Next Playstation to support 4K televisions?

We have just started to get used to big screen TVs that have 1080p resolutions, but Sony is apparently hoping that the world is already ready for the next step: 4K resolution TV sets. For those who may not be familiar with the term, 4K refers to a screen that has a resolution of up to 4096x3072.

Sony is already preparing for the rise of 4K televisions by selling a Blu-Ray player that can upscale images to those high resolutions.  Now Boy Genius Report is now claiming (who has a 48% accuracy rating), via unnamed sources, that Sony is also planning on adding 4K resolution support for the next version of its Playstation game console.

If this is true, it would not be that big of a shock. The original Playstation 3, released in 2006, was one of the first devices with a Blu-Ray disc player inside, showing that Sony has not been afraid to go ahead of the curve in supporting new consumer electronics hardware (although it also was one of the big reasons why the PS3 was so expensive when it launched, with a price starting at $499.

Sony has yet to talk publicly about its plans for the next Playstation, although it is rumored that the company could officially announce the product at E3 2013 in June, with a launch at the end of 2013.

Source: Boy Genius Report | Image via Sony

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Review: Falcon Northwest Tiki small form factor gaming PC

Next Story

Black Isle Studios revived at Interplay

48 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

After they removed 'Other OS' and added Cinavia to the PS3, I will never purchase another Sony product. They bricked my device with forced updates. Where is my class action money, by the way?

i believe the correct 4k resolution is 3,840 x 2,160, but i could be wrong.

it's obvious the PS4 wont support 4k games, but i firmly believe it will support 4k tv's, upscaling, and 2D.

Almost all 2012 Blu-Ray models from Sony have a 4k support.

And there is no nedd for a very powerfull video card - look at what's inside the actual PS.

What's an low-performance card on a PC, could be a monster in a PS, because it's directly accesed, there's no need to use of intermediariyAPI's like DirectX.

eiffel_g said,
Almost all 2012 Blu-Ray models from Sony have a 4k support.

And there is no nedd for a very powerfull video card - look at what's inside the actual PS.

What's an low-performance card on a PC, could be a monster in a PS, because it's directly accesed, there's no need to use of intermediariyAPI's like DirectX.


Erm, not a powerfull video card in the PS3? You do know it has backing of its Cell cores? That you could in theory use 6 cores for GPU and 1 core for CPU? 6x3ghz isnt a fast GPU?

Shadowzz said,

Erm, not a powerfull video card in the PS3? You do know it has backing of its Cell cores? That you could in theory use 6 cores for GPU and 1 core for CPU? 6x3ghz isnt a fast GPU?
I always figured that a GPU and CPU were not really interchangeable. You know, since one is dedicated and the other isn't. Which is why a GPU is much better a processing graphics than a CPU could ever be.

So in turn, I figured the PS3 had the Cell Processor as the CPU and something else for processing graphics. Guess I was wrong...

Hopefully, they'll take the hint from pc case makers and include removable dust filters this time. And beefier cooling.

Not happening, unless they're planning to release the PS4 in 2015 or Sony is suddenly starting to target millionaires:

- TVs that support 4k at this point are:
extremely rare
very expensive (over $20,000)
huge (over 80")

- Displaying smooth 60fps at these resolutions would require something like 2 GeForce GTX 690 in SLI. About $4,000 at retail. Even if Sony get these at a third of their retail price, that's still a cost of over $1,000 for the graphic card alone. They'd need to sell retail PS4 at $3,000 a pop to even recoup costs.

andrewbares said,

Sony is known for selling the PS3 at a loss.


Sony were indeed reportedly losing $250-$300 on the $500 PS3 model at launch (-50%).

There's no way they'd take a $3,000 hit on a $500 console.

a0me said,
Not happening, unless they're planning to release the PS4 in 2015 or Sony is suddenly starting to target millionaires:

- TVs that support 4k at this point are:
extremely rare
very expensive (over $20,000)
huge (over 80")

- Displaying smooth 60fps at these resolutions would require something like 2 GeForce GTX 690 in SLI. About $4,000 at retail. Even if Sony get these at a third of their retail price, that's still a cost of over $1,000 for the graphic card alone. They'd need to sell retail PS4 at $3,000 a pop to even recoup costs.


Support doesnt mean it gets used.
Most PS3 games dont even go full HD its just upscaled.

a0me said,
Not happening, unless they're planning to release the PS4 in 2015 or Sony is suddenly starting to target millionaires:

- TVs that support 4k at this point are:
extremely rare
very expensive (over $20,000)
huge (over 80")

- Displaying smooth 60fps at these resolutions would require something like 2 GeForce GTX 690 in SLI. About $4,000 at retail. Even if Sony get these at a third of their retail price, that's still a cost of over $1,000 for the graphic card alone. They'd need to sell retail PS4 at $3,000 a pop to even recoup costs.


