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

@BAMozzy: This was inevitably going to happen, when the consoles were made like a basic PC without any real novelty hardware included then the developers will develop primarily for the PC then downscale to the consoles. You have all ready mentioned this and that part of the discussion is bang on point. Its such a pity as actually we could have awesome games running at 1080p 60fps but due to this conundrum we are always going to have bloated games with resource sapping third party tools downscaled.

Its worth pointing out that hopefully when Uncharted 4 releases (even though its running at 30fps) the game will look worlds apart from the games of last year. The discussion will then switch from the developers 'but we aint got enough power' to the general public expecting more. Lets be honest here MGS Phantom Pain runs and looks like an absolute dream regardless of its short comings as a game. Its my personal favourite game alongside Rocket League - thats in no small part to the 60fps. Switching from MGS to Fallout 4 literally made my brain hurt. I just dont buy the argument from the developers.

Uncharted 4 is locked at 30fps single player, and "locked" makes a helluva difference! its games that have fluctuation in frame rate that look poo . Uncharted 4 single player looks like it runs at 60fps all day long. I'ts perfectly smooth. A locked 30fps single player is fine.

I mean people get to wrapped up in 60fps 1080p. Take Halo 5 for eg, thqt game is 1080p 60fps yes, but JESUS it has WOEFUL graphics the worst textures and blandness ever, halo 4 looked way better than this crap.

@Bazza78: Look back over the last 10 or so years the majority of games that have won Game of the Year or games amongst the top 5 every year, they have all been 30fps games. All the Uncharted games and Last of Us were 30fps so Uncharted 4 running at that is certainly no issue to me.

I agree that Halo 5 does look 'bad'. It certainly looks like the developers compromised presentation in order to deliver that 1080/60 target.

Who's to blame for this? Are we as 'gamers' to blame? Are we demanding that games have to have a certain 'visual' standard? Are we forcing developers to do this? Should 343 for example spent more time on the visual presentation and maybe dropped the resolution?

Does resolution ultimately matter? I have a number of games on both my PS4 and XB1 - some of which do differ in resolution but generally the play the same, they deliver the same story/experience etc - one may look a bit sharper but overall they both feel the same. Is 60fps essential. For some, according to them, it is. A lot of people say its essential for fast paced shooters/racers but we have a number of shooters and racers that perform well at 30fps. I maintain I would rather have a locked 30fps than a 60fps game that dips to 50 occasionally - that dip is far more noticeable and disruptive to my experience than a locked 30fps or the difference between 900p and 1080p.

Obviously numbers though are very important to some people - whether that's resolution/framerate, number of sales, etc and if one has a 'higher' number, that leads to 'gloating' etc - maybe that's what people fear about the PS4k (if it comes out) that people will gloat that they can play exactly the same game, with exactly the same content/story etc but at a 'higher' resolution and/or frame rate?

@BAMozzy: Maybe, but the main issue is as screens get bigger - you need a higher resolution. I've seen the argument before that you cant tell the difference between 900p and 1080p, that's just not true on my TV. In FPS games in particular the better the resolution the clearer objects are in the distance. Which could be the difference between shooting someone or being shot. 4k will give a huge advantage over people playing at 1080p.

Yes I agree 30fps is suitable for some games. But once you play 60fps going back to a 30fps hurts your head. Try it yourself, stick resogun on then go and play driveclub - you notice its running slower consciously. Does it make a huge difference? Absolutely but as @Bazza78 rightly points out games could look rubbish from a geometry or texture stand point - which is why art direction needs to be on point.

@themcnoisy: Yea I have noticed this too after say playing Battlefront a Locked 60 game then going to destiny a 30 game you can notice a lot of judder luckily this wears of over 20 mins or so and your fine but some games just don't feel right at 30 say like evolve that game felt horrible in 30 but playing far cry 4 I personally couldn't notice the reduction in controller response

@themcnoisy: There has been an Argument saying that you need a 'massive' screen to see any benefit of 4k over 1080p at 'normal' viewing distances. If you have 2 TV's, both identical large screen (55"+) but one at 4k and the other at 1080p, you will have NO benefit over the other in gaming. The difference is in the 'finer' details. Enemies aren't suddenly going to 'pop' out by going to 4k. There is more of an advantage to people playing on 55"+ screens over someone playing on 40" or less (assuming you are both sat a similar distance) and even more of an advantage between people that set their TV's up for gaming and those that don't with input lag!

