I was initially almost entirely in agreement with Greg's views on PS4.5 (when Kotaku first broke the news of it), but have slowly come around to Colin's opinion more as more information has come out. I'm split on it, I can see both arguments. Have only been able to listen to the Neo discussion from this new episode so far and it was really good. Looking forward to watching the rest.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PS, I Love You- Greg Miller's new PlayStation Podcast
- Thread starter EdReedFan20
- Start date
What a terrible argument. You could use this argument for DLC and Micro transaction.
We also live in free society so people has the right to complain.
ChaosZeroX
Banned
I see both sides of the argument, but I'm honestly bummed. I understand that tech is evolving, but its seriously only been 3 years since the PS4 was launched. Cells phone as a comparison is a terrible counter point.
If the PS4.5 is 399, then as Colin stated they really have to down the price on the Original PS4 to like 299.
I don't see the new SKU selling at all to be honest. We are a very small minority on the internet. I don't see the casuals buying a new 400 dollar PS4 when they already have one.
This has disaster written all over it.
If the PS4.5 is 399, then as Colin stated they really have to down the price on the Original PS4 to like 299.
I don't see the new SKU selling at all to be honest. We are a very small minority on the internet. I don't see the casuals buying a new 400 dollar PS4 when they already have one.
This has disaster written all over it.
GalacticMouse
Member
This is the most revealing thing to me about the reaction on GAF to the rumors. If this console isn't for the hardcore, who is it for? The average consumer is going to walk into Walmart or Best Buy, ask if both consoles play the same games, and then buy the cheaper one.
So, if Sony can't convince GAF to purchase this thing, what's the point? Who's going to buy this?
Trigonometrize.
Member
What a terrible argument. Capitalism doesn't mean you have no say in the directions that your brand goes as the person that is funding them.
generic_username
I switched to an alt account to ditch my embarrassing tag so I could be an embarrassing Naughty Dog fanboy in peace. Ask me anything!
They don't need to buy. What is so hard to understand? Sony's install base grows irrespective of whether they buy the PS4 or 4K.
They wont care if not a lot of people buy it. This is just another way of making more money and roping in people who are willing to pay more. They have the luxury console crowd as well as the budget conscious consumer on lock either way.
I'm not arguing anything. I'm just stating reality.
4k bluray and Netflix could convice the average consumer. There are a lot of 4k tvs that are starving for content.
Trigonometrize.
Member
Are you assuming we're dumb and we don't know that Sony is well within their rights to make and release this? We're talking about what Sony owes us as consumers. Literally no one is questioning what they can do, only what they should.
ricen-beans
Member
I'll be buying it. So there's one.
And it'll also get me to upgrade to a 4K tv.
Anyone with a 4K tv will probably also buy one. Considering the cheapest 4K bluray player is also $399. Why not just get a ps4k and get more for your buck.
Anyone who doesn't want to upgrade will still enjoy all the games as before in 1080p.
I don't see any harm in this. Especially when we don't know the full details yet.
What makes you an expert on what they should do?
D
Deleted member 471617
Unconfirmed Member
I agree with Colin 100% in regards to PS4 NEO. Seriously, it makes no sense whatsoever. Even if Nintendo's NX is twice as powerful, so what? They're at least three years and 40m behind in sales. It won't matter how powerful NX turns out to be.
The problem with the NEO is that the specs are a minimal upgrade and I guarantee that there will STILL be games where people complain about the visuals, resolution and/or frame rate. If anything, im fully expecting that. Really don't see why Sony would release PS4 NEO. I also agree with Colin 100% in regards to Sony just announcing and releasing PS5 in 2018 or 2019.
A few other tidbits -
Agree with the question/comment regarding folders for PS4. I want the ability to create a folder on PS4 for one reason - I have like 30 icons on the XMB and it's fucking horrible. I just want to create one folder so I can dump all the extra stuff that I don't use in one folder and just keep my games on the XMB.
Disagree with Colin 100% in regards to when games go all digital. Publishers will NOT compete with each other. All of them will stay at the $60 price point and more than likely have an "agreement" not to lower the price.
