PlayStation 4 “Is like a Five-Year-Old PC”

[Megalith]

Josef Fares, lead developer for co-op prison-escape game A Way Out, had some “harsh words” about the power of the PS4, who compared it to a five-year-old PC. Considering that the console is, in fact, many years old, this isn’t too shocking – but I suppose this serves as more ammunition for the argument that consoles are holding back gaming: Fares notes that we would see “all different games” if consoles were actually comparable to PCs.

"You want the honest truth? This machine is not so strong as you think," Fares said. "This is like a five-year-old PC. If consoles were as powerful as PCs are today, you would see all different games. Most of the work developers put out there is to make them work on consoles." To be fair to Sony, the PS4 basically is a five-year-old PC: It was announced in early 2013 and released in November of the same year. But the basic design spec, including an eight-core 1.6GHz AMD Jaguar-based CPU, 8GB of RAM, and Radeon GCN-based GPU, would obviously be even older than that.

 

[Incontentia Buttocks]

Well yeah, duh. Go on the subreddits for less politically correct discourse around the deficiencies of consoles (hardware) and their fanboys (mental).

 

[Darunion]

Yea, creeping up on 4 years old already, didnt realize its been that long already.

If pc gaming were more popular then the design of the consoles wouldn't even be relevant.

I think we really need to figure out how to make pc gaming more enticing for your mass gamers imo.

I like to game on both platforms, for console I enjoy the even playing field for multiplayer, for pc I like the better quality of the experience mostly from control schemes (m/kb or flight controllers).

 

[RogueTadhg]

Develop for the PS4 Pro. The PS4 is a over 3 years old. Of course it's hardware is going to be long in the teeth. Create a patch that downgrades the visuals for the normal PS4, or allow the games to have visual settings like all other real computer games do.

I read that they weren't going to try to make "new" generations like what we're used to, instead just doing refreshes. If this is the case, then migrating to a more PC mindset would be a benefit.

 

[ymer]

Too much focus on hardware and graphics.

Make fun games and stop focusing on processing power

 

[SPARTAN VI]

It's old, but can still put out stunning visuals like Horizon Zero Dawn. Of course a PC will still blow it away, but the point is that it's still impressive what developers are able to squeeze out of this relatively old hardware.

 

[Youn]

Develop for the PS4 Pro. The PS4 is a over 3 years old. Of course it's hardware is going to be long in the teeth. Create a patch that downgrades the visuals for the normal PS4, or allow the games to have visual settings like all other real computer games do.

They are already doing that and the pro versions make almost no difference. Not enough to get people to buy it anyways.

 

[Burticus]

Time for modular consoles. The 10 year cycle is gone. But who wants to drop $400-500 every 5 years on a new console? Develop a f*cking modular motherboard with drop in cpu/ram/gpu upgrades.

Doesn't seem likely though.

I guess my next living room 4K console will be a PC, and it's going to cost a lot more than $500. Great... another PC to support and windows updates and antivirus, etc. I work in IT and sometimes I get sick of computers and just want to play a damn game without troublshooting, etc

 

[XvMMvX]

Keyboard, mouse, desk, chair... and no the clunky ideas to play from the couch with a keyboard and mouse do not work.

Also, the unified online experience for the console, one login, friends list, etc.

Get that fixed and figure out a way to incorporate a place for the gamepad online and this can happen.

Until then it won't change.

Oh and yeah when people talk about "todays PC'... yeah a $1000-$1500 gaming rig is not going to be mainstream.

 

[katanaD]

Too much focus on hardware and graphics.

Make fun games and stop focusing on processing power

^^^^ THIS ^^^^

 

[Denpepe]

And here I was thinking that it's the people with their core 2 duo or AMD phenom CPU's that were holding pc gaming back as games get made to play on the biggest amount of pc's

 

[Kinsaras]

Time for modular consoles. The 10 year cycle is gone. But who wants to drop $400-500 every 5 years on a new console? Develop a f*cking modular motherboard with drop in cpu/ram/gpu upgrades.

What 10 year cycle? It's been 5-6 years since the first NES.

 

[heatlesssun]

If pc gaming were more popular then the design of the consoles wouldn't even be relevant.

It's not an issue of popularity but the hardware. If all PCs were running high end hardware you'd definitely see games focus more on using that kind of hardware. As it stands the average PC gamer is using a laptop with iGPUs which less power than a PS4. Even with more capable PCs the range is vast, from capable but affordable gaming PCs to monster rigs.

 

[tetris42]

Too much focus on hardware and graphics.

