So we all know that there's a lot of buzz surrounding the PS5 Pro. It (most likely) is real and is (most likely) going to release sometime in Late 2024. Current performance targets put it at roughly 2x PS5 in TF and rasterization, with an emphasis on custom DLSS-style image reconstruction for RT and higher framerates. Nothing on MSRP, but I'd personally expect $499 discless/$599 with disc (and I expect regular PS5 will become $349 discless/$449 with disc standard, Late 2024).
However, I'm even more interested in the PlayStation 6. There was the highly unfortunate ransomware attack on Insomniac earlier this month and, through that, we've come to learn a few things, though nothing regarding PlayStation 6 plans. That's likely for the best, be we know for a fact Sony ARE planning, even already designing and architecting, a PlayStation 6 and plans around it, today. There are rumors that Microsoft might be aiming for a 2026 launch of 'Xbox Next', so I'm interested in speculating what Sony's potential strategy and timeline for PS6 could look like.
[RELEASE TIMING]
I think this is an easy one; with the PS5 Pro likely coming late next year, I absolutely don't see Sony wanting to cut it short just two years later. At the very least, they'd get another 3 years out of PS5 with the mid-gen refresh, but considering serious constraints in supply for 2021 and a lot of 2022, not to mention games taking longer to make and cross-gen just only really now coming to an end (for non-sports games or non-F2P games anyway), I can see PS5 having an eight-year generation.
This would keep a PS6 at bay until sometime in 2028. So release timing-wise, Sony could definitely be behind Microsoft's 10th-gen offering by almost two years. However, that isn't really a handicap. If you look at historical examples, the PC-Engine and Genesis/MegaDrive both launched years ahead of the SFC/SNES...and yet it was Nintendo's system that was #1 for that generation, quite clearly so in markets like Japan (and considering recent Sega financial document leaks...perhaps with a bigger lead in the U.S than commonly though). The Dreamcast launched almost two years ahead of PS2 in Japan only to be completely outdone in sales in that country by PS2 in a single day.
Perhaps the only solid instance of a competitor launching ahead of the market leaders (Nintendo in the past, Sony today) and it giving them a long-term win, was the Xbox 360, but even this one is debatable. Early 360 sales were "good" but nothing phenomenal; the true burst in sales didn't come until Gears of War's late 2006 launch, and then Halo 3's launch in 2007 combined with exclusives like Mass Effect and Saint's Row. It took all of those, plus all the other games released up to late 2006/early 2007, plus Sony's own screw ups with PS3 early on, that created a perfect storm for 360's huge rise in sales.
And even so, that was mainly pertaining to the US and UK markets. Almost immediately, with all global markets considered PS3 was outpacing 360 sales when launch-aligned, and it remained that way for the rest of the generation. However, one thing 360's early release DID definitely help with (and can arguably be said was similarly seen with the Genesis/MegaDrive), was in getting 3P support it otherwise may not have received. That helped add value proposition to the system against PS3 which came in handy for most of the rest of that generation, but particularly in the 2006 - 2009 period.
Theoretically MS could achieve similar with a 2026 'Xbox Next' launch, but in practice I don't see that working out. This isn't the early/mid '00s anymore; Xbox already gets most of the same 3P support PlayStation does, outside of some isolated Japanese/Asian 3P IPs, a lot of which are smaller niche titles. None of the big Western or Japanese 3P titles this gen have skipped Xbox, so there is no additional 3P support to gain with a 2-year early launch of their system. Most big 3P games also have much larger budgets these days vs. the past, not to mention dev times are taking longer. This means that by necessity, they are going to support more platforms...this means less 3P exclusives by default for Microsoft. And unlike Sony, they don't have an install base or customer base big enough to make 3P exclusivity desirable by the vast majority of devs and pubs aside from smaller indie titles.
So overall, I don't see a 2028 PS6 release causing any issues for Sony. There is maybe ONE variable that could be a nuisance, that being MS's ownership of Zenimax, ABK, and some other studios under XGS. Microsoft could in theory rely on just a good enough number of exclusives from internal studios to drive adoption and install base growth for Xbox Next in a two-year early period over PS6. However, they'll never be able to do this with arguably their biggest IP like COD, due to regulatory restrictions, or ESO due to the inherent GaaS/live-service nature of that type of game. The same goes for mainline Minecraft. So even here, Microsoft's powers are heavily neutered.
[HARDWARE DIFFERENTIATOR]
Timing is one thing, but what about the things Sony do for PS6 to make it "feel" like a next gen experience? IMHO, the natural evolution forward is to properly integrate VR into the default user experience. This means producing an entry-level headset cheap enough to include with every PS6, and designing a fully integrated UI experience that can work perfectly fine traditionally, but is seamless & fluid with VR (and light AR) functionality, including seamless shifting and transition of content between VR and traditional space (and mixed usage via light AR).
I feel that VR being a separate, add-on accessory is what's really limiting its reach and full development as a medium enhancer in game design. Imagine if Nintendo made the N64's joystick an optional controller, never integrating that analog stick into a default controller design. Imagine if they did the same with the SNES's shoulder buttons. Imagine if Sony never added force feedback as a built-in default feature for all DualShocks in all PS2 systems. Now imagine how many games that designed game mechanics and features around these commonplace standards, would have been changed (likely fo the worst) without being able to count on every console owner having access to those components?
This is basically where VR is at currently when it comes to PlayStation. PSVR2 is amazing technology, but most developers are not developing games with it in mind because very few PS5 owners have the headset, and it'll likely remain that way during the generation. The only way to change that, is to get the technology to a point where it can be affordably integrated into the default system package, with real value add noticeable by the user. And I think some patents and current market products like the PS Portal hint at how Sony can get there.
For starters, the vast majority with a PS Portal seem to feel it offers a completely seamless streaming solution for PS5 games on the go. It will be improved even further as time goes on, I'm certain, but even at current it's quite remarkable. It's as close to a portable PS5 as you can get, without literally cramming PS5's components into a portable form factor. And I think Sony's expertise here with technologies like PS.Link, will be key in future VR headset designs. Headsets which can offload significantly more local processing to the host console, which in turn reduces the production costs for the headset. We are also talking entry-level headsets here, which would not require the finest lenses or audio/speaker systems (perhaps the headphones could even be a separate accessory that's fit-to-form for these types of headsets).
If the package can be slimmed down in bulk and weight, where only the most necessary components are built in, and quality economy-level materials are used for components that are meant to scale down stuff anyway (such as regular HD lenses vs 4K ones)...it might be quite possible to get an entry-level VR headset (with light AR functionality) going for under $100 in total production costs, and an MSRP between $129 and $149. So maybe not huge profit margins on these entry-level headsets, but that could be offset by the amount of additional headsets getting sold. And even beyond that, they would have higher-performance headsets with larger profit margins, selling to users who want a higher-fidelity VR experience.
Now I know what this immediately conjures pictures of: the XBO Kinect. Yes, Kinect 2 was a disaster for XBO, but not for what it was in and of itself. The Kinect 2 was actually great technology for the time, and even for a few years afterwards. It's what the original Kinect should've been tech-wise. The actual problems with Kinect 2 were a focus clearly not on gaming, combined with performance specifications of the host console (XBO) clearly weaker than its direct competitor (even this only became a real issue after the prices were revealed), and something outside of MS's control: the fears and hysteria around cybersecurity during that time period and fears about groups like the NSA gathering private data, and big corps selling said data. Microsoft, being a big tech company themselves, fell right into being a manifestation of those fears. It was ALL of those things combined that created the disaster of XBO & Kinect.
Nowadays, people don't have those fears about corps accessing their data and selling them, because they willingly give them this power every day through social media. Hacks aren't foreign things anymore; they're common-place, and in general cybersecurity is much better than it was 10 years ago. And it's become increasingly obvious that being a weaker system on paper doesn't matter if you either provide amazing experiences, have titles which punch about their weight, or a combination of both; systems like the Switch and PS5 have proven this. It's for these reasons, alongside just always having a gaming-first mentality in general, why I feel a push for VR in PS6 would work out significantly better than Kinect did for XBO. There's also the reality of diminishing returns, and where most significant visual gains going forward are more a case of scale & budget combined with non-general purpose hardware customizations that "do more with less"....all of which help this hypothetical PS6 in ways that simply never existed for the XBO which pushed Kinect.
[HARDWARE CAPABILITIES]
Usually when most people speculate on next-gen hardware, this is the area they give the most focus to. What the GPU's going to be, what the CPU will be like, how much RAM it's going to have, the TFs, all the such. I've done a lot of that myself in the past, but nowadays I am less interested in speculating on hard specs in this regard, and more interested in what various technologies a next-gen system could have.
I think even with some form of VR included by default, the PS6 itself would be a noticeable jump in power over the PS5 and PS5 Pro. And, supposing an 'Xbox Next' in 2026, even a (less so) jump above even that, at least when talking about raw on-paper specs in certain categories. I'm personally expecting a VERY different approach for 'Xbox Next' than most others probably are, which makes comparing its specs (or even its entire business model) to PS6's effectively worthless, but that can be saved for another time.
Anyhow, these are some of the things I'm interested in seeing Sony pursue for the PS6 in terms of technological features, in no particular order. Though, some are more likely to happen than others, and I'll make note of such.
1: CHIPLET GPU & CPU
There's actually one big reason I would see this being a strong possibility for PS6: scalability. Remember those other VR headset models I mentioned earlier, the ones that would be higher performance? Well, if the PS6's GPU is chiplet-based, Sony could keep all manufacturing on the same node processes, so the higher end VR headsets would just include a portion of the PS6's GPU for their own built-in processing requirements.
This would help with economies of scale, meaning cheaper pricing per chip, while maximizing wafer production. Sony could also use chunks of a chiplet GPU approach for cloud streaming server expansion (something already suggested in existing patents), as well as cost-effective late-era PS5 systems that can help serve as entry-level hardware point for the PlayStation ecosystem (you know there are going to be some cross-gen games anyhow for the first year or two). AMD are already exploring chiplets; RDNA3 is technically a chiplet-based GPU design, though not to the degree of say their MI300. But they are clearly focused on expanding their chipletization designs, and I see every reason Sony would like to assist in that route for purposes of the PS6.
2: PROCESSING-NEAR-MEMORY/PROCESSING-IN-MEMORY
Technically, the PS5 already has a Processing-Near-Memory (or PNM) system in place, with its SSD I/O subsystem. The DMA controller which handles transfer of data from the SSD I/O to GDDR6, for example, can be considered a form of PNM. However, I don't know the specifics of the DMA system, like what buffer memory it has..tho the SSD I/O itself has a cache of DDR4 buffer memory (most higher-end m.2 SSDs have a DRAM cache on their Flash Memory Controller as well) which can be thought of as another form of PNM.
However, the PNM I'm hoping the PS6 leverages, is closer to having purpose-built ASICs and buffer cache close to system RAM that can handle various forms of data processing within that buffer zone. I would REALLY like to see this as PIM (Processing-In-Memory), but that would necessitate HBM-based memories (there's still a good chance Sony stick with GDDR), which are already more expensive than GDDR, and HBM-PIM even more so than regular HBM non-PIM. While PIM-based DDR exists, DDR wouldn't provide the bandwidth requirements a PS6 needs; even tho the idea of PIM is to reduce transfer of data across the memory bus (thereby heavily cutting down on power usage), there are still going to be many times where data has to be moved no matter what, and DDR-PIM would probably be too much of a bottleneck bandwidth-wise for those situations.
While Sony could in theory go with a tiered cache where some small amount of DDR-PIM or HBM-PIM is present, they'd have to automate data processing in those pools and they'd have to act as a direct cache, not normal system memory available to the developers directly. That can create some complications and it's arguable having a smaller block of SRAM cache right in the APU itself is preferable from a cost/performance POV, so my PIM dreams may have to remain dreams. However, a more robust PNM ASIC & cache buffer on the memory controller bus could be a real boon, even if continuing to use GDDR, because theres...
3: GDDRW
A new type of GDDR, it doubles chip capacity and density while reducing memory traces by half, and keeping the physical footprint mostly the same as a single normal GDDR module. This, along with increasing the data frequency to somewhere between normal high-end GDDR6 and mid-high end GDDR6X (and being much more power-efficient than GDDR6X and even GDDR6 at equivalent clocks).
Going with, say, GDDR7W should be an easy choice for Sony when it comes to PlayStation 6's system memory, assuming it's most likely they use GDDR for the next PS console. Halving the physical footprint of memory modules on the PCB while still getting the necessary bus width, bandwidths and capacities regular GDDR would provide, at similar prices, makes the W variant a common sense choice. Capacity-wise I'd just go with a safe pick of 32 GB, but Sony could have a small block of DDR for the OS in background tasks. With better file/data compression techniques tho, that may not be necessary since they can use less of the 32 GB for OS data in the first place (mid-way critical data that's compressed in RAM and low-end critical data that can be quickly moved to/from the SSD).
It's also likely Sony can have certain ASICs that can generate data and instructions on the fly contextually, further reducing the need for more raw memory. Which leads to...
4: GENERATIVE AI TECHNOLOGY
This isn't something I follow much on, if at all, but we already know these companies are moving into relying more on AI in various aspects of gaming development, software and hardware-wise. The former is potentially controversial considering the jobs that can be replaced, but it's not in the scope of what I'm discussing here. Instead, I'm more interested in Sony taking whatever AI hardware customizations they do for the PS5 Pro, and scaling them forward for the PS6.
Earlier I mentioned something like piece of silicon (maybe let's call it an ASIC for this example) that could contextually generate instructions and data for OS operations. This would make it so that OS data could take up less of a footprint in system memory. However, this could extend to other parts of the system such as a GPU with an ASIC that can contextually generate instructions for draw calls based on analyzing current code, GPU work results, and identifying certain data in system memory. These sort of things, that can automate data/instruction management for programmers in the background and give them more time to focus on creative aspects of the programming pipeline, could be stimulants in helping game development move faster, resulting in more games and more ambitious titles from teams of all sizes.
There are also user and manufacturer-side benefits to having this type of stuff built into PS6. For example, custom ASIC technology developed with AMD (as an example) that can optimize the output of framebuffer displays to connected VR devices, and again the case where less data needs to be in memory (and less data needs to be transferred between RAM and SSD storage) while the CPU can still do its required work for OS-side tasks, system calls, and the such. I'd be interested in what those with a better understanding on AI technology in this regard could think up in possibilities.
5: DUAL-FUNCTION TRADITIONAL/VR CONTROLLER
More of a usability feature, but still technologically related. If Sony are going to make VR a default offering with the PS6 experience, the controller needs to be innovated upon to offer usability in that context as well as a traditional context. The easiest way to picture this would be in a controller that can segment itself and be effortlessly reconnected, and automatically contextualize its mode of usage depending on whether it's joined as a whole or segmented into two parts.
Well, technically three parts, because I figure any room-scale calibration or wireless relay for the VR headset, could be built into the center component, which could be placed near the system or on some shelf or table in the space. I'm guessing the controller shape would have to change a good bit to accommodate this type of functionality; for example the center part would have to be more spherical but with an angled flatness on the backend, that can maybe have some small buttons along the top half, and the touchpad curves along with the front surface. Maybe the other two parts of the controller can have parts transformed when segmented, but otherwise still retain haptic functionality.
These types of changes would probably result in a more expensive controller, but the segmentation functionality could be highly innovative not just for traditional/VR seamless play, but also even just traditional non-VR gaming design content. This type of innovation could be further bolstered if there are multiple users in the same location. Lots of possibilities here.
6: MULTI-USER VR/AR
Again, not strictly focused on tech specs, but technologically related. By 'multi-user VR/AR', I am speaking about a PS6 allowing multiple people on the same console in the same physical space each use a connected VR headset device. In these types of setups, wireless is really the only option, and while I think the PS6 should facilitate that, by default it doesn't have to do so right out of the box for multiple users. Sony could just bring back something like the Multitap, but recontextualized to a multi-user wireless VR linking device, to the market.
I do think, though, that the basic VR headset should allow wireless functionality out of the box, and a PS6 should be able to allow at least a single VR headset to be used wireless in that way out of the box. Wired should still be an option, but not having wireless as an option would be a goofy look and messily complicate multi-user setups in the same physical space.
[Continued in next post...]
However, I'm even more interested in the PlayStation 6. There was the highly unfortunate ransomware attack on Insomniac earlier this month and, through that, we've come to learn a few things, though nothing regarding PlayStation 6 plans. That's likely for the best, be we know for a fact Sony ARE planning, even already designing and architecting, a PlayStation 6 and plans around it, today. There are rumors that Microsoft might be aiming for a 2026 launch of 'Xbox Next', so I'm interested in speculating what Sony's potential strategy and timeline for PS6 could look like.
[RELEASE TIMING]
I think this is an easy one; with the PS5 Pro likely coming late next year, I absolutely don't see Sony wanting to cut it short just two years later. At the very least, they'd get another 3 years out of PS5 with the mid-gen refresh, but considering serious constraints in supply for 2021 and a lot of 2022, not to mention games taking longer to make and cross-gen just only really now coming to an end (for non-sports games or non-F2P games anyway), I can see PS5 having an eight-year generation.
This would keep a PS6 at bay until sometime in 2028. So release timing-wise, Sony could definitely be behind Microsoft's 10th-gen offering by almost two years. However, that isn't really a handicap. If you look at historical examples, the PC-Engine and Genesis/MegaDrive both launched years ahead of the SFC/SNES...and yet it was Nintendo's system that was #1 for that generation, quite clearly so in markets like Japan (and considering recent Sega financial document leaks...perhaps with a bigger lead in the U.S than commonly though). The Dreamcast launched almost two years ahead of PS2 in Japan only to be completely outdone in sales in that country by PS2 in a single day.
Perhaps the only solid instance of a competitor launching ahead of the market leaders (Nintendo in the past, Sony today) and it giving them a long-term win, was the Xbox 360, but even this one is debatable. Early 360 sales were "good" but nothing phenomenal; the true burst in sales didn't come until Gears of War's late 2006 launch, and then Halo 3's launch in 2007 combined with exclusives like Mass Effect and Saint's Row. It took all of those, plus all the other games released up to late 2006/early 2007, plus Sony's own screw ups with PS3 early on, that created a perfect storm for 360's huge rise in sales.
And even so, that was mainly pertaining to the US and UK markets. Almost immediately, with all global markets considered PS3 was outpacing 360 sales when launch-aligned, and it remained that way for the rest of the generation. However, one thing 360's early release DID definitely help with (and can arguably be said was similarly seen with the Genesis/MegaDrive), was in getting 3P support it otherwise may not have received. That helped add value proposition to the system against PS3 which came in handy for most of the rest of that generation, but particularly in the 2006 - 2009 period.
Theoretically MS could achieve similar with a 2026 'Xbox Next' launch, but in practice I don't see that working out. This isn't the early/mid '00s anymore; Xbox already gets most of the same 3P support PlayStation does, outside of some isolated Japanese/Asian 3P IPs, a lot of which are smaller niche titles. None of the big Western or Japanese 3P titles this gen have skipped Xbox, so there is no additional 3P support to gain with a 2-year early launch of their system. Most big 3P games also have much larger budgets these days vs. the past, not to mention dev times are taking longer. This means that by necessity, they are going to support more platforms...this means less 3P exclusives by default for Microsoft. And unlike Sony, they don't have an install base or customer base big enough to make 3P exclusivity desirable by the vast majority of devs and pubs aside from smaller indie titles.
So overall, I don't see a 2028 PS6 release causing any issues for Sony. There is maybe ONE variable that could be a nuisance, that being MS's ownership of Zenimax, ABK, and some other studios under XGS. Microsoft could in theory rely on just a good enough number of exclusives from internal studios to drive adoption and install base growth for Xbox Next in a two-year early period over PS6. However, they'll never be able to do this with arguably their biggest IP like COD, due to regulatory restrictions, or ESO due to the inherent GaaS/live-service nature of that type of game. The same goes for mainline Minecraft. So even here, Microsoft's powers are heavily neutered.
[HARDWARE DIFFERENTIATOR]
Timing is one thing, but what about the things Sony do for PS6 to make it "feel" like a next gen experience? IMHO, the natural evolution forward is to properly integrate VR into the default user experience. This means producing an entry-level headset cheap enough to include with every PS6, and designing a fully integrated UI experience that can work perfectly fine traditionally, but is seamless & fluid with VR (and light AR) functionality, including seamless shifting and transition of content between VR and traditional space (and mixed usage via light AR).
I feel that VR being a separate, add-on accessory is what's really limiting its reach and full development as a medium enhancer in game design. Imagine if Nintendo made the N64's joystick an optional controller, never integrating that analog stick into a default controller design. Imagine if they did the same with the SNES's shoulder buttons. Imagine if Sony never added force feedback as a built-in default feature for all DualShocks in all PS2 systems. Now imagine how many games that designed game mechanics and features around these commonplace standards, would have been changed (likely fo the worst) without being able to count on every console owner having access to those components?
This is basically where VR is at currently when it comes to PlayStation. PSVR2 is amazing technology, but most developers are not developing games with it in mind because very few PS5 owners have the headset, and it'll likely remain that way during the generation. The only way to change that, is to get the technology to a point where it can be affordably integrated into the default system package, with real value add noticeable by the user. And I think some patents and current market products like the PS Portal hint at how Sony can get there.
For starters, the vast majority with a PS Portal seem to feel it offers a completely seamless streaming solution for PS5 games on the go. It will be improved even further as time goes on, I'm certain, but even at current it's quite remarkable. It's as close to a portable PS5 as you can get, without literally cramming PS5's components into a portable form factor. And I think Sony's expertise here with technologies like PS.Link, will be key in future VR headset designs. Headsets which can offload significantly more local processing to the host console, which in turn reduces the production costs for the headset. We are also talking entry-level headsets here, which would not require the finest lenses or audio/speaker systems (perhaps the headphones could even be a separate accessory that's fit-to-form for these types of headsets).
If the package can be slimmed down in bulk and weight, where only the most necessary components are built in, and quality economy-level materials are used for components that are meant to scale down stuff anyway (such as regular HD lenses vs 4K ones)...it might be quite possible to get an entry-level VR headset (with light AR functionality) going for under $100 in total production costs, and an MSRP between $129 and $149. So maybe not huge profit margins on these entry-level headsets, but that could be offset by the amount of additional headsets getting sold. And even beyond that, they would have higher-performance headsets with larger profit margins, selling to users who want a higher-fidelity VR experience.
Now I know what this immediately conjures pictures of: the XBO Kinect. Yes, Kinect 2 was a disaster for XBO, but not for what it was in and of itself. The Kinect 2 was actually great technology for the time, and even for a few years afterwards. It's what the original Kinect should've been tech-wise. The actual problems with Kinect 2 were a focus clearly not on gaming, combined with performance specifications of the host console (XBO) clearly weaker than its direct competitor (even this only became a real issue after the prices were revealed), and something outside of MS's control: the fears and hysteria around cybersecurity during that time period and fears about groups like the NSA gathering private data, and big corps selling said data. Microsoft, being a big tech company themselves, fell right into being a manifestation of those fears. It was ALL of those things combined that created the disaster of XBO & Kinect.
Nowadays, people don't have those fears about corps accessing their data and selling them, because they willingly give them this power every day through social media. Hacks aren't foreign things anymore; they're common-place, and in general cybersecurity is much better than it was 10 years ago. And it's become increasingly obvious that being a weaker system on paper doesn't matter if you either provide amazing experiences, have titles which punch about their weight, or a combination of both; systems like the Switch and PS5 have proven this. It's for these reasons, alongside just always having a gaming-first mentality in general, why I feel a push for VR in PS6 would work out significantly better than Kinect did for XBO. There's also the reality of diminishing returns, and where most significant visual gains going forward are more a case of scale & budget combined with non-general purpose hardware customizations that "do more with less"....all of which help this hypothetical PS6 in ways that simply never existed for the XBO which pushed Kinect.
[HARDWARE CAPABILITIES]
Usually when most people speculate on next-gen hardware, this is the area they give the most focus to. What the GPU's going to be, what the CPU will be like, how much RAM it's going to have, the TFs, all the such. I've done a lot of that myself in the past, but nowadays I am less interested in speculating on hard specs in this regard, and more interested in what various technologies a next-gen system could have.
I think even with some form of VR included by default, the PS6 itself would be a noticeable jump in power over the PS5 and PS5 Pro. And, supposing an 'Xbox Next' in 2026, even a (less so) jump above even that, at least when talking about raw on-paper specs in certain categories. I'm personally expecting a VERY different approach for 'Xbox Next' than most others probably are, which makes comparing its specs (or even its entire business model) to PS6's effectively worthless, but that can be saved for another time.
Anyhow, these are some of the things I'm interested in seeing Sony pursue for the PS6 in terms of technological features, in no particular order. Though, some are more likely to happen than others, and I'll make note of such.
1: CHIPLET GPU & CPU
There's actually one big reason I would see this being a strong possibility for PS6: scalability. Remember those other VR headset models I mentioned earlier, the ones that would be higher performance? Well, if the PS6's GPU is chiplet-based, Sony could keep all manufacturing on the same node processes, so the higher end VR headsets would just include a portion of the PS6's GPU for their own built-in processing requirements.
This would help with economies of scale, meaning cheaper pricing per chip, while maximizing wafer production. Sony could also use chunks of a chiplet GPU approach for cloud streaming server expansion (something already suggested in existing patents), as well as cost-effective late-era PS5 systems that can help serve as entry-level hardware point for the PlayStation ecosystem (you know there are going to be some cross-gen games anyhow for the first year or two). AMD are already exploring chiplets; RDNA3 is technically a chiplet-based GPU design, though not to the degree of say their MI300. But they are clearly focused on expanding their chipletization designs, and I see every reason Sony would like to assist in that route for purposes of the PS6.
2: PROCESSING-NEAR-MEMORY/PROCESSING-IN-MEMORY
Technically, the PS5 already has a Processing-Near-Memory (or PNM) system in place, with its SSD I/O subsystem. The DMA controller which handles transfer of data from the SSD I/O to GDDR6, for example, can be considered a form of PNM. However, I don't know the specifics of the DMA system, like what buffer memory it has..tho the SSD I/O itself has a cache of DDR4 buffer memory (most higher-end m.2 SSDs have a DRAM cache on their Flash Memory Controller as well) which can be thought of as another form of PNM.
However, the PNM I'm hoping the PS6 leverages, is closer to having purpose-built ASICs and buffer cache close to system RAM that can handle various forms of data processing within that buffer zone. I would REALLY like to see this as PIM (Processing-In-Memory), but that would necessitate HBM-based memories (there's still a good chance Sony stick with GDDR), which are already more expensive than GDDR, and HBM-PIM even more so than regular HBM non-PIM. While PIM-based DDR exists, DDR wouldn't provide the bandwidth requirements a PS6 needs; even tho the idea of PIM is to reduce transfer of data across the memory bus (thereby heavily cutting down on power usage), there are still going to be many times where data has to be moved no matter what, and DDR-PIM would probably be too much of a bottleneck bandwidth-wise for those situations.
While Sony could in theory go with a tiered cache where some small amount of DDR-PIM or HBM-PIM is present, they'd have to automate data processing in those pools and they'd have to act as a direct cache, not normal system memory available to the developers directly. That can create some complications and it's arguable having a smaller block of SRAM cache right in the APU itself is preferable from a cost/performance POV, so my PIM dreams may have to remain dreams. However, a more robust PNM ASIC & cache buffer on the memory controller bus could be a real boon, even if continuing to use GDDR, because theres...
3: GDDRW
A new type of GDDR, it doubles chip capacity and density while reducing memory traces by half, and keeping the physical footprint mostly the same as a single normal GDDR module. This, along with increasing the data frequency to somewhere between normal high-end GDDR6 and mid-high end GDDR6X (and being much more power-efficient than GDDR6X and even GDDR6 at equivalent clocks).
Going with, say, GDDR7W should be an easy choice for Sony when it comes to PlayStation 6's system memory, assuming it's most likely they use GDDR for the next PS console. Halving the physical footprint of memory modules on the PCB while still getting the necessary bus width, bandwidths and capacities regular GDDR would provide, at similar prices, makes the W variant a common sense choice. Capacity-wise I'd just go with a safe pick of 32 GB, but Sony could have a small block of DDR for the OS in background tasks. With better file/data compression techniques tho, that may not be necessary since they can use less of the 32 GB for OS data in the first place (mid-way critical data that's compressed in RAM and low-end critical data that can be quickly moved to/from the SSD).
It's also likely Sony can have certain ASICs that can generate data and instructions on the fly contextually, further reducing the need for more raw memory. Which leads to...
4: GENERATIVE AI TECHNOLOGY
This isn't something I follow much on, if at all, but we already know these companies are moving into relying more on AI in various aspects of gaming development, software and hardware-wise. The former is potentially controversial considering the jobs that can be replaced, but it's not in the scope of what I'm discussing here. Instead, I'm more interested in Sony taking whatever AI hardware customizations they do for the PS5 Pro, and scaling them forward for the PS6.
Earlier I mentioned something like piece of silicon (maybe let's call it an ASIC for this example) that could contextually generate instructions and data for OS operations. This would make it so that OS data could take up less of a footprint in system memory. However, this could extend to other parts of the system such as a GPU with an ASIC that can contextually generate instructions for draw calls based on analyzing current code, GPU work results, and identifying certain data in system memory. These sort of things, that can automate data/instruction management for programmers in the background and give them more time to focus on creative aspects of the programming pipeline, could be stimulants in helping game development move faster, resulting in more games and more ambitious titles from teams of all sizes.
There are also user and manufacturer-side benefits to having this type of stuff built into PS6. For example, custom ASIC technology developed with AMD (as an example) that can optimize the output of framebuffer displays to connected VR devices, and again the case where less data needs to be in memory (and less data needs to be transferred between RAM and SSD storage) while the CPU can still do its required work for OS-side tasks, system calls, and the such. I'd be interested in what those with a better understanding on AI technology in this regard could think up in possibilities.
5: DUAL-FUNCTION TRADITIONAL/VR CONTROLLER
More of a usability feature, but still technologically related. If Sony are going to make VR a default offering with the PS6 experience, the controller needs to be innovated upon to offer usability in that context as well as a traditional context. The easiest way to picture this would be in a controller that can segment itself and be effortlessly reconnected, and automatically contextualize its mode of usage depending on whether it's joined as a whole or segmented into two parts.
Well, technically three parts, because I figure any room-scale calibration or wireless relay for the VR headset, could be built into the center component, which could be placed near the system or on some shelf or table in the space. I'm guessing the controller shape would have to change a good bit to accommodate this type of functionality; for example the center part would have to be more spherical but with an angled flatness on the backend, that can maybe have some small buttons along the top half, and the touchpad curves along with the front surface. Maybe the other two parts of the controller can have parts transformed when segmented, but otherwise still retain haptic functionality.
These types of changes would probably result in a more expensive controller, but the segmentation functionality could be highly innovative not just for traditional/VR seamless play, but also even just traditional non-VR gaming design content. This type of innovation could be further bolstered if there are multiple users in the same location. Lots of possibilities here.
6: MULTI-USER VR/AR
Again, not strictly focused on tech specs, but technologically related. By 'multi-user VR/AR', I am speaking about a PS6 allowing multiple people on the same console in the same physical space each use a connected VR headset device. In these types of setups, wireless is really the only option, and while I think the PS6 should facilitate that, by default it doesn't have to do so right out of the box for multiple users. Sony could just bring back something like the Multitap, but recontextualized to a multi-user wireless VR linking device, to the market.
I do think, though, that the basic VR headset should allow wireless functionality out of the box, and a PS6 should be able to allow at least a single VR headset to be used wireless in that way out of the box. Wired should still be an option, but not having wireless as an option would be a goofy look and messily complicate multi-user setups in the same physical space.
[Continued in next post...]