Digital only is that there's NO OTHER OPTION or CHOICE to play the game. It's simple - you either buy the game at $60 or you don't. With no other alternatives, there's simply no reason for any publisher to release the game at a lower price. Also, as stated on a previous episode, it was said that publishers have to give 30% of the price to Sony/Microsoft for each $60 digital game so they would only get $42 in return. Lower prices would give the publishers far less money and there's no way in hell that publishers will ever do that.
A few other insights - all publishers regardless of who they are, are all money hungry greedy companies that want all the consumers to spend as much money as possible but getting less in return for that money. Proof with this started last generation with season passes, DLC and micro-transactions. This also includes content that was cut from the main base game and sold as DLC (coughRE5cough) even though it was on the original disc.
I do what the publishers do but in the opposite direction. I want more but pay less. I'm not a collector anymore and stopped last generation once gaming changed from what it was to what it now is.
I'm a Best Buy GCU member and here's an example - im not an online gamer and have no interest in playing games online. Pre-ordered The Division once I knew it could be played solo. Received a $15 reward cert for pre-ordering and 20% off the $60 price tag. Paid $48 at launch and received the points for the reward cert about two weeks later. Game cost me $33 plus tax. Traded it in last Thursday for $27.00 plus the extra 10% bonus so overall, $29.70.
For the five weeks I owned The Division, I played for over 100 hours and completed everything 100% solo. Fully enjoyed the game and had a lot of fun. In the end, the game cost me $3.30 plus tax. Sorry but no digital game will ever be able to do that. Quantum Break (yeah yeah, I know but who cares) cost me $48 at launch and traded it in ten days later for $38.50. $9.50 plus tax. Seriously and again, no digital game will ever be able to do this for me.
The only way that I would ever think about staying a gamer if/when gaming goes all digital will be if you can sell the license for the game and get back at least 50% of what I paid. So for every $60, I would get back $30. And it doesn't even need to be cash. $30 PSN/XBLA/eShop credit applied to my account would be fine since games being digital only anyway, the credit would be going towards the next game I buy anyway.
Of course, none of what Colin believes will happen will. Hell, if I was publisher, I would do the exact same thing because business wise, you simply have no choice. Again, you either pay $60 and buy the game or you don't and move on. Period.
Another tidbit is this - a perfect example is The Evil Within on PSN. I literally just checked it now on the PlayStation Store.
The digital version of the base game is $60. The game is literally over 18 months old. In stores, the disc version is $20 new and sealed. If publishers don't lower the MSRP on digital games WITH COMPETITION, why the hell would anyone think that any of the them would lower the MSRP on digital games without competition?
https://store.playstation.com/#!/en...thin/cid=UP1003-CUSA00203_00-THEEVILWITHINENG
Another tidbit (yeah, I have a few) is this - if main AAA games from publishers like Sony, Microsoft, EA, Ubisoft, etc. are lowered to $40 (for example) at launch, how would that affect the PSN/XBLA/eShop/Indie games that are usually between $10 and $20? Think about it. If you're interested in an Indie game for example that sells for $20 and an AAA game like Assassin's Creed or Call of Duty or GTA or whatever that sells for $40, why would you spend $20 on the Indie game when for double the price, you can buy the main AAA game?
Lowering the price of full AAA games digitally will not only hurt consumers but will also hurt the publishers that publish the small PSN/XBLA/eShop/Indie games. Last generation, few of these games went past the $15 price tag. Majority were $10 or $15. They've increased to now $15 or $20. With no alternatives to playing these games and with far stiffer competition digitally if AAA games were to be $40 at launch, these smaller publishers simply won't last and obviously, that would be horrible for so many reasons.
That's why AAA publishers like Sony, Microsoft, EA, Take Two, Ubisoft, etc. will not release games at release for less than $60 and if anything, with games being digital only, I can easily see prices increase as opposed to decrease.
Also, forget about sales and deals too because again, with NO other alternative to playing a digital only game, why would any publisher give you a discount on their games knowing that for the consumer, the gamer to play the game, you must pay the full price for the game which for the time being is $60? Why would they? Easy answer is they won't because there's no reason for the to do so.
