What will PS4 graphics be like?

[Zenoth]

I can't recall which consoles generation - at release - had better hardware in them then what was available at affordable costs (or just available at all for Mr. Joe everyone on the market) for PCs. Maybe a better question would be when was the last time PC game developers exploited PC hardware to come up with better-looking games on the PC in general then what was released on consoles?

If I'm not mistaken the last generation that did that to some extent (at least at release) was the fifth, with the N64, PlayStation, Saturn, 3DO and company. The sixth generation, with the PS2 and the original XBOX I think was already surpassed hardware-wise at release, but the "better hardware" that was available for the PC at the time of those consoles' release wasn't exactly cheap to get. And I think that most PC games that did end up having comparable or better graphics were just rarely seen generally, but the phenomenon of console ports probably truly started (or rather not "started" per se but accelerated) there sometime in the early 2000's.

I do still remember clearly enough however that many 3D arcade games at the time of the N64 and PS days usually had considerably better graphics than anything the consoles of that time could do. And it was only with the arrival of the Dreamcast and the PS2 (and GameCube) that finally we started seeing those ads that were saying "arcade quality graphics at home" again (and I say "again" because those ads existed during the 16-bit wars too, when Sega advertised the Genesis as being capable of Arcade quality gaming, and it was somewhat true since back then games at arcades were also mostly 2D sprite-based).

Wow anyway now I feel old. All I know is that whatever the XBOX 720 and the PS4 ends up like (or when, perhaps, are we sure they'll make them at all?) they'll contain hardware that - at best - will eventually give us games with graphics comparable to some of the current mid-range hardware that we PC gamers have access to. It might even be hardware from the last generation and not the current one (for example GeForce 5 rather than GeForce 6), since indeed when the hardware components for the new consoles were finalized, when they did decide about what it'd contain that decision might already been done and set in stone a year or more ago.

I wouldn't think that we'd get much better graphics (depending on the art style of course, etc) than what we can have for "PC exclusives" right now. What might change more noticeably however are some extra texture or bump map effects, there's going to be better lightning and shadow effects too I'd presume. Maybe the animation will be better and let's hope that the A.I. will be worked on as well (I know it won't though, generally). The games might be bigger too (potentially of course unless the devs don't need to make it big to start with) and the maps might load faster, or the need to load multiple smaller maps together might become something less noticeable (Portal 2-style, but that's probably more related to the engine itself rather than the consoles' hardware).

Some things will change and become better and more detailed visually, textures doing 2048 and/or 4096 instead of 512 or 1024 in resolution, the consoles will have more memory so more... stuff... overall, for content and visuals. But that's just potential, developers need to exploit that fully and it might take a couple of games and a year plus to see the real differences.

 

[Arkaign]

^^ sounds about right. And in the end, fun factor isn't much dictated by raw hardware power, it's just nice to have. Comptemporaneously, I think Xbox360 and PS3 were the closest we'll get to mid/high end PC gamign for their time. Both companies were really pushing the limits of what you could reasonably stuff into a console device, so much so that heat/power/space and especially cost were nearly prohibitive, even selling at a loss. $599 for the PS3 in particular was hard for many customers to afford, costing them dearly in marketshare. I'd bet they're shooting for $349 base, certainly no higher than $399 this time around, with the possibility of deluxe models selling for more. After all, these companies make more $$ by having an installed base, licensing fees, marked-up peripherals (a $1.50 cost wireless adapter they can sell for $89.99? genius!), etc, so getting a large installed base while not losing a bunch of money on each unit will be the ideal.

 

[destrekor]

Look at how quiet both Microsoft and Sony have been this time around compared to the outright bluster of last time. Last time was a real war with a ton at stake. This time around I think they are basically ready to accept the status quo. I doubt the boardroom and investors of either company is willing to accept the large risk of losing money on each unit this time around. There's just not enough demand for next-gen graphics. Also remember the massive expense of more expensive PSUs, cooling apparatus, and warranty costs replacing dying/dead units because they really pushed the envelope of what they could stuff into a console.

