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

@BAMozzy: That is interesting - I hadn't thought of it like that. So what you are saying is that we could see the future of consoles (Nintendo and the NX not included) may be split along different lines - Sony vs MS in terms of upgrade paths and release strategies?

@Rudy_Manchego: To me that's what appears to be happening. I get the impression that both have a different view on gaming - partly because MS encompasses the PC space too. The Xbox brand seems to be integrating into the same type of eco-system and sharing the same benefits that PC gamers have. If you replace your old PC that couldn't play current games, you don't lose access to your old library. A modern PC can play games 10 or 20 years old. The same looks to be happening with Xbox. In a year (or so), Scorpio will launch and all the games that currently run on an XB1 (inc XB360 BC) will run on that and be playable with all generations. If you have Black Ops for example, you could be playing with XB1 and XB360 owners. 10 years time, we could see Scorpio 3 and that would still play Black Ops and with XB360, XB1 and the Scorpios.

Sony are in a different eco-system. They are very clear that PS4 games must run on BOTH the PS4 and Neo - no exceptions. They could change their plan of course but as it stands at the moment, it looks like the Neo is locked into the 4th generation Playstation. Its inevitable that a few years down the line, the Vanilla PS4 will be struggling. Sony, if they stick to their commitment, cannot release a game on Neo only and certainly not release a vanilla version that has more than just 'cosmetic' differences. I guess the resolution could be terrible (less than 720p) so its inevitable they would have to release a 5th generation system. It could of course have Backwards compatibility etc but I can't see them doing this a year after the Neo - 2yrs at the earliest - which would obviously split the release dates.

There is NO WAY that the Scorpio is iterative. You don't release a console that powerful and restrict to games that can only run on the much inferior hardware and that late in the XB1's life cycle - especially as that console is already struggling with current software. Microsoft aren't going to tell developers you can't release their game on Scorpio that looks and runs beautifully, unless they also release a game that really can't run on the much inferior hardware - it just won't happen Obviously there will be 'crossover' and maybe some XB1 games will get a 'Scorpio' patch rather than just releasing 2 versions of a game but there will also be software differences too - the whole VR range for example - especially if it does partner up with Oculus as rumoured (OR runs at 1200/90 and requires around 4-4.5tflops of processing power on PC)

Where Sony go from PS5 onwards very much depends on how this launches. It could launch similar to the Scorpio with BC and some PS4 games getting a PS5 patch but it will also have its own games - those that can't run on a PS4 (vanilla) even though these 'could' run on the Neo. Sony could of course start there own Playstation eco-system too with the PS5. If as I suspect, its released a year (or two) after Scorpio (meaning the PS4 is 5-6yrs old), there is no way MS could release Scorpio 2 and probably couldn't for at least 2-3yrs) Sony could again release a mid gen system which could in theory release at a similar time to Scorpio 2. If Sony are looking at a 6yr cycle with a mid term enhanced version, and MS are going on a 4 year cycle then we will see times when both release at the same time. But if they opt to move towards the same 'eco-system' type structure we see developing at MS, then what we could see is a consistent and split release schedule with both Sony and MS releasing more powerful hardware but retaining the user base and functionality of those on inferior hardware - i.e Sony's PS4 games are playable on PS5, PS6 etc and occupy the same online space (Killzone Shadow Fall for example could have lobbies with gamers on PS4, Neo, 5 and 6 all together - similar to Black ops on Xbox)

Personally though I think technology is the driving factor that will determine a consoles life cycle. Sony seem 'happy' to release iterative/mid term hardware where as MS are not. If the technology doesn't leap as quickly as we have seen over the past 3yrs, then both Sony and MS will not feel the need or pressure to produce more powerful hardware. If both Sony's PS5 and the Scorpio play all the same games and at exactly the same resolutions, visual effects and frame rates (for example) then why would MS need to 'upgrade' - even if the PS5 is more powerful. Chances are it would need to upgrade sooner because its most likely to see performance drops first but whilst it is delivering then consoles will remain 'current'. Like I said though it also depends on where Sony go with PS5 and what it wants to do with the Playstation eco-system. At the moment, Sony seem happy to charge you to play past games in its eco-system and leave the past behind with each new generation. MS on the otherhand want to allow gamers to carry these through with each new hardware release so if you buy a Scorpio, you XB1 is obsolete essentially as all those games will be playable. Its similar to your Movie collection too - If you upgrade to a 4kHDR Bluray player, you don't have to replace your Bluray, DVD or even CD collection (I use my Surround Sound Home Theatre system as my CD/Hi-fi player too)

Based on Phil Spencers and Sony's comments regarding their future plans etc and trying to look at these 'consoles objectively, this is how I see the difference in strategy and the future of these two giants.

