PS4 pro and slim

PS4 Pro upscaling seems like a pointless feature especially for £100 also these wo consoles are freaking ugly:

Spoiler:

Sounds like the Pro will play any PS4 game, but only some will be patched to be any different on it. It's just there if you want the best out of VR I guess. And if you're willing to spend £700 on both.

This console has zero reason to exist right now, considering 4k TVs (or 2k TVs if those exist) are still too expensive for the average consumer, even those who would buy the Pro.

But another thing. If most of you games can't even do 1080p 60FPS on the original PS4, what on god's earth do you think you can do the same with 4k or even upscale 4k at 60FPS? At best, you games might get 30 FPS at 2k resolutions.

How about instead focusing on making games look marginally pretty and how about and this might be a shocker to us, but um..... make some games.

Like I have not bought a console this entire generation and I still can't find any games for them. All the exclusives aren't particular interesting and the multi-plats, I can already play on PC (which seems a lot of gamers are jumping to these days).

Make things sadder, both Xbox One and PS4 has no game in the double digit millions unit solds(essentially 10+ million game sold), but dead ass Wii U has 2 game near that.

Take that into consideration

Nintendo games get in the double digits by poor support of third party developers and packing in there games with the console. Aside from the borderlands edition of the vita I don't think we've had any pack in editions of games (outside of possibly with LE consoles i know some didn't even come with the game).

In terms of exlusives the Yakuza series is worth buying a sony console for. You won't find another game that compares and Yakuza 0 and 6 will be on ps4.

meh, wasn't planning on getting one anyways considering it doesn't do anything extra I want or need.

Superbuu3 wrote:

Nintendo games get in the double digits by poor support of third party developers and packing in there games with the console. Aside from the borderlands edition of the vita I don't think we've had any pack in editions of games (outside of possibly with LE consoles i know some didn't even come with the game).

In terms of exlusives the Yakuza series is worth buying a sony console for. You won't find another game that compares and Yakuza 0 and 6 will be on ps4.

I cannot tell if its wrong of me to forget the Vita even existed.

Man, that handheld bombed hard.

I never played Yakuza games, though it looks interesting enough. Besides maybe that and Persona 5, I really don't see the appeal of the PS4.

Same goes with Xbox One. Hell if Nintendo stop dicking around with 3rd party support, they could have been ones dominating the console war.

Empirewild wrote:

Superbuu3 wrote:

Nintendo games get in the double digits by poor support of third party developers and packing in there games with the console. Aside from the borderlands edition of the vita I don't think we've had any pack in editions of games (outside of possibly with LE consoles i know some didn't even come with the game).

In terms of exlusives the Yakuza series is worth buying a sony console for. You won't find another game that compares and Yakuza 0 and 6 will be on ps4.

I cannot tell if its wrong of me to forget the Vita even existed.

Man, that handheld bombed hard.

I never played Yakuza games, though it looks interesting enough. Besides maybe that and Persona 5, I really don't see the appeal of the PS4.

Same goes with Xbox One. Hell if Nintendo stop dicking around with 3rd party support, they could have been ones dominating the console war.

I can't believe sony haven't made a PS4 Wipeout, they are complete idiots for closing down the Liverpool studio.

BTW remember spiderman is going to be ps4 exclusive in case you forgot. There's probably a lot more exclusives than you realise. I think sony's bigger problem is people don't care about them. For instance Ys VIII is going to be a must buy for me, as well as ace combat 7 assuming its not like assault horizon which was a horrible misstep. I'm also very intersted in Nioh. Also Alienation is a very good game.

I am going gander that Sony used all its good publicity as much as they could after Microsoft shat the bed with the Xbox One reveal and now has no idea what to do now since everyone is over the Microsoft backlash and the Pro's publicity isn't in its favor.

I mean they could make games, but sounds like hard work. So instead hope in vain the average consumers will buy 10 billion copies of Uncharted and the next generic third person zombie shooter.

I mean you already about to lose your Japanese consumer because they stop caring about consoles in general and all their games are moving to either mobile and PC and the Microsoft backlash is dead as far as I am concerned.

I need to rant.

Firstly, Home 4k isn't true 4k any way.  Technically, 4k resolution is 4096 x 2160 but home 4k is actually slightly lower at 3840 x 2160.  Secondly, why is it called 4k?  Full HD is called 1080p, right?  That's 1920 x 1080, with the 1080 being the number of horizontal lines of vertical resolution.  HD ready was 1280 x 720, and it's called 720p.  4k is named 4k because true 4k has 4096 lines of horizontal resolution yet following the naming convention, it should be 2160p, not 4k.  Hence why I prefer the term Ultra HD, because it may be unspecific, but at least it's accurate.

PS4 Pro is something of a missed opportunity.  For something allegedly designed for 4k gaming - as the inclusion of 4k support and HDR output would attest - the absence of an integrated UHD Blu Ray drive is a staggering misstep, especially when such a thing is standard in an Xbox One S.  4K console gaming is an expensive investment anyway, more so if you're looking for a TV that can actually display HDR, and if you factor in the cost of PS4 Pro and an additional UHD Blu Ray player you're going to be looking at around two and a half grand at an absolute minimum.

