Forums - Sony Discussion - What do yo think will be the hardware specifications of PS5 if it arrives arround 2019-2020?

Lawlight said:

PS4 couldn’t have it because of the architecture change but the PS5 is expected to have BC.

Uh... What?

Are you suggesting that there was no architecture change between the original Xbox and Xbox 360? Or there was no change between the Original Xbox and Xbox 360 to the Xbox One? Because you would be extremely incorrect.

Lawlight said:

I don’t think It has anything to do with MS’s success (wasn’t it found that BC was barely used by XboxOne owners?).

Doesn't matter. Microsoft and Sony are competitors. Microsoft is using backwards compatibility to leverage themselves above Sony's offerings... And to an extent that has worked for Microsoft.
It also means that Microsoft is still able to sell old stuff, which collectors love.

I mean, so many Steam users have hundreds of games with like 37% of their library unplayed, Valve still makes a ton of money.
https://www.usgamer.net/articles/37-of-steam-games-go-unplayed-valve-titles-remain-most-popular

Errorist76 said:

What are you even talking about? It’s a difference if they offer a 4K upgrade of a console, or a slim version with a minor upclock for the same money, like MS have done with X1S.

There is no difference.
Seems you are picking and choosing minor aspects when on the whole they are the same to assert your position.

Microsoft had to bring in the upclocks so that they could implement HDR, games running better was just a side effect.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Around the Network
Pemalite said:


Errorist76 said:

What are you even talking about? It’s a difference if they offer a 4K upgrade of a console, or a slim version with a minor upclock for the same money, like MS have done with X1S.

There is no difference.
Seems you are picking and choosing minor aspects when on the whole they are the same to assert your position.

Microsoft had to bring in the upclocks so that they could implement HDR, games running better was just a side effect.

Of course that was the reason...not that they wanted their early customers to feel the need to upgrade. Whatever suits your own agenda I guess.

I'm not picking minor differences...I'm mentioning a huge, fundamental difference. Especially since the Pro is an additional offer, not a replacement.

Last edited by Errorist76 - on 26 February 2018

Errorist76 said:
Pemalite said:


There is no difference.
Seems you are picking and choosing minor aspects when on the whole they are the same to assert your position.

Microsoft had to bring in the upclocks so that they could implement HDR, games running better was just a side effect.

Of course that was the reason...not that they wanted their early customers to feel the need to upgrade. Whatever suits your own agenda I guess.

I'm not picking minor differences...I'm mentioning a huge, fundamental difference. Especially since the Pro is an additional offer, not a replacement.

Both consoles (Xbox One S and Playstation 4 Pro) released after the Xbox One and Playstation 4.
Both consoles have increased power over their predecessors.
Both consoles as you put it "alienated" the prior user-bases.

If you cannot see and treat them as the same, then I am sorry. I disagree with whatever position you have.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Pemalite said:
Errorist76 said:

Of course that was the reason...not that they wanted their early customers to feel the need to upgrade. Whatever suits your own agenda I guess.

I'm not picking minor differences...I'm mentioning a huge, fundamental difference. Especially since the Pro is an additional offer, not a replacement.

Both consoles (Xbox One S and Playstation 4 Pro) released after the Xbox One and Playstation 4.
Both consoles have increased power over their predecessors.
Both consoles as you put it "alienated" the prior user-bases.

If you cannot see and treat them as the same, then I am sorry. I disagree with whatever position you have.

Simple: If Sony would have stopped producing the PS4 after releasing the PS4 Pro you'd have a point. Disagree all you want then.

It's ridiculous to assume Sony would release an upgraded 5TF PS4 Pro Slim, which was the whole point of discussion. Has Sony EVER done something like that?



Pemalite said:

Doesn't matter. Microsoft and Sony are competitors. Microsoft is using backwards compatibility to leverage themselves above Sony's offerings... And to an extent that has worked for Microsoft.
It also means that Microsoft is still able to sell old stuff, which collectors love.

I mean, so many Steam users have hundreds of games with like 37% of their library unplayed, Valve still makes a ton of money.
https://www.usgamer.net/articles/37-of-steam-games-go-unplayed-valve-titles-remain-most-popular

Depends, Sony could just opt in to remaster/remake games instead and it would have nearly the same effect but if customers really cared about BC they wouldn't buying PS4/Switch's in droves over an X1 since those systems don't offer BC with any of their predecessors ... 

