Anyone getting the PS4 pro?

Post Reply New Topic

Probably won't be a next gen, both are talking like they'll just keep upgrading their current systems. PS4.2,PS4.3 etc. or PS4.02 little upgrades every 2-3 years. More profitable. You know they want to be like cell phones >.> they don't realize why people buy consoles, which is to have a system that's good for 5-8 years. Not 3. There no payment plan with upgrade options for consoles.

Their competitors do it so they do, and so on and so on.

Blame you tubers, they go on and make videos complaining about the lack of 4K and how all games look ashy. How many people actually have 4K? They'll not reasonably priced yet. I just got a 1080 tv 3 years ago, I won't get another until it dies, which hopefully will be another 3-7 years. I upgrade my phone that's it. No reason to upgrade console, tv, tablets etc. but then again some people buy new cars every year.

Honestly, you couldnt pay me to put one of those things on. I have alot of sensory issues, and while I dont get motion-sick at all IRL, well... let's just say there's no way in the depths of Hell that I'd even consider risking it for this. Though, that's not what really affects my own opinion; the "immersive" factor would have no effect on me to begin with. It never does, in any game. Im the rare type of gamer that couldnt care less about story or cutscenes or whatever developers do to create "immersive experiences" and will pretty much always simply skip those, or more likely, not play games that do that in the first place, due to not being remotely interested. Immersion and graphics lost the ability to at all impress or interest me many years ago, which is one reason why I tend to be immune to the whole "wow factor" thing. I'm not looking at this whole issue from a "will this interest me personally" point of view. I know lots of things are plenty good even if I personally dont give a fart about them. For this, it is instead a matter of spotting the practical and/or design issues and limitations... which are extremely numerous. Not to mention logistics.


Not to mention that some of the applications dont even make a damn lick of sense. Virtual cinema? So.... you've got a computer screen and likely a TV screen in your house, but instead you wear a big bulky thing that undoes your peripheral vision and gives you a.... fake screen? When you have real screens nearby? What? What conceivable use does that have? That's sort of what I've been getting at. Alot of consumers, gamers in particular, are more than a little attracted to what I always call the "wow factor". Give them either A: super shiny visuals, or B: a "revolutionary gimmick" (imagine me doing sarcastic air quotes while saying that), and they'll buy up whatever it is. But what they WONT do is think of it's problems or limitations whatsoever. Inevitably, the thing in question ends up on the shelf, and they go back to devices that just plain A: work better, or B: make more sense. That cinema bit is probably the most shining example of this sort of thing that I've ever heard. Even the Wii never produced something that shows that concept as quickly as that, and that's saying something. In the case of this cinema thing, eventually the user is going to go back to their previous means, once the shininess has worn off. It's just easier, faster, and generally more comfortable to simply watch the damn movies on a real screen.

I'll also note that the main games that have been mentioned pretty much the entire time are games that I call "vehicle simulators", which I often say are the only truly viable genre when it comes to VR (unless you count casual experiences, like that Fruit Ninja-ish game that's on Steam). VR makes sense for simulating a vehicle. ....it DOESNT make sense for damn near anything else. FPS games: Motion sickness from movement, thus movement replaced by warping in most cases. Ends up making for gimmicky games of reduced quality and complexity with mechanics that dont make sense. Strategy games: Unviable. Platformers: Unviable. Fighting games: Unviable. Sports games: Unviable. "Action beat-em-up" games like God of War: Unviable. I could go on and on here, "unviable" meaning genres that arent applicable at all. Most game genres, after all, do not take place from a first-person view, and would make very, very little sense if they tried to.

And even when the genre almost makes sense, like FPS games, well... like I said, limitations. Hell, I see a Serious Sam VR game on Steam. I know Serious Sam, those are great games. But this? It was *dramatically* dumbed down. The devs had no choice due to what restrictions VR forces on them. Serious Sam VR involves you standing in ONE SPOT (again, cant really have movement in these, that's risky as hell, and any developer that dares try it opens themselves to a horde of issues, including legal ones), simply shooting at enemy waves that come at you. That's it. That's the entire game. That's what good ol' Sam is reduced to in VR form. Anyone that's played SS, or any Doom-ish game, knows that there sure as hell is alot more to them than firing guns while not moving while enemies rush at you like braindead aliens in a tower defense game. It's like those old games that you find in arcades, the ones where you stand in front of them and fire a plastic gun at the screen... those were the sorts of things that were fun for a few minutes, but the vast majority of players would move onto others quickly for a variety of reasons. They were just too simplistic and shallow. There's a reason why "light gun" games never really hit it off on consoles in any era, never became big things.

