Rumour about playstation 4.5

GameHED · Post by **GameHED** » 19 Mar 2016 08:58 am

Looks like Sony has their own solution to the underpowered specs of the current generation consoles by making them upgradeable:

If this is true I wonder what that means for NX? Rocco? I think one console cycle should last about 4.5 years imo to catch up to the pc.

Nintendo pulled it off with 3DS by making an NEW model which made certain games like Xenoblade on 3DS exclusive to NEW 3DS models. So I think the future will be MS Xbox One + and ps4.5 (all games run at 1080P 60FPS minimum because fallout 4 is too scary at 30fps even though it is more cinematic)

Nintendo better hurry up with NX or they are doomed again. As I said though DON'T TRUST EA. They killed the DC by abandoning them. They will abandon you too. They even made their own megadrive cartridges so they didn't have to pay sega for the standard model carts.

t0mby · Post by **t0mby** » 19 Mar 2016 09:06 am

From all I've read it's really about trying to have the power to support 4K for all games since the console is only capable of 4K photos and movies atm. Either way, don't really care, console gaming as we know it is about to come to an end, maybe within the next 10yrs.

GameHED · Post by **GameHED** » 19 Mar 2016 09:14 am

Not for me. I am not buying a pc just so candy can send me viruses and make me update every 3 seconds. Fuck that. I like japanese games.

Console is going to survive. It's just that they need to catch up with pc a bit. Make the cycle a bit shorter than 10 years.

Most of the gamers of today are the nerdy 30year old virgins full of zits on their bum with no girlffriend and who live in mom's basement and work at google and have huge disposable income with no kids which allows them to upgrade pc every 3 months. They can afford it. They just need to stop wasting money on crappy mobile games and buying pc graphics cards which never get pushed to their limits because the game developers target console specs and don't optimise the pc version enough because nobody pays full price there.

Witcher 3 would have looked SOOOO much better if it had more power backing it but the console companies cheaped out and it got downgraded. They tried to aim it at kids as gaming became more mainstream and less niche.

They looked at how well the wii did and wanted some of that casual gamer market. So they made the console cheap to make it affordable to your mum and grandmum in hopes of selling them on the idea of waggle style gaming.
Now that VR is here, the time has come to appeal to the nerd again who is a tech savvy guy who wants to view VR porn in the living room and needs the specs to make the visuals believable enough to make it worthwhile.

These current gen machines are stopgap consoles. We all know this. Just like the Gameboy Color was before GBA. It's time to trade in your console at ebgames for PS4.5 so no man's sky can be played in 4K which lets you see the alien's stretch marks and tell its age.

You are such negative fatalists. Just because kids like shit graphics because the wii introduced low resolution to the world and your grandparents were impressed by that since they were used to seeing games like pacman and donkey kong in the 80s and thought the graphics were good, doesn't mean all consoles must have bad graphics and last 10 years and therefore die off as mobile devices surpass them. The gamers need to buy less games and more hardware if they want those 60 frames per second. You got to spend your money in the right areas by selling off old hardware and upgrading to better stuff. Let those who were late to the party buy the legacy consoles and create a budget market. Sell your C64 and Amiga 500 to help pay the cost of a new console. There has got to b a lot of guy out there who play a lot of indie games and as we all know the indie titles don't need the latest specs to run them. But the triple A games suffer from low framerates. So the older console still function as indie game console platforms for those on a tight budget. (10 kids from 10 different mothers) The rest of us that can get better graphics should be able to still play older versions of games on new console however. Just as the later generations of nintendo machines can still play games from the last gen for free. (no emulators or bs necessary to play old wii games on wii u for example)

That should be the new rule. New machines are BC to old machines, but the old machines are seen as entry level indie game machines more than platforms to play the latest triple A games. 4.5 years is enough imo. That is at least 1 new elder scrolls or gta per generation. Instea of buying the same game twice (as in GTA5 when it initially came out on last gen), you only buy it ONCE but the developers don't try to do a second edition on higher spec machine. This will save you money to pay for new hardware. Less waste and more money spent in cleaning up the graphics.

