A number of weeks ago, rumors of an upgraded PS4 began cropping up all over the place offering significant performance boosts to the initial PS4 design along with 4K compatibility. Now, anonymous insiders are reporting that Microsoft is working on their own big console upgrade, dubbed "Scorpio" and "Xbox One-Two".

This supposed upgrade's target performance is nearly 4x that of the current Xbox One, with sources saying 6 TFLOPS compared to the current console's ~1.5 TFLOPS. The inside source also claims the upgraded Xbox, like the rumored PS4 Neo, will be backwards compatibility with current Xbox One games. The reports claim this upgrade isn't likely to show up until 2017, with a Slim model of the current console possibly being announced this E3.

Source

How will these mid-generation console upgrades effect console gaming in general? Will these mid-generation upgrades prove a poor idea, effectively dividing owners of current consoles? Will developers bother supporting the older consoles when a newer, more powerful option is out there? Who's to say. Personally, I'm not necessarily against these upgrades as long as the respective companies offer big trade in bonuses for the old hardware, and as long as game developers continue supporting the old consoles as well.

 

[Foxi4]

they're just doing that to make the NX end up looking bad again.

Are you implying that there's a chance that the NX could surpass the horsepower of the PS4/XBO as they are now? I find that debatable, it'd go against Nintendo's long-term hardware design philosphy. They don't use cutting edge tech, they've always used tried and true components with established reliability and a low price point, with a few very minor exceptions. It will be a relatively even match at best, especially if the focus on cross-platform support rumour is true.

 

[Clydefrosch]

Are you implying that there's a chance that the NX could surpass the horsepower of the PS4/XBO as they are now? I find that debatable, it'd go against Nintendo's long-term hardware design philosphy. They don't use cutting edge tech, they've always used tried and true components with established reliability and a low price point, with a few very minor exceptions. It will be an even match at best.

well, they did use competitive hardware for the gamecube and look where that got them.
then they used weaker hardwar that didn't support hd (in a time where about 5-10% of the people owned hd tvs) and woah, that worked super well for them.

i'm not saying they'll surpass ps4 or one, but from what little we know, they were aiming to at least get even.
the original ps4 and one hardware is tried and true and comparably cheap right now.

 

[sarkwalvein]

Are you implying that there's a chance that the NX could surpass the horsepower of the PS4/XBO as they are now?

Taking into account all know are rumours it could well be something as powerful as PS8k or even the Atari 2600.
But I bet it will be something slightly more powerful than the Wii U, perhaps up to the current PS4.

 

[Foxi4]

well, they did use competitive hardware for the gamecube and look where that got them.
then they used weaker hardwar that didn't support hd (in a time where about 5-10% of the people owned hd tvs) and woah, that worked super well for them.

i'm not saying they'll surpass ps4 or one, but from what little we know, they were aiming to at least get even.
the original ps4 and one hardware is tried and true and comparably cheap right now.

They used competitive hardware with no regard to the current trends (consoles as multimedia hubs, online play, HDD integration, DVD/CD support), and they did so too late for it to even matter, with the PS2 already doing all those things and owning most of the marketshare. The original Xbox was a newcomer to the industry, it did all the things the Gamecube did not and it sold better despite Nintendo's established position on the market. You can't just sell good hardware and hope for the best - it has to be functional. The Wii sold well because you could buy it for a bag of dirt compared to the PS3/360, keep that in mind.

Taking into account all know are rumours it could well be something as powerful as PS8k or even the Atari 2600.
But I bet it will be something slightly more powerful than the Wii U, perhaps up to the current PS4.

Nintendo equals gimmick. They will try to differentiate from the crowd, and that's costly. At the same time, they'll push for a low/acceptable/competitive price, so something's gotta give. I'm putting my money on "adequate" - good enough, but nothing to write home about, which is exactly where you want to be with a console.

 

[XDel]

And download great bargains from Steam. Specially during summer sale.
Oh, wait. That can be done with a PC.
(I think this post is calling for @Margen69 )

Tell me about it, and it is amazing how cheap some Steam games can be had via Ebay.

$1.00 for the entire Alien Breed Trilogy... OK!

 

[Taleweaver]

Well, the basic advantage of getting a console instead of a PC was simplicity for the user.
A good part of that simplicity was that you shouldn't care for specs and updating, you just buy the thing and all games would just run good.
Simple things for simple gamers that didn't want to scratch their head or go technical.
Now, if you have different versions of the consoles that kind of play the same games, but with different performance and perhaps not the same options, it gets complicated and getting a console becomes less and less interesting.

I guess it's never okay?

