Support NeoGAF

[GamerMax73]

Why does the PS4 game support have to stop in 2019 while PS4.5 keep going until 2022?
So you're assuming that there'll games that only work on PS 4.5? Which I guess will also run on the PS5?

Using arbitrary dates but the point of an iteration model is that eventually support for the oldest model drops off as new models arrive. In this case I chose a 2 model cycle, you could just as easily suggest a 3 or 4 model cycle (support for PS4, PS4.5 and PS5) but then other peoples fears suddenly become valid that a) the oldest model stagnates development on the newest, and b) if the PS4 will play all future games regardless, whats the incentive to upgrade?

And yes, for an iteration model to work the PS4.5 should be the lead platform during the early PS5 cycle and games should run on both (higher fidelity on PS5)

And again, we are talking new games here. At a point new games have to stop supporting PS4, and eventually stop supporting PS4.5 and PS5, etc. In terms of old games, backwards compatibility, there's no earthly reason why in this model PS4 games are not still playable on a PS6.

The counter point was made later in the thread that devs would still fully commit to both SKUs, which was then countered that people don't have any faith in developers to do that.

I'm aware of the circular argument, I've been pretty active in this thread since the subject matter interests me and I've tried to counter many of them. Ultimately if devs want to publish to the Sony platform they'll do what Sony tell them to do, and if Sony want iteration to be successful...

 

[EloKa]

most likely: Out

I play regularly on consoles / handhelds but my main gaming platform is the PC. I see no reason why I should stick to consoles if I lose the convenience of not having to upgrade them. I won't upgrade my consoles every 2 years just to play an exclusive game.

 

[Sanctuary]

PC like environment? Um okay. If a PC like environment is so bad then why are you envengilizing PCs? Seems a little contradictory you are using PC like environment as pejorative then trumpeting the PC master race line. And anyway, iterating is not really a PC like environment. Do we consider IPADs to be a PC like environment because it comes out frequently?

You aren't understanding what I wrote at all, and there was nothing contradictory about it. If you are moving closer to a PC like setup with consoles, but still aren't reaching similar levels of performance, and are expected to upgrade every 3 years or so, it becomes a gigantic waste of money. Why go for a wannabe gaming PC, when for about the same overall price you can just get a real one?

Why would multiple consoles make PC gaming more attractive? More current hardware on consoles, far better value for money for that hardware - a bigger install base that equals many more games at better prices - these are all things that make console gaming less attractive and PC gaming more attractive? You're saying things, but not really explaining why it is relevant or meaningful, but maybe that's just me not getting it.

Probably because a lot of people like to have more than just one console, and when they buy it, they do it with the knowledge that whatever system they are supporting, will be set for 4-5 years at least. Also, they know that whatever exclusives arrive for that particular console will be the best version that they can play. When you turn it into a scenario where games are still being developed for say the PS4, but you can now play them on PS4.5, PS5, PS5.5, where each new iteration gives better performance and potentially higher resolution or even effects, it just turns the overall console experience to shit. Those that purchased the initial PS4 are no longer going to be able to play the "best" version of the game without upgrading.

Like I said, that wouldn't be too bad if it were limited to a single console. But many people have more than just a PS4 or Xbone. They have both, and possibly a Wii U and a handheld as well. If all of those were to become iterative like this, a lot more people would just say "fuck the exclusives" and go with a one and done PC that will last much longer than any of those consoles and cost less overall for the increased performance.\

Its why i don't game on PC now. Because the amazing hardware you can buy is never taken advantage of. I mean look at the bragging points of a PC gamer these days. Its not that they can run a game that looks almost unachievable anymore (see crysis when it launched) it's that they can run games that look like console games at 300fps and at 8k resolution supersampled down to 1080p...because that's all that's left for them to use the addition power on. If games indeed scaled better the defference between something like the division on ultra on PC would look worlds apart from the division on PS4. But they don't. And that would end up happening on iterative consoles and i wouldn't want that. But if it did i'd move onto PC simple for the open nature of the platform.

I'm not following your logic here. You basically explained why PCs are taking advantage of the more powerful hardware. There's a bit more to it than simply running at 300fps and 8k downsampled though.

 

[GamerMax73]

I see no reason why I should stick to consoles if I lose the convenience of not having to upgrade them. I won't upgrade my consoles every 2 years just to play an exclusive game.

