Support NeoGAF

[ArchedThunder]

Well what else would you call the next main console generation?

There would be no "next main console generation", just continual upgrades to the same ecosystem.

 

[Trago]

Who says there will even be one?

Pachter = Nostradamus status.

I'm saying in terms of this new hardware model.

Everyone is stuck on the idea that of the traditional console generation leap. Since x86 solved everything in terms of compatibility, what is the point? We're still on x86. why wait seven years?

Well what else would you call the next main console generation?

Iterative hardware kills the idea of a 'main hardware generation.'

 

[Dinky Dino]

if there's a heavy negative reaction to it then they might rethink it. Just like xbox 180

Right but the thing is sony is likely doing it too. Console wars don't make people rational and just like sony managed to sneak in paid online that e3, both sony and ms doing this at the same time might cause the fanboys to allow it since they tend to defend the companies they want to "win."

 

[Korigama]

Seems like a solution for people without the know-how or who are otherwise too lazy to just get a PC. I have no interest in it.

 

[legacyzero]

I would have to see what it looks like. The positioning would have to be on point, or no dice.

Tell me about potential subsidizing for price, or other options, but dont expect me to plop down 300 or 400 dollars a year.

 

[GregLombardi]

I am probably out. But I think we will see consolidation in this industry at some level, so it is possible I could substitute a new console purchase for an upgrade. Still, I am probably out.

If I want upgrades, I will just grab a new PC. I think the problem for console makers is making a device that is constantly compelling, and as a result...Nintendo may actually have an edge going forward if they are thinking about devices holistically instead of just thinking about gaming, which I have a feeling they are going to try to do either with NX or the next one after that.

 

[Theanine3D]

They wouldn't come every year and you wouldn't need to buy every upgrade as they come, that's the point. It'd be like phones or PCs, you can stick with the same hardware for a long time before you actually need to upgrade. The different versions wouls play the exact same games, they'll just run and or look better on the new hardware.

If that's how it would end up working I would be perfectly fine with it.

In practice though I doubt such an ideal scenario would occur. Developers are already being pushed hard to meet deadlines and get their games out on time for a single hardware configuration. Having to make sure their game runs on lots of different configurations will add a lot more work to their plate that I don't think publishers would be happy about. Many developers would either
1) target ONLY the lowest common denominator and not bother taking advantage of more powerful hardware
2) target ONLY the best possible hardware configuration, leaving earlier adopters out in the cold, or
3) target ALL hardware configurations but fail to optimize the game well for any of them due to time restrictions

I think ultimately this would just lead to more broken games, more bugs, and even worse business/labor practices by publishers. A BIG benefit of developing a game for a console is that the developer can know exactly what the game will be running on. If they have to start worrying about lots of different hardware, the appeal of developing a console game starts to evaporate.

 

[Aressa]

Since this iterative hardware is a thing, what would be the point of a 'PS5'?

You think PS4.5 will be forward compatible with PS5 games?

 

[Qwyjibo]

Why do people think they'd have to upgrade every time a new piece of hardware comes out? It wouldn't be like the launch of a new console every 3 or 4 years, it'd be more like phones or tablets, upgrade if you want to, if you don't you can still play new games as they come.

Because we're psychotic hardcore gamers and want to be able to play games at their best. If the difference is let's say my system can play Dark Souls 2 (PS3 version) but the next iteration can play Dark Souls 2 (PS4 60fps version) then yeah, I want that. It's not completely rational, I know, but that's how many here will probably feel.

 

[Baleoce]

mods should make this a poll thread

 

[Trago]

We are after the same thing, I just don't understand the what this half gen hardware with all these forward compatible have to do with anything.

My ideal generation
6-7 years per gen, with full BC, no FC, developer do cross gen port if they want.

What I hate
half gen hardware every 3 years, full BC and FC, developer force to support atleast 2 hardware at any point.

Would the hardware gap be so significant that this would be a huge problem?

