Support NeoGAF

[therealbigrich]

All this talk and I still am in wait and see mode. Honestly from what I can tell a console would cost at least 1k give or take to push 4k and that's with a loss which I'm sure they are comfortable with taking on hardware. I just can't see any gaming platform really being a huge success in terms of ps1, ps2 or wii with a price tag of over 500

 

[Skinpop]

I find the overall positive reactions to the idea in here depressing. Makes me want to quit console gaming altogether since if people are for it then surely it will happen. Guess I'm a fossil or something for thinking it's crazy how people actually want consoles to be like iphones, saying that's a good model to imitate. Then there's the obsession with graphics and the newest tech, it's like I don't even understand why people play games on consoles at all anymore. That stuff is exciting for the 12-18 months before a new console reveal but after that it does nothing but detract from the things we all really should care about: the games.

If they go down this path, I know I as well as many others will abandon console gaming. I hope they'll crash and burn horribly, because with that there's at least a good chance pc will become the unified platform for all games(which is worse than what we have now, but better than this nonsense).
I'm sure in a decade or so we'll all look back at the great value and joy we had in being able to buy a system that allowed us to to play every game on equal terms for half a decade or more without ever spending a single thought on upgrading or worrying about having the best or most up to date experience. It's hard to come up with a better value proposition than that for both customers and developers.

 

[onQ123]

My main sticking point is the fact that something with the power to run 4k isn't going to be cheap is it?

If the hardware is made for 4K it will be able to do it for cheap.

 

[onQ123]

All this talk and I still am in wait and see mode. Honestly from what I can tell a console would cost at least 1k give or take to push 4k and that's with a loss which I'm sure they are comfortable with taking on hardware. I just can't see any gaming platform really being a huge success in terms of ps1, ps2 or wii with a price tag of over 500

you can get a GPU for $200 that can run games at 4K & it will be even cheaper when it move to 14nm & newer tech that's made for 4K

 

[opticalmace]

Has there been an update on this?

Just the venture beat story I guess?

 

[papo]

...I...don't think you quite understood what I was saying. Consoles won't be able to catch up or even get near the newest GPU thresholds unless they refresh on a yearly cycle, and Nvidia has thus far mocked console gaming at every turn since the OG Xbox. An iterative model brings with it the disadvantages PC has of having to upgrade/devs target multiple SKUs, but none of the advantages in leading power or longevity. Consoles up until now have held their own method of longevity by instilling an investment value upon consumers - buy in, and you're good until the next generation with the best this gen has to offer. An iterative model instead encourages upgrades, and on that front PC will still outpace consoles and offer far more breadth of options at that. When this happens, a lot of people will see PC as the better investment, and will either forsake console gaming or relegate it to secondary status (talking about primarily console gamers atm). I can't quantify how many that would be, of course. You can then add on the younger generations that are growing up on PC and tablets, smartphones, instead of consoles. The console market is generally aging AFAIK, and hasn't picked up the interest of young gamers like they did to us. Someone can correct me on that if I'm mistaken.

Ok I get what you are saying now, but I still disagree on some points. PC will still be way more expensive to get into and even with upgrades. I'm sure consoles will never aim for that price scale so I don't think people will forsake consoles for PC.

The way I am thinking it is that even with yearly releases they can catch up. PC gives you a whole lot of other options to build upon on so Sony/MS will most likely choose specific hardware which then will not cause as many issues with the upgrades. Even then PC components are not released that much that consoles will fall behind quickly. Even if it is a 2 years cycle. Like Nividia/AMD/Intel/ATI usually have one big release a year or every 12-18 months. By releasing in anticipation or even in conjunction they could potential keep ahead of PC or at least close. A lot closer than right now that is why I think a 2-3 years cycle works. Also when consoles are "spec'ed" they don't necessarily choose the latest HW, but using this smartphone like model they would try harder to aim for that.

As far as development goes I think, maybe speculate, that adding a ton more QA for their releases would help iron out issue in performance between the different hardware. As they are now I still feel they need a ton more QA, but anyways I think it would be a good idea. In its 7 year cycle PS3 and Xbox360 got 3 redesigns. If this console cycle is similar I could see the slim versions taking this place. Not only a newer slimmer version, but with better HW inside.

It still involves a lot of speculation on how it could be implemented, but I personally think it could work as long as they don;t change the hardware too much to make more like PS5 instead of PS4 ver2.0

 

[RadicalVelocity]

All this talk and I still am in wait and see mode. Honestly from what I can tell a console would cost at least 1k give or take to push 4k and that's with a loss which I'm sure they are comfortable with taking on hardware. I just can't see any gaming platform really being a huge success in terms of ps1, ps2 or wii with a price tag of over 500

A thousand dollars?

