FinalStageBoss
Banned
As long as I can keep using my console, I really don't care if they want to keep releasing a new model every year.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Are you in or out of a iterative consoles?
- Thread starter Gowans
- Start date
I barely turn on my ps4 as is, mostly for Japanese developed games that are made to run on both ps3 or vita and ps4, which means they aren't using the power of the ps4 really. So I have no interest in another version of the PS4, I'll stick to mostly pc gaming. Plus, whatever graphic update won't be able to truly play graphically complex games at 4k, there aren't any pc graphic cards out right now that can do that as a single card and Sony won't be putting a $1000 gpu into a $400 ps4 update.
It really isn't a bad idea. GTA V has PC like settings on consoles. I think at least one more game does too.
Those that want to mess with the settings will.
Gut reaction? So unbelievably out. Not interested. Nope. Ugh, gross.
But honestly it depends on how much time there is between iterations, and how the iterations are implemented. If they happen so often that I feel like my purchase would be immediately invalidated, then I'd feel discouraged from buying at all, because I'd always be waiting for the next one. And if it means buying an entirely new box that totally replaces my old one, then I'm definitely out, but if it's add-on hardware that can be daisy-chained together Sega Genesis-style, then I'd be more likely to consider it.
But honestly it depends on how much time there is between iterations, and how the iterations are implemented. If they happen so often that I feel like my purchase would be immediately invalidated, then I'd feel discouraged from buying at all, because I'd always be waiting for the next one. And if it means buying an entirely new box that totally replaces my old one, then I'm definitely out, but if it's add-on hardware that can be daisy-chained together Sega Genesis-style, then I'd be more likely to consider it.
MegaManTrigger
Banned
Major game releases are tied to one console vs. App Stores where you can pretty much download an app for use across phones and tablets. This is what I meant by unified.
So if developers are producing games for the stronger system, and the older system isn't supported, what is even the point? It's no different from the current set-up where consoles after a certain amount of time are rendered obsolete by the new technology. Overlapping generation/your definition of iteration doesn't really sound any different from what's already existent.
That's exactly what I said, I'd switch to pc; and why doesn't it makes sense? It's your analogy that doesn't make sense. If I lose the advantages of owning a console, and console becomes even more so like a PC, why not switch to PC?
If I have to follow the bleeding edge hardware and upgrade my console every few years for the experience intended by the developers (which only the newer model can provide), or never be able to play that's 100% optimized for any console I own (obviously, since it has to cater to both the new hardware AND the old), why not try the PC route?
If I build a strong base, I can upgrade my graphics card at least twice using the same mobo for at least 3 console mini-generations, and if DX12 hits it stride, I don't even have to throw away / sell my previous gfx card as they I can asymmetrically combine them, some games would at least make use of my older gfx card.
So no, your analogy bears no relevance here.
GamerMax73
Member
But that's only an hardware compatibility thing PowerPC PS3 vs x86 PS4. It's the same store on both systems and you can buy for the other system through the store. There's no work to be done here for Sony to make their existing store work in an iterative platform
Again you're putting arbitrary limits on development that needn't exist. Why can't a game support both systems within a generation and render accordingly dependent on hardware used. This as worked on PC's for decades.
The key is the commitment that the Playstation platform will unify around the AMD APU's current Playstation OS and API's. Sure all three and hardware will improve over time, but much like Direct-X since 1995, the actual platform being developed to can remain constant for decades to come.
Developers should like this because API's and tool chains become a known quantity for years to come. Gamers should like this because it deals with forwards and backwards compatibility.
The PS4.5 I've just bought isn't suddenly outdated because a PS5 has been released. Or, I've bought a PS5 and my PS4 games are no longer playable.
Azelover
Titanic was called the Ship of Dreams, and it was. It really was.
Handheld. Totally different.
