Creating a more powerful inter-rim console just seems wasteful. Developers will have to aim for one of them and that's going to be the original model.
I imagine Sony will mandate both as part of the certification process for new games. Really it won't be much different than offering different graphics settings on their PC versions, but limited to two possibilities instead of a huge range. PS4, use these graphics settings. PS4.5, use these. Medium vs High. The big issue may be with multiplayer where greater FPS could give an advantage to the players on the 4.5. They may need to lock the framerate, which would cause grumbling of its own.
Is that you never had to worry about upgrading them and you knew that everyone has exactly the same version of the hardware.
You also knew that every game would always work on your console.
The PS4 is 4K ready...for videos (note the last edit date on article). The 4.5 is supposed to enable the support for games as well. I have to wonder though; did it really require new hardware, or could Sony have unlocked the 4K Gaming capability through a firmware patch? Knowing Sony's track record, I seriously think they're going with the hardware fix only because it will drive more sales of the unit...where a simple OTA update probably would have sufficed. This question probably won't be answered without seeing the proposed hardware differences.
There is exactly 0 chance this won't require a massive hardware upgrade if they are going to do 4K gaming. Unlike previous generations, this console is x86 (OK x64 but you get the point) based and we know what the APU they used is capable of, or at least we have a very good idea of it's possible range. We also know from PC gaming what it takes to do 4K gaming and the gap between those two bits of knowledge is not insignificant. So unless they plan for a 10-15fps 4K experience (and I'm probably being generous there) it's going to require new hardware. Even then, unless AMD has made some recent breakthrough or has gone into the charity business, I can't see them doing 4K gaming and keeping their current price point. Yes, discounts for volume and all that, but chips powerful enough to do what they want are not free to manufacture, and they are only one component in the overall cost of the unit. Sony would need to take a massive hit, selling the PS4.5 well below their costs to keep it at $400.
Also keep in mind Sony probably wants to do 4K UHD blu-ray playback, since it's Sony and they own a chunk of the BD spec. That will probably take new hardware as well for the drive and HDMI port (although it's possible they could flash the port, they did some crazy flash only upgrades on the PS3 due to their use of programmable hardware where most devices use dedicated chips).
Sure you might be able to use PS VR with the current gen PS4 but I would put money on them pushing this hard for a decent experience. In the mean time I'm going to Japan to open a pitchforks and torches vending business. I have a feeling it's going to be very profitable very soon.
Or, perhaps they are charging you more to view the content they do not own because they actually have to pay for it... because, you know, they don't own it in the first place... where if they own it already, then it is theirs to do with as they see fit and charge for it... or not.
So take your own advice.
Like I said, the last mile, especially when you are talking about wireless is exponentially more expensive than what comes before it, especially when many of these carriers already own backbones, or backbone providers, in the first place. This has nothing to do with cost to provide these bits vs those bits, it's about trying to skirt net neutrality rules to get money from companies to allow those companies bits to cross over the provider networks in a preferential way, and using their user as leverage. I buy internet from a provider, I should be able to use it as I see fit. I wouldn't stand for my power company charging me different rates depending on what brand washing machine I own, so why should I put up with it from my ISP?
Also, and I know the GP you replied to used it as his example, but we really are not talking about data the ISP "owns" or that is sourced from their network vs outside traffic. We are talking about data from different outside sources, data that costs the ISP the same bit-for-bit to deliver to their users. If they can strike a deal with "Bob's video streaming and tackle" to stream their content to their end users without it affecting the end user's data cap, that tells me I'm being overcharged and that my data caps really are artificial bullshit to grab more money from me.
Or, perhaps they are charging you more to view the content they do not own because they actually have to pay for it... because, you know, they don't own it in the first place... where if they own it already, then it is theirs to do with as they see fit and charge for it... or not.
No, that's not how this works at all. We aren't talking about a TV bundle here. Youtube doesn't charge AT&T for their content. As for cost to deliver it, well the last mile is the most expensive, especially for wireless providers, so it costs the same no matter who owns it.
This is just a different approach to break net neutrality. Instead of "pay us or we will put you on a slow lane" it's "pay us and we won't charge our customers to use your content." It has the same effect, pay the carriers or lose an advantage to those who do. The entire idea behind net neutrality is to uncouple the content from the pipe and allow an even playing field so the Googles of the world don't get (yet another) advantage over upstart sites. It's very anti-competitive.
