Support NeoGAF

[Tagyhag]

By what metric are you judging this? Comparing it to PC's? The 'tech' is as powerful as it needs to be for not only profitability, but mass consumer adoption.

I agree with this, but yes, it still is outdated regarding gaming devices, and that's not going to change 5 years from now.

 

[Red Liquorice]

Yeah, they just look at all the lemmings who buy an apple Malibu Stacey hat every year and thought "we want some of that".

 

[TacticalFox88]

Great news! and i have never understood why people think that buyers don't want to buy a console every 5 years anymore when they spend nearly as much buying new phones and tablets every year. The 5 year cycle should never of been broken imo.

Um...yeah. It kind of HAD too.

Moving to HD was a HUGE step up for the industry as a whole. This generation HAD to be this long so they could recoup losses, learn from mistakes, etc. There wasn't a single chance in hell the industry could've easily moved from the PS3/360 had the cycle been repeated.

It was a necessary evil.

 

[synce]

Good

 

[entremet]

Er.. why are people for this?
Isnt it better for us if our products last longer?

I understand we'll get games bumped with with better visuals more often if so and of course the excitement due with a console launch, ha ha, but I want to think my PS4 will last close enough to how long the PS3 lasted...
In fact, I don't care if it lasts forever, as long as they get the games being pumped onto it, that's all the matters.

The video game industry is a tech focused industry. Developers want to play and push better hardware.

 

[H_Prestige]

They should ditch the traditional console model at this point and just do smartphone/tablet style refreshes. Maybe every 2-3 years. There is no longer going to be any improvements in graphics outside of image quality and framerate anyway, so why continue this crazy model of building up a business for 5-6 years only to smash it to bits and start from scratch with a newer system? The ps4 should be the base platform. Newer systems should just be faster and better ps4's (more RAM and GPU grunt, newer generation CPU). Software should just be "playstation" software. Not ps4, ps5, ps6, etc. This should be possible now that they are using off the shelf architecture.

 

[Giant Panda]

That makes sense. The last cycle was so long because MS and Sony were recuperating all the money that they lost from the expensive consoles they released. They won't have that problem this time.

 

[prag16]

I think they might be in for a rude awakening.

This... they're implying that the appetite for expensive electronics right now is MORE than the last cycle???

Rude awakening incoming...

And I don't expect PS4/bone successors until 2020.

 

[HigherLevel]

I hope not, I liked the longer gen. At this point graphics aren't going to increase significantly so what are we really getting with new consoles? As long as good games keep coming out on the PS4/X1 then I don't see the need for new consoles for a long time.

 

[DedValve]

I think we can do with a 5 year cycle provided the console is 100% backwards compatible. I can deal with short cycles and bumps in technology.

 

[casmith07]

5-6 years is the standard. I think there's no reason to think this isn't a realistic expectation.

7-8 years was far too long. Microsoft is kidding themselves if they are saying the Xbox One is a 10-year console, but I think Sony said the same thing about the PS3.

 

[terrdactycalsrock]

Good. Last gen went on way to long. I would even argue that having a longer gen hurts the Sony and Microsoft. Because eventually the price of PC hardware doesnt seem impossible to pay for, and all the games look/run better.

 

[T'Zariah]

They should ditch the traditional console model at this point and just do smartphone/tablet style refreshes. Maybe every 2-3 years. There is no longer going to be any improvements in graphics outside of image quality and framerate anyway, so why continue this crazy model of building up a business for 5-6 years only to smash it to bits and start from scratch with a newer system? The ps4 should be the base platform. Newer systems should just be faster and better ps4's (more RAM and GPU grunt, newer generation CPU). Software should just be "playstation" software. Not ps4, ps5, ps6, etc. This should be possible now that they are using off the shelf architecture.

The fuck?

That's a TERRIBLE idea.

Consoles are NOT tablets, nor vice versa. They don't have the same demographic!

 

[SlipperyFishes]

All of this is incredibly dumb. How would anyone know this right now? Even Sony.

They could start planning what they want for PS5 as early as 2015.

 

[RetroStu]

Um...yeah. It kind of HAD too.