The new 3DS is an example of upgrade being accepted. What consoles need is an autodetect feature so it knows how to present the graphics. For instance old retro games like Duke 3D can be great portable titles (on vita it looks good) but maybe you prefer to play it on home with thicker thumbsticks and when the same game is played on big screen it may enhance the image in some way to hide the ugly visuals sice it's old. That technology needs to be used in triple A games too. So if you are playing COD you won't get any gameplay advantages to people on last gen machines but you at least get filters to clean up the image. This way competitive gaming isn't sacrificed. The guy on the new machine still has ugly graphics (but with filters to clean the final picture) but when a new single player title is out, he can reach that 60fps no problems. (not held back by old tech, but still able to play competitively for old games where crap graphics are the norm in esports style games. There are some games that are cross play that achieve this now. Monster hunter 3U 3DS players can still play online with Wii U monster hunter 3U players for instance and the 3DS version is just uglier in graphics but the game is the same. )

t0mby · Post by **t0mby** » 19 Mar 2016 09:54 am

A yes or no would suffice and probably saved you some time as well.

GameHED · Post by **GameHED** » 19 Mar 2016 10:22 am

Are you getting one if it turns out to be true? I will probably trade in my ps4 for the upgrade. Everyone was hoping this gen would mean 60fps1080P minumum but it's still in 30fps land for the shit third party coders (ie using off the shelf engines) who can't tap into the secret hidden saiyan powers which sony is hiding.

Now that Vita is dead, sony can concentrate just on home console while nintendo merges the portables with the main unit like the neogeo x gold and use the savings to actually pay for advertising which the lack of caused wii u to be thought of as a mere add-on for wii.

t0mby · Post by **t0mby** » 19 Mar 2016 10:30 am

Maybe, depends. I have a 4K telly but it all depends on the pricing and how much it'd be beneficial. You'd expect all games to run 1080 60fps but then games would have to have tweaking options in order to run on both unless it's automatic.

flipswitch · Post by **flipswitch** » 19 Mar 2016 10:59 am

This must be due to the lack of AF. Finally Sony are doing something about it. I will purchase this and expect to sell my ps4 on eBay for maximum profit.

Twiztid Elf · Post by **Twiztid Elf** » 19 Mar 2016 12:07 pm

t0mby wrote: console gaming as we know it is about to come to an end, maybe within the next 10yrs.

I read people saying this a lot, but I don't understand it. Explain it.

I like sitting on my couch with a controller in my hands, playing a videogame on my TV*. Maybe I'm an old man yelling at clouds, but what's coming along to replace a box under the TV that will do this for me?
I just don't see it.

If it's a full-blown PC under my TV that does the same thing, fine.
If it's a portable that's powerful enough to perform the same function, fine.
If it's some crappy portable 'solution' that interferes with the bolded above, I'm not fine.
If it's a mobile phone, I'm definitely not ok with it.
If it's VR, I couldn't give a shit and I'm out.
If it's touch control, I'm out.

I'll also add that I still far prefer playing 3DS over anything on a mobile phone or tablet, because it is a premium gaming experience. I still prefer using a dedicated portable music device, because it's a superior experience to using a mobile phone. I won't compromise on the finer things I like for 'convenience'.

Meh, even if gaming does morph into something unpalatable, I'll just stick with all the stuff I have right now plus a Raspberry Pi Retro box.

* - I like PC gaming also, particularly if it's a genre that works there (RTS/MMO/MOBA). I'm playing XCom2 now, but I'd really rather be playing it on a console.

Vince · Post by **Vince** » 19 Mar 2016 04:44 pm

I'd like to know the same thing- why will consoles die within the next 10 years? What makes this a possibility? I can't fathom why anyone would think this. These underpowered boxes are selling better than any console in history (PS4 maybe) yet it seems like it is all doom and gloom... Why?

