PS4 VS PC, wrong. PS4 = PC, Discuss

[MiriaJiyuu]

And the second diference is the different gameplay paradigm that results from the difference between games designed for staring at a TV from a couch with a controller in hand, and for crouching over a monitor at a desk, with a keyboard and a mouse at hand.

Sorry, but the amount of times I see this, I'm going to be one of the people who points it out this time

You DO NOT have to play at a desk; plugging your computer into your TV is exactly the same as plugging in any gaming console, you plug the power in and plug the cables into your TV.

You also DO NOT have to play with a mouse and keyboard, even indie games include the use of gamepads, XInput (XBox 360 controller used on your computer basically) is easy to use and included in most games, even the Dualshock 3 Driver tool for PS3 controllers includes XInput emulation.

You do not "have to", but old paradigms exist strong enough that they influence most of game design. There are entire genres, franchises, and trends, that only exist to begin with because of the systems that they were originally written for. And I'm not only talking about controls but also generally about the way we think of the "living room" or about the "computer".

Yes, technically you can try to port any cursor-controlled game to a console, even a grand strategy, or a point and click adventure, by replacing the mouse with a joystick. An vice versa, a PC could theoretically run anything with a controller as peripheral.

You could play Angry Birds on PC, chess on a TV screen, Mass Effect on a mobile phone, and Populous with a VR helmet. Somehow. But game platforms are more than a buch of hardware spcifications, they are also sub-mediums with their own established way of presenting games.

1. Strategy games that are not turn-based don't work on console, they only really work on the PC, that's just they way they are though.

2. A PC can use more peripherals than a console. I have a mouse and keyboard, controller, sideboard with macro keys, flight stick, steering wheel, etc etc.

3. The paradigms exist in the minds of consumers, not developers. Well unless your name is Bioware, in which case you can't use a controller for their games, (mostly because they build the interface like an MMO for PC). However for developers like Ubisoft, their games are built around the controller and they even said for the PC version of AC3 use a controller as a mouse and keyboard is simply not viable.

Speaking of MMOs actually, your statement would be correct there, most MMOs can only be played with a mouse and keyboard.

Anyway, my point is that, the view that PC games have to be played with a mouse and keyboard and at your desk is incorrect. Steam Big Picture would be my point, it is designed for TVs and to work with a controller.

 

[MiriaJiyuu]

-snip-

You actually missed mine, what you said is what I know. I never said ALL games HAD to use a controller, just that the assumption many make that it's all you CAN use is incorrect.

Yes your right, different input methods don't carry well between each other, never have, however I was more going for it's not the system that causes these paradigms but the input methods they use, if a PS3 could use a mouse and keyboard as game input you could put an RTS on it, it's not the system itself that limits it, it's the peripherals.

RTS is probably the best genre your right, another would be games that use isometric view, they just don't work as well with controllers due to the fact they tend to use point and click.

Also please don't mention the space key and Mass Effect 2 in the same sentence.... that was... no I don't know what to call it, painful would be good though. I'll never understand how they thought binding all those actions to space was a good idea and then they gave separate keys to things like 'move 1st squadmate to target'.

 

[linkmastr001]

I'm pretty sure my current computer's specs already match/beat those.

I have a 64-bit machine with a 3.2Ghz Processor, 8GB of RAM, and a Nvidia GTX 570.

The only things that get me excited for consoles are the tech exclusive to them and the exclusive games on them, and in all honesty, the Wii/Wii-U is winning that one for me.

Sony has their move thingy, which is a rip-off of the Wii I have/Wii-u I will own, and the only exclusive they have that I would want is the Ratchet & Clank series.

Xbox does have Kinnect, which I think is a pretty neat thing, unfortunately, there just aren't any games for teh Kinnect or them exclusively I care for (not a fan of Halo myself).

The Wii/Wii-U feel like they're trying to do different stuff, and there are games that use the tech pretty well (none are perfect, and there are failures) as well as many exclusives they have that I enjoy (Pikmin, Zelda, Metroid, SSB...)

Sorry if I got a bit off topic there, but that's just my thoughts.

 

[Colt47]

The PS4 is not a PC, but it is a good step in the right direction for those of us with PCs since it will allow easier porting of games (which everyone here is pointing out). A PC and a console are not just hardware, but software as well. If we didn't have software loaded on them they'd be nothing but very expensive paper weights. The software side is where the two machines are going to differ in certain respects, such as how they handle memory usage, when to run certain jobs, and other details.

