The Case for the PS4K: an important, and necessary, change for the industry.

I'm iterating. Sold my PS4 and am ready for PS4K. Bought the PS4 for $400 and sold it for $200 so basically I spent $200 for 3 years worth of gaming. That's not a big deal. Now I can take that $200 and put it towards the potentially $400 PS4K. This way I end up paying $400 over 6 years. Sounds very fair to me.
 
Just curious if GAF has ever had a poll asking how many years people would ideally like between console gens? Might be interesting. I only buy one console per gen and my ideal is ever 5 years.
 
I think the thread title would probably be better as being an "inevitable" change for the industry. It's simply how technology in general works. The gap in power between each generation is only going to get bigger, and you'll inevitably end up with people trying to force the idea of shorter generations simply due to competition. But if you make the cycle too short or cut backwards compatibility, (i.e. games work on both PS4 and PS4K) then you'll piss off your consumers. The PC market already adapted to this by simply existing, whereas the console market has been largely cut off from it due to the previously slow technological increase, which is no longer the case.
 
I'm iterating. Sold my PS4 and am ready for PS4K. .

nicegorillasharkhighflpq10.png


Same~~~

Although I bought mine for ~$300 and sold it for $400, lol

PS4K can't come soon enough!
 
Lets go back a little and really look into this topic.
Is console market really slowly shrinking, if yes, what cause it? If no, why we need to change?

From my understanding, if we only talk about TV console, the only market that really shrinking fast is Japan. The west is mostly the same, Asia (outside Japan) is growing, don't know much about middle east or Africa.

If we look at console LTD each generation, we are talking about what? 200M+ total?
So, 2 years in we are looking at 70M-75M this generation, on course of crashing that goal.

Not sure if hardware (console) sales alone are a proper metric to determine the "console market" anymore. For example, due to the Nintendo Wii's literally extraordinary success, it will be very though for the current generation (PS4; One, WiiU) of consoles to beat the previous one sales-wise.

So to determine if the console market is actually shrinking, we can use those hardware sales as a starting point, but then we have to talk about revenues, both from consoles and from games sold. And then we have all those acessoires (like PSVR or Amiibos) and services (like XBOX live or PS Now!).

All we need now is one of them revenue charts, but my kids want breakfast now so...
 
I doubt I'll be able to play Knack on a hypothetical PS console in 2023. X86 doesn't mean the console will play older games. It happens on PC quite often (but there you can hack it). It also happens on smartphones - try playing some older games (mobile Dead Space for example) on newest iPhone or Android. You can't, because the compatibility is broken.
 
I'm iterating. Sold my PS4 and am ready for PS4K. Bought the PS4 for $400 and sold it for $200 so basically I spent $200 for 3 years worth of gaming. That's not a big deal. Now I can take that $200 and put it towards the potentially $400 PS4K. This way I end up paying $400 over 6 years. Sounds very fair to me.

Umm wouldn't that be $600 over 6 years?!
 
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.

You're, once again, not making any sense as the differences between the PS3 and PS4 architectures were chalk and cheese. In this instance the architectures are identical. Any improvements to the performance of an application manifests itself on both consoles. It's not "either or" it's "both or nothing"
 
And obviously had they made their plans clear at first I'd have stayed clear. Now it's too late and people who bought them are fucked after the fact.

Let's not pretend this is universally welcomed. GAF consensus has been so opposite of whT the market does time and time again.

Im entirely unable to grasp how anyone who bought a PS4 is now fucked. Every game for probably the next 3 years + will run on it.
 
12 pages have already been written but just wanted to chime in to say fantastic OP and article. I've always been in favor of the PS4K but even still some new peas in there really helped solidify my opinion on the matter.
 
They're the backbone of a shitty industry that hates its customers and actively works against them. I don't see a crash of this godawful industry as a bad thing. It will be replaced by something better, just like it was the last time it crashed.

The most touchingly naive thing I've ever read.

The current 'shitty' industry is still running on the 'better' model you're referring to.

