Topic: PS5 Rumour and Speculation Thread

I can see the switch and project Scorpio starting the next gen. Then ps5 will be here sooner than you think. Late 2018 maybe.

I've posted elsewhere that I think Sony will move to a more regular iterative upgrade process for the Playstation brand, if it doesn't happen with the next console then I can't see them not doing it after that. A common problem that console manufacturers have had has been the release of a new console means starting its user base from scratch. This has been inevitable in the past as consoles used specialised chipsets making cross compatibility something both difficult and costly to implement. Moving to x86/x64 architecture though means they have an inherent cross compatibility as we see on the PC (most problems with getting older games to run on PC are down to the OS rather than any hardware issues). So having a continuous user base is now both possible and makes business sense.

Anyone expecting huge leaps in a few years though will be sorely disappointed, applying Moore's law would suggest we may be looking at a machine 3X as powerful as the Pro in late 2019 factoring in similar cost. The fact we are reaching the limits of what we can do with current processors should also be factored in to what to expect. While tricks like multiple cores have been implemented to help circumvent the eventual dead end, we will reach it within a decade. So all of that means any real generational leap will be because of something like quantum computers being fully developed. That alone is the single thing I can see that will truly move us forward technologically speaking. Then of course I will cry as CoD, Fifa and all those other franchised games outsell everything still and people argue over which system is better based on a few frames per second at 10800p, ignoring the fact the game is utter bobbins anyway.

This is where I am leaning, though having to support too far back is a problem too, as we saw with the Destiny dev's comments publicly about sacrifices in the ps4 version to support the ps3 version (like limited inventory). So they'll have to do something to avoid infinite backwards compatibility handcuffing devs - perhaps like games which work on the pro and the iteration after the pro, but not the base ps4. But if you do that a clean generation break may be easier to communicate and for people to swallow.

@Mega-Gazz: That is pretty much exactly what I've wrote previously - they will run a two tier system as we have now with the PS4 and Pro, but when the next one comes out they will keep the Pro, but retire the PS4 and so on. I've said the same on news topics, but I also mentioned it here:
https://www.pushsquare.com/forums/ps_general_discussion/are_we...
I think I also talked in greater detail about how I see the 'PS5' shaping up in it, but then again not everything that passes through my head always gets written down

@Mega-Gazz: Going forward, I doubt you would have the sacrifices quite so much as you may have had with PS3/PS4. For a start the majority of the graphical power these days is being utilised to render resolution rather than add something 'unique' that isn't possible on older systems.
I can see the PS5 rendering at a native 4k with the extra RAM being used to have higher quality textures etc. That extra power though isn't likely to add anything that the PS4 'in theory' can't handle. Its not like years ago when the new system added the power to move to 3D or move from cartoon style graphics to more realism. Granted people do not quite look as 'real' as in a movie but they are a lot more lifelike with moving hair and detailed facial animation. Cars and other non-living things are incredibly lifelike - even a lot of the vegetation too. Point is though, the next generation may not add anything 'significant' other than the necessary power to run games at the standards of the hardware they are connected to.
The biggest thing the PS4 had over the PS3 was in open-world games. These on the PS3 era required 'loading' or hidden loading sections - sections that were very narrow and with no enemies - often very bland. The longer these were, often the bigger the area you were moving too. Buildings etc also had loading times. Games like Knack, Killzone etc could easily have worked on PS3 with a visual downgrade. Killzone no doubt would have required an alternative to the control scheme as the DS3 doesn't have touchpad (I felt these were shoehorned in anyway to try and showcase the DS4).
Considering the power difference between a PS3 and PS4, we haven't really seen any ground breaking fundamental change to the games in general. A lot of the extra power is used to enhance visual quality - a jump to full HD, improved lighting, shadows etc and I expect the next console to essentially do the same except make the jump to 4x the resolution. I doubt we will see anything so revolutionary as the jump to 3D, the ability to add speech and then full 3D sound. Much of the power will be going to improving the visual look at this higher resolution rather than inventing something never before seen in gaming. You could argue this generation gave birth to VR but the truth is VR has been around a while but not had the power to make it work properly - decent resolution, decent frame rate etc. I have no doubt VR could run on PS3 but the experience wouldn't be as good. This could be an area where PS5 really makes a difference - playing games as big and complex as Battlefield - 32vs32, large scale warfare with masses of destruction and of course hundreds of bullets flying everywhere per second without any slowdown to the frame rate - I doubt we will see that at 4k though but we could have the 'power' to run at 1080p and the rest of the power used to keep the frame rate high and track all that action.

