NHarmonic.
Member
Still holding on to that silly hope that this isn't actually happening, silly me though.
I have a PS4. I'll have the same games as PS4K. I'm covered there.
Also, that's why I said most likely lmfao. I got burned on the 3DS getting that shit at launch. If it is 400, I may just wait and see how it does.
I rather spend 400 getting a new system with franchises I like whilst having access to PS4 games. The value is better to me.
Why not try it and see how the market reacts? We've had the same 5~7 year console cycles for a while now with no shakeups. If it totally fails, we'll just go back to that... I guess?
Agreed. Especially for someone who will support that practice by purchasing the console. At one point I thought he will end the podcast like this:I love Colin. Having said, he's vastly, vastly overreacting to this.
And unfortunately no matter how many devs or people experienced with coding say this, there will continue to be people on this and other sites who "disagree" despite not knowing what they are talking about. This behavior is unreal.
These PC comparisons are pointless. Getting the game to run on the new system is not the issue. Giving both versions the same attention and care is potentially a big one however.
PC games accommodate a wide variety of hardware configurations, and they also tend to not be as optimized for almost any of them as a console game is for it's set of specs. Coding for consoles can very often require a very different strategy than coding for PC and there were plenty of devs that spoke about this when they first started embracing consoles last gen.
The point isn't that it's super difficult. The point is that it does require significantly more time and resources if you want both versions to be as polished as they can be. And in an industry where games cost insane amounts of both of these things as it is, it should be very easily understood why developers would have an issue with this. If you don't get this then you probably don't want to.
This would probably not be as big a deal to them if they were getting any benefit from it, but I would imagine most devs don't see the benefits outweighing the cons for them.
People seem really paranoid about this. They shouldn't be.
Cross-posting myself:
I feel i'm missing something very fundamental here - don't many developers have to account for the myriad of PC variations/console versions already? Don't they have different graphical settings already depending on which to optimize for? Like, I understand this is more work, but isn't developing for the PC audience like exponentially more difficult compared to having just two Playstation models to code for?
E3 is going to be nuts.
He spoke to a "trusted source" that apparently has communication with most or all other developers.
It's like Sony made a console that runs games better. Lol.Seems the better option.
Tbh i feel like this console is entirely for those whiny guys on forums who complain when a game drops 2 frames or that the PS4 version isn't 1080p and locked at 60fps. Its like sony made an entire console just to shut those people up. Lol.
These threads aren't as large as they are from everybody high-fiving each other in agreement.Why is it bad for consumers? It's not like anybody is forcing people to buy it.
Add to that two versions of PS4, X1 maybe X1.5 and NX. Can you see now what could be an issue? Somewhere something or somebody will suffer in this process.
My point is I don't want to have an inferior machine, that's not why I game on consoles.
Sony claims they're listening to gamers and developers. How much more vocal can both be in regards to this thing? We haven't heard of any developers that are excited about this. Every report is that of negativity. And it seems like the same goes for the views from gamers. Yes, obviously some are excited about it, but the general consensus seems to be negative. Sometimes you don't need to try something to know it's a bad idea.
... or maybe they asked and found there was enough interest from them in continuing this route and Colin is trying to spin his own opinion into something more?
Love him too. Huge fan. Sadly though...I agree with you here. I think it's an overreaction, not just by him, but by many.
I'm pretty sure when the topic of an expandable Xbox 1.5 came up on the Gamecast, he even said he thought it was a good idea.
I'd be curious to hear him discuss why he feels hardware expansion through expandable options would be ok, but releasing an updated console isn't.
Could just be about the optics of it all. Perhaps PS4 owners wouldn't feel so shafted if they could buy a $50 "expansion pak" rather than having to sell their main console to buy an updated version?
Me personally though, I'm excited about it. Hope they follow through and don't let the backlash prevent them from releasing it.
But if you game on consoles, you always have an inferior machine. Nothing has changed.My point is I don't want to have an inferior machine, that's not why I game on consoles.
From a developer perspective it's a fraction of the price with only some of the benefits. Same architecture, same tools, one software SKU shared across two consoles. The most obvious extra cost is qualification, and time will tell whether it literally means doubling QA staff to test everything twice or if developers can find ways to mitigate that effort.
