It will eventually (when we can run PS4 emulators )

So are Team ICO developing this or not? It's certainly got that desaturated look of Ico and-and Shadow of the Colossus, in fact, it really does look like a PS2 game in terms of the engine.

But I care not one solitary rats arse about the engine. The animation is beautiful and the architectural design is stunning.

Ico and SotC were amazing games. They had great puzzles and genuinely engaging stories, all without a line of understandable dialog.

If this actually comes out, I will rent a PS4 to play it, and it will wreck me

Count me in on the hate boat. I loathed FF7 for its broken system. It was the only game out of any RPG games I've played that I've managed to hit L99, either voluntarily or involuntarily. It just happened. Reason why I hate it? Imagine the this setup:

Cloud + Ultima Weapon + 8 Counter-Attack materia attached, two extra party members.... vs JENOVA.

Result: it died after 1 round of attack.

Is it a reason to get a PS4? Hell f'ing no. I'd rather play the "Tales of" series and Star Ocean.

I use slightly less than that myself on average, but we have solar water heating (supplemented with gas), so that's a good savings (especially since it also heats the hot tub), and we replaced all our light bulbs with led bulbs when they became feasible last year. Now, we usually read between 400 and 1000 watts during the day (depending on how many lights I have on, and if the refrigerator is cycled on or not.) That's running a big screen TV, computer, and often ps4 almost all day, every day. We also have electric stove and oven...and I weld, adding somewhat to our total.

Yes, my battery bank is only useful for power outages. It's enough to keep the lights on and the fridge from thawing, but not much else. We get about 3-4 hours out of it if I don't notice the power went out, but can make it all night if we conserve. Our system is grid tied, and first powers the home, then tops off the batteries, then sells any excess to PG&E. To date, I've never drawn the batteries down to zero...but we do have a small generator to supplement it when the power's out for days. The average home would certainly need more, but a 10kwh battery should be plenty to make it through an average night without AC (we don't have AC here).

My current system could not produce that much, but close. I live in N California, one of the foggiest areas in the US. Because we have a renter, an electric hot tub, dishwasher, and electric washer and drier, we use slightly more than we generate at this point, but my system is upgradeable to 6500 watts of generation (I have less than 1/3 of that now) when panels get cheaper...and when I can find space for more.

My system is not flat to my roof, and I have 2 strings of 8 panels. With the solar water tubes, it takes up most of the south 1/2 of my roof (1200 sq ft home). I could maybe fit 4 more panels up there and still be able to walk around them to clean them, but any more and I'll need some mounting structure. I really want to add a small wind turbine to generate at night or when there's a storm...solar doesn't work in the dark.

In America, we still have some rebates for people adding solar to their homes, but they are drying up fast. 15-20 years ago, you could almost do it for free if you got every rebate available.

We used to have about 1-2 weeks of power outage where I live per year, and that was part of why we did they system. We hated having no power and losing food every year, and also hated paying the ever rising cost of electricity. Before adding our system, we had $4-500 a month electric bills, now we have <$100 in winter and sometimes a negative bill in summer...we pay our bill once a year now, lump sum at the end of 12 months.
On to your second post....
I often think...electric cars were popular and the norm in cities before Ford came along. It's still astonishing to me that it was basically dropped for a century as a technology (with minor exceptions). I'm glad someone had finally gone back to it and is trying to fix it's issues. If I could afford a Tesla, I would have one.

I also agree, people won't adopt the technology as long as they have to sacrifice lifestyle for it. I said the same thing, but I found that I don't change my lifestyle at all with my solar system, I just pay lower bills. I determined that buying a system would pay for itself in under 10 years, with the lifespan of a system being about 20 years, that's 10 years of free electricity! That all assumes electric rates didn't go up, and they certainly have gone up...but not for me. You just need to be sure you install enough panels to supply all your power, and you're there.

The battery thing is really mostly for non-grid tied systems, or emergencies. Most people don't use batteries at night, it's simpler and cheaper to just sell power to the grid during the day and buy it back at night if you can, using them as your battery. Perhaps this battery will change that, but with lead acid, it's hard to make them worth the cost.

Panels aren't that expensive, really. In many areas, with rebates, they can be near free. (some companies will even give them to you and split the power generated off your roof). It's a myth that solar is expensive...when compared to non-solar. Mine are paid for by bill savings already (8 years + in) so I'm saving money with them now, and my lifestyle has not suffered in the least. I have lights on if its dark, I watch TV all day, and use the computer all day, have tons of electric devices I use, and soon will power a pond, etc. I often think that my life is a much better example of how you can be 'green' without much change than Gore's. He really doesn't seem to walk the walk, but he can sure talk the talk.

Hmmm. Well, I have a "low end" pc, and I've tried to play games on it, and was not impressed. Perhaps I should have done more investigation before I bought it, but I wasn't thinking 'game machine' when I did. Also, I have no controllers for it, and playing with the keyboard sucks ass! ;-)
Keep in mind, this setup on the video has over $4K in graphics cards alone, and is probably a $6-7K computer without the 3 TV's. With all that, it doesn't look better to me than last gen 3 screen games. (they should have chosen a different game IMO, I'm sure it does look way better when there's detail to display)

It's good that they're making them easier to set up, but it is still WAY more difficult than a console, which is plug and play. I still haven't gotten my PC to display properly on my TV without a cable across the room, and that's crappy.
I'm also disappointed that they tried to make the new consoles "media players" (crappy PCs). I wish they stuck with games and put it all into display features, but they didn't. I don't use the media features of my ps4 at all (except for Netflix, which my TV would do by itself if I set it up), they're a total waste.

