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

Excellent OP Chubs, I think you hit a lot of great points. PS4K makes a lot of sense from a technological and competitive standpoint. I find a lot of people don't like the idea because of irrational or theoretical fears, that stem from their expectations being challenged. I think it's important to take some assumptions that are at the heart of those expectations, and show why they aren't valid:

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

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



So what's the business reason for PS4K?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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



Lastly, the arguments that just make now sense to me

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

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

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

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

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



I think this will be a great thing for the industry. Many are asking why change a model that works? Well sure it works, but what if it could work better? I think it will. In the long run there will be more consoles in homes and more software sold.


THANK YOU! You hit all the points on the nail. This is what I've been trying to say for the past week, particularly that a PS5 in 2018 will not be a big enough upgrade to warrant a generational leap do to the slowing of HW advancements (Moore's Law doesn't apply anymore). It may be about 4-5 years from now until we get a significant node shrink to enable large perf gains. That would be ~8 years for this console gen which just isn't feasible in today's market.

People like Colin from PS I Love You need to just relax and stop overstating things. If the leaked documents are correct, nothing changes with the existing PS4. It's all about consumer choice and providing options. There is a very vocal minority of gamers who are complaining that the resolution and frame rate of PS4 games are not satisfactory. There is a vocal minority of developers that feel hampered by the already large delta between high end PC and consoles. And Sony themselves want to ensure that PSVR has the best chance of success out the gate. A more powerful box will be to address those people and needs only. It's also meant to extend the lifetime of the PS4 since again it will be a LONG wait until a true PS5 becomes viable. And the PS4 NEO is just a high end sku of the PS4, not a separate entity i.e Sega CD or 32X. Since all PS4 games will play on both skus, it will still count as part of the PS4 ecosystem and PS4 sales will count for both. It is unprecedented and thus risky and unfamiliar. But it's also exciting because at the end of day it will enable games to look and play even better than beore.
 
Do you really want every game being written and designed for some junky 5 year old hardware because that's where the userbase is largest?

It seems to me the problem is that with incremental upgrades you end up being perpetually way behind the technology curve.

How far behind the technology curve was PS3 in 2012?
How many games in 2013-2015 where pushing the PS4's limits? How many complaints where there of cross-gen PS3 titles holding PS4 back? How many complaints was there for PS4 re-releases of PS3 games?

Now map the answers to those questions against a slower curved iteration model

PS4 -> Neo -> PS5 ->

How is this model any different from the pre-existing generational model other than in hardware spec Neo is closer in performance to PS5 than PS4 would have been?

If anything the model should allow for better games earlier as the hardware gap is narrowed, the core architecture is the same, and the tools, middleware and API's get to mature rather than being forced into starting a fresh again.
 
Even ignoring the dozens of reasons that the phone market is not the same as the console market, and that Sony can't push fast mainstream acceptance in the same way that Apple can.......do you really want the games marketplace to turn into the iOS marketplace? Do you really want every game being written and designed for some junky 5 year old hardware because that's where the userbase is largest?

It seems to me the problem is that with incremental upgrades you end up being perpetually way behind the technology curve.

This is one of my bigger concerns and the effects aren't going to be instantly noticeable until we get a few iterations going. It amazes me people want to say don't complain until it happens; well when it happens, it'll be too late.
 
How far behind the technology curve was PS3 in 2012?
How many games in 2013-2015 where pushing the PS4's limits? How many complaints where there of cross-gen PS3 titles holding PS4 back? How many complaints was there for PS4 re-releases of PS3 games?

Now map the answers to those questions against a slower curved iteration model

PS4 -> Neo -> PS5 ->

How is this model any different from the pre-existing generational model other than in hardware spec Neo is closer in performance to PS5 than PS4 would have been?

If anything the model should allow for better games earlier as the hardware gap is narrowed, the core architecture is the same, and the tools, middleware and API's get to mature rather than being forced into starting a fresh again.

Games like Destiny were severely neutered of what could have been their true potential, in which we will probably not see until Destiny 2, due to the memory/tech limitations of the last gen consoles. We do not need this again. Thus I agree with you.
 