If the current model fails it will be replaced with something where them mobile model of game development reigns supreme. No-one will invest in the kind of long dev cycles it takes to make games like Witcher as it will be seen as too risky.

No, the next model will driven completely by FtP & PtW that takes successful game templates & assets & re-skins them on a short cycle. The idea of a content-complete game that doesn't rely on micro transactions to support its existance will be completely gone.
 
And now you have an option to upgrade instead of being stuck at 25 FPS if the devs think it is fine.

Of course, I am a little easier with it because I was planning on picking up a second PS4 anyway.
Which is essentially what I'm saying. You're not forced to upgrade but if you're the typical day 1 buyers there is no way you'll wait until the next upgrade, you'll buy 2 consoles, you know you will. And if this becomes the norm and you usually have all three consoles, then you'll now buy 6 consoles. 2 Playstation, 2 Xboxes, 2 Nintendo consoles. $2400, give or take a few hunded bucks. Great. Time to get a third job? :/
 
Ecosystem lock-in is the holy grail that Apple has taught other tech companies to fight for. PS4K will probably help in that area.

One issue is that there is now a higher development cost to creating PS4 games. It's unavoidable with multiple models with different specs. It's definitely bringing in some of the aspects of PC gaming that I'm sure some users and devs are not pleased about. Even if your game doesn't have any "benefits" on PS4K, you will still need to test and QA that version. That isn't free.

That isn't to say if it's worth it. I'm not sure the PS4K is "worth it", personally. But that's fine; that doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.

I think being more hardware agnostic is always a good way to develop software. I doubt Sony designed the PS4 to be a platform to scale up with further hardware iterations (at least initially), so there's bound to be bumps in the road. Same thing happened with Apple hardware and iOS. It wasn't designed for different screen sizes; it was always hacked together for the iPad and different sized iPhones. It took until iOS 8 before the damn OS was actually capable of dealing with it in a sane fashion.
 
Yeah they are, derogatory names designed to belittle.


😂
Yes, but one started as a perfectly normal shortening of the actual product name which people skewed into a negative(which was exacerbated by Major Nelson whinging about it). The other is a lamely manufactured attempt at creating one.

Is this some viral upgrade campaign to try and make people unhappy with their current PS4? Very sneaky.
Pretty much.
 
So you're telling me that if you're forced to upgrade your hardwere to play newer games you're not going to just abandon consoles in favor of PC?
I'm genuinely curious about it. What console exlusive game would make you buy a brand new consolle right now?
 
So you're telling me that if you're forced to upgrade your hardwere to play newer games you're not going to just abandon consoles in favor of PC?
I'm genuinely curious about it. What console exlusive game would make you buy a brand new consolle right now?

Even better third party output would be worth it for me. And there are lots of games you can't get on PC. Madden, NBA2K, etc.
 
Lets go back a little and really look into this topic.
Is console market really slowly shrinking, if yes, what cause it? If no, why we need to change?

From my understanding, if we only talk about TV console, the only market that really shrinking fast is Japan. The west is mostly the same, Asia (outside Japan) is growing, don't know much about middle east or Africa.

If we look at console LTD each generation, we are talking about what? 200M+ total?
So, 2 years in we are looking at 70M-75M this generation, on course of crashing that goal.

Let's say it is shrinking for the sake of argument. What's the biggest reason?
I think most of us agree it's because of mobile. Mobile takes away most of the casual, parents buy tablet instead of console for their kids, kids grow up with mobile will not resonate with console like we do, therefor console market stop getting new customers.

So, how does iterative console business model like OP said can help in this situation? Why is it the necessary change? How does this model make parent choose a console instead of a tablet for their kids?
If the question is how do console fight mobile, iterative model is not the answer.

I think most pundits are focusing too narrowly on the question of iterative models and how it effects traditional consoles in general. Or, rather, the short term view.

I think there's a lot more going on here. While I believe we will see some similarities between Neo/XB NeXt/NX, and possibly some kind of iteration model for at least 2 of the 3, I think we are at the beginning of all three going in radically different directions. Come the end I think Sony with an iterative model might be the closest left to traditional consoles.

