Republished on Friday, 18th March 2016: We're bringing this feature back from the archives in light of the rumours that Sony may be considering releasing a supercharged PS4, after all. We've left the original article – written prior to today's reports – intact, as many of the original talking points remain. However, if you'd like to know about the latest rumours, you can find out all about those through here.
Originally published on Wednesday, 2nd March 2016: Microsoft's making some interesting comments at the moment. Following the launch of the Xbox One, the company really seems to be pivoting under the leadership of new CEO Satya Nadella. From an external perspective, the biggest change that we're seeing is the release of its first-party titles on the PC – or, to be more specific, the Windows 10 Store. But speaking this week, brand chief Phil Spencer suggested that the company may be done with the traditional console cycle, potentially opting to refresh hardware with more regularity like a smartphone or tablet. But is that an idea that you're open to?
We don't want to get too caught up in Spencer's ambiguous outlook, as it's unclear whether he's talking about wholesale hardware upgrades – like an iPhone revision – or a PC-esque future, where parts can be swapped and replaced over time. Either way, the core principle is an interesting one: a hardware platform that, as opposed to remaining static for several years, instead evolves over time, providing better experiences for those willing to move with it – without isolating those that don't.
It's something that's never truly been tried before, though there are some hazy examples of it throughout history. The SEGA Mega Drive (or Genesis for our North American readers) is a good example – it tried to bridge the gap between generations with the release of all sorts of ill-fated add-ons like the 32X and Mega CD, much to the market's misery. More recently, Nintendo released the New 3DS, a souped-up version of its flagship handheld capable of running existing games more efficiently – and the odd exclusive.
"Console players may now have to deal with patches and firmware updates, but drivers, graphics cards, and motherboards are not a concern"
Those perhaps aren't the best examples of what Spencer's referring to, but it shows that the precedent is at least somewhat there. Why, then, has Sony never experimented with the idea? It strikes us that consoles, despite their increasing complexities, are considered the "plug and play" option for most consumers. A PC is capable of playing 90 per cent of the PlayStation 4's library, but still the system continues to shatter sales records. Why? Because it's more affordable, yes – but also because it's easy.
Those with membership cards to the Master Race may argue that so-called "console peasants" are missing out on a superior experience, but many of us choose to play on the PS4 because it's simple; as long as a game's been certified for the system, there's no danger that it won't run. Console players may now have to deal with patches and firmware updates, but drivers, graphics cards, and motherboards are not a concern – everything just works.
And that would presumably remain the case with Spencer's hardware revision idea, but there's no doubt that it could create confusion. He seems to be suggesting a future in which one model may run a game at 30 frames-per-second, while another could have the horse-power to push that number to 60 frames-per-second. Little things, like textures or lighting, could also be improved with the upgraded hardware – without necessarily compromising the weaker format.
But while it's not a particularly complicated concept to grasp, we can't help but wonder whether such an idea would play in practice. For one, it would presumably complicate development, forcing publishers to ensure an adequate experience across two different specifications – even if the architectures remained the same. But even if developers were to go along with it, would consumers really be willing to upgrade?
This kind of model works in the smartphone world where hardware is subsidised, but tablet sales have started to slip as owners are less eager to upgrade. Could the same thing be true of consoles? A PS4 Slim will no doubt launch in the near future, but its objective will be very different to what Spencer's suggesting. If Sony follows previous generations, then it will shrink its console's exiting components to reduce the manufacturing costs, thus improving its bottom line and (hopefully) passing some savings onto gamers.
But what if it were to boost the specs instead? What if it were to re-release the PS4 with added RAM and faster processing speeds? What if that system was still compatible with all existing games, but promised performance enhancements for those set to release in the future? Is that something that you'd consider? Would you need to know the extent of the improvements before upgrading? And could a concept like this ever actually work in practice? We're honestly not sure, but it's an interesting topic.
Would you buy an enhanced PS4? Are you open to the idea of incremental console upgrades? Do you prefer to buy systems safe in the knowledge that they'll last you at least five years? Plug some better parts into the comments section below.
Would you upgrade to an enhanced PS4? (300 votes)
- Yes, I always want the best possible performance
- Maybe, but it would depend what it improved
- No, I prefer consoles to last an entire generation
- I haven’t even bought the current model yet
Please login to vote in this poll.
Comments 104
No way. The reason I buy a console is because it means I don't have to upgrade every couple of years, and that way money doesn't factor into what games I can and can't play. I like it because it's equal, and everyone has the same machine.
I'm torn. As a highly engaged PlayStation owner, I probably would upgrade. But I also understand that there are very, very, very few other people who are as ingrained into the ecosystem as I am. I'd still want the improvements to be meaningful if they did something like this. And I think personally, I'd prefer they didn't.
I thought the power of the cloud was going to take all computations away so our local machine didn't have to do anything? Or was that another MS 180?
@Dodoo Shhhhh.
I bought the N64 expansion pack for example for enhanced graphics so I am not opposed to buying something similar if it came to modern day consoles. I guess we would see games with similar setting options to PC games instead of having everything 'locked' to a specific figure as it is now.
