Most important in this gen of consoles has to be reliability. Both the early 360s and PS3s had terrible failure rates.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Sony's Frustration Over PS4 Hardware 'Cynicism'
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
Most important in this gen of consoles has to be reliability. Both the early 360s and PS3s had terrible failure rates.
MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 31,898
Didn't think that even needed to be stated, but you have a good point given previous track records.
Actually I have a BC PS3 (not launch but one of the 80 GB ones) and it still works great. Gets a little loud sometimes but never really had any problems with it.
Well of course, but you still wouldn't have any idea of reliability just by looking at a plastic box full of electronics either.
Really the only thing we'd get out of seeing the ps4 chassis is the type of disc tray(not a huge deal) and number of ports(USB, rear a/v connectivity, external or internal power supply). But even that doesn't really matter considering we're talking about a box that we have no control over the specs for as end users, and all that really matters is what it does and whether or not it can do it reliably.
That being said...
It'd be nice if the damned thing was shaped to fit properly in my cabinet. I'm sick of goofy shaped lumps of plastic that I can't stack with anything the hell else and have to stand on end. My 360 and ps3 can't stack on top of eachother and as a result take up way more space than they should, just because they have to stand vertically.
DeathPrincess
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 18,205
The first PS3 was about average for failure rates for electronics (5-10%), the Xbox on the other hand was kind of catastrophic...50%(+). So MS will probably concentrate on that but Sony is less likely to...
What both companies should do is instruct customers on how to maintain their units, like basic setup (let it have some air, and don't cover the vents) and upkeep (maybe dust it once in a while), which would slash the return rates.
octoberasian
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2007
- Messages
- 4,082
I think this initial launch was to get a jump on Microsoft-- detail what features they want for the console (streaming, sharing, etc.); and to drum up support from other devs-- third party ones that probably haven't announced any PS4 titles-- that the hardware is real and that Sony is "ready" to bring more devs onboard.
Yeah, especially when you look at the Jimmy Kimmel video. It's very much live, but still rough around the corners.
LOL, That's ridiculous.
Seat belts need to be reliable.
Airbags need to be reliable.
High pressure control equipment needs to be reliable.
Cranes and Safety Equipment need to be reliable.
Game consoles do not need to be reliable. They only need to be reliable enough so the customers continue to use them (my first gen ps3 that I bought used still works...) And have a good warranty.
cdr_74_premium
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,577
Gah. Most people I know who are into consoles still thinks the PS3 is a beast of a powerhouse, almost a supercomputer on it's own.
That's how the mainstream sees it.
cdr_74_premium
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,577
Do what people care about and make it backwards compatible Sony! Do the right thing!
They could pull that no problem.
Do what people care about and make it backwards compatible Sony! Do the right thing!
so you expect them to put a PS1, PS2 and a PS3, as well as the new hardware, all in the one box. And all for a resonable price, otherwise people will whinge about the cost
all the specs are there, dont know whats with all the bitching. The PS3 specs are pretty crap these days, but the games still look great, no doubt the PS4/xbox will do the same thing
ShamisOMally
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2010
- Messages
- 1,480
Why do we want to see the hardware sony?
Cause, like last time, you promised the fucking stars and the moon, and showed off demo's that -WERE NOT RUNNING ON PS3 HARDWARE-
Your PS4 demo's could have been running on fucking -ANYTHING-, even hardware 2-3x as powerful as the final product will have, you know, like you did with the PS3
Its not cynicism, its called "Not being a sucker twice!"
Cause, like last time, you promised the fucking stars and the moon, and showed off demo's that -WERE NOT RUNNING ON PS3 HARDWARE-
Your PS4 demo's could have been running on fucking -ANYTHING-, even hardware 2-3x as powerful as the final product will have, you know, like you did with the PS3
Its not cynicism, its called "Not being a sucker twice!"
It might not be so easy. I'm basing this on them switching from Cell to x86. in ps3 they needed a chip for backward compatibility that got removed to save on the cost of the system.
Truthfully who the hell cares about old games though? lol
xSystemFailurex
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2004
- Messages
- 650
Precisely. The rumble fiasco comes to mind.
PS3 release Sony: Rumble is a toy for toy systems! PS3 is for MEN! Men need no rumbles!
Post-rumble-lawsuit Sony: Rumble is now available for PS3! Only $60 a pop! Be a man and get one today!
Granted it's not their fault they got sued by trolls, but it most certainly is their fault they pretended like no one wants rumble in a world where it is so standard you don't even notice it.