It's definitely fascinating to wonder what games could look like in 2030, that's for sure! I wonder if my PS1 will still be working then..

@Kidfried
My opinion has changed, not so much because of hardware but more because of this push by a lot of big companies lately to move away from traditional single player games and go in a more 'games as a service' direction. If that's how things are going to be, Sony and MS can give me the most powerful hardware ever known and it's not going to make me want to continue gaming (on their platforms at least, Nintendo does its own thing, somtimes good, sometimes bad, so I always leave Nintendo open as an option). Next-gen could be ugly if that model becomes the standard practice.

My opinion hasn't changed - if anything its been reinforced as I have now seen what 4k (proper 4k) can bring to gaming. I also think that CPU's in current consoles are holding designers back. The iterative hardware also made the gap between CPU and GPU significantly larger showing that there focus was purely to improve the visuals to UHD levels but not evolve gaming or improve game-play (more 60fps games).

Its not about the 'X' releasing or the fact the PS4 is still selling well but looking to the future. The PS4, like the XB1, is seeing a 'decline' in visual standards to try and get their games running on these consoles. Sacrificing resolution, visual settings and/or frame rates. So not only are we seeing a decrease in these areas but also an increase in 4k TV's in households. I know that 5yrs may seem too soon for some people but if that console is seeing the quality of presentation dropping as the complexities of games increase, then its time to replace regardless of how well that product has done. There is always a crossover phase and you don't want to wait until its touch and go as to whether devs can actually get their games to work well enough. Granted for many, the drop from say 1080p to 900p or use of dynamic scaling because they can no longer offer 1080p at a consistent frame rate isn't all that concerning for some PS4 owners - especially on 1080p TV's.

Of course I have spoken primarily about just game performance and visuals but there are other areas that I think Sony are behind on too - things like Audio quality - great as it is, its not 'Atmos/DTS-X', no 4k HDR Bluray player, no Game VRR etc. In every area, Sony 'can' make a generational leap above the PS4 and PS4 Pro. The fact that there is this 'room' to improve, this also shows how far behind they are for the 4k market. I know the 4k market maybe 'relatively' small but its fast growing and I bet the number of 4k TV owners are growing fastest amongst gamers and the 20-40 age range.

No doubt, the longer they hold on for, the more improvements they can make for the budget they will target. However, wait 3yrs and that could give MS the advantage with their next box as they could respond a year later with something 'better' to replace the XB1. MS has stated that the X could get 'exclusives' in the future http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/11/06/xbox-one-x-m... - games that are too complex for the S to run at satisfactory levels. They could be looking at an iterative model where the weakest is phased out, the high-end becomes low-end and a new high-end is released - probably every 3-4 yrs - so they always have at least 2 consoles on the market. If Sony wait until 2020, that could put the PS5 up against MS again but against the next 'iteration'. If not that year, then a year later. It may not matter if Sony is 'behind' on the spec sheet of course, whether Sony want that, who knows - they will no-doubt have great exclusives to sell. It almost makes more sense for Sony to strike in 2018. MS can't retaliate for a few years at least and gives Sony a big advantage for the next few years at the high-end.

@Kidfried 2020 is possible. 2019 too, that's three years after the Pro. We shall see, but I don't think it makes any sense to destroy they momentum they currently have. Yeah, specs aren't great compared to PC the longer you wait, yada yada, but who cares? Most people still buy the standard PS4 over the Pro, so most gamers aren't concerned about having the best possible hardware under their TV. As long as it does the job, the PS4 can go on for a little while.

@BAMozzy I agree. We have this near the end of every console cycle with some people ready to move on and other wanting to keep riding the current wave of hardware. However, we haven't considered the game developers enough IMO. With the rumours of the AC: Origins being gimped for PS4, I can't see this issue getting any better. Holding on to hardware due to personal budget constraints or personal satisfaction is all well and good until devs stop supporting your platform.