I doubt that I wouldn't take advantage to run games at the 'ultra' setting - if it doesn't impact on frame rate. I don't think consoles though should become like PC's and be that upgradeable. At most, maybe 1 plug in device (like the N64 Expansion Pack) during the life cycle. I certainly wouldn't want to see a spectrum between the most basic and highest spec version.
I can see how it would be advantageous to console manufacturers though as it would cut down a lot of their R&D costs and potentially can react quicker to the competition and current market.
Depends I guess... Would definitely consider though if they made a 2TB model.
Isn't that just PS5? Especially considering 4's first year being saturated with remasters, as well as 3's final years? I bought a new 3ds for the c stick and eye-tracker; unless there's a game-changing aspect they've upgraded/dated that substantially improves the experience, I'd rather not pay another $400+ for a PS4.5
This has been tried and splits the player base. Crap idea. What I can see happening is xbox fans moving over to PC.
No way, that be a huge middle finger
If I wanted a sytme I could upgrade I would do it on PC. I would not mind shorter cycles between new consoles ie every 4 years if each console was backward compatible.
@Grawlog This guy gets it.
@Grawlog True, but it would surely have some form of impact. The different specifications would have to be tested to ensure a good experience for everyone? And more to the point, could game design be compromised by the lowest common denominator?
I'm not a developer so I'm not sure how much impact it would have - but it surely wouldn't be zero?
It's not something that I'd be keen on seeing happen even if I suspect that I actually would upgrade. If it were to happen I wouldn't like to see a big gap between the 2 versions, perhaps just a faster cpu like the new 3ds. This is usually the bottleneck in many games on PS4 and should just create a second system with faster loading times and increased framerate rather than something with better graphics.
I'd definitely upgrade. I guess it comes down to how much of a gamer you consider yourself to be. I consider myself a pretty hardcore gamer, so I wouldn't mind paying to keep up with the latest tech. Maybe if I was a more casual gamer I wouldn't be willing to pay to keep up
No Thanks so we can get crappy optimised game like on the PC. The PC looks better but is also a effort different graphic cards. And how will you make a honest difference. Hey you got the budget console 30fps well that will be nice to play against a premium model.
Isnt he selling a PC and calling it a console....
I'd upgrade but I can see this really peeving people off, i'm saving for a PC atm that's why i'm not buying any AAA title's for PS4 for a long while but it's not only for better graphic's or even the 60fps it's for the huge scope of game's available to the PC (and cheaper game's). I really don't know if this would be a good thing for PS though, I mean people that couldn't afford it but still consider themselve's hardcore gamer's would be made to feel like the second class citizen you mentioned even when playing on their beloved PS4.
@Cowboysfan-22 But why stay with a console? And whats a hardcore gamer a guy/girl who plays a lot or on the tough difficulties.
@get2sammyb The PC shows how much effort they take. It looks better but you need a lot hardware. I can tell you now Uncharted 4 wont look as good on the same hardware on a PC.
No way, it splits the userbase too much and ends up meaning more work for developers. It's just Microsoft are slowly sacrifing the xbox at the altar just to push Windows 10. I can see them doing Steam Machine like boxes but at that point you may as well have a PC.
@get2sammyb "Why, then, has Sony never experimented with the idea?"
Wow everybody here has drowned on the kool-aid and is in great denial.
The main reason people buy consoles is so they do not have to worry about upgrading, if you are willing to upgrade every 2 years or so then you should go for a PC
@rjejr You're misunderstanding, though? All of those consoles, at a hardware level, were identical.
If they do it the Genesis did with addon's ONLY then fine.
Sega messed up by doing both addon's for the Genesis and by also releasing another console the Saturn at the same time splitting their players, developers, etc., as they were not identical and could not run the same software.
@adf86 With no more discs and maximum profit ofcourse
And then you need to make standard upgrade kits otherwise its useless and splits up the gaming community completely. Otherwise they need to start with drivers and that are the things what on a PC. This game is runs best on Nvidea or ATI crap with terrible optimised games. And the nice crappy bugs what works with what graphic cards.
@rjejr A harddisk upgrade isnt that kind of upgrade. And with the PS brands you could do that yourself.
I think its the future for all consoles now they are basically PCs.
Personally, I'd be sad if this happened. I own all three new gen consoles, which I consider to be an investment in a generation of gaming. All three for less than a top of the line PC, lasting for 5-10 years. If this multi tiered experience occurred, then I feel that consoles only retain their value with their exclusive software. (Which is a point in itself)...
Overall, I hope that this doesn't happen.
All those that say it splits the user base, then why aren't PC's separated by so much diversity? It can't affect developers too much as they develop for PC's too and all they need to do is make sure it runs on the lowest platform at a minimum standard - say 1080p/30fps - higher spec PC's run the same game but with higher resolution and frame rate - you don't need to buy a different version of the game!
