Support NeoGAF

[family_guy]

As a developer [not a console one unless PS2 Linux counts hehe] , if you told me that I can target a set of standardised HW requirements and my software can make deterministic assumptions about what my customers would be running the software on, think the backlash over old OpenGL/DX and Vulkan/DX12 all about determinism and control, I am not sure why I would want to give that up unless forced to by the market or the manufacturers. There is actual beauty in the current console model as a developer and as a gamer. More frequent generations = less incentive to desire to code for that HW... It is not like you will convince publishers to spend even more time on each game.

But what are really talking about here? Maybe having to support 1-2 additional specs? Years ago, developers were making the same games for Xbox 1, Gamecube, and PS2, each with radically different specs and development tools. Now we're talking about supporting an additional HW configuration within the same ecosystem and utilizing the same SDK. If you don't feel like optimizing, then fine. You can achieve the bare minimum which is make sure it's as stable as the older model and runs at a minimum standard full HD resolution. Is that too much too ask of you? If it is, then you need to modify your development process because if everyone goes this route then you'll be caught unprepared. It's like how when Japanese developers were largely unprepared for HD development last gen until they started adopting processes that Western developers were utilizing, many of which had a PC dev background. Build applications that can scale.

 

[wapplew]

Yes, they will. Look at last generation as proof for a longer console generation being a good thing for both console manufacturers and consumers. Here's a thing about the vast majority of consumers, they like buying things that will last. If Sony establishes a tradition of supporting a console for ~8 years, then that's a great selling point for the PS5. It's one of the big reasons I bought the current generation of consoles on day 1. The $400 you spend on the console is seen as an investment rather than an expense because you know for the next 8 years you will have a platform to play the latest games from your favorite developers. An incredible value that cannot be understated. We've come a long way since 2006 and Sony's 10 year lifecycle vision for the PS3

Very important point.
Huge part of the PS4 success come from great PS3 support. PS4 have no BC, yet it's the best selling console this gen.
Eco-system is a little overrated in console scene, it's good to have but never the deciding factor or else WiiU should be number 1, not PS4.

Its true that PS4 still get support because it play the same games for 6 years or more, it's very important for Sony to let customers feel they get the best support throughout.
Customers will abandon Sony the minute they feel they get inferior/second class support.

 

[Jacksinthe]

Ummmm...I'm not tanking Chub's OP...I completely agrees with what he said and admired the fact you were first up questioning the veracity of CM's claims.

I'm (among other things) a PM in Enterprise s/ware and work closely with devs in all of my company's vendors, so have a pretty good idea of what the up and downside of something like this might entail for development, and that atm there are many unknowns for everyone...but by the same chalk, I've never met a developer who doesn't like having a bit more performance to play with, whether it's SQL crunching or games

I'm day 1 on a Neo too - I have zero issues with this model, can afford it, don't feel personally insulted by Sony, and still think that buying a box from a shop, plugging in 3 cables, switching on and shoving a disk in is still more convenient & cheaper than a PC.

Oh I wasn't coming at you, I was using your post as a springboard because it highlights where I see the discussion drive off the road. I'll edit my post in a sec to clarify that.

There's certainly legitimate criticism because this has never been successfully iterated before in the console space in a way that is appealing to both consumers and devs. By all accounts the leaked specs and roadmap should be enough to quell heavy speculation.

I'm on board and I believe if executed properly, can work. A lot remains to be seen and until we have direct word from Sony and even MS, I will base my opinions on what we know and from the perspective of a developer - I'm the only programmer in our small studio so if there is a monumental series of tasks to bring our game to PSNeo that's squarely on me and I'm not sweating it.

To quote myself from the Colin thread:

If we aren't sweating it yet, consumers shouldn't either. It's our livelihoods on the line if consoles tank due to bad decisions. I'm hopeful for the future of consoles and gaming. And I'm one pessimistic motherfucker.

 

[IvorB]

So basically an endless future of cross gen titles and platform holders trying to lock users into their eco-system. Doesn't sound too great to me. I don't have a problem with platform holders trying new things and I don't mind them offering two tiers of hardware as long as they are open and transparent about it and there is a line drawn where old configurations are dropped at some point. Otherwise all there will ever be is continuation of lowest common denominator multiplatform development where the lowest denominator is even lower than it is now with devs targeting the lowest spec machine they can get away with where a lot of users are.

 

[TGO]

I think we should wait and see what the PS4K is, at the moment we know nothing but a spec sheet.
What Sony shows could well change everyones opinion for good or for worse.

 

[Jacksinthe]

So basically an endless future of cross gen titles and platform holders trying to lock users into their eco-system. Doesn't sound too great to me. I don't have a problem with platform holders trying new things and I don't mind them offering two tiers of hardware as long as they are open and transparent about it and there is a line drawn where old configurations are dropped at some point. Otherwise all there will ever be is continuation of lowest common denominator multiplatform development where the lowest denominator is even lower than it is now with devs targeting the lowest spec machine they can get away with where a lot of users are.