I play a lot of games that vary between 60fps and 30fps. I will admit that 60fps games do feel very smooth and given the choice, I would much prefer 60fps as the minimum standard myself. That being said, I don't have an issue with games that are at 30fps - maybe because the majority are some of the best games I have played. I don't feel that the 'frame rate' impacted on these - games like Destiny still feels incredibly good mechanically and nipping along in a Sparrow doesn't feel juddery. I feel my ability to pick off the heads of moving targets accurately with no real perception of 'frame rate' is showing that 30fps is 'adequate'. Maybe if these games had an 'option' to play at 60fps, the difference would be more pronounced. I didn't go from the PS3 versions of the last 4 ND games and straight into the PS4 remasters (which are 60fps). A lot of my favourite games from this gen, like last gen, though are 30fps.

Like I said though, I would prefer a 60fps minimum standard but I do think that some games benefit more by having a higher resolution - Uncharted 4, Batman: Arkham Knight, Witcher 3 etc for example!

@SKC_Diamond: There should be a name for that phenomena, dilapidated frame rate awareness.

This is an interesting VIDEO about the PS4k (or NEO as its codenamed). It's discussing the 'specs' and the way it will work alongside PS4.

Well the first of the 'next' wave of consoles has now been made official with Nintendo announcing that it plans to release the 'NX' in March 2017. Legend of Zelda has been 'delayed' until 2017 too and will also release on NX. The NX will launch with a 'brand new concept' which as yet hasn't been announced and no specs confirmed either. Nintendo are well known for coming up with something 'unique' to its consoles. The N64, for example, was the first to use 'analogue' controllers as standard, the Wii gave us motion controllers and the WiiU a touchscreen controller...

in the past 24hrs, there has been some new 'rumours', this time surrounding MS and its plans for Xbox. As expected, they are releasing a Slim with up to a 2TB HDD later on this year with a new device to be announced for next year. This device (nicknamed Scorpio) is 4x as powerful as the XB1 (making it around 5.6TFLOPS) and will offer Oculus Rift support. IF true, that would make the Scorpio around a whole Xbox One more powerful than the Neo.

Obviously these are just rumours...

E3 is coming up in a few weeks so maybe that put a lot of rumours to bed and have some concrete information!

@BAMozzy: This gens starting to get messy. Release the xbox 4 - but can play x1 games from the get go. Problem solved, no marketing nightmares. The American and British fans are happy to change regularly - I'm unsure if the Japanese, Australian and German fans feel the same way.

The whole things turning into cluster, the ps2 was underpowered compared to xbox and gamecube for years but remained the biggest selling console ever for a reason. The humongous library and the fact they were all on the same console.

@themcnoisy: To be honest it started off quite messy too. People were underwhelmed with the power and performance and expected a bigger jump. The PS2 was popular for a long time - not least of all because of the library but lets be honest for every 'good' game, there was 9-10 that were quite average (being polite). Consoles always have been very dependent on their software but if a good game doesn't run 'well', it affects the whole experience. I believe every game could be 1080/60 - if you turn all the effects, the lighting/shadows/reflections etc down or off, reduce the quality of textures etc. N64 coped well with the expansion pack - it didn't split the user base. Its not really been tried though with an online based console but as PC gaming has proved, the gamers don't seem to drastically affected by the much wider range of specs. Do you get people whinging that someone is playing the same game as you at a lower/higher resolution and/or lower/higher frame rates (if they are all above 60). Some people are happy at 1080 with most effects turned down to get a 60+ fps and they could be playing with people who have 1440p+ all the effects set to ultra and frame rates in excess of 120.

Its not as if you can't play games with those on other models in the range. I could understand it more if this was a whole new generation and people couldn't play games with friends because they had a different console. On the XB1, you don't get people complaining that some are on XB360 whilst others are playing on the XB1.