The problem is the companies are struggling to work our how to answer not only the Mobile threat, but also the creeping slow burn rise of micro-consoles, and the re-positioning of HTPC's and Steam Machines. We have to look longer term, and at a wider market, to understand what might be going on.

Microsoft have been rumored to be abandoning or selling off XBox for a while now (not that I think it would happen). Valve and their Steam Machines seem to be of more interest to Microsoft and their strategy than PS4 and NX. They are more interested in UWP, a Windows based gaming store, I can see XBox moving into a more micro-console/Steam Machine/HTPC style space.

Nintendo have a heritage and they are struggling to exploit it. Their success has been more around handheld and mobile gaming for years. Starting mobile development is an indication of the direction they are going in. Rumor persist that NX will be some kind of hybrid affair. I think NX itseld might be closer to micro-console in specs, they are not going to compete head on with Sony and Microsoft, they are the least likely to be iterative in the sense we've been talking about, I think they will be a download only system, and a 3DS replacement will be a key part of the package.

Sony are an electronics company. PS-Now is their trojan horse and I think the key to their strategy. Playstation is the brand. Streaming to smartphones, tablets, televisions, PC's, laptops, blu-ray players, etc, is where it is at. The Playstation name and the Playstation console is the way in to that. Cloud streaming will never be powerful enough to compete head on with XBox/PC localized gaming. A premium product that can compete head on, a localized streaming server if you will, is what's needed to bring it all together. Waiting 6-8 years to upgrade this home server isn't going to cut it as MS and PC's will upgrade more often. Where MS might become more componentised, closer to HTPC's and upgrade much faster, Sony will stay closer to traditional consoles and upgrade in a quicker 3-4 year span to remain competitive.

That's just how I see the market playing out, and why.

As I say, I think there is more going on than just releasing new consoles or blindly changing the retail model of these devices. It's about how to remain competitive and relevant over a much longer term, and in Sony's case they are looking at Apple and looking at the customer locking of their products and they want to replicate that.
 
One more assertion that the PS4, the only Sony console that can't even play PS1 games that can be run on a phone, is supposedly starting a cycle of endless BC?

Sounds very doubtful.
 
The only thing the PS4K means for the industry is that Sony wants you to give them more money more often. They're milking you.
 
Even better third party output would be worth it for me. And there are lots of games you can't get on PC. Madden, NBA2K, etc.
Not a sports fan but I remember FIFA on PC. Also, I don't know how sports games are improved with each iteration, but no sport games on PC anymore? I could understand if Japanese games don't go Pc, but western sport games don't go Pc anymore?
Imho, that's f****d up.
 
Can't or doesn't? The distinction is clear and pertinent. Silly assertion in other words
Doesn't, of course. And yes, that is extremely pertinent.

Sony does not allow us to play our PS1 and 2 classics on the PS4. And yet the PS4 is going to usher in endless BC for future Sony consoles? Un-fucking-likely.
 
I think most pundits are focusing too narrowly on the question of iterative models and how it effects traditional consoles in general. Or, rather, the short term view.

I think there's a lot more going on here. While I believe we will see some similarities between Neo/XB NeXt/NX, and possibly some kind of iteration model for at least 2 of the 3, I think we are at the beginning of all three going in radically different directions. Come the end I think Sony with an iterative model might be the closest left to traditional consoles.

The problem is the companies are struggling to work our how to answer not only the Mobile threat, but also the creeping slow burn rise of micro-consoles, and the re-positioning of HTPC's and Steam Machines. We have to look longer term, and at a wider market, to understand what might be going on.

Microsoft have been rumored to be abandoning or selling off XBox for a while now (not that I think it would happen). Valve and their Steam Machines seem to be of more interest to Microsoft and their strategy than PS4 and NX. They are more interested in UWP, a Windows based gaming store, I can see XBox moving into a more micro-console/Steam Machine/HTPC style space.

