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

Forums - Sony Discussion - PS4 exclusives should get a 4K 60 with high resolution assets update next gen Update: Confirmed

GOWTLOZ said:
NobleTeam360 said:
Or Sony could just make the games BC and provide free 4k 60fps updates like MS does with some BC games on One X.

What part of update do you not understand?

Hint: Its there in the title.

Oh yeah, you're right, I must have misread the op. My bad.  



Around the Network
GOWTLOZ said:
vivster said:

The PS4 can't even play every game at 1080p60.

PS4 exclusives are 1080p 30 fps on the base console and go upto checkerboard 4K 30 fps on Pro. We know Pro is bottled by its weak CPU and its lack of memory.

PS5 is supposedly going to have Ryzen CPU and a GPU 3 times more powerful in terms of teraflops, with a more modern architecture and with 16 GB of RAM atleast as Xbox One X already has 12 GB. The suggested specs should easily run PS4 Pro games at twice the resolution, as checkerboarding halves the resolution on one axis and twice the framerate, which is fairly easy since the GPU is hugely powerful and even PS4 Pro's weak CPU can run some exclusives at 1080p 60 fps. The 16 GB RAM will allow 4K textures. I'm certain PS5 will be capable of doing this if these are the specifications, but of course Sony needs to allow its developers to upgrade their games on PS5.

I will believe a 10+ TFLOPS PS5 when I see it. The current high end tops off at about 15TFLOPS and midrange is about half of that. Unless they make a more expensive Pro version right at launch I don't see PS5 being that powerful. Console makers have shown nothing but utter contempt when it comes to games at 30+ FPS, so I do not expect them to take that as a goal when it's so much easier and cheaper to work with a 4k30 baseline.



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

vivster said:
GOWTLOZ said:

PS4 exclusives are 1080p 30 fps on the base console and go upto checkerboard 4K 30 fps on Pro. We know Pro is bottled by its weak CPU and its lack of memory.

PS5 is supposedly going to have Ryzen CPU and a GPU 3 times more powerful in terms of teraflops, with a more modern architecture and with 16 GB of RAM atleast as Xbox One X already has 12 GB. The suggested specs should easily run PS4 Pro games at twice the resolution, as checkerboarding halves the resolution on one axis and twice the framerate, which is fairly easy since the GPU is hugely powerful and even PS4 Pro's weak CPU can run some exclusives at 1080p 60 fps. The 16 GB RAM will allow 4K textures. I'm certain PS5 will be capable of doing this if these are the specifications, but of course Sony needs to allow its developers to upgrade their games on PS5.

I will believe a 10+ TFLOPS PS5 when I see it. The current high end tops off at about 15TFLOPS and midrange is about half of that. Unless they make a more expensive Pro version right at launch I don't see PS5 being that powerful. Console makers have shown nothing but utter contempt when it comes to games at 30+ FPS, so I do not expect them to take that as a goal when it's so much easier and cheaper to work with a 4k30 baseline.

Even if console made a magic and were stronger than the strongest PC HW at the time of release on Sony and MS plus most of 3rd parties they would prefer 30fps standard as have been the history of gaming since ever. PS360>Wii PS4X1>WiiU+Switch still most games on Sony MS plat have been 30fps even though they were much stronger than Nintendo HW that were pushing 60fps games.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said:
twintail said:

Based on what exactly? The PS4 not having BC with PS3? Because 1 remaster they released sold incredibly well?

Look, maybe PS5 doesn't have BC with PS4, but I am sorry: I think it s pretty short sighted to not see the larger picture in play here. There is far too much money to be lost from not offering BC next gen then there is to not offering remasters. One only needs to look at the Playstation divisions financials for the last quarters to realise how a huge percentage of their profits is network based. And that profit comes off maintaining their online userbase. Making a hard cut with PS5 is essentially giving consumers the option of jumping to the next Xbox, cause it wouldn't really matter where they go then. Sony exclusives are not the primary driving force of most PS4 sales: it's multiplatform games and Sony will want to ensure ppl keep playing these games from PS4 to PS5.

Unless you can provide some concrete info that remasters have been allowing Sony to bathe in money, then you yourself are just being anecdotal. More evidence points towards PS4 PSN continuing into PS5 than not (beyond what I have been written here).

and no, contrary to your unsubstantiated opinion to someone else that ppl saying PS5 will have BC are ppl who want BC, I honestly don't care if there is BC since I have barely ever used the function on any device I have owned.

Sony games aren't heavy on mp much less gaas so their online may not benefit from bc.

