Support NeoGAF

[timetokill]

Yeah, um, I thought we bought consoles for games that we wanted to play. If I want to play games like Uncharted 4 and Persona 5, I'll need my PS4. If I want to play Star Citizen, I'll need my PC. This will NEVER change. It's great to have both. Maybe try the same. I would never exclusively belong to either camp.

Well, I mean, I have a limited budget, so I get PC stuff and Nintendo consoles, which covers 99% of what I want to play. For everything else I can borrow a console from a friend or something, which is what I did for most games in the late-gen on PS3. Bummer about Persona 5 though, but hey, I can't afford them all, so what can ya do. Maybe it'll come to PC someday if they want my money.

 

[Massa]

If your hypothetical was true, I'd feel worse.

1. Why the hell is the PS5 coming out so soon? This gen has only just got moving.

2. If it is supposed to be the PS5, a generational leap, why such a small jump in performance? Historically we see massive jumps in hardware performance, several times greater than previous gens. By all accounts the PS4K's performance would be high end by 2013's standards. It's nothing remarkable for 2016.

3. If it's supposed to be next gen, why have it held back by the PS4? That way devs can extract even less from its maximum potential as they're always going to have to consider the weaker lowest common denominator, the PS4, even with exclusives.


Thankfully the PS4K isn't the PS5, it's just an updated or more premium PS4.

We've hit the point where developers are more limited by budget and time constraints than actual processing power tech. Already with PS3/360 the biggest constraint was memory, not necessarily CPU power. I don't think expecting a huge jump every 5 years is realistic anymore.

Look at Metal Gear for example. Huge jumps between PS1, PS2 and PS3. Now things have matured, and for MGS5 they made a game the PS3 is capable of playing. And that game wasn't a bigger jump over the previous because they ran out of time and money, not because the PS3 limited what they could do.

 

[soul creator]

All this Neo stuff seems to add further evidence to my personal theory that a lot of gamers seems to have a "completionist" mindset that makes them feel like they have to buy/purchase everything that comes out. It's the same arguments used when saying DLC is inherently bad, and not just bad in certain scenarios. "Even though my game works fine and is a complete product that's worth the money, the thought of there being something additional out there frustrates me, therefore it's anti-consumer."

The thought of not having the absolute "complete experience" due to a new thing being introduced seems to be frustrating to a certain mindset, even if you're not actually losing anything in the process. If this PS4 Neo was somehow reducing PS4 game development, I could see an issue, but that doesn't seem to be occurring. In addition, there's actually no market incentive for Sony to reduce PS4 development, so that reduces the chance of that happening. The only thing that seems to be at risk of being "lost" is a vague feeling of "knowing I have the best for 5 years". Is there actually anything more than that? Obviously, any consumer can have whatever feeling they want about something, and that's valid on a personal level, but it doesn't seem to make for very coherent discussions when trying to discuss it on a material level.

By the time regular PS4 development would slow down (where regular PS4 owners are impacted), it wouldn't be until a few years from now...which is around the point a new console would be expected anyway, so I don't see what's really changing there.

 

[timetokill]

You really believe in this?
Have you ever had an experience with PC Gaming before?
Sorry for making the same question again, but my experience on PC Gaming tells me that this is not true...

You dont? Are you sure about that?

The reason i got out of PC upgrading years ago was that it was an absolute mess to upgrade after a few years. Motherboard incompatabilities, meant to get the new GPU I was looking to upgrade the whole kit. Ram became a limitation so there was no point not upgrading there. Sometimes the power source was inadequate. Etc

Ill give that its been a few years so maybe things have smoothened out by now. But it never felt like an easy one piece upgrade. It just started a domino effect on needing to upgrade everything else

Yeah, I'm pretty sure. Been doing it for over a decade now. Just because you CAN upgrade different parts doesn't mean you have to. I went from a 660ti to a 760 to a 970 without changing any other parts. Added some RAM from xmas because felt like boosting that. I COULD boost my CPU but haven't really felt compelled to yet, and the weak CPUs in consoles means I probably won't have to for gaming purposes anyway.

All this Neo stuff seems to add further evidence to my personal theory that a lot of gamers seems to have a "completionist" mindset that makes them feel like they have to buy/purchase everything that comes out. It's the same arguments used when saying DLC is inherently bad, and not just bad in certain scenarios. "Even though my game works fine and is a complete product that's worth the money, the thought of there being something additional out there frustrates me, therefore it's anti-consumer."

The thought of not having the absolute "complete experience" due to a new thing being introduced seems to be frustrating to a certain mindset, even if you're not actually losing anything in the process. If this PS4 Neo was somehow reducing PS4 game development, I could see an issue, but that doesn't seem to be occurring. In addition, there's actually no market incentive for Sony to reduce PS4 development, so that reduces the chance of that happening. The only thing that seems to be at risk of being "lost" is a vague feeling of "knowing I have the best for 5 years". Is there actually anything more than that? Obviously, any consumer can have whatever feeling they want about something, and that's valid on a personal level, but it doesn't seem to make for very coherent discussions when trying to discuss it on a material level.

By the time regular PS4 development would slow down (where regular PS4 owners are impacted), it wouldn't be until a few years from now...which is around the point a new console would be expected anyway, so I don't see what's really changing there.

