Support NeoGAF

[Renekton]

I don't follow the hardware space close enough to refute anything here but in the end these kinds of issues are not my problem as a consumer.

Then it is pointless to discuss here.

 

[Refreshment.01]

People look happy in that thread to me lol

Is not "happiness" is more "resignation" since the "iterative model" is something Nintendo did for it's hanhelds since the original GameBoy. Something the Sony oriented people are experimenting now. Probably once the PS5.5 is announced you' ll probably get less negativity than this time around.

Yet, going further down the thread, you' ll see the more negative ones coming up. i think i posted in there adressing some other posters, maybe i' ll edit adding my reply.

I was replying to this post & had nothing to do with whatever you're talking about

i know to which post you were replying to. You said you didn't remember people caring. i told you earlier in the thread that there was negativity when improved iterations of NIntendo consoles were unveiled. The GBA SP was "sh!tstorm like" and that was just mainly because it had a backlit screen. XD

 

[Naudi]

Simply put it this way:
If I have to update my console every three years. I'd buy a PC.

You're in luck. You don't have to!

 

[Deleted member 471617]

The console game industry is a slow, predictible one. You release a console, support it with everything you got, and if its successful you start engineering new "slim" models to help keep costs down while adding some minor new revisions. Then, in maybe 5-7 years time, you release the big new kahuna, and start again.

There have been some exceptions for sure. The PS3 actually saw its feature list cut as backward compatibility was removed in chunks in future hardware revisions. Nintendo opted for different upgrade paths, such as the Expansion Pak for the N64, or went a whole new hardware route like the DSi and New 3DS. Microsoft, despite rumors every year of a new optical drive-less system, keeps it relatively tame with a new "slim" 360 model, as the original Xbox did not have a long enough lifespan to merit a system revision, joining the likes of the GameCube, Dreamcast, and so many other consoles who didn't live to see a slimmer, smaller future.

This is, in fact, completely antithetical to the industry at large. Everything is improving yearly. New computers, new Blu-Ray players, new cars, new TVs, new blenders, and yes, new smartphones and tablets. But not game consoles. And so a predictable trend can occur: we see the rise in sales, followed by the plateau, and then the dip. By the time the dip happens, prices are slashed and rumors of the all new system are already happening. You can practically set your watch to it.

And then we have this...the PS4K. Assuming the leaks are true, it disrupts everything we know about the console market. Veteran game journalists, even those we can point to for a clear, precise measure on the news, are left saying, "what?" No one really seems to know what to make of this. And without Sony expanding on the news until a later event or even E3, there's not much to do other than speculate on the biggest question of all: why?

Video game consoles not copying everything else is what allows it to work and not get oversaturated by the same brand. See Atari and Sega. It doesn't work and it's already been proven that it doesn't work yet it's never ever been proven to work so common sense says that it won't work and it won't simply because the majority of console gamers don't want the formula and traditional way to change. If consoles become like PC gaming, there's not much point or reason to stay with consoles. Better off buying a high end PC which will be the same cost if an upgraded console gets released every three years or so. Add in if Microsoft and/or Nintendo do this and if anything, building a high end PC will actually be cheaper. The day consoles change into something they're not nor have ever been is the day that console gaming will no longer be what it's always been and that is what's going to kill it.

Generational Loyalty

I'm all over the place when it comes to game consoles. I stayed with Nintendo from the NES years to Gamecube, then won an Xbox at a graduation raffle and stuck with Microsoft to the 360 era, where I traded that in for a PS3 and ultimately stuck with the PS4. Broken chains in backward compatibility made it easy to jump around like that, whether it was hardware specific (N64 to GameCube) or a mix of software and hardware (Xbox to Xbox 360). Certainly there have been others who have stayed with one company forever.

Still, it was easy to see, at least in North America, the switch in momentum. The success of the PS2 followed with the success of the 360, and now we're back with the PS4 leading the sales charge (the Wii, of course, was a massive thing of its own, but ultimately lead with a lot of one-time buyers that didn't come back for the Wii U). There's no reason to stay loyal to any one company, in that there was never a guarantee that your purchases would be valid on the new consoles. Both the PS4 and XB1 opted to sever all ties with their respective predecessors, though like so many other things MS would try and reverse years down the line with a BC program.

The point is that generational loyalty up until now is fruitless unless you're specifically doing it for first party franchises, something that has become increasingly irrelevant (poor reception to a majority of new IPs both Sony and MS have tried to wheel out this gen) or getting a bit long in the tooth (can MS really launch Xbox 2 with Halo 7 and command the type of brand power that the franchise used to have?). Ultimately you go where your friends are, or where the games interest you the most. In a cycle that encourages players to slash ties with where they were coming from to a new platform that has everything they're looking for, how do you make sure that customers are tied down to a brand, or at least, have less of a reason to abandon it in favor of the other guys?

The way to do that is to blur the line of product cycles. Perhaps even erase it completely.

I'm not loyal to any console manufacturer and never have been. Granted, I have my favorites but that doesn't mean that I'll ignore the other consoles or not buy them. I preferred PS2 over Xbox and GCN but preferred Xbox 360 over PS3 and Wii. I easily prefer PS4 over Xbox One and Wii U but here's why - the console that I have favored and preferred each generation is because the others have done stupid shit that I hated and didn't agree with. This generation, I was 50/50 with PS4 and Xbox One. Microsoft made the decision for me three years ago and that's because they tried to change what console gaming was and is meant to be.

It didn't work back when Atari oversaturated the market, it didn't work back when Sega oversaturated the market and it won't work if Sony tries to do the same thing. And yes, Sony is oversaturating the market with their consoles and products. PS4, Vita (which was supposed to be right along side PS4 but it failed and died), PS4 Eye Camera (a gimmick that wasn't necessary until later this year), PSVR (a new add-on to an existing console which requires not only the PS4 but also the PS4 Eye Camera) and now, the heavily rumored PS4K.

Microsoft added backwards compatibility for one reason and one reason only - to try to get back the consumers that they lost three years ago, period. Not because they care or wanted you to have it. I go with the console that favors what im looking for. For me, PS4 has way more exclusives that I want, better third party support, PSN exclusives and Indies. Basically, PS4 is giving me what I want and what Xbox 360 gave me what I wanted last generation.

