• 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.

Retail Perspective on Iterative Hardware (PS4K, Xbox1.5 etc)

"Just buy the cheaper one"

There, problem solved.

Christmas will be really fun, with all those disappointed kids who only got the cheaper PS4.

Offering both models at the same time might make sense from business perspective at first, but I don't think it's a good idea to divide their customers into different "classes". This will cause a lot of negative feelings.
 

friday

Member
Thanks for the good info OP. I figured retail stores would probably be offering some kind of tradeup deal.

I feel like a lot of people's outrage is due to the fact that a console is not going to last for the normal 5 to 6 years life span they once had. What was once one of the best reasons for being a console focused gamer is now seemingly gone. Honestly hardware refreshes happening at a faster pace seems like something console makers have to move towards. With both PC and mobile evolving so fast, they have to change models so they can keep up.
 

wapplew

Member
Need to know the long term goal.
One additional iteration between generation? a few iterations between generation? No more generation?

A similar but stronger machine every 3 years, how will that effect the launch excitement for next machine? Can they maintain 20 millions first year adoption rate?
Console is not phones, they don't have many other selling points like screen, camera, design, performance, finger print etc. How can console sustain the model with just power different?
 

bomblord1

Banned
I have also worked and retail and can say with the utmost certainty people are stupid and will flip out and even the most miniscule things. "Why do I have to buy another system to play this better they should just make it like that for this system"

Once the system is released then we can decide if it's a retail failure.
 

Curufinwe

Member
In the longterm I believe consoles will phase out and all three manufacturers have seen this and have begun preparations to move away from dedicated hardware. Either they'll join PC as platform services or will be on whatever convergence of smartphones and PCs have come out by that point when battery tech finally has a new breakthrough. Until then the console market will continue to shrink year over year. The new generations (15 and younger) are largely not growing up with consoles.

Funny post in a thread about new console hardware. It'll be 10 years soon since people started saying there would be no more consoles. And yet, they keep coming.
 
Great posts...unfortunately this seems too reasonable to get 50+ pages of discussion and will be buried by chickens with their heads severed lol.
 

cordy

Banned
In the longterm I believe consoles will phase out and all three manufacturers have seen this and have begun preparations to move away from dedicated hardware. Either they'll join PC as platform services or will be on whatever convergence of smartphones and PCs have come out by that point when battery tech finally has a new breakthrough. Until then the console market will continue to shrink year over year. The new generations (15 and younger) are largely not growing up with consoles.

Interesting comment. Personally I feel it'll move into a platform based system as well and they'll thrive that way although they might have a small box or so for a bit, they'll eventually be a full on platform. Not within the next 15 but afterwards who knows. Probably not within the next 20. I don't know when it'll happen but regardless I do think it'll happen.

I can see something similar to a Netflix for consoles decades from now where you can click on what game you want. Just depends on what's the base for that.
 

Oneself

Member
Need to know the long term goal.
One additional iteration between generation? a few iterations between generation? No more generation?

A similar but stronger machine every 3 years, how will that effect the launch excitement for next machine? Can they maintain 20 millions first year adoption rate?
Console is not phones, they don't have many other selling points like screen, camera, design, performance, finger print etc. How can console sustain the model with just power different?

Same gen, 2 different SKUs for two different types of customers. PS5 will happen and even more customers will be excited for it thanks to this. It's definitely a win for Sony and for console gamers craving for the newest tech.
 

Boke1879

Member
Great posts...unfortunately this seems too reasonable to get 50+ pages of discussion and will be buried by chickens with their heads severed lol.

For that though I'm grateful. We can actually have a bit of a discussion without the usual shit and hyperbole being thrown around.
 

Abdiel

Member
I think this is an extremely naive assumption. I very much doubt vanilla PS4 owners will get the exact same performance they would have, were the PS4K to never exist. At the end of the day studios have a limited number of developers, development time, budgets etc, and when they're already getting spread thin just working on the PS4, Xbox One and PC, you really think adding in the PS4K (and potentially the NX too) isn't going to spread things out even more? They'll have even less time on the PS4 version, and will have to allocate more time, money and devs to the new hardware.

I don't think it's all that naive. Especially with the architecture remaining effectively the same, with improvements in performance alone, we've already had devs that clearly know actual information about the hardware voice that this shouldn't be an issue.

And until it does start being an issue, I simply refuse to assume that they're going to fuck it up. I'm not going to assume it's going to be perfect 100% of the time, because we already have issues with some games as it is, but I didn't expect that to stop, either. Just that the PS4K version might be better off, while the PS4 version has the existing issues as it would have regardless.