If all the upgrade does is enable a game to run at 1080p/60fps or without 720/30fps and maybe not as nice textures/draw distances etc for example (similar to the differences a PC settings enable games to run - except they have 1080p/144fps, 1440p/120fps, 2160p/30fps for example) then wouldn't you buy an expansion?
Did the N64 expansion split the user base? Is a High Spec PC capable of playing more games than a medium spec PC and can't play MP against them? NO!
Like I said, I think 1 'expansion' that boosts hardware performance is OK as long as it doesn't eliminate those who don't upgrade from buying games. If they are 'happy' to play at 720p as opposed to 1080p then so be it. What I don't want to see is a steady stream of 'upgrades' that leads to a spectrum of specs of essentially the same console but I have no issue with a single upgrade that gives an 'elite' version that enhances visual performance - like the N64 did...
@rjejr @get2sammyb
All those consoles, at a hardware level, are the same...kinda. Until you remove a good chunk of it called the PS2. Then they are the same. Kinda.
To mention Sammy's swapping out parts stuff, I'm ACTUALLY more inclined to be a PC gamer than a PS4 gamer. Why? I don't have to take my machine apart to get another hard drive! Oh, the other consoles do that too...damn.
I think it defeats the general advantage of console. though I'd consider it if there's enough improvement, if i can transfer my stuf,, and if there's a proper trade in upgrade program. And wouldn't it basically be admitting that your hardware isn't good enough?
Haha the general consensus is stick to one console for an entire generation. Same way I feel. Hardware upgrades for consoles? Then you might as well buy a PC and upgrade it over 5-10 years. I used to own a Sega CD unit, very limited game library, games were very expensive.
@Anchorsam_9 i agree 100%
i buy a console for the ease of use, if i wanted to keep updating my tech every few years and gameon a PC like machine then i would game on a PC
consoles should stay as they are because that's one of the things that makes they so successful the ability for EVERYONE to just plug it in and play it without needing to bother with any of the tech stuff
@BLPs @Flaming_Kaiser @get2sammyb No they weren't. 4 USB to 2, BC, partial BC, no BC. Phat, slim, slimmer, There was a new model every 6 months.Look at all those model numbers. And a hard disc drive is hardware, it even has "hard" in it's name.
And how do you know for sure what this guy is actually going to do? Xbox360 had upgrades all the time as well, I remember when they added the HDMI port. And newer non-overehating innards. I'll beleive compeltley new models every year like a phone when I see it. Which I never will.
No. I play on consoles because I know I'm making an investment on a system that will last for 5+ years and that it's a user friendly / cohesive eco-system.
Let the PC master race nerds cry about graphic cards and optimization, keep that crap out of the console market.
Please watch the language -Tasuki-
@rjejr I was being sarcastic towards Sammy and citing the PS2 hardware as a notable example. Id say a PS4 is closer to a PC since you need to remove the hard drive, but its also below modern PCs because they have folders.
At the end of the day, doesn't this smell like a ploy to get 400 dollars out of you every three years instead of every six?
NO. It's why I choose consoles. Not poo-PCs.
No. Also, I don't think Microsoft is doing it this generation, I think they will try to make the most of Xbox One power without Kinect sucking RAM, CPU and GPU.
This would cause the cost of QA to skyrocket and therefore development cost. Bad idea.
If you want to upgrade tech you might as well just go with a PC. This would be extremely niche in comparison to the core of people who buy consoles. Sure some would be willing to upgrade, but that vast majority wouldn't. At that point, what's the point in it? It won't make the company enough money to make it worthwhile.
@JesWood13 mine has always been 2TB. It'll always be infinitely cheaper to just swap the hard drive
@rjejr I know what you're saying... But the specifications inside the system never changed even though some of its features did. The articles about changes to the specs — the introduction of more RAM, for example.
@benrawr I realize that, I just can't seem to find a 2TB that works well with it. I've tried the Seagate before and performance was garbage. If none of the memory companies will make a 2TB that works well with it, Somy should at least either make their own compatible 2TB drive, or finally allow external hard drive support.
I love PS4 so I would deffinatley buy an upgraded version. I have a PC BTW...When nintendo releases new handheld hardware it always renews your sense of hope for the platform.
Excellent idea! In the past consoles were some real next level sh*t with components that wouldn't be available for years to come and where hardware manufacturers lost bucket loads of money on, this gen however we got a midrange PC which was pretty neat at the time, but is hilariously outdated at this moment. Do we really want this gen to last 8 years? Didn't we get our money's worth already, it was just $399?
A modular console would be my ultimate dream, and NO that's not the same as a PC: with a modular console you get pre determined easy to swap parts. But I don't think the world is ready for a modular console yet. Then why don't we just introduce a "PS4 +" this E3 which will launch 3 years after the normal PS4, an Elite PS4 that will play all PS4 games but at a higher resolution, with better AA and most importantly with a steady 60 fps. If I could pay $399 for a console that is on par with mid range PCs again I'd do it right away.
