By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Would you buy a 9th or a 9.5th gen console???

 

Which one?

Generation 9 37 59.68%
 
Generation 9.5 25 40.32%
 
Total:62
Metroid33slayer on 30 March 2015
sergiodaly said:

Last gen was the jump to HD, this gen was the jump to 1080p. Last gen, we had expensive HW with some what eccentric architectures and that result in 30fps HD games. (Nintendo did its own thing but that is irrelevant for the point i want to make)

This gen we did get cheaper HW, with a more familiar architecture (Again Nintendo against the tide, again, irrelevant but at the end the question could also apply to Nintendo) resulting in 1080p and sometimes 60fps but so far we can only get one or the other.

Many did get disappointed with the new gen, more powerful but not that much, i guess you get what you paid for.

 

I disagree with you, the jump in power isn't just about resolution . The actual graphical quality is a huge improvement, just compare Infamous on ps3 to infamous SS on ps4. The difference in graphical detail is enormous.



Around the Network
ExplodingBlock on 30 March 2015

I'm not buying a single next gen console until Zelda U comes out



sergiodaly on 30 March 2015
HoloDust said:
I really doubt any console will be aiming at native 4K, let alone 4k@60fps.

What people tend to conveniently forget is that 720p to 1080p is 2.25x when it comes to pixels, and from 1080p to 4k UHD is 4x.

Unless some miracle happens with fab processes in the near future, I think best we can hope for is another 8-10x performance jump in the next gen, and that will most likely mean enough juice for anamorphic UHD (1920x2160), since IMO, that would make much more sense than 16:9 1440p or 1620p.

Well we have today PC setups that run games almost every game at 4k at 30fps. PC games suffer from the api restraints we all know about. So 4 years from now, it doesn't sound that difficult to do a 600/700 dollars console to run 4k@60fps. A 400 dollars console does sound a lot harder. 
8 times more powerful its more processing power than what that pc has right now. (the one i check and mentioned earlier) 

Proudest Platinums - BF: Bad Company, Killzone 2 , Battlefield 3 and GTA4

sergiodaly on 30 March 2015
ExplodingBlock said:
I'm not buying a single next gen console until Zelda U comes out

Lol... You're right... Vote with your wallet. :) 

Proudest Platinums - BF: Bad Company, Killzone 2 , Battlefield 3 and GTA4

sergiodaly on 30 March 2015
Metroid33slayer said:
sergiodaly said:

Last gen was the jump to HD, this gen was the jump to 1080p. Last gen, we had expensive HW with some what eccentric architectures and that result in 30fps HD games. (Nintendo did its own thing but that is irrelevant for the point i want to make)

This gen we did get cheaper HW, with a more familiar architecture (Again Nintendo against the tide, again, irrelevant but at the end the question could also apply to Nintendo) resulting in 1080p and sometimes 60fps but so far we can only get one or the other.

Many did get disappointed with the new gen, more powerful but not that much, i guess you get what you paid for.

 

I disagree with you, the jump in power isn't just about resolution . The actual graphical quality is a huge improvement, just compare Infamous on ps3 to infamous SS on ps4. The difference in graphical detail is enormous.

I know... I have all the infamous games... Now just imagine if ps4 wasn't held back by the price they were aiming for. Wouldn't you like the choice to pick up a more powerful one to get a bigger jump forward? Even if couldn't or didn't want the "bigger one" you can agree that this doesn't hurt anyone. Every one wins, cheap one for the mass market and those who can't afford, one not so cheap for those who can.

Proudest Platinums - BF: Bad Company, Killzone 2 , Battlefield 3 and GTA4

Around the Network
HoloDust on 30 March 2015
sergiodaly said:
HoloDust said:
I really doubt any console will be aiming at native 4K, let alone 4k@60fps.

What people tend to conveniently forget is that 720p to 1080p is 2.25x when it comes to pixels, and from 1080p to 4k UHD is 4x.

Unless some miracle happens with fab processes in the near future, I think best we can hope for is another 8-10x performance jump in the next gen, and that will most likely mean enough juice for anamorphic UHD (1920x2160), since IMO, that would make much more sense than 16:9 1440p or 1620p.

Well we have today PC setups that run games almost every game at 4k at 30fps. PC games suffer from the api restraints we all know about. So 4 years from now, it doesn't sound that difficult to do a 600/700 dollars console to run 4k@60fps. A 400 dollars console does sound a lot harder. 
8 times more powerful its more processing power than what that pc has right now. (the one i check and mentioned earlier) 

This is the way I see it - with estimated 8x jump in next gen (to about 15TFLOPS in today's AMD FLOPS), no sane develeoper will spend most of their performance pool to jump to native 4k and render 4x more pixels than in 1080p, if they can spend half of that on anamorphic 4k and spend the rest on better visuals or performance.