Smoothing out the generation shifts is in everybody's interests. Time will tell if this works out well or not.
Unless the APU on each console is the same as the last, it doesn't add a little more work; it would be a LOT more work. And it sub-divides their ecosystem into several smaller markets, while increasing the cost on developers. It would be costing more money to sell to the same pool of users. There are a lot of other issues with this approach as well, particularly for the hardware vendor themselves.
Just because MS is releasing the systems, doesn't mean the APU configuration of the machine would be the same between each console. Are you telling me each console will have an AMD CPU & GPU, with eSRAM & DDR3 as its memory configuration, not to mention with the same bus configuration? Cause if any one of those components changes, the devs are going to need to make that console's own code path in order to support the machine natively.
Things would have to become more PC-like, yes. But instead of supporting x number of configs, you just support 3 set configs.
Like I said, it'd be more work for devs, I recognize that. Perhaps the dev tools could be streamlined enough where much of that work is taken care of for the devs. This is a big question, and obviously MS would have to have solutions for devs if they did go this route.
Supporting two platforms is already a daunting, expensive, time consuming task. You think a 3rd console would be anywhere near that insignificant or ever have dev tools that were that streamlined? Devs are right now trying to focus on streamlining our development process to get more & more games in a higher state of polish out the door in the next few years; not less. Not to mention, all another MS console would do was increase the cost & work on our end, while providing the same ecosystem for us to sell to - Xbox users will still be Xbox users. This doesn't grow their marketshare. I'm still selling to the same pool of users, only now I have to increase my budget & dev time to do so on two different platforms. Trust me, most publishers will just pick one platform per ecosystem & support the one that can make them the highest ROI.
It would never be a set of dev tools where it takes care of the conversion process for us. Each of our code bases can potentially be radically different, and we usually write our code bases to specialize in the machine its running on, meaning the more adept with a console we become, the more unique to those respective platforms each build's code base is.
So how does it work on the PC? You're not coding for every single conceivable config out there... Or am I missing something.
No, you don't, hence the problems many PC releases see. At best, you code for specific manufacturers, and hope that most of their more recent and older processors can handle some of the features you've incorporated into your renderer & your memory mangament system. At best, you'll work with manufacturers (like Nvidia) to have a day 1 driver issued on the day of your game's launch. But it's hard to predict what issues will arrive in certain configurations, whether its the manufacturer of the RAM, the motherboard that all the components are housed onto, or some other unforeseen issue that do arise.
On console, its far more predictable, but there are many conceits that are made on the hardware side on a console that we don't necessarily deal with on PC, at least not in the same way. So at the very least, you have a new development pipeline you will have to build and support, which means a brand new version of the game that needs to be fully tested to ensure solid QA. That means there will be unique issues that platform sees that none of the others do.
Add to all of that the shared consumers that the Xbox ecosystem would have, and most publishers will most likely just pick the one that is closest to its rival ecosystem in terms of specs & install base, and just stick to supporting that one.
I don't wanna buy a new Playstation just to play the same exact games, with that money I can just get a new console like the NX or w/e. I'm still hoping the Neo is just a false rumour.
again, where are all these people saying this? and no, i'm not taking colin's tweet as gospel. are you a dev? i mean, i've seen this so far
So this one guy that knows all the devs says this is bad. Okay.
But who is this mystic that communicates with MOST other developers, and has done so over the past few days or weeks?
... or maybe they asked and found there was enough interest from them in continuing this route and Colin is trying to spin his own opinion into something more?
I don't know but this mystic seems to be legit. I'm of the opinion Sony should just trash the whole concept based on Moriarty's tweet.
Better luck next time Kaaaz!
My point is I don't want to have an inferior machine, that's not why I game on consoles.
I mean. Consumers are obviously concerned. We're just going to ignore developers too? Is there no amount of "this is a bad idea" that's valid? There's plenty of evidence in the industry that working on multiple platforms is a strain. Bad ports, high costs, certain systems eagerly being dropped.
He's a journalist. The PS4k info is also from journalists.