Moving to HD was a HUGE step up for the industry as a whole. This generation HAD to be this long so they could recoup losses, learn from mistakes, etc. There wasn't a single chance in hell the industry could've easily moved from the PS3/360 had the cycle been repeated.

It was a necessary evil.

Well there didn't seem to be a problem moving from 240p to 480p with PS1 to PS2/Xbox.
Besides even if you're right, this gen lasted so long because they were milking it longer for me, it was about money and services etc.

 

[BRocknRolla]

I'm down for 6 years or so. This last gen was far too long.

 

[grumble]

A console should have enough time for a trilogy to come out for it.

A proper trilogy takes 4 years, with a two year gap between titles.

Studios won't be able to bring decent titles out until the second holiday season.

Therefore we'd need a five year minimum. Ideally six to pick up stragglers. Get into seven and you start getting into churn.

 

[OriginalThinking]

It's obvious. Overly long cycles are detrimental to this industry. 5-6 years tops.

I'd like to see your evidence for this assertion, particularly if you are talking about financial health.

 

[aktham]

I like the long gen idea better personally with the blockbuster titles spread out nicely over the years.

 

[RetroStu]

Er.. why are people for this?
Isnt it better for us if our products last longer?

.

$400-500 spenditure isn't THAT much for a 5-6 year investement and 5-6 years of huge enjoyment, atleast for me anyway.

 

[Gorillaz]

ITT: People actually think consoles can come out every 2-3 years or follow the Apple release style like that's actually possible

 

[Madness]

Ideally I'd want 6 years, but would tolerate 5 years if full BC was promised, not only with our Blu-ray disc releases, but all digital purchases too.

 

[Iacobellis]

5-6 years is the standard. I think there's no reason to think this isn't a realistic expectation.

7-8 years was far too long. Microsoft is kidding themselves if they are saying the Xbox One is a 10-year console, but I think Sony said the same thing about the PS3.

Sony always means 10 years of support for the platform, not 10 years until the successor is released.

 

[turnbuckle]

Good. 5 years is long enough.

 

[H_Prestige]

Consoles are NOT tablets, nor vice versa. They don't have the same demographic!

Uh, yes they do. Or do you think all 100+ million console owners are still rocking some old flip phones and emachines PC?

 

[cyberheater]

I bet MS are praying for a short lifecycle so they can correct their mistakes.

 

[RetroStu]

I hope not, I liked the longer gen. At this point graphics aren't going to increase significantly so what are we really getting with new consoles? As long as good games keep coming out on the PS4/X1 then I don't see the need for new consoles for a long time.

Graphics ARE slowing down imo but it would probably mean having games that look as good or better than Ryse running at 1080p/60fps at launch, i'd be up for that.

 

[Dr. Kitty Muffins]

I can deal with 6 but I don't want to be buying a new console every 4 years with every president. No, sir. I loved the long generation the 360/PS3 turned out to be. It was way less anxiety for me not having to anticipate what the future of video games will be and how I fit into it. And then factoring in the future financial costs........ ugh.

 

[Zapages]

I like long generations as it allows developers to get the most power of the hardware and the largest possible consumer base.

I like the 10 life cycles... I don't like the short life cycles as it destroys the ability to enjoy the games over the longer periods of time..

 

[RetroStu]

ITT: People actually think consoles can come out every 2-3 years or follow the Apple release style like that's actually possible

Has anyone actually said that though?

 

[Crisium]

Consoles really began hurting in 2011, imo. That's 5-6 years after 360/PS3. So, yeah, I think 5-6 years is better than 7-8.

 

[KAL2006]

I think next gen will come quicker but there will be backwards compatability this time round.

 

[Killing_Joke]

6 years with PS4 BC and i'm fine.

 

[RetroStu]

I think next gen will come quicker but there will be backwards compatability this time round.

Yeah i think if we have a 5 year cycle then backwards compatability will be a given.

 

[Tablo]

Since both are x86 APUs all they have to do it bump up to higher specs with the same architecture and call it a day lol

Since it doesn't break BC they can do it whenever it makes sense, pretty nice perk of their tech choice this Gen.

 

[Gorillaz]

Has anyone actually said that though?

Go back a few comments

 

[H_Prestige]

ITT: People actually think consoles can come out every 2-3 years or follow the Apple release style like that's actually possible

What makes it impossible?

