Because so called early adopters do not wait.
The Case for the PS4K: an important, and necessary, change for the industry.
- Thread starter chubigans
- Start date
The Artisan
Member
Other than a slice in price they never had a reason to.
Exactly. I don't know why it would be hard to imagine some people choosing to hold off and get a definitive version of the console. Hell people do it for games themselves all the time.
Pathfinder
Member
Exactly. Regardless if this is the way the industry is headed, the whole thing is unprecedented for video game consoles.
I, for one, might have waited to pull the trigger to purchase consoles for this gen if I knew I'd be able to get a better console than the launch model if I waited awhile.
Pestilence11
Member
My problem with it is every 3 yrs paying $400 for 2x performance rather than 6 yrs and 8x performance.
David Ricardo
Member
It's great because if you just payed 400 for a 1tb og PS4 with the division, before the year ends, other consumers will pay the same amount for a PS4 neo with more than twice the GPU power that will play against you with better frame rate/graphics/resolution.
Isn't it great for those consumers?
Oh, by the way, the time developers spend in the PS4 Neo version is time they are not going to be spending in the og PS4 version, so maybe your games will run a little bit worse or release a little bit later than they would if the PS4 Neo didn't exist.
It's really good for the consumer, and by that I mean the one who buys PS4 Neo this year. The one who just paid 400 for an og PS4 got shafted, but that's how technology works this days. You have to accept it.
soul creator
Member
-If a consumer is the type of person that doesn't care about PC's, but does care a lot about performance, this can be good for them, since they now have an option to upgrade.
-If a consumer hasn't bought a PS4 yet, and wants to get a fancier version of one to make use of their new 4K TV or whatever, it's good for them. As with pretty much every other console that's been release throughout history (and technology product in general), if you're willing to wait a bit, you can get a better deal. It's up to every individual consumer to decide how much they want to wait.
For others who already have a PS4, and aren't the type to be super concerned with graphics (assuming a basic minimum playable standard is reached), it doesn't really do anything for them. Which is fine, as obviously not every product fits every consumer's needs perfectly. But it doesn't hurt them either since they're still getting all the same PS4 games, and support isn't being cut off for it. They've been able to play all the current PS4 games, and they will continue to be able to play future PS4 games.
At worst, some developers might ignore the base PS4 version and pour all their optimization time into the Neo version, leading to a worse experience for the base PS4 owner. But that happens already (other platforms exist, after all), and has happened throughout the entirety of gaming history, so it's not like the Neo would be the cause of this problem. And of course, there's no market incentive for developers to do that, so they would be hurting themselves. So the chances of it becoming a pervasive thing seem pretty low.
The only way it becomes a pervasive thing is if somehow the Neo comes out and completely outsells the base PS4, and everyone starts to get rid of their old PS4's. But that scenario likely wouldn't happen until years from now, at which point it would be new console time anyway.
edit: based on the above post, I suppose the person more likely to be "hurt" is the person who bought a PS4 just before it was announced. Which does suck. But as with the "developers might make shitty PS4 games now!", that's hardly a PS4 or Neo specific issue, unless we're arguing against any hardware change at all (so I hope the folks making that argument also aren't the same people that are salivating for "Slim" revisions)
The Artisan
Member
that's the key thing here bro. hardcore playstation owners who have bought and owned a playstation have bought software for it for 5-7 years, never having to buy hardware in that span of time, and they probably planned to do the same thing when they bought the Ps4. the Ps4K is going to change everything.
I find it rather disingenuous that people seem to act as though their existing hardware will be completely inert, and thus trashed, in the favor of wanting to go for the PS4k, if you so desire.
As has been stated, there is nothing stopping people from selling their existing systems, and putting that towards a new purchase, rather than dropping the entire costs of a new system, either on existing trade in programs, or the almost certain programs that will be introduced by the various retailers at the time of launch/release to entice people towards that new hardware. Please stop making the "I have to spend another $400!" unless you are going to say you are either buying a second system and keeping your first, or throwing out your first, to go along with it. Otherwise, it just feels like a really trite comment.
This does not fuck over early adopters. I'm a day one purchaser. This does not in any way impact me. Not at all.