@BAMozzy: Interesting if that is the case. As a consumer, I suppose we'll have to make that choice as to what we think meets our needs most. In that scenario, I might prefer the MS model more than the Sony model, despite me really loving the PS4 era so far but your analogy to the Blu Ray vs DVD and CD is a good one.

Obviously MS has a different market to cater for - it wants to expand Windows and PC Gaming and get more exclusives that are cross platform. I've read they are also trying to dampen Steam as the main content provider for PC's. Of course, that upgrade route for users might be more confusing then just saying, I have a current gen Playstation and I know it will play games to the next Gen, which is what Sony is going to continue with.

Either way, I better get saving (after PSVR of course!).

I see it as more like PS vs Xbox/PC. If you want and love the Playstation games etc, then that will still be your primary choice and will compete with what Xbox/PC's deliver. If you have a PS and gaming rig though, chances are you will not want/need an Xbox as all the content will be playable on your gaming rig ant the lobbies will include Xbox gamers anyway.

It seems Sony are sticking with the much more traditional Console format. Sony though don't have to worry so much about PC's or Consoles, its games are still going to be exclusive to Sony. It only has to appease the Sony target audience. MS, because it has ties to both and trying to appease both market places has more pressure to deliver to both. If Consoles appear to be getting the best games/deals etc, then PC owners accuse MS of favouring Xbox and vice versa. It can't compete with Steam, Sony and itself (Xbox and PC division) without unifying the MS eco-system. I don't know how many PC gamers there are but by adding in Consoles to that user base - it makes MS a much stronger force in gaming. MS can then turn round to developers and say we have 'x' million users online playing this game together - it can take on Steam from the PC perspective and Sony from the console perspective.

As I said Sony is its own self contained unit. Its obviously been successful for them so far. Why change if it isn't broken. As far as playing 'old' games, there is a point where a game becomes 'almost' irrelevant. I know its a nice idea to keep your library going forward but rarely do old games really compete for gamers attention. How often to people fire up their PS3's or even PS2's to play old games when you have a growing backlog of 'current' games and new games releasing all the time. I guess at the start of a consoles life (for the owner), when you have very few games, its important but as you build up that library, the old console and games gather more dust. I know there will always be people who enjoy the nostalgia and replay old favourites but there are a lot who find BC unnecessary.

Sony look to be pushing forward, looking to the future and leaving the past behind - if old 'classics' need to come back, then they will remaster or rebuild these to be 'current'. MS look to trying to preserve those 'old' games in the way they were - that's not to say they aren't looking at the future or unprepared to remaster/rebuild if the situation necessitates.

We see from comments, both ways can be very divisive. This gen has been criticised for all the remasters. I have seen a number of people criticising Backwards Compatibility and of course we know how people react when MS offers a 5/6yr old classic on GwG - even though its playable on the most recent console. IGC, with its brand new, never released, upto 8hrs worth of indie is wanted more than a 5yr old Game of the Year with hundreds of potential hours because its 'new'. If Sony had BC (for example) and offered some of its back catalogue, top rated 5yr old+ PS3 games that could be downloaded and played free on PS4 and with PS3 owners too, some people would complain that they are 'too' old and can be bought on disc for £5 (or less)...

I like the direction that both appear to be taking. I don't really want a gaming PC and a console suits my situation. As I replace each, they go from the front room to the bedroom. I get the traditional console experience and access to all of Sony's exclusives but I also get the PC (albeit watered down a bit)/Xbox experience and its exclusives too. As a gamer I get the best that both offer as well as the shared experiences too. I can't afford a 3rd option and buy a PC too.

It does annoy me that people feel they have to pick a side and that is the right and only way people should go. I don't like the fact that people think MS (or Sony) are wrong about their future plans or that Sony (or MS) 'won' this generation or that E3. I feel that I won this generation AND this E3 because I have got to experience the best of both and will benefit from both's future plans. Forza Horizon 3 (for example) appeals a lot more than GT6 (not saying 1 is better than the other) but Horizon: Zero Dawn appeals a lot more than Scalebound - regardless I can play both. As a fan of FPS gaming, this winter I don't have to pick CoD, Titanfall 2 or BF1, I can play and enjoy all 3. The 'competition' isn't a 'war' and if one 'wins' the other will surrender and be swallowed up, be taken over etc by the victor - what happens is that the 'loser' (so to speak) comes back bigger and better next time and as a gamer I win!!

If MS's 'vision' doesn't work out long term, then maybe it will revert back to the more traditional Console format. If Sony sees MS's success with this, they may create a Playstation eco-system. Sony's success this Gen has forced MS to create that powerful Scorpio and with the 'success' and popularity of the BC on XB1, its contributed to the decision to create that universal Windows/Xbox experience. The success of the miiverse appears to have had an impact on Sonys decision to implement Communities and now Xbox are implementing Clubs. Its nothing new - Nintendo came up with Motion, Sony built Move and MS developed Kinect. It will continue to go this way too...

