Having smaller leaps in graphics is something that's happening already. PS3 -> PS4 even after 7 years was a lot smaller than the jump from PS2 -> PS3.
The Case for the PS4K: an important, and necessary, change for the industry.
- Thread starter chubigans
- Start date
The Artisan
Member
And I'd ask you to think about being a little empathetic.
Because when I bought my Ps4 I was under the impression that it would be the best playstation hardware for 5-7 years, just like the Ps3 was, just like Ps2 was, just like the Ps1 was. I thought I would buy it and enjoy what the hardware had to offer for that span of time. This isn't true anymore.
What the fuck? I'm not the one who went to Sony R&D and told them to start working on iterative consoles this generation.
Now you're just putting words in my mouth. This isn't about what others have that I don't; as it is right now, there are people with bigger TVs, 3DTVs, 4KTVs, none of which I have, all of which can make their Ps4 gaming greater to a certain extent. Better than mine. That doesn't concern me. Ps4K means that everything about the console industry is going to change, it means that in order for me to play my playstation games in the best quality possible I need to spend potentially hundreds of dollars again, in less than 5-7 years. If others want that, then good for them, no disrespect, they're getting what they want.
What does this have to do with other people? I'm a consumer, just like any other person who purchases this shit. And I'm not happy knowing that this hardware is being outdone so soon. I don't want it because that's not what I was expecting from this console generation.
Are you saying that someone who bought a PS4 in 2013 will be able to play current games by time Sony is on it's 3rd or 4th release of the Playstation? Eventually there will be CPU, RAM, and GPU limitations forcing consumers to upgrade and developers having to start from a ground zero install base. I get the idea from your comment that you're saying there will be "forwards compatibility" which is completely unrealistic. Is that what you're saying? Please correct me if I misunderstood.
I agree with you, that limitations exists, and of course PS4, doesn't provide limitless potential and possibility. The question is just how limiting is CPU power today?
Sony and Microsoft didn't develop their systems in a bubble. They reach out to developers and get feedback on what's important for there games. It's well documented that Epic convinced Microsoft to double the RAM on the 360. Developers had their input into these system, seemingly more so than ever before. Both Microsoft and Sony still landed on the same CPU cores.
They should just allow PS4K exclusive games.
Third-party developers are already incentivized to make PS4 compatable games due to the fact that the PS4 has a large install base, and is closer to the Xbox One in capability. And Sony could just ask that first-party developers make games for both.
As the generation progresses and the PS4K install base increases it is possible we'd see PS4K (and probably PC) exclusives that make full use of the hardware.
I have a feeling they'll unlock that restriction at some point but they should just do it now. That would add to the appeal of the PS4K as hardware that will be more fully utilized at some point.
Third-party developers are already incentivized to make PS4 compatable games due to the fact that the PS4 has a large install base, and is closer to the Xbox One in capability. And Sony could just ask that first-party developers make games for both.
As the generation progresses and the PS4K install base increases it is possible we'd see PS4K (and probably PC) exclusives that make full use of the hardware.
I have a feeling they'll unlock that restriction at some point but they should just do it now. That would add to the appeal of the PS4K as hardware that will be more fully utilized at some point.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
Why is it necessary to iterate every 2-3 years instead of every 5 though? I see a lot of arguments, but not sure how the console model is made stronger or better for developers or consumers by iterating in less time rather than letting manufacturing and design capabilities mature and deliver strongly updates. Would the model improve even more by iterating yearly then?
The Artisan
Member
I don't get what you're trying to say here. Xbox 1 had a short lifespan but we could think of a number of reasons why. As for the bolded, that's a little dismissive to say, because that is exactly how the console industry has always been, even though other electronic market devices weren't. And console sales haven't slowed, as I said earlier in this thread.
People expected the Ps4's hardware to be the best hardware for 5-7 years. Try to understand that, bro.
I agree with the points you've made and I'm all for this new future of consoles (that are becoming more like PCs).
It's interesting to see you come around on the concept of more frequently updated consoles. Seemed you were more a skeptic in early March when Spencer mentioned they were taking Xbox down this route.
I'm slightly curious what made you come around in such a short time.
It's interesting to see you come around on the concept of more frequently updated consoles. Seemed you were more a skeptic in early March when Spencer mentioned they were taking Xbox down this route.
I'm slightly curious what made you come around in such a short time.
Which isn't anywhere confirmed or guaranteed. If they call it PS5, they are going to want a shift to that as the new hotness...and BC would probably be the closest thing to a consistent library. Its not going to be regarded as an interim PS4 in the same way PS4K was to begin with.
