An idea: $399 RISC-V PS6, $499 PS6 Portable. $899 PS6 Pro (x86)
- Thread starter ergem
- Start date
bundylove
Banned
Not sure where you live but gas is double permanently and yet you expect console prices to stay the same like 8 years ago lol?
Oh boy a lot of you here must live in mommies basement or live of wealthfare for not knowing every day expenses.
Hey while you are at it maybe tell car manufacturers to lower the price of trucks back to 30k as 100 plus k for a truck nowdays is lunacy
The dock with discreet gpu still need a powerful and fast ram configuration. In the end, what you're removing from it is only the cpu and all else must be powerful enough not to bottleneck the gpu.
And with that scenario, how much are you really saving with the dock without a cpu? $50? At the price point at which it is targeted (graphics whores), a $50 difference is a drop in a bucket.
And so a full fledged PRO version is a better deal.
A better system would be what
James Sawyer Ford
came up with. A PS6 normal console that is small and portable enough to be docked (or at least connected) to a portable battery, with oled, and PS buttons that look like a bigger PS portal.The PRO version will still be a traditional playstation console. Big and 250w power draw.
Buy a game and you can play in both regular ps6 and the pro. Similar to how it works now in ps5 and the pro.
Last edited:
James Sawyer Ford
Banned
The dock with discreet gpu still need a power and fast ram configuration. In the end, what you're removing from is only the cpu and all else must be powerful enough not to bottleneck the gpu.
And with that scenario, how much are you really saving with the dock without a cpu? $50? At the price point at which it is targeted (graphics whores), a $50 difference is a drop in a bucket.
And so a full fledged PRO version is a better deal.
A better system would be what
The PRO version will still a traditional playstation console. Big and 250w power draw.
Buy a game and you can play in both regular ps6 and the pro. Similar to how it works now in ps5 and the pro.
Yup basically 3 power tiers
Portable/VR3 (runs off same device) - lowest power
PS6 base, docked (runs off same device) - lower/mid power
PS6 Pro (totally different device/hardware) - high power
Just slot the PS6 into a dock, into a portable, or into a VR3 headset. All run off the same chipset, just different power draw/fan like a switch
Last edited:
YOU PC BRO?!
Gold Member
Great idea as it would really help reduce the cost of peripherals such as portable shell and VR headset...
I would add that a PS6 Pro should simply contain a beefier GPU and allow the PS6 to dock in the same way as above. Be easier and less confusing to market as the concept applies the same way across the entire range. It would be the same as having an APU in a system alongside a GPU. Perhaps some of the APU onboard compute could be used to offload system/UI related tasks. Interesting concept regardless.
I'm onboard as it should in theory allow everything to be a little less expensive whilst offering gamers the flexibility to play however they like.
Last edited:
ReBurn
Gold Member
But RISC-V though...
Where are you getting the arm news from?
yurinka
Member
It would be really stupid to make a PS6 less powerful than PS5 and without BC with any previous PS.
PS6 will be x86 to be BC with PS4 and PS5, to reuse the existing game engines and to ease multiplatform. And their portable too for the same reason.
Out of his ass.
PS6 will be x86 to be BC with PS4 and PS5, to reuse the existing game engines and to ease multiplatform. And their portable too for the same reason.
Last edited:
KeplerL2
Can you kindly post a link?
A derivative of AMD soundwave. https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-S...cores-novel-MALL-cache-and-more.983765.0.html
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Expecting a $399 new-gen console in 2027, 2028.
POKEYCLYDE
Member
The Switch 2 which is targeting PS4 graphics/performance at $450 USD. ($630 CAD)
What makes you think they'd be able to release anything as powerful as what the PS6 will be OR even as powerful as a PS5, be portable AND cost less than what a Switch 2 is?
The current Playstation Portal should be compatible with the PS6, but knowing how greedy Sony is I doubt that will be the case.
What makes you think they'd be able to release anything as powerful as what the PS6 will be OR even as powerful as a PS5, be portable AND cost less than what a Switch 2 is?
The current Playstation Portal should be compatible with the PS6, but knowing how greedy Sony is I doubt that will be the case.
I seriously doubt its based or even directly related on the Soundwave Apu. The apu is based on rdna3.5 which simply doesn't provide the performance uplift to fulfill requirements. Hell, even the switch 2 has the better gpu in that comparison. It would need to be rdna4 at minimum or more likely udna+ to make sense with downports from the ps6 gen. Porting from the ps5/6 would also be a serious headache but depending on the cost/power efficiency uplift from arm it might be justified i guess.
Last edited:
A system without battery and oled.
This "PS6 mini" can be attached to a peripheral similar to a PS Portal sort of device. "PS6 go" with everything integrated can be an option too.
KeplerL2 also said the APU in the portable device is a few months late than PS6 in terms of being taped out. The two devices would probably release at the same time or at least in the same quarter.
So if PS6 uses udna+, the portable device would use it too I suppose. It's probably related to the 2nd gen soundwave apu.