Also, those people above me stating that how many people would have waited: Not many. Most people that have been purchasing their systems, have been doing so for the larger software purchases that are driving said system purchases... And while GAF is rather insular with the number of PC/Console dual owners, that's not the large spectrum market that drives these things.
Also, @Artisan above me - This changes the momentum going forward, but if you're a current PS4 owner, it changes nothing. You don't have to do a damn thing. You already have the hardware capable of playing all the games that will be released on both pieces of hardware. And going forward into new 'generational' updates, it will start to create more alterations based on the forward compatibility format, but that is a different discussion in the first place. But no one is forced to buy ANYTHING here, and this argument is getting really tired.
As has been stated, there is nothing stopping people from selling their existing systems, and putting that towards a new purchase, rather than dropping the entire costs of a new system, either on existing trade in programs, or the almost certain programs that will be introduced by the various retailers at the time of launch/release to entice people towards that new hardware. Please stop making the "I have to spend another $400!" unless you are going to say you are either buying a second system and keeping your first, or throwing out your first, to go along with it. Otherwise, it just feels like a really trite comment.
This does not fuck over early adopters. I'm a day one purchaser. This does not in any way impact me. Not at all.
Also, those people above me stating that how many people would have waited: Not many. Most people that have been purchasing their systems, have been doing so for the larger software purchases that are driving said system purchases... And while GAF is rather insular with the number of PC/Console dual owners, that's not the large spectrum market that drives these things.
Also, @Artisan above me - This changes the momentum going forward, but if you're a current PS4 owner, it changes nothing. You don't have to do a damn thing. You already have the hardware capable of playing all the games that will be released on both pieces of hardware. And going forward into new 'generational' updates, it will start to create more alterations based on the forward compatibility format, but that is a different discussion in the first place. But no one is forced to buy ANYTHING here, and this argument is getting really tired.
You seem to be ignoring that some people genuinely prefer the iterative approach and it's not simply a matter of cheerleading or doing damage control for the sake of the manufacturer. This is a difference of opinion that's existed for years, it's at the very heart of the pc vs console debate. We've had many variations on this same conversation years and years before "these things" were even rumored, nevermind announced. Going back, well, generations.
Pathfinder
Member
Just because you don't feel fucked over doesn't mean others won't as well. Opinions and all that.
Marty Chinn
Member
Ya. Perception has always outweighed reality and logic so we shouldn't be completely dismissing it.
Ah, but that's the thing. If they feel that way, it's going to be a minority, as there's nothing to reflect on it being any kind of context on the larger whole, despite what others were trying to paint.
My statement is based off of both my own perception as a day 1 purchaser, but also from retail, as discussed in the thread last week. It falls well within the lines of pretty common retail trends for iterative hardware, and even if it is a 'brave new world' for gaming consoles, the divided commentary we're seeing here is unlikely to carry over to actual sales markets at all. It's only in insular communities like these where the debate happens at all.
gundamkyoukai
Member
Well from what devs said it better than a whole new gen where all the hardware changes .
But i guess that was thing of the pass when they went x86 anyway .
I bought my ps4 in february just to find out in march that they're gonna release a bigger better system. I don't have a single penny extra to spend on another system. Had I known about the PS4k I would have waited. I don't have anymore money to buy another system whether I sell my current system or not. This PS4k news has not been good news for me and I DEFINITELY don't see this as a important and necessary change. Just a barefaced moneygrab (That could be because i'm angry though)
So, would I not qualify as a "hardcore playstation owner" if I had been an early adopter of every PS console to this point but didn't necessarily feel tied to an arbitrary 5-7 year lifespan to get my money's worth? Like, if I said that I'm perfectly happy with the value I've gotten from the PS4 a mere 3 yrs into ownership and that I would certainly consider an upgrade assuming I deem the boost worthwhile, am I not hardcore enough?
I mean, does anyone see how silly it is to have to amortize the value of buying a $400 luxury item over the span of 5-7 years?!?! If it really takes anyone that long to justify its purchase in the first place, isn't that saying something about how much enjoyment you're actually getting out of the thing?
