You can't realistically upgrade something that would require a complete, from-the-ground-up replacement though... It's either buying an entirely new thing, or nothing.
Not if it runs the same games, off the same game discs.
PS4 Pro Speculation (PS4K NEO Kaio-Ken-Kutaragi-Kaz Neo-san)
- Thread starter mpg1
- Start date
-
- Tags
- sony sony roach motel
- Status
It's not a new gen any more, this is either a one-time thing due to 4k & PSVR or a new model where we get a new console every ~3 years. Whilst I can understand the concern I think the idea is to be like PC and all games will work moving forward with improvements patched in (devs could even sell a patch I guess).
If it is true (and it's looking likely unless it's an early april fools) I'm gutted because I have a 20th anniversary PS4 which will have to go in the loft but I'm happy because it was apparent this gen was always going to struggle 'keeping up' with PCs
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I think they mean a trade in programme. Trade-ins are more common in Europe.You can't realistically upgrade something that would require a complete, from-the-ground-up replacement though... It's either buying an entirely new thing, or nothing.
You can't realistically upgrade something that would require a complete, from-the-ground-up replacement though... It's either buying an entirely new thing, or nothing.
I think they mean like a trade in
I think they said 4k would downgrade the effects did'nt they?
Well I think it might be. Not sure how easy/cheap it will be to iterate with Xbox's memory subsytem. And they would would lose backwards compatibility if they didn't keep it no?
Where in Europe? They don't exist in Sweden - at all. Ever.
Every game will work on both systems, so there would not be that much splintering.
And it looks like Sony is not promissing native 4K gaming, just a compatibility with 4K screens [which they don't have now because of HDMI 1.4]. Indies will easily reach 4K native [Trine 2 devs mentioned they could do 4K30 on base PS4 if Sony allowed it], and more demanding games will be upscaled.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Seriously, there is no concept of trade in or part exchange in Sweden? For nothing at all? Even cars, or whatever you drive there... Reindeer?
I don't see how the soc could get much smaller and deliver twice the performances as AMD has nothing reading 28nm parts/IPs aside.
Either Sony goes bigger or this is more an updated possibly streamlined version the PS4 meant (ultimately) to reach lower price points.
Basically you take a quarter of a fury X (1 geometry engine, 1 shader engine, 16 CUs, 16ROPs **), you link it to 2 Puma+ clusters, you implement a competent power management scheme, you then stick the while thing to 8GB of faster ram through a 128 bit bus. You code a fitting tdp and you are ready to roll with:
Improve CPU performances (especially outside of games when you can benefit turbo the most)
Relatively even gpu performance (especially through fp16 trickery, the x2 GPU power claims have me thinking of that). Thanks to the ps4 straight forward architecture tweaks should not be too complicated.
4K, HDMI 2, hd265 hardware support, a BRD 4K player, ( on top of increase CPU performances that would make a great media device with proper power management! )
Overall it may be a little short on GPU power (on the ROPs side under some scenario, slifhtly slower geometry pricessing) but the CPU could smooth thing out a little.
Now pixels counters may be unhappy as whereas the resolution of the main render target might remain the same there could be tricks going on the intermediate buffer sizes.
** I would thing 15 working CUs would be reasonable, Sony would aim at an higher tdp for the new model to allow clock spped more akin to the R7 260 line of products. With the ROP compression trickery the biggest possible L2 amount and some tdp to breathe it may not have to blush from the comparison to his bigger, cooler older brother. There is no magic but amd made progress in physical implementation since Bonaire got released, so did the lithography.
Either Sony goes bigger or this is more an updated possibly streamlined version the PS4 meant (ultimately) to reach lower price points.
Basically you take a quarter of a fury X (1 geometry engine, 1 shader engine, 16 CUs, 16ROPs **), you link it to 2 Puma+ clusters, you implement a competent power management scheme, you then stick the while thing to 8GB of faster ram through a 128 bit bus. You code a fitting tdp and you are ready to roll with:
Improve CPU performances (especially outside of games when you can benefit turbo the most)
Relatively even gpu performance (especially through fp16 trickery, the x2 GPU power claims have me thinking of that). Thanks to the ps4 straight forward architecture tweaks should not be too complicated.
4K, HDMI 2, hd265 hardware support, a BRD 4K player, ( on top of increase CPU performances that would make a great media device with proper power management! )
Overall it may be a little short on GPU power (on the ROPs side under some scenario, slifhtly slower geometry pricessing) but the CPU could smooth thing out a little.
Now pixels counters may be unhappy as whereas the resolution of the main render target might remain the same there could be tricks going on the intermediate buffer sizes.
** I would thing 15 working CUs would be reasonable, Sony would aim at an higher tdp for the new model to allow clock spped more akin to the R7 260 line of products. With the ROP compression trickery the biggest possible L2 amount and some tdp to breathe it may not have to blush from the comparison to his bigger, cooler older brother. There is no magic but amd made progress in physical implementation since Bonaire got released, so did the lithography.
Last edited:
Prophecy2k
Veteran
If the PS4k is as rumoured then I'll buy it. I won't like it (i.e. that I've been pressured into having to spend another £350 on an upgrade so soon), but I'll still bite if it's just a one-time mid-gen update for the purpose of Sony trying to push their VR platform and make it more competitive.