Nintendo have a heritage and they are struggling to exploit it. Their success has been more around handheld and mobile gaming for years. Starting mobile development is an indication of the direction they are going in. Rumor persist that NX will be some kind of hybrid affair. I think NX itseld might be closer to micro-console in specs, they are not going to compete head on with Sony and Microsoft, they are the least likely to be iterative in the sense we've been talking about, I think they will be a download only system, and a 3DS replacement will be a key part of the package.

Sony are an electronics company. PS-Now is their trojan horse and I think the key to their strategy. Playstation is the brand. Streaming to smartphones, tablets, televisions, PC's, laptops, blu-ray players, etc, is where it is at. The Playstation name and the Playstation console is the way in to that. Cloud streaming will never be powerful enough to compete head on with XBox/PC localized gaming. A premium product that can compete head on, a localized streaming server if you will, is what's needed to bring it all together. Waiting 6-8 years to upgrade this home server isn't going to cut it as MS and PC's will upgrade more often. Where MS might become more componentised, closer to HTPC's and upgrade much faster, Sony will stay closer to traditional consoles and upgrade in a quicker 3-4 year span to remain competitive.

That's just how I see the market playing out, and why.

As I say, I think there is more going on than just releasing new consoles or blindly changing the retail model of these devices. It's about how to remain competitive and relevant over a much longer term, and in Sony's case they are looking at Apple and looking at the customer locking of their products and they want to replicate that.

I fail to see how micro-consoles/steam machine/HTPC ever turn into a threat to console.
But I agree from Sony's stand point, iterative models is a small risk to take with big payoff, as in extend and secure its market leading position. Lock us into their Eco-system if you will.
This model only help Sony retain customers (against console direct competitor) within a shrinking market (if it's really shrinking), I doubt it will help the growth of console market as a whole.
They need to create value that no other gaming devices can provide. Low cost, buy once good for a generation and exclusives are some of that, iterative model only take away those values and add nothing to it.

Edit: PS Now, PSVR, might be able to grow the market, but that has nothing to do with iterative model.
 
Doesn't, of course. And yes, that is extremely pertinent.

Sony does not allow us to play our PS1 and 2 classics on the PS4. And yet the PS4 is going to usher in endless BC for future Sony consoles? Un-fucking-likely.

Again, completely different architectures meaning a considerable amount of effort is required to implement either an emulator or on a game by game basis. The returns they'd gain from allowing said BC or reselling said PS1 games does likely not make economic sense.

Whereas with x86 it remains the same and they can work with AMD to ensure BC is not compromised meaning far easier BC and FC and thus economies of scale.
 
So you're telling me that if you're forced to upgrade your hardwere to play newer games you're not going to just abandon consoles in favor of PC?
I'm genuinely curious about it. What console exlusive game would make you buy a brand new consolle right now?

There's tons. I already own a pc but I can't play Bloodborne or Uncharted 4 on it, nor upcoming titles like The Last Guardian or Horizon.
 
Which is essentially what I'm saying. You're not forced to upgrade but if you're the typical day 1 buyers there is no way you'll wait until the next upgrade, you'll buy 2 consoles, you know you will. And if this becomes the norm and you usually have all three consoles, then you'll now buy 6 consoles. 2 Playstation, 2 Xboxes, 2 Nintendo consoles. $2400, give or take a few hunded bucks. Great. Time to get a third job? :/

Alternatively the additional cost of buying consoles every few years plus paid-for online will increase the pressure on people and more will choose to stick with one console rather than buy both. Obviously Sony wants that one console to be PlayStation
 
It all comes down to price. In 2 years Zen, HBM2, and Polaris 11 will not be cheap enough for sony to put in a console. Maybe by 2020 sure, but i thought everyone agreed that 7 year generations wer too long.

But is the solution to take a half step?

Here we go with the 'what if's but

Another thing I just thought of is what if people who get one don't feel satisfied with the amount or quality of neo upgraded titles? There's just so much we don't know yet.
 