 

[gus-gus]

What if this was leaked by sony to gauge reaction/interest?

Could be for sony. I think microsoft already started when they released the elite controller. It seemed to be successful enough for them that Phil Spencer already openly mention maybe seeing upgrades to the xbox throughout the generation.

 

[Helznicht]

Yep, gotta keep pushing the Industry and market forward.

 

[Gtagentleman]

Out to sell my ps4 and upgrade my PC if that happens

 

[hwy_61]

There would be no "next main console generation", just continual upgrades to the same ecosystem.

I'm saying in terms of this new hardware model.

Everyone is stuck on the idea that of the traditional console generation leap. Since x86 solved everything in terms of compatibility, what is the point? We're still on x86. why wait seven years?



Iterative hardware kills the idea of a 'main hardware generation.'

I guess I was speaking more towards the marketing side of things. Just the name. That's how I read the question I was responding to.

 

[The Artisan]

Right but the thing is sony is likely doing it too. Console wars don't make people rational and just like sony managed to sneak in paid online that e3, both sony and ms doing this at the same time might cause the fanboys to allow it since they tend to defend the companies they want to "win."

sony and mS aren't going to base their decisions on the irrational behavior of fanboys. if they see a massive critical reaction like sony did with the Ps3 boomerang controllers, and then the sixaxis's lack of rumble, and the xbox 180 (some of those are much smaller deals but still) they can and should rethink what they're going to do.

 

[Generic Power Ranger]

Out. I don't like the idea that developers have to target and optimize for multiple sets of hardware. You are going to end in a situation where I lot of games are going to run bad on the older iterations, or without improvements on the new. Removes all the advantages of a console closed box.

 

[Koh]

My pc has a 550ti. I don't make the jump until I have to. I'll be skipping multiple iterations until games simply don't come out on ps4. I'll start to get an itch for new hardware 6-7 years after launch.

 

[IcyRhythms]

People that say no are full of it. The moment MS, Sony, and Nintendo show amazing games they KNOW you want to play, you'll throw down the cash. Don't kid yourself. lol

 

[chrominance]

I'd probably start treating them like PC upgrades, i.e. only upgrade when games I can't get anywhere else start playing like shit. Depending on how well Microsoft redeems itself on the PC front, I may never buy an Xbox again (basically, does UWP ruin Forza PC, or is it totally legit?), but Playstation may take longer to abandon simply because of the number of exclusives I care about.

 

[CosmicQueso]

if there's a heavy negative reaction to it then they might rethink it. Just like xbox 180

Are you seriously equating a ps4 designed for 4K tvs to the elimination of used games and implementation of the original Xbox One DRM?

 

[Ushay]

In, but every 3 years at least.

 

[TheDarkKnight774]

Because we're psychotic hardcore gamers and want to be able to play games at their best. If the difference is let's say my system can play Dark Souls 2 (PS3 version) but the next iteration can play Dark Souls 2 (PS4 60fps version) then yeah, I want that. It's not completely rational, I know, but that's how many here will probably feel.

True but the "going to PC" responses would make that torture worse for these people! It's a constant revolving door of upgrades. New GPUs, etc every year. Do you go launch card? Do you wait for the revision? Is the new CPU going to require a new motherboard? And you know as soon as you buy it. It will be obsolete. I know when I got to upgrade my cousin that's 4 years old, it'll need a new motherboard and ram (current ram won't be compatible). That's a way larger plunge than a potential $400 upgrade of a console

The way I work around it is I ride my PC the into the ground and tune out upgrades until I need to care again. Then I research and do it again. Every 4-5 years. And I dabble with the "do I buy this console or PC" now for everything. Performance over other factors, etc.

 

[EventHorizon]

If this does start becoming the new trend of gaming consoles then I will quit console completely and stick with PC. I refuse to spend $400 every 3 years. If the new consoles are a requirement to play SOME games or there are some games with LIMITED features because you have Version 1 of the PS4 instead of Version 2/3/etc (AKA/i.e:, in order to play 32 player multiplayer the newest PS4 Model will be required), then tons of people will riot, including myself.

