bit-gamer.net

Digital Foundry compares UE4 PC and PlayStation 4 ports

Digital Foundry compares UE4 PC and PlayStation 4 ports

Epic Games' demonstration of its Unreal Engine 4 running on a PlayStation 4 offers a glimpse of how the platform compares to a GTX 680-based gaming PC.

A video offering a side-by-side comparison of Epic Games' Unreal Engine 4 running on a PC and on a PlayStation 4 has been released, offering gamers the first glimpse at what some in the industry claim will be putting gaming PCs to shame for years to come.

Much has been made of the potential performance of Sony's upcoming PlayStation 4 console: while its high-throughput - but relatively high-latency - 8GB of GDDR5 memory, shared between the system and the graphics processor, is certainly impressive, its use of AMD's accelerated processing unit (APU) technology for both central and graphics processing has others concerned. Early demonstrations of the console's capabilities at a press event - which did not, oddly, include actually showing off the console - helped demonstrate the difference between what is possible on the PS4 compared to the current-generation PS3, but stopped short of comparing the device to gaming PCs with more powerful graphics cards and faster, Intel-based central processors.

With Sony clearly unwilling to make the direct comparison, that's something that is going to be up to third-parties to do - and that's exactly what the latest video from game capture experts Digital Foundry has done. Taking footage released by Epic in 2012 of its Unreal Engine 4 running on an Intel Core i7 processor with an Nvidia GeForce GTX 680 graphics card and comparing it to the same demonstration running on a PlayStation 4, released by Epic last week at the Games Developers Conference (GDC,) it's now possible for the first time to make a near-direct comparison between a gaming PC and the PS4.

We say "near-direct" with good reason, however: Eurogamer's Richard Leadbetter notes in the release of the video that Epic has made some fundamental changes to the demo since it was first released last year, meaning not all scenes are directly comparable. Despite this, it's still possible to make one clear observation: particle effects and other computationally-intensive aspects of the engine have been noticeably reduced in the PlayStation 4 version of the engine in order to keep things ticking along at an acceptable speed.

That's not as bad as it sounds, however: the video is still impressive, running as it is in real-time on a device expected to hit the market for around £300 - the sort of money that will barely buy you the Nvidia GTX 680 of Epic's 2012 demo release, never mind an entire high-end gaming PC.

What it does show, however, is that the PlayStation 4 will not be enough to win PC gaming aficionados across to the dark side of console gaming - and while a PS4-beating gaming PC might be significantly more expensive than just buying a PS4 when the device launches, towards the end of its life-span - typically around five years for a modern console - that balance will shift dramatically, especially for those who don't mind buying their gaming hardware second-hand.

In other words: claims by Avalanche Studios' Linus Blomberg that the PS4 will out-power gaming PCs for years to come aren't exactly on the money, and while Nvidia's scorn for the console may be somewhat closer to the mark - at least, for those with the budget to get involved in high-end PC gaming.

71 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
sandys 4th April 2013, 12:12 Quote
I would look at it the other way from what it can't yet do, it is impressive what they have achieved in a few weeks of having a PS4 dev kit, there is bound to be lots of work remaining to write custom shaders etc, for the graphics hardware, there will be a lot more spit and polish to come.

Looks promising to me coming from a early PS3 owner experience of shoddy ports, this shows they can get stuff up an running in quick time, so it must be a doddle in comparison to Cell.
Gareth Halfacree 4th April 2013, 12:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandys
[...] so it must be a doddle in comparison to Cell.
Flipping the bits manually with a magnetised needle and a very steady hand would be easier than porting to the Cell...
jrs77 4th April 2013, 12:25 Quote
Give 'em a little more time to code to the metal on the PS4 and we'll see an exact or even slightly better result of the PC-version running on a GTX680.

There's some PS3 live-demos that are up to modern day graphics as they're heavily optimized for the platform.
rollo 4th April 2013, 12:30 Quote
After what 2months they have the thing running at all is an achievement in itself. Maybe they should redo it on release and see how it looks as id wonder myself then.

High end gaming pc is basically tripple the expected retail cost of a ps4 (£350-£400) once you include monitor, OS, Keyboard and mouse. And thats just for 1 card solutions start talking SLI and Crossfire and price can multiply fast.
Shirty 4th April 2013, 12:39 Quote
I'm not sure I agree entirely with Linus Blomberg's assessment that the "PS4 will out-power most PCs for years to come".

Whilst this is technically correct, most PCs are neither used nor set up for gaming. One could equally argue that the PS3 is still out-powering most PCs in 2013, from a purely gaming perspective. My office PC sure as hell ain't going to play the latest AAA titles, and I'm pretty sure that the Smith family's casual gaming focused low-end PC with integrated graphics isn't either.

He is using slightly emotive and/or ambiguous language for effect, and disregarding the fact that more powerful hardware already exists in the world of PC gaming. The hardware development cycle on our chosen platform will continue marching forward as devs find new and ingenious ways to unlock the potential of the new console(s), but whilst it will feel neck and neck for a few years the PC will invariably end up ahead before long.

What should be more of a concern for PC gamers is not whether consoles are more powerful, but whether graphical fidelity has that much further to go. If a PS4 can output visuals that appear to be of equal quality to a high end PC on maximum settings - despite their lack of power - then PC gaming will lose its niche appeal in the long run, as 99% of people won't be able to perceive the subtle differences.
SchizoFrog 4th April 2013, 13:01 Quote
People are also forgetting the architecture of the PS4 which is much closer to a PC than ever before. While it may not look too much different, those extra particles and effects put a massive extra strain on the PC's hardware. Also not taken in to account that many gaming PCs are run on monitors that far exceed the resolution expectations of the PS4.
Games that will be designed with next gen consoles in mind will of course look great and will not look or perform too differently from the PC version. However, when a game is built with the PC in mind with all the variable options for adjusting graphics and such (I know, these games are very few and far between now) then the performance of a mid range gaming PC will be far superior to that of the console port.

