Support NeoGAF

[VariantX]

Huh? Sure they do.

Yeah they do, but only enough to buy a system to get to what would be considered the next generation of visuals every 5 or 6 years. Not entirely enough to get new machines every 1-2 years. Most people don't buy new appliances every other year unless the old one broke.

 

[DigSCCP]

It really doesn't. Devs would either have to downgrade the game to run on the older revision or have it run perfectly on the newer revision but like trash on the older one.

For me thats the most important reason that would make me say no.
If you develop for multiple versions you always have to develop thinking about the powerless system and its limitations.
The most powerful versions would always receive games based on lower specs machines. They would only have better assets and/or perfomance.
If you lookin for this, you lookin for a PC.
So no, thanks.

 

[kyser73]

True - and even with PSVR you're splitting the user base to a point I can't see it working.

PS5 pack in with PSVR2 or bust

Pls explain how PSVR is splitting the userbase?

 

[DSix]

No, it wont make more money to manufacturer nor to developers (actually it will make both lose money).

And thank god it wont happen, it's a total nightmare scenario.

 

[Silvawuff]

I think consoles are on their way out, and we'll be looking at a market landscape that's really different five years from now.

I think cloud-based consoles will really take off; you'll pay a small fee for the receiver and then pay a monthly sub to play games online. This fits the shifting paradigm of keeping company hands in the consumer's pocket where you effectively rent everything; hardware won't even matter since you're streaming from a virtual massive supercomputer.

 

[Curufinwe]

I think consoles are on their way out, and we'll be looking at a market landscape that's really different five years from now.

I think cloud-based consoles will really take off; you'll pay a small fee for the receiver and then pay a monthly sub to play games online. This fits the shifting paradigm of keeping company hands in the consumer's pocket where you effectively rent everything; hardware won't even matter since you're streaming from a virtual massive supercomputer.

That's what they said before this gen. Consoles still make sense for a worldwide audience.

 

[quackamole]

I think consoles are on their way out, and we'll be looking at a market landscape that's really different five years from now.

I think cloud-based consoles will really take off; you'll pay a small fee for the receiver and then pay a monthly sub to play games online. This fits the shifting paradigm of keeping company hands in the consumer's pocket where you effectively rent everything; hardware won't even matter since you're streaming from a virtual massive supercomputer.

Get back to me when I can get cheap and fast internet in most major cities in the world.

In a world where netflix has to pay ISPs to not get their shit throttled, online only console would never work.

 

[GamerJM]

I sure hope not. It would cost too much money to get the optimal experience, and would make collecting consoles a pain.

 

[kyser73]

As usual with these threads, the desire for this appears to be coming from many people who spend a majority of their gaming time on PC's and want the console industry to be more aligned with their interests. So from that perspective, it's a no brainer for why some may be interested in this concept.

However, from the perspective of someone who spends the majority of his gaming time on consoles, I'm not interested in this. A console is closer to a TV for me than a smartphone in the sense that once I buy it, there's no reason to keep upgrading to a new slightly shinier version every 2 to 3 years. My TV works perfectly fine and until it either stops working or there's a major breakthrough in design and technology that's worth the cost of replacing it, I'm not going to replace it.. because it works.

For incremental improvements on console hardware, there's no reason for me to replace a console that works perfectly fine for an incremental upgrade that costs several hundred dollars. I expect my $400 for the PS4 to last 5+ years with no additional spending on hardware. I don't care about slightly better graphics when the graphics we have are good enough at this point. I just want to play games, on my PS4, no matter who makes them. It's that simple.

I would need to see a significant advancement in hardware over my current and perfectly usable box with games to match the advancement for me to even think about taking the leap.

Great post, completely agree. The TV comparison is pretty good too - I tend to buy a new TV about every 5-7 years, which is about the same rate as console replacement.

 

[FuuRe]

The thing is that when you want to buy a new TV you don't settle for a 5 year old model. You educate yourself or rely on others in order to get the best for your money.

Imagine a Sony console just branded "Playstation", you go to the store and get the latest one, plug it in, and play the games currently available for it.

Or if you already have a Playstation and want to get the newest model, you sell the one you currently have, keep your games, and get the latest one to keep playing the same games in a better hardware.