Consoles always lock you in. That's how consoles work. That's how they've always worked. You were unable to take your PS1 game to Xbox or your 360 game to PS3. This isn't new nor will it change.

As for your second point, I don't believe we will be making games for PS4 10 years from now. There is a hard floor where the device needs to be cut off. This is also how it always works. Now we should be seeing smoother transitions between hardware and hopefully have a more predictable timeline as to when changes occur. Nobody like that last gen lasted so damn long - devs included. Nobody knew when the floor would collapse and that makes business decisions much harder. With a hopefully dedicated timeframe we will gain more stability, more end user engagement because we at least know there will be an install base available to play our game vs taking a shot in the dark that new generations will sell and launch early in the platform's life when it is only freshly selling with a small install base. This will give us greater predictability and be flat-out better for project management.

 

[SerTapTap]

I dunno about this at all TBH. If this really solved all the developer woes that killed so many companies and series last gen, AAA/etc games should have made a recovery as last gen was incredibly long. It got better than launch but even 7 years into the cycle there was no golden age of easy cheap development.

Not starting from zero each gen would be great, but I really doubt they're going to be able to reasonably pull that off. People talking phones and shit forget that entirely random apps and stuff can and do randomly break on last year's models, or even OS upgrades. I don't see them being able to meaningfully keep up with tech AND not lose backwards compatibility. A proper PS5 is almost certainly going to have to drop PS4 Neo support, or they're going to have to either upgrade more often or drop more frequently, and at some point maintaining individual versions for each set of PS4 going back X+ iterations is going to be far more of a bother than a "blessing".

And...PS4 kinda showed this is all kinda silly anyway. People still buy consoles. You can still have million sellers. Most games just don't happen to reach that REGARDLESS of how many people are on a platform--Nintendo can sell millions on a console with like 30m users because it's quality is high and fans are dedicated, but there's over a hundred million active PCs out there with Steam but it doesn't mean any random title will hit a million.

I think simple backwards compatibility and no more funky architectures (PS3) or stupid bullshit (Xbox One kinect) are all it'll really take to make the next gen of consoles viable and healthy.

 

[Razgreez]

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.

Too difficult? Nope. Does it make economic sense even bothering with the effort? Probably not ergo no PS1 support (unless you're using PSNow)

 

[family_guy]

So basically an endless future of cross gen titles and platform holders trying to lock users into their eco-system. Doesn't sound too great to me. .

Eventually Apple cuts out older hardware from their iOS updates. Doesn't have to be that different here.

 

[mejin]

I think we should wait and see what the PS4K is, at the moment we know nothing but a spec sheet.
What Sony shows could well change everyones opinion for good or for worse.

Yep, but this is GAF. The majority will always go to hyperboles even when we have solid information of what's going to happen. We need the drama. lol

The majority said this gen would be the goodbye for Sony. They're doing it again and there is nothing we can do to stop it. That's the power of GAF. Only time will tell. kek

 

[Inuhanyou]

As long as BC happens, does it even particularly matter if developers are retroactively supporting PS4 in 2020?

Personally speaking, following the Iphone model of "numbered big jump, revision, numbered big jump, revision makes most sense to me. It gives devs a stable development path, and still works out for everyone.

When PS5 comes out, i can see PS4 getting dropped, with 4.5 becoming the economic option for PS4 games, and PS5 becoming the premium model and focus of developers for bigger and better experiences...as long as all your games carry over and your ecosystem is the same, it should be a bigger priority to give a stable schedule for how games are made.

By default, upcoming hardware advancements are going to make PS4 and PS4.5 for that matter, purely irrelevant when it comes to power...devs will be wanting to jump on that boat as soon as possible

 

[Lorcain]

Shareholders and boards love recurring revenue models like subscriptions. Short of that, hardware revisions are the next best thing. This is all about potential revenue for Sony. And you can't dismiss the voice of developers on this. Sony needs both developers and consumers to adopt the revision model.

 

[harSon]

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.

That's kind of a weird thing to not consider, especially in that thread, considering the essence of Microsofts entire existence moving forward is the ease of development across its multiple platforms under a unified OS.

I think you're underselling your evolution in opinion a bit though:

The more I think about it, the more I'm realizing this is the easiest way to discontinue the Xbox brand of consoles altogether and merge it into their Windows platforms.

Had MS released Xbox Two or whatever, and it sold less than estimated, then that damages the brand even more. Hardware refreshes like this will allow MS to refer to the "Xbox Family" and MAUs much easier. There won't need to be major R&D costs for a new piece of hardware because they just have to keep updating components incrementally. It'll allow the Xbox to suffer whatever fate it has infront of it in a way that will be somewhat invisible to the general public, keep hardcore Xbox fans interested (or have them bail out onto the Windows 10 platform where they can play all their XB exclusive games), and so on.