I know this is a circular argument and has been said endlessly, but...

Upgrading every 2 years for exclusive games makes absolutely no sense to anybody...

• It makes no sense for Sony to segregate gamers into smaller 30m player chunks insted of one large 100m user base
• It makes no sense to developers to target a potential audiance of 30m gamers instead of 100m gamers
• It makes no sense to gamers to have to repurchase new hardware so frequently

In short it just won't happen that way and that's not what iteration is about!

 

[Chao]

Out.

If the rumors are true, it means they want me to buy another console when the one in the market didn't even have time to build a decent library, mostly remasters and indies a a few gems here and there.

Why bother starting from scratch a couple of years later, fuck that shit.

 

[gelf]

There are no differences becoming negligent, at all.

It's all envy. And furthermore, if they have a console that is inferior to a new one, they will switch to PC, where the difference will be even bigger. Nothing makes sense.

Some of us already have a PC as well as a console. Now usually my PC isn't very good and I use it to play old games, indies and ports with med to low settings. I like to also have a console on hand partially for exclusives but also partially for the peace of mind that it will be supported for 5+ years in a way my PC has no such guarantee.

If unwillingly forced into the upgrade system for both platforms it's now tempting to forego the exclusives and stick with the platform that at least let's me upgrade how I want and spend more money that used to go to consoles on PC hardware.

 

[Mabufu]

When you turn it into a scenario where games are still being developed for say the PS4, but you can now play them on PS4.5, PS5, PS5.5, where each new iteration gives better performance and potentially higher resolution or even effects, it just turns the overall console experience to shit. Those that purchased the initial PS4 are no longer going to be able to play the "best" version of the game without upgrading.

But that is bullshit. A lot of people is buying third party games that are available on PC on PS4, and no one of them died.

There's a lot of poeple already who are playing a superior version of games on PC, because those people payed for it. Why is there suddently a problem when people want to pay more for a more powerful console?

The situation doesnt change at all. It's all people overreacting like crazy.

Some of us already have a PC as well as a console. Now usually my PC isn't very good and I use it to play old games, indies and ports with med to low settings. I like to also have a console on hand partially for exclusives but also partially for the peace of mind that it will be supported for 5+ years in a way my PC has no such guarantee.

If unwillingly forced into the upgrade system for both platforms it's now tempting to forego the exclusives and stick with the platform that at least let's me upgrade how I want and spend more money that used to go to consoles on PC hardware.

Who told you your console is going to lose support and who told you that you will be forced to upgrade?
Arent you assuming too many things?

 

[Doc_Drop]

There are no differences becoming negligent, at all.

It's all envy. And furthermore, if they have a console that is inferior to a new one, they will switch to PC, where the difference will be even bigger. Nothing makes sense.

What? what are you trying to say? Envy?

 

[EloKa]

I know this is a circular argument and has been said endlessly, but...

Upgrading every 2 years for exclusive games makes absolutely no sense to anybody...

• It makes no sense for Sony to segregate gamers into smaller 30m player chunks insted of one large 100m user base
• It makes no sense to developers to target a potential audiance of 30m gamers instead of 100m gamers
• It makes no sense to gamers to have to repurchase new hardware so frequently

In short it just won't happen that way and that's not what iteration is about!

Let's say there are 3 different console variations available:

• I can either play an exclusive with full details in max settings
• I can play the game with medium settings and I'm still close the the original
• I can play the game in low details with lacking features (like shadow of mordor - nemesis system)

I want my console gaming experience to be the exactly the way how the game was designed to be.
As soon as I'm missing a single feature or have to pass on details because I didn't upgrade in the last 12 months: I'm not going to buy the exclusive game anymore.

 

[KORNdoggy]

I see what you're saying. But that's still a much better situation to be in than we are now, where we are stuck with extremely old hardware. They might not take advantage of the hardware fully, but that is still going to be more than compensated.

there hasn't been an example of it happening on iOS or PC...so i'm not sure why it would be compensated if it happened on consoles?

i think a better idea is to squash this mentality that a console has to be less then $400. if people are legitimately willing to throw $400 or more at iterative consoles every 2 years in an attempt at staying ahead of the curve (which wouldn't happen anyway). why not just pay a thousand dollars for an absolute BEAST that will comfortably last 5-6 years and offer some of the nicest looking, best performing games ever on a machine that can be truly taken advantage of?