It's always been this way. This is an enthusiast board so it's heightened here. But videogames in general, being such a tech-oriented field, have always led people to being focused on specs. It's the main reason people (like the OP) try and discount the Wii as being part of the same generation as 360/PS3. It's the foundation of statements like "two Gamecubes duct-taped together" and having it reverberate in the industry. It's the same reason we have some people on this board saying things like "when Nintendo joins this gen" like the Wii U didn't count because of its tech, or why people have long dismissed mobile games, etc. We had generation-long arguments over whether the 360 or PS3 was more powerful. A lot of people, when stating why they bought a PS4 over an Xbox One, cited that it's a more powerful system for the same price.

Sony knows this, which is why the Neo is primarily a way to grab more money from their base. They know that early adopters of tech are the exact same people who will buy a new console just to have the latest tech. The exact kind of people who can't stand knowing they are getting the lesser experience.

 

[nib95]

We've hit the point where developers are more limited by budget and time constraints than actual processing power tech. Already with PS3/360 the biggest constraint was memory, not necessarily CPU power. I don't think expecting a huge jump every 5 years is realistic anymore.

Look at Metal Gear for example. Huge jumps between PS1, PS2 and PS3. Now, for MGS5, they made a game the PS3 is capable of playing. And that game wasn't a bigger jump over the previous because they ran out of time and money, not because the PS3 limited what they could do.

I don't believe the bolded to be true at all. Hell the tech demo's from certain vendors even in 2012/13 were already more advanced than what these consoles are actually capable of. The engines and tools are there, the hardware just isn't sufficiently powerful to take advantage of it, which is one of the points of interest with the PS4K in the first place. The PS4 was low to mid range even in 2013. I actually think certain developers and publishers may have even expected the hardware to be more capable than it was based on some of the downgrades we've seen over the last few years, and early demo's teams came out with.

MGSV is also a bad example because it was cross gen from the get go, and 60fps unlike the two previous entries. If it was next gen only and/or ran at 30fps, who knows what they could accomplish, or how much bigger or better it might have looked.

 

[family_guy]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure. Been doing it for over a decade now. Just because you CAN upgrade different parts doesn't mean you have to. I went from a 660ti to a 760 to a 970 without changing any other parts. Added some RAM from xmas because felt like boosting that. I COULD boost my CPU but haven't really felt compelled to yet, and the weak CPUs in consoles means I probably won't have to for gaming purposes anyway.

Interesting that you say that because the time between those graphics cards releasing is shorter than the timespan between PS4 and PS4k releasing, yet you're okay with buying graphics cards almost yearly.

 

[lazer_bean]

While change is scary, its not always a bad thing.

I think with this model we will see a more steady increase in power while keeping the prices relatively low.

Change is not always a bad thing but it's not always a good thing either.
Anyway, you are the one who doesn't want change. You said it yourself: you welcome iteration ( = to say or do something over and over again, that's what iteration means), at least until PS7

You want a "more steady increase" but it's always been there. For example, how does Uncharted 1 look like compared to Uncharted 3 ? It was on the same system and yet the change (at least visually) is pretty big between those games.

About the prices: what amount do you mean when you say "relatively low" ?
People were quite happy when it was announced that the PS4 would be $400. The PS4K supposedly won't get lower than that: it keeps the prices the same (if not more expensive). The ps4 will get a price cut but that always happened until now anyway, when slim versions of consoles come out. PS3 Slim was a big price cut btw although I agree that the situation was different for Sony.

I wonder if there are some Uncharted 4 fans who will buy the game day one, play it again and again on PS4 and be burnt out on it by the time PS4K and Uncharted 4K come out. Or because they can't afford to buy another console. They won't be able play the best version of their favorite game. Haha it sounds kinda cruel !

Also, I think Sony should say something about PS4K. Acknowledge or deny it, instead of spreading rumors.

 

[timetokill]

Interesting that you say that because the time between those graphics cards releasing is shorter than the timespan between PS4 and PS4k releasing, yet you're okay with buying graphics cards almost yearly.

Well, the 660 and 760 were gifts, so I didn't really buy them. My point was I didn't have to replace the whole machine just to upgrade the graphics card.

 

[farmerboy]

If your hypothetical was true, I'd feel worse.

1. Why the hell is the PS5 coming out so soon? This gen has only just got moving.

2. If it is supposed to be the PS5, a generational leap, why such a small jump in performance? Historically we see massive jumps in hardware performance, several times greater than previous gens. By all accounts the PS4K's performance would be high end by 2013's standards. It's nothing remarkable for 2016.

3. If it's supposed to be next gen, why have it held back by the PS4? That way devs can extract even less from its maximum potential as they're always going to have to consider the weaker lowest common denominator, the PS4, even with exclusives.


Thankfully the PS4K isn't the PS5, it's just an updated or more premium PS4.

1. I've been asking the same question myself. I think it's basically because they can. The UHD drives are out. The fab process is down to 14nm. AMD has probably said to them, "we can do this". Also, they're selling well and the games are still maturing, so why jump right now? I can only assume because somewhere in the last year they've decided that this plan is a good idea. Time will tell.

