PS4 could, to some extent, use streaming. NERD TALK AHOY!

[Biggles]

http://kotaku.com/5922812/you-may-already-own-a-playstation-4-the-sci+fi-reality-of-last-nights-big-sony+gaikai-news

Now, to simply that article a little, all signs point to the PS4 using streaming, to at least some extent, to make it a cheaper console.

Streaming works thusly:

Some guy in a big building builds a really fancy, overpowered computer, and runs your favorite game through it. It streams over the internet to you, and all your screen shows you is what it's doing. Overall, it means you buy a game, and it's run elsewhere, without you having to buy the expensive box required to make the game work. But you can play it.

Now, I'm not a fan of this technology, because it's dependent on an internet connection. Your $60 game will not work should your internet go out. That being said, Sony bought one of the world's leading distributors of streaming. That pretty much settles it. Either some aspect of their new console will use streaming, or they're branching into the PC market with a streaming service (which I doubt, because going up against Steam isn't cost-effective for any company, as sad as that is. Even EA is quietly releasing some of their new titles on Steam again). Not to mention, the internet connection required to stream most modern titles is something that under 1% of the world's internet-connected people have access to.

So my money's on Streaming being part of the PS4. It'd cut down on production costs of PS4 units. They could essentially rerelease PS3s in a fancy new case, let Streaming tackle half the rendering, and they'd have more processing power than any game needs. Which is a lot more "next-gen" than what they've suggested is in their fancy glowing box of PS4 wonder so far.

Just my thoughts. :>

[Twintower415]

I played a couple of games on Gaikai before, most of them.. that's what I do when classes are boring lol. It's pretty cool because you can pretty much play any games with a decent internet connection. I have no idea how half stream half ps4 would work, it sounds good for Sony if that's what they're planning to do. Hope they get succesful with PS4 and moar new amazing IP!

[Jammer]

Unless you have a godly internet connection, I can't imagine games running super smoothly. :S

[Felixlynch777]

I saw TB do a video on OnLive which is similar to this. Doesn't really tickle my proverbial fancy, the games were in 720p and had bad FPS dips.

[DeadCamper]

I read about this and I can't imagine it being the case for a long time, because of the crappy internet connections the vast majority of the world has as you mentioned.
On a side note, in one of TB's Mailbox videos they talked about there being rumor of a "super slim" PS3 coming out, I wonder how long we're going to have to wait for the next generation...

[Biggles]

I could totally see Sony doing this. It'd be a smart move for them. And it could very well run fine, all they'd have to do is introduce to games a little thing we PC elitists have known for years: variable settings.

I could see it working like so:

Games scan your internet connection, and see if your ISP has any scheduled outages. The game sets itself up accordingly. Everyone plays the same game, but with different visual quality based on their connection, kind of like what services like Netflix and Hulu have been doing already for years now.

The big problem with what little else I know about the PS4 is that it's really not an impressive system.

The PS4 has been confirmed to use what is essentially top-of-the-line hardware today. But "today" won't cut it. What gives consoles staying power, as we saw with this gen, is building them to be far better than any available PC at the time of their launch. The PS3 and Xbox both used 6-core (essentially) processors 3-4 years before they were made easily available and affordable to have in a PC. They also had, combined, 512 MB video ram, a VERY powerful GPU at the time.

Compared to the PS4, which is going to be utilizing an AMD 7950 last I heard, and a similar 6-core cpu as what the PS3 has... that's not really enough of a step forward to keep it going for 6 years.

And that's why I think Sony would be smart to look into the whole streaming thing as at least PART of the solution.

Again, this is all just my nerdy self being all speculative at things.

EDIT: And I expect to hear about the new Playstation at next year's E3, probably for an early 2014 launch.

Early launch makes more sense than it used to.

[Jammer]

I could totally see Sony doing this. It'd be a smart move for them. And it could very well run fine, all they'd have to do is introduce to games a little thing we PC elitists have known for years: variable settings.

I could see it working like so:

Games scan your internet connection, and see if your ISP has any scheduled outages. The game sets itself up accordingly. Everyone plays the same game, but with different visual quality based on their connection, kind of like what services like Netflix and Hulu have been doing already for years now.

Even with "variable settings' I don't see how it could be that effective.
I imagine that unless you have an amazing connection, you're going to be experiencing problems like drop in visual, frame rate drop, input lag, that sort of thing. Hell even with an amazing connection I could see those issues being problems from time to time.

My connection is fine, but sometimes (though very rarely) when I watch Netflix the visual quality drops so that it's almost pixel-ated really. I'm no expert, but I figure games would require more work to stream than shows because it has to take in controls and such too. So I imagine that kind of problem would be even more common with streaming games. And not just that problem, the ones I mentioned before like input lag and such.