 

[JawzPause]

Out. Terrible idea and i hope it's not true

 

[Jameson]

In-ish, but it kills my desire to be a multi console owner.

 

[Sanctuary]

But that is bullshit. A lot of people is buying third party games that are available on PC on PS4, and no one of them died.

There's a lot of poeple already who are playing a superior version of games on PC, because those people payed for it. Why is there suddently a problem when people want to pay more for a more powerful console?

The situation doesnt change at all. It's all people overreacting like crazy.

Do you even read before replying? Duh, some people are already playing superior version on a PC compared to a PS4 of the same game. They purchased a PC and are able to play that version. Those that only have a PS4 are limited to that version, but so what? They purchased a PS4 instead of a PC. The downside is that if the PC owner does not own a PS4, then they are not going to be able to play any of the exclusives that they might find attractive.

I can't speak for anyone else, but my argument has been soley based around exclusive titles. If there were no exclusives, I would never bother with consoles anymore. If consoles start becoming iterative, I'd probably still not bother now because so far this gen, I have two consoles, and only three exclusives for them. Everything else has been on PC and vastly superior. And on top of that, I don't have to upgrade every 2-3 years to maintain that superiority (talking strictly hardware here folks...).

What is so hard for you to understand about the way consoles currently are (you are guaranteed to get the best version of their exclusives) vs turning them into crap gaming PCs? This entire concept makes absolutely no sense. Just because you might think it's great, obviously the majority who have posted in this thread do not. And this is a thread on a forum with people that are way more hardcore about buying hardware and playing games than your average console consumer. They're also the extremely small, vocal minority.

i think a better idea is to squash this mentality that a console has to be less then $400. if people are legitimately willing to throw $400 or more at iterative consoles every 2 years in an attempt at staying ahead of the curve (which wouldn't happen anyway). why not just pay a thousand dollars for an absolute BEAST that will comfortably last 5-6 years and offer some of the nicest looking, best performing games ever on a machine that can be truly taken advantage of?

This is exactly what PC gamers do. They also have the option to upgrade, but they don't have to, and will still grossly outperform consoles with the same games, barring disgustingly bad ports. On top of that, a lot of people like pointing to how you can get PC games for much less than the console versions (new anyway), which ends up making the cost difference pay for itself over time. I think that really depends on just how many games you're actually buying though. If consoles were to go up to $1000, the price for games would have to dramatically drop too, or the cost effectiveness over time (and amount of games purchased) with a PC rises even more.

 

[Sloane]

And furthermore, if they have a console that is inferior to a new one, they will switch to PC, where the difference will be even bigger. Nothing makes sense.

Yeah, I wish everyone who is writing "out" would explain if they will just quit game or what because switching to PC doesn't make any sense. I hope the people at Sony don't read this thread and get cold feet like Microsoft did with the Xbox One. Now look where they are at...

 

[Vincent Grayson]

I'm not crazy about it in principle, as it sounds to me like a path to confusion for the consumer, and no real benefit to anyone but those willing to shell out more money more often.

That said, if the price is right, the improvements substantial, I could see buying an improved PS4.

 

[megashock5]

I'm out. Consoles are already veering too close to being a PC but locked down and worse, and this would cement that.

Yeah, it takes away one of main reasons that I've historically been a console gamer. I just want to buy a box every 5 or so years and not have to worry about whether a game will run. There will always be a few that require a certain peripheral or whatever, but for the most part all owners of a given console get the same experience/performance of any given game - it's part of the appeal.

 

[Doc_Drop]

Yeah, I wish everyone who is writing "out" would explain if they will just quit game or what because switching to PC doesn't make any sense. I hope the people at Sony don't read this thread and get cold feet like Microsoft did with the Xbox One. Now look where they are at...

People may not be saying why because it seems obvious to them? I would assume "out" would mean out of buying consoles, not gaming, and that probably a large % of the "outs" have already got a PC and would rather spend the money needed to buy the newest iteration of a console and spend it on a new graphics card, processor, SSD, or whatever instead.

 

[Maiar_m]

It depends how it's done, but if I need to shell out 400€ every two years, then I'd be out and find other ways to game. I have issues both financially and environmentally with a platform that's discarded after such a short lifespan. If it's done through fairly priced additional modules one can install on the base hardware and therefore extend its lifespan, then yeah sure, gimme more modulable home consoles.

