The Official PS4 Thread

[KeithTalent]

Yeah, this is my problem when people tell me I can just stream it. An hd stream and a blu ray are not even close.

Totally. However I do understand the majority of people are not like us. One of my staff today was saying how I was the only person he knew who still bought physical discs.

KT

 

[007ELmO]

Well for movies, I definitely buy discs instead of stream. I need all the data quality I can get when using a projector.

 

[smackababy]

Yeah, this is my problem when people tell me I can just stream it. An hd stream and a blu ray are not even close.

Not yet. Once we get to that point where the bandwidth is no longer a concern, streaming a real HD quality movie will be the same as a BR.

But, then we'd have data caps to deal with! "Watched 5 movies this month, hit my data cap and now owe $1000 extra."

 

[cmdrdredd]

Not yet. Once we get to that point where the bandwidth is no longer a concern, streaming a real HD quality movie will be the same as a BR.

But, then we'd have data caps to deal with! "Watched 5 movies this month, hit my data cap and now owe $1000 extra."

That's the problem when you only have one or two choices for broadband. You need to have the infrastructure up for leasing out and 20 different options that offer similar speeds but compete on price and service.

 

[Pheran]

Interesting deal for those looking to upgrade their PS4 drive - Newegg has a Seagate 1TB hybrid drive on sale through tomorrow for $95 (must enter code). This drive has an 8GB SSD cache built in. Tested has done a review of how this drive works in the PS4.

 

[zerocool84]

You guys talk about Call of Duty like no one wants to play the older versions once the new one comes out. Years after 4 came out, it was still $30, hell, look at how much MW3 is to buy or even 2, they're $30 brand new still. They sell for a lot years after release.

 

[smackababy]

That's the problem when you only have one or two choices for broadband. You need to have the infrastructure up for leasing out and 20 different options that offer similar speeds but compete on price and service.

Yeah. =( Government sponsored monopolies are great! Tokyo has 5 different fiber providers, plus a ton of ADSL and Cable providers. I read a 2GB fiber line is about $50 a month there.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Totally. However I do understand the majority of people are not like us. One of my staff today was saying how I was the only person he knew who still bought physical discs.

KT

Eh...while there is definitely a quality difference, once you start streaming, and the ease of use trumps that quality loss. At least it has for us. We stream EVERYTHING now even if the disc is right there. Plus, I absolutely HATE Blu-ray and refuse to support it any longer.

 

[Childs]

streamed the "1080p" version of crouching tiger hidden dragon on amazon prime on ps4 2 nights ago on my 120" screen. while it looked good, it was nowhere near as crisp as a 1080p bluray. but for what it was, it was pretty solid quality.

Its getting good enough. The only reason I buy blu-rays these days is for 3D. Otherwise, I'll just watch HD streams. The convenience and cost is winning out over quality.

 

[KeithTalent]

Eh...while there is definitely a quality difference, once you start streaming, and the ease of use trumps that quality loss. At least it has for us. We stream EVERYTHING now even if the disc is right there. Plus, I absolutely HATE Blu-ray and refuse to support it any longer.

Not this guy. Of course I am on a projector, so the quality difference is even more noticeable on that size of screen. I also do not find streaming any more convenient, unless of course I do not own the disc.

KT

 

[Aikouka]

My preference in dealing with media or not depends on my goal. Sometimes I'm not trying to watch the full movie, but rather a scene from the movie came to mind and I'd like to watch it. I do have a bad habit of watching the same scene about a dozen times just because it's really memorable (for various reasons). For example, I've seen the full Ip Man movie maybe twice, but I've watched the bigger fights in the movie maybe a few dozen times each. I'd much rather do that with a digital copy -- especially if it's on my PC!

If I'm down in my living room with my full home theater setup? Yeah, I prefer Blu-Rays.

 

[blackened23]

Agreed with above. Blu ray is vastly better in terms of quality than steaming but, I have to say being forced to sit through menus for a good 1-2 minutes gets really old. Sometimes I just want to...jump in and watch what I want to watch. On the other hand, sometimes I don't mind and prefer the higher quality of BR. And make no mistake, streaming will almost always be lower quality.

I still like both. But BR is generally always superior in terms of quality. Just depends on my mood I guess. If i'm sitting back on the couch and watching a movie with friends, I don't mind waiting a bit for menus. I'll go for image quality as opposed to steaming instant gratification - then again, streaming isn't always seamless, it can be subject to buffering every now and then.

 

[drquest]

Not this guy. Of course I am on a projector, so the quality difference is even more noticeable on that size of screen. I also do not find streaming any more convenient, unless of course I do not own the disc.