Make fun games and stop focusing on processing power

I think this argument stands up more than ever because every new games honestly looks great to me from a visual perspective. In the last generation of consoles, there could be a pretty huge discrepancy. Now, just running the same game designed for a console at 900p upscaled 30fps on a PC with 4k (or lower with good AA) at 60fps looks great. I'd argue console hardware is only holding back more subtle visuals nowadays.

Another way to look at it: Crysis came out in 2007. I can't think of any game that's MILES ahead of it graphically even now. There will keep being improvements, but I doubt we're going to see night and day visual differences between a game now v. 5 years from now; more likely just subtle things, resolution, and better framerates.

 

[Youn]

We'll see night day differences in VR, and then after that perhaps in neural-injected visuals (real VR)

 

[Vader1975]

What 10 year cycle? It's been 5-6 years since the first NES.

Wow dude welcome back from your coma..

The year is 2017 and the NES launched July 15, 1983. 34 yrs ago

 

[tetris42]

We'll see night day differences in VR, and then after that perhaps in neural-injected visuals (real VR)

VR against a regular game is a night day difference, but honestly, we have that now. More resolution is badly needed for VR if just to get rid of the screendoor effect, but it hasn't been the consoles holding that back.

 

[tetris42]

Wow dude welcome back from your coma..

The year is 2017 and the NES launched July 15, 1983. 34 yrs ago

Thus, since we've been on a 10 year cycle, the Wii will be released in 2023, followed by the Wii U in 2033, the Playstation 4 will be in 2024, and the Xbox One will be in 2021.

 

[zkostik]

Too much focus on hardware and graphics.

Make fun games and stop focusing on processing power

Why not focus on all of these subjects? Otherwise they might as well keep making Pong.

 

[Kinsaras]

Wow dude welcome back from your coma..

The year is 2017 and the NES launched July 15, 1983. 34 yrs ago

What? I'm saying the cycle was never 10 years. It was around 5 to 6 from NES to SNES to Nintendo 64 to Wii to Wii U and Switch. And you can do this for almost all of them including Xbox and Playstation. Each company had a new console within 6 years tops.

 

[Vader1975]

Thus, since we've been on a 10 year cycle, the Wii will be released in 2023, followed by the Wii U in 2033, the Playstation 4 will be in 2024, and the Xbox One will be in 2021.

I believe you were trying to reply to the original author, but it is possible that we could be moving to a 10yr obsolescence cycle where support for the PS4 dies after 10yrs and you have to have a pro to get "approved performance" for a new game or even the pro can only handle new games at 1080 as it's not up to the task of 4K in the latest titles in the future or something like that. If we arn't fully dropping gens like we used to and this PS4 PS4-PRO , PS4-PRO2 or something continues instead of a "PS5" We definitely historically have had a point where the new is the new and the old doesn't support the new at all. The PS4-PRO is not without precedence. There have been life extending variants before but usually, they still aren't quite compatible with the base hardware. Like the Turbo Graphics CD addon or the Sega CD or 32X. This has been unique so far with just really offering 4K support in the new one. With 1080 on the old one. Maybe there will be a PS4-4K-VR edition that you have to have to play VR on it with 4K or something. We will have to wait and see where it goes.

 

[Youn]

to elaborate: when VR increases in resolution we'll notice more areas of improvement that we can't very well detect in large hi-res displays now... for example bump/normal mapping may look realistic on a screen but in VR it looks super fake

I agree consoles don't hold this back, I never cared for that argument, I think consoles are just a stepping stone progression compared to pc, it's difficult to say how much further ahead or behind we'd be without one or the other, so it's kinda useless to lay blame like some do

 

[emphy]

If consoles were comparable to current high-end PC's, they would also be priced accordingly, probably resulting in a much smaller combined player base hence less games, possibly of lower quality than are currently available.

 

[Vader1975]

What? I'm saying the cycle was never 10 years. It was around 5 to 6 from NES to SNES to Nintendo 64 to Wii to Wii U and Switch. And you can do this for almost all of them including Xbox and Playstation. Each company had a new console within 6 years tops.

Ah, I see what you were saying. August 23, 1991 for the SNES. About 8yrs. But yeah the console generations were tightening over time not loosening. We will see in the future as the R&D just isn't the same to slap together a mini pc and call it a console. The old consoles were truly dedicated machines. These are frankenstein off the shelf solutions. I was surprised by the PS4-PRO but lets say they are looking at a 8-10yr timeframe for the original PS4. That would kill it around 2020-2021. Then support dies for PS4-PRO in what 2025? I can see it phasing out. The hardware in the consoles doesn't last forever.

