Same! I know modern hardware isn't quite as indestructible as is was when the PS2 launched, so it's nice to know that a PS4 game playing device won't be obsolete until 2029. If the last PS5s roll off the production line, in 2029 then it should be feasible to have a working unit in 2040 or even later. 

Not all that surprising, but nice to hear. The storage and loading times seem extremely impressive right now though. Waiting to hear how many TF 'XB2(s)' have?

Based on this new info I would expect that at PSX later this year we see a $249 PS4 SS and $349 Pro S. Maybe, just maybe, we also get an announcement for a PS Portable, maybe.

PS5 Nov 2020 for $399-$499. If Pro was still $349 by the time PS5 launches, it would make it easier for PS to price PS5 at $449 if they wish. If it lands at $499, I would have to imagine that only lasts a year and then drops to $399 holiday 2021. $499 with loads of acceptable quality games due to x86 will allow for the same launch numbers as PS3 worst case, but more than likely better with how the worldwide economy is at the moment.

Even with loading speeds faster than anything on the market now, I don't see that meaning an expensive storage solution overall. Expensive for the small amount that's part of the whole loading and storage solution maybe, but something like that I can't see being a substantial portion of the budget. Unless the GPU and/or RAM will suffer because of it, which is possible but I'd think they would rather balance things and use an HDD for mass storage, if it'll give them those speeds anyway with what's on board. Or do they launch at $399-$449 with 500GB on board and let customers make the add on choice of HDD/SSD/SSHD expansion bay/external mass storage? 

Stadia is more powerful than XBO X and PS4 Pro combined. That was confirmed by the specs shown at its reveal. I don't know where you heard that it's only XBO X-level, but that's false.

Stadia is also shooting for 4K 60fps at launch, with 8K 60fps as time progressed. I don't really like thrown out numbers like that anyway because it's just unsubstantiated flexing, but that's also something that was said explicitly at reveal. It has as much validity atm as anything confirmed so far for PS5.

I'm really just curious how streaming platforms will compare spec-wise to standalone consoles. The next 3 years will be buy far the most interesting in gaming since maybe the Wii/DS/XB Live era. So transformative with streaming, VR, and new hybrid platforms like Switch entering the mainstream. (pun intended) Considering rumors of PS5 being $500, I wonder if they'll consider selling a cheaper $400/$450 model that's digital only. Exciting times!

No. Just no. So much wrong here.

SSD as standard is a good thing, open world games have been limited by HDD for sometime now.

I agree in general, but at the moment, I can see two reasons why they might do this, if they are doing it.

First, there's a price point they want to hit for whatever reason, and there's certain hardware that's basically necessary across both models, so the GPU TF performance must suffer for the lower end model to hit that price.

Second, if MS feels XB1X owners may feel burned by a base next gen unit that matches or exceeds theirs, by making it weaker it takes the sting away. Now that still leaves everybody else wondering WTF, but as long as the price is right and it has a worthy audience, it doesn't matter all that much.

Remasters a gen apart are fine. One of my favorite releases this gen has been Halo:MCC. The jump to 1080p or even 4K with 60 fps is awesome, the definitive experience. The original games struggled to maintain 30 fps and much lower resolution.

Furthermore, a generation can be like 7 years. So sometimes there is still a big gap between a remaster. Maybe a decade, I mean we're just getting Halo Reach on X1.

This doesn't end any need or desire for remasters though. Because some games might be capped at 30 fps, locked at a low resolution (a bigger problem for native BC), or use low quality assets. A remaster can either swap out the visual assets entirely like Gears of War Ultimate, while some remasters might just improve frame rate, resolution and use higher quality assets that may have been exclusive to PC.

Sometimes a game on my backlog might just switch to the remaster. Which is great if the remaster is ultimately the superior experience and I can use my newer hardware.

I'll be excited about BC when PS3 backwards compatibility is announced.

PSNow is awful and a joke. I want real PS3 titles on my current gen console.

It's been a while since I've been this hyped for a PS console before it came out. Backward compatibility and the disc drive sealed the deal.

A 4TFLOP Navi GPU in the base "1080p" machine is a massive red flag imo. The problem with a base model less or equal than 1/3rd  the power of the PS5, is that native 4k is still not guaranteed to be standard next gen, just as PS3 was tauted a 1080p machine but rarely hit above 720p and 10+ years later a system magnitudes more power (X1) is still not hitting that 1080p target on a frequent basis. X1X in particular is setting false standards in this regards, with the Pro & X1X developers have nothing else to do but bump the resolution and tinker the FPS. They're not going to invest the time to exploit the hardware on an individual asset basis. When building games from the ground up for next gen machines however, they'll take a far more dynamic approach to how they utilise the GPU and I'm sure we'll see many games sacrifice Native 4k for far more impressive VFX, textures, lighting and overall aesthetics. Things which everyone will benefit from regardless of whether they have a 4k TV or not. And most gamers still do not have 4k tvs and even when they do upscaling techniques will offer a close to 4k picture without being as much of hardware drain.

So what happens when a game is built to run at 1440p on PS5 and has to be scaled down to a GPU 1/3rd its capacity. The entry level Xbox will be more a 720p-900p console than anything and even then I could see developers botching visuals even further. In the digital foundry age, I think that will MS lots of harm. Worse case scenario is that it actually dictates how developers approach development knowing that they've got such a weak GPU to cater for. Or going by how poor recent base Xbox One games perform I think they'll just stop optimizing for the Anaconda and call it a day once they've reached a passable framerate and resolution.