lukeskymac
Member
That completely defeats console's greatest advantage.
-
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.
500 USD PS4 that was even more powerful. Would that be better?
- Thread starter Exploratory
- Start date
That completely defeats console's greatest advantage.
Ah, we may be talking about different things then. If you just mean "upgrades every two or three years," that may be logistically feasible. I got the impression from the person who started the conversation that he was imagining multiple GPUs being available, as sort of a high/medium/low tier for a consumer to pick from at any given time.
I also think you're missing my point: I am discussing what is economically feasible, not what is technically possible. Obviously, Sony "can" make a $1400 system that they sell for $100, in the sense that such a thing is not constrained by the laws of physics. It is, however, constrained by the laws of economics.
I think Infamous looks great.
But it's not technically all that impressive. Nice art direction, nice looking model on the main character.. some cool shaders on the main character's abilities..
But the rest of what is being rendered is fairly simple.
That's not to say it isn't a valid opinion to say it's the best looking game out. But from a technical perspective I think that's a bit harder to argue.
But it's not technically all that impressive. Nice art direction, nice looking model on the main character.. some cool shaders on the main character's abilities..
But the rest of what is being rendered is fairly simple.
That's not to say it isn't a valid opinion to say it's the best looking game out. But from a technical perspective I think that's a bit harder to argue.
Based Calla
Member
Doesn't matter how much RAM a console has, if it doesn't have games, I'm not BUYING THAT!
I still don't understand what that has to do with their ability to license games. Nintendo didn't sacrifice game licensing costs because you could upgrade your N64.
Nor do I understand why you think it would be economically infeasable even if it were more than a once in a while upgrade.
AMD, Sony's partner.. has the ability to produce faster versions of the PS4 parts right now. Particularly the GPU. It's not a matter of having to spend a ton more money to design something, and if anything would allow them to potentially increase profit margins for those who opted for the higher end parts. And over the years AMD will be designing upgrades to very similar parts for PC a well with or without any Sony investment.
The reason once every few years makes sense to me is that it coincides with how quickly they are able to create GPU's w/ the same size/heat/power requirements but more power. You'd have to take into account the greater size/cooling/PSU requirements from the start otherwise.
EdwardTeach
Member
It wouldn't have sold nearly as well and therefore wouldn't have had as good software support.
shouamabane
Member
I'd pay $500 for a fully backwards compatible PS4 with DLNA support.
rokkerkory
Member
$500? lol no way too much
It would have been better future wise, but that wouldn't have changed things for me so far, i would have kept playing every multiplatform game on my PC with better graphics, and i would have bought Xbox One for its better exclusives Ryse(i loved that game), Dead Rising 3 and Forza 5, and finally i would have bought this even more powerful PS4 only when Uncharted 4 would have been released, just like i'm gonna do now.
You don't get 'zero new features'. That's not how developers work - because the developers who *do* create new features will have prettier games - and the associated hype - than those who don't.
Zen_Arcade
Banned
$400 was the perfect sweet spot.
I don't think a lot of people realize that these new consoles aren't that powerful. Struggling to run latest releases at 1080/60 is actually pretty pathetic. Its gonna be a short generation. I only own an Xbox One for Halo, Gears and Forza, and the fact that 343 is struggling to get H2A running in 1080/60 is unsettling. I'd pay $500 for a more powerful PS4 if it meant the generation could last a couple more years, because transitioning from console to console is really awkward.
You need a closed platform that you control to collect game license fees, correct?
Again, because it's a economic/logistical nightmare. Think of the shipping and manufacturing complications of such an enterprise. Did you think no one had done this... just because they didn't want to?