"Support" doesnt instantly mean games are going to be made at that resolution. it'll simply be support for upscaling, video, photos, 2D stuff.

That's 12 MegaPixel goodness!
Get ready to re-buy your movie collection and throw out your BluRays, RedBeam's just around the corner...

Shouldn't it be called "3k" instead of "4k"? Historically the second, or Y dimension, has been used for the moniker describing the resolution.

1080p/i = 1920x1080
720p = 1280x720
480p/i = 704x480

So why is it that...
4k = 4096x3072 ??

Reminds me of when memory manufacturers decided to start giving us bandwidth numbers instead of (or in addition to) the memory FSB or frequency. Why? Because its a bigger number. One bonehead starts the trend then the rest jump on board because they don't want to be the company left behind with the smaller number on their product. Crazy right?

Tim Dawg said,
Shouldn't it be called "3k" instead of "4k"? Historically the second, or Y dimension, has been used for the moniker describing the resolution.

1080p/i = 1920x1080
720p = 1280x720
480p/i = 704x480

So why is it that...
4k = 4096x3072 ??

Reminds me of when memory manufacturers decided to start giving us bandwidth numbers instead of (or in addition to) the memory FSB or frequency. Why? Because its a bigger number. One bonehead starts the trend then the rest jump on board because they don't want to be the company left behind with the smaller number on their product. Crazy right?

It's simply because the resolution is defined by the horizontal dimension. 4k isn't necessarily that specific resolution. I'd look it up on Wikipedia, they have a good description of why

Tim Dawg said,
Shouldn't it be called "3k" instead of "4k"? Historically the second, or Y dimension, has been used for the moniker describing the resolution.

1080p/i = 1920x1080
720p = 1280x720
480p/i = 704x480

So why is it that...
4k = 4096x3072 ??

Reminds me of when memory manufacturers decided to start giving us bandwidth numbers instead of (or in addition to) the memory FSB or frequency. Why? Because its a bigger number. One bonehead starts the trend then the rest jump on board because they don't want to be the company left behind with the smaller number on their product. Crazy right?

Its also about the fact that 4K is 4 times the resolution of 1080p.

M4x1mus said,

Its also about the fact that 4K is 4 times the resolution of 1080p.

Umm, 4K means 4,000 just in case you forgot. So where in your equation did you lose 1000%?

Jose_49 said,
AFAIK is twice the width and twice the height of the Full HD res.

1920 x 2 = 3840
1080 x 2 = 2160


3840x2160 =/= 4096x3072

The 4K term is nothing but hype for those that really want to feel as though they're really getting something for the insane price they're paying. Sure, there's a difference in picture but not as much as the jump from 480p to 720p (or 1080i). There's even less of a jump between 720p to 1080p.

With each increase in resolution the noticeable difference becomes less and less. Why is this true? Because for us lowly humans we have limits. Those limits represent 100% perception in differences. So if you figure (for example, not literal) 10,000 lines of resolution is the max we can perceive - each time we get closer to that number the total percent in difference we can perceive becomes less and less.

For those that overclock and mess with other aspects of a computer. You should understand this concept. The higher you overclock the less of a performance gain you notice. Of course this doesn't have as much to do with perception as is has to do with more technical things.

Is alright if it uses some sort of new HDMI standard or whatever. In theory, new consoles should easily push 4K 2D content. Now, games might stay on 1080p, sort of like now they stay at 720p but the console has no problem displaying 2D in 1080p.

I think is a good decision since new consoles will probably last at least the same period these ones lasted, unless cloud streamed gaming becomes a real alternative in the coming 5 years (which I highly doubt, internet speeds nowadays are just not reliable, we better wait for Google fiber massification or similar).

BTW, I wonder if they are going to finally release the discs that can fit a 4K movie. I think Bluray is capable if used with full layers. In any case, get ready for the eventual rebuy of everything now in 4k... . And what about 4K downloads? lol, talk about huge hard disks!.

I don't see this going over any more than the short-lived 3DTV fad. How much money was thrown in the toilet on that?

GreyWolf said,
I don't see this going over any more than the short-lived 3DTV fad. How much money was thrown in the toilet on that?

While I'm still hoping its a fad, because I absolutely hate 3DTV, they're still selling them. Its almost a standard feature on large TVs now so I don't know if it can be called a fad... Although I don't know a single person who owns a 3D TV who has used the 3D functionality more than once or twice.

