Ps4k/4.5

[Aesius]

Yeah, I know PC gaming has become far more streamlined in many of those things (controllers, auto settings, and hardware detection). So so much better than it used to be. And I do envy Steam sales, for sure.

I've always said I'd be on board for something like a Steambox, that has a unified online community and ease of access like a console, but minus the look of PC operating systems.

My knocks against PC gaming is mostly with having it be on a "computer" with all of the annoyances of dealing with Windows 10, Linux, Macs, or whatever. And the fragmented online communities, opposed to knowing everyone on my Xbox can play what I'm playing and I don't have to have separate game stores, friend lists, and servers to deal with. Or worrying that my friends' PCs can't handle the games mine can.

My consoles download my updates in rest mode, do you still have to manually patch games on PC?

Nope, Steam updates things automatically when you're not even playing. As long as your PC is on, the updates get downloaded.

And the worry about friends' PCs not handling your games is exactly why I think the PS4K is a bad idea. If the only difference is PS4=1080p and PS4K=4K, then it's fine. But I think developers are going to use the extra power and completely divide the userbases and make games incompatible with each other, or at least gimp the PS4 versions.

Also, just for clarification, I own a PS4. I really like it and in fact played the hell out of it early in its cycle. Most PS4 games don't look much worse (if they look worse at all) compared to their PC counterparts. The biggest difference with PC is that if your hardware is powerful enough, you can play at 60 FPS instead of 30 FPS. Which is a huge difference and worth the extra cost to me.

 

[G0 BIG 0RANGE]

I do agree with you guys in that consoles, for the time being, will still dominate the market over PCs. A big reason is that people are invested into the XBL/PSN ecosystems with their friends lists and overall familiarity with the interfaces and console libraries.

That's the big part. I've invested 10 years in Xbox Live and slightly less in PSN. I've got an enormous catalog of games, trophies, achievements, friends, etc. that I hate to just drop to start all over.

Another thing that concerns me is that there are times when the PC port of a game doesn't work and they have to issue refunds (Batman Arkham Knight being the recent one). I always see my brother searching message boards all over the Internet to see what he needs to do to get something to work right, or to find people to play with, etc. I just like knowing the game will work and my friends and I can play together.

 

[G0 BIG 0RANGE]

Nope, Steam updates things automatically when you're not even playing. As long as your PC is on, the updates get downloaded.

And the worry about friends' PCs not handling your games is exactly why I think the PS4K is a bad idea. If the only difference is PS4=1080p and PS4K=4K, then it's fine. But I think developers are going to use the extra power and completely divide the userbases and make games incompatible with each other, or at least gimp the PS4 versions.

Also, just for clarification, I own a PS4. I really like it and in fact played the hell out of it early in its cycle. Most PS4 games don't look much worse (if they look worse at all) compared to their PC counterparts. The biggest difference with PC is that if your hardware is powerful enough, you can play at 60 FPS instead of 30 FPS. Which is a huge difference and worth the extra cost to me.

Haha yeah, man I get you, I'm not trying to start a war with the master race. Just voicing my concerns with PC. Most of which are becoming more and more negligible.

I'd like to have 60 FPS on Dark Souls 3 right now 😞 haha but I can deal with it. Visuals tend to fall to the bottom of my priorities for games anyways. I can't say having 1080p vs 900p bothers me, only FPS tends to hinder gameplay for me.

 

[Aesius]

Haha yeah, man I get you, I'm not trying to start a war with the master race. Just voicing my concerns with PC. Most of which are becoming more and more negligible.

I'd like to have 60 FPS on Dark Souls 3 right now 😞 haha but I can deal with it. Visuals tend to fall to the bottom of my priorities for games anyways. I can't say having 1080p vs 900p bothers me, only FPS tends to hinder gameplay for me.

Yeah, 60 FPS is just so damn smooth. It really changes the experience. I might consider getting the PS4K if there was an option of 4K 30 FPS vs 1080p 60 FPS. In that case it would actually convert a lot of PC users, I think.

And although I don't play my PS4 much now, I'm holding onto it in the hopes that the NCAA series somehow gets revived in the near future. My luck I would sell it and the very next day, EA would announce its coming back.

 

[SWIL]

So do you guys see the PC and Console gaming industries eventually becoming one in the same? Seems like we are headed that way with social, mobility, and cloud tech all moving to the forefront.

Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall! - Ronald Reagan

 

[Aesius]

So do you guys see the PC and Console gaming industries eventually becoming one in the same? Seems like we are headed that way with social, mobility, and cloud tech all moving to the forefront.

Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall! - Ronald Reagan

Microsoft?s E3 2016 Will Be All About Xbox One And Windows 10 Integration ? Michael Pachter « GamingBolt.com: Video Game News, Reviews, Previews and Blog

Microsoft seems to be moving in that direction.

Also, given the advances in mobile processors and GPUs, I think we're about 5 years away from smartphones and tablets having graphical capabilities that rival high-end PCs.

The Galaxy S7 can already play Unreal Engine 4 games at 2560x1440. Only a matter of time until consoles (and perhaps even gaming PCs) are either niche items or non-existent.

 

[G0 BIG 0RANGE]

Microsoft?s E3 2016 Will Be All About Xbox One And Windows 10 Integration ? Michael Pachter « GamingBolt.com: Video Game News, Reviews, Previews and Blog

Microsoft seems to be moving in that direction.

Also, given the advances in mobile processors and GPUs, I think we're about 5 years away from smartphones and tablets having graphical capabilities that rival high-end PCs.

The Galaxy S7 can already play Unreal Engine 4 games at 2560x1440. Only a matter of time until consoles (and perhaps even gaming PCs) are either niche items or non-existent.

I hope I'm not ever forced to use a damn iPad for gaming. I would have no idea what to do with myself. I guess I'll read more.

 

[Brave Volunteer]

I hope I'm not ever forced to use a damn iPad for gaming. I would have no idea what to do with myself. I guess I'll read more.

As long as it allows us to connect to a TV or monitor and use a controller, Im fine with it. Keep an eye on Nintendo's upcoming NX system, rumored to be a console/moble hybrid. That could be the beginning of this kind of movement.

 

[Aesius]

As long as it allows us to connect to a TV or monitor and use a controller, Im fine with it. Keep an eye on Nintendo's upcoming NX system, rumored to be a console/moble hybrid. That could be the beginning of this kind of movement.

Agreed. I think the end game for home gaming is actually televisions with built-in mobile CPUs/GPUs and Android software that allow them to play games without the use of a gaming console.

The "guts" of new smartphones are tiny, and yet they're already capable of playing games that barely look worse than current PS4 and Xbox One games. Makes sense that those guts will eventually end up inside televisions, but the biggest question is when developers will make the shift and whether gamers will actually fork over $50+ for games in Android when other games are $1.99 or free. If not, the future of gaming may be crappy shovelware titles.

I played this on my girlfriend's Galaxy S7 in Gear VR last night:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF2aruO5jAY

I never play mobile games, and while the gameplay itself isn't anything to write home about, the graphics are extremely impressive for a smartphone game. And the S7 renders it at 2560x1440. Mobile is quickly catching up to desktop/laptop/console computing power.

 

[Brave Volunteer]

Agreed. I think the end game for home gaming is actually televisions with built-in mobile CPUs/GPUs and Android software that allow them to play games without the use of a gaming console.

The "guts" of new smartphones are tiny, and yet they're already capable of playing games that barely look worse than current PS4 and Xbox One games. Makes sense that those guts will eventually end up inside televisions, but the biggest question is when developers will make the shift and whether gamers will actually fork over $50+ for games in Android when other games are $1.99 or free. If not, the future of gaming may be crappy shovelware titles.

I played this on my girlfriend's Galaxy S7 in Gear VR last night:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF2aruO5jAY

I never play mobile games, and while the gameplay itself isn't anything to write home about, the graphics are extremely impressive for a smartphone game. And the S7 renders it at 2560x1440. Mobile is quickly catching up to desktop/laptop/console computing power.

Wow! That IS impressive, especially for a mobile game!

 

[AustinMem]

That's the big part. I've invested 10 years in Xbox Live and slightly less in PSN. I've got an enormous catalog of games, trophies, achievements, friends, etc. that I hate to just drop to start all over.

Another thing that concerns me is that there are times when the PC port of a game doesn't work and they have to issue refunds (Batman Arkham Knight being the recent one). I always see my brother searching message boards all over the Internet to see what he needs to do to get something to work right, or to find people to play with, etc. I just like knowing the game will work and my friends and I can play together.

