Topic: 'Next' step for consoles - a discussion...

With Sony rumoured to be working on and planning to release a PS4k as well as the upcoming PSVR headset and the imminent release of Nintendo's NX, it seems we are on the cusp of the next step in console gaming.

I know that this generation isn't quite 3years old and the rumour of the PS4k has certainly divided opinion so I think its good to have a 'reasoned' discussion about consoles and the 'next' step. It seems clear to me that this generation isn't going to last as long as last generation - particularly with the leap in technology - both in visual equipment like 4k TV's (which are outselling 1080p TV's and look set to be more than just a fad) and VR as well as the evolution of hardware such as CPU's and GPU's and software like API's (DirectX12, Mantel).

Despite releasing in late 2013, the PS4 hardware is of equivalent standard to 2010/11 standards. Sony promised the PS4 would support 4k admittedly that was in reference to services like Netflix and its Bluray player. It seems that the rumoured PS4k is likely to address that promise. From now on I will discuss the PS4k as if it is an actual item and will launch between either before the PSVR launches or late Q1 2017 rather than keep saying 'rumoured'.

First off, lets look at the PS4 and its hardware. Its CPU is an AMD custom 28nm 'Jaguar' chip - effectively 2x4core chips giving us 8 cores. Its allegedly running at 1.6ghz but the Jaguar is capable of being overclocked up to 2.0ghz. It has the same chip as the XB1 (although that is running at 1.75ghz). Sony released the 7th core to be utilised by developers - it can't release the 8th as that is purely for the OS. Its GPU is also a custom AMD GPU - equivalent to a Radeon 7000 (7870) series and capable of delivering 1.84TFLOPS and running at 800mhz. Its certainly the most powerful console and games certainly haven't disappointed.

Last generation though, we saw a marked improvement in games from the start to the final few years. This in part was due to the more complex architecture inside them. The PS3 for example had 512MB of RAM BUT this was split into 2 256MB of RAM, therefore developers had to be more creative in how to utilise it. The most they had to play with was 256 for any process. The XB360 and PC's that also had 512MB gave developers a bit more 'freedom' as they could use more than 256MB if needed - for example they could allocate 300MB to graphics. At the time of launch too, last gen consoles were at least on a par with PC technology but as these were dedicated to gaming and games could be optimised to a set standard (they didn't need different CPU, GPU etc information) they generally ran better. PC's required more 'grunt' to deliver the same standard because they also had to run an OS (windows was quite resource heavy). All this contributed to a noticeable improvement in games and the longevity of that generation of console. During that generation, there was a variety of different versions ranging from the original to the super-slim - with a range of Hard drive sizes and the CPU was changed too which became more efficient, smaller and overall helped the console become quieter as they didn't require so much power and cooling.

This generation though, as I said, the consoles when released were already 2-3 years behind the standard of PC technology. The architecture is also a lot more simplistic and similar to PC's - one of the reasons this generation is a lot easier to programme for. We have already seen developers struggling to get their games to run at a certain level and both Sony and MS have had to release extra 'power' from their console. Whilst we do have a number of games running well at 1080/60, a number of games also run at 1080/30. Games like the Division, Witcher 3, Dark Souls 3 etc all run at 1080/30 on PS4 and 1080/30 on PS4. Uncharted4's campaign will also run at 1080/30 but its MP will be running at 900/60. Now I feel this is 'acceptable', I can see that games, if they get more complex, having 'dynamic' resolution on PS4 - being 1080 during cut-scenes and low-action game-play but dropping to 900p (upscaled) in high action sequences. Because of the architecture and developer familiarity with this and the fact that console manufacturers have unlocked 'everything' too, I don't see how we can see the same marked improvement over its life IF it is expecting to last the same length as the previous generation. That doesn't mean that I don't think games like U4 won't look or play incredibly and that future games won't be stunning too.

Now I have covered the technical side, lets look to the future.

Sony are (potentially) launching an intermediate step with its PS4k. I won't speculate on the potential hardware this could have other than to say AMD who provide the CPU and GPU to Sony in its PS4 are this year releasing a 14nm chip (used in CPU and GPU) which is smaller, more powerful and more efficient than the 28nm chip in the PS4. Its Polaris GPU (the smaller one for small, thin form computers - like Laptops/notebooks etc) has nearly 4TFLOPS of power. If the PS4k uses this, as well as a 14nm CPU, we could see a marked improvement over the visuals and framerate. Its been designed with 4k and VR in mind - both of which would fit in with Sony's upcoming plans - particularly 4K.

Now that's out of the way, lets get to the discussion.

I know I haven't mentioned Nintendo's NX - mainly because I have very little knowledge about Nintendo - last console I owned was the Wii. It is expected though soon - probably this year. Will it be enough to challenge Sony's dominance or will it be an 'alternative' and 'niche' console similar to the Wii U? Will it get 3rd Party support and games we currently see releasing on PS4/XB1 now coming to NX too?

Do you think Sony are right to release an intermediate step or should they be considering the PS5 instead? Sony are putting a lot of faith, time and money into VR. VR requires a lot more horsepower to achieve an acceptable VR experience. Its more reliant on frame rate, good visuals and of course needs the added processing of motion control with minimal lag too. Could the PS4k be something that Sony feel they have to do to deliver a better PSVR - particularly for fast paced, high action games - not on rails shooters or slower paced, single enemy sword fighting games? Lets be honest, Oculus Rift and HTC Vive require powerful PC's although their screens are higher res. Both require an AMD R9 (or better - the Polaris is the next gen version). IF (and I say IF) Sony do release the PS4k, in part for VR, that extra power could be used for non-VR games. Now I am more than happy to play games like Uncharted 4 at 1080/30 - after all I played 1-3 at 30fps and U4 looks stunning. If PS4k is 'twice' as powerful, that could mean games like U4 run at 1440/30 (equivalent to twice as many pixels) or maybe 1080/60. It could mean games like the Division, Dark Souls 3, the Witcher 3 etc also run at 1080/60 or 1440/30 (maybe games will give us the option). I am 'fortunate' enough to own a 4K TV so having the extra 'native' pixels - meaning 1 added for every 1 native as opposed to 3 at 1080 would improve the overall picture. I can't see games running at native 4K for this money but 1440p is certainly a reality. I guess some games could - Uncharted Nathan Drake trilogy runs at 1080/60, double that would be 1440/60, if you double that and half the frame rate we get 4k/30...