My biggest concern is as it's always been. While the PC is my chosen gaming format, I do miss and long for many, many gaming titles that only ever make it to the console formats. Hopefully the new architecture designs within the new consoles will enable games to port easier and hopefully developers will not be hamstrung from doing this. So as the demand for ever higher performing PC hardware falls rather than from a current gen GPU (at time of console lauch) to the next gen, I think I will stick with the PC hardware I have and then think about getting a console as well should these games I desire not be available for the PC.
Griffter 4th April 2013, 13:19 Quote
impressive!!!! but still same problem in all consoles it seems, cant handle too much particles. so they only include particles that matter and IMO take out particles not crucial to the scene but crucial for the mood and to engross the player even more.
SchizoFrog 4th April 2013, 13:21 Quote
I would also just like to point out something as well... It is not always about who has the best hardware, technology development is littered with the corpses of better machine that fell by the side of the road as other so called 'inferior' devices were better supported. This is even more true of the console history, just look at the Atari Jaguar, SEGA Dreamcast, 3DO, etc... It's all about who has the best range of games, accessories and who appeals to the greatest audience, just look at the innovation and sales figures of the Wii. It will be interesting to see what the consoles bring to the tech fight other than just games.
bowman 4th April 2013, 13:54 Quote
It will look better to begin with, then it'll become medicore the year after release, and **** after that. Just as always.
Woodspoon 4th April 2013, 14:28 Quote
Blah, blah, blah, every time a new console is released it's always "this is going to be better than PC's" or "look at this demo it's better than a PC" or some other comparison to PC's saying their going to be better than them for longer this time.
Still waiting.
Impressive stuff though.
Yslen 4th April 2013, 14:29 Quote
Lets put this in perspective. Imagine, if you will, that this is 2010, and the PS4 has just been revealed. Early demos indicate that with some settings turned down, this new console will almost match the current flagship GTX 480.
maverik-sg1 4th April 2013, 14:43 Quote
It's all relative - console graphics will not be as good as the PC even at launch, but that's not really important.....is it?

Consoles will be the thing that's connected to the TV in the living room and the PC to a monitor on a desk....they're no longer in competition with each other.....this is all bad news for the future of pc games ported from consoles though.

Consoles will kill PC gaming and OUYA's (or variants of) will kill consoles.
will_123 4th April 2013, 14:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by bowman
It will look better to begin with, then it'll become medicore the year after release, and **** after that. Just as always.

Yes i was thinking that myself. Well said, the hardware will become out of date pretty quickly. When the console is released will we not be looking at a new set of GPU's a couple of months later..?

If they can start putting games like ARMA on consoles then maybe ill listen more, but the games I want to play just are not on the consoles.
abezors 4th April 2013, 15:13 Quote
Resolution.

Consoles won't have to output anything above 1920x1080 (1080p). This res is standard for a 22" monitor, or maybe 24".

Bear in mind they will also be sitting a few metres from their TV display - so graphics can be cut down further.

This is not an apples-to-apples comparison when you look at it in real world terms.
SchizoFrog 4th April 2013, 15:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by maverik-sg1

Consoles will be the thing that's connected to the TV in the living room and the PC to a monitor on a desk....they're no longer in competition with each other.....this is all bad news for the future of pc games ported from consoles though.

That isn't quite true and is getting less so as time goes on. With APUs becoming more powerful people are starting to build much more powerful yet still tiny HTPCs but then there are also the Mini PCs that will use GPUs like the new ASUS mini GTX670. A lot of these machines will indeed be connected to monitors but also to the TV in the front room. My PC hardware isn't even new and up to date but it has been connected to the TV for years. Gaming PCs and consoles for the mass market never were in competition with each other and as for things being bad news for gaming PCs, they can't get much worse than they already are and hopefully with the 'very-close-to-PC-architecture' inside the new consoles games will be easier to port and so we should be getting many more titles on the PC in the years to come.
Yslen 4th April 2013, 15:59 Quote
For me, the most exciting thing about the PS4 is the possibility of better performance out of hardware we already have due to better optimization/ports. I have no interest in console gaming whatsoever; my leanings towards strategy games and my love of the keyboard as an interface device mean this will likely always be the case.
jrs77 4th April 2013, 16:22 Quote
Oh c'mon people... small powerfull HTPCs won't compete against consoles ever.

Consoles don't need to be setup, you don't need to deal with drivers, installations or whatever. You simply connect it to your 40" TV, power up the damn thing and you can happily play away, sitting on the couch with a controller in your hand.

The only thing better on the PC is games that actually need a keyboard and mouse. All sportstitles, beat'em'ups, actionRPGs or racing-games are totally in the hands of the console-gamers with their gamepads.

Look at titles like GTA for example, or even better, watch out for Diablo3 getting released on the PS3 next month.

The real competition for consoles are smartphones and tablets, but not the PC.
Yslen 4th April 2013, 16:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
watch out for Diablo3 getting released on the PS3 next month.

They're welcome to it >.<
jrs77 4th April 2013, 16:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yslen
They're welcome to it >.<

No auctionhouse, better loot-distribution, no forced online-mode and better action-oriented controls then on the PC ;)
Waynio 4th April 2013, 16:57 Quote
I'm excited about the ps4, that 4GB VRAM is the most significant thing about it, of course the updated CPU & GPU is going to help a lot but the adequate VRAM is a really good & sensible move, it'll work wonders for console ports since they were playing with 256MB VRAM.

My next scratch build might well be for a ps4, I'm quite hungry to do some nice console modding so I'm pre ordering one just so I can do a scratch built case for it straight away, I don't want no plastic box. :D

On topic I don't think there was much difference between the 2, PC was nicer but not by much.
Spuzzell 4th April 2013, 17:07 Quote
PS4 is a slightly overclocked 7850 attached to a mid range AMD mobile processor with a large chunk of speedy RAM.

Its really that simple.

If you have an i5 or an i7 of any vintage and a 7850 then you already have a machine that is faster.
liratheal 4th April 2013, 17:09 Quote
Considering the time they've had with the Ps4, it looks pretty good.

Post launch is when we'll see the best, though, as everyone knows that developers eek the best performance from consoles as they get more and more familiar with the device.
rollo 4th April 2013, 17:20 Quote
While technically that will be true spuzzle the setup you listed would struggle to run ps3 games at 1080p with all details maxed let alone next gen games.

Consoles biggest advantage has always been its ability to be coded direct, that 7850 is likely already pretty close to a 680 in performance terms and they have had th dev kit for 2-3 months imagine what they can do in a year or more.

Sad facts are There's a lot of console games that have interested me in the years gone by and that's why I still buy them.

PC is home of fps, simulation,mmo and strat titles all other game types perform better with a game pad or steering wheel / joystick.

We pc gamers may just have to accept our fate in that reguard.
Harlequin 4th April 2013, 17:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuzzell
PS4 is a slightly overclocked 7850 attached to a mid range AMD mobile processor with a large chunk of speedy RAM.

