Support NeoGAF

[Springfoot]

I was under the impression that Sony and MS (unlike Nintendo) continue to sell their hardware at a loss. Eventually the cost of components would be expected to drop for older hardware so they could break even or make a slight profit, but then the newer hardware would be right back generating a loss.

Is there any financial reason Sony would want to significantly up the horsepower of their consoles (if we're talking jumping from 900-1080p to 4k) to sell to a partial userbase at a loss and continue doing that every few years?

 

[Antiwhippy]

Let's just say that I'm glad I waited.

 

[rakkadakka]

Is there any financial reason Sony would want to significantly up the horsepower of their consoles (if we're talking jumping from 900-1080p to 4k) to sell to a partial userbase at a loss?

VRVRVRVRVR

If PSVR does well enough on the base console they have an incentive to match up against what Occulus or Vive are going to be able to do on PC.

Sure the talk is 4k but the real reason they want to upgrade power is to grab as much of the VR market as possible.

 

[TheExecutive]

Unless it's modular no way. The closed platform makes it easy- make it less easy and may as well buy a pc

 

[Abstrusity]

I was under the impression that Sony and MS (unlike Nintendo) continue to sell their hardware at a loss. Eventually the cost of components would be expected to drop for older hardware so they could break even or make a slight profit, but then the newer hardware would be right back generating a loss.

Is there any financial reason Sony would want to significantly up the horsepower of their consoles (if we're talking jumping from 900-1080p to 4k) to sell to a partial userbase at a loss and continue doing that every few years?

Btter hardware means that it'd perform better at 1080p, so, I mean, other games would be able to use that extra overhead even if they weren't going for 4k. Plus, since they don't have to significantly change the manufacturing process -- that's a big cost for these things, too -- they'd be able to sell it at a smaller loss or even a slight gain.

 

[Nestunt]

out

not different from a middle of a road PC where you keep pouring money in

 

[TyrantII]

Why? When are people gonna realize that gaming on PC isn't what many people want? Many people just aren't interested. It isn't a decision to game on PC or console, it's not even a consideration for most. A new box that plays all the games with better performance while still supporting the older at weaker performance is not a loss to anyone. They are just giving more choices.

Going by this thread, many don't agree with you, and that's just the early adopter hardcore here at GAF.

What about Jonny who want the newest toy, and Jonny's mother who wants the cheapest? The later, more price conscious adopters.

There's a reason these iteriterative console addons have always failed. I don't see any change in the market that would make this any different this time around.

 

[Necron]

I'm out if this is the way it's going to be and move exclusively to PC.

 

[Kysen]

Even though I hate the idea there is no way I'm going to stick with the gimped model. I did that with the PSP and regret it. As long as it plays every existing game and the Japanese games keep on coming then I wont abandon the platform.

I already day one moved to New 3DS, Vita 2000 and newer model of PS4.

I'm out if this is the way it's going to be and move exclusively to PC.

I would do this but over half my PS4 library has no PC release.

 

[NightShift]

I will be reluctant but I will be in. Unless if the PS4K and Xbone-whatever are only for higher definitions and VR support than I couldn't give a fuck.

I may actually move to PC as my primary platform too.

 

[nullpoynter]

I'm out.

 

[zeroroute]

If NX does it, I'm out.

 

[wipeout364]

I think it's great it essentially guarantees backwards compatibility and as the system becomes bloated over time prevents crap like the PS3 store load up or the 360's boot time. I also am totally ok with dropping support for older revisions after a few years. I don't see how this is any worse then going to a new console. I honestly don't see how people compare this to add ons as well this is a completely different scenario. Particularly if the the old edition is dropped yet price is maintained. After 12 months the old versions will no Longer be available so this is not the 32x in any shape. Upgrading parts to maintain a price point is actually more profitable then trying to shave off dollars off the store front price that's why apple does this.

 

[jond76]

I'm in. Why not.

 

[RayearthRob]

Hyrule Warriors Legends is the reason why this is not a good idea.

 

[StrongBlackVine]

I have problem with that. Because I don't want only able to play glorify PS4 games on PS5.

I said same generation. PS4 and PS5 are not the same generation. PS4 and PS4.5 would be.

 

[RPGam3r]

If consoles takes the iterative system then the only difference between consoles and PC are exclusives and that you have to open your PC and change the GPU every 3 years instead to buy a new console.

That's not true, consoles hold a users hand through every part of the experience. You get little to no choice, you just do as it asks.

Furthermore, once you're in a console's world you don't get any of the ability to micromanage the software.

