Support NeoGAF

[Sorcerer]

Forgive me if I am misunderstanding. PlayStation should make a PS6 console and a Portable version that play the same games? Won't gamers look at something like the Switch or SteamDeck and feel ripped off because those consoles can do both with the same unit?
Wouldn't releasing a Pro Model at the same exact time create Fomo and no one is going to care about the lesser two versions?

 

[bbeach123]

Local streaming was good enough for me , x86 portable too heavy , battery too short , too weak .

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

You can't exactly buy high performance risc cpu

Sony doesn't buy its CPUs. They partner with AMD to design them.

AMD, Apple and NVidia design RISC CPUs. They can easily design a high-performance CPU.

The problem would be with losing compatibility with the back catalogue of x86 games.

Apple's latest and greatest RISC CPUs are fast enough to emulate/simulate x86 code using an interpreting layer. However, that's for desktop apps, not high performance, highly optimised console games.

 

[Lord Malachite]

On a forum with endless disingenuous takes, this one is a whopper.

You couldn't walk into a store and buy one because the sneaker barons, dipshits who have bots set up to buy up all of the Nike Jordans as soon as they're posted on the website, set up their bots to do that for PS5s (and Xboxs, but you don't mention that of course). BOTH next gen consoles were targeted by scalpers using bots. THAT'S why you couldn't walk into a store and buy one.

Your utter and willful delusions about the laws of supply and demand that even make it possible for scalper markets to exist for any product, let alone game consoles, have earned you a permanent place on my ignore list. Enjoy!

 

[ManaByte]

Your utter and willful delusions about the laws of supply and demand that even make it possible for scalper markets to exist for any product, let alone game consoles, have earned you a permanent place on my ignore list. Enjoy!

 

[Minsc]

A $499 device called the Portable PS6 that can only stream PS6 games from an actual PS6 in your house or through a PS+ membership does sound like something they'd do, because no way in hell would a $500 handheld play PS6 games.

 

[Inanilmaz]

I just want a PSP 3(D) with good exclusive games and 3D remasters

 

[StereoVsn]

This is an idea that won’t happen. Sony will keep its x86 architecture to allow BC with existing PS4/PS5 library and compatibility during 3-4 year (or more) of cross-gen period.

x86 also allows for current dev pipelines, engines, middleware and so on to work without much disruption. And let’s not forget PC development where everyone seems to be selling as well (minus Nintendo).

And unless Sony likes wasting money, the rumored handheld will be on same architecture as it has to be able to run same games.

Could Sony say f-it and go ARM? I guess there is that possibility, but that’s a huge risk to take (pun not intended). x86 emulation in ARM is possible but it’s not amazing yet (see Windows ARM systems, Apple, Android, etc). So they would be basically potentially pissing off customers when Nintendo has a hybrid device that plays most games and PC is around.

Edit: Forgot to add. I think PS6 will be $599 minimum with up to $699 likely. And there won’t be two SKUs aka Xbox Series. They may come out with a portable around same time for PS5/PS4 games and PS6 streaming.

 

[ergem]

The only way to release a 399-499 machine next gen is with two skus ... one "normal" and one "pro" ...

Theres just no way to offer a generational leap over the ps5pro without keeping the price point.

I think next gen we will have one 499/599 and one 799/899 console from the get go. And no mid gen refresh.

At least someone who somehow agree!

Are you also in the crowd of an x86 normal one instead of an Arm or Risc-V?

Would you want the normal PS6 to be engineered in a way that it can also fit in a handheld? (Though I assume having low-power parts to fit in a handheld would mean less power compared to if it is not engineered with portability in mind.)

 

[ergem]

The Vita - less so the PSP because of the fidelity of that era - showed Sony that traditional AAA games don't play well for the vast majority of the consumers at that screen dimension.

So I really don't see PlayStation re-entering the handheld or hybrid market as more than a Portal level device. And I suspect they have numbers to know what type of game fidelity is played mostly on the portal, or what the local streaming on Portal vs TV time ratio is for more complex/higher fidelity games and see the same problem of trying to sell +70m handhelds to drive more game sales for their AAA publishing partners.