Now look at a desktop 7950, the power draw that has, the cooling requirements, and then look at a typical console-sized box. There's not reasonably enough room to fit one in there without being even more extreme in terms of power draw, heat, size, and expense. Hence, we're going to see something on the scale of a 7770, and we'd be really lucky to see something in the range of 7850/7870 instead. Process tech is basically stalled, so even cutting edge TSMC/GF fabs aren't going to magically make higher specs possible within target TDP numbers.

In all cases, things are a lot different this time around. It's not all gloom though. With fewer massive changes, development on the new consoles should be less problematic than the seismic shift last time. Evolutionary rather than revolutionary will be a smoother transition for developers, and thus for gamers as well. Remember, all that is really required is decent ability to do high details at 1080p with moderate AA, something that even a 7770GE can do. I believe both new consoles will hit that easily. A big upgrade from the low-detail trickery-based 1080p currently, and the domination of 720p (or even lower) core resolutions current-gen consoles render things in. Ram is a big deal as well, and those limitations will be vastly moved out to enable much more complex AI and larger maps/levels/more textures with less loading times.

There's a big difference that needs to be considered here:

They won't likely focus on the best hardware they can possibly stuff into the machine while keeping losses at $400 a unit; but they aren't going to be selling the hardware for a profit either.

Sony has never went that route in consoles, and Microsoft has followed that model as well.
So, we won't see Sony going a PS3-style route, but that doesn't preclude them from repeating a PS1 or PS2-style route.

I would thoroughly expect console BOMs to have a cost of $400, perhaps $450 at most, if they wish to retail at $300 (which should be the expected MSRP in this economy).

That's going to keep them from being remotely capable of matching gaming PCs in pure computation prowess, but they'll be competitive in that system overhead will be less and consoles will always be able to do little tricks that help them push out more visual fidelity than one would presume otherwise based on hardware alone.

But they won't go so far as to put together such a cheap unit that they can sell it for a profit at $300. The console generation would be weak, and it would have to be short-lived... PC-based competitors would move into the living room and dominate the market in a few years time if they went that route, forcing consoles to move quick to stay relevant. Which would have a snowball effect of hurting developers and turning people away.

Sony and Microsoft won't be hurting at all to sell the consoles for a $150, perhaps $200 loss per unit. They can recoup that with a few peripherals and licensing from games. What hurts is launching at a high MSRP (killing adoption rate) and also losing $300-400 per unit sold.
But make MSRP more attractive, and limit the per unit losses, they'll walk away with some stuffed pockets.
I would also expect, if they are indeed going this route, for the generation to be more on par with previous lifespans. We won't see 7-8 years between platform launches next time around, most likely it will be 5 years from retail availability to retail availability.

Being that most likely both the "720" and "PS4" will launch, at the earliest, in Fall 2013 (perhaps late Summer 2013, but most likely an Autumn release), that'll be 8 years between Xbox platform launches, and 7 years between PlayStation platform launches. They had to ride this generation out as long as possible to help recoup the extravagant costs and losses they racked up. They won't be as headstrong this time around - but they will set themselves up for failure by not launching at a hardware loss.

Nintendo is the only one who can, and should, launch at profitable retail prices. They aren't aiming for the same crowd, and if both Sony and Microsoft neglect that crowd, they'll lose out in the long run. Sure, they can pick up some of Nintendo's casual crowd, but the "hardcore" crowd, the fratboy FPS gamers, they won't stick around for long on such platforms. Developers will get into bed with a growing PC in the living room movement, they'll get better hardware out there for similar pricing a year or two after the next consoles launch, and completely steal a large portion of the hardcore crowd if marketed correctly.

 

[mizzou]

Console systems no longer will bring mystical unimaginable advances in technology. At best, a console will simply be a mid-range capable PC.

Take your best looking PC Exclusive, there you go, thats probably the best a console will get.

 

[Aikouka]

One thing that I think Sony and Microsoft need to ensure is a larger library available for their console at release. Sony did this with the Vita, but they also need to ensure that the titles are desirable so they help to move systems. If the company gets a larger influx of licensing fees from games (or profit from first-party titles), they can afford to sell the console at a loss or with less of a profit.