Desktop gpus are sold with considerable markup. 2-3x the cost of components alone.

Sony and MS both pay for R&D (consider this fixed), then pay for the cost of fabbing the chips with a royalty fee for each.

1k would probably get you a system with the AMD 16nm FinFET equivalent of a 980 ti, quite possibly in excess of that even after all the adjustments to power and cool such a system.

But Sony isn't going to release at such a price, and it won't be the mass market option immediately.

If they move to this model, early adopters will shift to the newest version, and regular PS4 sales will accelerate (there's an interesting effect where introducing a premium product makes the lower tier product look like a much better deal than it did before). As prices decrease, ps4+ sales will take over and then ps5 will be introduced. Ps4+ becomes baseline spec until ps5+ is introduced. With the architecture stable, cross gen development is eased considerably.

If this model is introduced, I think they may need to roadmap for the public their future plans, so people have a grasp of where things are going.

 

[onQ123]

I find the overall positive reactions to the idea in here depressing. Makes me want to quit console gaming altogether since if people are for it then surely it will happen. Guess I'm a fossil or something for thinking it's crazy how people actually want consoles to be like iphones, saying that's a good model to imitate. Then there's the obsession with graphics and the newest tech, it's like I don't even understand why people play games on consoles at all anymore. That stuff is exciting for the 12-18 months before a new console reveal but after that it does nothing but detract from the things we all really should care about: the games.

If they go down this path, I know I as well as many others will abandon console gaming. I hope they'll crash and burn horribly, because with that there's at least a good chance pc will become the unified platform for all games(which is worse than what we have now, but better than this nonsense).
I'm sure in a decade or so we'll all look back at the great value and joy we had in being able to buy a system that allowed us to to play every game on equal terms for half a decade or more without ever spending a single thought on upgrading or worrying about having the best or most up to date experience. It's hard to come up with a better value proposition than that for both customers and developers.

Hold up! if you only care about the games & not the hardware why would this even matter to you? the games will still run on both consoles just one will play it in 4K.


So tell me why are you against it if you only care about the games? This is still the PS4 it's just a PS4 made for 4K & better VR.

PSVR should bother you more than PS4.5 because you will have to get a PSVR to play the games they are making for it but with PS4.5 you still have the same games you just can't play them in 4K or get the benefits of supersampling when you play on a 1080P TV.

 

[mcdomination]

Forgive me if this was already answered as I haven't been paying close attention to this thread, but how do we know these aren't plants for PS5? This gen's already been going on for 3 years after all.

2 years and 4 months is not 3 years.

 

[Memento]

So, how much would it cost? Did someone made the calculations already based on the rumours and 4K tech price by the end of the year?

 

[onQ123]

3. The breakout box will not be necessary for psvr use on ps4.5.
The additional processing power on the console will take care of all the tasks the breakout box performs. So why should ps4.5 users pay extra for a component that is surplus to requirements? Well, I believe the breakout box when coupled with ps4.5 will then free up enough resources from the gpu/ cpu (as it does with ps4) and give a significant boost to vr games.
This way there won't be a reason to have a breakout box less psvr bundle and doesn't peev off customers for paying for something they don't need.

The breakout box is for the TV output not for the PSVR besides the 3D audio & I think for running the OS overlay in theater mode.

 

[ThoughtsOfSpeaking]

I find the overall positive reactions to the idea in here depressing. Makes me want to quit console gaming altogether since if people are for it then surely it will happen. Guess I'm a fossil or something for thinking it's crazy how people actually want consoles to be like iphones, saying that's a good model to imitate. Then there's the obsession with graphics and the newest tech, it's like I don't even understand why people play games on consoles at all anymore. That stuff is exciting for the 12-18 months before a new console reveal but after that it does nothing but detract from the things we all really should care about: the games.

If they go down this path, I know I as well as many others will abandon console gaming. I hope they'll crash and burn horribly, because with that there's at least a good chance pc will become the unified platform for all games(which is worse than what we have now, but better than this nonsense).
I'm sure in a decade or so we'll all look back at the great value and joy we had in being able to buy a system that allowed us to to play every game on equal terms for half a decade or more without ever spending a single thought on upgrading or worrying about having the best or most up to date experience. It's hard to come up with a better value proposition than that for both customers and developers.