Despite being against PlayStation's lack of effort on console (to-the-metal quality games) this gen since their cross-gen and PC release strategy, the latter already serves those in the niche that want PlayStation AAA games on a handheld through SteamDeck and Windows ROG level handhelds, so unless they kill off that strategy fully, I don't see what their handheld strategy would gain, when it is easier to release a Lego Horizons game on Switch, and let Nintendo deal with the problem of avoiding the convergence problem of higher fidelity on small screens while giving gamers a reason to upgrade from a device(Switch) that already sits at the apex of that solution.

IMO Sony's only real angle to go portable that would satisfy their AAA single player games is an AR/VR pair of glasses plugging into the Portal. With the rear of the portal becoming a empty glasses case.

I take it that you very much doubt the Playstation Portable is in the works.

I’m in the camp that it’s most likely to be true. And as such, it should be the PS6 normal at a lower price (offered both as handheld and a tabletop console). I think it can get to a level of PS5 fidelity without ray tracing.

 

[ergem]

Wouldn't releasing a Pro Model at the same exact time create Fomo and no one is going to care about the lesser two versions?

I don’t think so as long as the lesser version is guaranteed to play all PS6 games, and the Pro version costs twice as much.

 

[squidilix]

If is still Mark Cerny design the PS6. Well no stupid idea will be inside.

Mark Cerny has already admitted that increasing rasterization will be more and more complicated on the PS6 (raw power) because of the cost, the heat and the technical limit of chip engraving.

The PS5 Pro is already a "test" for the PS6 to see if developers consciously use PSSR

No doubt that the PS6 will include a lot of AI augmentation or reconstruction (PSSR, probably something similar to Nvidia Reflex, I don't want to but we're not going to escape frame generation there either).
The partnership with AMD Amethyst is not insignificant.

You can already see how phones like the iPhone 16 or the latest Samsung Galaxy are pushing towards AI photo / video editing.

Since the PS5 will still be around in 10 years. I wouldn't be surprised to see a portable console optimized to run PS5 (and PS4) games with the help of AI chips (image reconstruction like PSSR).

The first rumour of PS6 is, maybe Sony will use CPU AMD 3D Cache and this, this already a very good news.

 

[LordOfChaos]

Having different ISAs within one console generation is fundamentally a terrible idea

Modern tools may compile to different ISAs just fine but in console terms there's a lot more to it with low level optimization

Look at the state of gaming on Windows on ARM, consoles expect a lot more perfect reliability

 

[LordCBH]

So…let me get this straight.


You think it’s a good move to have two different PS6 products using two different architectures?

 

[LordOcidax]

Sony following the Nintendo route is the way to go, still a real PS6 portable(Hybrid) is not going to happen, unless they made a PS5 portable for 2028 and call it PS6 Portable. That would put Sony in the same situation as Xbox with the Series S and the Series X, or worse. Thats why i think that Nintendo hybrid formula is the only viable option.

 

[PaintTinJr]

I take it that you very much doubt the Playstation Portable is in the works.

I’m in the camp that it’s most likely to be true. And as such, it should be the PS6 normal at a lower price (offered both as handheld and a tabletop console). I think it can get to a level of PS5 fidelity without ray tracing.

I'm pretty sure they are always working on prototypes that they could release if they wanted, just to keep abreast of market changes and able to react quickly, but most AAA games have lots of menus and text, and image fidelity designed for laptop screens or bigger, that make the gaming experience poorer.

Even Nintendo acknowledge the minification issue in handhelds by retrospectively providing a system-level accessibility zoom feature on Switch. The problems are only going to get worse as fidelity increases with system performance/capability because portable screen sizes are effectively limited by ergonomics, more so than screen weight or power consumption - which were previous limiting factors.

IMO there is maybe an option to go 13" 16:9 with folding screen technology from smartphones, but the technology is premium even at small sizes, isn't very durable for a wide user audience and ergonomically might still end up making an odd looking device, and one that might prove difficult to use in games that need speed precision of face buttons pressed with fingers (hovering) rather than thumb press.