Image it this way: What if Fox News or MSNBC (pick your anti-ideology) signed a deal with AT&T to allow their content to be viewed for free, but no other news source did. See any problem with that?
It's probably about retaining users. If users get smashed with massive overages for using Netflix, they would say "Fuck this!" and cancel their subscriptions.
It seems to be more than carrier based as well. I've streamed Netflix via a tethered AT&T phone and it was at 1080p, so they are looking at more than just the source IP for this.
Bandwidth mostly, due to being 4K vs 1080p. Well that and the fact that it's actually being supported and you can get UHD Blurays with HDR transfers now. Like I said, given the choice between 4K 3D and 4K HDR, I'd have to go with HDR. But in a while, after they get the kinks worked out. Right now it's actually causing problems for people.
I'm referring to people leaving the fob in their car when they park in their garage at night for convenience, not locking yourself out. I don't know about you, but I don't lock my car doors when it's parked inside my own garage. While I do lock the door between my house and garage (and thus would notice if I left my house key, attached to a fob, in the car) many people don't do that either.
Not really and different than leaving their keys in it but still, I know people personally who are doofy enough to do it. I'm sure there are plenty of other out there who would.
This makes me seriously wonder how many people keep the key in their car when they park at their house, to prevent just such an occurrence.
My car won't lock the doors with the fob inside without a person inside.
I supposed you could set a heavy weight on one of the seats to fool the sensor, but that seems to be a lot of trouble to go through to avoid having to put your damn keys in your pocket (or purse) in the morning.
Especially when most people just put the fob on the same keychain as their house keys.
Yea but how many people lock their car doors when they are parked in their own garage? I certainly don't.
Sure there is. Especially in a movie theater where you have a 30 foot wide screen. You have to sit fairly close or have a 60"+ TV for it to really matter at home.
However, if 3D content libraries start to expand, I'd love to get a passive 3D 4K TV because I hate active shutter glasses and I hate the 50% cut in resolution you get on 1080p passive 3D TVs. I own three 3D Blu-Rays and a player, but still haven't bought the TV yet because I haven't seen anything I liked. They dropped out of the market pretty quickly. Passive 3D uses alternate lines for the left or right eye, so you would still get 1080 lines on 4K.
Then you should probably run out and get a 4K 3D LG TV while you can. They are dropping support for 3D in new sets (along with Samsung, RIP 3D at home) but LG does have a line of 4K TVs with passive 3D at the moment. I have one of their 1080p sets and it's OK. Still kind of a gimmick but fun once in a while and i don't get that "my eyes are being pinched" feeling that active shutter glasses give me.
The downside is I don't know if they have one with 4K 3D and HDR. HDR is a much better feature than 3D IMHO.
Is there really any actual, noticeable difference in picture quality between 1080x and 2160x? Or is this just another solution in search of a problem?
Depends on the source. High bitrate 4K videos look amazing. Netflix 4K looks good but nothing to write home about. Adding in HDR makes the difference much more noticeable however. Anyway, as the panel producers move over to 4K the price is dropping rapidly, so 4K TV are hitting prices comparable to what 1080p sets of the same size/feature set were selling for not long ago. Even if the content isn't there yet, there soon won't be any reason to not go with one as they are essentially going to displace 1080p in the retail market.
Plus 4K TV panel production is pushing the cost of 4K monitors down, and 4K monitors bring so much screen real-estate with them. I never want to go back to a claustrophobic 1080p or even 1440p again. NEVER!
I'd rather plug in a Roku than have built-in SmartTV apps. It's a lot easier to replace an older, Roku box if it becomes unsupported than it is to replace the TV if the manufacturer stops supporting SmartTV features.
That's one of the nice things about this new Visio, they are dropping their own proprietary "app store" for a slightly more open google standard. The are essentially baking a version of Chromecast into the TV. I really wish everyone would get together and come up with a standard for casting apps but this is better than everyone trying to do their own apps. The streaming providers are much less likely to drop support for the entire Google ecosystem vs some one off smart TV.
Also, you do know you are allowed to use a Roku on a SmartTV, right? You can even add one on if the built-in SmartTV stuff stops working, instead of replacing the entire TV. I did this with a chromecast and an ancient HP (yes, don't laugh, I got it on sale new) smart TV. Just saying.
