Support NeoGAF

[jeffram]

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.

This is a big assumption. The size of a 12tflop chip at 14nm is going to make it expensive and and hot. Time doesn't magically change that. Time has historically changed that because of improvements to fabrication. During the life of the PS3 it when from 90nm to 28nm. It improved every 2 years. 14 nm took 5 years to come to fruition. There is no set time frame for anything better than 14nm right now, and there's not much reason to believe the next improvement will come any sooner than that.

If that's the type of performance you want, a very expensive PC is going to be the only way to go.

 

[jroc74]

First off its a lot longer than one year.

Second, you keep ignoring the 3/6 year iterative/generation as examples of how it could work.

You are always developing for a ROLLING base of 3 years max vs developing for a base 6-8 years old.

When a 3rd iteration hits, you drop the 1st then it's 2, 3. When 4th hits its 3, 4.

Let's also think about the rate at which technology moves. We want refinement in tools, not huge generational shifts. We want small shifts so we can keep on making our games and less fussing about between boxes. Who knows what kind of hardware will be cost and performance effective for PS5? We don't. Rumor right now is that the GPU is different in the PS4k - that's something we need to work with. If that bridges the gap, with a small shift in tools between PS4 and PS5, that's a lot less work we have to do for PS5. A lot fewer bugs. A lot fewer day 1 patches. A far better, more efficient move through toolsets that keeps us pinning our time on making games and less time spent developing tools for the new gen.

It's not just about "waaaaaa, cross-gen games!" - it's about efficiency in the console space between what could potentially be huge technology shifts. Many cross gen games suffer because of the time needed to make a whole new set of tools based on a whole new set of rules. Make no mistake the PS5 is going to use different tech, if this helps bridge the gap in baby steps - EVERYONE is better off.

If you can't see that, I don't know what else to say.

I agree. If it helps that has to be a good thing going forward.

Those trying to compare this to MS and putting exclusives on PC...well thats a different beast all together. That thread was talking about how it wouldnt make sense to get an XBO if all exclusives were going to PC. PS4 and Neo is the same platform, XBO and PC isnt.

Those saying the smartphone comparisons arent valid....I wanna ask you something:

Why did any of you upgrade your smartphone if a new model came out? Not talking about the price but why get a new device if the one you had was working fine?

When the news about the XBO exclusives going to PC came out I was like welp might as well not get an XBO then. As more details came out about that it seemed a better idea to still get an XBO. The verdicts still out on that tho...XBO and 360 B/C is a big pro IMO.
When this Neo news came out I also had concerns about n3DS scenarios.

What changed my mind was when more details came out about Sony's plans, ideas. That and finding about the details surrounding n3DS. Now THAT is not a good comparison.

And to be perfectly honest...I had no idea about generations, generation lengths...until joining GAF. All I thought about consoles is they had games and I like to play those games. I cant even remember what year I got any console until the PS3, Wii, 360. I know the general succession they all came when I got them dating back to 2600 but I remember the exact year I got the PS3 ,360 and Wii. And last gen is the only gen I remember the length.

I still have a PS2 and orig XBox. I think I got the PS2 in 1999....cant remember when I got the XBox. I got the PS3 in 2008.

 

[Razgreez]

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.

This was never 'the old way'. The architectures were always vastly different and compatibility was usually maintained by literally having the chips from the previous gen console included in the current gen one

 

[David Ricardo]

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.

Wii U was launched 6 years after the 360 and doesn't look like a great graphical improvement, thus it is underpowered for the time of its release.

PS4 Neo is not about 4k, it doesn't have nowhere near the gpu power needed for nextgen 4k gaming. My best guess is that this PS4+ is for VR, and I expect there to be PS4+VR exclusives (No Man's Sky?).

I would have liked the PS4 to have the bestest GPU/CPU possible at launch. That doesn't mean that I want them to come up with new PS4s every 3 years, fragmenting the userbase with people playing online versus other people whose game is running at a greater framerate/resolution. Also, the good thing about consoles was that you had this huge userbase with exactly the same machine so it enticed publishers to spend a lot of time and resources doing the best possible version of the game in that hardware. If you have a PS4+ and a PS4thepoor, developers are going to spend a lot of time in the version for those who care about graphics (PS4+ owners) removing time and resources from the og PS4 version.

I don't like this one bit. This is not what consoles were about.

 

[jroc74]

The slim didn't add anything the existing 360s couldn't already do, though. Wireless was already available via a USB dongle and they dropped non-HDMI connections in the final Slim version.

It was a slap in the face to those of us that got the 360 when it launched!!!! Why didnt those bastards just include all that from the get go????