This is a terrible idea from a mass market perspective but that's not what they're aiming for. They're folding Xbox into Windows, and this is kind of a brilliant move in doing it slowly but steady without causing a large amount of waves. It won't sell anything what a Playstation 5 might sell, but that's the point, because by then MS would want to be out of the console game and selling PC boxes at that point, some with the Xbox branding on it.

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.

Consoles are not phones. They are a means to an end, the end being playing the latest games available.

To put it another way, when was the last time you upgraded your TV? I don't even mean getting a larger TV, but the same size TV but with the latest in SmartTV tech, a thinner display panel, etc.? Do you think people upgrade their TV every two years or so so they can upgrade from LCD to LED to OLED and so on? Not likely, not for a large majority of TV owners. There's a reason why 3D/4k/Curved TVs aren't exactly moving the needle on sales.

This isn't a play for getting a bigger audience, because it would fail. This is a play to shuffle their existing audience onto a new platform altogether: the Windows ecosystem.

Because when everyone is stuck with said "shitty hardware" devs adapt to it and we get better and better looking games.

Look at where the XB1 was at launch...720p games that could barely hold 30fps in a lot of cases. Now we have near-1080p games running at 60fps. This is due to the maturity of tools that both MS puts out and developers create as they get to know the platform. Where would the motivation be as a dev in making my game run better on XB1 when I know there's a platform coming in the next year that will enhance my framerate without me having to do any additional work?

You do get benefits from having the same hardware. Fracturing that will cause lower tier models to be "outdated" much, much more quickly.

 

[ThoughtsOfSpeaking]

It would require development to lead on Neo - which would mean expected userbase for any title that does it was lower on PS4 than Neo.
Note how first wave of cross-gen titles still performed very well on 360/PS3 - and it wasn't until 12months later that we started seeing really poor ports (the point where active-users buying on last gen were falling below 30%).

I also wouldn't ignore the fact that the delta between Neo and PS4 is much closer to XBone and PS4 than PS4<->PS3, so even a "bad" port wouldn't be nearly as crippling as say - Shadow Of Mordor turned out.

Thats kinda what im getting at, but I wanted people who are looking at from a much more pessimistic point of view to really think about the logic and the historical precendent of their claims.

Even now, all people can say is "b-b-b-b-but Hyrule warriors! N3DS!" in examples of where their doomsday scenarios come true.

Ignoring that like a PC game Hyrule warriors is a downport from a much more powerful platform and suffers on both compared to the original.

The vast majority of 3DS software have little to no difference on N3DS over 3DS. This is its second year on the market. The point where a multitude of titles that favour the N3DS start popping up (even if you count SNES titles), NX will be here.

 

[potatohead]

Very important point.
Huge part of the PS4 success come from great PS3 support. PS4 have no BC, yet it's the best selling console this gen.
Eco-system is a little overrated in console scene, it's good to have but never the deciding factor or else WiiU should be number 1, not PS4.

Its true that PS4 still get support because it play the same games for 6 years or more, it's very important for Sony to let customers feel they get the best support throughout.
Customers will abandon Sony the minute they feel they get inferior/second class support.

I agree good point.

Though ecosystem would not count for WiiU, since people, most of them at least, despite buying Wii so much, didn't really tie themselves to the Nintendo ecosystem and buy many games.

But ecosystem now? Important as heck, increasingly digital era and all that. If it wasn't important, this wouldn't be happening. Sony is going to try to bring all PS4 and PS4K players to PS5 using this consistent ecosystem (I would hope).

 

[martino]

if games is going as a service hardware closed box need no existance for consummers.

In the situation sony is trying to be apple of video game by locking service to hardware (to make more $$ than open plateform service content)
They have the brand support to success , it's normal they try....
A shame because in the end consumers loose a freedom it could have.

 

[MacTag]

I agree good point.

Though ecosystem would not count for WiiU, since people, most of them at least, despite buying Wii so much, didn't really tie themselves to the Nintendo ecosystem and buy many games.

But ecosystem now? Important as heck, increasingly digital era and all that. If it wasn't important, this wouldn't be happening. Sony is going to try to bring all PS4 and PS4K players to PS5 using this consistent ecosystem (I would hope).

Wii also didn't have a very strong digital ecosystem, just indie and retro games. The reason it's so vital for smartphones is that all content's digital and people want to migrate that to their new device as they upgrade. It's a different psychology at play but as consoles and handhelds get more digital focused and more iterative, retaining that digital ecosystem is going to be more and more important for consumers.

 

[DidntKnowJack]

I hope this idea bombs so hard that Sony has to scramble like MS had to after their ill conceived launch plans of XB1.

Iterative consoles are a horrible idea. It doesn't drive technology further, it holds it back. They want to selll you baby steps for a few years instead of a massive step forward in 6 or 7. This is just a stupid money grab by Sony and it makes me a little sick people are starting to do PR for them.

