How the PlayStation 4 is better than a PC

[PrincessFrosty]

I agree. 3D was all flash and show. Very few will game in 3d a long time. its another failed reason offered in why PC's are far superior gaming devices.

Cheaper games? Busted
More affordable? Busted
3d? Busted
Mutlimonitor? Few care. Busted.

Yes for a lot of money you can build a better performing PC. Its a single player device, not an entertainment system. Pcs are great we all love them for some particular pourpose. Consoles are great too for their given purpose. Ill buy both. Even bought the crappy WiiU. The more people that game on console or PC the better. We all win. The real threat to the success of either are tablets/phones. Gaming has exploded, unfortunately its Angry Birds and farmville. Console gamers are just as "hardcore" as the PC guys. Maybe 4/10 people play games these days and about 1/15 are on modern PC's or consoles.

Total and utter rubbish.

3D on the PC is a great experience, it's not that popular but so what? Just because something isn't popular doesn't mean that it's not a benefit to those who enjoy it. These things are optional should you want them.

Like for like games are cheaper, this is just a fact, they necessarily have to be because of the business model that console platforms use, which is to charge developer royalties on their sales which in turn pushes up the price for the consumer, this has ALWAYS been the case.

More affordable depends entirely on the speed of system you build.

Multi-monitor follows the same theme as 3D, just because its niche doesn't mean that it's not a benefit should you want it.

The rumour that it costs a "lot" of money to building a better performing PC is simply not true, fact is you can buy a video card right now for $200 that will out perform the PS4 at launch.

Multiplayer you couldn't be more wrong on, the PC has a far superior online multiplayer component with dedicated servers, customization, mods etc. But the offline multiplayer to which you're probably referring to, is also possible on the PC. There's nothing to stop you from plugging your PC into your TV (mines connected to my projector) and then plugging in some USB Bluetooth adaptors and pairing up some PS3 controllers and playing whatever local multiplayer games you want.

The simple FACT is that a console is a locked down SUBSET of all the things a PC is, if you're willing to put in some effort into your config then you can do whatever you want with your PC, and it will beat a PS3 hands down in the living room playing with your mates from the sofa, I know, I own a PS3 plugged into the same projector that I play my PC through and it provides true 1080p, smooth frame rate, better graphics and the other comforts the PC provides, mods, etc.

 

[moonbogg]

PC is superior. Consoles are going to be more PC like, so they are joining the winning side. I am a PC gamer. I am elitist.

 

[Arkadrel]

3D on the PC is a great experience,....

3D movies was a fad back in the 60s too.
Things go in circles, 3D is gonna shine abit until people grow tired off it again.

Some time in the near future, virtual reality will start takeing off.
The glasses for VR are starting to become mainstream in price.

At some point, that ll be the "next" fad, and everyone will have forgotten about 3D.

give it a year or two: (next big thing)
http://www.oculusvr.com/

 

[cplusplus]

3D movies was a fad back in the 60s too.
Things go in circles, 3D is gonna shine abit until people grow tired off it again.

Some time in the near future, virtual reality will start takeing off.
The glasses for VR are starting to become mainstream in price.

At some point, that ll be the "next" fad, and everyone will have forgotten about 3D.

give it a year or two: (next big thing)
http://www.oculusvr.com/

Okay, because Virtual Reality isn't 3D.

 

[Cloudfire777]

Well you can hate 3D gaming (which I personally think is cool), but not hate 120Hz screens.

 

[Madpacket]

Look....

I'm a PC gamer but console games drive the industry forward. Love it or hate it consoles like the PS4 or the NexBox will be the appliances that determine how the nextgen games are developed. Given the capabilities of the PS4 this makes me happy as a PC gamer as we will get much better games going forward.

Don't worry, our precious PC's will be able to handle whatever the PS4 throws our way as our systems as they are many times more powerful. The PS4 and nexbo will be good to drive innovation in gaming.