 

[DSK-]

Well, upon it's release the PS4 will be similar to a PC. However, in the next few years the PS4 (capability wise, in comparison with PC's) will fall behind.

The limiting factor hardware-wise is that you cannot swap out different components and upgrade them like you can for PC's. However, from a software development perspective for the PS4 (and indeed all consoles) is the benefit that you have a set cookie-cutter platform with the same everything - minus harddrive capacity perhaps - from which to make stuff.

The PS4 isn't future proof, but it's a pretty good piece of kit regardless.

 

[Something Amyss]

So the story of the next of "consoles" will be that they have tried so hard to copy the functionality of PC's that they have pretty much become PC's.

Welcome to last generation?

I don't know how to address something like this, because it's such a non-issue at this point. It's already happened. It's like discussing whether or not to close the barn door after the cows have crossed state lines.

 

[OpticalJunction]

Consoles are to gaming what ereaders are to reading.Sure you could use a PC, but some people are always going to prefer a product with a niche purpose, because they're usually better designed for that purpose. They're usually cheaper too.

 

[PotatoLord]

Consoles have always been PCs. Calculators are PCs. The difference between consoles and what are thought of as PCs is that consoles have typically been dedicated to gaming, while PCs perform a variety of tasks. As the development cycle continues, consoles have added more and more features, becoming progressively more versatile. However, the real difference between PC and console gaming has been price-point vs power. Consoles are always cheaper, in part because they are typically sold at a loss. PCs, however, have always had the edge power-wise, as newer, more powerful computer parts are being developed faster than new consoles are, and PC owners are able to upgrade.

 

[GeneralFungi]

I sometimes think that people get hung up on what they're playing their games on, rather then what games they're actually playing. A good game is a good game no matter what system is on. When it games to the actual game, PC does have a slight advantage (mod support) but in the end as long as you're playing good games what box the game is being run in shouldn't matter so much. This is sort of off-topic, but that's my opinion on nearly any debate involving console wars, even in the smallest respect.

This new PS4 infrastructure can only benefit PC gaming if you're looking at it from that perspective. The games will be much easier to port, resulting in outright better ports to PC. And that also holds true vice versa for PS3 in the case where a PC game goes to that particular console. The more similar these consoles are in the hardware department the easier it will be for developers to release their games on all platform. This may also convince developers to develop ports for games where in the same circumstances this day and age they wouldn't even attempt just because of the work that would go into it. I don't really see a downside either way.

 

[Dryk]

This new PS4 infrastructure can only benefit PC gaming if you're looking at it from that perspective. The games will be much easier to port, resulting in outright better ports to PC. And that also holds true vice versa for PS3 in the case where a PC game goes to that particular console. The more similar these consoles are in the hardware department the easier it will be for developers to release their games on all platform. This may also convince developers to develop ports for games where in the same circumstances this day and age they wouldn't even attempt just because of the work that would go into it. I don't really see a downside either way.

Which is fantastic for the affordability of PC gaming. One of the mains problem with ports this generation was the extra grunt you needed to deal with the poor optimisation

 

[RedDeadFred]

I'm confused. In all of the threads there are some people saying that it's on par with current high end PC's. Then there's some saying that it's a little bit weaker, then there's others saying it's way behind...

Which is it and how is there this much discrepancy?

As it is, the specs from the conference are EXTREMELY VAGUE. So its just fanboys boasting over specs that are so vague and if researched would only paint a horrid image for the PS4. Others just fell for buzz words.

If you want, I can partially explain it.

In general, the PS4 is weak from what little we have been told. Even in GPU teraflops, PC gaming is around 3-5 in 2009. PS4 has 1.84. A discontinued card from 2009, the ATI 5970, has 5 TFs for reference.

The CPU, while it has 8 cores, is a tablet/netbook CPU. Its also rumored to be weaker than a current day quad.

So basically, Sony has a lot of explaining to do in terms of specs.

Ah, thanks for clearing that up a bit for me.

 

[Snotnarok]

Uh, no consoles have this one large limiting factor that steps on the value a bit that makes it so PC=/=PS4, it's the OS. On a PC you can install anything you want, browse the web, install a lot of free programs and use any hardware you choose on it. You can do art, make music, multitask, attach more than one monitor, add in extra drives.

PS4 will be a dandy device there's no doubt but because of the nature of the device, you simply cannot do everything you can on a computer. Which given how powerful it is is a bit of a shame because with 8gb and such it could easily handle any art program and the like.

 

[The_Echo]

When exactly were consoles... not PCs? If we're looking at the specs for this, I mean... I... yes, they both work virtually the same. Of course, obviously, yes.

