Reminds me with the obsession with motion controls and the kinect, that was supposed to be the next big thing (well it was with wii) but that has largely died out on non-Nintendo platforms.
Gaming PlayStation 5
- Thread starter ArmandTamzarian
- Start date
Think that was Microsoft jumping on the Nintendo bandwagon a generation too late.
VR will evolve.
So true.Backwards compatibility is really nice. Give it native mouse and keyboard support and I'd buy it on day one.
Nah, Kinect on the 360 actually was selling well. It sold like 24m within the first 3 years and was one of the fastest selling devices ever at launch.
But MS then got arrogant about it. Started focusing all their efforts on it and making studios focus games on it rather than making primary games and then supporting it. They then forced it down everyone on the Xbox one, which made the Xbox one more expensive.
Big Todd currently licking his lips at the prospect of Skyrim re-remastered.
May use this opportunity to upgrade my media server to the PS4, my PS3 is showing it's limitations with high quality streaming content.
And 3D TV's.
I’ll probably go back to Playstation from Xbox for this one. The exclusives are just better.
This is an nVidia demo of ray tracing, so it's not strictly related to what AMD are capable of. But it does give you an idea or the technology.
Well worth the watch, even if you don't think you care about the topic
EDIT:
And this is Minecraft
I'd love VR to take off properly. Still waiting for now as it's not quite there.
The SSD claim is laughable
Games need to be 60fps standard or it's still living 20 years behind
The SSD claim is laughable
Games need to be 60fps standard or it's still living 20 years behind
Last edited:
May I ask why? Even on PC there aren't any actual AAA games or companies that utilise VR technology because the technology to make it truly immersive isn't there yet. It's mainly gimmicky games that are pretty cool to experience but you'll get bored of quickly. I mean gaming as it is now works because you can just sit down, pick up a controller, play a game and chill out. I don't think people are gonna be putting on headseats and dancing around rooms after a long day of work.
Like I said I'm fine with it being a side thing but I don't want them to focus so much energy towards it, or even start having established IPs having exclusive games for it. I don't want them to feel like they can mimic the success of the Wii and their motion controls with it, because they won't. As long as they don't alienate the people who don't care for VR, it's okay.
For VR to be a big success it needs to have graphics on par with what we see on normal games today PLUS the tactile feedback from touching, picking things up etc. Honestly the only thing I can ever see it being good for right now is porn
There are tons of VR games where you can sit and use the controller, play the game in an awesome world and not look like a tit rolling about the house.
The issue with PSVR is it was adding new technology to an old machine (ancient in terms of current hardware, practically a toaster with wifi in comparison to any competent pc). The new machine if those specs are correct will have no problem blasting out 1080p per eye graphics wise.
Sony's real VR problem is finding a way to support more than 1 camera for tracking for games and people who want to stand and walk around. The other issue is getting a replacement controller for the moves (which are thrash) but I don't think Sony are too sold on that market.
All my best VR experiences have been on PS (I have a good friend who owns both the Vive and PSVR and even he will say the PSVR is best because of the its less hassle and he can just sit and use the DS4).
Resi 7 is still the benchmark for VR games (and I like it for exactly the reasons you wanted above). I can grab a controller, sit on the couch, slap on the headset and play it like a normal game, just in a virtual world.
I think people have the wrong view of VR and they think its only games where you have to look like a tit, running around, arms flailing etc... like the WII, but its miles from the truth.
Imho, along with Resi, Astrobot is the PSVRs biggest success story except the Skyrim remake, and both are played while chilling on the couch with a dualshock. Its the best way to experience Skyrim too (if you ever wanna feel like you are inside a PS2.)
Senua's Sacrifice is probably the best game with VR on PC currently and again its optimized for game pads.
I need to read @Redlambs view. His inside views were bang on back in 2013 when he expressed concerns about the lacklustre CPUs of both PS4 and XBONE. This was well before both consoles were formally announced.
No reason why not, they have full control over the system architecture. They could decide to give the SSD it’s own dedicated bus with much higher bandwidth, give the drive a huge cache and specify their own interface. They’ve got the motivation to develop it and guaranteed demand for it. Currently the hard drive is a major bottle neck in a gaming system so it makes sense that it’s a game console developer who addresses that issue.
