most insignificant stuff

 

[ScatheZombie]

It's almost as hilarious to watch these as it is to see GAF's reaction to them.

The general public largely doesn't give a single fuck about IQ or performance beyond a certain point. The circle-jerking about 30/60 or 720/900/1080/4K is relegated entirely to the hardcore minority.

What your average person actually notices are things like LODs, particle effects, lighting/shadows, and object density. All of which require sacrifices in performance and IQ.

The Pro was worth it to me alone for the improvement in load times. I haven't played a BF1 match since I got the Pro where I'm not one of the first, if not first, to load into the map and get my choice of vehicles.

 

[ZangBa]

I'd consider myself pretty hardcore and I don't see the value. If it's your first PS4, then sure, I guess it's worth it. But if you already have one, then there's little point to me.

 

[Clarkus Darkus]

Took my PSVR to my brothers yesterday, Played it on his normal PS4 and the difference between that and my PRO was really noticeable. So that alone has made it worthwhile.

Rush of blood, Batman, Sportsbar VR, Resi all looked worse.