Rumor: PS4 to support 4K

#1 Posted by Aegon (5843 posts) -
Sony’s PlayStation 4 to support 4K resolution
Sony’s plan to introduce an 80-inch XBR LED television set with 4K resolution is said to be the start of a larger scheme to push 4K on consumers, much like 3D was a huge push in the industry a couple of years ago. Since 3D isn’t gaining much traction, Sony is betting on 4K as a way to get consumers to upgrade their home entertainment devices. Sony is already selling 4K Blu-ray players for $200, and the company’s next-generation PlayStation 4 will indeed support 4K resolution playback as well, a source tells us. Like the PlayStation 3 did with Blu-ray, Sony is betting that by including the ability to support 4K resolution media — games and movies — consumers will have an incentive to upgrade to new 4K television sets.

news.yahoo.com

I think this has a better chance of working than 3D, but who knows. Also, damn...80 inches? That's not what they're aiming for the standard is it?

#2 Posted by Jams (2966 posts) -

The industry is really trying to push shit that consumers don't really want, so I don't see 4k taking off until you can buy a 50" for ~$1000.00. It's all about affordability these days. It's what you can get for what you have. Nobody is interested in paying for the newest tech at a premium price. That's how I feel about it anyways. 1080p is going to leave a lot of people satisfied for a long time.

#3 Posted by Strife777 (1614 posts) -

Sure, why not? I highly doubt games will support it, but I wouldn't be surprised if it could support video. The PS3 let's you see 4k still images.

#4 Posted by LiquidPrince (16181 posts) -

They need to have games be able to play in native 1080P flawlessly before aiming higher.

#5 Posted by MikkaQ (10344 posts) -

If by support they mean being able to upscale 1080p video to 4K then yes I'd believe that.

#6 Edited by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

I would love a 80 inch 4k tv just covering my whole wall. Football would be awesome!

EDIT: Holy shit a 30k TV this is aimed at the rich.

#7 Posted by MooseyMcMan (11411 posts) -

I doubt any games will run at that resolution, but I won't complain about it having an extra feature for 4K movies, even though I highly doubt I'll have a 4K TV any time soon.

#8 Posted by Dagbiker (6978 posts) -

They still haven't gotten PS1 classics working on the PSV, I have doubt in there ability to deliver support for anything.

#9 Posted by Demoskinos (15165 posts) -

This is neat and all but if there is no 4k content or readily available 4k TV's who is going to really use it?

#10 Posted by the_OFFICIAL_jAPanese_teaBAG (4284 posts) -

I would be down to get a 4K TV

#11 Posted by 71Ranchero (2834 posts) -

@Demoskinos said:

This is neat and all but if there is no 4k content or readily available 4k TV's who is going to really use it?

If I remember correctly from months back when people first started talking about PS4 being 4k it was said it was for future proofing and so the console could do 3d in 2k res. Who knows, 2 years into its lifespan maybe 4k will be a standard.

#12 Posted by Napalm (9020 posts) -

Rumor: PlayStation 4 to give free handjobs.

#13 Posted by scarace360 (4828 posts) -

No way in hell would they get 60fps in 4k.

#14 Edited by wewantsthering (1594 posts) -

I would hope so. The PS3 supports 1080p and runs most games at 720p so the PS4 will probably run games at 1080p, while supporting 4K for video.

#15 Posted by BaconGames (3577 posts) -

Here's where this makes a lot of sense. The TV market while not immediately going to change will eventually shift over to 4K content and displays, even if only for enthusiasts in the next 4-5 years. Sony's strategy of a longer-than-normal console cycle doesn't really look to go away and Orbis or whatever will be no different. Thinking ahead and having support for something like this future-proofs the device when the first wave of 4K TV's get adopted into the market and Sony can be right at the forefront and say their console supports it. Likely those TV's will also be Sony making the pairing that much more likely.

Even if its not explicitly for games at first, Sony's taste at success in the Blu-ray player market is too much to pass up a second time around. Marketing the Orbis as a 4K playback device and possible 4K support for gaming gives their device more longevity much in the same way a PS3 now supporting 1080p makes it a better proposition going forward than the 360 limited to 720p. Sony has shown with the PS2 that a low pricepoint and a huge library will guarantee the thing will be in the background for a long time.