The Shadow of Mordor situation happened precisely because we still don't have incremental upgrades. Because the PS3 and PS4 were completely different systems they had to dedicate resources to supporting two separate platforms, and in that case the PS3 got the short end of the stick. With multiple PS4's they will be the same platform: same hardware architecture, API's, network infrastructure, developer tools, etc. Because the PS3->PS4 transition changed so many things, reset the market, and everything was different, publishers and developers saw themselves having to double their efforts or find themselves missing out on a potential huge chunk of the market. With easier and smoother transitions this just isn't a problem anymore.

You would have been right had the PS3 version been acceptable and the PS4 version barely tapped the power of the system and sucked as a result. PS3 is not an unknown quantity, most Multiplatform engines are already well tuned for it, there is surely a laundry list of best practices available, and the tools are very fined tuned for it.

It was a case of a launch game that was optimised towards the features and performance available in the next generation platforms and that was also ported to older platforms trying to make it fit but also without breaking the bank. This is the situation the other poster was worried it would happen with PS4K and PS4.

If what the EG article said is true, as a other very smart people pointed out, if Sony is mandating 4K mode in Neo to have at least the same framerate as the 1080p mode on the same Neo device or better we are going to get bells at whistles in 4K mode that are a lot more similar to the ones you can afford on the regular PS4 on 1080p. This would mean that developers wanting to use Neo mode to improve quality would have be forced to make a 4K mode that works at the same smooth framerate and that 4K mode would force them to target graphics fidelity that would work well on PS4 at the lower 1080p resolution.
 
Excellent OP Chubs, I think you hit a lot of great points. PS4K makes a lot of sense from a technological and competitive standpoint. I find a lot of people don't like the idea because of irrational or theoretical fears, that stem from their expectations being challenged. I think it's important to take some assumptions that are at the heart of those expectations, and show why they aren't valid:

1. Sony can significantly upgrade the hardware every 6 years and start a new console generation
This isn't true anymore. The rate of technological improvement is slowing. By most measures, the jump to PS4 was smaller than the jump to PS3, which was smaller than the jump to PS2 from PS1. The heart of any console is it's GPU, and the power that a GPU can produce at a console price point is primarily driven by the fabrication processes available at the time. We'll be at 14nm this year, which would have been a 5 year timeframe since the last jump to 28nm in 2011. For reference The PS3 was produced at 90nm and there were fabrication process changes every two years during the life of the system. It could be another 5 years until the next fabrication process is available. This means that a PS5 in 2019 would only be marginally more powerful than PS4K in 2016 as any improvements would have to do with efficiencies in GPU design and not technological leaps.

2. When the next system is announced the current system becomes obsolete
This is how things used to work, but that's not how it's going to work here. When next generations are announced and released, it's typically aligned with the trailing of of sales of the current gen. The PS4 is in the prime of it's life, and having its best year. Every Playstation has sold more after being 3 years old than before being 3 years old. Why? Primarily it's price. Sony would be insane to forgo the future sales potential of a $299 or even $199 PS4 to the 10s of millions of price conscious buyers. The PS4 will continue to be sold and supported for years and will likely eclipse the 80M units. It's the 'base' level of function for any games going forward.



So what's the business reason for PS4K?

1. "Generations" are an antiquated and increasingly risky proposition. Developers throwing out their code, ignoring millions of consoles to support the "next gen" console is wasteful and financially irresponsible. We saw plenty of games cross-gen games at the start of the generation this time around. That was compatibility with consoles that were 7-8 years old at the time. Developing games is just too costly to rely solely on the launch units, and as prices go up will be too costly to rely solely on the first year or second year instal bases. Publishers need to have a large reliable install base for their incredibly expensive to produce video games. Having cross-generational support being built into the ecosystem is a good thing in the long run. Not to mention that technology has reached a point were consoles can keep up with creativity. The boundaries and limitations on creators have been lifted for the most part. Look at the top PS4 games. How many of them, in terms of game design weren't possible on the previous generation? GTAV is one of the most advanced video games ever created, and it runs on consoles released in 2005. I have a hard time imagining that most designed for PS4K, couldn't be possible on a PS4.

2. Playstation enthusiasts are willing to give Sony money but are only asked for money once every generation. Why not give those people something meaningful to buy that only entrenches their dedication to your brand? There are people who want a console, and specifically a Playstation console that are willing to pay more and buy another system for upgraded performance. Their PS4s will mostly find their way to the secondary market, and increase install base.