GoldenTiger
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 29,669
So they could show a plain shoebox painted black with a disc slot and you'd be happy...? Seeing a prototype plastic chasis means *NOTHING* as to the internals or progress of the product.
ShamisOMally
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2010
- Messages
- 1,480
Let me clarify
PS3 demo they claimed was running on PS3 hardware, and months later it was revealed it was not.
The PS3 demo was run on a SLI'd pair of Geforce 7900 GX2's
What videocard did the PS3 get?
The PS3 got a overclocked Geforce 7600GT (Equivalent) for retail
So yeah, Sony presidents, your customers are a -LOT- more cautious this time around, and for good damn reason.
PS3 demo they claimed was running on PS3 hardware, and months later it was revealed it was not.
The PS3 demo was run on a SLI'd pair of Geforce 7900 GX2's
What videocard did the PS3 get?
The PS3 got a overclocked Geforce 7600GT (Equivalent) for retail
So yeah, Sony presidents, your customers are a -LOT- more cautious this time around, and for good damn reason.
I think the guys just meant that if sony had hardware on the floor people could guage the graphics, noise, aesthetic vaule.
Utterly wrong.
Do you think that if the console fails it will be repaired entirely for free?... no, it won't, it will be repaired out of the pocket of the manufacturer if inside warranty, and that impacts profitability.
That said, i agree that the PS3 was a great deal more reliable than the 360, so Sony knows that all they have to do is to keep like they did before... MS on the other hand wouldn't surprise me to be more conservative on regulations after the multiple issues with the solder micro fractures and RRoD.
FearTheCow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 2, 2006
- Messages
- 6,681
No one is asking for a prototype, people are asking for what the console is going to look like, and what games are going to look like playing on it, Sony has delivered neither. It was also pointed out in a previous post that just about everything for the PS4 has to be set in stone at this point in order to meet its launch date.
When you're talking to a chick online and she keeps insisting its her personality that matters and refuses to show you a picture of herself, its NOT because she's too beautiful.
Chances are pretty good that they aren't showing the hardware because they know it would completely destroy the hype and leave people unimpressed.
I will only add one other thing:
http://www.vg247.com/2013/01/17/showtime-ps4-rumoured-at-1-84tf-xbox-720-at-1-23tf/
That article was from Jan 17, and it was correct on the GPU power for the PS4 as it was announced, gotta wonder if it is correct on the power for the soon to be announced (on April) "Durango" "Nextbox" "Xbox720"
http://www.vg247.com/2013/01/17/showtime-ps4-rumoured-at-1-84tf-xbox-720-at-1-23tf/
That article was from Jan 17, and it was correct on the GPU power for the PS4 as it was announced, gotta wonder if it is correct on the power for the soon to be announced (on April) "Durango" "Nextbox" "Xbox720"
yelsewshane
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2012
- Messages
- 420
Personally I wish all consoles would go away ! Ya many years ago it costed alot of money for a pc but you can build right now a more powerful pc small form factor than the next gen consoles comeing out.
The developers are coding closer to metal rather than relying on oodles of software layers (software layers come in oodles, right?
). Furthermore, they're doing this for both the CPU and the GPU, paying attention to the minor details of each architecture to get the most out of it. To expect that kind of attention on the PC is unrealistic. In fact, it's impossible. Which CPUs should they aim for? What GPUs? What architecture? What about the driver stack? Peripheral hardware? These are all questions that aren't even asked on a console. As a result, you're going to have "sloppy" code on the PC, though this time probably less sloppy than in years prior due to the use of off-the-shelf parts and the (relatively) up-to-date x86 derived ISAs (FMA3/4 would have helped quite a bit, but it's at the cost of die size). If we were to assume typical PC development (which is to say, outdated ISAs and aiming at the lowest common denominator), it wouldn't be out of the question to assume a PC would need 2-3x the power of a console to reach the same frame rates at the same resolution with all the same in-game settings. There's a very broad range here, but depending on the title and platform, a 50%-to-200%+ isn't out of the question at all. Skyrim is a perfect example of a poorly ported console title requiring way too much CPU and GPU power to get not that much done. We get several Skyrims for every Battlefield 3, which itself isn't all that well developed for the PC outside of being multithreaded.
What nonsense, I compared the performance of Oblivion for example on my ancient old ass Dell laptop with barely better specifications than a Xbox 360, and it blew the 360 away in every measurable way.