You want to play GTA 7 or 8 (im guessing PS6 would be the soonest all digital happens) and let's be honest - millions want to and will pay the $60 on launch day. Granted, this example is really for only the games that sell insane amounts but even for the games that don't, why would any publisher give you any type of deal, sale, discount or lower price at launch in order to buy the game?
And of course, there was that little "misunderstanding" three years ago where Microsoft wanted to go all digital (and other stuff) that blew up in their face. Digital is good as an option, NOT as a mandatory decision where you have no other options. Until digital game sales SURPASS disc based sales, an all digital only way to buy and play games will only do one thing - kill off a lot of publishers, developers and most likely make the industry crash simply because while digital sales keep increasing, they haven't increased to where they make discs obsolete.
One last thing - I don't expect publishers to give you any choice in regards to selling the license for the digital games you buy. There would simply be no reason for them to do it. All of them want to bleed consumers dry and make their investors, stockholders and themselves rich greedy billionaires. NONE of them give a flying fuck about any consumer and digital only future will only prove it further.
But for those who agree with Colin, good luck as we'll just have to wait and see what happens. Hopefully, this doesn't happen until im like 50 or older (im 37 now) so that way, I probably won't care anyway.
Anyway, I enjoyed the podcast and I always do or I wouldn't listen to it every week. Sorry for the very long post.
The problem with the NEO is that the specs are a minimal upgrade and I guarantee that there will STILL be games where people complain about the visuals, resolution and/or frame rate. If anything, im fully expecting that. Really don't see why Sony would release PS4 NEO. I also agree with Colin 100% in regards to Sony just announcing and releasing PS5 in 2018 or 2019.
A few other tidbits -
Agree with the question/comment regarding folders for PS4. I want the ability to create a folder on PS4 for one reason - I have like 30 icons on the XMB and it's fucking horrible. I just want to create one folder so I can dump all the extra stuff that I don't use in one folder and just keep my games on the XMB.
Disagree with Colin 100% in regards to when games go all digital. Publishers will NOT compete with each other. All of them will stay at the $60 price point and more than likely have an "agreement" not to lower the price.
Digital only is that there's NO OTHER OPTION or CHOICE to play the game. It's simple - you either buy the game at $60 or you don't. With no other alternatives, there's simply no reason for any publisher to release the game at a lower price. Also, as stated on a previous episode, it was said that publishers have to give 30% of the price to Sony/Microsoft for each $60 digital game so they would only get $42 in return. Lower prices would give the publishers far less money and there's no way in hell that publishers will ever do that.
A few other insights - all publishers regardless of who they are, are all money hungry greedy companies that want all the consumers to spend as much money as possible but getting less in return for that money. Proof with this started last generation with season passes, DLC and micro-transactions. This also includes content that was cut from the main base game and sold as DLC (coughRE5cough) even though it was on the original disc.
I do what the publishers do but in the opposite direction. I want more but pay less. I'm not a collector anymore and stopped last generation once gaming changed from what it was to what it now is.
I'm a Best Buy GCU member and here's an example - im not an online gamer and have no interest in playing games online. Pre-ordered The Division once I knew it could be played solo. Received a $15 reward cert for pre-ordering and 20% off the $60 price tag. Paid $48 at launch and received the points for the reward cert about two weeks later. Game cost me $33 plus tax. Traded it in last Thursday for $27.00 plus the extra 10% bonus so overall, $29.70.
For the five weeks I owned The Division, I played for over 100 hours and completed everything 100% solo. Fully enjoyed the game and had a lot of fun. In the end, the game cost me $3.30 plus tax. Sorry but no digital game will ever be able to do that. Quantum Break (yeah yeah, I know but who cares) cost me $48 at launch and traded it in ten days later for $38.50. $9.50 plus tax. Seriously and again, no digital game will ever be able to do this for me.
The only way that I would ever think about staying a gamer if/when gaming goes all digital will be if you can sell the license for the game and get back at least 50% of what I paid. So for every $60, I would get back $30. And it doesn't even need to be cash. $30 PSN/XBLA/eShop credit applied to my account would be fine since games being digital only anyway, the credit would be going towards the next game I buy anyway.