And I have no problem accepting there is a good chance of BC or the goodwill they could get or even how much easier than ps3 bc it would be. But giving it as certain based on nothing is silly.

We have had Sony heads saying how BC was overtalked and underused as a reason they didn't put it on PS4 nor would add later. We had PS3 dropping BC without much issue.

Sony certainly could make PS5 BC capable and locking it with some service of PS+ or offering to easy port/crossgen to devs so they can either have cross sales as we had at the begining of this gen and even keeping username/save so people could migrate.

There is several options they could take that would benefit their partners more than just put free BC and no double dips.

Sony wasn't the only making remaster/remakes (and they selling a lot), they had a good bunch of 3rd parties doing the same.

It doesn't matter that Sony games this gen aren't MP or GaaS heavy. They get a cut from any 3rd party content off PSN. It is the 3rd party MP and GaaS heavy games that are important. There are +- 33.9M PS+ subscriptions: you think the majority of this are ppl subbing to play these nonMP/ GaaS Sony games? Of course not. Hence why ensuring these users stick with PS5 straight from PS4 is so important.

There is no goodwill for offering BC (though of course that naturally comes as a consequence). It is a business decision that ensures they maintain their userbase, which is what they need to continuing making money off their network division.

And? It is called PR. Of course no Sony head is going to say anything overly positive about BC when they themselves don't actually offer such functionality on the PS4 at this time. A dual narrative like that would only confuse matters. Likewise the drop of BC from PS3 being not much issue is mostly attributive to the fact that the PS3 was expensive. The drop is price to make the console more affordable outweigh any cons of losing BC. You can't just simply ignore other reasons surrounding these moves.

They could. These are possibilities that could exist. What is more important to Sony is that they retain users from the PS4 than what their publishers want. The next XB is going to have BC with X1, obviously. Nintendo will most likely just reiterate on the Switch. What sway do publishers have on Sony that Sony would not offer BC? Absolutely nothing especially with Sony in such a dominate position. You don't see EA dropping PS support, or not giving Sony marketing deals etc just because Sony refuses to put EA Access on their platform. It is less relevant for publishers to have the games bought again because of how much money they are making off microtransactions. You only have to look at companies like Ubisoft who are making a large sum of profit off microtransactions because of Player Reoccurring Investment (PRI). This is exactly what Sony will want: PRI, because ppl buying digitally on PSN and continuing to do so just means more money for them. Not gating off PS4 PSN access only aids this. Not having BC is actually more of a detriment at this stage.

Ok, so where is this huge library of remasters that Sony is investing in for PS4? or even 3rd parties? Are all of these games making their respective companies hefty profits? You bring up this point but still fail to back up with anything. 



DonFerrari said:
vivster said:

I will believe a 10+ TFLOPS PS5 when I see it. The current high end tops off at about 15TFLOPS and midrange is about half of that. Unless they make a more expensive Pro version right at launch I don't see PS5 being that powerful. Console makers have shown nothing but utter contempt when it comes to games at 30+ FPS, so I do not expect them to take that as a goal when it's so much easier and cheaper to work with a 4k30 baseline.

Even if console made a magic and were stronger than the strongest PC HW at the time of release on Sony and MS plus most of 3rd parties they would prefer 30fps standard as have been the history of gaming since ever. PS360>Wii PS4X1>WiiU+Switch still most games on Sony MS plat have been 30fps even though they were much stronger than Nintendo HW that were pushing 60fps games.

Correct. They'd actually be stupid if they were actively trying to get their customers used to a higher standard when the very low standard they've been rolling with has sold gangbusters and requires very little money and resources for them.



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

Around the Network
vivster said:
GOWTLOZ said:

PS4 exclusives are 1080p 30 fps on the base console and go upto checkerboard 4K 30 fps on Pro. We know Pro is bottled by its weak CPU and its lack of memory.

PS5 is supposedly going to have Ryzen CPU and a GPU 3 times more powerful in terms of teraflops, with a more modern architecture and with 16 GB of RAM atleast as Xbox One X already has 12 GB. The suggested specs should easily run PS4 Pro games at twice the resolution, as checkerboarding halves the resolution on one axis and twice the framerate, which is fairly easy since the GPU is hugely powerful and even PS4 Pro's weak CPU can run some exclusives at 1080p 60 fps. The 16 GB RAM will allow 4K textures. I'm certain PS5 will be capable of doing this if these are the specifications, but of course Sony needs to allow its developers to upgrade their games on PS5.