That's just the nature of game development as we've seen this gen. Shit like AC Unity happened without this hardware being on the market. We also saw the Witcher 3 go through a gamut of issues with its patches and come through pretty great... eventually. It's a shame it took awhile, but alas.

What I'm really saying on the dev side of things is that the PS4K shouldn't be assumed to suddenly cause the PS4 to suddenly suck. That makes no sense. It'll still have it's own quirks and issues as it was going to anyway. If it goes horribly awry, you can bet I'll be the first person to call them out on it, because I'm in stores, selling products to people and I don't abide selling shit openly.
 

The God

Member
Never been a PC gamer but even I know trying to play the power game against PC is futile. Throwing away what consoles are to try to compete like that sounds worthless imo.
 

AmyS

Member
I think the argument against PS4K and iterative console hardware in general, as far as whether or not they actually happen, is this

cSO1UQa.jpg


jvICj3W.jpg
 

Curufinwe

Member
I can already see the thread now where PS4K is blamed for Bloodborne 2 not being a solid 30 fps despite the fact that also happened with BB and DS3.
 

MogCakes

Member
?

Did you misunderstand my post? People have constantly talked about pcs being better than consoles relating to power, frame-rate, graphics and etc for the longest time. This way however that at least changes the gap that way the console side isn't near as disadvantaged as before which is the entire point. That's what I'm talking about. That's why I said "help" and "fast surpassing". I'm not talking about the "lolz pcs just got more power bro PC MASTER RAZZEE1111" stuff, I'm talking about adding everything together as a whole which helps the console side rather than being trounced across the board. This makes consoles appear better in the long run and this also gives more to their side in regards to people staying on consoles rather than switching to the pc side which a great amount do consider they feel consoles are just too far behind. The key is "too far" here.

It's common sense.

The big factor driving PC gaming is accessibility, not power. This also goes into game prices and free online. Most people need a PC for other reasons besides gaming too, which makes the purchase easier to justify. Having better hardware options and such is just a bonus that power PC users like. That being said, concerning what I've bolded in your post - iterative consoles won't change the power gap at all, unless it's a yearly iteration incorporating the latest in GPU solutions, which will absolutely price them in the very high end range, directly competing with PC rigs.
 

wapplew

Member
Same gen, 2 different SKUs for two different types of customers. PS5 will happen and even more customers will be excited for it thanks to this. It's definitely a win for Sony and for console gamers craving for the newest tech.

How can you be sure?
Seem like they try to kill generation all together as some poster claim that is the future and console need to avoid big reset and follow the business model like every other electronic.

Also, how PS4.5 will make PS5 more exciting? It will only make it less exciting as the tech jump feel less significant
 
I don't think it's all that naive. Especially with the architecture remaining effectively the same, with improvements in performance alone, we've already had devs that clearly know actual information about the hardware voice that this shouldn't be an issue.

And until it does start being an issue, I simply refuse to assume that they're going to fuck it up. I'm not going to assume it's going to be perfect 100% of the time, because we already have issues with some games as it is, but I didn't expect that to stop, either. Just that the PS4K version might be better off, while the PS4 version has the existing issues as it would have regardless.

That's just the nature of game development as we've seen this gen. Shit like AC Unity happened without this hardware being on the market. We also saw the Witcher 3 go through a gamut of issues with its patches and come through pretty great... eventually. It's a shame it took awhile, but alas.

What I'm really saying on the dev side of things is that the PS4K shouldn't be assumed to suddenly cause the PS4 to suddenly suck. That makes no sense. It'll still have it's own quirks and issues as it was going to anyway. If it goes horribly awry, you can bet I'll be the first person to call them out on it, because I'm in stores, selling products to people and I don't abide selling shit openly.

It makes perfect sense. It's exactly what I expect to happen.

I would love to be wrong about this, but I absolutely don't believe that the industry can manage two half-generations at once. It's only a matter of time before the base PS4 is the "shitty ports" dumpster.

That or the PS4K is met with resounding apathy and nobody really bothers with it. I just can't see any good coming out of this at all, especially for base PS4 users.
 

MogCakes

Member
Funny post in a thread about new console hardware. It'll be 10 years soon since people started saying there would be no more consoles. And yet, they keep coming.

In the future our idea of entertainment devices will completely change as technology advances, I don't think that's an unreasonable conclusion to arrive at.

Interesting comment. Personally I feel it'll move into a platform based system as well and they'll thrive that way although they might have a small box or so for a bit, they'll eventually be a full on platform. Not within the next 15 but afterwards who knows. Probably not within the next 20. I don't know when it'll happen but regardless I do think it'll happen.

I can see something similar to a Netflix for consoles decades from now where you can click on what game you want. Just depends on what's the base for that.