Iterative hardware at a super high level does NOT turn consoles into PC. That is over simplifying both sides.

 

[wapplew]

I said same generation. PS4 and PS5 are not the same generation. PS4 and PS4.5 would be.

Ok, we are on the same page then.

 

[Springfoot]

VRVRVRVRVR

If PSVR does well enough on the base console they have an incentive to match up against what Occulus or Vive are going to be able to do on PC.

Sure the talk is 4k but the real reason they want to upgrade power is to grab as much of the VR market as possible.

Btter hardware means that it'd perform better at 1080p, so, I mean, other games would be able to use that extra overhead even if they weren't going for 4k. Plus, since they don't have to significantly change the manufacturing process -- that's a big cost for these things, too -- they'd be able to sell it at a smaller loss or even a slight gain.

Neither of these really speak to the point I was questioning regarding the financial costs to Sony, not necessarily whether the consumer market is enthusiastic with the idea or if it would make a real difference for game performance. They're already selling a console with the equivalent of a 4 year old GPU for $400 at a loss (someone correct me if this is no longer true), so what kind of price hike are people realistically expecting to pay for something that has a 970 equivalent? In order to keep the price within the range the console market sees as 'reasonable' (guessing $500-600), then Sony would still have to be selling at a loss, and probably a much more significant one.

I'm just wondering if people are expecting Sony to want to continue pumping out new iterations of consoles more rapidly while still selling them at a loss, only to turn around and pump out another iteration before they can stabilize the costs on the older model as those parts get cheaper, which is what typically happens with longer console generations.

 

[Stealthcobra]

I'm most definitely in...

 

[GamerMax73]

windows, ios and android are pretty much abstraction layers and that's fine because they are expected to run a wide array of software on a wide array of hardware configurations, most of which isn't real time/performance critical stuff. But hardware is still the real platform, because well that's where code actually runs.

While I get that, The differences in underlying hardware shouldn't be so pronounced. It's not as if they are suddenly supporting Intel CPU's or nVidia graphics chips. Besides surely most devs would be coding to Sony API's rather than going directly to the bare metal (not that I think that would make much difference in this particular scenario).

Because that's the incentive. it's in the manufacturers interest that people buy the new iteration as soon as possible while from a consumers point of view it's in their best interest to wait and not buy early - so sonly/ms will use whatever means available to push consumers across that line. And if phones are anything to go by consumers will just swallow it and users sitting on older iterations will be blamed for not being with the times when games run like crap on their "outdated" version of the hardware.

My 2 year old Droid runs the latest OS, the latest IOS runs on a 5 year old phone. The incentive in this model isn't to make sure everyone upgrades every iteration. The incentive is to tie the end user into the eco-system so they do continue to upgrade.

I used to upgrade my iPhone at the end of my contract, every 2 years. That was every other iteration. I was so tied in to IOS that when I decided to move to Android it was incredibly painful. Thats what Sony and Microsoft want. Brand loyalty.

What differences does it make if you sell 100m PS4's or 60m PS4 + 40m PS4.5's over the same 10 year period?

 

[jdmonmou]

I also am totally ok with dropping support for older revisions after a few years. I don't see how this is any worse then going to a new console. I honestly don't see how people compare this to add ons as well this is a completely different scenario.

I have 2 problems with this.

First, by releasing consoles more frequently each new iteration loses its wow factor. I compare it to releasing a game like Call of Duty or Madden on an annual basis. Both are good games, but after the 3rd or 4th release you just stop caring. With consoles coming out once every 5-7 years, people care when they are released and when the hardware is released you can see a clear difference between the old and new. Not many people will care about iterative versions of the PS4 or Xbox One enough to buy them if they already have an older version.

Second, this is just like add-ons but worse because every 2-3 yrs consumers will be asked to upgrade their entire console. An add-on is presumed to be a cheap hardware upgrade. Even with iterative hardware releases the install base will be split since the new games will run great on the latest hardware but like crap on the old hardware. This is already happening with the new 3DS game Hyrule Warriors Legends

Upgrading parts to maintain a price point is actually more profitable then trying to shave off dollars off the store front price that's why apple does this.

I'm no expert, but I think this is ridiculous. By keeping the hardware the same I think console makers actually make a profit since the console gets cheaper to make over time. By always refreshing the hardware they will be cutting into their profits. Also, keeping the hardware the same allows developers to truly master developing games for that console. If you look at Xbox 360 games in 2013 versus Xbox 360 games released in 2005 you will see a huge difference without any iterative hardware upgrades. This is why I think iterative consoles are absolutely pointless.