They’ve got previous for taking a radical approach to the system architecture if you look at the PS3. This approach, while still radical, would facilitate game developers rather than expect them to work in different way.
NVMe SSD's already transfer data at 30GB/s +, but that's still an expensive storage solution that, even with the kind of numbers Sony would buy, would still be a huge increase in cost to any future console. Plus the size of next-gen games make it extra difficult as that single drive will have to be a pretty big one to boot.
So we're looking at a few potential scenarios here.
1) If it is an NVMe type solution, there's a high chance it'll be non-upgradable (& even if it is, who's going to pay the £250+ for a good NVMe SSD anyway).
2) It has multiple drives, and/or extra RAM dedicated to preloading of assets.
3) Sony have just accepted they'll have to try sell the console at a higher price if they're to deliver the experience they want to, and will either pass that onto consumers or eat some of the cost themselves.
Personally, I hope it's a combination of 1 & 3. Bring back the high-end a bit into the console world with a premium-feeling experience.
Digitalfoundry said it’s looking more likely that it’s going to be a higher price than the PS4.I rather they go all out because this isn’t the case of PS4 where you couldn’t play your old games, so they had to make it cheap and affordable to everyone as lots of people didn’t want to trade in their PS3 as that had GTA IV, last of us and GT 6 released at the time. PS4 even in the next two years still has quite a few exclusives to come out, so it’s not going to die. PS5 coming out isn’t going to kill it.
I’d be happy if they went all out specs wise and they announced it at £500 or £600 because at the end of the day these consoles will last 7 years. Lots of people are happy to pay that much or more for phones that last them one or two years. Plus if you trade in your PS4 considering it will play PS4 games it will work out cheaper. So I hope they don’t hold back like this gen.
I’d be happy if they went all out specs wise and they announced it at £500 or £600 because at the end of the day these consoles will last 7 years. Lots of people are happy to pay that much or more for phones that last them one or two years. Plus if you trade in your PS4 considering it will play PS4 games it will work out cheaper. So I hope they don’t hold back like this gen.
The PS3 was around €600 on launch as I recall and it sold pretty poorly as a result, until Sony dropped the price. I don't really see how consoles are comparable to phones either, sure there are €1000 phones out there but most people pay far less for their phone either by buying a cheaper (and still good one) or going on contract. When it comes to flat out spending a big chunk of cash all at once, most consumers don't like it. I still think £350-400 is the sweet spot, and anything above £499 will struggle.
I literally have no idea what any of this means.
This is going to be around £800, at least.
£800, really? That's a ludicrous price point though surely.
I feel for families with a couple of younger / teenage kids that both want one for Christmas!
Just harboring a guess, to be honest. But if you're looking to compete with PCs, then the price will be similar. For instance, SSDs alone cost around £100-200 minimum.
The PS3 started off around £500, didn't it? 10-12 years on, I'd be surprised if the PS5 did too.
Considering this time you can trade in your PS4 as you can play all your games on the PS5, I rather they give people a decent spec machine rather than moaning when games can’t do 60fps for another gen.
The PS3 struggled because it had a lack of games and the price was far too high compared to its competitor. It cost £425 at launch and the 360 cost £280. The 360 in the UK had a year to establish itself and by the time the PS3 came out had a great collection of games. The developers didn’t know how to get the best out of the PS3 and every multi format ran better on the 360. So why spend nearly £200 more on something with less games and that runs game worse not forgetting Xbox live even though you had to pay for it was years better.
If Sony announce a console for £600 and MS do it for £400 with all the above circumstances happening again then yeah they will struggle. But I don’t see that happening again even though MS will do a better job next gen I don’t think the price difference between the two will be significant.
Plus MS did the exact same thing that Sony did last gen. They released a more expensive console with worse specs, forced Kinect on you and the multi formats ran like shit on it compared to the PS4. If they had released the one x at launch with that price then it would have been a lot closer. There would have been a lot more reasons to buy one.
MS are looking to release two consoles, one that is going to be cheaper and then you have a more premium model.
Also im sure these companies now have the facilities so that you don’t need to pay for the console in one go. MS already have started in the states offering the S and X in payment plans last year.
Do you not see Sony doing the same though? I think it makes sense, it's probably the way consoles are going now anyway, when you look at the Pro and Scorpio, and the fact that Nintendo look to be releasing a more powerful Switch this year too. If MS do do that and Sony only have a £600 variant then, as you say, they will struggle.