There's virtually no fragmentation with this model, imagine this would be the standard since the last generation, it would be easier for console manufacturers since the user base Will always be there and also the fears at the start of a new iteration of the console will be a thing of the past, easy for game developers also because there's no holding back in development, you just adjust some stuff in your graphics settings for the older models and that's it, no users tinkering with the config.

If your game is simply designed for the latest version of the console, you advertise it as such.


Pretty much a simplified PC gaming experience, something like the steam machines.

 

[Bastardo]

It's going to happen silently.

x86 is here to stay now for consoles. There's really no reason anymore to switch instruction sets. Nintendo might go ARM, but I doubt it, because they also want easy Third Party Ports.
Besides the instruction set, also unified memory architectures will stay, because they provide a cheap benefit.

So looking at PS5 you will have a faster x86 UM architecture, which if you think about it, is an upgraded PS4. Question is only, whether they are going to enable the faster CPU also for older games. My guess is: No, because then they can't charge you again for a re-release.

 

[Neoxon]

It's going to happen silently.

x86 is here to stay now for consoles. There's really no reason anymore to switch instruction sets. Nintendo might go ARM, but I doubt it, because they also want easy Third Party Ports.
Besides the instruction set, also unified memory architectures will stay, because they provide a cheap benefit.

So looking at PS5 you will have a faster x86 UM architecture, which if you think about it, is an upgraded PS4. Question is only, whether they are going to enable the faster CPU also for older games. My guess is: No, because then they can't charge you again for a re-release.

Nintendo probably will opt for ARM across the board for one reason, the handhelds. Iwata spoke a lot about unifying their consoles & handhelds to be "like brothers". Given these statements, x86 would not be efficient for use in a small handheld. This is why they'll likely opt for ARM across all NX devices instead of x86.

This transitions well to my more on-topic point. Nintendo will probably spearhead this movement of upgraded hardware for all future consoles & handhelds. If they go for a common ARM architecture across all NX devices, it would allow Nintendo to incrementally upgrade each system quicker than usual. Think of it like the n3DS to the 3DS.

 

[ramparter]

I do hope that the next Playstation / XBox / Nintendo will be able to play its predecessor's games naturally, not like some kind of BC but like its the same console enhanced, stronger, more capable. Instead of building from scratch.

I'm sure this is what Nintendo is planning for NX and the other will be cautiously watching and analysing the situation as it develops.

 

[sirronoh]

I am all for it. As long as all the games still work, why not? No one is forcing anyone to buy it, if you don't care about shiny graphics upgrades, then you can keep what you have and keep happily gaming. Who cares? I would absolutely do it, part of the reason why I have always done pc gaming is because consoles get outdated so damn fast. They need to start doing full no compromise backwards compatibility anyways, there is no excuse not to at this point.

Who cares? Oh I don't know... the hardware manufacturers who invest billions of dollars in R&D on each box? How about the notoriously stingy publishers who will need to budget for increased asset management and optimization time per game to target multiple specs? What about retailers who need to manage their display space and inventory (not to mention training their sales staff on how to answer compatibility questions)?

In general, there's surprisingly little discussion in this thread about how this idea impacts the hardware manufacturers and their business partners.

 

[Saty]

That's just it, there wouldn't be that much of a difference with the upgrade. We'd see slight FPS and/or res bumps which would likely not be enough to make the majority of the previous version's adopters upgrade. Console players upgrade when the next gen hits because it comes with an obvious bump in power. Say what you will about gen 8 not having as much of a bump from 7 as 6 did going to 7, which is true, but there is a clear gap regardless between PS3 to 4 and the 360 to the Xbone. That's what I mean by "special attention", the difference in performance wouldn't be enough.

For enthusiasts like a lot of us here, maybe, but average joe console gamer that makes up the majority of the console consumer base, no. I haven't thought of getting the N3DS because I know it's only a minor boost to the hardware, I knew that when it was coming out. I would wager the majority who upgraded were coming from an OG3DS, really wanted Xenoblade as it was excluvise, or were tired of the bolt on second stick on previous models and wanted to use the nub.