It's a tough call. Certainly the new upgrades don't come out fast enough for me to reap the benefits (GBA SP, DSi, n3DS), so I doubt I would feel the need to upgrade every single iteration. I just got a PS4 with Darth Vader's helmet on the front; I don't give a rat's ass about 4K gaming.
If they were built with the immediate option of upgrading (like the N64 and expansion pak), I'd have no qualms at all. But again, it'd have to be kept stupidly simple. There's a reason I don't get into PC gaming because I don't have time to fiddle with the inner machinations of a high end rig to get it running right (plus I can't stand KBM controls)
If they were built with the immediate option of upgrading (like the N64 and expansion pak), I'd have no qualms at all. But again, it'd have to be kept stupidly simple. There's a reason I don't get into PC gaming because I don't have time to fiddle with the inner machinations of a high end rig to get it running right (plus I can't stand KBM controls)
BlazeHedgehog
Member
I am poor. I have always been poor. I spent most of 2015 saving up $600 to buy parts to build a mid-range PC, because I figured it'd be like last gen and a good mid-range PC would last 6 or 7 years. (for the record, my last major upgrade to my desktop was in 2011)
The fact that this might not be the case, and the fact that I can't even have long-term security with a console, makes me angry and afraid. Even $200 is a scary purchase for me. Saving up that $600 was frustrating to say the least, but I figured it would be worth it in the long run. Now? Probably not.
Fuck the "iPhone Cycle." I can't afford that. It's 2016 and I'm still using a flip phone from 2009. And I don't want to be stuck with a "poverty version" that runs like shit just because I can't spend multiple hundreds of dollars every cycle.
My goal in life is to spend LESS money, not to have manufacturers twist my arm to spend more.
Fuck everything about iterative hardware.
The fact that this might not be the case, and the fact that I can't even have long-term security with a console, makes me angry and afraid. Even $200 is a scary purchase for me. Saving up that $600 was frustrating to say the least, but I figured it would be worth it in the long run. Now? Probably not.
Fuck the "iPhone Cycle." I can't afford that. It's 2016 and I'm still using a flip phone from 2009. And I don't want to be stuck with a "poverty version" that runs like shit just because I can't spend multiple hundreds of dollars every cycle.
My goal in life is to spend LESS money, not to have manufacturers twist my arm to spend more.
Fuck everything about iterative hardware.
I've seen people try this angle before when the whole XB1 DRM circus was on with comments like "Sony's going to do it too just you wait, and you'll like it! You just don't know how good it is". Pure BS. Consoles will -never- have the cpu/gpu power of higher-end PCs, not at an affordable price less than $500, iterative or not. Backwards compatbility is already something at least Sony and MS are looking at going forward, that doesn't necessitate an iterative model. PC has had consoles beat in this regard since well before consoles were even a thing. The only true advantages consoles offer over the PC platform is form factor and longevity/stability of investment. When you switch to an iterative model, inherently, there is now pressure for people to upgrade. It's a mindset that many people DO NOT WANT to deal with. If graphics are so important, just get a PC, you're able to customize it to your desires and it's a completely open platform. Consoles trying to compete with higher-end PC gaming in power is going to fail hard. For consoles to succeed they need to be accessible, and going iterative just muddies the water. One of the biggest draws of buying a console is that once you buy it, you don't need to worry about it until the next generation. That's a powerful incentive and should not be underestimated.
I don't think the casual crowd would care as much. The casual crowd doesn't care as much about having the latest console and they don't care about maintaining 30 or 60fps. Casual consumers are the people more likely to buy a console mid-generation. I don't think casual consumers would be any more or less likely to buy consoles because of this.
I think this is my main issue as well. I value way too much all the consoles I have because when I decide to spend money on it, I want it to last as long as they can (I still play older consoles, I usually repair consoles or other gadgets if it is possible and, by the way, my current phone is my mother's until she bought a new one). With this iteration system, I would feel like I am wasting lots of money and I will feel real silly: if I want to sell the first model, the value will be much lower. If I want to keep it, I think I will end up hating it because if I knew they will follow this route, I would not even consider buying the system.