#16 Edited by Dixavd (1380 posts) -

Well obviously. If Microsoft or Sony doesn’t support it in some capacity then they are just eating away at their own consoles longevity. YouTube already supports 4k video. Many games (although, most are indie) support up-scaling to 4k. Most Movies are already filmed in 4k and scaled down (something which the Hobbit film is pushing forward with along with making films be shown at higher frames per second than 24fps as well).

The reason that Blu-ray has done so well (And anything thinking it hasn't looked at the figures properly) is mostly due to the spark in the amount of people who were able to utilize it due to it coming with the PS3. Nobody wanted to fork out for Blu-ray and there was hardly anything to use with it - but it undoubtedly looked better than HD-DVDs and 4k resolution looks vastly superior to 1080p. If companies didn't do things like this then we almost certainly would still have Radio as the most used form of entertainment.

My only problem with this is that I don't think that Sony is good enough in other areas to continue to stay afloat while making choices like this - don't think they can eat the cost of the time it will take them to make much considerable profit or to see a big enough amount of media utilising it.

#17 Posted by phrali (646 posts) -

hey sony, im not buying a 3d tv, a 4k tv, a bluray player, a killzone game, or anything with motion controls.

#18 Posted by MAN_FLANNEL (2462 posts) -

Ugh... they're just going to make TV's wider and wider, aren't they? Pretty soon a decent sized TV will be 10 fucking feet long.

#19 Posted by SJSchmidt93 (4899 posts) -

@Jams said:

The industry is really trying to push shit that consumers don't really want, so I don't see 4k taking off until you can buy a 50" for ~$1000.00. It's all about affordability these days. It's what you can get for what you have. Nobody is interested in paying for the newest tech at a premium price. That's how I feel about it anyways. 1080p is going to leave a lot of people satisfied for a long time.

You can get a 50" for $500 these days. How much a 4K 50" would cost, though, I don't know.

#20 Posted by xyzygy (10079 posts) -

Completely unnecessary. They're going to waste tons of money on this, like they did in the push for 3D. Maybe about 10 years into the future 4K will become the standard but as for now, their current gen system has the majority of it's games running in 720P. Try getting true 1080p right first.

#21 Posted by Doctorchimp (4055 posts) -

Just stop...

I have trouble believing the next gen of consoles will be native 1080p

#22 Posted by Hamz (6846 posts) -

Developers struggle to get games running smoothly at 720p let alone imagining them running smoothly at 1080p or higher.

#23 Posted by mtcantor (951 posts) -

lol 4k.

#24 Posted by glyn (382 posts) -

This won't produce better games.

#25 Posted by GrantHeaslip (1608 posts) -

I doubt it costs much more (if anything at all) to support 4k playback, so what's the big deal? Games probably won't use it, since at that point the resolution difference won't be worth having to push over 4x the pixels (not to mention double-FPS 3D stuff), but so what? Not many current-gen games get anywhere near 1080p (and in most cases it's the result of a smart developer trade-off) but it doesn't mean they should have just capped the console at 720p. They're not pushing 4k on you any more than the PS3 was pushing Blu-Ray, except in that case it probably cost substantially more to include.

#26 Posted by Brendan (8167 posts) -

I'm guessing this doesn't have anything to do with games specifically, so I find the news to be neither unbelievable or unreasonable. 4K video playback? Sure, whatevs.

#27 Posted by GrantHeaslip (1608 posts) -

@xyzygy said:

Completely unnecessary. They're going to waste tons of money on this, like they did in the push for 3D. Maybe about 10 years into the future 4K will become the standard but as for now, their current gen system has the majority of it's games running in 720P. Try getting true 1080p right first.

Except this probably doesn't cost very much at all, if anything. The PS3 can technically already do 4k, just not for full-motion video, and I'm guessing that's just a processing power problem that won't apply to the PS4. Hell, my laptop's shitty Intel video chip can do two 1080p video outs and its own screen -- that's over halfway to 4k on a low-end integrated chip from 2 years ago.