As I have said many times, I would have much preferred my consoles to last 5-6yrs before something better came along but its apparent that the gap between the technology at the disposal of developers and PC's and that of consoles is increasing and only going to get worse. Games are developed in 4k+ resolution and no doubt that information is on the discs. In the settings (hidden from us on consoles but available on PC versions) the developers have turned down the output resolution, the lighting/shadow effects etc etc etc just to get the games to run. Doom at least has most of the settings left in for us to access. A simple patch could adjust those 'settings' of most games for a Neo or Scorpio console without having to patch in new textures/lighting etc.

I am disappointed that this generation has, on the whole, not lived up to expectation and delivered a gaming experience that can be sustained over a 5-6yr period. Uncharted 4 was aiming for a 1080/60 but had to settle for 30 and 900p for its MP. A number of games have compromised on other aspects just to run - whether that's reducing resolution or frame rates, turning down the effects, the quality of shadows, lighting etc and with more technology at a developers disposal, that is only going to become more frequent and obvious. PSVR was one of the driving forces behind PS needing to release the Neo - according to someone within Sony, VR wasn't going to work on PS4 and deliver the necessary quality to work - The processing box may have something to do with it finally working to a degree. Xbox One has always appeared weak and lets be honest, it doesn't have much more to compromise on in some games without being detrimental to the overall experience - well beyond just the visuals. I can easily see games in the next year not running on the XB1 - at least not to the same level as everything else. PS4 games that are generally 900/60 (for example) could end up dropping down to 720/60 but on XB1, these are already 720 so will these be 30fps games? Even that changes the way they feel. If I can buy a console that will deliver those at 1080/60 (or better) without compromising the visual impression, then I am all for it. If others get left behind - so be it (although that's not what MS and Sony seem to be doing). I didn't care too much when I upgraded from every other console I owned, I was first in line for the N64 expansion - because having the best gaming experience in a simple plug and play in my lounge is what I want. IF Sony and MS released wholly new generation consoles, then I would be looking to buy - the fact that Sony's at least isn't stopping anyone from playing the games and with their friends and all previous PS4 games will play - many of them exactly the same as base models, what's the problem? If Apple opted to join the console market, as they have been rumoured to, If it was the most powerful console, delivering all 3rd party games at a much higher performance and had a good couple of exclusives, I would be very interested - although knowing apple, this would be very over-priced for the overall performance level - but would look great under my TV.

Until the rumours of 'new' consoles, people were complaining about the resolution and/or frame rates of games and now Sony/MS look to be doing something about that, people are complaining about that...

Personally I am looking forward to the next wave - playing games closer to the developers vision, more stable and smoother frame-rates etc. My PS4 is younger than a lot of peoples here but I would trade it in in a heartbeat if my overall gaming experience is improved by a better option - especially if I already have a library that can play on it.

@BAMozzy: I agree with you and im also excited to see what this next wave of consoles bring i just hope if they are real that i could put my hardrive from the original ps4 and put it in the neo without wiping it because ive got a 2TB hardrive in mine right now and it would be a pain installing everything again with also the patches and stuff like that

@SKC_Diamond: I would love Sony to add external hard drive support before the Neo comes out. That way I could move all my games and just plug and play with the new Neo. I haven't totally decided what I will do with my existing consoles - If they get moved to the bedroom (where my last gen consoles are), I could simply just plug and play with the external HDD. I expect the next Box to be external HDD ready so I will just unplug mine from the XB1 and transfer everything immediately.

I am looking forward to seeing games that actually look as good as their trailers instead of games that look like they have been severely cut back just to run visuals we get now. I know there are exceptions (Uncharted 4 blew me away) but thinking of some of the big open world games in particular...

The console landscape will change dramatically over the next 10 to 15 years I think. We're on the cusp of the iterative approach, but I do think we're nearing the final hurrah for consoles to be honest. They're not disappearing any time soon, but they're also not going to be around forever - certainly not as we know them, anyway.

@get2sammyb: Its difficult to see how Sony, MS and Nintendo will deliver their games without a 'console'. I know 'digital' sales have increased but for the big AAA releases that have 'physical' releases, these are still more popular than digital. We still see a lot of physical special editions with physical items that just couldn't be offered in a 'digital only' package and these still seem very popular.