They're justifying for themselves why they won't/can't buy both platforms. If you possess only one platform you'll hope yours will win. If I only had an Xbox I would be pretty dissapointed right now with so much games that I expected to release multiplatform are now exclusive to Sony: Spider-man, Kojima's new game, Resident Evil, Street Fighter. I remember how pissed I was when Tomb Raider was announced an exclusive.

@Kidfried: Win is a 'relative' term. People have different views on what constitutes a win. PS4 for example is regarded as 'won' this generation yet XB1 has surpassed its predecessor which was regarded as the winner of last gen. Its still been 'successful'. I like the 'healthy' competition - had Sony not reacted to the success of XB360 and many of the things that MS implemented, the PS4 may not have been the console it is today. Its the same with games too - without Halo and its MP, where would online gaming and FPS's on consoles be now? Gears of War was very influential too in the 3rd Person cover shooter. MS may not have been as successful with its XB1 (not that it has 'lost') but looks to be coming out with the Scorpio in response.

If I only had a XB1, Spider-Man could be a bit of a disappointment but I had Sunset Ovedrive. Kojimas new game just looks weird and no indication of what the game actually is. RE hasn't been great over the past few years and Xbox hs its own fighters - like Killer Instinct (F2P) and SFv didn't live up to SFiv. Its not like Xbox owners don't have their own exclusives to get behind Gears4, Forza Horizon 3, Scalebound, Halo Wars 2, Sea of Thieves, Dead Rising 4, ReCore etc I admit that some of Sony's appeal more than MS's but in the first 2yrs more of Xbox's appealed to me.

People are already picking sides over the FPS games releasing later this year. Already decided who has 'won' but as a FPS fan, I feel I have 'won' because I have 3 great games to play. The PS4 owes a lot of its success to the competition from MS - it was also criticised at the start because it lacked big AAA games at crucial times compared to MS but Sony appears to be responding to that.

Competition is what drives gaming forward - both in terms of hardware and software. One maybe more successful but all that does is make the less successful (even though they are still successful) try harder which at the end of the day benefits me as a gamer!

@Kidfried: Resident Evil 7 is not PS-exclusive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX-YFJ5_qe8 Interesting breakdown about the Neo from a leaked Developer Guideline PDF. Saying they want games to be at least 1800p on Neo mode and at the same or higher frame rates to the standard PS4 version if you have a 4k TV connected - looking at ways to downscale if you have a 1080p connected or limit the resolution output....

So a bit more of a leak regarding the Nintendo NX. Seems it won't be using the Polaris or AMD at all for that matter but will be using nVidia's Tegra instead. Still some debate as to whether the Tegra 1 chip that's in the devkits is the actual chip or whether it will be using the new Tegra 2. What this means is that the Nintendo NX would be more powerful than the Wii U and the PS3 generation, it won't be as powerful as the PS4. The nVidia Shield uses a Tegra chip and that can play games like Doom 3 BFG edition at 1080/60 - good Digital Foundry video about the NX and specs...

Like I surmised, the NX is more like the Vita that plugs into a docking station for playing on a TV. The controls on either side of the screen can be detached which could also allow for local MP on the go which is something I certainly wouldn't of predicted. I must admit I did expect the 'docking' station to be more than just a docking station - something with a bit of 'power' in it to enhance games for the big screen. In essence, something that works a bit like the N64 Expansion Pack so when linked with the Handheld part, that 'extra' is used to give a better visual experience - necessary for playing on a much larger screen, When not linked, the games play the same but because the screen is so much smaller, you could get away with lower quality visuals.

The cartridge based system makes a lot of sense in this situation. Using a 5" disc defines the size as well as the fact these have moving parts - like the laser to read the disc. Memory Storage as certainly increased - you can now get 512GB memory cards - that's more than the size of the PS4's standard HDD and not many games are bigger than 50GB with 4k visuals on PC. The NX will have access to digital games so just imagine how many games you could carry with you. I don't know the size of Wii U games, but I imagine they are not as big as PS4's generally.

Anyway just thought I would update this thread with a bit more info....

@KratosMD: We know that Nintendo dominate when it comes to hand helds and there is always going to be 'fans' of Nintendo's consoles/games regardless. Whether it can recapture the 'Wii' type sales will depend on price, games and appeal to the more casual market. The Wii had that casual market appeal because 'non' gamers could play. Wii sports for example appealed to a much wider market as everyone knows how to swing a racket for example. It also launched at the right time - when 'fitness' was a big thing. The Wii rode that wave.

The NX could ride the next wave as mobile gaming - in particular Pokemon Go for example - is very popular. Its obviously not going to compete with Sony or MS in terms of 'grunt' - certainly not where the PS4k and Scorpio are concerned. You could get a lot of the XB360/PS3 generation games coming to the NX though. That may not be as 'disappointing' as it sounds if you can also get to play these n the go.