That may well be the case. It wont be within the next decade definitely, but the console market is aging and there will come a point when we are no longer the primary demographic catered to by publishers.
 

Abdiel

Member
Graphics are not a selling point any more for the mass market. Minecraft says "Hello!"



In reality...

Parent: "That doesn't explain much since I don't know the difference between those either."

As a retail worker and manager for almost a decade, my thoughts are simply "This is going to be fun. Either fun fun or shitty fun." It is baffling to me though that this isn't being used as a way to get 4K Blu Ray players into more people's hands.

I saw this and your other comment about "This... doesn't work", and you're right, it's not that simple, though from working in the Mobile sales side of thing, the breakdown of the differences for the general customer base would still be pretty straightforward.

Figure out if they're looking for a higher end model, and if not, demonstrating the value aspects of the core, with the pricing being a major benefit is the core selling point. Exactly the same library, with the improvements in performance really only selling to those wanting the premium aspects not going to matter to more price conscious parents, etc. Especially at holiday season. And Sony has been very good about not having a bunch of bundles. If they have limited SKUs, so it is as straightforward as possible, that keeps the explanations, and questions to a minimum for customer concerns.

While there may not be another PS4 or XB1, people will 100% be wary of a PS5.5, XB2.5, etc. This can cause slow ass starts to console generations in a time where it's not a great idea to have something like that happen.

I just don't see this being an issue. These are not being geared toward the larger, immediate market. It's the tech junkies that want the new stuff anyway, and they'll buy new hardware regardless, they don't get hard feelings towards this sort of thing. People are putting weird slants on this.

I see, thanks for clarifying.

Absolutely. I'm glad you posted, I want to make sure my perspectives are as clear cut as possible in all this, so any clarity I can offer, I'm glad to.

Ok but the "premium" model should be out first, because enthusiasts are going to be the early adopters

That's not how this works though. You release a core product, make sure it is feasible, garner positivity, and then once you can iterate on it, you can enhance it and the premium model is what sells to the folks that want to. Early adopters pick up bleeding edge tech regardless.
 
So the OP works in retail so he knows how the mass market will react to a product? If that was true he should be rich enough to not work retail. Just saying
 
Good thread topic idea Abdiel. I think I have some ideas on how to make this a bit more data-based.

I'm going to guess that nobody here has done the market analysis for today's console marketplace, and is just speculating based mostly on intuition and history.

Analysts are usually charlatans and clowns with slide rules. Never trust an analyst.

So the OP works in retail so he knows how the mass market will react to a product? If that was true he should be rich enough to not work retail. Just saying

Now we're cooking with class!
 

nib95

Banned
I don't think it's all that naive. Especially with the architecture remaining effectively the same, with improvements in performance alone, we've already had devs that clearly know actual information about the hardware voice that this shouldn't be an issue.

And until it does start being an issue, I simply refuse to assume that they're going to fuck it up. I'm not going to assume it's going to be perfect 100% of the time, because we already have issues with some games as it is, but I didn't expect that to stop, either. Just that the PS4K version might be better off, while the PS4 version has the existing issues as it would have regardless.

That's just the nature of game development as we've seen this gen. Shit like AC Unity happened without this hardware being on the market. We also saw the Witcher 3 go through a gamut of issues with its patches and come through pretty great... eventually. It's a shame it took awhile, but alas.

What I'm really saying on the dev side of things is that the PS4K shouldn't be assumed to suddenly cause the PS4 to suddenly suck. That makes no sense. It'll still have it's own quirks and issues as it was going to anyway. If it goes horribly awry, you can bet I'll be the first person to call them out on it, because I'm in stores, selling products to people and I don't abide selling shit openly.

They already do fuck it up, now, even with fewer consoles to work with. It's not a matter of if but when. And are you ignoring all the sources that say most developers are annoyed about this? Can't you see why? It's more effort for the sake of more effort, really only to Sony's benefit. It's not like these developers were going to sell less copies of their games on the PS4.

This also isn't going to just be a flick the switch situation as you're trying to imply with respect to development. Add to that we don't even know if the architecture, at least of the GPU, will actually be exactly the same. The extra effects, performance, tweaks and everything else, will still require time, money, effort, additional testing etc. And all that is naturally also going to take away time, money, effort and testing time from the PS4 and/or other versions.
 

Blueblur1

Member
Thank you OP for making a rational and informed thread. I didn't bother to post in the other threads due to how irrational folks are being.
 
They already do fuck it up, now, even with fewer consoles to work with. It's not a matter of if but when. And are you ignoring all the sources that say most developers are annoyed about this? Can't you see why? It's more effort for the sake of more effort, really only to Sony's benefit. It's not like these developers were going to sell less copies of their games on the PS4.