If the Xbox One wasn't also significantly more powerful, then zero new features would actually be pretty likely (ask the PC guys).
i want a videogamesystem which just runs the games.
i dont want internet, movies, streams and all this crap.
just games. i dont care about the price. it just has to run smooth and fluid. no loading screen, no patching, no whatever shit to start the game. i want to put the disc/cartridge in, hit on power on and fuck yeah game on.
instead installing, downloading, restart, oh wait there is a content-pack waiting on the marketplace, and hey bro, have you heard that you can buy this and that....
holy shit, it makes me sick to see this these days on 360/ps3. still havent joined the current-gen but until now there havent been games which turned me on.
i dont want internet, movies, streams and all this crap.
just games. i dont care about the price. it just has to run smooth and fluid. no loading screen, no patching, no whatever shit to start the game. i want to put the disc/cartridge in, hit on power on and fuck yeah game on.
instead installing, downloading, restart, oh wait there is a content-pack waiting on the marketplace, and hey bro, have you heard that you can buy this and that....
holy shit, it makes me sick to see this these days on 360/ps3. still havent joined the current-gen but until now there havent been games which turned me on.
I look at InFamous: Second Son and I don't really believe that.
Just curious... but power wise, which console generation since 3D would you say is worse than this one?
Imru al-Qays
Banned
The PS4 is the first console in a long-ass time that launched at exactly right price.
well we had that generation already thats true. snes/MD and the gc/ps2/xbox era was just perfect.
i got utterly disappointed last gen, handhelds are pretty much dead except for the 3ds.
i think we are at a point where the price shouldnt matter, if you are buying a high-tech product.
ipad/iphone are costing a fortune but they are only used for surfing and phoning. basically a lot of people never use most of the functions and helpful apps.
my parents have a 3g tablet and they are using it only to check stuff on ebay and reading news.
so why are videogamesystems which are costing more than 400dollars these days failing on the market?
maybe the targeted audience are too conservative to buy the full package? maybe the advertised and offered products are just too lame?
i dont know it, but i wonder why so many people are buying every year the newest ipad and iphone,.... this should be comparable...
Of course.
Modular console wouldn't suddenly open up the software platform. Nor would it necessarily open up the hardware platform. You wouldn't want a modular console to be open.
Sell products for higher than cost.
There you go, I solved your problem that you have yet to explain lol.
As far as logistics... shipping? LOL. what in the world does shipping have to do with this?
As if Sony has never shipped... stuff? The hardware design is an issue but not an insurmountable one. And once again.. Sony can 100% control that, and be the only provider of said upgrades.
No. You are being incredibly obtuse. They have a myriad of reasons not to do it. And I said I don't personally think it's a great idea. There are many advantages to focusing on static hardware for an entire console generation. Obviously the overall reason for everything is economics; but "feasibility" isn't the issue.. it's what makes sense overall strategy wise.
bemusedchunk
Banned
Falcon Northwest Playstation.
People are more attached to their phones and view it as something they can't manage without. Seeing as it's something that is almost never more than 20ft away from you at all times during the day and night, people are willing to spend more to continue feeling good about it. People (even most of us) care far less about their games consoles.
Also, about people not using most of the functions of their phones... that's somewhat true, but then you see something like Candy Crush, and suddenly having the ability to do more than just receive calls and browse the web becomes valuable. Higher end phones sell so much because they're versatile. If you take 10 different people, each may have bought the same phone for different uses, but that one phone can cover all of them. It's not too dissimilar to non-gamers getting a PS3 as a BluRay player last gen.
I always find it strange when people complain about added software functionality in games consoles. Why would Sony or Microsoft want to build machines that are powerful enough to handle the most demanding games, but then not use any of the power to also provide functionality that a cheap phone can do in its sleep. I shouldn't have to buy and AppleTV/Roku/FireTV/Chromecast or whatever alongside my games console simply to do shit they can handle easily anyway. Should I be expected to carry a separate calculator around with me so my phone can get back to only making calls? Makes no sense to me.
JudgmentJay
Member
There's nothing remotely impressive graphically about Infamous: SS. It looks nice aesthetically thanks mainly due to flashy particle effects, but under the hood there's nothing special going on. You could easily say the same thing about something like Journey or as AmFreak mentioned, Mario Galaxy. Yeah, they look nice aesthetically, but they're not impressive from a technical standpoint. The FPS also fluctuates wildly.
jonnyp
Member
Not to me. I buy consoles because of the exclusive games on them that I want to play. I've never understood what 100 or 200 dollars more on the price of a console matters. It's not a lot of money, especially divided over a console's life span. Would've gladly paid more for more powerful console hardware.