Apple can do this with phones, but phones and consoles are completely different products. You may want to check on how their tablet business is doing which is a more accurate comparison to make. They are struggling with selling iPads at the moment.

 

[RPGam3r]

Going by this thread, many don't agree with you, and that's just the early adopter hardcore here at GAF.

What about Jonny who want the newest toy, and Jonny's mother who wants the cheapest? The later, more price conscious adopters.

There's a reason these iteriterative console addons have always failed. I don't see any change in the market that would make this any different this time around.

Three things. Other tech has potentially conditioned the market to except more frequent updates. Also, it wouldn't be an add-on, it would be a new unit. Lastly, no gen has complained this much on a regular basis about visual fidelity and fps.

 

[Ranger X]

Its not because people accept to get fucked in the ass with phones that they will accept getting fucked in that ass with consoles. This is ridiculous and going against the very purpose of consoles being what they are. It just don't make sense.

Also, I am on a like 4 years old phone (Samsung Galaxy Nexus) and believe it or not people, I have zero need to replace it! It works perfectly, screen is nice and big as today's phones, It plays games and apps without a single itch, there is simply no disadvantages at all to have that phone. Why the industry keeps suggesting I should change?

This whole iteration thing is already an invention to suck up your money making you think you need it and that it gives you an advantage but it generally doesn't. Its just a culture of buying they want to implement into you because it benefits them. I would even call it an exploit. And since it worked with phones, you better damn be sure they gonna try to fool you in with other devices where this didn't happen yet. Don't be a fool.

 

[GamerMax73]

Is there any financial reason Sony would want to significantly up the horsepower of their consoles (if we're talking jumping from 900-1080p to 4k) to sell to a partial userbase at a loss and continue doing that every few years?

PS4 currently cost around £250, £100 down from it's launch price. How long before it's sub-£200. An uprated model can be sold at £350.

PS4 Old - £200
PS4 New - £350

Of course the big question underlying all that are the component costs and profit margins on each model...

 

[RPGam3r]

Its not because people accept to get fucked in the ass with phones that they will accept getting fucked in that ass with consoles. This is ridiculous and going against the very purpose of consoles being what they are. It just don't make sense.

Also, I am on a like 4 years old phone (Samsung Galaxy Nexus) and believe it or not people, I have zero need to replace it! It works perfectly, screen is nice and big as today's phones, It plays games and apps without a single itch, there is simply no disadvantages at all to have that phone. Why the industry keeps suggesting I should change?

This whole iteration thing is already an invention to suck up your money making you think you need it and that it gives you an advantage but it generally doesn't. Its just a culture of buying they want to implement into you because it benefits them. I would even call it an exploit. And since it worked with phones, you better damn be sure they gonna try to fool you in with other devices where this didn't happen yet. Don't be a fool.

Why don't you do what you do, while letting others do what they want to do rather than talking down to people who like updating their tech?

 

[wumster3000]

I'm so in. I've been waiting on this for a long time.

 

[braves01]

Out. I'll just upgrade my PC since that platform already has 95% of good non-Nintendo games.

 

[Ranger X]

Why don't you do what you do, while letting others do what they want to do rather than talking down to people who like updating their tech?

If after reading my opinion on upgrading makes you feel like I am preventing anyone to do so or that it mean you shouldn't do it, this means you're uncomfortable with your own choices or people seeing things differently than you do. You shouldn't be like that. In my opinion you are getting fucked in the ass. This doesn't prevents you to choose to let it happen and to enjoy it.

 

[oti]

Out. I'll just upgrade my PC since that platform already has 95% of good non-Nintendo games.

True. I really hope Sony will up their exclusive efforts starting with Uncharted. Pretty disappointing so far.

 

[RPGam3r]

If after reading my opinion on upgrading makes you feel like I am preventing anyone to do so or that it mean you shouldn't do it, this means you're uncomfortable with your own choices or people seeing things differently than you do. You shouldn't be like that. In my opinion you are getting fucked in the ass. This doesn't prevents you to choose to let it happen and to enjoy it.

You have no power to prevent so I'm clearly not stating that. You straigth up talk down to people by calling them fools. I'm cool with either side, I don't attack people like you for doing what they want. If anyone is uncomfortable it is you.

 

[AmaterasuOni]

Out. I'll just get some version, then use it until the next big upgrade/edition comes out.

Although I don't believe Sony is going this route. It's just MS with PC-Xbox.

 

[Captain Tuttle]

Going by this thread, many don't agree with you, and that's just the early adopter hardcore here at GAF.