People seem to keep forgetting that PS4 to PS3 is some 8x -10x (depending on who you ask), and jump was only 2.25x in resolution, unlike 4x that is needed for native 4k...believing that devs would sacrifice visual quality for resolution in future with performance jump of similar 8x-10x is a bit...naive, to say at least.



Kirin_gaming on 30 March 2015

I think that by the 9th gen all the big 3 will provide a video game service to most media devices, that includes PC.If that is the case there would be no more need for me to buy consoles anymore.If not then yeah! I would love to have stronger consoles, they should design a console that is sold for a high profit but by request of the buyer only, a console comparable to ultra high-end PCs capable of running 8k, that would allow me to get rid of gaming PCs since I only use mine for gaming...

Both instances are highly unlikely to happen though, since video game services are most likely to provide the game by streaming and not a native source.
And 2 or more very different iterations of one console completely defeats the purpose of consoles, which is having a closed system to avoid having to work on many versions of the same game.



the_dengle on 30 March 2015

I'll take the $200-250 1080p capable system please.



sergiodaly on 30 March 2015
HoloDust said:
sergiodaly said:
HoloDust said:
I really doubt any console will be aiming at native 4K, let alone 4k@60fps.

What people tend to conveniently forget is that 720p to 1080p is 2.25x when it comes to pixels, and from 1080p to 4k UHD is 4x.

Unless some miracle happens with fab processes in the near future, I think best we can hope for is another 8-10x performance jump in the next gen, and that will most likely mean enough juice for anamorphic UHD (1920x2160), since IMO, that would make much more sense than 16:9 1440p or 1620p.

Well we have today PC setups that run games almost every game at 4k at 30fps. PC games suffer from the api restraints we all know about. So 4 years from now, it doesn't sound that difficult to do a 600/700 dollars console to run 4k@60fps. A 400 dollars console does sound a lot harder. 
8 times more powerful its more processing power than what that pc has right now. (the one i check and mentioned earlier) 

This is the way I see it - with estimated 8x jump in next gen (to about 15TFLOPS in today's AMD FLOPS), no sane develeoper will spend most of their performance pool to jump to native 4k and render 4x more pixels than in 1080p, if they can spend half of that on anamorphic 4k and spend the rest on better visuals or performance.

People seem to keep forgetting that PS4 to PS3 is some 8x -10x (depending on who you ask), and jump was only 2.25x in resolution, unlike 4x that is needed for native 4k...believing that devs would sacrifice visual quality for resolution in future with performance jump of similar 8x-10x is a bit...naive, to say at least.

PC with less than half that power can run today's games in 4k ultra high setting in 30fps. Game development is evolving and new technics are in store for when the power allow it, that's for sure, but i think is feasible if they can go for a higher price in the console and the jump can be more than 8 times. Also, i think ps4 is less than 8 times more powerful than ps3, but the improvements in architecture give the idea of much more, and with that games like infamous ss has 1080p with +30fps, thats 2.25 more resolution, around 1.5x framerate, texture quality, lighting, etc etc etc. The last of us did double the pixels and framerate.  Keeping this rate of improvement for the hw, and game development, yeah, in four years a 400 dollars console will not hit the 4k mark. But a 700 one might. That is the whole point of this thread. Which one would you buy if in the same platform, same games, but this power difference and price, the cheap that would produce (like you say) sub 4k (probably 2k, like i say in the op) games or the more expensive one with 4k.

Lets just assume this is possible. Futurology is not the purpose here. But was nice to talk specs with you ;)

Proudest Platinums - BF: Bad Company, Killzone 2 , Battlefield 3 and GTA4

sergiodaly on 30 March 2015
Kirin_gaming said:
I think that by the 9th gen all the big 3 will provide a video game service to most media devices, that includes PC.If that is the case there would be no more need for me to buy consoles anymore.If not then yeah! I would love to have stronger consoles, they should design a console that is sold for a high profit but by request of the buyer only, a console comparable to ultra high-end PCs capable of running 8k, that would allow me to get rid of gaming PCs since I only use mine for gaming...

Both instances are highly unlikely to happen though, since video game services are most likely to provide the game by streaming and not a native source.
And 2 or more very different iterations of one console completely defeats the purpose of consoles, which is having a closed system to avoid having to work on many versions of the same game.


The thing is, like i say in the op, the architecture would be the same, just different steps of power, besides it does not defeats the purpose of consoles, if it did, all games would be console exclusive, no multiplatform. Its easy to port for other architectures with todays almost agnostic engines, imagine just a power difference inside the same architecture.  It would be just like turning knobs down. (hyperbole here)

Has for the first part of your comment, people need to understand that nothing, ever will beat local hardware, yes services might rise and be successful, but local hardware will always beat those services and it will take much more than just 4 years in to change that.

Proudest Platinums - BF: Bad Company, Killzone 2 , Battlefield 3 and GTA4