Feasibility of an upgradeable or forwards compatible console *spawn*

[London Geezer]

The way I see it, it's similar to someone buying the ps4 3 years before ps5 comes out. They shouldn't expect to enjoy a 6 year cycle with it.

But I'm pretty sure there will be some kind of backward (or is it forward now? I'm lost) compatibility with ps5.

 

[turkey]

Not necessarily. I'm still hoping that when PS5 comes out, the games will run on PS4 Neo so it'll have something more like a 6-8 year life span. That's the argument whether it will be, or should be, forwards compatible.

I would hope that is the case, but if ”next gen" games will not get much CPU lift if the base is neo and PS5 follows the same no changes to gameplay rules.

Certainly a rolling useable life of 6-8 years for any hardware released seems ideal as a consumer but what will the cost be for that.

 

[Scott_Arm]

I would hope that is the case, but if ”next gen" games will not get much CPU lift if the base is neo and PS5 follows the same no changes to gameplay rules.

Certainly a rolling useable life of 6-8 years for any hardware released seems ideal as a consumer but what will the cost be for that.

Yah, when I saw the Neo specs I was worried that the lack of an upgrade to the CPU and RAM basically meant that it would not be forwards compatible. If that's the case, I think it's a product that should die on the shelf. Fast upgrade cycles for other devices work because they're forwards and backwards compatible.

 

[Jay]

I disagree. They can't release a $400-500 mid-gen upgrade and have only a 3-4 year life span on it.

it would still have legs due to install base, you would still get cross gen games, a lot due to bc. Developed for previous gen and performs/looks better on next.
but to force publishers/studios to support previous gen is wrong imo, for many reasons.

 

[Jay]

Fast upgrade cycles for other devices work because they're forwards and backwards compatible.

with software that says it works but is so slow and buggy to point that its unusable on prev gens.
I wouldn't see many devs dropping support for previous gen for min of year or so simply because install base just isn't there.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Yah, when I saw the Neo specs I was worried that the lack of an upgrade to the CPU and RAM basically meant that it would not be forwards compatible. If that's the case, I think it's a product that should die on the shelf. Fast upgrade cycles for other devices work because they're forwards and backwards compatible.

I think it's more a case of having teh same life as PS4 only better quality. When a console gets old, its games get pretty ropey with dodgy framerates and corners-cut on resolutions. That's what PS4 is going to have. However, owners of PS4N will have a better, more 'console like' experience until they upgrade.

Ultimately it may have a shorter life cycle if it isn't forwards compatible, but it's a premium product and experience for the core who care and are willing to pay. If Sony doesn't make any promises about the product's future, the assumption should be that it's only as good for games as long as PS4 is. If you don't want to spend $400 on a console with a three year life (and you've already kinda done that if you replace your $400 PS4 with a PSN after 3 years ), don't get a Neo.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

When a console gets old, its games get pretty ropey with dodgy framerates and corners-cut on resolutions.

Some games, many games get technically more accomplished as the engines and teams have iterated with experience.

In 2013 we had The Last of Us, GTA V and Gran Turismo 6, Metro Last Light, Tomb Raider, Beyond Two Souls, Assassin's Creed Black Flag, Saints Row IV, DmC: Devil May Cry and Bioshock Infinite. I recall all as being technically accomplished on last gen consoles.

 

[Michellstar]

The way I see it, it's similar to someone buying the ps4 3 years before ps5 comes out. They shouldn't expect to enjoy a 6 year cycle with it.

But I'm pretty sure there will be some kind of backward (or is it forward now? I'm lost) compatibility with ps5.

