Digital Foundry is saying the GPU in the Neo is equivalent to a slightly underclocked Radeon RX 480. A card that sells for ~$300 on its own.
Makes the Neo price tag seem very reasonable.
The RX 480 is a 200 dollar GPU and given that consoles don't have separate VRAM like PC GPUs do, this comparison loses a lot of it's merit.
Maybe it's inflated right now due to demand but I didn't see it for less then ~$280 on Amazon.
The separate VRAM is a good point, but then again the PS4 is using shared ram that is essentially all VRAM and I imagine the vast majority is being allocated to games.
Cheaper on Newegg, like always, but it's $240-280 on there depending on the version.
Of course, Sony's not going to be paying retail price for them.
Of course, but it seems like a pretty good value proposition for consumers, assuming games take advantage of the increased GPU.
Though I just realized Dark Souls and Bloodborne are probably never going to take advantage. Sony apparently has set a directive saying that multiplayer titles can't have higher framerates on the Neo, which is a complete bummer and would affect all From Software games.
If Horizon Zero Dawn, Call of Duty, and Final Fantasy 15 look and/or run better at 1080p, I think I'll be happy with purchasing the Pro. I just hope we won't be see 4K and HDR support as the only features/improvements for a game's Pro mode. There's still a lot of vagueness about what we can expect. The event really seemed to have the purpose of pushing people to buy into the 4K market, too.
Dashui on
Xbox Live, PSN & Origin: Vacorsis 3DS: 2638-0037-166
Digital Foundry is saying the GPU in the Neo is equivalent to a slightly underclocked Radeon RX 480. A card that sells for ~$300 on its own.
Makes the Neo price tag seem very reasonable.
The RX 480 is a 200 dollar GPU and given that consoles don't have separate VRAM like PC GPUs do, this comparison loses a lot of it's merit.
Maybe it's inflated right now due to demand but I didn't see it for less then ~$280 on Amazon.
The separate VRAM is a good point, but then again the PS4 is using shared ram that is essentially all VRAM and I imagine the vast majority is being allocated to games.
Cheaper on Newegg, like always, but it's $240-280 on there depending on the version.
Of course, Sony's not going to be paying retail price for them.
Of course, but it seems like a pretty good value proposition for consumers, assuming games take advantage of the increased GPU.
Though I just realized Dark Souls and Bloodborne are probably never going to take advantage. Sony apparently has set a directive saying that multiplayer titles can't have higher framerates on the Neo, which is a complete bummer and would affect all From Software games.
Am I correct in thinking this was something that became a complication for the release of Dark Souls on PC? Putting aside the first game was crap before it was patched, is it an issue on later releases too?
It's a problem with every PC game, the workaround is to lower your graphical settings until you get a consistent 60fps and if that doesn't work then your options are to upgrade your PC or live with the framerate handicap. But on console, you can't really lower your settings, not unless the developers take it into account beforehand, and Sony doesn't want to screw base PS4 players over, so it makes sense to stamp down on it and enforce MP framerate parity.
Bloodborne does have an offline mode though, so surely they could patch that.
Digital Foundry is saying the GPU in the Neo is equivalent to a slightly underclocked Radeon RX 480. A card that sells for ~$300 on its own.
Makes the Neo price tag seem very reasonable.
The RX 480 is a 200 dollar GPU and given that consoles don't have separate VRAM like PC GPUs do, this comparison loses a lot of it's merit.
Maybe it's inflated right now due to demand but I didn't see it for less then ~$280 on Amazon.
The separate VRAM is a good point, but then again the PS4 is using shared ram that is essentially all VRAM and I imagine the vast majority is being allocated to games.
Cheaper on Newegg, like always, but it's $240-280 on there depending on the version.
Of course, Sony's not going to be paying retail price for them.
Of course, but it seems like a pretty good value proposition for consumers, assuming games take advantage of the increased GPU.
Though I just realized Dark Souls and Bloodborne are probably never going to take advantage. Sony apparently has set a directive saying that multiplayer titles can't have higher framerates on the Neo, which is a complete bummer and would affect all From Software games.