Its really that simple.

If you have an i5 or an i7 of any vintage and a 7850 then you already have a machine that is faster.


doubt it - since nearly all devs are saying they can get far more performance out of the gpu thanks to not having the bloatware called directx in the way
Shirty 4th April 2013, 17:42 Quote
"Playstation" still sounds like a bad translation :|
Yslen 4th April 2013, 17:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yslen
They're welcome to it >.<

No auctionhouse, better loot-distribution, no forced online-mode and better action-oriented controls then on the PC ;)

The lack of decent dropped loot and the forced inheritance of gold/stash items/artisan levels for new characters are what killed the game for me. Waiting on the full release of Path of Exile, which is the most aRPG fun I've had in ages.
Yslen 4th April 2013, 17:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuzzell
PS4 is a slightly overclocked 7850 attached to a mid range AMD mobile processor with a large chunk of speedy RAM.

Its really that simple.

If you have an i5 or an i7 of any vintage and a 7850 then you already have a machine that is faster.

It remains to be seen however how the games will work with the PS4 (which will be heavily optimised) and how new games will work with our PC hardware (which should benefit a little from the optimisation for a similar architecture).

Sorry for double post, too lazy to switch to forum view ^^
Spuzzell 4th April 2013, 18:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollo
While technically that will be true spuzzle the setup you listed would struggle to run ps3 games at 1080p with all details maxed let alone next gen games.

Consoles biggest advantage has always been its ability to be coded direct, that 7850 is likely already pretty close to a 680 in performance terms and they have had th dev kit for 2-3 months imagine what they can do in a year or more.

Sad facts are There's a lot of console games that have interested me in the years gone by and that's why I still buy them.

PC is home of fps, simulation,mmo and strat titles all other game types perform better with a game pad or steering wheel / joystick.

We pc gamers may just have to accept our fate in that reguard.

Look, I've said this before. There isn't any magical sauce in the PS4s hardware. We already know what it is and what its capabilities are.

Just because game devs know exactly what the weaknesses of every PS4 will be and can design around them doesn't suddenly make them strengths.

And the idea that PCs aren't suited to any type of gaming is just stupid. Xbox pads and wheels work on PC too.
ChaosDefinesOrder 4th April 2013, 18:32 Quote
Something that people seem to keep leaving out of the price comparison between the PS4 and Gaming PCs is the cost of the games themselves!

Using the PS3 and Steam as comparisons, the typical AAA new releases on the PS3 are in the region of £50 to £60, while on Steam they typically retail brand new for £30, sometimes £35. I recently picked up the Survival Edition of Tomb Raider on PC for £26 pre-order!

Second example: Bioshock Infinite on Playstation Network is £49.99 compared to Steam where it is £29.99.

When you add up the price difference for a large number of games (I have 103 on my Steam list! Granted they're not all release date AAAs) then a Gaming PC can quite easily end up paying for itself...

Then of course we get into the flexibility and scalability of PCs compared to consoles; good luck finding many 1080p native games for the PS3 (they're mostly 720p only or rendered at lower res and upscaled). Sure the PS4 can probably handle 1080p no problem, but it's still worth pointing out given that people made the same arguments RE: PCs when the PS3 came out...

That and I certainly use my PC for far more than gaming! The real cost comparison between a console and gaming PC would be the cost of the PC vs. the cost of a Console plus the cost of a mid-to-low spec laptop and/or an tablet for general email and internet outside of gaming!

So, Decent gaming PC for £900 to £1000 (ball-park example) "all in"
compared to £300 for a PS4 plus £400 for laptop/tablet plus £10 to £20 per game extra...

Where's the cost saving of getting a console?
rollo 4th April 2013, 18:34 Quote
They do but pc gaming to me is first and foremost keyboard and mouse. And that applys to the bulk of pc gamers that i know and play with.

We would not get our gamepads out for borderlands 2 or crysis 3 i can tell you that for certain. There has not been a good driving game on pc since grid was made.

The fact that to play and beat darksiders 2 on its max difficulty you need a xbox 360 controller is kinda sad in a way. That applys to so many games though of its type. GTA4 plays better with a 360 pad than it does with a keyboard and mouse.

MMOs and strat games are the home of macro land and 16 button mouses to use most of them if your playing at a decent level they are kinda required.
Yslen 4th April 2013, 19:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuzzell

Look, I've said this before. There isn't any magical sauce in the PS4s hardware. We already know what it is and what its capabilities are.

Just because game devs know exactly what the weaknesses of every PS4 will be and can design around them doesn't suddenly make them strengths.

It's not about coding around weaknesses, it's about efficiency. Code that works on multiple different hardware configurations is inherently inefficient.
Waynio 4th April 2013, 19:36 Quote
Just like PC game sales, console games that have past there hype date so release the game that was £50 which only the crappiest shops would sell a game for become £20 which again only the crappiest shops sell for, all the games go for cheaper if you shop around otherwise I would agree with the price of console games being harsh but for current gen console games the prices are quite a joke, PSN are stingy as hell compared to steam lol & DLC unless it's as awesome as what rockstar did for GTA IV then I'll just pass unless it's going really cheap. :D

I'm a busy person though & have an awesome steam backlog of games which will take me a long time to play through so waiting for prices to come down is no problem but a lot of PC games have been trying to push up to console like prices & then weeks later can be grabbed for half or less price which isn't very nice for keen supporters, I think keen supporters who buy on pre order or while the game is new like within 2 weeks of release should get a very nice discount on DLC for extra incentive but I doubt they will do that, some are giving extra incentive to pre orders though which is nice but I think discount DLC would be better or even a discount on the publishers future games.

I still buy pre orders if it's something I'm very keen on playing & I'd kinda happily pay £40 for a console game knowing it will be superior on ps4 compared to a ps3, I do mostly go for exclusives on console, as a gamer you miss out on some excellent games if you restrict yourself to PC.
Harlequin 4th April 2013, 19:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yslen
It's not about coding around weaknesses, it's about efficiency. Code that works on multiple different hardware configurations is inherently inefficient.

so less ports to PC then since it has that awefull bloatware called windows and directx slowing things down


will dig out the article , but some games are actually something like 150% slower because of DX than they have to be
rollo 4th April 2013, 21:01 Quote
John carmack wrote an article about direct x and windows and OpenGL where he pretty much slaughtered then all for the shocking efficiency of the code.