If nextgen gaming fails due to casual gaming on buttonless abomination like the iPad I will give it up alltogether.

 

[bystander36]

3D movies was a fad back in the 60s too.
Things go in circles, 3D is gonna shine abit until people grow tired off it again.

Some time in the near future, virtual reality will start takeing off.
The glasses for VR are starting to become mainstream in price.

At some point, that ll be the "next" fad, and everyone will have forgotten about 3D.

give it a year or two: (next big thing)
http://www.oculusvr.com/

The only difference between 3D and the Oculus Rift, is the Oculus Rift tracks head movement too. It uses 3D technology just like 3D Vision today. There are even 3D headsets like the Oculus Rift today, only they don't track head movement.

I have to assume the Oculus will work as a normal 3D device when head tracking is not built into the game, otherwise its support will be very limited.

 

[Beavermatic]

^Wrong.

Oculus Rift uses separate images per eye. Your eyes are each looking at a completely separate portion of a single screen, and that screen is split down the middle, each side a clone of the other, albeit one screen is angled a bit different. It provides a realistic depth and natural convergence, much like how you see the world right now. It's why Oculus feels as real as it does... it's tricking the brain into the convergence of what it then perceives as the real world. Oculus a true 3D enviornment , unlike stereoscopic 3D of todays passive and active TV's and monitors, which provide a quasi-3D (and very "bleh") effect based off two images on a single screen mashed together and slightly offset. It works nothing like 3D vision, which was all active stereoscopic based. To even compare them proves your lack of education in the 3D or VR field.
And there are tons of professional grade VR headset that provide head tracking. Oculus isn't the first (not by a longshot), nor last. It's the most affordable, and geared at gaming. Professional VR headsets not meant for gaming can costs tens of thousands of dollars.

Of course, I would expect nothingless from people arguing about PS4 vs. PC.

There is no argument.

PC is lightyears ahead of the PS4 in both graphics and computational power, as was the PC before the PS4 was even announced or expected. It's 2 to 3 year old mid-range PC hardware they are dumping into these "new" consoles. What else where you expecting for $500 or less? They aren't engineering magical hardware for these things. Everything in them is just bulk priced pc hardware from yesteryear, or worse... proprietary hardware like CELL processors, or IBM processors (because they can get a cheap bulk contract deal... even though these things were never really optimized for gaming [the CELL processor is/was a decent server processor and number cruncher in large clusters, but sucked for gaming and should have never been used]. Since their target audience likely knows little, if any, about these architecture technologies, they can say whatever they want and you'll believe it. Everything Sony or Microsoft promotes is just marketing hype that anyone who really knows anything about technology laughs at because the uneducated fanboys think it's awesome. Only a fool would believe they are getting a supercomputer for $500. More so, only a total jackass would believe they are getting anything that competes with a newer mid-range or high-end pc for $500 as far as a console goes.

To argue any further just makes you a complete idiot and laughing stock of the world reading this.

End of story.

Please do everyone with a brain a favor and lock this thread.

 

[bystander36]

^Wrong.

Oculus Rift uses separate images per eye. Your eyes are each looking at a completely separate portion of a single screen, and that screen is split down the middle, each side a clone of the other, albeit one screen is angled a bit different. It provides a realistic depth and natural convergence, much like how you see the world right now. It's why Oculus feels as real as it does... it's tricking the brain into the convergence of what it then perceives as the real world. Oculus a true 3D enviornment , unlike stereoscopic 3D of todays passive and active TV's and monitors, which provide a quasi-3D (and very "bleh") effect based off two images on a single screen mashed together and slightly offset. It works nothing like 3D vision, which was all active stereoscopic based. To even compare them proves your lack of education in the 3D or VR field.
And there are tons of professional grade VR headset that provide head tracking. Oculus isn't the first (not by a longshot), nor last. It's the most affordable, and geared at gaming. Professional VR headsets not meant for gaming can costs tens of thousands of dollars.