Candy Arse · Post by **Candy Arse** » 19 Mar 2016 04:46 pm

It's a GameHED thread - everything is doomed.

Meanwhile I'm loving top-end gaming on my PS8.

flipswitch · Post by **flipswitch** » 19 Mar 2016 04:51 pm

4K gaming at 60fps, what's not to love?.

Candy Arse · Post by **Candy Arse** » 19 Mar 2016 04:55 pm

720p at 30fps is much better /t0mby+GameHED

Ben · Post by **Ben** » 19 Mar 2016 04:59 pm

I liked the moniker I read before, PS4K.

GameHED · Post by **GameHED** » 20 Mar 2016 02:29 pm

Candy Arse wrote:720p at 30fps is much better /t0mby+GameHED

Wii U already gave us 1080P 60fps in mario kart 8. I am used to high FPS and like it but you have to admit 30fps is the standard for open world shit if you want it to look modern with fx on for the console.

I think pc developers are just used to wasting so much resources that is why they need the power. Fallout 4 lost points on metacritic simply because the graphics looked dated and the engine was old. But if they had more power to play with then their lack of coding skill could be compensated a bit with more high specs.

Even the n64 had that little high res memory expansion thing to help with FPS games and you couldn't play majora's mask without it on n64. If the console cycle was closer to the 4.5 year cycle it might help these shitty companies survive and they'd get better scores because their games could run at the 60fps which was supposed to be the minimum this gen.

30FPS is playable (I beat all the content on far cry 4 with perfects on xbox 360) but 60 fps should be minimum imo. Yes the old halo games were only 30fps but COD is 60fps. The Xbox brand is dying becaues of the stupid low resolution and that is because they wanted to make it about the waggle this gen. But they can make up for that with the Xbox One Turbo much as Wii was the GC turbo.

flipswitch · Post by **flipswitch** » 20 Mar 2016 02:32 pm

Uh, Mario Kart is 720p 60fps.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digit ... rio-kart-8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

GameHED · Post by **GameHED** » 20 Mar 2016 02:37 pm

Actually its 59 fps. But I didn't notice. It looks smooth enough to me.

And you get two fucking screens. Nintendo could have made a 1080P machine but they chose to have tablet but it turned out for the better since most of the games they make are the cartoony style. Star Fox will make use of the tablet in a way that lets you see extra stuff. Gameplay is why 60fps is needed so you can react to danger easier and aim better, not to impress tech spec nerds. That's why people often have to remind the pc gamer that low res is sometimes better for old games as it is closer to the original. When you blow up the screen resolution but don't increase the texture detail, (ie you don't add extra information to fill in that space) it only MAGNIFIES the ugliness of the old game's low res textures. (this is one of the reasons old games look sharp on portable system because they help hide the imperfections by squeezing detail into a tiny space) Whereas if you kept the screen res lower, those ugly textures from the old game actually blend in better with the overall pictures rather than stick out like a sore thumb.

As for the soap opera effect: it's the same deal.

People are getting more frames of animation but their brain now starts to notice imperfections in the movements and the props start to look really fake because the creators of the set were not aware how clear the picture would be when blown up on a huge cinema screen and that makes the overall image look more fake than if they lessened the picutre sharpness and framerate to normal speed. Movies that once appear cinematic end up looking like cheap soap opera drama and the objects look like they were replica items you can buy in a gift shop rather than real ones. Their brains are no longer tricked into believing that gandalf's staff is a real wooden staff in the Hobbit and the makeup artists no longer trick the audience into believing that these are real wizards and elves because they start to appear more like people appearing at a convention cosplaying as characters due to the increased detail that they can now scrutinse the costumes at. Your brain wouldn't notice those details if the image was softer and moved a bit more jerky.

Candy Arse · Post by **Candy Arse** » 20 Mar 2016 03:39 pm

I think we can agree that Mario Kart 8 would be better at 30fps. It's the gaming standard.