And 2-3x the power is irrelevant anyway, its $ to $ comparison that matters, and people need a computer for the home one way or another, and even crappy computers these days come with i5 processors. So realistically you're just comparing the cost of a redundant console with the cost of a dedicated midrange GPU and then comparing the performance on popular games that exist both for the console in question and the PC.
Side by side, its a no-brainer, especially considering how much more expensive console games are to buy and the limited functionality they have compared to a windows 7 box.
No.
The i5 costs ~$200 tray price. That's just the i5, btw. You're going to have to add another >$200 to get a GPU that gets close (technically you can't buy a GPU yet with that much GDDR5 so your bandwidth is always going to be lower), and then there's the motherboard, the RAM, and PSU, storage and PSU. You're lucky if you can make one for twice the price that Sony is asking for the PS4, and at that price you might not even get better performance.
This is true, but PC gamers are still a smaller market than console gamers. PC gamers tend to spend much more money on hardware than do console gamers and that's what makes the PC gaming market an attractive one. If you're a big gamer who needs to have the games on day one and the highest resolution at the best settings, you're going to be significantly higher than somebody buying a console. Over time the costs are staggering for just upgrading your hardware. Obviously there are benefits there as well. I'm a PC gamer (not much, admittedly. I only clock in 1-2 hours a week), but I can also use my PC for work and whatever side projects I have on the side. I haven't bought a console since the N64, but I'm not going to delude myself into thinking that PC gaming is somehow cheaper or better than console gaming. How much a person enjoys it is relative, but it's certainly not cheaper.
You forgot to put your fingers in your ear and say LALALALALAAL!!!
Here is Oblivion on a Dell 9300, a laptop that came out around the time of the XBox 360... in other words, ancient and obsolete by today's computer standards and yet still superior to a console of the same generation:
http://farm1.staticflickr.com/156/436936376_c0ba565433_o.jpg
And this is on a Xbox 360, that can only handle 720p for this game, had severely limited draw distance, and generally looks like butt:
http://img.gamefaqs.net/screens/c/c/c/gfs_66171_2_1.jpg
Not sure if trolling or have a severe reading comprehension problem. What part of "every home needs a computer anyway" was confusing to you? The point was to compare the price of a computer with integrated graphics + a console to the price of a computer with a graphics card, that can serve both functions. I couldn't have possibly made that more clear.
On what planet? PS3 game revenue is a fraction of PC game revenue, and PC gaming piracy rate is far higher than for the PS3. In fact, as of right now, PC game revenue is just a tick behind the revenue of the Nintendo, Xbox, and PS3 COMBINED. Oops!
The ABILITY to upgrade your hardware more than once every eight years does not make such an act mandatory.
If the average PC in 2006 was faster than the Xbox 360, its still faster in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and this year. If your only goal is to be able to play games at low quality settings in 720p the way an Xbox does, you have NO NEED to upgrade hardware.
Ashbringer
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2010
- Messages
- 5,522
Well one idea is to keep the graphics related work entirely on the GPU end. That way the API isn't as much of a restriction as it is now. So it would be a lot like how console works in terms of performance, without the need to go directly to metal. Keeping as much scene setup to the GPU.The developers are coding closer to metal rather than relying on oodles of software layers (software layers come in oodles, right?
For one console yes, but there are multiple consoles. For example, developing a game on the 360 would result in sloppy code for the PS3, and vice versa. But the difference between a PS3 and 360 is much bigger then say a Radeon graphics card vs an Nvidia.
Also keep in mind that on the PC side, developers have been optimizing code for specific hardware. Take Doom 3 for example, which I remember tweaking the doomconfig.cfg file for better performance.
The r_renderer had these choices.
arb = generic rendering
arb2 = generic with OpenGL 2 improvements
cg = Nvidia only code
nv10 = for Geforce 4 MX bullshit series
nv20 = for Geforce 3's and up
r200 = basically for all Radeons DX8 and up.
So it's nothing new to see developers work hard to get maximum performance out of their games on PC. The PC has Nvidia, AMD, and Intel for graphics. Consoles have Wii, PS3, and 360.
That's cause PC's have so much power that developers can code bullshit and it will still fly. You make one mistake on the PS3 and the machine halts to snail speeds.
Skyrim for example, is barely considered able to use dual cores, let alone 3 or 4. It isn't 64-bit. Does Skyrim use MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2 extensions? From what I understand Bethesda doesn't even use SEE instructions. That's besides having good quality code as well.