 

[Alienous]

I hope this idea bombs so hard that Sony has to scramble like MS had to after their ill conceived launch plans of XB1.

Iterative consoles are a horrible idea. It doesn't drive technology further, it holds it back. They want to selll you baby steps for a few years instead of a massive step forward in 6 or 7. This is just a stupid money grab by Sony and it makes me a little sick people are starting to do PR for them.

I agree.

New hardware with full backwards compatibility is great. New hardware with mandatory forwards compatibility, where its games have to be playable on the previous console iteration, sucks. The potential for that new hardware can never be fully tapped, and I think it's less likely developers will put in the effort to squeeze everything out of the previous console hardware iteration too.

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

Remarkable that the same posters moaning how consoles are underpowered are now up in arms when the manufacturers are giving us upgraded ones.

This moaning, which makes console gamers appear like they don't like technology advancements, is just bizarre and sits at odds with the entire technology industry.

 

[ReBurn]

I hope this idea bombs so hard that Sony has to scramble like MS had to after their ill conceived launch plans of XB1.

Iterative consoles are a horrible idea. It doesn't drive technology further, it holds it back. They want to selll you baby steps for a few years instead of a massive step forward in 6 or 7. This is just a stupid money grab by Sony and it makes me a little sick people are starting to do PR for them.

How does upgrading the technology every three years hold the technology back? As opposed to upgrading the technology every 6+ years? An iterative platform means people have to pay money more often to stay current, sure. But it also give you access to new technology faster.

 

[Alienous]

Remarkable that the same posters moaning how consoles are underpowered are now up in arms when the manufacturers are giving us upgraded ones.

This moaning, which makes console gamers appear like they don't like technology advancements, is just bizarre and sits at odds with the entire technology industry.

Right, because the PS4 wasn't one of the most successful console hardware launches of all time. People must sure hate all technology advancements, not this specific way of doing it.

How does upgrading the technology every three years hold the technology back? As opposed to upgrading the technology every 6+ years? An iterative platform means people have to pay money more often to stay current, sure. But it also give you access to new technology faster.

New hardware is held back by old hardware. If the same games must be playable on both then that is inevitable. The PS4K can't ever reach the full potential of its hardware under that condition.

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

I hope this idea bombs so hard that Sony has to scramble like MS had to after their ill conceived launch plans of XB1.

Iterative consoles are a horrible idea. It doesn't drive technology further, it holds it back. They want to selll you baby steps for a few years instead of a massive step forward in 6 or 7. This is just a stupid money grab by Sony and it makes me a little sick people are starting to do PR for them.

MS are doing exactly the same thing it's heavily rumoured, they're just a little behind Sony in their plans.

 

[wapplew]

Wii also didn't have a very strong digital ecosystem, just indie and retro games. The reason it's so vital for smartphones is that all content's digital and people want to migrate that to their new device as they upgrade. It's a different psychology at play but as consoles and handhelds get more digital focused and more iterative, retaining that digital ecosystem is going to be more and more important for consumers.

Why BC is more important in digital form but not physical form?
I still think BC is not that important, maybe just my personal preference. Almost all my PS3 are digital yet I never think twice and day 1 PS4.
Maybe because I'm not really lost my collection, I still have my PS3 and it sit under my TV that I can access anytime.
I understand it's more important on phone, not many people carry 2 phones normally, it's more important to have everything in carry over to one latest device.

 

[SwordStruck]

How does upgrading the technology every three years hold the technology back? As opposed to upgrading the technology every 6+ years? An iterative platform means people have to pay money more often to stay current, sure. But it also give you access to new technology faster.

If this is the new normal for Sony then in ~3 years the PS4.75/PS5 comes out and developers have to make sure games run on the CPU of the PS4K, which turns out to be the same CPU in the current PS4 with a slight clock speed increase. If people are already complaining/worried about the potential bottleneck in the PS4K I can only imagine the frustration if in 3 years the next console will be held back by a CPU released in 2013.

 

[darkinstinct]

That slow cycle is the reason why I am a console gamer first and foremost. Take that away and I have no reason to stick to all the annoying stuff that you have to accept as a console player (like paying for online, being limited to one store with no refunds, no mods, ...). There is a thing for shorter hardware cycles and backwards compatibility, it's called a PC. And since the console makers stopped taking losses it's probably cheaper to build a PC with console specs than to buy the console. We're already at a point where we pay about $150 a year just to be able to buy and play games on console (which itself are 20 % more expensive than on PC). That's combining the console cost per year and the annual fee for multiplayer. I'd rather take that money to maintain a solid gaming PC AND save on every game I buy. And play it with better graphics.

If consoles go this way they become redundant. Microsoft has a plan for that with the Xbox integration on Windows 10. Sony has to either become the new Sega or go full game streaming. At least we'll still have Nintendo for traditional console cycles.