Because I do own a 4k TV the concept of a PS4k does appeal. I can't say I am 'totally' behind the decision if it does come to fruition BUT I do think it makes more sense than making a PS5. I think releasing the PS5 would certainly split the user-base a lot more. I can see PS4k splitting the VR user base even if the games run on both. I can see some games struggling to keep the frame rate at an acceptable level at an acceptable resolution and no motion lag - maybe I am just being a bit pessimistic about VR. I don't see any real issue though with non-VR games. I don't see why it matters if someone is playing a game at 1080/30 and someone else can play it at 1440/30 - even if they are playing online together. What difference does it make and how does this split the user base? Those with a PS4 are still playing and have access to exactly the same games and you can't tell what 'resolution' someone else has. Lets say Battlefield 5 (as that's expected in October this year - around the rumoured PS4k release) utilises PS4k's extra power, would it matter in a lobby if both PS4 and PS4k owners are playing together, would it make any difference if some have 1080 and others have 1440p resolution? Personally I think not - it happens with PC based lobbies. there is also a 'range' of frame rates in these too.

I haven't mentioned Xbox. Phil Spencer said he wasn't interested in intermediate consoles. With MS/Xbox moving moving more towards the Universal Windows Platform and Win10, I don't think it necessarily needs to release an intermediate console (like the XboxOne.5 or XB1 4k) but I can see them releasing the 'next' Xbox in the near future. Because of Win10, I think it would run XB1 games anyway in some form of backwards compatibility. Its no secret that in terms of power, its severely lacking compared to the current PS4 - even before PS4 released its 7th core. Generally though it doesn't make games any less playable - just because the native resolution isn't as high. As someone with both an XB1 and PS4, the games do look a bit sharper on PS4 but generally play the same - in some cases the games are identical in both frame rate and resolution but there is a difference in a lot of games. MS aren't launching a VR headset though and IF Hololens takes off, that has its own on board processing. Maybe if MS do release the 'next' Xbox, it could work with Oculus...

Its a very exciting time for gaming. We have the launch of VR at an acceptable level - not like previous attempts. 4k is certainly going to be a big thing in media terms with Sky launching its 4k service, 4k TV's becoming a lot more affordable (I can buy a 55" for the same price I paid for a 32" CRT TV 15+yrs ago - just under £500) etc. VR is certainly in its infancy as far as gaming experiences go so I doubt we will see it being utilised to its fullest in experiences that can 'only' be in VR - more like games we already see adapted for VR.

So what do you think the next 2-3years will bring in terms of console hardware? How do you feel about PS4k? Do you think Sony should release a new console instead and if so when? Do you think E3 this year will bring any exciting hardware news - NX, PS4k/5, XB1 follow up? What about handheld hardware? Has the mobile/tablet market killed off these or do you think Sony/Nintendo have something up their sleeves?

Please keep this respectable, reasoned and objective and no 'fanboy' digs. I appreciate that we will see a lot of different opinions but please try to keep it civil and respect others opinions.

I don't know... all I know is I was planning to finally get a PS4 when the uncharted special released and now I don't know because of the PS4K rumours... I hope Sony clarifies their stance on this at E3 at the latest

We are now in unfamiliar territory in the console space. I feel the console makers are always lusting after the next big thing. But in reality since the nes - we have a pad, console and TV. Everything else bar incremental upgrades to the consoles, pads and TVs are gimmicks. But I do understand the need to not be left behind like a Horse and Carriage seller in the 1920s or Tea dealers in the 60s. 4K Could be awesome - especially on a 60 inch screen with a bigger field of view from the typical 80 degree view in a fps we get now. But will that happen? Im worried that the cost to make games is already high, with the need for Ultra HD graphics this will just escalate. In my ideal world the current nods to VR will be a couple of years away so we can get the best out of the PS4 from a programming stand point.

What do I envisage now?

VR will be a financial success - but after the initial buzz will die down with most people going back to screen.
After Uncharted 4 releases the bar will be raised for whats achievable on the PS4.
The PS4K will be similar to the slim versions earlier generations - only a few games will take advantage of 4k.
PS5 and XBOX 4 Will release in about 3 years time when 4k is more established.

@DualWielding: I do think Sony need to say one way or the other. The rumours are too wide spread and being leaked and discussed by some very credible sources but until Sony say one way or another, its causing confusion and leading to a divide.

@themcnoisy: Games, in particular third party games that will be on PC, are already being made to a high resolution and frame rate. If you have watched any of the Uncharted 4 video's of late, you will see that its developed on multiple PC's to a very high standard. Games like Watchdogs, the Division, the Witcher 3 all had much better looking visuals when the games were first showcased - that information is still in the games - particularly the PC version as the game can run at very high resolution IF you have the power. The cost wouldn't be much more than it already is if at all. The main cost to developers is 'time'. It doesn't matter if a game is in 4k or 1080p if it takes the same time to develop. The main cost of developing a game is salary and studio overheads during that time. FF15 took 10 years to develop and needs to sell 10m copies to be profitable. Do you think PC games that are capable of running 4K are made separately to the console version? No - they take the 4K version and essentially crop it down to fit for consoles. If the PS4k does become a reality in the next 6-12months, game development won't change - well that's how I see it.