Of course, none of what Colin believes will happen will. Hell, if I was publisher, I would do the exact same thing because business wise, you simply have no choice. Again, you either pay $60 and buy the game or you don't and move on. Period.
Another tidbit is this - a perfect example is The Evil Within on PSN. I literally just checked it now on the PlayStation Store.
The digital version of the base game is $60. The game is literally over 18 months old. In stores, the disc version is $20 new and sealed. If publishers don't lower the MSRP on digital games WITH COMPETITION, why the hell would anyone think that any of the them would lower the MSRP on digital games without competition?
https://store.playstation.com/#!/en...thin/cid=UP1003-CUSA00203_00-THEEVILWITHINENG
Another tidbit (yeah, I have a few) is this - if main AAA games from publishers like Sony, Microsoft, EA, Ubisoft, etc. are lowered to $40 (for example) at launch, how would that affect the PSN/XBLA/eShop/Indie games that are usually between $10 and $20? Think about it. If you're interested in an Indie game for example that sells for $20 and an AAA game like Assassin's Creed or Call of Duty or GTA or whatever that sells for $40, why would you spend $20 on the Indie game when for double the price, you can buy the main AAA game?
Lowering the price of full AAA games digitally will not only hurt consumers but will also hurt the publishers that publish the small PSN/XBLA/eShop/Indie games. Last generation, few of these games went past the $15 price tag. Majority were $10 or $15. They've increased to now $15 or $20. With no alternatives to playing these games and with far stiffer competition digitally if AAA games were to be $40 at launch, these smaller publishers simply won't last and obviously, that would be horrible for so many reasons.
That's why AAA publishers like Sony, Microsoft, EA, Take Two, Ubisoft, etc. will not release games at release for less than $60 and if anything, with games being digital only, I can easily see prices increase as opposed to decrease.
Also, forget about sales and deals too because again, with NO other alternative to playing a digital only game, why would any publisher give you a discount on their games knowing that for the consumer, the gamer to play the game, you must pay the full price for the game which for the time being is $60? Why would they? Easy answer is they won't because there's no reason for the to do so.
You want to play GTA 7 or 8 (im guessing PS6 would be the soonest all digital happens) and let's be honest - millions want to and will pay the $60 on launch day. Granted, this example is really for only the games that sell insane amounts but even for the games that don't, why would any publisher give you any type of deal, sale, discount or lower price at launch in order to buy the game?
And of course, there was that little "misunderstanding" three years ago where Microsoft wanted to go all digital (and other stuff) that blew up in their face. Digital is good as an option, NOT as a mandatory decision where you have no other options. Until digital game sales SURPASS disc based sales, an all digital only way to buy and play games will only do one thing - kill off a lot of publishers, developers and most likely make the industry crash simply because while digital sales keep increasing, they haven't increased to where they make discs obsolete.
One last thing - I don't expect publishers to give you any choice in regards to selling the license for the digital games you buy. There would simply be no reason for them to do it. All of them want to bleed consumers dry and make their investors, stockholders and themselves rich greedy billionaires. NONE of them give a flying fuck about any consumer and digital only future will only prove it further.
But for those who agree with Colin, good luck as we'll just have to wait and see what happens. Hopefully, this doesn't happen until im like 50 or older (im 37 now) so that way, I probably won't care anyway.
Anyway, I enjoyed the podcast and I always do or I wouldn't listen to it every week. Sorry for the very long post.
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
The day console gaming goes all digital is the day I stop buying new games.
That is unless adequate consumer protection laws exist that guarantee refunds and reselling. If consoles adopted the following scheme I'd be fine with it.
1. Refunds: Copy Steam and Origin on this.
2. Reselling: I should be able to remove a game from my library and have a code generated that I can sell on my own. Maybe also have console marketplaces where I can sell my stuff and have the money added directly to my accounts and the console makers get like a 10% cut.
3. Renting: Let me pay a percentage to rent a game for a period of real world hours. Like $10 for 72 real hours or something (not playtime).
4. Loaning: I should be able to generate a one use code that I can give a friend that lets them play like 2 hours of a game. They could only use one code per game or something.