Support for the 4K format is almost necessary for next-gen consoles; however, I doubt we'll see any games running at that resolution. Unless of course it's a 2D title. The real reason for supporting it is likely to be playback of 4K videos (e.g. upscaled Blu-ray movies).

Consoles aren't anymore what they used to be, I can believe that I had missed so much fun ignoring PC games, I feel ashamed of myself, and I'm not talking about FPS.

Darth Tigris said,

Kinda like 1080p screens on a smartphone. Remember when they told us you really couldn't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p unless the screen was over 50"? : |

That's a bit different, more pixels = more workspace. TV's though... you're really not going to notice a difference.

shockz said,

That's a bit different, more pixels = more workspace. TV's though... you're really not going to notice a difference.

Umm no. There comes a point where text or buttons cannot be any smaller or else people wouldn't be able to read them.

You don't magically get more workspace by increasing the resolution. Things just become crisper. But things still need to be just as big to be touchable and readable.

Darth Tigris said,

Kinda like 1080p screens on a smartphone. Remember when they told us you really couldn't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p unless the screen was over 50"? : |

They said it was pointless for smaller TV's because you're sitting a lot further away from them than you are from a smartphone.

1080p on a 4-5" phone screen is about the point where you cant see any pixels anymore. Some people think this happens at a lower resolution but you can still slight jagged edges on diagonal lines, especially when they're moving.

I'm not saying that its completely necessary to have 1080p on a phone, but until you cant see the difference, they're gonna keep on increasing the resolution.

andrewbares said,

Umm no. There comes a point where text or buttons cannot be any smaller or else people wouldn't be able to read them.

You don't magically get more workspace by increasing the resolution. Things just become crisper. But things still need to be just as big to be touchable and readable.

um, yes. 720p televisions came in a variety of resolutions... 1366x768, 1280x720, etc... and if you used it as a desktop monitor, you certainly had a wider space to utilize depending on the res. Picture quality wise however, you didn't notice a difference.

It will have 4k, 2 Ethernet ports, 4 HDMI ports, run Windows, Linux, and OSX, and have backcompat. Then it will ship without half of those, and the others removed after a forced upgrade.

nohone said,
It will have 4k, 2 Ethernet ports, 4 HDMI ports, run Windows, Linux, and OSX, and have backcompat. Then it will ship without half of those, and the others removed after a forced upgrade.

Yeah, that's Sony for you. Overhype and underdeliver! Same thing happened with the PS3 and the few features that made it stand out and were useful were taken out afterwards.
4K TV sets cost an arm and a leg and though the PS3 supports 4K for 2D pictures, it doesn't for anything else. The PS4 will never support games running at that resolution unless Sony want it to cost FIVE HUNDRED AND NINETY-NINE DOLLARS or more again and take a huge loss on the price.
Looking at Sony's current situation, every dollar you throw at them is a dollar thrown away as they are on a rollercoaster straight into oblivion.

Thief000 said,

Yeah, that's Sony for you. Overhype and underdeliver! Same thing happened with the PS3 and the few features that made it stand out and were useful were taken out afterwards.
4K TV sets cost an arm and a leg and though the PS3 supports 4K for 2D pictures, it doesn't for anything else. The PS4 will never support games running at that resolution unless Sony want it to cost FIVE HUNDRED AND NINETY-NINE DOLLARS or more again and take a huge loss on the price.
Looking at Sony's current situation, every dollar you throw at them is a dollar thrown away as they are on a rollercoaster straight into oblivion.

See my post below. I don't think they could sell the PS4 at under $3,000 per unit with that kind of specs.

theyarecomingforyou said,
It makes sense to support the 4K format, though there's no way the console will have enough power to render games at that resolution.

Pack 'em up 2 GTX 690 and you'll be fine

Jose_49 said,

Pack 'em up 2 GTX 690 and you'll be fine

Yeah, though I have two 680s in SLI and Crysis dips below 60fps at 2.5K (2560x1600).

Oh, and apart from being noisy that might be a little too costly for a consumer console.

theyarecomingforyou said,

Yeah, though I have two 680s in SLI and Crysis dips below 60fps at 2.5K (2560x1600).

Oh, and apart from being noisy that might be a little too costly for a consumer console.


And remember, they do not put high Anti Aliasing and Multi Sampling on the games, so it can be achieved (although I couldn't justify the cost)

theyarecomingforyou said,
It makes sense to support the 4K format, though there's no way the console will have enough power to render games at that resolution.

i'd buy the TV to use as a monitor! but like they said above, you'd need a $1000 worth of video card to run it!

Jose_49 said,

And remember, they do not put high Anti Aliasing and Multi Sampling on the games, so it can be achieved (although I couldn't justify the cost)

'achieved'...With CryEngine? ba dun ch..