I certainly don't think the PS4 is a slouch but I thought ND were initially hoping to release Uncharted 4 at 60fps. Its MP is 900p and running at 60fps. Both are acceptable and I think the game looks incredible. If PS4k does become a reality, games like U4, Bloodbourne etc are still going to set the standard of games for the PS4. the PS4 isn't suddenly going to get games that look or play terribly, its not going to have developers shipping code out to port down to PS4 like CoD:BO3 and PS3. PS4 games will still look and play as we have come to expect but maybe the PS4k will have a higher resolution again - not 4k but 1440.

I can't see the Xbox One myself lasting another 3 years+ (making it 6yrs old) not unless game development has plateaued. I think the PS4 has more 'room' to last that long because its still maintaining 1080/30 but with the Xbox running at 900 (or 720p with QB) it doesn't have much more it can cut back on and still be classed as 'HD'. UltraHD is definitely here to stay. The majority of major TV manufacturers seem to be phasing out 1080p and moving to 4k or above. Shipment of 4k TV's rose by 633% in 2014 and 4K is likely to be the standard definition of all TV's in a few years. 4k is outselling 1080p TV's.

If PS4k isn't a reality (in terms of extra horsepower - just media updates) and Sony opt to go straight for the PS5 I can't see this gen lasting another 2 years - not without compromising the games.

Still its interesting to see how you perceive the situation.

Me being stupid, all of the techno speak flew right over my head. Sorry @BAMozzy

In regards to the PS4K, after thinking about it a little, I can see why Sony would make it. I've always viewed Sony as more a hardware maker instead of a game company, so a PS4K isn't out of left field for them. And looking at it a bit, a PS4K would make a good intermediate step to, or a preview of, the next gen of consoles.

My concern about it though, stems from whether or not it's going to be a necessity in this gen going forward. I'll just get this out of the way: I'm not too big on a game's technical aspects. Whether or not it's 60fps or 30 means nothing to me, as long as the game doesn't have major technical issues (bad framerate and major slowdown, crashes, and the like). If 4K just gives me a graphics upgrade (Feel free to correct me on this), then I don't see a reason for me to upgrade to a PS4K if it comes out. That's obviously just me though, and it's obviously perfectly fine if others want to.

But I'll get into my concern. Will it be a necessity? If you're on the money, then it probably won't be. It'll probably just be a luxury upgrade for people to get if they want to. And I won't have to buy it if I'm fine with my PS4 as is. It'll only "split the userbase" if it is a console required for us to get in order to enjoy the rest of the eighth generation. Imagine a year or two down the line at E3, Last of Us 2 gets a trailer that blows the crowd away, until the very end, where "PS4K Exclusive" is written on the screen. That is what will cause an uproar.

And honestly, a part of me thinks that Sony wouldn't wheel this out if it was just going to be a luxury upgrade. I can see them pulling something like what I've said above. Considering the point that 4K selling well, maybe it won't be an issue in the big scheme of things, but guys like me may not like a forced upgrade to keep enjoying games.

That's about all I got. I just spent 30 mins writing that.

@DerMeister: 30fps is the minimum standard frame rate. For every 1 second we get 30 frames drawn on screen. At 60fps, the information is drawn 60 times every second. This means the GPU essentially has to work twice as hard to produce the same image on screen. 1080p means that a GPU has to draw 2.07m pixels 30 or 60 times a second.

For the most part, the majority of games that have won GotY and provided some of the best game experiences on console over the past 10+yrs have all run at 30fps - the Uncharted series. the Last of Us (although both had a 60fps upgrade as well as a 1080p makeover for the PS4), Batman: Arkham Series, Red Dead Redemption, GTA, Bioshock, Witcher 3, Bloodbourne, Destiny, Division etc. 60fps games are more usually fast paced games - CoD, Project Cars, most of the remasters (Nathan Drake Collection, God of War 3, Last of Us), Wolfenstein: TNO, Diablo 3, Fifa games. Some games like Killzone Shadowfall and Uncharted 4 run at 1080/30 for the campaign, 900/60 for the MP. 60fps generally feels a lot smoother. A consistent frame rate though is more important, I would rather have a locked 30 fps than a game that runs at 60fps but drops to 45 - technically still faster but in my opinion more noticeable than the difference between 900 and 1080p whilst gaming.

In terms of resolution, native 1080p is 2.07m pixels on screen - 1980 x 1080. 900 is 1.44m pixels -1600 x 900 - roughly two thirds the amount of data. A number of games run at 900p on PS4 - like Star Wars: Battlefront (although in Split screen this is 1080p but 30fps), Battlefield (both), Assassins Creed Unity and Syndicate etc. So even 900p can look stunning. At 900p though, to fit on a 1080p screen, roughly 1 for every 2 pixels has to be inserted otherwise the image would have black bars all around it. What happens is the image is 'stretched' to fit the area, and the 'missing' pixels are inserted by looking at the colour of the pixels around them and inserting an 'average' otherwise you would see black dots all over the screen. For those with a 4K TV (3840 x 2160 - 8.29m pixels), a 1080p native resolution has to insert 3 for every 1 native pixels, at 900p that figure rises to nearly 6 for every native pixel and at 720p that's 9 for every actual pixel.