Devs would always target the largest market available. Critics of more iterative releases have it exactly backwards. If anything the newer realeased consoles would go underutilized while the older versions got more support. Just look at how games have been developed for the XB1 and PS4. Devs have bent over backwards to maintain parity between those two systems even though the PS4 is more powerful.

If, and when, a game came out only for the higher speced system it would be because the other system simply could not run it. It would not be like the lower system would be getting the game if the higher system didn't exist. That game would not be on the console period. This is going to happen a lot in VR games. There will be PC VR games that simply could not run on a PS4 but could on a PS4.5. Without that higher speced system the console gamer has fewer, not more, choices.

 

[Blackleg-sanji1]

People that say no are full of it. The moment MS, Sony, and Nintendo show amazing games they KNOW you want to play, you'll throw down the cash. Don't kid yourself. lol

Orrr they can play on their ps4 they have already? Unless you're implying games exclusive to that new hardware in which case...Ha! You're kidding yourself if you think that'll go over well

 

[kirby_fox]

I'm out, and likely completely out of buying their consoles.

I expect compatibility issues with games, and certain titles running poorly on the older hardware. Just look at Hyrule Warriors Legends for example of my expectations of how it'd work.

 

[Trago]

You think PS4.5 will be forward compatible with PS5 games?

Again, stuck on the idea of the traditional console generation.

That's like asking if PS4 games would be forward compatible with 'PS4.5' games.


The very idea of iterative hardware screws with the idea of a traditional console cycle.

But this is me probably giving Sony the benefit of the doubt. If they are consistent with these hardware refreshes, then there wouldn't be any need for a traditional 'PS5'. If that makes sense.

 

[Dinky Dino]

sony and mS aren't going to base their decisions on the irrational behavior of fanboys. if they see a massive critical reaction like sony did with the Ps3 boomerang controllers, and then the sixaxis's lack of rumble, and the xbox 180 (some of those are much smaller deals but still) they can and should rethink what they're going to do.

They won't but fanboys might mitigate the bad PR by defending it so that it goes through. The controller and such were easy modifications to the system as they were prototypes. This is a whole new level. MS got so much backlash that E3 reveal from going first and at the same time sony managed to mitigate backlash from paid online because hey xbox did it too and the bad pr ms already was getting.

So here you have a similar situation where both companies are doing it.

I wonder what would have happened if both sony and ms went through the always on no used games plans they had. Either users get on board or they get no console to play games with.

 

[Gurrry]

If that's how it would end up working I would be perfectly fine with it.

In practice though I doubt such an ideal scenario would occur. Developers are already being pushed hard to meet deadlines and get their games out on time for a single hardware configuration. Having to make sure their game runs on lots of different configurations will add a lot more work to their plate that I don't think publishers would be happy about. Many developers would either
1) target ONLY the lowest common denominator and not bother taking advantage of more powerful hardware
2) target ONLY the best possible hardware configuration, leaving earlier adopters out in the cold, or
3) target ALL hardware configurations but fail to optimize the game well for any of them due to time restrictions

I think ultimately this would just lead to more broken games, more bugs, and even worse business/labor practices by publishers. A BIG benefit of developing a game for a console is that the developer can know exactly what the game will be running on. If they have to start worrying about lots of different hardware, the appeal of developing a console game starts to evaporate.

They will do what they always do, and thats #1. You target the lowest denominator because more people have that console.

The people that make the upgrade to ps4.5 wont be greater in numbers than those that own a regular ps4. So devs arent going to all of a sudden drop that giant marketshare and only focus on ps4.5. Devs are going to target the largest market they can. That will be xb1/ps4.

Sure, you might get 60 fps 1080p/4k, but does the casual market even understand what that means?

I have a lot of casual console gaming friends. Once this becomes a reality, they are not going to be cool with dropping down another 500 dollars for a slight upgrade.