2. The small jump is because a big jump might not be technically feasible for another number of years at this price point. So we come out now to avoid the gen getting stale. Me, I'd prefer it hold back until they can do something meaningful with the CPU as well. And don't forget, we are still trying to be profitable day 1. Also, we can say "unremarkable" all we want, but I think this performance in a $400 box is remarkable.

3. I think the minor CPU upgrade holds it back more than the PS4 and intergenerational games are what hold things back, not the hardware. Though this does seem like the biggest bone of contention to me. As for your question, I don't have the answer.

It's all rather fascinating to me, and I'm rather curious to see how Sony handle the messaging and exactly what this PS4K is.

I really do think they need to tell us why, as once we understand why at least we won't feel threatened by the unknown.

 

[xxracerxx]

And a Ps5+, and Ps5++, and a Ps5+++...

Most likely just a PS5+ if the Neo goes well.

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

Just want to correct this new assumption that I'm seeing lately that PC gaming (PC hardware) has got cheaper in recent years.

In fact, the cost of GPUs has gone up in the last few years if we look at relative price/performance compared to years gone by. Look at the prices of top GPUs these days. Paying £550 for a 980 Ti is an absurdity when you consider it is not sufficient for 4k gaming at decent framerates. But because of market conditions right now, and lack of competition from AMD (in terms of sales), Nvidia can increasingly charge a premium for a level of relative performance that would have been much cheaper 5 years ago.

 

[Jacksinthe]

Except that isn't what's happening at all. The PS4K is not even close to being a 50% shift. It's like 20% of a standard generational shift at best, only actually less because it's still being held back by the PS4. And that would be the same with a PS5 if that was also held back by the PS4K, and worse still if like the PS4K, it was only only another moderate jump in performance, instead of the massive jumps we're used to seeing.

And you know what, when I'm paying $400 for a piece of hardware for the sole purpose of playing games, which cost another $60 each, I'm not interested in forgoing my value for money and tech advancements just to make your life easier. This isn't a charity. Consumers demand a certain quality of product for their money. At the end of the day if you can't keep up with the tech advancements, don't. Countless games sell incredibly well today even without being highly advanced in tech, or having super fancy high end graphics, by instead being super accomplished in gameplay. Why reduce or diminish consumer value proposition just to make your life easier, when other devs, like Epic and Naughty Dog for example, might revel in far more advanced tech in order to want to push forward graphical boundaries and their medium?

The 50/100% numbers were examples. And by all rumors more than doubling the GPU throughout and small bump to CPU is far greater than 20% or "less". You won't see huge jumps the way gens used to be.

Then you destroy your own argument about games being held back for cross-gen and cite gameplay as an example of why game sell. Nice one! I thought you wanted POWAAAAAA!

Lastly, not every dev is Naughty Dog or Epic when it comes to skill. Nor does every dev have the bankroll to hire that level of skill. You WANT the entire space from Indie to AAA to create a healthy gaming ecosystem, to thrive and to provide a multitude of gaming experiences.

Nobody is holding back the 6 year average console generation for tech so I'm sure ND and Epic will be fine, they are building bridges between them so the gaps are smaller cross-gen and make it easier for ALL devs to move forward.

With this. I'm done with you. Reply until you are blue in the face.

 

[potatohead]

And a Ps5+, and Ps5++, and a Ps5+++...

How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go before everyone stops taking you seriously?

If you want to make a point, it's not going to convince anyone of the caution you may be feeling by using a fallacy of the meme-tier variety in a slippery slope.

You want to have a discussion with others, than treat other people's posts with the respect you want others to treat yours with.

So far mostly all I've seen from you is poo-pooing the parade. Put your thoughts together more concisely and less lazily to at least make something of a coherent point.

 

[Markoman]

After weeks of participating in threads related to this topic, my personal status concerning upgrades has turned into "emotionless acceptance", plain and simple.

Still I see this as a very risky move. There are so many variables that may turn this whole experiment into a disaster.

Sony is already releasing a costly new product this year. This product needs
a) early adopters
b) dev support on day one AND continued support

The problem I see with this is canibalization of PSVR and PS4K. It's basically three Sony products competing with each other - possibly this holiday.

PSVR is a closed plattform which needs heavy support from Sony's 1st + 2nd party studios. Well, we have already seen that those capabilities are limited when it comes to supporting several plattforms, see VITA. Sony can only expand their capabilities if their moves lead to a growing market - this is a big unknown.

If VR games in late 2017/2018 are still gimicky (remember Move/Kinect) it will get buried and PC VR is the way to go - now if one or more of Sony's big studios do VR games the PS4s will have gaps in exclusive Software releases.
I really appreciate optimism when I see it, but the "enjoy, everything will be fine" crowd here on GAF is beyond naive.
This is indeed a historic moment in video gaming, but I will bet my hairy balls that there will be blood. There's no fucking way that all of the big three will survive an open arms-race with this strategy going forward.

 

[Sydle]

I don't think my stance has really changed at all. What Microsoft proposed then is much different than what Sony is proposing now. I think that a generational leap by MS is the right move. I also think an iterative console by Sony is a good decision. I don't think MS should go the iterative route for their next console. There are positives and negatives for both situations.

It's really not different. New hardware capabilities within a generation, with games backwards and forwards compatible. Anything more than that is just splitting hairs.

