HanzSnubSnub
Member
Coming from a day one buyer, I'm very pissed off by this news.
I bought the console expecting it to last 6 years. Not 2.5 years of remasters and a couple good games.
-
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.
PS4K information (~2x GPU power w/ clock+, new CPU, price, tent. Q1 2017)
- Thread starter OsirisBlack
- Start date
Coming from a day one buyer, I'm very pissed off by this news.
I bought the console expecting it to last 6 years. Not 2.5 years of remasters and a couple good games.
By the time this comes out it will be over 3 years since the PS4 was released. The early adopter BS has to go.
Jimbob Smalls
Banned
I doubt there will be a PS5. Incremental upgrades may be the way forward now they've moved to an up front profit model. The slowdown in Moores law probably created this situation though.
why would they want that? They make so little on consoles sales. Profits come from software.
I'll agree to that, a proper next-gen console will be far more worthwhile than the mid-gen refreshes currently being planned.
SneakyStephan
Banned
All consoles are just regular x86 pcs now that run their own api.
There would be zero reason for future sony consoles to not have full compatibility with with ps4 games.
ps4 could also be forward compatible with ps5 etc (until the new api has too many features that don't work on the old one, and you want to have new games that are fully designed around them, like dx12 vs dx9 on pc). crossgen games will be way easier next gen and I assume you're going to see a lot of them and they SHOULD be crossbuy. (some probably won't because greed and remastered editions)
Sony haven't said anything yet but if the ps5 isn't compatible with ps4 games out of the box that would be really boneheaded of them.
Do you seriously think that Sony is going to turn their back on how ever many millions of consoles are already out there?
they arent really early adopters if they are using that argument. As an early adopter they know full well the risks involved of buying new tech.
Great example of this is with the smart watches and how many iterations Samsung has has since. they have come out with at least 4-5 models in a very short span of time.
and honestly with such a market saturation it would really be screwing mainstream people. not early adopters.
TheCanisDirus
Member
Another vote in this, logical corner.
It's likely to be 3-4 years before this comes out and i'm completely fine with that. That's a good long while in my book. The tech is dated and i'm ready for new tech and higher performance. I've got my money out of the purchase - i've played hundreds of hours of games. Ready for an upgrade.
^^^^ yup thats the beauty of them getting away from the highly custom architecture. they have that kind of ability now.
SmoothRunningGun
Member
3 to 4 years works for me as long as it's backwards compatible.
ThatGuyAgain
Member
Thinking through this, if they continue to do incremental hardware updates every few years and make the console capable of auto-selecting the performance settings (i.e.low, medium, high, ultra) like PCs, then I think I would be ok with it. I would like it if they make consoles upgradeable though so you don't have to buy an entirely new console on every refresh. They could make it as easy as replacing the HDD but keep controls in place by only supporting proprietary GPU and CPUs. I'm nowhere near an expert in this area but it seems like a reasonable approach that could be a win-win...
ISee
Member
I 100% understand that. The PS4k is practically a backwards compatible PS5.
I bought the PS4 (day one) as a supplementary system in addition to my PC. That was a huge mistake as I didn't expect this generation to be over so extremely fast.
The only great game so far was Bloodborne (imo). That's very disappointing and I do not have the feeling I did get my moneys worth out of my PS4 (on the contrary to my PS3).
My hype for the playstation brand is on a new low. I'm not willing to invest into a new console in the near future just for one-two good games per cycle.
I really don't get the point you are trying to make. It's obvious why those games weren't on PC and it's because of money. I dunno why you seem to think it has something to do with hardware but you are mistaken. I also never once claimed that specs mattered to developers. I don't care if specs matter to them or not. I just enjoy games that I find entertaining to play and look at. Indies don't fall under that for me 9 times out of 10 so I don't care what indie devs do or don't do.
You're going so far down this hole that you have dug that you don't even know whats what anymore. What the hell does any of this have to do with me wanting to enjoy Sony games with nice graphics and decent performance. No matter how you try to sugar coat it you are just going to come off as jealous or ignorant because there really isn't any legit argument to be had here. Plenty of evidence to show that this shouldn't be a big deal for devs to handle and plenty of evidence to support the fact that there are some of us who would definitely buy a PS4k.
Literally win win for all involved.
Hmm...lol
FiveMinuteHero
Member
That's very hard to do as most of the time it will require a redesigned motherboard.
XxRampage07xX
Member
I don't expect many PC gamers who already spent a lot of cash on their gaming rigs be impressed by PS4K (clearly not for the hardware). However, I believe it will work with casual gamers who will be attracted by advertising phrases like "With the extra powah, this console will run your games even better and thus, give you the best experience you can ever find on any console." Also, I imagine it might work with somewhat enthusiastic gamers who don't know much about technical aspects of video games yet understand the basic terms like "visual," "framerate." I think those people ( like meIn my simple brain PC and console gamers are not intertwined
But seriously, PC gamers who spend 2k on a PC will not be impressed by a 500 dollar PS4.