I personally don't play online and have no interest, motivation or desire to do so and because of this, where my friends play doesn't apply to me personally. The way you can keep consumers loyal to you and stay with you console after console is actually very simple - DON'T FUCK THEM OVER!!! Erasing what consoles has been and currently are will only do one thing - pissing off the majority of gamers who play on consoles and prefer it to be the way that it is. As for Xbox 2 launching with Halo 7, the franchise not being what it once was has more to do with Bungie no longer being the developer than anything else. When a franchise is developed by the same developer with each entry, fans don't want to see that changed. Fans want to see it through until the end. When it's no longer the same developer, those fans are more likely to follow the developer as opposed to the franchise, especially if the developer is good, liked and respected.

The Future is Here

It is a completely different shift to what we're used to. No longer will we be filing into the theater in a secret event broadcast streamed to the world, waiting to see what's underneath the curtain. The glamor and hype of a new console can now be broken down to what essentially are patch notes. Here's what's new in New Console 2017: a new GPU here, some CPU improvements here, runs all the same games, cya in 2020 for the next system.

It is certainly the biggest disappointment in this, if only because the spectacle of a new console launch is so much fun. But it is probably gone forever.

So what does that leave us with? A brand new console, coming way sooner than anyone has expected, that changes a generational cycle into a constantly refreshed cycle. No longer are there gaps in these product generations that allow for consumers to jump to other platforms, at least not one that's easily discernible. You probably didn't know it at the time, but that copy of Knack you bought in 2013 will be playable in 2023, on new hardware.

That's the benefit of the x86 architecture that Sony, MS and (its heavily rumored) Nintendo has chosen to use for their consoles. It prevents hard cuts to product life. The PS4 won't have an end-of-life cycle. It will continue to be produced, at a cost that benefits Sony, until it is phased out in favor of a new hardware revision.

And that's the whole point of the PS4K: in an age where tech advances are slowing to a point where a technological leap is impossible without a high cost or a long wait, companies have to change up this cycle. Digital Foundry pointed out that tech improvements are slowing to a crawl. Will consumers actually wait until 2022 to get a generational leap in graphics at a consumer friendly price?

What if they didn't have to wait?

Think about how unfriendly the current generational lifecycle is for the average consumer. They can either come in too early at high adopter prices and a slow start of game releases, or right in the middle where sales peak and deals are good, or come it at the end, where support will soon be ending for the system and mere years or even months are left for game releases. If they don't hit that sweet spot, they can be left holding the bag on a system that has been essentially abandoned in favor of the all new console.

Disagree with how you look at each new console. I'm not looking at the next console spec wise as I know that they should already be improved. I'm looking at the games that will accompany it at launch, the controller itself and then what the console itself looks like. I respect Nintendo but im not a fan anymore but yet, I will still watch their press conference at E3 so I can see what NX is all about.

Disagree with the mid-generation jumps. If gamers buy a competing console, it's not because they're jumping ship. It's because they want both as there are games exclusive to that's second console that they can't play on their primary console. As for Knack (or any game for that matter) being playable in 2023 on new hardware, I don't want that. I want a new era. A new generation of games. Not a ten year old game that's still $60 digitally. No thanks.

PS4 not having an end cycle is not beneficial to the consumer / gamer at all. Having a "new" (and I use that term loosely) console that's technically not new and if anything, is just a way to screw consumers and gamers out of even more money only benefits the hardware manufacturer (in this case, Sony). Sure as hell doesn't benefit anyone who purchased a PS4 over the last two and a half years which by the way, if it wasn't for the 40m consumers that purchased a PS4, Sony wouldn't be in this thinking process to begin with and that in itself shows the ego of the company and that they think, consumers are stupid and will just buy another PS4 and for what? A minimal at best increase?

A PS5 in 2018 would probably be double what PS4 currently is. It won't be this minimal spec increase that's only being done because too many gamers want to constantly bitch about resolution and frame rates. What's really funny is that neither makes the game and/or gameplay any better if it originally sucks at it's core.

As for the high cost, releasing a PS4.5 three years later while still manufacturing the current PS4 isn't exactly lowering the cost especially for the 40m consumers who already own a PS4. I personally have no problem waiting until 2020 or later for a PS5. Visuals are over fucking rated and no matter how high the resolution or how many frames a second a game is running at, visual gamers will still bitch, moan and groan which is why Sony (and probably Microsoft) is doing this shit to begin with.

Unfriendly the console lifecycle is for the average consumer? Are you kidding me? I AM the average consumer and sorry, but releasing a slightly upgraded console for $400 is fucking bullshit no matter which way you slice it. Add in the fact that the current PS4 would be cheaper which is also bullshit because it wouldn't happen as fast if the PS4K doesn't exist and then add in the fact that those who currently own a PS4 and don't upgrade will basically be getting the lesser version of the game. Basically, what PS3 and Xbox 360 owners got when a cross-gen game like AC IV, Watch Dogs, etc. The only game that cutout anything was Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor with the Nemesis System. COD doesn't count for the simple fact that it's purchased by 95% of people who want and play it every year online so no single campaign means nothing in a game that's clearly meant and focused to be played online.

The sweet spot is five years minimum or seven to eight years maximum for one simple reason - the best games are usually at the end of the console's life cycle. A minimal upgrade is not going to give the consumers / gamers anything that they're not already getting. And I don't care about resolution and frame rates because neither will make a shitty playing game play any better.

It's all about developers properly optimizing their games and the publishers giving them the time to do so. Neither happens because of investors, stockholders and the publishers having to meet their quarterly/yearly goals, period. Not because of a lack of power, resolution or frame rate. That's a bullshit excuse instead of putting the blame on where it belongs - the egomaniac money hungry greedy publishers. And this is proven via DLC, season passes and all of this other shit that didn't exist two generations ago.

It's simply - how much more money can we get from these fucking idiotic and moronic consumers / gamers? And until the consumers / gamers actually stop paying, this shit will continue forever. A mid (if that) generation console is only adding one more fucking thing that the consumer / gamer has to buy if they want all the extra visuals and whatnot.

<continued>

 

[Deleted member 471617]

<continued>

Games as a Service

The worst thing about generational leaps is that it simply doesn't work in today's game industry. We're starting to pivot into the idea of games as a service. This was teased towards the end of the PS3/360 lifecycle, but its really coming into its own with games like The Division and Destiny having a strong online base with roadmaps for the future. It is dependant on one thing, really: a healthy userbase to get users from, which is easily disrupted by a generational gap.