 

[TGO]

Yep, but this is GAF. The majority will always go to hyperboles even when we have solid information of what's going to happen. We need the drama. lol

The majority said this gen would be the goodbye for Sony. They're doing it again and there is nothing we can do to stop it. That's the power of GAF. Only time will tell. kek

Goodbye? My fears are how far this will go when it comes to upgrade releases.
Sony will probably put themselves as the permanent leader of the games industry with this move or it'll continue as it is.
From a business point of view it's very clever move but that's why I fear it, because what it can lead too.

 

[S¡mon]

I hope this idea bombs so hard that Sony has to scramble like MS had to after their ill conceived launch plans of XB1.

Iterative consoles are a horrible idea. It doesn't drive technology further, it holds it back. They want to selll you baby steps for a few years instead of a massive step forward in 6 or 7. This is just a stupid money grab by Sony and it makes me a little sick people are starting to do PR for them.

Disagree. What you are suggesting is what we have nowadays, something like this:

- 2013 PS4 "power 55"
- 2019 PS5 "power 550" (ten times as powerful)
- 2025 PS6 "power 5500" (ten times as powerful as PS5)

What's going to happen now is maybe something like this:

- 2013 PS4 "power 55"
- 2016 PS4K "power 180" (roughly 3.3 times as powerul)
- 2019 PS5 "power 550" (roughly 3.3 times as powerful as PS4K)
- 2022 PS5K "power 1820" (roughly 3.3 times as powerful as PS5)
- 2025 PS6 "power 5500" (roughly 3.3 times as powerful as PS5K)

You are calling those steps baby steps. And sure, it's not as big of an upgrade as it used to be... but it offers plenty of gamers to get an improved experience a few years down the line, instead of waiting a full 5 or 6 years.

You can decide to skip the PS4K and get the PS5. You'll be on the 'traditional upgrade cycle'. You'll still see the same massive jump as you did in other generations.

You are worried that the jump from PS4 -> PS5 won't be as massive due to incremental upgrades in between, but it will be. How do I know that? Because there will be massive competition: from Microsoft's Xbox, from Nintendo's consoles, from Steam machines and perhaps from new players that do not exist today. If Sony drops the ball and gets lazy, there will be tons of competitors offering a better value.

What you are seeing is: smaller upgrades, gaming costing you more money.

What I am seeing: faster upgrades (hooray, I don't have to wait 6 years), options (you can decide to stick with your PS4 and wait for PS5... or upgrade early, and indeed spend some money).

 

[The Artisan]

Remarkable that the same posters moaning how consoles are underpowered are now up in arms when the manufacturers are giving us upgraded ones.

This moaning, which makes console gamers appear like they don't like technology advancements, is just bizarre and sits at odds with the entire technology industry.

Where is this coming from? I never once complained about the consoles being underpowered, and I'm appalled that the console industry is moving in this direction.

 

[ThoughtsOfSpeaking]

I hope this idea bombs so hard that Sony has to scramble like MS had to after their ill conceived launch plans of XB1.

Iterative consoles are a horrible idea. It doesn't drive technology further, it holds it back. They want to selll you baby steps for a few years instead of a massive step forward in 6 or 7. This is just a stupid money grab by Sony and it makes me a little sick people are starting to do PR for them.

And which developers are actually in a position to take this massive step forward?

Because one of the biggest criticisms of this gen is that how few games actually look significantly better than what we had 3 years ago.

Also, do you play games or technology?

 

[wapplew]

How does upgrading the technology every three years hold the technology back? As opposed to upgrading the technology every 6+ years? An iterative platform means people have to pay money more often to stay current, sure. But it also give you access to new technology faster.

Iterative console is the definition of a faster horse. If you think enhance version of same stuff is tech advancement, yes, iterative console doesn't hold back technology.

 

[Jacksinthe]

New hardware is held back by old hardware. If the same games must be playable on both then that is inevitable. The PS4K can't ever reach the full potential of its hardware under that condition.

Bullshit. If the tools and hardware profiles remain largely unchanged and interoperability exists you will see us devs taking advantage of the extra grunt because we can spend more time taking advantage of it and less time fumbling with and creating new tools. We want consistent, predictable refinement - not drastic changes like it has been from gen to gen.

 

[Alienous]

Disagree. What you are suggesting is what we have nowadays, something like this:

[...]

What I am seeing: faster upgrades (hooray, I don't have to wait 6 years), options (you can decide to stick with your PS4 and wait for PS5... or upgrade early, and indeed spend some money).

I don't think you're seeing it fully.

The PS4K's "power 180" is limited by the PS4's "power 55". It is always anchored by the fact that the same games must be compatible on both. Therefore you aren't going to get the full "power 180", as you describe it.

Unless the new console sheds that bond to the prior console you're going to get technology that is held back. If they don't fully share game libraries then you're looking at a new console with really great backwards compatibility. If they do you're looking at new hardware that is burdened by the previous hardware. There isn't the 'clean break' console gaming usually has.

