Last gen was the jump to HD, this gen was the jump to 1080p. Last gen, we had expensive HW with some what eccentric architectures and that result in 30fps HD games. (Nintendo did its own thing but that is irrelevant for the point i want to make)

This gen we did get cheaper HW, with a more familiar architecture (Again Nintendo against the tide, again, irrelevant but at the end the question could also apply to Nintendo) resulting in 1080p and sometimes 60fps but so far we can only get one or the other.

Many did get disappointed with the new gen, more powerful but not that much, i guess you get what you paid for.

With all the recent talk about nintendo nx and fusion. Still we get lots of talks about 900p, 720p, 30fps, and what not, pointing fingers at this new generation. 

It get me thinking, if the maker of consoles you prefer, for the 9th gen, did two versions of the console, lets call it PS5 and PS5+, Xbox Two and Xbox Two Plus, Nintendo NX and NX+. What are you talking about? You may ask. I'm saying same architecture, but different levels of power, more RAM, more and faster storage, you name it. Devs would do games for the more powerful, and pull the knobs down for the regular one. It would be mandatory to do the game for both. (same architecture in every way, could be done in a week)

The difference? well after 1080p, we have now 4K tvs, and a well done 4K capable console to run games at 60fps will, for sure, be a beast. That is the + version in this narrative, which obviously will cost more than the regular. The regular would run the games at 2K some at 30fps others at 60fps, depending on the game and devs. 

Just as example, i will give a price to fit this scenario.

Regular 450 dollars/euro

Plus edition 700 dollars/euro

Coming in 2018 so money will not have the same value, but you get the idea.

Which one would you buy? The 9th generation one, that like the previous one, get things done, but price keeps it from being great, or the 9.5th out of the gate generation that you sacrifice price in the name of this hobby you love?

PS: Nintendo gamers might not see themselfs in this situation, but the question is applicable, lets say nintendo will come with a more familiar architecture and the chance of working with powerful HW attracts 3rd party and Nintendo can still do its own games and be price conscious with the regular version. 

That would be awesome for consumers, but probably bad for the manufacturers. People would have a choice, but then again when buying the cheaper version would feel that they are buying something worse, the inferior product. That would probably cause many people to wait with their purchase till a significant price cut to get the better version. I know that's what I'd do

Still, it would be a great idea to have the same game (from the very same disc) running on two different versions of the hardware with different performance, yet sharing multiplayer, etc. This would be a great way to extend the time of a generation. In fact, Sony and MS could do that even this gen. Instead of releasing a simple Slim, make a Slim and a PS4+/Xbone+. I would be all for it, if it finally gave us 1080p/60fps.

Still, I think from the business perspective it's best not to confuse the consumer and keep only one version of hardware. Sadly.

Both prices are too expensive for me...

It really depends on the games (as usual) so if good games come out, I'll just wait till a price cut or sale before I'd get one (which probably would be the standard, in your scenario)

So the answer is probably yes to 9, but not right away.

I would buy one right now for double the price of a PS4.

I will always go for the premium because it's an investment for many years. Buying premium only hurts my bank account for a few months. Buying cheap will hurt my gaming for years.

Clearly PC developers make their games run at 6 "speeds" or more, and there isn't even unified hardware, with competing CPU and GPU manufacturers. And of course we get a whole heap of cross gen titles for the first 2 or even more, years of a new gen. This means all studios have, do and can make 2 or more speed games. Therefore making, for instance, a consoles game that runs on an AMD A8 APU and runs much better on a supercharged A10 APU with the would be a piece of piss. So, I think it would be feasible from a software support perspective. But I wonder if it would be viable from a hardware development perspective. If the supercharged sku onl;y added a few% to the hardware development costs then it could be viable. Especially if the supercharged sku is sold at a profit from the start and only the base sku is sold at break even or slightly below cost. But if the cost of hardware development is significantly increased it may not be viable.

I would personally buy the base model, because I don't care that much about resolution and framerate so long as it's stable.

But I wonder also if streaming comes into play. Perhaps you release a console that is streaming only (basically a PS4 with the Blu-ray drive removed) it will stream all games at variable resolutions and fps depending on the owners internet speed and data allowances, up to 1080p 60fps. the streaming service includes all new release games, perhaps 1 month after the retail release. The streaming only console is $199 and sold at a profit from day 1. You also release a console that is fully functional and plays downloaded or disc-based games at 4K 60fps. The hardware is strong enough that it can be mandated for all titles. If you want to make big open world games with lots of effects, then you have to sacrifice other parameters to meet the resolution and fps minimums. There's basically no development cost for the streaming only device, because it's actually a PS4. It's also the entry level device, which is so cheap it will sell well and at a profit. The the supercharged sku can also be sold at a premium price and at a profit, and it doesn't matter if its sales are slow.

I'd go for the premium as well. But in fact... The longer I think of it, the better this whole idea looks to me. I mean, let's say in a year, when the PS4 price hits $299, they could release a PS4+ with a better CPU and GPU for $599, so that it could compete with the newer PCs and give us an improved experience. Kinda similar to that whole Fusion ideas that are swirling around the web. I'd like it and would surely get the premium PS4

console gens need to be more than resolutions.

Well those where prices i thought about thinking in 2018, but they are just examples to show the difference. Surely the price could be 300, 500 or something like that. What matters is to understand if a premium HW would have its space if games are out of the question. I mean the availability of the games is out of the question, the quality of that same game will differ in visuals, sounds, quality of the controller could also be a factor for the low price of the regular version. Damn, forgot to throw that to stir things up.

Scisca said: That would be awesome for consumers, but probably bad for the manufacturers. People would have a choice, but then again when buying the cheaper version would feel that they are buying something worse, the inferior product. That would probably cause many people to wait with their purchase till a significant price cut to get the better version. I know that's what I'd do Still, it would be a great idea to have the same game (from the very same disc) running on two different versions of the hardware with different performance, yet sharing multiplayer, etc. This would be a great way to extend the time of a generation. In fact, Sony and MS could do that even this gen. Instead of releasing a simple Slim, make a Slim and a PS4+/Xbone+. I would be all for it, if it finally gave us 1080p/60fps. Still, I think from the business perspective it's best not to confuse the consumer and keep only one version of hardware. Sadly.

Do you think it will confuse? They could be the same but one bigger than the other, like iphone 6 and 6+ to make things more understandable with visual aid, and better thermal design. 

1080p 60fps will never be the standard. With the next gen, devs will try to do 4K with high intensive, and the games will still run like shit. The tech is fine. The devs are the problem. Get ready for 4K 30fps.

They're not prioritizing. 1080p 60fps is easily possible on the PS4/XBO, but the graphics won't look as good, and the devs don't have enough faith in their art designers to offset that.