There's also the question of exclusive games. If one can play games that are compatible with platform n+0.5 on platform n, then sure, I don't care if it's a bit less pretty / doesn't have that sexy controller scheme / whatever. However if the incentive is for devs to only dev for platform n+0.5 and drain platform n of possible releases, then yeah I totally would be out, can't afford it.

 

[GamerMax73]

As soon as I'm missing a single feature or have to pass on details because I didn't upgrade in the last 12 months: I'm not going to buy the exclusive game anymore.

That's your choice. It's also cutting your nose of to spite your face. I suppose you could dump console gaming and stick with PC's then upgrade your CPU and GPU every 3 months just to make sure you're always at the bleeding edge of technology?

If it a game is platform exclusive, plays fine on all current iterations for that platform, plays as well on the lowest current iteration as it would have done had iterations not been a thing, then the question becomes - wheres the harm? Why not just play and enjoy the game for what it is? After all at the end of the day it's all about the games not the hardware and you can't polish a turd...

 

[Mar Nosso]

People, this is all about motivation towards purchasing a device.

For gaming, there is no motivation to purchase a new one every 2 or 3 years because a console is mainly for gaming and stays at home. It has other features that are a bonus when gaming or when at home lazying about or doing housework, but it's for gaming first and foremost. It's not portable hardware too. So spending 400/500/600 euros/pounds/dollars that often makes little sense when you can get perfectly fun and playable games on your 4 or 5 year old console that simply won't look as crispy and high-res as a possible PS4K one would.

With things like smartphones, they are "life gadgets". They help you communicate with a plethora of people via a plethora of means. They even help you have sex and procreate! They're always with you in your pocket. You can take pictures with them, showing off your cool device and sending your vacation pics to a thousand different social media apps to make everyone jealous. They're a lifestyle gadget, they're linked to your sense of self-worth. Thus the motivation to purchase new and different ones for high prices much more frequently. You will not have that for consoles and even if it works in some capacity, it won't be the same as it is for smartphones. It's a bad idea that has been tried before, even with handhelds.

 

[Doc_Drop]

If it a game is platform exclusive, plays fine on all current iterations for that platform, plays as well on the lowest current iteration as it would have done had iterations not been a thing, then the question becomes - wheres the harm? Why not just play and enjoy the game for what it is? After all at the end of the day it's all about the games not the hardware and you can't polish a turd...

Then why bother iterating hardware if it's all about the games?

 

[GamerMax73]

I just want to buy a box every 5 or so years and not have to worry about whether a game will run. There will always be a few that require a certain peripheral or whatever, but for the most part all owners of a given console get the same experience/performance of any given game - it's part of the appeal.

I know this is going round in circles (again) but I am yet to read one convincing argument why this could not continue - unless you add the sentence 'and I want to always have the bestest possible experience' - which is a matter of personal choice and nothing to do with buying a box every 5 years and not having to worry about whether a game will run.

If Sony can't guaranty this then they shouldn't be doing iteration and there's no reason why they can't guaranty this and do iteration.

 

[Mabufu]

Then why bother iterating hardware if it's all about the games?

In business, you'd better stay competitive. Iterating hardware is a decision from the companies, not from consumers.

 

[EloKa]

That's your choice. It's also cutting your nose of to spite your face.

No it's not my choice. That is a "given" for console gaming. Purchase it once and play the games how they were ment to be.

PC gaming doesn't come with that premise. Play the games on a detail level that your rig can handle. On the PC side this way is fine because you know that you might have to upgrade your rig from time to time. Buying a console on release day and then hearing 2 1/2 years later "uhm, sorry but your PS4 can't play this or that game with all features" is a no go (especially for early adopters).

 

[EGM1966]

No idea at this point. They don't exist yet and the model isn't clear so it's hard to say.

Regular updates probably would have me wondering why not just go 100% PC but it depends on the model and how it works and what it means for games over the lifetime of the console: for example would it be the case that upgrading would essentially be mandatory to always be able to play latest games or would games always have to support the older models so you don't have to upgrade if you don't want to?

In short: need them confirmed and need to know how they'd work in reality.

 

[GamerMax73]

Then why bother iterating hardware if it's all about the games?

The arguments for the Pro case (as I see them)...