Games Bookstore
Member
I'm not opposed to the idea in principle, yet there would be certain things that would need to be ironed out first namely:
How do you avoid the Series S and X fiasco that made development for the platform so irritating.
How do you make a portable powerful enough to run ps6 games and not have a 5min battery life?
Having a pro machine from launch in my opinion would be a mistake, how they stagger the pro launch several years on from the original machine is the better strategy.
The portable and base PS6 would have to have the same RAM and CPU configurations, but things like GPU and storage capacity could be variables.
Price still needs to be considered, if for example 499 for ps5 portable and 599 for PS6, I can see as being acceptable entry points for the market. However, can Sony even build a machine with those components and still break even or run at an acceptable loss per machine? I really doubt it with inflation, tarriffs and everything else.
How do you avoid the Series S and X fiasco that made development for the platform so irritating.
How do you make a portable powerful enough to run ps6 games and not have a 5min battery life?
Having a pro machine from launch in my opinion would be a mistake, how they stagger the pro launch several years on from the original machine is the better strategy.
The portable and base PS6 would have to have the same RAM and CPU configurations, but things like GPU and storage capacity could be variables.
Price still needs to be considered, if for example 499 for ps5 portable and 599 for PS6, I can see as being acceptable entry points for the market. However, can Sony even build a machine with those components and still break even or run at an acceptable loss per machine? I really doubt it with inflation, tarriffs and everything else.
diffusionx
Gold Member
This is insane and objectively, not a "PS6", it is three different consoles with three vastly different hardware configurations and instruction sets. This is even dumber than anything Sega did at their dumbest.
Not a derivative, just that they share some IP since they're both ultra low power SoCs.
Youtube news incoming.
Edit: I would like to interpret it as risc-v is still a possibility or an x86.
Last edited:
th4tguy
Member
Not having a unified cpu architecture is a bad idea.
If sony has multiple scus, handheld or not, it needs to be unified architecture to provide as little barrier for developers.
Each scu has to be compatible with the other. Sony should not split it's platforms. That strategy died with the Vita.
If sony has multiple scus, handheld or not, it needs to be unified architecture to provide as little barrier for developers.
Each scu has to be compatible with the other. Sony should not split it's platforms. That strategy died with the Vita.
Technically I don't know the CPU specs but I don't see why they wouldn't use x86 specially now that they have a special low power version of their cores.
awwr999999
Member
At this point it appears that Sony's permanently dependent on AMD for the PlayStation's CPU and GPU.
That said, PlayStation moving back to RISC and esoteric Sony CPUs and GPUs would be the best move Sony could make.
Sony's best selling (arguably best, period) PlayStation2 console is RISC and the MIPS architecture is off-patent and open source with no licensing or patent fees.
PlayStaytion
Member
Think like Alex from DF and you'll get the right answer.
PlayStaytion
Member
RISC-V is more of a second Jesus coming than the x86 in my opinion.
Mibu no ookami
Banned
I think you have to be really careful before saying something is "permanent".
Apple was partnered with Intel for nearly 20 years.
Everything really comes down to what Sony's long term plans are. They gave up on BC with the PS4 and had tremendous success in the process. I think we overvalue BC and what it means for the success of a product.
You have to look at what you can do in the portable space and how best to compete with Nintendo long term. One of Microsoft's biggest failings was that they tried to compete with Sony head on with pretty much the same architecture, price, and performance.
You might take the rising cost in console hardware as an indication that long term viability requires a shift in strategy.
awwr999999
Member
PlayStation already has x86 games covered.
Meanwhile, the best way to play PS2 and PS1 games is either an offline PS2 console or on Windows via emulation.
PlayStation's current lack of HW PS2/PS1 compatibility directly benefits Microsoft by making Windows the only modern platform with the full back catalog of PS1 and PS2 games.
Future PlayStation consoles need to run Sony's back catalog of MIPs (PS2, PS1, PSP) games natively.
Sony could acquire the legacy MIPs RISC architecture and modernize the existing PS2 HW while keeping full PS2 BC.
Sony could effectively do the exact same thing via an FGPA solution, providing an updated PS2 HW as well as HW BC for PS2/PS1.
Last edited:
ReBurn
Gold Member
Best you're going to get is re-buying emulated versions of select titles like you get now. There probably aren't enough people who still have actual physical libraries of those games to make it worthwhile to invest a native solution.
Would you say the old phat PS3s had full backwards compatibility for PS1/2? You could put any game in the system and play them. There were a full glitches, but later releases of the PSOne and PSTwo both had compatibility issues with a small number of games that did weird things.
If so. The PS1 side of things was all handled through software emulation. There's not reason for special hardware to make those games work on a future console.
