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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - The Hypocrisy and Irony of 4K Blu-ray Exclusion

Welcome to the console wars. Remember when in the middle ages the peasants had to go to war with a pitchfork because they didn't have an actual weapon to fight with? Minor features are today's pitchfork for the peasants in the console war.

Just imagine if the PS4 had one USB port less, or if they replaced the optical out with analog out or if it had a glossy finish instead of a matte one.

Also remember this?

yeah...



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Around the Network

One benefit to UHD support is triple-layer BD support. I know it can't be used for games in the short term, but could be a boon in the long term. As long as PS4/XB1 support is guaranteed it's of no use to gaming. But after they release third iterations of their consoles, they may finally remove the requirement to support the first iterations. At that point you night get games on triple-layer BDs. Well, may on Xbox, you obviously won't on PS4P.

I suppose you could press different discs for different system variants, to take advantage of triple later BD, in cases where the game is bigger than the disc (such as the Master Chief Collection).



Ugh. I hate false dichotomies. It's not hypocrisy, it's an entirely situation. The technology isn't nearly as expensive, and there already is a model without the drive, so nobody would be forced to buy it. Unlike the PS3, where many or even most of consumers who would buy it didn't have an HD TV and would have no use for the feature, the PS4Pro is marketed mainly to people who have a 4K TV. They at least can potentially use it.

Sony spent a huge chunk of their conference convincing people that 4K video playback is an important feature, yet their product does nothing in terms of playback that a 4K TV can't do out of the box. I've yet to see a 4K TV that is not a smart TV.

It's a legitimate gripe people have with it. You can criticize the level of the reaction, but the hypocrisy angle just doesn't fly.



Azuren said:
Azzanation said:

Same, thats why i invested in PC. Have the best of both worlds.

Except no.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_(software)

Quote - As of September 2015, there are 6,464 Windows games (More than 1 Year ago)

How many games are on PSN? And how much do they charge you to play half of them?

Lets see here,

PSN inferiour quality games, charges monthly to access MP and PSN has been regarded as a troublesome network for many years.

Steam, Biggest library of games, some of the best digital sales in the industry and does not require you to pay monthly bills to access MP that you already paid for and the network is solid.

Thats just Steam, i also use alot of other services but i think Steam alone ecplises your argument.

In before you say PS Exclusives, Well ill just have alook at PSNow on my PC if i wanted to play PS games.



Azzanation said:
Azuren said:

Except no.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_(software)

Quote - As of September 2015, there are 6,464 Windows games (More than 1 Year ago)

How many games are on PSN? And how much do they charge you to play half of them?

Lets see here,

PSN inferiour quality games, charges monthly to access MP and PSN has been regarded as a troublesome network for many years.

Steam, Biggest library of games, some of the best digital sales in the industry and does not require you to pay monthly bills to access MP that you already paid for and the network is solid.

Thats just Steam, i also use alot of other services but i think Steam alone ecplises your argument.

In before you say PS Exclusives, Well ill just have alook at PSNow on my PC if i wanted to play PS games.

Except best of both worlds implies the best of both worlds, not PC vs Console. And considering there are only five retail games that aren't remasters, Kinect games, or also available on PC for Xbox One, it just doesn't compliment a PC as well as a PS4 would. 

 

As far as PSNow is concerned, you've been proven wrong a number of times, but I'll do it one more time for you since you clearly have no idea what you're talking about: PSNow only has PS3 games. Some games on there are also available on PS4, but those are the PS3 versions running at PS3 levels, not PS4 versions. This idea you have in your head that PSNow somehow has any kind of standing with 8th Gen consoles continues to confuse me. It's as though you're just making up arguments off the top of your head with half of the information. 

 

But you know. Keep being wrong. If it were an Olympic Sport, your understanding of PSNow would get Australia a Gold. 



Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

Around the Network
Azuren said:
Azzanation said:

Sounds like you have submitted to settling for less because not having a UHD player means you have to fork out another $200-$300+ if you wanted to watch UHD disks. Plus you have already settled for less with its online network which is what they want you to use to watch 4k UHDs. Ill wait for the next addition of the Pro that includes one. Thats just me.