Personally I don't game on the go anymore. I haven't owned a handheld since the DSi which spent more time gathering dust anyway. I must be one of the few that wasn'y impressed by the new Zelda game which to me lacked the charm OoT and classic Zelda attributes as well as seeming dated too. Playing it though could change my opinion but it seemed quite ordinary. If you changed the name and main character to something 'less' Link like, and tried to sell it on PS4/XB1 at AAA pricing, I really think it would struggle - it just looked at seemed like an 'indie' game to me. Therefore that and the fact I don't game on the go, I can't see myself buying an NX.

I think it has the potential to do well though. Its certainly quite unique in its approach. For many 'gamers', it could be a great 2nd system and cover their mobile gaming option too. I do wonder how it will compete with mobiles, tablets and its own 3DS (will it play 3DS cartridges? replace the 3DS?). Most people have a mobile and/or tablet because they are versatile. Part of what made the Wii successful was price and will the NX be too expensive for what it offers? If its £250-£300 for example, is that too much for essentially a hand held device that can be plugged into a TV (rather than a Console that can be a hand held). Time will tell of course - its typical Nintendo though isn't it!

At this point I don't really care for the NX anymore. If the rumours are true, then this is a handheld-first and not a new home console. Sure you can plug it in and play games on the TV, but if the 3DS had an HDMI-cable and supported streaming, you could do the same. I haven't bought a handheld system since the original DS, it's just not my thing. I don't see the appeal of it either. It sounds like a complicated gimmicky console, I'm not even sure who this is marketed at. People say the mobile crowd, but they already play their free games on devices they already own. They are certainly not going to buy a system and premium priced games to get their ''mobile gaming fix'' or anything like that. They would've bought a 3DS if they were looking for more than just their phone. You can make your system look like a phone or tablet, but it won't have the conveniences of a phone or tablet. I'm really not sure what their train of thought behind all of this is..

Now we have had the Pro launch and out for 4+ months and Switch also finally out, what are peoples thoughts?
I found it funny to read through all of these posts - especially the first few pages when it was pure speculation. I wonder how many of those that took part in the discussion now own a PS4 Pro? Has it lived up to expectation?

With E3 2017 just around the corner and MS expected to reveal the Scorpio prior to launching later this year, is anyone looking forward to it? What are your expectations/hopes etc?

Do you think Sony will respond. One analyst thinks the PS5 will launch in late 2018 (as I predicted too) with 10Tflops of GPU performance

Macquarie Research Analyst Damian Thong has stated that he expects Sony to launch the PlayStation 5 in 2018’s second half. Not just that, he expects it to be a rather powerful system too, with a 10 TFLOPs GPU that would far outstrip any other console on the market- including Microsoft’s Scorpio, which is due for release later this year.

“We see sustained profit growth in Game & Network Services. We forecast OP growth from ¥140bn in FY3/17 to ¥180bn in FY3/18, driven by expanding software sales and profits,” the analyst’s note reads. “A rising digital ratio and a higher mix of first-party titles will help margins – Horizon Zero Dawn, which launched on 28 Feb, looks to have had a good start with a Metacritic score of 88. While we have tempered expectations to account for rivalry with Microsoft/Xbox and PC gaming, we note that the success of PS VR (which has reached 915K units sold) highlights the health of the ecosystem. We expect Sony to launch a >10 TFLOPS ‘PS5’ in 2H18 to secure the installed base.”

We don't yet know the full details of the Scorpio - other than the 6Tflop GPU, 320GB/s bandwidth RAM with no ESRAM - possibly 12GB of RAM and an 8core CPU. Certainly should be the 'most powerful' console built but I do expect it will still result in some games using techniques like Checkerboard rendering to achieve a 4k image. Its not much more than 4x as powerful as a XB1 and we know that games like Mass Effect can't achieve 1080p on that console. Game-play runs at 900p and 4x that is 1800p. Its possible that this could run at native 1800p on Scorpio (or 2160p with some settings reduced) and upscaled to 2160p. On Pro this is running at 1800p checkerboard (essentially 2x900p) and then upscaled to 2160p. As Horizon:ZD proves Checkerboard technique can look stunning so is that an issue?

I have said from the start, that I don't expect the PS4 to last as long as the PS3. Technology has seem some big jumps in recent years - most notably the display resolution to 4k as well as improvements to hardware, efficiency and their costs. The PS4 range doesn't offer a 4k Bluray player either. The Pro, whilst it does offer a 'decent' half way step into UHD resolutions, its also tied to the base PS4 so its still only likely to last as long as the base model. I know 2018 may sound 'early' especially for those of us with a Pro but consoles rarely release at the very last minute of a consoles life span - there is always some cross-over. 5yrs for the PS4 is not 'unreasonable' in my opinion and that's not including a few years for the cross-over phase. There is always people that will wait a year or so for the next console to build up a library. As far as the analysts prediction above goes, I thought 8Tflops at least - double that in the Pro with more and faster RAM and a better CPU as well as a 4k HDR Bluray. I can see 10tflops too...