Perhaps I'm stuck in a mid 90's mindset. That's the last time I built my own PC as a game rig. I had the full $250 thrustmaster setup, joystick and throttle with over 20 programmable buttons, and it was GREAT for descent and quake...but I recall being disappointed at how fast it was obsolete. Within 2 years I couldn't play newer games on it without stuttering....so I gave up on that. I can't afford to upgrade my memory and graphics card every 2 years, and motherboard and chip every 3.

I do recall a few games even on ps3 that could do the multiple display thing even at 1080i...I think motorstorm 1&2 (my favorite ps3 games) would do it, but you needed 3 ps3s to make it work. Today, you could probably do that for fairly cheap! What does a ps3 cost these days anyway? I must say, I didn't see anything that made 4K seem better. Motion blur looks the same at 1080 as 4K.

I'm not talking about building a "serious gaming rig". Any half decent gaming pic is 2-3 times more powerful than an xbone/ps4. 1080 is really pretty low end for modern PCs.

I'm talking about building a low end PC that's comparable to a console. There are plenty of articles detailing it on the web.

As for configuration, drivers, etc, this isn't the 90s any more. If you want to build a god machine, oc the hell out of it, then yeah, you need to put some serious effort in. But to build a simple machine, run windows and steam, and play at 1080p? Not really much work involved.

I built a pretty powerful machine last year (water cooled, over clocked, etc) and it took a lot of work. But I haven't really needed to do much since.

@ChaosEngine

Everything @newtboy said. I think you're exaggerating just a tad. You're not going to build a PC that runs newly released games at 1080p at 60fps and also includes a blu-ray drive , 500 GB HD, and wireless motion sensitive controller for under $400 US (current price of PS4 on US Amazon). Plus, you're almost certainly going to have to buy a 1080p monitor (since most people don't do their computing on their TV or keep their tower case in the living room), which will set you back $200 minimum even for a cheap one that's likely to ghost.

As far as games go, nearly EVERY major release will be on all platforms and in fact will likely come out on console first (GTA V). Sure, some kickstarter stuff like Pillars of Eternity won't be available but it works both ways--you won't get some awesome console exclusives on the PC (Mario Kart, Little Big Planet, etc.) either.

Plus as newtboy mentioned, you can rent and sell console games. Yeah, PC games drop to much lower price points as they get older (I usually pick up all the good stuff I missed at $3-5 during Steam sales) but reselling isn't an option for most stuff (yet). You can mod most PC games, though, so that's a plus for them.

Look, I play 90% of my games on my gaming PC. That's because I have the time and money to do so. I don't understand the attitude of looking down on people who don't have those luxuries or who don't want to spend the prerequisite time required pouring over tech forums, price comparing at hardware vendors websites like Newegg, and downloading proper drivers just to build a gaming PC on the cheap when they can just go to a store down the road and pick up something comparable with virtually no effort.

You could easily build a PC that's better than a PS4 for the money. If you factor in the cost of the games over the lifetime of the machine, it becomes even cheaper.

And while you can't rent games, you have access to GOG, steam and hundreds of indie games. If you want to play the original Doom or X-wing, you can. Good luck playing any games that aren't from the latest generation on console... oh no, wait, you can probably get them on PC too.
And if all you want is a games machine, install steam, run big picture mode and leave the PC under the TV. Boom! Instant console but better.

What? Where can you buy a gaming rig that's better than a PS4 for under $350 with a game and a controller?
Also, you can't rent PC games like you can for consoles. I've played 25+ games last year thanks to gamefly. Purchased for PC I could have afforded <4 at the same price. That's the best reason I can think of for consoles over PC. Don't get me wrong, for pure quality, PC's have had it over consoles for quite a while, but consoles are pure game machines (well, kind of pure), they do 1080p these days (on some games), and they run on my TV without a cable running across the floor!

@SDGundamX yeah, consoles used to "just work", when they were actually dedicated games machines.

This console generation is just shit PCs. There's really no reason to buy a console anymore.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they exist. They subsidise games that are better on the pc and console controllers are absolutely better for some games.

But now you can buy a PC for less than the cost of a new xbone/ps4 and run your games in full 1080p using the same controller. And there's no faffing about required.
Plus you get way more games than are available on console.

Fuck yeah, it's GPCGMR time!

I hate consoles...

...but a full Xbox 1 setup including 70" 1080p widescreen and a decent surround sound would cost about as much as the monitors.

Add in half the Titans, and you've got yourself a PS4 too. Plus most of the games ever made for both.

At the very end, after the playstation logo, it reads "FROSTBITE GAME ENGINE FOOTAGE REPRESENTATIVE OF PLAYSTATION 4. NOT ACTUAL GAMEPLAY.".

So while it may be rendered in-engine, the wording makes it sound like this wasn't done on a PS4 and it's more like an in-engine cutscene, using animations, effects, and physics that won't be seen in the actual gameplay.

GTA V: PS4 / PC / C64 Comparison has been added as a related post - related requested by Zawash on that post.

Naaa....I've got a ps4 to play. I did take a quick trip down memory lane, though, going through the list of games. ;-)

I actually never had a single bug of that kind happen to me during the game. I played (and finished) the PS4 version

Not only does the character and stats transfer, but they just announced if you buy on 360 or PS3 it will be a free upgrade to the XBox One or PS4 version respectively. http://www.destinythegame.com/digital-upgrade That is a limited time offer, but the character/stats transfer is a regular thing.