InfiniteStates wrote:
James91 wrote:
InfiniteStates wrote:Well, it does - if you want higher definition output, you need to store higher definition textures. So graphical prowess is not only down to CPU and GPU. Although memory is more a factor than disk size, but still - it's not as cut and dried as you stated.
Which the Xbox 360 did easily over multiple discs for games that exceeded DVD capacity.
And that's an adequately scaleable solution is it? Throw in more CPU/GPU power and increase the disk count...? At what number of disks do you draw the line and admit you need higher capacity storage?
What I was trying to get at was that disc capacity doesn't always dictate visuals. Look at the PlayStation 3 this generation, most games would've still fit easily on a DVD bar a select few.
Level 3
At this point I'm not sure I will bother with the PS3. My Laptop is only two years old and can still play most PC games on Medium-High. There is also the amount of money I have saved by buying cheaper pc games. Then there is how bad the PS3's software is.
Level 3
Well they bought Gaikai, I remember I said xbox and ps4 would include such features, hinting xbox would buy onlive.
I remember someone on here had a go at it, saying it was a fail move, that broadband needs to improve significantly for such a purchase to be required. Some people on here know nothing, and talk rubbish.
Level 3
i think all i want from the playstation 4 is something new again, cause with the ps3 they bought in blueray for the first time, and that was just amazeing, so mabye some brand new 3d tech? or some super graphics thing would be great, but if its just something small like a bigger hard drive, cloud gameing and a small graphics increase then im not interested to much, its a lot of money these days just for an upgrade. needs to be new.
Level 3
fenian wrote:I remember someone on here had a go at it, saying it was a fail move, that broadband needs to improve significantly for such a purchase to be required.
Yeah, that was me.
OnLive plays games remotely and streams the frame buffer to you. For a 720p frame at 24bit at 60 frames per second that is 1280 x 720 x 3 x 60 = 8,294,499 uncompressed bytes per second, or 158.2mb. Now let's be generous and assume they can consistently compress that by 50%, giving a downstream of 79.1mb per second. And of course you can halve the frame rate... Plus, no one wants to play at 1080p do they, because that would yield 356mb per second uncompressed?
I'm sure there is clever trickery they can and do do to reduce that further (for instance, they could palettise each frame on the fly to reduce the size by a factor of 3), and they'll need to, because that doesn't include streaming audio channel(s) as well.
But if you want to believe that the general populace's internet can sustain that, especially if lots of people are doing it, you go right on ahead. But to me, that has got fail written all over it until internet improves significantly. But you don't need to take my word for it, there are reviews out there.
However, Sony haven't yet stated their intentions, coupled with the fact that it is unlikely they will be hosting the architecture to actually run the games as they will more than likely be selling consoles. So the game will continue to run client-side with none of the above problems...
fenian wrote:
Some people on here know nothing, and talk rubbish.
Yep, especially people who say things like "xbox would buy onlive".
Website ©2013 Sony Computer Entertainment Europe
All content, game titles, trade names and/or trade dress, trademarks, artwork and associated imagery are trademarks and/or copyright material of their respective owners. All rights reserved. [more info]