I don't think we'll have ongoing future compatibility. Support for PS4 will be cut off at some point. My prediction is Sony will always support at least two platforms, and support every platform for at least 6 years after release. So for lack of a better term. When PS5 comes out, games of the day will play on PS4.5 and PS5. When the PS5.5 comes out, games of the day will play on PS5 and PS5.5.
Daffy Duck
Member
I maybe wrong here but I feel this is what will happen:
PS4 will be a system that has games that are a mess and run at poor framerates and low resolutions whilst the PS4k will be the 1080p60/30 machine.
PS4 will be a system that has games that are a mess and run at poor framerates and low resolutions whilst the PS4k will be the 1080p60/30 machine.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
It is not the eyes. They need to dial back the Full-O-Shit Meter.
The former.
Now imagine the poor Xbox One then. Oh the horror.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
Xbox One games arent a mess though. They are usually just 900p instead of 1080p. If not full 1080p/30 FPS.
Im starting to come around to this idea, especially if it makes things easier for devs in the long run.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Well there is always the PC that has been doing games as a service since it's x86/Win32 inception. \_(ツ
_/¯Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
Devil's advocate, but how does it make it easier on devs?
if you are talking about backwards compatibility being kept on a higher pedestal, not changing architecture completely from generation to generation, this can be done with a classical 5 years generation...
The frequency of iterations should be decided upon by technological improvement. In the case of the PS4k, it's 14nm fabrication. It's an overnight 2-2.5x GPU performance boost at the same cost. When technology can support a new iteration that's enough of an improvement over the past to sell to consumers, by all means.
There has to be a balance of install base and and added complexity for developers I don't believe that in 2016, that balance is at the same point as it was 20 years ago.
Well there is always the PC that has been doing games as a service since it's x86/Win32 inception. \_(ツ
And I'd rather have that than a PlayStation Now box
\_(ツ
_/¯
longdi
Banned
Anyone else like me? Wanting to off load my PS4 now, good condition, in warranty and all. Will fetch a good price now i figure. But what about my PSN subscription? When will Neo come out? I wanna play 60fps FFXV, Uncharted etc....
Damn you Sony and your 0.5 generation game. At least let me suspend my PSN months left subs when i de-activate it from the PS4, and resume when i activate it on Neo some time next year.
Damn you Sony and your 0.5 generation game. At least let me suspend my PSN months left subs when i de-activate it from the PS4, and resume when i activate it on Neo some time next year.
Daffy Duck
Member
But how many times have we seen them unable to consistently maintain that FPS.
That will be even worse if the game is built to the spec of the PS4k GPU.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
And I'd rather have that than a PlayStation Now box
\_(ツ
That will not be for a long, long time. \_(ツ
_/¯ (first time ever using the keyboard shrug in my life, so this is a fun abuse of it, lol)
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Yet Sony mandates that it has to be build to PS4 spec, so...
That poor Xbox One in this scenario.
Seriously, think about what you are saying. There is another box that third parties make games for that will suffer even worse if so.
xaosslug
Member
Daffy Duck
Member
Do they mandate that? I didn't pick that up from what I read?
Exactly, XB1 will be screwed even more by this. It's a good way of burying Xbox though or forcing MS to do the same.
BigWeather
Member
My main concern is that the 15th Playstation revision (let's call it the Playstation 2031) can play the game I buy next month (say Uncharted 4). If so, I'm on board. Note that I'm not saying Uncharted 12: This Thief Will Never Die should be playable on my PS4.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
They mentioned that PS4 is the target. 50 million+ PS4 owners by the time this thing launches will be another reason.
Games will continue to be running how they run and get patched now. This new speedier box with a config setting (being Laymen's crass) will not all of a sudden destroy any of the former.
Well it probably won't be as good as prior to all this. There will be an increase of people trying to sell and a reduction in people trying to buy, so prices will likely be lower than prior. Once the new console is properly announce, and more people are aware of it, the price will go even lower. So if your intention is to sell, the sooner the better I'd say.
Your second point is a problem though, because there is no way of knowing that, and if you sell now you will waste your sub. I'd guess October at the earliest for the new console, but it could be much later into 2017 for all we know, especially if there are supply issues. So the question is how long can you go without a PS4 / sacrificing / wasting your sub. I think many PS4 users will be in the same dilemma
Spyder_Monkey
Banned
That is a dumb idea. Don't split the userbase.