Imagine for a second that you're running a major studio, and you want to create the next big online game. Development starts tomorrow, with the game releasing late 2018. If the PS4K does not exist, and the PS5 creates this chasm as all generation leaps do, then what can you do? Develop for the PS4, and have tools in place to bridge the gap to the PS5 when it comes out? This is essentially what Destiny is doing, but it comes at a major cost, something that Activision and probably other major publishers like EA and Ubisoft can support, but few others can.

See, not only are consumers used to this cycle of set lifetimes for consoles, but game development also has to plan around it. Do you release a new IP late in the cycle of a console, or hold it back for the new system, which will have added costs and a new set of developmental issues with a much smaller userbase, but the potential for expansion in the future?

With this new cycle, you don't have to worry about that anymore. The PS4 is also the PS4K, and is probably the PS5 too. When the PS4K launches, it will already have a userbase of over 40 million players. It already has all of the developmental tools that have matured and strengthened over the last few years. There's no risk to building the next big online game late in the PS4 future, because the transition over to the new system is built into the ecosystem. This is a huge, huge benefit to game development.

There are some who feel like a revision in the middle of a console's lifespan is pointless, and that Sony should have waited for the PS5. I have news for you: this is not the middle of the PS4's lifespan, and there is no PS5. There will be a new console after the PS4K, and that will be an upgraded version of the PS4K. This is the new life cycle, of which there is no beginning, middle, or (hopefully) end.

Online based games is completely different from single player games. A game lie Destiny has been successful on last gen and current gen for one simple reason - gamers wanted to play the game. They didn't need to buy an upgraded console to do so. A game like The Division, you do. But here's something, neither game with or without PS4K is going to last forever. Destiny 2 was already planned before Destiny even released and im sure that there will be The Division 2 if Ubisoft thinks that it's worth doing. A small upgraded console isn't going to all of a sudden make Destiny or The Division into anything more than what it already is. If anything, it's going to hold it back simply because the publisher can just take the easy way out and develop a patch or a slightly upgraded version thanks to the minimal spec increase but the problem is that it will still be based on the old code of the launch game. The way to change that is by building a new game from the ground up and going from there. That's not going to happen with a minimal spec increase but it will happen with a true "next generation" console and by true, I mean PS5.

Releasing a new IP late in the console generation could always be because the developer that's releasing that new IP was held back by the publisher for various reasons, including cash grab DLC for that developer's previous titles. Everyone keeps focusing on the console. The console isn't the problem.

PS4K would have an user install base of ZERO, NOT 40m because these 40m gamers are not playing their games on a PS4K, they're playing their games on the current PS4. If anything, having two PlayStation formats will only increase the development time, it sure as hell won't lessen it. Let's say that Microsoft does the same thing. Add in NX and PC. That's a whopping SIX consoles the developer has to program, test and optimize for. Sorry but basic math tells me that SIX consoles is worse than the current THREE or FOUR depending on NX. Developers will have to max out the current consoles as best they can and then upgrade it all for the PS4K. Sorry but that's not making any developer's job easier.

If Sony releasing PS4K, PS4K2, PS4K3, etc. and no PS5, it will be THE END of console gaming because after a while, consumers / gamers will realize that they're spending more money on less as opposed to waiting for PS5. This is all simply a ego driven money hungry greedy move by Sony, period. Anyone who doesn't see that is blind. The minimal spec increase is proof of that. Seriously, it's almost a joke and when the games STILL don't hit what most consumers / gamers will expect them to hit, then maybe they will see what I see. A huge mistake.

Wave of Anger

Certainly there will be anger to come with this news; it's already happening, but then again, it always happens with everything. The internet amplifies everything to a degree that it becomes somewhat impossible to measure the actual consumer response to things until they're released.

What it comes down to is, how will this translate in the marketplace? Quite easily, actually: here's the PS4, at a new lower price, and here's the new PS4K, which is more powerful and a little more expensive too. Which one do you want?

And that's the new future of game consoles: a life cycle that never ends, that is constantly updated, that largely benefits game development and also benefits new consumers ready to jump into games whenever they'd like. This is a major, positive change for the industry.

I will miss the idea of a new console that completely disrupts the industry with new exotic hardware and a whole new way to play a game. In fact, that era might end with Nintendo, who prepares to put the Wii U behind them with an all new game console that could be radically different than anything they've done before.

But the time for disruptive product cycles is over. There's too much risk involved, with game budgets more expensive than ever, and other markets increasingly eating away at each other. There was a lot of debate before this generation launched on whether or not there was even a market for game consoles anymore as the PS3 and 360 quickly plummeted in sales. The PS4 answered that question with a resounding yes. I wonder what answers the PS4K will bring.

I'm pissed off because this is nothing more than Sony saying FUCK YOU to me and trying to get even more money out of me. As if gaming isn't expensive enough, they all want more and more. No. Sorry. FUCK YOU Sony.

All the benefits that you say will happen is all unproven yet oversaturating the market with your own products and it failing has been proven.

As for NX being different...and that's why they will once again fail. Just like they did with Wii U, GCN and N64. The reason console gaming is where it is today is for one simple reason - the core basics remain the same. Change that and it all goes down the drain.

Console cycles are not disruptive. If anything, PS4K IS DISRUPTIVE because it's screwing up the balance and the core basics. You don't do that period.

As for consoles dying, it's bullshit. PS3 and Xbox 360 were only slightly less than PS2 and Xbox in sales combined. Here's the difference though - Sony being arrogant and cocky decided to fuck up the launch of PS3 which in turn, led many people to Xbox 360 which is why it sold more than triple than the original Xbox. With XBLA, exclusives, etc., Xbox 360 was able to be the better console last generation.

If you include GCN, then you have to include Wii and if that's the case, Wii, Xbox 360 and PS3 destroyed PS2, Xbox and GCN in total sales.

This generation has two consoles that are constantly ahead of what their previous consoles were selling in the same time period and are on pace to surpass both. Hell, PS4 is on pace to surpass PS2. Xbox One is ahead of what Xbox 360 was in the same amount of time. Granted, Xbox One might not surpass Xbox 360 in sales but that has NOTHING to do with console gaming being weak or dying. That has to do with the simple fact that like Sony before them, Microsoft fucked up and thought that they could just ride Xbox 360 sales into Xbox One. Obviously, that didn't happen.

