Sony PlayStation 4K
Rumors of an upgraded “PlayStation 4.5″ surfaced last week, suggesting that Sony will boost the console’s processing power and graphics to support 4K gaming and an improved PlayStation VR experience.
Fast-forward to today, and more sources have supported the possibility of a pumped-up PlayStation. The team at Digital Foundry have corroborated Kotaku’s original scoop, adding that the console will likely go by the admittedly clever moniker of the PlayStation 4K.
While the notion of playing 4K media alongside up-rezzed games sounds great, it’s hard to imagine the estimated 36 million PS4 owners (and counting) will ditch their current consoles just for few extra pixels.
In fact, the more I think of the PlayStation getting into the world of incremental updates every few years rather than generational upgrades that take leaps-and-bounds, the more I feel it loses sight of the simplicity and convenience of consoles.
Is it an upgrade … or a successor?
Adding to my concerns is Digital Foundry’s doubt that the PS4K, despite its namesake, will fully deliver on 4K gaming.
Based on their background knowledge, they believe that it would be “simply impossible” to fit the kind of technology required to run native 4K resolution games, while at 60 frames per second, into a smaller, consumer-friendly console.
Digital Foundry’s theories aren’t without merit, as 4K gaming already sucks a ton of graphical and processing resources – and at a fast rate, to boot. In my own experience, only top-tier PCs like the Maingear Shift have been capable of such a feat.
This means that unless the PS4K also costs $4K, our expectations may have to be checked.
More than likely, an upgraded PS4 will be more in the vein of the New 3DS than a PS5, which begs the question: Why would Sony go through the trouble?
Perhaps the company sees PSVR as a major opportunity for early adopters, and wants a streamlined console to launch alongside the headset. If that’s the case, it could mean current PS4 owners will be left behind.
It would be a bitter sting for early adopters who bought into the system expecting the PS4 to ferry them through another long, multi-year console cycle.
Wayward path
For now, all we’ve heard are rumors suggesting the possibility of a new console. But, the PS4K could take on other forms.
It’s also possible that the tweaked system could just be an iteration of the PS4. In the past, the PlayStation 2 and 3 were relaunched with a slimmed-down version that grabbed the attention of consumers sitting on the fence, while also trimming some of the proverbial fat from the consoles’ designs.
This isn’t a bad idea in itself, especially since these slim models tend to be on the price-conscious side, but if that were the case, why are all the rumors making a hubbub about 4K resolution and improved hardware?
A third possibility: Consoles could be in a place where major leaps between systems just aren’t as feasible as they used to be. The PS4K could be Sony solution to keeping up with the fast paced smartphone and PC worlds in which there are regular increments rather than substantial upgrades.
More PC than console now…
But if this is the case, wouldn’t consoles be losing one of their major selling points over the competition? Especially when compared to owning a PC, consoles offer players the opportunity to purchase one system that remains relevant in the long run.
One of the advantages of a console is you’re set for the entire life cycle of that system. While games on the App Store may only block out older iPhones or a titles on Steam may not meet your rig’s specifications, a copy of Final Fantasy XIII for PlayStation 3 worked on any and all machines bearing the PS3 name.
If Sony is trying to push for games exclusive to the PS4K, then it’s losing sight of the consistency that console buyers seek.
If the system isn’t a major upgrade, however, then it has to justify to the millions of ‘Classic’ PS4 owners it can only hope convert, or offer something that those without Sony’s console can’t get from buying the original system or its competitors.
Source: techradar.com
Top Brands
I don't know why some people are complaining? If they release it, so what. I'm not upgrading because I'm happy with my ps4. But I will buy my daughter the ps4.5! Every other company releases a product every year. At least I can rely on Sony!
Oh please… Nintendo been doing this with the 3DS. Why complain now?
It just seems that the last console upgrade was really bad timing. As soon as they were announced/released the pc gaming world almost went into a renaissance of new technology etc.
I've love Sony to release a PlayStation 'Plus'. A new console that gave a bit more boost, purely for aesthetic/4K/VR purposes. All games would remain backwards compatible with the PS4. It's just an option that if you want to spend £500-£1k on a console for greatly improved graphics you can.
Of course this could be delivered without a new console. These external graphics units are also becoming more popular. Or what about gaming streaming from some supercomputer? If there is a market they should do it. And it might even be a win/win for us the consumer if it reignites the Xbox/ps war that Sony seem to be winning.
Could it just be a UHD blu ray capable PS4? No extra graphical/gaming grunt – just an upgraded bd drive and hdmi out to support 4K physical media? Would certainly seem more plausible than a ps4 with substantially improved graphics….
With the PS3 and Xbox 360 most games were upscaled to 1080i. A lot of games today are still running at a native resolution of 900p and even 720p at times. The likelihood is that it will be up to the game devs to choose if they'd opt to create games that are able to run at 4k. If 4k enabled gaming happens, games will be native 1080p unless the console and display meet the criteria. I really don't see how this betrays anyone? And an upgraded console with full support for 4k multimedia is a must with so many 4k streaming devices appearing on the market.
That's what I was thinking. Even on a PC it takes some serious grunt power to run modern games at 4K. You're talking £1000 on graphics cards alone (and that's two GPUs) to run at acceptable rates. I just can't see how they could do it.