Microsoft: "we'll release a new console without backwards compatibility! "
Audience: "boooh!! I want to be able to play exactly the same games I can already play right now!"

(later)

Microsoft: "we'll release a new console with full backwards compatibility! "
Audience: "boooh!! It'll be different versions of the same console, thus lowering the reasons we buy consoles in the first place!"



*checks calendar* Christ...still 2.5 weeks until E3. It's that time of year again...



(still...I love how they throw that "xbox one-two" name around internally. It's probably the employees making fun of their own ridiculous naming scheme put up by some manager who can count even less than valve ).

 

[FaTaL_ErRoR]

Sometimes people are so stupid.
The xbox 1-2 refers to the second console coming as xbox one. AKA slim model xbox one.
The console coming to market with VR support is codenamed scorpio
Not xbox one two.
Xbox 360 has slim or xbox 360 2. Then came xbox 360 super slim or xbox 360 3. Then the xbox 360E or....You get how that works.
Honestly I am going to have to go with the Scorpio as being the elite console of the xbox one era. I would highly doubt they would supersede a fairly new console so early in its lifecycle. Same goes for sony psjunk. It is far too early to force consumers to purchase a newer console just to stay up to date. Ultimately it will kill the console market.

 

[KSP]

Oem still need to pay for those with motherboards which goes in the price. And the same goes for other hardware unless it's made in China and sold in unofficial routes. And that is not even laptop. Oem still need to pay processor company for using their chipset and supporting their cpu, still need to pay for those display ports, and those usb ports. And then it is sold to us. Sony and Microsoft just include many times more since it's the whole package.
The thing is, amd can offer new graphic at that price and the licensing is not getting much higher. Even desktop polaris r7 are faster than ps4 right now.

No reason to argue over this.

It's already proven that the PS4 Neo specs are not high enough to run 4K AAA games natively. You can do a search online, all detail analysis show that these mid-gen upgrades don't have 4K gaming power.
Gamespot, IGN, have all done analysis of the Neo specs, and the conclusion is, it cannot play 4K AAA games.

So what makes you think the XB1.5 will be any different?

We can keep arguing until we're blue in the face, but only time can tell.

I say that XB1.5 will NOT be a 4K AAA console. You say that it WILL.

So lets see whose right when the console hits the market.

I stick to my original verdict, these upgrades will have HEVC for 4K Bluray, will upscale 4K, but will only be able to do 1080p 60fps or all AAA games natively.

 

[Yil]

No reason to argue over this.

It's already proven that the PS4 Neo specs are not high enough to run 4K AAA games natively. You can do a search online, all detail analysis show that these mid-gen upgrades don't have 4K gaming power.
Gamespot, IGN, have all done analysis of the Neo specs, and the conclusion is, it cannot play 4K AAA games.

So what makes you think the XB1.5 will be any different?

We can keep arguing until we're blue in the face, but only time can tell.

I say that XB1.5 will NOT be a 4K AAA console. You say that it WILL.

So lets see whose right when the console hits the market.

I stick to my original verdict, these upgrades will have HEVC for 4K Bluray, will upscale 4K, but will only be able to do 1080p 60fps or all AAA games natively.

1080p 120hz, though only require half of 4k's pixel rate, takes nearly as much power. If ps4k want true vr then this might have to be.
If it's not 4k capable then I will get you a nx, and the other way around.

 

[KSP]

1080p 120hz, though only require half of 4k's pixel rate, takes nearly as much. If ps4k want true vr then this might have to be.
If it's not 4k capable then I will get you a nx, and the other way around.

There is nothing to argue over on the PS4 Neo, the specs are already out there and have already been analyzed by industry veterans, and the verdict is it cannot do 4K AAA games.

VR is different story, VR will not be AAA games, the graphics for VR will look like PS2 or PSX it will not look like The Witcher 3. PS4 VR will be 1080p stereo at 60fps not 120fps. The standards are already set for PS4 VR its 1080x2eyes at 60fps. And if you downscale graphics to simple PS2 and PSX level, than even my Iphone can do 1080p 120fps.

We're not talking abouy 4K with Pong graphics here, I'm talking about AAA games running native at 4K. Which means The Witcher 3 at 4K, Batman Arkham Knight at 4K, The Division at 4K.

If downgrade the graphics for any game, then any game can run at 4K. But for a system to do 4K AAA titles, it needs raw horsepower that neither PS4 Neo or XB1-2 can handle.

 

[Yil]

There is nothing to argue over on the PS4 Neo, the specs are already out there and have already been analyzed by industry veterans, and the verdict is it cannot do 4K AAA games.