I will believe a 10+ TFLOPS PS5 when I see it. The current high end tops off at about 15TFLOPS and midrange is about half of that. Unless they make a more expensive Pro version right at launch I don't see PS5 being that powerful. Console makers have shown nothing but utter contempt when it comes to games at 30+ FPS, so I do not expect them to take that as a goal when it's so much easier and cheaper to work with a 4k30 baseline.

This discussing is centred on whether PS5 would be able to play PS4 games at 4k, 60fps. Not whether all PS5 games will be 4k60fps.




twintail said:
DonFerrari said:

Sony games aren't heavy on mp much less gaas so their online may not benefit from bc.

And I have no problem accepting there is a good chance of BC or the goodwill they could get or even how much easier than ps3 bc it would be. But giving it as certain based on nothing is silly.

We have had Sony heads saying how BC was overtalked and underused as a reason they didn't put it on PS4 nor would add later. We had PS3 dropping BC without much issue.

Sony certainly could make PS5 BC capable and locking it with some service of PS+ or offering to easy port/crossgen to devs so they can either have cross sales as we had at the begining of this gen and even keeping username/save so people could migrate.

There is several options they could take that would benefit their partners more than just put free BC and no double dips.

Sony wasn't the only making remaster/remakes (and they selling a lot), they had a good bunch of 3rd parties doing the same.

It doesn't matter that Sony games this gen aren't MP or GaaS heavy. They get a cut from any 3rd party content off PSN. It is the 3rd party MP and GaaS heavy games that are important. There are +- 33.9M PS+ subscriptions: you think the majority of this are ppl subbing to play these nonMP/ GaaS Sony games? Of course not. Hence why ensuring these users stick with PS5 straight from PS4 is so important.

There is no goodwill for offering BC (though of course that naturally comes as a consequence). It is a business decision that ensures they maintain their userbase, which is what they need to continuing making money off their network division.

And? It is called PR. Of course no Sony head is going to say anything overly positive about BC when they themselves don't actually offer such functionality on the PS4 at this time. A dual narrative like that would only confuse matters. Likewise the drop of BC from PS3 being not much issue is mostly attributive to the fact that the PS3 was expensive. The drop is price to make the console more affordable outweigh any cons of losing BC. You can't just simply ignore other reasons surrounding these moves.

They could. These are possibilities that could exist. What is more important to Sony is that they retain users from the PS4 than what their publishers want. The next XB is going to have BC with X1, obviously. Nintendo will most likely just reiterate on the Switch. What sway do publishers have on Sony that Sony would not offer BC? Absolutely nothing especially with Sony in such a dominate position. You don't see EA dropping PS support, or not giving Sony marketing deals etc just because Sony refuses to put EA Access on their platform. It is less relevant for publishers to have the games bought again because of how much money they are making off microtransactions. You only have to look at companies like Ubisoft who are making a large sum of profit off microtransactions because of Player Reoccurring Investment (PRI). This is exactly what Sony will want: PRI, because ppl buying digitally on PSN and continuing to do so just means more money for them. Not gating off PS4 PSN access only aids this. Not having BC is actually more of a detriment at this stage.

Ok, so where is this huge library of remasters that Sony is investing in for PS4? or even 3rd parties? Are all of these games making their respective companies hefty profits? You bring up this point but still fail to back up with anything. 

Yes I know the subs are for MP that mostly isn't from Sony. And we have seem crossplay also being just some complaining point but without any real impact. So there really isn't hard evidence to prove that without BC or crossplay among PS4-PS5 crew it would be a major down point to PS5.

It may be silly but people buy new HW to play new games.

There is nothing to suggest that having BC gives you continuity on userbase. PS3 had BC and no continuity, PS4 didn't have BC and had continuity on userbase.

On the PR, you asked for evidence. We have Sony saying (and they didn't need at all), we have MS numbers showing BC wasn't much used.

On Sony we have from top of mind and making big sales Uncharted Collection, GoW3, TLOU on PS4 (Sly Coopers, Ratchet and Clank, Jak and Daxter on PS3), Crash N'Sane and Spyro on third parties, plus Sega, Atari, and some other collections, FF VII and FF IX enhanced versions, FF X/X-2, FF XII. This just from memory. And probably higher than all of those GTA V.