Console gaming hasnt been just about "the games" since the early 90s. Arguably no Sony console has ever been just a gaming platform. They have always been media devices as well.

and once again, this idea that there was ever a generation where for 5 straight years, there was a set piece of hardware with no revisions is rose tinted and not reflective of reality. Even if there was no PS4k, most of us woud be expecting a hardware refresh with better internals and cooling for a cheaper price this year. Its something Sony has Always done.

 

[MilkyJoe]

Exactly my thoughts.I don't know a single person with a 4k tv no one seems to care about them.If it is like a clip on expansion for the ps4 that makes games run at 60 fps i would buy it but if it's just for 4k i don't think i'd be that bothered.

Ha ha what are you talking about, 4k TVs cost less that 1080 did when I got my TV about three years ago. 4k will be the norm for all TV purchases very soon.

 

[Papacheeks]

Ok I get what you are saying now, but I still disagree on some points. PC will still be way more expensive to get into and even with upgrades. I'm sure consoles will never aim for that price scale so I don't think people will forsake consoles for PC.

The way I am thinking it is that even with yearly releases they can catch up. PC gives you a whole lot of other options to build upon on so Sony/MS will most likely choose specific hardware which then will not cause as many issues with the upgrades. Even then PC components are not released that much that consoles will fall behind quickly. Even if it is a 2 years cycle. Like Nividia/AMD/Intel/ATI usually have one big release a year or every 12-18 months. By releasing in anticipation or even in conjunction they could potential keep ahead of PC or at least close. A lot closer than right now that is why I think a 2-3 years cycle works. Also when consoles are "spec'ed" they don't necessarily choose the latest HW, but using this smartphone like model they would try harder to aim for that.

As far as development goes I think, maybe speculate, that adding a ton more QA for their releases would help iron out issue in performance between the different hardware. As they are now I still feel they need a ton more QA, but anyways I think it would be a good idea. In its 7 year cycle PS3 and Xbox360 got 3 redesigns. If this console cycle is similar I could see the slim versions taking this place. Not only a newer slimmer version, but with better HW inside.

It still involves a lot of speculation on how it could be implemented, but I personally think it could work as long as they don;t change the hardware too much to make more like PS5 instead of PS4 ver2.0

What?

Do you have any understanding of PC architecture and how it works? Just because a release of new hrdware comes out doesn't ultimatley mean the previous hardware doesn't get thing's written for it to take advantage of which ultimatley makes it outdate anything consoles can put in.

Do you understand how CHIPS are made? How they all come down from a baseline architecture from PC? For every GPU,APU, CPU there's some engine maker, or tech company which will make software that uses it in new ways. And a lot of that is companies coming up with new software api's that utilize what might lay in a 1-2 year old card.

That does not work out for consoles. I have yet to see ton's of developers use mantle for consoles. Some may, but the advances you see in a demo at a summit running on a pc, is not going to wind up being used in console. Even if the chip has it capability wise, the driver/software is not so easily implemented on console.

That's where PC will always be ahead, The engineers will always have software, or something that exploits the chips, or comes up with new ways through new board configurations that has different faster/more efficient memory controllers.

Go look at summits AMD, Nvidia, Intel have. They show off tech demo's using new techniques that later get put out in their drivers, and get used by game/imaging developers.

 

[teh_pwn]

Was people complaining about Xbox One having a Elite controller? Do people feel cheated because they have normal controllers & now other people have elite controllers.

The point is how can you feel cheated because something new came along after you bought your product? you already enjoyed the product as intended. You didn't lose anything just because other people got a newer product & you also have the same chance that they do to go out & get that new product if you feel that strongly about it.

You think you're gonna lose something because there is a higher spec PS4 coming but I think PS4 will get more because of this vs being held back by devs trying to make things even with the Xbox One.

This is like pre-emptive iPad envy, but with consoles. Seems to be one of the few main themes in the opposition.

Facts don't actually back any of this up. As pointed out earlier, PS4 is currently outpacing their most popular console in history and up YOY. If anything, PC gaming has never been more irrelevant to Sony. They have their own agenda of pushing a 4K console since they have so much vested interest in 4K TVs. Just like Blu ray and the PS3 10 years ago.

Sony needs to do more than just beat their past selves in one of their markets. Any smart company would look for areas of growth, even if they're already growing. By making the Playstation product a continuing platform, Sony retains their strong position and could lure in new customers or repeat customers - if they sell hardware at a profit they're looking at a lot more green in their books.

