You same as what i was thinking, just a different design that came out occasionally. Nothing remotely like this bs which is basically making the point of a console redundant if you can buy an upgraded version 2 years after buying the original.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
RDNA 3 rumours Q3/4 2022
- Thread starter Grim5
- Start date
- Status
You same as what i was thinking, just a different design that came out occasionally. Nothing remotely like this bs which is basically making the point of a console redundant if you can buy an upgraded version 2 years after buying the original.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2014
- Posts
- 5,109
You could argue the Mega CD etc were supposed to act as upgrades. Even the N64 Expansion Pak was in a way. Just a different approach.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 3,219
The games will still run and be made with the worse part in mind - base consoles. CPUs remain the same, so in general the gameplay remains the same. Some devs may be enticed to invest more in graphical fidelity which could "spill" into PC gaming as well.
Even if you stick to rasterization, but want to push graphics further, you'll have a 3090ti/6950, or whatever is the best now, doing 30fps@1080p - or less.
Right now only a handful of lights are casting shadows in games and that for a limited area/distance. Speaking of Non RT shadows, when you start to use advanced techniques for them it will also tank the FPS.
Add on top all sorts of volumetric effects, clouds, RTT and the frame rate will tank hard...
However, since RT/PT is the new big thing and you need waaaaaay more power than 1-10-100 next gen cards can offer, I'd say they're pretty safe when it comes to offering more performance.
I was one of those that got a 32x addon - what a beaut! [not my pic] , but then the Sega Saturn came out soon after - I was a very confused child..
Sega brought those out to try and extend the life of the console, the cd and 32x were addons that failed miserably.
The n64 ram pack I think only a few games made use of it, and the games that did could be played without it. I think it just let slightly higher res texture be used or something along those lines.
The super fx chip was an upgrade though built into the game cartridge.
Basically any addon has been a failure, Nintendo were developing the super cd and we all know what happened there, they worked with Sony, dumped them, and Sony took their lessons working with Nintendo and made the PlayStation and ruled the console market for over a decade.
But in general, I think these upgrades are stupid, the entire point of a console is..or was you buy it and that’s that until the next generation. Now they’re muddying the waters with these half baked upgrades, and that just means the next true generation has to be even more powerful to make the upgraded versions specs look dated on paper.
Consoles bore me anyway, they used to be interesting back in the day but now they’re basically SFF pc’s with nothing interesting or quirky about the hardware like the cell cpu was. Remember before the ps2 came out all this talk that it was a supercomputer? Remember the hype for n64 being a kind of silicon graphics setup? Don’t get that anymore, it’s just essentially pc hardware and nothing interesting anymore.
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2020
- Posts
- 1,614
Have you got a 3080? Point is you can’t achieve >144fps at 4k on a console BUT you can on a PC.
That still doesn't justify cheesy upgraded versions appearing 3 or so years after the initial console release. A console should be a 1 time purchase every 5 or so years, thats what they always were up until relatively recently.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 3,219
Does someone pressures you into buying the incremental console upgrade?
Obviously not, just as no one forces you to buy the next big gpu, it's just a practice I didn't expect to see applied to the console market as it's traditionally been a fixed cpu/gpu/ram spec for the life cycle of the console.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 3,219
At some point the consoles are left too far behind, more so since is not ultra high end hardware in them to start with. Makes sense to offer something new since there is a market for it. 2-3 years from now and curent gen consoles will also appear weak.
Just replying to both. The only console(talking Xbox and Playstation only here) that had no upgrades was the original Xbox. All the other had either hardware refreshes or features added that prompted the release of a new version. And I am not counting aesthetic changes like changing the colours etc. Features and improvements like adding HDMI ports/network ports/wifi larger hard drives etc.
They Xbox one and PS 4 were the first consoles to get performance upgrades, but, you could argue that they were the first consoles to need an upgrade as 4K and HDR really took off during those years.
It doesn't really matter. To say that consoles weren't getting new mid cycle releases before now is wrong. The reasons might be different, but, the end result was still the same, to get more people to buy more consoles. Running out of Space on your 20GB Xbox 360? Well here is the Xbox 360 elite with 250GB and a new improved controller.
I don't get that point about becoming redundant. The PS4 didn't just stop playing games when the the Ps 4 came out three years later.
