Jump to content

Wired exclusive: What to expect from Sony next-gen ( will be backwards compatible at least with PS4, ray tracing, 3D audio, SSD, supports 8k, PSVR will work on new console)


SaysWho?

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, Dre801 said:

I think even PS3 supported and even had some very minor raytracing in a couple of games.

 

Even the GeForce 3 was capable of ray-tracing. It’s not something that requires hardware support. The difference is going to be some type of dedicated “thing” on/in the GPU itself that allows RT and minimizes the performance hit, ie: hardware vertex and pixel shaders back when DX8 came out (cards without the shaders were capable of rendering the effects, but the performance impact was insane). nVidia is on the right track with doing it through the tensor cores on the RTX series, but, even then, I think we’ll eventually need some type of universal and dedicated “shader” for RT to be realistic and used fully (all light sources, all shadows, all reflections)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

Btw, supporting 8k is just an HDMI standard, no? 

Most likely that's what it means, and probably indicates that they've finally moved beyond vanilla Blu Ray in their systems.

 

13 minutes ago, Brick said:

Isn't 8K actually beyond what the human eye would be able to notice a difference in when we're talking about commercial TVs, even if you have like a 75"? At a certain point it just becomes pointless to up the resolution. 

Someone should tell Sony since they've shown off a 16K TV recently.  It's like 60ft wide though, lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brick said:

Isn't 8K actually beyond what the human eye would be able to notice a difference in when we're talking about commercial TVs, even if you have like a 75"? At a certain point it just becomes pointless to up the resolution. 

 

That’s not true at all. 12k is actually when aliasing becomes unnoticeable in terms of rendered graphics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Backwards compatibility is amazing news as long as Sony doesn't charge a subscription fee to use it.  PS3 and earlier would be nice as well but PS4 bc alone is enough to earn a pre-order from me.  Sony will probably continue to push PSnow, but hopefully it will take on the role of a much better option for renting games (since that's essentially what it is) and more PS1-3 classics will be ported to their online store.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
4 minutes ago, mikechorney said:

New rumours are consistent with expectations.

spacer.png

 

I think the Pro would have been a fine purchase for me, but I'm glad I held out because games like Horizon Zero Dawn look fabulous on a base PS4, and with the PS5 next year, I'm set for an upgrade there. :p 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mikechorney said:

New rumours are consistent with expectations.

spacer.png

 

about 3 times the power of the pro and little over double the X1X, if you consider those the current gen consoles this isn't a huge leap compared to previous gens but if you do go PS3 to PS4 to PS5 they are about the same 7x increase 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sony going for the kill. Even if the Anaconda is a teraflop higher or something, it's basically already knee capped. Unless they really think the Lockhart will be popular. If Sony is going for a beast of a console, and they abandon the $399 price point for $499, suddenly a $299 next gen console from MS looks a lot more appealing to a lot of people.

 

The more I think about it, the better it would be for Sony to stay at the $399. Unless they are going to release that beastly console at $399, if so Next Gen is already won. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dodger said:

Sony going for the kill. Even if the Anaconda is a teraflop higher or something, it's basically already knee capped. Unless they really think the Lockhart will be popular. If Sony is going for a beast of a console, and they abandon the $399 price point for $499, suddenly a $299 next gen console from MS looks a lot more appealing to a lot of people.

 

The more I think about it, the better it would be for Sony to stay at the $399. Unless they are going to release that beastly console at $399, if so Next Gen is already won. 

 

With companies like Google trying to create cheaper cost-of-entry products, I think it would behoove them to do $399. It's a satisfying price point fo sho.

 

I actually have memories of 2013 of people who thought, once some of the specs came out for the Quatro, figured it'd have to be $499, and then some doubled down on that after the Xbox One's price was revealed. I feel they have the money now after all the restructuring done at Sony to eat the costs if it's sold at a loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SaysWho? said:

 

With companies like Google trying to create cheaper cost-of-entry products, I think it would behoove them to do $399. It's a satisfying price point fo sho.

 

I actually have memories of 2013 of people who thought, once some of the specs came out for the Quatro, figured it'd have to be $499, and then some doubled down on that after the Xbox One's price was revealed. I feel they have the money now after all the restructuring done at Sony to eat the costs if it's sold at a loss.

 

 

If Sony can keep a console this beastly at $399, I think it's game over. Let's not forget that the average gamer isn't us, and probably isn't looking to drop $499 on the next gen console. Many people only get their yearly CoD/Battlefield and Madden fix, then maybe buy 1 or 2 more tentpole franchises like AC or something. 

 

So if you're an average gamer and you had a PS4 and you're invested in that ecosystem and you have a choice between a PS5 at $399 and a Lockhart at $299, many probably just stick to the PS ecosystem. But if Sony comes out at $499 and there is this MS console at $299 that has Games Pass, suddenly the MS console might just be too good of a deal to pass up. I think Sony needs to be far more worried about MS low price offering than they do the Anaconda, which is an enthusiast machine for the enthusiast market and isn't meant to be the volume leader. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, elbobo said:

 

about 3 times the power of the pro and little over double the X1X, if you consider those the current gen consoles this isn't a huge leap compared to previous gens but if you do go PS3 to PS4 to PS5 they are about the same 7x increase 

I agree this isn't a "huge leap" -- but performance increases are dramatically slowing down.  The biggest slowdown will be in the amount of RAM, we're not going to see x8 increases in RAM next gen.

 

 

32 minutes ago, Dodger said:

 

 

If Sony can keep a console this beastly at $399, I think it's game over.  