If Horizon Zero Dawn, Call of Duty, and Final Fantasy 15 look and/or run better at 1080p, I think I'll be happy with purchasing the Pro. I just hope we won't be see 4K and HDR support as the only features/improvements for a game's Pro mode. There's still a lot of vagueness about what we can expect. The event really seemed to have the purpose of pushing people to buy into the 4K market, too.
Oh I agree about the 4K push, which is what makes the UHD omission so strange.
Bloodborne was 95℅ an offline game for me anyway. Needing to spend a consumable just to do MP was a weird deviation from their other games.
There were sections of the game that had enemies summon other players to fight you. So even if you were playing and not using any items you'd still see the multiplayer.
I thought that stuff was really cool, though maybe they should have gone full Journey and removed any indication that it was another player. Some players get bent out of shape when they realize they are fighting another person instead of AI, even though there are AI enemies in that estentially behave like invading players.
They need to do that stuff more. My favourite thing about Watch Dogs was invading other peoples games and them not realising I was in there with them, just suddenly confused that their slow motion doesnt work and they cant access missions. To this day i still find people who cant figure out the signs that another player is in their game, its good fun
Sometimes games need to ignore all the rules that normally apply and break the players expectations up. I feel like a lot of the success of soulsborne is that principle
Long story short, Masayasu Ito, senior vice president at Sony Computer Entertainment, basically said that they won't stop third-party developers if they want to charge for those 4K update patches for existing games.
Now, that's not a huge issue as not every company would charge (and perhaps none would) and this is for 4K patches to older games, so upcoming games that come with native support will hopefully just come with that support. Still, this isn't going to be great optics.
Long story short, Masayasu Ito, senior vice president at Sony Computer Entertainment, basically said that they won't stop third-party developers if they want to charge for those 4K update patches for existing games.
Now, that's not a huge issue as not every company would charge (and perhaps none would) and this is for 4K patches to older games, so upcoming games that come with native support will hopefully just come with that support. Still, this isn't going to be great optics.
Old and shot down already. He was talking about costs on the developers end (as in it'll cost money to create the patches), not the consumers end. Here's a couple of dev posts from GAF:
I mean...it's the most non news ever. Patches after launch can sometimes cost money (not fees but costs associated with making a patch), and supporting Pro when required is just absorbed into the launch checklist and approval.
Patches can never be charged, nor can exclusive Pro content can be charged either.
While translation errors could add a wrinkle onto things, I don't see how you turn
Into talking about costs on the developers end. They're clearly talking about the cost to the consumer there. The thinking of the dev won't suddenly make developing the patch free after all.
Now he said, "I believe" which means he could easily be mistaken or wrong, but I'm pretty sure they're not talking about dev costs either way, there.
I saw news on the subject a few days ago, and it was worded as "If developers want to put out a Pro/4K patch, we will not charge them". Since charging devs to put out patches is a well known thing in the industry. Which seemed reasonable and a way to push the system and content.
If there's a "Developers can charge for a Pro/4K DLC" narrative... well...
While translation errors could add a wrinkle onto things, I don't see how you turn
Into talking about costs on the developers end. They're clearly talking about the cost to the consumer there. The thinking of the dev won't suddenly make developing the patch free after all.
Now he said, "I believe" which means he could easily be mistaken or wrong, but I'm pretty sure they're not talking about dev costs either way, there.
I wouldn't say that, the "thinking of the licensee" would determine whether they put real effort into the patch or if they did the absolute bare minimum.
But again, we have developers saying it's not the case and that they're not allowed to charge for them so I can't say I'm worried about it.
I'm unabashedly in favor of any good news for UHD because I really want the format to endure at least as long as streaming 4K blows (and...so should Sony, right?) so I am very happy to see this. Store shelves still look sparse but when I think about the early years of bluray--yeah, it is better.
As may have already been noted, Sony probably didn't save all that much excluding a UHD on the PSFro--$15 or less, considering they'd have better choices than Microsoft had for hardware. Which isn't nothing, but it's not a lot at the same time. I may have to take back what I said about frugality on their part, this might just be a way to force a stronger embrace of future Sony streaming options rather than a cost-saving measure.
