PS4 Pro Speculation (PS4K NEO Kaio-Ken-Kutaragi-Kaz Neo-san)

[Shifty Geezer]

The question in the poll is also a mess. Shorter console cycles means the next gen version of the current console (not an upgraded console) will be released sooner and developers enjoy that they dont have the technical limitations of the previous console in mind sooner.

Fair point. I think everyone by-and-large understood the question, but it is ambiguous. However, everyone's talking about PS4.5 instead of PS5 shows we're talking about a halfway upgrade and not a new generation, so the question shouldn't be skewing the answers. I'll update it and ask people to reconsider their votes.

Otherwise if it is going to replace completely the old PS4's and be sold at the same price

True, but it won't. If it's notably more powerful, it'll cost more to make, so will be sold at a higher price and the existing PS4 sold at the lower price. If the PS4+ replaces the PS4, then it'll offer no tangible, market-dividing difference.

The risk seems to be on the fact that you are introducing a new variable into your game development, people will be selling PS4's cheaply in order to upgrade which means potential loss of full price sales, a portion of the market may start giving up on the brand/consoles overall or when your next gen console is released many of the first adopters will be reluctant to purchase early, and there will be a problem on how you communicate your new games to consumers. Are you going to be showing them off at their fullest graphical settings which may look or play noticeably worse (i.e framerate) to your existing market?Or are you going to show the low settings and not demonstrate what the new PS4 can do? It will be introducing a form of uncertainty that was always absent from consoles and was one of the reasons it was attracting many consumers

Some fair points, but I think they're all pretty of little impact. eg. Games have been shown in terms of CGI and PC rendering for years! That hasn't really impacted software sales AFAICS. People buy a game, grumble it's only 900p (or blurry, if they notice) whereas the marketing material was 1080p, and then carry on playing and enjoying it once they've got over their somewhat contrived disappointment.

 

[London Geezer]

IF it's executed right, this would open up the console market and make it better. The only people who will nag about it will be the ones who don't have the PS4K/XB1.2. If the two new platforms can play the exact same games as the old versions, and if new games released can play on both, only a bit better on the newer versions, then it will be great. Like how some games play a little bit better on newer iPhones, but still play on older ones - only a little bit less messy as there would only be two variants of the platforms, and not one every year like the smartphones.

People who want the new model will buy it and enjoy it. People with the older models will still buy Uncharted 4 (as an example).

That way the market will NOT be fragmented, since the content for the platforms will be the same.

The problem will be when a new game requires the new versions to run properly or at all. That, I wouldn't support.

Also, I don't have a 4K TV. Would the new platform output 1080p with better AA, for example? Better frame rates? If so, it would still make sense for me to buy it. Then by the time I actually get a 4K TV (not any time soon unless I get drunk and impulse-buy one, one of these days), the PS5 should be out. And if they can carry on the forward compatibility to that one too, even better.

The days of completely incompatible consoles generations should end.

 

[orangpelupa]

The weird thing is, Microsoft already have the ingredients for this "one" initiative. Stuff that Works everywhere.

But they still unable to pull it :/

 

[DieH@rd]

LOL, did you forget about HoloLens? Nobody cares about VR this year in its current form.

Marketing and impressions from event/devkit testers has made sure that users care. How will VR industry evolve after the headsets hit the market, we will have to wait and see.

GameIndustry.biz ordered market research of modern gaming userbase, looking to see how they react to current VR [without regard for price].
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articl...-gamers-more-interested-in-vr-than-pc-players

- sample size was over 8000 users
- 49% of all of them were interested in VR
- 51% PC users are interested in VR
- 63% of all console users are interested in VR
- 72% of PS4&Xbone users are interested in VR

PS4&Xbone users also have the biggest ratio of "Very interested" choices [37%], and also the smallest ratio of users who are not interested in VR [21%].

 

[Shifty Geezer]

LOL, did you forget about HoloLens? Nobody cares about VR this year in its current form.

Hololens has nothing to do with VR. It's an AR solution for professionals. VR is the headsets - OR, Vive, PSVR, Gear VR, and others. Somewhere on this board was posted a research firm's prediction of 1.2-1.5 million PSVRs sold? "Nobody cares" is a factually unsupported view. Heck, if nobody cared, no-one would have talked about/complained about OVR's pricing!

 

[Grall]

LOL, did you forget about HoloLens? Nobody cares about VR this year in its current form.