If people start moving from Console to PC, then developers would begin developing with PC in mind first, and then port to console(which usually means cutting things down). The one thing I do like about this current generation of consoles is that they are making the framework very close to PC architecture, meaning easier transition across the two. I have an Xbox 360 and PS3 but have yet to move to the latest generation, because I am spending all of my time on PC instead.
I am currently playing SW:KOTOR and KOTOR2, with advanced graphics and content mods. I also bought FIFA 15 for PC and have been playing that quite a bit. My PC is 4 years old but still has the HDMI out to be able to hook up to the big screen, and I have an XBox 360 controller, so the experience is pretty much the same as Console for me. With Humble Bundles and Steam sales, I think I have enough games to keep me busy in the short time I have free to play. I would like to see a time when consoles get to where you can have a "library" of games which travels with you from console to console through each generation.

The only place I really see consoles as better than PC is the community integration. It is definitely too fragmented (Origin/Steam/Uplay?/etc). With Windows 10 and new console architectures, we could potentially hit a point where you could actually log into your PC and have XBox/Playstation messenger come up, with the ability to launch games with friends similar to how you do now in Xbox.

 

[G0 BIG 0RANGE]

Agreed. I think the end game for home gaming is actually televisions with built-in mobile CPUs/GPUs and Android software that allow them to play games without the use of a gaming console.

The "guts" of new smartphones are tiny, and yet they're already capable of playing games that barely look worse than current PS4 and Xbox One games. Makes sense that those guts will eventually end up inside televisions, but the biggest question is when developers will make the shift and whether gamers will actually fork over $50+ for games in Android when other games are $1.99 or free. If not, the future of gaming may be crappy shovelware titles.

I played this on my girlfriend's Galaxy S7 in Gear VR last night:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF2aruO5jAY

I never play mobile games, and while the gameplay itself isn't anything to write home about, the graphics are extremely impressive for a smartphone game. And the S7 renders it at 2560x1440. Mobile is quickly catching up to desktop/laptop/console computing power.

I'm concerned with shovelware too. Konami has already decided they can make more money making sh***y mobile app games and pachinko machines than console games. Mobile games are so cheap and can make so much more than they cost. I hope watered down micro transaction mobile games aren't the future.

 

[G0 BIG 0RANGE]

This is what I was talking about with PC gaming. Dark Souls 3 crashing on PC. I like my Xbox and PS4 versions running flawlessly. Not as pretty, but they work on start up.

Dark Souls 3 PC Has Crashing Issues, But There’s A Temporary Fix

 

[Brave Volunteer]

This is what I was talking about with PC gaming. Dark Souls 3 crashing on PC. I like my Xbox and PS4 versions running flawlessly. Not as pretty, but they work on start up.

Dark Souls 3 PC Has Crashing Issues, But There’s A Temporary Fix

PC gamers like to blame consoles for holding development back. However I have to believe that trying to develop a game that accommodates SO many different configurations at so many different performance levels holds development back more than consoles do.

I'm like you. The beauty of consoles is flawless compatibility whether you buy a game for it in year 1 or year 7. I'll gladly trade performance for this convenience. This is also why I'm not for consoles moving to this mid-generational power uptick.

 

[Aesius]

Having to develop for multiple configurations didn't stop Crytek from releasing Far Cry in 2004 or Crysis in 2007, both of which were way ahead of their times.

What's holding back graphics is the fact that there isn't a large enough userbase of gaming PC owners for developers to spend the money on creating highly advanced engines that utilize the available hardware.

A game that was built from the ground up for PCs with $500+ graphics cards as the minimum requirements (as Crysis was in 2007) would look damn near photo-realistic in 2016.

A GTX 980 Ti is about 175% faster than the GPUs in the PS4 and Xbox One. But right now the most it can do is push games at either 1080p 120 FPS or 4K at 45-60 FPS. High-end GPUs are immensely powerful and play console ports maxed out without breaking a sweat. The gap will only become even bigger when Pascal cards are released.

 

[Brave Volunteer]

Having to develop for multiple configurations didn't stop Crytek from releasing Far Cry in 2004 or Crysis in 2007, both of which were way ahead of their times.

What's holding back graphics is the fact that there isn't a large enough userbase of gaming PC owners for developers to spend the money on creating highly advanced engines that utilize the available hardware.

A game that was built from the ground up for PCs with $500+ graphics cards as the minimum requirements (as Crysis was in 2007) would look damn near photo-realistic in 2016.

A GTX 980 Ti is about 175% faster than the GPUs in the PS4 and Xbox One. But right now the most it can do is push games at either 1080p 120 FPS or 4K at 45-60 FPS. High-end GPUs are immensely powerful and play console ports maxed out without breaking a sweat. The gap will only become even bigger when Pascal cards are released.