Games like Destiny were severely neutered of what could have been their true potential, in which we will probably not see until Destiny 2, due to the memory/tech limitations of the last gen consoles. We do not need this again. Thus I agree with you.

That doesn't go away with iterations. You're still going to be constrained by the lowest common denominator of a viable audience platform. If PS5 has four times the memory, and PS4 as a platform is still viable, you're still going to be constrained to less than 8GB. We could even get an iPhone/iPad case where they are much slower to upgrade RAM too.
 
That doesn't go away with iterations. You're still going to be constrained by the lowest common denominator of a viable audience platform. If PS5 has four times the memory, and PS4 as a platform is still viable, you're still going to be constrained to less than 8GB.

However, with the 4K you have over double the flops, as he said, which will be much closer to the PS5 than the PS4 would be, as well 33% more CPU speed, and more memory bandwidth.
 
This blog post is great, OP. I agree with it in many ways, but I also understand the anxiety surrounding the industry, particularly AAA game development. I wrote something similar for The Optional.

A common thread amongst the negative responses is the fear of obsolescence. This fear permeates much of the consumer technology sector—MacRumors features a buyer’s guide to inform readers on the best time to buy Apple products based on their release schedule history—but it’s unreasonable to expect companies to cower to it. A product promises you functionality, not a moratorium on technological progression. The NEO isn’t a kill-switch for your existing Playstation 4. The Playstation 4 you bought 2 years ago, maybe even 2 weeks ago, has not become worse at its job. There are hypothetical scenarios that may impact existing PS4's ability to perform to expectations, but they are just that: hypothetical.

Colin's argument seems to be "Wait a few more years and release the PS5 proper, the quantum leap," but he's ignoring, or perhaps just ignorant, to Intel & AMD's comments that indicate that may not be possible.

I've found many of the responses to the Neo to be puzzling, especially the "I'll just go to PC" ones. Why do people feel that platform has a more secure or promising future for traditional AAA game development? 75% of the revenue on that platform comes from free-to-play MOBAs, MMOs, and social network games. Those kind of titles are practically AWOL on consoles. Mobile is causing a huge contraction in the desktop computing space and no one seems to want to talk about the effect that will have on game development.

Market pressure isn’t driving this change, it’s behavioral. Apple is constantly forcing users to reassess what they require from a personal computer. They’ve thrown away the file system on iOS, pushed consumers from the web to the app, priced the Mac Pro out of competition, and launched a laptop with a single port. Microsoft, Intel, and AMD’s failure to win in mobile has limited their ability to influence the industry as whole. Mobile computing is the center of all our computing interactions. How bright of a future can AAA game development have on PC when the market is actively shunning the hardware required to experience traditional AAA titles? The PC may be the most profitable sector in gaming, but while numbers rarely lie, they almost never tell the full story.

I look at the move to iterative consoles as a survival one. It's a way to keep consoles relevant and intriguing. I'm curious to see how Sony decides to MARKET this machine. Are they simply changing the console cycle structure (PS4, PS4s, PS5, PS5s, etc.) or are they killing them all together? (This is the new PLAYSTATION, no number)
https://the-optional.com/innovation-iteration-and-uncertainty-42854ad0161c#.2ziq7lcxh
 
With this model of gen I buy another company console. I not change my PS4 for the same.5

For me PS4 + XO.5 or NX and not PS4 for PS4.5

More games more fun
 
However, with the 4K you have over double the flops, as he said, which will be much closer to the PS5 than the PS4 would be, as well 33% more CPU speed, and more memory bandwidth.

Again, it doesn't go away with iterations if you're still catering to the limitations of the lowest common denominator. Your example doesn't change with this move.
 
This blog post is great, OP. I agree with it in many ways, but I also understand the anxiety surrounding the industry, particularly AAA game development. I wrote something similar for The Optional.



Colin's argument seems to be "Wait a few more years and release the PS5 proper, the quantum leap," but he's ignoring, or perhaps just ignorant, to Intel & AMD's comments that indicate that may not be possible.