 

[The Artisan]

Are you seriously equating a ps4 designed for 4K tvs to the elimination of used games and implementation of the original Xbox One DRM?

i'm comparing a consumer's negative reaction to another growing negative consumer reaction.

 

[IcyRhythms]

Orrr they can play on their ps4 they have already? Unless you're implying games exclusive to that new hardware in which case...Ha! You're kidding yourself if you think that'll go over well

Oh, I don't doubt people will bitch up a storm. It's just that in the end, all that bitching will become hot air and they'll buy anyway.

 

[hwy_61]

People that say no are full of it. The moment MS, Sony, and Nintendo show amazing games they KNOW you want to play, you'll throw down the cash. Don't kid yourself. lol

Nintendo isn't even in this conversation. They're safe in my world. I'm gonna buy whatever comes from them. MS I can picture bringing their exclusives to PC, since they have a marketplace there. That just leaves Sony.

we'll see.

 

[Firmus_Anguis]

Definitely out. It's not a PC, it's a console. I don't want to be forced to buy a new one every year or two - And let's face it, they won't bother making proper ports to the older versions of the console, just simply a shitty idea. If you want an upgrade that badly, buy a PC.

 

[jroc74]

Thing is MS is going this route.

Sony won't just be okay will MS releasing multiplats that look and run at 50-60 fps vs their scaled down visually 20-30 fps games.

Plus sony already hinted towards it but most people took it as a slim model

http://ps4daily.com/2015/10/sony-also-considering-a-new-ps4-with-more-powerful-hardware/

Yea...many ppl forgot about this. It didnt get much attention then. Now its getting alot of attention..lol.

 

[TheDarkKnight774]

Definitely out. It's not a PC, it's a console. I don't want to be forced to buy a new one every year or two - And let's face it, they won't bother making proper ports to the older versions of the console, just simply a shitty idea. If you want an upgrade that badly, buy a PC.

...it's not a brand new console. You won't be forced to buy it if you don't want. It's no different than PC Devs supporting all its variations with one game release. It'll still be ps4 games.

 

[MogCakes]

If we're sticking with x86, then iterative hardware should shouldn't be a problem. It's just a question of how long you want a 'gen' to go on.

If BC solves the issue, then calling the new hardware 'PS5' doesn't matter.

What else would you call it? You're just getting into semantics now.

 

[RPGam3r]

Nintendo isn't even in this conversation. They're safe in my world. I'm gonna buy whatever comes from them. MS I can picture bringing their exclusives to PC, since they have a marketplace there. That just leaves Sony.

we'll see.

Nintendo is the only company that actually does this concept already, just not in the home console world.

 

[wapplew]

Would the hardware gap be so significant that this would be a huge problem?

The problem for me as a gamer is cross gen game.

If we follow the traditional 6-7 years generation, when I buy a PS5, we'll get some cross gen game in first few years, we'll also get PS5 exclusive that make used of the hardware.
Also, I don't have to worry about a better hardware will be release in 3 years, so I will jump straight in day 1.

3 years half gen on the other hand, when I buy PS4.5, I only get to play better PS4 games, when I buy PS5 3 years later, I only get to play better PS4.5 games.
When my PS5 finally play games made for PS5, I'm fuck too cause someone else will play better PS5 games on PS5.5 already.

 

[hwy_61]

Nintendo is the only company that actually does this concept already, just not in the home console world.

They don't have to, because they're not competing with he PC.

At least I don't think they are.

 

[TheDarkKnight774]

Nintendo isn't even in this conversation. They're safe in my world. I'm gonna buy whatever comes from them. MS I can picture bringing their exclusives to PC, since they have a marketplace there. That just leaves Sony.

we'll see.

Hah. They're the worst at it with how they handle their handhelds. Launch owners ALWAYS get screwed. And people buy multiple versions of the HW.

Hell Nintendo has been doing this concept for generations.

 

[Gurrry]

The saddest part for me is that devs were able to do amazing things by squeezing out every drop of power out of last gen.