The Artisan
Member
If you're getting tired of this argument you don't have to keep arguing against it, but there's a reason why people like me aren't on board with it. And we won't agree on this. If I want to play my playstation games in the best capacity, I am forced to buy the Ps4K. Not literally, obviously, but it does change things for early adopters.
I wasn't speaking for all hardcore playstation owners. but i am one, and my post describes myself and others likeminded. to each their own. i've said it countless times in this thread that if you are on board with this then more power to you, but at least try to be empathetic to those who aren't, instead of dismissive.
We shall see, but personally I'm not convinced. I think this divisive sentiment is going to carry right through to the release and post release of the PS4K, especially if PS4 versions of games start getting shitter, with less reliable frame rates and worse resolution or IQ than what had gone before it. That's 40 million potential pissed off customers if games start dropping the ball, but it all depends on how Sony and developers handle it.
If there is an Xbox 1.5 along with the PS4K and NX, and multiplatform developers struggle to manage their time amongst such fragmentation and so many different platforms, I can see things getting a whole lot worse for consumers across the board.
The funny part of that is the people who prefer iterative should already be PC gamers because that is one of the main tenets of PC gaming, but many of them appear to balk at the idea. In any case, not only the OP but all of the supporting arguments I see for iterative consoles being the future that -should- be taken is distinctly on the persuasive side, attempting to rally support to guarantee the success of this new console that doesn't officially exist yet. Like herding cows into a barn. So as far as I'm reading, it absolutely has everything to do with cheerleading in the case of this thread. How long the iterative vs. not debate has been going on for through the years is irrelevant.
If you want to play the game the best way the ps4 is capable of playing it, you don't have to do a Damn thing. If you'd like to take the luxury of premium hardware to get more out of the same software, then you could invest in the premium product. The issue is your perception, not the product itself. And that means that you have nothing to add, all you're going to do is try and find other voices to agree with you when people like myself, devs, cosmic, etc point out the reasoning and likelihood of what will happen here.
And that's why it's tiring. You're not saying anything, you're going in circles because it's not saying what you want. Not everyone is going to be pleased. I'm not rooting for or against this, though from all the dev insight we've gotten, it's certainly seemed like this is a really big positive going forward for helping with development.
Pathfinder
Member
Fair enough. It will definitely be interesting to see if your hypothesis holds true when the iterative hardware is released.
40 million wont be pissed heck 30 million probably wont even know or care. They will play their games and be happy. They aren't on message boards or watch DF comparison videos.
This is true. The mass market doesn't care much about the 4.5 one way or another.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
PS3 also had better BC and extra memory card readers support in the 60 GB model
.Consumer wise, it does enable you to spend some more money and also get some extra features, but moving to shorter iteration cycles means focusing on higher and higher launch day profit margins which is another change to the console model that consumers may or may not like
. I want Sony to keep making consoles and games, but if they point to Apple like console margins and yearly releases I am not sure what kind of game console makers they will be. We shall see, but as a consumer and someone who likes the traditional console game business I prefer to be a bit sceptical... the fact that it does not improve developers' life has also an usually bad effect on consumers who will pay the price in one way or another 
.Marty Chinn
Member
Or the mass market will see it as a replacement system and think WTF, it's being replaced already? We're talking about a mass market who got confused between a Wii and a Wii U. Their perception isn't necessarily going to be matched with reality.
Tried to stay away from all this drama, but out of curiosity to the early adopters who say that if they knew about ps4k they would've waited out these 3 years before jumping in, isn't this the same thing as having a ps4 and waiting now another 3 or whatever for ps5 or whatever comes next?
What are you actually even talking about? That is not the sentiment at all. Developer feedback based on sources (that we know of) is as divided as gamer sentiment. You have a dev on record saying it's a pain in the ass, then you have Shinobi and Colin's sources saying the same. Then you have less than a handful of devs on GAF saying they either don't mind it, and only maybe three actually favouring it. Important to note is that one of those developers is a Sony employee who was down on the idea previously when it regarded the Xbox One getting an iterative upgrade instead of the PS4, and the other is a starting indie developer, who I believe is working on their first proper release. How you're trying to skew that as dev insight pointing to this being a big positive is absolutely beyond me. Right now from the murmurs we're getting, things are very much divided.