5. Security: Two step verification, re-verification when selling, etc.
If all of those happen I'll be fine with an all digital future. Nothing less.
That is unless adequate consumer protection laws exist that guarantee refunds and reselling. If consoles adopted the following scheme I'd be fine with it.
1. Refunds: Copy Steam and Origin on this.
2. Reselling: I should be able to remove a game from my library and have a code generated that I can sell on my own. Maybe also have console marketplaces where I can sell my stuff and have the money added directly to my accounts and the console makers get like a 10% cut.
3. Renting: Let me pay a percentage to rent a game for a period of real world hours. Like $10 for 72 real hours or something (not playtime).
4. Loaning: I should be able to generate a one use code that I can give a friend that lets them play like 2 hours of a game. They could only use one code per game or something.
5. Security: Two step verification, re-verification when selling, etc.
If all of those happen I'll be fine with an all digital future. Nothing less.
"I'm ramen-soaked" is maybe one of my new favorite lines from the show, so good haha.
For the most part I agree with Colin's take on the whole thing... "Why?" Why are they doing this when, as he said, they could launch a *PS5* in 2 years that is fully backwards compatible and features more support for 4K and VR. Under the current "rules" of the industry, this makes the most sense. Considering how astronomically well the PS4 is selling and how good the games continue to look, the PS4.5 feels like a solution to a problem that nobody (at least to a large extent) is actively complaining about. If all of these rumors were flipped and marked with "Xbox" and "Microsoft", then I wouldn't be nearly as surprised or confused as to why they were doing this. But for the market leader to introduce a product that is this contentious when they could have just kept selling a shit ton of PS4s for another 2 years... I just don't understand.
For the most part I agree with Colin's take on the whole thing... "Why?" Why are they doing this when, as he said, they could launch a *PS5* in 2 years that is fully backwards compatible and features more support for 4K and VR. Under the current "rules" of the industry, this makes the most sense. Considering how astronomically well the PS4 is selling and how good the games continue to look, the PS4.5 feels like a solution to a problem that nobody (at least to a large extent) is actively complaining about. If all of these rumors were flipped and marked with "Xbox" and "Microsoft", then I wouldn't be nearly as surprised or confused as to why they were doing this. But for the market leader to introduce a product that is this contentious when they could have just kept selling a shit ton of PS4s for another 2 years... I just don't understand.
SprachBrooks
Member
You could also argue that you do not live in a free society because of capitalism lol.
I'm indifferent to this change primarily because I know Sony won't update the games that have been released to perform better on PS4K. Think I'll stick with my current PS4 until more information is disseminated to the consumer; all this talk is currently pointless and a waste of time.
get2sammyb
Member
Playing devil's advocate a bit here, but... Y'know how people like to spout that "arrogant Sony" line. Wouldn't it be more arrogant for Sony to bask in its success doing nothing than pushing forward?
At the end of the day, this is always the year that Sony would be introducing a PS4 Slim. All that the PS4K will be is a PS4 Slim with a little extra horsepower sprinkled on top. I do think the overreactions are a bit much.
And that's the point. They 'owe' you nothing. They're a company and not your parents.
Omnistalgic
Member
Disappointed in Colin...Usually very open-minded about things and to spit out this much negativity towards something we have never dealt with in our industry...meh, just doesn’t seem like Colin to jump to conclusions like that.
This is new, NO ONE knows what impact this is going to have. Why the fook would devs be excited about more work? it’s a biased question to prove your own current reasoning, not actively trying to get to the bottom of an issue, dev kits just went out, there’s no way to get an actual consensus yet. We have devs right here on GAF saying they are OK with it. We’ve had previous devs say it’ll be a pain.
We have to wait, we just have to, and there’s no reason to assume the worse.
This is new, NO ONE knows what impact this is going to have. Why the fook would devs be excited about more work? it’s a biased question to prove your own current reasoning, not actively trying to get to the bottom of an issue, dev kits just went out, there’s no way to get an actual consensus yet. We have devs right here on GAF saying they are OK with it. We’ve had previous devs say it’ll be a pain.
