Rumor: "Very Affordable" PS4 Based on AMD's A10 APU

[Treblaine]

I think 16GB is just for the "developer kit" that publishers give to coders to design games on, the actual home console may have a half or quarter of that System memory capacity, 4GB is very workable. 4GB today you can play very high quality settings on PC, 8GB is overkill on PC.

Hrrmmm... you know 16Gb would be just about right if they were emulating a RISC based environment on CISC architecture system... but the CPU seems a bit underpowered for that. Then again current console OSes aren't exactly resource intensive so it might work well in that. Of course, trying to discern the specs of a console from the specs of its devkit is just idle speculation.

Well, it's been pretty well established that Devkits have more memory than the release consoles. And memory seems to be scaled by a factor of 2, so 2x or 4x the home-console variant.

http://xna360console.blogspot.co.uk/

Xbox 360 Developer-version here has 1GB each for the GPU and CPU compared to the release console that has 512MB shared between CPU and GPU. That establishes that the developer version may have 4x the system memory of the release version.

I don't know what you think a home Video Game console would do something like try to emulate a RISC based environment on CISC architecture system, seems like such a waste and as you say, the CPU isn't up to it.

I think we can do more than "idle speculation" but some safe conclusions as well.

Spoiler

Oh yeah, 16Gb is not enough to render Pixar level animation... but then again, it doesn't matter what sort of kit you drop into a single system, it won't be enough for that. Renderfarms exist for a reason.

I meant animate and assemble pixar quality films, then send to the renderfarm to compile. Not make a whole movie.

Personally for an all in 1 system that works, I'd pay any price
1 console that plays all my games from psx, ps2, ps3 and ps4 would be worth it. Remember the ps2 and 3 will eventually be unrepairable/replacable one day.

I wish I was as rich as you, to be able to honestly say "I'd pay any price" to get as trivial a convenience as to have an "all-in-one" device and willingly making your current technology redundant.

By the time - so far in the future - that most Playstation 3 consoles are irreparable, then computer hardware will have advanced to the point where PC emulation is practical if not preferable for PS3 games. As is the case with N64 games today.

And Realise, Sony only stopped making Playstation 2 consoles last year, there are PLENTY of consoles out there capable of playing PS1 and PS2 games, the PS3 looks like it will remain in production as long as there is any demand, they just released the PS3 mini. And PS1 games are increasingly available via PSP/PS3 emulation or source-ports. The games are NOT lost forever. I played through the entire Classic Tomb Raider series on my PSP and I wasn't limited by paying through the nose for an original disc for quite a high price (due to rarity) but for a digital download.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

I don't know what you think a home Video Game console would do something like try to emulate a RISC based environment on CISC architecture system, seems like such a waste and as you say, the CPU isn't up to it.

A consumer version wouldn't want to run emulated environments.

However, an early version dev-kit released before any custom hardware has been fabricated, just might want to do that if said custom hardware is RISC based.

I guess I just have a problem accepting that a console manufacturer is going CISC isntead of RISC as RISC based computing is more efficient when it comes to limited task usage rather than the more flexible CISC. Not to mention that going CISC makes a system far more open to being emulated on PCs as it cuts out one layer of emulation being needed, and the most problematic layer at that.

 

[CortexReaver]

first to the market, like the ps2

Sega Dreamcast was first to the market, not PS2.

 

[Treblaine]

first to the market, like the ps2

Sega Dreamcast was first to the market, not PS2.

Sony today is not like Sega of 1999. Sony has had significant and continuing success with PS3 and PS2 has been selling very well up till recently and of course plenty of software sales.

Megadrive/genesis died painfully with many badly managed peripherals then saturn hardly made a ripple, most forget it even existed and can be completely overlooked.

When dreamcast came to the market early, big corps were able to do things to it that couldn't be done to Sony in 2013 just like Sony couldn't bully Microsoft after their early entry. The "bullying" was mainly giving ultimatums to publishers to port exclusives, and also to marginalise

Also Dreamcast made the huge blunder of on having a right thumbstick. WTF?!? It had far less buttons and analogue sticks than PS2, Xbox or even gamecube. Severe limitations. Can you imagine Halo without a right thumbstick?!?