 

[MogCakes]

and once again, this idea that there was ever a generation where for 5 straight years, there was a set piece of hardware with no revisions is rose tinted and not reflective of reality

Unless you can point to an example of a console refresh that has the bumped specs that people are speculating about here, this doesn't hold much merit. This is no mere slim version if rumor is true.

 

[Papacheeks]

This is like pre-emptive iPad envy, but with consoles. Seems to be one of the few main themes in the opposition.



Sony needs to do more than just beat their past selves in one of their markets. Any smart company would look for areas of growth, even if they're already growing.

They did, they tried it with Cell processing and it blew up in their face. Now they are concentrating on what matters, what they got into this industry for. Which is for gaming. The tech comes hand in hand.

But what matter to them the most is having a gaming community, culture and continue doing what they've been doing since 1995.

 

[ThoughtsOfSpeaking]

Unless you can point to an example of a console refresh that has the bumped specs that people are speculating about here, this doesn't hold much merit. This is no mere slim version if rumor is true.

Nobody said that. Just this "even playing field" was and always is a fallacy. Console hardware has always changed midgen. Yes this is a step further, but the point is as a launch buyer you have always got the worst deal. Nothing is new in that regard.

 

[pixellated_man]

Any extra processing power ps4.5 possesses will be exclusively used to natively render / scale game content upto 4k resolution. More demanding games may not have 4k native support. Here the hardware will render something like 1440p and the custom scaler will scale this image to 4k.

What if one doesn't have a 4k TV? Will the extra power then be utilised for better performance and graphical assets?
I firmly believe No. Without a 4k TV don't expect any improvements to the graphics. Sony will be marketing the machine for people who have 4k displays and will most likely name the console ps4k. An easy to grasp concept that will not confuse the masses.

*The above is just my opinion based on too many hours reading this thread, lol.

 

[Liquidsnake]

Git Good!

Ooops wrong thread.

 

[MogCakes]

This is like pre-emptive iPad envy, but with consoles. Seems to be one of the few main themes in the opposition.

Could you quote some examples of what you'd call envy in this case?

Nobody said that. Just this "even playing field" was and always is a fallacy. Console hardware has always changed midgen. Yes this is a step further, but the point is as a launch buyer you have always got the worst deal. Nothing is new in that regard.

Slim versions are often made to be more cost effective, not fancier than the phats. Smaller form factor or hard-drive space may be appealing, but are absolutely not comparable to a performance upgrade.

 

[Papacheeks]

Nobody said that. Just this "even playing field" was and always is a fallacy. Console hardware has always changed midgen. Yes this is a step further, but the point is as a launch buyer you have always got the worst deal. Nothing is new in that regard.

You mean in form factor right? Because that's where it stops. Smaller power supplies, maybe a dye shrink but same cpu, same gpu, same amount of ram and maybe smaller form factor with upgraded storage.

The Innards,spec wise stays the same. Only instance I remember in the 90's was the 2nd batch of PS1's had something changed, but spec wise stayed the same. I think it was for the overheating issue.(PCB maybe)

Sega changed out the sound chips I believe, but other than those small things specs stayed the same, I think Genesis 3 had a more up to date Motorola chip?

So I have no clue wtf your talking about.

Any extra processing power ps4.5 possesses will be exclusively used to natively render / scale game content upto 4k resolution. More demanding games may not have 4k native support. Here the hardware will render something like 1440p and the custom scaler will scale this image to 4k.

What if one doesn't have a 4k TV? Will the extra power then be utilised for better performance and graphical assets?
I firmly believe No. Without a 4k TV don't expect any improvements to the graphics. Sony will be marketing the machine for people who have 4k displays and will most likely name the console ps4k. An easy to grasp concept that will not confuse the masses.

*The above is just my opinion based on too many hours reading this thread, lol.

Pretty much where I stand on it. If this is what they are doing for just scaling and 4k content playback I'm cool with it. But if they change things like different cpu/gpu add more memory, then it's something that I think could cause issues for development and the consumer.

 

[cakely]

Console gaming hasnt been just about "the games" since the early 90s. Arguably no Sony console has ever been just a gaming platform. They have always been media devices as well.

and once again, this idea that there was ever a generation where for 5 straight years, there was a set piece of hardware with no revisions is rose tinted and not reflective of reality. Even if there was no PS4k, most of us woud be expecting a hardware refresh with better internals and cooling for a cheaper price this year. Its something Sony has Always done.

Releasing revised console hardware is the norm. Releasing console hardware that actually increases game performance hasn't been done since the sega 32X, because it "splinters the market" ... games have to be re-written to take advantage of the new hardware spec, and legacy console owners won't be able to play those new versions.