 

[Fafalada]

With proper and advanced tools, Sony can perhaps make the development process between the two machines as seamless as PS5 to PS5 pro.

Ok since the entire thread is solely focusing on technical problems with this - I want to address the market fit question.
Sony already did this exact thing with Vita/VitaTV/PS4 - with prices starting as low as 100$ and it bombed just as badly as the 800$ PSX back in the day.
Ie. the signal that the market isn't very interested in this configuration in of itself is pretty clear.
I know - Switch2d is supposed to be the gotcha moment - but the whole point is that was only introduced after the main platform became a runaway success, so designing the entire strategy around the entry point is - questionable at best.
More importantly - what are you really trying to solve here - if it's just a price point question, just scale the PS5 down in price and keep cross-gen alive, why introduce an entire separate hardware line with all the associated costs to manufacturing, developers AND consumers with nothing to distinguish it other than 'low-cost low-spec playstation'. If there's a different hook - maybe, but your proposition is entirely based on spec-sheet and price, so it really doesn't sound appealing at all, irrespective of what the technical challenges are.

The other bit is that there's very little separating Arm(or Risc) and x86 low-power(Watt) performance nowadays, so there'd have to be some manufacturing gotcha to even make that interesting.

Splitting the platform into 3 devices would kill the output, would end up like how it is on PS5 and VR.

People are conflating physical devices with software platforms here - what the OP proposes is nothing like it.
The OP is focusedo n the wrong problems - but they're ultimately proposing a single platform, just with 3 hardware targets instead of the usual 2.

And splitting into 2 power levels would be like Series X and S. Bad idea.

Switch did it first and is one of the most successful (if not the most successful some day) consoles ever.

The difference is the user experience is what Nintendo got right, and none of the other attempts (including Vita/VitaTV) ever did. Software augments that further - but it's not 'the' factor either (as evidenced by when they got UX all wrong with the WiiU).

Having different ISAs within one console generation is fundamentally a terrible idea

It depends what it's trying to solve - but strictly speaking Sony's done exactly that with the PS2. Sure it wasn't 'all' the chips ISAs - but that's the same argument everyone in this thread is making by only looking at the CPU.
More closely - the Pro consoles very much doubled down on the concept - just because it's GPU ISA changing it doesn't mean the pain to developers is any different. And we've been living in a world where console 'platforms' ship multiple binary packages for one software SKU at least since MS toted out 'smart delivery', as well as having two different UX targets in every Nintendo title even though one doesn't work at all on 30% of their devices sold.

Modern tools may compile to different ISAs just fine but in console terms there's a lot more to it with low level optimization

It's a fast fading concern though - every UE5 title ever shipped is making a statement just how irrelevant the publishing/dev market thinks this is becoming.
I mean we literally just spent 3 years of this generation with multiplatform releases having 9(11-12 if counting all the nex-gen modes) targets JUST for consoles, this thing is never going back in the box.

 

[Fafalada]

IMO Sony's only real angle to go portable that would satisfy their AAA single player games is an AR/VR pair of glasses plugging into the Portal. With the rear of the portal becoming a empty glasses case.

I've long since argued PSVR2 should have been a hybrid headset (ala Quest) - and indeed, double down on portability of VR titles alongside. Keeping it tethered made it a non-starter at that price. But tethering it to yet another peripheral also solves nothing (not to mention Portal is a technological dead-end, so that's the last thing you want to hitch VR on, the latency is, painful enough with regular screen, it'd be intolerably bad with VR, and the only way you can somewhat mitigate that is with hw inside-the headset, which this wouldn't address at all).