@Shellcore I know. There were people still saying we didn't need a PS4 because of games like Last of Us. But then if you see what was missing from games on PS4, its clear how much sacrificing to games was needed to get them running. Its often not until you see the 'full picture', the next gen version, that you realise how compromised things were - whether its 'just' resolution or the more barren landscapes, shadow quality etc, or the capped 30fps.

The fact that virtually all developers are working in 4k now, but then have to scale them down to 25% (or less) visually, maybe nerf the frame rate to 30fps, nerf the visual settings - settle for low res shadows, minimal Ambient occlusion, short 'draw distances (not for everything but for shadows, AO, small foliage, textures etc so you get these pop-in. Its still a big downgrade over what they built. You also don't know how its affecting game design - ideas being shelved because the hardware won't cope. Its ambition that affected Unity and Just Cause 3 - 2 very CPU intensive games struggling on console to perform well enough and pushing Devs back to 'safe' levels.

As good as the PS4 is, its still not able to offer the full HD in some games - no doubt a growing number as well as limiting a number of games to just 30fps. If games were still improving in scale etc, and still comfortably hitting 1080/60 then I would say that there is still a way to go to max out its potential but the fact is, games are already too complex to run at the optimum levels.

I don't know if ACO was 'gimped' on PS4 or not but the game does struggle to hold a consistent resolution and frame-rate - even with a 33.33ms buffer. Most GPU's these days require at least 6GB but more like 8GB - much more vRAM than the console offers. So they have to sacrifice more visual effects to smooth out game-play and then they get accused of 'dumbing down' visuals from E3 showings on more powerful hardware. I would be annoyed if I created a masterpiece painting and then had to 'dumb it down' for others to see it, shrink it so that the fine details are lost for example.

@Kidfried The stats don't lie either. TV companies are seeing the biggest growth in 4k and its growing faster than HD did at the onset of that resolution. The TV manufacturers also saw a bigger trend in the larger/premium market of the 4k and things like the Pro, the Xbox X, more and more 4k STB's, Bluray players and content - even digital like Netflix, Amazon and youtube.

I know the stats will say something like only 15% of US households own a 4k TV but then how many over 50's are there that won't upgrade until their current TV breaks and only if 4k is the only option. Its much more common amongst the 20-40 age range and amongst gamers/techies.

I know you may be in a difficult position with your size limitations (although you can buy 4k monitors that size). The fact is, 4k is definitely the future and Sony's PS5 will be targeting 4k without any doubt. Its no different to MS and Sony targeting HD with the XB360/PS3. MS were first of course and didn't even have a HDMI connection at release. Sony went bigger into HD with their Bluray player and HDMI as standard. But even then, HD wasn't the 'norm' and more people owned CRT TV's. There was a lot of people ssaying they had no need of HD or wanting a 'big' TV dominating their front room and their little 28-32" CRT was 'more than' big enough. for their 'needs'. Point is, HD wasn't considered the norm then either but consoles still opted to target HD. Now, games are made to at least 4k standards - whether you like it or not. They are then scaled right back for consoles.

The question isn't if, its when. The PS4 and Pro, as good as they are as consoles, they are not delivering the quality expected. I am not referring to the quality of the story etc but the fact that devs have to utilise techniques like dynamic scaling, unlocked frame rates etc to get them running. Its not like every game is releasing at 1080/60 on PS4 and we are seeing a fundamental growth. Its as if every 'new', bigger and better game is requiring more and more compromise on visual PQ and performance. Sacrificing a bit more on shadow quality, reflections etc, maybe even running at average lower resolutions to try and keep a more stable frame-rate. Its the fact that there is a 'decrease' and all the while an increase in 4k uptake. 900p may not sound like much of a drop from 1080p for example but that's 75% of the size. Also if you own a 4k TV, that's the difference between enlarging by 400% and 600%. Instead of 25% of the picture now being used to upscale up to 4k, only 18.75% so you get a much blurrier image. You know how SD looks on a HD screen, that's often a 540p image but 900p on a 4k screen is like 450p on a 1080p screen.

Obviously you have never seen 4k HDR and how much better that is over 1080p SDR. Its inevitable that Sony will be bringing a PS5 and that will target 4k. Whether you want it or not, whether you have 4k by then or not, it will still be a 4k console - probably with super-sampling for those still clinging on to their old HD TV's

@Gamer83 im with you bro. Fed up of whats happened. Admittedly AAA is leading the way and we have a number of companies yet to introduce 'games as a service' as part of their entrees. Monster hunter world , Yakuza and Horizon are good examples I feel.