The way I see it, IF PS4k is released as some form of intermediate step, and the rumoured GPU is effectively twice as powerful, then it could deliver games at 'double' the resolution OR double the frame rate. In the case of game running at 1080p, this would mean a resolution of 1440p (2560 x 1440 - 3.69m pixels - just under half 4K) On a 4k TV this would mean that just over 1 pixel for every native would still need to be inserted. On a 4k TV this would be noticeable however on a 1080p, it's not necessary - the 1440 would be too large and you would lose half of the image. In terms of frame rate, this could make 30fps games run at 60fps instead. Take Uncharted 4 for example, the increase in power could make the game 1080/60fps across both its MP and campaign.

I think it would foolish of Sony to release the PS4k and then release exclusive games for it. If in a year or 2's time they do announce a 'Last of Us 2' I would imagine it would come to BOTH PS4 and PS4k. The difference could mean that both its MP and campaign run at 1080/60 on PS4k or maybe 1440/30 for campaign and 1080/60 for MP but 1080/30 campaign, 900/60 for MP on PS4.

I do think that games are 'struggling' to meet the 1080/30 point on current gen hardware now. I think Sony and MS had to launch in 2013 but the technology in them is effectively 2-3years behind current PC technology although it would have made the consoles very expensive to match them. As a result, the effective 'age' is already 5-6yrs old. The PS4 launched 6-7yrs after the PS3 and many said that the next gen consoles were long overdue. I don't think Sony or MS could wait another year or two and were effectively 'forced' into releasing this gen with a certain standard of hardware that kept the price down - Sony lost money last gen on each console initially.

Since the release of the PS4, that gap has significantly increased. Most of the issue with games is more down to the CPU - its not fast or powerful enough to run games - most of the hardwork is having to be done on the GPU. When the CPU gets 'bogged' down it creates a 'bottleneck' - too much information trying to get through a small bandwidth - think of it like pouring gallons of water through a funnel - if your pour too much into that funnel it fills up and over flows. In computing terms, that causes the frame rates to drop until it can clear that backlog and catch up. At 60fps a game has to pour gallons of information every second - twice as much data as at 30fps. Another way to reduce that data is to reduce the frame rate.

Sony are putting a lot money and faith in VR. It has a 1080p single screen - effectively 960x1080 per eye and has a refresh rate of 120hz (120fps) - too low and this hurts your eyes. It also has motion control - the headset itself requires the camera to track its every movement as well as Move in certain games. It also needs to do this with minimal lag you don't want to turn your head and 'wait' for the image to catch up with your movement - that's what causes a lot of the motion sickness. The Oculus Rift (for example) has a slightly higher resolution (1080x1200 per eye - two separate screens for a combined total of 2160x1200) but a 90hz refresh rate yet requires a PC with a GPU double that of the PS4.

Looking at the VR alone, I can understand why Sony would release the PS4k. The PS4 might be adequate for slow paced, on rails or low enemy count action. Rigs is only 3vs3 compared to games like CoD (6v6 or 9v9) and Battlefield (up to 32vs32) in relatively small static arenas which cuts down processing). Obviously 3v3 can be very exciting but its still a 'low' player count and I believe it's just an MP game (no single player).

I personally think that VR is likely to be Sony's primary reason for contemplating the PS4k. I think that 'extra' power is needed to make the VR experience something special rather than a nausea inducing experience in SOME games. PS4 probably handles the on rails shooter, the single enemy hack and slash, the walking sim, the balancing puzzle etc perfectly well. I don't know how well it would cope with larger draw distances and lots of enemies as well as handling all the motion control at a decent resolution/frame rate on a screen that close to your eyes. I can see games maybe not looking so good as they could, shorter draw distances (fog/clouds etc), smaller enemy counts etc on the PS4 version compared to PS4k.

Both Sony and MS are in a difficult position with its consoles. MS games tend to run at 900p now and even some PS4 games are too - just to hit 30fps. This is after both Sony and MS have released the 7th processor core. I think fans would be more upset by releasing gen 9 consoles. In another 2-3 years, I doubt either console will be managing 1080/30 in AAA games if they 'grow'. That might not be a concern for many as 900p even 720p can look stunning on a1080p TV and the 30fps is certainly adequate. As I said, I can't see the PS4k getting 'exclusives' not with double the power but say in 2-3 years time, games are running at 720/30, the PS4k would be running at 1080/30 - that's effectively what the difference could be.

@BAMozzy I see. Quite an info dump there, but thanks for the explanation. Very helpful.

I can see your point on a lot of this. I haven't really tried to look at what it would do with VR, mostly out of a lack of interest in it. One reason is one that you just addressed: Whether or not it would be uncomfortable like the Virtual Boy was. A PS4K would help with that. Of course, this brings up another matter, which is the total price of VR and a PS4K. Let's say the PS4K costs $399 (and whatever equivalent it it would be in British currency) for argument's sake, and with VR being the same price, you get a total of $800. That's a lot to spend right off the bat. While I kinda doubt we'll be getting both at the same time, that's still a pretty penny to make sure you don't get sick.

@DerMeister: Based on the current cost of PSVR which is also $400, its British price is £350. That would make the PS4k also £350. Of course you would still need to spend another £50-100 to get the camera and Move (if wanted - but will help the overall experience). So for £800 you could get the full VR experience that IF the PS4k rumoured specs are believed, would be equivalent to the minimum PC specs for Oculus Rift. Like you said you probably wouldn't buy the whole 'package' in one go - maybe start with the headset and camera and if you like it add move and maybe PS4k further down the line. If you have a 4K TV then maybe you might buy the PS4k first, see how VR develops and pick up the Headset and camera at a later date.