So all those points in your OP apply only to Sony? It's the future, important and necessary for the industry...only if you're Sony? Wut?

 

[ozprime]

The only 2 problems I have with this whole idea of the shortened revision cycle are these:

1) The iPhone comparison is a false equivalency. If you get a new iPhone every year (or even every 2 years), you usually get it at a reduced price to keep you with a particular carrier, and the rest of it is baked into your monthly cell phone bill. Otherwise you'd be paying $600 every year or 2 for the latest

2) The Nintendo portable comparison is somewhat a false equivalency as well. The Game Boy to Color were almost 10 years apart. The GBA and GBA SP were identical hardware and capability wise - it just came with a MUCH better form factor. The DSi had 2-3 games that supports the slight bump in hardware. The new 3DSxl only has one game that supports the extra power. Most of the refreshes with Nintendo handhelds were better designs and form factors and less of a spec bump, because that was a more tangible improvement for a handheld.

I'm not saying it won't work, but I think it won't be as well received as people think (or the companies want).

 

[IvorB]

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.

Yes, they lock you in for the gen but at the new gen start all bets are open and the console makers have to sell you on their proposition again. The article talks about doing away with this and fostering "brand loyalty" as if that's some kind of bonus for consumers. The end-of-gen reset has been fantastic for keeping console makers honest.

For development, I can totally see that there are advantages of this model for devs and that's great for them. But from a consumer stand point I'm just not seeing how dragging out console gens with iterative improvements and muddying the technical baseline that users can expect from their hardware is a good thing. Especially not the way it's allegedly being handled now with consumers being kept in the dark about what to expect.

 

[Massa]

I don't believe the bolded to be true at all. Hell the tech demo's from certain vendors even in 2012/13 were already more advanced than what these consoles are actually capable of. The engines and tools are there, the hardware just isn't sufficiently powerful to take advantage of it, which is one of the points of interest with the PS4K in the first place. The PS4 was low to mid range even in 2013. I actually think certain developers and publishers may have even expected the hardware to be more capable than it was based on some of the downgrades we've seen over the last few years, and early demo's teams came out with.

MGSV is also a bad example because it was cross gen from the get go, and 60fps unlike the two previous entries. If it was next gen only and/or ran at 30fps, who knows what they could accomplish, or how much bigger or better it might have looked.

You're talking about graphical capability, which is much more easily scalable than the actual game logic. For example the FIFA series was held back on PC for years because low end PC's were capable of displaying it on a basic level, but weren't good enough to run the logic of the game. With PS4 Neo and PS4, games will eventually use "low" settings for PS4 and "medium" for Neo, but no game will be held back on one but not the other.

Also the PS3 was low to mid range even in 2006. That's always been how consoles work. The difference is that then there were actual games that couldn't run on consoles (like Crysis in 2007), now pretty much every single comercial game can easily run on these consoles.

 

[nib95]

The 50/100% numbers were examples. And by all rumors more than doubling the GPU throughout and small bump to CPU is far greater than 20% or "less". You won't see huge jumps the way gens used to be.

I don't think that's necessarily true at all. Pascal is said to be capable of 12 Tflops (6.5x higher than the PS4's) for a single gpu, and it's architecture is 10x faster than Maxwell. Then there's HBM memory, massively increasing memory amounts and so on. And all that's for sometime this year. If a next gen cycle followed the typical trend and the proper next gen Sony system released in say 2019, those specs would easily be achievable by then, and likely at a reasonable cost. We're talking 3 years from now after all. That's not even taking in to consideration what would inevitably be a substantial CPU upgrade too.

Then you destroy your own argument about games being held back for cross-gen and cite gameplay as an example of why game sell. Nice one! I thought you wanted POWAAAAAA!

How? My point was simply that for indie devs such as yourself, who can't keep up with the tech, or simply don't want to, you don't have to. You can still make less graphically advanced games that still have to potential to sell really well if the gameplay is promising. There's no point depriving others of value proposition, those who do love tech advancements and do want the industry to continue moving forward in a substantial way on that front. Engines, assets, hardware, talent etc are already there to accommodate.

Lastly, not every dev is Naughty Dog or Epic when it comes to skill. Nor does every dev have the bankroll to hire that level of skill. You WANT the entire space from Indie to AAA to create a healthy gaming ecosystem, to thrive and to provide a multitude of gaming experiences.

Right, not every dev is so accomplished at or interested in pushing tech boundaries, but some are. Why limit those devs, and the hardware simply because you don't have the same tenacity, budget, team, skill or ambition? Having far superior hardware that's a substantial jump from the previous gen, doesn't mean you necessarily have to take full advantage of it or go crazy with tech/graphics, which is painfully obvious looking at every single generation ever. Not all games are as technically advanced as the next, and instead there's massive differences between them.

Nobody is holding back the 6 year average console generation for tech so I'm sure ND and Epic will be fine, they are building bridges between them so the gaps are smaller cross-gen and make it easier for ALL devs to move forward.

With this. I'm done with you. Reply until you are blue in the face.

Not yet, no, but our discussion was based on the theoretical premise that all future consoles were iterative releases in nature, and as such each time permanently tied down or held back by the last previous hardware release, which is something I strongly disagreed with, and that you supported based on the factors above.