And how on Earth does having to develop for an additional piece of hardware (Eg requiring additional extra work to build yet another version of a game) help with development?
The Last One
Member
Because WiiU's message to the mass market was horrible.
There's no way this is going to happen. Especially with it already playing the exact same games, and enabling Sony to lower the price of the core system. Enhancing it and advertising it as a premium model does not create that kind of consumer confusion.
Seriously. Maybe I need to bump my retail thread, because that point has been beaten to death as well. We have extensive networks of retail chains, through the Gamestops, Best Buys, etc. and Sony will market this extensively to make sure the message is clear that it is a PS4 with additional perks, if you want to pay for the upgrade.
Consumer confusion with the Wii U happened because the Wii U was a travesty of marketing. As a sequel system, it had little to help differentiate itself by name or identifiable qualities, and it collapsed out of the gate with no momentum, despite being a NEW generational system.
Marty Chinn
Member
Not really. In the past 30+ years of console gaming we've had regular generations and often in the early stages of those generations, game releases were fewer and sparse with a console being more expensive. Early adopters could jump in early, pay a bit more and know they would be set for the rest of the generation. Other people might feel they should wait until the price drops and software availability is more plentiful because that was also the expected behavior of the console market. So the concept of waiting a bit before jumping in isn't uncommon or new and it's not the same as waiting for a full generation change.
I think at worst they'll just shrug their shoulders and buy the cheaper console if they were out to buy a PS4. The 4K doesn't seem like something that would appeal to the mass market. Smartphone and tablet manufacturers get away with it because their products are high-demand lifestyle devices that not only serve a functional purpose and need, but are also symbols of our individuality (or conformality) and status. Gaming consoles are not those, and I don't believe the market will be expanded by the 4K's existence. Indirectly perhaps, by a price drop on the PS4 - but that would occur because of the price drop, regardless of the 4K.
The 'dev' on record hasn't worked in game development in years, and is speculating on the concept of it. We have developers like Chubs and the gent from Absinthe games both discussing more in depth aspects of what it is like to actually develop on the current gen systems, and the point I was making is this:
That moving forward, it would alleviate the issue of generational leaps and the restart process on tools, development knowledge and the spectrum of launch games/risk. That It helps keep the ecosystem consistent and the developer structure able to iterate on itself more tightly, as was being covered extensively earlier in this thread, I suggest you click back a few pages if you didn't read, it was interesting stuff.
Besides, this is still at its heart, a PS4 system, with modified aspects for the levels of power, and it isn't like developing for an entirely different system outright, as has been stated repeatedly.
gundamkyoukai
Member
And how many people are Shinobi \Colin's sources are they indie or aaa ?
Truth is we don't how developer feedback really is either way .
Plus we all know that not all devs are equal which will play a part .
Marty Chinn
Member
I agree. The thing is, we don't know what Sony's message to the mass market will be at this point so we can't be quick to assume everything is going to be fine. We also don't know how well people will embrace the message either since it's a new one.
PlayStation Vita? PlayStation TV? $599 PS3? Let's not pretend that Sony is bulletproof in how they manage their marketing message to the public. The PlayStation TV could have been a homerun but Sony fucked that up beyond how people conceive they would. There's no guarantee at this point that the message will be good or that it will be embraced.
I think we really need to stop assuming these things. We know for sure some people are going to feel burnt. The question is how many people does that amount to and what does Sony do to mitigate this hit to a minimum. We also need to stop thinking that the mass market is smart or on top of these things so it's a very fine line on how you promote this which can easily be taken the wrong way.
Like I said above, the Wii U was terrible in execution, but we don't even have a clue on what Sony's execution is going to be at this point to make the conclusion that the perception will be fine among the mass consumer.
Hold on a minute, all of that is simply on the assumption that Sony stick to iterative releases from now on out. We don't even know if that is going to be the case or not. For all we know the PS5 will still be a massive generational jump not held back by the PS4K, requiring the same sort of resets we got in the past.
There's a huge divide in opinion even on that, maybe more so. With people like me who hate the idea of new generations being permanently held back by older generation hardware, essentially stifling tech progress and limiting substantial graphical jumps, and others who don't mind it because it'll make devs jobs easier as they'll not need to be so ambitious or make such major shifts to their engines, tech etc.