As he said himself you have a 7 year old console producing games that look up to scratch with the pcs top sellers.( at the time of the quote bf3 was not released, COD was top selling pc game followed by wow and Starcraft 2)

Only dice and crytek have really pushed pc graphics in the last 5 years.

Redengine by the people making witcher also looks awesome.

All 3 have something in commen they all require high end SLI or cfx systems to get decent FPS at max settings.( witcher 2 needs 2 titans to obtain playable FPS with uber sampling on)
tad2008 4th April 2013, 21:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollo
After what 2months they have the thing running at all is an achievement in itself. Maybe they should redo it on release and see how it looks as id wonder myself then.

High end gaming pc is basically tripple the expected retail cost of a ps4 (£350-£400) once you include monitor, OS, Keyboard and mouse. And thats just for 1 card solutions start talking SLI and Crossfire and price can multiply fast.

I agree they have achieved a lot and that the PS4 even this early on looks pretty impressive but then we still haven't seen actual in-game graphics. A comparison with a mid-range spec'd PC would have been more appropriate that much is certain. As for OS, not everyone out there runs Windows, the majority perhaps, but not everyone ;)

As for the cost of the whole monitor, keyboard, mouse, OS, etc, Well most people already have a monitor the same as most PSx owners already have TV's and peripherals, well they cost as much or as little as people want to spend on them, except that al existing pc owners already have those too.

For the £300+ cost of the PS4 I can upgrade my existing and aged PC to an quad core i5 with new mobo and memory even with my AMD 68xx card I'll still get a decent performance and quality improvement at 1080. The difference being is that I can pick up another mid-range card usually for around the £100-£120 that further boosts performance and the look of games, with the PS4 all they can do is grind down to the metal to squeeze out some extra performance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
No auctionhouse, better loot-distribution, no forced online-mode and better action-oriented controls then on the PC ;)

Who really needs an auction house, loot-distribution is relative to the game, forced online mode is still in debate and as for controls, PC's have the largest choice of controls out there, mouse, keyboard, game pad, flight sticks, steering wheel and pedals, remote control and so on it goes.

Not to mention that people have the choice of buying the games they like from any Game type store as well as the likes of Origin or Steam if they so choose.
Ayrto 4th April 2013, 22:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlequin
doubt it - since nearly all devs are saying they can get far more performance out of the gpu thanks to not having the bloatware called directx in the way

This^^.

I'm really intrigued by the Epic demos on PC : Samaritan , Elemental and Infiltrator. Undoubtedly they look gorgeous and Epic have some fabulously talented people, that's not in question.

But take the recent Infiltrator demo ,according to CVG, they were running it in real time on a single GTX680 coupled with an I7 and 16GB ram. Apparently switching to wire frame to prove it... and it ran silky smooth, even in the heavy action parts. Yet , there are highly optimized DX11 benchmarks that only look a fraction as good and suffer severe frame rate dips on similar rigs?
Just what runtime environment were they using? It's hard to believe it was being rendered through clunky DirectX, Nvidia low-level magic?
rollo 5th April 2013, 00:58 Quote
They most likely coded the game to the gtx 680 to show what could be done. Its easier to code to a single GPU if you know what it is then you no longer need a API. They would of known what hardware they were running it on so would of coded for it. Likely it is highly threaded and using nvidias GPGPU Encoding ( aka cuda)

The API is only there because of how much choice there is in the pc market for a video card.

If they were only Nvidia or only AMD cards direct x would of probably disapeared a long time ago. As the overhead would likely of been nullified at one point or another.

Choice in the pc hardware sector has created alot of nice things for us but also caused alot of problems.

Direct X or Open GL both suffer from having to support Multiple video card vendors from intel to Nvidia. Direct x overhead is rather large of devs like john carmark are to be bielived and we have no reason not to think he is telling the truth.
Yslen 5th April 2013, 05:45 Quote
I'm finding it difficult to find any information on the massive DirectX overheads that have been referenced here, beyond the AMD PR story and related articles.

Given that OpenGL has never appeared to offer any better performance, I personally doubt there's much real substance to the claim.

It's the advantage of being able to code for specific hardware instead of for an API that supports a vast range of hardware combinations that brings the performance advantages we've seen with the consoles, rather than some issue with DirectX in itself.
erratum1 5th April 2013, 08:19 Quote
I've always thought pc gaming is so inefficient the answer always seems to be lets throw more power at the problem...more cores, more ram, more stream processors.

Whatever the hardware the ps4 will be efficient.
Blackshark 5th April 2013, 09:02 Quote
Firstly, the demo did not seem as smooth to me in places on the PS4 side. Was that a capturing issue?

Those that want a console, will buy a console. Those that want a better experience and have the money, will buy a PC. Those that have the money and the knowledge will make a PC. It should not be about one being better or worse - horses for courses.

The really important news is that, with all the major consoles using AMD APUs, the portability of code, the ability for studios to target money at the game and not individual ports, means a better experience for all users. Whether console or PC. The PS4 and the 720 will be only as good as a mid range PC, when they are released. In the next 3 years the average PC will eclipse them and gaming PCs will look like they are in a different league.

Now the interesting thing will be in the next generation of consoles if the manufacturers work out a way to add user changable parts. Imagine a console (steam box) where you can upgrade the graphics, memory, across a 5 / 7 year period.


My 2 krona
Gareth Halfacree 5th April 2013, 10:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackshark
Now the interesting thing will be in the next generation of consoles if the manufacturers work out a way to add user changable parts. Imagine a console (steam box) where you can upgrade the graphics, memory, across a 5 / 7 year period.
It'll never happen. One of the biggest selling points for console gaming is that you buy a game and you just know it'll work exactly like everybody else's copy. You buy a PC game, suddenly you need to start worrying about whether your graphics card is better or worse than the one in the "Recommended" specs box on the back of the box, and whether your CPU is fast enough. If I buy Crysis 3, it's probably not going to run very well on my poor old A10-5800K - and won't run at all on my laptop; if somebody with a Core i7 overclocked to 5GHz and with three GeForce Titans buys it, it's going to run considerably better.

That's something console makers want to avoid at all costs: imagine if you bought an Xbox 720 game (for sake of argument), tried to run it - only to find half the features were dependent on you having bought the mid-life upgrade to its graphics card and processor. You wouldn't be best pleased, would you? Okay, there's a shade of that in the launch of things like Kinect and Move - where certain games simply won't work if you don't have the add-on - but that's more visible than a spec upgrade.