If Sony releases PS4K, it's definitely going to change console gaming - the only problem is that it's going to be for worse, not better.

Sony: We hope you 40m are enjoying your $400 old outdated and obsolete PS4 but if not, please buy this slightly increase in spec PS4K which by the way isn't native 4K for the low price $400. Oh and don't forget, PSVR is coming too, also at the low price of $400 or more if you don't own the PS Eye Camera. Yep, we hope all you idiotic moronic consumers / gamers keep buying from us so we can inflate our already highly inflated bank accounts while ripping you off and screwing you over. And don't worry if games on PS4K still don't hit the resolution and/or frame rate that you desire because in three years, you can always upgrade again and we promise, the spec increase will be marginal at best yet again.

P.S. - Please don't forget to buy PS Move for $40 (or whatever the hell it's price is), season passes that aren't worth shit, DLC that also isn't worth shit and oh oh oh, if you want that special pre-order bonus theme and gun but they're separate, don't worry, you can pre-order the same game twice from different outlets. And don't forget to pick up a one year subscription to PS- (minus) as we think it's about to expire for you!!!

Yes, yes, yes.....we hope you all enjoy gaming with us here at PlayStation where "for the players" ended years ago when we noticed that you were buying our consoles despite the best games being multi-platform and at the same time, being cross-gen. Don't worry, it will get better. Granted, that will probably be with PS4K2 but hey, better late than never.

Seriously, sorry for the rant and joking at the end but if Sony does this, I will be the first to say goodbye and FUCK YOU Sony and FUCK OFF!!! Because at the end of the day, I'll end up spending MORE money on console gaming as opposed to building a high end PC. Fuck that shit!!!

And to chubigans, none of the negativity in my post is directed at you whatsoever and I apologize if you think it is. It's not. I simply disagree with you, how you're looking at it and seeing how it will go. I simply think that despite how well Sony is doing, they seem intent on fucking it up and there's no good or valid reason for them to do so.

In the end, this is just my own personal opinion. It all remains to be seen what happens.

 

[Dangansona]

Agree with OP and many of the thoughtful comments in here. I was against the idea when it first leaked at GDC, but after the NEO story broke I realized this is actually pretty cool. Developers won't screw over the 40+ million install base of the PS4 (nor will Sony make it easy for them with their cautious approach), for the developers used to making games on PC it really shouldn't be hard to have one additional fixed in set of hardware to develop for, and this helps quiet the developers and even more so the journalists (*cough* Giant Bomb) from talking about how weak these consoles are and how they offer nothing in a world where PC gaming exists.

From a Playstation user's perspective, there are a few things to consider. If you really cared so greatly about having the best graphics, it is strange to me that you don't own a gaming PC. Maybe you don't because you are like me and you like the low cost and convenience of consoles. Well then you can be like me and not buy the NEO. Nothing will change for us. PS4 games will keep coming out. Uncharted 4 and Ratchet prove that they look pretty awesome as it is.

Edit: And dear god then there are the people above me. I honestly don't understand why someone would feel "fucked over" by this unless you bought a PS4 in the last couple of months. YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO BUY THE NEO. You presumably fine with the PS4 as it was before. Now you have a slightly better version if you choose instead of just the PS4 for 6-7 years and we are all going to riot and go become PC gamers where the thing we don't like about the NEO is the norm? Makes no sense to me.

 

[brett2]

Then it is pointless to discuss here.

Not really. Here's what the OP states:

"And that's the new future of game consoles: a life cycle that never ends, that is constantly updated, that largely benefits game development and also benefits new consumers ready to jump into games whenever they'd like. This is a major, positive change for the industry."

I understand the reasons why this new paradigm shift is beneficial to the console makers (more consistent steady incomes instead of boom bust cycles) but there isn't much of a case made for why it is beneficial to consumers. What's the case for consumers exactly?

 

[Jimrpg]

I have a PC and PS4, and because the PC has better performance for most multi platform games, I've been buying my games there.

The PS4k makes my PS4 even more redundant, so much so I feel like selling it before its value drops completely and I generally like to keep all my consoles. But what's the point of keeping the PS4? If I was a collector I'd buy/keep the PS4k which plays everything better. I probably wouldn't buy a PS4k at launch, but maybe at the end of its life cycle when its at its cheapest. The same thing happened with the DS and the 3DS, Id much rather keep a DS lite than a DS fat, and Id rather keep a new 3DS over a regular 3DS.

So strategically I suppose it is the right strategy for Sony, but it does screw over existing users enormously. PS4 users have over the past two years expected the best graphics, and now they won't get it unless they move to the PS4k.

 

[Paz]

You're in luck. You don't have to!

You don't have to, but developers won't magically get more resources to make 2 or more versions of their game with the same care they previously only had to make 1 version of.

Make no mistake an iterative console model is not always a good thing for people who own the old model, sure if it's handled well on a long enough timeline you can end up playing more games than you otherwise would have with a hard cut life cycle (ala old iPhones) but your experience could start to suffer the moment a new iteration is released.

I'm not really for or against iterative consoles though, we've never seen it done in this space before so it's mostly hypothetical at this stage.

 

[Dangansona]

What's the case for consumers exactly?

If you are the type of person who likes the latest and greatest and buys a new iphone every two years, you can do the same with a Playstation. If the idea of a slight technical increase is worth $400 to you, then you can buy a new Playstation. If you don't own a Playstation yet, you can buy this one.

If none of the above applies, there is no case for consumer and there doesn't have to be as long as it doesn't harm normal PS4 users. And by all accounts it looks like it won't.

You don't have to, but developers won't magically get more resources to make 2 or more versions of their game with the same care they previously only had to make 1 version of.

I'm a computer science major but the closest experience I have to game development is app development, so someone tell me if I'm crazy. But how is this making two versions of their game as opposed to hwo games come out on PC with different settings presets for different levels of hardware? I mean even the OS of these machines are the same.

Please use common sense here:

i could run the same game with more bells and whistles in a 4870 than with a 4850. The developer did not have to make 2 different versions of the game. The API and base architecture for the PS4 and PS4 Neo will remain the same.

And yes, we have had "iterative consoles" in the "dedicated gaming" space since decades ago.

Exactly.

 

[Movalpolos]

But Colin Moriarty said you should be angry about it.