But don't you think we're getting in "diminishing returns" territory with graphics now anyway? I mean, I've seen plenty of video comparisons of games running on PS4/X1/PC (ultra settings) and while the PC versions are always the best, they're not THAT much better. Certainly not thousands of dollars better IMO. Ratchet and Clank already looks like a Pixar movie. MLB The Show is gorgeous. The Witcher 3 on console looks terrific. Battlefront on PS4 looks film-like at times. Uncharted 4 looks fantastic. Gears of War 4 looks great. And all this is achieved on architecture that is criticized by some as "obsolete" and "outdated." Do PC gamers get ever sick of the "arms race?"

Also, one thing you have to consider is we are rapidly heading towards a situation where regardless of how much power is at developer's fingertips, there's only so much time and financial strain studios can bare to even properly take advantage anymore. The cost of AAA game development has skyrocket over the last few years. Sooner or later, developers are going to hit a financial wall they just won't be able to breach and regardless of how much power is at their disposal, they'll never be able to take advantage because of cost.

 

[Aesius]

But don't you think we're getting in "diminishing returns" territory with graphics now anyway? I mean, I've seen plenty of video comparisons of games running on PS4/X1/PC (ultra settings) and while the PC versions are always the best, they're not THAT much better. Certainly not thousands of dollars better IMO. Ratchet and Clank already looks like a Pixar movie. MLB The Show is gorgeous. The Witcher 3 on console looks terrific. Battlefront on PS4 looks film-like at times. Uncharted 4 looks fantastic. Gears of War 4 looks great. And all this is achieved on architecture that is criticized by some as "obsolete" and "outdated." Do PC gamers get ever sick of the "arms race?"

Also, one thing you have to consider is we are rapidly heading towards a situation where regardless of how much power is at developer's fingertips, there's only so much time and financial strain studios can bare to even properly take advantage anymore. The cost of AAA game development has skyrocket over the last few years. Sooner or later, developers are going to hit a financial wall they just won't be able to breach and regardless of how much power is at their disposal, they'll never be able to take advantage because of cost.

This is the future of real-time graphics:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpT6MkCeP7Y

Even with the film grain effect, you can immediately tell how much more realistic the image appears. Combine that with the ultra-high resolution textures that will be possible when GPUs have 16/32 GBs of VRAM and games from 2016 will look laughable in comparison.

So no, I don't think we've reached a point of diminishing returns.

That said, I do think a lot of modern games look excellent. But we haven't really scratched the surface in terms of what's possible. Realistic lighting is the biggest hurdle left.

 

[Brave Volunteer]

This is the future of real-time graphics:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpT6MkCeP7Y

Even with the film grain effect, you can immediately tell how much more realistic the image appears. Combine that with the ultra-high resolution textures that will be possible when GPUs have 16/32 GBs of VRAM and games from 2016 will look laughable in comparison.

So no, I don't think we've reached a point of diminishing returns.

That said, I do think a lot of modern games look excellent. But we haven't really scratched the surface in terms of what's possible. Realistic lighting is the biggest hurdle left.

Thanks for your input Aesius. I'd be curious to know what you think about my second point regarding the rising cost of game development. It just seems to me that at some point developers are going to hit a financial wall as to what they can afford to create, regardless of how much power is at their fingertips.

For example, I've heard gamers say things like "Wouldn't GTA be cool if you could literally go into every building?" But they don't stop to consider the insane amount of time and resources it would take to render that many environments. It took Rockstar nearly 5 years to make GTAV. Imagine how long it would take if they tried to render the inside structure of every building and make them interactive. Hell they'd STILL be working on it.

 

[Aesius]

Thanks for your input Aesius. I'd be curious to know what you think about my second point regarding the rising cost of game development. It just seems to me that at some point developers are going to hit a financial wall as to what they can afford to create, regardless of how much power is at their fingertips.

For example, I've heard gamers say things like "Wouldn't GTA be cool if you could literally go into every building?" But they don't stop to consider the insane amount of time and resources it would take to render that many environments. It took Rockstar nearly 5 years to make GTAV. Imagine how long it would take if they tried to render the inside structure of every building and make them interactive. Hell they'd STILL be working on it.

I think costs will continue to rise in the short-term, but actually go down long-term. New technology and new proprietary engines/physics engines will continue to give developers shortcuts and cheap ways to get things done. Plus, there's a lot of talk that path-tracing and voxel-based games will also make things cheaper. I'm not knowledgeable enough to know why that is, but I've seen it mentioned several times.