Nintendo are unlikely to release any 'major' new consoles in the next few years. Maybe a new version of Switch with more on-board memory storage - something 'minor' like that - not something that changes how games run/look etc. I doubt we will see a 4k enabled Switch for example.

Anyway with E3 around the corner, what do you think we will see in the way of Hardware. I can't see Sony or Nintendo bringing anything this year and MS is likely to show Scorpio. So do you think Sony will have something to counter with? I can't see it happening this year - not even at PSX - not in Hardware at least. At most I can see Sony coming up with an 'Elite' style DS4 although I still don't expect that - that's more in hope than expectation LOL

Hmm interesting. I've now got the Pro, a 4k TV, PSVR and, unexpectedly, the Switch.

I think Sony won't announce anything new related to hardware this year, or at least not for release this year. I think they have had a hardware heavy 12 months with both the Pro, and PSVR launch and to try and do more might alienate people. I think they will focus this year on exclusives and and software because MS do not have as strong a lineup in software. I also expect there will be a focus on PSVR as they become more confident following a solid launch. They may also wait to see just what the Scorpio is and how it is received. The weakness of the Scorpio is that they need software to back up the new power and it will have to be seriously better than the PS4 Pro on third party titles to entice PS users away.

PS5 in 2018 is a possibility, maybe tail end. Again, I think that depends on Scorpio release and the way PS4 Sales go. It will need to be iterative and still play PS4 games to persuade people to update. If PS4 sales are healthy and they can drop Pro prices and maintain sales in the wake of the Scorpio, they may delay it to levy as much from existing hardware as possible.

Nintendo are relying on the unique form factor of the Switch and now having played it, I think that may work for them. I don't think they upgrade to 4k gaming anytime soon - the Switch just doesn't need it.

So my E3 predictions for Sony and Nintendo are to go large on software, maybe focus on PSVR. Maybe a rumour or early hint of new hardware but think that would be more likely closer to the Scorpio launch. MS will go big on the Scorpio, including an official name.

@Rudy_Manchego I do agree that this year Sony and Nintendo will be Software focused. Its certainly too early for either to consider new hardware - Nintendo want to establish the Switch and Sony had a busy year with VR and of course the Pro. VR may well have had a 'good' start but at 1m (considering the potential 55m user base) isn't that great. I know its still beats Oculus and HTC but its still less than 2% of the user base. For something hailed as the 'next big thing' in gaming, its still somewhat 'rare'. Horizon sold 2.8m copies in two weeks - no PSVR game can sell that many copies so developers may be limited on budgets to make games. Sony may well be willing to take a hit and subsidise development from profits in non-VR games but whether 3rd Party developers will, who knows. They may continue to add VR experiences or go the whole hog and make games that can be played on TV's as well as VR - like RE7.

I know MS doesn't have the rosta of 'exclusive' titles that Sony has. MS though do tend to show off titles due in the next year more than Sony who tend to showcase their games in development. At E3 2016, all but Last Guardian and Horizon are not expected before E3 2017. MS though has released Forza Horizon 3, Gears 4, Halo Wars 2, Dead Rising 4 and still has Sea of Thieves, Crackdown 3, Cuphead, State of Decay 2, Voodoo Vince, Phantom Dust etc to come. They also released ReCore and Quantum Break last year and promised that this year they have more titles than last year. I wouldn't be Surprised if Forza Motorsport releases in September (or to coincide with Scorpio) along with Crackdown 3 and maybe a 'surprise or 2' as well. Point I am making is that MS does have a number of games due out but often we don't get to see what they have in store for the 'long' term as much as we know about Sony. Sony are also helped by the fact they have a lot of Japanese developers on board too. Like the Pro though, MS don't need to release games for the console - not like manufacturers do for a new generation. The Scorpio will play XB360 BC games as well as all XB1 games at launch. I do think though they may well have Forza and Crackdown 3 to release around that time in 4k HDR. I do agree that their line-up as we know it now is not inspiring but looking forward to the rest of 2017 as we know it right now, how many of Sony's 'big' games - like Spider-Man, God of War, Days Gone, Last of Us 2 etc will release. I know Crash, GT: Sport and U4: Lost Legacy are due out in 2017 but I doubt Crash is totally exclusive and Lost Legacy is more like Infamous: First Light as opposed to a full sized game. They do have MLB (not interested in Baseball myself) but as it stands at the moment, I can't see an 'exclusive' that I really want - not with a 'fixed' release date. In truth, games like Sea of Thieves, Crackdown, State of Decay - even Voodoo Vince (which appeals slightly more than Crash to me although not to the degree that Yooka-Laylee does) and possibly Forza do have varying degrees of interest for me - not as much as Scalebound had which was the one game I would have bought Day 1 and none come close to the appeal of Horizon, Days Gone, Spider-Man or Last of Us 2 but at least its not completely barren. It also has a few 'indie' and free to play exclusives too - like Cuphead which is 'highly anticipated' - not by me though...

