Nubmer 1 thing I am looking for out of this is the return of handhelds and gaming phones. Give me a unified library and OS across mobile, tv, and VR next gen. I wouldn't mind more hardware variations in the TV and VR space while they're at it. A $399.99 base model is great, but, an option for a $999.99+ option for the Core Gamers & Audio/Video nerds would be highly appreciated. Still pisses me off that I can buy a $1,000+ MP3 or Blu-ray player, but I am limited to a $499.99 console. And before anyone says it, no, PC is not the answer. I, like millions of others prefer consoles, and plenty are willing to pay for a high end option.

TomaTito said: JEMC said: What?! And lose the oportunity to launch 4K remasters of current games to avoid game droughts? I doubt it That's the first thing that came to mind, this option would only benefit the consumer since remasters would not be needed. The publishers wont be able to get that extra income and filler material would disappear. PS: Thanks for the bump

Third parties will keep using those techniques because it makes their life easier, resulting in a benefit for us. But I'm not sure if First/Second party studios will do that. Given that they only have to care for two very similar machines, they'll probably do something more custom that won't work in future machines, allowing them to keep launching upgraded version of those games. But it's just my pessimistic opinion.

Also, you're welcome.

What the video says is that thanks to some of the techs used in current games, we may be able to run them in future PS/Xbox/Ninty machines at higher resolutions, more fps and better AA without having to buy new versions of those games or downloading patches.

Well, if Microsoft wants to push for better scalability: I won't stop them.
Just as long as the games are not capped on PC, it is a good thing.

This may be a double edged sword for their console business.

It pretty much is, long loading times and pixilated textures where the performance and graphics problems of their time 

Yeah, remember when I made those threads about scalability?

Unlocked fps and dynamic resolution should be features in all games so they can instantly take advantage of new hardware.

Try almost 4 decades since pretty much DOS came along in 1981.

PC was in another league entirely. Almost a generation or two ahead in some aspects.

Backwards compatibility, sure, but scalability? Not so much. I'd say PC games don't scale very well before 3D became common, which would be roughly two decades ago. I'm sure there are exceptions, as well as mods, but overall, scalability for old 2D games isn't that great.

I agree, scalability came with 3D engines. Shit became real with games like Unreal, Quake, Jedi Knight and Tomb Raider. ;)

Some older games like Wing Commander 1 + 2 had their problems with faster hardware... with no internal software brakes you needed additional apps to slow them down. Of course today DOSbox can fix that. Doom, Duke 3D, Dark Forces and System Shock had some limited scalability options (f.e. window size), but their full potential was unlocked with apps like Final Doom and eDuke32.

So two decades seem correct.

There is some scalability. You can apply some filters such as interpolation on 2D titles so it doesn't look as gangly on large and high resolution displays.

Eh. I still think scalability was a pretty small thing before 3D. I have to admit I haven't played a ton of 2D games from the pre-3D era, but I'm pretty sure none of the ones I've played have any scaling options (except for scaling the game view, à la Doom). With 3D, scalability is more of a rule than an exception, even though it might be somewhat restricted by today's standards (e.g. forced 4:3 aspect ratio and relatively low resolutions, although resolutions can often be edited more freely via config files).