Just about every industry has annual improvements. Even cars. You'd think something big and bulky made in assembly fashion would be the same exact model for 6 years until a refresh, but even they can get tweaks to interior and performance. Or one year its RWD and next year there's an AWD version.Yes we do and it's weird that consoles still have this "One size fits all" mentality.
Nearly every phone release has several different variations with different price points and specs. There's a wide range of TV's you can buy with all kinds of specs.
Consoles should be the same.
Sigh yeah the total cost for consoles could get kinda ridiculous if you want the best version of everything. I payed roughly $650 for the PS5 and $550 for the XSX, I assume Pro/X variants would cost just as much, which would add up to $2400 total, then I bought extra storage too pushing the total to $2600.That said, I would recommend everyone invest $2k in a PC today instead of spending $500 each on a PS5 and XSX today, and then another $500 each in 2023-2024.
in 2026we need ps6.
Maybe, 10% sounds small but I have no idea what it could be. I assume you’re only looking at ‘pro’ models in that case, not Slim (or other versions)? I’m not sure history would be a good indicator in that case since we’ve only had one generation with ‘pro’ models being released.On the surface, going through all that hardware hassle for mid gen adopters to upgrade
Yes, all these variants are hard to keep up with. You have like..PS4 and then...PS4 pro. Thats two models. very hard to keep up with.Why can't we just do it like the PS3 days? It's fine to make a smaller one, maybe one that uses less power. But faster ones? All these variants are just stupid to keep up with. Glad I mainly play on PC.
No, just like it is not weird you breathe today and you keep breathing tomorrow. One size fits all and software being optimised for those specs and making it worth for devs to invest time in learning the HW and the custom software and API’s for it (without thick layers of abstractions necessary to make the PC like diversity in HW specs even manageable… it does not come for free) is the point of the console model. PC is for upgradeable HW, custom boxes/assembly, customiser / modded games, etc… consoles are optimised gaming machines that trade some of the PC benefits for cheaper prices, pushing some new boundaries (gimmicks for some people, but sold in mass so devs to make use of them… Wii Remote would have been yet another random gimmick on PC), smaller boxes, etc… console makes can afford to try to differentiate with customised HW and also try new API’s that are not yet ready for PC wide distribution or can be made because they never need to be available on PC as is (DirectStorage hitting Xbox years before it hits Windows, Sony’s libGCM and their storage I/O stack being optimised for a single platform).Yes we do and it's weird that consoles still have this "One size fits all" mentality.
Nearly every phone release has several different variations with different price points and specs. There's a wide range of TV's you can buy with all kinds of specs.
Consoles should be the same.
Just about every industry has annual improvements. Even cars. You'd think something big and bulky made in assembly fashion would be the same exact model for 6 years until a refresh, but even they can get tweaks to interior and performance. Or one year its RWD and next year there's an AWD version.
Samsung and LG come out with new kitchen appliances every year to add to their million fridge line ups. And every PC maker upgrades their models with new parts probably every 6 months. If I was to go to Dell.ca and see what they sell, I bet if I checked again in the fall a bunch of them would be gone and replaced with better models.
It is just not the console model (and it is a lie to promise a better world by releasing more frequent updates as tech, at a fixed power envelope, is slowing down).Predicting a PS5 Pro in Q4 2023. This is still quite a long time. Anyone questioning if we need a Pro model is a bit out of touch with reality. Giving developers more power is never a bad thing. Giving people the option to play at a higher fidelity/smoother frame rates is never a bad thing.
I have no idea how people have gotten it into their heads that pro models are the norm now.It is just not the console model (and it is a lie to promise a better world by releasing more frequent updates as tech, at a fixed power envelope, is slowing down).
Consoles are not about evil corps they withhold power from devs and gamers: they are about fa promise of fixed platform that 100% of your users have and low level access that makes it possible and worthwhile to use the unique specs within them. You develop on PC or especially mobile and see the fun that HW diversity really gives you.
Looking at Xbox One X and PS4 Pro and the token support they received also does not inspire confidence. It is a good trick to try to prevent people from demanding lower prices though.
Not like that dude, it's mostly for development. More resources are spent on keeping up with all the different versions of one game, and that's just stupid. Because all those resources could be better spent elsewhere.Yes, all these variants are hard to keep up with. You have like..PS4 and then...PS4 pro. Thats two models. very hard to keep up with.
I'm glad PC components like GPU's and CPU's don't have this issue....
I didn’t know that. Played guardians on console and it looked amazing.Honestly yes... what I think really needs to happen is improvements to the ray tracing tech. Guardians of the Galaxy on console vs PC with a good RTX card is like night and day.
Its almost like the entire aesthetic is based around it and it feels much more basic on console due to it.