One big mistake I think MS has made was in the 3rd Party area - Sony has exclusivity on CoD (say what you want about the Franchise, its still a BIG deal, especially in eSports and the knock on effect that has) and Destiny. MS so say took the decision to 'drop' these 3rd party type deals to 'focus' more on in-house games. Still waiting though to see the fruits of that investment... In theory, by amalgamating the PC and Console space, maybe we could see more games in the long run - those that may have been developed more for PC coming to Xbox and the 'extra' income that selling Xbox exclusives to PC owners could encourage more developers/publishers to consider exclusivity to MS - especially with Scorpio. Having to showcase your game on an XB1, the console with the 'worst' visuals, isn't ideal either but with Scorpio/PC, they can show off the quality of their development team. I know 'Visuals' in general are not the most important but look how 'poor' visuals/animation can affect public opinion - whether the game turns out to perform well, have a fantastic story etc or not. Its often the 'first impression' and rightly or wrongly, that can affect public opinion.

I really don't think the PS5 will be iterative at all. It may well be 'backwards compatible' but it will be a 'new' generation. When Mark Cerny was talking about the Pro, he made it clear what defines a new generation and what that means is that the 'next' Playstation will be a 'clean' break and a generational leap above the PS4. I know the X86 architecture should, in theory, help with compatibility between old and new but Cerny believes that this can still lead to issues. Sony could have used a better CPU with X86 architecture in the Pro but opted to stick with the same chip as the base PS4. Its possible that the PS5 could have some form of Backwards compatibility built into the APU or maybe opt for some software answer to this - like some PS4 emulator built into it or just rely on PSNow. It would help to have some form of BC in the early days when 'next' generation software is scarce. However I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't. I certainly expect the PS5 to launch with PS5 version games - whether they also get a PS4 launch or not - and PS5 on the box - similar to the launch of other 'new' generation consoles. We had both PS3 and PS4 versions of games like BF4 and CoD Ghosts. This is no different to the standard progression we have seen in consoles over the years.

By contrast, I do see MS going a different route. I see them moving to a 'similar' system to PC's where we won't see XB360, XB1 o XB Scorpio on the boxes but just 'Xbox' with some additional information on the back similar to PC games listing the minimum specs. We could see something like minimum required Scorpio or Scorpio required to access all features. I know MS are adamant (at the moment) its a more powerful XB1 but lets be honest, VR isn't going to run on it so Scorpio is required for VR games and extras and 3rd Party games now are struggling to hit 900p. In a year or two, the XB1s limitations could make it very difficult to port games to and unless MS are planning on bringing out a 'next' gen system or not limiting the Scorpio in the same way the Pro is limited by the PS4, then they will 'struggle' to deliver the games. Its not just resolution differences but we could see the 'Perfect Dark' (N64) situation where certain parts of a game are not accessible on XB1. The Pro released 3yrs into a generation, wasn't significantly more powerful and the PS4 itself wasn't as under-powered as XB1 is. What I mean by this is that if the PS4 is designed to last say 5yrs with its specs, then the XB1 will struggle to match that. 3 years is 'close' to the half way point - Sony tend to release in Q4 so this would fit in with the time scale if you round up 2.5yrs and its only around 2x more powerful - with the same RAM, CPU etc - essentially its two PS4 GPU's combined with a slight upclock in speeds/memory bandwidth. The GPU is only 11% faster for example. The Scorpio looks to have 50% more RAM with a massive boost in bandwidth, a GPU over 4x as powerful and no way is the XB1 built to last 7/8yrs, delivering games at an 'acceptable' level - especially as more and more people upgrade to higher spec TV's.

I don't see the PS5 being a response to Scorpio as a primary factor in its release. By 2018, the PS4 will be 5yrs old and whilst the Pro may be a 'small' step up, its still limited to a PS4 in that games must also have ALL the same content, at least the same 'capped' frame rate in MP etc. If MS hadn't announced the Scorpio and its specs, I still think Sony would be looking at a replacement - maybe not in 2018 but by Q4 2019 at the very latest. Sony want to sell you 4k HDR TV's and as more and more people upgrade, the visual decline in games becomes more and more obvious. Yes first Party games like Horizon can run perfectly at 1080p on a PS4 but 3rd Party games are struggling to reach this level consistently. 900p for example has to scaled up 600% which shows up much clearer than on a 1080p TV - through on HDR too and that can highlight the difference even more. What I am saying is that these consoles were built for the HD generation and we are now moving into the 4k era. I do think the PS5 will be a 4k console and games will run at 4k, not 1080p or have 1080p versions. Maybe not every game will be 'native' 4k but they will all be over 1080p and downsample for 1080p TV owners. That doesn't mean I don't expect some 'settings' options like Horizon for example that may enable us to pick either resolution or performance so we get something that runs at native 4k but may not be 'stable' or pick performance which may use Dynamic Scaling, checkerboarding or drop the resolution to 1800p to lock the frame rate but I don't expect we will have a specific 1080p mode - that may well be 1440-1800p/60 or 4k/30 type situation. Like I said for 1080p TV owners, they will still be able to use the PS5 as it will downsample to their TV.