And I can promise you one thing: This scenario of simplifying and dumbing down is going to repeat. Over... and over... and over.. and over... and over. Outside of simulators (technically though, even those too can make users sick, which has often been referred to as "simulator sickness"... and they're the least-likely genre to do this), the stuff on VR has to be vastly simplified in order to even work at all (not just from a physical standpoint, but from a gameplay and control standpoint). And something tells me that even some simulators will start to have problems over time (if they dont already) due to problems with things like motion-controls in general.

And even just scrolling through the list of VR games on Steam... all I see is a long list of examples of the sorts of things I'm talking about here. And these are INDIE developers... understand, I dont see indie games as "casual crap" like some people do (that misconception is irritatingly common). Instead, I gravitate almost entirely towards them... the AAA games dont give me what I'm after (complexity, challenge, depth, creativity, things like that). So I have nothing but respect for the amazing things these guys are capable of, and have had the opportunity to work with one a few times now myself. Yet even these guys seem to be having a very hard time coming up with stuff for this. There's too many restrictions, everything MUST be first-person even when this makes no sense at all, and so on. VR games, based on this, end up being "casual" in terms of gameplay due to the forced nature of them... yet these devices are very definitely NOT marketed towards the casual crowd, not even remotely. This, too, is going to start causing problems once the wow factor wears off (this also happened with the Wii).

That's not to say that simple games cant be fun. I personally have absolutely nothing against "casual" games and frankly tend to think that the "casual" and "hardcore" labels are bloody stupid and usually just used to be demeaning. But in this case, "casual" describes the simplicity alone, and in this case that simplicity is forced by the nature of the device. "Hardcore" gamers, as they like to call themselves, who again are the target audience, tend to get bored with stuff like that *really* fast. Right now, they'll do it, because that wow factor still has a grip on them. The Wii did this too (greatly held attention for TONS of people at the start, but after not that long, ends up on a shelf collecting dust, with hardly any games having actually been purchased by that owner). That's trouble for devs right from the start, and will soon be seen as a very risky investment... that the indie market has gone chaotic means that this is actually the worst possible time to take that risk (and I promise you some of these developers *will* go down in flames because they dared to take the risk and spend the resources on it).

So... yeah. Right now, there's just WAY too many problems facing what is already a not-ready technology to begin with. Yet people are expected to shell out hundreds of dollars for these things that, outside of simulators, mostly provide experiences on par with mobile games. And something tells me that even some simulators will start to devolve into that, for the sorts that usually require far more complex controls than, say, a car. These are gizmos that are selling on shininess, wow factor, and a gimmick. Yet this time, it's a gimmick that could cause someone health issues or even outright injury, and one that will be literally unplayable for some people entirely. That's even worse.



Yes, sorry, very rambly here, but I tend to take a great deal of interest in game design and anything related; call it a special interest of mine. And we all know how easy it is to ramble about our interests, heh.

There are already first person games for the Oculus Rift that are not in the on-rails genre, Subnautica and The Solus Project are is a good examples of a games are not on-rails shooting galleries. You can fly through space in Elite:Dangerous, driving a rally car through Monte Carlo is a great experience in virtual reality or driving through Europe in Euro Truck Simulator 2..

There are genres that appeal to people who enjoy VR content, many people enjoy simulators and another type of game that will work well on VR is a parkour experience, Ubisoft are already working on Virtual Reality titles and they will introduce an Assassin's Creed VR experience soon.

The cinema experience allows you to watch a huge virtual screen, it is similar to sitting in a virtual IMAX theater The 3D in virtual reality is very immersive and deep without the need for tinted glasses that wash out the colours and it uses an OLED panel inside the lenses.

