... I basically disagreed with everything, but I greatly appreciate the feedback and response. This is why I love GAF. It's great to just have a good conversation.
Haha, no hard feelings, I always enjoy a good discussion about things as interesting and complex as this. Even if it seems we'll never quite agree.
... The problem is there's no generational leap to be had in the way that it was done in years prior. So that creates a new situation that Sony is responding to before we actually got there: a generational leap with PS5 that would have been the weakest jump in console history, should it arrive 5 years past the launch of PS4. Instead, they're going the iterative route.
No, the market isn't clamoring for this, and it will be up to Sony to convince them why they should be...
While you're certainly correct, due to the slowing of technological progression, I think we're differing in our thoughts about how to address the "problem" of the PS5 in this situation. So, Sony are moving towards an iterative console approach... in the middle of a generation that was not expressly sold as an iterative one. This is why we're seeing the reaction we are: no one knew the PS4 was going to be overshadowed so soon. And, given the history of Sony's previous consoles, no one could reasonably be expected to suspect otherwise. Jumping out and yelling "surprise!" was the worst possible way they could have decided to do this, from a consumer perspective. Of course, with ~40m PS4's in the wild, it was the best way to do this from Sony's perspective because consumers jumped on the bandwagon, expecting a solid 6 years of being the highest end available.
I, personally, think Sony should have held back the iterative transition to the Playstation 5. Discuss this with developers and publishers, and build the necessary tools to make sure developers are taken care of. Then, step up on stage at the reveal and lay out the plans nice and clear for everyone right from the beginning. It still introduces problems, which I'll discuss below, but they're absolutely mitigated, and consumers are informed to make the best purchasing decisions for themselves. I suppose that's where a good amount of my own animosity towards the idea comes from - the current PS4 owners own the weaker PS4 hardware, but none of them actually chose to be in this situation. Developers were likely equally in the dark until the Sony rep started their presentation about the new hardware they'd have to use.
... You're assuming a lot when it comes to how people decide to purchase consoles. Sure, theoretically I could have bought the PS3 on launch day for $500 and enjoyed the 8 years of games. Is that what actually happens with most people? No, because a lot of them jump in at the mid-point, when sales plateau.
You look at it and say that Sony is forcing you to upgrade, ruining your value proposition that you had at launch. I say that they extended the lifespan of the PS4 to a large degree because the cycle of iterative hardware is theoretically set to last forever. At some point they'll have to drop PS4 support, but that most likely won't happen for quite some time...
I may be making some assumptions, however I feel they're not big ones, and are loosely supported by the trends and sales data we can see in the market. People buy a console when its appropriate value for them, and different people find different degrees of value at different price points. Now, I've highlighted the part of your assumptions I draw issue with - because at this point, it's an entirely unknown quantity, and no "good" assumption can be made. Given what we're seeing with Sony currently - PS2 re-masters being sold again to PS4 owners, PSNow being pushed instead of bringing forward the PS1 and PS2 classics, mid-gen hardware upgrades - I cannot give Sony the benefit of the doubt. Clear generational breaks are easier to understand and justify than arbitrarily cutting off backwards comparability when Sony need to sell new hardware or more software.
In all the time I've been a game developer I've never been questioned about my experience with game development. There's a first for everyone I suppose.
Sorry, reading my post again, I come across as a little antagonistic. What I meant to say was that I would be interesting in learning about the experiences you've had in the industry that would lead you to your point of view, as they differ quite a bit from my own. My own experience is entirely QA-focused, across both enterprise software and video games. I occasionally dabble in software development and small scale games, but its never been my focus
You're absolutely dead wrong here. Only the biggest publishers can do games like Destiny and the Division? Have you not seen the multitude of games on the XB1/PS4 store that have ever growing communities that have been growing for years now?
I'm not sure I'm understanding you. Destiny and The Division are two of the largest, most expensive video games ever produced, requiring expensive server infrastructure and constant support so demanding, that even the two biggest publishers in the industry are struggling with their respective titles. Can you clarify?
Honestly, everything that you mention about game development for the PS4 and PS4K and how it's more costly than the PS3/PS4 generational gap is wrong, wrong wrong. There is no headache involved in developing for something like the PS4k. More work, sure. But it is not a problem. Not something like a traditional PS5 that severs ties with the PS4 like all other generations would bring.
I clarified my point after this post, but essentially I didn't mean to say that PS4->PS4K was more expensive than PS3->PS4. I meant to say that PS3->PS4 had financial justification in terms of the additional development work. PS4->PS4K has very little justification, apart from Sony's mandates and requirements, despite the smaller amount of work. The amount of work involved will differ from developer to developer, but everyone will be effected, and the pay off is... Sony sells new hardware? The benefits of iterative hardware only stack up if Sony move to a true iOS model, where a software house can migrate their underlying tech across less granular hardware generations. Sony's "stop gap" solution with the PS4k, which may or may not be replaced by a real new generation in a PS5, offers most of the same headaches, with none of the benefits... except to Sony.
You cannot compare the moves MS made with the original XB1 with the moves Sony is doing here. MS threatened everyone's right to owning a game, selling it, and disrupting the used game industry solely for the purpose of their own gains. Sony is offering a new premium PS4. I fail to see how this will garner the kind of anti-consumer rights movement the XB1 did at its reveal.
I don't mean to imply that the two are equal in scope, though they would/will shake the industry, I'm saying that both benefit themselves exclusively. The PS4k doesn't benefit consumers. Current PS4 owners receive scaled down versions of games that otherwise would have directly targeted their hardware spec. PS4k owners get hardware that can't be used fully because its software has to function on a model ~50% weaker. Developers have to do more work for the same sales, and publishers have to expand QA budgets to account for a new SKU that doesn't provide access to previously inaccessible customers. The only winner here is Sony.
but I get what you mean. It's not like I would call the previous 3 years a complete waste, The Witness was awesome, I actually enjoyed The Order too, and Driveclub and a few others, but in hindsight it would've no doubt been better to wait for PS4K, especially since the games I've played being annoyed at the framerate will likely run better on PS4K. 