You clearly have no clue as to what 3D Vision does. What you described is exactly what stereoscope 3D does.

Just because you've played PS3 3D, or watched a 3D movie, does not mean you have seen 3D Vision, obviously.

With the Oculus head set, it has 2 different screens drawn with 2 different perspectives on the scene, from each eyes perspective.

With 3D Vision, every other image sent to the screen is draw from each eyes perspective, when the left eyes image is shown, the lens on the right eye is blackened so you can't see it, and the same happens to the left eyes lens when the right eyes image is shown. It is the same effect, only using different technology to get it to your eyes.

Look up the Oculus rift, and it'll tell you that it is stereoscopic 3D: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oculus_Rift

The resolution is 1280×800 (16:10 aspect ratio) which is split between both eyes, rendering the effective resolution at 640×800 in stereoscopic 3D.

3D Vision is also full stereoscopic 3D: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nvidia_3D_Vision

There is nothing quasi about it. You obviously have experience some other form of 3D and are making an incorrect assumption. The only examples of a virtual 3D that I've ever seen from it was in Crysis 2 and 3.

 

[Beavermatic]

I have a 3d vision (1st gen) kit sitting right behind me. It is active shutter 3D glasses based on a active 3d monitor (a monitor I no longer have). I've had active 3d Samsung TV's in the past.... and they were about the same. I now have a passive LG 3D tv as the active 3d was a pain and caused eyestrain and some headaches (literally). And I have an oculus kit that will be arriving in about 2 weeks. I've been fortunate enough to play around with the oculus a few times already through a friend who has already received his devkit.

3d vision technology works completely different than Oculus headset 3D in convergence.

The oculus is of course, stereoscopic, but its done image per eye directly, and no shuttering is needed. I never claimed it wasn't. I was comparing it to stereoscopic monitors and TV's.

There is no overlapping images to separate with glasses. It's literally two images going to each eye separately, and your brain does the convergence for you. This is also why interocular strength does not play such a large part as it would on a active or passive 3d system, because the oculus allows your eyes/brain to correct that naturally (for the most part). Where as 3d vision feels more artificial, and oculus feels more natural (as if your looking through your own eyes into another world.)

Both have to converge, but with the oculus, you don't need a middleman (glasses) to do it for you off a single screen showing overlapping offset images.... you do it with your own brain, and increases the immersive feeling.

3d vision is cool until you try oculus... then 3d vision just feels cheap and gimmicky.

I'm hoping in a second revision or commercial version they use a separate screen per eye, with a higher resolution per screen, instead of a single screen split down the middle, cutting resolution in half per eye.

 

[bystander36]

I have a 3d vision (1st gen) kit sitting right behind me. It is active shutter 3D glasses based on a active 3d monitor (a monitor I no longer have). I've had active 3d Samsung TV's in the past.... and they were about the same. I now have a passive LG 3D tv as the active 3d was a pain and caused eyestrain and some headaches (literally). And I have an oculus kit that will be arriving in about 2 weeks. I've been fortunate enough to play around with the oculus a few times already through a friend who has already received his devkit.

3d vision technology works completely different than Oculus headset 3D in convergence.

The oculus is of course, stereoscopic, but its done image per eye directly, and no shuttering is needed. I never claimed it wasn't. I was comparing it to stereoscopic monitors and TV's.

There is no overlapping images to separate with glasses. It's literally two images going to each eye separately, and your brain does the convergence for you. This is also why interocular strength does not play such a large part as it would on a active or passive 3d system, because the oculus allows your eyes/brain to correct that naturally (for the most part). Where as 3d vision feels more artificial, and oculus feels more natural (as if your looking through your own eyes into another world.)

Both have to converge, but with the oculus, you don't need a middleman (glasses) to do it for you off a single screen showing overlapping offset images.... you do it with your own brain, and increases the immersive feeling.