Yeah, as a developer myself, I really wish Chubigans would 1) not speak for all of us and 2) disclose that he's been NDA'd by Sony.
I can already see the threads about PS4 vanilla holding back PS4.5, and how the PS4.5 isnt hitting its true potential etc, etc. Sony want to take the console space into a constant state of transition, where it always feels like that time period 1 or 2 years when a new system hits. E3 cant come soon enough to see whats what.
That's not what I was getting at. I'm genuinely curious what made him change his mind.
I also posted in other threads how great of an idea it was. So I haven't really changed my mind at all. I'll detail this post more when I'm not on mobile in a few hours.
Daffy Duck
Member
But the same thing says the performance on NEO must be 1080p and will benefit from higher/stable frame rates. Surely you can't have it both ways on PS4/PS4k. Something will have to give.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Um, I think his OP spells out why, lol.
What exactly are you looking for that you can't take in from the OP?
PS4 now does 1080p in about 95%+ of all it's games.
All it is saying is that the PS4K cannot have worse frame-rates or resolution than the PS4 when trying to push more bells and whistles. And I bet the resolution of, 'must be 1080p' has to do with the even scaler and what up-rendering technique they will be using for 4K.
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
In this case they don't really have a choice. The PS4 is holding the PSVR back , as compared to the Rift and Vive. There will be very rapid advancement for PC VR in the next few years, and they will make PSVR look like a bigger joke in no time.
People with unrealistic expectations are destined to be disappointed in new and interesting ways. Try to understand that, sis.
The reason(s) that made him reconsider his position. Which one(s) got him to take a step back and switch tracks before he thought to expound on all the assumed benefits he outlined here?
You thought it was both "terrible" and "great" at the same time? Okay, no.
Fess
Member
You certainly didn't think it was a great idea for the current XB1 owners.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=197220206&postcount=713
But you don't understand why current PS4 owners might have a problem with PS4K?
Daffy Duck
Member
Ok, that final part makes sense now you say it, I hadn't thought of it like that.
I'm desperate for some official word on this from Sony and how it all fits into place as I'm sure once it's officially laid out it will probably all make sense in the grand scheme of things.
Now where's that acceptance scale.
wapplew
Member
What unrealistic expectations? 30 years of console business set us with that expectations especially from Sony who promised and deliver 10 years of this and that.
Many early adopters dive right in first day because they always deliver.
Some expect 6-7 years of best support, not 3 years first class and 3 years second class.
I'm getting PS4K day 1 so it doesn't bother me, but I can understand why people think that way, so I won't just dismiss anything with something like envy or ice cream.
You missed these posts:
So yes, I did come around to it and called Microsofts moves a smart play. But at the same time a brand new console that would have broken development like other generational gaps would have been bad for consumers and devs. This is not that.
The Artisan
Member
what you calling me sis for yo?
And explain how it is unrealistic when these expectations are consistent with the reality for the past 20+ years?
I get that you came around to it, obviously because of this thread.
What exactly got you over the fence though before you embraced more about it?
EDIT: Again, genuinely curious of the leading factors because it might provide some insight into what triggers other people to move towards acceptance of this new model. Forget the MS vs Sony bit. I'm looking at this from the traditional console method to the new one, and what specifically sparked the line of thought to open your mind towards it?
Not sure I follow. Spencer was explicit that it would be backwards and forwards compatible.
Not really. PS3 1st gen vs PS4 1st gen.
Even PS3 2nd gen vs PS4 1st gen.
Or PS3 final gen vs PS4 1st gen.
Very soon we'll have Uncharted 3 vs Uncharted 4 comparisons, which I've no doubt will also show a staggering improvement in fidelity and scope.
They could put their brakes on VR this gen instead of rushing some half assed approach. Why even bother getting a PSVR with its blurry ass screen when you could spend alittle extra on the Rift, and spend the 400/500 price of the PS4.5 on a new GPU for your PC.
He posted quotes from the very same date as the ones you posted. Maybe there wasn't some WHAT CHANGED YOUR MIND REVELATION kind of point, unless you want to search for it 55 days ago.
But good attempt with the quote mining. I fell for it.
Fess
Member
And the 3 second class years is when the best games are out, some which was the reason they bought the console in the first place.
and people with the base PS4 can still enjoy those games.
I thought I went over why that wouldn't happen pretty thoroughly in the post you quoted:
Allowing PS4K exclusives would just mean allowing games that utilize the hardware specifically (PSVR would likely benefit greatly), and developers would develop PS4 games regardless because of its large install base.
So they bought the console 3 years too early? How wise