Storage upgrades are something that could be purchased separately without having to go to the expense of a totally new console. You could buy a larger hard drive and install it in the case of 360 and ps3.
As far as I'm aware consoles since ps3 and 360 have had Ethernet, wireless you could upgrade to with an adapter.
With the exception of hdmi basically everything you mentioned was available without having to buy another console, and its not like hdmi was some big must have game changer. It's a big difference between releasing a different version with more storage and a different colour vs releasing a version with a more powerful cpu and gpu.
4k and hdr might have been the new things at the time that consoles were struggling with, so why not gear your next console to tackle those specifically, instead of putting out a sticking plaster iteration that's a bit more powerful but still really not capable of doing 4k properly? Those upgraded versions were still struggling and used to get very loud depending on the game, which is one more strike against them as consoles traditionally have been either silent or at minimum, very quiet.
As far as I'm aware consoles since ps3 and 360 have had Ethernet, wireless you could upgrade to with an adapter.
With the exception of hdmi basically everything you mentioned was available without having to buy another console, and its not like hdmi was some big must have game changer. It's a big difference between releasing a different version with more storage and a different colour vs releasing a version with a more powerful cpu and gpu.
4k and hdr might have been the new things at the time that consoles were struggling with, so why not gear your next console to tackle those specifically, instead of putting out a sticking plaster iteration that's a bit more powerful but still really not capable of doing 4k properly? Those upgraded versions were still struggling and used to get very loud depending on the game, which is one more strike against them as consoles traditionally have been either silent or at minimum, very quiet.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2018
- Posts
- 2,829
I think you're clutching as straws @melmac by describing an extra port as a mid-gen refresh. When somebody asks a question in the forum's about what their next PC upgrade should be, the responses are always CPU and GPU based. You'd be ridiculed for suggesting somebody simply adds a few ports to their aging gaming build.
I'll accept the bigger HDD as an upgrade but i think it's more to do with the fact that HDD sizes in the PC industry were increasing each year and the smaller size was getting difficult to get hold of. But I doubt people upgraded the whole console when they could have bought a bigger drive.
The PS3 actually had a mid-gen downgrade because it originally came with PS1 and PS2 chipsets for backwards compatibility but the refresh didn't. Instead it relied on emulation.
I'll accept the bigger HDD as an upgrade but i think it's more to do with the fact that HDD sizes in the PC industry were increasing each year and the smaller size was getting difficult to get hold of. But I doubt people upgraded the whole console when they could have bought a bigger drive.
The PS3 actually had a mid-gen downgrade because it originally came with PS1 and PS2 chipsets for backwards compatibility but the refresh didn't. Instead it relied on emulation.
Last edited:
Thing is though you don't have to purchase the pro versions, especially this time. My understanding is the pro versions especially the ps5 pro are enthusiast aimed with potentially high price high spec. I know it doesn't suit all but the base machines this time are well specced and will run games well. People like myself will jump at the pro versions and will be happy not to have to wait 7 years. Costs of upgrade won't be that high as we can sell the current machines. I personally can't wait. At 45 I want to get as many gaming experiences as I can. I upgrade my tv, audio etc every 3 years, why not my consoles.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 2,572
Ok so the logic is there but here is where I (don't disagree but think things will pan out differently) see it going...
- Pile on the RT and other new effects, but are enough people going to buy into that. By your own observation it needs a metric asston of processing power to make substantial gains, ergo generational improvements are merely scratching the surface.
- How many game developers are going to push those limits, to an audience that need to spend 1k+ on GPU hardware
- I don't know about anyone else but for me and people I know we play legacy titles FAR more than the cutting edge ones
- Streamers and content creators who promote games through their content just by playing by and large are spreading out regarding their hardware... Its surprising to see just how many full-time content creators simply don't use RDNA2 or Ampere
So yes I see the argument but IMHO quality features are not going to offset the cliff edge of 'why do I need to upgrade - it runs fines' and I think next gen brings that cliff edge in sight for the first time in a long long time
This is a bizarre statement. We aren't talking about PC's we are talking about consoles.
The fact is that there has always been midlife upgrades and refreshes for the consoles. Those refreshes sometimes were more expensive than the original. Sure you could go out an buy add-ons for some of the consoles but, people still bought the refreshes. And that's the reason they do these refreshes, to entice new customers, to make old purchasers purchase again.