#28 Posted by PenguinDust (12640 posts) -

LED TV's are so 2000's. Call me when Sony releases an affordable OLED TV.

#29 Edited by xyzygy (10079 posts) -

@GrantHeaslip said:

I doubt it costs much more (if anything at all) to support 4k playback, so what's the big deal? Games probably won't use it, since at that point the resolution difference won't be worth having to push over 4x the pixels (not to mention double-FPS 3D stuff), but so what? Not many current-gen games get anywhere near 1080p (and in most cases it's the result of a smart developer trade-off) but it doesn't mean they should have just capped the console at 720p. They're not pushing 4k on you any more than the PS3 was pushing Blu-Ray, except in that case it probably cost substantially more to include.

Wouldn't the development of a game need to be drastically overhauled if a game also had to be able to support 4K? Think about the textures. They would have to make two sets of textures, one for 4K and one for 1080p/720p. If developers had that much extra work on their hands and the huge majority of consumers only had max 1080p res TVs, I can't see why they would even bother with 4K at all.

EDIT: I'm completely illiterate when it comes to 4K though so there's a huge chance I'm completely wrong.

#30 Posted by onarum (2302 posts) -

Sure, that would make all the economic sense in the world if it came in say 2020....

#31 Posted by GrantHeaslip (1608 posts) -

@xyzygy said:

@GrantHeaslip said:

I doubt it costs much more (if anything at all) to support 4k playback, so what's the big deal? Games probably won't use it, since at that point the resolution difference won't be worth having to push over 4x the pixels (not to mention double-FPS 3D stuff), but so what? Not many current-gen games get anywhere near 1080p (and in most cases it's the result of a smart developer trade-off) but it doesn't mean they should have just capped the console at 720p. They're not pushing 4k on you any more than the PS3 was pushing Blu-Ray, except in that case it probably cost substantially more to include.

Wouldn't the development of a game need to be drastically overhauled if a game also had to be able to support 4K? Think about the textures. They would have to make two sets of textures, one for 4K and one for 1080p/720p. If developers had that much extra work on their hands and the huge majority of consumers only had max 1080p res TVs, I can't see why they would even bother with 4K at all.

If a game really wanted to support 4k, they'd only need one set of textures -- texture resolution has nothing to do with display resolution. But like I said above, most games probably won't support it because having to render 4x the pixels for a comparatively small gain wouldn't be worth the processing power. There are already Blu-Ray players and video cards out there that support 4k -- it's not like this is some crazy space-age technology.

#32 Posted by Apparatus_Unearth (3245 posts) -

Okay, so Blu-Rays will be replaced by 4K?

#33 Posted by banishedsoul1 (294 posts) -

i think 4k is bs but 60 fps is a waste imo it makes the game look like a soap opera . Moment does not look real at a high frame rate. Look at those old ww1 videos the frame rate makes everything look like its on fast forward.

#34 Posted by Scooper (7881 posts) -

I want an old 240p 5 year old YouTube video blown up on an 80 inch TV because I bet that would look awesome.

#35 Posted by Bollard (5868 posts) -

@Jams said:

The industry is really trying to push shit that consumers don't really want, so I don't see 4k taking off until you can buy a 50" for ~$1000.00. It's all about affordability these days. It's what you can get for what you have. Nobody is interested in paying for the newest tech at a premium price. That's how I feel about it anyways. 1080p is going to leave a lot of people satisfied for a long time.

You don't understand how the market works. The exact same thing happened with HD and look where we are now... You have to start somewhere. For it to be cheap you need to make them in bulk, which requires you to have an infrastructure set up, which means you had to be making a smaller number at a higher cost beforehand.

Technology starts off expensive and gets cheaper, come the fuck on people you cynical bastards.

#36 Posted by McGhee (6075 posts) -

I want every wall in my house to be a TV just like in sci fi movies.

#37 Posted by Baillie (4285 posts) -

@Chavtheworld said:

@Jams said:

The industry is really trying to push shit that consumers don't really want, so I don't see 4k taking off until you can buy a 50" for ~$1000.00. It's all about affordability these days. It's what you can get for what you have. Nobody is interested in paying for the newest tech at a premium price. That's how I feel about it anyways. 1080p is going to leave a lot of people satisfied for a long time.