) will choose a simple and easy solution that is owning a console rather than invest more time and effort into building a PC.Yeah but I think if it won't work out for PS4K and its successor, it will hurt people's perspective on consoles. Like, they will no longer appreciate the release of newer consoles and thus, sales will go down as a whole.
vpance
Member
3rd year, news of 14nm ready = do not buy until after E3 or GC.
Like I said, speaking for myself only.
That (re)said, I would certainly expect you'll still get 6 years out of your PS4. You were obviously going to be sacrificing on access to cutting edge hardware tech to do that, so nothing really changed here.
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!
If it is coming in Q1 2017 then they are not going to announce at E3. They will announce this super close to release.
Nope. I don't buy consoles to upgrade every 2-3 yrs. That's what I do with my gaming pc. I'd rather get a new cpu and mobo for my pc.
The old ps4 will be dirt cheap on the second hand market bc of this. Sony has such a lead this gen it's very surprising they are going to fracture the market.
The old ps4 will be dirt cheap on the second hand market bc of this. Sony has such a lead this gen it's very surprising they are going to fracture the market.
It's too late David you already took the bait info Sony ninjas are already on top of your building.
DC1
Member
Non exclusive performance options are always a good thing. Sony is doing nothing wrong here.
Welcome to the second tier master race.
SneakyStephan
Banned
Cmon man, 2x gpu performance, unknown cpu performance , same controller, same features
This is closer to putting a ram pack into an n64 as it is to a generational leap.
If it was an 8-10x increase then sure, 2x is incremental.
But this won't fracture the market. All games will run on both versions of the system.
They're not fracturing their market. No dev is going to intentionally exclude the 40-50mil userbase of regular PS4 (estimate by the time PS4K launches). There will probably be a couple tech demos or something exclusive to PS4K, but by and large games will keep working fine on PS4.
FiveMinuteHero
Member
Will we get two scores in reviews now? Because obviously the PS4K version will always be better (if not, then what's the point).
Mister Megative
Banned
.......Wait. The initial leak surmised final specs haven't been ironed out, yet there are devkits in the wild? Huh?
Bl4ckSunsh1n3
Member
Just at a worse frame rate with lessened visuals and an overall lessened experience.
Chances are it will last six years with solid titles for years to come. Nothing that has been rumored suggests that PS4 support is going to disappear, and only fearmongerong raises the specter of sub-optimal "ports." In practice there's no porting involved, only fine-tuning of the same binary for two performance targets if a developer decides to do any extra work for the PS4K at all. We won't know anything about Sony policy for releases until there's a public announcement, but I'd be willing to bet they're well aware of the concerns and will address them.
Developers and publishers care about an active installed base. So long as there's a less expensive PS4 selling alongside the PS4K and they run the same software, there's going to be a ton of investment in making the baseline game the best it can be because that's what most people will experience. To expect anything else is just blind panic.
The real question is when the base PS4 will be phased out altogether. Is that another three years? Another six? Once it happens you can expect the clock to start ticking in the same way cross-generation titles kept solid momentum initially but started to falter after another 18 months or so when the most active consumers had moved on. Even then we got some stellar examples of late software titles that pushed the older hardware beyond what had been seen before (Rise of the Tomb Raider on the 360 leaps to mind.)
This generally happens for all new consoles. Specs are sometimes determined quite close to release, but devs still need time to get games ready.
It will be the same as what you're playing now.
ISee
Member
Of course it's huge. I'll (probably) get less switching from my gtx 980 to the 1080 this year.
OsirisBlack
Banned
"Well Jokes on you I'm living to 102 and then dying......"
Bl4ckSunsh1n3
Member
Yeah, at first. At some point the 4K will take on the lead development however and the experience on the PS4 will not be what it would have been if it were still the lead. If you think that isn't going to happen then I don't know what to say.
The same was done for ps4. Devs(even first party) were quite surprised when sony announced 8gb of ram, since initial dev kits had only 4gb.
Papacheeks
Banned
WOw, and plenty of evidence brought up by vcc and myself on how something similar was tried with N3DS and in the past with sega that ultimately did not end well for one of them.
For the record I'm neither jealous or ignorant just been around the block with consoles, pc for 25-30 some odd years. There's nothing in console market that proves this will be successful and a positive influence on the industry.
Even if it sells well out the gate, you fall into a trap that when you announce your next console people will not be so quick to early adopt as they will just wait for refresh. And early adopters are the life blood of each generation.
This isn't any different than the PS3 stories I heard.
And what basis are you using to assume worse framerates?