 

[KaOTiK]

This is especially true for MS, since they get royalties from any PC game made, so they don't really care if hardcore move to PC.

 

[MrWizzard]

Look at those lighting effects. That shadow has such a high resolution!

Fixed for ya.

 

[kache]

Games for windows live certification.

 

[destrekor]

Games for windows live certification.

It's not a common feature for PC games.

 

[Dumac]

Games for windows live certification.

Most PC games don't use GFWL

My opinion: it will look amazing.

Incoming opinions:
-Who cares? It's all about the game play.
-PC will always have better graphics(actually not true.)

Rofl, what?

Due to the ever increasing costs of making games and the ever increasing profit companies want to make, they will be cutting corners this time around and going with 16bit graphics with no voice acting. This ensures that the maximum $$ can be put to development and overall game polish.

At first this may be apalling to many so called gamers these days, but then, as EA and Ubisoft said in their latest statements "Those aren't real gamers anyway."

Sony went on record as saying, "Our latest venture may surprise some. Many were expecting lifelike graphics and top notch A list actors in rehashes of games they've seen 10 or 15 times before, but really when you think about it, that's all just needless fluff. Minimalist, that is our new approach."

Many are speculating this has more to do with the large supply of older cheaper parts that are readily available and is just a quick money grab.

Microsoft, not to be outdone by Sony has hinted that it's next console may in fact not be a console at all, but just a tablet with no inputs. "We've seen the massive amounts of money that things like the Ipad Apple store and Android store have made and we think we can do it better. Making games for little of nothing that require no extra inputs but we can sell for $5-10."

hilarious post, well thought out

 

[JackBurton]

I think this would be a great time for Microsoft to take over the console market. Sony may not have the money to produce a bleeding edge console but Microsoft does. Sony won't have the BD angle to bail them out this time, which could give MS the power to deliver a knockout blow and control the market. They just need a powerful enough console to do just that.

We'll see. Hopefully MS sees this as a great opportunity and doesn't mess it up.

 

[clok1966]

Sorry didn't read all responses (lame I know) so maybe stated already. Consoles are almost always on release about 3 years behind. when a console is started (development) they almost all do not use the high end stuff.. they use the current $100 card. Remember a TV does 1920X1080 a current gen high end PC is often 2X that.. and the math on pushing pixels is not simple as "twice as much" as bandwidth and memory come into play. So unless the "standard" for the last few generations of consoles changes.. expect the PS4 and 720 to have the eqivilant of the current $100 cards about now.
Please keep in mind again, its not that simple.. PC have varied Hardware.. CPU speeds, memory etc.. Consoles are static.. meaning the Devs can do far more with that $100 card then a PC maker can. They can custom design the tools to take advantage of the strengths and weakness of it. SO saying it will be like the $100 cards of today is . well.. incorrect in all respects except Pure Hardware wise.

the other thing to take in account is PC graphics jumps.. we have not seen any large changes in graphics int he last 3-4 years.. the only improvements have been pure Hardware ones,, more speed, fatter pipes, etc.. While Im sure the next gen will be an improvement.. its not going to be the Ps2 to PS3 jump.. it will be noticeable.. but doubtfully anything HUGE. I would guess (pure opinion) we will be looking in a very small graphic change.. and MS and SONY both trying to mimic (more then they already have, however successfully or unsuccessfully) the Wii GIMMICKY side of games..

 

[kache]

It's not a common feature for PC games.