VR is different story, VR will not be AAA games, the graphics for VR will look like PS2 or PSX it will not look like The Witcher 3. PS4 VR will be 1080p stereo at 60fps not 120fps. The standards are already set for PS4 VR its 1080x2eyes at 60fps. And if you downscale graphics to simple PS2 and PSX level, than even my Iphone can do 1080p 120fps.

We're not talking abouy 4K with Pong graphics here, I'm talking about AAA games running native at 4K. Which means The Witcher 3 at 4K, Batman Arkham Knight at 4K, The Division at 4K.

If downgrade the graphics for any game, then any game can run at 4K. But for a system to do 4K AAA titles, it needs raw horsepower that neither PS4 Neo or XB1-2 can handle.

Well that will all be clear this June or September. And current psvr seems better than ps2 graphic and, yes, even intel can handle 2d/ less intense game at 4k/ 60. The thing is pc advanced really fast these days.

 

[Foxi4]

I hate when people say that a certain system "doesn't have the capability" to do "X" in AAA games. AAA is a term used in reference to scale, not graphics or realism. Mario games have notoriously simplistic and *beautiful* graphics, they're as much AAA as The Witcher 3 or The Division, just different.

The console will do whatever the hell you program it to do. If the PS4 Neo has the capability to render 4K, you can make a 4K game for it if you want to. The question isn't whether the systems can or can't pull off a completely imaginary piece of software, you can program and optimize a piece of software to run at whatever resolution the GPU supports and whatever frame rate you want by sacrificing complexity, the polycount or the texture size, the question is whether you *need to*.

The 4K switch is not the same as the switch to HD - nobody owns 4K TV's, the technology is cost-prohibitive and the quality improvement is minute that unless you're sitting so close to the screen that your nose is smushed against it, you're wasting resources on something inconsequential that doesn't make the game any better. We're not "there" yet, and frankly, we don't have to be.

 

[KSP]

Well that will all be clear this June or September. And current psvr seems better than ps2 graphic and, yes, even intel can handle 2d/ less intense game at 4k/ 60. The thing is pc advanced really fast these days.

Read the Gamespot analysis of PS4 Neo.

The experts at Gamespot already said that PS4 Neo CANNOT do 4K AAA games. You're not arguing with me here. I didn't make that analysis. These are guys who play games for a living telling you that from the PS4 Neo specs released, it CANNOT do 4K AAA.

You have a very naive belief of what it takes to do 4K AAA games. Of all my friends who own PCs I only know 1 person who has a rig that can do The Witcher 3 at 4K with all the bells and whistles. I don't care how much PC's have advanced, 4K is costly.

 

[Foxi4]

Read the Gamespot analysis of PS4 Neo.

The experts at Gamespot already said that PS4 Neo CANNOT do 4K AAA games. You're not arguing with me here. I didn't make that analysis. These are guys who play games for a living telling you that from the PS4 Neo specs released, it CANNOT do 4K AAA.

You have a very naive belief of what it takes to do 4K AAA games. Of all my friends who own PCs I only know 1 person who has a rig that can do The Witcher 3 at 4K with all the bells and whistles. I don't care how much PC's have advanced, 4K is costly.

That's the caveat you're omitting, 4K in games like The Witcher 3 is costly. Not in games in general. That's the point. Not that it matters anyway since 4K is a gimmick at this point in time and won't be widely adopted for years to come. I also wouldn't trust a Gamespot analysis of a console that doesn't exist yet.

 

[KSP]

I hate when people say that a certain system "doesn't have the capability" to do "X" in AAA games. AAA is a term used in reference to scale, not graphics or realism. Mario games have notoriously simplistic and *beautiful* graphics, they're as much AAA as The Witcher 3 or The Division, just different.

The console will do whatever the hell you program it to do. If the PS4 Neo has the capability to render 4K, you can make a 4K game for it if you want to. The question isn't whether the systems can or can't pull off a completely imaginary piece of software, you can program and optimize a piece of software to run at whatever resolution the GPU supports and whatever frame rate you want by sacrificing complexity, the polycount or the texture size, the question is whether you *need to*.

The 4K switch is not the same as the switch to HD - nobody owns 4K TV's, the technology is cost-prohibitive and the quality improvement is minute that unless you're sitting so close to the screen that your nose is smushed against it, you're wasting resources on something inconsequential that doesn't make the game any better. We're not "there" yet, and frankly, we don't have to be.

I have a 4K TV and yes you can tell the differene right away without pushing your nose to anything. 4K looks mirrorlike when showing large vista views of cities and such. So I get the whole 4K craze, but the gaming wise, its very intensive stuff.

I'm not arguing whats considered AAA or what isn't. I love cute fuzzy animal games just like anyone else.