That the upgrades last time for the consoles were performance based doesn't matter. If it wasn't performance based, it would have been something else.
And just one last thing, why do you guys think that the release of the Xbox one X or PS 4 pro makes the Xbox one and PS 4 redundant? It doesn't of course. That's not the way it is in consoles. Games released will play on both the old and the refreshed model. You don't have to buy the Pro versions of the consoles. But, isn't it great for people who play on consoles that they are getting performance upgrades now after 3 years instead of just new features or extra storage.
This supposed refresh is still just a rumour. But, I will be very surprised if they don't release some kind of upgrade. Microsoft and Sony have done it for nearly every console generation so they will probably do it this time too.
Isn't it better that the game developers have progressively greater performance capabilities they can target as time goes by?
Instead of building games to target some penny pinched design laid down half a decade or more years ago (well before the console itself released) and that was governed by the economics and tech available at the time?
Instead of building games to target some penny pinched design laid down half a decade or more years ago (well before the console itself released) and that was governed by the economics and tech available at the time?
A little off topic but as a console gamer, from the 90s era. I do miss the uniqueness and quirkiness of those consoles, each one being a bit different to the other etc.. Last time that happened was probs the PS3/XBOX 360 gen.. Shame that has gone away but understand the reasons why...
Still I prefer PCs and consoles to be a bit different from each other in terms of experience as I usually play different sort of games on each - but that is my own preference.
I think ‘pro‘ consoles last gen WERE needed as the launch versions were a little underpowered to begin with. This was likely as a result of being designed off the back of the financial crisis of late 2000s, so cost and margin would have been prioritised. Then UHD TVs were became more common in the mid 2010s and so the consoles needed more power to output for the UHD TVs. Conversely PS5 and Series X have covered this off so unless there is an explosion of 8K TV uptake I’d probs say ‘pro‘ consoles won’t really be needed this time.
Given the current climate of this gen. being slow to really get going, i.e still cross-gen games, limited supply of consoles, cost of living etc.. I think could likely have a shorter ‘proper’ gen., 5-6 years that then makes a bigger jump than a ’pro’ console as such. If there isn’t any new capability provided by a pro console (other than more fps) it is a bit pointless.
We’ll likely get efficiency update models e.g slim, chassis redesigned etc. - to boost margins, PS5 and Series X are quality bits of kit for the specs. already, but less need for ‘pro‘.
PS6 with RDNA 5 (or the equivalent) in 2026 with much greater emphasis on VR and ray tracing, 8K should be fairly comfortable for them too
Still I prefer PCs and consoles to be a bit different from each other in terms of experience as I usually play different sort of games on each - but that is my own preference.
I think ‘pro‘ consoles last gen WERE needed as the launch versions were a little underpowered to begin with. This was likely as a result of being designed off the back of the financial crisis of late 2000s, so cost and margin would have been prioritised. Then UHD TVs were became more common in the mid 2010s and so the consoles needed more power to output for the UHD TVs. Conversely PS5 and Series X have covered this off so unless there is an explosion of 8K TV uptake I’d probs say ‘pro‘ consoles won’t really be needed this time.
Given the current climate of this gen. being slow to really get going, i.e still cross-gen games, limited supply of consoles, cost of living etc.. I think could likely have a shorter ‘proper’ gen., 5-6 years that then makes a bigger jump than a ’pro’ console as such. If there isn’t any new capability provided by a pro console (other than more fps) it is a bit pointless.
We’ll likely get efficiency update models e.g slim, chassis redesigned etc. - to boost margins, PS5 and Series X are quality bits of kit for the specs. already, but less need for ‘pro‘.
PS6 with RDNA 5 (or the equivalent) in 2026 with much greater emphasis on VR and ray tracing, 8K should be fairly comfortable for them too
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2018
- Posts
- 2,829
Yes but not at the expense of loyal customers who bought the original console. Cyberpunk 2077 appeared to have targeted the PS4 Pro and was unplayable on the original PS4. That's been an exception up until now but I really hope that a mid-gen refresh such as the possible PS5 Pro doesn't get exclusives that don't work on the original PS5.
Game developers should target the original console with higher res textures etc on the pro version.
- Status