Now, the Steam Box is a different matter: that's a PC first and a console second, so there would be nothing to stop Valve making it user-upgradeable.
forum_user 5th April 2013, 10:21 Quote
This round of console releases will need to give us what we desire.

Mine ...

1) 3D
2) 4K
3) minimal loading times
4) quiet
5) plays ball with my current network and hardware
6) doesn't require a whole new load of controllers, hardware.
rollo 5th April 2013, 11:54 Quote
1. Possible
2. No chance not even a 4k tv on market for under £20k.
3. Depends on game
4. Ps3 is quiet, 360 is now also was not on launch though
5. Don't know why it would not.
6. Wiiu is backwords compatible with its controllers.
ChaosDefinesOrder 5th April 2013, 12:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
That's something console makers want to avoid at all costs: imagine if you bought an Xbox 720 game (for sake of argument), tried to run it - only to find half the features were dependent on you having bought the mid-life upgrade to its graphics card and processor. You wouldn't be best pleased, would you? Okay, there's a shade of that in the launch of things like Kinect and Move - where certain games simply won't work if you don't have the add-on - but that's more visible than a spec upgrade..

N64 Expansion Pak ;-)

Why not have a space for a RAM expansion module or, given that it's an AMD APU, an expansion slot for a Crossfire graphics module expansion. The Xbox 360 started off with a modular storage expansion capability...
Gareth Halfacree 5th April 2013, 12:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaosDefinesOrder
N64 Expansion Pak ;-)
Hah - I'd forgotten about that! Strange, 'cos I've got one, so I can play Perfect Dark...
Ayrto 5th April 2013, 12:52 Quote
Many devs seem to be suggesting first party PS4 titles will steal the crown from PC...eventually. As PC hits the DirectX latency brick wall. Producing ever more complex , faster GPUs to offset this seems daft. Especially if the more efficient PS4 is producing better visuals using a quarter of the power of a high end, expensive PC .

And PC gamers may have to finally accept you can't expect to play the latest titles even on very low settings on a dated 2004 ,PS2 era rig.

With both consoles (obviously, still just rumoured for new Xbox) having 8GB ram . It could be interesting to see what finally having native 64bit games does for visuals on PC. Although ,if the rumours are true about MS putting a clunking full-fat Windows OS on their console along with Kinect 2.0 taking up a further 1.5GB , it may not work out like that. Sony seems to be going the OS-lite route, with a much smaller memory footprint. They say first- party titles are ultimately what win these console wars,. If so, with 8GB GDDR, an OS lite and low-level HW access for devs, Sony seems to have a huge advantage, if... that's how thing play out.
Corky42 5th April 2013, 13:46 Quote
The PS4 will have to deal with pretty much the same "latency brick wall" as if the rumors are true it will be using what they are calling an extended DirectX 11.1+ feature set and AFIK all game devs use some kind of API now days.

A comparison of PS4 and PC hardware with costs has already been done, and to sum it up by the time the PS4 is released you could pretty much buy the equivalent gaming rig for the same price, but with the added advantage that you can upgrade the PC as time goes by.

As with all consoles your going to be stuck with the same hardware for over 7 years, i would guess the next gen consoles (PS4, 720) will look out of date within 2 years at most. We will be in the same boat we are in now with console ports on the PC not being able to take advantage of better hardware.
will_123 5th April 2013, 14:34 Quote
Quote:
No chance not even a 4k tv on market for under £20k.

True. But remember these consoles are going to be on the market for 5 years +

What TV res will you be using in couple of years? 4 years? Who knows. Now that Laptops and tables are flying past the "Full HD" experience i would expect my console to do able to do so.
rollo 5th April 2013, 14:36 Quote
We will always be that way corky. Till they hit a point where it can go no further.
forum_user 5th April 2013, 15:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollo
2. No chance not even a 4k tv on market for under £20k.

A company is aiming to release a sub $2.5k 4K TV this year. Ok, it won't come with all the bells and whistles, and rumoured to only upscale to 4K. But 4K is desirable, and getting cheaper, much much faster. I'm an early adopter of most things, due to my need to stroke all things new-tech. There is no point investing time and money in a 1080P console if my TV wants feeding with 4K.

Which is why a SteamBox/etc console is likely to be what I need.
jrs77 5th April 2013, 15:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
A comparison of PS4 and PC hardware with costs has already been done, and to sum it up by the time the PS4 is released you could pretty much buy the equivalent gaming rig for the same price, but with the added advantage that you can upgrade the PC as time goes by.

As with all consoles your going to be stuck with the same hardware for over 7 years, i would guess the next gen consoles (PS4, 720) will look out of date within 2 years at most. We will be in the same boat we are in now with console ports on the PC not being able to take advantage of better hardware.

This is all bollocks and you know it. Look at the PS3.. it has all the modern games released for it and the graphics don't look that much worse then on the PC.

We're talking about games here after all, and not about virtual reality, so I actually don't care about the graphics that much, but more about the game being fun to play or not.

Take Borderlands 2 for example. You can't make out a difference between a triple SLI-GTX680 and a PS3, as the graphical style is not trying to look real anyways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by will_123
True. But remember these consoles are going to be on the market for 5 years +

What TV res will you be using in couple of years? 4 years? Who knows. Now that Laptops and tables are flying past the "Full HD" experience i would expect my console to do able to do so.

1080p will be mainstream for atleast another 5 years to come, as 4k screens won't be anywhere near available for under $1000 within the next 5 years.
Additionally. When sitting on your couch looking at your 40" from 3-4 meters distance, you won't notice much difference between 1080p and 4k.

4k in general is totally overrated, even for the PC. When you ergonomically sit infront of your PC-screen the distance between your head and the screen is about the lenght of your arm (some 80cm). Lean back and relax and it's about one meter.
At one meter distance you don't need that high resolutions to make the picture look perfect. High resolution displays for tablets or phones are a totally different story, as the distance they're used at is usually much less (tablets some 30-50cm, smartphones some 20cm) at which distance you'll heavily notice single pixels on your 1080p PC-screen.

Bigger/finer resolutions are really pointless after a certain point, which imho is allready reached.
Gareth Halfacree 5th April 2013, 16:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
When you ergonomically sit infront of your PC-screen the distance between your head and the screen is about the lenght of your arm (some 80cm). Lean back and relax and it's about one meter.
Did anybody else hold their arm out to see if that measurement was accurate, then realise it looked like you were doing a Nazi-style salute at the monitor? No? Just me, then. Marvellous.

