A quick Google search has the best 4k graphics cards going for about $1200-$1600, so yeah we might get a £300 4K console box in about six years.

PC hardware consolefied; welcum to the future.

Could work but don't expect this to happen without encountering bumps. Implementation can be achieved in many many ways.
There's the Steam machine way (very PC like) where a PC literally runs a consolefied OS. There's also room for an even more consolefied implementation where MS, Sony or Nintendo releases the base console and the upgrade components while remaining in complete control of released hw to ensure BC/fw compatibility.
Will this influence stability and compatibility of Games? Probably yes, mostly depends on how well API franeworks are implemented not to mention gpu driver support.

The current model works, I'm not interested in spunking £300-400 quid every 2/3 years, if I wanted that then there's PC gaming. Yes I'm playing sub-optimal versions as a console scrub but they play fine.

Like ya say though, if no games become exclusive to PS4.5 or whatever then there's no worries. If it goes a way where they do then gaming can happily fuck off.

I wasn't saying you have to, I was pointing out that if you want it near or at the current higher tech level (1080p/60fps on AAA games etc) then upgrading every few years is on the cards.

Nobody has to upgrade anything, ever if they don't want to. Its fairly obvious. I could still be playing an Amstrad.

Unplayable without the upgrade is definitely a bad idea, but I don't think this is the plan.

But, tbf console gamers have never really played in 1080p@60fps Max settings.
And even if a game does run in 1080p@60fps it probably runs in Low settings. Unless it's a port of an older game.

At least now, after 5 years you can upgrade your hw? Plus there's forward an backward compatibility now. Bonus, methinks.

To be honest, there aren't many pc gamers who have the ability to upgrade every year to keep up with the latest advance in tech. Only the Super Rich who also have the tech know how would be willing to do that. Normal people tend to stick to a 3-6 year upgrade cycle.

IMHO it would be inevitable as soon as there's a significantly more powerful SKU. Sure, at launch they'll be all like "everything will work on all versions, no one is going to be left behind and there are no second class citizens in our system!"... But a few years down the line some dev will be pushing the GPU hard and just won't bother making it backwards compat and so they'll go hat in hand to the platform holders to ask them to relax the TRCs and let them drop the old hardware, and once either Sony or MS blinks and allows it, the other will have to as well.

The phone model comparison doesn't work because a phone, regardless of tech in relation to apps, will still be able to do the main things a phone should do - call people, text people, browse the net, basic social media (facebook, twitter etc.)

A consoles main job is to play games so if at any point the console stops being able to, then it is no longer doing what its supposed to. Point being, that's not upgrading, that's just putting a different name on a consoles successor.





Also phones are generally bought as part of a line lease - if MS and Sony want to lease their consoles as part of the Live or PSN subscription that's fine, they can add in a small upgrade cost every 2 years. But generally, you don't fork out on a new phone at cost every time you upgrade.

Not bothered either way myself - I bought a fairly ok spec pc for under €500 and have that under the telly know. Wireless Keyboard and Mouse lets me use it as a superior media hub to any console and it can also stream to my surface. Gameswise, its not cutting edge, but Arkham Knight aside, I haven't been unable to play anything yet. Even recent games work at near full equivilant ps4 specs and in some case I get better results. An upgraded graphics card is going to cost me around €300 for something decent which is still cheaper than a new console. The PC has proven to be the way to game for me - a lot of the fears I had simply don't exist. No problems with fiddling about all the time, one or two games have required an extra file downloaded but if I can do it, anybody could. Throw in the back catalogue (steam has some absolute bargains) and emulation if you wish (and I do) and you have more than enough gaming to keep you busy.

djchump wrote:

IMHO it would be inevitable as soon as there's a significantly more powerful SKU. Sure, at launch they'll be all like "everything will work on all versions, no one is going to be left behind and there are no second class citizens in our system!"... But a few years down the line some dev will be pushing the GPU hard and just won't bother making it backwards compat and so they'll go hat in hand to the platform holders to ask them to relax the TRCs and let them drop the old hardware, and once either Sony or MS blinks and allows it, the other will have to as well.

I think bc and fc will depend on the gfx API level the hw supports. If your hw supports the min requirements and the base gfx API, stuff should be able to run in low settings. How bearable low settings are to you at what resolution is up to the user.

For example, as long as your hw supports DirectX12/Vulkan and the game industry also supports DirectX12/Vulkan, Games should run fine on at least minimum settings. You're in trouble when the industry upgrades to DirectX13/Vulkan2 and decides you're hw isn't capable enough anymore to run the latest games. That's when people will be forced to upgrade their base hw to the latest API standards.

Edit: now with example.

Unless you're on Xbox One.7 or PS4.6 of course.

I don't think this will be too much of a problem.  MGSV looks decent on PS3 and I've read the 360 still does a good job with the latest Tomb Raider.  As long as frame rates are solid on the non-upgrade versions I'd imagine they'll look plenty good enough for me for the next five years.  If the market is there to make money on console upgrades that basically turn the sliders up it's no skin off my nose, assuming I can still play new releases on my PS4.

Where did the 32X or N64 ram expansion fit in to this?

Doesn't history suggest this isn't a great idea?

Enhancement chips like the Super FX were the most successful.

Things like super fx could be added to cartridges because they were essentially hardware. You can't put a chip on a DVD/bluray or have it delivered digitally

retroking1981 wrote:

Where did the 32X or N64 ram expansion fit in to this?

Doesn't history suggest this isn't a great idea?

Enhancement chips like the Super FX were the most successful.

The N64 ram pack worked out alright iirc. It was relatively cheap and also came bundled with DK64.
I'm not sure many games required it but a lot of the later ones could use it.

Sounds about right.
Turok 2 used it but I don't think it required it.
Where is reg when you need him?