What about Jonny who want the newest toy, and Jonny's mother who wants the cheapest? The later, more price conscious adopters.

There's a reason these iteriterative console addons have always failed. I don't see any change in the market that would make this any different this time around.

Johnny's mother will get what she can afford, just like parents have always done
If Johnny doesn't like the outcome he'll live

The FCC in the US has started the process of allowing thrid party cable boxes in people's homes. If that ends up happening I could see subscription models similar to smart phones. With the TV integration MS is in a better place for something like this although I don't think it'd take much for Sony to catch up

 

[Hahs]

As long as it doesn't hinder me - or isn't worse than what we already have; why not?

 

[trixx]

I'm not even in on iterative phones, I use it till it dies. Even if I had money, nah. But that's just me personally, I'm not opposed to the idea.

 

[sacrificengineer]

Certainly out. That would not only push me away from consoles, but from the gaming altogether. Highly unlikely that it will remain as one of my significant hobbies after such a "shift". I see myself just moving on to something else in that case.

I don't like this idea, but we will see what the future will bring.

 

[hardcastlemccormick]

That's not true, consoles hold a users hand through every part of the experience. You get little to no choice, you just do as it asks.

Furthermore, once you're in a console's world you don't get any of the ability to micromanage the software.

Iterative hardware at a super high level does NOT turn consoles into PC. That is over simplifying both sides.

If you break it down objectively between consoles and PCs, sure, there's going to always be a big difference between the two.

But as far as I'm concerned, the functionality is 10 one way, 2*5 the other. My subjective perception of PCs and consoles is that they're largely the same in most cases. Things like micromanaging software and hand holding is pretty irrelevant to me - I barely even notice the PS4's OS or Windows 10 on my gaming PC because I immediately fire up a game on those machines.

So, while you're technically right in saying this move doesn't make consoles and PCs functionally identical, it could subjectively make someone start to see the lines blur between the two products. For me, those lines are already heavily blurred.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

In general, this gen already feels like a spec step up and semi-seamless continuation of last gen as it is. Changing the timescale for the next step up almost doesn't seem to matter when meaningful additions to newer hardware are fewer with each successive jump. Without specifics, it's difficult to have a strong opinion, IMO, but I'm not in blindly with the idea.

 

[SovanJedi]

I shouldn't be against it, as I have bought a fair few DSes and 3DSes with iterative hardware improvements. But they're much cheaper than consoles, so it's more manageable.

In this situation I'm glad I didn't buy a PS4 yet, I'll just wait until either this rumoured PS4.5 arrives or jump in with the old model if they reduce its price after the newer one releases. I might end up doing this with every console from now on.

 

[LilWayneSuckz]

Out. I thought it was a stupid idea when Microsoft floated the idea but the fact that Sony is going to actually do it makes me want to just buy a gaming PC. I'll miss Naughty Dog games and second party exclusives but a console is not a smartphone.

 

[Zukkoyaki]

It would depend on whether or not software can run on either iteration. If the newer model just runs games better, not exclusively, I think I could live with it.

 

[Smokin' Sick Style!!!]

It would depend on whether or not software can run on either iteration. If the newer model just runs games better, not exclusively, I think I could live with it.

That's really the kicker for me too, as I've stated before. PS4.5 exclusive games would split the console consumer base, and unless the PS4.5 sold well enough to justify developing a game exclusively for it, it'd be a gamble.

If this is going to become a standard or norm, we need PC level graphical sliders to allow the entire PS4 base to play everygame. If you want higher framerates/fidelity you pony up for more powerful hardware.

That train of thought seems most applicable and acceptable. You don't need to upgrade, but if you do you're in for a treat.

Once you start thinking about profit margins and justifying an improved consoles manufacture, it starts to become hard to justify. You need a dangling carrot to get people picking these things up, and having exclusive games would be a great carrot.

 

[Red Liquorice]

Absolutely 100% out. I don't even have to think about it, it stinks and is purely about console makers envy at the annual phone/tablet iterations, nothing more.

 

[jdmonmou]

If this is going to become a standard or norm, we need PC level graphical sliders to allow the entire PS4 base to play everygame.

Putting graphics sliders on console games would be a horrible idea. The reason people like consoles is that you don't have to worry about any of that. Just pop in the game and it plays. If this happens might as well just buy a PC. Consoles will never be able to be on the same level as the latest high-end PC. Another reason why iterative hardware for consoles is so stupid.