I've found many of the responses to the Neo to be puzzling, especially the "I'll just go to PC" ones. Why do people feel that platform has a more secure or promising future for traditional AAA game development? 75% of the revenue on that platform comes from free-to-play MOBAs, MMOs, and social network games. Those kind of titles are practically AWOL on consoles. Mobile is causing a huge contraction in the desktop computing space and no one seems to want to talk about the effect that will have on game development.



I look at the move to iterative consoles as a survival one. It's a way to keep consoles relevant and intriguing. I'm curious to see how Sony decides to MARKET this machine. Are they simply changing the console cycle structure (PS4, PS4s, PS5, PS5s, etc.) or are they killing them all together? (This is the new PLAYSTATION, no number)
https://the-optional.com/innovation-iteration-and-uncertainty-42854ad0161c#.2ziq7lcxh

Great post. And we have been echoing the bolded especially in these threads, but the detractor camp keeps putting their fingers in the ears with that important piece to the arguments.

Again, it doesn't go away with iterations if you're still catering to the limitations of the lowest common denominator. Your example doesn't change with this move.

Forget it. You are going to continue to argue the semantics of the point.

Nobody said 'it goes away', so don't strawman an argument. We are saying it lessens the gap. And that is a fact if specs are to be considered in the argument at all.
 
Forget it. You are going to continue to argue the semantics of the point.

Forget what? You're arguing Destiny was held back by cross gen because the developer had to still cater to the hardware limitations of the previous generations. Iterations doesn't solve that problem because developers will still have to cater to the lower viable platform still. In both scenarios, you're hardware restricted by the weakest viable platform. That's not semantics. That's pointing out the problem you think that gets solved, doesn't. In fact, it could very well heighten the problem because you always have older weaker models around in iterations.
 
Great post. And we have been echoing the bolded especially in these threads, but the detractor camp keeps putting their fingers in the ears with that important piece to the arguments.

Because a way to take it is to say that either PS5 is very very farther off or it will be a sucky upgrade.

Intel is not stopping to advance processors as manufacturing node updates slow down, they replace the tick & tock model with a three phase approach essentially adding a refine stage between a rock and the next tick. If this year we can get 14 npm chips then maybe in two or three more years we can get 10 npm chips or the second generation 14 nm designs.

Going back to the tick and tock model, the tock is where the fun actually happened IMHO ;).
 
Excellent OP Chubs, I think you hit a lot of great points. PS4K makes a lot of sense from a technological and competitive standpoint. I find a lot of people don't like the idea because of irrational or theoretical fears, that stem from their expectations being challenged. I think it's important to take some assumptions that are at the heart of those expectations, and show why they aren't valid:

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

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



So what's the business reason for PS4K?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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



Lastly, the arguments that just make now sense to me

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

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

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

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

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



I think this will be a great thing for the industry. Many are asking why change a model that works? Well sure it works, but what if it could work better? I think it will. In the long run there will be more consoles in homes and more software sold.

This hits the nail on the head. Well done. One thing I will say is in regards to this

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

I think consumers are actually going to be less confused with this business strategy. With new console generations, you see casual consumers get disappointed when they buy an Xbox game or whatever and realize when they get home that it doesn't work on their old Xbox, only on the new Xbox 360.

With console refreshes like PS4K, this is now eliminated. The PS4k game will work on your old system, there's no need to worry.

Mind you, eventually, consoles will advance to where your brand new game probably won't work on a 10 year old console, but that's not the case here in this instance with PS4K.
 
Because a way to take it is to say that either PS5 is very very farther off or it will be a sucky upgrade.

Intel is not stopping to advance processors as manufacturing node updates slow down, they replace the tick & tock model with a three phase approach essentially adding a refine stage between a rock and the next tick. If this year we can get 14 npm chips then maybe in two or three more years we can get 10 npm chips or the second generation 14 nm designs.

Going back to the tick and tock model, the tock is where the fun actually happened IMHO ;).

Yes, the PS5 is further off than those expect, and the jump would not be worth it with current APU pricing and nodes that are out.

To make the next step, it has to be affordable for the mass market ($399), and in 2018 it will not. 2109/20 is the earliest, and I am leaning more towards 2020 personally for a Zen/Polaris/HBM2 set up.