KT

Same here... My money is on the BR copy. Now if it's something I don't want to keep, I may stream it, and the kids do Amazon Instant video all the time.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Eh...while there is definitely a quality difference, once you start streaming, and the ease of use trumps that quality loss. At least it has for us. We stream EVERYTHING now even if the disc is right there. Plus, I absolutely HATE Blu-ray and refuse to support it any longer.

I don't like having degraded video quality and absolutely terrible (by comparison) audio quality. Dolby Digital simply does NOT cut it when you've heard DTS-HD MA on a proper surround setup.

Some people are fine with it but there are lots of people who want that quality because they paid for the system to get that extra impact from their movies. IMO streaming is only good for kids, old people who have bad eyes and ears to begin with, people who have an HD TV and nothing else to go with it, and tablet/phone users.

Nobody has even addressed the 4k "issue" yet. Netflix says a stream of 4k with 5.1 will take roughly 15Mbps and the average consumer in the US has half of that. Just imagine the reduced quality of the 4k content at that much compression. I doubt there'd be much difference between Blu-Ray 1080p and the supposed 4k stream at 15Mbps. Uncompressed video bitrate for 4k is 477.76 MB/s. The bottom line for me is if you've shelled out the bucks for that calibrated Sharp Elite, high end projector, or other high quality display you should demand the quality to show it off.

 

[zinfamous]

Totally. However I do understand the majority of people are not like us. One of my staff today was saying how I was the only person he knew who still bought physical discs.

KT

well, the world is filled with dumb people, and we knew that.

Let them have their cake. We will continue to have the evenly-baked, tasty goodness from the center of the pan.

 

[sze5003]

I just installed a 1tb 7200 rpm hd in the ps4. Very little speed improvement installing games, it is noticeable. Now I can just have all my games at once installed.

 

[ImpulsE69]

I don't like having degraded video quality and absolutely terrible (by comparison) audio quality. Dolby Digital simply does NOT cut it when you've heard DTS-HD MA on a proper surround setup.

Some people are fine with it but there are lots of people who want that quality because they paid for the system to get that extra impact from their movies. IMO streaming is only good for kids, old people who have bad eyes and ears to begin with, people who have an HD TV and nothing else to go with it, and tablet/phone users.

Nobody has even addressed the 4k "issue" yet. Netflix says a stream of 4k with 5.1 will take roughly 15Mbps and the average consumer in the US has half of that. Just imagine the reduced quality of the 4k content at that much compression. I doubt there'd be much difference between Blu-Ray 1080p and the supposed 4k stream at 15Mbps. Uncompressed video bitrate for 4k is 477.76 MB/s. The bottom line for me is if you've shelled out the bucks for that calibrated Sharp Elite, high end projector, or other high quality display you should demand the quality to show it off.

I used to be an audio/videophile, so I would have agreed with you. Then I realized, no..it's not worth it. I have a very nice theater set up (not projector), and I am still ok watching standard def for things such as TV programming if I have to. The whole concept is to constantly sell you new things and take your money selling you the same thing over and over. I've been over it since the flip to blu-ray. I used to buy TONS of VHS, then DVD's. I tried blu-ray and said enough is enough. It looks pretty, but that's it. It is not worth the hassles involved (to me) for what is clearly anti-consumer. Sure, there are a few extreme examples of things I really love, for the other 99% of things, I just don't care enough. I ripped everything I owned and threw them on a server. A crap movie in HD is still a crap movie. A few less pixels doesn't make it better. It's not about knowing, it's about not caring to buy into the BS.

4K might be great, until every ISP has went to tiered limits. Then what? You think a disc based delivery of it is going to be a good thing? I doubt it.

On further thought, as much into tech as I am, I am finding myself starting to rail against it. It's no longer about making the next great thing for the world like it once was. The shift to "how can we milk everyone for as much money as we can and rinse repeat as often as we can" focus has soured me to the future. --- anyway, getting off topic ;p

 

[cmdrdredd]

I used to be an audio/videophile, so I would have agreed with you. Then I realized, no..it's not worth it. I have a very nice theater set up (not projector), and I am still ok watching standard def for things such as TV programming if I have to. The whole concept is to constantly sell you new things and take your money selling you the same thing over and over. I've been over it since the flip to blu-ray. I used to buy TONS of DVD's. I tried blu-ray and said enough is enough. It looks pretty, but that's it. It is not worth the hassles involved (to me) for what is clearly anti-consumer. Sure, there are a few extreme examples of things I really love, for the other 99% of things, I just don't care enough. I ripped everything I owned and threw them on a server. A crap movie in HD is still a crap movie. A few less pixels doesn't make it better.