Even Nintendo and MS have made a lot of remasters, it isn't out of nowhere that people were saying this was the gen of remaster or joking on Sony doing only remasters.

vivster said:
DonFerrari said:

Even if console made a magic and were stronger than the strongest PC HW at the time of release on Sony and MS plus most of 3rd parties they would prefer 30fps standard as have been the history of gaming since ever. PS360>Wii PS4X1>WiiU+Switch still most games on Sony MS plat have been 30fps even though they were much stronger than Nintendo HW that were pushing 60fps games.

Correct. They'd actually be stupid if they were actively trying to get their customers used to a higher standard when the very low standard they've been rolling with has sold gangbusters and requires very little money and resources for them.

Yep.

We will certainly see 4k60fps games from arcadey titles, fighting games, racing, some MP, etc. But Sony 1st party will certainly rather have 30fps with higher IQ (or console with weaker CPU and fuck off 60fps intention anyway) than higher frame count on SP games and movie narrative games.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said:

Sony games aren't heavy on mp much less gaas so their online may not benefit from bc.

And I have no problem accepting there is a good chance of BC or the goodwill they could get or even how much easier than ps3 bc it would be. But giving it as certain based on nothing is silly.

We have had Sony heads saying how BC was overtalked and underused as a reason they didn't put it on PS4 nor would add later. We had PS3 dropping BC without much issue.

Sony certainly could make PS5 BC capable and locking it with some service of PS+ or offering to easy port/crossgen to devs so they can either have cross sales as we had at the begining of this gen and even keeping username/save so people could migrate.

There is several options they could take that would benefit their partners more than just put free BC and no double dips.

Sony wasn't the only making remaster/remakes (and they selling a lot), they had a good bunch of 3rd parties doing the same.

Remakes and remasters are very different things.

Its why you see remakes of games from the PS2/PS1 era but instead remasters of games from the PS3. It will make zer financial sense makin remasters or remakes of PS4 games the PS5 and selling them. Especially when their direct rival is offering the same service free.

Sony downplayed BC this gen like any good PR team would d because they just couldnt get the PS4 to run PS3 games. That is not gin to be the case going from PS4 to PS5. As they are both X86 platforms. 

Native BC is pretty much a given based on that alone and based on the fact that its something MS will obviously d and sony simply cannot be selling something their rival offers for free. This doesn't stop devs from still supporting their PS4 games. And there are ways to do that. A dev can offer a 4k upgrade DLC and sell that for $10 for people that already have the game and want that while also main a greatest hits version of the game with the DLC built in and sell that full game at a reduced price for those wanting to get it for the first time. 

Get this though...... sony isnt in a bubble. There is MS. And we know they will do native BC. 

This has nothing to do with remakes. Those will still come and they are nothing compared to remasters. And then there is precedent..... the PS4 is the only playstation console to be released without any BC support whatsoever. So if anything' there is more historical backing for native BC than not.



vivster said:

I will believe a 10+ TFLOPS PS5 when I see it. The current high end tops off at about 15TFLOPS and midrange is about half of that. Unless they make a more expensive Pro version right at launch I don't see PS5 being that powerful. Console makers have shown nothing but utter contempt when it comes to games at 30+ FPS, so I do not expect them to take that as a goal when it's so much easier and cheaper to work with a 4k30 baseline.

Then you are choosing to ignore the facts.

XB1x with a 16nm APU has 6TF. Going from 28nm to 16nm allowed MS to increase their GPU CU count from 14 to 44. And sony to do the same from 20 to 40.

But yet you feel going from 16nm to 7nm will only yield a 50% bump at best? That makes no sense. 

Barring any other improvements, the PS5 and XB4 should at the very least have 12TF GPUs from just doubling the CU count from what we have in the XB1X which is something that is a default benefit of using 7nm fabrication. And this is assuming that clock speeds aren't improved in anyway. Like this is lookin at the least amount of specialized hardware engineering.

If it will make you feel better; 7nm will do wonders for PC hardware too. So on the PC side expect to see a mid range of around 16TF to 18TF and a high end of around 25TF and up. Eventually.



DonFerrari said:
twintail said:

It doesn't matter that Sony games this gen aren't MP or GaaS heavy. They get a cut from any 3rd party content off PSN. It is the 3rd party MP and GaaS heavy games that are important. There are +- 33.9M PS+ subscriptions: you think the majority of this are ppl subbing to play these nonMP/ GaaS Sony games? Of course not. Hence why ensuring these users stick with PS5 straight from PS4 is so important.

There is no goodwill for offering BC (though of course that naturally comes as a consequence). It is a business decision that ensures they maintain their userbase, which is what they need to continuing making money off their network division.