It is my belief the next evolution for graphics tech will be raytracing based, and that will need a 10TF+ box. Plenty doable at $399 in 2019/20, not in 2018 or less with current fabs/power draw.
 
How far behind the technology curve was PS3 in 2012?

Very far behind. The point is though that consoles leap forward on a generational basis though. Every 5-7 years you get new hotness that comes closer to cutting edge.

With the iterational model though, you will never have that -- developers will always and forever be targeting old devices that have long since worn out their capabilities. Phone games have to run on some junkass $99 Android handset, so therefore they don't even remotely take advantage of newer hardware.

What happens is we end up in a perpetual "cross generation" since developers will always and consistently be ignoring newer hardware to cater to a larger userbase. At least in the generational model, the cross-gen stuff died relatively quickly.
 
I feel I'm the poster boy for this iterative console model. I'm cash rich, time poor. I spent 20 years of my life building better PCs every few years but now I have a family and limited space in my home, not to mention less time to piss around with drivers and the general shitness of running windows on my PC. I'll happily give Sony £400 every 2 years for a decent upgrade. I really don't see the problem, the PS4 I bought at launch can not suddenly do less than it could before, I've just been given the option to enhance my experience if I wish to.
 
I feel I'm the poster boy for this iterative console model. I'm cash rich, time poor. I spent 20 years of my life building better PCs every few years but now I have a family and limited space in my home, not to mention less time to piss around with drivers and the general shitness of running windows on my PC. I'll happily give Sony £400 every 2 years for a decent upgrade. I really don't see the problem, the PS4 I bought at launch can not suddenly do less than it could before, I've just been given the option to enhance my experience if I wish to.

You sound like someone who is married to my wife.
 
2.3x more performance is not marginal. If the system only has a 3 year life span with games that are marginally better than their PS4 counter parts - why bother? I don't get it. There's no real point in buying or owning a Neo. I'm not suggesting Sony should lock PS5 to Neo, or course not. What I'm suggesting is Sony are smoothing the curve between cross-generation systems. The Neo will be closer to PS5 than PS4 is. Neo only makes sense if it is supported beyond PS4 in this cross generation period. Whether that's a full 3 years into PS5 when the next iteration might hit, or a shorter time frame I'd expect the market to decide based on Neo vs P5 installed user base.

But that's wrong, which makes almost your entire point illogical. If your talking about the PS4K being closer to the PS5 than the PS4 being to Neo, my rebuttal is that your only talking about GPU power with 2.3 more performance. By the time PS5 comes out, the Zen CPU will destroy Jaguar, the HBM memory will destroy GDDR5 limitations and bandwidth, and the GPU will go far beyond what 4tflops could render with ease, not just in terms of CU count, but architecture and further silicon reductions.

That isn't something that the Neo could help, especially since the CPU going into the Neo versus the CPU going into the PS5 has a big impact on how interactive game worlds can be, which is a big portion of game design itself.

We're talking about a better system in gneral.
 
Very far behind. The point is though that consoles leap forward on a generational basis though. Every 5-7 years you get new hotness that comes closer to cutting edge.

With the iterational model though, you will never have that -- developers will always and forever be targeting old devices that have long since worn out their capabilities. Phone games have to run on some junkass $99 Android handset, so therefore they don't even remotely take advantage of newer hardware.

What happens is we end up in a perpetual "cross generation" since developers will always and consistently be ignoring newer hardware to cater to a larger userbase. At least in the generational model, the cross-gen stuff died relatively quickly.

It amazes me how a lot of people don't see this. Heck, even PC gamers who suddenly get a huge jump in visuals because the new consoles become the standard baseline when it comes to major productions in games.
 
But that's wrong, which makes almost your entire point illogical. Your only talking about GPU power with 2.3 more performance. By the time PS5 comes out, the Zen CPU will destroy Jaguar, the HBM memory will destroy GDDR5 limitations and bandwidth, and the GPU will go far beyond what 4tflops could render with ease, not just in terms of CU count, but architecture and further silicon reductions.

That isn't something that the Neo could help, especially since the CPU going into the Neo has a big impact on how interactive game worlds can be, which is a big portion of game design itself.