So what does that mean? That means games made by multi-million dollar companies are coding worse then a free open source emulator like Dolphin. Which is multi-threaded, 64-bit, supports a huge array of CPU extensions, OpenMP, and even OpenCL.
Skyrim was made for machines 10 years ago, like a Pentium 4. Developers are putting together very bullshitty games for PCs, and it's easy for them to get away with it. Majority of PC games today are just working. Speed is irrelevant to developers.
wonderfield
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2011
- Messages
- 7,396
It doesn't take much to run Skyrim at an equivalent quality level to the X360. That's 640p and roughly medium detail at 30 Hz.
There's significant driver and API overhead on the PC, but you certainly don't need three times as much computational power to get things done in most cases.
There's significant driver and API overhead on the PC, but you certainly don't need three times as much computational power to get things done in most cases.
Where in the world are you getting that PC games outsold Xbox360+Wii+PS3? What quarter, what year and what planet?
Your screenshot of a game proves nothing at all to anyone. You should be aware that though the game has the same name, they're nowhere near coded similarly. That was my point when I stated that you can't compare console and PC games and hardware. A console developer will get 90%+ of a consoles potential performance whereas that same title on the PC might reach 50% if you're lucky.
You mentioned the i5 (and conveniently left out the price of the GPU), I was just informing you that the price is very costly. People don't buy computers quite like they used to. In fact, tablets have been outselling PCs since Q4 of last year and throughout all of 2013 it's going to continue with tablets expected to outsell laptops by a pretty decent margin.
If they're going to game on it and get an equivalent experience as the PS4 for ~$400-$500, they're going to have to spend double that much. If we were to compare $ on a console to $ on a PC, the PC would indeed have to be roughly double, and even at double you'd have to question whether you'd get the same experience. For instance, the PS4 could potentially add in-game physics via the HSA implementation using openCL, and that's something you'd lack entirely unless you're buying Kaveri with it's on-die GPU, but that still uses DDR3 and won't be near the same performance as the APU in the PS4.
I think you're misunderstanding me. What I'm saying is that you can't stick console hardware into a PC hardware and expect the same performance. That's not going to happen. There are drawbacks in PC gaming that consoles just don't have to account for. Secondly, it's also silly to assume that development on the console will be anywhere near the development on the PC for a particular title. You might get close if you've got something with 8 threads, the same ISAs and a GPU that's more powerful than the one in the PS4. While you'll potentially get added benefits due to easier porting over and developers specifically targeting your GPU architecture, the CPU isn't the same and the bandwidth will be a bottleneck that can't be surpassed.
Depending on the raw power of the console's hardware and what's currently available for the PC, you'll be able to outperform the console even with those drawbacks, but you're definitely going to be much more for a gaming rig that can accomplish that. The PS4 doesn't raise that bar significantly, but it's hardware is still pretty impressive given the obvious limitations on price and TDP. But I can assure you, you're not going to be outperforming it with a laptop of any kind that's currently on the market.
Your screenshot of a game proves nothing at all to anyone. You should be aware that though the game has the same name, they're nowhere near coded similarly. That was my point when I stated that you can't compare console and PC games and hardware. A console developer will get 90%+ of a consoles potential performance whereas that same title on the PC might reach 50% if you're lucky.
You mentioned the i5 (and conveniently left out the price of the GPU), I was just informing you that the price is very costly. People don't buy computers quite like they used to. In fact, tablets have been outselling PCs since Q4 of last year and throughout all of 2013 it's going to continue with tablets expected to outsell laptops by a pretty decent margin.
If they're going to game on it and get an equivalent experience as the PS4 for ~$400-$500, they're going to have to spend double that much. If we were to compare $ on a console to $ on a PC, the PC would indeed have to be roughly double, and even at double you'd have to question whether you'd get the same experience. For instance, the PS4 could potentially add in-game physics via the HSA implementation using openCL, and that's something you'd lack entirely unless you're buying Kaveri with it's on-die GPU, but that still uses DDR3 and won't be near the same performance as the APU in the PS4.
I think you're misunderstanding me. What I'm saying is that you can't stick console hardware into a PC hardware and expect the same performance. That's not going to happen. There are drawbacks in PC gaming that consoles just don't have to account for. Secondly, it's also silly to assume that development on the console will be anywhere near the development on the PC for a particular title. You might get close if you've got something with 8 threads, the same ISAs and a GPU that's more powerful than the one in the PS4. While you'll potentially get added benefits due to easier porting over and developers specifically targeting your GPU architecture, the CPU isn't the same and the bandwidth will be a bottleneck that can't be surpassed.