It better not, because buying a console 3 years before next gen mean a really cheap sku, not a refresh that could be pricier than the release model

 

[trainplane]

It better not, because buying a console 3 years before next gen mean a really cheap sku, not a refresh that could be pricier than the release model

What will likely happen for PS5 is that Sony has the subsystem to develop for PS4, PS4 Neo, and PS5, fully cross-compatible, but removes the restriction to force software to be compatible with everything. So if a dev wants to use, say the PS5 16 GB RAM, they could make a game PS5 exclusive. But very few will do so in the beginning. Just like no PC game dev will require 6 GB RAM until such a configuration has higher install base. Likewise, when a new iPhone is just released, virtually no dev makes an app requiring its new hardware features, i.e. 3D touch.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Some games, many games get technically more accomplished as the engines and teams have iterated with experience.

In 2013 we had The Last of Us, GTA V and Gran Turismo 6, Metro Last Light, Tomb Raider, Beyond Two Souls, Assassin's Creed Black Flag, Saints Row IV, DmC: Devil May Cry and Bioshock Infinite. I recall all as being technically accomplished on last gen consoles.

All of which had low framerates at times and/or low resolution because the hardware isn't capable of supporting the rendering techniques at high framerates, proving my point for me.

 

[Michellstar]

What will likely happen for PS5 is that Sony has the subsystem to develop for PS4, PS4 Neo, and PS5, fully cross-compatible, but removes the restriction to force software to be compatible with everything. So if a dev wants to use, say the PS5 16 GB RAM, they could make a game PS5 exclusive. But very few will do so in the beginning. Just like no PC game dev will require 6 GB RAM until such a configuration has higher install base. Likewise, when a new iPhone is just released, virtually no dev makes an app requiring its new hardware features, i.e. 3D touch.

I hope so
They could maintain 3 skus, one for 4K, another for 1080p, an the older model just 720p

 

[milk]

All of which had low framerates at times and/or low resolution because the hardware isn't capable of supporting the rendering techniques at high framerates, proving my point for me.

I'm not entirely sure, but I think most of those ran at 720p native with stable 30fps. The worst offender was GTAV, but IV also had bad framerates AND rendered at sub hd, while V managed that 720 while drasticaly increasing its scope.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I checked a load of DF articles on half of them. Plenty of framerate drops into the 20s when things got busy, while games like Metro render at sub HD. My point stands. The only other option for developers is to stop pushing forwards on their rendering techniques and keep the same graphical fidelity until new hardware comes out. Otherwise, by adding more Pretty to games, they'll be trimming off framerate and res to pay for that Pretty leading to amazing games with drops in the 20 fps when you most need a higher framerate. That's where the .5 consoles have their value.

 

[liolio]

Not only feasible, but PS4.5 is basically confirmed and Xbox One.5 seems likely. Three new gaming SOCs and we know one is Neo. Are the other two both Nintendo, or is one of those an Xbox soc

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/...aming-processors-coming-soon-is-one-for-xbox/

I'm curious about what the sale point is going to be for the PS4 neo: higher resolution rendering? VR?
As for MSFT let see what they wanted from their new SOC they have different intensive than Sony for higher experience they still have PC, contrary to Sony they do not have VR device ready and Kinect may have made them wary about unproven tech (lots of articles still states that VR is still not ready, it gets closer (it's been for a while now)). Price reduction may be the goal depending on how much pain they are willing to suffer on the software side of things they can save I guess quite a lot on the silicon.
I know geeks are all about big specs (is yet to be seen how the PSk/neo extra horsepower is to be used) but if Sony has spend money on higher and MSFT on a significantly cheaper hardware (offering comparable performance). If Sony and MSFT have access to the late Puma+ cores but on 14/16nm as well as better than the last GCN1.3 on 14/16nm to, a system (apu+memory+cooling) delivering XB1 or even ps4 level of performances could end really cheap.

The more I think the more I believe that it make more sense to let the high end to Windows when MSFT start pushing UWP. In that context would it be worth it to let Sony solo on a higher end SKU (which goals are still unknown) and fight Sony basic offering either on price alone or by coming with something better the XB1 which may pissed those that stayed true to them (not too mention some compatibility headache).