It sucks for me personally--I just got a DSL ad boasting of an "unparalleled" monthly cap of 100 GB, with $10 extra for every 5 GB exceeded--and technically speaking, as a 4K TV owner who no longer has a PS4 in his household, I'd be a pretty ideal customer for it. Short of a UHD player falling into my lap, though, I really want that on my next console purchase (and I'm not planning to buy an Xbox One S).
But, of course, if you don't have a 4K television, all of this is old men shouting at clouds. It's even more irrelevant for HDR color screens, seeing how those are even rare than 4K television, but some patch is better than nothing.
I wonder if MS can patch HDR into older Xbox Ones too.
Am I correct in understanding that the patched HDR the PS4 can expect to receive will be markedly worse than what's been spec'd for the PSFro? That it's technically lesser than the included-at-launch HDR on the XB1S? Or is that information even available?
If so, presumably the XB1 would get that, or worse.
Still, something > nothing, even if it's literally the least used feature on the list. I certainly wouldn't turn it down even if I can't use it.
I wonder if MS can patch HDR into older Xbox Ones too.
Am I correct in understanding that the patched HDR the PS4 can expect to receive will be markedly worse than what's been spec'd for the PSFro?
Given Sony talked about what a minor hit to performance HDR is, I imagine maybe not?
I thought it had to do with the limitations of what you could program back in, that there are, in fact, different degrees of HDR going towards what we'd call "true HDR" today.
On the other hand, I have no damn idea. For all I know everything I heard was speculative rumor, aside from it being an extremely rare feature to take advantage of compared to others.
I wonder if MS can patch HDR into older Xbox Ones too.
Am I correct in understanding that the patched HDR the PS4 can expect to receive will be markedly worse than what's been spec'd for the PSFro? That it's technically lesser than the included-at-launch HDR on the XB1S? Or is that information even available?
If so, presumably the XB1 would get that, or worse.
Still, something > nothing, even if it's literally the least used feature on the list. I certainly wouldn't turn it down even if I can't use it.
No, HDR is a colour range. If it were worse it wouldn't be HDR.
I have no idea how Sony's HDR solution for older PS4s will work. Either all PS4s were actually shipped with HDMI 2.0 hardware or they're going to do something in software that they call HDR but isn't actually the real deal.
I have no idea how Sony's HDR solution for older PS4s will work. Either all PS4s were actually shipped with HDMI 2.0 hardware or they're going to do something in software that they call HDR but isn't actually the real deal.
The main theory I've heard is that Sony shipped the PS4 with a custom HDMI controller with enough bandwidth to handle HDR but I did just read one post that said old PS4s are using a less bandwidth intensive HDR spec (which would make me wrong above) but that's the first I've heard of something like that. We'll find out soon enough, firmware 4.0 just hit so I'd expect Digital Foundry to have something up within the next day or two.
Honestly, I'd guess leaving the UHD out of the pro was simply an attempt to save money, based on the lingering frustrations of the PS3 launch (which lost them loads of money). Same thing as leaving memory out of the Vita, only you can't buy the UHD separately.
Problem is the decision made for terrible optics. Even the casual publications noticed the omission.
Honestly, I'd guess leaving the UHD out of the pro was simply an attempt to save money, based on the lingering frustrations of the PS3 launch (which lost them loads of money). Same thing as leaving memory out of the Vita, only you can't buy the UHD separately.
Problem is the decision made for terrible optics. Even the casual publications noticed the omission.
I imagine it wouldn't be as big of an issue if MS hadn't tossed one into the One S. Like, if MS's cheap, slimline console has one, why doesn't Sony's big beefy new thing have one?
If I have a 1080p TV and a 2GB HDD in my PS4, there's really no reason I should be interested in the PS4 Pro, right?
It will supposedly do more effects to stuff at 1080p if the developers put that stuff in. If you really really really like pretty graphics then buy a pcmaybe.
Honestly, I'd guess leaving the UHD out of the pro was simply an attempt to save money, based on the lingering frustrations of the PS3 launch (which lost them loads of money). Same thing as leaving memory out of the Vita, only you can't buy the UHD separately.