3. Choice is going to expand the market. Having a "lower" end and a "higher" end system will expand the types of buyers that Playstation can reach. PS4 will sell to entry level, cost conscious gamers, and families. PS4K will sell to enthusiast level gamers, graphics conscious gamers, and technology early adopters. PS4K will invite more buyers into playstation, whether it be someone who was on the fence about getting a gaming PC because the PS4 was not that powerful, someone who wants more 4k content, or someone that just wants the most powerful console available.

4. Competition. This a a big one, more than most recognize right now. The technology is going to be a available this year to make a video game console that's 2.5x more powerful than the PS4, for around $399. Given the off the shelf component and x86 architecture of the PS4 and xbox one, it would be easy for Microsoft, Nintendo or another company to enter the console market with a materially more powerful system than the PS4 and have that system be easy to port to. As noted above, technology might mean that if someone else were to release a PS4K-spec-like system this year, waiting another 3 years for the PS5 might only mean a marginally more powerful system that's 3 years late. Someone could easily come in and distrupt the market. It makes sense to get a head of that, and not lose ground to competitors on technology. Sony can't afford to be complacent.

5. Sony is the current market leader. There are two things important to recognize about Sony's position as the leader. Firstly, Sony want to lock users in to the Playstation eco-system, which chubs covered well. Secondly, this paradigm shift, which is good for the industry, needs to come from a position of strength, not a position of weakness. As the current frontrunner int he console war, sony has the power to introduce the iterative console and not have people wonder about moves of desperation or admittance of failure. The new PS4 is the next big thing.

6. The technology is there. 14nm is going to make it possible to get a performance boost for the GPU, while maintaining a reasonable price point. It's going be available later in 2016 should Sony choose to use it. As described above, it's unclear what a PS5 might be capable of in 2019 or 2020, and PS4K might be the best option, as it aligns with a shift in fabrication process. Further, modifying an x86 architecture design isn't as costly as a full console design cycle has been in the past.

The 4K Mandate. Sony produces 4K movies and TV shows, sells 4K TVs, UHD-blu-rays, cam corders, etc. It makes sense for them to sell a Playstation hat might influence TV purchasing behaviour, or provide avenues for their existing TV owners to purchase 4K software.


Fears? Let's go over some of the more rational ones.

An additional SKU means my game will be less optimized. Games are buggy as it is right now, and the PS4K is not going to help things. If you feel this way, you're right. However, you couldn't say to what extent PS4K is going to impact quality. There are a lot of factors that go into how optimized a game is, and you could point at any number of things that would lead a game to be "less optimized". If you agree with this you must also agree that the following scenarios means your game is less optimized:
- Introduction of the Nintendo NX
- If developers decide to add a new level or feature during development
- If devs decide to take two weeks off at christmas
At the end of the day, it's up to the developers to manage their games and allocate resources accordingly. Barring some isolated incidences, they are generally good at doing it, and ship out quality products because they take pride in what they do.

PS4 games are going to run like shit Targeting higher specs will leave the PS4 version performing poorly. Anybody else play Fallout 4, or the Witcher 3 at launch? This already happens. Devs have seemingly already been targeting higher specs than the PS4 offers. As PC specs increase and the gap widens, these situations will only become more frequent. It happened at the trail end of last generation as well. Will the PS4K accelerate this process? We'll have to see, but even then, it will be next to impossible to attribute PS4 performance issues solely on the PS4K's existence. You must also consider that the PS4 will still be sold and supported for many years, and that with the install base it has, it's not exactly going to be an afterthought for developers, who want to sell as many games as possible. Further, we see how Sony has been introduced the PS4 and PS4K ecosystem. PS4 is "base" and PS4K is an enhancement, and not what some of the earlier leaks may have mistakenly indicated.