That's you need to be selective in which movies you buy. I don't buy everything, just the ones that I will watch over again. What is anti-consumer is to disallow ownership of physical media because they lose the control of your usage. Think about it. If studios drop all media for consumers and force you to stream, they can make it so that you can only stream to one device because that's all they allow and you have to pay again to stream to another device. They can also shut off the server if they want and now you can't watch what you paid for. They have full control over your viewing.

When you own the disk, as long as you own a workable player you can use that disk forever with nobody limiting how many times you can view it, where you can view it, and how. That's what I think about quite a bit.


In response to your comment about 4k, it will be the future of video. It will just take time to gain adoption and such. The thing is, streaming will never be able to give proper 4k quality with the current internet we have here in the US (I don't know about elsewhere in the world). That was my point, the 4k streams that Netflix is talking about at 15Mbps will be so compressed it will be 4k in name only.

 

[Fulle]

The turn in the conversation to blu ray, and whether or not it's worth it to be an audio/videophile reminds me of this old vid:

http://www.theonion.com/video/sony-releases-new-stupid-piece-of-shit-that-doesnt,14309/

 

[Doppel]

Its getting good enough. The only reason I buy blu-rays these days is for 3D. Otherwise, I'll just watch HD streams. The convenience and cost is winning out over quality.

I watch about one movie a year on blu ray. Hd streaming is to disc what mp3 was to cd. It may have had lower audio quality but it made up for it in spades elsewhere.

I very rarely watch a movie twice, and thus I never, ever, ever buy them. And renting from redbox with crap selection is a hassle anyway so why bother.

HD streaming looks good to me. Even if 4k ever matters which is questionable given the limitations of the eye, all it would take is 4x the bandwidth--and that is based on current compression; could be same quality and less than 4x the bandwidth with a different compression standard (eg 265 instead of 264).

The talk of bandwidth caps is, I am fairly certain, a temporary blip. Bandwidth will be more prevalent in the future, not less.

 

[Rage187]

I just downloaded the 1.51 update (323MB) in less than 90 seconds. PSN seems just fine. People having slow speeds might want to check for other issues, even if the PS3 was "fine" for them. Maybe something has happened since using your PS3 last?

Just spitballing here...

I've been downloading it on a 15mbps connection and we are on hour number 3.

Must be uverse. I just hot spotted to my phone and the last hour took 2 minutes.

 

[Topweasel]

Mine was on standby all day. Had it pre downloaded and ready to go when I fired it up.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I watch about one movie a year on blu ray. Hd streaming is to disc what mp3 was to cd. It may have had lower audio quality but it made up for it in spades elsewhere.

I very rarely watch a movie twice, and thus I never, ever, ever buy them. And renting from redbox with crap selection is a hassle anyway so why bother.

HD streaming looks good to me. Even if 4k ever matters which is questionable given the limitations of the eye, all it would take is 4x the bandwidth--and that is based on current compression; could be same quality and less than 4x the bandwidth with a different compression standard (eg 265 instead of 264).

The talk of bandwidth caps is, I am fairly certain, a temporary blip. Bandwidth will be more prevalent in the future, not less.

LOL you think it'll get better? Comcast and everyone else is not upgrading their network because they have monopolies in the areas they service. They keep signing up people. It'll get worse and worse.

4k does matter, I've watched true 4k content on the new Sony 4k TVs and it's tons better than 1080p. Limitations of the human eye? No...what you can see is far beyond what any display can process.

 

[Doppel]

LOL you think it'll get better? Comcast and everyone else is not upgrading their network because they have monopolies in the areas they service. They keep signing up people. It'll get worse and worse.

4k does matter, I've watched true 4k content on the new Sony 4k TVs and it's tons better than 1080p. Limitations of the human eye? No...what you can see is far beyond what any display can process.

At normal viewing distance and conventional tv sizes 4k is truly a waste of time. This is due to objective fact that the human eye cannot discern the 4k resolution over 1080p on a typical tv at typical distances. 4k is relevant for monitors and projectors, but nothing more than a gimmick for, say, a 50" TV watched from 10' away.

I do think bandwidth will get better because there is not a total minority and any provider that screws it's users for too long will get hosed when fiber comes along and they leave in a rage.

 

[cmdrdredd]

At normal viewing distance and conventional tv sizes 4k is truly a waste of time. This is due to objective fact that the human eye cannot discern the 4k resolution over 1080p on a typical tv at typical distances. 4k is relevant for monitors and projectors, but nothing more than a gimmick for, say, a 50" TV watched from 10' away.

I do think bandwidth will get better because there is not a total minority and any provider that screws it's users for too long will get hosed when fiber comes along and they leave in a rage.

50" at 10'??? a 50" TV is meant to be viewed from 5-7.5 feet

Check here http://www.thx.com/consumer/home-entertainment/home-theater/hdtv-set-up/