With the New 3DS I saw that giving people that option is truly great; I replayed a big part of my library because all of a sudden the 3D was working and with the faster processor loading times got way better. If I had a PS4+ I would immediately restart Bloodborne and play the game like it's meant to be played. Think about the Witcher which will run smooth, games like Unity that finally have the processing power it needed and all the games that will patch in advanced options to fiddle a bit with the settings, but not too much; if you don't want to, the game should automatically detect your hardware and select the best option.
Most publishers won't release games that are tailor made for the newer model because they don't want to leave out a big part of the userbase, but I can see 2k with Rockstar do something like that because they can make people go out and buy a newer model; sure you can play RDR2 or GTAVI on the old model, but expect framedrops and low settings, but if you upgrade you'll get exactly what Rockstar wants you to get.
Every other year we get ourselves a new $800 phone and tablet, we spend $200 a year on average on our gaming PCs and then after 4 or 5 years we just buy a new one all together for $1600, yet we want our $399 consoles to last us 8 - 10 years. And even if you don't need better performance, why don't you want others to enjoy it? Backwards compatibility and digital game ownership is so freaking important, yet people are focused on a $399 piece of hardware. If the generation that went on far to long is over, you can repurchase all the games you already owned again because these stupid machines aren't BC; how can anyone not like a future where it doens't matter if I'm on my PS4+, my PS4++ or PS5 but where I still can play all the games I bought on my PS4 10 years back?
So PS4.5? Why bother? Just use the PS4 to the end of its life cycle and then make a better PS5.
No way! The reason I prefer console is I don't have to deal with fragmentation.
"look at this awesome graphics (*only on Xbox 2018) (*Xbox 2017 can play on medium setting)"
@get2sammyb " the introduction of more RAM, for example."
But do you really think that will happen? That EA will let that happen? That Platinum games is going to spend 2 years working on a game that will work on some Xboxen but not on others?
At least half of everything MS said about Xbox One turned out to be wrong. They will make changes, everybody makes changes - Wii - Wii Family Ed (when they secretly removed the GameCube ports w/o really telling anybody) - Wii Mini. They aren't going to make any meaningful changes every year.
And don't forget the removal of Other OS. I know that was software and not hardware, but half of the Anonymous nonsense was the result. MS doesn't need the headache of playing hardware roulette. Nobody would eve rbuy hardware as they all waited for the next version. Not the Day 1 hardcore, but that's only a few million, the other 10's of miliions will revolt.
There will always be hardware changes, but nothing game breaking. How's that? Though I have to say, over 2 years in and PS4 is still PS4. Do you think Uncharted 4 is delayed for new hardware? (That's just a running joke of mine, seemed a good spot to bring it back up.)
@rjejr Do I really think it will happen? I don't know... That's the talking point, innit. It certainly what Spencer seems to be alluding to, no?
If I wanted to update, I would buy a PC...
And the day this happens, that would be the end of console gaming...
Xbox will most likely be going initially the Nintendo route I imagine, with a sort of New Xbox One for lack of a better term. Simply put, last console generation was an anomaly, and this generation is already based in out dated parts and won't last nearly as long as previous hardware did. I imagine it would go:
Xbox One
New Xbox One 3-4 years later
Xbox Two
Where the New Xbox One plays Xbox One games at better FPS/Resolution etc. Really, all Phil is hinting towards is less distinct console generations and a tiering model with consoles. It actually if anything would add value to those who buy the original and wait because it will extent the originals life far farther then it would currently.
@arnoldlayne83 You have a picture of Reggie, the N3DS is a perfect example of what Phil could be hinting at.
Last year Microsoft announced bc to xbox 360 along with windows 10 for the xbone. My first thought was what would stop MS from releasing a new model xbone with higher specs and bc to 360 and first model xbone games. Also doing so as early as 2017 or even 2016. Like pc games the games on the improved xbone would have adjustable performance settings and thus requiring only one version of the game to be developed.
The improved xbone could then bridge the gap to their next gen console.
@Dodoo Microsoft has this habit of throwing alot of things out there, telling us it is going to come, and then not really delivering. They went on and on about the cloud over two years, and still nothing. Big deal made out of the Hololens, and probably will amount to nothing. I think this whole upgradeable idea from Microsoft is pretty spin honestly. They are gauging the reaction from fans, bc in the long run I really think it will be all about Windows and pc for them. To further fragment their consumer base would be dreadful imo.
@rjejr Totally agree, this is just Phils way of giving the xbox fans something to latch onto. "Xbox will be stronger in the future!" What would be the point of buying a console only to upgrade it every year? Wouldn't just want a pc at that point? This is more Microsoft BS imo.
This is one of the most stupid ideas to come from Microsoft recently. Consoles work because they are static. Developers won't be able to fully optimize their games if there are various setups in everyones console. Static hardware is something that developers actually prefer about console game design.
If I wanted to be able to upgrade my system I would just build a PC. Nintendo tried it with the N64. It had a memory extension port for extra ram. It obviously didn't do that well.
If PlayStation & Xbox go down this route in the future I will turn my back on console gaming, even after I have invested 30 years.