We're talking about a better system in gneral.

Depends. Well, obviously, you're right. But at the same time, PS5 is limited by that magical $399 price tag. So the tech may be available quite soon, but it will still take quite a while before all of that fits into an energy-efficient $399 box. I for one actually hope that it will be affordable as soon as possible, because if PS5 isn't another true generational leap tech-wise, why bother naming it PS5 in the first place...
 
It amazes me how a lot of people don't see this. Heck, even PC gamers who suddenly get a huge jump in visuals because the new consoles become the standard baseline when it comes to major productions in games.

Because there is no facts that support this yet. It is pure speculation... 'filling in the blanks' that can either be here nor there.

This does not mean there will not be a PS5 with a huge jump in the 10TF+ range due to the tech that will be available for $399 at the time (2019/20), to get your leaps we are used to.

Hence why we need to wait and hear Sony's announcement, and sub-sequential interviews, hopefully, asking the right questions.

Depends. Well, obviously, you're right. But at the same time, PS5 is limited by that magical $399 price tag. So the tech may be available quite soon, but it will still take quite a while before all of that fits into an energy-efficient $399 box. I for one actually hope that it will be affordable as soon as possible, because if PS5 isn't another true generational leap tech-wise, why bother naming it PS5 in the first place...

Agreed.
 
With the iterational model though, you will never have that -- developers will always and forever be targeting old devices that have long since worn out their capabilities.

In practice we never see titles that do a great job of leveraging new hardware in the first few years. It takes time to come up to speed with the technology, plan new titles, and until the installed base grows to the point where it makes business sense to produce a title you can't also release on the earlier generation. Sound familiar? What we're most likely to see in an iterative world is actually pretty close to how things work in the generational model, only without the pain of porting across architectures and APIs.

... and without the risk attached to trying to guess when a generational leap is going to occur and how fast it will be adopted. Instead you're always planning on a smaller delta and a customer base that rides the wave at whatever pace and price point they're comfortable with. If everything works well, in any case. There's obviously room for mistakes to be made along the way — which as we've seen is absolutely true of the old model as well!
 
You sound like someone who is married to my wife.
image.php
 
Depends. Well, obviously, you're right. But at the same time, PS5 is limited by that magical $399 price tag. So the tech may be available quite soon, but it will still take quite a while before all of that fits into an energy-efficient $399 box. I for one actually hope that it will be affordable as soon as possible, because if PS5 isn't another true generational leap tech-wise, why bother naming it PS5 in the first place...

Its not going to be a 'generational leap' like we saw in years past anyway, atleast in regards to GPU, because Neo will have been 4TFLOPS, and PS5 will have at most 15 or so by the time it comes out, so at the very most a 3 or 4x upgrade as opposed to a 10x upgrade for graphics rendering

But the CPU, and the RAM upgrades can definitively mitigate that.

The the CPU is the biggest wildcard in all of this, because CPU power in consoles have been constantly less of a priority than GPU power since atleast 2006 when 360 came out, which did not have the best CPU it could have had even then..and while PS3 had a beast of a CPU, it as handicapped to only specific tasks and was very hard to leverage, and also had to take over the slack of a very under-powered GPU as well.

If the PS5 is relatively balanced with a powerful GPU, and an i7 level Zen CPU, and devs had full access to that, it could signal a significant paradigm shift in terms of modern game design as we know it.

Ironically, because the RAM upgrade for PS4 was so large, they could just double the RAM and still have a beast of a unit...whereas in previous gens, the memory footprint would increase by well over 10x every time, and that was still consistently the handicap of the unit by the end of its life, from the PS1 all the way to the 360 and PS3.
 
Because there is no facts that support this yet. It is pure speculation... 'filling in the blanks' that can either be here nor there.

This does not mean there will not be a PS5 with a huge jump in the 10TF+ range due to the tech that will be available for $399 at the time (2019/20), to get your leaps we are used to.

Hence why we need to wait and hear Sony's announcement, and sub-sequential interviews, hopefully, asking the right questions.