This also isn't going to just be a flick the switch situation as you're trying to imply with respect to development. Add to that we don't even know if the architecture, at least of the GPU, will actually be exactly the same. The extra effects, performance, tweaks and everything else, will still require time, money, effort, additional testing etc. And all that is naturally also going to take away time, money, effort and testing time from the PS4 and/or other versions.

Fear. Uncertainty. Doubt. Covered them all!
 

tuxfool

Banned
While there may not be another PS4 or XB1, people will 100% be wary of a PS5.5, XB2.5, etc. This can cause slow ass starts to console generations in a time where it's not a great idea to have something like that happen.
The point is that they don't care. If games are targeted to support 2 iterations at any one time it means that you won't have abrupt generational transitions. They'll continue selling g games at all times.

Somebody that hops into 4.5 may skip 5 but then hop onto 5.5. Another person may choose to always be on the bleeding edge.
 

cordy

Banned
The big factor driving PC gaming is accessibility, not power. This also goes into game prices and free online. Most people need a PC for other reasons besides gaming too, which makes the purchase easier to justify. Having better hardware options and such is just a bonus that power PC users like. That being said, concerning what I've bolded in your post - iterative consoles won't change the power gap at all, unless it's a yearly iteration incorporating the latest in GPU solutions, which will absolutely price them in the very high end range, directly competing with PC rigs.

That's really my issue with this. Personally, I've heard tons of comments from gamers saying they've switched to PC due to the power, performance, frame rate and graphics aspect the PC gives them compared to the consoles. I've specifically heard people say the gap is what's made it hard for them especially if they have to wait every 6-7 years for anything. Now however considering they've heard the news of this they're back on Sony's side considering the gap isn't like what it used to be. The point I'm making is that there's a gap but the gap isn't going to be near as large as before overall which has caused them to want to get back into gaming. An example is graphically. Say the PC is a 10 and the PS4 is a I don't know, 7. If they get an 8 that's a higher incentive for a lot of people to switch back considering what they already have on their pc. For example, I like Pizza Hut and while they're not the best, it's just good enough to make me continue on with it rather than going to a local pizza spot.

Nowhere am I saying consoles are going to have the power to compete with pcs but to say that some people wouldn't think this is a great idea for their side to want to keep on with consoles due to what it provides them? Yeah I disagree simply because I've heard these people's comments.
 

Papacheeks

Banned
With the total explosion of news we've received, after endless rumors and speculation regarding the PS4k/Neo, and the thus far rumored Xbox 1.5(whatever other term you'd like to pair with it for a mid-generation refresh), there's been quite a lot of commentary thrown around the boards regarding larger assumed 'trends' about buying habits in the various threads, and the sheer ignorance regarding many of these perspectives have led me to want to put some perspectives on things from a direct retail focus.

First off, some history, before working in the gaming section, I handled Mobile, so I do have direct experience handling Tablet and Cell phone sales for several years, on that side. I will however, try to not go into endless comparisons to the Cell phone marketplace.

First off, anyone assuming that the release of a premium model of the PS4k and so on, will suddenly lead to the normal model PS4 or XB1 going away, should never, ever talk about business/products again, because that's not how this works. Releasing a premium/high end SKU is catering to a higher end market, usually a tech-savvy market, who is willing to pay more to get more, while also giving you more market flexibility with your core product, and even allowing for it to lower in price on that.

Also, as an aside, people complaining about Sony not offering a trade in program, I would be shocked if both our stores or Gamestop and the like were not offering special trade-up (instead of 'trade-in', ah, marketing), deals to encourage adoption for your existing hardware. Reason being, that they can then re-sell that existing hardware on their own terms, or make profit in other ways, as trade ins are extremely lucrative profit margins.

Gaming hardware represents generally no profit margins for retailers, they're sold at cost, so getting special trade in promos to encourage them being moved and getting more product that can then be sold as pure money in the pocket back on top of any other margin add ons through things like protection plans and the like are all ways to encourage cyclical buying process. This is good for retailers. It encourages you to keep coming back, not be a static customer.

My next comment, on "Mass Market will totally reject this! It's going to totally fail!" Who the hell are you talking to? The Mass market adopts products perceived as having value based on specific reasoning, and that is up to Sony to justify it. Thus far, they've done an incredible job of selling the value of the core PS4 model. This would represent a premium option, sharing the existing library with new possibilities, and it's on Sony to make people want it. It is not hitting the reset button on the generation midway through a generation, you're not seeing a split user-base. I know exactly how to tell a customer what the difference would be. Pay a bit more, get more out of it, but you have the exact same library, play the same games as your friends. There's nothing lost for the existing market.