 

[IvorB]

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.

Well, no one knows how it will pan out but the article seemed to be suggesting an ongoing iterative cycle with no hard resets which is the idea I was responding to.

 

[Moneal]

The only 2 problems I have with this whole idea of the shortened revision cycle are these:

1) The iPhone comparison is a false equivalency. If you get a new iPhone every year (or even every 2 years), you usually get it at a reduced price to keep you with a particular carrier, and the rest of it is baked into your monthly cell phone bill. Otherwise you'd be paying $600 every year or 2 for the latest

2) The Nintendo portable comparison is somewhat a false equivalency as well. The Game Boy to Color were almost 10 years apart. The GBA and GBA SP were identical hardware and capability wise - it just came with a MUCH better form factor. The DSi had 2-3 games that supports the slight bump in hardware. The new 3DSxl only has one game that supports the extra power. Most of the refreshes with Nintendo handhelds were better designs and form factors and less of a spec bump, because that was a more tangible improvement for a handheld.

I'm not saying it won't work, but I think it won't be as well received as people think (or the companies want).

You are still paying full phone price, just monthly and usually 2 years, but rolled into your bill so you don't think about it. Or its a lease plan, which is again rolled into your bill.

 

[Quotient]

The only people fully tapping into the hardware resources of a console are typically 1st party and they will continue to do so on new iterations, 3rd party devs will always be held back by the weakest hardware, in this generation being the xbox 1, though with that said we have had 3rd party devs who have taken some advantage of the ps4 by providing higher resolution and/or effects and i expect that to continue with the ps4k.

Even with the typically generational leaps developers are held back by previous generation games (cross-gen) or by the lack of familiarity with the new hardware.

 

[The Artisan]

Most likely just a PS5+ if the Neo goes well.

I think others in the thread have suggested in passing that Ps4K is the first step in consoles becoming a yearly or bi-yearly iteration.

How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go before everyone stops taking you seriously?

What, does my opinion matter less than everyone else's? If you don't take me seriously you don't have to bother to have a discussion with me. If others don't then they can tell me themselves.

If you want to make a point, it's not going to convince anyone of the caution you may be feeling by using a fallacy of the meme-tier variety in a slippery slope.

My point in the post you quoted was that I could easily see the console iteration cycle having a refresh rate of less than 3 years.

You want to have a discussion with others, than treat other people's posts with the respect you want others to treat yours with.

I have been doing that. You haven't seen me say anything rude or disrespectful to anyone and that was never my intent either.

So far mostly all I've seen from you is poo-pooing the parade. Put your thoughts together more concisely and less lazily to at least make something of a coherent point.

Well what the fuck are you expecting? The more I think about this topic the more I dislike it. For those who are on board with them, I never said anything like, they're being irrational or anything like that. If this is the way they want it then more power to 'em coz they're getting what they want.

There are others who have expressed their disinterest, I might just happen to be the most vocal out of them all and this is like the 5th thread I've expressed those feelings in. I told Neuromancer a few pages back that I am going to wait for Sony's official word before making a final decision.

 

[xxracerxx]

I think others in the thread have suggested in passing that Ps4K is the first step in consoles becoming a yearly or bi-yearly iteration.

And that is just completely crazy to think that at this time.

edit: derped on the bi-yearly

 

[ozprime]

You are still paying full phone price, just monthly and usually 2 years, but rolled into your bill so you don't think about it. Or its a lease plan, which is again rolled into your bill.

I said that in my reply.. and also this to consider:

Smartphones are almost a necessity in this day and age. Video game consoles for the most part, are purely optional.

 

[nib95]

The only people fully tapping into the hardware resources of a console are typically 1st party and they will continue to do so on new iterations, 3rd party devs will always be held back by the weakest hardware

Not if the new hardware is constantly tied down to the previous hardware release. Eg they have to release both a PS4K and PS4 version of a game, or a PS5 and PS4K version etc. Essentially even first party will then be stuck with a similar issue that multi platform devs face, in which they have to cater to the lowest common denominator, which stifles the amount they can do or how far they can truly push the new hardware.

 

[Skinpop]

Wipe the terms "PS4K", "PS Neo" and "iterative" from your mind. Replace them with PS5.

The PS5 will have a bigger GPU, upclocked CPU, faster ram, a UHD Bluray drive and be fully backwards compatible. It's coming out in 2017 but to mitigate the short gen all games need to release on both PS4 and PS5.

How do you feel now?

I feel like I have to upgrade if I want the definitive versions of games I originally bought my ps4 to play. I feel like my ps4 resale value will go down the drain. I feel like the technical issues and scummy marketing practices(bullshots, downgrades) already plaguing games will get even worse. I feel like the iterative model pushes even more toward a tech/graphics-focused industry which already is the biggest cancer of gaming in general. I feel that software quality inevitably will suffer. As a person who owns consoles squarely for exclusives and want to enjoy them at their best I feel the value proposition of iterative consoles won't work out for me and that I'll stick to pc only in the future. I feel sad that people care so much about getting the latest tech and graphics that they happily gamble on the future of consoles.

 

[The Artisan]

And that is just completely crazy to think that at this time.

And bi-yearly? People who think that is a possibility are nuts or are on drugs.