I felt like a 2nd class citizen because I couldnt use HDMI and wifi from day one!!! All those bastards that got the HDMI model got to see the games more prettier than me!!!

 

[wapplew]

This was never 'the old way'. The architectures were always vastly different and compatibility was usually maintained by literally having the chips from the previous gen console included in the current gen one

You are right, it's not the old way and we might be never go back to the old way the moment they choose AMD.
Maybe call it...new traditional cycle?

 

[David Ricardo]

This was never 'the old way'. The architectures were always vastly different and compatibility was usually maintained by literally having the chips from the previous gen console included in the current gen one

He is saying he likes the console time gap to be old way (5-6 years between revisions with a significant bump in performance), with the supposed benefits of iterative consoles (same architecture, full backwards compatibility, cross gen games using the PS4 disc for both versions).

It is easy. This is what we all expected before we knew about PS4neo.

 

[otakukidd]

I agree. If it helps that has to be a good thing going forward.

Those trying to compare this to MS and putting exclusives on PC...well thats a different beast all together. That thread was talking about how it wouldnt make sense to get an XBO if all exclusives were going to PC. PS4 and Neo is the same platform, XBO and PC isnt.

Those saying the smartphone comparisons arent valid....I wanna ask you something:

Why did any of you upgrade your smartphone if a new model came out? Not talking about the price but why get a new device if the one you had was working fine?

Because our phones start to act like shit after a year and a half and no longer gets updates. Not only that it's subsidized so it's cheap as fuck. A better example is TVs. You don't buy one every year more like 4 to 6. And after that you look for something with new tech like 4k and HDR or even a larger size cause as time goes on that's getting cheaper.

 

[jroc74]

Because our phones start to act like shit after a year and a half and no longer gets updates. Not only that it's subsidized so it's cheap as fuck. A better example is TVs. You don't buy one every year more like 4 to 6. And after that you look for something with new tech like 4k and HDR or even a larger size cause as time goes on that's getting cheaper.

Do they really?

So...are you saying it starts dropping calls, cant text that good anymore?

Because a phone has 2 functions...calls and texts. Primary being calls. Everything else...is the PS Neo. From specs to features.

I agree TV's might be a better example, but phones are valid too.

My point is...unless you actually have to.....you dont need to upgrade your phone. Many pp do it because they want to. And many ppl dont because they dont want or need to. And there is a group that pays for phones at retail.....they dont even care about the price.

 

[wapplew]

Do they really?

So...are you saying it starts dropping calls, cant text that good anymore?

Because a phone has 2 functions...calls and texts. Primary being calls. Everything else...is the PS Neo. From specs to features.

I agree TV's might be a better example, but phones are valid too.

My point is...unless you actually have to.....you dont need to upgrade your phone. Many pp do it because they want to. And many ppl dont because they dont want or need to. And there is a group that pays for phones at retail.....they dont even care about the price.

That's where phone company did well. They create need.
Phones is essential product, we'll get one anyways, but phones maker create all kind of features like better camera, screen, design etc.
Anyone of those could be a trigger point for customers to upgrade.

Console have no such luxury, hardware or feature set take a back seat, games is the meat, price is the potatoes. Unless Sony can create additional needs, they need to give us enough meat or potatoes to trigger upgrade.

 

[Lemondish]

Wii U was launched 6 years after the 360 and doesn't look like a great graphical improvement, thus it is underpowered for the time of its release.

PS4 Neo is not about 4k, it doesn't have nowhere near the gpu power needed for nextgen 4k gaming. My best guess is that this PS4+ is for VR, and I expect there to be PS4+VR exclusives (No Man's Sky?).

I would have liked the PS4 to have the bestest GPU/CPU possible at launch. That doesn't mean that I want them to come up with new PS4s every 3 years, fragmenting the userbase with people playing online versus other people whose game is running at a greater framerate/resolution. Also, the good thing about consoles was that you had this huge userbase with exactly the same machine so it enticed publishers to spend a lot of time and resources doing the best possible version of the game in that hardware. If you have a PS4+ and a PS4thepoor, developers are going to spend a lot of time in the version for those who care about graphics (PS4+ owners) removing time and resources from the og PS4 version.

I don't like this one bit. This is not what consoles were about.

I love how you put words into developers mouths without once realizing how fucking lame that is.

 

[Zaptruder]

This is already feasible by way of the Playstation changing to a PC-like architecture with the PS4. Forwards and backwards compatibility from here on out doesn't require the NEO. I think thats a misconception on the pro-NEO side.