Bullshit. If the tools and hardware profiles remain largely unchanged and interoperability exists you will see us devs taking advantage of the extra grunt because we can spend more time taking advantage of it and less time fumbling with and creating new tools. We want consistent, predictable refinement - not drastic changes like it has been from gen to gen.

You can take advantage of some of the extra grunt, but never all of it. Not truly. Especially considering the CPU improvements. Games have to run on both. The PS4K hardware will be limited by that fact, where the PS4 wasn't when compared to the PS3. That's just a downside of iterative hardware. If your point is consistent architecture that can be accomplished without iterative hardware.

 

[DidntKnowJack]

Remarkable that the same posters moaning how consoles are underpowered are now up in arms when the manufacturers are giving us upgraded ones.

This moaning, which makes console gamers appear like they don't like technology advancements, is just bizarre and sits at odds with the entire technology industry.

Nonsense. I never once complained about the PS4 being underpowered. You're barking up the wrong tree here, pal.

 

[onQ123]

You know people are just trolling when you see someone say that a better console doesn't benefit the consumers.


How do you even come to that?

 

[Lady Gaia]

Games as a service is the worst possible thing to happen to games.

That depends on whether you look at examples like money grubbing free-to-play titles, or counter-examples like the cross buy I titles I owned on PS3 that I suddenly owned PS4 ports of without lifting a finger.

The idea that I buy the right to a game wherever it appears is incredibly compelling and I hope it sticks around.

 

[nib95]

I hope this idea bombs so hard that Sony has to scramble like MS had to after their ill conceived launch plans of XB1.

Iterative consoles are a horrible idea. It doesn't drive technology further, it holds it back. They want to selll you baby steps for a few years instead of a massive step forward in 6 or 7. This is just a stupid money grab by Sony and it makes me a little sick people are starting to do PR for them.

I agree.

New hardware with full backwards compatibility is great. New hardware with mandatory forwards compatibility, where its games have to be playable on the previous console iteration, sucks. The potential for that new hardware can never be fully tapped, and I think it's less likely developers will put in the effort to squeeze everything out of the previous console hardware iteration too.

Right, because the PS4 wasn't one of the most successful console hardware launches of all time. People must sure hate all technology advancements, not this specific way of doing it.



New hardware is held back by old hardware. If the same games must be playable on both then that is inevitable. The PS4K can't ever reach the full potential of its hardware under that condition.

I agree with these posts, though I will add that if Sony do end up releasing a PS5 in the same vein as a full generational hardware release, that is not held back by the PS4K, I won't mind as much.

I understand why they've released the PS4K, it's extra profit they can extract from the enthusiast market, it trojan horses 4K, which benefits them with other product lines including TV's, their 4K bluray discs and drives, which presumably they get a higher royalty from etc, plus it compensates for the lack of power with the PS4.

However, I'd have still much preferred a shorter cycle instead of the PS4K, and would prefer in future if they just release the Pro version of a console alongside the regular version at launch. Let me spend more money at the start to get a more powerful machine, but don't make me spend a shit tonne every few years for that luxury. As a multiplatform gamer, I am not willing to do this, but am happy to simply spend a couple of hundred dollars more at launch for more power, and for anyone who isn't or can't afford that, just keep a standard model.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

Disagree. What you are suggesting is what we have nowadays, something like this:

- 2013 PS4 "power 55"
- 2019 PS5 "power 550" (ten times as powerful)
- 2025 PS6 "power 5500" (ten times as powerful as PS5)

What's going to happen now is maybe something like this:

- 2013 PS4 "power 55"
- 2016 PS4K "power 180" (roughly 3.3 times as powerul)
- 2019 PS5 "power 550" (roughly 3.3 times as powerful as PS4K)
- 2022 PS5K "power 1820" (roughly 3.3 times as powerful as PS5)
- 2025 PS6 "power 5500" (roughly 3.3 times as powerful as PS5K)

You are calling those steps baby steps. And sure, it's not as big of an upgrade as it used to be... but it offers plenty of gamers to get an improved experience a few years down the line, instead of waiting a full 5 or 6 years.

You can decide to skip the PS4K and get the PS5. You'll be on the 'traditional upgrade cycle'. You'll still see the same massive jump as you did in other generations.

You are worried that the jump from PS4 -> PS5 won't be as massive due to incremental upgrades in between, but it will be. How do I know that? Because there will be massive competition: from Microsoft's Xbox, from Nintendo's consoles, from Steam machines and perhaps from new players that do not exist today. If Sony drops the ball and gets lazy, there will be tons of competitors offering a better value.

What you are seeing is: smaller upgrades, gaming costing you more money.

What I am seeing: faster upgrades (hooray, I don't have to wait 6 years), options (you can decide to stick with your PS4 and wait for PS5... or upgrade early, and indeed spend some money).

