Why Sony didn't show us the PS4?

[PeanutButterMunky]

Exactly, it is amazing what they have accomplished with 512MB, heck 8GB of RAM would work wonders on a PC, but having 8GB of GDDR5...on a console, that is going to allow developers to create some really amazing stuff! This is going to be a very exciting generation of console gaming, that is for sure!

Yeah. I was blown away by a lot of things at the event, but I was hardly expecting the RAM upgrade. Devs have so much more flexibility now.

[MATRIX 2]

http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/21/40...in-development

[PeanutButterMunky]

http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/21/40...in-development

I knew it! :-0




Edit: No 4K resolution for games. I guess that settles that.

[MonkeyClaw]

I knew it! :-0




Edit: No 4K resolution for games. I guess that settles that.

But it will do 4K for video and pictures! So does that mean the blu-ray drive is a newer higher capacity drive that will support 4K video?

[Completely Average]

I know people are saying it's comparable to a modern day GPU... but it's a little different with consoles because whereas with PCs you have to continuously upgrade your GPU to keep up with games continuously being ridiculous and not even optimized to take advantage of multiple cores and other nonsense, devs for consoles will be constantly trying to take advantage of the console's power... leaving a greater potential for the card to show off what it can truly do...

That's not really true anymore. PC hardware has been fairly static for a number of years now and games are MUCH better optimized for the hardware, especially on the GPU side. You can still get by with a GPU that is several years old.

For instance, take Battlefield 3


Even at higher than 1080p resolution with the graphics settings maxed out and running with FXAA enabled it's still quite playable on a HD 5870 which was released in 2009. Granted Battlefield 3 isn't the most graphically demanding game on the market, but the large disparity between hardware capabilities and games is no longer there in PC gaming.

[sosovoo]

I don't buy it. They were playing on the systems at the show yesterday. Its not like they just had all the new internal hardware just sitting there. They at least were in a proto type model. I would imagine at least. Lol

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[sosovoo]

That's not really true anymore. PC hardware has been fairly static for a number of years now and games are MUCH better optimized for the hardware, especially on the GPU side. You can still get by with a GPU that is several years old.

For instance, take Battlefield 3


Even at higher than 1080p resolution with the graphics settings maxed out and running with FXAA enabled it's still quite playable on a HD 5870 which was released in 2009. Granted Battlefield 3 isn't the most graphically demanding game on the market, but the large disparity between hardware capabilities and games is no longer there in PC gaming.

This is were the steam box console will have an insane advantage. You can upgrade the GPU.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[PeanutButterMunky]

That's not really true anymore. PC hardware has been fairly static for a number of years now and games are MUCH better optimized for the hardware, especially on the GPU side. You can still get by with a GPU that is several years old.

For instance, take Battlefield 3


Even at higher than 1080p resolution with the graphics settings maxed out and running with FXAA enabled it's still quite playable on a HD 5870 which was released in 2009.

I guess I'm just optimistic. :]

Also, seeing as Sony just stated PS4 will not be supporting 4K resolution games... the highest resolution we're going to see this next gen is 1080p... so there's a lot of things that can be done with that... I hope. o_0

[sosovoo]

Japan?! LOL! We all know where the PS4 is going to be made...

Lol I was just messing man. I'd laugh if the same factory was producing both Xbox and ps4 in the same building.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Treghc]

That's not really true anymore. PC hardware has been fairly static for a number of years now and games are MUCH better optimized for the hardware, especially on the GPU side. You can still get by with a GPU that is several years old.

For instance, take Battlefield 3


Even at higher than 1080p resolution with the graphics settings maxed out and running with FXAA enabled it's still quite playable on a HD 5870 which was released in 2009. Granted Battlefield 3 isn't the most graphically demanding game on the market, but the large disparity between hardware capabilities and games is no longer there in PC gaming.

Umm... You're kind of giving a self-defeating point there. The newest cards is TWICE as powerful as the card from a few years back running a game that came out a few years back. This says nothing more than today's PC's could run a game with twice the level of graphic fidelity of what BF3 is doing. That's not static at all.

The development is the only thing lacking on PC. The hardware is and always will be vastly superior to consoles, if not immediately, then mere months after the console's release. BF3 on ultra looks very, very good. Imagine stressing a GTX 690 to the point where it is only putting out 47fps.