 

[teh_pwn]

They did, they tried it with Cell processing and it blew up in their face. Now they are concentrating on what matters, what they got into this industry for. Which is for gaming. The tech comes hand in hand.

But what matter to them the most is having a gaming community, culture and continue doing what they've been doing since 1995.

Faulty analogy.

Cell was a highly customized Power PC chip with the lofty idea of embedding it in all of Sony's electronics. They sold PS3 at hundreds of $ in losses and Sony largely was responsible for making the chips.

Iterative x86 hardware with PC GPUs/APUs are highly standardized configurations that are manufactured in the hundreds of millions by multiple OEMs that will bid for design and manufacturing, and can be configured in a way to guarantee COGS <= selling price.

The high customization of Cell meant extreme software development cost for multi-platform support. PC hardware in contrast is very low cost to support multiple configurations.

I have no idea where you're coming from at all.

 

[The Mad Draklor]

Any extra processing power ps4.5 possesses will be exclusively used to natively render / scale game content upto 4k resolution. More demanding games may not have 4k native support. Here the hardware will render something like 1440p and the custom scaler will scale this image to 4k.

What if one doesn't have a 4k TV? Will the extra power then be utilised for better performance and graphical assets?
I firmly believe No. Without a 4k TV don't expect any improvements to the graphics. Sony will be marketing the machine for people who have 4k displays and will most likely name the console ps4k. An easy to grasp concept that will not confuse the masses.

*The above is just my opinion based on too many hours reading this thread, lol.

I think this is a plausible theory. I would add that games will have less framerate/performance drops than the standard PS4 thanks to the extra processing power.

 

[dose]

but the point is as a launch buyer you have always got the worst deal. Nothing is new in that regard.

You mesn like the launch PS3 model that could play PS2 games, but the later PS3 slim that couldn't?

 

[pixellated_man]

You mean in form factor right? Because that's where it stops. Smaller power supplies, maybe a dye shrink but same cpu, same gpu, same amount of ram and maybe smaller form factor with upgraded storage.

The Innards,spec wise stays the same. Only instance I remember in the 90's was the 2nd batch of PS1's had something changed, but spec wise stayed the same. I think it was for the overheating issue.(PCB maybe)

Sega changed out the sound chips I believe, but other than those small things specs stayed the same, I think Genesis 3 had a more up to date Motorola chip?

So I have no clue wtf your talking about.



Pretty much where I stand on it. If this is what they are doing for just scaling and 4k content playback I'm cool with it. But if they change things like different cpu/gpu add more memory, then it's something that I think could cause issues for development and the consumer.

You're forgetting the xbox 360. Didn't the second iteration add native WiFi capabilities and a hdmi port? Those are not changes one can dismiss as small changes.

 

[MogCakes]

You mesn like the launch PS3 model that could play PS2 games, but the later PS3 slim that couldn't?

Or the phat PS2 that had an expansion bay, and the later slim model that axed it.

 

[teh_pwn]

A lot of us are defending against what I think are faulty arguments about why this is somehow bad for the industry.

I don't think anyone has discussed a big reason why this is extremely good for the industry. Having iterative hardware that aims for low cost (COGS and software development) and high performance means chip makers have an incentive to innovate and compete. AMD and Nvidia will staff more engineers on improving chip designs. Intel may even take notice and try to compete with x86 chips. This means faster improvements to game hardware performance and lowering costs, whether you're playing consoles, handhelds, or PC. It's a win for the industry.

 

[bitbydeath]

you can get a GPU for $200 that can run games at 4K & it will be even cheaper when it move to 14nm & newer tech that's made for 4K

If it's 4K AAA games then they will likely be using the new Polaris cards.

http://wccftech.com/amd-unveils-polaris-11-10-gpu/

 

[cakely]

You mesn like the launch PS3 model that could play PS2 games, but the later PS3 slim that couldn't?

Yeah. That 60GB PS3 that that I paid $600 for soon after launch.

Yes, it had PS2 BC, but at that price it's hard to argue that I got the better deal.

 

[amstradcpc]

A lot of us are defending against what I think are faulty arguments about why this is somehow bad for the industry.

I don't think anyone has discussed a big reason why this is extremely good for the industry. Having iterative hardware that aims for low cost (COGS and software development) and high performance means chip makers have an incentive to innovate and compete. AMD and Nvidia will staff more engineers on improving chip designs. Intel may even take notice and try to compete with x86 chips. This means faster improvements to game hardware performance and lowering costs, whether you're playing consoles, handhelds, or PC. It's a win for the industry.