I do think some people are far more 'sensitive' to motion sickness than others. I personally couldn't play my Virtual Boy for more than 5 minutes without getting serious eye-strain and headaches and do suffer from Migraines too. Its part of the reason I have concerns over PSVR despite thinking how great the possibilities could be - not just in gaming terms. My main interest in PS4k though is more to do with what that 'extra' power can do for those of us with a 4K TV. Like I said at the moment - even 1080p games are upscaled for me with 3 pixels added for every 1 native - otherwise 3/4's of my screen would be black. Those with 1080p TV's have no upscaling at all. If the PS4k has 'double' the power (as rumoured), that would still only give around a 1440p resolution so it would still need some upscaling to fit but only 1 pixel per pixel.

I really don't think this generation has the capacity to last as long as last gen. At the time of launch, both the PS3 and XB360 were on a par with PC's - mainly because PC gaming wasn't at the forefront, Windows was very resource heavy etc meaning consoles didn't need as much 'grunt' to deliver the same gaming performance. However by the time the 8th gen launched, PC's were 2-3years ahead. I know last gen we had a improvement in gaming over the life-span but that was because developers had to get used to the architecture - which this generation is pretty much like a PC and so much more familiar. It could be 'dragged' out for another 3yrs+ but I do think the difference between PC's and consoles will be far more significant and that the 'standard' we have come to expect will not be matched. By that I mean that a lot of the new AAA games will struggle to meet 1080p resolution - maybe even dropping as low as 720p. Maybe I am being a bit pessimistic but that's how I see things at the moment.

Just because I feel that the PS4 lacks the power, doesn't mean I think games are awful. Uncharted 4 looks stunning and no doubt will play incredibly too. It looks to be the 'biggest' Uncharted and has a lot more to it than previous games. I do think though that if this was releasing on PC, it would be a 60+fps game and have up to 4k resolution - like pretty much every PC game these days. The MP has to be reduced to 900p to get 60fps and that doesn't have the draw distances of the Campaign. I bet ND wanted both parts to run at 1080/60 on console. Its been said that consoles - this generation - are holding back game development. Developers are having to scale back their vision for consoles, having to make sacrifices by dropping frame rate and/or resolution - not as much as those that are still trying to release games on last gen too. If PS4k does become a reality, I can't see the situation arising that games have to have content cut or looking as bad as BO3 does on last gen compared to this gen.

I don't think Sony will split the userbase, and I doubt many games will use the extra power. I think it'll be more like a PS4 Slim. Perhaps it comes with the hardware box that is necessary for VR; although then they'd also have to sell the headset separately, so maybe that's not a good idea. 4K support for video will be there, as I don't think the regular PS4 supports that. To be honest, I don't see any AAA games running at 4K anytime soon, not at 60fps and not at 30. From a technical point of view, it is possible, but it'll be too expensive. 4K TVs aren't mainstream yet and if 4K gaming is the selling point of the PS4K, then they're shooting themselves in their feet. Another PS4 model is the more likely explanation; one that replaces the current model. It'll be interesting for those who don't have a PS4 yet, but the upgrade won't be worth it if you already own a PS4. Perhaps it'll create a smoother experience for VR, and that's the only reason I can see this being worthwhile if you're already a PS4 owner. Sony will be pushing 4K TVs this holiday season, but it'll be another few years before we really see the first games using it without much problems; probably on the next generation of hardware.

Microsoft is likely going to keep the Xbox One as their primary console. I don't see any reason why they'd want to release another model. They will most likely sit out this generation and hope they can grow a larger userbase on their next console. Well.. of course if there will be a next Microsoft console. I could see them completely integrating Windows and Xbox. Xbox will be their gaming PC that comes with Windows 10 (if that's still around); It'll still do what a console has to do; be relatively cheap compared to a PC and not having to upgrade the hardware itself. I can also see them calling their next system Xbox 10 if that happens. Their naming conventions have been all over the place, so going from One to 10 makes perfectly sense in Microsoft's world. Xbox One will get at least a 5 year lifespan, so I think we're looking at 2018 for the next Xbox. PS5 may not release until 2019; but that depends on how will it'll be selling in two years from now, how will the hardware holds up compared to other hardware around and of course it'll depend on what the competition does.

I can't really comment on the NX. I know a lot of rumours are pointing towards a 2016 release, but I still think that a 2016 release for their next home console doesn't make any sense. Nintendo is playing the cards close to their chest at the moment and it's difficult to tell what they're going to do. From a sales perspective it makes sense to replace the 3DS first. Sales have been on a steady decline since 2014 and this year isn't looking great for the 3DS in terms of sales. Software sales haven't been great either. Also, just a reminder that the system is already over 5 years old. It could really use a replacement rather sooner than later. The Wii U has never sold really well, but at least they're making a profit of it and Wii U sales aren't in decline. The system has sold consistently 3-4 million units a year. I think it makes more sense to replace the 3DS while that userbase is still paying attention to Nintendo; whilst riding another year on the slow but steady sales of the Wii U. 2017 is a lot closer to when I expect Sony and Microsoft to release their new consoles. I'm not sure how well a mid-gen system will be received, especially not when this year will also bring various VR system and it'll be the year when PS4 peaks in terms of software.

In short; I don't expect a lot from PS4K, just a small upgrade. Microsoft will keep the Xbox One, but will probably try to replace it with the next Xbox when they see their chance in another year or two from now. Nintendo's situation is strange, I'll wait and see what they do. As long as they don't screw up, but that chance is pretty high.