The difference is in their OS. That's it. That's all it ever was. The parts inside don't matter when it comes to "is this a console, is it a PC?" The answer to that question depends on the OS. Also (more importantly) the purpose of the unit by design.

Think of it like... a toaster and a toaster oven. They can both make toast. But the toaster is designed to make toast, whereas the toaster oven can facilitate many foods.

 

[loa]

Well the xbox 360 consists entirely out of "pc parts" too yet you don't see me running photoshop and firefox on it while operating with mouse and keyboard without some extensive modifications that console manufacturers would love to see illegalized and go out of their way to prevent.

 

[Joccaren]

I wouldn't pay $1000 for a GPU if I were a billionaire.

And you wouldn't have to. You'd be paying for a GPU that is over two times as powerful as a PS3, and you'll be paying around 2 times the PS3s price for it.
Or you could get a 660Ti or something for FAR less - around $300 or so - or potentially something even weaker, dependent on just what the PS4s graphics card turns out to be. You don't need a TITAN to max out anything, its if you've just got 1 monitor and a single card you'll get better performance out of the 690GTX - its more of a show off tool, or for those who run 3+ 2560*1600 monitors on their PCs than a requirement to play PC games.

 

[Thoric485]

If it makes porting less of a *****, I'm all for it.

 

[oliver.begg]

the best thing to come out of the change to x86 is that porting will become massivley easier, and the scale up period for the new games should be far shorter (x86 code is x86 code) but the point where game play starts to suffer for the sake of graphics may also be reached quicker

the people transferring from the old PS3 processor are going to have to relearn stuff i expect.

the use of 8GB of DDR5 probably means a split pool more like the xbox where both the CPU and GPU can allocate resources to be stored on it, instead of the dedicated divide that has made skyrim run like shit on PS3. also i thought x86 was limited in the bytes of ram it could handle anyway regardless of OS or clever programming (its a hardware thing)

AMD stands to make alot of money off a low power CPU (its designed for portability, and lower energy use not power) which means they can finial drop money on the bleeding edge stuff of the future


TLDR; this is actually a good thing for the PC market, AMD gets monies from sony, and ports should now be PS4 -> PC, not XBOX -> PC due to the same CPU architectural (the most important part)

 

[ph0b0s123]

The specs aren't too bad but if i'm honest x86 processor, does that mean it's only running an x86 OS? Or do they really mean x86 and x64? Would have thought they'd be using an x64 OS considering it's higher performance compared to x86.

If you look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64 you will see that is an extension to the x86 instructions set and fully backward compatible, hence when people talk about x86 it covers both. Since you cannot get a new x86 CPU, that does not have the x64 instruction set, it is a certainty that the hardware will be 64 bit (am unsure whether this is a first for consoles). The only question now will be whether Sony will have an OS that uses the x64 instruction set and whether developers with develop for it, as even on PC's where 64 bit has existed for a while, still most games are 32 bit. What is certain is if they want to use more than half of that 8GB of memory they will need to code to the x64 extensions (max addressable mem with 32bit is 4 GB).

I don't want to call the OP wrong but he really is right in the sense that while Sony will be utilizing a more standard GPU/CPU based combo, the actual architecture of the unit that combines the CPU and GPU is very different than that of a PC. With the very limited facts about the PS4 one can certainly say that so far there isn't a company that actually builds DDR5 RAM when it comes to standard RAM chips. They do exist in GPUs but realize that RAM isn't going to be completely dedicated towards the GPU but instead most likely split between the GPU and CPU.

So it still is too soon to tell but you can't just simply say that they are now just PCs, at least not yet. Besides if they really were PCs then Sony would of had half a brain to learn to virtualize the PS3 on the PS4 to ensure backwards compatibility like Nintendo did with the Wii U. While it certainly isn't the cleanest solution it is currently the most cost efficient solution as you no longer need to physically implement the chipset to run a previous generation of games like the wii did or PS3 did.

"CPU and GPU is very different than that of a PC"

Actually no. It is exactly the same. CPU & GPU combos have been being done on the PC for the last couple of years, where most mainstream and laptop CPU's from AMD and Intel have had GPU cores integrated into the CPU chip. See AMD APU's or the most current Intel chips with INTEL HD 4000 GPU's in the CPU. In fact this is the reason why Sony had to go with AMD as they are the only company that have decent GPU cores integrated in the CPU. Nvidia don't have x86 CPU's to integrate their GPU's into and the Intel GPU's are just to week at the moment. The shared memory is also standard. The only trend setting thing is the use of GDDR5 Ram for system memory. All this means is the RAM on board will be clocked hight than most PC system memory at the moment. It is still DDR so, no different to the PC apart for the clocking speed.