A misconception I see on the anti-NEO side is that supporting the base and NEO versions of a Playstation game is akin to supporting a PS3 and PS4 version, ala cross-gen stuff we saw over the past few years. The NEO and core are extremely similar, so its more like different presets in a PC game.

A bit late to reply, but there's no misunderstanding on my part.

Even if the architecture is retained in PS4 to PS5, without 4.5, as a developer you're still faced with the problem of making a game either for the PS5 where the most active and most willing to buy consumers will be, or target the PS4, where the far larger user base will be - even if the PS5 can play PS4 games - that doesn't effect you as a developer, that's mainly a PS5 consumer advantage.

With that been said, it'd be easier to release cross (traditional) gen ports with the same sort of architecture; but the sheer differences in console power will mean that the cross gen version will be lacking significant features. To put it another way, it'd be entirely possible to build a game for the new generation that's incompatible with the old gen from a performance and even feature perspective.

With an explicit support for continuous rolling generational support provides developers with a smoother market to release to at all times, with clearer expectations from all sides. It also means that the gaps in power and feature sets are not quite as severe, meaning that compatibility by changing non-critical (visual or gameplay) options is easier to achieve.

From the consumer side, the worse that happens is the console you bought a couple of generations ago is no longer been actively supported by all releases. But that'd happen in the same sort of time frame as a traditional console gets replaced.

 

[Laughing Banana]

I love how you put words into developers mouths without once realizing how fucking lame that is.

But everyone in this thread is also basically doing the same thing

 

[wapplew]

A bit late to reply, but there's no misunderstanding on my part.

Even if the architecture is retained in PS4 to PS5, without 4.5, as a developer you're still faced with the problem of making a game either for the PS5 where the most active and most willing to buy consumers will be, or target the PS4, where the far larger user base will be - even if the PS5 can play PS4 games - that doesn't effect you as a developer, that's mainly a PS5 consumer advantage.

With that been said, it'd be easier to release cross (traditional) gen ports with the same sort of architecture; but the sheer differences in console power will mean that the cross gen version will be lacking significant features. To put it another way, it'd be entirely possible to build a game for the new generation that's incompatible with the old gen from a performance and even feature perspective.

With an explicit support for continuous rolling generational support provides developers with a smoother market to release to at all times, with clearer expectations from all sides. It also means that the gaps in power and feature sets are not quite as severe, meaning that compatibility by changing non-critical (visual or gameplay) options is easier to achieve.

From the consumer side, the worse that happens is the console you bought a couple of generations ago is no longer been actively supported by all releases. But that'd happen in the same sort of time frame as a traditional console gets replaced.

Are you saying if we take away middle setting hardware, it will be more difficult for developer to make games on low setting and high setting hardware?
Without GTX960, developer will have trouble making games work on 750ti & 980ti, that's what you saying?

And for the final point, no one really expect PS2 support in 2013.

 

[Zaptruder]

Are you saying if we take away middle setting hardware, it will be more difficult for developer to make games on low setting and high setting hardware?
Without GTX960, developer will have trouble making games work on 750ti & 980ti, that's what you saying?

And for the final point, no one really expect PS2 support in 2013.

As analogy; If you target 30fps @ 1080p on the 980ti, you won't have the option for 30fps @ 720p without the middle option.

So you'll have to target 60fps @ 1080p on the 980ti to hit 30fps @ 720p.

Some of you will love that - but in reality, it'll simply mean that devs switch over to 980ti development once enough of them are out there.

 

[Kssio_Aug]

My opinion, as a south american player (Brazilian) is that I hate this model. Sony charges an absurd amount for a PS4 here, it was already hard to buy one. I thought it would be the focused hardware for the next 5-7 years and it seems I was wrong. I barely had enough time to play as much as I'd like, and the good big budget exclusive titles are coming ptetty much just now. I would not have paid so much for a system in launch if I had any perspective that Sony would deliver so little and still release a better hardware mid-gen.

I'm feeling pretty much cheated by their pratices, and I do not support it giving the reality of where I live.

 

[xxracerxx]

My opinion, as a south american player (Brazilian) is that I hate this model. Sony charges an absurd amount for a PS4 here, it was already hard to buy one. I thought it would be the focused hardware for the next 5-7 years and it seems I was wrong. I barely had enough time to play as much as I'd like, and the good big budget exclusive titles are coming ptetty much just now. I would not have paid so much for a system in launch if I had any perspective that Sony would deliver so little and still release a better hardware mid-gen.

I'm feeling pretty much cheated by their pratices, and I do not support it giving the reality of where I live.