I am not talking about the online part, but the white banner that basically any game has now on the box.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Sorry didn't read all responses (lame I know) so maybe stated already. Consoles are almost always on release about 3 years behind. when a console is started (development) they almost all do not use the high end stuff.. they use the current $100 card. Remember a TV does 1920X1080 a current gen high end PC is often 2X that.. and the math on pushing pixels is not simple as "twice as much" as bandwidth and memory come into play. So unless the "standard" for the last few generations of consoles changes.. expect the PS4 and 720 to have the eqivilant of the current $100 cards about now.
Please keep in mind again, its not that simple.. PC have varied Hardware.. CPU speeds, memory etc.. Consoles are static.. meaning the Devs can do far more with that $100 card then a PC maker can. They can custom design the tools to take advantage of the strengths and weakness of it. SO saying it will be like the $100 cards of today is . well.. incorrect in all respects except Pure Hardware wise.

the other thing to take in account is PC graphics jumps.. we have not seen any large changes in graphics int he last 3-4 years.. the only improvements have been pure Hardware ones,, more speed, fatter pipes, etc.. While Im sure the next gen will be an improvement.. its not going to be the Ps2 to PS3 jump.. it will be noticeable.. but doubtfully anything HUGE. I would guess (pure opinion) we will be looking in a very small graphic change.. and MS and SONY both trying to mimic (more then they already have, however successfully or unsuccessfully) the Wii GIMMICKY side of games..

And you won't. In the past the PC games market pushed hardware jumps, but now a majority of AAA games are made for consoles and ported to PC. Unless this changes, or someone makes a widely popular console that is on par or blows the PC away, it won't be changing anytime soon. Plus as someone else mentioned in anther thread, fewer and fewer people are using desktops, let alone gaming desktops. Laptops can still do a great job, but you pay an arm and a leg for something that can hold up to a desktop.

 

[mikegg]

Sorry didn't read all responses (lame I know) so maybe stated already. Consoles are almost always on release about 3 years behind. when a console is started (development) they almost all do not use the high end stuff.. they use the current $100 card. Remember a TV does 1920X1080 a current gen high end PC is often 2X that.. and the math on pushing pixels is not simple as "twice as much" as bandwidth and memory come into play. So unless the "standard" for the last few generations of consoles changes.. expect the PS4 and 720 to have the eqivilant of the current $100 cards about now.
Please keep in mind again, its not that simple.. PC have varied Hardware.. CPU speeds, memory etc.. Consoles are static.. meaning the Devs can do far more with that $100 card then a PC maker can. They can custom design the tools to take advantage of the strengths and weakness of it. SO saying it will be like the $100 cards of today is . well.. incorrect in all respects except Pure Hardware wise.

the other thing to take in account is PC graphics jumps.. we have not seen any large changes in graphics int he last 3-4 years.. the only improvements have been pure Hardware ones,, more speed, fatter pipes, etc.. While Im sure the next gen will be an improvement.. its not going to be the Ps2 to PS3 jump.. it will be noticeable.. but doubtfully anything HUGE. I would guess (pure opinion) we will be looking in a very small graphic change.. and MS and SONY both trying to mimic (more then they already have, however successfully or unsuccessfully) the Wii GIMMICKY side of games..

Agreed with this post. Also keep in mind that when console games are first released, they usually look better than PC games. The reason is simple. PC gaming market is smaller. Console makers invest more money in game engines for console games. When a new generation of consoles is released, developers put in the money for new game engines. Developers don't put in the money for new game engines for new PC GPUs so even though there are amazingly powerful GPUs on the PC, there isn't software to push them until consoles arrive.

The next bump in PC graphics is after next-gen consoles arrive.

 

[destrekor]

I am not talking about the online part, but the white banner that basically any game has now on the box.

I know. It's... not common.

 

[destrekor]

My opinion: it will look amazing.

Incoming opinions:
-Who cares? It's all about the game play.
-PC will always have better graphics(actually not true.)

Actually, very true.
lol

 

[KaOTiK]

I know. It's... not common.

Not only is it not that common (becoming less so too), MS doesn't get royalites. The developer/publishers pay a flat fee for a game (few hundred dollars iirc) to be certified.

 

[zerocool84]

I just hope the next round of consoles are powerful enough to handle 64 players Battlefield 3 style @ 1080p. Playing 64 players in those huge maps is insanely epic.

 

[KaOTiK]

I just hope the next round of consoles are powerful enough to handle 64 players Battlefield 3 style @ 1080p. Playing 64 players in those huge maps is insanely epic.