But ok if we're throwing wild tangents out - how about a high-end standalone VR instead, go all Apple on this - 2000$ PS6VRAR. Maybe with a 1000$ entry-level SKU to compete with Metaculus

 

[PaintTinJr]

I've long since argued PSVR2 should have been a hybrid headset (ala Quest) - and indeed, double down on portability of VR titles alongside. Keeping it tethered made it a non-starter at that price. But tethering it to yet another peripheral also solves nothing (not to mention Portal is a technological dead-end, so that's the last thing you want to hitch VR on, the latency is, painful enough with regular screen, it'd be intolerably bad with VR, and the only way you can somewhat mitigate that is with hw inside-the headset, which this wouldn't address at all).

But ok if we're throwing wild tangents out - how about a high-end standalone VR instead, go all Apple on this - 2000$ PS6VRAR. Maybe with a 1000$ entry-level SKU to compete with Metaculus

I agree with your point, I'm not suggesting it is a VR device. merely just offering cinema wall sized virtual screen to a cloud portable device, instead of outputting to the Portal's integrated tiny screen to get around the issue of small screen size on a portable cloud console.

/edit
The only reason I used the term VR was in case AR glasses either couldn't facilitate image quality and/or cost effective price as small portable AR glasses.

 

[Hudo]

So all the retards who cried about the Series S "holding the industry back" will surely now cry about the existence of the low-spec PS6 model, right?

 

[Elios83]

Won't happen because of BC issues and portability.
Cerny refused to use RDNA3 blocks in the Pro GPU just to not force developers to write and compile different shaders....they used the same x86 CPU.

They're NOT going to fracture the development environment.
And you can forget 399$ in 2028.
499/599$ is the new launch price point.

 

[Horseganador]

PS6 will be a traditional console, with plenty of SoC space dedicated to AI (Cerny already said it...), zen6 CPU, 24Gb ram at $599 in 2027-2028.

 

[PurePlatinum]

You can whine and complain about consoles being too expensive, or consoles not having as much of a technology leap, but not both.

Personally, I think the way to go is higher base prices for consoles. I would gladly pay much more than $499 for a PS6 if it meant I didn't have to upgrade to a PS6 Pro halfway through the generation. PS5 Pro versions of the big 1st party games feel like a true next-generation leap that we should have gotten 4 1/2 years ago...give it to me right out of the gate with a new generation instead of cutting costs for broke-asses.

People spend money on the stupidest shit EVER and then when you tell them it's $699 for a new console they lose their minds. I just don't understand it.

 

[Fess]

they're ultimately proposing a single platform, just with 3 hardware targets instead of the usual 2.

The ”just with 3 hardware targets” is what’s so difficult to get right. 2 is tricky enough. And if they’re going with different architectures with RISC and x86 I just can’t see it working, devs would focus on one and do different variations of bad optimizations on the rest.

 

[adamsapple]

$399 PS6, in 2028?

 

[ergem]

Sony already did this exact thing with Vita/VitaTV/PS4 - with prices starting as low as 100$ and it bombed just as badly as the 800$ PSX back in the day.

You have to recognize the difference this time around:

1. The power and perceptive graphics delta between a potential normal PS6 and PS6 Pro wouldn’t be as huge as a Vita TV and PS4. Not even close.

2. Vita TV didn’t have the PS4 games while the normal PS6 will.

3. Vita TV @ $100 was seen as a console that is only capable of playing smartphone games. Nobody cared from the audience it was advertised to. And it didn’t have the portability. At least Vita was portable and so it still sold around 40M(?).

The other bit is that there's very little separating Arm(or Risc) and x86 low-power(Watt) performance nowadays, so there'd have to be some manufacturing gotcha to even make that interesting.

I’ll give you this. Specially since it’s really the GPU and Ram config that makes the difference in power and power draw.

 

[Dorfdad]

No need to make different skus. Technology already exists to make a handheld that can support 1080p/60 Oled and than a damn dock that has a 8k/60 4k/120 Ethernet and usb connectors. Sell the handheld as the main product for 399.99 sell the upgraded doc at a responsible price. Only thing developers have to do is ensure they have settings to max both resolutions.

We don’t need three skus nor can the market sustain that for one brand.