It still is the focused hardware and the big/all games will still play on your existing PS4. Sucks about the cost of a PS4 in Brazil though.

 

[tuxfool]

My opinion, as a south american player (Brazilian) is that I hate this model. Sony charges an absurd amount for a PS4 here, it was already hard to buy one. I thought it would be the focused hardware for the next 5-7 years and it seems I was wrong. I barely had enough time to play as much as I'd like, and the good big budget exclusive titles are coming ptetty much just now. I would not have paid so much for a system in launch if I had any perspective that Sony would deliver so little and still release a better hardware mid-gen.

I'm feeling pretty much cheated by their pratices, and I do not support it giving the reality of where I live.

Sony isn't the one cheating you. I'm afraid it is your gov't.

It really sucks. But it is what it is.

 

[Kssio_Aug]

Sony isn't the one cheating you. I'm afraid it is your gov't.

It really sucks. But it is what it is.

Not sure. Taxe here are high (and many) but I still can't see how they reached their official price in the end. Sure, the government is to blame a lot, but either way that pratice will make it harder for us.

I may have jumped the gun using the word "cheated", but still think they should have released a stronger hardware at the beginning, or keep with it some more. PS4 sales are actually quite a proof that most people are more than okay with their current system hardware. There's no need to frustrate a big parcel of their user base.

 

[wapplew]

As analogy; If you target 30fps @ 1080p on the 980ti, you won't have the option for 30fps @ 720p without the middle option.

So you'll have to target 60fps @ 1080p on the 980ti to hit 30fps @ 720p.

Some of you will love that - but in reality, it'll simply mean that devs switch over to 980ti development once enough of them are out there.

Just like PS4/Vita cross gen game, I get it.
But I don't think releasing more iterations between gen will make things any better for the dev.
If they make games exclusively for PS5, they start with zero install base, make games for PS4.5 and PS5, they start with X amount minus PS4 install base. make games for all three, start with total install base.

Here's the thing, I don't think PS4.5 install base will be enough for publisher to give up PS4, with PS4.5 in the middle, PS5 adoption rate will likely take a huge hit, publisher will hold on to that PS4 install base a lot longer than traditional gen.
Dev will stuck making games for 3 configurations.

 

[chubigans]

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?

I honestly don't know how many more times I need to spell it out, but here's the last time:

-Sony is moving towards an iterative console. This is good.
-Microsoft is moving towards a generational leap for their console if Phil Spencer is correct. This is also good.
-Microsoft doing the iterative route with the same type of guidelines by Sony is not a good move. It doesn't seem like they're doing that anyways.

-A more expensive premium PS4 could sell.
-A more expensive premium XB1 probably won't, because the cheap version is already struggling against the PS4, not to mention that they already slashed the price from $499 and another version of that probably won't go down well.
-A brand new Xbox console could do great if they position it as a brand new console, like a generational leap that a lot of people want from Sony who are against the PS4K.

So can we stop with the "gotcha!" posts? I'm not going to respond to them anymore.

 

[LookAtMeGo]

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.

By relatively low I mean around $400.

By steady increase I mean less than the jump we have seen from generation to generation and smaller yet decent increases in hardware capabilities. Uncharted 3 looked much better than 1 for sure but thats thanks in part to ND getting familiar with the architecture of the PS3 which, to my knowledge, was a pain in the ass to develop for.

The generational jumps in processing power IMO aren't going to be anything special unless the intro price of the console is upwards of $600-$700. Even then, if the architecture is staying pretty much the same (x86) and just getting more juice, devs wont have to learn to work with the new hardware as much as they have had to in the past.

If the PS5 is only $400, its going to be obsolete in 3 years after it releases. IMO consoles need to do this because people are eventually going to get tired of using dated tech for 6-7 years at a time.

Thats unless they beef it the fuck up and charge more money, which I'm sure wpuld outrage the community just as much. This way we get decent increments of power every 3 or so years and the price of the consoles can stay lower and console gamers dont have to be left in the dust for the last few years of a generation in terms of performance capabilities if they choose not to be.

 

[Bitch Pudding]

PS4 Neo is not about 4k, it doesn't have nowhere near the gpu power needed for nextgen 4k gaming. My best guess is that this PS4+ is for VR, and I expect there to be PS4+VR exclusives (No Man's Sky?).

I would have liked the PS4 to have the bestest GPU/CPU possible at launch. That doesn't mean that I want them to come up with new PS4s every 3 years, fragmenting the userbase with people playing online versus other people whose game is running at a greater framerate/resolution. Also, the good thing about consoles was that you had this huge userbase with exactly the same machine so it enticed publishers to spend a lot of time and resources doing the best possible version of the game in that hardware. If you have a PS4+ and a PS4thepoor, developers are going to spend a lot of time in the version for those who care about graphics (PS4+ owners) removing time and resources from the og PS4 version.