But as is, the PS4 Neo would not be able to run The Witcher 3 at 4K. Which seems to be the highest graphical standard nowadays for AAA games. I'm sure it can do Mario, Donkey Kong and Pac Man in 4K just fine, though.

 

[Yil]

Read the Gamespot analysis of PS4 Neo.

The experts at Gamespot already said that PS4 Neo CANNOT do 4K AAA games. You're not arguing with me here. I didn't make that analysis. These are guys who play games for a living telling you that from the PS4 Neo specs released, it CANNOT do 4K AAA.

You have a very naive belief of what it takes to do 4K AAA games. Of all my friends who own PCs I only know 1 person who has a rig that can do The Witcher 3 at 4K with all the bells and whistles. I don't care how much PC's have advanced, 4K is costly.

Both 1070 and 480x are expected to have equal performance as 980 ti, at around 300 bucks, and you at most need an i5/ 6 core zen to utilize it (which makes it around 200 bucks, which if you compared ps4 or xbox one and pc three years ago, it is not much of a difference). The number of ports will likely remain the same, which means similar licensing fee.
There are also reports that AMD want to end production of the entire 32/ 28 nm line and move to zen and polaris, and pretty much force ps4k to happen while ps4 will cease production. Or ps4k are getting an r7 and slightly cheaper.
Gamespot also said about newer gen much faster. And that is an analysis, not the actual product.
And do not forget 4k downscaling which make 1080p look pretty good.
Further having non-texture setting increased to max (better shading, anti-aliasing and greater draw distance) does not means much more work to developers which a major part comes in texture and modeling (and lots of testing but that would not be as much considering the problem is mostly on stability) and still improve the graphic a lot. Beside they did better texture on pc anyway.

 

[Foxi4]

I have a 4K Tb and yes you can tell the differene right away without pushing your nose to anything. 4K looks mirrorlike when showing large vista views of citis and such. So I get the whole 4K craze, but the gaming wise, its very intensive stuff.

Bollocks. The smaller the pixel the harder it is to notice individual squares, logically the higher pixel density the better, but your vision isn't pixel-perfect. You're not accounting for the distance from the screen or the physical size of the pixel. Here's an example:

A 42" TV screen with a 16:9 aspect ratio, the contemporary standard, is around 52cm tall and 93cm wide. That's a pretty big telly, so the pixels will also be comparatively big. At 1080p resolution, it's 1920 pixels wide and 1080 pixels tall. Let's calculate the physical size of the pixel, shall we?

Height:
52cm/1080 pixels = 520mm/1080 pixels = 0,48mm per pixel

Width:
93cm/1920 pixels = 930mm/1920 pixels = 0,48mm per pixel

The optimal distance from a TV this size, due to how the viewing angle of our eyesight works, is around 5,9 feet. This should allow you to see the TV in its entirety, with some "free space" around it to allow your head some wiggle room without losing sight of the screen.

Now, what you're telling me is that you can see a pixel smaller than half a milimeter squared from the distance of nearly 6 feet. No way. Maybe if it's a contrasting colour against an opaque background, definitely not when it blends in and depicts motion, I'm just not buying it. The only thing that's crisp here is the sales pitch you bought when someone sold you a "cutting edge" telly for more than it's worth. Thanks, I'll go 4K when they cost $200.

 

[KSP]

Both 1070 and 480x are expected to have equal performance as 980 ti, at around 300 bucks, and you at most need an i5/ 6 core zen to utilize it (which makes it around 200 bucks, which if you compared ps4 or xbox one and pc three years ago, it is not much of a difference). The number of ports will likely remain the same, which means similar licensing fee.
There are also reports that AMD want to end production of the entire 32/ 28 nm line and move to zen and polaris, and pretty much force ps4k to happen while ps4 will cease production. Or ps4k are getting an r7 and slightly cheaper.
Gamespot also said about newer gen much faster. And that is an analysis, not the actual product.
And do not forget 4k downscaling which make 1080p look pretty good.
Further having non-texture setting increased to max (better shading, anti-aliasing and greater draw distance) does not means much more work to developers which a major part comes in texture and modeling (and lots of testing but that would not be as much considering the problem is mostly on stability) and still improve the graphic a lot. Beside they did better texture on pc anyway.

Lets wait and see when they come out whose right.

Everything we're saying now is conjecture. And I'm not one for conjecture. I'd rather wait and see when the product is real. We'll know then if they can do 4K native.