They are pushing their luck too hard. I do not want gaming industry to explode, but they should stop biting the hand that feeds them.
There's no need for this level of hyperbole, nobody has said it's the end of gaming for them. Only that they'd just go to PC. The switch isn't exactly difficult to make. You might be surprised to see just how much traction and staying power PC has and has had.
Totaleclipes
Banned
As long as it's not every year it's fine because the Sony exclusives I have to have. Hopefully they won't shoot themselves in the foot.
family_guy
Member
I guess it depends on your gaming tastes. If you actually enjoy the exclusives that consoles provide, then saying you'll just go build a PC is meaningless. I have my own gaming PC, but that PC doesn't play games like Until Dawn, Uncharted 4, Bloodborne, etc., so it's power doesn't mean shit. That's why I have a PS4 also.
GamerMax73
Member
Not going in to details but I recently lost my job and am likely to be unemployed for the forseeable future. I'm in the process of setting up my own business but unless I get very lucky the profit forecast will be bleak for some time to come.
I was lucky enough to be able to afford a new PS4 at launch back when I was in the money, so to speak, and that's what I'm gaming on now.
The way I see it, an iterative model will drive down the price of second hand models. If I can afford a second hand PS4.5 when the PS5 launchs and thanks to forward compatibility I can play early PS5 games, albeit at reduced fidelity, I'd be a happy man.
Without an iteration model I'll be forced to stick with PS4 for a few years into PS5's launch waiting for prices to drop or affordable second hand availability.
And this is another reason why an iterative model just for power doesn't really make sense.
I guess it depends on the final implementation. One of my favorite things with PC gaming is that for most games, I can go back to a game years later and have a better experience with new hardware. If the software is forwards/backwards compatible with some sort of auto-implemented graphics and environmental sliders I think it is overall a positive. If I could buy say Uncharted 4 now and then play it again in 4 years on new hardware with better graphics and not have to buy the rerelease I'd be ok with that.
One of the things I hate most with consoles is that when a new generation comes along, all of my old software and peripherals become essentially useless.
One of the things I hate most with consoles is that when a new generation comes along, all of my old software and peripherals become essentially useless.
Damerman
Member
Its really unfair to say you are out if there are enthusiasts who want their games to look better when the problem of game compatibility is no longer a concern. Its unfair to certain consumers and its unfair to sony who can be taking care of a demand.
Im sticking to my ps4, but i have no problem with incremental updgrades.
Im sticking to my ps4, but i have no problem with incremental updgrades.
Folks have said it enough, but let's recap. Consoles are not phones.
Phones are self contained items that, aside from an assortment of micro-transactions in the form of apps, are a single purchase. Consoles are a gateway to purchasing more content, which isn't something most phones are used for.
So if a console becomes an iterative platform, it'll turn more into the enthusiast PC market where manufacturers target whales rather than seeing mainstream adoption like the phone industry.
People aren't beholden to other consumers. They make decisions based on their personal needs and desires. I think it's entirely fair.
KyanMehwulfe
Member
I'm OK with it if it's done 'right' and doesn't segment the game library too much in practice.
Meaning, e.g. games still use the PS4 as the lead platform, and the 'PS4K' just allows for a higher frame rate or resolution. In practice however, if you start getting games using that for too many other assets and effects, and too many major titles become <25 frames per second on the OG PS4 then that's a problem. And it's a very probable problem.
So, in theory I'm OK with it, and if Sony's 'game approval process' somehow enforced the PS4 as the continued lead platform. But in practice I'd have major concerns over segmentation from too much lead development to the new specs.
Meaning, e.g. games still use the PS4 as the lead platform, and the 'PS4K' just allows for a higher frame rate or resolution. In practice however, if you start getting games using that for too many other assets and effects, and too many major titles become <25 frames per second on the OG PS4 then that's a problem. And it's a very probable problem.