I agree that won't be able to confirm the exact model of AMD APU that is going to be in the PS4, but that does not change the fact that this console will be running x86 hardware and code and is therefore a PC from a hardware point of view.

I'm confused. In all of the threads there are some people saying that it's on par with current high end PC's. Then there's some saying that it's a little bit weaker, then there's others saying it's way behind...

Which is it and how is there this much discrepancy?

As it is, the specs from the conference are EXTREMELY VAGUE. So its just fanboys boasting over specs that are so vague and if researched would only paint a horrid image for the PS4. Others just fell for buzz words.

If you want, I can partially explain it.

In general, the PS4 is weak from what little we have been told. Even in GPU teraflops, PC gaming is around 3-5 in 2009. PS4 has 1.84. A discontinued card from 2009, the ATI 5970, has 5 TFs for reference.

The CPU, while it has 8 cores, is a tablet/netbook CPU. Its also rumored to be weaker than a current day quad.

So basically, Sony has a lot of explaining to do in terms of specs.

Ah, thanks for clearing that up a bit for me.

"The CPU, while it has 8 cores, is a tablet/netbook CPU."

How many tablets do you know that have x86 CPU's and run x86 code. That's right none. Tablet at the moment equals ARM. If it has x86 hardware and is running x86 code. It is a PC. Or at least an IBM PC. PC meaning personal computer can encompass multiple devices. IBM PC means x86.

Also the OS should not matter as PC's already run multiple OS and are still called PC's. PC does not equal runs windows. PC equals x86 hardware. The PS4 is a 100% IBM PC compatible device.

When exactly were consoles... not PCs? If we're looking at the specs for this, I mean... I... yes, they both work virtually exactly the same. Of course, obviously, yes.

The difference is in their OS. That's it. That's all it ever was. The parts inside don't matter when it comes to "is this a console, is it a PC?" The answer to that question depends on the OS. Also (more importantly) the purpose of the unit by design.

Think of it like... a toaster and a toaster oven. They can both make toast. But the toaster is designed to make toast, whereas the toaster oven can facilitate many foods.

Corrected it for you.

 

[ph0b0s123]

When exactly were consoles... not PCs? If we're looking at the specs for this, I mean... I... yes, they both work virtually the same. Of course, obviously, yes.

The difference is in their OS. That's it. That's all it ever was. The parts inside don't matter when it comes to "is this a console, is it a PC?" The answer to that question depends on the OS. Also (more importantly) the purpose of the unit by design.

Think of it like... a toaster and a toaster oven. They can both make toast. But the toaster is designed to make toast, whereas the toaster oven can facilitate many foods.

"When exactly were consoles... not PCs?"

Post

See my previous post (linked above) where I explained why up until now they have not been the case to another poster.

Well the xbox 360 consists entirely out of "pc parts" too yet you don't see me running photoshop and firefox on it while operating with mouse and keyboard without some extensive modifications that console manufacturers would love to see illegalized and go out of their way to prevent.

No, the 360 has a PowerPC CPU. Although it has PC in the name, it is not a PC CPU as it does not run the x86 instruction set. The only thing the 360 borrowed was a AMD GPU from the PC. So not you would not have been able to run those programs without an emulator on the 360, as they were programed for x86 processors.

The lack of knowledge round here on this stuff is disappointing.

 

[devotedsniper]

If you look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64 you will see that is an extension to the x86 instructions set and fully backward compatible, hence when people talk about x86 it covers both. Since you cannot get a new x86 CPU that does not have the x64 instruction set it is a certainty that the hardware will be 64 bit (am unsure whether this is a first for consoles). The only question now will be whether Sony will have an OS that uses the x64 insturctions set and whether developers with develop for it as even on PC's where 64 bit has existed for a while still most games are 32 bit. What is certain is if they want to use more than half of that 8GB of memory they will need to code to the x64 extensions (max addressable mem with 32bit is 4 GB).

Yeah i knew that, my query was about the OS considering they specifically state x86 processor, as for 4GB limit that's more of a Windows Home User Limit that can be easily bypassed with some trickery (like you said). It's a bit unnerving if they do go down the 32bit road, in fact it would be pretty stupid to do that when you consider that they will be using more than 4GB ram, Windows 32bit may as well be dead and there are some good advantages to using x64.