Showdown is a technical demo developed in Unreal Engine 4 and the entire experience is in 3D, it is an extremely immersive experience and we could achieve games to this standard in the future. I was skeptical at first but you have to experience virtual reality to truly know how immersive it is, there is definitely a huge platform for VR.

I'll probably end up getting one. The VR thing looks pretty cool. It's probaby cheaper than building a $3,000 computer and getting an Oculus Rift or a HTC Vibe. One time I tried out an Oculus Rift and it was awesome! It's way better than the old nVidia 3D Vision glasses or the ancient eDimensional glasses I used to use to get 3D. BTW are there any PS4 games that support 3D the old fasioned way (with a 3D TV)?

I don't yet have a 4K TV (won't buy one for a long time because with the number of TVs in my living room now there's no more room) but I heard there are other enhanced graphics modes the PS4 Pro can do, e.g. I heard one game allows you to choose between 4K (really 2560x1440) or super HDR lighting or 60 FPS instead of the normal 30 FPS. My choice would be for the latter

VR for $3000? That's a common misconception that people have.

....like I said, Simulators are something I know to be viable. The problem is they're the ONLY truly viable genre. They somewhat get past the whole sickness thing due to the fact that they put the player in a vehicle; the bits of your mind/brain that are the reason for the sickness with these things doesnt expect you to be WALKING forward when your VEHICLE moves forward; in basically every vehicle ever, you sit in a chair. Like you do at your desk. Yet even those can still technically have problems (look up "simulator sickness" and the history with that; VR is *not* a new technology and this stuff has been known about for a long, long time, and yes, those same old problems exist just the same on the most modern stuff; people have tried various solutions, but none have worked. The issue is that the CAUSE of the problem isnt even quite understood. Let alone finding a solution). Most developers that arent doing that sort of thing (placing the player into a vehicle) simply are not going to risk this. Customers that get sick from your games are customers that A: do not buy further games from you, B: leave you negative reviews, and C: tell others not to buy your games. That's a huge no-no in the industry. ....in any industry.

Though, again, that's just that aspect. Most genres are literally impossible on VR. Not SOME, I said MOST. If someone isnt very specifically into simulators (which, I'll point out, are a niche genre) they're not likely to get much out of VR aside from the casual stuff, because there just isnt anything else there, unless some developer is actually dumb enough to try a full-fledged FPS game on there (and even then, it'd be an inexperienced/unthinking indie dev doing this, NOT one of the "big guys", because they wouldnt dare risk that). As for something like Assassin's Creed... I wouldnt get your hopes up on that one. I can already tell you it will NOT play like a normal AC game. Because how could it? AC games are third-person experiences (AKA, utterly unviable) games that require an extreme amount of movement in all directions (even in first-person: unviable due to that). Ubisoft is going to do what everyone else will be doing: Producing a dumbed down version that doesnt even remotely play like AC does, and will be AC in name only (because they have to). Like Serious Sam. Which, I'll remind you, the devs had NO CHOICE but to dumb down. Again, true FPS games simply dont work on there.

Just because a publisher says "[insert big franchise here] is coming to VR!" doesnt even come close to meaning that you're going to REALLY get a game of that sort on there; it simply means that a game of SOME sort will exist... that just happens to be properly branded and including certain characters/themes. Dont fall for that. Again, devs are already doing this. Over and over. And these are the BIG GUYS we're talking about here when bringing up games like AC. They're already lazy as hell to begin with. And greedy. What do you think they're going to do with a format that causes even normally-creative indie devs to dumb down their games? And they'll have EXCUSES this time, valid ones that they can quote. They can say they had no choice. They cant be making their customers sick if it can be in any way avoided, right? No sir. Gotta keep it POSITIVE. Thusly, here's a game we completed in 3 weeks where you wave your arms around. Though, again, even if the developer in question really does put true effort and time into it... it's still going to be a smaller, dumbed down game. Particularly when the budget is high (because in THAT case, risking sick consumers is practically like saying "Please, dont buy our games or anything else we make", and you cant take that kind of risk with AAA games).