Perhaps it is too early to tell. But the Ps4K and Xbox 1.5 if that is also a thing, it's going to change everything. Bi yearly, yeah maybe I typo'd what I meant was maybe it'll become every 2 years

 

[Glorified G]

I said that in my reply.. and also this to consider:

Smartphones are almost a necessity in this day and age. Video game consoles for the most part, are purely optional.

Paying for an iPhone 6S over iPhone 6 is just as optional as getting a PS4K over a PS4.

 

[ozprime]

Paying for an iPhone 6S over iPhone 6 is just as optional as getting a PS4K over a PS4.

That's true. Well, it'll be an interesting E3 at the very least.

 

[Quotient]

Not if the new hardware is constantly tied down to the previous hardware release. Eg they have to release both a PS4K and PS4 version of a game, or a PS5 and PS4K version etc. Essentially even first party will then be stuck with a similar issue that multi platform devs face, in which they have to cater to the lowest common denominator, which stifles the amount they can do or how far they can truly push the new hardware.

It is in Sony's best interest to showcase their hardware and as such 1st party would be given the time and resources to release on both PS4 and PS4K and to push both hardware to its fullest.

I wouldn't be surprised if Sony 1st party devs already have dev-kits for the PS4K and are ensuring any future releases make the most of the added GPU power of the PS4K - i wouldn't be surprised if Naughty Dog released a patch on the launch of the PS4K to increase the graphically fidelity of Uncharted 4.

 

[Biff]

I know I'm super late here but great post OP.

When I really think hard about it, I am completely puzzled as to why this didn't occur in the PS360 generation.

Generational leaps in image quality were already slowing to a crawl. The PS3 hit an inflection in sales around the middle of the generation and really started to catch back up to the 360.

So why didn't Microsoft hit reset? It seems like such a misstep for a company that had the pockets to do so. They could have delivered a death blow to Sony, securing not only the 360 generation, but the 360.5 generation as well... Let's not forget Sony was still bleeding money mid-generation. They probably didn't have the resources to respond accordingly.

Plus, it also could have completely reset customer perception of X360 reliability. RROD wouldn't be a concern with a proper thermal management redesign.

a) Maybe Microsoft was concerned about forcing a Wii 2?
b) Maybe Microsoft was too fresh in the gaming console scene to confidently forecast what would happen? This was their second generation in the business after all, with the first generation clearly bringing with it a ton of growing pain.
c) Maybe they thought Kinect would essentially be the generation reset?

I don't know. But Sony's move here seems like such an inevitability. Their timing is flawless. I'm having a really tough time seeing how Microsoft comes back from this. No immediate XOne.5 response and no immediate VR counter... Yeesh.

 

[tr00per]

Excellent OP Chubs, I think you hit a lot of great points...

This is a well written post that makes good points but there's still much that I need to be convinced on, namely the games and the next system after neo

c) Maybe they thought Kinect would essentially be the generation reset?
.

Good question.
I think it's mostly this. Much cheaper.

I feel sad that people care so much about getting the latest tech and graphics that they happily gamble on the future of consoles.

Preach it.

 

[nib95]

It is in Sony's best interest to showcase their hardware and as such 1st party would be given the time and resources to release on both PS4 and PS4K and to push both hardware to its fullest.

I wouldn't be surprised if Sony 1st party devs already have dev-kits for the PS4K and are ensuring any future releases make the most of the added GPU power of the PS4K - i wouldn't be surprised if Naughty Dog released a patch on the launch of the PS4K to increase the graphically fidelity of Uncharted 4.

If there has to be a previous console hardware version of the same game, they're never going to be able to properly push the new hardware to the fullest, irrespective of the time they have. The weaker hardware is always going to be somewhat of a burden. For example, I very much doubt ND could get Uncharted 4 running on the PS3, not without essentially making it an entirely different game. In terms of scope, animations, AI, physics, geometry, assets and so on. Had ND have had to make a PS3 version of Uncharted 4 alongside the PS4 version, my guess is the final product would have been completely different, and had far less scope and ambition.

 

[Massa]

If there has to be a previous console hardware version of the same game, they're never going to be able to properly push the new hardware to the fullest, irrespective of the time they have. The weaker hardware is always going to be somewhat of a burden. For example, I very much doubt ND could get Uncharted 4 running on the PS3, not without essentially making it an entirely different game. In terms of scope, animations, AI, physics, geometry, assets and so on. Had ND have had to make a PS3 version of Uncharted 4 alongside the PS4 version, my guess is the final product would have been completely different, and had far less scope and ambition.

The PS3 came out a decade ago. Naughty Dog was constrained by it until their last PS3 game in 2013, 7 years after the system came out. The only difference, had Sony released incremental PS3 upgrades, is that the newer models would have the game looking slightly better. There's absolutely no difference to what a first party developer can push under this new console model.

 

[nib95]

The PS3 came out a decade ago. Naughty Dog was constrained by it until their last PS3 game in 2013, 7 years after the system came out. The only difference, had Sony released incremental PS3 upgrades, is that the newer models would have the game looking slightly better. There's absolutely no difference to what a first party developer can push under this new console model.

You're talking about iterative releases from the same console hardware generation. As in, the purpose being to run games of that generation better than the initial launch model. I'm talking about a next gen system being tied down to the previous gen model in the same way. Eg PS4 being held back by the PS3, or the PS5 being held back by the PS4K.