 

[tetris42]

I believe you were trying to reply to the original author, but it is possible that we could be moving to a 10yr obsolescence cycle where support for the PS4 dies after 10yrs and you have to have a pro to get "approved performance" for a new game or even the pro can only handle new games at 1080 as it's not up to the task of 4K in the latest titles in the future or something like that. If we arn't fully dropping gens like we used to and this PS4 PS4-PRO , PS4-PRO2 or something continues instead of a "PS5" We definitely historically have had a point where the new is the new and the old doesn't support the new at all. The PS4-PRO is not without precedence. There have been life extending variants before but usually, they still aren't quite compatible with the base hardware. Like the Turbo Graphics CD addon or the Sega CD or 32X. This has been unique so far with just really offering 4K support in the new one. With 1080 on the old one. Maybe there will be a PS4-4K-VR edition that you have to have to play VR on it with 4K or something. We will have to wait and see where it goes.

Ah, I see what you were saying. August 23, 1991 for the SNES. About 8yrs. But yeah the console generations were tightening over time not loosening. We will see in the future as the R&D just isn't the same to slap together a mini pc and call it a console. The old consoles were truly dedicated machines. These are frankenstein off the shelf solutions. I was surprised by the PS4-PRO but lets say they are looking at a 8-10yr timeframe for the original PS4. That would kill it around 2020-2021. Then support dies for PS4-PRO in what 2025? I can see it phasing out. The hardware in the consoles doesn't last forever.

I think the point is there isn't enough consistency to predict how long the console generations are. For Nintendo, every single new console except the NES has been on a 5-6 year cycle before the next. For Playstation, it's been 6-7. For Xbox, it's been 4-8. I don't think anyone's ever had 10, unless you're talking about release to being discontinued. The PS4 Pro and Xbox One X are kind new territory. Things that are different now:

-The amount of money to make a AAA game has never been higher
-PC gaming is larger than even, technically making even more money than the consoles (though a lot of that is from a few key games)
-The economy for the average person is getting tighter
-There's no longer a substantial hardware difference between the primary consoles + PC
-Everything is moving digital at the same time our ISPs aren't really keeping up
-Game sizes are getting absolutely massive (100+ GB)

So it's honestly anyone's guess what the future holds and past precedent may not be much to go on.

 

[NoOther]

"You want the honest truth? This machine is not so strong as you think," Fares said. "This is like a five-year-old PC. If consoles were as powerful as PCs are today, you would see all different games. Most of the work developers put out there is to make them work on consoles." To be fair to Sony, the PS4 basically is a five-year-old PC: It was announced in early 2013 and released in November of the same year. But the basic design spec, including an eight-core 1.6GHz AMD Jaguar-based CPU, 8GB of RAM, and Radeon GCN-based GPU, would obviously be even older than that.

Simple solution, they should make a great game that pushes the boundaries of the PC and make people want it. Games also drive hardware. So really, perhaps the industry "settling" is what is holding it back, because there are certainly machines out there far more powerful than consoles to run their games...

 

[Madoc]

Consoles have been holding back PC gaming ever since Microsoft introduced the Xbox. The point of consoles these days is to try to lock consumers into a particular company's ecosystem. This is, for example, why the Xbox One was originally marketed the way it was: Microsoft was trying to lock in the entire entertainment milieu of a typical family. This is also why DirectX is usually only updated when MS is releasing a new console.

Most games these days are made for consoles, then ported (often badly) to the PC. So, I am not sure how anyone would think that consoles haven't been holding PCs back for quite some time, and probably will for the foreseeable future.

 

[NoOther]

Consoles have been holding back PC gaming ever since Microsoft introduced the Xbox. The point of consoles these days is to try to lock consumers into a particular company's ecosystem. This is, for example, why the Xbox One was originally marketed the way it was: Microsoft was trying to lock in the entire entertainment milieu of a typical family. This is also why DirectX is usually only updated when MS is releasing a new console.

Most games these days are made for consoles, then ported (often badly) to the PC. So, I am not sure how anyone would think that consoles have been holding PCs back for quite some time, and probably will for the foreseeable future.

I am curious how "Xbox" started the trend? Why was the trend not started with any of the previous gaming consoles? DirectX has been updated between console launches as well, so I am not sure what that has to do with the price of tea in China.

 

[tetris42]

I am curious how "Xbox" started the trend? Why was the trend not started with any of the previous gaming consoles? DirectX has been updated between console launches as well, so I am not sure what that has to do with the price of tea in China.