 

[ergem]

PS5 down in price and keep cross-gen alive, why introduce an entire separate hardware line with all the associated costs to manufacturing, developers AND consumers with nothing to distinguish it other than 'low-cost low-spec playstation'.

The branding is what will distinguish it. It will be called a PS6, slightly more powerful, super small, super silent, with a portable (hybrid) little brother and a powerful big brother. You buy one game and you play in all of them.

 

[lughnasadh123]

Working on a Portal 2 for added functionality to a device that's already popular and is great complimentary hardware for a PS6 makes more sense.

 

[Fafalada]

The ”just with 3 hardware targets” is what’s so difficult to get right. 2 is tricky enough.

Oh I agree it's an anti-pattern for consoles at large. It's just - we're already way past that today - Xbox 1st party devs have been doing 5(+N) platforms from day one this gen (N being the performative number of PC configurations tested - something that people treat as if it's 'free lunch' but it's anything but - though yes, modern PC dev seems to be increasingly just releasing untested software and YOLOing the bad PR).
Nintendo has been doing 2.5 (.5 being the undocked Switch with detached controllers that is distinctly different from Lite or docked variants), and of course Sony also had 3 to begin with, and while they're 'technically' at 2 right now, it depends on the team (some of their games are day-1 PC too).

And if they’re going with different architectures with RISC and x86 I just can’t see it working, devs would focus on one and do different variations of bad optimizations on the rest.

I'd argue that's already been happening for several decades with 3rd parties (at least since the PS2 era), but I'll grant you 1st parties only really fell into it since this gen (see above).
Still - it's there and it's likely not going away any time soon - though I completely agree we don't need to go and make it worse. But when has that ever stopped platform holders before...

1. The power and perceptive graphics delta between a potential normal PS6 and PS6 Pro wouldn’t be as huge as a Vita TV and PS4. Not even close.

You're suggesting launch SKUs where the 'Pro' is 200-250W (nominal, could be higher if the 2000$ console crowd gets their way), and Handheld is 10-20W (more likely closer to 10, but 8-10Inch screen devices are kind of nice and can have the battery to go higher).
So somewhere between 10-25x power-draw delta. Easily Switch to PS4Pro delta, which may be 'better' than Vita to PS4, but there's not that much in it.
It's certainly in a different order of magnitude from Series S to X difference, if 'that's' how you meant it.

2. Vita TV didn’t have the PS4 games while the normal PS6 will.
3. Vita TV @ $100 was seen as a console that is only capable of playing smartphone games. Nobody cared from the audience it was advertised to. And it didn’t have the portability. At least Vita was portable and so it still sold around 40M(?).

I agree to a point*, but I don't think it's the market differentiator people say it is. The key question is if this setup solves meaningful user problems, and I'd argue it didn't quite back then, and in post Switch era it just looks that much weaker as a value prop.
Also sadly - Vita sold only around 10-15M globally, it's the biggest flop of any PS hw to date.

I’ll give you this. Specially since it’s really the GPU and Ram config that makes the difference in power and power draw.

I think this part is also a big challenge btw - modern high-powered handhelds are extremely memory speed constrained, to the point where they cripple higher end GPUs (we'd already have a portable Series S equivalent otherwise).

The branding is what will distinguish it. It will be called a PS6, slightly more powerful, super small, super silent, with a portable (hybrid) little brother and a powerful big brother. You buy one game and you play in all of them.

Branding may help. But going back to my * from above. The buy once play everywhere was something Vita 'did' do - it was the chief reason I kept it around longer than my PSP. It genuinely added value to have cross-buy/cross-save to me as a user. I just don't think that's a very large audience overall, and while many migrated to Switch/PC portables for same reason later, I still think that particular audience isn't very large today (bulk of Switch users aren't it either).
But fair enough - I don't have hard evidence to validate that (other than PC Portable sales being - all-combined, still likely lower than what Vita managed).

