Official PlayStation 4 Launch today!

[Feuer Frei!]

Didn't know where to post this, general section seemed most fitting since it's not a game, nor is it pc-related:

Sony have officially launched the PlayStation 4 during a glitzy launch event in New York City today, and with it comes the launch window for the next-generation games console.

there will be an x86 processor, an undisclosed combined CPU/GPU, 8GB of unified GDDR5 memory (a significant jump over the PS3's 512MB) and a local HDD, possibly Solid State given the speedy boot up and game resume times Sony touted at the event.

Game streaming will make up the pseudo-backwards compatibility of PS3 games on the PS4 using Gaikai tech. Though you won't be able to pop your old PS3 discs into the PS4 to play them, the PlayStation 4 will allow you to stream older games over the internet direct to the console. It's unclear yet whether or not a premium will be charged for this service, even if you have a physical copy of the game for the PS3.
:down::down:

Complete article here:http://www.techdigest.tv/2013/02/playstation_4_a.html

Source: TechDigest, 21 Feb, 2013.

[the_tyrant]

ok. So the huge change this generation is, they went AMD. The CPU architecture is completely changed.

thus, yeah, backwards compatibility is pretty much impossible. However, we would probably see more PlayStation /pc compatibility since the CPU runs a similar architecture.

but because of this, I am willing to bet that this console generation would be much shorter. There is less performance to "squeeze out of the chips"

[Red October1984]

Gee, awesome....

One more thing from Sony that I will NEVER buy. :woot:

[BossMark]

Sounds a right pile of crap.

[Cybermat47]

Hopefully the Xbox 720 will be better.

[geetrue]

Sounds a right pile of crap.


I agree ... plus the boardrooms of microsoft and sony and wii are always trying to get an extra buck out of you for something.

They see the popularity of the games and the age of the audience keeps getting replaced, but the boys and girls that have been used up grow up.

I hope at least they would see pc is where it is at for quality and for speed and for personal applications of your own taste.

My console is just sitting there waiting for the next game, but my pocket book is tired of the $59.95 just released DVD title to rip me off.

I love my pc and it is twice as fast in my living room that is ...
I don't have high speed internet yet or I might feel different.

[Red October1984]

Hopefully the Xbox 720 will be better.

Ha!

Don't get your hopes up. Gaming has gone in the toilet the past couple of years with all the DLC and Online Passes.

Xbox 720 is going to just include more stuff that you have to pay for.

[the_tyrant]

Ok, I might be going against the general opinion here, but in my opinion playstations have always been a pretty good deal (better than both Xboxes and Pcs)

I'll use the PS3 as an example, since the PS4 isn't out yet.

When the PS3 came out, people ridiculed it for its high price. But here is the thing, at launch, it was 399$ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_launch)

If you take good care of your playstation, it could last you the whole generation. It launched early in 2006. Its successor is launching later this year, in 2013. That's a 7 year life span.

Hardware wise, the total cost of ownership came down to 16 cents a day. (399$/(7 years * 365 days))

To build a comparable PC back in 2006, you needed to spend a LOT more, to get a comparable CPU and graphics card would cost you 1000$, so the PC would probably cost you 1500$ - 2000$. After all, the PS3 played Crysis, and had a Blu-ray drive. Plus, your 2006 PC probably can't play any new games that came out after 2010. So you would either need to spend a significant amount of money upgrading (not really possible, since the CPU sockets changed), or buy a new one.

According to my math, the TCO of my PC comes down to nearly 2$ a day! Much, much higher than a playstation. Now some people might say that they need a PC for daily use anyways, but than, a good gaming PC would cost you a LOT, whereas you can get a good daily use pc for under 500$. Plus, I already have a laptop, and the only reason I have a desktop is for gaming.

Now the TCO for an xbox is also much, much higher than for playstation. Since after all, on an xbox, in order to do pretty much anything, you need xbox live gold. And that is 60$/year.


Mind you, I love my pc, and I do have a stupidly overpowered PC for high level gaming and programming, but I'm not going to lie, console gaming is, rationally, the cheaper choice.

Now, every console has its exclusive titles, and to be honest, I think, besides PC, playstion has the best exclusives. Compared to xbox 360, the ps3 pretty much got a new exclusive every month, and the exclusives library is very good. In fact, pretty much everything out of japan runs only on playstation.

PS (no pun intended), if you own a playstation, you need to get PS+ (http://us.playstation.com/psn/playstation-plus/), it is arguably one of the best deals in gaming right now.

[Red October1984]

I've had my Xbox 360 Elite 120GB model since Halo 3 came out in 2007 (IIRC) and it is still kicking.

The faceplate is cracked and the disc tray has to be coaxed out but it still works fine. I have Xbox Live Free because I have no desire to be insulted by 8 year olds.

I don't need 8 year olds telling me that they #%#%#@*& my mom #@%*#@&%#* Grandmother #$*#@&%#(*$#&(%* IDIOT! #($*@&%(#57 Camper @#%#$(#&

My Xbox does just fine right now. Unless the 720 includes FULL backwards compatibility with the 360 and includes hard drive content transfer, I don't think I'll get it.