@Octane: I know that actual 4k is still a way off for AAA gaming and consoles but I do see the PS4k being capable of delivering a higher than 1080p resolution. Lets not forget that 720p is considered HD. If the console is capable of 1440p, that is only playable on a 4K set as we don't have 1440p TV's. That I think is more realistic - its effectively twice the resolution of 1080p so if the PS4k has a GPU that's twice as powerful as the rumours state, this should be achievable. 4K may not be in the majority of houses yet but its certainly outselling 1080p TV's. When the XB360 launched, flat screens weren't mainstream either but that didn't stop MS from making a console that was capable of delivering a high enough resolution to benefit those. I don't see Sony shooting themselves in the foot by making a PS4k and only delivering say 1440p in games. It will have 4k media and deliver a higher than 1080p (therefore requiring a 4K TV) to make full use of the console. I certainly don't think that Gods of War 4 (for example - one of the games rumoured to launch using it) will run at 4k - even at 30fps. I don't know that the benefits of buying the upgrade will be worth it for many - those without a 4K TV for example.

I think for MS the Xbox brand is to big to abandon. I can't see MS opting to do an intermediate console but I don't see the XB1 lasting to the end of 2018 (effectively 2.5yrs from now if they aim for their Q4 release) and beyond without doing something. If they aim for 2018, that means the current console is expected to last a year or 2 beyond that - a transition phase. I think the way MS are trying to unite all windows platforms may well help them release the 'next' Xbox with the capacity to run any Win10 based gaming software. I think after the mess that was the build up to the XB1 launch, MS would need to pull something out of the hat. Its obviously lost a lot of the 'fan' base and even with a number of price cuts and changes, its losing out on sales every month. If Sony do release the PS4K and the standard PS4 drops in price (say under $200), Nintendo launches NX, what could that do for Sales of the XB1?

I do think in many ways, this generation of consoles are making it a difficult position for the manufacturers. If they choose to stick it out for 2-3 years, the gap is going to be significant but if they release a new console, they risk dividing the fan base and upsetting those who have bought this gen - particularly those late adopters.

I still expect the NX to be out this Christmas. I don't know if Nintendo will bring out a new handheld as I think they are losing out to tablets and mobiles. Maybe if the hand held has some form of integration with the NX? I wouldn't be surprised if the NX controller doubles up as a handheld in some way. Maybe have a slot for playing 3DS type games and when linked to the console, streams those to the big screen but acts as a controller with a screen for NX games - similar to the Wii U's controller in that respect.

Anyway thanks for taking part. E3 is just a few months away now and so we may have a better idea of the next 12 months ahead - not just in terms of games but hardware too.

@BAMozzy: Took a while to write a reply, but here it goes!

On the topic of PS4K. I do think that it's technically possible to make it a big upgrade, I just don't think Sony is going to split the fanbase. Releasing games at a lower resolution might be the solution, but I'm sure that many people would be disappointed still. I'm curious to see what they're going to do, but they have to be cautious not to screw up. Many people still buy console with the expectation that they'll last for an entire generation, and they're totally right for expecting that, as that's one of the most important selling points of a dedicated gaming console.

As long as Xbox does decently, I don't see MS dropping the Xbox either. Maybe they'll cut the One short as well, I don't know. I still don't think that's a smart move. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried launching a real PC in a box; one that runs on Windows. I think that's where they're heading, so maybe 2018 is too late for that. But as you said; they've lost a chunk of their fanbase and I don't think they're in the position to do whatever they want.

I think a lot of people are underestimating the sales of handheld systems. If you combine the current gen sales (3DS and Vita), they are almost just as big as the sales of two generations ago, of three depending how you count. It's just that last gen was an anomaly, with 150 million DS sales and 80 million PSP sales iirc. I think they'll do fine with a new handheld, the 3DS is still the best selling current gen system. I cannot see Nintendo abandon that userbase. That's also the reason why I think that Nintendo will at least release a home console and a handheld console separately in the near future.

The coming months are certainly going to be interesting...

@Octane: Part of the reason I think the PS4k is the most likely option is because it won't have a major impact on the user-base in my opinion. Lets say for example it does have 'double' the power and that 'Naughty Dog' do follow up Uncharted 4, those with either the PS4 or 4K buy exactly the same game and can play its MP together in exactly the same way as Uncharted4. The ONLY difference is that the campaign on the PS4 is 1080/30 but 1440/30 on the PS4k, The MP is 900/60 on the PS4 and 1200/60 on the 4K. If you have the PS4 for example, you wouldn't know what anyone else in the lobby has, whether they have a higher resolution or not. You can still buy all the same games, chat and play online together etc so how does that split the user base. Its not like Sony are releasing PS5 and only runs PS5 games and can only play with others on PS5.

I know many buy a 'console' expecting it to last a 'generation' but what is a generation? The N64 launched in mid 1996, by Q4 1998, it had an Expansion Pak and the Gamecube launched in 2001, the Wii replaced this in 2006. The N64 was only just over 2yrs old when it had its 'Expansion' but was also helped by the increase in 'cartridge' size - had these not increased in Storage capacity, the N64 wouldn't have lasted as long as it did. The Dreamcast replaced the Sega Saturn after 4years, The PS2 launched 5yrs after the original PS - It seems therefore that 5yrs is a generation in console terms.

As I said though, the current gen 8 are equivalent to 5-6 year old technology. If you look at the growth per year in performance, the XB360/PS3 hit that line on release but the performance of next-gen is well under the line - tracing it back to where it would hit that 'line' we would have to go back to around 2010 - hence I think these consoles are already at that 'generational' point from a technological point of view even if in reality they aren't 3yrs old from a 'market' perspective. Had Sony/MS released their Gen 8 consoles in 2010, they would sit on the technology line and we wouldn't be questioning the need to release a new generation now.