Well you can't have it both ways. If we get the huge jump, then your Destiny problem still becomes the same glaring issue and things don't improve on that front. If we don't get the huge jump, and it's more of a gradual iteration, then you have the problem of developers working towards the widest audience. Heck, even with the huge jump, that still doesn't eliminate developers catering to the widest audience, especially if moving forward, there's not just backwards compatibility but forward compatibility. If anything, the mobile development demonstrates this because due to the younger nature of the hardware on that front, there are bigger jumps happening early on compared to what we're getting now in the PC/console space.
 
In practice we never see titles that do a great job of leveraging new hardware in the first few years. It takes time to come up to speed with the technology, plan new titles, and until the installed base grows to the point where it makes business sense to produce a title you can't also release on the earlier generation. Sound familiar? What we're most likely to see in an iterative world is actually pretty close to how things work in the generational model, only without the pain of porting across architectures and APIs.

I would probably take issue with the idea that it takes "years" for new hardware to be leveraged in games.....even in Year 1 stuff like Dead Rising 3, Infamous Second Son, and Assassin's Creed Unity were looking head and shoulders above their predecessors. But let's maybe ignore that.

All told, the cross generation AAA stuff mostly died in 2 years' time. But how long is that going to take under an iterative model? Assuming that each successive console revision is only a modest bump in specs and has no exclusive games, you can't really expect them to sell 50-60M units in the first couple years like PS4/XboxOne collectively did. Because uptake on newer revisions will be slow, developers will be even slower to switch over to newer hardware.

Apple can launch a phone that sells 50 million units in a single quarter, and yet their third party developers have little if any will to make features or games exclusive to the iPhone 6S. What hope does a console have?
 
I don't blame them for trying to stay alive, but I see no reason to advertise their product for them or evangelize the idea of iterative consoles.
Why should you want to advocate or evangelize for the status quo? You realize that's just based on a business model, a marketing idea that this market has just gotten used to over the past 30-40 years, right? The "idea" of iterative consoles is not so much an idea as the basic state of technology, glossed over by a marketing routine that's made this market believe it's better to wait 5-6 yrs for a "generation leap" than to take the more natural iterations produced more frequently. It's become so ingrained, it's no wonder so many people panic at the thought of doing anything different.

PS4K fucks over early adopters. No matter how much you try to spin it any other way will change that fact.
Day 1 early adopter here. The news of the PS4K doesn't make me feel f*cked in the slightest. Perhaps you could explain why I should feel so bad about device I don't have to buy, which doesn't change the amount of entertainment I've gotten from the device I already own.
 
Well you can't have it both ways. If we get the huge jump, then your Destiny problem still becomes the same glaring issue and things don't improve on that front. If we don't get the huge jump, and it's more of a gradual iteration, then you have the problem of developers working towards the widest audience. Heck, even with the huge jump, that still doesn't eliminate developers catering to the widest audience, especially if moving forward, there's not just backwards compatibility but forward compatibility. If anything, the mobile development demonstrates this because due to the younger nature of the hardware on that front, there are bigger jumps happening early on compared to what we're getting now in the PC/console space.

While a leap issue, which will always happen, it is not as glaring... as a 1.84Tflop machine. Come on man.

PS4K fucks over early adopters. No matter how much you try to spin it any other way will change that fact.

No it doesn't. No matter how much you try believe it does.

Why should you want to advocate or evangelize for the status quo? You realize that's just based on a business model, a marketing idea that this market has just gotten used to over the past 30-40 years, right? The "idea" of iterative consoles is not so much an idea as the basic state of technology, glossed over by a marketing routine that's made this market believe it's better to wait 5-6 yrs for a "generation leap" than to take the more natural iterations produced more frequently. It's become so ingrained, it's no wonder so many people panic at the thought of doing anything different.

Very good points. It triggers a cognitive response initially.
 
PS4K fucks over early adopters. No matter how much you try to spin it any other way will change that fact.

PS3 Slim fucked over Yellow light early adopters, Xbox 360 S with non RROD internals fucked over early adopters of red ring prone adopters.

Replace having your console brick with better performance.
 
Zhuge doing work.

PS4K fucks over early adopters. No matter how much you try to spin it any other way will change that fact.

image.php


Also... not a "fact".

And, as a Day 1 early adopter, I don't see this as me being "fucks over".

But hey, rock on!

As soon as I saw the heading "Games as a service" I decided not to read.

"Games as a service" is one of the worst ideas for video games and should not be supported at all costs. It's fine if you think this is important and "necessary" but it's not. Justify it all you want. It's not necessary in anyway shape or form.

Solid reasoning. I'm convinced.
 
As soon as I saw the heading "Games as a service" I decided not to read.

"Games as a service" is one of the worst ideas for video games and should not be supported at all costs. It's fine if you think this is important and "necessary" but it's not. Justify it all you want. It's not necessary in anyway shape or form.
 
PS4K fucks over early adopters. No matter how much you try to spin it any other way will change that fact.
I bought a PS4 day 1 and I'm on board with upgrading after three years, a reasonable time frame for a revision. I already have a large PS4 library and I'm excited about being able to continue to play all those games and even have some be enhanced.
 
PS3 Slim fucked over Yellow light early adopters, Xbox 360 S with non RROD internals fucked over early adopters of red ring prone adopters.

Replace having your console brick with better performance.

Those were design flaws. As far as I can see the PS4 has no major issues.

Early adopters? Aren't we all early adopters? What are you afraid of exactly?

I don't think afraid is the right word. People buy a console with the mindset that it will be they will be able to play all the latest games for the next 7 or so years with graphics that are on par with everyone else.

To make it simple, if you want better graphics you have to buy another console that can handle it. I already have a PC. So I don't want another. And if you think the console crowd wants something like this, i believe you're sorely mistaken.
 
Usually console manufacturers start to make money on their systems 2 or 3 years after release. That's when costs really start to come down, user bases go up and game sales crank up, bringing profits right up. I don't think taking the focus away from your console every time its hitting its stride in order to focus on another loss leaders is the best idea. Yeah the older console will still be supported by the same games so it can still continue to sell. But the point is it'll be seen as old hat, right at the time when the console manufacturer wants it to be selling at its peak they themselves will have made it look bad. I don't see that as a good idea as a long term strategy for console manufacturers. Unless they're all going to start making profits from day one on all console releases, in which case its bad for consumers.

For developers, they now have extra work developing a game for one console while also ensuring it works well enough on the last console. Not to mention the vision they have for a new game on the newest hardware will always be tempered by the question "but will this work on the older consoles?".

Backwards comparability, the suggestion that now the game you buy in 2013 will work on your new console in 2023, I don't see why. Changing the length of generations from 10 or 6 years (depending if we're talking Sony or Nintendo) to 3 years doesn't change the inherent forward momentum of technology. It has no effect on manufacturers wanting to use new tech that in the end becomes incompatible with older hardware. That's not to say they couldn't keep compatibility 10 years down the line if they all stay with AMD for both CPU and GPU, but that would be equally possible no matter how long the gap between consoles.
 
joms5 said:
Those were design flaws. As far as I can see the PS4 has no major issues.
PS4K is going to occupt the same retail-space that PS3 60GB or XBox Elite held(or large-memory Phone-skus do for that matter) - a premium SKU that appeals to select subset of the buying population (and re-buying population).
The main difference is that it offers actual tangible hardware improvements as opposed to "HDMI port" or "60% more hard-drive space and Chrome plated logo", but fundamentally it's still bringing nothing new to the table either (and nothing that impacts early adopters, except maybe penis envy).

This has been mentioned before - but Neo is a good thing for most parties involved:
Sony
Consumer
Publisher

It's not really a good thing for Developers, but 3 out of 4 isn't bad I guess?
 
Those were design flaws. As far as I can see the PS4 has no major issues.



I don't think afraid is the right word. People buy a console with the mindset that it will be they will be able to play all the latest games for the next 7 or so years with graphics that are on par with everyone else.