That's a huge investment, and one only a very small percentage of players is likely to either A) want or B) be financially able to make.

Besides, even if you have a TV with sufficient clout to get PS4 Pro to output its best possible image, you're not going to be getting 60fps.  The system still doesn't have enough grunt to do that.  We might finally see 1080p60 being the accepted norm?  No, even that is unlikely given that Sony is adamant there'll be no Pro exclusives and that all Pro games still need to run on PS4.  Given the install base for the pro is likely to be fairly small in comparison to the existing PS4, I really don't think anyone other than the really big developers are going to spend the time required optimising titles for Pro.

Maybe I'm getting even more cynical in my old age?

Depends how they tackle each game. Apparently Tomb Raider has 3 different options for PS4 Pro. EIther the game as is displaued at 4k, or 1080p with boosted framerate, or 1080p 30fps with enhanced graphics.

Nioh had frame rate or resolution option on normal ps4 i assume they will allow the game to run at 60fps on ps4 pro so developers who understand gaming will cater for it.

Yeah, the mystery of why they decided to use the term 4k pisses me off too.

I agree with sony on this one the inclusion of a 4K blu ray player is pointless as streaming at 4K makes more sense. Its far cheaper for me to get Sky Q then buy 4k Blu rays. Streaming is definitely the way to go and besides a dedicated 4K blu ray player would be better, if you really have the cash to burn. I also don't want to see all the flaws in every actors face magnified in UHD.

Superbuu3 wrote:

I agree with sony on this one the inclusion of a 4K blu ray player is pointless as streaming at 4K makes more sense. Its far cheaper for me to get Sky Q then buy 4k Blu rays. Streaming is definitely the way to go and besides a dedicated 4K blu ray player would be better, if you really have the cash to burn. I also don't want to see all the flaws in every actors face magnified in UHD.

Sorry, but I couldn't disagree more.

Streaming at UHD is great and all, but you're going to need decent internet speed (anything less than 25 megabits per second just isn't going to cut it) and that much data is going to chew through your bandwidth.  I've seen it suggested that streaming an hour of UHD content will consume 7GB of data, and personally I think that's being conservative.  Either way, you need an unlimited download limit to even entertain the idea.

What if you live somewhere with poor internet speed, or worse, no fibre optic at all?  Then streaming isn't an option.  What if you don't want or cannot have unlimited data?  Streaming isn't an option.  

To put it into perspective, my fibre optic is allegedly delivering speeds of up to 75 megabits per second, yet the speed I actually receive is nearer the 30 mb/s mark, and that doesn't take into account any other devices using the same network (my TV, PS4, Xbox One and my mobile all use the same wireless network) which may also consume precious bandwidth, nor does it take into account any issues with the local exchange, such as the speed dropping substantially over the weekend and evening.  Essentially, in theory, I should be able to stream UHD without bother.  In practice, it's a different story, and I live in city centre within two miles of the exchange.

If I had anything less, it would be totally impractical to even think about it.

And defending the lack of UHD drive by saying that a dedicated drive would be better if you have cash to burn is, while technically correct, a non-argument.  As I said above, to use Pro as intended, you're looking at expenditure of around £2000 to get in at entry level.  That's the new system itself plus a 4K / true HDR screen (many are listed as having such, but actually don't meet the criteria to qualify for certified HDR).  Sony have said that their desire to keep the cost of the Pro below a certain pricepoint was their reason for excluding a UHD drive and while I'll concede it's true that a dedicated drive may offer marginally better picture, a PS4 Pro and UHD drive is going to cost in the region of £700.  Or, they could have added the UHD drive and charged us £100 more.  Net outlay of £450 rather than £700.  You tell me which is better value, especially when a UHD drive is included as standard in the £250 Xbox One S.  Essentially, the excuse about cutting it out due to price constraints simply doesn't wash.  You can't sell a system on the back of it having technology that requires a two grand TV to work as intended, then say you've only included a drive for discs at the old standard to save £100.

Alternatively, what if PS3 had been billed as an HD console, able to display 1080p gaming but had come with a DVD drive, not a Blu Ray drive? It would have been seen as sheer stupidity and rightly called out as such.

I see this the same way.

There's been falls in DVD and Blu-Ray sales. 4K is even less popular to the extent they don't even come up in search engines like amazon unless you specify. I understand the it makes sense for the drive to be 4K blu ray compatible, but realistically selling a console at £400 to cater for that would destroy the sales. People are uncomfortable to pay £350 already. Googling I can find this LG 4K HDR 49inch TV for £499 and thats an LG and me not even bargain hunting:

http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/tv-and-home-entertainment/televisions/televisions/lg-49uh620v-smart-4k-ultra-hd-hdr-49-led-tv-10144772-pdt.html

Who in their right mind joins a streaming service with a data cap? That would be a god awful idea. Anyway if 4K blu rays aren't suddenly on the amazon home page at christmas I'll know Sony made the right call. Anyone who has a £2000 set up can afford a sepereate 4K blu ray and the £25 cost of a brand new 4K blu ray at release and the Xbox S has the 4K blu ray to, if that doesnt shift units then again people don't care about it.

the way I see it, 4K is for next generation. That's when I'll be converting. (unless they come out with something better in the meantime that's affordable)