Hell I just want more people in multiplayer period. I hate this bullshit of 8-16 players being the norm. One of the reasons I really enjoy Planetside 2 so much

 

[destrekor]

Hell I just want more people in multiplayer period. I hate this bullshit of 8-16 players being the norm. One of the reasons I really enjoy Planetside 2 so much

That's what's ridiculous about the latest COD and MOH games. What, like 16-20 at most? Seriously? Even on the PC? (which is where I'd be playing; since this is now in the Console section, I felt I should point that out )

With BF3, I find it depends on map size how many I want. 64p on CQ maps can be fun, but I think that would be far too many if playing in Hardcore mode. Which it seems many agree, because all the popular Hardcore CQ servers I find are 32p. But large maps, I can't do anything other than 64p.

And agreed with PS2. The potential for such epic fights is what keeps me returning.

It's always interesting, however, to walk into a main facility (like a Tech plant or AMP station) and pretty much take it over uncontested. Did that last night. Of course, server population and what continent people want to focus on will vary, but it was still surreal.

 

[Arkaign]

Agreed with this post. Also keep in mind that when console games are first released, they usually look better than PC games. The reason is simple. PC gaming market is smaller. Console makers invest more money in game engines for console games. When a new generation of consoles is released, developers put in the money for new game engines. Developers don't put in the money for new game engines for new PC GPUs so even though there are amazingly powerful GPUs on the PC, there isn't software to push them until consoles arrive.

The next bump in PC graphics is after next-gen consoles arrive.

http://www.vg247.com/2012/03/07/pc-gaming-us-market-hits-18-6-billion-up-15-year-on-year/

Desktop PCs are in decline overall, as businesses move more to notebooks and even tablets in some cases, but for gaming, the PC market is actually expanding.

It's not a zero sum game either, both PC and console gaming can expand simulateously in installed base and profits. I don't expect % of the market to change much in either direction, as many/most PC gamers have consoles as well, and many console players eventually grab a PC game or two (WOW, Diablo 3, etc) that are significant exclusives.

 

[Doppel]

1) Irrespective of Sony's ills if its gaming division is doing well the money will be found to create a new console

2) It could be argued (and I will) that consoles are under a greater threat than in the past, and so I disagree with any idea that MS and Sony both will rest on laurels with a next gen console

3) Its hardware will be very competent and by the end of its life you'll see graphics that humiliate the current best PS3 games (just as they now humiliate the best PS2).

4) MS and Sony are both mum about these because they know that as soon as they announce their next console they shoot current sales in the knees, as people will wait on new hardware.

5) I predict the basic PS4 will be $399. I am pretty sure it won't be higher than that (maybe as little as $350, but not $299, no chance).

6) Hardware inferior to best PC, par excellence as has happened since the dawn of time, but it won't matter. Unlike back in the day most of the best games are on the consoles as well and not trashy ports, which means PC plays second fiddle so, though its hardware is superior, its graphics are not as better as they otherwise ought to be (think Ferrari stuck in gridlock traffic; it's no faster than a Corolla).

 

[destrekor]

1) Irrespective of Sony's ills if its gaming division is doing well the money will be found to create a new console

2) It could be argued (and I will) that consoles are under a greater threat than in the past, and so I disagree with any idea that MS and Sony both will rest on laurels with a next gen console

3) Its hardware will be very competent and by the end of its life you'll see graphics that humiliate the current best PS3 games (just as they now humiliate the best PS2).

4) MS and Sony are both mum about these because they know that as soon as they announce their next console they shoot current sales in the knees, as people will wait on new hardware.

5) I predict the basic PS4 will be $399. I am pretty sure it won't be higher than that (maybe as little as $350, but not $299, no chance).

6) Hardware inferior to best PC, par excellence as has happened since the dawn of time, but it won't matter. Unlike back in the day most of the best games are on the consoles as well and not trashy ports, which means PC plays second fiddle so, though its hardware is superior, its graphics are not as better as they otherwise ought to be (think Ferrari stuck in gridlock traffic; it's no faster than a Corolla).