(Incidentally: that measurement is spot-on for me. My fingertips fell just short of the screen.)
Ayrto 5th April 2013, 16:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
Did anybody else hold their arm out to see if that measurement was accurate, then realise it looked like you were doing a Nazi-style salute at the monitor? No? Just me, then. Marvellous.

(Incidentally: that measurement is spot-on for me. My fingertips fell just short of the screen.)

Best not try this in a German internet cafe then.
jrs77 5th April 2013, 16:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
Did anybody else hold their arm out to see if that measurement was accurate, then realise it looked like you were doing a Nazi-style salute at the monitor? No? Just me, then. Marvellous.

(Incidentally: that measurement is spot-on for me. My fingertips fell just short of the screen.)

MUAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!

Didn't really expect, that people stretch out their arms after reading my post :p
forum_user 5th April 2013, 16:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
... I actually don't care about the graphics that much, but more about the game being fun to play or not.

Maybe that is why you don't 'get' upping resolutions. Because you don't care about graphics that much? It always makes me groan when someone brings gameplay into these GFX debates, like they are running for the higher moral ground ... we all care about gameplay more, just like you, but we strive for juicier GFX as well.

Anyway, I did a little light reading and it turns out I no longer want 4K - I now want Super Hi-Vision!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie Carter, TechRadar
What is Super Hi-Vision?

There's another spanner in the works in the shape of Super Hi-Vision, an 8K format created by Japan's national broadcaster NHK. It was trialled extensively at the London 2012 Olympics by the BBC, but doesn't appear to have much chance of becoming a bona fide format just yet. It's certainly one to watch; at double the frame rate of HD (at 120fps) and with a 7680 x 4320 pixel resolution (that's around 32 megapixels), Super Hi-Vision demos have featured stunning 22.2 surround sound, too, thanks to twin subwoofers each the size of a small car.
forum_user 5th April 2013, 16:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
MUAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!

Didn't really expect, that people stretch out their arms after reading my post :p

Actually, you've started quite the little army - I did as well! ;)
rollo 5th April 2013, 17:04 Quote
The whole 4k debate is rather Irelivent as 99% of pc games don't even support multi monitor which can get above 4k.

In 5 years time there might be a sub £1000 monitor for pc gamers. But consoles are aimed at kids first and foremost and no kid would have a £2000+ tv in there room unless there parents are billionaires.

I went DVD on its release back in the day then blue ray when it followed. The difference between a 1st gen DVD and the latest film is huge in quality.

Similar thing is happening in blue ray.

Once 4k becomes what people want you will see a new format released to allow the size of the files.

As a 4k film will be bigger than a blue ray.
jrs77 5th April 2013, 17:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
Maybe that is why you don't 'get' upping resolutions. Because you don't care about graphics that much?

I do graphics design for a living... just sayin'.

However, I don't see that much improvements in bigger resolutions when talking about gaming or watching movies.

Gaming sees much more improvements, when you play at smaller resolutions but increased setting instead actually, and playing a game on a 27" QHD with medium settings looks worse then playing on a 24" FHD with max settings.
So before thinking about bigger resolutions, we should start thinking about more polygons, better textures and shaders first, which is exactly what the PS4 will do compared to the titles currently released on the PS3.
Corky42 5th April 2013, 20:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
This is all bollocks and you know it. Look at the PS3.. it has all the modern games released for it and the graphics don't look that much worse then on the PC.

We're talking about games here after all, and not about virtual reality, so I actually don't care about the graphics that much, but more about the game being fun to play or not.

Take Borderlands 2 for example. You can't make out a difference between a triple SLI-GTX680 and a PS3, as the graphical style is not trying to look real anyways.

You must be kidding right, going with your example of borderlands 2 the recommended system requirements for it is a GTX 560 first released two years ago. The minimum requirement is a 8500 released around the same time as a PS3 over 5 years ago, and i wouldn't exactly call borderlands 2 a modern game when it comes to graphics as it still uses DirectX 9

Its pretty obvious that borderlands 2 was designed with 5 year old hardware in mind and then a few PC specific tweaks where thrown in for the more modern hardware.

If you don't care about graphics why not go back to using a ZX spectrum :? IMHO you can beat the game play in old skool games.
Gareth Halfacree 5th April 2013, 20:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
If you don't care about graphics why not go back to using a ZX spectrum :?
Bah. *Proper* digital hipsters use a ZX81. (I'd have said ZX80, but I don't have one of those. I'd love one, though, if anyone happens to see one going for a fiver at a car boot anywhere...)
Gradius 6th April 2013, 07:28 Quote
This is just ps4 marketing, proof nothing. On PC it could be under-optimized from purpose, simple as that.
ZeDestructor 6th April 2013, 09:09 Quote
Warning: wall of text inbound!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
Oh c'mon people... small powerfull HTPCs won't compete against consoles ever.

Consoles don't need to be setup, you don't need to deal with drivers, installations or whatever. You simply connect it to your 40" TV, power up the damn thing and you can happily play away, sitting on the couch with a controller in your hand.

The only thing better on the PC is games that actually need a keyboard and mouse. All sportstitles, beat'em'ups, actionRPGs or racing-games are totally in the hands of the console-gamers with their gamepads.

Look at titles like GTA for example, or even better, watch out for Diablo3 getting released on the PS3 next month.

The real competition for consoles are smartphones and tablets, but not the PC.

Console updates? I know for a fact that ALL the major consoles need upgrade, and judging by the internet's consensus, the PS3 is hateful in that respect. Even more than a PC. In addition, a well-maintained windows install can be supremely stable and virus-free. Hell, just as an example, I haven't caught a single virus in 5 years. Seen and deleted, but never caught.

On the subject of controllers, you make a good point. All gaming PCs should come with a free X360 gamepad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollo
They do but pc gaming to me is first and foremost keyboard and mouse. And that applys to the bulk of pc gamers that i know and play with.

We would not get our gamepads out for borderlands 2 or crysis 3 i can tell you that for certain. There has not been a good driving game on pc since grid was made.

The fact that to play and beat darksiders 2 on its max difficulty you need a xbox 360 controller is kinda sad in a way. That applys to so many games though of its type. GTA4 plays better with a 360 pad than it does with a keyboard and mouse.

MMOs and strat games are the home of macro land and 16 button mouses to use most of them if your playing at a decent level they are kinda required.