You don't understand how the market works. The exact same thing happened with HD and look where we are now... You have to start somewhere. For it to be cheap you need to make them in bulk, which requires you to have an infrastructure set up, which means you had to be making a smaller number at a higher cost beforehand.

Technology starts off expensive and gets cheaper, come the fuck on people you cynical bastards.

It's hardly cynicism. 1080p is barely being used, neither is 3D. Yet, they're trying to roll out 4k, it really is a bit adventurous.

#38 Posted by Carryboy (749 posts) -

Never wanted 3d but i could go for 4k.

#39 Posted by Bollard (5868 posts) -

@Baillie said:

@Chavtheworld said:

@Jams said:

The industry is really trying to push shit that consumers don't really want, so I don't see 4k taking off until you can buy a 50" for ~$1000.00. It's all about affordability these days. It's what you can get for what you have. Nobody is interested in paying for the newest tech at a premium price. That's how I feel about it anyways. 1080p is going to leave a lot of people satisfied for a long time.

You don't understand how the market works. The exact same thing happened with HD and look where we are now... You have to start somewhere. For it to be cheap you need to make them in bulk, which requires you to have an infrastructure set up, which means you had to be making a smaller number at a higher cost beforehand.

Technology starts off expensive and gets cheaper, come the fuck on people you cynical bastards.

It's hardly cynicism. 1080p is barely being used, neither is 3D. Yet, they're trying to roll out 4k, it really is a bit adventurous.

For consoles maybe, but I'd love to see 4k on a PC. That could handle it, so cheaper 4k monitors would be nice.

#40 Edited by Sanj (2545 posts) -

People here don't seem to realise that technology doesn't become affordable instantly. It has to start from somewhere; they need to start pushing this stuff out now, and as time passes and more units are sold, manufacturing become more cost-effective and unit prices becomes more affordable. Just look at early DVD players, HDTVs and blu-ray players. Also, there's no point in saying that they're "trying to push shit that consumers don't really want". People don't know what they want until you give it to them.

#41 Posted by Wong_Fei_Hung (634 posts) -

The Sony 80 inch 4k costs $30,000.

#42 Posted by NTM (7547 posts) -

@MAN_FLANNEL: "I don't think so Tim"

#43 Posted by Lunar_Aura (2778 posts) -

PlayStation Fork

#44 Edited by glyn (382 posts) -

Nintenspoon

Chances of a 4K video stream through Sony's Gaikai?

#45 Posted by TwoOneFive (9459 posts) -

4K movies- could be weird. 4K videgames- fucking amazing.

#46 Posted by RE_Player1 (7526 posts) -

Just like this gen has 3D support. Yeah you could use it and it kind of looks good sometimes but you can tell it was bootstrapped on.

#47 Posted by MonkeyKing1969 (3041 posts) -

@Demoskinos said:

This is neat and all but if there is no 4k content or readily available 4k TV's who is going to really use it?

4K is really not there or made for content. It like retina display on Apple products, it there to give detail from less distance for current content. There will likely never be very much 4K content made in the next few years, the draw for purchasing will be to provide a closer view distance for larger screens. Crisper detail, no screen door effect even on the largest screens, and a closer seat will be the goal. Its like cars they go 120 mph not because anyone hopes to design roads you can drive that fast upon, but because the power curve of a car the powerful allows you do pass a car going 75 mph easily on our current roads. In five years we will be buying a 60" 4K TV at Walmart for $500, yet still just to watch 720p broadcast TV.

The reason you won't see much native 4K content is we are still dealing with an antiqued and foolish data transmission system. Why move a 4K resolution movie around on the internet while 'data' is so expensive that we meter it monthly to people. Oh, we could make the 4K contents easily, but transmission and moving it around are not worth it....but up-res-ing content...that's worth it. Making screens where you cannot see the pixels...that's worth it. Putting money in AT&T, Verizon, Cox, and other ISP/Cable providers is not worth it.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.