I'm willing to bet the PS5, if it is a next gen hardware release and not just another iterative one, will be considerably more powerful and advanced than the PS4K. I'm talking like 3x as powerful at least, with far more ram. I certainly wouldn't want it to be permanently held back by the PS4K.

 

[Moneal]

You're talking about iterative releases from the same console hardware generation. As in, the purpose being to run games of that generation better than the initial launch model. I'm talking about a next gen system being tied down to the previous model in the same way. Eg PS4 being held back by the PS3, or the PS5 being held back by the PS4K.

I'm willing to bet the PS5, if it is a next gen hardware release and not just another iterative one, will be considerably more powerful and advanced than the PS4K. I'm talking like 3x as powerful at least, with far more ram. I certainly wouldn't want it to be permanently held back by the PS4K.

Ps4k is 2.5 times the ps4. 3 times the power isnt a generational jump. 8 to 10 like ps3 to ps4 sure. If ps5 is only 3 times the ps4k, the ps4k wont have problems keeping up with reduced iq/ fps ps4 would be able to hang wth it at first too.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Agreed. I also think if they really want this two tier system to attract the enthusiast console demographic going forward, there should just be two versions at launch. A pro version and a regular version, the pro having a much better GPU for $100-$200 more or whatever. I'd buy it. I'd rather spend more at launch than the added cost and inconvenience of having to buy something every few years for that higher tier experience. Both strategies have their messaging pitfalls, but a one time premium purchase for those that can afford it, is an easier sell imo.

How much of a jump would a PS5 be in 2018?

A marginal one at best. You're still basically on a 14nm process. You may get a better GPU, and slightly better RAM, but you're still confined to the same die size and power restrictions otherwise.

What you're getting now in 2016/2017 is going to be nearly the same jump you'd get in a console from 2018 because it's aligned with the process shrink.

I think Sony is smart in being able to double the power now and offering it to consumers.

You're talking about iterative releases from the same console hardware generation. As in, the purpose being to run games of that generation better than the initial launch model. I'm talking about a next gen system being tied down to the previous gen model in the same way. Eg PS4 being held back by the PS3, or the PS5 being held back by the PS4K.

I'm willing to bet the PS5, if it is a next gen hardware release and not just another iterative one, will be considerably more powerful and advanced than the PS4K. I'm talking like 3x as powerful at least, with far more ram. I certainly wouldn't want it to be permanently held back by the PS4K.

The only way PS5 would be 3x the power of a PS4K (15 TFlops) is if the PS5 releases well beyond 2020.

I think such a thing as the PS5 will eventually exist, but Sony is going to offer these iterative improvements in-between.

Same deal with Apple, they offer 'S' versions for speed boosts, and then do mainline upgrades depending on how substantial the hardware change is. Sometimes the 'S' versions offer pretty profound improvements.

If there has to be a previous console hardware version of the same game, they're never going to be able to properly push the new hardware to the fullest, irrespective of the time they have. The weaker hardware is always going to be somewhat of a burden. For example, I very much doubt ND could get Uncharted 4 running on the PS3, not without essentially making it an entirely different game. In terms of scope, animations, AI, physics, geometry, assets and so on. Had ND have had to make a PS3 version of Uncharted 4 alongside the PS4 version, my guess is the final product would have been completely different, and had far less scope and ambition.

The biggest jump they've been able to make is thanks to plentiful RAM, enabling larger worlds. I suspect they could have easily made it work otherwise, with some concessions that are mostly visual rather than gameplay related.

Hell, the engine wasn't even re-done. It's based on the one developed for TLOU.

People still want to hold on to the past where meaningful generational jumps were evident thanks to improving graphics tech and more drastic shrinks. But today's graphics tech is maturing. And until there's something that drastically revolutionizes how things are rendered, those huge jumps are a thing of the past.

 

[gundamkyoukai]

I don't believe the bolded to be true at all. Hell the tech demo's from certain vendors even in 2012/13 were already more advanced than what these consoles are actually capable of. The engines and tools are there, the hardware just isn't sufficiently powerful to take advantage of it, which is one of the points of interest with the PS4K in the first place. The PS4 was low to mid range even in 2013. I actually think certain developers and publishers may have even expected the hardware to be more capable than it was based on some of the downgrades we've seen over the last few years, and early demo's teams came out with.

MGSV is also a bad example because it was cross gen from the get go, and 60fps unlike the two previous entries. If it was next gen only and/or ran at 30fps, who knows what they could accomplish, or how much bigger or better it might have looked.

Yes we have very impressive tech demo .
But making a whole game like that would cost ton of money and time .
For eg UC3 was made of team of 120 plus people .
For UC4 they have over 350 people working on it
Come the next few years tech won't be the problem it will be time and money .

 

[wapplew]

I think we all agree on one thing, most of us accept iterative console but have differences in business model.
Some of us prefer the 2 iteration support at any time, PS4 and PS4.5, PS4.5 and PS5
Some of us prefer the free way, dev can make games on different iterations or single iteration freely to fit their own need.
Some of us prefer the iterative console within a traditional cycle, a premium hardware in between gen, but cut off forward compatible when new big jump generation hit.
Some of us prefer the old way, no premium hardware between gen, but new gen can be iterative, using same architecture but big jump like always.