No, thanks. I like the way consoles are now plus I don't like the idea of having to upgrade something just to keep up with technology.
I would rather only have one PS4 model, but then I could upgrade the individual/separate parts if I wanted to.
(though I still want Sony to release the 1TB or 2TB Slim version)
Nope. But then again, I build a powerful PC every 5 or so years so that I can play AAA games at the highest possible settings. I just own a PS4 for the exclusives.
I think big advantage of consoles is that hardware is same so developers can optimalize game exactly to that piece of gfx and other chips. Its normal that developers use some form of cheating, which is not possible for more types of chips.
I played on ps3 towards its end cycle ( i mean before ps4) alongside PC and never thought that it is obsolete or slow.
I think its better to optimalize software than have hope that it will run on stronger type of machine.
And psvr? Its OK with one condition: the extra box is used only for vr. That means other users are not affected during conventional play.
Ps4 has plenty of power. Did some studio used all of CPU cores yet? Imagine that even ps3 was hd/fullhd. Ps4 has so much more powerfull hw!
I remember playing gt5 on ps3 in 3d. It was great! And even ps3 could render picture for each eye separately. OK it was only in 720p
Basically Phil want to introduce hardware DLC.
You' ll buy xbox2 with the season pass for a couple of RAM and an extra cpu
What Microsoft did is maybe hurt themselves with the announcement.
Those players who read these types of announcements and thinking of using a tax return on a Xbox One will now hold off buying a Xbox One now and wait for Version 1.5 or maybe just end up buying a PS4.
@DualWielding The main reason I have a console is because it's easy. I buy a game and it works and no effort is required from me other than buying the console and buying the games. I'd happily upgrade consoles every 3 years because it still isn't effort on my behalf...just money lol
It definitely didn't work with the N64 and the 'memory expansion pak' which I think doubled that consoles available RAM. It just fragmented the userbase and therefore went mostly unused by developers. (In fact if I remember rightly it was only Perfect Dark and Donkey Kong 64 that used it?)
That's what will happen with Xbox and is why this is just Phil Spencer talking big again...
@Grawlog from what I can tell, it would have two negative effects on console game development:
1) as @get2sammyb said, devs would have to manoeuvre the mine field of different specs, ensuring good quality across the board. Also, don't get me started on the "console parity". I mean how would that even work?
2) Most important for me, devs, especially 1st parties, can't optimise the crap out of a game for very specific, locked hardware. The reason console games perform so well considering their seemingly weak hardware, is optimisation.
Personally I don't like this idea in the slightest. I have a PC and a console; I like to keep them separate. One is for games not suitable for consoles, as well online banking, making spreadsheets, and so on, the other is for relaxing on the couch with a controller and playing a 4 hour session of of some Co op game in a party.
I'd love to spend time finding the best settings for my games after having spent time to update them after having spent time to install them just to realize that I have to spend more money to make the games run decently.
I clicked yes but then I thought about probably... Don't think I would be willing to swap components around every few months. I like the fact that it's plug and play, and having a pc would be cool but ain't half confusing sometimes!
Lets also say that everytime this "experiment" was done in the past the result was to split the fanbase and then few games came out for the updated console version.
Look at N3ds, after more than one year we just got a couple of games that are exclusives for the upgraded hardware....
No I wouldn't like this idea. It seems to me that they would then have you over a barrel with regard to what they charged for these upgrades. I would guess that you would end up paying a lot more over, say, 5 years, than you would probably be happy with. The current system suits me fine.
The reason why I buy consoles over PC is because I know they last for 5-6 years without upgrading them. Releasing new hardware or components every other year defeats that purpose.
guys just imagine playing Uncharted 4 campaign in 60fps or games like Bloodborne, Horizon, Until Dawn, Detroit, Final Fantasy XV, God of War reboot and The Last of Us 2 all in 60fps, yes i would upgrade in a heartbeat.
@BAMozzy - "Is a High Spec PC capable of playing more games than a medium spec PC"
Yes.
My PC won't run any recent games, as the graphics card simply doesn't have the memory to handle them, even at the lowest settings.
Anyway, the constant need to upgrade parts, often at significant expense, is the reason I gave up on PC gaming during the PS3 generation. A hardware split will divide the user base far more than something like PS Move.
Console gaming is fine as it is. There's no need to split the hardware. Microsoft's problem is that they settled on an underpowered unit to begin with, now they want to play catch-up mid-generation.
I work in a tech company and am lambasted by colleagues who are die hard PC gamers. PC games are cheaper, why would you bother with a console etc? The reason is simple, firstly, I hear how much they moan about the cost of upgrading or buying new PC's and secondly I hear how much they moan about new games that won't run optimally on their gear.
I am a casual gamer in that I do it for fun and as a distraction. I want to turn on a console and just play. I also want to know that my investment will last me some time. I can't be ar*ed with checking whether my system can run the latest game.
Consoles that try and mix and match stop being consoles and traditionally, don't do well. It is why consoles exist - because anyone can play games on their console. Peripherals for consoles often don't do well because it splits the user base.