As for the iterative approach, I think that is driven by the technology of the time. The 8th gen, when released was a little underwhelming from a power perspective but considering the launch price was actually cheaper than the 7th (particularly Sony's) especially if you factor in inflation and that Sony built the PS3 at a loss but the PS4 at a profit, you can see why it wasn't as powerful as it potentially could have been. Looking at the architecture too, its clear that Sony learned from the PS3 and went for a set-up similar to PC's - meaning developers are familiar with it. This is partly why we aren't seeing the 'learning' curve improvements that we had last gen - something that helped prolong its shelf life.

Whilst games seem to be steadily improving, not just from a visual perspective but that is probably the easiest to see, people are more than happy with their console. On last gen, it was clear that games from the start were not as impressive as games at the end of the generation. Games I feel also plateaued towards the end - I know many will say the Last of Us was the best game of last gen but technically it wasn't better than U3. The story may have helped raise it above U3 for many. Its clear though that certain games really wouldn't have run - games like Witcher 3, Arkham Knight, Watchdogs - not without changing them - Loading screens, reducing NPC's, Enemy count etc and these were in development which forced MS and Sony to make the 8th gen.

In the 3 years since these consoles were made, there has been significant advances in technology. VR has now been realised and the specs needed finalised, API's such as DX12, Vulcan etc have released, next gen chips powering next gen CPU's, APU's etc have (or are about to be) released - all of which has helped make the consoles feel even more under-powered. Maybe Sony and MS knew they had to make something to see us through the development and release phase of these but continue delivering the games through this phase - something that the 7th Gen wouldn't. They couldn't wait for these to arrive but also couldn't make a console powerful enough for the price to cover these advancements. It could be just one of those things where several areas of technology all landed at once to push console manufacturers to making a new mid-stage console.

I think Sony are in slightly more difficult spot now though. They obviously can't release a much more powerful PS5 and upset the PS4 users so have to release an intermediate PS4. MS though could release a new device and slot it into the eco-system, offering things the XB1 can't (like VR) but still adding to the user base with cross-gen gaming/party chat etc.

The way Sony are going about it though can prolong Gen 8 console life span out to the 5/6yr mark. In fairness its PS4, being more powerful than the XB1, stands a bit more chance of reaching that point. Games still have areas that could be 'compromised' - frame rates, resolution etc that the XB1 has already compromised on. I can see games not releasing on XB1 (or if they do, they are really going to be 'different' experiences) within 2yrs but coming to 'Scorpio'.

It does come down to what you consider 'iterative' and what Sony will do next. Will they use the PS4k to see out the Gen 8 life span and come in with a powerful PS5 that can last the expected lifespan of a generation? I guess that in part has to be down to the technology of the time and how that advances during that period. No doubt there will be some advancements but whether any of it is 'meaningful' in terms of general gaming or just 'superficial' for example if it only increases power to increase resolution/frame rates beyond 4k and 60fps but 99% of households don't have 8K TV's and the console can run 95% of games at 4k/60 then its almost meaningless advancements - which would in reality mean that Consoles life would be stable until games start to 'drop' from these or need to be changed to run. Other factors, like VR and subsequent generations (if successful) could play a part in the life span too.

I think its too early to predict we will be going down an iterative route. I can see why we are having these mid-gen consoles and I can see why MS/Sony released the 8th gen consoles they did. I personally believe though that 'technology' itself determines the life cycle - it just so happens that 2016 is a notable year for a lot of that jump...

@BAMozzy: Sony specifically I think are going to put PlayStation Now on everything. Like I say, it's not happening anytime soon, but I think that's the long-term play.

@get2sammyb: I think its available through my TV. I don't know how it may work with much bigger and more complex games though. I still think Sony, MS and Nintendo will continue to deliver a 'console' for as long as they continue to sell and make money. The PS4 as you have pointed out, continues to be the fastest selling console of all time which shows there is a demand. Offering PSNow though is an 'extra' way of making money from those 'more casual' gamers and those with extra TV's - Maybe have their PS4 set up on one but can play PSNow games on another IF that TV is in use by other family members.