And then beyond all of that, again.... the restrictive price. The video you linked to actually just furthers what I'm saying. SEVEN HUNDRED for a PC capable of running VR (and even then, it probably needs you to go quite a bit further to run it WELL). That's just the PC itself. You still need to pay hundreds more for the VR unit. And then you need to buy the games (the large ones will, of course, be $40-$60). That is a monstrous amount of money that most simply cannot afford.... JUST to play certain extremely specific games. It's not like a normal gaming PC where you get access to this incredibly massive selection of everything under the sun, no (for about $500, no less, if you arent the sort to maximize). You get access to... not that many at all, with this hugely expensive VR setup. And again, most of them are more casual experiences. For me, among my group of friends and every gamer I personally know, I'm the only one that could afford this. Everyone else either A: just plain cant, or B: thinks it's a bloody terrible investment and it'd really screw over their budget/funds to even try.


Though beyond all of this, what I'm really waiting for is the inevitable: Injuries and possibly lawsuits (which are more probable with this than they were with basic motion controls). For simulators (no wild movements necessary) this is not likely to be an issue. But absolutely anything else? Oh yes. There's going to be injuries and damage done.

The other thing that's likely to happen though is that some of the smaller devs trying this will collapse. Too much resources put into an experience that A: few people can even try (the restrictive cost, or other problems) and are B: too simple to attract a large audience anyway.

Depressing as the whole thing is to me overall (it's a shining, screaming example of the side of the industry that I loathe so very, very much), I am still going to be interested to follow the chain of events over the next year or so.

It at least makes for interesting discussion though. Well, in this place anyway. I wouldnt even mention it on other forums I go to, since flamewars would erupt. Again.

I understand that the entry price point is considered high at a consumer price point but the price of a virtual reality is similar to the price of a G-Sync monitor from a top-tier brand and widescreen monitors with an IPS panel can cost significantly more than a VR headset. Virtual Reality headset is a multimedia device, you can watch movies or use it for interactive viewing experiences outside of gaming.

https://www.oculus.com/experiences/rift/

The Rift will be more profitable over time because it is focusing on the bigger picture and that is an interactive multimedia device. Bethesda are working on Fallout 4 VR and they did implement a teleport system to reduce motion sickness, it could be a significant way to reduce the motion sickness. Nvidia are already working on eye-tracking technology that could revolutionize Virtual Reality, we will continue to see a strong level of investment and advancement in Virtual Reality.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6019 ... l-reality/

You know what Sony needs to do instead of a new console and VR junk?

Fix their servers! PlayStation Network seems to go down at least 1-2 times a week (and I'm not counting scheduled maintenances either). It really feels like they have cheap servers and refuse to upgrade. However they recently raised the price of PlayStation Plus... which likely wont do squat. More profits for them, no change to us consumers. Too many people get hooked into multiplayer gaming that they honestly don't care much about some fee Sony throws at them. Then there is the people that whine every month about the "free games" being crap. But these free games are just rentals, because once you cancel PS Plus.. you have no access to them unless you subscribe again. Such a bunch of crap in my view. Sony could ditch the free games each month and I doubt PS Plus profits would suffer much. I wish they would do it to prove the complainers wrong. Then there is PS Now- which is a decent enough idea: access to many games a month for a small price. The servers for PS Now are also broken a bit. It's unfortunate that gamers can't band together and say "enough is enough" of this server garbage.

Plain and simple- Sony is a big company that will raise prices, put out new shiny stuff for "hipsters" and tech obsessed people.. but will ignore the server stuff as long as they can.


I probably said some of this earlier but too lazy to check my post

I have no interest in VR or mulitplayer games or free crappy games to be honest, I just have a selection of 4 to 5 quality single player games I am interested in playing on a device I can play in bed, on a large 4K TV without lag or long loading times.

I ended up going with a PS4 pro, a Sony 43" XBR43X800D 4K HDR TV, and a Samsung 850 EVO 500GB SSD to swap into the PS4 pro. It's gonna take a couple weeks to get all here.

Dont see it to be worthwhile as i already have a ps4 and xb1

I'm hoping they continue to make non-pro PS4s as a budget option. It would be nice to be able to play a few games that aren't available on PC, but I'm not in much of a hurry to get a new console.

They released a more compact regular PS4 version that is cheaper.