Problem is the decision made for terrible optics. Even the casual publications noticed the omission.
Well, it saved them $15, possibly less, certainly not more, per console, based on the cost of including it on the XB1S.
Which is a lot less than I would've thought. Eye-witness accounts suggest that the PSFro is going to be big--like, substantially large, launch XB1 large--so they might get a little flack for not including it on a large machine, but they probably consider that worth it.
The PSFro will still be pretty heavy, but lighter than the original XB1 (inc/ power brick) at 3.3 kg versus 3.5 kg as well as substantially shorter (55 mm versus 79 mm). Its footprint, interestingly, will be noticeable larger/longer: 327 x 295 mm versus 333 x 274 mm. Also, it's pretty much guaranteed it will have a 5400 RPM drive because that's literally what every single console with one exclusion has this generation.
Also, even if you don't like the new design, you have to admit that the new PS4 is very darn light.
If I have a 1080p TV and a 2GB HDD in my PS4, there's really no reason I should be interested in the PS4 Pro, right?
It will supposedly do more effects to stuff at 1080p if the developers put that stuff in. If you really really really like pretty graphics then buy a pcmaybe.
I already have a super PC. And Oculus, Xbox One, Wii U, etc., etc.
I have PSVR coming, also. Does the Pro do anything for PSVR?
If I have a 1080p TV and a 2GB HDD in my PS4, there's really no reason I should be interested in the PS4 Pro, right?
It will supposedly do more effects to stuff at 1080p if the developers put that stuff in. If you really really really like pretty graphics then buy a pcmaybe.
I already have a super PC. And Oculus, Xbox One, Wii U, etc., etc.
I have PSVR coming, also. Does the Pro do anything for PSVR?
The reveal stream (I'm watching the Giant Bomb guys talk over it now) said something about twice as much fidelity for PSVR when run on PS4 Pro.
If I have a 1080p TV and a 2GB HDD in my PS4, there's really no reason I should be interested in the PS4 Pro, right?
It will supposedly do more effects to stuff at 1080p if the developers put that stuff in. If you really really really like pretty graphics then buy a pcmaybe.
I already have a super PC. And Oculus, Xbox One, Wii U, etc., etc.
I have PSVR coming, also. Does the Pro do anything for PSVR?
The reveal stream (I'm watching the Giant Bomb guys talk over it now) said something about twice as much fidelity for PSVR when run on PS4 Pro.
Fuck.
Well I guess this the most important question: Can I transfer P.T. over to it?
Now that's just dumb. How do you even pronounce that? 4-RO? Fro? 4-R-O?
Well, in reviewing the orthography of leet - or "l33t" as it is colloquially known - speak one finds that usage of the numeral 4 in the midst of a word or acronym is typically as a homoglyph for the letter A. Note the visual resemblance between the 4 and the A. Uncanny.
Given that, one must conclude that PS4ro is a stand-in for Pissarro - albeit one that attempts to bridge the divide of ages in a way that millenials can be "down with."
Why Pissarro? I'm glad you asked! Camille Pissarro was a Danish-French master of Impressionism and Neo-Impressionism, and the only artist to have shown his work at all eight Paris Impressionist exhibitions. He was an influence and role model for not just the Impressionists, but all four of the major Post-Impressionists: Georges Seurat, Paul Cézanne, Vincent van Gogh and Paul Gauguin. As such, he was a brilliant choice on Sony's part for emulation in the new graphical modes available to choose from with the PS4ro. Yes, yes, the masses will likely fixate on improvements such as 1080p locked at 60fps or with all the bells and whistles locked at 30FPS, for now at any rate. I, for one, believe that once they see the other options Sony has made available minds will be blown, if you will.
Impressionist mode:
Post-Impressionist mode:
Metal Gear Solid 3: PS4ro Edition in Pointillism mode:
Posts
If Horizon Zero Dawn, Call of Duty, and Final Fantasy 15 look and/or run better at 1080p, I think I'll be happy with purchasing the Pro. I just hope we won't be see 4K and HDR support as the only features/improvements for a game's Pro mode. There's still a lot of vagueness about what we can expect. The event really seemed to have the purpose of pushing people to buy into the 4K market, too.