And? It is called PR. Of course no Sony head is going to say anything overly positive about BC when they themselves don't actually offer such functionality on the PS4 at this time. A dual narrative like that would only confuse matters. Likewise the drop of BC from PS3 being not much issue is mostly attributive to the fact that the PS3 was expensive. The drop is price to make the console more affordable outweigh any cons of losing BC. You can't just simply ignore other reasons surrounding these moves.

They could. These are possibilities that could exist. What is more important to Sony is that they retain users from the PS4 than what their publishers want. The next XB is going to have BC with X1, obviously. Nintendo will most likely just reiterate on the Switch. What sway do publishers have on Sony that Sony would not offer BC? Absolutely nothing especially with Sony in such a dominate position. You don't see EA dropping PS support, or not giving Sony marketing deals etc just because Sony refuses to put EA Access on their platform. It is less relevant for publishers to have the games bought again because of how much money they are making off microtransactions. You only have to look at companies like Ubisoft who are making a large sum of profit off microtransactions because of Player Reoccurring Investment (PRI). This is exactly what Sony will want: PRI, because ppl buying digitally on PSN and continuing to do so just means more money for them. Not gating off PS4 PSN access only aids this. Not having BC is actually more of a detriment at this stage.

Ok, so where is this huge library of remasters that Sony is investing in for PS4? or even 3rd parties? Are all of these games making their respective companies hefty profits? You bring up this point but still fail to back up with anything. 

Yes I know the subs are for MP that mostly isn't from Sony. And we have seem crossplay also being just some complaining point but without any real impact. So there really isn't hard evidence to prove that without BC or crossplay among PS4-PS5 crew it would be a major down point to PS5.

It may be silly but people buy new HW to play new games.

There is nothing to suggest that having BC gives you continuity on userbase. PS3 had BC and no continuity, PS4 didn't have BC and had continuity on userbase.

On the PR, you asked for evidence. We have Sony saying (and they didn't need at all), we have MS numbers showing BC wasn't much used.

On Sony we have from top of mind and making big sales Uncharted Collection, GoW3, TLOU on PS4 (Sly Coopers, Ratchet and Clank, Jak and Daxter on PS3), Crash N'Sane and Spyro on third parties, plus Sega, Atari, and some other collections, FF VII and FF IX enhanced versions, FF X/X-2, FF XII. This just from memory. And probably higher than all of those GTA V.

Even Nintendo and MS have made a lot of remasters, it isn't out of nowhere that people were saying this was the gen of remaster or joking on Sony doing only remasters.

Crossplay  between PS4/ X1 barely has any big game/ publisher support. In fact, there are barely any games at all. So of course there would be no real impact in this department.  So the point still stands, offering PSN PS4 support will prevent the possibility of users jumping from PS4 to the next XB.

Yeah, about as silly as ppl wanting their digital libraries to exist perpetually like every other online service in existence. 

You constantly make these singular points looking at a certain aspect without even contemplating the wider context. PS3 was incredibly overpriced and it suffered for a few years before that could actually be corrected, BC or not. PS4 came out after a very long previous gen, was priced better than the competition, and had an unveiling that made it the anti-PS3. Shuhei even commented about a year after launch that the sales were surprising and that even non-PS3 owners were buying a PS4. Without anything to keep 360 users tied to the Xbox experience, it was easy for users to move over to new hardware. 

Well I didn't ask for evidence to that but fair enough. It could be true. Either way, the PS4 BC we are talking about is not the same as the PS3 BC. Publishers weren't seeing a large sum of their profits from digital on PS3 like they do not on PS4. Live service games hadn't really taken off on PS3 like they have on PS4. The situation is not the same, the angle is not the same. Sony wasn't making the bulk of their profit off digital sales or services on the PS3. The situations are different. 

So some publishers have released a few games each? And I am not seeing a lot of sales giants in that list you provided. Nonetheless, I see no problems with remasters continuing. Them being healthy doesn't detract from continued engagement with existing consumers going forward. It is just an alternate product.

Anyhow, Sony has been reporting that their network and game services is their most profitable department for a few quarters now. The new PS head is a networks guy. They aren't going to take the risk that comes with resetting their network/ service offerings. They are making so much money off it on PS4 that continuing it without any roadblocks is only the most natural business decision to be made here. And the reality is that announcing as such secures their position next gen. 

But if you think Sony is going to risk resetting their network offerings for existing consumers based on outdated contexts, then you are free to do so. Maybe you will ultimately be right. I doubt it though. But we will see.