Honestly, next to the ganes itself, price is basically the biggest factor for buying a console... An amped up version for 200 more is a bit too much so I'd still go for the original (after discount). I mean, you could basically get two standard consoles for the price of one Console + version..

Well, its called video games, we have to have video, the games are on both. The quality you get will surely differ, if the resolution and framerate are different. I'm not trying to say the 9th gen will just be a resolution bump, many things can change, but that is not in discussion. I wanted to know given the choice, would people choose better HW for a better experience. Thats all.

Its the title that is bugging you? I just wanted to differentiate, and this terminology has been used before. 

Constant 60 frames per second will make the next generation seem relevant.

Not every game truely needs 60 frames per second, and those that dont, can have that extra processing power go to something else.

Well, PC HW is lots more powerful, but if you crank it up to ultra high and to 1080p60, it will do 1080p60 with ultra high if you have a titan Y or a gtx 780 (given the fact that the gtx 780 can do it) meaning that even with more powerful HW the game can't pass beyond the ultra high setting. If console is built with a looser tie on price, company will not aim for 4K medium, they can aim for 4K ultra with bells and whistles. Also giving them a slack for the regular version to be less than the one version in the traditional one console business model we have today.

I agree, nothing needs 60 frames per second... but it's desireable and something that would create a clearer distinction in generations.  When a new console comes out, I want to be wowed or I won't want to buy it.  

sergiodaly said: 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.

Maybe you're right. Well, I'm all for it. I'd welcome a PS4+ with my arms wide open Obviously, this premium would have to be sold at a profit from day 1 to make any sense for the manufacturers, that goes without saying. To allow gamers to get the same games with higher resolution, better textures and better framerate - would be awesome. We had add-ons in the past, maybe a console+ would be the new thing?

Nothing else apart from performance and graphics can be different of course, this is supposed to be the same console, share the online enviroment, etc. Just like two different PCs running the same game or similar to N3DS giving a small boost in graphics to 3DS compatible games. Same game, different graphics. I like this idea, especially if they could allow us the 1080p/60fps for $449-499 in a year or so. I think many people would go for it. The increase in price shouldn't really be that big at this point. Stuff gets cheaper over time, you can get much better specs for the same price after two years and these consoles shouldn't be designed to chase the 4k pipedream, but fullfill what we were hoping to get this gen.

PS4 Slim and PS4+ would be an awesome idea.

PCs aren't consoles. The only reason PC get to have such a high framerate is because the games are made with the current console generation in mind. Years ago, when the strongest PCs in the world were only as strong as the PS4 and XBO, did the games look anywhere near as good as the PS4 and XBO games currently do? Of course they didn't. They looked like slightly better PS360 games, with a high resolution and framerate. If the consoles were stronger than PCs, PCs wouldn't be getting high framerate games. It doesn't matter how strong the consoles are. The majority of devs will always prioritize sheen over gameplay.

As long as there are compelling games on consoles, hardware will sell.

It's the most trusted and reliable platform for gaming and we sometimes forget that. This is why so many of the critics were baffled at the success of the 8th generation consoles.

Well, future specs are hard to predict, think today specs for a ps4+ with a 650 dollars budget and tell me if you think contemporary devs could do games so demanding that it would hard to not achieve 1080p60. With that budget, less energy and thermal constraints i think sony and amd could very well build a console hard enought not do 1080p60. Given the extra power, and the current development methods, if sony ask for the ps4+ to be mandatory to have 1080p 60fps, games would look better than the ps4 version, and I'm not just talking about the resolution and framerate. I believe it would get better lighting, texture, loading times, etc. Thats is the premise I'm trying to get through...