So, in theory I'm OK with it, and if Sony's 'game approval process' somehow enforced the PS4 as the continued lead platform. But in practice I'd have major concerns over segmentation from too much lead development to the new specs.
Like I said, you'd still get those, the time they get released will simply coincide with when the model that can make them happen is the lower tier. You would legit not know the difference unless you were specifically told.
We would be assuming that they'd sell it at a loss. As I said earlier in the thread, the likelihood is that the loss leader business model would be over in the games industry with this transition, and considering the money that Microsoft and Sony lost trying to keep that dream alive last gen, it's not a change that they're likely to shed any tears over.
You bring up a good point... with all the bluster about people being disappointed with this change and moving to PC because of there being very little distinction between them and a PC, the one who stands to benefit most from this change might be Nintendo.
But I hate to tell you this, Nintendo's been talking up the same idea since around 2013.
I think this is the fundamental disconnect in the discussion. Given that console makers operated on the loss leader model for years, it's clear that there's more money made in software than there is in hardware. So having more hardware units that you could potentially sell games to actually helps that instead of hinders that, so that is where the benefit will be moving forward, and with all 3 hardware makers jumping on this change, it makes me think that the extra software sales would offset any negatives and they've run the numbers to confirm that.
Hardware would still likely fall into a discontinuation cycle, as well, probably the same 6-year cycle we are accustomed to, where games on larger scale stop being made for them just like it is with PCs, while indies could thrive on lower-spec hardware for a longer period of time and continue to populate older consoles with content, for those who aren't ready to make the upgrade. Indies therefore benefit the most from this change, which may be part of where this comes from. Consumers will still be served content to purchase, which will allow hardware makers to keep making money.
So buying each iteration becomes less of a concern. Even Apple knows that people don't buy each and every release of the iPhone (I'm still on a 5S, myself, waiting for the iPhone 7 this year), and console hardware makers will and likely do understand the same reality would apply to them.
The major concern is what happens when consumers stop buying into video games altogether.
You are right in there being a challenge with this change, no question, and I see all 3 of them tackling this challenge in a different way.
Nintendo seems poised to justify it the best and have the most to gain by having a handheld that will need to continue being fed content that would extend the life of previously-released hardware by virtue of games being playable on both the newest handheld and the previous console hardware and therefore no longer segments their development resources in half as it did this generation. There's a very real motivation to utilize this change in business model for them. This is without discussion of that patent that could allow them to sell a cheaper upgrade box to push a previous piece of console hardware into the next tier, but not knowing all the particulars of that, I won't elaborate further.
Microsoft will likely use this opportunity to push Windows 10 as their premium "hardware", with the Xbox brand being the next step down. Considering the negativity around W10, however, it remains to be seen if that pans out for them. But Microsoft clearly stands the most to gain from all the "that's it, I'm going PC" in this discussion, because that's still within their ecosystem. Sorry people, escaping to PC isn't the escape from this new business model that you think it is. Xbox might continue, but its prevalence in Microsoft's video game strategy might be taking a back seat. Or at least that's my takeaway from this.
Sony is really the only one I can't see having a strategy that works to their benefit in this change. Their business model is so engrained into the console loss leader business model. The best that I can tell is that they're seeing their future PSVR customers as separate from the standard console owners, with PSVR customers being their "high-tier", much like Nintendo's console owners would be, with standard console owners being their "low-tier" in the same way Nintendo's handheld customers would be. That being said, it's an exceptionally risky idea when VR has not proven itself to be more than a flash in the pan at this particular moment in history.
It's going to be an interesting to watch the industry change, for sure. But considering it hasn't changed all that much since the 80s, the business model for the industry needed to adapt, because it clearly could not continue on as it always has without a negative impact. Nintendo already knew that but stumbled hard by trying to keep the market relevant to new customers, and Sony/Microsoft learned all too well what the stumbling blocks were of continuing on as normal would be in what I think will be one of the last generations of loss leader hardware last gen.