All of the above though, at present is based on assumptions. The fact of the matter right now is that the PS4K does not make development easier at all, in fact it adds more work for developers in needing to consider yet another platform or piece of hardware, only a couple of years after the release of the PS4 and Xbox One.
Alas, for the Vita. A product that is awesome, and yet, was made for a market that does not exist. Do you know why Sony didn't pour more money into marketing the thing? Probably because they realized almost immediately upon launch in the worldwide territories, that it was already going to have a terrible time of it, that its audience was basically non-existent. I adore my Vita, and I tried so hard to show people how awesome it is in store, but guess what, no one gives a shit in our era of Tablet and Smart phones. The dedicated hand held is largely a relic, and the 3DS is barely hanging on, at this point. It makes me really sad. The PSTV was an expirement to try and offer Vita hardware to people that wanted to play it on a TV. Great value. But still, a market that largely doesn't give a crap. Even on its home turf in Japan the thing bombed despite great marketing efforts.
The 599? People bring that up, all the time. But seriously, it was a tough sell at the time, sure, but it was also with them eating hundreds of dollars in costs on each unit sold. They're not doing that anymore, and this generation has been the amalgamation of all the myriad lessons learned from the PS3 era.
It's been hit after hit for their PR and marketing, showing off excellent strategies and awareness of their branding and product. They've been nailing it, so, yes, I am confident that they'll do so well with this, because they've been brilliant on the advertising side of things this time around, and that's again, coming from a retail perspective.
I agree, however the problem is that they Neo isn't a big enough jump to really effect what the base target is when a PS5 launches. The main things that hold back cross gen development are the CPU and RAM capabilities of the older hardware, and the Neo barely improves on those at all. If the Neo had gone with a much bigger improvement to the CPU and actually added another few GB of memory then it would have moved the baseline target forward for when a PS5 hits. The Neo simply isn't a big enough jump to really justify an iterative cycle, which is incredibly disappointing.
gundamkyoukai
Member
This one rather simple .
If this works Sony will not be going back that for certain .
They make more money on the iterate model and lock people into there ecosystem .
So time will tell.
Right, but we likely won't know for another 3-5 years or so, after the release of their next console after the PS4K. If the PS5 is iterative as well, for all we know interest and sales might greatly diminish, and adoption might heavily suffer. I know if the PS5 is also iterative, Eg not that big of a jump and also held back by the PS4K, I likely won't purchase it myself, at least straight away, if at all. And I've bought every single Sony console day one since they entered the business.
InsaneTiger
Member
If only we could end this circle-jerk on that note. Seriously the line has been drawn, the sides decided and the arguments have been made ad nauseam.
I can't wait for E3 and watch what happens...NEXT TIME GAF!
family_guy
Member
So if you don't also have gaming PC, you would have passed on almost 3 years of current gen gaming just so you could get a better model?
Marty Chinn
Member
The PlayStation TV specifically shouldn't have been brought to market if they were going to treat it the way they did. It was pure stupidity. They had something there even if you ignored the Vita angle and they blew it. When they have things like PS Now, PS Vue, a ton of services like Netflix, Hulu, and plenty of other services they could have gotten on board, they missed out on a low cost, entry level gaming and media device that under the right care could have been huge. Rebranding it to PlayStation TV was hopefully a sign of them doing that, but they sent it out to die. No marketing, no support. It was just a complete waste of time. They really should be a leader in that space with that device and leveraging everything they could have, but they just completely dropped the ball.
Getting back to it instead of being a pure rant on Sony's stupidity on PSTV, they are all blunders though that cost Sony. So in hindsight you can say well it failed because of this, or it was bad because of that but Sony still thought they were good ideas to release to market at the time, just like this. So let's not be so quick to assume the mass market is going to welcome this with open arms and that there won't be a sizable amount of people who are turned off by the idea. We don't even know what the message is yet out of Sony so how can we even begin to make that assumption?