And most of those customers won't even care that there's a premium model *on* the market! They will see that a more costly model came out and ask why people would bother to pay more, even if it gives slightly prettier graphics. It's not going to matter, because the primary justification for most customers in the market, is the core balance of price and the fact that the games are coming to both.

A few of my regular customers have already talked with me about the rumors, and then the news today, and the general feeling from those that are savvy enough to be perusing sites and know about stuff like this is interest to see where it goes. There's very likely not going to be any push to try and replace the main SKU with this model, but it will be presented as the more 'awesome' model, perhaps, again, Marketing.

I had originally planned to wait til we had a bit more in the mill regarding the other hardware providers, but with how this was getting out of hand, I wanted to put some perspective from what we see here, on a daily basis.

Love how you omitted anything to do with development. ANd how third party having issues getting games out on 3 platforms, now have 4. Love how you also failed to input anything that could also go wrong in the long run for development which has been touched on by contacts from Patrick Kleptick, Colin Moriarty.

The developer/publishers that already are having issues with engine optimization will now use these new specs to brunt force their game codes/Engine issues, instead of actually fixing these.

Such a great one sided discussion.
 

RedSwirl

Junior Member
Totally agree with the OP. The mass market won't care as much as GAF does, and the mass market definitely won't be discouraged from buying base model PS4s.

The people on GAF who are against this from what I've seen feel somehow feel that they MUST upgrade because suddenly the base PS4 won't matter anymore after only three years on the market. That's totally not what's going to happen. It's still going to get all the same games until probably the PS5 comes out (and a little after that), retailers will still sell it, people will still buy it. Anybody who looks at how the mass market consumers phones, computers, and TVs should know they won't feel pressured to upgrade to the very latest model all the time. They usually just buy the cheapest one, or take time to think about which one is right for them. All this is doing is creating another option for consumers willing to pay more to get more. The existence of the iPhone 6s doesn't instantly invalidate my iPhone 6.

Developers would be stupid to primarily optimize around the most expensive and powerful model. They basically never do if you look at other markets. The way Nintendo sometimes does it with handheld games like Hyrule Warriors Legends is most certainly the exception, not the rule. If you look at iOS, many games are optimized so they run well on models as far back as the iPhone 5 or 4s, but still get extra features specifically for the 6s. Most AAA PC games right now are probably optimized around the GTX 960 or 970 despite the fact that the 980, 980ti, and titan exist. Developers tend to optimize their games around the most popular hardware, not the most powerful. I guarantee you virtually all of them will optimize for the base model PS4 first, then add bells and whistles for "Neo Mode."

The people on GAF against this need to let go of the old model where you'd pay $300 every few years and have what you felt like was cutting-edge tech. You can't get the most cutting-edge tech for $300 or $400 anymore. The mass market already routinely accepts that there are better phones and better computers than what they currently own or choose to buy, and they aren't bothered by it.
 

Abdiel

Member
It makes perfect sense. It's exactly what I expect to happen.

I would love to be wrong about this, but I absolutely don't believe that the industry can manage two half-generations at once. It's only a matter of time before the base PS4 is the "shitty ports" dumpster.

That or the PS4K is met with resounding apathy and nobody really bothers with it. I just can't see any good coming out of this at all, especially for base PS4 users.

When we have actual developers who have stated that they aren't concerned, I'm not concerned. Until we reach a point where things have started to fall apart, I'm not going to just immediately assume that this is the harbinger of things collapsing, especially when Sony has been meticulous in building this to keep it in line with the existing structure.

So the OP works in retail so he knows how the mass market will react to a product? If that was true he should be rich enough to not work retail. Just saying

Your commentary adds so much to the conversation, really.

Good thread topic idea Abdiel. I think I have some ideas on how to make this a bit more data-based.



Analysts are usually charlatans and clowns with slide rules. Never trust an analyst.

<3

Please, add in whatever insight you can. I've tried to base all of this on long term trends I've seen from various product information, and direct gaming experience as well, but I appreciate your viewpoint immensely.

Love how you omitted anything to do with development. ANd how third party having issues getting games out on 3 platforms, now have 4. Love how you also failed to input anything that could also go wrong in the long run for development which has been touched on by contacts from Patrick Kleptick, Colin Moriarty.

The developer/publishers that already are having issues with engine optimization will now use these new specs to brunt force their game codes/Engine issues, instead of actually fixing these.

Such a great one sided discussion.