It's a problem with every PC game, the workaround is to lower your graphical settings until you get a consistent 60fps and if that doesn't work then your options are to upgrade your PC or live with the framerate handicap. But on console, you can't really lower your settings, not unless the developers take it into account beforehand, and Sony doesn't want to screw base PS4 players over, so it makes sense to stamp down on it and enforce MP framerate parity.
Bloodborne does have an offline mode though, so surely they could patch that.
Blog||Tumblr|Steam|Twitter|FFXIV|Twitch|YouTube|Podcast|PSN|XBL|DarkZero
Oh I agree about the 4K push, which is what makes the UHD omission so strange.
There were sections of the game that had enemies summon other players to fight you. So even if you were playing and not using any items you'd still see the multiplayer.
I thought that stuff was really cool, though maybe they should have gone full Journey and removed any indication that it was another player. Some players get bent out of shape when they realize they are fighting another person instead of AI, even though there are AI enemies in that estentially behave like invading players.
Sometimes games need to ignore all the rules that normally apply and break the players expectations up. I feel like a lot of the success of soulsborne is that principle
http://www.geek.com/games/ps4-pro-game-patches-for-existing-ps4-titles-may-cost-money-1670267/
Long story short, Masayasu Ito, senior vice president at Sony Computer Entertainment, basically said that they won't stop third-party developers if they want to charge for those 4K update patches for existing games.
Now, that's not a huge issue as not every company would charge (and perhaps none would) and this is for 4K patches to older games, so upcoming games that come with native support will hopefully just come with that support. Still, this isn't going to be great optics.
They won't get away with it
Cue a PR apology letter
Old and shot down already. He was talking about costs on the developers end (as in it'll cost money to create the patches), not the consumers end. Here's a couple of dev posts from GAF: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=216388989#post216388989
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=216387612#post216387612
Into talking about costs on the developers end. They're clearly talking about the cost to the consumer there. The thinking of the dev won't suddenly make developing the patch free after all.
Now he said, "I believe" which means he could easily be mistaken or wrong, but I'm pretty sure they're not talking about dev costs either way, there.
If there's a "Developers can charge for a Pro/4K DLC" narrative... well...
I wouldn't say that, the "thinking of the licensee" would determine whether they put real effort into the patch or if they did the absolute bare minimum.
But again, we have developers saying it's not the case and that they're not allowed to charge for them so I can't say I'm worried about it.
http://variety.com/2016/digital/news/early-ultra-hd-blu-ray-sales-numbers-exceed-disc-predecessor-1201804322/
I'm unabashedly in favor of any good news for UHD because I really want the format to endure at least as long as streaming 4K blows (and...so should Sony, right?) so I am very happy to see this. Store shelves still look sparse but when I think about the early years of bluray--yeah, it is better.
As may have already been noted, Sony probably didn't save all that much excluding a UHD on the PSFro--$15 or less, considering they'd have better choices than Microsoft had for hardware. Which isn't nothing, but it's not a lot at the same time. I may have to take back what I said about frugality on their part, this might just be a way to force a stronger embrace of future Sony streaming options rather than a cost-saving measure.
It sucks for me personally--I just got a DSL ad boasting of an "unparalleled" monthly cap of 100 GB, with $10 extra for every 5 GB exceeded--and technically speaking, as a 4K TV owner who no longer has a PS4 in his household, I'd be a pretty ideal customer for it. Short of a UHD player falling into my lap, though, I really want that on my next console purchase (and I'm not planning to buy an Xbox One S).
But, of course, if you don't have a 4K television, all of this is old men shouting at clouds. It's even more irrelevant for HDR color screens, seeing how those are even rare than 4K television, but some patch is better than nothing.
Am I correct in understanding that the patched HDR the PS4 can expect to receive will be markedly worse than what's been spec'd for the PSFro? That it's technically lesser than the included-at-launch HDR on the XB1S? Or is that information even available?
If so, presumably the XB1 would get that, or worse.
Still, something > nothing, even if it's literally the least used feature on the list. I certainly wouldn't turn it down even if I can't use it.