3d vision is cool until you try oculus... then 3d vision just feels cheap and gimmicky.

I'm hoping in a second revision or commercial version they use a separate screen per eye, with a higher resolution per screen, instead of a single screen split down the middle, cutting resolution in half per eye.

What you said is no different than what I said. Both technologies achieve the same end goal of giving 2 different images, rendered at 2 different perspectives, given to each eye. The only difference is how they go about getting those images to your eyes. The Oculus Rift may get the images to your eyes in with a better method, but it doesn't create any more real 3D images.

You said 3D Vision did quasi stereoscopic 3D the first time, now you describe full stereoscopic 3D.

All I was pointing out is the Oculus Rift is not a different technology than 3D. It is 3D, with head tracking. It's method of delivering the 3D images has some definite advantages, but some disadvantage, at the moment at least. It won't experience crosstalk or flickering, but has much lower resolution (this time around at least).

You might also note that 3D Vision has come a long way since you used it.

 

[dguy6789]

Tif you're willing to put in some effort into your config then you can do whatever you want with your PC, and it will beat a PS3 hands down in the living room playing with your mates from the sofa

That's BS like a million times over. There is nothing you can do with any amount of money or expertise that will make PC gaming as good as console gaming for local multiplayer on a single box on a couch in front of a tv.

 

[Beavermatic]

You said 3D Vision did quasi stereoscopic 3D the first time, now you describe full stereoscopic 3D.
.

It is quasi-stereoscopic. I was being facetious in a way. By definition, it is probably just stereoscopic. But try a VR headset like the rift, and anything else feels "kinda 3D, but not really" after that point. Almost to the point of having to detract the stereoscopic labeling from the 3D vision kit, but not in its entirety. Thus, I shall add the prefix of "Quasi" to it. Technically, all 3D is quasi-3D.... just exploiting tricks to fool the mind to perceive XYZ plane depth of a 2D image... though I'm measuring by immersion. And thus far, the rift is near complete visual 3D immersion. In fact, it is so immersive, I dislike referencing it as "quasi" (though it truly is).

Let me try to explain the difference the best I can... you can make things pop out and have some depth on a screen in front of you... that's neat (at first), but you don't feel fully immersed (at least not in a traditional sense). Or you can feel like your really there. That's the difference between the 3d vision and the rift.

And for that, I call the 3d vision "quasi-stereoscopic". Because that's what it is... partial (at best) 3D immersion. Of course, the rift's motion tracking and no-edge field of view make it so, but that to me is stereoscopic. And as I was saying above, anything else is "kind of, but not really". Hence forth, "Quasi-stereoscopic". I'll make sure to contact Merriam Webster as soon as possible to make it to next years dictionary release.

Have I sufficiently met your requirements as to why I labeled the 3d vision as being "quasi", or need I ramble on for another several paragraphs?

 

[BallaTheFeared]

LAN parties died for a reason, internet gaming is superior.

 

[bystander36]

It is quasi-stereoscopic. I was being facetious in a way. By definition, it is probably just stereoscopic. But try a VR headset like the rift, and anything else feels "kinda 3D, but not really" after that point. Almost to the point of having to detract the stereoscopic labeling from the 3D vision kit, but not in its entirety. Thus, I shall add the prefix of "Quasi" to it. Technically, all 3D is quasi-3D.... just exploiting tricks to fool the mind to perceive XYZ plane depth of a 2D image... though I'm measuring by immersion. And thus far, the rift is near complete visual 3D immersion. In fact, it is so immersive, I dislike referencing it as "quasi" (though it truly is).

Let me try to explain the difference the best I can... you can make things pop out and have some depth on a screen in front of you... that's neat (at first), but you don't feel fully immersed (at least not in a traditional sense). Or you can feel like your really there. That's the difference between the 3d vision and the rift.