I think there's a benefit here, but it involves them communicating this as a positive change to consumers who, going by this thread, seem stuck in the muck of the status quo.
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
I'll just buy the best version around the release date of the game that I can't get on PC, like say Zelda or Uncharted 4. I would not buy more than one version of each and wouldn't use them for multiplats.
BlazeHedgehog
Member
Hypothetically speaking, if the PS3 trend continues with the PS4, you wouldn't even have to worry about a PS5 until sometime in 2020.
And you missed the part where I said:
I may not have an iPhone, but I know enough friends who do, and "the push" to get you to upgrade is real. And by that I mean when even the most simple apps update and suddenly start running like garbage for no reason, as a thinly-veiled excuse to push you to upgrade to the latest model.
It's something I have personally experienced with the Nintendo 3DS, and the nearly minute-long load times on some of the more recent games. Gotta spend another $200 to get that New 3DS! (No.)
With how violently this industry was ready to demonize the used games market, you better believe they're going to do everything in their power to make sure you don't want to pick up last year's model of their console.
ROUGE_BLOCK
Member
Well as long as they don't do it the same way Sega did with the Genesis constantly updating the current console with new addons that it just becomes a bloated mess. It will be interesting to see if both consoles could survive with small interating consoles every few years. As for me, only time will tell. I might just altogether abandon consoles and just build a PC with my friend.
MassiveNights
Banned
I'm shallow in the sense I enjoy feeling like I am playing the latest and greatest in console gaming.
If there were one or two consoles out that were superior I wouldn't like that.
I can't afford to buy this shit every year.
If there were one or two consoles out that were superior I wouldn't like that.
I can't afford to buy this shit every year.
Totally in. If it was every year I wouldn't buy it (I don't upgrade my phone every year either), but every 2-3 is good, so long as older consoles are supported 2-3 iterations. It would also drive down prices on older consoles, so if both platforms did it, it would be easier to pick up older iterations of multiple consoles.
I don't get the arguments that it would be too hard for devs to support when they currently support PC, which is a hydra of different configs. Better tools like DX 12 should make it even easier for devs to get good performance out of multiple SKUs.
Would love to see a new one announced this fall, would also be better in terms of VR support on consoles as they could grow to provide better experiences without changing out the headset tech so often.
I don't get the arguments that it would be too hard for devs to support when they currently support PC, which is a hydra of different configs. Better tools like DX 12 should make it even easier for devs to get good performance out of multiple SKUs.
Would love to see a new one announced this fall, would also be better in terms of VR support on consoles as they could grow to provide better experiences without changing out the headset tech so often.
I'd prefer to just focus on my PC for multi-plats and Xbox exclusives, but I have a feeling there will still be bad or poorly supported PC ports (e.g., Batman, MKX) so I'll need a console.
I do like the idea of more frequent updates to consoles. I wouldn't buy a new model every year, but every 2-3 years would be fine with me so long as the upgrade was worth it.
I do like the idea of more frequent updates to consoles. I wouldn't buy a new model every year, but every 2-3 years would be fine with me so long as the upgrade was worth it.
GametimeUK
Member
I was just thinking... how crazy is it that if last gen had a normal life cycle we would be around the PS5 era right now anyway?
Not difficulty, but development cycles will be changed to fit around a ~3 year iterative cycle. Lot of people don't trust devs to be able to optimize for the older SKUs. Basically, their ROI on their current unit is devalued.
Optimusdouche
Banned
Why would you stop being console gamer when it does become iterative, which is going to be every console, but okay iterative and more commonly, every 2-3 years perhaps.
Well, that is the exact time you want to be a PC gamer less. Why would this drive you to become a PC gamer? Now console hardware is more up to date, more modern, there is if anything far less of any rationale reason to be a PC gamer. The benefits of PC gaming, cutting edge hardware, is all of a sudden not a huge deal anymore, because at anytime your console hardware will be more competitive.