Multiplayer is going to be unbalanced. This could very well happen. materially higher frame rate could be a killer to online competition. Let's hope that developers are competent, and I think they are, and will not allow that. One thing to consider is that the input lag on your TV is likely to play a bigger factor in control responsiveness than the jump from 30fps (~32ms lag) to 60fps (~16ms lag), given that TVs can introduce anywhere between 19 and 90ms of lag.



Lastly, the arguments that just make now sense to me

PS4 is now shit. No it's not - it's not becoming retroactively less powerful. It has the same value proposition it always had. The PS4 you purchased or intend to purchase has the same capabilities it's always had.

I'm being forced to buy a new console No you're not. If you choose to buy a PS4K, it's because it provides a value proposition that speaks to your interests. You want a more powerful console and are willing to pay the asking price. That's just a need you didn't realize you had because traditionally, there was never anything to fill it. Demand and Supply at work, no reason to be salty over somebody offering something you want.

40 million PS4 owners are now second class citizens No they're not. PS4 and PS4K users differ only in the power of their systems, and will not be treated any differently. They will have the same games, the same services, the same features, the same peripherals, the same PSN sales, etc. Honda does not consider civic buyers second class citizens to Accord buyers. PS4 owners who feel like second class citizens only feel that way because they are selectively comparing their console against PS4K. If you care about graphics, sure there's reason to be jealous. However, there's always been reason to be jealous. High end PCs exist, and for 90+% of games, have a better performing version. PS4 owners did not have the highest fidelity experience prior to the PS4K.

Sony is taking a dump on all PS4 owners. This comes in two flavors: a) Sony should have released the PS4K to start with. and b) sony is fucking over everyone who bought a PS4 by devaluing their system. The PS4K couldn't have existed at a reasonable price point in 2013. PS4 buy any measure, is a great success. You can't argue with he results it's had at $399. Loss leaders are a thing of the past. it's not a responsible business model, and there was no way PS4K level performance was going to make it into a console sized box in 2013 for $399. In regards to devaluation... prices go down over time, whether price is dropped or a new model is introduced. PS4 was going to continue to drop in price and the introduction of the PS4K does not change that.

Consumers are going to be confused. Again, no. Most consumers don't set their watch to console cycles and generations. Most consumers understand that any consumer technology iterates, whether it be cars, phones, laptops, tablets, TVs, computers, bicycles, etc. They will see the PS4K as they see any other consumer electronics device in history, "The new one performs better". It's not a confusing concept, it's the norm. Multiple SKUs is the norm. low-end and high-end price points is the norm. Regular iteration is the norm.



I think this will be a great thing for the industry. Many are asking why change a model that works? Well sure it works, but what if it could work better? I think it will. In the long run there will be more consoles in homes and more software sold.
 
I'm both unhappy about it (particularly because I think "products as services" is just anti-consumer shit to milk more money out of people for the same products) and don't understand the benefits.

Isn't the entire point of consoles to be simple? It just works? Plug it in, cram a disc in it, and magic happens? If that doesn't matter then consoles have no reason to exist alongside PC gaming, iterative models will further close the gap between the two as consoles end up gaining even more of PC's disadvantages while failing to get any of the advantages of an open platform.

I can't see annual revisions of game consoles causing anything but problems. More headaches for the user. It will probably lead to the death of console gaming as a whole. Or at least "console gaming" as we know it.
 
The only thing the PS4K means for the industry is that Sony wants you to give them more money more often. They're milking you.
That's a bit too negative imo.

But from a fan perspective, considering how they've been selling it at previous E3s with future releases etc and how few AAA 1st party games that has actually been released so far, I'd just say that PS4 became a $798 console with split payments.

Lots of people deeply invested in the Playstation ecosystem will feel like PS4K is a neccessary purchase. And even if Sony would release PS4K at $299 you'd still be looking at $698 in total just for this generation.

Many around here still seems to be okay with it though.

But for me it feels like I got tricked. I've bought every Playstation day 1 but it stops now simply because it's obviously not a wise thing to do, it's better to play elsewhere the first few years.

I envy the fence-sitters and those who only bought an Xbox One, they can all jump in at the right time now, the previously flamed launch titles with framerate issues (Killzone, Second Son, Knack) will probably run pefectly now. It really is the perfect time to jump in.