I don't use my X360 gamepad much these days. Mostly for arcade shoot-em-ups and some more interesting indie games. Shooters get the uber-precise keyboard+mouse combo and driving games get the G25 racing wheel. LOVE that thing.

GRID was a nice game, but IMHO Codemasters has gone too mass-market with the excessively bland handling. Lately I've been looking into full-on simulators like rFactor and iRacing in between my ETS2 drives and Shift 2 fun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlequin
so less ports to PC then since it has that awefull bloatware called windows and directx slowing things down


will dig out the article , but some games are actually something like 150% slower because of DX than they have to be
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollo
John carmack wrote an article about direct x and windows and OpenGL where he pretty much slaughtered then all for the shocking efficiency of the code.

As he said himself you have a 7 year old console producing games that look up to scratch with the pcs top sellers.( at the time of the quote bf3 was not released, COD was top selling pc game followed by wow and Starcraft 2)

Only dice and crytek have really pushed pc graphics in the last 5 years.

Redengine by the people making witcher also looks awesome.

All 3 have something in commen they all require high end SLI or cfx systems to get decent FPS at max settings.( witcher 2 needs 2 titans to obtain playable FPS with uber sampling on)

Consoles at the moment render 720p, if not down to SD at a mere 30fps. Compare to s single GTX670 that will do 40+fps average with Crysis 3 with 2x SMAA/FXAA at 1920x1200. Or full triple-screen Deus Ex Human Revolution at 35+fps (5760x1200, FXAA medium since I prefer it to MLAA).

Crytek and DICE push graphics because that's what sells their games. Honestly, how many of you bought Crysis and/or Crysis 2 and/or Crysis 3 purely for the game itself?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ayrto
This^^.

I'm really intrigued by the Epic demos on PC : Samaritan , Elemental and Infiltrator. Undoubtedly they look gorgeous and Epic have some fabulously talented people, that's not in question.

But take the recent Infiltrator demo ,according to CVG, they were running it in real time on a single GTX680 coupled with an I7 and 16GB ram. Apparently switching to wire frame to prove it... and it ran silky smooth, even in the heavy action parts. Yet , there are highly optimized DX11 benchmarks that only look a fraction as good and suffer severe frame rate dips on similar rigs?
Just what runtime environment were they using? It's hard to believe it was being rendered through clunky DirectX, Nvidia low-level magic?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollo
They most likely coded the game to the gtx 680 to show what could be done. Its easier to code to a single GPU if you know what it is then you no longer need a API. They would of known what hardware they were running it on so would of coded for it. Likely it is highly threaded and using nvidias GPGPU Encoding ( aka cuda)

The API is only there because of how much choice there is in the pc market for a video card.

If they were only Nvidia or only AMD cards direct x would of probably disapeared a long time ago. As the overhead would likely of been nullified at one point or another.

Choice in the pc hardware sector has created alot of nice things for us but also caused alot of problems.

Direct X or Open GL both suffer from having to support Multiple video card vendors from intel to Nvidia. Direct x overhead is rather large of devs like john carmark are to be bielived and we have no reason not to think he is telling the truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yslen
I'm finding it difficult to find any information on the massive DirectX overheads that have been referenced here, beyond the AMD PR story and related articles.

Given that OpenGL has never appeared to offer any better performance, I personally doubt there's much real substance to the claim.

It's the advantage of being able to code for specific hardware instead of for an API that supports a vast range of hardware combinations that brings the performance advantages we've seen with the consoles, rather than some issue with DirectX in itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erratum1
I've always thought pc gaming is so inefficient the answer always seems to be lets throw more power at the problem...more cores, more ram, more stream processors.

Whatever the hardware the ps4 will be efficient.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
The PS4 will have to deal with pretty much the same "latency brick wall" as if the rumors are true it will be using what they are calling an extended DirectX 11.1+ feature set and AFIK all game devs use some kind of API now days.

A comparison of PS4 and PC hardware with costs has already been done, and to sum it up by the time the PS4 is released you could pretty much buy the equivalent gaming rig for the same price, but with the added advantage that you can upgrade the PC as time goes by.

As with all consoles your going to be stuck with the same hardware for over 7 years, i would guess the next gen consoles (PS4, 720) will look out of date within 2 years at most. We will be in the same boat we are in now with console ports on the PC not being able to take advantage of better hardware.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
You must be kidding right, going with your example of borderlands 2 the recommended system requirements for it is a GTX 560 first released two years ago. The minimum requirement is a 8500 released around the same time as a PS3 over 5 years ago, and i wouldn't exactly call borderlands 2 a modern game when it comes to graphics as it still uses DirectX 9

Its pretty obvious that borderlands 2 was designed with 5 year old hardware in mind and then a few PC specific tweaks where thrown in for the more modern hardware.

If you don't care about graphics why not go back to using a ZX spectrum :? IMHO you can beat the game play in old skool games.

API-wise, DirectX and OpenGL are roughly equivalent in terms of manufacturer support (AMD/Nvidia) and features. It is however wrong to claim that consoles can go baremetal. Nobody does baremetal (to my knowledge) on the current consoles due to security and reliability. The Xbox360 for example is a pure Direct3D 9.0c machine that has had engines optimized very, VERY hard for and yet has to downscale many games to 720p or SD just to make 30fps. Much of the same over on the Sony camp with a choice of OpenGL or Sony's own (and faster, due to Sony being bad at making a good OpenGL driver) API. In the end, devs ended up using the CPU cores to do graphics and using the GPU only at a later stage (so I've been told by friends who spent more time tinkering with PS3s), and they suffer from downscaling too. People overstate how much the API does in terms of graphics. Really, they truly do. All the API does is provide a standard way to send commands and datastreams to the GPU.

In fact, modern GPUs NEED an API in order to do any useful work on them because of how complex they are. The more complex your stuff is, the more useful an API becomes to abstract that complexity away. I doubt anyone knows how a PC works from end to end these days. If you do, you are a true genius.

DirectX took up a massive market lead over OpenGL from DX8 upto DX11 due to having better documentation (programmers rely on that). Around DX10, the Khronos consortium (the guys who took over OpenGL development) invested a large amount of effort to improve OpenGL's documentation and succeeded rather nicely in finally matching DirectX. This has led to interest from game engine developers. Not to mention Android/iOS usage pushing OpenGL as well. Linux and Mac gaming will only improve things and OpenGL may well become the platform of choice.