The entire paradigm of how the PC's have a viable games market is based on the idea of having low versus high settings, etc. in order to get playable framerates regardless of a given user's config. And since the developers are in control of these settings and are only targeting two fixed specs, there's no reason to assume they won't get good framerates any more than in existing games now.
But why is it a bad idea exactly?
If we assume all games play on both systems and gameplay is intact ... what is the problem? What you're saying has been repeated over and over again by many in this thread, but I have yet to see a rationale explanation as to why it's actually bad?
It seems like the underlying emotional response is that people are mad others will be getting better graphics. And that's childish and selfish. Am I missing some other reasonable explanation for the knee jerk that actually makes sense?
Bitch Pudding
Member
We'll see about that. PS4 was 8-10 times faster than PS3, still (some) people called it the PS3.5 because they could'nt see any considerable differences. Wonder if the same guys are now waving the "considerable sacrifices" flag the most... But seriously, 2x the power is nice, but nowhere near to a generational leap. There will be differences and I guess in some games this might be the difference between "unplayable" and "meh", but overall you'll need DF analyses to actually see any differences. Despite 60 vs 30 fps, obviously.
SneakyStephan
Banned
But not worse than if the ps4k didn't exist. It's not like current multiplatform games don't have lessened visuals and worse framerate compared to a high end pc already.
Assuming sony aren't stupid and don't just screw over the huge install base they already have by putting no effort into the ps4 version of their first party games (that would just be mind boggling) literally nothing will change about the games themselves.
Sony make their money from platform holder royalty fees from the software sales on their consoles, not from selling the consoles, they seem to think having a faster iteration will reach more people but in the end it couldn't matter less to them whether you buy a ps4 or a ps4k, as long as you keep buying games so they can keep collecting royalties. If they thought people would have kept buying ps3 games and ps3s indefinitely they would never release a ps4 to begin with.
They're just trying to make new people buy their console instead of an xbox or a nintendo NX, that's also why there is no step up program, they already have you as a customer and you'll be buying the same games, they don't need you to buy a ps4k.
It would be in their best interest to keep you happy (with first party games that run at a good framerate and look as good as they reasonably can on the hardware) so you'd keep buying more ps4 games.
Not even close.
Bl@de
Member
So nothing changes? A lot of Multiplattform games already run at medium settings with 25-30fps...
TheSpecialOne
Banned
As far as I'm concerned, May 10 will mark the day that the first good ps4 exclusive game is released. The only other good games are remasters/ports. TLOU remaster, Brothers a tale of two sons, Soma, LIS, GTA V and that's pretty much it. The rest of the games are rather average. I have like at least 50 games in my ps4 library and most of them are trash. I spent an hour with them and then deleted them from my hard drive. There are a few decent games like Wolfenstein, etc but honestly this gen hasn't really gotten started. Sony's studios have been really slow to get going and now that they are just about to start churning out the good stuff, there are rumors of new hardware? That's just trash.
We have been conditioned to expect a minimum of 5 years for a console generation from sony before the release of new hardware and now they want to change it to 3? Nope. The ps4 was $400 on launch day and this november will make 3 years. If you've been a ps plus member since the beginning, you've invested an additional $150 into the console. So essentially, you've paid $550 for the console. All we've gotten so far is rubbish ps plus games that no one ever wanted to play, rubbish online service that we have to pay for, subpar hardware on release, rubbish launch controllers that I've had to replace several times and basically 1 good exclusive. That is a waste of $550 as far as I'm concerned. I certainly won't make the mistake of buying a sony console early in the generation ever again. I'll wait till the end of the gen when all the good games have come out. Then it'll be easier to find the consoles and games at a cheap price.
As far as I'm concerned the uproar is not about others having better graphics but about managing expectations. When people are conditioned to expect something, any changes should be communicated clearly. Nvidia, Intel and AMD manage expectations by releasing road maps and communicating that information to their consumers. Sony and Microsoft are trying to pull a bait and switch and as expected, people are pissed off.
exactly
Marty Chinn
Member
Well the current most recent example is Hyrule Warriors. It runs 30 fps on the New 3DS, but only runs about 20 fps on the 3DS. It's not an unreasonable fear to expect that at some point the PS4 version may have an inconsistent framerate due to efforts put into the PS4.5K version. Maybe not right away, but down the line can't be ruled out.
Melchiah
Member
Good post. It's funny how outward influence can affect people, eventhough nothing actually changes for them. There will be nitpicking and blaming about the issues we're seeing even now, without the PS4K.
Bl4ckSunsh1n3
Member
That would not be mind boggling. We have a past precedent with their idiocy.
Some of you in here are oblivious to how new hardware and software actually works. I'm not calling for a doomsday scenario. However, if you think there will "literally be no impact" on the PS4 because of the existence of the PS4K you're insane.