I think that Microsoft are thinking about turning away from competing with Nintendo and Sony and going after Steam instead. I would suspect that they are going to release or even license Windows gaming machines (a little like steam machines) to tie together their software offerings and make them a software provider as well.
It works with the direction they are going of having one OS across devices and also trying to rejuvinate sales of Windows.
@Paranoimia A medium spec (not low spec) can play the same games a high spec computer can - just not at the same resolution and frame rate. I don't know what rig you are/were running but I doubt it can be considered 'medium' spec by today's standards.
A new generation console can run all the recent games and has the 'power' to run old games too effectively but a last gen console can't run newer games.
When you buy a console, you need to replace it after 5-7years IF you want to play the most recent games. If you buy a Top Spec PC, I doubt you would need to replace/upgrade parts in that same time frame UNLESS you want to maintain a certain level of performance across ALL games. By that I mean if you can run a game like BF4 for example at 1440p (or above) and at least 120fps and then want to do the same with BF6 (yes I know I skipped 5) then you probably have to upgrade something but you could probably run it at 1080p/60fps. BF7 could probably run too but at 900p/60fps but suffer dips in frame rate and may not have the same draw distances, lighting textures etc.
Lets say for example, a console can't react to the market and competition through changes to software boosting performance, they are essentially stuck like that for 5-7yrs and continue to lose sales to the competition. No doubt games could run that come out over that time but instead of consistently being 1080p/60fps, they may have to drop as low as 720p/60fps. A single hardware upgrade allows games to run at 1080p/60fps maintains that standard over the course of the life span and doesn't necessarily divide the market as both sets of console owners (those with and those without) can still play the games - just one has a better visual experience. If a person isn't bothered by the visuals, then they don't have to upgrade.
I agree though that if you have a great variation between the same generation, problems can arise. As I stated though as soon as upgrades become essential to play games, that's when its time to bring out the next gen console. If all an upgrade does is boost visual performance but still allows those without to play a game, that I think is OK and I think only 1 upgrade per console life. Its not stopping those from playing certain games and so doesn't split the user base.
@arnoldlayne83 Only 2 games are exclusive to the N3DS, MANY games take advantage of its improved specs. Its really no different then your new Phone you get (most likely) every 2 years, it plays old stuff better, a handful of new stuff only available to it, but largely those in the previous version are left out of very few things. At some point it will reach where you need to upgrade to play nearly anything. Really the difference is instead of hard lines, they would be a bit blurrier now.
I think we are forgetting that consoles in their current state of affairs are still incredibly successful and as such are here to stay. Obviously there's case to be made for innovation, which has its place, but the concept is showing no signs of wear. Only then a real push for 'something else' could happen, again innovation 'complicating' things by trying to exploit (or create) our undiscovered needs. This may cause step change, may not. If anything, we are more likely to see a virtual PS[insert number] than a modular one. PS Now is already a thing after all. This would neatly solve the issue as the [number] would be nothing else but a subscription model/release if not abandoned completely.
@BAMozzy Yup, I know how it works.
My current system was medium-spec when I bought it. It's now about 8 years old, and I've not been able to play the 'latest' games on it for about half that time. So I got 4 years of PC gaming for around £650.
I used to buy top-spec all the time. I spent over £6000 in a period of 5 years on 3 top-spec gaming PCs, each lasting around 2 years, and still had to upgrade parts of them within that time-frame.
Sure, if you buy an absolute top-spec system now, you'll get longer than that - but you'll also be looking at spending a minimum 10 times the cost of a PS4, for games that are really no different. A "reasonable" graphics card on its own is twice the cost of a PS4, and top-spec cards can top £1500. They might look a little better. They may even run at a higher fps. But the experience of playing the game is no different. And if you want to keep the system high-end, you'll be replacing components within 3 years, guaranteed.
You might be "stuck" at a certain level with a console, but the appeal is that you know that any game you put in it is just going to work. You don't need to mess around with settings, update drivers, mess with config files, worry about compatibility modes, shut down other programs or background tasks, etc.
PC gaming is a money pit. I could afford it, but these days I've got more sense and better things to spend the money on. I'd rather spend £300-£400 every 5-7 years on something that's going to give me the same gaming enjoyment with a lot less of the hassle. I'm really not that bothered by a slightly higher resolution and a few extra frames per second, since neither make the experience any better. I get the same enjoyment out of Battlefield 4 and Project Cars on PS4 as I would on PC, so why waste money I could spend on more games?
Of course, potentially the biggest indicator for the success or failure of this idea - oddly not mentioned in the article - is that Valve have been doing a similar thing for a while now with the Steam Machines, and as far as I'm aware, it hasn't really taken off at all.
"Yet in spite of such restrictions, the Steam Machine is often confusing because of the wide variety of configurations it potentially covers. Falcon Northwest’s Tiki Steam Machine, for instance, was used to show off Unreal Tournament running at a 4K resolution during GDC earlier this year. Meanwhile, the Alienware Alpha struggles to handle the same title at 1080p."