 

[eNut_ButteR]

"Hey everyone! Instead of paying hundreds of dollars every six or so years, now you'll spend the SAME AMOUNT, MORE OFTEN!"

I'm gonna stick with PC I think.

 

[Refreshment.01]

You don't have to, but developers won't magically get more resources to make 2 or more versions of their game with the same care they previously only had to make 1 version of.

Make no mistake an iterative console model is not always a good thing for people who own the old model, sure if it's handled well on a long enough timeline you can end up playing more games than you otherwise would have with a hard cut life cycle (ala old iPhones) but your experience could start to suffer the moment a new iteration is released.

I'm not really for or against iterative consoles though, we've never seen it done in this space before so it's mostly hypothetical at this stage.

Please use common sense here:

i could run the same game with more bells and whistles in a 4870 than with a 4850. The developer did not have to make 2 different versions of the game. The API and base architecture for the PS4 and PS4 Neo will remain the same.

And yes, we have had "iterative consoles" in the "dedicated gaming" space since decades ago.

 

[Renekton]

Not really. Here's what the OP states:

"And that's the new future of game consoles: a life cycle that never ends, that is constantly updated, that largely benefits game development and also benefits new consumers ready to jump into games whenever they'd like. This is a major, positive change for the industry."

I understand the reasons why this new paradigm shift is beneficial to the console makers (more consistent steady incomes instead of boom bust cycles) but there isn't much of a case made for why it is beneficial to consumers. What's the case for consumers exactly?

Basically you're started from hardware horsepower angle in the post I replied to.

If one is going play the "I don't care" card to debate whether Sony gave the best available spec for the scenario of 2013, there is no point to explore that further because you get to magically wave away all points.

 

[Paz]

Ok I'll take your word for it guys, I'm sure you know a lot more about console development than I do.

Sorry for ignoring common sense. This is obviously not the thread for me.

 

[Dangansona]

Ok I'll take your word for it guys, I'm sure you know a lot more about console development than I do.

Sorry for ignoring common sense. This is obviously not the thread for me.

I mean it seems like common sense to me, but I said I'm not a game developer and to tell me if I'm crazy. I would like to hear from them.

 

[Trup1aya]

I get why it makes sense for console makers; Strengthening the hold on there core customer base is probably attractive enough.

I get why it would be nice for some consumers; they have the OPTION of upgrading more often, allowing them to have experiences that are closer to state of the art.

Also for some consumers, things won't really change. They'll buy the iteration of their choice, and stick with it until upgrading is feasible/neccisary.

I think the only negative consumers might experience is that, if this takes off, they'll never get to see there hardware be taken full advantage of. Which probably annoys we enthusiasts more than it does average joe.

What I don't understand is how this is appealing to developers in any way. It's introducing the complexity of PC games development, but with out the flexibility to target the hardware of their choosing. In the case OEMs are FORCING developers to target all of their active platforms, whereas on PC it's up to consumers to ensure they meet the minimum requirements.

I was a fan of the idea initially, but the more I think about it, it seems like developers will always be in a constant state of flux, having to familiarize themselves with new hardware before they master the current. We'll be in a constant state of cross gen.

 

[Drifters]

OP,

A couple of quick points.

Yes, grand standing a new console is dead however, if anything shows us how good (or how bad) Sony has handled the "Neo" news, gamers will always have a backlash because the hit to them is a consoles ROI compared to previous generations. That said, you are correct in what Sony is doing (and they have balls doing this) is shifting mid-cycle to a different model completely. I like to call it "Slipstreaming" the previous generations in order to emerge a true born leader in the next one.

The new normal is that Gamers are gamers; Not PC gamers, not console gamers, "Gamers". While you can run a fancy rig to play something at 1080p, 4k, 8k etc., the coming time of 'convergence' is that game developers will be coding for a gaming audience, not a platform. Sony realized this with the PS4's limitations, hence why they're leaning into their new model. MS (somewhat) realized this with games now coming out on Windows 10; It's not perfect but in 5 years or so, only the true nerds will be able to tell the difference and any "G-Sync, 144Hz, 10K display" will be preference, not performance.

Mobility must be factored. Sony finally started remote play which was a branch of the Vita remote play. MS always had remote streaming with the Xbox One and now Nintendo is bringing up the rear with potentially some new things to create the culture of "ABG - Always Be Gaming". Developers need (and will) start to think of their game as sub-sector chunks of which micro-gaming on mobile platforms lead to real and tangible advancements or supplements within the story line or MP universe. Ironically, season passes and micro-transactions will flood to this new medium as being branded the "Total Experience".

A part of me is sad-- perhaps like yourself. Having grown up with quarters piling up and arcade runs during those hot summers, the days of gaming generations are dead. What lies before us though... only time will tell.

 

[gundamkyoukai]

You don't have to, but developers won't magically get more resources to make 2 or more versions of their game with the same care they previously only had to make 1 version of.

Make no mistake an iterative console model is not always a good thing for people who own the old model, sure if it's handled well on a long enough timeline you can end up playing more games than you otherwise would have with a hard cut life cycle (ala old iPhones) but your experience could start to suffer the moment a new iteration is released.

I'm not really for or against iterative consoles though, we've never seen it done in this space before so it's mostly hypothetical at this stage.

I sure this going to hurt the small guys much more than the big guys .
As for putting care into there games sometimes it really don't feel that way at least for AAA games

I mean it seems like common sense to me, but I said I'm not a game developer and to tell me if I'm crazy. I would like to hear from them.

Paz is a dev so you just hear from one lol
The same for the OP still everyone dev or people not going to have the same opinion on this .

 

[Dangansona]

What I don't understand is how this is appealing to developers in any way. It's introducing the complexity of PC games development, but with out the flexibility to target the hardware of their choosing. In the case OEMs are FORCING developers to target all of their active platforms, whereas on PC it's up to consumers to ensure they meet the minimum requirements.

So this is the one potential downside I have been wondering about: the console exclusive developers who aren't use to the variation in hardware. To which I would think even then most of them are at least putting games on Xbox as well so they should be somewhat flexible and adding one sku that is extremely similar to the base PS4 shouldn't be that much of a monkeywrench, but again I would really like to hear from those guys about how they feel about the NEO.

 

[boredandlazy]

"Hey everyone! Instead of paying hundreds of dollars every six or so years, now you'll spend the SAME AMOUNT, MORE OFTEN!"