I don't like this one bit. This is not what consoles were about.

Two things:
a) PS4 Neo will be all about 4k, both gaming and video-wise, when it comes to marketing
b) The PS4 already was not "what consoles were about", because it (and WiiU and XBOX One) were sold (almost) at cost, not heavily subsidized as in some earlier generations. And why do they all do that? Because this whole generational approach results in a huge risk of failing, which then results in being screwed for the next 5-6 years. If you screw up, you at least want to avoid selling your hardware at loss.

 

[jroc74]

I honestly don't know how many more times I need to spell it out, but here's the last time:

-Sony is moving towards an iterative console. This is good.
-Microsoft is moving towards a generational leap for their console if Phil Spencer is correct. This is also good.
-Microsoft doing the iterative route with the same type of guidelines by Sony is not a good move. It doesn't seem like they're doing that anyways.

-A more expensive premium PS4 could sell.
-A more expensive premium XB1 probably won't, because the cheap version is already struggling against the PS4, not to mention that they already slashed the price from $499 and another version of that probably won't go down well.
-A brand new Xbox console could do great if they position it as a brand new console, like a generational leap that a lot of people want from Sony who are against the PS4K.

So can we stop with the "gotcha!" posts? I'm not going to respond to them anymore.

But hey, CONSOLE WARS has a better ring to it, dont ya think? But I would be down for an XBO.5 too.

Bring em on. I'm ready.

 

[Jimrpg]

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.




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.

This is why it's crazy to me. The same fanatical user base that is so spec minded insists on getting the higher specced machine yet gets trounced by a mid tier PC spec wise. If they really want the best specs they should get a PC.

 

[Fess]

I get your point and for me the most reasonable solution right now is skip the first model.
Instead of buying a PS5 at launch, like I did with 4, when 5 comes out I ll wait for 5.5.

This seems like the best solution for me too. That way I'd get better performance in the often badly optimized launch titles, I'll buy less bad games because of game drought, and I'll be getting the best versions of the late gen games which are usually the best games of the whole generation.

The downside to this is that I won't get to be there at the start of the generation. But hopefully we won't see Nintendo doing this so when the generation start I could go with Nintendo + PC until Sony launch their year 3 console.

 

[David Ricardo]

Two things:
a) PS4 Neo will be all about 4k, both gaming and video-wise, when it comes to marketing
b) The PS4 already was not "what consoles were about", because it (and WiiU and XBOX One) were sold (almost) at cost, not heavily subsidized as in some earlier generations. And why do they all do that? Because this whole generational approach results in a huge risk of failing, which then results in being screwed for the next 5-6 years. If you screw up, you at least want to avoid selling your hardware at loss.

a) Why would Sony market PS4 neo as a 4k gaming machine when it doesn't have anywhere near the power needed to run PS4 quality games at 4k?
b) When I talked about what consoles were about, I was talking about 5-6 years generations with a big jump in power between each. Nintendo has been selling consoles at cost since forever and that didn't stop them from having 5-6 years generations.

I just don't get how having first and 2nd class citizens makes playstation ecosystem any better or reduce any risks. If I want to spend another 400$ in hardware 3 years in the generation, I can as well spend it on Nintendo NX or XBO.5 if I feel their offerings are better.

 

[orochi91]

This is why it's crazy to me. The same fanatical user base that is so spec minded insists on getting the higher specced machine yet gets trounced by a mid tier PC spec wise. If they really want the best specs they should get a PC.

That "fanatical" base wants a beefier ps4 console; PC isn't even part of the equation for most of them, so that's irrelevant.

 

[wapplew]

a) Why would Sony market PS4 neo as a 4k gaming machine when it doesn't have anywhere near the power needed to run PS4 quality games at 4k?
b) When I talked about what consoles were about, I was talking about 5-6 years generations with a big jump in power between each. Nintendo has been selling consoles at cost since forever and that didn't stop them from having 5-6 years generations.

That's how marketing works, like power of the clouds, retina display, empty word to make your product sound better.

I just don't get how having first and 2nd class citizens makes playstation ecosystem any better or reduce any risks. If I want to spend another 400$ in hardware 3 years in the generation, I can as well spend it on Nintendo NX or XBO.5 if I feel their offerings are better.

