3 ms·

I'm considering buying a PS4, and my gf keeps asking me why don't we just get a PS3 instead, as they're so much cheaper and the games look just as good? Now af

by davedx 13y ago

I'm considering buying a PS4, and my gf keeps asking me why don't we just get a PS3 instead, as they're so much cheaper and the games look just as good? Now after reading this article I'm really wondering. We don't have any consoles except a Wii so I was looking forward to having a "media centre" finally, but it looks like I'm SOL there on the PS4. :S

nextw33k 13y ago
There is something to be said for no serious gamers taking the previous generation of consoles. They are cheaper, build quality it better, more titles, more features. I was asked if I wanted a PS4 this Christmas to which I had to honestly reply, no. Getting the first production batch with so few games just didn't appeal to me over other things I could have.
berntb 13y ago
I have a PS3 and don't know if I'll upgrade to a PS4. Maybe when there are lots of more games. (Dark Souls 3?) (I might even have gone the M-soft way, since they seem to have better support for hobby developers, but I don't have time for work/hobbies already and ... well, Windows.) Edit: I might look into Steam and an ok graphics card for one of my Linux computers. (Anyway, my 2 cent.)
snogglethorpe 13y ago
It's not really true that "the games [will] look just as good" if you actually care about such things, and this will become increasingly true as games start to be optimized for and targeted at the PS4 (and the roughly equivalent Xbox One) instead of being quick ports using previous generation engines and data. The particular thing I'm really jazzed about on the PS4 is not GPU power, but that it has sixteen times the RAM (and much faster RAM to boot) of the PS3. The relatively small memory of the PS3 forced game makers to limit the size of levels, or go to great lengths to structure them to allow streaming of level data, and the amount of detail in each level. The PS4's (and Xbox One's) much larger memory should give much more freedom to game makers and help get rid of one of the most annoying attributes of many PS3 games: "Loading...." screens every five seconds...
georgemcbay 13y ago
The games don't look as good on the PS3. PS4 games are in their first generation and judging by history will get significantly better looking over time, but even now they have a crisp high-res look that makes them look better than PS3 games. Having said that, "The Last of Us" on PS3 is a far better game than anything available on the PS4 currently -- crisp graphics aren't everything. And you can pick up a PS3 with that game bundled for like $200 now compared to $400 for the PS4 with no games. The PS4 is lacking in the local video streaming department currently, as the article says, but it does have the usual assortment of media apps like netflix, hulu, amazon, vudu, etc. Personally the lack of local video streaming isn't a big deal for me because I have a dedicated htpc hooked up for that, xbmc on a cheap htpc (or even a raspberry pi) is always going to be a better, more codec-inclusive solution than whatever local videostreaming solution the consoles offer.

by davedx 13y ago

nextw33k 13y ago

There is something to be said for no serious gamers taking the previous generation of consoles. They are cheaper, build quality it better, more titles, more features. I was asked if I wanted a PS4 this Christmas to which I had to honestly reply, no. Getting the first production batch with so few games just didn't appeal to me over other things I could have.

berntb 13y ago

I have a PS3 and don't know if I'll upgrade to a PS4. Maybe when there are lots of more games. (Dark Souls 3?) (I might even have gone the M-soft way, since they seem to have better support for hobby developers, but I don't have time for work/hobbies already and ... well, Windows.) Edit: I might look into Steam and an ok graphics card for one of my Linux computers. (Anyway, my 2 cent.)

snogglethorpe 13y ago

It's not really true that "the games [will] look just as good" if you actually care about such things, and this will become increasingly true as games start to be optimized for and targeted at the PS4 (and the roughly equivalent Xbox One) instead of being quick ports using previous generation engines and data. The particular thing I'm really jazzed about on the PS4 is not GPU power, but that it has sixteen times the RAM (and much faster RAM to boot) of the PS3. The relatively small memory of the PS3 forced game makers to limit the size of levels, or go to great lengths to structure them to allow streaming of level data, and the amount of detail in each level. The PS4's (and Xbox One's) much larger memory should give much more freedom to game makers and help get rid of one of the most annoying attributes of many PS3 games: "Loading...." screens every five seconds...

georgemcbay 13y ago

The games don't look as good on the PS3. PS4 games are in their first generation and judging by history will get significantly better looking over time, but even now they have a crisp high-res look that makes them look better than PS3 games. Having said that, "The Last of Us" on PS3 is a far better game than anything available on the PS4 currently -- crisp graphics aren't everything. And you can pick up a PS3 with that game bundled for like $200 now compared to $400 for the PS4 with no games. The PS4 is lacking in the local video streaming department currently, as the article says, but it does have the usual assortment of media apps like netflix, hulu, amazon, vudu, etc. Personally the lack of local video streaming isn't a big deal for me because I have a dedicated htpc hooked up for that, xbmc on a cheap htpc (or even a raspberry pi) is always going to be a better, more codec-inclusive solution than whatever local videostreaming solution the consoles offer.