Anyway that's getting ahead. I can't see Sony releasing any major hardware for the next year - at most some custom bundles but no 'new' hardware.

So, my late-to-the-party take on console evolution long-term: despite Sony dominating pretty much everyone right now, I think both Microsoft and Nintendo are in a better place regarding their future goals. That's because both companies have something specific to them that they do extremely well. For Nintendo, it's portability, and for Microsoft, it's the ability to unify their Xbox brand with the PC gaming space. Not that I don't think Microsoft will continue making hardware, but I think they're going to be sort of like Steam machines: expensive devices specifically designed to have access to an entire ecosystem of software.

Other than making powerful home consoles that sell very well, what will Sony do to future-proof their brand? The graphical arms race will only be relevant for most people so long as it results in substantially improved visual quality, and we're already seeing diminishing returns this gen in that regard. Perhaps Sony's best bet really is just to cultivate such a compelling suite of developers for their platform that the quality of the games become the inventive to upgrade to the PS5 or PS6.

@Ralizah Spot on, I think the theory actually suits all 3 in a beautiful mind (the film) type way.

PS - Goes after No fuss console gamers (aka me) who want a variety of games
Xbox - Goes after the PC gamers
Nintendo - Goes after a younger audience

Microsofts core business practices will always hold it back, they want negligible outlay for maximum profit with rental / licensing type income structures. As long as Sony keep a varied catalogue of unique mature games they will always be in a league of their own. Microsoft want that core stable of 4/5/6 mega IPs similar to Microsoft office, fortunately the gaming sector is fickle and doesn't work like that.

@themcnoisy Mmm. Nintendo seems more focused on millennials this time. The appeal of the Switch is its versatility as a piece of hardware. If Nintendo continues its clear messaging and secures compelling games for the hardware, it could be a hit. Also, it could very well reveal a portion of the market that is interested in hybrid platforms. The device might not be as powerful as a PS4, but from a tech design standpoint its super impressive.

I think Sony realizes just how successful its combination of reasonable pricing structures, powerful hardware, strong third-party support, extensive Japanese support, and intelligent marketing decisions have been. I think it also realizes that its biggest strong point is the home console market, which is why it left the Vita to die.

MS isn't after the PC Gamers with its Console at all - if it anything, they have now made it less likely that PC gamers will look to the Xbox as an 'alternative' as every game will be on their PC and no doubt look and play better too. Some PC gamers may opt for the console because of cross-play and not having to buy a game twice but MS are essentially putting Xbox into Win10 PC's. The only difference is really the form factor.

Whilst they are putting their 'faith' in a few 'big' titles - mostly Halo, Gears and Forza, its not like they don't have a varied catalogue of exclusive games either. Halo Wars may be a Halo brand but its a RTS, Recore is a platformer, Sea of Thieves is an MMO, Crackdown is an open world action game, State of Decay is a Survival game, Forza Horizon is different to the more Sim based Motorsport, Killer Instinct is its fighter and Quantum Break was 'unique' in its format. Granted they are lacking the 'Japanese' take on all these and RPG's too - Especially as Scalebound appeared to offer that. They have also offered games like Dead Rising 3 and 4, Ryse, Zoo Tycoon, Screamride, etc as well as Indie games like Ori and the Blind Forest, Cuphead etc too.

MS have a vested interest in both the Console and the PC eco systems. I am sure that PC gamers were annoyed that MS seemed to be purely focused on developing games for consoles only - especially as they also make PC's and are the most common supplier of Operating Systems for PC too. What they appear to be doing is merging the two into one - linking the PC gaming space with their Console - not entirely. What they are hoping is that PC gamers will want to have the Xbox on PC, access to Xbox games, set up a Xbox style profile and play games on their servers as one big Xbox community - the Hardware is the only difference. Your Xbox Profile will go with you on PC or Console, your gamerscore too and you can play with Xbox friends regardless of whether they are on PC or Console. All this talk about 'exclusives' on PC and therefore no longer 'exclusives' is somewhat misleading. They are on PC but only if you basically set up an Xbox Profile on your Win10 PC (not Win 8 or earlier PC's) and have to buy through the Windows Store - like buying Digitally on console. If that doesn't appeal or you don't meet that criteria then you can't play the games on PC like you can with all other non-exclusive PC released games.