It didn't start with the Xbox, the Xbox just represents the biggest middle finger to PC gaming in its history pretty much. Microsoft makes the OS that PC gamers use, but instead of embracing that, they pulled out of PC gaming and dumped resources into a console instead, leaving half-assed attempts at improving the platform as the flagbearer for it. If the Xbox never existed, Microsoft might have actually taken the platform more seriously for game development and it's anyone's guess how far along it would be by now. In short, imagine if Microsoft put as much effort into PC gaming as it has into the Xbox (which it kind of was back in the late 90s). Instead, it was a combo punch of simultaneously setting PC gaming back, while boosting competition for it elsewhere.

 

[Silentbob343]

Keyboard, mouse, desk, chair... and no the clunky ideas to play from the couch with a keyboard and mouse do not work.

Also, the unified online experience for the console, one login, friends list, etc.

Get that fixed and figure out a way to incorporate a place for the gamepad online and this can happen.

Until then it won't change.

Oh and yeah when people talk about "todays PC'... yeah a $1000-$1500 gaming rig is not going to be mainstream.

I play on a PC attached to a 50" TV with a wireless xbox one controller from my couch. You can use a PS4 controller too if you are interested in that gamepad. Steam offers decent console OS functionality, friend list, etc. It isn't unified so if a game is on origin then yea, but you could still chat with them over steam if they are logged in to both.

 

[yourgrandma]

Who is holding what back now? It's the 3 year old consoles putting out games that look better then any pc games. Most of those pushing graphics tech anymore are the AAA studios making exclusives for consoles not pc games.

 

[Madoc]

I am curious how "Xbox" started the trend? Why was the trend not started with any of the previous gaming consoles? DirectX has been updated between console launches as well, so I am not sure what that has to do with the price of tea in China.

tetris42's post pretty much explained what I was talking about. Before the Xbox, consoles were made by companies that had nothing to do with PC gaming. Microsoft started buying PC gaming studios and having them make games for consoles. Game series that had previously been PC-only became consolfied, often with the result of not being on the PC at all afterwards.

 

[NoOther]

tetris42's post pretty much explained what I was talking about. Before the Xbox, consoles were made by companies that had nothing to do with PC gaming. Microsoft started buying PC gaming studios and having them make games for consoles. Game series that had previously been PC-only became consolfied, often with the result of not being on the PC at all afterwards.

Wait, are you saying that Sony, Atari, and Sega had nothing to do with computer gaming?

 

[Youn]

imagine if

yes, let's continue to imagine this alternate reality where MS didn't enter the console race, or consoles just went away completely... we'd totally be 5, 10, or even 20 years ahead with our pc gaming experience... and now thanks to consoles what I'll be experiencing when I'm 80 is what I should've been experiencing when I'm 40... screw consoles and their sickening imprisonment of gaming industry and the maddening torture they've put all these poor devs through!

 

[NoOther]

It didn't start with the Xbox, the Xbox just represents the biggest middle finger to PC gaming in its history pretty much. Microsoft makes the OS that PC gamers use, but instead of embracing that, they pulled out of PC gaming and dumped resources into a console instead, leaving half-assed attempts at improving the platform as the flagbearer for it. If the Xbox never existed, Microsoft might have actually taken the platform more seriously for game development and it's anyone's guess how far along it would be by now. In short, imagine if Microsoft put as much effort into PC gaming as it has into the Xbox (which it kind of was back in the late 90s). Instead, it was a combo punch of simultaneously setting PC gaming back, while boosting competition for it elsewhere.

Except Microsoft did not pull out of PC gaming. They are still very much involved in PC gaming. And before the Xbox came along, it wasn't like Microsoft's gaming division was really pushing the limit for PCs either. But Microsoft and DirectX is one of the reasons PC gaming took off and grew so quickly in the first place. I wouldn't say Microsoft is really holding back as much as gaming companies just relied too much on the Microsoft platform and stopped pushing for more independent platforms for a long time. Its the gaming industry and gaming companies that need to push the envelope. You can't keep relying on just one company or platform to do everything for you.

 

[Darunion]

I blame piracy and cheaters on pc gaming not being fun anymore

(hides under fire blanket)

 

[tetris42]

Wait, are you saying that Sony, Atari, and Sega had nothing to do with computer gaming?