That's the dilemma. Sony is trying to stretch PS4 generation as long as possible. They try to avoid generation reset, keep that market leading position.
If they do it without PS4K, PS4 might felt a little outdated at year 4-5.
That's where PS4K comes in, it create an illusion of upgrade, make PS4(including PS4K) stay relevance, allow them to stretch PS4(including PS4K) couple more years until new generation hit.
If tech is not ready at year 6-7 or they get away with this model, they might make PS4K2 to extent the life even further, giving MS or Nintendo no chance to hit reset button.

 

[Quotient]

Generation changes are a blessing and a curse for the manufacturers, if you are behind it is great as it allows you to start from scratch and potentially make right your previous misteps (eg Sony) if you were the leader it is risky as you can come out as the loser (eg Microsoft).

Not surprised Sony want to keep their current momentum going.

 

[michaelius]

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

That false equivalence part only works as long as you believe you are getting something free from carrier. And if you do I have some bad news for you

 

[mrklaw]

I think one problem is that - on the surface - this is better for publishers than developers. Publishers gain from stablity and predictability, and an iterative cycle helps acheive that. Technically for developers that is just more work.

However you also need to consider that many developers *are* publishers these days - aside from the big boys there are tons of indies that are developers first, but publishers too. And maybe they don't all yet realise the benefits because all they see is the work, and the smaller their team the more impact there will be to support multiple versions. But that stability and predictability will be valuable for them too in the long run.

I think maybe there is an element of missing context too. Many indies will come from a PC background and will not have had the 'joy' of significant architectural shifts between generations, they've come on either through 360 which was PC-like, or XB1/PS4 which was very PC-like. So it may be that they don't realise quite how painful abrupt changes can be?

 

[bbalde]

It still is the focused hardware and the big/all games will still play on your existing PS4. Sucks about the cost of a PS4 in Brazil though.

Its not only a Brazil issue. In South Africa due to the falling currency, its insanely priced. Most people are still gaming on PS3/X360. PS4 1TB goes for R7000 without games (if the $ was priced R10, that's 700USD).

Most of my friends moved to PC as the price difference with console is practically non existent now (It used to be 1:3). So when I told them about a PS4K, they mostly laughed at my face.

 

[GamerMax73]

I'm saying there won't be forward compatibility to PS5.

I'm saying the Neo is a pointless release under those circumstances.

 

[GamerMax73]

They shouldn't be held back full stop. Even cross gen games the first year of a new generation annoy me, though I understand why they exist, thankfully they're very short lived. The prospect of the PS4K holding back the PS5 even for a whopping 3 years is absolutely awful to me. It shouldn't be held back at all, especially with exclusives.

The PS4K is twice the power of the PS4, the PS4 is 5-6x plus the power of the PS3, even though the PS4 was actually pretty average or mid range from a hardware performance perspective at the time of its release. I suspect or hope the PS5 will be at least 6x or more the power of the PS4, and I certainly don't want it held back by a console only twice the power of the PS4 (the PS4K), for anything longer than the bare minimum of time. If I'm spending hundreds of dollars of my hard earned money on a new generation console, as well as $60 a pop per game, you're damn sure I'm expecting a massive leap in performance and graphics, unhindered by weaker platforms or older consoles.

This is the problem though isn't it? What about the people who can't afford to upgrade so quickly? At what point do you force the upgrade? Even today, 3 years in, I know plenty of people who are waiting for a cheaper PS4 slim. Of course games on PS3 have all but dried up.

I expect the devs to make the best, most enjoyable game they can given the limitations of money, time, and certification restrictions imposed. Limbo was one of the greatest games last gen, Would have run fine on a PS1.

 

[GamerMax73]

Let's also think about the rate at which technology moves. We want refinement in tools, not huge generational shifts. We want small shifts so we can keep on making our games and less fussing about between boxes. Who knows what kind of hardware will be cost and performance effective for PS5? We don't. Rumor right now is that the GPU is different in the PS4k - that's something we need to work with. If that bridges the gap, with a small shift in tools between PS4 and PS5, that's a lot less work we have to do for PS5. A lot fewer bugs. A lot fewer day 1 patches. A far better, more efficient move through toolsets that keeps us pinning our time on making games and less time spent developing tools for the new gen.

^This

 

[wapplew]

Generation changes are a blessing and a curse for the manufacturers, if you are behind it is great as it allows you to start from scratch and potentially make right your previous misteps (eg Sony) if you were the leader it is risky as you can come out as the loser (eg Microsoft).

Not surprised Sony want to keep their current momentum going.