A very sensible post.

 

[jeffram]

Or the phat PS2 that had an expansion bay, and the later slim model that axed it.

The question is about value not features. Both changes came with price drops, and were better deals than launch or could be purchased at a later date for less money than at launch

 

[Papacheeks]

Faulty analogy.

Cell was a highly customized Power PC chip with the lofty idea of embedding it in all of Sony's electronics. They sold PS3 at hundreds of $ in losses and Sony largely was responsible for making the chips.

Iterative x86 hardware with PC GPUs/APUs are highly standardized configurations that are manufactured in the hundreds of millions by multiple OEMs that will bid for design and manufacturing, and can be configured in a way to guarantee COGS <= selling price.

The high customization of Cell meant extreme software development cost for multi-platform support. PC hardware in contrast is very low cost to support multiple configurations.

I have no idea where you're coming from at all.

Do you remember what they wanted the PS3 to be? I do and my Cell CPU anaology is talking about the same thing you are. Power PC is dead, but when they were using it, it still must have been relevant.

They wanted your PS3 to be a all in one device. And it blew up in their face.

Which goes back to people wanting games, and a great console.
If people gave shits about advanced tech, dreamcast, sega CD would have taken off along with teh Japan only Super Famicon CD add on. But they didn't they gave shits about the games, not the tech.

Just because you want some kind of tech revolution and you want consoles to be a part of it, doesn't change the fact consoles are for playing games. The tech they use helps them achieve that to the best of their ability. Sony. Sega, and NINTENDO have chased the rabbit many times.
N64? Virtua Boy, Sega Nomad, Sega CD, Sega Saturn. WHen all they wanted were games. Sega CD could play cd's like the Playstation, but PlayStation had more games, more developers, and albet a better 32bit chip that actually rendered polygons not sprits.

BTW no need to have a dickish reply with "Faulty" like you know how the industry is suppose to work. I'm telling you how it has worked and how they continue to do it today.

 

[jmdajr]

Not always.

That's how Rock Band/Guitar hero basically died.

I know it's not the same thing, but they went INSANE with those things.

 

[MogCakes]

A lot of us are defending against what I think are faulty arguments about why this is somehow bad for the industry.

I don't think anyone has discussed a big reason why this is extremely good for the industry. Having iterative hardware that aims for low cost (COGS and software development) and high performance means chip makers have an incentive to innovate and compete. AMD and Nvidia will staff more engineers on improving chip designs. Intel may even take notice and try to compete with x86 chips. This means faster improvements to game hardware performance and lowering costs, whether you're playing consoles, handhelds, or PC. It's a win for the industry.

That's a really optimistic take that I don't think is going to come to fruition. Nvidia, Intel et al. (sans AMD) have no incentive to deviate from PC regardless if consoles go iterative or not.

 

[Carn82]

A lot of us are defending against what I think are faulty arguments about why this is somehow bad for the industry.

I don't think anyone has discussed a big reason why this is extremely good for the industry. Having iterative hardware that aims for low cost (COGS and software development) and high performance means chip makers have an incentive to innovate and compete. AMD and Nvidia will staff more engineers on improving chip designs. Intel may even take notice and try to compete with x86 chips. This means faster improvements to game hardware performance and lowering costs, whether you're playing consoles, handhelds, or PC. It's a win for the industry.

also, -if- VR truly takes of we'll see pretty much a GPU-arms race to push more and more pixels; we are already seeing the effects of that on the current performance delta between consoles and (high end) PC gaming.

 

[Papacheeks]

You're forgetting the xbox 360. Didn't the second iteration add WiFi capabilities and a hdmi port? Those are not changes one can dismiss as small changes.

True, but there was a component to HDMI converter you could buy for component only XB360.

But that goes with display. It's not changes that affect the game only how it's displayed. Which is why I agree with your assessment, if sony chooses to go this route for 4k.

 

[CitizenCope]

If this is true I'm going back to collecting Garbage Pail Kid cards.

Spoiler

I'm actually very much ok with this rumor/news

 

[driver116]

You mesn like the launch PS3 model that could play PS2 games, but the later PS3 slim that couldn't?

Exception, not rule.

 

[teh_pwn]

That's a really optimistic take that I don't think is going to come to fruition. Nvidia, Intel et al. (sans AMD) have no incentive to deviate from PC regardless if consoles go iterative or not.