No, they didn't
If I recall correctly, that person hadn't worked at Bioware since 2012?
No, BioWare has not done so.
Greg Zeschuk (who made those comments) retired from Bioware years ago.
Outside of the impact this will have on the timeline for the development of the PlayStation 4 games, the willingness of Sony developers to optimize for the old PS4 and the likes. Would Santa Monica have tried to make something as advanced as GoW2 for the PS2 when they had a PS2.5?The status quo is everyone experiences PS4 standard till PS5. That won't change for you. So your frustration is that others may be able to benefit from some more FPS or graphical tweaks, right? That's rather one sided to say artificially holding everyone back to keep you happy should be the way it is.
I'm curious to see the interviews after the thing unveils.
It's possible tons of developers are upset, but Colin citing one person speaking for an industry without any additional details isn't convincing me this is the majority opinion.
maybe. i'm not taking this colin as the next messiah but for now we have the bioware boss telling it would be a huge pain in the ass
Yeah, remember how Nintendo had EA with the unprecedented partnership, and Yves Guillemot stating the Nintendo vision aligns with Ubi's, and how asymmetrical gaming is the future, on stage at the Wii U announcement at E³ 2012. They had all the big ones on board!"Most developers"?
This is going to look pretty stupid if Sony have a developer interview reel like they did when they announced the ps4 hardware.
I highly doubt they would push forward with this unless the major publishers were on board.
Seems the better option.
Tbh i feel like this console is entirely for those whiny guys on forums who complain when a game drops 2 frames or that the PS4 version isn't 1080p and locked at 60fps. Its like sony made an entire console just to shut those people up. Lol.
Arrogant Sony is back! Didn't take long.
Hey devs...just deal with it.
But words on messageboards, especially based on rumours before an official announcement has even been made with the actual specs and plans, do not necessarily correlate to actual market results. Hence why putting it on a shelf may well be the best way to see if it works.
And I would understand that. Using the HDMI 2.0 or whatever is needed that the current model lacks of in the slim model so those who have a 4K TV can buy this product to take advantage of it (and probably they have more income than the common customer) is a decent idea.it's not just the extra work stuff. ps4 is in very good shape now which is something developers depend on to sell their games. messing with the business model by introducing new hardware is a gamble that might(and hopefully will) backfire.
I just don't see any sense in doing this now. I think the idea of iterative consoles is horrible on every level but if you are going to do it anyway then introduce the concept with a new gen and be honest about it upfront. it just seems stupid to risk momentum at this point when things are already going so well.
some people have brought up that it's a strategy to push 4k tv/bluray but that just seems backwards. how big of a market share will sony realistically have on 4k tvs and does anyone think 4k blurays will be a big thing? I don't think I know a single person who actually cares about bluray. for most people once they start using streaming services, going back to discs is not an appealing idea.
Hahaha. Now the Call of Duty boycott steam group image fits perfectly.colin fighting the good fight for the "poor" gamers while still buying psvr and ps4k at launch. truly an everyman
Woohoo! Problems solved! Well done, Vader!
He's a journalist. The PS4k info is also from journalists.
And unfortunately no matter how many devs or people experienced with coding say this, there will continue to be people on this and other sites who "disagree" despite not knowing what they are talking about. This behavior is unreal.
These PC comparisons are pointless. Getting the game to run on the new system is not the issue. Giving both versions the same attention and care is potentially a big one however.
PC games accommodate a wide variety of hardware configurations, and they also tend to not be as optimized for almost any of them as a console game is for it's set of specs. Coding for consoles can very often require a very different strategy than coding for PC and there were plenty of devs that spoke about this when they first started embracing consoles last gen.
The point isn't that it's super difficult. The point is that it does require significantly more time and resources if you want both versions to be as polished as they can be. And in an industry where games cost insane amounts of both of these things as it is, it should be very easily understood why developers would have an issue with this. If you don't get this then you probably don't want to.
This would probably not be as big a deal to them if they were getting any benefit from it, but I would imagine most devs don't see the benefits outweighing the cons for them.
It's like Sony made a console that runs games better. Lol.