Dont you think they should have upgraded the CPU/RAM a little more to match the big GPU upgrade?

 

[potatohead]

Disagree. What you are suggesting is what we have nowadays, something like this:

- 2013 PS4 "power 55"
- 2019 PS5 "power 550" (ten times as powerful)
- 2025 PS6 "power 5500" (ten times as powerful as PS5)

What's going to happen now is maybe something like this:

- 2013 PS4 "power 55"
- 2016 PS4K "power 180" (roughly 3.3 times as powerul)
- 2019 PS5 "power 550" (roughly 3.3 times as powerful as PS4K)
- 2022 PS5K "power 1820" (roughly 3.3 times as powerful as PS5)
- 2025 PS6 "power 5500" (roughly 3.3 times as powerful as PS5K)

You are calling those steps baby steps. And sure, it's not as big of an upgrade as it used to be... but it offers plenty of gamers to get an improved experience a few years down the line, instead of waiting a full 5 or 6 years.

That's what I see happening.

Dat PS6 doe... hnnnggg!!!

Dont you think they should have upgraded the CPU/RAM a little more to match the big GPU upgrade?

No.

The point of this is to update graphics, not to get multiple versions of games.

 

[Philippo]

So basically an endless future of cross gen titles and platform holders trying to lock users into their eco-system. Doesn't sound too great to me. I don't have a problem with platform holders trying new things and I don't mind them offering two tiers of hardware as long as they are open and transparent about it and there is a line drawn where old configurations are dropped at some point. Otherwise all there will ever be is continuation of lowest common denominator multiplatform development where the lowest denominator is even lower than it is now with devs targeting the lowest spec machine they can get away with where a lot of users are.

Who says that's what we're getting?
What if after 4.5 we get a PS5, with an upgraded model already in mind for 3 years later, and the previous one gets cut off?
Seems the most simple one to me, it keeps the same format as previous console gens while adding a midway step to rejuvenate sales and to keep the hardcore base on pair with the tech.

Disagree. What you are suggesting is what we have nowadays, something like this:

- 2013 PS4 "power 55"
- 2019 PS5 "power 550" (ten times as powerful)
- 2025 PS6 "power 5500" (ten times as powerful as PS5)

What's going to happen now is maybe something like this:

- 2013 PS4 "power 55"
- 2016 PS4K "power 180" (roughly 3.3 times as powerul)
- 2019 PS5 "power 550" (roughly 3.3 times as powerful as PS4K)
- 2022 PS5K "power 1820" (roughly 3.3 times as powerful as PS5)
- 2025 PS6 "power 5500" (roughly 3.3 times as powerful as PS5K)

You are calling those steps baby steps. And sure, it's not as big of an upgrade as it used to be... but it offers plenty of gamers to get an improved experience a few years down the line, instead of waiting a full 5 or 6 years.

You can decide to skip the PS4K and get the PS5. You'll be on the 'traditional upgrade cycle'. You'll still see the same massive jump as you did in other generations.

You are worried that the jump from PS4 -> PS5 won't be as massive due to incremental upgrades in between, but it will be. How do I know that? Because there will be massive competition: from Microsoft's Xbox, from Nintendo's consoles, from Steam machines and perhaps from new players that do not exist today. If Sony drops the ball and gets lazy, there will be tons of competitors offering a better value.

What you are seeing is: smaller upgrades, gaming costing you more money.

What I am seeing: faster upgrades (hooray, I don't have to wait 6 years), options (you can decide to stick with your PS4 and wait for PS5... or upgrade early, and indeed spend some money).

This is how i see it, and i'm sure PS5 games won't work on PS4s, even if they'll mostly share the same architecture.
That console will be used as a new base for developing titles "coded to the metal", while keeping in mind that 3yrs later an improved console will come out.

 

[jeffram]

I don't think you're seeing it fully.

The PS4K's "power 180" is limited by the PS4's "power 55". It is always anchored by the fact that the same games must be compatible on both. Therefore you aren't going to get the full "power 180", as you describe it.

Unless the new console sheds that bond to the prior console you're going to get technology that is held back. If they don't fully share game libraries then you're looking at a new console with really great backwards compatibility. If they do you're looking at new hardware that is burdened by the previous hardware. There isn't the 'clean break' console gaming usually has.

What's full power?

They are being clear about what this console is. The CPU and RAM being relatively the same mean that game design can't change all that much (not that been anyways) and that the PS4K can produce higher end graphics on the same games as the PS4. Isn't that exactly what their supposedly promising and delivering?

 

[potatohead]

What's full power?

They are being clear about what this console is. The CPU and RAM being relatively the same mean that game design can't change all that much (not that been anyways) and that the PS4K can produce higher end graphics on the same games as the PS4. Isn't that exactly what their supposedly promising and delivering?

Don't be logical! Get dat shit outta hurr....

 

[The Artisan]

You know people are just trolling when you see someone say that a better console doesn't benefit the consumers.