And you will also have FAR more games that are released far more frequently. Because the userbase would be perpetually increasing and at any given time should represent close to the peak. Imagine a situation where software developers are perpetually servicing a 100 or so million Sony and another 100 million from MS. For us, that is absolutely amazing. That would lead to super vibrant and lucrative scene for gaming. More money for the industry and more games for us.
When this happens, it will be a new reason to not be a PC gamer, not the other way around.
Well, that is the exact time you want to be a PC gamer less. Why would this drive you to become a PC gamer? Now console hardware is more up to date, more modern, there is if anything far less of any rationale reason to be a PC gamer. The benefits of PC gaming, cutting edge hardware, is all of a sudden not a huge deal anymore, because at anytime your console hardware will be more competitive.
And you will also have FAR more games that are released far more frequently. Because the userbase would be perpetually increasing and at any given time should represent close to the peak. Imagine a situation where software developers are perpetually servicing a 100 or so million Sony and another 100 million from MS. For us, that is absolutely amazing. That would lead to super vibrant and lucrative scene for gaming. More money for the industry and more games for us.
When this happens, it will be a new reason to not be a PC gamer, not the other way around.
spazchicken
Member
A 14 to 16 year life cycle per generation?
How much life do you think you have to see technology advance? Can you imagine being stuck with the NES for 16 years?
that's the thing, i think everybody got spoiled with the last cycle and more or less assumed that was the new normal. i think Sony and MS knew it'd be shorter but didn't anticipate how fast their hardware would be antiquated
PC gaming is only growing. granted a lot of it is because of stuff like League of Legends or whatever, stuff which doesn't really intersect with the console market but look a the number of concurrent steam users going up every year
i'd think people already on the fence will just say fuck it and put their ~$400 towards PC instead of a console stopgap. cost is the most prohibitive thing in PC gaming, and when consoles don't have that advantage (as in ~$400 entry and you're good for 5 years) most will go PC. not saying consoles are doomed and PC will devour the market or anything, but it's probably a net positive for PC
The Artisan
Member
I think this thread would benefit from a poll
No. Too much like PC imo. The good thing about consoles has been the standardised specs alowing more to be done with the hardware across a greater span of time. The moment you start having variation within specs you lose that. Games will cater to the lowest common denominator just like they do on PC or iOS relegating your uber spec'd machine to increases in framerate and resolution and not much more. I mean is there any games out there that justify a titan in sli configuration on PC? or that truely take advantage of the newst itteration of the iphone? No....because ultimately the games still need to run on something much much weaker. and unless they intend to have PS4k exclusive titles then that aspect of development bleeds into first party titles...the games that should be the dogs bollocks visually end up looking good for PS4, ok for PS4k but running higher res with higher framerates
It just doesn't seem worth it to me.
Exclusives to the new iteration would solve that, but having to buy entirely new systems every 2 or 3 years to play them would be complete BS.
I get the appeal of being able to buy uncharted 4 but be able to play it at 60fps at 4k or something. But i feel what you lose doesn't really warrent it. I think i'd just go PC instead if that's ultimatly what consoles are moving towards. Afterall why bother with a wannabe when you can just have the real deal?
It just doesn't seem worth it to me.
Exclusives to the new iteration would solve that, but having to buy entirely new systems every 2 or 3 years to play them would be complete BS.
I get the appeal of being able to buy uncharted 4 but be able to play it at 60fps at 4k or something. But i feel what you lose doesn't really warrent it. I think i'd just go PC instead if that's ultimatly what consoles are moving towards. Afterall why bother with a wannabe when you can just have the real deal?
RadarScope1
Member
Pretty great point here. I agree. Not so much about from PC to console but certainly about consoles being more in line with tech trends and especially about the benefit of the ever expanding user base. Think indie and B-tier games have a good opening on consoles today? Imagine if the user base keeps unfolding. It will be even closer to par with PC and might even help bring back the weird old days of the PS1/2 era.