 

[Fess]

Oh I agree it's an anti-pattern for consoles at large. It's just - we're already way past that today - Xbox 1st party devs have been doing 5(+N) platforms from day one this gen (N being the performative number of PC configurations tested - something that people treat as if it's 'free lunch' but it's anything but - though yes, modern PC dev seems to be increasingly just releasing untested software and YOLOing the bad PR).
Nintendo has been doing 2.5 (.5 being the undocked Switch with detached controllers that is distinctly different from Lite or docked variants), and of course Sony also had 3 to begin with, and while they're 'technically' at 2 right now, it depends on the team (some of their games are day-1 PC too).


I'd argue that's already been happening for several decades with 3rd parties (at least since the PS2 era), but I'll grant you 1st parties only really fell into it since this gen (see above).
Still - it's there and it's likely not going away any time soon - though I completely agree we don't need to go and make it worse. But when has that ever stopped platform holders before...


You're suggesting launch SKUs where the 'Pro' is 200-250W (nominal, could be higher if the 2000$ console crowd gets their way), and Handheld is 10-20W (more likely closer to 10, but 8-10Inch screen devices are kind of nice and can have the battery to go higher).
So somewhere between 10-25x power-draw delta. Easily Switch to PS4Pro delta, which may be 'better' than Vita to PS4, but there's not that much in it.
It's certainly in a different order of magnitude from Series S to X difference, if 'that's' how you meant it.


I agree to a point*, but I don't think it's the market differentiator people say it is. The key question is if this setup solves meaningful user problems, and I'd argue it didn't quite back then, and in post Switch era it just looks that much weaker as a value prop.
Also sadly - Vita sold only around 10-15M globally, it's the biggest flop of any PS hw to date.


I think this part is also a big challenge btw - modern high-powered handhelds are extremely memory speed constrained, to the point where they cripple higher end GPUs (we'd already have a portable Series S equivalent otherwise).


Branding may help. But going back to my * from above. The buy once play everywhere was something Vita 'did' do - it was the chief reason I kept it around longer than my PSP. It genuinely added value to have cross-buy/cross-save to me as a user. I just don't think that's a very large audience overall, and while many migrated to Switch/PC portables for same reason later, I still think that particular audience isn't very large today (bulk of Switch users aren't it either).
But fair enough - I don't have hard evidence to validate that (other than PC Portable sales being - all-combined, still likely lower than what Vita managed).

Fair points and you’ve clearly thought about this more than me. I’m just getting concerned by default from past multi device generations.

But it seems like console+handheld is the minimum we’ll get based on rumors that both Sony and Microsoft are experimenting with handheld devices.

Valve’s take is less intrusive. No specific hardware versions, no mandatory handheld ports, just a verified flag when things work well enough and an open platform so you’re always free to experiment yourself if you really want to, and the same purchase and saves as on your regular PC.

 

[Miyazaki’s Slave]

So..turn the PlayStation line of consoles into a PC with variable platform hardware resulting in LCD development for their software offerings?

I am confused…is this topic suggesting Sony take Microsoft’s series s/x approach but add another /p (portable) to the offering line up?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

It would be functionally retarded to adopt the same approach as the past (dedicated handheld/home console platforms) when Nintendo has shown the way with the Switch that single hybrid platform is vastly superior

It would also be functionally retarded to adopt the same 2 SKU's approach as MS (Xbox Series S/X) when Sony themselves have shown that a single SKU will ensure developers are optimizing the best they can on a single hardware target rather than shackle them to the power of the weakest of 2 SKU's

 

[Bernardougf]

At least someone who somehow agree!

Are you also in the crowd of an x86 normal one instead of an Arm or Risc-V?

Would you want the normal PS6 to be engineered in a way that it can also fit in a handheld? (Though I assume having low-power parts to fit in a handheld would mean less power compared to if it is not engineered with portability in mind.)

Dont think the handheld is such a good idea honestly... as for the Ps6 I think two normal consoles with updated architecture and just different GPUs .... really dont think this mid gen update thing is going to past this gen ... the ps5pro became a even more niche product than the ps4pro .... and the reasons to buy a midgen refresh will be even less next gen... technology is not jumping too much 4/4 years like it did. Maybe pushing one pro expensive SKU from the start might bring more sales and revenue than a mid gen refresh.........Anyway its fun to speculate..