How do you even come to that?

it doesn't benefit the consumers who expected the console they already bought to last 5-7 years, to have an improved version in a significantly lesser amount of time.

 

[nib95]

Disagree. What you are suggesting is what we have nowadays, something like this:

- 2013 PS4 "power 55"
- 2019 PS5 "power 550" (ten times as powerful)
- 2025 PS6 "power 5500" (ten times as powerful as PS5)

What's going to happen now is maybe something like this:

- 2013 PS4 "power 55"
- 2016 PS4K "power 180" (roughly 3.3 times as powerul)
- 2019 PS5 "power 550" (roughly 3.3 times as powerful as PS4K)
- 2022 PS5K "power 1820" (roughly 3.3 times as powerful as PS5)
- 2025 PS6 "power 5500" (roughly 3.3 times as powerful as PS5K)

You are calling those steps baby steps. And sure, it's not as big of an upgrade as it used to be... but it offers plenty of gamers to get an improved experience a few years down the line, instead of waiting a full 5 or 6 years.

You can decide to skip the PS4K and get the PS5. You'll be on the 'traditional upgrade cycle'. You'll still see the same massive jump as you did in other generations.

You are worried that the jump from PS4 -> PS5 won't be as massive due to incremental upgrades in between, but it will be. How do I know that? Because there will be massive competition: from Microsoft's Xbox, from Nintendo's consoles, from Steam machines and perhaps from new players that do not exist today. If Sony drops the ball and gets lazy, there will be tons of competitors offering a better value.

What you are seeing is: smaller upgrades, gaming costing you more money.

What I am seeing: faster upgrades (hooray, I don't have to wait 6 years), options (you can decide to stick with your PS4 and wait for PS5... or upgrade early, and indeed spend some money).

If the PS5 has to have games that work on the PS4K too, that power 550 won't count for much. Being held back by the PS4K will probably mean you don't get more than theoretical power 300 despite its potential being power 550. Likewise with the PS4K and PS4. The PS4K will be held back by the PS4 it's entire existence. Unless of course the PS4K starts getting exclusives.

 

[jeffram]

it doesn't benefit the consumers who expected the console they already bought to last 5-7 years, to have an improved version in a significantly lesser amount of time.

Is the PS4 going to last any less time now?

 

[Alienous]

What's full power?

They are being clear about what this console is. The CPU and RAM being relatively the same mean that game design can't change all that much (not that been anyways) and that the PS4K can produce higher end graphics on the same games as the PS4. Isn't that exactly what their supposedly promising and delivering?

I'm not talking specifically about changes in game design, but that's part of it. There are games that would benefit from the additional computational power of the PS4K that won't be able to because they also have to run on the PS4, like PS3->PS4 ports.

Who says that's what we're getting?
What if after 4.5 we get a PS5, with an upgraded model already in mind for 3 years later, and the previous one gets cut off?
Seems the most simple one to me, it keeps the same format as previous console gens while adding a midway step to rejuvenate sales and to keep the hardcore base on pair with the tech.

I expect that too, or at least hope that's the case. I don't like the idea of buying 100% of some hardware which is restricted by the capabilities of previous hardware.

 

[Jacksinthe]

You can take advantage of some of the extra grunt, but never all of it. Not truly. Especially considering the CPU improvements. Games have to run on both. The PS4K hardware will be limited by that fact, where the PS4 wasn't when compared to the PS3. That's just a downside of iterative hardware.

Every box is limited by every other box existing. There is never really a "full" potential to anything. But if you think devs won't try to maximize output when the tools we use carry over, you are mistaken. Will some devs simply not throw down? Yes. Especially the smaller studios. Make no mistake devs will use the power and as refinement occurs it will only get easier to focus on the game and not the tools. I really think you underestimate how much R&D goes into developing tools and how much that chips away from actual development.

 

[The Artisan]

Is the PS4 going to last any less time now?

Depends on what you mean by "last" but that isn't even what I said.

EDIT: oh yeah I did say that. then yes, if the Ps4K launches this year then that means that Ps4 only "lasted" for 3 years.

 

[potatohead]

Except that console will still last 5 to 7 years, only there is another option 3 years later?

People are confusing not benefiting and hurting consumers. This is not hurting consumers, yet people are complaining that not benefiting/no effect is the same as hurting everyone who already bought a PS4.

This is keeping a successful brand alive (PS4 and its iterations) and making it stronger, which is in the interest of Sony, and in the interest of people invested into the brand and ecosystem.

My dog was not murdered by Sony

Spoiler

yet

 

[like.a.ser]

Well, I already have a PS4. Not buying another one. This thing is most likely going to cost as much or more than I paid for my console at launch. Possibly about half of that if I sell my PS4. And for what? Given the specs from the supposedly leaked info, a marginal increase in graphical fidelity or frame rate.

Haha, no. I'm not a sucker.