 

[Warped_Ghost]

AMD's top A10 APU's GPU that costs $122 on it's own at 1280x720 resolution with all graphic settings at there lowest can get 48fps on the PC in Battlefield, 32fps in Crysis 2 that is not good now let alone in 5 years.

Consoles get far more performance out of less hardware because of the software. I don't know all the specifics but you can look it up online. If I recall correctly they do something called direct coding which allows the software to take full advantage of the hardware unlike a computer.

 

[Eclipse Dragon]

I have a hard time believing anything created by Sony is "very affordable".
It might be like the Vita, where the system price seems reasonable, but you need to pay extra for essentials.

Orbis basic system for $399.99.
Includes 256 GB hard drive and 1 month free Playstation Plus subscription.
Backwards compatibility available only in $499.99 models. Controller sold separately.
Price for controller: $99.99
Price for games at launch: $80.00

SHeeeiiiit. I hope not. That sounds like something that could kill a platform stone dead. There's not better way to anger your customers than hidden costs.

The cheapest Xbox 360 (arcade) came without a hard drive or wifi support.
If you wanted those things, you needed to buy them separately, and they weren't cheap.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

If it ends up being in the $400 range I'll probably get it. But only IF it it's backwards compatible with PS3.

 

[Rad Party God]

Spoiler: HUGE Snip.

PCs are designed to do a whole host of things, gaming being one of them. Consoles are designed purely around gaming.

Things like that cut both ways, for example I want to do MORE with my integrated circuit technology than JUST play video games licensed by Sony/Microsoft/etc

A PC does more than a console, it's a robust web browser, photo editor and social interface not within one gaming network like Xbox Live but across many different networks. It's got the ultimate backwards compatibility for games and the ultimate variety not just in the highest fidelity graphics but scaling each element according to your preference, be it speed, resolution, fidelity or whatever.

If you get a home videogame console... you'll probably still need to get a home computer. But if you get a gaming capable computer, you don't really need a console. Especially with how games that are exclusive to home consoles are few and far between these days and more than ever they are going multiplatform with a PC release.

Console I consider much more of a "disposable luxury" than my gaming PC. My PC is EVERYTHING in home electronics, from facebook for my job, editing and posting videos, word processing, emails, file storage and backup, THIS very website which I wouldn't like to depend on console-browser to access. Of course taking photos off devices, scaling and sorting them and uploading them, uploading music and movies to media players like iPods. Netflix still needs a PC to sort your choices as far as i know. So many essential things are PC-browser based.

When budgets get tight, if I have to chose between marginalising my console or my PC you know which one all of us would chose.

A single PC may be expensive, but not as expensive as investing in a console (and $60 per game) and discovering you still need to fork out again for a low-spec PC for all your non-gaming needs. Then you'd just be wasting processing power, you COULD just have one processor and graphics card etc for both gaming and social computing switching between the two. And each processor is not "specifically made for gaming" they are general-purpose processors, it's the operating system and interface (gamepad vs mouse + keyboard) that's the deciding factor.

All I'm saying is when my budget gets tight, the console goes and the PC stays. You don't need a super-powerful killer PC. Remember, console games settle for much lower settings than the maximum settings on PC, to compensate for lack of a console just lower the settings to console level then it runs smoothly as on console (still not that smooth).

I applaud Sony going for a more budget A10 system as it recognises their place in the technology landscape, it is NOT the centre of my life or really anyone's life, it is not an indispensable component to being a modern connected and technologically capable person. The home PC is that. Consoles are a luxury we cannot so easily afford any more.

What I'd be most impressed with is if Sony's new A10 based console takes a leaf out of PC's book on affordable games.

That's another reason why I couldn't abandon PC, as PC has affordable games to an extent that console do not. So many PC games are Free-to-play, or fan-made mods. Steam sales are such good deals. I've been playing Brutal Doom on Zandronum recently, a free mod in a free source-port engine or Doom (that I got for pennies in a Steam sale) IT IS LITERALLY AWESOME!!!