They don't have a conflict of interest like Microsoft. They don't make the OS and software ecosystem that PC gamers depend on to play games. Microsoft focused almost entirely on the Xbox after 2001, which affects innovations and pushes on the PC ecosystem. Believe me, I would love for a company that cared first and foremost about PC gaming to have the dominant OS for PC gaming. From a pc gaming perspective, it would be like if Nintendo decided to continue releasing their consoles, but from now on would exclusively be making games for Playstation. It would be both kind of crazy and build distrust of the company from their consumer base. It's them serving a different market at your expense.

Except Microsoft did not pull out of PC gaming. They are still very much involved in PC gaming.

Oh sure, NOW they are since they lost marketshare on the Xbox. There was a stark dropoff of games published for the PC by Microsoft after the release of Xbox compared to before. If you look at around 2005 - 2012 (to account for titles still in development from 2001), the results are positively anemic, while have dozens of titles for the xbox, most of which were exclusives. Meanwhile, PC gamers got Games For Windows Live.

But Microsoft and DirectX is one of the reasons PC gaming took off and grew so quickly in the first place.

You're absolutely right, and that happened BEFORE the Xbox. DirectX was one of the best things to happen to PC gaming in the 90s, hence why the near-abandonment of PC gamers shortly after felt like a slap to the face.

I wouldn't say Microsoft is really holding back as much as gaming companies just relied too much on the Microsoft platform and stopped pushing for more independent platforms for a long time. Its the gaming industry and gaming companies that need to push the envelope. You can't keep relying on just one company or platform to do everything for you.

In principle I agree with you, but in reality, it's their way or the highway. I mean Windows has something like 96% of the PC gaming market? That's as close to a monopoly as you get. Doesn't leave a world of options for PC gaming.

 

[Burticus]

What 10 year cycle? It's been 5-6 years since the first NES.

Both PS3 and Xbox 360 sold for over 10 years (according to wikipedia anyway). PS2 did 13 years. PS1 did 12 years.

Sure they are all past their prime 6 years in, but they still sell and games are still available.

Google "10 year console cycle". Those days are over though, new tech just keeps popping up on the horizion too fast now.

 

[NoOther]

They don't have a conflict of interest like Microsoft. They don't make the OS and software ecosystem that PC gamers depend on to play games. Microsoft focused almost entirely on the Xbox after 2001, which affects innovations and pushes on the PC ecosystem. Believe me, I would love for a company that cared first and foremost about PC gaming to have the dominant OS for PC gaming. From a pc gaming perspective, it would be like if Nintendo decided to continue releasing their consoles, but from now on would exclusively be making games for Playstation. It would be both kind of crazy and build distrust of the company from their consumer base. It's them serving a different market at your expense.

Except you are flat out wrong. Microsoft made changes and improvements to DirectX that did more for PC gaming than for Console gaming. And your analogy is ridiculous, it's not even close to accurate, in fact it makes no sense.

Oh sure, NOW they are since they lost marketshare on the Xbox. There was a stark dropoff of games published for the PC by Microsoft after the release of Xbox compared to before. If you look at around 2005 - 2012 (to account for titles still in development from 2001), the results are positively anemic, while have dozens of titles for the xbox, most of which were exclusives. Meanwhile, PC gamers got Games For Windows Live.

What the literal f are you talking about? Microsoft has always been involved in PC gaming, well before the Xbox. Your narrative is weak. Microsoft is also not the sum total, nor even the biggest game producer for either PC or Xbox.

EDIT: Actually they may be on Xbox (due to licensing and distribution fees), but not on PC.

You're absolutely right, and that happened BEFORE the Xbox. DirectX was one of the best things to happen to PC gaming in the 90s, hence why the near-abandonment of PC gamers shortly after felt like a slap to the face.

I don't even know why I need to respond to this, but just look up DirectX history, I mean wikipedia for pete's sakes. They made updates despite Xbox releases. Major updates to DirectX have almost always followed releases of Windows, the OS for PCs...

In principle I agree with you, but in reality, it's their way or the highway. I mean Windows has something like 96% of the PC gaming market? That's as close to a monopoly as you get. Doesn't leave a world of options for PC gaming.

No, it isn't. Game companies can and are focusing on other segments now. They have always had influence over hardware and software companies. You make a great game and you release it to a particular platform and people want to flock to it, that has an effect. The biggest gaming industry right now is mobile devices, its not even consoles or PC anymore. People gravitate to what is easy and readily available, and companies gravitate to where they can make the most money.

 

[Peter2k]

better hardware does not equal better games

developers could make things look more pretty when the games run on the PC (as so many titles are for 3 platforms) instead of releasing crappy ports
and yet crappy porting is still more regular