• Choice for gamers who want to buy into the extra performance option
• Better able to keep pace with technological progress
• Long term secure platform for developers to target
• Able to target a wider customer base across generations
• Guaranteed backwards compatibility
• A level of forwards compatibility

In short - a long term stable platform, as opposed to building a 100m user base over a 5-8yr period and then one day suddenly dropping like a stone and starting again because the hardware has been pushed beyond whats practical and the switch to a new uncompatable model can't be put off any longer (the traditional model).

Just ask Microsoft, Nintendo and Sega how well the existing model works has their users migrated to rival (usually Sony) hardware when the new generation hammer hit.

 

[odhiex]

I will judge (aka buy) products based on my values, not others.

My opinion is still the same on this and I was predicting this would happen from a long time ago.

So, I may say that I am in for the consoles iteration every 3-4 years (more with an affordable price point of course).

 

[KORNdoggy]

No idea at this point. They don't exist yet and the model isn't clear so it's hard to say.

Regular updates probably would have me wondering why not just go 100% PC but it depends on the model and how it works and what it means for games over the lifetime of the console: for example would it be the case that upgrading would essentially be mandatory to always be able to play latest games or would games always have to support the older models so you don't have to upgrade if you don't want to?

In short: need them confirmed and need to know how they'd work in reality.

if it's the former it pisses people off because their 2 year old machine is now irrelevant in the gaming landscape and they're effectively forced to upgrade to keep playing new games.

if it's the latter you get the same problem everyone complains about with cross gen releases, about how the weaker hardware is holding back the more powerful hardware. only now it's happening to every game ever for the entire lifespan of every iteration of the console.

do either of those sound like good times? it doesn't to me personally.

 

[megashock5]

I know this is going round in circles (again) but I am yet to read one convincing argument why this could not continue - unless you add the sentence 'and I want to always have the bestest possible experience' - which is a matter of personal choice and nothing to do with buying a box every 5 years and not having to worry about whether a game will run.

If Sony can't guaranty this then they shouldn't be doing iteration and there's no reason why they can't guaranty this and do iteration.

Well, I'd say at this point we don't yet know whether it could continue or not. It depends on exactly what the upgraded version is and what it offers beyond the current iteration.

So, yes, it's possible, we just don't have the info yet. But I'll admit I'm a bit leery of how it could go down.

 

[Doc_Drop]

In business, you'd better stay competitive. Iterating hardware is a decision from the companies, not from consumers.

Well yeah, but I was addressing someone who was saying:

Why not just play and enjoy the game for what it is? After all at the end of the day it's all about the games not the hardware and you can't polish a turd...

I understand it's better for the company to do this, I just don't see how a consumer comes to conclusion that this is also good for them (obviously that's quite dependent on gaming/purchase habits)

The arguments for the Pro case (as I see them)...

• Choice for gamers who want to buy into the extra performance option
• Better able to keep pace with technological progress
• Long term secure platform for developers to target
• Able to target a wider customer base across generations
• Guaranteed backwards compatibility
• A level of forwards compatibility

In short - a long term stable platform, as opposed to building a 100m user base over a 5-8yr period and then one day suddenly dropping like a stone and starting again because the hardware has been pushed beyond whats practical and the switch to a new uncompatable model can't be put off any longer (the traditional model).

Just ask Microsoft, Nintendo and Sega how well the existing model works has their users migrated to rival (usually Sony) hardware when the new generation hammer hit.

I'm just trying to look from a consumer perspective and only see compatibility as something that of benefit to me, and that is only because it's a problem solved that was only created by iteration.

As someone who has not yet invested in either the Xbox or PS4 I don't see how this concept would appeal to me. I've been waiting for enough exclusives to drop and for the price to do the same. If we went into iterative consoles then that period of waiting becomes redundant as by the time I'm ready to take the plunge there will be a newer, better, and more expensive model out. I'd rather keep my PC up to spec and ignore exclusives.

Edit: As a further thought, wouldn't this just kill/punish the early adopter? Why buy new when a better console is coming out and the launch library is crap. It only makes sense to buy when you have the 2nd or 3rd iteration unless you can't be patient

 

[Pizza]

It's not a phone.

It's a no for me.

I buy a console with the expectation that it will be able to last, as the best it possibly can, for 5 or 6 years.

This. If I got a free Xbox upgrade every chunk of years for paying for LIVE like cell phone providers do, then sure. I like the idea of iterative consoles (never losing your game library is a 10/10 concept) but it'd all come down to execution.