 

[polybius80]

risc-v is still relatively weak and is not that cheap, it is advancing fast but they will require to emulate x86 to keep the catalog of past consoles, the best board with a risc-v cpu right now can run the witcher 3 at 10-15 fps emulating x86(via Box64, Wine, and DXVK) which is super impressive and can be improved, but for a ps6 they will require not only something more powerful than the current cpu for newer games but also capable of emulating current PS5 x86 cpu at full speed and they need it now, maybe if there is some kind of super risc-v cpu not known and they have a deal to produce a lot of them very cheaply but don't think so, maybe for a PS7

Box64 and RISC-V in 2024

What It Takes to Run The Witcher 3 on RiSC-V

box86.org

 

[Parazels]

Why did you "forget" to mention architecture of PS6 Portable for $500?

 

[ergem]

Why did you "forget" to mention architecture of PS6 Portable for $500?

PS6 and PS6 portable will have the same specifications (PS5 level of graphics and performance with minimal AI graphics and performance enhancing features). PS6 Pro will be the monster machine with advanced AI features for up to 120fps @ ai-upscaled 4k.

I don’t know how Sony will get there but the idea is to fit the specs into a $400 console (without oled and battery) and a $500 hybrid portable.

They could go bonkers with the PS6 PRO and give us 240fps capability with AI. I’m not gonna complain.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

$299 PS6 "Dock", low powered PS6 access to games when hooked to the TV. Can also be used in a lower power state below for the following two functions:

• $199 PS6 Handheld (can have the Dock inserted into the Handheld)
• $399 PSVR3 (can have the Dock inserted into the PSVR3 headset for Local gameplay, like Meta Quest)

Thoughts on something similar? Seems like you can kill three birds with one Stone here. Seems smart to me to be able to use the hardware across three different platforms.

 

[ergem]

$299 PS6 "Dock", low powered PS6 access to games when hooked to the TV. Can also be used in a lower power state below for the following two functions:

• $199 PS6 Handheld (can have the Dock inserted into the Handheld)
• $399 PSVR3 (can have the Dock inserted into the PSVR3 headset for Local gameplay, like Meta Quest)

Thoughts on something similar? Seems like you can kill three birds with one Stone here. Seems smart to me to be able to use the hardware across three different platforms.

Ohh that’s a different approach. Instead of marketing the hybrid portable as the main device (Nintendo-style), the PS6 (normal) will be the one marketed as a normal console but shall be too skinny and small to fit into a screen+battery+buttons peripheral and/or VR dock.

I would complain though that PS6 @ $300 will be too weak. I remember Nvidia being frustrated at Nintendo not picking the higher end specs of their APU. There’s option for a powerful specs even for a hybrid portable device and Sony should be aiming for the most powerful they can make with AMD.

 

[PaintTinJr]

PS6 and PS6 portable will have the same specifications (PS5 level of graphics and performance with minimal AI graphics and performance enhancing features). PS6 Pro will be the monster machine with advanced AI features for up to 120fps @ ai-upscaled 4k.

I don’t know how Sony will get there but the idea is to fit the specs into a $400 console (without oled and battery) and a $500 hybrid portable.

They could go bonkers with the PS6 PRO and give us 240fps capability with AI. I’m not gonna complain.

This all sounds like a failed Xbox strategy wishful thinking IMO. The niche for SteamDeck/Rog isn't a big chunk of high-end AAA gaming going by history.

At the end of the day, PlayStation's success is software, making money for 3rd parties and taking a cut themselves. The vast majority of the PlayStation install base have a finite amount they are willing to spend on hardware and software combined.

Simply put, cheaper low margin hardware leaves more money for users to buy high margin AAA games, making the industry more profitable for publishers and platform holders, moving away from that strategy doesn't help PlayStation's partners, and in a competition to spend big on niche portable hardware with a high BOM I suspect the hardcore Xbox player base are less price sensitive, and would support a XboxDeck at £600-£1200 more readily than the core PlayStation userbase would with a PS6 handheld

 

[riko]

There is literally no up side to RISC-V other than ideological purity tests about being “open” which is of no benefit to a console.