Given Sony talked about what a minor hit to performance HDR is, I imagine maybe not?
I thought it had to do with the limitations of what you could program back in, that there are, in fact, different degrees of HDR going towards what we'd call "true HDR" today.
On the other hand, I have no damn idea. For all I know everything I heard was speculative rumor, aside from it being an extremely rare feature to take advantage of compared to others.
No, HDR is a colour range. If it were worse it wouldn't be HDR.
The main theory I've heard is that Sony shipped the PS4 with a custom HDMI controller with enough bandwidth to handle HDR but I did just read one post that said old PS4s are using a less bandwidth intensive HDR spec (which would make me wrong above) but that's the first I've heard of something like that. We'll find out soon enough, firmware 4.0 just hit so I'd expect Digital Foundry to have something up within the next day or two.
PS4ro
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Problem is the decision made for terrible optics. Even the casual publications noticed the omission.
I imagine it wouldn't be as big of an issue if MS hadn't tossed one into the One S. Like, if MS's cheap, slimline console has one, why doesn't Sony's big beefy new thing have one?
I assume you mean you have a 2TB HDD :P
Otherwise, nah, there's really no reason for you to get one. Unless you really want all the little extra bells and whistles too.
It will supposedly do more effects to stuff at 1080p if the developers put that stuff in. If you really really really like pretty graphics then buy a pc maybe.
Nah, 2GB. I only have Pong installed. Why would anyone need more than Pong?
(Yes, I meant 2TB
edit: What are some of the bells and whistles?
Now that's just dumb. How do you even pronounce that? 4-RO? Fro? 4-R-O?
Well, it saved them $15, possibly less, certainly not more, per console, based on the cost of including it on the XB1S.
Which is a lot less than I would've thought. Eye-witness accounts suggest that the PSFro is going to be big--like, substantially large, launch XB1 large--so they might get a little flack for not including it on a large machine, but they probably consider that worth it.
EDIT: Ah, here we go
The PSFro will still be pretty heavy, but lighter than the original XB1 (inc/ power brick) at 3.3 kg versus 3.5 kg as well as substantially shorter (55 mm versus 79 mm). Its footprint, interestingly, will be noticeable larger/longer: 327 x 295 mm versus 333 x 274 mm. Also, it's pretty much guaranteed it will have a 5400 RPM drive because that's literally what every single console with one exclusion has this generation.
Also, even if you don't like the new design, you have to admit that the new PS4 is very darn light.
I already have a super PC. And Oculus, Xbox One, Wii U, etc., etc.
I have PSVR coming, also. Does the Pro do anything for PSVR?
The reveal stream (I'm watching the Giant Bomb guys talk over it now) said something about twice as much fidelity for PSVR when run on PS4 Pro.
Fuck.
Well I guess this the most important question: Can I transfer P.T. over to it?
There is no 'B' in the name! I will kill you, Scottsman!
Well, in reviewing the orthography of leet - or "l33t" as it is colloquially known - speak one finds that usage of the numeral 4 in the midst of a word or acronym is typically as a homoglyph for the letter A. Note the visual resemblance between the 4 and the A. Uncanny.
Given that, one must conclude that PS4ro is a stand-in for Pissarro - albeit one that attempts to bridge the divide of ages in a way that millenials can be "down with."
Why Pissarro? I'm glad you asked! Camille Pissarro was a Danish-French master of Impressionism and Neo-Impressionism, and the only artist to have shown his work at all eight Paris Impressionist exhibitions. He was an influence and role model for not just the Impressionists, but all four of the major Post-Impressionists: Georges Seurat, Paul Cézanne, Vincent van Gogh and Paul Gauguin. As such, he was a brilliant choice on Sony's part for emulation in the new graphical modes available to choose from with the PS4ro. Yes, yes, the masses will likely fixate on improvements such as 1080p locked at 60fps or with all the bells and whistles locked at 30FPS, for now at any rate. I, for one, believe that once they see the other options Sony has made available minds will be blown, if you will.
Impressionist mode:
Post-Impressionist mode:
Metal Gear Solid 3: PS4ro Edition in Pointillism mode:
The possibilities are staggering.