Depending on the raw power of the console's hardware and what's currently available for the PC, you'll be able to outperform the console even with those drawbacks, but you're definitely going to be much more for a gaming rig that can accomplish that. The PS4 doesn't raise that bar significantly, but it's hardware is still pretty impressive given the obvious limitations on price and TDP. But I can assure you, you're not going to be outperforming it with a laptop of any kind that's currently on the market.
wonderfield, I think that "in most cases" can be a very broad spectrum. There are some really horribly programmed games that are PC exclusives, never mind some of the piss poor console ports we've seen throughout the years.
Ashbringer, I can't name a single game today that uses AVX. I know exactly what you're saying, but the halfhearted approach on account of developers has just as much to do with consoles setting that lowest common denominator as do the Pentium 4s. They'll develop for the console first (that's why we still have so many DX9 titles that *might* get patched to DX11) and then the lowest common denominator on the PC, often leaving in nice console remnants like horrible UIs, poor menus and a general lack of any graphical options.
I'm pretty sure that the most you'll get from the x87-derived side is SSE4.x. The thread count is a bigger issue than the ISAs, though. That's something that should cure itself with a bump up to a more modern openGL or DX API. Opting to go with 8 Jaguar cores helps quite a bit too
Ashbringer, I can't name a single game today that uses AVX. I know exactly what you're saying, but the halfhearted approach on account of developers has just as much to do with consoles setting that lowest common denominator as do the Pentium 4s. They'll develop for the console first (that's why we still have so many DX9 titles that *might* get patched to DX11) and then the lowest common denominator on the PC, often leaving in nice console remnants like horrible UIs, poor menus and a general lack of any graphical options.
I'm pretty sure that the most you'll get from the x87-derived side is SSE4.x. The thread count is a bigger issue than the ISAs, though. That's something that should cure itself with a bump up to a more modern openGL or DX API. Opting to go with 8 Jaguar cores helps quite a bit too
What's to hate? It's a toy that you can soon purchase at Toy's-R-Us...because it's a toy computer? But back on point. I don't care what the case looks like, I'm curious what "computer hardware" will be contained within the mysterious case.
Ducman coming in with a whole lotta FUD.
I love it when people post screenshots with hi-res texture packs and claim it's an output of better performance. We know the 360 and PS3 have major limitations in video memory and that's why their textures look significantly worse than hi-res texture packs on PC. But not's not indicative of anything else going on.
I love it when people post screenshots with hi-res texture packs and claim it's an output of better performance. We know the 360 and PS3 have major limitations in video memory and that's why their textures look significantly worse than hi-res texture packs on PC. But not's not indicative of anything else going on.
Seriously, look back through these forums of all the people with 6800GTs (I was one of them) who had trouble with Oblivion at High quality. To get equivalent smoothness between the two versions, the PC one was going to look worse (before mods.) Obviously once you throw in .ini tweaks and all the mods, the PC one looked way better, but those weren't out until a year+ afterwards.
The people who were on 7900s had no issues and had better framerates, but still, the 360 version ran and looked better (if you remember, 360 could do AA and HDR, PC could only do one or the other) than equivalent HW in a PC. Whether it'll continue to be the case as Ashbringer is saying is a whole other issue.
And Bioshock... my 6800 hated Bioshock. The PC port was extremely poorly optimized, but that's part of the experience, unfortunately. :/
The people who were on 7900s had no issues and had better framerates, but still, the 360 version ran and looked better (if you remember, 360 could do AA and HDR, PC could only do one or the other) than equivalent HW in a PC. Whether it'll continue to be the case as Ashbringer is saying is a whole other issue.
And Bioshock... my 6800 hated Bioshock. The PC port was extremely poorly optimized, but that's part of the experience, unfortunately. :/
Reality
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2003
- Messages
- 1,937
Untrue, Sony UK did an interview last week stating that the console will not block used games
Do your research?
and yes, I agree it was ridiculous to host an event about a console that doesn't even exist yet. what's even more misleading was to show game footage that wasn't even running on PS4 hardware (Looking at you Ubisoft), but rather a PC.
Wierdo
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2011
- Messages
- 1,817
I'm not a console person, but I'm thinking PS4 looks more attractive than the XBox720 this time around imho, because at least it seems you can still take your game to your friend's place and play it together vs the way MS wants to lock down purchases to an individual level. That's a big minus in my book.
only an idiot would keep talking about it not playing used games .If you really think that then you have no clue what you are talking about .