I'd be happy if they just let retailers sell digital games the same way they let them sell physicals. Best Buy's GCU and Amazon Prime both give me 20% off on new games. I would LOVE to go all digital but that's a steep price difference, especially when the digital edition doesn't have the added costs of being pressed, packaged, and shipped.
They already tried that. The XBOne was supposed to ship with just such a technology. People freaked out and they backed down. I don't see a second attempt going any better.
Why does my geographical location determine whether or not I'm allowed to access the content I paid for? If I buy a physical book or a DVD, am I not allowed to read or watch it if I travel to another country? Of course I am. Why is streaming video different?
Actually DVD Region coding is a thing so unless you travel with your DVD player as well, yes, they can prevent you from watching it in a different country (or region as they define it, but you get the point).
As for it not being Netflix's job to enforce it, it really is. It is in their contracts with the content producers. You think Netflix cares where you watch from? It's more money for them. But they don't have any real choice in the matter. If the content producers say "Hey, fix this or we will stop providing content, or even sue for breach of contract." they have to listen.
And Facebook, an app that just eats cycles and battery life on both iOS and Android. That such a major player as Facebook writes such a shitty awful resource hogging app frankly shocks me... until I remember iTunes on Windows.
Facebook was actually caught cheating once by playing inaudible audio to prevent iOS from putting it into sleep.
Really? Gamers care? What Gamer is running games from the Windows store???
None, that's just it though. Microsoft is pushing it for their PC releases. Quantum Break, for example, is going to be exclusive to the Windows Store. It won't be on Steam or any other 3rd party platform. They are moving all of their 1st party games this direction and the fear is they are pushing 3rd party devs to do it as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Pretty sure that was just the toilet on the 2nd floor.
Creating a more powerful inter-rim console just seems wasteful. Developers will have to aim for one of them and that's going to be the original model.
I imagine Sony will mandate both as part of the certification process for new games. Really it won't be much different than offering different graphics settings on their PC versions, but limited to two possibilities instead of a huge range. PS4, use these graphics settings. PS4.5, use these. Medium vs High. The big issue may be with multiplayer where greater FPS could give an advantage to the players on the 4.5. They may need to lock the framerate, which would cause grumbling of its own.
Is that you never had to worry about upgrading them and you knew that everyone has exactly the same version of the hardware. You also knew that every game would always work on your console.
FTFY
The PS4 is 4K ready...for videos (note the last edit date on article). The 4.5 is supposed to enable the support for games as well. I have to wonder though; did it really require new hardware, or could Sony have unlocked the 4K Gaming capability through a firmware patch? Knowing Sony's track record, I seriously think they're going with the hardware fix only because it will drive more sales of the unit...where a simple OTA update probably would have sufficed. This question probably won't be answered without seeing the proposed hardware differences.
There is exactly 0 chance this won't require a massive hardware upgrade if they are going to do 4K gaming. Unlike previous generations, this console is x86 (OK x64 but you get the point) based and we know what the APU they used is capable of, or at least we have a very good idea of it's possible range. We also know from PC gaming what it takes to do 4K gaming and the gap between those two bits of knowledge is not insignificant. So unless they plan for a 10-15fps 4K experience (and I'm probably being generous there) it's going to require new hardware. Even then, unless AMD has made some recent breakthrough or has gone into the charity business, I can't see them doing 4K gaming and keeping their current price point. Yes, discounts for volume and all that, but chips powerful enough to do what they want are not free to manufacture, and they are only one component in the overall cost of the unit. Sony would need to take a massive hit, selling the PS4.5 well below their costs to keep it at $400.
Also keep in mind Sony probably wants to do 4K UHD blu-ray playback, since it's Sony and they own a chunk of the BD spec. That will probably take new hardware as well for the drive and HDMI port (although it's possible they could flash the port, they did some crazy flash only upgrades on the PS3 due to their use of programmable hardware where most devices use dedicated chips).
Sure you might be able to use PS VR with the current gen PS4 but I would put money on them pushing this hard for a decent experience. In the mean time I'm going to Japan to open a pitchforks and torches vending business. I have a feeling it's going to be very profitable very soon.