But I guess I'm one of the few unfortunately.
agreed.
was happy paying this on the 360's launch day, and would have been happy paying this for a PS4 [if I cared to own one].
I would much rather prefer [slightly] weaker hardware and [moderately] shorter generations to more powerful hardware & more drawn-out generations.
I'm not really seeing what makes this so different from things that actually have been done before. Sega Saturn RAM cart... N64 RAM Expansion... PS2 HDD... Dreamcast Broadband modem... or even larger upgrades such as the Sega CD or 32X. At the end of the day these things aren't really any more complicated to produce and ship than any other random accessory. There are plenty of other reasons why these ideas weren't great, but actually getting them to stores doesn't seem to be the problem.
You could even consider something like a Mac Mini which has a single platform owner but offers different, yet compatible spec loadouts. They could do something similar for consoles... and in fact they somewhat did last gen, when you consider different SKUs with differing internal drives, or models with PS2 hardware for BC etc.
Conciliator
Banned
No, my PC is my expensive machine. I want a decently priced, reliable TV box that plays the small handful of exclusives I really care about, games that are great on big TVs and games I only care about enough to get from gamefly. Definitely does not need to be super-powerful for me. The main thing I want is good games, and $100 is not going to make a meaningful difference on that front.
PsihoPerihelion
Member
It's fine as it is for it's price. All I want is for them to reduce the RAM reserve for OS.
I would pay $500 to understand what the hell did you just wrote.
I would pay $500 to understand what the hell did you just wrote.
But then the PSFOUR doesn't cost FOUR hundred dollars.
On a serious note, I don't think it would have done very well at all at that price. The Xbox brand has massive mindshare, even when it was looking to be what it was. Price is a good way to say "hey, look over here!" and that's all they really need to grab attention (of course there's a lot more than that, but price is the main thing for an unknowing consumer).
On a serious note, I don't think it would have done very well at all at that price. The Xbox brand has massive mindshare, even when it was looking to be what it was. Price is a good way to say "hey, look over here!" and that's all they really need to grab attention (of course there's a lot more than that, but price is the main thing for an unknowing consumer).
He would continue buying multiplatform games for his PC (which is assumed to be more powerful than a $500 PS4 would be), and feels that the PS4 would still lack exclusives that he'd be interested in.
The only exclusive on his radar currently is Infamous. Other than Infamous, he feels there are very few other games worth paying attention to, and any that are haven't yet been released. He does expect the line up to improve over the next few years as we settle into the generation though.
I can PM you my Paypal if you like?
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
I personally would have been happy to pay north of 600 USD for a beefier, ~150W system using more powerful components. $400 was the right decision from a business perspective though. They managed to undercut their primary competitor by a hundred dollars while offering a more powerful GPU. Sony couldn't have asked for a better start to the generation.
th4tguy
Member
Honestly, and I hope this is the case, I think the price is perfect for a machine with an average lifespan of 5 years. They are on x86 architecture now and if they stick with x86 (why wouldn't they?) BC is a no brainer. I know people that update just their Graphics cards on their pcs (200-400 each time) every two years.
Summery: $400 console that is updated every 5 years and remains 100% BC is the way it looks to be going and makes the price and power just right. If the console life span was any longer, I would say the power isn't enough.
I also think we will see games that are cross gen throughout the entirety of the ps5 and maybe even ps6 life cycles with ps4, similar to how you see games cross gen in ios devices.
Summery: $400 console that is updated every 5 years and remains 100% BC is the way it looks to be going and makes the price and power just right. If the console life span was any longer, I would say the power isn't enough.
I also think we will see games that are cross gen throughout the entirety of the ps5 and maybe even ps6 life cycles with ps4, similar to how you see games cross gen in ios devices.
Spectral Entity
Member
They did, it was called the Vaio (now it's own brand thanks to some kind Japanese investors).
biggersmaller
Banned
Preach it. Also, release a fucking BT remote.
MastaKilla
Member
The reason Sony struggled last gen and started this gen so much better is that they learned their lesson about pricing. $500 just is not a mainstream gaming price.