What makes this console beastly? (At least when it launches 18 months from now.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm no expert, but from what I'm hearing anything above 12TF would be pretty good and anything too much over that would probably require taking a loss, even at $500. If you check out the speculation thread on ERA, there is a lot that even predict Sony would have to stick to a 8-10 TF console if it plans to stick to a $399 price point without taking a huge loss. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/17/2019 at 4:59 PM, Brick said:

Isn't 8K actually beyond what the human eye would be able to notice a difference in when we're talking about commercial TVs, even if you have like a 75"? At a certain point it just becomes pointless to up the resolution. 

Depending on the distance from the screen, yes.

 

I was at CES a couple years back when some of the first 8K displays were being shown off on the floor. One demo had two very large (I'm guessing 75"-85") screens next to each other. One was 4K and one was 8K, and both had very small text filling most of the screen. The key part of the demo was a very large magnifying glass covering part of each screen, showing that on the 8K one the (magnified) text was super sharp, while the text on the 4K screen was a bit muddled and hard to read, even magnified. Of course, if you took more than a step or two backwards you couldn't tell the difference at all.

 

I think that at standard TV sizes 4K is of questionable value. In my opinion, 8K is pointless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TwinIon said:

Depending on the distance from the screen, yes.

 

I was at CES a couple years back when some of the first 8K displays were being shown off on the floor. One demo had two very large (I'm guessing 75"-85") screens next to each other. One was 4K and one was 8K, and both had very small text filling most of the screen. The key part of the demo was a very large magnifying glass covering part of each screen, showing that on the 8K one the (magnified) text was super sharp, while the text on the 4K screen was a bit muddled and hard to read, even magnified. Of course, if you took more than a step or two backwards you couldn't tell the difference at all.

 

I think that at standard TV sizes 4K is of questionable value. In my opinion, 8K is pointless.

 

Looking solely at magnified text is a bit flawed. I sit well beyond the charted distance as to where 1080p vs 4k should noticeable according to charts, yet the difference is leaps and bounds apparent, mostly on far off images in the background (ie: city scapes on AppleTV’s screen saver). I imagine it could come down to how sensitive you are to subtle blurring and color banding from pixel distance with 4k vs 8k. All the experts/reviewers/journalists tend to agree that even on standard size sets and sitting at typical distances that actual 8k content looks more vibrant, life-like and almost three dimensional vs 4k content.

HOWEVER, since there’s no actual 8k content available beyond demo reels and we’re FAR away from 8k content being available or even being able to render games in/at 8k at any acceptable frame rate and detail level, 8k is currently pointless, but certainly not pointless.

 

Going back to Brick’s post, though; the human eye does not “see” in resolutions, nor frame rates. That is a myth that really needs to die a horrible death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

Looking solely at magnified text is a bit flawed. I sit well beyond the charted distance as to where 1080p vs 4k should noticeable according to charts, yet the difference is leaps and bounds apparent, mostly on far off images in the background (ie: city scapes on AppleTV’s screen saver). I imagine it could come down to how sensitive you are to subtle blurring and color banding from pixel distance with 4k vs 8k. All the experts/reviewers/journalists tend to agree that even on standard size sets and sitting at typical distances that actual 8k content looks more vibrant, life-like and almost three dimensional vs 4k content.

HOWEVER, since there’s no actual 8k content available beyond demo reels and we’re FAR away from 8k content being available or even being able to render games in/at 8k at any acceptable frame rate and detail level, 8k is currently pointless, but certainly not pointless.

 

Going back to Brick’s post, though; the human eye does not “see” in resolutions, nor frame rates. That is a myth that really needs to die a horrible death.

The text wasn't the only demo, nor the only 8K TV I've seen in person, I just thought it was demonstrative of what lengths you have to go to in order to see a meaningful difference.

 

CES show floors are not a great way to evaluate a TV, but I feel pretty comfortable in saying that the leap from 4K->8K is far less noticeable than the jump from from 1080p to 4K. It's absolutely possible to see a difference, but I don't think it's anything people need to get excited about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TwinIon said:

The text wasn't the only demo, nor the only 8K TV I've seen in person, I just thought it was demonstrative of what lengths you have to go to in order to see a meaningful difference.

 

CES show floors are not a great way to evaluate a TV, but I feel pretty comfortable in saying that the leap from 4K->8K is far less noticeable than the jump from from 1080p to 4K. It's absolutely possible to see a difference, but I don't think it's anything people need to get excited about.

 

Nothing will likely be as noticeable as 480i to 1080p, but 8k very much shines in high motion scenes due to the higher pixel density removing much of the inherent blurring that occurs even at 4k (I’m personally incredibly sensitive to aliasing, dithering, and blurring) - that’s likely the main thing to get excited about with it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm thrilled about the VR compatiblity. Also that it will Play PS4 games. If it enhances them at all that will zero out my interest in a One X. Although I think the fact the Xbox Two is right around the corner and it being BC will zero out my desire for a One X. I just will not rebuy third party games for the Xbox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Spork3245 said:

 

So you think that 1080p with 4x AA looks the same as 4k? Reduction in aliasing is only a single benefit of increased resolution.

 

What no that's not what I'm saying at all. Also yes I know that the human eye doesn't see in resolutions or framerates but at a certain point the pixels become too small and too close together to really make a difference that you aren't going to be able to see. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Brick said:

 

What no that's not what I'm saying at all. Also yes I know that the human eye doesn't see in resolutions or framerates but at a certain point the pixels become too small and too close together to really make a difference that you aren't going to be able to see. 

 

12k is where that resolution arguably starts (where the pixel density is so tightly spaced that going higher doesn’t present much difference), certainly not 4k. This could technically be achieved sooner by having more sub-pixels per each pixel and it would also allow a higher range of color, but it seems that manufacturers are more interested in removing sub-pixels as opposed to adding them (ie: most VR headsets using pentile screens instead of RGB).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...