We have to wait, we just have to, and there’s no reason to assume the worse.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Agreed ^^
GribbleGrunger
Dreams in Digital
Yeah, he seems to have jumped off the deep end with this one. 'knee jerk reaction' isn't something I generally associate with Colin but that's what it feels like.
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
I agree with Colin. I think it's a really terrible idea, a spit in the face to early adopters, and big risk.
names2hard4you
Member
I didn't buy my PS4 at launch just to play it for 2.5 years and have a new beefier model come and make my system inferior. What is this, Apple? There is a reason why I don't buy their products. Last thing I want is for Sony to go down the same route. I can't justify spending $500+ (yeah because Canada) on a console every few years, that's just nonsense. May as well just get myself a PC at that point, I bought my console precisely because I don't have to worry about having to upgrade anything about it for a good 5+ years.
Dude, all I read is "I can't.... why do I have to.....can't justify."
- Nobody forces you to buy the mid-gen refresh called PS4K (codename, or whatever).
It is an option. Options are nice.
- You don't have to play only 2.5 years on your OG PS4. All games will run on your OG PS4.
- You can't justify spending $500+ every few years? Good! Nobody forces you to do that! Just play with your OG PS4 (as I said -> all games will run on your PS4), skip the PS4K and buy a PS5 ~6 years later.
- And yes, you can go the PC route if you have an issue with the PS4K. As you can see, it's great to have options.
Why do you care that I can pay more money and get better graphics? You can still play the damn game on your OG PS4, just as if the PS4K wouldn't exist. I have the option now to pay more and get better performance and you are gettin' mad? Why? Why do you care?
GreyOcelot
Member
apple? every consumer electronics company does this. it's amazing gaming got this far without this happening yet. by the time neo hits, PS4 will be 3 years old. that's ancient by electronics standards, and every last game that comes out is guaranteed to work on your existing device for a number of years going forward. the hyperbole about this really out of control at this point.
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
Get off your fucking high horse already. Do you really not see the issue with this? Home consoles have never done this kind of thing before. The only similar thing on a major console was the 32X and CD for the Sega Genesis but even then 32X and CD games didn't work on the base Genesis still and they were failures.
People buy consoles with the expectation that they will be playing in a controlled, equal environment for at least 5 years before a new version comes out. If the NEO was the PS5 it would still be annoying that it would be coming out only 3 or 4 years after the PS4, but at least it would be a new console. Having all games be for both versions is the problem. It's like cross-gen games from the first two years of this gen.
They should have just waited until next year, added a better CPU, and called it the PS5 with PS5 only games while still being fully backwards compatible with the PS4. I'd be fine with 4 year generations, but not this half step shit.
names2hard4you
Member
But there is a reason why it hasn't happened yet. No parent will be buying $500 consoles for their children every 2 Christmases. The hardcore maybe will follow yes. Unless they are selling the regular PS4 at a huge profit and put the price lower on that, and make Neo the same price as the regular model now I can't see how the regular consumer will get this. Also the appeal of consoles was that they catered towards the masses right? Not only that, but now you are gonna have devs taking longer to develop games because of the disparity, and a demographic all spread out across both platforms, since I guarantee you that not everyone is going to jump ship, specially those who just bought a PS4 recently. Uncharted 4 bundle coming out this May sure looks like a great investment now doesn't it aha. To the casual gamer buying it, I can't call it any less than a slap in the face, just like the previous poster said.
GreyOcelot
Member
dude. WTF. you cannot be serious with this statement. you'd rather have a completely new exclusive system released 1 year later than to have your existing hardware supported for a longer period of time.
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
Did you not read my entire post? We've reach a point with consoles being X86 that backwards compatibility is native (or should be). Instead of wasting time and money on half steps why not just release a proper iteration? Sure PS5 games wouldn't run on the PS4, but PS4 games would work just fine on the PS5.
DannyDanger
Member
Why do your posts revolve around a necessity to buy the next iteration when all signs point to the fact that your current model will function exactly as it did b4
markhimself46
Member
Like Colin said, I think marketing this thing is going to be tough. Are they going to show God of War 4 on PS4 and Neo side-by-side at E3? If they do, no good really comes from it. It'll either make the Neo not look that drastic a difference, or it'll make the PS4 version look like trash in comparison (likely the latter).