I'm not deliberately omitting the development side of things, though I have commented on it then, including that we've had developers here on the forum specifically familiar with the hardware in question already state that there are little concerns regarding working off of this new hardware. (Matt and GopherD already made comments specifically regarding this)

I'm happy to let the developers speak for themselves, which they have, and they were being ignored in the threads where they posted, so, it didn't seem all that constructive to keep reiterating it. Until we've got devs actively working with it on wide spectrum, that portion of the conversation is also a bit out of my element to talk to, and I wanted to offer the retail and consumer side of things, which were being blasted in gross exaggerations. Hope that clears things up.
 

Daft Punk

Banned
Lol. Again "so they both play the same games but this one is a $100 cheaper and may not look as nice? I think I will get the cheaper one. "

We are talking about the same people that still buy DVDs despite owning bluray capable decide because they are cheaper and the difference isn't enough to justify the cost.

"Well ma'am the difference is the PS4 is $299 and will play all of the games your kids want with no problem. The PS4 Neo at $399 however is like the "deluxe" model of the PS4 and will run all of the same games PS4 does, just better. If you are a hardcore gamer and want the best looking graphics and upcoming 4K support for your movies and stuff, get the Neo. If you just want your kids to be able to play the games with their friends with no muss, get the regular PS4."

Simple. The easier and less complicated you make it sound, the easier it is for parents and grandparents to understand that info and make a decision.
 
Great post. Always nice to see a perspective from someone more involved in the business aspect of the industry. I kind of want to add:

*Disclaimer* This is a completely baseless assumption based on little knowledge/evidence*

The idea of iterative consoles makes sense given the environment the gaming industry is in. Games are more expensive and take longer than ever to make now-a-days, and because of that, I think, the days of 4-5 year generations are gone, and the way to bridge the gap between them is going iterative. Instead of waiting 5 years (which is too early these days) or 7-8 years for a new generation, we get an upgrade that's backwards and forward compatible every 3-4. It keeps consumer interest alive, which is very important if we're sticking with 7-8 year "generations." With most consoles, they peak around year 3 and decline from there, so a new hardware refresh after a console keeps people buying in.

And from a publisher perspective, it allows them time to release games while still retaining a large, active user-base without having to worry about hitting the reset button all over again and spiking development costs. As we've seen, it's taking quite a long time for them to get games out despite the fact that the hardware a.) isn't nearly as big of a jump as previous generations and b.) it being less custom and more "off the shelf" parts.

Really, the only thing I'm worried about is poor optimization on the older system. I can't help but feel like this will be an issue.

I just don't understand the outrage. Aren't all electronics iteratively updated? Televisions, cellphones, modular components in PCs. I honestly prefer this route.

Gaming (or rather consoles specifically) is "special" because reasons
 

Bsigg12

Member
Love how you omitted anything to do with development. ANd how third party having issues getting games out on 3 platforms, now have 4. Love how you also failed to input anything that could also go wrong in the long run for development which has been touched on by contacts from Patrick Kleptick, Colin Moriarty.

The developer/publishers that already are having issues with engine optimization will now use these new specs to brunt force their game codes/Engine issues, instead of actually fixing these.

Such a great one sided discussion.

How about that thread title and an OP that was focused on that? Pretty great huh?
 
Love how you omitted anything to do with development. ANd how third party having issues getting games out on 3 platforms, now have 4. Love how you also failed to input anything that could also go wrong in the long run for development which has been touched on by contacts from Patrick Kleptick, Colin Moriarty.

The developer/publishers that already are having issues with engine optimization will now use these new specs to brunt force their game codes/Engine issues, instead of actually fixing these.

Such a great one sided discussion.

You miss the phrase "retail perspective" in the thread title? Like, literally, talking about the retail perspective. The point where the consumer goes in to buy the good and the purchase decision tree. Nothing to do with development. This is after a consumer has some kind of interest in purchasing.
 
They already do fuck it up, now, even with fewer consoles to work with. It's not a matter of if but when. And are you ignoring all the sources that say most developers are annoyed about this? Can't you see why? It's more effort for the sake of more effort, really only to Sony's benefit. It's not like these developers were going to sell less copies of their games on the PS4.

This also isn't going to just be a flick the switch situation as you're trying to imply with respect to development. Add to that we don't even know if the architecture, at least of the GPU, will actually be exactly the same. The extra effects, performance, tweaks and everything else, will still require time, money, effort, additional testing etc. And all that is naturally also going to take away time, money, effort and testing time from the PS4 and/or other versions.

This is exactly how I feel about PS4K. Great post.
 

T-0800

Member
It's just bad as a long term strategy. You are poisoning the well with your userbase, which is a terrible idea for a product line that essentially has a complete reset every 5-7 years.

Why should I buy a Playstation 5 if I suspect that Sony will just release a better model a couple years down the line? These incremental upgrades will prevent early adopters from signing on, and thus prevent/slow the userbase from reaching the critical mass necessary to support AAA development.