I see a lot of people speculating and talking as if whatever this is, it will set the tone for the direction of the industry from here on out. I'm not sure that it will. I'm not sure any consumer will be happy knowing that their expensive new console will be made obsolete before they even get the chance to play the next GTA or equivalent "long-lead dev time" blockbuster AAA game. And I think Sony understands this more than anyone.
I also think that the biggest potential benefit of more frequent generational shifts (e.g. 2-3 years), i.e. full forward compatibility, will be its biggest burden. As devs will need to have a cut off point at some stage, in terms of platforms they will have to target; otherwise they will end up spending far too much time QA testing for unnecessary legacy skus, which defeats the whole point of a console over a PC.
In which case I can see this going one of two ways:
1) PS4K will simply be a one-off mid-gen update and Sony will revert back to their normal 5-8 year generations starting from PS5 (but with full BC).
2) Sony will look to continue with their normal 5-8 year generations for a full 8-10x jump in performance from the last major shift; however they will drop mid-gen updates to the hardware alongside die-shrunk normal console revisions to play the same games at two distinctly different graphical configurations until the next major generational shift. So in this scenario, PS4 and PS4K will play all PS4 games, but only PS5 will play PS5 games together with BC PS4 titles.
I just can't see any benefit to either Sony, consumers or developers in shortening the full generational shifts to 3-4 years, especially when the biggest games take 3 yrs to make. This is the biggest distinction for me between consoles vs PC and phones. Who will buy a console knowing that all the games you're looking forward to will release optimised for newer HW in 1-2 years time. I think a lot of people will exit console gaming as a hobby if it becomes like PC.
Also, I think the argument that "you're not forced to upgrade" is a pretty intellectually dishonest one. It draws parallels between phones and PC where the markets are sufficiently different that such parallels are pretty useless.
With phones, you're tied into a contract anyway, which for most is usually between 18-24 months, so you couldn't upgrade annually even if you wanted to. Plus, because of your contract you upgrade because there's really no reason not to.
PCs again are different as PC gamers are not console gamers, and many console gamers are gamers BECAUSE of the lack of any pressure to upgrade more regularly in order to play the best games on their platform at the best performance possible. PC's are also modular and be upgraded component by component, which for some can alleviate some of the cost implications (i.e. if I only need to pay an additional £200 for a new GPU every two years, but can keep my motherboard and CPU for the next 3-4 years, then that's more palatable).
Making consoles like PCs however, suddenly creates psychological pressure on console gamers to upgrade more frequently, in a market that traditionally has been almost entirely predicated on a lack of need to update HW frequently. Suddenly, console gamers need to spend another $400-500 every three years and cannot just upgrade certain components in the box like on PC. So potentially the situation on consoles consoles becomes even worse than the situation on PC that console gamers were running away from in the first place. I'm gonna go ahead and say that not even Sony is dumb enough to go this route; hence either one of the two above options are really the only conceivable future for this.
I see a lot of people speculating and talking as if whatever this is, it will set the tone for the direction of the industry from here on out. I'm not sure that it will. I'm not sure any consumer will be happy knowing that their expensive new console will be made obsolete before they even get the chance to play the next GTA or equivalent "long-lead dev time" blockbuster AAA game. And I think Sony understands this more than anyone.
I also think that the biggest potential benefit of more frequent generational shifts (e.g. 2-3 years), i.e. full forward compatibility, will be its biggest burden. As devs will need to have a cut off point at some stage, in terms of platforms they will have to target; otherwise they will end up spending far too much time QA testing for unnecessary legacy skus, which defeats the whole point of a console over a PC.
In which case I can see this going one of two ways:
1) PS4K will simply be a one-off mid-gen update and Sony will revert back to their normal 5-8 year generations starting from PS5 (but with full BC).
2) Sony will look to continue with their normal 5-8 year generations for a full 8-10x jump in performance from the last major shift; however they will drop mid-gen updates to the hardware alongside die-shrunk normal console revisions to play the same games at two distinctly different graphical configurations until the next major generational shift. So in this scenario, PS4 and PS4K will play all PS4 games, but only PS5 will play PS5 games together with BC PS4 titles.
I just can't see any benefit to either Sony, consumers or developers in shortening the full generational shifts to 3-4 years, especially when the biggest games take 3 yrs to make. This is the biggest distinction for me between consoles vs PC and phones. Who will buy a console knowing that all the games you're looking forward to will release optimised for newer HW in 1-2 years time. I think a lot of people will exit console gaming as a hobby if it becomes like PC.
Also, I think the argument that "you're not forced to upgrade" is a pretty intellectually dishonest one. It draws parallels between phones and PC where the markets are sufficiently different that such parallels are pretty useless.
With phones, you're tied into a contract anyway, which for most is usually between 18-24 months, so you couldn't upgrade annually even if you wanted to. Plus, because of your contract you upgrade because there's really no reason not to.