As you can see the gap is increasing. The graph isn't to scale so quite difficult to actually place consoles on it. The PS4 dot should be much closer to the XB1 as there is not that great a gap (1.41TFLOPS for the XB1 and 1.84 for the PS4) - the graph (which has 9,900TFLOPS in the top) but you can see PC's reached that point in 2010 ish. In the next year or so, there is going to be a big jump in Technology with the 14nm AMD and 16nm nVidia cards - The 980 ti is around 5.63TFLOPS, Radeon Fury x is around 8.6TFLOPS but these are due to be super-ceded in the next few months to a year.

I know these are relatively 'high' end cards but a the recommended PC settings for most games are using GPU's with 3-4TFLOPS now. I know this all looks confusing with numbers and funny words. To sum it up, consoles have around half the power of recommended settings for games. That's without even looking at 'average' cpu speeds needed. Often Consoles don't match the minimum settings though for games.

An intermediate step by Sony at least could bring the PS4 up closer to the recommended settings and could see them last out another 2-3 years without splitting the user base by releasing a whole new gen.

Obviously the situation is a little more 'dire' for Xbox. Several games are already down to 720p - Star Wars BF (900p on PS4) and Quantum Break is only 720/30!

The next few months will be interesting indeed - looking forward to it! I always find this time of year more interesting in the run up to E3, the second half seems to be just waiting for the announced releases to finally get here!

@BAMozzy the Titan X costs a grand, the components around it to take advantage of the power would be at least another grand. The ps4 is £270 with a game and pad.

The graphs misleading - silicone graphics workstations back in the 90s were far superior to console. But were so expensive no one was that interested or could afford them.

But I probably would buy a ps4k as if 30fps is a thing of the past. Its archaic.

@BAMozzy: IIRC only three games required the expansion pack and it certainly wasn't necessary for most games that used it. I get what you're saying though. However, I do think that an expansion pack is a little different; if you wanted the enhanced graphics, you could buy that expansion pack, you didn't need to buy another console. I also understand that the most powerful PCs are a lot better than a PS4 or XOne, but let's be honest. How many PC gamers actually own such powerful PCs? If we compare prices, than they're a lot more expensive as well. I don't think it's as simple as putting them side by side and comparing their raw power. If people want the best available tech, buy a PC. I still think that if a console is build well enough, that it can last at least 5 years.

Also, I'm not saying that different screen resolutions means splitting the userbase, but it'll cause some commotion for sure.

@themcnoisy: The Radeon Fury X cost around £500 (retail) and pound for pound has a better performance the nVidia's Titan X.It may have 20% overall performance gain but costs 100% more. That's the thing with nVidia. Granted that's still double the cost of of a PS4 but is roughly 4x the power of the GPU. Again we are talking retail costs, but if you wanted to buy an equivalent GPU to the PS4's that's around £120 (I doubt very much Sony pay that much) - same as I doubt they pay as much for the Bluray player, 8GB RAM, CPU, etc either. When these consoles were released,it was possible to build a PC for the same cost that could run BF4 at 1080/60 - that at the time was a better performance than the PS4. One of the most expensive parts was actually the OS - several sites did it - one even did it twice once using AMD, the other nVidia/intel although that was a bit more expensive than the console.

I am not saying I expected Titan or Fury X type performance at all. That is totally unrealistic. The graph I know is misleading but its quite a good illustration of how things have change. When Gen 7 launched though it was effectively 'cutting edge'. The point I am trying to make by the graph is that the PS4 would have been 'cutting' edge in 2010/11, The XB1 in 2009/10 had they released then. Just because both Sony and MS didn't release until 2013 isn't going to make the technology inside feel like it will last longer.

I know the console maybe 3 years old in 'market' terms and in that sense, it does seem wrong to be considering a 'replacement' - I totally understand that but the 'jump' from 7yr old consoles was only a 5yr jump in technical terms and is now around 5yrs behind current 'averages' - NOT top end things like the Fury or Titan. The next gen of GPU's are due this year and so that 'gap' is going to take another jump forward.

I can see the 4k offering a consistent 1080/60 standard for the next 2-3yrs at least. That would fit in with 'market' expectation of 'console generational lifespan' I can also see it offering a 'high rez' mode of 1440 but at the expense of frame rate for some games (ie 1440/30).

Anyway we still haven't had confirmation of any plans to introduce either an intermediate or next gen console so its pure speculation. Assuming we don't get any form of console in the next 18-30 months (i.e the PS4 reaches its 4th/5th birthday) would you be happy to see a decline in the native resolution (down from 1080 to 900 maybe 720) and 30fps gaming as games try and outdo the ones today in scale, enemy count etc and utilise the extra power of PC's?

On XB1 both Star Wars Battlefront and Quantum Break are 720p.

@BAMozzy: Haha no chance. With Resogun they have shown a screen full of full hd stuff going at 60fps.

I would prefer less gas physics, hair physics and less polygons all round if it aids companies hit 1080p/60fps. But I know I'm in the minority. Most people generally dont care.

I also think dropping pal native 50hz was an error. We would of stood a chance getting 50fps. Damn world standards.

Jesus. BAMOZZY, you have way to much time on your hands! Isay wait for E3. Ps4 can do 1080p 60fps see mgs, wolfenstien, Doom. Heck even Tomb raider was 1080p 60fps on ps4. 900p 30fps on xbone .

A ps4 would cost 2000 quid with the specs you're suggesting.

@themcnoisy: It just seems to me that as games have got a bit more complex over the past year, we have seen less games manage to hit 60fps and games dropping to 900p if they try to hit 60fps - Star Wars BF and Uncharted 4's MP for example. I admit I am playing a bit of a 'devils advocate' here though to drive discussion. It wouldn't make for much discussion if everyone just 'agreed' with each other.