 

[Mengy]

If consoles takes the iterative system then the only difference between consoles and PC are exclusives and that you have to open your PC and change the GPU every 3 years instead to buy a new console.

That's not entirely true: the biggest difference is the one major reason why I am a PC only gamer today: backward compatibility. I can (and do) play games on my modern PC that I bought over 20 years ago. My library of games on PC is so huge that sometimes it boggles my mind, but the library is VAST. PC has exclusives in genres that just don't exist at all on the consoles.

An iterative console market has a plethora of drawbacks. Will games made for the PS4.5 work on the PS4 in a lesser mode? How about games for the PS4.7? Or the PS5? Sony could potentially be splitting their own market into small segretations with this, it's a huge potential drawback, one which the PC market does not share and never has.

 

[6.8]

Pro - so long as it's not a yearly thing. If it's a mid-generational bump, and there's only one, why not? You would likely deal with a reduced market in any case, fewer games designed *specifically* for it, and new games can take advantage of newer hardware.

 

[Alex]

Nah, out, I buy consoles for increasingly fewer titles on the side and if I have to worry about keeping them up to date I would just put the money into PC instead.

It would depend on whether or not software can run on either iteration. If the newer model just runs games better, not exclusively, I think I could live with it.

I feel like that would be pretty unlikely, I imagine it'd start to transition to lower effort and urging people to buy the new kit.

 

[Smokin' Sick Style!!!]

Putting graphics sliders on console games would be a horrible idea. The reason people like consoles is that you don't have to worry about any of that. Just pop in the game and it plays. If this happens might as well just buy a PC. Consoles will never be able to be on the same level as the latest high-end PC. Another reason why iterative hardware for consoles is so stupid.

It's the only way I see it working while still allowing for a complete user base. Maybe that's not possible with iterative consoles, and I need to accept that.

I think iterative consoles are a terrible idea anyway. You should factor in the design specs and hardware to last a generation, and I don't think the sales will justify its release. At least not in the first 6-12 months.

It it becomes the norm, how many iterations can we expect in a generation? Will generations cease to apply if we get slight revisions every year?

As you say you might as well get a PC.

 

[jdmonmou]

This isn't even the first step towards consoles adding on the troubles of PC without the benefits. When was the last time you put a disc into a non-Nintendo console without being treated to an update? The PS3 was a nightmare for this.

This'll still be convenient in the same way tablets are, with their yearly updates making it so new apps might not work as well even if they load up on last year's model. Overall, still more streamlined than a full-on PC ny a decent margin. But it's yet another step.

The PS3 was when I realized I wasn't getting enough benefit from consoles outside of access to great Japanese games. This gen, that's less of a factor by far so I still haven't bought in.

But PCs are very quickly becoming just as easy to use as consoles. The fact that consoles are cheaper and have longevity are 2 big advantages that consoles have over PCs. That is gone if consoles move to iterative hardware releases. That is why many people are saying if consoles do this they will just buy a PC. It will be a more open platform and you don't have to pay for PS Plus or Xbox Live. Also, I would guess that even mid-tier PC hardware will be on par with the latest Playstation or Xbox iteration, so the investment you make in a PC would last longer than the investment you make in a console.

 

[Tetranet]

And this will also never happen. AAA Devs almost always push visuals as far as possible with frame rate suffering for it. It's why the argument "these consoles are underpowered" is a fallacy. They are a good price/performance at release. Any games that run like crap are the devs fault not the consoles.

Also from what I have heard some devs say, ps4 games arnt coded like PC games where they would take advantage of the better hardware. They would have to be designed completely differently from the start. That's why backwards compatibility on xbone is done using emulation.

Apart from that...

I think of it this way:

Do I want a machine that can run games at a medium level for 6 years?

Or,

Do I want a machine that can run games at a medium level for 3 years, and at a low level for another 3, with the option of upgrading to a high level at that point with a new machine?


No dev will bother getting every last drop of performance from the previous iteration. They'll ship a good enough version and that's it, and that won't leave the latest iteration unaffected.

Performance has exceeded the point where it drastically affects gameplay. A PS1 and a PS2 RPG were very different games at a core level, how different is a PS3 RPG and a PS4 RPG? Not so much, and the difference will be even smaller in the future, excluding absolutely extraordinary circumstances.

If only gaming would focus on making great games, instead of chasing the latest fad in resolution, framerate and GPU technology.

But PCs are very quickly becoming just as easy to use as consoles. The fact that consoles are cheaper and have longevity are 2 big advantages that consoles have over PCs.

Building a desktop isn't as easy as unboxing and setting up a console. Period.