I really wouldn't be that shocked. I remember on message boards people swore up and down no way ps4 will have 8gb ram.
That, and avoid pissing away all the hard work put into their current platforms.
PS3 features, store, and content are stuck on that platform. Ten years of foundation building down the drain.
Same with the 360.
At what?
If it's an upgrade that I can just plug into my existing PS4 I'm all for it to extend the life of the console. N64-esque expansion pack is fine.
Having to buy an entirely new machine would not be okay.
If this theoretical PS4.5 has no exclusive software, runs existing games at higher frame rates and Resolutions and can also run all PSVR games at a native 120fps. I'm not sure what the problem is.
Hell if it's reasonably priced I'd upgrade myself.
The idea is really possible by today's standarts in a way, where PC seems to outrun everyone in the first place. Let's not forget Nintendo did the first plunge with their New N3DS. When that happened, it just fractured their install base, and their install base is waayyyy more populated than the PS4 20 millions adopters. If Nintendo was ready to do so, I don't see why Sony wouldn't follow...
It's not hyperbole. Plenty of people are chiming in and citing the smartphone market. Well, the smartphone market iterates every 18 months to 2 years for most major manufacturers. That's where the fear comes from.This is hyperbole
Obsolete? Ps4 will handle another 2-3 years of games at least
This gets kinda overplayed. Sure, our transistors are hitting the lower limits of size, but adding more power by the "brute force" of smaller components has been going out of style for a while. Manufacturers have been focusing on power consumption and architecture moreso than just making it smaller. Reducing power consumption will go a very long way to give us hardware improvements without needing to make the components much smaller.You guys realize we are starting to hit atomic transistor limits right?
This is my fear as well. The N3DS shows that the old hardware can get pushed down in priorities when more powerful hardware exists. If the original hardware isn't being entirely targeted and they over stretch because of the newer system making games on the old system near unplayable, then thats a worry to me.After seeing how many cross-gen games work or how 3ds 'run' some games that have increased stuff in N3DS... I wouldn't put my hand on the fire on that.
Devs take enough compromises already on fixed hardware to push their mostly useless eyecandy and openworldeverywhere stuff. Giving them a reason to push even farter is not really a good idea.
In that same line of thinking, I don't think the way to improve the current bloated budgetting of game development is giving them the chance to go for even more expensive assets and productions values.
I would love to see a 1 or 2 year cycle in console country. Much like tablets and phones. As long as they can guarantee compatibility for 3 years at minimum.
I suppose.
BC and FC will be critical for this iterative hardware scheme to succeed.
Who's saying this is a 10 year cycle? It;s going to be 6.
And closed hardware has always been good. Xbox one and PS4 are selling better than last gen? Actually PS4 is close to PS2, which was god tier days.
So I would say your wrong. With them making profits on hardware because TECH has become cheaper to get lower costs I would say staying the course would be more beneficial in getting good deals on parts. Having incremental upgrades would actually cost more up front, and possibly put the chip,memory manufacturers in a difficult spot. you might see constraints or batch issues more often. Waiting and trying to get best possible price as things eventually get cheaper more cost effective is better than trying to chase the better tech rabbit hole.
Being cost effective is what they need, and it's why they hit the ground running this gen instead of having RROD issues, Yellow light of death, giant powersupply's, bad coding issues.
I don't get this. Multiplat development is made with consoles as the baseline. Not having capabilities to scale graphical settings is not "being crippled", there is no fundamental gameplay design difference between these two platforms.
yes please. i'm cool with upgrading my consoles every 3-4 years.
Hello my friend.
I don't think it matters (and I'm sure you agree) about who started the talk. Like others have stated (I think I did here...I can't remember) but it absolutely makes sense for VR. I believe I said MS would make a dual GPU, 4k capable machine (Pro device) and have a regular (single gpu) non 4k device (but probably 1080p) regular device. It would follow suit with their Surface, and Surface Pro stuff. These things will be expensive and target different users.
Yea, I can see why going PC gaming would make sense with this. I just like it because it still gives you the choice of when to upgrade your hardware (if they did yearly or whatever). Most games will still be playable on the older hardware (at least for a couple years) so there's no reason to be mad. If it's 6 years down the road and you haven't upgraded...then bleh. I think MS is in a better position PC wise (unless PS does do a UWP version of the PS platform and have an ecosystem on PC...which I would be all for) because they can get their exclusives sold on both platforms whereas Sony doesn't have that currently.
Granted most of what I said is speculation. But as you already know, I wasn't surprised by this news one bit. I figured this would happen (and as you said you did say before). You know I just find this thread hilarious. Good times. Like I said before...E3 will be interesting.
Is it even possible to design a machine that takes an existing game and runs it at a higher internal resolution across the board? IE- if a game runs at 1080p 30, you can run at 4K 30fps with a new machine?
This is my fear as well. The N3DS shows that the old hardware can get pushed down in priorities when more powerful hardware exists. If the original hardware isn't being entirely targeted and they over stretch because of the newer system making game on the old system near unplayable then thats a worry to me.
But games take 3 to 4 years to make. Jesus, I have the feeling that nothing happened yet in this gen. No Rockstar Games, no Gran Turismo, no Naughty Dog game, no Sony Santa Monica game...
Me. I own a 4KTV. I'd love some 4K content. Sony being one of the forefronts of 4K need to target the audience and prepare them for the wave of everything going 4K.
If this theoretical PS4.5 has no exclusive software, runs existing games at higher frame rates and Resolutions and can also run all PSVR games at a native 120fps. I'm not sure what the problem is.
Hell if it's reasonably priced I'd upgrade myself.
Is this a serious question?
Have you seen Just Cause 3?
It would suck to have to buy a brand new system for the relatively small leap but we'll see how it plays out.
What I mean is- if the entire backwards library of PS4 is 1080p, could the PS4.5 suddenly run it at 4K at the drop of a hat?
More frequent hardware releases work in the phone, tablet, computer, and gaming hardware market, no reason it couldn't work here. Better for everyone too as gaming technology (graphics, etc.) doesn't get held back because of weak hardware having to be stretched over 7 year periods.
It would suck to have to buy a brand new system for the relatively small leap but we'll see how it plays out.
Game releases update and you have your 4k.What I mean is- if the entire backwards library of PS4 is 1080p, could the PS4.5 suddenly run it at 4K at the drop of a hat?
Sounds like a ps5 to me. If the jump in resolution is true.
Im not going to have to buy a new fucking PS4 to play future ps4 games am I? If so then fuck this garbage.