And for that, I call the 3d vision "quasi-stereoscopic". Because that's what it is... partial (at best) 3D immersion. Of course, the rift's motion tracking and no-edge field of view make it so, but that to me is stereoscopic. And as I was saying above, anything else is "kind of, but not really". Hence forth, "Quasi-stereoscopic". I'll make sure to contact Merriam Webster as soon as possible to make it to next years dictionary release.

I think what you mean to say is that the Oculus Rift feels more like real life. Like the difference between 1st person and over the shoulder view in games. 3D just means there is depth, and both systems use the same methods to render depth.

Have I sufficiently met your requirements as to why I labeled the 3d vision as being "quasi", or need I ramble on for another several paragraphs?

So basically you don't like the definition of Stereoscopic 3D, and have decided to come up with your own.

Both systems create the same Stereoscopic 3D images. The only difference is how it is delivered. You are excited to try having the images in goggles and expect that it'll give more immersion. It very well may do that, but it still is the same 3D system as we've had for the past several years, just improved.

Since both versions have created 3D exactly the same, if you call one quasi 3D, the other is too. I think what you mean to say is the Oculus Rift is more like you in 1st person view instead of like you are looking in from the 3rd person. Neither is more 3D, but one gives you a bit more realism, or rather, more like you are there.

 

[Beavermatic]

I believe, good sir, that the only thing that will convince you of my point of view is to try the Rift yourself.

Then, and only then, will you agree with my terminology

And you will understand why I consider 3d vision a "lesser" form of TV. A nice one, but far less immersive than a rift. You will likely say the very same thing I thought afterwards, trying to go back to passive or active 3D monitor gaming or TV 3d movies... which is "its just not the same".

and when we something isn't quite the same but portrays itself to be, we call that "quasi".

 

[bystander36]

I believe, good sir, that the only thing that will convince you of my point of view is to try the Rift yourself.

Then, and only then, will you agree with my terminology

And you will understand why I consider 3d vision a "lesser" form of TV. A nice one, but far less immersive than a rift. You will likely say the very same thing I thought afterwards, trying to go back to passive or active 3D monitor gaming or TV 3d movies... which is "its just not the same".

and when we something isn't quite the same but portrays itself to be, we call that "quasi".

I never argued about what is more immersive. Only that you some how think 3D Vision, or HD3D as less 3D. 3D does not mean that it has to feel like you are there. A doll house is just as much in 3D as walking into a real house.

 

[cplusplus]

And in an attempt to tie this 3D conversation back into the original argument, guess who else is working on VR and head-mounted 3D, and has a version of head-mounted 3D hardware already in retail right now (as opposed to the Oculus Rift, which won't be available at retail for about at least another year at least I believe)?

Sony

A prototype with head tracking

With 2 displays (each 720p) instead of 1 just like you were asking for.

 

[Sohaltang]

Funny how There are threads about how the gpu market is stagnant. Tech has slowed considerably. 3-4 years ago I had a 965be @4x4 ghz and a 2x CF 5770 overclocked. The market has become stagnant and any real performance boost is 2-3x the price. But all the fan boys are upset that's a 400$ system might just perform as well as their 1500$ systems. 8 GB DDR 5 will surely beat the 2 GB I ran the last 3 years.

 

[nsKb]

If anyone actually thinks the new consoles will offer better graphics/higher fps than high end gaming PCs (even the ones available today) is living in a fantasy world. The PS4 might have a price/perf advantage on release but only in games, a console has pretty low utility overall.

LAN parties died for a reason, internet gaming is superior.

Well its only superior because its much easier.

 

[MrK6]

I think people are just upset (whether they realize it or not) that companies are finding out graphics are NOT where the money is. We've come to a point where the exponential increase in time and cost of graphics fidelity combined with the ever shrinking bleeding edge sphere is making companies reconsider their approach to development. I don't have much faith in Sony as a company, but maybe someone in the Playstation department has enough sense to read the writing on the wall and not repeat previous mistakes.