Plus, the cool online games are for PC anyway. I prefer singleplayer console games and that generation is dying. :nope:

[Feuer Frei!]

I don't need 8 year olds telling me that they #%#%#@*& my mom #@%*#@&%#* Grandmother #$*#@&%#(*$#&(%* IDIOT! #($*@&%(#57 Camper @#%#$(#&

Sounds like playing WoW :haha:

[Red October1984]

Sounds like playing WoW :haha:

Exactly why i don't play it. :up:

[Penguin]

I wasn't too impressed with the presentation of the playstation without ever showing the playstation.
I am certainly not the target group, but I think all this share crap is bs. Yay, flood facebook with the latest achievements, yay, flood Youtube with crappy game vids. :dead:
A real social way to game would be to have two video outs on the PS, this way you could use a second monitor and play co-op with or against a buddy - maybe with less graphic details. Or the possibility to connect PS4's directly or in a local network.
I think it's much more social to play with people who are physical present in the room.
Also the permanent recording of the last 15 minutes is a huge waste of resources if it's not optional.

The decision to enable playing PS3 games via stream, is actually pretty clever - from a business point of view. Though I see some problems with it: latency under suboptimal conditions, game licensing (e.g. do you have to pay to play the PS3 games you already own?), no offline gaming.

The most important point for my decision to buy one, wasn't mentioned: the possibility to play offline.
After all I think Sony wants to cater to the Generation Facebook and to the urban market; you see the latter in their doctrine to expect at least a 5mbit connection. They don't consider or care that there are still people with a lower bandwith, a limited amount of web traffic, or simply antisocial nerds like me who prefer to play in their hole and don't care much for online gaming.


Ok, I might be going against the general opinion here, but in my opinion playstations have always been a pretty good deal (better than both Xboxes and Pcs)

I'll use the PS3 as an example, since the PS4 isn't out yet.

When the PS3 came out, people ridiculed it for its high price. But here is the thing, at launch, it was 399$ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_launch)


Well the price mentioned link you provided goes for the 40GB version, the link also states that it was put on the market in fall 2007 and $100 cheaper than the orginal version (also due to the missing chip for backwards compability to the PS2) And many people also forget to add the sales tax on top of North American prices. :know:

However I agree that the PS3 was a good deal, it was even a good deal if you just bought it as a Blu-Ray player back then. It was only marginal more expensive than pure hardware players - however the energy consumption of the PS3 was and still is much higher. (Energy costs is also something you have to include into the calculation:smug:).

[Nippelspanner]

A new Playstation, eh?
No thanks, I'd rather enjoy real power and capabilities *gives-pc-a-cookie* (hrhr get it? cookie pc? hr...yeah i know... :nope:)

[the_tyrant]

Here are some of my random thoughts about the next generation:


I am willing to argue, that for the next generation, going with the playstation is a better idea than the xbox. I went with the xbox last generation (I had both the original and the 360), but I am really hesitant about going with them again.


It all comes down to, xbox has like no exclusives. When the 360 launched, the Xbox 360 had Call of Duty 2, Crackdown, Gears of War, and a bunch of other major exclusives. When the PS3 launched, people always joked that it had no games.


For the younger me, I went with the xbox 360, because hey, it had Call of Duty 2 (still probably the best game in the series).

But than what ended up slowly happening, most games that were on Xbox were on playstation too! but games that were on playstation were not on xbox.

If we look at the last year, the PS3 got one solid exclusive every month, Whereas unfortunately, the Xbox 360 only got like 3 exclusives. Even longtime exclusive Xbox titles are going to playstation or have already made the jump (Mass Effect, The Witcher).

A lot of it really comes down to the fact that Sony has 12 (I believe) development studios working full time to create content for the Playstation. Sure, the Sony 1st party IP isn't as famous as the Ip from other companies, but they are VERY SOLID.

I fact, I am willing to say that Little big planet is better than Mario, MLB the show is the single best sports game on the market, and Uncharted is better than Tomb Raider. (good thing subsim is a civil community, if this was any other site, I would be buried by hateful comments already:subsim:)

Sony is a very good publisher. I think that Sony is very smart towards independent developers. If you are developing games for playstation, they would actually provide support and help, especially if you are willing to keep the game exclusive to playstation. Compare that to Nintendo (just slap on a seal of approval), Microsoft (dump it in the xbox live marketplace), Ubisoft (as long as we get a cut, you can borrow our name) or Valve (just throw your game on steam), Sony does a great job as a publisher. They are willing to promote and support good titles that they publish.

This is evident by the fact that one of the best games of 2012 (won a bunch of GOTY awards) is Journey, a 3rd party game that Sony published.

Finally, when Sony sees a deficiency with say a category of games, they are smart enough to throw money at the problem. Microsoft and Nintendo simply isn't willing to do that. Its no secret that Sony throws money at western developers for them to release their games on the PS3 and localize it for the Asian audience. But when was the last time you saw Microsoft try to seriously attract Japanese developers and publishers?