LOL hololens is not VR, but augmented reality (it's transparent for starters.) Also, it's not going to be out for consumers for a year+ at least, and did you see the price tag of the devkit? And so few cares about VR that PSVR sold out in what was it, 20 minutes? Yeah, that makes perfect sense...

 

[London Geezer]

LOL, did you forget about HoloLens?

Yes. Everyone forgot about Hololens because it's completely irrelevant in the console market. Nobody cares.

 

[Deleted member 86764]

Yes, has no one noticed how much Hololens gets talked about and how little interest in VR is across the Internet?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

http://www.googlefight.co.uk/hololens-vs-playstation+vr.php
http://www.googlefight.co.uk/hololens-vs-oculus+rift.php
http://www.googlefight.co.uk/hololens-vs-vive.php

 

[eastmen]

http://www.googlefight.co.uk/hololens-vs-playstation+vr.php
http://www.googlefight.co.uk/hololens-vs-oculus+rift.php
http://www.googlefight.co.uk/hololens-vs-vive.php

That's cute, but ps vr just had its pricing announcement , oculus orders are just now getting shipping information and release is the 28th and vive releases the week later.

I would expect all 3 of them to rank higher than the hololens when you consider that 1) there is no release date for it and 2) you can buy 1 of each of the other headsets and still have over a thousand dollars left over compared to getting the developer kit of hololens.

 

[eastmen]

A new Xbox One+ may give Microsoft momentum but who says that whatever Sony does won't improve their momentum? Both companies can gain momentum (i.e increasing adoption of their respective ecosystem). I'd posit that enhanced versions of existing consoles are less likely to result in a significant change in momentum relative to each other.

A brand new console generally means your game library generally gets reset to zero so it's as good a time as any to switch. If the new consoles are enhanced versions of current consoles, I'd say platform switching will reduce because you'll be asking users to make a decisive decision to abandon their game library. People wanting the best performing console may switch (assuming there aren't overriding factors like being able to pay with your friends which would make it a collective group decision) but I don't think the "console master race" is a big market.

Of course sony can improve or keep their momentum . I never said they couldn't. I just said that they could loose it. Microsoft doesn't have much to loose as sales are slowing down.

So both companies fortunes are different. Sony could keep the ps4 and ride out whatever MS does next and either A) not have to worry since people will still buy ps4 in high volume while ignoring the ms option or B) launch a new/newer console after MS if momentum starts to change and once again claim to be the better system.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I would expect all 3 of them to rank higher than the hololens when you consider that 1) there is no release date for it and 2) you can buy 1 of each of the other headsets and still have over a thousand dollars left over compared to getting the developer kit of hololens.

Right. VR is currently relevant. Hololens is currently irrelevant for good reason - it has zero bearing on the console space or the average consumer! east of eastside just needs to hold up his hands and acknowledge VR is a 'now' thing and people do care about it in its current form.

 

[eastmen]

Right. VR is currently relevant. Hololens is currently irrelevant for good reason - it has zero bearing on the console space or the average consumer! east of eastside just needs to hold up his hands and acknowledge VR is a 'now' thing and people do care about it in its current form.

well yea that's obvious.

But if you check out the oculus thread there , there is some awfully weird stuff happening with MS and Oculus. MS research posted a picture to twitter that had Gaming 1976 and it showed Atari and its controllers and Gaming 2016 and showed hololens and oculus touch controllers.

The picture was pulled right away so we only have a thumbnail of it that I posted there. So we might hear more at build . But maybe Hololens will be Xbox one point five

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Wrong thread for that sort of speculation. And too hypothetical speculation for eastside's arguments!

 

[MrFox]

well yea that's obvious.

But if you check out the oculus thread there , there is some awfully weird stuff happening with MS and Oculus. MS research posted a picture to twitter that had Gaming 1976 and it showed Atari and its controllers and Gaming 2016 and showed hololens and oculus touch controllers.

The picture was pulled right away so we only have a thumbnail of it that I posted there. So we might hear more at build . But maybe Hololens will be Xbox one point five

Looks like they finally gave up on the whole "you are the controller" thing.

It's bad PR to imply xb1 and kinect are dead, probably why it was pulled.

 

[Grall]

Looks like they finally gave up on the whole "you are the controller" thing.

For starters a gadget like kinect doesn't work when people don't have huge living rooms with acres of empty space like in Apple commercials. You have to know who you're building your hardware for, wealthy people in mansions or regular joes.

 

[Shortbread]

Didn't see this posted...