@Bazza78: If we waited to E3, then we wouldn't have much 'discussion'. I think its great to see what other people think and how they feel what the state of console gaming is at the moment. We all know there are a number of games that hit 1080/60 on BOTH systems - Wolfenstein for example is 1080/60 on XB1 too. Tomb Raider's game-play was 1080/30 on XB1 with 'some' cut-scenes dropping down to 900p but it was 1080/60 on PS4.

I haven't suggested any specs for the PS4k at all. I have never said that I expect the PS4 or PS4k to be using nVidia Titans or AMD Fury X GPU's. For a $400 price point (like the rumoured 4K) though, they could use the upcoming Polaris or something like the AMD R9 380x - This GPU is around £180 (retail) - around £60 more than the retail cost of the equivalent GPU in the PS4. No doubt it would cost Sony a lot less buying in bulk. (Its around double the power nearly 4TFLOPS) and the R9 380X supports full 4k. The 380X also has support for VSR (Virtual Super Resolution). VSR re-renders games at higher resolutions, going all the way up to 4K. If the game playing doesn’t support it, it provides what is called a Super Sampling Anti-Aliasing feature. This means you can play lower resolution games at a higher resolution which would/could fit into the concept.

That GPU (for example) or one based of it like the PS4 GPU is based on the Radeon 7870, coupled with a 4k BluRay player, maybe a faster CPU and HDMI 2.0a isn't likely to cost Sony the £100-£150 difference in (speculated) price - and certainly nowhere near the £2000 you mention!

The ONLY spec I speculated on was the fact that the PS4k 'could' use the new Polaris GPU which is smaller, more efficient and more powerful because of the new 14nm FinFET chip and redesigned architecture. Its price is likely to be around the same point as the R9 (at most) but could be less as its also designed to be able to be more affordable for those interested in VR - another reason why I think its more likely to be utilised if/when Sony release there next console.

During the PS3's life, the CPU chip had multiple upgrades - the original was a massive 90nm but the Slim had one at 45nm. It had a few variations of this too. Its possible that the CPU in the PS4 could see a upgrade to the 14nm chip too. According to the rumour, the CPU hasn't been decided on yet which could govern the final price.

I see nothing wrong in having an open and 'friendly' discussion about something we are obviously all passionate about. Even if it none of these consoles turn out to be true or available at least in the next year or so. Its given people a chance to express where (if anywhere) they see the next 12-18 months - maybe longer of console hardware. We speculate on games so why not Hardware too? It gives people the chance to express what (if anything) they want or expect a console to deliver. I have 'proven' to a degree that a PS4k could exist for £350-400 with current hardware (certainly not £2000 as you suggest) and could be capable of delivering a 'higher' resolution with the 380x (or similar) able to push games up to 4k even if they aren't natively 4k. It sounds similar to what Remedy have done with Quantum Break and its 720p native resolution with super sampling anti-aliasing to upscale to 1080p.

@BAMozzy: It wouldn't make for much discussion if everyone just 'agreed' with each other.

I couldn't agree more.

@Bazza78: Yeah this is also my stand point. If we've had 1080p 60fps already - why are we still having the argument. That should be the requirement. Anything less and you take particles and polygons out of the game. On the snes I cant remember many games not utilising the full screen. Or any other console for that matter.

@themcnoisy: So you would rather games 'simplified' certain aspects, maybe reduced the 'scale', maybe by reducing draw distances or had more 'loading' screens to maintain a 1080/60? Even games with a certain amount of linearity are only 30fps - like Uncharted 4 - when the whole Nathan Drake collection is 1080/60. Games like Alien: Isolation, Bloodbourne, The Order and Thief are also 1080/30 and are relatively 'linear'. Even a number of 'racing' games don't run at 60fps - games like DriveClub, Need for Speed (both) and the Crew. If we look at more open world games, its easier to pick the games that run at 60fps as the majority run at 30 - both the last Assassins Creed games run at 900p too.

A number of games in the past have not run in full screen - well effectively. They have had some form of 'artwork' or simple visual 'blocks' to keep the area of animation down to a smaller area.

Another way to increase the frame rate of course is to reduce the enemy count, the lighting and special effects etc. Its partly the reason that remastered games may run at 1080/60 but really can't compare with this gens games at 1080/60 - they still somehow 'look' like last gen games - just a bit sharper.

This then leads me to ask, is 'frame rate' and 'resolution' that important. If so which is more important. Should Uncharted 4 (for example) drop down to 900p or even 720p to get 60fps. Even though the frame rate is the same as its predecessors were at launch, the difference is certainly clear from a game-play perspective without even considering the resolution jump.

Should games this gen (or next then) have a 'fixed' minimum standard - say 1080/60 or should they be assessed on an individual basis - Again using Uncharted 4 (and Killzone:SF for that matter) where the campaign is 1080/30 and MP is 900/60, therefore showing that one has a 'greater' focus on resolution and the other on frame rate.

What if the PS4k can ensure every game this gen meets that 1080/60 without having to 'compromise' the developers original 'vision' (ie without reducing polygons, particles, physics, depth of view etc etc) - including all existing games that are currently under that level - Assuming it costs £400, should Sony do it and would you buy it? What if Sony offer a 'trade-in' programme with the standard PS4 so you get say between £100 to £150 off?

What if Sony have to make the PS4k for its VR and specifically for some games it hopes to bring - something like No Mans Sky or GT Sport, Maybe Eve or some of the Oculus Games that really use that extra power (the minimum VR spec - not high end) of the PC? I know this is again speculation - maybe the standard PS4 will deliver those and without frame rate issues or compromising the resolution. VR seems to require a minimum of 90fps - 3x what a lot of games are delivering, as well as the added 'motion' tracking and controls - both of which are essential to the VR experience - any Lag or Dip can lead to motion sickness and/or break the experience.