New 3DS, for example, is just the console you already have but better! My XL is maybe... 2 years old? three? I get that I'm a late adopter, but there are no incentives outside of "you can play these couple more games, also faceplates" to me. It's not like buying into the New 3DS guarantees that games I buy with it using my Nintendo ID will move forward when the New New 3DS or 4DS come out.


If iterative gaming came with permanent digital ownership of games on all future iterations of the console then i'd be much more open to it. I'm not down to buy a New Xbox One next year because microsoft fixed the janky 3D camera and let me put an (adorable) Master Chief faceplate on it.

 

[pezley]

In in and in.

I can't see how this is any different to iPhones and the way they work, your content follows you. At some point dev's start using the new hardware more and more and it will phase out the old hardware.

It's like what people love about PC's ... want better resolution ? Get a new graphics card. Want less slow down on explosions, add ram/CPU etc. It's the PC equivalent of upgrading with out the research and part switching with a lot more structure and knowing what you get before you buy it

All your library follows you, games will be made scalable ( low, med & high settings for example ) and whne you upgrade to the new box, all your games are then upgraded to the higher setting.

Besides cost ( a few hundred every year, two or what ever ) I can't see a single down side to this.


This will allow people who can't afford high end stuff the ability to play the available games along with people who have more disposable income to play those same games but more advanced.

 

[Cynn]

In like Flint. I usually buy the "slim" versions of consoles. I'll replace that tradition with buying advanced versions.

 

[Flakster99]

Totally out.

I have a nice PC gaming rig, and with more console ports coming to the PC my reasons to own a console are becoming less and less.

 

[Admiral Woofington]

I was already planning in dropping out of 1 or 2 of the three major consoles and going with PC as my main next time. But this cements it.

 

[IvorB]

No, I would probably just build a PC at that point and to hell with consoles. I would rather they release something cutting edge at the start that would last the gen than put the onus on consumers to buy a new console more frequently to get the best experience.

 

[Keihart]

this model won't bring better looking or perfoming games, it will rush dev game cycles and encourage constant cross game releases. Just look at mobile games and the restrictions devs choose to make profit.

So if you are in i hope you love cross gen games.

 

[OmegaTreeFish]

This. If I got a free Xbox upgrade every chunk of years for paying for LIVE like cell phone providers do, then sure. I like the idea of iterative consoles (never losing your game library is a 10/10 concept) but it'd all come down to execution.

Except even that isn't how mobile phones work. You still pay for the phone, the cost is just added to your contract.

It would be more like they upped the price of PS+ from £40 a year to £18 a month over a 2 year contract (assuming a £350 console price) and you get a "free" console with it.

To be honest that might actually work because £18 a month doesn't sound a lot compared to £350 for a console every other year plus 2 lots of £40 for a year of PS plus. Despite it being practically the same (slightly more expensive).

This is assuming £350 for a/new console every 2 years would actually make money. A lot of money is made several years later when the console costs way less to build.

 

[MrHoot]

In in and in.

I can't see how this is any different to iPhones and the way they work, your content follows you. At some point dev's start using the new hardware more and more and it will phase out the old hardware.

It's like what people love about PC's ... want better resolution ? Get a new graphics card. Want less slow down on explosions, add ram/CPU etc. It's the PC equivalent of upgrading with out the research and part switching with a lot more structure and knowing what you get before you buy it

All your library follows you, games will be made scalable ( low, med & high settings for example ) and whne you upgrade to the new box, all your games are then upgraded to the higher setting.

Besides cost ( a few hundred every year, two or what ever ) I can't see a single down side to this.


This will allow people who can't afford high end stuff the ability to play the available games along with people who have more disposable income to play those same games but more advanced.

Because once mooooooore, consoles are not phones. Dev times are long, sometimes longer than what this theoretical half-gen would be. And seeing the problems devs have already switching over to one console or optimizing correctly, all you'll have is effectively a never-ending cross gen dev cycle with either the new iteration being underutilized or the old one being shafted with a situation à la new3ds.

You would get all the disadvantages of the PC (unfinished/broken optimization, priceyness) with none of the good aspects

 

[NinjaMouse]

Except even that isn't how mobile phones work. You still pay for the phone, the cost is just added to your contract.