Hmm... it's curious because, we've had in the past generations several upgrades throughout a console's life. Sure not as extensive to this point (of really influencing a game's playability), but people knew slim versions would most likely come with upgraded memory and ports (HDMI, USB, etc.) and other trinkets (I think for many people the idea of an updated PS4 blu ray player for UHD media was quite predictable). I started last generation with a Fat PS3, but ended up upgrading to a slim one anyway due to the many upgrades the PS3 Slim came with (compared to the slim one the fat ps3 was a freakin noisy heat radiator when I was playing games). So personally if I would've waited out for the slim version, I would do it mostly for the better version of the console rather than for the price drop.
Also, when you say "set for the rest of the generation" nothing really changed.. you still have the ps4 and the games that would come out on a ps4 will still come out the same way. Pretty much people are angry because they didn't have the option 3 years ago.. and because of that they want nobody else to have it (which is a fucked up selfish mentality for any future developments... it's like the whole parity issue between the consoles when a game is held back instead of taking advantage of the benefits of each console). Plus if you sell your PS4 you most likely will get a good difference of money to buy the new PS4K and if you say you don't have that kind of cash, well then most likely you wouldn't have had that kind of cash back then either since it would've definitely went at least for 599 or 699 3 years ago if it was an option. (+ if you sell now, you still have the gaming experiences you had for the past 3 years)
Though I just wonder how confused the mass market overall would be given its experience with non console consumer tech on an iterative cycle. Of course some portion of the market get confused by multiple car, computer and phone models.
Why not?
Spend $800 in three years, OR
wait 3 years and pay the launch price for a system that plays games better.
Marty Chinn
Member
Consoles tend to take away things more than add them if you look at the entire history. People are reasonable to expect a cheaper remodel of the system but rarely were they for improvements. The 360 getting a HDMI port was probably one of the bigger improvements. Despite all of this, none of it affected the core functionality. So in my experience, it was always good to get in early before things got taken away for cost cutting measures. The 360 was really the first time I felt I should replace my console mid-generation. The price drop just usually happens to coincide with the redesign because they are made with cost cutting in mind. Even so, it's not the only time there's a price drop in the console's lifespan.
But it has changed. Let's not pretend that in the past, consoles are heavily back end loaded when it comes to content. The early years are slow and sparse. I only jump in early because of what I said above about things getting taken away, and the fact that I can enjoy those titles as they trickle in. Knowing the front half is light, I may be more inclined to wait for the mid generation update now. Before there wasn't really an incentive for me to not jump in right away but now they're offering an incentive to wait.
The solution for me to sell my system is a cop out because I can either get screwed by taking the easy route of going to Gamestop or I can go through the hassle of finding and selling it myself. Either way it's a burden on my end that I'd simply don't have the time nor would rather deal with.
Mind you I'm not arguing about jealousy of what someone else gets to play, but I do think there are good times to jump in on something and bad times to jump in on buying something. The value proposition of when you buy something isn't equal across every day. It really depends on how you find value and the size of your wallet. So with that said, given the context of the normal generation life of a console over the last three decades, it's not unreasonable for someone to wait a bit for a) more software to be released, b) a price drop, or c) both before jumping in. Someone jumping in right about now because Uncharted coming out might feel pretty miffed that the tables were flipped on him under the normal expectations on how consoles work and we shouldn't just hand waive the expectations being changed suddenly for an industry that is several decades old.
Every market is different and people expect different things based on their experience. So you can't just simply point to one and say it applies to every market.
So pay $800 for two consoles or $400 for one? Math is good.
Canklestank
Neo Member
Abdiel, you seem like a reasonable, logical person. So would you mind explaining how this concept is exclusive to iterative consoles and isn't something that could also be achieved with an x86 PS5? My impression is that these are advantages to systems with the same architecture, which allows BC and FC to be possible. I had assumed this is where things were going since we found out the PS4 was x86, and it's why I was excited by it.
So what exactly makes BC and FC a "Pro" for iteration?
family_guy
Member
Might as well wait another 3 years and get an even better one. Better to play the waiting game than play actual games. Sell your console for $200-250. Pay $150-200 to upgrade if you absolutely feel you have to. Or just wait for your system to die and then upgrade. Not like they last forever. I've bought multiple PS2s and PS3s.
wapplew
Member
I believe your question is how BC & FC are exclusive to "quick iteration".
Because an x86 PS5 by definition is still iterative console.