This gen, it seems like they are already done with it and want to move on to more powerful systems rather than working to do the same with these consoles.

 

[Qwyjibo]

True but the "going to PC" would make that torture worse! It's a constant revolving door of upgrades. New GPUs, etc every year. Do you go launch card? Do you wait for the revision? Is the new CPU going to require a new motherboard? And you know as soon as you buy it. It will be obsolete.

The way I work around it is I ride my PC the into the ground and tune out upgrades until I need to care again. Then I research and do it again. Every 4-5 years. And I dabble with the "do I buy this console or PC" now for everything. Performance over other factors, etc.

I've done the same with PC lately because I've had the consoles to offset not having an amazing PC. I just put together a PC in January. Previous to that, I bought one in 2010 and only upgraded the RAM.

I also wonder if this kind of console iteration would just lead to tons of "remasters". So then my thinking would be "do I want to play Bloodborne 2 at 30fps or should I just wait for the prettier 60fps version down the road?" Again, maybe not rational, but I'd rather just not deal with all that and go full PC.

 

[hwy_61]

Hah. They're the worst at it with how they handle their handhelds. Launch owners ALWAYS get screwed. And people buy multiple versions of the HW.

Hell Nintendo has been doing this concept for generations.

I should've specified that I was only talking about home consoles.

 

[Chabbles]

It could get messy. Even though Sony have officially said nothing yet and nothing might even come from this, as of right now it just raises a million more questions...

Id be more welcoming to the idea if it was something for for PSVR, and if some devs wanted to just use the extra juice for regular TV gaming, they could put an "extreme" setting in the video settings or something, giving certain games an extra option while keeping the main focus for regular TV gaming always on optimization first and foremost for the base PS4 model as is the case now.... idk though, really got to hear the finer details from Sony, if they actually go ahead with this crazy shit.

 

[RPGam3r]

They don't have to, because they're not competing with he PC.

At least I don't think they are.

I would agree, most of Nintendo's efforts are on their exclusives. 3rd party content running better somewhere else is not a concern for Nintendo anymore.

 

[gus-gus]

I think I might reverse course here and say I'm out if console don't do the quicker upgrade. Tired of waiting so long for new systems and then on top of that not have access to my library anymore.

I've already found myself using consoles less because of the outdated tech.

For those that keep saying they're going pc, it has it's own issues when it comes to gaming this isn't something exclusive to consoles.

 

[Bgamer90]

I'm in as long as:

1. Games work on both old and new model for a minimum of 3 years.

2. No new models releasing for anything less than 3 years after previous model.

I've gotten slim versions of consoles in the past. It would be a bit silly to be totally against a mid-gen slim that had better specs since it would be a better bang for the buck verses getting a slim that has the exact same specs as the original console.

 

[SlickShoesRUCrazy]

I'm in!

Just guarantee each model like 5-6 years of software support and I think it would be a great situation.

 

[hwy_61]

I think I might reverse course here and say I'm out if console don't do the quicker upgrade. Tired of waiting so long for new systems and then on top of that not have access to my library anymore.

I've already found myself using consoles less because of the outdated tech.

For those that keep saying they're going pc, it has it's own issues when it comes to gaming this isn't something exclusive to consoles.

Could you elaborate on this?

 

[EventHorizon]

Out. I don't like the idea that developers have to target and optimize for multiple sets of hardware. You are going to end in a situation where I lot of games are going to run bad on the older iterations, or without improvements on the new. Removes all the advantages of a console closed box.

That makes no sense. Developers already target a very wide variety of PC hardware configurations. Adding one or two more fixed console targets would hardly change their workload. Also note that these would be minor variations like more memory/cores, or faster chips.

Why does everyone think supporting an updated console spec would be a huge development hurdle? What devs would do is first target the lower speced system and get the game to run well there, and then add more graphical enhancements like better antialiasing or resolution for the higher speced console. That is a configuration change not a total architectural overhaul.