Im probably but not definitely running a PC next gen, and with that will more than likely older games Ive missed on that platform. Which is a shame, loved the ps4 until the back end of this year and now I feel disenfranchised with the whole gaming lark.

I think the key thing to remember is that publishers (not developers necessarily) care about money. Nothing more nothing less and will, therefore, chase the largest install base where possible.

If PS4 has an install base of 70 million as it nearly has (I think), publishers will develop games for those users. The decision on whether a company pushes out a new generation really comes down to current gen sales vs competitor behaviour vs technology.

The bulk of those 70 million PS4 owners don't really care about framerates or power under the hood. We might care about it as hobbyists but the people that buy a PS4 to buy COD or Fifa, or maybe buy a new game every few months care more about getting value from their current console. If people really cared about tech and iterative then I think the console market would be dead - PC would be the way to go but most people like consoles because they are easy and a one off payment with a few years on it.

I mean the last generation lasted longer than it needed to from a techological point of view, developers would have preferred more powerful tech from a dev point of view from early on into the generation. PC gamers were quick to lament the woeful comparitive performance of games designed to run on the 360 or PS3. However, the consoles and games kept making money so it lumbered on for a long time.

Sony will try and go on with the PS4 until it judges that a) technology really has to move on and b) sales start to dip and they need to reinvigorate the brand. Publishers will continue to limit their devs ambitions to run on current gen hardware for as long as there is a solid install base. From experience, every developer wants to develop on the latest tech and on the best hardware but they are always limited by the supporting the most used systems and software.

Now of course, maybe MS' strategy really is to produce iterative consoles and slowly phase out old iterations slowly, a bit like Apple with their iOS upgrades, old phones stop being supported each year so eventually you have to upgrade. Personally, working with Microsoft every day, their actual company goal is cross platform software and I think they'll still produce their own hardware but actually push Live subscription services for their games on other devices.

Man I'm watching this thread and a lot of other ones too and people are moaning how gaming is dying and turning to service base models etc etc.

Well to bad this is your creation gamers and no one elses you made your bed now lie in it.

@Hapuc I agree. The amount of people defending these practises initially are starting to realise that they aren't as innocent now as they once seemed. I have been derided for saying "no buy" to popular games due to having loot boxes and microtransactions that upset the gameplay balance. It's not just cosmetic items anymore. Unfortunately, to most on this forum, we are preaching to the converted. It's the casual players dropping some money on shark cards and ultimate team that are really guiding the devs.

Edit: Sorry OP. Off Topic. Will not continue this line of discussion.

@Shellcore Yup they come here and tell me stuff like that like you say we all know what to do.

And there is even a new gen of gamers who are worse the"hey if you don't like microtransactions don't buy them"yet they don't realize that you shouldn't pay for any microtransactions or lootboxes entire game should be playable for you(That would be like going to buy a movie and you have to pay 1.99$ addition to unlock a certain scene to see more character development because they are not important for the main story)

@Hapuc how is it our creation though? its a frankenstein amalgamation of pr and scam.

Its not 'dying' but no ones asking for the change to service based gaming. Its being forced upon us.

A comment had it right over on eurogamer. Why spend upwards of £200 per game, I would rather be going on holiday with my mates.

That sums it up for me gaming has always been good cheap entertainment. When it comes between picking a holiday or 3 games the holiday wins every time.

@themcnoisy Well it is our fault gamers are the ones who support f2p(Paladins,LOL,DOTA;HOTS etc etc)
we are the ones who support incomplete games/early acces/deliberately cut of content games(StarWars,Cod,PUBG(Especially this one),Destiny etc etc)

They wouldn't create this type of games and this systems if they failed but why would it fail when a guy spends 35K on ships in Scam Citizen.
And PUBG sells 20 mil copies by being a buggy mess and when they get called out they can get away with it by saying (It's early access) and gamer fall for that.

@Kidfried I too was very disappointed with this generation and the specs of the hardware. The CPU is woefully inadequate - especially compared to last gen. Of course its more cores but also half the speed and when compared to the GPU, 'out of balance'. Last Gen was more balanced and, in Sony's case, the CPU was the most complex and forward thinking part. It was maybe held back with multi-platform releases because games were not built for the complex nature of the Cell processor. Also the way the RAM was built didn't help but the CPU was much stronger on both last gen systems.