Also most 4K TVs have upscalers built in, so right now when I play Witcher 3 on PS4 its looking pretty good. But its still not 4K good.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Bollocks. The smaller the pixel the harder it is to notice individual squares, logically the higher pixel density the better, but your vision isn't pixel-perfect. You're not accounting for the distance from the screen or the physical size of the pixel. Here's an example:

A 42" TV screen with a 16:9 aspect ratio, the contemporary standard, is around 52cm tall and 93cm wide. That's a pretty big telly, so the pixels will also be comparatively big. At 1080p resolution, it's 1920 pixels wide and 1080 pixels tall. Let's calculate the physical size of the pixel, shall we?

Height:
52cm/1080 pixels = 520mm/1080 pixels = 0,48mm per pixel

Width:
93cm/1920 pixels = 930mm/1920 pixels = 0,48mm per pixel

Now, the optimal distance from a TV this size, due to how the viewing angle of our eyesight works, is around 5,9 feet.

Now, what you're telling me is that you can see a pixel smaller than half a milimeter squared from the distance of nearly 6 feet. No way. Not unless it's a contrasting colour, I'm just not buying it. The only thing that's crisp here is the sales pitch you bought when someone sold you a "cutting edge" telly for more than it's worth. Thanks, I'll go 4K when they cost $200.

Thats all conjecture. I judge with my eyes.

I have a 49" 4K TV and I can tell the difference from 4K and 1080p like night and day.

Again, conjecture amd reality are two different things. I used to beleive in all that conjecture about 4K being a waste, etc, etc. But then I went out a bought an 4K TV and started to watch some 4K content and realized that it looks much better. You don't even need to try to look for the difference, 4K is just clearer. Its like looking through a window at a real life location.

Don't believe me, buy a 4K TV and start to watch some 4K documentaries, and you'll see the difference.

 

[FaTaL_ErRoR]

Bollocks. The smaller the pixel the harder it is to notice individual squares, logically the higher pixel density the better, but your vision isn't pixel-perfect. You're not accounting for the distance from the screen or the physical size of the pixel. Here's an example:

A 42" TV screen with a 16:9 aspect ratio, the contemporary standard, is around 52cm tall and 93cm wide. That's a pretty big telly, so the pixels will also be comparatively big. At 1080p resolution, it's 1920 pixels wide and 1080 pixels tall. Let's calculate the physical size of the pixel, shall we?

Height:
52cm/1080 pixels = 520mm/1080 pixels = 0,48mm per pixel

Width:
93cm/1920 pixels = 930mm/1920 pixels = 0,48mm per pixel

The optimal distance from a TV this size, due to how the viewing angle of our eyesight works, is around 5,9 feet. This should allow you to see the TV in its entirety, with some "free space" around it to allow your head some wiggle room without losing sight of the screen.

Now, what you're telling me is that you can see a pixel smaller than half a milimeter squared from the distance of nearly 6 feet. No way. Maybe if it's a contrasting colour against an opaque background, definitely not when it blends in and depicts motion, I'm just not buying it. The only thing that's crisp here is the sales pitch you bought when someone sold you a "cutting edge" telly for more than it's worth. Thanks, I'll go 4K when they cost $200.

That is how it's done

Lets wait and see when they come out whose right.

Everything we're saying now is conjecture. And I'm not one for conjecture. I'd rather wait and see when the product is real. We'll know then if they can do 4K native.

Also most 4K TVs have upscalers built in, so right now when I play Witcher 3 on PS4 its looking pretty good. But its still not 4K good.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


Thats all conjecture. I judge with my eyes.

I have a 49" 4K TV and I can tell the difference from 4K and 1080p like night and day.

Again, conjecture amd reality are two different things. I used to beleive in all that conjecture about 4K being a waste, etc, etc. But then I went out a bought an 4K TV and started to watch some 4K content and realized that it looks much better. You don't even need to try to look for the difference, 4K is just clearer. Its like looking through a window at a real life location.

Don't believe me, buy a 4K TV and start to watch some 4K documentaries, and you'll see the difference.

you just answered yourself. "My tv has built in upscaling" meaning color fill. Also, it's new has better frame refresh than your prior tv likely. So it appears to look better to you than before. Because it is newer with better hardware.

 

[Foxi4]

Conjecture? I've just mathematically proven that you're affected by cognitive dissonance, it's the gambler's fallacy in motion. You have to like it because you're invested - I'm not. I can't spot individual pixels on my TV unless I'm 2 feet away from it, let alone 6. Your brain is tricking you into thinking that there's a huge difference in clarity when there isn't, provided you're using the screen correctly. 4K makes sense for future VR where the screen is directly infrontvof your eyeballs, not so much with televisions because you view tgem from a distance. The cost versus return analysis of 4K is not favourable right now, I will take steady 60FPS over 4K *anyday*.