You're right about the PS3 not having much on launch but neither did the PS4 really, it's best early games were ported PS3 games! I think Sony will have to nail all those aspects you noted above if they want a £600 console to be an instant hit. Maybe they've learned from the mistakes of the PS3 and they will, though. I can see them focusing heavily on the PS4 backwards compatibility seeing as it looks like it'll come out at a similar time to TLOU and Death Stranding, anyway.
So yeah, hopefully they do the standard/pro versions right from launch, that's the best possible approach they can take imo.
it's not really comparable to PC's because usually (Nintendo aside) console makers actually take a loss on the console when they first release it in order to generate sales, which makes sense because the real money for them is going to be through the online service, cuts from game purchases, peripherals etc. I'm pretty sure Sony took a massive hit from the PS3 on launch even though it was £600 at the time.
There is no way in hell Sony will release the console at £800 like you're suggesting.
Two things.
1) It's not going to compete with PCs on raw power.
2) Sony buy in ridiculous bulk so the prices of parts aren't anywhere near as high for them. It's not like they're going to Overclockers & filling up a few thousand carts with Samsung & AMD parts.
[2.1) I still think SSD costs will high enough for cause a price spike].
I think Massive Spanner is right. It'll be south of £450.
Not only do most peope buy reasonable phone, with consoles the actual content you use is pretty darn expensive not to mention annual subscription to online gaming etc. With 10-12 games you're nearly doubling your console outlay.
I think the first year of the PS5 could be a lot better than the first year of PS4. The GOW developer said last year the next GOW won’t take 5 years or whatever. I can see that coming out within the first year of the PS5 being released.
I think the next Guerilla games will be a launch title, I just hope they not working on Killzone again.
Naughty dog have two teams, whilst one has been working on Last of us 2. The other one has been quiet for a while since Uncharted, so you expect them to working on something that’s coming within the first year of PS5.
As for Gran Turismo those guys are wasters, so don’t expect anything from them.
Not sure what other studios Sony have.
I think the next Guerilla games will be a launch title, I just hope they not working on Killzone again.
Naughty dog have two teams, whilst one has been working on Last of us 2. The other one has been quiet for a while since Uncharted, so you expect them to working on something that’s coming within the first year of PS5.
As for Gran Turismo those guys are wasters, so don’t expect anything from them.
Not sure what other studios Sony have.
Considering H:ZD sold 10m copies, it's basically nailed on to be a sequel to it.
Well that's disappointing as feck!
GG increased their staff from 250 to over 400 last year and Sony said they're planning for Horizon to be their next Uncharted-type franchise.
They're definitely working on HZD2 and I'd bet it's a launch title.
Maybe the next one has proper multiplayer.
UC2 multiplayer was very fun.
UC2 multiplayer was very fun.
God I hope they don't tack on multiplayer to Horizon. Really no need for it.
They are probably split into 2 teams and working on 2 games with that amount of staff.
I'll do it provided that all of my PS4 games, including the ones I downloaded from the Store, can be played.
Not until year three though. Still got to play God of War and Resi 2. Oh, and even Robot Dinosaur Killzone or whatever it's called.
I've got a backlog to get through too, always do FFS. Need less work and more gaming time.
I hate this waiting for new console, I'm well impatient!
I hate this waiting for new console, I'm well impatient!
I'll probably buy it for the new GTA and then never get another game for it.
The leap between PS1 and PS2 was gigantic... similarly the leap between PS2 and PS3 was pretty huge.
The leap between PS3 and PS4 however wasn't massive... and you can still go back and play a lot of PS3 games and you'll forget you're even playing an old gen game.
So I do wonder how big the jump between PS4 and PS5 will be.
The leap between PS3 and PS4 however wasn't massive... and you can still go back and play a lot of PS3 games and you'll forget you're even playing an old gen game.
So I do wonder how big the jump between PS4 and PS5 will be.
It wasn't massive, but it was still pretty big. Go back and play GTA 5 on the ps3, Then play the PS4 version and there's a highly significant jump in everything. Also look at games like Uncharted 4, Horizon, TW3, RDR2. None of those games would have been possible on a PS3.
I guess I mean it isn't massive when compared to the other two leaps.