The GPU and RAM was significantly improved fr this gen but the CPU wasn't improved by the same margin. It was literally enough to boost 'visual' presentation to 'full HD' - similar to the design principals of the iterative hardware. Big boost to GPU to handle better visuals but little improvements to areas that could improve frame rates and evolve 'game design'.

As for loading times, I remember when games took 20-30mins to load so under a minute is not a big deal to me. I have noticed the Xbox X improved loading times - and that includes 4k HDR games with 'new' high res assets. Some of it is down to more bandwidth to enable more data to flow, much faster RAM etc so I can see a PS5 being 'faster' to load than the PS4/Pro despite higher res, more details and higher quality assets.

I find it funny that a few years ago, people were 'amazed' at 4k Screenshots of games like the Witcher 3, Division etc and now we can achieve this in console gaming, its too soon - despite 4k TV's being on the market for nearly 4years now. I find it funny that people went crazy over the jump from 720 - 1080p visuals that this gen offered - how good games like AC4, Tomb Raider, Last of Us, Nathan Drake collection etc looked over the PS3 era, but the jump up to 4k - especially by those without 4k TV's is not important. I still can't get over how hypocritical people are either - praising visuals that only this gen has enabled - fawning over 'Photo' modes - especially on the Pro in games like Horizon, GTS, ACO etc and how fantastic those worlds look yet reluctant to embrace the 'next' step. I bet as soon as Sony do release the PS5, their will be many gamers stunned at the quality of the visuals then. Even those of us with Pro's are amazed at the quality of the visuals and step up over 1080p that can offer. HDR is literally breathtaking too - watching a sunrise/sunset in Horizon:ZD is simply stunning. I know that it can look impressive on a PS4 too but imagine what difference a PS5 could have made - not just to the games we have already but those coming out. Its a much bigger jump than AC4 on PS3 to AC4 on PS4. It could be a bigger jump than U4 on Pro too. Plus if Sony do use a more capable CPU, then chances are, we could be playing games like God of War, Spider-Man, Days Gone and Last of Us 2 at 60fps.

Most mobiles have a higher Pixel per inch count than a 4k TV. Apples iPad has roughly 267ppi yet my 55" has 80ppi. Sony's 4k mobile has over 800ppi. There is no doubt that 4k is the next step and the standard by which Sony will target for its PS5. Whether you want to upgrade to 4k or not, the PS5 will definitely be aimed at the 4k market primarily and, like the X, most likely to offer super-sampling for the 1080p hangers on.

Those of us with 4k TV's also know how 'poor' (I use poor in a comparative way here as I know the games are not 'poor' visually) 1080p and under games look when they have to be upscaled to fit on a 4k screen. I am sure you know how 'poor' a DVD or SD channel looks on a 1080p screen compared to a Bluray or HD channel. All that 'blur and softness' is a result of interpolating the image - filling in the spaces with a 'average' colour pixel. Instead of having that 'sharp' black next to white, you get a black to grey to white which softens and blurs the image. I know with 4k, the pixels are smaller so the 'blur/softness' isn't so pronounced as a 540p on 1080p TV would be but that's IF a game is at 1080p. 720-900p games look worse in terms of blur etc but 900p is less than 20% of the screen area. Point is, if you do upgrade your TV, suddenly PS4/XB1 games look 'worse' because of the upscaling. Its not as if the games aren't made for 4k in the first place and 'scaled' down for consoles. It again makes sense to build a PS5 to run the games as close to the vision of the devs with far less compromises to the experience. Visuals are 'important' even if they are not the most important. Just look at the uproar that a 'visual' downgrade can cause. Peoples first impressions count - even a CGi trailer - not actual game footage or details can make many really excited and look forward to a game. Also, if a game looks terrible or 'something' is not quite right, that can be quite detrimental to its 'success'. I know some games are successful without great visuals (Minecraft) and some 'visually' impressive games (like the Order) flop but generally, 'visuals' are out first impression and can make/break games before anyone even plays them to see if their 'impression' is justified or not. Graphics always mattered as part of the 'experience' and its as important as great audio too.