I'm gonna stick with PC I think.

Only if you choose to, like your beloved PC.

 

[kungfuian]

This is a great post.

Think your edited down version might be the better of the two. LOL

 

[Zaptruder]

I get why it makes sense for console makers; Strengthening the hold on there core customer base is probably attractive enough.

I get why it would be nice for some consumers; they have the OPTION of upgrading more often, allowing them to have experiences that are closer to state of the art.

Also for some consumers, things won't really change. They'll buy the iteration of their choice, and stick with it until upgrading is feasible/neccisary.

What I don't understand is how this is appealing to developers in any way. It's introducing the complexity of PC games development, but with out the flexibility to target the hardware of their choosing. In the case OEMs are FORCING developers to target all of their active platforms, whereas on PC it's up to consumers to ensure they meet the minimum requirements.

I was a fan of the idea initially, but the more I think about it, it seems like developers will always be in a constant state of flux, having to familiarize themselves with new hardware before they master the current. We'll be in a constant state of cross gen.

The benefits for developers are HUGE. They're just not evident in the first new iteration.

That is, they benefit by having a platform that retains a lot of its code base from generation to generation. No need to relearn a platform with each generation. They don't have to make the shitty choice between launching for a larger install base large gen or shinier new gen platform - full backwards compatibility for a gen or two ensures that there's a constant base of active users ready to play your game.

The downside for them is that they need to optimize for multiple target platforms. But that shit isn't that hard. It can be finicky, but there are so many options for optimizing for the previous platform - lower textures, lower FPS, lower resolution, fewer doodads (visual decorative elements).

The flipside of this is that these are options you'd want to include with the PC version anyway, so basically it just allows your game to be more compatible with the PC from the start.

 

[brett2]

Basically you're started from hardware horsepower angle in the post I replied to.

If one is going play the "I don't care" card to debate whether Sony gave the best available spec for the scenario of 2013, there is no point to explore that further because you get to magically wave away all points.

Yeah I'm not going to debate that particular point in this thread sorry

 

[Lady Gaia]

What I don't understand is how this is appealing to developers in any way. It's introducing the complexity of PC games development, but with out the flexibility to target the hardware of their choosing.

Neither half of this statement is particularly accurate. The complexity of developing for PCs isn't that there are a handful of different variations, it's that there are so many variations it would be literally impossible to test them all. Worse yet, a lot of them have subtle flaws and unique quirks that you need to work around in order to have a viable title.

You have video cards from multiple manufacturers, people who insist on installing oddball hardware, overclocking their system until it isn't stable, people with fast CPUs and slow GPUs and vice-versa. Lots of system memory but short on texture RAM, or the other way around, or unified memory with completely different performance characteristics altogether. It goes on and on.

Here we're talking about testing two configurations. Two. They share the same CPU architecture, the same GPU architecture, the same operating system, either a common or very similar set of drivers. It's much, much more straightforward.

As for targeting the hardware of their choosing? A develop never really has that option. You need to target a large enough installed base to be popular. If you're trying to make a showcase title you can scale up in the presence of better hardware, but you'd better cover the base. In this way the situation with a PS4 + PS4 Neo is actually pretty similar. You are required to pass certification on the PS4 and you'll want to so that you have a large addressable market. Whether you want to take significant advantage of Neo improvements is entirely up to you as a developer.

 

[harSon]

What changed for you between this thread, and now? You seem a lot more on board for the concept now.

 

[Dangansona]

Paz is a dev so you just hear from one lol
The same for the OP still everyone dev or people not going to have the same opinion on this .

Ah I see. Maybe he made that clear a few posts ago but I didn't see it. I was never discounting what he said, I just assumed the situation was exactly like this poster said:

Neither half of this statement is particularly accurate. The complexity of developing for PCs isn't that there are a handful of different variations, it's that there are so many variations it would be literally impossible to test them all. Worse yet, a lot of them have subtle flaws and unique quirks that you need to work around in order to have a viable title.

You have video cards from multiple manufacturers, people who insist on installing oddball hardware, overclocking their system until it isn't stable, people with fast CPUs and slow GPUs and vice-versa. Lots of system memory but short on texture RAM, or the other way around, or unified memory with completely different performance characteristics altogether. It goes on and on.

Here we're talking about testing two configurations. Two. They share the same CPU architecture, the same GPU architecture, the same operating system, either a common or very similar set of drivers. It's much, much more straightforward.

As for targeting the hardware of their choosing? A develop never really has that option. You need to target a large enough installed base to be popular. If you're trying to make a showcase title you can scale up in the presence of better hardware, but you'd better cover the base. In this way the situation with a PS4 + PS4 Neo is actually pretty similar. You are required to pass certification on the PS4 and you'll want to so that you have a large addressable market. Whether you want to take significant advantage of Neo improvements is entirely up to you as a developer.

But if he has a different perspective I would genuinely like to hear it. Because I feel crazy when the same thoughts run through my head as Lady Gaia but everyone is losing their mind on GAF.

What changed for you between this thread, and now? You seem a lot more on board for the concept now.

More information helps. Also I never posted in any of these threads until now, but to your point like I said at the top of the page I was against this idea when it first leaked.

Also maybe this thread is drawing out the people who are more favorable on it rather than the sky is falling threads that mostly get posted lol.

 

[JJD]

This is a really well written piece, with good arguments.

While I wasn't angry at the PS4K, I certainly wasn't thinking about it like this.

Thanks for the new perspective Chubs!

 

[FlashFlooder]

I don't really see why anyone would have a problem with this.

The biggest advantage being that we don't all have to start over every time a new console is released. You can keep playing the games you bought for the "old" consoles forever. That alone makes it attractive to me.

 

[boredandlazy]

Also maybe this thread is drawing out the people who are more favorable on it rather than the sky is falling threads that mostly get posted lol.

This whole PS4K leak on GAF has just been one big wave of confirmation bias for a lot of people.
A lot of people who were initially against it have simply dug their heels in and latched onto anything negative they can find, whilst a separate bunch of people thought it was great and have just kept that up. As usual though, there are people in the middle like myself who are intrigued by the idea and generally willing to give it a go, but not quite sure how successful it will be.
There simply too many conflicting viewpoints, and it's not helped that most of these viewpoints are built on assumptions since we don't have a lot of the necessary details.