 

[StreetDisciple]

Great write up. I cant wait for the PlayStation PC "PSPC" future.

 

[Laughing Banana]

I view Neo as consoles trying to be not a console, a.k.a. a PC. If you are a player that seeks hardware improvement for better game performance when purchasing Neo, why not just go to PC instead? Better yet, in PC it is *you* that control which part to upgrade that suits your preference best, unlike in the case of Neo, where it is Sony that make the decision for you.

Or, why not wait for PS5 instead?

 

[gundamkyoukai]

I view Neo as consoles trying to be not a console, a.k.a. a PC. If you are a player that seeks hardware improvement when purchasing Neo, why not just go to PC instead? Better yet, in PC it is *you* that control which part to upgrade that suits your preference best, unlike in the case of Neo, where it is Sony that make the decision for you.

Or, why not wait for PS5 instead?

PC are not consoles getting a better piece of hardware does not change that .
Consoles still have there plus and minus parts.
And depending on who you talk to this move goes either way for some people .

 

[YN12]

Neogaf in a nutshell:

- WiiU is shit! Look at the grass textures in Star Fox Zero! Looks like an N64 game! Ahaha how clever of me, PS4 master race!

- What?! Sony wants to make an upgraded PS4 that outputs games at 4K? How dare they! From now on I am going PC only, that will teach them!


Guys, make up your mind! Either you dont give a shit about resolution, or you do.

(GAF is not a homogeneous community, but I would love for people to stop obsess about resolution/framerate, that kind of obsession is what drove Sony's decision).

Anyway, its simple: vote with your wallets. Don't like it? Don't buy it. Sony is not forcing anybody.

 

[kyser73]

Agreed. I also think if they really want this two tier system to attract the enthusiast console demographic going forward, there should just be two versions at launch. A pro version and a regular version, the pro having a much better GPU for $100-$200 more or whatever. I'd buy it. I'd rather spend more at launch than the added cost and inconvenience of having to buy something every few years for that higher tier experience. Both strategies have their messaging pitfalls, but a one time premium purchase for those that can afford it, is an easier sell imo.

Doesn't this completely negate every argument you've just made about devs & tapping the full power of the consoles?

 

[Laughing Banana]

Neogaf in a nutshell:

- WiiU is shit! Look at the grass textures in Star Fox Zero! Looks like an N64 game! Ahaha how clever of me, PS4 master race!

- What?! Sony wants to make an upgraded PS4 that outputs games at 4K? How dare they! From now on I am going PC only, that will teach them!


Guys, make up your mind! Either you dont give a shit about resolution, or you do.

(GAF is not a homogeneous community, but I would love for people to stop obsess about resolution/framerate, that kind of obsession is what drove Sony's decision).

Anyway, its simple: vote with your wallets. Don't like it? Don't buy it. Sony is not forcing anybody.

This might be a mind-blowing thing for you, but GAF is not a single entity. There is no "GAF" to make up "his/her" mind, and all of the "guys" here are not required to always agree in unison with only one conclusion allowed about various issues. I know, crazy, right?

PC are not consoles getting a better piece of hardware does not change that .
Consoles still have there plus and minus parts.
And depending on who you talk to this move goes either way for some people .

Eh, for me it seems like this looks like some sort of a trial move from Sony to pull off a PC-like upgrade system and to be frank, I am not a fan.

 

[jeffram]

Not really. PS3 1st 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.

I'm not saying the jumps aren't great, or noticeable, I'm saying they are getting smaller each generation.

This was 1st gen PS2:

 

[Massa]

Neogaf in a nutshell:

- WiiU is shit! Look at the grass textures in Star Fox Zero! Looks like an N64 game! Ahaha how clever of me, PS4 master race!

- What?! Sony wants to make an upgraded PS4 that outputs games at 4K? How dare they! From now on I am going PC only, that will teach them!


Guys, make up your mind! Either you dont give a shit about resolution, or you do.

(GAF is not a homogeneous community, but I would love for people to stop obsess about resolution/framerate, that kind of obsession is what drove Sony's decision).

Anyway, its simple: vote with your wallets. Don't like it? Don't buy it. Sony is not forcing anybody.

Star Fox looks pretty bad, that doesn't have anything to do with the Wii U or the PS4.

 

[jeffram]

This is a well written post that makes good points but there's still much that I need to be convinced on, namely the games and the next system after neo

thanks for giving it a read. I typed 3/4 of it on my phone in the middle of the night over the course of a few hours.

I agree, there's more to see. Proof will be in the pudding but it's fun to think about and predict.

 

[tuxfool]

People still want to hold on to the past where meaningful generational jumps were evident thanks to improving graphics tech and more drastic shrinks. But today's graphics tech is maturing. And until there's something that drastically revolutionizes how things are rendered, those huge jumps are a thing of the past.

Yup. This is no more evident than Explicit graphics APIs on PC. We have gotten to the point where gains aren't as large and architectures don't vastly change from each iteration. This has meant that it is much easier to target a range of GPUs directly without needing to resort to thick abstraction layers to mask large architectural differences between manufacturers and GPU generations.