 

[Makaveli]

If anyone actually thinks the new consoles will offer better graphics/higher fps than high end gaming PCs (even the ones available today) is living in a fantasy world. The PS4 might have a price/perf advantage on release but only in games, a console has pretty low utility overall.



Well its only superior because its much easier.

Both have there pro and cons.

I do miss the sense of community going to lan parties had.

Gaming over the internet doesn't have the same feel. Also with LCD and shuttle boxes it made taking your machines to the lan much easier in the latter years.

And gaming over the internet still won't give you sub 10 ms pings like a lan will.

 

[Lepton87]

^Wrong.

PC is lightyears ahead of the PS4 in both graphics and computational power, as was the PC before the PS4 was even announced or expected. It's 2 to 3 year old mid-range PC hardware they are dumping into these "new" consoles. What else where you expecting for $500 or less? They aren't engineering magical hardware for these things. Everything in them is just bulk priced pc hardware from yesteryear, or worse... proprietary hardware like CELL processors, or IBM processors (because they can get a cheap bulk contract deal... even though these things were never really optimized for gaming [the CELL processor is/was a decent server processor and number cruncher in large clusters, but sucked for gaming and should have never been used

What a bunch of drivel. It's not 2-3 years-old mid-range hardware, that would be GTX460/Radeon6870. It's as new as it could be. GCN 2.0 is not even on the market just like Jaguar cores. Yes, the raw power is not very great compared to PCs that suck down 1KW of power but the hardware is brand new and PC's equivalents are many months away. Just like Xenos was more advanced then anything on the PC side when XBox360 launched. It was the first card with unified shader architecture and it took a whole year or more I don't remember exactly to see something way better on the PC side. (G80) But the chip was almost 500mm2 big and the card sucked over 180W of power.

 

[Beavermatic]

What a bunch of drivel. It's not 2-3 years-old mid-range hardware, that would be GTX460/Radeon6870. It's as new as it could be. GCN 2.0 is not even on the market just like Jaguar cores. Yes, the raw power is not very great compared to PCs that suck down 1KW of power but the hardware is brand new and PC's equivalents are many months away. Just like Xenos was more advanced then anything on the PC side when XBox360 launched. It was the first card with unified shader architecture and it took a whole year or more I don't remember exactly to see something way better on the PC side. (G80) But the chip was almost 500mm2 big and the card sucked over 180W of power.

two year old midrange hardware would be exactly whats in the PS4, something along the lines of a GTX570 or 580.... which is two years old. I forget what the exact AMD card it is equivalent to that's running inside the ps4, so I'm comparing it to nvidia's tech atm.

All of the hardware in the PS4, no matter what extended services support or add-on processor or gpu extensions they've revised to "support", has been out for a while... that GPU is aged and that CPU is a good couple years old. A quick look at its specs compared to AMD CPU's and GPU's product line will tell you exactly that. Now thats not saying they didn't add some new extension set support to the processor or modified the gpu a lil bit... but whoop-dee-doo. It's equivalent to adding shoes and a new saddle to a horse that is near end of its riding days.

I had (2) 7800gtx's when the Xbox 360 released. A single 7800gtx whooped its ass in gpu power multiple times over, and was capable of running games in 32 bit color, with numerous options of antialiasing, hires textures and all the additional postprocess at beyond 1920x1080p resoultions. And what is the 360 still pumping? "color banded" pisspoor low color depth, weak AA, embarassing texture quality, and can barely manage at most of its games native resolution of 720p. You can upscale all you want on your HDTV's... but your lil xenos was barely pumping at 720p.

I know, it hurts coming to the realization that whats inside your new $500 toy is recycled pc tech of yore, but thats exactly what it is. They can sugarcoat it all they want with "well we've added THIS!" or "well we updated it with THAT!", but thats all it is... sugarcoating. Underneath its still just a ball of poo.

 

[lagokc]

Well... at least developers will no longer have to develop ports with the PS3/360 as a performance target.