It's the content we care about, not the functionality. Most of us don't care about BC itself, it's just a means to the access content we want and it's not the only one either ... 



Around the Network

Pemalite said: 

EricHiggin said:

PS4 having 8GB of RAM makes sense if you take into account that 8GB is the max you get with AMD consumer grade graphics cards today/mid gen.

Maybe the PS4 could start using all that 8GB of Ram for graphics then. Oh wait...

I was using that 8GB to explain why 32-64GB might be a little on the high side potentially based on this gen, so since only 5-6GB is available to games, this just strengthen's that point. How many games specifically require all 8GB? Would more RAM and a $500 launch price have been a better idea for PS4, because 75 million PS4 owners and many more console owners in general don't seem to mind.



EricHiggin said:

Pemalite said: 

Maybe the PS4 could start using all that 8GB of Ram for graphics then. Oh wait...

I was using that 8GB to explain why 32-64GB might be a little on the high side potentially based on this gen, so since only 5-6GB is available to games, this just strengthen's that point. How many games specifically require all 8GB? Would more RAM and a $500 launch price have been a better idea for PS4, because 75 million PS4 owners and many more console owners in general don't seem to mind.

Well. Sony was going for a 4 GB cheaper machine but then the surveys showed that developers asked for more, so they finaly went with 8 and I guess it was a very good choise.



Errorist76 said:
Pemalite said:

Both consoles (Xbox One S and Playstation 4 Pro) released after the Xbox One and Playstation 4.
Both consoles have increased power over their predecessors.
Both consoles as you put it "alienated" the prior user-bases.

If you cannot see and treat them as the same, then I am sorry. I disagree with whatever position you have.

Simple: If Sony would have stopped producing the PS4 after releasing the PS4 Pro you'd have a point. Disagree all you want then.

It's ridiculous to assume Sony would release an upgraded 5TF PS4 Pro Slim, which was the whole point of discussion. Has Sony EVER done something like that?

The point on releasing a slim is that is cheaper for Sony to do so, besides the new design and smaller size. If they can replace the APU for a new and chea per one mantaining all the performance and compatibility, then you can see a 5 teraflop machine that replace the old one. But I guess it would still be named ps4 pro slim, no matter that the apu is new. And it would only make sense if that choise is better than producing just a smaller old ps4 pro apu.



Pemalite said:
Lawlight said:

PS4 couldn’t have it because of the architecture change but the PS5 is expected to have BC.

Uh... What?

Are you suggesting that there was no architecture change between the original Xbox and Xbox 360? Or there was no change between the Original Xbox and Xbox 360 to the Xbox One? Because you would be extremely incorrect.

Of course it changed, but the change is minimal compared to PS3 vs PS4. 

It's no surprise that it took so long for the PS3 to be even emulated on PC, and many thought it never would do to the system's complexity. 

I tend to agree with those who say that remasters are better in this case since most of the multiplats from the PS3 era were better on 360 or PC anyway, and the meat of the quality exclusive library has already been ported to the much better PS4 (with the exception of MGS4).

I just hope what they did with the PS2 & PS3 "BC" doesn't become a trend because it won't work again next gen since most of the player base has a PS4. Last gen it was split between the 360, so tons of players scooped up remasters catching up on an exclusive they missed. I hope they're smart enough not to bank on this next gen.

And I'm still waiting for PS One classics to hit the PS4. I guess they want us to keep our PS3s and Vitas around for something...



CrazyGPU said:
EricHiggin said:

I was using that 8GB to explain why 32-64GB might be a little on the high side potentially based on this gen, so since only 5-6GB is available to games, this just strengthen's that point. How many games specifically require all 8GB? Would more RAM and a $500 launch price have been a better idea for PS4, because 75 million PS4 owners and many more console owners in general don't seem to mind.

Well. Sony was going for a 4 GB cheaper machine but then the surveys showed that developers asked for more, so they finaly went with 8 and I guess it was a very good choise.

Sony was nevr goong for a "cheaper machine". They were going foe anothr split memory system. 4GB of DDR3 and 4GB of GDDR5 cause at the time that was rhe most GDDR5 ram you could get. Its also why MS never even bothwred with GDDR5 cause MS were never goong to go with a split ram structure becaue of its obvious limitations and complexities. So MS focused on their workaround whicc meant them having a very custom APU.....

Then 4Gb GDDR5 chipa became available.