It's just a normal day on NeoGAF.

 

[wapplew]

I don't really see why anyone would have a problem with this.

The biggest advantage being that we don't all have to start over every time a new console is released. You can keep playing the games you bought for the "old" consoles forever. That alone makes it attractive to me.

We can achieve BC if they choose stick with x86 next gen, PS4K have nothing to do with it.

 

[kyser73]

<continued>
I'm pissed off because this is nothing more than Sony saying FUCK YOU to me and trying to get even more money out of me. As if gaming isn't expensive enough, they all want more and more. No. Sorry. FUCK YOU Sony.

Oh for gods sake get over yourself.

There's no actual analysis of business or technology in these posts, and they boil down to:

I didn't expect this
I don't like it
Therefore it's wrong and bad

Your entire position is predicated on the idea you 'must' buy the things. You 'must' buy a PSVR; you 'must' buy a Move to go with it; you 'must' buy a PS4Neo.

But you don't have to. You don't even have to buy PS5 or any other piece of new technology when it's actually new ever.

As for feeling insulted by Sony...I can only feel sorrow that people genuinely feel personally slighted that a company is offering a slightly better version of a product - especially when that product literally has no impact on their existing purchase.

 

[Theman2k]

If the overall quality of games degrade over a consoles lifespan naturally, be certain that another model will accelerate this way faster artificially.

Neo games will hit their target, and OG model will lag behind. Pretty much all future Digital Foundry videos.

 

[chubigans]

What changed for you between this thread, and now? You seem a lot more on board for the concept now.

I saw that move as a pivot away from the industry. I still thought it was a good idea:

Like I said, it's a great play to get a much larger audience then the Xbox brand could ever hope to do.

I always knew XB1 would be Microsoft's last console but the way they're transitioning is kind of brilliant. Well, maybe not from a sales point of view, but in keeping their Xbox brand healthy while trying to attract a new gaming audience for Windows 10? Absolutely.

I mentioned in that thread that I would have hated to dev for three different XB1 skus; what I didn't consider is the idea of a sku that didn't actually fundamentally change the structure of the system to where developing for all of them would be a relatively easy process.

It's all about the details.

 

[KiraXD]

:thumbs up:



how does ps4k change that? your ps4 will still be supported by every game released in the foreseeable future.

so the game will push the hardware to its limits, and youll get the game at its full potential? no, youll get the lesser game. devs dont have to push the hardware... they can just put out a half assed version and the "full" version on the upgraded hardware. the reason i like consoles is because i know the game is developed with a single ecosystem so the game i get is the best game the developer can do. but with ps4k if i dont get the upgrade... ill always have the worse game. (on top of that... now devs can just treat the PS4 version like a PS3/PS4 cross gen title. i would never buy the PS3 version knowing a PS4 version runs better. and now if i dont get a PS4k, ill always feel like the version im playing is the crappy last gen version.

If i want to upgrade my system to get a few more gigs of memoram every other year, id just upgrade my PC. this iterative console stuff is stupid.

 

[Boombox On]

devs dont have to push the hardware...

Also true now.

 

[The Artisan]

I read the OP. I appreciate what OP is trying to do here, and I'd say my own opinion but it's pointless trying to express an unpopular opinion and trying to defend it.

 

[Moneal]

so the game will push the hardware to its limits, and youll get the game at its full potential? no, youll get the lesser game. devs dont have to push the hardware... they can just put out a half assed version and the "full" version on the upgraded hardware. the reason i like consoles is because i know the game is developed with a single ecosystem so the game i get is the best game the developer can do. but with ps4k if i dont get the upgrade... ill always have the worse game. (on top of that... now devs can just treat the PS4 version like a PS3/PS4 cross gen title. i would never buy the PS3 version knowing a PS4 version runs better. and now if i dont get a PS4k, ill always feel like the version im playing is the crappy last gen version.

If i want to upgrade my system to get a few more gigs of memoram every other year, id just upgrade my PC. this iterative console stuff is stupid.

do you buy multiplats on console? If you do you are not getting the best version of those either.

 

[kyser73]

so the game will push the hardware to its limits, and youll get the game at its full potential? no, youll get the lesser game. devs dont have to push the hardware... they can just put out a half assed version and the "full" version on the upgraded hardware. the reason i like consoles is because i know the game is developed with a single ecosystem so the game i get is the best game the developer can do. but with ps4k if i dont get the upgrade... ill always have the worse game. (on top of that... now devs can just treat the PS4 version like a PS3/PS4 cross gen title. i would never buy the PS3 version knowing a PS4 version runs better. and now if i dont get a PS4k, ill always feel like the version im playing is the crappy last gen version.

If i want to upgrade my system to get a few more gigs of memoram every other year, id just upgrade my PC. this iterative console stuff is stupid.

What about the dev that pushes the PS4 to its limits so the gane runs like ass, but on theNeo it runs well, and is still pushing the hardware?

Are people making your argument about 'look how hard PS3 was pushed, we'll never see the likes again!' Basically arguing for games that in many situations are too much for the hardware?

You then contradict yourself by saying you'll upgrade in a platform which as far as I can tell almost no games are targeted to the top end of performance outside of Arma, Star Citizen & couple of others.

 

[Jimrpg]

"Hey everyone! Instead of paying hundreds of dollars every six or so years, now you'll spend the SAME AMOUNT, MORE OFTEN!"

I'm gonna stick with PC I think.

This.

Why would anyone actually want to do this, buy into the Playstation ecosystem, unless there were games you couldn't get anywhere else. If PC offers by and large the same thing save a few exclusive games, wouldn't it make more sense to go PC?

If people are just worried about building a PC, selecting parts, and or driver issues, I can tell you that, building a PC and selecting parts were extremely easy, and you get just as many driver and hardware issues on a console. Steam even automatically patches everything for you.

 

[Zaki2407]

It's funny that some of us thought that buying a game console is an "investment". What do you invest actually? Money? Nope, the time you bought that shiny new console, the price is automatically depreciate. Time? Nope, you actually loosing time by playing it.

Time is changing. So do the business environment. Company must adapt to the current situation weather they like it or not. Consumers must also adapt. But the consumer have to power to choose weather they want to follow it or not. Remember Nokia? Where are they now?

So, from Sony (and MS) point of view, maybe the PS4K is the answer for the current business climate. Maybe they right, maybe they wrong. But who knows? They still have to take the move.