GameHED · Post by **GameHED** » 20 Mar 2016 03:51 pm

Not really. Most people want 60fps for racers. It's slow paced shit like open world rpgs that look scarier at 30fps.

The desperate feral ghouls that lunge at you in jerky fashion in fallout 4 look way more menacing when they just suddenly appear on top of you like a facehugger. In 60fps it makes them too predictable and less scary.

You can see what they do too easily. These are monsters. You should not be able to see them move at high framerates imo.

Our eyes blur out details that move quickly. When you have 60fps it look unnatural. Just accept it.

The reason games like halo looked so scary was through not telegraphing the movements of enemies. You had to study them and their fighting a bit before engaging effectively. In 60fps it is too easy. You pc gamers are too soft. Maybe as you age your reflexes get worse so you demand aim assist and high framerates and special mice to make the challenge easy but for us console vets we have gotten harder while you got softer. We have to use analogue sticks to kill while you get all the luxury. It's like you are riding in a expensive sports car and therefore it masks your bad skill, while others ride in slow machines but have to compensate for worse tech with better training and experience working with limits to get the same result.

Sure a game that is easy makes you feel good but you get weaker over time when you rely on high framerates which are unnatural in real life. The Terminator in the first movie with the stop motion animation was way creepier than the smoother one in the 90s.
It's like watching a spider make sudden jumps at random vs moving slowly and smooth. The jerky motion of a spider are hard to predict and therefore make you scared because you can't aim as easy. But a slow one looks less scary as it doesn't jump around unpredictably. That's why open world rpg games are probably better at low framerates.
Let us see the enemy in better detail, but have it move at you with jerky unpredictable movements instead of predictable ones. You don't need to make your main character useless like the guy in silent hill to make a game scary. Just make the monsters more fast and unpredictable.

Candy Arse · Post by **Candy Arse** » 20 Mar 2016 04:05 pm

So then wouldn't Mario Kart be more natural at 30fps? Basically according to GameHED all these 60fps Nintendo games are made in error.

Burnzoire · Post by **Burnzoire** » 21 Mar 2016 10:59 am

MS were probably planning an upgrade to "XBox 1080" and now Sony might come out with basically a PS4K. Poor Microsoft.

Cletus · Post by **Cletus** » 21 Mar 2016 11:21 am

This gen has been a cluster fuck for at least two of the three. MS should consider allowing pc peripherals on their console as well.

Madmya · Post by **Madmya** » 21 Mar 2016 11:30 am

Absolutely.

I think this whole situation is a product of underpowered consoles in combination with the impact Digital Foundry has had on the console warz. Today we're so concerned with framerates, frame skips, tearing and resolution that it dominates discussions rather than the actual game itself.

Vince · Post by **Vince** » 21 Mar 2016 12:18 pm

Madmya wrote:Absolutely.

I think this whole situation is a product of underpowered consoles in combination with the impact Digital Foundry has had on the console warz. Today we're so concerned with framerates, frame skips, tearing and resolution that it dominates discussions rather than the actual game itself.

Exactly right. It was there previous gen but not as bad as this. Fuck I mean sometime 1 or 2 frames a second less means people crying that their console is far superior! I've just never seen people go so nuts over things like this before.

Madmya · Post by **Madmya** » 21 Mar 2016 01:12 pm

I think Richard Leadbetter of DF is also aware of the weight his articles have. At times he tries to stress how inconsequential some of these differences are. Doesn't matter to most unfortunately.

t0mby · Post by **t0mby** » 21 Mar 2016 01:34 pm

Vince wrote:
Madmya wrote:Absolutely.

I think this whole situation is a product of underpowered consoles in combination with the impact Digital Foundry has had on the console warz. Today we're so concerned with framerates, frame skips, tearing and resolution that it dominates discussions rather than the actual game itself.
Exactly right. It was there previous gen but not as bad as this. Fuck I mean sometime 1 or 2 frames a second less means people crying that their console is far superior! I've just never seen people go so nuts over things like this before.

Thankfully it's only Candy and Lestat on this forum.

The Games Ranch