But that 's kind of the point of this. These companies don't want to start from zero every 7 years.
 

tuxfool

Banned
Love how you omitted anything to do with development. ANd how third party having issues getting games out on 3 platforms, now have 4. Love how you also failed to input anything that could also go wrong in the long run for development which has been touched on by contacts from Patrick Kleptick, Colin Moriarty.

The developer/publishers that already are having issues with engine optimization will now use these new specs to brunt force their game codes/Engine issues, instead of actually fixing these.

Such a great one sided discussion.
You're roasting him for providing his perspective as a retailer?
 

MilkBeard

Member
Sigh.

It's not a terrible long term strategy. It's a totally reasonable strategy, it just doesn't appeal to you, because you don't like the idea. More than a few customers are ecstatic with the idea that they'll be able to get a more potent system without having to wait all the way through to the end of a generation. Still playing the same games, but with improvements, is a great opportunity to the audience that this is being marketed to.

You are clearly not this market. So don't think about it as though you are.

The existing, core system, will continue to be receiving the exact same games it always was going to, at the exact same performance it always was going to. Nothing has changed for you, as the consumer type you are. For the consumer with interest in premium product options, this is a boon, and a great option. This is aimed at them. That's totally okay. Don't take this personally, as though they are in any way slighting you.... Because they're not.

It's a totally reasonable, rational, and feasible business strategy for almost every product on the market today. I see no reason why it will be any different for gaming hardware, as long as Sony markets it correctly.
This is a great post and I think this is what it boils down to with the people who are screaming doom and gloom. It's an option, one that doesn't negate the base, and yet, gives people who want it the ability to have something a little bit higher spec.

As console owners, it's not really something we've had before, and if done right, it could be a really good thing.
 
They already do fuck it up, now, even with fewer consoles to work with. It's not a matter of if but when. And are you ignoring all the sources that say most developers are annoyed about this? Can't you see why? It's more effort for the sake of more effort, really only to Sony's benefit. It's not like these developers were going to sell less copies of their games on the PS4.

This also isn't going to just be a flick the switch situation as you're trying to imply with respect to development. Add to that we don't even know if the architecture, at least of the GPU, will actually be exactly the same. The extra effects, performance, tweaks and everything else, will still require time, money, effort, additional testing etc. And all that is naturally also going to take away time, money, effort and testing time from the PS4 and/or other versions.

Wouldn't it be insane for them to introduce an architecture that would add a large extra level of development time to take advantage of?

The whole reason they went with this standard X86 architecture and off the shelf parts was to ease development. How is it going to be difficult for Dice to release BF5 on:

PC - with scaleable settings and PS4 with scaleable settings?

There has to be something I am missing.
 

Oneself

Member
How can you be sure?
Seem like they try to kill generation all together as some poster claim that is the future and console need to avoid big reset and follow the business model like every other electronic.

Also, how PS4.5 will make PS5 more exciting?

They can "reset" for a next gen if they want to. BC has died long ago anyways.
If not then, why wouldn't it work differently? This whole "doom" NeoGAF attitude reminds me of when they first unveiled electric cars, in the 80s!!... It will kill the industry! It will destroy the market! It will fail!! Now every makers would love to have preorders on their next models like Tesla does. Someone has to lead the market somewhere, Wii did many things differently and it worked really well for Nintendo.

So how can PS4.5 bring more success to PS5? By keeping the market "fresh" and exciting, by reminding everyone that console gaming is there to stay and evolve, something a 7 year old console can't do. It will bring more excitment to the PS brand by leading the current gen and having "techies" on board as well as lowering the entry price for a base model so everyone can play.
 

The God

Member
That's really my issue with this. Personally, I've heard tons of comments from gamers saying they've switched to PC due to the power, performance, frame rate and graphics aspect the PC gives them compared to the consoles. I've specifically heard people say the gap is what's made it hard for them especially if they have to wait every 6-7 years for anything. Now however considering they've heard the news of this they're back on Sony's side considering the gap isn't like what it used to be. The point I'm making is that there's a gap but the gap isn't going to be near as large as before overall which has caused them to want to get back into gaming. An example is graphically. Say the PC is a 10 and the PS4 is a I don't know, 7. If they get an 8 that's a higher incentive for a lot of people to switch back considering what they already have on their pc. For example, I like Pizza Hut and while they're not the best, it's just good enough to make me continue on with it rather than going to a local pizza spot.

Nowhere am I saying consoles are going to have the power to compete with pcs but to say that some people wouldn't think this is a great idea for their side to want to keep on with consoles due to what it provides them? Yeah I disagree simply because I've heard these people's comments.