So, there's my thought about the current issue.

 

[KiraXD]

do you buy multiplats on console? If you do you are not getting the best version of those either.

i do, but i can get the best one on whatever console its best on... the point being that the console ecosystem is 1 standard for the lifespan of that console i know that the games are the best that the console can do. with a PS4k i now know that the game on PS4 isnt as good as it can be. which is even worse with 1st party titles because those typically arent on PC... so the console version IS the best version.

Im dreading a Shadow of Mordor situation (PS3 to PS4 cross gen garbage where the PS3 version was really bad.) Devs dont HAVE to push PS4... they can put out whatever the bare minimum is required by sony, and push the PS4k... now im stuck with the garbage game... i dont want to see this situation.

 

[AmyS]

Yea Nintendo is going in this direction too. "like brothers in a family" or something like that from his quote.

Yep, that's the main Iwata quote I forgot.

 

[Jimrpg]

The one thing I do hope for is backwards compatibility with all existing Playstation titles. That would actually make a lot of sense if you wanted to start doing iterative consoles as the one thing I love about Steam is it plays all my existing games. I'd have no problem shelling out for an iterative PS4k in that scenario. I'd hate it if we get better and better consoles, but then couldn't play all our old titles.

I would drop my money on that so fast. One can dream.

 

[kyser73]

I saw that move as a pivot away from the industry. I still thought it was a good idea:





I mentioned in that thread that I would have hated to dev for three different XB1 skus; what I didn't consider is the idea of a sku that didn't actually fundamentally change the structure of the system to where developing for all of them would be a relatively easy process.

It's all about the details.

Chubs, you touched on something in your OP that I think deserves expanding on - that PC CPU technology isn't going to advance as much, if at all, over the coming years.

With Intel saying their move away from tick-rock to a three step iterative development pathway to future CPUs, how do you see this impacting AMDs APU development going into a 'PS5/PS2020' iteration?

 

[KiraXD]

You then contradict yourself by saying you'll upgrade in a platform which as far as I can tell almost no games are targeted to the top end of performance outside of Arma, Star Citizen & couple of others.

i never said im upgrading... i said if i wanted to do this PS4k... i would just upgrade my pc (which i dont want to do)... im NOT upgrading my pc because i dont game on my pc. which is why im arguing for consoles.


and as far as running like garbage... im talking strictly pushing the limits of good games... that run great. not pushing to the breaking point... thats a pointless argument.

 

[Jimrpg]

It's funny that some of us thought that buying a game console is an "investment". What do you invest actually? Money? Nope, the time you bought that shiny new console, the price is automatically depreciate. Time? Nope, you actually loosing time by playing it.

Time is changing. So do the business environment. Company must adapt to the current situation weather they like it or not. Consumers must also adapt. But the consumer have to power to choose weather they want to follow it or not. Remember Nokia? Where are they now?

So, from Sony (and MS) point of view, maybe the PS4K is the answer for the current business climate. Maybe they right, maybe they wrong. But who knows? They still have to take the move.

So, there's my thought about the current issue.

It's not an investment that makes you money. You don't have to take that literally.

Everybody expected the PS4 was going to last 5 years minimum, we're 2 and a half years into it and Sony says its underpowered. That's not what you want to hear after you've shelled out money.

 

[Moneal]

i do, but i can get the best one on whatever console its best on... the point being that the console ecosystem is 1 standard for the lifespan of that console i know that the games are the best that the console can do. with a PS4k i now know that the game on PS4 isnt as good as it can be. which is even worse with 1st party titles because those typically arent on PC... so the console version IS the best version.

Im dreading a Shadow of Mordor situation (PS3 to PS4 cross gen garbage where the PS3 version was really bad.) Devs dont HAVE to push PS4... they can put out whatever the bare minimum is required by sony, and push the PS4k... now im stuck with the garbage game... i dont want to see this situation.

ps3 to ps4 is x10 power differential. ps4 to ps4k is only x2 or 2.5. ps3 was 8 years old when that came out. You won't see differences that drastic with ps4k. and have devs pushed out garbage on xbox 1? it is a worse console than ps4.

 

[The Artisan]

so the game will push the hardware to its limits, and youll get the game at its full potential? no, youll get the lesser game. devs dont have to push the hardware... they can just put out a half assed version and the "full" version on the upgraded hardware. the reason i like consoles is because i know the game is developed with a single ecosystem so the game i get is the best game the developer can do. but with ps4k if i dont get the upgrade... ill always have the worse game. (on top of that... now devs can just treat the PS4 version like a PS3/PS4 cross gen title. i would never buy the PS3 version knowing a PS4 version runs better. and now if i dont get a PS4k, ill always feel like the version im playing is the crappy last gen version.

If i want to upgrade my system to get a few more gigs of memoram every other year, id just upgrade my PC. this iterative console stuff is stupid.

i do, but i can get the best one on whatever console its best on... the point being that the console ecosystem is 1 standard for the lifespan of that console i know that the games are the best that the console can do. with a PS4k i now know that the game on PS4 isnt as good as it can be. which is even worse with 1st party titles because those typically arent on PC... so the console version IS the best version.

Im dreading a Shadow of Mordor situation (PS3 to PS4 cross gen garbage where the PS3 version was really bad.) Devs dont HAVE to push PS4... they can put out whatever the bare minimum is required by sony, and push the PS4k... now im stuck with the garbage game... i dont want to see this situation.

pretty much echoing my thoughts on the situation

it's like...just because other electronic devices in their respective markets and industries have yearly cycles doesn't mean every single industry has to be this way. i'm pretty phones and tablets and whatever else also always are and have been, but consoles haven't.

and there isn't a need for this, no indication of that whatsoever, there really isn't, as far as i am concerned as a consumer. Ps4's sales and to a lesser extent, xbone's sales, have been flourishing. they've been selling better than their predecessors. same with software. as far as I can tell, software sales this gen have been as good, or better than last gen.

and to ME, that means that the console industry is healthy. it's selling, it's making money just the way it is, just fine. and that means, this iterative shit, isn't necessary, but it's going to be a way for the conglomerates to make more money out of consumers and they know it's going to work BECAUSE all the other goddamn electronic device markets are doing it and it works.

ugh, I said I wouldn't do this and I did it anyway.

 

[OneUh8]

fantastic post OP