To make it simple, if you want better graphics you have to buy another console that can handle it. I already have a PC. So I don't want another. And if you think the console crowd wants something like this, i believe you're sorely mistaken.
Uh I don't think there's any rule that requires consoles to last at least 7-8 years so I guess those new consoles will correct people's mindset. Also, I don't get why so many people are surprised when consoles gradually become different. Technology is changing everything as we know, and gaming console is not exception. We have yet to know if those changes will be for better or worse, but it's interesting to see how consoles will evolve from now on.
 
Why should you want to advocate or evangelize for the status quo? You realize that's just based on a business model, a marketing idea that this market has just gotten used to over the past 30-40 years, right? The "idea" of iterative consoles is not so much an idea as the basic state of technology, glossed over by a marketing routine that's made this market believe it's better to wait 5-6 yrs for a "generation leap" than to take the more natural iterations produced more frequently. It's become so ingrained, it's no wonder so many people panic at the thought of doing anything different.

This isn't an either/or scenario where you have to be actively for or against something. I've voiced my doubts about the viability of iterative consoles elsewhere, here I'm attacking the notion that somehow, before these things are even announced, we need to get everyone on board for it. It's proverbial damage control before the damage has even been done.

Very good points. It triggers a cognitive response initially.

I see the whole thing as a bubbling of the fear of eventual irrelevancy. "Consoles have to do something to keep up", "They're doing this to lessen the gap between consoles and PC" - both the hype and the hate is a result of that fear of change. "I'll never PC game, I just don't like it, consoles are the best for me, that's why I'm okay with this, it means consoles will be saved"; "I don't like PC gaming, that's why I hate this change in consoles, they'll be fine the way things are" - they're two sides of the same coin. Both seem to stem from a disdain for PC and an uncertainty about how the status quo can be maintained. When I hear "things can't stay like this, consoles need to adapt and get with the times", what I'm reading from it is "I want my status quo to remain with consoles, this new approach means they'll be around longer and that will maintain that status quo for me so long as they exist". The opposite is also true for those who hate the change because it goes against what a console means to them. Again, it's two sides of the same coin - a fear of losing console gaming.
 
PS4K is going to occupt the same retail-space that PS3 60GB or XBox Elite held(or large-memory Phone-skus do for that matter) - a premium SKU that appeals to select subset of the buying population (and re-buying population).
The main difference is that it offers actual tangible hardware improvements as opposed to "HDMI port" or "60% more hard-drive space and Chrome plated logo", but fundamentally it's still bringing nothing new to the table either (and nothing that impacts early adopters, except maybe penis envy).

This has been mentioned before - but Neo is a good thing for most parties involved:
Sony
Consumer
Publisher

It's not really a good thing for Developers, but 3 out of 4 isn't bad I guess?

Explain how this is good for the consumer?
 
This isn't an either/or scenario where you have to be actively for or against something. I've voiced my doubts about the viability of iterative consoles elsewhere, here I'm attacking the notion that somehow, before these things are even announced, we need to get everyone on board for it. It's proverbial damage control before the damage has even been done.



I see the whole thing as a bubbling of the fear of eventual irrelevancy. "Consoles have to do something to keep up", "They're doing this to lessen the gap between consoles and PC" - both the hype and the hate is a result of that fear of change. "I'll never PC game, I just don't like it, consoles are the best for me, that's why I'm okay with this, it means consoles will be saved"; "I don't like PC gaming, that's why I hate this change in consoles, they'll be fine the way things are" - they're two sides of the same coin. Both seem to stem from a disdain for PC and an uncertainty about how the status quo can be maintained. When I hear "things can't stay like this, consoles need to adapt and get with the times", what I'm reading from it is "I want my status quo to remain with consoles, this new approach means they'll be around longer and that will maintain that status quo for me so long as they exist". The opposite is also true for those who hate the change because it goes against what a console means to them. Again, it's two sides of the same coin - a fear of losing console gaming.
It seems like the reality of that fear is coming to fruition though.

Look I agree with everything you're saying, but what exactly are you doing here? Backing up your opinion that this iterative thing is a bad idea. I've tried doing that too, but it amounts to what? No amount of either of us or any of us will stop the inevitable which is the console gaming industry becoming like every other electronic device industry. No matter how much we say we hate it or try to fight it, this is what's going to happen.
 
Top Bottom