[MonkeyClaw]

Lol I was just messing man. I'd laugh if the same factory was producing both Xbox and ps4 in the same building.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

You never know! Seems like Foxconn pretty much makes everything out there, so no telling!

[Completely Average]

Umm... You're kind of giving a self-defeating point there. The newest cards is TWICE as powerful as the card from a few years back running a game that came out a few years back. This says nothing more than today's PC's could run a game with twice the level of graphic fidelity of what BF3 is doing. That's not static at all.

Sorry, it doesn't work like that. Virtually all of the performance difference is entirely down to memory bandwidth. The HD5870 has 153.6Gbps and the HD 6990 has 380Gbps. (And the PS4 has 176Gbps which is shared between GPU and CPU). Higher resolutions require a HUGE amount of bandwidth.

As far as shader ops goes, the old HD 5870 is still able to do everything the new cards can do, it's just very memory bandwidth limited.

The development is the only thing lacking on PC. The hardware is and always will be vastly superior to consoles, if not immediately, then mere months after the console's release. BF3 on ultra looks very, very good. Imagine stressing a GTX 690 to the point where it is only putting out 47fps.

Like this?



Then you would have Crysis Warhead.



My point was that when the PS3 was released you couldn't dream of running a new game on max detail on a 3-4 year old PC video card. You CAN now because the hardware specs have been static for years. DX11 was released in 2009 and it's still the standard for hardware specs today. Bandwidth has been increased allowing for faster frame rates in high resolutions, but that 2009 video card can still run all of the features that a brand new card can run.

[Treghc]

Sorry, it doesn't work like that. Virtually all of the performance difference is entirely down to memory bandwidth. The HD5870 has 153.6Gbps and the HD 6990 has 380Gbps. (And the PS4 has 176Gbps which is shared between GPU and CPU). Higher resolutions require a HUGE amount of bandwidth.

As far as shader ops goes, the old HD 5870 is still able to do everything the new cards can do, it's just very memory bandwidth limited.




Like this?



Then you would have Crysis Warhead.



My point was that when the PS3 was released you couldn't dream of running a new game on max detail on a 3-4 year old PC video card. You CAN now because the hardware specs have been static for years. DX11 was released in 2009 and it's still the standard for hardware specs today. Bandwidth has been increased allowing for faster frame rates in high resolutions, but that 2009 video card can still run all of the features that a brand new card can run.

You're still not proving your point. More bandwidth or not, it doesn't change the fact that, should developers choose to do so, they could put out a much more graphically intensive game than what's out now. It's not the PC's hardware fault; it's the software developer's fault. We haven't had a game that actually stresses modern-day PC's in quite a while. The last one to do so was BF3, which was quickly conquered thanks to new video cards. The last game before that to challenge anything was the original Crysis, which was a rather unoptomized engine to begin with.

Just because a 4870 can run Crysis Warhead at a playable frame rate doesn't make the hardware unimpressive. It makes the game's engine undemanding.

[Aquanox]

Because they don't want to spoil their design. Consider Microsoft hasn't shown their console either.

Being it the to modify easiest - yet one of the most important aspects of the console - I think it was smart not to show it yet.

They also need to save some meet for E3.

Like this?

You can stress any kind of hardware with bad programming. Crysis Warhead was clearly unoptimized. Take Crysis 3 for example and look how it looks and run in a GTX 690, a game that by the way, has nothing envy from those shown on this show.

[keefy]

They forgot to take a photo.

[admartian]

They forgot to take a photo.

They uploaded on SkyDrive and for some reason couldn't get it to work.

[daLa]

I think the main reason why they didn't unveil the console yet is because they're still haven't established a design for it and they may also be thinking of adding some more cool features to it.

[TAZ427]

I don't buy it. They were playing on the systems at the show yesterday. Its not like they just had all the new internal hardware just sitting there. They at least were in a proto type model. I would imagine at least. Lol

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Uhm... they were playing on a development platform. For all we know it was two Quad 4 x86's and a GPU that's slapped on a board and not final Si for either, but has most of the architecture the same. You can do the majority of game development and underlying OS done in such an environment. One could even speculate that neither the GPU or CPU has seen Si as of yet but are in the works. Or they only have initial Si now, and the Orbis dev platforms are the precursor to the architecture but sufficient for development and demo purposes.