In conclusion, Unreal demos are running on DirectX or OpenGL in some form. They have been optimised, the same way as you can tune any program for any specific processor (calling commands in the right order, timing memory sends/recieves, using specific hardware features like CUDA for cloth, that kind of stuff), not baremetal. I don't think you CAN do baremetal for GPUs to be honest... nvidia CUDA and AMD Stream afaik are the closest you can get to beremetal for the respective makers...

PS: Borderlands 2 is a DX11 game, it just has a DX9 renderer as well for compatibility reasons.
Harlequin 6th April 2013, 09:30 Quote
did you just compare a 7 year old console to 1 year gfx hardware? really?
Corky42 6th April 2013, 11:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeDestructor
Warning: wall of text inbound!

No kidding :D, I've got china on the phone here saying there missing a wonder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeDestructor

PS: Borderlands 2 is a DX11 game, it just has a DX9 renderer as well for compatibility reasons.
Nope,
Borderlands 2 GPU & CPU Performance Test
Post #5 by AdamF
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlequin
did you just compare a 7 year old console to 1 year gfx hardware? really?
Who me ? PS3 Retail availability November 11, 2006 like i said over 5 years old, not 7 as you say.
GTX 560 Launch 17 May 2011 so that's almost 2 years, not 1 year.

Either way my point stand that Borderlands 2 was developed with 5-6 year old hardware in mind, like most if not all console ports on the PC.
People may rave about the hardware in the PS4, but unless new consoles start to come out every 2-3 years we will always have this cycle of console ports not taking full advantage of newer hardware a few years after there release.
Harlequin 6th April 2013, 12:04 Quote
wall of text above you compared the xbox 360 (2005) to a gtx 670 (2012)
ZeDestructor 7th April 2013, 18:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Nope,
Borderlands 2 GPU & CPU Performance Test
Post #5 by AdamF

Either way my point stand that Borderlands 2 was developed with 5-6 year old hardware in mind, like most if not all console ports on the PC.
People may rave about the hardware in the PS4, but unless new consoles start to come out every 2-3 years we will always have this cycle of console ports not taking full advantage of newer hardware a few years after there release.

I stand corrected. This is interesting to know, since for some reason, it seems to call the card via the D3D11 API according to EVGA Precision's overlay (which is what I was basing myself on) and not the D3D9 API...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlequin
did you just compare a 7 year old console to 1 year gfx hardware? really?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlequin
wall of text above you compared the xbox 360 (2005) to a gtx 670 (2012)

I was referring to rollo quoting John Carmak's claim that consoles are on par with modern PCs:
Quote:
John carmack wrote an article about direct x and windows and OpenGL where he pretty much slaughtered then all for the shocking efficiency of the code.

As he said himself you have a 7 year old console producing games that look up to scratch with the pcs top sellers.( at the time of the quote bf3 was not released, COD was top selling pc game followed by wow and Starcraft 2)

If you ask me, it was an entirely justifiable comparison to make.
necroscop 8th April 2013, 14:57 Quote
People who compare PC vs console price are wrong.
This comparison will work only for casual players someone who buy about 6 games a year.
With new consoles they will try to kill second hand market.
Taking prices of console games and PC games you will save £10-£20 on each side game. If you buy one game a month you will save average £150 in a year or if you buy from steam sales you will buy each game up to £30 chipper then console title. Saving you even more. Today PC have much longer lifespan, my PC it's 4 years old I did upgrade gfx 2 years ago and I can still run all games at max setting. So in 4 years I did buy 128 games if on average I did pay £10 less for each game I did save £1280
This give me new PC if i would need one but I do not. So i will save even more before I have to upgrade.
BTW did buy all my games from steam sales so I did save much more. In my opinion if you buy 2+ games a month PC it's much chipper option. Just people do not see that they pay for there consoles every time they buy game.
forum_user 8th April 2013, 15:14 Quote
RE: the 4K TV debate

Sony announces new range of 4K TVs incoming, with cheapest at $5k. We're getting there, and certainly more affordable than $20k. Give it another year and you can halve that again.
ZeDestructor 8th April 2013, 16:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by necroscop
People who compare PC vs console price are wrong.
This comparison will work only for casual players someone who buy about 6 games a year.
With new consoles they will try to kill second hand market.
Taking prices of console games and PC games you will save £10-£20 on each side game. If you buy one game a month you will save average £150 in a year or if you buy from steam sales you will buy each game up to £30 chipper then console title. Saving you even more. Today PC have much longer lifespan, my PC it's 4 years old I did upgrade gfx 2 years ago and I can still run all games at max setting. So in 4 years I did buy 128 games if on average I did pay £10 less for each game I did save £1280
This give me new PC if i would need one but I do not. So i will save even more before I have to upgrade.
BTW did buy all my games from steam sales so I did save much more. In my opinion if you buy 2+ games a month PC it's much chipper option. Just people do not see that they pay for there consoles every time they buy game.

People are happier paying relatively small amounts vs a big upfront investment. I myself am guilty of that...
jrs77 8th April 2013, 23:50 Quote
OK there. I guess I was wrong with my estimate, that there won't be affordable 4k TVs within the next 5 years to come...

Sony opens pre-order for their 4k-screens starting at $4999 for the 55" model. No information when they'll be delivered tho.
They also unveiled their 4k media-player.

Sources:

http://www.dailytech.com/Sony+4K+TVs+Priced+from+4999+Preorders+Start+Apri+21/article30296.htm

http://store.sony.com/p/Sony-4K-TV-Ultra-HD/en/p/XBR55X900A

The TV is ugly as hell with these speakers, but the SimulView feature is very nice tho.
ZeDestructor 9th April 2013, 05:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
OK there. I guess I was wrong with my estimate, that there won't be affordable 4k TVs within the next 5 years to come...

Sony opens pre-order for their 4k-screens starting at $4999 for the 55" model. No information when they'll be delivered tho.
They also unveiled their 4k media-player.

Sources:

http://www.dailytech.com/Sony+4K+TVs+Priced+from+4999+Preorders+Start+Apri+21/article30296.htm

http://store.sony.com/p/Sony-4K-TV-Ultra-HD/en/p/XBR55X900A

The TV is ugly as hell with these speakers, but the SimulView feature is very nice tho.

Considering its the first generation (new tooling, low yields), its not too bad... I mean, the triple 24" (2xU2410 + 1x2408WFp) setup I run would've cost me about 2400 AUD if I'd bought them new...
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums