Support NeoGAF

[Steve Youngblood]

Wouldn't this be just like creating the pc version but all you are doing is just locking two different settings to each machine?

On initial examination, I believe that's mostly true. However, I won't completely disregard the extra Q&A that's going to go along with this. Aside from those sorts of fluke-like bugs that might occur targeting hardware specifically and then running against slightly different hardware, there's probably also the concern of having to find another "sweet-spot" so to speak. A lot of the speculation I've read hints that this could just be the different between PC Medium and PC High, or PC High and PC Ultra. But what if things don't go that smoothly?

For instance, you've got a rock solid 30 FPS at High, but when you bump it up to Ultra, you're left with better image quality and a mostly rock solid 30 FPS that dips here and there. Is that acceptable? You're getting a version that's better in some ways and worse in another.

On PC, no two machines are the same and you just leave it to the user to tinker until they're happy. I mean, you default it to what you think is the most ideal config, but you leave all the options exposed so that they can tweak it however they like. But here, they basically have to optimize two configs now.

I don't buy that this is a gargantuan task. But I can see how it might not be an exciting prospect, particularly if you're not yet sold on the commercial prospects of a device like this introduced mid-gen.

 

[Audioboxer]

On initial examination, I believe that's mostly true. However, I won't completely disregard the extra Q&A that's going to go along with this. Aside from those sorts of fluke-like bugs that might occur targeting hardware specifically and then running against slightly different hardware, there's probably also the concern of having to find another "sweet-spot" so to speak. A lot of the speculation I've read hints that this could just be the different between PC Medium and PC High, or PC High and PC Ultra. But what if things don't go that smoothly?

For instance, you've got a rock solid 30 FPS at High, but when you bump it up to Ultra, you're left with better image quality and a mostly rock solid 30 FPS that dips here and there. Is that acceptable? You're getting a version that's better in some ways and worse in another.

On PC, no two machines are the same and you just leave it to the user to tinker until they're happy. I mean, you default it to what you think is the most ideal config, but you leave all the options exposed so that they can tweak it however they like. But here, they basically have to optimize two configs now.

I don't buy that this is a gargantuan task. But I can see how it might not be an exciting prospect, particularly if you're not yet sold on the commercial prospects of a device like this introduced mid-gen.

Bingo.

 

[Movalpolos]

It's just strange to me, that for something Colin seems so "passionate" about, he doesn't seem to want to follow-up on his comment. Or try to give more validity to his claim.

If he wants to be "right" so bad, shouldn't he be getting more info that supports his claim?
Or maybe he knows he's wrong at this point and is just trying to avoid any further damage?

 

[RoyalLaFlame]

I completely agree. Even based on the amount of internet backlash, this much is evident. You have to have your head buried in the sand to not see that clearly many people are not happy about this, and like myself, much prefer the idea of full generation cycles (albeit shorter than they were last gen), instead of mid way iterations that semi split up the user base, and will likely prolong the generation unnecessarily.

I do not think the proper solution to an underpowered PS4, is to release an iterative upgrade mid cycle, that is still tied down to the PS4 and thus forever held back, and indirectly offering less value proposition. Instead I think a better solution is simply to shorten the generational cycle, and release the next major console after say, 5-6 years, instead of 8.

This this this this and this.

 

[Omnistalgic]

It's just strange to me, that for something Colin seems so "passionate" about, he doesn't seem to want to follow-up on his comment. Or try to give more validity to his claim.

If he wants to be "right" so bad, shouldn't he be getting more info that supports his claim?
Or maybe he knows he's wrong at this point and is just trying to avoid any further damage?

I honestly think this was just a knee jerk reaction from Colin. I think he wants to be wrong actually, the ps4k to be just fine, a huge success, and all this to be a bunch nothing, seems to genuinely love the PS brand.

 

[AgentP]

Colin is a technical neophyte.

Colin is horrible at business predictions.

Colin loves to confirm his own opinions.

Don't listen to Colin.

 

[Movalpolos]

Colin is a technical neophyte.

Colin is horrible at business predictions.

Colin loves to confirm his own opinions.

Don't listen to Colin.

Thank you.
Advice everyone should take.

 

[Audioboxer]

It's just strange to me, that for something Colin seems so "passionate" about, he doesn't seem to want to follow-up on his comment. Or try to give more validity to his claim.

If he wants to be "right" so bad, shouldn't he be getting more info that supports his claim?
Or maybe he knows he's wrong at this point and is just trying to avoid any further damage?

Because he can't. No one can really go public right now in fear of Sony tracing it back to them. If Colin does have sources like it or not they need protected.

Sony have to actually acknowledge and confirm this is real before anything can be said at ease.

I can happily give the guy that at least.

 

[Movalpolos]

Because he can't. No one can really go public right now in fear of Sony tracing it back to them. If Colin does have sources like it or not they need protected.

Sony have to actually acknowledge and confirm this is real before anything can be said at ease.

I can happily give the guy that at least.

He can at the very least tell us how many devs his "source" spoke with.
That wouldn't be sacrificing anybody.

Please don't confuse that with saying "which devs". Just how many. A simple number.

 

[Audioboxer]

He can at the very least tell us how many devs his "source" spoke with.
That wouldn't be sacrificing anybody.

Please don't confuse that with saying "which devs". Just how many. A simple number.

Most.

Spoiler

/s

 

[Mr. Giggles]

I completely agree. Even based on the amount of internet backlash, this much is evident. You have to have your head buried in the sand to not see that clearly many people are not happy about this, and like myself, much prefer the idea of full generation cycles (albeit shorter than they were last gen), instead of mid way iterations that semi split up the user base, and will likely prolong the generation unnecessarily.

I do not think the proper solution to an underpowered PS4, is to release an iterative upgrade mid cycle, that is still tied down to the PS4 and thus forever held back, and indirectly offering less value proposition. Instead I think a better solution is simply to shorten the generational cycle, and release the next major console after say, 5-6 years, instead of 8.

Agreed.

I have calmed down to the idea a bit but I'd much prefer 5-6 cycles as opposed to 2-3 year cycles.

 

[thelastword]

Agreed.

I have calmed down to the idea a bit but I'd much prefer 5-6 cycles as opposed to 2-3 year cycles.

The Neo doesn't change that though, you can continue to play your OG PS4 for another 3-4 years, then buy the PS5 which will be released then. This is just a beefier PS4, so you wait for the new cycle which is PS5 just like you always did, Neo does not affect you at all.

 

[Audioboxer]

The Neo doesn't change that though, you can continue to play your OG PS4 for another 3-4 years, then buy the PS5 which will be released then. This is just a beefier PS4, so you wait for the new cycle which is PS5 just like you always did, Neo does not affect you at all.

I think that argument has been beaten to death now and it's apparent it's not really the fact the status quo can continue on a PS4 that irks people. It's that someone somewhere else can experience something better.

 

[OsirisBlack]

I have reached out to some of the developers I know and some think its a great idea while others do not. Opinions and all.

 

[Audioboxer]

I have reached out to some of the developers I know and some think its a great idea while others do not. Opinions and all.

Will not trust till you deliver their addresses and weekly food shopping habits.

Bish tick means nothing. NOTHING.

 

[BattleMonkey]

I think that argument has been beaten to death now and it's apparent it's not really the fact the status quo can continue on a PS4 that irks people. It's that someone somewhere else can experience something better.

No it's not, the fear is that those who don't upgrade, are going to be getting inferior shitty product as the "neo" version is pushed and concentrated on. So you either upgrade, or deal with potentially crappy performance games.

 

[Daft Punk]

I think that argument has been beaten to death now and it's apparent it's not really the fact the status quo can continue on a PS4 that irks people. It's that someone somewhere else can experience something better.

Isn't that like the definition of acting like a spoiled brat?

 

[Vincent Grayson]

No it's not, the fear is that those who don't upgrade, are going to be getting inferior shitty product as the "neo" version is pushed and concentrated on. So you either upgrade, or deal with potentially crappy performance games.

That's a baseless fear at this point. I see no reason to assume that if one skips out on the upgraded PS4, you will get anything different over the life of your console than if the "Neo" never existed.

Could it go that way? Sure, I guess. But we have no reason to think it will, and being angry or afraid or whatever about it now serves no purpose.

 

[LabouredSubterfuge]

I completely agree. Even based on the amount of internet backlash, this much is evident. You have to have your head buried in the sand to not see that clearly many people are not happy about this, and like myself, much prefer the idea of full generation cycles (albeit shorter than they were last gen), instead of mid way iterations that semi split up the user base, and will likely prolong the generation unnecessarily.

I do not think the proper solution to an underpowered PS4, is to release an iterative upgrade mid cycle, that is still tied down to the PS4 and thus forever held back, and indirectly offering less value proposition. Instead I think a better solution is simply to shorten the generational cycle, and release the next major console after say, 5-6 years, instead of 8.

Isn't brand new hardware generation cycles exactly what they're trying to stave off?

I thought the idea of iterative hardware was to get people locked into their online, social and game purchasing eco-sytem long-term without having to reset to zero each time where the consumer makes their console purchasing decision anew.

They want people so locked into the eco-system that it would be painful to leave because all of their games and friends are locked into one never-ending platform.

 

[CosmicQueso]

Instead I think a better solution is simply to shorten the generational cycle, and release the next major console after say, 5-6 years, instead of 8.

We've already reached a tipping point of development costs in AAA game development. A new cycle in so short a time, particularly one in which native 4k would likely be the primary technical upgrade, would be incredibly difficult to sustain because revenues aren't keeping up with the cost increases. We had 900 releases on disc hit the US market in 2009, last year it was just over 200. The decline finally stopped last year, but moving to a new gen so quickly would likely restart that release count decline.

No easy answers, but a shorter cycle would potentially backfire with a much lower release count. And what's the point of a new generation if there's even less to play on it than this gen has seen.

 

[Audioboxer]

No it's not, the fear is that those who don't upgrade, are going to be getting inferior shitty product as the "neo" version is pushed and concentrated on. So you either upgrade, or deal with potentially crappy performance games.

Some proof has to materialize for that fear mongering campaign to actually move on from being just that. Fearmongering.

Isn't that like the definition of acting like a spoiled brat?

Some would say yes. *shrug*

 

[SneakersSO]

I'm a dev. A few of the devs I am colleagues with that I have spoken to about PS4K seem okay with it. Some are annoyed, sure. But all the complaints I have heard come from the same place: a bunch of devs just got told they have more work they have to do, and the same amount of time to do that work in. If your boss comes over and tells you to get this extra work done before 5, work that only benefits your boss, you wouldn't be too thrilled about it either.

Honestly, going by everything we know and have heard about NEO, the only group of people I see this really affecting in a negative way is indie devs. Sure, most indie devs are going to opt to have their games be universal between both systems, outside of the mandatory resolution on the PS4K. However, it still means they have another build that they'll have to QA & debug. Going by the other standard being put in place here, where after some date in the fall, games won't be allowed to launch a PS4K compatibility patch (i'm sure unless its under special circumstances), this means that in order for the indie dev to launch their game on the PS4 environment, they'll have to have their PS4 & PS4K versions ready to go simultaneously. If you consider how many indie devs do staggered releases as is specifically due to lack of budget, this could be amount to a problem for a few of them.

 

[SmokedMeat]

No it's not, the fear is that those who don't upgrade, are going to be getting inferior shitty product as the "neo" version is pushed and concentrated on. So you either upgrade, or deal with potentially crappy performance games.

If the Neo were out right now it would be blamed for Broforce and Battlemage being shit ports. Considering PS4 owners are already receiving crappy performance games, what difference does Neo make?

 

[Steve o 3000]

So is this only an issue if devs want to get a little extra performance out of their game? Or is all the code they use making vanilla PS4 games just wasted and they have to start from scratch with the neo? Sorry for the noobish question.

 

[Audioboxer]

If the Neo were out right now it would be blamed for Broforce and Battlemage being shit ports. Considering PS4 owners are already receiving crappy performance games, what difference does Neo make?

Apparently 720p and worse performance than XB1, according to some :/

Pretty tight narrative to push to cause fear.

I'm a dev. A few of the devs I am colleagues with that I have spoken to about PS4K seem okay with it. Some are annoyed, sure. But all the complaints I have heard come from the same place: a bunch of devs just got told they have more work they have to do, and the same amount of time to do that work in. If your boss comes over and tells you to get this extra work done before 5, work that only benefits your boss, you wouldn't be too thrilled about it either.

Honestly, going by everything we know and have heard about NEO, the only group of people I see this really affecting in a negative way is indie devs. Sure, most indie devs are going to opt to have their games be universal between both systems, outside of the mandatory resolution on the PS4K. However, it still means they have another build that they'll have to QA & debug. Going by the other standard being put in place here, where after some date in the fall, games won't be allowed to launch a PS4K compatibility patch (i'm sure unless its under special circumstances), this means that in order for the indie dev to launch their game on the PS4 environment, they'll have to have their PS4 & PS4K versions ready to go simultaneously. If you consider how many indie devs do staggered releases as is specifically due to lack of budget, this could be amount to a problem for a few of them.

Isn't Sony support for indies pretty much top-tier? As in pub fund, development assists and what not?

 

[boredandlazy]

I'm a dev. A few of the devs I am colleagues with that I have spoken to about PS4K seem okay with it. Some are annoyed, sure. But all the complaints I have heard come from the same place: a bunch of devs just got told they have more work they have to do, and the same amount of time to do that work in. If your boss comes over and tells you to get this extra work done before 5, work that only benefits your boss, you wouldn't be too thrilled about it either.

Honestly, going by everything we know and have heard about NEO, the only group of people I see this really affecting in a negative way is indie devs. Sure, most indie devs are going to opt to have their games be universal between both systems, outside of the mandatory resolution on the PS4K. However, it still means they have another build that they'll have to QA & debug. Going by the other standard being put in place here, where after some date in the fall, games won't be allowed to launch a PS4K compatibility patch (i'm sure unless its under special circumstances), this means that in order for the indie dev to launch their game on the PS4 environment, they'll have to have their PS4 & PS4K versions ready to go simultaneously. If you consider how many indie devs do staggered releases as is specifically due to lack of budget, this could be amount to a problem for a few of them.

Have you been briefed by Sony at all yet about how this is supposed to work for devs? Or is there really only one way it can actually work?

 

[CosmicQueso]

Snip

Thank you for sharing your perspective. Your thoughts on the challenges facing indies is an appreciated fresh take.

 

[wapplew]

If the Neo were out right now it would be blamed for Broforce and Battlemage being shit ports. Considering PS4 owners are already receiving crappy performance games, what difference does Neo make?

From blame lazy dev to blame Neo and Sony.
Any issue OGPS4 facing after Neo release, the scapegoat will be Sony, that's bad PR for Sony.

 

[Plinko]

I think that argument has been beaten to death now and it's apparent it's not really the fact the status quo can continue on a PS4 that irks people. It's that someone somewhere else can experience something better.

This is absolutely ludicrous. All it takes is reading of the thread to see this isn't true.

I'm a dev. A few of the devs I am colleagues with that I have spoken to about PS4K seem okay with it. Some are annoyed, sure. But all the complaints I have heard come from the same place: a bunch of devs just got told they have more work they have to do, and the same amount of time to do that work in. If your boss comes over and tells you to get this extra work done before 5, work that only benefits your boss, you wouldn't be too thrilled about it either.

Honestly, going by everything we know and have heard about NEO, the only group of people I see this really affecting in a negative way is indie devs. Sure, most indie devs are going to opt to have their games be universal between both systems, outside of the mandatory resolution on the PS4K. However, it still means they have another build that they'll have to QA & debug. Going by the other standard being put in place here, where after some date in the fall, games won't be allowed to launch a PS4K compatibility patch (i'm sure unless its under special circumstances), this means that in order for the indie dev to launch their game on the PS4 environment, they'll have to have their PS4 & PS4K versions ready to go simultaneously. If you consider how many indie devs do staggered releases as is specifically due to lack of budget, this could be amount to a problem for a few of them.

Thanks for posting. This is what many were saying earlier in the thread, and it is nice to see a dev come out and say it.

I'm curious--now that we actually have another dev saying some are actually annoyed about this, are we going to see the same reaction as when another dev said he was fine with the idea?

 

[NoctisVsStar]

I'm a dev. A few of the devs I am colleagues with that I have spoken to about PS4K seem okay with it. Some are annoyed, sure. But all the complaints I have heard come from the same place: a bunch of devs just got told they have more work they have to do, and the same amount of time to do that work in. If your boss comes over and tells you to get this extra work done before 5, work that only benefits your boss, you wouldn't be too thrilled about it either.

Honestly, going by everything we know and have heard about NEO, the only group of people I see this really affecting in a negative way is indie devs. Sure, most indie devs are going to opt to have their games be universal between both systems, outside of the mandatory resolution on the PS4K. However, it still means they have another build that they'll have to QA & debug. Going by the other standard being put in place here, where after some date in the fall, games won't be allowed to launch a PS4K compatibility patch (i'm sure unless its under special circumstances), this means that in order for the indie dev to launch their game on the PS4 environment, they'll have to have their PS4 & PS4K versions ready to go simultaneously. If you consider how many indie devs do staggered releases as is specifically due to lack of budget, this could be amount to a problem for a few of them.

I think indies should be exempt from this since they don't got the manpower...Otherwise I'm cool with it.

 

[nib95]

The Neo doesn't change that though, you can continue to play your OG PS4 for another 3-4 years, then buy the PS5 which will be released then. This is just a beefier PS4, so you wait for the new cycle which is PS5 just like you always did, Neo does not affect you at all.

The problem here is that the PS4K will have most probably extended the life of this generation. I very much doubt Sony is going to release the PS5 2 years after the release of the PS4K, only to irritate more consumers. My guess is the release of the PS4K will have inadvertently made this generation closer to 7-8 years long, instead of say 5-6. So whilst people could do as you've said, because of the PS4K, vanilla users will be stuck with the underpowered PS4 for longer now.

I think that argument has been beaten to death now and it's apparent it's not really the fact the status quo can continue on a PS4 that irks people. It's that someone somewhere else can experience something better.

This is a very shortsighted way to look at it. It's about a lot more than a group of people having something better than another group of people. I'm one of those that will be buying it, but I still very much disagree with the strategy and release. To me it sets a potentially detrimental precedent, that diminishes console gaming value proposition from here on out, and has other negative ramifications too.

Some of the potential issues.

• It will likely lengthen the current generation.
• It will split development focus.
• It will also be held back by the PS4 the entire time.
• It also splits the user base.
• In online games etc, PS4K owners will likely have a potentially gameplay favouring experience.
• It will also cost a lot, and not be as subsidised, the way most new consoles are.
• It also comes out at a time where other more expensive hardware is releasing (NX,VR etc) that makes it more of a financial burden.
• This on top of the pay to play online subscription fee's which are already adding yearly costs.
• Upon release it will massively devalue the PS4, which unlike ordinary end of cycle pricing, still costs $350-$399.
• I suspect it will also lend to worse vanilla PS4 versions of games.
• If it is successful and the other manufacturers adopt a similar strategy with consoles, we'll have even less value proposition going forward, longer generational cycles, and more costs to consider.
• There's also less incentive for console vendors to get it right the first time.

 

[Movalpolos]

I doubt Sony will throw indie devs under the bus with this change.

 

[Audioboxer]

This is absolutely ludicrous. All it takes is reading of the thread to see this isn't true.



Thanks for posting. This is what many were saying earlier in the thread, and it is nice to see a dev come out and say it.

I'm curious--now that we actually have another dev saying some are actually annoyed about this, are we going to see the same reaction as when another dev said he was fine with the idea?

Not everyone, but it's true for some. Heck even Colin had the whole "someone somewhere else is playing this better than me" distaste on the podcast.

It's a fairly flimsy reason on it's own to get up in arms about. This is the consumerist market, someone always has more money than you and has better things/more expensive things. Doesn't mean you can't enjoy what you have/what you can afford.

 

[FinalStageBoss]

If the Neo were out right now it would be blamed for Broforce and Battlemage being shit ports. Considering PS4 owners are already receiving crappy performance games, what difference does Neo make?

Lol this is so true. From Soft still can't fix frame pacing. Ppl will lose their shit when their next game has technical issues on the baseline PS4.

 

[Movalpolos]

If the Neo were out right now it would be blamed for Broforce and Battlemage being shit ports. Considering PS4 owners are already receiving crappy performance games, what difference does Neo make?

Guess what? The PC version suffers from many of the same issues.
It isn't strictly a PS4 thing.

 

[NoctisVsStar]

Lol this is so true. From Soft still can't fix frame pacing. Ppl will lose their shit when their next game has technical issues on the baseline PS4.

At this point regardless of the hardware From apparently (IMO) are aware of the issues and just refuse to fix it for whatever goddamn reason.

 

[gundamkyoukai]

• It will likely lengthen the current generation.
• It will split development focus.
• It will also be held back by the PS4 the entire time.
• It also splits the user base.
• In online games etc, PS4K owners will likely have a potentially gameplay favouring experience.
• It will also cost a lot, and not be as subsidised, the way most new consoles are.
• It also comes out at a time where other more expensive hardware is releasing (NX,VR etc) that makes it more of a financial burden.
• This on top of the pay to play online subscription fee's which are already adding yearly costs.
• Upon release it will massively devalue the PS4, which unlike ordinary end of cycle pricing, still costs $350-$399.
• I suspect it will also lend to worse vanilla PS4 versions of games.
• If it is successful and the other manufacturers adopt a similar strategy with consoles, we'll have even less value proposition going forward, longer generational cycles, and more costs to consider.
• There's also less incentive for console vendors to get it right the first time.

A lot of things on this list make no sense.
How does it split the user base ?
In online play people with better internet or tvs have a gameplay advantage .
Plus with cross platform play this was going happen anyway .
The days of consoles being subsidized by any huge amount are gone .
This OG PS4 value is tied to what Sony price it not the PS4k

I could go thru others but as i said somethings on that list make no sense.

 

[gofreak]

Some of these are rather variable issues nib. To play devil's advocate a bit:

Some of the potential issues.

• It will likely lengthen the current generation. Which could be a good or bad thing depending on your preference
• It will split development focus. It'll require an incremental amount of effort, not a 50/50 split of focus/work/resources
• It will also be held back by the PS4 the entire time.
• It also splits the user base. But not in terms of who can play what, which is the only crucial factor in 'splitting a userbase'
• In online games etc, PS4K owners will likely have a potentially gameplay favouring experience.
• It will also cost a lot, and not be as subsidised, the way most new consoles are.
• It also comes out at a time where other more expensive hardware is releasing (NX,VR etc) that makes it more of a financial burden.
• This on top of the pay to play online subscription fee's which are already adding yearly costs. The prior 3 cost issues here are only an issue if you actually want one - which suggests there's something attractive about the proposition!
• Upon release it will massively devalue the PS4, which unlike ordinary end of cycle pricing, still costs $350-$399.A PS4 price cut should be coming anyway - and it depends on the price of this new unit. If it's $499 and the base PS4 is $299 or $250, that wouldn't be much more of a devaluation than you'd be having anyway
• I suspect it will also lend to worse vanilla PS4 versions of games.
• If it is successful and the other manufacturers adopt a similar strategy with consoles, we'll have even less value proposition going forward, longer generational cycles, and more costs to consider. On value, if this model means a box will play games for a longer period than a traditional gen, isn't that a positive contribution to the value proposition?
• There's also less incentive for console vendors to get it right the first time.Fundamentally, you have to get it right or you won't get the audience, regardless. That's the overriding incentive. Look at PS4 vs Xbox One - one was perceived to nail it on the head, one less so, and one was rewarded. The PS4 wasn't 'done wrong' - it has been wildly appealing and remains perfectly viable for games in the next 3+ years. If manufacturers half-ass their efforts, that a better machine is possible later won't save them from the market's apathy.

 

[SneakersSO]

Thanks for posting. This is what many were saying earlier in the thread, and it is nice to see a dev come out and say it.

I'm curious--now that we actually have another dev saying some are actually annoyed about this, are we going to see the same reaction as when another dev said he was fine with the idea?

I mean, some people are gonna be annoyed, and others not so much. Honestly, the devs, outside of indie, that are gonna be most impacted by this are those who are shipping major titles in the fall, when the PS4K is set to drop. But its only annoying for the same reasons supporting any new piece of hardware at launch with launch software is annoying. We faced these same issues in 2013 & 2005/6. If you're a dev working on a title set to launch in 2017 or later, as some of my colleagues are, then you don't really care.

And my colleagues who are indifferent on PS4K are coincidentally the ones shipping outside of this year.

 

[Killing_Joke]

I don't give a shit what they are happy with. 1080p/30fps should have been been standard across the board. This spec bump should do that, maybe even get more 1080p/60fps games. Honestly i wouldn't even give a shit if 3rd party even bother using the extra juice. Sony's first party is great enough to warrant the purchase.

 

[CosmicQueso]

I don't give a shit what they are happy with. 1080p/30fps should have been been standard across the board. This spec bump should do that, maybe even get more 1080p/60fps games. Honestly i wouldn't even give a shit if 3rd party even bother using the extra juice. Sony's first party is great enough to warrant the purchase.

Dude, why are you stockpiling all those shits? Last thing I want to keep in my place are shits. Give some shits away man. What are you, some kind of shithoarder?

 

[gundamkyoukai]

I mean, some people are gonna be annoyed, and others not so much. Honestly, the devs, outside of indie, that are gonna be most impacted by this are those who are shipping major titles in the fall, when the PS4K is set to drop. But its only annoying for the same reasons supporting any new piece of hardware at launch with launch software is annoying. We faced these same issues in 2013 & 2005/6. If you're a dev working on a title set to launch in 2017 or later, as some of my colleagues are, then you don't really care.

And my colleagues who are indifferent on PS4K are coincidentally the ones shipping outside of this year.

Still comapre to 2006\2013 it don't look like it would be as much trouble .
Since the system not that different comapre to before .
Or am i wrong with that ?

 

[pastrami]

The problem here is that the PS4K will have most probably extended the life of this generation. I very much doubt Sony is going to release the PS5 2 years after the release of the PS4K, only to irritate more consumers. My guess is the release of the PS4K will have inadvertently made this generation closer to 7-8 years long, instead of say 5-6. So whilst people could do as you've said, because of the PS4K, vanilla users will be stuck with the underpowered PS4 for longer now.

Sony releasing an upgraded console 3 years after the PS4 indicates that Sony doesn't want to put out another console afterwards for 4-5 years?

I don't quite get the rationale behind that.

 

[SneakersSO]

I think indies should be exempt from this since they don't got the manpower...Otherwise I'm cool with it.

I think this is something that will get cleared up with a standard that only affects digital-only releases.

My interpretation of this new standard, where a PS4 title cannot receive a PS4K compatibility patch after this undefined fall/holiday date, is most likely an effort to stem the idea that PS4K games or features are online-only, meaning you buy the game but the only way to get the PS4K features is by downloading the PS4K patch.

What Sony seems to want is for publishers to ship a single version of the game that has certain features that scale based on the platform (PS4 or PS4K) that is playing it. Having a system where some of the features that you're marketing could potentially be labelled as 'Online Only' is likely something they want to avoid.

 

[inner-G]

[*]It also comes out at a time where other more expensive hardware is releasing (NX,VR etc) that makes it more of a financial burden.

Sony wants current PS4 owners to buy a PS4K and/or VR.

If someone can't afford both that and an NX, Sony is ok with that. If the NX has weaker hardware, PS4K could make NX a tougher sell as a 'second console' this year.

 

[SneakersSO]

Still comapre to 2006\2013 it don't look like it would be as much trouble .
Since the system not that different comapre to before .
Or am i wrong with that ?

No it absolutely won't be as much trouble as coding for an all-new APU with its own unique development environment. This seems that its going to be piggy-backing off of the current build deployment software & systems the PS4 utilizes. There is just another platform that SDK will support.

However, it still is a new build that'll have to go through the same submission process a game undergoes, and it'll have to go through a proper QA cycle as well. I'm sure a few issues will pop-up behind the scenes that will likely be ironed out before release.

 

[Commanche Raisin Toast]

Some of the potential issues.

• It will likely lengthen the current generation. which devs have been asking for.
• It will split development focus. we don't know the SDK upgrades yet. could be super easy.
• It will also be held back by the PS4 the entire time. PS4 would have held back dev ambitions anyway. now they have an option.
• It also splits the user base. no games to be exclusive to OG or Neo, so no split user base.
• In online games etc, PS4K owners will likely have a potentially gameplay favouring experience. how? considering PS4 players can play against PC players, how is that different?
• It will also cost a lot, and not be as subsidised, the way most new consoles are. citation needed.
• It also comes out at a time where other more expensive hardware is releasing (NX,VR etc) that makes it more of a financial burden. agreed, although it's an optional premium SKU. it's definitely a bad look for Sony though if releasing this year.
• This on top of the pay to play online subscription fee's which are already adding yearly costs. not sure what that matters.
• Upon release it will massively devalue the PS4, which unlike ordinary end of cycle pricing, still costs $350-$399. so it could allow Sony to price cut the OG PS4 and allow more people to afford to buy one? i don't see the drawback.
• I suspect it will also lend to worse vanilla PS4 versions of games. this is yet to be seen, but as time goes on i wouldn't be surprised if that were the case.
• If it is successful and the other manufacturers adopt a similar strategy with consoles, we'll have even less value proposition going forward, longer generational cycles, and more costs to consider. yeah, basically consoles would adopt the same cycle that other consumer tech markets are doing. could be good, could be bad.
• There's also less incentive for console vendors to get it right the first time. ever since consoles went online and allowed patches, that's been a regular thing.

i can understand the worry but i think we will just worry ourselves crazy if we only consider these worst case scenarios. for all we know the iterative refresh model that other markets go with could end up working great for the console space. if it ends up being a bad thing who's to say the console makers can't go back to the generational model?

 

[NoctisVsStar]

I think this is something that will get cleared up with a standard that only affects digital-only releases.

My interpretation of this new standard, where a PS4 title cannot receive a PS4K compatibility patch after this undefined fall/holiday date, is most likely an effort to stem the idea that PS4K games or features are online-only, meaning you buy the game but the only way to get the PS4K features is by downloading the PS4K patch.

What Sony seems to want is for publishers to ship a single version of the game that has certain features that scale based on the platform (PS4 or PS4K) that is playing it. Having a system where some of the features that you're marketing could potentially be labelled as 'Online Only' is likely something they want to avoid.

Thanks for the insight! hearing you elaborate the ins and out of what could potentially happen it's quite facinating. I still think everything will be cleared up at E3 and peoples doomsday scenarios are going to be put to rest.

 

[Markoman]

The problem here is that the PS4K will have most probably extended the life of this generation. I very much doubt Sony is going to release the PS5 2 years after the release of the PS4K, only to irritate more consumers. My guess is the release of the PS4K will have inadvertently made this generation closer to 7-8 years long, instead of say 5-6. So whilst people could do as you've said, because of the PS4K, vanilla users will be stuck with the underpowered PS4 for longer now.



This is a very shortsighted way to look at it. It's about a lot more than a group of people having something better than another group of people. I'm one of those that will be buying it, but I still very much disagree with the strategy and release. To me it sets a potentially detrimental precedent, that diminishes console gaming value proposition from here on out, and has other negative ramifications too.

Some of the potential issues.

• It will likely lengthen the current generation.
  
• It will split development focus.
• It will also be held back by the PS4 the entire time.
• It also splits the user base.
• In online games etc, PS4K owners will likely have a potentially gameplay favouring experience.
• It will also cost a lot, and not be as subsidised, the way most new consoles are.
• It also comes out at a time where other more expensive hardware is releasing (NX,VR etc) that makes it more of a financial burden.
• This on top of the pay to play online subscription fee's which are already adding yearly costs.
• Upon release it will massively devalue the PS4, which unlike ordinary end of cycle pricing, still costs $350-$399.
• I suspect it will also lend to worse vanilla PS4 versions of games.
• If it is successful and the other manufacturers adopt a similar strategy with consoles, we'll have even less value proposition going forward, longer generational cycles, and more costs to consider.
• There's also less incentive for console vendors to get it right the first time.

What do you mean by that? Expecting PS5 in 2020 or later? No way! If MS and Nintendo go that same route, I expect PS5 in 2019. Traditional console cycles are now officially messed up forever. I wouldn't be suprised to see new hardware every year from now on, if the launches of the three are not aligned - For example: PS Neo 2016, Xbox2 2017, NX2 2018, PS5 2019

 

[Playsage]

Sony releasing an upgraded console 3 years after the PS4 indicates that Sony doesn't want to put out another console afterwards for 4-5 years?

I don't quite get the rationale behind that.

Because by releasing it they don't need to make a "generational leap" in order to follow their VR projects at the cost of splitting the userbase.

I'm convinced that we are going to see an actual iterative console plan with the next "generation".
Like, Sony dropping the "Playstation #" name to go "Playstation Matrix/Playstation Matrix '23/Playstation Matrix '27" and shit like that.