 

[BlackTron]

So two systems called PS6 that get all the same games except they're different architectures

Yeah no

 

[ergem]

This all sounds like a failed Xbox strategy wishful thinking IMO. The niche for SteamDeck/Rog isn't a big chunk of high-end AAA gaming going by history.

At the end of the day, PlayStation's success is software, making money for 3rd parties and taking a cut themselves. The vast majority of the PlayStation install base have a finite amount they are willing to spend on hardware and software combined.

Simply put, cheaper low margin hardware leaves more money for users to buy high margin AAA games, making the industry more profitable for publishers and platform holders, moving away from that strategy doesn't help PlayStation's partners, and in a competition to spend big on niche portable hardware with a high BOM I suspect the hardcore Xbox player base are less price sensitive, and would support a XboxDeck at £600-£1200 more readily than the core PlayStation userbase would with a PS6 handheld

The focus of the idea is not the portability. It’s the price. Strip away the screen and battery and you have a very affordable console.

 

[ergem]

There is literally no up side to RISC-V other than ideological purity tests about being “open” which is of no benefit to a console.

Ok then. Let’s say both arch are x86. What do you think of a cheap PS6 normal based on a 20W AMD APU and a 250W PS6 Pro?

And a hybrid version based on the normal PS6.

 

[Gojiira]

The basic idea is that if Sony is planning on releasing a handheld in the future, why not make a version of it that is not portable?

And to tie the branding together, the handheld and its non-handheld should be called the PS6 and PS6 portable. PS6 Pro will be the traditional x86 and the only one with backwards compatibility.

This strategy also solves the problem that $699 - $999 console will shrink the market.

$399 console should remain available next generation. But the branding and marketing is the end-all and be-all. By calling it PS6 and PS6 portable, people will understand that ALL PS6 games will release on it too.

PS6, PS6 Portable, and PS6 Pro will all release at the same time or at least the same quarter. Optional PS6 Pro Max available 3-4 years down the road if there is market for it.

With proper and advanced tools, Sony can perhaps make the development process between the two machines as seamless as PS5 to PS5 pro.

Literally just look at Series S…Weakest hardware has absolutely held back just about every single multiplat game this gen.
Splitting the PS6 into 3…3! Platforms would have the exact same issue.
Either you go full hybrid like the Switch or your portable is the only release that gen and you just maximise its specs IF it is branded as the 6…

 

[ergem]

Splitting the PS6 into 3…3! Platforms would have the exact same issue.

Just 2.

 

[gooner4life_uk]

It's an idea, but it's not Sony's idea and you'd know that if you understood Cerny's philosophy.

He didn't go for a full feature set RDNA 3 GPU in the PS5 Pro because it would mean devs had to release 2 different builds so he's not going to put out an entire console on different arch for next gen as well as an x86 based.

 

[YOU PC BRO?!]

There is no need to differentiate with different architectures…

Simply offer SteamDeck like portable as PS6 and a separately purchased dock equipped with a more powerful discreet gpu. When playing via dock plugged into a tv the console uses the discreet gpu.

*Portable can be plugged into tv and played via a controller without discreet gpu equipped dock if that isn’t obvious.

This may be what Microsoft has planned with its confirmed portable…

 

[Jigsaah]

Sooooo, you're saying release 3 SKUs at the same time? Why the Pro though? And at $899? What would the Pro include to justify double the price of the non-portable? Just Backwards compatibility?

Have you considered how 2 SKU's went for the Xbox this gen? Endless claims that the S was holding back the X. Your fanbase buying the cheapest model S more than your flagship model...and then buying a PS5 (or PS5 Pro) to supplement the game availability...

 

[metareferential]

So basically: let's do the same stupid thing Ms did, but worse, since it's on two different architectures.

And to top it all off: a fucking portable.