DonkeyPunchJr
World’s Biggest Weeb
I have a better idea:
PS6: RISC-V CPU, Nvidia GPU
PS6 Pro: Itanium 2 CPU, ARC Celestial GPU
PS6 Portable: ARM CPU, UDNA GPU
PS6 Lite: Cell 2 CPU, PowerVR GPU
And each one will have a proprietary port (based on Thunderbolt) that lets you connect them to each other and boost each other's power. The more PS6 ecosystem devices you connect, the more powerful it gets.
Just think of how awesome it would be. They would absolutely dominate the generation. Hope the Sony R&D guys are reading.
PS6: RISC-V CPU, Nvidia GPU
PS6 Pro: Itanium 2 CPU, ARC Celestial GPU
PS6 Portable: ARM CPU, UDNA GPU
PS6 Lite: Cell 2 CPU, PowerVR GPU
And each one will have a proprietary port (based on Thunderbolt) that lets you connect them to each other and boost each other's power. The more PS6 ecosystem devices you connect, the more powerful it gets.
Just think of how awesome it would be. They would absolutely dominate the generation. Hope the Sony R&D guys are reading.
I'm abandoning the idea. Both portable and PS6 should be x86, and there should only be one portable (no console version of it with the same low specs).
It seems the planned proper PS6 will be affordable enough. And not all games will release on the portable. No shackle.
It seems the planned proper PS6 will be affordable enough. And not all games will release on the portable. No shackle.
Last edited:
metareferential
Member
A stupid idea, sorry.
Not only different SKUs with different capabilities, but radically different architecture too.
Feels like a worst case scenario.
Hopefully no one ever goes back to the idiocy of having a base and a pro console right from the get go.
And there's no two way around it: cross-gen games are inevitable.
Not only different SKUs with different capabilities, but radically different architecture too.
Feels like a worst case scenario.
Hopefully no one ever goes back to the idiocy of having a base and a pro console right from the get go.
And there's no two way around it: cross-gen games are inevitable.
DonkeyPunchJr
World’s Biggest Weeb
I think also they should release an external GPU enclosure that lets you install your own 3rd party GPU. Just think of how cool that would be. A few years into the generation and your PS6 is feeling like old news? No problem! Just add the GPU of your choice.
And it would use Crossfire-X technology to work in tandem with the PS6 integrated GPU so none of the power would go to waste.
Also it should include a new Cell + RSX + RDRAM on a single chip that provides hardware BC for PS3 games.
And it would use Crossfire-X technology to work in tandem with the PS6 integrated GPU so none of the power would go to waste.
Also it should include a new Cell + RSX + RDRAM on a single chip that provides hardware BC for PS3 games.
Onironauta
Member
Absolutely delusional. BC with 20 years old games games has no financial benefit for Sony, only downsides. The only people who care about this are a handful of enthusiasts.
awwr999999
Member
The point of native is for Sony to own the best way to play PS2 games.
PSN can resell the entire PS2 back catalog by adding DualSense functionality to existing games.
ReBurn
Gold Member
Sony isn't going to be interested in the bragging rights of having the best place to play PS2 games. Most people aren't going to care about playing PS2 games. The majority of those games just aren't going to hold up compared with modern games. For the ones people do want to play there's more money to be made remaking or remastering them, or just selling an emulated copy of them, than supporting decades out of print DVD's.
awwr999999
Member
There's no downside to adding full PS2/1 disc BC to a DualSense console when 100% of those 20 year old PS2/1 games lack DualSense functionality.
Disc games will have load times on par with the original PS2/1 console while digital-downloads will load quickly from an SSD.
Beyond that, most PS1 games lack analog functionality and PS2 and PS1 games use different buttons for BACK/CANCEL.
Digital-download PS2/1 games would have full analog support and system level options for handling BACK/CANCEL button navigation.
awwr999999
Member
Remaking any PS2 game is expensive and has the unintended consequence of causing PS4/5 users to seek out those original PS2 games on PS2 or PCSX2.
E.g., An ad for the SH2 remake reminds PS4/5 users that the original SH2, 3 and 4 are available now on PS2. Silent Hill games on PS2 have extra features that the remake lacks and Memory Card saves from SH2 unlock extras in SH3 and SH4 on PS2.
PS4/5 users can easily spend several weeks to several months on offline PS2s just with Silent Hill 2, 3 and 4.
ReBurn
Gold Member
That's why I mentioned selling emulated copies of those games. Shoving a game into an emulation container is cheap and if people loved the game way back when they'll probably buy the emulated version on the PS store. They don't care about natively playing discs. How many people have a stack of PS1 and PS2 games sitting around that they're just dying for a way to play? If they love them that much they probably also have the original console to play them on. It's not like the original hardware is difficult to find.
Considering how few classic games are actually available for official emulation it's not like Sony really cares that much about their PS1 or PS2 libraries to add the expense of hardware compatibility, especially for discs they don't sell anymore. The fan service would be cool, but the vast majority of people just won't care.
Onironauta
Member
Maybe I misunderstood but if you mean HW BC in the sense of PS1/PS2 HW built into the next PS, then it absolutely makes manufacturing more expensive with no financial benefits