...Then have just "One version" and have the other one run at "Highest settings"?Not like that dude, it's mostly for development. More resources are spent on keeping up with all the different versions of one game, and that's just stupid. Because all those resources could be better spent elsewhere.
Meanwhile PC just has one version, one with the highest available settings.
A few issues:
Dev's have not even yet scratched the surface with the PS5 and Series consoles.
All next gen consoles are not readily available at retail apart from maybe the Series S.
Cross-gen is still unfortunately a thing so the userbase for all games is still split between old and new gen.
They’ll never be high end because the tech will need to be a year or 2 old due to R&D and then the same year they launch new GFX cards will launch.YES... I want a high end PS5 and a high end Xbox. doesn't matter if it is priced the same as an equivalently high end PC, but having that option for the enthusiasts among the enthusiasts would be great!
They’ll never be high end because the tech will need to be a year or 2 old due to R&D and then the same year they launch new GFX cards will launch.
They’ll never be high end because the tech will need to be a year or 2 old due to R&D and then the same year they launch new GFX cards will launch.
It is just not the console model (and it is a lie to promise a better world by releasing more frequent updates as tech, at a fixed power envelope, is slowing down).
Consoles are not about evil corps they withhold power from devs and gamers: they are about fa promise of fixed platform that 100% of your users have and low level access that makes it possible and worthwhile to use the unique specs within them. You develop on PC or especially mobile and see the fun that HW diversity really gives you.
Looking at Xbox One X and PS4 Pro and the token support they received also does not inspire confidence. It is a good trick to try to prevent people from demanding lower prices though.
You don't get it, that's fine. Either way, it's wasted resources that should be spent elsewhere....Then have just "One version" and have the other one run at "Highest settings"?
What you're trying to say makes no sense at all.
First of all, console releases are not the same as console cycles, but much shorter.I kind of wish we would drop this thought process. It's limiting. Consoles on average hit a ~10 year life cycle. That is not okay.
Even for that kind of token use (adding complexity to their workflow for a fraction of users and without being able to release even a single exclusive game for them) you will need a larger performance jump than what enabled those higher framerate and/or higher resolution patches unless the current consoles had borked / bottlenecked designs that were not easy to “fix”.The PS4 Pro and Xbox One X delivered on the promises, Running games at higher fidelity then the base consoles, did it not? This is the same expectation with the next iteration of the Pro model. Developers still have the same low level access.
That is designing, not the only cost you will have manufacturing and cooling the chip monsters we desire to see…It’s an expensive endeavor. “The average cost of designing a 28nm chip is $40 million,” said Handel Jones, CEO of IBS. “By comparison, the cost of designing a 7nm chip is $217 million, and the cost of designing a 5nm device is $416 million. A 3nm design will cost up to $590 million.”
Plus, foundry customers are facing difficult choices at 3nm. Unlike previous nodes, where chipmakers followed the same transistor path, foundry vendors are developing different technologies at 3nm. Samsung plans to migrate from finFETs at the 5nm node to GAA at the 3nm node. In contrast, Intel and TSMC plan to extend finFETs at 3nm and then move to GAA at 2nm.
Samsung and TSMC have announced intentions to ramp up their 3nm processes in the second half of 2022, which is slightly later than expected. “Both companies have had some delays on 3nm,” said Samuel Wang, an analyst at Gartner. “The 3nm ramp will take longer than the previous node.”
People trying to sell you HW with more and more frequent iterative cycles are selling snake oil for now,
I'm sorry, what? You complain that you have 3 (THREE) variants in current Gen (PS5/SeriesX/SeriesS), you may have two more (so FIVE in total), but you are glad to mainly play on PC, where there are like thousands of different possibilities?All these variants are just stupid to keep up with. Glad I mainly play on PC.
First of all, console releases are not the same as console cycles, but much shorter.
Second of all, it is what it is… making large performance jumps is getting more and more difficult (it takes longer and longer / gets more and more expensive to realise them) and the performance jump needs to be greater and greater in order for it to make a visible difference to the games you play (likely even more so when you are brute forcing changes through). Even if people accepted a bigger box for $599 as being the average console price it would only buy you oxygen for a console generation jump. Back to square 1 afterwards.
Even for that kind of token use (adding complexity to their workflow for a fraction of users and without being able to release even a single exclusive game for them) you will need a larger performance jump than what enabled those higher framerate and/or higher resolution patches unless the current consoles had borked / bottlenecked designs that were not easy to “fix”.
People trying to sell you HW with more and more frequent iterative cycles are selling snake oil for now, but hey maybe someone will have a super large breakthrough. Not looking like it for now:
That is designing, not the only cost you will have manufacturing and cooling the chip monsters we desire to see…
Transistors Reach Tipping Point At 3nm
Nanosheets are likeliest option throughout this decade, with CFETs and other exotic structures possible after that.semiengineering.com