When I first heard about this, my thoughts immediately were "developers are going to hate this." More work on their end for no extra market share or profit. I know Sony usually leads the charge on new tech--and no doubt 4K gaming was coming--but I don't understand why they can't just wait another three years for it and brand it PS5. PS4 is selling at a meteoric pace and they've got the goodwill of fans. This is just going to (and already has) piss people off.
When I first heard about this, my thoughts immediately were "developers are going to hate this." More work on their end for no extra market share or profit. I know Sony usually leads the charge on new tech--and no doubt 4K gaming was coming--but I don't understand why they can't just wait another three years for it and brand it PS5. PS4 is selling at a meteoric pace and they've got the goodwill of fans. This is just going to (and already has) piss people off.
wut
Like, seriously, huh? You complain about them spitting on the face of early adopters but you want them to release a brand new console that has games that are exclusive to the new platform? How is that better for "early adopters"? Their console is actually obsolete.
I cannot follow your logic at all.
GreyOcelot
Member
so you'd rather have a dead console in 2018 instead of getting at least a few more years of new compatible games. gotcha.
very few parents buy $400 consoles, let alone $500 consoles. sony isn't asking those people to do that. neo will be for 2 types of people (1) people like us who are hardcore gamers and have the disposable income to sell off our ps4 and buy one of these things for $200-300 more. (2) people didn't already have a PS4 and are willing to shell out $400 for one.
the second, less expensive SKU is for the masses, the droves of people who buy consoles in the middle of a life cycle. get the $200-$300 base model and every last game still works for it.
it's a gamble, but it's really not that crazy considering it works in most other consumer electronics space. if you were the average consumer buying something for your kid or even yourself and the guy at gamestop tells you, "we have this model for $400 and this one for $300. they both play the same games, but the graphics are better on the $400 and it does 4k." most average consumers who just want to play a few games and stream netflix are going to stick with the standard ps4. the hardcore, the technophiles, the double dippers, are going to shell out the $400 for the new one. sony gets the have its cake and eat it too
names2hard4you
Member
Because there will be a point in which games are benchmarked to meet the Neo's specs, and then get scaled down to the regular PS4. We already see games running at subpar frame rates and resolution as is, so with the work that will have to be put to split both versions of their property, I can't see this getting any better. And again, two consoles = more work for the devs = longer development times and troubleshooting.
Same here.
PC and steam has a lot of that, and it's proven to not fuck customers over...much. So Seeing it further improved would be icing.
Who cares if it has been done before, or not? It's not like Sony, or MS, or whoever, are breaking a law. They can release a stronger hardware ever 5 minutes if they want.
You can play every PS4 game on your OG PS4. Why do you care that I can play my games with better graphics if I pay more?
And this makes absolutely no sense at all.
Simply skip the mid-gen refresh and buy the PS5 in 4 years. Problem solved and you won't miss any games.
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
Not only is this forced half step a burden to developers it also is an insult to PS4 owners as now we'll be playing the inferior versions of games. Having a brand new generation allows for developers to make better games and provides a real line of demarcation for gamers. Unless Sony is a bunch of arrogant idiots the PS5 would be fully backwards compatible with the PS4. As well early adopters are the ones who made the PS4 a success, now the wait and see types get a better performing version of the same system for the same price we paid for the original.
Call it the PS5, put a better CPU in it, allow exclusive games, and it makes it all better.
Right. It feels like we barely know anything about this and people are getting so riled up about it. Something like this is only concerning if it is guaranteed that developers will be making NEO exclusives or for some reason a developer is silly enough to cripple their PS4 version and focus on the NEO version. If someone owns a PS4, why consider buying this? For the bump in quality for the PS4 exclusive games? It doesn't seem like there will be that big of an upgrade for NEO versions. Just because a slight upgrade of something comes out, it doesn't mean you have to buy it. That would be very odd to do.
And I agree that a lot of the talk is pointless and a waste of time until we know more. For all we know, most devs are going to just use the same PS4 version of the game as the NEO version.