PC is cheaper to run, more varied and dynamic and essential to remaining connected.

That's the way I see it. I'd be very interested, if you have a difference of opinion, to hear why I should - when faced with financial limitations - chose to invest primarily or exclusively in a console at the cost of marginalising my PC.

YES, THIS is exactly the way I see PC gaming and gaming in general, in my country, legal console gaming is more than a luxury and not many can simply afford it, unless you just want a game or two.

I'm in the "non elitist" crowd that doesn't brag about better graphics (although sometimes it's fun to do so ), I love PC gaming because I can afford it, between Steam sales, GOG, the many indie bundles and free to play games, I have more games than I could've ever imagined to have and although I can't run them all at max settings with 60 fps, blah, blah, blah, I'm more than happy with the graphics quality and performance of my current setup, heck, it could even be comparable to "console quality" graphics.

I built this PC in 2008 and it's still going strong, without signs of ever slowing down, I bought an Xbox from a friend back in 2009 and that thing only lasted me for a single year, I sold it, because I already had a PC and a shitton of games for it, I didn't wanted to spend $75 on each new game (that's the price we get in this wonderful country), plus an extra fee to play online and buying an overly expensive harddrive, not to mention a ludicrously expensive wireless adapter because I couldn't hook it up directly to my modem.

So yeah, like this guy said, the Xbox needed to go and I don't miss it one bit.

 

[Treblaine]

If it ends up being in the $400 range I'll probably get it. But only IF it it's backwards compatible with PS3.

For $400... hell to the nope.

But why so much love for BC? You'd still have your PS3 right, don't tell me you own a load of PS3 games yet don't own a PS3. What do you add by having a second console redundantly play the same games?

I really don't get how people can be so attracted to redundant access to the prior generation that they will reject next generation of console developments.

AMD's top A10 APU's GPU that costs $122 on it's own at 1280x720 resolution with all graphic settings at there lowest can get 48fps on the PC in Battlefield, 32fps in Crysis 2 that is not good now let alone in 5 years.

Consoles get far more performance out of less hardware because of the software. I don't know all the specifics but you can look it up online. If I recall correctly they do something called direct coding which allows the software to take full advantage of the hardware unlike a computer.

I think John Carmack talked about it in his Keynote as "getting right down to the metal" but it is balls-hard to do as you have to be so much more careful, you can't just drop things in, you have to work in far more complex code. It's no magic wand, it gives performance but only after putting a LOT in.

What Kumagawa misses is that Crysis 2 runs 30fps at 720p on an Xbox 360 using tech from 2005, a graphics chipset far inferior to even what A10 offers. That's an example of where optimisation can give performance boosts but Crysis 2 then became much more expensive the develop.

But I prefer the PC way as even though it isn't as efficient, it's more flexible. It's easier to change design elements late in development cycle or with mods or other extra content/optimisation. It keeps development costs down in an industry where costs are cripplingly high that results in cutbacks in other parts of production and pushes out the indy developers.

It's no secret that indy development is king on PC. If it is on console then it can't hope to be graphically intensive and is platform exclusive. And then they get neglected, while Steam has been a good home to indy developers where they can actually be a reliable business opportunity.

 

[Treblaine]

It's no secret that indy development is king on PC. If it is on console then it can't hope to be graphically intensive and is platform exclusive. And then they get neglected, while Steam has been a good home to indy developers where they can actually be a reliable business opportunity.

Erm... Trine/Trine 2 and Journey are all indie titles available on console, and they're all pretty damn stunning in the graphics department.

I didn't say exclusive to PC, I said king on PC. There may be a few counter examples but the trend is clear.

Trine was limited to a narrow fixed angle perspective, that's very easy to manage assets compared to an FPS game where the camera may suddenly point any direction and need to render something very different.

Journey also was not an indie title, it is a budget title but is was funded, supported by and published by Sony Computer Entertainment, it had the same support as Killzone or Uncharted. It's not indie. Small-low-key =/= indie. Indie means a small independent company with few financial backers (no strings attached). When an "indie" grows big then it's Capital-I "Independent". Mojang is independent. Valve is independent.