Option #1: A new, more powerful PlayStation

What we might expect:

-An APU with a higher-end Polaris would push graphics on - a 2x performance boost in GPU power compared to PS4 is achievable in a console form-factor. Possibly more - we really need to see the desktop PC equivalent parts first.
-By default, Polaris has support for 4K, HDMI 2.0, HDCP 2.2 and HDR.
-Console would not be cheap owing to the size of the processor - conceivably on par with PS4's £359/$399 launch price.
-Possibly higher depending on how much Sony pushes the boat out in terms of processor size and memory allocation.
-This PS4K could co-exist with a cheaper 'PS4 Slim' based on the older APU, again using 14nm/16nm technology.

Option #2: PlayStation 4 evolved

What we might expect:

-We'd see a new PlayStation playing host to the same titles as the current one, but with visual improvements.
-Conceivably, older games may run more smoothly by default, or could be patched to access the newer hardware.
-Resolution could be pushed beyond 1080p and could look good on a 4K screen, but native UHD visuals for triple-A titles are off the table.
-Wouldn't be as expensive as the first option.State-of-the-art 4K media support, but harder to sell to all but the most hardcore gamers.

Option #3: PlayStation plus

What we might expect:

-Full compatibility with 4K screens, including next-gen media.
-Complete 'no worries' compatibility with existing PlayStation 4 library.
-HDR support for gaming on 4K displays - even if gaming resolution remains at 1080p.
-Opportunity to lower cost as 14/16nm chips become cheaper.
-Unlikely to alienate the existing userbase - any performance upgrade would be more 'nice to have' as opposed to essential.

 

[RedVi]

Because of the push for 4KBR disks I think this will end up being not much more than a PS4+ in the form of an all new slim 14nm model that replaces the old one. It will be refined and perhaps a bit faster (clock speeds, new UMD unit in GPU), but it will not split the PS4 into a premium and regular console simply because they want everyone who buys one from that point on to have a 4KBR player. So it can't be more expensive, it should actually see a price drop somewhat in line with past slim models. If they go all out on hardware upgrades then the price at the very least needs to stay static for the next year after launch. The only way this would not backfire is to cease production of the PS4 resulting in a big firesale, or continue to produce and sell it as a cheaper option - both of which hurt their push to get 4KBR into as many homes as possible.

 

[bunge]

Because of the push for 4KBR disks I think this will end up being not much more than a PS4+ in the form of an all new slim 14nm model that replaces the old one. It will be refined and perhaps a bit faster (clock speeds, new UMD unit in GPU), but it will not split the PS4 into a premium and regular console simply because they want everyone who buys one from that point on to have a 4KBR player. So it can't be more expensive, it should actually see a price drop somewhat in line with past slim models. If they go all out on hardware upgrades then the price at the very least needs to stay static for the next year after launch. The only way this would not backfire is to cease production of the PS4 resulting in a big firesale, or continue to produce and sell it as a cheaper option - both of which hurt their push to get 4KBR into as many homes as possible.

I could see one that splits the user base, even if only for PSVR. Any negative press surrounding performance issues with PSVR could be mitigated and all consumers would understand the concept of a new product introduced along side a new product working together better than an old one and a new one.

 

[mrcorbo]

'


Zhuge posted this on twitter.

It sounds mostly like a PSP style revision and not any huge deal. I'm thinking possibly even the extra power for VR/media/system only?

Zhuge also posted this on another forum



Thinking, I'd lean towards the easiest upgrade being clock. Now that the chip is mature they can probably easily upclock the GPU to 850, 900, or a little more (and the CPU a bit as well). This would just be super/easy slam dunk "upgrade."

What if it's even a PS4 that doesn't need the external processing "box" for PSVR? Could be bundled with cheaper PSVR. The rumors dont mention this, but it makes a lot of sense.

I'm wondering about the possibility of PS4K having the following upgrades:

• Upgraded media block with 10-bit HEVC encode/decode and updated DRM support.
• UHD BR drive.
• HDMI 2.0a.
• PSVR breakout box hardware capabilities integrated.
• Upgraded storage interface that can fully leverage an SSD (no one talks about this as a possibility, but I would trade in my PS4 for a PS4K for this feature alone).
• Dedicated, programmable, upscaling hardware. System uses it to upscale photos and media, game devs are presented with a control interface so they can control the method and parameters of the upscaling used to get the best presentation for their game on 4K TVs (otherwise the system uses a default upscaling method).

Better system and a worthwhile upgrade for some. No fragmentation. No pissed off early adopters.