It would be more like they upped the price of PS+ from £40 a year to £18 a month over a 2 year contract (assuming a £350 console price) and you get a "free" console with it.

To be honest that might actually work because £18 a month doesn't sound a lot compared to £350 for a console every other year plus 2 lots of £40 for a year of PS plus. Despite it being practically the same (slightly more expensive).

This is assuming £350 for a/new console every 2 years would actually make money. A lot of money is made several years later when the console costs way less to build.

I think Pizza is probably referring to the days of carrier subsidies where one could get a new(er) phone for free during contract re-up, but as you know, those days are gone. I agree with you that a subscription model is the only way to make iterative consoles work, because honestly, it's the only way most cellphone sales in the US are going to work for the foreseeable future. If people were shelling out $700+ in one shot for a new iPhone, I bet sales would tank overnight. They have to ease people into it.

 

[MaxwellParrish]

Probably out. I have to see how it is really handled, but it just doesn't seems to me like an interesting option. If the visual advantages on the previous models aren't that great wouldn't be better just make a cheaper, slimmer version instead? and if they are, that only would effect me by making me wait,once the PS5 come out, until the PS5.5 hits the market.

 

[OmegaTreeFish]

I think Pizza is probably referring to the days of carrier subsidies where one could get a new(er) phone for free during contract re-up, but as you know, those days are gone. I agree with you that a subscription model is the only way to make iterative consoles work, because honestly, it's the only way most cellphone sales in the US are going to work for the foreseeable future. If people were shelling out $700+ in one shot for a new iPhone, I bet sales would tank overnight. They have to ease people into it.

We're they ever free?

In the UK the upgrade system is still intact. It's just now a 2 year contract rather than 1 year as phones are more expensive. Maybe it was different in the US.

For example I used to pay £36 a month for my phone contract which included a "free" phone. For example I did it once with an iPhone 4s. However I could get the exact same contract without the "free" upgrade for £13 a month. £23 a month was simply for the phone. That's £552 for the phone. Prob more expensive than getting the phone out right.

I have since gone sim only and just buy a new phone as and when I need/desire it. Still going strong with a nexus 5.

The model is misleading and tricks people into spending just as much if not more on a new phone every 2 years. As we have both already agreed, it is prob the method that has the most likely chance of working. It makes what would be a large amount of money sound like a manageable monthly payment you can forget about.

 

[Velkyn]

I'm in depending on how they handle upgrades for existing customers. If there's an upgrade path that's cost effective and makes sense, I'm in. Otherwise, 100% out.

 

[killatopak]

I could settle for a slim iteration as opposed to ps4.5 or xboxonepointfive. Wouldn't this alienate all the early buyers?

I'm quite conflicted on this actually.

 

[Version 3.0]

It's a terrible idea, and I hope they come to their senses and scrap it.

Having said that, if they do go through with it, I'll have to see how it's implemented before I decide whether to completely bail. It's very hard to see it being handled well, though.

 

[Jacob4815]

I'm out, and I'm done with this hobby.

 

[MogCakes]

There are no differences becoming negligent, at all.

It's all envy. And furthermore, if they have a console that is inferior to a new one, they will switch to PC, where the difference will be even bigger. Nothing makes sense.

Envy? Prove it. People have outlined the reasons for switching to PC if consoles go this route, and you're going to write it off as envy. Please don't be asinine.

I'm aware of the circular argument, I've been pretty active in this thread since the subject matter interests me and I've tried to counter many of them. Ultimately if devs want to publish to the Sony platform they'll do what Sony tell them to do, and if Sony want iteration to be successful...

To me it sounds like a house of cards, but who can say how it would play out.

 

[Anth0ny]

I'm in. It sounds awesome in theory.

hopefully they don't fuck it up.

 

[AndyD]

I could settle for a slim iteration as opposed to ps4.5 or xboxonepointfive. Wouldn't this alienate all the early buyers?

I'm quite conflicted on this actually.

Depends on what the iteration is though. Some are suggesting beefing up the media abilities with a chip that can upscale and process 4K more/better. Perhaps a more efficient slightly stronger chip, perhaps a bit more RAM. I doubt we will see a revolution in its capabilities.

 

[thefro]

I like the idea of backwards/forwards compatibility, but I'm not going to be upgrading until there's games I can't play (or play adequately) on my current system.

It should be very nice for the lifespan of all the systems