Yes, PC is often riddled with ports.

But quite often, engines are actually developed with PC as lead. Sometimes they are kind of co-leads, with the engine being designed to get the most out of consoles but having code integrated that allows efficient utilization of more advanced hardware. Typically such engines are multi-tiered, like desktop games offering "low, medium, high, ultra" settings, where for the engines concern, consoles are basically Low or Medium, and desktops are whatever the user wants/the system can handle.

The main complaint of ports is mostly in the UI/input support. Quite a few "ports" don't consider hardcore gamer's input choices and the preferred hardware acceleration/direct access for input processing, and the UI, menus, and other odds and ends are not efficient/effective for keyboard/mouse control.

Some engines have had consoles as lead and the PC is tacked on, and it's usually woefully apparent in poor performance. But the majority of "ports" are mostly UI and input issues.

 

[szvwxcszxc]

I can't recall which consoles generation - at release - had better hardware in them then what was available at affordable costs (or just available at all for Mr. Joe everyone on the market) for PCs. Maybe a better question would be when was the last time PC game developers exploited PC hardware to come up with better-looking games on the PC in general then what was released on consoles?

If I'm not mistaken the last generation that did that to some extent (at least at release) was the fifth, with the N64, PlayStation, Saturn, 3DO and company. The sixth generation, with the PS2 and the original XBOX I think was already surpassed hardware-wise at release, but the "better hardware" that was available for the PC at the time of those consoles' release wasn't exactly cheap to get. And I think that most PC games that did end up having comparable or better graphics were just rarely seen generally, but the phenomenon of console ports probably truly started (or rather not "started" per se but accelerated) there sometime in the early 2000's.

I do still remember clearly enough however that many 3D arcade games at the time of the N64 and PS days usually had considerably better graphics than anything the consoles of that time could do. And it was only with the arrival of the Dreamcast and the PS2 (and GameCube) that finally we started seeing those ads that were saying "arcade quality graphics at home" again (and I say "again" because those ads existed during the 16-bit wars too, when Sega advertised the Genesis as being capable of Arcade quality gaming, and it was somewhat true since back then games at arcades were also mostly 2D sprite-based).

Wow anyway now I feel old. All I know is that whatever the XBOX 720 and the PS4 ends up like (or when, perhaps, are we sure they'll make them at all?) they'll contain hardware that - at best - will eventually give us games with graphics comparable to some of the current mid-range hardware that we PC gamers have access to. It might even be hardware from the last generation and not the current one (for example GeForce 5 rather than GeForce 6), since indeed when the hardware components for the new consoles were finalized, when they did decide about what it'd contain that decision might already been done and set in stone a year or more ago.

I wouldn't think that we'd get much better graphics (depending on the art style of course, etc) than what we can have for "PC exclusives" right now. What might change more noticeably however are some extra texture or bump map effects, there's going to be better lightning and shadow effects too I'd presume. Maybe the animation will be better and let's hope that the A.I. will be worked on as well (I know it won't though, generally). The games might be bigger too (potentially of course unless the devs don't need to make it big to start with) and the maps might load faster, or the need to load multiple smaller maps together might become something less noticeable (Portal 2-style, but that's probably more related to the engine itself rather than the consoles' hardware).

Some things will change and become better and more detailed visually, textures doing 2048 and/or 4096 instead of 512 or 1024 in resolution, the consoles will have more memory so more... stuff... overall, for content and visuals. But that's just potential, developers need to exploit that fully and it might take a couple of games and a year plus to see the real differences.

The answer to this is nintendo and super nintendo. THe original consoles I grew up with.

At the same time on PC for nintendo, all they had was solitaire, pong, and blockbreaker for PC, and when super nintendo was out, the best thing on PC was oregon trail and "where in the world is carmen san diego?"

haha it's funny you say "n64" and it makes you feel old. You must be 19

I still remember Numbers Munchers in elementary school (4th grade), which there was a math class where once a week we would play it for about 30 minutes