So Cooperman, how does PS4 run Planetside 2 at Ultra settings 1080p and good framerate if you telling that PS4 hardware is soooo slow? Maybe you should not compare hardware, because PS4 isn't based on windows os and directx. It has direct access to HW and besides unified memory helps a lot to accelerate the whole process. Mid-grade GPUs will not outperform PS4 until PC's threw out directx and starts using unified memory. This is atleast for 2 years. I see PS4 as a gaming machine that will push unified memory to PC side.
You can say I'm a bit fanboy of PS, and that is true I always lowed it, but I prefer both PC and consoles. And I'm the one who thinks that constantly upgrading PC is waste of money, when you get consoles so cheap and it lasts for 7 years and no upgrades needed. Both sides have their exclusive games. Both sides have their benefits. PC usage for regular tasks, MMORPGs, FPS and games that highly require mouse and keyboard. Consoles for games that do not require mouse & keyboard.
And where have you seen the ps4 running Planetside 2? you cant even run ps2 ultra 60fp's on a 7850(even if this was what the ps4 was useing)
Ps2 hasent even been set up yet for ps4 there is only a workable dev kit running that NO ONE has actualy seen running (and you do know that you can plug in a ps3 or xbox gamepad and play useing that on the pc?)
They showed PC version at E3, but game creators working on that game for PS4 and they know better than you how much they can squeeze out of a console. Ok let it be, I am stupid cos' I believed what they said.
You did't understand a bit. I do use PS3 gamepad on PC, but there is no console exclusive games on PC side. If in any chance there was some game ports for PC, I would stil play that game on console, games like Superstardust HD, some racing or hack-and-slack style games. I don't see how PC would benefit in some games.
I do not try force you to switch your PC over a console, because everyone has their own taste in gaming or something else and I'm not the one who has right to judge your decisions. Just help peope to decide what they realy want, do not push them to buy what they maybe don't want to buy in the end.
I'm going to skip most the comments and attempt to summarize what Sony Official said in reguards to this. Yes this refers strictly to the online Multiplayer aspect of gaming. That is a Nitch of the gaming world, not everyone plays multiplayer online. Sony's response was that they would Love to continue providing the service for free, but that they have to consider the costs that are involved with maintaining the service at the level players expect. This is all off the top of my head, so you'll have to forgive the lack of links, but it was addressed the day of their E3 conference.
I could go into detail as to Why the Plus membership is such a value, but I'll let you read up on it if you'd like. Personally, being able to play a full hour of a game before deciding to purchase, receiving multiple full games, songs, videos, etc, and getting upto 100% discounts on Anything on the PSN makes the $50/yr worth it.
I have all three current gen consoles and the only one that I drug my feet on when it came to paying for the online service was my 360 (ok, so you don't pay for Wii-U online). The Only reason I even went that far was because that box is my Halo box and some of my friends really wanted me to help them rack up some achievements in things like Reach/Halo4/etc.
So I should be racially descrimanatory towards minority groups, because white people have always been racially discrimanatory towards minority groups? Sometimes change can be for the better, even if you see it as inconvenient now. Sony is offering so much, especially to the indy game developers and other small developer groups by making PS plus a paid service. By doing this they have allowed themselves to finally build some capitol that they can put towards upgrades to their servers, as well as giving them the headroom to buy more servers in the future as PS Plus becomes a more widespread service. By having outsourced content available for play from the cloud, which is what it appears that they are doing with their PS Vita mobile gameplay, they are essentially making an attempt to futureproof this generation of consoles. It's an interesting approach to make a streaming capable box. It's been done before, but not with the kind of backing and finesse that Sony can put on it.
Now here is the part that I find to be a but amusing: Game manufacturers can choose to arrange it with Sony to have free to play online content. So you really shouldn't be complaining to Sony if you have one game that you want to play online, and absolutely nothing else. Intead, maybe you should try talking with the game developers.
So, basically, Sony is trying to actually make some money so they can better the Playstation Network and give gamers a better and more cohesive all-around experience. The fact that they have made it relatively inexpensive is also a good thing.
The Playstation 4 does not require the PS+ subscription to function, it doesn't even necessarily require it to play multiplayer on some games, it depends on what the developers are willing to pay Sony for. The point is this: Sony is planning on offering a LOT of content and features for its devices, current and upcoming, using the PS+ subscription. This appears to include new mobile play functions for the PS Vita as well as much easier development and submission for Indy game developers, and other non AAA developers. Because of this, as well as them banning games from using things like single use game credits, and external game purchases, Sony has a lot at stake in this. And I think they are doing quite a bit of good by their customers, even if they now have to charge for a service that used to be free. If you are planning on making massive improvements, then you are going to need some capitol to invest in it with. And since Sony is divided into several different companies that don't enjoy sharing funds, and they've cut the price of the hardware to the bare minimum for them to still make sufficient money on to be worth the while, I don't think that $50 a year for a service like that is too bad. Especially when they give you huge discounts and free indy games and the like. It's like buying one new game a year, but that game can be many smaller games, or discounts for other games that you might want from larger developers.
Totaly agree with Pyromethious and Mndless. And here some news:
Sony had 126 on board for PlayStation 4 development back in February. That number has since increased to 505. In its PS4 price announcement, Sony credited the involvement of “many indie developers” and “a wide variety of game publishers” for the support.
The only fee makes a lot of sense. On the PC, most servers are provided for free by server hosting companies as advertising, or by clans/communities and other websites that all pay out of pocket, or utilize ad money from their website, etc.