To the final point, I understand the OP is coming from a hypothetical future where devs shouldn't have a problem supporting multiple versions, but in reality my previous two extremes are the way I see it happening if we got minor upgrades to the specs every two years until a major upgrade hits. Hell even iPhone models eventually just don't get certain apps or updates any more as they're abondoned for the sake of more current hardware. That's honestly not the future I want, to have my base PS4 become less desirable over time as the PS4.5 etc. is getting the best versions of games to the point where having the original is a detriment (ofcourse granting this extreme is what happens over my alternative). I have a PC I just upgraded from a 7970ghz to a 980ti after using the 7970 for almost 3 years. I did so to get the best expereince at the settings I want at the res I play at. I don't want to have to worry about the same on home consoles, that's not where their strength lies.

1. The goal isn't to make everybody\majority of the current PS4 owners to upgrade to the stronger version. If faster loading times, VR processing unit inside, pretty much a guarantee of at least 1080p locked 30fps isn't enticing enough for you then that's fine and you can keep enjoying your current console just as well.

For those who would want to upgrade i'm sure there will be trade-in programs and the sort. I know that if i don't own a PS4 and want to buy one this or next year, i would prefer buying an newer, stronger model than the original, even for $50 extra. Now, i don't know from a business perspective if it would be viable for Sony to have an upgraded console where they don't twist your arm into buying it over your current one, but that's irrelevant to the question about this kind of model and whether it's good for the consumer.

2. The original console wouldn't become less desirable, it will as desirable as it was when you made your purchase. It will run all games and as well as it would have if there wasn't a stronger iteration. Games on the stronger version will provide two presets to use that power: 60fps at the same fidelity of the original console or 30fps with better gfx.

As usual with these threads, the desire for this appears to be coming from many people who spend a majority of their gaming time on PC's and want the console industry to be more aligned with their interests. So from that perspective, it's a no brainer for why some may be interested in this concept.

You offered no actual arguments. Your situation is solved easily: don't buy the new iteration. It's that simple. No one is forcing you to upgrade and no game is made exclusive for the stronger version.

These arguments aren't against the 'stronger console iteration' model, they are against a bad implementation of this approach.

 

[sirronoh]

You offered no actual arguments. Your situation is solved easily: don't buy the new iteration. It's that simple. No one is forcing you to upgrade and no game is made exclusive for the stronger version.

These arguments aren't against the 'stronger console iteration' model, they are against a bad implementation of this approach.

I have no intention of arguing this subject with anyone. I'm merely observing and pointing out common themes in this thread and others like it while also adding my own console buying habits to the discussion.

 

[RedSwirl]

Nintendo probably will opt for ARM across the board for one reason, the handhelds. Iwata spoke a lot about unifying their consoles & handhelds to be "like brothers". Given these statements, x86 would not be efficient for use in a small handheld. This is why they'll likely opt for ARM across all NX devices instead of x86.

This transitions well to my more on-topic point. Nintendo will probably spearhead this movement of upgraded hardware for all future consoles & handhelds. If they go for a common ARM architecture across all NX devices, it would allow Nintendo to incrementally upgrade each system quicker than usual. Think of it like the n3DS to the 3DS.

Idea: What if Nintendo uses this plan to eventually have a model of the console that catches up to the PS5 and next Xbox around the time they come out?

Whatever happens, even if Nintendo released an "underpowered" console in 2016 or a console that's only around as powerful as a PS4, sticking to one architecture would still theoretically allow it to make relatively rapid incremental upgrades ensuring it wouldn't be quite as far behind Sony and Microsoft. The big X factor is whether Nintendo thinks it's even worthwhile to do that. It'd have to be advertised as some kind of "hardcore" NX in contrast to the cheap "mass market" NX.

 

[Sanke__]

Yes it is inevitable that they will take on the apple model of yearly iterations with continual support for around the 3 most recent iterations

Right now for instance games should range from 900p30fps to 1080p60fps depending on the iteration you have

No reason for them not to take this route

Probably be a while before it happens though

 

[ElMexiMerican]

Okay, let's say that Sony, MS, and Nintendo started doing upgraded hardware revisions at least every other year. What would they even be called? They could only get away with adding "New" to the title once. Do they just put v2, v3, etc at the end of the name? I know it's a silly thing to ponder, but I'm genuinely curious.

 

[CosmicQueso]

What a difference a couple of months make.

 

[FuuRe]

Blame Sony on the "necro" bump, not me

Also, crow should be eaten

 

[DonMigs85]

The relatively weak CPU bump and no increase in the amount of RAM is keeping me from getting the new PS4. I'll just tough it out until PS5 or defect to PC entirely