Realistically how much would it cost to make a console that could do vidya games at 4k? What price would Sony sell it at?
>>331862585
It'll cost $400 two gens from now when they decide that 4K is relevant and cheap enough to add to their consoles. Next-gen will bring 1440p into the picture
They'd have to sell at a huge loss. My PC with a 980ti can hardly play most AAA games at 4K 30fps and it cost me about 1400.
Unless Polaris/pascal are that big of a jump, I can see them shooting for 4K medium settings at maybe 700 dollars with selling it a loss
>>331862585
You're looking at around $1,200 if they don't sell at a loss.
>>331863254
But everyone will have a 4k tv at that point, there's no way they'll do 1440p.
They'll probably do a 4k console, even if they have to sell it at 600$ like with the PS3.
>>331863376
Everyone has a 1080p TV and quantum break is set to run at 720
>>331862585
wait for 1080 consoles then add 36 months for moores law to quadruple the performance per chip
>>331863376
Everyone has a 1080p screen now, but you don't see consoles giving a shit.
>>331862585
Good question. Its hard to say because currently you need to spend around $1500 for a capable build. Which isn't too bad. That's a cunt hair more than my last 3 builds in the last six years.
New tech and more efficient manufacturing you could probably get that down to $700 in a few years. But you're gonna take a hit per unit.
>>331862585
$599
Who would buy it? How many homes have a 4k tv? I'm willing to bet it's 1% or less. Even 4k bluesy isn't big yet. The next step for next gen is 1080p/60fps. Although I doubt they'll do a gen between. The last thing they want is everyone becoming accustomed to 60fps then dropping back down to 25 for 4k.
>>331864789
Most homes didn't use HDMI when last gem launched, maybe they want to future proof
>>331865273
The problem with future proofing is that by the time the technology they was trying to proof against becomes standard and widespread, their version of it is pretty shitty.
For example, last generation and 1080p
>>331862585
I don't think it is possible at this point of time for a console to jump to 4k gaming. for hard ware you'll need some 8 core 2.4ghz~ processor insane 16gb of HBM memory with something like 980ti to pull off 30-60fps.
Then you'll have to think of like development you would need even higher res texture so you might see games with 40gb+ easily on AAA title games.
>>331862585
800-1200$ or something.
A 980ti can barely do 30-40fps @ 4K for modern games and that costs over $500.
4k is not yet possible for consoles.
For PC, you can plug in a 980ti or a furyx with beefy 500watt(or 600, 700, 800, 1200, etc) power supplies.
Consoles never go above 250.
AMD's next gen polaris cards are supposed to be performance-per-watt focused so maybe in the future. But if sony were to use one for the so called ps4k, it would be ridiculously expensive.
4K is a meme. Not enough people have monitors/televisions to take advantage of it, you need a lot of expensive hardware power for 4K or they will downgrade games to PS2 level graphics to make them playable, and the console will have to be huge to cool that powerful hardware.
They may as well should make a PS4 with better hardware so they can play games at 1080p and 60FPS consistently. 4K support maybe for movies and the PS4 menu, but for games is retarded.
To render 4k at 30 frames with the same graphical fidelity as most titles today? A mass-produced console would likely cost next to $1000.
The tech just isn't there yet. We barely have streaming options and viewing options for 4k so far, and it pushes rendering technology to the limit.
>>331865491
As far as film goes, 4k is really only the better option if you have a huge TV. The difference between 4k and 1080 just isn't big enough for people to upgrade right now. Diminishing returns and all that.
STOP SAYING 4K IT DOESNT EXIST
3840X2160 IS NOT 4000 IN ANY WAY
>>331867037
no one wants to say 2160p
>>331862585
599$ USD.
The price it should have cost Sony to make a 1080p console, I guess.
>>331867037
It's 4 times the resolution of 1080p and it's easier to remember 4k than 2160p.
Assuming the rumors are true, PS4K is meant to push UHD movies and televisions.
>>331862585
Five hundred and ninety-nine US dollars
300 but the frame rate would be 5 fps
>>331867037
Blame marketers and ignorant consumers.
Inb4 it does 2k at best and upscales to 4k
>>331868707
But I'm p sure the PS4 can already do that
>>331871293
The current PS4 does not support Ultra HD Blu-Ray
>>331862585
it's not the same price as building a PC, they get tons of price reduction because they build a single device and directly order a million units.
If anything, it will be the same price as the PS4 launch
>>331872407
Ultra HD blu-ray and 4k streaming are different. I'm pretty sure they can stream Netflix 4k currently.
>>331862585
A console that can upscale to 4k?
Ps4 price plus 10 quid for a new HDMI module
Wtf would be the point of a 4K console. Devs can't even be bothered making 1080p games nowadays because they focus so much on the realistic visuals instead
I wish they'd just make decent 1080p with high settings and 50-60 fps.