As a day 1 buyer though I'll just climb up on the fence or jump sideways to other platforms for a few years.
 
Isn't the entire point of consoles to be simple? It just works? Plug it in, cram a disc in it, and magic happens? If that doesn't matter then consoles have no reason to exist alongside PC gaming, iterative models will further close the gap between the two as consoles end up gaining even more of PC's disadvantages while failing to get any of the advantages of an open platform.

I don't get this, isn't this what is planned? You put the disk in, it works.
 
Again, completely different architectures meaning a considerable amount of effort is required to implement either an emulator or on a game by game basis. The returns they'd gain from allowing said BC or reselling said PS1 games does likely not make economic sense.

Whereas with x86 it remains the same and they can work with AMD to ensure BC is not compromised meaning far easier BC and FC and thus economies of scale.
So you really think it is too difficult for Sony to put a PS1 emulator on PS4? Every Sony system except the PS4 can play PS1 games. Every one. And I doubt they all share architecture.

We won't know what happens until it happens but Sony as they are now give me no reason to expect PS4 software to carry into their next official generation.
 
I don't get this, isn't this what is planned? You put the disk in, it works.

Does my PS4.5 support this game, or is PS4.6 the minimum requirement? If it's supported how does it run on my not-new hardware? PS4.8 has an architecture update, it looks like compatibility might be mixed - new games might not support my old PS4.5 and old games that don't get patches might not work on the PS4.8. So I still need both. But I just upgraded to PS4.5 a few years ago!
 
I'm both unhappy about it (particularly because I think "products as services" is just anti-consumer shit to milk more money out of people for the same products) and don't understand the benefits.

Isn't the entire point of consoles to be simple? It just works? Plug it in, cram a disc in it, and magic happens? If that doesn't matter then consoles have no reason to exist alongside PC gaming, iterative models will further close the gap between the two as consoles end up gaining even more of PC's disadvantages while failing to get any of the advantages of an open platform.

I can't see annual revisions of game consoles causing anything but problems. More headaches for the user. It will probably lead to the death of console gaming as a whole. Or at least "console gaming" as we know it.

Can't believe how old school console lover like us want "game as service" to become a thing.
I thought almost everyone hated that idea few years back.
 
Does my PS4.5 support this game, or is PS4.6 the minimum requirement? If it's supported how does it run on my not-new hardware? PS4.8 has an architecture update, it looks like compatibility might be mixed - new games might not support my old PS4.5 and old games that don't get patches might not work on the PS4.8. So I still need both. But I just upgraded to PS4.5 a few years ago!
That's quite the scenario you've dreamt up to prove your point.

I don't think we'll be seeing forwards compatibility over that many generations of PS4s
 
Which is essentially what I'm saying. You're not forced to upgrade but if you're the typical day 1 buyers there is no way you'll wait until the next upgrade, you'll buy 2 consoles, you know you will. And if this becomes the norm and you usually have all three consoles, then you'll now buy 6 consoles. 2 Playstation, 2 Xboxes, 2 Nintendo consoles. $2400, give or take a few hunded bucks. Great. Time to get a third job? :/

Donn't forget handheld + revisions & gaming PC with its own upgrades. We're looking at possible five jobs jobs now. This whole gaming thing is a huge scam.
 
I think people are missing huge advantage for ps4 owners here.

If you buy console now it becomes obsolete in 6 or 7 years (or less if you aren't day 1 buyer) and all game development for it stops soon after next gen is released.

Now when for example in 2020 Playstation 5 releases (or 4.6 or whatever else they want to call it) they will have to support 4.5 from 2017 but if they are supporting 4.5 already it will be possible to make original ps4 version quite easily.

So it's quite possible that it means 9 or 12 years of software support for original ps4

I just wanna know one thing : what happens to PSKNeowhatever when PS5 comes out?
Can anyone answer that or we ll have to wait for the next chapters to know?

The same thing that happens to PS4 after NEO releases. It will getting slightly uglier versions of games.
 
Top Bottom