Nvidia and Intel are constantly trying to expand into new markets. Nvidia has enterprise GPU compute for cloud and other applications, their handheld device, and mobile GPU chips. Intel has been focusing heavily on getting power consumption down and everything embedded on their core microprocessor design to compete in mobile space, so much that the IPC of their core design has nearly stagnated the last 6 years. Intel is trying to even combine RAM/HDD conceptually to something on an SOC to give an all in one solution, which Samsung doesn't like too much.

If Intel and Nvidia see the opportunity to iterate on their designs for performance for tens of millions of sales per year, they're going to do it. The incentives compound with similar markets - like Intel could improve performance and power reduction, and benefit in a new console marketplace and with datacenter compute.

I don't know why what I say is optimistic. This is how free markets work.

 

[papo]

What?

Do you have any understanding of PC architecture and how it works? Just because a release of new hrdware comes out doesn't ultimatley mean the previous hardware doesn't get thing's written for it to take advantage of which ultimatley makes it outdate anything consoles can put in.

Do you understand how CHIPS are made? How they all come down from a baseline architecture from PC? For every GPU,APU, CPU there's some engine maker, or tech company which will make software that uses it in new ways. And a lot of that is companies coming up with new software api's that utilize what might lay in a 1-2 year old card.

That does not work out for consoles. I have yet to see ton's of developers use mantle for consoles. Some may, but the advances you see in a demo at a summit running on a pc, is not going to wind up being used in console. Even if the chip has it capability wise, the driver/software is not so easily implemented on console.

That's where PC will always be ahead, The engineers will always have software, or something that exploits the chips, or comes up with new ways through new board configurations that has different faster/more efficient memory controllers.

Go look at summits AMD, Nvidia, Intel have. They show off tech demo's using new techniques that later get put out in their drivers, and get used by game/imaging developers.

Yes I understand...and again the SPECULATION around all of this is not set in stone. Neither is my opinion of it. So maybe chill out. You seem to be in attack mode for some reason.

Like you said that has yet to work on consoles. No one is saying that it won't be possible in the future and even now MS is teasing features similar to what you give as example if what they say about UWP/DX12 and of that comes true. Maybe that's it, maybe it's not, maybe it's not even possible. Who knows at this point, but it would be cool if it was or if that was at least their goal.

But yeah it is still speculation on all fronts. So who knows.

 

[MogCakes]

The question is about value not features. Both changes came with price drops, and were better deals than launch or could be purchased at a later date for less money than at launch

Yes. We've come full circle. An iterative approach lowers the value proposition of a console investment vs PC investment. Considering value is held in the mind of the consumer, I find it odd that proponents of an iterative approach would actually try to dictate how people should value their investment decisions.

Exception, not rule.

What are some other examples then?

 

[diffusionx]

3. The breakout box will not be necessary for psvr use on ps4.5.
The additional processing power on the console will take care of all the tasks the breakout box performs. So why should ps4.5 users pay extra for a component that is surplus to requirements? Well, I believe the breakout box when coupled with ps4.5 will then free up enough resources from the gpu/ cpu (as it does with ps4) and give a significant boost to vr games.
This way there won't be a reason to have a breakout box less psvr bundle and doesn't peev off customers for paying for something they don't need.

From everything I've read, there's no reason not to have the breakout box. It does stuff that every VR game needs to have done. There's no point in wasting a single CPU cycle when you have a box to do it sitting there. I don't think Sony would want to complicate the situation with VR games playing with the box and without the box. Just leave it doing what it is designed to do (and if a PS4.5 exists, it was worked on alongside VR).

Other than that, what you said makes sense. A PS4.5 that could run the stuff today's system runs at 1080p in 4K would be such a huge upgrade I don't see how they do it without having it cost $700. On the other hand, if 4K is a big selling point, I don't see what the big deal about having some sort of 4k scalar would be. TVs have fine built in scalars.

The Innards,spec wise stays the same. Only instance I remember in the 90's was the 2nd batch of PS1's had something changed, but spec wise stayed the same. I think it was for the overheating issue.(PCB maybe)

Sega changed out the sound chips I believe, but other than those small things specs stayed the same, I think Genesis 3 had a more up to date Motorola chip?

The 2nd batch of PS1's also ditched the individual outs (red/yellow/white) in favor of a unified port. The Saturn's motherboard was also redesigned a couple of times. The Xbox 360's layout was totally changed to fix issues with the design and they threw in some features. The PSP 2000 had double the RAM of the original I believe. I think the PS3 Slim had support for a newer HDMI format, but I might just be wrong. So it's minor stuff, but it happens. Sometimes consoles are also re-released without expansion ports the designers planned to use but never did. I think this happened with SNES (*sniff*).