Or, perhaps they are charging you more to view the content they do not own because they actually have to pay for it... because, you know, they don't own it in the first place... where if they own it already, then it is theirs to do with as they see fit and charge for it... or not.
So take your own advice.
Like I said, the last mile, especially when you are talking about wireless is exponentially more expensive than what comes before it, especially when many of these carriers already own backbones, or backbone providers, in the first place. This has nothing to do with cost to provide these bits vs those bits, it's about trying to skirt net neutrality rules to get money from companies to allow those companies bits to cross over the provider networks in a preferential way, and using their user as leverage. I buy internet from a provider, I should be able to use it as I see fit. I wouldn't stand for my power company charging me different rates depending on what brand washing machine I own, so why should I put up with it from my ISP?
Also, and I know the GP you replied to used it as his example, but we really are not talking about data the ISP "owns" or that is sourced from their network vs outside traffic. We are talking about data from different outside sources, data that costs the ISP the same bit-for-bit to deliver to their users. If they can strike a deal with "Bob's video streaming and tackle" to stream their content to their end users without it affecting the end user's data cap, that tells me I'm being overcharged and that my data caps really are artificial bullshit to grab more money from me.
Or, perhaps they are charging you more to view the content they do not own because they actually have to pay for it... because, you know, they don't own it in the first place... where if they own it already, then it is theirs to do with as they see fit and charge for it... or not.
No, that's not how this works at all. We aren't talking about a TV bundle here. Youtube doesn't charge AT&T for their content. As for cost to deliver it, well the last mile is the most expensive, especially for wireless providers, so it costs the same no matter who owns it.
This is just a different approach to break net neutrality. Instead of "pay us or we will put you on a slow lane" it's "pay us and we won't charge our customers to use your content." It has the same effect, pay the carriers or lose an advantage to those who do. The entire idea behind net neutrality is to uncouple the content from the pipe and allow an even playing field so the Googles of the world don't get (yet another) advantage over upstart sites. It's very anti-competitive.
Image it this way: What if Fox News or MSNBC (pick your anti-ideology) signed a deal with AT&T to allow their content to be viewed for free, but no other news source did. See any problem with that?
So, the obvious question now is "when is it discontinued"?
Pretty sure that would be today. I see this as Google setting it out on the curb with a "free" sign on it. Shame they won't open source it.
It's probably about retaining users. If users get smashed with massive overages for using Netflix, they would say "Fuck this!" and cancel their subscriptions.
It seems to be more than carrier based as well. I've streamed Netflix via a tethered AT&T phone and it was at 1080p, so they are looking at more than just the source IP for this.
Bandwidth mostly, due to being 4K vs 1080p. Well that and the fact that it's actually being supported and you can get UHD Blurays with HDR transfers now. Like I said, given the choice between 4K 3D and 4K HDR, I'd have to go with HDR. But in a while, after they get the kinks worked out. Right now it's actually causing problems for people.
I'm referring to people leaving the fob in their car when they park in their garage at night for convenience, not locking yourself out. I don't know about you, but I don't lock my car doors when it's parked inside my own garage. While I do lock the door between my house and garage (and thus would notice if I left my house key, attached to a fob, in the car) many people don't do that either.
Not really and different than leaving their keys in it but still, I know people personally who are doofy enough to do it. I'm sure there are plenty of other out there who would.
This makes me seriously wonder how many people keep the key in their car when they park at their house, to prevent just such an occurrence.
My car won't lock the doors with the fob inside without a person inside. I supposed you could set a heavy weight on one of the seats to fool the sensor, but that seems to be a lot of trouble to go through to avoid having to put your damn keys in your pocket (or purse) in the morning. Especially when most people just put the fob on the same keychain as their house keys.
Yea but how many people lock their car doors when they are parked in their own garage? I certainly don't.
Sure there is. Especially in a movie theater where you have a 30 foot wide screen. You have to sit fairly close or have a 60"+ TV for it to really matter at home.
However, if 3D content libraries start to expand, I'd love to get a passive 3D 4K TV because I hate active shutter glasses and I hate the 50% cut in resolution you get on 1080p passive 3D TVs. I own three 3D Blu-Rays and a player, but still haven't bought the TV yet because I haven't seen anything I liked. They dropped out of the market pretty quickly. Passive 3D uses alternate lines for the left or right eye, so you would still get 1080 lines on 4K.