Generation changes are the blessing for us thou.
It might be bad for manufacturers, they could lost all their ground to the next best product but we as customer stay winning.
We got OS giant, electronic guy and an outside the box weirdo, get creative and fighting to get our attention each gen.
And we get some new, exciting, crazy tech and idea, constantly making new industry standard as a result.

Maybe those crazy days are a thing of the past, they want to say now is good enough.
It will be really disappointing if we all accept this uninspired model in order for our favorite manufacture stay winning.

 

[David Ricardo]

I'm saying the Neo is a pointless release under those circumstances.

Why? If PS5 ends up being a powerhouse with 300% PS4 CPU power, 14tflops GPU and 32 GB Ram (source my ass), what sense would it make to force all games to run in PS4 Neo. That would be holding the PS5 back unnecesarily.

 

[wazoo]

Generation changes are a blessing and a curse for the manufacturers, if you are behind it is great as it allows you to start from scratch and potentially make right your previous misteps (eg Sony) if you were the leader it is risky as you can come out as the loser (eg Microsoft).

Not surprised Sony want to keep their current momentum going.

This. Console gaming is not good for investors because you can lose everything in the next gen even being leader now. Sony has every rights to try to solve this problem and comfort their marketshare.

 

[Bitch Pudding]

Why? If PS5 ends up being a powerhouse with 300% PS4 CPU power, 14tflops GPU and 32 GB Ram (source my ass), what sense would it make to force all games to run in PS4 Neo. That would be holding the PS5 back unnecesarily.

I agree, that's why I suppose developers should be able to produce forward compatible games (basically: PS4 games with a Neo AND PS5 mode) but just shouldn't be forced to do so, so that they also can develop exclusive PS5 games.

By that, developers can choose between addressing the biggest possible install base with their new game or they can target early adopters of the new console which will be thirsting for games which truly exploit their new toy's capabilities.

 

[wazoo]

It will happen, like Neo exclusive games will happen too.

 

[sphinx]

has been probably said in this long ass thread and I am late to it but....

there are pros and cons to iterative consoles but please people just STOP comparing apples to oranges, with Phones/tablets and consoles.

with phones and tablets, I make calls and send messages, people do not care whether that's on an old-ass Galaxy S2 or an Iphone 7.

home consoles have ONE job and and that is to play (as in "run") games as flawlessly as possible so I can play as undisturbed as possible, of fucking course I will give a damn about getting the gimped versions of my games.

the "Phones do it, why don't you embrace home console yearly iterations??" because smart phones all provide the base service: make phone calls. Everything else they've got, like a space for apps here and there, I decide whether I want more of it or not.

This isn't like deciding between 1TB or 500 GB on a console,it's going to a store day 1 and being greeted with "you've got a PS4? oh here is your gimped version, have fun"

I reserve judgment til sony announces but there is negative points to all of this

 

[GamerMax73]

Why? If PS5 ends up being a powerhouse with 300% PS4 CPU power, 14tflops GPU and 32 GB Ram (source my ass), what sense would it make to force all games to run in PS4 Neo. That would be holding the PS5 back unnecesarily.

So why bother releasing the Neo at all? What purpose is it serving? When do you expect this beast to arrive? What message is that sending to potential buyers of Neo?

PS4->PS5 : 2013->2019
Neo->PS5 : 2016->2019 - no native games, everything must run on PS4

I just don't see the point in releasing or buying a Neo in those circumstances. Those who haven't bought a PS4 by now are waiting for a price cut not a more powerful, more expensive model with no future of its own.

Also, I think you're over estimating what PS5 will likely be.

 

[dano1]

3 year cycle will be the norm. And I'm all for it!!

 

[jroc74]

has been probably said in this long ass thread and I am late to it but....

there are pros and cons to iterative consoles but please people just STOP comparing apples to oranges, with Phones/tablets and consoles.

with phones and tablets, I make calls and send messages, people do not care whether that's on an old-ass Galaxy S2 or an Iphone 7.

home consoles have ONE job and and that is to play (as in "run") games as flawlessly as possible so I can play as undisturbed as possible, of fucking course I will give a damn about getting the gimped versions of my games.

the "Phones do it, why don't you embrace home console yearly iterations??" because smart phones all provide the base service: make phone calls. Everything else they've got, like a space for apps here and there, I decide whether I want more of it or not.

This isn't like deciding between 1TB or 500 GB on a console,it's going to a store day 1 and being greeted with "you've got a PS4? oh here is your gimped version, have fun"

I reserve judgment til sony announces but there is negative points to all of this

Then why upgrade at all.....

