| victor83fernandes said: 1 - Its not perhaps, its definitely, its called inflation, 600 back then is over 800now, 600 now is a bargain, people buy 1500dollars phones now, back then that was unthinkable, people are ready to pay, new games will be 65dollars, so only people with money will jump on launch day, games haven't jumped price yet because you artificially already pay much more, if you buy 1 game per month, and you pay 15 dollars for online, then the game cost you 75dollars, back then ps3 online was free. |
The Playstation 3 launched with a bottom price of $499 USD with another tier at $599.
Inflation over the past 13 years would mean things should be 24.76% higher in absolute terms.
That means for a $499 PS3 launch price, that would be $622.55 today and $599 would be $747.31.
https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/2007?amount=599
The Xbox One X released in 2017 for $499. Today's pricing would put it at $526.60.
So you are wrong that $600 back then is $800 now. $600 is still not a bargain either, that is still a hefty chunk of change to allot of people.
Games haven't jumped in base price, but many games feature hundreds/thousands of dollars worth of DLC/Microtransactions/collectors editions which is where additional revenues tend to be accrued.
| victor83fernandes said: Guys, so much talk about resolution, its pointless, anything that is 1080p is already fantastic, I have a 1080p 120projector, and I've played same consoles, same games before on my 4k HDR Panasonic 50inch, I've played full 4k on my xbox X, and I still prefer it in 1080p on the projector. (reason I have bought is the projector is in my house back in Portugal, the TV is with me in the UK where I work, I'd love a projector here too but I have no space here) |
Output resolution is important, to a point. And only if all things are kept equal.
Allot of the issue is that not everything is actually rendered at the output resolution, many shadows or lighting shafts for instance are rendered at "quarter resolution". - So if you are running a game at 4k, those assets would be 1080P.
Projectors tend to scale things differently than a pixel-perfect LCD, they are non comparable.
| victor83fernandes said: If you want quality then get good quality equipment and great speakers. a 4K HDR cheap Chinese brand will look miles worse than a top of the range 1080p TV. |
Agreed. Display quality is important... A Display with higher contrasts and colour depth (HDR displays) is far more important thing to consider.
It's just all decent TV's being manufactured in 2020 are 4k anyway, so we might as well use it.
CGI-Quality said:
These things are false. No, 1080p will never look better than 4K. That's just scientifically incorrect. Next, no jaggies in 1080/120? Yeah, right. Next, you know why your Blu-ray movies look better on your native 1080p TV? Because Blu-ray's max output is 1920x1080, unlike 4K UHD Blu-ray discs. The upscaling will never look as good as the native image. A true 4K Blu-ray, on your 4K device, will blow away anything your 1080p device could do with a regular Blu-ray. Again, that's just science. No way around it. |
Allot of UHD blu-rays actually use a 1080P source anyway for their mastering. It's a messy situation... Usually they just parse it through a few enhancements like sharpening.
| victor83fernandes said: The switch is 1 teraflop, xbox series X is 12 teraflops with a lot more RAM and a much better processor and newer architecture, lets not pretend games will look just fine on the switch, even the Vita had less power difference to the ps4 than the switch to ps5 and xbox series X. |
This is the second piece of false information that I am going to pull you up on in this reply.
The Switch is NOT 1 teraflop.
Docked the Switch's maximum GPU clock is 768Mhz.
Now if you know anything about Gflops... You would know it's a useless metric and is entirely theoretical...
However... 768mhz clockrate * 2 instructions per clock * 256 Shader Pipelines equates to 393Gflop of single precision floating point.
In mobile mode the maximum clockrate is 460Mhz... Applying that same formula... 460*2*256 is 235Gflop.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinmurnane/2019/05/12/nintendo-increases-gpu-clock-speed-in-the-switch-with-encouraging-results/#4eab7ba833cd
However, games need more than just single precision floating point capabilities, the Switch's GPU is simply more capable than "other" 200-400~ Gflop class GPU's like what was in the Playstation 3/Xbox 360/Wii U.
You can double all those numbers again for half precision, but games won't be using half precision for everything anyway.
Games will be fine on Switch, if you care about graphics you wouldn't have bothered with a console anyway.
| victor83fernandes said: I cant even believe that people on this site (hardcore gamers) fell for the cyberpunk thing, c'mon do you guys not see it was delayed to launch closer to the new consoles so they can sell more? Of course anything ps4 can do the xbox1 can do too, they are very close in graphics power and architecture. If it would struggle on the xbox 1 then it would also struggle on ps4 slim. The xbox 1 could be 720p and ps4 900p. |
Smells like an assertion. Got anything to back it up?
www.youtube.com/@Pemalite