Source: http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/ever-cluttered-pc-market-valves-steam-machines-undergoing-existential-crisis/
So you potentially have everyone opting for the top-spec version, essentially negating the whole idea and leaving you needing only one version of the system.
Apparently this idea has been mentioned by Sony
Source: http://www.gamespot.com/articles/high-power-ps4-model-something-sony-might-consider/1100-6431669/
Personally I think it would be a very bad idea for consoles to start releasing new, more powerful, iterations every year or so. At the moment a good reason to own a console over a PC is the fact you buy it once and you get to play everything as well as you can for the next sixish years. By taking a path where there are upgrades and multiple options of power I think it will turn a lot of people off the idea of owning a console. Plus people might start to realise that building a PC is not any harder than building a model from Lego (I'm not even joking about this, you just slot the pieces together and stick a disc in to install an operating system).
I would be done with consoles if this ever happened, a few great exclusives is not enough for me to justify not just investing the money in making my PC better.
@get2sammyb Talking point? Good point.
While watching another 87 hours of political coverage last night - don't ask - I did decide the bottom line against console hardware updates was this:
iPhone - 500mil in 7 years, about 70mil per year
Xboxen - 90mil in 7 years, about 10mil per year
The turnover just isn't there for home consoles.
Though I suppose if MS wanted to rent it - weren't there rumblings about that possibility years ago? - like a phone, free-to-start for hardware, then maybe they could upgrade every year? I still think the devs would balk though to any significant changes in a short amount of time. Can you imagine how long it would take FFXV or NMS to come out if we had different hardware every year or 2? TLG would never release.
if it means all games run smoothly at at least 60fps (or more) then sure i would depending on the price.
@Paranoimia Effectively then you bought the equivalent of a PS3 about a year or two before the PS4 launched. I bet you could play quite a few of the more recent releases but they wouldn't run well. I must admit though I do question whether £650 would buy you a 'medium' spec gaming PC - even 8 years ago. That today - even with taking inflation into consideration would be an 'entry' level gaming PC.
I know a decent Graphics card can cost more than both my PS4 and XB1 combined and yet still only plays the same games as available on these consoles. Admittedly though that graphics card can enable a better resolution and frame rate than either console would be capable of.
The point I am making though is that if you had 1 upgrade during a consoles life that maintained the resolution/frame rate as games get bigger/more complex etc then what's the problem? You are not dividing the gaming community in the same way that the lowest spec 'current' gaming PC's are still capable of playing the same games as the highest spec. By this I mean that the minimum spec required to play games like the Witcher 3 for example compared to the spec PC capable of playing it at 4K and with a decent frame rate with all the settings on. In between those 2, you have an immense range of specs - its not like only the top spec PC can play against other top spec PC's in a competitive MP like SW:BF or BF5 for example. The ONLY difference between the 'minimum' spec and highest possible spec is 'graphics'
Applying this now to consoles, If over the course of its 5-7yr life, you had the option to buy an 'upgrade' that kept games at 1080p/60fps or if you don't have it, dropped down to 900p or even 720p, Maybe reduced textures, lighting, draw distances BUT ultimately kept the same 'game', options (still able to play campaign, MP etc) then how is that 'different' from the current PC market. If all that upgrade did was enable a better graphical experience - effectively giving you the option to switch to 'ultra' over 'standard' then I really don't see any issue.
You expect that a top of the range PC today will over 5-7 years, stop being 'top of the range'. Instead of playing games on ultra, you have to lower you settings over time unless you buy an 'upgrade' but it can still play those games - just newer PC's can probably have better graphics. If you play games like BF or CoD for example online, some PC's may well be at 1080p/60fps but others are at 1440p/144fps (and above) but they are still playing the same game and online together.
I don't want to see a console that requires upgrading every year or so. PC's don't require upgrading every couple of months generally (unless all you do is keep it at the very minimum level). I don't want to see multiple spec variations of the 'same console' and games releasing saying you need to have spec B or above, spec H or above etc. However I don't mind seeing maybe 1 upgrade during its 5-7 years as long as all it does if affect the graphical capability. People without can still play ALL the games, Still access ALL the apps etc but maybe can't select the best graphical setting in-game.
Thinking ahead to the next generation, with 4K TV's still in their infancy, why would someone with a 1080p want to spend say £100 to have 4K visuals? Maybe if/when they upgrade their TV, they may want to spend that £100. You could have that scenario for example.
I just recently got a PS4 in the last four months so I would say no. I am not interesting in this kind of thing. If its anything like the new 3ds xl then maybe but it depends on what the upgrade offers.
Hell I'd upgrade to a machine that doesn't suddenly kick me out of games while saying it's crashed without warning. Or similarly disconnecting the controllers at random, usually in the middle of a game and quite often more than once in the one evening with the only option to turn off the ps4 and restart losing everything since the last save as they don't even reconnect after coming out of rest mode.
I'd consider upgrading depending on the benefits.