Also, I'm sure they're working on the physical console. Things like power consumption, heat sink and fan design, etc needs to be done to make a nice sleek console box (as oppose to the big block of a development platform.)

All of this should be squared away by E3 and they should have all of the preliminary Si in hand to put together full beta platforms which will be used for Show demo's, working the HW bugs out before spinning a final release, providing to Dev's for final development work, fine tuning the PS4's OS, etc.

Even if they brought out a box it would have been more of a concept of what it would be at this point.

[Syphon_Filter]

Japan?! LOL! We all know where the PS4 is going to be made...

I agree with you. Chinaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

[Syphon_Filter]

Because they don't want to spoil their design. Consider Microsoft hasn't shown their console either.

Being it the to modify easiest - yet one of the most important aspects of the console - I think it was smart not to show it yet.
Dam man you have provided great details.
They also need to save some meet for E3.



You can stress any kind of hardware with bad programming. Crysis Warhead was clearly unoptimized. Take Crysis 3 for example and look how it looks and run in a GTX 690, a game that by the way, has nothing envy from those shown on this show.

[ps3freak18]

It's all apart of the hype train initiative. Get people widely interested. Then reveal about a month later. Hype goes up even more. But hang on to other aspects that you can talk about a few months down the road to keep it fresh and not seem like you are hearing the same thing again. It's like putting together a puzzle. Eventually it will all come together and people will be extremely hyped once the puzzle is complete. IE E3 in June. Then you have presumably 5 months for that hype to build even more as people wait and see more titles come out of the wood works. Call it what you will but I call it intricate planning.

[D3seeker]

“As far as the DualShock 4 is concerned we wanted to do the live demo. And we were like, yeah, we have to show the controller, because it’s awkward not to show the controller when someone is doing a demo. And also the feature that the DualShock 4 has, the share button, is a very key idea behind the design of the PS4… We really wanted to explain what we’ve done with the DualShock 4, but as far as the system itself we have to keep something new for later. Otherwise you’d get bored.”

Meh, rather it's the typical corporate side stepping or true, pretty what we come to ourselves. I know I'm game

http://gamerant.com/sony-ps4-console...=zergnet_45529

[Felix336]

Didn't Nintendo not show the Wii U when they first announced it? Didn't seem like a big deal, this really shouldn't be either. It's just a plastic box after all, features are much more important, which they gave us.

[AriMezurashii]

Well, first I want to share my frustrations as I woke up 3am due to the time difference to watch the event live through IGN, the dual shock, the social features and all that passed by and before I knew it there were NO details on the console itself!!! I was frustrated because most of the things they showed were pretty simple and were leaked a few days earlier.
Second, to answer the question, they did not show the console because, IN MY OPINION
A) they did not finish up the console obviously and still in prototype mode and that could only mean that Sony is planning to keep working on it, or lazy that they did finish it on time! Again, it could also mean that they just want to show it off at E3.
B) they gave out the release date (Nov. 2013) and if this is final, they cannot just show the console now and wait for like .... *counts on finger* NINE months and then release... it will need to have a smaller gap of time <this is only my opinion! So the possibilities of Sony showing the console in E3 in June is higher but could slip by.
C) Like most members mentioned already, they just don't want Microsoft to get a hold on anything. Even though they previously mentioned that the Sony will make Microsoft make the first move, (click here for the article) this seemed like a "first move" but NOT really.... i mean showing the controller and the social aspect is not really a move...

So we can expect that until Microsoft shows something more tangible....Sony will reveal the console... or they'll ignore what they said and show their material in E3!!

[Darksec]

I hope it supports disc games because my meager connection can't download huge games all the time.

There is said to be blu-ray again but there is deffo physical media as they have confirmed that you will still be able to trade games and that they are not going ahead with the code thing that meant the discs only played on your machine I think its gonna be a lot like PC i.e. you have steam but you can still buy the disc versions in stores. Online is just a quicker option. They have also confirmed that you don't have to be online to be able to obtain games for the PS4