You don't think it's at all unrealistic that people who are majorly concerned about performance will stick with an upgraded console over PC? There will be games that won't even take advantage of the PS4K, whereas on PC you can pick and choose your own settings.
 

Zackat

Member
Love how you omitted anything to do with development. ANd how third party having issues getting games out on 3 platforms, now have 4. Love how you also failed to input anything that could also go wrong in the long run for development which has been touched on by contacts from Patrick Kleptick, Colin Moriarty.

The developer/publishers that already are having issues with engine optimization will now use these new specs to brunt force their game codes/Engine issues, instead of actually fixing these.

Such a great one sided discussion.

Love how you can't read the thread title and see this is about retail. Love the hyperbole. Love it.
 

Boke1879

Member
Love how you omitted anything to do with development. ANd how third party having issues getting games out on 3 platforms, now have 4. Love how you also failed to input anything that could also go wrong in the long run for development which has been touched on by contacts from Patrick Kleptick, Colin Moriarty.

The developer/publishers that already are having issues with engine optimization will now use these new specs to brunt force their game codes/Engine issues, instead of actually fixing these.

Such a great one sided discussion.

This is from the retailer perspective though as said in the title. So yea that's the side we're going to get.
 
It seems like people are taking this personally, for some reason, so I wanted to add a more objective, direct perspective on the market realities.

So many posts on "feelings" and so many other emotional responses, both rational and irrational. It'll make an objective discussion on the retail side of this very difficult. Hopefully we can start talking pros and cons of the actual purchase process rather than talking about being betrayed by or loving some company that makes a plastic and metal box.
 

wapplew

Member
Totally agree with the OP. The mass market won't care as much as GAF does, and the mass market definitely won't be discouraged from buying base model PS4s.

The people on GAF who are against this from what I've seen feel somehow feel that they MUST upgrade because suddenly the base PS4 won't matter anymore after only three years on the market. That's totally not what's going to happen. It's still going to get all the same games until probably the PS5 comes out (and a little after that), retailers will still sell it, people will still buy it. Anybody who looks at how the mass market consumers phones, computers, and TVs should know they won't feel pressured to upgrade to the very latest model all the time. They usually just buy the cheapest one, or take time to think about which one is right for them. All this is doing is creating another option for consumers willing to pay more to get more. The existence of the iPhone 6s doesn't instantly invalidate my iPhone 6.

Developers would be stupid to primarily optimize around the most expensive and powerful model. They basically never do if you look at other markets. The way Nintendo sometimes does it with handheld games like Hyrule Warriors Legends is most certainly the exception, not the rule. If you look at iOS, many games are optimized so they run well on models as far back as the iPhone 5 or 4s, but still get extra features specifically for the 6s. Most AAA PC games right now are probably optimized around the GTX 960 or 970 despite the fact that the 980, 980ti, and titan exist. Developers tend to optimize their games around the most popular hardware, not the most powerful. I guarantee you virtually all of them will optimize for the base model PS4 first, then add bells and whistles for "Neo Mode."

The people on GAF against this need to let go of the old model where you'd pay $300 every few years and have what you felt like was cutting-edge tech. You can't get the most cutting-edge tech for $300 or $400 anymore. The mass market already routinely accepts that there are better phones and better computers than what they currently own or choose to buy, and they aren't bothered by it.

You see, I'm against this from the opposite side. I don't care about old model(OG PS4), I care more about the business model.

I think this model will give me cutting edge hardware tech but stuck with old ass tech software.
 

cordy

Banned
You don't think it's at all unrealistic that people who are majorly concerned about performance will stick with an upgraded console over PC? There will be games that won't even take advantage of the PS4K, whereas on PC you can pick and choose your own settings.

That's not my point, I'm not talking about accessibility, I'm talking about the large gaps in place and being fine with what you're given. An example is this. Say you work a job and it's good but it's not the best. Anyway, if you switched to another company you'd make more money, the issue is that you'd have to relearn everything and you're not as stable as your current job nor are you with the same people. Some people would stick with their current job if it's content enough for them rather than switching to the new job. That's what I'm getting at here. Even if the PC can give you additions, I know people that are willing to stay with consoles if the frame rate and graphics are a bit better than what they are now. Not the best but it's good enough for them and at that point it's not enough need for them to watch to switch to the pc. Like say your car, you could get a new car or keep your current one as long as it's gotten a little bit more additions to it. At that point the need for wanting a new car isn't as high as before in which you wouldn't act. Some people I've spoken to about this have commented similarly in regards to switching to a PC and also commented on switching from a PC back to consoles.
 
Top Bottom