PCs again are different as PC gamers are not console gamers, and many console gamers are gamers BECAUSE of the lack of any pressure to upgrade more regularly in order to play the best games on their platform at the best performance possible. PC's are also modular and be upgraded component by component, which for some can alleviate some of the cost implications (i.e. if I only need to pay an additional £200 for a new GPU every two years, but can keep my motherboard and CPU for the next 3-4 years, then that's more palatable).
Making consoles like PCs however, suddenly creates psychological pressure on console gamers to upgrade more frequently, in a market that traditionally has been almost entirely predicated on a lack of need to update HW frequently. Suddenly, console gamers need to spend another $400-500 every three years and cannot just upgrade certain components in the box like on PC. So potentially the situation on consoles consoles becomes even worse than the situation on PC that console gamers were running away from in the first place. I'm gonna go ahead and say that not even Sony is dumb enough to go this route; hence either one of the two above options are really the only conceivable future for this.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Can you explain why you feel pressured to upgrade? What other devices do you feel pressured to update when a new version is released?
I don't follow your logic of PS4 becoming "obsolete" this is contrary to the rumours, which is PS4 (all 30+ million of them) will be supported.
Developers will continue to target the biggest active user bases because that's where the money is.
Well, yeah, there is trade-in for reindeer yeah, sure, but I assumed the context was obviously consumer electronics - maybe that wasn't so clear after all so my bad!
So to clarify: we don't have trade-in for consumer electronics.There was a retail chain called Thorn, which was (maybe is) international I believe, where you rented stuff and could trade up from one model to the next, but they went bankrupt like a decade ago if not more...and you rented, not owned. And it was a shitty deal anyway, you ended up paying ~2x the purchase price before your contract was expired.
No hardcore gamer is to consider that option but what if like with the PS3 it is about pushing a new format (TV and optical) more than about updating the console?
As for my idea of streamlining the design in the process well they have to use new IPs anyway...
IMHO it makes no sense to upgrade now when and new set of IPs (cpu and gpu) is going to hit the road within one or two years (we may see part of the equation resolve before that ie a 14/16nm GPU).
I believe lots of people have yet to digest the " consoles hitting the power and price wall " and the relatively small perceived jump from the previous gen or even average Pc, so there is a lot of eagerness for more "more".
Prophecy2k
Veteran
This is my point though, consoles are different to every other device I own...
For me the psychological pressure will come from three places:
1) My personal desire to remain on the cutting edge - I love it and I love shiny new things... unapologetically. I buy all my consoles and new gaming devices at launch because I don't want to feel left behind in the discussion.
2) The Gaming Media - I can guarantee that as soon as PS4K and XB1.2 hit shelves, the gaming media is not going to talk about anything other than those two consoles. Digital foundry will quickly limit their comparison articles to coverage of the two latest consoles, and OG console owners will be lucky to get a brief mention in face-off articles. All devs will show footage of games in trailers and gameplay walkthroughs of the XB1.2 and PS4K versions, and the vanilla OG HW will be quickly forgotten... why?... Because that's what happens every new console gen, so there's no reason to believe this will be any different. As a consumer being able to see fantastic shiny new graphics in a trailer for a newly announced game and knowing that that is exactly how it will look on my TV at home, is a powerful thing, and a reason I play primarily on consoles rather than PC. Making me feel like i'm lumped with the aborted after-thought stripped-down version merely because I bought a PS4 at launch instead of waiting 3 years is a fast way to make me as a gamer feel alienated.
3) The internet - don't get it twisted... I'm already being reminded everyday by hardcore PC master race fanboys of how shit and ancient my PS4's internal HW is. Fast forward to post-release of the PS4K and XB1.2 and it will be even worse.
Ok so number 3 was a little tongue-in-cheek, but it does hold an element of truth behind it.
These arguments are true if you follow conventional wisdom. However no one really knows where the "high-end gaming industry" is heading right now.
I would argue that the PS4 is the first successful post-pc gaming device. It's what Steam Machines aspired to be but haven't achieved.
It's a mass produced device with high end custom pc architecture combined with it's own platform and ecosystem.
Look at some trends this generation. Look at how few 1st party titles there have been. Look at the fact that it has an OS that receives updates, games that have to be installed and receive patches. Look at the regular graphics comparisons there are between PC hardware and PS4. It's been morphing the best features of both console and PC. The only feature it hasn't adopted yet is hardware upgrade-ability.
Prophecy2k
Veteran
If the mid-gen hw update is merely about media and VR with little to no additional impact on games then the whole problem goes away.
If the recently NeoGaf rumour however is correct, then a 2x increase in GPU and increase in CPU performance, if available for games, will be a bad thing in my mind; again provided its their intention to do more frequent hw updates going forward, as opposed to this being just a one-time thing to coincide with VR launching
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Well, yeah, there is trade-in for reindeer yeah, sure, but I assumed the context was obviously consumer electronics - maybe that wasn't so clear after all so my bad!
Not even Apple? Because in most countries Apple have recycle programmes where you get store credit for old kit. Then when you start looking around, quite a few manufacturers offer it but retail stores don't mention it presumably because they don't want the hassle.
Recycling doesn't always mean disassembly, it's often reconditioned and resold or repurposed. So trade in = part exchange = recycling.
- Status