MS though does have the PC to fall back on, the business software market etc where as Sony at the moment are heavily reliant on the success of its gaming side. Its Movie side is struggling as are its home entertainment and mobile phone division. Korea Dominates the TV sector at the moment with Samsung selling more than double what LG in 2nd sell in a year and Sony are well below LG in sales. Fortunately they also have a big stable of developers to support their hardware and we all know Software is more important than Hardware. It doesn't matter if its the most powerful console if it doesn't have much support. There is other factors of course and Sony got a lot right this gen - some things wrong too of course.

There is no denying that Nintendo have created something 'unique' with the Switch. Its not surprising they managed to cram in that performance into a 'small' device as we have seen very powerful tablets and Mobiles on the market - not necessarily gaming devices though. For its day, the Vita was incredible tech for what it managed to achieve in such a small form factor so I really don't see why Nintendo should be praised for its Switch. In many ways its just an evolution of that and essentially just cramming the WiiU into the WiiU controller using 'mobile/tablet' hardware. Its impossible for Sony/MS to develop a 'hybrid' like Switch because of the sacrifices they would need to make - mostly in terms of power, delivering the incremental upgrade and ability to offer the latest 3rd Party games. Nintendo don't (appear to) care that games like Mass Effect Andromeda, Red Dead Redemption 2, CoD/BF or any of the other big new AAA games will not be on their platform and feel they can sacrifice those in order to bring something 'different' to the others. I bet if they wanted to bring a device to rival the Pro or Scorpio, or something capable of running these and future 3rd Party games, they wouldn't have been able to have portability. The way technology is evolving, I wouldn't be surprised if next year we could see a tablet PS4 and in a few years after that a tablet PS4 Pro - not saying a tablet PS4 will literally exist but the equivalent in terms of specs, GPU, RAM, CPU etc...The switch screen is quite ordinary and low res by many tablet standards too and there are many mobiles with more than 32GB of storage. It may be 'unique' in the console market but its hardly versatile or cutting edge. An iPad mini is more versatile - it plays music. video, connects to the internet, can be a GPS, connects to a TV, has video streaming (netflix/Amazon etc), plays games has thousands of Apps etc. Nintendo though tend to go for the younger, mostly casual or nostalgic and family gamers and the Switch fits this demographic.

MS made the mistake of trying to make the Xbox One the only Media Centre you need. It then sent out the wrong message to gamers and also didn't put enough 'under the hood' for gamers. Whether they make that mistake again or not, time will tell. Media functionality isa 'bonus' feature for many gamers but Gaming is their first and major priority. Getting a good catalogue of games that perform as expected is a priority - being able to watch Netflix or have your TV programmes on your console and it act like a DVR etc is 'secondary' at most and for many, not important at all...

For me the Pro hasn't quite had the impact I expected it to, although it's early days. To be clear I am not a fan of the Pro because it has the potential to damage what some people (including me) see as the strength of owning a console - that of the level playing field and that developers are forced to get creative to make the most out of the power of a console, especially later in its life. It is a little worrying though that, with the release of boost mode, Sony have already gone back on their promise of not giving the Pro an advantage in multiplayer games. Businesses are there to make money and, as such, I really don't trust them to honour any of the promises they made when they think theycan get away with it in the name of profit.

I talked in another thread about where I saw consoles going, iterative upgrades that blur the idea of generations so much that they will be meaningless. If the PS5 releases in three years time then it won't be any more of a step up to the Pro than the Pro was to the PS4 unless the cost is increased significantly (based on Moore's law). The only way a more significant leap could be made is of something like quantum computing became a reality and reached the mainstream. The fact is most people don't realise we are about a decade away from getting the most we ever will out of our microprocessing technology so, short of the aforementioned leap to something like quantum, there isn't too much more room for manoeuvre.

The Switch is, for my money at least, at the moment selling on hype alone, the game library on it is laughable even for a launch. While I will pick one up, probably in a couple of years as long as there is a decent collection of games, I don't think it is a great console with cool new ideas, it is a Wii U with a bit more portability (to be clear I like my Wii U). Once it has a larger library it will likely become my goto handheld console, but I'm not sure how well this one will do for Nintendo and my gut says it won't do all that well.

Oh, just fyi the graph on the first page uses a semi-logarithmic scale which is a standard when doing things like comparing increases in power as that graph does. Unless you work in or have done a science related subject to a high level though it is unlikely you'll come across the idea so I just thought I'd point it out (if you care it uses log base 10 for its steps). Always finish on a boring note

The Switch is really a tablet in terms of computing side and I'd agree but it so much more than that. Like all innovative products, it takes and established form factor and enhances it. The controllers and docking and unlocking are both super simple but effective. By the same token, the iPhone is just a smart phone but it actually took something and then made it simple and accessible and it moved smartphones to mainstream. Not saying Switch is the next iPhone, just that it is an innovative product. Of course, plenty of innovative products have failed if it doesn't connect with users. Time will tell on the switch.