No, I've decided on *gasp*

 

A lot more games.

 

Because I'm a gamer.

^ This post

You decided on alot more games yet your on a service that has considerbly less than Steam. Interesting logic.

Azuren said:
Azzanation said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_(software)

Quote - As of September 2015, there are 6,464 Windows games (More than 1 Year ago)

How many games are on PSN? And how much do they charge you to play half of them?

Lets see here,

PSN inferiour quality games, charges monthly to access MP and PSN has been regarded as a troublesome network for many years.

Steam, Biggest library of games, some of the best digital sales in the industry and does not require you to pay monthly bills to access MP that you already paid for and the network is solid.

Thats just Steam, i also use alot of other services but i think Steam alone ecplises your argument.

In before you say PS Exclusives, Well ill just have alook at PSNow on my PC if i wanted to play PS games.

Except best of both worlds implies the best of both worlds, not PC vs Console. And considering there are only five retail games that aren't remasters, Kinect games, or also available on PC for Xbox One, it just doesn't compliment a PC as well as a PS4 would. 

 

But you know. Keep being wrong. 

I brought a PC because it offers me the best of both worlds. Only thing i gain from buying into a PS or Xbox is acouple exclusives which do not out-weight my post above. There is no debate here. I am also a gamer becuase i have access to alot more games and possiably own way more games than you just off Steam.  I sense someone is in denail. But im not suprised. Im not here to argu with you. You seem to want to turn everything into X vs Z. I linked you the major benefits and your only argument is that "Im wrong" haha ok, enjoy your Pro purchase.

EDITED - PSNow has over 300+ PS3 Exclusives and unless you link me proof that its not going to continue to grow than you will be proven wrong again. There are only acouple PS games i want to play and there on PS3. Give it a year or two and watch more games get included in the vast library. Just like the 4k player in the Pro, how everything seems to be going Streaming and digital downloads, well its a digital future my friend.



mysteryman said:
LivingMetal said:

Would I buy a PS4 Pro if it were $500 with 4K Blu-Ray playback.  Short answer: No.

Long answer: I really cannot justify a current gen concole at the moment beause of my backlog.  Because of your Bob Hoskins Mario avy, let me show you my personal Nintendo DS collection supported by my car manual and a napkin holder:

Including one 3DS game for a handheld that I do NOT own, there are 20 games I have yet to beat.  And that's just for one system.  My backlog will last me for the next two generation at my rate.  My original intent in buying a PS4 this Christmas was to bag an original PS4 because I preferred the look of the original over the Slim, and I didn't want to miss out on getting an original model before they were all sold out.  That was before the PS4 Pro announcement.  A hundred dollars more for a 1 TB HDD and enhanced graphics even on a 1080p tv was worth the difference over a 500 GB HDD wiith no enhanced graphic.  But to pay another $100 for 4K Blu-Ray playback wasn't worth it to me as implied in my original post due to current higher priorities.

I didn't mean if you would pay an extra $100 for 4K bluray playback.

If the PS4pro as it currently stands was priced $100 more, would that be a deal-breaker for you, or would you still get it?

Let's use a little common sense here. If I wouldn't buy the Ps4 Pro with 4k Blu Ray playback at $500, then I surely wouldn't buy the PS4 Pro without it. That's just less for more money. 



vivster said:

Welcome to the console wars. Remember when in the middle ages the peasants had to go to war with a pitchfork because they didn't have an actual weapon to fight with? Minor features are today's pitchfork for the peasants in the console war.

Just imagine if the PS4 had one USB port less, or if they replaced the optical out with analog out or if it had a glossy finish instead of a matte one.

Also remember this?

yeah...

Nope. Never seen this before. Don't know what it is. 



Here is the problem. A lot of you people seem to think this is a brand new console. It's not. This is a PS4. When we get to PS5, you'll see a new media drive if it's mainstream at the time.



DVD VS BLU RAY is the day and night if you look it in the same tv, also back then you can't stream 1080p and the straming was not popular like now

Blu ray vs UHD (those are still BLUE RAY'S) has some major difference but you have a good 4k tv to see them, streaming is more popular