In 10 years, a Grand Theft Auto game where the interior of every building in Liberty City is accessible could be possible, but the interiors and the NPCs inhabiting them would likely be procedurally generated. Look at No Man's Sky. There are an almost infinite number of planets to be explored in that game because they are procedurally generated.

I think we're at an interesting point in terms of graphics and real-time image quality. On the one hand, games like Uncharted 4, Star Wars Battlefront, and most of the sports games look absolutely amazing and, in certain scenarios, are approaching photorealism. But when you compare them to the lighting shown in the video I linked above, suddenly they look very video game-like.

So we're at a point where graphics look great and it's hard to find glaring faults in most games, and yet we're miles away from real-time path tracing where every point of light is rendered individually and behaves realistically. We're also miles away from having GPUs capable of making VR a truly immersive experience due to the computing cost of extremely high resolution images (4K or even 8K displays per eye being the goal).

 

[Brave Volunteer]

I think costs will continue to rise in the short-term, but actually go down long-term. New technology and new proprietary engines/physics engines will continue to give developers shortcuts and cheap ways to get things done. Plus, there's a lot of talk that path-tracing and voxel-based games will also make things cheaper. I'm not knowledgeable enough to know why that is, but I've seen it mentioned several times.

My only concern with that is we are going to start seeing a lot of "cookie cutter" games that look similar due to devs using the same tools/engines. However I suppose it's inevitable due to development costs.

In 10 years, a Grand Theft Auto game where the interior of every building in Liberty City is accessible could be possible, but the interiors and the NPCs inhabiting them would likely be procedurally generated. Look at No Man's Sky. There are an almost infinite number of planets to be explored in that game because they are procedurally generated.

Yes I thought about that and that certainly could be a solution. However I do question just how much detail could be put into the interiors and NPC's when they are procedurally generated. Plus wouldn't that require GTA to become an always online, always connected game? It's still a relatively new concept in game development so it'll be interested how that rendering style will be used in a post-No Man's Sky world.

I think we're at an interesting point in terms of graphics and real-time image quality. On the one hand, games like Uncharted 4, Star Wars Battlefront, and most of the sports games look absolutely amazing and, in certain scenarios, are approaching photorealism. But when you compare them to the lighting shown in the video I linked above, suddenly they look very video game-like.

So we're at a point where graphics look great and it's hard to find glaring faults in most games, and yet we're miles away from real-time path tracing where every point of light is rendered individually and behaves realistically. We're also miles away from having GPUs capable of making VR a truly immersive experience due to the computing cost of extremely high resolution images (4K or even 8K displays per eye being the goal).

The best example of lighting I've seen looking real (to me at least) is Driveclub. The real time lighting, coupled with the day/night cycles, volumetric clouds, etc make for a pretty stunning presentation. So I feel like we have to be getting pretty close.

 

[DrRosenRosen]

Another thing that will help gaming, etc is the internet. When you can turn consoles into just an interface box and move all the heavy lifting to a cloud, you have a ton more power and resources.

Sort of moving back to a mainframe type setup. We'll just being playing off servers. And that will help create even bigger worlds and more complex AI, etc.

Graphics cards at $1000 are a joke. Common man can't afford that stuff. In 10-15 years we wont have to. It'll be streamed to our houses.

 

[Brave Volunteer]

Another thing that will help gaming, etc is the internet. When you can turn consoles into just an interface box and move all the heavy lifting to a cloud, you have a ton more power and resources.

Sort of moving back to a mainframe type setup. We'll just being playing off servers. And that will help create even bigger worlds and more complex AI, etc.

Graphics cards at $1000 are a joke. Common man can't afford that stuff. In 10-15 years we wont have to. It'll be streamed to our houses.

The internet is going to have to get a LOT faster and more reliable before that's a reality.

 

[BearCat204]

The internet is going to have to get a LOT faster and more reliable before that's a reality.

Unless you live in a gigcity......

 

[Brave Volunteer]

Unless you live in a gigcity......

Well, living in Chattanooga and using EPB fiber optic, I have to admit the internet here is really good! However the overall global infrastructure is going to have to get a lot better. Plus, what about the military? There's lots of gamers in the military who don't always have very good internet connection.

 

[BearCat204]

Well, living in Chattanooga and using EPB fiber optic, I have to admit the internet here is really good! However the overall global infrastructure is going to have to get a lot better. Plus, what about the military? There's lots of gamers in the military who don't always have very good internet connection.

As a Vet, I am very aware of issues with lack of Internet for gaming. That demographic isn't going to play that big a part in their decision making, it's just not a big enough part of the market.