GreyOcelot
Member
bingo
it's a new option for those that want it. are there concerns about OGPS4 games having bad performance issues or something that? sure, i could see someone being concerned about that, but other than that, there is zero downside to this for someone who owns and enjoys their existing ps4
names2hard4you
Member
I'm all for advancement in technology and the medium don't get me wrong. But I personally didn't buy a console with the expectation that I'm going to have to keep up with this cycle, because if I did I'd be a PC player right. I understand that they aren't making me or anyone buy it, but who are we kidding here. The hardcore gamer (aka us) will follow them wherever they go. There is a reason why we post on these threads and chase after the next shinier thing. It almost feels like a trap, and they know it. "We are making this console that plays things a lot better than what you have now. Better graphics, better connection speeds, more features. But oh, you don't need to buy it
". You see what I mean? Not to mention again, the longer dev cycles that will come from this. If anything devs now will kind of be screwed. It's not unnatural for a game to take 2-3 years to make. Since all devs are being told that they must keep up with the different versions of their games staring in October, leading up to the Neo launch, what does this mean for the devs in 4 years when the next Neo is about to launch, and they have to do the same thing again mid-development?DagnastyEp
Member
I could possibly see a future where you could "sell" your digital games, getting a small amount of store credit from the storefront owner in return for giving up your license for the game. But I just don't think a digital used marketplace could/would work, and I don't think any digital [games] storefront will ever allow something like that. I can see developers, publishers, and the digital storefront owner all refusing to participate is something like that.
I really can't follow you here. Inferior versions of games? Get a PC if that matters to you. Your experience will be no worse off in 2017 on PS4 as it was in 2015. You're comparing your experience to the experience of others. Stop that. It doesn't matter. It really doesn't matter if some dude or chick is experiencing a slightly prettier game with slightly faster load times. What matters is what YOU'RE experiencing.
As long as we get stable, good looking games on the PS4 (same as we always have), this does not effect you, the gamer, at all.
But I really want to know how a PS5 is better for a PS4 gamer than PS4K, because you still haven't explained that. A PS5 makes your PS4 obsolete way, way, WAY faster than a PS4K, especially with the policies they're putting in place.
In a few years Colin's Hot Takes will be as funny to look back on as Pachter's comments in 2009 about publishers not supporting any new consoles.
Omnistalgic
Member
i disagree with your logic and find it quite stupid tbh. I see much less value in my ps4 if ps5 came out in 2017 and started a new gen with exclusive gsmes to it.
I also don't care that I bought a Ps4 in early 2014 and some bought one end of this year for the fame price and got a better more powerful system. I mean, that just seems like a selfish way of viewing things.
"I've been here from the start I should get all the benefits!"
Like what?
DriftingSpirit
Member
Absolutely agree.
It is something completely unknown. Anyone vehemently touting it as completely positive or completely negative are quite frankly embarrassing.
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
Do you really think we will still get stable, good looking games on the base PS4? Sony is requiring developers to have the NEO mode run at 1080p and an equal or better framerate than the base mode. The hardware increase of the NEO isn't really enough to do that as a pure step up, at least not with the same CPU. So either developers are going to make compromises for NEO mode or the base mode will be gimped.
When playing multiplayer having other players play at a higher framerate and a high resolution does matter totally.
How can we be sure that devs will still give the base mode the same attention they will the NEO? How does that not still make the base PS4 obsolete? Having a new generation with better specs across the board with exclusive games moved gaming forward, not sideways. Consoles aren't mobile phones, this shouldn't be happening.
If the NEO had a better CPU and Sony allows NEO exclusive features it wouldn't be as bad, but as it stands now there is no reason for the NEO to exist at all.
DriftingSpirit
Member
We don't know. That is the point.
Omnistalgic
Member
Lol I hope so...
Despite me not being annoyed or outraged by this. There are problems with it. Marketing, tools for developers to transition smoothly, consumer feedback. It's not Iike I'm 100% on board. But still, seeing a lot of entitlement since these rumors started. Sound like people are in a relationship with the PS division and Sony is breaking a promise lol.