Then you should probably run out and get a 4K 3D LG TV while you can. They are dropping support for 3D in new sets (along with Samsung, RIP 3D at home) but LG does have a line of 4K TVs with passive 3D at the moment. I have one of their 1080p sets and it's OK. Still kind of a gimmick but fun once in a while and i don't get that "my eyes are being pinched" feeling that active shutter glasses give me.
The downside is I don't know if they have one with 4K 3D and HDR. HDR is a much better feature than 3D IMHO.
Is there really any actual, noticeable difference in picture quality between 1080x and 2160x? Or is this just another solution in search of a problem?
Depends on the source. High bitrate 4K videos look amazing. Netflix 4K looks good but nothing to write home about. Adding in HDR makes the difference much more noticeable however. Anyway, as the panel producers move over to 4K the price is dropping rapidly, so 4K TV are hitting prices comparable to what 1080p sets of the same size/feature set were selling for not long ago. Even if the content isn't there yet, there soon won't be any reason to not go with one as they are essentially going to displace 1080p in the retail market.
Plus 4K TV panel production is pushing the cost of 4K monitors down, and 4K monitors bring so much screen real-estate with them. I never want to go back to a claustrophobic 1080p or even 1440p again. NEVER!
I'd rather plug in a Roku than have built-in SmartTV apps. It's a lot easier to replace an older, Roku box if it becomes unsupported than it is to replace the TV if the manufacturer stops supporting SmartTV features.
That's one of the nice things about this new Visio, they are dropping their own proprietary "app store" for a slightly more open google standard. The are essentially baking a version of Chromecast into the TV. I really wish everyone would get together and come up with a standard for casting apps but this is better than everyone trying to do their own apps. The streaming providers are much less likely to drop support for the entire Google ecosystem vs some one off smart TV.
Also, you do know you are allowed to use a Roku on a SmartTV, right? You can even add one on if the built-in SmartTV stuff stops working, instead of replacing the entire TV. I did this with a chromecast and an ancient HP (yes, don't laugh, I got it on sale new) smart TV. Just saying.
This makes me seriously wonder how many people keep the key in their car when they park at their house, to prevent just such an occurrence.
Excuse me, I need to go... car shopping.
You should see if you live in the same area as this guy and just cut craigslist out of the middle.
I'd be happy if they just let retailers sell digital games the same way they let them sell physicals. Best Buy's GCU and Amazon Prime both give me 20% off on new games. I would LOVE to go all digital but that's a steep price difference, especially when the digital edition doesn't have the added costs of being pressed, packaged, and shipped.
They already tried that. The XBOne was supposed to ship with just such a technology. People freaked out and they backed down. I don't see a second attempt going any better.
Why does my geographical location determine whether or not I'm allowed to access the content I paid for? If I buy a physical book or a DVD, am I not allowed to read or watch it if I travel to another country? Of course I am. Why is streaming video different?
Actually DVD Region coding is a thing so unless you travel with your DVD player as well, yes, they can prevent you from watching it in a different country (or region as they define it, but you get the point).
As for it not being Netflix's job to enforce it, it really is. It is in their contracts with the content producers. You think Netflix cares where you watch from? It's more money for them. But they don't have any real choice in the matter. If the content producers say "Hey, fix this or we will stop providing content, or even sue for breach of contract." they have to listen.
A good chunk of the US east of the Rockies is pretty humid in the summer months.
And Facebook, an app that just eats cycles and battery life on both iOS and Android. That such a major player as Facebook writes such a shitty awful resource hogging app frankly shocks me... until I remember iTunes on Windows.
Facebook was actually caught cheating once by playing inaudible audio to prevent iOS from putting it into sleep.
Exactly. She already confirmed she did nothing wrong.
This is Guccifer's problem. If he would just come out and confirm that he did nothing wrong in a press conference then it would all go away.
Really? Gamers care? What Gamer is running games from the Windows store???
None, that's just it though. Microsoft is pushing it for their PC releases. Quantum Break, for example, is going to be exclusive to the Windows Store. It won't be on Steam or any other 3rd party platform. They are moving all of their 1st party games this direction and the fear is they are pushing 3rd party devs to do it as well.
How about we get the rest of the world to agree to begin to deorbit their old sats onto Pyongyang instead of a parking orbit or into the ocean.