I also game on a PC - one that I put together myself - and this still sounds like a bad idea to me. It's not just the simplicity and ease of use that's attractive about consoles; I think the main thing is that the devs have a single target platform (okay, two if it's also on Xbox One). This allows the games to be far more stable and polished than the average PC release. When you think of a buggy-as-hell console game, I can more or less guarantee that you're thinking of one made by a traditionally PC developer that's also targeted the game at countless other PC builds as well (e.g. Bioware, Bethesda, Obsidian, etc).
It also means developers really maximise the potential of the hardware. There is no way that you could buy a £300 PC in 2005ish that could have run The Last of Us in 2013 - or that would have run any recent game in 2013; hell, even in 2008, most likely.
The other problem is that it wouldn't work by isolating older owners that have the early model, it would be the opposite. The more powerful Xbones would come out, have like a 800,000 install base, no one is going to make a game that's targeted at that when they could aim at the 20 million or whatever with the original Xbone - or the 35 million+ with a PS4. We can point to the 3DS as an example of this kind of thing in action, yet look how few New 3DS-only games there are. The upgrade to performance on other games is neglible or non-existant. It's less than you get from putting a SSD in a PS4 which you can do yourself in about 5 minutes.
2nd to last paragraph: exiting components should read existing components.
Lol some of these comments are very closed minded indeed. If and this is a BIG IF!!! Sony decided to allow for upgrades like close to what nintendo did with the rumble pack i would be in favor. Adding on to the PS4 after a few years isnt a big issue. Money is the main concern, paying 50 to 100 to upgrade maybe 150$ wouldn't be a deal breaker in my opinion. Atleast then devs and big corporations can't make excuses as to why this runs like that or why graphics don't look like what they showed initially!
@BoltedArc why are you going to open the door for Sony to charge you more for graphics hardware? The graphics in most games released so far haven't exactly pushed the system to its limits.
@Grimwood 4k is great, but you need a huge TV to notice the difference. Literally 50" or so.
What you can do with a higher pixel density purpose built for bigger tvs Is have a wider field of view, so more of the game world is shown. Something I really want to see in the future is larger vertical ratios to take advantage of the higher pixel count. But as it stands on a 32" tv there's actually hardly any point.
There is NO ps4.5! A new upgtaded console that could play PS4 games would be the PS5 that is backwards compatible with the PS4. Just turn Playstation and Xbox brand into software distributors like steam and make all games on PC.Looks like that's where they are going anyway. No one wants to buy a console for $399 and a new GPU/CPU every 2 years for another $399 up.
I have had my ps4 since launch so I would be fine with upgrading. I also just love my PS4.
Sod that! I'd stick to my vanilla PS4.
@BoltedArc
I would love it if it was like Nintendo's jump pack (I assume you mean the jump pack, not the rumble pack) for the 64. But if it's closer to the 3ds and New 3ds, then no way.
Have you seen Hyrule Warriors for New 3ds? It's like they barely bothered optimizing the game for regular 3ds. It performs so terribly compared to on a New 3ds, they might as well have not bothered. If consoles don't allow us to upgrade with parts, and instead just make us buy enclosed, upgraded models (like cell phones), then this is the future of gaming. You'll see a lot more games performing terrible with anything that is not the most advanced model.
I think it's not really fair to those that bought the PS4 from the begining of the console cycle, the true fans and users.We will be the ones with the "less good machine", even if we were the early adopters.Not everybody can afford to buy more versios of a console (same cycle) and I believe it would be e mistake from Sony.The whole ideea of the console is that you won't need hardware upgrades...
@Anchorsam_9 I completely agree. If I wanted to keep upgrading every year I'd be a pc gamer.
@themcnoisy which would actually make Microsoft more money as their patents were what kept the Xbox division afloat from what I've been reading in the past. That definitely explains why Microsoft would make such a move like that.
I don't even own a PS4 yet, so I'll probably just wait for the supercharged "4.5" version.
If the rumor is true, this may be a huge mistake from Sony. The PS4 currently has great momentum, but Sony is at risk of throwing it all away with PSVR and PS4.5. This is not one but two fragmentations of the user base, asking for hefty sums of money from old and new owners alike. These developments may cut off the game supply from the base PS4 model, and damage the whole PS4 ecosystem as a whole. Has Sony begun to stumble again?
As others have said, the New 3DS was a worthwhile upgrade. Being able to enjoy the same games, but with much faster load times across the board, double the texture resolution and frame rate in supported games, and additional control options, it's like night and day compared to the old system from certain angles.
Sony's problem is that the PS4 costs twice as much as a New 3DS. It would have to be one heck of an upgrade for me to consider it.
I don't think "modular" consoles are going to be a thing until you can swap out GPUs and hard drives as easily as SD cards. Come to think of it, I'd love if my PC could do that.
It would depend on the money side of things forme. If Sony were to offer a decent trade in on the ps4 to enable me to purchase the upgraded model, I would look seriously at it. If I had to fork out a fortune for the upgraded model they can forget it. The price o the VR is nearly £400 so to fork out something like say, another £450 for the new console, that would be way out of my league.
I want twin turbo supercharge ps4!
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...