On one hand some argued they are fashion accessories. Now its ppl dont care as long as they make calls n texts. I...also dont care as long as they make calls n texts. I used to care tho about the features, specs, etc. I have upgraded in a 6 months span one time..But some ppl do care...enough to spend more for an upgraded version of their phone or the new kid on the block. Or enough to get the phone at retail cost. (My fav phone manufactures are Motorola, Nokia and BB...that should give you an idea of how I feel about all this...lol. All arent as popular as they once were, 2 have been ridiculed in recent years for outdated specs.)

And many ppl dont care...with the low end, mid range phone also part of the smartphone market. If the features n specs of phones didnt matter....we would all still be rocking regular cell phones.

The point of the phone comparisons is....why upgrade at all if your phone still works as a phone....especially when new phones come yearly at times.

Like its been posted....and like you said:

home consoles have ONE job and and that is to play (as in "run") games as flawlessly as possible so I can play as undisturbed as possible, of fucking course I will give a damn about getting the gimped versions of my games.

This mainly comes down to a personal thing with some, probably many ppl.
Because if the Neo doesnt exist...ppl wouldnt be feeling this way about the PS4. Remember this is PS4 to Neo...where PS4 was technically the more powerful console vs the competition.

Those feelings in the console space would be directed towards XBO. I think lost in all this is XBO owners....must be pretty secure about their purchase...... And future XBO owners. Its in a decent 2nd place in sales.

Everything else they've got, like a space for apps here and there, I decide whether I want more of it or not.

Now apply that to the Neo.... I feel the 360 launching with no HDMI was or should be considered gimped. HDMI comes out about 2 years later and built in wifi with the 360 Slim? Hell, Sony gimped the PS3 by removing B/C with revisions.

Yea there are pros n cons... but it has to be beyond 2nd class citizen status, gimped console status. Only thing in this OP I dont like or agree on is the games as a service. As a business I understand why they want it. As a consumer, I dont want it.

 

[ty_hot]

nowadays after 5 years of a console the developers push it to its limits. with this ps4+ps4k idea every 3 or 4 years there will be a new system, so ofc devs wont push any hardware to its limits, both the 'ps4k upgraded version' and the 'ps4' version wont be nearly as good as they would be if both wouldnt exist at the same time, even in the same disc.

I wonder how it will affect game development. Specially sports games, usually in the beginning of the generation they introduce major changes, and then just basically do some graphic updates for the next years. When would they try to really improve their games in this different model?

For new IPs, I believe its a good change, as usually they come in the beginning of generations when there is a small user base, and after one or two years of its launch people dont want to buy those games anymore... and if there is a sequel, many people wont buy because they never heard/played before, so mixing generations might be great for those games.

 

[wazoo]

nowadays after 5 years of a console the developers push it to its limits. with this ps4+ps4k idea every 3 or 4 years there will be a new system, so ofc devs wont push any hardware to its limits, both the 'ps4k upgraded version' and the 'ps4' version wont be nearly as good as they would be if both wouldnt exist at the same time, even in the same disc.

Long learning time was always due to bad API and new architecture every time. Games were not getting better, it is just that first gen games were awful in understanding the hardware.

Now, with the new scheme, console will be exploited to the max much faster.

 

[JonathanPower]

Two things:
a) PS4 Neo will be all about 4k, both gaming and video-wise, when it comes to marketing
b) The PS4 already was not "what consoles were about", because it (and WiiU and XBOX One) were sold (almost) at cost, not heavily subsidized as in some earlier generations. And why do they all do that? Because this whole generational approach results in a huge risk of failing, which then results in being screwed for the next 5-6 years. If you screw up, you at least want to avoid selling your hardware at loss.

If that's true, do we have any confirmation that it has a UHD Blu-ray player?

 

[boredandlazy]

If that's true, do we have any confirmation that it has a UHD Blu-ray player?

I don't know if we have confirmation, but it'd be a stupid thing to omit.

 

[otakukidd]

Do they really?

So...are you saying it starts dropping calls, cant text that good anymore?

Because a phone has 2 functions...calls and texts. Primary being calls. Everything else...is the PS Neo. From specs to features.

I agree TV's might be a better example, but phones are valid too.

My point is...unless you actually have to.....you dont need to upgrade your phone. Many pp do it because they want to. And many ppl dont because they dont want or need to. And there is a group that pays for phones at retail.....they dont even care about the price.

When I mean they run like shit I mean they run like shit. battery life goes to hell, and it's laggy as hell. Phone have more than 2 features now. If they didn't, we would of stuck with flip phones. Game consoles run as good or better than when people buy them at the beginning of the generation(besides the ps3 store that's shit). If phones had the consistency of game consoles people wouldnt upgrade as much.