Consoles don't have that. Sure you can say that it never used to cost money for online play, but consider a couple of things.
1) How many consoles have had online capabilities? The 360 charged from day one. The PS3 was online and free, and that was nice but just because they didn't charge for it doesn't mean it wasn't costing them a lot of money. It may have gotten to expensive to maintain.
2) All the consoles befor the PS3 and 360 used Peer 2 Peer connection, not dedicated servers.
Also note, Sony's not charging for internet like the guy in the video is making it seem, when he compares it to paying your ISP already. They're charging for dedicated server access. You can still use the PlayStation Store, and all the other online features for free. (Downloading stuff, chatting with people, etc.)
An interesting point that MSFT fanboys seemed to Love to push (back when the PSN was 'hacked' and made it sound like nobody else ever gets hacked) the fact that PSN was Free so their security and servers suck because of that. Maybe Sony listened to them too? ;-)
Well the video and the start of this thread really smacked of gamer entitlement to me. Just because it was free shouldn't even mean it always has to be free especially if the fee is going towards providing a better service. I'm not sure how many people have used PSN but it's awful compared to XBL.
Personally I'm looking forward to it especially if it is a monthly fee so I can buy it just when I want to play online games unlike XBL where I used to have to buy 3, 6 or 12 month subscriptions back when I used it even if I knew I would only be playing online for a month or two at the most.
$5 or more likely £5 here in the UK isn't bad either, I spend that on lunch most days at work so it's not exactly going to break the bank.
I think it costs a little less than 5£ for UK since the currency is as it is. Anyways, I heard earlier this year that all the consoles are playing 720p and upscale it to 1080p rather than 1080p dead on. Don't know if this is still true, but I guess the only way to find out is trying it out in the stores?
I'd hope it was 1080p by now. PS3 is 720p or less upscaled.
Until they come out it's all speculation as to how they'll perform and what actual costs will be anyway. Not that their performance is that much of a concern to me. I'm only getting one for a hand full of exclusives. I do most of my gaming on PC now anyway.
This is actually an 'interesting' tangent as I've noticed things I didn't before when I switched from a tube tv to a flat screen.
When playing Anything on my PS3 (game wise), the indicator will switch from 1080p on the XMB, store, etc to 720p ingame. I think the limitation may have been placed partially because of the back then current costs of tvs, common resolution, and memory load. It obviously takes more horsepower to load/stream something in 1080p than in 720p.
When using my 360 it never changes off of 1080p, but...I'm not convinced that it's true 1080p as I've never seen a major visual quality difference between the systems.
All that said, the new systems have both confirmed 1080p, 60FPS. Sucks though 'cause my TV can handle 120Hz and it'd be Nice if something supported that.
You wouldn't really be able to tell the difference between 60hz and 120hz anyway. Some people say they can, but the everyday user isn't going to notice a difference. Even if you do notice, it's a really small difference anyway. If they wanted to implement 3D gaming, then they would have to go 120hz though, unless you're using a 2D to 3D monitor or tv.
And yeah, back when the 360 and PS3 came out, 1080p was on the market but it wasn't exactly mainstream at the time. 1080p televisions were too expensive for most people, and I can only imagine that 1080p monitors were really expensive too. I'm not even sure how well graphics hardware was optimized for 1080p at the time.
Pretty much the same for me. If most games are coming to the PC, then I will not go for any console. The only things which keeps me wondering about getting a PS3 or PS4 right now are "The Last Of Us" and the comfortable system for "Mirrors Edge". Otherwise, I'm just getting a new PC instead. Now that I think of it, looks like PS3 is all I am actually aiming at unless PS4 has "The Last Of Us" and the function to play PS3, PS2 and PS games. The new "Mirrors Edge" looks good, but it looks like just a new look for the old one. And If that's the case, then I'm not spending $100 for it (games will probably come out with that price here since PS3 games used to cost about $70+). I have to say that Naughty Dog are awesome (played their games ever since crash bandicoot) but maybe not worth the latest graphics card or CPU out there just for one game. Wish they made it for PC aswell, but when was the last time they did that?..
If for nothing else, I need to update that my newer games Do run 1080p @ 60Hz.
As for noticing the difference, the higher the Hz, the more real-to-life things look. We've been staring at 60Hz for the whole time (pretty sure atleast) that TV's been in existance. 120Hz isn't that old, but hopefully will become standard for newer TVs. Now 240Hz blows them both out of the water when it comes to making things look Exactly like you're there.
Here's the normal example I give to people when trying to explain the levels of realism. 60Hz is like watching a DVD. 120Hz is like watching a Bluray or looking through the viewfinder of the camera recording the image. 240Hz is like sitting next to the director as it's being filmed. The differences are more apparant when watching a real person or animal, but digital imagery doesn't seem to give the same level of realism (because the mind knows it's fake?).
in all fairness yes its a pain that PS+ is manditory, BUT you get a bunch of free games, some which are AAA and tons of popular indie games. So it does make up for the price tag. I currently have PS+ and it gives me a ton of games and its just overall good value.
I don't give a shit if PC is better than console. I have a good gaming PC as well with over 60 steam games and a ton of F2P games. I love PC, but i love gaming in general. Consoles, Mobile, Handheld, and PC i just love games in all forms. I still play board games because i just love games that much. The fact is PS+ isn't a set back because Sony makes up for the price tag. I know this guy on Youtube complains, but he doesn't understand how much free shit you get out of it. It pays for itself and much more.