Actually, on the subject of input lag, wouldn't that be a problem for basically everyone? When you play games online you're going to experience some, even if very slight, lag because what you do has to travel a distance. With this kind of system, wouldn't your controls now have to travel a distance, thus connection will suddenly play a big role in how smooth a game even just controls to you? Also, wouldn't that make lag a problem for not just multiplayer games, but single player games too?

Then there's the issue that's been addressed already, the inability to play single player games without a connection. That would be a major downer, you wouldn't have to just worry about the connection being occupied for multiplayer games anymore but single player too.

I'm not an expert, I don't know how this stuff works. I don't know how legitimate any of these concerns are, but regardless I just imagine such a system would seem like a major step back in terms of how smooth a game plays for many, especially those who are damned with an awful connection.

[Biggles]

Ah, but that's why the PS4 still has a processor and GPU and things like that.

The console handles gameplay and basic visuals, and streaming is used solely to boost the graphics if need-be.

At least, that's how I'd do it if I were Sony.

[DeadCamper]

PlayStream 4™!

[Jammer]

Well if it works like that, where you don't have to now worry about input lag and drops in gameplay and such, I suppose it'd be fine.

Still, that whole connection/single player thing would/could be kind of annoying.

[Omnirock]

Whatever they decide on doing with next gen consoles, can't say i'm interested in the least...

As for the streaming technology, it might be part of Sony's new console, but I don't think it'll be it's main draw... probably used to stream game demos, game trials and such.

As much as we like to think we're in the digital age, people are still way too attached to their retail games and tangible objects. What was that digital only PSP? I can't even remember, but i think it sold something like 4 units worldwide

Also there's the issues with bandwidth caps, download rates, etc. About an hour of gaming on a streaming service uses close to 3GB of bandwidth. Even at a respectable hour a day of gaming, that's 90GB of bandwidth a month just from playing games.

I've tried both OnLive and Gaikai's services, and actually have a handful of games on each. It's a pretty good service really, it works as it says it does, but that doesn't mean it's perfect. You will notice artifacts from compression, input lag, network lag, and occasional hiccups if your internet slows down or someone starts a download or something. It's a great service if you don't have a console, or a gaming PC, but I wouldn't use it over any of them, so those games I got on there, rarely ever get played (although I did play through all of Amnesia on OnLive).

Them acquiring Gaikai doesn't even really mean we'll see streaming on the next Playstation... the technology could be used for a wide variety of applications if tuned right. Being able to stream your console games, and play them from your PC, your Vita or to another TV in the house, or even login and play your games at a friend's house, who knows what's up their sleeve... if anything at all.

But yeah, speculating is fun.

[Felixlynch777]

One improvement I'd like to see over the PS3 is improving their API. I know they probably won't be using DirectX but the PS3's inefficient OpenGL variant really hamstrings the PS3. Yeah when the developers can really focus on it the results can look quite good as Uncharted and the Killzone games show. But exclusive games seem to be a dying trend.

It annoys me how nearly every game looks better on the 360 version. GTA IV on XBOX was pretty smooth and nice looking. On PS3 it's really blurry and completely fails to hold any kind of consistent frame rate. Got a few police cars chasing you? Down to 25fps. In a hectic mission? It become an unplayable slideshow. RDR was improved but the XBOX version has a longer draw distance and better foliage. Yes this partly due to dev laziness, but the company should make it nice and easy to develop games, which the OpenGL API doesn't.

And well I wouldn't be too keen on a internet always on DRM future. Please leave the downsides and technical frustrations of PC gaming out of consoles or they lose their point as a user friendly, less hassle device. I was really hoping for an announcement for a 2013 release, 2014 is too far. The Xbox will be nearly a decade old by then. In my ideal world 6 years would be the maximum, I'd prefer a 5 year lifespan.

EDIT: The XBOX has a tri-core processor and the PS3 has a quad, not hexacore. Plus the PS3 VRAM is 256mb. Hate to be pedantic ^_^

[DeadCamper]

Concerning the lifespan problem, I just don't see a fair middle ground. As consumers we can easily slip into the what's best for us and screw the big corps's mentality, but seeing as how they loose a lot of money with every new generation and sell new consoles at a loss for years, and the inherent risk that a new launch could even be a total failure as a product, then I can't imagine them being too eager to release new stuff too often. If we're being realistic the there has to be something in it for them too.

I don't want generations to last too long either, so don't get me wrong there. Some complain that they don't want to buy a new console "too often", but personally I'm actually in the awkward position where my first and only PS3 is still running, but if it breaks down I'll "have" to buy a new one and thus pay "double" the price this generation. If the PS4 was just around the corner then I could just hold off and buy it on release instead, assuming my PS3 crashes before that.

[Biggles]

The Xbox has 2 tri-cores, and the PS3's CPU has 7 cores.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3 (scroll down on the sidebar)

I don't count one of the cores because it's used solely to manage XMB, never for gaming.

Both consoles have 512 MB VRAM technically, since they share the 256 standard with video, and the CPUs work constantly to feed most/all of the RAM to video memory.

[Sponsored content]