Worth noting, on the SNES and NES, developers were able to "upgrade" the system on the cart, hence you got SuperFX, etc. So no need to upgrade the hardware, but later games had access to more powerful systems. Obviously impossible on a disc.

 

[teh_pwn]

Do you remember what they wanted the PS3 to be? I do and my Cell CPU anaology is talking about the same thing you are. Power PC is dead, but when they were using it, it still must have been relevant.

They wanted your PS3 to be a all in one device. And it blew up in their face.

Which goes back to people wanting games, and a great console.
If people gave shits about advanced tech, dreamcast, sega CD would have taken off along with teh Japan only Super Famicon CD add on. But they didn't they gave shits about the games, not the tech.

Just because you want some kind of tech revolution and you want consoles to be a part of it, doesn't change the fact consoles are for playing games. The tech they use helps them achieve that to the best of their ability. Sony. Sega, and NINTENDO have chased the rabbit many times.
N64? Virtua Boy, Sega Nomad, Sega CD, Sega Saturn. WHen all they wanted were games. Sega CD could play cd's like the Playstation, but PlayStation had more games, more developers, and albet a better 32bit chip that actually rendered polygons not sprits.

BTW no need to have a dickish reply with "Faulty" like you know how the industry is suppose to work. I'm telling you how it has worked and how they continue to do it today.

Faulty is referring to faulty analogy. It's not a personal attack, I'm making an observation of what I see as a logical fallacy.

Back to your reply, I'm not seeing an iterative hardware as a play to get an all-in-one, home theater box. I see it as an attempt to go from siloed, versioned releases of a product to a continuous platform. Not PS 4.5, but Playstation. And the way you get to a platform strategy is using low cost, standardized architectures.

 

[onQ123]

Unless you can point to an example of a console refresh that has the bumped specs that people are speculating about here, this doesn't hold much merit. This is no mere slim version if rumor is true.

Fire TV 2014 to Fire TV 2015 now has 4K

 

[amstradcpc]

Do you remember what they wanted the PS3 to be? I do and my Cell CPU anaology is talking about the same thing you are. Power PC is dead, but when they were using it, it still must have been relevant.

They wanted your PS3 to be a all in one device. And it blew up in their face.

Which goes back to people wanting games, and a great console.
If people gave shits about advanced tech, dreamcast, sega CD would have taken off along with teh Japan only Super Famicon CD add on. But they didn't they gave shits about the games, not the tech.

Just because you want some kind of tech revolution and you want consoles to be a part of it, doesn't change the fact consoles are for playing games. The tech they use helps them achieve that to the best of their ability. Sony. Sega, and NINTENDO have chased the rabbit many times.
N64? Virtua Boy, Sega Nomad, Sega CD, Sega Saturn. WHen all they wanted were games. Sega CD could play cd's like the Playstation, but PlayStation had more games, more developers, and albet a better 32bit chip that actually rendered polygons not sprits.

BTW no need to have a dickish reply with "Faulty" like you know how the industry is suppose to work. I'm telling you how it has worked and how they continue to do it today.

Now for a moment imagine a world with only PCs running games via Steam and Windows Store and Playstation as the only player in the console space.
Imagine Sony goes on with the 6 years cycle. Half that cycle you can buy small htpcs with double the power as the console by the same price.
Now devs have to make always PC version of their games to reach the critical mass as one console market size not equal to two or three consoles market size and is not enough.
Do you know what?.In this situation multis woukd always look obsolete in Sony's console against medium details PC version.PC version is besides way cheaper and PC versions now is advertised by Microsoft marketing,Valve matketing and the own developers marketing(more interested in selling the versiin with less royalties).Ah, and online is free in PC too!.
Now you are Sony and thinks this is where things are going...what do you do?.

 

[c0de]

Fire TV 2014 to Fire TV 2015 now has 4K

“has“. There is a difference in being able to output a 4k image and to render a 4k image.

 

[pixellated_man]

If this is true I'm going back to collecting Garbage Pail Kid cards.

Spoiler

I'm actually very much ok with this rumor/news

Lol. I remember those. And I ain't against this ps4.5 thing either. As long as Sony exactly follow my words of wisdom on how they should go about it, lol.

 

[dose]

Exception, not rule.

You obviously didn't read his post then....

but the point is as a launch buyer you have always got the worst deal.

Along with the PS2 phat example, what he said was clearly untrue.