 

[RaijinFY]

I've been thinking that due to the PC-like architecture, the PS5 OS may be a natural evolution (rather than a rewrite) of the PS4 OS and may make BC simpler. Hopefully that's the case. I would love if they just kept adding features to the Kernel/OS constantly, and made overhauls of the UI every 2 years or so.

Coding to the metal will impede that imo...

 

[OverHeat]

http://www.techradar.com/news/gamin...ps4-lifecycle-may-be-shorter-than-ps3-1203461

Praise The Lord !!!!!!!
5 years Max pls

 

[Crisium]

Since both are x86 APUs all they have to do it bump up to higher specs with the same architecture and call it a day lol

Since it doesn't break BC they can do it whenever it makes sense, pretty nice perk of their tech choice this Gen.

Yup. The only reason not to have BC for future gens is greed (i.e. make you buy the PS5 version again).

 

[Niteandgrey]

Makes sense that this would be a shorter cycle for Sony.

1. They didn't have to invest nearly as much this time around in R&D as they did with the PS3/Cell chip debacle.

2. They're not taking a bath on the hardware at launch like they did with the PS3. The PS4 should become profitable much more quickly this time around.

At least so far, it's looking like Sony had a brilliant business plan for the PS4 and executed on it perfectly. Yes it's early, but if there aren't any major bumps in the road, financially it will make sense for them to release a new console in 5 years.

 

[Naminator]

Of course the cycle this time around will be a lot shorter than before, they released low-mid range hardware that can barely push 1080p@30FPS even on exclusives, thinking that this gen last more than 6 year, when 1 or 2 from now you'll be able to build a PC that will perform these things is a bit naive.

Besides, if the breakdowns are true and it turns out that MS or Sony are not losing much money on these consoles, why wouldn't they make the cycle shorter? Last gen Sony only started to make profit in late 2011, this time around it looks like they are profitable straight from the go. With that in mind making the cycle shorter will have NOTHING to do with making us gamers happy, but just simply a ploy to push out another product, with lots and lots of hype behind it.

 

[KungFucius]

I hope it is 4 years so all the people who claim it is so fucking stupid to buy at launch will shut the fuck up because they see a PS5 2 short years after buying their $299 PS4.

 

[FunkyPajamas]

Coding to the metal will impede that imo...

Yeah, you're right about that. Oh well.

 

[Ntsouls]

We buy new phones every 2 years or so. So it's not a big deal. It makes more sense then being saddled with old tech 4 years down the line. I'd say a new console every 4 or 5 years makes more sense. As long as they can maintain full BC.
I mean they're using PC architecture. So there is very little holding them back from Full BC and 4/5 year life cycles.

 

[spwolf]

since they are using x86 they can introduce new PS5 based on compatible tech in 3-4 years.

 

[AmyS]

Calling it now:

PlayStation 5 by no later than November 2020 (the absolute latest) supporting native 4K and native 8K games, though most games will be native 4K.

Will also be a 10-12x increase in shader & compute performance.

Many more ROPs than PS4's 32, so PS5 can support both 4K and some 8K games, at smooth framerates of either 30fps or 60fps depending on what devs want to do with their games.

16x the system RAM as PS4 on a 512-bit external memory bus (PS4 has 256-bit).

Stacked DRAM on the APU / GPU (note: very different than EDRAM or ESRAM) for 1+ TeraByte/sec bandwidth. Note: Nvidia will have stacked DRAM with 1 TB/sec bandwidth starting in late 2016 with their Volta GPU architecture, the successor to Maxwell. So AMD should be able to follow with a next-gen console APU with similar tech before or by 2020.

Beefier CPU cores on the APU, but no idea how many.

I'm glad Cerny is at the helm of PlayStation architecture.

 

[Pain]

Good, last one was too long.

Yes. I wouldn't mind PS5 by 2018/19.

 

[doctorcdcs]

Hmm, maybe I should hold out in that case, especially if they make the PS5 backwards compatible with with the PS4.

Spoiler

not likely, but I can dream

 

[BoboBrazil]

5 year cycle is long enough. That allows developers to max out hardware and then move on to the next system. 7 years(8 in MS case) is way too long.