I wouldn't be surprised if Sony did launch a PS TV - a TV with built in console - maybe a side loading Bluray drive - particularly as the chips are getting smaller, more powerful and more energy efficient. but I do expect them yo continue to make consoles as they will want to capture the market of gamers who don't buy Sony TV's and those that want a 'console'. Its like the Digital market - if they go 'all digital' they lose out on those that want 'physical'. Even markets that have digital - like books, movies, music have physical releases. There is something about owning a physical item that cannot be matched by digital. I still buy all my books and music physically too - even vinyl has had something of a resurgence. Even if Digital sales catch up to physical releases in terms of sales, that's still a LOT of people that want Physical releases. I think Sony want Physical anyway - they must get some money for every bluray disc/player sold and no doubt make money on all the 'physical' items in special editions. They still seem very popular. Not having consoles or Physical releases would lose a lot of income and Jobs too.

@BAMozzy: I think it will go all digital in the end unfortunately, and once oil becomes scarce we will all lose our save files due to lack of power

So now we know a bit more about 'Polaris' or to give it its release name - the Radeon RX480. This is around 5Tflops and capable of running VR BUT will be available for $199 (4GB model) or $229 (8GB model). 2 combined have a better performance than nVidia's new GTX1080 (around $700) which is better than the current wave of high end GPU's like the Titan or Fury. It is designed with the new API's (like DX12) too meaning that it can better allocate hardware resources and limit CPU bottlenecking. The architecture itself is far more efficient so a 5Tflop performance of this architecture is better than a 5Tflop performance of the old architecture.

Obviously that's a benefit to PC gamers - those wanting to upgrade hardware to run VR and get better performance in games but on a smaller budget. It means that you could buy a single RX480 now and maybe if your budget and motherboard allows, another one later on and get the performance of the 1080 without shelling out $700 dollars at once.

So how does this benefit us as 'Console gamers'? Well for a start, it makes the GPU's affordable for Sony/MS etc. $200 RRP to a 'consumer' buying from a store with their overheads and profit margin who no doubt bought from a supplier with their overheads and profit margins compared to a big corporation buying direct from manufacturer in terms of 'millions' and no doubt on a long term contract to supply is going to be a lot cheaper add in potentially new APU's into the equation and the deal could be slightly cheaper again. AMD have supplied at least 60-70m GPU's and CPU's to Sony and Microsoft with just the PS4 and XB1 - if they charged just 50cents over manufacturing costs for each, that's 60-70m profit in less than 3years and pretty much guaranteed for the life-cycle alone. For us, it means we could realistically see a much more powerful console for the same price (if not less) than the launch price of the current wave.

In the last 3years since the announcement of the 'next' gen consoles, we have seen a number of technological advancements. VR has been fully realised and the hardware specs are now known - what it needs to run this technology. New API's - a software layer that sits between the hardware and the software that runs on them which manages hardware resources (helps prevent CPU bottlenecking) and helps developers optimise games across different hardware and making porting easier etc, and new Hardware - like GPU's designed with all the advancements in technology. Because the 'old' hardware wasn't optimised or built with the new technology in mind, it doesn't run as well as it could and requires more power/speed than it would on new hardware.

I know its annoying that we have shelled out a lot of money in the last few years on our consoles, but the fact is the new Hardware and software is making the old hardware 'difficult' to achieve a 'standard' - especially for multi-platform releases. I can see the next iterations having more 'lasting' ability - unless of course the 2nd gen VR pushes the technology beyond what we currently have. No doubt Visuals will improve over time but main area here is in resolution. Unless you have a 4K HDR10 or Dolby Vision TV, 1080p (or 1440p downsampled for example) is going to be a minimum and 60fps should be a minimum too. Maybe in 3-5yrs people will want native 4k and 60fps (the GTX1080 can make 4k/30fps a reality - it hits 35-45 fps in current games like the Witcher 3, Division) but I can see most (if not all) games running well enough to hit 1080/60fps for a while. It could depend on the CPU in the new consoles more than the GPU (I think).

To be honest, I know we think about the PS4 Neo or the Xbox Scorpio as iterative increments to the 'next gen' hardware but I feel that the PS4/XB1 were the intermediate consoles to get to the 'next' gen. All this new technology was in development but still 'unknown' as to what was needed and could deliver. It was clear that the old gen (XB360/PS3) would not be able to see them through the development stage of this technology but also wouldn't be able to deliver the games in the meantime either so Sony and MS had to do something and within a budget.

With AMD's new hardware, Sony and MS can now bring that technology to the console market in an 'affordable' package.